LKMYNTS: Archie's Final Project.

Stop reading this and just go watch the movie. It's on Netflix Instant Streaming, at least as of this writing... OK, you back? Yeah. We can get into it now. I want to talk about the story, but I feel it wouldn't do anything justice. Here goes, anyway... Archie (Gabriel Sunday) is a teen boy who loves movies, has ADD, is a virgin, has no friends, and is rather depressed. His video tech class announces that it's time to begin the final projects, and Archie announces to the class and everyone that he's going to film his own suicide. He then begins to film everybody's reaction to this and the journey it takes him on. The journey just so happens to take him in the direction of Sierra Silver (Brooke Nevin), a popular rich girl whose brother recently died and has sent her into a massive depressed state, as well.

It's not a big-name cast, but there are some people you might recognize. One of the biggest names here will be David Carradine, who plays a poet/writer/underground filmmaker whom Archie interviews. At one point Archie sees a counselor played by Tony Hale, and he eventually sees a psychiatrist played by Joe Mantegna. Archie's mom is played by Nora Dunn. And there's another boy in the school played incredibly well by Michael Welch, who is best known as Mike Newton from the Twilight flicks. Everybody's acting, especially Gabriel Sunday and Brooke Nevin, is magnificent from start to finish, and there's not a single person not used to their full potential in their given roles.

But this movie's highlight isn't the acting, really. No, it's the style. I've never seen anything like this movie. It's like a stream-of-consciousness inside the mind of a movie-loving, depressed, ADD teen. It's something totally unique that I couldn't even begin to explain it. I mean, the best I could do would be this: Take Bang Bang You're Dead (and change the topic from school shootings to suicide), Quentin Tarantino's knack for referencing other films, Edgar Wright's insane kinetic editing, the mile-a-minute style of Run Lola Run (including random animation), some visual cues from a Morgan Spurlock documentary, the originality of an indie film, blend everything together and multiply it by about five. Then you might have some idea of what this movie has to offer.

But unlike a lot of movies that are this stylistic, it has enough substance to match toe-to-toe. This is an intensely emotional film, one that might even bring some to tears. It definitely has a message and power behind it. The characters are strong, as well, able to carry the weight of the film on their shoulders. So while you're catching all the movie reference (and there are a lot... I mean, there's even a moment where he's whispering to himself "His name was Robert Paulson," and if you're not listening, you'll totally miss it), you're also being served an intense and solid film on every other level.

This movie is the type of movie that makes you go "This is why movies are made." Is it a cinematic masterpiece to go down in the history books? Probably not. But the imagination and love and heart and emotion and time that went into the making of this movie is clearly evident. This is not another film just put out quickly to appease the masses. It's art without being pretentious. It's a film with a unique vision and an important message, and I think it should be a film everyone--especially film fans--should see at least once.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. It also has a really good soundtrack. You can enlarge the poster and see a listing of bands.)

50/50 Review #30: Sherlock Jr.

Where to start? Well, it's certainly the shortest film I've ever had to review for any project, clocking in at 44 minutes (and the oldest on this particular project). The film follows a movie projectionist (Buster Keaton) who dreams of being a detective. But on the day he proposes to his girlfriend (Kathryn McGuire), a man (Ward Crane) steals the girlfriend's father's (Joe Keaton) pocketwatch... and then frames the projectionist for it. While being depressed about having to leave his girlfriend, the projectionist falls asleep at work while screening a film about a jewelry thief and dreams himself entering the film as Sherlock Jr., the greatest detective who has ever lived.

This being my first Keaton, I wasn't too sure what to expect. You see him rightfully compared a lot to Chaplin, though a lot find him to be even better... and I can understand why. He's similar, yet very different. Though I'm not sure I can exactly point out how... or even want to try until I see more Keaton films. I'd say the biggest thing I can think of just looking at this one film is that Chaplin tends to be more purely slapstick with emotion coming in when necessary, while Keaton keeps emotion at the core of every gag, whether that's emotion between characters or a clear love of what he's putting into the film.

This little film had me laughing out loud at numerous points. I'd say the two highlights being what I call the "Daffy Duck" segment and the "Pool" segment. The Daffy Duck segment is when Keaton first enters the film and then basically spends the next 5 minutes purely showing off. He wanders around on screen, but the setting keeps changing, putting him in awkward situations. In the context of the film he just walked into, it makes absolutely no sense... but it's so much fun that you really don't care. The Pool segment has the bad guys replacing the 13-ball with an explosive that will detonate on being hit, but Keaton manages to do every trick in the book to not hit that ball... and how the scene ends is just perfect.

This is one of those "I can't write this without gushing about everything" type of reviews that just suck to write. What's not to love about this? It has all the fun of a slapstick silent film, but adds in meta qualities, puns, and even some clever wit in the story titles (a personal favorite being along the lines of "Sherlock Jr had absolutely solved the case--except for finding the pearls and figuring out who the thief is"). And you all know how I love meta, puns, and wit. It's just a genius little film, and I strongly suggest it to... anyone. My biggest complaint? Much like this review... it's too short!


Royale With Cheese

The Demented Podcast #44 - Social Commentary!

For this episode we're joined by Tom Clift of Movie Reviews by Tom Clift to discuss alien invasion flicks Village of the Damned (the original, though comparisons to the remake are made) and Attack the Block. Ironically both British with aliens that have things on their faces glow... totally unintentional. We have some good discussions here, even getting into some social commentary within both films. And then we move into the Tower. Will Tom hold up his reputation as a solid player, or will he actually stumble? Listen to find out!

Due to Podomatic bandwidth issues, I will no longer be placing the podcast player on the site. But you can easily listen and subscribe through iTunes!

Current Tower Leaderboard

1) Dylan Fields - 167 Points

2) Nolahn - 131 Points

3) Joanna - 93 Points

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions

(BR4) Stevee Taylor - 285 Points

(BR3) Dan Heaton - 176 Points
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

That being said, enjoy! Thanks goes out to Kevin MacLeod's Incompetech website for great, royalty-free music. And thanks to Google for helping me find a website that will give me free video game audio samples.

V.G. Movie #30: In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

I actually knew just as much about the game series as I did about the movie--nothing. The game came out in 2002, an RPG published by Microsoft. It takes place in the kingdom of Ehb as a farmer's life is turned upside down when these creatures called the Krug attack his community. The story begins as the farmer goes to get help from a neighboring village, but then escalates as the farmer and his companions travel through the kingdom to stop other evil creatures--the Seck--who have awakened from a long slumber under the castle.

A sequel was also released in 2005, but as far as I can tell, the film is only based on the first game. And it's, yet again, Uwe Boll. The film is considered one of the worst ever made (as is par for the course with Mr. Boll), but even went so far as to be nominated for multiple Razzies and rank 49th in Rotten Tomatoes' 100 worst reviewed films of the 2000s.

In fact, a better history might be Uwe Boll's journey to this point instead. Boll's ability to get movies made in and of itself is shocking. His films were massive flops. To quote from Wikipedia, "House of the Dead, which was budgeted at $12 million, made $5.73 million in its opening weekend, Alone in the Dark, which was budgeted at $20 million, made $5.1 million, and BloodRayne, which was made for $25 million, made $2.42 million." He's known to produce terrible films that perform poorly, so how on Earth do people continue to fund him? Well...

Apparently, German tax laws allowed any investors to write off their investment 100%, and if the film lost money (which they all did), you actually got 50% of your money back from the government. In other words, if you pay to make a film and it bombs, you've not only paid no taxes on it, but you've gotten half your money back. This method was how Boll continued to get funded, which actually garnered a lot of negativity. However, the law changed in 2005, and he lost the ability to be funded this way.

What doesn't make sense, however, is that after 2005, Boll was funded for not 1, 2, or even 3 films... but 4. He made 4 films in 2007, one of which was this one (though this one came out January 2008). And this is the most mind-boggling of them all. It's one of his biggest budgeted films, and it has one insane cast... literally, because this list of people should know better than to work with Uwe Boll. So I'm still not sure how he got this huge amount of money, nor am I sure how the hell he got this cast... but he did... and I can't wait to check this puppy out, so let's get to it...

THE FILM

I'm still not certain that Uwe Boll had sole creative freedom on this movie. This film follows Farmer (Jason Statham), a humble farmer, whose son is killed and wife (Claire Forlani) is kidnapped by creatures called the Krug. Along with his best friend/father figure, Norick (Ron Perlman), and Bastian (Will Sanderson), Farmer goes on a quest to gain his vengeance on the one responsible, a sorcerer named Gallian (Ray Liotta). Meanwhile, King Konreid (Burt Reynolds)--along with righthand sorcerer, Merick (John Rhys-Davies), and his army commander Tarish (Brian White)--is also attempting to fight against the hordes of Krug, while his nephew Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard) attempts to steal the throne. There's also another subplot of Merick's daughter, Muriella (Leelee Sobieski), wanting to get out of the castle and make a name for herself as a warrior.

Wait, so... this movie has Jason Statham kicking ass, Ron Perlman cracking wise, John Rhys-Davies as a wizard, Ray Liotta as a cheesy magic-using villain, Burt Reynolds as a king, and Matthew Lillard as a Shakespearean Matthew Lillard. There's also ninjas, cheesy monster costumes, and sexy tree-dwelling/nature-controlling women (one of which is played by Kristanna Loken). And people consider this a terrible movie? Have these people seen other Uwe Boll films? To be perfectly honest, this is easily Boll's second-best movie (next to the non-ironically good Rampage).

Of course, I think a lot of that probably has to do with the casting. Statham is fun in it. Perlman is severely underused, especially in the second half, but he's great in the first half, at least. Matthew Lillard and Ray Liotta steal the show, though, as our two primary villains. Both are deliciously over-the-top and in roles you probably never expected either of them to be in. Lillard plays a Shakespearean-esque villain, even going so far as to speak (or attempt to speak) in the dialect of the Bard. And Ray Liotta is an evil sorcerer. I think that's about enough said on that one. Though the best actual performance comes from Brian White, who seemed to be the only person taking the movie seriously. I guess he wasn't aware he was in an Uwe Boll film.

I also give Boll kudos for going mostly practical. It would have been so easy to do a lot of this movie CGI, but he didn't. Don't get me wrong--there's CGI on occasion, especially toward the end.. But it's actually not that bad. The book tornado attack thing in the climax is ridiculous, but that's about the only poor decision when it came to CGI. Everything else looked fine. The Krug are just dudes in suits. And sure, it can look silly. But I can bet there would have been even stronger complaints had they been pure CGI.

The battle sequences weren't anything special, though they had some moments here and there. Pretty much any time it focused Jason Statham was a standout, as he mixed this medieval sword fighting with his martial arts skills. Also kind of shockingly, there was a surprising lack of blood in this movie. This is more in the vein of Narnia where swords pierce but are never covered in blood. There's no sprays of blood. You see almost none the entire movie. And considering the films Boll made prior to this, you would think he'd go all out with it. Oh, and Jason Statham has a non-magical boomerang that might as well be magical for the way it acts. How is that not awesome, again?

I mean, it's not really a good movie. It's just not terrible. And the bizarre casting and pure silliness of the film makes it really entertaining to watch. A lot of the writing/dialogue is awkward. There's so much going on that the film can't really build on its characters, leaving almost all of them underdeveloped. And just some overall weird decisions (like two scenes happening at the same time, but one is at night in the rain, and the other is in the day with clear skies). It's also incredibly derivative of Lord of the Rings. The Krug are Orcs and/or Uruk-hai and/or Nazgul (depending on rank, of course). Jason Statham is Aragorn. Ray Liotta is Saruman. John Rhys-Davies is Gandalf (...oddly). Matthew Lillard is Wormtongue. Will Sanderson is Legolas (including the hair!). Leelee Sobieski is basically Eowyn. Hell, you could even say that Kristanna Loken and her ladies are just humanoid versions of the Ents.

The film, to me, is a strange creature. Half the movie is actually decent, while other aspects are so-bad-it's-good. There's no middle ground in my eyes. I don't think really anything in this movie is bad bad. It's just not original, has bizarre acting (including almost nobody talking in the same style or accent), and just misses the mark rather often. Still, I found it to be incredibly entertaining. And especially in comparison to Boll's other work, this was actually really good.


I Am McLovin!

The Hat Trick (Short Film).

Here it is! I talked about it in some production diaries, but it's finally time to post it up. This film was shot on a very limited budget (I don't htink more than 50 bucks was spent on the entire thing), so no high-tech cameras or lighting equipment or boom mics or any of that. The film was edited with Final Cut Express 4. All actors worked for free--with the exception of Grace (who I let keep the scarf). I was shot in roughly 7 hours over 4 days within the span of a few weeks (one day per location, basically, with the exception of an added day for one extra scene). So I hope you enjoy it! Please let me know what you think in the comments! It ain't perfect, but I think it's fun.

MonthWatch - July 2012.

[I'm going to keep a monthly tally of the movies I've both watched for the first time and as re-watches. I think it'll be interesting to see what all I've watched at the end of the year and how many. That being said, let's do it. Here's the next month.]

July

THEATRICAL (2)

The Amazing Spider-Man - I don't care what the haters say... I really liked it... better than Raimi's starter.

The Dark Knight Rises - Definitely flawed, but it was fun. Anne Hathaway stole the show.

RE-WATCH (12)

In Bruges - For DemPod. Love it more and more every time I see it.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters - For V.G. Movie article. Great documentary, despite inaccuracies.

The Village of the Damned (1995) - Wanted a rewatch before taking on the original for DemPod. Actually liked this version a little beter.

La Horde - The French know how to do horror... and this zombie flick is no different in its awesome brutality.

Attack the Block - For DemPod. This is a film that so hard to dislike.

Batman Begins - Had to get ready, you know.

The Dark Knight - Ditto.

Southland Tales - For DemPod. Such a fascinatingly awesome trainwreck.

Resident Evil: Extinction - For V.G. Movie article. This makes no sense as a movie, in or out of canon.

Hitman - For V.G. Movie article. The movie is just like a bald Timothy Olyphant... it just shouldn't happen.

The Gate - Watched for the first time since I was a kid. Really fun and creepy, and the stop motion animation was actually even better than I remember.

Dog Day Afternoon - For an upcoming DemPod. One of Pacino's finest performances.

FIRST TIME (21)

Ten Inch Hero - I can't believe I'm saying this... but Jensen Ackles is great in this.

Dragons Forever - Um... not Jackie Chan's best.

Road House - For 50/50. A slow start, but gets pretty awesome!

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark - Terrible in every way... shame on you, del Toro, for producing this.

Mujhse Fraaandship Karoge - For MILF. My first Bollywood... and I thought it was a lot of fun!

Blue Velvet - For DemPod. Well... it's David Lynch.

Die Hard With A Vengeance - Probably my favorite... though a tie is possible.

Point Break - For 50/50. Too much random surfing! Otherwise, it was a lot of fun.

Village of the Damned (1960) - For DemPod. It's creepy enough.

American Reunion - I kinda liked it, actually...

The Golden Child - I really liked it, actually...

BloodRayne 2: Deliverance - For V.G. Movie article. I didn't like it, actually... (a lot... a lot)

Trainspotting - For 50/50. Respectable flick, though a bit uneven to me.

Metropolis (Restored) - For MILF. Beautiful, but--in my opinion--flawed.

Delicatessen - For DemPod. Fantastic!

Rushmore - For 50/50. Eh... I didn't care.

Get the Gringo - Say what you will about Mel Gibson, but he still makes pretty dang good movies.

The Thirteenth Floor - It's like mixing eXistenZ with Inception. Starts slow, but gets pretty cool.

Weirdsville - Similar to my thoughts on the last film from this director I saw, Empire Records--took me a while to get into it, but eventually got hooked on the characters and weirdness of everything... but I didn't like it as much as the other.

Silent House - For MILF. Not that great.

Once Upon a Time in the West - For 50/50. If I liked slow pacing and westerns, I'd love this quite a bit. But I don't, so I only merely really liked it.

CURRENT COUNT

Theatrical - 9
Re-Watch - 120
First Time - 141
TOTAL - 270

50/50 Review #29: Once Upon A Time In The West.

Any long-time reader of this blog probably knows I'm not a huge fan of westerns. At this point in my life, I've seen roughly a dozen or so, and if you don't include Akira Kurosawa films (which are very similar to westerns, just with samurai instead of cowboys), I love very few. You can generally chalk this up to the slow, dragged-out pacing and long running times... neither of which am I a huge fan of. And this marks my second Leone, as I saw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly last year for the 60/60 List... that one I did like, though it was about 30 minutes too long in my opinion. So what about this one?

This film follows a man simply known as Harmonica (Charles Bronson), based on the fact he won't give his name and he's constantly playing the harmonica. He's on the trail of Frank (Henry Fonda), a ruthless assassin who has no qualms about killing women or children. In fact, Frank's latest target is Jill (Claudia Cardinale), the widow of a man he recently killed. In order to get closer to Frank, Harmonica teams up with a wanted outlaw named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) to protect Jill as they all figure out exactly why Frank wants her dead.

The very first thing you notice about this film is how drawn-out the scenes are. The opening credits sequence is long with very little music and barely any talking. And it goes on for at least 10 minutes, building up to the arrival of a train and the outlaws there waiting for it. It arrives... nothing seems to happen, the outlaws start to leave, and then the train pulls away to reveal Harmonica, playing his namesake instrument to the rhythm of the film's score. There's a brief dialogue, a very quick shoot-out... and that's it. And here's the kicker: by the time it was over, I wasn't thinking "dear God that took forever." Instead, I was thinking "That... was brilliant."

It's unfortunate, then, that I didn't exactly feel the same way about every other scene in the film. The rest of the movie is very similar. It's mainly a string of long, drawn-out scenes with random bits of violence to shake things up a bit before turning to the next long, drawn-out scene. Believe it or not, for the most part I was alright with this. Honestly, the film seemed to move at a nice pace overall. But there were parts throughout that dragged. It did get to a point, at times, when I just wanted it to move on already. At just shy of 3 hours, there's just so much I can take of 10-15 minutes of slow setup followed by 10 seconds of action (rinse/repeat).

What kept those long moments interesting, however, was a mix of dialogue, performance, and music. How can you not love lines like "How can you trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders? The man can't even trust his own pants" or "You remind me of my mother. She was the biggest whore in Alameda and the finest woman that ever lived. Whoever my father was, for an hour or for a month--he must have been a happy man." There's just some fantastic writing in this film throughout, and whether they were little one-liners like those are back-and-forth's between characters... the film was filled with great gems like these.

But you can't have great dialogue unless you have great actors to pull it off. Henry Fonda plays a fantastic and sadistic villain here, really going against type (which I believe was the idea). He's so menacing and cruel. Normally you might think I'd also go to the next big name next in Charles Bronson... but no. His character was cool, but he wasn't as interesting to me as Jason Robards' Cheyenne. That was just a fun character with a nice character arch and a great performance. From just talking to other characters to being crafty on the roof of a train... you just have to love him. Don't get me wrong, Charles Bronson was good and Harmonica is a fine character--particularly once you figure out his motivation at the end (a fantastic scene). But if you're going to compare famous mysterious characters with questionable motives... I might take Eastwood's Man With No Name over Harmonica (though, again, I did love Harmonica's eventual back story).

I just briefly wanted mention the music, which was really good here. I loved the main theme that played throughout (sometimes with the harmonica, sometimes without). A nice mix of a western feel with a more modern feel... which I guess plays to the themes of the film.

If there was one section of the movie that bugged me at all, it would be near the end of the second act. Leone decides to play with the narrative a bit here. Normally I love this kind of thing. But there was nothing like it in the rest of the film, and it comes in so late into the movie that it's jarring and just confused me. Scenes are played out of order. Some decisions happen without explanation. Entire scenes happen off-screen. All of this mixed together just made for a really jumbled, confusing part of the movie that I had trouble figuring out. I was constantly asking myself "OK, what's happening now?" and "Wait... how did...?"

On the whole, though, I enjoyed it. I looks great, has great music, performances, and dialogue. I think if I were a fan of westerns to begin with, or even a fan of slow pacing, I would probably even love this. I can see why a lot of people consider this a masterpiece of the genre. But I'm no expert, so I'm not really going to comment on that. Instead, I'll just leave it at the fact that I liked it... but I'm still not going to go out of my way to watch westerns.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

V.G. Movies #29: Hitman.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

I've taken notice that the more recent a game series was created, the less interesting of a story it has behind it. I mean, look at any of the old-school series I've discussed histories about... Mario and/or Donkey Kong, Final Fantasy, Pokemon, and even some fighters like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. But I would say the last "interesting" story behind a game series comes from Silent Hill, which was way back in 1999. Ever since, it appears game ideas are just a dime a dozen, and the concepts behind the stories and characters have just become... average. Uninteresting. A guy comes up with game, and that game is made. The end. At least for games that have so far become films. Does that make it a bad concept, though?

The first Hitman game came out in 2000 and followed, well... a hitman... named Agent 47. He's a bald assassin with a barcode tattoo on the back of his head. Though he's kind of a test subject, as well, and is trained in the art of perfect murder for a company called the International Contract Agency (ICA). The first game has 47 escape from a sanatorium and then has him do a series of missions that he begins to realize are all connected. And not only are they connected, but they're related to the sanatorium where he escaped from. And the twist is that he's actually been cloned and/or specially created using genetic material from all the people he'd just killed in order to make a flawless human.

A sequel came out in 2002 wherein 47 has run away to Sicily to seek peace from his former existence. The plot involves a priest getting kidnapped by the Russian mafia, and it's up to 47 to save him. By the end, 47 becomes a hitman once more. The next two games are intertwined with not only each other, but with the first game, as well. The third game is kind of a replaying of the original while building its own story that leads into the fourth game... which appears to be way too complicated to get into in this short amount of space. But the short version is that it involves 47 performing a last hit after his primary contact--a woman named Diana, who has been in all the games, as well--closes down ICA. He also gets help from a CIA agent named Smith who he helped out earlier in the game.

But, as is the case with the majority of video game adaptations... it's made by some foreign dude who has seemingly never played any of the games and, thus, have trouble getting aspects of the story, characters, tone, etc. right. (Seriously, though... I've noticed hardly any Americans make video game movies. Of the arguably 3 best--Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, and Silent Hill--two were made by an American (the same guy), and one by a Frenchman... not making a point, just an observation. Oh, and this one is by another Frenchman.) Anyway, I saw this in theater and remember being insanely underwhelmed and frankly kind of bored by it. But let's see if I feel the same now?

THE FILM

So... that was a movie. Agent 47 (Timothy Olyphant) is hired to kill Russian President Belicoff (Ulrich Thomsen), but for some reason--despite getting shot in the face--he seems to be alive and well. That's when his own company decides to put a hit out on him. They first attempt this by setting him up to take down the President's prostitute girlfriend, Nika (Olga Kurylenko), who supposedly saw him in the act. But when he realizes it's all a setup, he kidnaps Nika and goes on the run, only getting help from the likes of CIA agent Smith (James Faulkner). Meanwhile, Interpol agent Mike Whittier (Dougray Scott) is looking for him, as well, and trying to stay a step ahead... but finding that very difficult.

The thing that's always bugged me about this movie is the casting of Agent 47. Now, I've never played the games or anything, so I'm no expert. But even looking at the dude on the cover, my first 10 thoughts would not be "let's shave Timothy Olyphant's head and cast him." It's just... weird. I mean, I love Olyphant as much as the next guy. And honestly, he does his best with the role. It just does not seem... suited for him. Perhaps they wanted a more emotional 47, so they went with more of a character actor than an actor star? That would make sense... if 47 was written or directed as more of an emotional character than any role Jason Statham could have ever played. Though according to a little digging, Vin Diesel was originally attached, but when he dropped, Jason Statham was offered the role. He passed, and it eventually landed with Olyphant.

But what I noticed this time through was how nothing made any freakin' sense. Let's look at the character of Nika. She's kidnapped and threatened with death multiple times. She despises Agent 47. But he buys him a sandwich, and the very next scene she's walking around naked, being playful, and calling him charming. Then she kinda goes back to screwing with him. But he buys her dinner (in the process of committing a hit)... and the next thing she does is try to have sex with him. And for the rest of the film is relatively smitten with the guy. Is she really that easy? And are the Russian police and/or military that stupid? They invade this killer's apartment when Interpol tells them directly everybody will die if they do so. And then at the end of the movie, they just randomly send in a helicopter to shoot through the top of the church where they know 47 is at with the President (and/or double)... and they start shooting regardless of who is actually there, hitting the President's body (and/or double) more than anything else. And then the helicopter just flies away...

But then you have your general plot points that were hardly explained or left really confusing. Did 47 shoot the double, or was the double the one that was alive? And since when were doubles identical twins? What was the big plan with the doubles, anyway? When he shoots the bodyguard at the beginning, why does nobody flip out? Why does the second body guard just stand perfectly still, staring off into the distance? Why does the President just calmly look around, and then directly in the distance where 47 is? And you can't say because they were in on everything... because then why would they need to do the whole doubles business? I still don't understand the whole point behind the doubles. Why was 47 so shocked he was being set up if he apparently had this big elaborate plan from the get-go (he had to have the key that Whittier gets in his case when his room is raided, knowing he'd used it, etc., but at the point of packing for the mission, he wouldn't have known he was going to be set up). The places he hides his guns make no sense. What if somebody found them in the ice machine while he was away? What if his hit went into the wrong stall in the bathroom attack? And what if the Russian police dude didn't use the radio (unlikely, I understand... but still. Back-up plan)?


I will give it up to its visuals, though. The director has a nice eye. It's inconsistant, but it's definitely there... something to be said about his other works, as well--Frontier(s) and The Divide. There's some really good shots mixed in. And whenever there decides to be action, it's pretty decent. Nothing is incredibly fantastic, but it's fine. There are definitely moments where it could have shined--like the subway car fight with the other hit men. But it needed a better eye for action to really pull that off. And despite all the incredible plot and/or logic holes behind them, 47's methods of doing his hits were often entertaining. The ultimate plan at the end, while full of an insane amount of holes and/or contrivances, is a kind of Ocean's 11 kinda thing where a bunch of small pieces just fall into place, and you at least have to respect a cool factor, even if it doesn't make sense.


Regardless of all the negatives, it's not a terrible movie. It just had a lot of potential to be something much better than it was. I felt if it maybe went for more of an adaptation of the first game's story--an origin mystery--that would have worked a lot better. From what I've heard, a lot of the problems I have are not the director's fault. He had a different film ready, but at the last minute, Fox forced re-shoots and then brought in the dude who recut Live Free or Die Hard to recut this in order to make it more commercial... which completely nullified Gens' ideas for both this film and its potential sequel (including the character's origins). I did watch the unrated version for this review, which is bloodier and has a tiny bit more nudity... but that's about it. Nothing that would have shown Gens' original vision without the reshoots and whatnot. Oh well... I guess that's just Fox.



Stop Saying OK! OK.

The Great Recasting Blog-A-Thon: Crazy, Stupid, Love.

So I joined in to this classics blog-a-thon not too long ago, and the idea was to take a more modern film and act as if it were made pre-1965. That means giving it a new director and cast. It sounded like fun, but... it turned out to be much harder than I originally thought. For my film, I chose a recent romantic comedy... Crazy, Stupid, Love. Now let's see how I fared with classic-i-fying it, shall we?


If you're unaware of the film (really?), the story is basically that Cal (Steve Carell) is getting a divorce from his wife, Emily (Julianne Moore), as she feels the excitement has left their marriage. She ends up seeing a man named David Lindhagen (Kevin Bacon), while Cal is taken in under the wing of a player named Jacob (Ryan Gosling). Meanwhile, Jacob also begins a more serious relationship with strong-willed Hannah (Emma Stone), which might turn around his player days.


First and foremost, I should tell you what year I'm moving it down to. And that would be... 1940. It's a bit of a rough time period to have a story with plot points that center openly around pre-marital sex and/or one-night-stands, but let's go for it anyway.

CSL, to me, is a film more about its characters and their relationships and interactions than anything else. Because of wit these characters have, the dialogue they have to give out, and the independent women vibe it gives off, I went with director Howard Hawks, who I think could make this film an even bigger spectacle than it already is. Can you imagine how he would handle the already brilliant backyard scene at the end of the second act?

For the cast, I'm looking at some pretty big names here, a couple of them teaming up again from Hawks' own His Girl Friday of the same year. So let's look at it.

Cal Weaver (Originally Played By: Steve Carell)

This was one of the tougher choices, as it's hard for me to think of an actor from this time who does the equal parts schlub, drunk, comedian, and leading man to root for. But looking back on roles such as from It's a Wonderful Life and Harvey, I had to go with James "Jimmy" Stewart. Everyone loves good 'ol Jim, and I've seen him pull off everything this character requires (and more).

Emily Weaver (Originally Played By: Julianne Moore)

Julianne Moore plays a character here who obviously has a flawed past and wants to move on with a stronger future... but has trouble severing ties with the man who was once the love of her life. And she can have a bit of a sharp tongue while still being likable. I went with the leading lady from His Girl Friday, Rosalind Russell.

Jacob Palmer (Originally Played By: Ryan Gosling)

This one was a no-brainer to me. Gosling plays a womanizer; a smooth, cool player that oozes charm and charisma, but also someone who could keep up with a Hawksian-esque female. This isn't the first time this connection has been made, and although the character is supposed to be a little younger than this, I had to go with Cary Grant.

Hannah (Originally Played By: Emma Stone)

This was the hardest one for me. (Spoilers if you haven't seen CSL.) She had to be at least a decade younger than whoever played Julianne Moore's character in order to pull off being her daughter. And in the same respect, she had to at least look similar to that chosen actress. And then it had to be someone who could appear in a Howard Hawks movie, all the while keeping up pace with Cary Grant. And I think I pulled it off... I think. I'm going here with one Susan Hayward, who not only has the matching red hair as Stone, but a somewhat similar deep voice.

David Lindhagen (Originally Played By: Kevin Bacon)

David Lindhagen is a man with a toothy smile and good looks. He's a man that Julianne Moore essentially left Steve Carell for. He has to have a balance of smarm and charm (schmarm?), but he's not in and of himself an unlikable person. And to go that extra mile, it's an actor that everybody knows because he's seemingly been in everything, so that when you finally see him, it's like "Oh my God!" Therefore, I went with Humphrey Bogart.

And that's about it! There are other side characters, like Carell's son, his first fling (Marisa Tomei is prominent in the trailer and on the poster, but she's not primary in the movie), and his babysitter (and the babysitter's dad), but I didn't think I had to go that deep into it. So what do you think? Do you think this lineup would work? Would you see it?

LKMYNTS: The Thirteenth Floor.

It's been quite a while since I've reviewed something that wasn't on the 50/50, on the V.G. Movies list, or a new release. But this had been on my instant queue for a while and I finally decided to check it out, and it was interesting enough for me to want to give it a shout-out. 1999 was the year of both The Matrix and eXistenZ, both similar flicks of the same year... so it's easy to see why this one ended up flying under the radar, having neither a major cast nor director. This flick follows a computer programmer named Douglass Hall (Craig Bierko) whose boss and friend, Hannon Fuller (Armin Meuller-Stahl), ends up dead... and the final call he made before his death was to Douglass, a call that just so happened to have been erased from his answering machine. Detective Larry McBain (Dennis Haysbert) is on the case, and all clues point to Douglass as being the killer. However, what their company had been working on was a virtual reality world that takes its user to the 1930s, and Douglass knows Hannon left a message for him in that world. So working with his partner, Whitney (Vincent D'Onofrio), Douglass must try to piece together what happened... which gets even more complicated when Jane (Gretchen Mol) shows up claiming to be Hannon's daughter.

The film starts off very rough. It's only moderately interesting at the get-go and it really doesn't start to pick up steam until after the murder mystery aspect starts up. In fact, I didn't think I'd even really like the film as a whole for a while. But once Haysbert shows up it starts getting a little more fun. And then things get even more interesting when Gretchen Mol appears and the mystery takes its first twist. Even still, it's a slow build in the first half of the movie, keeping your interest just enough but not exactly wow-ing you with too much.

The story takes a few twists and turns as it goes along, as should any good mystery. But despite some of the bigger reveals being obvious (at least to me), I found the film still really engaging by that point that it didn't matter. In fact, I have to give the movie props for doing a major reveal at the end of the second act rather than the end of the movie, which added a whole new part of the story to explore. And whereas some of the aforementioned similar movies might explore themes of spirituality and reality, this one brings it closer to home and explores themes of life, existence, and purpose. Do these virtual world people have souls? Are they just as real as the rest of us, in essence? I really liked that aspect of the movie and how some characters might respond to that.

The acting was decent. It wasn't anything super fantastic, but it wasn't bad. It was nice to see people acting multiple personalities (since virtual world people are based on real world people... or something like that). So Craig Bierko has to act a few different ways, and he pulled it off well. D'Onofrio was, well... D'Onofrio. And he's a lot of fun, especially toward the end of the movie. The best in the flick, though, was Dennis Haysbert, who plays his detective with a real snark to him that was cool.

In the end, I know I mentioned The Matrix earlier, but I'd say this is moreso a lovechild of eXistenZ and Inception. Maybe not the action of the latter, but definitely some shared concepts. As I said, it starts off a bit rough, but after maybe 15-20 minutes, you should be at least relatively invested in the flick. If you haven't seen it and you like the ideas and concepts presented in those other films, definitely check this out. It's not as stylish, but it's still fun.


A Keanu 'Whoa'