The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

THE MOVIE SHOWCAST INTO DARKNESS

Showcast Episode #1: The Movie Guys return in their brand-new weekly comedy show “The Movie Showcast” This week, Paul, Adam, Lee & Karen preview “6Fast 6Furious”, or whatever it’s called, “The Hangover, Part III”, “Epic, Part One” and they welcome special guest Chip Krolik to review “Star Trek Into Darkness”, while engaging in exciting rounds of “Stump the Trekker” and “Wait, Wait, What Did He Say? – Vin Diesel Edition”.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

STEVE AVOIDS BEING KILLED

Star Trek Into Darkness

****

Review by Steve “WhiskeySour” Brown

THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS

Since the 2009 “Star Trek” film, which will forever go down in movieland history (if such a place even exists) as the official series re-boot, audiences have been waiting four years for this much-anticipated sequel.

Four years.

Just to give you an idea on how enormously important those two words are, I decided to dedicate an entire indentation to them. J.J. Abrams took a full four years to finish and release this movie “Star Trek into Darkness”, when Hollywood’s usual routine is to spit out a sequel to a wildly successful movie as fast as physically possible. J.J. Abrams did what you would expect of J.J. Abrams: he took the time to do it right.

Just like the first movie, we begin with a fast-paced action sequence, nothing too intense to start off, just an Indiana Jones chase scene concluding in a cliff jump for two of the main characters. Oh yeah, did I mention the volcano, because there’s a volcano. The action just ramps up from there, getting more and more spectacular and intense as the movie progresses.

All that intense action sceneage does not take away from the film’s pacing however, which Abrams’ uses to his great advantage in building James Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock’s (Zachary Quinto) characters even further. Even when things weren’t being blown up or shot down or punched in the face, the audience was still enthralled by the depth of character development and even character evolution, as both Kirk and Spock learn to compliment each others polar personalities with their own vastly different character strengths.

I believe, this portrayal of diametrically opposite characters yinging and yanging each other for mutual benefit is my favorite part of this whole series. We had a chance to see this in the first “Star Trek” film by Abrams when they introduced the characters, but this time from get-go the differences are on showcase for all to see. Though when I do say mutual benefit, I mean long-term mutual benefit, as it seems in the short term there are still plenty of kinks needing working out between these diverse protagonists.

And what good protagonists need, of course, is an equally good antagonist. J.J Abrams delivers on this point as well, resurrecting Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), a super-villain in almost every sense of the word, who suffers from a rather wicked case of elitism. I realize that in nearly all my reviews I have brought up the issue of antagonists being two-dimensional because of their inability to have an understandable motive behind their actions. I have been accused of wanting an entire back story given for all my characters before I am prepared to give them my blessing as “fully fledged”. So allow me to take this time to point out, in my usual good form and grace, that everyone of you were wrong, very wrong and this movie has been the movie I’ve been waiting for to prove my point. Khan’s motive to why he’s doing what he’s doing is quite understandable and even relateable in some slightly psycho-maniac sort of way. I don’t need all his back story to understand what he’s about, and if I can understand what the main antagonist is about, the impact is magnified all that much more. I’m not asking for much from my villains, just ones that can take the trouble to walk around my set, blowing things up, with more reason then because they felt faintly evil-like that day.

J.J Abrams took the great trouble of taking four years to direct this movie properly, I decided as a critic, I could show no less dedication. I am not in fact a Trekkie or Trekker or really anyone that paid a great deal of attention to “Star Trek” before the series re-boot in 2009. Realizing this, I decided to enlist the services of a good friend of mine: Dan Mudry, one of Canada’s top three “Star Trek” fans. It, of course, had nothing to do with the fact that I welcomed companionship in my somewhat lonely-as-of-late routine of seeing newly released movies. Nothing of the sort.

Dan, of course, loved the movie, which was not a surprise, since even before we saw the movie he jokingly threatened my life if I gave “Star Trek Into Darkness” a bad review. I know saying this might compromise my integrity to an honest review but it also places in writing a possible suspect with motive if anything should happen to me afterwards.

Anyways, Dan told me with great reluctance that this movie was the greatest re-make he had ever seen. When I pressed a little, he told me he began to get worried around halfway through because the movie had become a near point for point remake of “The Wrath of Khan” (1982). This was cause for dispointment for him, and me as well actually, because Abrams had taken so much effort in the series re-boot to establish a new “Star Trek” universe in which anything was possible, to then fall back onto something that had already been done before.

This was the only blight upon what is else-wise a magnificent landscape of sci-fi epicness, and a minor one at that. To me, this movie held my attention with its intense action scenes from the moment it started, its characters were real, learning and evolving, making decisions that I could understand and follow. The plot was tight enough to be fast and nimble when it needed to be, but also could slow down to allow for true characterization. In short, it was masterfully executed in all areas of review. This is a movie I would gladly see again in the theater and will be in line to buy a copy of when it hits Blu-ray. Well assuming that is, if I don’t get hurt or killed in some horrible, yet suspiciously-timed accident.

Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Release Date: May 16, 2013
Run Time: 132 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

THE MOVIE SHOWCAST — TEST SHOW #2

The Movie Guys weekly comedy show comes back at the end of May. In the meantime, Paul, Adam, Lee & Karen crank out another test show, talking about what films they’ve seen lately and a preview of “Star Trek Into Darkness”.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

EMPIRE STATE OF MIND

The Great Gatsby

***

Review by Steve “WhiskeySour” Brown

Sometimes I believe, in today’s world, art is a concept on the wane. With a modern society obsessed with explosive cinematography, speedy chase scenes and high tension dramas, there seems little room for the minor details. This strikes me as odd because with the size of televisions on the rise, and the introduction of 1080p graphics, detail should be everything.

The difference, I think, is that a truly “artsy” film (and I use the world “artsy” despite my better nature) can only be created by the director. It has little to do with the actual actors who play their parts, or the team of writers who create the story and dialogue, or any one department that works to produce a film. It all has to do with how the director chooses to make these different entities within the film come together and say something collectively.

That’s the rub isn’t it? Art does more then just tell a story, it speaks to the people who listen, it creates in them feelings not there before. In short, it’s dangerous. Dangerous because how it speaks and to whom cannot always be predicted, and sometimes people don’t like what they hear. Art is a risk and in a world designed around creating the quick buck, art is usually too expensive to be bothered with.

Director Baz Luhrmann took on the expense for “The Great Gatsby”, however. The adaptation, based on the clasic novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, had a great storyline. Though set in the early 1920′s, the director makes sure to provide plenty of similarities between how people behaved in the 20′s to how people behave today, nearly 100 years later. Though the technology may be less advanced, people back then enjoyed losing themselves in celebration as much as people in the here and now. We also share the same capacity for conceit and selfishness as well as the capabilities for great acts of loyalty and devotion.

This connection was further hammered home with the use of modern music within the film’s soundtrack, a feature I admit to finding slightly jarring the first time. Obviously Jay-Z is not your typical music representative of the 1920′s and it brought me straight out of the movie, as quickly as if I had elastic bands strapped to my torso and someone had fired me in the opposite direction. Though not usually a source of praise from me, as being reminded I am watching a movie is usually not a point in the director’s favor, it did add a rather pleasing sort of temporal symmetry. Once I got used to the fact that the soundtrack had decided to thumb its nose at the mere notion of realism, I found it worked quite well with the film.

Another point I appreciated about this film was it’s use of the camera. Again I find myself in unfamiliar territory. Usually when I even notice the camera, its only to wonder which species of monkey was hired to operate it. I have always worked under the pretense that good camera work is unremarked camera work. This time, however, a couple of the sweeping camera angles caused me to pause and think to myself “that was cool.” My attention to the movie was not distracted for very long, or very often, which I appreciate because it seems to me sweeping camera vistas can be overdone. A birds-eye view does not mean sweeping dive bombs every five minutes, and the camera guys knew this from the start.

My only real complaint about this movie was actually from its actors. For a third time I am treading in unusual ground. I may not have much love for Tobey Maguire (though despite his awful Spider-Man potrayal, I have no real hatred of him ether) I certainly have much respect for Leonardo DiCaprio though, whom I have watched grow into his own since “Titanic”. My real problem was the accents. Accents are a finicky aspect of the acting process. If done well, they blend seamlessly into the movie’s background, making it that much more realistic. However, if off by even a hair, it becomes an irritation. It’s a great deal like adding salt to someone’s food. The proper amount varies from person to person, but when applied properly, it enhances the already existing flavors. If too much is poured, it completely dominates the food and leaves nothing but a bad after taste in ones mouth. It’s definitely one of those tricky aspects to a film where it must be done properly or not at all, since there is little room for error. DiCaprio and Maguire’s accents seemed more an irritation to me then realistic, causing me to wonder if I would have enjoyed the film more if they had discarded them all together.

All in all, “The Great Gatsby” was a solid film. They say the devil is in the details, and it certainly was with this film. The storyline, the music, even the camera work all came together to do more then just provide a couple of hours entertainment, it provided something to think about. It provided a movie that can be examined at multiple angles, love it or hate it, it does have its own voice from which it speaks. The question is only what does it say to you?

Directed by: Baz Lurhmann
Release Date: May 10, 2013
Run Time: 142 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Warner Brothers Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

THE MOVIE SHOWCAST – TEST SHOW #1
May 10, 2013
Movie Guys Paul Preston, Karen Volpe, Adam Witt & Lee Kias test out the audio juice of The Admiral’s Club, their new Burbank-based podcast studio. There’s lively talk and previews of “The Great Gatsby” and “Peeples” in between planes flying overhead.

The newly-named “Movie Showcast” launches with full Phantom Power Memorial Day weekend. (49 min., 13 sec.)

NATIONAL TALK RADIO NETWORK – THE HATER NATION RADIO SHOW
May 8, 2013
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe appear on The Hater Nation Radio Show on The National Talk Radio Network to talk about the summer 2013 films. There’s a Robert Downey, Jr. love fest, a “Who’s the Hottest Avenger?” game and a surprise REVIEW of “Pacific Rim”. (24 min. 12 sec.)

Listen to The Hater Nation HERE.

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
May 7, 2013
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe stopped in on LA TALK RADIO’s “Broad Topics” to preview the big summer movies. This is no place for art-house films… (11 min. 50 sec.)

Listen to Broad Topics HERE.

BACK…IN BLACK

Iron Man 3

***

Review by Steve “WhiskeySour” Brown

Does art resemble life, or does life resemble art? After watching the latest installment of the Iron Man series, “Iron Man 3″, directed by Shane Black, I can’t help but wonder which is the true statement. Are the movies we watch driven by the attitudes found in the people who watch them, or do they simply call attention to those same attitudes and have their audiences give them life outside the theatre?

Some of you are thinking right now, “Oh God, Whiskey has gone over to the dark-side, hasn’t he?” Nope, not yet folks, I just am a great believer in giving credit where credit is due. Amid enough fantastic special effects, manic tension and plot pacing to keep the most adrenaline-addicted junkie enjoying this movie, there is an actual story being told here. A story that touches on that darker side of the hero, everyone seems to pass over without wanting to see. A single question can sum it up: What is the price tag on being a hero?

“Iron Man 3″ isn’t just about Iron Man flying around in his red and gold technological wonder-machine, defeating bad guys with his sarcasm, all to the beat of an AC/DC hit. Its about Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and his struggle to deal with his own mortality, and his own inability to save everyone, every time. The realization that there might come a time he will be unable to save the most important thing to him, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), is quite literally keeping Stark awake at night.

The character development around Tony Stark was very well done. By the ending of the movie, you no longer just sympathize with him, but you feel you actually understand just what this man is underneath everything. A pleasant surprise to me because the usual problem with trilogies is that the writers run out of interesting things to say about their characters right around the second movie, thus, there’s this tendency to have them knocking about the set accomplishing absolutely nothing. Since “Iron Man 2″ did struggle with this problem, I’m actually happy to say “Iron Man 3″ found a solution, proving once and for all that every now and then those fat cats up in Hollywood can learn from their mistakes.

That being said, nothings perfect and “Iron Man 3″ did have some plot issues. The first is the bad guy. Without going into too much detail, The Mandarin, doesn’t seem to have any motivation as to why he’s attacking. At one point he tells the American President that he sees himself as a teacher, but what lesson he’s trying to get Americans to learn is lost on me. As I have said before, the best villains are the ones who’s motivations are understandable. The guy is clearly angry at the U.S. for something, or maybe its just Tony Stark he’s angry at, either way his actions make little sense and are never properly explained. Call me old fashioned, but the two characters that should be developed the most are both the antagonist and protagonist, because these are the two characters that will be driving the plot. In “Iron Man 3″, all the character development was lavished onto Stark, giving the distinct impression that the Mandarin was only there because one of the writers had some vague feeling an antagonist was needed. This was not helped at all by twists and turns in the plot that made little sense to me, let alone something I found funny.

The other issue I had with the movie was its ending. Again not going to spoil the movie for anyone, but Deus Ex Machina. Deus ex machina is a plot device used commonly in many vehicles of story telling. Essentially it’s when the writer paints his characters into a situational rock and hard place scenario, and has to rescue them by introducing a new element into the story. Deus ex machina is a bit of a double-edged sword however, on one hand it keeps the plot from being predictable and adds excitement, but if done too heavy-handedly, it can call into question the choices the characters made leading up to the event. This is what happened at the ending of “Iron Man 3″, Tony Stark pulls a trump card out of his back pocket, that made me wonder why the super genius didn’t think to use it before. I realize there would have been less theatrical build up if Stark had initiated his ace in the hole plan at the start of the movie, but at least it would have made more sense.

All in all though, I still enjoyed going to see this movie. Despite it’s disappointing lack of a well-established villain, or it’s use of deus ex machina to sacrifice good plot for another chance to show off its huge special effects budget, “Iron Man 3″ is a movie to go see. Shane Black managed to bring a touch of reality to a Marvel comic superhero, keeping the core personality of Stark intact but also making him understandable and relateable in the real world. For an industry that deals mostly in fantasy, this is as likely to happen successfully as opening up your box of Cheerios one morning and finding a unicorn that transports you to Narnia.

So hats off to you Shane Black!

Directed by: Shane Black
Release Date: May 3, 2013
Run Time: 130 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Marvel Studios

OFFICIAL TRAILER

DUMB & DUMBER

Pain & Gain

**1/2

Review by Paul Preston

Here’s the most frustrating phrase in Hollywood – “Directed by Michael Bay”. His movies annoy the hell out of me, yet I haven’t missed one in a decade, for some reason. FRUSTRATING!

“Pain & Gain” represents the first Bay feature to be denied a summer release in at least FIFTEEN years…..that actually peaked my interest. Perhaps Bay has made a smaller film that won’t have the mass appeal of his past films, which might be a good thing!

In the end, Bay has a made a film struggling with the fact that it’s a Michael Bay film. It’s fun to watch the best parts peak through Bay’s usual main ingredient – excess. It’s one of those films that’s better when it’s having fun than when it’s trying to be funny.

Mark Wahlberg plays Danny Lugo, a bodybuilder with big dreams. After examining his surroundings in Miami and attending a motivational workshop, he realizes what must be done to advance his station in life, and he sets out to involve friends in and plan a Robin Hood-esque crime scheme that will that will deliver him The American Dream. Standing in his way? Lugo is as dumb as a rock.

Lugo is very reminiscent of Wahlberg’s classic portrayal of Dirk Diggler, but more harmful and with less innocence. But as wayward as this plot goes and as often as some of the humor doesn’t connect, Bay and his cast NAIL just how absolutely moronic these bodybuilders must be (THESE bodybuilders, not all bodybuilders who read this…and know where I hang out). But there’s gotta be some give and take, right? I mean, what they have in muscle, they lack in brains? And these guys are HUGE.

Let me make sure this comes out right. Wahlberg is perfectly cast here, he brings his manic energy and endless enthusiasm to a guy with no shot to pull off his dream of ultimate happiness. Anthony Mackie provides the solid support expected from him by now.

Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, looking more like a boulder here, is good as a weightlifter struggling to stay sober and on the righteous path, but failing frequently. But don’t you want The Rock to be great? I do. He’s so GREAT in the WWE, in absolute command of 30,000 people every time he grabs the mic. I want him to be GREAT in a movie, and I don’t think it’s happened yet. “Fast Five” came close. And some people are writing him off as coming from the mold of Schwarzenegger, so we shouldn’t expect greatness. But let me remind you Arnold was GREAT in “Terminator 2”, “Twins” and “True Lies”.

The story goes bananas with murder, drugs, theft, decapitation, kidnapping and extortion to the point where you have to remind yourself (or you don’t) that it’s based on a true story. A movie like “Boogie Nights” put Wahlberg’s earnest lead in a sprawling epic of interesting characters and palpable relationships. Here Wahlberg delivers, but he’s surrounded by material much more base and gleeful about its excess. Quite often, with the “True Romance”-y score, on-screen graphics and frenzied editing, Michael Bay fashions himself quite the Tony Scott movie.

I had more fun at this movie than maybe any other Michael Bay movie I’ve ever seen. All the more reason to get annoyed when moments of humanity or cinematic flair that Tarantino might’ve brought to this story are passed over. But Bay has a great sense of pace, and his films just LOOK gorgeous, and Miami is certainly one of his favorite places to film.

Nobody can pull off a heist and be cool about it like Danny Ocean. And there’s entertainment to be had watching Danny Lugo be that nobody.

Directed by: Michael Bay
Release Date: April 26, 2012
Run Time: 129 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Paramount Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

Excited about upcoming movies? You will be. Or, you’ll be frustrated by how much trailers give away. Either way, they’re all here for your enjoyment.

As ever, we recommend our WEEKLY RADIO SHOW to tell you the real deal about every weekend’s releases. Plus, we’re funnier.

THE BLING RING (opening 6/14/13)

THE CONJURING (opening 7/19/13)

ELYSIUM (opening 8/9/13)

GROWN-UPS 2 (opening 7/12/13)

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE (opening 11/22/13)

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (opening 6/7/13)

NOW YOU SEE ME (opening 5/31/13)

ONLY GOD FORGIVES (opening 7/19/13)

R.I.P.D. (opening 7/19/13)

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (opening 11/8/13)

The Last Movie Star

Article by Paul Preston

What an appropriate picture of Tom Cruise. Walking the Earth by himself. The lone member of a dying race:

The Movie Star.

When Tom Cruise came on the scene, he was a supporting actor in films like “The Outsiders” and “TAPS” until his charm and blazing smile could no longer be contained. And instantly he was the best at everything. The best fighter pilot, the best pool player, the best race car driver, the best bartender, you name it. During this run of box office successes, he even took a swing at Best Actor with “Born on the Fourth of July”, and got a nomination.

Soon, that became is M.O. – couple a box office hit with a prestige pic. For every “Top Gun”, there was “The Color of Money”. For every “Cocktail”, there was “Rain Man”, with “Far and Away” came “A Few Good Men” and so on. Cruise made every smart move you could make to be both wildly popular and taken seriously.

This all happened during (or started), the modern era of The Movie Star. More than you heard “What movies are coming out this summer?”, you’d hear “When does the next Tom Cruise movie come out?”. Lead actors led the way. Every summer, you could expect a Tom Hanks movie, a Mel Gibson movie, a Jim Carrey movie, a Harrison Ford movie and a Kevin Costner movie. These actors sought pedigree as well, appearing not only in “Sleepless in Seattle”, the “Lethal Weapon” movies, “Dumb & Dumber”, the Jack Ryan films and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”, but also “Philadelphia”, “Hamlet”, “The Truman Show”, “Presumed Innocent” and “JFK”.

But who’s doing that anymore?

Who headlines a movie that you’ll see because of the lead actor, regardless of what it’s about? Bruce Willis is no longer that guy. He can still show up in great films like “Looper” and “Moonrise Kingdom”, but he’s not a sure-fire movie star. He’s more of an ensemble player now, like in “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” and the “Red” films, even his latest “Die Hard” opus teamed him up with another actor to play his son, just to make sure you’d still see it. And you didn’t. Nicolas Cage? He tried like hell to do in the late ‘90s what Cruise did in the ‘80s, coupling the likes of “Leaving Las Vegas” with “The Rock”, but soon his slate of films reeked of desperation to stay popular and edgy. Sadly, now he’s neither.

Julia Roberts once ruled the list of box office females. That time has passed, seemingly, without an heir. Once it looked like Cameron Diaz would take that title, then Reese Witherspoon, but neither had the staying power of Roberts. Sandra Bullock probably comes closest, with recent hits “The Blind Side” and “The Proposal” and Best Actress. In fact, Bullock and Roberts both won their Oscars about fifteen years into their careers, let’s see if Bullock can keep relevant as long as Roberts. Or either of them as long as Cruise.

So when there’s a sparsely populated, post-apocalyptic Earth with only one person wandering it, having adventures, there’s only one actor who could hold our attention for two hours in that environment. Tom Cruise. Eleven years ago, it was Hanks with “Cast Away”, but the likes of “Larry Crowne” (with Roberts) and “Cloud Atlas” proved that audiences will come out in droves when he’s Woody. Six years ago, audiences gladly watched Will Smith roam a post-apocalyptic Earth in “I Am Legend”, but after the misfire “Seven Pounds”, he disappeared for four years. He returned with some box office muscle with “Men in Black 3”, but now I think he has an obsession with his kids that the rest of America may not share. He doesn’t smile once in the trailer for “After Earth”, which may not be the best way to direct Will Smith.

There are loads of great, popular movie actors out there today – George Clooney, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio – but I think that when Universal, who a few years back moved the start of the summer season to the end of April with “Fast Five”, wanted to pull back summer to April 19th this year, they called on one guy to do it. Cruise brought a personal-best Friday gross of $13 million to “Oblivion”’s opening weekend, and scored a $38 million weekend. The guy just, no pun intended, has all the right moves.

When he saw public perception hit the cellar for his personal beliefs, he showed up as Les Grossman in “Tropic Thunder” and surprised and entertained the hell out of everyone, including critics, and quickly (wisely) made another “Mission: Impossible” movie, perhaps the best in the series.

We’re about to launch into a summer full of stories and concepts. This may bode well for the ticket buyer, as the “Iron Man”, “Star Trek” and “Fast & Furious” franchises seem to be in the best shape they’ve been in. There are numerous ensemble comedies (“This is the End”, “The Hangover, Part III”) but there are no movie star-led films.

So get out there and see the last movie star we have, ‘cause he put out a Tom Cruise movie in April.

MAY 1, 2013
I’ve seen a few of these over the past thirty-three years, but for some reason there’s been viral movement over this whole batch of behind-the-scenes photos from “The Empire Strikes Back” surfacing. Who are we not to promote something awesome like that? Enjoy:
BEHIND THE SCENES OF “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”
-PP

APRIL 30, 2013

What better way to keep the memory of Roger Ebert alive than to re-visit the best lines of his most famous negative reviews. Read on at FUNNY OR DIE.
-PP

APRIL 29, 2013
General Zod has a message for you:

-PP

APRIL 28, 2013

Here’s your shot to see a legendary movie and help a good cause. In May there will be a screening of ROBOCOP that will benefit WeSpark, a cancer support center. This will include a chance to meet Peter Weller and Nancy Allen.
Buy tickets HERE.
-PP

APRIL 27, 2013

The Motion Picture Academy is getting in on the tourist market, with big plans to build a “landmark” museum that will also house screenings and seminars. Read the full story at THE WRAP.
-PP

APRIL 26, 2013

The legendary Grauman’s Chinese Theater is scheduled for a major overhaul, making it an official IMAX Theater (the third-largest in the continent). Between that and the replacement of all the equipment to update it and make it all laser-y, the ticket prices will be third-largest in the continent, too.
Get details HERE.
-PP

APRIL 25, 2013

In other “Star Wars” news, Admiral Motti is dead. This would’ve happened years ago if it weren’t for Governor Tarkin.
STAR WARS ACTOR Richard LeParmentier DIES
-PP

THIRD TIME’S THE HARM

When Number Three Seems More Like Number Two

Article by Matteo Molinari

This Summer we will welcome the return of Iron Man in his third adventure, cleverly titled “Iron Man 3″, as well as the conclusion of the Wolfpack’s misadventures in “The Hangover Part III”. Will they be good movies?

Probably yes — even if the man of iron has a different helmer behind the camera and the gang of friends this time won’t attend a wedding of any sort. Anyway, both movies have good characters, a good pedigree, great actors… What could possibly go wrong?!

Well…

The history of “third chapters” (known as “threequels,” thanks to those people who love to invent new terms while butchering English) is filed with good examples — “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”, “The Dark Knight Rises”, “Toy Story 3″, “Return of the Jedi”, “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”, just to name a few — and an outstanding series of atrociously bad ones.

Uh-oh! I feel the urge to do another one of my nonsensical lists that nobody cares for! Well, then — since you don’t insist, here we go, in chronological order:

The Creature Walks Among Us (1956): Oh, those geniuses at Universal. They had a great monster, The Creature from the Black Lagoon which was, upon closer examination, a creature coming from a lagoon that was black. Now, the definition of a lagoon is, “a stretch of salt water separated from the sea by a low sandbank or coral reef” — bottom line, it’s a water-based environment. So what did they come up with, for the third part of the story of the creature (a.k.a. the Gill-Man)? They remove the black lagoon altogether, and thanks to a surgical operation they give the creature the chance to breathe air and, as the title suggests, to walk among us. So now it’s just “The Creature.” And somehow the Gill-Man-Sans-Gills lost part of its charm and the series simply sputtered and died, taking the Creature with it.

[NOT-SO-FUN FACT: The Creature DID resurrect in an abysmally awful show at Universal Studios Hollywood — by the time you finished reading its advertisement, it was already gone. If you don’t believe me about its abysmality, see for yourself HERE]

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982): John Carpenter’s finest creation, Michael Myers, has sliced, filleted, diced and minced quite a good number of people in the first two movies, so what’s the next step? Rid the franchise of him and give the fans a story about a villain who’s selling Halloween masks which will kill all the kids who wear them and will turn their head into a bunch of snakes. No, really. Oh, the villain is also building robots. “Why?”, you may ask. “Not a clue”, I may answer. To make things worse, if you find yourself watching this train wreck, you won’t be able to get out of your head the overly annoying jingle, “Three more days to Halloween, Halloween, Halloween…” Not even Rob Zombie could have concocted a more horrible “Halloween”. No, wait. I take that back. I saw his first “Halloween”.

Jaws 3D (1983): Granted, it’s impossible to top Spielberg’s “Jaws”. They tried to go back to Amity with “Jaws 2″, but the comparison was unavoidable. So for this third chapter they boldly decided to remove Amity from the equation, remove any actor from the original series, and as a good measure, remove also any tension and scare. This time we’re in Florida, at Sea World and its vast lagoon for waterskiers and new serpentine of underwater tunnels. For the first hour of the movie, nothing much happens. When it starts happening, you wish you were back in the first hour. So there’s a shark who kills people mostly off camera; then it dies; its angry and excruciatingly slow mother swims in and wrecks havoc of some sort. All of it with not a smidge of tension. Even the soundtrack, penned by Alan Parker (yep. I didn’t know him, either) sounds more like Fantasy Island than any man-eating fish’s movie. All of this, also, in magical 3-D!

[NOT-SO-FUN FACT: This movie features the first Pinocchio-cam, when a scuba diver is shot being eaten by the shark…from inside the shark!
NOT-SO-FUN FACT #2: This movie was followed by Jaws: The Revenge. For Heaven’s sake, stay away from it!]

Superman III (1983): The movie starts with a Rube Goldberg-like series of gags that I suppose the filmmakers all thought were hilarious. Then Richard Pryor shows up, being pretty much… Richard Pryor. Then they almost immediately ship Lois Lane away, and Lex Luthor is nowhere to be found — replaced by a power-crazy billionaire and his equally power-crazy sister. They build a supercomputer which will do everything it’ll be asked to, and when not asked, it’ll do things the same because, you see, it’s not only a computer: it’s a SUPERcomputer. Oh, yeah: there’s also Superman. But he seems almost relegated as — well — a comic book figure. Granted, this piece of fertilizer has been followed by “Superman IV: Quest for Peace”, but at least in the fourth chapter they had Lex Luthor and Lois Lane!

Poltergeist III (1988): So long, Cuesta Verde, and welcome, sky-high building in Chicago! After being chased by hordes of spirits to be guided toward the light, little Carol Anne finds herself in a humongous skyscraper with her Uncle and Aunt, and she’s still chased by ghosts — whom she can see in mirrors. Needless to say, the whole building is wallpapered with mirrors. Or it’s mirrored with wallpapers. Whatever — everything is reflective, in there! And so the ghosts arrive, and everybody runs away, and screams, and they are attacked, and it’s over, but no, it’s not over, it was a false ending… Ho-hum. Something lacks in this third and final installment of the supernatural saga. Like a plot. Or characters who are even vaguely interesting. Or a sense of caring for these people. You know, minor things.

[NOT-SO-FUN FACT: The name “Carol Anne” is mentioned in this movie over 120 times. It actually chafes your ears]

Rambo III (1988): The second novel about Rambo written by David Morrell opened with a disclaimer that said, roughly, “In my first novel, ‘First Blood,’ Rambo died at the end. But then Hollywood gave me a truckload of money so he’s back in business and screw my integrity.” Well, maybe these weren’t his exact words, but you catch the drift. So they resurrected the character for a sequel which was kind of interesting, and then they rehashed him once more for a third chapter that really was uninspired, tired, unoriginal and the only emotion it provided was to plump Sylvester Stallone’s bank account. The more recent “Rambo” is far superior than this one. So you can skip Part Three and jump straight to Four and live happier.
 
 
 
The Karate Kid Part III (1989): Wax on, wax off. The titular “kid” was 27 at the time of this flick, so there goes part of the premises (probably The Karate Almost 30 Guy Part III would have not been a good title). Then there is a Xerox copier somewhere, because the script is pretty much identical to the previous two movies of the series. Oh, no: they added a bonsai tree that looks like a fake bonsai tree, but all the rest is pretty much routine. Nothing new under the Sun. Then again, this chapter is magnificent, compared to “The Next Karate Kid”, which is the same thing all over again, except this time the “kid” is Hilary Swank in pre-”Million Dollar Baby” form.
 
 
 
 
Alien 3 (1992): This may not be the movie David Fincher wanted us to see, so I won’t hold it against him. And, lucky for him, “Alien Resurrection” came about a few years later.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RoboCop 3 (1993): The part-human, part-machine cop is back (with a different actor under the armor), and does what a third movie titled “RoboCop 3″ is supposed to do: it functions as a commercial to keep alive the line of toys and action figures generated by the first two movies. This flick was also toned-down in the violence department so more kids would go see it, but this didn’t help much, either. And the cop flies, too! Or tries to — if memory serves, he crashes on the ground more times than he stays up in the air. Either way, this is a pedestrian third chapter which has nothing new to say aside from, “Go buy more toys!”
 
 
 
 
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993): Okay, the “cowabunga dude” amphibians not only are back, but this time… they are back in time! (Oooooooh, I hear you say) Yup, the turtles wind up in 17th Century China to fight some samurais and such — with cartoonish violence and less wisecracks that made popular the reptilian fighters. Then again, this might be a masterpiece compared to the next incarnation – Michael Bay’s foray in the universe of turtles that are not only teenagers, but also mutant and even ninja! I guess we’ll have to wait and see. But for the time being, do yourself a favor and just skip this one.
 
 
 
 
 
Beverly Hills Cop III (1994): Axel Foley is back! Well… Almost. I mean, he looks like Axel Foley and talks like Axel Foley. He even dresses like Axel Foley… but Axel Foley he ain’t. Which is a pity. Because in this movie, which could have been called “Die Hard in an Amusement Park but With Less Deaths and Funny Zingers” is really a huge disappointment. The story about a counterfeit gang that acts in the bowels of the beloved park Wonderworld is murky and not particularly engaging, the jokes are not funny, everything looks uninspired. If the only smile a movie gives you is because of a cameo by Bronson Pinchot, we’re in trouble. Thank God Murphy went on with much more entertaining and amusing and memorable movies like “The Adventures of Pluto Nash”. And “Daddy Day Care”. And “Norbit”. And “Meet Dave”. And “Imagine That”. And “A Thousand Words”.

Batman Forever (1995): Tim Burton is too dark for Batman? Great! Let’s just go the opposite direction and bring the franchise back thirty years! Bright colors, new cast members (Batman included), campier than campy, bat-suit with nipples and an extremely confusing storyline. Is there something worse than this? Yup — it’s called “Batman & Robin”.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles (2001): Yes. It does exist. Nope. Nobody saw it. But if you really want to know, it’s harmless, good-intended and forgettable.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Matrix Revolutions (2003): Talk about a letdown. The Wachowski brothers had created a truly genuine, original movie with “The Matrix”. They followed it with a bunch of incoherent scenes — and a terrific highway chase — with “The Matrix Reloaded”. And then there is this one. Ask anybody to sum it up, and they’ll most likely tell you, “There’s a huge fight of robots and men… I think.” But they won’t remember anything else, except that the ending is probably one of the biggest, saddest, pathetic ending of a saga that started in the theatres with a BANG and concluded with a, “Isn’t there another reel of film after this one?” I haven’t seen a downbeat ending like this one since… Oh, no, wait: “Spider-Man 3″ came after this one.
 
 
 
Terminator 3 — Rise of the Machines (2003): He said he’d be back. Or at least, a copy of the model that said he’ll be back is actually back. Either way, twelve years after his last adventure, the Terminator is back to protect (once again) John Connor from the evil killers sent by the eviler SkyNet. Besides the fact that it’s interesting how technology has developed a robot that can age (Schwarzy is not Dorian Gray), we face a story that somehow negates the previous movie; Judgment Day is indeed about to happen, and the Terminator has to prevent the death of John Connor in that very conflict — conflict that will start as an “innocuous” computer virus. Besides SkyNet, the enemy to face this time is the T-X, a not particularly engaging enemy, and everything pales in comparison with the two previous installments of the saga. The only reason why this movie isn’t considered an atrocious catastrophe is that it was followed by the deplorable “Terminator Salvation” (2009), which has its place in history because of two facts: it suggested a pretty cool roller coaster at Six Flags, and it gave us an amazing and famous tirade by the master of classy soliloquy, Christian Bale.

Final Destination 3 (2006): “The Final Destination” saga is a pretty fun one, and follows the same blueprint over and over again: a kid has a premonition of a horrendous accident; he/she convinces friends and occasional bystanders in not partaking in the activity that will result in the aforementioned horrendous accident; Death, feeling cheated, will take, one by one, the survivors in the order they were supposed to die — and will do it in the most elaborate and spectacular way ever conceived, demonstrating that the Grim Reaper needs to have fun, too, every now and again. Now, when going to see these movies, you don’t expect Shakespeare. Although the first chapter of this series came up with some philosophical themes, mostly you go see teenagers who die. However, in this movie, every single character is so despicable and so annoying, that you hope, you pray for them to die. There is not one single redeeming quality in any of them, which kind of defuses the purpose: if you don’t care for the victim, you can’t be invested in the movie. Well, in this one, you’re rooting for the Reaper all the way through. Which probably is the point of the movie, but just taking the cast and pushing them down a ravine would have saved us a lot of time.

X-Men — The Last Stand (2006): There are a lot of mutants in this movie, all with different powers, and they all seem in desperate need for a script. This flick had a different director from the previous two of the saga (yeah, Bryan Singer left to do “Superman Returns” — and we all know how well that one turned out), so the new guy in town — Brett Ratner — pretty much gave us a movie rich in spectacle, but drained in human (or mutant) emotions, and the result is quite disappointing, especially coming from the second, powerful chapter of the saga. Here’s the story, as much as I can summarize: there are the mutants; then there are more mutants, some good, some bad; one strikes the most ridiculous pose when he shows that, like Red Bull, he has wings! and then they all fight. Some wins, some losses. And Cyclops is killed off screen. Not good.

Rush Hour 3 (2007): Chris Tucker should always come with a warning label, “To be taken in moderation.” He’s funny for five minutes, mildly amusing for ten, but after fifteen or more minutes exposed to his motormouth, you are ready to drill a hole in the back of your neck to make the sound of his voice leak out of your head. The first “Rush Hour” was fun; the second one was okay; the third is the same thing all over again (but in Paris, this time), and so it tastes like you’re eating for lunch the microwaved leftovers of yesterday’s dinner which was the re-heated lunch you made the day before (but in Paris, this time). The story is blah, the situations are trite, and you know that saying ‘When you have nothing to say, you shouldn’t say anything at all’? Well, it should apply to sequels, too.
 
 
Shrek the Third (2007): They should have stopped at Part 2. But do they ever listen?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Spider-Man 3 (2007): Things I’ve learned watching this movie:
- Peter Parker is a whiny douchebag who can’t comb his hair
- Mary Jane could do much better and doesn’t seem to be a good actress
- Harry Osborn is a spoiled, vengeful kid
- Gwen Stacy shows up just to create chaos and then vanishes
- There is enough material crammed in this movie to make at least three more sequels
- When a crane goes awry and literally slices the corner of a building, the priority is to save Gwen Stacy and that’s it — let the town and the Police deal with a possible collapsing building, debris falling over the people and a crane that spins uncontrollably over the town
- Tobey Maguire can’t dance
- A sunset apparently is more relevant and important than the death of a best friend.

The Mummy — Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008): This is not a bad movie per se; it’s here simply because, if you go to someone who isn’t Brendan Fraser and ask him or her about this movie, the answer you’ll get it, “What? They did a third one?”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transformers — Dark of the Moon (2011): Yes, there are robots. And they are big and fight. The plot is vague as ever, but this time it drags endlessly. There is a battle in Chicago that lasts about five of the three acts of the movie, and the only scene I remember is a building tilting on its side — because the shots inside of the building were practical and the stunt people did an amazing job in rolling and falling and crashing through stuff. All the rest, the CGI battle, the CGI good robots, the CGI bad robots, the CGI characters — sorry, I got distracted: the paper-thin characters… They are just a blur. A noisy, chaotic, endless, unmemorable blur.
 
 
 
 
 
 
So there you have it! I’m sure your life will be much better now that you’ve learned about these masterpiece-wannabes. And remember: When a Number Three hits rock bottom… Sometimes there’s a Part IV coming along and taking its place in our memory as “one of the worst sequels ever made.

But that would be another article.

MY BIG FAT SEEN IT BEFORE WEDDING

The Big Wedding

**

Review by Steve “WhiskeySour” Brown

My relationship with action films has turned rocky these last few weeks, and I don’t mean rocky as in the awesome Balboa kind, but rocky as in the Sylvester-Stallone-is-a-meat-head-and-I-can’t-remember-what-I-saw-in-him-in-the-first-place kind. It was last week, when I went to see the G.I. Joe sequel, I realized that action films just weren’t doing it for me anymore.

It’s not action films’ fault really, it’s me.

So I decided some space was needed for the good of the relationship and called a temporary break. Feeling oddly liberated and slightly promiscuous, I set out on the town’s movie theatre where I bumped into an old but sympethetic friend: comedy.

That Friday night, comedy was dressed to the nines in formal romance attire. Dressed up as comedy was, little has changed since our first time meeting those many years ago. Comedy on the surface was witty, insightful and, of course, made me laugh when I needed to laugh. As always, comedy was the perfect companion, in that I was thrilled to be in the presence of more then just macho attitudes and brilliant, short-lived explosions.

In that regard, “The Big Wedding”, directed by Justin Zackham, was exactly the right movie for me to see. I found myself smiling or even laughing at the antics of its characters, its situational humour, and I was reminded that we mere mortals are flawed individuals, banding together to turn what little we have into beautful masterpieces. That the power of family and friendship can overcome all our past and present mistakes. That forgiveness is what a crazy family is made for.

None of it was real of course, but that is just who comedy is. A sweet-talking, good-for-nothing muse, who is sometimes cynical, sometimes optimistic but always has something different to say about life and everything in it. Which is the problem inherited by “The Big Wedding”. No real complexity. The characters were well-defined with the quirks needed to keep things interesting, but were not given anything more then they absoultely needed to maintain form in the minds of their audience. In no way can there be any argument to why a character acted the way they did, because every thing about the character was spelled out to the audience in the first twenty minutes of the movie. Only one character seemed slightly determined to maintain some of her mystery, but it wasn’t very long before she caved under peer pressure and became open like everyone else.

This lack of character depth makes watching this movie a second time un-rewarding because there’s little more to be understood that wasn’t spoon-fed to you the first time. It’s like having an orange popcicle, the mild orange taste is pleasing enough, but no one ever spends much time thinking about it afterwards, its banished from our thoughts because while the taste is good, it’s also unremarkable.

Of course, not much thought was put into the main line of tension ether. If your mother, who puts you up for adoption and is ultra-catholic is willing to travel to another continent to be at your wedding, one might assume she is capable of handling a surprise or two. Yes, getting her to meet your divorced foster parents would be a cause for concern but convincing said adoptive parents to actually pretend to be married again is a bit of an over-reaction. I realize the whole movie kind of hinges on that gimmick, but the characters could have at least argued a little harder before diving into that bandwagon head first with tongues wagging. To put it mildly, “The Big Wedding” is the epitomy of a First World problem being met with a First World solution: lie through your teeth at the first opportunity. Amusing, but not exactly a well-thought-out plot development.

As arrogant as shoot ‘em up and blow ‘em down action films can be in comparison to romantic comedies, they certainly have much more replay value. All those epic fight scenes and the frenzy pacing do have a tendency to stick with a person. A great deal of effort has to go into a romantic comedy to even come close to having replay value, while people tend to look the other way with action films if they have great explosions.

God I miss action films already. Why am I so weak?

Directed by: Justin Zackham
Release Date: April 26, 2013
Run Time: 90 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Millenium Films

OFFICIAL TRAILER

SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR

Oblivion

**

Review by Steve “WhiskeySour” Brown

I am not biased.

I work very hard to view every movie seat as a new opportunity to experience something that will evoke thought, insight and new levels of creativity. Even if it’s just to wonder how on Earth I spent actual money to see some of the garbage that I have seen. The point is, I try not to expect anything from the movies I go see, nether garbage nor gold, no matter what gold or garbage the preview appears to be made from.

In the case of “Oblivion”, directed by Joseph Kosinski, I couldn’t help myself. The promise of Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman in a Sci-Fi action film was too much. After reading the quick synopsis from my Scene App, I thought, at worst, the movie might borrow heavily from Disney’s “Wall-E”. I sat down in my seat chanting a steady “don’t be ‘Wall-E’, Don’t be ‘Wall-E’…” over and over in my head.

Wish granted, Whiskey!

The first twenty minutes of this movie was awesome on an epic scale. Tom Cruise’s character, Jack, a roguish drone repair man, was vibrant and witty. Paired with a gorgeous redhead beauty Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), whose pretentious English accent made her the most beautiful straight man to Jack’s witty humor I have ever seen. Their performance made me easily believe they were the only two humans left on a futuristic and ruined planet earth.

Between the epic and clearly expensive vistas of future Earth, the edgy and tense places Jack finds himself in and the clearly expensive battle scenes, the pacing and tension of “Oblivion” just kept climbing higher and higher. I was just beginning to wonder if this much awesome was going to cause my brain to explode when suddenly that as-for mentioned awesome pacing and tension fell out of the sky like a brick, not to get off the ground again until the last twenty minutes!

Honestly, I’m trying to remember what happened during the mid part of this movie other then a few hazy isolated moments of plot development. The only thing I remember clearly is suppressing the urge to check my phone to see how much time had passed. You don’t exactly have to be a world class critic to realize if Facebook and your e-mail are suddenly in competition for your attentions, there’s something wrong with the film your watching.

One major problem with “Oblivion” that everyone involved seems desperate to remain oblivious of (see what I did there?) a distinct and total lack of population. Throughout this movie I counted maybe six characters, and not all of them were even fully developed. Take Morgan Freeman’s character Beech for example. The movie told us he’s the leader of the Scavs, and that he’s old, that’s it. This is not a character, this is Morgan Freeman playing a cardboard cutout. Without giving any back story on the character, or reason to be, or anything to relate to, I could not have cared less about him. And this was a MAIN CHARACTER in “Oblivion”. It seems rather odd to be disappointed with the character development later into a movie, when in the beginning of the same movie you were quite satisfied with it.

Another issue with this movie no one wanted to see was the distinct lack of someone to hate. Three quarters of this movie were spent without a clear antagonist. When they finally got around to rolling that little tidbit out, I was surprised, not because I didn’t see it coming, but because I didn’t realize the character was an actual character. The best antagonists are the ones with clear and understandable reasoning for their actions. Not the ones every other character, or in this case all five others, mention in the last moments as kind of an FYI.

This rather sparse casting led to yet another problem, I’m going to call it: “What to do with the rest of the movie syndrome”. Without any antagonist to provide some sort of goal, the few characters with actual personalities were left wandering around the set looking for something to do. At one point Jack needs a med pack, so he jumps in his ship and heads for home, burning another fifteen minutes of time. Why wasn’t there a med pack in his ship? He’s the one with a dangerous job, you’d think that would be a rather handy spot for a medical kit. Ether the future doesn’t have safety standards, or the director was getting paid by the hour.

The action finally picks back up near the end of the movie, when surprise, surprise, the characters are given something to do. Unfortunately a good ending on an otherwise horrible movie with less characters then a board room business presentation, is like putting a new roof on a derelict house. Admirable in the effort and good looking in comparison, but an utter waste of time and resource.

Going to see this movie did teach me something though, biased thinking can lead you to some rather poor decision making. So on that line of thought, does anyone know of any plans to make a live action “Wall-E” re-make in the near future?

Directed by: Joseph Kosinski
Release Date: April 19, 2013
Run Time: 126 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

Dewitt & Maria

**1/2

Review by Justin Bowler

How sad would the world be if the only art explored in cinema were the same cookie cutter films that studios release? Thankfully, independent filmmakers have the passion and drive to vocalize their own stories, opening up a world of alternatives to the matted ordinary films at the Cineplex. Such is the case with Dennis Devine’s Dewitt & Maria, written by Jim Mueller.

It is a fresh and unique look at a romantic comedy that a studio could never achieve. More so than anything, the drive of the filmmaker is felt while watching this film. It is that heart that carries the movie, even through some of its flaws. The dialogue feels very organic. The characters actually speak to each other instead of spouting out lines designed to promote the purpose of the scene (It almost resembles a stage play in that fashion, but in a yesteryear kind of way) (I might have liked the film better if it were set in the 1950s). The score, by Tony Green, is a near perfect fit. It keeps the film from taking itself too seriously and supports its likability, with a buoyant and bouncy appeal. The cast supports the material well, with David Novak as a clear stand out. He has a Robert Forster likability and charm. The cinematography is dynamic, with excellent production value. Over all, this film is the definition of the term “independent”.

A fine film for indy fans.

2.5 stars
“Dewitt & Maria” is available on AMAZON.

Directed by: Dennis Devine
Country: USA
Distributor: GoDigital Media Group

ANTOINE FUQUA HAS FALLEN

Olympus Has Fallen

**

Review by Steve “WhiskeySour” Brown

In the world of art, there exists something called “Paint by Numbers”. It’s quite common, nearly every child everywhere has done one. It’s purpose is to make the painter feel confident in their ability to create, while covertly forcing them to practice the most basic brush strokes. Essentially, the format has more faith in your ability then a coloring book, but not so much as to have actual faith.

Action movies are basically Hollywood’s version of “PBN”. They almost, to the letter, follow a very predictable formula that audiences eat up time and time again. They usually begin with depicting the main hero as a tough, spunky warrior, who is then beset by tragedy forcing him out of his normal epically cool lifestyle. The tragedy usually aims the hero on a collision course with the main bad guy, who is then eventually defeated, so our hero can go back to being awesome. Throw in a hot girl, some snappy one-liners, broken up by increasingly bigger explosions or spectacular fighting scenes (or both) and you have an action movie. Things like characterization, plot, dialogue, believable acting are all places you can save money by leaving them for your interns. After-all, that fight staging and special effects wont pay for themselves, but apparently internship is free.

So, I was not surprised in the least when “Olympus has Fallen”, directed by Antoine Fuqua, had Mike Banning (Gerald Butler) sparring with Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart) as its opening scene. Asher, the President of the United States, apparently enjoys a friendly boxing match with his head of secret service, whenever he can catch a moment away from running the free world. Banning, a hero who does not pull any punches (literally) soundly beats him, not at all worried about his job tomorrow. Soon after, tragedy strikes and our plucky protagonist has to choose between saving the President or saving the President’s wife.

I wont spoil for you who he saves, but it really is quite obvious. Hint: the movie would abruptly end if this character died.

Anywho, Banning’s completely understandable choice ironically is what gets him canned from his job. One arbitrary year and a half later, he’s ether working for some security firm guarding the treasury or he’s one of their accountants. Honestly, I’m not entirely sure which. About fifteen minutes into the movie I do become sure about something, though. The dialogue is amazing! Whichever intern is responsible for it’s writing would normally have a great career ahead of him but unfortunately no one cares about interns. Ether way, you have my props, nameless intern, for somehow NOT using the type of language I expected government officials in a movie to use, but the type of language any human being would use given the circumstances. The dialogue was gritty, not overly monologuey and most importantly: realistic and believable!

However that was where the pleasant surprises for me ended. Of course Gerard Butler and Aaron Eckhart were entertaining, but that is something I’ve come to expect from those two vets. I can only award minor points for good acting in a movie genre where all the exciting action sequences make even cardboard cutouts look like Emmy nominees.

Unsurprisingly, the movie stuck woodenly to the tested and true action formula, but in such a way that it seemed phoned in. Banning puts himself back in the line of fire when the President is taken hostage. As if ex-employees of the American government return to their previously life-endangering jobs all the time. The terrorists want the American government (now led by Morgan Freeman’s Speaker of the House Trumbull) to pull their troops out of South Korea, which would allow South Korea to once again take up arms and finish their civil war. And various characters spend the rest of the movie alternating between versions of “We can’t doom the people of Korea by withdrawing” and “We don’t negotiate with terrorists”, debating whether or not to save a handful of America’s best politicians. Make sense? It doesn’t matter, ’cause it’s good chunk of movie that is forgotten and never resolved. But that’s OK because Gerard Butler is a one man super-army, taking back The White House despite the best efforts of his enemy and his superiors.

This is where “Olympus has fallen” falls the hardest. Tension, and how it’s manipulated, is the difference between good action films and great ones. Throughout the duration, “Olympus” tries to use tension, but the nearly zero dedication to details derails it. Banning’s character has a wife or girlfriend (not made very clear which) and it seems they’re having some issues relating to one another. Too bad no one cares. At one point the terrorists mention her name to Banning, but the only reaction elicited from me was to wonder why they bothered. The wife/girlfriend character was so ambiguously created and used, it was like the terrorist had threatened Banning’s favorite arm chair.

The dialogue was it’s only strong area, but liking the film because of that would be akin to thinking a park bench a good snack because someone spilled your favorite espresso on it. In short, the Paint by Numbers picture never becomes anything real, but stays a feeble child’s attempt at creating something the grown-ups have done before and done better. But just for the record, I’m not bitter I spent my money to see “Olympus has Fallen” because clearly Morgan Freeman needs it more then I do.

Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Release Date: March 22, 2013
Run Time: 120 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Film District

OFFICIAL TRAILER

APRIL 11, 2013
The world is now without Roger Ebert to bring lively discussion and wit to the topic of movies. There have been countless articles and tributes, you can find them everywhere. However, I want to direct you to two of them.
First, my tribute:
I’LL SEE YOU AT THE MOVIES
Second, Alan Zweibel’s look back at the man who gave Zweibel what became Ebert’s most famous review, “North”:
ROGER AND ME
-PP

APRIL 10, 2013

One thing you can never accuse Tom Cruise of – underpromotion of a movie:
Tom Cruise Plans Imax Q&A to Promote Universal Pictures’ ‘Oblivion’
-PP

APRIL 9, 2013

Taking a cue from David Fincher, Eli Roth is the next film director to make the jump to NetFlix, as NetFlix fires up another original series. Thirteen episodes of the horror series “Hemlock Grove” will debut on April 19th. Read about it and see the trailer HERE.
-PP

APRIL 8, 2013

This isn’t all that new, but we’re always eager to bring you articles from the Pixar world. This is good stuff for any writer, filmmaker or artist:
PIXAR’S 22 RULES OF STORYTELLING
-PP

APRIL 7, 2013
I’m a firm believer that comedy is the best way to get ANY point across. And liberals use that protocol more effectively than anyone else – Michael Moore is a good example. Here, Matt Damon wants you to get behind his plan to make healthy drinking water available to everyone: STRIKEWITHME.ORG

-PP

“Raiding the Lost Ark: A Filmumentary”

****

Review by Justin T. Bowler

This incredibly informative doc is a two-hour plus “filmumentary” by Jamie Benning. Described as the product of “Eight months of reading, chatting, trawling, editing and agonizing”, this documentary gives profound insight into the creation of (in my opinion, the greatest film of all time) (keep in mind I haven’t seen many films) the Steven Spielberg/ George Lucas masterpiece, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, written by Lawrence Kasdan. And the best part is… it is ABSOLUTELY FREE.

“Raiding the Lost Ark” is a fantastic mix of audio from interviews, special features from the DVDs, and rare footage (that I have no idea where he got) intercut with the film “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. While some of it is clever audio commentary from interviews playing over the film, other portions are cut animatix sequences, additional script dialogue, behind the scenes footage, plus onscreen insightful film facts. Obviously, Mr. Benning is an extreme fan of this film and did it because he loves the movie so much. I would love to see a version where he actually had a budget.

Check it out HERE on Vimeo:

And if you like this doc, then you can go to his VIDEO PAGE to check out “filmumentaries” for “Star Wars”, “Empire”‘ and “Jedi”.

Currently he is working on a “Jaws” doc as well. Keep up the great work, Mr. Benning, the rest of us fans appreciate it.

**** for Indy fans (it is as good as it gets.)

OFFICIAL TRAILER

I’ll See You at the Movies

Article by Paul Preston

“I’ll see you at the movies.”
- Roger Ebert’s final written words

How do I even deal with the words “Film Critic Roger Ebert Dead at 70”?

I’ve had a weekly check-in with Roger Ebert my entire life.

The first real movie I remember seeing in the movie theater was “Star Wars”. Yes, I’m that guy. My dad said, “How’s about we see this new sci-fi movie that’s opening up at the Oneonta Theatre”. I shrugged and said, “OK”. Needless to say, I was HOOKED. Movies quickly became the most amazing way to experience a story – larger than life, with a crowd, all-encompassing – and my parents still have cassette tapes of me reading books when was some crazy-early age. I still get to the occasional book here and there, but I tear through movies ferociously.

The year after I saw “Star Wars”, Gene Siskel joined Roger Ebert on a PBS show called “Sneak Previews” (you want the theme song? ‘Cause I’ll sing it for you if you want it). Now if you’ve ever visited the quaint village of Oneonta, NY, where I grew up, you quickly get a sense of the small-town-i-ness of it. It’s not out in the sticks, but it’s not a booming metropolis. It’s a great place to grow up, then leave. It’s also not a hot bed for rabid movie conversation.

But these guys on TV, these guys from The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Sun-Times (my eight-year-old self wrote these down, ‘cause he’d only heard of The Daily Star and The New York Times), these guys could TALK. And man, did I love to listen.

A simple observation one could make about Siskel & Ebert is that they are well-versed in the art of film, but make the conversation about it palatable for everyone. In fact, they wouldn’t use phrases like “art of film” or “palatable”, but you know they’d know what those phrases mean. How they made film talk accessible is an easy observation, but the value of that accomplishment is often understated. With the onslaught of online opinions, blogs, videos and reviews about movies available today, you forget what an accomplishment it was two have a show about two guys talking about movies FIND A NATIONAL AUDIENCE! No small feat. One that will never, ever happen again.

And they didn’t exclude any films. They’d review “The Evil Dead” and “Chariots of Fire”, and you could listen to the reviews of both and be entertained, regardless of whether you wanted to see both movies. What a great compliment they were to one another, too. Gene, always the snootier, more demanding critic, and Roger, right down to looks, falling in line more with the average guy’s opinion, if the average guy knew a TON about movies.

So there I was in my living room, every week, checking in with Roger on what’s coming out in theaters, keeping my crazy passion for movies alive and wondering why some of the movies he LOVED weren’t playing in small-time Oneonta. And after “Sneak Previews” came “At the Movies” (you want the theme song? ‘Cause I’ll sing it for you if you want it). If there were awards for such a thing, “At the Movies” would win Most Recorded Show On My VCR. This was great, I never had to miss the show. And not that Siskel & Ebert were big spoilers, but I would often tape the show and watch the reviews after I’ve seen the movies. If you’re a Movie Guy…you did this.

“At the Movies” was on for about seventeen years, until Siskel’s death. In that time, Roger agreed with me (I love putting it that way) on nine “Best of the Year” films:
1983: “The Right Stuff”
1986: “Platoon”
1988: “Mississippi Burning”
1989: “Do the Right Thing”
1990: “Goodfellas”
1991: “JFK”
1992: “Malcolm X”
1993: “Schindler’s List”
1996: “Fargo”
Roger was my man! I mean, he only agreed with Gene on the year’s best film ten times their whole career! But some of the best shows did away with the review format and just let Gene and Roger go off. Memorable episodes for me include full half-hours devoted to “Do the Right Thing” and “Pulp Fiction” and the filmmaking choices that made those films great, plus their hard fight for the A rating, that would replace the pointless NC-17, now just a kiss of death reserved for softcore on TV.

Don’t get me wrong, we didn’t always line up. I mean, he didn’t like “Raising Arizona”. “RAISING ARIZONA”. But he can tell you, thoroughly, why.

Roger Ebert impressed me in so many ways as a journalist, critic and writer. He held to his beliefs about a movie, and could defend them to anyone. Not only would Gene put him to the test, but on talk shows and interviews, Ebert would have to describe why he felt the way he did about this or that film, and he’d have extensive examples and thoughtful critique to offer up. And he saw A LOT of films. I saw “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” last week and I can barely tell you what happened in that messy, noisy film, let alone try and keep details and specifics at hand for seven or eight other films I might have seen that week.

But mostly, I loved getting lost in Roger’s bottomless, passionate love of the movies.

When computers first came online in the mid-‘90s, there was Roger, making himself available to a new way for me to check in with him. I remember he had a CompuServe e-mail account. And I sent him mail. Oh, yes, I sent him mail. All I have as a reminder are his responses, which are hilarious because I have no idea what I was bothering him about:

- “I appreciate the input.”
No doubt I was telling him some great ideas about how to make Siskel & Ebert more awesomer.

- “Thanks, Paul. Your form of paying tribute was very appropriate!”
This was in response to Gene’s passing. What did I do? What kind of wackiness did I commit to honor Gene? Did I see “Babe: Pig in the City”? Curious…

- “Re the tube: Looked to me like he sort of struck the edge and coasted to a slower velocity. But your friend may be right.”
Oh dear lord! This is in response to a specific scene…in…SOME MOVIE! I was “talking” movies with Roger Ebert!

When Ebert lost his voice to cancer a few years ago, he took to the internet and despite winning a Pulitzer prize in 1975, his blog produced some of the best writing of his life. This was great, ‘cause I could continue to check in with him. Ebert wisely never shied away from whatever the new technology was, as he Tweeted and blogged about all the new films. But this format, and maybe his glimpse at his mortality, got him all fired up about EVERYTHING. His blog became a firestorm of social comment as well, including rants about politics, religion, gun control and more. As a raging liberal, but more so as an artist, I’ve always gotten behind Ebert’s stance against censorship. He hated the ratings board (I can say the same) and always believed that no topic is off limits, what is to be judged is what an artist does with the topic.

Since I went to see “Star Wars” with my dad, whether I was in college or living in L.A., separated by an entire nation’s worth of roads, there have been weeks where I haven’t talked to my dad. Or my mom. And months go by without seeing them. But on TV or reaching through the computer via a blog or his weekly newsletter, I’ve always kept that weekly check-in with Roger Ebert where he’d talk movies and invite me to play along. And I was all ears.

Thank you, Roger.

SWALLOW YOUR SOUL

Evil Dead

**1/2

A “From the Dark Side” review by Kerr Lordygan

I refrained from watching the original “The Evil Dead” again before watching the new remake, leaving myself open to whether the remake would stand on its own. And it does. In fact, I feel like peeps that haven’t seen the original would be frightfully delighted by this film. It’s a creative and cartoon-ey gory romp, which I did enjoy. Granted, I was cackling through much of it (a common response from me at the sight of brutally clever gore).

Now don’t go expecting any major character development, or even insight. We do have the backstory of Mia (Jane Levy) and her normally absent brother David (Shiloh Fernandez), who lost their mother to mental illness years prior. We also have the premise that Mia’s friends, and brother, are taking her to their family cabin to force her to sober up and begin drug detox. Blah blah blah, right? But such a set-up allows for the expected gore-fest to permeate through our brains. After all, that’s what we came for.

Trying to do this without giving spoilers but…well, kids in a cabin are attacked by demons and shit gets gross. Guess that’s not giving too much away. We want to see chainsaws, carving knives, blood-puke, tree-rape and severed, well…everything. Check!

I was pleased to see Jessica Lucas from The CW’s “Cult” play a more edgy character than what we’re used to seeing on TV. Here, she’s Olivia, a nurse friend mandating Mia’s detox. The highlight performances are by Lou Taylor Pucci as Eric, the well-delivered understated comedic hero, and Elizabeth Blackmore as Natalie. Blackmore is a nice surprise when her typical horror-blonde role turns into something more…er, meaty.

Director Fede Alvarez’ film is intertwined with beautiful shots and quirky zombified performances that crackle, incorporating sharp body movements and amazing theatrical makeup. And the demon-speeding-through-the-woods shots that we’ve come to love in the original are still in tact and still effective.

What the film may lack is interesting characters and their development. But not really because…we didn’t come to see that. Would it have made it a better film? Maybe. But a more enjoyable one? Not necessarily. The point is to see how creative and clever the gore is. “Evil Dead”, the remake, is definitely a success on that level.

Directed by: Fede Alvarez
Release Date: April 5, 2013
Run Time: 91 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Film District

OFFICIAL TRAILER

The Movie Guys bring you original videos about nothing but movies, movies, movies. View away, go nuts, and don’t hesitate to check out our YouTube page where you can subscribe to our channel, find embedding info and get more lowdown about the videos.

THE MOVIE GUYS LIVE! RADIO SHOW: THE AMAZING MONO

The Movie Guys LIVE! Radio Show welcomes the world’s only Radio Magician, The Amazing Mono. Listen to his amazing feats of illusion and slights of what we’re told by host Paul Preston, are his hand.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

Excited about upcoming movies? You will be. Or, you’ll be frustrated by how much trailers give away. Either way, they’re all here for your enjoyment.

As ever, we recommend our WEEKLY RADIO SHOW to tell you the real deal about every weekend’s releases. Plus, we’re funnier.

2 GUNS (opening 8/2/13)

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 2 (opening 9/27/13)

THE COMPANY YOU KEEP (opening 4/5/13)

DISNEY’S PLANES (opening 8/9/13)

FAST & FURIOUS 6 (opening 5/24/13)

FAVOR (opening TBA)

FAVOR Teaser Trailer from PaulOsborne on Vimeo.

THE HANGOVER, PART III (opening 5/24/13)

THE INTERNSHIP (opening 6/7/13)

KICK-ASS 2 (opening 8/16/13)

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY (opening 6/21/13)

THE MORTAL INSTRUMENTS: CITY OF BONES (opening 8/23/13)

RED 2 (opening 7/19/13)

THIS IS THE END (opening 6/12/13)

THE WOLVERINE (opening 7/26/13)

TO THE WONDER (opening 4/12/13)

WORLD WAR Z (opening 6/21/13)

SUB (PAR) TITLES

Taglines That Make You Go, “Uh….?”

Article by Matteo Molinari

I was wasting some time on my couch, recovering from my dryer incident (see my non-award-winning article “Titles That Make You Go, ‘Uh?’” — thanks!!), when I realized two things: first, there are more movies which, after their title, have a tagline that supposedly should attract our interest; and second, I don’t think it’s possible for me to lick one of my earlobes.

I even tried to climb on top of a stool, but nothing — I still couldn’t lick one of my earlobes.

So I gave up and I decided to concentrate on the movie taglines.

And I found out a few very interesting ones, which I’ve decided to share with you, in random order — just to hopefully share a laugh while also splitting an infinitive.

Suspiria — I shall start with Italian Horror Maestro Dario Argento (who seems to have lost a little bit of his bite in the last — uh — thirty years) and his definitive masterpiece. The tagline reads, “The only thing more terrifying than the last 12 minutes of this film are the first 92.”

Okay, two problems here: first of all, the tagline implies the movie length is 104 minutes. It’s not. Its complete, uncut version lasts only 98.
And second, who wants to see a movie that is awesomely scary for the first (alleged) 92 minutes, and then it dwindles to an “Eh…” ending for the last twelve minutes? And do those last twelve minutes include the closing credits or not? Because sometimes grips and focus pullers can be very scary.

The Matrix Revolutions — Speaking of movies with an “Eh…” kind of ending, the last chapter of the adventures of Neo features a tagline straight from the DD (the “Duh!!” Department): “Everything that has a beginning has an end.”

Wow, if they went with this one, I wonder which ones didn’t make the cut. Maybe something like, “In a Trilogy, after the first two movies, there is always a third one.” Or, “This movie lasts 129 minutes — which is more than 128.” Or even, “You’re lucky this is not ‘Speed Racer’” — just my speculation, of course.
 
 
 
 
 
The Prophecy — This eco-thriller from the late ’70s offers us not one but two taglines. And one stupider than the other, to boot.

The first one warns us, “She lives. Don’t move. Don’t breathe. There’s nowhere to run. She will find you.” If she will find us, we can move and breathe pretty freely, I’d assume. I mean, what’s the point of spending the last minutes of our existence immobilized and turning purple if she will find us nonetheless? Stupid advice!

The second one specifies, “The monster movie.” Oh, thank you — after seeing that heartwarming poster, I thought this was a documentary about supermodels. The DD strikes again!
 
Circle — This little-known thriller about a psychopath features a tagline that is as paradoxical as it is inept: “Death is just around the corner.” Think about it. The movie is called Circle. How many corners can you find in a circle?

…exactly.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Life is Hot in Cracktown — Similarly, the tagline for this crime drama seems slightly detached from the title of the movie, because it reads, “Be cool. Life is cool. You’re so cool in Cracktown.” So… I’m confused. Can anybody tell me what’s the exact temperature of life, in Cracktown? Maybe someone was using Fahrenheit and someone else Celsius? Not sure.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Flesh Eaters — This horror movie from the ’60s is very entertaining to watch, but not if you’re looking for a good scare. Anyway, its tagline is pure genius: “The only people who will not be STERILIZED with FEAR are those among you who are already DEAD!”

What they meant — I think — is that, if you were in a theatre surrounded by corpses, you’d be the only one who would not be able to conceive a child in the future. Well, actually the corpses won’t be able, either. So never mind. But if it works, this could be a good way to replace vasectomy.
(the movie has another tagline that reads, “[…] of mans relationship with nature […]” Well, it seems they have forgotten an apostrophe — but that’s another story. I mean, if I were sterilized with fear, I wouldn’t worry about apostrophes, either. Maybe semi-colons. Maybe)

Raw Deal — This early Schwarzenegger movie features a tagline that reads, “The system gave him a Raw Deal. Nobody gives him a Raw Deal.”

So… did the system give him a Raw Deal or not? Because nobody gives him a Raw Deal, so how could it be possible for the system to give him a Raw Deal if nobody can give him a Raw Deal in a movie called Raw Deal?

I have a headache now.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Silent Rage — This sci-fi/action flick is superb in its tagline, because it doesn’t break the fourth wall. It tears down the whole building, goes to town with it and sends us a postcard. “Science created him. Now Chuck Norris must destroy him.”

What?!

Note that this came way before the whole Chuck Norris-mania of these days, so it really was out of left field… Needless to say, the character Chuck Norris portrays is named Sheriff Dan Stevens.

Amazing.
 
 
 
Ape — This 1976 Korean/USA movie talks about a huge gorilla which kidnaps a woman and almost levels Seoul. Sound familiar?

That’s probably the reason of its explicit tagline: “Not to be confused with KING KONG.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Creature Walks Among Us — This third installment of the “Creature from the Black Lagoon” saga was pretty moronic since it took the titular character, removed it from the lagoon and made it no longer an amphibian but an air-breathing creature. Pretty much like shifting the action of the next Jaws movie in Nebraska. And giving the shark a pair of legs. Whatever.

Anyway, this film specifies in its title that this time the monster will “walk among us.” So why does the tagline say, “All new underwater thrills!”? I’m just asking. Does it take place in Venice, Italy?
 
 
 
 
Scary Movie — The tagline reads, “No mercy. No shame. No sequel.”

Good. I won’t tell the producers of “Scary Movie 2″, “Scary Movie 3″, “Scary Movie 4″ and the upcoming “Scary Movie 5″. It’ll be our little secret.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Day of the Dolphin — “Unwittingly, he trained a dolphin to kill the President of the United States.”
You have to figure this one out by yourself.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Unstoppable — This was one of those disaster movies which maintained what it promised: its numbers at the box office were a disaster. Anyway, the tagline of this runaway train flick says, “1 million tons of steel. 100,000 lives at stake. 100 minutes to impact.” I buy the 100 minutes and the 100,000 lives thing. But 1 million tons?! How long is that train?! The average train weights something between 10,000 and 15,000 tons (15,400 if Roseanne is on board, but we won’t go there now). Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this was a special train and its weight was 20,000 tons. We’re still quite far from one million, aren’t we?

(NOTE: The French poster of the movie indicates that the train in question weights 10,000 tons. Maybe something got lost with the exchange between Euros and Dollars, but it seems much more accurate)
 
 
Volcano — “The coast is toast.” Uh — no. This is a tagline that blatantly lies to us. In this movie, the coast is not toast at all. It’s not charred, scorched, blackened, singed or seared. A small portion of it gets hit by lava. I understand that a tagline like, “The lava makes a small portion of the coast hotter than a cup of java” would have taken too much space on the poster, but why the lie?!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Venomous — Speaking of lies, here comes a movie with killer snakes that rampage across a small town (annoying problem, I know, but mildly interesting plot for a movie). The tagline promises, “There is no antidote.”

Well, guess what the good doctor in the movie does? She creates an antidote. And saves the day.

Provocative.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Snakes on a Train — And speaking of snakes, let’s venture quickly into the magic world of Digital Versatile Discs, or DVDs… The Asylum, responsible for some of the most blatant rip-offs ever, came out three days before “Snakes on a Plane” with this… thing. We are told on the DVD case that we’re about to see, “100 trapped passengers… 3,000 venomous vipers!”

Well, not quite.

The movie lists 27 actors (term used loosely, of course), and that is pretty much it. Unless the remaining 73 passengers were cleverly hiding under the seats or behind the camera.

Also, throughout the movie there is not one single venomous viper. Some pythons, I think a boa, a bunch of non-venomous serpents — but definitely not 3,000. Not even 2,000. And not 1,000!! (wow, I feel like Ron Popeil when he slashes the prices of his Rotis-o-matic-thingy) At best there are some fifty extremely dreary snakes and nothing much.

Oh, as a bonus, there is an amazing quote on the back of the case that says (in quotes), “Grotesque, creepy. Don’t plan on sleeping for days!”
Okay, usually when you put a line in quotes, it might help to add who said it. Just a thought. Not to mention that the movie is so tedious and dull that you cannot plan on sleeping for days — because you’ll be sleeping for weeks. Better than any sleeping pills on the market. Almost as dreary as…

SuperCroc — Another gift from The Asylum, a movie that manages to being boring even before the opening credits are over. The plot is incomprehensible, mostly because the sound of the movie has been taped using a vacuum cleaner connected to a Gillette razor — but that’s beyond the point. The tagline of this alleged monster movie is, “It’s 50 feet long… It’s 25 feet tall… and in 14 hours, it will be here!”

Okay, I’ve never seen a crocodile that’s as tall as half of its length — it would be just ridiculous. And beside — and this is the thing that drives me insane: how do they know where it’ll be 14 hours from now? Does the crocodile have a wristwatch? Does it follow an agenda? Will it be the surprise guest on “The View”?

And again, the DVD cover gives us another anonymous quote, even more ludicrous than the “Snakes” one: “The heart pounding suspense of ALIEN and PREDATOR, the epic adventure of GODZILLA and KING KONG!”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm… no.

— Goodbye The Asylum, and hello Universal! Here we have another job for the DD on the British cover of the DVD for this movie: “This guy just invented the lie!”

Uh… Wasn’t it already explained by the title? Or did they want to reinforce the whole concept?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hercules in New York — Speaking of British DVD covers, here we have Schwarzenegger’s first flick, “Hercules in New York”, retooled as if it were another “Commando” meets “Collateral Damage” — and with another amazing job from the DD: “It’s an adventure in the Big Apple…”
No sh*t.

I thought they set the movie in the New York they have in Tibet.

Oh, and of course, I’d like to point out they wrote “its” instead of the correct “it’s” — but with a cover like that, this is the latest of its (correct) problems.
 
 
Ocean’s Twelve — And since I love to nitpick grammar and stuff like that, a big thank you to Warner Bros. for confusing even more our already-cellphone-brain-dead next generation by telling them that “Twelve is the new eleven.” Get ready at the grocery store next time you’ll ask for a dozen eggs and see how many you’ll actually get.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Devil’s Rain — But the award for the most incomprehensible and grammar-killing tagline goes to this quasi-horror film that guarantees “absolutely the most incredible ending of any motion picture ever!” (at least they are humble).

The tagline reads, “Heaven help us all when The Devil’s Rain!”

WHAT?!

Is that even remotely close to a sentence with some sort of sense?

Who came up with that?!

And how much did they pay for it?! (if it’s over five cents, it’s been too much)

Oh, well… So far (only so far, beware) I’ve exhausted the first round of stupid taglines — but fear not, more shall come soon!
I think.
Not before I succeed in licking my earlobe.

This is 40

***

Review by Paul Preston

“This is 40″ is a return to the same kind of foul-mouthed-with-a-heart-of-gold comedies that make up the best of the Apatow catalog. The sweetness isn’t pushed, it’s delivered in human stories people can relate two, and softened by hilarious comedy. That being said, the theatrical release of “This is 40″ saw a lot of people revolting against it for an inaccurate depiction of 40-somethings Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd driving BMWs, living in a beautiful house and owning businesses. But we join the subjects of this movie right when all their choices are biting them in the ass and they could lose the house, and the business and doesn’t that feed right into what that argument is talking about? Maybe the characters were living beyond their means? I found it fertile ground for a solid, adult comedy that you could then layer with filthy jokes.

Once again, when Apatow directs, that’s when he delivers the best goods. When he produces things like “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Year One”, you’re subjecting yourself to any variety of quality. But when he directs, the films are really sharp. Except “Funny People”, which I thought was a misstep because I didn’t care about the characters. I mean, I cared about Seth Rogen, but when he goes on a journey to befriend Adam Sandler’s character, Sandler was so unlikeable, and I didn’t care.

I encourage those who might’ve liked “Knocked Up” if it weren’t for the stoner bromance, watch this, ‘cause this is all married couple nonsense. And more adults can probably buy into that, which I would think would make this a hit.

Like the best Apatow comedies, don’t be fooled by the trailer. The movie’s so rated R that you can’t really put the best parts in the trailer. Or even parts that might encourage you to watch it.

But there are some shock-value comedy moments that don’t always appeal to me. I think Paul Rudd asking Leslie Mann to see if he, in fact, has a hemorrhoid shows the uncomfortability that you sign up for, it’s not necessarily a huge laugh. Apatow does his best work in relationship scenes that involve clever dialogue.

Apatow’s kids play Rudd and Mann’s kids here and they’re good, continuing a year of great child actor performances. Apatow’s not building complex relationships like you’d find in “The Descendants”, but he doesn’t necessarily wrap up everything nicely in every storyline, allowing for those complicated relationships, but still washing them down with great comedy.

Directed by: Judd Apatow
Release Date: December 21, 2012
Run Time: 134 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Universal Pictures

PART TEN

DOC-UARY: 31 DOCS IN 31 DAYS – PART TEN

Reviews by Chris MacKenzie

28 The Final Member – 4 1/2 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
The Icelandic curator of the only penis museum in the world has gathered a male organ from every mammalian species on the planet. Except Man.

Thoughts: I will preface my review by saying this movie is directed by a friend of mine. Having said that, “The Final Member” really is one of the best docs I’ve ever seen. There are some documentaries that just get lucky. Once you’ve begun filming your subject, it’s impossible to guarantee you will find a compelling narrative, amazing characters, and riveting turns to your story. But the skill of the documentarian is to see these things as they happen, stay on top of them, and craft the events into something as satisfyingly engrossing as even the best feature film. “The Final Member” does this better than any other doc I’ve watched this month.

Unfortunately, because this doc is not publicly available, I don’t want to say too much about it. I will say its central theme: the legacy we leave behind, is woven perfectly throughout the three main characters story lines. I don’t know how the world of selling/screening stuff works well enough to know what else I can and can’t say. Zach was kind enough to let me watch it, and I will say it will break my heart if this documentary isn’t someday widely available. It looks like it’s had some screenings, so keep your eyes peeled. I will bug Zach to keep me posted on where/when you can see it.

29. Whore’s Glory 3 1/2 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
With footage shot on three different continents, this is an increasingly unflinching look at living life as a prostitute and (specifically, in this film) the women who live it.

Thoughts: This movie may have been the toughest to watch of everything I saw. Constructed as a self­ described triptych, the first third of the movie takes place in one of Thailand’s innumerable full-­service gentlemen’s clubs. Surprisingly, the first third of this film doesn’t take as strong an anti-­prostitution view as you think it would. While the female subjects of this doc do lament certain aspects of the job (smelly customers, too much competition, over­-endowed johns) the problems anyone has (aging, romantic relationships, wanting a better job) are given equal weight. The lives of these women feel like the life of any other young girl trying to make it in the big city, which left me feeling a bit puzzled as to the film’s intent and/or interest in really documenting this world. This section of the film mostly focuses on the selection process, the girls getting ready, the men making their choice, and the final negotiations that go on before the client is put in an elevator and sent upstairs. But as the doors to the elevators and bedrooms close, so does our view.

The next section of this documentary contains footage shot in a brothel in Bangladesh. The slick party club atmosphere of Thailand is gone, replaced by an enormous, multi­-story labyrinth of rooms so tiny you’d expect to see them on a train. The hallways are crowded with animals, sleeping children and, of course, girls, most of whom are harassing, and even physically dragging, men into their beds.

We are now deeper into this world and the images of this chaotic brothel are shocking. Off­-camera, one prostitute cries uncontrollably as the women who manage the girls scream down the hall at her for always causing trouble. When we finally see the girl, who really is just a girl, she has obviously been punched in the mouth. As shocking as the image we stumble upon is, the fact that there isn’t the slightest note of sympathy in the manager’s tone seems unfathomably callous. Instead of providing any type of motherly concern, the woman berates the girl, who is still sobbing too hard to even speak, finally throwing her out with nothing but the clothes on her back.

This middle third of the film is beyond sobering. The conditions in which these women work feels like a glimpse of what hell must be like. Amazingly, in the midst of all of this chaos, the movie has insightful, even touching, interviews with the women who work there. However, instead of making you feel better about what’s going on, getting to know these young women magnifies your heartbreak when you realize that in another world, any other world, these intelligent and personable women would have led significantly more successful lives.

Believe it or not, the last third of this movie, filmed in Mexico, is even more difficult to watch. While the previous section stayed outside closed doors, the last third of this movie crosses that line. In what can only be described as a drive-­by brothel, car loads of men creep past a long line of women seductively posing in the doorways. The men who seem to be only too eager to roll down their windows and brag to the cameras about what they like to make the women do, refer them by number. The women in this section proudly brag, in horrifying detail, about the skills they possess. Most seem so intoxicated on one or several substances that they can barely stand. All battle the depression that accompanies addiction, and some even display the mania that can only be described as completely losing it. But their “what the hell do I care?” attitude means the filmmakers (no doubt for the right price) are allowed to have the door, for the first time, closed behind them. I won’t describe those scenes, as I’m sure you can imagine what happens, but the most striking thing about them is watching this numb woman turn it on, and then turn it off, as soon as the john’s twenty minutes and allowed positions have been used up. Since the beginning of the film we’ve been keenly aware of the business aspect of this life, but seeing an actual “transaction” really shakes you. No matter what we were shown in earlier parts of the film, by extension, we know this moment, often repeated 4,0­50 times a day, is the reality of these women’s lives.

By the end, it becomes obvious that the film’s almost pro-­prostitution beginning is the set up for the gut punch we end on. However, because the music picked for the movie’s soundtrack tries way too hard to be sexy, it takes us longer than it should to realize the direction this movie is going to take. I was very close to turning it off at the beginning because the movie started out feeling like a tourist video for Thailand’s Red Light District.

Still, I admired the movie for challenging the belief that prostitution is a “necessary evil.” It makes a strong case that despite what most societies say, prostitution isn’t necessary, and beyond that, the women trapped in this world are not evil.

30 Paper Clips – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
When a school in rural Tennessee wants to understand the enormity of the Holocaust, they collect six million paper clips, one for every person of Jewish faith killed by the Nazis.

Thoughts: The mere idea behind this documentary makes me well up. In a world where history is just something that happened before you were born, and a number like six million seems only kinda big, the effort this school undertook brought a palpable understanding of the Holocaust’s magnitude.

Unfortunately, this movie had a very journalistic feel to it. Most of the story is told from an “after the fact” perspective. We don’t feel like we’re witnessing anything so much as hearing the story of how it happened. Obviously, any movie that deals with this subject is worthy of watching, but I just didn’t find it as emotionally engaging as a movie like “Forgiving Dr. Mengele.”

That said, the flood of goodwill these kids created in taking on this task is astounding. In dealing with the overwhelming boom they saw after countless news outlets and celebrities heard about what they were doing, they learned a valuable lesson about compassion for others.

31. The Hollywood Complex – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A detailed look into the herd of child ­actor hopefuls and their families who descend onto the Oakwood Apartments every year for pilot season.

Thoughts: This film does a good job of showing what life can be like for an actor of any age, but it really excels by focusing on the unique world of kids. Hollywood loves to push the “anyone with a dream can make it” message, but with kids, that message seems more attainable and can happen in an instant. By the time an actor is in their teens, there are several factors that can distinguish one from another. But from baby to tween, the differences are less obvious. While credits still matter, chances are there aren’t any three-year-olds with MFAs. It is this level playing field that makes this story so fascinating. Everyone has their eyes wide open for the next precocious, soulful, or hilarious tot who will go on to make bazillions of dollars. It’s kind of refreshing to see that even the most seasoned of pros has zero ability to guess who will be famous and who won’t.

The movie follows several kids through every aspect of the quest to become the next Dakota Fanning or Miley Cyrus. We see them experience everything from overbearing stage moms and scam artists, to the wide­ eyes of casting directors and agents when they find someone with a “special” spark. The kids in the movie come from a variety of backgrounds, and it felt like some families were over­praised while others were a bit too demonized. It seemed the film was trying to make the point that there is a good and bad way to go about bringing your kid to Hollywood, but it doesn’t really tackle the question of, “Why do it in the first place?”. Your child may be adorable, wise beyond her years, or the family ham, but those are all things that can be satiated on a smaller scale with local plays and shows. This movie (possibly unintentionally) made me realize what these people are truly after is money and “fame.” I guess it’s not that surprising, considering the town to which they are flocking, but it also seems a shame to tie your kid’s talents to grown­up expectations and results. Still, most of the kids profiled in the movie are even more gung-­ho about doing this whole Hollywood thing than their parents are, and no one seems forced to pursue it. However, it doesn’t make it more palatable, because in the end, the parent is a parent, not an enabler.

But for someone who’s spent the last fifteen years in the same trenches, it was good to see another actor’s perspective on “the business” and actually helped me examine my own perspective on it all.

32. Katy Perry: Part of Me – 4 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)

Thoughts: It has been a long month. A long month with lots of documentaries. As I raced to get my last few in, I lost count and thought I was going to come up one short. Sick of planting myself on my couch and watching Netflix, I agreed to go over to my girlfriend’s family’s house to enjoy some time with them. Just my luck, as we sat down to watch a movie together, this Katy Perry doc popped up as an option on our screen. I have to admit we were all a little ashamed that we all wanted to see it, but it wound up being pretty good. First, a warning, if you do not like Katy Perry, you are probably not going to like this movie. I can’t say I’m a huge fan, but I also don’t write off all teenie-­bopper pop music put out these days. Sometimes it’s the only thing that gets me through the last three minutes and seventeen seconds of a run on the treadmill. (PLEASE don’t tell AC/DC!)

But what appears to be the fluffiest concert doc ever released actually has a lot of interesting insights into the world of a mega-­superstar. Like them or not, the one thing it’s tough to argue about a teen pop star is her work ethic. This doc details a lot of the hard work Perry put in to get where she is, as well as the Herculean efforts she puts in to stay there.

Anyone who has performed knows there are days when you just don’t feel like it. Many of those days are shown in this movie. I don’t think it was their goal to show what no doubt was one of Katy Perry’s worst years ever, but in the end you appreciate the candid nature of what you’re shown. I found myself really respecting the level at which she works, and the dedication she puts in to making a good show every night.

The most striking image in it for me was her sobbing over a crumbling marriage as she ascended a lift onto stage to perform for literally thousands of fans. It would be too easy to say she “phoned it in” or that she was being fake and burying her grief. It became obvious to me that performing was one of the few places where she could forget what was happening and appreciate all that she had. I have made my living as a performer for twenty years, and it is an uncanny truth that going onstage and performing always makes you feel better. Whether it is sore muscles or a broken heart, there is an analgesic in performing. The (probably inevitable) dissolution of Katy’s marriage to Russell Brand takes over the second half of the movie, but it doesn’t come off as a gossipy exclusive. You can read TMZ for the gory details of what happened, but Katy Perry is to be commended for letting viewers see the very human toll that divorce takes on even those who seem to “have it all.”

Well, there you go, 32 documentaries in 31 days. A huge thanks to the Movie Guys for posting these wildly inconsistent reviews. I guess I should try to sum up what this month meant to me, but I don’t know if I see a clear thru-line. I guess the one thing I would say, as simple as it sounds, is to make sure you seek out documentaries. In devoting an entire month to doing this on a (mostly) daily basis, it’s incredible the sheer number of documentaries out there, and the smallest search will yield unforgettable results. These are not movies which are usually placed in front of us the way mainstream films are. However, a little digging (and a Netflix account) can yield some very eye­opening perspectives on the world. Thanks for reading.

“Whore’s Glory”, “Paper Clips”, “Hollywood Complex” and “Katy Perry: Part of Me” are available on NetFlix.

THE VERY LAST FINAL LAST EXORCISM

The Last Exorcism, Part II

**1/2

A “From the Dark Side” review by Kerr Lordygan

“The Last Exorcism Part Two” (LEPT) is like two films in one:
1) A typical and okay exorcism film
2) An awkward coming-­of-­age story about a virginal youth trying to fit in…after having been impregnated by a demon named Abalam.
You know…your everyday, run ­of ­the ­mill outcast teenager film.

Ashley Bell as Nell is so solid in her performances in both of “The Last Exorcism” films, it really is a marvel to watch her. And the distinctions that separate “regular Nell” and “A-Demon-­Named­-Abalam-Is-Invading-­My-­Nether-parts”-Nell is vivid. Bell’s performance carries this film from point A (creepy beginning) to Point B (fun ending). Anyone else likely would not have been able to keep my interest, as the pacing in between drones on a bit. Both films try and surprise with their endings, and while the first was more successful at it, the second still ends up doing it decently.

In LEPT, we pick up where we left off. Nell comes to live in a house for bad girls in New Orleans, run by Dr. Frank Merle (Muse Watson). The gaggle of other girls she moves in with is lead by Gwen (Julia Garner), who seems to be maliciously enjoying Nell’s discomfort. Garner does a nice job with amused bewilderment, but there seems to be a subplot there that is never concluded (or progressed beyond its initial implementation). We never find out what’s going on there. It seems that director Ed Gass-­Donnelly was attempting to create more intrigue with Gwen than was written. It worked for a bit. But then we were left cold, much like someone who was possessed by a demon in the cold woods of Louisiana. So, kudos, I guess, Ed, for making us empathize.

With the role of Cecile (Tarra Riggs), there is an attempt to bring in a less typical element to this exorcism film. It almost works, too. But the voodoo exorciscm storyline she brings feels rushed at the end.

The shots in LEPT succeed at purposefully hiding objects from view. As the audience, we watch someone walk through a doorway, thinking we are just in the wrong place physically to see what we’re supposed to see. But we’re not really meant to see it yet. Not until the scare element is set up correctly.

Unfortunately, that scare element isn’t always pulled off successfully. But the shot’s are skillful, because we want to see what the subjects see, and when we can’t, we feel some suspense. There’s just not a great payoff. It’s impressive, but frustrating.

I do not regret watching this movie, though. Ashley Bell is a terrific actor. Her transformation is great fun to watch, as are her final moments.

Beginning: creepy. Ending:fun. In between: Bell makes it worth it with a killer performance in a so­-so film.

Directed by: Ed Gass-­Donnelly
Release Date: March 1, 2013
Run Time: 88 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Arcade Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

INDIE REPORT – FLY AWAY

Fly Away

****

Review by Kerr Lordygan

Beth Broderick and Ashley Rickards star in Janet Grillo’s film about a divorced working mother raising an autistic teen daughter. Rickards won the Reel Frontier Special Jury Award for best performance at the 2011 Arizona International Film Festival, but other than its Prism Award nomination for best feature film dealing with mental health, “Fly Away” has not received it’s due share of award recognition.

Rickards performance as young, autistic Mandy is baffling, uncomfortable and utterly believable. Not having been familiar with her work prior to viewing “Fly Away”, I presumed this was an autistic actor. But then I wondered how possible it would be to direct someone that high on the autism spectrum, and I discovered that she had been on “American Horror Story: Asylum,” and now stars in MTV’s”Awkward.” I marveled at the realistic performance. When you forget you’re watching performances, you know you’re undergoing a brilliant film experience. Rickards should have been noticed for this performance in a much greater capacity. Yet the film seems to have been off the Academy’s radar.

Also in a spot-on natural and moving performance is Beth Broderick (“Sabrina the teenage Witch”) as Mandy’s mother Jeanne. Her representation of this oh-so patient mom reveals such tender care and empathetic love, that I am not likely to forget soon.

The story is not anything new, but it may be to those who are unaware of how autism affects lives. We live the challenge,if only momentarily, with Jeanne and Mandy. It’s a truthful slice of the struggle, and such parental devotion is sure to make us clutch our chests in an effort to hold our hearts as we watch.

“Fly Away” is not an educational film, even though it educates. It is not a docu­-drama, even though it documents real struggles. It’s not a film that should only be used to teach something or prove a point. It’s a well-­made, natural work of art. It can (and should) be watched by all who appreciate well-­made dramatic films, with whole­hearted, real comedic moments.

“Fly Away” is available on NetFlix and Amazon instant video.

PART NINE

DOC-UARY: 31 DOCS IN 31 DAYS – PART NINE

Reviews by Chris MacKenzie

25. Everyday Sunshine: The Story of Fishbone – 3.5 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
An all­-access backstage pass to the genesis, rise, collapse and rebirth of one of the 80s most original and influential LA bands.

Thoughts: This is a very well-­made documentary that puts the band, which I always liked but didn’t know much about, into historical context. From the bussing of school kids to the LA Riots, the story of Los Angeles from the 70s on is reflected time and time again through the band. Beyond that, it is a warts-­and­-all look at what has become a rock n roll cliche: the story of best friends having their wildest dreams come true, and then watching it all fall apart.

This movie has amazing footage of the band from all eras, and, unlike many other docs I’ve seen, incorporates animated segments/re-tellings in a way that really enhance the narrative. In addition, there are several musical heavy hitters (Perry Farrell, Flea) who are more than eager to confirm that this band was (is?) the real deal.

This film makes the point, and then backs it up well, that musically, Fishbone was “too white” for black audiences, and visually, they were “too black” for white audiences. And while it would be easy to see the latter as the bigger crime, you really get the sense that the band feels more bitter about being ignored by the black music industry for not joining the wave of Gangsta Rap acts that were flooding popular culture. Unfortunately in Fishbone’s case, being original meant being different, and being different doesn’t always translate into huge profits for record companies. Beyond that, being amazing onstage doesn’t necessarily mean you will be able to capture that in a studio album. . These are just some of the issues that faced the band as it disintegrated to eventually just include two original members. While there are no hackneyed drug overdose tragedies in this band, there is an amazing story detailed of a botched intervention for one religious band member that resulted in three of the “interveners” being brought up on Federal Kidnapping charges. Now THAT’S rock-­n­-roll.

26. Occupy Unmasked – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A “hide your wife, hide your kids” film that hopes to “expose” the radical truth about the Occupy movement and anyone attached to it.

Thoughts: In watching all of these documentaries I would be remiss in not viewing something from the political far ­right. While I do not share those opinions, I thought it worthwhile to see how a usually liberal genre is being used to convey conservative ideals.

This movie felt more like an assassination attempt than a documentary. Filled with “earth shattering” revelations, making this movie just more after-­the-­fact fodder for those who are already oppose the Occupy movement. This documentary constantly contradicts itself by painting those in the Occupy as both incredibly stupid AND cunningly evil. Eventually you realize this film is several cherry-­picked fact­-lets presented as a “you decide” documentary.

There are interviews with several people who embedded themselves into the Occupy movement, each has an over­eager “I just ran back from the front to deliver this urgent news” breathlessness as they clue us in on what REALLY happened. Good work, boys! (and one lone black lady!)

This movie may best be remembered as the swan song for Andrew Breitbart, the conservative rabble­-rouser (oops! Socialist term) who (according to the LIBERAL Media­snort!) died of a massive coronary right after filming his part in the movie. Any suspicions about his cause of death disappear when you see him in this film and realize he was only in his 40s­, yet the dude looks well into his 60s. It seems this film’s only purpose is to terrify people into believing we are nearing the Labor Union/Mainstream Media/Neo­Marxist-­induced end of days. Unfortunately, your statements don’t become more true the louder you yell them. This film is a polemic diatribe which absurdly purports to give you the whole story by only giving you a very, very small sliver of the story.

Having said that, I will freely admit this movie is very well made. The footage of the protestors, and the way it’s manipulated, makes this feel like a frenetic zombie movie more than a documentary. This “Beware the Undead” theme is reinforced by the ample clips and photos of the near-­toxic campsites that sprung up from the Occupy movement. How could any creature born of this morally­devoid muck do anything but rip the flesh off of the America we love? Spooky stuff. The filmmakers attempt to insert some humor, and at one point succeed, by confronting Michael Moore (in a very Michael Moore way) about his vast wealth as he stands in the middle of Zuccotti Park puffing his feathers for camera. This footage is followed by a very grainy shot of Michael Moore’s immense, I mean immense, Summer Home. I thought this was pretty damn funny. Unfortunately, the “Radical Right” still doesn’t get that you catch more flies with comedic honey (Jon Stewart) than you do with incendiary vinegar (Andrew Breitbart.) Sadly, their humor fails when they include WAY too many “dumb answers to a smart question” moments of the Occupiers.

It’s hard to tell if these were included as “gotcha” moments or comedy bits, but either way, they fall well­ short of even “JayWalking.” In the end, this documentary succeeds in its mission of dramatically “unmasking” a loosely-­affiliated group of disenfranchised dirty hipsters. But any fears of those people ruining the “American Way of Life” are a distant second to the story of the people they were protesting against: the unchecked, amoral Wall Street Plunderers who in fact DID ruin the “American Way of Life.” Unfortunately, these filmmakers solely focused on splattering brains without even acknowledging the evil virus that caused this plague.

27. The Billionaires’ Tea Party – 2 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A “hide your wife, hide your kids” film that hopes to “expose” the radical truth about the Tea Party movement and anyone attached to it. (Sound familiar? See above)

Thoughts: How can something pretend to be the opposite of a thing it is exactly like? Having seen “Occupy Unmasked”, I figured I should watch something a bit more liberal. It was probably a bad idea to watch these back-­to-­back as this film screams, “Danger! Danger!” just as loudly, though not nearly as well, as “Occupy Unmasked.” Made by some foreign dude, the picture it creates is painted painfully by the numbers. Evidence that Tea Partiers are so fat and lazy they have to bring lawn chairs to rallies? Check! Poorly spelled and lettered signs? Check! Trotting out of the eeevil Koch twins? Yes! Boom! Trifecta!

While I am in no way sympathetic to the Tea Party movement from a philosophical point of view, if I believe they are all butter­chinned ignoramuses, then I have to believe that those crazy Occupy kids are all zombies. And I don’t think they’re zombies. On the bright side, this film has my all-­time favorite documentary cliche. Whilst we watch a shot of the documentarian driving his rental car through rural America, his voiceover announces, “so I set out to find…” When this phrase is uttered in a documentary, 9 times out of 10, you’re about to watch a stinker.

From there it doesn’t get much better. We are shown a brochure shot of the ritzy hotel where the Koch twins conduct their totally secret meetings (that EVERYONE seems to know about.) The only really shocking thing about the photo was the fact that the resort didn’t look all that nice considering most of the jackasses meeting there are billionaires.

One of the filmmaker’s proudest moments seems to be when he catches a Tea Party Technology Guru (a seemingly glaring oxymoron) suggest that people go online and give BAD reviews for liberal books. What?!?! Oh, thank you for recording this man without him knowing so we can finally see the truth. Get this, the Tea Party’s strategy is to do what every 13-year-­old girl on Instagram, every Mountain Dew-­addicted fatso on Reddit, and every unqualified documentary reviewer does online -­ espouse their dumb opinions with little or no interest in hearing any others. This just isn’t earth shattering.

Despite agreeing politically with the filmmaker, his movie is a good example of what’s wrong with political discourse. To him (and the Breitbarts of the world) the only way you could not agree with me is if you are dumb or apathetic. So this viewer will “set out to find” which I am, just not with the help of some foreign dude.

“Everyday Sunshine: The Story of Fishbone”, “Occupy Unmasked” and “The Billionaires’ Tea Party” are available on NetFlix.

PART EIGHT

DOC-UARY: 31 DOCS IN 31 DAYS – PART EIGHT

Reviews by Chris MacKenzie

22. The Sound and Fury – 4 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A fascinating look at the controversy surrounding deaf children being fitted with cochlear implants.

Thoughts: This film shines for the simple reason that it speaks to not just the issue of restoring hearing to kids, but how a family agonizes over the decision on whether or not to follow through on it. In what would seem like a slam­dunk idea to hearing parents of a deaf child, the majority of the people in this family are deaf, casting a new light on both sides of the issue. This film does an excellent job of showing you the stress involved in making a decision like this. Again, one that most people wouldn’t think twice about doing, but really does carry the potential to alter the lives and identities of several members of one family.

It would be very easy to condemn the large group of deaf people who bristle at the thought of making kids (their perfectly normal kids( “normal,” but there is no denying that the emotions are real. These implants very literally mean the death of the deaf culture. The fact that the implants work much better for kids than adults, coupled with the prevailing developmental theory that those kids shouldn’t learn to sign, is understandably threatening to many in the deaf community. It is this element that proves to be the most insightful, as any instance in which one can radically change their perception of the world, at the expense of what they’ve known, will make some waves.

The film is a few years old and there have been follow-­ups to what decisions the parents made. I didn’t watch those follow­-ups, but did poke around on the internet to see how things eventually turned out. This was a fascinating story.

23. The Tents – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A documentary about the birth, development and rise to prominence of New York City’s fashion week.

Thoughts: While my girlfriend is deeply involved in the world of fashion, and specifically the Fashion Week shows, I had little knowledge of what these shows were all about. This documentary does a good job of providing context for a “scene” that most outsiders would not give a lot of importance to. But the social, artistic, and business aspects of Fashion Week are well­ explained by the folks who forced, through blood, sweat, and thread to make New York Fashion Week as important as (and maybe even more influential than) any fashion event on the planet.

Lots of great interviews from people who border on the ridiculous don’t alienate you from the subject matter, but give a better appreciation for it. The film does feel a bit dated as it specifically deals with the last year the fashion tents were in Bryant Park. They have since moved to Lincoln Center, but the movie stops before they get there, looking back to pay homage to where it all started and how far they’ve come.

24. How Beer Saved the World – 3.5 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A sometimes cheeky, sometimes deep analysis of the role beer has played in fueling every major development in the history of civilization.

Thoughts: While definitely one­-sided, this (originally a TV program) documentary does present some interesting facts about beer. Starting with the first interesting fact, that beer has been around 3,000 years longer than bread, the program shows just how important the most “common” of alcohols is. From serving as the paycheck for workers building the Egyptian Pyramids, to re­directing the route of the Mayflower, beer’s influence is felt from the microscopic to the galactic.

The further we get into the show, the more obvious it is that Miller/­Coors most likely bankrolled the production. But to their credit, they don’t beat you over the head with it. As a big beer fan, and former leader of beer tasting seminars, there were several tid­bits I had never known. These are the real gems of this movie, learning cool facts that, if nothing else, may get you a free round at the pub.

PART SEVEN

DOC-UARY: 31 DOCS IN 31 DAYS – PART SEVEN

Reviews by Chris MacKenzie

19. Dreams of a Life – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A documentary about a British woman who laid dead in her apartment, with the TV still on, for three years before being discovered.

Thoughts: With a slug line like that, I was very excited to see this documentary. I mean, how on earth could something like that happen? But while the movie does give you all of information it has, finding people to interview who the police were never able to locate, the end result is not really satisfying. It kind of becomes a story about how keeping people at bay, either because you are ashamed of where you come from, or because you just can’t let people in, is a recipe for being forgotten. The movie dwells on these themes, eschewing much of the CSI storyline we’re hoping to resolve. The movie relies heavily on re­enactments, which feels like filler for a story that the filmmaker must’ve realized would never have a tidy end.

The film is quick to point out the gory little details of the scene, but is then content to not explore them any further. Several items in the room at the time of her death would be interesting to know more about, but it feels like the filmmakers only had access to the stuff they dug up on their own. While it’s admirable that so many people from this woman’s uneventful past were found and interviewed, the interviews do seem to be a bit repetitive. Each one can be summed up with, “Yeah, it’s hard to really know someone, especially this woman.” While this film does a good job of fleshing out a woman who floated through life trying not to be tied to anyone, it still doesn’t connect all of the dots. With a story this intriguing, it’s a shame to not have more of a pay off. However, the final frame of the film, found footage of the woman in the crowd at a major news event is haunting. She is off to the side and hard to see, but that seems to be how this woman was.

20. I Like Killing Flies – 3.5 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A surprisingly candid view of a small New York City restaurant whose cook is as famous as he is grumpy.

Thoughts: Compared to the other food documentaries I’ve watched, this one has the most… flavor. It is the story of a man who, while not a gourmet chef, has a knack for cooking food that people love. His repertoire is extensive, but instead of rotating dishes on the menu, he just adds them to the menu making everything available all of the time. The kitchen in which he cooks is grease­blackened and falling apart, but it’s interesting to see that its shortcomings are what makes him such a good cook.

It’s amazing that the filmmakers were given such inside access to a guy whose greatest joy is yelling at customers and throwing them out. The tiny size of the place has created certain rules that must be followed, and its idiosyncratic owner is all too happy to enforce them. The movie takes an interesting turn when Shopsin’s (the restaurant) must move to a new location. Unfortunately, the film misses a golden opportunity to let us see if moving has changed the cook at all. He has a very fatalistic attitude, one that there is little chance of changing, but with the addition of more space, and less of a boiler room atmosphere, we don’t know what affect it had on him. I could’ve used a little more story at the end of the story.

21. Between the Folds – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
An ancient art is given a modern analysis as Origami’s complexity and intricate mathematics are explored.

Thoughts: Another TV show turned into a stand-­alone doc, this movie shows some interesting applications, both artistic and practical, for this ancient art. The mathematics of Origami stood out to me as being the most surprising aspect of Origami. Its intricate folds and geometry are analyzed and created using computer programs, and its unique ability to maximize space has influenced several seemingly unrelated applications. The artistic side shown, while beautiful, sometimes feels more like “paper sculpting” than “paper folding.”

As this is a survey of the current state of Origami, we don’t spend too much time with any one artist (or MIT genius,) and this is a shame. The characters presented in this film are as complex as the work they create, but in the end this film is about the work those people create.

WHEN YOU WISH UPON A “STAR”

Say It Ain’t So, George

Article by Patrick Garland

I, like many others of my generation, am a huge “Star Wars” fan. I’ve loved everything about it since I was a kid. I collected the toys, bought the bubble gum cards, and, with my brother, pretended to be Han Solo and Luke Skywalker fighting off the countless imperial bad guys who popped up in our backyard. Come to think of it, I actually did all three of those things again just last week.

When I heard Disney had bought the rights to “Star Wars” and was making Episodes 7-9, I was actually very pleased. Lucas himself originally said it was a nine or twelve-part story. I figured why not make some more great movies that I can take my kids to see? The excitement has been building for me ever since the news came out. But now I have read on the internet that Yoda, Boba Fett, and Han Solo are all going to get stand alone spin-off movies. This set of an alarm in my head. Does this mean Disney is going to try to squeeze every last Republic credit out of the franchise? It wouldn’t be like them to do something like that would it?
So it begins, my fellow “Star Wars” Fans…A legion of spin-offs from a galaxy far, far away……………………….

Here is my list of the top ten “Star Wars” spin-offs I think would be box office gold and should begin pre-production immediately.

Jar-Jar and Joey: Wackiness ensues when that loveable misfit Jar-Jar Binks teams up with that nutty misfit Joey Tribbiani of “Friends” fame to see if they can make a go of it in the big city lights of Coruscant.

The Blind Side: A powerful drama detailing a tragic series of events that leads to Luke getting a helmet stuck on his head with the blast shield down.

Cloud City with a Chance of Meatballs: Anything goes as Lando Calrissian has to deal with Tripper Harrison and his zany band of counselors in training when Camp North Star is relocated to the tibanna gas mining colony.

Palpatine: Director Steven Spielberg’s amazing biographical portrait of the former leader of the Republic and Empire.

Weekend at Qui-Gon Jinn’s: Qui-Gon Jinn is dead… but no one is going to know about it if Obi-Wan and Darth Maul can help it.
 
 
 
 
 
Empire Records: Darth Vader might get more than he bargained for as he tries to juggle love and romance in the grungy 90s, manage a independent record store, and keep track of the rag tag bunch of would be Stormtroopers that work for him.

Benny and Plo Koon: A tug at your heartstrings romantic tale that asks a simple question. Can two eccentric individuals find each other and fall in love? Not if Grand Moff Tarkin has anything to say about it.

The Full Mos Eisley: Tarfful and Chewbacca are two young Wookiees that have their heads full of dreams but unfortunately also have empty wallets. This leads them into a wretched hive of scum and villainy in the night time strip club scene of Mos Eisley’s Creature Cantina.

The Princess Diaries: It’s not easy growing up royal on Alderaan. Just ask Princess Leia. All she wants is a little freedom from her over-protective dad Bail Organa. At least he claims to be her dad. Is there more than meets the eye going on this soon to be doomed planet?

The Curious Case of Ian McDiarmid: A fascinating documentary on this wonderful actor who has managed to maintain a successful stage and film career even though all the while he has been aging backwards. Think about it.

PART SIX

DOC-UARY: 31 DOCS IN 31 DAYS – PART SIX

Reviews by Chris MacKenzie

16. Winnebago Man – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
Documentarians track down the star of a profanity-­laden, pre-­internet viral video about RVs.

Thoughts: I remember seeing the video that serves as the centerpiece of this documentary several times and it is hysterical. It’s star, who is trying to shoot an industrial video for Winnebago, has the blustery machismo of Dabney Coleman, but with the humiliating luck of a Will Ferrell. It is classic. In this documentary, the filmmakers track down several members of the crew, and finally, the star himself.

Meeting, and getting to know Jack Rebney himself, is the best part of this film. To that end, there is a little too much fluff before we get there, and it feels like we could’ve spent more time with him. Aside from the crew, the other people just aren’t that interesting. “Experts” in various fields are interviewed, and their only collective, one­ dimensional insight is: “That guy is so dumb. People like to watch buffoons.”

There was no effort to look deeper into why it’s so funny, and I imagine the filmmakers were trying to set us up for what I was already miles ahead on: “I bet this guy is pretty nice.” Indeed, getting to know Jack is great. He is still as lively and verbally­explosive as ever, but in seeing all the dimensions of him we grow to love his cantankerous charms. As this is the best part of the film, I won’t go into too much detail, but the filmmakers wrap this documentary up perfectly.

17. The Marinovich Project – 4 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
An “ESPN: 30 for 30″ documentary about Todd Marinovich, the grid­iron Wunderkind whose father had raised him from birth to be the greatest quarterback of all time.

Thoughts: For quick TV documentaries, these 30 for 30s are great. While I love sports, I think non-­sports fans would like a lot of these as they do a great job of telling the story, while also giving you a solid context for why this was an important moment/subject. I didn’t know many of the specifics of Marinovich’s life, just that his overbearing father had driven him so hard that this perfect physical specimen of quarterback completely unraveled. This documentary does an amazing job of filling in the holes, and assigning the blame in a way I did not expect.

Along with Todd Marinovich and several former colleagues, Todd’s father is interviewed. I was aghast that he would agree to an interview, given that Todd’s upbringing led to him become one of the greatest train­wreck stories of professional sports. But as they reveal every aspect of the story, they reveal the starkly honest truth. There are great segments where Todd is giving what is basically a play-­by-­play of his emotions during some of his greatest, and most disappointing games.

In the end, I got a totally new perspective on what happened, as well as great insight into conflict between where your talents can take you, and where you’d like to go.

18. King’s Ransom – 3.5 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A nearly line-­item retelling of how Wayne Gretzky, the greatest hockey player of all time, got traded from puck­-crazy Edmonton, Canada to the unspeakably blase city of Los Angeles.

Thoughts: Another great “30 for 30,” but this one might be more for sports fans. What is so great about this story, is that these days, there’s nothing great about this story. A star leaving for a richer contract is now commonplace, but this documentary is about a time when that was not the case. The player, and more importantly, the era, are what make this story riveting. Gretzky, who doesn’t need to be called the “Michael Jordan of Hockey,” because he is the Gretzky of hockey, was as close as Canada had to royalty. Beyond what he did on the ice, Canadians saw him as their greatest son. But Gretzky’s contract came due for re-negotiations, and beyond team loyalty or owner loyalty, there was money. We see the math that created this trade, and with fantastic interviews from everyone involved in the dealings, understand that there was no way this trade couldn’t have happened. You understand every side of the deal, but also understand why the fans were so crushed.

Where this documentary really interested me was when I realized that this horrible, fan-­shattering equation is now
status quo. Every player and every owner in every sport now does exactly what these people did. Except now, it’s just understood it was going to happen,­ then it was unthinkable. Without going too crazy about it, the filmmaker’s show this as a watershed moment, from a financial, as well as fan, perspective. It’s hard to argue that any fan base has been blind-­sided worse since “The Great One” left for La­La Land, but this was also the inevitable death of innocence. Lebron James‘ “Decision” certainly raised equal ire, but everyone knew it was a possibility, if not out­-and­-out inevitable.

I may be reading more into the moment than a sports fanatic would, but if nothing else, this is an excellent example of how professional sports has changed in the last 30 years.

NATIONAL TALK RADIO NETWORK – THE HATER NATION RADIO SHOW
February 20, 2012
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe appear on The Hater Nation Radio Show on The National Talk Radio Network to talk about the biggest names nominated for Oscars at The 85th Academy Awards. (24 min. 12 sec.)

Listen to The Hater Nation HERE.

LATALKRADIO.COM – BROAD TOPICS
February 19, 2012
Movie Guys Paul Preston and Karen Volpe stopped in on LA TALK RADIO’s “Broad Topics” to preview The 85th Oscars, covering six of the major categories with picks and predictions, and the jokes fly. (13 min. 59 sec.)

Listen to Broad Topics HERE.

OSCAR RANT 2013

(Honoring the films of 2012)

Rant by Paul Preston

Not a great year.

I really had trouble putting together a top ten.

That being said, there were many good films, but I saw too many flaws in the “upper tier” of 2012’s well-regarded films to take ten and put them leagues above the rest. Unlike in past years where I really labored over whether “Inglourious Basterds” was better than “Up”, my 2012 top ten is a #1 that I LOVE, and #2-10 that are good. The commercial successes that really took off were pretty impressive, and the art films that could have overwhelmed ended up leaving me wanting more.

Again, not a great year.

Here we go:

10. INTOUCHABLES – This French box office sensation translated quite well to this overseas viewer. The story of an unusual relationship between a wealthy invalid and his street-smart caretaker nimbly straddles the line between authenticity and schmaltz…..some would tell you. I bought it all. The two lead performers, Omar Sy and Francois Cluzet, have a palpable chemistry, they are the authenticity, but the script puts them in some “movie” situations that might be considered cheesy. Not this guy. Funny, touching, and at times powerful, “Intouchables” (which means ‘untouchable’) is entertaining as hell with a great payoff.

9. FLIGHT – Thank god Robert Zemeckis made a real movie again. He’s cut with shit with that motion capture stuff that only he championed, and just like that, he’s back in my top ten. “Flight” is a story of addiction, and it’s told with a fascinating backdrop: the main character and addict is a commercial airline pilot. The film begins by showing, back to back, scenes of heinous drug use, then incredible skill behind the wheel of a jet. Denzel Washington, still a wizard at making it look easy, nails the charm and weakness required to make us want to see the story of this man who is both horribly flawed and yet always interesting. A lesser actor and I might’ve stopped caring about an asshole addict early on. Or a lesser director and I might’ve stopped watching, too. Zemeckis’ really seems to have rallied against his animated films here by making a hard R drama that is challenging and surprising and keeps you wondering if this is a redemption story right until the end.

8. DJANGO UNCHAINED – If you’re wondering if director Quentin Tarantino has put out a new film any given year, just look in my top ten list and you’ll know. He did, in fact, make a new film this year, and here he is once again. “Django” isn’t quite the film “Inglourious Basterds” was (which made my #1 in 2009), I thought “Django” had a couple of endings. But when “Django” is moving, it is it’s own beast. Which is to say that this movie doesn’t give a FUCK what you want, what you expect and I doesn’t care about you at all. It’s rolling out its story, doing it’s thing and it don’t give a FUCK. And MAN, is that refreshing. You know what? I’m gonna put Rick Ross’s “100 Black Coffins” in the middle of my western. Suck on that. Oh, and ‘80s icons Tom Wopat, Lee Horsley and Don Johnson will be cast in substantial roles. So blow me. Tarantino breaks rules all over the damn place, and where I’ve crapped on some directors for shifting TONE slightly in a movie, I just can’t fight against what Quentin is dishing out. Ever. It’s best to just give over. And when you do, you open yourself up to a master who consistently makes the most unique quality movies today.

7. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES – “The Dark Knight” (my #1 film of 2008) was so universally lauded by critics, people wondered why it wasn’t nominated for an Oscar (YEAH, I wondered, too). So the next year, in one of those “Hey, let’s make the MLB All-Star game mean something” kind of moves, the Academy ‘fixed’ what wasn’t broke, by expanding the number of nominees from five to “up to ten”. This was a blatant attempt to include popular movies in the nominee mix and expand the number of people who give a damn about the Oscars. I get that when they nominated “The Reader” instead of “The Dark Knight”, they won over NO viewers, but then they opened themselves up to nominating the pedestrian “The Blind Side”, which knocks their cred quite a bit. POINT – if “The Dark Knight” deserved an Oscar nomination, where’s the love for “The Dark Knight Rises”? If I had TEN slots to put Best Pic nominees in, there’s definitely room for Christopher Nolan’s sprawling, epic, DARK story of the final challenges of a legendary hero. Upon first viewing, I definitely had issues with Bane. Despite a menacing performance by Tom Hardy, there were major issues with the sound recording (and re-recording) of his voice that were distracting. His voice sounded removed from location, laid over top all the other audio, but this is mended somehow in the home video setting. Upon second viewing, I could settle in more for a thorough UNsettling. This film just got under my skin. Gotham has become really, really unpleasant by the third film in this series, and it made for a complex story thick with character and mood. Plus, this trilogy has been blessed with good actors, and the usual quality of Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman was on display, and is now coupled now with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the surprising talents of the she-annoys-me-in-real-life Anne Hathaway. There wasn’t as much humor here as when The Joker ran Gotham, but it’s nevertheless as compelling as the other films in this remarkable trilogy. Good luck to the poor bastard who takes over this franchise.

6. THE INVISIBLE WAR – Kirby Dick’s documentary does what all good documentaries should do – it gets you really fired up! And really pissed off. Dick set out to expose the military’s dirty little secret – an epidemic of rape cases amongst the soldiers. Mostly women, but there are stories of men being raped by other heterosexual men documented as well. Regardless, it is a violent act that is being treated by the military the same way the church is handling the molestation of young boys – by handling it internally and under-punishing perpetrators with as little press as possible. This doc wins in who it’s participants are. There are many brave women who tell their stories in the film, and each of them is fascinating and strong and you want to root for them, and just the right things happen to them, for better or worse, to make the doc vastly compelling. Outside of a score being a bit too ambitious at times, Dick has paced this film expertly, compiled intriguing archival footage and gets the occasional moment every doc filmmaker loves when the right person being interviewed puts their foot in their mouth. It’s one of those making-the-world-better-‘cause-it-exists films.

5. ARBITRAGE – Richard Gere was made for this part. The majority of his career’s success has come from playing white collar guys, especially in his later career, from “Pretty Woman” to the lawyer in “Primal Fear” to Billy Flynn in “Chicago”. Nowadays most white collar guys are considered assholes. So it’s only right that now Gere is totally convincing here as a white collar ASSHOLE! And with that being said, he also makes him human, making this thriller compulsively watchable. As the film starts, Gere’s character is trying to close a big corporate deal and have it all, like these greedy bastards often do. But his greed has mortal consequences and he spends the rest of the movie trying to cover everything up. Tim Roth shows up to look like a seedy cop and crawl up his ass, and he looks like he’s having a blast being shlubby. So it’s shlubby vs. asshole. You don’t get any more current that that. This is the first big feature for Nicholas Jarecki, yet it’s directed with impressive confidence, and he builds real suspense as Gere tries to hold his career together. Once again, as with “Chicago”, Gere’s been Oscar-snubbed for one of the best performances of his career. Shame.

4. LOOPER – Rian Johnson, would you mind telling me why you thought you could even make this film? Having never touched this genre before, writer-director Johnson fashioned a distinctive sci-fi effort worth multiple views. Loopers, in our near future, are assassins who line themselves up at stations and wait for people to appear from the future. Upon their appearance, they are shot and disposed of, thus creating a murder in the future that will leave no traces or body. Follow? It might be tough to follow some of this film, but the film itself has a very cavalier attitude about its adherence to time travel philosophy. It sets up some rules, follows them best it can and then just makes with the action. And the film is better for it. Remember the “Back to the Future” sequels, with all their schematic diagrams and whatnot trying to explain how time travel works? Then they went and broke their own rules anyway (but not in a good way). In short, the “Back to the Future” films say that events can spark new timelines that are followed and people can end up on two different timelines even if they started in the same place. However, when old Biff steals the DeLorean to deliver the sports almanac to young Biff, he returns the DeLorean to the same timeline. He shouldn’t have. His action should’ve propelled him forward to a new timeline where he would NOT have reunited with Marty and Doc and Marty and Doc would’ve been stranded in their future Hill Valley. Follow? See how little you want to listen to all that shit? Wouldn’t you rather just see JGL and Bruce Willis kick ass? Plus, there are moral dilemmas to deal with, too, as Levitt and Bruce Willis, who plays Levitt’s older self, fight to make different futures, and both bring valid ideas tot he table. So, it’s littered with cool sci-fi, great dialogue, unique action sequences AND it’s smart? Sign me up.

3. THE AVENGERS – WHERE IS THIS FILM ON ALL THE CRITICS’S LISTS? So back in May it’s OK to sit in your shorts and T-shirt and give “The Avengers” a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but when December rolls around it’s time put on a tux and start hailing the virtues of “Les Miserables” and “Amour”? PUH-LEEZE. “The Avengers” is a towering achievement, a mass-audience entertainment that is heavy on humanity and wit. And if “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” (one of the worst Best Picture statues ever given out) is an award for the trilogy, then can we get some kind of special award for the feat pulled off by Marvel here? “The Avengers”, as a capstone to a series of superhero films, is faithful to those movies and improves on the whole string of adventures in the process. Joss Whedon manages, oh, sixty or seventy ICONIC shots in this movie, and he makes all the characters interesting. There’s no wading through a Jar-Jar to get to the good stuff. Plus, the casting goes a long way. It’s been reported that Robert Downey, Jr. is fully aware of where his bread is buttered and will play Tony Stark as long as they’ll have him. This is good for all of us. Plus, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo are Oscar-nominated actors bringing solid work to their parts and this is easily the best work of Chris Evans’ career. “The Avengers” avoids melodrama and camp, and everywhere you think it will fail, it gets better.

2. SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS – Oh Martin McDonagh, TWO films into your career and you’re already one of my heroes. The writer/director of the not-enough-people-have-seen-it “In Bruges” returns with another exercise in idiosyncratic dialogue and characters. With a parallel career as a Tony-nominated playwright, I was hoping for great dialogue, he delivered, but “In Bruges” showed he could sculpt an artful film, too. But “Seven Psychopaths” also proves that he can think big. This film has a more expansive landscape and he deftly moves from story to the stories within the story smoothly. And the ride is so much goddamn fun. Colin Farrell, continuing his best work in indie films, plays a struggling screenwriter who gets embroiled in a dog-napping ring. This story of lunatics involving time-tested psychopaths Christopher Walken, Sam Rockwell & Woody Harrelson sidetracks to the stories of the screenplays Farrell and Rockwell are working on, and eventually the worlds collide, not in a “Purple Rose of Cairo” fantasy way, but in an ingenious, “Adaptation”-but-more-fulfilling-for-me kind of way. Wildly gory, wickedly profane and the most original of the year’s films, “Seven Psychopaths” is awesome.

1. ARGO – I’ve had “Argo”’s back since it was released in September. I kinda feel like that guy who, when ‘The Joshua Tree’ came out, said, “Sure, now all of America’s in love with U2, I’ve liked them for four albums now!”. So after singing its praises for three months, the rest of the awards’ season kudos are getting in line with me: “Argo” is the year’s best film. It’s time to put the “Did Ben Affleck really write ‘Good Will hunting’?” rumors to rest. He’s an immense talent. Just a second, please, myself from the year 2002 is freaking out at the last sentence I just typed. After impressive turns with “Gone Baby Gone” and “The Town”, Affleck earned the right to take a swing at this unique script about a detailed attempt to extract American hostages from Iran in 1979 by pretending they’re part of a film crew making a Sci-Fi movie. This story benefits from a finale that isn’t universally known (seriously, did you really know the details of this event before you sat down to watch “Argo”?). More good casting here (it’s about time we had an Oscar for this) in that the cast is filled with stalwart supporting actors doing great work – John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston – and in many other supporting roles (the hostages), actors who are not household names don horrendous ‘70s hair and clothes, delivering authentic performances laced with fear, anger and bewilderment. Affleck is great here on screen, too, showing a subtlety and confidence we haven’t seen yet, to the point where, when I saw John Krasinski in “Promised Land”, I thought, man, BEN AFFLECK would be better in that part. BEN AFFLECK?!?! There’s first-rate re-creation of place and time in the costume and production design as well as a skillful combination of suspense and humor, as the events unfold in Iran alongside the CIA’s attempt to work with Hollywood (where the humor comes in) to withdraw the hostages. The whole creation from scratch of the bogus film campaign is hilarious. But the film wins in creating palpable tension out of URGENT events being done at EVERYDAY pace. It’s fascinating.

RUNNERS-UP:
LINCOLN – Spielberg avoids most of the oversentimentality of some of his previous works like “Amistad”, and comes into this project with a great script and a tour-de-force lead performance. A little long and sometimes ploddy, but a real smart, adult work overall.
ZERO DARK THIRTY – Despite knowing the outcome, there’s real tension in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The investigation gets a little analytic and methodical to always be exciting, but Kathryn Bigelow can make a hell of a movie.
THE IMPOSSIBLE – A lovely family reunion movie. Oh, and it’s coupled with some of the most horrifying storm footage ever to explode on the big screen.
MAGIC MIKE – Charming as all hell and a movie that just looks EASY. Soderbergh, please don’t retire.

THE WORST
These were easier to put together than the best:
AMOUR – I get that the pace was supposed to be indicative of the slow torture an old couple went through as one of it’s members dies. But it’s patience-testing to stick to that pace when you’re really offering NOTHING to watch. NOTHING really happens here, and then characters will write or describe to others the nothing that just happened. It’s horrible. The worst film of the year, and the worst Best Picture nominee since “Ghost”.
RED DAWN – This movie is just horrible all ‘round, but mostly it sucks ‘cause of Josh Peck, who looks like he’s falling asleep WHILE he’s saying his lines and making Chris Hemsworth look like Daniel Day-Lewis.
THE WATCH – Somebody tell the generally enjoyable lead actors in this film that they shouldn’t have to work so hard. New material, please.
WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU’RE EXPECTING – Moms puke, babies puke, there’s a car race with someone in labor who is screaming for drugs. If these scenarios are fresh to you, you’ll love it.
THE HOBBIT – Shit, there are two more movies of this slow-moving nonsense?
HYDE PARK ON HUDSON – Great performance from Bill Murray in an awkward, cheese-fest of a flim
THE ODD LIFE OF TIMOTHY GREEN – Pedestrian on every level, and, hey, there’s one of those scenes where the family is all dancing together in the living room! E-mail movieguysla@aol.com if that has EVER happened to your family.

SPECIAL CATEGORY
JOHN CARTER – Look around. This “massive failure”, “total bomb” and “egregious flop” isn’t on many ten worst lists. It’s not that bad.

THE OSCARS:

BEST PICTURE
“Amour”
“Argo”
“Beasts of the Southern Wild”
“Django Unchained”
“Les Misérables”
“Life of Pi”
“Lincoln”
“Silver Linings Playbook”
“Zero Dark Thirty”

Glaring Omission: I thought “Moonrise Kingdom” had a shot here. It won early award in the season like Best Picture at the Gotham Awards, but then it kind of faded out. But “Les Miz” won no Best Picture awards anywhere, yet here it is. I also thought “The Sessions” might benefit from the large number of nominees and be the indie choide, but there was only room for one indie, and “Beasts” took that spot. Other than that, you saw my top ten, I’d keep two and switch out seven of the nominees.
Runners-up: “Seven Psychopaths”. I bring his name up here – Martin McDonagh – ‘cause you will hear it again.
Great Inclusion: “Django Unchained”. What an unconventional Best Picture. What if it wins? Has anyone thought for a second how much of a revolutionary move that’d be?
Will Win: “Argo” – it’s sweeping the Guild Awards, not to mention the Globes, Critics’ Choice and BAFTA awards. People will also be looking to reward the Best Director-snubbed Affleck in other ways.
Should Win: “Argo” – see my #1 film of the year.

BEST ACTOR
Bradley Cooper in “Silver Linings Playbook”
Daniel Day-Lewis in “Lincoln”
Hugh Jackman in “Les Misérables”
Joaquin Phoenix in “The Master”
Denzel Washington in “Flight”

Glaring Omission: Before I launch into any of this acting stuff, let it be known that there’s no way to pick the “BEST” Actor unless everyone is performing the same role. That aside, wrongfully omitted here is Richard Gere in “Arbitrage”. This last decade has seen many unheralded GREAT performances from Gere, including “The Hoax”, “The Hunting Party” and “Chicago” and this is right up there. He’s PERFECT as the kind of corporate prick you could easily hate, but then the script makes him the main character, so you have to want to watch him, despite the unpleasantries. I think Gere in the role is 90% of the reason that totally works.
Runners-up: John Hawkes in “The Sessions”. Thought he had a real shot here. I might’ve put either of the above in, replacing Joaquin Phoenix, who brought truth to his role, but the role did NOTHING for me. And if you’ve read this far, you know I’m a fan of Omar Sy and Francois Cluzet from “Intouchables”, as well.
Great Inclusion: Bradley Cooper, who nailed that frantic energy of his character, and despite being the guy from “The Hangover” and “Wedding Crashers”, I bought it! Good on you, Bradley. I think he surprised all of us.
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, whose performance made thousands of struggling actors quit the business, ‘cause what’s the point if he’s out there doing THIS?

BEST ACTRESS
Jessica Chastain in “Zero Dark Thirty”
Jennifer Lawrence in “Silver Linings Playbook”
Emmanuelle Riva in “Amour”
Quvenzhané Wallis in “Beasts of the Southern Wild”
Naomi Watts in “The Impossible”

Glaring Omission: Nothing GLARING here, I hate to say it was not a great year for lead female performances. Last year I could think of three or four that got omitted, and I also felt really strong about the contentders (Streep, Close, Viola Davis, Michelle Williams, Rooney Mara). This year, I’m sort of…meh about this category. I didn’t always buy Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence’s character was a little too odd for me. “Amour” was just awful and in “The Impossible”, as good as Watts was, the film had her just playing victim a lot. The only actress left out might be Marion Cotillard, nominated for other awards this season for “Rust and Bone”. Helen Mirren in “Hitchcock” is a long-shot, but the SAG actors nominated her over Wallis, which says a lot for the prestige of her name, which could’ve carried her to a nomination in a film that was universally pretty trashed.
Runners-up: Judi Dench in “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” maybe? I’m reaching, here…
Great Inclusion: Quvenzhané Wallis, who carries this movie with nothing to rest on. We don’t know her as an actress, she doesn’t bring skills we know about, like humor, she just comes out of nowhere and nails it.
Will Win: Probably Lawrence, just edging out Chastain. I think the Academy, despite admiring Chastain for her talent, is excited to make Jennifer Lawrence the Golden Girl of the evening.
Should Win: Wallis, the rawest performance, whose character risked the most.

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Alan Arkin in “Argo”
Robert De Niro in “Silver Linings Playbook”
Philip Seymour Hoffman in “The Master”
Tommy Lee Jones in “Lincoln”
Christoph Waltz in “Django Unchained”

Glaring Omission: Nothing glaring here, either. Lots of good performances in this category this year, and these five have been nominated in pretty much all pre-Oscar awards. The outsider’s chance included Javier Bardem in “Skyfall”, perhaps one of the first Bond films ever to be recognized for ACTING! However, maybe the best supporting actor turn I’ve seen all year, yet not recognized ANYWHERE, is Tom Holland as Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor’s son Lucas in “The Impossible”. As a young man forced to become the man of the family in the face of a tragedy, he delivers a big performance.
Runners-up: Jason Clarke in “Zero Dark Thirty”, totally believable as a soldier who is really good at torture, yet seems slightly tired of it. Matthew McConaughey in “Magic Mike”, recognized here so that he can be encouraged to stop appearing in bullshit movies and work more with Soderbergh and other quality directors. And not for nothin’, god DAMN I loved Tom Cruise in his out-of-place performance in the otherwise wretched “Rock of Ages”.
Great Inclusion: Philip Seymour Hoffman. “The Master” is a polarizing movie, but in the middle of it are two authentic performances. And Hoffman is so consistent from project to project, it’s crazy-impressive.
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones
Should Win: Hoffman. Nowadays, if he’s nominated, he should win. He’s that good. Perhaps the best, most emotionally invested actor out there.

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Amy Adams in “The Master”
Sally Field in “Lincoln”
Anne Hathaway in “Les Misérables”
Helen Hunt in “The Sessions”
Jacki Weaver in “Silver Linings Playbook”

Glaring Omission: Apparently I need to see this movie “Compliance” and see if Ann Dowd is truly amazing in it. She’s gotten a lot of pre-Oscar buzz to where she had a shot to be nominated here. I also thought Maggie Smith might squeak through with a nod for “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”.
Runners-up: Judi Dench in “Skyfall”, maybe? I’m reaching here…
Great Inclusion: Sally Field in “Lincoln”. Once an actor goes to TV (“Brothers and Sisters”), it’s never a done deal that they can return to the big screen triumphantly. Field’s turn in “Lincoln” is just that.
Will Win: Hathaway, she’s on a roll.
Should Win: Hathaway. And let me go on record for a couple of things. First, it’s NOT a big deal that she sang a whole song without cutaways. Actors (perhaps MORE talented) do that every night on stage in a production of “Les Miserables” somewhere in the world. Secondly, every giggling live appearance I see of Hathaway pretty much annoys me, capped off by her “please like me” hosting gig on The Oscars. Based on those appearances, there’s no way she should’ve pulled off Catwoman, but she did. And there’s no reason she should’ve had the gravitas required to play Fantine, but she did. She continues to surprise me.

BEST DIRECTOR
“Amour,” Michael Haneke
“Beasts of the Southern Wild,” Benh Zeitlin
“Life of Pi,” Ang Lee
“Lincoln,” Steven Spielberg
“Silver Linings Playbook,” David O. Russell

Glaring Omission: This sounds like a broken record if you’ve read my Oscar rants before, but missing here are four more nominees! A movie doesn’t achieve a Best Picture nomination by the producer’s vision alone. Ever since Rob Reiner said (when he wasn’t nominated in this category for Best Picture nominee “A Few Good Men”) that a Best Picture winner should mean Oscars for the producer AND director, I’ve agreed with that. Who’s behind the masterful vision of “Django Unchained”? Harvey Weinstein? Yet, if it wins, people like Reginald Hudlin and Michael Shamberg will get statues. Doesn’t seem right. But let’s get to the real injustice here. Ben Affleck, winner of the Director’s Guild Award, the BAFTA, Critic’s Choice and Golden Globe Awards, wasn’t NOMINATED? Michael Haneke, whose first screw-up as a director was to fail to hire an editor, gets nominated? Travesty.
Runners-up: Tarantino and Kathryn Bigelow, from another Best Picture nominee, “Zero Dark Thirty”, that apparently directed itself. Bigelow brought fierce authenticity to “The Hurt Locker”, and does so again here.
Great Inclusion: David O. Russell. While Lily Tomlin has faded into obscurity, Russell continues to swing for the fences with every project. And as impressive as it is to make an epic or a period piece or an effects-laden film, it’s just as admirable to draw great performances out of your actors, to where they’re nominated in every acting category this year.
Will Win: Spielberg. With Affleck incapable of a write-in, I think the race is between Spielberg and Lee, who already both have Oscars.
Should Win: Russell. Spielberg still fell into the mildest of cheeses here and there, so Russell squeaks out a win in my book.

“Amour,” Austria
“Kon-Tiki,” Norway
“No,” Chile
“A Royal Affair,” Denmark
“War Witch,” Canada

Glaring Omission: “Rust and Bone”, “Intouchables”
Runners-up: I gotta go with “Intouchables” here. It seems like this year’s nominees are all ‘meaningful’ films. It’s be nice to see a comedy-drama sneak up and steal a spot amongst all this importance.
Great Inclusion: “No”
Will Win: “Amour”, sadly. It’s been WINNING PREVIOUS AWARDS LIKE THE LA FILM CRITICS and the PALME D’OR WHICH MAKES MY HEAD EXPLODE!! WTF??!?!?!
Should Win: “No”, if for no other reason, to say “No” to “Amour”.

BEST ANIMATED FILM
“Brave,” Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman
“Frankenweenie,” Tim Burton
“ParaNorman,” Sam Fell and Chris Butler
“The Pirates! Band of Misfits,” Peter Lord
“Wreck-It Ralph,” Rich Moore

Glaring Omission: Pretty good year for animated films. The only nominee I wasn’t too impressed with was “ParaNorman”. The jokes landed flat, the tone was just too odd to enjoy and the kid-who-sees-the-dead-in-order-to-help-them thing was done better in “The Sixth Sense”.
Runners-up: Well, the best animated film I saw all year was “Finding Nemo 3D”. Does that count?
Great Inclusion: “The Pirates! Band of Misfits”. Did you see this movie? No? You should have. HILARIOUS. Great voice acting and a loose sense of humor that Aardman Animation is known for. And although I liked “Arthur Christmas”, it’s good to see Aardman back to stop-motion animation here. They are so ridiculously impressive with it, they deserve some kind of award for finishing these movies in the first place.
Will Win: “Wreck-It Ralph”. I’m picking “Ralph” ‘cause it won a ton of Annie Awards, even though “Brave” won big at the Visual Effects Society Awards.
Should Win: “Wreck-It Ralph”. I saw “Brave” twice, but that’s because I’m a huge Pixar fanatic. But “Brave” starts out really generic, the ‘ol oppressed-by-my-parents princess tale, but then becomes original halfway through when a spell takes hold of one of the parents. The typical wit and glorious action Pixar is known for is all on display. But “Wreck-It Ralph” is original from the get-go. And although not Pixar, the whole thing, as with all projects now at Disney, is supervised by Pixar legend John Lasseter, so when the film hits you with some heart at the end, “Wreck-It Ralph” hits the heart/laughs/action trifecta, coupled with outrageous animation and loads of inside jokes about video games.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
“Argo,” Chris Terrio
“Beasts of the Southern Wild,” Lucy Alibar & Benh Zeitlin
“Life of Pi,” David Magee
“Lincoln,” Tony Kushner
“Silver Linings Playbook,” David O. Russell

Glaring Omission: Nothing really glaring here. More interesting is the inclusion of “Beasts of the Southern Wild”. It seems that something like “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” racked up more nominations for other awards leading up to Oscar.
Runners-up: “The Avengers”. Making the scope of that plot understandable, even to The Avengers uninitiated, and filling it with great dialogue while being true to the themes of heroes and Marvel lineage was quite a feat. Also “The Dark Knight Rises” script was a sprawling epic that held everything together nicely and wrapped up everything together cleanly.
Great Inclusion: “Lincoln”. Tony Kushner’s script was the co-star of that movie, and with a lesser actor in the lead, it might’ve been the star itself.
Will Win: “Lincoln”
Should Win: “Lincoln”, as much as I want to give it to “Argo”, the pontificating of “Lincoln” and the smooth-handed way in which a lot of information is relayed by the President is just cool.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
“Amour,” Michael Haneke
“Django Unchained,” Quentin Tarantino
“Flight,” John Gatins
“Moonrise Kingdom,” Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola
“Zero Dark Thirty,” Mark Boal

Glaring Omission: Speaking of “Wreck-It Ralph”, no animated movies were nominated. “Ralph” is wall-to-wall originality, successfully setting up an entire world, populating it with interesting characters and a never-seen before plot. PLUS great dialogue.
Runners-up: “Amour”? Seriously”? That script is about ten pages long because NOTHING HAPPENS. So if you discard that festering sore of a script, you could replace it with the wildly creative “Seven Psychopaths”, and the Academy wouldn’t even have to feel like they’re pandering to a popular project. Martin McDonagh already has an Oscar for Best Short Film and his script for “In Bruges” was nominated. I would love to have seen the great story-within-a-story creativity of this film in the mix.
Great Inclusion: “Django Unchained”, ‘cause it don’t give a fuck.
Will Win: “Zero Dark Thirty”. I think it barely beats out “Django Unchained”, but a Golden Globes win could mean a “Django” upset
Should Win: “Django Unchained”. When “Zero Dark Thirty” gets a little bogged down in the procedural aspects of its plot, it reminds you that “Django” has no time for that. ‘Cause “Django” don’t give a fuck.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
“5 Broken Cameras”
“The Gatekeepers”
“How to Survive a Plague”
“The Invisible War”
“Searching for Sugar Man”

Glaring Omission: I will admit to failing to do due diligence and not getting out to see all of these films this year. But I also didn’t see anything that wasn’t nominated, so at least I’m consistent…. But maybe “Bully”? I thought that was an annoyingly-made, yet effective, film.
Runners-up: See above.
Great Inclusion: “The Invisible War”. Hey, I saw that one!
Will Win: “Searching for Sugar Man”, it’s been winning many of the lead-up to Oscar awards
Should Win: “The Invisible War”. ‘Cause I saw it, and ‘cause it was excellent.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
“Inocente,” Sean Fine and Andrea Nix Fine
“Kings Point,” Sari Gilman and Jedd Wider
“Mondays at Racine,” Cynthia Wade and Robin Honan
“Open Heart,” Kief Davidson and Cori Shepherd Stern
“Redemption,” Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill

OK, now I don’t feel too bad now. NO ONE’S seen these.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
“Anna Karenina,” Seamus McGarvey
“Django Unchained,” Robert Richardson
“Life of Pi,” Claudio Miranda
“Lincoln,” Janusz Kaminski
“Skyfall,” Roger Deakins

Glaring Omission: Maybe “Les Miserables”? I didn’t see all that 48fps nonsense that might’ve made me root for “The Hobbit”, so I’m not left to think anything’s missing here. And certainly, with Richardson, Kaminski and Deakins, you’ve included possibly three of the best EVER shooters that have ever worked.
Runners-up: “The Impossible”, just for the mere task of coupling all the photography with the brilliant visual effects. And any year Wally Pfister shoots a film, you have to take him into account, and “The Dark Knight Rises” looked as good as anything he’s ever shot. Also, “The Master”’s 70MM look was elegant.
Great Inclusion: Roger Deakins. I left “Skyfall” thinking to myself that that was the best shot James Bond movie ever made. It was GORGEOUS.
Will Win: “Life of Pi”. I think this film sneaks past “Lincoln” to win here,
Should Win: “Skyfall”. Deakins DID win the American Society of Cinematographers Award, so he’s got a shot to break the long streak of being nominated and never winning, but that damn “Life of Pi” has been in the mix every time…

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
“Anna Karenina,” Jacqueline Durran
“Les Misérables,” Paco Delgado
“Lincoln,” Joanna Johnston
“Mirror Mirror,” Eiko Ishioka
“Snow White and the Huntsman,” Colleen Atwood

Glaring Omission: Did anyone else make a Snow White movie? No? Then, OK, no glaring omissions. I’m also always put off by having all the nominees be fantasy films or period pieces. How ‘bout “Magic Mike”, huh? GREAT costumes…you gotta admit…
Runners-up: “Moonrise Kingdom”. Once again, Wes Anderson movies defy all place and time and simply exist in Andersonville, where everyone dresses….like they’re in a Wes Anderson movie. His look is so distinct, maybe we throw it an Oscar nod? Also, if we’re gonna go period piece, go “Argo”, those guys were horribly ‘70s.
Great Inclusion: “Lincoln”. The old statehouses of America were filled with guys who looked just like they do in those old paintings. You know the ones.
Will Win: This one’s pretty wide open. I’m gonna go with “Snow White and the Huntsman” ‘cause they loooooooove Colleen Atwood.
Should Win: “Lincoln”, ‘cause Lincoln looked more like I know Lincoln looks than Snow White looked like I know Snow White looks (editor’s note: that is a stupid reason)

BEST FILM EDITING
“Argo,” William Goldenberg
“Life of Pi,” Tim Squyres
“Lincoln,” Michael Kahn
“Silver Linings Playbook,” Jay Cassidy and Crispin Struthers
“Zero Dark Thirty,” Dylan Tichenor and William Goldenberg

Glaring Omission: Outside of the latter half of “Zero Dark Thirty”, where are the action movies? Films like “The French Connection” set the standard for how modern-day, fast-paced films can be expertly edited, but there’s no “Skyfall”, no “Looper”, which edited not only action, but time-jumping, with ease
Runners-up: “Cloud Atlas”. I didn’t like it so much, but it was one of those films that didn’t work for me, but I did admire the effort, and film that jumps many locations and six time periods asked a lot of the editor. I was never lost and the film kept a tight pace.
Great Inclusion: “Argo”, for doing the exact opposite of an action film, and finding a pace that coaxed a real tension out of the movie, without having to move at Jason Bourne-like speed. Plus, there was constant continent-jumping and sharp ability to support a film that can jump tone from tense to light.
Will Win: “Argo”
Should Win: “Argo”

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
“Hitchcock,” Howard Berger, Peter Montagna and Martin Samuel
“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” Peter Swords King, Rick Findlater and Tami Lane
“Les Misérables,” Westcott and Julie Dartnell

Glaring Omission: “Cloud Atlas”? Nobody’s been singing its praises, but perhaps they should. ‘Cause not only is there a good makeup design here that decorates different worlds and time periods, but the makeup often has to modify the same actor in each of those time periods.
Runners-up: “Looper”, for making JGL look like a young Bruce Willis.
Great Inclusion: “Les Miserables”, for achievement in muck-making
Will Win: “The Hobbit”, probably for the mere AMOUNT of makeup and wigging.
Should Win: “Les Miserables”

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
“Anna Karenina,” Dario Marianelli
“Argo,” Alexandre Desplat
“Life of Pi,” Mychael Danna
“Lincoln,” John Williams
“Skyfall,” Thomas Newman

Glaring Omission: I expected animated scores to be represented here. They’re usually pretty lively and you can whistle ‘em. The “Brave” score, especially, did a fine job of incorporating Scottish musicality into its melodies. And outside of Bond, no real action movies represented, either. I left the theater humming the theme from “The Avengers”. The only composer whose work sticks with me anymore is Michael Giacchino, so to be humming someone ELSE’s music was a big deal (thanks, Alan Silvestri). By the way, Giacchino’s animated score won an Oscar (“Up”).
Runners-up: Well, the best score I heard all year was “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in IMAX. Does that count? Also, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” had a cool score that didn’t entirely mimic the music of Louisiana. It found its own style, often dreamy, and still worked. And is “The Dark Knight Rises” score “original” since it incorporates themes from the previous Batman films? I loved it, and it might be one of the more mimicked scores of the year.
Great Inclusion: “Lincoln”. Is this even a category without John Williams?
Will Win: “Skyfall”. I think it’s got a real chance. And I love all those Bond scores that incorporate old Bond scores AND the theme song into the music.
Should Win: “Skyfall”

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
“Before My Time” from “Chasing Ice,” Music and Lyric by J. Ralph
“Everybody Needs A Best Friend” from “Ted,” Music by Walter Murphy; Lyric by Seth MacFarlane
“Pi’s Lullaby” from “Life of Pi,” Music by Mychael Danna; Lyric by Bombay Jayashri
“Skyfall” from “Skyfall,” Music and Lyric by Adele Adkins and Paul Epworth
“Suddenly” from “Les Misérables,” Music by Claude-Michel Schönberg; Lyric by Herbert Kretzmer and Alain Boublil

Glaring Omission: Once again, no animated films! Not too long ago, animated movies DOMINATED this category, with Alan Menken bleeding gold out of the Academy for nearly a decade. But these aren’t the old days, and even Will Smith put out a “Men in Black” movie and didn’t record a song. We were instead served up a Pitbull tune that’s impossible to listen to.
Runners-up: In fact, there’s only one song outside of one that’s nominated that I even remember hearing, let alone remembering how it goes, and that’s “Live to Rise” by Soundgarden from “The Avengers”. And even that is unremarkable by Soundgarden standards.
Great Inclusion: “Skyfall”, an improvement on whatever the song from “Quantum of Solace” was.
Will Win: “Skyfall”
Should Win: “Skyfall”,

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
“Anna Karenina” (Production Design: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer)
“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” (Production Design: Dan Hennah; Set Decoration: Ra Vincent and Simon Bright)
“Les Misérables” (Production Design: Eve Stewart; Set Decoration: Anna Lynch-Robinson)
“Life of Pi” (Production Design: David Gropman; Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock)
“Lincoln” (Production Design: Rick Carter; Set Decoration: Jim Erickson)

Glaring Omission: Much like the costume category, there’s a distinct lack of contemporary design. “Skyfall” won the Art Director’s Guild Award, so I thought they might be represented here.
Runners-up: But for my money, the real winner is “Zero Dark Thirty” for the authenticity of not only the bin Laden compound, but all the war zones and foreign locations. “Argo”’s place and time were also expertly recreated in the Hollywood, Washington and Iran locations.
Great Inclusion: “Lincoln”. Spielberg’s team, outside of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, has been on top of their game for years now.
Will Win: “Anna Karenina”, my guess is they’ll award ‘fancy’, just edging out “Life of Pi”, which is mostly visual effects.
Should Win: “Lincoln”

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
“Adam and Dog” (Minkyu Lee)
“Fresh Guacamole” (PES)
“Head over Heels” (Timothy Reckart and Fodhla Cronin O’Reilly)
“Maggie Simpson in “The Longest Daycare”” (David Silverman)
“Paperman” (John Kahrs)

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
“Asad” (Bryan Buckley and Mino Jarjoura)
“Buzkashi Boys” (Sam French and Ariel Nasr)
“Curfew” (Shawn Christensen)
“Death of a Shadow (Dood van een Schaduw)” (Tom Van Avermaet and Ellen De Waele)
“Henry” (Yan England)

One of the great misfortunes of this year was that I missed all the short nominees, except “Paperman”, which got a welcome theatrical run, playing with “Wreck-It Ralph”. “Paperman” is outstanding, a real valentine to love in the big city, with nods to old-school animation and Disney storytelling. Usually, I can make the LA screenings of all the shorts, the Academy itself screens them in their theater with Q&As with the filmmakers, but not this year, sadly. I believe they all show up on iTunes this week, so we all have some homework to do in this category.

BEST SOUND EDITING
“Argo” (Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn)
“Django Unchained” (Wylie Stateman)
“Life of Pi” (Eugene Gearty and Philip Stockton)
“Skyfall” (Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers)
“Zero Dark Thirty” (Paul N.J. Ottosson)

Glaring Omission: I’m harping on it at this point, but straight-up action and animation are missing again. This category is all about the creation of sounds and sound effects and huge, green screen adventures or animated tales have thousands of visuals that aren’t real that are MADE real by the audio effects. I thought “The Avengers” would be nominated here, as well as maybe “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” or “Wreck-It Ralph”
Runners-up: The best use of audio I heard all year was in “The Impossible”. The re-creation of the 2004 tsunami was horrifying and made most horrifying by the sound effects of breaking, smashing, water, drowning, relentless, smothering – it was palpable. If it’s not too late, see that one in the theater.
Great Inclusion: “Django Unchained”. I saw “Reservoir Dogs” recently, and wasn’t aware just how 1992 that movie was. Tarantino’s technical elements have gone from “that indie feel” to top notch. He’s got a great crew, and the team that built all the western and gunfire FX are no exception.
Will Win: “Life of Pi”. For the Academy, this is like awarding an effects-laden action film, except they can feel smart about it.
Should Win: “Skyfall”. The Bond film with the best production value in the history of the franchise.

BEST SOUND MIXING
“Argo” (John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff and Jose Antonio Garcia)
“Les Misérables” (Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson and Simon Hayes)
“Life of Pi” (Ron Bartlett, D.M. Hemphill and Drew Kunin)
“Lincoln” (Nelson, Gary Rydstrom and Ronald Judkins)
“Skyfall” (Scott Millan, Greg P. Russell and Stuart Wilson)

Glaring Omission: Again “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”, again “Wreck-It Ralph”
Runners-up: “Les Miz” wasn’t the only musical out there. What about “Joyful Noise”, man? “Rock of Ages”? Something like “Pirates!: Band of Misfits” would do well to be nominated here because of the life the sound mix gave to CLAY!!!
Great Inclusion: “Les Miserables”. The whole let’s-record-the-actors-on-set thing and mix it with the music later was rather ingenious, and brought out the best (and worst) in the actors, so I think for that experiment…
Will Win: …”Les Miz” will win.
Should Win: Sticking by “Skyfall”, ‘cause “Les Miz” did bring out the worst in some of the actors!

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” (Joe Letteri, Eric Saindon, David Clayton and R. Christopher White)
“Life of Pi” (Bill Westenhofer, Guillaume Rocheron, Erik-Jan De Boer and Donald R. Elliott)
“Marvel’s The Avengers” (Janek Sirrs, Jeff White, Guy Williams and Dan Sudick)
“Prometheus” (Richard Stammers, Trevor Wood, Charley Henley and Martin Hill)
“Snow White and the Huntsman” (Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, Philip Brennan, Neil Corbould and Michael Dawson)

Glaring Omission: “THE IMPOSSIBLE”! That tsunami, if I may gush again, was so horrifying, and I gotta believe that very, very little of it was actual water crushing people and buildings. Those long shots of Naomi Watts and Tom Holland floating on a mattress in the middle of a giant wave of water filled with debris and cars and buildings and trees – HOW THE HELL DID THEY DO THAT? And anytime you ask that question – Oscar.
Runners-up: “Cloud Atlas”. Looked great! Not really sure what it was about, but it looked great. “Total Recall” was also super-slick and sharp about its integrated effects. Bought every inch of that weird future world, from minute details in the living spaces to the giant train that roared through the center of the Earth. “The Amazing Spider-Man” benefited from being released in 2012. The effects were noticeably improved from 2002, allowing the director to craft really exciting action sequences that trumped what’s been done in the past with this franchise. And “Wrath of the Titans” LOOKED great. Too bad it really, really sucked.
Great Inclusion: “Prometheus”, if for no other reason than the ‘abortion’ scene.
Will Win: “Life of Pi”
Should Win: “The Avengers”. I was just in New York City recently, and it looked nothing like it did at the end of this movie. That VFX in action.

That’s it! Tune in Sunday, Feb. 24th for the awards, and let’s rejoice that it’s less than three months until “Star Trek: In Darkness” and “Iron Man 3” are in theaters!

PART FIVE

DOC-UARY: 31 DOCS IN 31 DAYS – PART FIVE

Reviews by Chris MacKenzie

13. The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
The story of a wild redneck family and the hell they raise.

Thoughts: I was looking forward to seeing this documentary, but upon viewing it, I was a little let down. I’m sure my lofty expectations didn’t help, but it just sorta felt like “Honey Boo Boo: The Movie.” There are certainly a lot of interesting characters profiled, but the “look at these crazy rednecks” angle of the film seemed a little mean.

By the time family members face the consequences for their actions, a fifty-year jail term, losing a newborn to CPS, the joke is over and what sympathy the filmmaker tries to elicit from us feels too little too late. I wanted to be on board with everything, but just couldn’t fully connect to what I was seeing or how I was supposed to feel. When the family of a newborn White is crushing and snorting prescription medication immediately following its birth, I found myself rooting for the baby to be taken away, not sympathetic to the sobbing mother.

I understand there’s a good doc on the patriarch of the family, and I will try to find it, because his crazy-­ass dancing seemed like the most interesting, and most glossed­-over, aspect of the family.

14. The Eames 3.5 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A comprehensive and intimate look at the couple behind the famous lounge chair of the same name and the huge design wave they created.

Thoughts: This slick documentary does a good job of providing insight into a couple whose impact is undeniable. Just as in real life, the overbearing personality of Charles Eames elbows out the story, and contributions, of the others involved. In its defense, the movie does acknowledge a lot of the friction this man created, but at the end of the day, it’s mostly a documentary about him.

The most interesting part to me was to see how unabashedly pro-­corporation Eames was. Ad agencies and design firms are inextricably linked to big business these days, but Eames seemed unique in being such an original creative vision and friend of Industry. There is plenty of great archival footage and interviews, and I felt like the filmmakers did a good job of conveying the concepts of Eames’ work, while providing the history of its evolution. The story of Eames echoes that of the other great “influencers” of that era, and this movie makes an excellent case for elevating him to the status enjoyed by those like Walt Disney.

15. Wasteland – No opinion (Out of 5 Shaky Lenses)
A documentary about a Brazilian artist.

Thoughts: I’m not gonna lie, I didn’t finish this one. It came well recommended, but I started it pretty late and fell dead asleep. Even when I woke up I didn’t feel especially motivated to finish it and moved on. I won’t say it’s bad, but there have been others that have kept me awake long into the night, or made me hustle to finish watching them.

“The Wild and Wondeful Whites of West Virginia”, “The Eames” are available on NETFLIX. So is “Wasteland”, but start watching it early in the evening, or daytime.

PART FOUR

DOC-UARY: 31 DOCS IN 31 DAYS – PART FOUR

Reviews by Chris MacKenzie

10. The Weather Underground – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A detailed look at the Weathermen, a band of radical 60s protestors who eventually lived several years in hiding after bombing US Government targets in protest of the government’s actions in Vietnam.

Thoughts: This film has great access to many of the major players both inside and out of the organization. As a result, this documentary is an interesting history lesson. It also serves as a good look at the arc this country took from 1965 to ­1980. Several of the members of the Weather Underground, including one still in prison, are interviewed, yet all seem to be holding back a bit. Not wanting to incriminate themselves for past crimes may be a clear part of it, but as the film progresses, we see a clear element of regret in their pauses.

The film traces the evolution of the group, from peaceful student protestors to what can only be called domestic terrorists. We are given the mindset of those involved, and you can see a logic in it, you also begin to see the huge holes in it. There are several actual recordings of the Weather Underground’s declarations, and while dated, they certainly sound passionately genuine. However, there is also lots of evidence shown that they were not considered a real part of the Revolutionary Left by groups like the Black Panthers. “Not acting against violence IS violence” becomes their credo, but throughout the film, most everything is chalked up to the intense passion of youth. While the filmmaker’s focus is obviously on the experience of the radicals, they do not delve very deeply into the staggering number of bombings carried out by the group.

It seemed like the movie wanted me to like the protestors at first, and in my opinion, overdid the, “See how bad things were?” set­up by showing too many graphic images from Vietnam. Not that atrocities weren’t going on, but the images shown certainly weren’t the images they were seeing in the everyday media. A full ­color shot of a man naked from the waist down bleeding profusely from a deep gash in his thigh was not on Walter Cronkite’s newscast, but this documentary uses images like this to justify the Weathermen’s intense passion to stop the war. This feels a little manipulative and there to put the Weathermen in the best light. Obviously, these things happened, but it feels a bit revisionist to imply these mostly­-privileged, white college students witnessed any of it.

The movie tosses around many of the terms from the sixties which don’t age well. Hip expressions like “Far Out” are heard often and begin to weaken more important terms like “Revolution.” Again, the movie doesn’t try to point this fact out, but it eventually makes you realize that these were cool kids who got swept up in a mess and took things a bit too far.

In the end, one of the leaders of the group sums things up the best when he states that if a violent act isn’t condoned by a government, then most people will see it as being inappropriate or worse, a sign of mental illness. It’s not clear if he means that as a complaint, or an epiphany, but by the time he says it, I felt it was the perfect explanation for why what they did, while noble in their minds, was wrong.

An end-­of-­film update on all of the members interviewed shows that most are still involved in progressive issues, but all have retreated to the same mainstream sensibility they sought to destroy. Despite my critique, this movie shouldn’t be viewed as a condemnation of 60s idealism, but it does give a good insight into anyone who thinks it’s right to employ violence in the name of self­righteousness,­ a theme that can be translated to several situations in today’s world.

11. El Bulli – 3 Shaky Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A look at the six month process a group of chefs goes through to come up with the finest, and most daring, avant guard cuisine available.

Thoughts: This documentary gives the ultimate fly-­on­-the­-wall look at what goes inside a test kitchen. That is, if this test kitchen allowed flies. More laboratory than warm hearth, these chefs dissect the elements and flavors of each dish down to a molecular level. This isn’t about mama’s recipes or comfort foods, this is about cuisine that is high art, both before and after you put it in your mouth. It is fascinating to watch the chefs in the kitchen as we see the small­group dynamic which creates these dishes unfurl. There is protocol and pecking order firmly in place. From the Top Chef to the newest cooks and servers to join the restaurant, this hierarchy reinforces the standards by which the food is made.

This film takes an exceptionally hands-off approach to the footage, there is no narration and very little in the way of added information. This movie is a good companion to “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” by showing us the opposite. While “Jiro” celebrates one individual’s commitment to culinary excellence, “El Bulli” shows how it can also take a cast of dozens to create an amazing meal.
Not knowing a ton about “molecular cuisine” I found myself wanting a little more information on the processes through which the food was being put, but at the same time, I took it for what it was, a rare look at the painstaking process required to be excellent.
At the end of the movie there are several beauty shots of the final dishes, and despite not knowing everything they were doing in the kitchen, those gave a somewhat­ satisfying insight into why the process is so arduous.

12. The Antics Roadshow – 3 Shakey Camera Lenses (Out of 5)
A quick look at people who use self­-expression to stir up trouble, and more importantly, thought.

Thoughts: This “documentary,” which lures you in by slapping Banksy’s name all over it, is little more than a clip show with the commercials taken out. Having said that though, the clips are fantastic. The movie opens with a man dressed as one of the Mario Brothers racing his go-­kart through the streets. As he darts in and out of real cars, he drops banana peels a la Mario Kart. The wacky, devil-­may-­care antics of all those profiled, including a few who were obviously suffering from mental illness (who breaks into the Queen’s bedroom in Buckingham Palace to have a chat with her?) still stays respectful to its subjects and admires the reactions they got. There is little discussion beyond “These people did this”, but you walk away admiring these people, from loons to legitimate theater movements (Improv Anywhere), who use their creativity and humor to challenge the status quo.

“The Weather Underground”, “El Bulli” and “The Antics Roadshow” are available on NETFLIX.

GRAPHIC IMAGES

Posters That Make You Go, “Uh….?”

Article by Matteo Molinari

I was recovering from the wounds obtained during my latest experiment (apparently, it’s not possible to convince a grizzly bear to voluntarily put on scuba gear by whacking him on the nose with a can of Chef Boyardee ravioli), when I started thinking about movie posters; to be more specific, bad movie posters — if you don’t see how the two things are connected, I really can’t help you there.
And so I compiled another one of my lists that are totally unnecessary but that usually are defined “bizarre,” “off the wall,” “odd,” “moronic,” “demented,” and “stop writing those or else — we know where you live!”

Something like that.

And so, without any further ado, especially because I run out of ados and they won’t be in stock at my local Ados-R-Us before next Wednesday, here we go with the first cluster of bad posters — in random order.

Bangkok Dangerous — Without delving in the most important question of them all, which is, “Does anybody care that Nicolas Cage still make movies, and does anybody go see them?”, I found a poster of one of his blah movies that is a real beauty. Relatively speaking, of course.

First of all, Nicolas is using his left arm either to scratch an itch in one of those hard-to-reach places or to unhook his own bra. The right hand is holding the most invisible gun ever created, or it’s suffering a sudden attack of arthritis. Then, with a face surrounded by hair that we are supposed to believe is his, Nicolas is staring intently at two bullet holes that seem to have pierced a piece of glass in front of him, while lava flows and a building stands in the distance, trying to hide behind the actor.
If this poster has to communicate to us what the movie is all about, I’m afraid it misses the mark a little. Unless Cage is an askew arthritic man-woman with a bra obsession who likes to dive in rivers of lava while bullets hit glasses.

Like the tagline says, “It’s all in the execution.” Perfect.

Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (French Version) — Speaking of execution… The pointless third chapter of the hilarious (term used extremely loosely. Extremely. “Extremely” is the key) series of Martin Lawrence in drag had a French poster that was plastered throughout France, as well as in the Seventh Circle of Hell, hand-picked by Satan himself.

What the heck is that thing?! From the pose they gave to Martin Lawrence, to the little dress made with Police badges (at first it looked like a series of sad monkey faces, and probably it would have fit better), to the Lady Gaga makeup — called “Lady Gra-Gra” (because in French, “fat” is “gras,” so why missing the chance for an extremely funny — remember, “extremely” is still the key — pun?).

The whole thing is very sad. Extremely sad.

Good Luck Chuck — Talking again of extremely sad comedies, here you have a poster that I imagine wanted to be a reinvention of the popular (and frankly, quite disgusting) photo of John Lennon over Yoko Ono by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. The original photo featured John completely naked, while this poster features Dane Cook with some sort of underwear (thank God!). Still…

I thought the job of a comedian was to make you laugh, think and sometimes even getting angry — not to force you to drive your car into a Rite Aid searching for needles to gouge your eyes out in order to remove that image from your retina.

But probably I’m not too familiar with the comedians’ world.

Christine — And while we are on the subject of God-awful creations, what about the Polish poster for the John Carpenter/Stephen King horror film about a possessed car? I still have to figure this one out.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Raiders of the Lost Ark — What the hell…?! Where is the hat? Where is the jacket? What is that baby blue shirt? Who thought this was a good idea?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pretty Woman — Taking a breather from horrendous posters, I move momentarily to posters that don’t seem to know the stars of the movie they represent. One of the most popular is “Pretty Woman”, where Richard Gere is shown with hair blacker than ink photographed at night by a camera with the cap on the lens. Well, guess what? Richard in the movie has salt-n-pepa hair because when he shot the flick he was already older than dirt.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chasing Amy — Similarly, this Kevin Smith movie poster shows a Ben Affleck with no facial hair whatsoever; he’s hairless like a sink. In the movie, however, he sports a nice Van Dyke.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hardwired — Same destiny occurred to Val Kilmer, who in the poster of this forgettable straight-to-video thriller, looks clean and shaven. In the movie he has a moustache and even glasses. But while we’re on this poster, doesn’t it look like Cuba Gooding, Jr. is holding his gun a little too close to his body? Is he trying to shoot someone behind him?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Escape from New York (Italian Version) — Speaking about posters which seem to have lost their path, here is a masterful example: the Italian version of the John Carpenter classic. Where to begin? Let’s start with the Statue of Liberty lying on its side (interestingly enough, reprised on the American DVD cover by MGM). Why is the statue collapsed? This is not “Planet of the Apes”. In the movie, the Statue is fine and dandy, so what gives?

But let’s move to the cobra tattoo on Snake Plissken’s arm. Cute. Too bad that in the movie it is on Plissken’s chest. And what about the strange device on his left wrist? Isn’t that the device the President is wearing — and not him? (yes, it is). And I know I’m nitpicking, here, but Snake Plissken in the movie has undeniably a patch on his eye. But it’s on his left eye.

Supergirl — While we’re on the topic of Liberty and Statue of, how about the poster for the “first great adventure” of Supergirl? Beside thanking God for having so far forbidden a second great adventure, the poster features the Statue of Liberty. But last time I saw it, the Statue was carrying the torch with her right arm. Oh, well… Minor details, I suppose.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sex and the City 2 — The best poster ever created. For Photoshop.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
My Life in Ruins (Italian Version) — Oh, I almost forgot, while I was talking about the Italian posters… Their version of the ho-hum poster for the ho-hum comedy by Nia Vardalos shows, for some reasons that escape me, the actress-writer with freakishly gigantic legs that are quite scary and grotesque. I guess that’s why, to counterbalance this, they turned Richard Dreyfuss into a midget.

Definitely something got lost in translation, here.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Penthouse — Talking again about Photoshop and long legs, wouldn’t it be nice for a production company to hire someone who can actually knows how to use the software? How tall is Rider Strong (the second guy from the left), in this image? And, are we supposed to believe that all these people are in bed together? Atrocious.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Victory — Fun fact: Sylvester Stallone, Michael Caine and Pelé all have only one arm and share the same waist. Either that, or they love to be wedged all together in a hole for some strange rite I’m not familiar with.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Snakes on a Plane — It’s time to play! Put your finger on either one of the snakes tail and follow the body of the animal to the head; then repeat with the other tail. They don’t match, do they?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Just My Luck — Finally, as it was pointed out by movie critic Richard Roeper, “Is it possible to overact on a poster?” Well, the answer is a resounding yes. Thanks, Lindsay.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well, this is it — for now.
There are more appalling posters, and I have to kill some time before next Wednesday, so… Beware. Another article is in the making. And this time… In 3D! (but probably not)

IT’S GRAMMY NIGHT!

20 Songs You Should Have Playing on Your iPod Right Now!

Article by Patrick Garland

I’m not just a big movie fan. I’m also a big music fan. I can say without hesitation that I am very well endowed musically speaking. Don’t challenge me on this. You will lose. With that in mind I couldn’t help but be pushy and let you know about twenty songs you should be listening to at this very moment.

1) Take the Long Way Home – Supertramp (1979) – I love a song that opens with some real good harmonica playing. It really gets my toes tapping. This song makes for a great pick me up on that commute home from work. Maybe it will inspire you to take the road less traveled. Or it could be that hearing it will be the reason you download a few more of the wonderful songs from the Supertramp catalog. Would that be a good thing? You’re bloody well right it would be. HEAR IT!
 
2) Hurt – Johnny Cash (2002) – Johnny Cash covers Nine Inch Nails – and turns out one of the most depressing songs of all time, but in a great way. It never felt so good to be sad. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
3) Jack and Jill – Ray Parker Jr. & Raydio (1978) – Leave it to Ray Parker Jr. to teach us a hidden truth. It was Jill’s fault Jack liked to sneak down the hill and cheat on her. She worked too much and she was always gone way to long. You know what they say, “Absence makes the heart grow fonder, except when you’re Ray Parker Jr. & Raydio. In that case it makes you want to go out to do some low down dirty cheating.” If you don’t believe me check out another Ray Parker Jr. classic entitled “The Other Woman”. That guy was always on the make. HEAR IT!

4) Love Removal Machine – The Cult (1987) – I’m not exactly sure what a love removal machine is but it sounds awfully painful. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
 
5) You Should Be Dancing – Bee Gees (1976) – Anytime this song comes on it makes me want to get down. Dance like no one is watching. Problem is… I can’t dance. But I don’t care. It’s time to boogie! Take my advice…put a little disco in your life. You can get started by installing a far out disco dancing floor that changes colors in your spare bedroom or office. It’s just that easy. HEAR IT!
 
 
6) Rio – Duran Duran (1982) – If you’re a sexy lady and your name is Rio you should most definitely dance across the Rio Grande. The irony is terrific. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
7) Remember the Time – Michael Jackson (1992) – I love this song….but I’m still having a hard time with that music video with all that Eddie Murphy mugging for the camera, Magic Johnson looking awkward, and the Michael and Iman kissing stuff going on….so you’ll just have to trust me that this tune is a jamming new jack swing. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
8) How ‘bout Them Cowgirls – George Strait (2007) – Even if you’re not a big country music fan it’s important to understand that there is a reason George Strait has more number one singles than any other artist in music history of any genre with 59 number-ones as of 2012. It’s because he kicks some serious butt in those cowboy boots of his and I’m pretty sure he actually has sold some ocean front property to several unsuspecting people in Arizona. He’s just that good. HEAR IT!

9) Love You Down – Ready For The World (1986) – This is by far the best song ever written by anyone ever…..Wait….Just kidding….I actually don’t even like this song….I just wanted to see if you were still paying attention to me. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
10) Where The Streets Have No Name – U2 (1987) – The only question I have is…if the streets have no name how can the post office ensure me that my package will be delivered on time for Christmas Day? On a side note, this song is so good that it makes up for anything on U2’s “Pop” album and that’s not an easy thing to do. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
11) Fortress Around Your Heart – Sting (1985) – This is Sting at his most cocky, self important, arrogant, and obnoxious. It’s a dandy. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
 
12) Witchcraft – Frank Sinatra (1957) – Pick out your favorite rock and roll icon and I’ll guarantee you that Frank Sinatra shined brighter, lived larger, and out preformed any of them. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
 
13) Interstate Love Song – Stone Temple Pilots (1994) – One of my favorites from that grungy 90s period. A nice example of a simpler time when Scott Weiland was off the drugs and high on life. Wait a second….I don’t think he was ever off the drugs. That’s okay, because later on he was able to get his act together and keep his new band Velvet Revolver going strong…..well actually… his unstable nature and “unexplained” mood swings helped put a swift end to them. But at least he’s back with STP and they recorded an awesome comeback album…oops…That album was, in reality, very uneven and had quite a bit of filler on it. Scott, will you ever learn? HEAR IT!

14) Driving Home for Christmas – Chris Rea (1988) – This might be one of best Christmas songs you’ve never heard before. It’s a perfect mix of Rea’s bluesy gravel voice and holiday jingle bells. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
15) Back for More – Ratt (1984) – An underappreciated hair metal band? You betcha. Ratt is one of those. You can keep your over played Motley Crue, Poison, and Quiet Riot… I prefer Ratt, Dokken, and Enuff Z’Nuff! HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
16) Spill the Wine – Eric Burdon and War (1970) – One of the weirdest songs ever and I’m pretty sure it was influenced by something more than wine. Still, anytime I hear this one l fall in love with it all over again. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
17) Singin’ In The Rain – Gene Kelly (1952) – Gene Kelley’s interpretation of this song is an artistic masterpiece that is only topped when you are fortunate enough to be listening to it as you watch Kelly dance and splash while performing it in the movie of the same name. Quite possibly the best moment in cinematic history ever. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
18) Breakdown Dead Ahead – Boz Scaggs (1980) – This guy has the coolest voice ever. This is an example of Easy Rock at its best. Mmm…..easy rock. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
 
19) The World We Live In – The Killers (2009) – A lesser known song from The Killers that kills. It gives you the feeling of being on a slow groove roller coaster. Just enough ups and downs to make your stomach feel funny. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
20) Rosanna – Toto (1982) – What makes this Toto classic so awesome? It’s awesome because this song is performed by some of the ugliest men who ever picked up musical instruments but these homely dudes created a tune so sweet that countless beautiful ladies were defenseless against their wooing ways. You have to respect that. And even if you don’t… you’ve got to love a video featuring Cynthia Rhodes as Rosanna and Patrick Swayze as one of the dancing gang members. HEAR IT!
 
21) Southern Nights – Glen Campbell (1977) – Glen Campbell is the man. Period. End of story. HEAR IT!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
That’s my list of 20 great tunes. Get these songs. Listen to them. Love them. Pass them on. Now, before you ask, I know I listed 21 songs not 20. But remember, that song by Ready for the World didn’t count. It was just a joke…..A very bad joke. At least that’s the way I hear it.