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.

TO & FROM – “THIS IS THE END”

The Movie Guys send good friends from The Hater Nation Radio Show & Podcast, MC Hater and Ali, to a screening of “This is the End”. They record their thoughts going to and from the movie. Will the film be hilarious? Will they get there in a car with only one headlight? Will they be allowed in the theater? Stay tuned.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

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 END OF THE MOVIE SHOWCAST

Showcast Episode 4: Locked up safely in a Bomb Shelter, The Movie Guys lament their final Showcast before the world ends. But it doesn’t end without previews of “Man of Steel” and “This is the End”. Plus, a handy once-over of an apocalypse survival guide, a look at a hi-tech superhero movie title generator and finally a visit from guests Yelena Popovic and Alexander Zisiades, who talk about their new indie film “L.A. Superheroes: Illegal in Hollywood”.

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.

ANCHORMAN 2: THE LEGEND CONTINUES (opening 12/20/13)

CAPTAIN PHILLIPS (opening 10/11/13)

DELIVERY MAN (opening 10/4/13)

ENDER’S GAME (opening 11/1/13)

GRAVITY (opening 10/4/13)

THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG (opening 12/13/13)

PARANOIA (opening 9/27/13)

PRISONERS (opening 9/20/13)

RIDDICK (opening 9/6/13)

RUNNER, RUNNER (opening 9/25/13)

RUSH (opening 9/20/13)

THE WAY, WAY BACK (opening 7/5/13)

WE’RE THE MILLERS (opening 8/9/13)

THE WORLD’S END (opening 8/23/13)

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 – “INDIE JONES”

Showcast Episode 3: The new film “The Internship” inspires Paul to interview for new Movie Guys interns, also the new thriller “The Purge” gets previewed, including it’s straight-to-DVD companion piece. Plus, our signature look at movie news and a long talk with indie filmmaker Paul Osborne on the eve of the Los Angeles debut of his new film, “Favor”.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

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 RETURN OF THE MOVIE SHOWCAST

Showcast Episode 2: This week’s Showcast gets all Shyamalan-y with previews of “After Earth” and “Now You See Me”. Plus, The Movie Guys take to the street to talk celebrity children, the triumphant return of radio magician The Amazing Mono and guest Mike J. Nichols talks up the 30th anniversary of “Return of the Jedi”, including a tribute to little-known legend and Millenium Falcon co-pilot, Nien Nunb.

Click HERE to follow us on iTunes!.

SCOWL-FEST

After Earth

**

Review by Paul Preston

Well, it’s not embarrassing.

You’ll hear me mention a few things in this review that I liked about “After Earth”. It seems like the career of M. Night Shyamalan has gotten to the point where “it’s not embarrassing” is high compliment.

“After Earth” is about a spaceship crash-landing on Earth about 1,000 years from now when the planet has become uninhabitable and humans live elsewhere. A peacekeeping ranger and his son are the sole survivors of the crash and must signal a beacon for their rescue, or risk being attacked by the animals now overrunning Earth, not to mention an Ursa, a deadly creature that has gotten loose on the planet.

The son is played by Jaden Smith, and if the jury’s been out on whether he’s a real leading man at the age of fourteen, allow me to take a stab at being the foreman. Not so much. The story rests on the son, as his father (in the film and in real life, Will Smith) is injured in the crash. So it’s the son whose journey we’re really on. And there’s a three-pronged flaw I found there:
- The first, they can do nothing about, and it’s that I rarely enjoy the adventures of people who are fourteen. I mean, you’ve got to be animated or “X-Men: First Class” for me to get too excited.
- Second, Jaden has no gravitas. He draws tears at one point, but regularly throughout film, he’s just not as compelling as he might be ten years from now, but this kid’s anointing can’t wait, apparently.
- Thirdly, for the son of a man who became famous for his voice, Jaden’s voice-over leaves much to be desired, often lapsing into incoherence. He even awkwardly screeches some when he gets emotional.
I wish Anthony Mackie played this part ten years ago, with Denzel as his dad.

To be fair:
- Jaden’s character does have a turn at the end of the film that is noticeable. Not entirely surprising, but noticeable, so I’ll give him that.
- AND both Smith’s are saddled with a “Where Are You From?” dialect that doesn’t serve anything. 1,000 years ago humans have a bad British-meets-mid-Atlantic accent? Why is this?

Papa Smith plays “Cypher Raige”, the best phrase since “Unobtanium”. In a unique character trait, Raige has the ability to “Ghost”, which means he can surpress all his fear and feel none of it. That’s a cool concept, and I wish I saw more of it, but again, we’re not following Will Smith into battle, we’re following Jaden Smith into adolescence.

Another flaw, however, is that Will Smith plays a character so devoid of fear, they’ve forgotten to leave him with any other emotions. I was leery of this film as soon as I saw the trailer ‘cause Smith doesn’t smile once! He’s pouty and pissy and angry and barking and all the stuff we love about Will Smith is GONE. Maybe he was trying to stretch? Didn’t work.

Also gone are the days of M. Night Shyamalan’s originality. I think they ended right about the time he put out books and TV specials all about his originality. Now he seems like any other director you could attach to a project. “Hey, who should we get that will make sure this looks like a movie? Shyamalan? Antoine Fuqua? Renny Harlin?” I can give him some credit in that this movie has no business being a summer film. It’s not action packed, there are brief stretches of action in between shots of Will Smith grumbling at the camera and Jaden looking uncomfortable. And it has some of the slow pace that worked in something like Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” and hasn’t worked anywhere else. He was again trying his thing, but the results were rather tepid and static. But he TRIED, at least, to be epic. He ended up, however, epic fail.

The story for this film comes from Will Smith, and the result is just….kinda…I don’t know…weird? Creepy? It comes across as a kid trying desperately to please his famous dad. I’ll leave it up to you as to whether I was referring to the story of the film itself.

Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Release Date: May 31, 2013
Run Time: 100 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

FASTER & FURIOUSERER

Fast & Furious 6

***

Review by Paul Preston

I don’t want you to read too far into this review and get your eyes too far away from the three star rating before I lay down…the disclaimer.

This movie is dumb as the post up other movies’ asses. The relationships are simplistic and the dialogue is thin.

That being said, those attributes are countered by bombastic, outrageous action sequences that are 4000 pounds of fun.

“Fast Five” brought the best film yet in the flawed yet exciting “Fast & Furious” franchise, so I thought, why not? Let’s have another. And the filmmakers have wisely taken a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach here. Very little of this movie is real, but the last two action sequences are certainly well realIZED, and well executed. And there’s a set-up for a seventh film, so Vin Diesel knows where his bread is buttered. I hope you like bread. ‘Cause there’s a lot of that bread.

After the heist of “Fast Five”, Vin Diesel’s hot rod gang, which includes Paul Walker, Tyrese Gibson and Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, are all millionaires, either blowing their money like a fool or enjoying the quiet, comfortable-forever life. In a plot twist set up at the end of the previous film, it seems Michelle Rodriguez’ character Letty has returned from her seeming demise in “Fast & Furious”, the fourth film in the series (you’re right to get them all confused). CIA agent Hobbs (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, concluding the list of cast members with nicknames) uses Letty’s return to coax Diesel and his team to help him track down a thief named Owen Shaw, who’s on the verge of stealing a unique weapon of mass destruction. In return, the gang could get full pardons.

But who gives a damn about all that.

The best part is that the bad guys are a team full of street racers! Mercenary drivers (in fact, there’s some clever dialogue delivered by Gibson about how the bad guy team is a straight-up evil version of the good guys, character by character)! This is perfect, ‘cause it can lead to kick-ass car chases and wild stunts.

And that’s just what you get. And if you like that, you’re gonna be well sated. If not, you’re gonna want to wait until September to go to the movies again.

The bar gets raised so high nowadays in action that you really have to pull out all the stops to entertain an audience in a new, fresh way. I can’t deny that “Fast & Furious 6” totally delivers in that department.

Luke Evans plays Owen Shaw and he supplies the right amount of British to be convincingly villainous. I’m not entirely sure when this happened in the “Fast & Furious” universe, but now it seems Tyrese Gibson is the comic foil, providing goofy lines and slapstick tomfoolery now and then. Paul Walker is serviceable in his role that’s now five films deep. He’s tough and serious and seems less dopey than he used to be in other films, where he often all-too-well reflected his San Fernando Valley roots. It’s Vin Diesel who has pulled a Chris Tucker and decided to appear in only one franchise as of late. He’s even taken up producing duties with this film. But sadly, he’s not the most magnetic lead. He’s tough, steely and he growls, but there’s no real dramatic pull to Dom Toretto like there is with John McClane or certainly with Martin Riggs. And when he’s called on to be romantic, it’s basically Michelle Rodriguez acting with a wall.

Luckily the movie basically says, “Never mind that shit, here comes Mongo”, and Mongo is some outlandish action scene that will knock you about the theater. And I have to say that’s worth the price of your no-way-you-thought-you-were-getting-more admission.

This is at least as good as the last one, which means the “Fast & Furious” franchise has hit it’s stride right when most have long faded out.

Directed by: Justin Lin
Release Date: May 24, 2012
Run Time: 130 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Universal Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

THIS MOVIE OUGHT TO BE COMMITTED

Epic

**

Review by Steve “WhiskeySour” Brown

I have a soft spot in my squishy whiskey-pickled chest cavity for animated films, after all, they were the first movies I ever watched. The reason for my love of all film animated is they need to try much harder to be of any value to anyone over the age of nine. The characters have to be creative, the plot must be tight, the antagonist must be relevant. The entire film must have an underlying message, while soaring magnificently over the heads of anyone under the age of nine, one that can keep it’s more adult viewer’s interested. Bringing together these different factors into one solid movie is not an easy job, but with animated films its crucial because anything less and the movie is quickly forgotten about by anyone who actually has a wallet.

Perhaps this is why I left director Chris Wedge’s “Epic” with a bit of a charitable attitude. I really wanted to like “Epic”, I wanted to be entertained, and I wanted to give this film a good rating. I wanted to right up until I actually sat down and started thinking about “Epic” critically. Much to my chagrin, I realized I have condemned other movies to the bottom of grocery store clearance bins for having a lot less problems.

My first issue with “Epic” was the missing development arc for nearly all of its main characters. Characters need to grow, develop, or at least change slightly within the course of their stories, otherwise they run the risk of being un-relateable and two-dimensional. The only character that seemed even remotely affected by the events that transpired within the movie was Mary Katherine, and only in the slight way it improved her relationship with her father. Any other lessons this story might have taught about relationships, the tendency to dismiss what you can’t see, or even the complexities of the natural world seemed immediately dismissed once there was no longer a plot to maintain.

Still, this was better then the two other “humanish” characters of Nod and Ronin, who ended the film exactly as they began it. Nod didn’t seem to learn anything about responsibility, Ronin didn’t seem to pick up any lessons on taking time to laugh once in a while, despite the film constantly beating these character flaws into my head the entire time. The writers took the time to set up the potential path for it’s main characters to develop, but by the end, only M.K. seemed to make any headway into actually developing down one of them.

Another chance the film missed was it’s treatment of it’s antagonist, Mandrake. Ruler of the powers of rot and decay, Mandrake naturally wishes to rot the entire forest because when your only real talent is to turn things to compost, you play the cards your dealt. The lack of any real motivation for the antagonist not withstanding, “Epic” failed to bring together the forces of regeneration and decay, to provide closure for that “balance of the natural world” theme they based their entire story’s universe upon.

In fact, this is pretty much the trend the entire movie works under. The writers set up some sort of theme, plot device, or character development arc, and then promptly forget to follow through with it. At one point, a character breaks into song out of nowhere, as if to satisfy some unspoken rule that all animated film must have song. If your going to have characters singing, commit to the fact your movie just became a musical, otherwise let it go, your just embarrassing yourselves.

Now that I have said it, commitment is exactly what “Epic” needed most. The characters were creative and the universe that formed around them was charming, but nothing was committed to. Character development, theming, even plot devices were only half-formed, leaving the ghost of a good movie somewhere within, instead of bringing it out for everyone to see. In fact, even its title, “Epic”, is an example of the non-commitment this movie is dragged down by. “Epic” has nothing to do with anything within the movie, the word epic is not once said by any character. Its simply a random word. If they’re going to use random words as titles, perhaps lazy would have been better choice.

Directed by: Chris Wedge
Release Date: May 24, 2013
Run Time: 102 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG
Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox Animation

OFFICIAL TRAILER

QUEUE DISCOMFORT

What the Flix?

Article by Matteo Molinari

(click any of the images to enlarge them)

Yes, I use Netflix.

And the other day a friend of mine told me that on Netflix they have a documentary about Woody Allen (titled “Woody Allen: A Documentary” — clever). So I decided to rent it, on the basis that I like documentaries and I like Woody Allen — the choice was quite easy, I have to admit.

After I clicked the “Add to DVD Queue” button, Netflix unselfishly decided to recommend me similar movies to the one I just selected — on a page titled, “More like Woody Allen: A Documentary.”

Good. I always enjoy a good recommendation. So, let’s see what they suggest to me…

“Scoop”, a Woody Allen movie. Fine.

“Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures”, another documentary. Fine.

“Eight Legged Freaks”, a monster movie with giant spiders attacking a small town — Wait, what?!

Granted, I’ve neglected to mention that the friend who suggested me this rental is the always excellent Diane Vincent, daughter of legendary TV horror-host Seymour — but this is not “Fright Night”! I was expecting suggestions similar to “Woody Allen: A Documentary”, not a monster movie with David Arquette and Doug E. Doug. Who decided that recommendation? And who put “Iron Man 2″ in that very list? (I’ve always thought that “Iron Man 2″ clearly had more similarities with “Man on Wire”, but that’s just me).

So I got curious and I decided to investigate the askew realm of recommendations that Netflix give its users. And I found out some very peculiar oddities…

“Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope” — This movie was recommended me (as it’s stated on a box to the right) based on my interest in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”, “The Incredibles” and “Jaws”.

“Ferris Bueller”?! No, danke shoen.

“Avatar” — In the “More like Avatar” section, I found “Alvin and the Chipmunks — The Squeakquel” and “Old Dogs”. Maybe there’s a different level in the Na’vi’s story I’ve ignored all this time, but really? The Chipmunks? Do the Na’vi want a hula hoop for Christmas? And what’s with “Old Dogs”? It’s an alleged comedy with John Travolta and Robin Williams that’s as fun as being trampled by a heard of buffaloes, and the only similitude I could find between “Avatar” and “Old Dogs” is that the latter seems as long as “Avatar”, but it’s only in 2-D (Disappointing and Demented).

“Bambi II” — In the “More like Bambi II” section, side by side with the appropriate “Dumbo” and “Hop”, there is “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn — Part 1″. Should I even comment on this?

“Deep Red” — Okay, you have to follow me on this one: in the “More like Deep Red” section, a double mystery: first, “Deep Red” (original title, “Profondo Rosso”) is a slasher whodunit movie by Italian supposed master of horror Dario Argento, which originally was marketed in the USA as “The Hatchet Murders”.

In fact, in parenthesis after the title “Deep Red”, you can read “Profondo Rosso” and “The Hatchet Murders”. So… why among the recommendations is “The Hatchet Murders”? As in, “If you like this movie, you may want to watch it again with a different title!” Egad.

Also, still among the recommendations, is Federico Fellini’s “Amarcord”. Not a slasher movie. Not a whodunit? More a whydidit than a whodonit — but this is another story.

“Grumpy Old Men” — In the “More like Grumpy Old Men” is the Mexican movie “Y Tu Mamá También”, which is not exactly a zany Neil Simon-like adventure about two old geezers… I can still picture the faces of my parents after they rented the Spanish-speaking movie hoping to see a mindless comedy. Oh, well…

“Jaws” — In the “More like Jaws,” you can find “The Sting”. Uh — what? Okay, Robert Shaw is in both of them, and they’ve been produced by the same team, but that doesn’t make them similar! Paul Newman doesn’t get harpooned on the poker table. Robert Redford doesn’t crash his head against a boat. It would have been fun to see it, I agree, but not this time.

“King Kong” — In the “More like King Kong,” I was slightly surprised to find “Every Which Way But Loose” with Clint Eastwood. Yes. Sure. Just because Mr. Eastwood has in this movie an orangutan as a sidekick, it doesn’t make it a movie even remotely similar to “King Kong”. Yes, they both have simians in them, but… Ah, why bother?

“Orca: The Killer Whale” — In the “More like Orca,” the first choice was “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. Of course! Do you remember that amazing sequence of Indiana Jones running out of the temple, chased by a huge, rolling orca? Or when he was about to enter the Well of the Souls and there were orcas everywhere, prompting him to say the classic line, “Orcas. Why’d it have to be orcas?” Or when they open the Ark of the Covenant and all those orcas come out and kill the Nazis? Yeah, me neither.

“Slumdog Millionaire” — In the “More like Slumdog Millionaire,” it’s easy to spot “28 Days Later”. Why?

“Titanic” — In the “More like Titanic,” it’s listed also “The Mad”, a zombie movie. Okay, a horror-comedy zombie movie. No, still doesn’t seem to fit. Wait! A horror-comedy zombie movie with Billy Zane, who also happens to be in “Titanic”. Nope. Still doesn’t work. I mean, there’s a lot of hearts going on, and livers and brains, but still…

“Snakes on a Plane” — In the “More like Snakes on a Plane,” it’s present also “Soul Plane”. Samuel L. Jackson and Julianna Margulies and a bunch of dangerous snakes in the first one, Snoop Dogg and Tom Arnold and a bunch of lame jokes in the second one. If they had the snakes in the “Soul Plane”, perhaps that would have been cool. Not as a movie — just lock Snoop Dogg and Tom Arnold in a plane filled with snakes. Everybody wins.

Bonus IMDB

Sometime, even the Internet Movie DataBase slips on something. Case in point…

“Ted” — The R-rated comedy of a foul-mouthed teddy bear was a very funny movie — maybe a tad, or a Ted, too long, but funny nonetheless. Well, in the “People who liked this also liked…” the site lists also “Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days”. Discuss.

Okay, so this is my annoying article about recommendation. Thank you for reading it.

If you liked this article, you may also like: Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, Phantoms by Dean Koontz, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

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.