Misleading Trailers

            While I was sitting at the Atlanta Airport last weekend, waiting for my final flight into PA, I happened to notice a stunningly gorgeous woman sitting across from me.  Now, I’m not one to poke my buddy in the ribs and point out every woman that walks by, so don’t take this lightly:  I really thought this young lady was a misplaced runway model, minus the too-skinny frame and terrible outfit. 

            Then I saw her pick up a book!  Look at this, I thought, a woman who can surely make a living off her appearance, doing something completely against the stereotype I’d already placed her in!  I wonder, what she could be reading?  While my brain just repeated ‘please be sci-fi, please be sci-fi, please be sci-fi,’ I craned my head to get a look at the title.

            Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

           

            That little, tiny detail within the big picture convinced my judgmental mind that there was no way I would want to have a conversation with her.  Fairly or unfairly, I saw a beautiful young lady reading and got my hopes up, but the more details I took in, such as the book and her weird look of disdain when an elderly old woman sat next to her, convinced me that I had made unfair assumptions.

            You know what else we make unfair assumptions about?  Movies based on their trailers!

            Just like a runway model, trailers are made to make the viewer think one thing in particular about a movie no matter what the truth really is.  Yes, it’s kind of a dick move on Hollywood’s part for packaging a film as A when in truth it’s actually B, but it’s not really the trailer guy’s fault.  It’s the executive’s fault for commissioning a movie, deciding it won’t sell well because it’s either not what they wanted or just a terrible film, then forcing some poor shmuck to package it as a good movie.

            Yes, I’m probably being little unfair to some misleading movies, but the only misleading film I have seen and liked is Adventureland.  That one was sold as a coming-of-age comedy but turned out to be very much a drama.  The entire film contained maybe four or five laughs, and I think the trailer alluded to all of them.  It’s also the only movie to date in which I actually like Kristen Stewart’s acting.

            Horrors are especially guilty of misleading packaging because of how easy it is to cut the trailer.  Simply link together all the ‘jumps’ and ‘scares,’ allude to the plot, throw in buzzwords like spine tingling or chilling and call it a day.  The Haunting in Connecticut, The Last Exorcism, and An AmericanHaunting are all recent examples of the decent trailer/terrible movie dichotomy.  (Although in The Last Exorcism’s defense, if you turn it off before the last 5 minutes, it’s actually a good film.  The ending ruins it that much.)

            I know there’s not much we can do as moviegoers other than to speak with our wallets, so I highly encourage everyone to adopt a method I’ve recently begun using for my non-reviewed films.  Check a few review sites before you hit up a movie and see if anyone is talking about the movie not being what they expected.  If you hear a decent amount of chatter from everyday theater-goers complaining about the ol’ bait-and-switch, don’t go see the movie.  Wait to give it a rental.

If enough of us adopt that practice, the truly bad movies and the ones that are advertised improperly will eventually lose enough money to convince Hollywood to do two things:  Stop making such terrible films that they have no choice but to cut a B.S. trailer and have some faith in the good films by advertising them as exactly what they are.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have 9 hours of airport time in my immediate future.  Thanks, Harrisburg International for providing the free wifi I needed to finish this article!

Bad Ass

            I had every intention of doing my very first Notflix review.*  However, a funny thing happened when I sat down with my friend Joe Cam and his wonderfully understanding wife Ashley.  The film we viewed was way too good to make fun of.  I mean, we did throw in a few humorous quips, but I ended up enjoying the movie so much I decided to give you a full-on review.

            On to the redundant line that’s almost like the previous sentence!

            For those of you not living in a major metropolitan area, it saddens me to inform you that you probably won’t be able to see Danny Trejo in theaters, showing off his acting chops in Bad Ass.  Fortunately they paired their very limited release with a rent-to-watch scheme.  You can download the movie from some entertainment services and cable providers in both regular and HD versions.  No, I don’t want to tell you how much they’re charging.  I prefer the taste of your tears when they’re full of hurt and disappointment.

            Bad Ass is a strange mix of Hobo with a Shotgun (minus the shotgun) and that viral video that came out last year where the old man beat the shit out of a guy on the bus.  Hell, they’re pretty blunt about that second part, seeing as how Mr. Trejo wears the same outfit.

            The plot itself is really simple.  Danny Trejo is Frank Vega, a guy who let life pass him by and never got to do what he wanted, due to an injury he sustained in Vietnam.  Now, in 2010, he’s suddenly recognized and beloved because he beat the snot out of two Hitler Youth that were harassing bus passengers.  This newfound fame and local recognition makes him happier than he’s been in decades.

            Of course, now that things are going well for him, he has to deal with the personal loss of the two people closest to him.  This being mostly an action film, the moment he’s done mourning he decides to take matters into his own hands.  The majority of the film follows Vega as he searches for the killers of his best friend Klondike (Harrison Page) because the cops don’t seem to be doing anything at all.  The plot twist, dun-dun-duuuun, is that Klondike had entrusted a flash drive into Frank’s hands just before he was brutally murdered.

            It’s nice to see a starring vehicle for Danny Trejo that allows him to do more than just scowl and kill people.  As much as I non-ironically enjoy him in movies like Machete, Predators, and Con Air, I think he does have acting ability.  It’s just that most casting calls don’t even bother to look for it.  This time, however, we do get to see a little bit of his softer side -- just before he punches someone down the snack food isle.

            Before you freak out from worry, yes he does have a love interest, and no there is no nudity.  I’m sick of all of you assuming that just because it’s rated R and stars Danny Trejo, there’s gotta be nudity somewhere.  (Ok yes there is nudity, you got me.)

            In other actor news, Ron Perlman is the Mayor and Charles S. Dutton is our poorly named protagonist, Panther.

            Please, do yourself and the film a favor by grabbing it as a rental.  Get enough people over that the rental fee is chump change.  Or get all your friends to promise sexual favors in return for you picking up the tab.  It really is a fun movie.  It has great one-liners, an entertaining plot and a good cast of characters. 

There is some negative, and I’ll at least give you a head’s up.  It’s not original at all, taking plot points from many other movies. It takes its cinematic styles from movies like Crank 2 and The Bourne series, and a lot of the dialog that isn’t a one-liner is pretty dang corny.  Despite all this it’s still incredibly entertaining, which I think reflects even more positively on the actors.

            I also liked it a lot more than Hobo With A Shotgun and, honestly, more than Machete.  So give your money to Danny Trejo.  Before he straight up takes it.

*Remember when I did the Netflix reviews of terrible movies in an Xbox Live party?  Then reviewed the film and wrote down any funny/memorable quotes that were made during the viewing?  Yeah, well, that part of Netflix wasn’t compatible with the new Xbox Live, so it had to be canned.  Now, on the rare occasions that I can leash a live audience to the couch for 2 hours, I’ll put up on Notflix film review.

The Cabin in the Woods

            Have you ever viewed a movie that was so dependent on the plot twists that you can’t talk about it with anyone who hasn’t seen it?  That, my friend, is The Cabin inthe Woods.  So how the hell am I going to do a write-up of it?

            Very, very carefully.

            On to the (limited) review!

           

            First off, let me say that I’m very sad that Lionsgate sat on this film for so long.  I understand that movies are serious business, but I’m kind of disappointed in how little faith they put in Joss Whedon.  Here’s a guy who has an incredible cult following to the point that they’re pretty much guaranteed to make their money back with a little profit thrown in. 

            I guess the biggest worry was the cast of ‘no name’ characters.  In today’s film industry, it seems like the studios demand at least one big name to pimp their films.  This is why stupid attempts like getting Keanu Reeves to play a main character in Akira happen.  Fortunately for us, Chris Hemsworth became pretty damn popular pretty damn quick thanks to Thor. 

To top it off, the better-late-than-never release was well-timed, as its only competition was a PG comedy reboot of The Three Stooges and the powerful juggernaut that is The Hunger Games.  R rated horrors are tough enough to pimp out, so releasing it against a kid’s comedy and no other real competition was a bright idea.

 So what’s so good about it?  Why should you go watch it?  Why am I disappointed in you if you’ve never heard of it? 

Because it’s a great horror film that actually bucks conventional wisdom and delivers a multi-tiered plot rather than just killing off a bunch of drunk college kids.  Between this and Tucker and Dale vs. Evil it feels like there’s a sudden resurgence in American horror films.  Who knew that we just needed to poke fun at the tried-and-true formula and deliver thoughtful horror-comedy?  I guess we’ll just have to leave the real scares to the Japanese and Korean markets for now. 

I know I haven’t told you much about The Cabin in the Woods, but this time I really think you should just take my word for it.  Or the word of anyone else who has seen it.  Even my wife, who does not like horror films at all, enjoyed every moment that she wasn’t scared shitless.  Do yourself a favor and check it out. 

As for me, I’m on vacation.  I’ll have something posted for Wednesday and Sunday, but don’t expect them to be new movie reviews.  Instead, I’ve got a live Netflix’d-style post for Wed, and Sunday will be something extra-special, just for you.

The Human Centipede II: A Genuinely Terrible Film

            Remember a few weeks back when I wrote an entire article defending the sub-sub-genre of ‘Torture Porn?’  Remember how I said there was a place for all sorts of films, and I personally enjoyed the challenge of watching a film that tried to make me turn away in horror or disgust with the way it chose to unfold the story?  No?  Well, just pretend you did so that the next paragraph makes sense.

Apparently there are filmmakers out there who completely forgot that they still need a story when then make a movie (looking at you, Vincent Gallo).  It seems that some directors are so wrapped up in trying to prove that they can gross out the audience that they’ve forgotten something very important.

            It’s not disturbing if the audience fails to give a shit.

            Tom Six is my new poster boy for clueless director who got it all wrong.  (Good for you, Vincent Gallo!)

            On to the evisceration…errr…review!

            Do you recall the ‘hype’ surrounding The Human Centipede?  “100% Medically Accurate!”  “So disgusting I nearly threw up in the theater!” (I don’t think I got the quote perfectly, but it was attributed to Hostel director Eli Roth.  This makes me inexplicably sad.)

            It turns out that most of us found THC (hehehe) to be incredibly freaking boring.  Medically accurate or not, there just wasn’t any substance to the movie.  If you’re going to make a horror movie, you need to either make me really, truly, genuinely give a crap about the main characters, or you have to make it so brutally over-the-top that I can’t help but be amused/disgusted/horrified by your actions. 

Good horror movies manage to do both.  I can’t be the only person who actually liked the kids in Hostel and was rooting for some of them to get out alive.  Surely I’m not the only one who felt at least a little pity for the protagonist of A Serbian Film.  Unfortunately, THC gave me three people sewn together that I barely knew and didn’t care about.  It also gave me almost no violence or disturbing imagery.  Sorry, but three people parading around a backyard wearing diapers isn’t disturbing, it’s silly.

So when I heard that Tom Six was going to sequel his horrible, boring horror film, I actually held out a tiny little bit of hope.  I didn’t care if it was going to be a remake, a reworking or a full sequel.  I simply wanted Mr. Six to address his critics and try to make a genuinely creepy, disturbing film.

To my chagrin, what we got was 90 minutes of petulance.  It’s as if Tom Six threw a temper tantrum, screamed “They think my movie was boring?  They didn’t think it was violent enough?  Fine, I’ll show them violence!  I’ll give them disturbing imagery!”  I like to imagine he did it while kicking over Lego’s and jumping up and down like a 3 year old in the midst of a sugar-fueled tantrum.

I’m not going to do anyone in the movie the disservice of mentioning them, because if they’re wise they won’t even put this failure of a film on their resumes.  I’m not going to get into details because there’s really nothing that stands out as good or bad.  The film goes for shock value and falls flat at every turn.  The only thing I liked was the silent antagonist.  That was okay.  Everything else sucked giant donkey droppings.

Yes, The Human Centipede II has lots of violence and lots of disturbing imagery.  Despite all this, I still fails to be over-the-top or truly brutal in any way.  It just stays silly.  Here’s what THCII has to offer: absolutely no reason to care about anyone in the movie, scenes that luxuriate in their violence to the point where it’s obvious Tom Six is just trying (and failing) to get people to squirm, and an antagonist that is neither fearsome nor pitiable, merely pitiful.  I have never been so disappointed in a movie in my life.  Even Birdemic has more reasons for recommendations than THCII.  At least with Birdemic you get a chance to laugh with your friends.

Yup.  I went there.  I’m officially on the record as saying that Birdemic is a better movie than The Human Centipede II.  Even worse is the fact that Mr. Six is hell-bent on making a trilogy out of it all. 

Who the heck is funding this guy???

The Three Stooges

            Yesterday I got back from a camping excursion on an island.  Despite being exhausted, I proceeded to stay up for 8 more hours.  These hours included eating a nice dinner with my lovely wife and some friends, doing a bit of cleaning and seeing The Three Stooges.

            Now I’m going to tell you all about that movie in as few words as possible.  Then I can go back to being half-asleep, cranky and sunburnt.

            On to the review!

            If you don’t like the original Three Stooges with Larry, Curly and Moe (and Shemp and Joe), then don’t even bother.  Just stop reading this now, don’t go see the new movie, and reconcile yourself with the fact that you are a ‘humorless cyborg who doesn’t grasp greatness.’  (An actual twitter quote.)  I was more of a Marx Brothers guy myself, but I can enjoy the Stooges is small bits.  90 minutes was pushing it, but I’ll take into consideration that I wasn’t the target audience of this completely unnecessary reboot.

            If you liked the original stuff, you’ll be fine with this.  It’s more of the same, only updated for the 21^st Century, which means some of it will tick you off.

            The three new Stooges are as follows:

·         Sean Hayes is Larry and I could not get over his makeup.  Acting was decent.

·         Chris Diamantopoulos is Moe and he was just too forced-frowny most of the time.  Good line delivery.

·         Will Sasso was Curly.  A few more nyuk-nyuk’s than I remember, but I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Sasso found a way to resurrect and control Jerry Howard’s soul.

As for the rest of the cast, Jane Lynch was miscast as Mother Superior, Larry David is a cross-dressing nun and only seems to be there to take the brunt of Stooge-on-nun violence, Jennifer Hudson’s part only exists because they wanted a fan-freaking-tastic voice for a 30 second gag, and Sofia Vergara shows a lot of cleavage.

      Plot:  Stooges grow up in an orphanage.  Adult stooges try to save the orphanage.  They get mixed up in a murder plot, Moe becomes a cast member of Jersey Shore, they don’t save the day, then they do save the day, then they don’t, then they do.  The end, roll credits. 

     

Notable acts:  Lots of slapstick here.  Duh.

Some great wordplay at a lawyer’s office, too many poop/pee jokes.  At one point they have an outdoor super-soaker fight where everyone gets drenched.  Except they’re not outdoors, they’re in a maternity ward.  Also, they don’t use super-soakers; they squeeze babies and make them pee everywhere.

There’s also a creepy and pointless music video during the credits.  I think I would have much rather seen an outtake reel.

10 year old Stooges are creepy and were a terrible idea.

The 'Farrelly Brothers' (no, it wasn't really them) came out at the end of the movie to remind kids to 'not try this at home.'  Interesting idea, but they were very, very, very serious faced about it.  It made the whole thing kinda weird.

            The Three Stooges was geared towards kids, offering all the slapstick you remember plus some ‘updated’ stuff that adds nothing to what made the originals so beloved.  You’ll probably get a chuckle out of it, but I doubt tit will spark any kind of Stooges revival.  Go rent the originals and relive the good times.  Or check out some Marx Brothers instead.

Generation Y Lacks Talent

            Here’s something strange that I have noticed about my generation.  Even though we’re pretty much the coveted demographic, we claim very few Hollywood stars among our ranks.  Even stranger, out of the few we do have, almost none of them are guys.  Why?  How is it that we have spent this entire time paying fealty to Hollywood even as they continue to spite our generation in front of the camera?  Are we really that young?

            When I talk about my generation, I mean Generation Y. (Dammit why did America decide to half-ass generation names just in time for me to earn such a crap title?)  We’re also known as (consults Wikipedia) the ‘Net Generation’, the ‘Hipster Generation’ or ‘Generation Next’.  Wait, what the hell?  My generation has an AKA with the word hipster in it?  Also, isn’t Generation Next an old Pepsi campaign?  Well, shit.  I did a little research to make my point and now I’m just angry.

            Aside:  To calm down a little, I checked out the next generation in line and found they have a just-as-dumb name in Generation Z.  These guys get ‘Internet Generation’ or ‘Generation Text’ for their nicknames.  While terrible, it’s still better than a failed Pepsi campaign.  (What next, Generation AA?  Oh, no, never mind, Wikipedia says the next one will be AO.  Poor saps.)

            Now, to get back on topic, I feel that Generation Y is behind the previous generations when it comes to putting up bankable, excellent movie stars, especially those of the masculine persuasion.  To keep things easy, I’ll round off and refer to Gen Y as anyone born from 1980 to 1995.  There doesn’t seem to be an agreed-up list of start/stop dates, with some starting Gen Y as early as 1975 and some starting as late as 1982.  However, actual researchers seem to agree on 1980 as the cutoff, so screw everyone else.  Science!

            Now give me the names of the most bankable stars currently working in Hollywood.  Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts.  Those make sense, right?  Well, in a depressing twist, bankable in Hollywood doesn’t mean beloved, talented or Oscar-worthy.  According to Forbes, the top ten include Daniel Radcliffe, Shia LaBeouf, Anne Hathaway, Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart.

Hey!  Guess how these guys got on the list?  Franchises!  Harry Potter, Transformers and Twilight happened, and they happened to make cash.  So let’s say ‘fuck the word bankable’ because it’s arguable that all three of those franchises would still have done well without any of those actors.

            So what about reliable?  What actors in Generation Y are consistently challenging themselves?  Which ones do you see in a movie and go “I like that guy/girl!  They’re always good no matter what movie they’re in?”  Personally, I’d immediately remove LeBeouf, Pattinson and Stewart.  I’d leave Radcliffe and Hathaway in and then add Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  Jennifer Lawrence and Elizabeth Olsen have excellent potential, but I don’t think their catalog is big enough yet for me to comfortably say that I would like to see almost every movie they star in.

            What exactly does it take to become a beloved, respected actor/actress?  With the success of Martha Marcy May Marlene and Winter’s Bone, the leads (Olsen and Lawrence, respectively) were immediately praised as the next big thing.  They were welcomed to Hollywood as breakout stars and immediately placed in a tentative pantheon of great actresses.  That sure as hell didn’t happen when LeBeouf starred in the first Transformers movie.  It wasn’t until I saw Gordon-Levitt in Brick that I really started to believe that he was a truly phenomenal actor. 

Are we tougher on guys than on girls, or do we simply have different standards?  Certainly the question comes into play when we compare talent with bankability.  Male stars are more likely to be bankable in action films, not Oscar-worthy ones.  Sure, we all love Liam Neeson, but he’s suddenly so much more popular doing brainless action films like Taken and Unkown than he ever was in Oscar contenders like Rob Roy and Schindler’s List.  Does it take a few action vehicles for someone to become a trusted Hollywood go-to guy?  Is that why Tom Cruise and Sylvester Stallone are still working?  Are they go-to guys because there’s nobody in Generation Y ready to pick up the action hero torch, or is there nobody to pick up the torch because Cruise and Stallone are hogging all the roles?

Back to the talent argument, I think the best way to support my claim is also the most arbitrary one.  What Generation Y actors do you see as future  Oscar winners?  I think this speaks more about talent.  Again, it’s all relative, but I think we can agree on a few names.  (That way we can also leave out the monetary end.  Example: there are more people who decry Stewart as talentless than there are defenders of her abilities, but she’s currently the most monetarily bankable actress in America.)

So here’s the other part of my argument: I think there are quite a few Generation Y women who can and will continue to put out movies that demonstrate their incredible skills, whether or not the movie itself is good.  Lawrence, Olsen, Hathaway, Ellen Page, Christina Ricci (Black Snake Moan, anyone?) and Scarlett Johannson. Right off the top of my head, there are over half a dozen women, born 1980-1995 who can and should win Oscars in their lifetime. 

So what about the guys?  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a no-brainer.  We don’t get Bale or Di Caprio.  James Franco only fits Gen Y if we go by non-scientific dating.  I actually liked Zac Effron in Me and Orson Welles but he hasn’t done anything since makes him anything special.  Chris Evans is great but he has yet to tackle a challenging role that convinces me he’s an esteemed actor.  The only other guy I suspect of greatness is Ryan Gosling.  That’s it.  Two, maybe three guys in Hollywood are both bankable and Oscar-level talented.  That’s three out of a potential pool of millions.

Before you say anything, yes, I think part of it is appearance.  Women are definitely cast with more thought towards their looks than men are.  This means they’re more likely to become famous as they’re younger.  Americans seem to love the older action star, be he grizzled or just worldly.  This gives guys more leeway in the looks department.  But does this explain why so few guys in my generation are taking the really good, meaty, challenging roles from some of the grizzled old guard?

I genuinely have no idea, but I believe that something is wrong in Hollywood.  Because the Baby Boomers refuse to go quietly into the night, my generation is going to have a severe shortage of excellent actors and actresses in twenty years.  Just take a look at your local theater.  The Baby Boomers and Gen X’ers are still throwing their heroes up on screen, even if they’re no longer within a decade of the role they’re playing.  Seriously, some of these guys need to calm down and start playing grandfatherly roles.

What do you think?  Do I have a good argument here?  Do you think I’m missing the point?  Are you pissed off that I left someone off my list?  Let me hear it and maybe I’ll revise this entire argument just to prove you wrong.

American Reunion/ 100th Post!

Just over a year ago, I decided to improve my writing skills and justify my love of film at the same time.  I took up the gauntlet and challenged myself to watch new and old films that I wouldn’t necessarily like, both because I think I write better when I’m mad at something and because I genuinely wanted to broaden my film repertoire.

Now I’ve done something I honestly didn’t expect to achieve:  I’ve written my 100^th post.  Sure, not my 100^th film related post, but Mainstreamin’ now has 100 awesome articles you can choose from.

Where’s my cookie?

On to the review!

In a strange way, I’m celebrating a milestone by watching a film that achieved its own milestone of sorts.  A plucky teenage comedy that was actually pretty funny when it first came out, it spawned several theater sequels and a host of direct-to-DVD cash grabs.  In case you haven’t guessed where this is going, I’m talking about the American Pie franchise.  Or, more specifically, this week’s new release: American Reunion.

This is an odd fate of sorts, really.  Just like our erstwhile characters, I’m also Class of 1999, although our reunion was actually held on its 10^th year instead of 13^th like in this film.  At least they had the good sense to justify the reasoning even if it was a bit weak.  The first movie greatly influenced my sense of humor and I loved the shit out of it, but a strange thing happened.  Each successive film kept the same humor but I laughed less and less.

Disavowing the direct-to-DVD films, how does American Reunion compare to the other movies?  Interestingly enough it’s both a step up and a step down.  They actually shot for a slightly more mature brand of humor at certain points in order to appeal to their older viewers who have ‘grown up’ with Stiffler, Oz and the gang, while still trying to bring the juvenile humor that has been the hallmark of the series.  This ends up creating a wildly hit-and-miss film.  This was evident in my theatergoing experience when two kids who absolutely positively should have been the perfect demographic actually got up and left halfway through the movie.

Even though all the characters are now thirty-something, American Reunion still tries to mix toilet humor and contrived situations to spice up simple conflict.  Girl has a crush on you?  Instead of just telling your wife what’s up and telling the girl that you appreciate it but would like to pass, why don’t you set yourself up into having to sneak her topless form into her bedroom while your friends distract the parents? 

Some kids steal your girlfriend’s bra?  Why not let your dangerously unhinged friend shit in their cooler and destroy thousands of dollars’ worth of property?  Yeah, that’s a great idea!

I’m not going to name the real actors because you either know them all by now or you don’t.  While none of them have exactly blown up in Hollywood, almost everyone from the America Pie franchise is recognizable.  What’s unchanged is their place in this fictional universe.  Jim and Michelle are now happily married but *gasp* have intimacy issues.  Oz is a big-shot TV personality with a hot, crazy, selfish Hollywood girlfriend.  (He’s also the plot device for the best running gag in the movie.  It seems where he competed in a celebrity dance-off against such famous personalities as Gilbert Gottfried and Antoine Dodson.  Hosted by Neil Patrick Harris!)  The Stiffmeister never grew up and is desperately trying to act exactly like he did when he was 18.  Of course he’s still too thick-headed to realize that nobody likes him because of it.

The only truly likeable person in the whole movie is Jim’s Dad, and his shenanigans are a bit too goofy overall.  Fortunately for us, Eugene Levy is an accomplished enough actor and he brings some emotional depth to a character who is still mourning the loss of his wife.  That is, until he gets high and drops out of a second-story window.

Let’s see here.  Nope, none of the other characters are really worth mentioning but they all have their own problems.  The trouble is, these are mostly your typical teen angst problems, which steals any emotional connection we may have with these characters.  I can understand a nervous 18-year old stuttering and stumbling when presented with breasts, but to see a 31-year old doing it is just sad.  Then again, seeing anyone shit into a cooler is kind of sad.

Basically, the entire movie is the original cast’s adventures while back in town for their reunion.  It all culminates in them learning important life lessons that they should have figured out a decade-and-change ago.  Even worse, the only time I actually laughed openly was during the throwaway gag at the very end of the film.  It was a great gag, sure, but it shouldn’t have taken so damn long to make me laugh my ass off.

Basically, American Reunion tries to amuse every demographic from 15 to 50 and fails to keep anyone’s attention.  They honestly would have been better off catering to the teenage crowd, because while I appreciate their attempt at showing the world how everyone is growing up, they failed to make it believable.

If you want to check out a funny coming-of-age film, I recommend Not Another Teen Movie.  They spoof parts of American Pie and other, far superior, teen films.  Even better, they knew enough to not pump out sequels.

Hopefully my 200^th post will coincide with a movie I actually like.

Wrath of the Titans

An Open Letter to the Makers of Wrath of the Titans

To whom it may concern:

            Before I delve into the reasons for writing this letter, I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed your movie’s sole lesson. It was the best example of how not to film an historical epic that I have ever witnessed.  Unfortunately, I do have a few problems with your film.

            By ‘a few’ I mean ‘your entire movie.’

First off, the acting is terrible.  Sam Worthington reprises his role as Perseus, the bastard son of Zeus and a human woman.  You know what?  I don’t remember ANY of the demigods being this goddamn emo.  You might as well have gotten Robert Smith to play the lead.  Then you get Liam Neeson to slum it as Zeus, and by slumming I mean that even his most ridiculous action film is still Shakespeare compared to the lines he’s forced to deliver.   Plus, you somehow get Ralph Fiennes to show up again as Hades!  I can only hope that he’s using the money from this movie to buy as much drugs/alcohol/women as it takes to forget he ever agreed to show up to the set.

Then you go and cast, what, three women for the entire movie?  Believe it or not, there were more Olympian Goddesses in our pantheon than there are women in this ‘epic action film!’  The only female with more than three lines is Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), and she’s pretty much an afterthought.  The only reason they added her to is because someone realized that Wrath of the Titans was turning into a homoerotic action movie.  (Actually, this would have given it an added dimension and maybe something to think about, rather than just turning it into such a substandard shitfest.) 

Not a single one of these characters is remotely interesting; some of them look downright bored.  Nobody else is worth mentioning, and that’s probably for the best.  (Yes, I am deliberately avoiding acknowledging The Navigator, because I’d like to forget about him as much as the second half of your film did.)  The less recognized every one of these poor actors are from this film, the better their chances of continued employment in Hollywood.

            Now, about those Gods.  According to your ‘plot’ the Gods are dying but still immortal while the Titans are completely immortal.  Yet we need to kill the resurrected immortal Titan.  Meanwhile, the immortal Gods require prayer or they can die.  Which I guess means that they’re immortal in the Highlander sense?  Then you go on to ignore the existence of all but four Gods and one Titan (at least you picked the right one.  Was that intentional or completely by accident?)  Oh yeah, and you also name-drop Athena, so good on you I suppose.  Congratulations on remembering that powerful women existed in ancient Greece.

            Okay.  So now you have the ‘big three’ in Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, and you threw in Ares and…that’s it.  Dead you mean to poorly imply that every other God in the entire pantheon is dead?  What the hell?  So all the soldiers still pray to Ares, but no alcoholics bother to pray to Dionysius?  Your version of Greece has no prostitutes or lonely teenage virgins, so Aphrodite has just up and disappeared?  Nobody’s giving birth anymore, so the Greeks stopped praying to Hera?  Oh yeah, I’m sure she’d love that.  Have you SEEN Hera when she’s pissed?  The only God I’m not surprised you left out was Apollo, what with him being the God of education and you guys having obviously skipped over the whole ‘know your subject matter’ part of storytelling.

            Which brings me back to a previous point.  You mention that a God stays powerful because of the prayers of his followers, and the less people pray the less power the God has.  Why then do you abandon that entire plot point when it would actually be useful?  “Oh hey guys, Zeus could totally use a hand, why don’t we have this army of thousands offer up a quick prayer, thus instantly zapping him with power?”  No, of course not, because then the fight scene wouldn’t happen the way you want it to!

            This leads me to my final comment.  Your fight scenes are shit, and your movie is boring because of it.  It’s obvious that whoever made this movie had no idea how to write dialog, inspire actors or maintain any sort of cohesion in a story.  So the least you could have done was make the fight scenes amazing and keep them coming.

            Nope!  Fuck that!  Five fights in a two hour movie and everything else is bad emoting and shitty conversations.  Then, when you finally get to a fight, the camera wanders off in the worst imitation of a Bourne film I have ever witnessed.  Add that to the fact Wrath of the Titans seems to have been filmed with a thick orange sheet over the camera lens, and you have the most confusing (yet boring) and nausea-inducing action sequences of all time!

            Next time you decide to make a film that involves pre-established mythology of any kind, please attempt to make a good story out of what already exists.  If that fails, please try to make a story that makes sense.  If you cannot do that, then you have no business being a writer or a director.

Thank you,

Hermes

P.S. We’re not dead, assholes, but you’re dead to us.

P.P.S. If we were to die, we would totally explode, not turn into a pillar of sand.  This is the only instance in the history of film where Michael Bay would have done a better job.

Mirror, Mirror

            Due to a lovely Friday where I didn’t have to work, I was able to catch two movies.  I took in the spectacles that were Wrath of the Titans and Mirror, Mirror.  I really enjoyed the latter and despised the former with heat of a thousand suns.  Therefore, you’re going to get Mirror,Mirror today, whilst I write a suitable ode of hatred to my new Worst Film of 2012.

            On to the review!

            If you haven’t heard of Snow White, here’s your primer:  A very vain woman marries a widower king who has a lovely daughter.  Shit goes down and the king falls under a spell/disappears/acts all dumb and shit.  His daughter is on her way to becoming an adult and just happens to be the most beautiful woman in the kindgom.  The new queen doesn’t like this one bit and tries to have her killed.  It doesn’t go down that way, and Snow White ends up the happy queen.  Dwarves are usually involved.

            There are a mega shit ton of variations to this movie:  Snow White: A Tale of Terror, Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Snow White, and a future movie that I hope to despise – Snow White and the Huntsman.  They’re all the same damn movie with a few changes.  Though some are horrors, some are actions, and some are cute, they’re still all about Snow White.  Interestingly, this is the first one I’ve seen that is a genuine comedy. 

Y’know what?  It turns out that the story of Snow White really lends itself to comedy.

            It doesn’t hurt that there was an excellent script and very game actors.  Julia Roberts is the greedy, vain and wicked queen while Snow White is played by Lily Collins, a relative newcomer with only a few movies under her belt.  This time Snow is a shut-in, forced to stay in her room and browbeaten by her step-mother any time she dares to leave it.  This all changes when she turns 18 and braves a trip to the local village, encountering a wandering Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer (hehe, sounds like Arm and Hammer)).  This dashing young gentleman is found hanging upside-down after being robbed by 7 bandits of short stature.  Add in a fantastic Nathan Lane as the Queen’s ever-suffering aid, Brighton, and I have to admit that I was charmed by this film a lot more than I expected to be.

From there, everything gets complicated and stays amusing.

            Without getting carried away and ruining the twists, let me just say thank you, Mirror, Mirror for handling dwarves in a fun, entertaining way without being a douche or an asshole about it.  You can genuinely imagine each and every one as an individual.  None of them are played up for pure laughs; they’re all genuinely interesting and awesome in their own right, especially Chuckles (Ronald Lee Clark), who is really fun every time he’s on screen. Only A Tale of Terror’s version did  a better job at fleshing out any one ‘dwarf,’ and they did that by making 6 of the 7 dwarves…well, not dwarves at all.  Jerkfaces.

            The best part about Mirror, Mirror is that, despite its PG rating, it finds that perfect balance of entertaining children and adults alike without resorting to lowest-common-denominator entertainment.  The kids will enjoy the colors and fight scenes, the goofy stuff and the silly stuff, and none of it is toilet humor (well, okay, one scene involves bird diarrhea, but it’s actually hilarious).  The adults will love the silly and goofy stuff too, but there’s also some great wordplay and a few double-entendres mixed in.

            Oh yeah, and the story, despite being told thousands of times before, works out great.  It keeps the plot light and sharp, an appropriate ending, and there’s also a scene where a ship in someone’s hair fires a canon at someone else’s hairship.

            Don’t be afraid to enjoy Mirror, Mirror in the theater.  It’s fun and fast-paced enough that none of the kids were any trouble at all and everyone seemed to leave happy.  You may see this and argue that it’s not the best Snow White version out there, but you’ll definitely rank it highly.

            I would, however, like to make a note of one of the previews I saw.  It was a shitty 1-minute teaser trailer that basically let the world know that Stephanie Meyer’s The Host is going to be a movie.  Here’s where I’m happy and sad.  Since I’ve never read a single book she wrote, I have to go off the comments of others.  From all those comments, I’ve gathered that The Host is a nearly complete rip-off of Meyer’s other story, Twilight, only this time with aliens.  So boo to Miss Meyers for dipping back into the same damn well without even trying, and boo to the studios for continuing to pump out movies that will inspire a rabid fan base without actually offering anything new or different. 

            However, yay to the fact that I don’t have a single friend who has read that particular book.  (Note:  If you are my friend and have read the book, don’t tell me so that I can keep living the lie.)