Christmas Cheer with a Movie

I'm not the one to wish you everything happy. The holidays of Christmas cheer are usually that time of year, when I sneeze profusely [it's like a clockwork device, people, truly annoying]. So I'll be doing just that, sneezing my eyes off, and hope to watch this movie below:



It's not really cheerful, but I have to say that it's something else entirely in the Christmas movie genre.

Top 5 WORST Speculative Movies Ever Conceived

I watch a lot of movies. I don't discriminate [unless I have some sort of expectations; I can be a scathing demon, when I have unfulfilled expectations], because every type of movie has a certain purpose. B movies aren't meant to be quite that serious, parodies are somewhere lower in the rank list and I'm positive that the productions sitting on the lowest step have an audience. If a movie's created, written, produced and aired, then there is a reason it exists. But quite honestly, I think that there are movies that should have been creative abortions, because... really because they made me facepalm, but it's a subjective criteria.

5) SHARKTOPUS

This movie is not out, yet. The official trailer circulates around the web, but there is no official poster, so you will have to get by on this concept-art piece. The movie is more like this, but less awesome. No matter how cool it seems as a stationary depiction, the sharktopus possesses the-coolest-thing-evah! factor only in this medium. While the hybrid as an idea is wicked, it's futile to try and base a passable story on the monster alone. Even if millions went into the CGI [which here is not the case; for the curious, watch the trailer] to make it look good, Syfy [the creator] has a long history with movies starring CGI monster [Mega Piranha, Mega Shark vs. Mega Octopus etc.] and I am sure that they are out of good material. You may argue that it's too early to judge, but how many movies about giant monsters have you watched recently [being key word here] that are entertaining. Especially about weird-ass hybrids. So, number five goes to a sure failure at a B movie.

'I can't deceive even a toddler that I could [theoretically] exist'. [Because toddlers have seen better CGI in commercials.]

4) THE CRYPT

Fantastic poster. Sarah Oh [Grey's Anatomy] is present, but that was misleading and taught me to never trust a known name as a factor that a movie is the very least mediocre. I love crypts. I love people trying to rob them and die trying. I also do not expect much as far as characterization goes, but everything from script to the actual acting was cringe-worthy. It's as if the characters wanted to die, so they did not fight for their survival that much. I watched just to see how wrong they can execute such a simple premise and seeing the one survivor return only to die, was the reason, why this one is featured here.

3) ONE EYED MONSTER

I've reviewed this one and had it labeled as the downfall of human intelligence or something in that vein. Yes, this movie is not taking itself very seriously. It's a movie about an alien possessing Ron Jeremy's penis and killing people in absurd ways. It was funny in a 'am I on something?' kind of way, because it was hallucinogenic and you could enjoy it, if you are high. The whole premise of murderous, sentient genitalia begs the question whether the creators are in good mental health. By the way, that is a rhetoric question. You don't need to answer. To top it off, the main villain [the penis] had almost no air time.

What did you expect? She is French.

2) VAMPIRE GIRL VS. FRANKENSTEIN GIRL

I know it's Japan. I know it's horror. It's beside the point whatever speculative production they release had to meet an early, gruesome end. BUT I watched it, so it stands as representative of the entire Japanese B-movie industry. Inherently, duels between monster icons are not a rarity and I would encourage that such duels take place [I hope Zack Snyder decides to take this concept and do something visually stunning about it], especially between schoolgirls. However, Japan brutally misunderstands the nature of the vampire and treats the Frankenstein monster as a Lego set of weapons and whatnot. Here is the trailer:

I bet you don't want to see it.

1) THANKS KILLING
A clever pun and a movie based on the existential question that plagues the criminally insane in America: What would happen, if turkeys strike back? Apparently the answer is to whip up razor blades and blurt: "Gobble, gobble, motherfucker!" before carving you up like a... well, you know, a Thanksgiving turkey. Oh, cruel, cruel irony. But couldn't I be overreacting? I mean there are movies with killing birds [Hitchcock's classic BIRDS], but what distinguishes Thanks Killing from every other movie on the topic is that turkeys are really not that intimidating. They do not fly, so that make them a lesser threat. AND they lack the opposable thumb to make that weapon-wielding, even a tad believable. You want to be saved from this pest. Call KFC. They have been dying to branch out into fried Thanksgiving dinners [if they already haven't or are about to].

[TRAILER] Sucker Punch

I usually do not invest a lot of interest in movies, but sometimes I can't help myself and fall in love at first glance. Two days ago I posted the posters from the upcoming, seriously conceptional flick Sucker Punch. BUT what is better than posters is the actual trailer. As you can see this won't be a meaningful film and it may not even be a story that makes sense, but what I can tell you is that it will be pure fun.

[MOVIE] Sucker Punch

I was browsing the interwebs, WHEN I came across the words 'Alice in Wonderland, but with machine guns' and was entranced by the Zack Snyder 2011 project [already post-production].

According to Wikipedia, which is quoting Zack Snyder, SUCKER PUNCH is:

Set in the 1950s, it tells the story of Baby Doll (Browning), who is trying to hide from the pain caused by her evil stepfather and lobotomy. She ends up in mental institution and while there she starts to imagine alternative reality. She plans to escape from that imaginary world but to do that she needs to steal five objects before she is caught by a vile man. She has 5 days to escape before being lobotomized. In order to cope with the situation, she enters the hyper-real world of her imagination, and the lines between reality and dream begin to blur. She is joined with friends who are inmates from the institution. Lessons learned in the said fantasy world could help the girls escape their real-world fate.

It also helps that the characters are life-sized hormonal wet dreams. Not mine, but I appreciate the aesthetic eroticism. Here are four from six posters [as the missing two did not catch my fancy].

[Movies] Some Zombies + An Apocalypse

'Dead Snow' is the Norwegian suggestion for some good old zombie horror with its gore, blood, campy atmosphere and genuinely scary scene. It all starts when a group of young med students [I honestly can't say that they are hot young med students, but at least they act], who fancy some alone time in a cabin, indulging in winter activities like playing in the snow and drinking beer by the hearth. But the carefree vacation time expires, when they find a box with jewels from World War II. Because Nazi soldiers were supposedly addicted to bling bling, frozen corpses decide to raid the small cabin and accessorize. What can I say? Fashion Victims. The whole idea is that the Nazis are bound as zombies, because of their avarice. You won't see something new, but the balance between gross out suspense moments and laugh out loud situations is highly satisfying, making this movie a must-see for all zombie addicts.

'I Sell the Dead' is perhaps the best horror comedy I have watched [after 'Shaun of the Dead'], which intentionally made me laugh. This is a delightful Irish production about grave robbers back, when this sort of business was lucrative and popular. As a period piece it follows the main hallmarks of the genre. The story begins as a conversation between Arthur [Dominic Monaghan] and Father Duffy [Ron Perlman] hours before Arthur's execution. Then the familiar story within a story model manifests and we are treated to a memoir-like re-telling of Arthur's life as a grave robber and how he started working from ordinary corpses to more animated odd-jobs. This is a comedy, which never let's you rest for a minute. If you are not laughing, you are glued to the screen, anticipating what will happen next. I enjoyed this one in particular.

'Carriers' rides on the whole flu panic. In this movie the world meets its end via a pandemic virus without cure. What I liked about this movie is how it started. It the first few moments, there is no horror, no death. However, this changes once the traveling party of four [Chris Pine, Piper Perabo, Emily VanCamp, Lou Taylor Pucci] meets with up a father and his dying daughter. This apocalypse is a lot less action packed. The dead do not come back. The regular humans are not a Happy Meal special, but there is a certain weight, while watching. Human empathy, solidarity and relationships are opposed to survival instincts. It's in this context that 'Carriers' whisked me away and came through as enjoyable. Yes, there is almost nothing new added to the genre. The characters behave in a manner you would expect to in this sort of movie. There is a certain deja vu moment, but in total a good movie choice.

[NEWS] Felicia Day as Little Red

As we all know fairy tales are the BOMB. You grew up with a relative reading you stories. Perhaps, you have listened in on a relative read stories to your younger sibling. There were the books, the animated series, the Looney Tunes/Tex Avery's specials and of course Disney. They have left an everlasting impression on our minds and it is no surprise that we try to enact them, cast them in your reality and draw them closer to us.

The long winded overture leads to this announcement from a few weeks back at SFX:

Syfy has released the first image of Felicia (Dr Horrible/The Guild) Day starring in Red, a modern-day retelling of Little Red Riding Hood. Looking at it, we don’t rate the wolf’s chances.

Red is part of a new Syfy series of original telemovies aimed at giving new twists on classic fairy tales and myths. The series launched last month with Beauty And The Beasts: A Dark Tale and future movies will include new versions of Aladdin, Sinbad and Hansel & Gretel.

I watched the SyFy ALICE [though minus the caps lock]. It was long, dystopian and a worthy re-imagining of the distilled imaginative thrill-ride that is the original Alice in Wonderland. I am positively looking forward to seeing this one out in the open. Felicia Day is a budding SFF actress, who I hope turns into a multi-role landing icon.

Parody Oscar Posters

It's Movie Monday [it even alliterates] and as such I will bring to you something relevant [or not so relevant, since the Oscars were ages ago] and/or funny [which I am aiming for right now]. Without further ado, here are some movie posters from CollgeHumor, where Oscar nominees get the not so tactful, but hilarious treatment. I discovered this ages ago on a Bulgarian movie review site called the Cinema Scrotum [the dude is hilarious, malevolent and most importantly, knows what he's talking about]. Too bad you do not know my language. Anyway, enjoy.

Da Vinci to be an Action Hero

"Mr. Myagi, The European Renaissance Years"

Warner Bros. is turning Leonardo into an action-adventure hero. No, not DiCaprio, but Da Vinci.

The studio has picked up a treatment titled "Leonardo da Vinci and the Soldiers of Forever" from producer Adrian Askarieh, who is teaming with Vertigo's Roy Lee and Doug Davison.

Da Vinci is best known as the painter behind "Mona Lisa" and "The Last Supper," though he also was an inventor, engineer, architect, mathematician among many other occupations. The project re-imagines Da Vinci as a member of a secret society who falls headlong into a supernatural adventure that pits the man against Biblical demons in a story involving secret codes, lost civilizations, hidden fortresses and fallen angels. Think "National Treasure" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" by way of "Clash of the Titans."

---

Who else is terrified? I am sure that history is against using iconic examples of human greatness to be ridiculed in these movies and books. We had Queen Victoria and Abe Lincoln, but now we have Da Vinchi. I sure hope that they leave Elvis Presley, Julia Child, Marie Currie and Nicola Tesla alone.

At the Movies: Rewind

There is this dilemma in my mind about whether to review movies or not, because I watch a huge amount of movies. It is my main way to unwind, when my brain tires from both reading and writing, but because I watch so many I can’t review all in separate reviews. However I do seem to have something to say about each movie I watch, so this new feature with snippets about my movie habits lands me in the middle between whether to review or not. So Mondays I will be doing that.

1) Inglorious Basterds

Kill Bill relied on blood in industrial quantities to gush out and spray every inch, until the setting has no other color than red. Here we omit the blood and substitute it for murder plots and change-o presto we have “Inglorious Basterds”. There is much to love here: the sense that this is the bastard child of a bond movie and Austin Powers movie [personal conviction and to be frank Mike Meyers did have a small cameo]; the part where Hitler dies and the skilled acting. Brad Pitt sounds unrecognizable with that accent. Eli Roth was a delightful homicidal oaf and Christoph Waltz as the polyglot Nazi General Hans Landa stunned me as a villain. I was also taken by Melanie Laurent, who brought life to the character of a femme fatale with a knack for mass murdering schemes.

2) Public Enemies

As long as it has Depp in it I can’t do wrong. It’s a simple rule that has added me countless times in picking movies and so far hasn’t proved me wrong. “Public Enemies” is grave, heavy and also quite dynamic and turbulent. There is tension, there is great acting and some greatly shot machine gun scenes. There is something about the thirties I am fascinated with and Depp along with Marion Cotillard don’t disappoint me with their performances. The same can be said for the rest of the cast. It’s a good movie, but is it great, unforgettable and mind blowing in general? Not really. Give it a few days and it will vacate your memory. Sad as it is, to me it was a case of ‘all the boxes were checked, but somehow somewhere something has slipped’.

3) Coco before Chanel

Chanel is an iconic name. It is a synonym for style. It has made 5, the most fashionable digit in history. And behind that name stood one woman: Coco. Since I am European and studying French I didn’t mind watching this, but I am not entirely sure how much European movies make it to the US, so I am not sure whether it has caught on, but I certainly hope that you are in the mood for a French docudrama about Coco the woman before rising to fame. I would have enjoyed seeing her battling her way as she made her debut in the fashion world, but I was enchanted by Audrey Toutou’s marvelous portrayal of a Coco making her first steps, falling in love and being burned by life. It breezed through time and I couldn’t believe when it ended. This was accomplished with the help of the brilliant cast, staring Emmanuelle Devos and Benoît Poelvoorde.

Iron Man 2 - The Poster

Via the awesome BSCreview team I have discovered that Iron Man's sequel has an official poster and I can say that it spells awesome. Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson and Olivia Munn are also to star alongside Robert Downey Jr and Gwyneth Paltrow.

"Breakfast on Pluto"

Browsing through movie catalogues these days can be a very challenging and laborious task to perform and striking gold usually is a rare occasion upon itself. I’m not implying any bit of scrutiny towards the industry or its production quality, but that I am incompatible to a large degree with the movies coming out the last three years or so. This makes picking a flick, even from the anticipated ones, a ritual that involves prayers and all available fingers crossed. For every ten disappointments or so I do get rewarded with a film that just clicks with me and delivers the cinema experience, the way the artsy gods intended.

“Breakfast on Pluto” is one of those pleasant accidents, which don’t promise much at first glance. The cast is not represented by largely recognizable names, the poster I saw [not the one exhibited here] did not gauge my interest and this is a 2005 production I hadn’t registered yet; all factors that discouraged me. However the strange, possibly surrealistic title and the plot overview that promised if not a brilliant story than at least an odd rarity of a story nudged me into submission.

Based on the novel with the same title by Irish author Peter McCabe “Breakfast on Pluto” is a broken and repaired carousel circling in a fair’s hall of mirrors. A ride that transported me in a world, veiled in grimness, beauty and humor, where happy endings do occur ever so often. Director Neil Jordan presents the story in short chapters, though they feel like vignettes to me, pieced together in order to relay the extraordinary life of Patrick Braden [Cillian Murphy], a man, who never allowed fear to bind him into expressing his self and personality to the fullest, even if that contradicts society’s rules and traditional gender roles.

Yes, this is a story about a transvestite, but then again this is not a story that focuses on cross dressing. This part of the character is simply the background, the small door that allows the story to escape the mainstream formal façade of life and run free through the dark alleys, where surprises and dangers lurk, entwined and masked into each other. From IRA terrorists to a missing mother, a glittering rock band and a stage magician the viewer is submerged into an almost surrealistic version of the 70s in the UK and Ireland, where all of the improbable is able to happen.

There is a plot line. Patrick tries to find his mother, who left him, when he was a child, but once the movie takes off I got the impression this was a story focused on the journey rather than the destination. This is shown through Patrick’s own transformation from an androgynous youth to a high gloss drag queen. I’d also like to mention that this visual metamorphosis is a tool that parallels Patrick’s inner growth as he discovers what matters in life. Refreshingly sex is never shown. Infatuation, sparks and mischevious humor are present, but there is no vulgarity displayed, which fully cements my view that “Breakfast on Pluto” explores diversity in life styles without condemning.

As a finishing thought I would like to add that the cast did an amazing job at making these characters spring to life. First off, there is Liam Neeson, who is one of my all time favorite actors Ireland could have given birth to and he plays the part of Father Liam with the required serenity, I expect from priests. Then we have Ruth Negga, who is an unknown to me name, but delivers her role with integrity and energy that draw you in. Last, but not least there is Brendan Gleeson, who I have seen in so many Hollywood productions I can expect solid acting.

Drag Me To Hell

This review has passed through quite a few stages of contemplation and I even thought that it would be better, if I didn’t bother and just keep my jumbling thoughts to myself. Halloween is on its way, so I had to reconsider. In general I am concerned with horror as a movie genre to have become more of a torture porn experience rather than host some chilling stories that can scare the wits out of me. “Drag Me to Hell” offered the goose bump thrill ride in theory with a trailer that drove me hysterical with anticipation. Trailers often create expectations and when a release date is far in the calendar, these expectations become an obstacle for the flick to do what it is meant to do.

Such is the case here. After the long waiting for the premiere and then the agonizing months for the Bulgarian release I have already began to refer to “Drag Me as Hell” as the ultimate horror title without having watched it yet. Was it awesome? Yes. Was it THE greatest? Eh, no. I got the dream plot line. A young woman is cursed to be dragged to Hell in three days time by an old gypsy woman and the events follow this young woman, Christine Brown [Alison Lohman], as she tries to break the curse, but in the mean time is hunted by the demon sent to her by the gypsy, Sylvia Ganesh [Lorna Raver]. There is poltergeist activity as well as physical manifestations, nightmares and séances.

With a budget of over 30 Million dollars the attention to details is flawless. Everything from settings to special effects has been handled with immaculate care and professionalism, which for me makes a supernatural movie of any sort. I am more or less visually stimulated creature and the execution of CGI is of personal importance. I enjoyed that aspect of the movie and all the gross moments created nausea, the scary moments frightened me and the funny moments made me chuckle. However did I feel terrified from start to finish? Not exactly, because there is some sense of predictability to the movie as “Drag Me to Hell” doesn’t add anything new to the genre. And that’s the disappointing quality that stained my expectations. I hoped for a lot more gore, a lot more intensity and innovation. What dragged as well was the mythology. The Lamia is a mythical figure from ancient Greece that has nothing to do with gypsies and in Bulgarian folklore the Lamia is reptilian dragon-like creature that sleeps in caves and enjoys snacking on innocent adolescents or virgins. There is no reference to Hell or gypsies, which was a downer for me really.

In the end of the day Raimi has written and directed homage to a subgenre of horror movies, which have fallen into oblivion and misrepresented. He has taken all those classic elements I have seen in all the movies, comic books and stories before and polished them, repaired them and assembled a brand new, slicker version of it. There is nothing wrong with that and I still enjoyed “Drag Me to Hell”. I never would have believed that a fabric handkerchief would be so menacing and fill me with dread, while at the same time now I can’t look a goat straight in the eye and not chuckle after the séance scene. Actress Alison Lohman perplexed me with her acting. One moment I am excited about her performance and the next she is a bit stiff, but that is more or less subjective. I was glad to see Justin Long as Professor Dalton and Christine’s fiancé, in this production, simply because I like the dude as a person.

As a conclusion “Drag Me to Hell” is creepy and at the same time there is built-in comedy relief and it’s a campy production that I would love to watch again with friends. With a 92% fresh given by Rotten Tomatoes I think that a lot of people share the same sentiment, by which I am astounded, because I can rarely agree with anybody on the movies that appeal to me.

"One Eyed Monster" or Cinema's Descent into Stupidity

The inspiration for this post came to me after I spent around two hours with breaks watching an absurdity called “One Eyed Monster”. This is a B-movie about an alien possessing porn legend Ron Jeremy’s nine-incher and rape-murder the cast of an adult movie, who are stuck in a cabin during a blizzard.

The existence of such a premise alone poses the question: How far can people stretch the limits of creative stupidity? In the case of the Fields brothers, the creators of this movie, I’d have to guess that they can extend it the way Mr. Fantastic does with his extremities. But this idea wouldn’t be as bad, if it only remained an idea. Alas since there is a movie, then there was a whole group of people, who gave green light to this project, which poses another question: How low are the criteria in the movie industry to allow the shooting of this film, even if it’s a B-Movie? Apparently they go very low. I understand that today everybody has the freedom to put out any kind of content and I support this idea, but I am also a supporter of the idea that there should be at least a form of inner censorship that can say enough is enough.

Since I sound like a prick right about now, you must be wondering why I watched it and not say, delete it into oblivion, but instead bashing a very bad movie, when an intelligent person wouldn’t bother. That afternoon I had a friend over and our longest tradition together was to download and watch something extremely weird or idiotic and make fun of it. It’s a great way to manage stress, but this movie got me thinking where the movie industry is headed. Don’t think of me as a movie snob, because I believe that there is a cinema for every cultural need a human being can develop.

As such I also believe that there are movies that are solely created to entertain in one form or another without the need for mental input from the viewer. Transporter was all about action and adrenaline, while the first Scary Movies drove me to a heart failure with laughter at low brow humor and slapstick stupidity. I like it when a movie just triggers a mood that lasts and doesn’t involve much thinking, but I really like it when they are done right.

But where is the quality in the purely made for entertainment movies? This is question that “One Eyed Monster” led me to. This year has been very weak with movies made for that purpose. “Bride Wars” was bland; “The Haunting” as well; “The Spirit” and “Crank: High Voltage” almost made me vomit, while “Transporter 3” bored me and parodies haven’t been that great either. It would seem that right about now we are subjects to a steady stream of sequel series. Action is let loose without much of a plot like the edited mess of blurs that is Crank: High Voltage and nudity and sex are tastelessly served.

I guess sex is a major part in the movie industry, since sex generally sales, but lately this marketing technique has been boosted to new heights. For instance the upcoming “Jennifer’s Body” will heavily rely on Megan Fox exuding sex appeal rather than her acting ability. I think the movie will be good, but there are far too many grisly results where sex doesn’t help at all like the dildo scene from “Van Wilder: Senior Year”, “Crank: High Voltage” and “Zombie Strippers”, where necrophilia and striptease blend into something mind numbing.

I don’t judge, because for every movie there is a willing audience and I know that people wouldn’t enjoy things I watch and read and like in general, but I can’t help, but worry about the path the movie industry has taken. If the blockbuster list and new, strange productions speak about the taste in entertainment of today’s general viewer, then doesn’t that mean that flick by flick the general movie goer is dumbing down?

What do you think about this?

Green Lantern: First Flight

Whenever a comic character sees the animated heavens of a feature film I am always pumped and can barely contain myself. So far I haven’t been disappointed by either Marvel or DC production, which made the choice to watch “Green Lantern: First Flight” quite logical. To be honest I found it entertaining despite the obvious plot, which I think is due to the fact that DC’s green corps are uncharted waters for me. What I think I know has been spoon fed to me through the JLA Unlimited animated series.

The voice actors chosen for the lead cast is strong and experienced. Hal Jordan is voiced by Christopher Meloni, who has an impressive amount of credentials in both big-screen and silver-screen productions. Victor Garber, Sydney’s father in Alias, gives his voice to main villain Sinestro, while Tricia Helfer, Number Six from Battlestar Gallactica, voices Boodikka, who is a traitor in disguise. Kilowog is none other than Michael Madsen. I find this to be an impressive crew and it explains why the superhero dialogue distinctive for its abuse of one-liners and bickering/ teasing [something the scriptwriters avoided] passed as believable, when it usually fails to transfer from comic books to the big screen.

“Green Lantern: First Flight” rewinds to the point where Sinestro switches sides, betrays the Green Corps to control the yellow element and aspires to create a new world order. All with good intentions in mind. I hope there are no surprises here, since Sinestro is one of the JLA’s most known villains or so I think. Along with transition from paragon of justice to a mad dictator-in-the-making there is the initiation of Hal Jordan from a mistrusted earthling to a well respected new addition to the Green Corps.

I can’t exactly say it was the best animated movie ever, because it consisted of well executed moments that keep the interest and then there were ‘what were they thinking’ moments. I liked the Sinestro’s transition from calmly calculative to violent and blunt in his use of power. The gradual slipping of his mask appeared authentic, although obvious. As a person, who is uneducated with Green Corps relationships, I couldn’t predict Boodikka’s betrayal, not even pick up a back stabbing vibe. Moving away from the characters and into the action I can say that the movie doesn’t disappoint. The green element is used often enough in quite a few ways, but I find that the general mimicry of everyday earth objects and constructs limit the possibilities of the power. I can’t say it’s a bad thing, but wish to insert that a hail storm of energy would be awesome.

On the not so awesome side is Hal Jordan’s character, who doesn’t seem to be bothered with being abducted in the midst of plane tests and accept things from aliens. Even the most laid back individuals experience some kind of shock, when an extra terrestrial is inserted in their lives. Not Hal apparently, who even controls the ring with relative ease as if he has spent ages in training, which apparently is a necessity. He is a natural at being a Corp, which we get since the ring chose him, but it all happens too fast and too easily. The only other unpleasant moment concerns the Guardians. As Immortals and the creators of the Green Lantern, I envisioned them as wise men and in the movie I watched a senile group of bantering senior citizens. Thankfully their role in the movie is insignificant enough to let it soil too much of the experience.

I can recommend it. It’s good and makes the time fly by, which is useful during a smoldering afternoon or a rainy day, when there is nothing to do.

Coraline

Year 2009 hasn’t been as entertaining in comparison to previous years, when I think of the movie industry. Only a small amount of movies managed to arouse any positive emotions such as Ice Age 3 or Watchmen, which although somewhat tedious was visually stunning. I have waited so long for “Coraline” to be released in my part of the world that it was painful, but it was definitely worth it. Visual arts and inventive new niches in the movie industry always interested me and give me joy in general, so I felt that “Coraline” would be epic, apart from it being based on a novella by Neil Gaiman, which on its own accredits the movie as a must-see.

The story follows young Coraline Jones as she moves with her family to Pink Palace Apartments in a new town, where Coraline is out of her element and environment. Her parents are overworked and preoccupied and it seems that Coraline’s family is quite dysfunctional or at least atypical. Left to her own devices, Coraline takes to explore her neighbors, all sporting weird character and bios like Mr. Bobinski, a retired acrobat, who trains a circus of mice, or Misses Spink and Forcible, retired actresses with a knack for fortune telling. One night however everything changes when Coraline finds herself in a parallel world simply called the Other World, where she meets her Other Mother and her Other Father, who are the dream versions of her real parents. This world is colorful and welcoming of Coraline, full of magic and fun enchantments, until the façade crumbles and the horrible truth is revealed about the nature of this world is revealed.

What I liked best about the movie is that it’s a literal feast for the eyes. Amazing 3-D and stop animation techniques bring out a whimsical, magical and creepy vision to life. I would have loved it, even if the actors weren’t as good or if the writing and story lacked, simply because the quality of the production is literally spell-binding. But it’s the mixture of all the different elements that make this movie a favorite of multiple critics. First we have Gaiman’s exquisite writing and imagination to create something so different and fresh and after that there is also the cast of actors that gave their voices. Dakota Fanning and Teri Hatcher are two names with a lot of recognition and experience in the movie business with suited voices for this kind of work and the result is one believable and endearing protagonist and a very creepy antagonist. The supporting actors though their names don’t ring any bells at the time being perform accordingly with the same manner of professionalism.

Endearing is also the fact that the audience of all ages can identify themselves with the movie and its messages. It is a feat to incorporate any morale or life lesson into a children’s movie without making it sound preachy. What “Coraline” accomplishes is beyond. I felt that there were two set of messages, one for the young viewers and one for the older audience. As far as I can judge to kids the movie says that appearance often lies and even though your parents seem to do things against your wishes and desires, they do care, love and think about what’s best for you. For the adults this would be taken further with the quote “all that glitters” is not gold. Changing people or wishing people were changed to one’s ideals can never lead to gratification and one is not in position to pick out parents or who life decides to introduce a person to, but there are certainly lessons to be learned from whatever cards life deals.

Wolverine: Illfated Movie Production

Sure comic books are not the smartest form of entertainment, especially the ever popular super hero genre that is the synonym for the comic book insustry as it is, but with shows like Big Brother and bestsellers like the Twilight saga, one is really not in position to judge the intelectual quality of whatever we read or watch. That being said I knew that Wolverine was a movie with very little merit or historical value to leave a major mark on the movie landscape. It's purpose was to be awesome and give us a CGI representation of all the battle scenes with super powers that fans read about and played off in their heads. I am not sure how Hollywood managed to screw up with that simple concept.

Fact is, Wolverine sucked big time and no matter how good and fitted for the role Hugh Jackman is, the man couldn't save this movie from ultimately failing to arouse any positive reactions. To those, who are not Marvel geeks, the movie has a very unsatisfying plot. To those, who are Marvel geeks, the movie more or less will cause mild suicide tendencies and distrust to every future comic book adaptation in the making. I am not a particular expert in the Marvel timeline, so Wolverine is a pretty shady picture, but I know enough to spot major clashes with his origins. It feels like the movie studios simply decided to rewrite the character and the Marvel mutants so that they can fit everything in a very easy way that is really lame.

I call this death by bad writing. Wolverine and Sabertooth were never really that close to begin with in the Marvel universe and the whole brother thing is as unlikely as a black hole and matter to be on friendly basis. Either way even if they did have a strong connection and boy in the movie they made it through so many wars, that connection can't really be cut so fast with both feeling no remnants of brotherly affection towards each other. Illogical as hell, if you ask me. Then we have Wolverine's keen senses that somehow are left out in the whole movie. It is known that he can smell it out when you lie and can pick up life signs in a very near dead person, so neither will Silver Fox's fake death or Starks' lies pass, if that aspect of Logan's powers was acknowledged and it was, but when Silver Fox confessed her true love. Then he smelled truth, but only as a device so that the movie can have a dramatic ending.

Gambit was really bad written character, whose main function was only to interrupt wolvies and tooths battle, so that the movie can continue. Emma Frost shouldn't have been there, since at the time she was a teen she lived in a mega mansion and thought family politics and was a weak telepath. Diamond skin came way later only after she was through with the Hellfire club or somewhere during her involvement with it. Scott Summers didn't have the ruby glasses, until he met professor X and that supposedly [hinted by the final scenes] happened only after he was involved in the whole mutant experimentation scheme.

As you see I am nitpicking everything to the smallest detail, not because it's fun to point out mistakes to people, but because to us, partial to Marvel's creations, these are just hard core facts that spring in our mind like basic mathematics. And we pay the movie industry to entertain us with something we love, which is then twisted and stripped bare of all that made us love it. Just to milk money. If you don't believe notice how nobody spills blood and wolvie's claws are unstained after gutting people. All for the sake of PG-13 ranking.

Star Trek - Non Fan Review

Oh boy, "Star Trek" the movie arrived, dazzled viewers for solid hour and a half and then yodeled the biggest commentary avalanche on the Internet, since ...uh... Watchmen this year. [mhm] Since everybody can't stop mutilating their keyboards in order to share their opinions, it's natural that I throw in my two cents in the whole vault and see what happens. I am out of my league, when it comes to drawing comparisons between productions, the past and the present. Star Trek didn't inspire much interest as a whole and I more or less fall in the hapless eye-candy addicts that seek on screen action category. In light of this confession, here are my proverbial said two cents about this production as a non-fan.

Before actually going straight to the movie I will side track and contemplate on this green light to make yet another remake/revamp of a franchise. As far as I know Star Trek struggled in the big screen movie department, so why bother doing it again. I present you two theories. J.J Abrams makes a tribute towards a beloved creative heritage by adapting it for the modern audience [the same way Watchmen was adapted with a slightly different ending and Pride and Prejudice has zombies in it and Batman kicking ass with an even viler Joker] with lots more violence, eye-candy and action. Tapping into the youthful usually basic need to get a positive adrenaline rush, Abrams hopes to spark interest and make us the new generation dig in the archives and also accept the intellectual aspects of the original. Truth be told that happens and I can testify that I got around to loving Tolkien thanks to the movies [the advertising of fantasy titles and culture of that sort in my country is horrible] and the same can happen for the viewers of Star Trek, who think sci-fi isn't their thing.

Naturally the next reason is quite expected: making big bucks. Chris Pine is cast to please females, while Uhura is there to please males and Zachary Quinto is basically there so that people can watch the guy from Heroes that kills everybody. And as people already have stated the whole movie is major flashy eye-candy for the regular viewer, who is not color blind, so yeah typical Hollywood casting.

Does any of this rambling change the fact that I loved the movie? NO WAY. I have to say that this new "Star Trek" has the power to convert people into sci-fi addicts. I almost sat down and downloaded everything there was about Star Trek, before I stopped myself and changed my mind. I will do so, when I actually have time to indulge myself into such act of geekery. And I usually do these acts of geekery. My computer is filled with every X-Man issue ever released: all in all 10 GB.

It's true that plotwise we don't have a very complicated and intricate plot, but for the 90 minutes or so, what we work with as viewers is enough and makes time pass like a breeze. I think that it was engaging and the acting was solid throughout the most of the film, though I caught myself asking questions regarding the competence of certain moments. For instance why use swords and axes in a future, where you have laser guns, when even know most armed forces carry guns and only the army gets knives or machetes depending on the situation. Next there is the ice planet moment, which felt like an ex-machine moment, serving only to introduce a character, when chances for the actual happening of this are one in infinity and you can't argue with infinity.

But everything else was flawless and I expect that there will be a sequel and then a third part and then another one, until even flashy effects won't save this franchise from hitting the breaks. Seriously people, one good idea can be mined only for so long before people rethink their opinion on lynching. Thankfully this isn't the time for Star Trek to exit stage left. :)

Watchmen: Why so late to bother and comment?

When news that “Watchmen” was in production hit, the waters stirred and the classic comic book awakened forgotten worship and grounded cults. Months before the theatre release fans, including me, felt like caged animals, waiting on the prowl for the long waited grilled stake. After the movie was released there was a title wave of comments, reviews and more talk on the matter than ever.

I found it unnecessary to mirror the reviews and opinions of most of those with blogs and the ability to use a keyboard correctly, so I waited until I also had the opportunity to watch the animated straight to video “Tales of the Black Freighter” and the fictitious documentary about the first super hero team the Minutemen called “Under the Hood”. Watching them almost in sequence, all in the period of one or two weeks, I know feel better equipped to voice an opinion on how well Hollywood managed to adapt the comic book series. And for the better part of the three productions I am satisfied.

“Watchmen” worked relatively well with quite big successes such as Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley doing justice their given characters, respectively The Comedian and Rorschach. Dr. Manhattan comes off quite believable and realistic due to the incredible CGI work involved in the production as a whole, bringing spectacular visuals and gruesome massacres into life without feeling like in a cheap video game. Important for me was that the movie carried the spirit, the dry grimness and certain despair the graphic novel was loaded with and in that department almost everything checked out. As much as I am appreciated to the director Zack Snyder for holding tightly to the written word in the comics, there had to be some tweaking, since fully transferring a story from one medium to another is not entirely possible without some sacrifice to approach. Here I am approaching the lengthy flashbacks, which prolonged the movie unnecessary and skewed attention. Adam at the Wertzone says pretty much the same of what I think of the movie as a whole and in longer, though I wish to disagree on the level of violence. Yes, what people will see and have seen was violent, cruel and a bloodbath given the ability to splash from all sides, but as a person, who can’t be easily disturbed and enjoys slaughters I am all for. I am also cheering for the profanity, sex scenes and the fluorescent male nudity Dr. Manhattan exhibits, simply because this is a film for adults and as such pulling it to the end in order to make a point is vital. And trust me there is a point in there for everything, if you read the comic book.

Now that we covered the big time movie event, I will move down to the shorter pieces, which came as sweet surprise bonuses to me, since I knew full well that “Under the Hood” and “Tales of the Black Freighter” and would never be incorporated in the bulging mass “Watchmen” already is. And that would have been a shame, since both stories within a story were integral parts to the world and a way to foreshadow what was about to happen in the main story itself to a degree.

“Tales of the Black Freighter” looked fantastic animated and was adapted easily due to it shortness. The artwork portrayed some of the more gruesome and dark scenes I have yet to see, not necessarily because they dealt with corpses, but because they were ominous and also the attention to details added to that build up. I don’t recall much of the soundtrack, but I can testify that casting Gerard Butler to voice the main character was definitely the right thing to do. I wouldn’t have imagined a mad sailor sounding anything but Gerard Butler. All in all it was a decent extra.

“Under the Hood” comes off as any documentary, a tad boring with the sterile interviews and old vintage photos and testaments, but when you do have superheroes to discuss it becomes more lively. I am not a big fan of documentaries. They act as natural sleeping pills for my brain and nothing can change that, but despite that predicament I am satisfied from the experience as a whole. Carla Gugino, Stephen McHattie, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Matt Frewer do a moderately good job along with the scriptwriters to take the text written in the provided chapters in the comic book along with other known information from the comic book and turn it into an interview based movie.

So these were my own thoughts on the whole parade of releases and if you are interested in some other thoughts then you might head to Adam [“The Wertzone”] or The Book Smugglers and their extra long take on the movie. I also would recommend seeing the movie from its more symbolic side with the review of Tod Newton.

Movies that Disappointed Immensely…

Before getting to the good stuff that the movie industry produced by mistake I am forced to wade through two other titles, which can carry the shiny “I failed” bandana with a head held high, but I won’t be as hilarious about my next choice since I had a faith that these will offer a pleasant movie experience.

The biggest disappointment so far is “Transporter 3”, which is nothing but logical seeing it is a fabled sequel, but it seemed that with the second movie things were actually escalating rather than flopping. The movie formula was simple: little dialogue, impossible car chase physics, grumpy Jason Statham and enough shirtless time to please the audience. When a movie designed to entertain fails, it’s pathetic and sad, because we have witness cinema selling its main purpose to cheap CGI entertainment and now it can’t even do that. But let’s focus on the movie: Frank is supposed to transport a captive daughter of an Ukrainian eco minister to Odesa, while at the same time both passengers can die if they get out of the car due to explosive bracelets on their hands. It sounds fun to me, but when the daughter is played by an incompetent actress, who speaks English as a second language at an elementary level; the dialogue is focused on clichéd hidden threats, food and never exceeds a sentence of 7 words and there are exactly 5 real action scenes in an hour and 44 minutes, you get the picture.




If you have read “Inkheart” and fell in love with this hefty children’s volume that exceeds 500 pages, then the movie will make you weep. It can easily become the worst book adaptation of the century. To produce an acceptable 1 hour and 46 min movie, Hollywood stripped the book out of its magic, out of what captured me as a reader, out of its imagination and turned into a shiny plaster wrap. I know that when it comes to adaptations a certain ‘poetic freedom’ to condense a story has to be at work, but since when does that include rewriting a whole story. I am pretty sure that around the middle I asked myself, whether I had read the book correctly or whether something has run terribly wrong. For me it would have worked better, if the talent of the cast was used in a mini-series, which would stick closely to the book as possible and in 5 one hour long episodes deliver the story like it should have been. Looking at it like it is now I can only see waste of talented names such as Brendan Fraser, Helen Mirren and Paul Bettany, who try to get into characters that are 1/3 of what they were in the book and thus giving very bland performances. Something which isn’t their fault.


Here would be appropriate to suggest to Hollywood to hire authors with experience in fiction to work with the scriptwriters and give something else than an adaptation, remake or sequel.

Watch at Your Own Risk ІІ: „When cinema goes horribly wrong”

Amazing readership,

I have returned from my exile in the real world, untangled, charged and somewhat struck silly by a rapid sneezing succession, but who doesn’t love a light head and a tingly nose. So I shall entertain you with reviews from the movie business, since I have been behind on my reading as a whole. And what better way to start an epic MOVIE WEEK than to check out the movies that inspire suicide even in the best of us.

If you are a young and in the peak of your strength male, looking at the poster of “The Telling” despite your sexual preferences you would be drawn to it, because when you mix horror with obscene sorority girls in my imagination it might be good in a bloody way. Well considering the fact that the actresses come from the Hugh Heffner entourage with the only acting skill to make their legs go in unnatural positions and make their boobs jiggle, it’s a safe bet that Stupidity will find you and scalp you with a potato peeler. And yes the acting is so bad that I am bashing this movie unapologetically. Sorority girls don’t look like the byproduct after multiple cosmetic surgeries, even if they are the materialistic bitches, the movie aims to portray. The plot actually did have potential, if Rob Zombie had taken the project up and turned this movie about telling ghost stories into something really frightening.




“The Spirit” is actually my own mistake due to my unconditional love for super hero movies. I am still baffled with what words to use and describe what I endured. In a nutshell after you see this you have a vacuum, where your brain used to be and the question “What were they thinking?” rings unanswered. I mean with names such as Eva Mendes, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson in the cast you would consider “The Spirit” a strong movie. Oh well, fans thought the same back in 1997 with “Batman & Robin” and we all know how that one turned out. Strange lyric internals, weird Sin City ripped visuals and the most horrendous dialogue in the history of dialogue can weed out the last optimism in the abilities of big budget shooting. Samuel L. Jackson wears for no apparent reason a Nazi uniform and talks about toilets being funny. Eva Mendes speaks about the shiniest thing that will outdo all shiny things and an obnoxious cardboard protagonist.





“Bride Wars” was a request from the female populace in the family and though not complete cruelty towards viewers, you can’t say much positive about it. If you strip the production down to the components you would get: 1) A worthy of filming idea, which could aim to deliver a parody of today’s mania about the perfect wedding, 2) two solid actresses, who have proven themselves capable in the genre at hand, 3) decent supporting cast and 4) the right budget to make it good. The rotten core is the scriptwriter, who plugged out the idea as a wriggling embryo, insisted it was wow-za and in the end it’s just infantile. I am not a script writer, but as a fiction writer I spot several places, where with the right tweaking the comedy would have been comedy and not a bad rash in your brain after watching.









As a conclusion I can safely say that yes, the period table of elements in chemistry has one more radioactive and bio-hazardous element: APPALING cinema.