In recent years, I've grown increasingly tired of anime-style cartoon, and I blame the likes of "Pokemon" and other of the ilk. I miss the good-ole days of superhero cartoons, like "Batman: The Animated Series." You know - stuff from my childhood.
This is why Justice League: The New Frontier piqued my interest. It seemed like a throwback to traditionally-drawn characters without big, exaggerated hair and eyes. I'm just glad that it was a good movie.
For as short a feature as this was (just under an hour and twenty minutes), it packed in a lot more story than most non-animated, longer movies I've seen lately.
The story takes place just after the end of the Korean War (or conflict, whatever). The government is cracking down on superheroes to ditch the costumes, so there's a rift between the public and the heroes (and even between the heroes themselves). Meanwhile, a fighter pilot named Hal Jordan who saw no action in the war, aside from getting shot down in the final minutes of the war, gets hired by a private company to pilot a spacecraft after being released from a military psych ward.
Then there's a growing danger called "The Center," a large creature threatening an attack on the planet. All the side stories of the superheroes mend together, and they have to team up in order to save the planet from complete destruction.
One thing I noticed about the movie is that it is darker than I thought it would be. It seems the filmmakers took advantage of the direct-to-video format and added a few bloodspatters and whatnot - it wasn't distracting, but it did add some gravity to the story.
All-in-all, it was a very good movie - I do wish it was longer, because you don't often get something this entertaining from a cartoon. I definitely recommend it.
This is why Justice League: The New Frontier piqued my interest. It seemed like a throwback to traditionally-drawn characters without big, exaggerated hair and eyes. I'm just glad that it was a good movie.
For as short a feature as this was (just under an hour and twenty minutes), it packed in a lot more story than most non-animated, longer movies I've seen lately.
The story takes place just after the end of the Korean War (or conflict, whatever). The government is cracking down on superheroes to ditch the costumes, so there's a rift between the public and the heroes (and even between the heroes themselves). Meanwhile, a fighter pilot named Hal Jordan who saw no action in the war, aside from getting shot down in the final minutes of the war, gets hired by a private company to pilot a spacecraft after being released from a military psych ward.
Then there's a growing danger called "The Center," a large creature threatening an attack on the planet. All the side stories of the superheroes mend together, and they have to team up in order to save the planet from complete destruction.
One thing I noticed about the movie is that it is darker than I thought it would be. It seems the filmmakers took advantage of the direct-to-video format and added a few bloodspatters and whatnot - it wasn't distracting, but it did add some gravity to the story.
All-in-all, it was a very good movie - I do wish it was longer, because you don't often get something this entertaining from a cartoon. I definitely recommend it.
Okay, so think of a secret organization. Anything is fine. What did you come up with? Skulls & Crossbones? Freemasons? The Illuminati? Whatever one they talk about in National Treasure?
How about the MPAA, the Motion Picture Association of America?
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a documentary by Kirby Dick solely about the MPAA, and it's hilarious, infuriating, sad and altogether intriguing.
If you're not familiar, the MPAA is the organization in the United States that puts ratings on all the movies we see. Everything from Shrek the Third to Videodrome, if you saw it in the theater, a panel of "average parents" have seen it and decided who they think it's appropriate for.
Now this all sounds well and good. I mean, it sounds favorable to know what to expect from a movie content-wise, especially if you're a parent. The problem, however comes in with the dreaded NC-17 rating. If your film is rated (or "slapped with," as Kevin Smith points out) NC-17, distributors won't put it out and theaters won't play it. It becomes unreleasable. That, in conjunction with the fact that the members on the MPAA, these supposed "average parents" are secret. Their names are not in the public domain. So now we have these mysterious people, a handful, really, deciding, basically, what you can and cannot see.
Another idea that gets explored in this documentary is the difference between violence and sexual content. As stories about different movies get told, you start to see that violence is fine - show blood, get R. However, when there's as much sexual content in one movie as there is violence in another movie, NC-17 - your movie is unreleasable. Take, for example, the film American Psycho, in one scene, Patrick Bateman drops a chainsaw from the top of his staircase and it lands in a woman. In another scene, he films himself having sex with two prostitutes. What garnered the original NC-17? The sex scene, of course.
Intercut with interviews from filmmakers and film critics is a separate story. In it, Kirby Dick, the director of this documentary, hires a Private Investigator to track down and expose the MPAA raters. This portion in itself could be stretched to an entirely separate film in itself.
Also discussed in this film are the appeals process, which actually include two members of the clergy, for some reason, and a portion in which Kirby Dick submits this film, in which he exposes all the lies and hypocritical nonsense of the MPAA, to that very organization to receive a rating. What rating did he get? Well, I think you know.
Please see this film.
How about the MPAA, the Motion Picture Association of America?
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a documentary by Kirby Dick solely about the MPAA, and it's hilarious, infuriating, sad and altogether intriguing.
If you're not familiar, the MPAA is the organization in the United States that puts ratings on all the movies we see. Everything from Shrek the Third to Videodrome, if you saw it in the theater, a panel of "average parents" have seen it and decided who they think it's appropriate for.
Now this all sounds well and good. I mean, it sounds favorable to know what to expect from a movie content-wise, especially if you're a parent. The problem, however comes in with the dreaded NC-17 rating. If your film is rated (or "slapped with," as Kevin Smith points out) NC-17, distributors won't put it out and theaters won't play it. It becomes unreleasable. That, in conjunction with the fact that the members on the MPAA, these supposed "average parents" are secret. Their names are not in the public domain. So now we have these mysterious people, a handful, really, deciding, basically, what you can and cannot see.
Another idea that gets explored in this documentary is the difference between violence and sexual content. As stories about different movies get told, you start to see that violence is fine - show blood, get R. However, when there's as much sexual content in one movie as there is violence in another movie, NC-17 - your movie is unreleasable. Take, for example, the film American Psycho, in one scene, Patrick Bateman drops a chainsaw from the top of his staircase and it lands in a woman. In another scene, he films himself having sex with two prostitutes. What garnered the original NC-17? The sex scene, of course.
Intercut with interviews from filmmakers and film critics is a separate story. In it, Kirby Dick, the director of this documentary, hires a Private Investigator to track down and expose the MPAA raters. This portion in itself could be stretched to an entirely separate film in itself.
Also discussed in this film are the appeals process, which actually include two members of the clergy, for some reason, and a portion in which Kirby Dick submits this film, in which he exposes all the lies and hypocritical nonsense of the MPAA, to that very organization to receive a rating. What rating did he get? Well, I think you know.
Please see this film.
At work today, I was talking to a co-worker about underlying themes of popular movies we've seen. And here are my not-thought-through-enough, half-baked ideas!
Our conversation started with Shooter, starring Mark Wahlberg. It's about a sniper who gets set up during an attempted assassination. Think The Fugitive meets Sniper. Seen it? You should, it's pretty entertaining. Anyway, it's a movie about patriotism. An ex-military sniper feels abandoned by his government, then gets set up by a corrupt senator and former colonel-turned-mercenary-contractor. There's a lot of subtle imagery, like Wahlberg walking slow-motion in front of an American flag. And the secondary climax, which I won't ruin, is very Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
We then moved on to Die Hard. This series is very clearly anti-technology. Think about it! John McClane hates flying, is baffled by the telephones that work in airplanes, is thoroughly impressed by microwave pizza ("If you ask me, technology peaked at microwave pizza.") and, if you've seen Live Free or Die Hard, he doesn't even have a cell phone - he just takes a random civilian's. I mean, he doesn't even need shoes to walk through fucking glass! All he needs is a gun, a car and maybe the enemy's walkie-talkie. Who needs a goddamn computer when you're John Fucking McClane? Yippie-kay-yay, indeed.
From there I brought up the animated feature The Incredibles. Superhero family, right? Only partially! This movies is a platform for traditional family values. This is almost literally a nuclear family. Think about it - a husband, a wife and 2.3 children. The only thing that's missing is a cat and/or dog. The husband goes to work and the wife stays home to take care of the homestead and the baby. They get into arguments about husband's job and son's trouble at school. The husband is discovered being "unfaithful," but in the end the family teams up at saves the entire city. With the help of their black friend.
The Bourne Identity, briefly, is the anti-thesis of Shooter. Where Mark Wahlberg is patriotic and aims to save himself and ultimately his country, Matt Damon seeks to separate himself from the government that ruined his entire life.
Indiana Jones is an interesting one. Ultimately, it's about religious fanaticism - the Nazis want a relic from biblical times, a crazy shaman wants to steal your heart for power and the Nazis are at it again looking for more biblical relics. And then there's an educated man, who knows better, in the middle of it all stopping them. However, it gets interesting at this point. Not only is this about religious fanaticism, but it's from a pointedly Christian point of view - a god-fearing Christian point of view. Opening up the Ark of the Covenant? Don't look at it or your face will fucking MELT! Trying to find eternal life? You'd better have done your bible study so you don't get decapitated, fall to your death into a mysterious abyss or drink from the wrong cup and decay in seconds! Also, don't let the crazy foreign religious shaman steal your heart or dip you into hot lava. Please also remember to free all the slave children mining for gold! In fact, you'd better just stay home and pray each night before you go to bed and go to church, well, religiously.
It gets iffy with the Dirty Harry series. My initial idea was that it's about individualism and conformity. Harry Callahan does things his own way and it inevitably makes him miserable. He hates authority and has a very basic idea of justice. He will not hesitate to shoot you in the face.
Anyway, that's as far as we got today. I think it's a pretty good start. I know there are a lot of movies out there I didn't cover, but this conversation spanned about 10 minutes in total. So - not at all bad given the amount of time were wasting. Given more time, we could've come up with more crazy bullshit.
Give me your input!
My first ever theatrical release review. Here it is.
There are two polar opposite existing opinions about this movie. On one hand, you have the critics who hate the movie saying things like, "there's no theme, the characters are broadly drawn, the violence is over-the-top and it's just plain mindless."
Then there are the positive reviewers who say things like, "there's no theme, the characters are broadly drawn, the violence is over-the-top and it's just plain mindless."
Here's the thing about this movie: from the get-go, it's a hyper-kinetic, adrenaline-fueled picture. It's ridiculously over the top, yes, and it's unapologetic and consistent. From the start, there's no moment to stop and think, "am I going to like this thing?" You'll love it or you hate it from the minute it starts.
Clive Owen plays a mysterious stranger who begrudgingly intervenes in a situation involving a very pregnant woman and several people chasing her. Right here, there's a key scene - a prime indicator of how you'll like the movie: Clive Owen has the women in some cover, helping her deliver the baby. Of course, there are hitmen still after her. While telling her to push, he's shooting a few waves of baddies. After one final push, the baby is delivered and he's holding it in his arms. He glances at the umbilical cord, then looks around the area for a moment, slightly shrugs and shoots the damn thing off.
Now he's left protecting the baby from Paul Giamatti, the crazed lead hitman. He barges in his only friend, Monica Belucci, a kinky prostitute. They protect the baby together, all while attempting to discover why Paul Giamatti wants to kill the baby.
All during this, the movie travels from one shootout sequence to another, all with a purely heavy metal soundtrack.
The bottom line: use your gut reaction - don't think about it. If the sound of a series of gun-related violence set to heavy metal sounds good to you, go see it and you'll absolutely love it. If you're hesitant - you will not like this movie.
There are two polar opposite existing opinions about this movie. On one hand, you have the critics who hate the movie saying things like, "there's no theme, the characters are broadly drawn, the violence is over-the-top and it's just plain mindless."
Then there are the positive reviewers who say things like, "there's no theme, the characters are broadly drawn, the violence is over-the-top and it's just plain mindless."
Here's the thing about this movie: from the get-go, it's a hyper-kinetic, adrenaline-fueled picture. It's ridiculously over the top, yes, and it's unapologetic and consistent. From the start, there's no moment to stop and think, "am I going to like this thing?" You'll love it or you hate it from the minute it starts.
Clive Owen plays a mysterious stranger who begrudgingly intervenes in a situation involving a very pregnant woman and several people chasing her. Right here, there's a key scene - a prime indicator of how you'll like the movie: Clive Owen has the women in some cover, helping her deliver the baby. Of course, there are hitmen still after her. While telling her to push, he's shooting a few waves of baddies. After one final push, the baby is delivered and he's holding it in his arms. He glances at the umbilical cord, then looks around the area for a moment, slightly shrugs and shoots the damn thing off.
Now he's left protecting the baby from Paul Giamatti, the crazed lead hitman. He barges in his only friend, Monica Belucci, a kinky prostitute. They protect the baby together, all while attempting to discover why Paul Giamatti wants to kill the baby.
All during this, the movie travels from one shootout sequence to another, all with a purely heavy metal soundtrack.
The bottom line: use your gut reaction - don't think about it. If the sound of a series of gun-related violence set to heavy metal sounds good to you, go see it and you'll absolutely love it. If you're hesitant - you will not like this movie.
If you're afraid of the religious right taking over this fine nation of ours, just wait until the next generation takes over. That's the moral of the story here in this documentary about children of the Evangelical faith coming together for a camp called "Kids on Fire" in the American Midwest.
There's a very quick shot within the first few moments of this film that I think summarizes the film perfectly. The scene takes place in the church of the de facto main character, the organizer of the camp's program. She's talking to the children about faith, and she asks the children, "Now, how many of you think that God can do anything He wants to do?" There's a brief cut to several children raising their hands, and then a shot of a small child, an infant, really, sitting in her mother's lap completely aloof. The mother grabs the child's arm and raises it for her. Because, we all know the vast majority of our value systems are instilled in us by our parents.
The film follows a few of the children as they come to terms with their faith: there are two brothers who are home-schooled (because, as the mothers states, the schools don't teach the right values, so they have to themselves) whose parents have taught them an alternate version to the Pledge of Allegiance. There is also a little girl whom we follow at the bowling alley as she solicits the word of the Lord to the patrons and then prays for a strike (she gutterballs it.), and whom we also follow at home, where she tells us that she loves to dance, but she'll only do it for the Lord, and not for the fun of it, something she thinks would be a sin.
Another key moment for me was before the camp started, where the organizer/pastor and her staff are roaming around the main hall at the camp, praying over the pews the children are to sit in, the computers they plan on using for their presentation, and for the electricity to not go out during a predicted storm. They pray that the devil not take over the Powerpoint program because they know that the devil likes to mess with them in any way he can.
In between all these segments are two or three minute segments of the host of a radio show talking about the camp and the Evangelical right, and the overall state of the nation in terms of religion playing too big a part on politics these days, which eventually culminates with a short phone-in interview with the organizer/pastor of the "Kids on Fire" program.
The really skillful thing about this documentary, and this was pointed out to me later on, was that the film was really objective in terms of portraying people involved. Originally, my fiancee and I thought that the object of the film was to decry these programs and the religious right taking over. However, after giving it a little thought, I realized that the film was made such that someone in the religious right, a supporter of this and other programs of the ilk, could watch this film and see it as a testament to families passing on their beliefs to the next generation, and not only their beliefs, but the correct beliefs.
I highly recommend watching this film with someone you can chat about it with.
There's a very quick shot within the first few moments of this film that I think summarizes the film perfectly. The scene takes place in the church of the de facto main character, the organizer of the camp's program. She's talking to the children about faith, and she asks the children, "Now, how many of you think that God can do anything He wants to do?" There's a brief cut to several children raising their hands, and then a shot of a small child, an infant, really, sitting in her mother's lap completely aloof. The mother grabs the child's arm and raises it for her. Because, we all know the vast majority of our value systems are instilled in us by our parents.
The film follows a few of the children as they come to terms with their faith: there are two brothers who are home-schooled (because, as the mothers states, the schools don't teach the right values, so they have to themselves) whose parents have taught them an alternate version to the Pledge of Allegiance. There is also a little girl whom we follow at the bowling alley as she solicits the word of the Lord to the patrons and then prays for a strike (she gutterballs it.), and whom we also follow at home, where she tells us that she loves to dance, but she'll only do it for the Lord, and not for the fun of it, something she thinks would be a sin.
Another key moment for me was before the camp started, where the organizer/pastor and her staff are roaming around the main hall at the camp, praying over the pews the children are to sit in, the computers they plan on using for their presentation, and for the electricity to not go out during a predicted storm. They pray that the devil not take over the Powerpoint program because they know that the devil likes to mess with them in any way he can.
In between all these segments are two or three minute segments of the host of a radio show talking about the camp and the Evangelical right, and the overall state of the nation in terms of religion playing too big a part on politics these days, which eventually culminates with a short phone-in interview with the organizer/pastor of the "Kids on Fire" program.
The really skillful thing about this documentary, and this was pointed out to me later on, was that the film was really objective in terms of portraying people involved. Originally, my fiancee and I thought that the object of the film was to decry these programs and the religious right taking over. However, after giving it a little thought, I realized that the film was made such that someone in the religious right, a supporter of this and other programs of the ilk, could watch this film and see it as a testament to families passing on their beliefs to the next generation, and not only their beliefs, but the correct beliefs.
I highly recommend watching this film with someone you can chat about it with.
Set in Paris about 50 years in the future, this detective story is visually stunning, moderately exciting, but otherwise by the book.
Animated in a stark, deconstructionist black and white setting, this futuristic Paris backdrop aligns itself somewhere between the clean future of Minority Report and the gritty, futuristic relapse of Bladerunner. Captain Karas (voiced here by Daniel Craig) is assigned the task of finding a kidnapping victim named name Iliona (iliona), a young woman who works for the mega health corporation Avalon. Karas' leads are Bislane, the sister and Muller, Iliona's mentor.
As Karas digs deeper, he finds out some disturbing truths about the case, making more than just the average kidnapping case.
I will say this now - this really is a visually stunning feature. The animation is original and evocative, and the film's view of the future is its own. I must admit, when I watch movies or TV shows set in the future, I pay attention to the setting. Idiocracy, Bladerunner, "Futurama," "Firefly," and so on. These are all different ways of looking at the future. Renaissance's future Paris is advanced, but still rooted in practical everyday functions.
However, the plot fails to live up to its setting and visuals. Beyond all of that, this is a story of a cop who goes out on a run-of-the-mill case, digs too deep, and gets himself into trouble along the way. We've been over this story hundreds of times in the past, and the animation doesn't hide it.
It's definitely a feature to be viewed, especially if you're an animation fan. But be warned that the story is well-worn territory
Animated in a stark, deconstructionist black and white setting, this futuristic Paris backdrop aligns itself somewhere between the clean future of Minority Report and the gritty, futuristic relapse of Bladerunner. Captain Karas (voiced here by Daniel Craig) is assigned the task of finding a kidnapping victim named name Iliona (iliona), a young woman who works for the mega health corporation Avalon. Karas' leads are Bislane, the sister and Muller, Iliona's mentor.
As Karas digs deeper, he finds out some disturbing truths about the case, making more than just the average kidnapping case.
I will say this now - this really is a visually stunning feature. The animation is original and evocative, and the film's view of the future is its own. I must admit, when I watch movies or TV shows set in the future, I pay attention to the setting. Idiocracy, Bladerunner, "Futurama," "Firefly," and so on. These are all different ways of looking at the future. Renaissance's future Paris is advanced, but still rooted in practical everyday functions.
However, the plot fails to live up to its setting and visuals. Beyond all of that, this is a story of a cop who goes out on a run-of-the-mill case, digs too deep, and gets himself into trouble along the way. We've been over this story hundreds of times in the past, and the animation doesn't hide it.
It's definitely a feature to be viewed, especially if you're an animation fan. But be warned that the story is well-worn territory
What a wonderful television event. As you may know, I've reviewed two other "Masters of Horror" pieces, one about zombies by Joe Dante, the director of Small Soldiers and Gremlins, and one by the director of Dead or Alive and Ichi The Killer, Takashi Miike. And I liked them both. And this one has a lot going for it.
First of all, it stars Jeffrey Combs, or as you may be more familiar with, Dr. Herbert West. It is also directed by Stuart Gordon, director of Re-Animator.
Here's what it's about: Combs plays Edgar Allan Poe near the middle to end of his life. He's a drunk, he's low on cash and his wife (his cousin, of course) has TB. He's also hit a rut creative-wise. While he's trying to come up with a new story, their black cat seems to torment him and distract him at every turn. It gets to bad that Poe attempts to kill the cat, while he inadvertently burns down his house. Forced to move elsewhere, he is driven crazier still by the fact that the cat still seems to be alive, haunting him.
You can usually tell a stage actor when you see one on screen - Jeffrey Combs is a great performer and you can see his transformation from crazy to crazier and drunker. I really think we should see him in more features.
One of the great benefits of this series is that the directors are allowed almost total creative freedom, which they never seem to enjoy while making feature films. They also assured a certain budget that the feature benefits from. In this instance, there are two things to point out: first, you can tell Stuart Gordon is a low-budget director with low-budget sensibilities. A lot of times, characterization and story are emphasized. Secondly, those of you who remember Re-Animator remember that there's a certain amount of camp value because the gore is so ridiculous-looking, albeit well planned. From the almost sickening gore of Black Cat, you can imagine what he would've been capable of had Re-Animator would have looked like had he more money.
Good story (especially for Poe fans, like myself), great performances, great gore.
EDIT: After spinning this again and paying close attention to the opening credits of this feature, I found a really good explanation for the level of gore. In addition to Stuart Gordon really liking gore, the opening credits revealed that a certain Gregory Nicotero put some work into this feature. Can't believe I missed that one.
First of all, it stars Jeffrey Combs, or as you may be more familiar with, Dr. Herbert West. It is also directed by Stuart Gordon, director of Re-Animator.
Here's what it's about: Combs plays Edgar Allan Poe near the middle to end of his life. He's a drunk, he's low on cash and his wife (his cousin, of course) has TB. He's also hit a rut creative-wise. While he's trying to come up with a new story, their black cat seems to torment him and distract him at every turn. It gets to bad that Poe attempts to kill the cat, while he inadvertently burns down his house. Forced to move elsewhere, he is driven crazier still by the fact that the cat still seems to be alive, haunting him.
You can usually tell a stage actor when you see one on screen - Jeffrey Combs is a great performer and you can see his transformation from crazy to crazier and drunker. I really think we should see him in more features.
One of the great benefits of this series is that the directors are allowed almost total creative freedom, which they never seem to enjoy while making feature films. They also assured a certain budget that the feature benefits from. In this instance, there are two things to point out: first, you can tell Stuart Gordon is a low-budget director with low-budget sensibilities. A lot of times, characterization and story are emphasized. Secondly, those of you who remember Re-Animator remember that there's a certain amount of camp value because the gore is so ridiculous-looking, albeit well planned. From the almost sickening gore of Black Cat, you can imagine what he would've been capable of had Re-Animator would have looked like had he more money.
Good story (especially for Poe fans, like myself), great performances, great gore.
EDIT: After spinning this again and paying close attention to the opening credits of this feature, I found a really good explanation for the level of gore. In addition to Stuart Gordon really liking gore, the opening credits revealed that a certain Gregory Nicotero put some work into this feature. Can't believe I missed that one.
This afternoon I was watching Scary Movie 4. I don't care what you say. It's hilarious (Dr. Phil: "I was doing a show on teens with abandonment issues, and then I woke up here. Man, those kids are gonna be pissed.") And then I decided to watch The Proposition, which comes highly recommended from various reputable sources.
Here's the thing: they don't really make westerns anymore. And when they do, they star James Van Der Beek or Colin Farrell. So I am always happy to see a well thought-out, properly executed entry.
This one stars Guy Pearce, whom you may remember from Memento, one of the coolest movies of all time, and one I still don't think I have completely figured out.
It goes like this: it's late 1800s Australian Outback. A captain is put in charge of bringing to justice the Burns gang, three brothers guilty of the heinous crime of murdering an entire family. He catches two of them and offers Charlie, the middle brother, a proposition. In order to keep the captain from hanging Mikey, the youngest of the three, he must kill his older brother Arthur, the crazy one from whom Charlie and Mikey separated.
Meanwhile, the captain and his wife become obsessed with the three Burns brothers, for different reasons. The captain is depending on this in order to civilize the land, and his wife is a friend of the woman who was murdered.
One of the elements that made this flick work so well for me was the soundtrack. It was a dark, moody and ethereal. It would make sense that Nick Cave (who also wrote this screenplay) composed the soundtrack. It brought out all of the moods and themes in the action.
Finally, one of the themes that jumped out at me was this question: who is to blame for peoples' actions? The captain is willing to release Mikey and Charlie upon Arthur's death, because he places the blame of the family's death solely on Arthur's shoulders. Mikey looked up to Arthur and revered him blindly, so how could he be to blame for his own actions? But Charlie decided to take Mikey away from Arthur, so should Charlie be to blame for Mikey's fate?
Check this one out if miss fantastic westerns. Or fantastic original films.
Here's the thing: they don't really make westerns anymore. And when they do, they star James Van Der Beek or Colin Farrell. So I am always happy to see a well thought-out, properly executed entry.
This one stars Guy Pearce, whom you may remember from Memento, one of the coolest movies of all time, and one I still don't think I have completely figured out.
It goes like this: it's late 1800s Australian Outback. A captain is put in charge of bringing to justice the Burns gang, three brothers guilty of the heinous crime of murdering an entire family. He catches two of them and offers Charlie, the middle brother, a proposition. In order to keep the captain from hanging Mikey, the youngest of the three, he must kill his older brother Arthur, the crazy one from whom Charlie and Mikey separated.
Meanwhile, the captain and his wife become obsessed with the three Burns brothers, for different reasons. The captain is depending on this in order to civilize the land, and his wife is a friend of the woman who was murdered.
One of the elements that made this flick work so well for me was the soundtrack. It was a dark, moody and ethereal. It would make sense that Nick Cave (who also wrote this screenplay) composed the soundtrack. It brought out all of the moods and themes in the action.
Finally, one of the themes that jumped out at me was this question: who is to blame for peoples' actions? The captain is willing to release Mikey and Charlie upon Arthur's death, because he places the blame of the family's death solely on Arthur's shoulders. Mikey looked up to Arthur and revered him blindly, so how could he be to blame for his own actions? But Charlie decided to take Mikey away from Arthur, so should Charlie be to blame for Mikey's fate?
Check this one out if miss fantastic westerns. Or fantastic original films.
There's something to be said about movies that combine the following genres: zombie/vampire/martial arts/women's prison/b-grade horror. I don't know exactly what exactly that something is. But what I do know is that it makes for an entertaining experience.
20 years ago, a very evil man was executed in a prison by lethal injection. Except, due to the fact that said man was evil, the execution went horribly awry and the guy exploded, causing all the inmates to turn into zombies and start a riot.
Now, in the present time, the prison has been converted to a progressive women's rehabilitation center (read: women's prison), and the latest inmate is a girl named Solitaire who, quite to the contrary of her name, prefers to be alone. However, it turns out that she kicks ass Bruce Lee-style and soon becomes the talk of the detention-center town.
Through a series of horrific events, the evil man is awakened, along with his zombified inmate pals, and they wreak havoc on the women. It is up to Solitaire to kick some zombie ass and stop this evil man, with whom she shares a special connection.
One of the benefits of this movie is that, due to the hodgepodge of genres thrown in, it's a genuinely original picture. All of the twists and turns feel new, despite having been seen elsewhere. Of course, there are some predictable moments ("of course...the evil baby bites his mother's nipple off."). However when watching a movie of this caliber, it's difficult to see past the digital effects and kung fu and realize that, besides two or three people, the bulk of the performances are worthy of Sci-Fi Channel original films. That being said, it doesn't really matter.
This is definitely something fun to watch, and though I don't indulge myself, would be awesome if you were baked.
P.S. In movies set inside a women's prison, the shower scenes are much more interesting.
20 years ago, a very evil man was executed in a prison by lethal injection. Except, due to the fact that said man was evil, the execution went horribly awry and the guy exploded, causing all the inmates to turn into zombies and start a riot.
Now, in the present time, the prison has been converted to a progressive women's rehabilitation center (read: women's prison), and the latest inmate is a girl named Solitaire who, quite to the contrary of her name, prefers to be alone. However, it turns out that she kicks ass Bruce Lee-style and soon becomes the talk of the detention-center town.
Through a series of horrific events, the evil man is awakened, along with his zombified inmate pals, and they wreak havoc on the women. It is up to Solitaire to kick some zombie ass and stop this evil man, with whom she shares a special connection.
One of the benefits of this movie is that, due to the hodgepodge of genres thrown in, it's a genuinely original picture. All of the twists and turns feel new, despite having been seen elsewhere. Of course, there are some predictable moments ("of course...the evil baby bites his mother's nipple off."). However when watching a movie of this caliber, it's difficult to see past the digital effects and kung fu and realize that, besides two or three people, the bulk of the performances are worthy of Sci-Fi Channel original films. That being said, it doesn't really matter.
This is definitely something fun to watch, and though I don't indulge myself, would be awesome if you were baked.
P.S. In movies set inside a women's prison, the shower scenes are much more interesting.
I know I may get some flack for this one. When this movie was released into theaters a while back, I remember reading more than a handful of reviews giving it a terrible appraisal. So, disappointed, I dismissed it and never caught it.
However, based upon a positive personal review (my brother and his girlfriend Hannah) and the fact that Best Buy had it on sale for 7 bucks, I decided I should just go ahead and see it. And, well, it wasn't all that bad. It was actually pretty funny.
The script was written by Ben Garant, Tom Lennon and Michael Patrick Jann, three names I trust ("Reno 911," "MTV's The State" and "Wet Hot American Summer," between them), directed by Bob Odenkirk ("Mr. Show," "Tim and Eric's something something show") and starred by Will Arnett, who portrayed my favorite character on "Arrested Development," GOB (my fish's namesake).
The story is about Dax Shepard's revenge against the judge who put him in jail three times. However, upon his third release, he finds out that the judge has just died. So, he redirects his rage as the judge's spoiled son, Will Arnett. Will ends up in prison after a trip to the pharmacy goes awry, and Dax purposefully lands himself back in jail to personally torment Will. After giving Will some bad advice, Dax's plan backfire and Will unwittingly rises to the top of the prisoner hierarchy ("I did what I had to do.").
Will's performance bears a lot of resemblance to GOB, but let me tell you, it's a hell of a performance. Will proves himself fantastic slapstick actor and at certain angles bears the resemblance of a young Bob Odenkirk (who appears and Will's selfish lawyer). Dax proves to be an adequate performer himself. Not incredible, but he gets the job done.
Overall, I'd rent this one if you're not a fan of "Mr. Show" or "Reno 911!," or any of the other hundred things Ben Garant and Tom Lennon have done lately.
However, based upon a positive personal review (my brother and his girlfriend Hannah) and the fact that Best Buy had it on sale for 7 bucks, I decided I should just go ahead and see it. And, well, it wasn't all that bad. It was actually pretty funny.
The script was written by Ben Garant, Tom Lennon and Michael Patrick Jann, three names I trust ("Reno 911," "MTV's The State" and "Wet Hot American Summer," between them), directed by Bob Odenkirk ("Mr. Show," "Tim and Eric's something something show") and starred by Will Arnett, who portrayed my favorite character on "Arrested Development," GOB (my fish's namesake).
The story is about Dax Shepard's revenge against the judge who put him in jail three times. However, upon his third release, he finds out that the judge has just died. So, he redirects his rage as the judge's spoiled son, Will Arnett. Will ends up in prison after a trip to the pharmacy goes awry, and Dax purposefully lands himself back in jail to personally torment Will. After giving Will some bad advice, Dax's plan backfire and Will unwittingly rises to the top of the prisoner hierarchy ("I did what I had to do.").
Will's performance bears a lot of resemblance to GOB, but let me tell you, it's a hell of a performance. Will proves himself fantastic slapstick actor and at certain angles bears the resemblance of a young Bob Odenkirk (who appears and Will's selfish lawyer). Dax proves to be an adequate performer himself. Not incredible, but he gets the job done.
Overall, I'd rent this one if you're not a fan of "Mr. Show" or "Reno 911!," or any of the other hundred things Ben Garant and Tom Lennon have done lately.
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Recent Comments
-
-
The Madmouser said:
I sounds very interesting to say the least. Based on your edification, it also sounds extreme. That seems to be... read more
on Jesus Camp -
blutharnett said:
Check out the Will Arnett Research Project at http://blutharnett.blogspot.com read more
on Let's Go To Prison -
May Day said:
[this is good]Well, although I cannot disagree that is entry by jean rollin is plotless, I have to disagree that this is... read more
on Zombie Lake
Well, if that's what you heard, and that's the impression you're going with, you probably shouldn't see the movie. read more
on Shoot 'Em Up