So apparently the movie “Paranormal Activity” got re-released to theaters this weekend. And apparently it’s a pretty big deal. Heh. I would never have guessed it after checking it out on Friday. That’s not to say that it’s a horrible movie by any means, I just found it to be rather bad. Anyway, if you’re considering checking it out then I suggest sticking around. But let’s get on with it, shall we?

Well, there it is. In case you haven’t been paying attention to the latest movie buzz, allow me to give you a bit of a back story on Paranormal. First off, it should be noted that this is one of the highest rated horror movies in recent times, (so right off the bat, you know I’m going against actual critics here). The movie was originally intended to be limited release only, but because of a supposed huge backing from fans via the Internet, the movie ended up going to theaters everywhere this past weekend. The movie itself has been incredibly hyped, almost on the level of The Blair Witch Project. With trailers touting the phrase, “DON’T SEE IT ALONE” and “SO SCARY YOU MIGHT NOT MAKE IT THROUGH IT”, and my personal favorite “HOLY CRAP, I JUST WENT AND SAW THIS MOVIE, AND I ENDED UP PEEING MY PANTS DURING IT. I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO DIE. NO SERIOUSLY, IT REALLY IS THAT SCARY.” Okay, so maybe I made that last one up, but you get the point. Needless to say I went in with pretty high hopes.

What I got instead, was a rather ambitious attempt at trying something new, but ultimately turned into nothing more than an hour and a half, hyped up bore fest. I’m going to try to describe what I mean by saying the movie was “boring”, but the thing is, what’s boring to one person may be exciting to another, so bare with me. Let me start off by examining the more concrete aspects of the movie. Paranormal Activity uses the ever popular “hand-cam” to tell its story. As a result, the cinematography is a bit on the weak side, however, I understand the director’s purpose here. The hand cam is an obvious attempt at trying to make the movie come across as being real (in fact the whole movie is presented this way, there even is a missing credits list at the end of the movie to make it seem more like a documentary), and for the most part it works. This is probably one of the better usages of the hand cam in a movie that I have seen. Paranormal Activity doesn’t suffer from the nauseating “shaky” camera effect that plagued Cloverfield, and overall the hand cam works quite positively for Paranormal.

Now, I know the acting in this movie is supposed to represent “real life”, or people not acting, but I would be a dumb review guy if I didn’t say something about it. Honestly though, the acting in this movie bordered on “acceptable” to “Spanish soap opera channel”.  I can’t really say how I would react to some of the situations that the main characters are forced into, but their reactions at times just seemed a bit unreal. Maybe I’m being a bit too critical here, but it just seemed like a lot of the acting in the movie came down to yelling. Perhaps this is an appropriate response to the situation the characters are facing, it just sort of gets obnoxious at one point. Eh. Maybe the real problem here is the dialogue. Once again, the dialogue can only be described  as a product of trying to make the movie seem as real as possible. A lot of it however, really seems to border on being monotonous and flat out pointless at times. But once again, I understand the motive here; most real life people don’t exactly have the most interesting conversations on an everyday basis, but some of the dialogue in this movie could have easily been edited out, and no one would have been the wiser.

I guess it’s time to discuss my main issue with Paranormal Activity, and that of course would be the scare factor. Going into a movie that pretty much only boasts about being scary left me expecting to be, well, scared. And to tell you the truth, towards the beginning I was quite intrigued by the movie. It started out at a decent enough pace, not too fast, not too slow, and did a really good job of building the tension. However, by about 45 minutes or so in, I was starting to feel bored and anxious. I was actually beginning to notice a trend.

**Minor spoiler warning** The movie itself really only seemed to try to scare you during the night scenes. In fact almost the entire movie can be broken into two segments. The first being the day scenes AKA, the drawn out talking scenes, and the second being the night scenes, or “scary scenes”. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie’s scaring power comes from what I can only really described as “cheap scares”. What I mean by that is the movie gets you to try and focus on a specific thing or character for a moment, and then tries to surprise/ scare you with a loud noise of some sort. The movie tries to make use of this tactic close to a dozen times or so. It finally got to the point where I was just expecting a loud boom or bang, or a door to slightly creak open. These scare tactics really started to just feel repetitive after awhile, and made the movie lose a lot of its edge (at least for me). Paranormal Activity also tries to make use of some psychological scares, but I feel that these were weak at best. Just knowing that the movie was only going to try and scare me at night, made me begin to predict when something was going to happen, and I ended up predicting right about 75% of the time. **End spoilers**

The movie is also quite weak in the plot/ character development department. I won’t divulge any details, but let’s just say both main characters are quite flat. In fact, by the end of the movie I really didn’t care too much for either of them. And because I wasn’t too focused on what happened to the characters, I wasn’t scared/ surprised when something happened to them. As for the plot, let’s just say it’s one of the most simple plots for a movie that I have ever seen. In fact, let me see how few words I can actually describe it in: “A couple try to deal with a demonic spirit that has come over them.” That’s it. That’s literally the premise of the entire movie. And I described it in what? Fourteen words? Seriously? That’s just sort of sad.

In the end, Paranormal Activity’s level of “scariness” will most likely differ from person to person. But the fact still remains that it suffers from some obvious flaws. Pointless dialogue, sub-average acting, scares that get repetitive, and characters I couldn’t give two craps about, really hurt the effectiveness of what Paranormal actually does right.

See it, Rent, or “F-it”: F-it. Honestly, I felt kind of ripped off after I had left the theater. Take my advice and save yourself some money; don’t buy into the hype, or you will more than likely be disappointed.

No tags Hide

Time for a quick review of the new(ish) gore filled fest Zombieland. Zombieland is a movie that is well, about zombies. It tells the story of one of the last remaining survivors named Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), who happens to be a bit of a loser and all around wimp. Columbus eventually runs into Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) who is Columbus’ complete opposite. Both heroes then eventually run into two female characters (Wichita and Little Rock, played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin), and the four set on a quest to find the last remaining area that is free of zombies.

At the very beginning of the movie, the viewer is immediately thrown into the action, and from that point on things just keep on accelerating. A usual gripe I have with zombie movies (horror movies in general actually), is that they never really seem to be very fast paced. On the contrary however, Zombieland grabs you by the seam of the pants, and doesn’t let go until the credits roll (in case you didn’t know, that’s a good thing). The characters in Zombieland are surprisingly quite lovable, and I for one loved the interaction between Columbus and Tallahassee. Eisenberg and Harrelson have almost a perfect chemistry with one another, and their characters are such opposites that they really go together perfectly. Not to mention Harrelson is flawless in his part. Honestly, I think he was born to play the part of Tallahassee. Everything from his one liners, to his mannerisms, and just general “B.A.ness” make him a cult character that won’t be soon forgotten.

The humor in Zombieland is pretty constant throughout, and I found myself  LOLing throughout almost the entire film. One scene in particular had me practically crying. The dialogue in Zombieland is quite literally spot on, and all of the actors do a consistent job of speaking their lines with the right amount of emphasis and tone. Also, one quick note, if you haven’t seen Zombieland yet, and you are trying to find out more about the movie, let me warn you: Be careful of the reviews you read. There is a “special guest” actor in the movie, and if you know who it is before you go, it will certainly ruin it for you. The guest actor was without a doubt the best part in the movie, and made it totally worth the price of admission. And let me just add that the action sequences are also very well done in this movie, as are the blood and gore effects.

Zombieland does however suffer from one minor flaw, a flaw that I think most zombie movies have in common. That flaw would of course be plot. Zombieland doesn’t exactly have much in the plot department, but the truth is that it really doesn’t have much of a negative affect on the movie because of it. The film isn’t suppose to win any Academy Awards, it’s just suppose to be a fun, entertaining movie, which happens to be exactly what Zombieland is.

See it, Rent it, or “F-it”:  See it. Zombieland is a movie going experience you probably shouldn’t miss. And although the movie itself may not offer some complex story, nor a mind blowing plot twist, but it does however deliver in being a hilarious, fun, gore filled romp that is sure to entertain regardless of who is watching.

No tags Hide

Holy crap, an actual post. Yes, after an absurdly long hiatus, I am back (for now). And since I’m back, I decided to review what happens to quite possibly be the most anticipated summer blockbuster, “Inglourious Basterds”. In case you are unfamiliar with the film, Inglourious Basterds is Quentin Tarantino’s latest flick. The movie itself is based in France/ other random mid-European places during the height of World War II. Brad Pitt stars at Lt. Aldo Raine, leader of the Inglorious Basterds, a group of Jewish-American soldiers out to “do one thing, and thing only, kill nazis,” as Pitt himself puts so elegantly. Also starring is Christoph Waltz as the evil, yet often hilarious SS agent Col. Landa. As well as Melanie Laurent as Jewish heroine, Shosanna Dreyfus, and Eli Roth as Basterd, Donny Donowitz. Well that’s enough for the intro, let’s delve deeper into the movie.

First let me just say that this is a classic Tarantino film. So if you’re reading this article and you are debating on seeing it or not, let me just ask you, have you enjoyed Tarantino’s films in the past? If you have, then check this out. You’ll probably enjoy it. But for those of you who generally pass on Tarantino, you may want to consider doing just the same for this movie. Tarantino really just does more of the same that he’s done with his other movies, and when it comes to major gripes that I had with this movie (if you can even call that a major gripe), it would have to be just that; the fact that Tarantino really doesn’t add a whole lot to Basterds that he hasn’t already added in his other movies.

In fact let’s examine this closer for a second, shall we? Most Tarantino films have a good amount of (seemingly) pointless swearing, lots and lots of dialogue, interesting camera shots, eccentric characters, and of course good fashion violence. On second thought, scratch that. All Tarantino movies have those things (except Jackie Brown. That had porn in it). So then, does Basterds follow this trend? Well, let’s see. There’s certainly not an absence of swearing, so that’s a check. And let’s not forget the diner scene that lasts for a good 10 minutes between Col. Landa and Shosanna, so that’s a definite check for long dialogue. Basterds also has some varied (and might I add, surprisingly smart) camera shots, so another check there. I personally found both Pitt and Waltz’s characters to be quite entertaining, so once more a check. And finally, Basterds has violent action scenes in spades.

So when looking at all these things, Basterds really does look like another typical Tarantino film. The thing is though, that’s not even technically a bad thing. As a viewer and movie critic however, I just sort of wished Tarantino had done something a little different. But maybe that’s what makes Tarantino, Tarantino.  He does things his own way, more or less. When I had first heard about the movie, I had such high hopes for it, and given the background and general idea behind the movie, I really thought Tarantino was gonna knock it out of the park. But what I got instead was just a good, entertaining movie, that seemed vaguely familiar in a Quentin sort of way, and yet  for some reason I feel let down. I probably really shouldn’t be holding this against the film itself, but for some reason I just can’t seem to help it.

Another issue I had with the movie was the lengthy dialogue in some scenes. Now, I know I just stated earlier on in my review that Tarantino is known for his lengthy dialogue scenes, but some of the scenes (one in particular) in Basterds almost get out of hand. Namely, the restaurant scene between Col. Landa and Shosanna. I felt that a large portion of it was unnecessary, and really slowed the movie down to almost a grind. In contrast however, I felt the long dialogue scene in the very beginning of the movie between Col. Landa and LaPadite was both tension filled, and very necessary. From a technical point of view, that was really my only major gripe I had with the film as a whole.

Now that we have got the negative stuff out of the way, let’s move on to what I actually liked about the film. Let me just say that I thought Pitt and Waltz were awesome this movie. Pitt seemed to have his character down perfect, in my opinion. Everything from slight mannerisms, to the way he delivered his lines, to his deep Tennessee accent, really seemed to flesh out his character. Waltz’s performance also really impressed me. I had never even heard of the guy until Basterds, but boy did he do a great job with portraying his character. Waltz did a fantastic job with balancing his action on screen; one second he would have the audience cracking up at his “eccentricness” and delivery of lines, and then the next second he would be horrifying the audience with the sheer brutality of his character. Every scene that he was in really seemed to add another layer of tension to the movie (except the restaurant scene of course, lulz).

I also really liked the camera work and cinematography in this movie. I thought Quentin had a couple of awesome shots, particularly the straight on shot between Col. Landa and LaPadite. And except for those few scenes, I thought the script was spot on, and pretty funny at times. The action sequences were also well done, and really seemed to showcase that classic Tarantino style that everyone has come to love.

The movie itself really seems to have a spaghetti western feel that oh-so many Tarantino movies have (i.e. Kill Bill). And in a lot of ways, it actually kind of works for Basterds, as strange as that may sound when considering the fact that Basterds is suppose to be a war movie, not a western.

\Except for those one or parts that seemed to drag, I really didn’t catch myself looking at my watch to see how much longer the movie had left. Overall, the movie is really just downright entertaining, which realistically probably makes up for its one or two drawbacks. Essentially, Inglourious Basterds is classic Tarantino. So if you’re in the mood to see Brad Pitt killing carving swastikas in to people’s heads, some rather interesting camera work, or nazis getting bashed in the face with baseball bats, then Inglourious Basterds is for you. And if you’re not in the mood for any of that, then chances are you aren’t reading this review to begin with.

8/10

No tags Hide

Wow. So I guess it’s been awhile. And by awhile, I mean two months or so. Heh. Well, I do have kind of a good excuse. My laptop’s been broken for awhile, so I actually had to go out and buy a new one. Anyway, I guess I’m more or less back for now. So in case you actually happen to see this, I’ll just say that I plan on jumping right into things. I have a couple ideas for reviews and blog entries for the future, so hopefully I won’t be too lazy, and I’ll actually get around to doing it.

Now that we have got that out of the way, let us move on with the business at hand. Perhaps you have noticed the title to this entry, and you’re thinking to yourself, “Hey, that seems pretty arrogant”, so let me just say that the title has nothing to do with me. The title really applies to that of Mickey Rourke, and his role in “The Wrestler”, the movie that I plan on reviewing. So if you’re interested, sit back, relax, and read on my faithful readers.

So their you have it. Mickey Rourke makes his comeback with what happens to be (in my humble opinion), one of the best movies in recent years. With that aside, let’s get into the nitty gritty shall we. The movie is directed by the young albeit veteran director, Darren Aronofsky. Aronofsky is certainly known for his work in Pi, and Requiem for a Dream, although he has certainly out done himself with The Wrestler. Working along side Aronofsky and Rourke, are Marisa Tomei, playing Rourke’s love interest, as well as Evan Rachel Wood who plays the part of Rourke’s daughter.

The movie is reminiscent in a lot of ways of a modern day Rocky. Rourke plays a has been wrestler named Randy “The Ram” Robinson, who is simply just trying to make end’s meet by preforming at local sports centers, signing autographs, and working part time at a local super market. Eventually, Randy is offered a chance to headline a rather large wrestling event, to which he agrees upon. However, beforehand Randy suffers a heart attack and is told that if he ever wrestles again he may die. For spoiler reasons, this is about as far as I will go for explaining the plot.

As far as the finer aspects of the film are concerned,  Aronofsky is at the top of his game here. I won’t go as far to say that the visual work is better than that of Requiem for a Dream, but I will say that he does get some very nice shots, specifically the end scene (for those of you that have seen it). Along with this, Aronofsky does a very nice job of establishing atmosphere for the viewer early on in the film. Everything from the run down centers that the Ram wrestles in, to the dirty trailer park he lives in, all of it really gives you sense of pity for Rourke’s character, which is exactly what Aronofsky is wanting.

Another thing I personally liked about Aronofsky’s direction, is the use of a handcam to film almost all of the moving shots. For a good part of the movie, the camera is focused squarely on Ram’s back when he moving from place to place. This not only gives a more personal feeling for the audience toward the movie’s protagonist, but it also draws the viewer in and really makes them feel like they are a part of the movie.

So, in short, I’m sure all of you can see why I think so I highly of this movie. I give it a… wait, what? What was that you said? Oh, of course! How could I have forgotten? I still haven’t discussed the most major part of the film. THE ACTING. In case you haven’t heard, Rourke’s acting has been praised up and down by nearly ever critic that exists, but let me tell you why that is so.

Good acting is often judged on the believability of a character. Great acting can be defined by the level of depth that an actor gives to that specific character. And d**n near perfect acting can be defined by the said actor actually BECOMING that character. Let me tell you right now: Mickey Rourke didn’t play or act the part of Randy “The Ram”, he literally WAS Randy “The Ram”. Never before in a movie have I truly seen total immersion of an actor and a character, that is until I watched Rourke in “The Wrestler”. Everything he does and says really seem to embody the persona of “The Ram” character.

And if that weren’t enough, Rourke’s entire performance is noteworthy (at least in my book), for being one of the only characters in a movie that I truly had compassion on. I can say that I honestly felt bad for him at times. As things got progressively worse in the movie, I couldn’t help but feel depressed myself. The Ram is clearly a character with flaws, and the viewers are entirely aware of them, yet we still want to see him succeed, even if we know from the beginning that most likely things will not end good. The Ram is so human at times, that it is almost frightening. Rourke balances the line between being humorous at times, while simultaneously not breaking character, nor killing the mood of the film.  All of this is a sign of a great performance. It is of little surprise to me that he got nominated for an Academy Award, and if he doesn’t win then I will say it now: The Academy is full of fools.

The great acting does not stop their however, Maris Tomei is also very riveting in her performance. She plays her part very convincingly, and the chemistry between her and Rourke is nothing short than excellent. The two seem to work flawlessly together. Once again, I’m glad she got nominated. She deserved it.

I know their has been some debate over the ending of the movie, and all I can really say is that it’s fitting. Aronofsky obviously had a chance to give it a “Hollywood” ending in which everyone lives happily ever after. Or he also could have played off our feelings, and given it a real “tragic” ending. But Aronofsky doesn’t do either of things. **slight spoilers ahead** Ending the movie ambiguously as he does, shows a clear conscious decision on the director’s part, and it is in fact exactly what the movie needed. **End Spoilers**

In closing, if you haven’t guessed by now, it should be pretty obvious that I have a thing for this movie. Everything from the direction, to the fantastic acting, to the utter realism of the film, to the way it pulls you in, all of it is just simply top notch. It’s film at its best. If you haven’t seen this yet, and you at the very least have a small appreciation for good movies, go see this immediately. I imagine that if Rourke wins Best Actor this movie will get a pretty big increase in publicity, which possibly means more showings in different theaters. Then again, if he doesn’t, I make an oath right now to never watch the Academy Awards ever again.

9.1/10 (seriously, it’s THAT good)

No tags Hide

So apparently I haven’t posted in awhile. Eh. Well, today should more than make up for that. I have a nice special treat for you. Apparently Hollywood will make a movie about anything anymore.
As a result, it seems like Ridley Scott has chosen to base his next movie off of Detroit’s most infamous mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick.

Russel Crowe stars as the hot shot prosecuting attorney trying to put down the corrupt mayor while simultaneously dealing with his own inner demons. Forrest Whitaker also stars in what looks to be yet another Academy Award winning role as Kwame Kilpatrick. Al Pacino plays the supporting role of the cop charged to bring down Kilpatrick who is surrounded by nothing but corrupt policeman. And finally Keanu Reeves stars as Kilpatrick’s right hand man.

Although the movie seems rather loosely based on mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s actual term in office, it still looks very promising, and with such an allstar class, it definitely seems like a movie you won’t wanna miss.

I managed to get ahold of a teaser trailer for those of you who are interested. I highly suggest you check this out.

For Next Week: A review of Zach and Miri, and Gears of War 2!

No tags Hide

Alright, I got a bit of a treat for you. Since Halloween is just around the corner, and most people will be scrambling to there nearest Blockbuster to rent some scary movies, I decided to put together a list of the top seven scary movies that work great for Halloween parties or get togethers. So sit back, and enjoy.

7. Saw

Nevermind the mediocre sequels, the original Saw is where it’s at. With a chilling plot, interesting story telling, and an ending that will leave you flawed, Saw is one of the most intelligent horror movies I have ever seen. Although it certainly suffers from some bad acting, it more than makes up for it with its gruesome violence, and haunting tone. If you haven’t seen it, I definitely recommend checking it out.

6. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1973)

I think one of the most terrifying things about Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the way the film starts. It begins with a disclaimer stating that the following events are actually real. It seems to be that idea alone that is what gives Chainsaw Massacre some it’s scariness. The whole seems extremely possible, couple that with the creepiness of the deep south and one of the most terrifying sounds imaginable (a chainsaw), and you have one terrifying movie. If you have seen the remakes, you need to see the original, they are of no real comparison.

5. Alien

Possibly Ridley Scott’s masterpiece (next to Gladiator, I guess), Alien is also Sigourney Weaver’s main starring role. The movie blends two different things than terrify a number of people: 1. Enclosed spaces – Most of the movie takes place in a space ship, thus giving the viewer a feeling of being closed in.  2. The Unknown – Nothing is revealed about the Alien, other than his motives which are rather simplistic: kill everything that lives. These things, along with the combination of chilling ambience sound, and pacing that goes from slow to non-stop, makes this movie one of the scariest sci-fi’s of all time.

4. The Evil Dead

Although its sequels tend to verge more on the slap stick/ action sort of genre, the original Evil Dead is certainly a horror movie through and through. Sam Raimi, and cult icon Bruce Campbell, both went into the woods with around a 100 grand to make an epic B-movie horror film. When they emerged, Evil Dead was born, a cult classic, and not to mention a pretty scary movie to boot. Setting is everything in Evil Dead. The story takes place in an old cabin nestled inside a creepy forest. Overall, the movie certainly delivers both excitement and terror, as well as one of film’s most treasured characters, Ash. Oh and let’s not forget the epic, “tree rape” scene.

3. Night of the Living Dead (1968)

George A. Romero is a hero of mine for a number of reasons. One, he is a director that very rarely let’s others control his work, and always listens to what his fans have to say. The other reason would be that he made Night of the Living Dead, and more or less became “The Father of Modern Zombies” as we know it. In Night of the Living Dead, Romero shows us that it doesn’t take lot’s of money, or high tech special effects, or even A-list actors to make a great movie. It just takes an original idea and some raw talent. Night of the Living Dead is still scary to this day, even if it has been more than 40 years since its release. The entire movie is shot in black and white even though color was available at the time, and it really gives the movie a much more creepier atmosphere. A lot of people also don’t know that the main character, Ben, was in fact the first African American cast as a non-ethnic lead in a major motion picture in America, and the first time a black actor had a starring role in a horror film. There really isn’t enough space here to talk about how great this film is. It really is a historic landmark in horror movies. If you haven’t seen it, go see it right now. And don’t rent the crappy colored version! See it the way it’s meant to be watched, in black and white.

2. The Exorcist

Most people consider The Exorcist to be the scariest movie of all time, and after a first watching it’s pretty obvious why. Combined with the overall ultra realism of the film, the numerous disturbing scenes, and the infamous subliminal imaging, this movie scares you on multiple levels. It’s not only physically scary (i.e. makes you jump), but it’s also psychologically scary. I here people talk about this movie all the time, and they all say the same thing: they saw it as a kid, and it has scarred them ever since. It’s hard to believe a movie can even do something like that. It was shocking when it first came out, and it’s still shocking to this day. If you’re gonna watch it, I suggest finding the version that contains the infamous, “spider walk” scene.

1. Halloween (1978)

Possibly my favorite horror movie of all time, Halloween is indeed a classic. Although most consider The Excorcist to be an overall scarier film, Halloween certainly is a more fitting movie when it comes to this list. It’s hard to say exactly what makes this movie so good, but I guess it would be the combination of different elements. The idea that a deranged person could go into a suburb and start killing people is terrifyingly realistic. That coupled with the movie’s attention to detail, and how it takes it’s time increasing the tension until the final scene where everything kind of explodes. Then of course there’s that eerie theme music that no one can forget. Finally, Halloween has one of the greatest villains and horror characters of all time, Michael Meyers. Meyers has no real motives, or ulitmate goal, he just wants to kill people, and we the viewer know so little about him. Maybe that’s why it makes him so creepy. Halloween is historical in the sense that it is the father of modern slasher flicks. Avoid the remake and the sequels (except the second one which is decent), and check out the original for yourself. At the very least it will certainly be a fitting film.

Honorable Mentions: Psycho, The Thing, The Birds, The Hills Have Eyes (1977), The Shining

No tags Hide

Oh god… well, here it is. The review I have been promising for nearly a week. And with it, the return of a Terrible Tuesday review. The movie is of course, Alien vs Hunter, easily one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen. Hardly anything even comes close to the attrocities this film commits. Any way, here’s the review. Read and enjoy.

Well, there you have it. On first glance it looks vaguely familiar. Hmm. I can’t seem to place my finger where I have seen this picture before though. Oh wait, now I remember!

http://www.dvdtown.com/images/displaymedia.php?id=23182&sizew=500&cat=3&type=1&page=0

Ah, yes. Such a clear rip off indeed. In fact, I can’t help but think that the entire idea of the film was simply to trick people into renting AVH, when they wanted to see AvP. It really seems like they purposefully wanted to model AVH off of Aliens vs Predator. However, this very idea becomes even more laughable when Alien vs Predator was a crappy movie to begin with. So in short, if you thought AvP sucked, you can imagine how much worse AvH is. Yeah. It really is that bad.

Coming soon, in the fashion of Alien vs Predator and Freddy vs Jason, it's SEINFELD VS ALLEN!

Anyway, so the movie starts off with some guy that looks like the politician guy from X-Men and a cop in the desert, and they find an alien spaceship. Basically, an alien comes out and kills the cop. From this point on, the bullcrap has already started. For the next 20 to 25 minutes nothing happens at all. In fact, this is kinda the formula for the rest of the movie. We see an alien for 4-10 seconds, then sit through 30 minutes of pointless dialogue. And let me tell you, the dialogue isn’t only pointless, it’s literally some of the worst writing of all time. It’s so bad that it is hard to physically sit through it.

Eventually we see the hunter guy, or what I guess happens to be the hunter. I really can’t tell at this point and the movie makes sure to not give the viewer any backstory, or information. I guess the best part about the Hunter guy is that he looks like a giant beekeeper. I really don’t understand how a intergalactic bee keeper can fight an alien, but eh. That’s another thing that pisses me off about this movie, the actual characters from the film look NOTHING LIKE THEY DO ON THE STUPID F***ING DVD BOX!!! It’s retarded. Also, they only show the alien for a couple of seconds, and then switch back to something else. It’s almost as if the film director knows the alien looks like a big piece of fecal matter.

At one point in the movie the alien kills some character and then begins to eat him. Later on, they end up reusing the exact same eating footage that was shown previously. Then again. Then again. In fact, they reuse this scene at least four times throughout the entire movie. It’s like they’re not even trying. As far as they’re concerned they already got there money from you, so who cares how bad this movie ended up.

The movie continues to s-l-o-w-l-y build up to its craptacular finale, as the characters (whose names aren’t even worth mentioning) bicker amongst themselves about what to do. Let me tell you right now, the acting in this movie is painful to watch. More than once throughout the film, you can clearly catch actors smile as they are being chased through a forest by the alien. My only guess is that the actors knew how bad this movie was, and couldn’t help but giggle as they watched there entire acting careers get flushed down the toilet. Then again, I don’t think any of these “actors” were really actors to begin with. I have a feeling most of these people just signed onto to do AvH to simply compensate their cocaine and alchohol addictions. At least that’s what I’m hoping.

Eventually at the end of the movie, the Hunter and Alien duke it out, as the stupid humans try to figure out a way to stop the alien. One of the humans ended up getting shot by the Hunter’s laser gun, and immediately vanishes on screen.

Bee Keeper man, AKA the Hunter.

Needless to say such an event caused me to pee my pants from laughter. The special effects in this movie are hilariously bad. Finally, one of the human’s manage to kill the alien, and peace is restored.

WARNING POINTLESS SPOILER AHEAD: The final shot of the movie shows the Hunter removing his mask, and it is shown to be a human, who asks what the next mission is. As irrelevent a scene as this is, it leaves the movie up to what can only be described as a possible sequel. Yes, that’s right. A followup to this crap fest may in fact be what the director had in mind.

In the end, what can be said about this movie? Well, quite a lot actually. Words like putrid, God-awful, and excrement come to mind, but AvH still deserves some respect simply because it is so bad that it makes a lot of movies so much better in comparison. Like for example, Starship Troopers has amazing special effects compared to AvH, and The Happening deserves an Academy Award when compared to AvH’s cinematography. And finally 3 Ninjas High Noon at Mega Mountain is the greatest movie of all time when compared to Alien vs Hunter.

With that being said, is Alien vs Hunter the worst movie of all time? Possibly. Should you go see it? Sure, since some one uploaded the whole movie on Youtube, and assuming you a sadist. Is it worth your time? No. You would be better off using your time to do something useful like plotting your grave site, or counting the number of tiles on your bathroom wall.

Crap-O-Meter: -9.5/ 10

No tags Hide

Well, Halloween is just around the corner, so of course that means a new Saw movie will be out soon. In fact, on Friday, October 24th, Saw V will be released in theaters everywhere. So what can we expect from this new Saw installment? Well, to be certain, more of the same. With each Saw installment getting progressively worse, it’s pretty safe to say that expecting an average “gorror” (lol, horror and gore) movie will be about on par with the way the series has been delivering.

Last year’s Saw IV was more or less a disappointment compared to Saw III, but still it wasn’t the worst in the series (that honor belongs to none other than Saw II). But with each entry becoming less and less intelligent compared to the genius (yes, I said genius) of the first Saw, it’s really only a matter of time before the entire series goes into the crapper. Regardless though, this year’s Saw will give viewers what they expect (including myself), some good old fashion gore and violence, along with some cheap scares, and an even cheaper plot twist. You know it’s gonna be bad when the catchphrase for the movie is, “You won’t believe the ending”.

And if that wasn’t the worse case scenario, director Darren Lynn Bousman is NOT directing this film, so I’m afraid to say that the majority of Saw’s creepy atmosphere is certainly at risk with this new sequel. For those of you that are wondering, I managed to stumble across an official, albeit brief plot synopsis: “Hoffman is seemingly the last person alive to carry on the Jigsaw legacy. But when his secret is threatened, Hoffman must go on the hunt to eliminate all loose ends.”

My predictions: (possible spoilers ahead) At the end of the movie it is revealed that John (Tobin Bell), is in fact not Jigsaw, and was simply a pawn in a much larger game, OR that John is in fact not dead at all. It’s also been revealed that Danny Glover (he played Detective Tapp in the first film) will be in this film in one way or another.

(end spoilers)

Either way though I’m sure the theaters will be packed for the upcoming film. If you’re a fan of the series like I am, be sure you check it out this weekend. If you’re not, look for my review which should be up some time next week.

Tomorrow – AVH!!!

No tags Hide

No tags Hide

Holy crap, it’s an actual post and a review! Yep, finally back after a couple of weeks of being lazy. Hopefully I can get back into a more regular routine of posting now. Anyway, I have a special treat for you today. I am going to be doing something called a review off. Basically, I will be reviewing two movies, and then at the end I will compare the two and give my opinion on which one I liked more. Well, we might as well get started then.

The first movie to be reviewed is gonna be Judd Apatow’s latest comedy, Pineapple Express. The film stars Seth Rogen and James Franco as two potheads, Rogen playing the part of the middle aged loser who witnesses a murder committed by a local drug lord, and Franco playing the part of Rogen’s friend and drug dealer.

Now, obviously most of the movie’s humor is centered around drug related topics and perhaps even some of the humor is out there as well. As I was watching it for about the first 20 minutes or so, I had this bad feeling that the movie wasn’t going to be all that funny. However after about 30 minutes or so into it, I found myself laughing uncontrollably throughout the rest of the movie. The comedy is actually a good deal different from most of Apatow’s scripts that focus heavily on sexual related topics, and replaces it with more over the top and borderline ridiculous humor.

Aside from the humorous aspect, the movie actually contains a rather large amount of action scenes that are both brutal, as well as humorous at the same time. The movie does a nice job of not taking most of the intense scenes too seriously, and continues to keep the audience laughing with a large amount of over the top violence.

Pineapple Express’ dialougue is actually pretty good, considering its targeted audience and the characters it is trying to represent.

But possibly one of the greatest aspects of this film is the chemistry between both Franco and Rogen. Both actors seem to blend together extremely well, and play off of each other very nicely. I would definitely like to see them together again in another film, or possibly even a sequel.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Pineapple Express, and with the exception of the first 20 minutes or so, I was nearly dying from laughter throughout the rest of the film. I would have to rank this next to, or as good as Appatow’s 40 Year Old Virgin, and even dare to say that it is more satisfying than his previous films.

The next movie to be reviewed is the summer blockbuster comedy, Tropic Thunder. Written and directed by Ben Stiler, Tropic Thunder is certainly a comedy that delivers numerous laughs. TT stars Stiller as an outclassed action star who along with his other fellow actors (Robert Downey and Jack Black), try to make the world’s greatest war movie. However, unbeknown to them, they are actually in a real war.

Tropic Thunder literally has one of the largest star driven casts I have ever seen. With a ridiculous amount of star cameos, it seems that such a movie would have to either be a success or a complete flop. But let me just say Tropic Thunder happens to be no flop.

A lot of the movies humor comes straight from its direct parody of both the war film genre, and the way it mercilessly pokes fun at Hollywood and its entirety. The dialogue in Tropic Thunder is pure gold. Almost the entire movie is quotable, and most of the humor of the movie comes directly from the character’s mouth.

A lot of people have been saying that Robert Downey deserves an Emmy for his performance in this movie. I can’t say for sure that I agree with that, but none the less his performance as the squad’s black seargeant is definitely the highlight of the movie, and is easily the funniest character in the film.

Stiller certainly has some funny parts himeslf, most notably as the character “Simple Jack” (although offensive to some, I found it hilarious). On the other hand, it really seemed that Jack Black almost got shorted in this movie. As the third main actor in the film, Black has noticibly less screen time than both Stiller and Downey. On top of that, he also gets shafted for the most part when it comes to his script.

Regardless, I found Tropic Thunder to be “pee your pants” funny. If you haven’t seen it yet, go see it. Downey’s performance, along with Tom Cruises’ cameo are worth the price of admission alone.

Review-off: In comparing both movies I would have to say that most people will probably find Tropic Thunder to be the funnier of the two. However, I personally would have to say that I laughed equally as hard at both films. Both movies certainly have different kinds of taste, and most likely appeal to two different groups.

However, with that being said, I think Tropic Thunder is probably the better movie of the two, simply for its acting, and the fact that in terms of it having more intelligent humor than Pineapple Express. Also, I feel that Tropic Thunder will have more of a lasting appeal. I think it is quite possible that if I were to watch Express again, I would probably only laugh at about 1/4 of the things that I had found funny before, where as the majority of the humor in Tropic Thunder will still be appealing even after several viewings.

Pineapple Express:  7/ 10

Tropic Thunder: 7.1 / 10

No tags Hide