Welcome to Cinema Dump

Due to the heavy traffic with the other Blog, we've decided to relocate here. This way, all film reviews and everything else can be categorized and organized for your reading pleasure. All old film reviews are in the process of being transfered over, so be patient. It's going to take some time to move and sort all the old reviews.


Also implemented was a newer rating system based on turds. See the Official Rating System entry on what the individual ratings mean.

Enjoy......

Cinema Dump Rating System

Five Turds

The absolute worst that a movie can offer you.
The worst of the worst and bottom of the

filmmaking barrel. Avoid at all costs.

Four Turds

Not the absolute worst, but close. There

might be a few redeeming qualities that

make you able to watch without vomiting,

but not many.

Three Turds

About average. Not the best, but

certainly not the worst. About the

middle of the road.

Two Turds

Above average filmmaking. Something
about this movie stands out and is actually
very enjoyable. A definate recommend.

One Turd

The best you can get. The pinnacle of
filmmaking and a nearly perfect film.
There is very little to complain about and
this film is considered to be golden.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2009
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, John Turturro, Kevin Dunn, and Peter Cullen
Directed By: Michael Bay

**Caution: Review contains spoilers**

Well, lets get the plot out of the way first. According to IMDB, the plot goes like this:

Decepticon forces return to Earth on a mission to take Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) prisoner, after the young hero learns the truth about the ancient origins of the Transformers. Joining the mission to protect humankind is Optimus Prime, who forms an alliance with international armies for a second epic battle.

That's pretty much it. Sure there's a little more to it, but ultimately the plot fails to be fully fleshed out to it's potential. Before we get into that, let's go back a little bit.

I never reviewed the first Transformers movie, but I liked it a lot. I had a few issues with it, seeing as I was a G1 fan (Generation One or Original 1980's Cartoon Series), but all in all it was a decent movie that I enjoyed watching. I ultimately felt that the biggest flaw was that the Transformers (except for Optimus Prime) didn't really have much character or personality.

Now I just saw the sequel and have mixed feelings. I feel that a lot of the things that were wrong with the first one got corrected here. However, with those corrections, more errors were made. I'm not being picky here either. Here the giant robots actually had personality and character, and a few actually were spot on as to their cartoon counterparts we all loved, but some had too much character.

A few of the robots felt like they attended the George Lucas house of Jar Jar. Some were downright annoying and poorly written, while some just resorted to foul language and slapstick comedy to move them along from scene to scene. This wouldn't be bad for any other movie, but in Transformers, it just doesn't work. I mean, at one point I just shook my head at the lame jokes and poor characters on the screen. That hurt my inner child a little bit.

Shia LeBeouf, I have come to realize, is a douchebag. Plain and simple. He's always the same character in every movie, and he's totally lost his charm. His characters are constantly manic, frantic, and slightly neurotic with odd facial spasms and ticks. After Disturbia, Transformers, Eagle Eye, and Indiana Jones, Shia LeBeouf just recycles the same characters around with new dialogue. It's kind of sad and pathetic that he's as popular as he is, and considering the little talent he posesses, it's sad and pathetic no one in Hollywood has noticed. He isn't all that bad, as he serves the purpose in each movie he's in, but don't expect him to have the long career that most in his shoes would have.

Other than that, the acting this time around is pretty solid considering the weak story. It's not poorly written, but instead just shallow plot points spread out over 2 hours and 20 minutes. Those plot points actually revolve around the action, so you can expect plot development about every 20 minutes or so. I didn't mind the length of the film, just the lack of a solid story. It was paper thin and just didn't do much for me. The character of The Fallen was totally disposable and unneeded. Considering he was in the movie a whole 2 minutes, he wasn't really necessary to anything. That's another gripe. Lack of screentime. There were like 20 new Transformers this time around and very few were shown longer than a minute or two. Why not add like 6 or 8 new ones and flesh out why they're there? Because it would be obvious and make sense and Hollywood is not known for making sense. One character from old that made it in was the female Autobot RC. RC is shown at the beginning for all of 10 seconds and then shown randomly at the end getting ripped apart for another 3 seconds. So, was this character needed for 13 seconds just to satisfy the fans? I don't think so.

On the plus side, Soundwave was there with original voice and it brought back that nostalgia from childhood. However, Soundwave and a few others were more than enough to satisfy. Did we need the wanna-be gangsta rapping Autobot twins Mudflap and Skids? Hell no. They were pointless and I had Jar Jar flashbacks for half of the movie.

With the negative out of the way, the movie actually was pretty good. Just not something very solid in the plot department. The action sequences were phenominal and totally elevated the action from the first film. Robots fighting robots with more than static punches was a major plus. Explosions, destruction, and lots of guns totally made this popcorn flick more than worth the price of admission. There were a lot of things I could pick apart, but apart from the weak plot and annoying robots, I'm not going to bother. The point is, I enjoyed myself and felt I got my money's worth. I'll more than likely pick up the Blu-Ray when it comes out, so that should say something.

All in all, good popcorn flick. Decent sequel, but not as good as the original. Had the story been fleshed out better, a few Transformers omitted, and less Shia LeBeouf facial spasms, this movie could have topped the first installment.



Rating:

Year One (2009)

Year One

2009

Starring: Jack Black, Michael Cera, Oliver Platt, Vinnie Jones, Hank Azaria,

Directed By: Harold Ramis

Someone is getting fired. I know it. I can feel it deep in my bones. Someone's job got stripped from them when this movie came out. Before I get into that, let's see what this trainwreck of a movie's plot is.

According to IGN, the plot is as follows:

Year One, directed by Harold Ramis and produced by Judd Apatow, follows Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), a hapless pair of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who embark on the world's first road trip. Zed deems himself "Chosen" by God after he eats the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Banished from their primitive tribe, the two embark on a journey to find out what life is all about, encountering several Old Testament figures along the way.

They first meet Cain (David Cross), who slays his brother Abel (Paul Rudd) over a simple disagreement that Zed and Oh inadvertently start. Fearing Cain's wrath, they reluctantly follow him back to his home to meet his parents Adam (Harold Ramis) and Eve (Rhoda Griffis) and siblings Lilith and Seth. Zed and Oh later cross paths with Abraham (Hank Azaria) as he is about to slay his son Isaac (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

Zed and Oh eventually find themselves in the notorious city of Sodom, where they clash with the King (Xander Berkeley), the High Priest (Oliver Platt), and the head of the palace guard (Vinnie Jones). Once there, they must prove themselves by rescuing the respective objects of their affections Maya (June Diane Raphael) and Eema (Juno Temple) from slavery.

For the record, I really like Jack Black and Harold Ramis. Heck, I even like most of the supporting cast in Year One. After seeing this abomination of a comedy, I've lost some respect for everyone who had anything to do with this movie. I never liked Michael Cera to start with, so as far as he goes, I had nothing to lose with him. The problem is, Harold Ramis is either responsible for or had a lot to do with some of the greatest comedies in the last 30 years. Ghostbusters, Caddyshack, Meatballs, Stripes, and Animal House. All classic comedies right? Well, with Year One, Harold Ramis just gave us all the finger and pissed all over the classic comedies I just mentioned.

With Jack Black... well, I like him. I'm a fan of Tenacious D and most of his movies, but here... WOW. It's like he just didn't even care about the movie. He just showed up, said some lines, ate some crap, and got paid. That's it. There's absolutely no characterization with him (or anyone else really). When watching it, you see Jack Black acting ridiculous and not acting one bit. It's sad really. Michael Cera just stands by and looks stupid for ninety minutes and adds absolutely nothing to this movie at all. He's there just to tag along behind Jack Black and add that "buddy element" to this horrific "buddy comedy".

The rest of the cast is littered with cameos. I could have dug better suprise cameos out of a litter box. No one is funny. No one. I repeat... NO ONE IS FUNNY. Hank Azaria comes close to being entertaining, but as soon as he starts stealing the scene, BAM.... Harold Ramis shifts gears someplace else less entertaining. It's almost like they threw a bunch of names into a hat, drew out twenty or so, and those people were forced at gunpoint to be in this movie. Everyone has this look of "I do not want to be here" etched on their faces. It's sad really. In fact,once this movie was over, I shed a tear... a single tear for someone's career.

After seeing this movie, I realized that someone had to get fired when this thing was made public. The reason I say this is watching this movie made me feel raped. I felt like I had been sent to "failed movie prison", taken to my cell, and then raped by twenty inmates while my helpless cries fell on deaf ears. This movie is that bad. It makes me wonder if anyone screened it before it got released. My guess is no it didn't, thus someone losing their job.

Not all of it is THAT bad... no wait... yes, yes it was. When the movie was over, it was like finally taking that dump that has made you on edge for a 90 minute road-trip. Your stomach no longer hurts from holding the crap back, but your butt is sensitive from the pushing. Except here there is no pushing. It's like it's being forced in. All of the jokes suffer from very little set-up and too much punchline. After about twenty minutes in, you're praying to God that he'll release you from the evil grips this movie has on you. It wouldn't be so bad if it were anyone else than Harold Ramis, but you just expect more from someone of his calibur.

Speaking of Harold Ramis, I was thinking about him reviving the Ghostbusters franchise with Dan Akroyd during this movie. Then I saw Ramis onscreen and came to the conclusion that he actually ate Dan Akroyd. Man this guy has filled out. He's pushing maximum density on that Egon Spengler frame of his. All of which just made this so painful to watch and made me secretly hope that Ghostbusters 3 never sees the light of day.

Year One was co-written by Ramis and Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg, who the latter two co-write The Office. I was shocked because I like Ramis and I like The Office. Then I see Year One and wonder what went wrong. Supposedly the same three (with Dan Akroyd) are working on the Ghostbusters 3 script. To that I say.... May you all be struck down with a sudden case of comedic genious otherwise, you three are about to ruin the last great thing from my childhood. I really hope that if anyone got fired or blacklisted from the horrific afterbirth that is Year One, it's the two writers who shaped this lump of feces with Ramis, because I really don't want them touching Ghostbusters at all now. In fact, I think I actually like The Office a little less now. I know I'll never see Stripes or Animal House in the same light again. It's like Ramis had the Midas Touch and then one day just started randomly touching turds. No matter how golden they seem on the outside, there's still a lump of crap underneath.

So with the horrible script, horrific acting, and nonsensical directing... Year One shapes up to be one of the worst comedies I've ever had the displeasure of watching. I've seen some BAD movies in my day, and Year One ranks up there with them all. So, viewer be warned... Year One should only be watched in trailer form and then forgotten. According to some sources I've read, Year One was originally planned to be a raunchy "R" comedy, but was trimmed down to "PG-13". It makes me wonder if the editing was to blame for the movie being totally unfunny, but no matter where you try to shift the blame, nothing excuses the pitiful script, pathetic acting, and unoriginal directing.

All in all, this turd of a movie should be flushed.

Rating:

The Shield (2002-2008) A Retrospective Review

The Shield

2002-2008

Starring: Michael Chiklis, Walton Goggins, Kenny Johnson, David Rees Snell, Benito Martinez, CCH Pounder, Jay Karns, Catherine Dent, and Michael Jace

Notable Guest Stars: Glenn Close, Anthony Anderson, Forest Whitaker
Created By: Shawn Ryan

Television shows come and go each year almost as frequently as we change our underwear or brush our teeth. Very rarely does an episodic show come along that not only refuses to follow conventional means, but also defies logic in how it creates it's own mold and then breaks out of it.

From the pilot episode until the series finale, The Shield has reinvented the episodic drama wheel so to speak. Critically acclaimed from moment one, The Shield not only revolutionalized the episodic drama, it paved the way for a whole new genre of shows (especially for the FX network). Sons of Anarchy, Dirt, Damages, Rescue Me, and The Riches all owe their television life to The Shield. And that's just the FX network. This doesn't take into consideration the other networks.

On March 12th, 2002, The Shield's pilot episode premiered. Without spoilers, the first episode dealt with the organization of The Strike Team, a squad of detectives aimed strictly at dealing with gang related crimes in the ficticious Farmington District of South Central LA. The episode also introduced The Barn: The experimental police precinct formed of a motley crew of law enforcement stationed in an old church that had been remodeled to suit their needs. The thematic elements to the episode dealt with a "new" Strike Team member and detectives searching for a missing girl possibly involved in an underage sexual slavery ring. The pilot summed all this up within an hour and then left you with (at that time) probably the most disturbing last 30 seconds on television. It was those 30 seconds that would come back to haunt the Strike Team for the rest of the show's seven seasons and set up a catalyst for what would be 7 years of gripping television. The Shield did in one hour episode what many cop, crime, or drama shows spend their entire lifespan trying to accomplish: BE COMPELLING.

And that's exactly what The Shield was for seven whole years. Compelling. From season to season, events escalated to the point that you really never knew who the true good and bad guys were, and it was that big gray area that kept you hooked. Was it maverick cop Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis) and his detective hit-squad double-dealing their own cop bretheren while in turn taking a huge payoff from gangs, or was it the deep and moving moments strung in between the rape, violence, and gritty street lifestyles that made this show compelling? Truth is, it was a little bit of everything. The show was shot completely on Steadicam, which means that each scene and each shot is constantly moving. Kenetic energy and constant motion really puts this show in your face, grabs you by the throat, and won't let go for an hour.

Rape, murder, drugs, prostitution, sex, serial killers, gang warfare, corrupt city officials, The Armenian Mob, underage sex rings, senior citizen rapists, money laundering, and undercover sting operations are only the beginning. With guest stars such as Glenn Close, Anthony Anderson, and Forest Whitaker, as each season came and went, the bar was not only raised, it was obliterated and a new one was created. I mentioned the guest stars, but as wonderful and great as their roles were, it was the regular cast that really kept this show moving. Even the pimps, hookers, and gang members were so well fleshed out and believable that you could actually lose yourself in an episode. And it's that dark and taboo beauty that really ups the ante with each episode. With stellar acting, directing, writing, and production values, nothing kept you watching more than just knowing what was going to happen next. This show didn't resort to eyecandy and explosions to keep you watching. No, it resorted to grabbing you by gripping storylines, flawed characters, and a believable and down to earth approach to the cop drama.

As each episode came and went, the years went by and each season drew to a close. At the end of each season, I'd find myself saying "Well, after that mess, this show can't end well for everyone." Well, it didn't. The final episodes (or season for that matter) were spent wrapping up most of the open storylines and building toward what would be one of the most disturbing and talked about series finale's in the history of television. Without spoiling anything, the final episode of The Shield took viewers to a place they didn't expect to be and never returned them home. Shock value doesn't describe this show, but shocking does. Nothing was ever cheap or included just for shock value. With everything that happened, you saw the result, even if it was good or bad. With The Shield, it was mostly bad for the cast. The show was all around great entertainment, but also at the same time it was gritty, raw, and disturbing. One episode I remember vividly from Season one showed Vic Mackey track down a cop killer only to find the killer's dad sitting with heroin needles sticking out of his arms and feet in a drugged out haze. The guy turned his own son in, tricked him to come home, and he came home to be tortured by Mackey with the stick pin end of a badge before his arrest.

It's that flipside to life reality that The Shield gives you with each episode. They show you a reality that most people don't even realize exists, and then they shove it down your throat and make you believe that there truly is an underworld within our own world. Sure The Barn, Strike Team, and Farmington are all ficticious members to a dramatized LA, but after the pilot episode, you won't even care. The realistic portrayal and brilliant acting and writing will sink the hooks in and not let you go.

In retrospect, I miss this show. Only seven or eight months after the final episode aired and I miss it. I miss looking forward to the fall television lineup and wondering how The Shield was going to wow me with it's brilliance. The good thing is that I own every episode on DVD. The bad thing is that what I own is all there is. No matter how many times I see an episode, I always notice or hear something that wasn't there before. It's so layered and deep that one viewing just won't cut it. The ending, although bittersweet, came at the right time. There really wasn't too much more that could be done with the show except run it into the ground, so it was best to go out on top than to dwindle down to nothing and then just fizzle off the tube altogether.

For those that haven't seen this show, please do yourself a favor and pick it up. It literally was weekly filmmaking at it's best. Each episode was so much like it's own film and didn't really feel like a TV show at all. It was groundbreaking, inventive, and had the biggest balls a show ever had on network television. Like the shows I mentioned earlier, a lot of TV shows out now owe The Shield for breaking down walls and touching on taboo topics that people were too scared to even mention.

I'd like to think that this retrospective review will get someone interested in this show and allow them to experience the gripping and beautiful show that is The Shield. If you haven't seen it, give it a chance. With all the awards it's won, all the praise it's recieved, and all the critical acclaim it's taken... that should tell you something. So, in closing, instead of giving a rating, I'm going to say that this show is beyond a rating and leave you all with a few random quotes from the show.

Good cop and bad cop have left for the day. I'm a different kind of cop."- Vic Mackey

"Ay, Mo. Your sister's ass really tastes as sweet as Alvarez here says it does? He wants to know what your momma's putting in the corn muffin. "- Vic Mackey

"Mackey's not a cop. He's Al Capone with a badge."- Captain David Aceveda

"The truth is like grits, you can't serve it up plain, you got to put a little salt on it."- Shane Vendrell

"If my tone sounds superior it's because I'm American and you're Greek!"- Dutch Wagenbach

"From now on, when I say, "Suck my dick", you say, "You want me to lick your balls, Daddy?"- Antwon Mitchell

"So, we cause a triple murder before breakfast, start a race war before dinner - that's uh, that's a pretty good day." - Shane Vendrell


Everyone check out this phenominal and wonderful show. You won't be disappointed

Star Trek (2009)

Star Trek

2009

Starring: Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Chris Pine, Eric Bana, Simon Pegg

Directed By: J.J. Abrams

First off, Star Wars rules. It always has and always will. I've never been a so-called Trek fan, or Trekkie, as the nerds are often referred to by normal society. I remember my brother, a Trekkie, literally fist fighting from debates which started from theories as to who would beat who in a fight. Usually something like... Chewbacca vs. Warf or Mr. Spock vs. Lando Calrissian. Needless to say, neither of us (my brother or I) were declared the winner. After seeing the new Star Trek, there is a winner....

Star Wars.

Now, I'm not bashing the new Trek at all. It's a really, really good movie, and worldwide, millions of nerds all touched themselves in unison at this movie's release. However, seeing that it's hands down the best Star Trek movie to date, it's far from perfect and far inferior to Star Wars. How can I say that? It's easy... Star Trek has it's flaws and it's apparent to me that no matter how many times you reboot the franchise or start a spin-off series, it's always going to suffer from the same fate... it strangles it's own throat with plot.

In this new re-imagining of the Trek universe, we see the birth (literally) of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and his first steps onto the bridge of the Enterprise. We also see a young Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) and his dealings with being half-human and half-vulcan as he hits puberty. What this movie is really doing is setting up what will probably become a trilogy or so of J.J. Abrams take on Star Trek. Is that a bad thing? Not at all. It's good to finally see a Star Trek film (or science fiction film) that appeals to the masses (ala Star Wars). The bad thing is, it suffers from the same old plot device that plagued 3 other Star Trek films and countless episodes from each series. What is that plot device you ask?

Time Travel.

Yes, again with Star Trek and time travel. Basically the movie opens with Kirk's dad being thrust into the Captains seat for 12 whole minutes before he dies in a ship battle with the Romulan nutjob Nero (Eric Bana). Here, once again, Eric Bana is in green makeup. You'd think he would have learned his lesson from 2004's Hulk movie, but nope, he's green again. Although this time, his acting ability is treated with a little more respect. So, Nero comes from the future where supposedly a very old Mr. Spock (the real Leonard Nimoy and original Spock) allowed Romulus (Nero's homeworld) to be destroyed. So, he decides to come back through time and destroy Spock's homeworld of Vulcan. Got it? No? Confused? Yes!

Why go back in time and destroy a world with Spock watching? Why not go back and stab Spock's mom in the belly while she was pregnant? Because that would make way too much sense for a villain. So, after destroying Vulcan, Nero decides that he has a boner for blowing up Earth too, so he decides that's his next target and heads on over. What he doesn't take into account is that the young and inexperienced crew of the Starship Enterprise won't allow that to happen. So, as he's attacking Earth, I noticed something... NO ONE WAS FIGHTING BACK! NO ONE! With all the idiots we have on Earth in 2009, you mean to tell me that in 2398 or whenever this happens, we will just lie down and take a pounding? In a post-911 society, we're going to let this alien terrorist try and blow apart our world? Hell no! So apparantly somewhere between the Obama administration and Starfleet forming, Earth became a society of pussies. But I digress...

So, it's up to The Enterprise and it's crew of fledgling officers to take on a galactic threat. How will they ever pull it off? Well, with the help of a time-traveling 129 year old Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy). Are you confused yet?

So, with the confusing and convoluted time-traveling plot choking you every step of the way, there's actually a lot of fun to be had with this movie. Number one, William Shatner and his amazing hair and limited range of acting is nowhere to be found, which is kind of a breath of fresh air. However, we see a Leonard Nimoy (who appears to have been pulled from the jaws of death to make this movie) return, which was a mixed bag of emotions. The best thing about this movie is the cast. Each youngling (he he he-- Star Wars reference) takes their already established role from a seasoned actor and makes it their own while still paying tribute to the character(s) already established. Chris Pine as Kirk was actually pretty good, but where the film literally shines is with Zachary Quinto as a young Spock. This guy plays Leonard Nimoy as Spock better than Leonard Nimoy does. Quinto, so far known as Sylar on the TV show Heroes, is going places and this is all just the start of a wonderful career for such a talented actor. Also, among the ranks of talent is Karl Urban who plays Doctor "Bones" McCoy. Urban IS a young Dr. McCoy and totally embodies the role. However, with as much screentime devoted to the main three (Kirk, Spock, & Bones), a lot of actors fall to the wayside.... Namely, Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott or Scotty.

Simon Pegg is a great actor and totals probably 5 minutes of screentime. Sure, this is the origins of the classic Enterprise crew, but come on... Scotty was essential, and to only showcase him for like 5 minutes is insulting. Especially to Simon Pegg who stole each scene he was in. The rest of the cast were good, which was this movies strongest aspect. They "clicked" together just like the original cast, which was great to see.

The script, apart from the suprisingly great dialogue, was mediocre at best. Sorry, but the over-used time traveling plot killed it for me. When one of the main characters refers to what's going on as "an alternate reality", we have a problem. I know you Trekkies think I'm being harsh, but I'm not. Had the whole time traveling plot been removed (seeing as it's been done to death with Trek), this would have been an epic Trek masterpiece. Instead, it only felt epic in parts. At one part, I even expected Doc Brown (from Back to the Future) to run out of nowhere and yell: "GREAT SCOTT!"

However, where the script failed, the casting and directing excelled. Abrams, a reported Star Wars fan (not Trek by the way), admitted to not being a fan. It shows because this Star Trek film is the first tolerable one since The Wrath of Khan. Borrowing from his love of Star Wars, he adds little nuances to his version that really take the nerd out of Trek and make it watchable. Long gone are the simple and lame space battles. Added are epic and sweeping shots of space, which according to Star Trek is the Final Frontier. Throw in real world physics (like no sound in space) and you've got the first semi-believable Star Trek movie ever.

The special fx are really good, as should be expected, as is the alien makeup. The production quality of everything in this film felt like a scaled down Star Wars set in our own universe, which is what I always thought of Star Trek. That's not a bash, just an observation. However, everything is done with taste and style that respects the original TV show and movies. Somewhere Gene Roddenberry looked down and saw this movie and touched himself out of jealousy. It's like you're watching Star Trek for the first time, but you get the "inside jokes". Within the first 10 minutes, you get to see a wreckless 10 year-old Kirk steal his step-dad's car while a Beatie Boys song plays, so you know it's geared more toward the world we know and not the one that could be (see original show).

So, overall, this is a really good Star Trek movie. However, no matter how good a Trek movie can be, it just will never hold the same for me that Star Wars does. I respect Trek and like it as far as I allow myself to do so, but it has never felt epic or had those same qualities that make Star Wars so great. Mind you, Star Wars and Star Trek fans will always be at odds, but with the release of the "new" Star Trek, I think Star Wars fans just got something that they can appreciate about Trek without having to punch a Trekkie out over a snide Wookie comment.

All in all, good popcorn movie. Best Star Trek movie ever made. Zachary Quinto IS Mr. Spock. 'Nuff said.

Rating:

The Wrestler (2009)

The Wrestler

2009

Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, and Evan Rachel Cook

Directed By: Darren Aronofsky

Before I begin the review, I'd like to give a personal little story here. First off, I've watched pro-wrestling off and on since I was 5 years old. Now my son watches it off an on, and has since he was about 3. I've been to live events, met countless wrestlers, used to write a weekly wrestling column, and know quite a bit about the inner workings of that business. With that said, I did watch with a critical eye, especially since this was billed as Mickey Rourke's comeback film.

Now, with that out of the way, this film is not just for wrestling fans. It's a morality tale in which the main character happens to be a pro-wrestler. This isn't a "rasslin" movie! That had to be said because wrestling is such a small part of this film. Now, here's the synopsis according to IMDB.com:

Back in the late '80s, Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) was a headlining professional wrestler. Now, twenty years later, he ekes out a living performing for handfuls of diehard wrestling fans in high school gyms and community centers around New Jersey.

Estranged from his daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) and unable to sustain any real relationships, Randy lives for the thrill of the show and the adoration of his fans. However, a heart attack forces him into retirement. As his sense of identity starts to slip away, he begins to evaluate the state of his life -- trying to reconnect with his daughter, and striking up a blossoming romance with an exotic dancer (Marisa Tomei) who is ready to start a new life. Yet all this cannot compare to the allure of the ring and passion for his art, which threatens to pull Randy "The Ram" back into his world of wrestling.

Ok, that's about it for the plot. The movie clocks in just a few minutes past 1:45 minutes and isn't what you'd call a "blockbuster". This movie came in under the radar and then blew up when critics saw the performance of Mickey Rourke (for which he was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal).

The first 30 minutes of the movie are superbly well done, as is the last 30 minutes. It's the middle 45 where the movie seems to lose some of it's steam. Is this a bad thing? Not really, but considering the ending is sudden and abrupt and ends on a question mark, the middle of the film should have been tightened up some. Is it worth watching? Of course. It's brilliant and very well done, but to be fair and unbiased, I have to find something to complain about. So that's it. I'm complaining about the pacing of the second act of the film. Other than that, it's damn near a masterpiece.

The acting, of course, is competely top-notch. I don't know why people are saying that this is the comeback film for Rourke. He's always been a good actor, but has chosen some roles in movies that weren't quite right. Other than that, he DID make Sin City a few years back, so the comparisons to John Travolta and Pulp Fiction need to stop. Seriously, Rourke NEVER made a Look Who's Talking, so I don't see this as a comeback film, but instead I see it as a pinnacle film. It's the pinnacle of his acting ability and how far he goes for a role. Anyone who says this is a comeback for Rourke is mentally retarded. He just made some bad choices in the 90's.

As for the rest of the cast, his daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) isn't in it enough to matter, but when she is, she blows her scenes out of the water. She's got some heavy dialogue that just pours out of her with great emotion and power. Any parent will be moved by her performance. Marisa Tomei. Wow, what can I say? She's gold in anything, but here as an aging stripper bent on retirement, she does a VERY good job in making you believe her pain as a conflicted mom with a nightlife. Yes, you see her topless about fifteen times, so it's kind of hard to knockers (I mean knock) her performance. In fact, I'd like to see a spin-off flick just starring her as a stripper.

The directing is brilliant. Hands down brilliant. I've never really been a Darren Aronofsky fan, but he sold me on his talent with this film. He really makes you feel for Rourke and Tomei, but doesn't make you feel bad in the process. He tugs at your heartstrings with the story, but does it in such a delicate and gentle way, that you really don't even think about the action (wrestling) sequences (for the non-fans) as being a "fake" sport. He makes you realize that these pro-wrestlers are dedicated to their fans and give everything they have to put their bodies through Hell for entertainments sake. The camera work and editing under Aronofsky's direction really help sell the story instead of using trendy shots and cuts to make it flashy and appealing. The "feel" of the film is gritty and dark, just like the life of Randy "The Ram" Robinson.

The story, as with the acting and direction, is top-notch. Written by Robert D. Siegel, the story (except for the second act as I said above) is brilliant and well written. Siegel actually makes you care about the characters and feel their pain while not feeling sorry for yourself in the process. The dialogue is great, as is the overall character design and plot, so this guy (if he continues to write like this) has an Academy Award in his future.

There really aren't any special effects except for the wrestling matches, which a few of them will make you hurt and literally turn your head. Aronofsky used real wrestlers throughout the film, so 95% of the matches in the film are done by non-stuntmen. The matches themselves are actually brutal, so be on the lookout if you've never seen a "hard-core" match.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film and I'm glad I picked up the Blu-Ray disc. I've enjoyed the film, but I'm currently checking out the special features, to which there are a few good ones.

Bottom line is, whether you like wrestling or not, like Mickey Rourke or not, don't pass up this great film. I highly recommend it to everyone.

Rating:

King Kung Fu (1976)

King Kung Fu
1976
Starring: Lance D. Hayes, Allan Baker, Dan Campbell, Tim McGill

Directed By: Lance D. Hayes

A friend of mine gave me a copy of this a few years ago and I promised I'd do a review. The thing is, I've literally spent like two years trying to forget this movie, so in a demented way to cleanse myself of this "movie", I'm returning with what might be the worst (or best) review ever. Warning, this won't be for the faint of heart.

According to IMDB, the plot is this:

A remote monastery in China has trained a talking gorilla, King Kung Fu, in the ancient art of kung fu. Having mastered his fighting skills, King Kung Fu is sent to America to demonstrate the power of Chinese martial arts to the West. As he is travelling through Kansas, a pair of bumbling reports see King Kung Fu and decide he can be their ticket to fame and wealth. Of course, the gorilla gets away from them, and soon everyone is chasing the Shaolin simian.

Now, I'm not even going to summarize my own plot because wasting my breath on that while I could use it to give my thoughts just isn't worth it. Before I get to my own review, apparently this movie got it's share of "bad press", so I'm going to give you all a treat. Actual words from the Director complaining about "why" this movie sucked so hard.

"I've lived with this movie, King Kung Fu for over 30 years now, and have heard every kind of remark known to mankind about it. When we started this movie in 1974, we were the first to use the new 16mm negative film. Had we finished it on time, we would have been out before "Airplane". This film allowed us to "Blow it up" to 35mm for theatrical release. Naturally it played to big crowds in Wichita, and was actually held over for another week, and did well then too. We played it at the Wichita Orpheum as a fund raiser for restoring the theater. A week before the Wizard of Oz played there. KKF drew 5 people less than OZ, which says something. I don't know what. Anyway, when the movie played there two years ago, the audience laughed throughout the movie, and then bought a lot of VHS tapes, T-shirts and posters, all of which contributed to the fund raising. I had several comments following the movie, like "If people can laugh at your movie 30 years later, you must have done something right". Thus, I am truly puzzled by nasty reviews claiming this to be the worst movie ever. I can assure you I have seen a lot of movies worse than mine. We stuck by our guns in 1974 to make a "G" rated movie, and had to fight the MPAA to get it. If you really watch this movie closely, you will see it is not a backyard production. We busted our buns to make it work. Enjoy"

First off, WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!? Why defend this movie? It's like defending OJ Simpson. You may win the argument, but you know he's guilty of murder. Same case here. You know you made a bad movie and committed film murder, so why bother to defend yourself? WHY? You say you stuck to your guns to get that "G" rating? Why not stick that same gun in your mouth, pull the trigger, and spare society the embarassment of watching you take a shit on us for 85 minutes. I don't like to be shit on, and by watching this movie, that's exactly what I got: A giant fucking turd smacked across my face. You say your film drew 5 less people than the Wizard of Oz and you don't know what that means? People like trainwrecks and will crawl out of the bowels of society to see one. That's why pal.

For one, you can't call the acting in this movie acting. It's caricature. It's overdone and overplayed and exaggerated beyond belief. A "modern day" sheriff that acts just like John Wayne? Is that supposed to be funny? Seriously? That guy couldn't even wash John Wayne's taint, much less have the audacity to act like him. What gives you the right to fuck with "The Duke" in such a way? The rest of the acting will literally make you want to impale yourself on plastic cutlery over and over until death comes for you. It's simply that bad. There is not one redeeming thing to say about the acting or the people cast in this movie.

The script. Shit. Plain and simple. How dare this man compare this movie to Airplane? How dare he? Airplane was funny. This is funny in one of those awkward "I just shit my pants on the escalator and I hope the guy behind me with his nose in my ass doesn't notice" situations. You feel dirty watching this movie and hope to God that there is enough bleach manufactured to scrub your eyes with. It's written as if a team of four year olds threw darts at random ideas and recycled movie plots taped to a dartboard and they put them down in no apparent order.

The direction: Well, I wipe my ass with the direction. I see now where Dreamworks got their idea for Kung Fu Panda. Seriously. The only difference is that they animated it, got good people to write it, got a director that didn't seem to ride an unnatural short bus, and got good actors to voice the characters. Oh yeah, they animated theirs because MOVIES LIKE THIS SHOULD BE ANIMATED and not disguised thinly as a "quality movie". How dare this asshole compare his movie to Airplane? The only truth he spoke was that it wasn't a backyard production. No, it was a third grade production.

Believe it or not, it was shot on film and I understand where the money went. It didn't go into polishing that script or getting good actors. It went for the bragging rights of "Hey, we shot this turd on film" argument that most BAD filmmakers use. I don't care if this movie was filmed on construction paper. It would still suck the life out of you and leave you looking like those souless slave muppets in The Dark Crystal.

The best (or worst) part of the whole movie: The special effects. A jackass in a gorilla suit (like we're supposed to believe that shit) and the epic King Kong-esque climax on top of a building complete with stop-motion GI JOE action figures and a play-doh gorilla. I shit you not. I've dropped prettier pieces of shit in the toilet. First off, the gorilla suit guy as "King Kung Fu". WHAT THE FUCK? Ok, I get it. You didn't have enough money for a real gorilla and CGI wouldn't be invented for another couple of years, so I'll give you that one for comedic purposes. The stop-motion, play-doh, GI JOE doll climax? Fuck you! Don't even say that this was supposed to even remotely look cool. It looked like playtime after lunch in the retard classroom.

According to the filmmakers it took years to get this movie finished because the blind assholes givng them money kept dropping the funds out from under them. NO FUCKING WAY!!! Stevie Wonder can see that this movie is fucking awful. In fact, this movie blinded Stevie Wonder and caused Ray Charles to do heroin. The reason money kept getting taken away is because the filmmakers kept taking shits on their financial backers. I wouldn't throw them 20 bucks either.

All in all, if I had my choice of eating undigested corn and peanuts out of a dead mans ass or watching King Kung Fu again, I'd grab a spoon and say what's for dinner. I'd rather wake up with morning wood, piss straight up into my own mouth, and then drink it than to watch this again. I hope that somewhere, someone has beaten someone severely for allowing this movie to get made, let alone released to the public. There are movies that are so bad they're good. This isn't one of them. I'd say that this is worse than shit. This movie is the equivalent of taking a huge liquid shit after a two day bender of drinking and eating Mexican food, then taking that shit and mixing it in a blender with rotten animal parts, then blending you a nice protein shake. Actually, this movie is the 2 girls 1 cup of traditional cinema without the nice lesbian chicks to make the shit and vomit easier to swallow.

I'd rate this movie, but I can't bring myself to do it.

Rating: None

A Haunting in Connecticut (2009)

The Haunting in Connecticut

2009

Starring: Virginia Madson, Kyle Gallner, Elias Koteas, Amanda Crew, and Martin Donovan

Directed By: Peter Cornwell

The year is 1987 and a young mid-teenage boy, Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner) is slowly dying from cancer. His mother Sara (Virginia Madson), has to make frequent trips from New York to Connecticut for him to seek cancer treatment. With the frequent cancer treatments and trips to New York, the Campbell family is put under a severe financial strain, so Matt's parents suggest they get a "rental" home near the doctor. Sara finds a cheap enough house and the dad, Peter (Martin Donovan) says he can't afford to take another job, so they put out a third mortgage on the house and he stays at their New York home and visits on weekends.

From the first night staying in the house, Matt starts seeing crazy things: people cutting on corpses and pulling their eyelids off, a mortician carving crazy words onto corpses, and other creepy things. After what seems like weeks of the visions and strange occurrances, Matt starts talking to an older guy who's having the same cancer treatments. The guy turns out to be Reverend Popescu (Elias Koteas), and it seems his philosophy is that the closer to death you are, the more likely you'll be able to see the dead. Since he and Matt are dying from cancer, they appear to be able to see spirits. From that point on, the good Reverend seems to be the only one sympathetic to Matt's visions, so he decides to help him through the ordeal and aid the Campbell family.

Now, in all honesty, The Haunting in Connecticut isn't a bad movie, but suffers from some of the same Hollywood horror gags that plague every horror flick nowadays. For instance, when you see something scary, the music "pops" in that scary tone, which after about the third time in the same movie can be quite distracting. But, that's not to say the movie is bad, it's just suffers from the average Hollywood input. It seems that the best horror flicks are the ones made outside the "system".

The story is actually quite entertaining and not overly contrived or trite. For the PG-13 rating, the film actually pushes what I would consider the limit for that MPAA rating. It's not gorey, but instead more macabre and eerie and I believe that it actually might terrify a 13 year old kid. If not the frightening imagery, the whole cancer plotline might be a bit much for someone that age. But, back to the story...

The script is solid and isn't weighted down with typical Hollywood ignorance. It's paced well overall but seems to stutter and stall out in a few minor scenes, but nothing enough to ruin the film for you. Pretty much from minute one it's a well paced film that will definately keep you watching. The last 30 minutes are hit and miss until about the final 15, where everything finally falls into place and the puzzle pieces fit. Overall, not a bad script considering both screenwriter's shadey film career. About the best from either one was Fright Night Part 2, and that's not an award winner in itself but simply... OK.

The acting is where this movie actually shines. Kyle Gallner, Virginia Madsen, and Elias Koteas (best recognized as "Hey! It's Casey Jones from the Ninja Turtles movies!") really steal the show. Kyle Gallner really makes you believe he's truly dying from cancer and sometimes he doesn't even speak, but instead lets his eyes tell the story. This kid WILL go places if he plays his cards right. Virginia Madsen does good as the mom, but she really doesn't bring anything new to the table, but instead delivers a solid performance. The scene stealer though is Elias Koteas, who is probably one of the most underrated actors alive today besides Crispin Glover and a handful of others.

The direction seems to suffer from typical horror film syndrome that's plaguing Hollywood flicks nowadays. Flash cuts, slow-mo's, and quick pops seem to dominate the second half of the movie, but did a decent job setting it up in the first half. When you get to the second half, you wonder if Peter Cornwell has anymore tricks up his sleeve because you can almost call what the next shot will look like. If I were directing this flick, I would have went back to the original Amittyville, The Shining, and Exorcist for editing and directing ideas. The simpler the better in horror movies, and it seems to me that directors now seem to underestimate the audience and feel that flashier is better. Truly, that's not the case as I'd take The Thing or one of the 3 "old-school" horror flicks I just mentioned over about anything coming out now.

The editing and special fx are good, but the editing suffers from to much flash and style to be taken serious at times. The fx are great, but again, sometimes less can be more. Instead of flashy CGI and computer fx, building suspense with more payoff would have worked better. The buildup at the beginning was great, but moneyshot after moneyshot, the film leaves you wondering why they just didn't go for scares instead of showing you everything. However, what you see is really great, it just seems to get somewhat old about half-way through the film.

Overall, the movie was good. A solid PG-13 horror flick amidst the cornball shitfest we get constantly every other month now at the theaters. I'd really like to check out the Blu-Ray for additional content (ie-deleted scenes, fact from fiction vignettes, etc...) and see the film and what the filmmakers can bring to the home theater. It's definately worth a watch, but I feel the horror enthusiasts will think it's decent and should give it a chance.

Rating: