2012

The movie 2012 is a movie about how the Mayans somehow ridged up the sun to melt the inside of the earth should the planets ever aline in the year 2012 because they are stupid jerks. Why would they do that? We never find out. There aren't even any dumb Mayans in the movie because they are all gone, but we do find out that John Cusack is probably the luckiest mother fucker in a movie ever. The twist? Because he is MAYAN!!!

So Roland Emmerich once made a movie called Stargate, which is a pretty cool movie. It has Kurt Russell in it. And it's an action sci-fi movie that skips over having starships and other played out sci-fi shit and goes strait for the gun battle scenes instead. Then he made Independence Day, which every single human being on the entire planet born after the year 1974 has seen. Then he made The Day after Tomorrow, the movie George W. didn't want you to see, being the reason I tried to vote for him in 2008 but wasn't allowed to. And finally he made 2012. His magnum opus. A blockbuster beyond blockbusters. Where calling it stupid entertainment just makes you the stupid one, because can you actually hear yourself? "A movie where the entire planet just starts exploding and breaking apart and flooding is unrealistic? What an insightful observation."

Seriously though, this is the dumbest, most great, fun to watch unless you think about any of it for a second, type movie there is about the year 2012. And since I'm writing this in the year 2012, I'm guessing there aren't going to be a whole lot of other movies about 2012 in the years to come. Because apparently the world ends in 2012. I better write this quick.

The far less exciting prequel "2011" was just about the British Royal wedding and Occupy Wall Street

Despite how terrible Roland Emmerich's movies are, beside Stargate, I have a soft spot for the guy. ID4 was pretty cool when it came out too, but I'm not really talking about his movies. They are as cheesy and dumb as any other blockbuster to come out. In fact they're where the bar is set for cheesy and dumb. But I've always felt a kind of kinship with Roly. Because the two of us seem to be the only ones that actually like disaster movies. Although this argument is void because there have been a million disaster movies coming out recently, I don't care, once upon a time there were only a few, and they were far between, and they were almost always terrible. The Disaster Genre has the potential to be one of the most interesting. You deal with characters in survival situations when the stakes are high and they have no one but each other to get them out of danger. You have explosions, or falling buildings, or an avalanche, or genetically engineered genius sharks. You have exhilarating stories where anything can happen at any time. But they always turn out crappy because they are about genetically engineered genius sharks.  But you have to give it to Roland, because he says fuck it and makes them anyways. And he doesn't fuck around either.

You know how movies will sometimes shaft believability by having the bomb be deactivated with 1 second left on the bomb clock thing? Not 5 seconds, or 20, which is still pretty close, but just 1 second, where you literally couldn't have came any closer to blowing up. Or when someone runs out of a burning building RIGHT as it collapses? This movies is 2 and a half hours of that. There is a scene where John Cusack and his family jump in a plane and are taking off the runway right as everything else around them is exploding and breaking apart in a giant earthquake. Up until now they were driving in a limo through buildings and jumps huge caverns, and now the entire state of California is turning upside down, with the only solid ground being the runway in front of them. Everything to the side: Gone. Everything behind them: Exploding and earth quaking away, all of it moving closer to them as they try to get their plane off the ground. As they move forward, the ground once beneath them gives away immediately, and they take off just as the rest of it goes, flying off as they try to dodge crumbling buildings and a subway train seriously goes gliding over them. Roland goes balls out with this scene, and then he turns around and does the same exact thing, plane taking off and all, 2 MORE TIMES. He puts the same exact scene in the movie, but done bigger, once with them just taking off as the Yellowstone super volcano goes off, and again with a giant plane as Las Vegas folds in on itself, TWO MORE TIMES!! That takes guts. There's no way you couldn't notice you'd already done the "plane just barely takes off in time and doesn't have the altitude to make it so they pull up and just scrap a nearby building/Rock on fire/Eiffel tower" scene. His writers must have said "We already did that" and he still said "Do it again. Twice!"

 The deaths of millions of innocent people just trying to mayan'd their own business

 

Because he knows that's what you want. He knows you don't want to learn more about the characters. I do, but you don't, and he knows that and the movie becomes scene after scene of Washington collapsing, aircraft carriers hitting the president, India flooding, Volcanoes fucking up Hawaii, a cruise ship being overturn by a million foot high waves. There's a scene where we see people in the Sistine Chapel as Michelangelo's painting of Adam putting his finger out to god has a crack come in and pass right between them. I actually yelled at the movie for that one. Scene after scene. Disaster after disaster. We see thousands of people falling to their death or being crushed just as the camera pulls out enough for it to not be too gruesome, and instead is kind of funny. We see these two old women driving around like old women right before they crash into something with a goofy sound effect. We see it more and more until it becomes all we want to see. People falling to their death, getting crushed by giant boat gears, drowning. Over and over. Roland Emmerich has completely said fuck you to all the subtly most movies try to bring and just goes for it. I'm not joking, its kind of admirable. He's cut out the bullshit and made a movie that consists entirely of disaster porn.

"DON'T DO IT, MOVIE!"

And the last act is the best part. We find out the government has been making these huge super boats, which they call arks, and even hammer it home by showing them flying in animals, although they apparently only had Elephants and Giraffes, because its the only animals they showed, and they showed the giraffes a million times, which is almost ironic since we find out at the end that Africa was fine. So they only saved two species of animals, which have no use to humans at all, that aren't even in danger since they are from Africa while all the bears and sea otters have drowned. No more cows either. No more hamburgers. They have these awesome Sci-fi boats that they take white water rafting down the Himalayas, and this weird sci-fi twist comes almost out of nowhere. Granted they also start having dumb ethical discussions about leaving some people to die dispute the fact that the other 6.99 billion people who were alive 3 hours ago have all died no thanks to them deciding to not tell anyone about the world ending, so now they get all righteous about not wanting to let a few hundred other people, who were all just rich assholes that had their boat break down anyways, die. The boats are awesome though. It drives home the whole "yes the world did end and now we move forward at restarting a brave new society" feeling that gives the story some weight. It's not a great story but at least you feel like everything you watched has some historic importance within the world created, and can't help but wonder where the story might go next. It's the most interesting part of the movie. It's not saying a lot, but I just liked the turn it takes at the end. Feels like the beginning of a better story. Like pretty much Battlestar Galactica.

It's also funny how this movie king of spits in the face of the Day After Tomorrow, despite it clearly being influenced by Roland wanted to outdo himself. Whereas the Day After Tomorrow was all about global warming and how we should take care of our planet, this one is all about earth being a giant asshole. I guess he couldn't help wanting to upgrade a movie where everyone is killed by winter to having everyone killed by everything.

Despite some of the pandering at the end, the movie never tries to be anything other then eye candy. It's people falling to their death and being crushed eye candy, but there is no promise beyond that. I like disaster movies, and although I'm still waiting for an actual good one, I usually take what i can get. So yeah, on one hand you could look at it as one of the stupidest movies ever made, but on the other, it's the finest cinematic example of Mayan political propaganda about wiping out the otter scourge once and for all. I'm not even going to try to put a rating on that.

2012 out of 10

Monsters

I remember hearing about this movie when it came out. It was getting a lot of press for being a high concept movie about an area of Mexico where Alien lifeforms have popped up, but filmed on a very low budget. As such I figured that it was the kind of movie with a great idea but would probably be a badly executed and overly-long movie that sneaks in a few CGI monster shots for flavor. While this is mostly true, I actually really liked it.

For the most part the movie does relay on it's premise to make the story interesting while being almost completely about two character's just hanging out with each other as they travel through Northern Mexico. While it's a cool idea, it kind of brings the whole "This is a low budget high-concept movie" vibe up constantly. I don't know if its me, but it feels like the movie is really pleased with itself for coming up with a clever way to be about alien monsters, without having to show that many alien monsters. It is smart of them to do, but you go into the movie knowing that they are just going to be hinting at there being monsters around without ever showing them, making the movie kind of predictable. So though the movie is about these two character's getting to each other as they make their way through this dangerous territory, it's the actual dangerous territory that keeps you interested.

The story is about Samatha being in Mexico for some reason when some photographer dude is sent by her Father's company to help get her back to America. A NASA probe thing had discovered Alien life in the solar system, but wrecked over Mexico while trying to land, scattering lifeforms over half of the country. The first part of the movie establishes the atmosphere as we see them walk around Mexican villages and cities while talking about "the creatures." We see all kinds of "Warning" signs with gas masks on them and "Prohibited Area!" while having people talk about how dangerous the Infected Zone is because soon the monster's will be migrating this way. And the second part of the movie is them going into the infected zone, chilling out on boats or hiking through the forest, while only hearing the creatures from far away or seeing hints of them being in the river. Although this kind of plays into the pre-established idea that we aren't going to see the monster's that much, it works really well for the atmosphere of the movie.

 Though out of every conceivable name they could have called this movie, "Monsters" is admittedly pretty unoriginal

For one, we actually do get to see the monsters. At the very beginning, a little in the middle, and than a good deal at the end. So it's not like we go the movie without seeing them. It's pretty clear that they are real and the locations we visit alone show what a huge threat they can be. Which is pretty much what the heart of the movie is. It's realistic in telling us about these monstrous creatures that have been around for 6 years, but it doesn't just show us them outright. Their allusive nature makes them feel like real animals, and we spend the majority of the movie taking in the sights and sounds of the various beautiful locations affected by these things suddenly showing up.

And that's where the movie shines most. As a character study, we see these two people get to know each other as they depend on themselves to make it through this beautiful but dangerous area. And as a Sci-fi movie, the theme is more about the discovery and territory of a new animal species that's existence is ever present while being rarely scene. The movie is shot on real locations in Mexico, and despite it's low budget, does an amazing job of presenting a realistic atmosphere of disaster.

The movie also seems to benefit from other recent Sci-fi movies and their themes, specifically District 9 and Cloverfield. While Monster's has the Documentary "realistic" feel that Cloverfield had, without it actually being a Mockumentary, as it deals with the subject matter of monsters, it also shares the theme of District 9's "Alien's just showed up here and we are having trouble dealing with them" premise. The down and dirty realistic style helps make the movie feel like a good companion piece to either, although the two by themselves are quite different. It seem to promote these movies as a kind of new movement, and since I like all 3 of them, it makes me excited for whatever comes next.

Overall the movie does a good job of getting the most out of it's small budget and telling a compelling story. Though i went in looking to find problem in it thinking it was just another Paranormal Activity type deal, I can't really think of a reason to complain. The pacing is pretty slow, especialy in the first half where it takes a while to get started, but despite this usually being a big deal to me, I had no problem sitting through it. I doubt I'll watch it again anytime soon, but that doesn't make it bad. I've always dug sci-fi that felt realistic, and with movies like this and District 9, it's doesn't get more real.

Word.
7 out of 10

Spider-man Trilogy

In honor of the new Amazing Spiderman coming out, why not look at the original trilogy that helped send the comic book genre into the billion dollar blockbuster territory it's in today? There is no reason, so shut up.

Spider-man

It's possible the first X-men movie may have come out before this, making it the starting point of the latest Super Hero obsession in Hollywood, but I don't care enough to look it up, and considering the fact that Blade came out in the 90's, and Superman was huge in the 70's, it doesn't even matter. Regardless, Spider-man was a big deal when it came out, and was a lot better than stupid X-men, which is a pretty boring movie if you go back to watch it, that helped cement "dorky" super heroes as a marketable franchise while being critically hailed. As a big fan of both Spider-man and Sam Raimi, I was extremely excited to see it opening night, and since I was actually in High School at the time and could fully identify with Peter Parker's story, it left a pretty sizable impression on me. The class loser problem, the crush on the pretty girl that will never be returned problem, the ability to climb up walls problem. All staples of whats its like growing up, which is what led to the comic being popular for like a 100 years in the first place.

Though the effects and story telling may not match up with the more recent efforts in the genre by comparison, its hard to argue this movies achievement in defining the genre. Still, some problems still exist, such as the stories lack of re-watchablity, mainly on account of it being an origin story, the melodramatic love triangle, and Tobey Maguire as Spider-man.The Green Goblin custom didn't really help either, and it's not like you didn't always know what was going to happen next.

 What kind of dumb name is Tobey?

With all that said, I've probably seen it a million times, that most likely being the real reason I can't sit through it in one watching anymore (making my previous statement bullshit) and years of watching day time television and Hong Kong movies has made it easier to stomach melodrama. But Tobey Maguire is still really hard to buy as Spider-man, though I guess its not impossible if you don't think about how much better pretty much anyone else would have been. In the end Raimi's direction gives the movie a lot of heart, and, in the end, it gives the movie a feeling of being a classic. Or maybe that's just because I saw it in high school.

Spider-man 2: The curse of Buddha

Then Spider-man 2 came out and everyone thought it was the best superhero movie ever, until X-men 2 came out, if it hadn't already (X-men 2 was amazing). Building on the conclusion of the last movie, with the will-they-won't-they relationship of Pete and Mary Jane, the fact that Harry thinks Spider-man killed his dad for no reason, and the whole J. Jonah Jameson hating Spider-man thing, this movie hits the ground running. Actually it doesn't. I should have said swinging, but it doesn't do either. Though this may be me always having to find something wrong to complain about in every movie other people like, I remember having a lot of problems with this movie, despite actually enjoying it. So while it's probably better than the first one, the action is awesome, I remember being somewhat indifferent towards it.

So it should have hit the ground running, but instead opens with Spider-man saying "Hi, I'm Spider-man" and then punches us in the face with example after example of ways Peter Parker is a useless human being. He looses his job, he can't pay the rent, he's about to flunk out of school, Mary Jane is going to marry some other guy, Harry hates Spider-man, Bruce Campbell won't let him see Mary Jane's play, he can't get a single thing to eat at a fancy party, and also his powers stop working for pretty much no reason. Also the bad guy is really a nice guy that turns bad probably because Peter jinxed him. Also also J. Johan still hates his guts. So he quits. What a great movie.

Spider-man 3: Put a Venom in it

 No one likes this movie. Like X-men last stand, the third of this trilogy is pretty well known for coming off the tracks in such a disastrous wreck that it fucked up the whole franchise. With X-men they decided to just start making prequels, but this piece of crap lead them to just reboot the whole series from scratch. And it probably would have been a shock if not for the fact that this movie was so dumb, making us not really care about such a weird move.

The problem with the movie supposedly came from the studio, surprise surprise, wanting to cram venom into the movie, which Raimi didn't like until later when he did because he didn't really have a choice I guess. So we have 3 bad guys, with Harry becoming the new Goblin, Venom randomly coming from the sky randomly, and randomly having some random convict get completely weird random sand powers. There's just TOO MANY BAD GUYS, guys! The weird part is that Sam actually wanted stupid Sandman in the movie and had to be convinced to shoehorn Venom. The movie ends up being a clusterfuck of nothing really being important on account of so much going on, but I can't help but feel that the "dark Spider-man" story line was the only thing giving the movie a purpose, despite how cheesy it was done, like we needed more angst, while the Sandman story was completely pointless and way out of whack with the reality the previous movies had established. Harry as Goblin mock II was pretty sweet though. I think his fight with Peter is one of the best in the series, probably because they had been building up to it through the first two movies. Too bad it ends with Harry getting dumb plot convenient amnesia. His story then becomes pointless, Sandman all of a sudden becomes a big deal because they retcon it to him being the one that killed uncle ben before he becomes pointless, and then Venom really never has a point to begin with. The story just isn't there.

 Why's he so broody anyways? He gets to be Spider-man.

You have one thread that is the end of a character's entire arc through out the last 2 movies that has to serve as the beginning and then put on hold, some random occurrence where "something" falls from outer space and makes the main character a dickhead for half the movie before becoming a different character, the same melodrama with Mary Jane now that this time she's the one down on her luck so now they can't be together, and the most random story of some guy we just shouldn't care about who is written in in such a clumsy way that it does retro damage to the first movie, all woven into one story.

Overall the first two movies are seen as classics, although I never agreed that the second one was the best. They were an important part of  bringing superhero movies up into the light to be seen as blah blah the third one ruined it... surprise surprise...

The Cabin in the Woods

I didn't know Horror fans could be so pissy. I usually see them as the ones sitting back with their arms folded, snickering at all the uptight soccermoms who complain about sex and violence in entertainment. "They just don't get it." The point of these movies is to have fun. Then a movie comes out that deconstructs the slasher/horror movie genre, being hardly the first, and they shit their pants. How dare they? How dare they make a movie that plays with the tropes and cliches of slasher movies by changing the context to give the story a wider scope? Grrr. What do they think they are playing at, huh? Making a movie that is fun? Why would anyone make a meta slasher movie? Yeah, I don't know, but I'm inclined to agree with that one. Because the Slasher genre is fucking terrible. So I guess it's too bad these guys are so hung up on maintaining the sanctity of a shitty genre, because this movie is great.

I knew nothing about this movie until right before it came out. This was mostly due to the fact that the movie is called The Cabin in the Woods and the poster is a picture of a fucking cabin, but also on account of the fact that horror movies generally bore the shit out of me. So when I hear a horror movie is coming out that "completely changes the genre forever!" it didn't really do much for me, but for whatever reason I was in the mood to see it. Maybe because it was Friday the 13th. Or because it was written by Joss Whedon and co-written and directed by the guy that wrote Cloverfield. Or because Cabin in the Woods sounds weird to me when I say it out load. Like you are saying Camping in the Woods in a weird accent, or talking about racing taxi's into trees. It just sounds like a shorthand for the word Cabing, which doesn't exist, because Cabin is a legit actual word for little wooden house.

Cab'n in da woodz

The movie is more or less some teenagers cab'n out and having fun before getting murdered, except that there actually is more because a whole lab of scientist, including the bad guy from Billy Madison, seem to be watching and controlling everything they do, possibly being the entire reason they are there, for some possible secret dark intent or otherwise hidden good intentioned motive possibly.

While not being that into dumb slasher movies, I still know the tropes well enough from Scooby Doo to understand and enjoy the basic idea of the movie. The slasher/evil-in-the-woods/survive-til-dawn/don't-have-sex-or-you-will-die-horribly formula has been put pretty steadily into place in our society's culture mind. So stepping back a bit and giving it a broader context and actual purpose rather than "teens die just-because-why-not" by throwing in some sci-fi secret laboratory action sounds like a good way to make this lame shit interesting for once. And that's where I'm not following where a lot of "horror fans" are coming from on this movie. Because a lot of them hate it, which considering how good it is while being in such a dumb genre, sounds wrong. Like they are just objectively wrong. I could write paragraphs upon paragraphs about how flawed and stupid horror movies are, and probably will, but I think we've all agreed that they aren't really that good. Through there are good horror movies, they are technically just good movies that happen to be horror, and if you look proportionally at all the terrible movies that have ever been made, I'd say a good 80% of them are fucking horror movies. So I don't get this high and mighty "This movie is a insult to the Horror genre!" hullabaloo, because even horror fans admit that they don't enjoy the genre for its quality, but rather it's fun attitude.

And how the hell do you insult a fun attitude? The genre is synonymous with the word terrible, so saying a good movie insults it is like saying "Johnny Cash is an insult to Country music!" or "Sex is an insult to Garbagemen!" It's all backwards bizarro and shit.

Dr. Funattitude

The movie does a great job of serving up classic horror fare without tipping its hand to whats actually happening. It tells you just enough for you to know there is more to the story, but still concentrates on the characters, allowing you to be invested in the moment. So as the movie goes on, you figure out that although you know what is going on with these kids in the cab'n, you don't necessarily know whats going on with the rest of the movie, so you may be able to see the next kill coming, but you know about it because you are supposed to. And that's one of the things that lets me actually enjoy movies. When I don't know what will happen next, forget I'm watching a movie, and get immersed in the story. What else can you even ask for from entertainment than immersion? You have identifiable characters from great actors, a tight, interesting storyline that keeps you engaged, and sex+violence, pretty much for it's own sake of sex+violence.

The problem I'm seeing here is the whole inferiority complex driven "fuck those elitist that think they are so smart" bullshit that's been coming up in our society a lot lately. Apparently this movie was made back in 2009 and was delayed so they could 3Dify it. Luckily they never got around to it, but for the past few years it's built up quite a reputation with critics and film snubs as being the next big thing in horror. I guess some horror fans, who consider themselves purists(Jesus Christ...), found it insulting that some fancy pants "Meta" horror parody comedy movie thought it could be a better horror movie than the standard by actually being a better movie. Once upon a time this shit was reserved for hillbillies to help them deal with the fact that they were dumber than city folk, but I see even kids using it these days. Grr. "All the out of touch pansy critic elitist like the movie because it's self-referencing and thinks it's so fucking smart!"

I was blissfully ignorant to all the bullshit pretense surrounding the movie, so I was able to see it without having much in the ways of expectations or needing to like it or dislike it to validate my self identity as a filmbuff/nerd/person. So I liked it. Liked the shit out of it. Instead of feeling looked down upon by uppity intellectual filmmakers, I actually felt respected by a story that didn't feel a need to talk dumb to me and could instead allow me to trust that whatever happened next was going to be fun. Maybe because I'm not ashamed of my intelligence. Because I'm smart. Or because it was a pretty good movie and I don't get why people gotta get all political and shit.
It's these goddamn hipster kids with their tight jeans and their raps music stop making fun of my cat and GET OFF MY FUCKING LAWN!!

8 out of 10 Cab'ns

Drive

I'm not really a big fan of movies with simple titles like Drive, or Driver, or Crash, or none car related words, like Heat... or Cars... It's difficult to look up online, or talk about because you have to say "That Drive movie, with the guy in it. He has the Jacket, yeah." instead of just being like "Things to do in Denver when you're dead." Not that that's a good movie, or example, I haven't seen that movie in forever and don't remember anything about it, but people know if you are talking about a movie, and not just a word, unless they haven't heard of Thing to do in Denver when you're dead, which is fine. It's not a memorable movie. So yeah, Drive. The title isn't all that amazing I guess. The movie itself is pretty awesome though.

I don't pay a lot of attention to, well, really anything these days. News, Sports, upcoming MOVIES. So I might have missed out on the hype for this movie if there was any. I've heard the trailer made it seem like the Transporter or Fast and the Furious. The Transporter is one of those words too, but not as bad I guess. Fast and the Furious is obviously a movie, and not confusing. Except that the first 3 are numbered and then the 4th one was just Fast and Furious, and the 5th was FAST FIVE!!! Actually the third one was called Tokyo Drift. But whatever, people thought they were getting an action movie when they were getting an artsy movie instead, and they got tricked, which is awesome. Fuck those people.

 Drive: A movie about cars. And Driving...

I on the other hand knew nothing about this movie, kinda hearing it was a love it or hate it deal, but getting mostly "It was Rad" from people I knew and I became really intrigued. I also heard there was a Jacket involved, which made me more intrigued. And I saw the poster for it with it's neon pastel colors, and got way more intrigued. Didn't know who Ryan Gosling was, and was super intrigued for some reason, I guess he's in a bunch of chick movies. And I heard the violence was intense and then got REALLY ultra intrigued to see this movie. So I had this weird kind of anticipation for the movie, where I figured it was just artsy, violent, and stylish enough to be fresh, and went into it hoping I wouldn't be disappointed.

 Jason Statham's cameo as Vin Diesel, in an attempt to get more people to see the movie

I already said it was awesome, so yeah, I wasn't disappointed. No, instead the movie opens with this 80's dark electro synthesizer sounding music while the main character drives around the city at night with the credits displayed in pink letters, and I was sold. And that's really the best way to describe the movie. The plot really isn't much, and it's not supposed to be. It kind of actually is similar to the Transporter, kind of. The main character barely speaks and none of the other characters really jump out, so there's little dialog, or exposition. But it's not supposed to be. The movie is about execution. While most people bitch about something being too stylish, and say shit like "it was style over substance" because they're fucking idiots, the truth is that a story's execution is just as important. Like artistically, or something. Or MORE important! Probably not, I don't know, but too many people put emphasis on plot or story, acting like they only find merit in the "meaning" of the movie, like jerk wannabee intellectuals, when it's a fucking movie. Like we haven't already seen every story 200 times. Oh I wonder what the dove at the end of Blade Runner "symbolizes?!?" Fuck you. The style in which a movie executes story, character development, atmosphere, and whatnot is what makes movies unique to other mediums, because if story were the only important part, then you should just read the book.

Deciding how realistic, surreal, over-the-top, or stylized the feel of the movie is, like how the characters talk, or what they say, or how action is done, with it being brutally real, or cartoonishly graphic, or even barely seen but heavily insinuated, is the reason we go to see movies.

And it "Symbolizes" America!

And that's where the Love or Hate part comes in. People either find something fresh and enjoyable in the movie, or try to punch holes in the plot. So you either have taste and like it for it's realistic, yet stylized take on what could have been a genre film. Coming to enjoy it as a character study that takes time to breath life into the people we are watching and make the danger feel real. Or you have bad taste, and I've already made fun of you 5 times. Look at the scorpion jacket you idiot.

I don't even know why I like the jacket in this movie that much. It might be because it's Fall and I've been seriously looking for a new jacket of my own and was like "Oh, cool jacket." when I saw the movie. It might be because I've never really seen a white jacket I thought looked cool before, let along a satin one with a scorpion on the back. Or it might be because it makes the character iconic. The same way Indy has his hat and whip, and Travis Bickle has his mohawk, this guy has a jacket. Giving the character presence on the screen so he doesn't need back story, one-liners, or even a name. The guy barely says 10 things the whole movie, but carries every scene with a glance past the camera and a smile. I've looked up this Ryan Gosling guy, and he doesn't seem to be in anything else I'd be interested in watching, but that's kind of the appeal. I've never seen him before, and that adds to the iconic nature of the movie.

I also looked up the director with the weird last name and found out he was the guy that did the Pusher Trilogy, a series of movies I tried to get into but couldn't get past the first one and instead watched a special feature on the dvd about how the director had made a smash hit in his home of Denmark with the first one and it took him like 7 years of fucking up in Hollywood to go back to his roots and make two more. Crazy. I even heard Drive was originally supposed to be a Hugh Jackman vehicle directed by Neil Marshell, the guy behind Dog Soldiers and the Descent, as an actual blockbuster. So it could have been very different.

"Oh, cool jacket."

If there's anything I didn't like, or would have liked to see, it would have been nice to see him as a stunt driver a bit more. It seems so important to the plot, yet we hardly see it. There's only on scene with him as a stunt driver, and only two scenes with him as a get away driver, and one of them is the establishing scene, while the other is part of the actual story. And though I liked the story between him and the cute girl, that was pretty much the whole movie. Not that I wanted less of it, but I read the director wanted to do the movie because he liked the idea of someone with two personalities, one that was a stunt driver by day, the other a getaway driver at night, and we never got to see that. We just come in when he meets this girl at a very plot convenient time in her life, and that becomes the movie. I would have liked to get his day to day a bit more fleshed out, but it's not like the movie was tight to begin with so...

Despite the anticipation I put on the movie, it oddly meet up with exactly what I wanted. That says a lot about a movie. The movies retro feel, with it's dark synthesizer soundtrack and awesome cinematography that makes great use of color and darkness, gives the movie a freshness while still being familiar. The sometimes slow pace never became tedious or boring for me, and the acting is top notch from everyone, which isn't surprising considering the cast is stacked with actors like Bryan Cranston, and Ron "Hellboy" Pearlman. However Ryan Gosling's "Jacket Boy" character becomes the highlight. Its the kind of character I imagine most actors dream of playing as he gets to carry the entire movie with his attitude alone. The fact that I didn't even know who this guy was added to it, since it's always nice to get a new "badass" character that isn't just Jason Statham as himself for the 400th time. You add in some realistic graphic violence that show how ugly reality can be and a cool jacket, and you got a sweat movie.

8 cool jackets out of 10

Cinema Assault: Inception VS eXistenZ

So while trying to figure out what to do with this stupid blog I remembered an idea I had a while ago about comparing different movies and what a great idea it was. Part of it sounded good because it goes with the name Cinema Assault, which was just suppose to sound cool, but the main reason it is a good idea is because I fucking hate people who say you can't compare different movies. Like those assholes that say you can't compare an older movie with its more modern remake because they are "different", and not the same movie, which is the fucking point of comparing them. "It's like comparing Apples and Oranges" as if that's some impossible fucking task. Apples and Oranges are both fruit. They are both round, although apples come in a number of different shapes. They both grow on trees, but in different climates. Apples are red, Oranges are green. Holy shit. So I'm going to start with the comparison that inspired the idea. Inception versusing eXistenZ.

Inception
So first up is the modern classic about stealing dreams and shit. I've always wanted to write a review about this movie because despite how much people like it, and how good it actually is, I have nothing but shit to say about it. It's one of those movies that I can't help but pick apart, and while I would usually write this off as me just reacting to how popular it has gotten, because nothing makes you hate more than something other people like, the biggest problem I have with the movie is pretty simple. I just don't fucking care about anyone in it.

Anyone. And to be honest, I doubt you do either. I've noticed this with Nolan's other recent movies, most notably his Batman movies, because as good as they are, I don't care about what happens to Bruce Wayne, or Batman, or the Joker, or Harvey Dent, or whoever was in the first one. I definitely don't care about his girlfriend, who was played by different actors in each movie, and actually died in a very dramatic way. Doesn't matter, because I don't care. And in this movie I don't care about Leo D, who's character name I can't even remember, or Ken Wantanabe, or whoever. There isn't even really an antagonist in the movie, all we get is the mental projection of Leo's stupid dead wife, who killed herself by jumping out of a building, after they both killed themselves by laying down in front of a Dream train. In fact the entire plot of the movie is how he can't go back to America because his wife's death was stupid and for whatever reason, they thought he killed her. Like he just randomly felt like pushing her out a building. Actually they didn't even say that, he just left thinking they would. She died so they have to think it was me! That just makes you look guilty dude! What an idiot. So yeah, like I feel bad for this asshole who was too dumb to take his fucking children with him when he left the country. Oh I hope his top stops spinning! Then there's that other problem with the movie that comes from it simply not meeting my expectations in one pretty fundamental way. It's a movie about dreams with almost no surrealism.

Plus, why try to persuade someone the boring old "talking to them" way when you can INCEPT them?

So when I first saw the teaser trailer for this movie, I, like everyone else, was enthralled. I think it was just some scene text leading up to two guys running up and down the walls before jumping at each other, and I couldn't help but say "Holy shit, what is this?!?" Then we got more trailers with the booming music, and we see scenes of a city folding in on itself and some exposition to explain the basic idea behind the movie, and I'm so excited that there will finally be a big budget Hollywood movie taking on the theme of dreams and the power of imagination. And then we get a movie that has like one scene with visual surrealism before turning into a few different scenes of random bullshit happening stacked on top of each other with plot heavy exposition tying them together. The first scene; a van falling off a bridge. Second scene; people in a hotel flouting around. Third scene; Level 3 from every First Person Shooter.

So instead of having this movie, which is like 90% a dream, depending on how you interpret the stupid ending, feel like a dream, it feels like bad science fiction with sciency "Dream Rules!" Like how time speeds up in a dream, or makes normal life slow down, or whatever. Or how getting killed in a dream either wakes you up, or sends you to some stupid limbo dimension for 100 years. Or that a dream within a dream is literally a dream within a dream. In fact, I remember that one bugging me right off the bat, because it's retarded. Everyone has dreamed so we all know these rules are bullshit, but since they kind of line up with our experiences, or things we might of heard about dreaming, we follow along. The problem for me was that I know a dream is just my brain trying to entertain itself while the rest of my body is being lazy, so dreams are just pure imagination, and the plot of this movie revolves around the you inside your dream also having a dream, and then having that guy then have a dream. Isn't that crazy? Yeah, bullshit. A dream within a dream so to speak, is when you transition from one dream to the next, which is usually something that just happens since dreams are crazy, but in this case are done though your mind tricking itself into thinking it's woken up when you haven't. So no, there aren't people in your head, who can then dream up their own people inside their head, your mind is just an asshole.

 "You don't get it, if you die in the dream you die for real go to Detroit!"

So the entire plot of this movie becomes a huge distraction. Not to mention the fact that I die in my dreams all the time and nothing ever happens because it isn't real. If I get shot, then whatever, I guess bullet holes don't hurt me. If I fall from high up, then I bounce. If I start to drown, I find out I can breath under water. Because it's not real, because it's a dream. And this movie doesn't treat dreams like dreams, it treats dreams like virtual reality. There's the part that recognizes the sensation of feeling like falling before waking up sometimes, so they decide to wake people up in the movie by seriously dropping them, instead of just going up to them and saying "Hey asshole!"

In fact so much exposition is put into figuring out how they can wake each other up and "ride" it out at the end that when you look at the movie and you see them going to such lengths to DROP EVERYONE IN A VAN off a dock thing, or BLOW UP an elevator so it will move and then stop because everyone is floating, that it almost ruins the whole thing if you think about them just simply waking each other up. No explosions or car accidents, the guy left behind to wake them up just slightly slips them to get them up. You would get that in any other movie. But not INCEPTION!

eXistenZ
Yeah, the spelling is really like that. There's even a scene where a guy is like "Little e, big X, i, s, t, e, n, big Z!" It's the name of a new virtual reality game thing. So for anyone who hasn't seen this movie, everyone, you can probably guess why I would compare this with Inception. They are, in many ways, two movies with the same theme executed in completely opposite ways.

Written, Directed, and whatever elsed by David Cronenberg, this was one of the movies that got a lot of attention for being a "like the Matrix" movie that came out before the Matrix. Which means when the Matrix started to get popular, a lot of people said "eXistenZ was better." They said the same thing about Dark City and the 13th Floor, and its all bullshit. Not that the Matrix is the best movie ever or anything, but the fact that these movies came out first just proves that they got their shot at being popular, or even "actually seen" before the Matrix stole their thunder. But whatever. eXistenZ is still a good movie. Because it's written and directed by David Cronenberg.

I first saw this movie back in the day on the Sci-Fi channel late one night. I had no idea what the movie was about and hadn't even heard of David Cronenberg, who is one of my 3 favorite directors, next to Danny Boyle, and John Carpenter. So this weird movie with little production value and a dumb name comes on the Sci-fi channel, and you can imagine my thoughts on the movie right off the bat. I mean it was on the Sci-Fi channel, I'm surprised I even stopped to watch it. It's an ugly, weirdly acted, almost nonsensically written take on video games that is clearly written by someone with no knowledge of video game culture, and has the production value of a high school play. And it's still a great movie that will leave you thinking and wanting more after it's over. Also it's Canadian.

The basic plot is Jude Law is watching people try out a new virtual reality system when armed terrorist people try to kill the game designer, played by the girl who is the lead. I don't know who she is. They get away, meet Willem Defoe, and have weird stuff happen. They decide to go into eXistenZ, and it more or less plays out like a dream. They go into a game within that game. And as they move between different levels of reality, they all start to merge together, until it's clear that the reality we were in at the beginning wasn't actually reality.

Willem Defoe turns out to be a bad guy who probably just wants to kill Spider-man

Although you know they're in a virtual reality, the whole thing is surreal, which is something Cronenberg is good at. Anyone that's seen Naked lunch, or any of his movies really, probably already knows that. Scenes move along without necessarily having a purpose, and stuff just kind of happens. Jude law works in a factory that makes weird organic animal parts used for technology and is a triple agent spy guy in the game, despite being a bodyguard in the outside world. all of a sudden the factory just randomly has a restraint in it and he sits down with that girl character and is forced to order the special, which is a really gross looking frog fish animal thing. He starts eating it, not being able to stop himself and he uses the bones and other remains to fashion a gun. He then pulls out  a bunch of teeth, pops them in and bam, tooth-gun.

So this is where the comparison comes, not because they are similar, which they are, but because of their differences. Where Inception is pretty and sleek, eXistenZ is ugly and awkward. Where Inception is plot heavy, exposition thick, serious, and complicated with it's rules and execution; eXistenZ is simple and dreamlike with it's surrealism that plays with the audience's notion of reality and what's really going on. Where Inception is "Deep", eXistenZ is "Actually Fun To Watch."
I mean, look at their fucking names.
Inception- a sleek techy deep sounding word.
eXistenZ- what the fuck, you actually called a movie that? They almost sound similar.

The real twist end is that it's neither real nor a dream because it's a movie

You can see where each movie's head is at, just by looking at the name. One is a expensive, buzz-worthy exercise in letting dumb people feel smart. The other is a low budget experiment with all kinds of wacky shit going on. So yeah, it obvious which one I prefer, since I'm doing nothing but talking shit about big dumb Inception, but to be honest, I don't really care about which is best. Inception is better made, eXistenZ is more interesting. They represent two sides of filmmaking and Art itself.

And yeah, they also have the same ending. Inception ends with the top spinning, making you wonder if it's a dream, if perhaps this whole ting has been one long dream, while eXistenZ ends with the reality we thought was real being overrun with the surreal violence of the games, leading to us finding out that the real reality was something we hadn't seen yet. We find out that the violence in the game was a result of the players pychies, and it's reveled that the two main characters, who have spent the entire movie running from terrorist that hate technology, are the actual terrorist that hate technology. They start executed the other players and the last one is left to ask "Wait is this part of the game?"

I risk sounding like a elitist that looks for validation by disagreeing with the popular opinion, but fuck Inception. Seriously. There's nothing really even wrong with the movie itself, as much as the response to it. Yeah, it was made to be excepted by audience as being this deep, well written thriller, but it's everyone's fault that they actually bought into it. It's one thing to bad mouth Transformers, which isn't even made to be anything but dumb action, but when you call something like Inception a modern classic, I start to worry. I don't necessarily want to play the Inception "can't be art because it looks too good and is popular" card, but, yeah I guess I do. You can't have a fucking dream within a dream.

I'M STILL HERE

 This movie is kind of an anomaly to me. I'm not really sure how we are supposed to feel about it, or what it's actual purpose for existing is, but despite all that, I can for sure say that although the movie is more or less a unique one, it's not very entertaining. Like at all. So I'm just going to try and get this all straight and see if I have it right.

So a few years ago we find out that Joaquin Phoenix, the guy I best know from Gladiator and Signs, who was also in Walk the Line, which I should probably see, was retiring from acting, which actors tend to do, and was instead working on a hip hop career, which sounded legit, or at least not as crazy to me as it did to others. Then he was chewing gum on the Letterman show, and generally being a spaz that would get mentioned here and there, and out of nowhere I find out that a documentary made about him having a meltdown was coming out on Dvd and that everyone kind of thought it was a hoax before a week later when, yeah surprise, the joke was on all of us because it WAS A HOAX! Whoa!

 Looking like a true survivor, feeling like a little kid

Now, I have all this back story I've pieced together about the movie and I think, hey lets actually watch it, because I was kind of excited. And I shouldn't have been, because the movie itself is like 10 hours of nothing happening. If you know that it's about Joaquin Phoenix being crazy, then there no reason to see it. In fact if you read the previous paragraph about him retiring to get into hip hop before getting press for being a burnout, then there's no reason to see this movie, because the only thing worth knowing about the movie is that Joaquin Phoenix is crazy in it. Which is probably why no one saw it, or can even sit through more than 15 minutes of it. Because when you already know that it's a fake documentary about Joaquin Phoenix pretending to be an asshole, you wonder why he's being such an asshole by showing it all to you.

I mean, I'm not sure what understanding they are expecting us to have. The concept of the movie, which I think can still be considered a concept, is more or less the kind of shit you think up while smoking pot with your buddies, which is obvious the best idea you've ever had, that later turns into an inside joke when you think about it later.

"Pothead Ideas" ---- or when we thought it would be an awesome idea to pretend to have a meltdown, and completely destroy everything Joaquin Phoenix has accomplished as an actor to see if people will believe us. Dude, I dare you to go through with it!

Klaatu barada nikto

And then they fucking did. For like, 2 years they tried to troll us. Just like the shit that happens on the internet all the time where someone acts extra retarded and tries to tell us we're the assholes for falling for it. Expect it doesn't work very well when everyone already assumes it a hoax. And that's kind of why I'm confused about how to fell, because to be honest, I feel kind of guilty.

Joaquin went through all this time and trouble fucking up his life, burning every bridge he has built, fucking over the people like his publicist and friends, to try and fool me into believing he is a self destructive, drug abusing, celebrity loser, and I wasn't even paying attention. I feel kind of bad. He did it for 2 years, while he could have been making other movies, and he got his brother in law to almost go bankrupt over it, and in the end, the only people who even seemed to notice, thought it was odd that he had gone crazy over night and figured it was a trick, and were right.

 Ok, I'm done now...

And its not really all that unique either. It feels like Casey Aflek and Joaquin Phoenix were amazed by the movie Borat, and thought it would be cool to try and freak out the squares too. Only instead of creating a character, Joaquin would just be himself as a drugged out dork. So that's what I'm going to measure the movie by. I'm going to compare it to the stuff Sasha Baron Cohen has been doing for years, the stuff Andy Kaufman did for his entire career, and even some of the other simular stuff you see people like Die Antwoord do, and then it becomes kind of obvious that this movie is pretty shitty because they didn't even do it right. You're not supposed to commit this much, and when it seems like everyone in the movie is in on the joke, then its the audience you're trying to fuck with. Except that no one fucking cares, because Signs wasn't even that good. Why would aliens leave signs BEFORE they attacked us, that doesn't even make sense.

11.1 out of 30

Transformers Trilogy

It's been a year, give or take a few months, since a new review has graced this blog, and in a valiant attempt to breath new life into it's dying embers one soul bravely steps forward to reignite the flames by covering the magnum opus of Cinema's most cherished filmmaker.

---------------------------

This is the story of 

CINEMA ASSAULT 2: Legend of Time's Eternal Change AKA Be a TRUCK!

We pick up from where last we left me, ah, not feeling like reviewing anything for months and months until figuring out, why not do the fucking Transformer movies? I came up with a few reasons, but forgot them so here we go, the pinnacle and single greatest example of what most people consider cinema's new age of mindless bullshit entertainment. Those people are assholes, although they are also right.

Transformers (No subtitle (what a ripoff))

Since no one reads this blog but me, it would be pointless to explain to myself how I grew up with the Transformers. How I watched the TV show, had some of the toys, although not as much as some of the other kids, and how the 1986 movie is still probably my favorite movie of all time. So news of Michael Bay directing a big (BIG!) budget summer blockbuster live action movie based on the franchise would surly leave me in a emotionally confused state unable to decide if I hated the news while still being excited. Right? But I wasn't, because I think it came out while I was in college and I didn't really give a shit. I was in college. 

So I didn't have any preconceived notions of having already hated it or liking it despite it's flaws, and was able to watch it from a position of apathy, because I was in college. I think I rented it on dvd a year after it came out, and was actually a little bit excited to see it. I remember being thrilled and amazed at the special effects, and thinking it was pretty enjoyable, in comparison to others who had bad mouthed it. And I remember being shocked, because that was all I remembered of the movie. When I tried to do my "Yeah that one scene where whatever happened was awesome" thing I always do after action movies, I couldn't actually think of anything that had happened in the movie. Like waking from a dream, the action, characters, and even plot, seemed to disappear from my memory when I tried hardest to recall them. There were glimpses, small fragments I held on the tip of my brain, but nothing concrete. It was like the movie had washed through my mind.

So, damn, it could have been the best movie ever for all I know, but I'm pretty sure I would have fucking remembered it then...

Transformer: Revenge of the Fallen

So the first movie made like a million dollars and they made a second one. It was bigger, louder, and even less thought out. After defeating the evil Decepticons and killing Megatron at the end of the last movie we now find out that the decepticons aren't defeated, and Megatron isn't dead. OOOHHH! Well ok, lets do it all AGAIN! Awesome. And this time they seriously were just doing random shit the whole movie. Micheal Bay said so. He said it was because of the writers strike or because he didn't care, or whatever.

So while you could just sit back and watch the flashing lights with a big retard smile on your face the first time, this one had so many parts that make you think "What? seriously?" that it actually pulls you out of the movie to take note of the stupid shit going on. As such it tends to make you reflect on the first movie, which mysteriously descend from your subconsciousness, so you can look back in amazement. Like what the fuck was with that Berny Mac scene in the first one? I forgot he was even in the movie.  You watch all the lead up in this one with the main character going to College and dealing with all the pointless subplot that has nothing to do with the rest of the movie and you go "Oh yeah, the first movie had like 3 hours of Shia LeBuff trying to be quirky and likable to attract that Megan Fox chick who I guess we are supposed to find attractive, but I mean seriously, what a boring person. What's so attractive about having no personality. She isn't even all that good looking..." and it almost kills the movie for you.

I don't care about this kid's problems. I don't care that he's going to college, or that he is being hit on by some other chick, or anything to do with him and Megan Fox. No one cares about Megan Fox. And even she thought the movie was awful and was talking shit about it until Micheal Bay was like "Fuck you." What an idiot. But yeah, the movie is worst than the first one, but actually kind of memorable for bad reasons. And the subtitle is weird. The main antagonist is a guy named the Fallen. He doesn't really get revenge though..

Transformers 3- Dark of the Moon

So one day I'm on my way to work here in the great mid-western city of Chicago, when I notice that a bunch of the streets around Michigan Avenue are blocked off by police and what looks like a pile of flaming cars. As I try to get around all the commotion and figure out whats going on, I make my way up to see what looks like a giant disaster, and obviously I think to myself "Cool, they're shooting some movie!" But it wasn't just any movie! It was the movie I happen to be talking about right now! I was there! I took pictures! And then later that week I was by Union station and had to go like 3 extra blocks to get around the area because they were shooting there too! And then the same fucking thing happened like 2 more times! Because they were shooting the whole movie in Chicago! Where I live!

It was actually pretty awesome. And when I went to go see the movie, like a year and a half later in the discount theater for 2 bucks because it was already out on dvd, I really enjoyed it, because I was there. There's something about seeing the place you work in and around everyday get invaded by giant robot aliens on the big screen to draw you into the movie. The first half of the movie is all the bullshit with the kid trying to find a job after being out of college for 3 months (Whoa Shit! 3 months out of school and no job!!) and Megan Fox not being there, and whatever, until the bad guys decide for whatever reason to start the invasion of earth in Chicago of all places. Then it gets awesome. The whole second half of the movie takes place downtown, right where I work, where buildings get blown up, and people slid down them, and jump out of planes and do that wingsuit thing through all the wreckage... It was great.

The movie is a fun watch and it helps highlight the problem I have remembering anything from these movies: It's just random bullshit happening for 2 hour. Not that this is a huge revelation, but there is absolutely no reason to think while watching these movies. So your brain can actually be off, because there's nothing worth using it on while watching, so nothing really sticks afterwards. It's about alien robots that can turn into cars and planes that are fighting each other on earth because just because. There's no logic or reason you can apply, no real character development, not even any story, just plot. And when a scene is done, you CAN actually just forget about it because it's no longer useful. It was just alien robots flipping around punching each other in the face. Some times when they get punched in the face they die, or sometimes they get shot a hundred times and are ok. Sometimes they actually fucking die and then come back, because they are alien robots, we don't know how this shit works. When they transform we see a million moving shiny metal pieces flipping around and doing fuck all as far as we can tell, before the dude that looked like a giant metal humanoid thing now looks like a Ferrei, and we don't question it because, whatever, they are robot alien car guys.

Nothing that happens in the whole series makes any sense, so there is nothing for us to invest in. Because you couldn't if you tried. So take them for what they are. Spectacles.

 17 out of 30

Doom

This movie is supposed to be based on the video game series, most notable Doom 3, which is the only game with an actual story, and like most movies based on video games, it doesn't really compare. But while it doesn't live up to the hype of the popular Doom series, it's not a terrible movie on it's own. And considering the fact that most video game movies have a tendency to be almost unwatchable, I'd say it's probably one of the better ones.

Like every single video game movie ever made, the plot and story have been completely changed for no real reason. This seriously happens every time someone feels like adapting a game to the screen, and I've never really figured it out, as it happens with some comic book movies too. I think it has a lot to do with the creative team involved using the fanfare of an established game franchise to get the project green-lit and then move forward to make the kind of movie they want to make to begin with, rather than giving the fans what is expected. I remember hearing that the director of the 2004 Punisher movie, the one with Thomas Jane, saying that he wanted to make a cool revenge movie. That's why most of it deals with the Punisher going through a lot of trouble to plot out an elaborate revenge, as oppose to just having him blasting everyone, like the real Punisher. It also ripped off the end of Mad Max and made it the beginning. Jane himself said he just wanted to play a character like Travis Brickle from Taxi Driver, so yeah, no one really gave a shit about the source material or cared for an accurate character portrayal, and I have to guess that its why we are getting the weird Sci-Fi bullshit in this movie instead of Demons.

Meanwhile, comic book adaptations of video games are always fucking crazy

In the Doom games Hell literally breaks loose on Mars and space marines have to try and survive or whatever. Here we get the discovery of a human like civilization on Mars. So we get that people came from Mars, we get a teleporter named the Ark, and monsters, and it's not really all that bad if it was a movie with no relation to the Doom games, but it's so different for no reason that it feels like they pussied out on showing religious subject matter and had to try and figure out something more sciencesy. You know, Demons would sound crazy to the average audience member, so instead we get  magical 24th chromosome that either makes you superhuman or a superasshole mutant thing. Because the human genome is largely unmapped. Because DNA and the double helix's. Because Science... I mean it is kinda cool to see more sci-fi and science lab action, because it gives the movie a Half Life type vibe, but again, it just feels like they went with the most uninspired cliche they could think of, so we get a "OH NO scientist doing evil science stuff!" story.

So while the change to the story might not be a huge deal, the biggest problem to the movie is that nothing fucking happens for like 3 hours before we start to see some action. It goes for the bullshit horror movie ploy of setting everything up slowly and letting it build, except they aren't setting anything up, so nothing is actually building, aside from boredom. They give you just enough exposition to string you along from scene to scene, but you never feel like anything has happened. In the Doom games, and even Half Life, you do get a set up, but after you're told "Hey this is Mars!" the action starts and it becomes all about surviving. There is no plot to uncover, not that you couldn't sprinkle a little in here and there, but I think that regardless of what the story might have been, the movie would have at least been good if we got "OH SHIT monster's everywhere!" instead of "HEY this place is empty, whats over here? nothing... whats over there? Nothing again? AND whats going on down here then guys?!?!"

 More happens in this picture alone than it does in the entire movie

Granted when the action does actually show up, its a lot of fun, but that's because its so over the top and goofy that it creates a stark contrast to the rest of the boring movie. There's a scene where a monster shows up and starts beating the shit out of one of the RRST guys, who are space marines I guess, by grabbing him and whipping him at the wall like a wet rug before throwing him into a pit with electrified walls. The monster jumps down to get him and we see a bunch of crazy shit when the guy starts flying by on chains and whipping around computer monitors. There's lot of screaming, and people getting electrocuted, and I think he kicks the thing in the nuts. Its crazy. The guy's totally hard core, and since nothing has happened up until now, its kind of a shock.

I also think the acting is pretty good too. Or at least it's what it should be. The Rock does a good job of playing his role, switching from being a cool leader to being kind of a dick, while Karl Urban and the actress that plays his character's sister do a good job of bringing some extra depth to their characters that were probably written to be as 1 dimensional as everyone else in the movie. And you can't really fault the rest of the actors for being kind of unmemorable. Not when they are pretty much just there to get killed.

 The Rock and his BFF gun

The best part of the movie is the first-person-shooter action scene, and while there are a few things to complain about, I think its pretty awesome. It pretty much single-handely saves the movie. In fact everything from that scene onward is awesome. We get a cool FPS action scene that leads into a confrontation with the Rock, another weird over the top fight scene that acts as the climax, and then a cool ending. It's like the third act was cut from a completely different movie and pasted at the end of a Sci-Fi Channel original movie.  I mean SYFY... Though to be fair, the movie looks too good to be from the SYFY channel. In the end the movie looks pretty good, moves pretty good, has adaquett acting, and not bad directing. It's just that the pace and overall execution of the story pretty much undermines everything the movie has going for it, proving that even if everything is stop notch, you can't shine up shitty writing.

6 out of 10

Romper Stomper

I first came across this movie while at Blockbuster like 10 years ago and decided to rent it based off of how interesting the cover was. I had previously done this with the movie Salton Sea, which turned out to be really good, so I thought I might get lucky again. I took it home knowing nothing about it, I hadn't even noticed that Russell Crowe was in it, and the movie blew me away.

The plot focuses on a group of skinheads down under as they get into trouble. The movie was obviously made on a small budget, but it only adds the down and dirty feel of the movie. It starts with the skinheads beating up a small group of Vietnamese teenagers, which leads to a showdown between the skinheads and a mob of other Vietnamese, which ultimately leads to more trouble. Along the way we learn more about the group of Neo-Nazis as they get in even worst trouble and start getting killed off. The most interesting thing about the movie is that the Neo-Nazis are more or less the good guys. Not in the sense that they are actually good, but by the end you may start to feel bad for them, despite the fact that everything bad that has happened to them is their own fault. The movie never outright tells you what to think, it simply shows you what happens and lets you draw the conclusions yourself. Parts of the movie remind me of A Clockwork Orange, and it deals with the same subject matter as American History X, but it reminds me most of the movie Trainspotting, in the way that Trainspotting shows the lives of drug addicts without outright telling you that drugs are bad. Its not like the movie needs to feed the audience any message when the movie itself is so gritty and hardcore. In fact, the movie is so hardcore that the actor that played the protagonist, who was a heroin addict, actually feel in love with his character's love interest and when she dumped him, he threw himself under a train before the film even came out. Russel Crowe wrote a song about it. That's pretty hardcore.

 Fashionably Hardcore

This movie is without a doubt at the top of my list of "great movies no one has heard of" and as it was a movie I randomly picked up to take a chance on, I hold it quite high, as not only do I like it, but I discovered it and consider it a classic from my early days of seeking out the unheard off gems that other people pass over without a second thought. All in all the movie has grit, an awesome soundtrack, fighting, sex, more fighting, racism, Australian beaches covered in blood, mall vandalism, even more fighting and senseless violence, death by cop, and seriously, a lot of racism. I watched it all the time back in high-school and college. It's just fucking great.

9 out of 10- Edited from an old review I threw up on Netflix from 5/25/06