THE SPIRIT.

Oh, God… I don’t even know where to begin. I’m not even going to bother with a plot summary, because I just saw it and even I don’t know (or care).

This movie was bad. Really bad. Horribly, horribly bad. I didn’t even want to see it, really, but one of my friends called me up last night, and she was feeling bored and a bit down, so she dragged me out to see this movie (even against my warnings of low ratings). There were only about 4 other people in the theater. 2 minutes in, and I’m staring at the screen like “What the hell is this? Please don’t tell me she’s liking this.” About 10 minutes later, she turns to me and says “This is the worst movie I’ve ever seen in my entire life.” And from there, the movie experience was heavenly.

We totally MST3K’d this bad boy. And I don’t even think the others in the theater cared, either, because they laughed along with us half the time (I mean, we weren’t doing it super loud or anything, but it occasionally dipped into ‘hearable’). If I had seen this movie alone, I might have even walked out for the first time in my life. But since she was with me to experience it and riff on it, it made this literally one of the funniest movies of the year.

I can’t even pull out samples of what was bad. Just pick any of the 103 minutes and there you go. The only good parts I’d say were Jaime King as Lorelei the glowing face of death, which probably made up about 1 minute (maybe 2, as she does have a little chunk of time toward the end) of the whole film. Oh, and the women were hot.

But everything was terrible. The dialogue, the constant monologue to NOBODY (even the CAT walked away), the acting, the story, and even the visuals. With Sin City, the color scheme was used artistically. In this movie, it was used randomly and with no real rhyme or reason. The movie was meant to be cheesy, but it didn’t work at all like, say, Speed Racer did. But I do admit that it will be a nice quotable movie like Napoleon Dynamite… except, you know, Napoleon Dynamite was actually good and re-watchable.

I’ll just end it here. This movie was just plain awful. It’s only watchable if you’re with friends (at least one) that you can sit there and riff on it with. And there’s so much to work with, too, that it’s just ridiculous. It’s like Frank Miller took a third of the cast from an asylum, a third from hobos on the street, and the last third from anywhere and just made them drunk. Some of the cast probably a mix of the three (just see the mud pit fight between The Spirit and The Octopus toward the beginning for further proof). But once he had that drunken, crazy cast, he paused every 30 seconds and asked “Okay, how can we make this movie as terrible as possible?” The result was The Spirit. I don’t know how to rate this movie. I’m just going to rate it on the quality of the film, not the entertainment value that my friend and I personally made from it. I still have no idea what I watched.

She's Gone From Suck to Blow!

Short Review: Nightwatch.

Premise: A law student takes a job as a night guard at a morgue, and he starts to notice odd things happening. Meanwhile, a serial killer continues his streak of murder.

Starring: Ewan McGregor, Nick Nolte, Josh Brolin, Patricia Arquette, Lauren Graham, and John C. Reilly.

My Reaction: How can a movie with such a cast be so… bland? The first half is pretty good with some decent suspense/spookiness, but if you’ve had any experience with any thriller ever, you know that the person being set up as the killer is so freaking obvious it can’t be him, which takes away all the mystery (because you then know who it has to be). And because of that, along with the second half of the movie, everything turns into a venture into the non-logical and plot holes. I would rate it pretty average, and I can’t understand how it has such an above-average score on imdb. And I only rate it as high as I do because of some pretty entertaining scenes early on, some particularly creepy moments, and some good acting from Josh Brolin in particular.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON.

When in most films with a gimmick, if you take the gimmick away and just have the story play as normal, the movie would be boring. The case with this movie is half and half. During the backdrop of Hurricane Katrina, a young woman (Julia Ormond) reads a diary to her dying mother, which tells the story of one Benjamin Button. Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) was born old and grows young as his life goes on. His father Thomas (Jason Flemyng) abandons him thinking him some kind of monster, and he’s adopted by a young black woman named Queenie (Taraji P. Henson), who runs an old folks’ home. But when Benjamin meets a young girl named Daisy (Elle Fanning, Madisen Beaty, Cate Blanchett), he immediately falls in love. The movie tells the story of their lives when they’re both with and without each other, with one getting older and the other younger.

Let me first discuss my opening statement. There were times when the movie’s story was so captivating that it would have been interesting with or without the reverse aging in play. But the other half of the time, the plot relied heavily on that idea. To make a long story short, the story was good, but it was really long with some parts that were probably unnecessary and could have been cut out. I was really into the movie most of the time, though. But during the last hour or so (maybe more like thirty minutes), I was really looking down at my watch, wondering how much longer the movie had. And a lot of what could have been cut came from the beginning of the movie, as it really was a slow start getting to the main plot of the story (though there really isn’t a plot, honestly. It’s more of a character study).

And the acting was good overall, especially with Brad Pitt (who I think is good in just about anything). But the most curious part of all dealt with the ages of the characters as the movie went on and how they looked amongst each other in correspondence to how old they should have looked. Now, it would take a lot more concentration on my part to really nit-pick at that, so I’ll leave that be. But there was one thing about the acting that I really didn’t like, and that was Cate Blanchett’s narration as an old woman. I could hardly understand a word she said, and she would always narrate important parts of the story, which upset me as I only understood half of what she was saying. And there is one age discrepancy I’d like to bring to attention, which is the young Daisy. When she’s first introduced, imdb has her listed as 7, though she’s played by a 10-year-old and talks like she’s older. And then toward the end of the movie, during some voice-over narration, there’s a mention of how she would have been about 5 when she first met Benjamin, and that threw me off completely.

And speaking of more visual aspects, and with Daisy, there was another discrepancy that bugged me. Benjamin makes note of how he’ll never forget Daisy’s bright blue eyes, and he repeats that a few times at the beginning. And Elle Fanning had these gorgeous bright blue eyes. But throughout the movie, Daisy’s eyes are continually changing color. The Daisy played by Madisen Beaty looked like her eyes were nearly brown, and Cate Blanchett’s eyes would go from pale blue to light blue. With all the money spent on Benjamin’s looks, they could have least thrown a few dollars in for some contacts. Though on the more positive side, the visuals were excellent. The older Benjamin (in looks) reminded me of the CGI from the Final Fantasy movies with such attention to detail. But the visual effects that blew me away the most weren’t of the older Benjamin, but of the younger. The way they made Brad Pitt look so young made even the similar process at the beginning of X-Men 3 look shabby.

But my favorite moments of the movie were the smaller moments. First, the man who had been struck by lightning and all his stories. Those had my audience laughing, and I thought they were a fun touch. But my favorite part in the entire movie was the brief segment around the middle of the movie, I suppose it was, when Benjamin tells a story of intersecting lives and how changing one thing could have changed everything, so therefore how every little action causes a greater reaction. I really loved that scene, and it really stuck with me during and after the film.

I really don’t see how people are comparing this to Forrest Gump (I guess that’s just for people who haven’t actually seen it), as I don’t think they’re anything alike at all. Not to mention that, technically, Benjamin Button was written first. I had no idea until the credits that it was based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. But then again, who the heck knows anything about what F. Scott wrote outside of The Great Gatsby. So the movie does have some faults, but it is an all-around great movie and great experience, especially during all the scenes with Katrina raging in the background, when you know what’s going to happen, even if the characters don’t (dramatic irony!). But anyway, I’d recommend the film. Another Brad Pitt success.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

DVD Review: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

So I saw this when it came out for free on the internet a while back, but the DVD was just released (exclusively through Amazon), and I just got in my copy, and I’ve been watching it all afternoon. For those of you who don’t know, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog is Joss Whedon’s (of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly/Serenity fame) newest venture into the cult fan base. It stars Neil Patrick Harris as Dr. Horrible, an up-and-coming super-villain who just wants to make it into the Evil League of Evil. He posts up blogs on the internet that portray his life of crime, his crush on fellow Laundromat companion, Penny (Felicia Day), and how the overly cheesy Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion) continues to ruin his life. Oh, and it’s a musical.

The ‘movie’ itself is only about 40 minutes long, but it feels like a full-blown film in how it really just pulls you in with its characters and story. You root for Dr. Horrible, even though he’s evil, and you loathe Captain Hammer, even though he’s technically the superhero. It just shows, yet again, the amazing writing of Joss Whedon.

And the music itself is incredibly catchy and all really good. My personal favorite is “Brand New Day,” but everybody has their own. And boy can they all sing, including Neil Patrick Harris. He has an amazing voice. Felicia Day does, as well. Nathan Fillion is the weakest, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s Nathan Fillion. He’s awesome in everything. Not to mention the cheesiness factor of his character offsets any care about his singing ability (it’s not bad, mind you. It’s just no Neil Patrick Harris).

But why buy the DVD when you can watch it online for free, you ask (and legally)? Well, for one, most of the online copies you can find are poor quality and the audio is off from the video. Oh, and you have to watch all three Acts separately (unless you somehow download them and merge them together with an editing program). But then there’s all the special bonus features on the DVD that are so worth it. Besides the behind-the-scenes featurettes, which are always fun, you have (fan) audition videos for the Evil League of Evil, wherein all but about 2 of them (and there’s 30 minutes worth) are musicals themselves.

And then there are TWO commentaries. And you might be asking… two commentaries for a 40 minute movie? What’s the point? Well, one of the commentaries is a musical! Yes, you heard me right. They recorded a whole other slew of songs that span the entire movie—commentary style. There’s a couple that could have used some work, honestly, but then there are some really good ones that rival even some of the songs in the movie. The topics range from the writer’s strike to how the cast feels about each other to why certain actors took certain roles and how they felt about that. And it’s really a whole new experience from the movie itself. In fact, you can watch the 40 minute movie, and then turn on the musical commentary and watch it over again, and then you’ll have a full-length feature… sort of.

But anyway, I really recommend this DVD, especially if you’re a fan of one of the following: superheroes, super-villains, musicals, Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion, Joss Whedon, blogging, horses, freeze rays, laundry, or frozen yogurt. So yeah… go get it. It’s only available through Amazon, though. But it’s worth it.

Royale With Cheese

2 In 1: Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

So I saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall (a long time ago, actually… as this review has been sitting on the shelf for a while, so to speak), and I knew I’d have to put the review in with a 2 In 1, but couldn’t figure out the other movie to do it with. But then I finally decided to pair it up with another Judd Apatow film (and both including Jason Segel, Paul Rudd, and Jonah Hill... and possibly others), Knocked Up. And both films seem to be a little overrated. And, it seems that both are the best when the smaller characters are on screen, including Paul Rudd. So let me first start with the older of the two, which I’ve seen numerous times and have just gotten around to formally reviewing.

Knocked Up.

The best way to describe Knocked Up is to give a quote by Paul Rudd’s character within the movie: “Marriage is like that show Everybody Loves Raymond, but its not funny. All the problems are the same, but, you know instead of all the funny, pithy dialogue, everybody is really pissed off and tense.” And the movie is quite similar… sometimes it’s funny, but most of the time, it’s just a bunch of really pissed off people and tense moments.

Ben Stone (Seth Rogan) is a stoner loser. Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) is a successful TV reporter who just got a promotion. Going out to celebrate with her sister Debbie (Leslie Mann), Alison goes clubbing and has a drunken night of fun with Ben, resulting in sex, which leads to the inevitable pregnancy that the film revolves around. So the rest of the film showcases the relationship between the two, as well as juxtaposing the relationship between Debbie and her husband Pete (Paul Rudd).

Now, to go back to my opening, there’s a lot of situational comedy that presents itself, even in the concept (stoner loser gets successful woman pregnant, and both are forced to cooperate in order to be there for the baby). But what happens throughout the film is mostly uncomfortable, tense scenes full of fighting, pissed-off people.

But the best parts of the film are those with the supporting cast, or even the tiniest of cameos or roles: Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Jay Baruchel, Joanna Kerns, Harold Ramis, Alan Tudyk, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Ryan Seacrest, James Franco, and Ken Jeong… among others. Seriously, my favorite part of the entire movie isn’t even in the movie. In the extended/deleted scenes, you can see the full, uncut version of Ken Jeong’s Dr. Kuni scene. That had me laughing so hard, much more than any of the rest of the movie did. The best part of the actual movie was Paul Rudd’s ‘chair’ scene in Las Vegas. And not even the whole scene itself including Seth Rogan’s ranting, but simply Paul Rudd’s tiniest movements or words (“It tastes like a rainbow!”). Hell, even Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann’s kids in the movie (which I believe are actually Leslie Mann and Judd Apatow’s kids) were entertaining.

As for the others, specifically Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogan, I just had difficulty caring… moreso with the former. It’s hard to care about a budding romance when you can’t stand one of the two. I mostly couldn’t stand Katherine Heigl for the majority of the movie and thought she was pretty much a bitch. The times when she didn’t get on my nerves and was actually likable were few and far between, such as when she’d sit on the couch looking for nudity in a movie for Ben’s website. Though I’m not saying Seth Rogan’s character was a saint, either, but at least he had personality outside of ‘stick-up-the-butt’.

So yeah, there were good moments, there were funny moments, but the majority just didn’t work for me. The movie is a romantic comedy. But when you can’t stand one or both of the pair in the romance, and the movie is more about being tense and fighting over being funny, it basically fails at its job. It does live up to the Judd Apatow degree, but I’m just not with everybody who says it’s his best work and much better than 40-Year-Old-Virgin and Superbad. It’s good, yeah… but it’s not great.

I Am McLovin!

Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

So I finally got around to seeing Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It was about what I thought it would be. Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) was just broken up with by long-time girlfriend and famous TV actress Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell), the show for which he writes music. After some random advice given to him by his step-brother Brian (Bill Hader), Peter decides to go to Hawaii to try and forget about his ex instead of moping around and having meaningless flings. Though when he gets there, he discovers that Sarah is also there, along with her new boyfriend, British rock superstar Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Fortunately, a nice employee by the name of Rachel (Mila Kunis) tries to cheer him up, though Peter starts to get closer to her than he first expected.

The movie had a lot of funny moments, most of which were thanks to some of the smaller, more underused roles. Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill’s underused characters were great, more specifically Rudd’s (Hill’s whole subplot was nearly pointless). And then there was the newlywed couple with sexual difficulties who were pretty funny (“Christ is between your legs!” had to be the funniest line in the film). But for me, the guy who stole almost every scene he was in was Russell Brand as Aldous Snow. Everything he said was just plain funny, mostly because of how he said it in his very nonchalant kind of way.

But the movie did have quite a few dragging moments. It could have been trimmed down quite a bit. The beginning of the movie, before he gets to Hawaii, seems like it takes forever to get through. I wanted to get to the story already, but there were more and more scenes of him just moping around and crying. Then he finally gets to the island and does more moping around and crying. I know the movie was called Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and the point was him trying to get over her, but I think we got the point after the 30^th fetal-position crying scene. And, though I think he’s a fun actor, Jonah Hill’s whole part in the movie could have been trimmed down a bit, too. The only reason I think he might not have been was due to him, for whatever reason, being in just about every plot-important scene in the movie. I mean, I don’t know if it’s some unspoken rule that every Judd Apatow-linked film has to be at least two hours long, but they should really work on that a bit.

I really don’t have much else to say about the film. When it wasn’t dragging or unnecessary, I thought it was funny and entertaining (which it was, more often than not). I’d totally watch it again.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

SEVEN POUNDS.

When I saw the trailer for this, I thought it looked really good. However, as I was going into the movie, I still didn’t know what I was going to be seeing. Unfortunately, I still didn’t know what I was seeing until about halfway into the movie. Ben Thomas (Will Smith) is supposedly an IRS Agent going around doing a bunch of really big favors for seven different strangers, and for reasons unbeknownst to the audience. The first we meet is a blind man named Ezra (Woody Harrelson), who Ben is a complete jackass to. But then we come across Emily Posa (Rosario Dawson), a young woman with congenial heart disease. The relationship between Emily and Ben builds until they become more romantically linked. But Ben still has his mysterious mission to complete, even if it’s now become slightly complicated.

Let me start off by saying I thought the film was really good. I enjoyed it quite a bit. However, it tries to be too much of a mystery to the point where you really have no idea what’s happening… ever. Is Ben really the douche he seemed to be within the first ten minutes? Why is he helping these strangers? How are they connected? Or are they? Is he really helping them out, or is it part of something greater? What the hell is his plan, anyway? Everything about it is spoken in such ambiguous terms, it was almost like hearing “You know that plan about that thing we talked about that one time at that place? Well, it’s the next one’s turn now in the process of the thing I’m doing which you know of because of our history together… you know, because we know each other from sometime back in the day.” There were really moments where the movie almost felt like it was going out of its way to stay mysterious. Though the second it shows one of the first flashback glimpses of what occurred, everything snaps together and the movie becomes easier to follow. But this is two-fold, because this moment happens at the middle of the film (or so). So you’ve just gone through the first half of the film shrouded in confusing mystery, but now you’re going through the last half of the film with everything easily figured out.

However, those were really the only issues I had, and they really didn’t bother me all that much. I’ve read other reviews stating things like the movie is very slow moving, or it’s overly sappy or whatever. I didn’t have any of these issues. I felt that maybe the first 10 or 15 minutes or so were a bit confusing, especially in trying to figure out what kind of person Ben Thomas is (douche or saint?), but besides that I didn’t find it slow moving at all. And there’s some romance in there, and there’s a lot of heartfelt moments (no pun intended) that add up, but I didn’t think it was overwhelming at all.

In fact, Will Smith has shown once again that he can carry a movie. He did a very fine acting performance here. You never know what’s going on in his head, but you can always tell how conflicted or sorrowful or happy or whatnot he is just by looking at his face. He really dug himself into the character. The same with Rosario Dawson, too, who really showed that pain of not being able to live her life to the fullest because of her heart condition. But the one person I want to give the shout out to here is Woody Harrelson. He’s not in the movie very much, but he’s always a presence in the back of your mind, and I think that says something about how he pulled off the character. I constantly wanted to see what was going to happen next with his character, and he’s really only in the movie about 3 times, each time less than 5 minutes.

So besides some editing (or possibly writing) issues, I thought the movie was very good. It does tug at the emotions. It makes you happy when you’re supposed to be, sad when you’re supposed to be, and even uncomfortable when you’re supposed to be. I think that says something about the actors and actresses, because it was really all about the acting once you got the story figured out.

I Am McLovin!

LKMYNTS: I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK.

So I’ve wanted to see this movie for a very long time, and I finally got around to doing so. Though this movie is incredibly hard to come by (even outside the US), so finding a way to watch it was that much more difficult. But it was written and directed by Chan-wook Park, the same guy who did one of my favorite movies, Oldboy. However, it couldn’t be any more different (including the fact that Oldboy was an action/drama, and this is a comedy… for the most part, anyway).

I could attempt to give you a plot summary here, like I usually would, but that’s incredibly difficult for one major reason: there’s really no plot. The best I can describe it is thus: Young-goon (Su-jeong Lim) is a young woman who loses touch with reality after her schizophrenic grandmother is taken away (basically leaving her in the care of her overprotective mother). Young-goon, highly affected by her grandmother's fate, also seems to gain schizophrenia and suddenly believes she’s a cyborg, and she makes a promise to her mother not to tell anybody about it (so they couldn’t keep her locked up). Well, they put her in an insane asylum wherein she talks to electronics and meets a young man by the name of Il-soon (Rain), who is a thief that wears different masks in order to take people’s souls (and, in essence, their mental disabilities). But when Young-goon refuses to eat any food in fear of breaking down, Il-soon takes it upon himself to try and get her to eat before she starves to death.

But with a movie that is just shy of two hours long, that miniscule plot really doesn’t stretch itself over the whole time frame. No, what the movie really banks on is its cast of characters. The whole movie is more of a character study than a plot-driven tale. All of the other asylum inmates each have their own mental issues (obviously), most of which get their own moments to shine. And it’s really the attention to detail that this movie really pulls through. The camera can be just steadily going down a hallway or through a courtyard, and in the background you see each character doing their own thing and staying perfectly in character, even if they’re not even remotely close to being the focus of the scene.

But of course the two main characters are those of Young-goon and Il-soon, who form the almost heartbreaking romance (heartbreaking because of the circumstances) of the film. To me, Rain stole the show as Il-soon. Whether he was hopping around like a rabbit (and digging out his wedgies immediately after), stealing other people’s ‘souls’ and taking over their character traits, fidgeting with his masks, or earnestly trying to help Young-goon stay alive, he was really the most interesting character of the entire movie. And what I really loved about both the characters is that there were a lot of hints as to what happened to both of them in their pasts to bring them to this point, but it’s never just spelled out for you. And there’s always that hint of sadness linked in with the comedy. And that’s really the genius of Chan-wook Park, because if you’ve seen Oldboy, you know that his movies are very psychological and never only one layer deep.

Though this really brings me to one of my only issues with the movie: sometimes it tried a bit too hard to give another metaphor (because truly, the movie was nothing but metaphors and symbolisms). You know that everything is fake and all the fantasy elements are just happening in their heads, but there were moments I felt didn’t need to be in the movie and could have been trimmed down a bit. They were few and far between, but they were there. Because a movie with so little plot—as well as the fact that the first half of the film and the second half of the film don’t really match up in what’s been focused on (the other patients all but disappear in the last third of the movie)—doesn’t need to be almost two hours long. Other than that, the movie was golden.

At first I also really disliked the ending. It ends, and I’m staring at the screen like “what the hell?” But after a couple minutes to digest it and think about it, the more brilliant it became to me (and this was before I read about a part I actually didn’t catch, which just adds to its brilliance). It’s a lot like Oldboy’s epilogue, to me. I didn’t much care for that at first, either. But both endings are very open-ended, leaving you up to so many different interpretations. And I really don’t want to spoil anything (so if you’ve seen the movie, leave a comment so we can discuss it).

I also wanted to talk about the visuals and cinematography of the film, which were just beautiful. There’s a lot of use of color pallets all around. The movie is just very bright and colorful and really gorgeous to watch. The only iffy visuals were the CGI moments during the cyborg fantasy with the guns. Otherwise, it looked really good. And the camera work was great, as well. There were a lot of interesting shots with mirrors, and there were some good long-shots down hallways and such (nothing as epic as the side-scrolling battle in Oldboy, though).

Really, my last notes about this film are that you can’t go into it expecting your brain to function properly. Most people who have disliked the movie have straight-up said they disliked it because it didn’t make any sense. Well, after the brilliant opening 10 minutes (confusing at first, brilliant in hindsight) that basically foreshadow the fact that nothing can be taken logically or at face value, you should know what you’re getting yourself into. It’s a movie about crazy people, and you’re going to be submersed into their world fully. The best I can describe it is that it’s like at the end of that Robin Williams movie, What Dreams May Come: the guy says not to stay in the house too long or he’ll start to lose his mind and go crazy, too. Well, the longer you stay with the movie, the crazier you have to think in order to keep up with the utter randomness and chaos of the film. But in the end, the movie is really beautiful and touching… if you can understand it.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Short Review: Blood & Chocolate.

Premise: A female werewolf in Bucharest falls for an American graphic novel artist. However, the leader of the pack also has a thing for her, and doesn’t like that she wants somebody else.

Starring: Agnes Bruckner, Hugh Dancy, Olivier Martinez, Bryan Dick.

My Reaction: The acting wasn’t terrible. The story wasn’t terrible, though starting to get very old and overused now (think Twilight, but primarily with werewolves instead of vampires… yes, I know there are werewolves in Twilight, but that’s why I said primarily. So in other words, it’s much more animalistic than flowy/showy/pretty). The romance could have been more believable, though. The special effects were very basic. The werewolves themselves were simply wolves (like… real wolves). So no costumes, (blatant) animatronics, or CGI was needed, though the transformation special effects were cheesy. Some decent suspense, too. All in all, not a good movie… not a terrible movie.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

ROLE MODELS.

I believe I’ve said this in a prior comedy review, but you know those times when you go and see a movie in theater and find it hilarious, but then you buy it and watch it at home, and it’s not even remotely as funny as you remember? And then you realize that the only reason you were laughing the first time was because of the crowd experience (i.e. THEY were laughing, so you were laughing, too). But all alone, you don’t laugh nearly as much. Well, that happens to me quite often. And I have to say that this movie… is not one of those movies. I laughed so much during this film, the majority of which was on my own accord (and a lot of which I know why, so I can get into that later in the review).

Danny (Paul Rudd) and Wheeler (Seann William Scott) are two guys who just float through life selling a disgusting energy drink to high school kids as part of a drug-free program. But after a really bad day that escalates to Danny getting broken up with by his long-term girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks) and climaxes with a police assault and sexual innuendo-related car wreck, both Danny and Wheeler are given community service so that they can stay out of jail. The program, led by ex-druggie Gayle Sweeny (Jane Lynch), pairs adults (“Bigs”) with kids (“Littles”) in a buddy program. But the pairs made here, while at first seem terrible, turn out to be perfect. The negative Danny is teamed up with Amptgard-loving Augie Farks (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), while the ladies man Wheeler is teamed up with foul-mouthed Ronnie (Bobb’e J. Thompson). So now all they have to do is survive together long enough to get through the service hours… but wouldn’t you know it, relationships form.

I won’t deny it: the plot is formulaic. You know pretty much how everything is going to turn out early on. But that didn’t stop me from loving it. Sure, it started out a little slow, and the best joke prior to meeting the kids is shown in the trailer (“Congratulations, you’re stupid in three languages”), but once it gets to the gimmick, it really doesn’t pull back.

Unfortunately, Seann William Scott didn’t get to use his full arsenal in this movie and was really just a tag-along to the plot (hell, technically, he really didn’t do anything to get in trouble in the first place). The majority of the plot rested on Paul Rudd and Mintz-Plasse, which was fine, because that was the most interesting relationship in the movie anyway. Though that doesn’t mean Scott and Thompson weren’t good. In fact, Thompson had most of the funny one-liners of the film. But what I found funniest were the nerd jokes, mostly because I knew everything they were talking about. (Time to show true colors): back in high school, I actually knew people who played Amptgard and even played with them a couple times. It really is a ton of fun, though we never got as into character as they do in the movie. But anyway, the point is, I understood all the jokes on a more personal level.

But then there are the supporting cast members, such as Jane Lynch, Ken Jeong, Joe Lo Truglio, and Matt Walsh. To start with the negative, I found Jane Lynch to be one of the biggest downfalls of the film. She was funny the first couple times, but after that, it started to get old. It was the same jokes over and over again, and it started to get more tiring than funny. But then you have the likes of Ken Jeong, who you might recognize as the delivery doctor from Knocked Up (and he’s a real doctor, too, I believe), whose outtakes on the DVD were almost ten-times funnier than the movie itself. And he’s not wasted in this film, either, as the King (the ultimate villain in the Mintz-Plasse part of the story). Between his facial expressions and his slight hints of homosexuality, he was hilarious. And I pray that he has more outtakes on the Role Models DVD, too. And then, of course, you have the Amptgard loyalists, Joe Lo Truglio and Matt Walsh, whose dedication to the sport makes them great (especially Truglio).

Overall, I really loved the film. I know this review focused more on Rudd/Mintz-Plasse, but I honestly felt they were the best part. Scott and Thompson did have equal screen time, and they did have hilarious scenes (just so I can get that out there), but the plot was seemingly more dedicated to the former than the latter—again, at least in my opinion. I would really recommend this film, whether or not it’s predictable. Let me put it this way: I probably only once stopped to think about reviewing the movie while I was watching it (which is very rare these days) because I was so taken in by it. It’s one of the funniest movies I’ve seen in a while.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Overrated Movies: Enter the Dragon.

So I finally got around to seeing Enter the Dragon for the first time. And I’ve got to say, while I respect Bruce Lee as a Martial Artist and also respect the film for its cultural breakthrough, I felt it a bit overrated. For those that don’t know, the movie is about three fighters who are handpicked by Han (Shih Kien) to visit a remote island for a special fighting tournament that is secretly a cover for an opium den. First is Lee (Bruce Lee), a Shaolin monk asked to check into the opium den and bring down Han. Second is Roper (John Saxon), a businessman who is in some debt trouble and owes a lot of money to some bad people. And third is Williams (Jim Kelly), your basic black 1970s stereotype.

Let me start there, really, with the characters. Han, the film’s villain, is pretty much absurd. He talks like William Shatner and acts like a bad James Bond-villain rip-off (white cat and missing hand included). Hell, Williams even says at one point that he seems straight out of a comic book. And while we’re on the subject of Williams, I realize that this was the 70s, but good Lord, could they have added any more black stereotypes into the one character? He was the very definition of ‘token black guy’. Lee and Roper, on the other hand, were actually pretty good characters.

As for how they acted, outside of Han’s Shatner-esque abilities (which I’ll get to a little more in a minute), Bruce Lee acted fine… when he wasn’t fighting. In fact, I really liked his characterizations when he was just being normal. But when he fought, it was so over-the-top and exaggerated that it was ridiculous—though I do understand that a lot of it is part of what makes Bruce Lee a classic figure in martial arts films.

But that’s not to say the action was bad. In fact, I thought most of the action was actually really good (when I wasn’t laughing at what probably wasn’t meant to be funny). Like I said before, I do respect Bruce Lee as a martial artist. He’s pretty damn good (which is probably an understatement from other things I’ve read). There were just moments where you could tell it was fake, such as when it didn’t exactly show the hits, or the camera cut just at the right moment so that you could see a foot coming into view from off screen to touch somebody’s face (with a loud ‘smack’ sound). Or sometimes there were moments when it was clear there wasn’t any contact, but it was acted out like a hit anyway. However, the final fight at the end in the hall of mirrors was freakin brilliant, and probably one of my favorite fight scene moments now.

For the plot, I really couldn’t help but think, the entire time I was watching, of Mortal Kombat. I know MK came later, but I the whole time I was thinking “wow, did they rip off this movie.” I didn’t find out until afterward that MK purposefully based itself heavily on Enter the Dragon. I mean, I could probably write an entire post on their similarities, but I won’t.

But let’s get to the bigger reasons as to why I feel the movie is overrated. Again, I realize the movie was made in the 70s, but it just looked awful. I’ve seen better visual work from 50s films. And then the sound mixing was doubly terrible. And there was a reason that I felt while watching that the entire movie sounded as if the whole thing was dubbed over… because it was. The movie was filmed silently, and everything (including dialogue and sound effects) were dubbed over in post-production. It was incredibly distracting, though. And this was part of the reason for the Shatner-esque acting. Shih Kien didn’t know English, so he just mouthed the lines and somebody else voiced him.

Overall, while I do feel the movie is overrated, I still think it was entertaining enough and good. It just wasn’t great, in my opinion. There was too much poor quality, cliché, and cheesiness. But it does make me want to check out other Bruce Lee films. So unlike some of my other “Overrated Movies” posts, wherein I gave incredibly low scores, this movie is still going to get a pretty good scoring. In fact, here it is.

I Am McLovin!

TRANSPORTER 3.

When you take an action franchise staring Jason Statham, co-written by Luc Besson, choreographed by Corey Yuen, and then give it to a director named Olivier Megaton (seriously… Olivier-freakin-Megaton), you know you’re in for something special. Now, I am a fan of this franchise, so to speak. I really liked the first film, anyway. The second film was way too over-the-top in action and too little on story (When your action requires you to use CGI in order to do a car-related stunt, you know something with your movie is screwed up). But I had high hopes for the third installment after seeing the trailers. I wasn’t let down.

Frank Martin (Jason Statham) is taking some time off, fishing and relaxing with his old friend, Inspector Tarconi (François Berléand), after turning down a transportation deal he didn’t feel suited for. But when the case comes back and falls in his lap once more, he’s forced into the job. All he has to do is drive his car, along with sexy passenger Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) to different destination points, where he will get the next set of coordinates and continue until he finally reaches the drop-off point. There’s only one catch: both Frank and Valentina have bracelets around their wrists that will explode if they go more than 75 feet from the car.

First let me discuss the new concept of the story: the bracelets. Not too long ago, I reviewed Battle Royale 2, wherein each student wore a collaborating necklace that would explode if either the pair got too far apart or one of them died. I mentioned how disappointed I was with the poor execution of such a good idea. Well, let me just say that Transporter 3 basically takes that same idea and uses it the right way. There are some really good moments of suspense where you have no idea how Frank is going to survive and stick with the car; and then there are other moments where having to stay near the car is a hindrance that he has to find a way around. Either way, they really played well with the idea, and it was good fun.

Next I’d like to bring up the actors/characters. Jason Statham is Jason Statham; every fight scene basically has to find a way to get him out of his shirt. And his fighting is rough, which is good. Then there’s Natalya Rudakova, who is very hot in this movie. The only disappointment was that the movie gave some good eye candy for the ladies with Statham, but not nearly enough eye candy for the guys. Another brief complaint I do have to go along with the characters of these two actors is that the love story that bubbles up between them was too forced and contrived. It didn’t feel natural at all. But anyway, then we have Inspector Tarconi, who was used much better in this film than in the previous. In the last movie, he was mainly used for comedic relief. And while he has some funny lines in this one, as well, he went back to his roots in the first film and actually acted like an Inspector. Finally, the villain was actually villainous. He wasn’t over-the-top or goofy. He was actually very malignant.

The story was much darker this time, as well. Actually, the whole movie was much darker than both of the previous films. And, believe it or not, there actually was a story. Granted, the motive behind everything that was going on was a bit odd (and slightly weak), but it was there, nonetheless. There were twists and turns throughout the film (not jaw-dropping or anything, but they were there). And there was actually more story this time around than action.

But there was action, don’t get me wrong. And the action was all fun, for the most part. It was a bit choppier in editing, so it was rather fast-paced (think Bourne). I think the first film’s action was a bit more creative and fun (oil slick, anyone?), but this film still had some heavy punches. And there was more car-related action this time, as well. Not as over-the-top as the second film (except for maybe the two-wheel driving between the trucks scene), and more grounded in some kind of realm of possibility.

My final notes include a couple plot and/or logistical errors. The first, unless I just missed the explanation, was that how did Frank know they were on the train toward the end of the movie? Without an explanation (and granted, I just might have missed it), that’s a pretty big plot hole. Second, and more just on the logistics side of things (SPOILER WARNING):

Why did the bad guy jump off the car at the end if he knew what doing that would bring about? That just didn’t make sense to me. Falling off with the car would have been the wiser choice.

(END SPOILER)

All in all, I thought it was a fun movie. It has a decent story and some good action. It felt like it was missing just a little something special, but overall, it did what it set out to do: entertain the brainless masses. And for that, I give it a good scoring.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

TWILIGHT.

As some of you might know, I’ve read all the Twilight books. I don’t consider myself an avid fan, but I have read them all, and I believe there are some pretty entertaining bits to be found within them. I also have often said that, as opposed to the norm, the Twilight series would probably work better as a film series than a book series. Tonight, I have taken a step further into believing that very theory.

After Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) moves away from her mom in the big city of Phoenix, Arizona to the small town of Forks, Washington with her dad, Charlie (Billy Burke), she doesn’t think anything will ever get better for her. She’s clumsy, and she hates the cold and the rain, so of course Forks, a town laden with constant rain and chill, would be ideal for her, right? But then she meets Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a mysterious young man at her high school who seems to loath the very sight of her upon their first meeting. But as they start to know each other, they start to get closer. And when Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) entices her curiosity over the true nature of the Cullens, Bella starts on a journey to discover the truth about the family… that they’re vampires (though they feed off animals instead). But this cannot stop the true love. Oh no! It must prevail… even after a dangerous Tracker vampire by the name of James (Cam Gigandet) shows up and will stop at nothing to get Bella all to himself.

So first let me talk about the movie as an adaptation. I’ve been reading a lot of things about how this movie is so different from the book and how you shouldn’t go in to this film expecting it to be anything like the reading experience. Did we see the same film? Seriously, the movie was pretty dead on with the book. Sure, there were a few new scenes, a couple cut scenes, and other things like that, but every major scene was there, every major character was there, and basically every important element of the book was counted for. There was even dialogue taken straight from the book, and a voice-over narration very much like Bella’s first-person narration in the book (in fact, some of it is directly from her narration in the book).

The casting was pretty much perfect, specifically the Cullen family, even more specifically Alice and Emmett. They were pretty much dead on with my imagination. The others worked really well, too. The only complaints I have in casting were Bella and Jacob, and only moreso the latter. And it’s not because the acting was bad. In fact, I thought Taylor Lautner acted it just fine. But in the book, Jacob was this massive hulk of a guy, nearly twice Bella’s size (something more like Emmett). And even if he were thin in the first book and got huge later, I have no idea how they're going to pull that off with this guy in the next couple films. But besides his looks, he was good. And my Bella complaint was moreso on how she acted the character, which is probably more of a director complaint than an actress complaint. The Bella in the book is much funnier, wittier, and sharp. The Bella in the movie is so freakin serious and overdramatic all the time. She so totally doesn’t become whiny, serious, and overdramatic until book two. Oh, and one more complaint when it came to characters… what the heck was up with Carlisle’s super-thick white makeup upon his introduction? It got better later, but damn… that was some hardcore thickness right there.

To get into a few more of the movie workings, I had a few issues with logistics in things they did in changing/adding stuff. First of all, they made it the middle of March at the beginning of the movie, as opposed to the book when I believe it’s closer to January. This doesn’t seem like that big of a deal… until you get to the parking lot wreck scene when the whole place is icy. Granted, I don’t live in Washington, but will the ground really be covered in ice in March/April? Another thing is that Edward is so overprotective of Bella, mostly because of how clumsy she is. So why on Earth would he take her to the top of an incredibly tall tree and then let her loose to climb it on her own (much less Bella actually be willing to do so)? That just seemed incredibly out of character for the both of them.

On some other positive sides, there was some good chemistry between characters, though the two characters I felt had the most chemistry aren’t the two most would think. I felt that the relationship between Bella and her father Charlie was done very well. When a specific thing happens towards the end of the movie, I actually felt really bad, much like I did when I read it in the book. There was also some good chemistry between Bella and Jacob, and I really did like Jacob in the film despite his size. And they even added more of him in, which was smart. In the first book, he had a really bit role, and then becomes this huge character come the second installment. But they upped his role in the first film, which, again, I really liked. Finally, of course, there was the good chemistry between Bella and Edward. It was pretty tense most of the time, as Edward gets upset a lot in the first book. Though there wasn’t nearly as much humor between the two of them in the film as there was in the book (I mean, it was there… just not as much. They focused more on the serious stuff in the film).

But one of the biggest flaws of the film is also one of the biggest flaws of the books: Edward and Bella's relationship is purely superficial. And what people aren't seeming to grasp, including the uber-fans of the book, is this flaw. In the movie, Edward and Bella argue a lot before suddenly falling head-over-heels for each other for no apparent reason, and then will do anything for each other. Well, sorry to break this to you, but the books are exactly the same. If you take away every superficial quality about Edward (and even Jacob brings this up in one of the books), there'd be absolutely no reason that Bella would love him like she did. The relationship comes from nothing, is based on nothing, and stays hollow for the entirety of the series. And that was emphasized even further within this movie, even to the chagrin of the fans who thought it otherwise. So, yet again, the movie keeps to the heart of the books just fine.

The film is no masterpiece by any means, just like the book isn’t a new classic (no matter how much the fan base of 15-year-old girls thinks it is). Both the books and the films, once they make the others, will simmer down with time. But I figure that if they stick to it like they’re doing now, by staying close to the book, yet altering it just slightly so that it fits good for a movie, and taking out all the bad writing and annoying little descriptions of Edward’s godly breath and godly this and that (though they did almost allude to all of that during one part of the movie), then I really do believe that the movie series will be much better than the book series. I anticipate the next film now, especially since I hated that book the most in the series… I can’t wait to see if they actually make it good. After all, they did a pretty good job with this one (and the following score is more based on entertainment value and adaptation abilities than actual quality of film... plus, when it comes to the Twilight series, you aren't in it for quality to begin with anyway, so it's all good).

A Keanu 'Whoa'

LKMYNTS: The Movie Hero.

It’s been a while since I’ve done a Little Known Movies You Need To See, and I figured this would be as good of an opportunity as any. I first saw this movie months ago, though I had missed the first 30 or so minutes. I just got around to seeing it again, this time the entire thing. And now I feel I can write a full review for it.

Most would see Blake Gardner (Jeremy Sisto) as insane; after all, he goes around talking to his ‘audience’ as if he’s the star of his very own movie, and titles other people with generic character names as he meets them. For instance, upon seeing a man in a trench coat with a guitar standing at a street corner, he dubs him The Suspicious Character (Peter Stormare) and basically stalks him to find out what’s going on with him. He ‘hires’ a Sidekick (Brian J. White), and labels his newly given therapist as his Love Interest (Dina Meyer), telling her that she must eventually get over her Doomed Fiancé (Carlos Jacott) in order to be with him. But the more that he insists that he has an audience watching his every move, the more he talks to this apparent audience, the more he follows The Suspicious Character and deems him a villain, the more he looks insane.

I have to say, this movie is brilliant. It does get cheesy at times, and some of the acting (especially toward the end) is questionable, but the story and the overall product given is great and fun. To start with the camera work, because that’s the big thing with this film, I have to say that even though the main character looks directly into the camera for the majority of the movie, it works. Every angle of the camera has its purpose. Blake goes into details of why his audience is in a certain place at a certain time (different emotional effects, to avoid boredom, etc.), which, in effect, tells anybody interested in film-making how to use a camera and even setting for different effects.

But the movie would have fallen apart if it weren’t for Jeremy Sisto. This whole movie rides on his charisma and believability as the Movie Hero, Blake. His pure, unwavering devotion to the fact that he has an audience that nobody else can see, along with his brilliant love of cinema and everything it does, makes him a great character, even though the character’s biggest flaw (in the film) is that he has nothing going for him and he’s not the best leading man whatsoever. But Sisto rolls with it all, making what could have been horribly cheesy into great comedy and real fun.

But he’s not the only actor that pulls through. Brian White as Antoine the Sidekick has some great charisma, as well, and he and Sisto pull off some really good chemistry. Dina Meyer (almost indistinguishable from any other recent role) also has some pretty good chemistry with Sisto, knowing when to pull back in emotion and when to go all out. Peter Stormare is a bit over-the-top, and his character adds more of a fantasy aspect to the film, but it works for what it is.

But what I love about the film the most is what I mentioned a couple paragraphs ago, which is its self-consciousness toward film. If a character or scene is being cliché, Blake won’t hesitate to point it out and try to remedy the situation so that his audience won’t be bored or annoyed. If a certain character is having a specified ‘moment’ that occurs in every movie for that type of character, he will make a brief statement to his audience (the camera) before letting it continue. And then, like I said, all the work with the camera as the audience taking different angles, etc., was a brilliant part of the story.

The one part that bugged me a little bit was the inclusion, toward the end, of an actual theater setting for potential audiences. It was slightly cheesy and took me out of the moment. But otherwise, the movie was great. There’s even a great message to go along with it (make the best of your life and do good). I really recommend this film, especially to people who are interested in film-making and/or how films are made in general, because there are huge nods to true fans of cinema.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

2 In 1: Battle Royale II: Requiem and Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds.

This time around, I felt I should discuss two sequels that aren’t as good as their predecessors, though vary in range from terrible to still oddly entertaining. Both have large casts, and both are sequels of movies with large casts (and both have survivors of the previous mingling with the new bunch). Ironically, both also have relatives of somebody who died in the first coming back to seek revenge on the one seen as responsible. And as both are sequels to movies in which a lot of people die, expect spoilers (for the originals, anyway). The first on the list is the sequel to a decent film (based on a much better book), Battle Royale, which I just recently reviewed. The second on the list is a sequel to one of my favorite horror/comedies, Feast. So without further ado, here are the reviews.

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

Battle Royale II: Requiem.

So I finally watched the sequel, which I had heard was not nearly as good as the first film (and as I didn’t think the first film could have been as good as it should have been, either, I found this slightly difficult to believe). Unfortunately, they were right. The movie picks up three years after the first film. Shuya has turned into an international terrorist, forming a group known as the Wild Sevens (Wild Seven being his own nickname in the book). The government decides to reinstitute the Battle Royale program, though by altering it a bit first. Instead of the class having to kill each other, they are taken to a remote island where the Wild Sevens are hiding out and are told to work together to kill Shuya. Also, the collars are back, but slightly different. They work in pairs now, so if your other half dies, so do you. And to add in some more drama, the daughter of the first movie’s teacher transferred herself into the game so that she can take vengeance on Shuya (even though, you know, she hated her father).

This movie did have some really good ideas. However, they were all executed poorly. Whether it had to do with a rushed scripting or the death of the movie’s original director early on (his son took over), something happened here. Much like the first movie, I felt a lot was being left out. The movie, to me, might have worked a lot better as a book with a lot more details and background information put in. For instance, I did love the idea of the daughter of the first teacher coming back. Unfortunately, the teacher sub-plot in the first film was not in the book, which is sad, as it was one of the best things about the first movie… so there would have to have been some massive re-writing for the original author to include that whole sub-plot. There was also a cool little connection to Shinji’s (from the first movie) uncle, who nobody who hadn’t read the original book would probably pick up on. A relationship between those two could have been fleshed out so much better. I also really liked the paired-collars idea, and that was one of the worst-executed ideas. It had so much potential; imagine one of the really good students and one of the more evil students paired together and being forced to work together; one student had a diabetes issue, so she was having insulin issues… imagine the suspense that could have been added for her partner had they done it right. There are so many things they could have done with that idea, and the only thing they used it for was to get the class size down from 42 to 12 in about 10 minutes.

And that leads in to another big issue. Like the first movie, there was no character depth or character growth. I didn’t care about any of the characters (except those from the first film). I didn’t really even know their names or anything else about them. There was no personal connection to anything happening to any of them. It was just pointless death after pointless death.

And the characters they did spend time on were so horribly acted that you didn’t like them anyway. I’m not even going to point out specific characters that were over-acted… because they all were (with the exception of maybe two… which were the teacher from the first film in one short flashback, and Noriko, who has one short scene at the end). I also didn’t like how Shuya was portrayed in the first film, and that pretty much carries over to this one, as well (he’s still more awkward than anything).

A couple other notes: The cinematography and the music were both really good; the ending was just dumb and silly; and don’t even get me started on all the plot holes (and I’m very rarely one to pick up on plot holes myself). And they could have told us where the hell Noriko was for the entirety of the movie instead of making us wonder the entire time. So yeah, the movie had a lot of good ideas, but it ultimately fell on its face (hard). If it were to be altered and done in book form (though I do think that was done to some degree for a manga sequel), I believe it could be really good. Too bad that for now, it’s really not.

The Zed Word

Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds.

I really loved the first film, Feast, a little-known horror/comedy made during the final season of Project Greenlight. It had a lot of unexpected things and followed none of the horror-film clichés (save for Monster Vision). It was hilarious, suspenseful, and all-around outrageous in the things that occurred. So when I heard they were making it into a trilogy, I got excited. But then I started hearing that this first sequel, finally released, was just plain terrible, if not God-awful. I had to see for myself.

Feast 2 picks up right where the first one left off. Biker Queen (Diane Goldner), twin sister of the first movie’s Harley Mom (also Diane Goldner), starts to seek revenge after finding her sister was dead. She stumbles across Bartender (Clu Gulager), a barely-survivor of the first film who had been left for dead. He tells them that Harley Mom’s death was due to Bozo, one of the other survivors of the first film. So off they go, with Bartender as a hostage, to meet up with other members of the all-female biker gang to find Bozo and seek revenge. Then there’s Honey Pie (Jenny Wade), another survivor who only did so by backstabbing the others of the first film and escaping via one of their only methods of doing so. They all find themselves in a nearby town that had also been attacked by the monsters, and end up meeting up with some of the other survivors, including a sleazy car salesman, his wife, the man his wife is cheating with, two Spanish midget wrestlers with a key-making shop, and their grandmother. They’re stuck out in the open, though they know if they could just get to the jail, which is apparently an impenetrable fortress, they’ll be safe. Unfortunately, it’s been locked from the inside by the town’s meth junkie, who refuses to let anybody else in.

This movie was not as good as the first, I do admit, but it was still pretty entertaining in its ridiculousness. The first 15-20 minutes did have me worried, though, as it started off pretty badly. But the more the movie goes on, the more ridiculous it gets, which means the more fun it becomes. What the Feast films seem to have going for them is their total, utter capacity for transcending the norm. The monsters are men in suits, but they’re men in suits done well. They aren’t afraid of hitting the taboo (going after children/animals) or even showing the unusual (monster sex). There are even always the new levels of disgusting with bodily fluids and such.

The first was much grittier, however, and the characters were much more interesting and real. Replacing waitresses and family with an all-female biker gang and midget wrestlers is a bit extreme. If I could make a comparison, it would be like moving from (the films) Resident Evil (dark/gritty/suspenseful) to Resident Evil: Apocalypse (more action and ridiculous scenarios). Though, again, it was still pretty entertaining as it went on, if you can shut off your brain and just enjoy absurdity.

On the subject of the characters, the returning characters were the most entertaining, even though there were only technically two (Bartender and Honey Pie). There is a dream sequence with a previous character, but that was just weirdly random (and slightly disgusting). The main three survivors of the first film never make an appearance, even though Biker Queen’s original plot had to deal with finding them. I’m not sure if it’s for budgetary reasons that they didn’t return, or if they’re just going to return in the third film, but their presences were missed.

The cinematography, on the other hand, was brilliant, much like the first film (if not more so). There are a lot of great shots, lighting, and camera work in this film. There was some of that in the first one, but it’s a lot more prevalent in this first sequel. And for any that hated the Monster Vision in the first film (I didn’t, but I know there are some out there), it is not in this film at all (at least, I didn’t catch any).

Some final notes… if and when any of you ever decide to watch this one (make sure you’ve seen the original first), please try not to be easily offended by anything, as there is one major movie taboo that is broken in this film which has caused a lot of controversy among fans. And don’t turn off the film until the credits go black or else you’ll miss a very vital part of the ending (which is vague and open as hell as it is, setting it up for the third). I suppose one good way to look at the two films, because they are so different, is that the purpose of the first film was to take horror clichés and throw them out the window; the purpose of the second film is to take horror clichés and embrace them while simultaneously mocking them (in a satirical way). Again, the first was much better, but if you’re up for some brainless entertainment, a bit of suspense, and some really bizarre (and very dark) comedy—and you’ve seen the first one—I say just check it out. One viewing, at the least, won’t hurt.

I Am McLovin!