Bizarre Noir #5: Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Welcome to the fifth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

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

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Year of Origin: 1999.

Director: Jim Jarmusch.

Why it's bizarre: Hip-hop listening black assassin who follows code of the samurai.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to see a movie that mixes gangster rap with the Italian mob and an African American hit man who follows the code of the samurai? And if you have, have you also wondered what it would be like if Forest Whitaker was said hit man? Then you’re in luck! Ghost Dog (Forest Whitaker), after being saved by mafia member Louie (John Tormey), becomes the man’s personal hit man, and Louie becomes Ghost Dog’s ‘retainer’. You see, Ghost Dog lives by the way of the samurai, a very philosophical code for life. However, eight years after their fateful meeting, Louie contracts Ghost Dog to ice Handsome Frank (Richard Portnow), one of their own. Nobody was supposed to be there… except a mafia bosses’ daughter, Louise (Tricia Vessey), was there to witness the entire event. So now the bosses are forced to try to find this mysterious Ghost Dog (as he’s only contacted through carrier pigeon) and get rid of him. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong guy the mess with.

Ghost Dog is not an action movie by any means. It’s more of a drama and/or philosophical movie. Each little section is separated by voice-over narration from Forest Whitaker reciting something either from philosophers or from the code of the samurai. Otherwise, Forest rarely talks. The only people I think he ever talks to are Louie, a young girl, and his best friend—a Haitian ice cream vendor named Raymond who only speaks French. And that latter relationship is the most endearing. They never understand what the other says, but they both get each other completely. And just the look on Raymond’s face at the end is just… well, you’d have to see it. The relationship between Ghost Dog and the girl, Pearline, is great, too. Pearline is really just like a young, female version of Ghost Dog himself.

There’s a lot of symbolism in the movie, from bear references to the cartoon clips that the mafia guys watch to… well… just about anything. The whole movie is very symbolic and very well done. And the link between hit man and samurai is a great connection, with their ways of life and even the way Ghost Dog handles his gun.

As for the acting, let me just say that this was one of the first movies that turned me on to the amazing acting ability of Forest Whitaker. Pearline is your typical child actor, giving a few stiff lines. And while the cheesy repeated lines in different languages between Ghost dog and Raymond could make it a bit hard to watch at times, the two characters were still endearing to each other. (Now, could I have thrown in any more metaphorical innuendo for an erection?).

Really, the only thing that might bring this movie down a small notch would be the very goofball mafia men. They really aren’t your typical mafia guys. They watch cartoons, sing along to rap, argue with a kid throwing toys at them, and any other number of emasculating or embarrassing things. They seemed to be more like mafia wannabes than actual hard-asses.

But as for the action, for the very little there is, it’s pretty cool. The way Ghost Dog goes about killing people is really cool, and sometimes imaginative (talking about the pipe/sink kill here). And Ghost Dog can really be a badass, especially with his cool little machine thing that can start cars and figure out codes. But, as I said, there’s not that much action to really talk in depth about, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Overall, if you go into this expecting more of a slow drama with a lot of symbolism and philosophy, along with some great acting by Forest Whitaker, then you won’t leave disappointed, much like the people who go into the movie thinking “hey, it’s a movie about a hit man. There should be some awesome action!” Think of it more along the lines of a very much more indie version of Leon, and with even less action than that. Oh, and the soundtrack is composed by the Wu Tang Clan’s the RZA. So yeah, anyway, it’s a great movie that I really recommend.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #4: Sin City.

Welcome to the fourth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

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

Sin City.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantino (for one scene).

Why it's bizarre: The comic book look and multiple stories.

Sin City is more of an art form than a movie. With a huge cast, Sin City explodes with star power in three (and a half) different stories. The first snip starts with The Man (Josh Hartnett), an assassin-for-hire. After the short scene, it continues on to Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop that is trying to save young Nancy from Roark Jr. (Nick Stahl). Then we have the criminal Marv (Mickey Rourke). After Goldie (Jaime King) is murdered by silent assassin Kevin (Elijah Wood), Marv travels around town trying to figure out who killed Goldie and why. Then we have Dwight (Clive Owen), a criminal with a new face, who sets out to get revenge on lady friend Shellie’s (Brittney Murphy) ex-boyfriend, Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro). But he ends up in a tougher situation than originally planned. Then it goes back to Hartigan again, after getting out of jail. He goes to find grown Nancy (Jessica Alba), the only person who had kept him sane and alive through his years in prison. But, unfortunately, a Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl) has his own secret agenda. And there’s a whole bunch of other people in the movie, too.

As far as noirs go, this movie has it all. It has the shadowy and unique camera shots (in more ways than one). It has the voice-over narration. It has all the mystery and murder and sexuality you could expect. The star-power really shines, as the movie is really well acted for what it is.

The most obvious comment for the movie is its visual style. It is very comic book, and very original for a movie (only to be redone for the later 300, though to a slightly lesser degree). It was stunning to watch the first time, and it’s still fun to watch now. There really isn’t much more to say about it than that.

The only downfall to the movie is that it’s choppy and incoherent. What I mean to say is that, with the exception of Josh Hartnett’s character and story, none of the stories intersect in any meaningful way. And I understand that each segment was based on a different comic, but they could have connected them all together somehow. They even had a good opportunity to change it all up a little bit, assuming that’s not how it was in the comics (I haven’t read them). But Marv’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the prostitutes. And Hartigan’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the Roarks. But they weren’t… so, really, it was kinda like the ‘Series of Unfortunate Events’ movie, where each segment was almost unrelated to the one before it, making it feel slightly disjointed.

But I did love how Josh Hartnett’s character came back into play at the very end. I thought that was brilliant and made up for some of the lack of connection otherwise. So overall, I though it was brilliant in what it attempted (and succeeded) to do. It has its flaws, sure, and it’s one of those movies you have to be in the right mood to watch… but when you’re in that mood, it’s a good one.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #3: Memento.

Welcome to the third of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

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

Memento.

Year of Origin: 2000.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: The chronology of the movie is mixed up (and mostly backwards).

Memento is interesting in all aspects, really… but the strange thing is, I’m sure if the movie was played out in chronological order, it would be boring as hell (or at least infinitely less interesting). It’s about this guy, Leonard (Guy Pearce), who has short-term memory loss (he can’t make new memories). His wife was raped and murdered, and he’s out to find the man who did it to get revenge. Helping him is Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), as well as femme fatale Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). But the movie’s plot occurs in two fashions: the first is in reverse chronological order, which starts at the end of the movie and goes back toward the beginning; the second is a black-and-white bit that occurs in chronological order, starting at the beginning and working its way forward. By the end of the movie, these two halves meet, and the end of the movie is essentially the middle.

There really isn’t a whole lot to cover on this movie except to say that it is highly original and is really a great work of film by director Christopher Nolan (of Batman Begins and upcoming The Dark Knight fame). The concept of playing the movie out of order, yet still having all the surprises occur at what is basically the beginning (or middle) of the movie is brilliant. I’ve always loved the idea of figuring out things in reverse… it’s a good technique for writers. For instance, you have a broken window. How did the window get broken? A story begins with this distraught character. How did the character get that way? It’s fun stuff. Not to mention that it’s really the epitome of detective work, which can be a staple for noir.

And voice-over narration is another noir classic, and this movie has a lot of it. Most of it is rather funny, such as the scene in which Leonard is running and sees another guy. He thinks “Okay, what am I doing? I’m chasing this guy.” Then the guy shoots at him. “Nope, he’s chasing me.” There are just really clever things they do with it.

The acting was well done all around the board. But the real shout out goes to Stephen Tobolowsky for the role of Sammy Jankis. Even though he’s only actually shown a few times, just the looks in his eyes are packed with both emotion and blankness that is very fitting for the character. On a similar note, I think it’s interesting that Brad Pitt was at one time considered for the role of Leonard, because, to me, Guy Pearce looked like a version of Brad Pitt mixed with Christian Bale in this movie (more Pitt, though). Every time I saw him, I’d think one or the other.

The only downside to the movie is that it is a rather bleak and depressing movie, so repeated viewings are difficult unless you’re either in the right mood or haven’t watched it in a while. This is also due to the fact that if you’ve watch it too much, the effect of the reverse chronology wears off… either that, or it can really become taxing to watch. I’ve seen the movie about five times or so now, but this is over the course of quite a few years, so the movie feels somewhat new to me every time I watch it. And every time I watch it, I always have forgotten about a great twist at the end of the movie, so I’m always surprised when it’s revealed (not the main twist, but that other littler one). So yeah, really, that’s about all I’ve got to say about this movie.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #2: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Welcome to the second of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

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

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Shane Black.

Why it's bizarre: It breaks the fourth wall. And it's funny.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as thief Harry Lockhart who, in running from the law, finds himself pretending to try out for a detective movie. They cast him, but want him to get some detective lessons from Gay Perry (Val Kilmer), a gay detective. Then Harry stumbles into his old hometown crush, Harmony (Michelle Monaghan). Meanwhile, Harry and Perry start getting set up for a murder, while Harmony’s sister is supposedly murdered. So now both men are trying to figure out both cases, which are seemingly unrelated, while also trying to stay alive.

Let me start off by saying I love this movie, and it has become one of my favorites. It’s hilarious, suspenseful (at times), and quirky. The first time I saw it, I was completely confused with the ending, unsure of how everything tied together or what had actually gone down because it all moves so fast and you have to remember almost every little detail in the movie (fortunately, RDJ’s narration will sometimes kick in and tell you that something within a scene might be important for later on). But after that first time, I had it all down and can understand it just fine now.

The acting is superb, and the comedy chemistry between RDJ and Val Kilmer is great. And Val has gained quite a bit of weight, making you wonder how exactly he ever fit into that bat suit (though most of us don’t want to remember that anyway). And you really feel for the characters in the movie and what happens to them.

The movie itself never goes where you expect it to. Just when you think you know where the movie is going, it takes a sharp turn and throws you off. And that on top of the witty narration and dialogue make the movie truly memorable. There’s one bit of dialogue that I love that can really exemplify both of these things:

Perry: “Look up ‘idiot’ in the dictionary. You know what you’ll find?”

Harry: “A… picture of me?”

Perry: “No! The definition of the word idiot, which you fucking are!”

And just because I know this dialogue can do nothing but make you curious…

Harry: I peed on the corpse. Can they do, like, an ID from that?
Perry: I'm sorry, you peed on...?
Harry: On the corpse. My question is...
Perry: No, my question. I get to go first. Why in pluperfect hell would you pee on a corpse?

Really, the visuals are good (especially for a movie with this low of a budget), the acting is great, the story is great (though really fast-paced), the dialogue is witty, and the movie is both funny and unpredictable. And there are a lot of references to old noir/detective books and such, if you’re a fan of those. And if you’re a fan of RDJ, noirs, comedies, or are just interested in seeing Val Kilmer play a gay man, you gotta check out Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Royale With Cheese

Bizarre Noir #1: Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Welcome to the first entry for A Week Of Bizarre Noir. I hope you enjoy this blog-a-thon. For more information, please check here.

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

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Year of Origin: 1988.

Director: Robert Zemeckis.

Why it's bizarre: Toons!

What is a week of bizarre noir without mentioning one of the greatest—and most entertaining (especially upon repeat viewings)—available? This universe is unlike any other, as it is a mix of both real live people and cartoon characters. Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) is a drunken detective, depressed over the death of his brother (killed by a toon). After he’s hired to take some incriminating pictures of Jessica Rabbit, Roger Rabbit’s wife, playing patty cake with Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye), owner of toon town, Roger makes threatening statements toward Mr. Acme. Soon thereafter, Marvin Acme is found dead, and the police, led by Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd), believe Roger was the murderer. However, Roger, forcing a plea of innocence to Eddie after sneaking into his apartment, begs the detective and toon hater to help him figure out who set him up and why.

This movie really is a classic, and one of my favorites. It has every aspect of a classic noir (except the voice-over narration)—the cinematography of shadows and grit, the smooth jazz-like music, multiple mysteries as of yet unconnected, a drunken detective, a love interest, and a femme fatale. And what young boy didn’t look at Jessica Rabbit with wide-eyed wonderment? The mix between gritty, hardboiled noir and family comedy cartoon is perfect.

Not to mention the animation is seamless. This movie couldn’t have been made today, because they would have mucked it up with crappy CGI that wouldn’t have worked right. This animation is timeless because everything is meant to look the way it does. They’re supposed to be cartoons that look ripped out of their era, not 3D models that look realistic with the real world. And the interaction between real world and cartoon world is perfect, as well. The movie’s mix of live action and animation will never go out of style or look like crappy special effects unlike most movies. And if my word isn’t enough, the movie won three Oscars, two of which were for Best Visual Effects and Best Editing (the other was Best Sound Effects Editing).

The acting is great, too. Bob Hoskins does a great depressed detective, and Christopher Lloyd does a great psychopath. But the movie is really won over by the cartoon cast, specifically Roger and Jessica Rabbit… and the weasels. But mostly Jessica. I mean, look at those… erm… Yeah. And you never know whose side she’s on. As she states, “I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.”

So really, if you haven’t seen this movie by now, shame on you. It was released back in 1988. You’ve had at least 20 years now. Go see it (buy, rent, or Netflix; whichever your preference). While the other movies on this list might lose their special appeal after numerous viewings, this one will not. It will always have its charm and magic no matter how many times it is viewed. And that’s what makes it a classic.

Royale With Cheese

LKMYNTS... Dog Soldiers.

I haven’t done a Little Known Movies You Need To See (or, as the acronym seems to spell, 'lick my nuts') since January, but I felt this could be one, though not in the same way as the others. Dog Soldiers was made by the same guy who did The Descent and Doomsday. However, unlike The Descent, I actually enjoyed this one, much in the same was as Doomsday ('oddly entertaining'). Dog Soldiers is about a group of soldiers sent off to training in the middle of the Scotland Highlands who stumble upon a pack of werewolves. They meet up with a young woman who takes them to a house nearby, and they have to try and last it out until morning.

I’m not saying this movie is brilliant. In fact, I only recommend it if you’re a fan of B-Horror movies (or werewolves, though that’s usually the same territory). It’s been compared a lot to movies such as Jaws, Alien(s), or Predator. Personally, I think that while it may have one or two similarities with those (at a sort of stretch), I think it has a lot more in common with Night of the Living Dead, but with werewolves instead of zombies. I’d go into specifics, but I might spoil the movie.

But the movie is more horror/comedy than anything. The first half of the movie for me was just like one of those movies that is so awful it's good. I mean, I really thought it was bad... but I couldn't help being entertained. But then the last half picks up and is actually pretty good. And just when I thought the movie’s plot was pretty much non-existent and that the movie was more straightforward or linear, there were a couple plot twists that are cool and unexpected.

As for visuals, there’s a lot of gore in the movie, more than I imagined there would be. You actually see people’s guts (even though they look like big sausages). There’s a humorous scene where one guy is trying to put another guy’s guts back into his body so they can get up and run, and the one guy (with his guts hanging out) is like “they’re not gonna fit!” That, to me, was just so absurd a scene that it was bordering hilarious. For other kinds of visuals, the movie isn’t the most spectacular to look at, but it has its moments. For instance, there’s a scene near the end where a character is standing up and you see the werewolves walk up right behind the person, and they’re all just standing there and it looks awesome.

There were some negatives, such as it really seems that the werewolves show up in the middle of the day, and the last werewolf attack happens when the sun is already out… yet there are still werewolves. It just seems like a gap in the lore the movie set up. Also, they couldn’t have been more obvious with the ‘silver knife’ presented in the opening scene. Chekhov’s Gun, anyone? Also, as much as other people say there is, I just did not see any real character development. All the characters stayed exactly the same throughout the movie.

Overall, if you’re looking for a B-Horror werewolf movie that’s entertaining, absurd, funny, and action-packed, I’d recommend Dog Soldiers.

I Am McLovin!

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

Also known as Indiana Jones Vs. The Martians. The fourth movie in the series picks up almost two decades later, and Russians are after something mysterious that they need Indiana Jones’ (Harrison Ford) help to get. It turns out that these Russians, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), are after a crystal skull that was found again by Professor Oxley (John Hurt), which will give the person who returns it to its rightful home some kind of ultimate power. Also along for the ride is old flame Marion (Karen Allen) and her son, Mutt (Shia LaBeouf).

This movie had good points and bad points. Overall, it was really cool. One of the best in the series, I’d say. The acting was done really well from all parties, including Harrison Ford, who didn’t come off as too old for that part at all.

The visuals were nice, as well. The cinematography was excellent, and the special effects were pretty good, too. The play with light and shadows was done pretty well. The action sequences were well choreographed, especially the jungle car chase sequence (including Pirates-esque sword fight), which was awesome. I’d have to say that was probably my favorite scene in the movie.

The bad stuff wasn’t incredibly huge, though. Cate Blanchett’s accent slipped once or twice toward the beginning. And there were a few scenes that were incredibly unbelievable (and I mean this in the bad way). There seriously was some stuff I just couldn’t suspend my disbelief for, because it was so out-there… from the atomic bomb surviving to the cliff-into-water jump after the jungle chase to the whole triple waterfall sequence. I mean, I can buy the aliens, but that stuff was just silly.

But overall, it was a really good movie. It was fun, funny, and action-packed. There really isn’t a whole lot to say about the movie in general. It was fun, although highly predictable, and I would see it again.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Neil Flynn's (The Janitor from Scrubs) cameo is great... but I so couldn't take him seriously).

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN.

I probably won’t have that much to say about this one except that Prince Caspian is only better than the first in action. 1300 years after the events of the first movie, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), after being forced to run from his castle due to an attempted assassination, summons the Pevensie siblings to help restore peace to Narnia and reclaim his rightful throne. Unfortunately, Narnians, including Aslan, have either been killed off or disappeared… so their mission is rather difficult. That’s about it. Seriously, the plot isn’t the most complicated one in the world.

This movie was darker than the previous, but it still shared the faults of the previous. The acting was mediocre at best (and I personally felt embarrassed any time Peter shouted something like “FOR NARNIA!” or “FOR ASLAN!” or “CHARGE!”). Ben Barnes as Caspian probably did the best acting job. But the best character, hands down, was Reepicheep, a little warrior mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard. He was awesome. But the other issue was that the themes were pretty dark, yet it’s just a PG movie. One of the biggest problems I had with the first movie was that the action was unrealistically clean. If a sword stabs into somebody, it should come out bloodstained, not sparkly clean. The same thing happened in this movie. It’s a war, yet the people barely even get dirty. Add some realism for Christ’s sake.

And speaking of, the religious allegory is still very much present. While the first movie was a resurrection/savior tale, this one was more about having faith and not wavering in your beliefs. It wasn’t strong in the first half of the movie, but it was so obvious in the second half, especially toward the very end, that it’s almost too much. And I have nothing against a religious message. I believe in God. But there’s a point when it can go a bit too far. It’s like “okay, we get your point. We understand the theme. You can stop now. You’re just being cheesy.” There’s a scene toward the end with Lucy that is so horribly acted and so in-your-face with the message that it’s more of something you would see on an after-school PBS religious special.

The special effects are both good and bad. Some of it is overtly fake, while some of it looks pretty cool. And I have to say, I love Harry Potter, but those movies could learn how to do Centaurs from Narnia.

So really, the movie was predictable, sometimes cheesy and too in-your-face with the religious message, and so-so acted. But the action scenes were really cool, regardless of the cleanliness. And it did have some pretty funny moments. The first hour was pretty slow, but then the last half picks up with all the action. But otherwise, the movie was only relatively average. Like the first one, I’ll have seen it once in theater, and that’ll probably be enough.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

SPEED RACER.

I’ve never taken drugs, but if I had, I’m sure the experience would be something a lot like Speed Racer. Even after the controversy over and death of his brother Rex (Scott Porter), Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) wants to be one of the best race car drivers ever. Along with his girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) and his family, Pops (John Goodman), Mom (Susan Sarandon), little brother Spritle (Paulie Litt), Spritle’s pet monkey Chim Chim, and their mechanic Sparky (Kick Gurry), Speed will do whatever it takes. But after Speed wins an important race, super-conglomerate man Royalton (Roger Allam) offers Speed a contract which turns his life upside down, and he must team up with the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox) to put it back in order.

The movie isn’t overly complicated. In fact, there isn’t much to say about it. However, I haven’t had THIS MUCH FUN at a movie in a long time. It was very over-the-top, most of the time cheesy, and almost all the time cartoonish in nature, but it worked. In fact, the climax of the movie is simultaneously one of the most over-dramatic/over-the-top climaxes, yet one of the most awesome things ever.

The movie was random, the editing was fast yet fluid (I feel bad for the editor), and it was just zany fun. The dialogue, as I said, could get pretty cheesy at times, as could the acting, but it’s based on a cheesy cartoon, so it works really well. And I couldn’t picture the parts with any other actors or actresses now. They were all cast very well. The races were awesome, too.

As for the multi-color extravaganza, you get rather used to it pretty quickly, but it does make you feel as if you’re on drugs the entire time. And there are moments that even made me feel kinda dizzy, and I did perfectly fine with Cloverfield. And if I had anything negative to say about it, it would be that the first half of the movie moved a lot slower than the second half. Once the movie reaches the cross-country race, it really picks up and gets really awesome.

Overall, I can’t really say much more about the movie. It set out to do something and it did it. The movie was straight-up fun, funny, corny, action-packed, and (at times) even dramatic. I was gripping my seat come climax scene. The Wachowski’s were definitely on something when they made this movie, but it was worth it. And if I ever get in a position to where I’m not sure if I wanna watch a live action movie or a cartoon, I’ll know what to do. Cool beans.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Short Review: Rocky Balboa.

I haven't done one of these since Hard Candy, but felt this movie couldn't really be reviewed any other way...

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

Premise: Ex-Boxer gets back in the ring to face current champ.

Starring: Sylvester Stallone (who also wrote and directed), Burt Young, Milo Ventimiglia.

My reaction: The story was disjointed. The acting was mostly flat and pretty bad (specifically by Burt Young). The dialogue was even worse. Milo Ventimiglia was vastly underused. I haven't seen any of the other Rocky movies, but if this one was any indication, I might be better off. It wasn't a total waste, but it was pretty close. Even the training montage was bad... and it's insanely hard to screw up a montage.


Feed Me, Seymour!

Overrated Movies: The Descent.

So I gave it another shot and tried to like it. I really did (tried, not liked it). And while Shea over at Unheralded will highly disagree with this entire post, I gotta say the second viewing didn’t help a whole lot (though it did a little).

One year after a horrible car accident kills her family, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) reunites with her risk-taking friends to go on a spelunking adventure in America. However, one wrong thing after another happens, all escalating to the point where they all get attacked by blind, cave-dwelling monsters (AKA Gollums) that want to do nothing but eat them.

I’ll start off with the good things about this movie, some of which I didn’t come to appreciate until this second viewing (I first saw it in theater when it first came out 3 years ago. I saw it for the second time just a while ago). First, the movie had some really great shots pre-cave (and even some really cool shots within the cave, as well). And once they were in the cave, the way the director played with light and darkness was amazing. Seriously, I did love how the only light ever shown while in the cave was light created by the characters (a similar technique was done in the opening scene of Saw 3, which I enjoyed). There was never any added light. If it didn’t come from the characters, it was pitch black in that spot.

Also, the movie did have some really tense scenes. The pre-Gollums scenes in the cave where it was just woman versus nature were great, specifically the horribly claustrophobic body-sized crawlspace scene. I felt the tension for that one in theater, and I felt it again on the second viewing. Though this time, I did appreciate the Gollums a bit more. They were creepy looking, and they weren’t overly reliant on CGI, which is rare these days.

But now for the bad. I think the biggest problem I have for the movie is the characters. Really, the only character’s name I ever remembered was Juno, but I just re-dubbed her as Asian Leader Bitch. In fact, I basically re-dubbed them all. Besides her, there was The Depressed Main Character, Young Immature Risk-Taker, Hot Yet Rarely Shown, The Other One, and Annoying Know-It-All Panicker With A Thick Upper Lip (I know… that one’s a bit long). There are six main girls (I’m relatively sure… they all kind of blend together), and only half of them really have any sort of personality… though, unfortunately, part of that personality is “annoying.” What I’m getting at is that I didn’t care for any them, which is bad for a horror movie. If you don’t care for the characters, then their deaths are meaningless to me (and most of them were).

Not to mention they were mostly idiots (which is depressing, considering two are major risk-takers and should know better; one is an English teacher, which is insulting to me; and one is about to be a doctor). After they find out that these things only know you’re there if you make a noise, at least one of them decides to make loud noises at all times, especially Annoying Know-It-All Panicker With A Thick Upper Lip. Seriously, if you’re walking around a corner to check if a vicious auditory hunter is on the other side, you do not jump and go “AH!” upon looking. And if a bunch are in the room with you, you do not scream “RUN!” as none of them should attack if they don’t hear you in the first place (I’m talking about you, here, Asian Leader Bitch). And speaking of badly written scripts, there was one bit of dialogue I thought worthy of mentioning that I had a bit of a chuckle at. One of the women is like "I'm telling you, I saw somebody! I could describe what I saw EXACTLY." And another asked her to, so she responded "It was a man!" Yeah... how exact and specific.

And this leads to another issue. Towards the very end of the movie, the Gollums start breaking their own rules. A lot of things can happen in a horror movie that breaks boundaries, but the bad guys should never break their own rules. The Gollums are supposed to be auditory predators, yet they make moves and attacks that should not be possible if all they can do is hear (over half the attacks would have involved them having to see their victims). It was ridiculous.

The gore was pretty good, and there were some gross-out moments (like the broken leg fix). But it did get over-the-top at one critical moment, which would be the blood pool. Even if these creatures killed and ate a bunch of people and/or animals in that cave, there would not be a pool of blood that massive right there… unless they specifically drain blood into a pit for later use, but I seriously doubt it.

So the movie did go up a couple notches for me from my first viewing due to some really cool shots and light/dark effects (among a few other things), but the negatives still far outweigh the positives. And there is a sequel coming out, though I figure it’ll follow in the footsteps of horror sequels past and be worse. I guess I’ll wait and see. I usually love movies produced by Lionsgate (especially horror), but I still don’t think this movie deserves all the praise it received.

Feed Me, Seymour!

IRON MAN.

It’s the first big blockbuster of the season… and it delivers. I got to see the 8 PM Thursday Night showing, so I'm happy. Anyway, on to the review. Iron Man is about Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a billionaire weapons manufacturer who gets captured by terrorists demanding him to build a new-age missile. But, knowing that he’ll just be killed afterwards anyway, Stark creates a prototype armor suit instead and fights his way back home. After a change of heart (literally), he decides to fight the evil his own company has created. He builds the suit and fights the bad guys. That’s the basic gist of it.

I normally try to list all of the major cast members in the synopsis, but I really couldn’t this time. The reason? This movie was a one-man show. Robert Downey Jr. owned this movie on every level. He was smart, quick-witted, and hilarious (not to mention a badass superhero). Terrence Howard as Jim Rhodes, his air force friend, did a nice job. And Jeff Bridges (AKA The Dude) as Obadiah Stane did well, too. There was really only one acting complaint I had… which would be Academy Award Winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow.

Odd, huh? She just seemed really awkward and out of place in this movie (the title of which most thought would go to Downey Jr.). There were times she tried to be as quick-witted as Downey Jr., but it just didn’t work. Not to mention the climax of the movie in which Tony is whispering commands at her so she can help out, and she’s standing not too far away answering back in shouts (into her cell phone) for all to hear. Learn to whisper, woman.

Another thing, closely related to my previous comment, was the actual climax. One would think that Iron Man would use less weapons with normal humans and more weapons with giant robots. Apparently the movie thought differently. The final battle could have used a lot more action from the Iron Man suit. All it really did was fly around. But besides Gwyneth and the final battle, I have no complaints.

The movie did have some really cool action. The special effects were AMAZING. And, as previously stated, the movie as a whole was hilarious. It wasn’t as dark as Batman Begins, but wasn’t as light (nor as crappy) as Fantastic Four. There was a healthy mix of drama and comedy. And it totally sets it up for a sequel (in more ways than one). For those who haven’t heard yet, stick around until after the credits for a short scene. Really, it was a great movie that I’d love to see again (and again). Good fun.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I don’t know if it’s just because he shaved his hair off, but The Dude’s head is enormous).