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!

CHANGELING.

I know this is normally a day for DVDs Or Death!... but I'm going to skip that this week in place of something magical. Yes... a movie review! I saw it last night... felt like sharing. So here you go!

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

When you have a Clint Eastwood-helmed picture, you know you’ll probably get at least two things out of it: great acting and depression (seriously, this man needs to make a comedy or something). Changeling is about a lot of things, but it starts when Christine Collins’ (Angelina Jolie) son, Walter (Gattlin Griffith), disappears. For months the LAPD looks for him and finally find him in a whole other state. Unfortunately, according to Christine, it’s not actually her son. And no matter what she says, neither Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) or Chief Davis (Colm Feore) will do anything to help, and actually say that she’s crazy and making up lies. But when Detective Lester Ybarra (Michael Kelly) stumbles upon a seemingly unrelated case, things start to line up together and, with the help of Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich), Christine will do anything in her power to get to the bottom of things and find her son (assuming he’s still alive).

Now this was a long movie, but it didn’t feel like it dragged at any point in time (except maybe the beginning, but that was needed to set everything up). It actually held my interest all the way through up until the Return of the King-style ending, wherein it felt like the movie just kept jumping further and further along, never wanting to quit. But in the end, it all added together for a really good (albeit slightly depressing) experience.

The best thing this movie had going for it was the acting. My goodness, was this movie acted well. From the big names of the film (Jolie and Malkovich), to the supporting roles (Donovan and Kelly), and even to the barely-in-it roles, this movie was acted phenomenally. Amy Ryan, despite the very few scenes she was in, stole every one of them. After the great job in Gone Baby Gone wherein she held a good chunk of a movie, to the great job she does in this, wherein she’s only in a few scenes, you can really tell she’s heading for the top.

The next thing to bring up would be the look/feel of the movie, all brought together by the direction of Clint Eastwood. The movie felt very 1920s, from the clothes and houses to the cars and speech styles. It was quite believable and done very well. The camera work also stood out to me, though there were a couple interesting choices that I might not have stuck with in the end (a few scenes where the camera was stuck behind John Malkovich’s head, leaving for an awkward angle/shot).

There really isn’t much else I feel I can say about the film. It’s one of Angelina’s best that she’s done, and I think one of Eastwood’s best, as I, for once, actually don’t feel it would be overrated. The only thing I might have done would to have changed the title, as the only thing the movie had to do with mythological Changelings was a switched child—and that whole plot of the movie wasn’t even the only focus. Halfway in, the movie changes completely with a new added plot, and it starts becoming more about something else entirely (but then brings it all back to the switched boy… but still). Great performances. Great story. Great film.

Royale With Cheese

Page-To-Film: Battle Royale.

Well, I haven’t done one of these in a while (technically this will be the second one, even though the review for Blindness was similarly written). The last time I did this, I reviewed the short story and film versions of Rashomon. This time, I’m taking yet another Japanese story and film: Battle Royale. The book, which came out in 1999, was at first highly controversial, though it quickly became a huge hit, making all the best-seller lists. The very next year, it began being translated into a series of graphic novels/mangas, and, within that same year, became a movie. From what I’ve read, all three are different from each other, but I have yet to experience the mangas, so I couldn’t tell you for those. However, just by experiencing the book and the film, I can agree that they do have some pretty big differences.

But let me first start off by discussing what the story is about (first the book). The story is an allegory for the transition of teenage school life into the cut-throat world of Japanese business. In an alternative future where America is a third-world country and Japan has become a massively strict dictatorship, the government has set up a program in which one class of fifteen-year-old students is chosen to participate in The Program, which sets them in a deserted area and forces them to kill each other off until there is only one left. Shiroiwa Junior High School Class B has just been selected to be the next class to participate. They are put on a small island that has been evacuated from all inhabitants. Each of them (all 42, with 21 males and 21 females) has a metal collar around his or her neck wherein it can be detonated if they start to do something against the rules and/or government, if they try to escape, or if they get caught in a Forbidden Zone—areas of the island that are announced with the newly dead every 6 hours that are forbidden to be in after that point in time. Along for the ‘game’ is Shuya Nanahara, a young boy who lost both his parents and just wants to get out alive with all of his friends; Noriko Nakagawa, a young girl who gets injured early on and struggles to stay alive and innocent with her secret crush; Shogo Kawada, a mysterious new transfer student with a scarred-up face and an interest in both Shuya and Noriko; Hiroki Sugimura, a sweet boy who just wants to find two different girls; and Shinji Mimura, a friend of Shuya’s that is incredibly popular and incredibly smart. And then there are the more sinister of the bunch, including troubled female Mitsuko Soma and insane psychopath Kazuo Kiriyama. The rules state there can only be one survivor, but Shogo insists he can help get him, Shuya, and Noriko off the island alive. The only issue is that they have to wait until they’re the only ones left… if they can survive that long.

The book was absolutely amazing. It’s now one of my favorite books. A lot of people, as I’ve read, have some issues with the English translation, but outside of a few typos or missing words here and there, I found no real huge issues. It’s not incredibly descriptive in the scenery or action/violence, but I think the point was more in that it was actually happening instead of every minute detail of the occurrences. Though it did get confusing in the action at times, especially toward the end when there’s a big car chase. I had a very difficult time trying to picture what the heck was going on. And unfortunately, all of that is cut from the movie, so I have no visual reference there, either.

The only other thing of note from the narrative would be the narration itself. It’s interesting in the way that the book switches from third person to first person interchangeably, allowing for the reader to see inside a specific character’s mind at that moment. So at one point you have a third person narrator, then out of nowhere it’ll start in with ‘I’ with first person. Though it never got confusing, at least for me, because each section really focused on one main person at a time. And that’s another great thing about the book; it had an incredible character focus. Each and every one of the 42 students had a background and a story to go with them. Most of them were interconnected either as friends or enemies or even secret crushes (and there were numerous).

And unfortunately, this is where the movie brings its first major issue. Obviously, it can’t focus on 42 different characters like the book can, but it didn’t even keep the same kind of feel for some of the characters. Shogo, who was my favorite character in the book, was much less mysterious and much less cool in the movie than he was in the book. Hiroki, who was another one of my favorites, had much less of an importance in the movie than the book, and he also lost his best character quality because of his lack of screen time—his unstoppable devotion. And the mystery of why he was hunting down the second of the two girls was played out much more in the book, though I do think the eventual scene that occurs was done quite well in the film. Shinji’s character was reduced to almost non-existent, Shuya became incredibly whiny, and any and all background or explanation for Kazuo was just left out. Mitsuko, however, was done rather decently, and a scene that’s in the director’s cut (the version I watched) that helps explain to those who haven’t read the book a bit about her past (though it is altered quite a bit) isn’t in the normal version, which would be disappointing to those who don’t watch the director’s cut. On the upside, although they changed the teacher/director character completely from the book to the film (it is not a former teacher or any of that in the book), I like how they added more humanity and even some pity to his character in the film. There was more depth to that character in the film than in the book.

But I think the biggest issue with all of these character changes came from trying to turn a 600+ page book into a two-hour movie. And while those two hours moved by incredibly fast (didn’t even feel like two hours), the whole movie felt like how the first fifteen-to-twenty minutes of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire went (200 pages of book crammed into that tiny period). It had a lot of tiny bits of information of characters and scenarios here and there, and those were always fun to catch as a reader of the book, but it still left out or altered too much. For instance, the huge explosion and the scene that leads up to it at the end of the movie occurs around the two-thirds mark of the book… not the climax. And the final showdown with Kazuo was incredibly lame in the movie in comparison to the book… not to mention because of its incredible alteration, one of my favorite (and one of the most powerful, I think) lines in the book wasn’t in the movie. I don’t want to list all the alterations and discrepancies between the two works, but I will list one more major one that was left out: the anti-government and rock-n-roll stuff. That all played such an enormous part of the book, and besides one scene where you see Shuya playing guitar in a flashback, there’s no mention of it whatsoever, and that also took away from the power of the ending, making it more cheesy because it didn’t rely back on a major theme.

Now, I didn’t hate the movie. I just felt that while the book had a more powerful feeling behind it, the movie was reduced to almost nothing more than a common action movie. But looking at the movie as a movie instead of an adaptation, it was pretty entertaining. It wasn’t super gory or anything, and the blood was more along the lines of Quentin Tarantino (you can tell it’s fake, and it’s in excess at certain moments to make a point). The action was pretty good, though the character development (even looking at it from a non-adaptation standpoint) could have used some work. As I said, at least in the director’s cut, the teacher and Mitsuko’s characters were handled pretty well. Noriko was similar to how she was in the book (she’s more of a symbol than anything), though the danger level of her survival is much more suspenseful in the book (the book plays up on her initial wound and possible infection from it much more than the movie, which takes roughly one minute to tackle that whole issue). Shogo could have been done a lot better. He’s not shown enough to where you can get a good sense of his character before the big end reveal. And Shuya… he seemed to be more of a prop in the movie than anything. The other major characters, such as Hiroki and Shinji, were dwindled down to mere plot devices. And I think with a lot of the stuff the writer of the film tried to put into the movie version might confuse some of the people who hadn’t read the book version, because there were some things that were brought up or shown but never explained.

One last thing to bring up is the music (and the cinematography). I figured, from the book, the music would be some old school rock songs, but as that whole theme was removed from the film, they used a lot of classical music or orchestral music. And I have to say, for the most part, I really enjoyed that choice. Though some of the time it was too much and took me out of the scene, but overall, I really liked how the music was done for this film. That just really struck me as something to mention, as I don’t bring up music often enough in film reviews. And to touch on the cinematography briefly… nothing special, though the scene toward the end with the fire after the explosion was pretty cool looking.

So I suppose a final verdict should be called for. For the book, I’d highly recommend it. It really is an amazing read. Therefore, to use my movie rating scores, I'd give the book the following (rating title - no pun intended):

Royale With Cheese

As an adaptation, I give it the following score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

As a film, ignoring the original source, I give it the following score:

I Am McLovin!