The Brown Bunny (2003) | REVIEW

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

One Missed Call (2008) | REVIEW

Okay before I review this piece I'm gonna' go out and say that I'm not a huge fan of the horror-genre. I'm the picky type that enjoys a certain type of horror upon the various others. I like thrillers mostly. But every once in a while I like to indulge in a pure, bloody, horror-fest just to see what scariness in Hollywood means these days; just to update myself on how far a director can take his horrific visons and to what lengths he's willing to go to frighten the daylights outta' the audience. Apparently directors don't try very much these days as I was incredibly disappointed by what One Missed Call had to offer a couple of rainy nights ago. I had the perfect setting for a horror flick; midnight, no lights, rain outside, a bag of chips, and brother and a cousin. I did my part, but I guess whoever made One Missed Call forgot to bring the horror along, so we were left there like a bunch of idiots yawning and droopy-eyed, waiting for the flick to come to an end.

This Movie Is About...
_____________________________________
One Missed Call is the 2008 American remake of the Japanese film Chakushin Ari. Elizabeth Raymond (Shannyn Sossamon) is terrified by the deaths of four friends, three of which she personally witnessed, after they received chilling phone calls apparently from themselves in the future, showing the exact time of their deaths. After every death, a small red candy is found in the victim's mouth. Beth reports these strange occurrences to the police; however, they think she is delirious. Detective Jack Andrews (Edward Burns), however, believes her, stating that his sister died in a similar way. Together, they begin to unravel the mystery of the chain of calls, but are unsure if they can figure it out before Beth's phone starts to ring the same eerie tune.
_____________________________________

I admit, getting eerie voice messages that tell you the exact time of your impending doom is freaky. The basis for this story is somewhat acceptable. It would have made for a good film. I haven't watched the Japanese version but I can boldly state that it would have been way better than the American remake. Hollywood should just stop with these damn Japanese remakes and conjure their own horror. Hey, SAW worked fine and is still spawning sequels, Hostel seems to be doing great with its fans, and although I'm not a fan of either series, I'm certain they do a better job at scaring people than One Missed Call did. Let me start dissecting this flick piece by piece just so that I can tell you how bad it really is. Before that, a little bit about the movie's tagline...

One of the taglines for One Missed Call is 'When the call goes straight to voicemail, your world goes straight to hell.'

Seriously? I mean c'mon ...I've seen horrible taglines but this just kicks them all in the crotch! I'm still not sure if whoever the f*ck wrote this sh*t down meant for it to be a joke or really thought it was an intelligent tagline. It looks like something Ben Stiller would use for a nutty comedy movie which would eventually tank at the box-office. Get someone with an imagination to write a tagline next time! A tagline is a vital marketing asset, it's what people remember when they look at a poster, and it's supposed to create an interest inside their heads. Imagine if the tagline for Superman Returns read "When Superman flies, you can feel the wind blow in your face." People wouldn't watch a movie that said that...heck they'd hate the movie even before watching it if it had a tagline of that sort. See what I mean? What kind of a douchebag wrote that tagline down? Sheesh....

On to the acting. Being brutally frank, I haven't seen more straight-faced people ever in one movie. The actors in One Missed Call are intensely lame. Elizabeth is the name of the main character and she sees her friends die after receiving eerie messages of themselves on their cellphones. Watch the flick and you'll see that she shows no signs of trauma, sadness, or restlessness whatsoever. It's annoying to see someone behave so f*ckin' stiff when in reality they'd be suffering from intense hysteria! And it's not only her, by the way. The entire boatload of actors in this project are so bad at acting that you get the notion that they'd rather be someplace else. You get the feeling of detachment from the movie which causes you to not give a damn about the characters. Imagine if you hated every single character in a movie. Would you give a crap if they died? Nope. The same applies here. The story is mediocre, the horror is cheap, and the execution of the entire film is very amateurish.

With all that being said, there are but a few scary instances in One Missed Call. They're not worth watching the movie for, but they deliver a fright or two. Which brings me to the part of 'cheap horror'. It has become a popular trend these days for directors to just use hideous faces and ghoulish figures to inject fear into people and frighten them a little during a movie. They use CGI to tweak with movements of characters and the way their body suddenly juts or shudders when they walk, giving them an abnormal strut that makes them look scary or chilling. It does the job, but it's the equivalent of taking the easy way out. It's simple to get an audience to shut their eyes at the sight of a moving corpse, or bite their fingernails when a hideous creature leaps towards the hero. It's relatively easy to create a cliffhanger ending just so the audience could chatter about it after leaving the theater hall. People fail to realize that horror, like every other film genre, is an artform. It has a science to it, and an art even. It needs to be taken seriously in order for it to be wholesome, as grisly as that sounds. People like Wes Craven and Alfred Hitchcock understood that art and delivered stunning horror masterpieces that remain as benchmarks today. One Missed Call will be forgotten as soon as the next day, or after a week at most. Horror flicks seem to be the target of unknown directors eager to break into the business because it's easy to scare an audience. It's movies like these that have damaged the genre and have taken a large number of people away from it.

The only good thing about One Missed Call is its poster. That creepy poster alone gives me more chills than the entire movie. Oh, and just so you know, One Missed Call wasn't screened for critics and the press beforehand. I guess even the studios knew that this movie was gonna' bomb big at the box-office!

There's nothing much to say about One Missed Call other than it's a waste of time and money. It scares you using creepy-looking things and hideous faces, but there's nothing much to use your brain for during the movie. The story is slow, mostly boring, while the acting doesn't help the film's already suffering existence one bit. Other than one or two genuine frights and bumps, this movie is passable as a flick that does not have to be seen by anyone who knows what a good movie is. There's a whole island of good horror films out there to choose from, and unfortunately for One Missed Call, it forgot to get off the boat on that island. It's just sailing off to Boringland. Don't bother about this flick. It isn't worth your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : One Missed Call gets a 0.2 out of 5.0 for the rare scares that it has in offer and for at least having an eerie-looking poster!

Batman 3 Fan Art....Amazing Stuff!

Okay a very quick update and I'm off to finish my stuff again. I just had to post this. This person on devianArt has been illustrating posters for quite some time and ever since he put up his latest works of art that unofficially relate to the inevitable third Batman flick, sites like JoBlo and Slashfilm have picked up his work and in return have sent him shiploads of traffic. Sure, there are some flaws here and there but this dude's got some serious talent! I practically work on Photoshop every day and yet have not a clue on how he conjured-up these posters! Effin' realistic stuff. The third Batman film is supposedly called 'Gotham City'...which in my opinion would blow because it reminds me of that retarded R.Kelly song from the Batman & Robin (*ugh*) soundtrack. Don't remember that one? Let me torture your senses a bit. Here are the lyrics : "City of justice *yeah*, city of love. City of peace, for every one of us...'cause we all need it *uh* can't live without it...Gotham City, *oh yeah*."

City of justice, love, AND peace? Is he singing about a different Gotham City? That corny sonoffab*tch.

Anyway, click HERE to see a lot more of his work including posters featuring The Riddler, some Wonder Woman art, and even 'The Dark Knightress'(?). Oh, and there's this one shot with Batman and Catwoman together which looks completely awesome! Oh...I do disagree on The Riddler casting though. In Nolan's world, nobody looks that simple or that true to the comics. Call me cliche', but Johnny Depp would be my pick for a Riddler. The man would totally own the role. Plus, should a third installment happen, you need someone who can make a villain top The Joker...and we all know that's gonna' be harder than getting to the top of Mt.Everest. Enjoy the artwork. Click HERE to see the rest.

PS : I always envisioned a Harley Quinn in Nolan's Gotham, and in all honesty, I've always wanted her to look as creepy as she does in the poster above. A guy with a slashed-up face and clown makeup is one thing...but the eerieness of a girl with the same features can send shivers down your spine! Creeeepy...

"F*ck DC Comics", says Rob Downey Jr.

I'm not sure how to interpret this lil' snippet from an interview Robert Downey Jr. (RDJ) did with Moviehole, because all of it seems pretty genuine and down-to-earth until he explodes at the end bit. Here's what I'm talkin' about:

It's a well-known fact that RDJ's brain-to-mouth filter is sometimes turned off and he says things that downright offends people. If he doesn't like something, he'll just say it to one's face without having to kiss any ass. It's cool to know that people like RDJ are in the biz and still maintain their policies. It's cool. But is it still cool when you say something likewise about a certain small movie called The Dark Knight and DC Comics in general? Here's the snippet.

"My whole thing is that that I saw 'The Dark Knight'. I feel like I'm dumb because I feel like I don't get how many things that are so smart. It's like a Ferrari engine of storytelling and script writing and I'm like, 'That's not my idea of what I want to see in a movie.' I loved 'The Prestige' but didn't understand 'The Dark Knight'. Didn't get it, still can't tell you what happened in the movie, what happened to the character and in the end they need him to be a bad guy. I'm like, 'I get it. This is so high brow and so f--king smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.' You know what? F-ck DC comics. That's all I have to say and that's where I'm really coming from."

Ooof, talk about sharp words! As much as I love The Dark Knight, I'm not gonna' jump to conclusions and say that RDJ is a jerk and whatnot. He's obviously not into that sorta' storytelling and that's fine. But "F*ck DC Comics"? Looks like Robbie won't be working for those guys anytime soon. It's not like he cares anyway...there's like what, five more Iron Man movies to go? What I'm coming to is that, you don't play a comic character and then say 'F*ck DC". No, that's wrong in more ways than one because like it or not, DC pioneered the superhero concept. Superman, anyone? Yeah, I hate the boyscout in blue, too, but it's well-known that had it not been for the perfect nature of Superman, imperfect superheroes wouldn't have been conjured from Marvel's side of things. And Iron Man is one of the most imperfect of them all; a multi-billionaire alcoholic playboy. Heck, he's Marvel's version of Batman for cryin' out loud! So to say "F*ck DC" would be like not giving a sh*t about where your now pop-culture-icon status character comes from.

And just to rub it in, Rob Downey may have lost some merit points among the fanboy nation for his comments. There were tons of friggin' death threats sent to the inbox of a reviewer who accused Chris Nolan of being a 'con artiste' more than a director. The Dark Knight has become so monumental that saying anything negative about it is like using racial slur in public! Heck, it's so huge that I will hereon refer to The Dark Knight only as 'The Greatness'. The Dark Kni**cough** I mean 'The Greatness' is so cool that it may very well be the second, if not highest, domestic grossing film of all time.

In other related news, The Greatness is now being researched as an effective alternative cure to many of Earth's incurable diseases. We may very well be on the verge of a universal vaccine. Fans of the film have been quoted saying that they feel immensely happy and only now realize that God truly loves them. Speaking of God, it has been said that The Greatness is in fact, a gift from up above to us humans for finally taking the effort to take care of nature. A group of people saw God form from clouds ala Mufassa in The Lion King, He smiled, winked at them and gave them the thumbs-up, eventually saying "You deserve it, fellas...here are your free passes for the IMAX screening." Oh, watching it also gives you a sure-shot seat in Heaven.

...What was this post about again? I vaguely remember something about Robert Downey Jr...hmm....

Van Helsing (2004) | REVIEW

Wow, it's been a long, busy week. Apologies for the lack of reviews.

I was going through some of my old DVDs the other day and came across Van Helsing from way back in 2004, starring Hugh 'Wolverine' Jackman and Kate 'Underworld' Beckinsale. Seriously, it's weird seeing Kate in this flick after you've watched Underworld because it just feels like she's gonna' pull out those guns, rip off that medieval outfit, reveal the skintight black leather underneath, and start firing away at those flying undead b*tches! But in all seriousness, I've decided to review Van Helsing today because I enjoyed the movie to the point that I picked up the DVD and I still love it as a fun film. I'm part of a minority, I know, 'cause critics and filmbuffs had very harsh things to say about Helsing and I remember thinking to myself, "It wasn't really thaaat bad!"

This Movie Is About...
_________________________________________
The year is 1887. A monster hunter working for the secretive 'Knights Of The Holy Order', Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is sent out on his most challenging mission ever; to face the epitome of all evil in the form of Count Dracula in the unholy land of Transylvania. But Helsing finds himself up against more than just one foe when he comes to terms with Dracula's undead brides and the Wolfman. His only allies are Carl (David Wenham), his weapons inventor, and the newly-met Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale). Anna is one of the last of the Valerious family, along with her brother, Velkan (Will Kemp). Their family has been trying to kill Dracula since their ancestor swore to God that their family would never enter heaven until Dracula was dead.
___________________________________________

Pretty decent storyline, isn't it? A lil' corny, maybe, but makes for an overall thrilling ride, doesn't it? I'm not a fan of director Stephen Sommers and I admit, I expected something grittier or at least somewhat darker in tone when I first saw the trailers for Van Helsing. Seeing as the movie was more of an action /adventure gig than a horror / thriller thing, I'm surprised I wasn't disappointed in the end. In fact, I remember walking out of the cinema feeling good about the movie. I actually wanted to watch it again and hence, the DVD. In all my times watching it, I've never been bored by the scenes or the overall length of the movie which spans a little over 120minutes. To me, Van Helsing is the kind of movie that is watchable a number of times and then some, simply because it delivers a lotta' fun and fast action scenes with a lot of adventure to it. There are battles with the wolfman, with Dracula's brides, meetings with Frankenstein, so on and so forth, and although the CGI was only decent and nothing special, it's an enjoyable ride in the end.

Speaking of CGI, let me elaborate on that a bit. When it comes to making a sci-fi horror show, there's a fine line between seeming realistic and looking obviously artificial. Some directors compromise on visual effects due to financial constraints and fail to realize that once something in a scene looks fake-ish and the audience recognizes it, the whole effect of the scene is lost and the feeling of a 'movie' comes to mind. And that's bad. If there's one thing I've learnt as a film student / editing student / moviebuff... CGI, edits, transitions, and Matchmoving work best when they are invisible to the viewers' eyes. And when I say invisible CGI I don't mean the object itself has to be transparent, but the audience must never think of how the CGI was done or notice cuts in between shots. Unfortunately for Van Helsing, the CGI is obvious if not downright bad. It's clear that more preference was given to the Wolfman because it / he looks pretty decent in the film, and I'll let Frankenstein's monster pass too, but the vampiresses and Dracula's beastly side have a very rubbery texture on them. There's no roughness ala real skin and the color could use more shading to make it blend with the real world.

What I like a lot about Van Helsing is the soundtrack. Alan Silvestri does a great job composing a sort-of medievel theme blended with the right instruments that just fits in so well with the movie. Heck, the soundtrack accounts for 30% of why I liked the movie in the first place!

When it comes to flicks like Van Helsing, nothing much can be said about the acting skills. I'm a huge fan of Hugh Jackman and he's one of the few who have taken the time and effort to study a comic character (in his case Wolverine) and then do justice for that character on screen. Jackman's great in Swordfish, The Prestige, The Fountain, and he doesn't fail to give Van Helsing his best as well. The good thing about Jackman is that you never tend to interrelate his characters. I don't know about you but I don't see Wolverine in Helsing or Helsing in Robert Angier (The Prestige). Still, I wouldn't say that Jackman gives a stellar performance in Van Helsing simply because movies like Van Helsing don't demand incredible acting skills and people like Hugh Jackman know that well enough to not overdo his roles.

If you haven't watched Van Helsing or just never cared to do so because of all the negative reviews, I assure you, it's not all that bad. Rent it out on a lazy weekend maybe. It's one of those films that don't need your full attention or concentration. It delivers a very simple storyline about good versus evil and how vampireesses always look so damn hot in their skimpy attire. Why is that, anyway? Why do filmmakers make female vampires look so hot with their cleavages and revealing outfits, when they know that people (especially men) are going to have a hard time admiring them because we all know that underneath that incredibly gorgeous bod is a hideous, bloodsucking beast that has fangs, claws, and likes to shriek! Why, damnit, why?! Also, just because I still like Van Helsing doesn't mean it doesn't have its downsides. CGI is one of them. The other is multiple uber-corny scenes. Some are just downright mediocre and ultimately cliche'. And the trio that play Dracula's brides aren't good actors. They couldn't act if their lives (no pun intended) depended on it. And to be honest, Frankenstein can get annoying sometimes because he's pathetic. No really, as in naturally, his character is pathetic. Like I said, don't set your bar too high for this flick. It's fun, enjoyable, and Van Helsing's weaponry is so effin' sweet, but if you expect too much you're gonna' end up very pissed and 130minutes-less in the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Van Helsing a 3.1 out of 5.0. It's a very cool adventure movie that goes well on those days when you just crave something casual to watch without the depressing, heavy drama. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this, but that's highly unlikely due to the poor response this flick received. *Sigh* Too bad, then. A TV series called Transylvania was planned and actually had Stephen Sommers direct six episodes before studios decided to pull the plug on production. There was also the rumor of a direct-to-DVD sequel but that rumor has been debunked as well. I'm happy for the last two statements I just made. Transylvania?! Who's bright idea was that?!

R.I.P, Bernie Mac

Bernie Mac, the actor and comedian who teamed up in the casino heist caper "Ocean's Eleven" and gained a prestigious Peabody Award for his sitcom "The Bernie Mac Show," died Saturday at age 50.

The comedian suffered from sarcoidosis, an inflammatory lung disease that produces tiny lumps of cells in the body's organs, but had said the condition went into remission in 2005. He recently was hospitalized and treated for pneumonia, which his publicist said was not related to the disease.

"The majority of his core fan base will remember that when they paid their money to see Bernie Mac ... he gave them their money's worth," Steve Harvey, one of his costars in "Original Kings," told CNN on Saturday.
Mac went on to star in the hugely popular "Ocean's Eleven" franchise with Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

His turn with Ashton Kutcher in 2005's "Guess Who" topped the box office. It was a comedy remake of the classic Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn drama "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" — with Mac as the black dad who's shocked that his daughter is marrying a white man.
Mac also had starring roles in "Bad Santa," "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" and "Transformers."

Mac was born Bernard Jeffrey McCullough on Oct. 5, 1957, in Chicago. He grew up on the city's South Side, living with his mother and grandparents. His grandfather was the deacon of a Baptist church.

In his 2004 memoir, "Maybe You Never Cry Again," Mac wrote about having a poor childhood — eating bologna for dinner — and a strict, no-nonsense upbringing.
"I came from a place where there wasn't a lot of joy," Mac told the AP in 2001. "I decided to try to make other people laugh when there wasn't a lot of things to laugh about."
Mac's mother died of cancer when he was 16. In his book, Mac said she was a support for him and told him he would surprise everyone when he grew up.
"Woman believed in me," he wrote. "She believed in me long before I believed."

Rest In Peace, Bernie Mac.

Early 'Joker' Concept Art For TDK!

Freaky, huh?

It's clear now that Christopher Nolan and the gang were sure from the start with the new, scarred-face look that we now see on The Joker. But wouldya' take a look at the horribly disfigured face on your left? Taken from The Art of The Dark Knight, available in all major bookstores, this is just one of the many pre-Ledger designs that made it to the semi-final stages of the film's designs. And yes, it actually made it that far. Can you imagine what it would have been like if this concept actually made it to the screen? There goes your PG-13 right there and in comes a certified 'R' for Restricted! Also, if this concept made it, I'd say there would have been a major backlash from the fans. Some would have loved it, a huge number would have wished the crew stuck to the more 'clownish' wardrobe. This early concept of The Joker would fit better into a Lionsgate horror flick...he looks more like a zombie than an actual human being.

Remember, in essence, The Joker looks like nothing more than a clown in a purple suit, and what's more fun-loving and innocent than a clown, right? That's the irony of it all. It isn't his appearance that's supposed to frighten us, it's the mental state that he's in; cold, calculating, maniacal, and capable of giving you a psychological mind-f*ck. As they say, 'evil dwells in the mind'.

To see more early designs, click HERE.

Also, if you'd like to see a better shot of The Joker without makeup and in police attire, click HERE. It's a scene from the movie. And seriously, he looks chillingly eerier without the makeup than with it on. I'm happy Nolan made the right choice with his final decision. It isn't about creating a scarier Joker, it's about staying true to the essence from the source material. Physically, in The Dark Knight, The Joker varies a great deal from the comics, but the spirit and essence of the character is the best that has ever been portrayed on screen.

Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny | REVIEW

*Hehehehe*.

I still find myself chuckling over this movie. Not that it's that funny, but when you have Jack Black tackling just about any damn thing in the world there's bound to be a lot of memorably laughable stuff that follows.

Okay, here's what Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny is all about. It's not like it matters anyway... but just so you know.

JB (Jack Black *duhh*) leaves his highly-religious family for Hollywood with hopes of forming the world's most awesome rock band. There he bumps into acoustic guitarist KG (Kyle Gass), who is unemployed and lives off his parents. But lo' and behold...the duo find that fate has brought them together for they both bear birthmarks on their behinds that, when put together, read 'Tenacious D"! [Refer to the poster and you'll see what I mean]. Together, they set out to find The Pick Of Destiny, made from a piece of Satan's tooth, believed to be the source of supernatural radicalness that all Rock legends seem to have.

Birthmarks on their asses? Satan's tooth? Pick Of Destiny? Kyle Gass?! Guitar??! Now, tell me that isn't some completely random mumbo-jumbo sh*t! Or rather, tell me that isn't some effin' awesomeiculous random mumbo-jumbo sh*t! If you decide to watch Tenacious D, make sure you're not one of those people who looks for intelligence or compelling story arcs or subliminal messages in a film. Just say "F*ck that smartassness" and you'll have some fun, seriously. This is Tenacious D we're talking about, not The Aviator. Sometimes it's good to not expect anything from a film because only then will you be able to fully enjoy a messed up yet uber-cool flick like Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny. Also, don't even bother trying to make this a family film because it's not. It's not one of those cute kiddie films, either. It's not a romantic comedy by far. It's just....blehoo-hoo. I don't even know where this movie fits!

Take note, Tenacious D isn't the type of funny that makes your ribs hurt. Well, it probably would be if watched while consuming a certain herbal extract. And I'm not talking about Ginko Biloba. That's what I've heard from a bunch of people I've spoken to. But in a normal state, Tenacious D is 'rib-tickling' funny. It's random, it's silly, it's rude, crude, vulgar, and sometimes it's so effin' stupid that you can't help but laugh out loud or at least have a few chuckles. It's yet another story that revolves around Jack Black's love for Rock and Heavymetal that's bombarded with nutty humor, mixed with crazy comedy, and the result is a movie that some will absolutely love and the rest will definitely hate. It just depends on which category you fall under. If you only watch stuff that delivers a deep meaning to it ala There Will Be Blood, then Tenacious D isn't something you'd like. If you only prefer a certain kind of comedy, you probably won't find Tenacious D funny. Most people I know aren't specific enough to discard this flick and neither am I, which means I thoroughly enjoyed this movie from start to finish.

I've always found Jack Black's comedy to be really enjoyable, and since he's in this gig with Kyle Gass it's all the merrier! Jack Black's one message is that you don't have to look great to be a rockstar. You could be hairy and fat just like the dude and still headbang! At least some people find JB acceptable as an occasional rockstar, whilst never in your wildest dreams would you have imagined Kyle Gass as a 'rocker' had not you known the man. Just look at him, people! Overweight, balding, innocent-faced acoustic guitarist. And he's in a two-person band known as Tenacious D! Doesn't that completely rock, literally? It just comes to show that aaanybody can hit a chord if they wanted to. Kyle Gass rules!

There's nothing more to say about Tenacious D except that if you're looking for a fun movie to watch with your friends, your date, or a group of people who just wanna' watch something cool, find a way to get your hands on Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny. Expect lots of swearing, utterly baffling songs about 'stuff', Bigfoot, erections and how they can get you out of a difficult situation, d*ck references, pot, the devil himself, car chases, guitars, cameos, and a museum. Can't piece them all together? Watch Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny and you'll see a much clearer picture and how they all fit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny gets a 3.2 out of 5.0. Like I said, it's mostly enjoyable but it isn't really the kind of humor to get you rolling on the floor and squirting Coke outta' your nostrils. It's humorous enough to make you laugh out loud, though. I would have rated it higher since I did have a good time watching it...but there really isn't anything more to base the ratings upon. No storyline, no solid plot...nothing. Which is cool with me but y'know, it wouldn't be fair for other movies that actually took the effort to come up with a screenplay ;)

Daredevil (2003) | REVIEW

I call Daredevil a complete mockery of comic books and an overall terrible film. Some of you may agree and some may not. To me, Daredevil has nothing to offer but boredom and corny scenes that you could sincerely laugh at.

A lawyer known as Matt Murdock was blinded as a child but his other four senses obtained superhuman sharpness, and he learned to perceive his surroundings by human echolocation. Now, isn't the mentioned kickass basis more than enough to spin an incredibly good film on screen? Yes? Unfortunately, Daredevil isn't an incredibly good film and quite frankly, it sucks major balls. The Director's Cut is slightly better than the theatrical release, but that doesn't justify a whole bunch of other mistakes the film had to 'offer'. When casting began, Ben Affleck seemed to be the perfect choice for Matt Murdock by day, and Daredevil by night. Oh, how wrong those casting directors were.

Daredevil starts out like any other mediocre Marvel movie back in the day; an origin story. It shows you how Matt developed his amazing ability and there's a whole boatload of corniness that tags along with it. And then on to the main course of the film blah blah blah. Now, how in the name of all that is holy did director Mark Steven Johnson and his crew pick Michael Clarke Duncan to play Kingpin? An African-American Kingpin? If this was the Green Lantern I'd understand because there are a number of Lanterns but alternate Kingpin(s), too? What's next, a Chinese Wolverine? A Mexican Batman, maybe? How about an Indian Tony Stark, fellas? I'm not being a racist, but why not try to stick to the source material just a lil' bit? This is a drastic change we're talking about! Now on to Bullseye. I, for one, was not all against Collin Farrell as Bulseye. He gave the character some realism and a nice edge, but it didn't last long. Soon you begin to wonder how much better Bullseye could have been and then Collin seems to reek as the character. Jeniffer Garner as Elektra isn't all that badass, either. She's too Alias for the role, if you know what I mean. You could pick her out of the TV series and put her in Daredevil and no one would be able to tell the difference in character. She's too soft in Daredevil and that's not who Elektra is at all. Elektra, in the comics, is a very tactful assassin and except for certain special situations, she hardly feels compassion or love for anyone or anything. Garner hardly fits the role or does the character any justice. And who can forget, Ben Affleck as the masked crimefighter himself. Other than the occasional brooding, Affleck does nothing to show the torment that his character is facing as a blind dude who has to battle injustice. It isn't easy. Not one bit. Affleck looks like he doesn't even give a sh*t about the character and probably just did it for the loads of cash since comic adaptations had already become the in-thing by 2003. I'm being brutally frank when I say he seems like a f*ckin' douchebag playing Daredevil! Stick to Hollywoodland-type stuff, you ruiner of good characters!

Some of you may label me as a person who rates a movie on an extreme level and you may say that Daredevil wasn't as bad as I condemn it to be. Hear me out when I say that Daredevil is an okay popcorn flick when it stands alone, but compare it to the source material or even imagine the endless possibilities that could have been achieved on screen and you'll see why I hate this movie. A weak Elektra, corny supervillains, and a very ordinary superhero. The movie does absolutely nothing to show-off Daredevil's athletic abilities, his speed, his agility, or even his uber-cool slickness when it comes to jumping rooftops at high velocity. I'm sorry to say this but Elektra should have been portrayed by someone like Angelina Jolie. Jeniffer Garner is hot in her own way but Elektra needs to be portrayed by a person who has an incredible sex appeal that's just overflowing, and you know what I mean when I say Angelina Jolie has a sex appeal of that magnitude.

Even when it comes to methods of filming there's nothing cool about Daredevil. I've read a whole series of the DD comics entitled Guardian Devil and you can just sense the immense potential radiating off the story arcs and the very pages of those books. The kind of shots that could have been taken and the sort of scenarios that were just begging to be let loose on the big screen were never even looked at let alone given a chance to take form. Imagine Daredevil crouched on a large crucifix atop an old church, looking down upon Hell's Kitchen (which is changed to downtown Manhattan in the movie just 'cause it had to be a f*ckin' PG-13) for evildoers. He spots one, and swings down as the camera takes a full 360degree turn around him. He uses his signature multi-purpose 'billy club' to grab onto a stone gargoyle and leaps from perch to wall to railing and then freefalls downwards, landing right beside the thief. Using just a single lash of the club, he injures the knee of the wrongdoer and, as corny as it sounds, saves the day. So maybe the scene is cliche', but the cinematography would have rocked! There was nothing of this sort in Daredevil the movie which left me extremely disappointed after the film was over. Plus, the costume looks f*ckin' retarded and is obviously too tight for Affleck, making him appear like a complete tool. If they took some time to refer to the comics they would know how to develop a costume that looked rugged and yet comfortable...not some tight spandex that looks like it belonged to a costume-party male stripper during Halloween month.

There's just one too many downsides in this flick to oversee / ignore. Sure, some nice parts here and there but overall it was (in my opinion) a disaster. Nothing feels right, the storyline is wasted beyond repair, and the character development is awful. I didn't care for the good guys, the bad guys, the dumb guys, or even the extras. It's a numb movie that leaves you wanting to see some really memorable scenes but instead there are none. Halfway through the movie you wish Ben Affleck would disappear and someone worthy of the role would step in and take it off from there. An explanation wouldn't even be necessary. Bad cinematography upon everything else and just a very bad movie. Not for the non-comic fan and an insult to people who have followed the Daredevil chronicles for oh, so long. If you haven't watched this then don't even bother. You're better off waiting for a remake which will probably be extraordinarily enjoyable since Marvel Studios seem to be doing a pretty decent job of late. Daredevil would have been a good film if it had come out in 1995 when movies like The Phantom were considered 'cool comic movies'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Daredevil gets a 2.0 out of 5.0 for offering a minimal amount of good scenes here and there and if it had not been for Bullseye, this movie would have ended up as a worse pile of whatever than it already is. Go remake this one, Marvel, it's in desperate need of a makeover!

Reign Of Fire (2002) | REVIEW

I'm not sure why Reign Of Fire was bombarded by moviegoers and critics alike when it is, in fact, a very good post-apocalyptic vision of the future if said apocalypse were to be caused by fire breathing dragons. I'm going to do all I can to defend this movie because to me it wasn't just entertaining but it was also highly realistic. C'mon, how many movies have you seen over the past decade or so that doesn't feature either annoying talking dragons or annoying talking dragons that are hardly even frightening? Don't give me Dragon Wars aka War Of The Dragons as an example because the CGI in that gig isn't really all that good. Now, on to Reign Of Fire and what you should expect.

During Underground construction in London around the year 2008, a huge, hibernating dragon is discovered and springs to life, instantly incinerating all construction workers with its fiery breath. The only survivor is 12-year-old Quinn Abercromby, whose mother was chief of the construction crew. The dragon escapes, and soon thousands of them work their way through Europe and eventually the rest of the world, burning everything, feeding on the ashes, and multiplying at an exponential rate. 12 years later, in 2020, the adult Quinn (Christian Bale) runs a medieval stone castle in Northumberland, a lonely bastion of mankind, afraid of the sky and the dragons that could attack any time. Their hope is to outlast the dragons, wait until they die out again and go into hibernation. But things are not as easy at they seem and Quinn realizes that he'll have to find a way to battle the beasts instead of having to let his people starve to death due to the depleting food supplies.

Now, isn't that a kickass storyline or what? Screw that Eragon bullsh*t, this is the kind of dragon story I really like to see! Sure, the movie isn't built on a huge budget but the CGI is pretty decent and the entire feel of the movie does a pretty good job at sending a message to the audience about the type of suffering these people are going through. They could be the last remaining people of the human populace for all you know and now even they're in trouble. And you get to sense their fear of the sky and how they're always paranoid about being attacked by the horrid beasts.

When it was released back in 2002, Reign Of Fire didn't boast an all-star cast. In fact, it couldn't boast anything at all because (relatively) the only known name in the film was Matthew McConaughey, and even he isn't considered top-tier material. Just six years after its release, two of the main actors in Reign Of Fire have become pop-culture icons. Christian Bale is one of them, fondly known now as the Batman. And then there's Gerard Butler who is affectionately known as the man who made "This is SPARTA!" into one of the most popular quotes in modern Hollywood history, King Leonidas of the highly-successful 300. Being the dedicated professionals that they are, both Gerard and Christian put up a good performance in Reign Of Fire, making their characters very grounded and believable.

What I like most about Reign Of Fire is the the balanced grittiness of it. From the opening scene right up to its climax, the movie sets a very brood-ish tone that revolves around desperation and depression of mankind in the dying efforts to survive this hellish outbreak. The existence of these dragons are briefly and scientifically explained and there's no mumbo-jumbo about kiddy wizards and silly-looking goblins and kinda-scary prophecies (Not that there's anything completely wrong with any of those, I love sci-fi, but sometimes uniqueness is better). Reign Of Fire is a raw vision of what may come to be if such terrifying creatures were to be unleashed unto the world.

On to my favorite part; the dragons of course! Unlike recent designs that show dragons as decorated animals with blue eyes and shiny horns and even cyan-colored feathers, the wyvern-like beasts we see in Reign Of Fire are a number of times more frightening with their black skin and reptilian movement. They can't talk, they can't communicate with the humans, and no, there are no good dragons that suddenly fly to the rescue of Quinn and his fellow survivors. These are horrific things with minds as sharp as raptors, and senses of sight and sound that surpass any known living animal. I name these dragons the best I've seen on screen and it's scary to even wonder about the possibilities of a species such as this actually coming to life...or even coming back to life.

While it isn't a real problem for me, Reign Of Fire lacks epic-scenery action scenes. We see a few glimpses of London ablaze but that's just about all we see of the full-scale destruction that the dragons can wreak. There are, of course, more scenes with the dragons and humans battling those dragons but there's hardly any wide angles where we get to see exactly what these creatures have done to the world. Unlike what's depicted on the poster, there are no scenes of military war units fighting the dragons or even the dragons swarming in groups and setting cities on fire. That's probably why a lot of people didn't enjoy this flick. I, for one, don't care much about the mentioned downside and like the movie just as it is. Sure, it would have been cool to see said epic battles but think about this; would you rather see a huge battle scene with sh*tty CGI or tactful action scenes with good CGI? Give these guys a break. They worked with $95million and although it may seem like a lot, in Hollywood it's next to nothing in terms of paying for high-end visual effects.

I guess I'm a minority when it comes to my love for this film. It only took in a pitiful $85million at the box-office which is almost $10million short of the budget. Like I said, a pity. I'm not even sure how a poster with firebreathing dragons unleashing hell in central London couldn't pull enough people to see it! Was it the bad marketing? The bad trailer? I know this isn't Titanic by any means but c'mon...nobody went to see this movie?! It was a pretty good movie! It works well as a casual movie, as a serious movie, as a weekend movie or even a good weekday movie, even a damn lazy-day movie! It integrates good acting with a believable storyline and decent visual effects. It sets a continuous, gritty theme from start to finish and is fulfilling and entertaining. What more could you want from a flick? It's weird that stuff like Eragon gets a whopping amount of cash despite using leftovers from the Lord Of The Rings set but movies like these that portray uber-realistic dragons make nothing but peanuts. *Sigh* Anyway, give this thing a chance. Go watch it and I'm sure you'll find it to be a good use of your free time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Reign Of Fire scores a 3.8 put of 5.0. It would have done way better if a lil' more epic-ness was embedded into it but still, I love the movie the way it is. Good stuff, good stuff.

P.S : It was this movie that made me recognize Christian Bale as an actor with a certain quality to his methods and although I had mixed reactions when I heard the news way back in late 2003 that Bale would play Bruce Wayne in the then-upcoming Batman Begins / Batman 5 / Batman Year One, I knew for sure that he wouldn't make a mess of the role ala George Clooney or Val Kilmer. Val Kilmer? Ugh...!

A Venom Movie?! ..... Seriously?!

My oh my oh my, talk about milking a character down to its very last drop for the simple sake of earning a quick buck. The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Sony Pictures is moving forward with their rumored solo-Venom project as a spin-off the Spider-Man series. I'm sure there are those who would feel extremely excited about this news but for me it's some really horrible stuff to hear about. Here's why...

Venom to Spider-Man is like The Joker to Batman. Like Sabretooth to Wolverine. Megatron to Optimus Prime. Like Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker except they're not related. Arch enemies, basically. Over the years, Venom has created a fanbase that rivals even Spidey's own and once Spider-Man 2 was outta' the way, people were dying to see Venom on screen because of their immense trust in director Sam Raimi and his credibility. Well, credibility my ass because Sam Raimi decided to follow in the footsteps of George Lucas and literally f*ck-up the character so bad that die-hard Spidey fans began having fantasies of torturing him in their own perverted ways.

As a Spider-Man fan, I hate Spider-Man 3 with a burning passion. I'm not sure why Sony Pictures would even think a Venom movie would do well on its own. Remember Catwoman? Or Elektra? Yeah, exactly! Apparently the guys at Sony are looking for a writer to rewrite the initial screenplay and they're also looking for someone to play Eddie Brock. That's right, people, Topher 'That 70's Show' Grace will not reprise his role as the symbiote-loving jobless reporter.

So if I'm getting all this correctly, Sony Pictures wants to 'remake' Venom, so to speak, without having to actually correct their mistakes in Spider-Man 3. They just wanna' patch things up with the fans and then allow Spider-Man 4 to run its course in 2011? My opinion would be to just screw this flick over and get straight to Spider-Man 4. Keep Sam 'the walking d*ck' Raimi as far away from the franchise as possible. Venom's a great villain, an amazing character (one of my all-time favorite comic characters, actually)...but he cannot carry a movie on his own. I would love for them to do justice for the character the way Marvel Studios has done with Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, but logically speaking, how well can a solo Venom movie do without Spider-Man?

But then again, I could be wrong. Sony could pull this off pretty well.

..............

Nah....who am I kidding.

Extra Note : Oh, and you have to check this sh*t out. While browsing the net I came across a really awesome 3D render-thingy of Venom, done by some guy for his college project or whatever. And boy oh boy is it some sweet lookin' stuff. Seriously, this dude's version of Venom would have looked so much cooler on screen than whatever Sam Raimi had to offer.
Here's the URL : http://animation.art.br/3dart/venom/venom.htm