Takers (2010)

Takers (2010). I've had this movie too long to justify the cost of my BB Total Access Plan. I blame school. I've had a lot of reading, studying and homework to do and it's cutting into MY play time.

Anyway, just like any movie about heists and criminal schemes, this movie was pretty predictable. It was pretty good action, acting and all but it's just been done many times before. See movies like The Italian Job, The Score, and just about any Steven Seagal movie. The plot is simple: a group plans a heist, someone in the group is disgruntled and plans to screw over the others in the group, some people get hurt and/or die, the remaining group members get their revenge and live "happily ever after." Or as happy as you can be with a million or more bucks.

Unfortunately, there were a lot of scenes in this movie where I found myself saying out loud, "Bullshit!" Yes, yes, I know it's a movie but I do believe that you must maintain some semblance and "reality" to keep people's attentions if it's a reality-type movie and not some CGI or fantasy movie.

There are probably spoilers ahead in no particular order:

• Jesse (Chris Brown) is running from Jack and Eddie (Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez) through the subway, buildings, streets and parks. He's flying like one of those free runner guys...leaping over walls, fences, and vehicles. There is absolulely NO POSSIBLE WAY that Jack and Eddie would be able to keep up with him. Just not having it!
• The entire time the whole team, especially leader Gordon (Idris Elba), is careful to pay attention to Ghost's (T.I.) behavior and intentions. After the heist, they let their guard way down before being totally sure they made their getaway with the money. It leads to troubles. I don't believe a master planner would be so quick to lower his guard.
• Jack Welles is too smart to be a detective. He has all the answers to the many mysteries of finding out who the robbers are and shit. It's annoying for them to write a part like this. It reminds me of how annoying and unbelievable Det. Goren (Vincent D'Onofrio) was in Law & Order: Criminal Intent.
• They wrote Jack Welles as the cop that is too invested in his job...like every other detective movie. He has his daughter with him and he avoids being a father to her on his "off" day. Too typical and already done way too many times.
• I can't believe they killed off so many of the group. First, A.J. (Hayden Christensen in a part he did quite well in) get's killed in the backstabbing shoot-out in the hotel room after the heist. Jesse and Jake are tracked down (which isn't explained on 'how') to their house and have a shoot out with many policemen. Their survival or death not clear afterwards. John (Paul Walker) and Gordon are confronted by Ghost and Jack at the airport. Ghost is killed. Jack wounded. Gordon wounded and John are seen leaving to who-knows-where with a bajillion dollars.

Okay, so I've probably overanalyzed the movie. I'm not saying it was bad. I'm just saying it has already been done, better, previously.

In the end, it's a good watch if someone you know has it available to watch. Otherwise, you can wait to instantly watch it on Netflix when it becomes available.

The Human Centipede [First Sequence] (2009)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009). This is another movie that I was able to watch on my Netflix free trial. I think I had it on my Blockbuster Queue as well but I figured since I can get it on watch instantly, why wait for it to come in the mail.

I must say that I was quite disappointed with the movie. It was slow and too drawn out. It was pretty boring. Maybe if it had a better storyline/script and was about a maximum of 45 minutes long (and that's pushing it), it would have been a lot better.

The guy that played the doctor played the part fairly well. I mean he looked the part which added to his creepiness. I'm not sure that he could have fended off any of the individuals that became part of the "first sequence" if they decided to fight back before becoming "attached." He was pretty frail compared to the Asian guy as well as the two girls. I know they were drugged and all but after they were attached the Asian was pretty functional compared to the other girls. Yes. Yes. He was probably in a huge state of shock to wake one day to find some naked hot chick's lips surgically attached to his sphincter but I would think "fight or flight" would have kicked in at sometime.

I don't recall how the Asian guy got captured but the two girls are just plain stupid. If this doctor would have answered some door I knocked on, I would have turned tail. My danger radar probably would have been chirping if not blaring full blast. It's like if Lurch from the Addam's Family answered the door. I...Am...Outta...There!

I'm not medical enthusiast but I really didn't understand the point of removing the victims knee caps. Maybe it was to keep them from trying to "run" away but I would think that having your knee caps removed would hurt like fuck! As such, I would think it would hurt like fuck to crawl around on your knees.

The point of a horror movie is to inflict fear into an individual in the sense that they think this could actually happen. I don't think this movie did a very good job at that. I mean the occurences could happen but it wasn't a frigtful notion as much as it was an "Eh, it could happen but not likely" kind of thought.

SPOILER ALERT! I didn't like the ending much either. I didn't like how both the detectives/investigators were killed. They both got popped by a puny, scrawny, severly injured man. The first cop got cut and shot (I think). Granted he was feeling the effects of ingesting a bit of whatever drug the doctor put in his water. Note to self and readers: DON'T TAKE DRINK OFFERINGS FROM STRANGERS! The second cop, the seemingly smarter of the two, had a hell of a shot to the doctor's forehead but he himself was shot and died shortly after.

I did find it sickly amusing when the Asian guy had to shit. His reactions and emotions were priceless. It totally sucked ass (literally) for the girl stuck to his ass. This scene had to be one of the better of the entire movie.

So, at the end of the movie, I was left with two impressions:

1. I guess the 2nd sequence will probably start off with someone finding the doctor's insane "research notes" and decide to continue with his work since he's dead.
2. It sucks for the girl that "survived" to be the middle link of the three-pede. The guy's whose ass she is sucking on killed himself and her friend who's sucking on her ass died from infection. She is stuck in the middle (Ha! I crack myself up!).

In the end, I was very disappointed in this movie. I saw a bunch of previews and articles talking about it before it premiered that were more positive than negative. I guess my expectations were set too high. I felt like I was watching a movie made by a high school theater student with an old Hi-8 camcorder and some friends or random people he asked to be part of his "project film."

There was no mystery, suspense, intenseness, or ANYTHING that would keep someone interested. I, unfortunately, make myself watch all of a movie because I hate to not complete the watching of a movie. It's weird, I know. Anyway, even the very brief nudity of the two female characters that was shown was not enough for me to speak much more about this horrible film. I've already wasted too much time and effort.

If you haven't figured out my verdict yet, I will definitely tell you to pass on this movie. It is a waste of the studio's time, money and effort as well as yours. So listen to me and avoid it! Don't even listen to anyone that says ANYTHING positive about this movie. They lie and they don't know what the hell they are talking about. Just leave it on the shelf, literal and virtual.

Red (2010)

Red (2010). I had an unexpected day off from work yesterday. My kids were off for President's Day. We didn't know until Friday around 6pm when the school district emailed a "Just for clarification" email to explain/confirm the dates of make-up for the four missed ice/snow days near the first week of February. Anyway this led to me having to take a vacation day because I could not find any one to pawn my children off to. Now granted they are probably old enough to "take care" of themselves for eight hours during the daytime but a good excuse is the best excuse to take an unexpected day off. Besides, we had workers coming to the house and we needed it to be empty for them to work.

Anyhow, that was great of the district to let us know of the day off the Friday evening before the weekend before the day off.

I have had this movie in my possession way too long for my BBTAP membership. I think it's been like 2-3 weeks since I rented them. That's too damn long to fit into my cost-worth analysis.

The kids and I ended up watching this movie together. It's rated PG-13. There wasn't much bad in it other than cursing, some occasional blood, and some not-so-graphic assassinations/killings.

The movie was actually entertaining and funny. The kids thought it was fairly funny too. I was kind of bummed (spoiler alert) that Joe, Morgan Freeman's character, didn't survive the movie. I guess I can see the point as he went out doing what he knew and loved instead of letting his terminal cancer kill him slowly and painfully. Some people commented that they felt Malkovich was over the top and too high on LSD. I thought he played it perfectly. Willis' character is typical Willis these days: comedic ex-military specialist/killer/etc. Freeman's character was minimal but it was similar to a few of his recent/past roles: retired expert in whatever field he retired from. Mary Louis Parker's character was forgettable other than how attractive Parker has gotten over the years. I think her role could have been written out or differently but I don't think it was a central catalyst in the movie. She's still pretty hot in a weird kind of way. Helen Mirren is one of the hottest "old broads" I've seen in film these days. There's something about her that just hits a nerve within me. I can't explain it but it's a little weird to me in a cool way...like I want to see her topless just as much as Parker. I thought Mirren's character was well done and they explained and weaved her story well within the group. SPOILER ALERT! I almost cried when I thought she was going to die after gettig shot in the hip area. Richard Dreyfuss had a pivotal but small part. I don't recall seeing him in a movie in some time. It looks like he may have had some facial work done. Dreyfuss' role was short and sweet and not overdone.

Overall, I didn't know what to expect but I was pleasantly surprised and entertained. By all means, this is no award-winning film but it did the job it was supposed to do and did it fairly well which was enjoyable entertainment.

Nothing against the movie but I'm still a cheap ass so I would recommend this movie if you can get the $1 Redbox price or something under $3.

I Am Sam (2001)

I Am Sam (2001). Continuing with getting the most out of my free trial of Netflix, I saw this title available for instant play. I was going to take my time watching it but in the notes section of my queue it says, "Available until 2/15/2011." I don't know what that means or why but it made me start watching this movie today, at work but before my start time around 7:45am. I had to pause a few times once others started trekking into the office but I finally finished it this evening.

I didn't realize/remember that Dakota Fanning was in this movie. It's weird to see her young after just seeing her in The Runaways. She was so pale, blue-eyed and blond as a child. She could have been a real-life Powder-type.

Watching this movie reminded me of how hot Michelle Pfeiffer was. I don't recall seeing her in anything recently (past few years) or even in paparazzi shots so I don't know what she looks like presently. I was able to get a screen shot from the movie though. Those eyes. Those lips. That hair. Um...

Anyhow, this movie was fairly good. Getting closer to the end, I realized that I may have seen this movie already. If not the entire movie, at least the ending starting with when Dakota starts living with Laura Dern. I think the acting was well done even though Sean's character made me think I was watching Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man or Leonardo DiCaprio in What's Eating Gilbert Grape. Penn was kind of a combination of the two. I thought the supporting cast of the mentally challenged was hysterical and well-acted. I wanted to thumb Dern's character on the head for being such a bitch to Sam but I can understand where she was coming from. At the same time, Sam seemed to be able to raise Lucy up to the age of 7. Granted she was going to surpass him and the parent would become the child but the court could have supplied a support system or a tie to some church group or something. I guess it's better and cheaper to just take the kid away than to provide support. I can see that point of view as well.

So, before I get too carried away. I would recommend this movie. I wouldn't pay for it as it came out some eleven years ago but I'm guessing you won't find many friends with this in their movie collection.

By the way, did I mention how hot Michelle Pfeiffer was? With one exception, when she was crying and the bluish veins started showing through her pale skin in her forehead/temple. That was kind of gross because she looked like she was on her way to becoming one of the living dead.

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

After the ice/snow thawed this past Saturday, I was able to walk to my local Blockbuster and exchange my mailed movies for new ones. I picked up Resident Evil: Afterlife thinking it would be a decent choice. I've seen all the movies of the series and with each one I'm a little confused, a little bored, a little miffed and a little 'eh.'

It's been a while since I saw the last one (Extinction, was it?) so a few flashbacks in this one were semi-helpful in jogging a little bit of memory. The start of the movie was confusing to me. First, when did Japan become the new hub of the Umbrella corporation? Second, there are a jillion Japanese walking around this lone Japanese girl who is/seems normal. I figured what was coming and they didn't disappoint. The girl suddenly turns weird, dead, or whatever and starts chomping on a randomly chosen guy. They camera view pulls out from street level to sky level to space level showing the rate of infection which then leads to Alice (Jovovich) to search for survivors while bringing down Umbrella corporation.

So, here are my questions:

• How did this girl (Japanese one) get infected and how did she not die first then turn to zombie girl?
• When did Alice learn to replicate herself and how did this become a "power" of the T-virus? I don't recall her learning some new abilities from any of the movies other than being a badass ninja marksman.
• Where/how did the axe-wielding-hooded guy come from and what really was the purpose of his 5 minutes of screen time? How does he see through his burlap baggy? How was he smart enough to make his axe-anvil weapon but he couldn't kick Claire's ass? How did he find much less sneak into the showers without being seen, heard or asking for directions in that big ass jailhouse?
• How did Alice keep the quarters from falling out of the shotguns when the barrel was pointed down?
• Why didn't Claire and/or Alice somehow get naked in the shower fight with axe-wielder (or at ANY time)? It's not like there are lot of minor boys watching this movie since it veers too far from the game and hardcore gamers will not watch just for that fact. But it's also not like these boys haven't seen more or worse. All horror-type movies have female nudity at least in the top three requirements of being a horror movie.
• Why did Chris Redfield have to talk like Christian Bale's Batman?
• Where did the octopus-like mouths, tongues, or heads come from? Another side effect of the T-virus? Were these people injected by Umbrella or was this a natural mutation/reaction to the virus when they were bitten?
• Why did they make the Wesker guy have the personality and dress of Terminator? I mean the sunglasses, really?
• If Alice was made human by Wesker, how did she retain her badass-ness? I thought that was a bi-product of the T-virus.
• If Alice is indeed human and she gets bitten by the undead aka infected, would it just react with her body like it did originally?
• Before Alice was made "human," why did she run from the zombies because I thought she is (was) technically one of them?
• How does Umbrella have so many uninfected humans to fly the helicopters in the end? How many facilities do they have that weren't blown up by Alice?
• I hate endings like this movie had. I know it leaves it open for more sequels but when will/does it end?

I guess that's enough ranting. In the end, I thought the movie was watchable. I would not have paid to watch it at a movie theater unless it was at the $1 movie or better yet, 50-cent day. I was slightly excited and aroused at seeing Milla and Ali again but was disappointed in the lack of gratuitous bare skin shots aka boob shots of the two. I mean not even a shot of Ali in her white, wet t-shirt when fighting the axe guy. Bummer. The story line was fairly weak and barely existent but I kept watching hoping for more, for something. Maybe I was looking for an explanation and then closure. I didn't get it and I don't think anyone will with this movie. Let's sew this series up in the next and final movie or just leave it as it is. I can't handle another quickly thrown together senseless continuation...okay, I would still watch it but reluctantly and frustratedly.

That's my opinion. I liked the movie to an extent but it didn't have the same intenseness, suspense and horror as the first, second or how many ever there are. Try to borrow a friend's copy or watch instantly on your Netflix account that way you don't waste a DVD mailing.

Netflix

A week or so ago I got a promotional mailing from Netflix. It was promoting a free trial for a month. They gave me a promotional code and everything saying I was "special." They were lying. I waited a week or so to decide whether or not I wanted to take advantage of the trial as I already have Blockbuster's Total Access Plan. Granted, the TAP doesn't include streaming but I really don't have a need to watch online. Besides, I typically have time to wait for my DVDs to be mailed to me.

With this crazy ass snow storm we've been having in Dallas, it made me think about this free trial promotion. I have three movies I need to return to the BB store to exchange for three others but the freezing temperatures have not been very accommodating. I could walk there but I said to myself, "Self, why not try the Netflix free trial?" So, that's what I did. What's funny thought is that I believe the promotional code they gave me is just a way for them to track their marketing. Smart but not a special offer for me. I could have just signed up on the main page and received the same "promotion." Basically, I just signed up for a free 31-day trial of the 1 DVD out-at-a-time plan with unlimited time to watch instantly. And I have made as much use as possible in the past three days (since Feb 1st) of my unlimited watch instantly.

Before I get into my brief thoughts on the movies I have seen, I must say that I was initially stoked about being able to watch instantly on my laptop or my PS3 but it sort of wore off a bit as I find that many of the movies I've looked into viewing over the past few days are not available for instant play. I don't know the reasoning behind it because I have seen newer titles as well as 1 to 3 or more years old not available. I guess there is some agreement with the movie industry but again, I don't know. I can see the instant streaming being a blast for instant gratification when you get the immediate urge to watch a movie but if it's not available, it kind of defeats the purpose. I pay $19.99 + tax a month for my BB Total Access Plan with 3 out at a time (DVD or games) and unlimited DVD exchanges in the store. With Netflix, it costs $9.99 + tax for only 1 out at a time and unlimited watch instantly but with the limits of availability. Personally, I think I'm getting the better deal with Blockbuster. Of course, once BB increases my rate, I will probably not use any service and go back to just watching boring Saturday Night Live on the weekends. :-)

To the "reviews..."

Frozen. This movie was slow. It started out slow. It continued to be slow. It ended slow. I know it's a movie but there is no way that a ski resort would not make doubly sure that there are no people on the ski lift before shutting down. It was predictable on how/when the people were going to get stuck. It was further predictable on what the fate of at least one of the people was going to be even though it ended up being two. I don't know much about skiing or how to ski but I would think that someone would be dressed a little more warmly than the first "victim." I also don't understand why they didn't put up the hoods of their jackets to get/stay warm. I found myself saying, "Why don't you put yo' hood up dumb asses!?" One of the best and freakiest parts of the was when the guy jumps from the lift chair and his legs break/shatter. That was pretty cool and gross at the same time. Something I didn't get was when the broken-leg guy yells up to his friend about being careful on trying to monkey-bar the lift cable. He says, "Be careful. Those cables are razor sharp!" Why would these cables be razor sharp? Is it a side effect from being constantly run through the wheels of the lift apparatus or what? I need to know. I may have to Google this when I have time and can remember to. To me, this movie is a pass.

Exam. This movie was also a slow starter. It takes place basically in one room. I don't get how a corporation could allow the shit that went on in the room near the end of the movie but I guess I shouldn't question A MOVIE. Also, when there is only one question and you really don't know what the question is, big deal. It's just downright polite to answer someone when they ask, "Are there any questions?" I get the premise of the movie and how people feel like they have to solve problems or some shit. Personally, I think I probably would have kept quiet and bade my time for the 80 mins. It may have not been the "answer" but it would be better than making up answers or what I thought the interviewers wanted me to do. This movie too is a pass.

Unthinkable. This movie is not what I expected. I thought it was going to be about something else because I didn't read the synopsis or anything. I think Samuel L. Jackson speaks the same in almost all his roles. He either is loud or very loud. He's always yelling at people or talking to people with hostility. Other than that, I thought he did a very good job in this role. Carrie-Anne Moss has always been my leather/latex clad hottie. She's attractive without all the make up and highly doable. I've had a thing for her since she kicked ass in The Matrix. She did a pretty good job in her role as well. I hate movies like this though that end without a real ending. We don't know if there was a 4th bomb or not. Where was Carrie-Anne going with the terrorist dude's children and will they grow up hating America and follow their father's terror-laden footsteps? I do agree that the steps Jackson's character took is fully necessary. If the "terrorist" isn't going to be humane, why should the American government or any government be? Give respect and forgiveness for someone who does not reciprocate? I think not. I still think this movie is passable but I don't think it's a total disappointment.

Octane. There is absolutely nothing positive I can say about this movie. Actually, I can. This movie positively sucks dirty ball sacks! This seemed like it was trying to be a British Fast-&-Furious-type movie and it came up way, way short! The acting was poor. The female characters lacked interest and attraction. I think it should have stayed with its British title (I think) of Dolphins. The best part about this movie was the suped-up Ford Capri which looked like a Chevy Nova. Oh, bugger! You can probably write your own script and it would be better than this movie. I'd definitely pass on this one.

The Runaways. This movie actually wasn't too bad. It wasn't full of excitement, suspense, and intrigue but it was a good story about the starts of Joan Jett. Personally, I thought Kristen Stewart was better looking in this movie than in the Twilight series. Maybe it was the hair. Maybe it was the fact that she wasn't brooding and whining all the time. I don't know. It was the first role I've seen her in where she didn't act the same or similar to all the other roles. Dakota Fanning looked pretty good too. I feel gross saying that since I think she was playing at 16-yr-old and she is only 16 or 17 herself. I think it was the feathered hair and that she didn't play a typical role she's known for: cute, little big-eyed girl. I learned a few new things from this movie like who Cherie was and that Lita Ford was not just Lita Ford. She was part of The Runaways. Interesting to me but maybe not others. Overall, I think the movie was good. It was a biography of sorts and as such I think it did a good job without being boring.

The Girl Who Played With Fire. I was reluctant to continue my viewing of the series of "The Girl Who (With)..." movies. After watching the first movie, I wasn't impressed. In fact, I was left wondering what the hoopla was with this craptastic movie. My expectations were much lower for this movie but I found myself pleasantly surprised. This 2nd movie didn't seem as old-feeling...it didn't feel like it was shot on old 35mm film or something or like a VHS camera. Again, this could be what the original movie was going for but the slow story line and crappy acting didn't help better the movie. I think the Lisbeth has gotten better looking since the last movie. Again, maybe that's what they were going for in the first but I don't know. She had better hair. She seemed more interesting and I think her acting has improved. The overall acting and story line seemed much better to me as well. Unlike the first movie though, I had to read the subtitles because watching instantly on Netflix did not provide me with the subtitle option for English. I don't like the way it ended but I do understand it is a series so I'm accepting it. I think I will probably Netflix the next one (...Kicked the Hornet's Nest?) because I think I saw it available on instant play.

---

That's my experience so far with Netflix. I will continue to try and instantly watch as much as I can before I decide to cancel. Again, if I can't get the new releases I want to watch, then there is no reason for me to get Netflix. So far, I think it's overrated. Granted Blockbuster has fucked over a lot of people and I think that's why people hate it...kind of like Windows versus Macintosh. I've heard people say, "Dude, you got to get Netflix. It's so much better than Blockbuster." It makes me wonder what the hell these people are talking about. Maybe it's because I've been on BB for so long that price-wise I'm better off. I don't know. I personally don't see the advantage when I can get my DVDs (3 at a time for $19.99) and then exchange them at the store for three more compared to the same exact plan at Netflix (3 at a time for $19.99) and no store exchanges.

Villa Rides (1968)

Went home during lunch the other day and looked to see what was on my "free Showtime" channels. It turns out I get some channel called FLIX.

They had this older flick called Villa Rides from 1968. As previously mentioned, these movies are the reason why I don't pay for "premium" movie channels.

Anyway, I was curious to take a gander at it because the actors listed were Yul Brynner and Charles Bronson. What a combination! You got a guy that played some semi-peaceful king and a cold-blooded-vigilante-type good cop. Also, knowing that Villa is Mexican and the movie was about him I was interested to see who played the Mexicans in the movie.

It was sort of funny for me to see that Brynner was the main character, Villa, and Bronson was like the right-hand man to Yul's Villa. I found it amusing because they are European "whites" and yet they were playing North American Mexicans. They did pass the role fairly well themselves but the kicker was one of the females. A white, American aviator played by Robert Mitchum stopped by some church to say 'Goodbye' to his Mexican lady love who just happens to be very fair-skinned with the bluest blue eyes I have EVER seen on a Mexican woman much less ANY ethnic woman. She did have black hair which makes all the difference in making sure the audience knows she's Mexican.

The movie was okay to watch but I remember it more for the oddities of actors chosen for the parts. I guess they had to make due in the 'old days.'

Machete ( 2010)

Watched Machete today.

I thought it was an okay movie. It started with action and then it slowed down a little bit and then the action picked up again. Overall, I would say it was a 7 out of 10 at the most.

I did find it funny how Robert De Niro's character seemed to resemble a former Texas governor named George Bush. It was uncanny...and I'm sure totally planned.

I had to double-take to make sure that I saw Don Johnson. Former Mister Sonny or Nash has gotten WAY gray-haired and fat! He played a his part well though. It was funny to me how his character was killing Mexicans but to me he could have easily been mistaken as having Mexican descent.

Danny Trejo is one ugly son of a bitch and to see him kissing Jessica Alba made me upchuck a bit.

Speaking of Alba, she didn't look to "tidy" in this movie. I'm guessing it was part of her "hard working" ICE agent but they could have made her up a little. I mean Michelle Rodriguez looked hotter and she worked in a roach coach.

The blond wife of the senator's PR guy, Jeff Fahey, was ugly but attractive in a duality kind of way. I mean she looked older than she really is (maybe for her character) but the amount of boobage she showed made up for any faults she may have had.

Oh yeah and the girl on the left (or the to the right of Machete) in this NSFW photo, is NOT Lindsay Lohan. I have seen many photos of Lindsay's breasts and these are not hers. Plus, there was a shot of this girl's belly/body and it is not the same as earlier/later in the movie when you know it's Lindsay showing her nude-but-with-the-goods-covered body.

And about Lindsay's part in the movie and being on some promotional poster before the movie came out was overplayed or totally unnecessary. I think she was touted as "The Nun." She was a 'nun' for about 10-15 minutes at the end of the movie. She only shot her 'Daddy' (De Niro...and didn't even kill him). She had some machine gun that she fired into the air to scare whoever the random Mexicans and Rednecks from fighting each other.

Anyway, I thought the movie was worth watching. If you can borrow it from a friend for free, even better.

Inception (2010)

Some days ago before Christmas, the wife and I watched Inception (2010). I guess you could say we were excited. We heard a few reviews and comments. They all said it was a very good movie.

I guess in some way they were right. Okay, not really.

We didn't totally dislike the movie. We just didn't like it that much. We think the "liked its" were full of shit or had to be high on something at the time of watching.

Any more that requires that much explanation, about 30 minutes to an hour of the beginning of the movie is nothing but what dreams are, how they can be exploited, and inception. Too much talk a little more substance. Even the wife was bored and she likes the intellectual-type shit!

What I got from the movie is this:

• Ellen Page is like Kristen Stewart...they don't have much of a range with their acting abilities. Maybe the older they get and the more movies they do, as long as they aren't like the one they did before, they'll be able to hone their craft.
• Ellen Page is hot in a 'plain Jane' kind of way although she does have a weird walk.
• Leonardo Dicaprio gets uglier the older he gets. I mean he wasn't that cute, in my manly opinion, when he was younger but he is most definitely ugly now.
• I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt. There's just something about his personality and character in the few roles I've seen him in. He was funny in 3rd Rock from the Sun.
• Tom Berenger is old! I liked him in Platoon, Sniper and maybe a few others but he's all jacked up now these days like Ray Liotta.
• The movie was too long. I think it could have been like 45 minutes to an hour and it may have been more appealing to watch.
• I disliked at the end how they showed Dicaprio's spinning top thingy. How it didn't stop spinning or may have but they cut the scene just as it looked as if it would stop. I hate when they do shit like that in movies. I mean there has to be a better way to let people know that there is a possibility of a sequel. This industry standard right now is stupid. It's like how Jason Voorhees is dead at the end of Friday the 13th movies but then his eyes open right before the scene fades to black. Stupid!

So, I guess that's my take and partially my wife's of this movie. Personally, I feel like I wasted a couple of hours of my life but there have been other movies I've done so with as well. If you have nothing else to do, borrow this from a friend but I wouldn't pay more than $2 for the rental fee otherwise.

Altitude (2010)

Watched the movie Altitude (2010) today.

It's not a new concept. If you are going to remake/redo/rewrite a common concept, I'd recommend trying to do it equally if not better than the best way the concept was made. Confusing, I know.

The acting was typical and so was the characters. You have the dip shit, testosterone-laden jock...the pretty blond who is dating said jock but is coveted by semi-nerdy, quirky artsy dude...the smarter, more talented but more pretty girl...and the quiet, socially awkward, somewhat mysterious guy. They are all in this movie.

Without researching the movie, I thought it was about something totally different. As such, I think I was more disappointed to find out what it was about while watching and then the sub-par direction and story line of it.

It ended slightly different than I thought it would. Truth be told, I really didn't think about it too much. After about 20 minutes in, I started getting bored, distracted and began surfing the web on my netbook (I watched the movie on another laptop) and watching my the Tennis Channel on TV.

This movie is definitely a pass.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

— versus —

I watched the movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World the other night. After Googling for the movie cover, I came across these two variations. I think the one on the left is the one Blockbuster uses for the movie DVD rental. The one on the right I believe was used as a promotional poster. Anyway, I think I like the right one versus the left but the left gives a little more insight into what the movie entails.

I didn't know what the movie was about. I don't know what the comics are about (there are comics, right?). I just knew that it was a new movie out on DVD and it got good press and pretty favorable reviews.

After watching the movie, I can say that it was a decent flick. I enjoyed it a lot although sometimes I couldn't tell whether Scott was dreaming, fantasizing or the fighting and dating was real. I assumed that comes from lack of the comic knowledge. The movie kind of reminded me of Bruce Lee's Game of Death where he had to fight up levels to reach the "Big Boss" which the game Kung-Fu Master was based on as well.

Although Scott (Michael Cera) isn't a really attractive guy, I think the actress that played his sister, Stacey (Anna Kendrick), is a much more attractive love interest. I guess she didn't fit the "punk rock" girl look as well as Mary Elizabeth Winstead aka Ramona Flowers. Ms. Winstead just didn't have the eye-appealing wow factor for me but I guess for someone such as "bottom-of-the-social-ladder" as Scott would see it differently. One of the characters I really like was Knives (Ellen Wong). I think Wong played her character very well and the character itself was essential to many parts of the movie. I especially liked when Knives and Scott fought the big boss, Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman). It was quite entertaining and, for me, Knives stole her part of the fight scene.

Overall, I think the movie was pretty good. I'd watch it again and would even recommend it to a friend. I feel for Michael Cera though because he is pidgeon holed into one type of character no matter in what movie he is involved. He does it well and if he can make his millions off of it then he better do it while he can. Look at Jack Black. He was pretty much a one-dimensional actor. Funny as shit in what he did/does but where did he go? Hopefully, he banked his paychecks!

Anyway, if you get a chance to watch Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, you wouldn't be wasting your time...in my opinion.

The Lost Boys: The Thirst (2010)

The Lost Boys: The Thirst (2010). Watched the listed movie a few nights ago. To start, I must say that to me it was better than Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008). Either they had a little bit bigger of a budget or they decided to make a graphically better movie. I'm not saying it was hugely better...just better.

They upped the ante by adding a few shots of boobies and made the death of the vampires more Blade-like where they sort of explode in ember ash. Zoe and Gwen are pretty hot additions but they weren't utilized quite enough or properly, in my opinion.

The acting still was somewhat sub par. The story line slightly week. The lame attempts to appeal to the fans with flashbacks to Sam and the Frog Brothers in the original movie. The lame voice of Edgar Frog trying to be more fierce than he really is (that's not the way he was in the original). They sort of took themselves [the Frogs] too seriously.

To keep from rambling on, I'd say if you are a fan then it's sort of a requirement to continue viewing the sequels no matter how bad they might be. If you aren't a fan, then I'd say you could find someone to clip the pieces together of the hot and sometimes naked chicks. It would be more worth your time and effort than watching the entire movie.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010). I posted about this movie (here) before it actually came out with some opinions. Now that I've seen the movie I can fully share based on actual viewing. I made it sound official but I'm just going to type random thoughts and observations.

So, as I previously mentioned, Jackie Earl Haley sucked as Freddy. He wasn't scary to me at all. Now that could be because I'm older than when I saw the other Nightmare movies but I still get a chill every now and then when I see something that really "scares" me. The mask that Jackie wore made him look more like an alien-type thing because it kind of smashed his nose (probably planned that way) unlike the original Freddy mask. I prefer the nose because for me it made him more menacing and scary. Maybe it was the overall shape of the mask, I don't know, but it just wasn't as scary. Not to mention that even in make up, Jackie's bright, blue eyes shown through making him look more like a mishap burn victim versus an evil, vengeance-ridden dream killer.

The choices of actors that look like high school students obviously was not a priority. The blond girl and that guy from Twilight looked too old although the Twilight guy (I think he was Dean in the movie) was short-lived...literally. The blond girl playing Kris was on the Melrose Place remake. She looks even older than Twilight guy. After Googling the cast, the three other people are at least 23 years old but they didn't "look" as old as the others, especially that guy that was the first victim in the movie with Megan Fox where she ate guys.

The death of Kris was very reminiscent of one of the other movie's characters (I think the first girl in the original). The way she was slammed around the room and ran up the walls and ceiling and then slashed across her chest, which didn't expose any boobage I might add, dammit! Also, the way her boyfriend was chased by the cops, captured and then subsequently killed in his cell was very original-like as well.

The bathtub scene with...oh shit, Nancy like from the original. I think I've made a correlation here or something. Okay, never mind, two different last names but both Nancy...Nancy is very similar, to similar for me, to the original Nancy bathtub scene.

The plan to get Freddy out of their dreams and into the real world is a good idea although I'm not sure why it never works. If he can kill in "his world" and it affects the real world, why won't getting him into the real world and killing be the end of it? I just don't get it other than the fact it would allow for shitty sequels. At the end of the movie when Freddy appears in the mirror and Nancy sees him (while not dreaming) and is able to reach from the mirror and jab her mother in the back of the head and through her eye sockets (which was really cool) and pull her back into the mirror really pissed me off. I just don't know what the hell is going on: is Freddy in the real world or is he not? Is he able to be finalized (deader than dead) or not? I just don't like this unending ending!

Finally, I was able to walk through my dark house and go to bed without issue of having after fear (that's like after shocks for an earthquake). Where is the fear? I could chalk that up to age difference but they previewed The Exorcist before playing the movie and seeing Linda Blair with her green face, blueish eyes, and pop-out varicose veins gave me the chills like I got when I saw it back when I was a kid some 20+ years ago. Look at it here.

So, I would consider this movie a major fail and you can pass on viewing it. If you want to see a Nightmare movie, rent the original (for better scare factor) or Dream Warriors (for the brief shot of the awesome boobies nurse).

Get Him to the Greek (2010)

Saturday night I rented and watched Get Him to the Greek (2010). I'm not much of a Russell Brand or Jonah Hill fan. I think they are both one-dimensional actors. Jonah's movies are pretty funny. The self-deprecating roles are his strong suit. The fat-guy-makes-fun-of-self-and-girl-likes-his-honesty-and-thinks-he's-cute roles are not true-to-life because the girl may think he's cute but she IS NOT going to make out with HIS ass. Russell Brand...he's just, well, Russell Brand. Cooky, crazy and he played his part well.

I think I typed about getting either Robin Hood or Get Him to the Greek a few posts or so ago and how the Blockbuster employee said he'd pick Robin Hood. Now, after seeing both, I'd have to say that they were equally enjoyable. I actually think I liked Greek slightly better because it was a better comedy than Hood was an action/drama.

My favorite role was that of Sergio, aka. Sean Combs. I think P.Diddy's lines were written well and his delivery was energetic and hilarious. Sergio's overall lines were nowhere near as much as the two main characters and yet his screen time is more memorable to me. There were times I remember with Russell and Jonah but Sean's just struck me as spot-on for the role with a side of comedy without being too obviously comedic. And just so you know where I'm coming from, I can't stand Puffy! He's grates my nerves with his arrogance and pompousness in his MTV shows and his overall ego he gives off. I don't doubt the guy is genuine and honest but to profess that he's a king of something is way over the top (but at least he's closer to it than that blow hard Kanye West).

Anyway, I thought Greek was a very enjoyable movie. I wasn't expecting it to be with the comments from the BB employee and some online but I think they are mistaken. I expected much more from The Hangover and I feel it wasn't as good as a movie as many professed. I wouldn't pay $10 for it but I would try to bogart it off a friend.

Iron Man 2, a sort of review

I walked into my local Blockbuster to exchange my mail-order movie for an in-store movie last Thursday. I was intent on getting Iron Man 2. All of their copies were rented out. So, now I had a dilemma on my hands: what to watch instead.

I narrowed it down quickly as my kid and her friend were waiting for me in the car. I decided on either Robin Hood(2010) or Get Him to the Greek. There wasn't any other new releases that were "jumping out" at me to say, "Pick me! Pick me!"

I was having difficulty in choosing between the two because I figured "Greek" was more of a stupid humor movie while I felt "Robin Hood" was another telling of an all-too familiar story line.

I walked to the check out counter and said, "So, since you guys don't have Iron Man 2 in stock..." The BB guy said, "You mean this," while holding up a copy of Iron Man 2. I was like, "Dude, I love you man!"

While checking out, I told him I was going to ask him which movie to pick between Robin Hood and Get Him to the Greek. He said that Robin Hood was a better quality movie although Greek was funny. I mentioned that I thought the Robin Hood story was overplayed. He said this was actually a prequel to before he became "Robin Hood." I was like, "Oh." Anyway, I got Iron Man 2 to watch and I'm sure I'll get the others sometime in the near future.

I must say that I'm a little disappointed in the movie. I expected a little more than I was given. It was a decent movie...mayb 3.5 to 4 out of 5 stars. If I recall, I think the first Iron Man had a bit more overall action and better story line. I could be wrong because it has been a while since I saw the first movie.

I'm going to type about things that didn't follow suit for me because that's what I do.

• Howard Stark was so far forward in his genius that he created the schematic for a new element but he just didn't have the technology at the time to create it? But he knew the future enough to share what Tony needed to do to make it?
• Ivan Vanko built an arc reactor-based weapon from his father's notes. When he's on the Grand Prix track in Monaco, he walks down the middle of the track and the driver's are able to avoid him while seemingly driving at least 80-100mph. Why? Plow the guy. He's obviously illegally on the track so MOW...HIM...DOWN.
• Also, Happy plows the Rolls Royce into Vanko and pins him quite harshly to the Grand Prix track perimeter wall. Why didn't Vanko get broken legs or suffer badly before dying? He wasn't wearing super, specialize armor like Iron Man. I hate it when movies make people who have a "gift" invincible...of course, I guess I need to read the comics to realize Vanko's character. Oh well!
• Scarlett Johansson's character, I forget her name because that's how important it was to me, is way hot but c'mon really? I don't think ANY woman could punch me in the face and knock me out or make me lose a fight! Okay, I know it's a movie but still. Now, I'm not saying I'd win a fight against a highly-skilled female fighter. I'm just saying it would take a little more than a punch and kick to the head for me to cry, "Uncle!"
• Samuel L. Jackson is overrated! That's right. I'll say it again, "OVERRATED!" He acts the same in just about every one of his movies (almost like Ashton Kutcher, Steve Carrell, Jack Black, and that dude from Knocked Up. The yelling or loud-volume conversation Nick Fury has with Tony Stark in the restaurant made me think of him in Pulp Fiction and a couple of other roles he's had.

Um, I had more to bitch about but it's been a day or two since I started writing this. So, I'm done. I've lost train of thought. I had to study for a test, develop some film and make some prints. I've got a life besides blogging. Dammit!

Ninjas vs. Zombies

Out of pure curiosity, I had to put Ninjas vs. Zombies in my Blockbuster queue a week or so ago. I finally got a chance to watch it this past weekend and I must say that I was sorely disappointed.

I didn't expect much but I expected more than I got. It was very campy but way too cheesy to be interesting. It starts off very slow and doesn't speed up much along the way. It'll probably become one of those "cult movies shot for $35,000 with their father's old VHS camcorder." I wouldn't give it that much clout but it will probably happen with the kids of today that like the repetitive songs like "Alejandro," "California Gurls," "Baby," and the like.

I think I lost you but the point is that the kids of today...and some adults...are mindless and think that these songs are "the bomb" which they are in my definition of "bomb" which is a dud. Don't get me wrong. These songs are definitely catchy but when you hear them every 20-30 minutes on the radio and they repeat the same 4-5 lines in the song for 3-5 minutes, the song gets a little annoying and old!

Damn! Off track again. What I mean is there are people that will probably make this a "hit" just because they are mindless like...well, zombies. Bam!

I read somewhere that this movie was Evil Dead-like. NOT...EVEN...CLOSE! Evil Dead should sue whoever made that lame ass comparison. Is that slander or libel? Libel is written, right?

Anyway, there was no creativity to this movie. There was nothing new to this movie. There was nothing good about the filming, lights, make up, costuming, or acting. There were decent parts but they were few and far between. There was occasional but very little quirky, good humor.

If you have a bad movie, one way to make it better or more appealing to men anyways is to add female nudity. This movie had one scene about 15 minutes from the end when briefly there was a busty naked chick. She was there and gone within about 4 seconds. Earlier in the movie, two girls were in a bedroom talking. One girls is getting dressed or undressed, I don't know which. She was decent looking with a nice body and all she showed were her black, lace bra and panties.

That's it!? Really?! I was robbed of all good horror and nudity! I was scammed.

There's a phrase in the book that is used multiple times by one of the black magic guys and it says, "ELSEWHERE!" which is where I wanted to be about 5-10 minutes into the movie!

I can't recommend this movie to ANYONE, sorry guy who made it. I'd much rather watch Clerks again and not get the reason for it's cult following. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean it wasn't a overall way better movie than this one.

Fred: The Movie (2010)

Okay, I'm embarrassed to say that I watched Fred: The Movie (2010).

I didn't want to watch it but I was flicking through the channels and saw a commercial for it. I had to see what story line they would use as a movie plot. I don't think Fred is funny. I think he's kind of stupid, ignorant, retarded and just plain lame. Apparently though, the WWW doesn't think so. I hear he's some kind of Internet "phenomenon." I've seen his YouTube videos and I must say that he knows how to edit video. But his acting abilities? Hm...obviously some kids dig it.

So, I had to watch the start of the show just to see how bad it is. I still couldn't believe they made an entire movie for Fred. Once I started watching I had to complete it to see where they went with it and how it ended up.

I must say that I cannot get back those roughly 120 minutes of my life. It was so horrible that I couldn't move away from the TV except during the commercial breaks. But then I found myself returning for more of the abuse. I don't really know why. I guess it's one of those bad movies that I have to say, "I've seen it," even when I really didn't enjoy it or go around bragging about seeing it.

It's seen. It's done. I'm moving on.

Halloween II (2009)

I just finished watching Halloween II (2009) crapped out by Rob Zombie.

I must say that I fully agree with the comments on Blockbuster.com where people mention that this movie sucked and how Rob Zombie should stop making movies or someone should stop him if he won't stop. Granted I watched his previous movies because I had to see what they were like, but I could have lived my life without seeing (although would I have known that if I didn't see them) and I won't be bragging to my friends and family about how they have to see these Rob Zombie movies like the Devil's Rejects, House of 1000 Corpses and whatever else he was allowed to film. (I'm not wasting my time to link these movies as you can waste your time to Google them if you want it so badly.)

But back to this movie...truthfully, I would have much rather watched a Barney movie--yes, that purple dinosaur. Most of this movie's story line was weak and not well thought out. I have no idea what the fuck the white horse truly symbolizes because the lame text that was put at the beginning of the movie did nothing to bolster my knowledge. Maybe I missed the "deeper" meaning or maybe I just didn't really care knowing this was just another slasher movie remake. I can't tell you what happened in Halloween (2007) which Zombie made as well. That's how forgettable it was and now this one will follow. To add to how bad the first Zombie Halloween was...after seeing her in Zombie Halloween II and Googling Danielle Harris (who is kind of hot) because she looked like the little girl in some other Halloween movies (which she actually was the little girl), it turns out that Ms. Harris was topless in Zombie's H1. So, if I of all people did not recall her showing her boobs in a movie, the movie has to be overwhelmingly bad and forgettable!

Most of the problem with these movies based on psychopathic human killers, is they make them out to be so indestructible and extremely powerful. Michael Myers is a human male. He is a psychotic killer with mommy issues. He is not immune to bullets, knives, fire, or car crashes and yet he is portrayed as this murderous deity. In Zombie's H2, a supposedly dead Michael survives a pretty destructive vehicle crash at the start of the movie. He tosses 150lb men like they are 5-lb potato sacks. He is weirdly aggressive and noisy in his killings (he never huffed and puffed in the earlier, non-Zombie movies). He lifts and turns over a car, albeit was a Yugo or Rabbit, all by himself. And yet, Michael Myers was just a screwed up 10-yr-old boy when he was committed. I don't know about you but I'd like to be committed if it turns me into a hulking 7-ft tall man but I'd have to keep the Myers-like killing under control.

The Michael Myers of old was eerie and scarier to me. Maybe that's because I was younger when I saw the first few originals. He never walked fast but seemed to always be where the victim was going. This new Michael has a fastidious gait which seemed to me to make him less imposing and threatening. I just wasn't feeling it.

Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis just wasn't the right fit either or maybe it's the direction the character was taken. Donald Pleasence's Dr. Loomis was a truly compassionate and caring man in the original. He wasn't seemingly self-centered as McDowell's portrayal made him out to be. McDowell's Loomis was more like Dr. Phil of today...worried more about how much T.V. time and incoming cash flow can he get.

Anyway, take my advice and pass on this remake. I don't even think I would recommend borrowing it from a friend who already made the mistake of renting/buying it. It's really not worth wasting two hours of your precious time. Trust me!

Chloe (2009)

Just quickly, in the movie Chloe (2009), Liam Neeson is pissed that his wife, Julianne Moore, had an affair. Once she tells him she slept with another woman (Amanda Seyfried) and explains that she felt unsexy and not knowing how to seduce him, he starts to seductively and deeply kiss her.

So, what do we learn from this?

One - That men can forgive a woman for cheating on them as long as it was with another (preferably hot) woman.

Two - That men also get very aroused at the concept of their woman having sex with another (preferably hot) woman that he doesn't care that she "technically" cheated on him. He's instead thinking that this could work in his favor like in a menage a trois.

So, the movie was okay. It was interesting and slow at times but the partial and full boob shots made it worth my while. About halfway through, you can probably guess part of the plot because it's been done before in some form or fashion.

Amanda's just got some beautiful...eyes...that you could get lost in. At 49, Julianne is still pretty hot and sexy.

The New World (2005)

The New World (2005). As you can see, this movie is from five years ago. I had it on my queue and decided to check it out at my local brick and mortar BB because I had a coupon for a free non-new release DVD. Free is always good when it comes to DVD rentals.

So, anyway, this movie is supposed to be based on the story of John Smith and Pocahontas. There is a character of John Smith and one of Pocahontas. She protects him from being killed by her people. They become close and fall in love with each other. That's about the extent to which this movie is similar to the animated movie, Pocahontas.

The wife and I watched it together. After the movie was over, we both thought, "That was interesting."

First let me say that this is a long movie. I think it was 2 hours and 20 minutes but not totally sure. Although 2 1/2 hours may not seem all that long compared to Lord of the Rings or something similar, the movie seem way longer because there was very little actual dialogue. There was a lot of speaking but not directly from the actors on screen. It was sort of like a narration or oration over a scene that was taking place. The wife and I joked that there was probably three pages of actual person-to-person speaking on screen. This is part of the reason the movie seemed to drag on for me.

The scenery was absolutely gorgeous. I don't know where it was shot but the country and water scenes were just Kodak-moment type shots. The acting wasn't phenomenal but it wasn't disappointing.

I did see one correlation between this movie and the animated movie when I just recently looked them up on IMDB. Christian Bale is in both of them. He voiced Thomas (the kid that basically started the fighting with an itchy trigger finger) in Pocahontas and he played John Rolfe (who falls in love with John Smith's [Colin Farrell] sloppy seconds) in The New World.

If you have a rainy, boring day that you just need something to do, you can watch this movie. We actually watched it over almost a day because of some parental/adult responsibilities or just because it was time to take a break and feel rejuvenated by stepping outside for a bit.