Hit & Miss Review: "Pacific Rim" and "R.I.P.D."

This past month has seen some high profile movies do very poorly at the box office. Lack of interest from the audience, poor marketing and horrible word of mouth aside, I feel the urge to discuss two of them - one that deserved to be shunned and one that didn't. If either or both are still playing at a theater near you, hopefully my quick words will sway you in the right direction:

The Hit

Considering the success of the (ugh) Transformers series, I'm honestly shocked at the reception for Guillermo del Toro's latest. The premise of giant alien monsters being fought by human piloted giant robots is one that we've all probably thought up, most likely during our childhoods. I can remember playing out epic scale fantasies in my room, even imagining camera angles and special effects. Yes, other kids were going on their first dates while people like me and Mr. del Toro were thinking up monster battles.

And when a movie like Pacific Rim finally comes along? You go see Grown Ups 2. Shame.

On the wikipedia page for the movie, it's mentioned that del Toro wanted to capture the same sense of awe that Goya's The Colossus instills. The painting is absolutely breathtaking, and when the fights do happen between the bots and monsters, I get chills.

The huge creatures and machines, contrasted against building and people, put me in the same kind of anxiety I get when driving next to a skyscraper. When fighting, we get a sense of weight and depth - real world rules applied to insane scenarios. People and cities are in genuine peril, creating genuine heroes out of the pilots and crewmen. Unlike in some recent superhero films, there is no time for brooding emotions or doubt; you must get the job done, or people will die. Simple and to the point.

Pacific Rim is a fresh reminder of all the fun that cinema can and should be. It's story is simple, it's effects are complex and it's mission to entertain is 100% fulfilled. Well, for those that saw it, anyways. If it doesn't have Adam Sandler in it, why bother, right? Pfft.

5/5 *s

The Miss

Considering the success of the Men in Black series, I'm not surprised that Hollywood took a chance on a movie about afterlife cops. I AM surprised, however, that lead actor Ryan Reynolds was also an executive producer of this film, putting on him a level of responsibility for the final product, with emphasis on product.

With a story about a dead cop getting recruited for an organization of deceased policemen called the Rest In Peace Department - who arrest and erase non compliant souls called "dead-os" - R.I.P.D. should've been a fun mix of Beetlejuice and the Will Smith / Tommy Lee Jones buddy cop alien movies mentioned above. Instead, and perhaps not surprisingly, it's just a mess. A mess that asks for a 3D surcharge.

Lame jokes at inappropriate times, twists that felt obvious and unnecessary, a most formulaic formula and an "I could care less" atmosphere, the movie screams like an assembly line production. The powers that be took the source material, watched a MIB II (I'm guessing), and said "Let's mesh them together! Money!" They got a noname director (sorry) who wouldn't ruffle any feathers, demanded that this be a "movie for everyone" and wrote a check.

Poor Ryan Reynolds; he pulled another Green Lantern. Just let him do a Deadpool film already.

The film ends with Mary Louise Parker putting the end of Jeff Bridges' beard in her mouth and biting it. It
was the last visual I caught before feeling the dry heaves. Earlier today, I debated buying American cheese product, but I won't debate rewatching THIS product. The answer will be a no.

1/5 *s

Review: "World War Z"

In This is the End (which I quite liked), Emma Watson remarks to her celebrity friends that she believes the disaster that has hit Hollywood is a zombie apocalypse. Now, it turns out to be the rapture in that movie, and not a single zombie is actually seen. But This is the End does share some common ground with that horror genre. The setting is a tight space (a house), and the characters pose an equal threat to each other when compared to what is happening outside.

Traditionally, the zombies are merely a catalyst for getting the characters together, and presenting the real threat - humans. We bicker, fight, make selfish choices and even kill one another. The looming danger outside only heightens the true danger inside. Commentary through horror. If only we had just gotten along.

Brad Pitt's World War Z is a sort of mix between 28 Days Later and Outbreak, with less insight into humanity and politics and more money spent on... action? Star power? CG zombies?

The story is about an ex U.N. investigator that has been tasked with assisting in finding the origin of (and possible cure for) a plague that is quickly turning the world into ravenous beasts. The word zombie is spoken here and there, and with a sense of "you've got to be kidding me" from those talking about it. We are thrown into a mysterious worldwide disaster with grave consequences and palpable tension. Refugee camps, walled up cities and command centers in the ocean. That's the contingency plan, folks. We're screwed.

The actors all do a fine job of getting us invested in these events, showing exhaustion and uncertainty very well. It's fun and suspenseful watching people quietly move around the undead by using greased up bicycles. It's terrifying having to calm down your children, while they cry for their blanket in the midst of a crisis. And it's hilarious when we see several closeups of a zombie biting down on his teeth like a squirrel.

Wait... what?

Indeed. Emotional intensity is undercut by unintentional hilarity and overdone action set pieces. Over shadowing moments that reflect the good and bad people do in panic mode are silly chases and conveniently placed sequences meant to stop your heart. There is a scene early on when Brad Pitt's wife is almost raped in a grocery store aisle. Not by zombies, but by regular men. Everyone is scrambling for food, water and medicine, and here are these scumbags, causing a problem where there doesn't need to be one. The opening of this movie is filled with things like this. Later, just after a city is destroyed in a pulse pounding rampage, a zombie attack happens on a plane. Why? Because it would be exciting to have an attack happen on a plane.

Oh, and the zombie actors were either instructed or given permission to bang their heads against walls with funny sounding foley attached.

I'd be willing to bet these were problems that came from the troubled production, and the editors did what they could to have it all make sense. It does, but the tone feels off. The movie tries too hard at pleasing every person in the audience - an effort that ends up a detriment. The irony of it all is that if they had left the original ending alone, the end result would've been a captivating cliffhanger and a ballsy move. Instead, they chose to play it safe. Such a shame.

The only commentary I took from World War Z is that when pushed into a corner, people will do what they can to survive. I'm not talking about the characters, but the behind the scenes people. Trapped in an office, feeling the walls closing in, they only made the situation worse. If only they had just gotten along.

2/5 *s

Bad Dude Status: "Jack Reacher"

Beyond that internet meme from Duke Nukem, the title of Bad Dude is something reserved for the most awesome of heroes. Not boy scouts and not anyone with any respect for our “code of law”. These guys are willing to make a boy scout cry if necessary. They have their own law. And if you fall within their jurisdiction...

I plan on, through a series of blog entries, explaining why some characters are bad dudes, why some are not. Maybe doing this will reveal something wonderful and/or sickening about us as an audience. To help me out will be fellow critic and purveyor of the exploitative, The Cine-Masochist! Enjoy:

My first RedBox rental - something I had been putting off for a long while - was the Tom Cruise production of the Tom Cruise starring Jack Reacher. The poster spoke to a very primal side of me: a serious looking man in front of a cityscape with the American flag superimposed over it. The ad team could’ve easily put some explosions on it, or a gun in Tom’s hand, but no need. He IS the weapon. He IS the danger. He is so much these things, that the title needs to only be his name. Damn. 

Is Jack Reacher a Bad Dude?

First off, who is he? In the movie, Jack has a ghost like mystique about him. He’s a drifter, only appearing when he’s been called upon. He wears only one set of clothes per mission (that he gets at Goodwill) and “borrows” cars when he needs them. I don’t think he has an I.D. in his wallet, or a wallet at all (please correct me if I’m wrong). All he needs are his abilities. He is THAT confident, and you should be THAT scared.

The kind of villains he’s up against are quite villainous. We have a military sniper and a man known only as “Prisoner Human Being”, played by the one and only Werner Herzog. When someone fails him, he offers a choice of either being shot or proving to have the will to survive. How? By chewing off your own finger. Normally, they just prefer to be shot. “Always the bullet. I don’t understand” he says. It’s been said that you can judge your hero by the nature of the villain. In this case, our hero better have his stuff together.

Beyond being a loner and up against a stone cold baddie, Jack can walk the walk and, almost more importantly, talk the talk. When needing to interrogate a witness, a desk clerk asks to be shown some I.D. Jack has a counter offer to “show” him the back of an ambulance. When backed into a corner, Jack says, over the phone, “I mean to beat you to death and drink your blood from a boot.” And not in an angry manner, but an “as a matter of fact” way.

When he drives a car, he makes sure the engine purrs like a kitten. When he fights, he makes sure to leave a mark and an impression. When he shoots, he rarely misses. And when he misses, he’ll make you suffer.

Jack Reacher can be seen as nothing but a vanity project; an effort by an A-list actor to claim dominance and pound his chest. Yes, this is that. Everything in this is only meant to supplement Tom and his bad assery. It might be the most blatant example of it in his whole catalog, and should probably be disliked because of that. Only if it didn’t work. Watching a character whose only development is that he can wreck anyone and anything is just so entertaining. There really isn’t anything being said about the act of vengeance, the concept of justice or anything that could illuminate an audience. It’s got atmosphere, tension, danger and moxy without bothering to worry about pathos. Ironically, that one thing that could’ve put this movie over the top would’ve held it back some. And nobody holds Jack back.

So, does Jack Reacher in Jack Reacher achieve Bad Dude status? Here's CM:

First off, thank you for having me in mind, Bill!

And in regards to Jack Reacher? Yeah! HELL YEAH! definitely a Bad Dude.

This is a character that reflects on the days of old, the action heroes of the 80's and early 90's that were brutal, cunning and got the job done. This no nonsense approach has really been making a resurgence lately, with films like Dredd, Jack Reacher and of course, The Expendables. I think audiences are craving this in the action films they go see, proving that characters like Jason Bourne, just...don't quite cut it as bad ass action heroes.

I mean hell, look at the Daniel Craig Bond films! Even James Bond has been pumped with a dose of Bad Dude status. He's big and strong, and absolutely wrecks people's shit. Action fans want that escapism, they want to root for this larger than life Bad Dude, and Jack Reacher gives them that.

I hope that makes sense, and again, thanks for having me!

Status - ACHIEVED 

Review: "Man of Steel"

For me, one of the most striking images after 9/11 was on a local news report. The reporters did a regular feature on paintings and drawings made by Elementary School kids, based on current events. One child, after witnessing the terrorist attacks on New York, drew a crayon colored picture of Superman, stopping one of the planes from crashing into one of the towers, having arrived just in the nick of time. Sad that there is no real superhero in our world, but hopeful because potential for good exist within all of us. This meant more to me than President Bush standing on top of rubble, calling for payback.

You see, Superman is about doing the right thing, even in the face of unimaginable horror. He doesn't give in to senseless rage, nor does he use his powers for selfish reasons. Well... except for when he turned back time to save Lois Lane. And does breaking a man's neck count as rage if done to save a group of people?

It's hard making such decisions, especially when you can do almost anything. But, that's part of what makes the character so compelling. In his latest film adaptation Man of Steel, we get an origin story laden with this.

Before he was Clark Kent, he was named Kal-El, the first and last naturally born child of the planet Krypton. Knowing the destruction of that world was imminent, his parents launched him into space, sending the craft to Earth. There, he is raised by a kind hearted Kansas couple. He spends his youth struggling to do what comes naturally to him (saving the day) and trying to keep his abilities a secret (what his Earth parents want). Eventually, after years of drifting from place to place, he discovers a relic of his home world and learns his true destiny, just when we need him the most.

At first glance, this movie is merely a feast for the eyes. From Russell Crowe riding a dragon to a New York like Metropolis falling apart building by building, the level of visual candy and destruction is absolutely overwhelming. Punches, kicks, sonic booms and explosions are louder than in any superhero film I've seen recently. Leaving the theater, it felt like Director Zack Snyder out did his own style to the point of detriment. "A Superman movie for a new era" this was called. Fine, but what does it say of this era? Bigger is not necessarily better. They tried a slow moving drama with Superman Returns, and people complained that it lacked action. Well dummy, now you got it.

At second glance and after conversations with colleagues, I realized the enormous visuals distracted me from what was under the surface. Themes of self discovery, doubt and making difficult choices are strewn throughout. Clark spends many years learning just who he is exactly. He finally uncovers the truth (and his suit), and goes home to tell his mother, still confused as to what should happen next, but momentarily happy to have some answers. When General Zod, a Kryptonian with ties to his birth family, threatens Earth, Clark is given the reality check of a lifetime. Sometimes, the only way to get someone out of an existential rut is to shake them out of it.

From there, Clark puts on the suit, tries things out for the first time, and learns along the way just what he is made of. We don't get many scenes of dialogue expositing lessons learned, but we do get to see them as they happen. At one moment, he is forced to do an act he'll hopefully never have to do again, and gets emotional afterwards (you'll know it when you see it). He didn't do something as grand as turning back time, but it was just as jaw dropping to witness, and may haunt him for some time. This Superman is not yet whole as an individual, but is finally ready for the next phase of his life. Is the world ready?

Thrown headfirst into the dilemma of fighting against people of his past, to protect the people of his present, Clark's internal problems have become external, for everyone to see. He experiences one nightmare, only to wake into a real one. Using all of his powers to their fullest capabilities for the first time, he wings the situation, learning as he goes. Sure, it all comes naturally to him, and he is no longer holding back, but you get the sense that he may be uncertain (and possibly afraid) as how to win the day. Where Captain America is confident and steadfast, this Superman is powerful yet doubtful. He flies through the air with heavy emotion on his face, like someone rushing to complete multiple food orders (maybe more dramatic than that). He WANTS to save everyone, but doesn't really know HOW. It's the coming of age story of a lifetime, when you think about it. It's not going to be easy Supes, but just know we're all behind you.

In preparing this review, I doubted not only my rating of this movie, but also that of Star Trek Into Darkness, which I think shares something in common - both are big, loud, and on the surface deviate from the source material. It might appear that spectacle trumps smarts, but brain and brawn work side by side in both (to varying degrees). Still, what I would give for a 1970's style sci fi flick. We can handle it, Hollywood! Give me a depthful crayola drawing over a shallow photo op any day.  

4/5 - 5/5 *s, depending on how I feel at a given time.

Review: "The Purge"

One night of unrestrained, perfectly legal violence. For this future version of America, this Purge is a Holiday in the vein of the 4th of July. We faced the collapse of our country, and our leaders "solved" it all - by allowing us to bludgeon each other during a 12 hour period once a year. Low unemployment, low crime, no government debt. Clearly, this works.

The Purge is not about how this night came to be, who implemented it or how it should be taken down, but instead what could potentially happen during it. A well off white family attempts to go through the night, guarded with what has been billed as a tight security system, in peace. Unfortunately, the young son lets a poor black man, who is being chased by psychopathic hunters, in. The hunters threaten the family, causing them to confront the morality of the nights events directly.


These hunters are young, also white and also well off. They firmly believe in the principles of this night, and will go to great lengths to kill one man, despite the fact that they could just leave their safe / guarded neighborhood and go to the other side of town. An across the board license to kill goes both ways, and by leaving the area of privilege would actually (gasp) put them in the real world, where they aren't really safe. Hunting for game in your backyard doesn't make you a badass, but as long as you can pretend like one with your prep school friends...

On the surface, the movie is about our violent tendencies and "need" to let it out. In the world these characters inhabit, this is how the government marketed the plan to its citizens. How can one 12 hour period of violence create economic stability for a nation? Population control and literal class warfare, it seems. Those who are well off can afford to protect themselves and live in the neighborhoods that don't see most of the violence. Those who are the neediest are left to fight off anyone and everyone who believes they caused the near destruction of America years before.

Remember that argument about teachers making SOOOO much money from taxpayers, implying that they ALONE were causing our downfall? Or how about organizations like ACORN being demonized, only to be vindicated after the fact? But those wars we spent all of your money on? No, those were necessary. We couldn't spend it on health care for all or education - things that could pull a nation out of despair - not while dirty looking foreigners worship falsely. No, the REAL problem is that you need release. Enough to make you forget. BIG TIME. Either the New Founding Fathers were evil men covering their butts, or just backward thinking dummies. Which is worse?

One of the silliest movies of the year is also one of the more surprising ones. An exaggerated yet prophetic horror film for liberals, a home invasion thriller for everyone else. I understand it is getting a sequel. More violence will be had, but hopefully they'll sneak in some of the elements that made the first one a tad thoughtful. A tad, mind you. Can have us thinking too hard...

2/5 *s (though, 3/5 feels right as well)

Review: "Now You See Me"

The belief in magic is, I imagine, looked down upon by many. If you're a child, the tricks performed by illusionists are puzzling, intriguing and entertaining. To be completely fooled as a kid is ok. Once you reach a certain age, it's assumed that you've matured a bit. You understand the truth about Santa, accept that Pro Wrestling is a show, and hopefully, appreciate magic on the showmanship level only.

In Now You See Me, a magician actually points out the foolishness of charging him with a particular crime. To do so would be admitting that magic is "real". Another character accepts that what she sees are just tricks, but enjoys the feeling she gets from them. She speaks of having a little faith in the unbelievable, and being a more tolerable person because of it. A professional trickster that calls you stupid for thinking what he does is real and an adult woman who just goes along with the tricks despite knowing that they're just tricks. What was it that Obi Wan Kenobi said about fools?

The crime I mentioned above was part of a Las Vegas stage performance. Calling themselves The Four Horsemen, these four (of course) showmen play out a trick where they transport a man to a European bank, and have him rob a safe. The FBI and Interpol investigate, but are always just a few steps behind this crew. Are they modern day Robin Hoods, or is there something more to their act?

Well, that something more is the trick (or twist) the movie has up its sleeve. A very short sleeve. I don't mean that the finale is easy and cheap but that the whole story is. The way the tricks unfold are implausible and kinda dumb for a popular magic act to achieve. They go to lengths like hypnotizing a man days in advance, switching out real money with flash paper and guessing that an entire audience were victims of an insurance company. Sure, I get it that the performances are just a cover for what they're "really" doing, but what they're "really" doing is "really" not clever. 

Jesse Eisenberg plays one of the Four Horsemen, in what I would call the best acting of the movie (the neurotic tendencies I would expect from him are swapped for confidence and flash). He regularly says that the closer you look, the easier it is to trick you. When a character is seemingly trapped in a car chase on a bridge, we see how the crew pulled off his escape. And it's something straight out of the Fast & Furious mentality. What worked in a movie that could care less about smarts, doesn't work in a movie that depends on you believing it's smart.

This must be similar to the problems people have with the new Star Trek movies. Every personality and theme from the original shows and films are heightened to almost extreme lengths. Whatever subtlety there used to be is gone. Nothing is subtle about Now You See Me, which would be ok (it IS a movie about flashy stage performers pulling off heists) if the tricks played out in and by the story hadn't been delivered in a Happy Meal. 

Now I remember; "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" Fun razzle dazzle is fine and all, but only if you don't ask questions. When I was a kid, I hardly ever accepted something without being a little inquisitive. And you know what? I grew up to like movies ranging from the thoughtful to the silly. You CAN have fun while being mature. No need to be a Toys R Us kid forever.

2/5 *s

Review: "After Earth"

Green Lantern left such a sour taste in my mouth. Ever since reading the comic issue where Hal Jordan goes nuts and destroys the Corps, I've wanted to see a live action version of the superhero. Based on the trailers, I was expecting something along the lines of The Last Starfighter. Instead, I got a studio controlled product of mediocrity. So sad.

Many things were wrong, but the one that stands out is the reason for Hal's fear. It vaguely has to do with his father's death, but after a very quick flashback, this is never brought up again. All he says is "I'm afraid." Then suddenly, he's no longer afraid. Why? Because the script said so.

Why couldn't Hollywood deliver a heroes journey where fear is confronted and lessons are learned? It's so simple, even M. Night Shyamalan could do it. And he did. Rather well, I think.

In After Earth, humans have migrated from an uninhabitable Earth to a new world. This new world has dangerous animals that can smell fear. In order to fight these beasts, you must be without fear. This is called "Ghosting". A young cadet and his General father go on an expedition, but their ship malfunctions and crashes along the way. Stranded on an abandoned Earth, it's up to the son to activate a distress beacon and fight the unknown, both on the planet and within himself.

No review of an M. Night film should be without something critical (at least nowadays). The movie begins with some appreciated but awkwardly delivered narration, explaining the setting. Based on this, I thought it was going to be some kind of cautionary environmental tale. Scenes later, it's explained that nobody has permission to visit Earth. Will a secret about this new civilization be revealed? Perhaps one that relates to the destruction of the world? Nope. There is no reason for this to be called After Earth, or for the characters to even be on Earth, except for the fact that the audience is from Earth. No deeper meanings about our current society or global warming, just "We're on Earth." This "twist" - the only one in this movie - happens in the first half hour, and it was spoiled in the trailer. Womp womp.

Despite those oddities, there is nothing to be afraid of when watching After Earth. Once they crash land, the story becomes a family drama, where father and son deal with a traumatic past incident while getting through an all new one. As the son travels through the unstable terrain, he expresses genuine fear in stages. His memories haunt him, as animals chase after. His father guides him remotely, making for a nice twist on the weight that a parent can put on a child. Whatever silliness there was in the beginning, goes away by the end. Exposure therapy can be a trial. Imagine adding a family member to the mix!

The theme of fear and the overcoming of it is expressed (and that is a key word here) beautifully. Instead of simply saying that word, situations, set pieces and relationships all are used to emote this feeling. Feeling. Something that is very important when watching a movie. To go from Roger Corman B-Movie sci fi to emotionally satisfying family journey is an almost blissful wonder. Though, if I were Will Smith, I would've made Django Unchained fit in my schedule.

Two different sci fi movies, and the one that gets the theme of fear correct is the M. Night directed one? Yes. Warner Bros and DC Comics - take note. The guy that made The Happening one upped you.

3/5 *s

Review: "Fast & Furious 6"

Over on the official MovieBoozer Facebook page, a question was posed to readers: When does a film cross the line from stupid-fun to just plain stupid? This being the season for big and loud Hollywood blockbusters, it's a perfect time to provide an answer. So many sequels, so much potential money to be made, so much money to burn - and so many fine examples.

What is a "plain stupid" movie? There are many components that are considered; plot, logic, character behavior, etc. But, for me, none of those necessarily equal "plain stupid" by themselves or even together. Movies like The Room and Birdemic may be incompetent technically, and laughter usually ensues from this, but they remain fun to watch. Why? Aside from laughing at the incorrect skills and unusual moments of the film, there is sometimes a genuine effort going on that shines through the screen. Sure, the cast and crew were over their heads, but they at least tried. That's admirable.

"Plain stupid", for me, is when there is no joy or redeemable quality to be had from a film. No effort to attempt to elevate the material from stupid to fun, just a paycheck and a job to do.

The Fast and the Furious franchise didn't start on the right side of the line, but it eventually crossed over.


Fast & Furious 6 finds the team in exile from their last job. But they are soon brought back into action when they are offered a new job - working for Interpol to capture a high level criminal, who has ties to an old friend of theirs. Cars crash, bodies fly and explosions explode. Nothing else matters.

Seriously.

Justin Lin took over the series with Tokyo Drift, and has done every movie since. While I have not seen those movies, there must be a reason as to why he was given the director's chair all those times. In watching 6, I understood. Lin understands how to present stupid without being stupid. In other words, he is capable of elevating the material given, without alienating the target audience. A perfect director, actually.

Now, don't get me wrong; this is a dumb movie. There are moments when the logic within the story is broken, and characters don't notice. Like when the team is hired. They are brought to a makeshift headquarters to take down this international criminal because, I assume, Interpol has tried and failed too many times. Then, in the next scene, the team is watching as Interpol performs a raid on the bad guys location. If you were going to do a raid with a freaking army, WHY DID YOU NEED TO HIRE THIS SMALL TEAM?

But there were two deeper points being made at that moment: 1. It was to establish the cunning and dangerous nature of the bad guy and 2. The logic doesn't matter. In the scene after, we get a roughly ten minute car chase, featuring multiple crashes. The cinematography and editing was spot on, making me understand and feel what was at stake for the characters, without the premise of the situation even making much sense. Impressive. If the action is done well, you'll be saying "Awesome!" instead of "Boo!"

Lin also understands that we need to care, at least a little, about the characters and what they are going through. Without that, why should we invest in the action? Vin Diesel has a wonderful nighttime stand off with the villain. Both men banter about family, honor and code in a very tense manner. There eyes rarely unlock from one another. If you know nothing about the previous Lin Furious films, you'll learn all you need from that one scene. And, for something big and dumb, all we need is that one scene.

"Stupid-fun", for me, is dumb material that is understood and elevated by the people involved. They are not stupid and are putting in all the effort they can. Out of that, can be something worth eating popcorn to. And don't be embarrassed about joining others on that side of the line - there's plenty of room.

3/5 *s
  

(Almost) Review: "The Hangover Part III"

Have you ever just given up on a movie? I know you have. One time, I popped a DVD of Anchorman into my player for family night, and turned it off about 20 minutes in. It was a chore to watch what we watched. Now, that particular movie aged well, as I gave it a second shot some years later and loved it. Typically, however, once I've made the decision to turn off or walk out, that's it. The movie has lost me forever.

I can stick through just about anything. Heck, Orson Welles' The Trial - unwatchable for some of my friends - is a personal favorite of mine. But it was only a few months ago that I first walked out of a theater midway through a screening, completely bored. It was Taken 2. What could've been a fun Liam Neeson-sploitation flick was just a joyless affair, churned out with the sole purpose of making money based on the success of the previous film. I went to the bathroom after the first half hour, and never returned.

It's sad, because even money hungry sequels are capable of delivering something entertaining. Take Ghostbusters 2: not needed whatsoever, but did a fine job of continuing the story and gave audiences something to come back for. The cast/crew weren't phoning it in and the filmmaker wasn't filled with contempt for his fans. It was a fun movie that I would pay to see, even now.

I wouldn't even scoff at a discounted DVD of The Hangover Part III. It really isn't worth any attention whatsoever.

Honestly, I was surprised that I gave up on this threequel. I haven't seen the other two, but based on director Todd Phillips' previous work, as well as the three leads, I was expecting something at least mildly funny. Breaking from the formula of the previous two, Part III finds the wolfpack in a most dire spot. On a road trip to bring Allen to a mental hospital, they get stopped by a ruthless gangster. He wants them to find their old party acquaintance Mr. Chow and bring him in. Wackiness ensues. The end.

Well, it was the end for me, anyways. One hour was more than enough. In that time, I witnessed Ken Jeong pretending to be a dog, Zach Galifianakis saying silly things and everyone else just trying to get this over with. I felt sorry for them. I bet they wanted to escape, like in The Purple Rose of Cairo. 

It's hard to explain exactly what is wrong with this film except to say that it is NOT FUNNY. And, for a comedy to not be funny, that is unforgivable. But, why is it not funny? And, isn't that subjective anyways? Yes, what makes me laugh won't necessarily make you laugh. However, some things are universal. The rhythm and flow, the atmosphere and tone, acting and demeanor - it all speaks louder than a sight gag. Taking all of that into account, Part III is a depressing cash grab that should've been relegated to a fake trailer. 

I provided an image of a promotional poster for the movie. It features a Giraffe. Why? Well, in the trailer, Allen buys a Giraffe, and accidentally knocks its head clean off while driving. It appears at the beginning of the movie only. Now, I'm willing to bet that the writers whipped the script up as quickly as possible, and the marketing team stretched what little they had into an advertising strategy. This represents what the movie is: A poorly conceived and executed ad campaign for itself. 

From what I understand, the first movie was lighthearted, but the second film was pretty dark. It was also the same story, essentially. Did Todd Phillips pull a prank on all of us? He made two sequels to an unexpected success that were dark, uncomfortable and sad. Despite this, they are making money based on bad "jokes" and name recognition alone. And, of course, he'll be given more money to produce something else. Is Todd doing something extremely meta by intentionally making the same movie (Part II) and smearing poo on walls and calling it funny (Part III)? His documentary Hated in the Nation was about infamous punk rocker and performance artist GG Allin (google him) - perhaps these sequels are something like an art piece.

Or, maybe a studio handed him a check, and he said "Whatevs". I can respect that attitude towards making a story and presenting it to an audience, until I have to watch it, of course. Then, it's up to me if I want to make a discreet exit. Respect that choice, please Hollywood. After all, you still have my money. And, you haven't lost me forever. Yet.

@Twitter #Thoughts: "Green Lantern"

Not knowing what to tackle for my next live tweet screening, I asked a friend on facebook to pick something. He chose the Ryan Reynolds starrer, New Orleans shot Green Lantern. I picked the extended cut, thinking it would be an improvement. Was it?

Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

I like to think that, when compared to other critics, I'm pretty easy to please. Silly plot holes, odd dialogue, unfinished effects, etc. can be forgiven, as long as I leave the theater thinking and excited. I'm not asking for much; treat me like a mature human being, and I'll treat your movie with respect. A simple request that can be easily met, I believe.

Sometimes one moment - just one - can nearly ruin an experience for me. The movie as a whole might be superb, but this one sequence can stick in my mind and tarnish the good feeling I was having. It's like having a pounding headache with no pain reliever in sight. It. Just. Hurts.

Can such a headache be excused in time?

After watching Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm certain that such a bad feeling can be soothed. Left alone, I rather enjoyed most of what I saw. Kirk and his team get caught up in a manhunt for a former member of Star Fleet turned terrorist, only to uncover a plot to start a war. What unfolds is not exactly the "chess game" that was suggested in the marketing, but a conflict that finds them defending the very core of the franchise. When assigned to a kill mission, the crew of the Enterprise mostly object. Scotty even quits, stating that Star Fleet is not supposed to be militaristic. It's clear that Mr. Scott would not agree with simply assassinating Osama bin Laden. We're better than that, he might say.

A "war time" Admiral creates a highly weaponized ship, meant specifically for a battle with Klingons, with the help of the agent turned terrorist. Comparisons to Donald Rumsfeld / Dick Cheney and the War on Terror are obvious, but in this story (unlike in the real world), the violence monger is actually going against the grain of the society he lives in - trying to force a peace minded world to go along with his one man war. Through this, Kirk and Spock confront their own violent tendencies, and thankfully learn to make the right decisions despite their emotions. In our world, they would probably be reprimanded for going against official orders. But, Star Trek shows us a future interested in the betterment of life. A possible future, I would hope. This is a  classic Trek tale, without being too traditional.

Many have been worried that this new Star Trek would just be about shooting lasers and not the discovery of new worlds and ideas. Into Darkness features action, yes, but what it does is pit a crew that wants to do exploration (traditional Trekkies) against a crew that just wants to fight (Hollywood). The series doesn't "boldly go" yet, but they do "engage" that topic. And, in the end, they will "make it so".

So, what's the problem?

Well, I can't really get into it without spoiling the movie. What I will say is that, at the climax, we get something that I really didn't expect: a near verbatim recreation of a famous scene from a previous Star Trek movie. I actually threw my hands in the air out of frustration and embarrassment. How could they do this? Who thought that was a good idea? It's lazy fan service and a non creative reference, I thought. Such a shame. Into Darkness was going great, being a fun, well told, sci space adventure. What problems the first movie had regarding that Trek feel, this one fixed. It even confirmed for me that J.J. Abrams was a very good choice for Star Wars Episode 7.

WHY DID THEY INCLUDE THAT ONE SCENE!?

I once suffered a week long headache, that was eventually cured with a medication I didn't even know I had all along. This week, my headache was short, and medicated rather easily. A twitter conversation helped me understand that A) Star Trek has always referenced itself, in one way or another B) The scene made sense in context, and was actually integral to the movie and C) One perceived hiccup shouldn't damper an overall fun event.

Remember how in From Paris with Love, John Travolta made a horrible reference to Pulp Fiction by mentioning the Royale w/ Cheese? Or when in Be Cool, Travolta danced with Uma Thurman? These are the scenes that cause major migraines. These are the call backs that make me mad. When you've made a genuinely good movie, and decided to do a twist on a famous moment from the same franchise in that movie, that's acceptable. Especially for Star Trek.

WHY DID I GET WORKED UP OVER ONE SCENE!?

Indeed, time heals all wounds, sometimes faster than expected. And that only one wound was described ought to be a compliment by itself. J.J. Abrams may not have been a Star Trek fan growing up, but he finally understands that old Trek feel. That is the medication to any one scene that might ail you. Request met, I say.

3/5 - 4/5 *s, depending on how I'm feeling at a given time.   

Review: "The Great Gatsby"

There are many great scenes in Django Unchained, but one in particular stands out for me. After ordering his dogs to tear apart a runaway slave, Calvin Candie stares up at Django, who is on his horse. The two men look into each others eyes, all the while a man is being viciously killed out of frame. They discuss Django’s friend Schultz for a moment, then head on their way to the plantation.

That moment was a cinematic equivalent of a two man poker game. For not even a minute, we learn more about the danger our protagonists face, just how dastardly our antagonist is and more importantly the presence of a power struggle, all without saying much. I love it when what’s unsaid speaks louder than what’s being said.

Imagine that sequence with voice over narration, perhaps from an older Django; does it make you angry?

Now, I don’t want to suggest that the use of a narrator is always a bad move - Sunset Boulevarddid it rather well and Sin City used it verbatim for the source - but I do want to state that it can become your worst nightmare if not used carefully. Have you ever heard the phrase “beats you over the head”? Voice over work can do that to an audience, treating us like we’re undereducated neanderthals. And that’s exactly how I felt when watching Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby.

I never read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s famous novel. In fact, all I know about it I learned from wikipedia and Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School. From what I gather, the classic tale - about the enigmatic rich man Jay Gatsby, his obsessive love for a married woman from his past and his romantic optimism for a life with her - is, more or less, about the excess, carelessness and emptiness of the 1920’s (which, of course, was followed by The Great Depression). It’s supposed to be a book of rich storytelling and wonderful depth.

If all I knew about this story I learned from the movie it’s based on, I would assume it was about, well, how “Great” Gatsby was. That’s all. Did Tommy Wiseau write up the adaptation?

In Baz Luhrmann’s 3D film, we are presented with what could’ve been the best possible portrayal of the decadent 1920’s ever. Champagne in every hand, glitter and fireworks in the air and jazz playing all the time. Visuals and sounds just bursting off the screen and popping right in your face. There's even a wonderful scene where rich white people dance awkwardly to Jay Z like music in a small apartment. That alone expressed the discomforting and shallowness I was looking for.

But, I’m afraid that was it. It appears as if Mr. Luhrmann didn’t know how to tell this story without directly using the narration from the book. Was he scared of backlash from fans? If so, he shouldn’t have let that control his direction. There are scenes (dialogue, non 3D ones) that could’ve been told in a more subtle and tense manner. Like the one in the Plaza. Our leads are in a room, sweltering from the heat, trying to have fun with some booze. Gatsby wants Daisy to tell her husband that she’ll be leaving him. What could’ve been an incredibly awkward, uncomfortable and intense moment is undercut by Tobey Maguire (Nick Carraway) telling us what’s happening. Something along the lines of “The tension was high. I could see the anger in Gatsby’s eyes. Daisy just wanted to leave.” Yes, thank you. If you hadn’t told us exactly how to feel and think, we just would’ve sat in our seats wondering why the floor is sticky.

I understand that the movie follows the narration of the book pretty closely, but I stress that my problem is not with the author, but with this director. Instead of interpreting the page, and judging how to present it for another medium, he just takes some glue, squeezes it around, and drops glitter on it. There. A book... with glitter. Perhaps he got lost in the spectacle, and forgot what it was all trying to say. Ironically, much like Gatsby's lavish parties, the 3D and confetti didn't bring Baz any closer to the green light he so desired.  

And the framing device doesn’t help. For the movie, it was decided that it would be told by Nick from a sanitarium, while he’s writing it all in a novel. At the end of the movie, he changes the title of his work from “Gatsby” to “The Great Gatsby”. A movie that punches you with an undercut from a fist made of ham. Wow. Peter Greenway has often said that the cinema has become impoverished because of our value of text over image. Baz Luhrmann can sure make colors pop, can't he?

It’s almost embarrassing to say, but this movie might just represent where we are as moviegoers, or at least where Hollywood thinks we are. The fact that a recent Michael Bay movie is told in a less insulting way than an adaptation of an American classic is a travesty.

We’ll always have Tarantino, right?

1/5 *s (though, 2/5 wouldn't feel wrong)

@NOFS Review: "Upstream Color"

It feels a little awkward to compare a one of a kind film to anything else. Somehow, by putting it side by side with a similar movie - maybe one that is highly regarded - you are putting your knowledge of cinema and ability to express that knowledge on the line. An argument can be made about almost anything, but can you be convincing? Basically, you’ll either be thought of in a scholarly manner, or looked at as a weirdo from Room 237.

With that, I will now make the following case: Upstream Color is the successor to Inland Empire.

This is difficult for me, as David Lynch’s Inland Empire is one of my all time favorite films. On the surface, it is a 3 hour trial of confounding and crazy scenes; beneath all of that, it is an “Alice in Wonderland” meets Sunset Boulevard style odyssey. Lynch started his career by taking 5 years to shoot a black and white film, and may have concluded it by taking several years to shoot with Sony PD150’s. Everything has come full circle.

Along with coming full circle is the end. And, with every end comes a new beginning. Shane Carruth’s sophomore feature Upstream Color might not be as long as Lynch’s digital opus, but it’s a bit more absorbing. Oh, and just as confusing.

The tagline “A woman in trouble” was used to promote Empire, but the same could be said of Color. A young woman is drugged with a parasite, and hypnotized into giving all of her money to a thief. Coming out of her stupor, she forms a relationship with a man that may have also been infected. At the same time, a farmer who makes noize albums puts these extracted parasites into pigs, and observes the memories of former victims. The woman finds that her thoughts and feelings are shared somehow, and looks to solve this mystery.

The female leads in this and Empire share some things in common: both are in the movie industry, both get brainwashed, both experience the emotions of others and both confront their respective villains with a gun. The journey in Color might not be like at the end of a certain rabbit hole, but the stars do go through an Alice type adventure.

Everything is meticulously shot and designed, and executed in a very free flowing manner; scenes that don’t appear to make sense at first, feel as if they must soon afterwards because of the construction. There is a wonderful sequence where the farmer cuts from walking amongst pigs to walking around a married couple. The husband is cold to his wife, and the farmer sees the man’s regret when the wife becomes ill. All without leaving the farm. This is more than just a Body Snatchersadaptation, folks.

I think that Inland Empire was more than an expression of wacky ideas - it was a challenge for someone to one up it. An open invitation to grab the torch, if you will. It took some years, but Upstream Color did it. Where Empire was a horror showing a traditional hero tale, Color is a sci fi that depicts connections between people, environments and emotions. Both are similar in their creative obtuseness, but only Color can be said to have loftier goals. Success has been achieved.

Don’t be afraid to put yourself out there with movie discussions, but do be careful and elaborate as much as possible. Now, I pass this next case onto you: Shane Carruth is the successor to David Lynch.

5/5 *s

The New Orleans Film Society will be presenting Upstream Color from May 19th - 21st at Chalmette Movies. Click here for more information.

Review: "Iron Man 3"

The idea of an extraterrestrial life visiting Earth and making contact with humans has been expressed many times over. I remember spending a lot of energy on the subject, to the point where it caused me anxiety. It got so bad, my parents decided NOT to take me to see Independence Day, until I calmed down. Of course, I’m a bit more collected now, but I still wonder; how would we respond to the knowledge of intelligent life beyond our planet?

In Independence Day, we fought against an attack. In District 9, we impoverished an entire species. And in Marvel’s The Avengers, we assembled our best to protect us and send a warning. The options appear to be either A) Fight them or B) Control them, at least in the examples provided. In the case of Avengers, we get a series (the Marvel Cinematic Universe) that shows our world prior to, during and now after alien life has been exposed to all. How does the world move on in the follow up film Iron Man 3?

Better than you’d expect, actually.

No riots, no mass suicides, no political coups. From what we can gather, all that has happened is people are now massive fans of Earth mightiest heroes, and just gush that we fought off aliens. A worldwide nerdgasm, basically. However, the burden of not only having fought off these creatures, but the possibility that more could come back, can be too much for one man.

Tony Stark may be Iron Man, but even his suit can’t defend him against panic attacks. The mere mention of the events of Avengers brings him to a shaking and almost crying state; even superheroes can suffer PTSD. He spends every waking moment building suit after suit, technology after technology, in an obsessive and manic frenzy to not only be prepared for the worst, but to protect his love Pepper Potts.

In this post alien Earth, terrorism STILL exists. I guess that isn’t surprising, but you’d think something as heart stopping as new intelligent life would bring about a worldwide peace, at least for a few months. Terrorist leader The Mandarin makes several threats to the U.S. President, and his bombings get the personal attention of Stark. A challenge is made, and Tony is put on a path that will not only save the day, but teach him how to cope, and ultimately better himself.

Stark has now been featured in 4 movies, including his own trilogy. And, to my surprise and delight, has shown depth in each film. He starts as a cocky bastard who could care less about his actions, to confronting and understanding what his inventions have done, has a figurative and literal change of heart, and dedicates himself to using his skills for good. In one of the boldest moves for any wealthy character, he declares that he will give up his military contracts, and openly admits to being Iron Man. He’s egotistical enough to give himself the spotlight, but repentful enough to grasp the weight of what he has done in the past. What a guy.

It’s amazing how this series can move from the comic book movie side of the spectrum to superhero film. “What?” In my opinion, flicks featuring superheroes can be distinguished as either comic book movies or superhero films. For example: Captain America: The First Avenger is a comic book movie, and Spiderman 2 is a superhero film. One is more about the action, while the other is concerned more with the character. Iron Man 3 succeeds because it delivers the personal conflict AND the thrilling moments. Tony Stark gets to complete his hero arc AND be smarmy to a little kid. Avengers gave Hollywood the blueprints, Iron Man 3 roughs out any edges. Improvements can still be made, but Marvel has the right formula.

Would our world change much after the announcement of alien life? Probably slowly. I’d like to think that it would lead to an era of progress and enlightenment, like in Star Trek: First Contact. Do we have a Tony Stark equivalent to make use of the new ways of thinking? Now I’m stressing out.

4/5 *s

@Twitter #Thoughts: "Dredd"

I wasn't able to include Dredd in my Best of 2012 list, but, if it means anything now, I should have seen it much sooner. Here are my live tweets of my first viewing of this awesome flick:

Review: "Pain & Gain"

A movie might be based on real events, but the director doesn’t have to treat it what happened as gospel. A good example would be Tony Scott’s Domino, based on the real life Domino Harvey. The story is completely fictional (if you can follow it) but the filmmakers weren’t interested in telling a straight bio pic, opting instead to express her balls out personality through a fantastical tale. They didn’t get the truth of what happened, but rather the truth of her. And, for me, this is of most importance.

Now, a filmmaker doesn’t have to treat a person’s story as the final word, but a level of respect for the subjects involved doesn’t hurt. Unfortunately for the real life people behind Pain & Gain, Michael Bay is their storyteller.

The criminal acts of Daniel Lugo remind me of something straight out of a TV documentary; a bizarre and sordid series of events, featuring greedy sociopaths out for their dreams at all costs. Daniel was a con man, using charisma and quick thinking to gut people of as much money as he could get from them. Any opportunity to get a head, he took. He was also obsessed with fitness, working at a gym as a trainer. This guy, in a way, is the ultimate embodiment of American Capitalism. He gets two gym regulars to join him on a poorly thought out kidnapping of a wealthy man, which, despite their best “efforts”, actually nets them some coin. But, instead of stopping there, they get the itch to go again...

Throughout the movie, it’s made clear that what we are watching actually happened (a title scroll appears a few times, at very odd moments). However, I’m sure that some things were changed up to fit with the vision of the movie. But, I’m not really concerned with that. What got me most was the tone. The trailers billed this as if Daniel was gonna be some kind of anti hero, taking away from a guy that doesn’t deserve it. While the movie is mostly from the perspective of the criminals (occasionally shifting to narration from other characters), there really aren’t any reasons to like these guys at all. They are truly despicable people, caring only about themselves. To feature them as protagonists (and having well liked actors play them) is a pretty bold move.

And Michael Bay is a pretty bold guy. He presents the story with his usual blend of superficial humor - like what you would expect from Crank, but on a more juvenile level - which completely messed with the head of the audience. The crowd I watched this with did not know how to react. Do we laugh when they fail to kill a drunk Tony Shalhoub? Is "Ha Ha! The priest has the hots for The Rock!" an appropriate response in a movie where a couple is dismembered and stuffed into barrels? It was really fun experiencing something so conflicting.

So, with a movie based on real events, told with the criminals as the leads and in a darkly comedic style, does Michael Bay care about the victims or not? More importantly, should a filmmaker care? Martin Scorsese’s Casino featured a real life hitman, staging the very hit he did in real life. It was an almost abhorrent casting choice, but it plays out quickly and ugly - probably how it actually happened. Hannibal Lecter is shown as being intelligent and charismatic, but will also kill if given the chance. The exploits of Lugo and his meathead friends are awful and disturbing, but expressed with an almost “can you believe this happened” kind if chuckle. Bay couldn't care less about whose feelings he's hurting, as long as he's amused. And that amuses me.

A director doesn’t HAVE to care about the real life participants or show respect, but it would be nice. Michael Bay, however, is probably not a nice guy. Wrecking balls as robot testicles shows what he thinks of his audience, and Pain & Gain shows that he’s willing to prank them with something odd and confounding. And, you know what, I relate to that. Maybe I shouldn’t treat this movie as the gospel of Michael Bay, but...

4/5 *s

Review: "GreasePaint"

I have great respect for pro wrestlers. Ever since 2000, when my older brother took me and others to a Monday Night RAW TV event, I’ve read books, watched old tapes and absorbed as much information as I could on the subject. We’re watching guys and gals perform daring feats of strength and courage, tell a story with their body language and be charismatic enough to connect with people; silent film acting is alive and well, people! I could basically sum it up with “The Wrestlergot it right. All of it.” Seriously. Mad props to these performers.

Clowns, on the other hand...

No, I don’t dislike clowns - I’m just indifferent towards them. Once, my parents took me to a circus. During the show, a clown came through the crowd, to pick a kid to join him. When he came to me, I just shrugged, shook my head and let out a half hearted “eh”. It wasn’t anything personal; clowns just never connected with me. Sure, watching Bozo on TV was fun, but mostly to see if one of those kids would eventually win the ball toss game.

Clowning and wrestling are a LOT alike, as shown in the documentary GreasePaint. Directed by Daniel Espeut, an old high school wrestling teammate of mine (how’s that for coming full circle?), the story of the Thurmond Family and their circus acts gave me much to consider. Long road trips, performing the same act multiple times towns after town, precise timing, storytelling and showmanship aren’t solely the trials and tribulations of squared circle warriors.

Joey Thurmond, the patriarch of this family of performers, actually did some wrestling himself. He even had an all too familiar incident with the notorious Vader, who powerbombed him with full force and then some. It’s clear that no matter the risks (and there are always risks) Joe loves the roar of a crowd and the high of sharing his talent and joy with others. So, why not make it a full time career? Why not get the family involved?

The man is very dedicated to his craft, going so far as to renovate a large truck into working living quarters for when his family is on the road. That alone says a lot about his passion. When he talks about his sons decision to stop performing alongside him, he speaks about it in the context of losing a performing partner, not a child. He tears up, but is just unable to say what he’s feeling. That speaks volumes as well.

Bounced checks, worry over the dangers of a new trick, frustration about the timing of a gag... no matter. This is what NoJoe loves to do, and despite all of the drama, he’ll push on - red nose and all. It would be inappropriate to compare him to Randy “The Ram” from The Wrestler, but those two do share something; a need to perform. Most don’t understand this (being in front of an audience scares some to death), but it is a wonderfully freeing thing, to put all of yourself out there, and in that manner. I wish I could be as brave.

Much like the occasional rained out park that circus workers must deal with, this movie has some lulls. It’s all edited together rather well, but there are scenes that feel redundant and unnecessary. It’s really a small gripe, and actually, thinking about it some more, might put the audience in the feeling of monotony that some of the players feel when on the road. During those moments, I certainly felt that way.

I can’t say that clowning resonates with me as much as pro wrestling does, but I certainly do respect it more. What is the difference between those that wear bright tights and those that put paint on their faces? Nothing, really. The accolades, the heartache, the broken bones, the drama and the compulsion to perform all follow these professions. When you go to a circus or a wrestling event, be sure to react a bit, and let them know you’re there. They’ll appreciate that.

3/5 *s

Review: "Trailer War"

During my days as an aspiring videographer and editor, I dreamt up many ideas for movie projects: Shag Wars- a Star Warsand Austin Powerscombo; Desk Jumper- about a miniature man who base jumps from a school desk to the carpet below; 3 Punks, a Monster and a .45 –pretty self explanatory. But my favorite idea was for a feature film made up entirely of movie trailers, to be called Trailer: The Motion Picture. It would start with a few ads (restaurants, doctor offices, etc), the silence is golden / emergency exit cards, then move into the trailers. And the ending? The feature presentation card, of course.

In the middle of releasing the Tarantino / Rodriguez double feature Grindhouse, Eli Roth mentioned that he would love to make a movie along the lines of the one I had thought of years before. So far, the latest word on that project is a blurb on a wikipedia entry, but I'm optimistic – especially with groups like Drafthouse Films in operation.

You see, the folks at the Alamo Drafthouse theater love movies. They also understand the geeky joy fans get from watching incredibly eccentric movie trailers; the kind that turn out better than the movie they're promoting. In one 2-3 minute burst, we get action, suspense, romance, drama and horror. “COME SEE OUR F###ING FILM! YOU WILL LOVE IT!” And so, in a gift to all of humanity, Drafthouse Films released on DVD, Blu Ray and digital download a collection of some of the most scratched up, obscure and very real trailers ever made.

Now, unlike my original feature idea, Trailer War is not really a movie. Aside from the Drafthouse Films logo, there are no opening or end credits, no main title card, no “Coming Attractions”, none of that – just trailers, one by one. And honestly, it feels a little daunting to watch. As excited as I was to see it, I found it to be a challenge to sit through. This must be what film festival judges go through; being bombarded with movie after movie, story after story. A sensory overload, essentially.

The trailer for Trailer War sums up this feeling with the editing at the end; an explosive, quick cut of crazy moments that almost put you in a trance. In fact, watching this “movie” is a lot like going to a hypnotist, only I'm not sure what this doctor is trying to implant or extract from my head. A second opinion might be needed for my problem. Watching the digital download version, I didn't have the option of skipping trailers, only to fast forward (which I didn't do). If I were to watch this on a disc (with a commentary track featuring the great Joe Dante) I'd probably like this much more.

That being established, there are some a m a z i n g trailers here. Some might recognize Mitchelland Dungeon Master, but it's the unknown ones that stuck out to me. Stunt Rockand Star Crashperked me up, Sister Street Fighterhad me clapping, Who Saw Her Diegot burned into my brain and Force Fourand Fiveleft me laughing hysterically. There are a few lulls, but by the time Thunder Copsappears...

My parents told me once that, as a toddler, I preferred watching commercials instead of shows. I guess that explains my interest in making a movie that is a glorified advertisement. It might only speak to some, but those who get it will love it. The ultimate film buff movie is also the ultimate film buff test. If you take a date to Trailer War, and they don't like it, don't go for a second night out. But do see where this evening ends; you might get the date equivalent of Thunder Cops.   

3/5 *s