More Coming Attractions; or a note about the future

So I haven't reviewed anything in awhile.

I've noticed this happens a lot, and frankly, it's my own fault. For many reasons.

First is time- with work and other priorities, I don't always have the time to watch movies to review.

Second is that a lot of movies I have watched don't exactly lend themselves to the style of review I've been doing.

Thirdly is when I started doing this I decided I was only going to review movies I was watching for the first time, whether they be new releases or just new to me.

Fact is, there is an easy way around all these points, one that had not crossed my mind until today.

See, I own over 700 DVDs- some are documentaries, some are concerts, plenty are TV shows, but even with those removed, I still have a good 500+ titles gracing my DVD shelf, and the fact that they are there means I enjoyed them (okay except 2 that I haven't watched yet which were gifts but that's beside the point)

So what does this mean for those issues? Simple.

I'm going to start reviewing movies I have already seen. This will save me watch time (not that I won't re watch them prior to a review, but there are some I don't need to- I know them by memory). Likewise, I will keep these reviews short, both to save time and because if I don't limit myself for some of these movies I will end up with a fifteen page essay- and that sort of negates the whole time point I think.

So starting this week, I will endeavor to do a short review a week on a movie I have already seen/own. Think of them as short films compared to the blockbusters that my usual reviews would be.

Coming soon to a blog near you- "The Drew On Movies Shorts: Same Great Reviews, Half the Calories"

Drew On Movies #28: The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007)

The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007)

A few years ago, I read an article on a movie site that talked about movies that were not slated for release in the future regardless of extremely positive reviews. Since then, all three films have found their way onto the Internet, and one has actually received a home video release. The three films were the horror anthology Trick R Treat, the slasher All The Boys Love Mandy Lane, and the mockumentary The Poughkeepsie Tapes. The former is the one that was eventually released, and I can honestly say that it more then lived up to the hype and was well deserving of all the positive reviews it received. Mandy Lane was actually released theatrically in the United Kingdom, and more then made up it's budget.

However this review is not about either of those films, but instead the last one listed and the one that seems increasingly difficult to find even online. I was able to procure a copy from a streaming site awhile back but had not watched it until tonight. Now I have made it clear in the past that found footage films are not my cup of tea, and while this film is similar in style, it is much more a documentary exploring events then a found footage film with a loose plot. This of course makes my style of reviewing somewhat difficult to pull off, but I'll try my best. These are The Poughkeepsie Tapes.

Summary

The film begins with a reporter outside a house in the city of Poughkeepsie, north of New York, where hundreds of videotapes have been found, each part of the visual record of horrifying murders. Along with them are dozens of bodies buried around the abandoned house, and from here, the 'story' begins. Interviews are shown with various members of law enforcement, from police to Federal agents to profilers to morticians, each exploring the contents of the tapes and the man who made then. We also see some of the scenes of the killer's activities, from his first abduction of a young girl and her murder, to much more thorough and premeditated kills. We learn the killer is quite intelligent, as he seems to de-evolve in some kills, going from more advanced weapons to simpler ones as to keep the police unaware that the various murders are the acts of one man. His acts come to a head when he stalks and abducts teenager Cheryl Dempsey from her home after brutally mutilating and killing her boyfriend. On film we see sexual, physically and psychological abuse of Cheryl, reducing her to little more then his 'slave'. In a further effort to throw off the police, he changes his modus operandi and focuses exclusively on prostitutes, which, one psychologist explains, makes the population at large let their guard down- if the victims are a certain group, those outside the group feel safe. This sets in motion an even greater part of his plan, one that leaves law enforcement stunned and the public even more fearful then they were, and it is all on tape for the world to see.
 
Thoughts

It is extremely rare for a movie to present something that makes me want to turn it off. I have a very high tolerance for sick and twisted imagery on film and over years of movies like the Saw series and shows like Dexter and Criminal Minds, I like to believe I have a very strong stomach where serial killers and their actions are concerned. If this film is any indication, I have a long ways to go. There were a number of scenes, many involving the killers interactions with Cheryl after her abduction, that I had to mute or fast forward through because I could not watch without feeling ill at ease. This is the kind of mockumentary where after the fact you really need to confirm that it was all fake, because some aspects seemed way too real to have been done by actors.

There is a form of realism here that many of this kind of film seem to lack- when the actors in the law enforcement roles talk, you believe they are real police and Federal agents; when you see the families of the victims in mourning, you believe they truly lost someone. Most importantly, when you see and hear the killer on the tapes, you not only believe he is truly a serial killer keeping a video log of his crimes, but you also try to tell yourself that no one could be this twisted, even though in reality there are plenty of examples of it. To hear of events is one thing, to see such realistic reenactments is a whole other one.

That said, I think this may be the films biggest problem and the reason it has yet to be released- it works too well. I have read in the past how when it was originally released, the film Cannibal Holocaust (which is on my watch list) was so realistic that it was thought a snuff film and the director was jailed until the cast appeared to tell the world it was just a movie. I think this can be seen in a similar vein- I know now that it is just a movie, but the realism may be too much for the general public, and thus it may be difficult to secure a release that would be cost effective- i.e how big is the market that would buy the movie.

Conclusion

Essentially, this movie works as a mockumentary in that you truly do believe it to be a real documentary, but perhaps that is the problem. A little less realism may have secured it a release, but we may never know. I can honestly say that while I was disturbed by the film I appreciated what it was able to accomplish- it disturbed me, and that is rare. I can't say if I would recommend this film to anyone except the hardcore horror fans or those who have an interest in serial killers. Anyone else would likely not enjoy this film in the least, and even those groups may require a harder stomach then I to get through certain scenes. It is a dark, realistic, and disturbing film reel, but if it peaks your interest and you can find a copy, check it out- but don't say I didn't warn you.

2.5 Crates of Murder Memory Movies out of 5

That's all out of me, until next time I'm the Drew, and I need a shower or a Disney movie to make me feel better..

Drew On Movies #26: Newsies (1992)

Newsies (1992)

You ever have someone tell you that you have heard a song before or seen a movie before that you can't remember? For quite some time, my brother was adamant that I had seen this one movie at least once when we were kids. I'm not saying it's not possible, I mean, I can't remember every little movie, show or song I heard of watched in my younger years. Still, the more he said it, with my mother agreeing, the more I disagreed, but, in the same vein, the more I was curious as to what this movie was that I had apparently seen.

Then came ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, and specifically, The Nostalgia Chick.

I have made it no secret that I'm a big fan of Channel Awesome, and although my first introduction to ThatGuyWithTheGlasses was through the titular guy and his Nostalgia Critic persona, I must admit I watched more of The Nostalgia Chick's videos in the first month then even the Critics. Maybe it was her cynical nature that spoke to me- I'm a cynic and come from a long line of them- but the reason doesn't matter, I just liked her videos, and still do, especially now that the Chick, a.k.a Lindsay Ellis, has included her friends Nella and Elisa more and more in her videos (what can I say- I love those two, and anyone who dislikes them can suck my left nut).

I mention those two as they played an important role in the Chick's first storyline- The Dark Nella saga, which, while entertaining, I will say did drag on at times. Said saga concluded with a review of a movie that would banish the evil that was controlling Nella through the power of the fangirl squee (I am not making any of this up)- that movie was the very same film I had been told on many occasions I had seen.

Disney's 1992 musical flop, Newsies.

The review was entertaining and ended the saga on a fitting note, but served more as part of the story then a stand alone review, so I still only had a little bit of knowledge about the film. However, that knowledge was enough for me to find a copy to watch to both see if anything rang a bell and to see if the film deserved the criticism I discovered was thrown at it. Let's find out if either happened this is Newsies.

Plot

The year is 1899, the place is New York, and the film is a fictionalized account of the strike enacted by the newspaper boys or Newsies. I say fictionalized as while the strike did occur, this being a Disney movie, the ending is a whole lot more upbeat then what actually occurred, but I digress. We are introduced early on to Jack 'Cowboy' Kelly, played by a young Christian Bale, a charismatic Newsie who many of the others look up to. Jack dreams of getting out of New York and travelling to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and hopes to make enough money as a Newsie to do so. One morning he meets David Jacobs, played by David Moscow, and his little brother Les, newcomers to the Newsie life, and Jack takes David under his wing, using the precocious Les to sell more papers. After escaping from a mysterious man who has his eyes on Jack, David and Les bring him home to meet the rest of their family, including sister Sarah, played by Ele Keats, who takes a shine to Jack. David reveals to Jack that he had to leave school and become a Newsie because his father was injured at work, and without a union to protect him, was fired. At the same time, newspaper owner Joseph Pulitzer, played by Robert Duvall, decides to increase profits by raising the price of newspapers for purchase by the Newsies by ten cents, and fellow papers owners follow suit.  Fearing they will be unable to bear the added cost, and inspired both by the recent headlines detailing the Trolley worker strike and David's talk of Unions, Jack rallies his fellow Newsies into a union, with Jack as the leader and David as the brains. The youths are aided by newspaper reporter Bryan Denton, played by Bill Pullman, who sympathizes with the kids and their plight and acts as their voice in the news, bringing the problem to the paper reading public. Pulitzer is no pleased with this and through means both legal and illegal, tries to break the union and end the strike. Along the way there are some catchy musical numbers and the usual trouble one could expect an up and coming union to face, but in traditional Disney fashion, everything turns out alright in the end.

Thoughts

First off, as stated, the film is far from historically accurate, but then again, this is Disney we are talking about- they have never been known for sticking to the source material too much, especially when said material is based in reality- see Pocahontas. That said, it is not a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination- the main characters are likeable and sympathetic, the villains are very much cardboard cut outs but again this is early 90s Disney and compelling villains weren't a big thing yet, and the songs are for the most part decent and catchy, especially Seize the Day, which is certainly the film's stand out song and will also never leave your head.

I'm not quite sure why the film was so critically derided when it was released, nor why it became a flop. Possibly the time was wrong- the live action movie musical wouldn't return to the forefront of cinema for almost a decade, and Disney itself was just getting back on it's feet with the films of the Disney Renaissance.

As I was four years old at the time of the film's release I can't say what it's marketing was like, and the only people I know that saw it at the time were my aforementioned brother and mother who said good things about it (of course my brother was only three years older then me so the point remains). Personally I think it was a matter of right film wrong time, because watching it now, it's a pretty good movie. Not perfect of course, Christian Bale, as great as he is as Batman, can't sing or dance too well and as the lead in a movie musical, those two things tend to be important. Likewise, as stated above and in the Nostalgia Chick's review, the villains, specifically Duvall's Pulitzer, is very over the top and cartoony- expected in a Disney animated film but somewhat out of place in a live action setting- I don't know if the script is at fault or Duvall just decided to overact at times, but it is distracting. Another element that doesn't play out as well as it likely would in an animated film of the time is the shoved in love interest- Sarah does not appear too much in the film and while we know she and Jack like each other, their interactions are minimal and thus their relationship is barely developed. Yes Disney love stories are not known for their realism, but at least the couples usually have a good amount of screen time together. Another issue is there are so many Newsies that they only get the bare minimum of characterization or development- hell, and I am stealing from The Chick's review here, there is one called Crutchy, and the extent of his character is right there- he is a cripple that walks with a crutch. That's about it, and he is one of the more development and seen Newsies outside of the leads.

However outside all that, the film isn't bad. It's fun to watch, doesn't drag too much, and the songs, while not always sung by the best vocalists around, are decent and catchy. The plot may be cliched at times and historically inaccurate, but again, Disney. Knowing the Mouse House as I do and the tropes they tend to fall back on, I was not surprised and thus could enjoy the film as it was- you get what you expect folks, and where the Mouse is concerned, keep your expectations moderate.

Conclusion

After watching Newsies, I can definitely say two things- first, I do not possess even the slightest memory of viewing this film before, regardless of what my family says, but that's not necessarily a bad thing- it means I wasn't going in with any nostalgic memories and could thus judge it as one does on the first viewing. Secondly, and as touched upon in the previous section, I don't quire understand the film's initial critical beating or why it flopped. However, I can understand why it has developed a cult following in the years since it's initial release, because as I said- it's pretty fun. Is it perfect, hell no. Is it entertaining, hell yes. Did it have the power to bring back one of my favorite internet personalities from the clutches of an Quasi-demonic intergalactic force of evil? Yes, and again, totally not making that up. If you haven't seen the movie or even heard of it, give it a watch. If you have heard of it but never seen it, give it a try, you may be pleasantly surprised. Oh, and also check out The Nostalgia Chick's work- if for no other reason then to understand what the hell I'm talking about.

3.5 Singing Christian Bale's out of 5

That's all out of me, until next time, I'm The Drew and I Be Awesome.

Check out The Nostalgia Chick's review here http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/nostalgia-chick/30920-newsies Along with the rest of her videos, and those of the other producers on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.

Drew On Movies #25: God Bless America (2011)

God Bless America (2011)

If there is any genre of film that I can say I love more then any other, it is the dark comedy. I've spoken before of my love for these style of films but it must be said again- a film that can find humor in the darker elements of our world and do it well is one to be enjoyed. However, it is rare to find a specific director or writer who specializes in this style- sure you can have a writer do a script for a dark comedy one day and then something else the next, and likewise most directors who stick to a certain genre tend to focus on the more streamlined ones- horror, comedy, romance, etc, rarely mixing and mashing.

But if there is one man who has consistently proved that he can write and direct the kind of black humor that tickles my fancy, it would be Bobcat Goldthwait.

Now I know many people nowadays have no idea who ol Bobcat is, and those my age or older who do know him as the guy with the funny voice from the Police Academy movies or Scrooged. I will admit, up until a few years ago I thought the same, and then I heard about a movie that, at the time, was titled Stay, but was later released as Sleeping Dogs Lie. The film, which deals with the repercussions of one woman's long held secret concerning her and her dog as well as the importance of complete truth in a relationship, sounded dark and twisted- very me. So I was surprised when reading about the film to discover it was both written and directed by the funny voiced freak known as Bobcat Goldthwait. Upon further research, I discovered it was not his first film- in 1992 he wrote, directed and starred in Shakes the Clown, the "Citizen Kane of Alcoholic Clown Movies". The film was a flop that has developed a cult following that is well deserved- it is a dark comedy about a birthday party clown in a town where clowns are separated into their own communities- birthday clowns, rodeo clowns, and the hated mimes. Took me quite some time to track down copies of both movies as they were not the sort of fare Blockbuster was known to carry, but they were well worth the effort.

In 2009 Bobcat wrote and directed another film, which I can say is my favorite of his works- World's Greatest Dad, starring his close friend Robin Williams, as a man who finds success at a terrible cost, and realizes that it isn't all it's cracked up to be- the film can be summed up in one of the last quotes- "I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is ending up with people who make you feel all alone. " The film is quite dark, but it has a really good message and I think it should be seen by everyone.

So with those three films under his belt and on my DVD shelf, when it came out that Bobcat was working on another movie, I admit I was happy. More so when the synopsis was released, and by the time the trailer finally hit the net, I was sold. Is it his best work? No, but it is definitely right behind World's Greatest Dad in my book. Today we take a look at God Bless America, a dark comedic satire that could easily pass as a documentary- and that's scary.

Plot

Frank, played by Joel Murray, brother to Brian-Doyle and Bill, is depressed, suffers from migraines, and is losing hope for humanity. He lives in a shitty apartment with paper thin walls which allow him to constantly hear his moronic neighbors and their whining newborn. He fantasizes about killing them, graphically, but doesn't seem to have the guts. While flipping through the channels, Frank is bombarded with the ever growing pot of shit that exists on televisions these days- political pundits spreading fear and hate on the news, reports of right wing religious groups protesting funerals for soldiers and pushing their own messages of hate, whiny and spiteful reality television personalities, and 'talent' shows where nobodies with no real abilities are paraded around and mocked by the masses. In short, Frank is in the same boat many of us are in where television is concerned- it's crap. While going through this, Frank calls his ex-wife to talk to their daughter- a spoiled little brat who would rather play her video games then talk to her father, who she says she hates more then once, and her mother allows both. We have met these parents and children. At work the next day, all everyone is talking about are these same shows and people, and Frank gets into a great speech with a co-worker about all of it and how people just seem to not care anymore- as a quote from the film's trailer puts it, "why have a civilization if we are no longer interested in being civilized?". Said co-worker simply states that Frank doesn't "get it" and that it's all funny- sadly the prime response most people have. After a misunderstanding Frank loses his job, and upon visiting a doctor about his migraines, discovers he has a terminal brain tumor. After watching yet another of the reality shows where a bratty spoiled teenager blasts her parents for ruining her life' because they bought her the wrong car, and hearing his daughter yell at her mother for buying her a Blackberry rather then an Ipod, Frank decides to end it all. As he prepares the show returns, and listening to the teen again, Frank has an epiphany. Stealing his neighbors car, he sets out to kill the girl, and along the way, he meets a classmate of the girls- Roxy, played by Tara Lynne Barr, who tracks him down after the deed is done and convinces him that he should keep at it rather then end his life. Together, the duo decide to kill  the people who have made America a mean-spirited mess, or as Frank puts it, 'people who deserve to die'. What follows is a spree that points out just how sad a state things are in, all leading to one big blowout of live television.

Thoughts

If I could describe this film in one word it would be true. Before Frank even decides to pick up a gun, all I could thing was what I was seeing on the screen was exactly what is going on in the world. At one point early in the film a radio host mentions that statistically most young girls want to be Kardashians and most young guys want to be like the guys on Jersey Shore, and treats this fact as normal. I'm twenty-five years old, and I work with quite a few young people, and I can attest- this fact is true, and it is sad. I find it disturbing that the people I work with can't tell you what is going on in the world at large, but can tell you word for word what happened on Jersey Shore last week. Pre-teens and teens getting tattoos and spending all their time on their IPhones, bitching and whining about how much their lives suck and how they can't believe they have to work when all they want to do is party- I digress, I'm going on a tangent. But the fact remains, the shows the movie is satirizing- I've seen them, I've heard about them- the people that watch them and praise them and tell those who say the shows are garbage that "they just don't get it"- I know these people! The bratty child who WANTS AN IPOD NOW and the parents that bend over backwards to make their kids happy and let the kids yell at them- I have seen their parents and these kids! If you removed Frank's character and just had him be a nameless protagonist at the early stage of the film, this could easily be a documentary, because none of it seems in the least bit fictional or fake- it's the reality many of us live in. And that scares the shit out of me.
So right off the bat, you can tell this is a film that is close to my heart. As stated, when I first read the plot, of a man deciding to rid society of these people and the people that inspired them, it struck a chord. It's very much like why I liked Boondock Saints- there is a part of me that would just like to up and kill criminals, and likewise, a part of me that would have no issues killing these assholes. Course that isn't going to happen but the idea remains, and that's where films like this come in handy- the allow us the fantasy that crosses our mind. When I saw the films trailer I knew I was going to enjoy it because it was that same fantasy- the story of one man just ridding society of worthless pop-culture pandering assholes.

Now that is not to say the film is perfect- while I did enjoy it, it had some flaws. The two biggest are that it drags at times- the film clocks in at just under two hours, but could easily have been trimmed to an hour and a half by removing a few little moments here and there. The other, and one I anticipated after reading some message board posts, is the relationship between Frank and Roxy and how the film tries to insinuate an attraction- Roxy has a few moments where she is flirting with Frank and it is disturbing. Luckily the film doesn't push it and even has a moment early on when Frank straight up tells Roxy off, and by proxy, all the guys who look at or try to hook up with younger girls and the over-sexualized young woman who go for much older men. It's not as much a flaw as just another element of society that the film is attacking, but as a viewer I was annoyed that they did not just leave it at that and instead touched on it a few more times- it was meaningless and disturbing.

Back to the positives, the acting is great- I'm a big Bill Murray fan, and you can tell that Joel and him are brothers- they share a similar dry style of humor that fits the film- Frank is a normal guy, and sounds like it. He is rarely over the top, even during his speeches, and seems to have a contained, realistic composure. He is likeable and you root for him throughout the film, or at least I did. Joel does a great job, and I hope he gets more roles like this so he can stand with both Bill and Brian as great actors. Likewise, Tara Lynne Barr is very likeable as the somewhat psychotic Roxy- from the moment you meet her you want her to join Frank's crusade, and one of the most dragging periods of the film occurs when she and Frank separate the loss of her character even for this brief period is annoying because she is such a good character that you don't want her off screen. She also gets a great speech midway through the film about rocker Alice Cooper, in which she explains that you don't 'like' Alice Cooper, you accept him and everything he has done for music. As a huge Cooper fan myself, this scene was just amazing, and also allows Roxy to shows some depth- she's not just being a fangirl she is explaining in detail the impact Cooper has had on music, culture and his fans. It also helps that the film's soundtrack has quite a few classic Cooper numbers that fit the tone quite well. The supporting cast don't really matter as most are in the film for brief moments, but they serve their purposes, either to be victims of Frank and Roxy, almost all of whom deserve their fate, or as examples of what is wrong with the world, either by perpetuating the same stupid shit that the victims do, or just showing how mean and apathetic society has become. They exist as the majority that Frank and Roxy stand in opposition to, and thus allow us to have a good idea of what exactly the two are fighting against.

The film as a whole is a great capsule of the world at large- as Chris Grimey Davidson, a reviewer on IMDB put it, the film 'captures our age of narcissism and stupidity' and stands as an "interesting exploration of the insensitivity and thoughtlessness of modern popular culture.' You can watch the film and laugh but you also need to think an realize that beneath the violence and humor, there is a great point to be made- the world of the film is the world we live in, and I don't know about you, but I'd like to move.

Conclusion

Bobcat Goldthwait has done it again, presenting an entertaining and engaging piece of dark comedy. He is  four for four, which is not an easy ratio to have in this day and age. I hope he keeps it up, as he has truly found his niche as a writer/director, touching on subjects most films won't, and having fun with it along the way. God Bless America is a great film, a film people like me, who have really grown sick and tired of the reality television obsessed culture we live, and just want someone to show the rest of the world has screwed up it is. Writer J.G. Ballard wrote of his novel Crash, that he wanted to rub people's face in their own vomit, then force them to look in the mirror. To me, this film accomplishes that, because what you see on that screen is exactly what you get everyday, and it's high time people started paying close attention. I hope a lot of people see this film, but more then that, I hope they understand it.

4.5 Bullet Ridden Teddy Bears out of 5

That's all out of me this time, until the next showing, I'm The Drew, and I Be Awesome.

Drew On Movies#24 Triple Bill- Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011)

Drew On Movies Triple Bill

Once again, I find myself with a bunch of movies, and very little to say about them- I really hope this doesn't become a trend because it's quite annoying. Luckily this time the movies I have on hand are at least thematically linked, unlike my previous multi-film review.

See up until recently, my ban on seeing films in theatres was lifted for super-hero movies, because for the most part, the recent output of them has been positive. However with the rising prices and my own growing apathy, I started saying meh to going to see even these. As luck would have it, my brother did not feel the same and still saw them, and then got them on blu-ray- which allowed me to watch them for free.

Now as many of you know, Marvel is prepping for this year's release of The Avengers, and I will admit, the trailers have me excited too. But I figured before I can really get into the hype, I need to actually see the rest of the films leading up to this event. So I called up my brother and asked to borrow Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America, and though it took me some time, as of this past weekend, all three have been viewed and returned to his movie shelf (which pales compared to mine thank you very much).

Now I will state going in that none of these films are ground-breaking; they are no Dark Knight. That said, all three have their merits, and I'm gonna talk about them now, in order.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

First off, I enjoyed the Hell out of the first Iron Man, and while I'm not a huge fan of the comics- I own one issue I picked up at a comic shop in my youth simply because the cover, which proclaimed "In the morning Tony Stark will be sober, or dead" intrigued me. I can say I know enough about the character to know they got a lot of things right. Most of my knowledge comes from the early 90s Iron Man animated series, and, as with most of my recent comic wisdom, various Wikipedia expeditions while bored. Either way, I knew enough to be satisfied with how the first film turned out. Trailers for the second film looked promising, as did Mickey Rourke's villain role, although I was not a fan of the recasting of James Rhodes, but I was still intrigued by the film. But did it meet expectations or surpass them like the first?

Plot

After revealing his identity as Iron Man at the end of the first film, billionaire Tony Stark, played again by Robert Downey Jr., is subpoenaed by the United States Government, who want the Iron Man armor for their own ends, and have sought the aid of Stark rival Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, and Stark's best friend Colonel James Rhodes, played this time by Don Cheadle. Stark is able to stave off the Government and humiliate Hammer and leaves to the cheers of the crowd- but not everyone is happy. In Russia, a dangerous man by the name of Ivan Vanko, played by the formidable Mickey Rourke, watches Stark celebrate on television as his sick father dies. He then sets about using blueprints for an arc reactor like Stark's to build one, along with weapons to go with it. Once completed, he attacks Stark while the latter is participating in a race, and while Stark is able to use another version of his armor to defeat Vanko, this is only the beginning of his problems. His own reactor is poisoning him, Hammer decides to join forces with Vanko, and Nick Fury and his people at S.H.I.E.L.D, including special operative Natasha Romanoff, also known as The Black Widow, played by Scarlet Johansson, are watching.

Thoughts

The biggest problem I had with Iron Man 2 is it comes dangerously close to suffering from Batman and Robin syndrome. For those unaware, one of the big problems with Batman and Robin, and trust me there are plenty to chose from, is there are too many characters and little time for us to care about any of them. In that film we had Batman/Bruce Wayne, Robin/Dick Grayson, Barbra Wilson/Batgirl, Alfred, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane (though no one cared about Bane). That's six main characters and one pointless muscle added in because they could. In Iron Man 2, we have Tony of course, his assistant and love interest Pepper Potts, James Rhodes, Justin Hammer, Ivan Vanko, Natasha, with Nick Fury, Happy Hogan and Agent Coulson with enough screentime to count somewhat. Either way, that's again six characters that we somehow have to keep track of and care about to one degree or another. I don't know about anyone else, but for me this made enjoying the movie difficult because there was not enough development for me to be interested in the majority of them. Another Batman and Robin comparison that can be made, although it seems to be the superhero film formula, is the need for more then one villain in the sequel. To me, Vanko could have easily been a villain on his own- his character was interesting, you could tell he was smart enough to go toe to toe with Tony and he had power to back it up. Justin Hammer, if he had been more like his comic book incarnation, could also have been a villain on his own. But with the two of them in the same movie they have to split the villain role, so instead of one great villain we get two okay ones, as neither are as developed as they could have been if there had only been one of them.

Another issue I have is the recasting of James Rhodes. To me, in the first film, Terrance Howard did a fine job. He was a military man sure, but he had enough bad ass in him that you knew that when he eventually put on the War Machine armor, he could beat Tony if the need arose. He just had the attitude that the character needed. No offense to Don Cheadle, the man is a great actor but this was not the role for him. Cheadle has the air of respectability to him- you could see him as someone high up in the military or Government, but not as the Colonel who also happens to be buddies with the billionaire industrialist Tony Stark. So really, his replacing Howard in the Rhodes role did not sit well with me and really took away from the film.
That being said, I enjoyed the film to a degree- it has its flaws but was at least entertaining. Unlike Batman and Robin I do not hate this film- it just does not live up to the first one, at least according to me. It tries to do too much with not enough time, and while it succeeds at some things it does not with others. As a whole the film seemed less a sequel and more a prequel to The Avengers, with it's introduction of Black Widow, Nick Fury's expanded role, and more information about S.H.I.E.L.D, the Avengers Initiative, and such. I feel if they were not making an Avengers movie then this sequel would likely have been somewhat different, but that's just me.

Conclusion

Iron Man 2 is alright, it's not it's predecessor, but it's also not Batman and Robin. It has its merits and it's flaws, but it's an entertaining film and at least succeeds as a sequel in that the story does continue. Trim out a few characters, flesh out the ones that remain and save most of The Avengers stuff for the Avengers and the film might be stronger, but that's just my opinion. If you enjoyed the first definitely see the second, if not, you likely wouldn't be watching it anyway.

3 Drunk and Armored Superheroes out of 5

Thor (2011)

Now we go to the other end of the knowledge spectrum- see Thor did not have a cartoon for me to watch in the 90s, nor was I really aware of his comics. I sort of knew of him, in as much as I knew that there was a comic character based on the Norse God- I knew of the God because I had a DOS game called God of Thunder in which one played Thor. It was entertaining and I found a copy recently for my laptop for nostalgia value. Anyway, any knowledge I had about the character came from Wikipedia, and a book I used to read from my local library that was essentially a superhero encyclopedia (although it is quite dated). So really unlike Iron Man, going into Thor I had little to go with, which sometimes works out for the best. Knowing too much can make you judgemental, knowing little gives you an open mind. But did it matter? Let's find out.

Plot

In 965AD, Odin, King of the Norse Gods, played by Anthony Hopkins, led his army to victory against their mortal enemies, the Frost Giants, taking the source of their power as to prevent them from ever trying to conquer other realms. He tells his sons, Thor and Loki, of the battle, and both speak of becoming great warriors in their own right and following in their father footsteps. In the present era, Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth, is preparing to do just that, and take his place on the throne, However the ceremony is interrupted by an attempt made by three Frost Giants to retrieve their stolen weapon. Though all three perish, Thor decides to take the fight to them- against his father's wishes. Accompanied by Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, and fellow warriors Sif, Volstagg, Fandral and Hogun, Thor confronts Laufey, King of the Frost Giants,and a battle ensues. Odin intervenes to save his fellow Asgardians, but it is too late to save the truce between the two sides and Laufey warns Odin that war will begin anew. On returning to Asgard, Odin strips Thor of his godhood and exiles him to another realm- that of earth. He then sends Thor's legendary hammer, Mjolnir, to earth as well, with an enchantment that will only allow one who is worthy to wield it. Upon reaching Earth, specifically New Mexico, Thor is found by Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman, and her fellow researchers, who are studying wormholes, such as the one that appeared the night Thor showed up. With their help, Thor finds the crashed Mjolnir, but realizes he cannot lift it as he is no longer worthy. Meanwhile in Asgard, Loki discovers Odin took something else when the far ended- a child. With Odin incapacitated in a great sleep, Loki assumes the throne and begins to make his own preparations for war, and to make sure Thor never returns.

Thoughts

Most superhero movies, regardless of the director, look like superhero movies. Thor, when it begins, does not. You would think you'd accidently put on Lord of The Rings, as for a good chunk of the opening the film has more in common with such fare then it does with Iron Man. War between Gods and Giants, swords and sorcery- not your standard superhero fare. But then, that's the point, as Thor's story is not a traditional superhero story. It is a story about family, about brothers, about learning what it means to be a good man- it's not about strength as much as wisdom, the lesson Thor needs to learn to truly be King.
That said, the film works well- the character of Thor starts off as an arrogant asshole, but as he begins to live as a human we begin to sympathize with him and care about him. His interactions with Jane are important to the film, although I was not too keen on them- to be honest, I enjoyed the goings on in Asgard more then those on Earth, but that's just me. That might have to do with Loki, who is not a traditional superhero villain with some grand scheme- he is a boy trying to escape the shadow of his brother and prove to his father that he is a worthy son. Yes he goes about it wrong but you can see he is conflicted.

Remember what I said about Iron Man 2's characters not being developed enough- this film does it right. Thor and Loki are well developed, and their supporting cast are given enough time for us to care about them and understand their motivations.  The film isn't perfect of course, as I said I found some of the stuff on Earth to be filler, but I understand they needed to have situations and characters that Thor could interact with and learn from, and I understood the need to include S.H.I.E.L.D again in preparation for the Avengers- speaking of, although he is not named as such and barely seen, I did like the introduction of sorts of archer Clint Barton, a.k.a Hawkeye, played by one of my favorite actors Jeremy Renner.

Conclusion

With my limited knowledge of the character, I can honestly say I enjoyed the film. I found it a lot better then Iron Man 2, but still not perfect. It has a good story and cast, and is enjoyable for people who don't know much about the character. I'd consider it a pretty good introduction of the character and I am interested to see what they do next, both with The Avengers and in the likely sequel. I'll be watching.

3.5 Mystical Hammers out of 5

Captain America: The First Avenger

It's a funny thing, when I was a kid, I knew very little about superheroes, yet when my brother, father and I would play at the park, for some reason I decided I would be Captain America (which in retrospect was really an odd choice for a Canadian). I think it was the shield- I'd seen a toy commercial where the Cap. Toy could throw the shield and that just seemed really cool to me.  Of course around this time in my life, a Captain America movie existed- the 1990 version.

Yes, I saw it. A few times actually, but don't ask me what I thought about it then because Hell if I remember. In retrospect I can say that it's a really shitty movie, and the moment I saw the trailer for the new one, I had a good feeling. Comparing the two just based on that is like this: the differences between the two is equal to if prior to The Dark Knight, the only Batman film in existence was the 1966 Adam West one. But at least that film had some camp value, the 1990 Captain America film only has 'what-the-hell-were-they-thinking; value. Heck, I couldn't even get through the Nostalgia Critic's review of it! That said going in to this one, I knew enough about the character and his backstory, and had enough hope that I felt I could enjoy it.

Plot

It's 1942, and the Second World War is going strong. In New York, Steve Rogers, a frail man played by a CG skinny Chris Evans, is rejected for military duty for poor health and physical issues. We find out that this is not his first attempt nor his first rejection, nor his last. While attending the Stark Expo with friend Bucky Barnes, played by Sebastion Stan, Rogers explains his desire to do something for the greater good in the war, a conversation overheard by Dr. Abraham Erskine, played by Stanley Tucci. When Rogers attempts to enlist at a recruitment station at the Expo, Erksine pulls some strings to get him in as he feels Rogers is a good man and just the right person for his Super Soldier experiment. Although Colonel Philips, played by Tommy Lee Jones disagrees, he relents after observing Roger's self-sacrifice during training. While this is going on, Nazi officer Johaan Schmidt, played by Hugo Weaving, has stolen a mysterious object that his associate, Dr. Arnim Zola, uses to power extremely advanced weapons for the Nazi. Word reaches Schmidt that Erksine has been discovered in America, and sends an assassin to kill him. The assassin succeeds, but not before Rogers is subjected to the super-soldier treatment and emerges taller, stronger, and faster then he was before. Being the only one of his kind, Rogers is used as a propaganda piece, until he discovers Bucky's platoon has been taken captive. Defying orders he mounts a one man rescue mission to save his friend and his fellow soldiers, coming face to face with Schmidt, who has cut ties with the Nazi's and created his own organization- HYDRA. Schmidt reveals that he too was given the super soldier treatment, although it had a side-effect, burning off the skin on his face so that it became a skull, and earning him his title- The Red Skull. From there the two foes are on a collision course that will end the war, and possible both of them along the way,

Thoughts

I loved this movie. See, when I watched Iron Man 2 and Thor, I admit there were moments, more in the former then the latter, when I was bored and fast-forwarded the film. During my viewing of Captain America, not only did I not do this once, the idea never crossed my mind. I was caught up in the film much that save for a few minor moments, I enjoyed it start to finish. Just as Thor was a fantasy film mixed with a superhero film, Captain America is a World War Two film that happens to have a superhero and villain in it. Which is exactly what it should be, as when you get right down to it, that's what the original Captain America comics really were- they were the adventures of this superhero during the second World War- hell, he punched Hitler in the face more then once! The War aspect comes first, with the superheroics second, and I feel that was to the films benefit.

The cast do quite well in their roles- Chris Evans embodies the everyman quality that is central to Captain America's character- he doesn't have a tragic backstory like Batman, or great powers like Superman- he is just a guy who wanted to do the right thing, and was given the opportunity to do so. He is stronger, faster and has greater stamina then normal men, but he is not Hulk strong or Flash fast. This makes him relatable, and Evans does this quite well. Likewise, Hugo Weaving is in a class of actors that just work as bad guys. Like Tim Curry or Michael Wincott (check IMDB, you know this guy), Weaving just has this it factor to him that allows him to sink into the villain role very well. He is intimidating, which the Red Skull needs to be even before it is revealed that he has a literal Red Skull. From the moment he appears on screen you know he is someone to be feared. The supporting cast do their jobs well for the most part- Jones is essentially playing Tommy Lee Jones, army mode, which is fine. Tucci plays the kind scientist/mentor figure well although you know early on he is not going to make it. Bucky and the rest of Captain America's unit (essentially the Howling Commandoes) are alright although for the most part they have little characterization outside of being an ethnically diverse battalion itching for battle. Dominic Cooper's role as Howard Stark is entertaining, and you can see similarities between his portrayl and Downey Jr.'s portrayl of Stark's son Tony- both have a bit of an asshole streak in them but they are good people and they make great weapons.

The film is not perfect, but the little issues I had are not even worth bringing up as they are just nitpicks, such as the cliched moment when a woman kisses Rogers in front of his love interest to add tension- it's been done a hundred times, it's pointless but it's also not hurting anyone so I can allow it.

Conclusion

Of the three Marvel films I watched, I have to say when it was over, I liked Captain America the best. It just flowed a lot better, the story seemed to gel along with the characters and there was little to no filler to be had. The cast is good, the writing is good, and I can't wait to see what they do with the character in the Avengers, both from a film standpoint and also from a character standpoint, as he is a man from the 40s trying to understand the present day, which has always been an important aspect of Cap. All in all, a good movie that could easily stand alone, moreso then the previous two, and is worth a watch even if you don't plan on seeing the Avengers.

4 Star-Spangled Shields out of 5

That's all out of me, until next time I'm The Drew and I Be Awesome!

Drew On Movies #22: The Muppets (2011)

The Muppets (2011)

"It's time to play the music... it's time to light the lights... it's time to meet the Muppets..."

Before we begin, I have to explain something. I am a HUGE Muppet fan. Jim Henson is my idol, the man was a creative genius, and anyone that says otherwise is an idiot. Watch The Muppet Show, Fraggle Rock, The Dark Crystal, even Labyrinth, and tell me the man was not creative. He turned puppetry on it's head and made it something new- hell, watch interviews with Kermit the Frog and remind yourself he's just a puppet. It's hard to do, because the character and all the others have taken on lives of their own, and are so familiar to us that we simply accept them as they are. This isn't like Mickey Mouse, who exists as a cartoon mascot- Kermit and the gang move around, they interact with people, they are in essence, alive. So ya, big fan, own almost everything Muppet related I can find and while in Disney World went to see the Muppet 3-D show three times in one day.

But like many fans, I had been disappointed with recent output by the franchise. As many may not be aware, a few years ago The Henson family lost control of the company, and during that time The Sesame Street characters were sold. Likewise, there was very little in the way of Muppet exposure- no new television shows or movies. Luckily, the family got the company back, but not long after they finished a deal Jim had started prior to his untimely death- selling the core Muppet characters to Disney. At first this gave me hope, I figured Disney would be able to bring the characters back to their glory days.

That didn't happen. We got two made for television Christmas specials and a version of the Wizard of Oz, and while the latter Christmas special, Letters to Santa, was decent,as was Wizard of Oz, the first one, It's A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie.... Well the less said about that the better. Suffice to say, it was awful and while the other specials were alright, none of them had that magic- I started to lose hope.

And them came Jason Segal.

While I might not be Segal's biggest fan- that's not a slight against him, just can't think of much he's done I've been interested it, we can agree on one thing- being Muppet fans. Difference being he is famous and can use that fame, which he did. When it was announced Segal was pitching a concept for a new Muppet film I was torn- excited at the possibility that maybe this was the comeback I was dreaming of, and wary, due to recent output and fear of Disney overruling whatever Segal wrote- let's be honest, Disney are an evil corporation, and if you ever need proof that they can kill beloved characters, go read my Winnie the Pooh review.

Still, I was hopeful, and then the trailer came out.. A trailer I must've watched a dozen times in a row. A trailer that gave me even more hope that this was going to be the Muppet movie I'd been waiting for. The movie came out, positive reviews came in from everyone including fellow Muppet lovers, but I was still wary.

Today I had the chance to see if my hope was justified or not. This is 2011's The Muppets.

Plot

The film begins with Walter, a Muppet born into a human family- how I don't know and I don't want to know, it really doesn't matter right now, and his life. Walter and his brother Gary have been inseparable since they were kids, and the two bond over The Muppet Show, which Walter becomes a huge fan of, as he identifies with the Muppets. Over time however this starts to effect him, as we see during a nightmare he has. Still he is a huge fan, and is overjoyed when Gary, played by Jason Segal, reveals that he is bringing Walter along when he and his long time girlfriend Mary, played by Amy Adams, go to Los Angeles- home of the Muppet Theatre. An opening musical number ensues, the first of many, and Gary meets up with Mary as her students leave for spring break. Mary is a bit wary that Walter is joining them, as she feels that she and Gary don't get to spend much time together due to the brother's close relationship. Still the trio head off and once in L.A, head for the Theatre for a tour. They find the place in shambles, and during the tour Walter sneaks off into Kermit the Frog's old office. He hides as a group enter, consisting of Muppet's Staler, Waldorf, Uncle Deadly and Bobo the Bear, along with oil tycoon Tex Richman, played by Chris Cooper. Statler and Waldorf show Richman the rich and famous contract Kermit signed years ago, that states that the ownership of the Theatre and Studio will soon expire thus leaving it open for Richman to purchase. Waldorf reveals that the Muppets can retain the rights if they can raise ten million dollars prior to the expiration of the contract- an important plot point as Statler points out. The elderly duo leave and Walter overhears Richman explain the reason he wants to buy the old theatre- there is oil underneath and he wants it. Walter finds Gary and Mary and explains the situation, and the three set off to find Kermit, thinking he'll know what to do. They find the legendary frog, who seems a lot more despondent then he used to be. We find out in song that the old gang split up, and while he agrees a show could save the theatre, he doesn't think it can be done. Walter raises his spirts and the group set off to reunite the Muppets and save the theatre. I could continue but to say anymore would take away from some of the best parts of the movie, so let's just leave it at that.

Thoughts

Remember what I was saying about finding out if my hope was justified? I think I got my answer ten or so minutes into the movie. The set up, the style, the script, the songs, everything feels right. This is the Muppet movie I'd been waiting for, and deserves it's place with the rest of the classics in the franchise. You can tell that Segal was a fan because his script is riddled with references to previous Muppet films, both visually and in the dialogue. These are things only a fan of the movies would catch on to, but it works, and also helps to keep the continuity- Gonzo's status as an alien, as revealed in Muppets From Space, is mentioned early on, as is Piggy's attempt to marry Kermit at the end of The Muppets Take Manhattan. Hell, the rich and famous contract is what the gang sign at the end of the Muppet Movie after reaching Hollywood- it's all there, little things yes but things that make the movie work.

The story is one that has been done before, but that is not always a bad thing. The whole getting the band back together for a good cause works, heck, it's the plot of The Blues Brothers, one of my favorite movies of all time! The ideas of finding where you belong and learning what is really important in life are also Hollywood cliches but The Muppets make them work- you believe what you are seeing and the lessons they are learning because They are The Muppets and you want to see them succeed. Of course you know they will, although, the movie actually messes with you at the end, or at least it did with me, as you do believe that the gang might not win this one.

The cast are good- Cooper plays the atypical evil businessman to a tee, and although his rap leaves something to be desired it fits. Segal and Adams are lovable as the human leads and while they have their own story it never overshadows the main narrative- this is a Muppet movie, not a romantic comedy featuring the Muppets, which it easily could have been. The old gang are front and centre for much of the film and that's how it should be. What really makes that work is it's not all fun and games- while the reason for the gang splitting up is never given we know it wasn't a happy break up- there's tension when Kermit and Fozzy meet up again, and some great back and forth between Kermit and Piggy that plays off their past together and the obvious feelings they still have for one another. Another great thing is the use of lesser known Muppets, such as Uncle Deadly- trust me, you really need to be a fan to know him as he only appeared in a few episodes of the Muppet Show- but he gets to shine in this movie. Of course not everyone gets something to do- Rizzo the Rat has no lines despite being prevalent in the latter Muppet films, and Pepe the Prawn has only one scene. However this actually works in my opinion as this film is a return to form- it has more in common with the original Muppet movies then the later ones, hence Kermit, Piggy, and Fozzy are more in the forefront then Gonzo, Rizzo or Pepe. Then there's Walter, the new Muppet made for the film and our hero- he is the wide eyed fan with a good heart trying to find his place in the world and help his idol's reclaim their spotlight- he easily could have been a disposable character but he isn't, and in fact feels like a character whose always been there- he looks right standing there with Kermit and the gang, and hopefully he will appear in whatever the Muppets do next as he has earned his place with them.

Then there are the songs. The opening and closing musical numbers, Life's a Happy Song, fits right in, and while it is not in the same league as Rainbow Connection and Hey a Movie from The Muppet Movie and Great Muppet Caper, it's still a great way to start and end the film on high notes. Cooper's villain rap, Let's Talk About Me is silly but works because the character really is over the top,so it's fitting his musical number is as well. The covers done during the Muppet Telethon are hit and miss, with the chicken version of Cee Lo Green's Fuck You and the montage to We Built this City being the hits and the barbershop version of Smells Like Teen Spirit the miss- but they tried, and Jack Black points out how bad the song is as its being done. Walter and Gary's song Man or Muppet is decent but serves more as a plot point then a song, although I give it credit for at least being entertaining- something else the songs in Winnie the Pooh weren't. Mary and Piggy's pseudo duet of Me Party is ok, but has my vote for worst song in the movie simply because it seems shallow and sadly, Piggy's part works much better then Mary's. The whole group version of the classic Rainbow Connection is sweet and really brings you back to the old days- they could have changed it, made it more 'modern' as movies do sometimes but they didn't, they kept it classic and that is for the best. Speaking of, for my money, the best song has to Kermit's bittersweet song of nostalgia Pictures In My Head. The song is heartbreaking and you really feel for Kermit, who regrets letting his friends slip away and wants the good old days back, although he doubts it is possible. The visuals that go along with it add to it, as Kermit walks down a hallway in his house, looking at pictures of Fozzy, Gonzo, The Swedish Chef and the Electric Mayhem and remembering how things used to be, with the pictures joining in. But what nails it on the head is the last picture, which we only see uncovered for a brief moment- a picture of Miss Piggy. This is the first time we realize how much things have changed and we want Kermit to frog up and do what has to be done.

I want to be able to say something negative about the movie, just so I don't seem too biased but the fact of the matter is I really can't. Whatever faults the movie has are not overtly apparent and don't take away from the film as a whole. The script and story may be cliched but they are enjoyable and you can tell were written by someone who knows and loves the characters. The cast are great and it's awesome to see the old gang again doing what they do best. The songs are majority positive, and the few that aren't still have a place in the film even if I personally didn't care for them. So really, I can't knock this film.

Conclusion

Kind of strange, two movies released in the same year by Disney concerning characters I love and grew up with, both watched and reviewed by me with such complete different reviews. The Muppets got right what Winnie the Pooh got wrong in my opinion- the film kept to the spirit of the characters without sacrificing anything along the way. While Winnie the Pooh seemed like a mean movie by the end The Muppets was well balanced with equal amounts joy and tears. You cared about the characters and the story, and the songs and cast helped that. As a Muppet fan I can proudly say this movie lived up to the hype and the hope I'd given it, and I can only hope that this is the kick in the ass the franchise needs to get back on it's feet. Normally I'm adamantly against sequels but in this case I'll allow it, especially if they let Segal write it, as he really seemed to know what the Muppets needed. All in all, if you are a fan, see it. If you are not a fan, see it. Everyone should watch this movie and get a taste of the magic that The Muppet's possess. Jim would be proud.

5 Karate Chopping Pigs out of 5

That's all out of me, until next time I'm the Drew and I Be Awesome.

Drew On Movies #21: Saw 3D (2010)

Saw 3D (2010)

"Do you want to play a game?"

Ah the Saw franchise, if ever there was an example of sequels for sequels sake, you are it. We have an interesting history you and I- while skimming a horror website many years back I read an article about the second installment of the franchise, and while it unknowingly spoiled the first film for me somewhat, it also intrigued me. Sometime later a friend of my brothers lent me the first two films and I watched them with twisted glee- what can I say, I enjoy a good, albeit sadistic morality tale, and creative death traps are always fun. Suffice to say, while the first was no doubt the best and could easily have remained a stand alone film, the sequel wasn't too shabby.

As we all know there is nothing Hollywood loves more then perceived 'easy' money. Sequels are the cornerstone of this idea, as if it worked once it can work again, and again, and again. Quality doesn't matter as long as money is still being made, and horror flicks tend to be able to survive longer in this system for whatever reason- its why we have six sequels to Nightmare on Elm Street when only two are any good; they all made money.

So it was thus inevitable that yet another Saw would come to pass, and when it hit theatres I went to see Saw 3, and had to admit, while it was not even close to the original, the film's ending had me itching for more. Waited for the DVD release for part four, five and six, and the truth remained- while the quality was not good, elements of the films continued to intrigue me, most importantly the ever growing world of the film. Each movie, while the main plot remained the same, added to the foundation of the first film and answered questions that on first glance we were not aware needed to be asked.

Thus we find ourselves with the final film in the franchise, one that seeks to tie up loose ends and bring the series to a conclusion. Most horror franchises don't get this luxury, either they keep going one way or another or when they do stop making them little if anything is resolved. As the creators were aware this was gonna be the end they had a rare opportunity to finish what they started. Did they succeed? Let's find out as we play one more game- this is Saw 3D

Plot

The film begins as they often do, with a flashback to another film in the series- in this case, we go all the way back to film one, and the fate of Dr. Lawrence Gordon, played by Cary Elwes, who cut off his own foot to escape Jigsaw's trap and who has not been seen since. Dr. Gordon is seen crawling through hallways and using a hot pipe to cauterize his leg. We then cut to what the franchise is known for- a death trap, this time one in public. Two men are chained to band saws with a woman above them, tied to a platform with another saw beneath her. As people watch them through shatterproof glass, Billy the Puppet rides in and explain the rules of the game- the woman has been playing both men and they need to decide who gets to live- both of them, or one of them and the girl. I won't spoil who bites the bullet here but all I can say is it is gory. From here we return to where the last film left off, with Detective Mark Hoffman, Jigsaw's apprentice, escaping the reverse bear trap head trap placed on his head by Jill Tuck, Jigsaw's widow. Hoffman, played by Costas Mandylor, escape the building without finding Jill and begins to set things in motion for the final game. Fearing for her life, Jill, played by Betsy Russell, goes to see Detective Matt Gibson, played by Chad Donella, offering information about Hoffman and Jigsaw's work in exchange for protection. While this is going on we are introduced to Bobby Dagan, played by Sean Patrick Flanery, a self-help guru who has gained fame and fortune by claiming to have survived a Jigsaw trap and how it changed his life. He is filmed meeting with other survivors for a DVD, only to be rebuked by Dr. Gordon, who subtly mocks him and his story. Leaving afterwards, Dagan is kidnapped and awakens in an abandoned insane asylum and informed that he has sixty minutes to save his wife from a trap of her own. He is also informed that it is his lies that brought all of this upon him- he has never been tested and instead was inspired by a real survivor to fake the story and make money. As usual, he must save others along the way by going through various tests and traps, or else leave them to brutal fates. Gibson and his fellow officers attempt to find Dagan and Hoffman, all the while being sent cryptic messages by the latter claiming the game will end when he has Jill. Who will live, who will die, and who is really pulling all the strings?

Thoughts

As stated, I've stuck with this series despite it's gradual dips in quality for one simple reason- every film added more to the entire story, and  wanted to know how it was all going to come together in the end. Suffice to say, I was not disappointed. While there are still some questions I've trying to work out, that might take a full Saw marathon just to see everything in one shot. Regardless, the ending to the film and the franchise is done quite will in my opinion, and provided a satisfying conclusion.

Before I continued let's talk about the film on it's own, or rather, the traps. Let's be honest, most people who are watching the Saw movies are doing so for the traps and the violence they bring, and this film keeps the train rolling with some truly twisted little numbers. The main ones that Dagan deals with involve the every classic "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" motif, and how the characters involved in each did just that. The opening trap deserves some mention because not only was in the first time we've seen one done publicly, it was one of the few I can remember that was not just about survival- yes as always that is the main point but this one involved a situation in which the characters really had to be involved and enact a definite change. The final outcome of the trap was not only be their survival but their lives. Something was going to be different because of what they did. Regardless, all the traps have their own twisted logic and when they do their jobs there is blood and guts aplenty, and really, that's what most people came to see. Forget the moral lesson entailed in each one, people want violence and they get it.

For the actual fans, we get a continuation of the plot we've been following for the last few movies, with the surviving characters of Det. Hoffman and Jill each continuing their game with one another and the grander scheme of the deceased John Kramer- who appears in a number of flashbacks as well as new scenes and still played to perfection by the great Tobin Bell. If there is one thing I really dislike about the franchise is that as a character John dies too early- yes he still has his hand in things but I would've liked to see him just a bit more, if only because he is a great character who truly believes in what he is doing, unlike those who follow after him.

As with all the movies the bodycount is pretty high and most of the victims are only known to us through the recordings played prior to their deaths. We never really get to know them but at this stage in the game that should be expected- they are their to die, nothing more. The characters we are meant to follow have been there for some time so our focus is rightly on them- we know it is highly unlikely anyone introduced now is going to be of much importance outside of the main game.

While the overreaching story continued and concluded, which is a plus, it also reminds me of the series biggest flaws- while they can be watched on their own for the games, the main story is lost if the films are not all watched. Likewise, while you can watch them all to get the entire story, to do so you need to deal with these one film only games. Of course this isn't always true- the game in the original movie is important as it's what sets everything in motion, and the one from the third film begins to tie things up, those from the fifth, sixth and final films really are filler- the players in each one don't serve much of a purpose as they are only central to their own stories and not the main one.

Still, given that there actually is an overreaching story that goes across the films I can't really complain- few other horror franchises can claim this, as most have sequels that are only loosely tied together or not tied together at all. So really I can't really fault the franchise or the film for doing what they had to for everything to fall into place.

I have no real complaints about the film itself- it's a Saw movie, you know exactly what you are getting into and if you go in with that knowledge you can't really complain because you seen it all before.

Conclusion

If you are going into this movie expecting something new, you are an idiot. After seven movies the franchise has no reason to change it's formula and to expect such is foolish. However if you go in knowing the movies and thus knowing what to expect you should be fine. I doubt anyone is going to watch this movie without having seen the others, if for no other reason then it'd be a really weird thing to do. This movie exists both to be another trap filled Saw movie and to finish the franchise up in a manner that will satisfy those who have stuck by it this far. Repeat viewings of the films may be a wise choice after this one ends, and I will likely do so just so I can put all the pieces together, joke notwithstanding. Basically, as a fan of the series I can recommend it to other fans if for no other reason then to get closure and answers to the questions we've found over time. For non fans, let's be honest, if you haven't watched a Saw movie yet a review of the final one won't get you started. If you want to see how it all ends, watch it. If you didn't have an interest before, doubt you will now. After seven movies, it's time for everyone to say it. Game over.

3 Creepy Pig Masks out of 5

That's all of me, until next time, I'm the Drew, and I Be Awesome.

Drew On Movies #20: My Bloody Valentine (1981)

 My Bloody Valentine (1981)


Ah Valentines Day, a holiday that owes its existence more to capitalism then to compassion- let's be honest folks, this is a day tailored made to be a marketing machine. You think Christmas is consumer driven, it has nothing on V-Day. See at least with Christmas there is this all encompassing idea of goodwill towards one another- it's a day where we give to family and friends to show how much we care. Valentine's is a day where people in relationships are expected to spend money to show the person they are with that they have disposable income and are willing to use it on them one day a year to show that they can. It's a day to show one's love through cards or candy or flowers- ya know, things that don't require much thought and can easily be disposed of.

Know what else is easily disposable and tailored made to be marketed to a specific group of people? Slasher flicks.

Slashers are a staple of the horror genre and have been for decades. While people debate which film started the trend- the general consensus is John Carpenter's 1978 film Halloween, what can be agreed upon is that the genre and it's conventions are not going anywhere anytime soon. Even as the landscape of horror and films in general change, there is always room for a simple story of a masked killer stalking teenagers and dispatching them in increasingly violent ways. While not my favorite subgenre of horror, even I admit there are some good slasher flicks out there- A Nightmare on Elm Street is in my top five horror films. What usually bugs me with them is either their predictability in the case of a slasher where we need to guess who the killer is, or the lack of originality- horror is a derivative genre to begin with, and slashers are the best example.

Yet sometimes one finds one that does not hit these hurdles, and while it may still be derivative it's still entertaining. This is where today's movie comes in- and as Halloween also started the slasher trend it also gave us the idea of the holiday themed killer- it's many sequels, the Silent Night Deadly Night series and other Christmas themed killers, April Fools Day, and so on. Cross your heart and hope to survive, because in honor of Singles Awareness- I mean Valentine's Day, this is the 1981 Canadian slasher My Bloody Valentine.

Plot

Now I am aware this film was recently remade, in fact, I have seen the remake and as I had no real knowledge of the original I enjoyed it as there was nothing in my mind to compare it to. The remake was a decent little slasher flick, however it suffered from one of the aforementioned hurdles- it was very predictable. Yes it tried to throw us some red herrings but anyone with half a brain knew who the killer was about halfway through the film. That said I still enjoy it, and it was thinking of that movie that got me to look for the original.

For the first time in twenty years, the small Nova Scotia mining town of Valentine Bluffs is having a Valentine's Ball. For close to a hundred years this had been a tradition for the townspeople, until a mining accident caused by two careless foreman leaving the mine early for the dance led to a cave in and the death of a number of miners. The sole survivor, Harry Warden, went mad and ate his fellow miners, and was sent away. The following year he returned and took revenge on the two foremen, and told the town if they ever had another Valentine's Dance he would return. However as in all such movies, after a certain amount of time people forget or try to forget, and old stories, whether they are true or not, start to be considered legends. Despite warnings, most of the town's young people are dismissive of the story and are excited for the dance. There is tension however, as Jessie 'T.J' Hanniger, son of mine owner and Mayor Hanniger, has returned to town recently and is having trouble fitting back in, especially since his ex girlfriend Sarah has moved on with his former friend Axel. The two men are at odds both in the mine and out over their love for Sarah. Likewise, two days before the dance Mayor Hanniger and Police Chief Newby receive a human heart in a candy box- Harry Warden's calling  card from twenty years ago. Though at first not looking to cause a panic, as the body count rises they decide to cancel the dance- not that those foolish young people care, as they decide to have a party of their own to celebrate the holiday- at the mine. Much violence ensues, as does the question of who the killer is- has Harry Warden really returned, or is it the withdrawn Jessie? Or is someone else in the quiet little town a complete lunatic dressed in a miner's uniform? The answer may surprise you, because it sure as hell surprised me.
 
Thoughts

Let's continue with the surprise I will not spoil it, but as I mentioned earlier the biggest problem with the remake in my opinion was that it was way too obvious who the killer was. In the original, not as much. Up until the last ten or so minutes, you are not sure who is really under that gas mask and mining helmet, and that is a plus in my book. Far too often with mystery slashers either the killer's identity is overtly obvious or a twist that make little sense occurs and the killer is someone who doesn't fit the character. In this movie, you are unsure until the end, and when the reveal occurs, you are satisfied because not only do you not see it coming but the identity makes sense.

Onto the characters- as with most slasher flicks, the majority of the cast exist simply to be part of the total body count. Still, most of the teens are developed enough that you like them- a good example being the character of Hollis, who was my favorite and whose death seriously bummed me out- he was a very likeable guy and the more you see of him in the film the more you want him to survive. The leads are pretty cut and dry, Jessie as the withdrawn prodigal son trying to make sense of the town he left, Axel as the badass trying to hold onto his girl, Sarah as the sweet young woman torn between two men, Chief Newby the determined lawman trying to keep his town safe, and Harry Warden is an intimidating masked killer. They are simple archetypes yes but they work because slashers are a genre built on a foundation of archetypes.

Now on to the kills- if there is one thing I love in a slasher movie is a good kill, and this movie has plenty. They are bloody and quite creative, even by today's standards. I especially like the film's opening kill because it is probably the simplest of the film and yet is done so perfectly that it can stand with the more imaginative ones found later in the film. While the film is not super gory, you have to remember it's from the 1980s and you didn't need extreme amounts of blood and gore to make a good movie then.

With all of this said the film still has it's flaws. Most importantly in my view is the pacing- the majority of the films action and kills happen in the final half hour or so, and while the preceding hour is good, it seems like they had a good conclusion in mind and just needed to find stuff to fill the time between the opening and the ending. However, this is not a big flaw- whereas a film like the original Halloween took forever for anything to happen, there are moments that break this films monotony and keep the plot rolling. Besides that, the only thing I can say is not mine to say. Researching the film I found that it was edited prior to it's original release, and while the version I watched, the "uncut version", has some of these edits put back in, a number of others have been lost. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when it comes to older movies- footage that is edited out nowadays will almost always end up on the DVD release either in a new cut or deleted/extended footage, but this was not always the case. Movies made prior to the early to mid 90s, unless they were important films (i.e block busters), tended to have that edited out footage destroyed or locked away. A good example being The Breakfast Club- that movie was originally over an hour longer, but the only remaining print of the full movie was in the possession of director John Hughes, as the studio had no use for it. While I don't know what these edits were I would like to see this movie as it was originally intended, but it seems that is not possible. This is not a flaw of the film itself but rather that of the industry as a whole.

Conclusion

My Bloody Valentine is a decent slasher flick. It is well filmed, acted and written, and has a great set of kills that should satisfy the twisted among you. While the remake is good I'd say this one is the better of the two, and well worth a watch. If you are a slasher fan and you have never looked at this little gem I say give it a shot, though unless your significant other is a fan as well I wouldn't put this on your Valentine's Day watch list. However if you are single and looking for a way to kill time and/or watch people in love get slaughtered, give it a watch. Or get help. Whatever works for ya.

3.5 Freshly Removed Hearts out of 5

That's all out of me, enjoy your Valentine's/Single's Awareness/Tuesday. Until next time I'm the Drew and I Be Awesome.

Drew On Movies #19: Night of The Hell Hamsters (2006)

Night of the Hell Hamsters (2006)

Re-read that title once or twice and tell me you would not watch a movie with a title like that. If you say you wouldn't you have no imagination and no soul.

For some reason imdb.com had this listed under recommendations for me, and after I stopped laughing at the title I checked into it. The film is a short, sixteen minutes with credits, from Britain, and can be found on youtube. Being the curious person that I am, I gave it watch and while it was nothing special, it certainly lived up to what the title promised- a silly little horror short about killer hamsters.

Plot

The plot is quite simple, a young baby-sitter is visited by her boyfriend who has brought her something she has been begging for- a Ouija board. Unfortunately, he has intentionally forgotten the board so they can instead partake in what teenagers in this situation are expected to do. However the baby-sitter, Julie, played by Stephanie Ratcliff, is adamant, and rather then give up, she makes a mock up board out of one of her young charges alphabet puzzle and an empty shot glass. Her boyfriend Karl, played by Paul O'Neill, provides the final ingredient- blood from a bite given to him by one of the children's pet hamsters. A quick made up summoning speech is made, and as to be expected, the two wind up summoning something they shouldn't have- a something that decides to possess the pet rodents. You know what comes next.

Thoughts

Right off the bat, this movie is silly- it involves possessed hamsters killing people- you are not getting an Oscar quality flick here. That said, it is well shot- while not professional by any means, it could easily pass for an independent b-movie on the cinematography alone. Likewise, the cast, which is essentially the couple, are well acted- they play the parts of a teenage baby-sitter and her boyfriend as those roles are want to be played in a b-movie; not perfect by any means but enjoyable. The script is tight, sticking with cliches and movie quotes that tie in with the scenario, and an interesting twist at the end that while not spectacular just added to the film's charm. If this were to become a full length film I'd definitely watch it, because there is enough humor to be built upon and it'd be interesting to see how far it can go. However as a short it works, because it fits nicely into the genre it is a part of- it's funny, it's bloody, and it's cheesy. Hell, where else are going to hear the line "guinea pigs ate your mother?" and have it make perfect sense? That's what I thought.

Conclusion

I love bad movies, I love b-movies, I love cheesy movies- they are my bread and butter and I'd much rather watch them then some of the quote 'good' movies that are out there for one simple reason- heart. More often then not, it's the low budget b-movies that are made with the most heart, because they don't have much else to work with. They may not have the money, the cast, or the effects but they have a dream, a vision, and the drive to get it done one way or another, and that is something I respect. That said, it is killer possessed hamsters killing teenagers-if you don't know what to expect going in then you are a fool. Sit back, relax, and have some laughs for fifteen-sixteen minutes. It can't hurt, certainly not as much as the bite of an evil demon hamster.

3.5 Homemade Ouija boards out of 5

That's all out of me, until next we meet I'm the Drew and I Be Awesome

If you want to check out the flick here are the links (it's in two parts for some reason)

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdcQ7lBro0s
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcZIY9d6TNk&feature=related

Drew On Movies #18: Phineas and Ferb The Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension

 Phineas and Ferb The Movie: Across The 2nd Dimension (2011)

So about two years ago my little sister was home sick and I didn't have work or class, so we were sitting around watching TV. While skimming through the channels she stopped on one and told me this cartoon was on and we had to watch it. Now I grew up in what I like to call the Golden Age of Cartoons- basically the mid 1980s until the mid 1990s were when some of the best cartoons were on the air, and since then, I've noticed that not only are there next to no Saturday morning cartoons on anymore, the few that there are, well, they kinda suck. Add in that the cartoon was on The Disney channel, and I wasn't sold- I mean Disney has done some great stuff over the years, but outside of Pixar's output and maybe two or three animated films, their glory days are behind them, at least in terms of quality. But eh, she had the remote so figured I'd see what it was.

And I'm glad I did, because that was the day I discovered Phineas and Ferb.

For those unaware, Phineas and Ferb is about two step brothers, the titular Phineas and Ferb and their
adventures over the summer. On its own that sounds like a really simple plot, but you need to understand one thing first- the boys know no limits and literally live everyday as much as possible, going top extreme lengths to have the 'best day ever'. As the theme song tells, they have done everything from build a roller coaster through their town, searched for Mummies, traveled trough time, and more, all the while avoiding their sister Candace, who wants nothing more then to bust them. Add in their pet platypus Perry who is actually a secret agent who tangles daily with incompetent evil scientist Dr. Doofenshmirtz, and you have one of the most original and well written cartoons on television. What really sold the show to me, outside of the creativity, is the writing. The characters are likeable, the plots entertaining, and the songs- yes there are songs, in fact ever episode since the third one have had at least one original song, are catchy and enjoyable. Not only did I become a fan, but I got my father and older brother into the series and introduced it to my friends as well.

This past year it was announced that the show was getting a made for TV feature and while my experience with made for TV/DVD Disney movies has not been the best, I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt since I love the show so much, and I was not disappointed. This folks, is Phineas and Ferb: Across the 2nd Dimension in glorious 2D.

Plot

It's the fifth anniversary of the day Phineas and Ferb brought Perry home and the duo are having fun with their pet. While using his natural reflex of flicking his tail when his neck get scratched to launch a baseball, the two decide to build large Perry tails to laugh a giant shuttlecock across town in a game of platypus bandminton During this time Perry is called away by his superior, Major Monogram, and informed once again that his owners can never learn of his secret identity or else he will be forced to move. He is then sent to stop Doofenshmirtz from completing work on his latest device which can open portals into other dimensions. As he flies off to do so his ship is hit by Phineas and Ferb's giant shuttlecock which changes both courses- sending Perry crashing and the boys straight for the Dr.'s lab. They crash into Doof's place and destroy his device, but being the good guys they are offer to fix it, even getting rid of his usual Self-Destruct button. Perry arrives but reverts to his 'pet' disguise when he notices the boys. He tries to stop them from fixing the device but instead annoys Phineas with his bad behavior. They finish the machine and cross into another dimension when Doof notices a couch he wants to steal to replace his own, only to discover in this universe his counterpart rules the Tri-State Area with an iron fist and has turned this universe's Perry into his cyborg general. When they group meet this truly evil Doofenshmirtz he reveals that Perry is a secret agent, a fact that hurts Phineas and he believes that Perry hid it from them because he does not trust them. The trio escape and meet their counterparts while attempting to return to their home dimension, only for Perry to turn himself in to save them. This leads to their joining up with this universe's Candace, who leads the rebellion against Doof, both to save Perry and return home before this Doof crosses over and invades.

Thoughts

Where do I begin.

First off, great songs, I need to get that out of the way. While not the best the series has turned out (the title goes to the entire soundtrack from the hour long Summer Belongs to You special), they are still catchy, especially the opening number Everything is Better with Perry. The plot is pretty basic but still has some great moments, such as showing how little things change the characters between universes (the other dimension's Candace for example, has spent her live protecting her brothers rather then busting them, leading to her growing up fast and the boys being sheltered). This is played for laughs at times, such as the revelation as to what led to the other universe's Doof being as evil as he is in relation to the original. Also the reactions from Phineas when he learns about Perry's double life are good and heartbreaking at times, as you can see the hurt in his eyes as well as those in Perry's as he is unable to explain why he could not tell them. Ferb as always has some entertaining single lines, and while I wish the side characters could've had a bit more to do, this really is a story about the boys and Perry and their relationship in light of the events.

If I have one complaint about the film is it's length- at an hour and fifteen minutes, it easily could have stretched itself out to a full ninety minutes with a little more story or song extension. That being said they did well with the time allotted so I can't really complain- hell, with an extra twenty minutes it was ten times better then Winnie the Pooh was and that movie got a theatrical release!

That said the film has a good opening, a decent middle and a satisfying conclusion with fun dialogue and songs throughout. As a made for TV film based on a TV series it works better then most made for DVD Disney sequels so there really isn't much to complain about. A little more time and a little more character and it would've been perfect but I'll take what I can get. It is satisfying for fans of the show in my opinion, and really that's who it is made for- sure people who have never seen the show before could watch it but there are quite a few call backs to the series itself that might go over non-fans heads.

Conclusion

Out of the three longer then an episode Phineas and Ferb specials (the others being the aforementioned Summer Belongs to You and the Christmas themed Phineas and Ferb's Christmas Vacation) this film is the longest but would take spot number three, as Summer Belongs to You has better songs and development and Christmas Vacation has a better story and is a Christmas special which scores big in my book. That does not take away from it however, as it is still a fun movie and bottom of the top three is better then bottom of the top ten right? If you are a fan of the show then this is a must see, and even if you are not check it out, might be the spring board you need to check out the series. In an age when cartoons are a dying element on television, Phineas and Ferb is one of the best of the breed, and this film is a great addition to the series.

4 "Where's Perry's" out of 5

That's all for this round, until the next film I'm the Drew and I Be Awesome.