In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I had a lot of fun reviewing the 50 films for my favorites list, I figured I would start a separate thread where I review movies I have seen as I go. And given my tastes are very broad, this could included a wide range of films. From postwar Kurosawa, a summer blockbuster, to a Lloyd Kaufman shock exploitation film. Hope you enjoy.

And to start this thread how about we start with something obscure.

http://pics.filmaffinity.com/The_Cin...1379-large.jpg

The Cinema Snob movie

This movie is based off the internet review character The Cinema Snob. A pretentious film snob who loves art films, adores Scorsese, Citizen Kane is his favorite movie, and enjoys the feeling of being smarter then everyone else when it comes to film. And what does this character do for a living? He reviews exploitation movies, horror films, and porn! This comedic review series now has over 200 episodes, and has reviewed the likes of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Maniac, Night Dreams (the arthouse porn), Sleepaway Camp, ET the Porno (I'm serious), Cannibal Holocaust, Cannibal Ferox, and even the original I Spit on Your Grave. The Snob character looks down at these movies as pure filth and exploitation for the sake of exploitation, which he despises. Unless it is Salo, then he likes it.

Brad Jones is the creator of the Cinema Snob and is very different from the character. For starters, he loves exploitation films, loves quite a few of the movies he has reviewed, and Caligula is actually his favorite movie. Which he also reviewed in a two part 100th episode crossover event with other internet reviewers. He is also a low budget exploitation film maker with a few movies under his belt, that have gained a degree of popularity due to his internet celebrity.

This movie was made based off the idea of his internet personality. The story is about an exploitation film maker named Craig Golightly (Jones) who wants his blaxploitation movie "Black Angus" made, but he needs the help of the local film board to get for shooting permits. He is denied these permits by the pretentious head of the film board. So he decides to disguise himself as an equally pretentious film critic named Vincent Dawn to get in nice with a local film club; which happens to be run by the head of the film board. Problem is that the members start to be murdered off one by one. And their deaths are particularly gruesome in nature. The club in the killer's cross hairs, Craig finds himself drawn into unraveling the murder plot. He must now avoid being labeled a suspect, secure his film permits, all the while suffering though the film clubs meetings. Especially Being John Malkovich night, where it takes the club eight hours to watch the film as they pause the movie every time something "symbolic" happens. To make things even more complicated he is entangled in a new romance with the wife of the head of the film board (played by Jone's then wife Jillian).

The gore effects are practical (which I like) but since this is a micro budget film, the particularly gruesome details like having a baseball bat shoved up a guy's ass wrapped in barb wire is not shown and left to your imagination. This film is also best appreciated by fans of the web series. If you are curious, check out a few episodes of his internet series at

http://thecinemasnob.com/categories/...nema-snob.aspx

If you are a fan (like I am), check it out. If not, then you should probably pass.

http://blog.muv.mx/wp-content/upload...n-3-poster.jpg

Well MOFOs, it is that time again. It is the first weekend of May, and that means that it is officially the start of the summer movie season! That time since Star Wars where Hollywood ties to fill the release dates with the movies they believe will be the box office smashes and crowd pleasers. A time of more emphasis on entertainment then art; and just like last year they are starting of the summer season with another release from Marvel Studios. And that movie is Iron Man 3. And like all my reviews, I will do my best to keep it spoiler free.

This is the movie that I was most looking forward to this season, but at the same time it was also a movie I had some concerns about. First off this is the third movie in the Iron Man Franchise, and most comic book movies tend to go to ***** when the third movie comes out. See Spider Man 3 and Blade Trinity as my primary examples. Second, this movie is the first Marvel studios picture since last year's The Avengers. Anyone who has seen my Top 50 Favorite movies list knows that The Avengers is one of my top ten favorite movies. Anytime you follow a very big and very successful movie with another one that is tied to it, there can be some let down. And finally this movie also marks the start of Phase II of the Marvel Studios cinematic universe. And much like Phase one, it needs to open strong. But on the plus side we had the return of Robert Downey Jr., and Shane Black of Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang fame makes his Marvel debut as a screen writer and director. So how was the movie? The short answer; I liked it a lot! Okay it is not The Avengers, but it is still a great movie in this humble reviewer’s opinion. And it was better than Iron Man 2’s sophomore slump (though to be fair I liked that too). So let’s talk about the good and the bad.

The good is that Robert Downey Jr. is a very charismatic lead and is an excellent Iron Man. And he still gives an excellent performance as the genius billionaire super hero. He is still arrogant, eccentric and full of himself, but now we start to see a bit of vulnerability. He is suffering from post traumatic stress: he is having anxiety attacks, he cannot sleep, and he spends his sleepless nights tinkering away at on his armors. The majority of Tony’s supporting cast returns as well with Don Cheadle reprising his role as War Machine (now renamed Iron Patriot), Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Pepper Potts, as does Iron Man I and II director Jon Favreau as Tony’s bodyguard Happy Hogan. We also get introduced to some new characters such as Guy Pearce as the head of the scientific think tank / terrorist organization Advanced Idea Mechanics (AIM) as well as the legendary Ben Kingsley as long time Iron Man villain the Mandarin. The Mandarin is sold as the movies big bad, a terrorist threat who wishes to teach America a so called lesson, and does so in a series of attacks on various sites with bombings. But as the movie progresses on, you start to see that the Mandarin is not carrying out the attacks with conventional bombs, and his connection to AIM becomes even stronger as the movie progresses. And finally Shane Black who is no stranger to action movies with comedic elements, continues this with a very witty and funny script.

And now for the bad… Okay, not really the bad, but I do have some nitpicks. Number one, while the movie was funny, I think they over did it on the jokes. Yes it was funny, but sometimes the humor seemed to be over emphasized. There were several situations where jokes were cracked, but I felt the time and situation were inappropriate. Joss Whedon did an excellent job adding humor into The Avengers, and the comedy to drama to action ratio was perfect. Joss knew when to be serious, where to add humor, and when to add the right amount to break up the tension. In addition sometimes the schtick ran on for too long in Iron Man 3. My second gripe comes in one scene where Iron Man goes to Tennessee to further investigate the Mandarin attacks and he crash lands there right in the middle of a snow storm (as seen in the trailer). He finds refuge in a house and he meets a little kid who is a tinkerer himself. The kid recognizes the armor, but asks if Tony is Iron Man. The guy went on live TV in the first movie declaring himself to be Iron Man, actually parks his suit outside of a restaurant, and even holds press conferences outside of the armor AND THE KID DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE **** HE IS?!?!?!? I call bullsh!t! There are a few other nitpicks here and there, but those are the biggest ones I can think off of the top of my head. Though it does still remain a damn good movie. I also think the plot gets a little overshadowed by the humor as well. And that is not the best of ideas since this movie does have a quite a few elements to it.

The third act as with any comic book and or action movie has to be big. And this was a big one! It involves multiple suits of armor, the final fight between Stark and the terrorist forces, and what may very well be one of the best twists I have seen in movies. It is not Hitchcock good, but it is both really funny and in canon with the movie, makes a whole lot of sense In fact, it is rather brilliant. And the end result is good triumphs and evil is punished. I don’t think I am spoiling anything there. That is kind of a given I think. As for the post credits teaser, if you were expecting it to start to foreshadow a future movie… you will be disappointed. It is a funny post credit scene and I liked it, but I would have liked to have seen something that would lead into a future Marvel Studio’s release. But then again the cameo in the teaser was still cool to see.

So it is a strong kick off to the summer movie season. Iron Man 3 is a good final installment to the Iron Man franchise (for now at least) as there are currently no plans for a fourth solo Iron Man movie. It is interesting how this movie will affect the other Marvel movies to come, but let’s face it, Stark will be back for Avengers 2. The end of the movie even said so. I place this as a very strong end to the franchise. Much stronger than Spider Man 3 and Blade Trinity (which were ****) and The Dark Knight Rises (which I thought was merely okay). If you liked Iron Man, you will like this movie.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!


I liked Iron Man quite a bit, but didn't like this one. I will say it was a visual treat, but the *SPOILER* Mandarin joke really took me out of the film.....like almost ruined it for me. Luckily the third act, as you said, was a big one, although a few holes were left.....like, if all he had to do was have surgery to get the shrapnel out, why not do that sooner? I know it wasn't in his personality, but they could have done that and kept the reactor. I don't know how to feel about this film, honestly, and I plan on giving it another shot when the crowd dies down, but upon initial viewing it's a weak for me. It was very funny, though. Like....laugh out loud at times funny.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

For the whole shrapnel thing, I thought the same thing, but I figured since he was ready to hang up being Iron Man (for now at least), it was a fitting time to remove the the shrapnel that lead to him becoming Iron Man in the first place. He did not do it earlier because he felt it was a part of him. And he did like being Iron Man. So I thought it was a good way to end the film trilogy. And lets face it, he will be back for Avengers 2.

http://cf2.imgobject.com/t/p/origina...JJdXwUF7gQ.jpg

The Purple Rose of Cairo

Woody Allen is one of the cinema’s most talented writers and directors. And like Chaplin he does not always make me laugh out loud, but he is a very good story teller. Before I watched this movie I had seen Annie Hall, Manhattan, Bananas, Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex* But were Afraid to Ask, Manhattan Murder Mystery, Hollywood Ending, and Love and Death. Out of all of them I can remember only really laughing out loud was when I saw Annie Hall. That was until I watched this movie.

This movie starts out with Cecilia (Mia Farrow) as a Depression Era house wife from New Jersey. She is a waitress who is in an unhappy marriage to a worthless gambling, womanizing, abusive, drunkard played by Danny Aiello. Unhappy with her life she turns to the cinema as a way to escape reality and bring a little joy into her life. The movie playing currently she really enjoys called The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is a movie that exists only within the setting of the movie, where Jeff Daniels plays Tom Baxter, a wealthy explorer and poet. Tom encounters a group of wealthy New York socialites on vacation while at the Pyramids of Egypt and they all return to New York for a “mad cap” night on the town. Cecilia becomes enamored with the character Tom who is portrayed and wholesome, courageous and kind. She is also more than a little smitten with the actor who plays Tom, Gil Shepard. But she is mostly taken by the character who is literally the perfect man on the silver screen.

After getting fired from her job, she gets depressed and goes to the movies where she watches The Purple Rose of Cairo all day. And then suddenly the unthinkable happens. The character breaks the fourth wall, acknowledges Cecilia saying he has seen her in five different showings, and what happens? He steps off the screen out of the movie and into the real world and runs away with Cecilia out of the theater. The police are called and the rest of the characters on the screen begin to argue amongst themselves and with the patrons of the theater. The Hollywood studios are even called in because now the fear is that other characters from other movies or the same character in other cities may try to escape from the movie. Meanwhile Cecilia and Tom begin their real life romance. They do however experience problems. For one, Tom has no money that is good in the real world. He is also ignorant of how things are outside of the movie he is unaware of the Depression, soup kitchen lines, brothels, and even love making (which in the movies is done in a fade out). But his character is overflowing with a charm and glow to him that Cecilia finds irresistible. But at the same time he is not a real person, and this becomes an issue and apparent after she runs into none other than Gil Shepard himself who wants to try and get Tom to return to the movie.

This conflict represents the main theme of the movie, reality and fantasy. In reality things are very different from the way things work in the film world (as shown when Tom tries to drive a car with no key). In addition it also shows that while movies make a great temporary escape from life, ultimately one must return to reality and deal with the problems here; a message that does stick a cord with someone who has watched many films and has used films as an escape during rough parts of my life. For me they are a great love and passion, but ultimately they are just escape. Fantasy remains fantasy, and reality is reality. Something that is shown in the end of the film, which I thought was rather moving.

The premise of this movie is excellent, and shows that Allen is a big fan of films, and understands the relationship the audience has with the movies. He knows why we go and how we can feel so connected to the movies. The humor is also pretty funny as the way the audience members and the on screen characters sling insults and banter back and forth to each other and how the entire town and all of Hollywood become very invested in what happens in this little New Jersey town, and their reactions to how exactly a character can exit the movie into the real world was hilarious! Jeff Daniels as both Gil and Tom is fantastic! And Tom and Cecilia's night out in the movie world was both very touching, and had more then a few funny bits!

Before I saw this movie if someone had asked me which was my favorite Woody Allen movie I would have said Annie Hall. Now I can say that my favorite Woody Allen movie is The Purple Rose of Cairo. And I thank Skepsis93 for nominating this for the MOFO Hall of Fame. Because I can honestly say I would not have sought out this movie without it. An excellent film worthy of nomination.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Nice to see I'm not the only one to really like IM3 Gunslinger. Good review :up:

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Thanks JayDee, we do have similar tastes when it comes to the Marvel cinematic universe. :D

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

http://kinoblog.com/wp-content/uploa...ain_poster.jpg

What can be said about Michael Bay? He is a man whose entire career is based upon summer blockbusters with huge budgets, an over emphasis on explosions and CGI, female characters whose one dimension is that they are hot, third act shoot outs on massive scales, and sadly huge box office numbers. He is Spielberg without the talent. Instead of classic movies like Jaws, he has Armageddon; instead of an awesome franchise like Indiana Jones, he has those God awful Transformers movies. And while Spielberg can make serious movies like Schiendler’s List, Amistad, and Lincoln; the only time Michael Bay tried that we got Pearl Harbor. Obviously, I cannot call myself a Bay fan. But at the same time, I am not a knee jerk hater. Now do not get me wrong; I hate a lot of his movies, but there are some movies of his I actually enjoy. The Rock is in my opinion his only good movie (helped in large part to Nic Cage and Sean Connery) and I will admit that Bad Boys I & II are guilty pleasures (due entirely to Will Smith). So when I heard Pain and Gain was coming out and it did not feature giant CGI robots, meteors, Megan Fox, Shia LeQueff, was made for well under $100 million dollars and no references to historical attacks from the Japanese, I figured, “What the hell? Worth a shot.” Plus this is supposed to be based on real events from Miami in the early 90’s. So how was it? Short answer: It was okay.

Long answer: the movie focuses around Daniel Lugo (Mark Walberg), a personal trainer and former white collar criminal who is sick and tired of being a nobody, is sick of being in debt, and wants the nicer things in life. He found himself a target, hatches an idea to force him to sign over all that he owns, and gets his two friends to help him, forming the Sun Gym Gang. First to join is his buddy Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie), a fellow gym rat who is using steroids to get bigger, but now has ‘roid induced impotence. And he needs major bucks for the penis treatment he needs. The next to join is Paul Doyle (The Rock) an ex-con turned religious man who decides to help to get away from staying with a gay priest (I so wish I was kidding). Their mark is Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub) whose character is shown to be rich, unattractive, unfit, and a complete prick. The trio has a few failed attempts to kidnap him for some laughs. They eventually succeed and they store him in a warehouse full of sex toys. But through vice, poor planning, and stupidity, blow their cash. Hence they need a new target. They find a new mark, but ***** goes wrong and they now find themselves in a very desperate situation, which leads to the final climax of the movie.

The movie is in many ways a typical Michael Bay film. It is shot in Miami just like his Bad Boys movies, the movie can’t hold a shot for more than a few seconds, pointless female characters who are there to be hot (more on that later), has a final chase sequence that involves cars, boats, AND helicopters; and finally it is the genre where he is at his most profitable (but not necessarily his best) a big dumb action movie. But at the same time there was no CGI robots or giant asteroids, there were only a handful of explosions, and the action scenes were much more scaled back compared to his other films. In fact the third act action sequence seemed more akin to an action scene in the first part of one of his other movies. In other words, very small due to the much smaller budget he is used to working with. In addition he throws in some shots that look like they were captured on a hand held camera like a shot from End of Watch (a much better movie).

And like with any movie that claims to be based on true events, Hollywood changed a whole lot of stuff to make this movie. And I thought I was going to be able to point out the bullsh!t. But after reading the original articles detailing the events… a lot if it was in fact real. Very weird and very real. There really was a stripper from eastern Europe who was dumb enough to believe that her criminal boyfriend was with the CIA. There were many failed kidnapping attempts, one of which did involve ninja outfits. The line about running away with the Cuban maid so they could liquefy the assets was also true. The ridiculous fake car crash scenario with its failures and end result was based on real events. The strip club was a frequent hang out and not just a pointless excuse to get naked ladies on the screen, and a dead body was IDed via breast implants.

But they also changed some stuff. Some of it I get, and other changes were because Bay is a juvenile idiot. Most notably was Adrian Doole and his wife. In the movie he marries a large white woman who is a nurse who he met during his doctor's visits for erectile dysfunction. He did marry a nurse and he did have erectile issues, but the fat white chick was purely for fat jokes! There was no gay priest who tried to hit on Doyle, and the warehouse they tortured him in was not full of dildos, those changes are due to Bay's humor. In addition the Sun Gym gang was larger and there was no Paul Doyle, who was an amalgamation of two other guys to slim down the cast. And remember that stripper I was talking about? She actually had a bigger part to play in the real life events then depicted in the movie. So even when given a female character who is a stupid bimbo who is a part of the story, Bay still cuts down her importance so much in the film, she becomes useless in the movie. In addition the main characters were not likable idiots, they were stone killers. Most of them were married with kids and carrying on affairs with strippers on the side! These details were changed to make the main characters likable. And the victim Kershaw was not a one note douche bag like he was portrayed in the movie! That was changed so we did not care that he was brutally tortured. Which was also very real. And in addition to his torture, the gang made threats of assault against his family and even threatened to rape his wife! These were not nice people! In addition there was no final chases or boat getaways, all of that was pulled out of Bay’s ass. There are other changes, but to list all of them would take a long @ss time.

This movie is “based on true events” in the same way Tony Scott’s Domino was based on true events. Either way you look at it, it is a Michael Bay film through and through. It has style written all over the movie. If you like his movies, see it, though you could wait until it comes out on Red Box if you ask me. If you do not like his movies, skip it and read the articles instead. A very interesting read.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1999-12...ain-gain/full/

In the end, I had some fun with it, but I will not be rushing out to buy it on DVD when it is released. A one and done for me.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

The only one of these I've seen is Iron Man 3, and like you I enjoyed it a lot. I even liked the second one myself. My only gripe is with the Mandarin, where *SPOILER* they set him up to be this great, ruthless villain and it turns out he's just some silly junkie actor. When Guy Pearce says that he's the real Mandarin, it feels more like a metaphor than an actual fact. That type of story arc was handled better with Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins, because when you looked at Liam Neeson's character it was easier to believe that he was the real deal.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I see your point, but I thought the Mandarin bit was very well played. But yes Liam Neeson did that twist better

http://static.cinemagia.ro/img/db/mo...wn-837811l.jpg

Anyone who has seen my Top 50 Favorite Movies list knows I love the 1984 film Red Dawn. Not only is it on my list, it is my second favorite film of all time; ranking above movies made by greats such as Kurosawa and Kubrick. I love it that much. It is a movie about a group of teenagers who fight off Soviet forces who invade America and they have to fight them off in a guerrilla war that is like The Battle of the Algiers meets the violence of the final scene of The Wild Bunch. As such a fan of the original, when I heard of that a remake was in the making, I was VERY worried.


Remakes can be great movies when put in good hands and done right. In fact Cape Fear by Martin Scorsese with De Niro, Juliette Lewis, and Nick Nolte is one of my favorite movies and in my opinion is better than the original. A good remake needs to be put in the hands of a legitimate and proven film maker, have a good cast of very good actors, should reflect the original movies message and or themes, have a few call backs to the original, and the source material should not be considered a classic. Fail to do this and you end up with the Planet of the Apes remake by Tim Burton, which is a movie I really hate.


With these thoughts in mind, I followed the film’s details closely online. What first caught my attention was that Chris Hemsworth was going to play Jed Eckert. This was really good news for me since I thought he was great in Thor and The Avengers and was the only good thing about the sh!tty snow white movie he was in. However the rest of the news I read was far from good. Chris was the only name on the credits who stood out as being in good films. The rest of the cast were either people I did not know, where in films and TV shows I had not and would not check out, or were in films I had seen but were pretty bad. The most notable of this was Isabel Lucas who was the transformer who could imitate humans in that god awful Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen movie, and Adrianne Palicki who was in the infamous NBC Wonder Woman pilot which tried to make Wonder Woman a ruthless and violent vigilante anti hero. Not even kidding. So much for a great cast. In addition this was director Dan Bradley’s first feature film, which did not help increase my enthusiasm. And while the original Red Dawn is not going to be counted among film classics like The Wizard of Oz or The Godfather, it is a movie that is very much a product of its time. The movie is a film firmly set in the later years of the Cold War, and is set during among the more tense years. See my original Red Dawn review in my Top 50 list for more details. So doing a remake of a movie set in the Cold War, and setting it in modern times is not a good idea. Imagine trying to do a remake of Dr Strangelove set in the modern day without the Russkies. Sounds like a terrible idea right? The original concept of the movie had potential to give us an almost equally imposing enemy for the modern movie. It was to be an invasion by the Chinese coming to collect on defaulted US loans. A very large and imposing military force and the second most notable and brutal Communist country had great potential to be the big bad and powerful enemy this movie needed. However that was cut after the film wrapped. In June of 2010 the movie changes China as the films enemy and replaced it with North Korea. This was done because MGM was in financial difficulty and they wanted to continue to have access to the very lucrative Chinese markets, so the Chinese were replaced with the North Koreans and called for lots of CGI to replace North Korean flags over the Chinese ones, and some additional edits. And to top it off, the involvement of John Milius the original co-writer and directer of the first film seemed nonexistent.


These cons aside there was still hope and it came in the strangest form. When reviews started to come out, they were overwhelmingly negative. That actually gave me hope. The original Red Dawn is not a critical darling, and received mixed reviews at the time of release. So the fact that it was not liked by critics was actually a good sign. One of the negative reviews was by Drew Hunt of the Chicago Reader who could not even get through the first sentence of his review without a Tea Party reference. But my favorite review was by Joe Niccum of the Kansas City Star who said flat out that the only people who would like this movie were secessionists and militia members. Let’s face it, if this movie is getting these kinds of reviews from film critics, then it had a very good chance of capturing the original feel of the first film, and was the best show of promise I had seen since Hemsworth's casting. But even then I was still very worried and I did not get my hopes up.


Right before I went to see the movie I stopped off at my local comic book store to pick up a few issues, I chatted a bit with the guy who works there. The last words I spoke before I left was “Let’s see how bad they can f**k up one of my favorite movies.” I got my ticket and sat in the theater with the mindset that I was going to HATE this movie. So how was the movie? I thought it was actually pretty good. Nowhere near as good as the original, but as far as remakes go I thought it was one of the good ones.


The movie captured my attention in the opening scene, where the filmmaker takes a page from the Dawn of the Dead remake and sets up the film in a series of media clips and news stories that show the film is set in a world where a new ultra-nationalist regime has taken over Russia and has become the new sugar daddy to North Korea in the way of arms and military equipment. It also shows a massive cyber war to feel out weaknesses in US defenses. The movie then cuts to Washington state where we meet the Eckerts at a high school football game where Matt Eckert is the quarterback. We set up the characters, who they are and their relationships. And at about the ten minute mark we see North Korean paratroopers dropping into the suburbs, hence starting the action. The movie captured the same feel and was faithful to the same themes of patriotism, loyalty to friends and family, and comradeship the original had. It also captured the same feel as the first movie with a few call backs to the original. Most notably was when one of the teenagers raised his SAW to the sky and cried “WOLVERINES.” This moment was able to get me to the same emotional high I had during the original scene from the first movie. It was at this point where I thought to myself “they are actually doing a pretty good job.” They did add a few twists to certain call backs like with the deer blood scene. This kept the film feeling fresh and not recycled. In addition Matt Eckert gets a much bigger character arc in this move then in the original. And despite the rather weak casting, they actually do pretty good jobs.


But this movie does have its flaws. Very glaring flaws. Most notable is that an invasion by North Korea is not very feasible. If North Korea is going to invade anywhere, they are going to invade South Korea, if they are going to do anything to the US, it will be nuclear. In the original movie the vehicles for the Russians were painstakingly recreated for the film with a Kubrick level of attention to detail. In this movie the North Koreans are running around in US humvees, which is incredibly lazy. The action is shot in the shacky cam, and that can get a tad distracting, and not as good as the action scenes shot by Milius. In addition there is no character equivalent to Colonel Bella from the first movie, leaving the enemy force without a human face to it. And finally the movie is WAY to Marine Corp for me. As an infantryman in the US Army we have a healthy relationship with Marines in much the same way two brothers do. We will talk massive amounts of ***** to each other and deride one another like it is no tomorrow in order to claim superiority. But we are ultimately on the same team. But that being said the USMC stuff in this movie is so over done that it made me sick. In addition the fact that a Command Sergeant Major was actually leading a team into enemy territory made me laugh! When you reach that rank you are an office guy and an overseer, not a field leader. Also one critical scene was changed from the original where Daryl betrays the Wolverines. In the original he was a traitor, in this movie he is basically low jacked which robs the movie of a lot of tragedy. Another scene left out of the movie was when the Eckert boys visit their father in a reeducation camp. taking out an equally powerful scene from the movie and replaced it with a half assed execution. And finally while I said the acting on the part of the cast was fine, the look they had screamed “pretty teenagers playing soldier.” The cast of the original movie outside of Charlie Sheen, Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey looked like normal teenagers, and did not look like a bunch of models or actors ripped from the Disney channel.


But overall I still say I enjoyed the movie. Given the cards it was dealt, this movie could have been WAY worse then it turned out. It has its flaws yes, but there were positive aspects to the film I enjoyed. Is it the worst movie of the year as some say? No. Let us not forget that the same year released another Twilight movie, Battleship, Snow White and the Huntsman, and The Lorax. Was it one of the best movies? Hell no. It was an average action flick. It was okay overall, I am not going to buy it on DVD anytime soon, but I had fun. And it was a major relief for someone who thought he was going to see a movie that would ruined the original for him. It is a movie where instead of hoping for a good movie, it was more of “I will take best of what I can get.” Which is what I got from this movie.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rge_poster.jpg

Ever since Jaws hit the screens in 1975, the summer movie season became a time for high concept features. Some of the more recent high concept films of the summer range from Spielberg’s other summer smash hit Jurassic Park to Snakes on a Plane. And the most recent high concept film to hit the screens is The Purge. The Purge is a film where America is reborn under the rule of the New Founding Fathers. They have decreed that once a year for twelve hours over night all crime is legal and emergency services are suspended. This time of rampant killing is known as the purge, where people vent their angers and hatreds; a catharsis way of dealing with crime if you will. The result of this new law is that crime, poverty, and unemployment are at an all time low. The movie follows one family named the Sandins, who live in a nice house in a very well to do neighborhood, and have the latest and best security system for their home. They are locking down for the night as the purge begins. Only problem is James Sandin’s son lets in an injured homeless person who is being pursued, and now they are standing between a group of sociopath yuppies and their prey. That is the concept and the plot of this movie, and it is SO F**KING STUPID! I could go on about this movie, but I will try to keep this as short as I need it to be.

I majored in criminology and criminal justice in college, earning my degree from a very prestigious school in this field. And I can tell you CRIME DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY! Crime involves many different factors. Most theories focus on the social and the economic. The weakest of these theories are “general theories” of crime that try to find a blanket answer to all crime. Theories like the 4 Social Bonds theory and Self Control Theory are particularly weak. New theories that show great promise such as biosocial criminology; look at influences that blend the social and economic issues with psychological, biochemical and even genetic influences and how they influence a person to commit crime. A person not just people in general. Both nature AND nurture being important factors to be examined when determining what causes crime and how to deal with it, and examining crime as a phenomena as varying, individual, and complex as human nature itself. In layman’s terms: crime is very complicated, and motivations for offending vary greatly, and it is not going to be solved by something so simple, broad, and stupid. Now the one thing this film got right is that politicians wrote this law. Politicians have been writing stupid laws and bills for years that focus on one factor of crime, claiming that the crime problem will be solved if we pass this one bill. That part the movie got correct; where they failed is that in this fantasy world, the oversimplified law actually works. This differs greatly from reality where cheap political slogans like “less guns less crime,” prohibition, and the like in fact do very little to reduce crime, and in many cases do more harm than good. The premise that legalizing murder for a few hours will not only reduce crime by catharsis, but also strengthen the economy is ridiculous! This implies that all crime is committed out of frustration, and that if we just make it legal for a little while it will disappear. Problem there is that the majority of street crime is committed by “lifetime persistent offenders,” these are people who make crime their career; that is their job and they choose to do this instead of a nine to five job. They will not wait for the purge to commit their crimes. Then there is the issue of where are your organized crime syndicates in this movie? What happened to the Mafia? The Yakuza and Triads? La Eme and the Hells Angels? Did they just stop operating? What about substance abusers who constantly need their fix? They sure as hell are not going to be able to wait to do drugs once a year! And then there are those who supply the drugs and fight over drug turf in gangland style wars. And this is just street crime, I haven’t even gone into white collar crimes! So the premise of the movie is complete *****; anyone who has seen the trailer knows this.

Watching this film I tried to make some sense of this horrible movie by thinking, maybe the movie is supposed to be ridiculous. Maybe this ridiculous concept is supposed to be a satire of some kind? If so, what is this movie trying to satire? Are they trying to satirize the home security industry? In the film the big security systems are more for show and do not do much to deter a truly determined intruder, since the heavy shutters are shown getting ripped off by a very heavy truck and chains. This could be a swipe at home security systems, but this is not explored enough in detail to be satire. Is this a political jab against a current political movement in the US? Is it from the perspective of a left winger trying to condemn the Tea Party and other patriot groups? There were references to the New Founding Fathers and the Purge is draped in patriotism. But that idea holds no water, since the patriot groups want a return to the Constitution and the OLD Founding Fathers; and I am pretty sure the enlightened and educated minds of Jefferson and Washington would be disgusted by this barbarism. Is this a subtle condemnation of Obama and progressives based on the idea that they are trying to rebuild America in their image and they will be the New Founding Fathers of a new world order and that involves purging the unwanted in their first step toward socialism and then a new communist state? NO! DON’T BE A MORON! Now yes the leader of the antagonists has all the political fervor of someone who would fit right in with Chairman Mao’s Red Guards, but let’s face it, if anyone would be purged in a movie like that, the rich would be the primary target. Is it about class and race? That is not it; since there are mostly rich white people in the movie. It is hard to do a decent satire on race and class with just one homeless black guy, especially when race is never mentioned. Is it about violence and society? Any attempt at satire is lost in the fact that violence is used to solve their problems in the end. So no, this film is not a satire, it is just a very poorly thought out concept with a lousy script. Dr Strangelove, this movie is not.

What makes this film worse is that there are no characters that are likable in this film. The wife is an idiot who gets so caught up in her anti-purge feelings, that on multiple occasions she refuses to kill active and legitimate threats to her family’s safety. The daughter is bland and boring and the kid brother is the dumbass who got them is this mess to begin with! And the homeless guy, the initial victim, is unlikable since once he is inside the he tries to hold the daughter hostage. But the worst offender is James Sandin (Ethan Hawke). He sells these big and expensive security systems we know are more for looking good. He knows the flaws of the security design, and yet he installs one anyway. Worst of all he does little else to supplement his security plan even with the knowledge of the security systems weaknesses. He does not have a security plan should the walls be breached, no one in the house knows how to enter and clear a damn room, and the choice of weapons is laughable! The weapons that Jim has are four handguns and a pistol grip shotgun. And the shotgun is the STUPID “chainsaw” Mossberg 500 shotgun model that requires you to shot from the hip instead of aiming it.

Mossberg Chainsaw 500

This weapon looks so damn stupid I started laughing in the middle of a scene that is supposed to be intense! To top it off, if you are going to have all those guns in the house it is a good idea to have your family know how to use them, since only Jim really seemed to have any idea of how to handle a damn weapon.

So we have a movie with no likable characters, a stupid concept based on ludicrous thinking, and no satirical value. But is it fun or at the very least scary? To both questions, the answer is no. The lack of investment in the main characters well being combined with the fact that the “twists” of the movie are obviously foreshadowed, and that their asses get saved at the last second way too often makes this a very boring and predictable film. Even the antagonists are not scary; they are just some spoiled rich college kids who drank the Kool-Aid. They were more annoying than anything else. The production values were good enough, but all in all this is a piece of crap. And since this is from the same producers who brought us Paranormal Activity, you can tell this was made on the cheap. Basically it is a movie that tries to hook you with the trailer only to disappoint in the theaters. My final verdict? To quote Jay Sherman:

IT STINKS!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I was wondering about mafia and drug crimes myself...

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I know right? lol as if all the wise guys just left the Earth with the junkie! what a load

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

rep points for great reviews. especially for when you hated one and when you were worried about how badly one would f*ck with your favorite original. Glad to see it wasn't has painful as it could have been.
Excellent reviews with a lot of research, knowledge and none of the arrogance that is the normal for the people in the media who are paid to wave their psuedo intellect about (yeah, i don't care all that much about them).

Haven't seen any of these, I've tried, way in the past, to watch Cairo and never got very far before switching off, I am looking forward to IM3, and i did like #2, had NO intention whatsoever in seeing Purge, it looked like the title states, a full release of every toxin in your bowels; utter and foul sh*t. Thanks for taking one for the team to re-affirm this.

Looking forward to more reviews and thanks gunslinger!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Thank you very much for the kind words. :)

Oh you are welcome with regards to The Purge; and save your money for Man of Steel.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

i've seen others speaking the same for Man of Steel, which is a shame, i was hoping for something worthwhile in that one.

and you are VERY welcome!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I am still going to see Man of Steel, has to be better than Superman Returns.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

didn't bother with Returns, let me know what ya think of Man of Steel

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Oh I will. lol I think you can tell how I feel about Superman Returns.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

yeah, i can pretty much take a wild shot at it lol

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

lol I am seeing the movie this weekend, maybe tomorrow. So expect the review this weekend.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

lookin forward to it, take care in the meantime ;)

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Why thank you my friend

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...inalPoster.jpg

In 1978 Richard Donner made the world believe that a man could fly. In 2013, Zack Snyder makes you believe that maybe Superman Returns was not so bad. THERE! I SAID IT! Superman Returns is still a horrible movie, I will always stand by that fact, but good lord Zack Snyder is making it hard for me to decide which one is worse! Yes Henry Cavill looks like Superman a lot more then the emo Superman done by Brandon Routh, but this man failed to make Superman his role in this remake. And dare I say it... Routh may have acted more like Superman in Superman Returns. The incoming review will include fanboy ramblings. Profanity will be used, and I have been drinking at the time I wrote this. You have been warned.

The story begins with the well known fate of Krypton: the planet is doomed, and Jor-El sends his only son Kal-El to Earth, where he will grow up to be the Man of Tomorrow. Apparently that was not enough. General Zod wants the Codex (a Kyptonian McGuffin) because he feels he can save the planet. Jor-El calls Zod a mad man, Jor-El sends the Codex to Earth because Zod is a bastard, and Zod gets pissed before getting banished to the Phantom Zone. And of course Krypton gets destroyed. Now the Zod story is familiar to anyone who saw Superman II, so that is fine; but why in the hell did we need a scene where Jor-El is riding on some winged creature like he was in f**king Avatar, and why the monkey f**k did they include the ***** about how Kryptonians now reproduce via genetic engineering as opposed to natural child birth? Anyway Zod breaks free and wants to start a new Krypton on Earth, and he will destroy all life on Earth to do so.

The first problem with this movie is the tone; it is dark and bleak, defiantly a Nolan influence. Which is great for a character like Batman, but this is Superman! The beacon of hope and moral compass for the DC universe! He is the polar opposite of Batman! Batman bases his super hero career on his enemies fearing him; Superman’s super hero MO is public trust. People trust him because he is Superman. And there is no trust at all between the people and Superman. Okay naturally there are going to be people freaked out by a flying guy in a cape who can bench press a semi truck, but save enough people from a few bank robbers or some kind of disaster that are all too common in Metropolis and you are going to get public support. Hell the Donner movie nailed it when Superman sat down and did an interview with Lois! An open dialogue and public trust with the people! In this movie they fear him like a rogue nation! Bruce Timm shows the proper difference in tone with the two animated series he did for Warner Brothers, and it was reflected in the animation. Batman: The Animated Series was very dark and gothic, much like the character.

http://www.wildsound-filmmaking-feed...ted_series.jpg

While the Superman animated series was much brighter; the sun was out; and oh yeah he works out in the open and not the shadows.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/...sion_color.jpg

But instead of trying to show the proper tone for this Superman movie, they instead opted to cut and paste from the Nolan Batman franchise.

The second big problem with this movie, they REALLY screwed over the Kent Family. For those who do not know, John and Martha Kent are the Kansas couple who found and raised young Kal-El as their own child. They were the ones who taught him their Mid-West values and morals that have guided Superman thought out his days as a crime fighter and defender of Earth. In other words, they are the reason that Superman is who he is. In this movie they play second banana to Jor-El who becomes the main driving force in Clark’s mission and moralistic template. As such the Kent’s get the shaft, including a HORRIBLE scene where a young Clark Kent is arguing with his father over whether he should have saved a school bus that fell into a river. He asks “Should I have just let them die?” Pa Kent actually says “Maybe.” This was one of the first major red flags I had when I first started watching trailers for this movie. Since we have established that it was the Kent’s who are responsible for Clark being the boy-scout he is, Pa Kent would NEVER say something like this! Instead in this movie it is the consciousness of Jor-El that gives Superman his direction and even has a costume waiting for him. Which makes me wonder how the hell he would know his son’s measurements; all before I start missing Marlon Brando. In addition, Superman views himself as an Earthling first! To have his dead alien father play a bigger role in his character development then the Kents, reflects that this director has no concept of who this character is. And why in the hell does Pa Kent have to die in a damn twister and Clark feels guilty about not being able to save him! He is Superman, NOT SPIDER-MAN! Speaking of which, why in the hell did they portray Clark as a nerd in high school and being picked on? CLARK PLAYED SPORTS! The guy was a straight A student yes, but liked to played football too! Once again, HE IS NOT SPIDER-MAN!

In addition to the issues above, this movie tries to cram WAY too much into this movie! It tries to retell Superman’s origin, show his childhood, have him wander the nation as he makes his way north, brood, finally get to the abandoned space ship frozen in the Arctic, learn his true origins, THEN he has to fight Zod all the while earning the trust of Earth’s people. And that is not including side plots and characters like Lois Lane and Perry White, Lois’ initial story on Superman, and then the leak of said story via the internet. The film feels like it is going too fast, and for a 2 and a half hour movie that is saying something. If you are going to have this much in your movie either trim out some stuff, simplify the script, or make the movie longer by maybe twenty minutes. I feel here they tried to take a page out of the Batman Begins playbook and go with a main villain who they could tie into the character’s origin story. But if they were going to do that, why choose Zod? Not only has Zod had his go in the movies, but in this movie he brings in all the eugenics ***** they made up, and a lot of other bullsh!t the writers pulled out of their ass. The movie suffers greatly from these issues, and that is sad since this could have been avoided since Superman has an EXCELLENT rogue’s gallery! If they wanted a character that is tied to Krypton, then they should have gone with Brainiac. Have him be an AI program on Krypton who leaves the planet before it blows to fulfill his programming to record and store all knowledge. Mention he destroys planets after he catalogs the data, give him an android body and a robot army and you have a main villain. And it makes the story far less convoluted (by comic book standards at least). But if you want to go another way you still have lots of other great villains to choose like Parasite, Metallo, or Solomon Grundy. Each could easily be fit into a 2 and a half hour movie and been done better than Zod!

To top this movie off you have other gripes like… why the hell do they not call him Superman until the third act of the damn movie? Why is the Clark Kent alter ego established at the very end? Why the f**k do they have Lois to track down Superman to Smallville and find out his secret identity before he even makes his official debut to the world! What the hell?!?!? And oh yeah…



Way to f**k up the mythos Snyder! And while some people say the film goes all Michael Bay at the end of the film for the third act, I have to disagree. All the gripes I have with Bay (see my Pain and Gain review) Bay at least has a talent for putting together 3rd act action sequences that are interesting. Even in the Transformers movies which I hate! This movie failed to excite me in that regard. So Snyder fails at storytelling and doing the only thing that Michael Bay actually does pretty well. And this is very disappointing since he did a great job with his adaptation of 300, and I hear a lot of people really liked his Watchmen movie.

What is most disappointing is that this is the movie that Warner Brothers wanted to use to kick off a Justice League movie in the same mold as The Avengers. Problem is, instead of Iron Man we got yet another botched DC hero on the big screen. And if this does make a butt load of cash, then any future Justice League movie will more then likely be of similar poor quality.

This is a bad movie. No two ways about it. If you are a Superman fan and want to watch a live action movie, I say revisit the first two Donner movies. But all hope is not lost. Marvel may rule the silver screen with their live action adaptations, but DC rules the animated worlds of both TV and movies. The Bruce Timm animated series for the WB and the Justice League cartoons that aired on Cartoon Network are awesome and are available on DVD. Either that or you have direct to DVD animated features like Superman/Batman Apocalypse, Superman/Batman Public Enemies, or Superman: Doomsday which are far superior as Superman stories and far more entertaining than this movie!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Really enjoyed the review Gunslinger. :up: Reminded me of my own reviews when it comes to superhero flicks which descend into fanboy ramblings. :D

Or in this case fanboy rage! lol This review brought to you Colt 45 Malt Liquor, because internet ramblings are better with booze!

http://aka-img-1.h-img.com/media/img...11784.400_600r


Just like this movie was brought to you by Nokia, Gillette, IHOP, Sears and Nikon. Srsly SO hamfisted the product placement!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_Z_poster.jpg

Well fellow MoFos, I know we are not even half way through the summer movie season, but I think we have my selection for the worst movie of the summer. And when you take into mind I have seen The Purge, this should say something. And to be honest, that is not surprising given the production history of this film. This movie had a very shaky production marked with frequent clashes between director Marc Forester and lead actor / producer Brad Pitt. In addition, the film had little sense of direction. Initially the movie was written to be a more faithful adaptation to the book, which would include the main character interviewing survivors of the now over zombie apocalypse. But then the script was re-written multiple times by different screen writers. In fact the whole third act had to be re-written in post and massive reshoots followed. Part of the re-writing process included turning the movie into a summer blockbuster, a move that was no doubt motivated out of the fact that the movie started out with a 125 million dollar budget, but ended up ballooning to 200 million bucks. And in order to achieve that goal a lot of the political over tones of the film were taken out, including a final shoot out that was supposed to be set in Moscow’s Red Square. You can see this fact is evident when you watch the trailer and Brad Pitt is asking how does he can get into Russia, but in the movie Russia is never mentioned. Now many a rough production has bore fruit, just ask Francis Ford Coppola about Apocalypse Now and Steven Spielberg with Jaws. Problem is Marc Forester is nowhere near as good as those cinema legends.

The film opens with lots of media clips cut together in a similar fashion as Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake. It details a few stories that are supposed to lay the ground work for the film with a few references to a new strange virus very similar to rabies surfacing. The film then cuts to Philadelphia, even though these scenes were actually filmed in downtown Glasgow Scotland. A choice made due to the lack of tax credits to shoot in the city of brotherly love. JayDee your thoughts are required on this choice. Brad Pitt plays former UN investigator Gerry Lane. He is driving with his family through the city when a massive panic begins to occur. People start running for their lives and the Lane family begins to flee for their very lives. The Lane family eventually escapes Philadelphia, make their way to Newark, get evacuated to a US Naval Carrier, and then Gerry is tasked with tracking down patient zero with the plot growing more and more convoluted as time passes. This is due to the rewrites. But now that I have the very basics of the plot out of the way, let’s find out why this movie is terrible.

First off I have to get this out of the way real quick. To say that this movie is a horrible adaptation is an understatement. Anyone who read the book and watched the first trailer could pick that out from the get go. The book was a group of survivors telling their stories of survival in the form of a series of interviews. This movie starts from Z Day and goes from there like most other zombie movies. Which makes me sad because not only does this make this movie more generic, this movie also happens to be a failure of a zombie movie. To try and compare it to classics like the original Dawn of the Dead or modern takes like 28 Days Later would be unfair, as this is billed as more of an action movie then a horror movie. Instead a more proper comparison to the Zack Snyder remake of Dawn of the Dead, and a few other action horror titles will be used for comparison. So when comparing the two zombie movies, what is the first difference you see? The rating! The Dawn of the Dead remake was a hard R while this movie is PG-13. Zombies are creatures that are flesh eating monsters that attack as a horde and rip people limb from limb devouring flesh. They are by their very nature violent and gory. They are NOT PG-13 material! This movie has no gore in it. Hell it barely has any blood in it! Even in scenes that call for blood and gore! In one scene Gerry cuts off the arm of an Israeli soldier to stop it from getting infected. The action is framed with the amputation done just out of frame. And even when they apply the bandage to the stump, the bandage does not even have any blood on it! Which is absolutely ridiculous since he does not even use a damn tourniquet! There should be blood all over the damn place! Another scene has Gerry bashing a zombie over the head with a crowbar, done entirely in frame, and there is no blood. Not even CGI blood! It is like he hit it in the head and it just fell to the ground like in a cartoon. In fact this movie goes out of its way to avoid showing violence on screen to protect its PG-13 rating. In one scene a doomed man looks at a propeller for a plane and begins to walk towards it. Now the way the shot is set up you would expect the man to walk into the spinning propeller to his death, instead he just blows his brains out off screen. Because Heaven forbid a zombie movie is gory! In addition this movie also fails at making the zombies scary. They have certain actors over do the menace so much, that the performance becomes comical. The entirety of the theater started laughing at one female zombie who was on screen! Even the action movie elements fall flat, feeling more like a Roland Emmerich disaster movie then an action horror film. Give Zack Snyder credit for reinventing the original Dawn of the Dead movie that places more emphasis on the action, but still keeps the zombies scary and one a small enough scale we still connect with the main characters. This feels like the movie 2012 with zombies! It was hard enough to get invested in that movie! Mostly due to the lack of Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, and Will Smith. So these zombies are not scary, there is no gore, the action movie premise was replaced a sub par disaster flick. Way to go studio executives!

In addition, the story is a complete mess. After Gerry gets to the Naval Carrier, he is now tasked with the goal of finding the origin of the virus. The problem is he has no reason to do so. A doctor character on the ship is presented as being their brightest mind when it comes to pathogens and a hope for a cure. The plan is to infiltrate a base in South Korea where they believe they can find some answers with the help of some Navy SEAL’s. Now the reason Gerry is told he is going is because he will help the scientist survive in the harsh environments. My question is isn’t that the job of the SEALs? I mean correct me if I am wrong who is more qualified to keep the golden boy alive, a group of highly trained dedicated infantry combat killers, or one former UN Investigator? Furthermore why in the hell are they even asking this guy to do this? When I think UN investigator I think of a guy in a three piece suit asking to see where Kim Jung Il keeps his WMDs not a guy who is sent into combat zones. These questions are made even funnier when the movie itself points out the plot holes. THAT IS MY JOB! Maybe if they had Pitt play a CIA agent sent to gather intelligence with the doctor then I can buy it, but they don’t. So the movie is having him go with them simply because the script says so. Let’s contrast this with a good movie. In Aliens, Ripley is a non-combative sent to colony LV 426 because she is being asked to be a consultant to a xenomorph threat only she has experience with. Burke goes too because he represents the corporate interest in this movie and acts as means to comment on corporate greed. Gerry’s entire purpose in the film is he in the mechanism to globe hop to the next action scene. I am not even joking, and half the time the reasons to go to these new locations are either very weak, or look promising but are then explained away with nonsensical explanations. For example: Gerry goes to Israel because ten days before the outbreak, Israel constructs a safe zone with massive walls to keep out the zombies. This looks promising enough until you find out the reason why. The reason they construct this wall is because one Indian general puts the term “undead” into a report when dealing with a national crisis. Now a sane human being would ask, “Why the hell would a country construct a giant fortification because of one foreign general’s report?” The movie actually points out this plot hole as well with a very convoluted explanation saying it was a safeguard against unforeseen circumstances because no one foresaw the Holocaust, the Munich terrorists, or the Yom Kippur sneak attacks. In other words it was a BS means of moving the plot along and removing any political content for a broad foreign audience.

The movie also has a habit of taking certain characters the film makes it seem like they are going to be important and disposing of them. Remember that scientist they prop up as being the great hope for humanity? He dies ten minutes after you meet him. He dies because he slips on the ramp to the plane and accidently blows his brains out. And since we have established that the fact that Brad Pitt was guarding him for no reason, this makes the Doctor as a character almost completely pointless. The only purpose he had was to make one little speech about viruses and looking for the little clues they leave to find the cure. And when you see where that leads you will see how stupid that is too. The movie ends with Gerry going to the World Health Organization’s Headquarters in hopes that maybe they can find their cure. Problem is they do not have any answers to find a cure. And that leads to the ridiculous solution they come up with to get an edge over the zombies. A solution so stupid, so poorly written it reflects how bad this movie was handled in post.



This was a third act solution so badly written it deserves to rank up with the likes of Battlefield Earth!

And to make matters worse, certain cast members are phoning it in, especially Brad Pitt. Pitt is a damn good actor, known for playing lots of characters who are not only cool in demeanor, but charismatic as well. This is best shown when he played Tyler Durden in Fight Club, Lt Aldo Raine in Inglorious Basterds, and Rusty in Ocean's Eleven. In this movie he is going through the motions, probably a reflection of his off camera butting of heads with the director. In addition, on more than a few occasions the character’s reactions seem to not be the sort of reactions you would want in given the circumstances. Like when his car gets swiped in the first scene, he acts like it is not a big deal, despite the fact he had a hit and run. When his satellite phone goes off in a situation requiring stealth, his group gets attacked by zombies. The soldiers instead of being pissed off and threatening to kill him, they laugh it off as no big deal. Remember that scene early on in Predator when Dillon slips on the way to the guerrilla camp and causes a lot of noise? What was Mac’s response? Mac threatened to kill him! Because he wanted to survive! And it is the appropriate response to a situation like this! And to top it off, the calls between Gerry and his wife are treated so casually. They do not feel like a couple separated by a few thousand miles and dealing with a life or death scenario. It feels far more like Gerry is calling from the office. There is no gravity, no weight, or even treated like this might be the last time they talk to each other. It is like he is calling from the damn office! There are other actors who give much better and appropriate responses but they sadly all had parts where on screen for maybe a few minutes. And when the extras are out acting you, you know the cast doesn’t give a *****! And if the cast does not care, then why the hell should I?

I cannot call this movie a disappointment, because my expectations were at very low from the start. I was expecting a bad movie, but I was not expecting it to be this bad. If you are a die hard lover of zombie media like me, save your money. It is not a faithful adaptation, it is not a good zombie movie, and it is not even a good dumb and fun action movie. If you have not picked up the book, do so. It is an excellent read, and much better then this movie.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Well, poo. I was planning on watching that next weekend....Guess I will save my money and watch something else.

You have made a very good choice. If you still want to watch it wait for Red Box or Netflix.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

That was going to be my next option. LOL. I can't say that I am surprised, it is a Brad Pitt zombie movie, but I hear the book was great and to hear that it isn't on point with that is upsetting.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

While you wait for the movie, buy the book. It is a very good and easy read.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Yeah I was going to try catch this next week also, maybe ill catch the DVD on release now.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I've seen some positive reviews for this movie, but after hearing all of the nitpicks that people have made about it I have no interest in seeing it.
For one thing, they say you might hate it if you've read the book. I've read the book.
For another, I've heard about this movie being repetitive as sh*t. Brad Pitt goes somewhere where people are doing a good job at surviving the apocalypse, and then boom - zombies attack. Then he goes to another place where people are doing a good job at surviving the apocalypse, and then boom - zombies attack. Yawn.
And, of course, the forefront of this movie's problems is the PG-13 rating. I was completely fine with there being little blood in The Hunger Games, especially since they didn't want to glorify the violence, but making a zombie movie with a rating under R would be like doing the same thing with a Clive Barker movie. Shame on you, movie execs.
Your review has proved to be the final nail in the coffin. Even though we had opposite opinions on Man of Steel, I find myself to be in agreement with you more often than not. If I'm at a friend's house and they want to get me to watch this movie, I'm gonna have to get plastered first.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

You have read the book, YOU WILL HATE THIS MOVIE!

And yeah it is repetitive in the same way 2012 was repetitive. Only with zombies.

And yeah a few people do disagree with me on Man of Steel, but that seems to be a very polarizing movie in general. :D

Also I cannot stress this enough, read the book first if you haven't yet. Then wait for the movie to come out on DVD for a rental.

I usually seem to end up liking movies with mixed opinions. Both of the Sherlock Holmes movies with Robert Downey Jr. were more mixed than anything else I've seen; some people loved the first but disliked the second, and vice versa. I loved both of them.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I like quite a few movies that get mixed reviews. I will defend Red Dawn, The Book of Eli, and a few others as some awesome movies. World War Z, is not one of them. And that brings four people I have had changed their minds on seeing this movie! Three on this site and an old friend over the phone.

SUCK IT PARAMOUNT!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

And while we are on Man of Steel, at least that was competently made! Sure I took issues with the execution but I cannot fault the construction of the production design. This movie was just *****!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

This is completely off topic, but how do you do that spoilers box?

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Go to the "go advanced" button, and look for the "!" button. that is the spoiler button. click that, a window will pop up which you can put the title for the balloon, then you can add the spoilers in the other part of the code

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Aw man, I was looking forward to seeing World War Z, given Pitt is one of my favorite actors. I'll probably wait for the DVD now.

On a side note, how was the cinematography? It looks like there was an incident. I'm sure Robert Richardson was doing it, but now someone else is listed on IMDB.

It was hard for me to pay too much attention to the cinematography with all the shaky cam and bad editing.

Shaky cam? Oh God, now I might have to skip it altogether.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Damn GS you're not having a good time at the cinemas in 2013 are you, at least not of late. Man of Steel, The Purge and now World War Z have all been huge fails for you. That said though, they have provided you with the opportunity for some great, detailed reviews/rants. :D

Oh and what exactly would you like my thoughts on in regards to filming in Glasgow? :D

Glad you are enjoying my pain! :D:D I kid of course. So far the summer movie season has not been good to me. I cannot even remember a summer movie season starting off this bad. Either I am getting too cynical or they are just making more and more bad movies. I say it is the worse movies, since last year's summer movies were over all pretty damn good. And shock of shocks I actually enjoyed Rock of Ages despite the fact that it had MAJOR flaws. So I am not that cynical yet. lol

As for Glasgow, I know a lot of studios film in one location and say it is another for the movie. And this question only really applies if you have seen the movie. My question is when they are supposed to be in down town Philadelphia, can you as a person who lives in there suspend your disbelief and say "Okay they are in Philly" or is there too much stuff in those shots that you say "Nope. It is Glasgow I have been there, screw you movie!"

Either way I am taking a break from going to the theater this week. I love Sandra Bullock but I have no interest in The Heat, and I really don't care to watch White House Down. So no rant's there. I will try and do a review of a movie I actually enjoy this weekend.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

sometimes the rants can be more enjoyable than the reviews LOL
and to quote Flushed Away: "I think everyone's pain is funny but my own -- I'm french!"

and I've been guilty of the: nope, this is NOT the city you claim it is, screw you. I actually skipped watching a movie about the motown group The Temptations because they filmed it in philidelphia instead of detroit.
i know, its petty, and i try to get over it, but, sometimes. . . i don't lol

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

+rep for the Flushed Away reference that made me laugh! Le Frog. lol

Thanks for enjoying dude. And yeah I bet that would be annoying as hell! I can't imagine Taxi Driver being filmed in Vancouver or The Rock being filmed in Miami

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

right back at ya, gun! ;)

and please, I'LL start ranting if ya get me started lol

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Not in this thread, that is my job! lol :D

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

never mess with a man's homestead, ESPECIALLY a man from texas!! ;)

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

very true. lol

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

take care, lookin forward to your next rant/review

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Gonna try and review a good movie. Had a bad run for the last three movies.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

yeah, quite the hat trick, go pull out an old fav that ya loved way back in the day and enjoy

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I know what movie I am reviewing, and it is more a newbie but a goodie!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

that works too!
curious to see what ya pick

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

You will find out this weekend.

Will wait for it on the small screen. I kinda figured they would ignore everything that could've made WWZ a really good film by turning it into an action hero vehicle. It clearly should've been an international ensemble balancing personal horror stories with worldwide sociopolitical repercussions of the outbreak.

Instead it looks like an overblown "one man saves the day" disaster flick, with lots of running and speechifying. That much can be gleaned by trailers alone... No subtlety; Emphasis on zombie hordes; Plot-pushing cardboard characters spouting exposition between bouts of CGI. Am I right so far?

Sigh.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Dude you got it down pat. Add in they go out of their way to avoid the violence and blood and you have Roland Emmerich's 2012 with zombies. Not even joking.

Now some of the zombies are actually played by people but the big stuff is all CGI.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Yeah, I was at least hoping for some good zombie mayhem but it sounds like they're practically irrelevant except to keep a tenuous connection to the book.

Will I see it? I see everything zombie-related I can. But as guarded as I was already, hearing it doesn't even have any good zombie violence has really irked me.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

If you see it do not pay to see it in the theaters.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Gonna rent for sure. :yup:

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Good man. Do pay for this in the theater! lol I want this movie to fail!

At least you had Iron Man 3.

Well just from the trailer alone I was able to instantly spot it was George Square from the briefest of flashes. I actually went to see the place when it was being redressed. Was actually quite cool with all the American style traffic lights, road markings, storefronts etc. Fun to see a bit of movie magic in my hometown

Iron Man 3 and This is the End is all I got so far. :(

That is what I wanted to know. Thank you dude. :)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...vie-poster.jpg

Fellow MoFo’s it has been a hard few weeks for me in the theaters. My last three reviews have all been expletive filled rants against bad movies I paid hard earned cash to see. The worst of which was the cinematic abomination World War Z; an over budgeted bloodless zombie movie and a failure of an adaptation. I need to balance the scales. Instead of a hundred million dollar globe hooping feature, how about something with a lower budget, set in one location, and a bit more grounded. And to hell with this bloodless crap, let’s go for something violent and exploitive. And most importantly, it needs to be a good movie. And what better movie to watch then this 2011 feature from the vigilante sub-genre I love with a title that says it all; Hobo with a Shotgun.

Hobo with a Shotgun was an idea that was born from a fake trailer contest for the grindhouse double feature of Planet Terror and Death Proof directed by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino respectively. To complete the grindhouse feel to the movie experience, they created a bunch of fake trailers to be shown before and between the two features. The idea was thought up by Tarantino and Rodriguez, who then decided to start making the first trailer for a fake movie called Machete (yes that Machete). After the Machete trailer was made a few of their friends decided they wanted to make fake trailers as well. This lead to trailers being made by Eli Roth, Edgar Wright, and Rob Zombie. These trailers captured the feel of many exploitation sub-genres. Robert Rodriguez made the Machete trailer as a tribute to Mexploitation films and Rob Zombies's Werewolf Women of the SS was made as an ode to Nazi-ploitation. But they needed one more so they held a contest for the final slot. Many more fake trailers were made, but the winner came from Canadian director Jason Eisener with the appropriately named Hobo with a Shotgun. The Hobo with a Shotgun trailer won the contest easily and was released with the other fake trailers with the movie, but mostly in Canada. Oddly enough these fake trailers took on a life of their own, and in 2010 Machete was made into a feature length movie. This was made simple due to the fact that the idea and original script for Machete dates back to 1993, but the popularity of the fake trailers helped give Machete the green light. And with the success of that movie, it helped get this movie green lit as well, and the following year it was released.

The movie opens with the unnamed hobo (Rutger Hauer) exiting a boxcar as he arrives at his destination. A place called Hopetown. Or at least that is what it is supposed to be called seeing how the “Hope” of the sign is spray painted over with “Scum.” And when you look across the river towards the city you can see it is a decayed husk, and the people of the town reflect their surroundings. The cops are all crooked and the city streets are full of degenerates ranging from people who make bum fight videos to pedophiles. Drugs and prostitution are in easy supply, and to top it off the city is run by a ruthless crime lord named Drake and his two kids. His favorite son is Slick, who is always in the company of his brother Ivan (whose speech and mannerisms remind me of a drill sergeant I knew in Basic Training). Together they rule over a lawless city and terrorize the innocent inhabitants. The hobo tries his best to survive the streets and scrape up enough cash to buy a lawn mower so he can earn a living. However a chain of events leads him to abandon his humble dream and he instead gets a Remington 12 gauge and begins delivering justice, one shell at a time.

The movie is a throwback to old fashioned vigilante movies that were common in the 70’s and 80’s. Films like Death Wish, The Exterminator, Joe, and Billy Jack are a few examples. They dealt with normal citizens who could not find justice within the system and so they take the law into their own hands to dispense justice; and this movie reflects those old exploitation movies. The opening credit scene looks like it is straight out of a 1970’s B picture, which enhances the aesthetic feel of this movie and compliments the movie poster and DVD cover to complete the feel of a grindhouse flick. The villains in this movie are also so obviously evil that they give the villains in Troma movies a run for their money. There is no subtlety to these villains at all. And when one character is a child molester who dresses like Santa Claus and the main villain puts on shows in the streets where he decapitates his enemies by ripping them off with a barb wire noose connected to a truck, they are also beyond over the top. But the real star of this show is Rutger Hauer, who puts on one hell of a performance! The hobo character starts out as a humble and tired old man who is just trying to get by. But his character begins to get more and more frustrated with his surroundings. He is a man who knows what is right and how people should act. And seeing the scum rule the streets and young girls prostituting themselves, he eventually can’t take it anymore and he releases his anger in a killing spree that makes local headlines. And when this happens the quiet demeanor he had is gone, now what is left is a blood thirsty killer. Along the way he befriends a young prostitute named Abby, and a conversation with her leads to an obvious but excellent piece of foreshadowing.

This movie is nowhere close to high art, but quite frankly it is not supposed to be. Exploitation films by their nature were extremely violent, full of nudity, and often dealt with subject matters that were too controversial for major studios. This movie is not made for snobbish critics and scholars; it is made so the audience can have fun. And this movie delivers on the fun! By far the best viewing I had of this movie was with a group of friends in the barracks. It was simply awesome to see those guys enjoy a movie that I liked so much. If you are a fan of old exploitation films then this movie is a must see. If you are looking for a movie that is a lot of fun, and do not mind graphic violence, then give this movie a shot.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I have that movie on Blu-Ray, and you pretty much summed up my thoughts entirely.
I'd also like to see Rob Zombie make a Werewolf Women of the SS movie.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I thought that having Nick Cage as Fu Manchu was hilarious! And speaking of Rob Zombie, I was rewatching The Haunted World of El Superbeasto today. A very enjoyable watch, so much so I might just watch it again.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Yeah, that was an epic casting choice xD
I didn't care for El Superbeasto myself. It fell pretty flat for me.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

IDK something about an animated feature by Rob Zombie I just find really enjoyable.

And yes, Nic Cage as Fu Mancho is very epic! Udo Kier was bad ass too.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Hell yeah! Hobo With a Shotgun is an awesome piece of sleaze.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

And in my opinion one the best of the neo grindhouse releases. IDK if that is an official term for these movies but it should be!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

For me it's one of the two good ones. Death Proof and Hobo are the only ones I've enjoyed. Unless you count something like Black Dynamite as a neo-grindhouse flick.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I liked it fine, but some prominent members didn't take a shine to it, including our biggest grindhouse fan, whether Used Future will comment here or not.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

I count it more as an homage, since a lot of the jokes in that movie are references to Dolemite. Like the boom mike gag. While movies like Drive Angry, Hobo with a Shotgun, and Machete are original works influenced by old grindhouse flicks.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Great review 45. :up: I hadn't been particularly interested in either Hobo or Machete but after recently watching Death Proof and Planet Terror (along with some either trash like Death Race 2000) I'm now kinda curious about them (even if Death Proof didn't do much for me at all). I watched the fake trailers on youtube and thought that Machete looked quite good fun, even if I'm not sure there was a full film in it. And I laughed so hard at Nicholas Cage just appearing out of nowhere as Fu Manchu. That little piece alone raised my respect for him so much, that he would just play into his unique, OTT style and the fact that he probably would appear in a piece of crap like that.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Oh I laughed my ass off when I saw Nic Cage as Fu Manchu when I saw it on the big screen! To be honest a lot of these neo-grindhouse (I am making this a thing) are pretty good. And I still try to watch as many of the I thought Machete was okay, but I found it too political for me. But yeah I read your review of Death Race 2000, and these knids of movies can be pretty awesome!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

You give me interest to rent A Hobbo With a Shotgun. It always seemed interesting, but I never got around to rent it

Hobo With a Shotgun is a lot of fun. Love that movie.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Ditto that. Silly but highly entertaining.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

you nailed it with the review, gunslinger! VERY cool flick!!

neo-grindhouse, i like it!

I am so making that a thing! Thank you dude I am glad you enjoyed it!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

i bet if felt good reviewing instead of ranting lol

and yeah, that is a perfect description of these movies

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Oh it was great. I get to talk about something I like rather then something I dislike or hate. Which is better for me. Though I think the rants are more entertaining for the reader sometimes.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

kinda like watching Dennis Miller, "I don't want to go on a rant, but..."

for me, both work, your insight and detail are great reads on either

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Thank you, I like to go in detail on the movie. I try to go over the plot as broad as I feel I can. Give what is needed then move on so I can still give the reader a chance to still have unknowns if they have not seen the movie.

And Dennis Miller is always awesome! Bordello of Blood included!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ilmPoster.jpeg

I have been looking forward to this movie above the rest of the summer movies this year. All I have to say is IT IS ABOUT DAMN TIME! I have had a really lousy June with regards to movies in the theater, and I even skipped going to the movies last week because I really did not feel like watching the Lone Ranger movie, when I can just watch Pirates of the Caribbean at home. I needed this to be a good movie. And wouldn't you know it, Guillermo Del Toro delivered! Pacific Rim is a throwback to old Japanese monster movies, namely the likes of Godzilla, Mothera, Gamera (who is friend to children), Rodan, and the like. The monsters are even called kaiju, which translates into “giant monster.” They were very popular in Japan in the old days, and since I was born in Asia, they were a staple of my early childhood. But this movie also pays serious homage to more than a few giant mecha TV shows. What with the heavy emphasis on giant robots. Put the two together and you have the recipe for one hell of a ride.

The movie starts off in flashback to when the very first Kaiju makes its appearance in San Francisco. After a few days of using traditional methods to combat the beast, it finally died; but at a very heavy cost in both human lives and collateral damage. So the world bands together, pooling its resources to find a solution to the new Kaiju problem. Their solution is the Jaeger program, or as I like to call them giant ass robots! The Jaeger are piloted by two people, due to the fact that trying to control a Jaeger solo is very taxing on the human mind. The solution to this is to link the two minds together, making the two minds act like separate hemispheres of a brain. The pilots share thoughts, memories, but still retain their individual identities. One pilot controls one arm, while the other pilot controls the other in a process called Drifting. The Jaeger program is very successful at first, allowing for new hope for survival, and propelling Jaeger pilots to rock star celebrity status. But as the years pass, the Kaiju seem to be getting stronger, and the once promising Jaeger program seem to be failing, leading for it to be on its way to being scrapped. The powers that be send the four remaining Jaegers to Hong Kong. While there, the commanding officer for the Jaeger program Stacker Pentecost, prepares one final gambit, to attack the dimensional rift that allows the Kaiju to enter their world.

The movie is everything a good summer blockbuster should be. It is gigantic in scale, visually stimulating, and a lot of fun. The story is solid for a summer blockbuster, and the performances are good. The CGI Kaiju and Jaegers are a visual delight, and watching the two fight on the big screen was a wonderful experience! This movie has come a long way from the days when these fights were done by actors in rubber suits and the cities were tiny models. While those movies do still have a special place in my heart, this movie managed to up the ante on the combat, giving us gigantic brawls of giant robot and monster fun! Some might dismiss this as being too “Michael Bay-ish” but since that is the one thing Bay is actually good at, that does not hurt this movie. And while there are very large parts of the movie that are CGI, the movie still had plenty of practical effects. Which is to be expected with Guillermo Del Toro at the helm, who is known for getting as much of his movie as he can done using practical effects and latex make up. Just ask Doug Jones or Ron Perlman (who by the way, has a role in this film). The movie also carries a lot of the production design characteristics you would expect from some of Del Toro’s movies. The costumes for many of the characters as well as the Hong Kong sets and buildings I could easily see showing up in the labs of the Hellboy movies. I can also see influences of other summer blockbusters in this movie. First off the movie does try and go for a few comedic beats here and there just like The Avengers and there was a big final speech before the final fight just like in Independence Day. And of course you can’t talk about giant robots in a summer blockbuster without discussing Transformers. Yes this movie has giant CGI robots like Transformers. Unlike Transformers, there are very few unlikeable characters. There is no Shia LeQueff in this movie, the female lead has a personality and depth to her character. The side characters like the two rival scientists are quirky, weird and funny and not unbearable or annoying. And the humor in this movie does not feel out of place. Though I will admit Joss Whedon did a better job balancing humor and action. Either way this movie was a lot of fun.

If you did not like Transformers and want to see giant robots on the big screen, see this movie. If you did like Transformers, you should still see this movie. If you were a fan of TV shows like Gundam, Evangelion, or Macross you should see this movie. And if you are like me and grew up on old Japanese monster movies, then this movie is a must see. So far this movie is the most fun I have had at the movies so far, and so far is the best movie of the summer.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

having been a kid during the whole Monsters/Robots era of japanese movies and tv shows during the early seventies, this definitely sounds like a must see, ESPECIALLY with Del Torro at the helm!!

You will enjoy it!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

SUHWEET! Been quite a while since i've been to the movies, this one just may call for a big screen viewing.
Thanks for the review gun, as always!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Looks like a very fun movie, I read also the story on wikipedia (I don't care much about spoilers) and I found interesting. I will try to catch it on theater.

This is a movie that pretty much requires being seen on a big screen. It is massive!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

Very nice review 45. :up: I'm kinda curious about this one. If it were someone like Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich I probably wouldn't pay it any attention, but with del Toro at the helm I am intersted to see what it's like. I'm also really surprised by the amount of good reviews it's getting

Oh this is far superior to a Bay film. But you do have a lot of fun with this movie as you would with Independence Day.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-posterimg.jpg

My fellow MoFo’s, I have a confession to make. I am a White man. And while due to a few of my characteristics, the women I date, and things I enjoy; I have been the subject of many a joke by my friends and co workers in my Squadron that I am “Black.” We all have a few laughs, but let’s face it I am White as hell. It is impossible for me to know firsthand the experiences a Black person faces. As such I can only see the world from the perspective as a White person would. Maybe that is a handicap for me with going into this movie. Or maybe this movie is just a terrible film.

Bamboozled is a Spike Lee film from the year 2000, about Pierre Delacroix (Damon Wayans) who is working for a fictional TV company called CNS. Pierre is Harvard educated and more than a little rigid. Rigid in the sense that Delacroix is portrayed by Damon Wayans to be very well… White. I know what Damon Wayans sounds like in real life, and his manner of speaking for this character sounds like a voice a Black comedian does to do a caricature of a White person. Insert your own joke from Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy or Dave Chappele here. Delacroix’s boss is a White man played by Michael Rapaport named Dunwitty. Dunwitty is portrayed to be a very annoying person who while despite being very pasty White, tries to talk street. And even though he is married to a Black woman; he adorns his office with pictures of Black sports stars and African tribal statues, and he even says the N word a lot. To make things even more offensive, he claims he is more Black then Delacroix and he even says the line “Quentin Tarantino was right, N****r is just a word.” I could not help but feel like this line was written with a degree of animosity given the very public feud between the two film makers. Dunwitty wants a new TV show with a Black focus. But he rejects all of the TV shows pitched by Delacroix that have Blacks portrayed in a positive light and in the middle class, he wants something other than so called “Cosby clones.” Dunwitty also puts out he wants a new hit show, or Delacroix will be fired. Delacroix becomes very upset by this, and he hatches a plan. He is stuck in a contract with CBN, so he cannot just quit his job without getting sued. He instead plans to get fired by putting on the air something very racist and shielding it as “satire.” He expects a public backlash, he gets fired, and then he can go work for another studio. He does this with the help of his assistant Sloan Hopkins (Jada Pinkett Smith). The first step of the plan is to find a concept, and Delacroix comes up with one.






BLACK FACE!
http://kaganof.com/kagablog/wp-conte...008/10/082.jpg

Delacroix decides a Minstrel Show for the new millennium is just the ticket he needs out of his contract. Step two hire the talent! He finds street performers and tap dancers Manray and Womack outside on the street. They are homeless and dance for change and donations. All the while they stay in illegal housing. Manray has his name changed to Mantan (a reference to Mantan Moreland, a Black Vaudeville actor) and Womack becomes Sleep N’ Eat. Step Three pitch the show! He pitches the show to Dunwitty and proposes many of the very blatant and racist aspects of the show. Dunwitty loves the idea and quickly greenlights the show. The show goes on, and we are presented in a montage that shows the step by step process to make traditional “Black Face” make up. And then Mantan and Sleep N’ Eat finally take the stage in their pilot episode. And it is every bit as offensive as the term minstrel show can be. It is two Black men, in Black face, acting like stereotypical buffoons, singing, dancing, shucking, jiving, and talking in a very racist dialect while in the cotton fields and watermelon patches of Alabama. Delacroix waits patiently to see the visceral reaction from people who are watching the show. Problem is… the show becomes a hit, and 12 more episodes are ordered.

Now immediately I realized; this is very similar to one of my favorite movies The Producers. In that movie two Jewish Broadway producers raise one million dollars in cash, intend to put on a $60,000 dollar play so offensive it is sure to fail, and then pocket the rest of the money. The show is Springtime for Hitler, a show guaranteed to fail. Problem is the show becomes a hit and they now must pay off the financial backers, thus leading to financial ruin. This movie follows the same basic premise. But when I heard one particular line, I realized this movie was very similar to another film. In Bamboozled, one of the characters says the line “Open up you windows and shout I am sick and tired of all these N*****s, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” At this point I realize this film also shares a loose similarity to Network. A frustrated TV worker pitches a controversial new show, it becomes a hit, and then certain events spiral out of control. Unfortunately this movie is neither as good as Network; nor as funny as The Producers. Mostly because Mel Brooks is very good at telling jokes and Spike Lee is just not funny.

Now satire does not need to be laugh out loud hilarious, but it does help. In fact the movies I consider the very best of satires have me laughing in the aisles. Dr Strangelove, Blazing Saddles, The Producers, and Team America: World Police all have the ability to split my side. This movie makes me groan. For starters, The Producers, IS HILARIOUS! This movie barely has any laughs in it! The funniest part of this movie is Paul Mooney (who plays Delacroix’s dad). The best part of the movie is when he is doing his stand up bit at a comedy club, and he was a laugh riot! Problem is he is in the movie for less than 5 minutes! You take away Mooney, and there are only two funny lines in the damn movie! This sure as hell was not written by Mel Brooks. And then we come to the biggest issue I have with the movie. In The Producers, it was the Nazis were the ultimate butt of the jokes from the movie. Mel Brooks’ philosophy was you are never going to win an agreement with a racist person. To take away the power of racism (the Nazis in the case of The Producers) you have to make fun of them. And Mel did that by poking fun at Hitler. Spike Lee’s target for this movie is how Blacks are portrayed on TV. He takes issue with many Black characters portrayed as buffoons and uneducated comic relief. He seemed to take issue with shows like Good Times or anything made by Tyler Perry. But Bamboozled does not ultimately poke fun at the source of racism or the TV guys. Mostly because this does not feel like a comedy; it comes off as a lecture. Delacroix is in part a representation of the creative teams that put on shows Lee finds offensive. And while we see a tragic rise and fall, Delacroix is not the butt of the jokes; mostly because there are no jokes to be had. Another attempt at heavy handed lecturing is at the audience of this new show. The audience loves the show, it becomes a hit, and it even gets to the point when live audience members begin to show up in Black face themselves. This is not only not funny; it is condemning anyone who might be a fan of Tyler Perry or old Shows like Good Times. And then there is the targeting of the minstrel show itself. The minstrel show in the movie is very over the top and very racist. Which is the intention, but it is also not funny.

Now some of you might be wondering, hey Gunslinger, isn't one of your all time favorite movies Tropic Thunder? The movie where Robert Downy Jr. is in black face? Yes it is, and I am glad you bring it up! :D In Tropic Thunder Robert Downy Jr. plays an Australian actor named Kirk Lazarus, who opts to take the role of a Black US Army Sergeant instead of a White role. And being a crazy method actor, he undergoes a skin pigmentation surgery to become dark skinned. And his portrayal of a Black person is done based on a man who knows very little about African American culture as a whole. As such, the character Robert Downy Jr. plays can be said to be stereotypical. And that would be fair. And you know what? That movie calls that point out with the inclusion of the role of Alpa Cino, a young rapper who constantly calls out RDJ’s character for doing his schtick. And there is one other difference between the two movies. Tropic Thunder… is subtle compared to Bamboozled! RDJ’s Black make-up actually makes him look like a Black man. The hair matches, the skin color is appropriate, and the lips are not over exaggerated. And while RDJ may over indulge the Black character a bit, he still is shown to be one of the smarter members of the group. And when he does go too far with his character, Alpa Cino is there to call him out. Bamboozled on the other hand, to borrow a phrase from Tropic Thunder, “Went full minstrel show. You NEVER go full minstrel show.” The black face make up there is the old fashioned burnt cork way with extra large red lips, huge white gloves, and buffoonish behavior set to 11! You cannot compare the two. One is much more restrained in the Black face and is funny, while the other movie is unfunny and downright offensive.

In addition, going back to The Producers comparison, the protagonists Max Bialystok and Leo Bloom both have a very clear goal in mind. Put on a flop so they can get the money. In this movie the motivations and reactions of certain characters is more than a little confusing. When in the process of development, Sloan’s character shows more than a little apprehension to the idea, as does Womack. But Womack even though he performs, never shacks the feeling that his show is wrong. Sloan on the other hand shows indignity one moment, but is seen laughing at the show the next. This makes her character a tad confusing. Even more confusing is Dunwitty. Dunwitty is portrayed to be very ignorant and I guess the intent is racist. But I find it hard to swallow him being a bigot if he does have a Black wife. I mean why marry something you hate? It makes no sense. Second, as a man who is married to a Black woman one would think he might be a tad more sensitive to these sorts of issues. I credit this to the poor writing than anything else. And that does seem to be the major flaw here. This script was just not put together very well. This script needed to be much better written, motivations more clear, and more importantly WRITE A FEW JOKES! Some of the worst movies I have ever seen have been comedies that were not funny! And this was not a funny movie! And with a movie with Paul Mooney in it, you have no excuse. In fact this movie should have been retooled with Paul Mooney having a much larger part.

To sum up, Bamboozled is a movie with a decent concept, but a very poor script. I like my comedy when the humor is in poor taste. This movie had plenty of poor taste, but without the humor. I cannot recommend this movie to anyone, unless you like seeing people in Black Face.

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

for some reason this has not bumped up to the top of the forums. so bump!

Re: In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's Reviews
 

What exactly prompted you to watch this?