Sexy Cineplexy: Reviews

The Lost Boys
(directed by Joel Schumacher, 1987)



The Lost Boys is a ridiculous, campy, homoerotic hodgepodge of a mess that somehow manages to be entertaining and sometimes fabulously funny.

And get this -- it's about vampires. People die. And Dianne Wiest is in it.

She, along with her sons Michael (Jason Patric) and Sam (the late Corey Haim) move to Santa Clara, California after Dianne escapes from a messy divorce. Nowadays, with films like Twilight and New Moon, this movie's plot would have involved Dianne Wiest becoming a cougar for vampires or something, but since we're traveling back to 1987, the film is about the oldest son, Michael, as he becomes a member (perhaps) of the town's little elite, badass vampire club, headed by David (Kiefer Sutherland, one of the coolest vampires ever, in my opinion).

But, oh my god, Robert Pattinson has nothing on Jason Patric, who, in this film, is a mixture of Jim Morrison and James Dean. Speaking of mixtures, wouldn't you just love to lick the spoon of Jason Patric batter? You know, while the cake is being made (if you even wanna give up the batter for the cake). I know I would.

Alright, let's talk about how gay this movie is.



*clears throat*

Sam, played by Corey Haim, is something else. He has a sexy poster of Rob Lowe on his closet door. It shows Rob's belly. Also, Sam wears a shirt that says "Born to Shop" (his other clothes are also interesting...) and he sings songs about needing a man while taking a bath. His grandpa tries to give him beavers (don't ask, just watch), but Sam refuses them.

Joel Schumacher, the director, is gay, and boy does that man know how to gayatize everything he shoots. He's the one who directed Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, which featured the Batman & Robin suits that come with big nipples. With Joel in the director's seat, it's shocking that they didn't come with breast pumps.

But back to the vampire movie. This is not a work of genius, by far. But there IS something appealing, universal and eternal about it. The movie moves kind of fast, which is good, but it also feels sort of jumpy and haphazard. Characters do not have a lot of depth. Corey Haim's dog, Nanook, should be the lead star -- although he's almost outshined by another dog called Thorn, who tries to rip Dianne Wiest's dress off (the only heterosexual element in the entire movie... maybe... Dianne Wiest does look like a man in this movie, with her really short hair style.)

There's a dumbass plot about saving a girl who's becoming a vampire -- and some little boy. I'm not sure if the little boy is supposed to be her little brother or maybe son -- these things aren't made very clear.

Bizarre characters run amok in this movie. Corey Feldman and lesser known Jamison Newlander play a couple of comic book store employees called The Frog Brothers that have no qualms about killing vampires. There's a strange grandfather character, Dianne Wiest's dad, who is very eccentric and doesn't do much besides act weird, drink, and hide from vampires. Dianne Wiest also works IN A VIDEO STORE run by a creepy man called Max (Edward Herrmann) who takes her out on a few dates.

The tone of this film changes at times, from dark and moody to semi-absurd comedy. It's almost intentionally unintentionally funny. It also feels like a teen drama, a male drama, a 1950's film and something Harvey Milk would probably enjoy watching on Halloween.

Nevertheless, like it or not, The Lost Boys is a classic with not much to offer except good, clean Dianne Wiest for Grand Marshall of the Gay Pride Parade fun, with vampires and blood splattering / blood confetti thrown in.

Sexy, I thought you might be interested in this: http://www.cracked.com/article_17097...or-movies.html

Or maybe you wrote it...

Nice review Sexy

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Taking Woodstock
(Directed by Ang Lee, 2009)


Did I ever tell you about my suicide attempt? It happened while I was watching Taking Woodstock -- which about BORED ME TO DEATH!

This pointless, broken oven of a movie will put an IV in your arm as you struggle to regain your hold on life, barely conscious and full of regret. Taking Woodstock takes too long to tell a story that just isn't all that interesting -- how a poor, Jewish family that runs a motel ended up hosting 1969's Woodstock musical extravaganza.

DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS! There were too many details! Too much unnecessary .... I don't even know what you'd call it. I was so damned uninterested and out of it to even remember. There was just so much going on regarding how Woodstock came to be, all the little technical details and everything... TOOK UP WAY TOO MUCH TIME!

Most of the actors were ugly. There was quite a bit of hot male nudity, but they cut away from it too quickly. There was a very funny, angry Jewish mother. Liev Schreiber pops up as a fierce drag queen called Vilma, who carries two guns, but even he/she was totally wasted.

I really don't know what else to say. THAT'S IT! Taking Woodstock -- a very beautiful film, especially on Blu-ray, except for some of the ugly actors --- not Emile Hirsch, though, who plays Vietnam veteran Billy. Taking Woodstock, I guess, was made in time for Woodstock's 40th anniversary. The movie bombed at the box office and I really can see why.

Maybe I just don't find Woodstock to be such an interesting subject. I did see parts of the old Woodstock movie --- that was a lot better than this movie. This movie is sort of another gay movie, like Brokeback Mountain. The main character, played by Demetri Martin, turned out to be gay, and he shacks up with a man. There's (ugly) lesbians kissing throughout. There's a drag queen -- Liev Schreiber -- who, by the way, steals the movie, EVEN WITHOUT DOING MUCH! We even learn a little backstory about this character -- that would have been a better movie, doing it about Vilma.

Take Woodstock, but don't see it.

Thanks for the review Sexy I don't think I will be rushing out to see this

Thanks for the reviews Sexy... think I am caught up now. I actually had Taking Woodstock at the house but never got around to watching it... sounds like I didn't miss anything...

__________________

Signs
(directed by M. Night Shyamalan, 2002)



Recently, I had my crops destroyed by a drunken Mel Gibson maniacally bending over my corn stalks, creating these odd, alien looking shapes and patterns while he spouted off gibberish about a broken heart and a racist ex-girlfriend, something like that, anyway. The message couldn't have been more clear: a sign like that only means it's time to revisit Signs, this time on Blu-ray.

I like their corn stalks -- green, shimmering, 1080p corn stalks. Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) seems to have the same problem I had -- weird shapes appearing in the corn fields in his backyard (well, and front yard). Apparently, the culprits are a bunch of aliens from outer space -- I found that very hard to believe after what I experienced. This movie is obviously some sort of delusion that Mel is experiencing, kinda like in Fight Club, where the aliens are actually Mel's drunken alter egos. But nevertheless, M. Night Shyamalan and crew want you to believe what they're telling you, so I'll go with the alien theory.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Graham's younger brother, Merrill, a sort of local sexy harelipped celebrity, and Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin play Graham's children, Morgan and Bo. What's with these names? Graham, Merrill, Morgan, Bo. Anyway, Bo (Abigail Breslin) spends most of her time complaining about water -- I didn't find it cute. She should have been grabbed by M. Night's Lady in the Water and thrown into a pool -- get over your water hangups, Bo. Your own body is 60% water.

Graham used to be a preacher man until his wife died in a freakish accident, caused by M. Night Shyalaman (I'm not kidding), so he's basically become an atheist and has left the church. The people in his little Pennsylvania town aren't too happy about it, but Graham is cold and basically wants everyone to just forget that part of his life. And then the aliens show up.

What I like about Signs most is the fact that I'm completely drawn into the situation and the story -- I'm not bored at all. The film is a unique mixture of a sci-fi alien movie and a religious movie, kind of like Madea's Family Reunion. I'm charmed that we get a gripping, edge of your seat family film that questions the existence of God, takes a look at faith and does all of this with aliens taking over the world -- and decorating the corn fields.

This is my favorite movie by M. Night Shyamalan. The question is, where did M. Night Shyamalan go after this? His talent must have left with the aliens. I never saw all of The Village, which I heard was a disaster. There was something about Lady in the Water that I liked, but for the most part it was confusing and definitely not a good movie. I never saw The Happening, but I hear it's an improvement. Then there's that new one, The Last Airbender -- didn't see it, don't really know.

Definitely check out Signs -- especially on Blu-ray. I think it's a fantastic film -- I'd put it in my Top 100 if I ever redid that (or is it there already? I forget.) I actually won a DVD copy of Signs from Movie Forums years back through some contest. Sadly, I don't have that copy anymore, but I've got the Blu-ray.

Anyway, I need to rush off -- I hear some anti-Semitic comments coming from my corn fields.

Thanks Sexy I wil give this movie another go didn't like it first time

Police Academy
(directed by Hugh Wilson, 1984)



I wasn't really sure if I wanted to review Police Academy or not, so this is going to be a little attempt/experiment at reviewing. I don't know what to say. Police Academy is a horrible Godsend of a movie, one of those "so bad it's good" happenings. There's no plot -- just a bunch of dumb ordinary idiot citizens going to a police academy to become police men and women. It's one goofball moment after another, some good, some bad. It's a movie that's lovingly mentally retarded.

Obviously, a lot of people must have fallen for Police Academy because there are SIX MORE SEQUELS after this one. And I own them all now and I intend on watching them -- maybe I'll even review them all, if there's anything to review.

There's a lot of sex jokes, a lot of gay jokes and a lot of black people jokes. You see several hot, shirtless men, including Steve Guttenberg -- whose character really annoyed me. He's a ladies man that sneaks into the women's dorm by crossdressing - something that happens several times (zzzzzzzz).

My favorite characters are Tackleberry (David Graf) and Lt. Harris (G.W. Bailey, who is basically playing the same guy he played in Mannequin -- only this movie came first).



Tackleberry, by the way, I found very oddly attractive, and I was deeply upset to learn that the actor David Graf died in 2001, so sadly I have to put him in the "sexy dead celebrities" folder along with Marlon Brando and James Dean. *sigh* The Creator gives and the Creator takes. At least movies give some sort of immortality (which is very popular these days thanks to vampires and Twilight). Anyway, thankfully Tackleberry is in all of the Police Academy flicks -- and what an aggressive, verbal, forceful cop he is. Like that in a man.

Speaking of verbal, the guy who does nothing but make sound effects, Cadet Jones (Michael Winslow)... *deeper sigh* ... I wish I had a smart TV that would just turn the sound off and close caption everything he squeaks out. Wait a minute, my eyes just rolled to the back of my head after I typed that -- they don't like the thought of even reading his sound effect noises. Oh, god, and he's in all of the Police Academy movies as well!



The Sexy Samantha, Kim Cattrall, from Sex and the City, also appears in this movie -- the only Police Academy movie she's in. Why does Kim Cattrall seem to appear in the oddest places? Before she was Samantha, she was Emmy in Mannequin my whole life, but now when I revisit some 1980's movies I missed out on, it seems like I'm ALWAYS finding Kim Cattrall in them. She was even in Star Trek VI as a Vulcan, which I couldn't believe. Kim Cattrall is a big movie whore -- I can see why she plays a character that sleeps around a lot on Sex and the City.

Plus, with Kim in this and G.W. Bailey, I felt like I was watching a bizarre prequel to Mannequin. Both of them are in that movie and G.W. Bailey plays the same character in it. Lt. Harris, by the way, was one of the best things about Police Academy in my opinion, but I could be biased because I love Mannequin.

I've written a lot in this review already, yet I feel like I didn't talk much about the film. I don't know what else to say. It's a bad movie -- yet it's oddly charming and even when it's not THAT funny, it's actually more decent than a lot of other stuff I've tried to sit through.

Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment
(directed by Jerry Paris, 1985)


The second chapter in the Police Academy saga should be arrested for dullness. Except for a subplot involving my favorite character, Tackleberry, falling in love with his police woman partner and losing his virginity at age 28, Police Academy 2 doesn't have much going for it. If you thought the first film was bad, this is even worse.

For starters, Bobcat Goldthwait leads a pack of thugs in a main storyline about the city going out of control with crime, but Goldthwait is extremely annoying and his gang isn't interesting. All he does is stutter and mutter and act like he needs some kind of antipsychosis medicine. In one scene, he and his gang rob a grocery store, which was pretty pathetic, unfunny and worthless.

The returning gang from Police Academy has now graduated from their academy and a poor city takes them into their precinct. Gone is G.W. Bailey, replaced by Art Metrano as the new bossy tough guy from hell for the gang to deal with, Captain Mauser, a poor substitute for Bailey's Lt. Harris. In this city, they deal with new action, notably Bobcat's gang. There's also a robbery at some kind of lamp store, run by a wimpy geek guy, who is always getting picked up and thrown around by the more macho men -- very unfunny and boring. A few new characters are introduced, but for the most part, Police Academy 2 is almost a total fail.

There are more gay jokes -- the gay bar from the first film even reappears -- but the comedy from the first film has died down. Not that the comedy from the first film was all that funny, but there was a certain zaniness gone in this movie. I think they expected Goldthwait to bring down the house or something, but instead all we got is Goldthwait making all kinds of rumbling, rolling, incoherent noises. He made Michael Winslow as the sound effect making Cadet Jones look much more tolerable, even when he tried to act like Bruce Lee.

However, I will say that the general course of the movie -- the editing and perhaps the story itself -- played out better and smoother than the first film.

Moon
(directed by Duncan Jones, 2009)



Sam Rockwell has an arse that deserves to be insured by Lloyd's of London. Moon will certainly do a good job preserving that magnificent arse on film, whether it's bare as he takes a shower (the best moment, for his arse and practically the entire film as well) or whether it's displayed nicely in the pajama bottoms he wears throughout the movie in some scenes. When I think of Moon in the future, I will most certainly think of Sam Rockwell's moon... 'cause that's about all that I found interesting in this Moon movie.

Oh, sure, this is a beautiful movie -- wonder cinematography. I was a bit unnerved by a lot of what I assume was special effects CGI stuff that took place on the surface of the moon... but you can get past that. What I can't get past is how totally unspectacular it all felt. I don't want to reveal the twists and secrets of Moon -- go somewhere else if you want it spoiled. I could spoil things here -- the spoilers certainly aren't impressive, in my opinion -- but I'll be extra nice tonight.

I zoned out a lot during Moon. I may not have paid the most severe special attention possible for Moon, but I stayed until the end credits and I got the gist of things. I personally feel that zoning out is an indicator of a rocky, iffy, sleep inducing movie. And I can't praise those kinds of films. Moon made me think, and yet I did not want to think. By the end of the movie, I felt that thinking wasn't really necessary, anyway. I think I overanalyzed things at first, then grew tired of that and gave up, then tried to pick it up again, then tried to FEEL something for the movie, and then I was let down. The overall impact was a let down.

I should have known beforehand that Kevin Spacey was an indicator that this movie was gonna be a mess. Now, don't get me wrong -- I have loved Kevin Spacey in the past. American Beauty, K-PAX and even Pay It Forward were all pretty good in my book ("K-PAX and even PAY IT FOWARD"... I'm sure some of you people are laughing that I wrote "and even PAY IT FORWARD" since many people hate K-PAX). But I haven't seen Kevin Spacey mania in awhile and here he plays the voice of a machine that moves around with a long, robotic arm and does a bunch of goofy smiley faces for Sam Rockwell, like these:

Why is Kevin Spacey playing a robot? Couldn't they have found a lesser known actor to do a voice-over? Not that I necessarily mind Kevin Spacey as a robot, but... I dunno. Honestly, I think this movie seems a bit (or perhaps very) pretentious -- and it does not pack a wallop and it is mostly boring.

I get that there's a message going on here regarding human life, but I'm not in agreement that it's a profound message or even one of importance. I think the movie was done wrong. If they had a message, it was done wrong. Moon seems pretentious in how glitzy and "original" it seems to be -- here we have a space movie that totally makes you forget about being in space. Or at least, I did. But I don't give them kudos for that. There's a lot of mystery and wonder going on regarding space and I don't think we've reached a limit about what we can explore about our ourselves and about space -- Moon is exploring pretentiousness in space, I think.

I'm sorry, I didn't get what the fuss was about. It started off very intriguing but then it just slid downhill like a sled after a snowstorm. I was also very bothered and bored by the lack of actors in this film. I don't automatically hate movies for lack of actors, but I feel that in Moon, it's a negative. And I'm bugged by the comparisons between this movie and 2001: A Space Odyssey. I can also think of some other films that Moon reminds me of, and it all comes together for me like it's some... arty experiment based on culture and popular movies. The fact that it doesn't blow me seems like evidence of this. GREAT movies have the power to affect even me -- Moon did not. Moon was dazzling with prettiness, but the overall effect was devoid of substance and life -- just like the actual moon.

If that was the point, I'm not impressed.

If you had trouble following me, this review was more for the people who have already seen Moon. I don't discourage others from watching Moon, but I feel that I have a different point of view of the movie and I encourage you to make your own opinion.

I liked it a little more than you did (), but you presented several of the negatives which I found in the movie.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Thanks Sexy not a big fan of Police Academy

Yeah. I mean, it definitely wasn't anything special, like you said. It was definitely going for a Solaris type vibe, but didn't really ever convey the "mysticism" of space, like you said. Hell, Solaris (the new one) had, like, several other people in it, and Soderbergh made the station feel more desolate than Sam Rockwell alone on the entire moon. And no... I didn't like the robot voice either.

I think maybe I would have liked it to have been a little more pretentious though. Maybe some more long takes to stretch out the time span or something.

I dunno. 6.0/10 from me which =

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Thanks Sexy sounds interesting I would have passed it up because of the title which is what attracted you

Police Academy 3: Back in Training
(directed by Jerry Paris, 1986)


Police Academy 3 is the worst movie I have ever seen.

Occasionally, I might have smiled at something in the movie, but nothing really made me laugh. The movie is a total time waster. Are all of the Police Academy movies after part 3 this bad? I don't know. I am thinking that the director of this movie, Jerry Paris, probably had a lot to do with this film being awful -- he directed part 2, which was a little bit better, and here he's doing 3, which features many of the characters from part 2 -- including the obnoxious wimpy guy, Sweetchuck, and Bobcat Goldthwait's character, who is now trying to become a cop.

There is a dying formula to these movies that has been set up since the first film. I am amazed that people must have responded to it and kept going back for more. The humor in this movie is only for those under 4 years old, if that. The plot - which concerns two police academies battling it out against each other - is barely there. Nothing really seems to matter. It's just one huge train wreck. The very end of this movie is even badly cut -- looks like an alternate ending was tacked on at the last moment or something.

I can't really say anymore. It is that bad. I forget most of the mess that was The Love Guru, but even that was probably better -- although, to be fair, I totally zoned out of The Love Guru, which I didn't for Police Academy 3. But like I said -- train wreck -- you can't look away from a train wreck.

I'll give it half a star for being a train wreck.

That picture kind of says it all

Thanks Sexy but Thanks

I'm Still Here
(directed by Casey Affleck, 2010)


Joaquin Phoenix wants to be his authentic self - with hip hop music - in I'm Still Here.

Despite the fact that the movie is part Bruno, part Blair Witch Project, part Jackass, part Slumdog Millionaire and part Survivor, Casey Affleck's vision of his friend Joaquin Phoenix turning into a drugged out, hip hopped Hollywood Unabomber is an original, unique motion picture event that is not to be missed.

Joaquin Phoenix succeeds in creating one of the most exhausting characters ever -- a narcissistic, delusional, annoying, arrogant, stubborn, ******* version of himself that I'm glad isn't real, since Casey and Joaquin have now come out and said the bearded, sunglasses wearing Joaquin was actually a stunt used to create a "distance" for us to believe in this movie. That distance both works and doesn't work for this film. It works because the stunt actually draws you into Joaquin's character and the film -- if you were frustrated and pissed off by the stunt, you'll be even more pissed off by Joaquin as Crazy Joaquin. It doesn't work because now everyone knows it's not real and that currently brings about confusion, annoyance and spite towards the film.

I'm Still Here is exactly like The Blair Witch Project in that both films played on the "This Is Real, But We're Admitting In Public That It Isn't Real" gag. The amazing thing is that, like Blair Witch Project, this movie is actually pretty darn good. There is a change of focus happening here with this movie that's different than anything else, at least with what I'm aware of. It is odd that a major, Oscar winning movie star took so much time off to portray this mentally ill version of himself. It's more odd because by doing so, he took a huge risk. It not only risks himself, it risks the movie. But I applaud that risk and I think the result is a work of genius.

The film has so many layers of dimensions. It doesn't really wow you, and yet it does. Joaquin's ramblings throughout the film can exhaust you and bore you, but yet you still watch and follow him. It is a movie that will make you think about its intricacies. When there's a fight on screen between Joaquin and his assistant, I thought it was interesting how Joaquin comes across as the bad guy, yet at the same time you remember how this is all staged. They said that they were trying to examine current TV reality shows and how they're not really so real afterall, which is commendable, but what's fascinating to me is how it's so much more interesting and thought provoking as a movie. In a way, the movie is about acting itself, about what is real, about people and how we can relate to celebrities, even when they're playing a part. It's a complex study. It's pretentious and yet it knows it's pretentious.

The people who reviewed I'm Still Here before the "hoax" was revealed and thought that Joaquin Phoenix really had become this character probably did not see the film correctly. It is, of course, hilarious that people fell for the trick. They released the info that it wasn't real at the right time, for the movie could have made everybody even more concerned and freaked out about Joaquin Phoenix -- he's nastier in the movie than the way he appeared on David Letterman in 2009. He's utterly hopeless. But when you see the movie and know that it's not real, you'll be surprised that some people actually fell for it. It is totally comical and there's nothing wrong with that.

Despite all that I've said, the film still isn't the greatest it could have been. It doesn't really slow down. It's chaotic and drives you nuts. Joaquin is emotionally exhausting. Style was definitely more important to them than substance, but overall, it's an original piece of work, an amusing experiment, but I think the overall impact won't really hit anybody just yet. In the future, this could be remembered as a standout performance by Joaquin Phoenix, with some camps thinking this is better than him in Walk the Line, and this could even be a predictor of styles that are yet to come.

I'm gonna go watch it again right now.

Nice review Sexy thanks