Over the River and Into Deep Shit - Grimm (2003)

All I knew about Grimm was that it was an "absurdist, darkly comic" re-imagining of Hansel and Gretel. But now, I can tell you that it's about two siblings, Jacob and Marie, who are abandoned by their parents in the woods. Their lovely patriarch leaves them with nothing except a note telling them to hike it all the way to Spain to live with their uncle. For the 5 minutes their parents are in the film, it's obvious they're a couple of asses. My one question, however, is why two 20-somethings are still living with their parents in the middle of nowhere, especially since they're hated by them. Maybe it's because they're Dutch. Probably not, but who knows.

No, you don't have any idea what happens next. Trust me.

This is one of those times when not knowing anything about a film really pays off. The story starts off simply, but takes turns you'd never expect. Bizarrely enough, this is also my only gripe with Grimm, and it's because a major plot point sort of just....happens. There's no explanation that I can find, and it's actually more strange than annoying since it's so glaring that I feel like I missed something. Maybe I did. For a reason my brain can't figure out, after Jacob and Marie find their way to Spain, Marie disappears when Jacob goes to get some food. He comes back to a note with an address written on it, so he heads off to find Marie. When he gets to the address, he finds Marie is "married" to some Spanish dude who lives in a very, very nice villa. And I only know that because he calls Marie his wife. What the fuck? Did I pass out with my drool-encrusted mouth agape for half an hour? I'm pretty sure I didn't, but one can never be sure of such a thing.

There's definitely some interesting morality going on here, though. Jacob and Marie don't have too big a problem killing, even if it is by accident. Off the top of my head, I put their body count at 4, if you don't include animals. Grimm isn't a violent or bloody film, by any means, and I'm glad it was done the way it was. It alternates between being mildly amusing, deadly serious, oddly sweet and laugh-out-loud funny. And maybe it's just me, but there were a few scenes where....well, I don't do that shit with my sister. Nothing gross takes place - but again, maybe it's because they're Dutch(I'm not picking on you guys, by the way) - but there might be some kind of cultural barrier I'm not aware of when it comes to siblings. To be vague, there are just some embraces and looks that go on for a little longer than they would have if I was Jacob. But hey, Jacob and Marie could be one of those uber-close brother-sister types that have nothing twisted going on inside their heads. I still wouldn't take a bath with my sister.

Anyways, I think we should move on. I haven't seen anything else by the writer and director, Alex van Warmerdam, but I'm going to give the rest of his catalogue a look-see at some point. The way he merged comedy and drama was impressive, and he made the most out of a simple premise. The two leads were great as well, and they really looked and behaved like close family(too close? Wait, we're past that). I should also mention how good the music was. It took me by surprise, but then again, I didn't even know the film took place in modern times. That might have clued me in. Another interesting aspect was that the leads had to speak both Dutch and Spanish, and they did so without sounding out of place or strained. It seemed natural to someone who speaks neither language, so I guess you'll have to take that observation for what it is. All I know for sure is that your average American has enough trouble speaking and writing English, so Spanish is usually out of the question. And Dutch? Good luck with that.

If only every stranger I met was this charitable...

I went into Grimm looking for a dark fairy tale. I'd say I got what I wanted, but not in the form I expected. I don't know much about the original save for the whole bread crumb thing, but van Warmerdam did an excellent job of twisting his own unique perspective and imagination around an already-beloved story. I'm not going to post the trailer since it shows some things I don't want you to see until you sit down and watch whole film. You'll have to find it for yourself if you simply don't have any self-control, but I'd recommend finding the DVD instead.

Chocolate (2008) AKA Rain Chan

If Barry Levinson's "Rain Man" had a massive orgy of unprotected sex with the entire Jackie Chan film library..........9 months later.........you would get "Chocolate." It breaks down like this......Thai gangster Zin falls for Yakuza member Masashi, but Zin is already spoken for by gang overlord #8. #8 is pissed when he discovers the affair..... treats Zin like #2. then promptly shoots off his own toe because that's what Thai gangsters do when they're mad. Fearing for her life, Zin tells Masashi to go back to Japan and that they are never to see each other again lest they incur the wrath of #8 and his transexual minions. Fair enough, but I'm not really sure why Masashi couldn't just use his mob influence to get both of them out of the country. Maybe Yakuza and Thai are not supposed to mix it up due to some traditional bullshit. It doesn't matter.........the important thing is that Masashi leaves Thailand and unknowingly........a pregnant Zin.

Zin gives birth to Zen. Zen is an autistic savant, only instead of being good with complex mathematics, she can watch and replicate (with deadly efficiency) the movements of martial artists she sees in movies and training next door at a kick boxing school. This comes in handy after Zin is stricken with cancer and cannot afford her treatments. When Zen's adopted brother Moom comes across a list of people who owe Zin gangster backpay, they visit each one to get them to pay up.....or get beat up. It's not too bad a story as far as this kind of crap goes, but once Zen unleashes her fury on the bad guys, you will be treated to a display of fight choreography and stuntwork that rivals any American action film. That's really no surprise because these are the same filmmakers and stunt teams that vaulted Tony Jaa to stardom in "Ong Bak." If you have seen that flick, you know that this team does stuff on film that is TRULY death defying and the climactic duel with #8 does not disappoint.

Bodies are fighting and dropping from several stories, sliding under tables, and contorting into positions that would give a yoga master fits. I'd be curious to find out how many people were severely injured during the making of "Chocolate." They make all the chaos look easy and I'm sure it's anything but. Why no American big budget or independent studio has attempted to make an action movie like this baffles me. I guess we can't have Brad Pitt jumping off a building for insurance purposes, but isn't there anybody on our home soil with a little parkour, or stuntman ability to at least compete and put on a good show for us homers???? For now I guess we'll just have to admire the amazing efforts from afar.

Overall a dizzying, dazzling, beat em up that gets my highest recommend. The only low mark is the title. Perhaps it was lost in translation, but I could never figure out why the hell the movie is called "Chocolate." No matter......I'll gladly have another piece.

Hey, it was the '70s - Saturn 3 (1980)

Well, Saturn 3 might have been released in 1980, but it was definitely filmed in the '70s. The movie mostly takes place inside a space station on Saturn that, given the opportunity, Willy Wonka would have probably made an exact replica of. At times, it's pretty psychedelic, man. But there's also an interesting parallel between this movie and Moon; intrusion upon isolation takes place in both films. The difference between them is that in Saturn 3, the intrusion is wholly unwanted. I think I'll make this review my tribute to Farrah Fawcett, since her death was upstaged by Hurricane Michael. I hope you enjoy it, dear Farrah.

Besides Fawcett, Saturn 3 also boasts a cast featuring Kirk Douglas and Harvey Keitel, which, obviously, only helps the film. Everyone does a great job. But if I were to take away one thing from this film, it would be the realization that some good ideas were abound, but everything was stuck firmly in the decade it was made. The music was overbearing, some of the plot points were contrived, and a crucial scene towards the end made shit for sense. All that being said, I still enjoyed my time with the film, and I'd rank it as average among its peers. Something interesting to note, however, is some similarities to later films. Harvey Keitel has an implant, or port, if you will, in the back of his head that allows him to download information directly from his brain. He also walks around with blue pills, espousing their awesomeness. Hmm, what does that remind you of? And towards the end of the film, there's a definite Terminator-esque chase scene. Seeing that Saturn 3 pre-dates both of those films, I'll let you decide about that what you will.

The story goes something like this: a space station on Saturn has been behind on its quota of whatever the hell its doing, so the powers that be have sent aid in the form of Harvey Keitel in order to increase the station's output. Within the first 10 minutes, however, Keitel is made out to be some kind of bad guy. Why, I'm not sure. He's shown blatently killing a fellow astronaut, and then he seemingly takes his place aboard the vessel heading for Saturn. I never understood why that happened, or who exactly Keitel was supposed to be. Obviously, he wasn't the intended help for Douglas and Fawcett, but his real identity is never made clear. Whatever, I guess. So he arrives on the space station and begins to build a robot to help Douglas and Fawcett around the station. Almost immediately, the robot starts showing signs of independant, sentient behavior. He forcefully picks up Fawcett and shows resilience by not conforming to everything Keitel orders of him. I think you know where the story is heading at this point.

Yep. The robot and Harvey Keitel merge and form a super-sentient mix of human and artificial intelligence. How or why this happens is left up to interpretation. Either that, or they were too lazy to actually come up with an answer. Be that as it may, the robot starts attacking Douglas and Fawcett, and it's up to them to make an escape or die trying. Telling you all this about the robot might be considered a spoiler, but I really don't think Saturn 3 was built around narrative suspense. It's more of a pulpy brand of sci-fi with some nifty ideas about space exploration that never get developed at all. But hey, Farrah dons her birthday suit, so it's not all downhill.

The overall result is pretty much what I would expect from the director of Singin' in the Rain, Charade and Bedazzled. Sci-fi is not Stanley Donen's calling, and as such, it suffers from a cardinal sin for movies in this particular genre: dating itself. For the most part, the special effects are fine, but it's not a film about special effects. The whole story takes place in a static environment, and the setting is firmly rooted in the decade it was made. And while it's true that other films by, say, Robert Wise may also look a bit dated now, Saturn 3 doesn't really have any redeeming qualities that transcends its own making. But even after beguiling it that much, it still did its job. It never bored me. So take that statement as you will; Saturn 3 won't go down, in my mind, as a Sci-Fi classic, but it held my attention(laughter and all) throughout. There's certainly worse I could do with an hour-and-a-half of my time.

There is an outfit early on in this trailer that Farrah Fawcett absolutely NEVER wears during the actual movie. I think you'll know which one I'm talking about.

Going Down the Rabbit Hole - Moon (2009)

Isolation and fear, when used correctly, can create some of the most haunting scenarios ever put to film. John Carpenter's The Thing, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, Steven Soderbergh's Solaris(it's more centered around human drama than Tarkovski's version), and even Barry Levinson's Sphere all come to mind. When there's nowhere to run to, what are you going to do? Moon touches on this theme; Sam Bell(Sam Rockwell) is a 1-man crew scheduled to run an energy mining operation on the moon for 3 years. I'd call that sufficiently isolated, which is the commonality Moon shares with The Thing and The Shining. But where it differs is in the area of fear. The kind of fear on display here is partly that of the unknown, and partly that of yourself. How can you trust your own mind for a grossly extended period of time in a foreign and desolate landscape? I think these are the central themes at the beginning of the film, and they expand from there. To talk more in-depth about plot points would be criminal for this kind of story, so vagaries are all you're going to get.


This is also, hands-down, Sam Rockwell's best performance. He had some of the same stunned desperation in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, but that level is kept throughout all 97 minutes of Moon. Nothing really goes right for Sam the whole time we're watching him, and some of that fear I talked about earlier lies in the fact that nothing good can ultimately come of the situation he's in. Something might be able to be salvaged, but that's about it. Add to his isolation a wife and newborn daughter back on Earth and one could understand how difficult a mission like Sam's would be to handle. The scope and meaning of Sam's predicament drastically changes at a certain point in the film, but alas, as it usually goes with me, that's all I can say. I can't break my own spoiler law, for fear of self-punishment.

Nobody to play with.

So what else can I talk about, then? Location is everything, and much like the atmosphere in The Thing, it's a character in-and-of itself in Moon. It acts as a constant, lifeless enemy, bearing down on Sam until his contract is up, which is 2 weeks away when the film opens. Apparently, a lot of the outside shots were done with models, but I had no clue. The only thing I took away from his surroundings was a striking, bleak loneliness. You might say to yourself, "Just wait out the 2 weeks; if I had to, I could do it." Maybe, but when your mind goes, it could be 2 minutes and it wouldn't make any difference. Regardless, the situation changes when an outside force is made known to Sam after he accidentally crashes his rover into a piece of machinery. From that point on, the story goes off in a different direction, and all I can say is that the door is opened for a whole range of emotions and thoughts you probably weren't expecting.

Cool for a vacation. Not for 3 years.

The short version: I love the story. An original, dark, realistic tale of hard Sci-Fi doesn't come around very often these days, and the way it was handled places Duncan Jones on my list of directors to watch for. He nailed everything possible with Moon, and it's one of those films that gets better with every successive viewing. I've only seen it once, but I know that I'll learn and uncover things I didn't notice before every time I watch it. That's the mark of a great storyteller, and I hope he takes the genre forward by reigning it back in. By that, I mean making Sci-Fi like it used to be. Robert Wise, Stanley Kubrick, Byron Haskin, and hell, even George Lucas before he became an ass all created great works. Science Fiction was all about the people, and it used the genre as a backdrop. Jones understands this, and it's why Moon deserves every praise I give it.

Not Fit For Sci-Fi - Immortal (2004)

I feel I have to clarify my title right away: I don't mean sci-fi the genre; I mean Sci-Fi the cable channel. There's a big difference between this movie and the kind of third-rate crap that channel pumps out. How many movies about Megalodons do we need? How 'bout that barn burner The Poseidon Adventure starring Rutger Hauer, Adam Baldwin and Steve Guttenberg? See, that's exactly what Immortal is not. It's obviously low-budget, but I think the filmmakers used what they had available to them as best they could, and the final product is pretty damn cool. To me, that's a defining characteristic of any good sci-fi film: coolness. Of course, I'm not saying that style trumps all. Not by a long shot. But for this genre, it goes a long way to bridge any gap that may arise between a film's merits and its shortcomings. That may sound a bit weird, and I'll elaborate further. But in a nutshell, Immortal is worth looking at for its unique visual design and cool characters, even if the story doesn't do everything it's supposed to.

In fact, I'll get the story out of the way first. It's not that great. The potential was there, but for whatever reason(I have my guesses: budget and time constraints), its lack of cohesion is painfully obvious. The film centers around the Egyptian god Horus and his human host, played by Thomas Kretschmann. For an unknown reason, Horus is sentenced to death by the rest of the gods, and he has a week to do whatever he wants, I guess. It's not clear why the gods would let a death row inmate roam around freely, but, as I said, the story isn't this film's strong point. So Horus inhabits a human body and bends the host to his will. Again, for some reason, Horus wants to find a certain girl. The only reason I can surmise after watching it was that Horus just wanted to fuck. Alright, but why her? It doesn't make a lot of sense, honestly. Another thing I should mention - and this really only matters in terms of coolness - but in the future, society is mixed with genetically engineered humans and aliens. Like I said, though, not a whole hell of a lot is explained, so forgive me if I'm a little sparse on the details. About ten seconds of it reminded me of Blade Runner. Anyways, some shit happens and then Horus goes back to face his sentencing. Sorry, I won't spoil any more of the movie.

Here, you see the Egyptian god, Horus, come through with his female captive/lover, and Horus' human host, Nikopol.

But who plays Horus, you ask? Well, cgi does. That's the thing about Immortal. It's a mix between live-action and full cgi. For example, in one scene you'll be watching two actual people acting in a real environment, and in the next scene, the environment and everyone in it is entirely cgi. Then the film will mix the two together. Sometimes you can't tell the difference(the fully cgi bartender looks awesome), but other times it's a little jarring when the effects don't quite convince the way they should. Sometimes it looks great, but then the animations and overall quality of a lot of the humanoid character models are noticeably low-budget. But overall, I think it gives off a really interesting and futuristic vibe, which is obviously crutial for a sci-fi movie set in the future.

Another aspect of Immortal that I loved were the characters. Almost every single one was interesting to look at, even if their motivations or goals weren't very clear. The best character would have to be a genetically engineered shark who basically works as a bounty hunter for the government. His name is.........wait for it............Hammerhead. I'll let you guess his species of shark. But he really is a bad-ass character, if under-used. For some reason, Hammerhead consists of fully practical effects, while Horus is cgi. Both are central to the story, which, again, makes the effects a mixed bag. The girl Horus lusts after is another main character, and she's played by an actual woman(Linda Hardy). She's not human, and as far as the doctor who examines her can determine, her organs place her at about 3 months old. But she's a grown woman, so the story tries to add depth to her character by using her mysterious past as a part of the narrative. The problem, again, centers around me not knowing what the fuck was going on.

Hammerhead. Fucking cool.

I will say that from scene-to-scene, I understood what was happening. The problem was with the overall cohesion of the narrative. The over-arching story made absolutely no sense. Apparently, in the near future there is an Egyptian pyramid free-floating in the sky, and no-one knows why. They try to investigate for a moment, but nothing really comes of it, and its presence remains a mystery. But that mystery also extends to the entire point of the film. The ending, just like the rest of it, is bizarre and not explained. No, I'm still not going to go into a lot of detail, because I do think Immortal is worth at least a rental. I hate this cliche, but it's really not for everyone. If you want to see across-the-board amazing effects, this won't do the job. If you want a satisfying narrative, this won't do the job. But if you want an original take on traditional myths and a cool cast of characters, Immortal is my prescription to your pain.

Oh, and if you're interested in a little bit of movie trivia, the director of Immortal, Enki Bilal, was a demon illustrator on the 1983 Michael Mann movie, The Keep. We've talked about this movie before, so I just thought I'd throw that out there for the more discerning readers. As for Immortal, I'd give it a try, if only to see an experiment that almost fired on all cylinders, but a couple of them blew out before they were supposed to. But that's okay to me. In this case, it was the thought that counted.

The Ending That Wasn't There - Vinyan (2008)

I really hate when this happens. Vinyan runs 96 minutes, and 90 minutes of it are absolutely fantastic. Then the last 6 minutes tanks the whole thing. Not since High Tension have I been so pissed at a movie's ending. It's almost like the director knew he was going to piss everyone off, and reveled in it. And coming from Fabrice Du Welz, the helmer of Calvaire, Vinyan is a dissapointment. Calvaire is a bizarre, fucked up French horror film that really doesn't pull any punches. And 99% of the time, Vinyan doesn't, either. But that last 1% is a bitch.

The story is about a couple who lost their child in the tsunami of '04, I believe. It's been 6 months since it happened, and they're still coping with the loss. By chance, Jeanne(Emmanuelle Beart) sees a video about impoverished children, and she thinks she sees her son amongst them. So she and her husband, Paul(Rufus Sewell), set out to see if their son is alive. The tricky part is where they think he is - in Burma. So they pay a shady character to take them to Burma, and things happen from there on.


The first thing I want to talk about is the acting. Sewell is great, and I really wish he would do more films of substance, or at least of a higher profile. I just want to see him more often, because I think he's a really good actor. Regardless, he pulls off a nuanced, realistic performance that's matched by Beart every step of the way. These are real people in real situations, and melodrama or over-acting never rears its ugly head.

But this fact only makes me more angry, because I think a good ending was very possible, but the scriptwriter or whoever decided to confuse and annoy the audience by inserting an ending that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can't give any specifics, obviously, but rest assured your rage will boil over once this movie is over.


It's a damn shame, really, because like I said, the rest of Vinyan is top-notch. It's a very atmospheric film, and it keeps a consistent mood of dread and uncertainty throughout. It's firmly set in reality, and Sewell and Beart sell the shit out of it. Their emotions ring true in every sense, and there's nothing to do but take the journey with them. But again, the ending tanks it. For every scene of parental pain and anguish, the last few minutes add a lifetime of bullshit and contrived circumstance. Believe me, I don't want this to be reality, but it is. I so loved this film, but when everything is said and done, Fabrice really let me down.

I guess it's up to you whether or not 99% of a great film is better than nothing. For me, there's nothing worse than a sour-tasting ending, for the obvious reason. It's the last thing you see; if it sucks, it diminishes the whole experience. Such is the ending of Vinyan, and i'll forever weep for what could have been. Oh well, I guess. Nothing I've said up to this point can diminish how good most of the film was, so I guess you could call that a small victory. But in the end, I'll only ever think of how much better the film would have been if the last 6 minutes lived up to the previous 90. It's up to you whether or not that sounds like a worthy use of an hour-and-a-half. Personally, I'd say it was, since so much of it was captivating and worthwhile. But man...way to crap all over a great achievement.

Next Stop, Jesus! - Religulous (2008)

The first thing you should know about this documentary is that it was directed by Larry Charles. The same Larry Charles that directed Borat. So right off the bat, you know this isn't going to be a totally even-handed affair. The film is by no means vitriolic or demeaning, but it has its moments that are obviously skewed. I happen to agree with everything Bill Maher says in this documentary, but I also understand that it's not going to win anyone over who doesn't see things the way he does. But that's not really the reason I watched Religulous. I wasn't looking for Maher to present scientific evidence or fully construct logical arguments. Honestly, I was watching this film so I could see the crazy people and laugh at them. And in that regard, Religulous did exactly what I wanted.

The whole thing is basically Bill Maher traveling around, interviewing believers and non-believers alike, asking questions about their faith, and cracking some jokes at their expense. Before seeing the film, you might think Maher utterly trashes anyone who believes in God. But at its heart, it's not a venemous film. Maher, for the most part, respects the people he's interviewing enough to let them explain their position, and afterwards ask them serious questions. Sure, here and there he adds some off-color joke aimed at the religion his interviewee is part of, and it's funny. To me. If you're religious, probably not quite as much. But still, even if you're religious, you have to give him his overall civility. There were countless times where, if it were me, I would probably get a little rude or condescending towards some of these people. The ex-gay minister who doesn't believe anyone is really gay comes to mind. That just smacks of ignoring your own desires, but whatever.

Maher goes everywhere from Israel, to the Bible belt, to the Netherlands, and to the heart of Mormon Utah. Speaking of Utah, those fucking guys have quite a setup there. It's almost, if not just as ornate as the Vatican. In Italy. As in Europe, where their architecture is actually pleasing to stare at for more than five seconds. Yea, I was surprised to see that shit in Utah. Props on that. But besides that, you really have to be hardcore to believe the stuff they do. I'm just saying. Mormons also don't seem to be very inviting to outsiders, since just the mere sight of Maher sent the Mormon Enforcement Brigade into their midst to drive them away. An even more amusing fact was that Maher actually tried to get an interview with the Pope. He failed, but still. However, he did find an actual Vatican priest who holds some pretty unconventional views about his own faith. I'll put up a little clip of him below. He deserves it. Among the other colorful characters is a dude who believes he is the second coming of Christ, a weed-smoking spiritualist who doesn't really know what the fuck he believes in, and a Jewish guy who invents(or cheats, IMO) his way around restrictions on the Sabbath. If nothing else, you could say Religulous asks the same basic questions of every religion, and it doesn't come off as picking on anyone more than the rest.

All in all, your mind is already made up whether or not you believe one word that comes out of Bill Maher's mouth when it comes to religion. You either believe or you don't. So it's armed with that knowledge that I ask you to just watch it for fun. Regardless of your personal beliefs, at least watch it and form an opinion afterward, not the other way around. If nothing else, it can serve as a nice jumping-off point for a serious discussion with those you know of differing faiths. Or, if you agree, it's a great film to pop in and have some laughs while still engaging your brain a tad bit.

Christian Bale's Skeletal Structure, as Seen in The Machinist (2004)

I guess I can't avoid starting out by mentioning Christian Bale. More specifically, the things he's willing to do for a part. Apparently, the list includes what I can only imagine as starving yourself for a very long time. He looks absolutely emaciated. It's hard to look at him for any set amount of time, and I couldn't help but marvel at what it takes to do that to yourself in the name of your craft. And if he was going to starve himself, The Machinist was a good reason to do it.

There is something I've noticed with every Brad Anderson film, and the best way to describe it is there being a creeping tension and foreboding in all the atmospheric conditions he creates. It's almost identical in Session 9, and Transsiberian definitely has elements of it. Anderson is astutely aware of his characters' surroundings, and he populates them with people and things that can make you a little bit uneasy. And in The Machinist, everything is off somehow, but it's hard to pinpoint. Trevor Reznik(Bale) doesn't live in a super-creepy apartment building, there's nothing terribly upsetting about his job, and everybody else around him seems normal enough. Yet and still, something doesn't feel right. There's an inate quality that pushes the film more in the direction of horror, but without any of the genre conventions.

Bale plays a guy working at some kind of machine factory, and he's been there for, as far as I know, at least a little over a year. When the film starts, he's already a full-on bag of bones, so there's no real transformation happening. But the point isn't to see him transform; instead, it's about what he's become. What exactly that is, and why it's happened are two of the questions the film digs into.


And that's all I can safely divulge about the film without going into spoiler territory. I'll say this: if you're in any way interested in films about or pertaining to tragedies(Greek or otherwise) or the human condition, then give The Machinist a shot. As is also the case with Anderson's other films, it's not one you'll be popping in the DVD player once a month to get your fix. Rather, it's an experience that slowly makes its way around your brain and simmers a while, letting you soak up all the little details and nuances until you've taken away any and everything possible. That's not to say it's difficult to watch or hard to understand. It's quite the opposite, actually. It's a simple story, but the layers it has and the humanity it shows are both integral parts to the success of the actual storytelling. And to me, it succeeded greatly.

But how can a film successfully portray a character without making him well-rounded or at least showing more than one side of them? Apparently, very easily. If that's a genuine question of yours, then I can answer it by saying that not all great characters in film history are well-rounded, or even good people. The Machinist is a shining example of a talented filmmaker taking one aspect of the human psyche and putting it on full display for feature length. Not all of it is pretty, and not all of it is safe. The point, at least the way I saw it, was to take stock of yourself and understand how events have shaped the person you've become. Whether it comes from external forces or something inside yourself, if you can't recognize it you have no chance of overcoming it or living with it. Such is the dilemma facing Trevor Reznik, and it's one I think everyone should experience at least once.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Hot on the heels of his mega-hit from 2007, Michael Bay follows up Transformers with a sequel that promises bigger explosions, bigger robots, and a lot more mayhem and bang for your buck. Does it surpass or even equal his earlier work? Let's find out.



Haha, fooled you. I didn't see that shit.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three Remake, or...God Dammit, Tony Scott. (2009)

Son of a bitch, someone needs to give Tony Scott a tri-pod. You know, that thing cameras sit on top of. To keep it still. So you your movie doesn't look like a YouTube video that's having trouble loading. Also, at one point early on in the movie, I counted the seconds between cuts. Want to guess the length of the longest one? I'll give you four seconds. Why? Because that's the answer. So what did we learn from this information? Basically, when Tony Scott is on, he's fucking ON. But when he's off, you're pretty much wasting your money and time. It's a shame, really.

The more I think about this fucking thing, the more unnecessary it becomes. Why remake this? If the filmmaker has nothing over and above to add to the experience, then he/she has no business even attempting it. It's only cheapened, and in the case of Pelham, the cheapening comes in two different flavors. The first being Scott's stubborn reliance on jump-cuts and dizzying 360-degree panning shots of someone talking. Do I really need to see all around someone when they're just standing there speaking? No, I don't and neither does anyone else. I can think of maybe a handful of times when it would be appropriate. None of those scenarios rear their heads in this movie, so it just comes off as stupid. The second being the addition of truly sappy situations that only served to make me secretly throw up behind my stadium seating, and then proceed to look at my puke dribbling down the steps. It's more entertaining than the shit that was added in the film, so in my book, that was a bonus. I'll even give you the most glaring example. It's a spoiler, but if you've seen the original, you already know how the movie turns out. ****SPOILER**** THE BAD GUYS LOSE. So with that out of the way, I can describe this lame shit for you.

Denzel is a transit guy, and you'll have to excuse me if I can't remember his job title. I don't work for public transit, so I don't really give a shit. He's the guy that talks to trains on a microphone. Or at least he is when the movie starts because he's under investigation for taking bribes. He's fallen on the totem pole, and we as an audience are made painfully aware of this. Of course, when he gets the call from the hijackers, you automatically know at some point he'll be offered a bribe. Does Denzel take it? Fuck no. You're an idiot if you thought otherwise. Or slow. Either way, he has to allow the hostage negotiator to send a team of FBI agents or whatever the fuck to his house to search it and make sure he's not in league with the criminals. Denzel then gets a call from his wife, wondering what the hell is going on. He tells her it's just part of the process, and that he's talking to the terrorists. Later on, he tells her that he has to go meet them in person, to which his wife's reply is, and I'm paraphrasing, but this shit is really in there, "you better come home, because we need milk. Don't forget the milk." The object of the conversation being Denzel making it out alive and bringing home the milk to his poor, distraught wife. BOO-FUCKING-HOO. Guess what the last scene in the god damn movie is? HE BRINGS HOME THE FUCKING MILK. That's how you chart suspense if you're a movie exec. Oh, and fuck you, movie exec.

If you've read this far, you'll have noticed I'm not going too much into the nuts and bolts of the film, save for a couple of items. That's because all you need to see is the original with Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau. Really, that's all you need. It's superior in every conceivable way. The beauty of the original is its simplicity. It's pretty much just Matthau and Shaw talking. Sure, things happen around them, but they're the crux of the story. It's sort of the same in the remake, but the extraneous bullshit really takes the shine away from the stars. Case in point - Travolta. He excels at hamming it up as a bad guy. Broken Arrow and Face/Off come to mind. In Pelham, he does ham it up quite a bit, but it's restrained when compared to the two films I just mentioned. He's a little more nuanced, and more convincing as an actual person. The hamminess is still present, but he strikes a great balance between believability and bad guy over-the-top evil.

Denzel is good, as per usual, and I did think it was a nice touch to make him more of an every-man instead of the cop or negotiator. In one scene, a cop asks him if he's ever handled a gun, to which Denzel answers "no." That doesn't happen very often in a Denzel movie. At least not in most of them. And with that, my praise ends. I guess I don't really need to rail on it any more, since my stance is pretty rock solid at this point. There's nothing else to talk about, really, except for my insistance that you do NOT go see this. Buy the original on DVD instead. It's an old version, and I doubt there will be any new ones made because of the remake, but it's still worth it. You might have to mess around with your settings to get a widescreen presentation, and then you'll notice the image being stretched a tad, but it's totally watchable. Much more so than this pile of trash.

No trailer for this one. Watch Walter and Robert. My colleague talked about it once.

I'll Stay Awake, Thanks - Long Dream (2000)

You know, there are some directors out there who I think would greatly benefit from sitting down and watching this movie. I check the budgets on a lot of movies, and most of the time I wonder to myself how the fuck $100 million can be blown through so easily. Higuchinsky, the director of Long Dream, would laugh at the people responsible for spending that much money. All of his movies were really low budget, but guess what? They don't need the money (granted, I haven't seen his last film, but I seriously doubt anything has changed in that regard). The sad thing, however, isn't how much money he has or doesn't have for his films. Believe it or not, he's only made 3 films.....ever. I'm pretty sure this qualifies as a national emergency, but I haven't seen any reports about it on the news yet.

Long Dream is about just that: a long dream. It takes place in a very dark and claustrophobic mental hospital, where two doctors are studying a curious patient. He came to them with a pretty fucked up problem. Every time he sleeps, his dreams seem to last longer and longer. In the span of, say, eight hours, he experiences days in his mind. At first. What starts out as a few days of experiences increases exponentially every time he sleeps. You'd be forgiven if you didn't realize the ramifications of this. He explains it best himself when he tells the doctors that one of his dreams was about him frantically searching for a bathroom for eight years. That's fucked. What if it's a horrible nightmare? It might end up being twenty years of swimming away from a gigantic shark, or god knows what. If that's not a scary premise for a horror/sci-fi flick, then I don't know what is. One thing I guess I should mention is the length of the film. It's only an hour long, so if you're looking for any kind of character development or complex plot, you'll have to look elsewhere. It's as straightforward as can be, and it doesn't bother with anything except being really weird. And I mean that in an exceptionally good way.

Higuchinsky is a very visual director, despite the low budgets he works with. Everything about his films, from the sets to the lighting and camera angles, is bizarre and other-worldly. Long Dream is no exception, and the green-tinted, narrow hallways of the mental hospital are foreboding enough, never mind what's happening in that dude's head every night. Also, Higuchinsky doesn't usually work with a lot of CGI. In Long Dream, it's practical all the way. I won't go into what kind of effects are used, but I'll let you imagine what might happen to a mind and body that experiences hundreds of years of existence. It's a crazy-ass concept, and it takes a crazy-ass director to pull it off with this kind of twisted confidence. To me, it's a must-see for any horror or sci-fi fan, regardless if you watch foreign films or not. It's just so fucking weird and creepy. I love it for the same reasons I love his other film, Uzumaki, but I'll save my comments on that one for another day. Instead, I'll leave you with this thought: a 100 year dream consisting solely of having sex with Naomi Watts. Or whoever, it's your call. Your wife, even.

This scene isn't very exciting, but it's the only one I could find that didn't show too much. When he wakes up, the doctor basically asks him if he was dreaming. He says yes, and the doctor asks how long it lasted. He says a year and a half.

I Come in Peace- The checklist for 80's & 90's action!

Ah.....the crap-tacular action films of the 80's and 90's ruled the school! But, to truly qualify as a fine slice of upper echelon era gorgonzola, certain criteria must be met without fail. Let's go over the list shall we?

1) Everybody knows that a big action story must take place around Christmas. Spoiling holiday cheer is a bonus for bad guys, and it gives some random character a chance to say "one hell of a way to spend Christmas!"

2) The villains must be either drug dealers or terrorists.

3) The main hero is usually a cop that plays by his own rules and his partner must be killed early on so that he can take revenge.

4) The captain has just about had it with his loose cannon shenanigans and requests that the hero take some vacation.

5) He must have a new partner that he initially hates, but comes to appreciate as they combine their talents to vanquish evil.

6) At some point, there must be a clever catch phrase worked in by the hero in a situation where it makes the most sense. For example, if it is an older cop, he might be running while a building explodes behind him and he would shout something like "I'm getting too old for this shit." Or even better, when the hero inevitibly defeats his nemesis he might say "yippie-kai-yay-motherfucker!" It is important that whenever the master villain's plan is foiled, the last thing he hears is a smart-ass remark by the protagonist before meeting his grisly fate.

7) Stuntman Al Leong must cameo and die as a henchman. Most notable blow the shit out of the world flicks had Al henching for the bad guys at some point. (Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Big Trouble in Little China)

8) This is probably the most important. A major character, whether it be the good guy or one of the bad guys, must have a mullet. This shows that on top they are all nut stomping business, but in back they know how to be bad and party. Whew......now that we have that out of the way I can present to you 1990's "I Come in Peace." An action era gem with a sci-fi twist that includes everything on my commandmant list.

Al Leong in Die Hard and Lethal Weapon

What makes this movie stick out in my memory is the villain. He's a drug dealer, but from outer space! On his planet, endorphins are the addicting drug of choice and he can only get his supply on Earth from human brains. So basically he goes to L.A. and kills a bunch of drug dealers to get their heroin. He then catches a person, injects them with an overdose of heroin to stimulate endorphin production, and sucks it out with a spike to the head. Whenever he approaches a victim he tells them "I come in peace" hence the title.

B-level action meister Dolph Lundgren plays cop on the edge Jack Caine. (as in he raises cain throughout) He gets involved because he was working a case against a yuppie group of drug dealers called "The White Boyz." The White Boyz killed his partner during an undercover sting (big mistake) and he wants them to pay. But many of the White Boyz were slaughtered along with his partner by an unknown third party. Now he must break in a new partner and trust an alien cop who has come to bring the endorphin dealer to justice on his home planet. Failure to do so will have the population on another world become addicts while Earth becomes a target for other would be galactic drug runners.

even alien drug dealers had mullets in the 80's

The alien drug dealer is just plain bad-ass! He's 8ft tall and has a platinum blonde mullet. He also has all kinds of nifty gadgets to help him do his dirty work. There's a remote controlled hose that he shoots into the victim's heart and fills with heroin. He's got this razor sharp CD that ricochets all over the place and is only vulnerable to stereo speakers. The dealer is also equipped with an enormous hand cannon that gives Dolph a headache and Dirty Harry a hard-on.

the whirling disc of death metal....

I've never much cared for Dolph except for when he played Drago in Rocky. In that movie he only had to say a couple of lines though. He's basically a big wooden turd with no personality or acting skills to carry a lead role. At least guys like Van Damme and the Schwartz had charisma to help them with their dramatic shortcomings, but Dolph doesn't. Despite the absence of a likeable hero, "I Come in Peace" is a worthy walk down the ole action memory lane. Check it out!

Dolph about to deliver a catchphrase....



 

Around and Around We Go - Izo (2004)

Izo is a strange one. Then again, Takashi Mike is infinitely strange, so I’m not sure what I was expecting. If you’ve read about this film before, you know what you’re getting into. If you haven’t, then my advice would be to not expect a traditional vengeance/sword fighting film. Izo has both vengeance and sword fighting in spades, but goddamn, it’s bizarre. I think that’s what I like about Mike – he turns otherwise straightforward stories into something twisted and unique. There are plenty of films about violence and swords and all that, but when films like Izo come along, they make you go “what the hell?” Then you end up watching it two or three more times before you’re finally satisfied with the experience.

From what I could gather in a single viewing, Izo is about a man who is killed and becomes doomed to wander the space-time continuum; he’s a vengeful spirit out for the blood of anyone he comes across. At seemingly random intervals, he instantly transports between eras and locations, and everywhere he goes he leaves a bloody mess behind him. All the while, there is a group of men, who I think are some kind of keepers of the afterlife, and who Izo is ultimately seeking. They act more like a board of directors, which is why I wasn’t sure who the hell they were for about half the film. But once I figured that out, I thought it was an interesting depiction of the way things work out there in the infinite space and time beyond death. Izo, however, doesn’t think it’s so interesting. All he really wants is to kill everyone and be spared his fate of aimlessly wandering around. What makes Izo different from other vengeance films is the way he fights. He’s not a martial arts master, and neither are most of the people he fights with. Instead of gracefully slicing through foes, it sometimes takes him a long time to get the job done. His style communicates anger and frustration, and a lot of the time it entails just flailing and hacking at someone until they drop. He’s not very efficient, and since he’s an immortal spirit, he can’t be killed. That means he takes a lot of punishment over and over again, and he simply outlasts everyone else. I’m not even sure who “everyone else” really is. They might only exist in Izo’s demented hell of an afterlife as punishment for whatever he did while he was alive. But I don’t really know, and I think the film works better that way. Not knowing makes it that much more strange to behold, and I think a definite narrative structure would have ultimately lessened the impact. It’s a little like a David Lynch film, in that you sort of know what’s going on, but at the same time, you have no fucking idea what the hell is happening. It just so happens I like Lynch, and Izo strokes the same muscles in my head that long for this kind of mental exercise.


Make no mistake, this is a fairly bloody film, but I was actually expecting a bit more. That said, there are some rather gory bits, but I actually liked the more normal sword-stabbing and fighting better than the times when something totally over the top happened. For instance, he slices someone in half, and the guy freezes for a few seconds while his upper torso slowly slides down to the floor. I’ve seen that exact thing at least three times before, so it wasn’t too interesting to me. But the fighting itself is really cool, mainly because of what I mentioned before – Izo isn’t interested in looking good while he’s running people through. He’s pissed off and full of futile rage, and no matter what ere he’s in, the outcome is always the same. He gets stabbed and shot about a thousand times before the film is over, but still he struggles on, repeating his actions, I guess, forever. There are also frequent acoustic guitar solos by this weird musician who pops up every now and then, and his songs always have something prescient to say about Izo’s situation. His songs are pretty fucking bad ass, though, because he doesn’t really sing them. He just kind of yells and chokes a lot and gets really emotional. You’ll have to watch it to understand what I mean, but trust me, he’s great. I think I’ll get a better understanding of this film with every viewing, and once really isn’t enough. I’d guess a deeper view of what’s going on only comes from understanding small things here and there, and honestly, I can’t wait to piece this crazy ass puzzle together.

And, no, I don't know why there is a S.W.A.T. team.

Wanna Share the Rent? No Thanks, You Crazy Bitch - 2LDK (2003)

2LDK is short for an apartment with 2 bedrooms, a living room, dining room and kitchen, and that’s exactly where the entirety of this film takes place. But before I get to the film itself, I think the reason it came to be is almost as interesting, and bears mentioning. The director, Yukihiko Tsutsumi, along with fellow Japanese director Ryuhei Kitamura decided to make dueling films that adhered to a single rule: they must only involve two characters fighting in a single space for the duration of each film. Kitamura’s film was Aragami, and 2LDK was Tsutsumi’s contribution. This kind of competition is something I’ve never heard of before, and I think it’s a fun exercise that more filmmakers should take and run with. With 2LDK, Tsutsumi created a brisk (at 70 minutes) depiction of obsession and delusion, and a damn entertaining one at that.

The setup is extremely simple: Rana and Nozomi are both actresses who share an apartment together, and they happen to also both be up for the same leading role in an upcoming movie. From the beginning, it’s obvious the two girls are polar opposites – Rana is a neat-freak who comes from a well-educated background, while Nozomi is a former model-turned-actress who wears designer clothing and is generally pretty vain. I have no idea why they share an apartment together, other than the possibility that the production company they’re working for put them up for a discounted price. It’s irrelevant, really, because the film isn’t about how or why they got to where they are. Instead, it’s all about their personalities clashing to the point of total chaos. It starts out innocently enough, with Rana getting upset at Nozomi for using her shampoo and leaving hair in the bathtub. But if that was all that happened, this would be a pretty sucky movie, so that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Rana: anal-retentive cleanliness freak and rule-abiding whore.


Nozomi: big-mouthed, annoying bitch. Incidentally, they're both incredibly hot.

As I said, it’s a brisk look into the main characters’ lives, and at just over an hour, the film doesn’t waste any time getting to the meat of the story: the fighting between Rana and Nozomi. They do some really fucked up shit to each other, and it’s at once hilarious and brutal. There’s a chainsaw, samurai swords, electrical appliances in water, a toilet tank, and many more instruments of death and destruction used to great effect by both girls. Honestly, there’s nothing more to say about 2LDK, so you'll have to excuse the shortness of this review. If you like seeing two people beat the living shit out of each other for about an hour, this is the film for you. Due to the nature of the film’s creation, that premise is the sole reason for its existence, and as such, delivers everything you could want from something like this, without all the distractions more complicated stories come with. Simply put, 2LDK is an awesome, bloody good time for the short while it lasts, and believe me, you could do way worse with 70 minutes of your time.



I saved most of the good bits for your own discovery, so don't worry, I'm not giving away a whole lot here:

Face Soup and Other Discomforts - The House Where Evil Dwells (1982)

The House Where Evil Dwells was a disappointment, in that it wasn’t a laugh riot from start to finish. I already knew going in that it wasn’t very good, but I wasn’t exactly sure why. Now I know. It’s about a couple who move into a house in Japan where a double murder-suicide occurred, and them dealing with the ghosts left over from the crime. It’s kind of the same premise as Ju-on, but where that movie is definitely horror, The House Where Evil Dwells is sometimes funny, but mostly drama, I guess. It’s weirdly boring yet still watchable, and it’s not scary – even in the most liberal sense of the word. I think it was supposed to be, which, if that’s the case, well…good job all around. NOT.

The makers of Onibaba would be pissed.

There weren’t too many flat out horrible parts to the movie – I actually thought the acting was quite good – but nothing really happened to anyone besides the occasional weird possession, and for some reason, the filmmakers decided to show the ghosts as transparent-looking people with goofy makeup on. There’s no atmosphere to speak of, and only one scene could possibly be construed as “horror.” It involves giant crabs on wires and a girl being put in the hospital from a fall from a tree about 8 feet in the air. Brittle bones, I guess. Oh, I almost forgot about the ghostly face in the girl’s soup, which elicited the Spock-like logical reaction, “There’s a horrible face in my soup,” followed by her father’s plead to “eat your soup for daddy.” What the fuck? Either daddy put the face in the soup, or he has quite the high tolerance for bizarre phrases.

Alright, since there’s no atmospheric horror going on, how about gore? Eh…there are two beheadings and a limb cut off, but they’re really nothing to write home about. Well, on second thought, one beheading featured an amazing prop head with a giraffe neck that seemed to be spring-loaded to fly off at the exact opposite angle it was cut from. Being able to frame advance the whole thing didn’t do the scene any favors, really, but I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when it happened.

The evolution of a poorly (or awesomely) simulated murder.

One thing that struck me really odd was the lack of communication between, well, anyone. Both the husband and wife see the ghosts, but they never talk about it with each other. It’s like every encounter was their own special little moment, and sense be damned if they weren’t going to share them. Although, I wouldn’t be running to my spouse to tell them that a weirdo in a kimono was standing there pointing at me repeatedly, either. If they were dripping blood or something, maybe. But besides that, the ghosts also made a mask fall on the coffee table, tipped over a bowl of soup, and slammed a sword in a table. 

One thing The House Where Evil Dwells has going for it is Susan George. More specifically, her boobies. Actually, that’s not very fair. She’s a good actress, and did an admirable job with the material she had to work with. If anything, I think she did too good a job in the scenes that were supposed to be emotional. Case in point: a scene where she gets into an argument with her husband and they yell a few things at each other. She then starts crying and says they always argue, and she just wants to stop. I’d normally agree, but that was the only instance of the two arguing in the whole movie. There’s not any kind of build up or release of emotion…that is, if that’s what they were going for. Who knows, maybe I’m just expecting too much from a movie that included a plot-forwarding (riiiiight) sex scene with the exquisite George.

Dirty Mary in the flesh.

Lastly, I’d like to mention the awful but great kung-fu fight at the end. If pictures are worth a thousand words, then I’d submit this clip as an equivalent to about ten million pictures, or 10,000,000,000 words, respectively.

Here's the trailer, even though I didn't bother watching it. I caught about 2 seconds of some awful "trailer guy" voice, but that's as far as I got.

The evil that mice do! Review-Watcher in the Woods (1980)

Aaah....potential! This one had it in spades. After years of doing nothing but family friendly fare, Disney decided to grow a pair and venture into darker territory. The 80's saw Mouse & Company churning out more adult oriented stories like "The Black Hole" and "Something Wicked this Way Comes" with varying degrees of success. "The Watcher in the Woods" was one of their first attempts to rise above the cartoon crowd. They had high hopes for it, and one executive was even quoted as saying "this could be our Exorcist!" That was probably setting the bar a little too high, and even though "Watcher" didn't soar to great box office heights, it has become somewhat of a beloved cult film since its release almost three decades ago. It's a ghost story with a sci-fi twist that entertains, but doesn't quite deliver the goods in the end. (of which there are many)

Directed by John Hough, (Legend of Hell House) "Watcher" is the story of Jan Curtis (Lynn Holly Johnson) a teenage girl who has just moved to the English countryside with her family. They rent an old house in the woods from Mrs. Aylwood (the legendary Bette Davis) and settle in. Jan soon learns about a mystery concerning Mrs. Aylwood's daughter Karen and becomes obsessed. It seems that thirty years earlier, Karen and three of her friends were in an old church in the forest performing a seance during a solar eclipse. A bolt of lighting hits the building and her companions flee, and when they return, Karen is no longer there. Did she run away or simply vanish into thin air? Nobody knows for sure, but Jan sees ghostly images of Karen pleading for help in mirrors and window panes. Strange things are definately afoot, and even Jan's sister Ellie is acting a little weird claiming that a voice told her to name her new puppy Nerak. (just spell that backwards) Jan also feels like someone.....or something is watching her family from the dark woods. Is it the ghost of Karen or something even more sinister? Only Jan can unravel the details and discover the truth, and she must do so before the next solar eclipse which happens to be soon!

Now she truly has Bette Davis eyes!

This movie used to freak me out a little bit when I was younger, and I'm happy to say that after re-watching the "Watcher," it still holds up to a certain degree. I was fascinated to learn that this film had been cut to shreds by the time it got a theatrical release. There were several different endings, and an opening credit sequence that was cut because it was deemed too dark for Disney which doesn't really make sense because they were actively searching for this type of material.

Legend has it that Disney desperately wanted this film to coincide with Bette Davis's 50th anniversary in film so an elaborate F/X sequence that revealed the watcher and brought the plot to conclusion was shot, but not finished so they could release it in time. The first attempt to screen the movie showed a little of the original ending, but the studio hated it and it was re-shot without John Hough. The new ending is what most fans of the picture are familiar with. All fans of "The Watcher in the Woods" could hope for is that someday a director's cut would be released with the true vision of the film intact. We almost got our prayers answered.......almost.

the image of Karen Aylwood in the mirror

Anchor Bay is one of my favorite DVD companies and they usually release their titles with much love and attention. (Dirty Mary & Crazy Larry....Evil Dead II) Most of the time you can bank on having a classic flick loaded up on DVD with crazy extras and commentaries that hardcore enthusiasts demand, but unfortunately Anchor Bay had to work with Disney on this release. They originally planned to have John Hough assemble his director's cut and also have the theatrical cut available across a two disc set, but Disney would not cooperate to make this happen. They claimed they couldn't find the footage in the vaults, and I also have a feeling that they didn't want to be associated with this dark material anymore. What you do get IS a worthy attempt to bring some of that original gloominess to the table. There is commentary by John Hough, as well as a twenty page booklet of interviews with the original cast. The original ending is there and you can watch it seperately in all of its unfinished glory, although I actually prefer the theatrical one after seeing it. Disney countered with their own DVD release minus the commentaries....so basically it sucks. If you wish to track it down I recommend the Anchor Bay disc which has strangely vanished out of print just like Karen!

Disney doom...gloom...and drowning..

the original watcher revealed...

It's truly a shame that Disney will go after unique material only to see it butchered up to fit the the image they are comfortable with. Why bother at all in the first place? Either you want something outside the box or you don't.....it should be just that simple! I guess I'll never understand the politics and red tape involved with producing a studio picture, but come on Mickey!..... Take your pooper scooper to the back yard and clean up all those direct to DVD dog turd sequels you've been laying and leave the supernatural stuff to the people who really want something different!

M-I-C-K-E-Y....F-U-C-K....U!

A Trip to the Torture Factory - Hell (2005)

While I haven’t seen many movies that deal with the physical place of hell itself – and I haven’t had the pleasure of going, either – I’d imagine it’s a lot harder to get out of there than Hell makes it seem. Sure, there’s a lot of gnashing of teeth (and pulling them out), liquid lava down the gullet and the like, but really, all you have to do is punch a few people and keep running. At least that’s how some of the characters in this movie did it. As an aside, the torture masters in hell really make a shitty sailor’s knot, too.

Willy Wonka's magical room of reincarnated soul bubbles. Reach heaven with a single gulp.

The story starts off with a group of people getting ready to go on some kind of journalistic endeavor. They’re introduced one at a time, and some of them are pretty good people. Some (one, really) are dicks, and as I’ve mentioned previously, we all know what happens to dicks. Anyways, after the character build-up is out of the way, they all get in the van and take off for wherever. Their trip is shorter than expected, though, when they get into an auto accident and find themselves instantly transported to the land of lollipops and rainbows. Razor lollipops and flaming rainbows, but what’s the difference, really? Right from the beginning, there was something familiar about this place. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it for a while, but then it suddenly dawned on me. It’s the fucking Outworld from Mortal Kombat. Not that the filmmakers ripped it off or anything, but man, I was waiting for Shao Kahn to fly down and impale someone at any moment.

Midway's royalty check - panorama view.

Alas, there’s no Goro showdown, but the fresh captives do find themselves battling hell’s soldiers (who look like a cross between the flying monkeys from Wizard of Oz and extras from Battlefield Earth), flesh-eating children, deceptive sirens, and a lot of walking. I mean, some fucked up shit does happen to them, but as they wander about, it seems that everyone else in hell is hopelessly incapable of escape. Also, the main characters are apparently the only new residents of the netherworld, because all the other tortured souls look a bit worse for wear. I’d surmise that’s to be expected, really. If only they’d known to just run away, but oh well…sucks to be them. And it really does suck to be anyone around the dick I talked about in my second paragraph. This guy is self-serving at best, and downright loathsome the rest of the time. He even dooms a friend to the fate of being ripped to shreds by the aforementioned flesh-eating children. So fuck him. I waited patiently for him to slip up, and boy did he ever. I’ll leave you to ponder his fate, but it’s pretty worthy of his douchiness. I liked everyone else, though. They weren’t all one-dimensional characters; they each had their faults, but they all possessed some redeeming qualities. It’s too bad I never really figured out exactly why they all ended up in hell, then. Huh. Why not, I guess.

No, really...go ahead. Do them both. They won't eat your face or anything.

Besides the familiar motif, I also think hell isn’t a place that you can just wander around until you find the magical portal back to earth. I would guess that once you’re there, you’re fucked. Unless, of course, you were sent there for no apparent reason, and you jump back into the blue spirally vortex of rebirth. 90% of the time, that does the trick every time. The overlord of hell doesn’t seem to do much about that seemingly glaring design flaw except speak in Sanskrit and sit on his fat ass, which is a good thing for everyone involved in the movie. You see, the way death and rebirth works is this: you stand in line next to the vortex of rebirth, take a number and wait. Probably for a fucking long time. When it’s your turn, you eat a little black ball and drink some shit, which allows you to be reincarnated and forget all your past memories, respectively. Nice. Or, as the journalistic endeavourers did, simply run and jump in. No one ever said you had to have a PhD to run hell.

I’m not really being overly critical of the movie. In fact, I enjoyed it quite a bit. The premise is just a tad silly (but still done in a cool way), and while there are definitely gruesome acts being done, the movie never dwells on them. You really only see the tortures briefly when compared to the length of the movie, which clocks in at 124 minutes. It’s not a bad thing, necessarily, since you get the picture pretty quickly, and yea…hell is a sucky place to be. It’s a cool movie, though, and while it didn’t set my world on fire (ha), I’d recommend it to anyone who likes horror and/or interesting concepts. I have to say they did a damn good job with the trailer, which I have below. It’s pretty kick ass.