Jack Reacher

Before I get too far, let me disclose one thing: I am a huge Tom Cruise fan.  Sure, he's kinda of a kook in his personal life, but he makes awesome movies.  That's all I care about.  Does (insert actor's name here) make awesome movies?  If the answer is yes, then who cares what they do at home?

 

"Jack Reacher" isn't going to rock your world.  You won't go around quoting it with your friends.  You probably won't rush out and buy it and watch it every few months.  You will, however, have a really good time for 2 hours.  What more is there for me to ask of a movie?

 

"Jack Reacher" is a pretty basic story.  A horrible crime is committed.  A badass is called in to investigate.  A corporate conspiracy is unearthed.  People are punched.  Guns are fired.  It is the execution of such generic action schlock that is the key to "Jack Reacher" being so enjoyable.

 

This is not a smart movie.  The dialogue is just enough to get the story across and Jack's sass talk and one-liners are mostly groan worthy.  "Jack Reacher" is a film that rests upon its actors, its fast pacing, and its steady action.  So, let's examine those 3:

 

1) THE ACTORS-Tom Cruise is just Tom Cruise.  He's just coasting on his natural on screen charisma.  But as I stated earlier, I never get sick of that.  Rosamund Pike is great in a role that goes from audience surrogate (she's there to have the plot explained to her) to damsel in distress.  But she makes those thankless jobs seem more weighty.  Plus, she's lovely to look at.  Werner Herzog (the fucking incredible director who's every film should be on your "must watch" list) lends his eerie voice and general weirdness to a extremely unwritten villain role.  Herzog makes you believe he is pure evil whom men fear enough to give their lives up to him.  But the story doesn't do that, he does by just being Werner Herzog.  Finally, Robert Duvall shows up at the end to be fucking awesome (but like Cruise and Herzog, he's just being Duvall).

 

2) THE PACING-"Jack Reacher" starts and ends with a whole bunch of people getting shot.  Everything in between is a relentless march to that finale.  It may have some stupid moments in it, but every scene is there to progress the story forward.  It never lets up and it never boring.

 

3) THE ACTION-I was so upset that there are no behind the scenes documentaries on the disc I watched, because I really wanted to learn about the rigs they must've used for the big car chase.  It is a scene that relies heavily on real cars hitting real cars and plenty of high speed city driving.  The action in this scene and the others, be it fist fights or shootouts, is always coherent and well filmed.  Director Chris McQuarrie and his second unit team never give in to shaky cam or chaotic filming.  It's nice to watch an action film when you can follow the action.

 

"Jack Reacher" is just a pleasing movie experience.  It's better than it deserves to be and I'm fine with that.  If you need a way to kill 2 hours, I can think of worse ways to do it.  Check it out.

 

7 out of 10

Citizen X

Not the strongest poster.  But "Citizen X" is actually a TV movie made by HBO.  It is definitely made as a movie.  No commercials.  No episodes.  Just one continuous movie (albeit filmed in 90s TV friendly 4:3 aspect ratio), so I'm including it in this movie blog!

 

"Citizen X" recounts the events surrounding the Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo.  The film focuses mainly on the detective who is trying to catch him.  While it is a serial killer movie, "Citizen X" is more a look at the consequences of the crippling Soviet bureaucracy. 

 

Someone looking for more about the actual killings and the mind of Chikatilo should just read up on it.  There are many great articles and books about this case.  "Citizen X" will leave the gore hounds unsatisfied.

 

But if you want a strong and thoroughly entertaining drama about a couple of men who had to fight the Soviet Union just to catch a child killer, then this is the movie for you!

 

The four leads are great.  Stephen Rea is always wonderful and he brings his A-game to a very emotional performance.  But he is helped by having Donald Sutherland to act off of through most of the movie.  Sutherland is cheeky and jaded and stern all at once.  Max Von Sydow makes a couple brief appearances, and he gives a better performance in a few minutes than most actors do in an entire film.  Finally, Jeffery DeMunn (Dale from "The Walking Dead!") as Andrei Chikatilo is quiet and meek and henpecked.  His soft exterior make it more unnerving when he gives in to his savagery.

 

I was pleasantly surprised with "Citizen X."  I view TV movies with trepidation.  But I am happy to say that I emerged not just unharmed but elated by the excellent film I just watched.

 

7.5 out of 10 

An American Werewolf in London

As far as I'm concerned, this is it.  This is the single greatest movie about werewolves ever made.  "An American Werewolf in London" is everything a movie could be done nearly flawlessly. 

 

Writer/Director John Landis had sent the last few years before AAWiL blessing the world with "Kentucky Fried Movie," Animal House," and "The Blues Brothers."  He then turned his impeccable sense of humor toward horror.  In doing so, he crafted the most touching werewolf movie you'll probably ever see.  It's as much a story of a young man dealing with the death of his best friend as it is a dark (and sometimes light) comedy.  But it's also a brilliant showcase of practical effects and gore.  There's a reason the transformation scene won an Academy Award.  There is nothing like it.  No CG werewolf will ever compare. 

 

Landis would carry his experience on this film into his work on Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the hugely underwatched vampire film "Innocent Blood."

 

This is one of my very favorite, can-quote-the-whole-thing movies.  If you haven't seen this, get on the ball.  You're really missing out.

 

9 out of 10

The Wolf Man (1941)

While widely regarded as the Daddy-of-all-werewolf movies, this is not necessarily true.  Universal Pictures had released a werewolf picture 6 years before they did "The Wolf Man."  That movie, "The Werewolf of London," was the first movie to have a human-esque werewolf (although even it is not the first werewolf movie).  "The Werewolf of London" just does not hold a candle to "The Wolf Man" (but you should still watch it here). 

 

What sets "The Wolf Man" apart are a collection of sterling performances, strong mythology, great storytelling, and a truly iconic monster.  There's not much I can delve into that hasn't already been said about this movie.  Great film scholars have more than justified its place in the canon of cinema classics.

 

I'll leave it at this.  If you love great movies, see "The Wolf Man."  If you love horror, see "The Wolf Man."  If you think being "into werewolves" means wearing a "Team Jacob" t-shirt, then for God's sake, see "The Wolf Man."

 

9 out of 10

Stoker

This was one of my most anticipated movies of 2013.  "Stoker" marks the American debut of one of my favorite directors Park Chan-Wook.  If you don't watch his films, stop reading and do that now (especially "Oldboy").

So how did Korea's greatest living director fair in the U.S.A.?  Exceptionally well!  "Stoker" ended up being everything I could hope for.

Now, it should be said that Park Chan-Wook films are not for the feint hearted.  Park likes to make his audience uncomfortable.  His characters may not be very likable.  But his movies are beautiful and hypnotic.

"Stoker" is a film about a young girl who's father has just died in a horrible car accident.  Her mother allows the dead husband's long estranged brother to come live with them.  But Uncle Charlie is not what he seems.

I have nothing bad to say about this movie, which can make for a pretty dull review.  I do want to put a special emphasis on the three lead actors.  Nicole Kidman is just as impressive as always.  She may take a bit of a back seat to Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode, but her character has the greatest emotional range.  And not a false note is struck.  Wasikowska and Goode finally prove to me that they are great actors.  Goode especially is firing on all cylinders.  Uncle Charlie is so creepy and charming.  Matthew Goode is not a physically imposing man, so all the fear that other characters show toward him needs to be justified by his performance.

Before I finish up, I wanted to put in this warning.  I want everyone to watch "Stoker" but "Stoker" is not for everyone.  The biggest thing to warn potential viewers about is that the movie is very sexual.  That does not mean sex scenes.  "Stoker" deals with awkward teenage sexuality and has an incestuous streak running through it.  Remember, I said Park Chan-Wook movies make you uncomfortable.  If you have the constitution to sit through it, you will be rewarded with what is probably the best film of 2013 thus far.

9 out of 10


The Last Exorcism: Part II

This is easily the most unfortunately named movie of the past few years.  How can there be another last exorcism?  It's either the last one or not.

 

Despite kinda enjoying the first "Last Exorcism" (the second to last exorcism?), the title had me in a negative mindset.  Plus, I only kinda liked that first movie and sequels are rarely better than the originals.  Turns out "The Last Exorcism: Part II" is that rare creature.

 

TLE:P2 (good acronym) starts off on entirely the wrong foot.  There's a pre-title prologue involving a man and woman trying to find the source of strange noises in their house.  It is a scene so heavy packed with jump scares that it quickly becomes obnoxious.  But after a few minutes of screeching violins and people calling each others names because they got separated in their own house and forgot that it's 2013 and they have electric lights, the movie actually starts.  And it's a solid movie.

 

TLE:P2 is ultimately a tale of unrequited love and a woman's journey to find her true identity.  The cool thing is while that sounds more like a Julia Roberts movie, just throw a demon in the mix and you get an interesting cinematic cocktail.

 

The story is pretty generic (not necessarily a bad thing in horror movies).  We follow Nell a few months after the events of the first movie.  She's in a mental institution.  She getting back to normal.  She's got a job, friends, maybe even a boyfriend.  The stage is set for her demon to return.

 

The best thing TLE:P2 does is to throw out the "found footage"/fake documentary thing right away.  Every minute of it is a real movie with actual cinematography.  And it grants the movie the ability to craft an atmosphere.  TLE:P2 is less scary as it is spooky.  It relies more on creepy lighting and unsettling images than gore or screams.  It feels like a movie from the early 90s.  It has many elements reminiscent of "The Prophecy" or "Candyman." 

 

Ashley Bell is great in this movie.  In the first movie, she was as good as people can be in the "found footage" format.  But here, she gets to explore a character.  She maintains an innocence that serve to make her demonic outbursts so unsettling.  I hope we see her in more roles.  TLE:P2 would not work without her skilled performance.

 

Now, trying to sell a horror movie as being light on the blood and being about love may not draw too many in.  There are plenty of horror fans who appreciate a movie that is a little more story-driven, but I encourage even those who think of the "Saw" series as great horror to check this one out.  The actual exorcism is performed by a voodoo priestess, a paramedic, and a guy who is basically old John Constantine.  And that's not even the coolest part.

 

6.5 out of 10

Jack the Giant Slayer

I don't know how to approach this review.  "Jack the Giant Slayer" is so bad that I just want to basically write that for the review: it is so bad.  That's it.

On the other hand, the experience was so baffling and brutally moronic that I feel the need to talk it out.  Like crisis counseling.

So that's what I'm gonna do.  Talk it out.  And like therapy, I'm going to address my issues one at a time.

Here goes:

1) If you're going to make a mega-budget, CGI extravaganza, then maybe try to have good CGI.  The giants (who are not just background or throw away villains, but major characters with plenty of close-up screen time) are especially bad.  The giants would look fine in some Dreamworks animated movie about "Jack and the Beanstalk," but here they are terrible.  It looks like a modern version (albeit set in olden times) of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"  The difference being that "Roger Rabbit" is supposed to have people interacting with cartoons.  Speaking of cartoons...

Just go watch this movie instead.  Seriously.

2) When it is convenient for the story, the characters obey the laws of cartoon physics.  People are crushed to death, stabbed, burned, etc. throughout the whole movie.  But Jack can apparently survive huge falls.  He first survives a 500+ foot fall not via primitive parachute or something clever.  No, he survives by hitting every branch on the way down.  He is unscathed.  Not just not dead.  He literally has no scratched, bumps, welts or anything to indicate that he essentially fell off the Space Needle.  Later, Jack, the princess, and a knight played by Ewan McGregor (I can't remember the character names and I literally just finished it!) are climbing down the beanstalk when it is cut down.  McGregor survives the fall of about 6,000 feet by landing in the water.  Jack and his lady friend land in a haystack.  This actually happens!!  They all walk away unscathed.

Pictured here: Nicholas Hoult as Jack

3) The jokes are awful and filmed in ways that do not convey a comedic moment.  Director Bryan Singer is pretty good at making dramas but his eye/ear/whatever for comedy is broken.  If you're looking for a night of laughs with the whole family, I hope you like farts and booger eating.

LOL!

4) The makers of this movie try to have their PG-13 cake and eat it too.  The editing is baffling.  There are scenes of plot-necessary death that don't necessarily need to be shown, but the film cuts away from them before the implied action of that death.  So, when Stanley Tucci stabs an good-hearted monk to establish his bad-guyism, we get no indication that he did stab that monk.  Instead we get Tucci with a knife and he flinches. Cut to next scene.  If the monk was walking down a road later in the movie, it wouldn't seem at all out of place.  This happens a few other times too.  But when giants and soldiers need to crushed, burned alive, gored, or shot in the face with arrows, they show all that!

What does this even mean anymore?!

5) The characters are awful.  I would go so far as to say that there are no characters just people with names.  They do not grow or have anything in their history to press them forward.  Jack is shown in a prologue to be obsessed with a beanstalk/giant myth and a has a youthful desire to be a knight.  But I'm convinced that this minor backstory was added after completion of the film.  When Jack is older and is given the beans and told that they are ancient, magical beans, he has no friggin' clue what he's holding.  If that story had been the basis of his life, you'd think he would make at least a slight connection.  Also, he never looks up to the knights around him or aspires to be like them.  He only puts himself in danger because he has a crush on a girl.

 More dimensional than any character in the movie.

6) Brace yourself for plenty of awkward "action" shots that may have been cool in 3-D but at home in 2-D are just ugly.  In the theater, with your 3-D glasses on, these shots may have served as a momentary distraction from the turd burger of a film you paid $9 to eat.  But at home, they just add to the pile of suck that is "Jack the Giant Slayer."

Go ahead.  Take a bite.

7) Jack destroys the kingdom to save the kingdom.  No kidding.  He literally razes to the ground the very thing everyone is fighting to protect.  Jack, the hero of our tale, caused more destruction than all the giants combined.  Also, he only kills two giants.  The guards on the parapets, firing their fully automatic crossbows, killed more giants than that.  Jack is the worst hero imaginable.

Mission accomplished.

But on a positive note, I liked Ewan McGregor.  He seems to know that the movie is an idiotic 3-D mess, so he plays his part as big and goofy as possible. 

At the end of the day, I say run from "Jack the Giant Slayer."  Run and don't look back.  It's the kind of movie you rent to let the in-laws know they overstayed their welcome.  Just truly, truly retched.

2 out of 10

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

If I had to describe "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" in two words, those words would be: fun and dumb.  Who knew that a movie about candy eating fairy tale kids could be such a wonderfully good time? (Is it because it stars two Bond girls?)  In order to enjoy H&G:WH, you must really embrace the dumb part.  The fun comes naturally.  You must accept the movie on its own bizarre terms.  I don't believe in just "turning off your brain" to enjoy a movie, but there are things here that you must be able to ignore, embrace, or tolerate in order to enjoy the film.  Here goes:

1)  This movie could just as easily be called "Anachronism: The Movie."  While the whole thing takes place in medieval times, the characters speak in a very modern way (read: cursing) and have guns.  Fully automatic shotguns with unlimited ammunition.  Or fully automatic crossbows with unlimited ammunition.  I can handle that just fine.  But somehow, the medieval insulin shots were hard for me to accept (same with Hansel & Gretel's taser).  I ended up just laughing every time it showed up.  Just don't go in expecting swords and maces in 16th century Germany.  Expect Gatling guns and hand grenades.

 

2)  Once you've accepted that people who don't even have running water or electricity (but they have tasers!) can manage their diabetes and build machine guns, then you must overcome the ridiculousness of the weapons being used.  Every weapon in this movie would not work in the real-world.  They are all collapsible and when in use are just a blur of moving parts.  If you have a pistol with three barrels, those barrels shouldn't spin like a pinwheel when you pull the trigger.  But the guns, etc. are designed to be cool not practical.

 

3)  Despite having all these wonderfully complex and advanced weapons, it is still Ye Olde Germany and no one has invented hunter's safety courses.  This may be something that only gets to me, but Hansel & Gretel almost always have the barrels of their guns in some poor peasant's face.  This is, again, a matter of looking cool.  Hansel & Gretel are just striking heroic badass poses but all I see is an accident waiting to happen (especially with all the sharp, spinning parts on the guns).

 

Congratulations!  You're now ready to watch H&G:WH.  The plot is inconsequential.  The acting is campy.  This is a movie about style over substance.  It's about having a good time.

 

So, make some popcorn and sit back and enjoy the weird awesomeness that is Peter Stormare.  Or the incredible troll effects (they use a guy in a giant puppet suit instead of CGI!!!).  Or the focus on real stunt people doing real stunts.  This is just too good and too crazy of movie to let it pass you by.

 

8 out of 10

Snitch

When "Snitch" began playing and the words "Inspired by true events" popped up, I laughed out loud.  Nothing is more vague than "inspired by" let alone "true events."  They might as well not put anything about the "reality" of the story about to unfold.  A cursory search after the film revealed that, sure enough, this true story is bullshit (check out this great article).  Does this type of marketing actually work on people?  Do people really walk out of this type of movie saying, "That really happened to somebody!"  If so, America has far worse to worry about than economic hardship and fundamentalist terrorism.

Enough about that.  "Snitch" is being sold as an action movie even though it only contains one action sequence.  Sure, some guns are fired off earlier in the movie.  But when the hero sees other people shooting at each other and runs away, that doesn't really make for much of an action scene.

Couple the action movie marketing and the presence of Dwayne "The Artist Formerly Known as The Rock" Johnson with a film that plays out as a semi-political/family drama and you have the potential for upset moviegoers and/or shattered expectations (and run-on sentences).

Now, after three paragraphs of pretty negative statements, how did I feel about the movie?  I kinda liked it.  It's an ultimately forgettable piece of Hollywood fluff, but it's entertaining. 

Is the tone of the film all sorts of confused?  Sure, but that adds to some of the charm.  To be fair to the marketing team, "Snitch" is filmed like a modern, generic action film.  So when Susan Sarandon shows up and proceeds to play her role as if she's in a political procedural, it can be a bit jarring.  Barry Pepper (looking as if he just came from a guest spot on "Sons of Anarchy") plays the whole movie like it's a gritty crime thriller.  Jon Bernthal is acting like he's in a story about family and redemption.  And The Rock acts like he's out of his league.  But he probably just as confused about what kind of movie this is as I was.

However, it is fun to stumble through the clunky story.  And if you do, you will be rewarded with a pretty great car chase at the end.  It feels like ages since a movie used real car crashes.  Some movies use a few, but "Snitch" wrecks a bunch of cars awesomely. 

It can be a bit much to ask someone to sit through 2 awkward hours of drama medley just to see 10 minutes of badass car crashes, but I enjoyed this odd ball movie.  Watch it if only to imagine the other actors that would've been more suitable for playing a frightened, run-of-the-mill trucker.

6 out of 10

The Curse of Bigfoot

Look at that picture.  That's not the actual poster for this movie (I couldn't find one), but it may be the best representation one could hope for.

"The Curse of Bigfoot" is awful.  But like many truly terrible movies, it has enough odd or funny bits to keep you watching.  With TCoB, it's the first half. 

The movie begins with a standard monster movie scene playing out.  A gal hears her dog whining outside (the sounds are whining but the dog is happy and yapping).  She grabs a pitcher of milk and a robe and wanders out into the night.  After giving her dog a half gallon of milk, the creature jumps out and... we cut to a classroom where the teacher is showing the students this scene.  Showing horror movies and discussing yetis and sea serpents seem to be this teachers curriculum.  He then brings in a speaker to tell the students about his encounter with Bigfoot.

The movie is now about a group of students who find a mummified monster (never referred to as Bigfoot) and accidentally revive it.  The beast goes wild and attacks people.  That is until someone runs up to it and sets it on fire.

So the first thing to discuss about TCoB is the fact that it actually two movies.  When the guest speaker starts his tale, that's the start of the original movie.  It blatantly goes from the 70s to the 50s.  I was confused at first that the company making this movie had put so much effort into recreating the 50s (they have no budget).  Then I noticed that two of the young actors are the teacher and guest speaker from the beginning!  Which is really odd, in that the teacher acted like this was his guest's story and that he had no direct experience with Bigfoot.  So, the 50s movie reaches its conclusion and the movie does not return to the classroom so the speaker can wrap up his tale.  Nope, it just ends.

 

I never really knew where people were or what was going on the entire time I watched this.  And that can be fun.  The brutal ineptitude behind both sections of the movie is thoroughly engaging (but the 70s parts are the best). 

But let's get into the whole two movie thing.  A minimum of research was needed to figure out what was going on with that.  There is a movie from 1958 called "Teenagers Battle the Thing."  That movie was taken and using a couple of the original actors, expanded into "The Curse of Bigfoot."  But I'm wondering if elements were cut from "Teenagers."  TCoB is only 88 minutes long and the 70s stuff is the first half hour.

The acting in both movie is atrocious.  Everyone speaks like robots and the speaker's introduction is phenomenal.  Bad actors should never try to play at crying.

Get some friends and some booze together and watch this as a double feature with "The Legend of Bigfoot."  Both are available on YouTube here and here.  Enjoy!

3 out of 10 (but in a good way)

Oz: The Great and Powerful

I went to this, not because I wanted to, but because I had to: it's directed by Sam Raimi!  I should be clear here that I am a huge fan of the "Evil Dead" series (this refers only to the Raimi movies and not the recent remake, which I did enjoy).  When I watch the films of Sam Raimi, I'm really watching for moments reminiscent of his early films.

In this way, it may seem that I far from the right kind of person to watch this movie or, at the least, going in with skewed expectations.  What am I going to get out of a PG-rated, Disney reboot/prequel to "The Wizard of Oz?" Is it even reasonable for me to expect to see stylistic similarities between this and "Darkman?" 

I was shocked to discover that OtGaP is the Disney retelling of "Army of Darkness," complete with a graveyard mission gone wrong.  As such, I had a hell of a good time with this movie.

That's not to say this movie didn't have issues.  In fact, it has one big issue: Mr. James Franco.  To be fair to him, he's really good sometimes.  But when he's not, he's really not.  Oddly, his acting is wonderful when he's interacting with the CG characters of the film.  His chemistry with the animated characters helps give them a weight and presence they wouldn't have on their own.  But when he has to act with really people, it's like listening to a tone deaf person sing.  Everything is flat and odd sounding.  He grins constantly as if he thinks that's the secret of being charming, instead of actually being charming.  He is so awkward with the live characters that it becomes painfully obvious how cliché the script is.  He's supposed to be playing a showman and a huckster but he can't sell the emotions necessary to the plot.  It doesn't wreck the movie, but much of the motivations would have felt stronger if he'd have performed as well with humans as he did cartoons.

But there are great performances in OtGaP and they are from the trio of lovely ladies who play the witches.  Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, and Rachel Weisz all play their roles very large.  Kunis and Weisz are given the opportunity for the most range, with Williams just having to be excessively nice and sweet.  But Kunis starts the movie very much the naïve innocent, gets a few tearful moments, and then goes full blown maniacal.  Weisz starts out as the slimy backstabber and, as the big finale gets closer, becomes more and more over her head.  All the witches are played in almost cartoonish strokes, but they work for this kind of tale.

I never thought OtGaP (I'm loving this acronym) would work.  The idea of a "Wizard of Oz" prequel being made as a family-friendly action film was worrisome to me.  But Raimi and his crew proved me wrong again.  The action in this is wonderful.  The shots are edited in such a way the action is comprehensible and fluid.  No shaky-cam.  No chaos.  Just inventive, easy-to-follow thrills.

And most of these action scenes are chases that serve not just to provide some relief from all the walking, but also showcase the wonderful world of Oz.  The set design is really great.  Oz often resembles a watercolor Dr. Seuss world.  But while he interacts with CG characters well, Franco seems oblivious to the world around him.  I don't think this is his fault.  He was probably told to look around in wonder and the world was just filled in around him.  But it usually results in him not even looking at the thing being showcased.   The opening credits were fun and the Danny Elfman score is pretty good too.

OtGaP gets a pretty strong recommendation from me.  It's especially good for families.  Some kids' movies are so bad they can make an adult practically suicidal.  But no one should be bored or miserable watching this.  There is some pretty scary stuff especially with the flying baboons, but I think that's what kids' movies are lacking.  A sense of real danger adds to the stakes of the story.

8 out of 10

The Mountain

I don't know why I had "The Mountain" in my Netflix queue (this is true of many of the titles in the queue), but there it was.  So, I watched it and its awesomeness knocked me on my ass!  This is an incredible action flick from the mid-50s.

 

Spencer Tracy is not the action hero type.  He plays this role in much the same way as his turn in "Bad Day at Black Rock" (watch it if you haven't!).  In this, he plays a former mountain climber who just wants to raise his sheep and get old.  His younger brother is an absolute shithead.  One day, a passenger plane crashes in the mountains near their town.  When a rescue team is unable to scale the mountain, the younger brother decides to go up the mountain and loot the wreckage.  In order to ensure his brother's survival, Tracy agrees to guide him up the mountain.  Family drama and high altitude action ensue.

 

I think it's a credit to Spencer Tracy's talent that he is able to be a convincing mountain climber despite being a tubby and extremely old man scaling a series of movie sets.  He is so committed to his character that I never doubted for a second that he was a world class climber.

 

Credit also goes to Robert Wagner as the sleazy, younger brother.  He is just the worst.  His performance really stretches even Tracy's acting.  It's hard to believe at times that Tracy would ever try to save this guy. 

 

But he does try, and it makes for some fantastic alpine adventure.  The climbing scenes can be pretty tense and the few (main actor-less) location shots are beautiful.  But the matte work deserves a special note.  Whether it is matted photographs or occasional paintings, there are many great shots that make it feel as if the actors are really hanging 2000 feet off the side of a mountain.

 

This movie was a welcome surprise.  Many of these old action films can be a bit hokey, but not "The Mountain."  This is the real deal and would make an excellent double feature with "The Eiger Sanction."

 

7 out of 10

Dinotasia

If you are a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, older sibling, or babysitter, take heed: Do NOT show this to young children!!  I don't care if they love dinosaurs.  I don't care that this is rated PG (how?!). 

 

"Dinotasia" showed up as a recommendation on Netflix.  A dinosaur movie narrated by Werner Herzog?!  How can this be anything other than amazing?  This is how: give the dinosaurs human (or at least dog-like) emotions and then violently murder them (especially the baby dinosaurs). 

 

"But Doug," you say.  "Is it really all that bad?"  Yes.  Yes, it is.  Any wound afflicted doesn't just bleed, they gush blood.  Giant, arching cascades of arterial blood.  As if the Discovery Channel thought that what "Walking With Dinosaurs" lacked was a healthy dose of "Kill Bill."  There are several scenes of dismemberment or beheading, and they all involve the camera lingering on the flailing stump as the dinosaur screams (except the beheaded one) and spews blood everywhere.

I put this on my laptop as a kind of background experience while I cooked dinner.  I thought, "I can learn about dinosaurs and cook at the same time!"  But guess what?  "Dinotasia" lacks any educational value!  We are never told what dinosaurs we are seeing or what behavior they are exhibiting.  These creatures are just there to die (there is even a constant countdown to the death of the dinosaurs).  I became so transfixed by this misguided film that I forgot about dinner.  Misguided, how?  This is not an appropriate movie for kids either in its graphic content or lack of narrative structure.  Nor does it contain much for adults who would probably expect something educational or at least a good story.  I can imagine maybe some teenagers who like anything bloody and excessive maybe getting kick out of this, but that is probably not the filmmaker's intent.

The CGI is terrible too.  Steer clear of this one.

3 out of 10



R.O.T.O.R.

Ugh.  This movie.  I'm at a loss for words.  "R.O.T.O.R." is an Ed Wood level shit-show.  This is a movie that I watched because I saw it on redlettermedia.com. (You should really click that link and watch EVERYTHING those guys make.)  I said, "Hey! I have that same movie in that same bargain bin boxset.  I should watch it too!"  This was a mistake/blessing. 

 

"R.O.T.O.R." is an amazing piece of inept filmmaking.  If you like watching train wrecks, this is just right for you.  I wish I had watched this with someone.  Because instead of being able to talk out the bizarre choices made in order to bring this story to life, I was left staring at my TV with an expression that I'm sure was nearly as dumb as this movie.

 

One of the troubling things is that the poster is FUCKING BADASS!  Just look at it.  That is so cool.  However, that supremely radical poster reflects nothing in this movie.  It's heartbreaking.  Instead, I watched an angry Texan be angry for an hour and a half.

 

So what is "R.O.T.O.R.?"  "R.O.T.O.R." is the tale of an angry Texas police scientist who develops a robot cop that is programmed to kill people who break the law.  When his creation is turned on before it is ready (25 years too early actually), it goes on the hunt for the fiancé of a man he killed for speeding.  Angry Texan must then recruit the help of a bodybuilding lady scientist in order to stop the rampaging robot.

 

This is a movie that is made for viewing with friends and alcohol.  The best bad movies are the ones that try really hard and fail miserably.  "R.O.T.O.R." fails so gloriously that a night watching it is cinematic schadenfreude at its finest.

 

2 out of 10 (but adjusted for entertainment value: 9 out of 10)

Rapt



I'm here to pick up where I left off a year ago (yikes).  I was getting a ton of site views for a while but they turned out to be bot views or something, mostly from Germany and Russia.  I became so discouraged that I walked away from the blog for awhile, fully intending to pick it up again.  That time has come.

I'm going to restart this whole blog business with "Rapt."  This is a film superficially about a kidnapping, but underneath that is a film about human selfishness.  I watched this on Netflix streaming which had the movie classified as a thriller.  That is a bit misleading.  "Rapt" actually lacks anything "thrilling," relying instead on very personal human drama.  Don't go into this expecting gunfire or chases (expect one kinda chase) or even much in the way of police procedure (but there is a little). 

 

"Rapt" concerns a businessman, Stanislaw Graff, that is kidnapped for ransom and the impact of that upon his family and business associates.  As I said earlier, the real story here is selfishness.  Graff, his family, and the kidnappers are all very focused on their own needs (however, Graff's family's selfishness is often quite justified).

 

I really enjoyed the look of this movie.  The camerawork is clean and crisp.  Even when things go handheld, they never get shaky.  And I often found myself marveling at the beauty of the shots.  It is also expertly paced.  "Rapt" moves quickly to its (awesome) conclusion.

 

Don't miss this movie.  It's the best kidnapping movie I've seen in a long while.

 

8 out of 10