31 Horror Films in 31 Days. #2: Monster Dog (1984)

From the director of the overwhelming cinematic achievement that was Troll 2, comes the low-budget bargain bin creature feature...

Yes, that's the same Alice Cooper metal fans know and love for his macabre rock music.  And if you have no idea what Troll 2 is, it has nothing to do with the film Troll and its director has everything to do with what he believes American cinema should be.  Director Claudio Fragasso, AKA Claude Fragass, AKA Claudio Sansevero, AKA Clyde Anderson, AKA Werner Knox, has been prominently brought to fame because of the latent cult success that arose from Troll 2's camp factor for fans of low budget horror films.  While Monster Dog is decidedly, and fortunately, a film to be kept at the back of the bad movie bus, it has its painfully great moments, of which I'll share with you now.

Being a fan of the cheese, I couldn't resist seeing a movie directed by such a well-known camp director that starred an old music favorite of mine in the lead roll.  Also, nothing says "now that's cheap" like the poorest excuse for a werewolf title like "Monster Dog."

Rocker Vince Raven (Cooper), is with his girlfriend and film crew to go shoot a new music video for his next big hit at his old childhood estate.  Meanwhile, dangerous packs of wild German Sheppards and Irish Blue Terriers (I guess wolves were too expensive to rent), just so happen to be slaughtering the locals.  The movie opens up with Alice Cooper performing one of his character's songs, "Identity Crisis" which is mildly catchy, if not a bit simple and repetitive.  What might throw off most Cooper fans is that he begins wearing no makeup and his hair is cropped short, a look he is otherwise not known for in his rocker persona.

After this little video interlude, we open to the crew talking inside an van. The dubbing for the audio is a second off and away from making you want to take a bite of lead salad.  But wait, it gets better.  After a tired string of dialog from authorities telling the "kids" that it's dangerous in these parts and they should be careful, the gang end up hitting a dog and feel bad about it.  Then, they're harrassed by Old Man McCreeperson, who shows up out of the darkness covered in blood and tells them they'll all die, repeating himself like he either has Alzheimers or they are all hard of hearing.  They ignore said creepy guy and continue on, and find out that the butler is nowhere to be seen.  Cue poor cuts from exploring the house to them suddenly being asleep to one of the film crew ladies having an extended nightmare sequence featuring everyone's favorite old perve, McCreeperson.  He goes on a bit more about how they're all going to die and then he tries to tear her clothes off and chases after her, laughing maniacally, almost like he can hear the audience getting irritated that he's teasing them with the prospect of random boob shots that never make it from a shirt that refuses to up the film's rating.

The girl mentioned above, named Angela, runs in to find Vincent alone in a rocking chair, rocking it like the granny from your worst nightmare, and is then confronted by him a la Wolfman style (bearded man monster), and then she awakes.  She gets teased by the others, like they're all teenagers in a sleepover, and there's this great shot of Alice Cooper just looking at all of them like he's thinking, "Shit, I really am the oldest one here."  Which he was, being 36 at the time, while the rest of the actors were near a decade below him.  Moving right along, his character's girlfriend then later finds him brooding over a book.  One look over his shoulder reveals a big large volume with a full page shot of Lon Chaney Sr. as the Wolfman (I shit you not).  After he closes the book, the title reads "Myths, Legends, and Scientific Realities." Sounds like a book I wrote when I was ten.  He goes on to explain his tragic story of his father who was afflicted with lycanthropy and how it really warped him as a kid.  While this is supposed to reveal interesting details about the character, all I could honestly think about was how long before we see Cooper turn into a werewolf.

Before that idea could really take form, the film does a rough transition into an extended montage of the gang enjoying the scenery and figuring out what and where to film for their music video.  Then we get to see Vincent apply his eyeliner, and Cooper finally starts to look like the man we all know and love him for in real life.  And then this happened:

Obviously, Alice Cooper wasn't the mastermind behind this lyrical stretch of torture, or, if he was, he really didn't give a damn about what he was writing, and in fact was probably doing something else while his hand just sort of scrawled down half-assed ideas stringing from the same thought pattern. Yes, this is about the highest in quality that the film gets, save for, you guessed it, a werewolf transformation that gets good and weird and slimy.

From the consistently mind-numbing bad dubbing of the audio to the staggered acting and the jump cuts and extended montage scenes, this movie had some definite prime cheese points, but they were honestly far and few between to really keep it afloat.

Should you feel so inclined to give it a spin, thank Youtube for having it uploaded in full, glorious VHS-ripped quality.

Monster Dog gets one and a half Jacks.

31 Horror Films in 31 Days. #1: The Screaming Skull (1958)

Last year, a good friend of mine went on a mission to watch 31 horror films he had never seen before in the month of October.  Needless to say, life has a nasty habit of getting in the way, and he was not able to complete the task, so he's giving it a go again this time around.  I was inspired by his efforts, so why the hell not jump on the band wagon?  While our styles differ, his leanings forming from the technical realm of film and mine in more of the emotional arena, the adventure in experiencing fresh media is equally apparent in our writing.  I recommend you check him out, and maybe you'll find something there not found here that you'll like.

Anyhow, on with the review of the first film of the month!

In my local area, we have a movie theater that has a regular sci-fi night that shows old, camp science fiction and horror films.  You can eat pizza, drink beer, and socialize, if the mood strikes you.  You also get to warm the cheesy cinema meter in your brain by getting to watch a string of bizarre clips from the internet, public library archives, and sometimes the local filmmaker community.  With the ushering in of October made readily apparent in the weather, balmy with a touch of windchill, tonight's showing of a movie about a skull so terrifying that it has the potential to murder its audience seemed like a perfect kick-off to the challenge I've imposed upon myself.

As with most older films that are both black and white and have significantly less in-your-face moments from start to finish, this one delivered its "absolute terror" with grave patience, pun intended.  My capacity for the pacing in older films is always maximized by environment, and having some pizza and beer with a crowd accompaniment certainly kept me excited.  I could also make many observations about the steely awkwardness of the characters and their actions, which I feel always makes for a more engaging premise.

To put it simply; dude brings his new wife to his old house, where his first wife 'mysteriously' died, and unthinking, tells his new lady how much the last one loved him, and how much he loves his new wife and wants to make her feel at home. They meet the gardener (played by the director, Alex Nicol), who was like a confused brother-lover to the last wife, and is just a little "off" in the head.  Silent, confused staring commences. With shots of peacocks appearing and disappearing in the yard. The tone of the film builds on this level of subdued tension, getting you really curious as to the death of the last wife, and immediately to the grounds of the property.  The first wife was super into gardening, so is the gardener, and he has since kept it up in her stead, and talks to her as if she isn't really dead, like ya do, when your only friend was a lady who died in your favorite place.

The focus is simple and the film isn't bogged down by too many filler characters, nor is it aesthetically cheap looking in the face of a modest budget.  There are in fact only five physical characters in the entire film, and the house on the large property is vacant of most furniture or other decoration, save for two cots, an empty wardrobe, and a creepy painting of the ex wife that's just leaning against a wall.  What this does could either appear like they had no budget to work with and went scant on details, or, and in this case I believe it is the latter option, it creates the perfect, eerie atmosphere without being a cop-out.  There's nothing in the house because it was all the ex wife's, and the man hadn't lived there in two years, so everything got taken down and sold.  Good reason.  There's only so many characters in the movie because that's all you need to carry the story, any more and it could have made the film too long and decidedly winded.

The emptiness of the house creates a cold and vacant impression that leaves one guessing to the mysteries surrounding the dead wife.  The large, extremely well kept garden shows the devotion the gardener had, and gives the feel that the entire property itself is one huge memorial to the woman, basically making the whole place a single-plot grave.  There is a gravestone in the garden for her as well. A creepy pyramid obelisk with the woman's face carved right into the stone, floating outward just a bit, like she's two steps away from escaping the Underworld to return to the living.  It was weird.

So what does any of this have to do with a "screaming skull"?  If you haven't guessed it already, the skull that is "terrorizing those that dare to love" is the skull of the dead wife.  She wishes to send a message of the truth of her death to the living, in the most obtuse and cryptic bullshit way that ghosts always seem to have a bad habit of doing in movies.  Nothing can ever be straightforward with ghosts, it always has to end in screams of terror and blood-curdling confusion.  Yes, that's what I said.  Because ghosts will befuddle the living daylights out of you with their abstract actions of rattling your windows and rolling their body parts down the stairs like they still own the joint.  And somehow that's supposed to tell you that they were wronged and need your help to make things right.

All that aside, the movie is decent, kinda slow, but builds its creepy tension appropriately well, and with very good light and shadow usage.  In fact, the film's cinematographer was Floyd Crosby, who won an Oscar for his work on the F.W. Murnau film Tabu.  To be perfectly candid, the real hook to this film, as with most horror films of its era in the 50's and early 60's, was it's fantastic, over the top trailer.  Nothing says, "I'm Sold!" like a film that threatens your untimely death by fright, and free burial services to go hand in hand with that popcorn you paid for, all explained by a narrator, who's voice holds about as much enthusiasm as Orson Welles in a cramped waiting room.

To be an unabashed copycat to my friend, who has been rating his October features with skulls, I'll change it up a bit and do mine in honor of the holiday month, and use Jack o'lanterns.

I give the Screaming Skull two and a half Jacks.

Double Feature Review: "The Nut Job" and "The Legend of Hercules."

          A friend and I have been recently enjoying the Arclight Cinema experience.  It's a theater chain specializing in making the movie-going experience top notch in environment, quality and content.  This evening, we decided to do our own double feature of a kid's movie, and a teen action flick.

          First up was The Nut Job, an animateed Canadian-South Korean and U.S. co-production.  This uninspired and erratically-driven movie featured a variety of well known actors, such as Will Arnett in the title role, Brendan Fraser, Liam Neeson, and Katherine Heigl supporting, as well as a few choice comedians.

          Basically, it's about a selfish dickhead squirrel (Arnett), who gets kicked out of the park for being rebellious to the idea of community by refusing to help in beefing up the food supply for winter since it's dangerously low.  And also burning down the oak tree where a bunch of the animals live.  Raccoon (Neeson), is boss man and banishes him to the city, where nearby, Asshole discovers a nut shop that was recently acquired by east coast thugs because it's their key to pulling off a bank heist.

          The animation was decent.  The story was predictable.  The characters were all very uninteresting, annoying, or otherwise unlikable, save for the one character that did not speak until it mattered, at the very end of the damn movie.  The action sequences were overtly intense and chaotic when you take into account how many times each animal (the main character in particular), would have died because of the damage they went through.  The writing of this movie was pretty sub par and the pop culture references were straining to keep you entertained like a child flailing their hands in your face to get your attention.  I don't actually know how long production took for this film, but as snooty as it sounds, having PSY's "Gangnam Style" as the notable montage / end credits theme is so past its time.  I admit I totally like that song.  But I've heard it more than enough in so many different places that I'm good for the next, I dunno, five years at least.  When the end credits rolled and a little animated PSY came on the screen to dance and sing with all of the major characters, I was sitting with my arms crossed, frown pasted on my face like Grumpy Cat.

Bottom line: The Nut Job sucked.  Plus side: It made the second movie look fantastic!

          The second movie, seen much later and after two beers, was The Legend of Hercules, starring Kellan Lutz, who's best known for his role as Emmett Cullen in the Twilight Saga films.  Honestly, I'm not kidding, The Nut Job was so bad, it made this teen heart-throb action fantasy film look pretty fucking entertaining in comparison.  Kind of like if you watch Chuggo's "C'mon Fuckin' Guy", and then put on a Justin Bieber video (any will do), you'll be able to enjoy it, because it's not Chuggo, and that's saying something.

          The dialog (and by extension, the acting), overall was so-so.  At some points, it was totally smooth and believable, at others, it seemed forced and uncomfortable, as if the FOUR writers credited with the film were noticeably speaking with different voices for the same characters.  However, the actor who played Hercules' human half brother, Iphicles (Liam Garrigan), did a really solid job with his line delivery and persona; he was the epitome of the sniveling, embittered and cowardly brother.  He deserves some kudos.  

          The consistency of the brief slo-mo shots in the action sequences were bridging on out of control, though some of them were perfectly appropriate.  A lot of the action scenes were actually pretty cool, but sadly, the film was marketed to a teen audience, and therefore, given a PG-13 rating.  Had the film been given an R rating and shown more blood, a dab of gore in the right places, and some titties for good measure, then, man, it wouldn't have mattered how bad the film would be, there'd be some sick action sequences to see!  And tits!

          Now in case you aren't aware, this takes the story of Hercules in a completely different direction than in the original mythos.  He doesn't start off as a demi-god, and instead is just a beefcake badass, and it's only later in the film, when shit really hits the fan and gets real, that he is ready and willing to accept the knowledge that Zeus is his father.  Once he does that, he's blessed with the divine power to annihilate his enemies in pretty fucking sweet displays.  One being with the tops of stone pillars chained to his wrists, and another with a giant whip made of lightening on the edge of a sword.  Spoilers, I know, but like you're really going to go see this film.  I highly doubt it.  But if you do, the 3D is pretty cool and full of fun things coming at you at the right times, and the action is a lot of fun, if you ask me.

Bottom line: Anything is better than The Nut Job, so The Legend of Hercules was pretty damn entertaining.  Could have used more blood and some boobies, but overall, I was totally amused.  

The beers might have helped.

          

Blast From the Past: "Tenderness of the Wolves" Review

As the dawn of the Digital Age blossoms and we step into the overly open arms of the glaringly bright Digital Day, it is very possible that my generation may be the last to remember, with fondness, of visiting the local video store.  For those that do remember, and to share with those that do not, it was that warm, muted scent of dust baked in a heating vent, the occasional wafting aroma of popcorn from a mini hot oil popper, the ever-present yet subliminal high frequency sound the T.V. always made that was playing whatever was new that week, or whatever the on-duty staff could get away with playing during open hours.

I remember walking up and down the aisles, looking over all sorts of VHS (that later bled into DVD) titles, constantly curious and excited with each and every box of cover art that I could see.  There were always those handfuls of films that, for whatever reason, caught my eye particularly with the covers they bore.  These weren't movies I ever watched immediately, but rather, movies I would see the cover of, time after time, sometimes in different sections, depending on the store, and never actually make the move to grab.

I'm sure anyone who's been into a video store as a child knows exactly what I'm talking about.  You were never really sure what it was about the cover art that got you to imprint the image in your mind, even years down the road.  Was it the color?  Or the face/faces of the actors on the box?  Was it the title itself?  It's hard to tell what it was that drew you, because it was never just one film that did it, and no two films that caused this imprinting were often alike.

One of these films, that forever plagued my memory at the very back of my mind, was Tenderness of the Wolves.

Ignore the little "DVD" marker in the bottom right corner, this cover managed to remain the same since it's inception in 1973.

A few months ago, I went on a pawn shop binge with a buddy of mine and scoured a giant selection of used DVD's, coming across this in the process.  It was cheap, and my curiosity was through being ignored.  It was time to see what the hell this movie was about that I had randomly noticed more than other films during my video store visits from time to time.  (I even remember staring at it a couple of different times during a stint when I worked at a video store in a mall).

Choosing to torture myself just a bit longer, I didn't even read the back of it, and it got pushed into a stack of films that I bought that I would view at a later date (things that have high promise, but I'm not certain I'll want to keep later).  It popped into my mind yesterday, and I decided to get to it tonight.  Entirely different than what I was expecting.

If you'll note the bottom left corner of the picture above, there's a quote from the NY Times that reads, "...inspired by Fritz Lang's 1931 classic, M."  A poor blurb to put onto the film, in my opinion, since it's more like both Lang's M and Tenderness of the Wolves are both inspired by the same story, and focus in different directions, otherwise it might make the viewer assume that this film is directly taken from the other, which isn't the case.

Tenderness of the Wolves, is a German production from 1973 that features a minimalist setting and brief character development, save for the main character, Fritz Haarmann, who plays an estranged sometimes informant to the police, while doubling as a night predator for young men.  Before this movie, I had never heard the name Fritz Haarmann, or his alternate title, the Butcher of Hanover.  He was quite the messed up cookie, I recommend you check him out in the link provided above.

The film actually follows his initial crimes pretty closely, all based on real crimes by a man during the early part of the 20th century, specifically from 1918-1925.  The film captures a sense of bleak and crippled Germany, post WWI.  "Times are hard," so say several characters during the film, and it shows. Everything is being stolen for the black market, and pork is an especially hard to acquire commodity, and it is very subtly suggested in the film that it's no ordinary pork that Haarmann is selling to people.  (This is based on a rumor that Haarmann's illegal butcher dealings were directly connected to the men he murdered and dismembered).   

The actor who plays Haarmann, Kurt Raab, does a really interesting job with the character, making him appear genial and relatively upstanding within his meager means under the duress of the nation's economic crisis.  The way he paints his persona makes it seem very believable, even in the way in which he addresses young men and boys, which added quite the eerie vibe to the film's mood.

Not gonna lie, however.  I had some wine and a bunch of homemade spaghetti, and then I got under the covers to watch this movie, I got too comfortable and it was a quiet film (and subtitled), so I had some trouble keeping my eyes open.  It didn't help that the film's propensity for staggered dialogue between characters was consistent throughout the film, in addition to the setting in which it was filmed.  Overcast skies, cold nights, simple, ramshackle buildings and rooms, and a particular lack of bright colors, save for the pork meat and when blood was drawn (nice effect there).

Definitely a decent film in that it captures the bones of a true story with very little flashy work, but with its bare bones approach, it did give off a somewhat bland vibe at the same time.  There were about 3 or 4 wangs in it too, so that was unexpected, and some of the imagery between Haarmann and the men he takes into his home is remarkably well done.  There's a particular setting in his small apartment where there is a small table, a low roof, a shelf with some type of liquor on it, and perfectly placed in the middle of the shot in the background is a large simple black cross on the wall.  As it hangs above everything, the positioning of the characters was very clever.

Bottom line: Bit o' fascinating history I didn't know about, good acting, but don't watch when warm, full, and comfortable.

OZ: The Great and Powerful

Being a fan of director Sam Raimi (Evil Dead Trilogy, Spiderman Trilogy, A Simple Plan), it was easy for me  to have a desire to see this film.  Some people may be concerned because it has the same CGI effects style and producer-backing as seen in Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, and that film wasn't received super well.  Also, there is the ever-present stigma that comes with films of this type--which is to say that any film "based upon" or even "inspired by" anything that was a literary and/or cinematic classic immediately receives an air of judgment over it's head.  And that preconceived judgement only heightens with the new spin/take/direction a film chooses to have, as this one did.  Furthermore, I don't doubt that people are going to be comparing it to the original MGM film before the book.  Because of the overwhelming box office success and groundbreaking effects the original 1939 film had as an impact, the book, written by L. Frank Baum, will ultimately be undershadowed when people go to see this new film.  But that's just my assumption.  Moving right along...

Oz: The Great and Powerful is set in the two same locations everyone is familiar with from the beloved 1939 film, Kansas and the land of Oz.  It has modest but key references to familiar characters, places and things that everyone knows, but really, it is supposed to be its own thing--it is in fact, a prequel to the story everyone is familiar with.  The wizard of Oz--who was he when he was young?  How did he make it to Oz in the first place and what happens there?  All of this is crafted well into an engaging story that kept me interested and curious throughout the film's 2+ hour duration.  It had me laughing at the right times, feeling an emotional pull at the right times, and cleverly, being fooled as to where the story was going at the right times!

The imagery...beautiful and good enough to lick--since everything looks like candy--but in a non-nauseating way.  Where I was concerned the colors were going to resemble the style I saw in both of the Tim Burton films with the same CGI style--Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice In Wonderland, being so neon compared to a slightly washed-out, pseudo-sepia backdrop where the bright colors were garish and intense, I was pleasantly surprised.  The actors and the backgrounds matched the wild and crazy imagery--the shading was stronger, and the lighting was adequate and while bright, wasn't nearly as sickly looking since no one was overly pale and looked like they'd stepped out of a roaring 20's speakeasy in London and into Candyland.

Years ago, I began to postulate a theory that with each new film, the effect/animation team assigned to work on it is trying to focus/harness a specific aspect in detail and make it superior to the last time they worked on a film.  Each movie where effects are made to be realistic as possible, I try to look for what I think is most likely the detail they're working harder on to perfect.  In this film's case, I determined that it was the realistic effect of light reflection on non-real things.  There is a character in the movie that this effect is used heavily upon, and the work is fantastic.  The way the character moves in relation to light and how things reflect off of it is smooth and looks very real.  I was impressed.

The cast was well chosen too.  James Franco (Freaks and Geeks [TV], Spiderman Trilogy, Pineapple Express), I realize that not everyone likes, but I dunno, he hasn't actually made me frown yet, so I rolled with it and gave him a chance to play young Oz.  He did well, being the right sort of face for the type of womanizing charlatan he portrayed.  He can also properly wear a twisty mustache without looking like it was added to make him look more like Snidely Whiplash or Captain Morgan in a bad way--some actors just don't have the face for it to make it look good.  He did, so bonus for him.  Mila Kunis (Black Swan, That 70's Show [TV], Family Guy [TV]) looks pretty in everything she wears and she pulled off her character, Theodora, quite well and had some impressive range I hadn't seen her do before.  Rachel Weisz (The Mummy, The Fountain, The Constant Gardener) I have always been pleased with and this role was no less the same level of performance I expected from her.  Also, she just seems to charm you with her voice no matter who she plays.  Michelle Williams (Dawson's Creek [TV], Blue Valentine, Brokeback Mountain) plays a younger Glinda the Good  Witch, and has the infallible ability to always look humble in any shot she's filmed in.  Bonus points for looking like the sweetest girl in school while still maintaining a very strong female character.

As a side note, be sure to look out for Bruce Campbell and Zach Braff, who both have memorable roles.

Before I wrap this up, let me also say that for those of you who are Raimi fans, you might be glad to know that his signature film shooting style still holds.  He has this particular love for moving the camera from here to there in scenes of intensity in such a way that I've come to recognize and appreciate as a part of his style to get you in to the movie's more thrilling sequences.  Points in example: the way in which things in the Evil Dead trilogy leap towards the character, or that scene in Spiderman 2 where Doc Oc is unconscious on a gurney and his tentacles start attacking the med staff, just to spout off a few examples.  You'll know what I'm talking about after seeing a certain scene in Oz where the characters are assailed by weird things which you should just see for yourself.

Well, if I haven't bored you to tears yet, or if you simply wanted to do the TL;DR method, let me say this:

Bottom line: Entertaining, funny, interesting, clever, and pretty.  Go see it!

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters; By No Means Another 'Van Helsing'

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is the new MGM-produced film by a relative new director Tommy Wirkola.  Definitely new, but a name that I thought might just be someone I recognized.  Sure enough, he directed and wrote, like H&G, a Norwegian film called Dead Snow (English Title), a particularly cool little comedic horror film that is interesting, kind of ridiculous, and topnotch on the gore.  Learning this after seeing the film has actually upped my general enjoyment of it, as some of the most gruesome shots in the film were quite juicy, and now I know why and where to give the credit.

So, en route to see the movie, I was with a friend.  He was telling me about this making-of section on the DVD for Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  It's actually interesting and you should watch it when you have 6 minutes to kill.  To summarize, it's Steven Spielberg explaining how he didn't want to do the movie, and how without Harrison Ford's interest and then George Lucas' endearing persistence (I'm not sure what else to call the attitude of a friendly man who has bad ideas), the movie would not have existed.  At least not until someone else bought the rights to it and tore it a new one.  So, you have Spielberg's point of view, trying to be creative, genuinely new, but still preserving everything that is core to the Indiana Jones universe.  Then you have George Lucas who is all like, "Let's do a B-movie with aliens!   No, wait, not aliens, but "inter-dimensional beings--who look like aliens!  It'll be great, I swear!"  Basically, one kid spends all his effort building a medieval Lego world with dragons and knights and tries his hardest to make it look good, and then you have his friend who is annoying but has his heart in the right place who comes over and starts pulling out all the dinosaurs and He-Man toys to take over little medieval land because it looks cool.

Where the fuck am I going with this?  Well, many people have been worried, due to the trailer, that H&G is just going to be Van Helsing Part 2.  Why?  Because it's backdrop is set in a period era (in this case the 1800's) and the producers' scant ability to keep it from becoming an anachronistic buffet of lolz doesn't look good.  Van Helsing suffered at the box office because of this, among other reasons, being overly action-packed and rather inorganic and insensitive to any of the folklore it was sporting.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters definitely can be accused of some of this, but I would say that it was more black and white in pros and cons, unlike Van Helsing, which I'm still upset about to this day that I paid full, evening admission for seeing stuff that constantly made me, a strong fan of cheese, twist and turn unhappily. If I can't even laugh at how silly it is, there's something very wrong.

For H&G, it was like there was a Spielberg and a Lucas dividing the film.  The story is decent, follows plot points, and everyone has that fancy vaguely foreign accent to help put you in the mood that you're watching a film set in a different time and place.  But Hansel and Gretel...it's like they were transported from an alternate reality and looked "passable" for the time period.  They don't have accents, everyone else holds a touch of one, sparing the peppy pseudo-sidekick Ben, played by Thomas Mann (Project X), but I've noticed that younger actors do that less than the older ones in movies so I didn't mind.  Everyone who has a coat in the film has a noticeably nice leather coat, but the two main characters look just that extra bit of too cool for school.  Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker, Bourne Legacy, Dahmer, Justice League), who plays Hansel, has this sweet-ass coat that's got these neat little frills on the shoulders, a perfectly popped collar, and is tailored to expertly hide all his gadgets so he doesn't look like he's too weighed down.  Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Clash of the Titans), also has her own set of nifty frills on her mega-tailored slim-cut coat, and wears painted-on leather pants.  Now, granted, this was all possible in the 1800's, but the styles weren't something a little German village would have ever seen, and especially on a young woman.  It might have been nice if just once the townsfolk said that they looked overly fancy or eccentric.  They also bring in trippy, out-of-period weaponry and gadgets.  Their guns are super stylized and tricked out beyond necessary means.  The townspeople are pretty much in total awe of Hansel and Gretel's grasp of science for the time period.  And I was in awe as well.  Case in point: There is a steel and copper wire Jerry-rigged stun gun that also acts as a defibrillator.  You heard me.

So, bringing this all into perspective, it felt like there was a Spielberg who wrote the story, the side characters, who was in charge of costumes, set design, and created possibly one of the coolest, most realistic trolls I've ever seen come from a film that wasn't a CGI fap session.  The lead bad guy has a good motive and is well-written, played by the lovely Famke Janssen (X-Men trilogy, Goldeneye, The Faculty) who has cool, creepy makeup--as do her many other cohorts, who come, literally, in all shapes and sizes.  I'm willing to bet the makeup/prosthetics department had a blast.  And there are even worthwhile, well-written side characters, like the grizzly douchebag town sheriff, played by the always familiar yet still a man of many faces, Peter Stormare (The Brothers Grimm, Constantine, Armageddon, The Big Lebowski).

Then, there was a Lucas, who was in charge of everything Hansel and Gretel.  Their personality/voices, their clothing, their awesome toys.  They acted just fine, and were having some fun with the film, but I was thrown off by their casual, 'here to kick ass and chew bubble gum' attitudes and appearance.  I get the idea that they were supposed to be different, that their lifestyle as witch hunters had turned them into the nonchalant badasses they strolled into town as, but I felt they could have blended in a bit more.  Just a touch.

All that being said, I laughed a lot.  The gore was juicy and well-placed.  It had one booby, a nice booty, and Jeremy Renner got to have his shirt off, naturally.  Fortunately, everything mentioned above was within context and appropriately part of plot devices.  The costumes and makeup for the witches in the film were really good, and the set design was preciously done.  The little town looked like something right out of a woodcutting, and the infamous Gingerbread house looked good enough to eat.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

It entertained me, and I never once looked at my watch--which would have been really sad considering it's right on that perfect hour and a half marker.  The pacing was surprisingly good.  There was a really nice lull in the film between action sequences where you were getting fed character and story development--and then it got back on the flashy train and reminded you that it had some cool, shiny action balls it was going to wave in your face.  Truthfully, had it not been for one particular Matrix moment where someone throws something and the other person does the slow-motion lean-back to dodge it, I would have liked this movie even more.  But frankly, I'm tired of that effect, and it made me frown.  Thankfully, it only happened once.

Nudity, humor, juicy gore, cool effects, decent story.  Not a spectacular event, no Van Helsing by any means, but most certainly a good little escape into the fantasy realm--and free of the abused folklore that is vampires, zombies, and werewolves.

Bottom line:  Deserving of its R rating, and enjoyable all more the because of it.  Also, Jeremy Renner, always good.

It's Entertainment, People! A Review for the Film "Battleship"

A year ago, I was doing some fan-lurker research on Alexander Skarsgard, notable for his role as Eric Northman in HBO's series True Blood.  I was avidly wondering what other things he'd done so that I could look them up and stare at his man flesh for as long as the camera allowed.  In doing so, I discovered that he was set to play a supporting role in an upcoming film the following year entitled Battleship, which was supposed to be based upon a Hasbro game.

My brain did an immediate shift from drooling over sexy alabaster manliness and went into the movie nerd deep end, and I immediately sunk the battleship of my attention span (yeah, I went there), into learning more.

I learned very quickly that this film had a hefty budget floating around $200 million (noteworthy: In the U.S., it did rather poorly, but overseas, it exceeded its own budget), that Liam Neeson was going to be in it, that there was definite intent to input elements of the actual game into the film, and to further represent each side of the battle to an extent, so that the audience could get a feel for how the "game" was progressing.  I also learned that it was directed by Peter Berg, who is known for films such as Friday Night Lights, The Rundown, Hancock, and strangely enough, a film that seems out of place to the others which all run in a similar, heartfelt and/or primarily mainstream comedic manner, the film Very Bad Things.  Yeah, I know, kinda weird.

Anyhow, with all of these tidbits of information in mind, I came to a bottom line conclusion: I had three requirements for this film, and if they weren't met, then screw it.  The requirements were, in no particular order:
1) That Skarsgard had to have a moment where his shirt came off.
2) That there would be several Baysplosions (explosions in the film on par with a Michael Bay movie).
3) That somewhere, somehow, someone in the film would mention the sinking of a battleship in some way.

I thought those were pretty fair requests, and really, the most difficult one would have been Skarsgard, since I wasn't certain how'd they tie that one in, but he's got a good chest, so it seemed possible.

Well, I went to see the movie on a nice, lazy, warm Sunday, just after hiking around a forest of graffiti and being stuffed on a mighty tasty quesadilla, so I was in a good mood to begin with.  The film not only met all three of my requirements, but it exceeded my expectations of how they were going to tie in the board game as well.

The film starts off with a playful opening and explains that the main character is a smart dude, but a flake with a lack of direction--something totally relatable to just about anyone who's gone nowhere special with their life, so, obviously, enough people to fill the theaters.  From there, we learn why the aliens show up in the first place.  We send out a giant deep space "Hey, sup?" to a newly discovered planet that has the assumed ability to sustain life because it's in the right spot in relation to its sun, and has a big enough atmosphere.  Aliens show up in a small force of five ships (just like in the game), and decide to lay down a beatin'.

My impression was that it was like the signal sent out was akin to when you're in grade school and you throw a paper airplane love note in the direction of the boy or girl you like and because you don't know how basic aerodynamics work yet, the arrow fatefully B-lines to the class bully instead.  He ignores the tender words in your note entirely, thinks you're stupid, and decides to give you a nasty wedgie because he's bigger than you.  Hearsay has passed around me that there are plot holes, many of which circle around why this is all happening in the first place.  But really, read that sum-up again: not hard to follow.

So the aliens show up to give us a wedgie and take our lunch money, in the process, their communications ship gets busted.  They create the giant protective no-ins-and-outs bubble so they can Macguyver the giant satellites we used to make contact to reestablish communications with their planet uninterrupted.  In this case, the bully can't find his posse and decides to corner his opponent where he's totally defenseless for the time being, hoping that if he makes enough of a spectacle that his homies will show up.  I'm screwing up my own metaphor here a bit, but whatever, you get it.  During this time, there are lots of explosions, lots of people die, and the aliens have these blast shells that look like the pegs from the game that also affix themselves to the ships on impact, also like in the game.  TEEHEE!!!

Since the alien bullies are mad that they're essentially blind due to their own equipment being screwed, they knock out all the electronic radar in the naval vessels, thus rendering the humans "blind" as well.  This of course leads to the humans finding a new way to punch the aliens in the face.  So, enter the amazing plot device: tsunami buoys!  They pull up all the buoys in the area, then look for water displacement (i.e., whenever waves submerge the buoys to a certain point) and use that to track the movement of the alien ships.

Sound like I'm giving most of the film away?  No?  Cool, glad you don't mind.  Yes?  So?  Like you actually give a damn about this gripping example of cinematic genius?  Didn't think so.  Keep reading.

Annnnnyhow, so the film manages miraculously to skate through with utilizing the game board setup, which was pretty damn funny and interesting, especially since I am a big fan of the game.  It was one of the few board games that I was incredibly good at as a child, so therefore it's special to me, and all that is related to it makes me gleeful.

I didn't think it was in any way necessary, but it happened; they show you the aliens.  A lot of reviews apparently slammed this because they were very humanoid.  I dunno, I kind of liked that they looked quite similar, since I think the writers were subtly going for a pitch towards the idea that if they're from a planet remarkably similar in physical setup to ours, then it's not that big of a surprise that they might be designed like us too.  Kind of sounds like bullshit as I write it, but either way, I didn't mind.  It may not have appeared that original, but really, is it so bad that the aliens were bipedal and had a facial structure like ours?  Is it really going to get your panties in a bunch that badly?  Exactly.

The film used a lot of actual Navy veterans as extras, a trend (using military folk) that's been growing in the film industry lately.  There was one veteran who actually got significant screen time, a double amputee by the name of Gregory D. Gadson, who played a crotchety ex-soldier who gets to help out on the land side of the battle, where the aliens are trying to rig the giant satellite dishes.  I really liked the director utilizing real soldiers, as I feel that I can often tell when they are legit or not, by the way of their eyes.  It brings immediate substance to an otherwise nonplus character, and that's a clever trick.  If the audience readily knows that they're looking at a real person and not an actor, then they are more quick to be attached to them.  Bam, good move, Peter Berg.

And, quickly, before I forget, pop singer Rihanna was in it, and she did a decent job.  Her character was not central, but she had just enough oomph behind her that she was interesting and pulled off being a badass quite fine.  In fact, I had no idea it was her (though I did recognize her sort of), until a friend of mine made a crude joke about her.  At one point, she gets backhanded by an alien, and my friend laughs and pointed out how she got "Chris Browned," at which point I suddenly realized who she was.  Ouch.  Also, LOL crude humor!

Bottom line:  It had lots of explosions, loud noises, board game nerdery, a shirtless sexy man, and did what I paid it to do:  ENTERTAIN ME.  I did not go in asking to be mentally stimulated, I did not go in expecting  witty dialogue and a plot that would arrest me with awe and contemplation.  I wanted to see an action movie about a board game.  I got what I wanted.  

Hit.