A Brief Rant on The Lone Ranger/Jack the Giant Slayer

*sets down Soap Box and stands on it*

Ahem.

Hollywood- what kind of movie do you think you're making?  I mean, really, what kind of film are you making?

The Lone Ranger bombed at the Box Office for a number of reasons.  For one thing, it's a Western.  Secondly, it opened up against a sure-fire family hit: Despicable Me 2.  The third reason: a film that everyone said was NOT for the age demographic that it would appeal to.

This same thing happened earlier with Jack the Giant Slayer, a film that I just recently watched on Disc.  It also features some very graphic *off-screen* death.  In that film, a man is eaten by a Giant and many others are killed.  There is some actual on-screen violence as well, including a bit where one of the villains is stabbed to death

The absolute 'highlight' is the death of the final Giant, which involves him being violently-dismembered via vines.  On top of that, it's last words are 'Oh fu-!'  No, really.

However, the coup de gras for most people is this one...

Yes, the main villain cuts out and eats a man's heart.  We see it reflected in our hero's eyes and hear the sound effects of the heart being eaten.  Rated PG-13, folks!

Here's the thing: I don't propose that we censor anything.  If you want to make a violent film like Hatchet 3 or Saw XXVIII, be my guest.  There are some truly great films that are very violent (e.c. Cannibal Holocaust).

You do, however, have to realize that this exposes a flaw in our Ratings System.  The logic (if you're a major Studio anyway) is that you can put whatever violence you want in a film as long as you simply imply the most graphic parts.  For (over the top) example...

Irreversible: If Fox does a Remake & simply has the rape and murder scenes implied through audio/visual cues.

On the flip-side, there's the famous example from the Indy film The Cooler.  In one sex scene, you see a split second of the top of the woman involved's pubic hair.  That made them up the Rating from R (since it, you know has a sex scene) to X.

So yeah, good system.

The up-side is that both of these films bombed, meaning it will hopefully push this trend back to wherever it came from.  Seriously, make an all-ages film or don't.  That's all I ask.

Thank you.

*Steps off of Soap Box* and walks away.

A Brief Rant on the Use of Blu-Ray 3-D (And Commercialism in general)

* sets down Soap Box and stands on it*

Ahem.

What is going on with Blu-Ray 3-D these days?  With the rise of 3-D in everything, I get it...to a certain extent.  Even the cheap, cash-in conversions like Titanic (did that not make enough money before?) and Jurassic Park made a little sense.  Now, however, some crap has been happening.  It started with this...

Where do I begin?

This is the 2008 Day of the Dead Remake.
This movie was not made in 3-D (as far as I can tell).
This release suddenly popped up last year with absolutely no set-up.  It just...happened.

Now I find that this has come out...

...and this (which at least got a minor theatrical re-release)...

...and even this.  No, really.

Just wow.  This is really just an attempt to make more money or, in Gamer's case, for the studio to get a proper return.

Do you like being treated like sheep who will buy anything that is put out by a Studio?  I sure don't.  Think about that as Disney re-releases every movie they've ever made in 3-D and tries to get you to buy a fifth copy to please your kids.

*steps down from Soap Box*

On second thought though, I suppose that there is one that I'll let slip by...

That is all.

A Brief Rant on 'Sinister' (and Modern Horror Films in General)

*sets down Soap Box and stands up on it, clearing his breath*

Ahem.

I liked Sinister to a point, but I had one key problem: explaining everything.

Before I go too far, let me make this clear.  I don't like when horror films don't explain anything at all.  See 1981's Scream for a good example of that.  There is a point, however, where explaining things becomes a chore.

As I was saying, Sinister has a neat, if flawed, plot to it.  However, the ending is laid out within the first forty-five minutes to an hour (depending on your knowledge of horror films).  In spite of that, the last ten minutes or so continues.

The more complex aspects of the supernatural (which I won't SPOIL here) are explained to us as having happened before.  Instead of leaving that be, they felt the need to show us every single solitary detail.

There's explaining things and then there's acting like your audience is a brain-dead mass of lumps that need you to show them everything.  They aren't...are they?

No, they aren't.  Good luck explaining that to Studio Executives though.

In summary, if Sinister's Third Act wasn't written with the assumption that people couldn't figure anything out on their own, I'd give it a semi-strong recommendation.  As it is, that Ending is just...ugh, that Ending.

I've seen worse, but I'm usually less disappointed.

*steps down from Soap Box*

P.S. That scene of people hanging from the tree (no SPOILER, since it's literally the opening scene) loses its impact by the 257th time you've shown it.  I'm just saying...

Mondo Bizarro Rants (For Cheap Hits): The Hunger Games

Let me preface everything that I'm about to say.  Ahem.  I have not read the book(s).  I really have no interest in them.  I'm only talking about the movie- or what I watched of it last night.

Fans of the movie: I just don't buy it.

Let me break it down a bit...

1. Society broken down into 12/13 Districts (counting the rich area).
2. All but one of them are poor, industrial districts (think Detroit in really, really bad times).
3. The rich District has all of the power/military and makes the other Districts kill each other for more rations.

I can buy #1, especially given that this is what I call 'vague sci-fi.'  There are some gadgets/tech, but it mostly looks like we do now.  I can buy #2 to an extent, but can't imagine how there is not always fighting of some kind.  The film- or what I saw of it- didn't say that this was happening.  11/12 Districts just kind of sit there gritting there teeth...for over seventy-years.  Hmm.

It's really #3 that the problems occur.  The first part- fine.  You can see places like that in the Middle East (e.c. Syria, Egypt, Iraq).  That said, the second part is where it all falls apart for me.

Historically, there has been stuff that people could list as a comparison.  For example, the Reconstruction after the Civil War was structured negatively for the South.  Likewise, rebellions against political leaders in places like Kosovo have led to mass-murder.  This is not quite the same in either regard.

In the film, the rich people are so callous that they not only make people fight to the death for bread, but make it out like a TV event and broadcast it like The Olympics.  That's a step beyond for me.  You could say that the Romans made Gladiators fight, but they were usually criminals, 'religious zealots' or foreigners.  That's not the same as people in New York making people in South Carolina fight to the death & you watching this like its American Gladiators!

One could also say that this developed over a long-period of time, during which the poor people got dehumanized to the point of them being 'expendable.'  This would be supported by the event shown in the film to be the 74th one.

Here's the thing: the movie does a poor job of conveying that.  Maybe the book does it better- I don't know.

In the film, the rich people are amoral assholes who splice their DNA and enjoy watching poor people murder each other for bread.  A LOT has to happen for people to reach that point...and the film does almost nothing to show you how they got there.

The movie In Time begins with about 30 seconds of narration from Justin Timberlake explaining that everyone is some sort of cyborg/android that has to literally buy time before they shut down.  I'm sorry, but I expect a little more of an explanation than that!!!  That's kind of how I feel about this movie- show me something, anything that explains how these people got to this point.  Why is that so hard?

For me, the end result is that it took me out of the 'reality' of the situation, which is what the movie is built around.  The rich people just become cartoon characters a la Lex Luthor on Challenge of the Super Friends show- evil...just because.

In conclusion: I just didn't buy it.  Sorry.