Radio Zombies: Dead Air

Wait- didn't I already review this movie?  Back in mid-May, I reviewed the internet-sensation known as Pontypool, a film that I bought for $3 from a closing Blockbuster location.  It was good- really weird, but good.  Around the time I actually reviewed the movie, I stumbled across today's film- Dead Air.  It's essentially the same film, just made in America instead of Canada.  On top of that, this story adds some new elements- for better or for worse- and expands the cast a bit.  Here's the thing- it's not billed as 'America's Pontypool.'  They don't address it, nor do they credit the book in any way.  I'm sorry, but am I supposed to not be aware of the book or the film that inspired it?  It would be like The Asylum's War of the Worlds saying that it was an entirely-original film!  This doesn't mean that Dead Air has no merit to it.  If you want to know what's different between this film and Pontypool, read on.  Keep talking or else we'll have a lot of...

* Bill Mosely is the lead here, even having the same kind of goatee as Stephen McHattie.  Pop quiz: how many films does Bill have a goatee?  Do I even need more to prove my point?

* The unexplained virus affecting the town- it's a terrorist bio-weapon.  Oh yeah, it's no longer a town in Canada.  Instead, it's Los Angeles.  That's a minor change!

* Some people in the building do meet a grisly fate, but there's more of them in this film, allowing for more gore.  It's a bit less dramatic with five people trapped than with three though- I'm just saying.

* Remember how the zombie action is more implied in Pontypool?  You see all of it in Dead Air.  There's also a scene where the zombies attack a woman and her boob pops out.  Classy.

* For the Third Act, we get a new guest in the booth.  We also get a sub-plot involving the host's family.  Yeah, I don't recall that in Pontypool.

* I won't SPOIL it, but the Ending is more lazily-wrapped up than Pontypool.  It's still a bit dark, but a bit too neat.  The End.

It's like Deja Vu- American style!  The plot of this movie is about the same as Pontypool, just with a lot of minor changes.  The big thing is that the vague stuff is not vague, the implied stuff is shown and there is a key reason for everything.  On one hand, I do like seeing the action, knowing what happens in detail and seeing a lot of it.  On the other hand, Pontypool worked so effectively by allowing you to picture things.  Could the film have showed you the graphic, bloody death that it implied?  Not if it ever wanted to be shown anywhere, it couldn't have!  Dead Air is like the big brother's version of a story told by 'dad.'  Dad tells you a grand tale with lots of flourish and hints of subtlety where necessary.  A couple days later, your big brother retells the story with no subtlety and focuses on the lurid details.  Dead Air is not a bad film.  If seen on its own, it's a good, low-budget horror film.  Unfortunately, Pontypool is so neat and creative that excising all but the core plot just feels like a waste.  Take us away, Bush's Press Secretary who is apparently still working in 2008...

Next up, one of the most random and Meta films.  You will believe that a tire can love!  Stay tuned...
  

Poor Bastards of Cinema: Ninja (Part 2)

2009's Ninja has one more Poor Bastard of Cinema for me to highlight.  It's a quick one in the film, so let me break it down for you.

Our heroes have fled onto the Subway system, but the Serbians maintain pursuit...

One of them has his gun drawn and prepares to fire.

Acting quickly,- duh, he's a ninja- our hero moves out of the way and tries to take the man down.  However...

Random New Yorker gets shot to death for their troubles!

What part did this guy play in the film?  None.  He was just there to, apparently, get shot during this scene.  Why?  Was it to prove that guns are real?  If so, we already know that!

Next up, a woman learns the danger of getting her morning paper.  In the grand scheme of things, she would have died eventually, but our hero is to blame for this one!  Stay tuned...

Grappler Horror: River of Darkness

When in doubt, review a shitty horror film.  Today's official review fell through, so you'll just have to be content to see me mock a bad, bad horror film Starring and Produced by Kurt Angle.  If you don't know, Mr. Angle has started a Production Company- North Shore Pictures- and is making a whole slew of these movies.  It started with End Game, but has really picked up with this film.  With another film- Death From Above- on the horizon, it's good to take a look at this film to see what we can expect.  The film stars Kurt Angle on the opposite side of the law from End Game as a local Sheriff, as well as wrestlers Kevin Nash and Sid Vicious as zombies.  Bill Hinzman- aka the Writer/Director/Producer/Editor/Star of Flesheater- is on board too.  The plot involves zombies being reanimated as part of a revenge scheme, but it's full of more holes than Scarface at the end of his film.  As a recent release, I'm make this as SPOILER free as possible, but I have to discuss some major details.  Prepare you unnatural lighting for our trip down the...

A woman leaves work at a Diner.  For no good reason, she walks around the pier for a bit and gets killed by a tall guy in a coat.  In the movie's first notable error, you can see dried 'blood' on the wood besides the stuff that just started falling!  It took a couple takes there, I guess.  The Sheriff (Angle) and his partner- aka the most boring actor ever- arrive and comment on how gory the crime scene is.  Angle starts asking about a name 'Hix' that is carved in the woman's body, but nobody will answer him.  In true Police fashion, he flashes the crime scene photo to everyone in sight!  There's also a sub-plot involving Ray 'Glacier' Lloyd as a man in the Diner who doesn't like Kurt.  The point of this- there is none.  In a drawn out moment, two guys on a boat are killed by unseen killers.  In another error, the first man goes from having a hook through his chest to not having one from when he's first seen and when his body is found the next morning.  Yet again, Kurt shows up and, yet again, he does nothing.

After a lot of dicking around, Kurt finally gets the named 'Hix' matched to a person, a drifter living out in the woods (Hinzman).  Angle and company just leave, leading to more talk about the town's secret.  In a weird bit of logic, the town has a deep, dark secret involving three brothers that were killed when one of them was accused of rape.  The odd thing is that Kurt's character has no clue about this, despite being the Sheriff and the moving making no mention of him being a new resident or anything.  Did he move there recently?  If not, why does he not know the story?  Another old man is killed in front of his wife, but they don't kill her.  The plot reason for this is...um, non-existent.  Speaking of non-existent reasoning, a trio of new characters show up about forty minutes in.  They are ghost hunters coming to town...for some reason.  By the way, they're main characters.

In an odd moment, the zombies kill a little girl in the Woods.  I'm sorry, but why?  Was she involved in the murder 30 years ago?  If it's the zombies going after the descendants, then why were they killing nobody but old men- save for the waitress- until now?  Pick a motivation!  The ghost hunters talk to some black guys at a gas station and then go out on the lake, only for one of them to be killed by a zombie.  Motivation?  'Glacier' and the other townies kidnap Hinzman and stop for gas.  Don't hide the body wrapped up in a burlap sack, idiots!  Kurt gets called and rushes to the water, knowing of their plan to give his body to the zombies.  In a confusing bit, Kurt takes a boat because it's big and will look imposing.  Minutes later, he asks the guy to sneak up on the townies.  Good grief!  Kurt finds the two remaining teens, but one zombie (Nash) shows up to kill the guy and fight Kurt.  The big face-off between them lasts...for about ten seconds.  Yea.  The remaining group catches up to the townies and threatens to shoot them...but doesn't actually do anything.  As Hinzman approaches the zombies, the lead ghost hunter shoots him, causing the movie to fade to black.  No, really.  In Epilogue Narration, she explains that Hinzman was her grandfather...and the man that raped her mother.  Seriously, they just toss that in at the end!  The End.

Brains?  The plot of this movie is a giant, freaking mess.  It's simple in theory, but seriously screwed up in execution.  Where to begin?  Angle, as the star and the Fundraiser of the film, plays the least important role.  He just wanders from place to place not doing, well, anything.  Second, the motivation of the zombies is confusing.  They want revenge, so they start by killing a waitress who did nothing, followed by some old men who probably did.  That doesn't explain the little girl, nor does it explain the two ghost hunters who just came to town days earlier.  Pick a reason for things to happen!  What other things can I bitch about?  Oh yeah, the acting is almost universally-terrible.  When Kurt Angle- who has the range of a rotary phone- is your best actor, something is terribly, terribly wrong!  I also have to question one bit- why is Bill Hinzman here and not playing a zombie?  I just assumed that was in his contract!  Speaking of casting, the film wastes Sid Vicious and Kevin Nash as the two lead zombies.  The characters are so disposable that it's easy to forget that there is a third zombie!  There is some camp value to be had here, but I don't recommend it to a lot of people.  I suppose the random, 'suddenly explain everything at the end' bit is kind of funny too...in a sad way.  Take us away, subtle townies...

Up next, I watch the American counterpart to a Canadian film based on a book.  Will the changes be for the better or just make it a bloody mess?  Stay tuned...
River of Darkness
River of Darkness [Blu-ray]  

Lost in Translation: Dracula AD 1972

Hammer is known predominantly for the Dracula series.  It's certainly easy to see why, although the French version of their posters do raise some questions...

Aside from Dracula has the evil version of The Wizard of Oz, I have to note that the title is all wrong.  You know why?  Because the film came out a year later in that country, so the title seemed 'silly' to them.

Yes, because putting the year in the title of a film is only silly for that reason!

Up next, the movie that made you realize that 'war is hell' shows you that Foreign posters are hell too.  It's just so random!  Stay tuned...

*Bob* Has More To Say About: Southland Tales

EDITOR'S NOTE: Bob has a lot to say about 'Southland Tales,' but doing it this way makes for a simpler read. Here is the remainder of his angry rant/review.

Now, in (hopefully) brief, here’s my discussion of what is wrong with this movie:

1. It can’t figure out how to properly present a point.
a. Argument 1: Patriot Act = Bad. The movie does show that the USIDent involves the invasion of privacy (at one point even showing that they have cameras in bathrooms), but shoots itself in the foot by demonstrating, repeatedly, that USIDent and the over-controlling military save lives. Military snipers save both Boxer and Krysta when they’re being threatened by violently unbalanced people, and the only cop who is (to my recollection, and I am not going back through this to check) shown to kill unarmed targets is Bart, who is pretty clearly portrayed as rogue. And, of course, we have to look at the opposition, the Neo-Marxists: they kidnap people, brainwash people with amnesia (“Ronald”) into helping them (that’s the only idea for what happened that I can come up with), and also cut off fingers to rig fingerprint-based voting machines. Kind of hard to feel sympathy for characters who do things like that.
b. Argument 2: Gas = Bad and Alternative Energy = Good. The main “villain” of the film is Westphalen, who has made the most amazing alternative energy device ever. I think that kind of says everything I need to say, doesn’t it? Now, it’s possible I misread the film’s point, but it was pretty heavy-handed with those points on narration, so I kind of doubt it…it is just that the story doesn’t match up with the point it is trying to make.

2. The film is overly based on trying to make those points in the first place. There isn’t much of an actual plot here, honestly, for a 2-and-a-half hour film. Honestly, all the social commentary really overwhelms the plot. I recall watching V for Vendetta and getting more than a little annoyed at all the commentary points in that movie where the plot just kind of stopped to let the film have its say about the Bush administration despite being set in England (and to be clear, I actually rather liked V for Vendetta in a lot of ways), but that had nothing on Southland Tales.

3. It pauses far too frequently for overly elaborate transitions, and just generally has a ton of filler. There are several subplots and scenes that really don’t matter to the overall film and could easily have been cut without losing anything—in particular, a lot of the character stuff with the Neo-Marxists who are going to die at the 50-minute mark anyway, and the Krysta-and-the-video subplot. But even without going into that…the film loves to throw neato-keen transitions at you where it spends quite a while lingering on a screen with multiple TVs that are adding nothing of consequence to the plot other than throwing Martin Kefauver’s name at you again and again so…I guess so that someone, somewhere, can celebrate the fact that they somehow figured out that because his name was being shown since the beginning of the film he’d blow up the airship. And then there’s the music video sequence with Pilot, who sings the Killers’ “All These Things that I’ve Done” except when he’s pausing to drink beer while the singer’s part is still being sung by someone in what I guess is supposed to be some kind of commentary about something vitally important that the film can’t be bothered to explain (and by the way, that’s a dream sequence for “Ronald” after he takes some drugs).

4. It introduces what were clearly intended to be major film elements far too late. There are a few suggestions early on that some kind of time weirdness is going on (such as “Ronald” having a delay in his reflection in the mirror), but the point is almost completely dropped until the end of the film. Ideally, a few more hints might have been put in…for instance, Boxer could have found out that he was taken by Roland, and then discovered being driven out in the desert, and then maybe had some time clone bullshit flashback, etc. Also, the film’s ending phrase is “He is a pimp. And pimps don’t commit suicide.” This phrase, apparently an important enough quote (and really…that’s your ending line?) to end the movie and be the takeaway line, is first introduced about 4/5ths of the way through the film (1 hour and 54 minutes in). Oh, and also, I still don’t understand why it was even said, since Boxer says it in relation to the fact that original Boxer is dead…I guess maybe in some way the guys telling him this are trying to get him to think he killed Boxer #1, and he’s denying it, but it could be clearer. It’s repetition at the end of the film makes no real sense either, considering that by shaking hands and basically probably destroying the world, Roland and “Ronald” are committing suicide.

5. Insufficient or illogical explanations. The most notable one is probably the reason Boxer was sent through the time rift when monkey testing was an utter failure. The Baron wanted to send a movie star through, because…um. Anyway, Boxer’s political connections in addition to his movie star status made him perfect, because…um. And Boxer, an action movie star, understands the situation and what will happen to the world based on quantum mechanics (and even wrote a screenplay based on this understanding, perfectly predicting the eventual end of the world) because…well, the movie really doesn’t say, but I gather it’s because he went through the time rift. Look, I’m willing to accept crazy stuff for a film (I watch a lot of anime and play a lot of JRPGs), but you have to give me a little something to enable me to buy that you’ve at least come up with a decent—if very fake—explanation! 

6. Inexplicable constant use of the “do it or I’ll kill myself” ploy. There’s three scenes that easily come to mind: Crazy Lady with Boxer on the beach, Boxer trying to get the evacuation going, and Roland and “Ronald” in the flying ice cream truck. That kind of ruins the dramatic moment, especially when the first use of it I can recall is one involving a lady wanting to have sex, not the end of the world.

7. Overall pretentiousness. Honestly, this movie is just aggressively arrogant and intentionally overcomplicated at times. From the unnecessary musical numbers to the cute little hints that aren’t really hints to the constant quotations and Biblical references, the film is constantly throwing little things around to show how smart it is. It’s kind of like that guy who goes to meetings and talks about complex economics or particle physics or something to show off his intelligence, but when you actually ask him to explain any of it, he just says “you wouldn’t understand” and condescendingly pats you on the shoulder. It even has one of those endings that makes you guess what happened…and while I do feel that such a thing can be used to great effect, in this film, it just caps off the annoyance of the night. If you’re going to waste two and a half hours of my life with pretentious crap, at least give me a clear ending. Show me the world blowing up or something so I can take clear solace in the idea that all of these annoying characters are now undoubtedly dead and will never bother me again.

8. Meaninglessness. The actions of almost all the characters in the movie are utterly pointless. Only the actions of Martin (who is, again, introduced very late), Roland, and “Ronald” matter in the least, and honestly you can kind of cross Martin off too since if the world blows up it really doesn’t matter that he shot an airship about 45 seconds before that. But basically all of the Boxer stuff is pointless because he and every character involved in his plot die in the airship crash. And the Boxer stuff is the majority of the film.

9. Length: I know, I’ve already said stuff about this, but the film drags on and so will I. This film is just amazingly long, and it really hits you hard at some points. It is an act of sheer willpower to make it through the whole thing. Again, I just have to emphasize that basic introduction takes a full 9 minutes or so, we don’t meet the second main character until over 15 minutes in, and the story doesn’t really get going with the two plots until 50 minutes in. As a further emphasis, the ending sequence—the airship—starts at the 1 hour and 44 minute mark. Yes…the film was “clearly starting to wrap up” 40 minutes before it actually did so. I don’t have a problem with long films. I do have a problem with long films that do not need to be long and in fact seem to be teasing me about that fact.

*Bob* Reviews: Southland Tales

Hey, everyone. I'm Bob, and this is my yearly descent into horror and insanity. Once again I've made the mistake of allowing Al to get another year older, so here I am, reviewing Southland Tales. This time, Al specifically asked me to review the film, since with my love of pretentious bullshit…er…intricate, psychological, thinking-man’s entertainment…I’d stand the best chance at being able to figure the film out. So I get to blame him doubly for this one this time. EDITOR'S NOTE: Whatever.

*

There are three things about Southland Tales that were actually quite good. First off, the introduction is actually pretty neat. It’s done as though it were a home video being taken by a couple kids at a neighborhood or family party, and it feels pretty legitimate. I wouldn’t honestly be surprised if I were told that the director just found a family willing to turn in a tape of their party, and then had some of them film a couple extra “planned” scenes, but I’m sure it probably was all scripted. Just, honestly, it was nicely done. Second, the camerawork, lighting, and overall cinematography of the film…all very good. Most shots are just fine, and there are some very beautiful shots with just the perfect use of lights to get a very dramatic mood. Third…the acting is mostly quite good. Almost everyone involved gives a nice performance, though there are a few oddities here and there- a few SNL cast members who ham it up a bit too much at times and are at odds with the mood, and Wallace Shawn as Baron Von Westphalen goes too over the top with the role at times making it hard to take him seriously. Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson gives a particularly good performance, excepting a few parts where he seems to have been told to act as strangely as possible, and he’s playing an unusual part for him-an action star who is actually nervous and meek. Honestly, the problems this film has have nothing to do with the filming or the acting, and that’s an unusual thing in my experience.

*

As usual, there will be SPOILERS here, so for those of you who don’t want them, here’s my quick opinion: Southland Tales is a bad film, due largely to its habit of sending mixed messages and being too busy being artsy or intentionally over-complicated to have much of a plot. It is unfortunately not a particularly interesting bad film, so I don’t really recommend it even to those of you who seek out terrible cinema. That said, it isn’t as horrible as Narcosys, so…there’s that, I guess?

The film opens with a little home video sequence set in Texas, where we soon learn there was a nuclear attack. A narrator (Justin Timberlake as “Pilot”) and a CG/video sequence of news reports and…basically advanced Powerpoint slides…then bring us up to speed…and up to speed…and up to speed. The movie has to pause to do that a lot, featuring a ton of direct exposition (which breaks up the film’s flow). So here’s the basics: after nuclear attacks in Texas, America revived the draft lottery, and “World War III” began. Mind, World War III is apparently between America and Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea, so considering that one of the primary rules of being a World War is that you basically have to cover most of the World, I’d say it kind of fails. Because the USA was fighting so much in the Middle East, oil became restricted, so alternative fuel projects are now very important. Additionally, the Patriot Act was expanded as the Republicans took control of the government (complete with a wonderful image of two elephants humping-thanks, movie). Checkpoints were even set up between states. And now, liberal rebels are appearing, such as the Neo-Marxists. And as the final setup, we have the 2008 election being decided by the votes of California (the “Southland” is part of California)…and an actor- Boxer Santaros (The Rock)- who is married to the daughter of one of the Republican candidates, has gone missing, only to be found 3 days later with amnesia. This opening sequence also uses a number of comic book panels to tell the backstory of Pilot, one of the soldiers from the war. Pilot was apparently a victim of friendly fire in the form of a grenade. We meet Pilot soon afterwards…he likes to read from Revelations while seated on his beachside giant sniper turret. We get the first of many “This is the way the world ends” quotes (3x), followed by “not with a whimper, but a bang,” which will be repeated frequently. We go in an odd transition to multiple TV screens with a bunch of people jabbering at us about nothing really comprehensible. In addition, we see our first of many text references to Martin Kefauver, a character who won’t show up until very near the end of the film. EDITOR'S NOTE: What?

More scene-setting follows (we’re now 7 minutes in and basically nothing has actually happened yet). USIDent was created (thanks to the Republicans) to control cyberspace, empowered by the Patriot Act. (Not that I have any problem with this, but USIDent sure employs a lot of midgets.) USIDent is opened by Senator Bobby Frost, who likes to quote Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken.” A lot. Especially when it doesn’t make sense to do so, like how he quotes “…and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference” when opening USIDent, something which apparently had the support of the majority of the nation. Oh, well.

Boxer, having returned from the desert where he was left, is now living with “Krysta Now,” (Sarah Michelle Gellar) with whom he has written a screenplay called “The Power.” 9 minutes, by the way, and mostly all narration and scene-setting. Krysta is a porn star.

*

Now we meet Baron Von Westphalen, who has an alternative energy scheme that’s actually kind of neat: an energy emitter powered by the ocean sends out waves of power to vehicles, homes, etc. This is called Fluid Karma. Now, keep in mind the film has been waving the “gas is evil” flag already and will continue to do so, and really seemed to want us to believe in alternative energy. Now, you won’t find out until later in the film, but Westphalen is very evil. So…is alternative energy bad, too? What is the movie trying to say?

Okay. So…scene set. From here, the movie basically follows two major plots (and a hell of a lot of minor ones): Boxer Santaros, and Roland Taverner (Seann William Scott)…oh, what’s that? I haven’t mentioned Roland yet? That’s because we’re 15 minutes in and the movie hasn’t seen fit to do so either, despite him being half the focus of the movie- gah! Here are the basics (and yes, this is the basics): “Ronald” is in the care of the Neo-Marxists at first, engaged in a plot to imitate his “twin brother” Roland, who was captured by the Neo-Marxists (he’s apparently okay with this). This is part of an overly elaborate plan to make the Republicans look bad by making Boxer Santaros look bad, because saying something bad about the husband of the daughter of the Senator who is running certainly says a lot about the Senator himself. The idea is this: Ronald will pretend to be a horrible racist power-mad cop, and take Boxer on a ride-along so Boxer can study how to be a police officer for his film. Ronald will “shoot” two people having a domestic dispute (actually two of the Neo-Marxists), after making a few racist comments to Boxer on Boxer’s camera while riding with him. The plan goes to pot when Ronald and Boxer meet a real power-mad rogue cop, Bart Bookman (Jon Lovitz), who really shoots the two Neo-Marxists for no particular reason. Boxer does get this on film and Bart also films Boxer, so the overall concept is still intact. All of that takes a full 50 minutes for the film to get through. Yep, when most films would be halfway through or more, this finally finishes up its basic introduction. From here, Boxer and Ronald split up, and so I’ll do a very shortened recap of their stories:

Ronald: Ronald rejoins his Neo-Marxist buddies. Ronald starts trying to find his “twin brother,” who is trying to find him- after being set free by a Neo-Marxist just before USIDent raids their hideout and kills everyone there- and eventually runs into Martin Kefauver, a young man who just got drafted and who is trying to commit suicide because of it. Ronald convinces Martin not to do it, and the two drive off together. Later, they give up on going wherever they were going and rip an ATM out of the wall at a bank with their SUV, because Ronald’s magic twin vision or something reveals that they’re going to need it. Meanwhile Roland is captured by a weapons nut (Christopher Lambert- just because). In an extraordinary happenstance, ATM meets Weapon Guy’s ice cream truck- when the SUV ice cream truck happen to drive past each other- and Roland is freed. However, he’s freed in the middle of the riots, and both “brothers” are shot. Then they shake hands...

Boxer: After running the hell away from the shooting, Boxer is contacted by a lady at USIDent who was entranced by a copy of his screenplay she found out on the Interwebz, and now believes she is a scientist character in the screenplay. She calls him by his character’s name (Jericho Kane…which is actually a cooler name than Boxer Santaros) and gives him some guidance. She gets him in touch with someone who works for Bobby Frost, so the Republicans can finally…

…find him. Sorry, wait, what? Okay. So Westphalen shows off a car commercial involving two SUVs humping. What confuses me is why these things even have exhaust pipes, since they’re supposedly powered by hydroelectric quantum teleporbullshit (HEQTBS), but anyway, one exhaust pipe is the xxxxx and the other is the xxxxxx and I damn near gave up right there, but let’s move on.

So Boxer ends up at Frost’s house and meets his wife, and then his porn star girlfriend Krysta comes in and (quite reasonably) girlfriend and wife hate each other extremely. The movie kind of suggests the wife is being overly-mean, but no offense, the girlfriend is an idiot, a porn star, and an admitted slut, so…whatever. Anyway, Westphalen is apparently funding the Neo-Marxists, as the wife found out somehow and Westphalen knows that the wife is having a baby with someone other than Boxer. Krysta runs off, and Boxer decides to leave too, and despite spending the entire movie so far looking for him, Frost and co. just kind of let him walk right out the door, take a car, and go away after Westphalen’s assistant quotes something to him. Boxer ends up following USIDent Crazy Lady’s directions and meeting her on a beach, where she gives him some last info and then wants to suck his dick, leading to Pilot shooting her as she threatens to commit suicide and then threatens Boxer with the gun. Boxer runs again, but runs into Krysta’s friend that he was staying with, only he’s actually with the Baron...so he takes Boxer hostage again. Boxer is taken to his wife, and apparently spoke while he was asleep, apparently he now knows the world is going to end in 3 days...except that was 3 days ago so it all ends tonight. His wife agrees to help him now and they go on to the Baron’s giant HEQTBS airship. Krysta, after finding and mailing the Boxer-at-the-crime-scene video to the Neo-Marxists because she thinks it is a sex tape of her and Boxer and that this can get back at the wife or something, and being chased by Bart the evil cop and one of the Neo-Marxists who was secretly working with him, is now working on the airship as a dancer, because…um…the Baron wants it for some reason. On the airship, Boxer finds out the truth, and it’s a doozy…there are two Boxers, because he was kidnapped and driven through a portal in time & this created some quantum bullshit clones. Boxer #1 was killed by a car bomb, and Boxer #2 was wandering around. The reason for the experiment was apparently to find out what would happen if two time copies of a person met and touched. Boxer, suddenly aware of advanced quantum mechanics, notes that the universe would end. It turns out that the cop who kidnapped him, Roland Taverner, was also time-cloned, but both copies survived. Boxer goes back to the airship’s launch party, where he then claims that they need to evacuate.

The Ending: Roland and “Ronald” get in the ice cream truck and shake hands, while Martin gets a rocket launcher from Lambert’s collection. The ice cream truck starts to fly. Back at the airship party, Krysta and friends come out on stage, and Boxer gives up on evacuating for a few minutes to go have a dance number. Boxer’s wife comes on stage, then, and then she dances with Krysta, and the two evidently decide to stop hating each other and whisper prophetically, “He’s going to die, and there’s nothing we can do about it.” Then Boxer fires a pistol and yells about evacuating, and the Baron yells about destroying capitalism and dethroning God, and then Martin decides to fire the rocket launcher at the airship and blows it up, killing almost every major character in the movie since they all were there for some reason or another. The two Rolands forgive each other for the friendly fire incident in Iraq (where Pilot was hurt), and then the screen fades to white, which from all indications basically means the world just blew up. 

I’m sure that there’s a lot more I could say about Southland Tales, and believe me when I say there are even more stupid and nutty things about this film than I’ve had the time or inclination to discuss here, but I’ve already taken up so much page space that I’ve probably driven half of you away forever, so before I lose the rest of Al’s audience, let me make one last note. I did not hate Southland Tales as much as I hated Narcosys, but that is largely because the acting (not the script, but the acting) was better, the cinematography was nice, and it didn’t show me full frontal male nudity. I did, however, hate it more than Ninja Vengeance, and Ninja Vengeance was horrible. So that should say something.

Al…Happy Birthday. Expect revenge.

*Holiday* VHS For The Win: Zone Troopers

The regular update can wait, as this is a special day.  As such, I decided to share with you a familiar image...warped a bit...

Ha ha- it's funny because he's not Uncle Sam!  Get it?

Seriously though, this show looks like it could be fun.  I just hope that it's not too self-aware.

Happy 4th: The Tripper

The jokes on you, Champ!  In 2007, David Arquette tried to branch out from his career of being in bad comedies, starring in Scream sequels and winning the WCW World Heavyweight Championship.  His new challenge: Directing.  With that in mind, he made today's film- The Tripper.  The concept is silly and simple- a crazed man dresses up like Ronald Reagan and kills hippies with an axe.  How can this movie premise fail?  Well, for starters, the film is more awkwardly-paced than a boxing match between Butterbean and Floyd "Money" Mayweather.  Secondly, the horror is not all that scary, focusing just on mindless gore.  Third, the comedy parts are not really that funny.  I'll go into more depth on all of that in the review itself, however.  In the meantime, just remember that Arquette is credited as the Director, Producer and Co-Writer.  In other words, he's in it to win it...or lose it.  Put up lots of matresses, because we're meeting up with...

In a bizarre and random opening, we see a bunch of hippies protesting people trying to get down some Redwoods.  For no clear reason, the young son of one hippie has too much, grabs a chainsaw and cuts up dad.  The film jumps ahead many, many years, making we wonder why he's ripping off Pieces.  Oh wait- this is an homage, which I guess makes it all okay.  Just like Pieces, we also have a slew of red herring characters, but they don't really play a part yet.  Instead, the movie decides to spend about thirty minutes with a bunch of hippies led by Jason Mewes.  'Jay' of 'Jay and Silent Bob' as a stoner, you say?  Laziest casting ever.  As a side note, this movie also starts Balthazar Ghetty, making this a Feast reunion of sorts.  All we need is Clu Galagher to walk out from behind a tree, say 'Dammit' and leave.  Sadly, that doesn't happen.  Instead, we get to see the hippies fight with some rednecks (one of whom is Arquette) & establishing scenes between Paul Reuben's festival owner and Thomas Jane's Sheriff.  Yea.

After all of this set-up, the plot is pretty simple.  A crazy guy is running around the Woods dressed like Ronald Reagan.  I would note that Richard Nixon is more famous for hating hippies- as he was President when they were prevalent- but I guess they decided to go with Reagan.  It does have another connotation, however, which I can't fault them for using.  So yeah, the guy kills random people, often pretty quickly after they are introduced.  Old man in the woods- dead.  Random hippies- dead.  Extemporaneous main characters- dead.  The rednecks die as well, after they get caught shooting at two of the hippies with paintball guns.  How many films are going to combine Paintball and horror?!?  Incidentally, why did Arquette cast himself as a Redneck antagonist and have his death take place off-screen?  What's the point of having you as that character- let alone in the movie- if you were going to do that.  You might has well have cast Michael Berryman as a Gas Station Worker like Penny Dreadful too!

The cops...well, Thomas Jane and that other guy are hot on the killer's trail.  In a weird sub-plot, we meet a character who is about the most obvious Red Herring ever.  Just like Pieces- see above- the story makes it clear that the killer could not be the same age as this guy.  They do finally explain the Reagan thing a bit more, as the killer is the kid from the opening- I'm shocked- who spend a couple decades in a mental asylum before President Reagan basically 'opened the Asylums' by way of messing with their federal funding.  So, for whatever reason, our hero is a crazed version of Alex P. Keaton.  We get the inevitable showdown between the Final Girl and the hero before the usual conclusion and 'Is It Really Over?' Ending.  The End.

Do I want to laugh or cry?  The plot of this movie had potential, but needed a lot of polish.  The concept is one that could work...if someone else did it.  As I said before, the pacing is way off, spending nearly thirty minutes with the damn hippies before the real action and plot begin.  Did you find yourself writing page after page of hippie dialogue and couldn't stop, David?  The bigger problem is that none of the characters are that interesting.  Slasher film can have disposable characters, a trait shown by people like me often referring to characters as Jerk Girl, Jock Guy or Nerdy Guy.  However, you have to have at least one character that people really care about- the Final Girl.  This one's only interesting trait is related to her Red Herring ex-boyfriend that serves as a plot point/'surprise' moment later.  I only sort-of cared about Mewes, but that's based on his past film work.  His character, however, was about as disposable as a tissue.  I was hoping that I'd found a good horror comedy that's not Shaun of the Dead (which does have tonal problems near the end) or Black Sheep.  As such, I'm just stuck with a movie that turned out how I expected- an unfunny David Arquette film.

Next up, it's my Birthday!  To celebrate, someone else has to review a confusing by Richard Kelly that I have no interest in ever seeing. Stay tuned...

Vampire Racing: The Bleeding (2009)

Are we making way for a new horror film star?  Does the name Michael Matthias ring a bell to you?  No?  Well, he's the Producer/Star of today's film- The Bleeding.  Wow, that is generic as all hell!  This film was meant to be Matthias' big break, but history says that this probably will not be the case.  This film has a 2009 date attached to it, but was only released on DVD about two months ago.  What is the film about?  Well, vampires.  It's pretty by-the-book, but it tries to use a lot of stunt-casting to make you think that it's more than that.  I won't get into the exact details until further down, just so you'll be encouraged to read further.  Since this is a 'new' film (as much as Case 39 was last year, anyways), I'll make this relatively SPOILER-free.  Get out a tourniquet as we attempt to stop...

* Matthias is a man who seeks revenge on the vampire that killed his family (in flashback).  Armand Assante shows up for one scene to tell him to, well, go get revenge on the vampire that killed his family.  Pointless cameo- check.

* He meets up with DMX, whom he saves from some vampires, and then proceeds to get the history of vampires.  By the way, who's idea was it to have DMX do your exposition?  I can barely understand him!

* The information leads him to a priest played by Michael Madsen.  Get it- it's funny because he's a priest who's lazy, drinks and smokes!  You guys just put a costume on Madsen and filmed in his daily routine, didn't you?

* Big shock- the vampires throw a rave to kill lots of people.  Did I mention that this film is original?

* Kat Von D is here to play a vampire.  She's pretty much here for her looks and, I guess, the street cred she gives the film.  Her role is, of course, entirely pointless.

* Vinnie Jones aka The Juggernaut, Bitch plays the lead vampire.  There's also a twist involving his identity that I won't spoil.  Just a hint: it's really, freaking stupid!

* The day is saved- but at what cost?  I mean, we wrecked two nice cars for this.  The End.

I think I've seen this movie before.  The plot of the film is pretty basic, but it's not bad.  I would have liked to see the actual attack occur as the 'shock opening' and then show him in the hospital.  Instead, they show him near the climax of the film, going all the way back to when he is in the hospital, leave and then he has a dream/flashback to show the attack.  I get the whole In Media Res thing, especially when your opening is drawn out by Matthias' dull narration.  That said, it also kills the drama of 80% of the film, as I know that you won't die before the truck scene.  As I side-note, I also have to comment on some sloppy editing in that scene.  Matthias is firing two sub-machine guns in the wide shot, he suddenly has a shotgun in the close-up shot and then back to the sub-machine guns for the wide shot.  Can you not tell the difference between the two very different-looking weapons?!?  The key problem is that the film offers very little that's new.  The vampire rules are different here- big shock- but that only adds a little the plot, doing nothing to change the obvious course of events.  Throw in a bunch of tiny roles for minor stars, a supporting heroine who does nothing and a lead that just doesn't really sell you & you get a decent, but uninspiring action film.  It's honestly worth a look, since you might be more forgiving than me.  I'll leave you with one of the film's many, silly title cards...

Next up, July 4th is ushered in with style.  By that, I mean with a slasher film starring Ronald Reagan.  Stay tuned...

Impossibly-Cool Cover Art: Jaws Attack

Jaws.  Rip-off poster/box art.  Foreign country.  You know the rest...

I seriously doubt that the shark looks that good or ever chases down a lady like that.  Incidentally, wouldn't that be a terrible way to chase someone in the water?

I mean, it beats the squids that attack you upside down, but still...

Next up, I RE-POST an update that apparently vanished.  It has more sharks...and something you wouldn't expect.  Stay tuned...

Leftovers of the Dead: Day of the Dead (2008)

Are you really necessary?  I'm sorry, but there's only one reason to remake Day of the Dead.  As Romero himself as stated, the grand scale of the film was not able to be achieved due to budgetary constraints.  So, if you're going to spend $200 million to make a film about a proper, world-wide zombie plague, I'm game.  Unfortunately, that is not the case here.  Instead, The Taurus group- who apparently won Romero's film rights in a card game- make another film.  Hopefully it will be better than Day of the Dead 2 or Creepshow 3.  Incidentally, Day of the Dead 2 was made before this movie!!!  By the way, if you hoped that the remake of the third part of Romero's original Dead trilogy would ignore the others, then you're in luck!  Steve Miner is here as well, proving that some people should stop making films in 1980!  Before I say too much, I'll tell you that this review will be relatively SPOILER-free.  Like last time, I want to showcase some differences, give you the overall plot and whatever else pisses me off here.  Put away your Mexican face-paint, because we're going to a different...

* Our lead is a very-miscast Mena Suvari, playing a Soldier who returns home to control a plague.  The reason for this is going to be silly.

* Ving Rhames is on board- not as a recurring character from 2004's Dawn of the Dead though.  He plays the most famous character from the original film...but he dies 20 minutes in and doesn't even say the famous line while being torn apart by zombies.  Why make him Colonel Rhodes then?!?

* The original film's 'Bud' is here too, only he's a Soldier who turns but doesn't attack our heroine.  Why?  Either it's because a) he's a vegetarian or b) he's in love with Mena.  Take your pick- your stupid, stupid pick.

* Right as the Third Act begins, it becomes Resident Evil.  Bright lab, zombie formula, mad scientists and all.

*  Oh yeah, a Mad TV alumni plays a super-zombie.  Please don't ask.

* Bud gets one last hurrah before the whole thing ends.  On the plus side, it ends!  The End.

You should have stayed dead!  The plot of this movie is changed a lot & it's not for a better.  Let's review, shall we?  Biological weapon gets loose and infects people, leading to an outbreak in a small, mountain town. Wait a second- you remade the wrong movie!  In case you didn't get it, this is the plot of The Crazies, a film that was actually remade in 2010.  If you guys own the rights to the film, why aren't you making it?  So much stuff here is changed and I can't think of a good reason why.  They not only have the running zombies, but they have super-zombies.  These guys run, jump and even use tools.  The silliest point, however, comes when the 'Mad TV zombie' kills a guy from a hanging vent in about ten seconds, doing all of this off-camera by the power of implied action!  It would be nice if I could say that the cast salvages this film, but I'd be lying.  Suvari is alright, but she does nothing to raise the material up.  She's never bad, but she also never does better than the material given her.  Nick Cannon, meanwhile, is Nick Cannon- 'nuff said.  There are good moments in the film, but none of it makes up for the stupid changes and questionable plot.  Take us away, pointless jump scare to close out the film...

Next up, July begins properly with the celebration of a new film.  Actually, it's a 2009 film full of C-List Actors that just came out on DVD.  Stay tuned...