Review: Hobo With A Shotgun

Version I Watched: Netflix instant watch.

History: Was based on a fake trailer produced for a grindhouse trailer competition put together by Robert Rodriguez. It gained so much popularity from the competition that it turned into a feature length film. It was made for $3 Million but didn't even make half of it back in the US. It gained a cult status on home video but all in all has very mixed reviews.

Personal History: I saw the fake trailer that came before this movie a bunch of times. I thought it was hilarious! And when I found out there would be a full movie I was... interested... but more on that in a moment.

Review: You ever notice when something gets really popular no matter how small a group it tends to be milked and milked so much until everyone hates it? Of course you notice because you can't get away from it! That seems to be the American way for pop culture. We've seen this with zombies, vampires, more recently super heroes (it's a fad and will eventually die out or fall into obscurity because they'll run out of stuff to do), but I remember something else. Something a bit more niche.
Grindhouse was a three hour long double feature. As in no joke, an actual double feature. When it was released it played both Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Quentin Taratino's Death Proof. It was a cool experiment on the old grindhouse model and each was a shining example of the type of movie you would see in grindhouses. Complete with intentional grain on the film strip and missing reels. It was a beautiful experience and I loved every minute of it. While the movie was technically a box office bomb the attention it did bring, built up a further interest in grindhouse again. It seemed like all at once a bunch of groups of people wanted to recreate the grindhouse experience, just like Robbie and Quint did. There were imitation style movies, video games (like Wet and House of the Dead: Overkill), but I would say the most popular were the fake trailers.
Fake trailers were featured in Grindhouse both before and between the features. They included ones by Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright, Eli Roth, and one that turned into a real deal franchise by Robert Rodriguez, Machete. Online there was a further explosion of fake trailers. One of those that became very popular was Hobo With A Shotgun. It was a hilarious compilation of a wacky movie where a hobo is cleaning up the streets using nothing more than a shotgun and all his rage. But when I found out there would be a full length movie... I was interested... but not hopeful.
Cut to a few years later and here I am finally getting around to it. The results are not so great.

Don't get me wrong. I LOOOOOOOVE retro style, grainy, rough looking movies. When a modern filmmaker can pull it off it looks amazing and gives a unique experience that can only be captured by actually watching a movie from the era they're referencing. But making a movie in that style doesn't automatically make it great. Just like how if you simply insert element A or reference B doesn't make it great either. One of the many problems I have with the show Big Bang Theory is because it falls under those lines but more on that in a future post. The thing with this movie is that it's great in concept. It's a funny skit that works in the two minutes it took to play out in the fake trailer it started from. But this concept rarely translates well to an extended story. That's why people try to forget about most of the movie versions of SNL skits. Unfortunately I feel this one didn't do the translation so well.
There's not much to say about the plot. The title kind of says it all but at the same time there's no telling by the title of he's the good or bad guy. Well, he's the good guy. The plot is super simple. Everyone in the city he rolled into is corrupt. I mean everyone! (minus a very few) And it's all because of a guy named Drake who like in many cliches runs the town. Our hobo hero first runs into him on the streets when he kills a guy, on display, by ripping the man's head off (Don't really wanna spoil how cause it's plenty creative) while forcing all the innocent bystanders to watch or else he'll kill them. He's a sick bastard who has two sons as sick and disgusting as he is. After frustration with all the crime in the streets the hobo decides to take the money he has saved up to buy a shotgun and take action into his own hands.
When you read that plot doesn't that sound amazing?! Of course it does. But something about it just didn't translate well into a feature. I didn't find the movie to be terribly engaging, and for a movie that only lasts 80 minutes before credits I found it to be a lengthy task to get through. And for all the wild, out there, grindhouse styles it was going for I felt the movie did something so many imitators do wrong. They tried way too hard.

Now I don't feel they tried too hard in terms of the grindhouse flare. The movie is shot very old fashioned looking minus all the fast cuts in the action sequences. But everything does look very dirty and the image was very off colored like it was done on the mega cheap (trivia: It was filed with a Red camera). If anything I really like the way the movie looked. Where I felt they tried too hard was in their execution with how dark and evil this Drake guy and his two sons are. It's all very over the top violence. And I'm sure they were going for tongue in cheek, but many parts just didn't quite come off that way. For example, a lot of children are killed in this movie. And I don't mean off screen. There's one scene where Drake's two sons jump on a school bus filled with kids and burn them alive with a flamethrower. The scene ends with a kid screaming bloody murder while using whatever life they have left in them to call for help out the back window of the bus. This and some other over the top elements didn't come off as "Holy shit! They went so far! This is so grindhouse old school!" like it's all part of one big joke. Instead it came off as, "Sheesh, that was really dark. Like... REALLY dark." Don't get me wrong, I actually have a very filthy mind when it comes to my sense of humor, and I love dark humor a bunch, too. If you saw some of the movies in my collection you'll also know I'm not squeemish. But when some of these scenes of such intense violence in the tone they chose it feels more like a friend was trying to tell a dirty joke but went just a pinch too far, or told it wrong and it makes you wonder if your friend is a serial killer or something.
I also want to point out I understand it's possible to tell a joke straight face. You play the part as serious as possible and let the tone, writing, etc do the comedy work. It actually makes things a lot funnier. See Naked Gun, or a closer example to this would be Planet Terror or even Crank, movies that are obviously not meant to be taken seriously. But they are able to maintain the joke throughout without having to turn and wink at the audience. With Hobo with a Shotgun they got the idea right with the plot, but the way it plays is just too mistakenly serious a lot of the time. It's like they accidentally forgot they were making a satire partway through. Especially when they were establishing the relationship between the hobo and the hooker he saved (who is now his good friend). All in all I felt like they tried too hard and it came off differently than they were anticipating. That or they were trying to make something different than what everyone was expecting. I don't know.

Now there was plenty I did like that I felt redeemed the movie somewhat. First, the actor who played the hobo. Knocked it out of the park. He was an absolute blast to watch. His role was to play an angry hobo out to set things straight and he did a beautiful job. I was so happy to see him on screen saying just about anything. It was always really intense and angry. Or he was delivering justice with some great lines to boot.
So casting was VERY well done in this case. But not just with the dialogue I also loved it when he was kicking ass. He has nothing to lose since he is as low as he can go. So when he finally gets the shotgun it is so satisfying to see him blowing them all away in a great and gory fashion. The gun has that intense impact that makes you wanting more. But basically that's what I liked about the movie. The hobo, his shotgun, and seeing him kick ass with some great lines.
It may sound like I hated this movie but that's not the case. I wasn't expecting it to be another Planet Terror or Death Proof, but I wasn't expecting it to be trying this hard. It left me wanting more from the hobo, not the bad guy. Honestly it spent too much time with the bad guy setting up what would be resolved by the hobo very simply with his shotgun. Overall the movie had it's fun moment. Could be worse. Still... hard to recommend unless you're into this style of movie.

Sorry I didn't have more to say... this movie just had a very obvious positive and negative parts with little else present. If I go any further it'll sound repetitive.

Review: Beyond Two Souls Demo

In the early 80s a new type of game was released to the market. Laserdisc games that were essentially interactive movies. One of the earliest and easily one of the most popular examples of this is Dragon's Lair. It was very limited but a real beauty for the time because while the arcades were filled with *this, you turn the corner and you see *this. The control for these games were also limited since all you do is either move the joystick in the right direction or hit an action button when the video prompts you to. Some of these games were ported to home consoles like the Sega CD but in other cases they were also ported to just straight up DVD because of how simple the controls were. These games dated themselves quickly and most aren't that memorable and even less stand the test of time.
Fast forward to the mid-2000s and a game company called Quantic Dream releases Indigo Prophecy (or Fahrenheit for everywhere else in the world) which is being praised as an interactive movie. Move forward to 2010 and out comes Heavy Rain. A game in the similar style to Fahrenheit that also calls back to those Dragon's Lair games of old but even more interactive. Heavy Rain branched out with multiple characters, multiple stories, and multiple routes. Way more than what most games may boast about. I actually still have a copy of Playstation Magazine that maps out all the different routes in Heavy Rain and it's pretty extensive. With that history in mind it brings us to Beyond Two Souls, a game that owes it's existence to this history of games.
Before continuing I want to point out a couple things that add to the legitimacy of the cinematic approach. One is that it starts actual Hollywood actors. Ellen Page who has a very prominent role, and Willem Dafoe who seems to have an important role but only appears once in the whole demo. They both put on a great performance as they always do and it helps add to the immersion. Aka, acting in a video game that's actually good! Also the game is presented in a wider aspect ratio of 2.35:1. It doesn't fill the screen. Even in gameplay there are bars on the top and bottom and it makes it BEAUTIFUL! Last note I want to make is that the game was presented as an official selection of the Tribeca Film Festival. While it's the second game to be shown there (the first being L.A. Noire) it is still saying something that it made it there. There was a 35 minute gameplay video screened for that "premier."

The demo states it contains two sequences but I would say it's more like four scenes. Each does offer something unique with the first two preparing you for what comes in the third and fourth.

Sequence 1: You're a young Jodie (Ellen Page) and you live in what looks like a place of scientific experimentation. A lab you might say. A scientist takes you into a room with where you put on a piece of headgear like you see when someone's mental state is being examined. The purpose of this experiment is to pick the same card as the woman in the room next to you, and of course you can't see her. This is when you change character in a way and become Aiden. When you play as Aiden you are a spirit, soul I guess based on the title that can freely move through walls without anyone seeing you, and you can physically mess with items as well. So when you play as Aiden you go through the wall, look at the card, return to playing as Jodie and pick the card. Easy. Then you get to play around with throwing things around the room freaking the woman out because you're doing the same thing as a poltergeist. As this sequence ends it suggests that Jodie doesn't have full control over Aiden and he could even hurt her with all the powers he has. This sequence is a great introduction giving a lot of mystery of what exactly Jodie's powers are, who this Aiden is, hell even what happened that caused her to be thrown into this lab.
Sequence 2: This is just a quick tutorial for the fighting scenes in the game. It's very simple and it eliminates there being a lot of buttons on screen, giving a better cinematic feel to the game as a whole. The fighting works where when you are swinging your fist or moving to dodge you simple point the right joystick in the direction you're moving. And it slows down briefly so you're not too on edge. This is a great way to indicate when you need to do something. It does it in a way that modern cinema does anyway, with all the slowdown and fast cuts.
Sequence 3: This part is easily my favorite and really showcased how well the cinematic aspects works, keeping it within the universe and not too gamey. After a brief scene on a train where the police catch up with you, you as Aiden possess the mind of one of the police men to help you escape from the police. Then a chase through the woods starts. Let me say that this sequence is the t example of realistic realism I've ever seen in video games. You actually feel like Jodie is naturally running through the woods, reacting to every bit of wood, branch, bump that comes your way. It is absolutely beautiful and the animation does not come off as repetitive in the least. SERIOUSLY! Go play this demo and that sequence of her running is one of my favorite parts because of how good it looked. After escaping she also steals (again with the help of Aiden) a police motorcycle to escape. Again it looks and feels so insanely realistic I couldn't believe it. Yes you get the feeling of it carrying you along but you do NEED to be interacting to make it work. It is incredible what is being done here.
Sequence 4: This is similar to the last half of the last sequence but more with the combat of Aiden than Jodie. I actually didn't care for this part quite as much because Aiden is used through a first person perspective and he doesn't have that solid of controls. This sequence you are literally surrounded by a swat team with a helicopter and everything. You do multiple treatments of possessions to ram a car into a gas station or using your psychic abilities to choke the swat team, but the process of getting to each guy and step was somewhat slow, interrupting the tension and excitement of the sequence. Not to say it's all a lost because it isn't as bad as I make it sound. It's just that with how un-gamey parts of this demo have felt, this part felt very gamey.

I can't wait to see what the rest of the game is like. I am so excited for this to come out with it feeling like an ever better experience than Heavy Rain was. It is presented more realistically with less "buttons" on screen and presented in an actual cinematic aspect ratio. That and the animations look fantastic. Even with the way you're walking from room to room as a standard person. Like in the beginning when you play the child version of Jodie she is looking around very naturally. When you push forward she walks forward naturally like a real person and when you let go she doesn't stop on a dime like other characters. She comes to a gradual stop, you know, like an actual person who is walking naturally.
If you have a PS3 I urge you to try this game out. But keep in mind it's not like many other games out there. If you like having tons of control you're not gonna get it here. But the cinematic experience you get from it is so mind blowing, and if anything you can see it as a tech demo that can showcase the future of even more realistic elements in gaming.

The Second Disc: Content Then & Now, or Censorship Can Be A Bitch

My freshman year of college I was cast in a production of Oedipus the King. No big part, just a palace guard. But the play is pretty intense in themes and very violent at the end. To those who don't know, the play ends with Oedipus gouging his eyes own eyes out. Different productions handle this differently. In the old Greek performances this would be represented with a mask. In more modern productions it is done with actually seeing the blood drip from his face. That's the method my college went for. It was pretty graphic cause they used peanut butter on his eyes to represent the torn up flesh and had it covered in red with it dripping down the costume. Also, since there was a dedicated costume for it cause the material would stain and there was a new application of blood every performance it got bloodier with every show. On top of all this I went to a conservative Lutheran college. So content like that generally speaking was surprising and not exactly common place there. But why is it not common place? The general idea is that it's easier to get away with because it's a classic. If there was a production of a lesser known play but with similar themes and is modern it would not be as easy to get away with. I can guarantee that. When a classic play or classic movie is playing there is apparently an unwritten rule that certain content can get through that would otherwise be censored in a new IP.
This is something that has always left a strange feeling behind for me. I never fully understood why that would be the case and it only seems to make the MPAA ratings even more confusing (which is what we will be discussing for today). The straw that broke the camel's back that made me want to talk about this was how I finally got around to watching Speilberg's TinTin movie. Outside of the creepy uncanny valley animation I found it to be a pretty fun movie and wouldn't be opposed to watching any sequels that may come out. However this is a movie that is aimed with "fun for the whole family" in mind. It's based on a classic comic strip that's been around for an eternity so it seemed like a sure fire win. Well it's a sure fire win if you keep it in the spirit of the original material or else people won't necessarily enjoy it. The one specific example I want to pull for this confusing exception is that one of the main characters is a drunk. Flat out severe drunk, no sublety whatsoever. And the movie doesn't present it in a way as bad. It presents it in a way as cute and fun cause the character is funny. Like the lovable drunk who always winds up in Andy Griffith's jail. Even in one scene when he and TinTin are in a plane that is out of gas and there's the threat of a crash the drunk jumps out of the plane and belches into the gas tank, suggesting his breath alone is full of enough alchohol to restart an engine. Obviously not a realistic thing that could happen but it's basically showing that alchohol saved the day for them. And this is only one example from this movie that feels out of place in a modern PG rated movie.

Before I continue I want to point out a disclaimer that I'm far from a stiff when it comes to censoring. Quite the opposite. Do whatever personal censoring you want for yourself but when it comes to releasing movies, music, games, etc, present it uncut. And if it's not uncut make the audience aware. Obviously there will be levels of censorship when showing something on TV or to a child. But if the content needs to be censored to show it to them then why the flying fart are you showing it to them in the first place (example from my childhood, Dragonball Z and Tenchi Muyo. The former for violence, the later for sexual content). So I'm not opposed to censorship, just unjustified censorship. Moving on.

I think we can all agree that the times are changing with every year. Fads come and go, things get more tense/loosened up, politics change, people change, everything changes. An easy example to see how things have changed is with entertainment. Since the early 1900s when film started to really make an impression on the world and become popular, content immediately became an issue. What can you show and not show in a show? Unlike a stage play there was more room for content that couldn't be done as easily live.
Censorship was certainly a lot more strict back in those days. Watch most any movie from the 30s to the 50s and you'll see a lot of them are pretty similar. Mostly free of harsh content and whenever something harsh happens it's usually implied and more subtle. It's not as in your face as modern cinema can be. Around the 60s things changed and more content started showing up in film and it just progressively became more open ended as the years went on. Now that's not to say there was no explicit content in these older movies. Typically in the more popular titles there weren't. One example of surprisingly explicit content in early cinema would be the short film Un Chien Andalou where you see a topless woman getting groped and another women's eye slashed, up close.
This eventually led to the development of a rating system so people knew what they were in for, and it even got reworked in the mid 80s when the initial design didn't work well enough. And now it brings us to today. For many years the MPAA has been pretty screwed up and I still don't feel they do their job right and easily do favors for some movies whereas others they really hit hard. For more info on that watch the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. It's pretty excellent.

What I want to talk about isn't why the MPAA generally speaking sucks at their job, I want to talk about perspective when it comes to revisiting old material from the past and showing it in the present. As I was stating earlier the level of content allowed these days is more loosey goosey than it used to be. But the type of content is a different story. Going back to TinTin. The reason why I was raising such a stir on that is because it's getting away with the same sort of thing the production of Oedipus the King I was in was getting away with. It is including somewhat harsher content but it's okay cause it's considered a classic. TinTin has been around for what seems like a hundred years (probably not that far off) which means it's origins is from a completely different era. It was an era when a drunk character was funnier than it is today. These days drunkeness is more of a sensitive issue that people tend to not joke around with. But because of the era TinTin came from it is technically in context which I guess makes it appropriate. An approach I can agree with. But it was just thrown out there as is. TinTin may be very popular, but it was more popular overseas than it was here in the states. And since it began TinTin has been a more family friendly story, just with some now outdated acceptance of certain content. So I can understand WHY it's in there. But that movie was released in an era where PG means something totally different than it used to.
The perfect example I have for this is the comedy classic Airplane. Many people can agree that it is one of the funniest movies ever made and it will retain that status until it's so outdated that no one gets the jokes anymore. However it was released in the early 80s before the PG-13 rating was created. Now even by today's standards I still wouldn't consider it R rated material. If anything a slightly harder PG-13. But since this came out back in the day it was given a PG rating. Understandable for the time. But think about this. Airplane has numerous sex jokes. A fair amount of cuss words (no fucks but definitely a shit or two). And there's even a very brief moment of nudity. Yep, to those who weren't around or weren't aware you could get away with a pinch of nudity in a PG rated movie back then (also see Barry Lyndon).
Now when the movie gets a new edition on DVD or whatever the new format is, it retains the original rating. When you see a new movie coming out these days and you see it's rated PG your initial reaction is that it's probably fairly tame. The only people you may not be able to bring to the movie are the youngest members of the family. So let's say you're an ignorant parent and you're looking for a movie for your family. Your family may be a bit more conservative or you may have some pretty young children so what you watch as a family needs to be a bit more friendly for a wide range of ages. You're breezing through a video store or online and you come across a few movies. Some of which are rated PG. However some of these are older movies that have a PG from a different era and perspective. Let's say it's not necessarily Airplane but another movie that has similar content in the PG rating. You're gonna go home and get a face full of something you weren't expecting.
Trust me when I say this has happened and will continue to happen. I've experienced it myself with my parents not realizing what they were bringing home based on the box. It's because there's a lack of context for what means what and it can potentially provide a different experience than expected. Now we can't do anything about what's already released and circulating on home video. But one thing that I believe can and really should be done is a re-rating of some older movies. It's the only thing that makes sense to keep people informed of what they're getting into who don't necessarily have the proper context. A movie like Airplane still being labeled as PG on even the newest editions of DVDs gives off the wrong idea. If A Clockwork Orange and Midnight Cowboy can be re-rated from X to R without any changes then why can't other movies be re-rated for the proper context? And the only reason why I feel so strong about this is because the world is far from idiot proof. The average movie-goer doesn't understand what NC-17 may mean because those movies are few and far between, and they're usually edited down to an R anyway. Also the average movie-goer may not realize that NC-17 was changed from X because X became solely associated with porn instead of it just being the only rating beyond R. Basically the world needs to have everything spelled out for them cause they're not gonna bother looking into anything despite the internet giving them access to everything. This is the reason why there's now a description of what content is in the movie on the trailers, posters, DVDs, and of course online.
It's like the MPAA thought that the audience didn't know what the ratings meant anymore so they need to spell it out completely for them. So with an audience like that, that doesn't always have the right context regarding a title it would be good for many movies to be re-rated and given that descriptor so the audience can be aware. Because while content may be looser these days, parents and people in general are still pretty stiff about what they want in their entertainment.

So with that as a jumping off point it brings me to what I really wanted to talk about. It all goes back to my Oedipus and TinTin reference. But I want to bring a new example into the equation. A few years ago there was a lot of serious talk about the use and placement of cigarettes in movies. I think I even heard a rumor where if there are characters smoking in the movie it would immediately be slapped with an R. I think that was more a rumor than anything else but I have noticed in the rating descriptor as of the last few years that smoking is now a reason for a movie to be rated what it's rated. So what does that mean for all these older movies that had smoking in them? What about the ones that were intended for kids? Yeah it was a part of the norm back then but that was then and this is now. Stronger anti-smoking activism has been in place for some time now which is why smoking in movies is now a reason to up the rating. It's more appropriate for older people who understand the risks that come with smoking. If you put it in a movie aimed at kids or teens then they could get the wrong idea regarding smoking. But again what does it do for some of these older movies that have been adored for generations?
One example is 101 Dalmatians. A Disney classic that is adored by many and has been for many generations. But what's this? Cruella De Vill always seems to have a cigarette in hand. That can't be good. And this movie is rated G! Well I suppose if you have it in hand of the bad guy then kids may associate it with bad things. But wait a second, here's the dog's owner walking around smoking a pipe. And it looks like he's pretty relaxed with it. Does that mean smoking is okay? Maybe even fun? But that's not the message you want to send to little kids. So maybe you shouldn't show it to them. But the movie as a whole is pretty harmless so why would you do that? Besides, it's a classic! Remember? Okay, well maybe it should be censored so kids don't get the wrong idea. But you can't do that because that's not presenting it the way it was created. That's breaks rights in terms of expression through art and since it was made of a different era it shouldn't be a big deal cause their perspectives were different. See how this can turn into a catch 22? You can't go down one route without upsetting the path of a different route.
It's just so stupid that entertainment from a different era or based on a different era can (for the most part) get through without a hitch these days in terms of certain content but as soon as you create something new it's under attack. I think it's stupid because when you show it to a younger audience they will not have a full understanding of that different era. You may tell them this or that but I can still see influence come through somehow that some people may not want. I guess what I'm trying to get across is the fact that there are so many mixed messages being thrown out there with different ratings. On one hand here's a title that tells you of all the horrors and terrible things associated with drinking. But then there's this kids movie that has a character who is lovable and he is an even bigger drunk.

I'm not advocating extreme censorship or anything, just pick a side and stick with it. If we can bring stories with conflicting content from previous generations who clearly had a different perspective then why not bring back as much as we can? Where's my special edition DVD of Song of the South? What about those cartoons where Donald Duck was a Nazi? Where are those? You don't want to give off the wrong impression do you? I'm guessing that's where they're coming from. And movies that have characters in black face is shooting back to some pretty intense racism in this country so I can see why that would be a bigger issue immediately than smoking or drinking in a children's movie. But weren't there some classic movies in history such as Birth of a Nation and The Jazz Singer that had similar themes yet those are in general release? What's up with that? Why do those get a pass? I realize there's other Nazi propaganda films out there for purchase but those are more so for historical purposes. Not like the modern DVD releases are done by actual Nazi supporters. But if those can be released for historical purposes then why not some of the movies I stated before like Song of the South? It's not like it's a hidden secret that Disney made a movie that was as racist as that was and it's not like America has forgotten about the racism that ran through this country over the years. So why can't it be readily available for people interested in the history of film? I would love a DVD copy of that movie for those exact reasons. I don't think it would advocate racism, but rather it could teach a lesson on how things were and how we can better ourselves. Plus, Disney has re-released plenty of movies with intense racial stereotypes. What about Dumbo with the black stereotype Crows?

It's obviously a very complicated issue that many sides would argue many reasons for doing what they do. I just wish that there wasn't so many times where things are so selective. I just don't understand why certain themes from certain eras with certain content is condemned on one hand but the other it's not necessarily embraced but it is allowed. The way I figure it is keeping things within context really is the best way to handle it. But if movies like TinTin can have a flat out drunk as a main character then why can't other kids movies have themes like that in modern times? Yeah they're learning but I feel it's more confusing and sending mixed messages.
We as adults understand the context and content but not all kids will. So why would you be so loosey goosey with your content that you're showing them when censors are hitting so hard to avoid those exact same themes in modern stories. I'm in the process of writing one of my own stories (side project) in one scene a character is flat out drunk. However my characters are all animals (it's a cartoony story), I never make direct reference to any names of any actual alcoholic drinks, and it's so over the top exaggerated that it's ridiculous. I only described the actions the character was doing which were obviously similar to the actions of a drunk person. When I presented it to my wife she expressed concern over having a drunk character in a story that would be essentially aimed towards kids (but I feel it's an all around story cause it's pretty much an Adult Swim cartoon minus the explicit content). But when I heard that I didn't think it would be a problem for multiple reasons. Most of which are reasons I already stated.
In the end I just find it so stupid how selective audiences and studios are when it comes to what can and cannot be shown these days. Why were those old Looney Tunes cartoons banned? Because they have Nazi symbolism and racial stereotypes. But Nazis are all over the place these days, not to mention in some other popular movies like Indiana Jones. Also there are a bunch of racial stereotypes in other popular titles both old and new. It's not as in your face as some of the older stories but it is still there. Why do those titles get a pass when some of the older titles don't? Why? Cause movies/stories like Dumbo, 101 Dalmatians, Indiana Jones, and TinTin are classics. It all comes back to that word. Classics. It drives me nuts that these classics can get away with these things when less popular titles can't.

There's one last thing I want to talk about with the "law" of the rating system. As you probably know, if a movie is R rated and a kid who isn't 17 tries to buy a ticket on their own they will not be let in. However if a parent/guardian buys it for them then it's all good. No surprise there and I can accept that. Some kids are ready before others when it comes to explicit content. Now sometimes, rarely, but sometimes movies are released without a rating. Most of the time it's because of the content, or just one scene in particular that pushes it over the edge. Technically speaking, according to the "law" anyone can go into an unrated movie without question because there is no age restriction (well, there are exceptions). Example time.

Back in the year that The Passion of the Christ came out there was an uproar because of the violence. No surprise there. Heaven forbid Mel Gibson gives a (somewhat) accurate account on how brutal of a torture Christ went through (research shows some parts were too over the top whereas other parts weren't, if not even close to as violent as it really was). Because of the violence the movie got an R rating. Again understandably entirely from a subjective standpoint with content alone. But since it's such an important story (THE most important story for Christians) Mel Gibson wanted everyone to be able to access it. So later that year a recut version with the violence toned down was released. But there was a problem. Even with the violence toned down it was still given an R rating. So what did Mel do? Release it unrated. Ironically exploiting the rating system to get his way. I don't think that version ever came out on DVD but what I'm getting at here is the only thing more confusing than the MPAA is when something is R rated.
The thing with unrated is that you never know what you're going to get. Sometimes it may be an extended cut of a PG-13 movie and is using unrated as a marketing gimmick (see Ghost Rider). But it will go as extreme as actually having explicit sexual content like actual penetration (see Caligula). From a basic, standard, logic standpoint unless you are familiar with the system and the movie you're picking up there's no telling if the unrated movie will be a PG-13 with a couple extra 'Fuck's (Anchorman), it could be an older movie from a different region that never got a rating in the first place but is anywhere from G to PG-13 (The Russian, non-George Clooney Solaris), or it could be the most horrifically violent, horrifically sexual thing ever put through the cinema (Antichrist, okay that's probably not the most horrific example but you catch my drift).
In short unrated is even more wacky and off the charts than the actual MPAA, but when it comes down to it no movie is required to have a rating. There is nothing that tells each movie to come through that they have to get a rating. They choose to for obvious marketing purposes. Also good luck distributing your movie if it's unrated. Most theatres won't carry them and the few that do are art houses. They get a similar treatment as NC-17 movies get. I guess the only other thing I have to say about unrated is that at least it isn't totally off the handle like the MPAA. You usually know what you're getting into with some brief research if it's an alternate cut of an older movie. But also some cinemas that carry unrated titles do enforce their own sort of rating system. I remember years back a movie called Shortbus came out in a very limited release. It was playing at a theatre here in Madison. As I was walking into the theatre to see another movie I noticed a sign regarding Shortbus. It said that while Shortbus is unrated they were not allowing anyone in under 18 due to explicit sexual content. After doing some quick research on this title I found that there is a TON of unsimulated sex in the movie with shots of full on penetration. I was surprised a theatre in my area played something like that. But I guess if that theatre played Shortbus I shouldn't be surprised when I saw another theatre downtown was playing Antichrist many years later.

While I've technically never seen an properly rated NC-17 movie in the theatres (seen them and own a couple on DVD. Lust Caution being one of the best I own along with The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover up there, too) there is one movie I have seen in theatres that was released without a rating. The Aristocrats, a documentary about the legendary joke among famous comedians. If it was rated it would be NC-17. No violence, no nudity or sex, but enough harsh language to give it that, and it was absolutely hilarious!

Review: World War Z

Version I Watched: Theatrical cut in theatres.

History: Seems like this one had to go through a lot before it got released. Way back in 2007 Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment secured the rights to the book this movie is based on. It was already set to be very different from the book since it would tell from the perspective of a single person instead of being told like a UN report, like the book. A script leaked in 2008 and got mixed reviews from the public. However in 2009 a report was given that the script was still being re-written because it was "still far from realization." After years of delays and rewrites the movie finally went into pre-production in April 2011. The movie was a hit with making over $500 million at the box office on a budget of $190 million. However it received still mixed reactions from the critics. As of June this year it was announced that there will be a sequel.

Personal History: Never read the book. Went into this cold as all I saw before was a trailer.

Review: As with most people in recent pop culture history I have been getting really sick of zombies. I still like zombies as a friend but I certainly wouldn't want to be committed to them anymore. It's the typical Hollywood (and in some cases indie nerdy shit) fashion something catches on and it's beaten to death so hard that by the time they're done all that's left is a small bit of dust that blows away in the wind. Only to periodically get in someones eyes and annoy them, reminding them of what they use to think was cool and amazing. With zombies, much like other creatures of myth and legend, they started out really interesting but now have been boiled down to grunts and brains for the most part. They even have a stereotypical look that lost it's scare ages ago. Back in the Romero and Fulci days zombies either had this errie almost still human look or like they literally have been rotting so bad that it makes you want to vomit. They looked good and unsettling. Even in recent years with the Dawn of the Dead remake and 28 Days Later a zombie still had a good zombie look and feel. Now the zombies in movies like Resident Evil (Shut up they have like 5 fucking titles so it works as a reference!) and in today's review they are so exaggerated and by the books that they have no impact anymore. And that's not just based on looks. That's based on everything about them. But more on that in a minute.
Before I continue I just want to point out further I have not read the book. Honestly I don't plan to and I also didn't follow anything on this movie before it came out. I went in cold besides years of zombie experience through previous titles. In other words I don't give two shits about how the book was different.

Soooooooo... World War Z... where do I begin? Honestly there's so much to talk about. Okay let's start with this. No problems with the casting if you ask me. I felt Brad Pitt did a great job like he usually does and everyone else did a fine job for what they were hired for. I really have no issue with the acting that came out of this movie. The only thing with it I was distracted by is the syndrome of "familiar face, can't unsee the real life person and only see character." That's just expected with some of these.
I know! Let me talk about the rating. From a business standpoint I do understand why it was intentionally made with a PG-13. I don't like it but I get it. The movie made quite a chunk of change in the box office and it's definitely because it had that wider appeal. Usually when mega budget R rated movies hit the streets the return isn't as strong for easy to understand reasons. But if you can get that teenage crowd into a big movie then you're pretty much set from there. However the movie suffered big time from it. That's not to say a movie HAS TO have gore in order to be good. If anything I appreciate when a movie can make their case without intensely explicit content. It's classy. This is a case where by nature the subject matter is a violent, disgusting, gory creature. To not have gore is like playing God of War and the whole game takes place at his dinner table. Yeah Kratos may talk about how pissed off he is but we want to see it in all his epic glory. In World War Z since there was essentially no gore and... was that even supposed to be blood? Censorship has a weird thing with turning blood so dark it's almost black, but then that only makes it look like motor oil. So here we have these zombies that look like creatures from another planet spewing out motor oil. In other words it doesn't look or feel like a zombie. Yeah it groans like a zombie, but it's such a mainstream approach that you can almost hear them screaming "BRAAAAAAAINS!" even though there are barely any reference points of zombies actually saying that. But the censorship goes beyond that. There are a couple scenes of violence that were so awkwardly edited to a PG-13 that it feels like I'm watching the TV edit. One part in particular is when Brad Pitt chops off a woman's arm to stop the zombie bite from spreading, taking over her. You see him swing his arm down but there was no sense of impact. It was like... swing... and... oh, I guess her arm is gone now. So awkwardly edited that it was almost painful. Plenty of other examples that are very obvious throughout that made it very annoying to watch.
Censorship aside there was an approach that made it pretty hard for me to get into this one hundred percent. I couldn't stand the way the zombies were animated and moved around. I understand they're the new, fast zombies like what we saw in the Dawn of the Dead remake, 28 Days Later, and therefore every zombie movie since (just about). Seems like no one wants the slow zombies anymore. A shame. Anyway these are zombies who are not only fast but on super crack fast. They run like Sonic the Hedgehog through the streets which makes me wonder how anyone can possibly survive in the first place. Anyway, the problem I have is that they move so damn fast and in such huge numbers it is comical. They just fly through the air and sometimes there's a whole mess of them moving as one large clump. It's so crazy looking that it becomes impossible to take it seriously. I think the approach was that there are so many that it would be even scarier, but it became less scary in the process. You ever hear someone say the same word so often in a short time span that it loses all meaning until you stop thinking about it? Well that's what this movie is like with the zombies. At the start when they first show up it is exciting. Then comes the part later on when the zombies are literally making a mountain of moving zombie bodies to get over a giant wall. You've seen it in the trailer and it is so insane it is laughable. It really isn't until very late in the movie when there are very few zombies in a single area in an isolated building when it actually becomes tense again. But whenever there were a million all in the same spot it looked more like a bunch of ants all running around like in those nature documentaries on National Geographic.

But here's the thing... I really enjoyed this movie. I thought it was crazy entertaining, it was exciting and action packed, and it did have some good ideas in it despite the crap I was just giving it a moment ago. I'll use this example, I was sitting in the theatre and early on my phone slipped out of my pocket. It felt like the movie had just started and that we were just beginning. When I picked up my phone I turned the screen on to make sure there wasn't any damage. My clock said a half an hour had already passed. I was so into it and entertained that the time just flew by. And come to think of it I can't think of a moment when I was really bored. Even though it had the dull formula of go here... shit goes down... escape... go here... shit goes down... escape, rinse and repeat, I still liked what I saw. And a part of me thinks the reason is because the zombies were so dull they were replaceable. So replaceable that by a certain point I decided to imagine the pandemic to be something else, like a life threatening disease that has turned all the wildlife into crazy creatures. Yeah it doesn't make sense when it comes to the climax of the movie but it helped my enjoyment overall.
Matter of fact lets talk about the end of the movie. Spoiler alert, duh. In the end they didn't find a way to defeat the zombies nor did they cure them. What they did find was a clever way to fight back. Brad Pitt, being the smart guy that he is noticed the zombies don't go near anyone who is severely ill. They run right past a man with dementia and a young boy who has cancer (at least that's what it looked like). So Brad Pitt, being the brave guy that he is, comes up with the idea to inject the general population with a curable yet severe disease to use as a camouflage. He gets caught in a tight position at the end not sure if it'll work or not so he blindly injects himself with a disease he doesn't even know is curable and the zombie walks right past him like he's another zombie. I thought this was a clever idea that's a nice twist on the usual outcome which tends to be run, bitch, run. So the ending did have hope but I feel it's the type of ending where it could collapse in on itself. Seemed hopeful but I saw the cracks that could cause it to go back to the way it was before they discovered this idea.

Listen, I did really enjoy this movie. However I enjoyed it as an action movie, not a zombie movie. It does not work as a zombie movie. This felt more like (and this is just the first thing that came to my head) something like The Day After Tomorrow but with more guns. A worldwide, life threatening problem is happening and there's seemingly nothing that can be done about it. This movie was big, epic, action packed, exciting, but it was not scary. Little to no horror elements were even present. And in case you didn't know zombies are a fucking horror story. It had some jumps scares but I jumped more during movies with unintentional jumps outside of the crap they tried to pull here. In the end I would say this is up for a good watch. If you've got a Friday night free and want to watch something you can munch popcorn to then there are far worse options out there. I am interested in seeing the unrated cut to see how different it is and if they bring the right amount of gore. That still won't fix the overall feel of the movie I think since the zombies were done so comically. It just wouldn't hurt to include that gore.

Review: Snakes on a Plane

Quick Note: Sorry I haven't posted something new in a while. I'm currently very immersed in another writing project so that's been taking up a lot of my free time. Here's a post I wrote and meant to post a while back on a modern cult classic!

My Edition: Single disc widescreen day one release copy.

History: This one has quite a bit of history. Essentially it was one of the first movies to be born from the internet, if not THE first. Snakes on a Plane started out as the movie's working title and was at one point going to be titled Pacific Air Flight 121. It was also originally going to be directed by Ronny Yu (who previously directed Freddy vs. Jason and a ton of movies back in China) but left due to creative differences and was replaced by David Ellis (may he rest in peace). The movie's B-ticket style gained tons of popularity online and even somewhat determined how the movie turned out in the end. It was originally being aimed at a wider audience with a PG-13 rating, but after the internet spoke up there were re-shoots done to make it an R with some intense snake violence. It also spawned the famous line, "I've had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!" spoken by Samuel L. Jackson and is now one of his most quoted lines. Speaking of Sam Jackson, there was a point where his agent insisted the title be changed because Sam "couldn't" work on a movie with it's original title. When Sam found out about this he opposed it saying the only reason he accepted the role was because of the title. The movie released at #1 on it's opening weekend and eventually grossed a little over $60 Million. It remains a cult classic and if you watch the bonus feature that talks about the fans on the DVD you'll see tons of examples of fan art and projects based around the movie. One of those items includes a destruction derby car with 'Snakes on a Car' painted across the hood with a snake drawing, something that my freshman college roommate designed.

Personal History: I saw this opening weekend, actually at a Thursday night early screening with a few friends of mine. The place was packed with people all my age and mindset ready to see Sam Jackson kick snake ass! Got the DVD immediately when it hit stores and have watched it countless times since.

Review: Snakes on a Plane is truly a unique title. It's a movie that was born out of the bizarre sense of the humor that is thrown around on the internet through memes and other jokes. I do think this movie could have existed in a previous decade only it wouldn't be the same approach. I'm imagining a way too serious horror film with the same theme and not nearly as fun of a title. So for it being what it is, is what makes it so great. Cause the whole thing is one big joke and that's what I think a lot of people were missing when this first came out. Let me stop myself right there before I go much further. I'm starting to sound like one of my pet peeves. It's okay for people to simply not like this movie despite if they get the joke or not. Maybe it's not their sense of humor. However I think that the perspective on it is absurd because it's seen as so stupid, when a lot of people I believe don't get that the point is for it to be stupid like that. Snakes on a Plane is not a horror movie. It's a comedy that tells the jokes straight faced, and that's what I like about it.
Quick sidenote on comedy. My favorite kind of comedy is when it's just like this. Let the jokes do the work. I like not just dead-pan humor, but straight faced acting that goes with it. I do not like the Adam Sandler-type of comedy where it has the actors telling jokes but trying to be funny in the process. This is why I liked, let's say, Airplane for example. Leslie Nielson is absolutely brilliant because he's not jumping around trying to act silly. The comedy is in his portrayal. He takes a comedic scripts but plays it like a drama and it's way funnier than it would ever be if it were the "trying to act funny" kind of comedy. Now I realize comparing Snakes on a Plane to Airplane is both unfair and appropriate at the same time. Unfair because it's a comparison to the Zucker Brothers who have stood the test of time with their comedies, but appropriate because it's on a plane. But all I'm trying to say is that this movie is clearly a comedy. Whether or not you get the joke it's a comedy. I just think that since it plays the comedy straight then people get confused about what it really is.
I am playing it off like this movie has a lot of hate. I don't think that's the case. It hasn't lived through the ages cause I think anyone looks at it like they look at a Furby. A fad that was huge for a little while but now is an old forgotten joke. But in the movie's defense it had a niche audience from the start. This was never meant for the mainstreams. It knew who would love it and it focused on that to make it perfect for those people. I think that's what I liked about it so much. Instead of trying to appeal to everyone it just did what it could to appeal to the people who wanted it. It's very Kevin Smith-like. And all in all the movie is honest. It doesn't try to sell you on anything less. It says right there in the title, Snakes on a Plane. The fact that it presented itself in such a way shows it knows that it is. If it was call something like Flight 42, or something like that it would give the impression that it is trying to be something different. It would be false advertising. I love the fact that it is titled Snakes on a Plane. Like many others that title sold me on the movie alone.

Okay let's talk about the actual movie instead of my crush I have for it. As you can imagine, this is a movie about snakes who show up on a plane. But the thing is that there needs to be some level, even the slightest, of logic that may make sense to get the snakes on the plane. Really anyone who is legitimately interested in this movie for what it is doesn't care about the plot but I guess it's somewhat necessary. So in short there are snakes on the plane because an unsuspecting citizen of Hawaii stumbles upon a murder by some mob dude. After barely escaping Samuel L. Jackson (playing himself) shows up at his place telling the witness that they need to fly to LA so he can testify against this mob dude. So they jump on the plane and take off and that's when shit hits the fan, cause Mr Mob Man snuck on a whole mess of snakes to take down the witness and everyone else on board. The scenes with this guy and the brief scenes of investigation surrounding it are easily the least interesting parts. For one, it's shoehorned, and therefore cliche. Secondly, who cares cause I came to see snakes. Lastly, it takes time away from Sam Jackson on screen, the only thing more people are interested in seeing above the snakes. I guess having the character in the story was necessary or else it's just a plane full of snakes for no reason. Maybe the (mob dude) could have been so much wackier or over the top like everything else here. Then maybe it would have been better when he was on screen. Thankfully these scenes are very brief.
Now all the characters on the plane itself are pretty wild as well. There's the germaphobic rapper who is constantly applying hand sanitizer. Then there are his two goofy "bodyguards" (I guess), one of which is played by Kenan Thompson! There's a new mother, a martial artist, a pompous business man, the male stewardess who everyone thinks is gay, a Paris Hilton-esque character, and the list goes on. These very un-P.C. stereotypes are a part of what gives the movie as a whole it's B-Ticket fun! Also a lot of them are pretty much bitches or dicks so you find yourself rooting for the snakes because you want to see these people dead, most of them.

Unlike the way the birds start attacking out of nowhere in Birdemic the typical horror fashion kicks in with a slow progression of kills by the snakes before it becomes flat out insanity. When I went to the first screening of this there was a lot of laughs and cheering at different parts but I think these first kills got some of the biggest screams. The first couple kills we see happen in the bathroom on board. One is when a guy is taking a leak. The snake comes up from the toilet and snatches on the guy's dick. We see him thrashing about while swinging the snake around everywhere and it is absolutely hilarious! The other is when a young, attractive couple go into the other bathroom to join the mile high club. While they're making out and getting naked they get attacked. And yes, the girl gets her tit bit. These caused a hilarious reaction in the theatre and whenever I watch it at home with a group. It's a great way to make fun of the typical horror movie tropes of having a kill either during or around a sex scene.
What happens next is complete insanity. Suddenly snakes are everywhere. All the different kills that come up seem to try and top the last one. A man gets trampled and then a woman's heel digs into his ear, people are getting bitten and swelling up having a puss-filled death. It's just complete insanity from here on out until the plane lands. But outside of the insanity there is something you'll discover. Somehow in the mix of all these crazy characters who are essentially glorified stereotypes, you'll find you have empathy for some of them. One good example revolves around two young boys who are going to meet their mom in L.A. They are flying alone. The younger of the two brothers is bitten by one of the snakes causing his arm to swell up really bad. While waiting and anticipating what will happen next, and then when the new mom comes to the rescue but sucking the poison out of his arm you feel this great sense of release and care for the kid. The great thing is that despite the silliness of the story and character execution you may be dang near brought to tears because of some of their actions (Maybe a slight exaggeration). The other prime example I have is when the very likable older lady stewardess runs into a crowd of snakes to save a helpless baby. The poor woman is of course bitten but the baby is safe. It's a bummer because she was a really fun character so seeing her die, and in such a heroic and heartfelt way, it tugs at the heart strings.

I think I may be thinking too hard because I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what all to talk about. I mean, the thing is that there's not a lot of depth but in the crazy B-Ticket department it's just so wonderful. So there's not much of the story or character to discuss. It's just that this is one of those titles that really needs to be seen to believe. If I keep talking it'll just be me describing all the other crazy shit that happens throughout and part of the fun is not seeing it coming. Much like I sated earlier all the kills just get weirder and weirder. Even the way they fight back can get great, too! One of my favorite parts of the movie is when the male stewardess is fighting one of the smaller snakes, and kills it off by picking up, throwing it in the microwave and blasting it on while screaming, "Who's your daddy now, bitch!" followed by a snake literally exploding. And a lot of the other stuff I don't even want to try and describe here because I won't do it justice. Just know that what else happens in this movie is both insane and hilarious. The dickhole characters get what's coming to them, too. Another one of my favorite scenes is towards the end when the jerk of a businessman gets eaten whole by the (big snake).
Now over the course of the third act the story does need to come into play again to help resolve the issue. Since a lot of people were bitten and nobody on board knows anything about snake venom they're stressing out big time on who will live and who will die when they land. So they call up one crazy character of a snake expert who is also kind of a dick but a dick that's easier to work with. Basically everything that happens on ground from here on out is like a watered down crime show with another cliche of a cop character tracking down the bad guy so they can get all the right antidotes to the exotic snakes. It makes you want to get back on the plane which does happen pretty quickly.
So essentially through the rest of the movie they find an insane way to get all the snakes off the plane, then find out that Kenan Thompson has over 1000 hours of flight experience putting him in the captain's chair, we then find out it's for a video game and that he was never able to land, etc etc etc, tension ensues, celebration. It's just hard to talk about this cause it's such a crowd movie. Part of the fun is watching it with a crowd and I don't think I've ever watched this movie alone come to think of it. I've seen it multiple times but every single time has been with people. And it's always been a blast because it is straight up good fun. So watching on your own would probably be fine if you're into intentionally chessy and over the top flicks, but I still think you would have a better time with it if you watched it with a willing group of good friends.

And the movie's credit sequence song is really badass.

Review: A Haunted House

Version I Watched: Redbox DVD rental

History: Was released on January 11th 2013 which was originally the release date of Scary Movie V. The movie had a budget of $2.5 Million and it wound up making nearly $60 Million worldwide. It was received mostly with negative reviews but a sequel is already in the works.

Personal History: I'm just as surprised as you are.

Review: It's true I am a fan of bad/good movies. I recently exclaimed on my FB page how I'm planning on pre-ordering Sharknado to add to my collection of other bad/good movies like the Puppetmaster movies and Mega Piranha. But some movies are just so bad they move beyond becoming good and become bad again... or were just bad in the first place. In this case I want to touch on spoof comedies. I talked about in my Mafia review that in the recent years there's been a lack of quality in spoof comedies. We used to have Naked Gun, not much anymore. In recent years we've had multiple Scary Movie titles and then the craptastic Friedberg/Seltzer comedies like Date Movie, Epic Movie, and Disaster Movie. The only truly great spoof comedy there's been in the last decade or more has honestly been Black Dynamite (Don't worry, I've got something planned for that one). So whenever a new one comes out that isn't a sequel (i.e. Scary Movie V) it's understandable to be very skeptical. But in terms of A Haunted House... could have been worse.

I don't know what drew me to this one. I had no interest in it when it came out in theatres and passed it off as just another one of "those" comedies. Did I want to see it just to see how bad it was? Or did I have a legitimate interest in it? Any way you look at it I decided to pick it up. And the following may surprise you. I actually laughed a lot during the movie.
Something that usually takes me out of these more recent spoof comedies is that they look crazy cheap. For an example here's the trailer to Scary Movie V. One of Scary Movie's biggest downfalls over most of their movies is that they try to cram as many references together as they can regardless of relevance. Because of that everything looks out of place and that it doesn't belong. Now take a look at the trailer for A Haunted House. Now, while it doesn't mimic Paranormal Activity, The Last Exorcism, or The Devil Inside it gives off a better vibe of satire right from the get go. And what I liked about A Haunted House so much is that it knew it's theme and it stuck with it. This has benefited from the fact that it's from Marlon Wayans who was one of the writers on the first Scary Movie which was pretty decent (I'm sure if I watched it now it wouldn't be as wonderful as I remember). And overall Marlon Wayans, along with the rest of the Wayans brothers, are pretty funny guys. So they know what they're doing. They have experience with pretty fun comedy. Not smart comedy, more so unintelligent dirty comedy that's just fun to laugh at for an easy watch.
But that's what A Haunted House was. A low down dirty good time. Most of the humor was sexual and Marlon Wayans exploiting stereotypical black humor/reactions. There's even one part where Malcolm (Marlon Wayans) refuses to go into a room because he said if they were watching their story in a movie theatre then some black folks would be screaming not to go in the room. And I hope this doesn't come off weird (especially since I'm as white as a college ruled notebook) but I enjoy humor like this from time to time. I enjoyed the Nutty Professor movies back in the day, and whenever I see a fast talking black character in modern comedies I find them hilarious, and yes in the way they intend it to be funny (hashtag not racist). So honestly there were plenty of moments when this movie made me laugh out loud. But I guess that's mostly what can be said about this. It's a fun example of losing yourself in some silly humor. I'm just glad that they chose a style and theme and actually stuck with it.
Don't start to think this means the spoof comedy is starting to come around again. Hardly. I wish it would come back the way it used to be. And while I laughed a lot at this there were a ton of times when they were trying way too hard with some of their jokes, or they went on way too long. Mostly with the sexual humor. Early in the movie Malcolm is excited for sex and he's showing his camera what he's gonna do when his girl returns. He uses a stuffed animal and if it went on for maybe ten to fifteen second that would be one thing. It had to have lasted at lease a minute or longer. It kept going and it felt like it would never end. Also there was an ongoing joke where Nick Swardson's character kept not so subtly trying to have gay sex with Malcolm. I did however enjoy seeing Cedric the Entertainer. He's always made me laugh when I see him. Also one part that I was surprised I enjoyed was a joke that started as way too over the top. Later in the movie there's a moment when Malcolm is raped by the demon that haunts their house. It was of course all caught on camera and since the demon is invisible, then all you see is his ass in the air while screaming. A bit over the top. But when his girl watched it and she's laughing so hard at the video while Malcolm has his hand over his face out of embarrassment it made me crack up.
But probably my favorite joke in the entire movie was when Malcolm's girl said, "I may have failed to mention I sold my soul to the devil when I was younger."

I guess there's not much else to say about it. Kinda hard to talk about this movie without talking about the jokes specifically. But my overall, even shorter review is this. It's silly, it's stupid, but it made me laugh. It's not a higher grade of spoof comedy (especially now that I re-watched Black Dynamite the other day) but I feel it's an improvement that did more right than wrong. Just don't expect too much out of it. I don't want to oversell it cause I don't know if it'll be as funny as I remember it if/when I see it again.

Review: Sadako 3D

Version I Own: Non-3D region 3 DVD from Hong Kong

History: I found very little on this one. Basically it's based on the novel S by Koji Suzuki who wrote the original Ring books this entire franchise has been based on. It was released in Japan on May 12th 2012 with little to no release elsewhere. During it's run there was one particular screening that was in 4D where at key moments the theatre would fill with smoke and the audience's legs would be grabbed from under the seat.

Personal History: I've had my eyes on this one since I first found out about it around the time I started this blog because I wrote about it. This is my first viewing of the newest entry in one of my favorite franchises.

Review: When you're a long time fan of any franchise whether it's a book, movie, or a video game you're bound to be disappointed at some point if the creators (or new creators) keep cranking out new installments. So you should naturally anticipate sequels or alternate takes on the story will not be that great. Not even great. Sometimes you just need to anticipate a horrible mess so you don't wind up disappointed every time. This is why when I saw Paranormal Activity 4 I got what I expected, a lesser experience that added little to nothing to the overall series. But I was curious none the less. I think you can see where I'm going. Basically Sadako 3D is another one of those examples. As big of a fan of this franchise I've gone through many interpretations and expansions on the story. Some are great, some are terrible, and some I have very mixed feelings on. So my expectations for Sadako 3D were very low, especially after seeing the trailer. I knew it would be bad. I knew it wouldn't provide enough new to the story to be considered a worthy addition. What I didn't know was some of the directions it would attempt to go in to try and scare the audiences. Some of them were somewhat expected, but others were out of left field and a poor attempt. Anyway, getting to it.

The first thing I noticed about this movie within the first few minutes was how it took a totally different direction in style from the previous stories. It had a very fast paced, quick cut style to it and even some shaky cam. The opening credits were blurred in and out in a rough font like someone scribbled them on the screen. The score was a bass heavy booming "scaaaAAAAaaary" music that was trying too hard. And so forth and so forth. In short it looked and felt right off the bat like an American remake of a classic horror movie. It reminded me of the remakes of A Nightmare On Elm Street and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003, not 2013, the one from 2013 was surprisingly amazing!). But more importantly these opening moments felt like what the American remake of Ring could have been. Thank the Lord it wasn't, as the actual remake from around a decade ago did manage to capture a good portion of what made the original great. No, this had that feeling of a super Americanized remake but coming from the country of the story's origin. It felt like the original story was taken as the base but made changes to make it suit a more mainstream audience or something.
Now in a sense there were some changes that needed to be made to have it properly appeal to a modern audience. It can still have the same kinds of scares as the older movies (which it doesn't) but one part that is severely outdated now is the tech that initiates the plot. In the first adaptations of Ring as it was in the books the curse was spread via a cursed video. This video was on a mysterious VHS tape. I'd like to think that audiences could get behind the creep factor that a tape would give off what with the fuzzy and distorted images from multiple viewings (or copies spoiler alert for a story that's over ten years old). In a way it makes more sense to have the cursed video on tape if anything because of reasons I just stated. Also, think about this. How scary is a scratched up DVD? It skips. It doesn't distort or warp like a tape does. It freezes up and you may need to skip to the next chapter. Way less scary from a pure aesthetic perspective. But in the case of Sadako 3D it's an online clip. That's even less scary! And I can sum it up in one short sentence. 404 File Not Found.
The supposedly scary parts of the movie were so poorly done and 404 is the poorest attempt of them all. Seriously, watch the trailer and in there they treat the 404 error like it is something so terrifying and if you even look on the poster it is there, too. It's like the movie is being sold on an element that is more annoying than scary. The 404 error is in reference to the cursed (now video clip online instead of a mysterious tape) footage that will kill anyone who watches it and how the page won't load the video. The cursed video this time around is also completely different. And not just different in terms of how it interpreted the mysterious imagery. All this was, was footage of a man supposedly killing himself on camera via a live feed and it's the recorded footage that's circling the internet. Obviously there's more to it than that and he didn't kill himself. He was killed by a mysterious being but there's no sign of the body and so forth and so forth you know the deal. Eventually we do get to see the video where he is flying through the air as if being held up by someone being choked to death. Well who do you think was holding him up? Of course, Sadako. And now I move onto some of the parts that bug me the most.

Sadako is a terrifying character. She was born with special abilities that could kill someone with little to no effort. She was murdered when she was still a young woman but still haunts the world in the modern day. She hates the human race so much she wants it wiped out completely and plans to take everyone one by one. Also her appearance is scary. She is a tall woman with a white dress that is wet, dirty, and moldy showing how long she's been down the well. Her long black hair covers her face making her even more mysterious. She has a distinct look and it's creepy. Leave it to Sadako 3D to make this scary character look terrible.
Sadako in Sadako 3D doesn't look like Sadako. Yes she has the white dress, but it looks cheap. Yes she has the long black hair, but it's greatly exaggerated and literally touches the floor. Also she uses as a weapon in multiple scenes. Basically overall it's a Sadako that looks like a Halloween costume or a parody from a movie like Scary Movie. She does not look or feel like Sadako. She looks and feels like a totally different character. But they sure tried hard. Remember a couple sentences ago when I talked about how long her has is? And how it's used as a weapon? Well the theme of this movie IS hair. Her long black hair is everywhere and is used for multiple purposes, specifically to try and make things look scarier. But can you blame them for trying? I guess committing to it is better than throwing it away. But the hair is used like Zombies in modern American horror. The more the merrier I guess. Seems like if you need something scary you can just throw in some zombies and it's an instant horror tale and I guess the same must apply here with her hair. Long black hair is a common theme for Japanese horror but this is just overkill. But that's only one of many things that felt off.
So many things just didn't feel like a Ring film. It's weird cause I've seen almost every version of these stories. Some amazing and some horrendous. But there was one thing they had in common. They all somewhat felt like a Ring tale. I even dug the poorly done 13 episode mini-series based on the second Ring book, Spiral. That adaptation went off the rails by going very fast and loose with the story, but it was still somewhat interesting with some unique ideas. But so many things in Sadako 3D didn't feel like Ring. I'll try and summarize or else I could go on all day.
First, this is supposed to be a sequel, right? Then why is there no recognition of at least the rumors about a cursed video tape from the 90s? Usually urban legends like that would go around. I would almost expect some of the adults in the movie may have heard about it when they were in middle/high school. That really bugged me. Next, why does Sadako now kill instantly? Nowhere else in the stories has Sadako ever killed so instantly. The older stories gave a sense of coming terror with a chance of false hope that may or may not work. It was a brilliant method of pacing and atmosphere. Whereas here you have Sadako literally reaching her hand out of the monitor the very moment you watch the video (sometimes not even when you do watch the video). Next, TV portals. For some reason Sadako now NEEDS a TV to be able to attack. Or a monitor of some kind like a cell phone. Keep that in mind knowing that the whole TV trick was thought up by the filmmakers of the first theatrical Ring movie from 1998. A monitor isn't something she needs to attack. It's something that is an ability, but not her entire means of attack. Lastly, fucking spider Sadakos. Everything was going terrible up to this point and this somehow made it worse. In the third act of the movie a couple of the leads go to the well that Sadako was thrown into to investigate. It was no surprise to see that Sadako crawled out. But it wasn't just her, it was her but with insanely long spider-like legs and attacked like she was a mindless demon from hell. She was quickly defeated only to be followed up by a good dozen more of the SAME THING! This took a lot of credibility from the character in this adaptation cause it made her look weak. And she was very easily defeated in the end, surprisingly.
All in all when it comes down to it this didn't feel like a Ring movie and could have easily been about anything else. This could have been The Unborn, this could have been Darkness Falls, this could have been The Messengers. Basically any of the generic cookie cut horror movies from the last 10 years about demons or angry spirits felt just as creative and scary as this one. It's hard to recognize this as a Ring title. Maybe the concept of Sadako online just works better on paper. Or at the very least in the hands of a more competent set of actors and filmmakers. But what's probably one of the most unsettling is that fact that it's based on a novel by Koji Suzuki, the writer of the fucking original stories!
I was in denial thinking about that. I wonder if this is a case where the adaptation is very poorly done and the novel is a lot better. It just blows my mind that the original writer could turn something so great that he created into something completely unrecognizable from his previous works. I would really like to read the novel but it is yet to be translated. So until that day comes (if it ever does) I guess I'll just be left to wonder or learn to read Japanese. But at least it can't be as bad as The Ring: Terror's Realm, the video game adaption for Sega Dreamcast. I hear that is abysmally horrendously terrible.

Before I close out I found something when doing some of my history research. There's unsurprisingly going to be a sequel. I'll provide the link for the article I read here. It does have some cool ideas with the 4D experience, but I can't imaging this would be much if any better than the first one.