Why Watch Just One Bad Film When You Can Watch Five?

For reasons I’m not quite sure of, Abbie and I decided to use our time together last weekend to watch the most awful films we could find on Netflix and Lovefilm. I suppose it was because unintended humour can be even better than deliberate comedy. Or perhaps it was because we were bored. Either way, that’s what we did and now I’m going to share this experience with you guys. Which was the worst? Well they were all pretty awful but one in particular might surprise you.

Right then. I think the best way to do this is to give you the film synopsis and then add my thoughts, as these films don’t deserve a full review and I was laughing too much to think about them anyway.

So, let’s begin with…

Pizza

Wikipedia Synopsis: Cara-Ethyl is an eccentric and sheltered girl on the eve of her eighteenth birthday who desperately dreams of an exciting life. But she’s left with her blind, clueless (but well-meaning) mother, a pest of a brother (seriously, he’s like ten but throws some harsh insults) and made-up friends (Cara pretends she has a friend for her mother).

All that is changed when the pizza man, Matt Firenze comes to the door. Soon, Cara persuades Matt to allow her to go with him on his deliveries. As the night progresses, Cara-Ethyl and Matt impart their wisdom and learn from each other, and both are forced to evaluate their lives.

Hmm. Certainly the best film of the weekend, but I don’t think that says much. The story was just bizarre. I’m still not entirely sure what I watched. The girl does strange voices but everyone thinks that is okay, and she puts her head in front of a van, but everyone thinks that is also okay. As for the guy, he’s nearly 30 but did sexual acts with a 17 year old (if that) yet everyone thinks that is okay too. Then you’ve got the blind mother, the weird dances and then the spinning pizza cutscenes…

Honestly, this film is hilarious and weird in equal measure. If you are going to watch any film on this list, watch this one. You won’t regret it. Okay you will, but do it anyway. It’s the only way you’ll understand. 5/10

Slugs

Wikipedia Synopsis: A rural town becomes prey to a strain of black slugs spawned from toxic waste dumping. It is up to the local health inspector to stop them. People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely. Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities. Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert begins snooping around does it begin to appear as though Mike might be right.

I watched this simply because I’ve read the Shaun Hutson book of the same name. The film is supposedly inspired from the book, but they’ve made a real hash of it. They copied the premise and the scenes, but did it all wrong. A health inspector for the county says they need to shut down the water, but he’s ignored completely. And the other characters change their mind so often I’m not entirely sure they believed it was slugs at the end, even when they were being attacked by them. The acting was poor, with the scientist (who looks very happy despite the circumstances) and the drunk wife (whose dialogue was clearly written by a misogynistic man) particularly bad.

The gore was pretty good though. I cringed a lot, which isn’t bad going when the effects were so, well, old. But the book had more suspense, and at the end…I just didn’t care. 4/10

Rubber

Rotten Tomatoes Synopsis: RUBBER is the story of Robert, an inanimate tire that has been abandoned in the desert, and suddenly and inexplicably comes to life. As Robert roams the bleak landscape, he discovers that he possesses terrifying telepathic powers that give him the ability to destroy anything he wishes without having to move. At first content to prey on small desert creatures and various discarded objects, his attention soon turns to humans, especially a beautiful and mysterious woman who crosses his path. Leaving a swath of destruction across the desert landscape, Robert becomes a chaotic force to be reckoned with, and truly a movie villain for the ages.

Yes…Rubber. The problem with Rubber was that it was meant to be funny, and therefore wasn’t funny. Yes, I was amused by the intro and a few other moments, but ultimately it tried too hard. If it was serious, I would have enjoyed it more. Knowing it was deliberately being obtuse ruined the fun. Very clever and very imaginative, but ultimately had one joke and it dragged it out for far too long. So so so long. Maybe as an episode it would have worked better.

Sorry Robert. Nice idea though. 4/10

A Sinful Dwarf

Wikipedia Synopsis: Olaf brings women to the home he shares with his drunken mother. Once the unlucky ladies arrive, they are drugged, imprisoned, tied up and then turned into junkie-prostitutes.

Oh this was awkward. So very awkward. With dialogue that made the drinking woman from Slugs look independent (“Have you been drinking?” “Yes”…”Oh, I’m sorry for flying off the handle at you for spending what money we have on alcohol while I sit in this creepy room all day…it’s not your fault”), and acting that was so wooden and fake I could have done a better job, it’s no wonder most of the time we were treated to nudity. Not good nudity though. Really uncomfortable nudity, in fake sex scenes that were, without sounding perverse, awful even for horror films (personally I’d rather there wasn’t any, but if I looked away every time I’d only see half the film). There are videos online with more dignity and production value.

This all could be excused (possibly) if the rest of the film was any good, but it wasn’t. The premise was good but it was so unconvincing (“oh I’m being attacked…I’ll pretend to flail my arms around!”). And that wasn’t even the worst bit; the mother had two very long singing scenes for no reason whatsoever that were so bad I wanted to go back to the stupid (“door open, but let’s not escape!”) naked women in the attic. It was all so awful, I just don’t know what else to say about it.

Oh! The dwarf did his best. He was a creepy fella, with a very convincing evil laugh. He deserves a point, so I’ll double the score to 2/10.

A film with Keira Knightly and Steve Carell…something about friends and the end of the world

Not even going to bother giving Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World a synopsis because it doesn’t deserve it. A film with Keira Knightly and Steve Carell should not be this bad, but somehow it is. Only A Sinful Dwarf stopped it from being a complete humiliation. In some ways SAFFTEOTW is worse, as it was such a disappointment. Both of us wanted to see it, but it was poor.

I don’t even have the heart to have a proper go at it, but I’ll try…

The plot: It meandered. It barely followed a logical sequence, and went from funny to surreal to depressing on a regular basis (but not in a good way). The supposed emotional moments were ineffective for various reasons (it’s been a while since I saw it, and I don’t really want to bring it up again), and went into cliche by putting the two characters together. Urgh.

Dialogue, too, was awful. There was a scene where they talked about something so inane I felt like punching myself, and then the ending was, well, underwhelming to say the least. Add in a plane that apparently could make it across to England when it clearly couldn’t, and Knightly finding her way home without transport before the asteroid hit, and I just started to get annoyed. I’ve never wanted to shut a film off after thirty minutes, but that’s how I felt with this. To be honest, I’d rather watch A Sinful Dwarf over this.

And it has a stupid bloody name. 3/10. And that’s being generous.

———————————————————————————————————————–

So, what have I learned from this experience? Uh…don’t watch film that have less than 3* on Netflix. They aren’t worth it. And just because it has famous actors in it doesn’t mean a film is better than one which involves a tyre that murders people.

Alex

 

The Crazies, Skyline and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest

While Vanna has been out taking pictures of mushrooms, I’ve been watching movies. Saturday I watched The Crazies, Sunday it was the turn of Skyline, and last night I watched the final part of the Millennium Trilogy, otherwise known as the (Swedish) The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest. Here are my thoughts on all three films. I’ll do my best to keep it short, but uh, no promises.

The Crazies

I’ve never quite worked out how I feel about The Crazies. I’ve watched it twice prior to Saturday night, (the first time at the cinema, then again with Vanna last year) and both times I couldn’t help but think that it hasn’t quite lived up to potential. And though I enjoyed it a lot more this weekend (third time is the charm?), I still feel the same.

Now, it isn’t a bad film. It has all the right ingredients, with a good cast, a good plot, a great ending and lots of suspense and gore, which is perfect for me. BUT something just doesn’t click. I don’t know what it is, but it lacks a special spice (I seem to be using a food metaphor, so I may as well go all the way with it) that takes it from a decent film (Ahem. Or not) with potential, to a film that is truly amazing.

I tried this time to figure out where The Crazies went wrong. Ultimately, I was unable to come up with anything substantial, but there were a few points I did half pick up on:

1. Skipping scenes. Especially near the beginning, there were several things you had to take for granted. I know it can’t show everything, but I don’t like having to make assumptions that might be wrong. I can’t remember them now (sorry) otherwise this would probably make more sense. I’m not being fussy…honest.
2. The military came in too soon. Perhaps it would have worked better building up to that moment as it comes by rather fast. I won’t say anything more than that.
3. Using clichés to build suspense. This was probably the thing that annoyed me most. Several times they opted for the clichéd horror moment, and every time you just knew what was going to happen before it happened (I know I’ve seen this film already, but even so I knew it). Like there will be a crazy guy about to strike the woman, but just when he is about to bring down his weapon, he’s shot in the back by the hero. Yes it is good suspense, but we’ve seen it so many times you lose the effect. Especially when you do it three or four times in the same film.

And that’s all I had, and I had to put my cynical hat on to notice them. Really, they are minor points that don’t affect the film that much.

How about a solution?

Well, The Crazies is only an hour and half long, which feels rather short nowadays (at least it does to me). Maybe they could have added in an extra thirty minutes, and used it to fill in some of the gaps. They could have prolonged the intro so that the severity of the situation hits you deeper, and, well, generally just gave more of a build up to the events.

There were also some really good, poignant moments in The Crazies, that I felt were underused for those stupid cliched suspender shots I referred to earlier. I won’t spoil it for you, but the scene in the house prior to the obvious finale was good (knife, hand…that’s all), the section at the truck stop (with the rig) and the bit with the deputy (with the empty gun) were really good events that made the ‘yeah he’s going to shoot him a second before…yup there we go’ just look cheap. Had they been more original with the horror aspects of the film, it would have had more edge. You wouldn’t have known what was happening, and it was far more enjoyable as a result. The long scene near the end was my favourite part for that exact reason.

…But maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe a slower pace would have ruined it. I really don’t know. It was a good film, and was probably the one I enjoyed most this weekend. It was gory, a frighteningly believable plot, good acting, and a gripping finale. For all that, I’m going to give The Crazies an 8/10. I still reckon it is missing something special (it goes in a category with films like A Place Beyond The Pines; super potential, but doesn’t quite hit the top), but it has grown on me. Probably one of the best horror films I’ve seen for a long time, anyway.

Skyline

Oh dear. Where to begin? You know what, I’m not even going to bother going into detail. Skyline was bloody awful. I watched it for free, and still felt like I’d been ripped off. The only consolation was that I knew it was going to be poor, so I wasn’t really that disappointed when I saw its poorness first hand.

What was wrong with it? Um, where to begin?

1. Not enough scope. It was a B movie with a budget. And that’s not a good thing.
2. Poor casting. I like Donald Faison (Turk from Scrubs) but he wasn’t right for this. But the rest didn’t cover themselves in glory either, so at least he offered some ‘star quality’.
3. The characters. To be fair to the actors, the characters they had to play were awful. They were rich guys…why? It made no difference to the plot, so why make the people we are supposed to care about smarmy rich people with fancy cars and a wonderful penthouse apartment? What was the thinking process behind that? Do you know what the two biggest suspense moments were in the film? The electronic blinds covering the huge panoramic windows wouldn’t shut quick enough, and the electronic gate in the car park was really slow to open. Oh dear! What a load of [REDACTED] (nonsense, kids, what a load of…nonsense).
4. Some of the worst dialogue/writing I’ve seen in a movie. They weren’t even good at cheesy one liners. It was wooden sentences performed by wooden actors. The conversations were just banal. The guys who did Twilight know how to dialogue better than the Skyline geniuses. Stallone and Arnie are more convincing when they’re mowing down a thousand bad guys. The foreign fella (in Skyline, not Arnie) was probably the best actor, and I don’t even think he was given a name.
5. Stupid plot devices. Logically it made sense for the gang to stay where they were. But instead of using clever methods to force them out (aliens attacking the building), they just made the characters stupid. ‘Uh, let’s leave this protected place and go out into the open!’ Um, no. Obviously it wouldn’t be much fun to see them camp up for an hour, but you need to think of something better than that.

I could go on, but I really can’t be bothered. In fact I’m annoyed, because Skyline has made my review of The Crazies look incredibly harsh. I’ve just criticized a film for being an 8/10, a score that Skyline couldn’t even dream about. At least The Crazies tried, and got close, to living up to its potential.

You see, that’s the worst thing about Skyline. It actually had a good premise. There was a good concept and they ruined it. The effects were really good, the weird thing that happened to the main character was interested, and the alien invasion thing is naturally very cool. Even the way they showed how time passing was pretty neat. But for every good idea Skyline had, there was about twenty bad ones hiding it from view.

Score? 4/10, which given the critical reception, is probably kind. They’re making a sequel, so maybe they’ll learn from their mistakes. I’m not holding my breath.

The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest

I’ve now finished the Swedish version of the Millennium trilogy, and the only disappointment I have is that it is all over. I’ve enjoyed watching them, and I feel like the Stieg Larsson books are even better now. Next time I read them, I will be able to draw upon what I’ve seen in the films to enhance my enjoyment. The characters in particular will be less fuzzy (I’m going to blog about my imagination at some point, and explain what I mean), but also the locations.

Sometimes a film can ruin your perceptions of the novel, but here I think it’ll help me. Now when I see Lisbeth Salander I will see Noomi Rapace (who was excellent throughout), and though I love Daniel Craig, my vision of Blomkvist is more likely to be Michael Nyqvist, as his performances in the second and third film were very impressive (in some ways, I feel like I can critique the actors better in foreign films, as I have to focus on their expressions and movements to compensate for the lack of dialogue, and that is really where they earn their salt; well, if I was any good at critiquing in the first place…).

So, what did I think of the final film? As I predicted after the second film, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest wasn’t able to better the book, but it did a very good job so I’m not going to be overly critical. It captured it well, and I enjoyed it more than the second, if perhaps not the first. Though cut out certain details, the gist of the story was still powerful, and I couldn’t help but feel emotionally charged during the court case. Perhaps they could have expanded that a little more, but all in all, no real complaints. A very good finale to a very good trilogy that only suffers because of my love for the novels. I would encourage anyone to watch it, especially if you are fans of Scandinavian Noir (though Larsson is nothing like Jo Nesbo et all, the basic style is similar).

Score? Like the first film, a 7.5/10. Had I not read the books, you could probably add another point onto all of them. Not wanting to repeat myself…but yeah, a very good trilogy. And through it, I’ve learned I can watch subtitled films. So that’s good to know.

 

Alex

Predator And Predator 2

Looks like this is going to be another one of those blogs where I shame myself by admitting that I have not seen another classic (though ‘cult classic’ is more appropriate here; these two films are definitely not Oscar winners) film. In the past I’ve shown my ignorance to all things Batman, Star Wars, Godfather…you get the point. This time, I’m talking about Predator and its first sequel, Predator 2.

Yes, I’ve never seen either film and that is shocking, I know. Despite using the profile name of Predator on my Xbox (prior to my switch to Phlegethon), a name chosen because of the Predator in Predator, I’ve never actually got the DVD (or VHS in the earlier days…) and watched it (don’t ask me how it was my inspiration if I haven’t seen it…it just was). Sure, I’ve caught clips of the Alien V Predator crossover (not sure which one…either way, not a good thing), and Predators (the second sequel; I switched it off because I thought there would be spoilers which was foolish…has to be plot for spoilers), but I’ve never the original starring Arnold Schwarzenegger*. But before you all go grabbing your pitchforks, I watched the two films back to back last night. So, no need to riot.

Now I’ll move onto the crux of the matter; my thoughts on Predator and Predator 2. I won’t bother offering a synopsis on either film because, frankly, you should already know what they are about. And if you don’t, well, you probably don’t care.

Anyway, last night, and I wasn’t sure what to think initially. I’ve always been wary of films from the 80’s and 90’s that use special effects, because I’m one of those fussy people who can’t look beyond the aesthetics (I saw a bit of the Star Wars set, and just thought ‘lame!’) when it comes to cinema. This feeling is amplified when it comes to films that don’t have a plot (dumb and cheap doesn’t really appeal to me), but I have to admit I found both films a lot of fun. Providing you don’t take them too seriously, they are actually a lot of fun.

Well, Predator was. Definitely an 80’s action film from the outset; beefy heroes firing out one liners, big guns, explosions, awful effects, bad humour and suspenseful percussion instrumentals. But for once this wasn’t a bad thing, and I really enjoyed it once I stopped trying to work out the story. It was entertaining, and the ending had me hooked. Huge, powerful, seemingly unstoppable beast versus the Predator? (see what I did there? Not wrong though; this was Arnie in his prime!) How could it be any better? Both were wounded and bleeding but they fought onto the death. To be honest, I reckon the finale to Predator is how all action films should end (take note Man of Steel; there’s nothing fun in fights where nobody bleeds).

Score? 7.5, for pure entertainment value.

As for Predator 2, well, not so sure about that one. I guess I preferred the jungle setting in the original to the sequel’s city backdrop (L.A). I understood why they did it (added threat, innocent victims etc), but it didn’t work for me. Ultimately I found it too cheesy (the gang war thing? No thanks), and the actors, with the exception of Danny Glover, were rather unlikable. Given how great the squad in Predator were, they did a bad job with the characters in Predator 2 (the woman was irritating, the cap guy was weird, and the other fella was just irritating; says a lot when I don’t know their names, really). I know it isn’t important to have an emotional connection in these types of films, but I feel the viewer’s enjoyment increases if they are interested in whether the character lives or dies. When the death of a major protagonist is greeted with ‘eh, who cares?’ then maybe the casting crew (and the writers) didn’t do the greatest job.

However, Predator 2 did redeem itself with the finale, which was arguably just as enthralling as the original. Danny Glover versus the Predator was a compelling fight that impressed me so much I bumped up the score from a 5/10 to a 6.5/10. Not a masterpiece, but enjoyable enough. It won’t blow your mind, but you won’t feel like you’ve wasted your time if you decided to watch it one evening. What more could you want?

Alex

*Fun fact; Until yesterday, I had not watched a film that had Arnie, Stallone, Van Damme or Seagal in the cast. Admittedly that’s probably a good thing when it comes to Seagal, but I thought I’d lump him in there. Sorry 80’s action heroes.

Guilt Trip, Identity Thief And The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

On the flight home, I watched three comedy films; Guilt Trip, Identity Thief, and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. Now, I probably wasn’t in the greatest mood for watching comedy (leaving the love of your life doesn’t really promote happy feelings, and if it does, well maybe you should rethink the relationship), but I can confidently say that even if I was a better mindset, I wouldn’t have found any of these films particularly funny. Because, well, they weren’t.

Fortunately I was already ready for a non-laughable outcome beforehand, as none of the previews I’d seen prior to turning them on my personal little television had built up any expectation.  I knew I wasn’t looking at the new Anchorman, or The World’s End. They looked okay, but that was about it. I never really believed they were going to blow my mind, which was a good thing, as it meant there was no chance of being disappointed (Bad Teacher was actually rather enjoyable thanks to this phenomenon; Man Of Steel, however, wasn’t).

As a result, they were easy films to watch. So I watched them. And then reviewed them. However, I have kept the reviews rather short, mostly because I don’t believe that any of them deserve anything more than a couple hundred words.

Also, I’ve forgotten a lot of the details by now, and I think my opening paragraphs have already explored what I’m about to say. There are only so many ways you can say ‘it was a bit rubbish’. But I’ll still give it a go. Starting with…

Guilt Trip

The first film in the title, and the first film I switched on. Why? Well, I like Seth Rogen, so anything with him in immediately appeals to me. He’s a likeable guy, and I don’t recall him being in anything horrifically bad in the past (oh wait, Funny People. Still, I don’t blame him for that…Adam Sandler just does that to you), so Guilt Trip can’t be that offensive, can it?

Well…yes. I have never seen a Barbra Streisand film before, and now I know why. She’s sodding annoying. And not in a good way. Not in a way that makes you laugh, like say, Melissa McCarthy. She is just one of those people I can’t be bothered with. As soon as I heard her accent, I was ready to switch off (she is the first voice you hear too…clearly a warning for what was about to come). Why didn’t I? Well, I saw Yvonne Strahovski’s name in the credits. And I love Yvonne Strahovski (google her and you’ll get it, though you have to hear her beautiful accent first to truly understand). Immediately I was interested. I’m only familiar with her in Mass Effect (2 and 3) so actually seeing her in a film was exciting. Even if it was Guilt Trip.

Unfortunately, she only makes a brief appearance. Unlike Streisand, who is in practically every scene. Somehow, I feel they got those two roles mixed up. Sure, it would have been strange having Strahovski as Rogen’s mother (I think she’s younger), but I believe it would have been preferable to seeing Streisand’s face for over 90 minutes. They could have made it work.

What else can I say about Guilt Trip? Um, the plot is okay but not good enough, there are a few good jokes but not enough to keep it going, and the chemistry between Streisand and Rogen deserved a better storyline. Oh, and there was nowhere enough screen time for Yvonne Strahovski. Not that I’m obsessed or anything.

4.5/10 (the .5 is for…well, I’m sure you can figure it out).

Identity Thief

Probably the best of the three films, but that isn’t really saying much. Jason Bateman is the man who loses his identity to Melissa McCarthy, who uses her unlimited funds to, well, buy anything she wants. He leaves his family to track her down and bring her in before he loses everything, and she inevitably disagrees with his proposition to hand herself in. It’s all very straightforward. If you are looking for a well developed plot, you are best off looking elsewhere.

Much like Guilt Trip, Identity Thief relies heavily on Bateman And McCarthy. And to their credit, they do their best to keep the comedy going. They have no support from the writing or cast, however, so there was a certain amount of futility in their efforts. Still, I did enjoy it so I’m not going to criticize it too much.  And there was no Barbra Streisand, so that was a plus.

5/10.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Old fashioned magician (Steve Carrell) and his partner (Steve Buscemi) try to regain their fame and fortune from the hands of Jim Carrey (whose character is called Steve…great idea guys!), who is stealing the Las Vegas crowds with his ridiculous and outrageous stunts. To do this, they must put refresh their act, put aside their differences, and, most importantly, remember what it was that lead them into magic in the first place…

Now, TIBW (I’m not spelling it out again) could have been good. It really could have. It has a good cast, and it is an interesting premise. Had they got the right blend of comedy and storytelling, TIBW could have amazed us. Or at least me.

But it didn’t, as you have probably guessed. The jokes were just goofy, but not in a clever way (I think even kids wouldn’t be impressed), the characters weren’t likeable, and the story was disappointingly safe. I don’t remember laughing once, but I do remember checking my watch to see if it was nearly over. This might sound harsh (mostly because it is), but TIBW was not only the worst film I watched on the flight, it was the worst film I’ve watched all year. I’m going to give it the lowest score so far on the blog, and I don’t even feel bad about it. That’s how poor it was.

3.5/10. There wasn’t even Yvonne Strahovski there to cheer me up (though I’ll give some credit to Carrey for his performance; despite the awfulness of the film, this could be his career revival).

 

 

…And that’s it.  No real surprises, I don’t think (except for my scathing score for Burt Wonderstone). Maybe a small bit of me hoped that I would be surprised by a real hilarious film, but I wasn’t expecting it. I only watched them to double-check my assumption was right. And because, though I wasn’t in the mood for comedies, I was even less inclined to watch any other genre. Like I said, I wasn’t very happy at the time. But, they kept me entertained (well, I wasn’t bored) so I’m glad I watched them. I think.

 

Gangster Squad, Rampart and All Good Things: 3 Film Reviews Before I Forget Them Completely

Weather report will be here tomorrow. Haven’t taken any pictures yet.

So, with all the anniversary talk, and flooding, and Dragon Age 2, I have neglected to tell you about the last few films that Vanna and I have watched. It’s been a while since we saw them so instead of being vague, and using Wikipedia to fill in the gaps, I’m just going to keep it brief.

Short and concise. For once.

So, let’s begin!

Gangster Squad

L.A Noire in movie form is probably the best way I can describe this. You’ve got Micky Cohen (Sean Penn) causing problems in 1940’s New York, and a cop (Josh Brolin; never heard of him before, but he was really good) determined to beat the rife corruption and take him down. Along with his squad of detectives (including Ryan Gosling), Brolin attempts to cause damage to Cohen’s establishments in order to bring him to his knees. It is a fairly serious topic but the humour injected in from time to time helps to keep things going.

What else can I say? Lots of action, quite a lot of violence (but not overly so) and a very satisfying ending. Everyone is wearing suits and hats, which is pretty cool too. The casting, also, is spot on and I can’t really fault anyone’s performances. Penn is the perfect Mickey Cohen (he had the hardest job of impressing me, but he did it well) and Brolin and Gosling work well off each other. The other members of Gangster Squad are very talented too, and I don’t think I would have enjoyed the film as much without them (even if I don’t name them here). They are all very likeable, and despite Gosling’s presence, Vanna’s favourite character was actually Hopalong (the old Texan who doesn’t miss). If you knew how much she loves Gosling then you’ll realize how big of a compliment that is. Oh, and Emma Stone does her job perfectly too. But my favourite? Probably Keeler, the electronics genius played by Giovanni Ribisi (his name might not sound familiar but his face should).

So yeah, I can’t fault the acting or the story. It isn’t going to win any awards but I don’t care. It was very, very, very enjoyable. And I loved it. Probably the best film we’ve seen this summer (along with Jeff Who Lives At Home).

Score? 9.5/10

(Only Spiderman 1 + 2 of the original trilogy get a 10, but this is fairly close to it; maybe if Spiderman had a cameo I would have reconsidered).

Rampart

Now this was a strange one. I’ve been wanting to watch this for a long time (ever since I heard about it, in fact) but it was not what I was expecting. At all. I still liked it, but Vanna, however, did not enjoy it whatsoever. And I can understand why she felt that way.

But first, what is it about? Well, in the 90’s, there was a huge scandal in L.A (what is it with cops and L.A?) called the Rampart Scandal. Essentially, there were a lot of dirty cops doing dirty things. Taking money, blackmailing, using excessive force… you name it, they were probably doing it.

Rampart follows the story of one particular cop called Dave Brown. Played by Woody Harrelson, he is just as bad as the rest. He’s racist, sexist, a womanizer, a home wrecker (he has two children and two wives who he rarely sees) and he breaks the law. He gets caught up in the scandal after almost beating a man to death, and suddenly all his previous allegations come to the surface.

But, despite this, the force can’t get rid of him.  Brown’s familiarity with the law, and the system, puts them in a difficult position. He’s smart and determined to keep his job, no matter what the cost. His life might be falling apart because of his beliefs, but he holds on to being a cop because he believes that is all he has.

Soon though, you begin to realize that it isn’t a matter of not wanting to change that is stopping him…he just can’t do it. It is all he knows. So he continues to govern the law in his own way (though you wouldn’t believe it, he does have a strict moral code; it just doesn’t follow the real world), while doing his best to hide his misdeeds from the man in charge of bringing him down (Ice Cool).

All in all, it is a very captivating film. It doesn’t really have a linear storyline, so it is easy to get bored or fed up (there isn’t any climax, or revelation to it) but I thought it was clever. I was drawn into his life, and much like the film I’m about to discuss below, it was so interesting to me because it was so different from what I’m used to. I couldn’t relate to the character, but I enjoyed his story nonetheless.

I think this is mostly down to Woody Harrelson. He makes this complete asshole (seriously, this guy is the worst) a very compelling character. He almost makes him likeable, and that says a lot. This horrible person’s life is falling apart, and we should be, you know, happy about it, but I wasn’t. I know I’ve talked a lot about good acting in these reviews, but I’d say his was by far the best for this very reason. So, well done Woody.

To summarize, Rampart is a weird story. Every scene involves Woody Harrelson, which is unusual (I’m struggling to come up with another film that has that setup). It is rather uncomfortable at times too, and you will sometimes wonder where it is actually going…but I thought it was good. I enjoyed it. It was interesting. It isn’t for everybody, but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed if you watch it (unless you’re Vanna of course; but she did agree with me on the acting).

6/10 (though if the plot had a little bit more direction and pace to it, I would have bumped it up to a 9 because Harrelson was that good).

All Good Things

Okay, it’s been a long time since I saw this so I’m really struggling to remember it. Essentially it plots (very loosely) the story of the true disappearance/murder of Kathleen McCormack (name changed in film), played by Kirsten Dunst. Ryan Gosling is the husband, and the man who is blamed for it. The film depicts their life and what happens after the disappearance.

It’s a fascinating story, I can’t deny that. Much like Rampart’s Brown,  I couldn’t really relate to Gosling’s character whatsoever, but that made him more interesting as a result. He was such a disturbed individual (for good reason, but I’ll let you watch the film to find out why), it was truly fascinating to watch him. Though the story is viewed from his perspective, you really struggle to understand him and his thought processes. Or at least I did. Credit to Gosling however; I think he suited the role (I’m becoming more impressed with Gosling with every film I see him in) and it was a very believable performance.

But it wasn’t just him. Most of the characters were dysfunctional. Dunst (who was pretty good too) often made decisions that I couldn’t understand, and while the supporting cast were solid, I found myself wondering why they did the things they did. There was so much happening that you thought was preventable, but I suppose, you could say the same thing about our own lives. The strangeness of the people involved, plus the suspicious circumstances surrounding the disappearance, are probably what encouraged them to do a film based on these events. They were so unusual, you can’t help but be interested in what happened, why it happened, and how it happened.

So yeah…

Hmm.

Even now I’m not sure what I think about the film. It didn’t have a typical plot structure (much like Rampart) which was different (good different, I think), and the fact it was open-ended (the case was never solved) made it even more compelling.  I think intriguing sums it up well. It wasn’t good, but it wasn’t bad either. It was…thoughtful.

Yeah…thoughtful. 6/10. Definitely worth watching. Possibly. It offers an interesting viewpoint on this tragedy, at least. I just wish it had a definitive answer; they had an opinion, of course, but the truth is still unknown. Bah. I hate not knowing!

Uh…on second reading, I don’t think I’ve done this film justice, so don’t let my review put you off. In my defence, it was over two weeks ago when I watched it, so my already confused brain is even more hazy about it. Just see the 6/10 and go for it. You know, if you have time. And fairly average reviews don’t put you off.

Conclusion:

Gangster Squad was by far the best, but if you’re willing to dedicate some time, I think that All Good Things and Rampart are certainly worth watching too. You might occasionally wonder what is going on, but I think the acting and characters allow such moments to be worthwhile.

And, if you are anything like Vanna and myself, you’ll get a lot of discussions out of it. So you should do it for that alone.

Iron Man, Iron Man 2 And Finally, Iron Man 3

Thursday night we went to the Lakes 12 cinema in Brainerd to watch Iron Man 3. And to make sure we were fully prepared for the latest installment in the Robert Downey Jr plays a cocky, millionaire in a suit that isn’t made of iron but still, close enough franchise, we also watched Iron Man (Wednesday night) and Iron Man 2 (Thursday afternoon).

Here are my reviews (I think I might just use say ‘thoughts’ in future) of all three films. You’re, uh, welcome.

Iron Man

I know I sounded a little cynical in the opening paragraph, but I do quite like Iron Man. As a rule, I like my superheroes to be super, and not just some rich fella who decides to fight crime*, but I can make an exception for Iron Man. Why? Well he’s funny, charismatic and a genius. Also, he’s played by Robert Downey Jr. How can you not like him?

So, despite not being Spiderman in a Spiderman film (and even Spiderman isn’t Spiderman now), I have to say I’ve enjoyed Iron Man…and his Iron Man films.

The first one, in particular, is definitely worth watching. I’m not going to tell you the story for two reasons:

1. It’s been out for five years. If you don’t know what it is about by now, then you probably don’t care for it. Otherwise…keep up for Pete’s sake. Even I’ve seen it!
2. I, uh, fell asleep when we were watching it, so I missed a good chunk of the middle…and the end. I have seen it before though (worth clicking on so you can see my earlier rant about Batman…what can I say? At least I’m consistent)…I just don’t quite remember it. Ahem.

Anyway, it is probably the fan’s favourite but it’s probably my least favourite. Still good though. 7’/10

 

*Hence my reasoning behind my lack of interest in Batman.  If he’d been bitten by a radioactive bat, I might have seen the films.

Also, he has stupid bat ears and it genuinely puts me off watching them. I appreciate it sounds silly and ridiculous, but look at him. He’s a grown man. Spiderman didn’t put mandibles on his suit did he? Or 4 fake legs just to get an ‘authentic’ look? Get rid of the little bat ears (which, by the way, look nothing like real bat ears, so not only are they dumb, they are unrealistic) and maybe I’ll give them a go.

Iron Man 2

With the level of insight I offered above, you are probably dreading the rest of this review. But don’t worry! It gets better. Honest.

…okay, that might not be true but still…

Ahem.

You’ll be glad to hear that I did not fall asleep during Iron Man 2. I was awake for the full thing, and I have to say it is probably my favourite film out of the three. Why?

1. It has Mickey Rourke in it, and ever since I watched Wild Orchid (if you don’t know what I’m talking about….you are one of the lucky ones), I’ve had a strange fascination with Mickey Rourke. Would he be awful in this too? Actually, he’s quite good. I thought he was a good “Whiplash” (the name of the bad guy; he wasn’t just a guy in a car accident). I loved his terrible Russian accent. And his tats (that means tattoos, children). He meant business. Well done Mr Rourke. Still can’t forgive you for your previous transgressions, but this helped.
2. There are a lot of metal suits fighting.  At one point, Iron Man and his buddy face off against a load of drones, and there is something about robots fighting  that entertains me.
3. Glass smashing. I’ve never smashed a window pane in my life, and yet I feel like I have because there is so much of it going on in Iron Man 2, I’m struggling to separate the events in the film from my own memory. Did I get into a big fight with my best friend and wreck a mansion, or was it Robert Downey Jr? I’ve got no idea.

So yeah, Iron Man 2 was good. I know sequels aren’t supposed to be as good as the original but I don’t know…there was something extra to Iron Man 2 that really won me over. Maybe it was because he was even more confident than he was in the first one. Maybe it was because I liked the new, surprised looking Rhodes over the old, less surprised looking Rhodes. Or maybe it was because Scarlett Johansson was in it.

I’m not sure. Either way, I enjoyed it. 8/10

Yeah, now that I’ve thought about it,  it was indeed Scarlett Johansson. I was lying before. I didn’t want to sound like a typical bloke who only enjoys a film because of the attractive lady on show…but yeah, it’s true.

Iron Man 3

Why why why why WHY do I keep bringing drinks into a movie theater? It never goes well for me! Why haven’t I learned my lesson yet? It always goes the same way; I drink it all in the first five minutes and then end up desperately needing to go to the bathroom for the rest of the film, putting me in the difficult situation of either missing part of the film, or watching the last hour in extreme discomfort. Of course, I never leave the cinema while the film is on (I paid a lot for this ticket. I ain’t missing a word!), so I spend the last thirty minutes wishing that the film would just hurry it up the dramatic conclusion and finish before I wet myself.

This is what happened on Thursday night. I thought I’d be clever and go to the bathroom beforehand, but it still wasn’t enough to compensate for the medium soda I polished off while the film was still in the introductory scenes (I can’t help it, I just drink until there is nothing left). And this time, I couldn’t hold out until the movie ended. I’m afraid to say my run of never leaving before the end is over, because I had to go just as the final fight was ending. I lasted as long as I could, and I only missed the ending monologue, but still…the run is over. Ah well. I tried my best.

What about the film?

Well…like the other two, it was good. I think I liked the second one more, so 7.5/10. But I’m probably not the person to ask.

You see, I’m just a Spiderman fanboy. I did enjoy the Iron Man films, but that is as far as it goes. All I can say is that they were consistently good, and, to me, that is fair praise. They were nothing special, but they never were going to be with me. I promise I’m not going to turn this into another Spiderman love in, but the only way a superhero film is going to get a really high score and stick with me forever, is if they have an emotional connection with me like Spiderman did. Iron Man is fun, clever at times, has great CGI (I’m thinking about the fights) and is one of those films you can watch anytime. But it is the superhero equivalent to Die Hard; a good action film and nothing more (I know I haven’t seen Die Hard, but the point still stands).

So yeah. I think that’s about right.

Iron Man does have Scarlett Johansson though. That is always a good thing.

Alex

P.S We watched Iron Man and Iron Man 2 so we were well versed in Iron Man lore (the movie version; sorry people, I have no interest in comics). However, once we in the cinema, we realized that the film we should have watched was The Avengers. There were more references to that than the previous Iron Man films. So if you want to do the same, you should probably add that into your ‘research’.