Last Blog On The Left

Sometimes a movie starring Samuel L. Jackson actually can take you by surprise. These last couple of years his roles have basically consisted of Samuel L. Jackson being Samuel L. Jackson, but in different outfits. Hell, in “The Spirit” he managed to wear an impressive number of weird outfits and sideburns and whatnot, but he was still the same old Samuel L. Jackson. You always know what you´re gonna get with him and there´s a comfort in that. I mean, look at Kevin Costner. I like the guy and it´s the same with Sam Jack: no matter how crappy the film may be there´s always a pleasure in watching him chew up the scenery and leave everyone else behind by acting up a storm.

Now, I´m not gonna lie to you: Samuel is still that same Samuel L. Jackson in “Lakeview Terrace”. It wasn´t Jackson´s performance that took me by surprise (because we´ve all seen him do this schtick a million times before), instead it was the fact that I enjoyed this movie a whole lot more than I thought I would. This isn´t a perfect film by any means and I remember that it got pretty shitty reviews when it was released but I think that it has a lot more to offer than what you might suspect from just glancing at the cover.

Chris Mattson (Patrick Wilson) and his Afro-American wife Lisa Mattson (Kerry Washington) moves to a new house, situated on Lakeview Terrace, in a safe neighborhood. Their neighbor is Abel Turner (Jackson), an LAPD Officer who´s also a widower and is now raising his two teenage kids alone, and by a strict regime of rules. Something about the Mattson´s interracial relationship rubs Abel the wrong way and it doesn´t take long before that initial neighborhood bickering turns nasty.

What makes this movie so interesting and what elevates it from just being “another” thriller, is the fact that director Neil LaBute (who´s also responsible for the movie everyone loves to hate and that I just plain love: the remake of “The Wicker Man”) in this film lets the African American be guilty of being the racist, and not the other way around. Normally, Jackson would´ve played Wilson´s part and it´s this switching of the roles that makes it interesting. There´s a great scene where Abel catches his kids spying on his neighbors while they´re having sex in their backyard and he does a great job of conveying how disgusted he is by the fact that this guy is having sex with a black woman and this is what launches him into a campaign of harassment and intimidation, all in order to get them to move out of the neighborhood.

This isn´t exactly groundbreaking stuff, though. We´ve all seen the psychotic cop make life worse for people around him: Richard Gere in “Internal Affairs”, Ray Liotta in “Unlawful Entry” and so on… And say what you will but it´s an effective storytelling device, because who the hell are you gonna call when your neighbor starts harassing you? Ghostbusters? I guess you could, but it won´t do you that much good. That leaves you with the cops but when the same fucker who´s after you knows every guy on the job, knows whose shift it is and everybody owes him a favor or two, things get a bit more complicated.

Combine this with the force of nature that is Samuel L. Jackson and you have yourself one enjoyable movie screen psycho. There´s something about this kind of roles that fits him like a hand in a glove: the masculine, dominating patriarch who always knows best and ain´t afraid to go to most absurd lengths to prove it. There´s always a joy in watching an actor sinking their teeth into a role, especially if it´s a villain, that they really enjoy playing. And this is especially true with Jackson. He´s at his best when he gets to dabble in the arena of the mentally unstable, I think. It´s pretty damn impressive as well that he manages to make a character that basically wears pink Lacoste shirts for the major part of the movie so intimidating. Samuel L. Jackson knows his shit.

Now, I don´t know if there is such a thing as “reverse” racism and if you consider the fact that director LaBute is a white Caucasian male, one might argue that this movie is even more racist because of this, since the movie´s psycho is an African American. I wouldn´t argue that, but it walks a thin line of being politically incorrect and that´s what makes it so fascinating. It deals with themes that we don´t see too often in American movies: that racism isn´t a one way street and the white man´s guilt in today´s society. I don´t think it´s strange that such a thing exists in today´s society because let´s face it, our white forefathers hasn´t exactly been the greatest of guys, many of them. Let´s be honest: many of them were pretty shitty guys. Take that Hitler guy, for example. He was kind of a douche.

But that´s why I don´t think it´s strange that many of us (Caucasians, I mean) actually do feel some sort of guilt for just being who we are. I especially think that´s true for where I live, in Sweden. And to be honest, I think that the movie paints a pretty plausible picture of why the character of Abel Turner would be annoyed by this guy, who sweeps into the neighborhood and buys the kind of house that he has worked double shifts his entire life to afford and on top of that, he´s got an African American wife. I can understand why that would rub the guy the wrong way because I think that every one of us has a bit of a racist in us, unfortunately.

But that´s why it´s so refreshing to see someone turn the tables of what we´re used to see in a movie like this. Like I said earlier, would the movie be equally “racist” by making the villain white? I don´t know the answer to that one but it´s interesting to think about.

Now, in order to fully appreciate this film you can´t compare it to LaBute´s previous films because they´ve been far more scathing, poisonous depictions of American males and their behavior (“The Wicker Man” excluded, of course) so if you set this one beside them, this is a pretty weak effort. However, if you compare this movie to other ones in the same genre, I think this is a pretty strong effort. For those of you who´ve seen LaBute´s previous movies, you know that if there´s one thing that guy does well, it´s creating an uncomfortable mood. Remember “In The Company of Men”, anyone?

However, I have to admit that he has problem carrying the whole film through. It starts off excellent and that whole uncomfortable mood isn´t very obvious at the beginning, but as the film progresses it builds momentum and after a while it´s like you´re watching an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, only with a psychotic cop in the lead instead and played not for laughs but totally serious. But like with so many other thrillers, when the end comes, it isn´t entirely believable…

Then there´s the pretty heavy handed plot device of having brush fires looming at the horizon, only to come closer and closer the longer we get into the story. Now, luckily I´ve done my fair share of reading film theory and shit like that so I was able to decipher this as the metaphor that it is, and just like the racial tension that exists between our characters this goddamn fire is like a ticking bomb! Didn´t see that one coming, did ya?

Honestly, this element of the film along with the pretty stupid ending, is the weakest thing about the film but I don´t think that you should let that discourage you from watching this one. As far as thrillers go, this is a pretty good one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

When you´re gonna make a sequel to a hit movie you´re obviously faced with some problems: you wanna keep it relatively similar to the first one, yet (hopefully) give the audience something fresh and new. A while back when I talked to you about “The Descent Part 2”, my main objection about that film was that the director seemed to have forgotten the fact that there´s a pretty good chance that the audience have already seen part I and that the cat is out of that so-often-mentioned bag. It doesn´t work when you try to build up the same momentum as they did in the first one, back when the audience didn´t know what to expect. So how the hell do you do it then? Well, you could do like Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza has done and take a cue from James Cameron´s “Aliens”. I don´t think I´m telling any tales out of school when I say that “Aliens” is widely regarded to be one of the best sequels ever, right? Because what was it that Cameron did so great with that one? He took the characters and the monster from the first one but placed them smack in the middle of a story that transformed the movie into, not a sci-fi-horror movie like the first one, but a goddamn war movie-extravaganza! Basically, more guns and more monsters! That´s the approach that Balagueró and Plaza has taken with their sequel to “[Rec]”!

What the first “[Rec]” did so spectacularly well (besides giving you an uncomfortable feeling of nausea due to the hand held cameras that refused to stay still for more than a tenth of a second) was that it built towards a climax that were genuinely chilling, and we all know that those doesn´t exactly grow on trees nowadays. It also revealed some of the back story to us, but we weren´t given the whole picture, which was a pretty clever decision on the filmmaker´s behalf. This means that they have some room to expand on the whole mythology of what the hell was going on up in that penthouse, where they kept that little girl.

And Balagueró & Plaza ain´t here to screw around… Part 2 opens 5 minutes after the end of the first one, when an official from the Department of Health along with a SWAT Team is sent into the building. It doesn´t take long until they encounter one of the infected and the government official, Dr. Owen, starts fighting off the infected by using rosaries and spouting religious mantras. Guess what? Turns out the guy is a priest sent out to get a sample from the Medeiros girl, who started the infection in the first movie.

Now, what´s so great about this movie is the fact that we all know that this building are filled with the infected, we know what they look like and all that, so Balagueró & Plaza doesn´t waste any time at all on that crap. They did that the first time around, so let´s skip that shit, ok? So, as soon as the team enters the building they are attacked from every corner and every door. But since we´ve got a SWAT Team with some pretty big guns with us this time around, it gets pretty messy. This is how they start out the movie, like an action-movie done in a shoot ´em up-like fashion. But then things start to gradually change, the longer the movie goes on. At first, this SWAT Team seems to be in control of the situation but the closer the team gets to the penthouse, we learn that there are indeed sinister forces at work here and maybe it doesn´t matter what size your gun is (according to the women of the world, that isn´t supposed to matter anyway). The movie constantly throws curveballs at you and what you were expecting isn´t what you end up getting.

For instance, about half way through the film we´re introduced to a group of teenagers who´s trying to launch an inflatable sex doll by tying it to some rockets up on a roof top. I immediately started whining: “Great, that´s exactly what this movie needs now: a bunch of stupid, annoying teenagers who tries to have sex with each other and ignores the most obvious threats…” Well, I didn´t exactly say it out loud because that would be pretty creepy if I were to sit around by myself and have conversations like that all by my lonesome, wouldn´t it? But I was thinking it, because that´s what teenagers do in horror movies, right? They always have to go into the woods when they hear a strange noise.

And guess what, this is exactly what these teenagers do, as well. Turns out that Spanish teens aren´t that different from American ones camping out at Crystal Lake. Weird, huh? Because what do these Spanish kids do when they realize that the nearby building is under quarantine? Naturally they go down into the sewers and try to get in. Frickin´ kids!

But the weird thing is that when you see this is in a Spanish movie it doesn´t feel as forced and inherently stupid as it does when you see it in an American horror movie. You kinda buy it in this one because at some level, isn´t this exactly what many teenagers would do in this situation: you see a SWAT Team going into a building, wouldn´t you want to have a peek at what´s going on in there? For some reason I found the way that these teenagers reacted to be pretty believable. And it´s these scenes with the kids that ends up containing some of the film´s strongest moments. For instance, the scene where one of them has to fire a gun towards an infected guy´s skull is probably the most harrowing in the entire movie.

But now I´m sounding like this movie is the second coming and it isn´t. It has its flaws and the greatest one is the fact that it is still handheld cameras swinging around and around and around until you feel like even Michael Bay would feel nauseous after watching this. I realize that this is the format of these movies but that doesn´t mean that I have to like it, does it? It´s just a bit too much at times.

Another thing that is lacking in this installment is the mystery and the suspense of the first one but I´ve already whined about that. Fortunately, it makes up for that with a whole bunch of action, gore, exploding heads and whatnot. I guess if you can´t find a way to recreate the suspense of the original, just go the Cameron-way and by that I don´t mean that you should populate your movie with a bunch of giant blue-looking fuckers that keeps nagging about mother nature and how we´re all connected, ok? Go with the guns instead.

The fact of the matter is that this is one frenetic movie. In fact, if you were to screen the both “[Rec]” movies back to back, I think that the second one would feel like an 80 minutes long final act. It´s like one long final action sequence and how can you not like that shit?

Apparently “[Rec] 3” is going to be released in 2011 and I could definitely go for a third serving of these infected fuckers. Maybe one of these days I´ll come around to checking out that American remake of the first one, “Quarantine”, but to be honest, I don´t think so. I think I´d rather stick with the original recipe.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

These last couple of years Nicolas Cage´s career has been in kind of a slump and I was actually afraid that he had started consuming either hard drugs on set or suffered some sort of brain aneurism (That´s right, “Bangkok Dangerous”, I´m looking at you!) due to the fact that he seemed to be sleepwalking his way through entire films. We all know that Nicolas Cage does his best work when he is un-Caged and allowed to shout, scream and howl his way through a film in that fantastic way of his. Unfortunately, he´s been shackled by uninteresting scripts and bizarre haircuts these last couple of years.

For those of you out there with a masochistic streak and who regularly read my rants here, you are familiar with the fact that I have an ongoing love affair with the remake of “The Wicker Man”, a movie that seem to symbolize all that is bad with remakes for most people and widely recognized at “the most despised film of all time”. It was released in 2006 and it marked the start of an era for Cage, where he spent the next few years looking like he was gonna fall asleep anytime in every movie he did. Christ, he was like a narcoleptic in the making. We got “Next”, “Ghost Rider”, “National Treasure: Book of Secrets”, the before mentioned “Bangkok Dangerous” and “Knowing” (which I really enjoyed, though). In all these films we got the patented style of Cage´s somber acting, combined with one weird haircut after another. Things were not looking good for the Cage-ster.

But then something happened…

Nicolas met Werner… And it was as if Cage realized that this shit has got to stop! Enough of this somber, sleepwalking-type of acting! That´s why in 2009 we were treated to the glorious dementia of Werner Herzhog´s “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans”, which is nothing short of a masterpiece and gives us Cage in full twitchy, howling regalia.

But as if that wasn´t enough, then we got to see Cage in Matthew Vaughn´s comic book adaptation “Kick-Ass” and I think that he is absolutely one of the best things about that movie. Unless you haven´t heard about Hit Girl and the controversy she has sparked in the United States, you´ve either been comatose or stoned out of your mind these last couple of months and if so, here´s a quick summary of what the frickin´ movie´s about:

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is an unnoticed high school student and comic book fan with few friends and he lives alone with his father. His life is not very difficult and his personal trials not that overwhelming. However, one day he makes the simple decision to become a super-hero even though he has no powers or training. Said and done, Dave re-invents himself as Kick-Ass, a superhero with no powers. Later, he is joined by Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) and her father Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and they form a vigilante team, fighting drug dealers and vandals. However, Big Daddy and Hit Girl has an agenda of their own…

Let me just start off by saying that I really enjoyed this flick! Hell, if you´ve ever had any kind of interest or passion for comic books while growing up, this is gonna float your boat. I don´t think that it will go down as one of the great classics in the pantheon of comic book movies, however because while I did appreciate the movie and its many scenes of shootouts and spectacularly choreographed fights, there is something that rubs me the wrong way about it. There´s a certain smugness about this movie that I unfortunately have a small problem with.

Director Vaughn is just too aware of how hip and funny the shit he throws at us is, and it feels at times that he, for the first time in his career as a director, resorts to the Guy Ritchie-way of directing movies. As you might be familiar with, Vaughn started out as a producer on Ritchie´s cockney-gangster-flicks “Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch” and when Vaughn made his directing debut with “Layer Cake”, many of us feared that that was gonna be one long exercise in frenetic editing crazy hi-jinks a´ la Guy Ritchie but that one actually turned out to be a much more mature gangster flick than I thought any of us were expecting. Same thing with “Stardust”. Much better than I thought it would be.

And now we have “Kick-Ass”. And like I said, even though I enjoyed the hell out of this movie, sometimes it feels a bit too calculated. But then again, how can you not love a film where one of the characters is an 11 year old girl who shoots, slashes and karates her way through an army of bad guys?

My main objection with “Kick-Ass” is that it lacks the emotional depth that every comic book movie needs to elevate itself from just an “entertaining” one to a “great” one. The whole story with Dave and his romantic interest in Katie plays out like and episode of “Glee” or some other High School show and it doesn´t feel too believable. But that´s why we should be thanking our lucky stars that we get to witness the awesomeness of Nicolas Cage, because he provides the movie with its much needed emotional focus.

Like I mentioned earlier, Big Daddy and Hit Girl has an own agenda, one which involves Big Daddy extracting revenge on those who´ve done him wrong in the past. His back story is shown in one of those animated comic strip-montages that seem to pop up everywhere ever since Tarantino used one like it in “Kill Bill”, and in this one we´re shown how Big Daddy´s a former cop, how his wife died and how his partner took care of his daughter while he was incarcerated for a crime he didn´t commit. It probably takes up about one or two minute of screen time but this brief scene is by far the most interesting thing in the whole movie. Why didn´t they build the whole movie around this story line instead? I would´ve loved to see that.

What makes Cage´s character so great is that even though some of you may object to the way he raises his girl, you always believe that he absolutely adores her. Cage is great in these scenes. For instance, it´s pretty hilarious when they´re trying out a bullet proof vest and he´s gonna fire one more round into her chest and calms her with “Just one more, baby doll. One more and then we´ll go get hot chocolate”.

I think that one mistake that they made with this movie is that they´re trying to make one of those “this is what it would be like if an ordinary kid dressed up as a superhero and started fighting criminals in real life”-movies and for the first hour that´s actually what it is. Dave is cut up pretty bad and is hospitalized the first time he tries to intervene but then the movie gets a little too smart for its own good.

There many scenes set in a café called “Atomic Comics”, which I reckon is just an excuse for letting all the fanboys in the audience know that the filmmakers are just as versed in comics as they are. Kirby, Romita and other names are dropped to the left and right and so on. I think the movie would´ve been better if the filmmakers would´ve played it straight, instead. This kind of flirting with the audience takes me out of the film and I would´ve loved to see “Kick-Ass” play out in a more realistic fashion. As it is now, it´s kind of a movie of two halves and even though it is a lot of fun, I would´ve preferred the grittier, more realistic one.

I mean, let´s be honest here: this kind of nudging and winking at the audience isn´t that cool anymore. It was one thing when Kevin Smith did it with his “Star Wars”-references back in the early 90´s, you know before internet and all that but these days it just feels tired and worn out. I much more appreciate a movie these days that has the guts to not wink at its audience and play it totally straight. These last couple of years this audience-winking and filmmaker´s burning ambition to show the audience that they indeed are one of them, that they like and appreciate the same things that they do, have become very annoying. It´s just a way of showing that you´re not confident enough in your own work and this habit of namedropping and shit like that is just a cheap way to get the audience on your side.

Now, “Kick-Ass” isn´t the worst example of that but I still feel that this would have been a much superior film if Vaughn had steered clear of that kind of indulgence, which is kind of the comic book movies´ equivalent of the annoying black sidekick that every action movie back in the late 80´s and early 90´s had, like a cheap way to get some laughs. You know what I´m talking about: the kind of character that always had to point out how insane everything was and make wise cracks about everything and everyone just to let the audience know that “Hey, isn´t this weird and over-the-top? I´ve noticed that too, yet I am in the movie! Isn´t that cool, kids?”

One thing that Matthew Vaughn does deserve credit for is the fact that he managed to cast Deborah Twiss in the role of Mrs. Zane, Dave´s teacher which he fantasizes about. I don´t know if you´re familiar with her but back in ´96 she starred in the vigilante-flick “A Gun For Jennifer” (which I wrote about here) and it was pretty cool to see her again. They should expand her role for the sequel, which apparently is greenlit now. Hell, she could play the same role as in “A Gun For Jennifer” and she could join forces with Kick-Ass and start killing off the rapists of New York City again.

But still, all nudging and winking aside, this is still one entertaining fucker of a film. If you for some insane reason decides that you don´t wanna go out drinking one Saturday night, you could do a lot worse than this one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I remember when I was a kid and watched ”Jaws: The Revenge” (the fourth one for those of you out there who needs to brush up on your “Jaws”-knowledge) for the first time and how impressed I was. It wasn´t the fact that Oscar winner Sir Michael Caine was in it that impressed me, neither was it the fact that the filmmakers actually managed to talk the studio into making a fourth one, after the disaster that was “Jaws 3-D”. No sir, what impressed me was how smart the shark was! We´re talking Nobel Prize material here!

You see, the shark is so smart that it manages to track down Martin Brody´s son and kill him off at the start of the movie and then when his mother, Ellen Brody (played by Lorraine Gary from the first one), travels to the Caribbean to visit her other son, the shark follows her there! Isn´t that amazing? Who knew that sharks were creatures of such intelligence? Has anyone informed Sir David Attenborough of this? Is he aware of the fact that sharks can take things personal, despite the fact that that old guy told Roy Scheider in the second movie that “Sharks don´t take things personal”? Well, turned out you was wrong, old timer!

Anyway, no matter how baffled I was by this particular shark´s intelligence, that was nothing compared to the first time I sat down to watch “Orca the Killer Whale”, directed by Michael Anderson and starring Richard Harris. Jesus Christ, forget about Lassie or Babe! If there ever were an intelligent mammal, this is it. Let me give you the rundown:

Captain Nolan (Harris), becomes aware of the economical value of capturing an orca whale alive through the lecture of the biologist Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling) and decides to capture one to pay the mortgage of his ship. However, the operation fails and he kills a pregnant female whale and its offspring. The male mate orca seeks revenge against Captain Nolan and his crew, jeopardizing the fishing community of the coastal town.

So, it doesn´t take a college degree to figure out that this is basically the original “Jaws” all over again. And I gotta say that even though I enjoy this film immensely, it isn´t my favorite “Jaws” rip off out there. That award has to go to “Piranha” but that´s a whole other story. One of the reasons that I do enjoy this movie as much as I do is the fact that this whale has this supernatural intelligence. It actually has a concept of vengeance. Which would make this the only vigilante movie in the history of films where the vigilante is a goddamn whale, and that alone is pretty spectacular, friends. That makes this movie one for the history books.

But I can´t say that I blame the poor whale. He´s forced to watch his wife being dragged onboard Richard Harris´ ship and see their unborn child pop out of her stomach, like the cork in a champagne bottle, at that exact point. Talk about bad timing. If that would happen to my wife, I think I´d be pretty upset, as well. So it´s only natural for him to start thinking about how to best get back at the fuckers who are responsible for this.

And let me tell ya, this whale has a pretty elaborate plan up his sleeve: at one point the whale, fueled by anger and vengeance, slams into some pipes that contains flammable oil and then continues to ram a waterfront house, causing a lantern on the table inside to ignite the oil. That´s pretty impressive, even for a whale of his mental capacity! I´m not sure that I could´ve come up with that.

If all this sounds absolutely ludicrous, it´s because it is. But somehow you buy it and it´s because the acting in this movie is well above what is usually on display in this genre. I mean, you got Richard Harris as a grumpy old sailor and Charlotte Rampling as the voice of reason, for chrissakes! That beats Stephen Baldwin in “Shark in Venice” any day of the week, if you ask me.

The great thing about this movie is the fact that it was produced by Dino De Laurentiis, so this movie is basically a low budget Italian “Jaws”-knock off, starring some name actors and shot on location in New Foundland and Labrador, Canada, but with all the attributes of Italian movies. The lip synching is a little better than usually in this one, so thanks for springing the cash for that, Dino. You also get a score by the maestro himself, Ennio Morricone, that borders on being extremely atmospheric at times and incredibly cheesy, as well. The opening sequence where you see the two whales swimming side by side has that eerie female vocalization that the Italians seem to love. I find them pretty creepy.

By the end of this fabulous flick, things take on an almost mythological vibe. You see, the whale actually lures Harris and his ship to the goddamn North Pole, where it among other things pushes a frickin´ ice berg into the boat! One might wonder how Harris would walk into a trap like that but this is all foreshadowed by a fantastic scene where Rampling goes on about what lethal and deadly killers whales are, while humans are “retarded” in comparison. Tell me about it…

Hey, did I mention that Bo Derek is in the movie? Well, she is. And I mean that as a good thing.

Even though I buy that a whale could do all these things that I´ve mentioned here, I find this movie to be somewhat lacking in scientific proof. In one scene Rampling (who, by the way, is a stunning screen presence here) delivers a lecture to a bunch of budding marine biologists and there she mentions that whales actually have bigger brains than humans. No shit, Sherlock! For pulling all that crap on Harris their brains would make Albert Einstein question his own intelligence, for chrissakes!

However, she does make one interesting claim. She plays a recording of whales communicating with each other and says that “this recording contains four million pieces of information. The bible contains two million” What the hell kind of pieces of information is she talking about? How does one measure the pieces of information in the Bible? Is this some sort of scientific measuring system that I am unfamiliar with? The movie kinda lost me there for a moment…

But man, this is a fantastic movie! Just to prove how fantastic it is, it was written by Sergio Donati and Luciano Vincenzoni, the two guys that helped Sergio Leone to co-write “For a Few Dollars More”, that´s how great is. I don´t care what kind of crap you churn out later in your career, if you had anything to do with that movie being made, you´re A-ok in my book forever.

Listen, let´s not beat around the bush any longer: do yourself a frickin´ favor and check this one out if you haven´t seen it already and if you have, you damn well need to watch it again.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Here´s another movie that I´m late as hell with but do you know why that is? It´s because I am somewhat of a rebel and tend to do things when I feel like it, no matter what everyone else says! Either that or it could be the fact that I´m just a lazy son of a bitch. To be honest, I don´t know why it took me until now to check this one out. When I first heard that it was McG that was gonna be directing this one, I (like most of the internet community) was pretty worried. But (unlike most of said internet community) I didn´t spend all my waking hours to whine about it. But I actually was kinda worried. Although I can appreciate the “Charlie´s Angels” movies as much as the next guy, I wasn´t particularly eager to see McG bring that kind of aesthetic to the “Terminator”-franchise. But then again, I wasn´t that eager to see anyone else beside James Cameron direct a “Terminator” movie but then they got that Jonathan Mostow guy to do the third one and I really enjoyed that one, so you never know, right? That´s why I was trying to keep an open mind about this one.

But then something weird happened with this movie: everyone seemed to suddenly have decided that they weren´t gonna like this movie at all, before it was even released! Do you remember this? Do you remember how shocked everyone was when that recording of Christian Bale throwing a tantrum leaked onto the information superhighway? “Who does the guy thinks he is” and “What the hell does he have up his ass” and whatever the hell everyone was saying and then suddenly, everyone had always hated Christian Bale even though no one really said that when they were creaming their pants during “The Dark Knight”.

But anyway, without a doubt this movie got a bad rep because of that whole recording being leaked. I think that maybe it was because of this that it took me so long to finally get around and actually watch the damn thing. I was afraid that I wasn´t going to be able to concentrate on the film and just sit there and as soon as Bale showed up, I was gonna go “I wonder if this is the scene where he lost his marbles? Or maybe it´s this one? Or this one?”

Well, I finally felt that I had matured enough as a human being to overcome this obstacle in the way of me enjoying this fourth installment in the “Terminator” saga. Which begs the question, did I enjoy it? Well, kind of. It´s definitely not a failure on any level but it´s definitely the least entertaining “Terminator” movie yet. I´m not counting that “Sarah Connor Chronicles” TV-series because I couldn´t muster up the energy to watch that one.

Somehow this one doesn´t quite feel as a “Terminator” movie, really. And I guess it isn´t because the big man himself, Anhuldt, isn´t in it. But besides that, one of the reasons why this one doesn´t feel like a “Terminator” movie is because this is the first one in the series that takes place exclusively in the future world that we´ve only gotten glimpses of in the previous films. And what is so weird is that ever since we first saw that goddamn robot foot stomp down on that skull back in the early 90´s, I´ve been going on and on about how frickin´ cool it would be to see an entire movie set in this world and now that it´s here, I´m sitting here and complaining about it! What the hell is wrong with me?

I think that this is what´s going on here: “Terminator: Salvation” suffers from a clear case of the “Alien 3”-syndrome. Now, you should know that “Alien 3” is my favorite in that series. What I mean with “Terminator: Salvation” suffering from this is that this is a movie that is so clearly different from the previous installments and maybe I just wasn´t ready for that. God knows I wasn´t with “Alien 3” but since then it has grown on me and now it´s my favorite one. Maybe this one will too, in the years to come but I have a hard time seeing myself preferring this one over part I and II, to be honest.

But I guess that I have to admire McG for having the guts to make this movie as bleak as he did. One thing I didn´t like was when it for a brief scene turned into “Transformers” with a giant Terminator robot chasing Christian Bale & Co. I was really worried there for a minute or two but fortunately McG managed to keep his inner demons at Bay (Get that one? “Transformers” and Bay as in Michael Bay? Christ, I´m good) and keep the movie from turning into one long never ending scene of a million zillion cuts and things exploding, which to be honest, this could´ve easily been. This is why this is one of those weird movies where I don´t feel as much disappointment for it not being great as I feel appreciation for the director not fucking it up royally. At least we´ll always have that, huh?

But I welcome this development in McG´s style. The fact that he actually lets his action sequences play out without cutting them to shreds shows some hope for the future. No matter how entertaining I find “Charlie´s Angels: Full Throttle”, I don´t think that my psyche could take another movie done in that fashion.

The sad thing is that there´s a gnawing feeling throughout the film that somewhere inside, there actually is a great film just waiting to come bursting out, kinda like the alien did from that dog´s stomach in “Alien 3”. But unfortunately, it´s hankered down by a subplot that is mostly uninteresting and a couple of acting performances that isn´t particularly good, to be honest.

I mean, this Sam Worthington guy? Between this and “Avatar” he hasn´t exactly convinced me that he deserves to be Hollywood´s new go-to-guy for the lead in every huge action movie being made, like the case clearly is at the moment. And the subplot I mentioned that didn´t exactly float my boat is the one involving Worthington´s character Marcus Wright and Moon Bloodgood´s character Blair Williams. That one could´ve easily been excised from the film and I think it would´ve made it much better. But then on the other hand we wouldn´t have had the opportunity to watch the credits where a name like “Moon Bloodgood” actually appears! This has got to be the greatest name for any actress in the history of movies. Jesus Christ! Why isn´t there a crime fighting comic book hero named this? Get this girl her own comic book now, Hollywood!

But anyway, I guess you´ve all already seen this one but if you haven´t, it´s definitely worth two hours of your time, despite all its flaws. And like I said: I have the strange sensation that this one will grow on me.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

The other day I suffered some kind of mental breakdown because I actually sat down and tried to watch a movie called “Stan Helsing”, which is about some slacker running around in a hockey shirt and bandana and fighting such well known horror movie icons as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and shit. That movie turned out to be a big pile of stinkin´, fumin´ shit and to my big surprise Leslie Nielsen has a part in it. For some reason he wears a wig and fake breasts in it. I have no idea why. I feel sorry for Leslie Nielsen. I grew up with the guy as Frank Drebin in “The Naked Gun”-movies and the “Police Squad” TV-series but is this really what it has come to: Nielsen is 83 fucking years old and relegated to playing a transvestite or whatever the hell he´s supposed to be in a movie called “Stan Helsing”, starring the guy who was married to Reba McIntyre´s daughter on her crappy sitcom? Really? My heart bleeds for you, Leslie.

Anyway, this sad sight of Leslie Nielsen made me do two things. The first was to re-watch “Airplane!” just to remind myself how goddamn funny he was once upon a time (“I am serious and don´t call me Shirley”). The second thing was to re-watch “Van Helsing”, starring Hugh Jackman. Yes, I said “re-watch”! I have seen this movie more than once, believe it or not. Bare with me and I´ll try to explain what appeal this movie holds for me, ok?

Some movies are made for one and one reason only: to make you stuff your face with popcorn! “Van Helsing” is such a film. In fact, this movie is basically the celluloid version of popcorn: it doesn´t taste that much but it goes down without you having to chew it too much and every once in a while you get one of those annoying little corn bits stuck between your teeth. That´s “Van Helsing”! I´ll probably get crucified for saying this out loud but I actually enjoy this movie. It´s entertaining in that kind of Saturday morning-serial cartoons used to be when you were a kid. Every time I watch this movie I have to check to see if I´m not still in my pajamas I wore when I was about eight years old. Fortunately that isn´t the case because that would pretty disturbing, to put it mildly.

Now, let´s get one thing out of the way immediately: if you can´t stand CGI, you should avoid this movie. Also, if you´re looking for a “real” horror movie, this is not the movie for you. This is about as much horror as “Dracula-Dead and Loving It”, ok? Or as that fricking “Stan Helsing”-movie, for that matter.

Anyway, Hugh Jackman stars as Van Helsing, who in Stephen Sommers´world works as a monster hunter for the Vatican. Remember that albino fucker in “The Da Vinci Code”? If you cross him with James Bond then we´re sort of close to what Van Helsing is like in this movie.

Van Helsing has a trusty sidekick named Carl (played by David Wenham), travels to Transylvania to battle a whole bunch of monsters, like Dracula and his sultry brides, the Wolfman and Frankenstein.

Now, since this is a movie directed by Stephen Sommers, who´s responsible for “The Mummy”-series and the criminally underrated “Deep Rising”, Van Helsing gets able help from Anna Valerious, who has her own agenda of why she wants to kill these fuckers. The thing is that she´s played by Kate Beckinsale. She´s the girl in the latex suit from the “Underworld”-series and let´s just say that she gets quite a becoming outfit in this one, as well.

And because this is a Stephen Sommers-movies you shouldn´t expect a Hammer-style movie. Like I mentioned, in his world Van Helsing is James Bond, appears to have the same stylist as Keanu Reeves had in “The Matrix” and the Wolfman is an over-sized raging monster who´s about as far from Lon Chaney as I am to giving up drinking, ok?

I am well aware that this is the kind of movie that I should hate. I should despise it with a passion. Yet, for some strange reason, I don´t. I must´ve seen this movie about four or five times but I still can´t quite remember what happens in it. I remember parts from it and that it was entertaining enough. The thing is that I seem to conjure up memories of it actually being better and more fun than it is, so I have to re-watch it every year or so and every time I finish watching it I realize that it´s not a great movie by any means but you know, you could do a hell of a lot worse if you´re stuck with a hangover from the depths of hell on Sunday morning.

I know that that´s not a valid reason for liking a movie and usually I´m not one to say things like “What did you expect? Shakespeare?” after watching a movie like “Transformers”, ok? But I´m willing to go with that argument with this one. I admit that Stephen Sommers should´ve done more with such a great concept movie for a genuine horror movie but instead he turned it into a movie equivalent of an amusement park ride. But hey, at least he´s not Michael Bay, ok? I think it´s obvious that while watching “Van Helsing” or “The Mummy” for that matter, that Sommers do have a genuine love for these kinds of movies. He seem to have a goal with them and that is to create the most entertaining movie he can for that seven year old kid who still watches those cartoons in his pajamas on Saturday morning. I don´t think that that´s the worst goal to have when you´re making a huge blockbuster like this one.

Don´t even ask me what Michael Bay´s goal is because I have no idea. Probably to corrupt the minds of audiences and create kids with attention spans that won´t stretch longer than two seconds.

This is a loud, dumb-as-hell and cheesy movie but tell me this: how can you not like a movie where Van Helsing has a crossbow battle with flying vampire witches just moments after he´s arrived in Transylvania? You can´t. You just can´t…

I promise I will try to discuss something a little more high brow next time, ok? But for now, just check your brain at the door.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Ok, I think we can all agree on the fact that when the first ”Iron Man” was released, we were all pretty surprised. I don´t think anyone expected it to be that much fun except for maybe the guys who actually made the movie. I mean, granted that whoever got the brilliant idea to cast Robert Downey, JR as Tony Stark deserves a raise but when I heard that it was gonna be directed by that guy from “Swingers” and who played Monica´s rich boyfriend on “Friends”, I wasn´t too thrilled. Well, as we all know Jon Favreau turned out to be the perfect choice because “Iron Man” was one of the more enjoyable and entertaining comic book movies of the last ten years! I mean, I appreciate a brooding hero like Batman in “The Dark Knight” as much as the next guy but we can all use a movie like this that is just plain, good old-fashioned fun! So while the first one took us by surprise, the second one has a lot to live up to. And I mean a lot…

So does it succeed? Kind of. This isn´t as much fun as the first one, which kind of surprised me that I felt that way. Usually I´m not that big of a fan when it comes to the first installment in superhero-franchises. I always think that the origin story is the least interesting one. Just look at “Batman Begins” compared to “The Dark Knight”. It´s the same with the first two “Spider Man” movies. Once they get that origin shit out of the way, things usually gets interesting.

Well, I didn´t feel that way with this franchise. However, I have to admit that they´ve done a great job with continuing the story arch from the first movie without it feeling forced or contrived. To be honest, this doesn´t so much feel like a sequel, instead it feels like the same movie as the first one. I love it when sequels start off right where the first one ended and this one does exactly this. And let´s face it: “Iron Man” part I had a great fucking ending! You know, when Tony Stark announced to the world that “I am Iron Man”?

And it´s much to this that “Iron Man” remains interesting. He is one of the few super heroes where the world is aware of his identity and this guy embraces it wholeheartedly. This is how we´re introduced to Stark in the second one, when he appears at the opening of the “Stark Expo”, where makes quite an entrance. Since the first movie, Stark has managed to negotiate a peace between the world´s major super powers and he´s not gonna let anyone forget this. He´s got quite the rock star thing going on and he´s living it up. But you know, like every major rock star Stark also has his own skeletons in the closet but it´s not like he´s got a heroin addiction nor has a penchant for underage girls or anything like that. Instead Stark is dying because of the palladium in the arc reactor he´s got mounted in his chest. Life ain´t easy for a crime fighting multi billionaire, you know? Plus the fact that he´s got a sleazy senator (played by Garry Shandling) after him and wants him to turn over the “Iron Man” suit to the government and an equally slimy weapons manufacturer (played by Sam Rockwell), trying to copy his work.

And as if this wasn´t enough, when Stark is in Monaco, trying to enjoy a quiet day of racing the formula one car that he owns, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke, sporting more tattoos than Lemmy and with more gold in his mouth than Fort Knox), shows up with a weapon very similar to Stark´s and he makes it pretty clear that he doesn´t intend on using it for the good of mankind.

There´s a lot going on in “Iron Man 2”. Maybe a bit too much to fit it all into a 2 hour popcorn movie? There a couple of storylines that are brushed over too easily and that I would´ve liked to see some more of. For instance, Mickey Rourke is sorely underused in the film. It´s good to see him back on the big screen and hopefully this elevates him even further into the movie stardom stratosphere, to the point where he can make the kind of movies he wants to, but Vanko is by far the most interesting character in the film. He´s had a pretty brutal past where he was raised by an alcoholic father who was deported from the states, partly thanks to Howard Stark, Tony´s father, and this is only hinted at in a couple of scenes and I would´ve definitely liked to have seen this explored some more. I don´t know if Favreau initially shot a longer version of the film because it feels like some characters are introduced, then dropped without ever to appear again.

It´s the same thing with Scarlett Johansson´s Black Widow aka Natasha Romanoff. I don´t know about you, but I´m not that big of a fan when it comes to the “Iron Man” comic book. I always thought it had a boring lead character and it wasn´t particularly exciting. However, I was always a huge fan of the Black Widow character. She kicked ass long before they made that Nicolas Cage-movie with that same name. Unfortunately, she too is sorely underused in the movie. Hell, we only get to see her in full Black Widow-regalia in one scene towards the end, which is way too little. It is a pretty cool scene though, so I´m not gonna whine too much.

But there are a couple of things that bugged me. For instance, they make a big deal about Mickey Rourke´s pet bird, which is shown briefly in a credit sequence, and he keeps going on about how he wants his bird and all that. When they finally get the bird to him, it´s not the same bird but then it doesn´t seem to matter too much to him. He seems to like this other bird just as much, which I found weird. I´m not sure what the whole deal about this bird was? Was there some kind of plotline where they showed how this bird and Mickey Rourke love each other which were cut out of the film? Are they dating? Have the bird cheated on him, is that why he forgets about it so quickly? It´s just weird…

At another point in the movie, Kate Mara (of “Brokeback Mountain” and “Shooter”-fame) pops up as a solicitor, serving Tony Stark with an impeachment, only to disappear after that one sequence. I think she´s a little bit too well known for a small cameo like this which only makes her appearance distracting, when you realize that this character isn´t gonna show up again. I kept waiting for her to re-appear and use her super special legal-skills to help Tony Stark out of a bind, or something. Didn´t happen.

But this is probably one of the more entertaining action movies you´re gonna see this summer and even though it is fun as hell, it still manages to hint at some of the darkness that Tony Stark has to carry with him. Like his alcohol consumption, for instance. This is shown in a scene that manages to be pretty funny and awkwardly sad at the same time, much thanks to Downey, JR´s performance. I think it´s safe to say that the guy has that mixed up-alcoholic thing down to a tee. I was waiting for a scene where he´s flying around in his “Iron Man” suit, drunk as hell and accidently flies into his neighbor’s house only to pass out in the daughter´s bed and then be picked up by the cops but maybe that was one of the deleted scenes that I mentioned earlier.

I think it would be interesting to watch the two movies back-to-back when this one is released on DVD because I think that it´ll play even better then. I kinda got the feeling that the movie ended pretty abruptly in its current state but maybe it´ll play better when you watch the two movies in one sitting. But then again, what the hell do I know?

All in all, I gotta say that I really liked this one and I´d definitely pay to see a third one, which judging from the post credit-sequence you get in this one, promises to be pretty goddamn great! I do have one major objection and that is that Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is just wrong. And believe me, this is not a racial thing. I thought Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin in “Daredevil” worked just fine but it just feels weird watching Jackson as Fury. Samuel L. Jackson always plays and always will play no other character than Samuel L. Jackson, so to cast him as Nick Fury, head director of S.H.I.E.L.D., is not the brightest move the movie industry has made.

If it were up to me they should´ve let David Hasselhoff, who played Fury in the 1998 TV-movie “Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.”, have another go at the character. But that´s just one guy´s opinion.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas