Odd Thomas

Full disclosure: I am a MASSIVE Dean Koontz fan.

I was about 12 when Watchers was suggested to me by my always reliable and amazingly like-minded Aunt Denise who figured that Mr. Koontz was right up my alley.

OH. JEEZ. OH. WOW.

I was amazed. It was upon completion of Watchers (again by Dean Koontz - no I don't make a cent off of suggesting him to you or continually mentioning his name - Dean Koontz, how dare you think otherwise - if you must know...I make dollars) that I vowed to read everything the man had ever written.

It took a bit of time, but I accomplished that goal a few years ago (the man is prolific and I was behind when I started the journey - FYI). The point to all of this exposition is that I get the man pretty well. His writing has evolved over time and he's gone off on different avenues occasionally. Over the years he's developed a fairly strong formula. He writes multi-genre tales that follow moralistic characters that usually involve a normal man and woman that must come together in order to confront something extraordinary. More often than not the supernatural is involved. Sometimes a dog. The two protagonists usually fall in love.

It sounds generic - BUT IT'S NOT. If you leave this article with nothing more than Odd Thomas and Watchers, I'm happy. I trust that after you read those brilliant novels, you could read ANYTHING of his and get sucked in the way that I was. Try Hideaway, From the Corner of His Eye, the Husband, By the Light of the Moon, Fear Nothing, Twilight Eyes, etc.

The man is truly brilliant.

I digress - as I have a tendency to do, for example, I could write about the brilliance of rainbows (double and single alike) and the loveliness of all types of flowers in their wondrous forms - but that's not the point of this article. The point is Odd Thomas.

Koontz has only ever written about one character twice. The first was Christopher Snow AKA the Moonlight Bay trilogy (which has yet to see the final installment), the second is Odd Thomas.

Odd Thomas starts out as a young man (title character - duh - yes, his name is Odd Thomas) who happens to be able to see things that most people cannot see. He see's ghosts, visions, and vicious creatures that he call's Bodachs that herald great pain, suffering, and turmoil. The more Bodachs that show up, the bigger the problem. When the first novel starts, he's a simple fry cook working in his hometown of Pico Mundo (a made up desert town that could be a number of different places North-East of San Diego). He is followed by Elvis Presley who, like all spirits in the series cannot talk to him but can issue methods of encouragement and advice by way of mannerisms, facial expressions and moods. Something bad is about to happen in Pico Mundo because the Bodachs are all over town. Someone has to do something about it - and while the lad would love nothing more than to avoid violence and live out a peaceful life, he's loathe to ignore evil no matter how he might tell you he's trying to just do his own thing or go his own way.

Please, do yourself a favor - read the book. No matter what eloquent sentence or poetic passage that I might put forth can do justice to such a read. We'd be here all night, and by then, I'd just start pounding out the entire novel on my keyboard, a devil's care to how much I plagiarized the author.

By the end of the novel you will feel hope, passion, terror and pain. You will cry, more than likely, sob. Odd Thomas will touch you and move you to heights of compassion you no longer believed yourself capable of and to a depth of feeling (that warm fuzzy stuff) you didn't think you could succumb to.

Good news for all you slackers...here comes the movie.

Except it doesn't.

Koontz used to allow a lot of his early material to be made into movies. But then horrible things started happening:

Watchers was made with Corey Haim (in a role that should have been occupied by a 36-year old man):

Hideaway was made with Jeff Goldblum ('nuff said - even though I like the man):

We live in an era of unequal respect for the written word. However, it's only through so many historic misfires that Hollywood has learned: FOLLOW SOURCE MATERIAL = BOX OFFICE GOLD. Stephen King can attest to this as much as Koontz can.

There is a REASON bestseller exists. The old school method was to simply use the title and do whatever you wanted (i.e. EGO). Yet now, the more that any said popular material gains strength Hollywood has become afraid of straying from the source material. And rightfully so. What should be simple common sense has been learned through failure. So many good books have been sacrificed on the altar of Hollywood - doing whatever they want to do. Yet, when you already have a strong following right out the gate, the last thing you want to do is piss off the fans. The originators of the excitement. Again, this is common sense, but you can't have high hopes for insane, coke-heads that are given the keys to the kingdom via family-run "businesses".

Thus we come to the Odd Thomas situation.

In the years that followed so many horrible adaptations, Koontz took charge of the reigns and only allowed certain projects into the hands of the insane and Liberal wild-bunch. Mostly he allowed mini-series to be made out of his books as long as he had some control over the projects via production titles and some form of written input on the screenplays. King does the same thing now, btdubs.

However, Odd Thomas is a different development.

Stephen Sommers is in Hollywood jail. Having made the Mummy and the Mummy Returns he was once on a high, however since then he's made Van Helsing (a massive creative flop if not a financial one) and was thrown off the set of GI Joe. I don't blame him for seeking redemption. In Koontz he has seemed to found it.

Sommers' screenplay was greenlit. He brought together an inspired cast (Anton Yelchin as Odd is the stuff of dreams) and shot the damn thing. It's now done and awaiting distribution...waiting, and waiting.

The waiting has no end in sight.

Koontz himself has seen the movie and loves it. 

Read the article above and lament with me why we haven't seen Odd Thomas on the screen. It's there...ready to go!

Dredd review

I'm just going to come out and say it: Dredd is a goddamn great flick. Go out and see it and tell your friends.

This is a rare comic-book adaptation that I have very little knowledge of. I mean, I'm aware of the Judge Dredd comic books and I've read at least one issue (a Batman and Dredd team-up), but beyond the homework I've done and the last wonderfully terrible Judge Dredd movie (with Stallone of course - yes, the two are related, at least in name only), I'm mostly clueless to the world. So to be fair I can't really tell you if this is truthful or honorable to the roots of the series - it definitely appears to be, but I am without firsthand knowledge. Nor do I really care either way.

Dredd is set in a dystopian future where most of the Earth is unlivable, so the few remaining areas that haven't been destroyed are jam-packed full of people in what are called Mega Cities. To deal with the ever climbing population, the law enforcement of the time have been made capable of acting as judge, jury, and when needs be - executioner. Judge Dredd is a highly competent officer who is tasked with breaking in a rookie that happens to have psychic powers. They respond to a call to one of the city's various HUGE urban complexes (think a city within a giant building) and thus enter a Die Hard situation when the building's drug lord locks down the place and tasks the residences to kill the Judges (all to stop them from stumbling on to a massive drug manufacturing plant within the building).

The following film is a collage of badassery that is gloriously violent, fun, and unrelenting. Dredd is a hard kick in the teeth to anyone making an action-movie in our completely PC and disapproving of blood and gore culture. It is the ethereally gorgeous child of classic Verhoeven fare like Robocop and Total Recall (the original, dumbass). Steeped in 80's tradition with all the sensibilities and look of a modern film, THIS is the action movie you've been waiting for with bated breath.

Furthermore, the casts rocks all kinds of shit. I've been a huge fan of Karl Urban's for years. The guy is truly a chameleon whether he's playing Bones in the new Star Trek series, rocking an awesome Tommy Lee Jones impersonation in the Lonesome Dove prequel Comanche Moon, or playing a proud warrior from Rohan in the Lord of the Rings series - he's a damn fine actor. Insisting on wearing the helmet throughout Dredd is another profoundly humbling action (Dredd in the comics has never taken off his helm) in the history of this man's credentials.

Meanwhile, Olvia Thirlby takes the role of the psychic Anderson and runs with it. She should be annoying...in most films this role would be. She's innocent and untested so of course she's supposed to hesitate and dwell agonizingly on every right decision she makes (i.e. executions) that is perhaps questionable to the Liberally-leaning viewer - except she doesn't. Sure, she's scared and unsure at times, but the mission itself is a huge testing ground for her character so instead of playing the victim, she steps up and builds on her role and allows her trials to strengthen her instead of making her constantly question herself. Her continuing resolve and growing maturity allows her relationship with Dredd to be vastly interesting and satisfying. The two truly compliment each other, and I'm left thinking - if I were Dredd - that I'd want her to watch my back any day of the week. That says a lot...usually I find female law enforcement officers to be a joke, ESPECIALLY on film. Not here.

Of course, I can't end this review without talking about the director. I'm left remembering how I felt about the Dawn of the Dead remake by Zach Snyder. Within fifteen minutes of that movie, I realized I was watching something amazing and needed to remember who the director was so that I could follow his career - and I have, JOYFULLY.

Pete Travis directed Dredd, and while I am unfamiliar with his previous work, I resolve to remedy that immediately. This guy made a phenomenal action-flick that was (by all accounts) true to it's comic roots while being highly entertaining in the face of a studio system that said it could not be done. He took a sub-genre character and storyline and put together a film that is both fun and interesting. The pace is smooth but fast, the look is perfect for the setting, and the characters and actors soak up the atmosphere in a way that is almost contradictory. It's rare that you get both, a well made film and good performances. It's usually one or the other. There is a drug in the movie that's called slo-mo that makes the brain feel like everything is happening at 1% it's usual rate - this is shown in the trailers. A shitty director would have used this a ton, but Travis uses it fleetingly. However, when he does use the effect it's impact is gold. You're almost left wanting more - which is exactly how it should be.

As if you couldn't tell, I loved Dredd. This is EXACTLY the sort of movie I want us all to support. I wants me a sequel! So go out and see it! NOW! I am the law!


10 / 10

End of Watch review

End of Watch is this generation's Colors. But moreover, it adds fuel to the fire by being something more of a Lethal Weapon buddy comedy with the serious overtones that made Colors a classic gritty, urban melodrama showing life on the streets from behind and in front of a badge. 

That being said, I'd like to take a quick side-note and talk about the "found footage" element behind this movie and all movies in general. First off, it should be noted that End of Watch does not maintain the constant found footage staples. The movie uses the idea generously but it's clear the filmmakers didn't want to be beholden to the limited types of camera angles and viewpoints - so it strays a lot. Especially by the last reel, the movie develops a more classic approach almost entirely abandoning the found footage technique. In a sense, it can't be labeled under the genre. So the question becomes, why do it in the first place? If I loved the technique this is the part of the review where I criticize the sloppiness and/or laziness of the director. However, I loathe the technique. I think it's a done deal and while it had it's time and maybe still can have it's uses in the future, most films do not fit into this style and don't need to. Not to long ago, I covered this ground with Chronicle. Certain movies can benefit from found footage, most can't. More often than not it diminishes the film overall, taking a movie that could easily score an A or B down a few notches. 

It's a bummer but it's a reality, End of Watch would be a better film without the gimmick. 

Still that's about all the negativity I can pound out on the movie. The story is simple but tight with interesting characters and good performances. Stories can generally be broken down between either being plot-driven or character-driven. This is absolutely a character-driven story that takes us into a world few of us are ever exposed to. But just so you know, the basic plot revolves around two LAPD Officers that are more like brothers than partners. They're sort of the current rock stars of the city and consistently make big busts. The problems come along when they flare up on the radar of the Mexican drug cartel and are very quickly targeted for execution. While it's not very realistic (the chances of two beat cops coming under the cartel's purview and then being worth enough heat for them to put a hit on are nil to none), the plot serves as both interesting and adrenaline-fueled.

What really makes this movie fun, worth watching, and believable are the performances turned out by Michael Pena and Jake Gyllenhaal. They have a naturalistic camaraderie that is always welcome in these types of movies and is interesting and fun to watch. You believe these guys are friends and would want to have a beer with them. Personally, I can very much relate to the bromance relationship these guys have and I think it's truly a rare thing. So it's investing to watch their lives intertwine as the drama heightens and the tension winds itself around the brutality and evil that is slowly encircling them as the climax drives itself to it's obvious conclusion. The ending is pretty riveting and traumatic. It's not glossy or pretty and strives to be something close to real.

I remember after Shooter came out everyone couldn't hype up Michael Pena more. Personally I felt he was overrated and nothing special. But he keeps hitting it, and with this performance, I feel he's transcended the hype and proven himself to me. Not that he ever had to or cared to. Ha.


7 / 10

Mumford and Sons get's my soul!

The question has been posed to the ages: Are you a Beatles fan or Elvis fan? Sure you can be both, but you have to be one more than the other. It's just inherent.

My answer: Mumford and Sons.

They have quickly become my favorite band of all-time. It just is. From the beautiful lyrics to the haunting and insanely soulful melodies combined with the acoustic nature of their music I am just completely and irrevocably all-in.

I want you to love them the way that I love them. But I also want you to buy their new album! It is completely and ridiculously amazing. Please check it out.

A few years ago when I was going through a rough patch I came across "A White Blank Page" and it totally expressed how I felt at the time. That wasn't my initial meeting with the band, I had just started listening to their songs via YouTube...but man, oh man did that song hit at the right time. Funny thing, there's a new song that hits me where I live now, enjoy:

And for old times sake:

Looper is coming Part Deux!

Remember this date: SEPTEMBER 28th.

This is the date Looper comes to theater's. I want you there opening weekend...I MEAN IT.

I'm very excited for this movie as I think it's a true example of awesomeness and originality. It takes place in the future. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a hit-man who is hired to kill people sent back through time. Meaning, he get's a time and a place, shows up, person appears and he kills them. The drama starts when the mob sends back his older-self played by Bruce Willis.

If that was it, I'd probably still be sold on this movie. But it's everything else that get's me excited, the look, the sound, the feel, the visual fabric of the flick. Emily Blunt is in it. The design work of the world and the weaponry. Gordon-Levitt's make-up job to look more like Willis. Emily Blunt is in it. And I also read an article about how Gordon-Levitt spent mucho time studying the early works of Willis in order to sound like him and act like him, that means he watched Die Hard for hours upon hours. That is fucking awesome.

Did I mention Emily Blunt is in it?

Tell me that doesn't look badass...really digging the intensity between Bruce and Joseph.

Can't wait...mark your calenders - NOW!

Tell me that's NOT an interesting weapon design!

Dude, you slapped a fiiiish!

It's hard to tell if this is something I should post, or would usually post? It's Twilight-related and beyond my one fair review of a Twilight movie (Breaking Dawn Part I) there's nothing Twilight-centric about this site. However, the following video is insanely funny - so it's going up. What's crazy about this is how well everything matches up and that these guys do this A LOT.

Beyond questioning whether I would post this or not, the biggest problem I had was picking a good quote for the title!

Solomon Kane review

Solomon Kane is a movie that I had heard about - what feels like - ages ago. It looked interesting, perhaps good? I don't know what the hold-up was. Usually when a movie is shelved and unreleased it's because either the studio doesn't know what to do with it and/or they lack faith in it. Cabin in the Woods is a movie that was famously held-up mostly because the studio had no idea what to do with it. Well, that was stupid because regardless of how well the movie did, it was brilliant and deserved to be shown to the general public. Regardless, Solomon Kane is now finally seeing a limited release, even though I saw it a week or so ago via on-demand.

It's a known property, Kane being the creation of Robert E. Howard, the man behind Conan the Barbarian. They're very similar in the sense that they both tell tales of flawed, sword-wielding men who must battle all types of supernatural and occult-based foes. However, I feel like Kane is the more interesting property which is funny since he's not very well known.

The movie starts out with Solomon Kane being one of the worst Captain's you'd ever want to follow while exploring the world and treasure hunting. He's cruel, evil and violently vicious, but he seems happy about it so it's all gravy. Until he faces off with a grim reaper of sorts and he's informed that his soul is destined for Hell. Kane escapes the reaper and finds sanctuary in a monastery in England for a while until he's ordered to leave and travel home as part of his atonement. Along the way, Kane meets a family bound for the New World and journey's with them. The inevitable conflict comes when a supernatural force happens across the band and innocent blood is spilled. Kane must choose to do nothing and keep his soul safe or attack and risk an odyssey into Hell. What would you do? Well of course Kane goes on an ass-kicking spree and eventually encounters the Big Bad's of the movie in the face of an almost Hamlet-like recreation that has much to do with his own past and how he became the man he was and is.

For the most part, Solomon Kane is a helluva flick. It's a good amount of fun while staying true to the intensity and seriousness of the subject matter, what with religion, history, faith, and the will to do violence all being key elements in the plot and the character's motivations. It's filmed fairly well and sprinkled with surprisingly good actors and performances.

There are some giant leaps of logic within the story and some of the set-pieces are rushed and/or don't make sense. The visual style is decent but feels copied like a better filmmaker could have done something more interesting with the same script - it's not bad, just uninspired. Yet overall, it's a good time at the movies. 

In many ways, this is exactly what Van Helsing should have been like and even looked like! They definitely could have made a corny, campy trip into Kane's world with this movie, but I'm happy to report they didn't stray. Sure, there are moments of ridiculousness (like all movies) but it's not drenched in stupidity.


7 / 10

Is it though?

Don't get me wrong by the title of this post, Beauty and the Beast has always been my favorite fairy tale story (in all it's weird and dark incarnations) as well as my favorite Disney animated film. With good reason...

At least on the film part.

We're talking about a highly award-winning and nominated film. The only animated film in fact to ever be nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Picture category. So let's just say it's a great film.

But IS it the most beautiful love story of all time!?

Here is where I make the obligatory bondage reference...except, I'm above that. Any mediocre hack-writer could cynically tear this story to shreds. But I don't want to do that nor do I find it refreshing, necessary, and/or prudent. 

Personally, I would argue it's ONE of the most beautiful love stories ever told. But it's a few chickens short of a roost for the top spot.

However, there is something visceral and pure about that poster and it's claim on having a beautiful love story behind the curtain. Look closely at that poster, sure the Beast has a few vague bestial characteristics, but overall it's just a big dude dancing with a lady. There's something to the story of Beauty and the Beast that speaks to the basic differences between men and women.

It speaks to the relationship between men and women. Rose and thorn (see what I did there?), tough and soft, "Cowboys and Angels, leather and lace" (great Garth Brooks song), rough and tough versus soft and firm. I think ultimately this is why Beauty and the Beast can take a top stop on the ultimate love VH1 list of whatever their doing for whatever reason or other.

My point stands...screw VH1.

Obligatory great scene:

 

Long live movie theaters!

I've been hesitant to chime in on the whole re-releasing old movies thing that the studio's have been doing recently. Whether it was all the Disney flicks being re-released or the Star Wars movies or the Spielberg Anniversary movies like Jaws and E.T, I felt like a wait and see approach was necessary.

Obviously it's a cash grab, so there's that. Yet part of me always felt like they should've been doing this for years - but not at the cost of putting out original material. THAT is why I've always been hesitant to stake a claim on this subject.

Sure, Lucas is airing out his bullshit prequel movies, but let's face it, what else has the guy got? The Empire Strikes Back is just not his movie, HIS movies are the prequels so OF COURSE he's going to flaunt his shit first...I say let him make a fool out of himself. Let him put out his crap while we wait for the good stuff, and watch how the good stuff makes tons more money than HIS bullshit.

Yep.

Lucas-tangent aside, I feel like the re-releasing of classic movies and or epics is mostly a great thing. Sure, I have ZERO interest in Finding Nemo 3D but that's only because:

1. Saw the movie once in theaters, personally that was enough. It's a good flick, but I don't have a serious connection with it and I loathe 3D.

2. The movie wasn't released all that long ago that I feel a re-release is necessary.

However, take a flick like Raiders of the Lost Ark (which I just got back from seeing in theaters for the very first time) for example:

This is a film that most living people have NEVER seen in the cinema. I would argue most living people have NEVER even seen it on their television screens. This is the perfect example of a movie that deserves a re-release. I would argue any massive blockbuster that drew high praise over 20 years old NEEDS a re-release. If only for a week.

Yet, I only feel this way after having watched Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time in my 31 years on the big screen.

It was FUCKING EPIC.

I have always loved Raiders of the Lost Ark, but now I also realize that part of my initial love for this movie had more to do with the fantastic character of Indiana Jones than the actual movie. Or in other words, seeing a movie like this on the small screen compared to the silver screen is like comparing your favorite band on CD to live-up-front and in-person.

It's that simple. The power of your favorite band on CD or LIVE?

It's the same for movies. And that's why I say firmly that a movie can be great on DVD/Blu-Ray/On-Demand, or whatever - but it's ALWAYS BETTER IN THE CINEMA. 

The sound is better and more bombastic. The picture is usually better or just as good but BIGGER. The environment is all encompassing and dark (given you don't have asshats ruining the experience for you - but do something about it should they try). It's just an all around better experience.

There has been a threat from the studio's over the last few years to make theater owners upgrade or they will just push their movies down the digital stream via Netflix and such, thereby making cinemas obsolete. I've always been of the mind-set that there is a certain magic and mystery and overall vibe to the movie theater that will never die - yet if the theater's DON'T improve I can easily see people staying at home to watch movies. Indeed, as the cost to build your own quality movie theater in your living room downgrades and ticket prices go up the situation becomes dire.

It's a damn shame because while you could do some amazing things with audio and visual equipment in your own home, it CANNOT meet the standard for what I saw tonight watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on the big screen. It was amazing.

It was like seeing the movie for the first time - and I've seen Raiders a hundred times.

That says something.

I still say Raise Ticket Prices, but go see the classics in cinema for sure. When ELSE will get a chance to see a movie like Raiders in theaters again?

The way it was MEANT to be seen!?

Also, they digitally erase the reflections of the glass here, so it looks super scarier.

The Longest Harry Potter-related media I will ever post...probably

The love I feel for the Harry Potter world is without depth and continues to grow as I re-read or re-watch the movies from time-to-time. I would do a disservice to the material in giving little to broad detail on how important and entertaining the story truly is. Novels should, will be and probably have already been written on the profound impact the Wizarding world of J.K. Rowling has had on our culture just as any great world-building fiction does and has.

I don't think I've let my love for Harry permeate into the Batcave enough, so let this be a warning that I will soon have to remedy this problem.

In the meantime, take a look at this very in-depth and well put-together retrospective that was made for the recently released Harry Potter Wizard's Collection:

You're welcome.

Cerebral pain...

Vanilla Sky is one of my all-time favorite movies.

It's a complicated film that touches on everything from want, need, lust, love, and pain. If you were to only view the movie as a one-trick-pony and ignore the depth that is inherent - well, you are a FOOL.

Regardless, I am about to show you how badass this world is.

By the end of the film we are all touched and HAMMERED by what the world IS and what it should BE.

There is a phenomenal sequence where man on Mars faces off with Woman from Venus and love burst' forth.

The older I get the less I believe in the capability of women and the strength that I SO want them to have.

What really hits:

I am a flawed man...make no mistake. I strive to be more, but it's a struggle. I TRY to be optimistic. With every breath I try to be better and make us all work for the best that we can all be.

There is a deep love for women that I continually carry with my whole heart, soul, and being. I want, and need for us to all get along, love each other and just make a general harmony with each other...still there is a total dislike for all of us against one another. Look deep enough and we can all make an improvement for one another. We got this...the pain...the heart...the sympathy...and more, we have got it.

There is a moment in the following scene - it's a moment where Tom Cruise realizes what he's lost and that there is a slim chance to recovery - it's a moment where we realize shit has hit the fan. It's a moment where the hero realizes that he CAN'T win back the love of his life. It's over. He's done. It's a heartbreaking moment.

"I lost you when I got in that car...I'm sorry." - Mistakes. Sometimes nothing can change what is.

The realization that it's all over...

"But every passing minute is a chance to turn it all around", while she says that she will find him again.

AMEN.

It's heartbreaking and amazing all at once...

I recommend more Cameron Crow and Dean Koontz!

Daredevil: What could have been!?

I'm pretty late on posting about this, but a few weeks ago there was this big hubbub over the rights to make a new Daredevil movie. Fox currently owns the rights but that will change in October.

You see back in the day, the mid-90's to be exact, Marvel went through a traumatic period where they were forced to sell many of the rights to there characters in order to stay in the black. Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Ghost Rider, Blade, the X-Men and all of their characters, plus Daredevil and many others were sold to various movie studio's. Marvel could still publish comics about these guys but they couldn't make movies about them. This is why so many versions of these character's movies suck. Marvel often does not have as much control as they would like or as they have had on the stuff they still have the rights to, like Iron Man, Thor, the Avengers, etc.

The caveat behind all of this is that if the studio's don't consistently use the subject matter it will revert back to Marvel. Unless the studio starts producing a Daredevil movie by October, Fox will lose the rights and Marvel will gain them back. While this is pretty good news, it's also oddly a bummer.

You see, Joe Carnahan the writer/director of such greats as Smokin' Aces, the A-Team and the Grey was all set-up and dedicated to make a gritty, somewhat hardcore Daredevil movie for the studio. He cut together a visual representation of what he was shooting for, something in the vein of a 70's crime thriller and this is what he presented to the idiotic exec's at Fox:

HOLY GODDAMN BATMAN - er, I mean Daredevil!?

That would have been a frakking masterpiece IMHO.

Carnahan always seems to get the shaft on so many projects with extraordinary potential. From a White Jazz (L.A. Confidential world) movie with George Clooney falling apart to a possible Preacher series that let's face it, won't work out either. Urgh, argh.

The ultra-weird element behind this story is that Marvel approached Fox about letting them hold onto the rights. Yep, you read that right. These are the facts, and afterwards I will translate what probably transpired:

Fox was losing ground on Daredevil.

Marvel approached Fox about extending their claim on Daredevil in order for them to "borrow" one of the characters that Fox currently controls, namely, Galactus.

Fox says no, but asks Marvel if they want to co-finance a Daredevil movie instead.

Marvel says no, rights will revert back.

Ultimately, this is something I've been wanting to happen for a while - I've wanted it to become publicly realized that some of these studios are so inept and incompetent that they fail to use these properties well, thus they are embarrassingly returned to their rightful owners. I want this to happen with the X-Men more than I can say.

But here's where we must read between the lines. Obviously Fox didn't really care to make another Daredevil movie. Obviously, Marvel wants Galactus for something.

If you're unfamiliar with Galactus, it's pretty simple. He's a cosmic being that is known as the Eater of Worlds. He needs to siphon the energies of living planets in order to survive. Earth is a Big Mac to this guy and he looks like this:

Or THIS as the chicken-shit Fox production of Fantastic Four 2 would show you:

It's pretty clear that Marvel would most want Galactus for their Avengers sequel. But it could be for a number of different projects. Doesn't really matter.

Marvel GRACIOUSLY gives Fox borrowed time to make a Daredevil movie asking only for the use of Galactus temporarily (which is odd because they could have gone in for the kill and demanded Galactus back wholesale for Fox to have the right to start and finish their movie) and Fox flat-out denies them. Which I feel is a completely vindictive move and a clear and amazing example of how these asshats think. Fox is willing to lose Daredevil at the expense of trying to hurt Marvel in their future plans. That's the way I read it, and I firmly think that's the ONLY way you can read it. Marvel's success has pissed a lot of people off, and this was Fox's chance to wound them.

Except it doesn't. At all.

Whatever Marvel wanted Galactus for, I'm sure they have a back-up plan, meanwhile they gain Daredevil and lose nothing. Fox stupidly loses a cash cow in some sort of odd, cocaine-fueled idea of a slap in the face?

This is the reason eventually all of the rights that BELONG to Marvel will find their way back to Marvel, because of the way these studio executives conduct their precious "business" and clearly operate without logic while infusing anger and emotion in things that should be about art and money. It's all ego, pride, insanity and stupidity in Hollywood. Oh, and drugs - lots of drugs.

How else do you explain it?

My favorite part has to be where Fox counters with, "fuck you on Galactus, but hey you wanna help us pay to make a Daredevil movie?" Seriously!?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but JEEZUZ these guys are horrible fucking businessmen. Marvel could pay Fox to help them with a movie or they could just wait for the rights to revert back and make a BETTER movie. Wow...just wow. It reads like some sort of attempt at subterfuge like Fox was trying to bluff or something in order to raise the stakes. Fucking stupid.

I don't know why I'm complaining, Daredevil is all but safe now back at Marvel - but dammit that Carnahan reel was interesting. Hopefully Marvel will contact him and continue down that path now that the Fox morons are out of the deal.

One can hope!

Best. PSA. Ever.

Big-time SPOILER ALERT.

Do NOT watch the following video if you aren't caught up in your Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire reading. This is a PSA all about the third installment in the series a Storm of Swords. It's freaking awesome and hilarious. And mostly true...

Honestly, the only reason I'm posting it is because it contains a cute redhead that says she would do horrible things (as in sexual) to a particular guy on the show and that she'd let him do 51 shades of grey on her...LMFAO. Ugh, why is she NOT my wife!?

Anyway, without further adieu:

I agree that Storm of Swords is by far the best book in the series, but a Feast of Crows has it's moments and Dance of Dragons is pretty darn good. Granted, I'm 3/4's of the way through it...ah shit...they're right, it doesn't get better it just stays marginally decent. DAMMIT!

Lawless review

Lawless is easily the hardest movie I've had to review while running this site. It's definitely not good, but it never quite crosses the boundaries into flat-out terrible either.

The story follows a family of brothers who are bootlegging out in the boonies of the Appalachia's in the 1930's during the height of prohibition. And while the acting in the film is very well done, the story is such a mess and the characters are so shoddily written that everyone is just a cardboard cutout caricature to the point where you could literally use one word to describe any one of them.

Shia Labouf's youngest of the brothers character, Jack: COWARD.

Tom Hardy's oldest of the brothers, Forrest: TOUGH.

The middle brother, Howard played by Jason Clark: DRUNK.

True, I'm generalizing and while some could find more depth behind this film I believe they'd be fishing in a shallow pond and turning their minnow's into heavy bass within the temples of their own delusional minds.

Beyond the lack of characterization there is also a lack of story. This is highly problematic for such a tale as Lawless. You see, in a gangster period-piece like this there usually isn't going to be much of a plot. Thanks to such character-driven gems like the Godfather and Goodfellas, Hollywood gears these movies to run more on performances and shocking scenarios more than anything else. Which is truly sad because I think a plot-driven gangster movie could be just as, if not, more entertaining. Alas, while Lawless has some good moments and some really great actors doing some interesting things occasionally it's mostly smoke and mirrors. The dialogue is minimal, the action is few and far between and with the final nail in the coffin being bad characterization in a flick that has nothing else going for it, well that adds up to a bunch of people standing, sitting, or walking around doing nothing and talking about nothing. This speaks to a bad script.

However, we can't solely blame the writer for the flaws in this movie. Because the other main problem is that this is one of the more disjointed flicks I've seen in a long time. It jumps around from scene to scene almost without logic and seems to cross time without any sense of the stuff passing. Part of the reason we never get a strong sense of what's at stake or who these characters are is because we never spend enough time with any one of them to understand anything more than the basics. It's almost like someone took an exciting chapter in a family's life and then just made a movie about the uninteresting times like when they were on the crapper or when they played an exciting round of spades...actually that would be probably more interesting than half the stuff we get to see in the movie.

And while I have truly come to love Shia Labouf as an actor, he's incredibly overused and wasted in this role. Here we come to the heart of the problem with Lawless...it's focused on the wrong brother/character. On one hand the film seems to try and be an ensemble piece, but as I stated above, it never stays with characters long enough to strengthen that theory, instead it always jumps back to Labouf - the least interesting and most annoying of the brothers and characters in the movie. While Shia does great acting in the flick, he's playing a stupid, cowardly, and shameful character that is unlikable, unrelatable, and uninteresting so while it's great that he's playing that part convincingly, it's still not a character I'm remotely interested in spending time with.

As an example of the lost opportunities of this flick, I give you a scene where we follow a drunk Shia Labouf into a church where his extremely religious love interest is with her entire family and congregation. He sits down, there is a feet washing ceremony (I don't know, just go with it), he starts to get sick and stumbles outside. Wow...great scene. Now contrast that with this: Fairly early on in the movie, Tom Hardy's character is attacked, once he's out of the hospital and ready to strike back we don't get to go with him. He goes after the guys who put him in the hospital without Shia, hence without us because we have more interesting things to do like watch as Labouf's character attempts to hit on this girl who we don't really know and absolutely don't care about.

I only use these scenes to contrast each other to prove a point. Gangster films are supposed to be violent and shocking. They have to be in order to be interesting - especially when we lack strong plot and/or strong characterization. They are stories about violent, ruthless men basically going to war with each other. But Lawless is constantly pulling it's punches - hardcore. It seems to constantly avoid showing us the consequences of these characters actions and instead have us follow the Adventures of the Dimwit Bootlegger with Shia Labouf! I get what Lawless was attempting to do. I get that it's supposed to be a study on violence within a family unit and the affects of money, greed, power, pride, blah, blah, blah. I get it, I really do. But the problems with that are we have a shit script and we follow the most annoying character on the screen while we ignore the most interesting character's.

Barely in the movie, CRIMINALLY underused.

We seem to live in a time where great performances are appreciated more than anything else but people seem to be confused on what a great performance is. First of all, I gotta say flat-out that anyone can stand there and be broodingly silent while they slowly read their lines and look around awkwardly and intensely. THAT is not what makes a good performance. And I'm not trying to knock on any one particular actor here, but seriously, acting aloof and deep is not hard and it's not the same as turning out a good performance. Right off the bat you have to have good material. Your character's should be interesting and have some depth to them. The story should also be good so that we know what the motivations are for everyone within. Think back to some of the great all-time performances, you know what they all tend to have in common? They were good movies. Good characters in good movies.

Lawless lacks that, don't let anyone tell you anything differently.


5 / 10

Hansel and Gretel FINALLY get's a trailer

I've been aware of this movie for some time, in fact if memory serves, it was supposed to come out this summer but was pushed back a couple times. That usually doesn't bode well. Especially when you realize that they're releasing it in January which is known as a "dump month" in which the studio's put out movies they've been holding onto, don't know what to do with and/or have no faith in.

Does. Not. Bode. Well.

It's basically an action movie about an adult Hansel and Gretel who go after witches full-time. But enough from me, check out the trailer, it's been a long time incoming:

Now, the internet has been mostly up in arms against this movie since the trailer was released earlier today. I understand why. But I'm somewhat more optimistic.

I think this looks like FUN. Sure, it could be horrible and mind-numbingly stupid but as long as it doesn't go the hoakey Van Helsing route, I think it could be a good time at the movies. A lot of people are saying it looks like Van Helsing, but I disagree. There are definitely some like-minded elements there but this seems to take itself more seriously while knowing how stupid it is. Whereas Van Helsing went back and forth between taking itself too seriously and hamming it up completely. It's definitely a fine line. I'll probably check this out and we'll know more in January.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an actual GOOD, serious Van Helsing action flick because that premise was ALWAYS solid.

Turbo: OK, That's a Knife.

Coming of age in the nineties means I grew up on some pretty gritty, independent movies. Flicks like Desperado, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, From Dusk 'till Dawn, and other such wonderful homages to ridiculous carnage. One of the men behind that was Mr. Robert Rodriguez. If you're unfamiliar with Machete, it originated as a phony trailer in the double feature Grindhouse films. From there, Rodriguez ran with the idea and came up with a chilling tale of a modern Mexican anti-hero.

Yet, I had some beef with the first movie. Not gonna lie.

My name is Tom McLaughlin. The villain in the movie is named Jon McLaughlin. It was just a little difficult for me to root against him. But that's all the personal bias I had...really.

The real problem I had was the message. It was frightening, in a lot of ways. I'm against the whole Minutemen situation entirely and think there's a much better way to handle all of this, because whatever we're doing isn't working for a whole shitload of reasons. However, the message leaned a little too much in the direction of revolution against the USA. It might not have been the intention, I won't say it was, but that's what I picked up from it. Still, it was also so badass and just too silly to be taken seriously anyway.

And awesome.

So why not a Machete 2?

The first was an excellent example of a profitable Grindhouse production and it's been a while since we had a good Mexican action hero. Danny Trejo has what Robert Rodriguez calls a "face for HD", with all the scars and wrinkles the man lives and breathes in without make-up. If he were living on the streets, you'd think he was a drunk bum, but put a big fuckin' knife in his hand and have him fight for freedom, and you have yourself a god damn action star.

If anything, this flick is going to just be fun to watch.

The Dark Knight Roast and more!

First, I have to say, the following Dark Knight roast is hilarious. But after I watched this clip I went on to check out more of what these guys had to offer, and man oh man was I in for a treat.

Check out the roast first:

This is from the YouTube channel Barely Political, and let me just say: SUBSCRIBE. These guys are truly funny fuckers. AND they are brilliant impersonators. Or at least, some of them are from what I can tell from lightly perusing (stalking) their videos.

Check out their stuff and subscribe. I rarely pimp out YouTube people, so to quote Richard Dreyfuss, this means something...

MY personal X-Men Team

I have warned you in the past about how geeky I can get but I don't think I've ever gotten as geeky on the Cave as I will today.

The X-Men are hands down my favorite comic-book team of all time. Their story and their countless comic book series would probably be my numero uno if it weren't for my great love, the Batman. So I decided instead of giving them second place in terms of comic book love I gave them first place in my heart for TEAM.

Because there are all sorts of teams: Fantastic Four, the Avengers, the Justice League, Teen Titans, Generation X, New Mutants, X-Factor, Heroes for Hire, Young Justice, Birds of Prey, X-Force, etc.

But personally? The X-Men have always been that sort of perfection that can't be forced when you try to put ANY type of team together. The sort of awe-inspiring wonder behind ultimate and terrible (yet truly wonderful) power and sheer chemistry and charisma.

The Fantastic Four have always sort of been the go-to team for the nuclear family unit - or at least, Marvel's version of it. Yet I always felt like they were the Brady Bunch. Unrealistic, unmoving and uninteresting.

I'm very spoiled because I grew up in a wonderful, fully-functional family. But even then, we had our arguments and disagreements. I realized pretty quickly that my family was Hollywood's version of the Brady Bunch or Growing Pains, or Home Improvement (insert your familial-generational sitcom). But the X-Men always came off like the real deal to me. There were times when characters HATED each other and damn near killed each other but they always came together to deal with the major problem. True, if it wasn't for the powers they possessed, life and death wouldn't be an issue for the team, but it was, due in large part to the heightened sense of drama within their lives.

Because the X-Men don't only work as a metaphorical family. The X-Men have always been a commentary on minorities. They are the outcast, the few, the socially unacceptable that choose to be positive rather than negative. They use their powers to protect those who hate and fear them. It's an allegory for being black, or gay, or different in any way that's socially and supposedly unacceptable. While this could be looked at as preaching, I've almost never felt that it was heavy-handed (with the exception of a few writers - I'm looking at the asshat Grant Morrison right now). The reality is that all of this world and character building serves to make the idea that the X-Men are a family unit and a team all that more stronger.

Over the years, I have made extremely fond memories of everything X-Men. If it wasn't the comics and the 90's cartoon, it was the arcade game that everyone remembers, or the action figures (that I still have), and the forays into cinema for both good and BAD.

So it is now, with this knowledge that I have given you that I present the definitive X-Men TEAM...were I allowed to play the Prof.

The only caveat is that most X-Men teams over the decades have been made up of about 5-7 members in any one given team (over the years there's been X-Factor / X-Men, Gold team / Blue team, Wolverine's X-Men / Cyclops' X-Men, etc. and on and on).






7. Bishop

This guy is a total powerhouse. Hailing from the future, Bishop comes from a violent world where he acted as a sort of police officer (or X-Man) going after Mutants that abused their powers. Bishop is one tough dude. He will more than likely follow orders to the letter, only bucking the system when it is truly wrong. He loves his multiple sidearms probably just as much as his powers and his combat experience helps loads in tactical situations. Speaking of powers, this dude can take a hit. Energy absorption and manipulation. Anything thrown at him can be thrown right back as powerful energy blasts...and yes, he can stock up. Bishop's power and his experience make him one of my point men.






6. Banshee

Banshee may not look like much but this is an Irish bad-ass. He's an ex-interpol agent with the ability to blast soundwaves at ultra-sonic frequencies enabling him to do everything from create mini-tornado's to allowing him to fly which ALL equals to: you're blasted to Hell. This is another guy with paramilitary training and leadership expertise. He's versatile, smart, and can follow orders. Sean Cassidy is also tough and resourceful, not to mention he's a flyer - VERY important for a team. You'll notice I have two flyer's with one acting as a sub-flier (member 4).







5. Colossus

You're going to notice a trend on my X-Men team, and that will be lack of physical fighters. I'm all about energy projection and keeping the enemy away and at bay. Yet, in every fight there will be the need for drop-down, fist-to-fist action. Colossus is the strongest there is. And he's resilient. It takes bucko power to pierce that organic metal flesh of his. Not to mention he's on par with the Russian from Rocky IV in terms of sheer intimidation and straight-forwardness. When Piotr is coming at you, best get out of his way.






4. Nightcrawler

Kurt Wagner is charming, dashing, heroic, intelligent, sensitive and funny. He also looks like a demon who has a prehensile tail with expert swordsman capabilities as well as the oh-so-subtle ability to teleport over vast distances. He's also got a thing about God and religion. Nightcrawler would be the team's moral compass with the ability to strike hard and fast with total surprise. You'll notice I've split my team up between defense and offense. Bishop, Banshee, and Colossus very much serve as shields, the final three act as swords with Nightcrawler somewhere in the middle mostly to cause chaos. But he's also not down for anything less than bravery and righting wrong's. Which makes him an important member.






3. Phoenix aka Jean Grey

Out of all the team slots this is the one I struggled with the most, to include Jean or not to include Jean. Sure she's a POWERFUL psionic, but she's also sometimes unstable and can clash with my last two members. For a while, I was certain I was going to put Jubilee in this spot because she has the potential to be an extremely powerful mutant...however, Jean is ALREADY an extremely powerful mutant and at her worst, she is hard to control, at her best (which is most of the time) she is always considered to be the heart and soul of the X-Men. And let us not forget she is a telepath and telekinetic which means that she can read the enemy's mind while throwing his army across two states. She's my last flyer and I definitely needed another. Plus, she's a hot redhead and I have a weakness for them girls.






2. Wolverine

Does the guy need an introduction? Yes, I would argue he does. Wolverine is not the mamby-pamby, babysitter, whiny-bitch that you know him as from the horrible Fox movies. Wolverine is an absolute badass. Picture Dirty Harry as a 5'3" hairy dude with an indestructible skeleton and claws to go with a healing factor that makes him so old he remembers being a Samarai in Japan. This guy can and will do some damage. He is the wildcard of any team you put him on. He follows his own code and does what he thinks is right at any given moment. He's tougher than nails and while the healing factor may give him an edge, he's still the first to put himself in such bodily harm as to be psychologically traumatic. Fiercely loyal, he's proven himself time and time again as the man you want to have with you when you're backed into a corner. He'll follow a strong command but wither when you're weak. Some would say I covered the physical attack aspect of my team with Colossus, but this just isn't so. Wolverine is willing to do things that Mr. Rasputin would never even nightmare about. He's also capable of stealth and can push himself harder and faster than most ever could. Not to mention, Logan is my ace in the hole. If ever there were a time to put him on a suicide mission and/or a last stand, he would follow through and then some. If things got truly disastrous and I needed a second-in-command, he's just the kind of temporary combat leader the team would need to get them out of Hell.






 1. Cyclops

Yes, it's my favorite X-Man. And the true team leader. In fact, I've written up all of my team's profiles through the eyes of one Scott Summers. He's taken a lot of flack over the years for being uninteresting and irrelevant but here's why the hater's are wrong:

This is a dude that has the spatial awareness of Captain America. Meaning while Cap is throwing his shield left and right and making predictions on where it will go - Cyclops is doing a similar thing with his extremely powerful ruby beam. He has a high martial-arts proficiency on the level that he can go hand to hand with Wolverine. He's smart and highly capable, having been the X-Men field leader since he was 17. Over the years, his tactical experience simply cannot be matched. He has a natural psionic block which allows most psychics little access into his head. Because he was married to Jean Grey he can at least exert some control and interest over her (granted this really only works for the specifics of my team, but it works in years past as well). Not to mention he's also dated the White Queen, another powerful psychic.

In a rare de-powered moment - still on top of things.

Now let's talk about those red blasts of his.

Cyclops' optic blasts are concussive in nature and have no recoil. Meaning this guy can literally punch through mountains while standing still. And that's just the beginning. Most believe that Cyclops has only lightly tapped the beginning of his power. He is so controlled and structured and so afraid of hurting those he does not wish to that he has set certain mental blocks and limits on his own abilities thus creating a distance between what he does and what he could really frakking do. Yet, mess with the man and well...

ZARKT!!!

And I said GODDAMN.

He's led the X-Men against Magneto, the American Government, the Avengers, Apocalypse, Mr. Sinister, Onslaught, Sentinels, the Mutant Liberation Front, Omega Red, Bastion, the Sh'iar Empire, and many, many more.

Respected by his teammates and feared by his foes.

With Bishop, Banshee and Colossus leading a foray while Jean Grey and Wolverine tear in decisively within the battle and Nightcrawler pokes in and out, who ELSE would you want to lead the ultimate X-Men team?

I know some of your are thinking about Iceman, Storm and Beast...well, here's why they didn't make the cut:



Storm:

She's too easily taken down by claustrophobia and never seems to let loose with her powers. She could be the best of the best but always seems to hold back. That's probably her writer's faults, but still. She's just always underpowered when she shouldn't be and that speaks to character.






Beast:

I'm a HUGE fan of Beast. He's extremely intelligent but with ferocious strength and animal-like abilities. I totally get that, being a big hairy dude. Yet, I feel like I've got his powers MORE than covered with Wolverine and his intellect almost covered with Cyclops. While I love him, I feel like he's just not the best of the best.





Iceman:

This one is simple. Yes, Iceman is an Omega-level Mutant. But the jackass takes nothing seriously and I simply don't like him. For all the good his power is I think most people realized the POTENTIAL he had for like 30 years before he did. It took a psychic like Emma Frost taking over his body, liquefying it and rebuilding it into ice in the late 90's for the douchebag to figure out there was more to him than just lame one-liner's and throwing snowballs. Sorry, bro, too little too late, go surf so more ice-slides.

Turbo: Help Me Qui-Gon Jinn. You're My Only Hope! Again!

I'm far from perfect. I can admit that. I've broken some rules. I've broken some laws. I've seen bootlegged movies. But if I never had, then I wouldn't have discovered the brilliance that was Taken.

Taken came to British theaters many months before the U.S. had even heard of it. I had been hearing great buzz about the movie from across the pond, and a friend of mine happened upon a download and I may have been in the room when he played it. Screw it, I watched it. And for my British friends, it was bloody brilliant.

It was violence where it was welcomed. Human traffickers are the lowest scum on earth, so they are always open to the most brutal display of violence inflicted on them, whenever possible. Liam Neason's former federal agent with a "certain set of skills" keeps you cheering from the first bullet to the last as he hunts down his daughter before she's lost forever. Months later I paid to see the movie in American theaters and left the theater utterly disappointed. The British got a well-paced, violent and righteous movie. We got a watered-down choppy version to suit American sensibilities.

Nail, meet thigh.

Think back, if you will, to the version you saw. There's a scene in a basment where Marko is tied to a chair. What happens next? In the American version Liam Neason attaches a car battery to the chair. In the British version he first drives two ten inch nails into the man's thighs and then attaches the car battery to those. See the difference? It seems small but these types of changes are scattered throughout the movie. But we're here to talk about the second one aren't we?

Well I'm sure he still has his skills and this time it's his ex-wife who's taken. Who cares though, right? He loves her enough to not want her dead and so he's off on another adventure to hunt down and take out the people who took his ex. I don't see her current husband making it out of this one alive. The last one had no good guys die, and we need a loss this time around for some more emotional something or other. I'll wait to hear if they had to re-edit this one for American audiences again before I decide which version to check out.

RIP Tony Scott

Tony Scott died yesterday and it's a horrible shame.

I don't really feel a need to comment on the how's and why's...however, I've heard a rumor that he might have committed suicide owing to the possibility that he had an inoperable brain tumor. If this is true, all I can say is that the man definitely died on his own terms which says a lot about his heart...but also his balls. And that's all I'll say on the subject.

We lost a GREAT director, folks: FILMOGRAPHY

Let us pay tribute:

And of course...

The Expendables 2 review

Ah, the Expendables 2, you lovable rogue, you...

Look, it's this simple, you're either all for this movie or you are entirely against it. There's really nothing here beyond black and white. And that's okay.

Once upon a time there was an era of filmmaking when violence was celebrated. Blood was worshiped - when it was shed on screen in the gallons. Muscles were everything and the more your hero had the cooler he was. Magazines never ran out of ammo, physics was a class in High School for dorks and gunshot wounds were for pussies - or the bad guys. It was the era of the 80's. The balls to the wall spend all that you got and go for the gold era of big music, big hair, and big movies.

I count myself extremely grateful to say that I grew up in this world. It was a time when a movie like Robocop (one of the most ultra-violent films ever made) marketed toys to kids yet maintained a HARDCORE R-rating.

The blood splatter was better, more realistic, and hugely more grotesque than anything audiences have seen in an action film for decades. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, folks.

While the original Expendables left a lot to be desired, there was the formation of an idea that mattered. Beyond anything else that the first movie accomplished, it left the door open for opportunity. It started something, much like a prologue (at least in my mind). A tip of the hat to old school schlock that had limitless possibilities once you factored in how many classic heroes you could cram into however many sequels the studio was game for.

You have to celebrate the idea behind this series. Take the world's best and brightest action stars and throw them together for some mindless fun. Even if you're young enough not to have experienced some of the great Stallone or Schwarzenegger flicks you should still be able to at least appreciate what's being done here. Yeah, it's corny but that's sort of the point. This is a very much tongue-in-cheek film. It's not made to be analyzed.

Notice, I haven't spent one word trying to talk about the plot...

If you really want me to get critical, I thought the ending fight sequence between Van Damme and Stallone was too short and that the movie relied a little too much on CGI. But other than that, I was in nostalgia heaven. Or in other words, the positives far outweighed the negatives.

This movie brought a big ole' giant smile to my face and I just had a ball with it. Seeing Bruce Willis, Arnold, and Stallone firing heavy weaponry together was nothing short of magical. It was GREAT to see Arnold back in the game and totally putting down foes like he never left. It made me feel like a kid again and it was just sheer fun.

And goddammit, isn't that what movies are all about!?

Sure, I might be biased, but watch some of the classics first. Personally, I'm looking forward to the Expendables 3. Meanwhile, why don't you go watch Commando, Demolition Man, Last Action Hero, True Lies, Timecop, Total Recall (the original), Predator, all of the Rambo, Rocky, Terminator, and Die Hard movies...then maybe we can stand on the same footing and talk about action-flicks.


8 / 10