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...