Archive for the ‘Movie Review Challenge’ Category

bonfireBoy I must have really done something to Benn to make me watch this film. I mean sure I asked him to do an essay on the Cinema de Stephen Segal, but he never did it.  And I didn’t make him because that is a hell that no one should have to deal with.  But then makes me watch this film, and when I text him and say that he finally has shown me a Tom Hanks movie worse than Joe Versus the Volcano, he laughs and says, yeah I watched and knew it was bad.  Well then why the hell make me watch it then?  Ok, so you just wait until I find something terrible for you to watch, Mr. Farrell.

Sherman McCoy, played by Tom Hanks (Nothing In Common,) is a Wall Street Bond trader who is also married with a kid.  Sherman also has a mistress Maria Ruskin, played by Melanie Griffith (Working Girl,) accidentally runs over a black teenager in the South Bronx while driving his car while in the car.  This sets off a chain of events that causes his life to unravel under the scrutiny of a minister, a district attorney running for mayor, an assistant district attorney trying to score points with his boss, and a down on his luck reporter, named Peter Fallow, played by Bruce Willis (Sin City,) looking for a story.  As Fallow starts to uncover the facts he begins to realize that Sherman is being railroaded by everyone and looks to help him out.

So to begin with we have to talk about the elephant in the room.  What in God’s name is Melanie Griffith doing in this movie?  Better yet, who the hell cast her to act in this film?  Her Southern accent is absolutely atrocious.  She hasn’t got a great voice to begin with because it seems like to me her regular voice is barely above a whisper.  Then you add an uneven and almost unpracticed sounding accent and every time she is on screen I am hating every second of it.  I know at this point in time she was coming off her Academy Award nomination for Working Girl, but that clearly was an anomaly on a otherwise unspectacular career and even Benn said in his review of Working Girl, click here to read it, she wasn’t all that good.  There is only one reason why, in my eyes, she was cast for this role and it can be seen in this picture here.


While I was watching Tom Hanks in this film I was thinking of his performance in the movie The Man with the One Red Shoe.  For large parts of the film Hanks was playing this part very stiff and by the look in his eyes he wasn’t enjoying participating in this film.  There was nothing to like about his character in the film.  He is cheating on his wife and he is an arrogant tool.  So it’s hard to feel sorry for him when he discovers that everyone has decided to either betray him or frame him or use his situation for political gain.   And I really want to cheer for him because he is Tom Hanks!  Plus the writing was poor in this film, for many reasons, but one of the big ones is that it fails in showing how Hanks’s character Sherman has become estranged from his parents.  We get one back handed compliment from his wife Judy, played by Kim Cattrall (Crossroads,) about how he isn’t his dad, and we get one lunch at the beginning that shows that his father, played by Donald Moffit (Clear and Present Danger,) and his mother are concerned about him.  So this makes one of the final scenes anti-climatic when Sherman’s dad shows up in his empty apartment to tell him he loves him and supports him.  It would have been great if we had seen that they were angry with each other but that wasn’t the case so the reconciliation seemed unnecessary and pointless other than to feel good about the moment.   I will say that because it was Tom Hanks I was at least a little bit happier, so it did work, but only because I like Tom Hanks.

The other main star in this film, Bruce Willis, is also playing an unlikeable character.  He is a drunk and he writes the article based the lies of the people who have the agenda against Sherman.  So when he suddenly realizes the truth that Maria was the one driving, not Sherman, and he is helping to destroy an innocent man, it seems a little out of character for him and also self-serving.  In fact the whole point of the film is to show how one man can fall but still have everything and how a man can come from nothing and have everything, but still have nothing.  Bruce Willis also played the character of Peter Fallow in the same way he played his character on the TV show Moonlighting with one difference in that unlike the character of David Addison on the TV show, Peter Fallon has no “character” what so ever.  He is just a robotic reporter who is unable to convey emotion.

Like the three main characters, the rest of the cast, save one person, are all horrible people and impossible to cheer for in any capacity.  They are all crooked and corrupt and are just not good people and therefore I don’t care about them.  Now I am guessing that this is the point of the movie, as is I would guess the point of the book that it is based on.  The book was written during the 80’s where all the supposed evil in the country was centered in Wall Street and the people who worked in it.  So why a make a movie where you have to try and make one of these likeable?  I don’t get it.  But I did say there was one character who was likeable and that was the Judge in the Brooklyn court, Judge Leonard White, played by Morgan Freeman (Batman Begins.)  He is the one that is constantly yelling at all those who are corrupted and putting them in order, especially at Sherman’s trial.  He has a great speech about telling everyone to be decent.  Of course to me, the only other actor in this movie that has the credibility that Tom Hanks does would be Morgan Freeman.  He is an amazing actor and he had the only decent character in this movie.

This movie has no real redeeming quality because it has no one that you really want to cheer for as a hero.  Then you throw in the incredibly annoying voice and bad acting ability of Melanie Griffith and you have a recipe for disaster.  For some odd reason I remember the hype surrounding this movie back in 1990 before it came out and then the horrid reviews and box office failure of it.  I didn’t see it because of all that and now that I have seen it part of me wants to see some harm befall Benn Farrell.  It’ll pass because I don’t want it to happen, but making me watch movies like this makes me want to think it.




Read Full Post »

manwithredshoeLeave it to Benn Farrell, the largest tool in the shed, to find a Tom Hanks movie that is almost as bad as Joe Versus the Volcano and then make me watch it. To be honest I have wanted to see this movie for years and by giving this to me as a challenge I was finally able to watch it.  Now that I have seen it I wish I hadn’t.  I can’t remember the last time I watched a comedy and had one chuckle and that’s it, certainly not any other film that Hanks is in.  I chuckled a couple of times in both Volcano and Dragnet.  This is a bad, bad, very bad, film.

Ross, played by Charles Durning (To Be or Not to Be,) is the CIA director and Cooper, played by Dabney Coleman (Dragnet,) who does something in the CIA, wants Ross’s job.  Cooper sets up Ross by framing one of his agents so Ross has 48 hours to exonerate himself and frame Cooper at the same time.  So Ross has one of his agents to randomly pick someone at the airport and pretend to meet this person in order to have Cooper’s agents think that he is the secret witness to save Ross at the hearing.  Ross’s agents picks Richard, played by Tom Hanks (Bridge of Spies,) who happens to be arriving at the airport wearing one red shoe, because his friends Morris, played by Jim Belushi (Red Heat,) and his wife Paula, played by Carrie Fisher (Star Wars: The Force Awakens.)  They are all musicians who play for the Washington DC symphony.  Cooper wanting to know what Richard has to save Ross sends his team of agents including the lovely Maddy, played by Lori Singer (Footloose – 1984,) to investigate, question, and eliminate Richard.  However things get complicated when we discover Paula is trying to cheat on Morris with Richard, Cooper’s agents and Ross’s agents get in each other’s wary, and despite barely meeting him, Maddy begins to fall in love with Richard.

The best scene in the movie is when the 29 year old hot Carrie Fisher is rolling around in a bed with Tom Hanks in nothing more than her very 80’s underwear.  She fills out the bra and panties quite well.  The rolling around on the bed is about 20 seconds long and its glorious but it doesn’t make for the 1 hour 31 minutes and 30 seconds of boredom.


The one scene where I chuckled was at the beginning of act 3 when Richard, Paula, and Morris are performing for the symphony when Richard sees Maddy in the audience and starts to botch his solo performance which causes Paula to notice Richard noticing Maddy and she stops playing her flute which causes Morris to notice Paula getting jealous of Richard looking at Maddy which cause him to do a loud drum solo which aggravates the conductor so much, played by David Ogden Stiers (Better Off Dead,)to lose after the performance and storm off. That whole scene drew a couple of chuckles and maybe a smile, but that’s it, for the entire movie.

To start off on the things I don’t like, I will start with Tom Hanks. I will assume since I have never seen this in any of the over 20+ movies I have watched of his that the choice of having Hanks play Richard as this stiff, unfunny, straight man, was the decision of the director.  Hanks had already filmed both Bachelor Party and Splash where we saw Hanks be hilarious and good.  In this film he is one step away from being an emotionless actor and as stiff as a statue.  It’s like his entire body was pumped with Botox and everything was still stiff.  It is just against every other performance that I have seen of Hanks that it can’t be because of his choice.  Imagine a comedy with Robin Williams where the director tells Robin to be the straight man and just follow script, no improvisation.  That was this for Hanks.

I also believe this because every other actor in this film was just as stiff.  Ok, that’s not true, both Belushi and Fisher actually seemed like living beings in this film.  But everyone else, it seemed, were told to take their roles of super spies seriously.  My guess is that the director and writer thought the scenes of near missies would be the humor of the film. But because the actors were so stiff in their performance, the physical “comedy,” was so slow that it didn’t work.  It’s as if this movie was a spoof of the spy films and they went over too over the top so it didn’t work.  Except this wasn’t a spoof of a spy film but a comedic spy film.  Nothing worked at all.

I really can’t think of anything else to say. The only redeeming thing about this film is the near nakedness of Princess Leah.  I mean sure Lori Singer is hot as well but nowhere near good enough to make up for this bore-a-thon.  Still not as bad as Joe Versus the Volcano, but this is a close second to the worst Tom Hanks movie ever.  Even Tom Hanks said of this film, “Not a very good movie. It doesn’t have any real, clear focus to it. It isn’t about anything particularly that you can honestly understand. It made no money at all.”  Take his advice and stay away, if it every shows up, which it won’t, unless one of your closest friends is a tool and makes you watch it.  Then find a way to smite him or her.


Read Full Post »

murder1600As Benn Farrell movie review challenges go, this movie is easily in the top 5 better Benn Farrell movie review challenges.  Now that said, this is not a good movie but it isn’t so bad that I need to call Benn a tool or Douchebag or something like I normally would after watching his challenge.  That being said if you happen to see this on Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu, you don’t have to watch this movie unless there is nothing else on and you want to watch a poor Wesley Snipes film.

When a 25 year old female staff worker is found murdered in one of the white house bathrooms, Washington D.C. Detective Regis, played by Wesley Snipes (Expendables 3,) is assigned to try and solve the case despite the interference from almost everyone at the White House.  The one person who is trying to help is Secret Service Agent Nina Chance, played by the oddly hot for me Diane Lane (Man of Steel,) who seems to have important information at odd times.  Also helping not helping is National Security Advisor Jordan played by Alan Alda (Bridge of Spies,) Chief of White House Security Spikings, played by Daniel Benzali (A View to a Kill,) and the plethora of Secret Service agents all being led by Spikings.  Once Regis goes through the tedious process of discovering the ridiculous amounts of twists and turns he discovers the true reason for the murder and must race to the White House with Agent Chance to keep the President from resigning.

To start off on the reasons why I don’t like this movie I can start with casting.  I like Wesley Snipes and I can totally believe that he is a kickass detective.  What I can’t believe is that he is a son of a history teacher who not only studied all areas of Washington DC but faithfully recreated a diorama of not only Washington DC but the First Battle of Bull Run.  That just doesn’t work for Wesley Snipes.  Does it work Denzel Washington?  Absolutely.  But not Snipes.  Another person who is miscast is Diane Lane.  I think she is hot and she is smart but she is not athletic.  So her character, who is an Olympic Gold Medal winning marksman, doesn’t vibe with the thin but non athletic Lane.  It pains me to say this but as you watch her run and carry a gun you can tell that she isn’t athletic so for me it just doesn’t work.  IT was also weird to see Dennis Miller in a movie.  He of Saturday Night Live fame was a homicide detective and normally a partner to Regis.  His part was fairly small although he did successfully preform his red shirt duties of getting shot during the final acts action shoot out scene.  He does live to tell the tale though.  It’s not that he doesn’t belong but…it just was weird.

The story is both bad and good.  Good that it keeps me involved and I have to watch it to the very to see how its going to end but bad in that the story itself is somewhat ludicrous.  In what seems like a subplot to the movie, when this murder takes place at the White House, the US is involved with a confrontation with North Korea.  One of the US Nave surveillance planes flew over North Korean airspace and was shot down and the crew of the plane is being held hostage.  There is leaked footage of the US Airmen being tortured by the North Koreans.  Despite the fact that most Americans not to mention most of his staff want to go into North Korea and rescue the hostages, President Jack Neil, played by Ronny Cox (Beverly Hills Cop,) will not use any military action to get the hostages out.  This goes against the advice of NSA Jordan, his own Vice-President, and the Chairman of the Joint Chefs General Tulley, played by Harris Yulin (Clear and Present Danger.)  SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU PLAN ON SEEING THIS MOVIE AND WANT TO BE SURPRISED DON’T READ THIS NEXT SENTENCE. So NSA Jordan brings in someone to kill the young lady who is banging the President’s son.  He does this because he wants to blackmail President Neil into resigning so the Vice President can take over so they can attack the North Koreans to get the troops back.  So…yeah…that’s it.   There is also the problem that the plot goes from all things pointing to the son being guilty, then it becomes obvious that he isn’t guilty and Spikings is the main bad guy, but then he gets blown away and its determined that both Regis and Chance have no idea who it is but the magic video tapes can solve the mystery.  There are even more issues, including those security tapes, but I won’t bother talking about it.  You get the idea.  However, as the movie was rolling along I was intrigued to see the outcome of the movie because I was curious who was going to be the bad guy.  So, I give kudos for the writing to keep me interested enough in the movie to want me to get to the ending.  The ending just wasn’t good.

A thing that was odd about this film production is the trailer for the film.  I have it down below but if you watch you will see some of the worst dialogue for a movie you can imagine.  However, these God-awful lines and mini scenes do not show up in the movie.  So I wonder why on earth you would use these scenes to promote a film when they are nowhere near good enough to make the film.  It is really a strange choice because when I saw the trailer I was worried that Benn screwed me over by making me watch it but that wasn’t the case.  Really an odd choice by these people.

As a whole I would say pass on this movie if you see it on Netflix or wherever.  It is not a horrible movie but there are plenty of movies out there that are better.  As a rat bastard Benn Farrell movie review challenge goes it was decent to watch.  He isn’t a rat bastard for this challenge, only a minor douche.

Read Full Post »

tremors3posterI would first like to start off my review by saying Benn Farrell is a large throbbing tool. Next I would like to say that if the words “ass” and “blaster” are actual lines in your movie script, and this movie is not a porno, then you have failed as a writer.  Mind you this isn’t the first time I have said this about a non porno movie and the other movie was released in the movie theaters, the power of a Stephen King story, the horribly bad Dreamcatcher.  For July’s monthly challenge Mr. Tool, you know Benn, told me that I could pick any of the sequels to the great 1990 science fiction film Tremors.  I chose Tremors 3 because it has most of the original cast that survived the first film and they were all likeable.  However it still is a horrid, horrid movie.

Old survivalist Burt Gummer, played by Michael Gross (Tremors,) has been in South America fighting the graboids and their mutation Shriekers (apparently they came from the second movie,) and arrives back home in Perfection, Nevada, the town in the first movie.  While he has been hunting the graboids the small town has become a minor tourist area with a man named Jack Sawyer, played by Shawn Christian (For Your Consideration,) is giving tours of the area where the first events happened while also scamming the tourists.  The town still has Nancy, played by Charlotte Stewart (Tremors,) and her daughter Mindy, played by Ariana Richards (Jurassic Park,) who is stuck home because she can’t afford college.  Miguel the farmer, played by Tony Genaro (The Mask of Zorro,) is still in Perfection and lastly Jodi Chang, played by Susan Chuang (Miss Congeniality 2,) has taken over the general store from her father Walter who died in the first movie.   Everything seems fine until a group of graboids come back and terrorize the town.  The gang is unable to kill the graboids fast enough and mutate into shriekers and then mutate into flying shriekers who are propelled in the air by fire coming out of their ass.  The gang must figure out how to kill these much more mobile creatures.

There is not a whole lot to this movie.  The first movie was somewhat intense in scenes because the director did a great job of hiding the monsters and creating suspense plus the monsters were actual physical props so they looked very real.  Well none of that happened in the third movie.  All of the creatures were CGI and you could tell from the opening scene when Burt gunned down a heard of them with an old style anti-aircraft gun.  It was mildly amusing but just poorly animated.

tremors 3

There was no suspense in this film either because once you saw the ridiculous looking things you couldn’t take them seriously and knowing they were flying because of explosive gas just made it stupid not thrilling.  Also even though I am sure its somewhat of an homage, as is the entire film, the scenes where they tried to build tension where just rehashed scenes from the first movie.  They even tried the romance angle with the wannabe Kevin Bacon character Jack, and Jodi who runs the store but I barely paid attention because, as I said, no character development so didn’t care.

I will say it was great seeing the old cast in the film again.  I had no idea that little Mindy, actress Ariana, would go on to play the little girl in Stephen Spielberg’s great classic Jurassic Park.  If you had seen the first film you would have known all about these people but if you hadn’t you would have no point of reference of them because there was no character development.  Since I saw the first film the death of Miguel had a little bit of meaning, as sappy and pointless as it was, but to people who aren’t familiar with the first film this death was as pointless as the others.  Speaking of pointless someone decide to bring back the douche kid from the first movie Melvin, played by Robert Jayne (Pearl Harbor,) and his only job in the movie was to show that he is as big a douche as an adult as he was as a teenager.  Yeah!  Both Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward, stars of the first movie, missed out on this one.  Fred Ward actually did the second movie with Michael Gross but I guess the second film was enough for Ward because he was a no show in the third film.

There is not a whole lot to say about this film.  The original film was a beautiful low budget flick that was very entertaining.   The third installment is an even lower budget uninspired boring movie that should have killed off the franchise yet somehow they are up to Tremors 5.  As direct to video movies go there are a lot worse but I can’t recommend this movie to you.  If you want to watch a Tremors movie just watch the first one and enjoy, even if you have seen it 100 times.  I do.

Read Full Post »

pandpWhen I heard that this movie was coming out I kind of wanted to see it but I had the issue that I have never read the book or seen the movie Pride and Prejudice.  I have no clue what the story is about.  I just know it was written by Jane Austin and I have been told that I would like nothing she has written or any movie about any book.  Because of this I didn’t see it in the theater.  So it took a Benn Farrell review challenge for me to crack open this film to see what it’s about.  From what I watched the movie is pretty much what the title says it is, a movie about love in the English class structure in a world full of Zombies.

Elizabeth Bennet, played by Lily James (Cinderella,) is one of five daughters whose family belongs to the Landed Gentry class of England.  However they also live in time when a plague was brought from overseas that caused the dead to rise as Zombies.  So the Bennet sisters have to go through the trials of a class society as some try to marry or avoid being married off and at the same time survive the zombie apocalypse.

The movie is based on a book of the same name in a style called Mash-up novel in that it takes things that are non-fiction and things that are fiction and combine the two.  In this case the Jane Austin novel Pride and Prejudice and the modern Zombie monster character.  This style of writing spawned many other books one of them, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was also turned into a movie.  In that book it took the real life of American President Abraham Lincoln and turned him into a vampire hunter because a vampire killed his mother, instead of illness, and the Confederacy was actually a society full of vampires who kept slaves for food and wanted to control the country.  I understand this movie because I know a lot about Abraham Lincoln.  Why am I bringing up this movie when I am writing a review about another movie you ask? Well I mention this because unlike the Vampire Hunter movie, I know jack about Jane Austin and her book Pride and Prejudice.  It seems when I was in English class in high school I always managed to miss the classes that forced Jane Austin books on the students.  I was lucky and got to read The Great Gatsby and Of Mice and Men.  So obviously my issue in understanding the movie is that I have no point of reference for Pride and Prejudice so I constantly felt like I was missing something.  I feel that if I was at all familiar with the book, or even the movie(s), I would be able to enjoy the film more.

The best example I have of the feeling I’m missing something is the scene where Mr. Darcy, played by Sam Riley (Maleficent,) proposes marriage to Elizabeth Bennett.  The scene is quite hilarious because Mr. Darcy has no idea that he has offended Elizabeth and so they go back in forth in this exposition of expressing feelings while both of them are engaged in hand to hand combat that they have had to learn to fight zombies.   So I giggled a lot and actually understood what was going on.  But I am sure that scene in the non-zombie movie (book) is obviously completely different. So I think I would have enjoyed the scene even more if I had knowledge of that conversation versus the one in the zombie book.

I will say that I did like how the story almost seamlessly put the two different worlds together in such a way that it seemed believable.  I enjoyed the way they approached the zombies in this film in a somewhat original way in that we discover in the film that as long as the recently turned zombies are fed pigs’ brains and not human brains they are no harmful to humans.  However, once they eat human brains they become the monsters we are used to seeing in films.  It was interesting twist in the film that they hid in the story quite well.  However the one drawback to the story was that the writing of the character Lt. George Wickham, played by Jack Huston (American Hustle,) was always the bad guy in the film.  I assume that he is also the bad guy in Pride and Prejudice so I hope that if that is the case they hid it better in that film than in this film.  From the time on screen he just looked the part of the bad guy.  Huston didn’t do a bad job acting at all, I think it’s just the way his character was written in the movie.

I also like how this film didn’t have any real big name actors or actresses in the film.  The biggest name I read in the credits was Lena Headey (300) who played Lady Catherine de Bourgh.  I have always liked her in everything she has been in and especially in TV’s Game of Thrones, but that because she is topless in it so much.  As for the rest of the actors I thought they all did a good job and hopefully they will get more work.  This is the second film I have seen in 2016 that used a largely unknown cast and I am pleased at that because I believe the film world desperately needs an infusion of young talent.

I enjoyed this film much more then Benn would have hoped for I am sure.  While I didn’t understand the plot surrounding the Pride and Prejudice narrative I did enjoy how it worked zombies into the story.  This goes into the category of fun and entertaining films and we need those every now and then.

Read Full Post »

kc2I have said this before and I will say it again, my good friend Benn Farrell can be a d-bag. Just because I made him review the entire Twilight movie series last month, he decides that I need to watch an absolute horrible movie called Kindergarten Cop 2.  I thought I was doing him a favor because he is the sensitive metro sexual and I am told metro sexual men like sparkly vampires.  So apparently I am wrong because here I sit watching this horrid movie with Ivan Drago himself, Dolph Lundgren.

FBI Agent Reed, played by Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV,) had set up a successful sting operation to catch the dreaded Albanian mobster Zogu, played by Aleks Paunovic (This Means War,) and is set to spend the rest of his life in jail once his mistress, who is in witness protection, testifies against him.  Before the trial Agent Reed and his partner Agent Sanders, played by Bill Bellamy (Any Given Sunday,) discover that the Witness Protection Database has been hacked by a Kindergarten school teacher and the information was attempted to be sold to Zogu.  The teacher is killed in a car accident before he could sell the flash drive that the information is on and the teacher told no one but his Kindergarten students.  So Agent Reed goes undercover as a kindergarten teacher to see if he can find the flash drive before Zogu.

So let’s talk about the good things in this film.  Fiona Vroom, that’s her name, plays the other kindergarten teacher named Olivia.  She is hot.  Smokin hot.  Also there are some smokin hot women wandering around Zogu’s pool that we get to see in a couple of scenes.  Oh and also Rebecca Olson who plays Zogu’s mistress in the first 3 minutes of the film is also smokin hot.  That sums up all that is good about this film.  Here is a picture of Fiona as a school teacher.


Let’s talk about what sucks about this film and we will start with the name Don Michael Paul.  He is the “Director” of this film.  Now if this was 10 years ago when Benn, you know the D-Bag that made me watch this, were first starting our movie review website and podcast, and if this movie was made and reviewed by my back then, I would have gone into an irrational tirade about how this “director” should have a his scrotum rubbed over a cheese grater and then dipped in a bucket of alcohol.  But, I am older and wiser now, so I will not go on that tirade.  I will just give you some evidence as to why you should not avoid any movie his name is attached to in the future.  If you go to RottenTomatoes.com and bring up his name, which you may go straight to the link here, you will see that the highest score any move he has been associated with has a rating of 40% and that was the movie the Island.  No, he didn’t direct it, he acted in it.  He was the character known as “Bar Guy” in the film.  His Screenwriting debut, which is the movie called Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man, which is the film that buried Don Johnson’s acting career until the TV show Nash Bridges, has a rating of 22%.  And for the piece de la resistance, his directorial debut was the great, great film, Half Past Dead, with old man Stephen Segal, an actor that Benn Farrell will get know real well, real soon, which has a rating on rottontomatoes.com of, wait for it, 3%.  I think I can rest my case.  No longer do I need to go on sophomoric tirades about how this director should be tied down and buried at a golf course tee box with only his genitals showing and have said genitals be used as tee’s for golfers to use to hit the ball.  I have grown up past that.

This movie is so bad that I actually feel bad for all of the hot chicks that were in this film and Dolph Lundgren.  I read that he actually turned down the movie at first.  I can see why.  He must have been given a ton of money to act in this film.  Because that is the only reason you would want to be in it.  There are better films on the Sci-Fi channel then is this film.  It does a poor job of ripping off the first movie which should never be associated with that classic.

The writing is just God awful.  It tries to be a funny satire on the ridiculous Progressive PC culture that has been created in this country but it the humor gets lost in the brainless writing and directing.  I honestly don’t know why someone would produce this movie after reading the script.  I mean people spent actual money making this.  It’s almost as if they knew this movie was bad but didn’t want people to hate it so the end credits begin with all of the cute child actors that were in the film and had them run around and make cute faces.  The only problem is that the writing did nothing to make you care about any of them.  I guess as homage to the first film they had these kids say the same thing to Lundgren that the first group of kids said to Schwarzenegger in the first film.  This movie is so bad that when this film gave us the angry drunk father who appears to be taking it out on his cute daughter, just like the first film, instead of getting his ass handed to him, like in the first film, Dolph pulls him aside and gives us a little progressive speech about being a good day and things will get better and he will help the day get a new job.  F*ck you!  Beat his ass, that’s what I wanted see.

Finally I will say that besides the hot chicks, there was one other thing I liked, although I had to provide the needed adjustment to the film to make it likeable.  The final fight scene between Reed and Zogu was a fist fight in a creek in the middle of a park.  I paused it, went to YouTube.com and looked for the fight scene in Rocky IV between Rocky and Ivan Drago.  I found the scene, turned up the speakers really loud, and muted my TV and then hit play on the DVD player, and listened to Rocky IV fight music while watching to old guys try to fight.  That was entertaining.  That is all that is entertaining.

If you think you should watch this film.  Stop what you are doing get on the phone and call your Psychiatrist quickly, because you need your meds changed.  Good Luck!





Read Full Post »

pointbreakMy movie website cohort and good friend Benn Farrell knows that I am not a fan of remakes in general. They tend to be remade for the wrong reasons.  I will already tell you that I will not like the new Ghostbusters film that is coming out in the summer of 2016.  The reason why I will not like it is because if the film is awesome, which it won’t be, it can’t be better than the original.  So if it can’t be better than the original why make it?  Knowing my feelings about this Benn sent me to this film.  But I have never seen the original Point Break with Patrick Swayze and surfer dude Keanu Reeves.  So I have nothing to compare this film to other than the few clips I have seen over the years.  So I am a blank slate for this film and yet while I was pessimistic at the start I was pleasantly surprised at how not awful it ended up being.  I will have to see the original now for comparison.

Utah, played by Luke Bracey (The November Man,) is a former extreme sport motocross rider turned potential FBI agent after a friend of his died falling off of a cliff falling Utah on his bike.  The FBI are dealing with some extreme sportsmen who are also committing crimes on U.S. corporations around the world.  Utah realizes that the people committing these crimes are also attempting to complete the Ozaki 8, a list eight extreme ordeal to honor the forces of nature.  Because of his background Utah is sent to see if he can infiltrate the group and gather information.  In doing so he meets the leader Bodhi, played by Edgar Ramirez (The Bourne Ultimatum,) who suggests Utah look into himself to see why he left the sport, among other things.  Utah also begins a relationship with Samsara, played by Teresa Palmer (Warm Bodies,) and begins to earn the trust of the group as they do so bring him along on another one of their missions to honor Ozaki.

The biggest thing that got me to like this movie is the filming of the extreme sports that the guys do in the film.  Even if most of it was green screen those action scenes had a lot of excitement for me.  For whatever reason as I have gotten older I have acquired a fear of heights.  Not on an airplane or if I am standing in a tall building.  More along the lines of when I see people mountain climbing in general, especially without ropes, or seeing some of those geniuses climbing to the roof of the skyscrapers to do balancing acts on the edge and so forth.  I guess as I have gotten older I like my life a lot more than those idiots even though they are younger and have more of a life to live.  There were many scenes that had me stressed in the film watching.  One of the two worst ones was when the five guys were paragliding I think?  Granted a lot of it was green screen but I would assume some of it wasn’t and it was cool to watch them fly through the air as they were falling to the ground.   But of course the one that had me the most was when Utah was chasing Bodhi and another guy up a mountain and they were all climbing up the mountain without ropes or anything.  Once at the top Bodhi purposely falls of the waterfall and Utah follows him down.  I actually had to fast forward it a bit because it was stressing me out.  But that is more on me than it is on the film.

My biggest issue is that there seems to be no real conflict or bad guy.  At no point did I believe Utah wasn’t going to stop being an FBI Agent and join these guys on their quest.  Bodhi was the bad guy but as bad guys go he wasn’t horrible.  He is a modern day Robin Hood and I thought we are supposed to like those guys.  So I guess I am saying that none of the characters were really developed one way or the other for me to root for or against them.  I also have an issue of the character of Samsara.  It would appear there was no purpose for her role other than to show some skin and be a mild love interest for Utah.  Even at that there is no real belief that the relationship is going to go anywhere.  Her only purpose was to explain what actually happened to Ozaki and his life meaning.  Other than that there is nothing so when Utah ends up shooting her during a failed bank heist there is no real sense of loss for me.  Don’t get me wrong Teresa Palmer is hot, even if she wasn’t one of the actresses that had her phone hacked a couple of years ago and had all sorts of nude pictures of her out on the net, she would still be hot.  But there is no purpose for her character in this film other than showing a hot bodied woman.


Lastly the last issue I had was that the reason why these guys were committing the crimes was because of some Zen connection between the Ozaki 8 and giving back to the earth and the commitment level they had at doing both.  The problem using that is that the climactic scene in the movie is fairly anti-climactic.  The above mentioned chase between Utah and Bodhi on the cliff was that scene.  Other than freaking out the audience member like me, it didn’t do anything to help the story.  Both jumped off the cliff and Utah showed back up and it was assumed by the other FBI that Bodhi was lost in the river even though Utah knew he survived.  Then we flash forward seven months later when a storm creates the conditions for the remaining trial that Bodhi needs to do and Utah catches up to him and tells him that if he goes out and does the trial he will die.  Bodhi tells him basically that is the beauty of it.  I don’t get it.  So needless to say the ending is lacking.

I will say that the actors in the film were the other reason why I enjoyed the film as much as I did. Both Bracey and Martinez did the best with what was given to them.  Hell for that matter so did Teresa Palmer.  They could only do so much with what was given and it was clear this movie focused more on the stunts then the script.

This is not a good movie but it isn’t horrible.  The extreme sports kept me in the movie but the story and lack of character development destroy what good there is in the film.  Like I said I will have to see the original so I can see the differences but I can say that I won’t watch this movie again unless there is nothing else on.  It was better than I thought it would be, but I was expecting garbage.  I am guessing I will have to wait for the new Ghostbusters to give me a garbage remake.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »