Scavengers (2013)

Ambition is good. Ambition is what keeps the world going. Without it we wouldn't have many of the greatest achievements in human history: The Great Pyramids. The moon landing. Deep fried butter on a stick. The list goes on. But on the other hand, sometimes it's best when to know when to pick your battles, and temper ambition with the cold, hard, stainless steel meat tenderizer of reality.

Take for instance "Scavengers," a 2013 straight to DVD affair with a budget that would have been laughed off an episode of "Firefly," the acting chops and set design of a Sega CD game, and the computer graphics the caliber of "ReBoot." For some reason, they thought that was a perfect setup to make a space opera complete with dogfights and shootouts with lasers and the whole shebang. Now, one can't fault a film for wanting to be more than the sum of its parts, but if the best a film can look like from a production standpoint is an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," then maybe they shouldn't have tried being "Star Trek Into Darkness," you know what I'm saying?

Oh thank Crom. I've been waiting for this since the movie started. Come on. Do it. DO IT! Kill me, I'm here! Kill me! C'mon! Do it now! Kill me!

That's just a thing I've never understood. Perhaps it's just the perfectionist in me talking, but personally if I was going to try and make a film that by Hollywood standards was going to cost on the high end of 8 decimal places, and the most I could get was on the extreme low end of 7, I would reconsider the entire affair. I'd scrap the whole idea and make a horror flick where I didn't have to recreate a dogfight scene from the end of "Return of The Jedi." But again, that's just me because I wouldn't want my end product to suck.

"Scavengers" is about a group of scavengers in space who collect space scrap from space battles in space for space salvage. In the wake of a rather large battle they come across some kind of alien thing called a Chaos Generator (whatever) that does...something, I don't know. The purpose of it is never really made abundantly clear from what I recall, although in the film's defense I stopped paying close attention very early on since I was bored out of my mind.

Which is about the same level of defense as "Say what you want about the slaughter and brutally cruel regime, Sauron kept the place orderly."

They are pursued by Captain Jekel (Sean Patrick Flanery), a psychopathic mercenary who only speaks in grunts and indecipherable mumblings. He's a terrible, one-note character who is impossible to take seriously because of the horrible dialogue and unbelievably bad acting job by Flanery, whom I know can do better than this. Hell, I've seen him do better than this. I have no idea what he's doing in "Scavengers." His sweaty, overly aggressive, blustering and pained performance comes across like a guy who just got kicked in the nuts after drinking a fifth of Wild Turkey. And his dialogue is so stock villain that even when you can understand him it's enough to make your eyes roll. But that's very rare since he's growling, whispering, and slurring all at once with every line.

Every line of Jekel's basically sounds like: "Fwagabala bitdow. Malaga kill 'em all."

I said before how bad this movie looks, and I wasn't lying. I'm dead serious when I say that it looks like an FMV Sega CD game. No joke. This looks like "Sewer Shark." It can't hold a candle to "Wing Commander III." Hell, "Mad Dog McCree" looked better than this. And it's not that it's just low quality, either: It's also lazy as there's a ridiculous amount of recycled shots that just screams out that they just didn't care. There's a rather dangerous drinking game you can do in which you take a drink every time you see the same readout on one of the computer screens. You'll be drunk without 5 minutes because every single time someone looks at a computer screen they show the EXACT. SAME. SHOT. The best part is that they all act as if it's new information every time, making it clear the actors weren't looking at anything, and the readout was put in later by an editor who didn't give a crap.

Apart from that I have no idea what was going on with this movie. There's a scene where a guy explodes, which was awesome because I thought they killed a main character out of nowhere, but that's rendered stupid when we find out he's a clone and they can just make more of him, which they do constantly since he inadvertently kills himself all the time. There's a bar fight with a character named Breathtaker (Kelley Whilden) who is useless expect for the fact that she has a stupid name and they give her a shower scene for no reason. There's a couple dogfights which are incomprehensible and boring. There's a scene where one of the characters is in a crawlspace struggling to reach a button even though it's laughably clear based on the set not having a ceiling that all she would have to do is stand up and it would easily be within reach, which they don't even bother trying to hide. And then the main character just throws the Chaos Generator into space after almost everyone dies because that makes everything we just saw totally worth it. Then the movie ends with Jekel having a piece of it the whole time or some stupid twist that makes no sense.

That's all I remember. And you know what? I don't care enough to refresh my memory. This blew.

Go ahead. check out Flanery's line delivery in the trailer here. Yeah you can laugh at it. You didn't watch this movie. I did. Are you happy that I suffered in your place? Jerks.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Scavengers" is terrible. It's terrible because it's boring, which is the worst kind of terrible because you can't even take any pleasure out of how bad it is. It's what would happen if the Asylum tried to make "Firefly." Just allow that to process in your heads.

Phantom (2013)

It occurs to me as I write this entry that there really haven't been many movies about submarines that I haven't liked. At least, I can't think of a submarine movie that I haven't at least found passable. I've never seen one that made me mad at it.

I mean you've got "Das Boot," "The Hunt for Red October," and "Crimson Tide" which gives the genre pedigree by themselves, but don't forget about "Down Periscope" either. That's actually one of my favorite comedies, as strange as they may sound. Even the low-budget Rutger Hauer vehicle "Hostile Waters" I found to be decent. I think the worst I've seen was probably "U-571" and "K-19," and those weren't really bad, they were just okay.

Submarines are just an interesting setting for a film. It's inherently tense without really even trying, what with being in a tin can below the water, where one mistake could leave you crushed in an instant. All it takes is good direction and half-way decent writing and acting and you've got most of the work done for you as far as suspense goes. Like I said, I like these kinds of movies.

This brings me to "Phantom," a film about a Russian submarine during the Cold War starring Ed Harris and David Duchovney. That premise alone gets a hardy "Hell Yes" from me. Ya'll know I loves me the Duchovney. I remember it got a small theatrical release in March, but it wasn't playing anywhere near me, which ticked me off because I would have seen it even if it was only rocking a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, which it was. But that website isn't very trustworthy most of the time, anyway, so my interest in it was still firmly in the "very" category.

Archeologists could probably find ruins of ancient civilizations in those valleys and crags on his face.

After seeing it I honestly have no earthly idea what it's doing at a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. "Phantom" isn't a mind-blowing epic or anything, and its tin-foil hat may be showing ever so slightly, but it's a solid submarine movie that hits nearly every note which makes the genre work, and it's headed by a really solid cast that sells what they're doing quite well. I hate to use phrases that would normally get slapped on a DVD case, but "Phantom" is a pretty rousing thriller, and I enjoyed myself.

Based on true events in the same way "A Perfect Storm" was (in that the filmmakers actually have no idea what really happened but hey this scenario would not have been physically impossible), "Phantom" follows the final voyage of a Russian submarine which was hijacked by members of an extremist branch of the KGB and turned into a vessel for starting a war between China and the US. The eponymous "Phantom" is a device the KGB has installed on the ship which makes it essentially invisible, and is the lynchpin in their plan. So yes, notes of "The Hunt for Red October" are present, but that movie is awesome, so shut up.

Pssh. A submarine in the water. Seen it before. Boo. Zero Stars.

Everything past that is standard submarine movie fare, which isn't to say it's bad or boring, but it is a fairly by-the-book story. Of course we know that World War III didn't happen, so we know the KGB don't succeed in their plan, but it's still tense to see how or if the men on the boat are going to get out of the situation, because the film is made with very competent direction and pacing by director Todd Robinson.

The cast is a solid mix of big names like Harris and Duchovny who both tear it up, and a collection of "that one guy from that one movie" actors like William Fichtner and Sean Patrick Flanery. It's even got Lance Henriksen showing up for 3 minutes in the beginning for a scene they can put in the trailers to drop some quick exposition. I was particularly a fan of Jason Gray-Stanford, who plays one of the boat's officers, because he looks exactly look Goose in "Top Gun." So that's pretty awesome.

I must say that I really, really enjoyed Duchovny's role in "Phantom." I've never seen him play a villain, but after this I think it would be a real missed opportunity if he didn't do it more often. On top of his character, Bruni, being a very well-written role because he's one of those great villains who doesn't think he's a villain at all, Duchovny's trademark deadpan delivery and fantastic cold eyes makes him a lot of fun to watch.

What? David Duchovny playing a member of a shadowy, fringe, paranoid government organization who goes off and does his own thing regardless of what his superiors want? What a twist.

My favorite dialogue from the film was in a scene where Harris asks Duchovny why he's doing what he's doing, to which Duchovny explains that the US now has first-strike capabilities. That means that Russia must strike first because America now has their finger on the button. Harris asks the obvious question, "What makes you think they'd attack us first?" Duchovny replies in a very calm, logical, why-do-you-even-ask tone of voice, "We would." That was straight up chilling. Props to Duchovny.

There is one big thing about "Phantom" that didn't work, and was pretty weird despite the fact that by the end I had accepted it, and that is the fact that nobody here even attempts to have a Russian accent. Not one single cast member. In fact I'm pretty sure the navigator had a Texas drawl going on. And while it's probably best to either go all or nothing with that kind of thing, the "nothing" approach did make itself a constant distraction. At least Sean Connery was surrounded by guys doing Russian accents, and Connery himself has an accent, even though it's Scottish. "Phantom" sounds like they filled the sub with the cast of "Field of Dreams."

Oh hey. It's...you. I remember you from...oh geez what was the freaking movie? You know...the one with that other guy. The guy with the face? That movie. You were in that, too, I think. Are you sure you're not Sig Hansen?

Apart from that I heard some people complain about the end of the film being silly, but I disagree. Yes, it does get a bit (okay a lot) metaphysical and artsy, but it actually didn't take me out of the movie at all. Honestly I thought it was quite poetic and rather moving. It gives some closure to a film that by all accounts really couldn't have much of one had they simply left it where it normally would have ended.

So why did this movie get panned? I have no idea. I guess you either like these kinds of movies or you don't. I think people can expect a bit too much from films sometimes, particularly when the premise is fairly simple. I mean, there's only so much you can do in a submarine movie. It's about guys crammed in a metal cigar box underwater. Their options are limited. But as long as the tension is there, what more do you want from a submarine movie?

Check out the trailer for "Phantom."

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Phantom" is a solid entry in the submarine movie genre. It's not doing anything overly original besides casting David Duchovny as a villain (which makes it worth seeing by itself), but the skill with which it's made makes it a fun, intense ride. I was invested beginning to end, despite the story being most likely ridiculous, although the behind the scenes features on the DVD offering a defense of the story is admittedly interesting and oddly compelling. If you're a submarine movie fan, this is definitely one to check out.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

One day when I was attending Central Michigan University, way back circa 2002, a friend of mine from down the hall came to my dorm room. In his hand was a burned DVD. He holds it up and asks me, "Dude, Pat, I have this movie called "The Boondock Saints." Ever seen it?" I told him I had not even heard of it. I see a small sparkle appear in his eyes as a smile creeps across his face. He then tells me, "You have got to see it. We're watching it right now." So we did.

I think that's the experience most people had with "The Boondock Saints." After essentially going straight-to-DVD, as the only initial theatrical release it got was on 5 screens for one week, the film garnered a pretty big fan following based entirely on word of mouth. Eventually being a part of that fandom would lead to a somewhat embarrassing predicament as 14 year-olds and Hot Topic kind of ruined it for everyone else by going the "Scarface" route and putting the Saints on everything because it makes whoever is wearing it totally hardcore and gangster. But if we step away from that there's still a pretty good movie to be found underneath all that marketing, teen wangst, black trenchcoats, and people flaunting their 7% Irish heritage by getting Celtic tattoos and wearing a "Boondock Saints" hoodie.

"The Boondock Saints" is about Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) MacManus, two deeply religious Irish brothers who, after running afoul of the Russian mob after an innocent bar fight, decide it is their duty to destroy the evil in Boston by shooting it in the head. Of course they decide it's ordained by God that they do so, which makes it all okay. Using their mob errand boy friend, Rocco (David Della Rocco) as a walking Rolodex of people to kill, they start cleaning up the streets of every high and low level mobster they can get their hands on, all while the Boston police and FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willam Dafoe) play catch up and try to figure out just who in the hell is killing all these criminals.

The hits carried out by the MacManus brothers are always told in flashbacks as Smecker and the cops investigate the crime scenes, attempting to piece together the events that went on. These get more elaborate as the film goes on, leading to the final one which finds the film at its most artsy, showing Smecker actually walking through the shootings, narrating as the scene plays out around him in slow motion like he's not even there. And it really highlights how smart Smecker is, but also how easily he can make mistakes - like 1 guy with 6 guns turning into 6 guys with guns. While it may be a touch too much on occasion, overall I found it to be an interesting narrative device.

Umm...symbolism? Because he was in "Platoon?"

That's not what people remember about "The Boondock Saints," though. What they remember, and rightly so, is how funny it is. While it's true that at its core this is a pretty dark film which explores the nature of killing under the guise of religious righteousness, and does so without giving any clear-cut answers as to whether or not what our heroes are doing is right (although I think the way it's written implies the movie thinks it is), nobody is going to be thinking too much about all that deep stuff when the cast is so damn funny and likeable.

Flanery and Reedus are absolutely charming as the brothers, and have an amazing chemistry with each other. Their boyish jubilance over their new job would be disturbing if they weren't so funny. And as Smecker points out, their action-movie inspired tactics are so ridiculous and unprofessional that the only reason they succeed is because it IS so far out there that it's got a chance. And whether or not you count their survival on luck or divine intervention, you can't help but like these guys. Even if they are crazy.

It's okay. The voices in our heads told us we should do this. (Our heroes!)

I could just go down the cast list and say "They were awesome" to be honest. David Della Rocco is the only person more likable than the MacManus', and is most people's favorite character for a good reason, as he's hysterical. Rocco is one of the best loveable schmuck characters I can remember from recent film history, and he's played with such passion and gusto that whenever he's on screen the film gets this energy that's undeniable.

But to be perfectly honest, I really think it's Willem Dafoe who runs away with this movie. Even from a story standpoint it's just as much Smecker's story as the brother's. We are following him for a good chunk of the movie, sometimes more often than the MacManus', and by the end he's really functioning as the soul of the film. He's smart enough to figure these guys out, and he's probably good enough to stop them if he wanted to, but he has to ask himself if that's what he really wants to do. And being arguably the best actor in the cast, his performance is fiery, humorous, and tortured all at the same time.

Did I mention you get to see Willem Dafoe in drag? It is amazing.

I also love Bob Marley as the resident dunder-head Detective Greenly, and even freaking Ron Jeremy was incredibly memorable. They, along with the rest of the cast turn what could have been a very average crime thriller and turn it into a very, very funny movie. Oddly enough the one guy who isn't funny at all, and in fact is the only character played completely dead serious, is the the most prolific comedic actor of the bunch, Billy Connolly.

Speaking of humor, "The Boondock Saints" is one of the most endlessly quotable films I've ever seen. Unfortunately, much like "The Big Lewbowski," the film is laced with so much profanity that it's difficult to do so in public. But whether it's Greenly assuring his fellow cops that he will do no f@#kin' bagel fetching, or Rocco asking "Is it dead?" there are so many golden lines throughout that the whole film becomes something like a sing-along.

Alright, all together now: "Well, name ONE THING you're gonna need the rope for!" Now stop. That's annoying.

I've heard this film criticized often by people who label it as an immature, unfunny, over-stylized rehash of every vigilante justice movie ever made, and as such is a terrible film. I've never understood the seething hatred this movie brings out of some people. while I understand the argument as to it being unoriginal and low-brow at times. It's just as stylized as any other modern action movie that uses slow-motion on occasion, which doesn't make it bad since the slow-motion is well done, and humor is subjective. I find "The Boondock Saints" to be hilarious, personally, but I can understand someone thinking otherwise. I have a hunch that it's more that they can't stand the fanbase that worships it, which I totally get because I'm not a huge fan of them either. But it's not fair to take it out on the movie.

Some complain about the slow-motion, and there may admittedly be an abuse of it going on, but seeing as it stays consistent in its use it never really bothered me, and it started to become almost another character. Besides, had the fights not been in slow motion they would have taken 7 seconds and been so confusing and hectic it'd be indecipherable. And I'll take clear, easily comprehended slow-motion over confusing shaky-cam any damn day of the week. And that's a fact. Bitch about it all you want, but at least you know what just happened.

Like I said earlier, I really don't understand why this movie has so many detractors unless they're just out to tear apart a cult movie for no other reason other than not liking the audience for it. I guess you could get yourself in a tizzy over the message of vigilantism, but I don't think the movie is taking itself seriously enough to really look at it that closely. It's supposed to be a really fun time. Which it is.

Just looking at Rocco's face makes me smile.

Now as to the long delayed sequel, that's a conversation for another day...

Check out the trailer for "The Boondock Saints." It's awesomely cheesy and belongs in the early 90's!

THE BOTTOM LINE - I love "The Boondock Saints," even though the hip thing for me to do, as a self-stylized amateur critic is to write it off. Everyone else did. But I like what I like, and this movie puts a smile on my face, and if you've never seen it and aren't turned off by prodigious amounts of profanity and some rather dark humor, I'd highly recommend you give it a shot.