Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies (2012)

Oh goodness. Is it Asylum time again? So soon? At this rate you people will start to think I'll watch anything! And while that is usually true, I do have standards. As awfully entertaining as these movies can be, or at least the thought of these movies can be, I have to be in the mood for The Asylum. About 97% of the time I'm watching a movie by myself, which can get lonely after a while. And most of the time I just don't want to watch these things alone. Otherwise I just feel...kind of dirty and wonder what it is exactly I'm doing with my life.

I mean, it's not a very confidence building occasion to answer the question "What did you do last night?" with the answer "I watched a low budget, SciFi Channel caliber movie you've never heard of starring nobody you've ever seen which was itself a knockoff of a movie that isn't even out yet. No, I didn't have a date. What kind of stupid question is that? I was busy watching Abraham Lincoln kill zombies with a scythe."

If I had one, my eHarmony profile would be as deserted as a Kris Kross reunion concert.

Fortunately, this time I was not alone. I brought friends along for the ride on this one. It was a good call, because "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" is a movie that increases in enjoyment the more people you have watching it with you.

I was made aware of "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" from Brad Jones of The Cinema Snob. Well, not personally of course. I don't know the gentleman, much to my sorrow. He gave it a glowing endorsement which I held in fairly high regard, and it seemed like a great time. While there's been plenty of occasions where I've strongly disagreed with Brad on movies, he knows what he's talking about, and usually puts up a fairly strong case for any opinion he has.

But in this case, it seems to me that "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" can speak for itself. I mean, just look at this majesty. This...this is awesome.

"Four score and 7 headshots ago..."

And in a case of a bit of serendipitous luck, "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" was thankfully nearly as awesome as it seemed. Nearly. While overall it is still a low budget Asylum flick, it still possesses some obscenely over the top weirdness that tends to leave the viewer in a state of perpetual "Are they seriously going there?" And it is pretty glorious thing which is a key element of enjoying "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies," which is to really just sit back and enjoy the absurdity.

The setup for "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" is that when he was a child, Lincoln was forced to kill his parents during a zombie outbreak, leaving him as the only survivor of his town. Then, during the Civil War, strange stories of southern troops eating the flesh of people in a fort off the Mississippi River start to emerge. Everyone thinks it's bogus, but of course Lincoln knows exactly what's going on. So armed with his trusty scythe and his Secret Service, the President himself goes to the fort to settle things before it's too late. The President is going out to kick some zombie ass.

One, please.

In all honesty, the whole zombie thing is probably the least interesting part of the movie, shocking as that is to say. The brutally honest truth is that the zombies are overall only partly convincing. This is mostly to do with the fact that the zombies all move absurdly slow, even for "Night of The Living Dead" style zombies. They also have this cosmically stupid thing where it appears that they sleep. I really have no answer for it, I'm pretty sure Lincoln said they were sleeping at one point, but it's really confusing. They sleep standing up, just kind of frozen where they were, but the crazy part is that the zombies in this movie move so slowly that it's hard to tell if they were supposed to be asleep or not.

So yeah, the action...not so great. Although it was considerate of the zombies to all just stand there and not do anything while the heroes ran through their ranks obliterating them time and time again.

That's not to say that "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" isn't worth seeing, because it is, and the reason is threefold. The first is that the guy playing Lincoln, Bill Oberst Jr., is actually an incredibly convincing 16th President of the United States. Seriously, he could be Lincoln in an actual legitimate drama and do a great job, which isn't hard to imagine because out of everyone in the cast, Obert Jr. is playing it the straightest out of anyone there.

More American Presidents need a personal bladed weapon of choice.

This is a role which could have been hammed up to shreds. He's got one liners, he's quoting from his historical speeches except in this ridiculous scenario, he's shooting infected people in the head while his staff incredulously exclaim "Mister PRESIDENT!" and he's beheading zombies while grunting "Emancipate THIS!" It's all very surreal. The amazing thing is that there's not a single point in the entire film where Oberst Jr. does not maintain a firm grasp on his dignity. And the end of the film has him face his destiny with what can almost be called a heartbreaking emotional scene. It really is an amazing performance, especially for an Asylum movie.

The second reason is Jason Vail playing one of Lincoln's Secret Service, John Wilkinson. There's a twist going on with him that observant viewers will probably spot not too far into the film, but despite that he is a blast to watch. Wilkinson has some of the funniest moments in the film, including a "that's so racist that it is hysterical" line which brought me and my friends close to tears, and hams it all up to an outstanding degree. Whereas Oberst Jr. always played it straight, Vail has moments of pure scene-chewing madness that come off like Snidely Whiplash doing Hamlet.

Oh, by the way, they totally steal a scene from Hamlet. You ready for the crazy part? It 100% works in context.

Mind = blown

And finally, somewhat fitting in with Vail's character is the third reason to see "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies," which is the inclusion of historical figures. Now, this is something the movie does that will either be some of the most fun you get out of it, or this will completely annihilate it. I'm reluctant to spoil anything about it, because when the people and names fly at you, it's a wonderful experience sitting back saying "Wait...what? Did they say that's...seriously? They're going there? That...that...that's so dumb. Buh...wha...huh?"

And then you start laughing. It's great. Just be on the lookout for some pretty outlandish historical cameos and dubious origins for famous quotations.

I have to hand it to the Asylum. I think this may be one of the best movies they've ever done. Probably in the top 3.

THE BOTTOM LINE - This movie could almost be recommended to people who didn't know about The Asylum. Almost. It's still low budget, it starts to drag a bit by the end, and the action isn't great. That being said, it's a hell of a lot of fun. Get friends together and have a blast. Recommended.

A Rant: "Dressing Women In Armor"

You know what bugs me? When movies put women in medieval armor. Now, I don't mean that a women can't ever wear it, but something about that image is usually quite off putting to me. And it's not just because it's a woman wearing it, it's that there is usually nothing done to justify or lead into it.

It seems like a symbol which has to be touted out in the attempt to get more women to buy movie tickets. A trailer for a film showcasing the lead actress rocking a full set of shining plate mail, with perfectly tousled hair flowing in the wind as she raises her longsword above her head and gives a mighty yell as she and the host at her back charge into battle almost seems like a big sign splashed across the screen saying "SEE OUR MOVIE, LADIES, IT HAS A STRONG FEMALE PROTAGONIST."

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Not at all. By all means, let the lady wreck the bad guys with a sword and carve them up like a lumberjack. Let her go all Red Sonja on them. But only if that makes sense.

Here's my problem: Rarely do the women in these movies have the justification to not only hurl themselves into the thick of battle, but to even wear the armor in the first place.

I'm going to show you some pictures. Tell me if you can spot a problem.

Alice, "Alice in Wonderland"

Briene, The Maid of Tarth, "A Song of Ice and Fire" / "Game of Thrones"

One of these things is not like the other.

Which one of these women looks more like they belong in armor? Alice from the Tim Burton embarrassment of "Alice In Wonderland," is a normal girl who just throws on a suit of armor at the end of the film and battles the Jabberwock. Because, you know, she's fought in battles before. Or not.

Briene of Tarth from "A Song of Ice and Fire" (now "Game of Thrones" on HBO) has been training as a knight since she was a little girl. She's a towering hulk of a tomboy to the point of almost preferring to be identified as a male, and is so brutish strong that she is one of the most formidable fighters in a series containing dozens and dozens of powerful warriors. (And she's my second favorite character in the story.)

Briene gets to wear armor, because that makes sense. She's a warrior. She knows how to fight. Alice has no business being on a battlefield besides the story saying that she's the one who will defeat the bad guy. But what sense does that make when Alice hasn't ever picked up a sword to fight in her life? They didn't even have her taking fencing lessons, which I actually would have given the movie a lot of credit for had they done that. Alice is just a pretty face in armor. Briene is not pretty, true, but she belongs in it.

Perhaps that's too harsh of a contrast. I'll do you one a bit less extreme, which perhaps makes my point better.

Marian, "Robin Hood"

Eowyn, "The Lord of The Rings"

In Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood," the Marian character, all 95 lbs of her, charges into battle alongside Robin at the climax of the film, standing toe to toe with professional soldiers and winning, despite us never seeing her fight beforehand or even hearing it mentioned if she even knows which end of the sword to hold. It's just something that happens, and it's very nonsensical. She's just a pretty face in armor.

What that does is highlight the fact that up to that point in the film, Marian was pretty much a subjugated servant who really didn't do much of anything besides do what her father and Russell Crowe tell her to do. That fact that she was snarky to him is I guess is supposed to make it all OK. The sudden donning of armor to do battle out of the blue is a splash of cold water on the face that makes it clear that the writers had nothing for this character besides that role, but they wanted to put butts in seats, so suit up, Marian, you're going in.

On the other hand, "Lord of The Rings" has Eowyn, daughter of King Theoden. She charges into battle too, but although she is not a professional soldier either, we see her training with a sword. We hear her mention that the women of her lands are taught to weld weapons at a young age. It makes sense when she charges into battle with the men. She's a pretty face in armor, too, but she's not just a face.

Eowyn also took a much more active role in the story. She was out doing things and pursuing her goals, and even if she was in a similar situation as Marion in the sense that she was second-banana of sorts, she still had a will of her own, and acted on what she felt was right instead of just bitching about having to go along with plans.

Marian does not get to wear armor. Eowyn does.

When we have the former example, it seems like a rather lazy method to superficially make a female character a more proactive force, even when as a character, they really aren't that special. I'd also guess that the makers of these movies probably know that, at least on some subconscious level, and this is their way of getting around that sticky wicket.

The portrayal of a strong women (in the physical sense) needs to be earned through action and their active involvement in moving the plot forward. Having them take a more active part in the story is a far more effective method than dumping them in plate mail to do battle at the climax of the film, all in an effort to show the main actress looking hot in armor. Otherwise it's just as sexist as if the movie had them good for nothing other than cleaning the castle.

Snow White and The Huntsman (2012)

Can one single aspect of a film ruin the entire experience? Is it possible to have one thing, one element of a movie be so bad, so truly retched, and so foul that nothing you can think of can justify its disregard?

I mean, Jar Jar Binks was bad, but can you in all honesty tell me that "Star Wars: Episode I" would have been any better without his inclusion? Well, the answer is "yes," but that doesn't mean that by excluding him, the movie would have suddenly become good as opposed to horrifying me to the very core of my soul. Would "Highlander 2" really have been saved after they took out "Zeist?" The Renegade Cut of the film showed us, "Of course not, you dolt." And Skids and Mudflap weren't in "Transformers 3," and that movie still sucked like a puncture wound to the lung. So it would seem that there's usually a bit more to it than just one thing.

But what insanity could possibly afflict a piece of cinema so completely, so fully, and in such an all-encompassing fashion as to be without hope?

 Oh. Oh god.

You know, I don't even know if I should even start with this. The fact that Kristen Stewart is a bad actress is fairly well done to death, and there's little that can be added to the argument. She's like moldy bread in that aspect. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that it sucks, and is something that should be promptly thrown away. However, there is a inexplicably large fan base of moldy bread enthusiasts who say that it's delicious and totally awesome and underrated.

I don't know why these people like moldy bread, but I have two theories that I'm working on. The first is that they were told by the writers of their favorite baked goods style fiction that moldy bread is totally awesome, and since they are such big fans of baked goods style fiction, they eat up whatever is given to them and say "yum." The second theory I have is that they are stupid.

However, there is a third possibility that there is some kind of benefit to moldy bread I have not discovered yet. I have a plan to test this theory, however. I think we should lock Kristen Stewart in a warm, moist cabinet somewhere until her desiccated remains produce penicillin.

This. This expression is the one she wears every. single. frame. of this film.

Upon seeing the trailer, "Snow White & The Huntsman" looked interesting to me at first. Although I'm a little tired of everything getting a "gritty" makeover lately, it seemed like a cool take on the classic fairy tale. And then Kristen Stewart's vacant, baggy-eyed, blank slate of a face showed up on screen to make me groan and instantly fear seeing it. But, the rest of the cast was made up of some pretty intense talent, so I figured that it was worth giving a shot.

What I ended up getting was an interesting conundrum that was pretty much exactly was I figured was going to happen. The movie was actually pretty good. In fact, everything about it was enjoyable, so much so that I would call it kind of awesome...

That is, everything except the main character.

This is the most egregious example I've seen of a movie with a lead character so wretched that they nearly bring the whole production down around them like a ruptured dam. Kristen Stewart gives a performance so wooden, so lifeless, and so uninterested that it becomes almost unwatchable any time she is on screen. She is a thumbtack in the tasty soup that is "Snow White & The Huntsman." She is the rat poison topping on the films otherwise delectable pizza. She is really is the worst actress in recent memory that I can think of, at least in mainstream Hollywood.

She just threw up in her mouth. She'll use that to convey emotion. She's not sure which one though, so she'll use it to convey ALL OF THEM.

But it wasn't only Stewart's terrible performance that I took issue with. My big issue was the character of Snow White herself, whom I will get to later.

"Snow White & The Huntsman" follows the classic story in a very loose fashion. Many of the basic ideas are still there, with an evil queen taking over the kingdom, and the princess Snow White is the only person who can stop her (more on THAT later). She escapes into exile and is helped by the 7 dwarfs, who join her in her fight to overthrow the queen. The Huntsman is a guy sent by the Queen to bring Snow White to her, but of course he betrays the Queen instantly because he can tell she's probably not the most scrupulous of people. Being an evil overlord of a country tends to lower the chances that people will trust you, after all.

The Queen is played by Charlize Theron, and my goodness, she is amazing. True, she acts hammier than a pig wrapped in bacon performing a Nicolas Cage monologue from "Deadfall," but there is something so intensely scary about her in this movie that she is probably the thing that people are going to remember most about it. One scene in particular that will serve for me as the quintessential moment for her character is the prerequisite monologue she gives during the final confrontation. As she is reviling in her own wickedness, she walks through a fire which begins burning her flesh, only to have it heal as she steps out again, like she's freaking Wolverine or something. It's an awesome effect in a movie with a lot of really good effects.

And mixed with the very well done backstory for the Queen, I had more emotional connection with her than I did for the blank slate that was Snow White.

Speaking of scary, Ian McShane, who is one of my favorite actors is also in "Snow White & The Huntsman," playing one of the dwarfs. I suppose he would be "Doc," although none of them have their old names. I honestly couldn't tell what any of their names were, however, since all of them were speaking in nearly undecipherable Scottish accents. There is a huge amount of talent among them, though. Aside from Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Ray Winstone, and the great Bob Hoskins, another one of my favorites, Nick Frost make up the cast of the dwarfs.

The effects used to make the dwarfs seem smaller also deserves mentioning as it was well done. I don't know if they used actually small people as stand ins or used CG to put the actor's faces over top of them, but it was all quite convincing. I was on the fence about the 7 dwarfs when I heard they were in this, but they ended up being the most enjoyable part of them film aside from Charlize Theron.

That is, until they gave Nick Frost and Ray Winstone a poop joke. Because that's dignified, especially during the climatic final battle scene. Nice timing there, movie.

Chris Hemsworth is also pretty sweet as the Huntsman, doing his best to channel his inner Colin Farrell. So overall the main cast is all quite good, of course with the exception of Stewart, and one other guy who deserves mentioning: Sam Spruell as Finn, the Queen's brother. Now, it's not that Spruell is necessarily bad, so to speak, it's just that...well, there's really no gentle way to say this so I guess I'm just going to have to come out and say it. He looks like Gary Busey dressed up as the Berries 'n Cream Lad.

Seriously, this is distracting.

With the cast being as overall strong as it is, the effects being quite well done, and the story being interesting and generally exciting, "Snow White & The Huntsman" is a pretty fun time, and it's really worth seeing just to see how much the movie does right. But that being said, now is the time I once again talk about the main character, and for once, I'm not going to talk about Kristen Stewart. This is talking about Snow White, and why I couldn't stand her as a character.

The problem with Snow White is that she is only exceptional because the story says she is exceptional. In this story, she is The Chosen One. She is the Kwisatz Haderach. She is Neo. She is any kind of messiah character you want to name. But the thing is, there is nothing exceptional about her besides that fact. And it's quite telling in the fact that she doesn't do one single solitary thing that any normal person couldn't have done (with one rather meaningless exception).

Most of the movie is simply Snow White being dragged around like a cardboard cutout or any kind of trophy you can name, while people struggle and fight and die around her, just so that she can make it. Her ascent to power is done on the backs of other people, without her doing much of anything besides showing up and going along for the ride.

And it's not like the movie didn't give them opportunity. I mentioned earlier the pointless scene were she does something special. It involves her going all Crocodile Dundee on a troll, because for some reason, possibly because it was in the Disney version, she has this spooky connection with animals. Now, do they actually do anything useful with that? Well, for that scene, yes, because she saves Chris Hemsworth's life, but at no point does that come back later. Why couldn't she have called on her animal friends to help in the final battle? A troll would have been a nice addition to their forces. But they don't do anything with the animals, which essentially makes that whole animal thing pointless.

 Hey, maybe you could use one of these things to fight for you. Just saying...

A perfect example of what I'm talking about is a scene early in the movie where a common peasant is captured and brought before the Queen. He manages to stab her in the stomach with a dagger, which she pulls out with no blood spilling from her wound. She is unharmed. Now spoiler alert here, but guess how Snow White kills the Queen? Take a guess.

She stabs her in the stomach with a dagger. Only this time, it works and she dies, simply because of the fact that it was Snow White that did it. This literally is the most significant thing that Snow White does in the entirety of the film, and some muddy backwoods hick did it an hour and a half earlier in the film. Only I guess he wasn't good enough for the movie.

This whole fatalistic view of the characters really rubs me the wrong way. It's so boring, and it's such a cop-out unless there is a character produced that is worthy of that predetermined destiny of "savior." It would be one thing if you told me that John McClane was destined to defeat Hans Gruber at Nakatomi Tower. It would be one thing if you told me that Conan was blessed by Crom to avenge himself against Tulsa Doom. Paul Atreides, Luke Skywalker, and even Harry Potter had a prophecy attached to them. And they all DID SOMETHING TO FULFILL IT.

Snow White just goes along for the ride and takes what everyone else says she should have. Just because the movie says she deserves it. What a crock of exceptionalist crap.

AND CLOSE YOUR DAMN MOUTH, YOU SLACK JAWED HACK!!!

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Snow White & The Huntsman" is not a bad movie, despite my complains about protagonists being worthy of the title of "main character." There is a lot in here to enjoy, and what it does well, it does very well. But be warned, if you can't stand Kristen Stewart, and recognize her for the blight on acting that she is, this will do nothing to change your mind about her. She nearly ruins the entire film. Nearly. It just goes to show how good the rest of it is when it manages to save itself from her awfulness. Recommended.

The Woman In Black (2012)

I have always been of the opinion that Daniel Radcliffe was going to have the hardest time having a career post-"Harry Potter" than the rest of the cast. It's not that he was the worst actor of the bunch, it's just that he has such a distinctive look that it's difficult to picture him as anything but Harry Potter. He can't do intimidating, he's not good looking enough to pull of "dashing," and he just doesn't have that presence that makes people radiate off the screen. Perhaps it's that he's never really had much energy in his performances, he's always kind of slummed it if you ask me. The dude needs a cup of coffee or something.

You know what I'm saying with that? It's not that he's a bad actor, I just can't see him taking on a role that required him to raise his voice or be even mildly animated. He always has to be gloomy and dour. Imagine if they remade "Interview With The Vampire" and cast Daniel Radcliffe in it. There's no way he'd be cast as LeStat. He'd be Louis. You can't imagine him being a character that was "fun." Just try and picture a Daniel Radcliffe character possessing even a dark sense of humor. Try and see him spouting off a one-liner. I just don't think he could do it.

You know, they'd probably cast Johnny Depp as LeStat nowadays, wouldn't they? And he'd still be playing Jack Sparrow.

Anyways, with Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, it's a little easier to see them having a successful career. Rupert has a sense of comedic timing that Daniel never seemed to possess, plus he looks goofy so *bam* put him in an English comedy.

Which he's already done, and was quite good in.

And of course, Emma Watson is hot now, so there you go. Instant career, although out of all the main cast I'd say she may have been the weakest link (especially in the earlier films). But hey, she got better as the series went on, and she's certainly better fare than most other teenage actresses. When people like Kristan Stewart and Miley Cyrus are running around in far too many films, at least we have people like Emma who can emote. True, she's no Chloë Grace Moretz, but nobody else is.

"The Woman In Black" is the first post-Potter outing for Radcliffe on the big screen, and you can tell that they really wanted to announce his christening as A REAL ACTOR (tm) with this one. As dark as the Potter series got, they never got "horror movie" dark, and aside from a gritty drama with a lot of swearing and nudity, a horror film is a pretty safe way to distance oneself from a prolific childhood role. Why do you think Radcliffe appeared naked on stage? He's A REAL ACTOR (tm) now.

So needless to say, I approached "The Woman In Black" from the standpoint of "Ok, Radcliffe, let's see what you've got." While I wasn't expecting an instant classic, the generally positive buzz I had heard lead me to believe I was going to get a fairly enjoyable film, and the fact that it was a Hammer Film lead some pedigree as well.

Then again, it was a horror movie released in the post-Oscar contender dumping ground that is the beginning of the year. The first three months of the year are always rife with lousy horror flicks because they have no competition since most of the big movies have already gone through most of the ticket sales they're going to have. Horror films seldom do gangbusters in the box office, so it's best to release when there isn't anything else to see. "The Woman In Black" was released on February 3rd. Oh my.

Yeah, this was no different than the others. It wasn't very good.

Nice scenery, though. True story - this is the English version of New York's Central Park.

Maybe if you're not really into horror movies it might fool you into thinking that it's scary, but it's not. And there are really two big things holding it back. The first is a mishandling of a very simple but almost always overlooked concept in horror, and the second thing is the fact that the villain didn't really DO anything.

First Thing. "The Woman In Black" isn't scary. It's startling. There is a HUGE difference that seems to be an almost alien concept now. Listen to me very closely, because I'm about to drop some science on you.

It's time for "LESSONS WITH PROFESSOR PAT"

Pictured above - Not Pat.

LESSON #47 - "Loud =/= scary"

Fear comes from our natural "fight or flight" instincts. It's the reason people freak out when they see a big-ass spider or get punched in the face. You don't want this to happen, so your body goes into overdrive to help you get away from the offending big-ass spider or fist embedding itself in your nasal cavity. It's a big shot of adrenaline, and yes, it can be quite the jolt. That's why something flying out of the darkness out you going "HWWAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!" is going to put you on edge.

This is all well and good, but using loud sounds to replicate this fear in something that by itself is not scary doesn't work. You can't make a kitten jumping out of a closet scary, no matter how loud you make that stupid orchestra sting. It's still a kitten. All that's going to happen is that my heart is going to momentarily beat faster, my adrenaline will kick in despite the lie, and I'm going to be pissed off because I saw the jump coming a mile away anyways.

That's not scary. That's lying very loudly.

/science drop.

This is "The Woman In Black." A far too big percentage of the scares are false ones, and all but two scares feature the orchestra sting. What that is telling me, movie, is that you don't think too highly of me or yourself. You don't think you're scary, do you, movie? You don't think the scary images can stand on their own, so you have to add that 147 decibel jump scare to try and make nasty water coming out of a pipe scary, am I right? Because that's what you're doing. You're trying to make me afraid of a nasty, clogged up sink.

You don't hold me in a high regard, do you? Trying to make me scared of kitchen appliances? What is this, a Stephen King story?

"My god, I'm wistful."

Speaking of which, The Second Thing. It would be one thing if the orchestra stings were for something that was actually terrifying. I'm not talking about the sink now, I'm talking about the villain, the Woman In Black herself. True enough, she's a ghost that haunts the house that Daniel Radcliffe goes to, but there is a rather annoying issue that starts to make itself evident the further along the movie goes: She doesn't DO anything!

Oh, to be fair, she does make children kill themselves, which is truly horrifying, but that's after someone sees her. Then, at some short time later, after that person leaves the house, she makes a kid do something suicidal that ends in their death. Why she waits until the person she saw leaves is unknown to me, but that's besides the point. The point is that she doesn't lay a finger on Daniel Radcliffe's character, and actually seems totally incapable of doing so.

When it comes to Daniel Radcliffe, she poses no threat. She's not doing anything to him besides suddenly appearing next to him and screaming, or slowly...SLOWLY walking up on him from behind, stealthily making her way to him, as she gets closer and closer...until FINALLY...

She does nothing.

"Hello? Are you standing next to me again? Were you planning on attacking me? Pushing any heavy objects on my head? Scratching me with sharp nails? Anything? Shall I just go back to sleep, then? Would you be so kind as to not scream in my ear? It makes it difficult to nap."

So tell me, movie, why should I be afraid of her? She's doing nothing to him. I'll get nervous when he goes back to town, because I know a kid is about to die or something, but why do you keep a half hour long sequence going in the house when NOTHING BAD HAPPENS TO DANIEL RADCLIFFE? It's really quite annoying to have jump scare after jump scare with no payoff whatsoever. She doesn't even knock anything heavy on him or slam a door in his face. She just appears next to him and screams.

Pretty weak sauce there, ghost.

The best scene of the film is a truly terrifying image of the ghost/zombie/spirit of a child crawling up out of the mud. Daniel Radcliffe sees this through an upstairs window, and it's actually very creepy and well done. Soon after there's a pounding on the front door, and he goes down like an idiot to check it out.

It's a really well put together scene which gets pretty scary, until the muddy child shows up and...

does nothing except appear next to Daniel Radcliffe and scream.

::sigh::

Are you sensing a pattern here with this movie?

So in addition to breaking a whole heck of a lot of horror movie rules as far as "do and don't do's," I really didn't find "The Woman In Black" very effective in any form of genre you could name. The villain is lame, the characters are forgettable, and the scares are simply annoying and insulting. I would also like to give the makers of this movie a piece of free advice: If you want to make Daniel Radcliffe more masculine and more of a legitimate actor, don't have him call out the villain with a bunch of music boxes and children's toys. It tends to undermine any aura of macho.

Oh and the ending is balls, too.

THE BOTTOM LINE - There isn't enough to recommend "The Woman In Black" to anyone looking for a good horror movie. Fans of Daniel Radcliffe might find it an interesting curiosity, and he isn't terrible in it, but overall it's just not an effective experience, and you get the feeling that he deserves better than this. Watch the excellent "Insidious" for an example of how to do this kind of movie the right way. Skip this one, though.

American Warships (2012)

Crack open a sixer of cheap stuff, kids! It's time to once again enter The Asylum!

In case you were unaware of what The Asylum is, they produce what are called "mockbusters." They've been around for quite a while, producing such classics as "Paranormal Entity," "Transmorphers," "Snakes on a Train," and my favorite deceptive title, "The Day The Earth Stopped." This latest entry, "American Warships" is unsurprisingly a knockoff of "Battleship," but where this story gets interesting is that Universal actually threatened The Asylum with a lawsuit unless they changed the title from its original moniker, "American Battleship."

You know, I hate to come down on the side of The Asylum on this one, but seriously, Universal can choke on a spatula. The Asylum's original title is actually far more accurate than the big expensive flop "Battleship." After all, in "Battleship," the majority of the movie takes place on a destroyer. It isn't until the last act of the movie they get their hands on an actual battleship. "American Battleship" is totally accurate. The whole movie takes place on a battleship. From America. Seems legit.

But no, they had to change the name, which now make it make just as little sense as the title of "Battleship." In fact, it makes less sense, because there is only ONE ship in "American Warships" that does anything. The rest get blown out of the water instantly. We are following just ONE ship the whole time, so where does the damn plurality fit in here?

Oh and by the way, I don't care if "American Warships" is direct to video. Considering the difference in budget, I guarantee you that The Asylum made way more money off every dollar invested in their movie in rentals than Universal did domestically, considering "Battleship" only made back about 25% of its $200+ million budget in the states. So who's laughing now, Universal? Thunder Levin, that's who.

Awesome name off the port bow.

Did I mention the director of "American Warships" is named Thunder Levin? That's not a pseudonym. That's his real name. And that makes this movie, at least in part, hardcore. But there is one more thing about "American Warships" which makes it even more hardcore than a director with a name worthy of porn. I am of course referring to the fact that The Master of Disaster, The Count of Monte Fisto himself, Carl Weathers is staring in this movie.

So without further ado, on this very special occasion when we celebrate big box-office bombs by watching a movie filmed for roughly what craft services spent for one day on "Battleship," I would like to introduce to you a new game we're playing. It's called:

HOW MANY CARL WEATHERS REFERENCES CAN I MAKE!?!?

(By the way, craft services on "Battleship" had everything you needed to get a stew going.)

1

So "American Warships" is, on the surface at least, pretty similar in plot to "Battleship." An alien invasion via sea based alien vessels threatens humanity, and a lone American ship is the only one in a position to stop it. They also do a similar thing to the force field that was in "Battleship," only in this film, it's not a force field, but a total frying of any kind of integrated electrical circuits that enters into range of the alien craft. That means that essentially, anything possessing technology post-1950 is kind of going to crash and burn. So cue the WWII battleship being sailed back to the States that happens to be in the exact right place at the right time. Lucky seems not powerful enough of a word.

Another big difference is that the alien ships are invisible. So Mario Van Peebles, playing the captain of the battleship USS Iowa, has to follow the ship's wake, which I guess the aliens are too stupid to realize that they leave behind them. Intergalactic travel is one thing, but mastering the concepts of water displacement is quite another. And you know, the wake almost looks like it was made by a giant alligator. Fortunately, nobody loses a hand.

2

Most of "American Warships" is spent with Mario Van Peebles following this wake, and every once in a while firing off some of the guns in an attempt to hit something. And while this may sound boring, there is something of a pressing time crunch that does manage to give the movie some tension.

In a very "Crimson Tide"/"Hunt for Red October" style of plot, the world assumes that the ship is North Korean, since it attacked South Korea. And if it's not North Korean, it's probably Chinese. Anyways, the last conclusion anyone is jumping to is "alien." And since it also wiped out an entire American fleet in the first scene of the movie, this thing has got everyone running scared, and talks quickly move to nuking EVERYONE. America sends bombers to take out North Korea, and it's up to Mario Van Peebles to prove that it is an alien ship before they do, otherwise there is no tomorrow. THERE IS NO TOMORROW!!!

3

Carl Weathers shows up whenever the movie occasionally cuts back to the war room as an army general, and in what I have to admit is a bit of script writing I really appreciated, the Secretary of Defense is NOT a total douchebag who has been pushing too many pencils.

4

In movies like this, that character or their equivalent is always portrayed as a jerk who just refuses to EVER listen to reason or consider the possibility that the heroes will succeed. They always just sit there, finger on the button, sweating and growling through their clenched teeth that they have to report back to the President in an hour, so they BETTER have some GOD DAMN ANSWERS for him!!!

And the entire time you're just wondering what happened to them? They used to be one of the good guys.

5

In "American Warships," when the SoD busts in the room, adjusts his suit, gives Carl Weathers an annoyed, overly stern look and says "General, what the HELL is going on?!" I rolled my eyes and prepared for the worst. My fears were pretty much unwarranted, thankfully, because not too long after that introduction, the SoD is actually portrayed as a reasonable, even-keeled guy who is actually working WITH Carl Weathers instead of just yelling and being a tool. So props to "American Warships" for nixing that cliche. Otherwise, a fight between them could have broken out, and Carl would be looking at maybe $10,000 in hospital bills.

6

I have to say that while there is not exactly "riveting" action going on, and it's still really low budget, I was admittedly invested in this plot for the most part. The Asylum used to have this nasty habit of being obscenely boring to the point of being unwatchable, but they've gotten better over the years. There is a coherent storyline going on here, something that was actually lacking in a lot of their other films, and while the budget does make the action scenes kind of harsh to get through, I've seen a lot worse from The Asylum. But it was lacking something, what was it? Excitement? Enthusiasm? Esprit de corps?

IT'S ACTION!!!

7

What the film really lacks in however is the special effects. When the aliens are finally seen, it's...not pleasant. And by that I mean it's a really bad effect. The look almost as bad as the aliens from "The Darkest Hour." Maybe worse, I couldn't really tell you. At least the aliens from "The Darkest Hour" looked like an enemy from "Doom 2" or something. These just looked like something made in a late night drunken game of "Spore."

But did the really bad looking aliens ruin "American Warships?" Nah. It was just a cheesy footnote. You don't see them a lot, although the "shock" at the end which I guess is supposed to be the obligatory "4th act" in a horror film is pretty lackluster because of the lameness of the CG. Other than that, it was just one of those "Oh, well of course they look terrible" moments.

So what did I end up with? Seven references? I feel like I'm missing one. Um...how about: Aliens using cloaking devices? That's original.

8

Nice.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "American Warships" is for people already familiar with The Asylum. If you're not, it's going to hurt bad. If you are, it's actually a pretty fun time with a cheesy D-grade movie that manages to be reasonably entertaining. Recommended for fans of The Asylum. It's one of their better films.

Men In Black 3 (2012)

Back in 1997, I was at the movies a lot. And while there were a fair share of awesome movies released that year, there was just as much garbage piled in the corner under a blanket in the hopes that nobody would notice it, but the fetid odor of death and decay was far too powerful and overwhelming to forget or ignore. One remembers fondly movies such as "Air Force One," "Liar Liar," the only good "Austin Powers" movies, "The Devil's Advocate" and "The Fifth Element" as among some of the best movies of 1997. But there is no forgetting or forgiving that 1997 also gave us "Speed 2: Cruise Control," "Volcano," "Dante's Peak," "Spawn," "Anaconda," "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "Alien: Resurrection."

Then of course, there's that other film that we do not speak of. That little chunk of pure, unadulterated molten evil that must have been chipped from the slimy, scaly hide of Cthulhu himself: "Batman & Robin." Yeah, that was 1997 too.

Someone needs to suffer for this...

And I went to the movies to see that piece of crap. After all, how could my 15 year old self have known what kind of horrors awaited him? I was an innocent child undeserving of such torture. Looking back, I should have called Child Protective Services on Joel Schumacher.

There was something special that happened during the screening of that film, however. About an hour into the film, I think right when Poison Ivy met Mr. Freeze for the first time, the film broke. You know when you see that effect replicated and it looks like the screen is melting? Yeah, that's totally what happened. And I have never been more relieved. Those technical issues possibly saved my life, because I was seriously contemplating eating my own tongue until the film mercifully put itself out of our misery. And as a bonus, the manager came into the theater to apologize, thank us for choosing wherever it was that we were, and gave us a free pass for another film.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that "Batman & Robin" sucked so hard that it destroyed the film stock it was printed on, which allowed me to see the first "Men In Black" for free.

It was a good trade.

"Men In Black" was one of those special "out of nowhere" movies that was pretty impossible not to love. Nobody really saw this thing coming, and it's difficult to compare it to anything that came before. I think the closest thing to compare it to is "Ghostbusters," but even as funny as it was, "Ghostbusters" never approached the zaniness that "Men In Black" did. It's almost to the point where "Men In Black" is difficult to categorize. Is it a comedy or an action flick? Few films can walk the line between the two the way that "Men In Black" did.

Now, the sequel, "Men In Black II" is pretty widely regarded as a massive disappointment. I can't really comment on that because I honestly have little to no memory of it. All I remember is Patrick Warburton was in the beginning, K comes out of retirement, Linda Fiorentino is suspiciously absent, and the really cheesy line "You're not sad because it rains, baby. It rains because you're sad." That's really all I remember.

Now we come to "Men In Black III," and I have to say that while I was very excited to see it, I was not really sure of what to expect. The general impression that I got from the trailers was that A) Josh Brolin does a SCARY good Tommy Lee Jones impression, B) It's good to see Will Smith being funny again, and C) This could either be really, really good or stupendously bad. But the affection I have for the first movie raised my hopes to the point that I was anticipating something at the very least fairly decent.

I love having my expectations exceeded. "Men In Black III" was awesome.

You know, not many people can pull this look off...

It's difficult to explain exactly why this movie works, but what it really boils down to in the end is entertainment. It's just a lot of fun. It's not too overly silly, it's not too overly serious, it has dramatic moments while maintaining a light tone, and it's a great example of how to make a movie that's fun. So often a movie will fail when trying to find a balance between drama and comedy, and go too far one way, or they equate humor with being stupid, prime examples of both can be found in the "Transformers" franchise.

The characters in "Men In Black" are not stupid. They're not clowns doing pratfalls or annoying jackasses. You actually like these characters, which is something that is shockingly sparse in a lot of comedies. I mean, put Will Smith's Agent J against Shia LaBeouf in "Transformers." You can not tell me that Shia even approaches the same hemisphere in terms of likability. True, some of that may be because Will Smith actually possess talent, but looking at it from a character perspective, who would you rather follow through a series of films?

::Insert "South Park" joke here::

I don't mean to rip on "Transformers" (Ok, that's a lie. I tear apart that piece of trash at every opportunity) but I simply use it as an example of why a movie can work based on characters alone. "Men In Black III" could stand on the likability of the characters, even if it didn't have a fun, exciting story to go along with it.

I mentioned missing funny Will Smith earlier, and I was very entertained by his return to the "not serious." I think we forget sometimes how incredibly funny this guy can be to watch, and I soaked up this performance he gave like a sponge. He is so damn funny without really trying that hard, which is a big difference between him and some other comedians. With Will Ferrell, you can tell he's trying. Seth Rogan is trying and failing hard. Vince Vaughn is trying OH SO HARD but he's still just that jackass next door who won't shut the hell up.

Will Smith is so smooth that the comedy almost seems like an accident. I think that's what they call "naturalistic" in the biz.

"Ya'll are laughing. Did I say something funny? I'm like this all the time, see, so I can't really even tell anymore."

The story was the big thing that I was a little iffy on. Whenever "time travel" is brought up in a plot synopses I get a little worried, and understandably so. I mean, for every "Back To The Future" or "Star Trek: First Contact" there's a "Time Cop" and "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." I know, I know, "The Voyage Home" is considered one of the good Trek movies, but I could never get behind William Shatner breaking into Sea World.

The time travel aspect in "Men In Black III" is handled more in the tradition of "Back To The Future" than it is "The Terminator," although there are elements of both "styles" of time travel - those being of the thought that the future is either changeable or a self-fulfilling prophecy, depending on the movie. J certainly can and does change events in the past, however, on some occasions it drifts towards the "you've done this because you did it already" head-splitting conundrums of time travel more in keeping with a rigid timeline. But these are fairly rare, and it generally stays more lenient with rules.

From an acting standpoint, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are effectively the same characters they were before, and the actors grasp of the characters has not diminished in quality. The biggest difference is that Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K is given a bit more depth, so to speak. That's difficult to quantify, however, given the fact that his personality is still an impenetrable shell. What was interesting though was to see what Josh Brolin did with Agent K.

Josh Brolin, as I mentioned before, does a fantastic Tommy Lee Jones impression, catching his voice, nuances and mannerisms to the point where it's almost creepy. But this is a younger version of K, and while you can see the man he will become, he's not quite there yet. And if anything, this is a more open and reasonably accessible version of K, although that isn't saying much at all since K still answers most questions in under 5 words and small talk is an utterly foreign concept worthy only of a stern, almost irritated look. But he's not as cold as the older K is, and the reason for that is a driving force of the movie.

The entire climax of the movie has to do with the question that Agent J asks the older K several times - "What happened to make you like this, man?"

This brings us to the ending. The ending of "Men In Black III" caught me completely off guard. Not going into spoilers here, but suffice to say that there is a twist at the end of this movie that was really unexpected. It was cool, shocking, and offers a whole new way to look at the entire series up to this point.

And I still don't know if I like it or not.

When we find out what actually happened to K, while it does shed new light on character motivations and personalities, I'm not sure if it works when viewed with the other two films. Granted, I haven't seen the other two films in a very long time, but looking back, I'm not sure how well the twist ties in with everything. In fact, I would not be surprised to find more than a few occasions where it would make no sense whatsoever, especially in the first film.

Also, it seems to me that while the event that happens to K would indeed be a life changing event, I'm not really buying it as the reason he becomes very cold and prickly. If anything, I would think that it would make him more gentle, all things considered. But that's just me.

And if there were one other thing I would have changed, I would have liked to know a little bit more about the bad guy, Boris The Animal since he's basically just an anonymous killer alien and nothing much more than that. Especially since he's played by Germaine Clement! Now, he's basically unrecognizable under the costume, but still, that's pretty cool. Makes me wonder if he has any hip-hop alter-egos. Maybe Girapffe.

"You're the most beautiful alien (in the room)"

Oh, and also...don't give Will Arnett just 30 seconds of screen time. That's not cool.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Men In Black III" is a great big ball of fun. While it may not be as good as the first, it is miles ahead of the second. Filled with great performances and a lot of laugh out loud moments. If only all summer blockbusters could be this entertaining. Highly Recommended.

Chernobyl Diaries (2012)

Why is that every time I see one good genre film, the next one of them I see is crap? I don't suppose it's too big of a surprise with "Chernobyl Diaries," but just once I would like to get some kind of streak going. It's a tough gig being a movie buff sometimes.

Based on the trailer for "Chernobyl Diaries" I had the feeling that this would not be very good, not only because this kind of movie has been done to death, but also because I just could not get my head around visiting Chernobyl. I mean, that seems like a really REALLY bad idea, even if there weren't mutants or zombies or monsters or cannibals or science experiments or whatever the hell they were supposed to be.

And, unsurprisingly, since I am unfortunately cursed with good insight, I was correct. It wasn't very good. However, two things I did find surprising. The first was that the characters did not die in the order I expected them to, and the second was that it doesn't start bad. It just starts halfway interesting and coasts downhill from there until the end credits come to smack you in the face as you're gnashing your teeth to powder at the absurdly bad ending.

This "starting halfway interesting" thing came from the one thing the movie did reasonably well, which was the buildup of tension. The buildup to actually getting to the city is handled pretty well, with very little in the way of music, and enough vague foreshadowing to hint at the danger ahead. It isn't a terrible way to begin a horror film, and works pretty effectively. That is, up to a certain point. 

The problem is that this slow burn technique takes what seems like the first 45 minutes of the movie. This slow beginning can work on occasion, but "Chernobyl Diaries" takes about 20 minutes too long to get ball rolling. It crosses a line between ominous and boring.

There comes a point in the film, I think probably about the sixth time they go into a creepy abandoned building which looks exactly the same as every other building we've seen, the movie hits a critical mass when you just have to say "Just get to the monsters, already. We know they're there." This is because walking around the abandoned city, while admittedly creepy, wears out its welcome pretty quickly. It gets boring, and had they either given us something besides empty streets or gotten to the monster quicker, it may have worked a bit better.

But any accumulated tension starts drifting away gradually as the group continues going on a half-assed tour of Chernobyl as led by The Heavy from Team Fortress 2. What it all boils down to is little more than -

"Here. Dis buildingk iz obandoned. Is wery zscary, no?"


"Oh man, that's messed up, dude."


"Look. Here iz anooder buildingk. Iz alzo obandoned. Wery zscary, alzo."


"This is SO creepy."

"Shouldn't we be concerned about all the radiation?"


"Radiation iz no problems. Iz good for you. You listen to Sergei."

This goes on for like 35 minutes.

 "Later I get you all cheap prostitute, eh? Iz best in all Chernobyl. You trust Sergei."

It's like, "I know what you THINK you're doing, movie...but you're giving yourself far too much credit. You're not that scary."

Once things actually start happening, the movie starts on an upswing, but it doesn't last too long. A rather well done scene that involves the group trapped in the van while feral dogs are attacking is pretty well handled, especially since the camera never leaves the vehicle and the whole thing is done in one shot. However, right after that "Chernobyl Diaries" circles the drain slowly as it becomes every single movie like this you've ever seen.

One could almost sing along to the cliches as they go by, one after another. One of the guys is hurt. They can't leave him, but they can't carry him, so they go off on their own to get help. It doesn't work out, and they come back. People start getting picked off one by one. Every time another person disappears, everyone else runs after them to try and find them, further lowering their chances. The group heads deeper and deeper into the lair of the monsters until there's only one person left. Finally there is the obligatory crappy uber-bleak "twist" ending with Marylin Manson being cranked over the credits.

That'll be $10.00.

It's not that it's especially poorly done, but I for one just can't find the rationalization for making a movie like this. It's just so stock. Who would write this? I want to know at what point the writer said to themselves, "You know, this premise has been done roughly 17,739 times before, and none of them have ever been particular good, but I think there's something special about THIS one."

I also find it hard to sympathize with characters who are stupid. Riddle me this, everybody: What do you do when someone with a broken leg needs to be transported?

"Chernobyl Diaries" understands that when someone has a broken leg, it's physically impossible for them to be moved. After all, the only way someone can move from one location to the other is to walk under their own power. And despite the fact that there are 5 other people there and a veritable gold mine of scrap materials around, making something to help transport the injured person is simply not a viable option.

And of course, us in the real world would say "MAKE A F@#KING STRETCHER YOU ASS CLOWNS!!!!!!!

Pictured above - That awkward moment when you realize you're all stupid.

Before wrapping up with this forgettable piece of trash, there is one moment from "Chernobyl Diaries" that I will actually remember more than 2 days from now, but not for good reasons. The reason I will remember this is because it's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in a horror movie. So much so that it was hysterical.

Allow me to set the scene for you: It's the dead of night. The last 4 survivors are running for their lives through the ruins of a long deserted city. Killer mutants are chasing them, picking them off one by one, taking them back to their lair and eating them. They stop beside a staircase leading down below the streets to catch their breath. Over gasps and panting, there are various things being said like "Did you see that?!" and "I think we lost them."

Suddenly, one of the characters gasps "What's THAT?!" as the camera WHIPS around to show, standing about 30 feet in front of them...

A little girl is standing perfectly still with her back turned to them. Not. Moving. A muscle.

The characters mumble "Oh my god..." and "It's a girl" and "Are you ok?" and start walking towards her...very...very...VERY slowly. At no point does she move. As they approach her, the character who was dumb enough to sit right at the mouth of the scary staircase gets picked off, although the others run after her in an attempt to save her, which only gets them more boned. Oh, and the little girl? DISAPPEARS. Never seen again.

Are you serious with this crap? Are we really doing this? THIS?! Is this stupid movie ripping off a haunted house cliche with the little girl standing rock still for no other reason that it's supposedly scary? Why? What sense does that make? The town isn't haunted, it's infested with killer mutants.

Where did the little girl come from? Is she a mutant? They didn't seem that intelligent to do anything other than run screaming towards its food and try to eat it. Why would one of them just stand there with her back turned? That makes no sense. And if it was a mutant, why was it wearing a dress? The other mutants were naked. Why was its hair reasonably well done? Do the mutants use combs in the ruins of Chernobyl?

And even if it was a mutant, that doesn't seem like a very effective hunting strategy. Although it was hysterical to me imagining how that plan must have gone down.

"Ok! Ok, Charlie! I've got this great idea, man! It's going to be awesome!"
"Alright Frank, what have you got?"
"So me and Ronnie are going to hide in that staircase, right? We'll wait for those tourists to run by us, and we'll hope that they'll stop there to catch their breath."
"Wait, you HOPE they will?"
"Well, we just have to be optimistic. Otherwise this whole thing is kind of screwed."
"Seems flimsy, but go on."
"Well, while me and Ronnie are hiding, Ronnie's gonna dress his little girl up in a dress we found in one of those apartments a while back."
"But Frank, we don't wear clothes. I'm not even sure my deformed body could fit in normal clothes anymore."
"Charlie, just shut up, you killjoy! What Susie's gonna do is just STAND THERE. With her back turned!"
"Why?"
"To totally freak them out, dude!"
"Frank, we've eaten 3 of their friends at this point. I don't think Susie just standing there is going to up any stakes as far as "freaking them out" goes."
"But Charlie, that's the beauty of it! When she's standing there, we'll grab another one of them! Hopefully they'll be near the stairs, otherwise they might see us coming and the whole thing will be ruined. It's all about the shock."
"Frank, if you want to shock them, why don't we all just pour out of the stairway at once and kill them. Come on dude, I'm getting hungry."
"Charlie...you're no fun, you know that? You have NO flair for drama."

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Chernobyl Diaries" is a slightly below average example of the horror genre, with some elements of the found footage genre thrown in for seasoning. Its biggest problem is that fact that we've seen this a thousand times before, and it does nothing new whatsoever except stick mutants somewhere we haven't seen mutants yet. Not worth watching unless you've never seen a movie like this in your life. Then don't watch it because there are better examples out there. Skip it.