Seeking a Friend For The End of The World (2012)

Oh screw this movie. Screw this movie hard with a hedge trimmer. Do I really have to talk about this? Do I really have to sit down here at my desk and relive what turned out to be one of the most depressing 2 hours of my life? I guess I have nobody to blame but myself for it. After all, it was a promise I made to myself that I'd write about every movie I saw regardless of how I felt about it.

So here we sit at the end of the world. And the only thing to keep me company is Steve Carell. Oh, how glorious. I think I've had nightmares of a similar leitmotif. There has been exactly one - ONE - movie that I've found him funny, or even decent in, and that movie was "Anchorman." I will admit that his character of Brick Tamland is the stuff of legend, but for the love of criminy can the man please just get off the whole "awkward equals hilarious" thing?

Comedy is subjective for everyone, that's true. If you are a fan of things like "Seinfeld," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "The Office" or any of the other number of "cringe comedies" out there, then more power to you. Good on ya. Personally I find that particular style of comedy insufferable and boring. But that seems to be Steve Carell's brand of humor now, and for a guy I never found to be that funny in the first place, this can only go downhill from here for me.

Behold. He is unable to filter his thoughts. This makes him say things one wouldn't usually say. Commence laughter.

So what better setting for an awkward non-comedy than the end of the world, am I right? I can't think of a funnier joke to piledrive into the ground over and over and over again like a hammer on an anvil than "Hey! We're all going to die! Isn't that hysterical?!"

HA HA. HA HA HA. HA. >:[

Oh wait. No, it isn't.

Everybody on the face of the Earth dying is not a funny scenario. It's horrifying. Watching a man contemplate all he's missed out on in life is not funny. It's reflective of nearly everyone's regrets and missed opportunities, and it makes me sad. Watching someone having to tearfully say goodbye to their family across the sea that they will never see again over the phone, while finding out she's a new aunt of a child she'll never meet and whose life will only be a week long is not funny. It's heartbreaking like a punch to the soul. Watching a person abandon their dog to a passed-out stranger leaving only a note that says "Sorry" is not funny. It's enough to make me want to punch something in rage and depression.

I swear to everything holy I almost stopped the movie at this point. I wanted to cry.

But the thing that makes me angry isn't the fact that it's about the end of the world. Truthfully, that doesn't bother me. Hell, one of the best movies I saw in 2009 was "The Road," a post-apocalyptic movie so bleak that it could have used dead kittens as Christmas ornaments and it would have lightened the mood. So depressing films I'm okay with.

In fact I'd call the last 15 minutes or so of the film downright poetic. The last shot of the film is actually quite beautiful as (spoiler alert) the world does actually end, and we see Steve Carell's last moment on Earth as he looks upon Keira Knightley's crying but serenely beautiful face as a blinding white light envelopes them both. Roll credits. That's a hell of an ending.

Here's the problem: None of that mattered, because you wasted our time by trying to make it into a comedy.

Let's forget for a minute that "Seeking a Friend For The End of The World" wasn't actually funny at any point. That's a trivial bit of minutiae. The problem is that they tried in the first place. And while it's true that comedy in its basic form should know no bounds, and that nothing should be off limits, that does not mean that everything will work when you try and make a comedy out of it. Penguins don't fly, Mars has two moons, Republicans don't like poor people, and everyone on the face of the planet dying is not funny. These are facts of life. I'm sorry comedy, but there are certain battles that you can't win, and aren't worth fighting.

Here we have Steve Carell doing a spot-on impression on myself while watching this film. Only minus the gun to my head.

So what's the answer to this troubling misstep? Well that's easy. Make it a drama. If "Seeking a Friend For The End of The World" had bypassed all the pathetic attempts at humor, all of which basically boiled down to "None of this matters because we're all dead," and actually made a story about a man dealing with the imminent end of his and everyone else's lives, then that could have been a powerful but strangely pointless study into "Ye Olde Humane Condition." Pointless, but powerful none the less.

Instead we got Steve Carell telling his Mexican cleaning lady that she doesn't have to clean the apartment anymore, since they're all going to die. But she keeps showing up since Mexicans are diligent in their professions. And she reminds him he needs more Windex. Or "Windows" as she calls it since, you know, Mexican.

Instead we got Keira Knightley ditching her boyfriend to the tender mercies of a rioting mob since he was being annoying and paranoid. And then later she starts crying about how scared she is of abandonment. Since you know, consistency.

Instead we have freaking William Peterson (the original Will Graham from "Manhunter") being a truck driver who apparently has hired people to kill him for some reason, which makes no sense because 1) the world is ending in a week and 2) he has cancer but has 3 months to live, which gives him a chuckle since he "lucked out" on that. And then he gets shot as he's sitting in the truck in a surprise bit of violence which leads to nothing except his death. Since that's funny.

Instead we have Steve Carell going to work as they divvy out wild promotions to anyone who wants it since it doesn't matter anyway since they're all going to die, and there's plenty of  positions available since people have been throwing themselves off the roof. All this while one of the women in the room weeps hysterically. Since you know, that's just good comedy right there.

Oh, and don't forget your favorite FM station will still be bringing you all your favorite rock hits up to the end. HA HA HA.

There was exactly one (1) funny joke in the entire movie. A single line that was said that made me chuckle just a little bit. And it's a rape joke. I'm not even kidding with that. That's the funniest bit of the film. I would rant about how much that says about the rest of it, but I think that statement kind of speaks for itself.

Even though the comedy fails on nearly every level, it's impossible to watch "Seeking a Friend For The End of The World" without being aware of it. And it's that annoying prevalence of the film attempting to pander to a wider audience of Steve Carell fans by awkwardly cramming in this utterly black non-humor, since evidently a comedian in a dramatic role is unthinkable and unmarketable, that kills any impact the drama may have had. Instead it comes off as insulting because it doesn't think I can handle a sad movie, which is what this is. It's sad. Get over it, treat us like adults who are watching this already R rated film, and don't try to make it something it's not.

I actually have a sneaking suspicion that this film was originally not meant to be a comedy at all. Well, it's still not, but you know what I mean. I really think that it was meant to be a serious look at what people would do at the end of the world, but when Steve Carell was cast they had to try and make with the funny ha-ha.

You want to know how I know this? Because a true comedy would never be so dumb nor pretentious as to give the main character, a man who is constantly running away from his problems, a name like "Dodge." You heard me. His name...is Dodge. He hides from his problems. GET IT!?!?!

"You can't run from this one, Dodge." <= (Actual quote from the film.)

Oh shut up, "Seeking a Friend For The End of The World." You were supposed to be an artsy tear-jerker and got hijacked by unfunny comedy. I probably wouldn't have liked you even if you had found the dignity to take yourself seriously, but I would at least have respected you a bit more.

You have any idea how much of this I had to watch to feel happiness again?

THE BOTTOM LINE - I hated this movie. I hated it because it was trying to be something it wasn't capable of being: Funny. It was one of the single most depressing movies I've ever seen in my life, I felt like slitting my wrists after it was done, and I can't in good conscious recommend anyone else experience it. Had it been serious, I would have still disliked it, but I would have praised its power. But as it is, it's embarrassing just how utterly hard the comedic premise face-planted, making the damn thing unwatchable.

Brave (2012)

I'm going to make a new rule for myself right now, and hopefully it will take. I'll just go ahead and try my best to not assume anything about any movie from now on.

Over the years I've proven to myself that I have a pretty good sense of prediction for what a movie is going to be like, and whether or not I will like it. When you see enough films I guess that's an inevitable side effect. And based on the facts that not only was "Brave" a Pixar film, which I generally find pretentious, the reaction to it had been lukewarm, and also that I was also able to correctly guess the plot nearly point for point after an employee at Blockbuster merely told me the setup, can you blame me for not really wanting to give it the hour and a half it asked of me?

Perhaps the fact that many Pixar fans found it to be weak-sauce should have been foretelling in what wound up happening, which was that I actually enjoyed "Brave." It's possible that the fact that it lacked that classic Pixar manipulation and preachy nature, the reason I enjoyed it, was the reason everyone else said it was a weaker entry in their body of work.

Let me explain a little about what I mean by "preachy and manipulative." In a Pixar movie, they always seem to have to go out of their way to make it sad. Now, this is a staple in animation. All you have to say are the words "Littlefoot's mother" and I know grown men who will start openly weeping. But with Pixar they really like to crank up the tear factor. For instance, the whole "Toy Story" series is basically about abandonment. It's a downer. I think "Up" was the one that irritated me the most, though. The bit in the opening scene that showed that the wife couldn't have children just seemed unnecessarily sad, because it didn't have anything to do with the rest of the story. It was just there because well...sad.

I just don't think you've earned this at the 4 minute mark of the film, you know?

For me the story of "Brave" contained far fewer of those moments that may just as well have flashed "BE SAD NOW" on the bottom of the screen. It seemed much more organic to me, and the characters were much more believable because they weren't being set up in classic "tear-jerker scene" scenarios. To be fair, those existed, but they never felt superfluous to me. They hit you with those moments when they mattered, not before in an attempt to draw more emotion from you.

Maybe it was the fantasy setting that really did it for me, which I'll admit that I'm partial to, being a nerd. I just think animated movies should be used to showcase fantastic things, not mundane everyday things like toys in a kid's room, as good as the animation is. So when our heroine Merida tears through the woods on horseback and shows off what she can do with a bow, that's the kind of thing I want to see in an animated film. That's why I loved "How To Train Your Dragon." I mean, as thrilling as seeing Mr. Potatohead lose his nose is, it really can't compare with a redheaded chick drilling an arrow dead center through a bullseye while her horse is in mid-leap going full tilt. But that's just me.

Yeah, that's pretty cool I guess. But where's the Barrel O' Monkeys? #notasgoodasToyStory

The story of "Brave" is another cautionary tale of overreacting to problems, and always reading the fine print. Merida, a young tomboy of a princess, is told by her mother, Queen Elinor, that she must be a lady and choose a suitor from among three other clans for political reasons. In typical movie fashion, Merida is mortified at the thought and refuses to go along with it, to the point of "competing for her own hand" in the contest that was to determine the suitor. And of course she kicks their butts. So I guess she's going to marry her own dang self?

Once that plan ends up not holding water and Elinor lays down the law, Merida runs away and stumbles upon a desolate hut in the middle of the woods. There she meets a witch, who can create powerful magic and essentially grant wishes.

 And I think you can see where this is going...

Merida does a silly thing and wishes "that her mother would change." Merida needs lessons in performing pacts with dark entities. The key is specificity. Long story short, Elinor is a bear now.

 That's not what she meant at all, really.

And the rest of "Brave" is really just about Merida and Bear Elinor trying to fix things and you know, make Bear Elinor not be Bear Elinor anymore. There's also the whole thing about loving your parents and realizing that sometimes they do things that are in your own best interest, even if you don't understand it yet. That last part seemed weak though, since the compromise made at the end between Merida and Elinor isn't so much a compromise, and more that Merida gets her way. I mean, it's only an unprecedented upheaval of the ruling class line of succession in a feudal society. What's the worst that could happen?

Oh. Right. Bloody, violent, power struggles.

And for all you medieval history people, think about this. After Merdia, the next ones in line for succession are TRIPLET BROTHERS. Have fun with that, am I right? Truly this land is in for some wonderful times with absolutely no chance to have wars for the throne.

There was also the issue of some of the character designs, which I wasn't a fan of. This was mostly relegated to the leaders of the other clans. On the plus side they were voiced by Craig Ferguson and Robbie Coltrane.

Seriously, is that his head or a boil on top of his shoulders that grew hair and eyes?

Those are just little nitpicks I objected to. Other than that I really liked "Brave" a lot. Surprisingly so, actually. I really liked almost everything about it. It was beautifully animated, it's pretty funny, the setting has a great atmosphere, and it can be pretty intense at parts, especially when the giant evil bear shows up. I really liked that bear, as that character design was unusually morbid for Pixar, what with the spears and arrows hanging out of him. That was pretty sweet.

It's also really touching, and the dynamic between Merida and Elinor is realistic, heartfelt, and very well acted by Kelly Macdonald and Emma Thompson, respectively. Billy Connolly also get props for being awesome, although he really just had to show up for that to happen, since he's Billy Connolly.

And ohmygodDDDDD'AAAAAAAWWWWWOVERLOAD!!!!

So I was very impressed by "Brave," and while I'm not willing to do a turnaround and say that I'm a fan of Pixar, I will give it to them that they now have more than one film I'd care to sit through again. Before it was just "Finding Nemo," but I have to say I think I'd watch "Brave" again before that one. It's got to be the fantasy setting that does it for me. Although "Finding Nemo" is admittedly funnier, I think I've got a new favorite Pixar movie.

And once again, my record of being contrary is upheld! I swear I don't do it on purpose.

No, you're right. She's nowhere near as interesting as a talking cowboy doll.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I really liked "Brave." Pixar has made a really entertaining and heartfelt movie with this, and I normally am pretty underwhelmed by their stuff. And shock of all shocks, it's a story about a young girl WITHOUT A LOVE INTEREST SUBPLOT. Freaking finally. Sign me the hell up. And now that I think about it, "Brave" would be a killer double feature with "How To Train Your Dragon." Nice.

Rites of Spring (2012)

Man, did I want to like this movie. I wanted to like this movie hard right out of the gate. All it took was one look at the box and I was on board. The retro styling of that admittedly fantastic cover art reminded me of movies like "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," what with the understated silhouette of a women strung up in a field in front of a creepy looking house. It's subtle and beautifully simplistic which only enhances the ominous feeling it's trying to convey. Although I do wonder what in the world she's hanging from. Is the rope attached to the sky?

Add to the fact that it's an IFC Midnight film and I was sold. I was excited to throw this bad boy in and see some hopefully messed up and disturbing indie-horror goodness.

I hate being lied to. This movie sucked.

While it wasn't as painfully bad as some other indie horror I've seen this year, mostly because it did feature some unique genre blending to mix things up a bit, "Rites of Spring" fell victim to too much obfuscation and complete lack of any resolution. And while I don't need everything spelled out clearly for me to enjoy a film, it helps if I at least have some idea of what in the crap is going on by the time the credits start rolling.

"Rites of Spring" combines two different stories (of two different genres). The first story is about a kidnapping plot involving a guy named Ben (AJ Bowen), who absconds with the daughter of his rich ex-boss with the help of his brother, his girlfriend (?), and a clearly psychopathic dude named Paul. The plan is to hold her ransom for $2 million dollars, which starts off just fine. That is, until Paul, being clearly psychopathic, decides to shoot the rich dude's wife in the head "Just to show he's serious."

Okay. A few things. First off, you broke into his house with paintball masks and a gun, tied him up, and ran out of the house with his daughter in a sack over your shoulder. I have a suspicion he won't think you're bluffing. Why would you even think he'd assume that? Do you seriously think he might not pay to get his daughter back? If you thought that was even a possibility, why even target him? Find someone else.

"What? This?! Nah, this a gun shaped lighter! I'm joshing ya, bro! Dude, you need to lighten up, man. You take stuff too seriously."

Secondly, on the off chance you get caught, you just ramped the charges up from kidnapping to first degree murder. Have fun with that. And finally, when you go ahead and blow his wife's head off, it increases the chances that he'll just go ahead and go Charles Bronson on your dumb ass. And guess what? That's exactly what happens. Which is actually a nice twist. I liked that.

The rich dude completely dupes Ben's dumb brother and winds up at their meeting place with a loaded gun. He's got them dead to rights, too, and the movie would have probably been over right there had he not been betrayed and shot by the babysitter. Allow me to explain. You see, during the kidnapping Paul ties up the babysitter who was also at the house and brings her with them. Once rich guy unties her, you find out she's really working with Paul the whole time, and they were planning on killing Ben and the rest and taking all the money. And no, I have no idea why Ben is working with, once again, the clearly psychopathic Paul. Whatever. It's kind of stupid.

The other story involves two girls, one being Rachel (Anessa Ramsey). They are abducted from a bar one night and wake up in the barn, hanging from the rafters. A creepy old cracker (Marco St. John) is a dude who has been abducting and sacrificing to Teh Evils what seems like several young women every spring for roughly 30 years. Every March 21st he does this. Like clockwork. So his crops grow. The town is notorious for it. And he has never. been. caught.

Really.

REALLY!?

You're telling me that this guy is roughly the most prodigious serial killer in United States history, and it's just essentially Farmer Fran sacrificing people in his barn so that, what? His corn is slightly fuller? Dude, get some pesticide. I don't think pacts with Satan is required to make crops happen. It's a fairly well documented science. Somebody please toss this man a Farmer's Almanac!

I'm not going to go into the whole semantics of police investigation, but that is ridiculous. Being a serial killer is hard work. Seriously, it is. You have to be smart about it, otherwise they'll catch you. And they'll do it fairly quickly, too. Hell, even I'd start piecing together that perhaps it's a ritualistic, possibly shamanistic thing when they are always abducted right before the first day of Spring in a rural area with a large farming community where a good crop turnout is very important. Maybe the police should check the farms and look for the one with the GIANT ALTER TO BAAL BEING USED AS A SCARECROW!?!?

Pictured above - Subtlety.

Anyway, Rachel's friend gets sacrificed in a scene that started off with potential but ended up just being kind of lame. And while I normally applaud a film for letting the audiences' imagination do most of the work, since it's scarier that way, there is a difference between being subtle and not showing us anything at all.

Take for instance the scene right before the sacrifice. Creepy Old Cracker removes the girl's clothes with a razor, then washes her body before putting this cow mask on her. Yes, that is pretty silly, but it could have worked. That scene is good because it's slow paced and builds up the tension for what will happen after. Then the next scene, Rachel wakes up and her friend is gone. She manages to escape and looks for her, only to find her hanging in the next room, still wearing the mask. When Rachel goes to take the mask off, we see her friend has been beheaded.

Right there, that is not scary. That is a complete waste of the scene before it. That scene was intense. And it's thrown away on a gag that isn't shocking or even really gory. It's just a body without a head. Okay. Whatever. We have no context for how it happened, what the girl went through, or even who did it.

For comparison, in the film "Law Abiding Citizen," Gerard Butler tortures a man to death in horrifying ways. Seriously, it's enough to make you gag. But you don't see a single frame of it. What you DO experience though, is Gerard Butler describing exactly what he's about to do to the guy in painstaking detail. That's the part that makes you want to retch. And when it cuts away to the police investigating later, all we see is the aftermath of blood and body parts strewn about, so our mind is going full blast processing the carnage that went down, which is disturbingly easy because he already told us all we needed to know. That's how to effectively do a "tell don't show" scene.

If you're not telling or showing in a "tell don't show" scene, all you're doing is "don't."

Once Rachel escapes she is chased by the monster that killed her friend, which I think it's also the creature that Creepy Old Cracker is worshiping. I actually have no idea, but it would appear to be the case since it's the thing killing the sacrifices. It doesn't make too much sense though, because Creepy Old Cracker keeps it locked in his basement, which doesn't seem very worshipful. And how it's supposed to help with the crops growing, I have no idea, because it doesn't seem to do much more than just sit in its hole and occasionally kill people.

It'd be like saying Jason Voorhees brings the rain by sacrificing the kids at Crystal Lake.

It's at this point that the two films collide as Rachel busts into the building that the whole ransom thing is going down, with the creature right on her heels. It proceeds to kill a few of them, until all that's left is the Rachel, Ben and the chick who may or may not be his girlfriend. And what of the little girl who was kidnapped? Runs away into the woods, never to be seen in the movie again. That's the first of a series of plot threads with no resolution.

That's when we also find out the shocking twist that Ben and Rachel USED TO WORK TOGETHER!!!

DUN DUN DUN!!!!!

Wait a minute...that means...my god!!!

Nothing. That means nothing. It's a coincidence that goes nowhere. Why would you even put that in the script? Irony? Symbolism? What? It has nothing to do with anything. Whatever. The stupid thing is almost over.

The survivors predictably end up running right to the farm Rachel escaped from, the odds of which are substantial considering the 360 degree choice they were presented with, as ANY direction is equally valid when running from a murdering demon spawn with a giant axe. Creepy Old Cracker shows up again, captures them immediately, and gets ready to sacrifice Ben and his girlfriend. It's at this point where AJ Bowen shows off his acting chops by delivering lines like "What are you doing?" and "Why are you doing this?" and "Where are you taking her?" with the intensity of asking the delivery guy what took so long, and why he should have to pay full price for late pizza.

Careful, Creepy Old Cracker. Torture him anymore and he might raise his voice at you.

It's at this point we find out why Creepy Old Cracker is doing is. The answer is - I have no idea. Then we find out what the creature is. The answer is - I have no idea. Then we find out why the creature is killing everything in sight despite the fact that apparently all it is interested in is sacrifices set up by Creepy Old Cracker. The answer is - Ok you get the idea. What I'm saying is that this movie doesn't explain jack about anything.

So Ben's maybe-girlfriend gets killed in a stupid manner, Ben may have gotten killed in a stupid manner, and Rachel is too stupid to figure out that if someone is standing on the roof of your car an easy method of their removal involves HITTING THE DAMN GAS PEDAL. And she does this twice. Ugh. Then there's this scene at a gas station which implies that people in the community are in on the whole sacrifice thing, which like everything else is never explained. Then Rachel maybe kills the creature and runs away into the credits which appear out of nowhere to stop the movie before any questions can be answered.

Listen, "Rites of Spring," I know you think you're like "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," but seriously screw you for trying to rip off the ending. You're nowhere near as good as TCSM.

You see, the difference between those two films is that the end of TCSM was the end of the story. She got away. Yes, it's abrupt, and yes the villain still lives but it's an ending. "Rites of Spring" just stops. To say this is an unsatisfying ending is beyond an understatement. We don't know the fate of Ben. We don't know the fate of Rachel. We don't know the fate of Creepy Old Cracker. We don't know the fate of the creature. By the end, we don't know anything about anything, really.

And why would you leave all these questions up in the air when all I wanted to know throughout the whole damn affair was WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?!

You know what's the quickest way to not give a rat's ass about a movie? For me it's not knowing what's going on, and having the movie be too crappy to care about it. Except when it thinks it's so good that it doesn't have to explain anything. That's worse because it's pretentious, too.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Rites of Spring" was a huge disappointment. Despite some interesting genre mixing it never manages to become interesting or exciting or scary at any point in the film. Every time that possibility shows up it is quickly snubbed out by cliche or simply cutting away from the interesting bits. You know it's bad when I'm left saying at the end: "I would have rather watched a torture porn movie." And I hate torture porn.

The Raid: Redemption (2012)

"The Raid: Redemption" has earned a bit of a reputation as one of the best action movies in years, and if the box cover has anything to say about it, decades. That's a pretty bold claim to make, and normally I scoff when I hear things of that nature. I think there's a part of me, and the general population, that immediately chaffs and becomes instantly hostile when something lays claim to being the best. Perhaps it's part of our ingrown competitive nature to be the best that even if we aren't a part of the competition, we still have a need to be The Number One.

Kind of like "Oh, that movie is the best? SCREW YOU. It's not my best movie! My best movie is this one! The one I chose!" Isn't it amazing how much competition dictates everything we do in life?

Back to "The Raid," as I'll call it, since I refuse to acknowledge that ridiculous and hackneyed addendum to the end of the title. The movie certainly has one thing going for it - it knows what it wants to do, and it never stops doing it. Consistency is not one of the film's weaknesses. And what is it doing exactly? Well, I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one.

Lots and lots of this.

There's this thing that Asian action films tend to do a lot that you would think would be a wholly American thing to do - which is absolute non-stop action. And I'm not talking about movies like "Machete" or "The Rock" or even "Dredd," a film "The Raid" drew numerous comparisons to. Those movies had a lot of action, yes, but there was some down time between explosions. Typically you got some story development. With Michael Bay you get crappy comedic relief. And with Uwe Boll, that's when you usually get some light nudity.

But with Asian films, once they start they just don't freaking stop. The action just keeps going and going and going until I start to wonder a few things. Mostly I start to wonder where all these people pouring into the room are coming from, why every single one of them knows kung-fu, and why - DEAR GOD WHY - none of them flinch at charging straight into the fists of a guy standing waist deep in a mountain of bodies that he has already personally dispatched. Oh sure, there's bloody corpses everywhere, all created by this death machine of a man who has already killed half the city with kung-fu that is clearly the strongest. Is the next guy flinging himself screaming at this monster just banking on the hope that he's gotten tired?

This guy - THIS guy's got his number. This is Random Goon #39's day to shine.

I know it's just a part of the genre. It's always been something that's bugged me about it, though. I just don't get why none of these anonymous thugs ever encounter morale problems when the hero has made chunky salsa from the organs of a regiment of them. Is there no survival instant at work at all? I think Zapp Brannigan might be secretly in command here.

"The Raid" is an Indonesian film about a SWAT team sent to eliminate a stronghold of criminals in an apartment building, which has become a nearly impregnable fortress. The attack begins well enough, but before too long they're spotted, the alarm is raised, and all hell breaks loose. From then on it's a non-stop barrage of endless gun-play and kung-fu as waves and waves of bad guys hurl themselves at the police officers. And since there are about 20 cops that go in, there's room in the script for a huge body count among both good and bad guys. This is particularly true in the first big round of fighting, where the police lose about 60% of their strength in a 15 minute stretch of time.

Our protagonist, Rama, played Iko Uwais, is resourceful and skilled enough to survive the first attack, and he and the few remaining officers split into 2 groups for reasons that I'm still not quite sure of. I personally would have wanted to stay together. Either way, Rama is now tasked with taking care of the wounded, finding an exit from this fortress, and accomplishing what they came to do in the first place, which is to capture the gang leader.

This whole process will involve fighting. A lot of fighting. And I'll give it this - When the action in "The Raid" is on, holy geez is it on. You don't even comprehend the level of "onness" involved. If "on" were a force of nature in this movie it'd be gravity, because it's inescapable. I think you get the idea.

And scenes like this. Oh my goodness...

There are moments during "The Raid" that just blew my mind, I'm not going to lie to you. Moments so hardcore in their violence and sheer badassery that it was all I could do to just say "Daaaaang that was awesome!" Not only was Iko Uwais a walking grain thresher with fists, costar Joe Taslim delivered just as much soul-punching destruction as the commander of the SWAT team. Both of them are relative nowcomers, but both could be major action leads today. Not in a few years. Not after a few more movies under their belts. Right the hell now. Put them in a movie with Jason Statham or something and proceed to make magic right out the thin damn air.

This is a rollicking good time at the movies. It's two hours of nothing but Iko Uwais throwing 15,000 punches per second into the faces of every bad guy in the world before crushing their windpipes and turning their vertebrae into a fine powder. You think Sparta had madness? Try Indonesia. If Leonidas had been half this badass sending 1 Spartan would have been considered overkill. Faces are smashed rapidfire into walls, kicks explode kneecaps, people are hurled into walls like they're rag dolls, necks snap like celery stalks, and so many bullets are fired that the pile of casings could be seen from space.

If that's what you signed on for, bon anniversaire.

But here's the part where I kick myself for being that guy. I know. I know. I hate that I have to be that guy, too. There is a point in "The Raid," and I can pinpoint it exactly, where it just becomes too damn much. It does the unthinkable, and becomes boring. Yes, all that intense, thrilling action actually became a chore to watch. I feel like such a jerk for saying that.

The point when it became just too dang much first reared its head with about 25 minutes left to go. The remaining good guys bust into a drug lab and start wrecking the place in a scene that overstays its welcome a bit. Most of that has to do with the fact that by this point the fight choreography has really shown all it's going to show you, so you start seeing the same moves recycled from earlier fights. Namely all of them. Up to this point the fists and other appendages had been flying so fast that it was easy to miss repeated moves, but at that point enough time has gone by so that you get into the swing of things, and it's easy to spot that it's really the same moves you've been seeing the whole time.

That's the first problem, but then that drug lab scene just goes on and on and on and on. And it was like I was saying earlier with the random bad guys having no problem throwing themselves at certain doom - I don't understand why they continue attacking him like they're running a conga line when he is clearly out of their league and laying waste to the faces of everyone who dares challenge him. They're like freaking lemmings that know a little kung-fu. And they just don't stop. It got to feeling like that scene goes on for 15 minutes. I think the credits said it best when it got up to "Drug's Lab Guard #21." That's not a joke, either.

And then we have the final boss fight. This is when "The Raid" completely flew off the rails and got laughable in its excess. Not the good kind of laughable, the boring kind. Yayan Ruhian plays The Mad Dog, an underboss of the main bad guy who is just a walking ball of crazy. When Rama and his brother square off with him in a 2 on 1 fight to the death, it is so over-the-top and insanely drawn out that it just gets stupid.

True enough, at the start, it's some of the best fighting in the movie, although I'd give the best fight to the one between The Mad Dog and Joe Taslim. But here, all three of these guys are taking so much punishment (especially Rama after having gone through everyone else getting there) that it just got absurd. The only equivalent I can give is to ask you to imagine Rocky Balboa going through all the fights in all 6 movies one after the other. That's the level of beatdown we're talking here. And they're still going. At that point I was wondering if they had entered any cheat codes. Hell, the bad guy has a shard of broken glass the size of a Gatorade bottle in his neck at one point and he still keeps going like it only mildly irritates him.

I know it's a silly nitpick but it really did come across as distracting, because it was so stupid. The dudes in "Dragonball Z" didn't take this much punishment. And they fell from orbit on occasion. And survived planets exploding.

Is he trying to reach Super Saiyan or something? Stay down, fool!

In all honestly though, had that fight and the one before it been cut in half, "The Raid" would have been a fantastic movie. It's fun, it's brutal, and despite some obnoxious abuse of shaky cam it's a well filmed, well choreographed action film. Perhaps some lessons in excess could have been culled from the experience, but "The Raid" still did what it set out to do.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I wanted to like "The Raid" more than I actually ended up liking it, but it was still a lot of fun. It's just that the last half hour really started getting on my nerves, as Rama became less of a cop and more of an "action hero" if you get my meaning. But hey, if you want action, this is no joke. But watch it in the original language. The dub sucks hard.

Savages (2012)

Considering that not only was the last Oliver Stone movie I watched, "Alexander," so bad that it was one of the only movies I've ever hit the STOP button on, but that the only thing I'd heard about "Savages" was "OH MY GOD NO," I was skeptical going into this one. Or at the least, my expectations could have been entered into a limbo competition.

"Savages" ended up being one of those films that on the surface was easy to dislike. It's way too proud of itself, the protagonists are unlikable, and there is a lingering reek of style over substance prevalent throughout, and I wouldn't care too much to see it again. On the other hand, I didn't feel it was as bad as I had heard it was. In fact, much to my surprise and to the film's credit, I was never bored with it. But in the end there were two things that stopped it from being what I would otherwise consider a solid movie.

"Savages" is a movie about two weed dealers, Ben and Chon, and their girlfriend Ophelia, known simply as O. I should also mention that this movie features gratuitous use of stupid names. I can't tell you how difficult taking a film seriously is when one character has a name that when spoken sounds just like "John" but isn't, and the characters are saying things like "Tell us where O is!" Try looking between N and P you stupid stoner clods.

Oh yeah. I'd love for my rescuers to get baked out of their minds before coming to save me.

Back to the story. That was not a typo earlier when I said O was Chon and Ben's girlfriend. They have a polygamous relationship, which is a concept I have a hard time understanding. Personally I've never been able to wrap my head around sharing a girlfriend with another dude, but I am the jealous type. Ben is an annoying hippie, and Chon is a less annoying ex-military guy who smuggled "the best weed in the world" back from Afghanistan, which they used to start up their business. They've been very successful, so much so that a Mexican drug cartel wants a piece of their action.

When Ben refuses to go along with the deal, the cartel kidnaps O and holds her under threat of death unless Ben and Chon do exactly what they say. And while the cartel is certainly a bunch of jerks, Ben and Chon really have nobody to blame but themselves for what happened. They were stupid, they tried to be smarter than the cartel, and it didn't work so good. Well, that and they let O just traipse around just asking to be kidnapped mere hours before they were set to leave the country. Oops.

That gag in her mouth? Best. Feature. In the film.

The rest of the movie is about Ben and Chon trying to get O back from the cartel using sabotage, a squad of former soldiers and a crooked DEA agent, all while dodging a vicious mobster who is on their trail. To be honest it's not a bad little setup, and I found the plot to be genuinely interesting and well presented.

Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson as Chon and Ben, respectively, both do passable jobs in their roles. Johnson has proven himself to be a fantastic actor as the lead in "Kick-Ass" and was almost unrecognizable as John Lennon in "Nowhere Boy." Here, he's stuck playing a Buddha quoting, hippie douchebag, so he's a bit of a pill, but I guess he did an amiable enough job doing so. He does feel a bit wasted here, as the problems of the movie did tend to overshadow what was a good performance, particularly his disgust and anguish when he is forced to take place in cold blooded killing.

Taylor Kitsch has been something of a reverse-lucky rabbit's foot since starring in not one but two indescribably colossal bombs this summer: "Battleship" and "John Carter." I'm not sure he'll be finding much work after 2012, especially since his best performance thus far has been in "Savages," a movie which barely made its money back. The dude is a walking box office curse. Normally I'd feel sorry for him, but I haven't been impressed enough by his performances to care that much. And yes, this is his best role to date, but he still comes off like a less-charismatic Channing Tatum.

"Hold on. Something's wrong...my god...I don't have a joint in my mouth! Ben? BEN!!! HELP!!!"

Blake Lively as O is, to put it bluntly, terrible. Everything about her in this film is terrible. I'm not sure how you make a character this obnoxious and whiny likeable, but it certainly isn't by casting a crap actress in the role. Like "Highlander 2" trying to retcon Zeist out of the consciousness of moviegoers, Blake Lively should have been expunged from "Savages." And while that would have wrecked a bit of havoc with the plot, it could still be fixable. Have them trying to rescue their pet hamster or something, I don't know. Whatever they chose, it'd be a step up.

There are some shining gems in "Savages," however. They can be found in Benicio Del Toro's absolutely brilliant turn as a terrifying mobster/gardener/80's hairstyle spokesperson, Lado. He's greasy, he's gross, he's creepy, and he's so scary and intimidating that you can never be sure what he's capable of. The closest comparison I can throw out there is that he reminded me of Javier Bardem in "No Country For Old Men." If there was one single reason to see this film, this is it.

Oh my god that hair. Glorious.

The other person who was great in "Savages" was John Travolta. His personal life aside, I'm a big fan of his, and like Nicolas Cage I'm always entertained as hell watching him. Here he's playing the crooked DEA agent who is keeping Chon and Ben safe for some deeply personal reasons. The best scene in the movie, and indeed the best bit of acting in the whole film is a scene between Travolta and Del Toro, surprise surprise, the two best actors in it. In it, Del Toro has Travolta at gunpoint, and Travolta pleads for his life, urging Del Toro to understand why killing him would be the stupidest thing for him to do. It's a dynamite scene which is far better than I expected considering the rest of the cast.

"Ben, am I tripping or is John Travolta in our back seat?"

This brings us to the big problems of "Savages" that had to haven been changed for it to be a decent movie. And while one of those wasn't a deal breaker, it was just really annoying, there is a problem in this film that nearly ruins the entire experience. It also goes beyond my normal nitpicking and becomes something that I don't think a single person watching would be able to call good.

The first change that would have to be made is that the prevalent voice over crap that narrates the film needed to go. Every instance of Blake Lively spewing her overly tongue-in-cheek nonsense should have been removed from the soundtrack. There was no reason for any of that tripe to be in there in the first place, because her exposition is never telling us anything that A) we couldn't have simply found out via visual cues B) isn't redundant because it's often obvious what's going on or C) is crap that we didn't need to know in the first place.

"Savages" thinks it's so freaking clever with it, when it comes across as merely trite and pretentious. The opening voice over tells us "Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean I'm alive at the end of it. Yeah, it's one of those stories." Not only is this line reading done very poorly, as Blake Lively is bad at everything having anything to do with acting, but it comes across as snarky and too proud of itself by half. And if there's one thing I hate it's snarky, overly sarcastic characters. And O could be a poster child for snark, if such an organization existed.

I was also confused by O being this all-knowing voice telling us things that she would have no way of knowing, which makes me curious as to how she is telling us this stuff besides the fact that she's the narrator. She spends a good chunk of the movie in captivity (which coincidentally is the most tolerable section of the film, as she's pretty much out of the picture), so how is she supposed to know about events going on that she isn't witness to? Maybe you're saying that she's telling us all this after the fact after getting clued in by Ben and Chon, but if that's the case, how does she know about things that happened when none of them were there? It's a minor nitpick, sure, but she was so irritating I was finding fault all over the place purely out of spite.

Was Benicio texting her when he was off doing his own thing or something?

This breaking of the fourth wall like that is not a small bit annoying, particularly since nothing in the rest of the film does anything close to that. The rest is like a normal, albeit very stylized, 90's film. That is until the ending, which is the other thing that needed a huge overhaul.

The end of "Savages" is, without hyperbole, probably the worst ending to any film I've seen this year. It's so moronic, unwanted and frankly insulting to the audience that it takes what would have otherwise been a flawed yet respectable enough movie and turns it into something that is borderline unrecommendable. I'm not joking either. The end of "Savages" is so bad that it may well be the only thing you'll remember. At the very least it will be the only thing you'll be talking about once the credits start rolling. And they will not be kind words.

I knew about the ending going into it, and while it did instill me with a bit of dread and irritation knowing that the movie I was admittedly invested in and halfway enjoying was going to have a crap ending, it did soften the blow just a bit when it came. So for those of you playing along at home I'm going to go ahead and just tell you about the end, on the off chance you'll see "Savages."

At the end of the movie Chon, Ben, O and Lado all die in a shootout. Everyone is dead. Credits should have started rolling on what would have been a dreary ending, but an acceptable and fitting one. And then Blake Lively starts in with her BS about how "That's how I imagined it was going to happen." The screen starts freaking out, the movie starts rewinding itself and *BAM* we're back at the start of the end scene again - only this time it goes down differently as Lado betrays his boss, and everyone but her lives happily ever after.

Yes. They actually pulled a "Clue." Only it sucked.

It's enough to make you yell at the screen. It's enough to make you face-palm. It's enough to make you feel like you've wasted the past 2 hours. And it's enough to make you wish upon everything holy that Blake Lively's character had been cut completely from the film.

I did all of those things once the "It was all a dream" ending hit. And I knew I was coming, too. I can only imagine how mad I would have been had that caught me off guard. So I'm telling you right now: Do yourselves a favor and stop the movie when they die. The film is over. Roll credits and be happier in the knowledge that you prevented a B- movie from going to a D+. Yeah, the ending is that bad. Everything else is just kind of...mildly acceptable.

In the end it really seems like Oliver Stone was trying to make another "Natural Born Killers." He did not succeed. So...when is he going to make another Vietnam movie?

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Savages" wasn't as bad as I had heard, but it had its share of problems. The severity of those problems depends a lot on your personal tastes. Since I hate snarky characters and too-clever-for-itself writing, it bugged me a fair amount. Take all that out and stop the movie with 5 minutes left and you've got a decent, bloody crime thriller. Although several points are automatically docked for the movie coining the term "Wargasms." Ugh.

Lawless (2012)

No cheeky lead-in for this one, folks. Not feeling it. I'll just say that I wish snazzy suits like dudes wore back in the 30's were still hip. I'd wear the crap out of those things.

"Lawless" focuses on Prohibition era Franklin County, Virginia, a place notorious as "The Wettest Country in The World." In Franklin County back then all you had to do to stub your toe on a moonshine still was to walk 12 feet and kick blindly. I'm also assuming it was likely also known as "The Most Flammable County in the World."

The Bondurant brothers run a fairly successful bootlegging operation, and have an understanding with the local police that allows them to continue doing so. The understanding is slightly complex, but it involves moonshine and the continued decreasing health of the sheriff's liver. The oldest brother Forrest (Tom Hardy) and middle brother Howard (Jason Clarke) are manly men - tough and no-nonsense. Forrest in particular has a special talent of being physically impossible to kill, which comes in handy when the local competition decides to do things like murder him. Apparently the anti-pain stuff in Bane's mask must still be in Tom Hardy's system, because when Forrest gets his throat cut, he just kind of sleeps it off and lowers his voice for a few days. No big deal.

"Are you sure you don't want to at least lay down? I'm pretty sure he made contact with your spine."

"You know I never miss a Redskins game. Keep driving."

"How are you breathing?"

The more wimpy third brother, Jack, is played by everyone's favorite fast-talking geek with the stupid name and very punchable face, Shia LaBeouf. I'm just going to go ahead and admit that I dislike him. Quite a bit, actually. When he first came on the scene I thought he was alright, but as the years have gone by his schtick has gotten more and more insufferable - reaching the capstone with the "Transformers" series.

Fortunately for us, in "Lawless" he plays someone who is a hick. So because of that, he speaks slowly and without much "witty" LaBeouf banter. I have to give him credit for actually being able to shut his mouth for once, but at the same time he's still not that spectacular. But when you're dealing with him, it's really just for the best to call it a day when he's not teeth-grindingly annoying. But hey, he has proven he can play a person of low to middling intelligence.

If you have that haircut, you are required by law to have an IQ under 85.

Even though "Lawless" follows Shia LaBeouf's Jack around most of the time, it really doesn't feel like Jack's story. The real main character here is clearly Forrest, and for the life of me I have no idea why that character wasn't put more front and center, despite nearly every event revolving around him. From the start of the film he's in charge of the bootlegging operation, and only steps down temporarily once, and the only reason he did that was because he needed to give the sutures a chance to glue his head back on his neck. But after that, once he's healed he's back in the thick of things. And I'm having difficultly remembering an occasion where Jack made himself indispensable.

That's not to say that Forrest isn't in the movie a lot, because he certainly is. Tom Hardy gets the second most amount of screen time next to Shia, it's just a matter of perspective. I don't really see the point of having the movie be told through the viewpoint of Jack. It'd be like watching "Die Hard" from the perspective of Argyle, the limo driver who drops McClaine off and waits in the parking garage for most of the movie until he does that one useful thing at the end. Yeah, he did do something, but in the long run, it wasn't anything that McClaine or someone else couldn't have found a way to accomplish just as well. Jack is just nowhere near as interesting or as cool as Forrest is.

Also, Tom Hardy sounds spot-on like Tom Berenger in "Platoon" in this. I kept waiting for him to ask Shia what he knew about death.

But as awesome as Tom Hardy was in "Lawless," there are only two things you'll remember - Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce. These guy were both amazing, although one gets totally shafted.

Gary Oldman plays a Chicago gangster who Jack sees gun down a car right in the middle of the street. Jack is admittedly impressed and inspired by the act. I'm not quite sure if Oldman really had too much else to do with the plot, even though he spares Shia's life at one point for reasons I can't really remember since it wasn't made abundantly clear. I think he was there mostly to showcase the brutality of a true criminal and to inspire the brothers to step up their game.

Oldman is only in this movie for 5 minutes. Tops. It's really a damn shame because casting Gary Oldman in anything for just 5 minutes is just a stupid thing to do. I wanted to see more of him, especially after he bashes in a dude's head with a shovel. It's brutal, shocking, and really really awesome. And funny. And it's the last you see of him. Damn.

"Gary? Back up. If you want to shoot the barber pole...Gary...you're shooting...GARY! BACK UP!"

Guy Pearce plays Rakes, a Special Deputy who comes to Virginia to shake down the bootleggers and get a cut of their profits. Pierce, I must admit, is pretty entertaining in this movie. I've never thought too much of him as an actor but I'll give credit where credit is due - after Gary Oldman he's the most entertaining character in the film. Fortunately for us he functions as what is essentially the main antagonist, so we see a lot of him. He actually reminds me a bit of Gary Oldman's character from "The Professional." He's over-the-top and corny, so much so that you really don't think a whole lot of him at first. That is, until you see him work.

His hair looks like a Michigan Wolverines helmet.

There are several scenes where so you see Rakes become an absolute monster. The most memorable one being the time he gives Shia LaBeouf the epic beating that I've fantasized giving him myself. It's particularly fun to watch as Rakes is a bit of a fastidious clean-freak, what with his impeccably neat suit. surgically combed hair and spotless gloves. He doesn't really get "serious" about the beating until Jack has the gall to bleed on his suit. Then it's personal. And yes, it's a bit weird having a guy who seems like he'd be better off in a Bond movie in this period piece, but he injects some much needed life into what is otherwise an almost plodding script.

Other than that there's really not more to recommend "Lawless." It's not bad. It's just not that memorable. I will say it's better than the overly long and far more tepid "Public Enemies" from a few years ago. That's not a huge endorsement, but it's something.

Pretty much just watch for me. Yeah, pretty much.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Lawless" is notable for having Shia LaBeouf not being completely insufferable, for Tom Hardy doing an awesome Tom Berenger impression, Guy Pearce having a silly haircut, and Gary Oldman hitting someone with a shovel. That's about it. If you like period pieces about 30's America, it's worth a look. Otherwise don't kick yourself over missing it.

The Apparition (2012)

Oh, PG-13 horror. Why do you even exist? I don't mean to be so cold and callous towards you, but you really are a blight on cinema. You are a hollow shill. A festering, sucking puncture wound on the lungs of the film industry. As you draw in the dumbest and most easily manipulated of target demographics, the highschooler, and slide their disposable income down your gaping, slimy throat with your fat fingers coated in putrid grease, you must be quite proud of yourself for once again creating nothing of any value nor profit. Because you bombed. Hard. Again.

"The Apparition" cost $17,000,000. It brought in about $4,000,000. It didn't even make a quarter of its measly budget back. You are a laughable failure. About the only good thing I can say about you is the fact that you didn't do the standard procedure of releasing a PG-13 cut in theaters, and then an "Unrated" cut when it comes out to rent a few months later. Of course the "Unrated" cut is merely the original version of the movie before they edited it down for theaters, since I want to pay $9.50 to watch a cut of the movie I would see on TV. Oh wait, no I don't, and any sane person wouldn't want to, either.

But it doesn't matter. They'll still make you and movies just like you. Why, I have no idea. One would think that after failing so consistently for so long they would at least attempt to make decent horror films for once. However, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. The PG-13 horror movie will continue to hang around - attempting to frighten us with loud noises and cheap jump scares - and for every 12 of them that crash and burn, one will do just good enough to turn just enough of a profit to make up for the rest.

"The Apparition" is a film that I can best describe has "having no flipping clue what it's doing." Huh. That was surprisingly simple for once. First off, it's got Draco Malfoy in it. Yes, I know his name is Tom Felton, but he's forever going to be known as Draco Malfoy. And usually I'm pretty forgiving about things like that, because I generally feel bad for actors known for only a single role, but I'm just going go ahead and call him Draco Malfoy because he's not a good enough actor to warrant being called anything other than Draco Malfoy.

He also needs to learn to speak through something other than his nose.

Secondly, the main character is Ashley Greene. She's also a terrible actress whose sole claim to anything halfway decent is that she is smoking hot in the "Twilight" movies. And she's one of those ladies who looks way, WAAAAAY better with short hair than longer hair. It's to the point where she looks like a completely different person. But she has long hair in "The Apparition," so not only am I getting watered down PG-13 horror, I'm also getting watered down hotness. Fantastic. There. That's my "disgusting pig" rant.

So what is going on in this movie anyways? Well, honestly I watched the damn thing and I still have no idea. Basically these college kids hold a seance to...catch a ghost? That's about the best I could determine. I think the part where Draco Malfoy points to these goofy headsets they're wearing and says "These will channel our belief into this generator" was so mindwarpingly dumb that I blacked out for a short time.

Really? You're "channeling your belief." What does that even mean? Is belief something tangible now? Does it produce energy? Can you measure belief via brain waves? Obviously there are levels and quantifiable measurements for belief at this point. How can you believe in something more than you believe in it if you already believe in it? Can I see a chair and say to myself, "I'm pretty sure that I believe in that chair" but that desk right next to it gets an "I believe the HELL out of that desk! That desk is SO believed in! I believe in that desk roughly 2.7 times more than I believe in that dumb chair."
 

 WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Whatever. The seance goes tits-up, the girlfriend of Ben (Sebastian Shaw), one of our main characters is...abducted I guess (?), and apparently Ben just moves on with his life and never speaks of it again. And to be honest, had I been a part of an experiment that stupid being run by Draco Malfoy I'd have done the same thing.

Cut to an undisclosed amount of time later and Draco Malfoy evidently tries it again, and for some reason this means that the ghost they keep trying to summon/capture, which is evidently just the ghost of this random dude, is now free to roam about and do whatever. So because of that, it decides to terrorize Ashley Greene, who is the now-girlfriend of Ben. Since she had nothing to do with the seance that summoned him, obviously she is the obvious candidate for haunting. Naturally.

You see, since we are never told not only who the ghost is, but also what it wants, or why it's doing anything, it's difficult to construct any kind of narrative. I honestly don't even know whether or not it's even the same ghost as before. Actually, scratch that. I don't even know if it's actually a ghost. It could be a demon or a freaking alien for all I know. The movie never feels that it's important to tell us any of that trivial stuff like "What is that and what's going on?"

"Wait. Do you hear that? That's the sound of PG-13 fan-service. Better put some pants on."

I've actually heard that the ghost is actually the spirit of Ben's girlfriend from the beginning of the movie, which is why it's screwing with Ashley Greene. Now this actually makes a little bit of sense. Too bad it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the film. Not only is there that little bit of dropped plot, but I get the feeling "The Apparition" was the subject of either massive rewrites in the editing stage, because after everything is shot is always the best time to do that, or that the trailers and advertising campaign were run with the express propose of changing the story.

The tagline is "ONCE YOU BELIEVE, YOU DIE." The trailers also featured Ashley Grenne repeating "I don't believe, I don't believe, I don't believe" like she's Bizarro Cowardly Lion. Watch the movie though, and you'll find that doesn't happen, and that whole "believe = death" plot point is never once mentioned, at least to my recollection. Maybe Draco inferred it once, but if so it wasn't hammered home very well, and even it if were it's roughly the dumbest idea I've ever heard. There are also shots in the trailer that imply that this thing is going to spread like an epidemic across the world. This also is completely dropped. Whatever the reasoning, if you watch the trailer and then the film, it's like they're for two different stories.

So that's encouraging, right? "The Apparition" is a movie so bad, and they knew it, that they tried to fool everyone into seeing it not by giving away every plot point and scare (which they did anyway), but by making it into an entirely different film with the trailer. Clearly, we can't go wrong.

"Tell them I died with my dignity!"

What else is there? A little girl says "Your house killed my dog." That was really funny. I learned Draco Malfoy drinks Corona. I learned that if there's a scary looking hornets nest type thing that magically appears in your kitchen, you should beat it violently with a stick. I learned that ghosts like to rip security cameras off of walls, drag them over to sleeping people and point it at them for a little bit before just leaving, since ghosts apparently love to screw with people when the people being screwed with can't even witness it. I call that the "Paranormal Activity Effect." I learned that one thing PG-13 horror films never need to be bothered to have are scares of any kind.

And finally, I learned that when a movie is crap, and the people who made it don't have the slightest clue what they're doing, just make the poster and DVD cover the final shot of the film. That way you're telling everybody that there is no reason to waste their time watching it. They already know what's going to happen, and they do not need to concern themselves further with it.

There. You now know what happens. Now go and rent "The Expendables 2."

THE BOTTOM LINE - Excrement. Another in the long line of nutless, boring, poorly acted PG-13 80 minute long wastes of time which could be better spent cleaning your cat's infected anal glands.