Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

You know, Fudderwacking was bad, but at least when Johnny Depp Fudderwacked all over our faces in that popped zit of a Tim Burton nightmare "Alice in Wonderland," he wasn't Fudderwacking all over a cinematic masterpiece. Because let's be real here: "Alice in Wonderland" is a cult-following thing. It's got a loyal, Hot Topic going fan-base that loves their Alice with a bloody knife posters, Cheshire Cat tattoos, and clove cigarettes. But as far as importance to film goes, it's not that notable. Honestly it's probably one of Disney's weaker films from that era. With "The Wizard of Oz," however, it's a different story. That's rightly considered one of the best films of all time.

Which makes "Oz the Great and Poweful" even worse than the new "Alice in Wonderland." Oh yeah. It's that bad.

Gaze upon me and despair.

I can't say I expected great things from "OtGaP." Not least among the reasons for that being that it was over 70 years late to the party. But given that I like James Franco and (generally) Sam Raimi, I was hoping for some entertainment at the very least. Most likely stupid entertainment but entertainment none the less. What I got made me feel like I had just wasted my time watching a commercial for CGI.

Oh yeah. It's like I'm back in 1939. That's going to be SEAMLESS playing the films back-to-back.

"OtGaP" follows Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a circus magician from Kansas who finds himself in another world after being sucked into it via tornado. He immediately finds himself involved in a vaguely defined power struggle between three witch sisters, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and Glinda (Michelle Williams), who are painfully naive, obviously evil, and blandly good, respectively. A vague prophecy has foretold that Oscar will lead the land to freedom or something, so in the interest of making money off of it, he agrees to help.

Along the way he meets a talking monkey in a bellhop suit, played by the painfully unfunny Zack Braff, who follows him around the whole time doing his irritating, awkward comic relief, since heaven forbid we don't have one of those. There's also a china doll who is never named and pretty much is useless until the end of the film when she inexplicably runs what has to be nearly 2 miles in under 5 minutes, all while having legs like 5 inches long. I must admit - that's impressive.

"Oh no! It's been 14 seconds and I haven't said something awkward and stammering yet! I'm losing my touch."

It's a standard story of a jerk becoming slightly less of a jerk because he helps the "good guys," not so much because he realizes the error of his ways but because the other side threatens to kill him. And of course since we knew exactly what happens since it's a prequel (you know Oz lives, you know Glinda lives, you know one of the other two sisters is turning into the Wicked Witch of the West and the other into the Wicked Witch of the East), it becomes not only standard but a waste of our time, like we're in grade school being sent back to the third grade after skipping from second grade to forth. We know all this. A talking, unfunny monkey isn't going to make up for the fact that "OtGaP" is completely unnecessary, and feels like it.

Like I said, I normally am a fan of James Franco, but here he's pretty dreadful and more than a bit miscast. Although maybe he would have done better had it not seemed like he had smoked bales of weed throughout the process of filming. Maybe he needed it to see Oz since it's clear that nearly nothing he was looking at was really there, and was put in later via computer. Guess they've got me on that one.

Oh look. She found James Franco's trailer.

On the other hand there's no excuse for the three ladies playing the witches, who were across the board terrible. Mila Kunis is acting like she's straight out of a high school play with all the believability she conveys. Michelle Williams has nothing to work with being the boring one of the group, and boy does she sell that. I suppose Rachel Weisz was the best of them, but she's so over-the-top comic book villainous that it comes off more as parody than actual menace. And how Mila Kunis' character doesn't get the fact that her sister is irrevocably evil is beyond me, and just makes her character that much more unrelatable and irritating.

And when she becomes The Wicked Witch of the West...this is the effect they go for. Yeah. They thought that looked good.

Also not helping matters is that the script has them all having what is essentially the same conversation over and over and over again for nearly two hours:

Oz - "You know I'm not really the Wizard, right?"
A Witch - "We need you to be the Wizard, though."
Oz - "I know, right? But I don't think I am."
A Witch - "You could lie about it and just say you are."
Oz - "I know, right? I should do that."
A Witch - "Okay then. But seriously, are you the Wizard?"
::repeat till credits::

UGH.

And they could have a least done us a small favor and made "OtGaP" actually look like the original film, seeing as it's supposed to be a precede to it. In much the same way that the "Star Wars" prequels made everything shiny and fake-looking and basically nothing like the originals, this film smacks us in the face with the computer generated landscapes and creatures that make me feel like I'm watching "Avatar," because you know, that's a movie that looks JUST like "The Wizard of Oz." And like "Avatar" and unlike the original, here everything looks fake, because for the overwhelming majority, it is. Nothing is practical when it could be done in a computer in this film. They go so far as to even have fake snowflakes, because I guess the technology to freeze water is just beyond the filmmakers.

What part of "Wizard of Oz" screamed $200,000,000 budget? I'd really like to know.

How about this: Make "OtGaP." Nobody asked for it, but go ahead. But do everything the way they did it in 1939. I'm talking actual sets, matte paintings, costumes, and old fashioned camera tricks. No CGI at any point. I don't care about the old argument that "Practical costs more," you cannot tell me that it would be anywhere close to $200,000,000. It'd probably be 20% of that at absolute most. And hell, you've got Sam Raimi, who has proven in the past to be very good at practical effects when he wants to be.

Guess what? People will still see it. It's a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz." And you've spent so little on it that there is no way you won't get your money back. Who cares if people will probably complain about the old-fashioned nature of it? You obviously don't care from the start about quality based on the film I just saw. AND it would actually look like "The Wizard of Oz." What a thought.

Yeah, it's as bad as the trailer made it look.

THE BOTTOM LINE - This is a film without any kind of soul whatsoever - a hollow, vapid exercise in using pretty things to distract you from the fact that nothing of any substance is happening, nobody in the film cares about being there, and nobody involved in the creation of it had any intention of giving us anything other than a tech demo of the capabilities of their computer software. No imagination is to be found. No wonderment. No spirit. No emotion besides bad melodrama and James Franco looking stoned off his ass.

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You can throw all the names you want at me. Sam Rockwell, Colin Farrell, Woody Harrelson, yes that's all great. I love all those guys. But telling all that to me is just wasting air. All you had to say was Christopher Walken. Baby, you had me at the poster that has him wearing a cravat. Are you telling me we're FINALLY getting a full-length version of "The Continental?" Truly this will be glorious.

No, of course this isn't an SNL movie. There's too much actual comedy for that. And if it was it'd probably have Kristen Wiig and Will Forte in it. Ew.

"Seven Psychopaths" is the second film by Martin McDonagh, who's only other film "In Bruges" I'd never gotten around to seeing, but now I'd really like to. I'd heard good things about it, and if it's anything like "Seven Psychopaths" it's bound to be pretty solid.

This is an odd film to describe, as it is quite quirky in a pseudo-Guy Ritchie way. It's a dark, crime-based comedy along the same lines as "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," "Snatch," "Nobel Son" or anything else that somehow makes horrible people doing horrible, violent things funny. Where "Seven Psychopaths" comes off as a bit unique is the framing device it utilizes, which almost comes across as breaking the forth wall but stops short of that, leaving it self aware while still taking itself at least a little bit seriously.

Even with Rockwell's hat, Walken's cravat and Farrell's hair.

Marty (Colin Farrell) is an out of work screenwriter who is working on a movie script. So far he's got the title: "Seven Psychopaths." And he knows he wants it to be about seven violent, crazy people. But he doesn't want it to be a violent movie. That's about all he's got. Marty has a lot of work to do.

His friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) is an out of work actor who also helps an older gentleman, Hans (Christopher Walken) run a dog-napping racket on the side. Unfortunately they end up dog-napping the adorable Shih Tzu of Charlie (Woody Harrelson), an exceedingly unstable and dangerous mobster whose only love in life is that little dog. As the whirlwind of violence and murdering that the dog-napping creates envelops Marty, he finds himself using those various psychopaths around him as inspiration for his screenplay, which is being written as the movie progresses like a film within a film.

There is some really clever writing going on in this film that on the surface may seem quaint or merely a ripoff of the likes of Tarantino or Ritchie when they get cute with unconventional storytelling while winking at the audience. But there's more too it than that. There are some pretty neat parallels in the screenplay that Marty is writing and the story the film has him going through, which makes sense since he is using those people around him as inspiration. But the themes that Marty is hoping to convey in his screenplay, foremost among those being love and peace, end up being reflected in the actual movie. Not Marty's movie, but "Seven Psychopaths." The one you're watching, not the one he wrote. Well, that one too, but whatever.

It's got layers, is what I'm saying.

What will sell a movie about terrible people though is the performances. After all it's difficult to like a horrible character unless the actor is very likable in their horribleness. Colin Farrell throws down a solid dramatic performance as he plays the relatively straight man to everyone else's zaniness, proving once again that he's a really underrated actor. Sam Rockwell is entertainingly over-the-top and unhinged which is very fun to watch, channeling his inner "Brad Pitt in "Fight Club."" Tom Waits was also a lot of creepy fun as a killer of serial killers who carries around a white bunny at all times.

But you all know me. I'm a sucker for the Walken. And while his turn in "Seven Psychopaths" is probably his most subdued in a long time, it's also most likely one of his better performances, at least in terms of comedy/drama. And the amazing thing about Christopher Walken is that even when his line delivery is drier than James Bond's martini, it's still full of intensity. The man just burns with it, even when he seems half asleep. Of particular note is a little monologue he has near the end of the film, which ties together the themes of revenge, forgiveness and love and is quite moving and somewhat heartbreaking.

The only guy who matched Walken was Woody Harrelson. It's been a long time since Woody has been scary, but his portrayal of Charlie is outright terrifying. Harrelson has this fantastic detached coldness going on that makes watching him fun, and it's probably the most intimidating performance he's given. True he was nuts in "Natural Born Killers," but Mickey Knox was fire whereas Charlie is ice. And I usually find ice a bit more entertaining. That's why Alan Rickman is awesome.

It's too bad Walken and Harrelson only have one scene together. But man, is it a good one.

"Seven Psychopaths" also happens to be reasonably funny. At least to me it was. I don't know how much comedy others will take away from it, as it is a bit mean spirited occasionally, but I did get some good laughs out of it. Most of these unsurprisingly had to do with Christopher Walken saying things like "It's not possible, it is? For someone's head to explode when it gets shot?" (By the way this movie is a bit violent.) And come on. The Shih Tzu's dog tag says "Bonny - Return to Charlie Costello or You're Fucking Dead." That's funny.

There's a lot of heart to "Seven Psychopaths." On the surface it's quirky, a bit foul and mean spirited, but looking past all that there's some real depth to the characters, and it actually has something to say at the end. You just have to be okay with some pretty dark material.

Check out the trailer. By the way, neither one of those ladies is one of the psychopaths. Actually, one of the psychopaths is actually two of them, and another isn't actually real...it's complicated.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I liked "Seven Psychopaths." It's an interesting movie which may go on just a bit too long at just under 2 hours, but it's never boring, and it's filled with some outstanding performances, great dialogue and some very clever writing. And it has an adorable dog in it. For those who like their movies a bit different and quirky, this is a must see.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

While making my way through the Bond franchise, it sometimes becomes difficult to care about the gentlemen whose time as 007 was limited to one or two goes. This is especially true for poor George Lazenby. He's the only official James Bond who had but a single turn at playing the World's Most Famous Secret Agent. Nobody really laughs at Timothy Dalton, but Lazenby is something of a punchline. I guess two films and you're set, but a one-off is enough to get you mocked.

I've always found that a bit unfair. George Lazenby was actually not a bad choice for the part. And I damn well prefer him over Roger Moore. The dude had style, swagger, a strong physical presence, was decently good looking, and while he wasn't great at the one liners, you could tell he was at least trying. I think he was actually attempting a Sean Connery impression, and you know what? If he was, it wasn't that bad. He wasn't doing the voice, but that would have been silly.

To be honest the biggest problem with George Lazenby wasn't his performance. I think it was the poofy shirt. That was out of control.

Well, that and the screenwriters having him quip to the camera, "This never happened to the other fella." Ugh. That was bad.

"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is somewhat of an enigma. On one hand, it's considered by many to be one of the best entries in the entire series. On the other hand, this is one of those Bond movies nobody you ask seems to have ever seen. I think the reason for that is twofold.

The first reason is that, like I mentioned above, I think the fact that this is the sole outing for Lazenby grants a certain stigma to the film. Almost like it's announcing that it's unnecessary to care about this one because the dude didn't come back for another. We all moved on after Lazenby. In fact we went straight back to Connery for another go around with him, almost like an apology.

The second reason is that this movie is a weird one. And it may have earned that reputation enough over the years to make it so that people generally avoid it out of principle. I can't fault them too much for that, because "OHMSS" is a strange entry in the Bond franchise, the strangest aspect of it being the utterly black downer of an ending that is so contrary to the tone of the rest of the film and the series as a whole that it's actually a work of outright genius.

Are those reasons to not see it? No, because it's not a bad film. It's alright. I don't consider it among the best like some do, but it's better than a lot of the others that came later.

The plot this time finds Bond getting acquainted with a mob boss named Draco (Gabrielle Ferzetti). The mob boss promises Bond information as to the location of Blofeld, whom MI-6 has considered a lost cause not worth pursuing, much to Bond's rage. Draco promises Bond the location of Blofeld on the condition that Bond tame his wild daughter, Tracy (Diana Rigg) by, and I'm quoting here, "dominating her." For this, Draco promises Blofeld's location, his daughter's hand, and 1 million British pounds. And James accepts, much to the ire of Tracy, who wants nothing to do with any of it. Eventually she comes to love James, despite not really knowing anything about him besides how good he is in the sack.

You know, I just realized that these movies are ever so slightly misogynistic.

True to his word, Draco tells Bond that Blofeld is in hiding in Switzerland under a new identity, and wants receive the title of Count for some reason, most likely because being called Count would be badass. Going undercover as Sir Hilary Bray, a genealogist who will verify Blofeld's claim, Bond infiltrates his mountaintop stronghold to uncover what he's up to this time. And he'll do it wearing a kilt.

Have I mentioned Lazenby's wardrobe is kind of out of control?

What Blofeld is up to involves allergy research, brainwashing, and lots of pretty ladies for James to plow, since you know, he cares about Tracy and is totally monogamous now (LOL). What it all comes down to is that Blofeld has created a chemical that will utterly destroy a very specific crop, and prevent it from ever growing again. The aforementioned ladies, who were there under the impression they were getting their severe food allergies treated, will be the ones to unknowingly release it after they've been sent back out into the world. Blofeld's asking price to not go through with it is a full pardon for his past crimes. This seems like an odd choice, as it seems to me that he's not really planning on retiring from crime, but whatever.

Blofeld is played this time (ugh CONSISTENCY please) by legendary tough guy Telly Savalas, and while I did think that his portrayal was acceptable and surprisingly refined, like Charles Grey he's just not slimy enough. I just don't think anyone can top Donald Pleasence. Telly Savalas is also slightly difficult to take seriously when his ear lobes are taped back. It's just a bit distracting.

Not as much as the freaking weird way he smokes his cigarettes, though.

And a rather large plot hole pops up in the fact that in "OHMSS" it's portrayed as the first meeting of Bond and Blofeld, which is egregiously and demonstrably incorrect. Unless of course we go into the theory that 007 is not a single man but merely a position in MI-6 (something I subscribe to as a pretty reasonable theory), but that just makes less sense when you consider that at the beginning of the next film, Sean Connery is seeking vengeance on Blofeld, implying it's the same person. Whatever. It doesn't matter that much in reality, but it is a pretty big WTF.

But seldom is the plot what we come to Bond movies for, right? We're here for the action, and while "OHMSS" does boast a good amount of it, there's just enough lack of it to make the 2 hour and 20 minute run-time feel a bit overly long. In addition to that a few of the sequences tend to go on a bit long, most notably the final confrontation between Bond and Blofeld in a bobsled chase (okay, point for originality). And it's not that the bobsled chase wasn't exciting. It's just that there are only so many things you can do with two people fighting in a bobsled. And the film runs out of things for them to do about a minute into what feels like a 5 minute long sequence.

What's that?! You like skiing!? WELL GOOD! Here. Have ALL THE SKIING EVER.

(So much skiing in this movie...)

And from a technical standpoint, while "OHMSS" is actually well edited, a significant amount of the action is slightly sped up in post, which is very obvious and makes it come off as exceedingly cheap. I know they did it for Connery too, but they didn't do it all that often. With this film it seemed like every other action beat was from a Benny Hill skit.

The only aspect of "OHMSS" that stood out to me as something that was really noteworthy is the ending, because it's so nuts that it's amazing. But it's also really sad. So yeah, spoiler alert here on a 40+ year old film, but at the end, after James and Tracy get married, the assumed-dead Blofeld drives by with his henchmen and guns down Tracy in the car as they drive away from their wedding. The movie ends with James cradling his dead wife of less than a few hours in his arms, as he tells a police officer "It's quite alright. She's having a rest. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world."

Um...cue John Barry?

Man, that's just mean. That's mean, man. Far be it from me to criticize a movie for having guts, but what exactly was the point of all that? Was it to establish that James has now been turned into a distant, uncaring, sociopath who can never form attachments to people because they'll just get hurt? That would be great if James Bond hadn't been THAT EXACT CHARACTER THE WHOLE TIME TO BEGIN WITH. That's kind of his thing. Essentially, "OHMSS" just dangled the carrot of character change in front of both James and the audience before yanking it back, stabbing us in the eye with it, and then eating it.

I kind of like it.

So Lazenby wasn't a bad Bond, and his movie wasn't worth the obscurity it possesses. Like I mentioned before I'm slightly neutral on it apart from the ending, which is so bad it's brilliant. And of course I have Roger Moore to look forward to now, which will make good old Georgy Boy look even better in comparison.

If didn't know any better, based on the trailer I'd assume the name of this movie was "Different!"

THE BOTTOM LINE - "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is a mixed bag which some might find more agreeable than others. If you like your Bond movies less gadgety this one might be a good one for you. I thought it was alright. Too much damn skiing, though.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

 

"LIVE AND LET DIE"

Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40k Movie (2010)

Regular readers of this blog (are there any of you out there?) may recall that earlier this year I covered an animated film called "Starship Troopers: Invasion," and while I didn't find it to be that great, I did enjoy myself enough to consider it reasonably worth it. I bring it up because I do, on occasion, enjoy those little right-to-the-point, no frills, straight-to-DVD, niche films that exist as more of a tie-in than an actual stand alone film. They're seldom anything worth getting overly excited over, but they can serve as a fun use of 75 minutes. And sometimes you just want to unwind after work without thinking about anything too hard. Just grab a drink and watch stuff explode. Sounds fun.

I was a fan of Warhammer 40,000 from back in the day, although I was more of a collector than a player, since I didn't know anyone else who played. I just painted my Blood Angel Space Marines in glorious red and had them proudly in formation on a desk somewhere. Aside from the cool look of the models, I also enjoyed the dark and bleak setting of 40k, with the constant struggle against nearly hopeless odds and never-ending conflict. It was really grim and brutal, and the middle-schooler version of me ate it up.

Pictured above - Many of my dollars and many, MANY of my childhood hours.

So yeah I'm going to watch "Ultramarines." It's been a long time since I was into 40k, but I remember enough about it to swing with an animated movie about Space Marines. After all those were my boys, even though I was more into the more flawed Blood Angels or Dark Angels instead of the Ultramarines, whom I always found too perfect and uppity. But that's nerdiness that you wouldn't know unless you're into 40k. Although to be honest some of that nerdiness would come in handy if you really wanted a firm grasp of what's going on in this film.

While it's true that "Ultramarines" isn't going to play nice with anyone who isn't at least passingly familiar with the setting, it doesn't alienate the viewer too much if they aren't. You may not know exactly why things are happening, but there will at the very least be an understanding of what is going on. You may not know why that guy just turned into a demon, or why that medic is ripping organs out of dead soldiers, or why that stupid book is so important, or what or who the heck Macragge is, but at the end of the day everyone can understand a monster getting a chainsword to the face.

It's the universal language.

The story concerns a squad of Ultramarines, both veterans and rookies, who drop onto a planet to secure a holy relic which has come under threat. Our main character, Proteus (Sean Pertwee) is a newly made Ultramarine who is perhaps a bit too eager for combat, much to the chagrin of his superiors, notably Pythol (Donald Sumpter) and Captain Severus (Terence Stamp). After things predictably turn sour, Proteus is placed in a position of command, and eventually finds that the fate of the entire Ultramarines homeworld of Macragge is in his hands.

Unlike "Starship Troopers: Invasion," "Ultramarines" takes its time in establishing characters and building up suspense before simply throwing the viewer into the middle of a warzone, guns blazing and chests thumping. How effective the suspense is might be debatable, in fact I think it spends a bit too much of its short run-time doing it since the action doesn't start until the halfway point, but it's nice to see "Ultramarines" take itself seriously from a film-making perspective, and not relegate itself to being just a clip show of bullets slamming into things.

Does this guy have like a 4-foot shoulder span? How is he fitting in there?

However, like "Starship Troopers: Invasion," "Ultramarines" does suffer from the similar problem of interchangeable characters and confusion as to who is talking or who just died. On the up side, "Ultramarines" has FAR fewer characters to follow, and they take their helmets off fairly regularly. On the down side, the voice actors are all older, gruff sounding men, and once the helmets come off they all pretty much look the same. So it's a mixed bag, but at least Terrence Stamp, Donald Sumpter and Sean Pertwee all have pretty recognizable voices. And of course when the great John Hurt shows up you know exactly who it is talking, which is a good thing.

You know, my favorite thing about this movie is the cast. There's some prestige involved here, and nobody slums it because they're not in front of a camera. Everyone here gives it their best. Sean Pertwee and John Hurt are two actors I really like, and they were in two of my favorite sci-fi horror films of all time ("Event Horizon" and "Alien," respectively), but we've even got some "Game of Thrones" action going on with Donald Sumpter, who played Maester Luwin. And of course Terrence Stamp needs little introduction. I mean, come on. It's Terrence Stamp.

"KNEEL BEFORE SEVERUS!!!"

The most negative thing I can say about "Ultramarines" is that while the animation can be good and moody on occasion, overall it's nothing to be impressed by. The characters have little weight to them, and they kind of look like they're just bouncing or floating around the environments. It's not the worst I've seen, but overall it looks circa PS2 graphics. I'm pretty sure I saw more convincing facial capture in "Time Splitters 3." On the plus side, there is a lot of things done with camera angles and depth of field that take away from a lot of those shortcomings, and makes it look less like a really long video game cut-scene. Although it's hard to not get that impression. Even so, in it's defense, it would be a pretty good cut-scene.

So I don't regret spending 75 minutes watching this. It was a fun little diversion. And you know what? If anything this film made me want to pick up a Warhammer 40k novel or something to get into that universe again. I guess in that respect I can call it a success.

Check out this surprisingly solid trailer for "Ultramarines."

THE BOTTOM - Do you like Warhammer 40k? Then you'll probably dig this. It won't blow your mind, but there's a good chance you'll have fun. Do you have no idea what Warhammer 40k is? Enjoy the strange old men in big armor suits killing things then, because that's probably all you'll get out of it. But you might still have an alright time. Maybe. (Although the odds will be stacked against you.)

Parker (2013)

Did you know Parker is the main character from over 20 novels by Donald Westlake (under the name Richard Stark) starting in the 60's, and that there's been like seven or so movies about him? Most would probably know him from "Payback" when he was played by Mel Gibson, and he was even played once by Robert Duvall, but the arguably more famous example was the first American film about him, 1967's "Point Blank," when he was called Walker and was portrayed by Lee Marvin. That's a solid film, as is "Payback," depending on which cut of it you watch (Director's Cut is way better).

Now we have "Parker," which seems like a horrible title when you consider it's the only film that's ever used the character's name. That would be like calling the next James Bond movie "007" or just "Bond." Of course now that I've said that, that's exactly what will happen some years from now when Daniel Craig is done and they decide to reboot the damn series. I really shouldn't even throw those ideas out there.

With Jason Statham portraying the character now, there was a decent chance that this would prove to be a solid flick. After all, Statham is, by all logical and mathematical calculations, A Mack Daddy, and can be tremendously entertaining even when saddled with sub-par material. You know, material that is kind of boring, or doesn't make a whole lot of sense and has some bad acting and characters that shouldn't even be there because they're pointless...

See what I did? I was implying in that last sentence that "Parker" contains all those above things because it's sub-par. That's just good writing right there.

And yes, Jason Statham DOES wear that stupid hat for most of the film. Because I take him more seriously that way.

The story is the standard "thief with morals" one, where the main character is predictably betrayed by his crew after a job and left for dead but is obviously still alive because the bad guys are freaking idiots. He decides to revenge himself upon them by stealing from his former crew, and then killing them. And that's the movie. It's not complicated, and if you've ever seen a movie featuring robbers in your life, or something direct-to-DVD starring Nicolas Cage lately, you will undoubtedly be able to call it shot-for-shot.

And you know what? That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. If it's an entertaining film, by all means do the cliche stuff, because it can still be fun. This is doubly so when you've got a badass like Jason Statham doing his thing. In fact there are some things about it which would, under normal circumstances, relegate "Parker" to being merely one of Statham's acceptable but somewhat forgettable solo efforts like "Blitz" or "The Mechanic." That meaning it's not great, but is fine for what it is. "Parker" would have fit that bill were it not for the presence of one Ms. Jennifer Lopez, upon whose well-tanned shoulders most of the blame for the crap-factor can be placed.

I could think of more useless characters in movies given enough time, but Jennifer Lopez has to be one of the most egregious examples of "albatross around a film's neck" I've seen in a long time. She's a real-estate agent who becomes Parker's "partner." She doesn't do anything in finding Parker's former crew that Parker couldn't have easily done himself. She doesn't do anything with Parker getting his revenge that he couldn't have done himself. In fact she only gets in the way of that. Even the romantic angle between she and Parker goes nowhere because it can't go anywhere since Parker is taken and isn't interested in her. In fact that revelation is the last line Lopez has in the film.

"I never had a shot, did I?"

To be a decent character? No. No you didn't.

Whenever the film starts to get interesting with the former crew (headed by Michael Chiklis) doing a heist or Parker kicking a random mob hitman's ass or something that actually means something to the plot, the film seems to think that the best course of action would then be to spend 10 minutes going through Lopez's boring life dealing with her catty co-workers and soap-opera obsessed mother and her mother's annoying little dog. Great, movie. Thanks for that. After seeing Jason Statham bash a guy's head in before throwing him off a 30-story building, I really wanted to know about Cathy from the cubicle across the way stealing that commission from J-Lo. Because Cathy is who I'm concerned about in that situation.

The only thing Jennifer Lopez does which was of any kind of value is to hide the stolen property at the end of the movie. And she hides it in a place that Parker could have easily gotten into by himself. Great, that's great. Now will somebody PLEASE explain to me why she's even here?

Oh great. It's the "Alice Eve Effect" from "Star Trek Into Darkness" - Bad actresses stripping for no damn reason. Wonderful.

It's not even that Lopez was necessarily bad I suppose, but she's such an uninteresting and pointless character that you could have gotten Charlize Theron or Noomi Rapace for it and she still would have sucked as a character, and she still would have pulled the rip-chord on the film's momentum every time she showed up. Acting chops has little to do with it, although Lopez is certainly no prize catch for the casting department.

The villains in "Parker" didn't do much to inspire any kind of fear either. Micheal Chiklis and his crew come off as so inept and stupid that there's never much to imply that there is any way that Parker isn't going to absolutely wreck them. There's no tension here, because if the bad guys are too dumb to manage to finish off a totally immobile, horrifically injured man laying on the side of the road when they have at their disposal both a gun and a body of water deep enough to drown someone in, there is no reason for me to ever believe that they pose a threat to the hero.

 "Now, my most freaked out, cowardly and untrustworthy teammate - Go kill him! I'll just stand over here and not verify that you've done the job I've sent you to do, even though I know you'd have a difficult time doing it, and that repercussions will be severe if we don't kill this guy. I'm just going to take your word that you did it, because you're untrustworthy and kind of make a big mess of everything you try to do. That's how we professionals roll."

And if they were going for the "Parker is a cat toying with a mouse" angle, that would have been fine, but suddenly at the end there's a standoff and we're supposed to take these chuckle-heads seriously? Really? They're not even bright enough to notice their front door had been broken into. Then during the middle of the climactic fight where Parker is picking them off one by one, the very first thing one of them does when told to watch Jennifer Lopez is to put a hand down her blouse. Because there's never a time when being a creepy rapist isn't appropriate. And yes, he pretty much immediately gets shot to hell.

I'm more concerned about getting the timing on Bald Bull's charge right than I am of these chumps.

On top of everything else, there was a plethora of obnoxious flashbacks to things from 2 minutes ago that kept popping up throughout the film, and a lot of really, REALLY terrible dialogue that Statham was forced to recite. This is particularly notable in the beginning when Parker is reciting his "rules" to people he had no business giving a monologue to. Lopez also had one of those speeches later in the movie where she spills her guts to Parker in a scene which, like all her scenes, ended up being pointless. These weren't deal-breakers in of themselves, but they were just more little things to showcase the fact that this is just a poorly written and put together film.

Although there is ONE good line which I liked a lot, which can be seen at the very end of the trailer.

I can't say I'm totally disappointed here, considering I didn't expect much to begin with, but "Parker" was such a waste of time that it's just kind of sad. I know Statham can do better. Hell, I've seen him do better on numerous occasions. This movie needed a "Phantom Edit" to erase Jennifer Lopez like Jar Jar Binks. Then it'd be 40 minutes shorter and be merely mildly average.

THE BOTTOM LINE - There are so many movies better than "Parker" to watch. Pretty much go to Jason Statham's IMDB page and pick one at random. Unless you land on "In The Name of The King" you'll probably come out ahead. The most entertaining thing about "Parker" is hearing Nick Nolte talking like he's seconds away from 3 heartattacks and a stroke all at once.

After Earth (2013)

M. Night Shyamalan. The name has become a punchline used to obliterate any sense of hope or expectation that a movie might be anything other than disappointing, usually accompanied by someone saying "What a twist!" in mocking tones. And while it is usually unfair to eternally condemn a director to low expectations and scorn, to the point where his movies have begun to expunge his name from the trailers as much as possible, lest the audience moan and groan when the words "An M. Night Shyamalan Film" appear, which I've personally seen happen more than once, he has done quite a lot of work to earn that reputation for making terrible films.

It really has been a spectacular downwards spiral unlike anything I've ever seen. It's hard to believe that every single movie this man makes is consistently worse than the one that proceeded it. But as bad as every Shyamalan film that comes out is, what is really scary is that pattern will maintain itself, and the next one he makes will undoubtedly be worse, even if what you just saw happened to be one of the worst films you've ever seen in your life. It's terrifying while being sadly amusing.

But like all things good or bad, eventually everything must come to an end. With "After Earth," Shyamalan has broken that streak of his. For the first time since he become a household name, M. Night Shyamalan has made a film that is not worse than the one before it. He has managed to tread water as opposed to sinking further down into the abyss.

Of course that empty praise means even less when you take into consideration the fact that the bar for his improvement was "The Last Airbender."

"After Earth" is set 1000 years in the future, when humanity has taken to the stars to escape Earth after it becomes uninhabitable. They are in constant struggle against the Ursa, a dangerous alien race which while completely blind hunts by sensing pheromones, literally smelling people's fear. How the Ursa can operate space ships and whatnot when blind is a bit beyond me. It also makes me curious as to how the smell of adrenaline emanating from physical activity like running is evidently different from the smell of adrenaline emanating from fear, but if I start nitpicking the dumb stuff like that in a Shyamalan movie I'm going to be here all day.

That suit looks like one of those crappy "drawn on texture" pajamas you get so your kid can be Spiderman. I've seriously seen amateur cosplayers with FAR more convincing outfits at anime conventions. OFTEN.

A group of soldiers called Rangers, led by a legendary soldier named Cypher Raige (Will Smith) are able to combat the Ursa by having no fear, and thus being essentially invisible to them. His son Kitai (Jaden Smith) wants to join, but while he shows great potential in the academy he hasn't been selected yet, mostly because the movie needs him not to be. Cypher takes Kitai on a mission with him to get him some experience, but for reasons that are still confusing to me, the ship goes off course. They end up crashing on Earth, and Cypher and Kitai are the only two survivors. With Cypher badly injured, it's left to Kitai to go out into the absurdly dangerous wilderness to find the rest of the ship and retrieve a beacon to signal for their rescue.

Most of "After Earth" is following Kitai around as he walks through the ridiculous landscapes full of things that want to kill him. Cypher spends most of the movie sitting in a chair bleeding out, while coaching Kitai through the video feed integrated into his suit. Of course eventually Kitai looses contact with Cypher and must complete the journey on his own, but that's to be expected with this kind of story.

And that phrase, "This kind of story" is exactly what one of the biggest problems with "After Earth" is. This is such a standard, old-hat tale of a young person proving themselves to themselves, their father, and the world that it really doesn't have much of an identity beyond that. It's a very well-trodden path that "After Earth" takes, and while that doesn't make it a bad film, it's certainly not doing it any favors in the "Audience Giving a Crap" department because there isn't a single moment in this movie that you don't feel psychic due to knowing every single thing that's going to happen at every turn.

Although the trip to Mount Doom was admittedly a nice touch.

On top of that, "After Earth" also partakes in some truly hamfisted foreshadowing that is so clumsy and trite that it almost approaches levels of satire. So even though you know exactly what's going to happen anyway, due to the fact that the story is cliched, the movie obviously spells out what's going to happen with awkward prognostication, just in case you were too stupid to call it outright. That was nice of them.

You know, I wouldn't even be that upset about the whole thing if there were some decent performances to watch during the film. But as it is, due to either really bad acting on the two leads part (likely) or Shyamalan's really bad writing and direction (somewhat more likely), this is just an obnoxious film to have to sit through. Will Smith can be alright as an actor, but he'll never be better than "acceptable," and that's when he's playing to his strengths. But his strength is his charm and likability, which is completely neutered here as he is forced to play a humorless, emotionless hardass who may just as well be a frowny face sitting in a chair, bleeding from the leg. And that's not how you want to see Will Smith dealing with aliens.

"After Earth" needed way more things being punched in the face.

And that's the case for the better actor of the two Smiths in this film. As hard as Will may try to ram his son down the throats of the world to grace us with the presence of what he wants you to accept as the "Next Big Thing," Jaden Smith will never be anything more than a C- actor. At absolute best. I am convinced of that. And keep in mind, he has yet to reach that coveted peak of "slightly below average." In this film he's slumming at a solid D. And he only got that high of a grade because at one point he managed to shed a single tear, although for all I know that tear was CGI. It's very likely. Who knows? Maybe with some work he can be as good of an actor as Taylor Lautner. Keep reaching for the stars, kiddo.

This isn't like Tom Cruise, who had this undeniable charm and charisma even when he was a crap actor in the 80's. No, that's not the case at all. Jaden Smith is as wooden as the woodiest sections of the woods he runs through in "After Earth." And there's a lot of very woodsy woods in this film. True, he's spouting off laughably bad Shyamalan dialogue, but he does it with the passion, energy, and believability of a dumb high school jock giving a science presentation on a subject he slept through.

And he does it while sounding like mini-Morgan Freeman. It's weird.

But again, they are at the mercies of M. Night Shyamalan, whose grody fingerprints are all over this movie. His usual jarring, poorly written and confusing exposition is present, as is the bizarre inflection and pacing his actors are forced to convey while reciting his dialogue. Will Smith has a monologue at one point that was so loaded with absurd pauses that I actually started counting the seconds between bits of his fragmented sentences. He averaged about 3.5 seconds. And that's not just for periods. He paused that long where commas and quotation marks would have been. It took what might have been a decent little story, had it been told with energy and passion, and made it irritating beyond belief to have to listen to, particularly when it's being told with the zeal of someone reading an instruction manual from IKEA. And I don't blame Will Smith for that. That's on the director.

There's also the typical bizarro camera angles which I can only call "Shyamalanian," for lack of a better term. It's hard to describe, but whenever he frames an actor looking at another person in front of them, he does this strange thing where he'll get up in the actor's face, dead center in the middle of the frame, just a bit too close to be comfortable. Then he'll have them almost look straight at the camera, but just off to the side ever so slightly. It's really unsettling and it gives the impression that the actor is getting in your face and staring at your ear. It's weird, distracting, and he does it in all of his films.

And that's just the technical stuff, not including the usual Shyamalan pseudo-spiritual aspect of the story that doesn't even make any sense if you try to apply it to the world it inhabits, let alone to reality in general. That's something I could rant about, but it's not really worth it because like many of his films, "After Earth" is just a Shyamalan morality play. Only this time it's more boring than usual because it's not epically bad. I'm not sure which is worse. It's a bit sad to not be able to laugh uproariously at the stupidity that we're supposed to swallow. I kind of miss Wahlberg negotiating with a plastic plant.

At least the plastic plant looked real.

But then again, "The Happening" didn't have a giant bird sacrificing itself to save Jaden Smith for no good goddamn reason. That might be up there with the best of the "WTF Shyamalan?" moments.

To answer your question: Yes, he DOES yack this much in "After Earth." And it IS annoying!

THE BOTTOM LINE -  "After Earth" comes across more like a straight-to-DVD movie with a hundred million dollars behind it. It's predictable, a bit slow, clunky in story, doesn't make much sense, and the acting is pretty abysmal. It is pretty on occasion, but whatever. A lot of stuff is pretty. It's a step up from the usual crap we're used to with Shyamalan, but that's not saying much. That's like being surprised that a terrible driver didn't hit EVERY cone on their driving test.

Hellraiser (1987)

Before we begin I'd just like to bring up the fact that the film "Hellraiser" does not, in fact, involve raising hell. Well, I suppose you could argue that the actions done by the main characters would qualify as "raising hell" in the vernacular sense of the phrase, but it wouldn't be in the usual soccer-riot sense one would expect. It'd be in the murder sense of the phrase, which doesn't really work that well. In addition, the literal Hell is not actually raised either, though I have no idea what that would mean even if the movie contained it.

What I'm trying to say is that "Hellraiser" is a stupid title that makes no sense. There. I'm done with that. Now on to the actual film.

"Hellraiser" was the feature directorial debut of Clive Barker, who hasn't done nearly as much as you'd think in the 30 plus years he's been around show business, but is still a pretty well known name. Why he's only directed two other movies, I'm not sure, as he's certainly not untalented at it. And while I wouldn't necessarily call "Hellraiser" a great film, it's easy to imagine it being the debut of someone who went on to do great things. Kind of like David Fincher and "Alien 3." Although I do like "Alien 3" more than "Hellraiser," to be sure.

That's not a slam on "Hellraiser," by the way. I'm just a hopeless "Alien" fanboy.

"Hellraiser" is about a very nasty man, Frank (Sean Chapman), who opens a puzzle box he bought from an Asian merchant, which ends up releasing demons from Hell. These demons imprison him in their sadomasochistic dimension, after ripping him to pieces and all that good stuff you'd imagine to happen in Hell. How he found out about the box in the first place and why the crap he opened it is left a little vague, but whatever. The important thing is that evidently, part of him is still "alive" in the floorboards of the house it happened in. Again, that's not explained, but whatever.

A little while later his brother Larry (Andrew Robinson) and Larry's wife Julia (Claire Higgins) happen move into the house Frank died in. This isn't nearly as random as it sounds however, as it belonged to their parents, and Frank had been squatting. Larry has no idea what happened to Frank, though, as he hasn't talked to him for a long time. He just assumes Frank is in jail somewhere.

During the moving process, Larry manages to slice his hand open on a nail to comically horrific effect. Some of his blood manages to drop exactly on the spot where the remnants of Frank's body are laying under the floorboards, which sucks the blood up like a sponge, bringing Frank back to life. Kind of.

He's a work in progress.

When he is discovered up in the attic by Julia, Frank informs her that he needs more blood to become whole again and to escape the demons that had imprisoned him, as they are unaware of his resurrection, but probably won't be for long. Since she has feelings for him, as she'd already had an affair with him once, Julia agrees to help him. She lures poor saps to the house to be murdered so Frank can feast upon them. And it's at that point we notice that she's the only person in this film as despicable as Frank.

Things predictably spin out of control as more and more people get murdered up in the attic, while Larry is dumb enough to never notice that his wife is an evil psychopath. Although in his defense, she always seemed a little cracked, so after she becomes a murderer, little had changed in her outward appearance or mannorisms. But in any case, it's clear that eventually, Larry is probably going to end up on the wrong side of a hammer.

Here is Claire Higgins auditioning for Stanley Kubrick.

Eventually becoming our main character after the film is about halfway over is Kirsty (Ashley Laurence), Larry's daughter from a previous marriage. She is the one to finally uncover everything that's going on, although by the time she does it's clearly too late to do much of anything about it, and all of a sudden she becomes the "last girl in a slasher movie" out of nowhere, running from the bad guys in an effort to escape from a situation she didn't even know she was in.

It should be obvious at this point that "Hellraiser" is a bit unique in that way. While the narrative clearly focuses on Julia for a good majority, the last act suddenly switches to the viewpoint of Kirsty while Julia is rather quickly thrown on the back-burner as she becomes not important at all. It works in the context of the story, but it is strange for a person who seemed like a minor character for most of the film to suddenly be front and center.

But Ashley Laurence is HOT. So please. Front and center away.

I like the idea that the main protagonist for the majority of the movie is someone who is a villain. Julia is despicable, and Claire Higgins plays her with fantastic cold evilness, but we're forced to follow in her footsteps, almost like a ride we're strapped into which takes us through a tunnel of horrors. We don't want it to keep going deeper into the darkness, the same way we don't want Julia and Frank to kill all these poor saps, but "Hellraiser" is making us watch in protest the same way the ride keeps shooting us down that tunnel. And then we finally get some goodness in the character of Kirsty, but even she has to dive into that evil headfirst in order to get out. It really makes for an unnerving experience.

Most will know and remember "Hellraiser" for Pinhead and his Cenobites, however. And true, they are the most striking images from the film, but they don't factor in as much as you'd probably think, appearing at the very beginning but then going away until about the last 15 minutes. Pinhead doesn't really do too much for me though, at least as far as iconic movie villains goes. He's intimidating, and he and his Cenobites are indeed disturbing to look at, but I don't know. He just looks bored most of the time. I know Doug Bradley is a beloved horror icon for his portrayal, and the man has to hold some kind of record for playing a character that many times (the count right now being 9 movies), but some more intensity would have been appreciated.

One thing I will give "Hellraiser" credit for is having some good effects for a tiny budget. The gore in this is pretty well done and hard to look at on occasion, which is the whole point. Even if the close-up shots of hooks going into skin look more like one of those fake body parts on the obstacle course on "Double Dare," it's still hooks going into skin. It's just disturbing. The best effects are on Frank as he slowly becomes more and more human, and his initial raising from the dead is as fantastic as it is disgusting.

I may not be as big of a fan of "Hellraiser" as other horror affectionados are, but I can certainly appreciate it. I think the biggest issue with it that it has 8 sequels. And I can't see this series going anywhere but downhill.

Well, if Stephen King says it's good, you know it's quality.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Hellraiser" is an interesting, somewhat quirky movie that is a bit dated in its effects, but still manages to be eerie, atmospheric, and reasonably intense. It's also notable for having some of the better acting of 80's horror films. Worth a look if you're curious.