Shark Week (2012)

It's time for another trilogy of films! For the next 3 days, I shall watch and talk about 3 similar themed movies. This week, it's SHARK ATTACK WEEK! This is a target rich environment, as shark movies are nearly literally a dime-a-dozen. And what luck! There just happened to be 3 straight to DVD shark movies released lately! Let's do this.

We start off the trilogy by once again taking a trip down to The Asylum, with their low-budget creature feature, "Shark Week." I have to say, it takes a certain amount of both courage and suicidal tendencies to throw in Asylum movies on a fairly regular basis. In a way it's much like Russian Roulette. When the movie is unexpectedly good or amusing in it's cheesiness, it's not unlike hearing that sweet "click" of the hammer falling on empty air in the chamber, and there's that wonderful moment of relief. But when the movie is bad, and man, when The Asylum is bad it's really bad, instead of a "click," all of sudden you're Christopher Walken and your brains are decorating both the wall and Robert DeNiro's face.

But wait? Would that mean I'd be Christopher Walken? Because that would be sweet. Are bad Asylum movies therefore a good thing? I think I'm getting off topic a bit. This movie ate.

"Shark Week" is directed by Christopher Olen Ray, the same man who brought us "2-Headed Shark Attack," a film that while bad at least got women in bikinis right. In fact, I did find "2-Headed Shark Attack" actually decently entertaining especially in retrospect, which is something that I can't say for "Shark Week." And while they were honestly about at the same level of sophistication, at least "2-Headed Shark Attack" had a high body count, funny characters, an attempt at practical effects, a script that made a modicum more sense, and a bunch of ladies who were really, really hot.

"Shark Week" is simply boring. That's the biggest problem with Asylum movies, which is that when they get bad, it's not just that what you're seeing is dumb, it's that it's dull to the point of being an excellent sleep aide. The characters are also next to faceless, with literally no characterization given at all besides the reason why they are here. There are no practical effects whatsoever, and all the sharks are really poorly done CGI that would have been laughed off of a PS1 game. The script is absurdly bad, with the acting being the only thing worse. And there's not a bikini to be found.

All I'm saying is at this point, a sassy little two-piece couldn't hurt your film.

What "Shark Week" is trying to pull off is essentially a combination of "Saw" and "Deep Blue Sea" with a little bit of mafia vendetta thrown in as an excuse to make it all happen. Patrick Bergen plays our villain, a man named Tiberon, who is a drug runner who's son was killed. You can tell he's trying to go for a Don Johnson / Jeff Fahey thing, but he comes off more like that uncle that gets drunk on the holidays and starts in with their political dogma about how "Gov'ment ain't right," much to the discomfort of everyone else in the room.

"Obama's a Muslim Nazi! FEMA camps! THE GAYS!!!"

Joining him is Yancy Butler, who is totally slumming it being in this, as his psycho girlfriend type who I think is supposed to be modeled after Katya from "Die Hard With A Vengeance," but Yancy just looks bored and embarrassed to be there. It's actually pretty sad, although I'd be ashamed too if I was forced to spit out such dreck as "Sharks are gods."

"Offer yourself to the great ruler of time and space, Jabberjaw."

What Tiberon is up to is revenging himself upon the people who he feels are responsible for his son's death. He rounds up the undercover cop who ended up shooting him, the druggie who snitched, the chick who led the investigation, the prosecutor for the investigation, the medic who couldn't save him, and so on and so forth. It's portrayed as this big, intricate mystery as to "why are they all here," and every once in a while there's a scene with a big revelation and shocked faces all around, when I'm guessing the mention of the dead criminal's name would have made it so that all 8 of the victims would have immediately put two and two together, considering they were all right in the middle of the situation.

It's like in "Final Fantasy VIII" when all the characters conveniently forgot they all grew up in the same orphanage. You may say that it never came up, but it's a lot easier to buy the "You are all stupid" explanation as opposed to the "Nobody asked" one. Either way it's dumb.

The whole movie consists of these simpletons walking from place to place going up against bigger and bigger sharks, completely going along with whatever Tiberon wants them to do, because as they convince themselves "They have no choice." Well, perhaps they don't, but there were a few occasions when they straight up unnecessarily put themselves into a dangerous situation for no good reason. Like when they were walking along a beach, saw a shark, and got into the water in an effort to kill it. This gets two of them killed. I just had to guess that they forgot that sharks don't usually remove themselves from the water, and they could have easily just kept walking.

While watching movies like this, I usually try to find maybe one character that I can latch onto, or at least route for to make it a bit more entertaining. For "Shark Week" it was the character of Layla, played by Valerie Garcia. She's the only character given even the slightest bit of personality, as she is playing a tattooed, slightly punk druggie with a sweet haircut that is introduced to us while she is sitting in a bathtub full of water while wearing a dress.

See, at least her introduction is memorable. I don't remember anything about anybody else, but I remember that she was the chick in the bathtub. I was honestly hoping she'd be the one to survive, but unfortunately she ends up getting taken out at the end of the second act. And although she goes out more hardcore than anyone else, after that point I honestly didn't care anymore, because my favorite was gone. But damn it, she took out a shark with a landmine, and that's awesome.

Cupcake, you've got more balls than any of the rest of them. Good on ya.

Look, I hate to bash movies like this. I really do. I love the fact that the people involved obviously love what they do. I want them to keep going. But for the love of criminy, can they please stop overreaching their means by thinking that this horrendous CGI they do is passable? Maybe they can cut back on the monster flicks until their budget warrants it? And if the budget never warrants it, just don't do monster movies. It wouldn't be hard to not do it.

All I'm saying is that when all your budget can afford is cardboard, spraypaint and a Lego set, maybe it's not the right time to try and make "Avatar," you know what I mean?

THE BOTTOM LINE - Even for Asylum fans, "Shark Week" is pretty bad. I was honestly expecting a bit more from the guy who gave us the passable "2-Headed Shark Attack," and no, that's not a joke. An hour and a half would be better served watching that one. At least that one was kind of funny. This is on the low end of The Asylum's scale. Skip It.

ParaNorman (2012)

I pride myself on being pretty good at calling how good a movie is going to be based on the trailers. It doesn't always work out, of course. I'm not always right, but generally I can make a fairly accurate generalization on whether or not I'll like it. When you see as many movies as I do, you do tend to get pretty good at it.

That is, as long as the marketing campaign for a movie isn't deceptive.

You see, Hollywood has a really nasty habit of lying to you. It's true, and I think it's a big problem that is the causation of why so many unique films bomb: They don't know how to market weird stuff.

The problem is that in a trailer, a feature length film has got to be condensed into a fine, chewable paste for the consumption of the lowest common denominator. There can't be any kind of idea that takes more than 5 seconds to convey, be understood, and absorbed by the viewers. That's why trailers are loud, obnoxious, and filled with poo jokes. They also love giving away scares or surprises or even the entire ending of the damn film, all in an effort to say "Look! Look how much stuff happens in this movie! It's got action! It's scary! Look, here's every scare in the entire film!"

The reason they do this, of course, is so that you know the scare is coming, which naturally makes it more effective.

::sigh::

You ever get the feeling it's this guy making all the movie trailers?

Back on point though, this same formula that has been in place ever since they started making previews for movies is a big problem as to why certain films can come off as completely different than what you end up getting. Remember that debacle with "Drive," where that lady actually had the brass to sue the filmmakers because the trailer was too deceptive, and instead of getting a "Fast and The Furious" clone like she wanted, she got an artsy exploitation flick? Well, as stupid as that is, she's got a point. The trailer was insanely deceptive. But at the same time, I have no idea how you'd make a traditional trailer for "Drive" and really convey what you'd be getting.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I could have made a better one, but that's beside the point.

This brings us to "ParaNorman." I was indescribably excited when I first saw the trailer for this film, and saw that it included some of the talent from "Coraline," a movie I considered the best film I saw in 2009. And the trailer for "ParaNorman" started off really well with a creepy atmosphere and gorgeous stop-motion animation, and I was loving it. And then the trailer kept going, and getting worse and worse as it went, because it just looked so...generic. After the awesomeness that was "Coraline," this looked like a huge downgrade. And I was just bummed out by it.

But I finally forced myself to see it, and man, am I glad that I did. In another case where I happily discovered that it was simply a matter of a movie being too good for its trailer, "ParaNorman" ended up surprisingly being one of the best films I've seen this year. Not only was it a gorgeous example of an all but forgotten style of animation, a charming homage to the horror genre, and genuinely funny, but it was reminiscent of kid's movies from back in the day that were objectively good. And while that last one would have made it far worth seeing, it's the other things that just put it over the top to make it something really special.

Have I mentioned it's pretty?

The plot of "ParaNorman" is that Norman is a young boy who can see and talk to ghosts. He sees them all time, and isn't disturbed by it in the least, which is probably why he loves horror films. Of course, due to this he is ostracized at school and is a total outcast. Soon, however, he finds out about a 200 year old curse that he must become the keeper of, to prevent a witch from raising the dead. All of this culminates in a single night of zombies, mobs, and a whole lot of chaos.

I must admit that from the very opening credits, "ParaNorman" had its hooks in me completely. The opening titles are presented in 4:3 ratio, grainy, crappy audio goodness as a parody of grindhouse movies and gory exploitation films begins. As bad acting, cheesy makeup and boom mics in the shot occur in a very funny scene, we pull out to see our main character Norman watching them in his living room with his Grandma. She asks him, "What's happening now, dear?" Norman casually says, "The zombie is eating her brains." She then just as casually replies "Oh. Well that's not very nice."

Then as he goes into the kitchen, and his parents ask him what he's doing. He says he's watching a movie with Grandma. His parents then remind him his Grandma is dead, and that he's got to stop doing that.

Oh. OH! Oh, wow...

What a fantastic and unashamedly dark way to open a film. They don't make kids movies like that anymore. When was the last time a movie marketed towards kids confronted death in such a laid back manner? It was really refreshing to see a movie that was not afraid to go where it is generally taboo to go. Of course, I've never specifically heard if "a corpse licking someone" is considered a social faux-pas, because that happens too, but I'll just assume that it is.

In fact, as the movie goes on, there are more and more shockingly dark things the movie ended up doing which ended up being quite moving and had some great impact. In particular was the scene where the facts of the witch's death hundreds of years ago come to light, and we discover the origin of the curse. There is a reveal in that scene which is genuinely shocking and horribly tragic. I had to pick my jaw out of my lap at that point. Bravo to the film for having guts, because it paid off big time, and really helped hammer home the message of the film, which is "If you hurt those who have hurt you, you end up being just as bad as they are."

Without that great tragedy, that message would have fallen flat, because the pure rage the witch needed to have would have felt disingenuous. And as a result, when the witch is faced with forgiving those who wronged her, the power of that comes through just that much stronger. It's actually quite sad, but also very beautiful.

Also, it's a really intense, creepy, absolutely gorgeous looking scene.

Norman is voiced by one of my favorite young actors, Kodi Smit-McPhee, who is an absolute monster on the screen, and has floored me with his performances twice before, once in "The Road," which he could have gotten an Oscar nomination for, and again in "Let Me In." He reminds me of Max Records a bit, actually, because they are both scary good. And while it was a shame to not see his very expressive face, he along with everyone else in "ParaNorman" did a fantastic job voicing their characters.

Also in the cast were Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Casey Affleck, who added some of the best comedic moments, but I was more excited about Bernard Hill (King Theoden from "Lord of The Rings"), John Goodman, Anna Kendrick and finally Jodelle Ferland, another amazing young actress who was a revelation in Terry Gilliam's superb "Tideland." This is some hardcore talent going on here. And also there was Leslie Mann if you care about that kind of thing.

Comparisons to "Coraline" are inevitable, and although I liked "Coraline" more than "ParaNorman," the amount of pure enjoyment was essentially equal for different reasons. "Coraline" I loved for the story and atmosphere, while "ParaNorman" I loved for the humor and homage to horror films, and they would actually be an amazing double feature with each other, because they both are films that are not afraid to get a bit dark, and threat kids like adults. It's just so wonderful to get a slice of uniqueness in a movie theater when we are all so used to the same recycled crap.

SHOW ME YOUR WAR FACE!!!

I said earlier that "ParaNorman" was a dark film, and yes, it's true. It's rated PG, but it's a hard PG. There are some things in "ParaNorman" that I've heard some people get upset over, and yeah there's some admittedly creepy and surprisingly intense moments to be found, but if I may be so bold, that's exactly why I loved this film. It is a movie made just as much for adults as children, and in the end, that is what will give it staying power. It's the rare film that a parent can enjoy just as much as a kid which should be the definition of a "family film." If it's brain-dead crap like "The Smurfs" or "Mr. Popper's Penguins," and only the kid is enjoying it while the adults just want someone to drill a hole in their head to just make it stop, then it's not a family movie, is it?

But honestly, if your kid can't handle it, maybe you should have done your homework and realized it was a movie about witches and zombies before taking them to see the movie. Read a review of it. Or maybe read the ratings reasons which are made very accessible from numerous sources, including the poster, at the ticket counter, and online. The search would take 4 seconds. In the age of the internet, going into a movie blind like that is so easy to avoid that there's really not much of an excuse.

Meanwhile, this adult is going to sit back and enjoy the hell out of a movie that includes homages to Z-grade Claudio Fragasso schlock, has a "Scooby-Doo" style vibe, actually makes me laugh out loud through the whole thing, and also has a reference to "Manos: The Hands of Fate." That sounds like my kind of movie. And I'm going to enjoy it a lot.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "ParaNorman" is fantastic.  The last movie that I had this kind of reaction to was "The Muppets" last year. Both that film and "ParaNorman" were able to hold me in a constant state of awe, wonder, and perpetual smiles. The story was fun and mysterious, the tone was dark and went to surprisingly dark places, the characters were alive and loveable, the look was gorgeous, and the references just felt like they were tailor-made for me. This is making my Top Ten of 2012, I can almost guarantee. Highly Recommended. Seriously, you need to see it.

Safe House (2012)

It's not that I don't like Denzel Washington, necessarily. I just don't care. I know that he's a national treasure, and that's fine. I can't say the man isn't good at his profession. What gets me is the obsession some people have with him. Nearly every time a Denzel Washington movie comes out and I say "Meh. I'll see it when it's available to rent. I guess. Maybe." there are people who look at me, mouth agape and tell me that "Well, it's going to be awesome. It's Denzel."

Really? That's your criteria for a movie being awesome? Just the fact that he's in it? Are you that much of a slave to his freakishly symmetrical good looks? I know that I'm the last person who should criticize somebody else for fanboying out over an actor. I mean, I'd fly to the north pole if it meant seeing a new Schwarzenegger flick, and even if it turned out to be bad, I'm still watching Arnie and it's all good. So trust me when I say I understand.

But really? Denzel? I honestly find him fairly dull to watch, mostly because to me I can never look at him and not see a guy acting his ass off. He's never seemed naturalistic to me, because he's always got this intense, concentrated look on his face like he's always thinking "Yes. YES. I'm going to act the HELL out of this role! Now where's my next line where I half-whisper very threateningly, look up towards the camera with my head down, shake my head and pout my lips?"

You know the expression I mean. This one. Yeah, that's the one.

I mean, sure, if one were to compare Arnold and Denzel, objectively it's no contest: Denzel is the better "actor." But in terms of action films, Arnold is FAR more entertaining and charismatic. For that reason, when I see yet another Denzel action flick, I just sit back and think "Why, dude? It's just not in your wheelhouse. You are an "actor." Not an action hero."

For that reason I wasn't exactly overjoyed about the prospect of seeing "Safe House." Like I said, Denzel is a good actor but I just can't buy him as a bad-ass action star. Never have, never will, and honestly, I'm kind of tired of him. At least in this movie he's essentially a bad guy instead of just another "mad dad with a gun." Also, when he's acting across from Ryan Reynolds, another actor I'm not overly fond of, you can't blame me for being a tad apprehensive.

After seeing "Safe House," I can actually say that I did enjoy myself somewhat. It was a decently entertaining film that held my interest, and in a rare change of pace for an espionage/government thriller film, the plot was also not horribly difficult to follow. I guess after something like "The Bourne Legacy" however, most anything would be easy to digest in comparison. I guess at this point I just go into these films expecting to not have the faintest notion what in the blue hell anyone is talking about.

I like to imagine that Denzel is simply making him pay for "The Green Lantern."

The plot is that Ryan Reynolds is a government agent who runs a safe house in South Africa. Denzel is a notorious traitor who used to work for the CIA before he sold a bunch of secrets to the enemy. Through reasons of having no other choice, Denzel turns himself in to the American embassy in South Africa. Once in custody, he is taken to the safe house that Reynolds is running by Robert Patrick in a cameo that was nice to see. Unfortunately for him, however, he's not in the movie long because after the arrival at the safe house, the people who were after Denzel earlier attack, forcing Reynolds to escape with him and try to make it to safety.

Despite the fact that the bad guys are kind of anonymous ethnic types without much identity, "Safe House" does manage to keep the action both exciting and fairly constant. Once it hits the ground running it really doesn't let up much until the end, so even if sometimes you're not quite sure who it is that's chasing our hero, it's still manages to engross the viewer in what's going on. Cars go really fast, guns are fired, Bourne-fu happens, it's a pretty fun time.

Where it started to lose me a bit was whenever there was exposition going on, especially from Denzel. And it wasn't what he was saying, but more the way he was saying it that was the problem for me. Now, this is another issue I have with him: he mumbles. Not all the time, but sometimes when he's going for intensity, he gets really quiet, but in doing so doesn't enunciate clearly. There were entire scenes that I had to rewind and throw the subtitles on for because it was clearly important stuff to know, like why he betrayed his country in the first place, but I had no earthly idea what he was saying.

I'm going to go Bill Maher here and issue a New Rule: Never write a scene devoted entirely to exposition in which the characters talking aren't allow to speak above the decimal volume of a mouse fart.

"It doesn't matter what you say when you look like this."

But in the end, I must fess up to having a decently good time with "Safe House." Even though the ending got a bit confusing because since this is a government espionage movie, there's got to be someone on the inside who's gone bad for poorly defined reasons. And yeah, it's stupid when you find out who the traitor is, and no it doesn't make much sense, and yes the final ending is actually pretty lame. But that's only the last 15 minutes of an otherwise decently solid 2 hour block of time.

THE BOTTOM LINE - While "Safe House" didn't exactly rock my world, it was better than I was anticipating. I would probably rather watch "Green Zone" or "Body of Lies" again before watching this, but it ended up being a fairly decent thriller. But I'm still not a big fan of Denzel or Ryan Reynolds. Recommended if you've got nothing better to do.

Piranha DD (2011)

What? Don't look at me like that. So it's "Piranha DD." Like I'm not going to watch this movie. And yeah, I know what this looks like and yes, you are correct, it is precisely what it looks like, but you can all take your little high horses and judgements elsewhere, good sirs and madams. Go ahead and sup upon your tea and crumpets and revel in your monocle-popping affrontedness, whilst I entertain myself with copious amounts of blood, naked women, and David Hasselhoff. Then we'll see who has the last laugh.

Obviously the term "guilty pleasure" has a strong probability of showing up multiple times during this entry, which in all honesty is strange for me considering that I really disliked the remake of "Piranha" from 2010. In fact, the word "dislike" isn't quite there. Let me reach a bit further. I "loathed" that film. Yeah, that's better.

The thing about "Piranha" 2010 was that there was not a single likable character in the entire movie. I'm serious, with the exception of Elizabeth Shue and Ving Rhames, there wasn't a single person in that film I didn't want to see die horribly, and I was actively hoping that at some point the government would just drop an A-bomb on the whole situation and get rid of every single soul-reapingly unfunny douchbag that made up the people on the screen in one fell swoop.

Watching "Piranha" 2010 is like being stuck in a car with a dozen of the loudest, drunkest, most homophobic, popped-coller, horndog fratboys you could imagine for an hour and a half while a "Girls Gone Wild: Spring Break" video plays on the TV with your eyes being propped open like "A Clockwork Orange." And then during the last half hour of the trip somebody starts smearing raspberry jam in your eyeballs until the ride is over.

Oh god. It IS like that.

However, a weird thing happens with "Piranha DD." While in some ways it is inconceivably more juvenile than its predecessor, a concept I'm still trying to wrap my head around, it is at the same time a far more enjoyable and satisfying experience. Most of this is because there is far less douchbaggery afoot. And while I can't say that I "liked" the characters, I didn't hate them. That is to say I didn't want to swear a blood oath against them. That's a big step up, I'll tell you.

Essentially the plot is unchanged from before. A bunch of piranha emerge in the middle of a populated community (in this case a water park), killing off a random cameo in the opening scene (in this case Gary Busey) before staying pretty much out of the limelight until the third act of the film, where everything gets crazy and lots of people die. Along the way there's a lot of nudity, and Christopher Lloyd shows up as a crazy marine biologist who drops a lot of exposition. That's really all the setup you need. That and dudes with abs.

One thing this film had the other didn't, however, was David Hasselhoff. And man, is he a delight. He shows up playing himself as a celebrity lifeguard at the opening of the ill-fated water park. In a much appreciated but possibly bit-too-realistic acting job, he's playing it like it's the bottom of the barrel, way beneath him, how-did-it-come-to-this place for washed up actors to die. And yeah, he's playing a caricature of himself, but you can tell he's just having so much fun with it that it's really infectious. And The Hoff ends up unsurprisingly running away with every scene he's in.

Some of the funniest parts of the film, and it's honestly a decently funny movie, involved The Hoff looking at the situation in a very fourth-wall breaking but shockingly insightful manner. Probably my favorite line of the film was a moment when, during a scene with the piranha eating dozens of people in the pool, a women runs up to Hasselhoff sitting in his life guard chair and pleads for him to help them. He replies that he's not a real lifeguard. Then when she pleads again, he points out with a snark:

"Once these idiots get out of the water, it's not as if the fish are following them home."

That is brilliant.

In addition to Hasselhoff, there are several scenes with him and a little redhead kid, and they play off of each other magnificently. There is a scene in particular where The Hoff can't believe this 11 year old kid has never heard of him, and tries his best to maintain his dignity. The back and forth between them got some of the biggest laughs in the movie out of me, including their first meeting, where the boy is trying to get a band-aid, but the most Hasselhoff is willing to do is give him an autograph. It's hysterical.

Among the other names of note, Christopher Lloyd as always was entertaining, as was Ving Rhames, who I had no idea was in this film considering that I thought he died in the first movie. I'm not complaining about it, of course, because he was awesome, but it was confusing when he showed up in a wheelchair. "Piranha DD" also makes history with the only time the phrase "Bring me my legs" has ever been badass. Of course, if there was one guy who could do it, it's Ving Rhames. It also helps the badassery when Ving Rhames has shotguns attached to his prosthetic legs.

It's like "Planet Terror" but with water slides.

Obviously this film is over-the-top and intended to be taken lightly. But one thing that was odd was how serious the movie takes itself at times. There are moments of slow motion acts of heroism with dramatic music swelling as if it were a scene out of "Platoon." All that's left is for Elijah Wood to scream "Nooooooo!!!" I mean, it gets pretty dense there in a few moments, as if we were watching something by Edward Zwick or Ridley Scott.

I remind you, this film is called "Piranha DD."

So yeah, that is I'm sure meant to go along with the humor involved, which it has in spades. I think any movie that features the line "Josh cut off his penis because something came out of my vagina" is undoubtedly going for laughs. (By the way, yes that happens, yes it's messed up, and yes, this is kind of a violent film if you couldn't tell.)

Personally I'd try to kill the fish instead of chopping off my Johnson. But that's just me.

The biggest problem with the movie is that there is nearly no payoff. Now, for all the bad things I said about "Piranha" 2010, the carnage and mayhem at the end of that movie is admittedly impressively intense. It's also bloody as hell. "Piranha DD" has maybe a quarter of the body count as the first one, and it's nowhere near as impressive. There's no faces being torn off by boat engines in this movie, although some may call that an improvement.

I'm not saying that "Piranha DD" isn't gory or ultra violent, because it is. In fact it's comically violent. However, if you were a fan of the first film, or at least were a fan of the gore in the first film, "Piranha DD" is going to be a letdown in that department. So if that's the only reason you're seeing this movie, you may be disappointed.

On the other hand, at the end of the movie David Hasselhoff sings a song called "Fishhunter." One can't really complain about that.

One please.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Piranha DD" really comes across like if the Asylum had a budget more than a couple hundred thousand. They both have the same sense of humor, and you can tell that everyone involved is having an absolute blast. I greatly prefer this over the original, and despite my skepticism, I really enjoyed myself. And hey, if all you want is 80 minutes of boobs and gore, you could do far worse, because that's all there is to it. But it does it well. Recommended.

Universal Soldier (1992)

There is something to be said for the pure entertainment factor of the over-the-top action movie, particularly of the 80's/early 90's persuasion. There's just something about how awesome something can be when it's portrayed in the flippant, irrelevant manner that is the mainstay of those kinds of movies. Whenever you can get a smirk and a one-liner from your hero, it's a good time, provided that the source material and acting is at least worth the cocaine-saturated paper it was printed on.

And it doesn't take much. Just make sure the good guy is a badass and the villain is scary. And if possible, it helps if the comic relief sidekick and love interest story is kept to a minimum, if not cut out all together. And for the love of all that is holy, whatever you do, don't have a sassy kid in the film. That is a death sentence. But as long as the rest of it is at least passable, it's going to be a fun time.

That brings me to "Universal Soldier," a film from 1992 that sadly passed me by back in the day. Although I really like Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren, I somehow never got to watching this action staple from the early 90's. And looking back, it's a shame because I missed out on some great cheesiness starring two very underrated action titans.

You know, normally I'd be ticked over being shot by a guy named "Dolph," but for some reason, I'm okay with this.

The idea of "Universal Soldier" is that back in the Vietnam war, two American soliders, Van Damme and Lundgren, ended up killing each other after Lundgren snapped and went all "Platoon" on a village of civilians. This introductory scene, while looking absurdly like a set, is actually quite effective and did a lot to really get me invested in the characters, because where they were mentally at that moment is where they are mentally throughout the rest of the film, so it's almost like this opening scene is taking place throughout the entire film.

After their bodies are recovered, there is a lot that isn't explained, but we are told just enough to know that they were selected to become part of an experimental program which took the corpses of dead soldiers and reanimates them in order to make what is essentially a brainless drone without morals who is capable only of following orders. How they possess the technology to do this is left a mystery, as is the wisdom of creating a soldier incapable of making decisions on their own, but that really doesn't take away from the entertainment value of the film.

There is also something to be said about the soldiers being Vietnam veterans, and the correlation between mindlessly following orders being the preferred mindset, particularly in that conflict which saw a lot of questionable things happen. I don't think it's a coincidence that they chose that war to be the origin of these characters. The whole film could really be seen as a big anti-Vietnam protest. Only made in 1992.

After Vietnam the film flash-forwards to "Present Day" (whenever that is), where Van Damme, playing Luc, or as he is otherwise known GR-44, gets his circuits crossed as his memories begin flooding back to him when during a mission, Lundgren, or Scott aka GR-13, begins taking people out in a similar manner that he did back when they killed each other. This finally comes to a boiling point during an incident with a reporter played by Ally Walker, when Luc absconds with the only slightly irritating female co-star (every movie back then had to have one of those), and is pursued across the country by Scott and the rest of the soldiers.

So at its core, "Universal Soldier" is a chase film, but it's a good one. This isn't like "Terminator 3" or anything. This time the chasing and tension and action is actually pretty entertaining. And a lot of the credit in regards to that has to be given to Van Damme, who is, as I keep telling everyone, a very good actor when given something to chew on. As Luc, he plays it very low key and is essentially a blank slate, since he has nearly no free will of his own. So it's a bit unnerving watching a guy go through all this excitement and barely change the expression on his face. One could make fun of a guy like Van Damme having no expressions on his face, but believe me when I say he does it well.

For Luc, this is a reaction. No seriously, this is the equivalent of steam shooting out his ears.

As the film goes on, however, both Van Damme and Lundgren become more and more expressive as their minds start coming back to them from the haze of simply doing what they're told, but like I mentioned earlier, they are mentally unchanged from their state at the time of their death, which is a cool little thing. Lundgren wants to kill everyone he considers a "traitor" and make a necklace with their ears (nice!), and all Van Damme wants is to go home. But despite this one-track mind they've got going on, it really does add to their characterization.

There is one final thing I'd like to bring up, as long as we're on the subject of "good actors." I'll come right out and say it: Dolph Lundgren is amazing. Had I seen this movie back in the day I would have been a fan of his far longer than I have been already. His character of Scott is freaking crazy scary, and is one of the best examples of scene chewing over-the-top 90's villainy that I've seen, right up there with Travolta's Vic Deakins and Cage's Castor Troy. They really don't make them like that anymore. The difference between them and Lundgren though, is that Dolph is physically FAR more intimidating, and the man looks like he could use you for dental floss.

Also, despite the fact that I've not seen him do an American accent since, Dolph could have fooled me. The man's accent is pretty solid, especially compared to Van Damme who didn't even try. Although that's probably for the best. After all, part of the Van Damme experience is hearing lines like "Aye jus wan ta gah hum." It's like syrup on my pancakes.

This all culminates in an hysterical exchange between Van Damme and Ally Walker where she says:

"I figured you had to be French or something because of your accent."

  "Wott ak-CENT?"

That's funny.

Aside from that, there's really not much more to "Universal Soldier." It's a well made, exciting example of how they did action back in the early 90's and late 80's. You're going to get a lot of shooting, a lot of diving through windows (and walls), car explosions, poofy hair, moments of tremendous violence without being overly graphic about it, and a smattering of zaniness thrown in, plus a one-liner or two. There's nothing too complicated about it.

THE BOTTOM LINE - If you're in the mood for some nostalgic action from back in the day, you could do far worse than "Universal Soldier." While it may not be as instantly memorable as "Predator" or "Demolition Man" or "Die Hard," it certainly belongs among the best the era had to offer. They don't make 'em like this anymore. Recommended.

Cold Storage (2009)

"Cold Storage" is a movie about a mentally dull hillbilly who comes across a woman killed in a car wreck and falls in love. So he takes her home and makes her his wife. Doesn't that sound just lovely?

I'll be honest, the only reason I watched this film was because of how twisted the premise was. I mean, everyone needs some good old corpse lovin' every once in a while, right? And although the concept is roughly about as twisted as one could expect, much of the follow through of the film itself is simply not committed enough to really make it as powerful as it could have been. It's disturbing, yes, but it lacks the impact that a more exploitative film could have had. What "Cold Storage" needed was to go all out crazy instead of being simply weird and a bit gross.

The glue that held the movie together was Clive, the main (protagonist?) character who finds the body, who he names Rosalee. He's played by Nick Searcy, and plays him in a way that it's difficult to really look at him like he's a monster. Ok, it's actually quite easy to do so, but the guy really doesn't know any better. In fact there were several points during the film that I wasn't quite sure whether or not Clive was even aware of the concept of the woman being dead. However, this is inconsistent. He talks to her like normal, makes her food, and gives her a ride into town at one point to show her the sights. On the other hand he realizes that she smells really bad, takes measures to make sure nobody else ever sees her, and at the end tries to "make another" Rosalee by trying to kill another woman.

It's like "Deliverance" if it was also "Nekromantik" and "While You Were Sleeping."

For that reason it's a little confusing as to Clive's state of mind. Is he a sick necrophiliac, a simpleton who doesn't understand the concept of death, or both? It would have been nice and more disturbing for "Cold Storage" to stick with one of those choices instead of trying to have it both ways. In fact it would have been far more disturbing and sad if he really was just a simpleton trying to find a companion to love, which is pretty much a hopeless battle. And if this hopelessness and loneliness had led to this depravity, it could have had a strong message about how much being alone and unable to find love can torment a person and drive them to do these hideous things.

Most of the first half of the film is made up of the simpleton version of Clive, as he tries to make everything perfect for his new bride, or as he calls her, his gift from God. Meanwhile, the girl's sister and boyfriend are out trying to find her, as she has gone missing. As the movie heads into the back half it starts becoming more and more horror based, as Clive starts getting desperate to hide her from people, and the search begins to close in on him. That's when he starts getting violent and stuff, which really puts a damper on the innocent qualities he was exhibiting earlier, and by the end he's a full-blown slasher movie villain. I just think a bit more tragedy would have made "Cold Storage" a bit more memorable.

I do have to commend Nick Searcy's performance, however, because it was very good. The moments where he's trying to be a good "husband" come across as disturbingly genuine, and as twisted as it is, you feel really sorry for the guy.

That is, until he starts bashing people in the head with a club.

So in the end, there isn't too much to recommend "Cold Storage" unless the concept of the twisted plot sounds interesting to you. Don't worry, no judgement here. Hell, it got ME to watch it. Apart from that, the only other things of note in the film is one particularly disturbing moment, and yes it's disturbing even in the context of a movie where a dude has sex with a corpse. All I'll say is that if you have any kind of phobia involving teeth, I'd possibly look elsewhere. No gory details, but there's a scene that involves teeth and a straight razor. I've said too much already, haven't I?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go vomit.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Cold Storage" is a well acted pseudo-horror film that really isn't worth watching apart from the gross concept and coining of the term "blow-up-erizing" regarding calling someone's phone a lot. Oddly enough, this is a film that could have benefited a bit from being a bit grosser. Then it would have at least been more memorable. Skip it unless you're curious.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

"Shoot 'Em Up" has been recommended to me for a few years now that I think about it, but for some reason I never got around to watching it, though I recall renting it once. Perhaps I just wasn't ready for the insanity I knew was headed my way because you really do have to be in a particular mood to watch something that is purely crazy for the sake of being crazy.

And yeah, "Shoot 'Em Up" certainly fits that bill. It's crazy. It's nuts. It's insane. It's so over the top that it would be most accurate to classify it as a comedy rather than an action movie. Of course, now that I think about it some action movies are two steps from comedy anyways. Look at "Commando," "Die Hard with A Vengeance" or "Machete" and tell me you're not supposed to laugh. I suppose that's kind of the point, and to be sure it's a lot of fun to watch a crazy action movie, which is certainly what "Shoot 'Em Up" is trying to be.

But you know what? After seeing it, when all is said and done, I'd rather watch "Crank" or "Escape From LA" or some other crazy action flick over "Shoot 'Em Up." I mean, yeah it was nuts, and yeah it had an absurd amount of action and a raging sense of humor about it, but I think it fell flat for two different reasons, and the second one I surprise even myself by saying.

First, I do not care much for Clive Owen. I find him uncharismatic and dull. He's what would happen if Daniel Craig was homeless for a couple months and somehow had the small amount of personality he had sucked out with a straw. He's just not charismatic at all, and he delivers his lines with all the gusto of a sack of onions. And this guy is supposed to be an action hero? Where's the panache? Where's the style? Where's the humor? Where's the badassery?

I just can't get behind a hero who looks like Ben Stiller.

The thing is that he seems dreadfully miscast. He just doesn't look like a tough guy. He doesn't look like someone who could jump through a plate glass window and put bullets between the eyes of 5 guys before he hit the ground. I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it. He looks like the catcher for a minor league baseball team, not a trained killer.

That and he can't pull off a one-liner to save his life.

There's also these really weird character traits they give Clive Owen, one where he gets really angry about random stuff and is always starting sentences with "You know what I hate?" Usually that means he's about to shoot somebody. Because you know, he's the good guy. There's also this running gag with him eating carrots. I don't get it. They do give him a one liner after he kills a guy with one, jamming it through the back of his throat and then saying "Eat your vegetables," but it comes off about as good as you'd expect it to. Schwarzenegger this guy ain't.

Ummm...symbolism?

The other thing that was kind of a weird thing to have a problem with was the fact that the story is at best nonexistent. Within the first minute and a half, Clive Owen is running through a warehouse shooting a bunch of guys he doesn't know. They don't know him, either. He was just there in the middle of something, so they send in like 50 guys out of nowhere to kill him. And while I would usually applaud an action movie for getting started really quick it's really hard to care about what's going on when you have absolutely no frame of reference.

In fact, despite the movie barely clocking in at 85 minutes, we are not given context to anything plot-related until nearly an hour into the film. Imagine if in "Die Hard" you didn't know there was a robbery going down until the beginning of the third act. It would have just been a guy without shoes running around an office building shooting people. That would have sucked.

There have been movies that have gotten off to a really fast start and been good, but they were either sequels, where you know these people already, like "The Expendables 2," or they gave you context really quick, like "Crank." In fact, let's take "Crank" as an example. That movie too was ridiculous action packed comedic madness, but in the first minute of the film, you know Jason Statham's character's name, what he does, who he pissed off, and what his predicament was. From that point on, it's action that doesn't stop, just like "Shoot 'Em Up," but we actually care because of trivial things like knowing what the hell is going on.

Shockingly, this has more context.

"Shoot 'Em Up" begins with Clive Owen sitting on a bench eating a carrot. A man runs past him trying to kill a pregnant lady, so he chases after them, kills the dude, and then starts shooting everyone else who starts flooding into the building to kill him. That's it. That's your setup. And you don't know anything about anything until the movie is almost over.

I can't believe I'm saying this, because even though it's really over the top and super charged, it really makes the action boring. I was actually bored by "Shoot 'Em Up," simply because I had no context, so I didn't care.

The one good thing about "Shoot 'Em Up" was Paul Giamatti as the hitman trying to kill Clive Owen. He's this really dumpy, unassuming guy with a bad comb-over, but he's probably the thing most people will remember before anything else about the movie. It was particularly funny watching him get more and more frustrated with not being able to take Clive Owen out, including a rather good line where he yells in exasperation, "My god. Do we suck or is this guy just that good?"

Ugh. I need an adult after just looking at that expression.

Also, Stephen McHattie shows up in a upper-echelon baddy role, but I'm not even sure where he fit into the whole picture since by that point, I really didn't care. Oh well. It was still nice to see him.

You know, I enjoy brain-dead action. I really do. But there's got to be some kind of reason for the explosions and bullets and blood splatter. Otherwise how am I supposed to care? At some level, I have to be somewhat invested so that I'll at least like the character. Or at least know what they're doing. Because without context or plot or reason, all you have is explosions. And that's why we have Michael Bay. And screw that.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I can see someone really enjoying "Shoot 'Em Up," but it wasn't for me. I just don't like Clive Owen, and I found it more like an experiment in showing purely action with no plot than an enjoyable movie watching experience. Maybe fans of gratuitous over the top silliness will like it, but really, there's plenty of movies that do it FAR better, like "Crank." If you're curious watch it, but if you skip this, you're not missing much.