The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Well, this is it. This is the big one, Elizabeth. In a year containing new entries for the Batman, Bond and "Alien" franchises, all things I'm a huge fan of, there was still no film I was more looking forward to in 2012 than Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth for the first part of "The Hobbit." And while the fact that the movies proceeding it were freaking amazing was a definite contributor in most people's level of excitement, for myself it was a far more personal thing to see this book brought to the big screen.

I read "The Lord of The Rings" when I was in 5th grade. I can't imagine that I fully comprehended everything in it at that point, but I still remember sitting at my desk waiting for science class to begin with "The Fellowship of The Ring" in my hands, trying to keep track of the lineage of Elven Kings before deciding I didn't care and it probably didn't matter too much. I remember Boromir died in study hall. That was a bummer. Even before Sean Bean was cast in the role I liked him.

Of course before you read "The Lord of The Rings," there's another book that came before it that you should read first. And like any chronologically inclined individual, I read "The Hobbit" before tackling the Big Three, and it become my favorite book. I can't remember how many times I read it, but I read it a lot. But even more important to me was a film I can say without hyperbole that I've probably seen close to 300 times.

Pictured above - My childhood.

The 1977 Rankin/Bass production of "The Hobbit" was my favorite movie. Hands down, no contest, my favorite movie ever. I had it on BETA, and it's a credit to the hardiness of those old tapes that it held up as well as it did, because any lesser piece of hardware would have melted under the constant running that I subjected it to. I've had cars that have died under less wear and tear. It most have been an every other day thing with me. I would get home from school, have a snack, throw on "The Hobbit," and then proceed with whatever else I was doing. But knowing me my eyes were probably glued to the screen a vast majority of the time.

Looking back I think it's a film that still holds up today, as it is quite good at telling that fantastic story in a very faithful and fast paced way, with some occasionally good animation, fun characters and some very good acting, particularly from the great John Huston as Gandalf. But it was Richard Boone as Smaug who stole the show, creating what is one of the most badass villains in movie history. Just look on Youtube for Bilbo's scene with Smaug. It's one of the best conversations in fantasy film, and Boone's performance still sends chills down my spine.

"Revenge? You?! HA! I am SMAUG!"

Skip ahead some 30 years and Peter Jackson tries his hand at "The Hobbit." This was an unusual case for me, because while I normally hesitate to raise expectations too high in fear that they will not be fulfilled, I wholeheartedly went into "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" with hopes as high as the peak of Erebor itself. I did this under the logical realization that no matter what, there was only a .5% chance that I wasn't going to like this film.

I reasoned that even if it were too drawn out and overly long, as the complaints leaking before its release had implied it was, the worst case scenario is that you're getting more "Lord of The Rings." Therefore it's kind of impossible for it to be bad. Does that make sense? It's like complaining that the chocolate cake buffet has far too much chocolate cake in it.

"THE GREAT GOBLIN DEMANDS CHERRY!!!"

What ended up happening was that the first part of "The Hobbit" was indeed what complainers had made it out to be. It was too long by at least an hour, as it contained more padding than Derek Small's trousers. And if I were making the choice it's clear that the story of "The Hobbit" would have been better served as two films as opposed to another trilogy. The aspects drawn from Tolkien's appendices to extend the run time felt tacked on, dragged down the pace, and felt slightly dull at best. There were 20 minute stretches of runtime and entire characters that could have been cut from this film, which would probably have made it a much better movie.

All that is true. All of those complaints are valid, and I would not argue against anyone who said that they found this film to be plodding, and I would completely understand if they didn't like it. This is without question the weakest of Peter Jackson's adaptations of Tolkien's works, and for all of its technical grandeur spends a lot of time spinning its wheels in the mud.

Oh look. It's the scene where Gandalf plays with his Galadriel action figure.

And all that being said, I still liked it. I mean, come on. It's "The Hobbit." I said there was a .5% chance I wouldn't like it. I wasn't lying. Even with all of its faults, this is still a fantastically fun time which will, I believe, get better once the other films are released to give it context and the resolution it lacks.

While "An Unexpected Journey" doesn't have the epic scope of "Lord of The Rings," being a smaller story without the dire threat of Sauron looming, Peter Jackson has changed nothing about the tone and the feel of discovery and high adventure prevalent throughout. It's actually quite light hearted in contrast, as the dourness of characters like Aragorn, Legolas and Boromir have been relegated to one person now: Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the dwarves.

"I shall carry the buzzkill for us all."

I must admit to not being entirely on board with the character design of Thorin, as I think he looks too young and clean, but Richard Armitage does aptly portray him with the wounded pride and prickly nature that made him such a memorable character in the book. Although I wouldn't mind seeing his whole "I am completely wrong about nearly everything and I'm a total jerk but refuse to admit it" thing come to more light in the next installments, because that's the other thing about him that's a significant character trait. And we really didn't get that in the first film. Then again, that outright abuse of Bilbo by the dwarves doesn't come till later.

Speaking of Bilbo, I absolutely loved Martin Freeman as our own Mr. Baggins. Not only is he a dead ringer for a young Ian Holm, but he's also charming, funny, naive, and just plain fun to watch. And while some may look at him and see a lot of Elijah Woods' Frodo in the performance, Bilbo is, to me at least, a more interesting character because while Frodo had to be strong mentally to take the ring to Mordor, it was the actions of those around him that carried him through to his journey's end. In "The Hobbit," it's Bilbo who is the real hero of the story, and ends up saving the dwarves at nearly every turn, even if it is sometimes subtle and unappreciated. In "The Hobbit" it's the reluctant, on the outside least useful member of the party who ends up being the most important, and that's a cool dynamic.

And he makes the sandwiches.

Ian McKellen is of course amazing as Gandalf, and I for one am happy that this entire trilogy will feature Gandalf the Grey as opposed to the more serious Gandalf the White. He's just more fun when he's kind of loopy. The dwarves were also great fun, especially Graham McTavish's badass Dwalin and Ken Scott's wiser Balin, who gives a lot of our exposition. And of course Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner) were memorable as the youngest members of the group. Although seeing dwarves without beards is an odd, odd thing. Particularly when they're described as having the longest beards of the company in the book. Whatever.

The guy who nearly runs away with the entire film, however, is Andy Serkis. I thought his turn as Gollum, particularly in "Return of The King" should have been up for an Oscar, and he once again reminded us in this film why that is. It's safe to say that there is no better motion capture actor today than him. What's amazing is that on top of also being an incredible voice actor, Andy Serkis is a phenomenal dramatic actor as well, something you have to be in order to bring across performances in his characters like he does. And amazingly, Gollum looks even better than he did before, and his performance is even better conveyed.

And he's funnier, too.

Another good thing is that his appearance heralds the end of the lull that occupies the middle of this film. I don't know why it is that Rivendell seems to be the place movies go to become boring, but man that seems consistent. There is what seems to be about a 30 minute stretch of time, after the famous encounter with the trolls, that really pulls the ripcord on the pace. And the biggest reason for that is because that is when the film starts to consistently leave the viewpoint of Bilbo, our hero, and starts filling in extraneous goings on outside the adventure at hand, which is the biggest sticking point of this movie.

This is where most of the film's missteps rear their heads to really throw off the pacing. The inclusion of Azog the Defiler as a main antagonist is fine (even if it's not what went down in the book it still makes sense), but when Radagast the Brown shows up out of the flipping blue to completely throw a wrench into the pace of the narrative is when the film first starts feeling a tad bloated.

You know, not many people can pull off the "Dried Bird Poo On My Face" look. Props.

See, here's the thing. It's true that even though we didn't see it in the book, when Gandalf left the party for a time, he was down south with Radagast fighting a dude called The Necromancer. And yes, it's true that it did turn out to be Sauron. And that's important to "Lord of The Rings." Kind of. Well, not really since we're simply told at the beginning of those films that Sauron "is returned" and that's the extent of it with nary a mention of The Necromancer to be found. But it's not really important to the story at hand in this film, is it? I can tell you that the quest for Erebor is not affected by The Necromancer in any appreciable way besides drawing Gandalf away from the party for a good chunk of the book.

And again, it's leaving the viewpoint of our hero, making him seem less important even though this is a story about him. I mean, yeah it's true that technically everything we're seeing is legit cannon, but in the end, shouldn't it be more about making a cohesive narrative rather than cramming in as much as possible and damn the consequences? Can we assume there was a reason it wasn't in the book to begin with, since the whole book is told from Biblo's perspective?

I just don't like Radagast. I think that's what it boils down to. I don't like the character, I don't like Sylvester McCoy's portrayal of him, and I don't like the fact that all his actions self-fulfill their own importance. And finally I don't like the fact that he tacks on twenty minutes to a movie that was already in dire need of some trimming around the midsection.

"Ladies..."

Why on Middle Earth is this film nearly 3 hours long? The decision to split it into 3 films I get. While that may be excessive, it's doable. But take all the superfluous stuff with Radagast and Azog and talks about The Necromancer out and you've probably cleared out nearly forty minutes of stuff we didn't need to see. And guess what? That would put "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" a tad over 2 hours long. Gosh. That sounds like a reasonable run time right there. And you've covered the same amount of story. And it'd be a faster paced film with a far more cohesive narrative.

You know what it is like? It's like the theatrical cut of this film is actually the extended 3.5 hour cut that would come with 4 DVDs and a snazzy collectors box. This is like the version of the film that me and the rest of the nerds would go out and buy the day it came out and watch endlessly while discussing how it was awesome because it fleshed out the story so much more, but we totally understood why it didn't make the final cut. I shudder to think what scenes were deleted from "An Unexpected Journey," because it feels like I've already seen all of them. I don't know if I'd actually want to watch the extended cut.

No, that's a lie. I'd buy it. I'd buy it hard.

One final thing I need to address is the issue of 48 frames per second. The first time I saw this film, I saw in it standard 24 fps. It was fine. It looked like a "Lord of The Rings" movie. The second time I saw the 3D HFR version that apparently is going to reinvent film and is going to be the new standard henceforth. My impression?

Stop. They need to stop that right the hell now. It looked terrible, and I can't see it taking off. People will, and rightly should, hate this 48 fps crap, and Peter Jackson and everyone else is insane if they think it makes their movie look better. IN. SANE.

I should put in a caveat that the things in front of the camera that were real looked terrible. The things that weren't real looked fantastic. The 3D in particular was actually the best I've ever seen, and I give that credit almost exclusively to the 48 fps. I still think 3D is a tired gimmick that needs to stop, but still, the 3D was very good. I would use 48 fps strictly for fully animated films. That would be awesome. But movies with real people in front of a camera? No way.

Just imagine this...but have a cardboard cutout tree, a painted background and a wardrobe bought from Halloween USA. That's the effect the 48 fps goes for.

The problem is that 48 fps makes "An Unexpected Journey" look like the most lavish, big budget made for TV movie ever produced. It looks cheap. It doesn't look like a film. It looks like the SciFi Channel finally knocked one out of the park. I can't describe to you in how many ways that is distracting. And it's not like you won't suffer for long. This movie is almost 3 hours. And that's 3 hours of feeling like you just spent $14 to watch a TV movie. Had my buddy I was seeing it with not been seeing it for the first time, I would have politely asked for a refund and bought a cheaper ticket to another showing of the superior 24 fps version. Yeah, it's that bad, and there's no way in Mordor I'm watching the other two films, or any other movie in 48 fps. Hell no. I refuse to support that.

For all its flaws, "An Unexpected Journey" was still a fun time. It was fated to be the weakest link being the first part of a trilogy, as is usually the case when a trilogy is always planned from the start, but it still performed admirably enough. In that way it's quite easy to compare it to "Fellowship of The Ring," even though the later is unquestionably the better movie. But much like "Fellowship," if there was one thing this movie did well it was to set up what is to come later. And based on what is ahead in the story, "The Desolation of Smaug" is going to kick so much ass that we'll have to import it from other countries.

Looks like this trilogy is staying at the top of my "Most Anticipated" list for 2013 and 2014.

"Ladies..."

THE BOTTOM LINE - Despite all its problems, and it had its fair share, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was still a fun, nostalgic adventure that overstepped its bounds a bit in terms of scale. But it was still fun, particularly the last hour which was thrilling as hell. Yeah, it starts off a little slow, and the middle has its speedbumps, but once Gollum shows up that movie is ON till the credits roll. I am reasonably pleased with it and am beyond excited for what's to come. Smaug equals happy Pat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh wait. No, it isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brave (2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh. Right. Bloody, violent, power struggles.

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

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

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

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

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

And ohmygodDDDDD'AAAAAAAWWWWWOVERLOAD!!!!

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

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

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

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

Rites of Spring (2012)

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

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

I hate being lied to. This movie sucked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really.

REALLY!?

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

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

Pictured above - Subtlety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DUN DUN DUN!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Raid: Redemption (2012)

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

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

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

Lots and lots of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And scenes like this. Oh my goodness...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savages (2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my god that hair. Glorious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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