30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 30

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "The Best Movie I saw Last Year".  And it is also the last day of this series of prompted blogs, and my 60th entry on Blogspot overall.  Which means I'll go back to not writing a blog everyday, just as my blog is about to hit 1,000 views, and kill my momentum hardcore.  Anyway... Last year was loaded down with great movies, "True Grit", "The Town", and "Inception" were all incredibly entertaining even though the titles were lackluster in the extreme, and did nothing to describe what any of them were about, not so with my pick for the best movie of 2010: "Scott Pilgrim Versus the World".

Epic in an ironic sense I guess.

             I identify with the central protagonist of this film a criminal amount.  If you replace bass with Dungeons and Dragons you have me and social circle pretty much figured out.  I am by all accounts more accomplished academically, and less lecherous, but regardless Scott is very much me.

             Hey wanna hear a strange interpretation of this movie?  As Scott fights each of the ex-boyfriends to win over Ramona, this is a visual metaphor for what is happening in their relationship.  The first guy was barely a relationship, she was over him immediately; the second 'grew up' to be a movie star, but he is childishly competitive; the next guy looks better, plays better and is banging Scott's Ex better than Scott ever did, but is pretentious, and really evil; four was Ramona experimenting, and Scott mostly beats her because Ramona was never into her, she was into experimenting; Five and Six, I can't really get what was going on there, I think the reason he beat them is that the brother's pulled the 'bro's before ho's' line and got over Ramona, though Ramona still liked having power over two dudes at once; but Seven, G-Man, Gideon, is the best illustration of this.  Wanna know why the fight with G-Man is so poignant?

And it is awesome.  Though after the giant gorilla made of lightning it would have to be.

            The fight with G-Man is the first time Scott is having Sex with Ramona, and he is competing with G-Man to be her best sexual experience... That is why it is a 'sword' fight.  And what makes you better at sex?  Love, self respect, and a confidence boost from past experience with young women who don't know how lame you are in the sack (his Chinese, School Girl, Girlfriend from the beginning of the movie, and the part where the Asian girl fights Ramona, yeah that is Scott feeling insecure about dumping the awesome Chinese girl who was so crazy about him for Ramona who is cool but not nearly as into him).  So yeah, That is the gratuitous sex scene in the movie, a sword fight.  That is why there is no fight with Nega-Scott at the end, because he has made piece with his own insecurities and is ready to grow up and have a real relationship.

Yes, this is a meat-sword fight.  Taking place on a pyramid that in this metaphor is a Clitoris.  I'm probably mentally ill for making this comparison, but you know what?  I occasionally like to make controversial observations.

            And while this movie is one long sex metaphor with video games, indie music, and snarky lines throughout, it is also littered with numerous characters that are actually interesting and have history.  The timing, look, and feel of the conversations paints all of them in a good light, even the villains are good villains.

Bad guys who are enjoyable to hate.

             A brief aside on this movie.  It is based on a comic book.  And while the comic has its own good parts and allows for more breathing room for all of the very good characters and back story, fact is a comic book about an indie music scene is a poor choice of medium, and overall I did not like and did not bother to finish the comic.  So take that into you mind.  I saw this movie twice in theaters, was going to go a third time, and have seen it twice on DVD, but I can't finish reading a 7 volume graphic novel series, and I'm a fan of graphic novels.  So if you like the comic, good for you, but by no means deny yourself watching this movie because you consider it automatically a lesser incarnation, it has lots of things going for it that trump the comic.

Art style is bitching though.

             Coming in less than a month I hope to start posting everyday for 8 weeks as I travel Europe, hitting day trip in London, then 6 weeks studying abroad in Istanbul, then 10 days in Athens, then a day trip in Paris before heading back home, and starting my studies again this fall entering into the Urban and Regional Planning department's graduate school at Florida State University.  Some time when I am 28-30 I will be getting dual masters degree, and hopefully the economy will recover enough that the degree will be worth a damn by then.  Thanks for reading.

I'm going to be hear.

             If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1" button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 29

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie from my Childhood".  And I thought, Why do only one?  Growing up less than wealthy I watched and rewatched the same bootlegged movies dozens of times.  I loved taping movies off of the TV trying not to record the commercials and frequently missing the beat to hit record again, losing 2 minutes of movie in an attempt to not record 4 minutes of commercials.  Now, I have already mentioned "Ghostbusters" as the movie I know all the words to because I had watched it more than 100 times, but I had 4 other movies as a kid that I watched and watched and watched.  What are these movies?  Well, keep reading.

Pretty much this.

             "Aladdin" holds a certain position in my mind as my favorite animated movie growing up, it was a high adventure heroes journey film with lots of personality and great songs.  I actually learned the soundtrack in middle school chorus and with little coaching could pull most of it out of my brain for some of my bellowing attempts at singing.  I also watched the Cartoon show produced by Disney that followed, it stared the entire original voice cast sub-ing only Robin Williams for Dan Castellaneta (the voice of Homer Simpson, and the voice of the Genie in "Return of Jafar").  The cartoon was actually quite good and had a very Dungeons and Dragons in the Middle East vibe to it, with a rouges gallery that did a good job of contrasting the hero and the other cast, though lacked any original music (unlike the "Hercules" cartoon which had lots of original music, but was very weak in story and setting).

And I like singing it.

            "Masters of the Universe".  I swear to god, if Lego would just get its shit together and start selling models based on Nostalgia for old cartoons and movies I want then to produce a "Ghostbuster's" fire house, and a Castle Grey Skull.  I used to play with the toys for "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" that had belonged to my uncle John at my grandmothers house and the universe while cheesy holds a lot of charm for someone who likes a blend of science fiction, super hero, and fantasy to produce a Jack Kirby like over the topness.  This movie is a live action rendition which transports the Masters to 80's Earth, where they meet Monica from "Friends" and Lt. Tom Paris from "Star Trek: Voyager"... I shit you not.  The fight scenes are below standard and the special effects are far below those of industrial light and magic (which is ironic because this movie lifts more influences from "Star Wars" then one might think possible, not to mention how they steal the opening credits from "Superman" without so much as a 'thank you sir').  Strangely, the movie could be sold entirely on the performance of Skeletor, who is so apologetically evil that he even keeps his word, acting authoritarian but logical and frequently with honor (at least when he has the upper hand), it's actually quite fun.

WHERE IS THE REBOOT OF THIS?

             "The Goonies", holy crap it is so goofy fun.  It has escaped criminals, and booby traps, and pirate treasure, with puzzles and team work and lots of kids cursing, and Corey Feldman being a dick.  How can you not like this movie?  If you haven't seen it, it is about of smart mouthed poor kids who go looking for a local legendary pirate's gold in hopes it will keep them all from being evicted and their neighborhood leveled.  Strangely you're introduced to the antagonists first and as they run from the cops each of the kid protagonists is introduced, it's rather clever.

I am fairly certain this all started by naming various forms of masturbation, with the Truffle Shuffle and One Eyed Willy just sparking something in Donner's brain.

             "Monster Squad" is basically "The Goonies" vs the MGM stable of classic movie monsters.  It is like what if "VanHelsing" had been made with a sense of reverence and love of the source material and had a soul instead of being hammered out on a weekend and hoping the leads star power would be enough to sell tickets to rubes.  You want Cheese, holy hell this thing will constipate your mind with the cheese.  I highly recommend this movie, as my brother and I bought the special edition of it on DVD last year and very much enjoyed hearing that Liam Neeson was passed over for the part of Dracula, though I have to say the guy they got new what he was doing.

And yes, there is a "Ghostbusters" reference in the first 5 seconds of the Trailer.  I went through a lot of ghost/monster interest as a kid.  I expect it to wind down sometime around my death in the year 2257.

             So those more or less make up my childhood.  I hope that grants you a measure of insight into my mind.  I just realized that I put about 30 links in this blog.  I need to cut back on those.

            If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1" button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 28

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that has the worst Special Effects".  This is a relative prompter just like the "Makes you Laugh" or "You watch when you are angry" tags I have already covered.  The fact is, if you buy into a story, if you like the characters, the setting, the progression, then even if the effects aren't perfect, you can still accept the limitations of the production, give them a pass, and accept that even the magic of movie making has limits when hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent at a pace that could probably be made to make the world better, rather than filled with crap like this movie.  What Movie?  "Twilight".

Love!  It's totally about love!  No anti-feminist BS here.

            "Twilight" wasn't even the worst movie I saw that year, really it wasn't even in the top five worst movies of that year.  I can't really tell if that is because I saw so many movies that year, or because it was a bad year for movies over all (which I don't accept as "The DarkKnight" was there getting snubbed for best picture).  But here is why I think it had the worst special effects: I honestly can't see where the money that went into this production went.

            I have seen better special effects on episodes of "Smallville" (which you would think a show that has been on the air for 10 years would have a link to a descent video on Youtube showing the Special effects, but it is just a bunch of fan made whiny emo trailer... Much like "Twilight" I suppose), and I fucking hate "Smallville".  There are scenes of Clark Kent getting hit by cars and buses and them exploding around him in rather awesome fashion, makes me weep for the lost potential of that show, but also makes me mad at how pathetic "Twilight" is.  Have seen the piggy back through the forestscene?  It looks like he is bicycle kicking while they lift him with wires up a clear cut path in the woods.  It is fucking pathetic.

            And the Fucking sparkles!  Why does it look SO shitty?  WHY?  It is supposed to be a dramatic reveal in the movie, and it is laughably bad, because it looks like a shitty camera filter.  Though the concept of someone sparkling in the sunlight sounds so stupid on paper I have no idea what else they could have done.  So how about this?  They cut it.  It is a lame effect, and moody shit head vampires have been calling themselves monsters without body glitter since before 1900, the scene adds nothing.  Maybe it works on paper for people who read these shitty, sexless, harlequin romance novels, but it looks like crap on film.  Cut it.

Sparkle!

             Let me say something on matters of scale as well.  I hate, more than any other movie, "The Phantasm".  It is the worst movie I have ever seen, and it looks like the worst movie a person could have ever seen.  Everything about it is bad.  But you know what?  It's barely a movie.  It cost $300,000 dollars to make.  Or slightly less that 1/100th what they produced "Twilight" for.  "Phantasm" is shit, but it was made from shit.  "Twilight" looks like shit, and it was made out of gold.  That is a special type of lazy bullshit.  And you say, "Well what movies with a budget of less than 40 million dollars which have special effects that beat 'Twilight'?"  I can name three that work incredibly well as illustrations on how crappy this movie did.  "Serenity" is a space opera that includes numerous fight scenes, awesome locations, and extreme set pieces, it cost 2 million more dollars to make.  Then there is "District 9" which has amazing make up, CGI and sets that are very dark and grimy, it cost 7 million less dollars to make.  And finally I say "Dogma" which cost 27 million dollars less to make, has an all star cast, and includes scenes of walking on water, and costuming that (while not stunning) are passable, simply because the movie isn't about the effects, its about the dick jokes.

Sparkles belong in Equestria, not vampire movies.

            Now, I'm going to say something to the fans of "Twilight" because the words, "The effects were never key to the story in 'Twilight' either, it is about lo--".  SHUT UP!  SHUT UP!  SHUT the FUCK UP, for one second.  I could write a huge multi-part review of all the things wrong with this garbage, just like I did to that "Harry Potter" movie, not the least of which is the complete lack ofplot and characters.  My point would only be, that if you have a 15 minute scene in which the vampire shows off his super powers to clit tease his mortal girlfriend, then the special effects are a central part of the movie's narrative, it is one of the protagonist's defining traits, and it is a joke.  Fail.

Considering "Twilight" is self insert fan fiction on the part of its creator...

            If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1" button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 27

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that has the best Special Effects".  Here is what everyone will expect a movie enthusiast to say: "Avatar".  And here is what I say to that: "NOPE!".  "Avatar" was a special effects experiment with a terribly simple characters and formulaic story, and over did it on everything else.  If you have amazing special effects, good for you, but special effects are tool used to help progress a story, outlining a story to show off a visual effect is not good movie making.  You want to know what I think is the best special effects?  "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King".

This was the first time a fully CGI character was done convincingly.  This is the process that made "Avatar" possible and it looks better because it is juxtaposed with reality.

            Having effectively built from the first film through the second the third film in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy has everything in motion and presents the largest battles, in the most majestic scenes, with the crowning music of awesome everyone could feel booming through the theater.

            Is there gay subtext in this movie?  I don't care.  Are there too many endings?  No.  Is it better than the book?  I'm going to assume yes, as I grew impatient with Tolkien's writing style a third of the way through book one ("The Hobbit", by contrast, remains one of my favorite books of all time, a list I finally got around to banging out).

Though, making Ian McKellen look like a wizard really only takes a bathrobe and a walking staff.

            "Return of the King" contrary to Kevin Smith's opinion is the trilogy of this generation, showing in so many ways how to correctly tell a sweeping magical story with clear forces of good and evil clashing for the fate of the world, blowing out of the water the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy in its use of basic story telling to make real resonant impact in the audience.  It is gorgeous.

            "Return of the King" advanced movie making technology by leaps at the time.  Having CGI monsters numbering in the thousands on screen and doing so in such a way that made them look real and alive was revolutionary, prior to this movie such effects would have to be done with actual people in costume either cloned or cut out using camera angles, or actually having a few hundred extras (Think "Lawrence of Arabia").  Trolls. Orcs, Ents, Dragons, and Giant Eagles are all present allowing skilled artists to present their work alongside talented actors.  It is dazzling to behold, and that is before the ghost army sweeps in and kills 10,000 evil monsters.  And what is more, there was good practical effects in this movie too, with costumes, props, and sets made in interesting fashion to show very simple illustrations of majesty and beauty that a mythology like "The Lord of the Rings" (practically a religion) sort of demands.

And there were giant elephants.

             Honestly I think I would hail this thing for just one accomplishment that it did so well, that of forced perspective.  Creating sets that turned to accommodate moving cameras and actors who through the whole thing have to orient themselves far to the left of the actor they are speaking to so as to complete the illusion.  It is so well designed and executed that it overshadows the CGI of the movie.

            If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1" button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 26

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that makes me Laugh".  Which I think is sort of a useless prompter.  I watch comedy like drivers watch the road.  I watched a comedy last night, I am currently watching an online comedian make fun of a movie from the 80's, I read comedic novels ("Mogworld") and Blogs ("Remedial Batmanology") and the first thing I did in undergrad upon moving into a dorm that had cable, my first encounter with cable, was to watch "Comedy Central Presents" (Brian Regan, the Lewis Black).  So what is a movie that makes me laugh?  "Office Space".

Lotta white on this poster, but it gets the vibe right.  Nothing going on anywhere, but you are smothered by work.

             There are few things that bother me more than being a person who lives an unremarkable or joyless life, I can stand being joyless if I am successful (sort of like "Citizen Kane") and I can tolerate being poor so long as I am happy (like Richard Mayhew in "Neverwhere"), but "Office Space" illustrates exactly the sort of personal breakdown and rebellion I would experience living a life of cubicled hell that Ron Livingston goes through each day.  I generally dislike most people and being caged in an area having to listen to shit heads give me instruction over and over again is enough to make me beat my own head into a neck stump.

Also, the nameless boss from "No Country for Old Men" is in it.  And pretty much steals the movie.

             The movie follows everyman played by Ron Livingston (who gives a shit what his character's name is, he's playing himself, the poor man's John Cusack, who is in turn the poor man's Robert Downey Junior).  This everyman finally has a break through during therapy that allows him to simply stop caring about his job and start living his life the way he wants, and he gets rewarded for it, he then decides to take it one further and just rob his company a penny at a time and that is when he bites off more than he can chew.  Really it has a lot of the same themes as "Fight Club", but I'm not going to go on and on about that again.  And "Office Space" has Jennifer Aniston playing a girl next door waitress who in short order illustrates all the shit that I have come to associate with the service industry.

            The movie is hilarious, go watch it.

            If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1" button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 25

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that I think should not be remade".  A movie only ever needs to be remade for a small little group of reasons.  One might be that the concept or themes failed to be adequately explored in the original material, that the characters and universe could have supported a deeper exploration of the material (yesterday's suggestion of "Highlander").  Another reason is that the idea was good, but poorly executed, creating a vision that had so much potential but due to poor acting, or poor effects, or just a bad camera the movie is held back by arbitrary and fixable limitations ("Clash of theTitans" versus "Clash of the Titans", which will have to get remade again in a few years because the main actor is so far below adequate).  The last reason is that it is a recognizable mythos that regardless of number of iterations so long as a smart artist is put behind it the characters in question can deliver a new and engaging story ("Batman and Robin" versus "Batman Begins").  But there are times in which movies are good enough, and hold up well enough over time that no remake would ever be really warranted, this holds true especially for movies heavy in dialogue, or those that speak very much to a time and place, the movie I picked today does that.  What film do I think emboldens its era well enough, and has production values that meet the needs of the narrative unquestionably?  "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

Trailers back in the day were more of the "It's good, go and see it" which was a far cry from the trailers today which show you why you should go see something.

            This is my second favorite movie of all time after "Fight Club" and they fall on the same themes (beating back against a corrupt system that is out to marginalize or destroy you) but fall so far apart on the methodology scale of things that they are not even recognizable.  "Fight Club" seeks to tear down the corrupt system with bombs, while rejecting modern society through acts of violence visited on each other, "Smith" embraces the ideals of the system, and uses the systems own rules to expound his position as an honest man who is being attacked by those who have hijacked the system.  I suppose there is also a parallel in that Smith was a boy scout leader, and Tyler was a leader of a men's social organization for guys who felt like society treated them like children.

You know how much that office/apartment costs on the retail market?  More than a Senator could afford, must be a lobbyist's base of operation

            The plot of the film is this: After a senator dies the 40 something Smith (Jimmy Stewart) is appointed by the governor to take his place, Smith is surprised by this as he has done nothing but be a community leader even though his father was in politics.  Turns out Smith was appointed more or less as a publicity stunt and is expected to just slack jaw his way through Washington.  When Smith proposes a bill to create a national campground on land political bosses were planning on destroying to built an unnecessary public works project, the bosses falsify evidence that Smith is trying to use his office to profit off of his park idea.  Smith filibusters the Senate in hopes that his words will show him to be innocent.  He is tremendously boned.  Much like everyone who was involved in the Keating Five loosing a huge amount of face in the real world regardless of how little or how much they knew was going on (that being one of the initial reasons I wasn't going to vote for Senator McCain, before Sarah Palin came along and dwarfed all other reasons).  And the end of the movie is rather hope inspiring, though I will admit that it is unlikely.

Though ending on this image would have been a little dark.

             Go watch this classic movie.  It stars Jimmy Stewart, who was very much the precursor to what Tom Hanks has been for the last 30 years, a very nice everyman who is easy to identify with and respect.  The sets look authentic to Washington, and even the black and white element helps place this movie in the time of its creation as it deals with themes that were very much part of the time.  I would love to see a movie like this one in modern times, and I think that "Thank You For Smoking" was about as close as I could hope for, with maybe the short lived television series "Mister Sterling" (that was criminally under rated and only failed because it was created in the storm of political shows that appeared following "The West Wing" becoming the best Television show of all time.

Go watch this too, it is awesome.

            If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1" button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 24

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that I wish would be remade".  This will probably rankle a few nerds, but I will stand by it.  Every once in a while a concept comes a long that is really cool.  Do to a combination of personality and vagueness the movie takes on a mystique that allows not only initial success but long term cult following that makes it into a classic.  Other times an idea comes along, and is closed too soon and left without proper exploration, and try as the creators might they cannot construct a franchise having killed a vibrant idea in its infancy.  So through retroactive continuity they shift things around, reset the setting, and eventually run the thing in to the ground with illogical nonsense.  To this end, I want them to call a mulligan on "Highlander".

"There can be only one"... Words that basically described all of the sequels.

             This film is a lot of fun.  The flashes into the distant past and the character building work so well that when the fight scenes roll around, you forgive the lame choreography because even though that is what the movie is about... It's not what the movie is about.

I asking you one more time.  Where is the fucking bathroom?!

             I like to think of "Highlander" as a series of ideas and philosophies and cultural influences competing, they can only be killed when they are no longer thought about (cutting off their head), but the ideas and influences of these things live on (through the quickening, the lightning that escapes an immortals body when they are decapitated, the power entering the body of the winning immortal).  It is a cool metaphor for the struggle of ideas through the ages, hence why you have a Scottish actor playing an Egyptian, pretending to be a Spaniard, who fights with a Japanese sword, levels of multicultural influences.  Hell, the main protagonist, MacLeod is an antiques dealer, gathering, preserving, and honoring the world and ideas of the past, drawing strength from them.  All of this stands in stark contrast to the physical manifestation of barbarism and brutality, the Kurgan who is the films central antagonist.

Clancy Brown would be hard to replace.

             The first"Highlander" is good, so good that it shouldn't have ended there, and sadly it did, all of the sequels were sub par, and while I liked the cheesy live action TV show... It was a cheesy live action TV show that doesn't measure up to the potential a big budget adaptation would promise.

Though the TV show had a sword fighting expert as the protagonist and it did a lot to make the show very strong in the action department.  He really wasn't a bad actor either.

             I want a real trilogy, with a substantive arching story that is plotted and written before shooting starts with a cast that is both recognizable, and respectful of the material, no Anthony Hopkins phoning in a "Wolf-Man" level performance like he is popping Valium between takes.

            So, what would I change?  Well, the title for one.  Naming your movie after the central protagonist, or for that matter a nickname of the protagonist makes the movie tied to him/her and makes it difficult to give the other characters their own place in the narrative, imagine if "Star Wars" was called "Skywalker", it is a cool name, but it overshadows in an instant the other people in the narrative.  So let's change "Highlander" to "Immortals" or "The Quickening", or even "Who Wants to Live Forever" for a salute to the spectacular Queen music that litters this thing like the smell of beer permeates the air of an aluminum can recycling facility.

Awesome.

            I would also have more immortals in the narrative, there are only 5 in the movie, one of which exists only in the starting action scene before biting it, and another only in flashback.  While I don't think the movie should be swimming with them, having a multi film format to work with you could have more of them, some women and more minorities too, maybe an actual Egyptian actor playing Ramirez.

Not that Sean didn't have the charisma to pull off playing any god damn thing he ever wanted to.

             And the fight scenes.  Let's not go all George Lucas on them and have them be way too long and choreographed, but we can certainly do better than the ones in the original film, which are only slightly better than two kids wailing on one another with wrapping paper tubes.

            Who would I cast?  Well, that is the thing, I don't have a dream cast because I want them to change a lot and then cast the thing.  So... Whoever is good for the part?  And let's have David Fincher direct, just because.

I did "Fight Club" and "The Social Network", I can pull off "Guys With Swords".

             If you liked my take on this movie, please click the Google "+1 " button in the comments section, post the link on your facebook, or send people over from anywhere else you might social network.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 23

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that I watch when you're Sad".  Again, when I am mad or sad I do not hide from those feelings, I express them in writing, most of my mopey sad crap never sees the harsh light of the internet, but I still write it out and let my mind move past it.  So I don't watch a movie to escape a particular mood, so let me put out a movie that I am sad with (Not a movie that makes me sad, I already did that).  What have you got for me?  "Super Mario Bros"?  Wait, that was going to be tomorrow's entry about a movie that needs to be remade, why use it now?  You know what?  Let's just do this.

The creator claims no drug influences.  All I know is that this shit be tripping balls.

            Mario and Luigi are gaming's biggest icons, recognizable throughout the United States and Japan for the last 20 years they have outlasted Sonic the Hedgehog and Crash Bandicoot as their parent companies' mascot.  And with a color scheme of red and blue, Mario joins the prominent super heroes of Optimus Prime, Spider-man, and Superman, to insure that pallet of color is the color of incorruptible good... Though considering how much crap has been made about each of those characters that is in one sense not true.  Take for instance "Super Mario Bros."

What a piece of shit.

            This movie, did nothing right.  And by nothing, I mean nothing.  Bad cast, art direction, bad music, bad plot, bad interpretation of the source material's mythology.  There is nothing to like or enjoy about this disgusting travesty of a film.  I would rather watch "Twilight", or "The Happening"  because at the very least I feel those movies are true to what the creators of them envisioned... They envisioned crap, but it was at the very least their crap.

Just in this image, take a guess at what anything in this is.  And I'll spot you Dennis Hopper.

            Okay, so the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, didn't kill the dinosaurs, instead it pushed them into a bleak alternate dimension where they evolved into humans, they use machines that de-evolve and super-evolve people into either doofish giant minions or super smart agents... None of this was in the game.  The rightful king of the world was de-evolved into fungus and is still sentient and crawling all over the world.  Princess Daisy (Not Princess Peach or Toadstool mind you, the established characters) has been hiding in our earth and has a bit of the meteor that if inserted into the meteor will merge the alternate earths, she doesn't know that she is from the alternate world.  Mario and Luigi get pulled into this by trying to save Daisy from a kidnapping by super-evolved agents.  So far, in this paragraph, the only thing from the games that are in this movie, are Mario and Luigi... Wrap your head around that.

You remember this from one of the 10,000 games, cartoons, or toys right?  No?  Cause it didn't fucking EXIST!

            Also I need to point out: de-evolve and super-evolve aren't things.  You can't be de-evolved into a monkey, or super-evolved into a super human, evolution doesn't work that way, this movie can't even get its sci-fi correct.  Why not just call it mutate?  You know, like with ooze in the Ninja Turtles, but instead use magic, which was established in the video games.  Maybe mutate mushrooms and turtles into monsters to fight Mario and Luigi after they fall into a magic kingdom of mushroom people hidden under New York?  Then you could have Princess Peach be there a lost girl who was adopted by the mushroom people after she was being chased by King Koopa, a dragon wizard that is menacing the toadstool kingdom just for the hell of it, and he lives in a castle surrounded by lava.  I just wrote a better setting than they did, and they could make it animated rather than live action, thus skipping the need to find actors who could pull off the rolls or compromise the art style.  It should be aimed at kids anyway.

Wipe those smiles off your faces you... You know what, you guys are actors and you have done enough good things to warrant a pass on this... But John Leguizamo still must answer for participating in "The Happening" and "Spawn".

Added August 8th, 2011:
To be fair and have a rebuttal (and I disagree with this guy on absolutely everything he is saying) I would offer this short video review by "Good Bad Flicks" on this film. It is worth watching just for the huge amount of history and behind the scenes stuff the guy has on the production of the movie which I find really cool.

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 22

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.

            Today is "A Movie that I watch when happy".  Well, that is sort of easy, "Conan the Barbarian".  It has it all: boobs, sword fights, giant snakes, sorcery... Wait a minute!  I did this already.  Less than a week ago in fact.  I linked to that entry in yesterday's entry.  I'm going insane.  Okay then, I guess a pinch hitter in order.  Mel Brooks, what have you got for me?  "Spaceballs".

            A parody of "Star Wars" this film takes Luke Skywalker out of the picture and instead combines his character with Han Solo to produce Lonestar, who is played by Bill Pullman, the President from "Independence Day".  It also has John Candy playing the Chewbacca stand in, a half man half dog.  But really the star of the thing is Rick Moranis as Dark Helmet, the tiny parody of Darth Vader that is just so astoundingly pathetic that comes full circle and becomes terrifying again; like watching that kid who always got picked on get absolute power and go crazy with it.

Some of you are laughing at this.

            It's fantastically stupid.  If there is anything I can say about it, as much as I like it, the joke is complete.  There is no need to make a "Spaceballs: Episode 2", but sadly kinda did.  They released an animated series originally on G4, and now youtube (do not click the link).  It wasn't just unfunny, it was anti-funny, damaging a lot of the humor that you could find in the movie, tainting it with just bad association.  I find this so full of poetic irony it makes me confused.

KILL IT WITH FIRE!

             And really that is all I have to say about this.  It is good, go watch it, avoid the series.  And also remember this old adage by the movie's creator, Mel Brooks, "Tragedy is when I prick my finger, comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."  I think the cartoon was him shoving us down the open manhole.

I am shocked that I oculdn't find a picture of this man flicking off the camera.