The Popcorn Bucket

After watching the crapfest that was “One Missed Call”, it was decided that “I Am Legend” was the mouthwash needed to cleanse away the remnants of the shit sundae we had just consumed. Here we go then…

I Am Legend (2007)

As I mentioned in my “I, Robot” review, I’ll watch Will Smith in anything and “I Am Legend” is no exception. In fact, it may be useful to keep “I, Robot” in mind for this review as there are some similarities (Other than both titles beginning with “I”)

“My name is Robert Neville. I am a survivor living in New York City”

The basic plot follows Robert Neville (Smith), who is the lone survivor of a virus which wiped out the human race. He’s not quite alone however, as there are thousands of vampiric creatures called “Dark Seekers” who come out at night in search of blood. Dr. Neville is also trying to work on a cure for the mutation in his lab at home, using captured “Dark Seekers” as test subjects. Er… and that’s it for a good long while. He also has a dog named Sam who sweeps the Greatest Movie and T.V. Canine Awards (or the “Barkies” as they’re also known). I really liked the feeling of isolation the film gives us. The huge, sprawling and incredibly noisy New York City is silenced and been taken back by nature. It’s eerie and beautiful in equal measures. I like the fact Neville talks to mannequins and Sam throughout. It’s a nice touch and a surprising insight into human behaviour as after thinking about what I’d do in the same situation, I’m sure I would be doing something similar if only to stave off insanity for another day.

So, time to check your play-at-home “I, Robot” checklist. So far we should have one tick next to “Man who is separated from society somehow”. Done? Back to the review…

All goes well until about three quarters of the way through when the film decides that it should abandon all the well-crafted tension and melancholy it has built up and go for an all out action-y ending. If I was to pinpoint the moment where the film begins to soil itself it’s when he meets Anna and Ethan. Yes, it seems Will Smith has some kind of “minimum number of lines” clause in his contract ‘cos that’s all the other people seem to be introduced for- as dialogue trampolines. (i.e. for Smith to bounce lines off, not to jump up and down on them- this was apparently too much to hope for.)

“Nothin’ happened the way it was supposed to happen.”

Back to the “I, Robot” checklist. Annoying kid? Check. Annoying woman? Check. All subtlety thrown out the window to appeal to the popcorn-munching ‘tards out there? Double check.

The ending. Well, it’s an ending, I suppose. If I hadn’t read the book, I’d have probably liked it, but as I have, the ending angered me. Why? Well, it misses the entire point of the book and therefore we are cheated out of the real explanation of the title “I Am Legend”. Let me elaborate. In the book, Neville realises that these Dark Seekers are the new human race and that after all his failed tests and experiments (which resulted in Dark Seeker fatalities) he is now a myth to them, a sort of “boogeyman” who captures and kills them. He is sentenced to execution (the beings in the book are capable of speech and are intelligent unlike the snarling, roaring beasties in the film) and the book ends on a very sombre note. In the film, he finds a cure and dies protecting it by blowing himself up in a huge fireball, taking the Dark Seekers with him. The film’s explanation of the title is that Neville died to enable his annoying sidekicks to escape and spread the cure. Therefore, they are “his legend”. So Neville went out in a blaze of glory and is now legendary because of it. Gawd Bless Americuh!

Luckily, there is an alternate ending on the Blu-ray which is more like the book’s ending, but unfortunately it feels like too little, too late. The damage has been done.

Finally we return to the “I, Robot” checklist. Add a tick to “Wasted potential” and “Maltreatment of the source novel” and you’re done. Congratulations. That was completely pointless.

I’m going to give “I Am Legend” a four star rating despite the crappy third act. This is because it has a great concept, some really affecting scenes and (although ignored in the latter part of the film) a fantastic undercurrent of tension and malice which you just don’t see these days.

Against my better judgement, I sat down to watch this film with some mates (the better judgement was about the choice of film, not the mates. Although…)I feel like I should let you know that the Horror genre isn’t exactly my favourite of all the genres out there. I’m not sure why, but I am seldom scared by them – and if you can’t be scared by a horror film, what’s the point? It’s like not laughing at a comedy.There are good horror flicks out there though, I was impressed by “The Descent” and I recently was seen wetting my pants whilst watching “[Rec]”. However, “One Missed Call” isn’t one of these few, exceptional films.

One Missed Call (2008)

Horror and I have never got on. I think it was when I watched and was subsequently scared shitless by “The Exorcist” when I was about 11 that the change happened. I remember watching the original “Halloween” a few years later and finding it stupid whereas my friends were terrified. As far as I was concerned horror could suck my balls. That was until tonight when “One Missed Call” completely changed… nothing. It’s awful. Just really, really bad.

“That’s not my ringtone…”

The basic plot is that people start getting answerphone messages (from their future selves) which include the day, date and time of their deaths. It’s a passable idea, but it’s executed very, very poorly. As for criticising the rest of the film, where to begin? It basically reads like a rip-off catalogue from every successful horror film in recent years. For example, there’s a heavy influence from “The Ring” (or “Ringu” originally if you’re being pedantic) with a bit of “Final Destination” thrown in. There’s a scene where a corpse slowly comes back to life whilst our heroine, Beth (Shannyn Sossamon) is inside some air ducts. To me, it seemed like a bit of a rip-off of the vastly superior scene in “Pan’s Labyrinth” where Ofelia meets the Pale Man. That’s the thing though, even if the similarity wasn’t intentional you get the feeling that everything you see in this film has been done somewhere else and also been done better.

“Now this will only hurt a little…”

You know a horror film is bad when it crosses the state line into Unintentional Comedy Valley. An example? How about a scene concerning the exorcism of a mobile phone? Not convinced? How about after dragging a poor woman to her watery grave in a backyard pond, some ghostly hands shoot up to grab the family cat too? It’s ridiculous to the point of being farcical. The only good point in the film for me was the lovely Shannyn Sossamon who, whilst not being given the greatest material, seems to be the only one who can actually act in this damn mess.

So there you have it a nice, short review for a horrible, overlong film. Sorry, Shannyn!

I know what you’re thinking-“Where the flying hell are The Godfather reviews?”. Well, I’m actually taking my time with them for one very good reason. I want to do them justice. Not because they’re all good (‘cos they’re not) but because they have a combined running time of 9+ hours and I don’t want to miss out something important. Either that or “Jurassic Park III” broke my spirit. Anyway- “The Longest Yard”.

The Longest Yard (2005)

I kept getting the feeling that to appreciate this film, I needed to be about 12 years old and high on sugar. After all, it has a funky hip-hop soundtrack, Nelly, Adam Sandler (who I gather is a “comedy genius” to the under-15s), violence, gay jokes and a fuckload of WWE wrestlers. Bargain. The thing that really got to me is I know that the two leads can do better. As I’ve said before, Sandler can be funny as can Chris Rock. However, in this film they both seem “watered down” to appease the PG-13 certificate. How I fucking hate that certificate.

Having never seen the original, I can’t comment on the widely held view that this film doesn’t have enough dark humour to be a proper remake. However, I can comment on the tone of the film which seems to be all over the place. We have the usual juvenile Sandler humour (gay jokes and slapstick physical humour) mixed with darker instances (such as savage beatings and the death of a major character). My main criticism of this film is that it doesn’t seem to know who it’s aiming at. I’ve said this before, but it seems to me that a lot of films have this trouble. My guess is they’re shooting to appeal to everyone (y’know, to make more money) and failing. Having said all that, it is entertaining and never outstays its welcome. Whilst it won’t set your world on fire, I can think of worse ways to waste an hour or so.

It’s time for me to finish the “Jurassic Park” arc (Jurassic Arc?) with my review of the threequel mystifyingly not called “The Shittening: Jurassic Park”. You may want to put the young’uns to bed- this isn’t going to be pretty.

After “Jurassic Park”, I thought I would never be unafraid of dinosaurs. After “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” I mentally slapped my younger self for being so naïve but conceded that at least I’d never get bored of them. Guess what happened after “Jurassic Park III”…

The film kicks off with two people- a man and a boy, parasailing over Isla Sorna or “Site B”. Surprise, surprise, something goes wrong and both people go missing. We are reunited with Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) from the first film, who is shanghaied into rescuing the two missing persons. To be honest, the plot was constantly put on the back-burner in my mind under the constantly repeated thought of “Is this what they’re calling Jurassic Park these days?”

The plot in general is absolute balls. At least with “The Lost World” it pretended that the plot was something more than just an excuse for the dino money shots (I double dare you to Image Search that…). What makes it worse is that they bring Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler (Laura Dern) in again from the original “Jurassic Park”. However, instead of adding to this film, it detracts from the original as we learn that Sattler and Grant broke up and Sattler has a family of her own. This is so irritating as surely the Jurassic Park experience taught the character of Dr. Grant to be good with kids and turned him into a willing father (two things he was against at the start of the film and the source of a possible future rift between the two characters). This is the equivalent of creating something everyone loves, then putting out a piss-poor imitation of it and burning the original. So, so irritating.

The film in general feels like it was just cobbled together from the deleted scenes of the first two films. Funny, as when I was watching the extra features on the DVD (vainly searching for some kind of apology) they mentioned that many of the action sequences were ideas they had for “The Lost World” It shows too. Yes, the Pteranodons were O.K. but they should have been in “The Lost World” and then forgotten about. Talking of dinosaurs- the Spinosaurus. Who’s smart idea was that? It is presented as the new king of the dinosaurs and is meant to be scarier than the T.Rex. In fact, just in case we were fucking morons (which is a safe bet thinking about it, ‘cos after all people were paying money to see another Jurassic Park film after “The Lost World”…) there’s a scene where Spiney takes on Rexy in the biggest Dino Douchebag contest and wins. Sorry, but why kill the anti-hero merely for some new pretender to step up? It’s stupid beyond belief.

In fact, messing with the dinosaurs seems to be the theme of this film. The T.Rex is neutered and the raptors look like they’re turning tricks to make some extra money on the side. Want proof? Okay:

Above: A Velociraptor from “Jurassic Park”

Above: Some Velocirhookers from “Jurassic Park III”

See?

Even without the “Jurassic Park” moniker this would have been a bad film. The fact that the Jurassic Park name is right there in the title is an even harder kick to the groin. Apparently, the Jurassic Park team have never heard of the phrase “flogging a dead horse” and a fourth installment is in production for 2010. (Sigh) Anyway, since “Jurassic Park III” is more dino-shite than dynamite (please excuse) it gets a lowly:

With no time to pause for breath, it’s sequel time. Therefore, I humbly present my findings on a film mystifyingly not named “Jurassic Park II” but “The Lost World: Jurassic Park”

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

I always thought that “Jurassic Park” showed just enough of the dinosaurs to keep them suitably fresh and scary/awe-inspiring. Any longer and I feel that the film wouldn’t have been as good as it was. Imagine my thought process going in to see “The Lost World: Jurassic Park”. In fact, you don’t have to imagine- here it is:

1) Why the hell isn’t it called “Jurassic Park II”? Especially when it has feck all to do with the Arthur Conan Doyle book. I know the book sequel was called “The Lost World”, but if you have to segue that in there why not call it “Jurassic Park II: The Lost World”?

2) I bet they’ll amp up the dino-action in a vain attempt to out-do the first one.

3) Goddamn my brain is nerdy. Is this why I suffer from crippling loneliness and girls shriek and run away from me?

The basic plot is that after the events of the first film and the park being abandoned, it comes to light that there is another island where the dinosaurs run free- “Site B”. Blah, blah, blah evil nephew of the ailing John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) takes over the business and for some reason wants to take the dinosaurs from Site B and open up a Jurassic Park in San Diego, of all places. I honestly felt a bit insulted as the subtlety and (for lack of a better word) grace the first film won me over with were slapped out of my mouth with the glove of cashing-in. I don’t mind sequels at all, some of them rock the shit. But in the case of “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” all the dino stomping in the World couldn’t have taken away the nagging feeling that this was anything more than a wallet raping.

“Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that’s how it always starts. Then later there’s running and screaming.”

If I sound more hurt and sarcastic than normal, it’s ‘cos I am. The one thing that really gets to me (apart from all the other things that really get to me) is when bad sequels are made to great films and somehow the stink of the newer bastard filmic child manages to tarnish the original. I’m sure by the time you’ve finished reading this sentence you’ll have been able to think of at least 5 instances of this.

I can’t think of a nicer way to phrase this question but when did Spielberg lose his balls? (I’m not talking about his actual testicles as I’ve been informed by CelebNadNews.com that they’re fine…) I’m talking about his guts that he displayed in “Jaws” and the like. For instance, in “Jaws” a small boy gets mercilessly munched by the shark, whereas in this film- a girl of a similar age is set upon by small dinosaurs. We assume she’s a goner as the camera cuts away but we are needlessly told later she’s fine. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see children hurt or killed on screen, but if you do want to make a point, don’t wimp out at the last minute. At least the boy’s death in “Jaws” actually meant something and drove the plot.

“Taking dinosaurs off this island is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas-and I’m gonna be there when you learn that.”

There are many silly moments in the film too. The one that instantly comes to mind is Ian Malcolm’s (Jeff Goldblum) gymnastic daughter swinging off poles and kung-fu kicking a raptor out of a window onto a spike. Sorry- are these the same raptors that took down an experienced game warden in the first film and an entire field of “redshirts” (Star Trek analogy- look it up) in this film? Surely the best thing to do would be to have the impaled raptor to realise he’s actually got balls and savage the little, flippy kid to death.

There are some good moments in the film though. I liked the tension-filled scene where a trailer is hanging over the edge of a cliff (the slow cracking of the glass is great). As cheesy as it is, I also liked the T.Rex running amok in San Diego. However, these moments are few and far between. I can’t really say it’s a shame though as I was pretty sure a sequel to “Jurassic Park” wouldn’t work from the beginning. I’m not playing a game of “I was right” or anything though. Really. But if we were, I so fucking am.

 

I would like you to consider this review to be the tell-tale drip of water that emerges through the dam wall before the whole thing comes crashing down. What I mean by this is that a fuckmothering ton of reviews are coming your way. I would also like to dedicate this review to Michael Crichton, author of the original novel who died recently after a long battle with cancer. Rest in peace, Mr. Crichton.

Jurassic Park (1993)

“Jurassic Park” was released at the perfect time for me. I was about 7 when it first came out and at the time I was obsessed with dinosaurs. I knew all the names and had plastic models which I played with a lot of the time on my own (I don’t remember any friends, seems I was a lonely child…) I had heard of this film called “Jurassic Park” and begged my parents to take me to see it. However, my parents deemed it too scary and I had to wait until over a year later to watch it on VHS.

“What’ve they got in there, King Kong?”

 

The basic story is so famous I don’t think you need me to recap it. Anyway, I’ve always loved the plot. I’m a big fan of the ol’ “Frankenstein” man meddling with science idea. The same goes for the “theme park gone awry” idea that seems to be a favourite of Crichton’s.

The special effects were groundbreaking, no doubt about it. The good news is, they still hold up today, although thanks to advances in technology, they aren’t quite as awe-inspiring as they once were. Despite this, you can’t help but break out into a grin as Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Sattler (Laura Dern) first encounter the Brachiosaurus. It’s one of those moments in a film where you just know it has gone from merely entertaining to potentially classic.

Even though I’ve seen the film many, many times before I still jumped at the jumpy parts, mostly the ones involving the raptors. I think the raptors are incredibly well done in this film. They’re fast, scary and deadly- they’re like the Jurassic answer to a ninja- and everyone knows you don’t fuck with a ninja. It’s also nice to see Spielberg go back to his “Jaws” roots with this film as some of the “extended dread” sequences i.e. the T.Rex’s escape bit are fantastically realised. It’s hard not to feel a little apprehensive when the goat in the T.Rex’s pen has mysteriously gone missing.

“The lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here, uh… staggers me.”

I really could go on and on about this film. It’s brilliant and to me defines the term “blockbuster”. Before I go on to my inevitable conclusion (if you don’t know what it’s going to be by now, you probably have trouble figuring out how doors work) I just want to mention John Williams’ music. For me, the main themes he did for this film are not just great examples of the man’s work but some of the greatest movie musical pieces ever. The graceful, majestic theme in particular is so damn beautiful and moving I honestly think I could never get tired of it.

Anyway, “Jurassic Park” gets a full:

It’s time for another film review. Blah, blah, blah…opening paragraph…. So, “I, Robot” then:

I’ve had some very positive feedback on this site so far, which is nice. However, the one criticism of it is that I’ve been too positive i.e. only reviewing good films. I hold my hands up to this, I have. I realise that if I want to be taken seriously I have to give something a certificate in shittiness. Well, here goes:

Meet The Spartans (2008)

I remember a time when there were such things as good parodies. “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun” are both great. Hell, even “Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery” was pretty good. This film isn’t. It is so awful I think I may have dropped a couple of points I.Q. wise.

“Stop kicking people into the pit of death! Honestly!”

I know it’s not exactly hard to rag on a film like this. The thing that gets to me, apart from it being as funny as a kitten with cancer, is that it believes that it’s funny. I cannot express how fucking infuriating that is. I watched the film online for free and I still feel cheated .The other thing that pisses me off is that it made $84,558,676 worldwide at the Box Office. 84 million Dollars?! FUCK OFF. That statistic depresses me beyond belief.

I am being completely honest when I say that whilst watching this I had to stop myself from closing the window and getting on with something less painful many times over. Yes, we get it. “300” was pretty homoerotic. Yes, Lindsay Lohan has been in rehab a couple of times. Yes, Paris Hilton is dumb. These are things we know and have known for a long time. I think I object to the fact that the film treats you like a moron from the off. So far as to have all the other characters announce the “celebrity” who is being portrayed- “Paris Hilton?!” etc.

Thing is, even the parodying is lazy. Parody as a genre already teeters on the edge of Cheapknockoffsville just to make a quick buck. However, when someone literally trips over a “Transformer Cube” you know that you’re in trouble. The film made it personal when it lazily chucked out a “Casino Royale” torture scene parody. Oh, and that Britney Spears bit where she’s kicked down the pit? Tasteless. I’m not a huge Britney fan, but c’mon- the woman clearly has mental health issues. At the risk of sounding Chris Crocker-like (yes, that also makes an appearance) leave her alone.

“I’m a Hilton, I don’t bow… but I do bend over. “

Thing is, the idea itself isn’t all bad. Well, I wouldn’t have given it the “300” setting, but it is important to realise that films today tend to take themselves very seriously, even the ones with ridiculous elements (I’m looking at you “The Dark Knight”). Parody when done well is one of the greatest forms of comedy in my opinion. It’s witty and cutting when done properly. This is just a lazy piece of shit thrown together with as many pop culture references as they can fit in. Even when they do reference, that’s as far as it goes- no in depth humourous observations or anything.

Crap like this shows no sign of slowing down either. They are ridiculously cheap to make and always have a huge turnover at the cinema. I mean “Disaster Movie” was recently released and I’m sure there will be another one along soon. They make rubbish like this and there’s still no sequel to the godly “Serenity”-there is no justice in the World. Still, if you want a “Disaster Movie” review, you know what to do.

A rating? I’m going to have to give it nothing, nada, zilch. It simply doesn’t deserve one.