Barbarella (3/10)

I had no actual intention of reviewing this movie when I brought it to a friends house to watch it on his giant screen, but as we were packing it in for the night Loud turned to me and said "I can't wait to read your take on this!" I feel a little obliged, since he was nice enough to watch it with me. Considering how hilariously awful it is.

Apart from our wonder woman Jane Fonda, the cast is built up of mostly nobodys and one-hit wonders. You may remember Ms. Fonda from such cinmatic masterpieces as Fun with Dick and Jane ('77) and Step and Stretch Workout. This woman was smoking hot in the sixties. She's still easy on the eyes today, but wow. Wowie wow-wow. If you're not following here, this woman is attractive. Fonda takes on the role of Barbarella, the naive Earthling astronaut, searching out and stopping the evil Durand Durand who is threatening the ancient univversal peace. Yeah, I'm not a fan of their tunes either but I think that this astro-manhunt is overkill. Haha, because they're named after the character. See what I did there?

Jane's acting is the best throughout, but that doesn't mean anything when you're comparing her to our darling Pygar, played by John Philip Law. I've never heard of this guy before, so bear with me as I slander his acting credibility based on this one film. I realize that this is the definition of prejudice and I'm awful for holding this against the guy, but it is just so awful. Pygar is the other leading protagonist, the last of the ornithanthropes, or birdmen. This angelic sidekick, was blinded by The Evil Tyrant. He becomes her hero and lover in the labyrinth, but soon becomes more of a dead weight to her cause.

The whole movie is nudity, sex and avant garde costumes. Not that it's entirely a bad thing, and seems to keep true to the french sci-fi comic book it is otherwise very loosely based on. If all you're interested in it a good show of Jane Fonda T & A, you really don't have to watch much futher than the opening credits, which involves the beauty sprawled out in a plexy glass zero-gravity.

Overall, the entire cast needs a few acting lessons. I'm going to have to hand out my very first low grade here. 3/10. Jane Fonda, see me after class.

In other news! For all of my True North brothers, on the Space Network on Thanksgiving day, they will be airing a Turkey-thon.That's right. Terrible movies. ALL. DAY.

The Producers, as promised (8/10)

First and foremost, I hate remakes. This I'm sure comes to no great surprise to anyone. It just seems like a sleezeball move by Hollywood to get more cash out of the same idea over and over again, like movie-goers are too brain dead from staring unblinkingly at the big screen for hours on end to realize what is going on around them. Frankly, I find it insulting and I refuse to hand over my hard earned money to be insulted. As Loud pointed out to me after my last review, there are some good remakes that deserve mentioning (though they seem to be few and far between these days). The 2005 Mel Brooks picture 'The Producers" is one of those rare exceptions that deserves some recognition. While this is a remake of his own film of the same name, the later adaptation is much more in Brooks' style with upbeat musical numbers, larger than life characters and loads of overacting. Like I said, this was a remake of a film that was his originally so I'm not sure if this could be classed as a remake or if it is more of a 'do-over' but that's just symmantics.

Musicals have always been one of my favorite genres. Every Disney movie tossed my way with dancing woodland creatures and a beauty with the voice of an angel is likely to have this snarky cynic by the heartstrings. Watching 'Snow White' or 'Cinderella' or 'Beauty and the Beast' for the hundredth time will still capture my attention as if I were a grade-schooler.

Speaking of Disney, Nathan Lane (playing the role of Max Bialystock) has the famous voice of Timon the meerkat from 'The Lion King' films. This rotund little man brings to the table the same larger-than-life personality that her has thrown into voice acting this scheming, furry little creature. Though, I must admit that seeing such an animated voice come from this bulbous human seems kind of odd and maybe he is better suited for voice acting. On the other hand, the surprise did not come unaccompanied by a hearty laugh, so maybe he is just perfect for comedic roles and children's movies. There is a close resemblance to the original Bialystock, Zero Mandol and I have to give Brooks points for that.

Also starring is the baby-faced Mathew Broderick. His character, Leopold Bloom (previously played by Gene Wilder) is a skittish, spaztic, neurotic young accountant brought in to Bialystock's office to do the books. Little did he know this would be the beginning of an epic song-and-dance adventure. No, really. Epic. This film has a run-time of 134 minutes. Coming in just over two hours,this version is longer than its 1960's brother running at 88 minutes.

Comparing Broderick to Wilder is comparing apples to oranges. Gene Wilder has a very special place in my heart, but I must admit that I found his performance lacking. This was his first movie with Brooks, which may account for his reserved manner. This is not to say that Wilder was not an asset to the production. He was great, but his other work is far superior. Broderick, on the other hand could be considered a Hollywood veteran by the time of his adaptation of the role.

Another big name appearing is the stunning Uma Thurman in the role of the Swedish secretary-slash-receptionist Ulla. This woman is on fire! Woof. I'm not sure what kind of accent she is trying to pull off. It didn't sound terribly Swedish to me, but I suggest you take that with a grain of salt considering I've only known two Swedes in my life, and one is a muppet. I would call her performance lacking, but it is clear that she wasn't cast for her range if you know what I'm saying.

Ms. Thurman isn't the only eye candy floating around on set either. There are chorus girls pouring out of every nook and cranny for the big music numbers. One song in particular, "I want to be a Producer' makes it quite clear that Brooks has a passion for the stage. There is very little to speak of for special effects but the elaborate costumes and sets will have your jaw dropping. This more than makes up for the total absence of computer graphics.

The only thing missing is the one thing you always look for in a Brooks production. Mel Brooks! If he isn't a main character, he'll at least make a cameo. Alas, nien. Though I'm fairly sure he is the voice of one of the nazies in the production of 'Springtime for Hitler' Whatever. Overall a wonderful film and a wonderful concept that deserved a second chance. 8/10

This is not mine, but I wish it was! (0/5)

Gentle readers,
In my prolonged absence, I've done more reading than I have since my days in secondary school. I wish I could promise you some sort of upcoming masterpiece, but to be honest, I've been so completely uninspired by Hollywood that I cannot even manage the effort to hate some of their thoughtless drivel. I haven't even been to see the new Friday the 13th film. I did, however, see that 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' remake, but it was not anything noteworthy in either direction, so I passed.

However, this past Friday, while reading (one of) my local newspapers, I stumbled across this hot little number on the front page of the Arts & Life section: 'Last House a Vile Remake; Parents take revenge on thugs for attack on their daughter.' What a gem! What a work of journalistic splendor! Here are a few of my favorite parts:

'Director Dennis Iliadis' version retains the same basic story - a couple of teenage girls on the hunt for pot get abducted and savagely attacked by psycopaths - but there's nothing particulatly special about it artistically.'


'Iliadis puts his vaguely unique spin on the proceedings by prolonging the most violent grotesque elements and making them more graphic. The result is never scary, but instead feels deplorably gratuitous'

'The physical showdown with the bad guys is wildly destructive, protracted and repetitive; rather than sucking you in, it'll' inspire you to look at your watch, wondering when it'll end.'

Oh boy, oh boy! Isn't that just a peach, ladies and gentlemen? I'm grinning as I'm typing this! Up next* (and I'm not entirely sure when that will be) is another of my favorites, Mel Brooks' 'The Producers' so just stick around. Or check back regularly. Who am I kidding?

* subject to change

There were Nightmares on Church Street (8/10)

I was actually going to write this review for Quantum of Solace, but I'm not sure how I would put a high five into words.

Every small town has one of those nuts that never dies, because he lives on in our minds and in our stories. My town had this one guy, Chainsaw Charlie, but he was nothing in comparison to what the residents of this sleepy little town had to deal with.

Fred Kruger, the bastard son of a hundred maniacs, is a known child murderer, and as we find out very early on, hunts out his victims in their sleep. Freddy was my first horror movie monster aside from the Draculas and the mummies, and if he didn't scare the heck out of me, I don't know what could have! His design was exactly what it needed to be. He was dirty, poorly dressed, smug, and sinister with the most badass glove ever conceived.. He was a genius, and completely insane (who could blame him?) with a new twist on the slasher genre than has never been imitated since. Kruger is played by the master slasher himself, Robert Englund. This man was made to play the baddies, with his long, hooked nose and his tall, gaunt figure, he's exactly what Kruger should look like, I think. Without make-up on, he's the guy you would actually find in a small town, and in a way resembles my father. Which is unnerving, now that I'm thinking about it.

It is difficult to look at this movie with fresh eyes, after marathons of the series, rewatching just the first one and trying to remember back to when the monster wasn't bigger than the movie. The thing that always catches me off-guard when I watch this movie is the fact that what we see is what we get. This movie is a reminder as to why I absolutely adore movie makeup and special effects. This is all done without any CGI, it's all special effects and camera tricks. Heck yes.

The movie jumps so quickly into the action that it leaves me speechless. What? No big introduction? No warm up? No notice? Nope, just hop hop hop. Look, she's dreaming. Now she's dead. Now she's dead in real life! Hop hop hop. Two people are already dead before we even find out who and what Fred Kruger is. This is the kind of suspense that drives me absolutely nuts when watching movies. It is the kind of thing that drove me mad about watching this movie for the first time in my young teens, and after the credits had rolled, I was determined for a re-watch.

The boiler room is such an iconic scene of this series, and combined with the screeching of the clawed glove along the piping is almost maddening. The little tricks like this are what really make this movie. Kruger is an absolute terror with very little screen time, which just adds to the madness. The ending is a little over the top silliness, and for a moment, you think it is going to be a anti-climax and a good laugh, but it turns at just the right spot to give the audience a good chill. I give this movie 8/10, and a million high fives to Robert Englund.

Speaking of a re-watch, I just wanted to mention the 'reimagining' coming to the big screen in 2010. I just want to say that I disapprove whole-heartedly with this, as I do with all remakes, but this one especially cut me deep. Now, I can't say that I am at all surprised at this, because honestly, I cannot recall in the last decade one movie that has not been in some form or another based off of another movie or from a book. It was only a matter of time before they got down to the good stuff. Currently in production are remakes of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Friday the 13th', 'Evil Dead', And coming out in a matter of days is 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'. I mean, seriously? These movies have been done, were incredibly successful, and for the most part have had multiple sequels made for them. These ideas should be celebrated, not spat on and rebuilt for a new wad of cash for the overpaid workers of the industry. These movies have their place in history, and bringing them back with 'todays technology' is going to give us exactly what we've been seeing in theaters now -Lack of development and originality, sparsely painted over with CG and attractive ladies who have spent more time on their hair than a book- and this is going to deteriorate the original films.

I think what bothers me the most about this is the children who are going to flock to the theaters in folds to see the 'original stories behind Freddy Vs. Jason' or to watch Keanu Reeves in a new sci-fi. What are the chances they're even going to look up the original film once they're done? And even if they do, it'll be diluted with the memory of flashy special effects.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes remakes are important. Sometimes, promising stories need to be told in a different and better way. But it is such a rarity that the remake outdoes the original and to be honest, I can't think of such a case off of the top of my head. Oh well.

Review and Clue Rhyme. How Neat! (9.5/10)

Movies based on video games are a dime a dozen these days, and rarely very good, thanks to a certain Uwe Boll. But, really, how many movies can you think of based on board games? Just one comes to mind, and it is easily among my top ten. 'Clue' is a fast past murder mystery/comedy with an amazing casting line-up. I can't say much for the board game itself (not that I have the patience for them anyway), but I am a fan of the murder-mystery genre, and this dark humor plays it's card right to give us an entertaining little film that leaves you breathless between laugh out loud gags. If you watch it once, you'll watch it again and again!

Tim Curry is the big name on the cast list, and his performance as the butler is a prime example of this man's talents. Also on this list, we have Eileen Brennan (Murder by Death) as Mrs. Peacock, Madeline Kahn (History of the World pt. 1, Blazing Saddles) as Mrs. White, Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, The Addams Family) as Prof. Plum, Michael McKean (This is Spinal Tap) as Mr. Green, Martin Mull (Rosanne, Sabrina the Teenage Witch)as Col. Mustard, and Lesley Ann Warren (Deep Water) as Ms. Scarlet. Most of these names I had not heard of before watching Clue, but I recognized their faces from about a thousand different places. They may not be A-list actors (excluding Tim Curry, and probably Christopher Lloyd), but they bring so much energy to the film, and they extract every bit of funny possible.

I simply adore Tim Curry, he is one of my favorite actors, but in this film, Madeline Kahn stole the show in my eyes. Instead of playing the maid (or the cook, depending on your version), Mrs. White is somewhat of a black widow and gets all of the best lines.

'Men should be like Kleenex; Soft, strong, and disposable.'

I rarely get excited about casting or celebrities or any of that, I like to look at movies as, I don't know, a tangent universe where Average Joe looks like Tom Cruise (ick) and someone like Brad Pitt doesn't think he's too pretty to get punched in the mouth once in a while. But Madeline Kahn has a place in my heart, all snuggled up with Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder.

My only beef here (which I also have with House on Haunted Hill, but I'll let that slide because if Vincent Price invited me for a sleepover, I wouldn't second guess it either) is that these people don't know each other, and they don't know Mr. Boddy. They receive letters to go to a place they've never been and they all go? Call me a cynic, but if I got a letter like that, I would assume it was some kind of weird prank from someone without much of a sense of humor.

Speaking of humor! You would hardly remember this was a murder mystery if it wasn't for the corpse! This is such a funny movie, there is a nice healthy mix of slapstick, dry humor, and sitcom with silly one-liners and plenty of innuendo (via Ms. Scarlet and Prof. Plum, mostly) that the drama and the darkness is well hidden. Not that it is a bad thing, exactly, it just isn't what you expect from murder. Sometimes it seems as if the characters are even that serious about the death.

I've probably watched this movie more often than any other movie in my library, which is quite a feat, as it is more often out on loan than it is on the shelf. It is not a big budget production, but it isn't quite a B movie. I'm not sure how I feel about this. it's either really really good, production-wise for a B movie, or not good at all for an A movie! But really, that isn't what's important. What really matters is that I laugh my ass off at this movie every time! I'm hesitant to give out a perfect ten so early in my reviewing life, but if you've seen this movie, you'd understand. I'm deducting points for Mrs. Peacocks weird hat. 9.5/10!

Could Have Slept Through the Dark Knight (6.5/10)

I don't think I will ever be able to like Batman. Not really. It is like how when I eat tofu or soy. I know it is fine and I will probably end up enjoying it as I always do, but I am still chewing it funny and expecting the worst. It is good and all, but it is still not quite the same. When it comes to super heroes, I'll always prefer indulging on a meat and potatoes kind of guy, instead of buff guys in rubber suits.

I do not want to talk to much about Heath Leger's role as the Joker, considering all of the attention orbiting around it. I've read nothing but rave reviews, but I have a hard time seeing the Joker as this kind of psychopath. I've always thought of him as the guy who you smile at in the supermarket and send a Christmas card and a plate of cookies to while he gathers up stray animals at night and always has his basement light on at night. That was the beauty of Jack Nicholson's version. He *is* that guy, and whenever I for one read something unsettling involving him, what else can I do but nod and give it a 'Yeah, he's weird.' A friend of mine commented on the fact that Nicholson was playing himself as the Joker, but really, that was the beauty of it! I think there is something lost when the Joker is as outwardly crazy as he is inside, like the dread and suspense of what he might do to those around him is missing, but is instead replaced with a squeamish terror which really isn't something I feel comfortable being in a movie that was clearly advertised to children.

I guess my only real beef with the film was the way Two-Face was portrayed. Not that anyone should have been surprised at his inclusion. I mean really, once Harvey Dent was established as a main character, it was practically written on the screen. Not that you would have known it by the gasps and "oh man" 's that came from the audience around me. Keeping in mind that this was the midnight showing, I was shocked that there weren't more comic fans in the audience who also scoffed at this sad attempt at a plot twist. No, it wasn't that he was in the film that bothered me. Two-Face is an excellent villain! The role he played in this was just not Two-Face. I feel cheated that none of these guys were quite who I remember them as. It is just weird. In hindsight, I will admit that the two work well inside the story and it all flowed well in a neat and clear way that tied up all of the loose ends of the plot, but still leaving it open for another sequel. But I digress.

Two-Face is not a weepy, moody child. He was just not the emotionally charged picture of chance that he was depicted as, and that whole leaving his victim's lives up to the flip of a coin? I mean, I *guess* that's kind of accurate, but it was so much more than that. He was so much more than all of that! I guess this is the point where I made up my own ideas as to his role and the deeper lying meaning, but Two-Face, to me, was an overarching image of duality that is inside of everything, not just the 'yes or no' chance of a coin toss, but good and evil itself, light or darkness, left or right. Everything.

Now that I'm done complaining about how my nerdiness is isn't appreciated, I'll move on to something a little more positive. The makeup work for the Joker was really good. Nothing spectacular, but really good. If there is one thing that I've learned form years of volunteering at the haunted house on Halloween, it is that it takes a lot of work to look that bad. I just wish that there had been some initiative here and done up a really gruesome effects for Two-Face, instead of relying on computer graphics. Alas, such is the way of technology.

What really bothers me about this film is how badly people cried out for this. 'Batman Begins' wasn't dark enough for them? This is what people wanted? This was senselessly violent, and deserved more than a PG-13 rating. This is just ugliness. This is the grit that people should be terrified exists in the world around us, not something to throw on the big screen as a summer blockbuster.

Additionally, there were some very weak points in the film, some gadgets that seemed to appear out of thin air because the writers had worked themselves into a corner, and some chance events that seemed a bit *too* unlikely. In one certain scene, I wondered if Gotham existed entirely outside of physics, but I digress.

On the whole, The Dark Knight was a decent summer flick that I would not say no to watching again. I couldn't see myself buying it, and it didn't turn me on to Batman in any way. I would recommend this film if looking for something to watch explosions without pondering the intricate subplots and deeper meanings, but I'd still only give it a 6.5 out of 10. I don't see how this skyrocketed so quickly to the best movie of all time.