Review: Pacific Rim

As you may or may not know Pacific Rim is about giant robots fighting giant monsters. Which, some would say, makes this film "critic proof". But personally I don't think that any movie is truly "critic proof", and those who do are typically just frustrated and/or lazy critics themselves. Because regardless of a film's subject matter there are always many ways to take a film genre into a new direction. In the giant-monster genre alone many filmmaker have taken the formula into new and bold directions. Peter Jackson tried to make a giant ape boring in the 2005 King Kong remake, Frank Darabont tried to cause a mass suicide with his ending to 2007's The Mist, Roland Emmerich tried to fit as many climaxes as he could into Godzilla 1998, and Gareth Edwards tried to kill the genre altogether by making 2010's Monsters.

So what is Guillermo del Toro's take on the giant monster franchise? Well, to put it simply, to bring back the cheesy over the top action films of the 80's and 90's. And does he do it? You are damn right he does! Pacific Rim is big, dumb, fun, and all the other adjectives used to describe movies I hate. But I didn't hate this movie, not at all. Pacific Rim was one of the most enjoyable films of the summer and I had a blast watching it. Because this isn't just your ordinary summer blockbuster. This film is something more.

Not much more, but at least something more, and something more is better than nothing. But before I get into why I hold this movie in higher regard than it's counterparts I would like to say that the visuals are stunning and the movie is worth seeing for the special effects alone. Anyway, what really made this movie so special was its absolute devotion to being as cliched as it possibly can be. I don't mean to say that this film is generic because it certainly isn't. Pacific Rim just uses countless cliches straight out of the book of 80's action flicks. Its actually really endearing how many there are. I am serious when I say that they would legitimately have to try to write a script this bad.

The characters are all archetypal and the dialogue is typically atrocious. But its done with such sincerity that it comes across as both adorable and unintentionally funny. Which is really the best way for shtick like this to come across, if you ask me. The plot makes no sense really, but there is no real reason to question it the plot holes because the movie and subject matter are so ridiculous that the story is mostly just built on plot holes and soft science.

All that might sound like this movie falls into the "so bad it's good" category. But really it doesn't. The film has so much about it that is good that it makes the horrible script seem like the icing on the proverbial cake. The cast is good, the action is great, the camera work is spectacular, and their are these little bits of world building that bring the whole thing together (Like a city built around a corpse of a Kaiju). The two leads are weak but not enough to take you out of the movie. Really, they are a perfect example of what the movie needed to push it over the edge from fun and above average summer blockbuster to cheesy action classic. Pacific Rim is missing that ray of cheesy brilliance out in the forefront. All of the best stuff is tucked away in the background. Charlie Day and Ron Perlman (along with the really interesting pieces of set-dressing) are hidden in the interesting sub-plot of the Kaiju "sub-culture".

Pacific Rim needs that rocking theme song, that great one liner, that over the top lead actor; something to take it over the edge. But it doesn't have it. The score is generic, the Charlie Hunnam is generic, and there is no great one liners in sight. Which leaves me with a fun summer blockbuster from a great filmmaker, that doesn't live up to it's potential. But then again this movie is about giant robots fighting giant monsters so who the fuck cares.



-SP McDonald

World War Zzzzzzzzzz (What's that the movie's still on?)

Somewhere along the line Marc Forster has stopped begging for an Academy Award and decided to become the next Roland Emmerich. And with his latest film World War Z, Forster has shown the world that he can't even pull that off. In short, World War Z is a mediocre film with a bland script and poorly-directed action sequences. In the grand Roland Emmerich tradition it has absolutely nothing new to do with the well-worn subjectmatter, other than making everything as big as possible. The story concerns a world wide epidemic of "zombies" and of course only Brad Pitt can save the day. This is another trope borrowed from the Emmerich school of filmmaking, a worldwide disaster where the fate of humanity rests on the shoulders of one white American family. Now being white and American I have to say that we might not be the ideal choice for world-saving alpha males, but that is a topic for a different time.

In WWZ Forster tries to focus on the large action set pieces, forgoing the gory up-close details so they can maintain a PG-13 rating to wring every dollar out of the moviegoing public's collective wallet. Now these set pieces do look nice, and some give a wonderful sense of grandeur and spectacle but when the smaller stuff is happening the action is indecipherable. Yes, Forster hasn't learned to direct action since that shit fest Quantum of Solace and the film's action sequences mostly have the same problems. Forster's devotion to shaking the camera as much as possible mixed with the very quick editing creates incomprehensible fight scenes where you can mostly only tell where Brad Pitt is by his marvelous mullet.

But this isn't to say that WWZ is terrible, because it isn't. The movie is just horribly forgettable. Forgettable action, forgettable story, and very forgettable characters. The characters are perhaps the zenith of World War Z's utter blandness. The main characters are essentially nonentities, with hardly a character trait to share between them. And the supporting characters mostly just show up to have a single monologue and then die, often so abruptly that it is comedic. When the big action set pieces aren't around and the characters have to carry the story, the film putters out until the next big action scene which, sadly, frequently happens. The film is structured like a video game, as Brad Pitt travels to various places, each time fighting zombies until the film reaches a climax that feels half-assed at best and mostly consists of [Spoilers] Brad Pitt drinking a Pepsi.

The film is as I mentioned a PG-13 and carries none of the gore that would bring in most horror fans. Which could have been handled better had the script simply not had gory moments. But the film has many moments of classic horror movie gore in it only when it happens the camera pulls away like an overbearing mother sheltering her child's eyes. Hands are cut off, people are bitten, and people are shot. But we see none of it, just more shots of Brad Pitt's mullet, which I am pretty sure was credited with a supporting role.

So all this leads me to wonder who this movie is "for". Well it certainly isn't for the highbrow film snobs who are Forester's typical target audience. The action is so poorly directed that I would be ashamed to show this to your typical action junkie. And there is little to no gore for the horror aficionados. So my conclusion is that this movie is for no one. In an attempt to make back the large production cost they have churned out a movie sure not to offend the smallest child or the contentious grandmother. The final product being a movie so innocuous that the only thing memorable about it is its sheer banality. But that seems to be what makes the most money in Hollywood. I guess it's just economics really. It's easier to make money if your film is "for everyone," but I would like to think that most people's favorite movies are "not for everyone" - I mean, what kind of person has a favorite movie that is some factory-line produced film without any heart in it? Well okay, I know a few of those people, but the more important question is, who likes those people?

-SP McDonald

Nicolas Cage and John Cusack: Reunited and it doesn't look good.

So currently I am in between films reviews. But have no fear World War Z, White House Down, and Man of Steel should be coming soon. Also I am trying to put together a video review thing soon or later. But in the mean time I would like to ask all of you to watch this trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0_mrDgDe4w

The trailer is for an upcoming thriller called Frozen Ground which is based on a real life spree of serial killings in Alaska during the 80's. To me this actually sounds like a good premise for a movie, I am thinking something along the lines of Zodiac in the snow. Unfortunately it is set to star Nicolas Cage and John Cusack as the head detective and killer respectively. Now this is now direct snub to these actors, in fact I really like both of them. Cusack and Cage both have a certain cheesy charisma that reflects back to the glory days of both their careers. And in those glory days they actually starred in another movie together called Con-Air. If you haven't seen Con-Air it is about as cheesy as a mid 90's action film could get, and it was all the better for it. It is a failure as a movie on many levels, but it is so ludicrous that it is undeniably watchable. Just watch this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waziKjv_2qU

Taken out of context, you might think that was taken out of a comedy. But it is dead serious. And yes that is John Malkovich really shooting at that helicopter! Something like that will keep the most cynical man smile all day. But obviously Frozen Ground is not that type of movie. In fact Frozen Ground looks more like the Christopher Nolan film Insomnia. Insomnia is another film about a serial killer set in Alaska. And it also had an actor hamming it up as the lead detective (Al Pacino) and an actor primarily known for comedies giving a surprisingly subtle performance as the killer (Robin Williams). Now Insomnia is not a great flick, in fact it is a mess of a movie that falls apart in the third act. But there are things I like about it. And I have serious doubts that Frozen Ground will be half as good as it.

Now I very well could be wrong, but just listen to this. Frozen Ground is being made by a first time director who has decided to cast both Vanessa Hudgens and 50 Cent in major dramatic roles. That doesn't really instill me with confidence. And casting John Cusack as a serial killer just seems like a horrible idea. Now Cusack has pulled off performances in thrillers and horror films before though, but he usually sticks to playing the protagonist. John Cusack is a very likable actor and casting him in the lead saves the screenwriter some time explaining why we should be rooting for our hero. But Cusack playing the antagonist may spark a little unintentional hilarity, as may the appearance of Nicolas Cage.

I'm sure that anyone who is reading this is well aware of the path these two actor's careers have went down. Both have been in a slump as of late, and from the look of it neither realize why. It is because they are taking parts in absolutely shit movies. Both actors have been very hit or miss since the early 2000's, almost all being misses truthfully. Which is a damn shame because I think the early 2000's had some of their best roles. Cage had Adaptation and Matchstick Men, and Cusack had Being John Malkovich (Alright that was late 1999) and High Fidelity. Now I realize that both of these actors (Cage to a much larger extent) have been reduced to jokes on the internet, but I truthfully do enjoy them overall.

Both have given abhorrent performances throughout their careers, but I can never say that they were boring. Cage in particular always gives an interesting performance despite how terrible the film is. And John Cusack is so charming that watching him sleepwalk through a movie is still somehow endearing. Let me put it this way, most action stars are completely replaceable. Cage and Cusack will make the worst film still entertaining on some level. So after that I say this next part with a heavy heart.

Both seem to be horribly miscast. Now I have not seen the film but just from the trailer I am going to guess that this is a serious drama. Now from previous experiences I have noticed that Cage does much better when let off the reins and is allowed to be as nutty as he wants to (Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call). And in a straight drama there is typically little to no nuttiness allowed. And I think I already explained why Cusack as a serial killer is a bad choice. But lets be honest I am probably going to end up seeing this anyway.

Anyway have you guys seen the Wolf of Wall Street trailer? Cause that looks pretty frickin sweet! Martin Scorsese, Yeezus, Jonah Hill's big glasses, and a game of what appears to be "midget darts". What more can you ask for?

Oh, that's what.





-SP McDonald

Review: This Is the End

This Is the End is one of the most anticipated films of the year. And for good reason. It is based on a short film whose hilarious trailer has teased me and my friend for around half a decade. And is being written and directed by the writers of Superbad and Pineapple Express, Seth Rogen (who also stars) and Evan Goldberg. This Is the End also stars members of the Apatow-troupe Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride, Jay Baruchel and James Franco, all of whom have spent the last decade or so making films that range from comedic brilliance to horribly flawed, building a large group of fans as well as detractors. And for those looking forward to this movie I doubt it will disappoint.

You see, lead circus master Judd Apatow approaches film making in a way many people find offputting. He relies heavily on surrounding himself with very funny people and letting them loose to play off each other in between shooting scenes. This style can be hit or miss and can often lead to a funny but unbalanced film as well as creating tonal inconsistencies that have plagued many of the recent Apatow features. And even though This Is the End gets it all right, some will still not enjoy this movie. Even the best of the Apatow and Company movies aren't for everyone. My three favorites (Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Superbad) are each disliked by many and I can fully accept that. Comedies, perhaps more than any other genre, are prone to be polarizing. There are comedies that simply do not hit my funny bone and I can accept that, though it doesn't make me hate the movie any less.

This Is the End hits that funny bone right on the mark and the movie is a hell of a lot of fun. I was initially very concerned about how this film would turn out. Goldberg and Rogen being first time directors worried me as well as their often uneven writing, not to mention the lack of Apatow himself being involved with the project. However all of those fears turned out to be false and the movie was not only hysterical but also a downright good movie. The film features many celebrity guest stars playing themselves but it all comes down to the 6 main characters. Each of these characters seem to be exaggerated versions of the actors themselves and all six have strange relationships with the others.

The show-biz hating Jay Baruchel is visiting LA and staying with his old friend Seth Rogen. Rogen in this movie has been absorbed into the Hollywood lifestyle and they seem to be moving in separate directions. Rogen takes the reluctant Jay to his friend James Franco's party. Jay hates all of Seth's new Hollywood friends and goes solely to please him. At the party they meet a coke snorting Michael Cera, an angelic Jonah Hill, and an art obsessed James Franco who seems to be Seth's new best friend. Many other comedians come in playing broad versions of themselves but what really sells the movie is the personal relationships between Franco, Hill, Rogen, Baruchel, Robinson, and McBride. Especially the friendship-love-triangle between Rogen, Baruchel and Franco.

The script works in its big moments of epic destruction as well as the small moments of just 6 people sitting around waiting. The script is surprisingly full of heart and every actor seems to want to be there. In fact the actors in this movie seem like they are having a hell of a good time, which helps to propel the movie forward through the moments of comedy that don't particularly work (especially Emma Watson and The Back Street Boys thing). The parts that don't work are few and far between and none of the jokes really outstay their welcome.

Just by amount of laughs the movie is not quite at the level of my personal top three but it is pretty damn close, surpassing Pineapple Express, Anchorman, and Role Models, and landing just above Funny People and just below 40 Year Virgin, which is a pretty damn good place to sit considering how much I admire a lot of Apatow's work. This Is the End is not for everyone but it is an absolute blast and is by far the best comedy I've seen this year.





-SP McDonald

90's Classics: Silver Jews-American Water

Silver Jews never got the attention they deserved. Perhaps that is due to their sound differing drastically from that of most of the 90's alt-rock scene, a scene that their sister-band Pavement thrived in. For those of you who are unaware, Silver Jews was founded in 1989 by David Berman, Stephen Malkmus, and Bob Nastanovich. Nastanovich and Malkmus went on to form Pavement and Silver Jews was left as Berman's baby. And the band, for better or worse, was a showcase for the lead singer/songwriter's eccentricities. The band never toured (until 2005) and they released a string of iconoclastic albums focused around Berman's immeasurable lyricism. Often overlooked, Silver Jews created some fantastic music and Berman has become an acclaimed, often mythicized, poet.

American Water is their finest hour (48 minutes actually). Not one of the 12 songs could be called filler and each one serves its purpose on the album. It seems as though every element fell into place. Berman was not only at his peak of lyricism but also at his apex as a band leader. Stephen Malkmus sits on lead guitar and does some of the best playing he has done in his entire career. Mike Fellows (of Royal Trux) plays a bluesy relaxed bass. And Chris Stroffolino plays keyboard and trumpet to liven up the mix.

The album was recorded in the famed Rare Book Room, famous for capturing the warm texture of sound of a live performance. And while listening to the album it's hard not to picture the band sitting around jamming loosely while drinking beers and watching a muted television. That isn't to say this album lacks any instrumental flare - Quite the contrary, in fact. Malkmus buzzes off a storm of guitars as Berman slowly plucks in a more traditional roots rock structure on Blue Arrangements. And The Wild Kindness uses Stroffolino's keyboard and trumpet quite liberally.

All of that comes into an album with a rich and comforting atmosphere that could be likened to driving down a midwest highway. I see all the roads Berman has been down and all that I have and will go down. The roads are ever changing yet American Water knows what that will always look like. The album feels truly timeless in a way few do. Perhaps that is due to Stephen Malkmus and Berman often singing together, creating a universal aura to the often hyper-personal songs Berman writes (the downfall of The Natural Bridge, Silver Jews' previous album).

What it all comes down to is Berman's lyrics, though. And his work is absolutely stunning on this album, the kind of stuff that bridges the gap between his more straightforward personal works and his surrealistic works.With American Water Berman takes on the U.S. of A. and leaves us a portrait of shitty diners, dark alleys, nights spent laying on grass, and roads that might take you to where you have always belonged. This album is filled with some of his deepest and most approachable works. And with Berman's lazily wry delivery he can turn lyrics like this into something that not only seems coherent but familiar:

"Nobody cares about a dead hooker
Looking like one, standing for money
Life finds a limit at the edge of our bodies
A stranger begins wherever I see her.

Let's live where the indoors and outdoors meet
All the kids in the commonwealth are free.
Every morning you forgive me, every evening you relive me
And the pattern itself is what you give me
(the morning has cut a deal with the east)."

The album ranges in styles from pop (People) to country (Honk If You're lonely) to folk (Random Rules) and more pavement like rock (Night Society). But it refuses to be defined by the some of it's parts. American Water is a collection of great songs but together it builds an atmosphere that is something monumental, despite it being fairly basic musically. I guess sometimes an album can't be perfectly explained and it must be experienced. And this one is begging to be experienced. Next time you are cruising down a rural highway put this album on and it might just describe what you are seeing. Or just lay back in bed and let it sweep you away into its world. This album is filled with a lifetime of beauty and experience and it deserves to be listened to.

Since 1998 the Silver Jews have toured Israel, Berman has tried to kill himself, he has renewed his faith in Judaism, and he has retired from music. The Silver Jews are now defunct and I am betting it will be for good. We still have American Water, though, to remind us of the beauty of the American highway even with all its faults. Much like the country it represents, American Water isn't perfect, but in my experience it is the little imperfections that make something genuinely magnificent. Sometimes I have to remind myself of that. And for that I am glad we still have American Water, and I'm glad we always will.

-SP McDonald

The Inbetweeners Hits the Big Screen, Misses the Mark.

The Inbetweeners Movie is the highest grossing British comedy of all time. So why did a relatively low budget movie based on a foreign television show make so much money? Well I think it comes down to two factors: 1. It was a raunchy teen comedy (a genre believed to be dying) 2. The large fan-base that the show has accumulated over time. Now despite the shockingly large amount of cash this film made, I think that this move to the big screen has the two factors conflicting with each other.

I attribute the success of the original television show to the universality of the characters and situations. The show realistically shows what it is like to be a teenage male in the suburbs, a demographic that has been pandered to since it was first discovered to be a money maker in the 1960's. The show isn't just for teenage boys though, it is a series written with a lot of heart and intelligence  Most of the time the boys are ridiculed and disparaged, instead of just getting into wacky antics and then winning the women over like in your typical American Pie knock off. The guys in Inbetweeners are unmistakably losers, they never get the girls and are constantly making buffoons out of themselves while trying too. The one thing they do have is their close-knit friendship.

Will (the nerdy newcomer), Simon (the hopelessly romantic schlep), Neil (the kind-hearted idiot), and Jay (the pseudo-lady's man) could have all fallen into their respective archetypal character's cliches. But instead the series' writers treat the characters with such honesty that they feel real. The show's creators Iain Morris and Damon Beesley wrote every episode of series and each episode feels like a genuine experience for the characters as they seem to mature, reluctantly albeit. And when it ended with a simple camping trip before they all went their separate ways it felt like an authentic way to end the series.

The Inbetweeners movie takes it upon itself to tack on an extra ending to the series. And it falls into many of the typical traps a movie based on a TV show falls into. First of all, they amp everything up too much for the "transition to the big screen". By doing this they limit a lot of the subtleties that made the show so great in the first place. And secondly it feels like the writers are merely asking the audience to "watch these characters get into an adventure" instead of showing a story about the characters themselves. The movie is light and charming and feels like a weightless romp in comparison to the TV show. Sure the characters all mature at the very end of the movie, but after watching them act like idiots the whole film this sudden revelation for all four characters feels disingenuous.

I mean, each character learning that their respective negative personality trait was wrong at the exact same is the type of cliche that the original series steered clear of. In fact the whole movie is filled with stuff like that. The four main characters act like irredeemable assholes yet the women still swoon. This is the antithesis of what that show was about. This movie doesn't feel realistic in the slightest. It almost feels like the ending of this movie exists in some strange alternate universe of the original show where everything works out and everybody learns "a very valuable lesson"

Now that's not to say that this movie was all bad. In fact I think it succeeded on a few levels. The film captures all the raunchy glory of the original show, although it is a bit too reliant on gross out humor. It is also nice to have a farewell to all the secondary characters like the main character's parents and especially Greg Davies as the always funny Headmaster Gilbert. But the main attraction of this film is seeing the characters one last time. I'm not gonna lie, I fell in love with the four main characters and seeing them in a new adventure was well worth it.

The problem with that is those unfamiliar with the show have no reason to love these characters. Each character is broader than they were in the show, especially Simon who acts as though he has a serious mental deficiency throughout the film. I could actually understand why many film goers would dismiss this movie as a typical shitty teen comedy. And I wouldn't blame them if they did. The film is about the four friends having "one last adventure" on a summer vacation to Crete. They wear funny t-shirts, hit on girls, drink a lot of booze, and we see more than enough penises. And this movie offers quite a few laughs but what it doesn't offer enough of is heart, unfortunately that is what makes a film like this work (a la Superbad, Clerks). And it is something that the original series had in spades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChXiZh6Y1AE





-SP McDonald

Adventures in Tromaville: Poultrygeist.

For those of you who don't know what Troma Entertainment is, it is a film production and distribution company started by Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz that could be called the epitome of classless schlock. I don't mean this as an insult, I love schlock when it is done right, and Troma does it perfectly, with some style to boot. They have a certain approach to film making that arouses memories of both 50's pulp films and 70's exploitation and yet feel as though they might be mocking those same genres. Now this might sound like the Grindhouse movie Rodriguez and Tarantino did a few years ago, but Troma is not ironically doing campy stuff for comedy, they are just a little bit too serious about their schlock.  In fact no one really knows how in on the joke Troma is, and that is part of what makes them so interesting.

Troma rose to prominence in the mid 80's with the Toxic Avenger series, Class of Nuke 'em High, Troma's War and moved into the 90's with Sgt. Kabukiman NYPD, Terror Firmer, and peeking with their 1996 masterpiece Tromeo and Juliet. After that Troma fell on hard times, they mostly just distribute older movies now, and Lloyd Kaufman rarely directs. But is 2006 they made this movie using a cast and crew who worked for free and who lived in a church while filming. And I've got to tell you this movie doesn't disappoint. Poultrygeist not only holds up the Troma legacy but is one of their best.

Now let me explain, I am not a big horror movie fanatic, I like some horror films but I am nowhere close to being obsessed. And I by no means liked this movie as a horror movie. And anyone who knows me will tell you that I am a HUGE believer in the principle of a film being able to be so bad it is good. I love bad movies, but that is not the reason I liked this movie. I liked this movie because it was more fun than I can remember having while watching a movie in a long time. It is so much fun that I had the immediate sensation that I wanted to watch it again. That is pretty rare.

The premise is this: When a young man named Arbie has his girlfriend (Wendy) leave to college and return to town as a lesbian he gets revenge by taking a job at the newly opened fast food place that Wendy and her college friends are protesting. It turns out that the fried chicken joint was built on an Indian burial ground and the spirits are out for revenge. The movie in traditional Troma fashion is full of cheesy gore and gratuitous sex scenes, but this movie also has some fun with the fast food setting, incorporating a lot of shit and vomit as well. Unlike most other Troma movies though, this is a musical. By that I mean it has a few original musical numbers along with its mostly early 2000's pop-punk soundtrack.

The main attraction here is the comedy though. This movie is filled with jokes, something many Troma films have but almost never get right. This one does. The jokes are in the movie but they aren't funny, what is funny is how bad the jokes are. The comedy in this film is so offensive and sprawling that it is itself the joke. Or at least I think it is. Again it is hard to see how in on the joke Lloyd Kaufman and company are. Either way Poultrygeist does not have a dull moment in the movie and there was not a split second when I wasn't entertained.

Troma has this brilliant way of doing trash. They are audacious, original, and most of all wild. In the first scene of this movie our two lead characters have sex in the Indian graveyard while a zombified Indian fingers our unknowing hero's ass all while a red neck ax murderer watches and masturbates. I mean where else can you see that? Now I know maybe not everyone wants to see that, but I did, and I never even knew it! Who knows maybe I am just sick.

The movie makes fun of everyone in grand fashion, and is by no means afraid to take on the edgy stuff. Kaufman has got a lot of chutzspah and on this one he holds nothing back. Everyone is a target and everyone gets it good. From racist corporate mascots to hypocritical college elitists, no one is left unscathed. It is very Trey Parker/Matt Stone (whose first film was distributed by Troma) like in its broad attack at everyone. And  whether it hits or misses its sheer absurdity is fascinating.

This movie is filled with so many strange moments to come back to. As well as some very bizarre vegetarian overtones. Lets just say this movie is not subtle. Sure some people will call this film offensive or abhorrent or disgusting or distasteful or repugnant or repulsive or revolting or opprobrious or even just plain bad. But you know what? Fuck those people. Sure this film is polarizing but you know what it certainly is not? Forgettable. Maybe when we live in a world where bland, middle of the road, lowest common denominator, pablum is constantly shoved down our throats an unforgettable film can be viewed as a bad thing, but not to me. So if you're like me, and like stark originality, wild comedy and cheesy gore try this movie out. Sometimes it takes a Troma film to remind you that mediocrity isn't an inevitability.





-SP McDonald

Star Dreck: My Journey into Darkness.

I guess you could say that this isn't a review more like a run down of the movie and everything that upset me about it. If you haven't seen it, reading this will SPOIL the movie's plot. It is my very biased personal opinion. I almost feel guilty writing it. If you have seen the movie and disagree, just write a comment and we can discuss it. So here we go.

90's Classic: Ed Wood.

Tim Burton has fallen hard recently. His style is a parody of what it once was and he has basically lost all credibility as a filmmaker. Plus, I never really liked him all that much to begin with. There was a certain time in the early 90's when Burton really looked like he would become a premier auteur of his time. Burton was making both critically praised films (Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice) and block busters (Batman, Batman Returns), no simple feat for a director. He was achieving what few had ever done, maintaining credibility as an artist and making enough money for the studio that he was able to fund his own passion projects.

Ed Wood was the pinnacle of this. A stylized biopic about a cross-dressing director who is often referred to as the worst filmmaker of all time. The writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszeski, fresh off the awful Problem Child movies, treated the subject matter with a surprising amount of maturity, grace, and above all love. The film is a love letter to Wood's films as much as it ridicules them. The two writers really show of their USC degrees, adapting Rudolph Gray's novel Nightmare of Ecstasy into a script full of rich characters, touching moments, sharp dialogue, and lots of laughs.

As much as it pains me to say it though, Burton is who takes the script and makes it into a classic film. He shot the film in black and white, which brings Burton's absurd costumes and flamboyant charms the restraint it needs to feel timeless. The movie is full of so many beautiful little touches in the sets and costumes that you almost feel like the film is daring you not to be entranced by this story. It's the little moments of this film that dazzle me, the intermingling of Wood's real life and the films he writes, the way Wood is shot while watching his masterpiece, and of course the scene where he meets his hero Orson Welles. Burton gives us a flare for character and story instead of beating us over the head with his style and art design like so many of his other films. This film gives us the substance with enough flare that we won't forget it.

The cast is wonderful as well. The characters we knew from Wood's films are done admirably, such as Jeffery Jones as The Amazing Criswell or Lisa Marie as Vampira. As are the characters we have not seen before, Billy Murray's Bunny Breckinridge is a definite stand out. The really great performances though are given by the two leads. Martin Landau, who won an Academy Award for the performance gives Lugosi both the humor and the unquestionable sadness that came along with growing old and becoming forgotten. From the moment he comes onscreen I was so convinced by his performance that I genuinely forgot an actor was playing the role. Every second Landau gives to the movie he is Lugosi! Johnny Depp gives a different type of performance. His character is not so wrapped up in subtle intrinsic reaction of a human being lost in a world that has forgotten him. The character of Ed Wood, and I call him a character because I strongly doubt the man this way, is as though he has walked out of a classic film. Wood is both a character structured around the emotions and reactions of that of a classic Capra film and a parody of those very same character traits. He is a walking caricature in a world that is both grimly realistic and terrifyingly surreal.

Every response that Wood has is that of the goofy films from the 30's 40's he so resembles. The dramatic scene near the end of the movie where he loses faith and goes to a bar is not really dramatic! Wood goes there because he is a film character in movie. That's what HE does in the middle of the third act. The film knows it, the audience knows it, Wood knows it, it's the just the people around him that do not understand. The film strives for more than just being a meta-films and that is why it is so much more than mere screenplay gymnastics. Johnny Depp's Ed Wood is both aware and clueless, he exists as a celebration of an era of films and a showcase of the naïveté of such films. He is a confliction by design, yet above of all he represents the existential conflict of the artist, too walk the line between undying optimism and facing the reality of your limitations.

All these players, (the actors taking small or strange roles, the writers leaving their comfort zone, and a director who held back his stylistic urges just enough in order to tell a gripping story) they all gave us something special here. A movie that is enjoyable, original, and thought provoking on many levels. This movie is a hidden jewel in the filmography of an actor now know for playing a funny pirate, and a director now most remembered for multiple shitty remakes of classics and a animated musical (used primarily to sell things at Hot Topic) which he didn't direct. Did the star and mastermind of Ed Wood know that this would be their respective fates? Probably not. But in a way the masterpiece they made together says more about it than I could. A film about trials and tribulations of an artist, and wondering "In fifty years, when people look back, what will they remember me as?". But I can say that, if there is any justice in the world THIS is what you will be remembered for.

-SP McDonald

I take suggestions.

I take suggestions. If you want me to review a movie or an album/song just write a comment or send me a message. Love something, hate something, and you want to hear what I think about it, (or maybe you just want to see a horribly edited photo of it) just ask.




-SP McDonald

New feature: Forgotten 90's classics.

According to the modern culture evaluators the 90's sucked. As much as I dislike a lot of the 90's culture I disregard the claim that the whole decade was devoid of anything interesting or relevant. So to counteract the naysayers I am doing a few pieces on some relics from the 90's that I think have been under valued by modern critics. This includes: films, albums, books, and songs. I should be posting the first one later today.





-SP McDonald

Five Drunk Comedians.

(Left to Right: Monica Nevi, Andrew Rivers, Cory Michaelis, Myles Weber)

(Bottom left corner: Laura Hayden. Bottom Right: Jubal Flagg)

I love the Tacoma Comedy Club. I try to make it to see all the headliners and especially the Wednesday open-mic night. If you are not familiar with the club's schedule it is typically this:

Monday- Closed
Tuesday- Closed
Wednesday- Open-mic
Thursday-Headliner
Friday- Headliner (two shows)
Saturday- Headliner (two shows)
Sunday-(Special Event)

The Sunday special event is varied, it could be a local comedian recording their new CD, the annual Tacomedy competition, or just a one night show from another headliner or multiple comedians. But the second Sunday of every month they hold an event called Comics Under the Influence. The premise is simple, five comedians do their sets and then get plastered and go up and do another set. Tonight was my first experience going to this event and I wasn't expecting much. I could not have been more wrong.

The show was incredible, each of the five comedians along with the host (92.5's Jubal Flag) killed, and afterwards I was sore from laughing so much. This was one of the most entertaining and rewarding shows I have seen in a long time. It was just a downright good time. What made it so great? Well here is my rundown:

Each of the five comedians (Monica Nevi, Cory Michaelis, Laura Hayden, Andrew Rivers, and Myles Weber) performed wonderfully. All are damn fine comics and a show with all of them in it was quite rewarding on its own. The first hour or so played like a typical showcase format stand-up show. Each comedian seemed excited to be there and I was impressed by each set. I had seen Michaelis and Rivers before, but their sets were fresh and I don't think I heard more than one joke I had before. To me this hour of comedy alone would have been worth the price of admission. Then came the drinks.

This is where things get interesting. The comedians took the necessary amount of shots to get properly liquored up and performed again. What ensued was around an hour and a half of not just comedy but of dancing, on-stage drinking, rapping, falling down, hitting on women, attempts at getting two audience members to go on a date, and of course Weber attempting to get Rivers laid while also on his own quest to catch a glimpse at some late night titties (especially the ones "covered in sin"). The audience also had the specialty drink of the night to to enjoy (and for cheap).

We laughed, we talked, we sang, we booed the girl who wouldn't go out with Rivers, and we cheered the girl who would! It was more than just a comedy show it was a community experience of audience involvement. And I don't mean that in the way those lame dinner-theater shows claim "audience involvement". It was more than just shouting out ideas or comments. The audience and the comics were perfectly in sync and around the time the comics took turns slapping Rivers in the balls as they handed him shots and then danced to Back That Ass Up it all fell into place. It was improvisational and flowing in the way only the best comedy can be. It was wild, raucous, and boisterous. And it was ours. How perfect for the show to have taken place on Mother's day, because for a second there it felt like family.

-SP McDonald

Article I wrote.

http://www.examiner.com/list/the-five-best-novels-set-the-pacific-northwest?cid=db_articles

Above is a link to an article I wrote for the Examiner.

Iron Man 3's cliche ridden script causes mass constipation.

My friend and I saw Ironman 3 for his birthday a few days ago. The Marvel movies, with the exception of Captain America, have all come out around his birthday so it has become a tradition of sorts. We go to our local theater, get some popcorn, and watch whatever new movie Disney/Marvel has churned out. I say churned because none of the movies have felt like a succinct statement. They range from passable to horrid (I'm looking at you Captain America). These movies are not made as art they are made solely for profit. And I am not particularly upset by this. I enjoy going to these movies with my friend and chuckling to ourselves at the unintentionally funny dialogue and often questionable use of CGI.

This went on until Avengers came out. This was supposed to be the big thing, the superhero extravaganza we had all been waiting for. But the fun seemed to have ended there, everyone actor in the movie felt like they were forced to be there, with the exception of Mark Ruffalo, and the movie felt like a contractual obligation instead of a fun time. Not just contractual for the actors but for the viewer too. Everyone has to see the next Marvel movie lest they miss the ending teaser and be stuck behind the superhero movie buzz until dvd release.

Avengers had a clunky script, poor direction, plot holes abound, and astoundingly unoriginal art design. I say this as a Joss Whedon fan, he should not have directed this film. The movie was passable at best and me and my friend left the theater with mixed emotions. We considered this both a failure and success on Marvel's part. Then something strange happend, the Marvel fan-boys started yammering about this being some sort of nerdy "high art" and referring to Avengers as a classic of the genre. I guess I am a little baffled by this because I am not sure if people realize that these Marvel movies are sub-par.

By sub-par I mean that if these came out at any time previous to this they would be regarded as b-movies. The majority of these movies have cheap looking special effects, a weak script, a underwhelming cast, and poor direction. Hell most of these movies only have two acts. They are weak movies that only make money because superhero movies have been the "big thing" for the past ten or so years. The Marvel series pales in comparison to the Nolan Batman films and even the Raimi Spiderman movies. Not to say these movies are terrible, they are just weak. Except for Iron Man 2 and Captain America, those are terrible, and Iron Man 3 is only a little bit better.


Iron Man 3 was directed and co-written by Lethal Weapon writer Shane Black. I consider myself a fan of Shane Black mostly due to his directorial debut Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (His only film up until Iron Man). Kiss Kiss is a wonderful genre deconstruction that could only be made by someone who knew the buddy-cop genre as well as Black. Robert Downey jr. stars in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with unbridled enthusiasm and in my opinion gives one of his best performances. In most of Iron Man 3 Downey looks as though he fall asleep at any moment. This brings us back to the contractual obligation once again. I get the feeling that a few years ago Downey was worried that his career would slip down the drain as quickly as he made his comeback so he signed two huge contracts (Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes). He is now living in the fall out of that decision. His lack of enthusiasm matches most of the cast with the exception of Guy Pierce and Ben Kingsley, both are having their first Marvel experience.

This movie was bad, not so bad that it offended me, and I certainly wouldn't ask for a refund. As Tony Shalhoub said in the great Barton Fink "It's a b-movie!". I wouldn't expect to much more. But if these fan boys want me to judge this as a piece of art, well game on.

The first act is basically just plodding exposition framed around Stark's narration (Oh geez). It opens on flashback that explains the bad guy's superpowers and why he hates Stark. So not much for mystery or intrigue, fast forward to present day Stark and company are responding to the events at the climax of Avengers. What we get is some of the most heavy handed "metaphors" of the reaction to 9-11 (Gosh how edgy). We get laughable dialogue from the always characterless Gwyneth Paltrow as she talks to the irredeemably awful Jon Favreau and the rest of the cast of bored actors. Then the plot kicks in and Iron Man's house gets blown apart by the villain  The action looks so vanilla and devoid of character you could have taken it from any Michael Bay action film and just pasted Iron Man into it. The CGI laden climax to the battle looks closer to a video game cut scene then a respectable film.

Act two reveals some of the more obvious plot to Tony Stark, but not to the audience who has figured most of it out by now if they have half a brain. Stark meets a young boy that is reminiscent of Anakin in both appearance and lack of realistic dialogue. Of course the little kid's father is out of the picture given that father figures are the sacrifical lambs of the superhero genre. So Stark takes him under his wing and two god awful action sequence play out while he investigates in a small town. The plot picks up from here as Iron Man goes out to seek revenge on the villain. A mildly surprising twist happens, but the twist only reveals that the bad guy is even less interesting. The plot putters along from there into the final act.

The third act is by far the most interesting, not due to any original writing or directing, just through it's sheer absurdity. The finale feels like one of those fake trailers on youtube with the premise of "What if Shane Black wrote and directed a Iron Man movie". We get a white guy (Stark) and a black guy (Don Cheadle) running around with hand guns quipping to each other. The whole thing actually takes place on the final set piece of Lethal Weapon 2. Yeah that ship loading dock thing. I'm not joking all of this stuff happens! There is even the obligatory Shane Black torture sequence where Stark is tied to a bed frame. Thankfully he doesn't get tortured, instead the pain is inflicted on the audience as we hear the, I hesitate to say comedic, quipping between Stark and his captors. And god the quips in this movie are terrible, I have never missed Joss Whedon's over sarcastic and unrealistic dialogue more. The quips in this movie never reach self "aware action movie camp" or actual comedy, the back and forth dialogue in this is just stale and unfunny. The kind of jokes that were unfunny 30 years ago and Shane Black just hasn't realized it yet.

So in the last minutes of the movie we see a horrid and over long action sequence with the head villain. Then we are witness to one of the worst faux-dramatic moment/person dying sequences I have ever had the displeasure of watching. It fails to fool anyone and it is so embarrassing to me as a moviegoer that I contemplated leaving the theater. I wish I had because I would have missed the horrible action sequence of the aforementioned "dead" character coming back and having an action sequence. Afterwards the narration takes back over as Stark tosses a object that once held high meaning to him into the ocean and walking away. The cliche checklist has been filled to the brim, cut to credits.

Of the many problems with the movie I think the most interesting is the villain. All of the bad guys in this movie have the same power which leads to the same fight scene over and over in different locations. Some of the henchmen are not given super powers solely for plot convenience which is pretty obvious and tiresome after the first few times. The bad guys are also very boring in basically every regard. Their special effects don't look good, their back story is poorly done, and most annoyingly the main bad guy breaths horrible looking CGI fire and then never uses it again!

I don't want this review to scare anyone away from this movie. The film is perfectly watchable and entertaining. I wrote this review in such a critical manner to prove a point. These movies are not made to be works of art, they exist to make people money. Sometimes a movie like that can be fun and even interesting and still make people money. Iron Man 3 is not one of those films.





-SP McDonald

Modern Vampires of the Shitty

After recording two consecutive albums that I enjoyed (No simple feat), the New York City band Vampire Weekend have been teasing their third release for a while now. Three singles have been released off of the album (Diane Young, Step, Ya Hey). Now this is where things get a little messy for me. My feelings on the singles were mixed to say the least. I thought that Diane Young was cloyingly simple, and Ya Hey had a strange pitch shift effect in it that took me out of the song. Step, the best of the three, rips off the chord progression from a Bread song by paying homage to a early 90's hip hop song by Souls of Mischief that sampled a cover of it. (Actually homage is going a little easy on it if you ask me).

So needless to say I was worried about the overall quality of the album. I expected it to go down like their second album Contra. I hated Contra's first two singles (Giving Up the Gun and Cousins) but when I listened to the whole album every other song on it charmed me. That did not happen with this album. The plane has crashed, the car has flipped, and Vampire Weekend has shit the bed on this release. It is almost like Ezra Koenig and his band of merry-musical-trust-fund-children have intentionally tried to hurt me. In fact that is how I am going to take this entire experience!

You see Vampire Weekend was that one band I could list when people would say that I am just biased against modern "indie-pop". Vampire Weekend was different from the Grizzly Bears and Deerhunters of the world. They had passion and nostalgia and the ability to write a damn good pop song. Go ahead and listen to their first album and tell me that it isn't 11 songs of gloriously unabashed pop! I wonder what happened. Who was it that insulted Ezra? Perhaps they condescended to him as "a pop musician". Maybe it was on his cameo in Girls (Ugh...). Whatever happened, the band have taken to changing their sound. The kind of change where music critics will inevitably say that they are "growing up". "Aging" in the music world is apparently code for making less interesting or relevant music thn.

Vampire Weekend have stripped off a lot of those world beats that were part of what made their past two works so interesting in comparison to most pop songs on "alternative" radio. And as they dial back the african rythms and synthesizers they amp up the string sections. The sound on is record is much closer to the squeaky clean chamber rock/baroque pop of a band like Grizzly Bear or Bon Iver. The key difference  in instrumentation would be the large amount of pitch shift used throughout the album. The pitch shifts are actually a perfect little metaphor for what this album really is: both an attempt at something new and a dumbed down version of their earlier work.

In regards to the first part, for about half the album we get Vampire Weekend trying for a slower side. This would be on of my major complaints of the album. The album's first track Obvious Bicycle accurately illuminates the problem of the album's slower songs. There is not a memorable moment in this entire song! It sounds like any band could have recorded it with Ezra singing it. This goes double for the song cycle in the middle of the album of Don't Lie, Hannah Hunt, and Everlasting Arms. I don't think it's even a song cycle, it just feels like one big 10 and a half minute song that lulled me to sleep like Justin Vernon wrapping me up in a blanket of symphonic pablum. The worst song, Hudson, is perhaps the most revealing about the album. It shows Vampire Weekend's biggest limitation so far. Their absolute ineptitude at writing the dark and brooding. Which is fine, some bands can only write certain songs. What is very far from fine is that this song made the album, or that it was even recorded. Surely someone had to hear this and realize it was terrible! Then the album ends with a minute and forty seconds of what I suspect is supposed to be an "ambient" statement of sorts. Or maybe they had some sort of quota of shit to fill and they cranked this out in 5 minutes on a smartphone.

As to the latter part of the earlier statement, every sound heard on this album sounds so produced, and just about anything interesting about the band's sound has been filed down to an album that sounds nice to everyone but interesting to no one who hasn't been heavily medicated. The only positive growth I see on this album is the mild experimentation on the one-two punch of Finger Back and Worship You, which just sounds like Animal Collective if you made them put on ties and pumped them full of mood stabilizers. Plus Finger Back (along with Ya Hey) has this horrible Lou Reed wannnabe spoken word section. So as it turns out the three singles which I found so underwhelming actually turned out to be some of the best stuff on the album.

Maybe I shouldn't get so upset about this band which is perhaps merely a hybrid of Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel and "Diet Brian Eno". Maybe you would say I am being overly sensitive over a pop band making a simply mediocre album. You are probably right, this album isn't really a knife in my back, but go back and listen to California English or Oxford Comma and then think about it for awhile. This album fell short, which might not be the greatest crime but in the face of two pop masterpieces it feels like so much more... I guess in the end the greatest sin of Young Lion is that when it ends the next song that plays is Mansard Roof.





-SP McDonald