The Alien Conspiracy - Grey Skies

The Alien Conspiracy - Grey Skies

There are times when I don't understand how a movie gets made. I see some passion and care in really bad 70's filmed-with-a-home-camcorder movies with just enough plot to actually have a storyline of sorts. However, there are times when I see that same quality of movie but I have no clue what the plot is about or why anyone thought to make the movie (let alone two sequels).

The two writers and directors, Kevin J. Lindenmuth and Tom Nondorf have a slew of "bad" movies under their belt and some of them look like they actually make sense. There's no one of fame, in the least, in the movie and if the people who "starred" in this picture are anything more than friends and family of the directors, I'd be shocked.

I'll tell you what the plot is suppose to be about and then I'll tell you what it really is.

"The Earth has become a three way battlefield between humans trying to defend against two different alien species bent on taking charge of the planet. The Greys are an alien race who want to destroy the earth in a nuclear blast while the Morphs want to preserve the planet for their own purposes. Meanwhile, several fellow Earthlings are doing what they can to protect our troubled planet." (Comes from the IMDB page)

Now I wish I could tell you what this movie is about but I'm afraid to do that, I'd have to drop acid laced with stupid. I would say this movie is weird except that it's far too stupid to be considered cutesy weird. The movie starts out trying to be a semi-documentary but it all of a sudden gives up on that whole notion. We're shown the Greys a few times in the beginning, but other than the aliens looking like people dressed up in Big Lots alien costumes, they don't seem to have a role in this movie. There's also some random guy who is trying to interview for a job but he's really talking to a shape shifter. I don't know, that's what I got out of it. I ended up cutting my eyeballs out with a rusty spoon and seeing how much salt I could pack in. It made more sense then anything in this movie.

It got a lot worse too. You have a guy interview Death, for some apartment reason. You're thinking to yourself, "Well there has to be a transition in there and it has to do with the overall story. This guy is just leaving it out." You are wrong. There is no reason given why a random character is getting an interview with Death, who is once again a cheap Halloween clad figure. After we are shown a normal day in the life of Death. Then what happens? The movie is over.

Grade - F

No plot, no actors, no coherent storyline, no transitions. This was nothing. It was worse than nothing. You can't watch nothing. This was worse than watching an elephant being thrown from a plane and after he hits the ground you have a bunch of naked Smurfs drink up the carnage. The guy who goes for the job interview, the interview with Death, the start of a mocumentary that just stops, I don't get it. How is this a movie? Also, how did two sequels get made? I understand independent films, but even a 30 second short involving gay, clown cowboys cleaning their dishes with their feet would make more sense than this movie.

Fear - Review

Fear

There are times when I think I'm too masochistic. I mean, sure I like bad movies, but there are a lot of bad movies that have a lot of charm. It's kinda like a mangy dog you pick up at the pound and you just fall in love with it because it's so helpless and sad. However, there are times when I think I'm one sick puppy.

I should really learn that a movie that stars both Mark Wahlberg and Reese Witherspoon is going to hurt. Even a pre-CSI William Petersen and an always sexy Alyssa Milano can't help this movie.

Nicole Walker (Witherspoon) is your normal 16 year old girl. Sure she's in her rebellious stage but she still doesn't like skipping class or being out past curfew. So when she meets an almost perfect yet mysterious older guy named David McCall (Wahlberg) she stops being daddy's little girl anymore. Yet when she see the real David for the psychopath he really is and his good boyish charm melts away, she realizes that she picked the wrong guy in a seedy hangout bar. Who woulda thunk? Her father (Petersen) tries to protect his daughter the best he can, but soon David and his friends attack the family in their nice, safe home.

So dealing with Marky Mark first I have to be shown right, once again, that his attempt at acting is just the same way he plays every other character he's ever done, but with a bit more yelling. Half of his lines are whispering and on the verge of tears. When he tries to turn the character to the psycho he really is he doesn't do a very good job. All he has to do is frown and look at the camera with upturned eyes. Even when he completely flips and tries to take Nicole away to live happily ever after, you don't really see the person who actually believes that, you just see some guy who's kinda mean.

Reese Witherspoon has been trying to play the all American girl for so long now. She's tried it in this movie, "Cruel Intentions", and "Election". She's never been really able to pull it off. Her slutty character in "Pleasantville" seems like more the character she wants to be. I do have to say, getting felt up on a carnival roller coaster is pretty unusual. The thing I can say about her character is that I believe she's doing a good job at playing a 16 year old who's dating an older boy who turns out to be a psycho. She mopes and cries a lot, she never learns the first time that the guy is bad news, and once she finds how crazy he is she doesn't get the police involved in anyway.

I do have to say that the little kid in this film is awesome. Christopher Gray plays the brother, Toby Walker. The thing I like about this kid is that he's the smartest one in the family. The bad guys decapitate his dog and he takes his revenge out on one of the guys by running him over with a car. Does he check the guy to see if he's still alive only to be taken as a hostage when the bad guy gets up? No! He dials 911! He also saves his mom by himself, not to mention bringing the police to come and save the family.

There are three big problems that doesn't include the storyline or the acting. However, I must give a SPOILER ALERT, since some of them might give away the ending if you still plan on watching it.

1) When David goes out the window and onto the rocks below you can clearly tell that the falling object in a dummy; and no, I'm not saying that Mark Wahlberg did that stunt. This is a 1996 movie, films before have done much better jobs at showing people going over cliffs . It almost seems like the filmmaker did one take and didn't even bother to make it more realistic.

2) When David shoots his buddy for touching "his woman" it's one of the worst gunshots to the head scenes I've ever seen. You have a close up shot of the two men, David pulls the trigger, and the gun flashes. The other guy just says "Uhh" and drops to the floor. There is no bullet hole, there is no blood splatter, there are no pieces of bone and brains anywhere that would happen as a result of a gunshot to the back of the head at point blank range. It's not like there hadn't been a blood splatter scene in movie history before ("Pulp Fiction" was two years prior to this film). This shows sloppy work on the part of the director.

3) This is my favorite. In order to slow down David, Nicole takes the peace pipe he won her at a carnival and stabs his very hard with it in his back. I don't know about you, but I doubt anything won at a fair would make it more than a month without disintegrating, let alone being able to use it to forcefully stab an attacker. I think some carny is going to be getting sued if that were to actually happen.

Grade - D

The father is a moron in this movie, so is the mother, so is the daughter, so is everyone except the little boy. He's the only person that accomplishes anything to help save his family and he gets to take out some revenge on someone who killed his dog. Marky Mark falters severely at trying to convince me he's not just another whinny, whisper talking character he almost always plays (sometimes he both whines and whispers at the same time in this film). Witherspoon plays an okay 16 year old but she doesn't seem to do much in the movie. It's really hard to feel anything from this movie. I never really felt like rooting for either the father or the daughter and Wahlberg didn't scare me at all. If they were to just call the cops and get a restraining order on him, he would have went away quietly.

Superman Returns - Review

Superman Returns

This movie was almost a decade in the making. Not for reasons of technology trying to catch up with the creator's imagination or anything like that. We had to wait so long for this movie because the script went through as many rewrites as India has telemarketers. The scariest part of this movie was the first person picked to play Superman was going to be Nicolas Cage. If that would have happened, you would have seen me on street corners throughout the world chiming of the end of the world is neigh! I think that's in the Bible, "Lo, and if an actor with little talent and blading head would play the man of super let your children cry out in the night, let your women cry tears of sorrow, and let your men tremble with fear." Of course that could be talking about any Nick Cage movie so I don't know. However, just try and image a more horrific image than a balding, untalented, looks like a puppy dog who's been hit with a rolled up newspaper actor try and play the man of steel. I weep for our species when I consider that was not only an option, but the first choice.

For my superhero movies I like lesser-known actors. I think they have the ability to bring a lot of new talent to great characters but without bringing the big-headedness of big Hollywood actors. I do have to say that Brandon Routh was a decent looking Superman/Clark Kent. Unfortunately, Brandon Routh is the only well cast person, or at least his character is written in the best way.

My other three complaints with this movie's casting might have to do more with the way the characters were written. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was a boring choice. She neither embodied the independent nature of Lois Lane nor pulled off a sense of beauty that would attract the most powerful man on the planet to her. The character of Lois Lane was written atrociously. If I didn't know any better I'd say this was Bizarro Lois Lane. She was weak, annoying, and not even close to the hard hitting reporter she's suppose to be. The character of Lois Lane has a lot of history you must carry with her. In the 1930's women weren't considered professional or strong or even good at "men jobs". Lois Lane is the first, real true feminist heroine. She can outshine even Superman at her job and she's not some weak female who screams her head off and plays the damsel in distress. Sure, Superman saves her from time to time, but she's not one to wait in the tower while her hero princes comes to rescue her. The Lois Lane in this movie for some reason, comes to hate Superman and is good for nothing. I would have suggested that we trade Noel Neill (who played one of the Lois Lane's in the TV show who had a cameo) for this character. She would have known how to play a better Lois Lane. There is no chemistry to this Lois Lane and there's not one inclination of attraction that she has for Superman.

My second big gripe is the way Lex Luthor was written. Kevin Spacey, I thought, would have done an excellent job as Luthor. I'm a big fan of Spacey's work and I can't say there hasn't been a role he's been bad in...until now. I believed Gene Hackman's Luthor over this one...and Hackman wasn't even bald! Kevin Spacey either didn't know how to play Luthor or his character was written so out of context. Luthor is not a methodical genius in this movie. He is not evil or bent on world conquest. His plan is so stupid that it makes spray on hair look like the best millennium invention. Luthor seems to yell and scream a lot and I don't know how this guy is suppose to be Superman's arch-nemesis. Also, Luthor isn't head of a corporation so he can use technology against Superman. Instead he marries some old rich lady who dies. Wooo, real clever there. There is so much wrong with this character and the way he was portrayed. This is not the true enemy of the strongest man alive.

My third gripe in the cast is James Marsden as Richard White. Is it Marsden's goal to cry and whine in every movie? This guy just reminds me of a really tall six year old who doesn't get his candy bar at the store. I expected Marden to drop on the floor in some scenes and just throw a temper tantrum.

Let me talk about the director now. Bryan Singer had his own vision for Superman. While most of the time that's ok for superhero movies there are certain tenants that you must stick to. For example, if Superman didn't fly you couldn't really consider him Superman (although some comic series say that Superman can't fly but jumps, still you get my point). Singer's vision for this Superman was to make him asexual. He didn't want Superman to really be part of the world he swore to protect and that vision shows in this movie. Superman seems to treat Lois as an object rather than the love interest they are suppose to be. The worse part of his vision is that he completely goes against it when you come to find out Superman and Lois had a son (more on that later). You also don't have a lot of Clark Kent in here. You also don't have Superman doing a lot of good deeds either. Sure he rescues a few people here and there but that's like watching Spiderman stop one purse snatcher and calling it a night. With no chemistry at all between Superman and Lois why did Lois even need to be in there. We get it Singer, you're gay, stop messing with our superheroes. Just because you don't like women doesn't mean our comic book hero don't have to either. We were so worried that they would change the costume of the character more than what they would make him do and be. It really is true that this Superman is some sort of sexless, quite alien that shows throughout this movie.

I'll explain the plot and then tell you why it's boring and stupid. Superman has come back from his excursion of trying to find Krypton. He tries to pick back up his normal routine but the world seem to have forgotten him and his love, Lois Lane, hates him. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor has been concocting an "ingenious" plan. He's going to fuse Kryptonite with a crystal that made Superman's Fortress Of Solitude. Then he's going to throw it in the ocean and upon expanding he will have new land that he, somehow, owns. This will cause sea levels to knock out a lot of the world and people will come to him to buy land. Superman must stop him, but how? Kryptonite is his weakness. Also, we learn that Lois had his son but she's hooking up with Perry White's son.

There are SOOOO many problems with this plot. First and foremost, the plot is moronic. Luthor is going to get rich off destroying America and a big part of the world by selling them land? For a super genius that is the rival of the man of steel, Luthor is loosing his touch. What was with swindling the old lady out of her money? This is Lex Luthor, he's an inventor and a genius. What happen to his fortune? Also, Luthor was crazy but he wasn't a mad lunatic; yet in this movie he seems off his rocker. How dare he interrupt Lois Lane saying Superman will save her by just yelling out "WRONG!"? That was a perfect opportunity for a one liner. This movie also has five different writers working on the story, characters, and screenplay. That seems a bit excessive. How hard is it to make a decent Superman movie?

Second of all, Superman embodies truth justice and the American way. Whether we agree with it or not, Superman embodies old ideas and I don't think he would have premarital sex with Lois Lane and produce a child and just leave. Not to mention, when did these two have sex? We can point to Superman II where Clark gives up his powers and knocks around with Lois and then wipes her memory (post rape?) with the super kiss. Still, fathering a child out of wedlock seems unlike the Superman I've known from any source (other than those of today that try and reinvent a dirtier version of Superman).

Third, does Superman really do anything in this film? He saves a plane, stops a burglary that has way too much firepower, and stops Luthor. The rest of it is Superman looking "messiah-like", almost emo-ish, at the planet and trying to figure out his relationship with Lois. This was a really boring Superman movie. Like the Hulk movie, I want to see Superman hit something! Hollywood has this obsession with making movies that shouldn't be actiony have explosions and random action. Yet, when they want to make a movie that the audience would appreciate Superman punching tanks or destroying a huge meteor with a few power blows, they give us a bloody love triangle.

Grade - D

This movie makes Superman IV seem like Casablanca. I wouldn't even call it a Superman movie. The visuals are nice, I'll give it that. I like some of the iconic imagery used such as Superman hovering over the Earth and we hear all the problems he can deal with, all the people that could use his help. It's a touching scene. Also the minigun scene and the bullet in the eye is just awesome. Too bad the rest of the movie didn't have anything like that.

However, this movie lacks anything Supermanish. There is one, and only one, thing that is on par with a Superman character. After S. puts the plane down in the stadium he says that air travel is still the safest way to travel. It's the only "all American, tomboy, superhero" real Superman thing in the whole deal. It's just too bad that the older Superman movies said the same thing in regards to the subway scene. Luthor's plan is moronic and Spacey does a horrible job with the character.

Superman's love child and a love triangle made me feel like I was watching a sequel to Pearl Harbor. Yes, it's that bad of a story element. You can't tell me there are strong parallels between Routh and Marsden. Shoot, even Marsden's character flies a plane!

I hope that the next movie that's done is actually done by someone who has at least read one comic book and not trying to preach a non-homosexual / non-heterosexual, believable Superman!

Time Code - Review

Time Code

Once in a while...a great while...a movie comes along and tries to break the monotony of standard movie making. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a movie is ahead of its time so much that it isn't until much later that others pick up on the trend.

Unfortunately, the only thing this movie has with what I've written above is that it tried something different.

The movie was written and directed by Mike Figgis and looking at his credits he's had some directing/writing credits before this movie that I would assume allow him to write and direct a decent script. I guess having both under your belt doesn't help much.

This movie is film in four windows and it's up to you, the viewer, to pick which to watch. The dialog is focused at times on one screen so the director doesn't really let you choose. The movie is also filmed in real time. You never really realize how boring a "normal" person's life is until you watch this movie.

Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and Rose (Salma Hayek) are lovers and Lauren suspects Rose of cheating on her with a movie producer. She plants a bug on Rose and listens to her from her limo. We also see a bunch of other people but I don't really want to describe this plot anymore.

This is one of the most horrible excuses for a plot and movie I have ever seen. The split screen would be great for a spy or thriller movie where, while your gaze is on the screen that the dialog is happening, something is going on in other screens that you need to know about to figure out the ending. This...feces laden script is about nothing at all and I was never so bored with a movie. I would rather watch someone how to teach me how to build a wood cabinet from scratch than watch this movie. Sure the carpenter movie wouldn't have a lesbian make out scene, but the cinematography and script for his show would be better than this pile of baby mucus.

How this movie got made, and got good reviews, I'll never know. There is not even a semblance of a plot going on in this movie and the ending is utterly unbelievable and ridiculous. After watching this movie I felt as if I were repeatedly slapped by a marlin. I might have enjoyed that better.

Grade - F

Plot? We don't need no stinkin' plot! We'll just say the movie is avant-garde and we'll make it sound like it's an intellectual film. That way people won't admit to not getting it because it'll make them look stupid. Seriously folks, watching one episode of any soap opera is better compare to this dreck.

The Vampire Conspiracy - Review

The Vampire Conspiracy

When dealing with B movies, especially B horror movies, one must almost always take to heart the old saying of "Don't judge a book by its cover." Except the saying has the opposite intention. It always seems that the most money these types of B movies spend on something in the movie is always the artwork for the cover. This movie sounds from the description and the DVD cover like a decent movie you'd watch if it was on the Sci-Fi Channel. However, once you view the first few scenes you know you've been screwed over and almost lied to.

This plot is a dumbed down version along the lines of the "Saw" series or the "Cube" series. The "Cube" series is a B movie series, and a good one in my opinion, but this movie is worse than "Cube" but is still considered a B movie. I don't want to start calling movies C or D movies were the B movie looses all its meaning. I just wanted to make that clear that you can't judge and compare B movies without context.

Five strangers are abducted and put into a room together. They start out, like any of these types of strangers-abducted-and-put-into-the-same-environment goes, trying to figure out who the others are and why they are there. A 250 year-old vampire shows up and informs them that they are in a maze of his making. If they survive and make their way out of the maze, those left alive will receive the vampire's entire fortune. As they go from room to room they are given clues to help them what path to take. Not only do they have to decipher the seven word clues given to them but they must also fight off and/or escape from the vampire's undead army. Why were these people chosen? Will any of them make it out alive? Do you really care?

Ok so the end of my plot description makes the story sound sort of anti-climatic. In one sense it is. This is the same old story of a "Saw" a "Cube" and the 1999 version of "House On Haunted Hill"...but with vampires! However, on the other hand, this is a very low budget movie compared to any of those other movies. I'm never one to rag on a B movie for lack of picture and/or sound quality. I give each movie a fair shake. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could shoot movies with the same equipment that big, Hollywood pictures shoot with, but I think you'd loose some of the charm of these movies. "Saw 4" might have had a full blown autopsy scene, but you have to laugh at how much money they spent compared to some movies who use just some hamburger meat, red food coloring, and other sorts of fake internal organs and effects. I appreciate the charm of such techniques.

The main problem I had with this movie was more the set itself. This movie appears to have been shot in an old motel that's been converted into an independently run haunted house that pre-teens visit for Halloween with their dates who were all dropped off by their parents. It really is a weird look to a place for a vampire who has such "unimaginable wealth". If I had 250 years worth of interest in the bank, my death chamber would at least be decent looking. You don't have to go with the old gothic, dungeon-esk scene. You can really modernize it or put your own spin to it. However, it's kinda hard to be scared in what looks like an old, rundown motel.

Grade - D-
B Movie Grade - C

This wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen but it definitely did have some big problems with it. This reminded me a bit of movies such as "Saw" and "Cube" a bit. Too bad it didn't push more into those types of story ideas. My biggest problem with the movie is the over use of the f-word. This movie sticks it in between every other word. It's not the only over used curse word in here but it definitely was the word most used. Another problem was that the ending made no sense at all, there is no conclusion and it ends up making the rest of the movie utterly pointless. The thing that bumps this up in the "B Movie Grade" comes from the attempt to tie all the characters in the movie to each other. The people in this movie find out later that while being chased by a horde of the undead, there is someone they are traveling with that, in someway and for some reason, want them dead. It's a nice try for the movie. This movie should really teach you to read the script to your movie after you binged on pot, coke, and beer before you shoot your movie.

Dragon Wars - D-War - Review

Dragon Wars - D-War

Alright, now we're talking! This is a bad movie! Yep, that's right, I am giving you the grade first! Grade - F. But that's no fun to judge B movies based on the standards of good movies. How could I take such glee in watching movie greats like "Killer Klowns From Outer Space" and "They Live" and countless others that I cherish.

I guess this movie is a big hit in Korea and was writen and directed by South Korean native, Hyung-rae Shim. This movie just has two stars of interest. Jason Behr plays our hero in this flick. You might remember him from that great, yet short lived, TV show "Roswell". I really like him in the show and it's too bad we haven't seen him in anything good. This movie has has "the black guy from 'The Office'". The black guy from "The Office"'s name is Darryl Philbin and is played by Craig Robinson.

I just want to start out by saying that whatever else I write about this movie will not do it justice. This is a movie that should be experienced through viewing more than reading a review. What I describe the story as is not as complete as it should be and is not as funny to see. The "complaint" I make are not as funny to read about, but watch it with the review and checkoff what you see and find it as hilarious as I did.

Every 500 years a group of lizards, who are really gods, do battle with the help of good and bad human subjects. So far, the good guys have thwarted all attempts for the bad guys to destroy the world. However, in the modern era, the people do not believe in dragon anymore and so are unprepared. Can humanity survive? Reporter "Ethan Kendrick" (Behr) has been chosen to be the protector and savior of humanity. Actually he is being called again because in his past life he was Korean and the protector 500 years ago. He must stop the bad dragon that is coming, the Imoogi, from eating a girl who has a mysterious illness. If the bad dragon eats her, he will gain the power to destroy the world. The girl is living in LA and so the dragon starts to wreaking havoc and destruction on the city. Ethan finds Sarah (the girl with the illness played by Amanda Brooks) and tries to protect her from not only the Imoogi but its minons who have the ability to summon dinosaur like creatures (both tank like and flying types). We later find out that there is a good dragon to come and protect them. Will Ethan and Sarah save not only themselves, but all of humanity?

I will give the grade on a B movie level scale first and then I will go into all the things to look for that make this movie so fun to watch.

Grade - C+

This movie is hilarious. It is so odd that I can't believe Shim wrote this sober. Maybe it's a Korean thing like "Pom Poko" is a "Japanese thing" movie.


1) There are flashbacks within flashbacks. This is a pet peeve of mine. It's like holding up two mirrors parallel to each other and seeing how far you can look back.

2) This movie tried to inject Korean words into the dialog and uses them. I got so mixed up on what was what that I just rooted for the destruction. The way the story is written or told through narrative make it very hard to figure out which dragon was the good one and which was the bad one.

3) There are 3 people in this movie who use to be Korean/Asian in a previous life. In this life, they have acceded and attained the level of whiteness. Then it goes on to say that the higher level above whiteness is godhood. I am not lying here. If you're Korean, in your next life, you will be white. After you die when you're white, this movie teaches, that you will attain godhood. I love it! It's like when Japanese anime base all their character looks as white people and not at all like them.

4) The bad monster is a moron. He needs to eat one person in order to be the supreme ruler of the world. However he goes from traveling 100 MPH chasing the girl and when he has her cornered, he, for some odd reason, slows down and drag it out, which means that he looses his prey and the win. He will seriously corner her on top of a building and after snaking up it with no problem, he will go towards her like she's going to hurt him. Towards the end of the movie he does the same bloody thing, which means he gets stopped.

Along those same lines, any minor distraction has to be dealt with by him instead of just quickly gobbling up his prey and THEN taking care of the minor problems after he's obtained his supreme power. A car will slam into him and he will scream, sure, but the car is destroyed and is therefore no longer a threat. Just eat the girl and then take vengeance!

5) There are helicopter pilots who believe as they are about to crash into the sides of buildings are going to avoid all injury by throwing their arms animately around their face.

6) There is an amulet Ethan wears for protect. What does it do? Why does he have to wait until he's tied up to use it? It didn't really seem to protect him at all.

7) The bad human-ish guy towards the end, instead of cutting off Ethan's head and taking out the girl's protector, he touches the amulet with his sword lightly and it suddenly destroys him. What reason is given? None. I don't know why he dies by lightly touching the amulet with his sword. I also don't understand why he did it. He makes a sarcastic comment on how well it has protected Ethan. Hey buddy! Don't touch the one thing that, for some reason, makes you evaporate!

8) Why does it take till the end of the movie for the good dragon to come help? He comes for no reason either. Also, the good dragon can somehow make the girl's energy ball, that the bad dragon needs to take over the world, to come out of the girl and he can ingest it. This causes him to transform into a super-dragon.

9) The Korean name of the movie is called D-War. But the American version is called Dragon Wars or Dragon Wars- D-War. That means you have a singular and a plural in the same title! So is the movie really Dragon War or Dragon Wars?

These are just 9 funny things about this movie. Watch it and send me others to add to the list.

This movie isn't all bad either. The animation looks pretty sweet. The biggest chunk of money was given towards the animation. The dragons fighting is awesome and the military fighting the dinosaurs are great battle scenes. If they put even half the thought and talent into the actual story that they did the graphics, this wouldn't be such a bad movie. This is definitely a great B movie though!

Ever Since The World Ended

Ever Since The World Ended

I love post-apocalyptic movies. Humanity laid to waste for whatever reason. Now they must fight to survive or band together to survive or take out the guy with the butt-less chaps so he doesn't steal their oil.

This movie incorporates the story of the destruction of humanity to a very few and a first hand perspective mocumentary (aka fake documentary). So basically you have a cross between "The Postman" and "The Blair Witch Project". The main question I had before seeing this movie was, "Is this going to suck as much as "Blair Witch" did?"

Twelve years have passed since a plague swept the planet killing out most of the population. The film revolves around two guys who decided to document the post-destruction era they live in on video for future generations, if any. They live in San Francisco where they are only 2 of 186 people remaining alive. So the film makers give us a taste of what life is like. They interview a kid who is a "finder of anything you need" by raiding houses of the dead. We see the group council deciding how to carry out punishment. We see how family life has changed and how children who have grown up post-plague feel about the "times before" that they never knew. A bunch of subjects, if properly done, could make for a very interesting movie.

Unfortunately, this movie fails at telling the story they wanted to.

The production value isn't the best, but I hold that against no movie. I hate to see Hollywood have a monopoly on movie making so I will watch a movie shot on a 1980's home video recorder and appreciate the story for what it is (and I have to!).

Grade - D+

This movie is horrible. I know people will and have picked on it for having little production value but I don't hold that against anyone...unless you're "Blair Witch", and your movie has nothing in it. This movie at least tells the tale of how people would be like after they grow accustomed to the notion that the world just started from scratch again. I liked that it showed a wide selection of people. Kids who knew little to nothing about the "time before", people starting families again, "deviants", etc.

The real gripe I have with this movie is that it allows people to talk too much and doesn't show much about the daily struggles that the people have to face. It's mostly about how people came to this point and what they do now. We're only treated to a small insight of the new "governing body" making a decision about a "deviant". What happens after that is a bit confusing (not wanting to give anything away). Also, they never explain why they wanted to film outside the city at all. We're just suppose to guess. There are also no fun shots of a deserted city or any aftermath shots. It's a nice talking points movie...but not much of anything else.

Reign Of Fire - Review

Reign Of Fire

Now with a poster like that and a title like that you'd expect a movie with a lot of dragons and destruction with fire. Up to this point in time, the only real dragons we movie fans have had were "Dragonheart" and Bert I. Gordon's "The Magic Sword". Briney and I actually went out into the world to visit a movie establishment to see this movie in 2002. We see trailers with dragons, we see posters with dragons, we see movie clips of a dragon taking out a tank with some awesome fire breathing action. This movie looked like it could meet our dragon movie needs!

Then we watched it.

There's only really three actors of interest in this film. Gerard Butler, Christian Bale, and Matthew McConaughey.

The movie is about how a woman screws over the world and helps to bring about its destruction. At least that's what I got out of it. Quinn Abercromby (Bale) visits his mother at her tunneling job where she unleashes a single dragon back into the world. Twenty years later the world is decimated by hordes of flying beasts and only a few patches of humanity have survived. Quinn leads one of these groups. He helps keep everyone safe by implementing rules and procedures to protect them, feed them, shelter them, and help them the best way he can. Then one day, a group of crazy American soldiers show up, in Britain nonetheless, led by Denton Van Zen (McConaughey). The American take out one of the huge dragons and become heroes to everyone in the community, except Quinn who see Van Zen as a "hot dogger" and someone who upsets the apple cart and puts his people in danger. We learn that all but one of the dragons are female and if these crazy American soldiers can find the male dragon they can kill it and let nature take its course to kill the female ones. With no reproducing dragons, man, once again, retains his rightful place at the top of the food chain.

Sounds like a good enough movie, right? Wrong! These are so many problems with this movie that I left the theater wanting to do harm to myself and whoever made this movie.

First of all, what is one thing you expect your dragon movie to have in it? If you said dragons, you get a free pass NOT to watch this movie. In this movie we are introduced to really only two dragons. That is double the number in "Dragonheart" AND THERE WAS ONLY ONE IN THERE! Note to Hollywood: dragon movie elements needed - DRAGONS!

Second of all, McConaughey is a complete douche bag in this movie. He has a flack jacket half on with the sleeves cut off through the entire movie and he's nuts.

I do have to say, this is the most clothes that McConaughey has ever warn in a movie or maybe in real life.

The Americans in this movie are very stereotypically written. First of all, these American soldiers somehow wind up in Britain and are still fighting twenty years after the initial dragon showed up. Then they come into Quinn's village and just for some reason, Van Zan and Quinn get into a fight. Then Van Zan just declares that he's going to take what he wants, when he wants.

There's also a really weird "Xtreme!" sequence in this movie of some American soldiers jumping out of the air, using one person as bait, and the others using a net to down a dragon. These people don't use parachutes, but glide to the Earth with their bat-like suits. IT'S X-TREME!!!! The "X" and the exclamation points make it more X-TREME!!!

Another glaring problem I have with this movie is how the dragons reproduced. Ok, I can buy that there is only one male and all the others are females, no problem. Yet there are two glaring problems I have with this. First of all, when the movie begins, the male dragon is released and that brings about other dragons to end the world. However, with what other dragon did this male dragon reproduce with to create other dragons? Did the male dragon start out asexual and suddenly turn sexual? Second of all, if all the dragons are females, where do the male dragons come from? If female dragons die from old age and the like, do male dragons never die? Also, where did they come from to start with? These types of post-apocalyptic movies just love to give them a way out of the apocalyptic world they live in. They write something so stupid and nonsensical just so the audience knows humanity wins in the end. I'm sorry but if I had to choose between a steroid using, crazy American soldier like Van Zan to bring about stability back to the planet I'd rather serve willingly the dragons. What's that, Dragon Overlord, more fresh babies for you? Sure, after all you ate that American muscle head!

The only thing that saves the movie from absolute failure is the final battle with the male dragon. Once you see him douse some fire on some American pig dogs you find yourself rooting for the dragon! I don't think that was the director's intentions so he even failed at failing.

Grade - D-

Two things that are essential when making a dragon movie.
1) Put more DRAGONS in the movie. When I watch a dragon movie I want more than 2 frellin' dragons in it!

2) Never, ever, EVER, even if high and think to yourself "how can I kick people in the groins the hardest" should you cast Matthew McConaughey as your macho, buff "antihero".

I'm sorry to see Christian Bale in such a bad movie, but at least his bad accent doesn't match the horrible accent of McConaughey. Also, do all British people see American saviors as driving tanks and who wear uniforms without sleeves? Is that the quintessential "tough guy" look? "Grr I'm just such a bad@$$ that I got so mad at my shirt I just ripped of my frackin' sleeves!" The only saving grace this movie has is about towards the end of the movie with the military convoy and the big dragon does his stuff! Also, I have a gripe about the logics of this movie. At least I got to see them breath fire a few times; and the Star Wars play they do in the movie was pretty good.

New Episode Of Patrick's "B Movie"

So I finally had some time and got back into making another episode of B Movie. This is my 4th episode and it's shorter than my other episodes. Feel free to subscribe to my youtube page to be updated when others come out. Any suggestions for B movies is always accepted as well. The following will be the links to the new episode and the ones after will be a link to my page and to my other videos.

War Of The Robots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSM6itU2QAI
Episode 4 - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0uNBjlK8AY
Episode 4 - Part 2


http://www.youtube.com/user/agentx216
My Youtube Page

Intro video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ZUAm3lP88
Episode 1

Killer Klowns From Outer Space
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_VPYB_qBRc
Episode 2 - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08EO7RdBbKU
Episode 2 - Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43fs5A9pa0
Episode 2 - Part 3

They Live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6lQPw2GfbA
Episode 3 - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzqVs3Rv8o0
Episode 3 - Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxosPADdimY
Episode 3 - Part 3

Proof (2005)

Proof (2005)

I am a really big fan of science type movies. It's really fun to see a talented writer take on something as charming as Einstein helping a young man win his daughter's heart ("I.Q.") or something as clever as "Pi" was - sheer brilliance.

So I watch a trailer that shows Anthony Hopkins portraying a professor who might have discovered a great scientific breakthrough. After his death, his daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow, with the help of Jake Gyllenhaal find out what it was. This is what the trailer told me. I think most of you regular readers of my movie reviews can tell where this is going. TRAILERS LIE!

Let me tell you what the writers want you to believe this movie is about and then let me tell you what this movie is REALLY about. That's right...you are getting three different plot explanations this time!

So a once brilliant mathematician, played by Hopkins dies a few days before his daughter's, Catherine (Paltrow), birthday. She must cope with the realization of having to cope with the insanity that plagued her father's life in his final years. She must also deal with her sister, Claire (Hope Davis), who is town for her father's funeral. She must also, appease a mathematician, Hal (Gyllenhaal) who is looking for a math proof that her father might have discovered in a rare moment of lucidity. After sleeping with Hal, Catherine gives him her father's notebook with the proof. Hal reads the notebook and finds the development of a unique math theory. Catherine claims she developed it but neither Hal nor Claire believe her and they question whether or not her father's insanity got passed to her.

So ya, this was kind of a step away from what I saw in the trailer. The best (worst?) part of the second plot I wrote above, isn't the real plot. So let me give you my rating and then my analysis of what this movie is REALLY about.

Grade - F

This movie fails in everything. The title itself is misleading and so were the trailers. From what I was shown I was expecting something like Pi or A Beautiful Mind or something dealing with the science in the movie.

What happens when I watch this garbage? 99 minutes of Gwyneth Paltrow crying. You cannot find me one scene after the first 15 minutes where she isn't tearing up, sobbing, or balling...AND SHE DOESN'T STOP TILL THE END!!!

You think we learn anything about what her father was working on? Heck no! Do we just learn that her family is screwed up and you can get paid per tear in a movie? In fact we do. The theme of the plot shifts so many times. Do we want to know if she has her father's illness? Well, ok, now do we care how she will deal with being crazy? Well, ok, do we care what's in the notebook? Ok, well, do we care that Hal uses her to obtain the notebook and must choose between his work and his heart? Ok, well, do we care with who came up with this "brilliant idea" that we, the audience, are not even told about? There are literally four other transition plots that I'm not even going to tell you about because I believe I made my point.

How anyone found this good or even ok is beyond my comprehension. No one in this movie acts well and having Hopkins in the story for all of 5 minutes helps that problem even more. Gyllenhaal can't make up his mind whether to be interested in the work or the girl. By the way, did I mention Paltrow cries? She cries more often than she has lines! After watching her cry her way through the movie, I wanted to cry - cry for making my way through a movie of crying!

Brad Stine - A Conservative Unleashed

This one's going to be quick and to the point.

Brad Stine - A Conservative Unleashed

First of all since this will probably be viewed as liberal or conservative if you will like this; I am going to start out saying that I am a conservative. Now...this movie wasn't about stand up comedy but about Brad Stine talking softly and then screaming. Its kind of like Lewis Black except its not that funny. He makes me laugh as often as I would in normal conversation with a regular person. This shouldn't be classified as a comedy or stand-up but a political rant.

I'm sorry, but this wasn't funny and I think Stine should have taken a hint from the crowd when they didn't laugh at a lot of his stuff. Also, they applauded more than they laughed. If you want some conservative comedy thats actually funny rent something about Thor Ramsey or Jeff Allen.

In the end, don't try to tape your political rants and try to pass it off as stand up.

Grade - F

Happy Feet - A Patrick Movie Review

Happy Feet

After the success of "March Of The Penguins" the first animate penguin movie in a deluge of penguin moves was "Happy Feet". I had no interest in seeing this movie. I thought it was just another attempt at Hollywood trying to choke every last dollar for a successful topic and animating it to choke every last dollar from people with kids. Then one day when going to the gym I was listening to an AM talk radio show where the host was talking about how he heard from his daughter that the movie was pure propaganda. Well when anyone calls any movie propaganda I almost always have to see it. I wanted to see with my own eyes if this movie was to indoctrinate our children into thinking something with underhanded tactics of dancing animations.

Right away I have a problem with this movie. It's co-directed. Now would someone please tell me why you need two directors when your film has no real people in it at all? One director is George Miller, who directed all three Mad Max movies (I should have been worried right there...after all this is the man who gave us "Two men enter...one man leave" "Beyond Thunderdome!) and the other is Warren Coleman who is more of an actor than a director. You have a really big bag of actors in this movie too. Robin Williams, Elijah Wood, Brittany Murphy, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Hugo Weaving (where again he hates humanity in this movie), and even Fat Joe.

Now it's easy to be harsh on kids movies and the plot and the humor of them. After all they are marketed for kids and might not appeal to the "20-year-old-male-who-still-uses-cartoons-from-his-childhood-
as-an-example-of-good-kids-movies". With that being said, the plot is moronic. The short version is that Mumble (Elijah Wood) has two parents that can sing the best in the clan. The songs are used to attract a mate to reproduce and carry the same routines of the penguins' lives over and over, generation after generation. However Mumble not only looks different than the other penguins, but he can't sing at all. The thing he can do is to quickly move his feet, and somehow he can tap dance on snow covered ice.

His father, the prized singer in the clan, is, of course, disappointed in his son and tells him what he does "just ain't penguin". Mumble has a childhood crush on Gloria (Brittany Murphy), but without a "heartsong" he won't be able to attack her. She, of course, is the best singer in the clan for this generation. So you're going to see the cheerleader and the nerd/geek/different person roles played out there. When Mumble goes against the traditions of his clan, Noah the Elder (Hugo Weaving) casts him out from the clan. Noah and the other elders talk about how his tap dancing ability goes against nature and the "great penguin". Ya, no undertones there. Mumble finds a new group of penguins who are more carefree and teams up his dancing skills with a group of latin-accented penguins. They embrace his tap dancing ability and team up for songs and dances.

Mumble gets captured by some humans and taken to a zoo in America. First, let me tell you of another subplot in this movie. Humans have been overfishing which in turn have made it harder and harder on the penguins to survive. While Mumble is in the zoo he believes if he just talks to the humans they would understand and stop over fishing. He tries talking but all the humans hear are the quackings of a penguin. Oh no! What could Mumble possibly do to attract the attention of the humans to communicate to them that penguins are almost people too?

He does what any of us without a mouth would do in his situation. He uses his gift of tap dance. People all over the world flock (see my bird pun there, eh?!) to see the dancing penguin. Even world leaders want to know what is going on. People think Mumble is just doing something fun but they don't know that him and his people are dying because of these bad humans. Soon, Mumble misses his life of freedom in the cold, Antarctic weather; his family; and his friends and becomes depressed. He's in a zoo after all, and zoos make animals sad. He doesn't dance anymore and the scientists are worried about him. They stick a transmitter on him and let him go free where they found him.

He finds his way back home. His crush is happy to see him but everyone else is very hesitant. Getting a head in the story, the human scientists come and find the flock. The elders think Mumble has brought them here and they will destroy the clan. Mumble tries to convince everyone in the clan if they all dance like him they'll convince the humans that they are living creatures too...or something like that. Noah doesn't want to break tradition and there's a battle. In the end all the penguins, and even Noah, are Riverdancing for the scientists.

That of course convinces the scientists that they are destroying the penguins and they go to the only hope of humanity and the rest of the world...THE UNITED NATIONS! I kid you not! You see heated debate and things getting done within the UN. Humanity decides not to overfish anymore and Mumble attracts Gloria with his tap dancing.

Usually I don't tell you a lot about the movie but this one you have to know what you're going to get. I counted sixteen different examples of what could be considered propaganda.

Grade - F

This movie is pure propaganda. Not only is there environmentalist propaganda but it also promotes evolution and mocks religion (the older ones being the stern religious figures). To makes matters worse, the UN comes in to save the day? This must be fiction now. Back in my day the worse we had was Captain Planet but this is mind altering propaganda for our littlest children. What this movie teaches them is that mankind is bad, zoos are evil, and that embracing the UN as a governmental entity will save us all and make the world a happy place. Other than a few funny moments this movie was horrible. The portrayal of the Hispanic penguins, Mumble's new friends, bordered on racism at times.

Parents and people need to start looking more in depth in what is in our movies. Just because it gets a G rating doesn't mean that it will always be good for our kids.

Exorcist - The Beginning - A Patrick Movie Review

Exorcist - The Beginning

When I heard that my favorite scary movie of all time was going to get a beginning story I was excited. The Exorcist scares me to this day. Whenever I watch it, in the dark of course, my heart palpitates faster, my hands get clammy, and I swear I can see my breath. To see the back story to Father Lankester Merrin was exciting.

Then I remembered that there were two sequels made to based-on-a-true-story movie and I remembered how "well" those turned out. So after the excitement died down I started to get scared, and it wasn't a demonic source.

I still had some faith in the movie. The story looked good, the actors were decent, and the director (Renny Harlin) had directed a few other movies I like (Die Hard 2, Deep Blue Sea). So with faith teetering back and forth between hope and hopelessness I started the movie.

The story looked good. It's 1949 and Father Lankester Merrin is no longer a Father or a believer. He's called upon by a collector to investigate a church in eastern Africa that was built and quickly buried. The collector wants Merrin (played by Stellan Skarsgård) to find an artifact he believes was buried in the church. Merrin is an Oxford trained archaeologist so he's interested enough to go and investigate. He's helped by Sarah (Izabella Scorupco) and Father Francis (James D'Arcy). His investigation of the buried church uncovers a really neat story arc if used properly. The spot where the church is built was the exact spot that Satan landed when he was cast from Heaven. I have to admit when Merrin finds this out my skin did shutter a bit and the buried church looks spectacularly creepy.

I want to say here that I don't want to give too much away but that would hint to you that I liked this movie and it's worth keeping some things hidden in order to only wet your appetite. I cannot say that, at least for that reason. I can say that I don't want to say much because jack crap happens! This movie tries ever so hard to freak you out but most of the time it's jump scares (like what happens when a body falls out of a closet) and the story was written to try and keep you guessing. Unfortunately the writers forget to add something interesting to the plot. I will admit that it was neat to have a back story as to how Merrin lost his faith. I won't give it away just in case someone wants to watch this snorefest. Let's just say, Nazis weren't only harassing Indiana Jones.

So besides nothing happening there is one part of the movie that is just a slap in the face to fans of the original. First of all throughout this whole crapfest we're suppose to keep guessing on who is indwelt with a demonic entity who's trying to thwart attempts to find out what's going on. They don't do a good job at it and who it is is pretty predictable if you know how these types of movies work. When you find out who it is you're treated to a complete and quickly drastic change from the person into a transformed looking character that Linda Blair's character looked like in the original. It's hokey, it's stupid, and it's insulting. The reason Regan (Blair) looked like she did in the end of the movie was because of the progression of the possession and what everything was doing to her. In all honesty the character in this movie takes about 6 seconds to transform into that (and that person looks EXACTLY like Regan in the later parts of the original) when Merrin figures it all out. What ads insult to injury is that there is a chase scene between the demon-indwelt person and Father Merrin. It's sad and would be comical if I didn't feel like gnawing out my own eyes. I would rather perform an exorcism than watch this movie.

Grade - F

I don't know about some critics ability to think is but this movie was the suckiest sucked that ever sucked. There was almost no scare ability in the movie and those that were were so predictable you find yourself rolling your eyes. They try and recreate Linda Blair's character/demon the same way and they rely on digital effects which reminds you that this is some cheesy directoratorial attempt to make good on one of the greatest horror movies of all time.

The only cool part of the movie is the ending where Father Merrin is told about a case of possession in America and you see him walking away...bag in hand and the great music trailing behind him. Kinda reminds you of the end of "Red Dragon".

Margot At The Wedding - Patrick

Most reviewers might start with the best movie they've ever seen or something significant to them. I choose to review a movie I saw last night. Ya...I'm classy like that.

Margot At The Wedding

"When acid-tongued writer Margot (Nicole Kidman) arrives to attend estranged sister Pauline's (Jennifer Jason Leigh) wedding, she quickly takes a disliking to Pauline's artist fiancé (Jack Black). Now, Margot's caustic comments threaten to undo the siblings' relationship as well as the upcoming nuptials. Oscar-nominated writer-director Noah Baumbach helms this wry comedy exploring the often infuriating but enduring connections of family."

That's the description of the movie via Netflix. Now let me break this down from you. Nicole Kidman, who always seems like she's out of it in her movies and doesn't really want to be there, has a son who's kinda not normal and she's not really that normal herself. Her sister, who's not really normal, is getting married to a not really normal guy and has a daughter who's not that normal. The two sisters talk about random things and have no transition in their conversation. They'll be talking about their childhood home and Leigh's character will just randomly mention she's pregnant. Kidman's character will talk to her son about being good then will turn right around and tell him her sister called him a moron, even though she really didn't. Margot will tell him not to have sex with the babysitter but if he does to use a condom. However, the son tells Margot, out of nowhere, that he masturbated in the bathroom and she'll get freaked out by that.

There are a few funny parts with most of them coming from Jack Black just being crazy. However, once the credits start to role you suddenly come to the realization that Noah Baumbach just scammed you and he's running off down the street with your wallet. None of the characters are appealing, you won't be able to identify with anyone and therefore won't be on any character's side. This movie makes the main character a person you will hate through the movie, and as a movie watcher, I think that's something you're not suppose to do. The editing in this movie is horrible as well. I'm sure Baumbach would try to pass it off as something that's suppose to happen but I don't buy it. Two characters would be talking to each other and right in the middle of the conversation, and one character's sentence, the scene changes to the family taking a stroll in the woods.

The background of the story, is not expressed, even though the main storyline is talking about it. I don't know, that's just a guess because I felt I was walking into a dinner conversation after being kept out of the room for half an hour. So I'm sitting at the table and everyone in the room knows they kept me out for 30 minutes, and I know they've kept me out of the room for 30 minutes, and only they know the reason why. So when I try to engage in the conversation they just look at me with disdain for not knowing what they're talking about. For example, Margot may or may not being getting a divorce and she may or may not be cheating on someone. Why is that important? Beats me! Baumbach might have been nominated for an Oscar in his time, but I think that shows more proof of how the Academy is out of sync with all reality. He should have really put the pot down and tried thinking of a coherent plot line. Also Nicole Kidman isn't hot Baumbach, so I don't need to see a completely unneeded scene of her pleasuring herself! Oh and what was up with that hick guy bitting the son? No reason for it and nothing happens after that!

Baumbach if I ever meet you in a restaurant I will set your hair on fire and then douse you clam chowder. When you ask me what was that for, I will say the following "I set your hair on fire, puppy stalactite bumblebee phalanx gumdrop." When you look at me with unkowning stupidity I will then say, "See! It doesn't make sense in real life why should you use it in movies!" Then I will take a food tray cover, place it over your head, grab a wooden spoon, and bang the food try cover like they do in cartoon. Then I will do my best Daffy Duck acting crazy impression and walk calmly away. I will then kill myself when I watch your next movie and see that exact scene play out. Probably with someone like (oh goodness my eyes!) Reese Witherspoon playing the part of you and Nicolas Cage playing my part.

Grade - F

Ya know how they say that if you put enough monkeys in the same room with a typewriter they'd eventually write Shakespeare? Maybe Noah Baumbach should hire those monkeys and put down the pot. This movie makes no sense, is edited horribly, and the dialog is atrocious. If I could pay $50 to smack Noah Baumbach with a keyboard it'd be money well spent. If you can find a real story out of this film YOU need to put down the weed. I hate movies they try to be edgy but are really about nothing. I think movies like this are a joke made by filmmakers and try to sell it as an "avant guard" film and people who say "Oh that was brilliant" the filmmakers just laugh and laugh. Hey Noah Baumbach...I hope you gag on your bong and write a story that's worth taking 92 minutes of my life without making me feel like taking my own life.

Now I must go play a game of Sudoku...ya know...something with structure!

- Patrick