World Without End (1956)

This is a neat nuclear hysteria fueled sci-fi film from the 50’s about a group of four astronauts who fly through a time barrier and end up on 26th century Earth. Of course, at this point Earth has almost recovered from a catastrophic nuclear war that has mutated humans into one-eyed cavemen who enslave “normal” humans and has driven still other humans underground. The astronauts stay with the underground humans after fighting the ugly Cyclopes (and a couple of terribly executed “giant spiders”) and are dismayed by the fact that, despite their advanced technology, the underground community of survivors are spineless cowards who are content with staying in their safe underground lair, not expanding into the outside world and innovating and advancing the human race, and interbreeding and dwindling their population every generation. Everyone in the underground community seems reasonable except for guy named Maurice who would do anything to stop the underground dwellers from expanding from their safe environment, even killing and blaming the astronauts.

This is a typical 50’s sci-fi movie that emphasizes the “manliness” of men (the astronauts are seen as brash, manly, and proactive while the men of the underground city are soft, cowardly and weak – of course, the women folk of this future society “love” the astronaut men), and the women are pretty and know their place. The women of this future have short skirts and are all hot, demure servants to the men – this is seen as perfectly normal. Hey, this movie was made in the 50’s – what do you want?

The final scene in which the astronauts rig a rocket launcher and raid the nest of the Cyclops men is pretty impressively violent. You will love when they blow up clearings and hiding places full of the Cyclops men and their troops, and the lead astronaut challenges the lead Cyclops (named Naga – and he has some pretty impressively ugly creature make-up) and has a convincing fight to the death for leadership of the Cyclopes.

Fun and enjoyable, World Without End is a window into how 50’s audiences viewed themselves in a relatively uncomplicated time when men were men and women were women and in a period where a catastrophic use of nuclear bombs was seen as inevitable.

3/5

-Deceptisean

50 Most Hated Movies of all Time - #50 - Daredevil

So, a while back, I posted the list of the 50 "most hated" films of all time according to Total Film.  Well, I didn't really say my individual feelings towards each of these films.  J-Man had his JCVD and Gamera Kaiju reviews, Deceptisean has his nostalgic song posts every Friday...I've decided to have this.  So, once every couple of days or so, I'm going to touch on a brief post on my feelings towards the films in this list by the so-called movie website, Total Film (yeah right, Total). 


When I first saw this film, I thought it was okay.  I wasn't dying, but I did like it.  The backlash on this film though, was incredible.  Why all the hate?  Was the film THAT bad?  I mean honestly, what was it that made people dislike this movie so much?  It wasn't like they were life-long Daredevil fans!  Some people didn't even know he was legitimately a comic book character before this movie came out!  So, what the hell?


To me, it all came down to Ben Affleck.  People were tired of seeing him, he could have made the next great film and no one would have have liked it.  Much like a lot going on these days, the people were burned by a product of their own making.  Everyone was going on and on about 'Bennifer' and all that stuff?  No?  Shaking your head violently, with your nose turned up?  B.S.  These guys were everywhere, they were on all the entertainment shows, where they shopped, what they ate, what johns they used when going to the washroom, it was in all the trash magazines, all the internet sites, everywhere.  That kind of supply can't exist without the demand.  So, maybe rightfully so, maybe not, people were tired of Ben when this movie came out.  Never mind it wasn't actually that bad and he was pretty decent in it (and the director's cut was killer -- if that version had screened, no one had any right to piss and moan.  


At the end of the day, not a lot of people seemed to like the film.  However, in my opinion, the hate was against the lead actor (and why hate the guy anyway, wasn't like he came to your house and shot your puppy...you didn't like him, then change the channel or turn off the television!) and that was it.  The movie was harmless, yes somewhat flawed (thanks Hollywood suits!  Bet you gave this one a standing O when it screened! You jackasses!) , but not worth the hate.  Even hardcore Daredevil fans would have had to admit, at least they got the costume right!


Rating: Worth the hate? -- NO!


- Stephenstein

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012)

What a disappointment – where do I begin? After the mediocrity of the first Ghost Rider movie, arriving after much anticipation for decades as to what a Ghost Rider movie would look like, I expected a sequel with different people at the helm to feel refreshed, expanded and go-for-broke fun. What we have here feels shackled down, claustrophobic and suffocated. The story: Johnny Blaze is hiding in Europe for some reason while a cult is after a child that the devil himself wants to insert his essence into. Blaze teams up with some French dude and the boy’s mother to stop this. Along the way, Blaze tries to rid himself of the Ghost Rider once and for all. Sprinkle in three scenes where Ghost Rider appears and there’s your movie.

The motivations of the villains are sort of pointless. The child that the devil seeks is supposed to be half-devil, so if the devil put himself in the boy’s body, he’d be super evil (as opposed to just evil) and somewhat immortal or something. The film establishes that the devil is always on earth in a human host’s body anyway, so I’m not sure what having a human body that merely lives longer is supposed to prove. This devil-man already has powers, so having more powers doesn’t seem to me to make a difference. If it seems like I’m nitpicking, I am – and there’s a good reason for that. Lots of movies have thin stories and are still amazing (1989’s Batman comes to mind). I shouldn’t be thinking of the crux of this movie at all, and I wouldn’t if the rest of the film weren’t so dull as to coerce my mind into wandering off and contemplating its stupidity.

Much of the film has Nicolas Cage traipsing around and acting … well … Nicolas Cagey. He way overacts a lot of scenes and ends up embarrassing himself. All of the reasons why people make fun of Nicolas Cage, his face, his mannerisms, etc. are all there on the big screen in this movie for all to see. Even when he’s motion-captured as Ghost Rider, his jerky neck-and-head movements are etched onto the Ghost Rider’s visage, making the character appear awkward and goofy. It’s pretty wince-inducing.

There are some neat ideas, like the notion that anything that Ghost Rider drives turns into a flaming monstrosity like his bike. This happens in spectacular fashion when the Rider commandeers a giant crane/conveyer-belt thing and smashes a bunch of goons with it – but this is done with a lot of close-up shots and jerky camera movements which mute the effect a great deal. This film was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the same two guys that directed the Crank films. After seeing this movie, I now realize that these two aren’t creative at all. The Crank films went far because their “creativity” was in the form of shock: Jason Statham shagging a woman in public, boobs on the screen, racism, etc. That’s dirt simple to do. Heck, anyone can put images like eating poo, cutting a person’s face, pissing on a baby, etc. on a screen and genuinely tell you that it’s something that you’ve never seen before. They would be right. But it’s not creative, it’s merely impulsive. I’m sure Neveldine and Taylor would tell you that Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance looks shackled because they were tied down by the PG-13 rating. Oh, boo hoo. You can still go for broke without swearing or showing nudity or blood. At the end of the movie, Ghost Rider dispatches the human-form devil by smacking him to the ground with a chain (you might have seen this in the ads). At that point, the human-form devil is seen falling to hell. I thought, as probably anyone watching this movie thought, that the devil would rise out of the hole as a giant monster that Ghost Rider has to fight. That doesn’t happen – the movie just ends (yes, I gave away the ending – but are you surprised by the outcome?). At one point, the devil gives a punk the power to decay things. Sure, he does it in music video visuals where everything is black except for him and his victim, but even so, this guy’s power is kind of hum-drum (yeah, he’s sort of like Blackout, even in appearance, but he’s not). This is a big budget movie backed by a major studio. Ghost Rider couldn’t face off against something more spectacular? Like maybe three firey spirits, each with his/her own personality who track down the Rider? Or maybe an anti-Rider – like Teminus Rex or Zarathos with Blaze taking another Ghost Rider demon’s form. Sure, there’s the budget to consider, but there aren’t many effects in this film, and I don’t see photo-real fire as being a huge undertaking anymore – maybe in the 90’s, but not in 2011/2012. The effect of Ghost Rider and his bike could not have cost that much when Supernatural does this kind of thing on TV every week, so they could have had a more spectacular villain for Rider to face off against.

Anyway, everything in this movie seemed like a misstep. And, yes, there is some goofy humour – but honestly, I forgot that stuff as soon as it left the screen. I guess the reason why I did, and the reason why I felt the goofiness lingered in the first movie, is that this movie has an overall tone of being gritty and dark, with its down to earth men-with-guns villains (for the most part) and stark lighting. The humour just doesn’t fit and feels so misplaced that it not only does not induce any laughter, but is quickly forgotten. There’s just no room for it.

As a kid, I always thought a Ghost Rider movie should start like Ghost Rider vol. 2, issue #68 of the comics, with Johnny Blaze confessing his sins, telling his origin, then revealing that he knows the priest he’s confessing to is a murdering fraud who killed the real priest and donned his clothes to escape the authorities who are hunting him down for an armed robbery he committed “The Rider lead me here to where innocent blood was spilled – by you!” The Ghost Rider appears and gives the crook the penitence stare. Then the rest can be like Ghost Rider vol. 2, #71 from the comics, where Blaze goes to a town where, one-by-one, authority figures disappear. Blaze is compelled to stay, drawn by the Rider to nullify the threat to the innocent people of the town. The threat turns out to be Null, The Living Darkness, a Lovecraftian, tentacled, multi-eyed monstrosity born of the desires of a doomed race for revenge against all authority in the universe. So, take the introduction from issue 68 and main story from issue 71 – and I guess that’s my problem: I actually read the comics.

This is a 3 if you're watching it on TV two years from now, and a 2 if you're undertaking the hassle of going to a theatre and paying money to see this thing.

3/5

Nope, this guy ain't in this movie.

-Deceptisean

The Adventures of Tintin (my belated review)

It’s been 4 days since I saw The Adventures of Tintin (a.k.a. The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn as it's known overseas), and I’m still thinking about it. What’s more, I have an urge to see it again. Movies nowadays don’t do that to me anymore. So, what’s Tintin have that other movies don’t have? Well, for starters, this is the best animation you will ever see to date. It strikes me that this is what audiences and filmmakers expected out of computer animation all along: creating photorealistic landscapes and people, anyway you want them to look. The challenge of creating “people” versions of the comic-strip characters of Tintin means that some characters look kind of strange in photorealistic light. But Tintin himself is uncanny. I often wondered what Tintin would look like as a real person when I used to read the comics, and this is it! This is Tintin! And all of the locations are beautifully realized and breathtaking to look at. The deserts, the cities, even the ocean – you just want to stare at the locales for a little longer than the movie lets you, and that’s a good thing.


Beyond the fantastic visuals, the characters are what I remember from the comics, but done in a way so that they’re a little less goofy. Tintin is always running into nut-cases, but they’re realized a little less cartoonishly than they are in the comics. They’re all there, though: Cpt. Haddock, Thomson and Thomson, Aristides Silk, Omar Ben Salaad, Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine – no Dr. Calculus unfortunately, that I noticed anyway. Tintin himself is a cool character that you want to follow on these adventures, always earnest and caring, yet brave. Capt. Haddock’s drinking problem is in full-swing here, and I applaud Spielberg for diving head-first into it even though it isn’t very politically correct nowadays.


The adventures and action scenes are amazing, with Tintin dodging bullets, fist fighting guards, manning vehicles, etc. This was to be Spielberg’s return to the serial-inspired action movie (for which he gained fame with Raiders) and it’s a heck of a lot better than Crystal Skull.


I’m still stunned that Hollywood finally got off their butt and made a big-budget Tintin movie. And with Hollywood’s current elite, no less – directed by Steven Spielberg, produced by Spielberg and Peter Jackson, music score by John Williams, and with cutting edge animation that really has to be seen to be believed. Rumors of a Spielberg Tintin movie stretch back to 1984, when Spielberg bought the rights, and the wait was well worth it. I read Tintin as a kid, as all the comic albums were in my public school library. I loved the fact that each issue was one self-contained epic adventure. Tintin would be in London in one scene, then in Cairo the next, then kidnapped by henchmen, then infiltrate an underwater base – it was like I was reading an adventure movie that could go toe-to-toe with the James Bond and Indiana Jones franchises. I thought, “wow, if a movie version was only half this good, it would still be great”. Over the years, I caught glimpses of other screen versions of the character. There was the live-action Tintin and the Blue Oranges, which was cool for the fact the all of the characters actually looked like their comic counterparts – like they leapt off the page and came to life. There was the 60’s cartoon, as well, followed by two animated movies: Tintin and the Temple of the Sun (1969) and Tintin and The Lake of Sharks (1972). All of these were in other languages when I was a kid and I could never find English ones (there are now english versions online, which seem to have either cropped up or become more available with the release of this new movie). Then came the Nelvana version in the 90's which was pretty cool because they adapted the books directly. But the pacing was slow, and they never punched up the action. This new movie captures Tintin's spirit of action and adventure the best.


I hope there are sequels. This movie ends off the way the original Secret of the Unicorn comic did, but that lead to Red Rackam’s Treasure. There are still a whole slew of comic stories and crazy characters to adapt and I would love to see more. To date, The Adventures of Tintin has only made 72 million dollars domestically where most viewers don’t even know the character, but overseas where he’s well known the movie has made 286 million. Hopefully that’ll be enough to convince everyone to go ahead with part 2. As for part 1, you are not doing yourself a favour by not watching this film on the big screen. It’s a fun movie-night, a great evening out and spectacle all wrapped up in the best possible package that you will remember for a long time.


5/5

Oh, the 3D is kinda useless. You can watch it 2D or 3D.
And as for Spielberg, this almost makes up for his produced Transformers movies – almost.


-Deceptisean

Raise your hand, if you're a Basterd

I'm not a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino's films. I fell asleep during Reservoir Dogs, I thought Pulp Fiction was somewhat interesting, but nevertheless have no intention of watching it again, never saw Jackie Brown...Kill Bill Volume 1 was awesome, 2 was a bit of a letdown, and Death Proof was definitely the weaker of the Grindhouse films. Which leads me to Inglourious Basterds (which I think is the correct way to spell Inglourious...I know that's not the right way to spell "Bastards"), Tarantino's attempt at a war film.

Now, if you've never seen a QT film, just to let you know, he is known for having long dialogue scenes...and I do mean loooooong dialogue scenes. His character's like to talk about everyday things, and while from a nuance side, I do appreciate the fact he's trying to get as much characterization and what not in there, sometimes it can lead the audience member to wonder what the point is of the entire scene. Basterds is no different, though I'm becoming acclimatized to Tarantino's style, so it didn't bother me as much as usual. There's also a lot of brutal scenes, including a bat-wielding bastard taking it to a Nazi, the carving of swastikas into Nazi foreheads, scalping, and at one point, shooting a corpse until their face is basically destroyed. That's right, this film is not for the squeamish, and it's certainly not for people who look away at the very sight of implied violence. When it happens, it's brutal.

Also, this film is not really about the Basterds (though they do play an important part), and one thing I did appreciate, is that if a character was supposed to be German or French, they spoke in German or French, it was not implied that everyone knew English or German or whatever (this also accounts for subtitles, so if you don't like reading dialogue, don't bother), and this film is also not historically accurate, other than the fact that there was a World War 2, and a Hitler, etc, etc. So, don't go looking for a history lesson.

What you get though, is a pretty interesting ride, with over-the-top characters (Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz excel as the leader of the Basterds and the main villain of the film, respectively), and gratuitous violence (did I mention the blowing off of a corpse's face?), so quite frankly, if you're into that, then you'll like the film. I often find it amazing that Tarantino can have characters discussing the most mundane of things in one scene (take strudel, for instance), and then in the next scene, a character has two guys pointing guns at his balls. That's pretty much what you're going to get for the film, so either you like it, or you don't. For the record, I did.

I bid thee a fond goodnight (with the blowing off of corpse's faces)

- Stephenstein

Rating 4 out of 5 stars.

The Apartment (of bosses and confused women)

Well, I recently cracked open my Billy Wilder 9-pack. For those of you born beneath a rock, Billy Wilder was one of the greatest film directors of all time. No kidding. I already own Stalag 17 (an interesting look at soldier's in a POW camp during WWII), Sunset Boulevard (an excellent, though somewhat depressing classic), and Sabrina (a light-hearted comedy, unusual for Wilder). That's right, light-hearted is unusual; Wilder shows us the ugly side of people, in a completely comedic way.

C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) is a young admin guy working for an insurance agency. He also happens to be a bachelor, and owns a decent apartment in New York. Now, Baxter has a bunch of philandering bosses, and they all use Baxter's apartment for their trysts with their mistresses (and yes, it is unbelievable that all these mangers would be having affairs, but trust me, that's not the point). These managers are giving Baxter chances at big promotions in exchange for the use of his apartment. Despite being a bachelor, Baxter has eyes for Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine), a cute elevator girl who works in his office. Fran, while pretending to be all business, is actually carrying on an affair with Jeff D. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray), the head of personnel for the company. Of course, Sheldrake gets wind of Baxter's apartment, and offers to not blow the whistle on Baxter's dubious tactics for his new promotion, in exchange for the use of the apartment. Baxter agrees, not knowing that Sheldrake is having his affair with Fran...and when he finds out...things get very, very complicated.

After watching this movie, I thought Wilder bang on nailed everything he was going for. Firstly, there are no "heroes" and "villains" in this movie...just a bunch of flawed people. Lemmon uses his bosses indiscretions to his advantage, MacLaine is having an affair with a man who she knows is married, and MacMurray uses Shirley (and evidently, a lot of women before her) for sex, while refusing to divorce his wife, and carry-on the veneer of a respectable family man. What is really interesting though, is Wilder's portrayal of the bosses. They're all shown as a bunch of opportunistic, insensitive jackasses (much like most managers in real life). They use Lemmon for the use of his apartment, not caring about inconveniencing him (and in one case, forcing him to leave bed and sleep in Central Park for the night), and the first opportunity they get, they screw him over, using the logic "what has he done for us lately?" The way they're shown, while cartoonish in a sense, is very close to my dealings with not just management, but a lot of people in the workplace these days: a bunch of selfish, hypocrites.

Then you have Shirley Maclaine. There's one section where she just agonizes falling in love with a man who is wrong for her. "Why can't I fall in love with a nice guy like you?" She asks Lemmon, at one point. The funny thing is, I've had conversations with women just like that. They fall in love with the wrong man, and then they ask why they did something so stupid, and then pine for him in the next breath. I know men may do this as well, but as I'm only interested in women (in that sort of sense), I'm not privy to those conversations. I won't tell you if she figures things out at the end or not. All I will say is that you'll probably find more women like MacLaine's character, than these fantasy smart, attractive women that you find in most movies.

So, watch this movie, if you're tired of the same old cliched romantic comedy/dramas about the guy who does everything right, and deservedly gets the girl in the end. Lemmon is more of a lackey, too blinded by his own ambition to step up to the amoral power brokers controlling his life, and seize the one thing is his life he truly needs. Wilder is clever though, in making his just likeable enough for the common audience member to sympathize with him. Likewise, though the speeches get annoying, you want MacLaine to end up with Lemmon. You just don't know if it's going to happen. Watch the movie, and find out.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars.

I bid thee a fond goodnight.

- Stephenstein

I Love You, Man -- and a word about the Fox Theatre in the Beaches area of Toronto

Last night I was out with my wife and my Wife’s friend in the Beaches area of Toronto. For eons it seems, there’s been a movie theatre there called the Fox that my Wife wanted to go to. It was across the street from the restaurant we were eating at (the “Goof” Chinese Restaurant, nicknamed such because of a mishap with their old neon sign “GOOD FOOD” where the “D” in “GOOD” and the “OOD” in “FOOD” failed to light after a time, spelling “GOOF”, and stayed that way for years), and the marquee at the Fox showed I Love You, Man playing at a time late enough that we felt we could eat comfortably and still make the time to see the movie, if only to visit the Fox. I had never been there before, and I love these old-style “flat” (as opposed to the new stadium seated) theatres that play a mix of new and old films and hold film themed events like “Grindhouse” nights and stuff.

I Love You, Man was an okay comedy about a guy, Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd), who is so girlish that he’s more comfortable around women than men, more of a girlfriend guy. As a result, when he proposes to his girlfriend, he realizes that he doesn’t have very many friends to invite to his wedding, let alone anyone to make his Best Man. So, he tries to find male friends and ends up being buddies with a laid back “dude” kind of guy, Sydney Fife (Jason Segal from TV’s How I Met Your Mother), who teaches him all of the mysterious trappings of male bonding, most of which Peter is very awkward about, trying to sound cool making up terms and nicknames that sound lame. This is basically a romantic comedy about guys that still manages to be about a man and woman getting married. Mix in the regular formula of this genre, like the second-act break up (which happens between Peter and his fiancée and Peter and Sydney), third-act make up (which, again, happens between both parties), goofy comic-relief friends (in this case the fiancees’ horny friend and friend with a pissed off husband played by Jon Favreu, and Peter’s oddly masculinely gay brother Andy Samburg), and unnecessary, random but welcome guest appearances (in this movie’s case it’s Lou frickin’ Ferrigno and Canadian maga-band Rush – and if you don’t believe this is part of the formula, please see Tony Robbins in Shallow Hal).

Lou Ferrigno is awesome in this movie. He appears in maybe 3 scenes, his voice is in two more over the phone, but his presence is everywhere here. Peter has to sell his house over the course of the movie and can’t seem to find buyers. Ferrigno’s house is maybe one of the greatest houses in film. It’s a huge estate, where every room seems to have at least 2 Hulk or Herculese posters and standess. Now, that’s how you decorate a house! There’s even a gigantic Lou Ferrigno statue in the front lawn! There’s at least one scene where Ferrigno fights Jason Segal, to which Peter’s fiancée asks “Who picks a fight with Lou Ferrigno!?” (non-spoiler: Lou Ferrigno wins).

The movie itself was light and fun, with Paul Rudd being appropriately awkward, and J.K. Simmons as Peter’s Dad making appearances here and there (is J.K. Simmons playing everyone’s Dad now??).

2.5 out of 5

The Fox theatre itself was wicked. Looks newly renovated too. If you’re ever in that area of Toronto, I recommend the place. The popcorn was the best I’ve ever tasted (dare I say better than Bloor cinema?) while their fountain drink selection isn’t as varied as Bloor but they make up for it in bottled drinks (and their fountain drinks are mixed better than regular theatres, more tasty). Their schedule of events and movies is a mix of new and classic films, and it seems that the crew that own the place currently are about my age, showing stuff like Superman and Close Encounters with a mix of stuff we would have seen late-night on TV like Clockwork Orange. I really loved their introduction in their hard-copy calendar listing to a program they’re running starting this month called “Way Back Throwback”, to take an excerpt:

“Just what in the past twenty years does the movie industry have to show for itself? What will be Hollywood’s legacy film for ‘Generation Y’? Michael Bay’s Transformers? Great movies are awfully hard to come by these days. How many times have we seen Hollywood remake a totally rad movie from thirty years ago and turn it into a twitching monstrosity with Hilary Duff or Paris Hilton in the lead role? [editor’s rant: Apologies to Ms. Duff (if that is your real name) but everyone knows the role of Bonnie Parker belongs to Faye Dunaway. When will those clowns in Tinsletown learn?]

With all the recent examples of mediocrity and disappointment emanating from the movie industry lately, isn’t it finally time to turn up your nose, put down your foot, and say ‘no more, sir!’ to all the frivolous, heavy-handed remakes? And isn’t a refreshing look back at the finer films of a generation past just what the doctor ordered to cure this ill-gotten disease of recycled, half-baked creativity? We think so.”

Amen, brothers and sisters. Amen.

You can visit their website, which features schedules and listings at: http://www.foxtheatre.ca/

-Deceptisean