Total Films 50 Most Hated Films of All Time # 30 - Alien Resurrection

Okay, hold-up, time out here people.
...
...
...
When did Alien 4 suddenly become the most hated?  I went to the bathroom, Alien 3 was the most hated one in the franchise, everyone agreed, it was a terrible movie (actually it wasn't, it was pretty good), but I come out,  I think the world is the same and all of a sudden, Alien 4 is making the most hated lists.  Well, what the hell happened?


Well I can tell you what happened.  What happened is the director of Alien 3, David Fincher became Mr. Big Shot.  That's right, David Fincher made Alien 3.  Everyone's favourite movie director, the guy who has been nominated for at least 2 Oscars now, as well as making Seven and Fight Club which all the fanboys and film geeks love and quote and all that stuff, he made Alien 3, which everyone said was kakka doody not too long ago.  What's that?  You looove all Fincher movies, so Alien 3 isn't that bad?  Well, I can point to a piece of my anatomy and tell you what I'd like you to do with it.  Because you know what?  You guys didn't Max Reed that up.  You didn't go back and take a second look at it and appreciate it for what it was.  You just happen to like it because David Fincher is now in everyone's top 10 directors list.  You know, that sort of stuff sickens me.  Like, don't have an opinion of your own!  Heavens no!  You just go along with the crowd, little boy!  Here's a lollipop!  Geez.


Anyhow, I actually went back and re-read the Total Film article (while holding my nose and keeping back the vomit).  Here is why Alien 4 made the list, because I have no logical explanation at all why Alien 4 would make the list.  Here it is and I quote:


"An unnecessary addition to the story, muzzled by the law of diminishing returns and the misjudged tone of black comedy.  The less said about the Newborn, the better."


Now, let me start off by saying if I'm making a list of the 50 most hated films of all time, I think I owe each of those movies more than 2 lines.  Talk about a weak explanation to hate a film.  Let's get into it a little bit:


Unnecessary addition?  Why?  Because they wanted to make more alien films?  Because they didn't want Ridley dying to wrap up the series?  Because they thought up a new way of bringing the franchise back to life? (P.S., one of the writers of this movie was Joss Wedon, whose picture all these jackasses put up beside Fincher's, Tarantino's and Stephen Soderbergh's before going to sleep at night, so don't even think the loss who created the list still has the same opinion that this movie was unnecessary, he's probably telling everyone how much he looooves Alien 4...asswipe).  


Muzzled by the law of diminishing returns.  Muzzled?  Muzzled?  First of all, who are you trying to impress, you pimply-faced dropout?  Muzzled?  Really.  You hit the thesaurus button in Word for that one, didn't you.  You high-fived all your loser colleagues when you did that one.  Muzzled?  Give me a break.  Essentially, what this guy is saying is that the longer the series goes, the more diminished the box office returns get (which I've already proven is wrong) and the the less reason to go on.  So, you know according to this guy, there would be only 3 Godzilla films and that's it. Three Mission: Impossibles.  No more Pirates, no more Transformers...Basically, any franchise is toast after 3.  It's a good thing this moron isn't running things. 


Okay, the Newborn.  WHAT?  The Newborn is awesome!  It's a cross between and alien and a human! What's wrong with that!  You see the carnage it caused on the ship?  That entire part with the Newborn was awesome!  What was wrong with that?  Honestly, WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT?  Why do you hate this movie?  I mean, what is the explanation?  Just because it was the 4th film in the series and you think it was going for black comedy (a misread if there ever was, Alien 4 is the sickest, most gruesome and fantasy-ish installment in the series...but it's not going for comedy-value, even dark comedy, you half-wit), and you didn't like the Newborn.  That's...it.  I don't get it.  Then to top it off, you post a review from some poster on Jo Blo.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  Half the guys who post on there haven't had a single thought in their head for entire generations.  You have got to be kidding me.  I'm sorry, but this is just a complete farce. 


Rating: Worth the hate?  When I understand why his movie is hated or even if it's hated, I'll get back to you...on second thought, I'll get back to you now...No.


- Stephenstein

Ellis Jacob, WWE, One World and Dark Knight

I have a few topics on this post, so instead of writing 3 smaller posts, I'll write 1 bigger post.  So, before I start in, let me just say that I will NOT be writing Ellis Jacob, if for no other reason, then because I can't find the man's contact info.  Which actually makes sense because, who would wants schmucks like me writing them?  He's a big wig suit, me no have time for little people! I don't want the customer service department to write to either, "hi pimply 17 year-old girl who just started 3 weeks ago, may I please speak to your boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss?"  Yeah, I'm sure that would go great.  That's okay though, J-Man has already Youtubed a video stating how much the theatre experience sucks and I'm quite sure I'll be doing my own thing when I have a chance.


WWE -- now Deceptisean did a very nice piece based on my piece (thanks too for the compliment, Deceptisean), so I feel it prudent to throw another cent into the ring.  No, I'm not going to say Deceptisean is wrong.  He's right!  You know what wrestling promos are these days?  It's the equivalent of arguing who left the toilet seat up.  Wrestler 1 comes out and complains how many times Wrestler 2 left the toilet seat up.  Wrestler 2 marches out and says that he doesn't leave the toilet seat up, Wrestler 1 leaves the toilet seat up.  Then they stare at one another for ten seconds, before Wrestler 1 departs, staring down Wrestler 2 and saying all these nasty things he's going to do to the guy.  Problem is, they won't fight until the pay-per-view.  Oh, I'm sure they'll have quick 3 minute tag matches with the inept jobber or Diva of your choice as their partners, but nothing meaningful will happen until the pay-per-view and even then, who knows?  But is definitely watered down.  Being a mike guy is nice, but eventually, when all you do is talk and talk and talk, it gets boring.


Survivor -- have to comment on this.  You know, much like you can count on a celebrity naming their new baby boy or girl something stupid (like Bjemdodaddigse, the German word for "ass lint"), there's always a "villain" on Survivor.  In this show, we have at least 2 villains, in Colton and Alicia.  Now, J-Man is right, this is a game, this should be treated like a game.  If someone is kicking my ass at Monopoly, I'm not going to throw a hissy fit and never speak to them again.  By the same token though, if I'm sitting down at a game, especially a game I'm playing with people I barely know, I'm probably not going to be too accepting to someone telling me I might as well fall into the fire and be medivac'ed out.  In fact, if someone I barely know says that to me on Survivor and then giggles, I will probably wait until their asleep, drag them out to the shore, bury them up to their necks and wait for the high tide to come in.  So, when Colton dropped to the ground and complained about abdominal pain, if I was Christina, there's no way I'm going to get help.  Maybe I'd give him a leg drop or two, maybe I'd do a Stone Cold and stop a mud hole in his ass and walk it dry, but there is no way in hell I'm going for help.  As for Alicia, the only thing faker than her boobs is her personality, she's a Special Ed teacher for crying out loud!  Is this how she treats those Special Needs kids?  "Do what I say retard or I'll punch you in the face?"  Really?  I would call her out on that and the minute she waved her finger in my face, I'd snap it off and shove it up her ass. 


Dark Knight -- so, I read on JoBlo that the test screening of Dark Knight Rises got a standing ovation.  Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, keep your pants on.  Before you get excited, the standing ovation was made by "Warner Bros. executives".  Okay, I'm going to try and write this without laughing too hard.  It was by...Warner Bros. executives.  To the best of my knowledge, the only thing those asswipes would give a standing O to is the record amount of product placement in the movie!  The execs?  Who gives a flying you know what about their opinion?  They probably gave Superman Returns the big thumbs up as well!  Really?  Now, I'm not saying Dark Knight Rises won't be a good movie.  All I'm saying is, these jackasses at JoBlo, they want Dark Knight Rises to be good and they'll get the opinion of anyone, ANYONE to validate their own opinion, never mind the reliability or the quality of the opinion.  Case in point:


JOBLO Jerkoff: "Excuse me Mr. Drunken Inbred Homeless Hillbilly that sits out in front of our tenement, I mean office, can you please tell me your opinion on the upcoming Dark Knight Rises?"
Drunken Inbred Homeless Hillbilly [mumbling incoherently] Something that sounds like "I slept with your mother last night". 
JOBLO Jerkoff: Really, you think it was that awesome!  Great!  I'll write a column right away, as soon as I look in a dictionary for all those words with more than one syllable!


So, take all the hype with a pinch of salt, or maybe a truckload of salt.  They'll tell you it all sounds great and it does all sound great, but until the credits roll and we're chased out of the theatre halfway through them, it's all going to be speculation at best.


- Stephenstein

Cena sucks?

Whaaaaaat?  A wrestling post?  Is the bottom of the barrel being scraped?  Lemme see [checking out the barrel].  Nope.  Not yet.  However, there is an event coming up on April 1st.  No, I'm not talking of the upcoming nuptials between John Smith and Mary Jones.  Though, you may have been invited to that, I dunno.  I know MY invite was lost in the mail.  What I'm talking about Wrestlemania XXXVIII (or 28), which features a main event of John Cena versus the Rock.  To me, this actually seems like a bad idea.  Why?  Let me tell you...


Okay, the Rock is undeniably one of the most popular performers in the WWE.  Several people point to his leaving the WWE as a turning point downward in the WWE product (a fact that is partially true, but has as much to do with Steve Austin and Mick Foley's departures as Rocky going Hollywood), but he has charisma, he's a big ripped dude, he's good on the mic, he's funny and he knows how to showcase his spots.  What he isn't is a full-time performer, at least not anymore and herein lies the dilemma. 


Now let's take a look at one John Felix Anthony Cena (yes, one of his middle names is Felix and no, I did not name him).  He is arguably the top face and the top attraction in the WWE right now (CM Punk is up there). Deceptisean has always maintained that the reason people hate John Cena is because he has been foisted on us without us really wanting him foisted on us, event after event, year after year.  That is partially right, but what really constitutes the unabashed hatred for the average unwashed wrestling fan for John Cena?  Let's take a closer look.


Back in the 90's, there was the 'Attitude' era in WWE.  What it meant was that wrestling plotlines were more "edgier" and risque, Divas wore next to nothing and were involved in embarrassing displays of physicality known as "pillow fights", the language was more cruder, as were the innuendos, double entendres, etc.  In this era, performers like the Rock, D-X, Stone Cold, etc, etc. all rose to mega-stardom.  Then the WWE decided to go PG (coincidentally, this is when Linda McMahon started running for political office.  Yes, there is a correlation, here).  To put in bluntly, WWE went the opposite direction its audience was going.  I'm talking about the mouthy, pimply, 15-24 year old demographic who jam up the internet with their useless drivel and basically make life more annoying in general for the rest of us.  These are the guys who hate John Cena.  These are the guys who chant Cena sucks at events and buy the Cena Sucks t-shirt.  These are the ones who flood message boards extolling how they hate Cena's persona and wish he would turn heel.  Why the hate?


Simple.  Clean cut is no longer in.  You have to be "anti-hero".  You have to be cool and insulting and anti-authority and apathetic to those around you.  Milk-swigging, vitamin eating, prayer giving, vegetable munching faces are no longer in style.  They want guys who are borderline heels, but they fight other heels, instead.  John Cena is a throwback, a guy from another era, when the wrestlers tried to portray a working your ass off persona, of a guy who sacrificed it all just to entertain and please the fans.  The problem is, the most vocal of the fans hate Cena.  They boo him, even in his hometown of Boston.  So, why is Rock versus Cena a bad idea?


Because Cena can't win.  If he gets beaten by the Rock, everyone will be like there you go, he'll never be as good as the yesteryear.  Never mind if it's right or not, the WWE has to keep trying to push that the product they have now is just as good if not better than the past.  The performers are bigger, faster and better.  If Cena falls to the Rock, then all his detractors will be proven right, he doesn't deserve his spot as the top face. Oh, but if he wins, though.  That legion of fans who hate Cena will be all over the WWE.  How could you let that chump beat the Rock! they'll scream.  It will be just another example of the WWE pushing Cena over superior guys undeservedly.  As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-win situation. 


So, why write this article?  Because, I actually like John Cena.  The performer and the man.  Listen, I've read more than one account that Cena is one of the nicest guys in the history of professional wrestling.  In the HISTORY of professional wrestling.  He takes the time to talk to everyone, from the jobbers to the caterers. He expresses constantly how lucky he is to be in the WWE in interviews.  No one has made more 'Make-A-Wish Foundation' appearances than John Cena.  The guy is hated and the worse part is, there really is no reason to hate the guy, he has just been set up to be hated because we're a stupid, twisted, perverse society, more interested in our own self-centered greed and shallow problems then what's right.  John Cena worked his ass off to get to the spot he's in and his reward is a chorus of boos every single night he performs, regardless of his message of 'Rise Above Hate' and 'Honor, Loyalty, Hustle'.  He's rewarded by the phrase 'Cena Sucks' being emblazoned on a t-shirt that his own company sells.  He's rewarded by being the target of ridicule and derision on the internet. 


Cena doesn't suck.  The fans suck.  The WWE sucks.  The entire world sucks.


- Stephenstein

The idiot speaks

Okay, let me first start off by saying, it's a tough act following a review of a movie where a man sets another man's ass on fire.  It's...I probably shouldn't be doing this. They're going to be talking about the man setting the other guy's ass on fire for years...no one will remember the post that preceded it, but I am a brave man and this is worth mention.


Before I begin, a thank you to Michael Blaze who read my rant on Time Play and gave me the name of the head honcho at Cineplex Famous Players.  Mr. Ellis Jacobs will be getting a letter from me, soon enough.  Then I'll let you know how the food is in jail.


This post is about a movie critic named Rex Reed.  Now, I don't read movie critics very often. I often find I have enough toilet paper in my house, it's never a need I've required.  However, while I was bashing the blah movie, Safe House (you can read the review on this blog), I noticed a comment from Mr. Rex Reed.  The comment is below:


"This is a naive director with so little insight you wonder what comic books he's been reading."


Okay, before I continue, let me give you a little background on Mr. Reed.  Mr. Rex Reed is the guy who spread the rumor that Marisa Tomei did not actually win the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for My Cousin Vinny, that Jack Palance was too drunk or stoned to say the real person's name properly.  Apparently there was a "massive cover-up"...yes, because the Academy wanted Marisa Tomei that badly.  This is the Rex Reed who was caught shoplifting CD's from Tower Records -- because much like his opinions, he must steal his music from others.  This is the Rex Reed who said the following line when he wrote about the 2005 Oldboy:


"What else can you expect from a nation weaned on kimchi, a mixture of raw garlic and cabbage buried underground until it rots, dug up from the grave and then served in earthenware pots sold at the Seoul airport as souvenirs?"


So, Mr. Reed, you have proven your vast capability for ignorance, so the comic book reference, I should expect from you, correct?  I mean, obviously you have kept abreast with all the happenings in comics, you read all the latest story arcs, the Darkest Night saga, the New 52, Dark Reign and Fear, Itself, right?  You weighed in on the Civil War storyline, right?  I mean, you cameo'ed in the original Superman movie, (which is a based on a...comic!) so you know everything about comics and you have every right to make that stupid comment, right?  


Thank you Mr. Reed.  Thank you for proving what an ignorant, arrogant, smug, bigoted bunch of a$$holes you and you're ilk are.  You're a member of the New York Film Critics Circle?  Are you sure that doesn't actually is supposed to say New York Film Critics Circle Jerk?  I mean, if they let an idiot like you in, then I can draw no other conclusion, can I?


You are a small man, Mr. Reed.  A small man with an even smaller mind and a tiny view of the world.  The unfortunate thing is, you think you are obviously intelligent and sophisticated and above it all.  Let me tell you something: people who are sophisticated and intelligent, don't make stupid comments like that.  They certainly don't get caught walking away with Mel Torme CD's in their jacket pockets.


By the way, you may be wondering what the picture of the 2 birds at the top of the post represent.  They represent the position my 2 middle fingers were in when I read your review and if I ever have the displeasure of making your acquaintance, you'll be seeing them, again.


- Stephenstein

A Waste of Time

This is an open letter to the suit who happens to be in charge of Cineplex/Famous Players.


Dear Mr./Mrs. Stuffed Shirt:


Hello.  My name is Stephenstein (and no, that's not my real name, you jackass) and since I was sixteen years old, I have been a regular movie-goer to your chain of theatres.  When I say "regular", I mean I go there at least twice a month and sometimes more.  In that time, I have noticed a number of changes that I have found for lack of a better work "disappointing".  I will outline these below:


1. Every time I go to the theatre, I run the risk of you having raised the price of admission another 37 cents for no apparent reason.
2. It has gotten to the point where I am now routinely performing armed robbery on an unsuspecting family on my way to the cinema, just to afford your outrageous concessions (I foundly remember paying $4.25 for a small popcorn and pop back in '96...$4.25 would only get me the pop, nowadays).
3. I am now forced to watch 3D or AVX movies...by forced, I do not insinuate that a hairy, bald, large man in a black vest drags me to the theatre and manhandles me until I pay for such...but if I want to see particular movies sooner rather than later, I must pay extra for these formats that I would otherwise avoid as if it were an STD.


That's only counting the things you do have control over...never mind the idiots talking through movies, kicking my seat, coming in late and then standing in front of me trying to decide which of the bazillion seats they want to sit in and my recent all-time favourite, the cell phone light in my face during the movie, possibly the most infuriating thing in a theatre next to loud talking during the movie. 


Okay, so that's where Time Play comes in.  This is a new feature you have recently started initiating in theatres where people are ENCOURAGED to take their cellphones out and inanely play games on the screen for "prizes" (or sometimes not even for a prize...see below).  


Okay, so let me ask you...are you out of your mind?  Are you just begging to have someone like me find you and beat the all-living bejesus out of you?  What are you thinking?  Do you not understand that these morons are checking their cell phones every 3-5 minutes during the film as it is now without encouraging them to pop it open and use it before the film?  Oh, that's right.  You tell them "please turn off your phone" before the movie starts!  YES!  That solves everything!  They will listen to you because you're asking them to!


No only is it bad enough that you're actually asking people to whip out their cell phones and use them, what they're being used on is inane beyond description.  Press this button if you want to see the guy, press that button if you want to see the girl.  Who cares?  Is the girl coming home with me?  Is she scantily clad?  Am I going to get any sort of thrill out of this?  No.  It's a car advertisement.  One I can see at home, on the net or anywhere else on Planet Frigging Earth.  Good job.  Not only are you rallying these idiots to use their cellphones, they're using them for entirely purposeless exercises.  Mind you, outside of "if you win this game, you'll win a million dollars" or "you will win private screenings for your friends for the remainder of your life of all upcoming movies", there is no prize worthy of your annoyance. 


I have been a loyal customer of yours for years.  I love movies.  I own a large movie collection.  I have DVD, I have Blu-Ray, I follow your industry, I live and die by casting decisions, in short, I am one of your more ardent fans.  I want movies to continue forever, I want them to get better and better and I want people to come out, support the movies they love and fill your cash registers.  I am not some recluse who lives in his mother's basement and types out hate mail to every person that he feels has slighted him.  Why in the world do you continue to disrespect me and people like me when I have done nothing but respect you?


Do me a favour.  Get rid of Time Play.  I know you're not going to change the concession prices, the admission prices, I know 3D and AVX isn't going anywhere, I've dealt with that.  Asking me to deal with this as well...well...you know what they say about the proverbial straw and the camel's back.


Yours truly (in disgust and anger),


- Stephenstein

Why?

So, in case you're wondering, this isn't a movie review...it's a rant.  It is a movie related though, because I've noticed a disturbing trend recently.  You might laugh and say "recently" because this has been going on for a while now, but it sometimes takes a while for me to composite my thoughts and get everything down in print.  It has to do with cell phones.


Now wait...I know, I know.  It's not about talking on cell phones during movies.  That's been taken care of, at least there seems to be enough courtesy in the world to ensure that's not rampant.  However, there's been multiple usage of cell phones/iphones/blackberry's/whatever other gizmo is on the market, as far was flipping them open and text messaging.  Now, let me take a step back here.


Growing up in the eighties and early nineties, I didn't own a cell phone. The quality of my life wasn't terrible or anything, at least not because of the absence of a cell phone.  I know that cell phones are very useful, especially in case of emergency.  However, what is becoming more of an emergency is people talking on their cell phones at completely inappropriate times: driving and not paying attention to what they're doing, people walking into walls or in one case in Long Island, an open manhole, etc, etc.  Okay, but then you add text messaging, where you have to look down, so you're entire attention is away from what you're doing and it's worse.  This is just the obvious inherent danger of text messaging at inappropriate times. 


However, flipping open your cell phone to check your Facebook or Twitter during a movie is not just rude, it's dumb and it's actually physically dangerous.  I'll tell you why in a little bit, but the thing that really stands out to me immediately is how much of a step back we've all taken in terms of communication, in general.  Way back in the day, people mailed letters to other people as a way of communicating with far-off, long-lost people.  Then, Mr. Bell gave us the telephone, a more immediate form of communication.  Then we had email as a major form of communication, which to me is just another form of letter writing, only a little quicker.  Then cell phones, so we're back to using some sort of phone...and now text messaging.  So now, we're back to writing letters, except we're not necessarily doing it at desk, anymore.  So, how have we moved forward?  To me, we're going backwards, we're if anything, communicating less effectively with all these gadgets.  Which is better, talking someone physically using a phone or sending someone a damned text?


Anyhow, back to the theatre.  So, it's obviously rude.  I mean, I'm sitting behind some teenager who can't keep their phone closed for more than 5 minutes (in the case of the recent Three Musketeers movie) and it's like...a blinding light in your eyes.  It disrupts your attention to the screen, it blinds you, if the angle is right and it annoys the living piss out of you.  So basically, every time you find out what your friend is making for dinner by checking your Facebook in a movie theatre, you are seriously inconveniencing the people around you.  That's one.


How is it stupid?  Think about it.  You're paying $12 for the experience of sitting in a movie and seeing it.  You're then taking time away from this experience to check your text messages, which you can do for free outside the movie theatre.  So, you're basically wasting $12 (more or less, depending on when you're going and what format you're seeing the movie in), but in any case, you're throwing money away.  Now, let's say you see 10 movies a year at an average of $12 a movie.  That's $120 a year you're wasting, for no reason than you're own inherent stupidity.


Now, the dangerous part.  I spoke to a family friend yesterday and the subject of text messaging during movies came up.  He told me that the last 3 or 4 times he's gone to a movie, he's seen altercations between people during a film, with the entire point being people being bothered by the shining light in their face because someone had to check their text messages and then text back.  See, you don't know the person behind you.  You don't know their mindset, their personality.  You don't know if they've had a bad day or not.  You don't know if they're carrying weapons.  That's a lot you don't know to just whip out the cell and see if you're friend is coming over three Saturdays from now.  I've seen altercations as well and I've also heard how one guy is actually suing another movie patron because she told him to stop texting during a movie as it's disrupting her.  See, if you want to text message, do it in your home, while you're big screen television and blu-ray is showing whatever mindless garbage you just bought from Best Buy.  That's fine, it doesn't disrupt me.  But the bottome line is, there's enough rude behaviour in the world, that people are just getting fed up.  That tolerance level isn't there like it used to be.  Do you seriously want to put any of that at risk because you can't control your urge to check your phone for ninety frigging minutes?


So, there you have it.  My view on this latest, annoying trend in theatres.  I know it's not going to stop, no matter how many times I bleat this on the internet.  Sadly, maybe it will take someone shooting someone else in the theatre for people to get a message.  Maybe not.  Who knows.  All I know is, I paid my money to watch the movie, not be constantly reminded you're checking your messages.  So, maybe you should do us all a favour, you text messagers, maybe you should restrict your trips to the theatre to only once or twice a year and hey, maybe you could even leave your little playthings at home or in the car.  It would probably be the first considerate thing you've done in a long, long time.


- Stephenstein

Video Games and Armchairs

You thought the rants were done?  Nope, I still have another good one in me and it's bubbling to the surface...it involves video games...and armchairs.  Intrigued?  Read further...

So, it's no secret that I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really liked the movie Sucker Punch.  I wrote a blog entry blasting those who criticized it, not because they didn't like it, but because of the stupid things they were saying in their critiques.  Well, I forgot one.  A big one.  Some of the people who saw the movie and didn't like it stated they didn't like it because it "felt like a video game."

Hmmm...now let's examine this.  You know what else felt like a video game?  Batman Begins.  Want to know why?  Because...it actually became a video game!  Know what else?  Every stinking Harry Potter movie.  Let's see, you want more?  How about Scarface?  How about THE GODFATHER.  That's right, the sacred cow for all these fan "experts", the movie that sits on everyone's shelf who knows anything about film, the movie that is hailed on the IMDB as the greatest of all time...is also a video game.  Saying you don't like a movie "because it feels like a video game" is absurd.  It's akin to not liking apples "because they remind me of fruit."  Video games and movies go hand-in-hand these days.  Video games are turned into movies.  Movies are turned into video games.  If a movie is popular, chances are at some point, it will become a video game. 

Now luckily for these critics, they have the argument that the reverse doesn't happen and video games don't "feel" like movies...umm...ehh...actually...have you played any video game these days?  On any system?  You heard of Grand Theft Auto?  Halo?  Bioshock?  Fallout?  Half-life?  Arkham Asylum?  They're all basically mini-movies.  You play a bit, cinematic cut scene.  You play a little bit, another cinematic plot scene.  You know things are getting ridiculous when you read on message boards "what's going to be the plot for this game?"  Plot?  Plot...now where have I heard that word used before...plot...oh yeah.  MOVIES! So, the whole point is, the line between video games and movies are too blurred to separate.  Saying you don't like a movie because it feels like a video game is like complaining about it being widescreen.  It is what it is.

Now, what does this have to do with armchairs?  Well, as Deceptisean is fond of hyping about, all of these criticisms are by these "armchair critics" who sit there and criticize and over-analyze every single aspect of a film.  Why is this?  I have my theory.

I took film classes at Dork, I mean York University.  These film classes were over-populated with these blowhard, pompous, yahoo, jackass, know-nothings who thought they knew every aspect of film because they saw Citizen Kane once.  These self-styled "filmmakers of tomorrow" would often strut into class and go on and on about the film technique, the mise-en-scene, the breakdown of every single frame of a film and what it meant.  Now, that's kind of what film class does to you and I'm not saying I was totally immune.  In fact, film class somewhat took some of the pure joy out of watching film, as I sit and watch some movies I used to enjoy and notice flaws now.  The difference between me and the other yahoos is, I can still enjoy a movie just as a movie.  These guys can't.

Anyhow, back to my theory.  So, these guys who were going to take over Hollywood and make it like they want it, guaranteed did not do that.  In fact, I'm guessing the "real world" came crashing down on this idiot lot when they departed the safe, smug grounds of University thought.  These bitter dumbasses might have ended up writing for half-baked schlock websites like JoBlo and Ain'tItCoolNews.  They might have started up their own review blogs.  They might by the guys populating the message boards.  There might even be a few who were lucky enough to write online journals or for newspapers and get paid for their moronic blatherings. 

The bottom line is, these are the armchair critics to me, the pathetic souls who walked into a film class at some point in their life and walked out thinking that they, not Thomas Edison, invented the motion picture.  These are the guys demanding "hard-hitting, gritty stories", "three-dimensional characters", "organic chemistry" and half-a-dozen other eye-rolling catchphrases that make me want to vomit.  Hey, movies should be analyzed, don't get me wrong.  I'm all for looking at a movie and seeing how it functions.  What I'm against, is analyzing it to death.  I'm against sitting in your big armchair, criticizing someone else's work that can take years to make it to the screen, and you possess neither the talent nor the drive to produce anything yourself.  People who can make movies, make movies.  Those who can't, criticize.

At the end of the day, I want to enjoy a movie.  Every picture is it's own experience, with it's own set of genre-specific expectations and it's own hook to drive me to pay my hard-earned money and watch it in a dark room with a bunch of strangers.  Painting every movie with the same brush is not going to work.  Expecting every movie to be The Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind, will not work.  Each movie is set up to illicit a different emotion from you, the viewer.  Whether it be mind-numbing chills, thrills, laughter, tears, whatever, that's the beauty of film, like Forrest Gump said, it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.  It's the dumbasses who demand every movie be from Lady Godiva that ruin it for the rest of us.

Well, that's me all ranted out for now.  Whether it made you think, made you laugh, made you happy, made you mad, it's all fine by me.  So until the next one, kick back, watch a movie and don't worry about how much of a video game it is.

- Stephenstein.

To the fanboys...

No, this is not a review of the movie Fanboys.  This is a rant.  To be precise, it is the top 3 reasons I don't like fanboys.  Be forewarned, this is not for the faint of heart.

1. They have too much to say.

Granted, this is not entirely their fault as the studios and filmmakers have placed way too much emphasis on polling and their opinion in the past few years.  The best example is Spider-Man 3.  Sam Raimi wanted to do Sandman.  The fanboys heard through the grapevine (which is not an accurate news source...duh) that the studio was considering Venom.  All of a sudden, there was this huge groundswell through the fanboys to get Venom in the movie.  The studio through Avi Arad pressured Sam Raimi to add Venom, even though he didn't know who that was.  So, he added Venom and the result was a mishmash which was ridiculed by the fanboys for being bad. 

I want to add that Raimi had done a pretty good job up to that point with parts 1 and 2.  They were both commercial and critical successes.  Why not leave well enough alone?  Why not let Raimi do the movie he wanted to do, instead of forcing this extra villain on him and ruining not only Venom, but Sandman as well?  Simply because the fanboys have too much to say.  They wanted Venom since there was talk of a Spider-Man movie.  I don't even know how Venom became as popular as he did, all I know is all the fanboys was horny to get Venom into a Spider-Man movie, no matter what.  Now 3 failed and when something big fails, the studio does whatever it does...it reboots the whole thing.  So now, we have Peter Parker back in school for part 4.  Yay.

2. They care too much about what the mainstream thinks.

So, I tell people I read comics and collect various items related to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.  I usually get the answer "how old are you?"  You see, there's a common misconception out there that comics, toys, etc are just for kids.  You know what I don't see at a lot of toy shows?  Kids.  I see people with white hair.  I see people as old as I am and older.  I'm sure there's some middle-aged man out there with a kickass Barbie collection.  See, the mainstream are ignorant and what you do with ignorant people is usually a) educate them or b) ignore them.  I usually opt for option B.

However, filmmakers are trying to kowtow to the ignorant masses.  The best example of recent member was The Dark Knight.  Now, before you all rocket emails to me (or would rocket them to me if you had my email), let me just say, that I like The Dark Knight.  I own the special edition on DVD.  I will own the Blu-ray.  I did not think The Dark Knight sucked.  However, I don't think it was this masterpiece everyone else thought.  The Joker didn't have enough pranks, he was too organized and too sane, there was far too much emphasis on Harvey Dent and what he was doing, we had to wait the entire movie for Two-Face and then he dies at the end...there was a lot that could have been better about The Dark Knight.

However, the mainstream loves the movie.  Of course, they took a lot of the fantasy out of it and made it "realistic".  Since the mainstream is mainly comprised of people totally lacking in imagination (the distaste for Sucker Punch is a prime example), this was the perfect time for fanboys to wield their clout.  The opposite happened, though.  The fanboys fell in step with the mainstream.  Why?  Because something they liked was finally universally accepted.  They were no longer "not cool" for liking Batman.  My response?  Eff the mainstream.  Where were you guys when I was getting my ass kicked?  The answer: No where.  It may not be popular to like comic books and fantasy and what not, but I don't care.  I like what I like and that's it.  I don't see a need to compromise on that and the fanboys shouldn't be worried about what a bunch of ignorant jackasses think.  But they do, which makes them no better.

3. They don't support what they profess to love.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World is the prime example of this.  Scott Pilgrim was this wacky, fun, comedy/fantasy movie that felt like a video game.  It was reportedly and apparently true to the comic book and was made the way it was specifically for the fanboys.  Now, I never read the comic but I still went out, paid my money to see the movie, then bought the movie on DVD.  I supported it, even though until the movie came out, I had not even HEARD of Scott Pilgrim.  You know what, though?  The fanboys didn't go out and see it.  It didn't make anywhere near the money it should have, considering how much supposed demand there was for this comic to be made into a movie.

So, here's the thing.  You're a fanboy.  You're probably not that popular (even though you probably have Dark Knight stickers taped to your forehead).  You probably don't have a lot of friends and even if you do, they're probably not popular, either.  You probably don't have a girlfriend.  You probably eat lunch at school alone a lot and you probably get picked on a lot.  Hey, been there, done that, I've got bones that are just getting discovered they were broken for getting beaten up a lot as a kid, like twenty years later.  I'm not here to judge.  What I am saying is you guys should be embracing what you love.  You don't have a lot of things going for you in today's rotten society, so do yourselves a favour and at least stand for something and support the stuff you truly do love, not the stuff that everyone else thinks it's okay for you to love.  If you don't start supporting that, even that will be taken away from you.  Then what?

So, that's the 3 reasons I hate fanboys.  In all honesty, everyone bitches about how studios are screwing up the film landscape with their remakes, sequels and rehashes and by all means, they're right.  However, the fanboys have a responsibility, too.  Thanks to the internet, the fanboys have never had so much power, they can reach out and email these execs and filmmakers, they can rant on forums, they can refuse to pay to watch what isn't faithful, they have more power to wield than ever before.  Instead, they want to be accepted and popular and be like the ignorant masses.  I got bad news for you boys: it isn't worth it.  So, like what you like and if someone tells you you're stupid or childish for liking it, tell them to go to hell.  There's more important things in the world to worry about than what the jabroni in the next cubicle thinks.

- Stephenstein

Sucker Punch this!

J-Man has already more than adequately reviewed this movie, so I won't be doing that. Instead, I'm just going to discuss some of the reviews I've read about the movie. If you haven't seen it, you may find it informative. If you have seen it and liked it, or haven't and aren't going to bother, it may amuse you. If you've seen it and hated it, this is directed at you, so do us a favour and for once, pay attention.

A lot of reviews about this film seem to have 3 main problems:

1. The storyline made no sense.

2. The girls were dressed provocatively, thus making it akin to porn.

3. The action was over-the-top and visually uninspiring

Okay...[cracking knuckles]...here goes...

1. The storyline made no sense. Okay, I don't get it. Why? Maybe Snyder should have inserted title cards stating "Babydoll is now imagining being in a world where she and the girls are fighting Nazis"? I mean, I hear all the time how audiences are more sophisticated and you can't talk to them as if they're dumb. Then a movie like this comes out and people prove their dumb. I mean, everyone loved Inception. That was a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream. I didn't hear a lot of "I don't get it" from that movie. I heard a lot of people say the movie "blew their mind" (which is funny because the movie is basically using Chapter 1 of Psychology 101), but I don't get this "I don't get it" nonsense. It's simple really:

Babydoll imagines the she and the other girls are in a brothel, partly because it's a good simile to her current situation and also because it helps her deal with her situation. Plus, it's more interesting, visually. When she has to dance for someone, her mind goes into an even more outlandish setting and represents the battles she feel she has to overcome to achieve her specific goals.

There. 3 sentences explained it. A lot easier than say explaining a David Lynch movie (which everyone loves) or sometimes even a Darren Arofnofsky film (who has been bequeathed the great white hope by the clowns currently cluttering the internet). So, help me understand...what exactly don't you get?

2. The movie was porn. Noooooooo. As J-Man pointed out, there's no kissing, no sex. There may have been a rape attempt, but even that was heavily open to interpretation. If that's someone's idea of porn, I'd hate to see their reaction to real porn. Oh wait...I get it! It's because the girls are dressed all sexy!

Well, that's pretty much every Japanese anime/manga. Which are hyper-popular on both sides of the Earth. You think it sucks? Well, in my opinion, Japanese anime has a far more loyal following than North American animation. It's more profitable, goes on forever and from what I've seen, never diminishes in quality. No one is dying over how their characters are dressed and sometimes it's even skimpier than what you see in this movie. You want to tell the Japanese you find their stuff to be porn? Be my guest. They've just been totally destroyed by earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns and tsunamis. I'm sure they'd be more than receptive to your cheap opinion.

Oh, by the way, North America also has their actresses dress all slutty and no one cares. How about Chicago, Moulin Rouge, Nine, Sin City, Transformers 1 & 2, Basic Instinct, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dollhouse, to name just a few off the top of my head. Most of these movies or television shows are extremely popular and I didn't see the big flag-waving there about how the ladies were dressing.

3. The action was over-the-top and uninspiring. Yes, I have to admit, you could see the action in this movie. It wasn't done in the style today of putting a camera on the ground and punting it across a parking lot. Actually, the WWII war scene was shot in a frantic style, so I wouldn't say even this movie was completely clean, but it was still better than 99 percent of what I'm seeing. Nope, people today enjoy the style of Battle LA (or BLA as J-Man called it, which I think is the best way to think of that movie), where you can see nothing. That's exciting. I love it when I can't see anything or tell what's going on. That's great. How about I just give you $10 and close my eyes through the movie and then leave. That's what it turns out being.

The movie has lots of Slo-Mo though and that's bad. I mean, no popular films ever have slo-mo. Hard Boiled doesn't have slo-mo. Face/Off doesn't have slo-mo. Resident Evil 4 doesn't have slo-mo. Hell, The Matrix? Nope, they didn't have shots where the action didn't just slow down, but stopped entirely while the camera revolved around the picture. Nope, didn't happen. All part of my imagination. As for the over-the-top comment, go see any foreign or Hong Kong movie...go see an Indian film named Enthiran. Oh wait, that would involve you actually have to delve outside your North American "I only watch movies made after 2007" mentality, wouldn't it? Well, if you bothered, you would see the meaning of "over-the-top". You would also see the meaning of "really good."

So, that's my rebuttal to the common critiques of this movie. For all those out there who complain about about movies not being imaginative enough, here's your movie. For those who like "realism", avoid it. Or sit out on your front stoop. Then you can have all the realism you want.

- Stephenstein

The state of the union distress

***Rant Alert***

I'm not going to review Battle: Los Angeles. Firstly, J-Man has already covered everything in his posts. Secondly, I don't want to waste time writing about the movie. It's horrible. That's it. However, I want to touch on something to do with Battle: Los Angeles. The critical reviews.

Rotten Tomatoes is one of the best known websites for compiling critical reviews. Overall, it garnered a 32% score. While this is means that most critics found this movie awful, I was disturbed. 32% means 1 in 3 critics LIKED this movie. To draw a comparison, Skyline, a far superiour movie received a 16% rating. Season of the Witch, a movie I liked this year and would own, received a 5% rating. Shocked beyond even expletives, I read some of the positive reviews.

"While there's no subtlety here, this remains surprisingly gripping throughout and boasts three-dimensional characters and well executed action scenes."

"Action packed with a solid performance from Aaron Eckhart and a large dollop of patriotism."

"A sci-fi "Black Hawk Down," Jonathan Liebsman's "Battle: Los Angeles" will satisfy any genre-movie buff jonesing for this generation's "Independence Day."

"[I]'s not about aliens: it's about us. This isn't science fiction: It's a bleak fantasy about karma being a bitch. It's about collective cultural guilt. Looking at from that angle, Battle: Los Angeles is fascinating."

"It's a gritty, tension-filled story of soldiers fighting their way through extraordinary circumstances. The characters feel like real people. Their struggles seem genuine. And Los Angeles is going up in flames."

Okay, that's the more outlandish ones to me (and to be honest, I couldn't go much further than 3 or 4 pages...the positive reviews were making me sick). Most of the reviews that were positive still mention how trite the story is, how generic the characters, how ridiculous the whole movie was...but they still endorse it. Herein lies the rub.

Why, why WHY are we endorsing this garbage if we're also noting how much it sucks? "Well, the characters are ass and the storyline could be written by an extremely mentally-challenged 4 year-old and the you can't see a blessed thing in any of the actions scenes and the alien design was horrific, but still see this movie." What! Why? Why are we endorsing this stuff when we know it's garbage? Why are we telling people to pay their money to see this atrocity when we know it's bad? Because here's the thing about people in the "civilized" world. They're mostly sheep. They go where people tell them to go, they do what people tell them to do and they see what people tell them to see. They're online, they're interested in seeing a movie, they don't know what's out, they read the Battle: Los Angeles reviews, they click on the wrong one and bang! Depending on how many are going, we could see 60 bucks down the drain.

Like right now, there's this big screaming from the fanboys because Darren Arofnofsky is off The Wolverine. They wanted him to make The Wolverine, but here's the thing: there's no guarantee he would have made a good Wolverine movie and there's no saying his replacement will make a good or bad Wolverine movie (unless it's Michael Bay, in which case you would know The Wolverine will suck), but they still beat their breasts and complain. You know what? Shut up. Shut your mouths. The guys saying Battle: Los Angeles is bad, but you should still see it, or worse the guys who are saying it's good and you should see it, shut your mouths, as well. Let's do the world a service and keep all the pie-holes on the internet shut for a change, instead of leaving it open as a toilet bowl for the turds.

You see, as a film fan, I feel it necessary to try and give honest opinions. I try and tell you why I like something, why I don't like something. Unfortunately, there's this cacophony of screaming from the cheap-seats, 15 year-old dateless wonders locked in their rooms and they're all posting on the JoBlo/Ain't It Cool/Latino Review/Arrow In the Head forums, just filling up the internet with all this garbage, all these critics who, I mean if you love Battle LA, you're either being paid or on drugs or something, especially if you're a film critic for crying out loud, whatever happened to liking good films? I mean demanding we get good films with solid storylines, great characters, action we can SEE, imaginative action choregraphy, worlds of the imagination, what happened to that? Why are we getting critics endorsing Battle LA? Why are the fanboys running things and being a-holes about it?

Because they're the ones posting on the blogs and the forums. They're the ones people are listening to. Their the audience that the studios are catering their films to. Never mind they don't really care about the films and either won't support them or will, but give you ridiculous reasons why they liked the films. Never mind that in the end, all these guys' opinions aren't worth a shovel of spit in a drainage pipe. They're the ones with the voices and they're the ones with the loud opinions.

Well, no more. This is The Fantom Zone and at least here, we won't get any of that stupidity. At least here, the fanboys and the idiot critics aren't welcome. The state of the union is sad indeed, but as long as this blog exists, there will be one sane voice on the internet. So to all the little girl fanboys who refused to support Scott Pilgrim and are crying that Aronofsky is off The Wolverine and to all the film critics who endorsed that steaming pile of donkey dung called Battle Los Angeles, just be warned that I'm here, in the dark, hating your guts and hoping for the day that someone will kick all your candy asses.

- Stephenstein

5 things I want to see changed at the theatre

You know, my last forays at the theatre have not been a very satisfying experience. There's been a lot of garbage lately. I'm not talking about the movies either...I'm talking about the behaviour of the people in the theatre. Whispering, standing up during the film, feet on the back of other people's chairs, etc. It's just getting irritating to the point I am seriously contemplating homicide in the theatre. Rather than do this though, I have constructed a list of 5 things I would like to see changed at the theatre. Now, these are changes are not going to happen, but it would be nice if it did. I'm not talking about lower prices, or better concessions. I'm talking about making the entire experience better overall.

5. Fix the screens!

This is a minor problem that doesn't occur that often, but when it does, it's damned annoying. There's a hole in the screen. I've seen it at Imax, I've seen it at regular theatres, hell, I saw it today. It gets really annoying. I start staring at it constantly, to the point of distraction. For the prices I'm paying both at the box office and at the concession stand, I think a little bit of money could be spent to ensure the screens remain in tip top shape.

4. No more 3D!

This is a no-brainer, as my hatred of the 3D format is legend. I hate 3D, I hate looking at it, I hate paying for it, I hate the stupid glasses, I think the effect actually sucks and I hate how everyone is gaga for it, when it's been a technology that's been around since the time of the 3 Stooges. However, there is another reason I hate it: because of the popularity of the format, you now have more brainless imbeciles at the theatre. Even though they're not going to the same show as me, these worthless pieces of trash are in front of me in line at the concession stand, they're in my bathroom, their in front of me at the box office, they're loitering around when I leave...listen, these people are not movie people. Never were, never will be. I'm fine with them being at home, downloading their DVD rips and hanging out with their loser friends. What I'm not okay with is them out in public when I'm around, hanging around and polluting the air I breathe with their gibberish.

3. Headphones option!

This is something I've been championing a while, now. I will gladly give up the DTS 5.1 surround sound, if I have the option of sticking headphones in my ear and listening to the movie instead of the a$$hole sitting behind me, trying to impress his girlfriend or vice versa by acting like a douche. I like the recent trend of movies being so loud, they blast you out of your seat...at least it blasts that d!@* out of his or seat as well. In the interest of my own personal hearing though, as I also don't want to be deaf at any point in my life, I would really like this option.

2. Don't let people in after the movie starts!

This has been done. Psycho was one of the ones I remember where Hitchcock asked not to have people let in after the show starts, because he didn't want the surprise in the movie ruined. I think that's great...but how about I don't want the movie ruined, no matter what it is? How about, I don't want some jackass wandering in, fumbling around, LOUDLY asking their fellow assclowns what seat they want to sit in, fumbling around because eventually they choose the seat IN FRONT OF ME and then loudly either pass around foodstuffs or comment on the fact that they are late. You know what? I had the good sense to leave well in advance to ensure I was at the theatre early so I wouldn't have to bumble around in the dark and disturb other people who paid good money to pay the movie. Seeing as how there are so many completely useless idiots in the world today who possess neither watches nor clocks, let's not penalize the people who had the good sense to plan ahead for the little movie excursion, what do you say?

1. Ushers!

Oh me, oh my. Ushers were around in my father's time and obviously due to budgets of theatres, they don't employ them anymore. Apparently, they use to rove up and down, making sure no one was acting up. Well, let's bring 'em back. Please. I want someone I can grab easily to say "look the atrociously disgusting waste of a human life in front of me won't shut up, would you please tell them to shut up before I kill the son-of-a-*^#&@?" Ushers should also have the power to remove people, if they're acting up. No more whispering, no more feet kicking the back of my chair, no more cell phones in my damn face because one rehab is texting another rehab "OMG! Where r u? I'm watching Unknown! LOL!", no more of any of that. The point of me plunking down my cash is to watch the movie, no other purpose. If I wanted to give $11 away, I'll just give it to a homeless person.

So, that's my take on improving the theatre experience. You know, when I was a kid, going to the theatre and seeing a movie was an experience to look forward to. Now, I go dreading it, just thinking about how angry I'm going to get because some inconsiderate schmuck thinks they're in their damned living room, instead of a public place. Don't worry, I know none of these things will happen, but that's okay. If you're ever watching the six o'clock news and there's news of a homicide, you'll know who and why.

- Stephenstein

Reboot this!

If you in any way follow movies these days, you've probably heard the term reboot. In essence, what the term implies is that a film series needs to be started over, as it has begun to lag in quality. You know how a few years ago, everything was being remade, and everyone was talking about what should be remade next? Well, it's the same thing, except instead of sitting there and saying "I'm remaking an older film", what the studios and "filmmakers" are in essence doing is saying "look, the series is in the toilet, and no one cares anymore, so let's just go back to square one, start all over again, and do a great series of movies, this time." A good example of a reboot would be the Batman movies. Tim Burton did two really great Batman films, and then Joel Schumacher, with heavy studio interference, did two not so-great Batman movies. Then Christopher Nolan stepped in, and did 2 films that were pretty good, but fall somwhere in the middle between the Burton and Schumacher films, at least for me. So, why even write this post? Well, because as in most things, it's going too far. It's getting time to reboot Hollywood altogether, and here's the reason why.

As most people who read movie news is aware, they are planning to reboot Spider-Man. To me, this is the pointless reboot to end all pointless reboots. Superman needs a reboot because of the awful Superman Returns. Transformers might need a reboot, to make up for the crappy Michael Bay flicks. Fine, you can argue that with me. But Spider-Man? Okay, why? Sure, 3 was a letdown...but thanks to the studio! Sam Raimi wanted just Sandman in the movie, it was that numbnuts Avi Arad who wanted Venom! Okay...[deep breath]...I'm getting ahead of myself here. Let's examine the 3 Spider-Man films we've already seen:

Spider-Man - 90% Rotten Tomatoes ranking, made $821 million world-wide
Spider-Man 2 - 94% Rotten Tomatoes ranking, made $783 million world-wide
Spider-Man 3 - 63% Rotten Tomatoes ranking, made 890 million world-wide

So, what can we see here? All three movies received "fresh" ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, thought to be the gatherer of all things critically, so yes, 3 did not fair as well in the critics eyes as 1 and 2, but no one said it sucked (and evidently, when Mr. Raimi is left to his own devices, people seem to like it). Also, the 3rd film outdrew the other 2, so it clearly wasn't bad at the box office. So, this lends the question: why reboot the series? I mean yes, I don't think you'll find anyone who says 3 was the worst of the bunch, but does this really warrant starting again at scratch? Why not just make part 4, and give the reins back to Sam Raimi?

But you see, that's not what Hollywood wants. Especially Sony, who is probably sweating, because of the stipulation that any Marvel properties owned by another studio, who do not make a film in a set time period, featuring said character, the character reverts back to Marvel. So, Sony has to make another Spider-Man film to maintain the rights to make Spider-Man movies. Then there came the revelation that Sam Raimi was unhappy with the script, and that he wanted major changes...changes that the studio wasn't willing to make. So, off goes Raimi and his guys, and in comes Marc Webb, he of (500) Days of Summer. Next we hear, of the reboot, and not only is it a reboot, but it's going to be The Ultimates version of Spider-Man (so back to high school), and it's going to be about the angst of a teenager in high school who get bullied.

Wow...doesn't that just want you to run out and buy a ticket? I sure do! Forget the ridiculously rich rogues gallery Spider-Man possess, I want to see him take on Flash Thompson! Are you serious? Only in Hollywood baby, only in Hollywood. You see, these guys don't care about providing a quality product to the public. They were d0ing that, sort of screwed that up, and instead of righting the ship, they're just rebooting it, as if 3 never happened...but then the yahoos come up with an idea far, far worse than 3 ever could be. I don't want Ultimates Spider-Man. I don't want to have to go back to high school with Peter Parker. I don't want this teen angst bullshit. I...WANT...SPIDER-MAN! A Spider-Man who is done properly. The first two movies weren't bad at all, why can't they do that?

Well, they can't do that, because they don't understand why those movies were good. Plain and simple. The Hollywood execs have been living so long in their ivory tower, they have become completely disconnected from what actually makes a good movie, anymore. How often have you heard movie people speak about how "shocked" they were that a film they made actually did well. Here's the problem: people make movies for themselves, but in order to support this job, they need other people to pay to see the movie. If you see a good movie from a director, you may be inclined to pay again to see that director's next movie. This is how movies have functioned since the beginning of time. Hollywood doesn't seem to get that though, they don't seem to get anything. They don't understand why Ghost Rider was critically panned, why Daredevil was critically panned, why X-Men 3 was critically panned. Do they try and understand this, to go back and understand, so they don 't make the same mistakes twice? No.
They're answer is blow it up, and start over again. Usually, the preceding film isn't so bad that it requires a complete reboot, but they don't understand that. They're like a kid who breaks a toy, demands a new one, and then breaks that one, too.

The most damning thing though, is that a lot of these films that people didn't like would probably have been better off without the studio interference. Did anyone see the Daredevil Director's Cut? It was awesome! It was like a whole different movie! It made sense! Why didn't Fox just let Mark Steven Johnson make Daredevil like he wanted to? It would have done better critically, and probably made more money. Nope, the studios had to put their stamp on it, pulled out their pie charts, their demographics, and they wanted this changed, this changed, this changed. Movie came out, it didn't do so well. They release the Daredevil Director's Cut, everyone loved it. Hmmm! That's odd, isn't it?

So, what's the bottom line? The bottom line is, these reboots we're getting are really unnecessary. All they have to do is fix what didn't work in the film that came before, and things would be fine. Film studios don't want to do that, because that would mean admitting they screwed up, and as everyone knows, no one has ever screwed up in a Hollywood film studio. Never greenlighted a film that was garbage. Nope, not them. It was always "well, things didn't work out like we envisioned", and "we were excited with what we had, but for some reason, it didn't really translate". In other words, you guys suck. Your little pie charts and graphs, yeah, they didn't work. You should all do the film industry a favour, and resign, jump out of your ivory towers, and rejoin the little people who are actually the ones who pay to see your crap.

Please end the reboots. They aren't needed, just make a better sequel. You've effectively killed Spider-Man with your next movie. How many more are you going to kill?

I bid thee a fond reboot.

- Stephenstein.

G.I Joe...from my corner

I've read Deceptisean's post, and I gotta say, I got to weigh in on what's going on. I clicked the link with the full story, and I now have a bellyful of bile I have to blast. Nothing to do with the story (though it doesn't surprise me), but with the remarks left afterward by one George "El Guapo" Roush:


"One thing that isn't true is the movie not tracking well. It's actually tracking very well which is great.

You don't need to Google far for the Action Man bit since I was the one who got the exclusive and interviewed Lorenzo when he first brought it to everyone's attention about Action Man possibly being in the film. (Although heaven forbid anyone link to me.)

I've heard through various sources that this story is true. That the film has had problems. But that's what happens when you put people on a project they know nothing about.

Still, it's a movie I'm looking forward to seeing. Minus the dipshit accelerator suits, I'm kind of psyched to see G.I. Joe. I've been to the set and it was pretty bad ass. I'm just hoping it isn't the train wreck everyone is making it out to be. Yes, the movie is geared towards the 10-12 year old crowd, but isn't that how old most of us were that were into G.I. Joe in the first place? Somehow we liked it back then and the cartoon is pretty damn goofy if you watch it again as an adult. What is it you're expecting? A live action Shipwreck to run around firing a laser gun with a fucking parrot on his shoulder?

What sucks is everyone posting how bad this film is when they've never seen it, which is typical internet bullshit when you're able to safely hide behind the anonymity of your keyboard. You can certainly say a film looks bad, and that you hate the director, etc. etc., but to say the film actually is bad based off a trailer and some TV spots? C'mon guys. Wait until the film is out, you've seen it with your own two eyes, then state your opinion.

In the meantime, do what I do - make fun of those stupid fucking accelerator suits."

I'm going to list my grievances, paragraph by paragraph.

1. Well, the story just run said it wasn't tracking well. You're contradicting your own reporting? Or is that someone else's reporting? Where are your facts? You think just because you have a nickname like "El Guapo" (and yes, I saw The Three Amigo's in the theatre, numbnuts), that makes you some sort of journalist?

2. Thank you for clearing up that you had the exclusive on the Action Man saga. Because you know, I was losing sleep over who had the exclusive on that. Seriously.

3. So, how can you be excited about a movie based on a franchise, when they don't know anything about the series? Are you implying that they don't need to know anything about the mythology of the product before they start making a movie out of it? Good logic.

4(a). Bad ass? What's bad ass? Can you tell me what bad ass is? Because, I've seen the set of Terminator, and I've seen the the set of Angels and Demons, and both were impressive, for what they were trying to accomplish. Bad ass is not a good description of a movie set, it's a description of someone who is experiencing problems with their posterior.

4(b). I am no longer 10-12 years old, and even when I was, I wasn't thinking like a 10-12 year old. In fact, I was younger, and enjoyed G.I.Joe. That doesn't mean I don't want a G.I. Joe movie that's intelligent to me. I wasn't a moron at 10-12, unlike you obviously, "El Guapo."

4(c). Yes, I want to see Shipwreck with the parrot. I want to see Destro with the metal helmet. I want to see Zartan with the disguises. I want to see all that schtick, because that's G.I. Joe. I love this generation man, just love it. I mean, they think everything's stupid. Let's make a movie about Shakespeare, but not have him write plays, because that's stupid, plays are stupid and writing plays are stupid. Let's have him screw numerous women instead. I mean, thank God none of these people are lawyers...could you imagine it? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is guilty because he works at nuclear science laboratory, and that's stupid. You're honor, that's my case."

5. My friend, you do the same thing. You sit there, behind your keyboard, and judge every single film before a single frame of film is showed to the general public. To decry against those others who do makes you a hypocrite, and I hate hypocrites.

6. The accelerator suits? But I thought you were looking forward to G.I. Joe! I thought the set was bad ass! Oh right!! You want to still look cool and still kind of diss the movie anyway, because when it does come out and drop a giant egg, like it looks like, you want to point back on your post and say "see, I wasn't really pumped up for it, I was making fun of the Accelerator Suits." Congrats, you gutless cretin.

The whole point of this exercise is to point out something obvious: the majority of people who post for movie websites, be it JoBlo, Ain'tItCoolNews, Latino Review, and all the rest, are just a bunch of flabby fanboys who go along with whatever they think is cool, without the benefit of logic or reason. Please, when you read their posts, take it with more than a grain of salt; take it with a truckload.

I bid thee a fond good night (except for "El Guapo", of course).

- Stephenstein

An open letter to movie fans

You know, I'm sitting there today, thinking over the movies of today....considering my top ten list of the year, so far...and thinking about the movies I've seen this year...and I'm seeing a lot of 3's...not bad...not Earth-shattering...you know...alright. Now, you could argue that I'm just seeing a certain type of film, but not really. I watch pretty much anything, and you know what? Everything's...mediocre these days. So, that's why I'm writing this post.

There's a lot of people out there who consider themselves "movie people". They sit around, talking about this latest film, and that new flick, and they speak as if they know something about movies. Now for those who don't know, I know about movies. I was practically raised on them, I can remember one wall of our dining room practically covered with bookshelves stacked two deep with VHS movies (and it was a decent-sized room). As it stands now, I have close to 1,000 DVD's, and none burned. I've attended classes that showed films from Thomas Edison, all the way down to The Godfather. I've seen epics of the modern era, and epics from the golden era, and right now as it stands, the two don't compare. They just don't make films like they used to, which is sad.

So, why write this post, bemoaning about the state of films today? Simple: because I care. I care about movies, and about where they're headed, and I don't like where the new releases are headed. Think about it: we live in an era where information is literally a click of a button today. We have the Internet Movie Database, which documents pretty much every film in existence. We have scores of movie classes that teach genres, and even ones based on individual filmmakers. Why are films so mediocre these days? We have history on our side, and we know how the masters did it. Think about this progression: D.W. Griffiths, Cecile B. DeMille, John Ford, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg...Michael Bay? What's wrong with this picture?

The problem is this: we accept mediocrity too easily nowadays. We're shovelled it by the barrelful. I liken movies to fast food: you absorb it, you crap it out two hours later, and you completely forget about it by the next day. The filmmakers and studios have all these classics, all these masterpieces that came before them, so, the natural progression is that films get bigger and better, right? We're supposedly a sophisticated society. We should expect sophisticated, better produced movies, right? Nope. We have more explosions, I'll give you that. We also have shaky-cam, amateurish humour, t and a, and not a storyline in sight. Any storyline we do get, usually feels as if it was dreamed up by an exec's 12 year-old niece. These guys don't seem to understand they have a legacy to continue. They don't care; after all, it's just a movie, right?

Some of us still care though, and to those, I am appealing. Hell, I'm getting down on my hands and knees at this point: please, please, PLEASE do not accept mediocrity anymore. Let these yahoos know that while the koolaid drinkers of the world still might be the majority, the minority, the ones who actually think for themselves, are still going to be an annoyance. Let them know that the kind of bland, cookie-cutter, pie chart drivel that is constantly being driven into our skulls is not going to continue unchallenged. You won't change the world, but you'll let them know that we're all not going to sit there and take this garbage.

Still with me? I know, this is a rant, and not a movie preview, but I've simply had enough. It's time some people sent a message to these schmucks in Hollywood. I know what you're thinking now; you're thinking one man can't make a difference, you can yell and scream on your blog all you want, and it won't make a damned difference. You're probably right, but remember this: the sun shines on every dog's ass, even a mutt like me.

I bid you a fair good night.

- Stephenstein