Things I've Learned From Watching Movies Part 9

Strangely, the presence of a homicidal madman killing all those around you isn't necessarily enough to get you to leave where you are and go someplace else.

Super Zero

One of the signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So what does that say about people who keep making these parody movies? You have Scary Movie 3 and Scary Movie 4, both occasionally funny but ultimately mediocre movies. One of the guys who wrote both of those movies is now writing and directing Superhero Movie, the imaginatively named parody of movies like Spider-Man and X-Men. How is it that the people who authorize and pay for these things figured that they'd get something other than an occasionally funny but ultimately mediocre movie this time around? My theory is they simply didn't give a crap because both of the Scary Movies made at least a small profit and, seen from a perspective of sanity, this one will also make at least enough money to justify making Fantasy Movie or Jane Austen Movie next year. At least I hope that my cynical theory is true. I'd hate to think that the producers of Superhero Movie made this thinking, "Yes! Yes! This will be one of the great classics of cinema and will be how people remember me when I'm dead."

I will say this is a small cut above other parody attempts like Epic Movie or Date Movie. I never saw Meet The Spartans but I'm assuming this is better than that because I can't imagine a movie containing break dancing Spartans could cause you to feel anything but pain. There hasn't been a truly great parody film since the last Naked Gun movie. I liked Dewey Cox a little but it still wasn't in the same league. It may seem odd that so few of these are any good since so many of them are made. The reason for this is simple. Comedy, to look good, must look like it was easy to do. This goes doubly so for parodies. A good parody like Naked Gun or Young Frankenstein looks almost disgustingly easy to make. I imagine that many filmmakers of below average talent see a good one and think, "That's it! I'll just make fun of all those Harry Potter movies, throw in some dick and fart jokes and maybe have a Donald Trump look-alike come along and tell everybody that they're fired. How could that not be comedy gold?" The fact that they don't recognize the buttload of ways in which this could not be comedy gold is why so many bad parodies are made.

There's a good example of this in Superhero Movie. There's a scene where the nebbishy alter ego of the super hero is trying to romance the girl he likes when the boy's sleeping aunt begins farting. The good news is that this starts off funny and stay that way for about 12 seconds. The bad news is that the whole routine goes on for about 3 minutes as the anal gas is is expelled with greater and greater force, eventually blowing the girl's hair around. The reason this isn't funny is because you ask yourself, "Why don't they just move to a different spot?" Makers of parody movies think they can get away with stuff like this because absurd and outrageous situations and behavior and suspension of disbelief isn't as necessary as it is when you're trying to tell a story logically but incompetent filmmakers violate even those oh-so-minor limits and that's what happened here.

The plot is more a take-off on the first Spider-Man movie than it is superhero movies in general and you know what? I'm not even going to talk about the plot anymore since it's not really all that important. It exists as a clothesline on which to hang various jokes and sight gags.

When broken down, about 25% of the jokes in Superhero Movie work and the rest blow so, stay the hell away from it and sit back until the next crappy parody movie comes out. All this has happened before, all this shall happen again.

Mist-y Water Colored Memories

I wasn't doing this back around Thanksgiving when The Mist first came out in theater which is too bad because I could have vented the anger and rage that The Mist invoked in me here. Instead, I was forced to take it out on society. Mind you, my way of taking it out on society was mainly confined to saying, "What's good about it?" when people would say, "Good morning," to me. Not that it's coming out on DVD, I can now purge from my psyche the demons it left and heal the damage it did to me.

The Mist is, quite simply, one of the worst movies ever made. A lot of people didn't like The Mist but what truly amazes me is that they don't hate it for the reason I hated it. Many critics cited things like wooden acting, needless gore, characters doing stupid things for stupid reasons and the other usual laundry list you can cite for hating most big budget Hollywood films. It even made the right wing hit list because one of the main antagonists is a Christian nutjob whose usual end-of-the-world rhetoric doesn't sound so crazy when the world actually seems to be ending and because all the bad stuff in the movie is caused by a failed military experiment and this was looked down upon by people who fetishize the US military. Yet all of the reviews I read either barely mentioned the ending or went into a bit only to quickly dismiss it so they could concentrate on the other things they didn't like about the movie and the ending is the reason to hate The Mist. The rest of the movie could have been comparable to Citizen Kane but, if it had the same ending, it would still earn the contempt of the world. The ending of The Mist is something that H.P. Lovecraft would have described as, "having risen from the stygian depths, its very nature evil, its very existence blasphemous and its very presence an affront to the world of light, sanity and reason." I am not exaggerating. The ending of The Mist is indeed that bad.

To get to the ending, let's explore the beginning and middle so the ending makes sense. Ok, already I'm wrong since the ending of The Mist makes no sense whatsoever, but let's go back a bit anyway.

The plot is more or less faithful to the Stephen King story it was based on (up until the godawful ending). A fierce storm in a rural Main town causes damage at a local military base where, rumor says, strange experiments are being conducted. This realeases a thick, otherworldly mist that is occupied by all sorts of vicious, demony beasties who trap several of the townsfolk in a local supermarket including author Davids Drayton, played here y Thomas Jane. They don't fare that badly once they figure out and apply certain rules like, "Staying inside where there are no beasts capable of tearing a person into tiny pieces is preferable to going outside where there are loads of creatures like that." They do well, that is, until people actually begin to take seriously a woman previously regarded as the town kook. Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) has an obvious paranoid mental disorder that she expresses through Christian extremism and apocalyptic rhetoric that, as I said before, usually gets ignored but takes on a new meaning when the Apocalypse may actually be happening. As more and more of the supermarket dwellers are swayed to her way of thinking and words like, "human sacrifice," begin to get thrown around, Drayton and his allies try to come up with a plan to escape the store before Mrs. Carmody forms her own megachurch.

This will sound odd, but I actually liked The Mist up till this point. Oh, it wasn't particularly great or memorable, especially surprising since it was helmed by Shawshank Redemption director Frank Darabont, but it was mildly entertaining and up until the end, I could have gone blissfully through my life never thinking about it again.

Oh dear, I suppose now I must deal with the ending. I've gone back and forth as to whether I should reveal the ending here and have decided not to. In fact, I just got done deleting the paragraph where I spoiled the whole thing. What I will say now is that, if you ever see the ending, you will wish that the movie had balls so you could kick them again and again. You will want to slap Frank Darabont over and over in a way that you haven't wanted to slap a director since Gus Van Sant thought it would be a good idea to remake Psycho. You will wonder how anyone could have thought it was a good idea to take Stephen King's original ending, an ambiguous piece of work that finished the story on notes of both mystery and hope, and change it into something that makes you think that now is the time for humans to step aside and give rule of the planet over to its new cockroach overlords.

Or, to quote a teenage girl who sat a few rows in front me, "THAT SUCKED!" That pretty much sums it up.

UPDATE: A commenter has called me out on the ending saying I have to post it. Ok, got a nice little spoiler space (I couldn't make the code work that turns text invisible) so just scroll down if you want to see it.



















In King's original ending, Drayton, his son and a few others from the store drive into the mist. They heard a stray radio signal mention Hartford, Connecticut and bank everything on the slim hope that maybe the mist has stopped its spread there. In the movie's ending, Drayton, his son and a few others from the store are still driving along until they run out of gas. Drayton has a gun and decides that a shot to the head is preferable to whatever the creatures in the mist have in store so he shoots everyone, including his own son. Not having a bullet left for himself, he exits the SUV and shouts, "COME AND GET ME!" Just then, the mist lifts and reveals a military rescue caravan meaning that all the murders he had just committed were, in fact, the stupid idea that everyone in the theater knew that they were. It ends with Drayton kneeling in the road screaming next to the blood-and-gore-filled SUV. Now that I've had to relive all that, I have to go punch something.

The Passion Of The Medved

Crooks And Liars today talks about recent remarks made by Michael Medved on CNN about the recent Jeremiah Wright controversy.

Yes, I think it was a courageous speech in some ways, and yes — but it was also an attempt to change the subject. Because the truth is that people responded indignantly to Reverend Wright not because he’s black. It’s not about race, it’s not because of the racial outlook of the church, which very specifically defines itself as an afrocentric church and emphasizes blackness, blackness, blackness.

They didn’t respond to it that way. If a white pastor had made the comments that Jeremiah Wright had made, people would have been equally indignant.

To put that in context, C&L links to an article Medved wrote last year about how awesome slavery was for black people.

I think C&L picked the wrong article though. To me, the name "Michael Medved" is a synonym for stupid. Someday, I think people say things like, "That retarded guy is such a Michael Medved." The main reason for this is because, when he was a film critic, his opinions of movies were almost always the exact opposite of how good the movies actually were. I used to read his reviews because he was the perfect reverse barometer. If he loved something, it would be unwatchable. If he hated it, it would be Oscar material. I don't mean he occasionally bucked the consensus of opinion of his fellow critics, which most of them do from time to time. I mean this guy was wrong almost every single time. As evidence, I offer two examples.

First is Pulp Fiction. This is generally considered one of the greatest and most influential films of the 20th century. It is considered by many to be a crime that it didn't win the Best Picture Oscar. Here's what Medved said about it:

I hated it! I hated every frame of it! Well, I won’t say that I hated every frame of it. I mean, Bruce Willis and John Travolta have never been so mediocre, but I found it just rampagingly mediocre. But that’s enough about Pulp Fiction, let’s get to one of the films on my ten best list The Swan Princess.

Please not that I did not alter that quote in any way. He hated Pulp Fiction and loved The Swan Princess. If you've never heard of The Swan Princess, it's because it's a trite and forgettable feature length cartoon ripoff of just about every fairy tale you can think of. And Medved loved it. That's not the only stupid movie he ever loved by the way, which brings me to example #2, It Takes Two:

"Absolutely delightful! The Olsen twins are natural charmers with irresistible appeal. Well acted and crisply directed. It will please parents and children with its winning blend of humor and romance."

Yes, he loved a movie with the Olsen Twins which was mainly a ripoff of both The Parent Trap and The Prince and the Pauper. Not only did it have someone who would someday be mysteriously connected to the death of Heath Ledger but it also starred Steve Guttenberg and if I have to tell you why that automatically raises the movie's suck rating by 10 then you don't know a lot about movies made in the 80s. In his New York Post review, he gave it 4 stars. This is the same number of stars you would give to The Godfather, On The Waterfront or (for most people) Pulp Fiction.

And that's why you don't listen to anything Michael Medved says. He lacks judgment and taste in all things and, someday, society will come together as a whole, shove him onto a spaceship and send him to the Moon where he will never harm anyone again. Until that glorious day, though, we must all keep a constant vigil lest his idiocy spread and mutate until, someday, we all have to watch as Steve Guttenberg receives a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars.

Be Careful, Drillbit Taylor. You May Not Like What You Find.

Last month, I gave Drillbit Taylor a 40% chance of being a movie worth watching. That prediction has come true, kind of, as I consider only 40% of the movie to be worth watching. It's not a horrible movie and I laughed several times but there were too many flat jokes and stupid plot developments to recommend this to other people.

Owen Wilson plays the title character, a homeless veteran who hires himself out as a bodyguard to protect three nerdy high school boys from the bullies who torment them. Pop quiz: where in that last sentence do you see one of the stupid plot developments I was talking about? If you said, "...hires himself out as a bodyguard to protect three nerdy high school boys..." then give yourself a big, fat zero. That's not a stupid plot development. It's an outrageous premise upon which the entire movie is built and most big budget studio films, good or bad, are built on an outrageous premise. No, the stupid plot development lies in the words, "homeless veteran." Sure, there are lots of homeless veterans out there, but I simply can't figure out why Drillbit Taylor should be one of them. He's not a drunk or an addict. He doesn't hear voices or think that the CIA has implanted a microchip in this teeth. Taylor is mainly a shiftless, laid back, amoral conman who's perfectly willing to do things like steal from children and should be able to scrape together enough money to afford at least a dumpy apartment that would be far preferable to the streets he's living on.

This brings me to another stupid plot development. If this movie is to be believed, being homeless is AWESOME! Drillbit Taylor lives a very pleasant existence that mainly consists of begging for change in the morning then hanging out with his homeless buddies all day at a posh sidewalk cafe stealing food from the other customers. Up to this point in my life, I was under the impression that upscale Los Angeles restaurants wouldn't let a group of homeless men sit around at their tables all day so they could steal food and tips but, apparently, I was mistaken since that's exactly what happens.

Taylor is hired as a bodyguard by three boys (basically, the same three characters who were in Superbad, not surprising since this was written and produced by the same people) who are being tormented by a sociopathic bully. Taylor manages to convince the boys that he's a warrior of extraordinary skills even though at one point the three manage to overpower him. This leads to another stupid plot development where he decides to impersonate a substitute teacher and it works because, apparently, if you show up at a Los Angeles school and claim to be a substitute, the principal there will simply take you at your word and not check to see if you are a pedophile or just there to shoot up the place. Taylor manages to connect with the prettiest teacher there who has sex with him before she finds out his first name (or rather, the fake first name he is using, but that doesn't make it any better). Anyway, from there, hilarity ensues etc etc.

As I mentioned above, Drillbit Taylor is made by some of the same people who did Superbad and it doesn't measure up. The similarities kept making me think of the much better Superbad. This starts right from the opening where they copy Superbad's first scene: the skinny, gangly nerd talking on the phone to his fat, crude, curly haired best friend. It's not a raunchy sex comedy like Superbad was which is a shame because some raunchy sex would have taken our minds off of stupidity of the rest of the movie.

So, I guess my point is, go rent Superbad. Sure, it doesn't teach you the things that Drillbit Taylor does like that deserting from the Army during a time of war merits an extraordinarily light sentence or that sexy teachers don't really mind when their lovers lie about their backgrounds, occupations and names and will go on banging them even if they go to prison. No, Superbad doesn't have things like that, but it does have things that a comedy like Drillbit Taylor does not have, those things being actual comedy.

Things I've Learned From Watching Movies Part 8

No matter how dumpy he looks, how whiny he is or how stupid and immature his behavior may be, there isn't a guy on the planet who can't score two hot girls at once. Do I dare to get my hopes up that Lindsay Lohan and Scarlett Johannson will someday have a brutal fistfight with each other over who gets to be the first one to give me oral sex? The movies say that yes, I should dare.

Right Wing Movie Reviews -- Horton Hears A Who

Recently, I was contacted by right wing blogger Götterdamerung who posts over at conservative site Bushpocalypse.org. He took me to task for my recent review of "Horton Hears A Who" claiming that it was filled with liberal bias and that I was clearly and blatantly using a children's film to indoctrinate those same kids into my far-left agenda. I had no idea what the hell he was talking about but, when I asked him if he'd like to publish his own review here for the sake of balance, he graciously and sincerely thanked me for the opportunity though he thought it may all be part of my liberal jihadist plot to destroy America. --MC

Hey folks, Götterdamerung here. I know all you limpwristed Democrat gayboys out there probably went with your boyfriends to see that new French film The Other Boleyn Girl this past week which means you missed out on the most ass-kicking balls-out pro-America movie I've seen since 300, the movie where Spartan King Leonidas kept the Persian army from invading the United States. I'm talking about Horton Hears A Who. This movie gets your heart pumping, your feet stomping and your flags waving and convinces you that America should rule the world under the wise leadership of George Bush's third term.

The movie starts off in Whoville, a place that's totally screwed. It turns out that they live on a mote of dust, most likely due to liberal policies that inhibit the wealth creation that would have allowed them to live somewhere else. The dust starts blwoing all over the place and it looks like it'll be curtains for Whoville. They need help, they need a savior, they need GEORGE W. BUSH and they get him in the form of an actual Republican elephant named Horton.

Like Bush, Horton is just a regular guy who likes to have a good time. He doesn't spend a lot of time thinking which is good because, when he finds the Who, he doesn't stop to think. Instead, he goes with his gut and right away figures that he has to bring Whoville to a safe spot. That makes sense, right? Who could argue with that? The killjoy Kangaroo voiced by Carol Burnett, that's who. She's a crazy feminist in charge of the forest for some reason and she shows why feminists should never be in charge of anything except dinner. She goes on and on about how the kids in her socialized schools can't be exposed to the idea of tiny dust people just because there's no evidence that they exist. There's a term for that: Liberal Fascism.

Meanwhile down in Whoville, the Mayor, another manly Republican type clearly modeled after Dick Cheney, is told by his pussified city council that there's nothing wrong so he increases he goes it alone by seizing vast new unitary executive powers. He manages to get a warrantless wiretap to the outside world and thus forges a masculine bond with Horton and together, they save Whoville.

This movie helps Bush. A liberal would have tried to save Whoville by raising taxes to finance a committee to form new Whoville regulations and celebrate by drinking soy milk and singing Kumbayah. But that's not what Horton did. He showed that if you make a decision, stay the course and not let defeatocrat busybodies interfere with you, everything will work out in the end. Horton Hears A Who loves everything that Bush and the right wing hold dear. Things like honor, courage and masculine values. If you don't love this movie, that means that you don't love masculinity and anyone who hates masculinity is obviously gay.