Christian Bale - What an Asshole!

I seriously had no idea what a primadonna "ac-tor" Christian Bale was. Listen to this shit!

The End of Laserdisc and the End of an Era

I will never hesitate to admit to anyone that I am a movie geek. I love motion pictures with a passion. Movies are not an "escape" for me. I truly believe the old statement that film is truth at 24 frames per second. I remember when I was about 12 I found out that the movies released on VHS tapes were panned and scanned. I saw Siskel & Ebert do a side-by-side comparison of the letterboxed and pan and scan versions of Star Wars. From that moment on I only wanted to see movies in their original aspect ratios. But how could I see them? A magical format known as Laserdisc.

As a kid, the one thing I wanted more than anything else was a Laserdisc Player. I guess most kids were already bugging their parents about cars. Not me. Whenever we were in a Circuit City, I would show my mom the LD players and would explain why they were better than video tapes. My life would just never be complete without one! When she finally bought me one, she got me the best there was. I got a Pioneer that didn't require you to get up and flip the disc. The laser would move in the machine when it was time to change sides. It was glorious.

So many of the things people now take for granted on DVD were born on Laserdisc. On LD you could get widescreen versions of films, audio commentaries from directors, trailers, interviews, and behind-the-scenes documentaries. Any old LD afficianado will remember the awesomeness that was the Criterion versions of Halloween, Taxi Driver, and Blade Runner. The only problem was, Criterion typically charged anywhere from $100 to $150 for their movies. Then there were the much coveted Japanese imports you could order from Ken Crane's. There was the original cut of Highlander and the four hour version of Dune. The pride of my collection was the Star Wars Trilogy: Definitive Collection. It cost a whopping $350, came with a hardback book, and all three films in CAV, the highest quality presentation available at the time.

I got my first job at Suncoast to support my Laserdisc habit. The old Columbia House Laserdisc Club was a lifesafer in getting bargains on this far too expensive format. My vivid memories of the cost of Laserdiscs are what always makes me scratch my head when people complain that Blu-Ray is too expensive. Fuck. Compared to $100 per title, a Blu-Ray for $30 is a steal! Considering I was a teenager of modest means I had a pretty decent LD movie collection.

Well, as you all know, DVD came along and ended the Laserdisc as a viable format. Hell, even I converted right away. I was about to buy the Criterion LD of Boogie Nights. But before I did, I compared the specs to that of the DVD. The LD was going to be $200 but the DVD was only $20. The only difference in the content was the LD had the original documentary about John Holmes called "Exhausted." I went ahead and bought the DVD and put the rest of the money towards a DVD player.

Here we are in 2009 and Pioneer announced that they will no longer produce Laserdisc players. That means one day in the near future it will become impossible to play your LD collection. It's a moment that makes me kind of sad. I hate to admit it, but it makes me sad because I enjoyed being an elitist prick. Owning a Laserdisc player said something about you. It said you were a serious film lover and a videophile. It was like being in an exclusive club of movie geeks. If you were at the store looking at Laserdiscs, you could easily strike up a conversation with the other guys perusing them and have a great conversation about film. Other LD owners knew who directed the films they owned, they knew what year they came out, they weren't just interested in the newest movies made, they loved film the same way you did. The same cannnot be said of DVD or even Blu-Ray. Just try going up to a random person in the DVD section of Best Buy and striking up a conversation about which is Scorsese's best film. Enjoy the blank stares.

Rest in Peace Laserdisc. You were too expensive, you were not the best in terms of video quality, and you didn't have a very long life. But damn it, you were first! You will always be special in the hearts of film geeks everywhere.

Watchmen - Short about the Minutemen

This is one of the most awesome things I have ever seen.

Steven Seagal is Kill Switch

Yesterday was a day of great importance. Tuesday October 7, 2008 saw the release of the latest DTV Steven Seagal movie, Kill Switch. I had purposely avoided reading Vern's review because I wanted to be surprised. What I got was another mind-boggling entry into the Seagal DTV canon. Where do I even begin? Lawd Have Mercy!

Kill Switch is the story of Memphis detective Jacob King and his relentless pursuit of not one but two serial killers. The first one we meet is Billy Joel Hill. This dude, in a very un-serial killer like fashion, has sewn a bomb into some chick's chest and the bomb squad is going through the whole "what color wire do we cut?" dilemma that anyone who's ever seen a movie is familiar with. In order to find out which color wire will disable the bomb, Jacob King beats the shit out of Hill. Now I don't mean he gives him a typical Seagal ass-whipping. This is a brutal beating. As the movie goes on, the brutality is what sets Jacob King apart from every other Seagal character we have ever seen. Well, eventually King throws Hill out of a window and the woman is saved. Only later on, we find out that Hill survived his fall and was released from prison because the police used excessive force. Really? You think?

If you've seen any of Lord Steven's more recent DTV titles, then you know he has become quite fond of using some kind of Cajun accent. Well, in Kill Switch it's thicker than ever. He says his new trademarked phrase "Lawd Have Mercy!" five times by my count. That alone is worth the price I paid for the movie. Also, Seagal manages to include another great love of his into the movie heavily, blues music. The soundtrack has blues music, there are numerous scenes in blues clubs, hell, it even takes place in Memphis. Lawd Have Mercy!

Anyway, the other serial killer he is trying to catch is named Lazereus. He's a mix of the Zodiac killer, the killer from Seven, and Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs. Now, would you be surprised if I told you that there is a third serial killer in the movie? Well, there is. Except, this one is from the past of Jacob King. Every once in a while, King has flashes of memories that appear as Avid Farts. In these avid fart memories, we see a young King and what appears to be his brother. King sees some ominous looking serial killer guy murder his brother. I guess that's why he tracks serial killers for a living now. All we can do is speculate since he never talks about it and it never really adds anything to the movie except minutes to the running time.

I won't bore you with any more plot details because it's a pain in the ass to recap all this shit. Let's get to the fights and the ending. There are two fights in bars in Kill Switch. The stuntman isn't as obvious as he is in other Seagal DTV movies. The problem is in the editing. All of the fights are edited via numerous small jump-cuts. And it's not just that the scenes cut frames going forward, but they will suddenly jump backwards, then forwards, then backwards again. It ends up creating an incomprehensible mess. The editor must have thought he was on to the next big thing. My advice is to not get too clever with this editing bullshit. Before computer based editing you couldn't do this shit. It makes me wish movies still had to be edited on flatbed editors. Just keep it simple and let us see the action.

I would be remiss to not talk about Jacob King's brutality. In order to find out information about a dead prostitute, King asks her pimp some questions. When he refuses to answer, King puts the guy's mouth on the bar and starts beating on the back of his head until the dude's teeth are knocked out. Sounds like a pretty standard police interrogation technique to me. It's pretty brutal to watch. But, the comforting thing is the pimp shows up moments later, shooting at King in an alleyway, and he miraculously has all his teeth! Also, once King tracks down Lazereus, they have a really long fight in a bar. Once King has the upper hand, he beats the shit out of the guy with a club. He literally attempts to break as many of the guy's bones as he can. Jacob King isn't fuckin' around. Lawd have Mercy!

OK, so King also lives with this cute Asian chick who is also a cop. She walks around the house in short silk robes all the time but King never shows any interest in her sexually. He is too immersed in his serial killer tracking to even look at her, much less fuck her. Well, eventually she gets killed by the aforementioned Billy Joel Hill. King finds the dead girl and Hill in his house. He proceeds to beat the shit out of Hill and then kill him. The thing is, it's not out of rage over the girl's death. It's more like a personal pride issue. This all seems strange right? Just hang on.

When King's Memphis PD partner and some hot federal agent show up to King's house and find Hill dead, King is nowhere to be found. He has left a note explaining that his work is done. Notes with voice-over are a common plot element in the DTV era. Now we see that Jacob King has returned to his beautiful Russian wife and his two children! The movie ends with her taking her top off and King closing the door implying they are about to fuck. Nowhere in the movie was there even the slightest hint of him wanting to return to some family we had never met. But, I guess this explains why he wasn't interested in the Asian girl who lived with him.

Let me try and piece this together in my mind from the clues I was given in the movie. Jacob King saw his brother murdered by a serial killer when he was a kid. From that moment on he dedicated his life to catching serial killers. At some point in the past, he left his wife and kids to join the Memphis Police Department (Because I guess Memphis is a hotbed of serial killing). He lets a sexy female police officer live with him but they keep it strictly friends. He then kills one serial killer, arrests another and finally feels vindicated. He then returns home to his family, mission accomplished. There doesn't appear to be any meaning to the title, Kill Switch. That's OK. In the DTV era, titles are pretty meaningless.

So did I like the movie? Hell yes! It was crazy Seagal DTV fun. It is a step backwards from Urban Justice and Pistol Whipped. But, if you enjoy the insane, unpredictable nature of movies like Today You Die, you will definitely enjoy this one. Lawd Have Mercy!

The Killing of John Lennon

This was not an easy movie to watch. The Killing of John Lennon is a recreation of the events leading up to Mark David Chapman's murder of John Lennon. All of the narration we hear from actor Jonas Ball are Chapman's actual words. I went into this movie hoping to gain some insight into what made Chapman tick and why he needlessly killed the greatest musician of our time.

Quentin Tarantino says that everyone is either a Beatles person or an Elvis person. You can like them both but you always like one more than the other. I am for sure a Beatles person. And in the subset of Beatles fandom, I am a Lennon person. My favorite Beatles songs are primarily Lennon compositions like Happiness is a Warm Gun, A Day in the Life, I'm So Tired, and the list could go on. I also find Lennon's working-class rebellion and arrogance appealing. You could always see that resentment behind his eyes even when Brian Epstein had them dressed in grey suits. He chewed his gum and thought "what a bunch of wankers" to himself. So, needless to say, I do not have any good will or sympathy towards Mark Chapman.

The big question is, why make a movie about this little prick? He's someone who deserves no fame and no recognition whatsoever. Well, thankfully, this movie does not attempt to glorify him. It sets out to provide a realistic picture of Chapman's psyche. To that end, it portrays him just as he was and still is, a mentally ill loser who couldn't accomplish anything in life so he chose to make a name for himself by killing someone important.

We get a little of his background in Hawaii. His mom still hangs out at the beach and fucks guys younger than him and he resents her for it. He is married to a timid, mousy Asian girl who seems to put up with his crazy shit because she feels powerless to leave him. He works a shitty job and seems to have no sense of identity or self-worth. Unfortunately, he finds his identity in the pages of The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. Seeing himself as the real Holden Caufield, he uses the book as a blueprint for his life and a rationale for murdering Lennon. You see, to Chapman, Lennon is a phony. He's a rich man who told the world to "imagine no possessions." That perceived phoniness is his justification for the murder. The line on the cover of the movie is a quote from Chapman. "I was nobody until I killed the biggest somebody on Earth."

John Lennon's fame was based on his talent as a musician and his ideals as an activist. He did real things that mattered to real people. What he contributed to the world was positive. Did his life always match his words? Of course not. But as David Marcus once said "good words, and that's where ideas begin." What did Chapman do? He murdered a man in cold blood in front of his wife. And he thinks that makes him "somebody." Sorry fuckhead. You are still a nobody. Taking from us a man we all loved is not an accomplishment. You sir are the real phony.

The movie is slow and deliberate in how it is paced. You know what is going to happen and are filled with a sense of dread until it does. I really give credit to Jonas Ball for his performance. I think most actors try to bring a sense of pathos to the characters they play. Thankfully, Ball does not do that. He works hard to bring the real Chapman to life just as he was at that time. He shows us a creepy, wormy, little prick that deserves our contempt but is not played as a villain. It's multidimensional and realistic.

So, was it successful in showing me who Chapman was in 1980? Definitely. It really doesn't offer a point of view or psychological insight into the man. It just shows the events in a docudrama style. It's up to you to wrestle with what was wrong with him and why he did what he did. There are no easy answers and it is a credit to the movie that it doesn't try to give us one with a bow on top like some shitty episode of Law and Order.

This isn't a movie for everybody. But, if you are intrigued by what goes on in the mind of a man like Mark David Chapman, give it a watch.

Starship Troopers 3: Marauder

I rented three different movies over the weekend and wanted to share some of my thoughts on each of them with you my loyal readers. But where to begin? I figured I'd start with the first one I watched. And that would be the direct-to-video sequel Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. Why, you may ask, would I even want to see a DTV sequel to a Paul Verhoeven movie? Johnson, don't you know it's going to pale in comparison to the original? The way I figure, after seeing Robocop 3 in a movie theater, how much worse can it get? So basically, I did not go into ST3 expecting a Verhoeven movie. I just wanted to see something that had the same spirit and satirical tone of the original. Oh, and before someone brings it up, I don't read novels, so I don't give a shit about what happens in "the book." So did I get a pleasant viewing experience with the movie?

As a matter of fact I did. It has a much smaller scale due to the budget, but it does feature some cool action sequences. It even features a return of the Brain Bug from the original movie. It was written and directed by Ed Neunmeier who not only wrote the original Starship Troopers, but also the Verhoeven classic Robocop. He does manage to keep the spirit of the original alive and not just by having more news sequences with the famous "would you like to know more?" tag line. He actually manages to make the movie about something in terms of the fascist Federation. The driving issue of ST3 is religion. The thing is, Neumeier isn't really all that clear on what he thinks of it.

Basically, freedom of religion doesn't exist in the Federation and people who are religious are looked down on by most folks. There is a really cute, yet really annoying girl who says The Lord's Prayer repeatedly every time she's on the business end of a bug attack. Little-by-little, she wears down Jolene Blalock's character until she becomes a believer in her hour of need. Meanwhile, the woman who is command of the Federation sees that religion creates perfect soldiers because they stop asking questions and are willing do do whatever it takes because of faith. In the end, the Federation declares that there is a God, he is a citizen, and he is on the side of the Federation! But, at the same time, Lola Beck's conversion is sincere and she firmly believes God saved her from the HBIC (Head Bug in Charge). That's my term, not the movie's.

So what is it? Is freedom of religion necessary or is it just a useful tool for political power? The thing is, in declaring that there is a God, there still isn't freedom of religion in the Federation. The new policy just puts atheists in the same position the believers used to be in. So the message of the movie is confusing but it will spark debate. You can't say that for most DTV sequels.

As far as the cast is concerned, Casper Van Dien still can't act his way out of a paper bag. It's cool to see Johnny Rico back in action but he really isn't the main character. Jolene Blalock really carries the movie as Lola Beck. I think she's a good actress and more than just a nice body. It's a shame that Berman and Braga didn't give her much to work with on Enterprise. The CG effects looks straight outta 1995 TV (ie. Babylon 5). That is a nice way of saying they look crappy. But the budget was low so I understand. Unfortunately, my favorite bugs were not in the movie. That would be the Tanker Bugs. You know, the huge beetle looking ones that fart laserbeams into space. I guess they were too complicated for the budget of the movie. Oh well.

My suggestion for a fourth movie is to bring back Jolene Blalock but not Casper Van Dien. If Neumeier brings back a cast member from the original, my vote goes to Neil Patrick Harris.

If you can, watch the movie on Blu-Ray. The image is flawless. I imagine, given the budget, it was shot on HD video. It is a really nice looking disc. A nice looking presentation is always a plus for me.

Would you like to know more?

The Dark Knight

Where do I even begin a discussion of The Dark Knight? It is quite a daunting task really. When a movie is this good it's hard to collect your thoughts enough to get it onto paper. I think I know where to begin. Here goes nothing . . .

Anyone who really knows me is well aware that I am not a fan of the DC Universe. I am a Marvel guy to the core. The main reason I prefer Marvel over DC is because Marvel always seemes more realistic, more grounded in the real world. My dear friend Leeman accuraetly points out that DC is more pure escapism than Marvel. Not to mention, the DCU is filled with what I call "hoaky, old-timey characters." The one exception to the mass of lameness that is the DCU has always been Batman. I have always thought Batman and his particular corner of the DCU were pretty sweet. He is awesome for the very same reason I think Marvel is awesome. Bruce Wayne/Batman is a complex character. He is a realistic person internally that anyone that is interested in significant moral choices can relate to. Also, Batman is grounded in reality. He is a regular guy with no super powers. He fights crime with his wits, physical abilities, and vast wealth. His villains are, for the most part, psychotic criminals, not mad scientists gone awry. Batman is everything that the DCU is not.

Because of my affinity for Batman, I have always wanted to see a Batman movie done right. In 1989, Tim Burton's Batman was a radical departure from what had come before it in terms of comic book films. It was a step in the right direction but, alas, not quite there. It was the first of Tim Burton's many "gothic fairy-tales" that I can personally do without. I swear, if Johnny Depp hadn't been on 21 Jumpstreet at the time, Burton would have probably had him play Batman. Well, after Burton's original film it was all downhill. We all know how bad they eventually became.

Then Chris Nolan made Batman Begins. It had a ton of promise but was tied down by a lot of silly bullshit we have come to associate with comic book films. Too much CGI, an obligatory origin story, and a dumb-ass scheme on the part of the villain. Liam Neeson was a perfect Ra's al Ghul. But poisoning Gotham's water supply with some gas made by The Scarecrow? Give me a fucking break. The train sequence at the end was the typical CGI "big" ending for the comic book film bullshit. All of these problems are gone in The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight is a real crime movie with Batman. It's not full of stupid gadgets with the word "bat" attached to them. It has a real plot about a city trying to enforce law and order in the face of a criminal psychopath who follows no logic and seeks only to bring everyone down to his level. There have been comparisons to Michael Mann's Heat and I think that is fair. This isn't just a good comic book movie, it is a good movie. If Batman has always been a kind of comic book film noir, this movie finally achieves that. The Dark Knight is not just one action sequence after another. It is filled with fantastic character moments and believable internal conflicts. The Joker keeps redrawing the line and Batman, Jim Gordon, and Harvey Dent all have to make choices about where they will stand in relation to it. Each man makes his own choices and has to face the consequences. The choices aren't easy and no one feels particularly good about what they have to do.

I know people are tired of this coming up but I believe it is relevant for this film. (Sorry Leeman) This may be the ultimate movie about the post 9/11 world. What choices do we make in the face of an enemy that has no sense of logic? Where do we draw our personal lines of right and wrong when our enemies have none? How do we keep our citizenry safe in a world of utter chaos? If we do redraw our lines of right and wrong, does the enemy win after all? These are the questions society is asking itself right now and they are the questions asked by The Dark Knight. The film poses these moral dillemmas without the heavy-handed obviousness of the modern Battlestar Galactica. It's there if you want to see it but it's not rubbed in your face. The difference is truly good writing versus faux good writing.

Batman kicks ass in this film and Heath Ledger is every bit as good as people say he is. He has contributed the definitive portrayal of The Joker. This is not some idiot phoning-in his standard schtick while dancing to shitty Prince tunes. If no one told you this was Heath Ledger, you'd have no idea who this was. He transforms himself into the character. The other real stand-out is Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. He exudes a likeability and pathos more than anyone else in the film. I'll chime in with the notion that he'd make a great Captain America. Oh, and good riddence Katie Holmes! She can stick with fighting the evil forces of Xenu. Maggie Gyllenhaal is the perfect Rachel Dawes.

Believe it or not, the Tim Burton film came out 19 years ago. It has taken that long to finally see a fully realized Batman film. We owe Chris Nolan a huge debt of thanks for giving us the movie we never actually thought could exist.

The Dark Knight is the gold standard of comic books films. Future directors better step up their game after this.

I thought I was alone . . .

Anyone who really knows me knows that I despise Mystery Science Theater 3000. I don't just dislike it, I loathe it with ever fiber of my being. I have tried in vein to explain why I don't like it over the years to varying degrees of success. I hate that it belittles movies that are actually some of my favorite films. I hate the culture or "riffing" that was spawned from it's putrid existence. You see, to me this show is just like those lousy VH1 I Love the 80's specials. It makes fun of things simply because they look dated.

Well for years I had thought I was the lone hold-out in geek culture that didn't like this show. All that changed today. Headgeek himself, Harry Knowles feels just like me. He summed up all of my thoughts and feelings way better than I ever could.

Here is what he said about the DVD release of the MST3K Movie:

I have a noted history of not liking and actually hating this show. You have to understand – I like the robots, I like their banter… it’s the concept of belittling movies and declaring certain films as being TERRIBLE STINKERS – that I can’t stand. And never was the case more infuriating to me, than with the theatrical version of MST3KTM…. The film is THIS ISLAND EARTH… literally one of the very best 50’s Science Fiction films… With fantastic aliens from the same planet as Dennis Muren… and Apple technology… and Metaluna Mutants… and art deco Saucers… tractor beams, triangular two way televisions with built in lasers! And I just love the film. I grew up with it. Since this film came out… I’ve attempted to see THIS ISLAND EARTH twice in theaters and both times there were jackasses screaming out quotes from this version of the film and laughing hysterically. FUCK THAT! Now – the humor is funny – but my problem with this and the series is that while I love that tons of awesome genre films that could have been forgotten were discovered via the show… BUT – now they got introduced to those films as “trash cinema” and not the films that they were – prior to self-aware ironic glib humor. I really wish that the guys behind the MST3K phenom – had made their own films – their humor was solid enough to not just be a video commentary added to another’s film.

Harry really hits the nail on the head. Thank you Harry. Here is the link to the original article.

AVP: Alien vs. Predator

Over the weekend I bought the unrated, two-disc set of Alien vs. Predator. This is one of those movies that film geeks seem to think is obligatory to hate. For the life of me I cannot figure out why so many people shit on this movie. Seriously. I really, really enjoy this movie. If you're expecting some pseudo-intellectual explanation as to why I like it, you are going to be very disappointed. I like Aliens and I like Predators. I especially like seeing them do things we have never seen them do before because of the limits of the technology in the earlier movies. The Alien queen just rocks in AVP! We get to see her move in ways that couldn't be shown in 1986. Another cool part to seeing the queen fight in this one is fucking Newt was not involved. I have always hated little kids in science fiction movies! I love the scene of the past when the natives worshiped the Predators as gods. That shot of thousands to Aliens running up the pyramid after the three Predators was cool as shit. I thought the idea of having the young Predator come to respect the female lead and team up with her was cool too. It shows the honor and nobility of the Predator species. There aren't that many changes to this extended cut of the movie. I just wanted to be one, small voice out there that stands up for this movie and its director. I think it has some really cool concepts, really cool fight scenes, and you actually come to care about the main Predator.

I also think Paul W.S. Anderson is a much better director than people give him credit. This movie looks really neat. I watched the pre-production documentary and was very impressed with him. He has been into the concept since the first AVP comics Dark Horse published. He storyboarded almost his entire script when he pitched his idea for the movie and the images were very impressive. The cool part is most of them actually ended up on the screen. This guy is a fan and a true genre filmmaker. That is a rare thing these days. Most guys who make genre pictures long to make "serious drama" or have to undercut high concept stuff with the "we don't take this seriously" mentality. Anderson gave us a movie about Aliens and Predators that used tons of the mythology from both and is really a geek's dream come true. But it seems the gods decreed from on high that we are supposed to hate this movie. Well I don't. So forget all that crap you have heard online and watch this movie with some fresh eyes. It kicks ass.

Inside

Last night I watched the best horror movie I have seen this decade. Yes, you read that right, decade. It has been slim pickings for several years now in terms of horror movies. I don't like, nor am I interested in, "spooky" Japanese horror movies, American remakes of "spooky" Japanese horror movies, watered-down PG-13 Hollywood horror, torture/sadistic trap movies, freaky accident movies, or atmospheric twist ending movies. I like hardcore, balls-to-the-walls, gory, relentless, nihilistic horror! Also, in an ideal world I don't want any supernatural elements involved. No monsters, no magic powers, no demonic possession, no seeing of dead people, etc. I like to see fucked up people doing fucked up things to people only slightly less fucked up than they are. Well, I finally got what I wanted.

But wait. Doesn't Johnson love The Devil's Rejects? Yes he does. But, in the end, it is a tribute film more than anything else. It is an homage to 70's horror. I love it but the movie I am about to mention is completely original, not an homage. That movie, my friends, is Inside.

Inside is a French film that deals with the horrors experienced by a pregnant woman living alone. I am not going to tell you anymore about the story than that. I went into this movie knowing nothing. I hadn't even seen a trailer. Not knowing what to expect made the experience that much more intense. This movie is not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach. If your girlfriend gets scared by bullshit like The Eye then, for Christ's sake don't let her watch this! It is relentless, hardcore, gory, and nihilistic. If you are a horror fan, go rent this movie . . . NOW!

Fact Check - Steven Seagal

Ok, you know how there's been this recent fad of elevating Chuck Knorris to the level of greatest action star of all time. People have made these lists of "facts" about how tough he is and what a badass he's supposed to be. Seriously, what brought this on? Of all of the major action stars, he wouldn't even be in my top five.

You mean to tell me he is somehow tougher than Arnold Schwarzenegger? I'll put John Matrix or Dutch up against any of Chuck's characters any day of the week and watch them kick his ass!

What about Sylvester Stallone? Come on! Anyone who saw Rambo knows that even in his 60's, this guy owns your ass in terms of action! Imagine a fight between Rambo and Braddock. It would shorter than an old school Mike Tyson fight! Not one "fact" about Chuck Knorris proves toughness the way the line "he eats things that make a billy goat puke" does. 'Nuff said.

Now who, you ask, deserves to be at the top of the list? Who truly deserves to be king of the action stars and have grandiose "facts" written about him? That man, my friends, is none other than Steven Seagal. Whay can't Chuck Knorris do push-ups anymore? Because Seagal broke his arm in one swift, lightning-fast motion! Just look at how quickly Mason Storm recovered from being in a coma for nine years. Would Knorris have the courage to testify before congress like Nico Toscani did after exposing CIA corruption? I don't think so! Who would have the courage to take down their coked-out brother on a rampage the way Gino did in Out for Justice? Only one man, Steven Seagal. You see, it's not just about physical strength. It's about the combination of mental, moral, physical, and spiritual strength exhibited by Mr. Seagal in his films. Only a true zen master can combine all of these elements to truly be tough. To quote Mason Storm, "before you learn to fight, you have to learn to heal."

Superhero Movies . . . The Johnson Perspective Part I

So today I was reading some talkbacks about a possible new Superman movie. There always seems to be some sort of "geek consensus" about which movies are good and which are bad. Well, many times I agree with geek consensus and other times I don't. In this post I want to mention a few and share my thoughts about the commonly held tastes of my fellow film buffs.

Let's start with the most over-praised superhero movies out there . . . Bryan Singer's X-Men and X2: X-Men United. Having given Singer's films a rewatch it finally hit me just how cold and lifeless they are. There's just something intangible that seems to be missing. They have a definite visual style but just feel soulless and hollow. There seems to be a subset of marvel fans that are primarily X-Men fans. These fans love to heap praise on Singer because they believe he gave them a vision of that universe that is true to the characters. I will admit that it is nice to see the material taken seriously and the subtext intact. But, that's about all I can give Singer credit for. I think the actors in these films do more than anyone else to deliver the characters in their correct form. Who can deny Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, and Ian McKellan wonderfully bring their respective characters to life? But, Singer's lifeless direction and inability to film action drags these movies down. Are they bad? Absolutely not. But, are they as great as some would have you believe? No way. Also is Singer the savior of the modern superhero film? Hell no.

Now, on to the third and most controversial of the X-Men franchise, X-Men: The Last Stand. It is very fashionable to bash Brett Ratner as a director. It's supposed to just be a given that he is an awful director and everything he makes is crap. This is just as ridiculous as the notion that it is a given that Singer is a master filmmaker who makes the most wonderful superhero movies of all time. I'd say the crap to cool ratio in the third film is roughly the same as the first two movies. In many ways, I think there happens to be a lot more cool in The Last Stand than in the first two. This mainly comes from the fact that Ratner actually knows how to stage and shoot cool action sequences. If I was going to sit down and watch on of these again just for fun, I'd always pick the third one. It's not perfect but it's not the piece of crap geek consensus would have you believe.

P.S. - When I say I like something I am not saying "it's so bad it's good" or any other such ironic nonsense.

Peter Jackson and The Hobbit

Well, the internet is on fire with people all giddy over Peter Jackson and New Line coming to terms on making The Hobbit. Here's the kicker, it's going to be TWO movies. Seriously, does this guy know how to make a two hour movie??? The other movies might have been somewhat enjoyable if they had each been two hours each instead of three hours plus. It is beyond me why my fellow movie geeks actually think this guy is such an awesome director and that these movies are the greatest things since sliced bread. I've got one thing to say . . .

There is only ONE "Return" and that's OF THE JEDI!

Awesome review of Gymkata

Remember the other day when I was making fun of bombastic, pseudo-intellectual movie reviews? Well, I found the perfect one! This is a review of Gymkata I found on Amazon.com. Check this out . . .

A Carefully Scripted & Subtle Cold War Commentary

Extremely reminiscent of cold war sleepers like "Gorky Park" and "Reds", Gymkata is one of the most carefully scripted and brooding commentaries on American foreign policy during the Reagan years. The film is more like a documentary than a work of fiction in its deep attention to historical accuracies and avoidance of hyperbole. Robert Clouse's directorial adaption of Dan Tyler Moore's Pulitzer-shortlisted novel manages to capture timbre of the times and the voice of the decade in a script of intricate complexity. Kurt Thomas's portrayal of the hero across from Tetchie Agbayani's heroine is one of the most dynamic and surprising chemistries since Bogart and Bergman's 43 years before. However, where "Casablanca" fell far short of documenting the spirit (and fears) of the times on a granular level, Gymkata and its cast is unafraid to take this plunge. In characterizations deeply respectful, and yet photo-accurate, regarding world cultures and global motifs, Gymkata manages spell the poly-sided views of complex conflicts that occurred during the final grey gasps of the Cold War. Amazingly Gymkata manages a foreshadowing the rise of the Neo-Cons some 20 years later in its depictions of the United States use of aggression in strategically important hotspot regions -- and as well -- the film is able to show that the nationalistic concerns of the competing sovreignties (both ally & foe) remain unchanged despite which decade these events play themselves out in. A timeless film, Gymkata should be a core film study in every graduate level political science class.

Here is a link to all of his reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1J12F1TQS33O2/ref=cm_cr_dp_auth_rev/102-8657616-2741731?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview

Critics and Horror Movies

I read a lot of reviews of movies on the Internet. Why I don't know. Most of the time they don't enlighten or inform me, they just serve to remind me what pompous asses critics are. The only site that writes the types of reviews I can relate to and appreciate is Ain't It Cool News. I read two yesterday that reminded me why reviews tend to aggravate me so much. One was on DVD Talk for Hostel II and the other was for the original Halloween on The Digital Bits. Now you may be asking yourself, why do these reviews aggravate Johnson so much? Well, it is not because I agree or disagree over liking the movies in question. It is how they phrase their reviews and the seemingly obligatory comments that they must always include.

Most reviewers cannot seem to write a review without referring to horror sequels as "money grabs" and saying how they just "run the original idea in the ground." For all of you critics that seem to think movies are art for art's sake, let me remind you that movies are the commercial arts. EVERY movie is a "money grab." Movies are made to make money for movie studios. I happen to love franchise movies. I enjoy seeing different films in a long-running series. I don't apologize for it either. There seems to be a mentality amongst critics that movies in a horror series are unworthy of any praise or legitimate fondness from the audience. You know the lines, "we know they're junk but they are entertaining." No, Mr. Critic. I'm sorry, they are NOT junk. If a movie has entertained you and made money then it has accomplished it's two primary goals. In my book I call that a success. I think all of the Friday the 13th movies have their pluses and minuses but, in the end, I like them all. I don't have, nor do I need, an intellectual rationale for why I like them. I just enjoy the hell out of those movies.

Why do they always feel the need to distance themselves from certain movies? It's like they are saying "I know it' OK to like the original Halloween but I better put a qualifier on my liking of the other films in the series." I suppose they don't want to be thought less of by their snooty critic friends. I guess it's also not fashionable to give any of the Friday the 13th movies any respect. What a bunch of obnoxious crap.

I am also SO F'N TIRED of critics stringing not-so-catchy, intellectual sounding phrases together sentence after sentence in some ridiculous attempt to make themselves sound smart. They just end up sounding the the Nation of Islam character Damon Wayans would play on In Living Colour. If you don't remember, that character would talk like he was really smart but just sound like a fool. He would say things like " if you look at the situation in terms of the constipation, needing remuneration . . ." The way I wrote "When Johnson Met Harryhausen" was written to be a parody of this style of writing.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

This weekend I went to see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Before seeing the movie I knew little to nothing about how Jesse James died. The highest compliment I can pay this film is that I left it with the desire to read more about both Jesse James and Robert Ford. The emotions of the film and the nature of the characters have also stuck with me long after I left the theater.

As a film, it is beautifully shot and features breathtaking landscapes that capture the feeling of the unpopulated, untamed west. The acting performances are strong as well. The true stand-out is Casey Affleck as Robert Ford. Without spoiling too much, Ford was one of America's first obsessed fans. He grew up idolizing Jesse James and dreaming about what it would be like to be a member of the James Gang. He gained all his knowledge through stories in pulp novels and frontier legends. In other words, he was enamored with the media created image of Jesse James. As he would come to know the real man and found that he didn't live up to his preconceived image, Ford grew more and more cold and angry towards James. There is one scene where Ford proudly tells James that he has read about all his exploits and knows them all by heart. James then tells him that those stories are all lies. You can see Ford's heart sink as he hears this. Casey Affleck gives Ford both a sense of pathos where you can truly relate to the enthusiastic young man, and a generally creepy quality where you know he's just not quite right. He is just perfect in this role.

Robert Ford reminded me most of Mark Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon. It's an amazing byproduct of the culture of media created celebrity that some people believe they can usurp another man's fame by killing him. Ford attempted to make a living off of being the man who killed Jesse James. He thought people would think he was a hero. Instead, people hated him and saw him as a coward. He had, after all, shot Jesse James in the back of the head as he dusted a picture! But, worst of all, he had killed an American folk hero.

The movie plays out very slowly and is not for everyone. It doesn't have much action in terms of gunfights but is till well worth watching. The strong acting, poignant story, and haunting images and characters make it a great film. The fact that before this movie I had never heard of Robert Ford but, of course, had heard of Jesse James, goes to show that cowards like Ford and Chapman can take a man's life, but they can never kill a legend.

Dancing Sir . . . Mostly Dancing

Here is a look at the poster for one of the greatest comedies of all time. Enjoy!

Transformers DVD out today!

Just in case you are living in a cave, the DVD of the 2007 live-action Transformers movie came out today! I went to Wal-mart on my lunch break and bought the Two Disc Edition. Almost all of the copies there had discs that were loose in the cases. I had to get the lady to open a new case and get me one that wasn't loose. I doubt the special features will be as much fun as those on the newest version of the original 1986 movie, but they should be interesting.

For the record, I really enjoyed this movie. Anyone that knows me knows that I am a big-time, life-long Transformers fan. Transformers is not some "nostalgia property" for me. I have been a fan since 1984 and have followed every incarnation since. Generation One will always be my favorite but I also love Beast Wars, Superlink, and this new movie. Do the characters look different than we have seen them before? Sure. But any long-time fan is used to seeing them look different. Are there too many humans in the live-action movie? Of course there are. But I knew going in to this movie to expect a lot of humans and not an all robot movie. Bottom line is, we got some awesome robot fights and transformation sequences. We also got the voice of Peter Cullen. With those things done right, do you really need anything else? I don't! I was kind of bummed out that they implied that Cybertron was uninhabitable because I would love to see more action take place there in future movies. But who knows, this is science-fiction after all. They may find a way to regenerate the planet.

Word from Michael Bay is we can expect to see Soundwave, Shockwave, and a gestalt team in the second film. Let's hope he reverses his opposition to mass shifting for Soundwave. But a live-action gestalt? Sign me up! I vote for Predaking.

Till All Are One!

Across the Universe

There are some aspects of what people call "pop culture" that I believe should be considered culture. Drop the pop. One of those aspects is the music of The Beatles. There never has been, nor will there ever be in the future, a band like them. They created a body of musical work that will last well into the future. That brings me to the movie I saw this past weekend, Across the Universe. It was simply amazing. It was a beautiful, sincere love story told through the music of The Beatles. It was also a story of the times in which the music was created. Hearing these songs in the movie really drives home just how powerful the lyrics of The Beatles can be.

All of the characters are named after characters from Beatles songs. The main characters are Jude (Hey Jude) and Lucy (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds). We also have Sadie (Sexy Sadie), JoJo (Get Back), Max (Maxwell's Silver Hammer), Prudence (Dear Prudence), Dr. Robert (Doctor Robert), and Molly (Ob-la-di Ob-la-da). There are also numerous references to other aspects of Beatles culture. I won't spoil them because they are so much fun to discover on your own when you watch the movie.

As time has gone on, I have become much less cynical about the movies. I am not a "cautiously optimistic" sort of guy. I still see a trailer and react with excitement in my gut if it hits me the right way. I remember when I saw the trailer for this movie I knew I HAD to see it. I just couldn't wait. As a matter of fact, I drove to the theater directly from work on Friday to go see it. The movie registered with me emotionally in the same way that music hits you emotionally. I fell in love with the characters right off the bat. They were such likable people. I wanted to jump into the movie and go on adventures with them. I defy anyone to listen to Lucy, played by Evan Rachel Wood, sing If I Fell and not have a tear in their eye. It is that moving. Likewise, to hear Jim Sturgess sing Something is to be reminded of why Frank Sinatra considered it the greatest love song ever written.

The director Julie Taymor has done the most wonderful job in taking a beautiful story, some of the best music ever written, and stunning imagery and making the best movie I have seen all year. Sometimes you see a certain movie and it just stays with you for days. This is one of those movies. I honestly can't recommend it enough.

There is something else that really struck me after I left the movie. I have become very sad about how jaded our current culture has gotten. Across the Universe evokes memories of sincere young love, just living and enjoying life, and the belief that you could change the world. It seems like things nowadays have to remain emotionally detached. If you are sincere you run the risk of people making fun of you for being "corny" or, in the case of movies and TV, "campy." This movie, like the music of The Beatles, wears it's heart on its sleeve and is all the better for doing it. It also contains a simple message from The Beatles that is needed just as much now as it was in the 60's . . . All You Need is Love.