The Hangover (2009)

The Hangover (aka don't go to Vegas with several people with an expensive borrowed car
and weirdo guy and get drunk cause you never know what's going to happen, except in this
movie where you pretty much know what's going to happen the whole time. Aka Titanic)

Plot: Dude is getting married. Dude's pals decide to take him to Vegas
for one last crazy time before he gives up his life. Everything goes
wrong, they lose the groom and can't recall what happened. Now:

Where do you start with this one? I'll tell you, just like they did!
FORESHADOWING!!!! Lets not leave anything to surprise for this one!

New name for this film: "Take my EXPENSIVE REALLY NICE CAR on vacation with you, and MAKE SURE NOTHING HAPPENS TO IT! IT'S MY BABY!!! And oh, you have to bring
my son with you, and watch out for him, CUZ HE'S A LITTLE WEIRD! AND
DON'T LET HIM DRINK OR GAMBLE!" So, you know that nothing will happen to
the car, and the weird guy will be fine, and won't drink or gamble...
or will it??... Keep watching to find out!!!! You may as well watch Colombo
where they show you who murdered the guy right off the bat, and the real
mystery is why you're still watching for the next hour.

Then, of course, they felt the need to also cram down our throats that
the timid guy of the group is a dentist and obeys all the rules and has
perfect teeth and that his girlfriend is a controlling bitch who cheats on
him. So, you know nothing will happen to his teeth, or compromise his
relationship as he will continue playing by the rules... (... yeah...)

Okay, I know I'm coming across as a dick here, for those of you who keep
telling this movie is HILARIOUS, but I can't help but rename it again.
Its new name is: "Whatever you do, don't open the closet door! Why can't we open the closet door? What happens if we open the closet door? Is he opening the closet door? he IS opening the closet door! UH-OH!!!! HE OPENED THE CLOSET DOOR!!! LAUGH NOW!"

I wouldn't be so sarcastic to this film if they hadn't laid out all the jokes for
me before they happen as well as the recycling of old jokes from 80's movies.

This film is basically 'Ferris Bueller's day off' with swearing mixed with
'3 men and a baby' with drinking.

Actually, I was so disappointed that I could predict what would happen in every
scene that I'm just going to keep renaming it.

It is now called "Ferris Beuller's Bachelor Party and a Baby".

The entire film is like this:

"Should we take this guy with us? He's a little weird."
"He's fine. He'll be fine. You'll see..."
"OMG! HE'S DOING A WEIRD THING! OMG" *genetic defectives in audience laugh*

"Be careful with the car."
"Not to worry. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN??......"
"Something happened to the car! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!" *morons in audience laugh*

"You should cheat on your girlfriend like she keeps doing to you."
"I couldn't possibly. I play by the rules and have perfect teeth. I'm a dentist and shit."
"Hey. last night, you married a girl in Vegas and pulled your tooth out." *retards in audience laugh*

The whole film! They did this with every detail! They mentioned it like we're all
children, then overdid the emphasis in a very 'home alone' style. If
you find this movie HILARIOUS, please go back to watching 'America's Funniest Home Videos' and stop telling me what films you think I'll love. I did not love this film, nor did I find it funny. I smirked ONCE near the end, but I think it was partially due to the fact that it would be over soon.

sorry.
-Sleeve-

Total Recall (1990)

Total Recall

So, I thought previously that I'd totally recalled this one, but it turns out I only have partial recall.
I'm glad I watched this one again. I'll be rating this one in recalls:

Unrecalled: Written by Philip k. dick, (a scanner darkly, bladerunner...)

Partial recall: A fat woman saying "Two weeks! TWO WEEEEKS!!!" and pulling her mouth open with her fingers until she reveals she is not a woman.

Mild recall: Midget with 3 bewbs!... WRONG! I seemed to have mashed two memories of this film as one. The midget (little person, sorry)girl in this film only has 2 bewbs! There is a woman with 3 bewbs who works in the same strip club, but the point is that I was wrong. And I've had this memory for
years. Huh... Ain't that some shit?...

Total recall: Arnold!!!! Yeh, the fucking governor! Bwaaahaaahaaa! Remember when he used to swear in movies? I do! It still makes me giggle a little every time.

Totally uncalled for: Arnold trying to sex up his wife in the film. We don't need to see that! This scene is best on it's own as a fetish vid for muscle freaks who don't care about context. You know, the gay who feel the need to prove their heterosexuality by beating up gays. Right. It makes no sense. Just come out, already!

Anywho; I'm back on the review. Sorry about that.

Mini recall: Arny is a dude who is unhappy on earth and obsessed with visiting or moving to mars. It's the future after all! He sees a commercial for a company that implants fake memories to give you a vacation from reality, but you, of course, recall it as though it was a real vacation.
"Two weeks in an hour. You don't even have to take time off work!" pretty cool thought without the complications of delusion that would likely happen if this were real.

I like to assume that the future is in the year 2000!!!! This
is mainly due to all of the times that movies had the future be based in 2000. I love seeing how different the year 2000 is in films. Did you know that we all drive in flying cars now? We've been doing this for years and I've never noticed... Funny how unobservant I can be.

So, here's the spoiler: For those of you who have had this conversation, (and I know some of you have.) The answer is ... DREAM! After seeing this film almost 20 years ago, and having had this conversation 15 years ago, it's baffling to me how blatantly obvious it is in the film.

Total recall: The conversation: (paraphrased)

"Yeah, Total Recall!! Haha! The midget with 3 tits! Right on! I'd totally bang her!"
"Well, yeah! We all would! How often does that opportunity present itself?"
"Not often enough, that's how!"
"True dat!"
"True, true..."
"True..."
(this goes on for like an hour, so I'll skip to the relevant part)
*time elapse to exactly like an hour later*
"So, there is some question at the end as to whether the whole film is a dream, or whether it is reality."
"Really? How so?..."
"Well, he goes to the place to implant the vacation memory, but something goes wrong, and then the adventure happens, and at the end they even mention 'What if this isn't real?', and then the credits roll..."
"Well, if you recall (pun total intended), when he's at the place, one guy total remarks 'Oh, a blue sky on mars. That's new.', or something to that effect. And at the end, mars gets oxygen and causes the sky to change from orange to blue. That's the whole deal."
"Yeah, but maybe that happened anyway."
(the conversation then turns back into everyone's total unrecalled memory of the movie having a midget girl with 3 jugs. We all have this memory! How can it be wrong?!?...)

So, back to the spoiler: Dream! Without any question. I just watched this mewvie again, and it is total really not real. It is a dream. I total unrecalled that he had asked not just for a vacation, but to be a secret agent, plus the blue sky on mars comment, plus the whole story and it's very obvious signs to put my mind at ease and lay this question to rest.

Total remiss: The writers, perhaps not the original, but the screenplay at least, call an issue with the memory implants a "schizoid embolism". I'm going to try to ignore the word "schizoid" and focus instead on the embolism. An embolism is a closure or blockage of a blood vessel which could
result in a burst and internal hemorrhaging. According to this movie, you can THINK your way out of such a thing by REASONING with your dream. Another oversight in the like is that partway through the flick, the guy from the vacation implant company commercials enters to talk to Arny about his "schizoid embolism". This, again, proves beyond any doubt that the whole movie is his vacation memory the whole time, and not reality, so there should be no question by the end.
Especially when the sky on mars becomes blue.

So, on the writing spectrum, I give this one a "Total Retarded", not just for being really obvious, but for the cheese. Mind you, I'm a fan of cheese, but cheese should never be taken seriously, and I feel that they were trying to. At that, they failed.

On the cheese/pun/action factor, I give this movie a "Total Right-on!" Because it is unintentionally funny, which kept me entertained in almost every scene. The acting wasn't much, the dialogue was amusing, and fuck it! It's the year 2000! I love seeing what the future is like!

Total Reviewvied,
-Sleeve-

Taken

Taken

Taken, aka LIAM NEESON'S BALLS!!!:

I'm not usually one for action flicks in general, but this one did have me
smiling, and saying "Aw, shit!" a few times. Liam Neeson shows he is BALLS
in this film! No one is match for Neeson's balls! His daughter gets taken, as
the title tells us, so that much is true to the movie, so Liam Neeson's balls
take to rescuing her in the only way an ex spy can... by kickin' some fuckin' ass!

Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself...
Neeson is estranged with his daughter, because her mother is HORRID BITCH!!!
But he loves his daughter and just wants to be part of her life, now that he's
retired. The horrid bitch of a mother is still bitter about him not being around
much when they were married, due to being overseas for the government. Something
she should have been over by now, I would suspect, now that she's remarried to
a different fella, and it should be about the kid. HORRID BITCH!
Anywho, he's a sweet lonely dude who has, despite overseas as a government spy, never
missed his daughter's birthday! What a cunt of a whore his ex wife is!

There I go again. Sorry.

So, the daughter (a spoiled Rich bitch that doesn't appreciate what she has)goes on a trip to Europe to follow the worst band possible to follow... Oh, my opinions are too strong on that.. Sorry again. Ma bad.
Anywho, she gets kidnapped while on the phone to daddy, and he vows to find and kill the captors...

I'll not give everything away, except to say that Liam Neeson's balls kick some fucking ass!
This movie is BALLS OUT, ALL THE WAY!!! Not only does Neeson kick some dick in this flick, but the action scenes are really well done, and fast. This does not look super choreographed like most action flick fight scenes. Throat punches actually look harmful in this movie! I think
Neeson's balls may have actually hurt some of the actors and extras during the filming.

So anyway, Liam Neeson's balls travel to Europe immediately to hunt and kill the captors,
and show off his spy skills as well as his scrotum kicking skills! Every
french person in this movie looks like Kevin Spacey for some reason. So, Neeson's balls
has some connections from his old job, and he hooks up with them to help with some
info, translation, etc. and they all look like Kevin Spacey. Why does every guy in Paris
look like Kevin Spacey?... What the fuck? Then, more arse kicking!

So, yeh! If yer into action, this one has some fun!

Disclaimer: You do not actually see Neeson's balls in this film. He IS THE BALLS!!!

-Liam Neeson's balls-

Uh, I mean -sleeve-... Sorry.

my bloody valentine 3D

BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAhaaaa...haaaa.aaaa...haa.a.

Uh, yeh... hahaha.. ha.

OK, for real this time:

IT'S A GOOD FUCKING THING THIS MOVIE WAS SHOWN IN 3D!

There! I said it! Jesus, what a pile of newt shit! I had a blast at this
one! Not because the movie was good. It was very not good!
I went with my friend, Moses, and we both got what we expected! My
bloody not bloody fucking much!

OK, the 3D was cool. I'll give it that, but that had nothing much to do
with the movie itself. 3D stuff is cool on it's own! I could have been
watching an Ann Murray concert and enjoyed the 3D, if I didn't kill myself
before she got to her 3rd song... So, that aside, it's back to the movie.

Before I continue, I'd like to answer a couple questions:

1. Yes, the 3D was absolutely needed.
2. Yes, there was obligatory nudity.
3. Yes, I tried to touch a 3D boobie. When else will I get the chance?
4. No, you cannot feel the 3D boobie. You are wasting your time trying.

I don't recommend this film unless purely for the 3D experience.
In fact, I pity this movie if they don't figure out how to properly 3D for home,
because without the 3D, you get this:

A bunch of teens are hanging out and partying at a dangerous mine, of course! Some miner
gets pissed and kills a few teens, some escape and a couple townsfolk who were there for no
apparent reason, and didn't bother breaking up the party, just off the killer.

Some news articles and nealy ten years later, the killings start again, seemingly the
killer from ten years ago. But, he's dead... Or is he?...

I'm trying my best to not give you too much here, but my pal, Moses, figured out
the ending within the 5 minute intro sequence. Maybe you will too. Probably. It's
pretty obvious.

So, expect "Aw, fuck! I already know the ending! Goddammit!" And also go like we did,
in the mindset that this film is going to have terrible acting, bad writing, and
no substance. Some of the gore was OK, but the real saving grace, again, was the 3D.

Also, please enjoy the scene where the girl is at the hospital and gets a call from the
front desk... on the triage nurse's CELL PHONE! She agrees to meet a guy who does not reveal who he is, and when her
fiance shows up at the hospital, the nurse knows who she left with, by name!!

Also, really enjoy the scene where they are driving at night, and the girl goes into a place
and almost immediately notices something being lit by the daylight's shining sunrays glowing through the
window!!! This didn't even seem like an accident! It was actually written into the plot that
the light beam onto something, but it was suppose to be night. Jesus!

I can't go on any more without pissing on my own keyboard, and I like my keyboard, so I'll leave it at that! Fuck!

-sleeve-

dancer in the dark

Dancer in the dark:

While I liked the story, and while I didn't find the acting terrible,
I did find the directing/editing awful! Did anyone else notice this?
I thought it really hurt the movie in a bad, bad way. What I mean, in
case you didn't notice it, is the many many times in the movie where the
editing would switch very noticeably while on one person. Like bjork would
be talking with her head facing left, then without switching the point of view
or who or what the focus was on, she would magically shapeshift
to facing forward with a different expression on her face mid-sentence and all, and
with a different inflection and tone of voice.
Otherwise, I liked it. Very sad film with a decent story.

I think the choreographed musical parts set themselves
away from the reality parts on their own just by being what they are.
The way they introduced those parts are what kept me watching.
The editing thing seemed more unintentional to me. It was probably
that they had several takes, and combined the good parts, but without
forethought that they might not be as consistent as they needed.
But by the time they edit it, it's too late, or they have to re-shoot.
I could be wrong, but that's what I thought every time I noticed it,
which was a lot.

Bjork's a bjerk for making me teary-eyed though.

After some discussion of this movie in a thread I started on a forum, I
encountered some people who liked this 'style' of directing. I was not aware
that it was a style until this, so I will continue with this in mind.
There are two fellas who direct and use this similar style as a rule. One is Jean-Luc Godard("breathless").
The other is our 'Dancer in the dark' director, Lars Von Trier, who admittedly uses
this "technique" of Godard's. I personally don't see it as a technique so much
as an oversight, or just lack of caring, just to finish up as fast as possible
to save time and money and hope it all syncs up OK in post (or editing, if you prefer).

And yes, I did bother to do some research for this one. Not much, but enough to
support my views.


I do not know who Godard is, and am not familiar with "breathless" or his patent style
of "jump-cutting". I was, however, feeling expeditious, so in an attempt at insight, I
looked him up. The following quotes may seem long, but some is very relevant to my plight.
I left the rest so as not to leave things out of context. What I found was this:

"...'À bout de souffle began in this way. I had written the first scene (Jean Seberg on the Champs Elysees) and for the rest I had a pile of notes for each scene. I said to myself, this is terrible, I stopped everything. Then I thought: in a single day... one should be able to complete about a dozen takes. Only instead of planning ahead I shall invent at the last minute!' (Godard in Milne, 172-3)

Breathless was instantly hailed as a truly revolutionary movie and the logical outcome of the French New Wave (Nouvelle Vague) rejection of what they called 'Le Cinema de Papa' (Dad's Cinema). The most patently radical Godardian style was the incessant use of the jump cut, a sudden temporal ellipsis even in the middle of a dialogue take. That's standard practice now but at the time it broke every dictate of the conventional filmmaking manual. In fact this technique was a little more accidental than political. The film, loosely (with a minimal and constantly changing shooting script) based on a 'crim on the run' storyline by François Truffaut, ended up as a rough cut of around two hours long – more the length of the despised blockbusters then and now. To be considered a commercial product the movie needed to lose about 30 minutes, so rather than cut out whole scenes or sequences, Godard elected to trim within the scene, creating the jagged cutting style still so beloved of action filmmakers."

So it seems I was also correct, but just don't like that style.
Kind of a 'git' er done and who cares if it looks choppy' frame o'
mind. That's fine, but don't call it a style. Still, thankfully, the writing, acting,
and the intriguing way they made a musical out of it kept me
watching, and I'd still watch it again.

Godard basically said "this sucks. i can do this faster and get more scenes
done in shorter time if i ignore my notes and chop it up later."

In that aspect, it is intentional on his part, but doesn't make me
wrong, or even very critical, assuming that Lars was in a similar mindset,
as it would seem.

I liked most of the style of the film. This editing thing I mentioned
was often, but not constant. Every scene didn't have it. It just looked
like dialogue was cut out sometimes from maybe a longer sequence
or several takes didn't sync up as well as maybe intended.
As for it being definitely on purpose, I don't know that for sure.

As for the Godard vs. Lars thing:
I was just using the Godard quote to say that his technique
is the result of pretty much what I said originally. He obviously
liked it if he would continue to do things that way, thus making it
his technique for the way he likes to do his films.
Back to Lars:
What I said later with regards to Godard and Lars was with the mindset of 'if Lars was intentionally
using Godard's style.' I don't know this because I don't know this
director, but he is mentioned and attributed for doing so.

I didn't think the songs themselves were all that great, but I loved
the way each of them was introduced with the sounds of machines,
and whatnot forming the music. I sometimes sing along to the washing
machine.

Sorry for prattling on and for any overstating. It is not intentional.
This review was edited from a longer set of several takes on a forum that
I took several parts out that I thought were less relevant or too long.

;)

-Sleeve-

the skeleton key

OH MY EFFING FUCK! THE EFFING SKELETON KEY!
HOLY SHITTING FUCK!....

Sorry. I'll begin:

Fucking shit, this movie is terrible! Okay, so, good god it's awful!
I'm trying, I'm sorry....

So, the film is about this chick who moves to this new town for
no apparent reason and moves in with a woman to help take care
of her invalid husband, even though the wife does not work and stays
home full time and has been doing this on her own for years as she states
in the movie and is still completely capable of doing it on her own! Jesus!
this film is vomit!

The woman is given a skeleton key which "unlocks every door in the house"...
Yeah, that's what they were ALWAYS FOR!!! FUCK! Sorry. So, of course, there
is one room that it will NOT open, the attic, and when asked about the room it
is just said that they "don't go in there..... We never go in there..." So, our hero
wanders around in the dark, FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING MOVIE! THEY
DON'T HAVE LIGHTS ANYWHERE IN THIS FILM! THE GAS STATION HAS
NO LIGHTS ON! THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE ELECTRICITY OR SOMETHING,
AND SHIT! I'm renaming this movie!

Here's my review for "The so fucking dark that you strain your eyes too much to notice how awful the plot is":

So, our hero heads, in the dark, to the room again, only the room is unlocked. Yes, that's right! She doesn't even use the skeleton key.
In fact, it's unlocked for the rest of the movie and the skeleton key is NEVER NEEDED FOR ANYTHING! I want to shoot myself in the dick!... Wait. That won't fix this movie.
So, skeleton key out of the way for the rest of the film. It's not used at all. Ever!

So, she learns a dark secret about the town and the condition of her non speaking invalid
that she's pointlessly taking care of: The mirrors of the house are haunted by BLACK PEOPLE!
Oh, my god! what?!? .... WHAT?!? So, the wife of the invalid goes on about how black slaves
took the children and taught them voodoo, and now they haunt the mirrors... sweet mother of fuck! So, once you get past how much sense that doesn't make, they do make a point of
using the mirrors as a plot device... ONCE! YEAH, ONLY ONCE, AND THEY DON'T SHOW
IT! SO, THEY SHOW US NOTHING! goddammit... Anywho, they are done with mirrors as
well, so we're back to just being in the dark. Quite literally. The whole film is in the dark.
Not CSI-we-work-with-the-lights-off-blue-hue-but-you-can-still-see dark, but actual dark.
Shit, you can see the movie without renting it by just turning your lights off at night, and
trying to navigate around your place. Pretend you have a plot, and there you go. The fucking Skeleton Key!

So, the movie goes nowhere until you realize it makes even less sense by our invalid turning out to be that way because of HIS WIFE using VOODOO on HIM that is suppose to add HIS remaining years to HER life so SHE can live longer, but just gives him the appearance of having had a stroke.
Now the woman takes care of him instead of killing him, thus PROLONGING HER OWN PLAN of adding years to her life, by using those years to take care of a strokey invalid!!! WTF?!?

I won't give away the ending, but I will say that it is equally dark (not creepy, just that you can't see shit)and stupid.

Fuck! And there is no happy ending for me I'm afraid. I've seen "The Skeleton Key"
which is never used in this film...

-Sleeve-

jesus christ, vampire hunter!

Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter!

With a title that, you can't go wrong... If you're me. I absolutely loved this
film! Some will likely not, as it is cheesy, cheeky, hokey, stupid, and blasphemous.
everything is OK.
From the makers of "Harry Knuckles", comes an action movie for all who
can handle ridiculousness. Jesus in modern day, in sneakers, clean shaven,
is a martial arts guy who fights street gangs run by vampires, hangs with
lesbians.
Thank you for suggesting this one to me. I don't even know where to go
with this. It's so dumb, that I couldn't stop laughing through most of it.
Definitely a movie for those of you who watch shitty movies with a couple
friends and rip it apart, ad-lib, and whatnot. Except this movie is intentionally
the way it is, so you don't need to. Just enjoy.
It never really explains itself, but Jesus and vampires are arch enemies?
Almost everyone that dies in this movie is an extra in a few other scenes,
sometimes the same scene. Some die several times in one scene.
They have a Mexican wrestler, who is pals with Jesus.
Sexual tension between Jesus and a lesbian?
All vampires are lesbians?... Well, I guess that makes sense...?
Pointless sneaking!!!! (my favorite part)
Clever disguises.
Stakes through the heart. (these scenes really do make the whole movie)
And somehow, it looks like it was made in 1992, but is, in fact,
from 2001.
I LOVED IT!
The best way to describe this would be that conversation we've all
had with some friend that went something like this:
"If i was making a movie, I'd have a full body puppet ride a motorcycle into a hotel lobby and demand to be manager,
then he'd have to fight all the porters, cuz they're ninjas!"
"Yeah, that'd be great! And Satan would be the bellhop, and
he'd have to judge to see who wins, and if the puppet wins,
Satan pimps his ride!..."

-Sleeve-