Thursday, December 4, 2008
"THEY LIVE" REMAKE? WHY?
These scumbags in hollywood don't know when to stop making REMAKES. Think of something original you bastards and stop ruining classics. I just read today they are remaking "THE THING" & "THEY LIVE". How can you replace Roddy Roddy Piper? you can't, anyways sorry about the rant and enjoy the trailer.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
CHECK OUT TEN SPECTACULAR "ITALIAN SPIDERMAN" EPISODES, YOU'LL SHIT YOURSELF
ITALIAN SPIDERMAN TRAILER
CLICK ON PICS TO VIEW EPISODES
CLICK ON PICS TO VIEW EPISODES
Friday, July 18, 2008
RAW CRITIC'S "GUYS I'D LIKE TO PUNCH IN DA FACE!!!
NEVER BEFORE HAVE I EVER WANTED TO PUNCH SOMEONE WITH GREAT FEROCITY LIKE I WANT TO DO WITH SPENCER....AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE "I DON'T HIT CHICKS" BUT IF WHEN I PUNCH SPENCER AND MY PUNCH ACCIDENTALLY GRAZES HEIDI........OOOPS.... SHIT HAPPENS, LIVE WITH IT.
CLICK PIC IF YOU DARE!!!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
RAW CRITIC'S GIRL OF THE WEEK "KIM KARDASHIAN"
NOW I GET WHY SHE'S FAMOUS!!! SORRY I'M A LITTLE SLOW
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Dark Knight Review
Nolan's sequel surpasses the original with an intense, disturbing masterpiece.
by Todd Gilchrist
June 30, 2008 - It isn't an overstatement to call The Dark Knight the most sophisticated and ambitious work of its kind. Superior to all three Spider-Man installments and even its amazing predecessor in terms of conceptualization, writing, acting, and direction, Nolan's follow-up to Batman Begins is a dark, complex and disturbing film, not the least of which because it grafts its heroics onto the blueprint of actual reality rather than that of spandex-clad supermen. And while such a distinction may make little difference to those already eagerly anticipating the return of the caped crusader, suffice it to say that The Dark Knight qualifies as the first official comic book adaptation that truly succeeds in being a great artistic achievement in its own right.
Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne, the billionaire playboy who moonlights as Batman. Having eased more comfortably into a lifestyle of excess, Wayne lurks on the fringes of his family's corporation as CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) runs the boardroom. But when an ambitious district attorney named Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) comes forward to challenge Gotham City's villainy through proper legal channels, the man also known as Batman sees an opportunity to replace his vigilante persona with a figure of virtue who will truly inspire the best in the citizenry.
Unfortunately, Batman's success as a crime fighter has generated new problems for Gotham, including a consolidation of the crime lords who once controlled the city independently. Meanwhile, a new adversary named The Joker (Heath Ledger) proves particularly dangerous because he seeks not only to advance the cause of Gotham's underworld, but obliterate the foundations of liberty and order that Batman protects. Torn between championing Dent and meting out justice as a masked vigilante, Wayne soon finds himself at a crossroads between being the hero that Gotham needs and the one it deserves.
The great triumph of The Dark Knight is that it manages for the first time ever in the history of the genre to transplant comic book theatrics into the real world – and moreover, to examine precisely what it could mean if a person decided to strap on a super-suit and start attacking the world's criminals. The first film certainly hinted at this possibility, thrusting the hero and his alter-ego into a world where Wayne's frivolity was as despised as Batman's vigilantism. But even with real-world explanations for such improbabilities as Scarecrow's ability to scare, this was still a world where the Batmobile was cool and the climactic battle took place on a speeding train as a bomb ticked toward its inevitable explosion. Here, the Prowler barely survives its first appearance and with the exception of one or two cooler-than-cool moves that will no doubt thrill fans, its replacement/substitute – the Batpod – serves as a largely utilitarian device for Batman to get from one crime scene to the next. (That said, I still want one.)
More important than this, however, is the idea that Batman is not just a guy in a suit, but a symbol and there are people in the film – most notably The Joker – who want to destroy that symbol. While Batman's identity remains secret and his motives unknown to Gothamites, he represents hope in a city that has little to spare and embodies a pursuit of justice – and further, a code of behavior – that quite literally threatens these criminals' way of life. By throwing Gotham into chaos and testing the limits to which Batman holds himself, The Joker is not merely plying death and destruction but willfully destroying the philosophical foundations of organized society. The closest such examination another comic book-oriented film has ever attempted was the emotional throughline of the Spider-Man films. Peter Parker's struggle was almost exclusively personal, whereas Wayne not only has to find a way to maintain his moral compass, but consider what the repercussions of his heroism are to both the public and the criminals themselves.
While all of this sounds lofty – and it is – Nolan examines these themes in beautifully human terms, projecting his examination of "the hero" into the hearts and minds of his characters. Wayne, less outwardly conflicted than in Batman Begins, sees Dent's ascension as an opportunity to stop playing dress up and reunite with Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) – the one woman who knows his secret. Meanwhile, Dent and his sometimes partner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) look at Batman's existence as a good thing, a fulcrum against which they can enforce the law and sometimes bend rules to accomplish loftier goals. And, of course, The Joker wants to destroy all of that, albeit less because of some law of movie villainy than because he sees his existence as the necessary antithesis – or perhaps ultimate extension – of the murky morality of Batman's brand of justice. When, after all, was the last time a movie criminal wasn't merely mad, but had a deeper ideological motivation for his dastardly deeds?
Perhaps bolstered by the success of the first film, Nolan reaches out further with his storytelling and camerawork in The Dark Knight to create an ongoing, palpable feeling of tension that never relents through the entirety of the film's two and a half hour running time. There is a hugeness to the narrative itself, which Nolan enhances first by shooting partially on IMAX film stock (which will surely be lost to those unlucky enough to be too far to see the film in the format), but he then builds this haunting atmosphere steadily from one scene to the next, building anticipation for the moments when the violence will finally erupt.
That he occasionally veers into comic book glibness with one-liners undermines none of the intensity; on the contrary, these moments provide a release that is absolutely necessary to keeping the audience from succumbing to The Joker's febrile madness. Meanwhile, the violence is quite possibly the most intense I have ever seen in a PG-13 film, leaving myself and others wondering how The Dark Knight avoided an R. But what is more disturbing is the unrelenting menace that hovers over every scene like a dark cloud. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's leitmotif for The Joker sounds like a cross between Ligeti's "Lux Aeterna" (from 2001) and the scraping, metallic curlicue that was used in trailers for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and enhances the clenched-fist feeling that anything can and will happen at any moment, even scenes in which he doesn't appear.
Like few other mythology-based movies, The Dark Knight truly seems to think of everything, be it conceptual or purely logical. Credit Nolan and his brother Jonathan (who also helped conceive The Prestige) for really digging into Batman's world, turning over the soil and examining its roots for possible deficiencies. While this generally speaks to the film's plausibility, they also have the presence of mind to consider such things as Lucius Fox's considerable monetary expenditures – not to mention his entire division – and how and where a paper trail might eventually lead to it. Again, however, these are not ideas or even subplots to which vast amounts of screen time are devoted, but simply revealed, explained and dealt with as they might arise in real life.
Bale is predictably effective as both Wayne and Batman this time around, playing both with greater assurance than in Batman Begins (indeed, he and his characters seem to possess more confidence). Though Wayne is a necessary second-fiddle to Batman, he is a better defined and more poised character in this film – even when he's indulging the excesses of his trust fund – and he understands the value of being in a position to help someone like Dent, be it monetarily as himself or physically as Batman. Also great is the rest of the original cast, all of whom seem as comfortable in their characters as if they'd created them themselves. Oldman in particular creates a portrait of virtue that shows a roiling well of doubt underneath, and yet always conveys effortless authority.
Meanwhile taking over for Katie Holmes, Gyllenhaal adds real depth and energy to Rachel Dawes, showing how her feelings for Bruce Wayne aren't simply unrequited, but actually based in both sincere affection and common sense. And Eckhart more or less combines all of the disparate roles he's played in the past – lout, huckster, loyal companion – into one seamless portrayal of a man determined to make things better but not quite sure how to accomplish that goal in the right way.
Finally, there's Ledger, whose performance I suspect will be the subject of many analyses of all sorts in the weeks and months to come. What he does with The Joker is, quite frankly, nothing short of transcendent. Early in the film he explains the origins of his trademark facial scars, and you worry for a moment that the filmmakers are giving this psychopath some kind of convenient explanation, which, talented though he was, Ledger won't be able to overcome. But by the third time he's explained where they come from – each time telling a different tale – you realize that Ledger was a master of his craft, only in his final years finding roles that truly offered him the chance to explore that mastery. His is the definitive movie Joker, and he owns the role and achieves a level of abject insanity that is terrifying as it is irresistible.
Overall, the film does maintain a steady pace and function with such continuously unnerving momentum that it occasionally seems like a second installment. (There are plenty of appropriate comparisons to other sequels its quality mirrors, if not possibly surpasses: Toy Story 2, The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, etc.) In fact, so well-executed is this film that even the title – or at least its true meaning – seemed to catch its audience off guard, until it gets explained, expertly and poetically, at the very end of the movie.
A screenwriting professor of mine once said that what happens in a story must be surprising but expected, and Nolan's approach to The Dark Knight epitomizes this maxim. He gives you exactly what you want, but does it so well that it manages to completely catch you off guard when it happens. But there really is no better way to describe The Dark Knight than to call it a great work of art because it transcends both the boundaries of comic book moviemaking and even the parameters of good filmmaking. What Nolan and Co. have created doesn't just function as a thrill ride or even a terrific movie, but rather as a substantive and philosophical examination of why we need heroes, and then when we need them, what they mean.
5 out of 5 Stars | 10/10
by Todd Gilchrist
June 30, 2008 - It isn't an overstatement to call The Dark Knight the most sophisticated and ambitious work of its kind. Superior to all three Spider-Man installments and even its amazing predecessor in terms of conceptualization, writing, acting, and direction, Nolan's follow-up to Batman Begins is a dark, complex and disturbing film, not the least of which because it grafts its heroics onto the blueprint of actual reality rather than that of spandex-clad supermen. And while such a distinction may make little difference to those already eagerly anticipating the return of the caped crusader, suffice it to say that The Dark Knight qualifies as the first official comic book adaptation that truly succeeds in being a great artistic achievement in its own right.
Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne, the billionaire playboy who moonlights as Batman. Having eased more comfortably into a lifestyle of excess, Wayne lurks on the fringes of his family's corporation as CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) runs the boardroom. But when an ambitious district attorney named Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) comes forward to challenge Gotham City's villainy through proper legal channels, the man also known as Batman sees an opportunity to replace his vigilante persona with a figure of virtue who will truly inspire the best in the citizenry.
Unfortunately, Batman's success as a crime fighter has generated new problems for Gotham, including a consolidation of the crime lords who once controlled the city independently. Meanwhile, a new adversary named The Joker (Heath Ledger) proves particularly dangerous because he seeks not only to advance the cause of Gotham's underworld, but obliterate the foundations of liberty and order that Batman protects. Torn between championing Dent and meting out justice as a masked vigilante, Wayne soon finds himself at a crossroads between being the hero that Gotham needs and the one it deserves.
The great triumph of The Dark Knight is that it manages for the first time ever in the history of the genre to transplant comic book theatrics into the real world – and moreover, to examine precisely what it could mean if a person decided to strap on a super-suit and start attacking the world's criminals. The first film certainly hinted at this possibility, thrusting the hero and his alter-ego into a world where Wayne's frivolity was as despised as Batman's vigilantism. But even with real-world explanations for such improbabilities as Scarecrow's ability to scare, this was still a world where the Batmobile was cool and the climactic battle took place on a speeding train as a bomb ticked toward its inevitable explosion. Here, the Prowler barely survives its first appearance and with the exception of one or two cooler-than-cool moves that will no doubt thrill fans, its replacement/substitute – the Batpod – serves as a largely utilitarian device for Batman to get from one crime scene to the next. (That said, I still want one.)
More important than this, however, is the idea that Batman is not just a guy in a suit, but a symbol and there are people in the film – most notably The Joker – who want to destroy that symbol. While Batman's identity remains secret and his motives unknown to Gothamites, he represents hope in a city that has little to spare and embodies a pursuit of justice – and further, a code of behavior – that quite literally threatens these criminals' way of life. By throwing Gotham into chaos and testing the limits to which Batman holds himself, The Joker is not merely plying death and destruction but willfully destroying the philosophical foundations of organized society. The closest such examination another comic book-oriented film has ever attempted was the emotional throughline of the Spider-Man films. Peter Parker's struggle was almost exclusively personal, whereas Wayne not only has to find a way to maintain his moral compass, but consider what the repercussions of his heroism are to both the public and the criminals themselves.
While all of this sounds lofty – and it is – Nolan examines these themes in beautifully human terms, projecting his examination of "the hero" into the hearts and minds of his characters. Wayne, less outwardly conflicted than in Batman Begins, sees Dent's ascension as an opportunity to stop playing dress up and reunite with Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) – the one woman who knows his secret. Meanwhile, Dent and his sometimes partner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) look at Batman's existence as a good thing, a fulcrum against which they can enforce the law and sometimes bend rules to accomplish loftier goals. And, of course, The Joker wants to destroy all of that, albeit less because of some law of movie villainy than because he sees his existence as the necessary antithesis – or perhaps ultimate extension – of the murky morality of Batman's brand of justice. When, after all, was the last time a movie criminal wasn't merely mad, but had a deeper ideological motivation for his dastardly deeds?
Perhaps bolstered by the success of the first film, Nolan reaches out further with his storytelling and camerawork in The Dark Knight to create an ongoing, palpable feeling of tension that never relents through the entirety of the film's two and a half hour running time. There is a hugeness to the narrative itself, which Nolan enhances first by shooting partially on IMAX film stock (which will surely be lost to those unlucky enough to be too far to see the film in the format), but he then builds this haunting atmosphere steadily from one scene to the next, building anticipation for the moments when the violence will finally erupt.
That he occasionally veers into comic book glibness with one-liners undermines none of the intensity; on the contrary, these moments provide a release that is absolutely necessary to keeping the audience from succumbing to The Joker's febrile madness. Meanwhile, the violence is quite possibly the most intense I have ever seen in a PG-13 film, leaving myself and others wondering how The Dark Knight avoided an R. But what is more disturbing is the unrelenting menace that hovers over every scene like a dark cloud. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's leitmotif for The Joker sounds like a cross between Ligeti's "Lux Aeterna" (from 2001) and the scraping, metallic curlicue that was used in trailers for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and enhances the clenched-fist feeling that anything can and will happen at any moment, even scenes in which he doesn't appear.
Like few other mythology-based movies, The Dark Knight truly seems to think of everything, be it conceptual or purely logical. Credit Nolan and his brother Jonathan (who also helped conceive The Prestige) for really digging into Batman's world, turning over the soil and examining its roots for possible deficiencies. While this generally speaks to the film's plausibility, they also have the presence of mind to consider such things as Lucius Fox's considerable monetary expenditures – not to mention his entire division – and how and where a paper trail might eventually lead to it. Again, however, these are not ideas or even subplots to which vast amounts of screen time are devoted, but simply revealed, explained and dealt with as they might arise in real life.
Bale is predictably effective as both Wayne and Batman this time around, playing both with greater assurance than in Batman Begins (indeed, he and his characters seem to possess more confidence). Though Wayne is a necessary second-fiddle to Batman, he is a better defined and more poised character in this film – even when he's indulging the excesses of his trust fund – and he understands the value of being in a position to help someone like Dent, be it monetarily as himself or physically as Batman. Also great is the rest of the original cast, all of whom seem as comfortable in their characters as if they'd created them themselves. Oldman in particular creates a portrait of virtue that shows a roiling well of doubt underneath, and yet always conveys effortless authority.
Meanwhile taking over for Katie Holmes, Gyllenhaal adds real depth and energy to Rachel Dawes, showing how her feelings for Bruce Wayne aren't simply unrequited, but actually based in both sincere affection and common sense. And Eckhart more or less combines all of the disparate roles he's played in the past – lout, huckster, loyal companion – into one seamless portrayal of a man determined to make things better but not quite sure how to accomplish that goal in the right way.
Finally, there's Ledger, whose performance I suspect will be the subject of many analyses of all sorts in the weeks and months to come. What he does with The Joker is, quite frankly, nothing short of transcendent. Early in the film he explains the origins of his trademark facial scars, and you worry for a moment that the filmmakers are giving this psychopath some kind of convenient explanation, which, talented though he was, Ledger won't be able to overcome. But by the third time he's explained where they come from – each time telling a different tale – you realize that Ledger was a master of his craft, only in his final years finding roles that truly offered him the chance to explore that mastery. His is the definitive movie Joker, and he owns the role and achieves a level of abject insanity that is terrifying as it is irresistible.
Overall, the film does maintain a steady pace and function with such continuously unnerving momentum that it occasionally seems like a second installment. (There are plenty of appropriate comparisons to other sequels its quality mirrors, if not possibly surpasses: Toy Story 2, The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, etc.) In fact, so well-executed is this film that even the title – or at least its true meaning – seemed to catch its audience off guard, until it gets explained, expertly and poetically, at the very end of the movie.
A screenwriting professor of mine once said that what happens in a story must be surprising but expected, and Nolan's approach to The Dark Knight epitomizes this maxim. He gives you exactly what you want, but does it so well that it manages to completely catch you off guard when it happens. But there really is no better way to describe The Dark Knight than to call it a great work of art because it transcends both the boundaries of comic book moviemaking and even the parameters of good filmmaking. What Nolan and Co. have created doesn't just function as a thrill ride or even a terrific movie, but rather as a substantive and philosophical examination of why we need heroes, and then when we need them, what they mean.
5 out of 5 Stars | 10/10
Thursday, June 26, 2008
THE INCREDIBLE HULK REVIEW...THE REAL ONE!!!
HEY!
THE INCREDIBLE HULK REVIEW. LISTEN UP.
KNOW WHAT'S BORING??? HAVING FEELINGS, TALKING AND FOOT RACES. KNOW WHAT ISN'T BORING???
SHIT GETTING BLOWED UP, PEOPLE GETTING SMASHED THROUGH WALLS AND SHIT GETTING BLOWED UP. 'NUFF SAID.
IF THE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS TO MAKE ME QUESTION WHY THE FUCK I EVER LOVED MOVIES AND PRAY FOR THE SWEET HANDS OF THE GRIM REAPER TO SLOWLY CHOKE THE LIFE FROM ME I GIVE THIS FLICK FORTY-THREE SARDINE HEADS OUT OF FIVE.
HOWEVER, IF IT WAS MEANT TO MAKE ME FORGET ABOUT MY MISERABLE LIFE FOR 2 HOURS AND FOR A BRIEF WINDOW FEEL GOOD I GIVE IT 3 LITRES OF MY BALL SWEAT COLLECTED IN A RUSTY SARDINE TIN.
NOW I DON'T HAVE A PICTURE FOR THAT SO YOU'SE ALL ARE JUST GONNA HAVE TO USE YOUR IMAGINATION.
IN CLOSING, I WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH HAPPIER HAD I BEEN TOO DRUNK TOO STONED AND TOO FULL OF HOT DOGS TO SIT THROUGH MORE THAN TEN MINUTES OF THIS MOVIE.
COMING SOON, PEOPLE I WANT TO PUNCH IN THE FACE-THE EDWARD NORTON EDITION.
THE INCREDIBLE HULK REVIEW. LISTEN UP.
KNOW WHAT'S BORING??? HAVING FEELINGS, TALKING AND FOOT RACES. KNOW WHAT ISN'T BORING???
SHIT GETTING BLOWED UP, PEOPLE GETTING SMASHED THROUGH WALLS AND SHIT GETTING BLOWED UP. 'NUFF SAID.
IF THE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS TO MAKE ME QUESTION WHY THE FUCK I EVER LOVED MOVIES AND PRAY FOR THE SWEET HANDS OF THE GRIM REAPER TO SLOWLY CHOKE THE LIFE FROM ME I GIVE THIS FLICK FORTY-THREE SARDINE HEADS OUT OF FIVE.
HOWEVER, IF IT WAS MEANT TO MAKE ME FORGET ABOUT MY MISERABLE LIFE FOR 2 HOURS AND FOR A BRIEF WINDOW FEEL GOOD I GIVE IT 3 LITRES OF MY BALL SWEAT COLLECTED IN A RUSTY SARDINE TIN.
NOW I DON'T HAVE A PICTURE FOR THAT SO YOU'SE ALL ARE JUST GONNA HAVE TO USE YOUR IMAGINATION.
IN CLOSING, I WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH HAPPIER HAD I BEEN TOO DRUNK TOO STONED AND TOO FULL OF HOT DOGS TO SIT THROUGH MORE THAN TEN MINUTES OF THIS MOVIE.
COMING SOON, PEOPLE I WANT TO PUNCH IN THE FACE-THE EDWARD NORTON EDITION.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
RAW CRITICS TOP 5 ENTRANCES
NUMBER 5: VANDERLAI SILVAAAAAAA
NUMBER 4: BILL GOLDBERG
NUMBER 3: STONE COLD
NUMBER 2: ULTIMATE WARRIOR
NUMBER 1: PRINCE NASEEM HAMED
NUMBER 3: STONE COLD
NUMBER 2: ULTIMATE WARRIOR
NUMBER 1: PRINCE NASEEM HAMED
Thursday, June 19, 2008
RAW CRITICS "GIRL OF THE WEEK....BIANCA BEAUCHAMP"
Bianca Beauchamp is as synonymous with latex as Henry Ford is with the automobile. In the past 10 years, this Montreal-born fetish model has helped popularize the stretchy, skin-tight material through her popular website. “I never thought my website would become popular,” she admits. “My website was just a fun way to express myself and my love for latex.”
Dana White's big announcement is........LAME
By Dave Meltzer
hsmeltzer@juno.com
That Lorenzo Fertitta is resigning from his post at the president of Station Casinos to work full-time in expanding UFC.
Fertitta is leaving a post where he was the second highest paid casion executive in Las Vegas in 2007, earning a total of $113.8 million.
Frank Fertitta III will become the man in charge of Station Casinos at CEO and retain 45% ownership in UFC, while Lorenzo Fertitta will work alongside Dana White as the co-heads of UFC.
Tyson Training for MMA?
June 19, 2008
by Mike Sloan (msloan@sherdog.com)
LAS VEGAS -- Word on the hot Vegas streets is that Mike Tyson is training again, but for what? The former heavyweight boxing champion and "Baddest Man on the Planet" has long been a source of speculation among MMA fans.
A source, who asked to remain anonymous, informed Sherdog.com that Tyson has been quietly "training his ass off" with a prominent strength and conditioning coach in the area. The source also stated that Tyson "is not going to do boxing anymore," but when asked if "Iron Mike" was going to try MMA, the source shrugged, "I don't know, I can't say."
In recent years, the rumor mill linked the 41-year-old Tyson with EliteXC heavyweight Kevin "Kimbo Slice" Ferguson, Quinton Jackson (Pictures) and Tito Ortiz (Pictures) among others. In 2006, he was a guest referee at a World Cage Fighting Championship bout in Manchester, England and signed an appearances-only contract with the now-defunct Pride Fighting Championships.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
STUFF I WANT TO BUY 'CAUSE I LIKES
THIS FUCKIN' PRODUCT IS THE BEST THING SINCE CRACKER JACKS. CLICK THE PIC TO CHECK OUT SHAMWOW.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
GUYS I'D LIKE TO PUNCH IN THE FACE "NICK HOGAN"
WHAT A FUCKIN' LITTLE BITCH, THIS DOUCHE BAG'S FRIEND IS A VEGETABLE AND THIS GUY'S WORRIED ABOUT HIS CELL SIZE AND HOW HE MISSES DRIVING HIS ESCALADE. FUCK HIM AND ALL THE HOGANS. THEY ALL DESERVE TO BE PUNCHED IN THE FUCKIN' FACE!!!
RAW CRITIC'S "ZOHAN" REVIEW
HEY EVERYBODY, LONG TIME NO CRITIC. BUT LET ME TELL YA, I GOTS A DOOSY OVA 'ERE WITH THE MOVIE "DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN". THE TITLE ALONE GETS A COUPLE OF SARDINES AND THE AMOUNT OF HUMMUS USED IN THIS MOVIE GETS ONE SARDINE 'CAUSE I LIKES THE HUMMUS. THIS FUCKIN' MOVIE SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, LIKE MY BUDDY DID WHO WALKED OUT 10 MINUTES IN, WHAT A DOUCHE ... DON'T WALK OUT. THIS MOVIE HAD ME FROM THE GETGO...SO STICK AROUND AND HAVE A FUCKIN' GOOD TIME.
P.S ORDER THE HOT DOGS THEY ARE KILLER.
I GIVE ZOHAN 4 SARDINES OUTTA 5
Quint arm wrestles with THE INCREDIBLE HULK... guess who wins...
I’ve commented on the movie from time to time as various trailers and stills… I believe the words I used were “it looks cool, but uninspiring.”
So that’s where I was when I saw the film. I liked Ang Lee’s movie, but as much as I defended it when it came out I can honestly say I haven’t had any desire to re-watch it, even though I picked it up on DVD. IRON MAN rocked my socks off and I was hoping I didn’t feel “meh” on THE INCREDIBLE HULK.
And I don’t feel “meh” on THE INCREDIBLE HULK. I actually feel pretty energized, still after nearly a week. Is it as good as IRON MAN? Nope, but it’s still pretty damn good. Edward Norton is great in the role, great enough, in fact, to sell the CG character when he appears.
As a reboot it’s a success. I spoke with Kevin Feige before the screening (look for that interview very, very soon) and he said that all over Marvel’s history you’ll find one-shots, different artists' interpretations of character origins or specific moments within the history of a certain character, and that’s how they viewed Ang Lee’s movie going in and that’s how it feels.
The movie opens with a great credits sequence that gives you flashes of the origin before it drops you in the middle of a story already in motion. I love movies that do that and by viewing this film as a reboot they assume you get it and if you don’t , well… you get a recap during the credits, almost like an episode of Lost or 24.
What’s great in the opening is that they don’t blow their wad with a big CG sequence. When the experiment does go wrong and the Hulk appears, you see from his point of view, and you can feel the rage just in how the camera moves… and the destruction he leaves completely sets us up… You see General Ross terrified, you see Betty hurt… and now we know where Norton stands, where Betty stands and where General Ross stands.
What’s interesting to me with General Ross’ character is that you come to suspect that he is driven to capture Banner not out of any need other than to capture the being that dared put fear into him.
Louis Leterrier does a fine job of keeping the movie running, but taking time for the slow build. In a way, I wish they could have kept the Hulk out of the trailers because it does undercut the build a bit.
Norton spends the first part of the movie in Brazil, hunkering down, looking for a cure. He works at a bottling factory, which is a great set in the daytime and an even better set at night when we see the first Hulk out.
This was far and away my favorite scene in the movie. It’s not as big or flashy as the later CG rampages, but that’s what I love about it. Leterrier treats it as a horror scene. When the Hulk enters the scene, he’s kept in shadow. The soldiers and local roughnecks are terrified. You hear the destruction, then you see it a second later, just missing Hulk in the act.
And the sound design… that’s what sells the scene. In many ways we are the eyes of Tim Roth’s Emil Blonsky for this sequence and just as he is awed by what is going on, so are we.
This is also the first time we hear The Hulk speak, but it’s very subtle, many in the audience not hearing it. It could have been the growl of destruction, but it very much wasn’t.
Loving this sequence doesn’t mean the CG is shitty. I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a little cartoony when the big Abomination/Hulk battle rages in the final act, but honestly, by the time we’re at that point, we’re hooked. It’s the Spielberg JAWS theory at work. When he was confronted about the unrealistic ending of the shark jumping out of the water, onto the boat and exploding with a shot to an airtank, he responded that if he didn’t have the audience by that point, then there was no saving the film.
The reality is that Norton and Roth both play the hell out of the movie and have you invested in their characters, so when they're CG creatures, you still picture Norton and Roth and carry that baggage with you.
Liv Tyler, William Hurt and Tim Blake Nelson are all strong in the supporting cast. There is a little King Kong or Beauty and the Beast to Betty and Hulk’s relationship… but there’s also an undercurrent of the abusive husband going on. Norton’s torn up, he’s driven to cure himself and control his anger by the fact that he hurt Betty when he first transformed.
She doesn’t look at it that way, but he sure does. It haunts him, it drives him. In other words, it gives him real character.
I think that’s the biggest surprise of the movie. We knew that Leterrier would bring the action. His work on the TRANSPORTER guaranteed us that. The worry was that after all the negative buzz with disputes between Norton and the producers that it’d just be a hollow shell of a movie… pretty, with good action, but empty. That’s not the case.
That said, I’m really damn curious about what these 70 missing minutes will be… Leterrier has said there’ll be 70 minutes of cut footage on the DVD and Blu-Ray releases. I recently toured the NY Marvel Comics offices and while I was there I saw a Hulk board with stills from the movie. Most of them were stills we’d seen before, but there was one of Hulk standing on an iceberg and a killer whale jumping at him, jaws open.
Having seen the movie… not only is that scene not in the film… but at no point is there snow or ice or anything like that. What the hell was that?!? Where the hell was that?!? Very curious.
Okay, rambling over… The movie’s solid, the movie’s fun and, the best part… you don’t have to check your brain at the door.
What's UFC's Big Announcement?
What's UFC's Big Announcement?
Handicapping Thursday's industry-changing announcement.
by Bill Barnwell
June 10, 2008 - The UFC's planned a big announcement for this week that, according to president Dana White, will shock the industry. To further the point, White's rented out a location in New York to tell all his employees about said announcement, which could be a red herring, but likely is a true representation of the magnitude of this potential announcement, one that White's said is both "out of left field" and "will change the industry for the next five years".
Of course, there's been heaping amounts of speculation regarding what the announcement will be. We have a poll on the front page of IGN Sports with a mix of realistic suggestions and comical ones (unless you consider Chuck Liddell shaving his mohawk to be serious business), but it's worth seriously analyzing the possibilities and what they might be. We'll name the rumors and put odds on each actually being the big news.
Floyd Mayweather Signing With UFC: This rumor currently leads our poll, and it's easy to understand why. The former boxing champion already diversified his brand by signing with WWE for a match and appearing on "Dancing With The Stars", so he's comfortable going outside of boxing. Mayweather is famously all about the money, and the rumors have pegged him receiving a huge purse and potential stake in the company were he to join UFC. Furthermore, he recently retired in a sudden, unexpected fashion, only months before a huge money fight with Oscar de la Hoya.
It's that fact which makes us believe that Mayweather's not the story. Sure, UFC wouldn't have wanted him to fight de la Hoya if the possibility was that he'd lose, but Mayweather wasn't likely to give up a purse and pay-per-view bonus of $30+ million only to fight in a new sport. Furthermore, who would he fight in UFC that would make a big money fight? That's a topic for another article altogether, but Mayweather would likely have to bulk up to 155 to fight BJ Penn, and even that doesn't seem like a huge money fight. The possibility is there, but we're not biting on it being the announcement. (In addition, shortly after this article was posted, White said on CNBC that the announcement was not a deal with Mayweather.)Odds: 20:1
UFC Linking Up With WWE: Arguably the most shocking of all the rumors would see WWE buying or establishing some sort of partnership with UFC, a move WWE could see as more enticing in lieu of actually competing against the company for pay-per-view dollars. It would seem impossible, though, that such a huge deal could come out of nowhere. (White also confirmed that this was not the announcement.) Odds: 200:1
UFC Becoming Licensed In New York/Announcing Show in New York: In addition, it's not entirely clear whether UFC would be able to run a show at Madison Square Garden because of WWE's exclusive deal with the arena that keeps other wrestling companies out -- whether UFC would be subject to that is still up for debate and dependent upon the wording of the WWE's deal.
The UFC hired away influential Nevada State Athletic Commission head Marc Ratner to lobby for MMA (and with it, UFC) to be legalized in new states, and New York was likely the first commission that the UFC targeted. Running New York (specifically Madison Square Garden) gives the company a level of legitimacy and respect amongst "old media" that it craves. Considering that the announcement will be made in New York (granted, it's where the company is headquartered), the odds are that this is the favorite. Odds: 4:1
A Change In Rounds: A smaller announcement that's been rumored is a move to five-round fights for regular fights and seven rounds for title fights. The argument against this is simple: Kalib Starnes. Odds: 175:1
A New TV Show: Although the UFC already has The Ultimate Fighter and UFC Unleashed on Spike, there's always going to be speculation that UFC seeks a network deal to supplement that coverage. When you factor in the success of EliteXC's show on CBS, the situation is as ripe as it's ever been for UFC to get a huge television deal. That could be a major network station or a pay station like HBO -- either way, although Dana's denied that it's a network deal, we think he could be lying. Odds: 18:1
The Signing of Fedor Emelianenko: There's been little talk regarding the signing of Fedor since he was released from his M-1 contract. He's currently contracted to fight Tim Sylvia at the debut Affliction show, but he's still a free agent and could theoretically sign with the company. We think that if that was going to happen, it'll happen after Fedor beats Sylvia, not before. Odds: 33:1
Monday, June 9, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
CAPONE ZOHAN REVIEW...MY REVIEW MAYBE COMING TONIGHT
Capone says you should actually mess with the Zohan!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
If you had asked me to name five movies I was dreading seeing this summer, the new Adam Sandler film, YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN, would have been in the top three. I don't have anything against Sandler as a comic actor. I've gotten a kick out of a few films he's done since his leaving "Saturday Night Live" and beginning a career of playing characters with silly voices doing dumb shit. I feel lately he's been trying a little too hard to be likable rather than offensive and/or annoying, and the results have been mixed at best. With last year's I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK & LARRY, he grazed the subject of gay marriage and managed to piss off both gay and straight people with him ham-handed attempt at a message film. Today the film's lasting impression on anyone is that Jessica Biel looks phenomenal in her underwear. On the surface, ZOHAN is following a similar trend (it didn't encourage me that CHUCK & LARRY director Dennis Dugan was helming this film, as well). And it does seem appallingly bold of Sandler to even broach the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using humor, but the weird thing is that something about this movie actually works. I found myself laughing more than I have in a very long time at a Sandler comedy. Hell, even the standard-issue Rob Schneider role didn't annoy me much.
I'd love to say I know the reason why ZOHAN turned out as well as it did. One could look at the writing credits for an easy answer: the screenplay is credited to Sandler, Robert Smigel (the SNL writer who created Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and "TV Funhouse"), and the omnipresent Judd Apatow. I'm not saying better writing didn't have something to do with the film being one of the most entertaining self-made Sandler films of the decade, but there's something more going on here. Sandler still wants us to like his character, a Mossad counter-terrorist agent who fakes his own death and reappears in New York City to begin life anew as a hairdresser. But Sandler and Dugas also want us (or at least the ladies) to find Zohan sexy, desirable and dangerously handsome. Zohan's nemesis is the Palestinian assassin known only as The Phantom (the glorious John Turturro, who hasn't been this wonderfully over-the-top since THE BIG LEBOWSKI). These men are not just soldiers in a holy war; they are supermen who can defy gravity, physics, and logic with their skills. Zohan can even barbeque and disco at the same time in the nude (there is more bare ass in the film than I could handle).
Knowing that he would suffer terrible humiliation if his hairdressing fantasy was ever brought to light in his own country, he lets the world believe The Phantom has killed him, and he smuggles himself into America where he hopes not to be recognized. Since he has no experience as a stylist, he's unable to get his dream job at the Paul Mitchell hair salon, and he ends up working for a Palestinian cutie named Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui from "Entourage"). Once he finally gets a pair of scissors, some shampoo, and his first client, Zohan works his magic on the old ladies that frequent the rundown salon. But he adds his own special brand of customer service by schtupping each one, which pretty much guarantees repeat business. The noises alone are enough to make you heave, but there's no denying the concept is funny. I also particularly liked the sequences with the family Zohan is staying with (the mom is played by Lainie Kazan, with Nick Swardson, who is particularly funny as her son who must endure the knowledge that mom is bedding his new friend).
Sandler continues his tradition of packing his movie with celebrity cameos, including everyone from Michael Buffer as the film's villain, a real estate developer who wants to build a mega-mall where the salon is; Schneider as a Palestinian New York City cab driver, who has a history with Zohan and wants him dead; Kevin Nealon as a cowardly neighborhood watch agent who works with Zohan to clean up the community; and a few others that deserve to stay surprises. And while the love story between Zohan and Dalia is fairly run of the mill, the rest of the film is a little more inventive. Never have I seen such a crotch-centered PG-13 movie. Jokes about Zohan's enormous and constant bulge fill every inch of this movie (turns out the bulge is from his massive man-bush and not his penis). When Zohan is teaching a fellow stylist his technique, he makes sure to show him how to rub his crotch against the arm of the client while he's washing their hair. "It's okay, they like it," he insists. It's pervy and wrong, but it's also hilarious watching two men hump the shoulders of an old lady. Don't ask me why.
ZOHAN takes a stab at offering a can't-we-all-just-get-along solution to the centuries-old Middle East crisis, and on that level it fails miserably. But that part of the film makes up such a small fraction of the proceedings that it didn't stop me from having a lot of fun watching this return-to-silly form from Sandler and his buddies. The film is uneven--no surprise there--but it's less so than some of Sandler's more recent broad comedies. Ultimately, I tend to judge any comedy by one criteria: Was I laughing during this film more often than I wasn't laughing? Fortunately, ZOHAN has quite a lot of big and small laughs. Sure it also has an oversimplified look at and solution to a major global situation and heaps of unnecessary sentimentality, but the funny outweighs these deficiencies.
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
If you had asked me to name five movies I was dreading seeing this summer, the new Adam Sandler film, YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN, would have been in the top three. I don't have anything against Sandler as a comic actor. I've gotten a kick out of a few films he's done since his leaving "Saturday Night Live" and beginning a career of playing characters with silly voices doing dumb shit. I feel lately he's been trying a little too hard to be likable rather than offensive and/or annoying, and the results have been mixed at best. With last year's I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK & LARRY, he grazed the subject of gay marriage and managed to piss off both gay and straight people with him ham-handed attempt at a message film. Today the film's lasting impression on anyone is that Jessica Biel looks phenomenal in her underwear. On the surface, ZOHAN is following a similar trend (it didn't encourage me that CHUCK & LARRY director Dennis Dugan was helming this film, as well). And it does seem appallingly bold of Sandler to even broach the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using humor, but the weird thing is that something about this movie actually works. I found myself laughing more than I have in a very long time at a Sandler comedy. Hell, even the standard-issue Rob Schneider role didn't annoy me much.
I'd love to say I know the reason why ZOHAN turned out as well as it did. One could look at the writing credits for an easy answer: the screenplay is credited to Sandler, Robert Smigel (the SNL writer who created Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and "TV Funhouse"), and the omnipresent Judd Apatow. I'm not saying better writing didn't have something to do with the film being one of the most entertaining self-made Sandler films of the decade, but there's something more going on here. Sandler still wants us to like his character, a Mossad counter-terrorist agent who fakes his own death and reappears in New York City to begin life anew as a hairdresser. But Sandler and Dugas also want us (or at least the ladies) to find Zohan sexy, desirable and dangerously handsome. Zohan's nemesis is the Palestinian assassin known only as The Phantom (the glorious John Turturro, who hasn't been this wonderfully over-the-top since THE BIG LEBOWSKI). These men are not just soldiers in a holy war; they are supermen who can defy gravity, physics, and logic with their skills. Zohan can even barbeque and disco at the same time in the nude (there is more bare ass in the film than I could handle).
Knowing that he would suffer terrible humiliation if his hairdressing fantasy was ever brought to light in his own country, he lets the world believe The Phantom has killed him, and he smuggles himself into America where he hopes not to be recognized. Since he has no experience as a stylist, he's unable to get his dream job at the Paul Mitchell hair salon, and he ends up working for a Palestinian cutie named Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui from "Entourage"). Once he finally gets a pair of scissors, some shampoo, and his first client, Zohan works his magic on the old ladies that frequent the rundown salon. But he adds his own special brand of customer service by schtupping each one, which pretty much guarantees repeat business. The noises alone are enough to make you heave, but there's no denying the concept is funny. I also particularly liked the sequences with the family Zohan is staying with (the mom is played by Lainie Kazan, with Nick Swardson, who is particularly funny as her son who must endure the knowledge that mom is bedding his new friend).
Sandler continues his tradition of packing his movie with celebrity cameos, including everyone from Michael Buffer as the film's villain, a real estate developer who wants to build a mega-mall where the salon is; Schneider as a Palestinian New York City cab driver, who has a history with Zohan and wants him dead; Kevin Nealon as a cowardly neighborhood watch agent who works with Zohan to clean up the community; and a few others that deserve to stay surprises. And while the love story between Zohan and Dalia is fairly run of the mill, the rest of the film is a little more inventive. Never have I seen such a crotch-centered PG-13 movie. Jokes about Zohan's enormous and constant bulge fill every inch of this movie (turns out the bulge is from his massive man-bush and not his penis). When Zohan is teaching a fellow stylist his technique, he makes sure to show him how to rub his crotch against the arm of the client while he's washing their hair. "It's okay, they like it," he insists. It's pervy and wrong, but it's also hilarious watching two men hump the shoulders of an old lady. Don't ask me why.
ZOHAN takes a stab at offering a can't-we-all-just-get-along solution to the centuries-old Middle East crisis, and on that level it fails miserably. But that part of the film makes up such a small fraction of the proceedings that it didn't stop me from having a lot of fun watching this return-to-silly form from Sandler and his buddies. The film is uneven--no surprise there--but it's less so than some of Sandler's more recent broad comedies. Ultimately, I tend to judge any comedy by one criteria: Was I laughing during this film more often than I wasn't laughing? Fortunately, ZOHAN has quite a lot of big and small laughs. Sure it also has an oversimplified look at and solution to a major global situation and heaps of unnecessary sentimentality, but the funny outweighs these deficiencies.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
McG Talks Terminator
McG updated his T4 blog today, shedding some light on what we can expect in the film and addressing the possibly spurious online chat concerning the ending that has been doing the rounds on the Net in recent days.
Here are some of the more interesting nuggets: "This movie takes place several years after Judgment Day, but prior to 2029. Just like it took a long time to get an HD plasma screen in our world, it took Skynet a lot of research and development to get to the T-800, and this movie explores that 'space between.' We have all been fascinated with the world after Judgment Day. Here it is."
He also described some of the robotic critters we'll get to see: "In this film, there are Hydrobots that patrol the water, Transports that move human prisoners around, Harvesters that collect human beings as lab rats for Skynet and Aerostats that survey all that is going on with the resistance the world over.
"We've started shooting the T-600 -- the bigger, grimier, nastier version that preceded the T-800. Like Reese says, 'They're easier to spot but they pack a mini gun and carry kick ass fire power.' They're eight-foot tall killers that prowl the badlands looking for anything with a heartbeat to terminate."
On the much-derided decision to make the film a PG-13, he said: "Oh yeah, don't get too uptight about the prospect of the film being PG-13. We have entertained the idea of a PG-13 rating largely because Batman Begins, in my opinion, was made compromise-free. So we'll see. The movie comes first and it will be protected at all times…"
And finally talking about the spoileriffic rumours we've been hearing, he enigmatically responded: "By the way, there are only three people who know the ending." Thanks for clearing that up McG!
Friday, May 30, 2008
Amazonian tribe?
Although we do not know the name of the recently discovered tribe in Brazil, or what language they speak, it is possible to tease out some clues as to their way of life from the aerial photographs taken by the Brazilian government. Fiona Watson, from the campaign group Survival International, uses her experience gained during 20 years of visiting the region, to explain what the pictures may show.
MALOCAS
Malocas, or communal houses, are typically thatched. They often have fires, used for cooking or heating during the night. Smaller structures are used for cooking and other tasks, while larger buildings can be used as sleeping areas, and are usually equipped with hammocks.
The thatched roof does not reach to the ground suggesting that this is an area for communal activities including cooking, socialising or preparing the paste that is used for dyes and body paint.
COTTON AND BASKET
The white blob in the photograph could well be cotton, and the beige area next to it is probably a basket. The cotton would either be cultivated by the tribe, or gathered in the wild. It would be woven by the women, into the kind of short skirt worn by the black figure. Cotton would also be used to make hammocks.
The woven basket has a strap which would be either worn across the forehead or over the shoulder and would be used during the collection of cotton or other produce.
TWO MEN
These men are trying to drive off the plane from which these photographs were taken. They are aiming their bows at the aircraft, which had returned to fly over the settlement for a second time, after making a first pass some hours earlier.
The men have large bows made from forest hardwood, which they use to hunt for animals including tapirs, monkeys, deer, wild pigs and other small mammals.
They have also painted themselves with the red dye, urucum, commonly used by tribes in the Amazon. It is made from the seeds of a fruit similar to the horse chestnut. The seeds are ground into a paste to form the dye.
The body paint is most likely a show of aggression, possibly in response to the plane's first flyover.
WOMAN
The black figure may be a woman, although it is impossible to be certain. That this person is not carrying a bow hints in this direction. The black body paint is called genipapo, and is made from fruit. Like the red dye it is likely to be an aggressive display.
SETTLEMENT
The series of buildings have very little space cleared around them, and are set deep into the forest. This suggests that the tribe are keen to keep themselves hidden.
The larger building is most likely used for sleeping quarters, the smaller buildings would be used for food preparation, cooking and other practical tasks.
The surrounding area has signs of cultivation by the tribe, who are probably maintaining gardens of manioc, a type of tuber which would form a large part of their staple diet.
Capone Recommends Hanging Out With THE STRANGERS!!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
If you believe Hollywood these days (and why the hell wouldn't you?), then America's number one fear is not terrorists or space monsters or the living dead or any number of natural disasters. Nope, Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe's top fear is a random act of violence perpetrated against them either while they're on a road trip/vacation or in their own home. This isn't exactly news.
Films like THE HILLS HAVE EYES and even THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE cover the worst of what can happen while you're exploring this great land of ours. While more recent films like HIGH TENSION and FUNNY GAMES have explored more homegrown fear mongering. Last year, a truly terrifying (and largely bloodless) French film called THEM was released in this country, and it scared the wee-wee out of me. Later this summer, a movie called BAGHEAD analyzes these kinds of horror films in a fairly unique manner. The new film THE STRANGERS (said to be based on a true story) is cut from the same cloth as these works: a couple ends up in a isolated cabin in the woods, are practically scared to death by noises and lights and attempt to fight back and/or escape.
A movie about the prospect of a home invasion is hardly a new concept, but there is something darker, colder and more sinister about this new crop. These killers aren't evil monsters; they are just normal people, bored and looking for something to do. They are Class A assholes, to whom motivation means nothing. Their motivation is that they feel like it, and what could be scarier than that?
THE STRANGERS follows James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) who have just had a terrible evening at a wedding reception and seem on the verge of breaking up. They just begin to discuss their problems when a knock comes at the door. They answer it, and a young woman whose face is obscured by the dark asks "Is Tamara there?" They tell her she has the wrong house and send her on her way. Speedman leaves to buy cigarettes, and then the knocking starts again; other sounds also come from inside and outside the house and by the time he returns, Kristen is a nervous wreck.
Soon we begin to see figures and masked faces. Since I didn't know exactly how this story would play out, it did cross my mind that these three offenders were simply trying to scare the crap out of this helpless couple, but we don't get off that easily. Speedman and Tyler are both good-looking, but more importantly, they're both decent actors who never let us doubt for a second that these two are scared and confused as to why they were picked and how this evening will play out for them. First-time feature director Bryan Bertino impressed the hell out of me with the tools he uses to build tension. Sure, sometimes the evildoers seem to know a little too well what the couple's next move is going to be, but most of the time, the story seems far too plausible and the scares are well earned.
I'm not sure THE STRANGERS qualifies as a cautionary tale, since neither of these victims could be accused of doing anything that could be called "risky behavior." If anything, the film's message could be that it doesn't matter how safely you lead your life, or how much money you have or don't have or how many resources you have at your disposal because your life is just as easy to fuck with as anybody else's. The world isn't necessarily a dangerous place; but it is a place where the worst kind of behavior is random. THE STRANGERS has its flaws, but they are small. And my only real rule when it comes to scary movies is that they must scare me. This one did, and it did it without tricks. I respect that, and recommend this very strong little thriller.
Capone
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
RAW CRITIC'S INDIANA JONES REVIEW
I USUALLY GET UPSET WITH CERTAIN THINGS...WHEN MY DATE DOESN'T PUT OUT OR I RUN OUT OF SARDINES AND BALONEY WHEN I ALREADY HAVE THE WONDER BREAD SPREAD WITH MUSTARD LAYED OUT ON THE COUNTER...AND NOW I GOT TO DEAL WITH THIS BULLSHIT! I WENT OVER TO THE LOCAL THEATRE TODAY TO CATCH THE NEW INDIANA JONES FLICK. I WAS EXCITED TO SEE THIS FLICK BECAUSE I AM A HUGE FAN OF THE TRILOGY. THE FEW GOOD MEMORIES I HAVE OF MY POPS IS OF HIM TAKING ME TO THE THEATRE TO WATCH RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - GREAT FUCKIN' MOVIE! I HAD A GUT FEELING THIS FILM WOULD BLOW...SEEING THAT GEORGE LUCAS FUCKED THE WHOLE STAR WARS TRILOGY UP WITH HIS TREE DIMENSIONAL BULLSHIT...WHO NEEDS TREE DIMENSIONS OVER HERE? IF I WANT TO LIVE IN A TREE DIMENSIONAL WORLD I'D BANG MY HEAD AGAINST A CEMENT WALL A FEW TIMES UNTIL I'M SEEIN' IN TREES. ANYWAY, THE FIRST HOUR OF THE MOVIE FELT LIKE AN INDY JONES FILM, BUT THE REST OF IT WAS A BUNCH OF BALONEY WRAPPED IN BULLSHIT. I'M NOT GOING TO SPOIL THE FILM FOR YOUZ, BUT IF YOUZ FEEL LIKE HAVIN' A DUMB ASS STUPID TIME GO SEE THIS MOVIE...BUT IF YOUZ R A HUGE INDY FAN, GET READY TO BE PISSED RIGHT THE FUCK OFF.
I GIVE THIS BULLSHIT 2 AND A HALF SARDINES 'CAUSE I LIKED HALF THE FLICK...
YOU CAN ADD GEORGIE BOY OVER 'ERE OF GUYS I'D LIKE TO PUNCH IN THE FACE!!!
Friday, May 23, 2008
RAW CRITIC'S BABE OF THE WEEK.....MEGAN FOX
You can see her next in the film "Jennifer's Body" :Jennifer (Megan Fox) is a popular cheerleader who becomes possessed by a demon that turns her into a flesh-eating monster. Her best friend must both end the creature's mad rampage and hunt down the Satanic rock band that summoned the demon in the first place.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Christian Bale (Officially) = John Connor In Three TERMINATOR Movies!!
Christian Bale is to play rebel leader John Connor in three sequels to the Terminator franchise, its producers have revealed.
The Welsh-born star, who is soon to be seen in Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight, has already started shooting the first of those films, Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins.
"He's really an actor's actor, so we're very proud," said Victor Kubicek of film company Halcyon.
Charlie's Angels director McG is directing the new film, which is due to be released on 22 May 2009.
"Christian was our first choice and he's a big fan of The Terminator, so we're very lucky," Kubicek told the BBC at the Cannes Film Festival.
"But with Batman he's already done the whole franchise thing, so we weren't sure he'd respond."
Luckily, said Kubicek's business partner Derek Anderson, "he read the script and he loved it, so he's signed on for all three."
US rap star Common will also have a lead role in the film, as will Australian actor Sam Worthington, who will soon be seen in Titanic director James Cameron's science-fiction epic Avatar.
Schwarzenegger played the Terminator in three blockbuster films
The producers would not reveal whether Arnold Schwarzenegger would reprise his role as the Terminator. Nor would they discuss character names or plot details.
"We can't talk about the story points at all," said Kubicek, adding the project was being kept strictly under wraps.
"Not everyone gets to see the script. They only see the part of the script that's relevant to the job they're doing."
But the producers promised not to disappoint fans of the time-travelling franchise, which has also spawned TV series The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
"We're both huge Terminator fans and we're just approaching it from the point of view of what we'd like to see," said Anderson.
"Any time we're feeling pressure we just take a step back and say, as fans, 'what would we like to see.
The Welsh-born star, who is soon to be seen in Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight, has already started shooting the first of those films, Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins.
"He's really an actor's actor, so we're very proud," said Victor Kubicek of film company Halcyon.
Charlie's Angels director McG is directing the new film, which is due to be released on 22 May 2009.
"Christian was our first choice and he's a big fan of The Terminator, so we're very lucky," Kubicek told the BBC at the Cannes Film Festival.
"But with Batman he's already done the whole franchise thing, so we weren't sure he'd respond."
Luckily, said Kubicek's business partner Derek Anderson, "he read the script and he loved it, so he's signed on for all three."
US rap star Common will also have a lead role in the film, as will Australian actor Sam Worthington, who will soon be seen in Titanic director James Cameron's science-fiction epic Avatar.
Schwarzenegger played the Terminator in three blockbuster films
The producers would not reveal whether Arnold Schwarzenegger would reprise his role as the Terminator. Nor would they discuss character names or plot details.
"We can't talk about the story points at all," said Kubicek, adding the project was being kept strictly under wraps.
"Not everyone gets to see the script. They only see the part of the script that's relevant to the job they're doing."
But the producers promised not to disappoint fans of the time-travelling franchise, which has also spawned TV series The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
"We're both huge Terminator fans and we're just approaching it from the point of view of what we'd like to see," said Anderson.
"Any time we're feeling pressure we just take a step back and say, as fans, 'what would we like to see.
