Review of "Abraham Lincoln Vs. Zombies"

The Asylum production company brings us this appetizer for the much anticipated Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter set to release June 22.  The Asylum specializes in these off-kilter thrillers. Their filmography includes much loved knock-offs including 2-Headed Shark Attack and Titanic II. Naturally, you should pick up one of these films with lower expectations than a Troma film. I mean, at least Troma has some actual classics like Class of Nuke 'em High, Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead, and of course, The Toxic Avenger. What does The Asylum have? Brooke Hogan, the crusty skid mark of Hollywood, killing a two headed shark? Yeah, I'm still intrigued.

Abraham Lincoln Vs Zombies
Starring: David Alexander, Raed Ali, Bernie Ask
Directed by Richard Schenkman
My Opinion: Like drinking bad vodka,
it's a good time, but you may not remember
 it the next day

So anyway, this film looked fantastic and, to my surprise, it wasn't half-bad. The plot gets really stale towards the end, but as long as you don't pay too close attention, you won't taste it. Indeed, this is a film for those of us who can enjoy paying half our attention spans to a film, but when you have the right mindset, then this is certainly worth the watch. There are plenty of zombies, authoritative presidential speeches and headless blood fountains to keep the viewer watching, or at least in front of the screen. The ridiculous script and plentitude of production oopses are rendered lovable by the comic relief. Yes, almost everyone has a different accent, but it's laughable not cringe-worthy. Personally, I found David Alexander's performance reliable and clean.

In conclusion, this is not The Toxic Avenger, but it has a similar feel. Some extra ridiculousness wouldn't hurt, but I was impressed.

"Men in Black III" Review

When I was seven years old, I was introduced to a secret world of aliens, intrigue and Will Smith. The fanciful world of Men in Black was merely one out of the many that I experienced as a child, but I liked it. Honestly, I think the relationship between Agent Kay and Agent Jay is complex and moderately cliché, but lovable nonetheless. Fifteen years after the first film, their bro-mance is tested and examined in a new light - one that is expectedly sentimental.

Men in Black III
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith, Josh Brolin,
Jemaine Clement
Directed by: Barry Sonnenfield
My Opinion: Pretty good

The audacious Agent Jay finds himself in a new dimension: one very much like his own, but without Kay. Jay struggles in dealing with the loss, learning that in this present Kay was killed by an arch rival, Boris (played by The Flight of the Conchords, Jemaine Clement), in 1969. So, he goes back in time to stop his partner's murder.

The plot felt right for this stage of the franchise: the point is to prove Jay's devotion to Kay, and it does so successfully, but with a little less of the sharp comedy and ridiculous aliens that made the original. Like the celebrities that impersonate aliens in the current film, the creatures seem to drift into the background of the story. That being said, the aliens in the  Chinese restaurant are hilarious.

As far as the acting goes, Smith and Jones do their usual thing and the characters are depicted naturally. But for most of the film, Kay is played by Josh Brolin who does an equivalent job to Jones. Outside of a knack for similar films, there is little similarity between Brolin and Jones. Yet his portrayal of Agent Kay is uncanny. Not only does he look exactly like him, but he mastered the manners and the efficiency-oriented disposition. This may only be an excellant study in impersonation, but it is certainly the most impressive element of the film. In other news, apparently Nicole Scherzinger of The Pussycat Dolls played Boris's girlfriend. As usual, I was in "movie mode" (if you catch my drift), but I literally don't remember her. Her performance was just that underwhelming.

In conclusion, it's better than the last one. I'm hoping that the conclusive nature of the relationship as illustrated at the end of the film implies that there will not be a fourth, but those box office stats say otherwise. Though, if there is another, I hope that it is just as entertaining as this one.

"The Thing" Review

So, mistakenly believing that RedBox re-released The Thing, I rented it. After noticing some guy from Not Another Teen Movie was in it, I decided it probably wasn't the original. Nonetheless, I wasn't disappointed in the end.

The Thing
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton
Ulrich Thomsen
Directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
My Opinion: A remake worth the watch

Of course, most remakes end up as either laughable or acceptable - but this hits above mediocrity. First of all, the most impressive element is the shockingly flagrant gore. Each encounter with the Thing is more revolting than the last, but that's what makes it fun. Furthermore, these obscene moments are nearly realistic with the high-quality of CGI. The acting is moderately above average, which is always impressive for a horror film, and the direction is solid. I was even swayed by several shots, including long sweeps across the icy landscapes and a helicopter escape gone haywire depicted with point of view shots.

 For a remake that I thought was the original, I found it surprisingly satisfying. The film provokes anxiety in the viewer as well as puts the characters under pressure, forcing them against each other in dangerous ways. If the remake is as good as it is, the original has got to be worth the watch!

Recent movies I'm too lazy to give a full review to...

21 Jumpstreet: Hilarious. I almost want Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill to try dating... literally some of the best chemistry I've ever seen.

Another Earth: Interesting moral questions are raised though not far from predictability. Wonderful acting and lovely production work make this a solid watch.

The Artist: A sentimental love-note to the movies. Wonderful, but a tad overrated and contrived.
 

Carnage: The acting is what makes it.

The Descendants: A generic Oscar nom that runs about a half hour too long.

Drive: An artsy, high-quality Fast and the Furious. Well done indeed.

Friends with Kids: Funny at times, but it gets dry and I didn't like the ending at all. I saw lost potential.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Great direction and acting, but I would have understood a lot more had I read the book.

Hugo: Incredibly imaginative.

Hunger Games: You know, sometimes it's OK to stray from the book. You know, to avoid simply recapping all the events of the story without adding anything but Jennifer Lawrence's face. Very dull, in my opinion, but it's still exciting to see the story that was so intoxicating. Regardless, I suggest reading the books.

Immortals: Too much stupid, not enough action. Just re-watch 300.
Blind.

Just Add Water: Just add boring. It's an average flick, at times entertaining with witty bits.

Melancholia: If you aren't deeply terrified at this movie, you're a sociopath. A little on the slow side, but for good reason.

Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol: International and gripping.

The Muppet Movie: Meta-cinematic, soaked in wit, and fully entertaining for all. 

Scream 4: What a tribute to the original!

Shark Night 3D: Weren't there supposed to be a lot of sharks attacking people in this movie? Cause I remember one... maybe two.
Blind.

Perfect Sense: Very disturbing and still subtle.

The Sitter: A morally confusing but sentimental adventure.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt. II: My first adventure into the realm of Twilight, and it consumed me like... well, you know. Retarded, but thoroughly entertaining and way better with the Riff trax.

Wanderlust: Surprisingly quippy and very fun.

Review of "The Devil Inside"

The Devil Inside
Starring: doesn't matter
Directed by William Brent Bell
My Recommendation: All depends on your attitude,
but I say go for it.

Horror is always my go-to drama, but I felt an instinct pulling me towards The Devil Inside. Though I'll admit I was pretty psyched to see this, as ticklish as the previews were, I wasn't walking along deluding myself into thinking that I was about to experience a genuinely riveting and mentally stimulating cinematic art piece. Instead, I was pleasantly anticipating something that would hopefully have a few scary moments and a few funny ones. I think that's the right mindset to have going into it; it prepares you for a softer let down and if it actually turns out amazing, like Drag Me To Hell, it's an even bigger reward! Now, that wasn't the case with The Devil Inside, but I was pretty decently entertained regardless. But that's not how critics nor audiences felt about it. RottenTomatoes.com yielded a 7% approval rate and IMDB.com was slightly more generous with 3.8/10. I feel the need to plea the defense. You see, The Devil Inside is as stupid as it is scary, but what separates it from lesser quality films is simple: the thrills are still there. A dark room may be necessary accompaniment, but this film delivers what it promised. It's a titillating ride with frequent moments of eye-rolling dialogue, but that's how a crappy horror film does it and in my opinion, The Devil Inside does it right.

That being said, I have to make fun of it a little. The film copies The Blair With Project, setting itself up as a documentary with the camera man as a main character. Unlike the former, this film often loses sight of the attempted genre. Regardless, it is a workable backdrop for the story of Isabella Rossi and her mother, who resides in a psychiatric facility near the vatican after her attempted exorcism killed three church members. Isabella wants to find out what happened to her mother, so she leaves with a camera and the documentary's director to visit her mother for the first time in twenty years. The fun ensues from there. My favorite blunders are when the shots cut to angles taken from a camera that doesn't exist. Seriously. I mean, in one shot the camera is angled over Isabella Rossi's shoulder. In the next shot, the camera is facing the front right side of her face, angled near where the other camera should be. But it isn't there. I should say that actually cinematography is not atrocious throughout the film, but it's just fun to point out the boners.

So, in conclusion, I had a good time watching this movie and you can to if you just turn it on with the right mindset and a little bit of weed.

Review of "The Five Year Engagement"

I saw this a week ago, so unfortunately this review will be unjustly short, but here it goes. I need to start out by admitting that I love Jason Segel. Those puppy-dog looks and ironic but raunchy sense of humor are irresistible.  How does he manage to combine that playful ideal-boyfriend type with grotesque humor and wit into a perfectly blended java juice smoothie of a talent? He appeals to all areas of the gender spectrum. He's a genius and The Five Year Engagement only proves this further.

Now, normally I only watch romantic comedies under two conditions:

1) If someone recommends it to me and I have to watch it in order to shut them the fuck up.
2) If I'm 15 or younger and I need somewhere to make out.

The Five Year Engagement
Starring: Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
My Recommendation: Do it and do it NOW. 

Obviously, I don't get around to it too much anymore. Usually, these movies aren't really funny enough to be comedies but they're too lame, predictable and poorly acted to be dramas. They tend towards formulaic cheap entertainment that just doesn't do it for me. If I'm going to watch a stupid movie, it's going to be a horror film (see my review of The Devil Inside next). Anyway, this is where The Five Year Engagement prevails: it's absolutely hilarious from beginning to end and the troubles breaching Violet (Emily Blunt) and Tom's (Jason Segel) relationship seem real. Of course you know how it's going to end going into the movie, but while you're watching it the outcome isn't so clear. There are enough loose strings flailing about at the end of the film that have left me, even a week after seeing it, still finding myself fretting over how they're going to make their love prevail in spite of the problems.

The question in Engagement is one that strikes most modern relationships: career or love? Both Violet and Tom are working professionals in differing fields: she is pursuing her dreams in psychology (or psychiatry, same difference) while he is a sous-chef at a hot restaurant in San Francisco.  She gets a great opportunity in a small town in Michigan - a culinary desert - after their engagement. This postpones the wedding plans and they have to move. The resulting evolution of Tom's character is hence the most interesting element of the movie. The man becomes so far from what he was, but in the most humorous way possible. Honestly I couldn't help but think of pants-less Marshall Erikson on the couch sulking over Lily - pathetic but still adorable and hilarious.

So, what my shortened review is trying to convey is simple: I don't like rom-coms but this one was different, so I liked it. However, it is still part of the genre. You'll find yourself cooing over their relationship - and I mean that literally. The script is solid and the ensemble cast leave barely any room for silence between laughs and gasps. My favorite scene was between Violet and her sister (played by Alison Brie) discussing Violet's problematic love-life via the personas of Cookie Monster and Elmo. My only qualm is the lack of chemistry between Blunt and Segel. Though their relationship troubles were very real, the love lacked convincing.

The Five Year Engagement won't be in theaters much longer, but I highly recommend seeing it now. It's a treasure!