"Big Bad Wolf" (2006)

• Directed & Written by: Lance W. Dreesen
• Starring: Trevor Duke, Kimberly J. Brown, and Richard Tyson

     So many werewolf films, such little quality. If you asked me to list off the amount of good to great werewolf films, I could probably count all of them on one hand. Apart from a few classics like "The Wolf Man" and "An American Werewolf in London", most werewolf films are severely by-the-numbers, badly made, and poorly plotted. Unfortunately, "Big Bad Wolf", one of many in a huge slew of independent/direct-to-dvd werewolf films, is not an exception.
     "Big Bad Wolf" follows the adventures of Derek Crowley (Trevor Duke), a college student who has recently pledged himself to a fraternity. In order to get into the frat's social standing, he agrees to let them spend a night camping at his stepfather's secluded cabin out in the woods. Unfortunately, they just happen to arrive on the night when a werewolf is running loose! The werewolf kills all of Derek's frat friends, but Derek himself is spared when his sometime-friend, sometime-girlfriend Samantha Marche (Kimberly J. Brown) axes the wolf-man in the back. Later, when they arrive home, they conclude that Derek's abusive stepfather is the werewolf (trust me, this isn't a spoiler, they reveal this within the first 20 minutes), and they must do all they can to stop him.
     First off, the trailer and the official synopsis for this film is incredibly misleading. I went in expecting a middling werewolf slasher flick taking place in the middle of some creepy woods. The film holds good on this premise for about 15 minutes, and then the film follows Derek and Sam as they try to take down his stepfather, which turns out to be a much less interesting and fun plot for many different reasons.
     One of the worst things about this film (other than it's plotting, characterization, and dialogue) is that it has absolutely no idea what kind of movie it wants to be. At times it takes things deadly serious and gives an honest effort to try to be scary and build up suspense, but then other times it immediately rockets around in the other direction and tries to be a funny, over-the-top horror parody. It's incredibly jarring, and it cancels out any semblance of consistency or scariness. If they had went either way with the film it could have had the potential to be good (if, you know, everything else was fixed), but the fact that they went down the path of constantly flip-flopping and changing moods just took me out of the film and ruined any kind of atmosphere it was trying to build. If you want me to care about your characters, stop making them do stupid, goofy shit like hitting their heads on ceilings like they're in a fucking "Three Stooges" movie.
     And when I say the "comedy" bits are jarring, you better believe that I mean it. A good example of this was when the werewolf first attacks. At first I was thinking that the movie would go town a traditional monster movie route and the werewolf would just be menacing and silent, which would have been okay. But then, in the film, we hear a scream come from the room of one of the frat boy's girlfriends. The frat boy grabs a fire axe and beats the door down (which is very obviously made of balsa wood, by the way), and looks inside the hole to see... the werewolf fucking his "virgin" girlfriend in the ass. When the frat boy yells at the beast
that his girlfriend was a virgin, the werewolf says, in a gruff voice, "She ain't anymore!," and promptly slits the girl's throat.
     I couldn't believe what the fuck I had just seen, and that's what I'm talking about. Once you have your werewolf bumming around and spouting out one-liners like a hairy Freddy Krueger, your film loses any hope at all of being taken seriously, and I highly doubt that it was the filmmaker's intention for the movie to be completely silly, because later on, when the film actually tries to be suspenseful, it means it. The characters are completely serious and the actors play their roles with conviction. So I don't believe for a second that the film was meant to be an all-out comedy.
     Anyway, besides the terrible, uneven tone, the plot is achingly monotonous and boring. Like a lot of horror films, you'll probably be able to figure out where the plot is going fairly quickly. It's a strict, "Point A" to "Point B" plot sequence. This would be fine if the characters and dialogue had any sort of depth or competence, but the characters are total cookie-cutter archetypes, and their personalities frequently shift whenever it's convenient to the plot.
     The character of Derek is a painful nerdy stereotype who is too much of a pussy to talk back to anyone or do anything (and of course by the end of the film he's a total badass), and his friend Sam is an archetypal "female badass", with leather jackets and slutty t-shirts (and of course she and Derek end up fucking by the film's end). It all just runs together and is completely boring. Throw in some cringe-worthy dialogue ("We can take a little romantic walk in the moonlight, you know what I mean?", "Can you even walk?", "Oh, I can do a lot more than that, baby"), and some completely ridiculous plot points (Sam sucks the werewolf's dick to get a semen sample for a DNA test... I'm serious), and you have a recipe for disaster.
     There are a few moments of unintentional comedy, like the aforementioned dialogue, the teeth-grindingly awful soap opera acting, and the fact that, apparently, werewolfism also gives you the ability to teleport, as the werewolf frequently jumps around and disappears out of nowhere like the fucking Batman. As for the comedy that's actually meant to be funny? I hope you like lots and LOTS of canine-related puns. However, there is some genuinely funny dialogue. For example, when one of the frat boy's girlfriend's comments on Sam's tongue ring, she asks her if guys like it when she goes down on them. Sam responds with: "When I blow your boyfriend, you can ask him." Unfortunately, this all clashes with the potentially serious tone that the film is trying to create, and these actually funny moments are so few and far between that it's not worth sitting through the entire film for.
     If there is anything at all that is genuinely good about the film, well, there is some decent cinematography (the opening scene in a creepy swamp is a highlight), and the gore effects aren't too bad, but that isn't saying much. There's only about a quarter of practical effects in the film. Everything else is digital composites or CGI, leading to a godawful transformation sequence and some laughably fake digital fire toward the end. The werewolf itself also looks terrible, like a shag carpet with teeth.
     To it's credit, the film does try to do some interesting stuff. There is a particular scene leading up to the climax where the werewolf stepdad tries to have an honest heart-to-heart with his stepson that almost comes close to making him a sympathetic character, but after the stepson storms out in a huff he goes right back to being a wisecracking asshole villain, and whatever depth he may have been developing is dashed to the ground.
     Overall, despite some unintentional comedic elements, some decent cinematography, and some sweet, but all too short cameos from Clint Howard and David Naughton, this film is just another bit of protein in the sea of werewolf films. If you're incredibly bored, like I was when I saw this film, then I'd give it a whirl. Don't expect anything much, though. Unless you really like the idea of seeing a werewolf get a blowjob.

"Boys Life 6" (2007)

• Directed by: Carter Smith, Etienne Kallos, Soman Chainani, and Mark Christopher
• Written by: Various
• Starring: Various

     You know, I don't mention it overtly here on this blog, but most of my readers, who are primarily made up of friends, all know that I'm gay. And being gay, I'm often drawn to any sort of media portraying homosexuality. It's a remnant from growing up in the closet. Frustration toward unfair and even hateful portrayals in the mainstream media, and an even bigger frustration once the realization hits that the indie crowd doesn't offer much better. As a young gay guy, not of a flamboyant or promiscuous caliber, this severely dampens my chances of finding anything great, anything that really deals with gays like me. But I keep searching.

I often enjoy short films because I see them as very much like the short story. You have a limited time to express your characters, your background, and your plot, and so often the filmmaker must really try to pack a punch within a very short timeframe, so that the viewer is left with a significant impression. If it isn't, your film tends to fade into the background.

So for this review I'm going to try something different. I'm going to talk about "Boys Life 6", a collection of four gay-themed short films, and I'm going to do little mini-reviews of each short. Gay themes and short films! It's a milestone for this blog! Okay, not really. Let's get into it!

The first film is entitled "Bugcrush", and is written and directed by Carter Smith. It's about 35 minutes long, and tells the story of a young, gay high school student named Ben (Josh Barclay Caras), who runs across a new, very rebellious and slightly menacing student named Grant (Donald Eric Cumming). Because of his attraction to Grant, Ben attempts to ingratiate himself into his group of equally strange and slightly creepy friends, and once he does, learns a very horrifying secret.

Yes, it's a horror film, and it's excellent, by far the best in the entire collection. The first thing that struck me about "Bugcrush" was it's incredible direction. It's very modestly budgeted, but you wouldn't know that, considering that it's beautifully shot on 35mm, and is full of extreme close-ups and atmospheric shots of dark and lonely roads. The suspense in the film is masterful as well. I found my heart racing for almost the entirety of the film, and it didn't let up. It was so nerve-wracking that I almost had to pause the film for a minute to calm down.

The reason the suspense is so well done is because the film gives you the sense that there is DEFINITELY something strange going on, but it does it without giving anything away, it implies here and suggests there, so you get the vague sense that something is wrong, but you don't know exactly what, and this keeps you glued to your seat, eager to find out.

There are a few shortcomings, however. The acting, frankly, is crap. Everyone talks in a very slow, monotone stoner drawl, and when they try to get menacing it's painful. However, the standout is Josh Caras as Ben, who is convincing as an innocent gay kid that doesn't know what he's getting into. I felt for him, as he haplessly jumps into this venture without realizing the consequences, all because of an attraction. Everyone else is horribly wooden. The climax is also slightly predictable, but appropriately harrowing, and the final scene is VERY well-shot for an independent film. I loved it. Sure, it's dark and macabre, but how often do we get a great gay horror story?

The second film is called "The Doorman", and it's directed and co-written by Etienne Kallos. It's about an attractive Hispanic doorman (Jamil Mena) who works at an apartment, and enters into a brief and painful sexually charged relationship with one of his tenants, a strange, kind of fugly college kid (Stephen Sheffer).

To make a long story short, it's crap. It's shot very amateurishly on what looks like miniDV, the camera won't stop wobbling around and the story is bland. The film mostly tries to convey it's story through the use of visuals, with very little dialogue. This would be fine if the character's actions made any sense. They constantly do very odd things, such as the doorman's liaison requesting him to beat him, and without the aid of dialogue or backstory or some other sort of visual aid to at least help the audience understand what's happening and why, it just feels like a bunch of randomly spliced scenes, and the film lays over a bunch of "oohs" and "ahhs" whenever something meaningful is supposed to be happening. It also doesn't help that the acting is unbelievably over the top and schmaltzy. I'm not even sure what the conflict is supposed to be. They imply the relationship goes to shit because the doorman won't let the college student fuck him for a change, which is just... stupid. There is literally no character development for either of them. We're not given an inkling of an idea why they've gotten into this relationship, or who they are, or how they relate to the plot, or why we should care. Skip this pretentious, artsy crap.

The third film is entitled, "Davy & Stu". It's directed by Soman Chainani and written by Anton Dudley, and it features two young Scottish boys (Nicholas Cutro & Travis Walters) meeting up and discussing their lives for a bit before revealing that they're lovers. Essentially it's a character study, as we glean information about their places in life based on their dialogue.

"Davy & Stu" is decent, but it's nothing special. The cinematography is a step-up from "Doorman", but it's nowhere near as good as "Bugcrush". It takes place in a bog though, so it's full of very nice, bright green scenery. However, I just wasn't drawn in, really. The dialogue between the two kids is interesting, but it didn't blow me away, and the dialogue itself is horrendously stilted and unrealistc. The two actors do their best with what they have, and admittedly they're not bad, but in the end the film just made me go "meh". The plot is also nothing special. It feels like the fact that they're in a gay relationship is meant to be a twist, but since I watched it in a fucking collection of gay short films, it's not much of a twist, is it? I really can't say much about this one. You might like it, you might not.

The fourth, and final film is entitled "Heartland", and it's written and directed by Mark Christopher. It's told primarily with narration and still photographs, and it's about a young man named H.G. Gudmanson (Corey Sorenson), who has to return to his hometown in Iowa to help his father on the family farm. Tensions arise once word spreads that he is gay.

Again, like "Davy & Stu", it left me with a profound feeling of indifference. The plot has been done over and over and over again, and if you don't see the big reveal coming, you're kind of stupid. Telling the story through photos and narration is slightly interesting, but the narration from Sorenson is incredibly stiff and unnatural, and the mixing isn't very well done, it's very hissy. When there are actual live-action bits to watch, Sorenson isn't bad, which makes me wonder why his narration was so terrible. But overall, it's just not that amazing. I was also slightly offended that even though H.G. has a boyfriend back in New York where he lives, he still lusts after someone else on his dad's farm. But that's another conversation for another time. "Heartland" is all right, it has potential, but is ultimately boring, predictable, and badly acted.

Overall, while it's an incredibly interesting idea to package a bunch of gay shorts together, there is a very, very high bad-to-good ratio for this specific collection. "Bugcrush" is the only really excellent one with it's taut direction, beautiful cinematography and macabre story, but the rest of the films are either badly directed crap ("Doorman") or just ineffective, slightly boring pieces that may have something interesting there, but nothing substantial enough to be compelling ("Davy & Stu", "Heartland"), which is sad, because "Bugcrush" was so great that I was really looking forward to what came next. It seems that I'll still be searching for that one great gay film. As for you, well, if you already don't like gay films then you've pretty much wasted your time, but if you're interested, check it out on Netflix Instant Watch. Don't expect anything spellbinding, though.

"The Innocents" (1961)

• Directed by: Jack Clayton
• Written by: William Archibald & Truman Capote
• Starring: Deborah Kerr, Martin Stephens, Pamela Franklin, Megs Jenkins, Michael Redgrave, Peter Wyngarde & Clytie Jessop

     Lately I've been becoming very intrigued by ghost stories. There's something about the dark, Victorian mysteriousness of them that endears them to me... and scares me out of my wits. However, "The Innocents" is not a ghost story.

  "The Innocents", adapted from Henry James's 1898 novella "The Turn of the Screw", tells the story of an English governess (Deborah Kerr) who has been tasked with taking care of a disinterested uncle's children. At first, things go well, but soon strange things start happening, the children start exhibiting abnormal behavior, 

and the governess begins seeing ghostly apparitions. But are the ghosts really ghosts?

  This is the question that the film asks. It presents us with what, at first glance, seems to be an ordinary ghost story and then asks us to dig deeper, to question not only the actions of the governess, but her reality and sanity as well. The ghosts could be real, but then again the governess could merely be insane. It's this complex, intriguing theme that makes the film rise above the trappings of generic ghost fiction.

This psychological undertaking is supplemented by the film's airtight, beautiful and even haunting atmosphere. It opens very coldly, with a chilling child's song, floating ethereally over the 20th Century Fox logo. It perfectly prepares the viewer for the tone of the film. Not only that, but it's framed by the late Freddie Francis, and it's one of the most effective, beautifully shot films I've ever seen. Every shot looks like a painting and it infuses the film with an evocative, dreamlike atmosphere.

As well as the simple visual look, the hauntings themselves are very subtly portrayed. Oh yes, we do see some apparitions, but when we do it's not about jump scares and gory imagery. Instead, the apparitions simply serve to unnerve and disturb the viewer, despite the fact that they never appear to do anything menacing. We only catch fleeting glimpses of them out of the corner of our eye, or far away, dressed in black, exhibiting some kind of feeling of danger, but as to what sort of danger we're not exactly sure. The fact that the cast is very minimal also contributes to this atmosphere, making the house itself feel claustrophobic and lonely.

However, at the heart of the film is the question of the governess' sanity. Throughout we are provided with many visions of the ghosts, but it is implied that only the governess sees them. However, we are also provided with evidence to the contrary, as it seems that the children have some knowledge of the ghosts as well as learning vulgar language that they couldn't have possibly learned anywhere else. Just when we think that we have figured out the mystery, the film throws something else our way to make us rethink our position. It leaves the film with an air of uncertainty and it's not easy to decide what exactly happened. The film is much stronger for going this route, in that it explains basic things like the history of the house and the people in it, but it doesn't decide the outcome of the story for us, it's left up to the audience. It's very rare that a psychological thriller such as this leaves so much of the actual thinking to the viewer.

Neither does the film provide us with any easy answers to the characters. They're not black and white slates, attempting to sway our emotions one way or another, they feel like very real and confused individuals. Should we feel sorry for the governess because of her increasingly manic actions that drive everyone away from her, or should we hate her because of it? And what about the children? Are they just little brats that are dirty schemers, or is there something more to them, something sadder? Like a lot of great films, it doesn't tell us what they are or how to feel, it simply presents us with the facts and asks us to make our own conclusions.

Much of this complex characterization comes from the actors themselves, who play their roles with a terrifying amount of conviction. I've never actually seen Deborah Kerr in anything before, other than "The King and I", but her role as the governess is so amazing that it makes me angry! She can go from lilting and sweet to manic and crazy at the drop of a hat, and yet she avoids seeming like an exaggerated parody of a crazy person. Instead her (percieved) insanity is depicted very convincingly, like a woman who is merely frustrated and has been pushed too far, rather than someone who has had too much sugar and cocaine.

I also can't forget the two children, Nora and Miles (Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin, respectively) who are so chillingly creepy and convincing that at times I find it impossible to believe that they were only 11 when they made this film. I've never seen any child actors that can even approach their talents in this film. Stephens in particular is a highlight, with his icy stare and his erudite manner of speech that seems far too mature for someone of his age. Everyone in this film is perfectly cast, and it's some of the best acting I've seen in a film.

But there's more to the plot of this film as well... there is some intriguing psycho-sexual tension going on. Throughout the film Miles is slightly flirtatious and playful with the governess, and this reaches a head when, while putting Miles to bed one night, he kisses her full on the lips, and the governess responds not with revulsion, but instead her eyes fly wide open and she seems taken aback, like a lover who has been kissed for the first time. In the opening scene of the film she tells their uncle that she loves children. What does she mean by this? Does she merely enjoy the company of children, or is there something a bit more sinister going on? It's quite possible considering that Truman Capote, well-known for infusing his works with psycho-sexual undertones, had a hand in writing the screenplay.

After the film's chilling and frankly disturbing climax, "The Innocents" ends just as it begins: the governess, hands clasped, beseeching the heavens. "I must protect the children," she says. And this very rewarding, very unnerving film shows just how far she will go to do that. This is not only a great horror film or a great ghost story, it's simply a great FILM in every sense of the word. The fact that the Academy chose to completely ignore this masterpiece is a crime of the deepest order. Seek this film out and watch it in the dead of night, you won't come out disappointed.

"Carnival of Souls" (1962)

 

• Director: Herk Harvey
• Written by: Herk Harvey & John Clifford
• Starring: Candance Hilligoss, Frances Feist, Sidney Berger & Art Ellison

     There was a huge boom in independent horror in the 60s. The most well-known of these indie excursions is, of course, George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" from 1968, which launched an entire subgenre of horror films. However, there are other horror films, not as well-regarded and certainly not as well-known, but definitely deserve to be mentioned and talked about. The film that I'm speaking of today is "Carnival of Souls", an intriguing, strange horror film from 1962.
     "Carnival of Souls" begins in a fairly normal fashion, with some guys challenging some gals to a car race. The girls oblige, but racing on a narrow bridge is a bad decision, and the girls' car crashes over the edge, careening into the river below. Just as the police think that they'll never find the car or any of the survivors, Mary Henry (Candance Hilligoss), the lone survivor of the crash, climbs out of the river. Her friends all dead and heartbroken from the guilt of being the only survivor, she becomes a drifter, buying an apartment in town and generally being very reclusive. The only times she goes out are to go to church to play the organ.
     However, soon she is plagued by demonic hallucinations, feverish visions of a man with dark eyes coming after her. Over time, the hallucinations become more and more frequent, and Mary's frequent attempts to reach out to people are in vain. Soon she finds herself drawn, as if in a trance, to an old run-down pavilion, nearby the scene of the crash...
     During the first few minutes of the film I found myself unimpressed by the incredibly low production values and the atrocious acting, but as the film dug deeper and the story grew more and more outrageous and complex I found myself compelled by it's atmosphere. It starts off with time moving in a relatively ordinary way, but as Mary's hallucinations become more intense, the film in turn becomes more and more surreal, and time begins to dilate. Toward the end, we aren't sure of what reality is, and if we can trust all that we're seeing.
     Dialogue becomes incredibly sparse, and Mary begins to (what we are assumed to believe) shift in and out of existence, experiencing strange, dreamlike periods where nobody can see her and she cannot hear them. There's a particularly great sequence where she spends almost 5-10 minutes simply wandering around the town in a daze, reaching out to anybody who will listen to her. But of course, no one can. It's astounding.
     But there is so much more to the film than atmosphere. It's frought with evocative Christological imagery, such as close-ups of stained glass windows adorned with priests, hands held up to the heavens. Music also plays an important role in the film. Mary is a professional organist, and as such the entire organ score becomes darker and darker as the film goes on, carrying us into her psychological despair. Mary's attempts to get closer to people become more and more desperate and saddening, and it endears her to us, despite Hilligloss' hammy acting.
     She and the audience are lead to ask themselves where she belongs, and it is something that Mary struggles with throughout the film. We aren't sure if she is merely suffering from emotional trauma or if she is actually not meant to exist on this plane. One of the things I also find incredibly effective is the fact that we are not told what exactly the beings that she keeps envisioning are. Whether they are mere stress-triggered hallucinations or something more, something not of this world, is left up to the viewer.
     The demons, or hallucinations, or whatever they may be also offer some incredibly chilling moments, especially during sequences where Mary keeps seeing the same ghoul with blackened eyelids, simply staring at her. Every time he is on screen he evokes chills, and it only gets better toward the end when Mary travels back to the pavilion and witnesses a horrifying, hypnotical dance of the dead between many different ghouls.
     In the end, the movie closes on an incredibly bleak and uncertain note, and I'm not entirely sure what the director, Herk Harvey, was attempting to say. Perhaps he was asking us to question our own mortality, or maybe he was offering us an experience in surreality, to show us what it may be like to be a wandering soul, lost in a sea of the living. Are the demons that pursue Mary truly evil for wanting to take her to eternal rest? Perhaps not.
     When any supposedly "low grade" horror movie can force us to confront things like this, and can suck us in so thoroughly with nothing but a spellbinding atmosphere, I think it deserves points. If you ever get the chance to see this film, please try to look past it's technological shortcomings, hokey acting, and somewhat clunky dialogue and instead look into the deeper, more meaningful heart of the film. At only 76 minutes, it's quick, and it sure is worth the ride. Just be careful... the bridge is out.

"Green Lantern: First Flight" (2009)

• Directed by: Lauren Montgomery
• Written by: Alan Burnett
• Starring: Christopher Meloni, Victor Garber, Michael Madsen  

     Being a kind of scrawny, ropy geeky kid, I love superhero stories. Modern mythology, complex works worthy of critical examination or simple pulpy nonsense, whatever you think of them as, they're certainly an inimitable part of American pop culture. Since I like superhero stories, it follows that I also really admire the catalogue of the DC Animated Universe. When I was a kid I used to watch "Batman: The Animated Series" every Saturday morning, and when I watched the show again as I got older I grew to appreciate it on a deeper level. If it wasn't for the standard that was set by Bruce Timm's creation, it's not outlandish to say that television animation would not have become as sophisticated as it so quickly did back in the 90s.
    While we no longer have any of the DCAU series on our television screens anymore, we DO have the availability of the DCU Animated Original Movies series, which are direct-to-video animated films that tell various stories culled from the DC Comics library. "Green Lantern: First Flight" is the third-and-a-half film I've seen from this line (I saw "Justice League: The New Frontier", "Batman: Gotham Knight" and the last half of "Under the Red Hood", but not the full film), and I have to say that if this is the standard that the Original Movies line has set then I'm plenty happy with it.
    "Green Lantern: First Flight" tells the story of Hal Jordan's (Christopher Meloni) first mission as a Green Lantern. After receiving the Lantern ring from dying alien Abin Sur (Richard McGonagle), Jordan is swept up by the Guardians, the orchestrators of the Green Lantern Corps., and is set to begin training under fellow Lantern Sinestro (Victor Garber). Sinestro and Jordan set out to find Abin Sur's killer, and uncover a scheme involving double-crossing, murder, and betrayal.
    While the film tells a good story, the main problem with it is that it is simply too short. This is certainly not the fault of writer Alan Burnett, who wrote many great episodes of "Batman: TAS". Since pretty much all of the DC Animated Movies have to stay under 80 minutes (I assume for budgetary reasons), the writer's are often forced to speed things up in order to get to the point. Unfortunately, "First Flight" suffers as a result.
    Jordan's origin story is finished within the opening credits, it goes by way too fast. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, after all, they covered his origin fairly thoroughly in "The New Frontier". What bothered me was the way it was portrayed. Jordan doesn't question the situation at all, here is this dying, bright red alien in front of him in a weird suit, offering him a ring. Jordan simply says "All right", and puts it on. I would have made Jordan more inquisitive, and I would have made Sur's death more meaningful. For example, instead of just saying, "All right," Jordan could have said, "Who are you?" or "What...?" and Sur could have cut in with, "Please, you will understand, I don't have much time," or something along those lines. That way the origin could have more impact and we could have sped through to the opening credits on time.
    It also doesn't help that once the credits are over, we're put smack dab into the middle of Jordan flying through the night sky, fully clad in his Green Lantern getup and seeming fairly comfortable with it. It doesn't flow well from the opening credits. It leaves us to assume that he's just suddenly gotten used to his powers, and while we can guess that he experimented with the ring a few times and grew comfortable with his newfound status, the fact that we don't at least see it makes it seem a little unconvincing and rushed. I would think that someone who didn't know Lantern's origin story would be taken off-guard. The least they could have done was put a "Several weeks later..." title on the bottom of the screen. Or, better yet, we could have seen a montage of Jordan learning to use the ring over the opening credits. Just something to better prepare us for the story.
    One other thing that suffers due to the short run-time is the characters. They get almost no development, which I understand since this film focuses on Jordan, but since his fellow Lantern's play a pretty important role in the film it would have been nice to get a little more on them. A prime example of this is the fact that all of the other Lantern's immediately hate Jordan for seemingly no reason. We are told that they have a distrust for humans and that they were all close to Abin Sur and resent him taking his place, but that seems like shaky motivation, and since we aren't given sufficient reason as to what made Sur so great, it's not very believable. But as I said, this is due to the short run time and is probably not the fault of the writer.
    The best thing about the film is the first half of the story, as we see Sinestro and Jordan search for Abin Sur's killer. It takes the form of a pseudo-mystery story as they scour nightclubs and interrogate criminals. It's exotic and interesting, we get to see lots of different kinds of aliens, and it reinforces the idea that the Green Lantern Corps. are basically Space Police, which is a fun concept that I wish we could have seen more of.
    The second half of the story, about Sinestro's betrayal of the Guardians, is less interesting because as soon as we get to this point it quickly devolves into a by-the-numbers superhero film, with Sinestro playing a fairly generic villain and having a generic climactic fight scene with Green Lantern (this climax, by the way, uses a really, really cheap deus ex machina that almost killed the film for me). This is disappointing, because Sinestro clearly has potential for development, the problem with this is that, as I said, the filmmakers obviously wanted to quickly get to the meat of the story, and consequently Sinestro just becomes a fairly uninteresting, mustache-twirling baddie.
    However, the film certainly isn't bad, and it's pace doesn't completely destroy the film. In fact, since the film moves so quickly, it's fairly entertaining and exciting. The film is at it's best when it plays the part of a high-flying science-fiction story, where we get to catch a look at all of the various aliens that populate the Green Lantern universe (and the Corps. itself). The voice acting is also pretty good, Christopher Meloni stands out as a very snarky Green Lantern, and Victor Garber is incredibly intense and slightly creepy as Sinestro. Michael Madsen also isn't bad as Kilowog, the giant, pig-like alien of the Green Lantern Corps.
    One of the other things that surprised me about the film was it's tone. It's pretty dark and violent for a PG-13 animated movie. Not only do we see some aliens doing drugs in a bar, we also meet an alien prostitute, and on top of that a few characters get killed in pretty violent ways. One in particular actually gets gored by a bed of spikes, and when the character dies they slide off with some nice squelchy sound effects. Two other characters get their necks snapped, and another gets his hand broken after Kilowog steps on it. There's also some curse words tossed around.
    I'm really happy that they're going this route with the Animated Films, because now that they're not tethered by being on children's television they have a lot more creative freedom, and this film shows that they're using that to their advantage. Besides, any animation that is willing to push the envelope gets kudos from me. Too often animation is considered a kid's medium, so it's encouraging to see that some filmmakers are willing to work past that stigma.
    The animation is also above-average for a direct-to-video film. However, there is some god-awful CGI in parts, and at times the characters move a little bit choppily. The general style is also a bit too "anime" and angular, but otherwise it's nice. In particular the animation is very elaborate and well-rendered during the fight scenes, which are exciting and well-choreographed.
    Overall, "First Flight" is a well-rendered, fun superhero film that unfortunately suffers from a short run time and a by-the-numbers plot. If you like superhero films then I'd pick it up, but if not then this film isn't really going to make you look at the genre any differently.

"The Expendables" (2010)

 

• Director: Sylvester Stallone
• Written by: Dave Callaham & Sylvester Stallone
• Starring: Almost Every Action Hero Ever

    Wow, "The Expendables"! A modern action film starring a whole bunch of big name action stars! I couldn't wait to see this film, the concept sounded badass. I mean, Stallone and Dolph Lundgren, together again? Jet Li? Bruce Willis? ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER? If this movie didn't seem interesting to you, you must have been a preening nancy boy! How could they go wrong?
    Oh... they go wrong. They go very, very wrong. They go wrong on so many levels that it should be a fucking sin, and Stallone and the screenwriters should be cast into the most horrible, depraved pit of Hell for unleashing this cinematic travesty upon the world. My god...
    The plot... shit, was there a plot? I have no idea. It has something to do with some made up island in Venezuela or something, and Stallone and his team of bulky action heroes are supposed to go in and kill some guy that was a former CIA agent, and there's also some stuff about the leader of the island and his hot daughter... I don't know, who gives a shit? The film is so fucking convoluted and confusing with all kinds of intersecting plotlines and boring "political intrigue" that I almost went into a coma. Characters disappear and then reappear, they do things that don't make any sense, and there are so many ancillary characters that I have no idea who is who or how they completely fit into the plot.
    But who cares about the plot, really? It's an action film, right? And it has almost every major star ever! Well, you're wrong my friend. Yes, every name that is on the poster make an appearance in the film. However, the core "Expendables" group is made up of Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Randy Couture, and Terry Crews. Everyone else, like Steve Austin, Dolph Lundgren, and Mickey Rourke, are either enemies or simple cameos.
    Still, that would be fine, but you know who the film decides to focus on? Statham and Stallone. That's it. They get the most screentime, the most backstory, the most action scenes, they get almost the entire film. The rest of the Expendables, you know, THE GROUP THAT THE FILM IS NAMED AFTER, get 20 minutes or less of screentime, and when they are on screen, all they get is the occasional one-liner to vomit out during a firefight. The film is basically Stallone sucking his own cock.
    Dolph Lundgren by far gets it the worst. The amazingly cool action star who was fucking Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV" becomes a villain, betraying Stallone. On top of that, he gets killed after Stallone shoots him! All in all, he has about 30 minutes of screen time, granted, a bit more than the rest of the group, but still! I'd say becoming evil and getting fucking killed is much worse than simply being one of the background characters (besides, who cares about no-names like Randy Couture?).
    Stallone obviously has some sort of personal vendetta out for Lundgren. He defeated him in "Rocky IV", what more does he want? Defeating him AGAIN at this point, 30 years later is just a kick in the balls for Lundgren, who by all accounts is a nice and charismatic guy.
    I'm sure you were also excited about Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, right? Well you can fuck off for all the movie cares! Willis and Schwarzenegger literally get 5 minutes of screentime. I can deal with that, Schwarzenegger is still governor and is probably very busy and Willis probably had other projects going on at the time. But you know what they do during this 5-minute cameo? They fucking talk. Two of the most badass, quintissential action stars get a cameo in one of the biggest action films of the year and they fucking talk. Seeing the trio of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Willis together is also incredibly surreal. All of these big action stars just standing there, talking like they're old chums. It feels less like they're playing characters and more like they're playing themselves, especially when Stallone takes a jab at Schwarzenegger by saying, "He wants to be president."
    That's one of the major problems with the film as well. It has a hell of a lot of star power with some of the biggest action heroes ever, but it's not executed very well. As I said, the screen time for each star is incredibly discordant, but they're also each shooting out one-liners, as they would if they were in their own solo films. But this just comes off as incredibly strange, like an action hero "Celebrity Deathmatch", if you will, with all of these big names fighting for supremacy, battling for the most amount of one-liners until they accidentally break the fucking universe from one-liner overload.
    Again, this would be fine if the dialogue had any sort of competency, even to the point of being so lame it's awesome. But no, it doesn't even have that. It's beyond bad-good, it's so far beyond bad-good that it's created it's own separate universe created especially for itself. I will share some of the lovely exchanges in this film:
    There's a scene right after Statham has just shot up a bunch of bad guys with a gun. Stallone turns to him and says, "That was some good shooting." Statham responds with, "That was a statement!" I'm not fucking with you guys. That is real, actual dialogue from the film. It's not even a one-liner, it's Statham explaining what Stallone just did. He might as well have just said, "THAT WAS A SENTENCE."
    There are also some bits of dialogue that just don't make any sense, like they were trying to make a one-liner but gave up halfway through, pulled a shot of tequila and said, "FUCK IT". For example, there's a scene where Terry Crews is showing off his weaponry to Randy Couture. He says something about how if his gun can't do the job, then his knife can. Couture responds with, "You should be my doctor." What?! What does that even mean?! It's like they were talking to two completely different characters on two completely different dimensional planes and the camera somehow caught the two dimensions in transit.
    The film is full of completely retarded things like this. Even the character names sound like something a 12 year-old with Down's Syndrome would come up with. Do you like a bunch of badass, grizzled action heroes that could rip your face off? Well then get ready for such awe-inspiring names as "Hale Caesar", "Lee Christmas", and "Yin Yang". Again, those are actual character names, they are completely real. They named a fucking Asian character "Yin Yang". Words fail me.
    "But wait," I can hear you saying in my head, "surely the film has a lot of great action scenes, right? I mean, with all of that action hero star power there must be some great stuff, right?" Okay, you want to know what the action is like? You really want to know? Well, I hope you like ShakyCam! LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF FUCKING SHAKYCAM. IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE SCENE.
    The cinematography is some of the worst I've ever seen in a film. It's like they hired a spastic retard to control the camera at the exact same time there was a planet-splitting earthquake. I get that they were trying to go for a gritty, docudrama style, but why the hell does the film need it? Especially a film with a bunch of complex action scenes where it's integral that we know what the fuck is going on?! Half the time I couldn't tell what I was looking at or who was fighting who, and it didn't help that the color scheme in the film consisted of black, grey, and puke green. It literally looked like somebody vomited on the lens.
    Overall, "The Expendables" is a great example of wasted potential. It's one of the coolest-sounding action movies ever, I thought that there was no possible way they could ever fuck this up. Well, they did. The film has so much wasted potential you could compress it into a small star. The fact that they could screw something up with this much potential has pretty much completely destroyed my faith in Hollywood. Granted, it was slim before, what with "Avatar" making 2 billion dollars and whatnot, but this is just the lowest of the low. Hollywood has become like the crazy drug addict that is sucking dick for money. It has no shame and is willing to do anything at all to get some money. Fuck this bullshit. Fuck it to hell.

"Conan the Barbarian" (1982)

This movie poster, by the way, is illustrated by Frank Frazetta, a noted fantasy artist who illustrated many of the Conan stories. It kicks so much ass I don't even believe it.

• Director: John Milius
• Screenwriters: John Milius & Oliver Stone (wow!)
• Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Earl Jones, Sandahl Bergman, Ben Davidson, Mako

     I go crazy for old pulp-style adventure and fantasy films. The "Flash Gordon" serials, hell, the "Flash Gordon" movie, "Indiana Jones", I love them all. It also goes without saying that one of my favorite writers is Robert E. Howard, who originally wrote the short stories that this film, "Conan the Barbarian", was consequently based on. The stories are brilliant. Gritty, dark, pulpy, and adventurous, with a slick, poetic prose style.
     I love the mythical "Hyborian Age" that the Conan stories take place in as well, full of shape changing demons, grizzled barbarians and intense violence. It's a world unlike any other. Naturally, with the author having such a high pedigree, I had high expectations for the "Conan the Barbarian" film. I had heard much about it but never really had the chance to watch it until, on a whim, I purchased it from Dimple Records and watched it one night with friends.
     Concerning the plot, it "borrows" scenes and elements from Howard's stories without adapting any one story, so a lot of the character's backstories are changed. Conan (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a young Cimmerian boy who is stolen away and made into a slave after his family's tribe is murdered and ransacked. Many years later, he escapes and meets several friends who help guide him to his family's killer, the mad Snake Man cultist named Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones). Can Conan vanquish the man who stole his life and bring peace to his existence?
     Yes, he can, with lots and lots of bloody murder. I had forgotten that this film was rated "R", and for an early-80s', non-slasher film, holy hell, it lives up to that pedigree. Conan practically kills the entire country, and there is lots of big, bright, wet bloodspray, it's beautiful. I was really happy to find out that they carried over this hard, gritty tone from the stories, sparing no violence or sex. It may not contribute much to the plot, but it does wonders for the overall tone.
     Plus, the fight scenes are incredibly well-choreographed. Conan leaps off of walls and performs elaborate sword spins, just mowing down everyone in sight. The gore effects are also incredibly good for the time, my favorite sequence being when Conan decapitates a giant snake. It doesn't do any pussy cutting away, and it actually takes Conan several hits to decapitate it. It's incredibly ballsy, especially since we're talking about animal killing here, which is generally frowned upon in films.
     While the plot itself is paper-thin, there's just something about the atmosphere and the high production values of the whole film that draws me in. The film employs many huge, ornate set pieces, and there is little dialogue in the film. Often it simply involves Conan traveling somewhere, fighting someone, or taking in the landscape, and it's very hypnotic. Of particular note is a fantastic scene where Conan's lover, Valeria, tries to ward off demons from his supposedly dead body.
     The film's atmosphere is also gritty, but not like the "Clash of the Titans" reboot, where it disengages us from the fantasy in favor of the grittiness. In this instance the grittiness actually enhances the film, because the fantastic elements are nicely balanced with the grittiness, and it's all very believably presented, especially considering the source material.
     However, one of the things that bothers me about the film is it's aforementioned plot. While it borrows the general feel and scenes of some of Robert E. Howard's stories, none of it is particularly compelling. Which is incredibly disappointing, because Howard could spin some damn fine tales, full of intense prose and deep, intriguing characters.
     Because the plot of the film is so paper thin, the characters don't have much to them, and Arnold Schwarzenegger's "performance" (if you want to call it that) simply makes Conan look like a brutish, unintelligent ape, which is a far cry from the literary Conan, and it doesn't make the character particularly intriguing, which is sad because he's the centerpiece of the film.
     The rest of the actors do fine. They're not particularly good, but they deliver their lines in that early-80s, articulate fantasy vibe, which I find endearing in a cheesy sort of way. There are some noted actors in it though, like Mako in all his hammy glory as The Wizard, and Max von Sydow, who has a very brief cameo as King Osric.
     James Earl Jones though... man, he steals every scene that he's in. He doesn't even say much, really, but he doesn't need to. He has incredibly piercing, steely blue eyes (which I think are effects, but if not, holy shit) that draw you into his gaze, almost hypnotizing you to do his will. He's so icy and cold, nonchalantly slicing people's heads off. He also has a great monologue toward the end about fearing the dark. Oh, and he turns into a giant snake for some reason. But who cares, it's FUCKING COOL.    
     Supplementing the beautiful visuals and dark, fantastic atmosphere is the brilliant score by Basil Poledouris. Reportedly Dino DeLaurentiis (the producer) wanted a pop score, but director John Milius advised against it, and I'm damn glad that he did. The score is bombastic and sweeping, with a particularly fantastic cue inspired by Prokofiev's "The Battle on the Ice" from his score for "Alexander Nevsky". It plays a huge part in establishing the atmosphere of the film, giving it life.
     There really isn't much reason to see this film if you're one of those "normal" people. But if you're a kind of geeky fantasy nerd like myself, you'll probably be plenty surprised by "Conan". While there isn't much of a plot, I can't help but feel that there is something about the movie that draws it above a simple B-grade fantasy film. It's got great production values, for one thing. It's beautifully shot and scored. It's gritty, violent and sexual. It has some fantastic atmosphere and some great acting from James Earl Jones... I can't explain why, but I love it, even though it doesn't stick to the canon of the short stories. If you're into this kind of stuff, check it out.