Wednesday, October 27, 2010
FRED's YouTube videos are the most epic failed thing that has ever existed in the history of the universe. FRED screams in your face, jumps around, runs around, screams some more, cries, whines, screams random things, sings stupid songs, screams and then screams more. It adds up to nothing. Its the most unfunniest thing I have ever seen and I have seen every episode of FULL HOUSE. I have never seen anyone completely miss the point of what comedy is or how to make people laugh. There are no laughs to be found in his bouncing crazy off the wall personality driven videos. His voice is annoyingly high so I guess that is suppose to be funny. He says a lot of stupid random stuff in your face so I guess that is suppose to be funny too. Each video has a theme or title like FRED GOES TO THE DENTIST, FRED GOES SWIMMING, FRED RUNS FOR PRESIDENT. You can imagine what each video is about. I keep looking but I haven't found one that says FRED GOES TO THE MORGUE. Hopefully that one is just a news clip of FRED's sudden demise. Ah, an old man can dream, can't he?
FRED isn't the only one. Let us not forget about JIMMY (who claims be the first before FRED), JOSH and WILL WORTMAN. Man, if you want to see sad I suggest watching WILL WORTMAN. That guy puts out videos begging to have more friends on YouTube. In fact he has a video talking about giving up his character because he is getting picked on at school. That's kind of funny but not in the way he wants it to be. JIMMY is more vulgar and will be some kind of rapist when he gets older. But don't worry. JIMMY is lame enough to become just as popular if not more so. People nowadays admire and want to become the stupid. They will watch shows glorifying idiots. Have you ever heard of JERSEY SHORE or GLEE? JOSH parodies FRED exactly claiming to be a fan of FRED's but I get the impression he wants to be bigger than FRED using a character that he didn't create. Also I swear JOSH was in "black face" in one video so I am just going to accuse him of being a racist. The point is that they are all the same. They are kids with a video camera. They point the camera at their face, make "funny" expressions, talk weird and try to be as random as hell. They are not unique. There are several others doing the same dang thing constantly trying to out due each other in the field of extreme absurdity.
The kids love these guys. Look at all the positive feed back on their YouTube pages. With the exception of WILL (sorry man, please use this exclusion as an excuse to kill yourself) these YouTube "sensations" are considered the finest comedians the new generation of youth has to offer. They have success. FRED was on the Disney show ICarly and now has his own movie. Can you guess the title of it? FRED! He also has over a million subscribers on his YouTube channel which makes him the first to accomplish such a goal. At one time he had the most subscribers too. JIMMY has a lot of fans too but no movie. I do believe I saw him on Reelz Channel on the show Movie Mob where Internet people give their reviews of movies and if the audience likes them they vote them to stay. I didn't bother researching JOSH because I couldn't stand anymore of this crap and I am sure WILL WORTMAN is dead in a ditch somewhere.
What is my reaction to FRED? Well, I get a sad look on my face. Depression sets in and I start thinking about the path I chose in this life. I contemplate the decisions I made that led me to this point where I gained the horrible knowledge of FRED. Maybe I should have gone to college and become a scientist. Or maybe I should have just used my computer for its two primary functions. Porn and taxes. All I am saying is that I have the exact opposite reaction to what this kind of "humor" is suppose to produce. I am like old people in the late 1960's that grew up watching Abbot & Costello or Mickey Rooney and they see a SCOOBY-DOO cartoon for the first time. Seeing a crime solving dog in a mystery van that can almost talk and had a slacker hippie for a best friend was probably a big time culture shock to the elderly. It probably caused them spit out their dentures in a vain attempt to say the "F" word for the first time in their eighty year life span. We really need to put a stop to these guys. I want to keep my dentures squarely in my mouth, thank you.
I don't know. Maybe you think I am making a big deal about this. After all I am a loser with nothing better to do than bitch on the Internet about people I have never even met before. FRED mania couldn't possibly take over the popular culture. That is impossible. But later on tonight after you have brushed your teeth with your FRED tooth brush, and put on your FRED pajamas look at yourself in the mirror. When the shame sets in then you will know I was right.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Most of the events of PA2 takes place a couple of months before PA1. A mother brings home their new born son, Hunter from the hospital. The mother (I don't remember her name) is the sister to the girl (Katie aka BOOBS) from PA1. There is the connection. That is also my biggest gripe. PA2 feels the need to have a back story to PA1 which makes the whole movie feel like just a movie and not real life. There are a couple of scenes where the sisters talk (or try not to talk) about their past dealing with possible seances. These scenes feel like actors acting and not real people. Its not bad acting but it feels unrealistic. In fact the mother's step daughter does her own research and thinks that maybe their grandmother made some pact with a demon which may be the cause of all this mayhem. This time the demon is after Hunter. Its a little too Hollywood plot to swallow for the real world. The original had two actors we had never seen before. This gave the film a sense of realism. The actors felt like real people that we can relate to and care about. They didn't look like they were acting at all. PA2 suddenly becomes sort of a generic made for t.v. movie that rips off PA1 but doesn't understand what made the first one so great. I think I even recognize the dad from an old sci-fi channel t.v. show. Again making the actors seem like actors and not real people with a real paranormal problem.
I don't like the fact that this isn't a stand alone story with another family having paranormal problems. Its too familiar with familiar faces and familiar events. Foot steps, opening and closing doors, banging sounds have all been done before just to keep PA2 in step with the first one. The footsteps gag isn't as impressive here as it is in the first one. There really is only maybe a couple of genuinely scary moments you won't see in part 1. CABINETS! Other than that you have seen it before. The mother gets dragged not once but twice in the same scene because its a sequel you gotta do things twice as much, I guess.
In PARANORMAL ACTIVITY part 1 they find a picture in the attic of Katie when she was young. This is particularly scary because Katie says they lost all the photos of her in a house fire along time ago. The photo is even scorched on the edges. This means the demon has been following her for a long time. It has always been with her and now it wants her. It actually rescued a photo of her from the fire! PA2 ruins all of this with the same photo being found in an old photo album and the dad lights it on fire in some ritual (why would you film that) to transfer the demon out of the mother and into Katie. Suddenly the demon no longer has a relationship with Katie and is merely doing whatever it is doing for a rituals sake.
A simple home becoming a terrifying place to live is performed perfectly in PA1. There is a steady build up of small scares turning into complete terror with a grand in your face finale. It was scary as hell. Looking down a dark hallway never seemed so unnerving. PA2 tries to do the same with all the security cameras but doesn't truly succeed. We see more but most of the time nothing happens at all. The movie is a little boring. I found myself not interested in what was going on. There also should have been more emphasis on the basement being scary like the attic in part 1. The ending isn't scary and repeats the ending of the first one but with more. Its too theatrical and leaves nothing to the imagination. You even see an on screen kill (actually two) which should have been done off screen to make it more scary than what it is.
Its funny. Here I am complaining about PA2 and yet the first thing I did when I got home was turn on all the lights. I am writing this review with the lights on and weary of the strange banging sounds that are coming from the kitchen right next to me. I can't say the movie isn't scary or didn't have an affect on me because it did. The problem is that its not as good as the first one or Blair Witch. I love these kinds of caught on video, p.o.v. style horror films. They truly are the scariest kind because you see (usually) only what the victims see. I just don't think we need sequels or prequels to stretch out a simple story. There are a couple of scenes in the trailer that aren't in the movie also. The baby is never taken out and left on the road and possessed Katie never appears in a doorway and just stands there. I hate it when trailers lie. If PA3 is made I hope it has nothing to do with the first two. Now if you will excuse me I need to go to my parents house and sleep in their bed so the ghosts don't get me.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
His name is Peter Pete Peterson or 'John' for short. He appears in the middle of the 13th book titled DING-DONG-DIDDLY DEAD IN DAVENPORT. He is a were-whale. And a pretty big sized whale at that. I think the book described his whale size as "bigger than a small car but smaller than a close up of Nicole Kidman in Moulon Rouge." Or something like that.
In the book about half way through Eric, Bill, and John are together with Suzuki at her house. Of course John too is in love with Suzuki. So you are expecting there to be like this four-way-bang-off-dealy to see who gets the girl but suddenly Brian (who is the new sheriff of Louisiana district and mayor of Tarantula Town) smashes in with some henchmen who are werewolves (and convenient nudists by the way) and kidnaps Suzuki. Fearing for Suzuki's life our three heroes set chase to the villains but first in order to help the best way he can John transforms into his giant whale form. The rest of the book is a detailed account of Eric and Bill fetching pales of water and dumping them on John to keep him alive because whales can't live on land.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
THE BURROWERS takes the Western and Horror genres and smashes them together like two brightly colored pieces of delicious tasty play dough. Four cowboy types form a posse to track down the missing family we see at the beginning of the movie that gets attacked by the title creatures, the Burrowers. Along the way our protagonists run across a military outfit run by a crazy Captain who thinks the family was taken to a reservation. The cowboys stay with them until they realize that the Captain is wrong and heads off in the right direction following a trail of strange shallow holes they find around every attack sight. The movie is about figuring out what these creatures are. For most of the movie everyone assumes that it was Indians that attacked the family. When one of them is attacked by the creatures they realize they are in over their head. By this time however its a little too late.
If you like Westerns you will like the attention to detail this film offers. The costumes and speech seem authentic even if maybe they aren't. The cinematography is beautiful but still shows a rough and unforgiving west. The actors seem like they are really in the west in olden times. With the exception of the stereotypical cliched racist Captain all the characters are well rounded and don't necessarily fill typical roles like villain and hero. The good guys aren't perfect. In fact the main character gets scared and pulls his gun shooting at some Indians that were trying to greet them peacefully. He not only made enemies of people that may know how to help, he gets one of his fellow posse members (the KURGAN from HIGHLANDER) killed. You never know if heros will be villains and you are not really sure who is going to live or die. This makes the film unpredictable. That's a good thing.
THE BURROWERS is a dark film. You don't really expect a western to be particularly disturbing but this one is. Its disturbing because the creatures like to paralyze you and bury you alive. The victims are right at the posses feet. All they have to do is look down. You can't sleep. All you do is wait until the little monsters get hungry and dig you up and eat you alive. Don't get caught by the Burrowers is all I am saying.
A few complaints I guess are in order. After all I did say THE BURROWERS was near perfect. The monsters get a little too CGI at the end but its only in a few shots. Also the way the main character finds out that the woman he was searching for is dead doesn't make much sense. At the beginning he gives her a trinket to show his intention of marriage. At the end these Indians show up with a collection of stuff they took off the victims of the Burrowers and of course he finds his trinket. Here is the problem. They find the Indians hundreds of miles away from the initial attack of the family. The Burrowers bury their prey right away. They don't drag them around underground for hundreds of miles. You have to assume that the Indians were near the ranch from the beginning of the movie and traveled all the way to meet up with the main characters at the end. It doesn't seem right to me. Maybe I missed something. I don't know. I have only seen it twice. Do the creatures travel? If they do why would they leave their food behind? THE BURROWERS also drags a little bit towards the end because you are not quite sure where this movie is going and you are not sure if the movie knows where it is going either. It is only a short time and the pace picks up at the finale.
THE BURROWERS is a movie that makes you think. Its a movie about two cultures not working together to defeat a common foe because of fears, prejudices and cultural differences. It kind of reminds me of the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD where the people in that movie get killed because no one cooperates right away with one another. Even though THE BURROWERS ends on kind of a downer you won't be disappointed watching this movie. Its a scary, smart good time. YEE-haw?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
What? Oh, yea. I am suppose to be reviewing LOST BOYS part 3: THE THIRST. Here I am talking about part 2 and you guys are freakin out because you are dieing to know if part 3 is worth the price of purchase. Yes, LOST BOYS part 3 is good. No, not a good well made movie that has a smart story and defines the current youth culture in a dark but fun filled horror movie. Its my kind of "good". Like part 2, LB3 is a terrible movie. The vampires are "hip-Euro-trash". They try so hard to be cool and menacing but instead they look like bad actors imitating vampires they saw on t.v. Every time they say anything I want to bury my head in shame for buying this movie on the release day. They present almost no threat whatsoever because anyone apparently can kill them. The movie tries hard to be funny and clever but rarely does it succeed. There are a lot of bad lines. Why are there samurai swords in this movie? Also Feldman gets this laser sighted grenade launcher that shoots holy water. It's really cool but of course he shoots a wall with it and that's about all you get to see of it being used. Kind of disappointing since they build it up a bit. But I can't help it. I loved this movie. Why?
Part of it is because of the nostalgia factor. The recently deceased Corey Haim is shown in flashbacks and there is a scene where Feldman is at Haim's grave where he says good-bye. This is art imitating life. Haim and Feldman were best friends in real life. It's strangely sad and gives the movie a small sense of depth that goes beyond the simple horror movie. Also because the movie tries hard to be funny there are a few clever moments that made me laugh and eased me into ignoring Feldman's craptacular acting and truly loving this movie. There are good moments in this film. The movie follows rule #1 in making a great vampire movie. KILL LOTS OF VAMPIRES! A lot of vamps die in part 3. I think my favorite is the way the last vampire died. I won't spoil it but I have never seen a vampire die like that before. Sort of. Of course there is a reference to TWILIGHT. It was almost a smart comparison between romantic sexy vampires of TWILIGHT and the murderous bloody vampires of the LOST BOYS. But the next scene though showed hot sexy chick vampires getting it on in hot sexy ways. Whoops.
If you can tolerate part 2 then you should really enjoy part 3. Unlike THE TRIBE, THE THIRST features Corey Feldman as the main character. He is the hero. He kills a few vamps and at times he is really funny. It may take about twenty minutes to actually like the movie but give it a chance. It will disappoint unless you like really bad movies that have heart. I do.
Monday, October 11, 2010
UNHAPPY ENDINGS, Question: Going into a horror movie what is the first thing you know before the movie even begins? Answer: The end. You already know that in the end the killer will get away and most likely win. This is my biggest problem with modern horror movies. They all think they are so clever by giving us the jump scare at the end after the monster is dead. At the last second BOOM! the monster jumps out of nowhere and eats every body's face off. The new NIGHTMARE did it, the new FRIDAY remake did it, THE COLLECTOR did it, the WRONG TURN part 3 did it, and so on and so on. When the monster is dead the movie is over. When the monster is still alive the story goes on but you don't get to see it because the movie is over. How does the monster die? That is what I really want to see. I want to see a great gruesome blood all over the place demise for the villain. That's why I love RETURN OF THE JEDI. At the end all the bad guys are dead so you know the story is finished. I believe most modern horror creators are heavily influenced by the seventies horror scene. Most love the movie TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE where Leatherface lives at the end. You can tell especially in the low budget horror genre that most film makers are paying some kind of homage to seventies horror by allowing their monsters to ultimately succeed in their endeavors. But all of them are doing it and it gets old real fast. I am a fan of the old school Universal and Hammer horror films. In those the Frankenstein monster or Dracula would die and the movie would be over right away. (Why would you continue to watch when the most interesting character is dead?) The way the monsters died is the best part. I love it when Dracula would die in the old Hammer films. You get this great shot of Dracula's face slowly decomposing and it would look fake as hell but awesome and strangely rewarding. That's because you want to see it happen. The modern horror scene seems to think we want to see the bad guys win. I don't at least. Modern horror is really missing out on great moments by letting the monster live.
WHERE HAVE ALL THE VAN HELSINGS AND BRUCE CAMPBELLS GONE? Horror movies need heroes. Iconic heroes. Somebody we can root for. Somebody with a shotgun that can shoot crazy yahoos in the face. Almost every horror film has a female lead who is weak and not very compelling to watch. She spends a good chunk of the story running around screaming "Help! Somebody please help!" When a policeman or security guard does show up to help they say stupid stuff like "Don't worry. Nothing is out there. No one is going to......Hey, why is there an axe in my back?" And then the girl is left on her own to hopefully get away but ultimately never does. It never becomes interesting because we have seen it all before. But what if you replace the innocent vulnerable teen with some tough guy that has an interesting personality and a drinking problem. Suddenly you want to find out what will happen to this guy. You want to know what would happen if this guy took on Jason Vorhees in an arm wrestling match or woke up with HELLRAISER in his bed. Hey, it worked in EVIL DEAD part 2.
VIRUS. I hate it when a vampire, werewolf, or zombie movie uses the word "VIRUS" to explain why they are vampires, werewolves or zombies. Its a terrible attempt to make the horror seem more believable and smart like "maybe this could happen." It does work for movies like 28 DAYS LATER where the horror is presented in a more realistic world. With movies like UNDERWORLD it just makes them boring. I like my crosses to work on vampires. Viruses cannot make you strong or give you the ability to drink blood or perform MATRIX slow-mo fight scenes where you can't hit the broadside of a barn with your guns blazing in each hand. (I am talking about UNDERWORLD here) Viruses liquefy your insides and make you poop out your intestines. Or they give you a runny nose. Whatever. Experiences may vary. They don't make you bigger, better, stronger or undead that's all I am saying.
RAPE. Not much to say here except stop putting it in your WRONG TURNS and HILLS HAVE EYES kind of movies. Its tasteless and obviously done for shock value. You see this more in twisted redneck cannibal family horror that "pays homage" to THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.
TWISTED REDNECK CANNIBAL FAMILY HORROR THAT "PAYS HOMAGE" TO THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I am tired to death of movies about some twenty-somethings that decide to go on a road trip but find themselves lost in a forest and seeks refuge at some creepy farm that is decorated with dead animal bones. The most recent one I watched was STANTON HILL or something like that and it had a crazy lady in a wheelchair,(obvious nod to TCM remake) a crazy mom (also in TCM remake) and a Leatherface wannabe that doesn't wear people's skin so its different and not a rip off. Yea, right. They can't even rip off the right version. I guess the original was too boring for them. There are so many of these movies and they are all the same that I can't even remember their names. That is how bad its gotten. Or maybe I just don't feel like proving my point by naming them because that would require me to do research and since I am not getting paid for any of this I don't feel like doing it.
DEEP MEANING MEANS DEEP HURTING. I hate it when a horror movie tries to be smart. I was watching this Spanish (I think) vampire movie about the end of the world. There are a few survivors and one of them happens to be a priest. That's not so bad except the main character is some young chick who must have been a former college student that wants to question the priest on how all this destruction can happen if God exists. Oh, brother. Instead of a movie where vampires eat humans then humans kill vampires we get arguing. "Where is God?" and "If God exists, why isn't He helping?" BLAH-BLAH-BLAH! Kill something already. Or at least get killed yourself. The movie will be shorter which is a good thing. It goes on and on making a relatively short movie seem like its three hours long. Keep it simple. A smart horror movie relys on how creative the story is, not how much can we talk for 90 minutes.
TORTURE PORN Lets not make movies about people being tied to chairs or tables with some maniac cutting on them for two hours. Its old, done, predictable and boring. The story stops and the only dialogue you get is "No! Please, Stop! Why are you doing this?" Again it goes on and on and on and nothing gets accomplished. Is it scary? Nope. Its annoying especially when everyone is doing it.
ZOMBIE MOVIES. Back in the mid 90's we all wanted to see more zombie movies. They were not as popular back then but now they are everywhere. They are in the theaters. They are direct-to-video. They are in my cereal for some reason. They started out good but everybody keeps making them and most of them are terrible. Have you tried watching RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD parts 4 and 5, or DIARY OF THE DEAD or anything that has the word "DEAD" in the title? They suck. Everyone is in zombie movies nowadays. Heck, even I am in a zombie movie! ( THE SKY HAS FALLEN buy it at AMAZON.com) PLUG!
OLDER IS SOMETIMES BETTER. 99.9999% of the time a horror movie features a bunch of twenty somethings pretending to be teenagers. They always have stereotypes like "Nice Virgin" or "Slut Bitch" or "Dumb Jock". They are about as interesting as NASA. (I don't think NASA is interesting so if you do sorry I'd rather have sex with ladies than watch a shuttle launch is all I am saying.) They serve no purpose except to die. Watch GHOST STORY. Not the greatest movie but most of the cast is a bunch of old dudes who tell scary stories. They have acting talent. You take them seriously. They add presence to their scenes. Donald Pleasance makes Halloween a better film than all the slasher films combined because he is a deeply committed experienced actor. Without him Halloween would just be a slightly better FRIDAY THE 13TH. Vincent Price, Peter Cushing, Boris Karloff, Christopher Lee, bring weight to any horror film no matter how bad it is. Even if the movie is crud at least they are fun to watch.
C.G.I. Digital effects look like crap and turn horror movies into cartoons. The end.
Wow! Are you still reading this? I bet you skipped to the end. Didn't you? Yea, this one just kind of rambled on and on. Its not very good I am afraid but I just had to tell it like I see it. There actually is a lot more I can complain about but like you I too am losing interest in this blog-entry-dealy Of course there are exceptions to these rules. There are a few horror movies out there I can't wait to see like DOGHOUSE which is a British zombie comedy. But I don't see too much that peaks my interest. I have seen it all I'm afraid except for maybe THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE. I think I can miss that one. Have we really gotten to this extreme?