Dead Men Walking (2005)- Bay Bruner (2)

Director: Peter Mervis

Stars: Bay Bruner, Griff Furst and Chriss Anglin

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating:  R (strong pervasive violence and gore, language and some sexuality)

Running Time: 82 Mins

 

 

I will admit that I am a junkie for Zombie movies. I have perhaps seen every zombie movie in the book. From the worst of the worst ( Zombie Nation, Zombie Holocaust) to the best of the best ( Dawn of The Dead,  Night of The Living Dead) I don’t know what it is about them that gets me to watch them. Perhaps it’s the combination of gore and the post-apocalyptic feel this movies sometimes have. Whatever it may be, I just know I love Zombie films. However, I cannot say that entirely for “Dead Men Walking” a film that requires a lot suspension of disbelief. 

                The opening sequence of the movie sets the record straight of what we are supposed to expect: tons and tons of gore! In this same opening sequence, we witness a man going insanely berserk as he attempts to kill off a couple of zombies inside his house; unfortunately he gets bitten by one of the zombies, gets blamed for killing innocent civilians, and is sent to jail. In jail he begins to transform into a zombie, but not without infecting a few before he changes to “the living dead”. Shortly after he begins to eat inmates, those same inmates bite others, and well you get the idea. It is later explained that the virus was intended for bio-warfare (how original, no?)

      The film wasn’t horrible, just didn’t deliver anything overly special, aside the tons of gore. I felt in some ways the creators could have done a better job with the setting and theme. I do give credit for some originality (the idea of zombies in prison) though that originality quickly fades as soon as you see the horrible acting from the majority of the cast. I  honestly would not recommend buying this flick, perhaps renting it, but not buying it.

The Original Faces of Death Part II (1981)- Michael Carr

Director: John Alan Schwartz

Stars: Michael Carr

Genre:  Documentary | Horror


MPAA Rating:  X


Running Time: 85 Mins

Tagline: "When Make Believe Is Just Not Enough"

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

This movie continues in the same vein as F.O.D. 1 with short scenes of death related material. Mortuarys, accidents, police work are filmed by TV crews and home video cameras. Some of the material are most likely fake, some not as likely

This sequel is practically the same thing as the first film; showcasing scenes of murder, accidents, shootings and executions. The film has the return of Dr. Francis B. Gross: the crazy doctor who is mostly narrating and giving his philosophy on the taboo subject of death and afterlife.   I must say that II actually find it humorous hearing this guy narrate the film. The way he actually tries being  ”serious “and “educational”  is quite laughable. But I still give credit to the creators of this franchise. I give them credit for making this hoax look authentic. I said it in my previous review that I really don’t blame the director for presenting this as a real documentary. People tend to be way to curious on  how accidents and murders took place…keep in mind that one way or another this will eventually happen to everyone…and that is: Death.

This time around Dr. Gross (curious name no?) clarifies to the audience, that his views on death have long since changed.  For a short period he talks about how different cultures view the matter of death, like in India where they burn the body of the deceased. This custom is very common in India. The reason for burning the body is due to the belief that the soul is trapped in the brain and the only way to release it is through burning the cadaver. Some of the relatives will shave their head and bathe in a river as a form of condolence for the passing of the relative. That scene in particularly made me take this film a bit more serious than the previous film.   

The rest of the picture involves random death scenes, most of which (in difference to the 1^st film) is mostly all real.  The only scene I noticed that was fake was a shootout scene at a drugstore. The various angles in that scene made me question the authenticity of it. All the other deaths, to my knowledge, are real and taken mostly from stock footage.  The most brutal of them all is the scene involving the clubbing of seals; I was shocked at how inhumane these individuals were at doing such atrocity.  There is also footage (which was shown live) of a boxing match, where Johnny Owens gets defeated (and killed) in the ring. That whole footage is real because it was televised when it occurred. Aside these scenes, there are a few stunt driving gone awry , footage of napalming in Vietnam, more WWII footage, and  a repeated  scene of an execution  from the first film. 

 If you are into death scenes, gore, and the taboo, then perhaps this is for you. I really don’t find these films enjoyable. Besides most of the time you have to be pondering on whether it’s real or fake. Personally I could care a less if they are fake or real, sometimes they do a good job at making the scenes authentic. But anyway, I will leave at the bottom of the review a free link to the full movie.  Enjoy…I guess.

The Original Faces of Death (1980) -Michael Carr (2)

Director: John Alan Schwartz

Stars:Michael Carr, Samuel Berkowitz and Mary Ellen Brighton

Genre:   Documentary | Horror


MPAA Rating: X


Running Time: 105 Mins


Tagline: "Banned In 46 Countries"

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"A collection of death scenes, ranging from TV-material to home-made super-8 movies The common factor is death by some means."

discussion

I can’t believe that this is the documentary that was at one point banned in 46 countries; I really have a hard time believing it. Faces of Death, for one reason or another has become an infamous classic documentary (actually mockumentary) on the subject of death and afterlife. Most people who buy this movie are expecting: real, extreme, and gruesome footage of violence, carnage and ultimately…death. But when you actually sit down and watch this crap, you will notice that a vast majority of the footage is simulated. Roughly only 40% of the film is actually real “death” footage, the rest is a combination of footage that was simulated and inspired real events. In this review I will go over the plot and closely examine each scene presented in Faces of Death.

 

The footage for Faces of Death varies. I will try with my best judgment to explain which scenes are real and which are fake.  The director has said that only 40% is real, he will not elaborate which of those scenes are real. Since the director won’t elaborate, I will have to do so for the sake of argument. The movie is narrated by Dr Gross, a fake Doctor who has traveled the world, and is the one who collected the footage from the journeys he has done (so he claims) and explains with each scene what he witnessed and how little we have control over life, and that death is just around the corner.  The first shot is a surgery room where a patient is undergoing open heart surgery, this scene is in fact real, and it’s more than likely taken from operations done previously. The shot then transcends into the title credits and into more random shots of corpses in morgues; those scenes are also real. The opening credits conclude with an autopsy, I am positive that it is most likely real, I could be wrong.  The scenes followed involving dogs fighting, spiders attacking prey, snakes eating fish and indigenous people attacking animals is also real, but no different to what you would see in National Geographic The more gruesome scenes involving beheading of chickens, clubbing of seals, and cows at a slaughterhouse are the most difficult to watch, they are in fact real, they are all stock footage. Now there is a scene I would like to address that is entirely staged. The scene that I want to bring up is the infamous monkey brain scene, for some reason people think it is real, it is not, and it is actually staged.  The director himself admits that he could not get the actual footage on screen due to the fact that it is a common practice in Asian countries. To not face any issues with sues; he claims he decided to only film a simulated sequence.  The remaining footage involving a man on the beach dead after drinking too much and people committing suicide…I  have to say I am not sure, I think those could be real.  The one’s that are entirely fake are the alligator attack, the assignation of a politician, all the scenes involving the assassin Francois Jordan, and the ridiculous organ orgy scene.  The final scenes showing cadavers from World War 2 and the attacks on Vietnam are actual footage from that time, again stock footage neatly edited into Faces of Death. The remaining scenes involving the man parasailing some other cranial autopsy and an electric chair execution…I must say I am not sure. I leave that up to the audience to decide. I still think though, that the electric chair one has to be fake, it is illegal to shoot an execution here in the states. Anyways, let me know what you think, I would like to hear your insight on Faces of Death and it's sequels.

Faces of death was released during a time when internet was nonexistent. Websites like rotten.com and other macabre web pages weren’t available. This film broke the barrier at the time to show gruesome footage. The issue is that they marketed the film as an actual documentary, when by now the director himself has said that only some scenes are in fact real. The question is why go through the trouble of lying to the public? Why lie about it? Why not just release it as a fake death compilation? All good questions, but at the end of the day…Death is something that we are all curious about. Not just that, I think everyone, deep down inside, is sick enough to want to see what happened to someone during a brutal car accident, or a shark attack. In many ways, I don’t blame the director for releasing it as a real documentary. It serves people’s right to not tamper nor explores what will eventually happen to everyone inevitably.

Bangcock Dangerous (2008)-Nicholas Cage (2)

Director: Oxide Pang Chun, Danny Pang

Stars: Nicolas Cage, Charlie Yeung and Shahkrit Yamnarm

Genre:   Action | Crime | Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

Running Time: 98Mins

Tagline: "The Hitman Has Become The Target"

Nicholas cage needs to stop making action movies. I swear the guy doesn’t have nor will ever have the action hero look. The only reason he is making 7-10 movies a year is due to his issue with bankruptcy, so he has to rely on making crummy movies like this one. Bangkok dangerous, while not bad, is just a very generic action vehicle that goes down the road of predictability, scene by scene. This movie is in fact a remake of an older movie done in Asia. I have not seen the Asian version, so I cannot give an opinion on it.

On the other hand, the American remake, I did see and I have very little of good to say of it. First, let me say that Nicholas Cage has perhaps the worst case of bad hair I have ever seen. He needs to recognize that he is losing hair; no treatment available can fix his bizarre hair. He needs to do the honorable thing and just shave it off, that’s what I did, and that’s what plenty of men who are losing hair eventually do. But until then, Cage’s hair will look like a rat is growing out of it, just like Steven Seagal.  

Meet Joe, a hired assassin, who does what he is told, and never fails at putting the bullet where it needs to be.  But assassin Joe is lonely and tired of the monotonous life of killing people for money. So he decides to take one last job in Bangkok, before leaving it all behind him.  In Bangkok, he takes several assignments, some involving transporting packages. If this is beginning to sound like transporter, it is because it’s very similar. The movie is actually a very formulaic action vehicle coping from every other action movie known. Well, back to the movie, Joe eventually finds out the people that hired him want him dead. So he must take them out before they kill him…wow...very original. In between this we have a turmoil going on with his emotional feelings for a mute girl he met in Bangkok.  

In the end this movie had some, and I stress some, entertainment value. I was falling asleep in plenty of scenes where nothing was really happening. The movie is advertised as an action vehicle, yet it delivers very few action scenes. When you do get to see the action scenes, they are very bland and uninspiring. The ending, which I won’t ruin, was a little strange…I felt like I was watching a different film…At the end we have an unexpected ending for a very mediocre film. It’s as if the movie picked up in the last 15 min...A bit to late honestly.  Aside the movie’s trailer, I will leave a review of the movie I found on YouTube, which I couldn’t agree more with.

Night Vision (1987)- Stacy Carson (2)

Director: Michael Krueger

Stars: Stacy Carson, Shirley Ross and Tony Carpenter

Genre:  Horror

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

Running Time: 107

Mins Tagline: "A Window To The Future and A Gate To Hell"

I love obscure movies. Sometimes, No one known’s of them, so that means you don’t really know if they are going to be good or not. This is the case with Night Vision:  A bizarre and forgotten gem from the 80’s.  I found this movie in a flea market (where else?)  And it called my attention with the cover, that didn’t say much, but did enough to make me pay a buck for it. After viewing the tape, I was left a little surprised at how decent it was. I thought it was going to be just another random, bad, 80’s flick. Even if it was cheesy, which i believe was the intention, it worked on not taking itself too seriously. I would actually like to see this movie be remade by David Lynch; this is his kind of style, at least in theme, not in cinematography.

Night Vision tells the tale of a nerdy 20 something year old, who leaves Kansas and moves to New York, to aspire in becoming a famous writer. He hopes the city will open his mind into writing interesting and provocative ideas, which he indeed will find. After helping a guy from some strange muggers, who later we find out are in fact satanic leaders, he befriends the man he saves. But little does this innocent country boy know that the guy is actually a thief. This 4 feet thief, who is a Joe Pesci wanabe; the guy out of “good faith” gives the kid a VCR (remember those machines?) The VCR actually has a demonic tape inside, that posses people, and makes them foresee future murders.   The young writer eventually gets possessed by the VCR and can’t stop his thoughts on what he saw in the tape.  

I was actually pleased by this little bizarre flick. It wasn’t exactly violent or anything, it actually relied more on plot. Unfortunately and fortunately it has bad acting, which gives you a sensation that it shouldn’t be taken seriously at all.  I recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see something bizarre, cheesy, and entertaining.  Oh and don’t try to find out who the satanic people are, they never explain it, and I didn’t care really, it works without the explanation. If you are looking for this movie, I suggest looking for it on eBay or Amazon.  

Eagle Eye (2008)- Shia La Beouf (2)

Director:D.J. Caruso

Stars: Shia LaBeouf, Michelle Monaghan and Rosario Dawson

Genre:   Action | Mystery | Thriller

MPAA Rating:  PG-13

Running Time: 118 Mins

Tagline: "If you want to live you will obey "

Eagle Eye is by far the perfect example of the absurdities that come out of Hollywood. I just finished watching this preposterous film, which quite frankly, takes itself a bit too seriously. The funny thing is that this movie is actually entertaining; I couldn’t take my eyes of the screen, even if 98.9% of it was just idiotic. At times I even felt I was watching a Transformers movie, it was no different, and Shia is still running and screaming for his little life.

I have no clue how to get into the films plot without ruining anything important. I will try to talk as much of it, but without giving out any important spoilers. Ok, so meet Jerry Shaw, an innocent man accused of terrorism. All this happens after they find an arsenal of weapons in his apartment. He has little option but to run away from authorities, he doesn’t know where the weapons came from, and no one seems to believe him. Aside that, he is being threatened and has to rely on a unknown voice coming from a cell phone.  Included in this mess is another innocent woman, who I still don’t know her purpose, which is also being given instructions by the voice. If she doesn’t do what the voice says, her son will be killed in the train he is aboard.  Both must work together to find who the voice is, why they have been chosen (or as this film calls them: Activated) and try to make it alive out of it all at the end.

The movie’s theme, which sounds “interesting”, is actually very silly. When you actually do find out the origin of the voice, you are left cheated and with a bad taste. Even if was entertaining, the movie fails to deliver anything realistic, I have a hard time believing that most of this would happen. I know very well this is purely fantasy, but the movie tries too hard to play realistically, when in the end it’s just purely science fiction.  The story copies from a dozen other films, better films might I say. I wont say from what movies it copies, because if i give out the names it might actually give away the supposed “Twist”. I can’t recommend this movie, and if I do its just for the sake of entertainment. You won’t get bored, I assure you that. Even if it clocks in at almost 2 hours, the explosions, and car flips will make you forget the unrealistic plot.  So if you want crazy, almost Michael Bay, with crazy conspiracy plot that lead nowhere, then look no further, this is for you.

The Tree of Life (2011)- Brad Pitt (2)

Director: Terrence Malick

Stars: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain

Genre:  Drama

MPAA Rating:  PG-13 (for some thematic material)

Running Time: 139 Mins

Tagline: None

I don’t know where to begin, I honestly don’t; this was NOT the type of movie I was expecting to go see at the cinema. I assumed by the films trailer, that the movie was going to be reminiscent to Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I really thought that because of the photography, and the fact Brad Pitt was the star of the film.   All of this couldn’t be farther from the truth, this is one of the biggest acid trips I have ever had, and I don’t use drugs, which makes it all even weirder.

The movie tries in many ways to be like Kubrick’s 2001, you will see what I mean by that in the following paragraphs.  The cast of this movie is really irrelevant; they have little to no purpose in this movie. The whole thing concentrates more on the photography and I guess...Philosophy, so to speak, of what might happen when we die. After the death of the brother of Sean Penn’s character (who only has 5 min of screen time) we witness a bizarre combination of wild imagery, combining glaziers falling,  spermatozoids entering the ovary, and  a segment involving a dinosaur having mercy on another creature. At times I thought I was watching a Discovery Channel Documentary on Crack. I guess the Director wanted to appeal the audience with an abstract, non cohesive and illogical film.

For those who have read this far and still want to really know what the movie is about, then keep reading. Brad Pitt plays a father of 3 children during the 60’s. We see through some parts of the film (the understandable parts) how he raises his children, with discipline and high morality.  The kids fear the father, and all they really want to do is just be kids, have the opportunity to play and be like any other child.  Around all of this, we also see Sean Penn, who at one point was one of the kids, walking around a city just looking and gazing at nothing. They even show Sean Penn in a desert for no fucking reason, at the end he meets up with his parents who had died many years ago (I assume, they never clarify)

This whole thing was really absurd, I have a hard time talking about it because I still have no clue what its about. It tries too hard to be like 2001 in terms of photography and pace, which reminds me how fucking slow and boring this shit was.  I only give it two stars for the visual effects, that look superb, yet they are pointless. I don’t recommend this movie to anyone, avoid it.

Rainbow Valley (1935)-John Wayne (2)

Director: Robert N.Bradbury

Stars: John Wayne,Lucille Browne, & George "Gabby" Hayes

Genre: Action/Adventure/Western

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

Running Time: 52Mins

Tagline: None

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"John Martin is a government agent working under cover. Leading citizen Morgan calls in gunman Galt who blows Martin's cover. "


Discussion

Another Lone Star Production with John Wayne as the leading protagonist, this time we have Wayne facing some baddies who want to interfere in the construction of a road that contains a rich mine filled with gold; Again, Gold is the plot involving these low budget westerns...yet they dont fail to entertain me for the short lenght they run. This one is also part of the Brentwood Box set I had mentioned in my previous review. The quality of the picture on this one is actually crappier, there is plenty of scratches, bloats, spots. Funny how the box set says "Remastered" and in 5.1. Virtual Souround Sound...that is just horseshit!

The movie commences with Wayne arriving at a shop to obtain some new gear and weapons. After asking directions to get to Rainbow Valley (hence the title of the film) Wayne helps out a citizen who is being chased by some western thugs; after scarring the baddies away (momentarily that is) Wayne's character finds out the town is trying to get the town free of criminals.  Little does the town know that Wayne is actually a undercover agent assigned to find out what is going on in the town. With The help of "Gabby" and some workers, Wayne manages to settle things by the law..oh howrighteous he is. No disrespect to The Duke, but this is one reason I prefer Eastwood. Unlike Wayne, he is not affraid of breaking the law, actually he is always against it, he does it by his book. Anyways, Wayne saves the day by letting the town know his real intentions and getting the bad guys in prison: The END

This one wasn’t too bad, but no different to Trail Beyond; they seem to all have similar plots. To me they are like matinee specials, sort of repetitions of one another, just retold slightly different. Some of these flicks tend to have the same sets and even same cast. Such as Gabby Hayes, who starred in almost all 20-25 Lone Star productions, in exception of the trail beyond, which surprisingly he wasn’t in it.

The Desert Trail (1935)-John Wayne (2)

Director: Lewis D. Collins

Stars: John Wayne, Mary Kornman and Paul Fix

Genre:  Western

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

Running Time: 53 Mins

Tagline: None

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"Rodeo star John Scott and his gambler friend Kansas Charlie are wrongly accused of armed robbery. They leave town as fast as they can to go looking for their own suspects in Poker City. "

Discussion

This marks the first time a movie starring John Wayne, in a Lone Star Prod, not to have any theme or references about Gold. I mentioned in my other John Wayne reviews how much they tended to use the whole theme about gold mines. This time around the writers added a little more humor for Wayne’s role; giving him a comic relief sidekick, which he keeps stepping on him whenever Wayne wants to win fight with him. The movie also inserts a laughable love triangle between Wayne, The sidekick and the villain. The girl who plays the love interest made me laugh quite a couple times, with her Spanish accent and Spanish lines like “Estos Sin verguensas!” (These Shameless) Anyway, My big complain is that these movies are never scored (background music) I know they are old, more than 70 years old, but I don’t think it is too difficult to score them. I recall a couple years back, (before obtaining the 20 Movie box set) that  I owned an early DVD release of this movie. It contained a cheaply made score…at least it was a score. Believe it or not, music sometimes makes the movie too.

 

So, as to the story here…Wayne plays John Scott a rodeo star who doesn’t get paid 900 dollars for his win. Scott and his Sidekick decide to complain to the head of the rodeo. The man in charge complains there is very little work, and he can only pay up 250. Scott “smartly” points a gun at the man and asks for the 900 he deserves. They both leave quietly after obtaining the money…However, they are in for some big misunderstanding, when two men enter and kill the guy in charge of the rodeo.  Now Scott and the sidekick are being searched all over town, being accused of murder. They eventually head to another city called: Poker City, where the sheriff becomes speculative of how strange they look, very nervous and even mentioning they are supposedly friends with one of the town members, when in fact they are strangers; the guy they say they now is in fact one of the men involved in the shooting. Later on the sheriff is told by the man who committed the murder, that Scott is responsible (to blame him ofcourse) the sheriff, twisting his moustache says “I knew there was something fishy about these guys” I was cracking up when I heard that, classic western cheese.

 

Now this Wayne western is just as average as the other ones I have previously reviewed. Like I said, they at least omitted the gold theme for once.  But aside that, It is very formulaic, typical, and quiete predictable western. In the end it is a family friendly western that can be enjoyed by the whole family. I recommend it mainly for entertainment sake, so you can see the old west, filmed in the 30’s. However if you want ot see a true Wayne Classic Western, I recommend “ The Big Trail” or “Stagecoach” both of which are better and bigger budgeted westerns. Now as before, I will leave you the free link to see the movie completely for free.

The Strangler's Wife (2002)-

Director: Michael Allosso

Stars: Sarah Huling, Ciaran Crawford and Christy Scott Cashman

Genre: Thriller

MPAA Rating: R (for strong violence and sexuality, and for language)

Running Time: 84 Mins

Tagline: "You Cant Scream If You Can't Breathe"

Discussion

It’s quite curious and funny what you run into at a flea market. I was the flea market at Opa Locka, Hialeah and there was a huge lot of obscure and semi-rare VHS tapes going for a buck. I began rummaging through the pile. In it I found this movie “The Stranglers Wife” and a couple other cheesy flicks, which I will eventually watch and review.  Now, the same night I got the VHS tape I viewed it, somehow the title and cover called my attention…don’t know why. I played the tape, and what do I get? The first thing I witness is some dude entering a random ladies house and strangling her…In we go into the credits. Very literally, it’s about strangulation.

The whole premise, aside the previous mentioned, is about a young lady who is traumatized from a previous incident with her father. She is living with a man, who seems nice and caring...but in the night he goes out and randomly follows women and just strangles them in their own home. After a couple victims disappear, including an art teacher of the wife, she becomes suspicious it could be her own husband. She finds refuge in a classmate who is kind of a slut and a lesbo too, yet nicely gives refuge to her. Though she doesn’t last long, she gets strangled too. I have to admit though either the actress who plays the wife of the strangler is dumb or its part of the act, because I was so annoyed by her performance. I was also annoyed by the husbands Irish or Scottish accent…they never even explain the accent. Actually they don’t explain the most important part: why is he strangling women? I assume it’s because he finds these women attractive and can’t get them? I did notice he tends to chose women who look slutty or ignore him.

Concluding, this was a very predictable movie, it felt like a bad episode of an oxygen movie. I mean the whole thing is just whatever, the guy is not innovative, all he does is strangle them and that’s it. I mean I’m not making myself sound like I’m sick, but in horror/thriller movies you want to see fancy shit. Like Jason: he always has a new way of killing his victims. I also like the fact that the cops never pay real attention to what the reporters have to say, especially when it is important. Man, the whole thing however was entertaining, so fort that i give it a 2. But, personally, I wouldn’t waste my time on it.

Live Wire (1992)-Pierce Brosnan (2)

Director: Christian Duguay

Stars: Pierce Brosnan, Ron Silver & Ben Cross

Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating:  R (strong violence and sensuality and for language)

Running Time: 85 Mins

Tagline: "Your body is 93% water... no one is safe"

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"Danny O'Neill is a bomb disposal expert assigned to a case where terrorists have developed an "invisible" liquid explosive which is activated within the human body. The target of the terrorists are US senators, one of which is having an affair with Danny's wife"

Discussion

So one night I was looking around my movie collection and I realized I hadn’t seen this Brosnan Oldie. So into the DVD player went “Live Wire”; a movie where intelligence is thrown out the window and replaced with lackluster action. This is one of those movies that attempts to present itself as a “smart thriller” yet fails to deliver real thrills. However I have to admit, for the entire length of the film I was entertained, even if the majority was ludicrous.   The movie was entertaining, mostly, for how unrealistic it was.

Brosnan plays Danny O’Neil: Bomb disposal expert working for the F.B.I.  His persona is of a typical cool guy who looks like a mean badass.  His day begins defusing a bomb from a woman’s car; it seems her boyfriend wanted her dead, so the guy placed the bomb below the chick’s car. O’Neil manages to quickly defuse it and give the chick a real cheesy one liner “wear panties next time” After this scenario we find out O’Neil has a restraint order from his wife (which he doesn’t obey) it seems both are going through a hard time after the passing of their daughter, that drowned in a pool. Somehow O’Neil seems more concerned about the passing of his child then his wife…I sometimes wonder if the girl is from his previous matrimony…but it wouldn’t make sense because we see the event occur in a flashback, in the house where he lives with his current wife..Mhhm

So, the real deal isn’t the wife issue, it’s “Human Bombs” that are exploding about. It seems somehow, someone has found a way to create a liquid that looks just like water, be an actual explosive. After drinking the liquid...KABOOOM! So,the man behind the chaos is Ben Cross (The Unholy), he plays the head baddie, and with him is Tony Plana (Half Past Dead) together they are extorting politicians into giving in into the sicko’s plan. One by one, a senator, a judge, and another Senator who is banging O’Neil’s dumb wife are being blackmailed, they dont obey...you know what occurs. I swear, I cannot emphasize how dumb the woman was, sleeping with both men (husband and senator) and not giving a rat’s ass about her husband’s needs or issues. Anyway, I just didn’t like the lady’s character, curious because they center on her character a lot.  So O Neil has limited time to find out what is the main component of this substance, and where is deriving from. Initially, he had no clue it was a human bomb, spend quite a time searching for a detonator that didn’t exist, at least not technically.  You know, I’m here bashing the movie, and I actually enjoyed it. It’s just that it’s all way to silly, and it takes itself serious in some instances.  Setting aside the cons, the pros the movie has to offer are: cool and Sauvé acting from Brosnan before he donned the role of 007 James Bond. Also you have a steamy sex scene that is longer if you decide to watch the unrated cut; that is the only real difference from either cut: the scene is shorter in the R Rated Cut.

DVD

I got this DVD back in the day from Amazon; I recall it was about 10 bucks, new. Now the cost would be no more than 99cents. The movie has two cuts, the theatrical (85 min) and the Unrated (87 min) no real difference from either one. Biggest difference like I said was the sex scene, nothing more. 

Video

Presented in 1:85:1 the picture quality of this DVD upconverted isn’t bad at all. I saw a pretty high contrast overall in the presentation. I’m no HD expert, but I don’t think there is a need for a Blu-Ray, the source of this DVD looks fine enough. The only complaint I have is the dark scenes had some picture noise, but that was it.

Audio

 I thought the audio was just as impressive. The 5.1 Surround sound was enough for the explosions and gunfire in the film. The thing i liked the most was the intro, which has the most exaggerating opening. In big letters we see LIVE WIRE! The sound for the letters emerging from fire is explosive...and pretty hilarious too.

Bottom Line

Personally, even if this movie was silly and overall exagerating and unrealistic....I say buy it for PIerce Brosnan, who does a very good job playing the cool FBI guy who can detonate bombs.

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon (2011)- Shia LaBeouf (2)

Director: Michael Bay

Stars: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and Tyrese Gibson

Genre:  Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating:  (for intense prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, mayhem and destruction, and for language, some sexuality and innuendo)

Running Time: 157 Mins

Tagline: None

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"The Autobots learn of a Cybertronian spacecraft hidden on the Moon, and race against the Decepticons to reach it and to learn its secrets. "

discussion

I have never fully understood the real appeal of these films. Yes, I know it’s just robots fighting each other, no one is seeing them for plot. But Michael Bay needs to stop pretending that he has a smart franchise on his fingertips, because he does not.  I will admit I was entertained, at least the movie did that for me; it however does not excuse the film of the sufficient plot holes that can fill up a whole Encyclopedia Britannica. Like a friend of mine said “The Movie was one B.S. wrapped over another B.S.” and honestly it is true; something as simple as logic, seems to be completely absent from the film. For example: at the beginning of the film we witness one of the primes crash landing on the moon, his ship begins to explode…wtf? There is no oxygen in the moon! When will Hollywood understand that in order for an explosion to take place, oxygen must be around…and space lacks it (actually there isn’t any)

So this time around, Sam, “the big hero” gets a medal from the president of the US (Obama himself) but aside his honorable contributions to the country; he just can’t get anyone to hire him.  So for a lengthy time of the picture we have Sam and his parents, which we see less of (thank God, can’t stand the mom) trying to get him a job and his life back in order. Before I forget, as we all know, there is a new bimbo (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) who by the way can’t act for beans; when will studios learn that Models are for modeling…Learn from Cindy Crawford, she did horrible in Fair Game.  Ok, so back to the film, Sam eventually gets hired by Bruce Brazos (John Malcovich) who seems to be obsessed with the color yellow, he even goes as far as almost firing someone for bringing a red cup into an all yellow room.  Sam uncomfortable at the position he is being offered, refuses the position, yet eventually takes the job. For about 1hr or so we have a whole story about Sam and his girlfriend and the shit going down in his life…all of this could have been shortened down to 30 min.  All the audience really cares is the autobots fighting the decepticons, that’s it.

When we finally get to the good stuff, which last for almost another hour, I began to feel like Bay can never make a movie short; which reminds me, this movie is almost 3 hours long.  Before I get into the fight sequences and the “good stuff” let me explain what is going down. Aside Sam’s “life problems” we find out the supposed real reasons why we never went back to the moon. It seems that alien life was found. So for the beginning of the film we see some footage of the 60’s and one of the Apollo missions landing on the moon. Oh before I forger, I was giggling at how cheap the CGI version of John F. Kennedy looked. I mean they can make giant robots transform into cars, destroy an entire city…yet we can’t make a human look decently real? JFK looked too red and almost alien like, they over enlarged his eyes to the point of deformation. Anyway, we find out that the decepticons are planning to bring back their home planet into the earth. They will need the help of two people, who I cannot reveal, it will ruin the film. But I will tell you shit goes awry, havoc takes place, robots fight, tables turn and people get betrayed. Yet, it’s a Bay film; good guys always prevail and win.

One thing that I found laughable, and even Tyrese says it in the film “The Decepticons always get the good shit” Still, it doesn’t matter because the autobots always win. But this time around I think the humans did more than the autobots. They came late into the battle; the humans were fully equipped and kicking ass already.  The thing I don’t understand with Bay is why he doesn’t work on making the fights more noticeable. Let me explain, I can never really tell sometimes who is fighting who. At one point we have 11 autobots fighting on the ground, and at the beginning there were only 9. I think Bay thinks we are retards or something…actually I think he does think we are. Something as simple as Geography he gets wrong; Sam is staying in D.C. we see from his window Skyscrapers like if it were Los Angeles or New York, yet there aren’t any high visible skyscrapers in Washington D.C. Well, whatever, the thing I want to get to is the final battle. There is a scene, which last so fucking long, where Sam and all the crew, new and old, are trying to survive from this snake looking robot, that is about to destroy a huge skyscraper. That sequence is entertaining, yet in the real world (were the law of physics and gravity exist) things would go differently.  In the film, we see the snake decepticon, using their tentacles through the skyscraper and destroying everything around. The building is fist shot at in the side, it falls slowly (slowly as in 15 min) towards the front.  While it is being shot, explosions are coming out of the snake looking thingy majigy, I have no clue why, it looks cool, yet it makes no sense.   Then the building brakes in half, and somehow there are people still inside alive and well. Which brings back, how the fuck does the chick survive with those high heels? A friend of mine, who was at the theater, noticed this too. He pointed out that she was wearing flats later on, yet we never see her change them.  Aside that notion, her and Sam are almost left entirely unscratched as if nothing ever happened.

In the end we all know we see these movies for the effects, which never fall short of amazing. Yet Michael Bay needs to learn that we want some real story, not “pretending to be smart story” I swear, he puts some nice Linkin Park music or some dramatic chanting music that has been used in every freaking movie trailer and thinks we are gona fall for that shit. He even ripped of Hanz Zimmer’s score of Inception. He took the “dream is collapsing” and made his own version, which sounds entirely identical to the original source. We hear this as the soldiers are parasailing with fancy gliding gear towards the city. I really can’t stand this, I mean I had an enjoyable time in the film, yet I feel cheated. I feel like I was but raped, I liked it, yet I know it’s wrong. (Yes that was a Gay joke, you may laugh) But seriously, the audience is not idiots; we want more substance, with the nice style, but keeping it intelligently. And at the end of the day it may be only a movie, but its $14.50 for these movies on Real 3D.  So it is not cheap guys. By the way, “Real 3D” is bullshit, this movie had acouple of shots that standed out, but i have seen some movie in the format that look plain chep. To name a few: Saw 3D, Resident Evil.  The thing with 3D needs to stop,its just a gimmick to attract people to the cinema. Concluding, I had fun, but it’s a stupid movie, nothing more nothing less. Perhapd slightyl better than the second, I still prefer the first. At the end of the day I have a difficult time difereintiating between all 3 films, there all the same shit: Robots killing of other Robots. Yes, it’s cool, but it gets old quickly. Let us hope there isnt a 4^th…But knowing Bay, he will milk a 4^th entry for sure..Its a profitable franchise, So we shall see what happens, you be the judge.

The Trail Beyond (1934)- John Wayne (2)

Director: Robert N Bradbury

Stars: John Wayne,Verna Hillie & Noah Berry

Genre: Western/Action/Adventure

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

Running Time: 55 Mins

Tagline: None

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"Rod Drew hunts for a missing girl and finds himself in a fight over a goldmine as well. "

Discussion

Before John Wayne starred in Big Budget westerns like True Grit, The Searchers, Rio Bravo and Who Shot Liberty Valance; he began in low budget westerns throughout the 1930’s. These B-Westerns were produced by Lone Star Productions. Most of the films produced by Lone Star had similar plots, mostly always involving thieves, missing gold, and banditos; In other words, your typical stereotypical western. On a side note, It is curious- Wayne had starred in The Big Trail (1930) a bigger budgeted western, yet it did not launch his career. It was not until 1939’s Stagecoach, that he obtained recognition. So in between the time of these two films (from 1934 to 1937) Wayne did these cheap low budget westerns. The Trail Beyond is one of those, low budget and produced by Lone Star Prod, and it is a perfect example of your stereotypical western.

John plays Rod Drew; he is in search of a long lost niece from a friend of his.  Of good will, Drew goes in search of her in the mountains of Canada (it's actually California) In his search, Drew re-united with an old friend in a train; the friend, however, gets in a big fight over a bad hand of poker. Drew helps his friend out and they manage to escape from the feud and leave the train. After the short introduction of these principal characters, we meet the villains...some badly portrayed French baddies. I have never seen such poor attempt at impersonating a French accent in my life; I was laughing uncontrollably, not only at the accent but at the wardrobe and thin moustache common in a stereotypical French man. Anyhow, Wayne's character stumbles upon a cabin, were some skeletons have been left behind with a map to a lost gold mine. In begins the plot: Wayne must prevent the baddies from getting their hands on the map and the gold...how original, no?

I wasn’t too impressed with this mediocre western, then again it's an early Wayne western...so it is excusable. Like I said earlier, Most of the Lone Star Westerns involved the same plot. I didn’t dislike this one, yet I’m not so amicable about it. You might actually find this John Wayne flick in a pack of 20-50 movie collection. The Price range for the movie pack goes from 5-10 dollars. The Box Set I own is from Brentwood Studios, I got it for 10 bucks, so there, and it’s pretty cheap.  Just don't expect good picture quality. You have to keep in mind that these movies are over 70 years old, the quality is not exactly up to par with today's standards; unless it has been remastered, which it hasn’t in this case. So, overall, the picture quality in most of these westerns is below average. I will let you be the judge; I will post a link below to the full movie since it is available to public domain