So very clearly we haven't been doing much of anything for this blog.  Basically this can be explained by our complete laziness.  I'm working and DD is a student at prestigious Graduate School.  (If you ask him about it he's liable to completely talk your ear off.  he won't say anything about the school, he'll just say the school's name over and over again.)  And yet i want to try and get this thing back going.  Somehow.

Basically we both need to jumpstart it but just starting to write.  Oh yes, that means while we'll also be doing some reviews and whatnot, we'll also be doing some opinion pieces on stuff you may or may not even give a shit about.  Maybe a little bit of detail has come out about a show or movie.  Well we'll probably expound on it for much longer than anything needs to be expounded upon.  But it's something that would get us going again with this.  Will it be pretty?  No.  Will it be succinct?  of course not.  But will it get it going again?  Yes.  And that's what matters to us.

So hang tight people, we're coming back.  Does anyone care?  Debatable.  But when has that stopped us?  Often but let's not talk about that.  All that matters is that we're back.

Maybe.

Probably.

Look we'll try to get something going soon.

Thanks for coming.

-M4

Out of the Furnace

Blogs are a pain in the ass. It's like, you have all these ideas and you want to tell them to someone, but no one listens, and having a diary is so last century. So you turn to the internet. You write and write everything you have to say and suddenly all of your thoughts are pouring out of you. And then, before you know it, somehow, you just run out of stuff to say and either move on to newer -- and usually lazier forms of social media -- or get a fucking hobby in the real world.

That seems to be what happened with Mark and I, and this movie blog, unfortunately; we just lost interest in analyzing movies and hurrying back here to share our thoughts with anonymous web surfers. The fact is, a year ago, we were both in situations where sitting around watching and discussing movies was a priority. But things have changed since then. Now we sit around and watch movies, but don't have hours to spend peeling each one apart in our casual, sarcastic style.

Hence, we are going to attempt to implement a new formula to our general reviews: short, concise recommendations and criticisms. That being said, I do intend to continue my Future Film Flashback series. There just haven't been any direct reboots in a while; not since RoboCop. I certainly wasn't going to rewatch the original Transformers, just because Trans4mers was technically a 'soft reboot'. Nor did I feel that any Planet of the Apes movie would be appropriate preparation for Dawn. So get off my ass about that. Besides, more and more movies are being turned into television series these days (see: Fargo, Constantine, Scream, and even 12 fucking Monkeys).

Anyways, that concludes my excuse-laden introduction. Now let me get to this movie I just watched: Out of the Furnace.

I always like it when relatively high-profile actors take on unusual roles. This film boasts an impressive roster of familiar faces, including (if you can't read the poster above) Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Casey Affleck, and Willem Dafoe. Bale, of course, has a pretty solid resume of diverse roles, and yet I always go into a movie expecting him to be Batman. Here, he drops the 'troubled tough guy/action hero' persona, and gives the most subdued and restrained performance I have ever seen him in. Meanwhile, Harrelson provides his familiar brand of psychotic tobacco-chewer (always entertaining, but not particularly original), and Affleck mopes around as usual. At the end of the day, the casting is perfect and the acting is surprisingly satisfying.

All that being said, this film doesn't have too much else going for it. From the very beginning, the entire plot is relatively predictable, because we have seen it before. Bale and Affleck are brothers; Bale is a responsible son and boyfriend with a solid work ethic, and his brother is a gambling veteran with PTSD. Both have relatively shitty lives and deal with their problems in different ways, culminating in Affleck getting into trouble and Bale having to come to his aid. It reminded me a lot of Shotgun Stories, another indie film about brotherhood in rural America, starring Michael Shannon (Mark and I reviewed it here).

I would definitely recommend this film if you are into great performances with a solid but simple plot. You may find the slow buildup to the relatively quiet conclusion less than satisfying, but really, we pretty much know how things are going to end once they get rolling. If anything, watch the movie for the uncharacteristically calm and reserved Bale. I would even go so far as to call his performance inspirational, especially in such a bleak film.

And by the way, it is on Netflix.

The Hunt

The Oscars: the most televised opportunity for rich and beautiful people to get together and remind each other how rich and beautiful they are. To celebrate this enlightening cultural spectacle, Mark and I have put together a series in which we watch and review Academy Award nominees before the actual ceremony. Of course, because we never get these things done in time, it is officially a one-part series. And this is going to be the first and only entry.

The movie is entitled The Hunt. It is nominated for Best Foreign Film. Yes, it is a foreign film, so you'll have to do some subtitle reading. I suppose you could find a dubbed version, you lazy bastard. Oh, and it's on Netflix. 

Mark:  So this was one of the most emotionally draining movies I’ve seen in a while.  Most films with this caliber of tension at some point use violence for shock value. And while this movie does, at times, give us a glimpse of overt violence, it really does a consistent job of holding back. In a way, this makes the movie all the more harrowing, as we never get the visceral release that the characters seem to be plummeting toward.  We are presented with a painfully realistic look at how people can turn on each other in the blink of an eye. 

Dylan: I wouldn’t necessarily say that everyone turns to violence. Not at first, at least. I was more swept up by 1) how something this serious could steamroll out of proportion, and 2) how everyone is willing, even eager, to believe the worst. 

(So let me give some background. Lucas is a kindergarten teacher. He is estranged from his wife and son, but he has a tight-knit group of friends, and a budding relationship with a coworker. When a student, Klara -- the daughter of Lucas’ best friend and, herself, a companion to Lucas -- who is having troubles at home, basically does little more than use the words 'Lucas' and ‘penis’ in the same sentence, everything goes to shit. Of course Lucas is innocent, but not only does the innocent white lie, told out of misdirected anger and frustration, spiral out of proportion to the point where Lucas is accused of molesting the entire class, but his coworkers, his close friends, and the entire town turn against him as if he were a hideous beast.)

What makes this film so discomforting is, as you mentioned, the realism. Pedophiles and child molesters are generally considered among the worst level of offenders. Just those words stir up certain feelings, along the same lines as 'terrorism' and 'cancer'. You don't think twice about whether or not an accused or convicted sex offender is guilty; you automatically commit to despising that person, whether or not he/she actually committed the crime. We sympathize with the distraught townspeople, looking for someone to crucify in their rage, but obviously we are heartbroken by Lucas’ troubles, knowing that he did not do any of the things he is accused of.

Mark:  The movie sort of flows more like a documentary.  I say this because the film has very little flash or flair in how scenes are shot, and for this kind of story, that really helps to bring us closer to the characters.  The camera plays the passive role, documenting what happens in Lucas’ life as the world turns against him.  It all begins gradually, with people turning on him one by one. And even when he tries to defend himself, they completely shut him out.  You’re right, the real disturbing part is how we are all capable of this.  But something really refreshing came from how the film portrayed Lucas.  He doesn’t engage in the moments of violence; he doesn’t let it disrupt his life.  When the police ask him to come to the station, he doesn’t fight it, he goes, because he knows he’s innocent and doing anything but will only hurt him.  And this makes him even more engaging of a character.  Not to mention that Mads Mikkelsen does a phenomenal job as Lucas.

Dylan: Right. For the first half of the movie, Lucas isn’t even sure what he’s being accused of. First his boss tells him not to come into work for a few days off because of an incident with a child. And yes, I love how the character Lucas deals with it so complacently, relying on the the legal system to do its job. I have to say, the suspense in this movie is nail-biting. Again, because we can relate with the townspeople, we can sense that Lucas’ life is in danger. I want to discuss the end, but I really want to avoid spoilers. Mikkelson’s general silence throughout the film -- both his docility and his literal lack of speech -- are what really build the tension until it’s unbearable. Most characters he plays are quiet and menacing -- emoting mostly with his face and eyes -- but in this case, it's more vulnerable and restrained. 

Mark: For the whole movie, or rather when things begin to spiral out of control, you expect Lucas to explode.  To just go off on everyone.  It’s really what we’ve kinda come to expect in characters who get accused of something.  And part of the tension is watching and waiting for it.  There are moments where I thought we’d see it from him.  One in particular, which I won’t say because, you know, spoilers and such, showed how much control he has of his own emotions.  But then in the next scene, we see him and see really, what all of this is doing to to him.  Still he keeps his composure; he retains his dignity.  But it’s written all over his face and in his quiet responses.  And it’s probably one of the best and most painful scenes in the movie. 

And while we can speak for pages on how great Mads' performance is (and, really, this was some Oscar-caliber stuff), I just want to relay that the rest of the cast is just as good.  Each character has such personality that it creates a vibrant town, which makes it all so much more poignant when it all turns dark.

Dylan: By the way, loyal reader, as I mentioned above, this is a foreign film. Mads, who is probably more known for his roles in Casino Royale, King Arthur, and the television series Hannibal, apparently emotes even more impressively in his native tongue, Danish. The supporting cast is entirely unknown, at least from our perspective. And I agree, they make a very believable community, from the concerned parents, to the other teachers, to Lucas’ best friend, Klara’s father. The movie is fantastically well written, and is just a great exploration of truth vs. perception, the darkness in human nature, and the way a society functions. It’s also incredibly human, and shows how friends and family will break lifelong bonds and relationships to take sides over something like this.

Mark: You’re right, this is an amazingly well-written film, from the dialogue between well-acted characters to the frighteningly believable concept.  I highly recommend The Hunt; just go in knowing you’re not going to come out with a smile. But know you’re in for a tense, well-acted drama that will hold you from the first scene to the very last, and even in that very last scene, you’ll learn something more about who we are as a society.

Dylan: I believe this is an example of a what they call a 'Frankenstein story'. You know, with the misunderstood dude, perceived as a monster, and chased around by people with pitchforks, yada yada, something with Van Helsing, Aaron Eckhart, and the Wolfman singing Puttin’ on the Ritz with Abbott and Costello and so forth. All that to say, you definitely want to see this movie and feel bad about yourself.

Mark:  Yea, that about sums it up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So here at Back Row Critics, i.e. my living room, we try to present some titles you are unlikely to have picked out yourself. We want to expand your cinematic perspective, and also watch some entertaining movies while we're at it. Sometimes we do a good job of it and sometimes we just goof off and watch movies like Equilibrium. This movie, The Hunt, is great on so many levels. You'll enjoy it and then you'll get to tell your friends about how you watched a foreign film and they'll be impressed. It's almost as impressive as reading a book. 

The Iceman

In the first season of Dexter, back when the show was good, the villain, who allegedly transported his victims in a refrigerated van, became known as the Ice Truck Killer. He would drain their blood and cut them up into pieces and then put them out on display for the police to find. Most people probably do not realize that the show -- at least in its early years -- including this unforgettable foe, are based on true events. The origin story of the Ice Truck Killer is, in fact, a serial killer known as The Iceman.

Okay, I'm just fucking with you. The show Dexter and the movie The Iceman are not, to my knowledge, in any way related. And the former is certainly not based on true events. I just can't resist an opportunity to point out how Dexter was once a great show and then stopped being one. But I guess we're here to talk about movies. So here's The Iceman...

Dylan: I watch Boardwalk Empire. And I think I’m not alone in saying that Michael Shannon’s character has quite a lot of crazy brewing just below the surface. He doesn’t get a lot of screen time, but whenever he shows up, my fingers are crossed that he'll snap and kill everyone. The fact that he is usually held back, on a show filled with lunatics mass murdering each other only fuels the anticipation. But that's a discussion for another time. Well, as far as I can tell, this movie, The Iceman, is explosive release of that same character's insanity (granted, about forty/fifty years in the future). Shannon has an intensity in all of his projects, but this is the first time he goes full-on sociopath from beginning to end.

Mark: Which I found kinda refreshing.  This movie starts with him playing the gentleman as he courts his future wife.  It plays it slow, letting us see, or at least what I thought at the time, The Iceman before he snaps or whatever.  And then two scenes later the blood starts flowing.  There is no build-up, no origin of this killer.  He just was.  So we are dropped into his life and watch as he sinks deeper and deeper into his life of a sociopathic hitman.  But while I say this is good, it also leaves us groundless.  Time flies in this film; years go by, but only occasionally is the date given as a reference point.  I understand this was a long period of his life, but it felt disjointed.  Things flew by, and while moments were entertaining, I got lost a bit in the shuffle of it.

Dylan: Yea totally. I enjoyed Shannon’s crazy face (which is his normal visage), as I always do. But the rest of the movie was severely lacking. Only one scene with Shannon’s character, Richard, and his brother really attempts to divulge some of the history and childhood events that spawned his homicidal tendencies. And it comes halfway through the movie. Aside from that, we gather everything we can, basically, from the way he literally looks at the general public vs. the way he looks at his wife and kids. I also thought that the mafiosos and their storyline was only partially developed. There was Roy and Leo, and some problem between them. But it was barely fleshed out enough to understand how it played into Richard’s life. Especially since, as you mentioned, two decades went by, and it was unclear who was being killed and who Richard was killing people for. Also, since we didn’t mention this: the movie is about a notorious mob (freelance) hitman.

Mark: While watching this, all I could feel is that this story should have been told as a mini-series, so that the time jumps would feel less jolting, and the characters would benefit from more growth and depth.  Everyone, really even Richard, feels like just a caricature.  Richard is brooding and brimming with rage, and that’s it.  Roy, played by a Ray Liotta who seems like he’s sleepwalking through this, is just your run-of-the-mill mafia boss.  I love me some Michael Shannon, but somewhere along the line of the movie’s production, someone told him that his stoic face is really good, and he stuck with.  The only two characters I found myself being really interested in were Josh Rosenthal and Mr. Freezy; Josh because he is played by a David Schwimmer hoping you won’t recognize him.  And Mr. Freezy because Chris Evans hams it up and knocks it out of the park.

Dylan: The reason I brought up Boardwalk is because there is a whole TV series there to flesh out the normal side of Shannon’s character and the events that send him over the edge. And yea, all we get here is a caricature. And that goes for Liotta, too. When did they decide he was the go-to mafia boss character? Goodfellas was great, but even in that, he was just an Irish coke fiend. I agree that Chris Evans was good. It’s great to see him in different roles. He’s like a male Scarlet Johannson (the rockin’ bod); you know he’s in stuff other than The Avengers, but you haven’t really seen much of it. But in this film, he is another character that suffers from two-dimensionality. It would have been more interesting to see how Mr. Freezy’s flavor of craziness differed from Richard’s, and how the two of them work together and try to understand each other. But instead he is introduced, has a few lines here and there, and then leaves.

Mark: But at least for Mr. Freezy, I felt some life being pumped into the film.  They may have been only a few lines, but they had energy.  And you can also see that Chris Evans was still rocking the Captain America physique.  It actually made his character more ridiculous, but in a good way.  But he highlights the biggest flaw in the movie: it’s very shallow.  The story is focused solely on telling you the history of Richard Kuklinski, but nothing more.  Like, it hits on major moments in his life, jumping from one to the next, never letting you sit and watch him develop.  All the changes happen in the time jumps, we just get to see the next stage in the evolution of the Iceman.  Not to say that the life of the Iceman wasn’t interesting, but I wanted something more personal, cause with things just flying by, pivitol moments that change the course of his life just feel like bulletpoints.

Dylan: True. It was just sort of handed to us that his killings were picking up publicity and that there was a killer known as the Iceman when we saw a newspaper headline. There was no indication of the severity of organized crime in that area and at that time. Maybe we were just supposed to know. I don’t know. The movie was entertaining. But it was missing a lot of substance.

And I meant to comment on what you said about David Schwimmer’s role. How can we picture that mope as anything other than the whiney, neurotic Ross from Friends? Here he is a drug dealer/mob enforcer? Yea right. That was kind of lame. And I was really hoping Richard would murder him. Spoiler alert: he doesn’t.

Mark: Which is why I found him so unintentionally hilarious.  And I realize we’re talking heavy on the acting and characters, but really, that’s all there is to this.  As for things like direction or score, I found them to be fine.  Well, actually, a bunch of scenes seemed to have a weird filter that made everything one uniformed color.  I swear there was a scene where Richard is with his family and everything is a shade of orange.  It was so bizarre.  And the music sounded like the same musical cue for the Joker in The Dark Knight.  It worked, but felt like it was aping another, obviously better film.

Dylan:  Overall, I’d say it was very...average, in most respects. Nothing special in any particular department. It’s literally Michael Shannon releasing some of the rage he’s been building up in his other TV/film roles. No character has any sort of arc or growth throughout the hour and a half. So, while it was watchable and somewhat enjoyable, I’m not sure I would recommend it. Really nothing remarkable here.

Mark: We both only really watched this because we have a fascination bordering on obsession with Michael Shannon.  But yeah, unless you really want to know some key points in the life of The Iceman -- a supposedly notorious hit man I had never even heard of up to this point -- I can’t really recommend this for any other reason.  Nothing stands out that sets it above any other film.  Though, does any other film have a scene of Michael Shannon attempting to dance with his arms in the air like he just don’t care?  Not that I can think of.

Dylan: Thank you for reminding me of that! Greatest scene ever! Yes, I forgot about the Michael Shannon at the club scene. I have to say, that alone makes the film at least a little bit watchable. Anyways, yea, I guess I expected some fascinating character study mixed with historical drama. But Shannon already flaunted his slightly off acting chops in Take Shelter. It’s not like he owes me anything.

Mark:  Yeah, I guess that’s one thing this movie did for me: make me want to rewatch Take Shelter, a much better movie.  Which incidentally made me look up the director of Take Shelter and I found out he’s making another movie with Michael Shannon.  So we have something to look forward to.

Dylan: Yea, and I also have to watch Mud, if I can ever get my hands on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It slipped my mind at the time, but I would also like to add that James Franco's role in this film is completely overstated. I see on the film poster he has the third credit, when in fact he spent possibly the least amount of time in the film of any character. There may have even been a corpse in a freezer that got more screen time then Franco. So if you're considering seeing this movie because it has his name at the time, don't bother. 

And that's all we got. 

Night Watch

Okay then. After a brief separation due to irreconcilable differences, my partner and I have, well, reconciled our differences and have thus returned the only way we know how: by talking about a movie.

In an attempted return to form, we chose a underrated foreign movie from Netflix. The film is called Night Watch. Apparently it was pretty popular in its home country, Russia, but is relatively unknown in these parts. That's where we come in. Naturally it caught our collective attention.

Dylan: Wow. It has been a while since I’ve had to preface my thoughts with my own name. At long last, we managed to synchronize a movie viewing. It’s only been, what, four months or so? Anyways, we’re getting back in the game with certainly an interesting choice. Someone back in college told me to see this movie and, out of greater than normal dislike for that person, I promptly disregarded the idea. But a late, lonely night and a Netflix account can really work wonders on changing a guy's mind. So I gave it a shot and here we are.

Where do I begin? First off, it is a foreign film. And, like our other foreign-language selections -- The Host, The Raid, Troll Hunter among them -- it’s got fantasy, action, and just an excellent level of weirdness that I really enjoyed, and that I can’t really compare to anything else I’ve seen. The only comparison it brings to mind is the novel American Gods by Neil Gaiman. Or maybe...Constantine? I don’t know. The idea is that, since the dawn of time or whatever, good and evil (angels and demons, essentially) have been at war. Special beings, known as Others, are basically humans with supernatural abilities; with the discovery of their powers they have to choose whether they will fight for the Light or the Darkness. Throw in a curse that could bring around the end of the world, and all of this is the background for a pretty fast-paced and bizarre story about shape-shifters, vampires, and some other crazy shit that, if I describe anymore, will come off as lame and overdone, when it is actually quite original.

Mark: You make a good comparison with Constantine, cause it is basically about The Others trying to maintain the balance between them and keeping the Truce from being broken. But instead of having a third party Keanu Reeves-type to mediate, both good and evil work to keep each other in line. I like how there's no generalized duality to represent the sides; no Harry Potter/Voldemort or Frodo Baggins/Sauron representing the ideal good and evil. In fact, the protagonist in this case is pretty jaded; he tried to use dark magic to abort his unborn son in the first scene after all. 

I also like that, when it comes down to if a new Other is going to be good or evil, it’s their decision. It’s something that, really, you don’t see in movies.  And so, all this sets the scene for a moment during a routine job to stop a vampire in which our lead Anton sees a future that could unravel the world.  And I love that while it’s a dark story with blood and violence, somehow it keeps it all from getting bogged down and depressing.  Crazy camera angles, cool action, and interesting fantasy elements keep it moving at a quick pace, for the most part.

Dylan: I think one of its greatest attributes is that it keeps you on your toes, tonally. You’re right about the gore/violence; there were some unexpectedly bloody scenes, but they weren’t used for shock and awe. And the camera angles -- the cinematography in general -- was very cool. It was a bit jumpy at times, but was never distracting. And the almost palpable darkness reminded me of the sets of The Crow, but much less cartoonish and more realistic (most of it was, in fact, Moscow, I assume). Even the subtitles were designed to add some effect, as if the movie was filmed in Russian, but with the foresight that it would be dubbed/subtitled in English. The way certain words faded into blood drops and what not. The greatest part is that I didn’t even notice it at first because it flowed so well with the film.

Mark: Yea, I first noticed a character moved in front of the subtitles and when she moved back, they had changed.  It’s an interesting and creative use of what's on the screen; they’re used to emphasize different emotions and it works well.  And I would say The Crow is a good comparison as well, since things are so stylized, from the buildings to the fighting to even how they transition from scene to scene.  Nothing becomes stagnant.  Though, sometimes I was caught up in the action or the way something was shot on screen, and completely missed the subtitles, which is funny since I just said they’re integrated with the action of the scene.  But hey, I get distracted by stuff easily.

Dylan: I also want to speak to the interesting mythology of the movie. It’s hard to explain the uniqueness of it, in my opinion, especially because it’s very traditional. Yes, it’s Light versus Darkness. But the human element was so neatly intertwined, and, like you said, there is no exotic predestined conclusion, no good for goodness' sake hero whose fate it is to defeat the evil for evil's sake villain. You pick your own destiny and then you fight on that side. But the lines are blurred. Anton, who fights for the Light, is neighbors with Kostya, a vampire. They get along, knowing full well that someday they may be called to fight each other. I don’t know how to put it into words, but the history of it was impressively believable. 

Mark:  The more I think about it, the more I see this connecting to Underworld.  Two factions, forever in a state of tension, but while they are in the open, they don’t make their presence known. Instead of warring, they’re just trying to keep the peace.  And then, without wishing to spoil anything, the ending pulls a fast one after setting you up for something completely different.  Yeah, it’s to set up the sequel, but knowing that, it works well to bring the two main plots together in the end  And in the end, I was really pleased with how it turned out.

Dylan: And you know, I actually wanted to talk about the ending. I enjoyed this moving very much but the ending was sort of anticlimactic and raised a number of questions. As it turns out, this movie -- in the very Western style of moviemaking -- was made with the intention of being the first of a trilogy (I probably should have picked that up; it's written right on the cover). So not only is the end somewhat open-ended, there isn’t much resolution for any character. And we’re definitely left wondering what to expect. On the one hand, the apocalypse is avoided, but at what cost? As far as I know, the sequel exists and is also available on Netflix. But the third hasn't been filmed yet. So we could watch the second, but chances are we’d still end up without a solid conclusion.

Mark: Yeah that’s always the problem when creating movies intended to be trilogies or sequels, you never know if you’re gonna be able to make the rest.  Unless you’re Disney of course.  But with this film, being that it’s less known, the regular moviegoer probably wouldn’t go in knowing there’s a sequel, so the openness of the ending makes it feel like we’ve lost out on closure.  And they leave it hanging really at a pivotal moment for Anton, though that’s what cliffhangers tend to do.  But I liked how it came together in the ending, and I won’t lie, it makes me interested to see where it goes in the second.  And it makes me want to look up if there even is a third coming, cause that would really suck if we watch the next and never get the conclusion.

Dylan:  I just looked up the director (and writer and producer) Timur Bekmambetov, and I think I see what the problem is. His more recent credits include Wanted and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, so I suspect he, like other great directors, has been sucked into the vortex of American filmmaking. And so I fear a threequel, as it were, may be doomed to the back of his mind for awhile. Especially since he’s currently working on Wanted 2.

Mark: Yeah, I thought his name looked familiar.  So if anything, it will be a long while until the third film comes out, if it does at all.  Which is a shame, because I also read that these films did very well in Russia, so he’s leaving what seems to be a hit at home for mediocre films in the states. Such is Hollywood.

Dylan: I’m sure the paycheck is bigger, and that speaks for itself. Anyways, that’s enough cynicism for me. Anything else to say?

Mark: Well I found out that Konstantin Khabenskiy, who plays Anton, was actually in Wanted.  He played the Exterminator, who was the guy with the exploding rats.  Fact.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Needless so say, we recommend Night Watch. I actually regret waiting so long to give it a shot. Maybe I'll reconsider my friendship with the person who originally recommended it. Maybe everything I thought about that kid was just a misunderstanding. Maybe...nah, fuck it. He's an asshole.

I can't say if we'll be able to get back on track with these dual reviews, given our difficult schedules. Hopefully this entry is so profoundly enlightening that it holds everyone over until the next time.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

What can I say? You may or may not have read my review on the first of the Hobbit trilogy -- An Unexpected Journey -- so I'll sum it up by saying that I went into it expecting a Lord of the Rings movie and was completely let down.

How does The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug compare to the first? Well damn, you'll just have to keep reading to find out.

The more thought I put into this, the less I find a review is even worth it. If I see a really good movie, I am very happy to talk about it with anyone who'll listen. And then it seems the more I talk about it, the more I love it. Forcing myself to discuss a movie I am unhappy with has an equal and opposite effect. I really want to enjoy these Hobbit movies, so reinforcing my disappointment by going over the flaws again and again isn't helping anyone.

To some extent, I learned my lesson after An Unexpected Journey. These movies are not The Lord of the Rings. They really want to be. And maybe if LOTR didn't exist, these would be really powerful, exciting, epic films. But they're all just a shallow half-hearted reminder that something better has already been made and, if your ass is in the theater, than that better something is likely in your DVD collection already.

This time around, I went into the theater with lower expectations. And that was a good move. Basically, everything wrong with the first movie had rippled through to the second. Yes, I read the book. But no, I am not such a hardcore Tolkien fan that I'll rant about every minute deviation from source. That being said, it was once again painfully obvious when the narrative when into uncharted territory. Characters and plot threads that were written in to add screen time have no purpose other than to say and do things that can warrant some flashy special effects work. And once again it is at the expense of any unified central narrative. I admit, Bilbo and the dwarves are finally expanded on, something that was painfully lacking in the first entry.

I think back now and can't seem to remember any of the dialogue from the film. You can tell what scenes the filmmakers thought were important and actually gave some attention to: Thranduil and Legolas interrogating an orc, and Bilbo talking to Smaug. Everything else was "let's throw in a few more shots of New Zealand here" and "wouldn't it be cool if the eye of Sauron showed up and just zoomed in and out of the screen for about ten full seconds?"

I did get to see the high frame rate version this time. And I will say that the headache-inducing visuals, like those from the first film, are made much more crisp and solid in 48fps. The IMAX 3D was pretty impressive. The scale -- especially of Smaug -- was accomplished very well. But again, no five consecutive minutes of the movie can be watched without an idiotic leap in logic, a contrived plot move, or a dumb (meant to be funny) look on Martin Freeman's face.

--------------------------------------------

Anyways...of course I will go see the third one next year. Because I am a sucker. I would like to hear from someone who really loved it and thought it was brilliant (as long as that same someone is more than ten years old). As I said, it makes me depressed to sit and reiterate the things I didn't like about a movie that I spent years anticipating. Now all I anticipate is the "Everything Wrong With..." video. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a link to the first one.

P.S. Why the fuck are more of the orcs CGI? In the original trilogy there were orcs and Uruk-Hai. The Uruk-Hai were the bigger fiercer ones. And they were all played by humans in makeup. We got scenes like this:

Which, by the way, made us give a shit about the characters. In these films, the supposed orcs are all giant and white and fake as fuck. Are we finally at a point where it's cheaper to just digitize some bad guys instead of put some makeup on a guy? If that were the case, they could've saved half the movie budget if they had just removed the dwarves altogether.

C.H.U.D.

Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller. Or, if you prefer, Contamination Hazard Urban Disposal.

Wow, where to even begin with this one.

I caught this one on Netflix a few weeks back. It kept creeping into my Top 10, so I figured what the hell. Going into it, I expected something equivalent to The Toxic Avenger, with Citizen Toxie being shallowly replaced by equally absurd, low-budget, 80s-style monsters. What exactly was the fascination with toxic waste back then? Big globs of oozing, green-glowing barrels with skulls and cross-bones on them? Yikes.

Anyways, this flick turned out to be a complete surprise. And dare I say it, a pretty damn good one. It certainly had the B-movie aspect of, well yea, cannibalistic humanoid monsters living in the sewers. But the build-up to it, the colorful characters, their lives and problems, were definitely more interesting than I was expecting. There's Cooper, a photographer and young husband. He and his wife are dealing with typical young couple stuff, like living in an apartment and starting a family. Meanwhile, his photography subjects -- homeless people from around the city -- ask him for help with weird things going on in the subways, where they live. Then there's 'The Reverend', a one-man soup kitchen, who also gets involved with the strange occurrences. Lastly, we have Bosch, a cop whose wife, like so many others lately, has disappeared and is presumed dead. He is forbidden by his superiors to investigate any of the missing persons, but becomes increasingly desperate and defiant as the mystery unravels.

The monsters themselves are relatively unimaginative and are not particularly scary, out of context (like when one tries to break into Cooper's apartment). It's more of the idea that there's malevolent creatures living under the city, perhaps just a few feet from that subway platform, hiding in the shadows. But overall, I would say the monsters are the least terrifying part of the film. What I found particularly disturbing was the state of New York City in the '80s. Holy shit, what a dump. In many ways, that alone was enough to make this a horror movie; just watching the characters walking around dark, deserted city streets.

In the end, it's the interesting characters that make the movie watchable, and give it an unexpected but appreciable depth.

As for the drink-o-meter: you could definitely watch this bad boy with a drink in hand. It's equal parts dumb and entertaining. So have a drink that's equal parts gin and...I don't know, radon, so that it glows in the dark. During the movie you can decide if that burning sensation in your throat is the alcohol or the ionizing radiation hollowing out your esophagus. On second thought, just use an energy drink. Though I can't promise it'll be any healthier.