Unfortunately this is not the pervy Cronenberg movie I’ve never gotten around to seeing about the people getting off on car crashes. This is the race relations movie directed by Paul Haggis, writer of Clint’s MILLION DOLLAR BABY. I gotta be honest, my reason for seeing this was not that I thought I would like it, but that I was just real damn curious. Because it got so many rave reviews, and Roger Ebert chose it as the best of the year, but every single person I knew who had seen it said it was corny, overwrought bullshit.
I hate to be a centrist but I think it falls somewhere in the middle. It seems well intentioned. It’s trying to point out different kinds of subconscious racism, it’s trying to show that people are complicated, racists maybe have a chance of being redeemed, people who don’t think they are racists might end up shooting a black dude, etc. It’s one of those movies where there’s a bunch of different characters tangentally connected by coincidence and you find out as the story unfolds what they have to do with each other, which can be fun. And there’s some good little moments and whatnot. One of the best scenes actually involves a cop trying to save somebody from a flipped car before it blows up. In other words, a scene you can see in every single episode of CHiPs. But this is better directed so it’s pretty intense. Also Tony Danza has a cameo.
Other than Tony Danza there’s a good cast and lots of good acting. Terence Howard is always good, Thandie Newton is good, Don Cheadle is real good which is getting kind of old in my opinion. Come on Don, let’s see one movie where your acting sucks. You’re repeating yourself too much. Larenz Tate from MENACE II SOCIETY is in there, I like him. The biggest surprise is Ludacris. I didn’t think he was all that great in the much better HUSTLE & FLOW, but here he really impressed me. Also his character is pretty funny. In his first scene he does a long monologue about racism and how the white woman (Sandra Bullock) that he passed on the street was obviously scared of him and why do white people fear black men and etc., then he pulls out a gun and carjacks Sandra Bullock. And he continues to preach throughout the movie while committing crimes. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 24th, 2006 | No Comments »
I had a good feeling about this movie from right about the time the title came on the screen. It was a shot of a pimp (Terence Howard) and a ho (Taryn Manning) driving in a car, and it freeze frames to write the title in yellow ’70s style lettering.
I always like Terence Howard but I’ve never seen him in a lead role before. He’s always the supporting role that steals the movie. Here he has a lead role that steals the movie. I haven’t seen GET RICH OR DIE TRYIN but I would be surprised if Terence Howard’s performance in this movie doesn’t run a hundred circles around his co-star in that movie, both as an actor and as a rapper. True, he does mumble alot in this movie (you almost need subtitles) but I still feel his enunciation is better than Fifty Cents.
What I am doing here is starting a feud with Fifty Cents. Apparently he told GQ that if he wasn’t a felon he would’ve voted for Bush because “he’s a hustler” and blah blah blah. I think that’s enough to write the motherfucker off forever. If a grown man says that kind of retarded fifteen year old street hustler horse shit that means he is 100% lifetime chump. That pretty much proves what I was saying about how today’s so-called rebels have the same values as the corrupt bastards that they would be rebelling against if they actually were rebels. This guy might as well be fuckin Pat Boone. But he’s not in this movie fortunately so let’s get back on topic.
Anyway, this movie is about a small time pimp and weed dealer in Memphis who starts to question what he’s doing with his life. He says he’s having a mid-life crisis. Then he is inspired to become a rapper. Sounds simple and it is, maybe sounds stupid, but it’s not. It’s an underdog story, an unlikely dude chasing a dream and also becoming just barely a little bit more enlightened (like BAD SANTA maybe, but this isn’t a comedy). (read the rest of this shit…)
January 23rd, 2006 | No Comments »
Dear Hercules T. Strong,
My name is Vern and I am a fellow writer here at The Ain’t It Cool News. I usually write over on the “movie” side though, because that’s my thing. You would have seen some of my Writings however at the time you were busy watching VERONICA OF MARS or some show like that. But they were pretty good reviews, you would’ve liked them in my opinion.
The truth is bud, and please don’t take offense to this, but I don’t watch a whole hell of alot of the TV these days. There’s just not alot there that floats my boat. In fact sometimes I read your articles and I don’t even understand your crazy TV slang. Teleplay? Colorcast? Hourlongs? Skein? Simulblogged? HBO? I’m even more out of my element when you make those little in-references. Take a look at these three items:
- Boy of my flag and boy of your flag! ! Today Eko Eko! ! The beginning ever since November it is new, it was gone! ! Nay of Jockomo Feena! !
- Hosting plans information -Sensattional revolution in meedicine! -E-nlarge your p-enis up to 10 cm or up to 4 inches! -It’s herbal solution what hasn’t side effect, but has 100% guaranteed results! -Don’t loose your chance and but know wihtout doubts, you will be impressed with results!
- My Flag Boy And Your Flag Boy!! Eko Eko Today!! The First New LOST Since November!! Jockomo Feena Nay!!
One is a friendly email I recently received, one is a recent Coaxial headline, and one is a coaxial headline translated into Japanese and then back into English. You can probaly tell which is which because you speak both English and Herc. Me, they all look exactly the same. The idea here is not to take potshots at your jargon, but to establish that I am not a with-it TV type of dude. But it just so happens there is exactly one TV show I really do like that I don’t think you’ve ever written about or done a talkback for. So I have no choice but to send you a long essay about the first season so far (9 episodes I think). (read the rest of this shit…)
January 21st, 2006 | 8 Comments »
As part of my striving for excellence pledge, I’ve decided to start putting “06″ instead of “05″ on everything. Also I reviewed that new horror movie HOSTEL as well as MUNICH which I’m gonna tell you up front is fuckin great. And along with that I reviewed SWORD OF GIDEON which is the 1986 Steven Bauer tv movie based on the same book that MUNICH is based on.
January 11th, 2006 | No Comments »
No way in hell HOSTEL is the landmark horror movie that at least one of my online buddies will tell you it is. Also, it’s not the worthless piece of shit some other people will tell you it is. This may seem weird, you probaly have never heard an opinion like this on the internet before, but HOSTEL falls somewhere in between GREAT AMERICAN HORROR CLASSIC MASTERPIECE and COMPLETE SUCKING OF ANIMAL SEX ORGANS. I call this condition “okay.”
As the ads will tell you, HOSTEL is “FROM DIRECTOR ELI ROTH” – in other words, the guy whose only other movie is CABIN FEVER. I liked that one. The hero-victims were dumb teenagers, but they had funny dialogue that made you like them anyway. In HOSTEL we get a trio of dumbass pussy fiends straight out of an ’80s fraternity movie, and they’re not as funny as those cabin kids. The first half of the movie is mostly about trying to get laid, smoking pot and drinking at a dance club. If you like to watch stupid dipshits get all excited about hot chicks taking their shirts off, you will enjoy this. I can’t remember if they keep high-fiving each other or not, but that is the basic vibe we’re talking here. The high fives are implied. Also, there is not a wet t-shirt contest at any point, but maybe on the DVD. Of the three characters, one is so obnoxious as to be kind of humorous, one is halfway sympathetic in comparison to the other two, and the third one is just a completely bland frat boy with few distinguishing characteristics except that he is the guy who plays Carlito Brigante in the CARLITO’S WAY straight to video prequel that I haven’t watched yet. So of course they die in that order, leaving you trying to root for the least interesting of three unlikable pricks.
One thing they didn’t have in the ’80s is cell phones, so that makes this pretty different from FRATERNITY VACATION or some stupid shit like that. These dipshits go around and take pictures with their cell phones and keep leaving each other voice mails and crap. So if your interests are talking about pussy with other guys, high fiving other guys to congratulate them for the size of their bongs, and going around annoying people by playing with your stupid fucking cell phone, you will relate to these characters. But if you are one of those guys you probaly won’t be reading this review unless it’s edited down to one paragraph and reprinted in Maxim. So confidentially between me and you, fuck those guys. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 11th, 2006 | No Comments »
You know, MUNICH is almost the movie I was hoping SYRIANA would be. SYRIANA has alot to say about the complicated way the world works, but it doesn’t get you excited about it. You’re probaly not gonna be sitting on the edge of your seat. More likely you’ll be scratching your chin saying, “Interesting, interesting.” I’d rather see a movie that can be complex and political without sacrificing in the awesome department. A good balance of substance and badass. And that’s what this is.
Okay so maybe MUNICH isn’t as true to life as SYRIANA (in fact, some people think the real guy it’s based on made up the whole story and never worked for Mossad) but it sure is a more entertaining movie. Eric Bana (winner of the secret, recently declassified 2001 lead badass outlaw award for CHOPPER) plays Avner, a small time Israeli agent personally chosen by the prime minister to lead a team of assassins to kill 11 people believed to be involved in the planning of the massacre of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.
I read a quote from Steve Spielberg (who, incidentally, is the director of this movie) that got me real excited. He talked about a scene where Bana’s character has a conversation with a PLO terrorist, and he said “Without that scene it’s just a Charles Bronson movie.” I thought Oh shit, a Charles Bronson movie with one extra scene? I’m there!
Really it’s not a Charles Bronson movie though, and not just because Charles Bronson isn’t in it. I mean I’m sure he would’ve been if he could’ve, but that’s not the point. The point is that the dialogue actually specifically says that Avner is not Charles Bronson, he’s pretty much a regular guy, not a hot shot agent who could be suspected of this type of business. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 11th, 2006 | 4 Comments »
Check out my new Striving for Excellence logo by Tony Fleecs! Now I have a constant reminder. Never forget. Thanks bud.
January 5th, 2006 | No Comments »
HIGH TENSION (aka HAUTE TENSION, aka SWITCHBLADE ROMANCE)
This is another one of those heavily buzzed foreign imports that I put off watching forever. The final deciding factor, I keep seeing the trailer for a remake of THE HILLS HAVE EYES which is made by these same frenchmen. So I figured I oughta investigate, see what these guys are about.
HIGH TENSION is a well made throwback kind of slasher movie, but not as good as WOLF CREEK. Similar subject matter though. Two young ladies, Marie and Alexia, go to visit Alexia’s parents out in the french boonies. While everybody’s in bed, some grunting redneck schlub (he looks like M. Emmett Walsh in an Ed Gein costume) drives up in a rusty truck, breaks in and starts killing everybody. Most of the movie – and the best part of the movie – involves Alexia being tied up and gagged in the back of the truck, while Marie chases the killer trying to save her.
So it’s the kind of energetic, non-verbal chasing that can be fun when well directed. A cat and mouse game is what they sometimes call it. The clever thing is that for alot of the game, the cat doesn’t even know the mouse is there. She keeps sneaking around just out of his eye sight until she can find a way to save her friend.
Another twist is that these two are more than just friends, if you know what I mean. If you don’t know what I mean, what I mean is Marie obviously has a crush on Alexia and Alexia doesn’t know it. I like that they leave that unspoken, it seemed like a nice idea, although the way the movie ends up it seems like a pretty backward view of gay people. I don’t know, maybe that’s how they do it in France.
There’s some pretty gruesome deaths in this one, and even a little kid dies. The first time we see the killer he’s in his truck, getting a blowjob from a severed head, then he throws it out the window like a piece of litter. So you know right away that you’re dealing with a classy movie. It didn’t piss off critics as much as WOLF CREEK did though, for two reasons. One, the look is pretty stylized, very nice photography but not realistic, and the killer reminds you of the killers in that disowned Sam Raimi/Coen brothers movie CRIMEWAVE. It’s more of a cartoon. And number two, it’s just not as good. You can’t take it as seriously when it’s not as scary. And it has a ridiculous plot twist at the end. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 4th, 2006 | No Comments »
I never heard of this one before but the box caught my eye. It’s from ‘86 and apparently made for TV. Tommy Lee Jones – after ROLLING THUNDER but before UNDER SIEGE – plays another angry veteran on a rampage. This one though is unusual because he basically inherits this rampage from a deceased friend. I mean can you imagine? A little bit of money, maybe some furniture or something. But inheriting a rampage? That’s rough.
The movie starts out with a guy jumping off a building. Tommy Lee is at the funeral and shortly after receives a letter, and a key, from his dead ‘Nam buddy. In the letter the dead guy explains that he’s been preparing an attack on Central Park for a long time. The key leads to a ridiculous stash of guns, bullets and bombs. There are also maps showing where this guy has already planted explosives around the park.
I’m not really sure why the guy had to kill himself before pulling his little massacre. But Tommy Lee, having lost his shitty job and not being allowed to see his kid is pretty much in the mood. His ex-wife chews him out for being a fuckup and asks him “Why don’t you just do something about it?” Cut to Tommy Lee in full camo, plus face paint and Yankees cap, ready to conquer Central Park. It’s 3 days until Veteran’s Day and his only demand is to keep people out of the park until Veteran’s Day.
The story is set up incompetently (why do we need a voiceover of the letter explaining everything when we could discover everything visually, piece by piece?) but I love this idea. Most people would think “Holy shit, my friend was completely nuts, but should I tell the cops or just try to get rid of this shit?” Tommy Lee happens to be the one guy who would take all the weapons and finish what his friend started. That’s a good premise for a movie right there. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 4th, 2006 | 2 Comments »
Happy new year everybody. Couldn’t be worse than the last one as far as my country is concerned. I hope.
Last year my resolution was what I called A COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE, and I guess I’m not the one to judge this but from my viewpoint I think it worked out pretty good. What I tried to do was just remember that you poor bastards out there are wasting your time reading some of this stuff so I should try to make it good. If I wrote a review and I wasn’t sure it was very interesting I wouldn’t post it right away so I could come back to it later and try to make it better. I’m sure I still put some duds up there but probaly alot less than I did prior to my Commitment.
This year though I’m not gonna renew the commitment. What I’m gonna do instead is called STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE. See, if you have a commitment to excellence, what the fuck is that, anyway? All you do is say you’re commited. It’s like saying the flag salute every morning, that doesn’t mean you’re gonna go out there and stand up for the values you just pledged allegiance to, it just means you’re there in spirit or something. The difference between striving and commitment is the difference between trying to impress your new girlfriend and laying around reading the newspaper while your wife does the dishes. You still love her, I hope, but you’re just not striving.
That’s the difference. When you’re dedicated to STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE you actually gotta put some elbow grease into it, by definition. If you just sit on your ass and/or laurels, you are not striving. My goal is to just be striving left and right, striving up and down, striving all over the place. I’m still gonna have gaps where you won’t see a review for a little while, but hopefully you will know that it is not because I am procrastinating or some shit. You will know I am out there somewhere striving. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2006 | No Comments »
