Reviews: T, as in "tough titties"

THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE

The first and most important thing that must be said of THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE is that it has one of the most badass theme songs ever, and without even leaning on the crutch of wah wah guitar. A deep ominous BA-DUMP-BUMP-BUMP alternates with tension building horns and violins or something in a higher pitch... well, I'm dancing about architecture here but trust me, this theme song WILL kick your ass. The score is by David Shire, who strangely has done mostly TV movies but recently did ZODIAC. But it has that catchiness and strutting quality of the best Lalo Schifrin, like ENTER THE DRAGON or something, where after you see the movie you can't help but walking around picturing it as your theme music.

(By the way, if you watch the original theatrical cut of PAYBACK you can tell that the badass music during the opening montage is inspired by this. They did a good job, but not as good.)

And the movie does a pretty good job of living up to the theme song. It's directed by Joseph Sargent who is also mainly a TV guy, but the feel is cinematic. Watching it now I realize this must've been a huge influence on many of the DIE HARD type movies and especially DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE. It doesn't have the one guy in over his head and physically fighting the bad guys, but the criminal plot, setting, characters, sense of humor and tone are all very DIE HARD.

A group of men (all wearing matching hats, coats, glasses and mustaches) commandeer a New York subway train. They dump all but one car, keeping the passengers under the watch of some machine guns, and call in to demand $1 million in one hour. If they don't get it they will begin killing one hostage each minute.

The hero is Walter Matthau, head of the transit police, and he spends most of the movie at headquarters talking to the hostage-takers on the radio and trying to figure out how to stop them while trying to follow their instructions enough to keep them from killing anybody. The lead villain is Robert Shaw as Mr. Blue, who we learn is a mercenary but who Matthau just says is "a fruitcake" because of his accent. Come to think of it he's kind of like a Grueber... a cold-hearted, European-accented villain with an air of superiority. He has some great lines like when he's holding a gun on a guy who shot at him and says, "You a cop?" When the guy nods Mr. Blue says "Well done. The mayor will go to your funeral."

And by the way, yes, this is the movie that had thieves code-named after colors before RESERVOIR DOGS.

Like DIE HARD it is not a comedy, but has you laughing all the time. It's a serious movie with a wiseass sense of gallows humor. The situation is never played for laughs, but the dialogue between the transit authorities is constantly funny. They all have that New York attitude so while negotiating with these dangerous men they can't help calling them maniacs or lunatics in the middle of otherwise compliant sentences. They are all quick with insults and with grim jokes about the deep shit they are in. One of Matthau's colleagues is Jerry Stiller, by the way. So these are regular working class type shlubs, not action heroes. If it was made in the '80s instead of 1974 Dennis Franz would be in the movie for sure.

And Matthau is fantastic as a hero who mostly works from behind a desk but who, as soon as he sees a window, runs in there himself and takes care of business. It's believable because Matthau is not exactly a tough guy but he does have some grit, he seems capable.

And as a thriller it's pretty effective. You have the innocent people in close quarters with scary villains, the city workers in control rooms looking at lights, making phone calls, dramatically assessing the situation. And the suspense about what exactly these guys are planning to do. I mean they must have some plan for escaping, right?

Tony Scott is doing a remake now. I'm not sure if I'll be watching that after MAN ON FIRE and DOMINO, I'm afraid I might die from his editing. And I guaran-fucking-tee you they won't match the theme song (I doubt they'll even make an attempt.) But who knows, maybe it will be good and if not at least it will remind people of the original and get them to watch it. It's good stuff.

TAPE

I have to admit, the digital video is starting to look more promising. For a while there I was about to declare it my arch-enemy. It never looked like a real movie. It always looked like crap. But it was winning over directors like Spike Lee, lowering their standards. Either it looked muddy and ugly (like Bamboozled) or like a TV special (like Original Kings of Comedy). Even in the best cases it just looked like cheap film stock (Chuck and Buck) and in the only case where it looked really great (Julien Donkey Boy) it was because they transferred it to film and then back to video and then back to film, or some crazy shit like that that nobody else is gonna bother to try.

I'm still skeptical but I must admit that the technology is improving, making it more acceptable. They're even using digital video for important works like the next Soderbergh film and the third installment in the Mariachi trilogy. I saw an ad for Star Wars Part 2 and although it looked more artifial than part 1, I would never have guessed it was all shot on some super high tech rich guy camcorder.

Tape is a low-profile Richard Linklater movie coming soon to video. It was shot on digital video and it pretty much has the Chuck and Buck look, like it was shot on cheap film stock. So what is important here is not necessarily the look but that much ballyhooed democratization of digital video. You know, how it makes moviemaking more affordable, making it easier for a new guy to break into the industry, or for established filmatists to try risky or non-commercial projects.

I guess the way I look at it, digital video is just like the internet. This web sight pretty much sums up the whole issue of democratizing technology. On the one hand it's pretty cool that a dude like me could have a world wide forum for expression like this. On the other hand, it's pretty sad that a dude like me could have a world wide forum for expression like this. And imagine how much more of this type of crap there is to wade through!

Digital video is the same way. I'm glad Richard Linklater could just do a real quick, minimalistic shoot, adapting a three character, one location play into the most intimate possible movie. All three of the actors (the dude from Gattaca, the dude from Last Days of Disco, and the chick from Pulp Fiction) are pretty good. The story is very theatrical, but compelling, challenging your perceptions and assumptions, pulling some twists, building to an interesting climax without answering questions too neatly. I liked it. I was glad I watched it. I was glad he made it.

I'm glad other people are trying this type of shit too. Soderbergh's got people like David Duchovny and Julia Roberts doing a movie on dv that's mostly improv, with them doing their own makeup and clothes, not having trailers, getting paid less. It's a worthwhile experiment. Most of the Dogma movies turn out interesting. Why not do one with movie stars, and see if it makes them cry like babies? I want to do a Dogma Jean-Claude Van Damme vehicle. For the most part I like this movement.

But this could lead to big trouble. Linklater musta made this one fast - all he needed was three actors, one hotel room and a pre-existing play. He probaly borrowed the camera, the lights, the editing equipment. There are a few simple props and I guess he probaly had to order a pizza or two during filming. But that's about it. No wonder he was able to have another movie come out at around the same time as Waking Life.

This is simple, this is cheap, this is accessible. And that means it is prone to abuse. Imagine what happens when this technology falls into the wrong hands. Imagine the depths of self indulgence and audience discomfort that science can now carry us to.

I am speaking, of course, of Kerwin Smith and/or his wife. What could be worse than having a new Chasing Amy every month? I'll tell you. Smith's wife is working on a documentary on the making of Silent Bob and Jay Attacks which they're hoping will be ready for the Clerks 10th anniversary dvd, already being planned. Smith says the documentary will be four or five hours long!

It can't be long before we see re-enactments of Kerwin Smith's childhood, released theatrically in monthly 8-hour installments.

Good job on Tape, Linklater. But don't let silent bob find out.

thanks rich

TEACHING MRS. TINGLE

Well I don't know if any of you saw this but there was a gal in my guestbook who Wrote that I shouldn't date gals in their late teens and early 20s which I believe she said was disgusting on account of my age. Well the more teen movies I get hoodwinked into seeing by these young gals the more I agree with that sentiment. The latest is an embarassing load of shit by the name of Teaching Ms. Tingle.

Let me give you motherfuckers an analogy here. When I was in the joint there was a talent show they would do sometimes. And alot of times some dumb motherfucker would sign up, "Yeah, I'ma do some tap dancing" or "Yeah man I got a monologue you know, what you didn't know? Yeah I'm an actor bud, gotta monologue here nahmean?"

Then they get up there but they don't tap, they don't act, they just start blurting out shit about "P-DOG IS A PUNK BITCH!" or whatever. They were just using the medium of tapdancing as an excuse to purge all their pent up resentment. And hey bud more power to you if it has therapeutic value and what not but forgive me if I don't consider it a legitimate act. And in my opinion it is an abuse and an insult to the artform of the talent show act.

Well Mrs. Tingle is the same deal. This is not a movie, this a barely veiled vendetta against some teacher the film artists must have had in high school. The chick who made this movie apparently had a mean teacher who flunked her in history or whatever. The plot is a juvenile revenge fantasy that might have made sense at 15, but you would think by the time she grows up and makes it in Hollywood she would have had some type of emotional growth and what not. Sorry lady but i SINCERELY doubt this bitch was exactly the heartless monster you depict her as in the movie. If you are truly better than her you should be able to acknowledge her human qualities at some point in the damn movie. At the end of the movie they treat her like a Freddy or something, pretending to be dead, jumping to life, trying to strangle everybody. I'm sorry to say you are only proving Mrs. Tingle's point that you are a poor Writer.

The thirst for revenge has made these film artists delirious and deranged. I wouldn't be surprised if these motherfuckers thought the story made sense. The heroine Leigh Ann is supposively a good girl pushed over the edge by her teacher's cruelty, but there really is no motivation for her to tie her teacher to a bed, keep her captive and torment her for two days. I mean come on babe, I've done some stupid shit in my life, but if I did that I'd at least know what was coming. These kids act like it made sense at the time, but us poor idiots who rented the movie knew better.

This also works into that old myth that if there's somebody you hate, they're eventually going to have kinky sex with someone or other and you can take pictures and blackmail them. Believe me, I WISH this was true. I have tried and tried but some motherfuckers don't do anything worth photographing. And if they do, they close the blinds.

At the end, you're wondering okay they've had this lady tied up for two days, how are they going to redeem themselves, begin a new Positive lifestyle and get an A?

The answer: Mrs. Tingle is trying to get them out of her house, and accidentally shoots some other student with an arrow in front of the principal, so she gets fired. Leigh Ann goes on to become valedictorian and live happily ever after. Good thing Mrs. Tingle didn't think to mention the whole breaking in/tying up/tormenting/blackmailing thing to the principal or the pigs. They don't seem to know about it so I guess it just didn't come up.

Now I would like to make a personal plea to the gal behind this film. PLEASE lady, I implore you to get some help. I know I know I know maybe you are a tough gal or what not, it is embarassing to go to a therapist. And personally I have not done it either but I happen to know a LOT of motherfuckers, TOUGH motherfuckers, motherfuckers with tattoos and scars, even hooks for hands and these motherfuckers are fearless. They are so fearless that they are not afraid to bite the bullet and say I WILL NOT LET MY PAST BEND OVER MY PRESENT and they sit down and they talk it through with a professional. They break the chain, they do not blame it on others and most of all they do NOT dump on our cultural heritage and our Art of Cinema by unloading a bitter load of shit like Mrs. Tingle into our national theater chains and video stores.

It is time to move on lady. Maybe Mrs. Tingle really was a heartless alien bitch, who knows, but the point is don't punish America's teens and naive filmgoers like myself for her crimes. And if you INSIST on continuing this practice AT LEAST make it a comedy so that it is easier to swallow. I mean give Mrs. Tingle a funny walk or SOMETHING. Work with us here lady.

Look here lady, if you need someone to talk to, hell shoot me an e-mail I don't care. I will be there for you. I just can't have you unloading on my Cinema you understand. I am not hitting on you I'm just trying to show you there are good people in this world, people who can be ther for you, who can support you. there are other options, other outlets. We do NOT want another Teaching Mrs. Tingle on our hands. I think you know that.

I hope you are not offended by my frank honesty however you are definitely a nutcase no offense and I feel that it is important that we be open about our emotional feelings you understand. Good luck and god bless.

P.S. I was wondering how does Mrs. Tingle stay tied to a bed for two days without ever pissing herself thanks

pissing herself thanks

TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE

TEAM AMERICA is pretty much your typical moronic jingoistic action nonsense. The ultimate big budget, small brained hollywood summer action July 4th blockbuster. The movie you saw and couldn't believe anybody liked but somehow everybody liked it and it made a bazillion dollars and the next summer everybody pretended it was somebody else who liked it. It's pretty much that movie, except sarcastic, and done entireley with creepy looking marionettes like on that old TV show THUNDERBIRDS. That might be a comment about the wooden characterization and emotion in big action movies, and the way they treat sometimes respectable actors as props to move around and set up in front of explosions. But more likely it's just because puppets are funny. It's funny to watch them do stuff, because they're puppets.

The first third or so of this movie is the hardest I've laughed in a long time. The opening credits are these overblown 3-D metallic letters that fly at the camera and then blow up, and you know right there that these filmatists know their Jerry Bruckheimer. What's really impressive about the movie is the incredible attention to detail about all the cliches of action movies. They got every shot, every corny line, every montage, every subplot of a dumb action movie. They introduce and reintroduce bad guys exactly the same way they do in the real movies. They use the same angles and lighting and music cues. It's just different because they're these goofy bigheaded dolls and they walk funny.

The guys who made this movie, I forget their names but it's like Jeff and Chet or something like that, people just call them by their first name. They are the guys who did the cartoon SOUTH PARK which is about kids who swear, etc. I seen it once or twice and there is some insightful cultural satire sometimes, and then afterwards everybody just remembers the funny voices and the talking poo and it makes funny of the handicapped. And that's why they like it.

Parts of this movie though make me think these two smartasses are smarter and more disciplined than they seemed before. They must've watched a thousand post-DIE HARD action movies and taken detailed notes. This is not that type of dumb movie where they parody specific scenes from specific movies. It does the right thing, it recreates exactly the types of scenes you see in every one of these movies. They don't just skip to the funny action scenes and then load it with jokes, they do the whole damn story - the introduction of the heroes in loosely related action opening, the older mentor (a Charlton Heston type) tracking down a new hero in his pre-hero life, showing him his destiny, bringing him into the fold. They got the love subplots, the antagonistic men who by the end prove themselves to each other. The hero becoming disillusioned and leaving the team but coming back and having to prove to the team that he didn't turn his back on them. I mean they got the whole damn thing, the whole formula.

The cinematographer is Bill Pope, who according to my sources did THE MATRIX and SPIDER-MAN 2 and he shoots this like he thinks it's one of those. Not a puppet movie. The score is by some guy who did "additional music" for BROKEN ARROW, THE ROCK, ARMAGEDDON, etc., and he does a 100% dead-on imitation of that kind of music. The triumphant anthems, the militaristic drums, the exotic noises to represent the evil foreigners.

The storyline of the movie is the ultimate dumbed down jingoistic Michael Bay perspective of the world. Team America is an elite squad of experts in shiny uniforms who fly star spangled military vehicles around the world to fight terrorists. In this movie, terrorists from Chechnya to Egypt all work together under the supervision of Kim Jong Il, who lives in a big evil palace with a shark tank. When the team goes to obscure exotic locales like Paris and Cairo, titles on the screen tell us what country or region the city is in, and how many miles it is from America. Central America is "south of the real America".

Team America doesn't give a fuck what the world thinks of them. They don't even seem to notice, because their rock theme song tells them they are spreading freedom and I mean, what else could they be doing. So they land their helicopter on cultural artifacts, hurt many civilians in the crossfire and casually destroy the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, the pyramids and the sphinx without blinking. Because they know they're the good guys. They have so little knowledge or understanding of their enemy that they send the lead hero undercover wearing spotty blackface, a towel on his head, and his usual leather jacket. He doesn't bother to learn their language and neither do the filmatists. And the movie is smart enough not to point any of these things out. They just do it. They don't have to have a character saying, "Hey, but you just blew up the Eiffel Tower, we liked that tower" or "the sphinx is hundreds of years old, it is irreplacable."

I love that this movie is so deadpan. It stays true to the genre it's based on and is pretty light on the out and out gags. At least for a while. But then it starts to lose it, first when it goes into a subplot about liberal Hollywood actors. They go after the usual targets: Michael Moore, Janeane Garafalo, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn etc. Their puppet counterparts say they are anti-war but they scheme with Kim Jong Il. They're not even naively being manipulated by him, they are in cahoots. They capture and torture Team America, have shoot outs with them, and then all die gorey deaths.

I gotta be frankly honest, this part lost me. I'm not sure what Kevin and Chazz are trying to say here. I don't mind if somebody wants to make fun of these actors and their convictions, even if I don't agree with it. But the way they are portrayed is so ridiculous and unrelated to reality that it's hard to figure out what the point is supposed to be. They even make a reoccurring joke of calling them all fags. I guess they hate Michael Moore, so they depict him as a grouchy fat guy eating two hot dogs. (Get it, fat guy.) And then he suicide bombs Team America headquarters? What is that supposed to mean? Most of these characters have nothing to do with the actual person they're making fun of. Fucking Fox News has made more intelligent arguments against them.

I started to wonder if that was the point. Maybe these filmatists actually agree with Alec Baldwin and his henchmen and are looking for laughs by showing a paranoid right wing fantasy where anti-war actors are actually terrorists, the way people who would make a serious "Team America" movie might see them. But that doesn't really make sense either because as much as big Hollywood movies like INDEPENDENCE DAY and ARMAGEDDON can be moronic nationalistic propaganda, they also star Hollywood actors, so they probaly wouldn't depict Hollywood actors as bloodthirsty traitors. Unless there's some subplot in RAMBO 2 that I forgot about.

After the movie I decided to read up and figure out what Matt and Gregg were trying to say with this, and I found an interview where they criticized Janeane Garafalo for going on CROSSFIRE. Well, I think this criticism is bunk. A good criticism would be: Janeane Garafalo is so upset about what's going on in this country that she's not being funny anymore. She is more effective when she's being funny, like John Stewart and that co-host on her radio show and Al Franken.

A bad criticism is: Janeane Garafalo went on Crossfire, but she's a comedian.

I mean, Ronald Reagan was an actor, they still let him be president for 8 years. They let politicians and athletes host Saturday Night Live. Colonel Sanders didn't invent his fried chicken until he was in his 60s. For christ's sake, Jesus was a carpenter. You think they told him, "Jesus, you pompous ass, you're a carpenter. You can't go around healing people and all this shit."

They don't know enough to attack her on her argument, so they go after her occupation. And the thing is, SHE KNOWS it's ridiculous that she's the one who has to go on CNN and say this shit. I remember hearing her talk about it. The simple fact is that at that time, anti-war views would not go on TV unless they came from a celebrity. There were unprecedented marches going on around the world that weren't even mentioned on some of the networks and newspapers until days later. They weren't talking to the 9-11 families against the war, they were talking to the retired generals about military strategy. More than half the country was against going to war but you weren't gonna see that on TV. These "fags" had to weigh their options: either sit back and not say anything or use their platform as a public figure to help get the word out there. Those who chose the second one, maybe you could argue they did damage to the cause. The media sure tried to turn it that way anyway, only bringing celebrities on and then ridiculing them for being celebrities. But the movie portrays it like being openly liberal is a Hollywood vanity thing. They don't remember that before the war started, these people were actually taking a big risk. I mean this wasn't long ago, you guys remember it. You practically had to be wearing an american flag and holding pom poms or your patriotism was questioned. If you said anything you were smeared and ridiculed. Sean Penn lost a film role for traveling to Iraq. The Dixie Chicks (who aren't in the movie) got boycotts and death threats for one line of stage banter.

Some of them didn't even make conscious decisions to be activists, they just were honest when asked about it in interviews. George Clooney admits he's against the war on Charlie Rose, now he has to die a bloody death in your movie? The implication is come on you liberal actors, just shut up and dance for us. I don't mind your politics, as long as it never makes contact with my brain. Politics is a private thing that you can only do while hiding inside your house. If you keep whining and making us feel bad it interferes with our right to play X-Box and watch SOUTH PARK.

These are the type of people who say they are burnt out on political documentaries, they're sick of seeing Michael Moore, they're sick of hearing about the war. Blaming the messenger. Michael Moore is a handy excuse for them not to care, not to be informed, not to do anything. If there was no Michael Moore, they still wouldn't care, be informed, or do anything. But since there is a Michael Moore, it's his fault.

I mean fine SOUTH PARK guys, you hate Michael Moore. He's too confrontational, whatever. But tell me, what the fuck did Samuel L. Jackson and Liv Tyler ever do to you, you gotta portray them as murderers and then give them horrible, gorey deaths? So you hate Sean Penn for being outspoken and rocking the boat and maybe for I AM SAM we can hope. But then anybody else that happens to be to the left of Joseph Lieberman, they gotta be ridiculed and mutilated on the big screen?

I mean what could ANYBODY have against Samuel L. Jackson? He's Samuel L. Jackson, man! Everybody loves him, but he must've said something against the war or something so these guys gotta show his head get cut in half.

And I also gotta wonder, if poor Liv Tyler deserves ridicule for (apparently) expressing her views on war, why does one of the guys who made this movie get to be in Michael Moore's movie discussing his views on Columbine? Are there different rules for voice actors than for on screen actors? Is it harder for a cartoon maker guy to be a fag than for George Clooney? I'm not sure I follow this one.

There's also jokes at the expense of the UN and Hans Blix, who threatens to write a harsh letter if Kim Jong Il doesn't give up his weapons. I don't mind these jokes but I just want to take a minute to rant about the UN anyway. See, Americans don't know this, because they are Americans, but the point of the UN is actually to stop wars. Not to fight them. It is Jesse Jackson, not The Punisher. People say the UN is useless because they aren't enough of a threat, they don't have their own army to punish people with. And at the same time they complain that the UN wants to stop us from protecting ourselves, wants to tell us what to do, wants to be one world government etc. So we get to have it both ways, we hate the UN because they are a threat to us AND because they are not enough of a threat to everybody else. We laugh at the idea of blue helmeted troops going into Iraq, and frown at the idea of blue helmeted troops coming onto our soil. They're both laughable wimps and terrifying fascists. I don't get it.

In the end, there is a funny vulgar speech that I guess sums up the filmatists views on these characters. Basically, they say that Team America are dicks and the actors are pussies, and both have their good and bad qualities. I think they are these type of smartass guys who see themselves as being exactly in the middle and everybody interested in politics they think is an extremist, taking it too far, taking it too seriously, trying to push their views on everybody else. I don't think they realize though that they themselves are interested in politics, interested enough to make a couple movies about them anyway. Their puppet movie may or may not be funnier than Michael Moore's movies, but both of them are using humor and entertainment to make a point and in some cases mock specific public figures. Michael Moore's movie is more emotional and their movie has better puppetry. But they are closer to each other than Chris and Tad think.

Anyway, okay, I got some disagreements with what I think these guys are saying. That's not a problem, that's only fair in a political satire. The problem is it starts to lose its dedication to the straightfaced puppetization of Bruckheimer. It starts to cheat and stoop to jokes about vomiting and fucking. I mean sure I laughed at the acrobatic doll sex, but it's so cheap compared to all the smart satire that came before it. And man, if you haven't seen puppets fucking yet then you need to get out more. I mean I haven't seen MAKE MY PUPPETS COME or anything but everybody's seen MEET THE FEEBLES and even here on our shores, we got CRANK YANKERS. And we all remember when Chucky got lucky. Do you remember where you were when you first saw Chucky get lucky? I was in a movie theater. Anyway point is puppet fucking is not new ground fellas, sorry. Plus, you guys kind of blew it by not putting a hundred candles in the room during the sex scene, then at the end you show how the candles are all melted, so you know they been fucking all night. That's how they do it in action movies guys. You know that. Get it together.

And the songs start to cheat too. Like they got a love song about how Ben Affleck and the movie PEARL HARBOR suck. "I miss you more than that movie missed the point." It's a funny song for sure but what happened to actually BEING a Jerry Bruckheimer movie, now all the sudden they gotta come out and explicitly criticize a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. Fine, maybe I'm expecting too much, I'll let this one go. But I can't let it go when Kim Jong Il busts into a musical number. I mean inappropriate musical numbers can be funny but they're turning into such a cliche. Why you gotta suddenly abandon your disciplined focus on action movies and go into a musical again? You were doing so good and then suddenly you gave up and ran for the hills like a coward. "I can't do it, I can't finish this movie with integrity, I gotta turn into a fucking Leslie Nielsen movie where they make fun of any and every movie anybody might've ever seen before."

I'm being harsh, it's not that bad, but it's sad to see them get it so right and come so far and then just blow it before the end.

Still, this is a funny fucking movie. I forgive its flaws and sins and love it for its good deeds and works. These guys may be immature punks, but they convinced a studio to make a big action movie starring THUNDERBIRDS dolls, and that is truly a great achievement. Its strengths outweight its weaknesses, just like Alec Baldwin's performance in MIAMI BLUES outweighs him being the main henchman for a North Korean dictator.

TEENAGE CAVEMAN (2000)
Previously on VERN'S REVIEWS ON THE FILMS OF CINEMA: Vern found out that arthouse pervert Larry Clark (KIDS, ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE, BULLY) for some reason directed a remake of TEENAGE CAVEMAN for Stan Winston's "CREATURE FEATURE" series of straight-to-cable Samuel Z. Arkoff remakes. With TEENAGE CAVEMAN not yet released, and with Vern not able to find it through other means, Vern watched other mediocre to bad pictures in this series.

First off I really gotta thank my buddy Jeremiah for hooking me up with an early copy of this important picture. I asked for it, and I got it. What more could you ask for, than to ask for it and then get it. Next I will need a dvd of BLADE II. Or hell, BLADE III.

As you probaly already heard (from me) TEENAGE CAVEMAN is a remake of some old Samuel Z. Arkoff movie, but this time around the difference is it's directed by LARRY FUCKIN CLARK. Like I said man, the french scientists were onto something with this "auteur theory" they had which shows that various works by the same director can be all of one piece. A director's fighting style is like a fingerprint. For example in Mission Impossible Part 1 when Tom Cruise figures out he's been betrayed and pieces together for the traitor what he supposedly thinks happened, but the images we see are a different version of the events that he is now figuring out is what actually happened, but he doesn't want to let on... well, you fuckin KNOW that movie is directed by Brian De Palma. And when in Mission Impossible Part 2 Thandie Newton consorts against the bad guy with Tom Cruise, but then Tom Cruise takes his mask off because he's actually the bad guy being consorted against and not Tom Cruise, but underneath the mask there are tears running down his face because his heart has been broken... well in that case you know it's John Woo that directed it. And if David Fincher does end up directing Mission Impossible part 3, well I'm sure he'll leave some clues too. Auteurs get sloppy. Because they want to be caught.

Well Larry Clark marked his territory all over this picture so for my fellow Larry Clark fans and for the french I would highly recommend it, even though it's not that great.

What you got here is pretty much what you expect from Larry Clark pictures. You got teenagers forming cliques outside of parental influence, gettin drunk, having big orgies, murdering people, etc. You got an adult who pretends to be a moralist but who uses his status to force sex on young girls, and then gets stabbed in the eye with a crucifix. You got lots of crying and screaming shit like "I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I FUCKIN HATE YOU YOU FUCKER FUCK YOU!!!" You got a murder with little motive ("It was an accident. The sun got in my eyes. Besides, he's an asshole. Fuck 'im.").

And you got the shaky handheld camera, the washed out colors, the probaly improvised conversations. You even got some of the casting of young, unknown, natural looking actors with an untrained rawness and a willingness to take their clothes off. And they really look young, so it's at least as creepy as it is sexy.

The only thing that makes it different from other Larry Clark pictures, really, is that these teens are in a postapocalyptic warrior tribe and then they have an orgy with super beings that makes them "hulk up" or whatever the comic strips call it, and turn into these lumpy toxic avenger type dudes. And then there is decapitation and punching through people and people explodin and shit. So that is a little different.

The combination of the two is ridiculous and makes the picture very enjoyable. However it is definitely not on the level of a BULLY, which I said was not on the level of a ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE back when I first reviewed it, but it seems better and better the more time passes.

Some of the dialogue in TEENAGE CAVEMAN is painful, and not in that great "I can't sympathize with a single one of these fuckers" type of way of BULLY. More in the usual bad movie way, where these futuristic characters make references to things they couldn't possibly know about, like when the villain seems amazed that solar power is the way to go and "The treehuggers were right!"

Maybe you can blame it all on the villain. This guy has one of the most obnoxious performances I've seen since I got out nearly three years ago. He sings and yells, using words he doesn't seem to understand. He is constantly moving through a library of phoney accents. He seems to be doing a heavy handed imitation of Brad Pitt in showoff mode (Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, etc.) Or maybe he's tryin to be one of those over the top fruity villains from the Batman movies. He wears shiny pants and puts his bangs in a pony tail and that's supposed to mean he's crazy and evil. (At the end the good guy shows up in a blouse and silver pants with the bang pony tail and tells the tribe he's taking the children. He might be saving them or he might be going to molest them.)

And just wait til you see this guy get drunk. I'm not an actor, and never would be, but even I know there's nothin worse than a bad actor playing drunk. At least he doesn't hiccup, I guess. Or see a spaceship fly by and then rub his eyes and look at the bottle like, "I need to stop drinkin this shit!"

The protagonist's not great but at least he doesn't ham it up. I thought he was the spoiled little bitch from AMERICAN PIE PART 1 who complained that he was ONLY getting blowjobs from Tara Reid and not the "real" sex that all high school boys should be having. Wrong actor. Turns out he's actually some guy from "O" and "SKATEBOARD KID 2" but in this movie HE TOO is getting blowjobs but considers himself a virgin. Jesus, kids today (and in the future)!

Anyway, anyone who enjoys a Larry Clark picture will get a kick out of this one. It's not as high of quality as his other three pictures, but it's really not toned down. And you get to find out what Larry does when he gets his hands on a realistic severed head prop. Next I wanna see Harmony Korine work with Stan Winston. Maybe they could do a Michael Jackson video or something.

TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE

This is a documentary about the legendary cinematographer Haskell Wexler, only it's directed by his son Mark, so instead of being about Wexler's career and genius, it's more about daddy doesn't love me enough. The son rebelling against the father and then trying to make up before he kicks it (he's in his '80s).

The opening scene won me over right off the bat. Haskell is in a big store room in front of all kinds of camera equipment, talking about what he does. From behind the camera, Mark asks him to tell where he is.

Now, we the audience aren't retards. We know he's in some sort of room where he keeps his camera equipment, because he's standing in front of a bunch of camera equipment. Mark is a grown man and has directed documentaries before, but he clearly doesn't know about "cinema verite," also known as "direct cinema" or "good documentaries." Haskell tries to explain that he shouldn't have to say where he is, the audience will know where he is by watching what he's talking about, seeing his surroundings, watching what happens. But Mark isn't having it. He keeps asking Haskell where he is, and Haskell flips out. Immediately I knew I liked the guy.

I wasn't so sure about Mark, though. After this great opening, you are hyperaware of the cornball techniques Mark uses for his documentary. The old first person narration bit, lots of photos altered to look 3-D, etc. It's like he's purposely trying to use bullshit documentary techniques just to torture his dad. He doesn't seem like he has the kind of charisma that makes you accept one of these documentaries about the act of making a documentary either. And then you find out he's some kind of a republican.

Haskell of course is a well known liberal. He directed MEDIUM COOL (about and filmed at the '68 democratic convention). Also one I never heard of before this documentary was one called LATINO, about and filmed during the war in Nicaragua (wonder if it's as good as Alex Cox's WALKER?) He started out doing documentaries about the civil rights movement, and even late in his career he was cinematographer for political movies like Michael Moore's CANADIAN BACON and John Sayles's SILVER CITY. And remember when Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden went to Vietnam? Did you know that was for a documentary Wexler directed called INTRODUCTION TO THE ENEMY?

So what does his son do to give dad a heart attack? Smoking weed probaly wouldn't work. So when he was a kid he started hanging out with cops and FBI agents and admiring authority figures. In his adult life he hangs out with presidents to do a documentary about Air Force One. During the movie he gives Haskell a birthday present: a framed photo of himself with George Bush Sr., the filthy loins from which sprang the worst calamity to ever face our nation. We see later that he has a picture with Bill Clinton, but he still chose the Bush photo to give his dad. It seems like he must be teasing but if so it's the most deadpan delivery you ever saw.

So although the movie tells us a little about Haskell's career, it is more about the father-son relationship. In fact, Haskell asks for this on camera. (The movie shows quick clips of a bunch of "Haskell's career" stuff he shot and dumped - hopefully some of that will be on the DVD.) Still, Haskell worries that his son will make him look bad, and refuses to sign the release form until he sees the movie.

And the movie does make him look bad, in a way. It is clear that even though he is right about documentaries, and right about politics, he doesn't know how to be nice to his son. He cheated on his wives, he was a pain in the ass on film sets, he even got fired from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. And now he claims the FBI forced Milos Forman to fire him from that movie for doing a documentary about the Weather Underground, a claim that even Haskell's closest friends think is ridiculous.

So you got the father who is a genius but is a pain in the ass, and you got the son who is probaly a nice guy but maybe not so much of a bright bulb. (Actually I think he is smarter than he lets on, considering how good the documentary turned out.) Well here they are making this movie together. Haskell is very interested in how it's gonna turn out, offering suggestions (Mark doesn't like this), sometimes even shooting parts of it.

Throughout the movie they push each other's buttons and eventually have some bonding moments. As Mark interviews his dad's famous friends (Albert Maysles, Jane Fonda, George Lucas, others) they not only tell stories about Haskell's career (always referring to him as "your dad") but kind of butt in and offer advice as friends of the family. There is also kind of a subplot about Conrad Hall Sr. and Jr., both famous cinematographers. The fathers and sons were close friends, and each son saw the other's dad as a father figure. So when Conrad Sr. dies during the course of this documentary, it emphasizes Haskell's mortality. He's in great shape for a dude in his '80s but he's gonna have to die some day, at least according to most scientists. I'm not gonna take one stand or another though 'cause this is the Bush years, science is not allowed. For all we know Haskell could live forever using magic jesus blood.

See how I had to get a political thing in there for no reason? That is apparently how Haskell is. They say he rants about politics every day. He really doesn't seem annoying about it in the movie but I could see if you were his son and you were actually PROUD to have your picture taken with Bush - smiling, no middle fingers up, etc. - that it could be pretty annoying to be around this guy.

By the way, another tangent. Couple years back I was very proud when I got an opportunity to flip Dick Cheney off to his face. I was standing on the corner with just a couple protesters, one lane of traffic away from his limo. I was actually able to make eye contact as I waved both birds and yelled FUUUUUUCKKK YOUUUUU with a proud, American voice. Since that historic day I have been pushing for the city of Seattle to erect a statue of me on that corner, or at least a commemorative plaque. However, my deed has now been far surpassed by Dr. Ben Marble, apparentle the gentleman in Gulfport who, while Cheney was being interviewed about how nice all the local "folks" had been while he surveyed the hurricane devastation, yelled "GO FUCK YOURSELF CHENEY!" several times. The reporter actually asked Cheney if he got alot of that and he claimed it was the first time he'd heard it. It was pretty much the greatest thing I ever saw. Good job doctor.

Oh yeah, but I was reviewing that movie I think. If you love motion pictures, you will probaly be interested in the subject of Haskell Wexler. But this truly isn't a film buff movie like, say, Z CHANNEL. The appeal really is the last ditch attempt at a connection between father and son. So like the best wrestling documentary, the subject is universal. You don't have to be into wrestling. I guess if you're gonna watch a documentary about a cinematographer you're probaly gonna be a film buff though, no matter what. Unless you trick somebody into watching it somehow. I'm not sure how but let me know if it works.

As the movie goes on, there is less and less narration, and more of what Haskell wants: inobtrusive footage of fascinating moments that speak for themselves. There's some real touching shit in this movie. Especially when you find out what happened to Mark's mother. You get sad, and you get sweet. Not overly sweet. Maybe not even enough sweet. You might cry. But this is a great movie.

I ain't watching the Air Force One documentary, though. sorry dude.

THE TERMINATOR

Summer, 2007. 1:52 AM. Mindless, soul-less, visually indecipherable and crassly commercial garbage such as TRANSFORMERS has invaded America's movie screens disguised as "good ol' summer popcorn entertainment." Labelled a madman for his harsh condemnation of TRANSFORMERS, Vern began to search for proof that a better, more powerful type of summer blockbuster once existed...

I'm obviously a zealot when it comes to this TRANSFORMERS shit. Most people either like the movie or aren't as offended by it as I am. But my contention that they used to make actual smart/good versions of this type of moronic horse shit has met with some sympathy. I was happy that even the morning radio guy Adam Corolla brought up TERMINATOR 2 when discussing TRANSFORMERS on his show. He agreed with his staff that the movie was "fun" but said, "Still... it's no Terminator."

T2 was one of many classic "popcorn movies" I brought up in my TRANSFORMERS review, and it occurred to me that I haven't actually watched that movie in years. It's been even longer since I saw THE TERMINATOR and I've never seen part 3 at all. At the time our country's values were being terminated by Republicans and I was not in the mood for a movie starring Governor Schwarzenegger.

So I started by watching THE TERMINATOR, aka T1 or THE T. This of course is not a big summer blockbuster like TRANSFORMERS, this is the low budget b-movie breakthrough, the calling card that got James Cameron the job on ALIENS. So I guess the equivalent in Michael Bay's career would be that classic early work, 1990's Playboy Video Centerfold: Kerri Kendall.

If you haven't seen THE T or don't remember, this is basically the story of two naked guys from the future fighting in Los Angeles. They arrive with a blast of lightning and a flash of male nudity. It's pretty much like being born, except instead of a mother there is electricity and instead of a hospital or a manger there is an alley or truck depot and there is no umbilical cord and they are adults. Upon further review I guess it's not like being born, it's more like being a pervert in reverse - instead of opening up an overcoat to reveal their sausage, they steal overcoats to cover it.

Representing evil and technology we have Schwarzenegger as the Terminator (R-CA) and on the other side we have human Michael Biehn (PLANET TERROR). The Terminator is a super-robot with human skin sent from the future to assassinate Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) before she gives birth to the leader of the post-apocalyptic human resistance against machines.

The role of the Terminator almost went to the great Lance Henriksen (HARD TARGET), which could've been great, but giving it to Schwarzenegger was of course a stroke of genius. His ridiculous muscles are some machine's idea of the ultimate man, and his stiff talking is in line with being a robot. He actually does a very good physical performance, limiting his movements and expressions to seem more machine-like and cold. Like it or not you gotta give him credit as an actor in this one. There are plenty of musclemen who couldn't have done it as well. That said, he is basically Jason Voorhees in this movie. Except he has to make his face into a mask instead of wearing one.

It's nice to watch these two pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They show up with nothing but their swingin dicks so they gotta find clothes, then weapons, then the target. I wonder if maybe this was a mistake, maybe the Terminator should've skipped the clothing part to get that extra jumpstart on Michael Biehn. I mean, he doesn't give a shit what people think of him, he's a Terminator. Of course, a public nudity rap could've slowed him down more than having to steal clothes. I'm sure he was programmed with all the relevant information and chose the most prudent approach. I shouldn't second guess the computer.

The Terminator of course doesn't believe in gun control, so he goes into a pawn shop and protests the 15 day waiting period on the handguns by blowing the clerk away. (Pretty rude, man. I'm sure he could've managed with the shotgun and uzi.) He doesn't know for sure what Sarah Connor looks like so he goes through the phone book and starts murdering everybody with that name. So it's a good "oh shit" moment when our Sarah Connor sees on the news that two people with her name have been killed. I mean even if that was a coincidence you'd still have to feel jinxed if your name was Sarah Connor.

Of course now days when you think of James Cameron you think of giant budgets, "I'm the king of the world!" hubris, digital 3-D technology and obsessive deep sea diving. But in those days he was just some dude who did effects for Roger Corman. This was his second movie as a director (first was PIRANHA II, or P2) and it still had a b-movie feel. He even had Dick Miller as the pawn shop clerk. But you also see the beginning of alot of James Cameron trademarks, like the way the movie keeps seeming like it's over and then some more shit happens. (In this case the Terminator gets blown up but then returns as a clunky stop motion metal skeleton.) And there's all kinds of James Cameron Players in here. Bill Paxton (Hudson in ALIENS, guy who pisses himself in TRUE LIES, submarine explorer in TITANIC and GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS) is a punk rocker killed in the beginning. Lance Henriksen (Bishop in ALIENS) is one of the officers investigating the murders. Michael Biehn (Hicks in ALIENS) is the hero. Linda Hamilton (Cameron's future ex-wife) is the heroine.

This is a good movie that still works, but to me it doesn't work like it used to. It's a good story and has some tension and does well with its low budget, especially in those post-apocalyptic battle scenes, which seem like something out of a nightmare even if they are obviously crammed into one little sound stage. But part of that enjoyment comes from nostalgia and from knowing what these characters and concepts grew into. If I could travel back to 1984 first I would find some clothes and then I would enjoy the movie but I'm not sure I could convince my 1984 self that Cameron would go on to become a legendary action director. The movie showed potential but it didn't prove anything. If this was all he'd made it would be a good movie but I don't think anybody would think he was a great director.

(THE) T(ERMINATOR) 2(: JUDGMENT DAY)

But holy jesus T2 ups the ante. I think ALIENS is even better but still, this is one of the all time great sequels. By the time of this movie John Connor, the future resistance leader, is a juvenile delinquent in a foster home. Sarah Connor is in a mental hospital (same thing Cameron tried to do to Rambo in his script for FIRST BLOOD PART 2). The machines of the future have sent another Terminator back to kill John, but this time it's a more advanced model that can change form and the twist is that the original Schwarzenegger model of Terminator has been reprogrammed to protect John. They say it's the same T-101 model, but I figure it's a T-101.1 because this time it has eyebrows.

I feel kind of stupid explaining what this movie is about, as if somebody doesn't know, but I've got to assume alot of people these days haven't seen it. Otherwise how do we explain this consensus that big sci-fi movies are supposed to be muddled and stupid? If you would like more details about the plot email me. Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the Terminator, a type of robot, or "cybernetic organism." Don't worry, I'll explain in the email.

Visually the sequel is less gloomy than the original, there's more sunlight and of course it's less confined because they have a big ass budget. Instead of a chase through a small dance club they have chases all over Los Angeles with just about every wheeled vehicle other than a unicycle or a 3-wheeled ice cream truck.

And since the Terminator is a good guy this time they get some humor and sweetness out of him. But I think the T-1000 is an even scarier villain than the OG Terminator was. Robert Patrick's dead eyes convince you completely that he has no sympathy or even understanding of the evil he's doing. To him killing a human is a casual activity like shutting a door or buttoning a shirt. In the scene where he's disguised as John Connor's stepmother and talking to him on the phone he could've thought of a more peaceful way to deal with the stepfather than to impale him through the mouth while he's drinking milk, but why would he bother? He's the T-1000.

And this time the future nuclear war feels like more of a threat. By 1991 we weren't really as scared of that shit as we used to be, but T2 illustrated it better than THE DAY AFTER or any movie like that. The opening credits roll out over the surreal image of a burning playground. Later Sarah Connor has a dream where we see kids on a playground burned alive by the bombs.

A weird thing that never occurred to me before about this movie is that it's basically a more violent and paranoid version of E.T. Instead of a kid who plays with Star Wars dolls and gets in trouble at school for rescuing frogs from dissection you got a kid who hacks into ATM machines and has a criminal record. Instead of befriending a lovable alien from space this kid befriends a deadly killing machine from the future. The kid in E.T. is troubled because his parents are divorced, but the kid in T2 is troubled because his dad hasn't been born yet and his mom tried to blow up a computer factory, got shot and arrested and put in a mental hospital. In both they teach the alien/killing machine how to act more human and the friendship helps fill the hole left by their shattered family life.

In E.T. they ride bikes over the moon, in T2 they ride motorcycles in the L.A. storm drains and get chased by a semi. E.T.'s finger lights up and he heals Elliot's cuts, Terminator cuts the skin off his hand and pulls the bullets out of mom. In E.T. Spielberg later made the movie non-violent by replacing the guns with walkie talkies, in T2 the Terminator obeys his command not to kill by shooting hundreds of cops in the legs. E.T. dies, but the power of a little boy's dream or some shit helps him to come back. The Terminator dies, but the LED light in his eye starts blinking again, his CPU kicks in long enough to find an alternate power source and start going again. Instead of saying "I'll be right here" and pointing at the boy's head, the Terminator says "there's another chip" and points at his own head. Instead of flying off to space, he is lowered into molten metal.

Hell, even the titles are almost the same if they only would've left "The" in the title like in the original "THE TERMINATOR." It would be 9 syllables: THE TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY = E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL, and then both are abbreviated to two syllables, two characters: T2 = E.T.

They are the same. T2 is E.T. And E.T. is the New Testament. So T2 is the New Testament.

Okay, the New Testament is arguably more influential in western culture than T2 is. But let's stick with the E.T. comparison. What struck me most watching this movie again after all these years was that, like E.T., it had heart. Maybe not glowing quite as bright as that little alien bastard's did, but it's there. It's got tension and suspense, it's got spectacle and groundbreaking special effects, it's got tons of great action scenes, it's got a whole ensemble of iconic badass characters. Alot of "summer event movies" these days can't pull off a single one of those things, let alone having the genuine sweetness you get by the end of this movie. Schwarzenegger is great at moving like a robot, fighting like a robot, and struggling to understand like a robot. And by the end I believed that he really did learn why people cry. Sarah Connnor's narration about the Terminator being better than any of the father figures John had had is too corny, I could do without that. But the friendship between the kid and the robot seems genuine. Maybe it's because I grew attached to him myself, rooting for his dead machinery to kick back into gear, feeling elated when he comes up on the conveyor belt ready to fire an explosive into the ol' mercury man. And then sad again when he points out that all traces of him have to be destroyed in order to prevent Skynet from ever existing. It's like when your dog dies or something. Fun's over, time to face mortality.

But an even more effective emotional part of the movie is the sad reality of John's relationship with his mother. After he and the Terminator successfully rescue her from the mental hospital she scolds him for taking the risk, angrily saying that she doesn't need his help. She doesn't even throw in a "but thank you" or anything like that, and he's crushed. Near the end his mom seems to be calling out to him for help, but then another version of his mom sneaks up behind with a shotgun. It could very well be that the one with the gun is the T-1000 trying to trick him, but he assumes it's not. Because he knows his mom would never ask for help, would never reach out to him or show her emotions. It's easier for him to picture her as the one with the shotgun. It never really struck me before how god damn tragic that moment is.

In the end Sarah Connor gains faith because if a machine can learn the value of human life then maybe we can too. And what are today's heartless, soul-less blockbusters like THE TRANSFORMERS if not machines? Maybe they too will some day learn the value of human life.

One complaint: at the end, when the Terminator is all smashed up and bloodied, he says "I need a vacation." I thought maybe I missed something where somebody else said that phrase and the Terminator learned it from them. But then I looked it up and it turns out it was an ad-libbed reference to fucking KINDERGARTEN COP. Come on fellas, it makes no sense for the robot to make up his own jokes. Show some discipline.

But the fact that that joke seems so out of place shows one of the things that's great about the movie: it has conviction. It really means it. It has some humor in it but it takes its story and characters seriously. When Sarah Connor tries to explain the coming nuclear war and the robots from the future to her doctors it's chilling because we know it's true and we also understand why it convinces them that she's insane.

But think about it. If they never made a sequel to THE TERMINATOR until 2007 would they have had that same seriousness? I don't think so, I think they'd have some jokes about her explaining that a robot came from the future and everybody laughs. "Oh yeah and what about Bigfoot, where does he fit in?" And I would complain about all the lame jokes and everybody would say "what did you expect prickface, it's about robots from the future, it's a sequel to an '80s Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, it's not supposed to be HENRY V!"

Also I'm glad they didn't have a flashback to the roommate who always listens to headphones rocking out to a band called "Tryanglz". That was one part in the first one that was corny so I'm glad they just left that in the past.

TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES

By the time they got around to doing a part 3 a couple years ago James Cameron had quit directing to become a deep sea explorer, so they had to get some guy who directed the Kurt Russell movie BREAKDOWN. I never thought somebody besides James Cameron should make a TERMINATOR movie, and I was probaly right. This just isn't the same thing. But it's still pretty damn enjoyable. So I forgive them.

There is a little different feel to it. It doesn't look as real as T2, it looks more art directed. It was made in the digital age, the one ushered in by T2 in the first place, so it's got all kinds of digital effects and as great as they are none of them have a fraction of the kick that that original T-1000 did back then, because we've seen all this shit by now. But what are you gonna do?

The main problem I have with the movie is the jokes. Right at the beginning we get naked T-101 going for his traditional steal-clothes-from-somebody-at-a-bar and they turn it into parody by having him steal his leather from a gay stripper. In fact, a stereotypically gay stripper who teaches him to say "talk to the hand." Who knows what kind of wackiness will ensue? Instead of making him menacing or tough as he walks out of that bar they play "Macho Man" and have him put on Elton John sunglasses. Wocka wocka. Later there's a terrible scene where the doctor who Sarah Connor beat up when escaping the insane asylum coincidentally is there to help the police and sees the Terminator again and gets scared. There's maybe 5-7 of these types of jokes in the movie, not an onslaught. But still, that's 5-7 too many lame jokes that ruin the mood.

[Thank God they cut out the "Sgt. Candy" scene that's on disc 2 of the DVD. This asinine deleted scene/rejected Mad TV skit shows a Skynet promotional film where Schwarzenegger plays a "funny" hick character who was the model for the Terminator robots, which is a terrible idea in the first place. But then they have a joke where Schwarzenegger has somebody else's voice and somebody else has Schwarzenegger's voice. Get it? Funny voices! God damn that is pretty much the stupidest shit anybody ever came up with. How in the fuck did the same people who made this pretty good movie think it was worth actually spending the money to shoot that bullshit?]

And there's a couple points where the movie calls the audience stupid. Let me ask you guys something - we're intelligent people, right? We know that if we haven't seen the other movies or forgot what happened, they are readily available on the DVD format for review. Or you could look them up on this "internet" they have now. But the movie thinks we're lazy so they have this new character played by Claire Danes who the premise has to be explained to. The director, Jonathan Not James Cameron Mostow, says on the DVD extras that you need this character in order for the audience to understand what's going on. Which means he thinks the audience hasn't seen TERMINATOR 1 or 2.

In fact, even John Connor (now played by Nick Stahl from BULLY) doesn't remember what happened in T2. For some reason he thinks this Terminator is the same one from before, even though he destroyed that one! It's like if Elliot was reunited with E.T. ten years later and said "where the fuck have you been?" John might not notice this Terminator is different, but I did. This one talks more, explains too much, and even raises his voice in panic. And there's one scene where he looks like Andrew "Dice" Clay from the back.

So those are some of the things the movie got wrong, but thankfully there's plenty that it got right. For example there are some damn good action scenes. Even more than before the fights between Terminators are super powered fights where they throw and hit each other great distances, crash through walls and destroy all kinds of property. There's a great chase scene with a crane truck knocking over buildings and Terminators jumping from vehicle to vehicle like in MATRIX RELOADED. My favorite part of the movie is a knock down, drag out Terminator fight in the tradition of that great fight in BLADE 2 where he gets his head knocked through a pole. Here the Terminators destroy every part of a bathroom, swinging each other through walls, throwing toilets at each other, etc. Terminator stomps on Girl Terminator's face and it doesn't budge, but the back of her head breaks through the pavement.

The action is pretty comic booky and I complained about those jokes, but there's still a real dark undertone to the movie. There's even a scene that shows nuclear war not from the nightmarish on the ground perspective of T2, but from a distance, and from above, where it looks strangely beautiful. The Judgment Day that they prevented in T2 still looms, in fact, it's supposed to happen later today. So even when they prevent inevitable doom, doom is inevitable. The way the story wraps up is surprising and sets up for what could be some interesting and different sequels.

So TERMINATOR 3 is one entry in a long line of part 3s that are not as good, but are enjoyable if you can accept a reasonable lowering of excellence. There's basically two approaches to a good part 3: either it's in 3-D, or it's fun but you have to forgive alot more than in the first two. This one's not in 3-D. At least you don't have to wear special glasses, I guess.

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE NEXT GENERATION

Well in a serious bid to not hate the upcoming TEXAS CHAIN SAW remake prequel, I decided to mentally condition myself by rewatching the two bad sequels, parts 3-4. But I don't know, maybe I'm getting soft in my old age, maybe the remake lowered the bar, maybe it's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome deal, but this week I found out I really don't hate these two movies like I used to. They're not good sequels, no, but I was able to appreciate them a little more after all these years. The little fuckers are starting to grow on me.

I also realized the secret behind the failure of the sequels. Every one of them is basically a loose remake, but without all the elements that were in place to make the first one work. You can't catch lightning in a bottle 4 times unless you're really good with a bottle, and not even Tobe Hooper is that good with a bottle anymore. The sequels are all closer to the original than the actual remake is. They change the reason why the victims are in town, they have a different lineup for the family (and a different person playing Leatherface), and they add some new twists here and there. But they're all basically some people come to town, get stuck at the house, they're tormented in crazy ways, there's the dinner scene, they escape, they battle, they get away. I think the reason part 2 is the only one that works is because it has more of the pieces in place: Tobe Hooper is still there so it has a more artistic execution than the others. Jim Siedow is still there as the cook and he's better than all the other characters. Bill Moseley as Chop Top is new, but he's a way better Hitchhiker substitue than all the characters in the other sequels. Leatherface doesn't look as good as in the first one, but he looks much better than the other two (three including the remake). At the same time, part 2 has more drastic new twists than the other two: an underground amusement park instead of a house, Dennis Hopper as a protagonist as psychotic as the Sawyer family, a social satire/black comedy tone with ridiculously over-the-top gore that gives it its own feel entirely different from the original. The others don't go as far to stand out.

I don't know if it's possible to make a good CHAIN SAW sequel after part 2, but if it is I'm guessing it would take the ALIENS/DEVIL'S REJECTS approach of taking the characters and putting them in an entirely different genre. Not just doing a loose remake, but having an entirely different type of story that happens to be in the same world. But that's not what NEXT GENERATION is. It's another remake. The only way you can tell it takes place after the original is because of the opening crawl about the first chain saw massacre and "two other minor incidents."

NEXT GENERATION (originally titled RETURN OF THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, which is still the title on the end credits) I guess would be the third minor incident. But at least it doesn't have the Hollywood feel of part 3. It's low budget, shot in Texas, directed by the original's co-writer Kim Henkel, and the (not particularly good) score is by Wayne Bell, sound effects guy and co-compsoser on the original. It actually has the most famous cast of any Chain Saw movie (Renee Zelweger is in the Sally slot, Matthew McConaghey is the hitchhiker type/lead tormentor) but this was their last pre-fame movie.

But if Henkel was trying to go back to the rawness of the original he kind of blew it. The opening immediately puts you in the mind of bad '80s slasher movies, because it has twenty-somethings playing teens going to the prom. There is actually some pretty funny dialogue to establish what an asshole one of the guys is (he blames his girlfriend for him making out with another girl, and says that if he doesn't have sex he will get prostate cancer) but this is dialogue for a B-movie, not for a CHAIN SAW movie. You haven't even seen Leatherface but you're ready to root for him because the other option is rooting for the funny-asshole boyfriend, the funny-airhead girlfriend and Renee Zelweger's boyfriend who's not in the movie long enough for you to remember anything about his character. Zelweger herself does fine (I remembered her being terrible, but my memory was being unfair) but even her character is given cartoony horn-rim glasses and a corny backstory to show that she's a nerd who needs to come out of her shell. It's like those movies where the ugly duckling takes the glasses off and becomes the most popular girl in school, except in this case she takes her glasses off and escapes Leatherface.

And Leatherface, I'm afraid, is another problem. At least Henkel gets that it's not all about Leatherface, he's just the enforcer for the family. But this is by far the worst Leatherface in any Chain Saw movie. The guy doesn't even look tall, just chubby, and the mask is terrible. It looks like just some schlubby dude with a home made Leatherface Halloween costume. Toward the end of the movie they emphasize his gender confusion, which in itself is not a terrible idea. Alot of people don't catch that he's wearing a woman's face with makeup at the end of the original. Here nobody's gonna miss it - you not only see him putting on lipstick, but he has cleavage under his dress. Look man, I'm an enlightened guy, I don't got a problem with transgendered cannibal movies. The trouble is I can't buy how good Leatherface is at making himself up. He does way too good of a job here. So instead of Leatherface it looks like Divine chasing after her at the end.

McConaghey is decent at over-the-top menace. His part is a little more creative than Viggo's in part 3, but still a little too traditional-evil. The craziest touch to his character is that he has some kind of cyborg attachment to his leg that sometimes gets out of control. Kind of a funny idea but never seems believable, especially with the sci-fi robot sound effects they use whenever he walks. The other guy, W.E., is apparently supposed to be the cook, and at one time he's referred to as an old man, but he looks about 35-40. He constantly quotes Ulysses S. Grant, Voltaire, Machiavelli, etc. Another funny idea but made cartoonish because he doesn't say much of anything else.

Probaly the thing that made me hate the movie so much the one time I saw it before was the HALLOWEEN 5 style twist that the family are actually part of some weird conspiracy. Something to do with Illuminati types who control the world. At one point a dude in a suit and tie shows up to scold McConaghey. At the end, he picks up Zelweger in a limo and brings her to the hospital. The only explanation he gives is something about "showing people what true horror is." This is probaly meant also as a dual meaning, that Henkel is showing people what true horror is, which is a little overconfident. I don't know, if some weird conspiracy of rich people was behind maniacs in some other movie it might be a cool idea, but in a sequel to TEXAS CHAIN SAW it implies things about the original that are just plain stupid. So I'm against it. Nice try Henkel, but we're not buying it.

But since I already knew that was coming, this time I was able to better appreciate the goofy touches here and there. There's a funny scene where Leatherface stands behind Renee and keeps touching her hair. There's a female member of the family now who brags about her breast implants, and complains about an implant allegedly in her head that could cause her to explode. She has a pretty good scene where she picks up pizzas with Renee in the trunk. A cop almost sees what she has in the trunk, but she flirts with him to get away.

And there's a chase that's better than any in part 3, where Renee runs upstairs, jumps through a window (GLIMMER MAN style), runs across the roof. Leatherface goes onto the roof too and starts sawing at the chimney, dropping bricks down onto her. The best part is that she leaps off the roof, grabs onto a wire and starts shimmying across. I never seen that in a movie before.

I gotta admit, I kind of hate Renee Zelweger. I always see her on awards shows, she wins an award and she has that phony "Me? You're giving me yet another fucking award? This is such a surprise that I may faint and cry at the same time, I can't believe award number thirty seven for little ol' me." Plus, that first BRIDGET JONES movie bugged the shit out of me. That Colin Firth guy is a fuckin grouch through the whole movie and then at the end oh no, turns out it was all a misunderstanding, he's actually a sweetheart who just happened to have a pinecone up his ass for the entire movie. And Renee Zelweger is supposed to be British? And fat? I don't get it. So I kind of hate her, but I have a new respect after seeing that wire move again. Good job on that one Zelweger. And this was years before the Yamakasi were doing that "parkour" shit.

In the original the hitchhiker got run over by a semi, and Henkel's twist on that is enjoyably weird: a small prop plane (connected to the Illuminati dudes?) swoops down and hits McConaghey with its propellor. (Or with something - he's not as bloody as you'd think if it was the propellor that hit him.) This is pretty random and unexplained. I like it.

And I gotta tell you, there's one little moment that probaly didn't even register with me when I saw this years ago, but now it struck me as brilliance. When Renee is seated for her traditional Texas Chain Saw dinner, this time they have a whole bunch of dead people propped up in chairs to enjoy the meal. But later in the scene one of them, a weird old guy with long hair on the sides, bald on top, gets up and wanders away, confused. I thought he was dead because he wasn't moving, but really he was just old. Maybe a family member, maybe a derelict, I got no idea. That's good stuff.

So I don't know, maybe this means my bar has been properly lowered for viewing the sequel, but I don't hate RETURN OF THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE anymore. I forgive it. Leatherface sucks and that Illuminati business is bullshit, but that's water under the endless bridge that Chop Top and Leatherface drive across when they're sawing the football fans up in the beginning of part 2. I don't want to fight anymore, let's be friends. We'll team up against the remake.

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (the fuckin remake)

NOTE: This review ran on The Ain't It Cool News back in 2004, but something fucked up the formatting there so here is a more readable version. You can still read the original talkbacks here.

Vern massacres the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE!

Hey folks, Harry here... Well let's see... Mr Beaks and I both liked THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, but Quint and now Vern didn't like it... with Vern more or less striking with out and out hatred and venom. This is exactly what will happen to you if you carry the original in the theater with you. So, if you're expecting the experience of the first film... I suggest renting the first film. If you want to see a "STUDIO VERSION" of this story, then check this film out, but I only suggest going if you're open to that.

Meanwhile... here ya go, for all you monkeys that have been saying that TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE was 100% based on Ed Gein... take a look at this LINK!!! See, we've got crazy psycho killers from Travis County!!!

Harold & the boys,

I bet Harry and some of the others out there agree with me that Mr. Tobe Hooper's THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE is not only a great horror picture, but one of the all time greats of American independent Cinema. A real hall of famer. Well if so you'll remember that crazy old drunk in the cemetery at the beginning. "You laugh at an old man." The kids are asking around about which bodies got dug up and the old man tries to warn them away from this godforsaken shit hole out there in Harryland.

Well today I am that old man leaning up against the tombstone, warning you against the worst type of dumb movie: the kind of dumb movie that is a remake of perfect movie.

When I first heard Michael Bay was producing a remake of 'SAW I just about had a heart attack. Even back when Tobe Hooper wanted to do one I thought that was a bad idea. But this sounded like the worst possible combination of bad filmatist and good movie. Then I heard that Daniel Pearl was returning as cinematographer, and that crazy drill sergeant fuck with the big eyebrows, R. Lee Ermey, was in it. I started think damn, I almost want to see this movie. Then all the reviews started to appear on, you know, popular Austin-based movie web sights that will remain nameless to protect their reputations. These were positive reviews, sometimes by smart people, often people claiming to be fans of the original masterpiece. And I started to get more curious. What if they really did it? What if they overcame the odds and made a good or okay remake, like THE THING or THE FLY or THE BLOB or even NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 1990? Hell, I was dead set against THE RING AMERICAN STYLE but I ended up liking it alot.

Well, this ain't fuckin that. This ain't even on the level of PLANET OF THE APES.

(Attention people who read movie reviews before seeing the movie and then are surprised that the review discussed things that happened in the movie. Don't read this one.*)

I won't exaggerate. This isn't as bad as it could've been. It doesn't have that supercrack editing style you think of when you sadly find yourself thinking about Michael Bay. In some ways it's better than TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE NEXT GENERATION. The acting is better and the ending's not quite that dumb. This one's more like part 3. There are a couple of sicko lines and ideas that you like intellectually, but it feels contrived, like it's trying to be a CHAIN SAW movie, not like it actually IS one.

I guess the premise here is that the original masterpiece is a fictionalized account of an actual event, and this moronic remake is the real deal. Trouble is the real TCSM feels real, and the remake feels like any other phoney baloney movie. These are horror movie characters who do the type of stupid shit that horror movie characters do. They don't just make a couple mistakes and run into trouble. They repeatedly wander around in and break into scary looking places where they obviously shouldn't go, especially after just watching a girl rant about someone trying to kill her and then blow her own head off.

They open up things and fuck with strangers and run right into spooky, foggy abandoned slaughterhouses while being chased. They trust people they obviously shouldn't. They are very gullible about proper police procedures. They see dead bodies and almost get sick, but never actually do get sick. They have to pee but the bathroom's too gross, so apparently they hold it for the rest of the movie. They pick up jars of pee and look at them but never realize hey, that's a jar of pee. They get punished for smoking pot and making out, like teens always do in all those '70s horror movies EXCEPT Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

This is a movie where if you hide in a closet, 5 squeaky rats will appear out of nowhere to give away your location. Where a small meat cleaver can easily cut through bone. Where a girl can be terrorized all day long and keep her shirt tied up to expose her cute little belly button the whole time. But don't worry, babies won't be harmed and inbred kids will turn out to be nice in the end.

I always liked how the original started out on a sweltering day, continued into the night, and ended with the sun coming up again in the morning. It felt like you were really in that ordeal all night. This one starts on a hot day with Michael Bay style fetishistic shots of kids covered in a glistening layer of sweat, and ends on a pouring down rain Dark and Stormy Night like you see in the movies. One of those Texas summer floods, I guess.

This is also the type of movie where Jessica Biel backs up against a wall and Leatherface's arms tear through the wood behind her and grab her. I guess they must be setting up a LEATHERFACE VS. JASON because Jason's gonna be pissed when he sees Leatherface ripping off his shit. (Does Jason go to movies? I guess maybe not.)

I mean, this isn't 'SAW, this is just a movie. They try to copy some of the ambient score of the original, but still when there's an emotional moment or something your typical orchestra music pipes in to tell you how to feel. Thanks.

If Michael Bay and that guy who was fired from END OF DAYS really are fans of 'SAW, well... they sure have a funny way of showing it. Actually, what I should say is they must not've seen it since they were kids. We all heard how Bay said this would be less gorey than the (not gorey at all) original, and of course it turns out to be far gorier. (Don't see it for that, though, it's nowhere near as disgusting as part 2.) But more importantly, most of the elements that make the real movie so great are left out of the remake and not replaced with anything that could make up for losing them. You don't just put Leatherface and some body parts in a movie and have yourself a Texas Chain Saw picture. Have you even seen the movie?

Okay, here's a quiz then. Who's the best character in TCSM?

Well duh, the hitchhiker. But there's no hitchhiker in the remake, not an Edwin Neal type anyway.

What is the best scene in TCSM?

Well, if it's not the hitchhiker, obviously it's the dinner scene. Not in the remake at all.

Can you believe that? It's like remaking STAR WARS without that round space station thing blowin up at the end. Or NORTH BY NORTHWEST without the cropduster.

There's also no Grandpa. No creepy news report on the radio. No graveyard scene. No graverobbing at all. No speech about the slaughterhouse ("That was better. They died better that way.") No onscreen meat eating. Not a lot of bones, just a couple attached to dolls by a little boy. There's no Cook. R. Lee Ermey plays a similar role, but doesn't get as much screen time as Jim Siedow did.

There are no scenes where family members yell at each other. In fact, hardly any interaction between the family members at all. TCSM isn't about Leatherface, it's about a family of maniacs, but this remake keeps them all separate until a little part at the end, like you don't assume they're in it together. R. Lee, the only memorable new character, doesn't even interact with Leatherface.

They do have the metal door slamming, and the butt shot of course, and Leatherface cutting his leg. They kind of got the saw twirling at the end. And they definitely remembered the meat hook. They keep going back to it like, oh, I know what'll get 'em. The meat hook. Let's go back to the meat hook again.

Leatherface is okay. He mostly looks better than the last two sequels. Just to be safe they keep him in the shadows most of the movie, so he kind of looks like the real Leatherface from some angles. You know, like how Will Smith really looked like Ali when they showed him from the back.

But then he has this one mask that's got evil eyes on it, you know, like a creased brow. I guess Leatherface must've cut off an evil guy's face when he was making evil eyes at him. I bet that guy deserved to get his face cut off, he looked pretty evil, man.

Oh yeah, but get this. He takes the mask off! He really does. He has a messed up face with no nose, and later they say he had a rare skin disease and everyone picked on him so that's why he wears people's faces. I don't know if it was a Michael Jackson reference or not. But I do know for sure it was, you know, totally fuckin stupid. This screening was attended by a whole new generation of dumb horror fans (like you saw at the friday the 13th sequels in the '80s) who yell YEEEAAAH!!! for every act of violence against any character. But even some of these guys groaned when the mask came off. I talked to one guy who said that turned him against the movie.

There are a couple good ideas in the movie. There's a part where a gal has to help an amputee up after he falls dumping his piss bottle down the john. That's an uncomfortable situation you don't see in movies alot. Also R. Lee Ermey has a couple good lines and a scene where he forces a guy to sit in a blood spot where the girl killed herself and put the same gun in his mouth. Instead of a girl on a meathook its a dude that already got one leg cut off, and he sticks around for a while and tries to pull himself off. I was thinking okay, maybe he'll escape and hop around on one foot for a while, that might be funny. But no, he stays hooked. I wasn't really rooting for the guy anyway because who gives a shit about that character. It's almost like they don't want you to like most of the cast, because all but two of them want to just dump the suicide girl's body on the side of the road before they even talk to the police. Not that the kids in the original were your best friends (especially Franklin) but they didn't go out of their way to make them all into selfish assholes.

It was cool that they got John Laroquette to do the narration again, but I didn't like what they did with it. The narration starts out the same as in the real 'SAW but over crime scene shots supposedly taken by the police. He talks about the police files as if this whole movie is taken from what's written in the files. Then of course by the end of the movie you know that the police didn't find out that any of this stuff happened, so what's the deal with the police files?

At the end they pin the murders on some name like "Thomas Newton, also known as... LEATHERFACE!" But come on, Laroquette. How do you know that? Nobody called him Leatherface in the whole movie. To WHO is he also known as Leatherface? Just us?

And one more thing Laroquette. Didn't you think that deal with the SPOOOOOKY scratched up black and white footage was lame? It's supposed to be police taking footage of the crime scene. I did like how they showed scratches and a clump of hair on the wall, and you had to wait to see where that came from. The dumb part is they go back to the footage again at the very end of the movie. Suddenly, Leatherface pops up and grabs the cop and they freeze on a blurry frame of the Leatherface mask. The only known image of him, blah blah blah.

Yeah, that's exactly what we need. Remake a 30 year old classic and end it with a lift from the fucking BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.

Why did you let them do it, Laroquette? You fuckin blew it, dude.

Listen up all you fuckers out there who might some day make a TEXAS CHAIN SAW movie. There are many reasons why part 2 is the only chainsaw sequel that anybody likes very much. And it has nothing to do with Leatherface. Forget about fucking Leatherface! Part 2 has a different Leatherface, with a mask by Tom Savini. He's a little more retarded and sexually confused, so you kind of feel sorry for him. But they have Jim Siedow back as the cook, and they let him loose. "This town loves prime meat." The hitchhiker died in part 1, but they brought in his brother Chop Top (back from Vietnam) played brilliantly by Bill Moseley. This is a very funny, completely insane character who talks about music while he picks pieces of skin off his head wound with a coat hanger and snacks on them. "Leatherface, you bitch hog, you ruined my Sonny Bono wig!" These are the characters that make a 'Saw picture. Matthew McConaghey didn't cut it, and not even Viggo Mortensen did. R. Lee almost cuts it but he's only a cook, he needs a hitchhiker or a Chop Top at his side.

Come to think of it R. Lee doesn't have as much dimension to his character as the cook did. That guy was brutal like R. Lee but he seemed kind of conflicted about it. He ties up Sally and puts her in a bag, and as he drives her to the house he keeps apologizing and jabbing her with a broom handle. Then he complains about his electric bill. R. Lee's character is funny-scary-sick, but he's still not as interesting.

I know some of you kids in the talkbacks will say who cares, I want to see Jessica Biel's titties. Well if that's the case read Maxim, asshole. You don't even have to be 18 to buy it I don't think. If you like softcore porn of actresses from tv shows, then fine. What's next, remake TAXI DRIVER with the gal from Alias? Have some fuckin respect. Remake a Shannon Tweed movie or something.

Please, I know you kids have seen the positive reviews on the internet, but don't listen to that shit. If the internet gave a good review of jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

This looks like shit, it walks like shit and it is in fact, you know... walking shit, I guess. If you feel like watching THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, it just got re-released on dvd. Check it out. This remake is not the same thing. When Jessica Biel cried, "I just want to go home," I thought - "You and me both, lady."

New Line, it's not too late to shelve this fucker. Let's pretend this never happened. All will be forgiven.

By the way, I know Michael Bay also wants to remake OMEGA MAN, and that other asshole is doing DAWN OF THE DEAD. Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble of having to figure out all my favorite movies so you can piss all over them. Here's a list of some movies I like:

Once Upon a Time in the West, El Topo, Blade, Ghost Dog, Die Hard, When We Were Kings, Petey Wheatstraw, Rope, Sonatine, Mad Max, The Getaway, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, Dirty Harry, Vampire Lovers, The King of Comedy, Mr. Majestyck, Fight Club.

So there you go, have at it frat boy. Re-imagine the shit out of 'em. Introduce them to a new generation 'til they can't see straight. Make them "less gorey" and "emphasize the thriller aspects." They won't know what hit 'em!

And after that you can lick my plate, dog dick.

thanks bud,
Vern

p.s. Oh yeah but I guess you did a pretty strong performance as the cut off head Harry. good work buddy.

*At this preview screening they actually searched each person with a metal detector at the door, causing a huge bottleneck which blocked the top of a jampacked escalator. If people hadn't jumped out of the way repeatedly it would've been one of those horrible freak accidents like when 20 kids jump on a waterslide all at once. I figure if New Line Cinema thinks it's okay to risk maiming a bunch of teenage horror fans just so a bootleg of their shitty movie won't get out 2 days early, then it's okay for me to give away every last surprise in the movie.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

First of all, don't get your hopes up. There won't be that much blood. I was very disappointed.

Second of all, Paul Thomas "the 'Thomas' means I didn't direct MORTAL KOMBAT" Anderson's THERE WILL BE BLOOD has the feeling of greatness. It has the smell of greatness, the texture of it. It flirts with greatness. I'm pretty sure it even left the club with greatness last night but there is no way yet for us to know if it got lucky with greatness. We can only catch up with it later and ask it. If it turns out later that it was only faking it I'll have to admit it had me fooled. Here's why.

It has an epic feel, an epic length, a supreme filmatic confidence. It has long stretches with no dialogue, because it don't give a fuck. It knows what it wants. If it wants to show an emotional reunion scene from all the way across a field it fucking will. It has authentic period detail. A classy, tension-building score. Nothing noticably digital. Hubris. Oil. Madness. Mustaches.

Whether or not it's great, it reminds you of greatness. It'll make you think of CITIZEN KANE sometimes if you know how to think of CITIZEN KANE as a movie about a specific thing and not just as the official best movie ever made. It reminded me of THE GODFATHER a couple times. Mostly it reminded me of Stanley Kubrick. Not in some specific similarity but just in the way it made me feel, like watching FULL METAL JACKET or EYES WIDE SHUT the first time. Not being sure where it was going, whether it was almost over or just beginning, but every big leap or twist always felt natural, like I was in good hands, this guy knows what he's doing. When it was over I felt like I would probaly have to see it again or go up into the mountains and meditate for a month before I'd know exactly what it was supposed to be about. But I knew it was pretty fuckin good. A pleasure to be horrified by.

(NOTE: this review contains some vague spoilers. I'm trying not to be too specific but I do discuss crucial scenes including the last one, and you really oughta see this one totally fresh anyway. Have some restraint, don't fuck it up for yourself buddy)

In the first section I was impressed, but not bowled over. It was obviously epic, obviously good filmmaking. I could understand the acclaim. But it seemed like I would go away saying yeah, it was good, but I didn't love it. It didn't really connect with me. But then all the sudden it did in a definitely-classic scene where an oil well strikes with Plainview's son* on top of it. The scene is epic, as the camera rotates around the panicked father carrying the injured son as oil sprays behind them. It's terrifying, with its creepy score by some dude from Radiohead and sound design that puts you in the head of the little boy. It's poignant in the way the greedy oil man protects his son and completely ignores that he's just hit the motherlode. And then it's tragic when he abandons this traumatized kid to fight a breaking fire, finally acknowledges his fortune and starts to laugh. And from that point on the movie is riveting.

Just so the movie doesn't think it's hot shit, though, I might as well harp on the couple minor problems I did have with it, both having to do with Paul Dano. He plays a preacher named Eli who has a cruel rivalry with Plainview and forces him to give money to his church, making the church dependent on oil. Minor Problem #1: there's some business with Dano playing twin brothers. It's not clearly explained and seems kind of silly for this movie. There are themes there with Eli being jealous of his brother, but if that's a crucial part of the movie maybe it should've been explained better.

Minor Problem #2 is at the point in the movie when it skips ahead 16 years. All the sudden Plainview's boy H.W. is a grown man, looks at least 30. Plainview is grey and weak and living as a crazy man in a mansion like late Howard Hughes or late Citizen Kane. Times have changed, but Paul Dano hasn't. He doesn't look a day older! He looks only a couple years older than that amount of time skipped over. Somehow the little boy lapped him.

I have to assume this was a conscious choice, it's not like Paul T. Anderson didn't know he was doing this. And I understand not switching actors like they did with the son, because the last scene is a confrontation between the two characters and it just wouldn't work if we were getting used to a new guy playing the character. And you gotta kind of admire them for not giving him a beard or a receding hairline or some rubber wrinkles. They knew that wasn't gonna fool anybody so they didn't insult our intelligence with that. But I don't know man. I looked it up. Paul Dano is 23 and looks young enough that he still plays high school kids. I had a hard time taking this leap. Am I supposed to figure the Lord kept him young? Or that he's from the same planet as Natalie Portman in the Star Wars movies so the little boy she babysits grows up to be her hunky husband and she just changes dresses? Maybe he has a kidney problem like Gary Coleman. I don't know, it's kind of freaky. The way people came up with theories about MAGNOLIA, I figure it won't be long before someone tells me that last part is all an opium dream or takes place in purgatory or it's a vision reflected in the piece of silver he finds in the opening scene or there's a tiny world inside his mustache or who knows.

But who cares, the greatness-odor on the movie overwhelms those quibbles and suffocates them. Dan D. Lewis gives an amazing performance that he will get an Oscar for, which is kind of too bad because it means Viggo will not win this year. And as talented as Viggo is it's gonna be hard for him to ever top that butt naked eye stabbing scene, so that's too bad. But Lewis is great, sometimes going way over-the-top, but Al Pacino in SCARFACE over-the-top, not Nicolas Cage for the past ten years over-the-top. Also great is the weird little kid who plays his son. And this is unusual but even the baby who plays his son as a baby gives a standout performance. I talked to somebody else who noticed this so I know I'm not crazy. I don't think it was a puppet or a little person in a costume, I think it was a real baby.

And like I said, I don't think after one viewing I really have a full understanding of the movie so I will just say that what seems most important to me and what I like most is these two relationships that Plainview has, the one with his son and the one with the incredible ageless preacher. The way he treats his son is powerful to me because it's ambiguous and that makes it seem more genuine. The guy is a terrible father and a huge asshole. But there are times when it's clear that his love is genuine. He just gets distracted by all this competitive businessman shit and it makes him fuck up. He tells cruel lies and half truths, he avoids talking about the boy's mother or makes up a story. To be honest I was too thick to follow the true background of the boy, which is explained in the dialogue-free opening, so it was kind of a surprise twist at the end for me. But I love the way the asshole shell of this guy occasionally cracks and there's a softy hiding underneath.

If you've seen the movie you know the excellent baptism scene. It's so funny because of the way he only half-way plays along with this religious talk he obviously doesn't believe, and because of the way Eli uses the situation to avenge him for the beatdown earlier. (By the way, it is pretty funny to watch Daniel-Day Lewis with a huge mustache beating the shit out of the kid from LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. That was a good scene too now that I think of it.) But also the scene is kind of a punch in the gut because you see how it obviously gets to him to be talking about abandoning his son. And right after that H.W. has returned from whatever school he was shipped off to. Obviously Plainview didn't just feel guilty in the moment. It made him realize the mistake he had made with his boy and try to correct it. But too late, looks like he already blew it.

The movie ends dealing with his relationship with Eli. So that might be a sign that Eli is a more important person in his life, which would be another sign that he's a crappy father. Despite the weird aging problem this is an intense and unpredictable emotional and physical duel. This is some crazy shit. They've spent their lives hating each other, exploiting each other, beating each other up, tricking each other, lying to themselves and to everyone else. Eli is a huckster but also really believes in God and can't understand why God lets him be such an ass. Plainview hates Eli's bullshit, but is just as full of shit himself, and must know it, and might hate himself for it. And he hates religion, but he sort of found it during that baptism scene, and he hates Eli all the more for it. But he's been battling this kid for decades and he finally pulls out all his cards and as far as he's concerned he has check mate. (I just mixed a card playing and a chess metaphor. I was gonna try to do checkers too but it wasn't working.)

To me it kind of seems like in defeating Eli he has also defeated himself, because it's hard to imagine anything happy happening to him ever again after the movie ends. So it's an ambiguous ending just like KING KONG VS. GODZILLA or FREDDY VS. JASON. Some people will say there are two endings, one where Plainview wins and one where Eli wins. But it's an urban legend.

There's no question in my mind that this movie will be studied and discussed for many years. What the ultimate conclusions will be, I do not know. I'm guessing "pretty fuckin good" will be one of them. Even if everybody later decides it's a big bore and the depiction of the oil industry is inaccurate and the baby's performance was digitally enhanced, I hope there will at least be some acclaim for the Radiohead dude for doing the score. That thing is spectacular. I would like to see some horror movies with that kind of sound. Good shit.

(This is one of the only reviews of the movie that will end in the word "shit." Maybe there's one that says it's "the shit," I'm not sure. But definitely not "it's shit." That would just be inaccurate.)

*by the way this is about an oil tycoon named Plainview, his little son, some preacher, relationships, and that type of shit

THEY LIVE

THEY LIVE is one of my favorite movies ever. It is probaly the very best version of a rare type of movie I love: the badass action movie that also works as a political statement. BILLY JACK may be more political, but it seems so self important and it has no sense of humor. THEY LIVE is kind of saying the same thing THE MATRIX is saying about a society brainwashed by media and advertising, but it's saying more than that. It's about the America of the Reagan years, when everything was geared to help the rich at the expense of the working class. Which for some reason seems awfully familiar today. Huh. Weird.

"Rowdy" Roddy Piper plays Nada, a drifter who walks into town with tools and a sleeping bag on his back. (Hey, what happens to that sleeping bag? I think it disappears.) This is a hero who not only doesn't drive a sports car, but doesn't have a car at all. Or a house. Or a job, at first. The plants are closing, the jobs are drying up, that's why he's on the move. But he happens to get a construction job, where he meets Frank (Keith motherfuckin David from THE THING) and finds out about a homeless encampment near a church where some nice people serve food for the homeless.

The first section of the movie doesn't have alot of dialogue. It's all about watching. Nada watches people watching TV - an old lady in an apartment, a dude standing outside an electronics shop, even homeless people who have a TV set up outside. We can see that Nada is a little creeped out by the vapid commercials and their hypnotic effect on people. And then they get pissed off when, every once in a while, some weird old man cuts into the broadcast desperately telling people to "wake up." And then everybody gets a headache.

Nada also starts watching the church, because he notices something odd going on. He watches a helicopter watching the church. He sneaks in and sees that it's not a real church. The choir he hears from outside is a reel-to-reel tape and there's some kind of rebels hatching a plan in there. He even bumps into a secret panel in the wall and sees a box inside, but he gets found out by an elderly blind priest, so he leaves.

All this watching is actually very cinematic. I like the good ol' non-verbal storytelling. And of course the director is John Carpenter and he knows how to pull this shit off. It's got a bluesy take on the usual John Carpenter driving electronic score, so it creates a real powerful mood. The movie's actually a little stiff when they have dialogue explaining things, but the story is so perfect that I don't care.

One night an army of riot cops come raid the church. Not just that, they bulldoze the entire homeless camp and beat everybody up, including the elderly, blind priest. This might seem over-the-top to some people, but not to me. If you've been around WTO or any big police riot like that you know this movie is accurate. Except there is less chanting in the movie version. It might make you lose respect for Keith David's character if he kept chanting, "This is what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!"

The next day, Nada goes into the church, opens up the secret panel, steals the box, brings it to an alley... and finds out it's just a box of sunglasses. Shit.

But you guys know what happens next. It turns out that the sunglasses were created by the rebels, they somehow break through a hypnotic signal that has brainwashed the world. So as Nada walks around he sees the truth: billboards and magazines that say things like "OBEY" and "CONSUME" and "MARRY AND REPRODUCE" in plain black letters on plain white backgrounds. Money that says "THIS IS YOUR GOD." And some people, many of them coincidentally with ties or fur coats, have ugly skeletal alien faces. Because the ruling class are aliens, keeping us "asleep" with our competition and greed so we won't notice they're infiltrating our world and slowly changing our climate to theirs. (I wonder if Al Gore likes THEY LIVE? Maybe if he said that in 2000 he would've won by enough to stay president.)

The section of the movie where Nada walks around with his sunglasses and sees what's going on is undeniably classic. Especially when he tells off some rich alien ladies in a high end grocery store, and all the aliens start talking into their Rolexes. "I've got one that can see." Nada ends up killing two alien cops, stealing their shotgun and shooting up a bank, which is where he says his most famous line, "I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum." Apparently John Carpenter gave Piper free reign to ad lib dialogue, and he made that one up. There's lots of funny lines like that. My favorite line actually I always remembered completely wrong. I thought he said, "It fuckin figures" when he saw all the rich people were aliens. But he actually says the equally perfect, "It figures it would be something like this."

It's perfect because it's true, it does figure. The details of the alien takeover all fit the world as we know it. Alot of rich people are our alien controllers. We see two guys talking, the alien got a big promotion and the human didn't. Who's an alien and who's not always seems to fall along class lines. The assistants aren't aliens, the waiters aren't, the people of color aren't. Some cops are aliens but most of them aren't, they just work for the man anyway. Alot of humans benefit from the takeover too - as they sellout, they find themselves getting raises and promotions. There are even humans who know about the aliens and still sellout, and in addition to getting money and power they're honored at a fancy banquet in the aliens' underground tunnel system.

And you know one give away that they're not on our side? They got these fancy watches that work as walkie talkies and as teleporters. You always thought why can't I have one of those fancy rich people watches? Because I can't afford it. But actually it's because you're not a they live. In the '80s those watches were a big thing for yuppies and shit, now in the 2000s it's mostly rappers that are they lives, such as P-Diddy is definitely a they live and he hands out watches to people at awards shows to secretly honor their collaboration with the they lives.

Once Nada finds out the secret, the movie is less about watching and more about shooting. There's alot of shooting in this movie. But the greatest and most distinctive action scene in the movie is the famous alley fight between Nada and Frank. Nada wants Frank to put on the sunglasses to see the truth, but Frank doesn't want to. He has a wife and kid, he just wants to mind his own business, stay out of it. So the result is an amazing 5 1/2 minute wrestling match on concrete. There is some bodyslamming, alot of punching, a whole lot of kicking and kneeing in the balls. I mean they just beat the shit out of each other, and these are our heroes. This scene is both legendary and infamous because it goes on for so long, and most people (including people who like it) seem to think it is completely gratuitous. I disagree. I think it's a perfect symbol for the distance somebody will go to not see the trouble in the world. I don't like politics. I just mind my own business. All Frank has to do is look, but he must know instinctively that it is a se