Kangaroo Jack: 2003

Release date: January 17, 2003 (USA)
Director: David McNally
MPAA rating: PG
DVD release date: June 24, 2003
Sequel: Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.!

   Before you even ask, let me just say that it's a movie, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously. And before you also ask why I would even think to review this, let me tell you. The reason that I sometimes review the crap stains on cinema, is because I like to have closure. Many of the films from my past have been just terrible, and now that I'm a bit older I can experience them in a more mature way...which ruins the movie entirely. But I do this to remind myself that I didn't know what I was doing then, and that my parents didn't know what they were doing when they bought this movie for me.

   However, what I didn't realize at the time of watching "Kangaroo Jack", was that I was in way over my head. First, let me fill you in on the plot of the movie. Best friends Charlie Carbone (Jerry O' Connell)  and Louis Booker (Anthony Anderson) are given the task to deliver a package to Mr. Smith (Marton Csokas) in Australia, by Charlie's mafioso step-father, Sal Maggio (Christopher Walken). On the plane Louis' curiosity overtakes him and opens the package to find $50,000. After sweet talking their way through security, they go to track down Mr. Smith, in a place called "Coober Pety". While jammin' out to some toons, our two hero's manage to run over a kangaroo. It is here that our movie begins to plummet into oblivion. When Charlie realizes that he had killed the national icon of the outback, he tries to pull the kangaroo off the road. But Booker stops him to...take pictures of it. Uncomfortable yet? What if I said that they posed the kangaroo in the back of their Jeep, and dressed him in a jacket and sunglasses? Would you be uncomfortable then? Halfway through their photo-shoot, the kangaroo...comes back to life, and escapes. The problem with this, is that in the jacket's pocket was the $50,000. Silly, over the top hi-jinks ensue as our quirky best buds try to take back the package, and get back from the outback. 

   Where do I begin? Well, for starters, the MPAA rating for this film is PG. *Ahem*... A MOVIE WITH THE MAFIA, MOB MONEY, EXECUTIONS, WOMANIZING, RACISM, SEXUALITY, AND INFANT AND ANIMAL ABUSE IS RATED PG?!  Why? Why would you do that to an eight year old? Why would you do that to me?! Who knows how many times I watched this movie! And you can't blame me! Eight year old boys don't have taste in film, or really anything! They play with Lego's and watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "Babe" five times in a row in the same day! Of course, that wasn't to say that "Kangaroo Jack" pandered to children during the film, because it did. Because the two kinds of jokes that appear in this movie are the offensive kind, and jokes for the kiddies. The problem, is that adults who aren't into the "...movie" ("disaster movie", "scary movie", and more recently "A Haunted House," type of film, won't really get too much out of "Kangaroo Jack," because it doesn't know what it wants to be. Sometimes it feels like they were going for a light-hearted comedy, sometimes a mob flick, and other times a fun adventure film. Because it tries to be everything, it ceases to become anything in the mind of the audience. I have said many times before that when a film tries to appeal to everyone, the final product will blow up in everyone's face.

   If there was anything redeeming about this film, It would probably have to be that the CG kangaroo looks good in some of the shots. But I think they may have been a bit too confident with their design of the CG kangaroo, because they added him in with other live kangaroos as though the two would seamlessly blend together...they do not. But that isn't to say that he looks bad, because for 2003, it's pretty decent and looks like they put a little bit of time into it. However, this slowly starts to not matter when you realize that the kangaroo hardly appears in the movie. Before the ending credits role, there is a short scene where "Kangaroo Jack" actually talks. He says during this scene, "Wait a minuet! The movie's called 'Kangaroo Jack!' It should end with me!" I have a hunch that this is director, David McNally's way of telling us, "Yes, we tricked your kids into watching a movie that had a kangaroo on the poster, but not in the movie! Thank you for giving us your money to watch a movie that was written in one weekend." In 2003 "Kangaroo Jack" stole a little over sixteen and a half million dollars from unsuspecting consumers during its three day opening weekend. And I'm sad that all of you, including myself, have been played for a chump

   "Kangaroo Jack" is a distasteful, detached, un-funny, and an utterly unmitigated disaster. It fails to be funny, and instead comes off as very offensive. Not to mention there being too many plot holes to count. I cringe when I watch this movie, and I have had to more times than I would like to say. Everyone knows by now that this movie wasn't worth anyone's time, especially for small children. And I know I've said this about many movies, but the most depressing part about this, is that "Kangaroo Jack" will never go away. It's part of film culture now, it's there to stay, and the people have accepted it by proof the box office. Think about that for awhile.

4/10

Watch the trailer...if you dare! 

Next Review: Scream 1996         

2012: 2009

Release date: November 13, 2009 (USA)
Director: Roland Emmerich
MPAA rating: PG-13
Running time: 158 minutes
Budget: 200 million USD

   Hello, ladies and gentlemen! I hope that you've had yourselves a wonderful D-Day! For those of you who have been living under a rock, or you simply choose not to care (which is fine), the Mayan calendar predicted that on the twenty first of December of this year, the world would come to a crashing halt and everything would blow up in our faces. Apparently director Roland Emmerich did those of use, who were not informed of this catastrophe, a favor by making a movie three years in advance to warn us of what would happen. In this review of "2012," we will attempt to uncover what it was about this disaster movie, that made the movie, the disaster.

   This film is very reminiscent of an earlier film of his released in 2004, "The Day After Tomorrow." I saw this film in the fifth grade as the first (technical) horror film. At the time, I was freaked out by this film. I liked the effects and the suspense, but if you put a gun to my face I couldn't remember a single thing from that movie besides the effects. And that's generally how Rolland's films go. You remember how pretty it looked, but if you waited a few months you couldn't remember the plot if you were staring at it...because it would be hidden by all of the atomic-breathing monsters, and tornadoes, and saber-toothed cats, and alien mother-ships, and explosions, and, in this case, John Cusack.

   But I am writing about "2012" and not "The Day After Tomorrow". And although both are equal train wrecks, one is easier to look at than the other. This film is the one that is easier to look at...but it's still a train wreck. "2012" follows Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) who plans to outrun the collapse of modern civilization that is doomsday with his divorced wife Kate Curtis (Amanda Peet), her boyfriend, Gordan Silberman (Thomas McCarthy), and his two kids, Noah and Lilly (Liam James) and (Morgan Lily). When I say "outrun" I mean that in the most literal sense possible because wherever Jackson and company flee to, volcanoes and meteorites and earthquakes and tidal waves are sure to follow very close behind. You may think that this provides more tension when transitioning towards each location. This is not true. Okay, so maybe through the first scene when Jackson and company pile in the car to escape the chaos by throwing themselves directly at the chaos and pandemonium, there may have been a little tension. But this feeling is quickly squandered because the actors in the car have, for some reason, been told to make jokes. I'm going to write this again: An action sequence that shows millions (scratch that) BILLIONS of innocent people experiencing horrible deaths is being dashed away because someone wants to make a joke about how freeways can inconvenience you from time to time.

   But it's not the comedy that really upsets me. It's the fact that everyone that the movie thinks we care about become invincible. And no matter how hard you pray, these people will not die! And I didn't think that at a certain point in any movie I would be rooting for the earth to open up and swallow all of the main characters. And there are really only two sides to this. On one side we have the characters that annoy you, and this includes the two children (maybe even John Cusack), who either cry and scream too much and try too hard to give off the vibe that they hate their biological father. On the other side there are the characters that you virtually have no sympathy for. And this is mainly due to how the actors "act" around the destruction. The problem is that they do not act! Because of this nothing feels real! It may look cool but now all you can think about is how little investment there appears to be on screen with the characters in the film and the destruction going on around them.

   I'm not going to pretend to know about anything that goes into the science of these types of films. What I mean, is that I'm not going to try to talk about how scientifically incorrect Rolland's films may be, because that's not what I like about this or any of Rolland's films. And yes, you read correctly there is something I like about his films, and that is the visuals. I'm not going to lie, I was impressed by the C.G in this film. You might even say that I was blown away. In fact, all of Rolland's films look good to some extent (starting with "10000 B.C" and ending at "2012". And for this reason, if you haven't already, watch the movie. It'll be bad, I know. Not the worst, just very bad. But if you don't listen to explanation or dialog, and only look at the ultra high octane destruction, you might have a little fun. "2012" is unfortunately what you would expect from any Rolland film but with a fresh coat of paint to admire. 

Happy New Years friends, we had a good one.            

5.9/10

Watch the Trailer Here:

Next Review: Troll 2 1990

Star Trek: 2009

Initial release date: April 6, 2009

Director: J.J. Abrams

DVD release date: November 17, 2009

Prequel: Star Trek Nemesis

Sequel: Star Trek 2

   What can you say about Star Trek?  Well, it's a mixed opinion kind of thing.  Some people like it, and others...not so much.  In my opinion, the show was corny, but I still enjoyed it.  I liked the premise of the show, which is explained in its introduction.  "Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."  This was what Star Trek would be based around in every episode.  The characters would come across a planet, or an object, or another ship, and they would either explore, research, defend, or attack it.  It made for a lot of situations this crew could be pitted against.  And leading this ongoing struggle for discovery, was Captain James Tiberius Kirk.  Played by William Shatner, Captain Kirk has become classic within the science fiction genre.  However, in the year of 2009, Kirk and his crew would receive a face-lift by J.J Abrams and revive a classic science fiction show, in the form of a film.  This is my review of "Star Trek."

   "Star Trek", despite its late release, has some connection to the films that came before it. This star trek film fits in between Star Trek Nemesis, one of the next generation films, and Star Trek 2.  However, the film doesn't try to force its place in the timeline, and try to explain its position within it.  This is one of the reasons why J.J Abrams' Star Trek pleases audiences from both sides of the spectrum.  The Trekkie's and the...not Trekkie's.  This film follows James Kirk's and Spock's lives, tuning in on their origin, and the events leading up to, and following their acceptance into Star Fleet.  Our villains are Romulains, and their leader Nero, who while time jumping to and fro between several realities witnesses the destruction of his planet.  For this he blames Spock and has set out to avenge his kind.  

   I am very glad that J.J Abrams waited the amount of time that he did to make a star trek film, because of the many technological advances made in the last five years have been tremendous.  Normally I don't enjoy CG in films, because often times the director may overuse it (ahem* the star wars prequels).  But I loved every second of the CG in this movie.  I mean it, everything was spot on, and I honestly have no complaints whatsoever. The chaotic lighting darting blindly across space, the creaking hull of the ship's exterior as it avoids suspended rubble, the lighting fast decent onto the planet Vulcan as three vessels are airdropped from several hundred thousand kilometers above ground.  The kind of CG in this film was what the original Star Trek needed, but could not yet attain.  J.J Abrams, created the modern equivalent of the show in a nutshell (updated to 2009 standards), but it may have disappointed fans who enjoyed the cheesiness of the show.  Then again, how well do you think the film would have done if he had directed Star Trek by that standard?  Not too well I should think.

   I have a gripe with this film as well, and it's the villain.  Nero, our Romulan antagonist, is bent on destroying Spock.  And I didn't really want to go into the whole history of Romulus, but...I did a little research.  If you don't care for explanation like this, skip past the italic text.  Okay, so Romulus was created by people who were once Vulcan, but not anymore because they rebelled, and so now these people have created a separate race of Vulcan who are now evil, and so this is why Nero, the Villain we're focusing on in this film, wants Spock dead and anyone else related to him because he's the other kind of Vulcan and the remainder of a dying race, because Nero destroyed his planet so that he could show Spock what it was like to live alone, but this was happening in two different alternate realities; one where Nero marooned the old Spock on a different planet to witness the destruction of his planet by Nero, and the other; where young Spock goes down to his planet when it's being destroyed to save his culture, only in the reality with old Spock, Nero's planet had already been destroyed and he thought that it was old Spock's fault because he failed to absorb the black hole that caused the destruction of his planet with red matter, and all the while Nero continues to jump in and out of the black hole into alternate realities, where sometimes Kirk grows up with his dad and sometimes he doesn't, because the black hole appeared and destroyed the S.S Kelvin, the ship that Kirk's father piloted for ten minutes and died in!   But you don't have to read all that if you don't want to.  Although Nero had enough back stories, and enough of a reason to want to kill Spock, he just turned out to be a very weak character.  But I can't blame J.J Abrams for that, because it's natural consensus that Kahn is by far the greatest Star Trek villain of all time (or at least I think so).  But Abrams knew that he couldn't use this villain, because the timeline wouldn't fit in, and it would be very predictable.  The director went out on a limb, but at least it was to try something new.  Not the best villain, but it doesn't take away too much from the film.

   Holy hot @#!*%!  This was a good movie.  J.J Abrams not only brought our attention back to a franchise that had grown bigger than life itself, but introduced it to brand new audiences successfully.  Now that takes some skills to pull off!  It might have updated it today's standards of film action-wise, but it might as well, seeing as we haven't yet witnessed a Star Trek film with this high caliber of CG action.  It was exciting!  And all that coupled with an amazing cast, attention to detail, and nostalgic value, I'd watch this baby any day.

8.3/10

 Next Review:  Treasure of the Sierra Madre 1948

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 2008

   In 2008, an event occurred, that was at the same time the most pointless and unneeded event and the one everyone, at one point had to be a part of.  And it was called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  This was a movie that nobody wanted to see or make, besides maybe Spielberg and Lucas.  It's actually quite surreal; the way this film was made .  Never in a million years would viewers think that another film would be made, let alone a sequel to a trilogy!  Wait...that actually wouldn't have been a bad idea!  Surely Indiana Jones had other adventures besides the only three.  The only problem was that they waited NINETEEN years before making another sequel!  And we're here to look at it today!  Welcome to my cork to seal the Indiana Jones franchise.  This is my review of, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!"


"You havent the slightest idea of the cataclysmic cacophony you are about to delve intooooooo......"


   What was that?  Never mind. Let us begin our review by setting the stage.  The year is 1957, and Indiana has aged a great deal, as we see him revealed being thrown out of a trunk of a car.  Wait, wait...we have to address this.  Think back to all of the other Indiana Jones films.  How was our hero revealed?  In the first film he whips a weapon from someones hand, and that person runs away.  The camera pans up, as his hat creates a shadow hiding his face, and he finally looks up, to give an awesome reveal.  The second film shows a luxurious club, where Indy is revealed descending a staircase wearing a white suit.  Again, this is a very good reveal.  The third film reveals Indiana right before he's punched in the face!  Although not his best reveal, it does put you right in the action, and I admire the film makers for trying something new.  But, being revealed in such an ugly and undignified manor, is insulting to our character!  "But Albert, Isn't this reveal supposed to show that he is in even more danger because the scene is set up to feel as though Indiana Jones is caught at a large disadvantage?"  NO!  No, it isn't!  Make us like him again!  We've waited nineteen years!  Maybe we could be excused from the fact that, viewers may have forgotten how much @#!*% Indiana Jones kicked!  Heck! you probably could have done it too, if you hadn't wasted your time by showing, a pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the rest of the film, and who's only purpose was to show us that the film takes place in the fifty's.

  
   Okay, wow!  I got really sidetracked there.  Our artifact this time, is an ancient skull that is apparently extremely powerful, an if starred at long enough can take over your mind!!!!  OOOoooOoOoOOooo...  Actually It's a pretty intriguing idea.  The Skull ties into the Aztec architecture concealing it for several thousand years.  Who put it there to begin with?  ...Uggggghhhhh.  The dumbest twist ending in cinematic history.  If you haven't seen the film, it may be worth it just to see it for the ending because it is...SO...BAD!  Nonetheless, we have our artifact, and now we move on to our villains!






   I have to admit, I was getting tired of Nazi's being the villains in these movies.  So, I was very excited to hear that Russians would be stepping into the villain's shoes.  It made sense too.  The time period was right, and it was also nearing the nuclear age, as well as the height of the cold war.  There was allot going on at the time, although not many political issues reared their head through the film.  The time period really only worked as a backdrop for Indiana Jones to pose behind, and severed no other purpose than to create a certain atmosphere.  However, the new villain, although fitting the time frame, didn't bring anything relativity new for Indiana Jones to work with.  Every action the Russians took seemed too similar to Nazi's in the previous films.  They must have known this, because they made the lead villain a woman to change things up.  I guess it worked, because she does pull off being intimidating.  However, all throughout the film your wondering why you aren't the least bit phased by any of this.  Well, I'll tell you why.  IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE.  All of this, you know what I like to call it?  The Indiana Jones formula.  Every single encounter has been used during the same time in each and every film.  And after the third it should have ended, but right now I'm starting to get ticked off a little bit.

1. The Artifact
2. Action Scene
3. The Hero
4. Action scene/Chase scene
5. The Villain
6. The plan they have with the artifact
7. Action/Chase scene
8. Fight with muscle
9. Climax

   There you have it.  Any time you want to go at an Indiana Jones film, go ahead and use this.  But, why is it that we keep coming back for more?  It's because audiences like predictability.  They like sitting down and watching the same thing.  However, the Indiana Jones films were like high budget episodes of an adventure serial.  They were meant to stand out because they were different from all the other action/adventure serials.  But I have two reasons that I am singling out this film.  One, it steals from its predecessors.  Shouting, "IIINNNDDDYYY!", using a rocket launcher, etc.  Second, almost every idea that was put into this film were throw away ideas from George Lucas.  I don't know why Spielberg didn't stop him.  Their ideas have clashed before, and he's always come out on top.  Y'see there was this idea George had in the late 90's for an Indiana Jones adventure.  It was called:

    Think Indiana Jones 2, only with an alien for a sidekick, and instead of Thuggee's, well... saucer men from mars.  His idea was supposed to pay tribute to the 50's B-movies, an not the serials of the 30's.  I applaud George for branching off to go and do something new, and I do actually believe that aliens in an Indiana Jones adventure could work, if it was done right.  But I'm talking about remodeling his character ENTIRELY to make that work.  If this film was truly a B-Movie, Indiana Jones would spend time in some kind of laboratory, or outside using some kind of high tech equipment.  But, I don't know.




   These movies are viewed mostly for entertainment, and the effects are great in every one of them.  Only this film has aliens.  And that doesn't work as well as you might think.  One of the reasons that I enjoyed the Indiana Jones films was the fact that whatever effects they used, they didn't overuse it.  And it didn't look like... well...a waste.  I do however like the effects that conveyed certain messages, such as the nuclear explosion, and the chase scene in the beginning of the film.  It seemed real, and felt like it fit in with the previous films.  But this thing ^ is unacceptable.  


   And I know, its was 2008, and they felt like they had to @#!*% out with CGI, but you can convey something equally well, with something that's real!  When you have an action scene that you know has little CGI, you become more invested in the characters.  But when you have a scene with the fast car/ boat things going at the same 120 mph speed, and the greaser pulling out the sword, to fight the Russian chick, who also has the same sword, and is dueling the kid in, like, some kind of fencing match, where they don't fall off or anything, and there's, like, one huge stretch of land  because you've got that one cartoon machine with the saws that can cut away all the trees, and Marian is talking to the greaser while she's driving the car real fast, and not looking at the road, and instead telling the greaser how he should duel the Russian chick, and Indiana Jones and that one old guy, are sort of just there, not really doing anything.... THEN IT REALLY TAKES OUT THE TENSION!


   In conclusion, I think I would have liked the film much more if it stood on its own.  Actually, what would have been even better, is if they simply rebooted the franchise.  Y'know, had a younger Indiana Jones and focused on earlier adventures.  They could've done it, because they did it for the opening of, "The Last Crusade."  I suppose Lucas and Spielberg felt that Harrison Ford should be the only Indiana Jones, but the truth was that all the character was, was the whip, jacket, and hat.  However, he was the embodyment of every action/adventure hero in cinema.  Allot of the characters in this film were accidental cutouts, and normally, in any other Indiana Jones film, this would have been fine.  There was only one problem, which was that this film had character development.  Granted, the diner scene is a good example of development, but everything else seemed forced.  There was an incredible amount of hatred toward this film when it came out, and I think it was a bit too harsh.  Sure the movie was bad, but it was enjoyable.  However, viewers wanted this movie to meet its predecessor's hype sooooo much, that they made the film out to be worse than it was.  I say, if you want to watch more Indiana Jones related films look for these:

1. The Flash Gordon Serials
2. Treasure of the Sierra Madre
3. Secret of the Incas
4. Raiders of Ghost City
5. The Spiders

6.3/10

Watch the Trailer

Next Review:  Zorro Rides Again 1937