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         

Troll 2: 1990

Release date: 1990 (initial release)
Director: Claudio Fragasso
MPAA rating: PG-13
Prequel: Troll
Sequel: Troll 3
Cast: Michael Stephenson, George Hardy, Connie Young, Jason F. Wright

   There really is no way to tell someone who doesn't know about "Troll 2" what the movie is about. Of course I can tell you that Joshua goes with his family on a vacation to Nilbog, a farming community that is somehow completely devoid of farmland and populated by Goblins (not trolls, but goblins) disguised as humans who, throughout the movie, plot to eat the family by first turning them into vegetation, because these are vegan goblins, and Joshua, is the only one who can save them because he's the only one who knows that the humans are goblins because his Grandfather tells him from beyond the grave. I could tell you this, but that surprisingly would not be doing the film justice.     

   Troll 2 has been claimed, not to be the worst movie of all time, but the best worst movie of all time. Because of this, fans have branched into two categories; those who like the camp value of the film, and those that loathe it. Naturally, Troll 2 became an ever-expanding cult phenomenon among movie lovers alike. There are several reasons why this movie doesn't work, and is flawed beyond belief. You might even think that the film wasn't finished because of how many terrible choices the director made in the making of his film. But, the idea that the viewers of this film had yet to grasp during "Troll 2"'s release in 1990, was that the film was meant to appeal to a different kind of audience. The audience that took films like this seriously. 

   The problem with this, of course, is that this is simply not a good movie. And I feel really bad for director Claudio Fragasso when I listen to interviews that reveal that he intended to make a good movie and thinks he actually did. I don't think that he's crazy for thinking that antagonizing vegans is simply the work of powerful cinema, and I also don't think that he is willing to change himself for today's type of audience. When I look at Fragasso, I see a man who has a very specific taste. I see someone who might be a bit too stubborn to realize what a terrible thing he's created, and I also see someone who never intended to create a cult film sensation like Troll 2. It's sad that Claudio will never really get the attention he believes he deserves. I also find it sad that his enthusiasm exceeds his talent. But, Fragasso understands that attention is simply attention and that you have to enjoy a movie how you want to enjoy it.

   In order to really understand a movie that is so bad, yet so loved, you need to watch the documentary, "Best Worst Movie." This time, Michael Stephenson who played young protagonist Joshua from, "Troll 2" becomes the director of the re-telling of the cult phenomenon in his 2009 documentary, "Best Worst Movie." I won't review it, although it is a very good film, and it shows the way Stephenson redeems himself as a man of film-making. Instead of reviewing it, I'm using it as a different perspective of "Troll 2" in order to not simply say, "This is the worst  movie that I have ever seen!" By watching this film I feel obligated to say a few things. First, one of the reasons why the acting in this film was...not as great as it could have been, was because the writing was translated from Italian to English (in a manner of speaking), so the actors struggled tremendously in trying to decipher what they were supposed to be saying in the film. This language barrier was the cause of maybe 50% of the mishaps in the film, not to mention one or two actors being downright insane during shooting.

   I can't talk about every problem the film had, because this review would last a few more pages than I'd like it to be, but I will tell you my main problem with it. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. If you watch this movie you might think that the acting was the worst aspect, or the editing, or just the amount of plot holes, but no. The main problem was the music, and I'll tell you why. For the most part of the movie, there is no real problem with the score, until you get to any one of the "action sequences." Now think back to any horror film you've seen and try to remember how the score sounded. It might send shivers down your spine, or retain some of that creepy ambiance, as a good score should. But if you were to just listen to this song, would you ever think that this would be attached to a horror film? 

   
   No, it takes you out of the film! And you may be wondering why I'm even trying to understand a movie like "Troll 2", but after learning about this director it doesn't seem like he would haphazardly throw this song together and put it into a movie that he wanted to scare an audience with. He genuinely wanted to make a movie, but this score could simply be Claudio's way of "Americanizing" his film. (This better explained in the documentary). I'm almost certain that if you were to put some kind of an effective score in the film, it might work to its advantage...but that's just me being optimistic.  

    In the documentary of the film, Claudio Fragasso talks about the "themes" placed throughout "Troll 2." These included "hunger," "life," "death," and "family." I suppose that these appear in the movie, yet, they play no part in the movie, nor are they even addressed to give the appearance of a "theme." What Claudio believes to be a motif in his film, comes off as a confusing misguided mess. You could give the excuse that because Claudio doesn't direct Americans well, he didn't get his point across, and so the final product didn't translate correctly for other Americans. This is probably true, but the writing in the movie turns it into such a disastrous train-wreak, that I can't tell anything apart from the confusing dialogue, the terrible acting, and every conceivable image in the film. It's like a code that, when deciphered, never really meant anything to begin with. When you realize this, you can either never look back at the film again, or you accept it for what you think it is. Then you begin to like it, and you begin to notice this special quality in the film. And that's when you realize, this movie was like no other film you had ever seen. 

   If you don't really look into why Claudio Fragasso thinks he can make movies, you might enjoy this film. It is hysterical! "Troll 2" is an example of a movie that was made by aliens and sent to earth to see if we could respond. If that were to happen, just take a copy of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" as a retort, and send it to them. I enjoyed this film, and you might enjoy it too. But I suggest that you look at "Best Worst Movie" afterwards. It put the actors places into perspective for me, and I truly believe that these two movies were made to be watched together. But is "Troll 2" the worst movie ever made? Well, let me put it this way; I have not yet witnessed a movie worse than "Troll 2," and I've seen "Plan 9 From Outer Space," and "Santa Clause Conquers The Martians." ...I'm going to let that sink in for awhile...

      
2.7/10

Troll 2 Trailer:

   

Best Worst Movie Trailer:

      Next Review: Kangaroo Jack 2003

2001: A Space Odyssey: 1968

Release date: April 6, 1968 (USA)
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Sequel: 2010: The Year We Make Contact
Screenplay: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke
Cinematography: Geoffrey Unsworth, John Alcott

        Hello, I’m Tristan. The guy who has written practically every other review on this website is Albert. I’m going to be trying to churn out at least a review a month. Of course, keep in mind that every one of my reviews is basically a more refined way of expressing and organizing my sloppy opinions on films. If you were wondering, yes there will be spoilers, as I will be reviewing the movie as a whole. Being a large Stanley Kubrick fan, I thought for my first review, I’d do one of his films. Most of this review will be @#!*% -kissing, because I personally love Kubrick. Oh, and yes, there will be profanity.

SO, according to IMDB, 2001: A Space Odyssey is, “an adventure sci-fi where humanity finds a mysterious, obviously artificial, object buried beneath the lunar surface and, with the intelligent computer H.A.L. 9000, sets off on a quest.” While I applaud someone for trying to write a prompt explanation of this movie, no one could describe this movie and do it justice. Visually, it’s an amazing piece of cinematography, and its pacing is plotted out immaculately. It moves so slowly, but it manages to keep my interest. That’s a miracle for me because I have an intensely low attention-span, and I use my laptop during the 20 seconds it takes for my computer to start. Personally I love this movie because it’s very beautifully structured aesthetically, it’s pacing is great, the sound engineering is fantastic, and the plot is just awesome.

Visually, it’s amazing. A lot of the story is told visually with very light dialogue. As with all of Kubrick’s films there are a lot of shots that use the one-point perspective which has everything draw your eyes directly to the centre. The composition of each shot is done beautifully. What I really love is how long a camera holds a shot. It’s smooth and streamlined and helps the movie keep its flow. Most modern movies tend to do several jump-cuts between every line spoken by every character, which can be slightly disorienting. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with jump-cuts, but the way this movie is shot feels much more natural.

One of the most powerful things in this movie is the ability to tell a story almost purely though its visuals. What stitches it together, of course, is the dialogue. This movie utilizes dialogue as a very powerful tool. Without the fluff of unnecessary dialogue, this movie presents a very large contrast between its talking scenes and its silent scenes, allowing the dialogue to have a heavier impact on the viewer. 

In the sets, you can see the influences from its time, yet somehow it still works. It has its charm in its own right. A futuristic looking set from the late 60’s that DOESN’T look cheesy. IT’S REALLY COOL WHEN PEOPLE WALK AROUND THE SETS AND THE GRAVITY SHIFTS. INCEPTION DID THAT, AND I KNOW YOU ALL LOVE IT.

Its pacing is beautiful. It takes its time with telling its story, allowing you to immerse yourself and to let everything around you sink in. Its execution isn’t gratuitous or pretentious, and it doesn’t feel like it’s trying to be super artistic, avant-garde @#!*% . 

Now I’m going to talk about the sound engineering. Like many of the things in this movie, it is STUNNING. When people speak, it is silent, giving an added feeling of reality and also giving more importance to what the person is saying. The soundtrack’s really frikkin’ delicious too. Classical music and ominous choirs. It’s just so great. You’d be lying if you said that the choir wasn’t at least, slightly unnerving. Eugh. I get all tense listening to that. When the music is playing, it’s practically nothing but music, and when the people are talking, it’s practically nothing but talking. The combination of the well-thought-out visuals and carefully pieced sound engineering makes this movie a perfectionist’s perfect concoction of PERFECTNESS. Don’t think I’m saying this movie is perfect; nothing’s perfect. What I’m saying is that everything in this movie is just so planned-out and perfected, it’s really something to admire, and it shows. All of that work adds to the allure of the film. 

Now the plot. All of these beautiful elements that comprise this move  I actually don’t wanna get into this on account of my laziness, but I’ll do what I can without getting sick of writing it. A lot of the story is left to interpretation too, which is cool. I like that the plot is not only about the black monolith, but also the people sent out on the Jupiter mission, where both of those plots tie in at the end. In the beginning HAL actually starts out kinda adorable, but in the end it’s like OH @#!*% . His calmness turns and becomes sinister, and the DEATH SCENE. THAT @#!*% ’S SCARY. Watching HAL be killed by taking out the modules piece by piece is just so unsettling to a point where it kind of feels uncomfortable to watch. They’ve put so much humanity into him, to the point where I’m actually calling it him. I didn’t hesitate to think that it’s just a computer, and I didn’t actually realize that until I started writing, “they’ve put so much humanity into him.” Then he starts singing. HE STARTS SINGING. It’s sad and scary and AGHHH. HAL JUST WANTED TO COMPLETE HIS MISSION, AND YOU TOOK THAT AWAY FROM HIIIIMMMMMMM. Alien reminisces these ideas through its androids. The plot is also split up into three acts which is reinforced by the fact that the movie has an intermission. I don’t actually feel like explaining these acts. So I’ll have Albert explain it to you:

-  Okay, so “2001: A Space Odyssey” is comprised into four acts, each symbolizing the evolutionary chain of man. The first act is the dawn of man, where we see how our earliest forms of mankind have learned to make tools, and by extension, weapons (an archetypal creation of man that will continue to define us). And we enter a passage through time and space with Kubrick’s choice of transitioning mankind’s weapon into a space vessel. In act two we have our second encounter with the monolith re-discovered by man millions of years later. The crew hears of rumors about the monolith on the planet causing epidemics. We fast forward 18 months later into act 3 where “Discovery One” sets off for Jupiter. Our spacecraft is being piloted and protected by the H.A.L 9000 computer. When word breaks loose of H.A.L’s crew jeopardizing the mission due to certain dangers, it attempts to dispose of each crew member. In the final act our main character, Bowman, has an existential journey through space and time triggered by the monolith orbiting around Jupiter at the time that Discovery One had landed. He speeds past his life looking at himself decades at a time. Finally at his death bed he transforms finally into The Star Child, which holds its place in the next evolutionary chain of mankind. 

                    

~Albert

-THAT’S IT. THAT’S ALL YA GET-

Thus concludes my review. Overall, it's one of my favorite movies, and while nothing can be perfect, it's almost as close to perfect as you can get. For it's time and genre, it's stunning, and it's a master piece. Though it's not my favorite, for an overall rating, I give it:

8.6/10

Next Review: Donnie Darko

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

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension: 1984

Release date: August 15, 1984 (USA)

Director: W. D. Richter

MPAA rating: PG

Running time: 103 minutes

Music: Michael Boddicker

   On Cult Classic Theater I have reviewed many films, most of which many people have never heard of.  I'm not too good at keeping my reviews grounded to the title of my blog, "cult classic," and I'm not sure what I should do about that.  Regardless, I have still managed to broaden my perspective of the cinematic world, so in a way, I'm reaching past the former boundaries I've set for myself.  I like that.  I still enjoy this hobby I have made for myself and I hope to ,"stick with the program" for a couple more years if not more.  In case you are wondering why I'm not reviewing this film yet, it's because I have reached a certain mile stone for this blog.  a small feat, but a feat to be recognized at that.  So, I'm pleased to show you, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai:  Across the 8th Dimension."  This is my 50th review.

   But why this movie?  Well, Buckaroo Banzai links to my past in a certain special way.  I don't know...ya ever watched something as a kid, and then ten years later you watch it again and you get this overwhelming feeling of nostalgia from it.  One of these movies (or in this case, short films) was of "The Night on Bald Mountain," a short from the film, Fantasia.  Another one of these films is the one you're looking at, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai:  Across the 8th Dimension."  Who is Buckaroo Banzai?  The hero of our film, played by Peter Weller, is a race car driver...and a neurosurgeon...and a rock star.  He is awesome, and a likable character at that.  And that's the key word here;  likability.  Of course you would think to put this trait into any main character of a film, but with the other characteristics I have expressed to you about him, that might be a difficult feat to overcome.  Surprisingly, director W.D Richter, does this phenomenally well.  You have this guy who can do everything, but that can still come off as a realistic guy (for the most part).

     Our story is as follows;  everyman Buckaroo Banzai and his parents have created a rocket car (if you will) to jump into other dimensions using a device called The Oscillation Overthruster.  Buckaroo tests this device, and successfully drives...through a mountain.  Yes, through a mountain.  Actually, through a dimension inside of the mountain. However, upon re-entree to the third dimension, Banzai accidently brings back an alien or, "lectroid" artifact.  Buckaroo Banzai finds out later, with the help of his crew called, The Hong Kong Cavaliers, that what Buckaroo had witnessed was the 8th dimension, during a meeting about the technology that brought Banzai there.  He was contacted by, "black" Lectroids to be able to see the "red" Lectroid's because the red Lectroid's want to steal the Oscillation Overthruster, so that they can, "go home."

   W.D Richter's character of Buckaroo Banzai is, in a way satirizing all of the hero's in films and books.  The guy's that can have any woman they want, can do whatever he wants, everyone knows him, wants to be him, and approves everything he does. But, very differently, you still can see that Buckaroo is just a man. For example, Steven Spielberg takes a very different approach with the Indiana Jones Trilogy. Contrarily wise, THIS character is a jerk, but a doctor. He's rude, but heroic. However, the likability that is attached to Harrison Ford's character has to do with the duality of his character, and the choices he makes throughout the situations he comes across. So it really is up to you which of these, "every-men" you prefer.

      Our villain is good (for the kind of camp this film wants to emit) but he is aside the film itself, meaning that although he has more to do with the story, there is no connection between him and Banzai, suggesting that this villain won't be around for very long. I can think of one reason why they might have done this. Buckaroo Banzai was meant to have several films to its name. The fact that, "across the 8th dimension" was a subtext, is a hint to that. Supposedly each film would feature Buckaroo banzai, along with his crew, "The Hong Kong Cavaliers" going around saving the world from evil. I sounded cool. It also sounded like a serial. A serial is series of short films, or episodes, that would be played in theaters on a scheduled time of week or month, depending on cost of production. Often times, nearing the end of each episode, there would be a cliff hanger. You would have to wait until the next episode to see how the hero would escape the danger he was previously confronted by. Buckaroo Banzai never incorporated cliff hangers, but would have separate stories for each film (*ahem* Indiana Jones). Sadly, W.D Richter's next installed adventure for Buckaroo Banzai, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Against the World Crime League" never saw the light of day, although it was teased at the end of this film. I won't lie, I was so excited to watch that movie after finishing this one. You couldn't fathom.
    There are two ways I can look at this film: from a child's perspective, and from an analytical perspective. From a child standpoint, I really like this movie. But does that mean that it IS a good movie? no, of course not. The story is insane, the costumes are okay, I guess, Buckaroo has no weakness, so he isn't completely fleshed out as the film's hero, The Hong Kong Cavaliers have nothing that distinguishes their character besides their name, and what they wear, and it is a mess. But to this day I love every minuet of it. I'm sure fans of this film will agree that Buckaroo Banzai has its flaws, but what W.D Richter may have just been going for was a camp film. And guess what? It became a cult classic! So my blog title finally has one more percentage of meaning in its name. I hope that counts for something.

6.0/10

Watch the Trailer Here:

Next Review:  Plan 9 From Outer Space 1959

Treasure of the Sierra Madre: 1948

Initial release date: 1948
Director: John Huston
DVD release date: September 30, 2003
Story: B. Traven
Music: Max Steiner


   Here we have yet another inspiration of cinema to contribute to the Indiana Jones films.  "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is an adventure film, that focuses more on the reality that is digging for gold, surviving out in the wild, and trying to make a living off of this bountiful restitution.  In a sense, it is much more than a film about gold fever, because there really is no such thing.  "Gold fever" is not the longing to get rich quick.  It's survival in every sense of the word.  The toil of life itself, and the excuse that, someday everyone goes a little loony from the deprivation of a simple life.


   Like in most of the films he's done, Humphrey Bogart is wonderful in the portrait of his roles...or in this case...a psychopath.  Yes it's true, every other minuet he's blaming his friends, and accusing everybody of stabbing him in the back.  This is his character ark, and it is simply flawless.  He starts out as a wandering, squandering, down-on-his-luck American in a small Mexican town, to a wandering, hallucinating, soon-to-be-down-on-his-luck, American, on the outskirts of a small Mexican town.  There is a scene where his character, Dobbs, had just killed another man.  He says, "Conscience, what a thing.  If you believe you've got a conscience it'll pester ya to death.  But if you don't believe ya got one, what could it do to ya?"  he finds out soon enough.


   This movie was a wonderful western and well worth the genre.  It's a very real film, meaning that it focuses on reality being the villain.  Everyone then believed that digging for gold was difficult, but like this...never!  It gives away allot of new information about digging for gold, as well as advice when avoiding the hazards that come along with it.  There are three characters in this film which each symbolize a different kind of preparedness for this kind of job.  Tim Holt's character symbolizes the one that is willing to learn from his mistake and eager to learn.  Bogart's character symbolizes the reckless one.  The one seduced by the mountain that gave them the gold, and the one who paid the price for it.  And finally, Walter Hutson plays the experienced one.  The character who's already been through everything, and when the day is done he has no problem laughing about it.  But believe me, it takes a pretty experianced soul to laugh at the dangers that were right on their tails the whole journey through the treasure of the sierra madre!


 8/10

Watch the Trailer Here

Next Review:  West Side Story 1961

      

        
   

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

Zorro Rides Again: 1937

So, I got to thinking, “how could I follow up my reviews of the Indiana Jones Franchise?”  And, here it is.  Zorro Rides again was a serial made in the 1930’s, directed by William Whitney and John English.  These two people had rich experience with westerns before, and are known for Bonanza, The Adventures of Kit Carson, Frontier Doctor, and Zorro’s Fighting Legion.   “Zorro Rides Again,” is just one of the many other serials that the character of Zorro is a part of.  But before I get into reviewing the serial, let’s look at a little background regarding our protagonist.  The character of Zorro was created by writer Johnston McCulley, for his serialized novel The Curse of Capistrano in 1919.  Later it would be up to Douglas Fairbanks to kick-start the franchise into popularity.  He did this by creating, “The Mark of Zorro,” a now 1920’s classic.  In 1957, Disney began a television show for Zorro.  It had a huge affect on the T.V industry of film, because at the time, it was the highest budgeted western, and it created an explosive merchandising craze.  Zorro undoubtedly had a special place reserved for him in the golden age of film. 

“Zorro Rides Again,” follows the progress of the California Yucatan Railroad being built by James Vega, Grandson of the original Zorro, and Joyce and Philip Andrews, as well as the financial pirate, Marsden and his plans to destroy it along with his stooge, El Lobo.  Each episode pits James Vega as Zorro against various schemes thought up by Marsden in order to destroy the railroad.  Sometimes it’s a bomb hidden in a cabin next to the Railroad, and other times it’s a plane told to gun the train down.  And at the end of every episode, there would be a cliff-hanger.  Many shows would adopt this method of keeping the audience’s attention and excitement until the next episode, such as the television rendition of Batman, made in the 60’s.  Remember this? “Has Batman struck out?  Is Robin cool for good?  Can no-one save our noble pair of human popsicles?  Answers tomorrow night, same time, same channel!  A word of warning:  by watching, you too can lose your cool!”  Although much different of an approach, it is a very effective attention grabber.  This serial is twelve episodes long, and had with it many interesting titles, such as, “Plunge of Peril,” and, “Tunnel of Terror.”

Although not cinematic magnum opuses of their time, they were fun to watch back then, and even today they are welcomed into the action genre library of film.  I don’t think that there was allot of other films made in the 30’s that could be compared to this.  The Zorro Serials represented a simpler time, where films were made short, and to entertain people.  They were pure, and the people that saw these films could either connect with the characters, or the experience of the film.  I know, these aren’t per say, “good films,” but that’s not what I’m saying.  The real reason that people won’t leave Zorro alone, is because he defined a genre of film that has grown too high nowadays to recognize its origin, which is why viewers cherish Indiana Jones for its simplicity, and its tribute towards the classic action films.  For me, it is much easier to film something you like, rather than something you don’t.  This is one reason why the Indiana Jones trilogy was so successful.  It is also one of the reasons why I now have much more respect for Steven Spielberg and George Lucas.

Two more reviewers will be added to Cult Classic Theater, and the majority of films that will be reviewed next are from the 90's 

   

6.9/10

Trailer for Zorro Rides Again

Next Review:  Pulp Fiction  1994

   

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