Godzilla: 2014

   When I say monster, what sort of thing comes to mind?  Maybe you think of the Universal monsters like The Wolf Man, or The Creature From The Black Lagoon. Or maybe you think of the creations of special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen. But if you're like me, then the first thing you think of when you hear "monster" is Godzilla. A name that implies ultimate power and destruction...and dinosaurs. Godzilla began his reign of destruction in 1954 with the release of his first feature film entitled, "Gojira". The monster was supposed to symbolize the power of nuclear weapons, and the destruction the monster caused mirrored (more or less) the devastation of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is  who Godzilla originally was, but as he began to appear in more films the giant thunder lizard would become both friend and foe to the human race through one way or another.  And once again an American director has decided to wipe the slate clean and retell the first appearance of a scary, green, scaly, atomic breathing, giant monster. Let's take a look at Gareth Edwards' Godzilla!

   Now before I begin I would like to clarify something. I am a huge Godzilla fan. I love the monsters and robots that he fights. I love Monster Island. I love everything from Mecha-Godzilla to Jet Jaguar and I was really excited when I heard tell of a new Godzilla movie! Like, oh my god. For once in my adult life I would have a modern release to call my own! I was hyped, and I hoped that this revamp of a franchise would succeed in reminding audiences who the king of monsters was. However, I understand that writing a review of a film with this big a fan base is a heavy burden to carry, and in doing so I need to remind those who have an opinion to also respect mine for what it is. To you I might be wrong. To you I might not have fully understood the kind of Godzilla movie that was meant to be made. Maybe, to you, Gareth Edwards exceeded your vision of Godzilla to the nth degree. I'm trying to break to you that I didn't like this movie. Let me tell you why. Who knows, you might be really disappointed. 

   The plot follows Joe Brody (Cranston), his son Ford (Taylor-Johnson) and their efforts to uncover a conspiracy hidden by the government. As you may have guessed that conspiracy is Godzilla, and it later escalates as more monsters reach more populated areas. And the first thing that I want to talk about is Godzilla which was, after all, the main selling point for the film. There is a ton to consider when you take the helm for a job like this, and I think that Edwards did the most that he could do. And it looks beautiful. The pacing, every movement, his face, the moves! It's all there! And it looks so cool!!!!! As far as I'm concerned Godzilla looks perfectly fine. I heard that some people thought that Godzilla's legs and feet looked fat, and I can see where they're coming from, but it never really bothered me because he's a giant monster and I was prepared for him to be lumbering around a metropolitan area. In other words, his size matched his speed. 

For a movie called, "Godzilla" there really isn't all that much Godzilla in the film. The full screen time that Godzilla has might clock out to a half an hour at the most, and only half the time he's fighting other monsters. When I watch a Godzilla movie I expect it to revolve around him for the most part, but instead Edwards decided it would be better to star two actors to carry our story from beginning to end.

   I want to explain why a main character is important in a story for a frame of reference to this movie. The main character is who the audience vicariously lives through. It is important to have a character in a story that doesn't understand the driving action at hand so that when he is learning about the situation, so are we as an audience. The way that Jo works with Ford is similar to a movie like Back to The Future however only in the sense that there is an experienced man trying to explain a discovery to an inexperienced apprentice. But in a movie like Back to the Future we care a lot more about Marty than Doc Brown because we like his character, we want to see him overcome obsticals, and we know he's not perfect (when he loses his temper after being called "chicken"). Marty McFly is a well rounded character. Ford is not. I have no disrespect towards Aron Taylor Jonson's performance, but his character has nothing interesting set up during the entirety of his screen time. I don't care about him as a character at all. I don't care about his wife, or his job, or his well furnished house. The only reason I think he needed to be in the movie was to give us perspective of a human in comparison to Godzilla...which was incredible. 

   Bryan Cranston's performance was incredible as well and while I don't believe that he was picked simply to grab more of an audience, I don't think it hurt the film during box office weekend. His performance was so good, I can honestly say that I cared infinitely more about Jo and his wife with the ten minuets they were interacting together, than the entire rest of the film that had Ford and his wife interacting together. The very moment that Bryan Cranston died I had no one to follow in the movie that I remotely cared about. It relieved all the tension because I didn't care about Ford or his wife. He was the only interesting character and when he left I had nothing to invest in for the rest of the film. 

   Many people had gone into this movie with different expectations because while there is generally a formula to a Godzilla movie, there are also different aspects of the franchise that fans like to focus on. My ideal Godzilla movie would be a bunch of never-before seen actors playing scientists with no names that try to kill Godzilla with a science thing...but that will never happen. I didn't expect it to happen, but I hoped it would. This is not that movie.

   There were a few minor problems I had with Godzilla, like how everything seemed a little too convenient for our main characters when they were everywhere Godzilla was, and when Ford makes it his mission to save one child out of the fifty people that are on a train literally speeding towards one of the monsters. But I can look past those flaws. All in all Godzilla takes itself a little too seriously for me. There are several dry spells in the film where nothing happens, the actual story that doesn't involve Bryan Cranston is terrible, and I didn't care about the main character. But if you're willing to put up with that to get to the best ten minuet monster fight you've ever seen, I recommend it.

6/10

Trailer

Her: 2013

Release date: December 18, 2013 (USA)

Director: Spike Jonze

Running time: 126 minutes

MPAA rating: R

Music composed by: Arcade Fire

Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Joaquin Phoenix

Spike Jonze is a...different kind of director. In my opinion he's part of the good kind of different kind of director. And that's a good thing. But he is also in my opinion a very strange person. And that could be a good thing. It was for this reason that I didn't really know what to expect going into "Her". Wait...no, that's not..."going into the theaters to see "Her"...no, that doesn't sound right either...going into the theaters to watch her...no." I watched "Her: A Spike Jonze Love Story, okay? That's what I'm trying to say. Jeez. Okay, let's do this.
  

A guy named Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) falls in love with an operating system named Samantha (Scarllet Johannson). Many strange and awkward Hi-Jinx ensue.

   So this movie's set in the very near future where there's a lot of hiked up pants and button down shirts and self aware, self evolving operating systems...I don't see any problem with that. No! No really! It's good! It's good to have a program that can replicate and broaden their perspectives of the world, becoming smarter and smarter. A program who can learn and react to anything...in seconds! A program that can emote and understand the human mind better than humans themselves! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

   But fine! It's Spike Jonze, and he's this really weird guy. I guess from this particular perspective there could be no logical reason for an OS to rise against the human race. I mean no one explains how it works from a technical standpoint (for the most part). So, is Samantha (the OS) a plot device? An unexplained idea used in order to further the story? Well, I don't think so. I mean, Samantha plays a huge part in the story. She is the love interest after all. Although I can see how people might assume that since she, from a technological standpoint, is not developed very much might seem like one. But, I don't think that that's a bad thing so to speak. The only thing I can say in order to justify the vagueness of this evolutionary technological advancement is that Jonze didn't want the audience to have a reason not to side with Samantha's "robot" traits more than her "human" traits. If you explain the science behind her being able to do the things she can do, you lose some credibility for the believable "not-so-far-away" future you have constructed as a setting because using some scientific techno-babble for explanation is not so...professional. Just because it would work in Star Trek does not mean it will work for "Her". This is dating advice I have followed for a very long time. 

   You also alienate the audience from condoning with the socially confusing act of hooking up with a computer. If you were to explain in more detail how Samantha "ticks" you are less likely to be able to wrap the idea of this being a love story around your head...y'know...if you weren't already. But regardless, "Her" is actually very good. It wastes no time in using Joaquin Phoenix's character as a...well...character study of human beings in general. Jonze uses Scarllet Johannson's character as a new perspective on things we find to be normal or acceptable in society. Both actors give excellent performances not just as themselves, but as a unit. And for a film like this, that sort of thing is very important. The illusion of compatibility, challenge, and conflict in a relationship are all executed very well. Like most relationship films (or "Love Stories") the narrative flies between moments in Theodore's and Samantha's life. Although not as heavy handed as say, "Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind" or personal as "Annie Hall" which both work fine to each movie's credit, it certainly is unique enough to stand out among the other, lesser, tearjerker's of the ages.

   The writing is very good as well, playing with Amy Adams' strengths more than any other film I have seen her in. Truly she is in her prime. I really don't have anything negative to say about "Her" other than there being a few missed opportunities (one of which being the lack of incredibly loud controversies on man/robot relations). And maybe I'm not getting the big picture, and "Her" was never really about the future of societal culture, or what defines a human being, or "the human condition" or whatever you want to call it. I liked "Her". She's funny, unique, smart, in a philosophical sort of way, very strange, but very beautiful. So, if you're into that sort of thing you should check "Her" out!

    ...Jesus, you know I couldn't let an opportunity like that pass, right? Of course I have to write something. It's who I am. I interject a lot of my mannerisms into my writing. That way it's like I'm talking to you, as opposed to me writing to someone I don't know. So, you'll have to forgive me. But if you've read up to here, at least you took the time. Thanks.

7.3/10

Man of Steel: 2013

 Release date: June 14, 2013 (USA)

Director: Zack Snyder

Screenplay: David S. Goyer

Music composed by: Hans Zimmer

Producers: Deborah Snyder, Emma Thomas, Charles Roven,Christopher Nolan

   "The Man of Steel" is the brand spanking new super hero title to cash in on our famed red and blue marvel from beyond, Superman. At the get go, I figured the film would have been taken over by Christopher Nolan, director of the highly grossing Dark Knight trilogy. However, this time Zack Snyder would be bringing the superhero blockbuster back...or would he? 

   Our film follows the last son on Krypton, Kal-El, and his struggle to find his place on the planet Earth. There are some movie trilogies out there, where I kept thinking to myself, "They could have just made these into one really long movie." "The Man of Steel" is the opposite of that. There are many parts in the film where they could have just stopped and enhanced everything through description and plot. Instead it felt more like Snyder was going through the motions of making a dark superhero film.  When you have almost every line of dialog specifically made to be in a trailer, I'm not really listening to whats being said. I could tell you that the dialog sounded nice, because trailer exposition sounds really nice, but I'm not really listening to what's being said because we've all heard this same thing a bazillion times! "You were meant for great things, Kal-El." "You can help the humans, Kal-El. But they're not ready for you yet." "You will give the human's an idea to strive toward. They will look to you as a god." I didn't even have to think about those to write them, because they're already there! Snyder knows it! We all know it!

   I mentioned earlier that I believed that "The Man of Steel" was filmed to be dark and edgy mostly due to Christopher Nolan's insight. Therein lies the problem for me. Or at least the main problem. If you really thing about it, there were two ways that Superman spoke to people. As a comic book every-man  and as an idea for the American way. These are the two main ways that Superman could be geared both to children and to adults. He's a guy who can do anything, and wears red and blue spandex while doing it! He saves the girl, and gets the girl. These are very primitive ideas, and when you try to build more on a primitive foundation, and take the most super of all superhero's and try to make him normal, he falls apart (as well as the movie). There's nothing there anymore. The one thing that made Superman work and seem plausible, was the simplicity of his story. You could wrap your head around the idea that there's a guy who can fly and shoot lasers and everything was okay. If you take a movie like Batman Begins, you have a guy who dresses up like a bat and solves crime...and that's it. They translated it to an adult audience well, and that's why it works. 

   I suppose I had better talk about what I liked about "The Man of Steel". I thought that Henry Cavel as Superman and Michael Shannon as General Zod, were wonderful choices for casting their characters. They both played their parts the way they were supposed to. Michael Shannon was extraordinarily campy during some scenes, and I found myself enjoying those moments more than the entire movie. Maybe I'm just the wrong person for this movie, but with that said is there really anyone I can market this film to? I don't think anyone would like this movie. Well, maybe if you've never seen or heard about Superman, but what are the chances of that? The action was sort of WAYYYYY too much. Where is the film going to go from this? They blew the entire budget on the final scene containing 50,000 7-11 and IHOP product placements (so I guess I'm contradicting myself). I actually would have liked it if they made up a superhero, and used him for the film instead of Superman. It still would have been BAD, but at least kids could keep the man of steel as a children's superhero. Batman and Superman no longer exist in the eyes of a child...and that kind of makes me sad. 

   Can directors and audiences never have that connection again? Where you would go to see a superhero movie or an action/adventure movie, where everything's whimsical and campy? Special effects nowadays are only used to enhance the intensity of everything (unless it's for a kids film, where everything is a special effect). And if we've all left that behind us, then alright. Fine. I'll take it. But you have to stay away from making movies like this! People have to realize that you can't take a character from one side of popular culture, and adapt it to the complete opposite side of the spectrum. You don't make a modern romantic comedy starring Wilma and Fred Flinstone. You can't get away with making a drug/crime film starring Jim Carrey as Ace Ventura. It just won't work. But hey, in twenty years, who knows?

6.9/10

Trailer

Star Trek: Into Darkness: 2013

   
   I haven’t written a review in several months because my blogger account is acting up once more, more violently this time around. And I am very frustrated because it’s summer time here in the beautifully muggy and buggy Los Angeles, and I haven’t been able to write for a very long time...so I haven’t had anything to do in a very long time amidst the last minute grade boosters the teachers have thrown at us in preparation for our long awaited but meager restitution. So, in the meantime I plan to write as much as I can throughout the remainder of my vacation, and in doing so I hope to meet my previous quota of thirty reviews by August 13^th. And with SUMMER VACATION in mind, I plan on going to the movies much more frequently and reviewing all the movies I go to see (with my family). 


Three films I have in mind to review are, “Monsters University,” “Star Trek: Into Darkness,” and “Man of Steel.” When I started writing for CCT I regularly avoided “current” films because…the blog is called Cult Classic Theater. But since then my film preferences have deviated so drastically from what kind of film the title of my blog suggests I review, that I have decided to keep the title…but throw its meaning “out the window and soaring clumsily into the night. So let’s see how that goes and hope that, whilst reviewing more current films, I won’t be hated so much in the comment’s (like last time.)

“Star Trek: Into Reboot” is the highly anticipated sequel to “Star Trek: The Exposition.” This new film in the Star Trek franchise attempts to explore Captain Kirk’s struggles as a captain, once again, and Spock’s struggle to control his emotions, once again, and Ahoora’s struggle to maintain a relationship with Spock, once again. The story is generally the same as the first film, just written differently. Some people could argue that the last sentence just described how most sequels work, and they would be right, if the way to write a sequel was to do it with minimal effort. This isn't really a good sign, especially if you want people to come to the third installment of the franchise. And “Star Trek: Into Darkness” couldn't hide the amount of recycling it had done with the first film no matter how hard Benedict Cumberbatch frowned. However, there was no other film that “Star Trek: The Lost World” had stolen from than “Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn.” I don’t know what J.J Abrams was thinking when he chose to place so many parallels to these two films. And if you’re one of those fans who likes to chronologically organize every single Star Trek film, than please explain how this film AND Wrath of Kahn can both exist at the same time! One speculation of mine as to why Abrams had this happen was for the massive fan service! Why else would the second film have Kahn as the villain? But hold on a second. Let’s talk about Kahn.

 Now, it may not seem like it, but I don’t watch Star Trek all too often. However, I have seen the first episode that Kahn first appears in, and when Abrams tries to create it, he leaves one (among other things) astray. In the show Kahn and the rest of his people are classified as “augmented humans,” which means that they are much stronger and faster and smarter; essentially better in every way. However, the superior race that Kahn shows off in the show and movie, are insulted by the more current film’s interpretation of the character. In “Star Trek: Into Darkness” the only advantage to human beings that Kahn exploits is being PHYSICALLY better than Kirk and the rest of his crew. The only threatening aspect about Cumberbatch’s character was the fact that he could crush Spock’s skull if he wanted to. If you want to pay homage to a popular character in a franchise, don’t dumb down his character so that it’s better recognized by others otherwise unfamiliar to it. You give that character new challenges to face, and if it’s a villain we’re talking about (which we are) you need to have the hero’s learn new complex strategies to “dupe” the antagonist in the end.

   “Star Trek: Into Reference” was a poor attempt at creating a sequel to follow an otherwise well made first film. I will say that J.J Abrams can make things look pretty, and I will also say that he knows how to make a movie. And with that said, it has become very clear at this point that he did not care as much as he did. There are numerous plot holes, and the Enterprise’s concept of “cold fusion” leaves something to be desired…seriously, did anyone catch that? Cold fusion doesn't reduce temperature; it actually increases it…but whatever. I liked the acting, and I think that every actor had a somewhat solid performance, with the exception of Kirk, who was all over the place with this one. Cumberbatch’s performance was actually really good, and I think because of that he should be in more upcoming movies besides this one. The movie looked really good, like the first one, and I would have liked to see much more planetary exploration from a Star Trek movie instead of for just one scene, although, it is my sad prediction that we will not be seeing anything Star Trek related for a very long time.

7.0/10

Next Review: Moonrise Kingdom 2012

John Dies At The End: 2012

Release date: January 25, 2013 (USA)
Director: Don Coscarelli
Screenplay: Don Coscarelli
Story by: David Wong
Genres: Fantasy, Horror, Comedy

   When you see a poster that advertises, "From the director of Phantasm, and Buba Ho-Tep" You might think, "Oh boy, 'Phantasm', but oh...oh yeah...'Buba Ho-Tep." I'm not saying that "Buba Ho-Tep" was a bad movie. It was very silly, and very strange, and if you don't like that sort of thing, you may find it very stupid. And I feel very sad to admit that "John Dies At The End" doesn't really work in most areas of the horror-comedy film genre. In fact, the film would continue to surprise me with strange occurrences one after the other...and it would never stop.

   Do I recommend "Phantasm" lovers...no. Actually, I don't recommend this film in general, and I don't think I can really compare this to any other film I know. Our film takes place mostly in a Chinese restaurant over an interview that explains the effects of a new street drug called "soy sauce." The drug itself...is not soy sauce, but it has the ability to send the user across time and space, sometimes landing in other dimensions. There's a catch however. At any moment the drug can turn you into a freaky alien from another dimension...so there are moderate side affects at best. To friends use this ability to do their job...which is killing inter-dimensional beings that have infested choice homes. It's like "Ghostbusters" with no dignity and less humor. And it is a stupid movie, and I really didn't want it to be. But what was I really expecting from the guys who are well known for the stupidly strange. 

   The camerawork is done well, and I like the surrealism of the real world mixed with other dimensions. Even the acting is done well, and great performances come out of the majority of the cast. Almost everything about the film in general is...good. It is, and I don't have too many complaints, with the exception of a few upcoming complaints. I did not like the story, or at least its execution. And, I'm not saying that I don't like the story because it's bad, but because it's just waayyyyy too strange for me. But, then again, what was I expecting from the director of "Phantasm"? Of course it's going to be strange, and If you like strange, this might be for you...? But I don't know! I can't tell these things. It was kinda just too weird for me...and this is kind of hitting the same level of weird as "Dr. Tarr's Tourture Dungeon," just more awkward. The only other thing that I didn't really like about the film was the CG, and I know that if you've read my review of "Star Trek" then you know my feelings for it's overabundance in current films. But, you may be surprised to find out that the reason I didn't like the CG in "John Dies At The End" was because the developers of the film clearly didn't have the budget to render much of anything. And that's very sad to me because I wonder if I would have liked it better if the CG was better, but I'm not sure.

   Well, I think I'm going to end things here. I know that this review was very short and I apologies for that, or at least to anyone that cares. Do I recommend this film, no. Go watch something better, because there are many things in this movie that could have been improved upon and have been improved upon in several other films. And I really don't like having to say that, because I was excited for this film. But when finally watching it, I didn't like the humor because it didn't work with the story. Well, at least for me it didn't. It was so strange! So if you really want to, go and watch it, and if you already have I'm sorry but I can't refund you eight dollars. 

6.0/10

Watch the trailer

Next Review: Star Trek - Into Darkness 2013

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 Rocky Horror Picture Show: 1975

Release date: September 26, 1975 (USA)
Director: Jim Sharman
MPAA rating: R
Running time: 100 minutes
Sequel: Shock Treatment

(Note: If you don't care about recent developments regarding "Cult Classic Theater", skip this paragraph.")

   Finally! After almost a year of writing, I have summoned the strength to tackle the strange and misunderstood realm of film known as, "cult classics." I would be remiss,  if I did not look into such a genre in the time that I have dedicated towards building upon this blog. To be honest, I never really understood what it meant, "Cult Classic." What I mean is, I never really understood it when coming up with the name for the blog. I thought it would just be a nice sounding name to call a hobby. At the time, I never really gave the title's meaning much thought. Now that I know, I feel rather stupid when recalling previous conversations with others. "So what do you like to do with your free time, Albert?" "Well, I like to review horror films on a blog I have called 'Cult Classic Theater'. The reason that I have brought up this inconsistency, is because I have been thinking about changing the title of the blog. I have recently introduced this website to a friend who will be, from now on, reviewing films with me. Look for "2001: A Space Odyssey" in a bit. That's all I really have to say, so now, here's "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"

   Directed by the strange and wild Jim Sherman, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" is a musical about a couple that wander into a mansion after their car breaking down to use their telephone. This is the only part in the film that isn't strange. What is strange, comes after they are let inside. Now, what I should remind you, is that up until this point the pacing for the film has been very...regular. A couple, different from the one in the story that we follow, is married. After we see that they come out of the chapel awaiting the guests that are ready to shower them with rice and praise, we are to assume that these are the characters that we will be following. This, however, is not true. It is instead false foreshadowing for stranger events to take place. After the bride and groom leave the scene, we are introduced to Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon), who sing the second song. 

   I liked the song very much, and I figured that this being the very first official song of the film, that it would establish the mood for the rest of the movie. It did not. It in fact, the mood became increasingly stranger until the conclusion of the film. And you also become increasingly uncomfortable while everything is happening around you because you cannot stop it. You cannot stop Brad and Janet from going to the mansion, and then entering the mansion and by extension their demise. And when it's finally over you know you can't un-watch anything. You saw it and you can never again say, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Never heard of it!" But this is where it gets interesting. Because once you finish the film, you come out of the theater or your living room as either one person or another. You either hated this movie, or you really liked it. And...what the @#!*% , I really liked this movie!

   I really did! And it wasn't that I connected with the film  on any level whatsoever, but it was that somebody was actually allowed to make this film! It took a lot of guts to film what awhile ago would have been identified as un-filmable. It's like if you were to take a look inside of any one's mind while they were daydreaming alone in a closet with the door shut and the lights out...under the covers...and under a bed. Don't ask me how you would do it, because it probably couldn't be done. Just ask how okay you would have to be with yourself to film it! And one of the reasons that some people don't particularly enjoy the film is because they aren't okay with themselves and what their mind does when they are alone. Some people are too old, and others need some foundation in a film. That's another thing too; the plot is just frightening. And I'm not saying that in the sense that things in the film are scary (there are many scary things in the movie), but I'm saying that the plot is driving on a dangerous path. I'll try to explain this the best that I can, but you really need to see the film in order to understand where it is I'm coming from. 

   Pretend that you and your family are all in one car driving to your uncle Joe's house simply for the purpose of auctioning his used lawn chairs and broken china to his only neighbor's pet dog and cat. Pretend that you were the only one in the car that didn't know that this was what you were doing when you got to your Uncle Joe's place, and you simply thought that you were paying him a visit. Pretend that your Uncle Joe's house is precariously placed on the very top of a steep cliff. Pretend that you figured it would only take you an hour to get from the bottom of the cliff to the top of the cliff, but it actually took three hours. Now pretend that the music on the radio in the car you were in was really good, but your family wouldn't stop talking long enough for you to actually listen to it. Pretend that your car starts swerving because your going so fast you can't see anything. Pretend that the cliff around you begins falling off, and now everyone in the car is wearing fishnet stockings, and wearing funny hats, and singing and although you judge that they are singing well you cannot tell what it is they are singing about and you just want an explanation of what's happening around you and you try to ask a question but no-one can hear you and now pretend you are suddenly at the house and everyone in the car simultaneously tells you at the same time that the reason that you are at your Uncle Joe's house is to auction his used lawn chairs and china to his neighbor's pets. And now your thinking to yourself, "Should I freak out right now? Or, should I accept these events that are now unfolding before me?" And that, is to me what, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" feels like. It's a train wreak you can't take your eyes off of, but you have a feeling that there was a reason that the train had to crash and you just don't know why. 

   The Rocky Horror Picture Show is riddled with shocking visuals, that put you at the edge of your comfort zone. The music is very well composed (in my opinion), and there is room for interpret-ability when it comes to the meanings of those songs, and even the film in general.  I can't really stress how much you have to see this movie. Who knows? You might hate this movie so much, that you'll never be able to look at Tim Curry ever again. But maybe you'll like it, and if you do you're not alone. Even today there are extra screenings of the film in select theaters. People dress up as there favorite characters, and sing along with the movie. If that sounds fun to you, try looking to see where the next screening will take place, and bring your friends. You just might have some fun. After all, it's true what they say, "You may have seen many movies, but you've never seen anything like 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show'." 

   7/10

Next Review: A Charlie Brown Christmas 1965

Plan 9 From Outer Space: 1959

Release date: July 22, 1959 (USA)
Director: Ed Wood, Jr.
DVD release date: May 18, 1999
Screenplay: Ed Wood, Jr.
Sequel: Night of the Ghouls

     Lets talk a little bit about Ed Wood. This overly-optimistic director of several titles, was deemed the worst film director of all time. His movies are corny, they are campy, and although I do like Ed Wood and the name he has made for himself, the movies that he makes with the meager finance he is given, are just bad. But the person behind these films, "Glen or Glenda", "The Ghoul Goes West," and, of course, "Plan 9 From Outer Space," is the real story.
     
     Ed Wood was  an odd ball of sorts. Secretly a transvestite, Ed wood worked in Hollywood for a short time before signing over to screen classics, a studio which specialized in B-movies. He made his first film, Glen or Glenda which expressed his love for wearing women's clothing. This passion of his ruined the marriage with his first wife, but not his second. Befriending Bela Lugosi, who was currently a drug addict, made making films a bit easier for Ed, because in his mind Bela was still a star. Although appearing in many films, Bela's popularity died down drastically with the atomic age of films. This was a period in film history that was confined to the 50's, and consisted mostly of bugs that grew 50 feet tall and started destroying the tranquil city of fill in the blank. Ed Wood would continue to make B-movies with Bela, and eventually they became good friends. Supposedly during this time, Bela checked himself into rehab as one of the first celebrities ever to do so. Ed Wood would continue to make movies, and would later be dubbed, "The Worst Director of all Time." You can't get more depressing than that.

   Plan 9 From Outer Space is one of those movies that you don't necessarily dream about, more so that one movie that you don't believe exists until you watch it. You have, a science fiction film, that has implemented horror into it. Now, if it were to be done correctly, we may have a good film, or at least a decent one. Often times science fiction can become quite scary. This, however, is not one of those cases. In fact, very rarely would you come across a science fiction film that is also a horror film from the 50's. But that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. I think what Ed Wood may have been trying to do was put everything he liked into one movie, and this is one of the reasons that "Plan 9 From Outer Space" simply does not work. Alien's from another planet come to earth to execute "plan 9" which involves the resurrection of the dead. Why do they do this? I honestly could not catch onto their motives. In this sense the film can become apparently cryptic to some viewers, mainly me. At least we have the satisfaction of every character being on the same page as those that are watching them. 

   The editing for "Plan 9" is just one of the worst things I've seen in awhile. Normally editing in a film isn't something I talk about in a review, but I need to address this. Normally in a film,  the final product will create for itself a smooth transition from each and every shot. The purpose of editing is to create a seemingly fluent narrative for the viewers to comfortable watch a film in. "Plan 9" instead resorts to still shots one after the other in the same position almost every time. This is why, if you were watching this movie now-a-day's you would so bored you wouldn't know what to do with yourself. Because of this complete lack of fluency within the film, it appears to be only a play being recorded by a camera. When it appears as though the camera or operator of the camera (Ed) isn't invested in what he is creating, no-one else will be. Obviously Ed Wood was very excited with making movies and, by the looks of this film, he must have had complete control.

   Complete control is not necessarily a bad thing. Why, look at Citizen Kane, where the studio hated what director and actor Orson Welles created, but he had complete control, and ultimately created one of the greatest films ever made, and continued to create fantastic films then-after. But while Welles and Wood knew what they wanted, it was only Welles that, lets face it, knew what he was doing. But I hope as the years keep passing, humans will find the capacity to appreciate "Plan 9" not for the film making, or the acting, or the editing, or the genre, or the direction, or the set design, or anything aesthetic about the film at all, but the insertion of everything Ed Wood stood for exclusively in one film. We have to appreciate this amount of independence that is possible in a project like this. 

   Ever since I began this blog I have learned many a deal of film related things, for instance, "how to make a film" and "how not to". But I have always wrote by one fact that I have made for myself, and that is that film is interpretative, and any film can be seen in a number of ways. This is why it is important to read many reviews of a film, and not just mine. The growth of film is based on new ideas, and the only way to formulate said ideas is if you can learn through the best ways that define you as a film-maker,review,viewer, anything-er. I think that Ed Wood lived a life when no-one at the time knew how important it was to think outside of the box. No, Ed's films are not good. But that was never the point. He did what he wanted because he loved making movies. Any film maker does this, if not for, um, the money, i guess.

Movies are only good as the viewer perceives it to be...

3.2/10

Watch the full movie here:

Next Review: The Wolf Man 1941

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