Shadow #173 (A-)

Tagline: The horrors of combat pale in comparison to what awaits a war veteran when he goes on a biking trip and crosses paths with a sadistic butcher.

Ok, I'm a few dozen minutes in and I am wondering to myself, am I missing something here?  A totally random guy (who happens to be the lead role in this movie), is back from the war...and now off on a BMX journey of sorts, somewhere out in the rolling hills...and he stops at a bar for a beer.  Alright, I'm with all of that so far.  Then, two guys come in and start messing with a local girl.  The young war vet then sticks up for the local girl...and of course boom, romance instantly.  Here's where I get confused.  Low and behold they both have nearly identical BMX bikes (same kind basically just different colors), the same helmet styles, same goggles...looks like they shopped for their jackets at the same trendy out-doorsy store.  How in the hell?  These are all way to random items for me...c'mon!

Now I'm about 36 minutes in.  HOLY HOSTEL-LIKE SHIT!!!  Woah!  This is beginning to remind me of Frontier(s).  For the record, I just had to push pause and turn on a light in the room I'm in, as well as peek my head into the other side of the hallway.  That's just an FYI.  Someone please tell me, where is that girl's voice coming from?  She called to him when he was outside - clear as day and very loudly - then she called to him in roughly 3 different corridors from deep within the house, and yet again from the basement.  But in each room he enters she is not there??

Ok, so this movie was surprisingly only 1 hour and 17 minutes long.  Short and sweet.  Everything I said above in which I was confused about, I now understand.  But hell....what a thrill ride.  Man, my heart was pumping throughout this flick.  It was definitely not what I expected and I recommend this for all horror movie fans.  In fact, from looking at the cover of the DVD, coupled with how the movie started with the plot of a kid on a biking trip in the flowing hills of a random town (no clue)...I ended up completely blind-sided and rewarded by this movie.  I suppose however my mind created it's own vision of what was going to occur, and I didn't expect something similar to Hostel meets Frontier(s) which then meets the Horde.  In all honesty, except for perhaps Hostel....and that's a small maybe because I did really like Hostel....the Horde and Frontier(s) top this movie by a few solid notches, but Shadow was still good enough to earn a low A rating from me.

I need to find out if that butcher guy has acted in other movies??   I just did an image search.  Creepy.  Now that's a classic horror movie actor/presence.  He needs to be in more cinema, pronto.  Per my image search, I'd say that in real life he actually looks like the brother of Coach from Survivor.  I purposely am not giving a snapshot of the butcher because I believe that needs to be a surprise for when you watch for yourself.

Here are two pictures.  This guy below isn't even the main bad guy...

Straw Dogs #172 (C+)

I saw the original Straw Dogs (1971) and liked it a lot.  You know, the one with Dustin Hoffman and Susan George.  I'd probably give that one a B-.  Apparently it was taboo back when it was released and didn't do too well with the public reaction and dollar-wise.  I guess because of the rape scene and due to Hoffman's revenge/anger etc, as both topics were not normally depicted on cinema screens prior to this time.  I think the original Straw Dogs was even released prior to Deliverance.  Per IMDB (c), yes this is true...I checked.  Also, a random review called the original 'an interesting example of a vigilante film before the subgenre became fashionable.  Films before had dealt with the theme of revenge but rarely as brutal or as primal...'  Just a note, did you notice how that review used words like vigilante, subgenre, fashionable, and primal?  I don't ever use words like that.  LOL.  I use words like good and I liked it.  

For the remake (2011), I believe they changed the story some.  While I don't recall the Jeremy Niles/Janice relationship from the first one, apparently this was indeed part of the original.  It must not have been as prominent in the story.  If it were me however, who directed the remake, I would have been fine with this not being included at all.  It was bad plot - unneeded and actually brought the movie down some in my mind, specifically when Jeremy was in the house with them at the end cowering and rocking in the corner.  Another big change in the plot was Kate Bosworth's character having any tie with the town folk.  I cannot recall this at all from the original Straw Dogs.  Anyway, it doesn't matter...still both were worth watching with the original 70's cut holding a flame over the 2011 version in my mind.

For those that don't know the plot, a husband and wife move to a new house in the country.  They hire some locals to fix their house up...but then the locals get a bit too comfy with their invite and start to make the new family uncomfortable.  Soon the locals are downright harassing the couple and then it becomes an all out war.

Does Kate Bosworth have two different eye colors?  In the one scene where Charlie came to "visit" while James Marsden was out in the forest with the boys hunting, I swear I saw two different color eyes when she stood at the door.  That's the 2nd time in the recently viewed movies where I believe I saw this, but I'm drawing a blank on the other occasion.  I just looked it up and it's called Heterochromia.  Here are some others with this syndrome: Jane Seymour, Dan Aykroyd, the guy with a buzz cut from Prison Break (Wentworth Miller), Mila Kunis, David Bowie, Virginia Madsen, Kiefer Sutherland,  Elizabeth Berkley and Kate Bosworth.  Ah!  I remember now, the person I saw with Heterochromia was Mad Max Scherzer from the World Series. 

Below is a picture of a local from the bar - opening a beer bottle on one of 'Charlie's boys' belt buckles:

 (c)

Wreck-It Ralph (B+) #171

Good family fun here.  I took all my guys to see this one...and after a few bathroom trips, I think I saw 94% of the flick by the end!  :)  Man, if I was a kid today watching this movie...I would be totally excited at the thought of this make believe world.  It was like Toy Story, but for kids that like video games.  At night, when the arcade closes, the games "come alive" and the characters from each game can go through their power chords and into the power strip aka the central station.  There they can party together all night as long as they get back before the arcade opens in the morning, and as a rule they MUST NOT die outside of their game or they will be gone forever.

Is there some sort of psychology behind making the characters look just like John C. Reilly, Jane Lynch, and Sarah Silverman?  I just wonder why they do this?  I guess it helps them to do the voice?  But, do they do the voice first or drawing first?  I'm going to ask SA to explain it to me.  Good thing there wasn't a Mario or Luigi main character because they'd have to John Leguizamo to read the lines.  But really, I ask again why do they make the characters look like the actors doing the voice?  Ralph even had John C's gap in his tooth.  Craziness.

Last note to remark on before I do some interviews - does anyone think that they had to pay royalties to use the video game characters in the movie?  For those that have seen this, you know that most of the games were made up and most of the characters were nobodies.  That is except for the few real characters that they used - namely Sonic, Pac-man and Blinky, Q-Bert and Bowser.  I just wish they were able to have free reign and put guys like Karnov, or the Contra twins, or Dig Dug, and maybe the dude from Frostbite in the movie.

I decided to interview 4 random kids who saw the movie, and their interview reaction/answers are below:

Kid #1: It was a good movie, I liked it a lot.  I really enjoyed the part when Ralph licked the little green sour guy.  I also liked when um Ralph, don't write um....hahahahaha.  Dad, erase that!  I knew who Q-Bert was because we watched him on YouTube (c).  I laughed during the Hero's Duty jokes.  Is that enough?

Kid#2: I barely liked it, but most of it was funny.  Like, um, I think it was like, it was like um, a....like, um...may I please have a drink?  My favorite game in there was like, um, when he was in Sugar Rush when he went through and then he punched the thing of the doom pit, and all of the bugs went to the light, even King Candy.  Can you get rid of the may I please have a drink part?

Kid #3: I like it.  Wreck it Ralph destroyed the little girl's car.  Um, he wrecks stuff.  My favorite part was when the little girl showed Wreck it Ralph her home and when Wreck it Ralph helped her make her car.  I like the whole thing.  We saw the Wreck it Ralph whole movie.  I want to watch the movie again.  Dad, why are you writing that?

Kid #4: I like Wreck it Ralph breaking the little girl's car.  And I like all of it.  (What else?  What was your favorite parts?)  All of them!

Ok this is me again...that worked pretty well.  My interview skills are lacking I suppose.  I also noted a glitch in the movie, it happened a few times actually.  When you watch you will likely see what I'm talking about.  It's pretty obvious.

(c)

The Langoliers 170 (C-)

Pretty good idea by Stephen King, in theory that is (read as: they should remake this with Ice T, Jeremy Piven, Nick Lachey, and Linda Blair).  And the book was probably a pretty good read.  But this was just too long...and laboring.  I am assuming, similar to some other King "epics", that this likely aired on TV in multiple parts - thus the length??  Because no movie needs to be 3 hours long.  It literally took me 3 different nights to watch it myself.

The basic plot was as follows: people were flying on a large jetliner heading to Boston.  Apparently they traveled through a portal of sorts but this wasn't shown.  Everyone that was sleeping on the plane remained existing within the world when they went through the portal, and those who were awake disappeared altogether but their watches and jewelry remained.  Among those remaining few - approximately 8 people - were Bronson Pinchot, Dean Stockwell (from Quantum Leap) and David Morse.  David Morse happened to be a pilot on his way to see his recently deceased ex-wife (you see, he was in mourning and taken off his scheduled flight to fly back to her home).  So this group of misfit passengers end up landing the plane at another nearby airport.  I can't remember where and it doesn't actually matter.  Once they were on the ground they realize that no one is there.  No life, no people, no wind....and when they clap or stomp their feet no sound comes out.  Anyway, it is deserted and even the sandwiches taste awful (they sampled them from the airport snack shop).

For the next hour or so they walk around the empty airport asking each other what they should do next, and questioning what's going on.  A blind girl is able to see again but this time through Bronson's eyes only.  I think a few people got killed by Balki Bartokomous who essentially was going insane.  The group hears a sound off in the distance, near the power towers.  Then a few other things happen, the viewers yawn, some more stuff...the viewers fall asleep.  The next week they try again and then BOOOOOOOOM, 2 hours and 13 minutes into the movie the Langoliers show up!!!  This is some of the worst graphics ever, but it's totally hilarious!  And definitely worth watching.  So do I recommend this?  No.  But if you have Netflix (c) instant stream, just push play starting at 2 hours and 13 minutes and watch the horrible 1995 graphics, and watch Bronson Pinchot get eaten by the Langoliers.  That 15 minutes is all you need to see and you will laugh your butt off.

The Grey #169 (B-)

My movie reviews have contained a lot of "I don't know who recommended this to me" and "someone once told me that this movie stunk so....".  The Grey is no exception.  Someone once told me that this wasn't the best....so for a long time I avoided it altogether and thought I didn't want to waste my time watching.  Well, I pushed play the other day and made it through 42 minutes and enjoyed what I saw.  Last night I finished the rest of the flick, and overall had a very fun ride.

I went in thinking this was going to be all about bad cgi wolves...specifically I thought to myself, how in the world could a 2 hour movie be all about wolf attacks?  Well a few scenes were like that, but none too badly done...much to my surprise considering the previews showing 17 sets of glowing eyes staring at Liam and crew.  I don't pretend to understand wolves and their territory, but as Liam tried to tell the crew - apparently they attack if you are in their "zone".  I guess they were in their "zone" for the entire journey, because they had non-stop howling and glowing eyes engaged on them in the nearby forest.  But again it wasn't the worst as I did think it would be more overbearing.

I absolutely loved how they painted the start of the movie, beginning with the plane crash which set the scene - great cinema, just fantastic.  I was really on the edge of my seat.  Well done, good suspense, good viewpoint...then they were stranded in the middle of ice and snow nowhere...again, great shots and perfect set-up/feel.  The director built a suspense that had me totally hooked.

It would have been slightly cool if they developed the characters of the 8 or so guys that were left after the crash.  I guess they had them so bundled up, that you really could barely see them to get to know each of them.  Even the guy who was bitching and moaning about Liam being wrong, and wanting to take their personal belongings wasn't recognizable enough to me for me to know if he was the guy who just got eaten.  Never mind, I realized later that he was still there.  And over time, the character building was better...but done more once there were only a few left (spoiler, people die).

The ending actually was perfect for me.  Someone once mentioned I would hate the ending.  I was totally okay with it.  Not many movies end like this.  It was sad, but also makes a bit of sense given the position and situation.

Get the Gringo #168 (C)

Okay, it got better....glad I finished it.

First, is gringo something bad?  I feel like they shouldn't have named this movie gringo.  Like that's a bit taboo maybe?  Perhaps I'm wrong.

20 seconds in and it's loud as all hell....then they push pause on the scene and I'm pretty sure Statham is talking.  Not only did I have to rewind but I had to turn the movie up 16 more notches to hear.  Then, of course I heard, and the volume/music goes right back up and I'm blasting out my house.  Shit....what the hell?  Don't people edit movies?  What is wrong with Mel, Statham, and Liam Neeson?

I'm sorry, I really want to like this flick...but why is he narrating this?

"El Hefner"...haha!  That was a good line.  Okay, let's give this a chance.

21 minutes in and I can't hear again.  Goddamn.  I'm a complainer for sure.  But why do they make movies like this?  Why are they seemingly whispering, yet just having a regular conversation.  I'm going to have to watch this one another night.  I need some senseless horror.  Till another time gringo....till another time.

I picked it back up again and gave it another chance.  I can agree, the flick was pretty good.  But there was so much that was just impossible.  Very quietly, Mel is basically better than Tom in MI and better than Bond for the most part.  By that I mean, stuff was happening with the plot that was too perfect.  Just insane.  No matter how much of an awesome criminal he was, just plain impossible.  At the end he just walks back into the prison....kills the 10 guys in his way...and walks out with the girl, the kid, and the money??  C'mon.  Despite this, I liked the movie semi-well.   I guess I'm saying, put this aside and ignore the crazy impossible factor, and it's a good action flick.

This means, I'll give Payback a chance.