Super Special Double Review Time PART 1: Kung Fu Panda 2 and Cube Zero

So.

With a title like that, you must be expecting some sort of tie in that would excuse these totally unrelated films being reviewed at the same time.

HINT: There isn't. Other than both are movies.

We'll start with Cube Zero.

Cube Zero is apparently the prequel to Cube. So, we're on a good pace so far. What makes CZ different is that it sucks.

OK. It's not that bad. But it kind of ruins everything that Cube set up.

Let's recap without spoiling too much. Cube was a movie about a giant Cube made up of thousands of smaller cubes. These cubes were basically rooms; these rooms were either safe or booby-trapped. There was a way out of the Cube, and the characters from the original used intelligence and crazy math skills to attempt to get out. Once someone did get out, we never knew what happened to him/her. He/she disappeared into a white light and then the movie ended. What happened to him/her?

Cube Zero is here to save the day by completely ruining that ending.

So, you got these two guys, right? One is a fatty who likes playing with himself (as in playing a weird version of Chess alone; What would that be called? SoloChess? Single Chess? Chessturbation?) and the other is a nerdy guy who draws caricatures of himself and his coworker, the fatty. They are in charge of - here it comes - the Cube by monitoring those inside the Cube and taking orders from the administrators of the Cube.

For those who saw the first movie, we never knew what controlled the Cube. We knew a guy in there helped to build it. We never knew why. I personally think that this was the better choice, not knowing. It makes it more into imagination.

Instead, we're told that the Cube is for criminals and apparently dissidents against the government. If someone manages to survive, which one lucky man does, they are immediately detained and asked two questions. "What is your name?" and "Do you believe in God?". If they decline to respond or if they say "no" to believing in God, they are killed. If they say "yes", they are released and made to work for the Cube as well. That's right folks. That original Cube ending? Completely obliterated. The concept here was that getting out meant that there was a semblance of hope, not immediate death.

So the rest of it plays out like you would expect of a SyFy original horror movie: hokey acting, bad dialogue, nonsense plot twists, unneeded exposition, etc. In fact, it seems like they wanted to take away from the first movie only the idea of the Cube instead of explaining its origins. All we know is that the government shoves in people they consider bad and that's it. No exposition on that, but we get plenty on the plan to get out of it. We know you want to get out of a death Cube guys; how about telling us more about it?

The ending is balls. It ties in with Cube, I guess, except that considering none of the original actors are in this, the continuity is literally destroyed. The twist ending is supposed to be a connecting link between Zero and 1 but it fails because there are too many differences such as appearances, setting, genders, racial changes, and complete name changes. I don't know what they were going for here.

In short. It's a bad movie. It kind of ruins the unknown of the original Cube by explaining it too much in certain areas and almost none in others.

Watch it if you don't care and want a cheap thriller.

4/10.

American Psycho

Let's start with the book, because I hadn't seen the movie in, what, seven years? And I just read the book.
Here's the thing. The book is a chore to get through. It really is. It's told from the perspective of Patrick Batemen, and he and I have nothing in common. Zero. Zilch. But there are some things he talks about that are more interesting than others.
What he's most interested in has nothing to do with my way of life, interests, general thoughts or knowledge base. He knows what you should wear, how you should look, what your hair would be like, and what color/typeface you should present with your card. And, if I may, be fucking honest for a minute, this shit is a bitch to read through. I don't care what everyone in the room is wearing, Pat. I don't even have the closest idea to how that measures up to your clothes - which you describe in excruciating detail in EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SCENE. This book is skimcentral. You gloss over every detail of clothing that everyone is wearing and you delve into his mind - the interesting part.

Someone said it was more clear that everything happens in the guy's head in the book. I don't think so. I mean, maybe in the sense that he gets away with a lot more. You get about halfway through the book and then things get real fucked up before going right back to talking about suits and cufflinks and sweatervests and cocaine. All of which I'm not associated with. (At least anymore, on the last front.)

The thing about this book, is that when it's good, it's really good. And not even in the sense of the violence, but in sense of the character. The clothing is important to him, sure, but there's a clear line drawn very early on, it makes sense. On the flipside, when you really get to know Pat Batemen, when he really has to react to a bizarre world, or when the world has to react to him, it's very interesting. It has some of the more interesting and entertaining and draining scenes I've ever seen in novels - but again, you find yourself skimming a lot. I'm not rich, nor do I live in the 80's, I don't care, I care about your psychosis.

And now we move onto the movie. The movie is the movie. It's a very bizarre blend of the beginning, middle and end of the book at all times, but the way it's presented, you kind of get the sense that this is the best representation of the book a movie could do. You get lines from the beginning of the movie at the end, lines from the end of the movie at the beginning, and lines from the middle sprinkled throughout. It's almost disorienting, but it's almost, keyword almost as effective. And none of it really has anything to do with the violence. It has to do with a rich, privileged man losing his grip with reality. And it's mostly painful and sad. The parts that hit you hard, hit you hard. The parts that don't either bore you or make you ask the age old question; "what the fuck?"

In short; read the book? If you can? I dunno. I have to return some videotapes.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

"[12:30:09 AM] BLAKE THE SNAKE WITH A RAKE CON EL POLLO POR FAVOR: So the first thing I do is get on my soapbox and start flinging?

[12:30:19 AM] Bergin: I guess?

[12:30:27 AM] Bergin: Run to the hills, dawg.

[12:30:29 AM] Bergin: Go wild."

Strap in, because it's 12 A.M., I can't sleep, and we've got nowhere else to be.

Lemme put it to ya this way, jack, because I ain't gonna repeat a word, see?

This movie blows big wang.

HUGE wang.

Let's take a step back now before it makes a huge mess on my carpet, and forces me to hire a carpet cleaner. Why do I hate this movie? I can tell ya, it will come to you in a bit. Just hold on to your pants, gangsta, and get a belt while you're at it.

Just read my damn review, then we all can get back to our hookers and blow, mmmkay?

(A/N: In order to really showcase some flaws here, I'm comparing this movie to the one I like better, The Great Gatsby...from 1974. You might want to watch that, it's real good.)

(Another A/N: I haven't read the book, because reading is for Mikey Porter.)

We start with a promising intro; our main character at a Psychologist's office. At first, you think "Wow, this might be good. Psychological stuff always points to a good movie (amirite, Inception?)".

That is, until you see that one guy who played in the Spiderman trilogy is the main character. That's right, we get to see Tobey Maguire for 2 hours. The worst part is, he is cast pretty sub-par; he's got the look, but he comes off too awkward for his character. He seems to be trying really hard to convince people that the feelings he shares mean something. Tobey is no Sam Waterston.

Also, I hate Baz Luhrmann (or however you spell it). I hate how he directs a movie to be as flashy as visually possible without paying attention to the characters. I hate how he injects a movie plot with speed to rush along a plot. I hate how everything that should matter in these types of movies fly by in a blink of an eye and you're left wondering where your money went.

I hate everything about this film except for two things: Leonardo DiCaprio and the general atmosphere. One thing I will give Baz credit for is that he can direct a beautiful world; the 1920's feel like the 1920's...most of the time. You can tell when and where the flair of the visuals die off. Also, Leonardo actually plays the perfect Gatsby; I loved his role, and he was the only person I cared to have any interest in.

In total, this movie review was actually delayed over time and that's why it sucks as much as the film.

Most people don't care. They view this film as gold. It isn't. I hate most of it except the emotional ending, when characters slow down and start to show actual emotion instead of having a semi-ADHD problem with the camera and story.

So, in conclusion, I suck for not writing this well. I'll be damned if I proofread it.

Take it down.

10/10 "BEST NEW CALL OF DUTY"

V/H/S

I kept waiting for things to be tied together, or make some kind of sense, but it didn't. It's just a small collection of horror shorts. Not bad. Not particularly special, but not bad. Has its moment.

6/10. Probably wouldn't watch again.

Django Unchained

Ahhh, Quentin Tarantino. What can I say about that loopy man?
I don't like him. Him as a person. I think he's obnoxious as fuck and he reminds me of a 13 year old kid who just recently got access to rated R movies. Like, the kinda guy who misses the point of A Clockwork Orange and just likes it because people get raped and die.

But how do I feel about his movies? Well, they're interesting. I liked his golden age a lot, that is to say Reservoir Dogs through Jackie Brown, Jackie Brown being my favorite. Kill Bill was worth watching once, but wasn't really all that interesting or worth repeated viewings. I get it, she kills Bill, woooooo. The journey there is nothing special.

Then we have Death Proof, which has two good scenes in it, one of them being quite possibly the most fantastic goddamn car chase I've ever seen in a film that I refer to as excellent masturbation to a disappointing as fuck climax, ruined by a matter of personal taste with cartoonish violence. I'd rather see someone get kicked on the ground than punched about like one of those wacky clown punching bags that never stays down.

So, I didn't like that movie. How did I feel about Inglourious Basterds?
I hated it. The first ten minutes were fucking brilliant, had me on the edge of my seat in the theater, and despite my ex girlfriend whispering "I'm bored, let's leave," into my ear, I was really involved in that first scene. Easily the most suspenseful scene he's ever done. And while she managed to eventually talk me into leaving the theater, after seeing that first scene, I really didn't want to. I wanted to know what happened.
Too bad the rest of the movie fucking SUCKED. We watched it on DVD shortly after its release, and oddly enough, I found we had switched seats, with her saying "you know what? This movie is pretty good," and me wishing to god it would fucking end already.

Which brings me to Django Unchained. I saw the trailer, and the trailer actually looked fun and interesting, but I wasn't about to let my guard down. Tarantino has been too much of a disappointment since Jackie Brown for me to do that.
How do I feel about Django Unchained?

I loved it. I want to see it again. It might be my favorite Tarantino film ever.
The movie is a lot of fun, and while some stylistic choices are hard to grasp into at first, namely quick zooms and music choices, I found myself warming up to to them and finding yourself right at home. I'm not a big fan of action films, but the action here is a lot of fun and the violence is fucking beautiful. Thank you Tarantino, for using squibs and not pooping all over your movie with ugly CGI blood splatter.

The acting is good - really good. Christoph Waltz is fantastic and I love every minute his character is on screen. Leonardo DiCaprio does something really different, and plays the villain for once. And he's not just a villain, he's really despicable, self indulgent, racist and ignorant. A grotesque example of what it is to be a human being, and he portrays it quite wonderfully.
Even Jamie Foxx, who doesn't say a whole lot, really shines with his ability to react subtly to the events that unfold.  Sam Jackson is Sam Jackson, but it's really amusing to see him play the most unlikeable black man in history, bonus points for that character.

The story is pretty simple, and while the movie is long, it doesn't feel like you're in the theater for almost three hours. I didn't even mind that I had to piss for the last third of the film, because I was so involved.

Complaints? Well, I do have some. Brumhilda, the love interest is completely lacking in character and development. They should have changed her name to Miss McGuffin. Quentin Tarantino is a bad actor and needs to stop showing up in his movies. Things were predictable to some degree because it's Tarantino, and we know Tarantino, but that's forgiven due to good delivery.

Closing thoughts? I told the lady that I liked it a lot, and it was worth the 5.50 to see it during the matinee before it leaves the theater. Her response? "I figured that movie was going to suck. Inglourious Basterds was a pile of shit, except for the first ten minutes."

Ah, yes.