The NJNM Podcast: Ep. 64 - F/X and F/X 2

In this week's episode, Tyler and Ben discuss Robert Mandel's 1986 film F/X and Richard Franklin's 1991 film F/X 2.

Introduction

Character Name Game Intro - 1:53

Media Consumed

Tyler

Madhouse - 3:05
Class of Nuke 'Em High - 4:50
The Return of "Beavis and Butthead" - 6:28

"Once Upon a Time" - 7:51

Ben

Like Crazy - 13:30

Review

F/X - 17:45
F/X 2 - 34:30

Wrap-Up

Next Time: BMX Bandits - 1:07:15

Listener E-mail/Voicemail/Twitter - 1:07:50

Character Name Game - 1:09:00

Hallow-wood Hills Horror Movie Game - 1:11:00

Where You Can Find Us - 1:16:10

In Time

I'll admit In Time is a pretty stupid movie. There are a ton of plot holes, cliches every five minutes, and multiple time-related puns in the dialogue. But I had a good time with it, and I think it's perfectly passable entertainment. Sometimes, we go to the movies to see people go on the run, rob banks, shoot people, and look sexy doing it, and that's exactly what this film delivers.

In Time

Writer/Director: Andrew Niccol

Starring: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser

In a vague future (or alternate timeline scenario), the currency of the world is no longer money, but time. People stop genetically aging when they turn 25, and a one year countdown begins until they "time out." When a stranger gives Will Salas (Timberlake) an extra hundred years to live, he takes the opportunity to get out of his live-by-the-minute ghetto and ventures to the rich district, where people live for thousands of years in their same 25-year-old bodies. He meets Sylvia (Seyfried), the daughter of the man behind it all (Kartheiser), and the two go on the run from a resilient Timekeeper (Murphy) tasked with stopping their Robin Hood-esque crusade to bring time to the masses. 

So we've established that this isn't a great film. But for every eye-rolling one-liner, there is something that's just plain cool about In Time. First off, writer/director Andrew Niccol (who also wrote The Truman Show) essentially teaches a class on world-building here. Without a ton of exposition or any unnecessary narration, he sets up the rules of the world in less than ten minutes, even if he doesn't make it feel exactly like a viable place. Aside from the obvious looming question of "how did things transition into time-related currency from the way we know them now?", the only aspect of the design that didn't work for me was when the production designers decided to get cute with it, adding in signs for things like "The 99 Second Store" as characters walked by. 

Secondly, the movie looks absolutely fantastic. Famed cinematographer Roger Deakins chose to shoot the film completely digitally for the first time in his career, and the results are sleek and spectacular. A nifty foot chase across rooftops and the occasional car chase keep the pace moving quickly, which is a necessity for any movie with a literal ticking clock. There may be stupid moments, but they're all moving so quickly that I found most of them easy to ignore. The action is more commendable than the smaller dramatic scenes, but I also found the cast to be really likeable: Timberlake can easily carry a film on his shoulders, Amanda Seyfried was solid (and awesomely hot) as usual, and Cillian Murphy managed to bring a bit of humanity to his bounty hunter role.

Niccol also inserts some social commentary into his screenplay. It's another case of the haves vs. the have nots (as if we haven't seen that on film a billion times), but at least it's done with some flair. Exchanges like the following are commonplace in this movie:

"How can you live with yourself watching people die right next to you?"
"You don't...you close your eyes."

It's not subtle filmmaking, but it's effective storytelling that gets the point across and provides a sliver of topicality for those on the hunt for something beneath the surface. Ultimately, In Time is a standard thriller that doesn't take any chances or play out any differently than you'd imagine. I'll resist the urge to end this on a time-related pun, since the movie itself was content to take most of the good ones, so instead, I'll leave you with this: do you think Justin Timberlake agreed to star in In Time because his name is JustIN TIME-berlake? Until next time...

The Rum Diary

Many A-list actors adopt a "one for them, one for me" mentality: they make one big movie for a studio so they can make a smaller passion project for themselves. Considering Depp's relationship with Hunter S. Thompson (the infamous novelist/journalist whose novel provides the basis for this film), it's clear The Rum Diary falls into the latter category. It's just too bad that the "one for him" wasn't a better movie.

The Rum Diary
Writer/Director: Bruce Robinson
Starring: Johnny Depp, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Rispoli, Amber Heard

Written for the screen and directed by Bruce Robinson, The Rum Diary follows the story of Paul Kemp (Depp), a washed out novelist who goes to Puerto Rico to write for a local newspaper. Soon, he's intoxicated not only by the alcohol he's constantly swilling, but also by a beautiful girl named Chenault (Amber Heard). She's with Sanderson (Eckhart), a wealthy playboy with a ton influence working on an illegal land development scheme. Sanderson invites Kemp to be a part of the project and, after a ton of stumbling and drunken debauchery, Kemp and the rest of the guys at the paper take it upon themselves to bring down "the bastards" by blowing the whistle on their operation.

There are a lot of elements that I liked about this movie. It's hard to knock gorgeous locales, solid acting, and an intriguing plot - especially when you consider I have a bias in favor of stories involving journalism. But at a certain point, the movie itself begins to take on characteristics of its main character: it seems to drag for an interminable amount of time, bouncing from point to point with a "hey, look over there!" attitude and waiting far too late to attempt to wrap things up in a neat little package in the third act. It's not as "out there" as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - the other Hunter S. Thompson project in which Depp has starred - but it kind of tries to have it both ways with trippy drugged-out sequences tossed into the middle of a narrative that is, admittedly, a lot more cohesive than Fear and Loathing's. The main problem with The Rum Diary is the structure: by having the first two thirds of the film as this breezy, stumbling, quasi-romantic discovery piece, it feels forced and unnatural when the final act arrives and story elements have to be quickly wrapped up.

Depp has made himself a superstar by playing these types of roles, so it's not much of a departure from his past work. Even if you removed Fear and Loathing from the equation, simply mix his lead character in Rango with Captain Jack Sparrow and you've got Paul Kemp. I was much more interested in Bob Salas, the sidekick character more inhabited than played by former "Sopranos" actor Michael Rispoli. He was gruff but lovable, and seemed like the kind of guy you'd want to hang out with in an unpredictable island environment. Aaron Eckhart was great as the guy you love to hate, but this also wasn't that big of a change (or challenge) for him. Giovanni Ribisi really went for it with his portrayal of Moberg, a guy who drinks 400 proof alcohol and listens to Adolph Hitler speeches on vinyl. Richard Jenkins was really entertaining as the editor of the San Juan Star, playing "the man" as it were, forcing Kemp to curtail his writing to fit in with an idealized version of the American Dream.

Though the novel was written back in the 1960s, much of this film is especially relevant today with the Occupy Wall Street movement going on and this movie essentially railing against corporate greed. Our buddy Vince Mancini at FilmDrunk liked it far more than I did, and even with all of the meandering in the middle of the movie, it's easy to see how The Rum Diary would have a special charm to fans of Thompson's work. That said, I don't think I'd ever watch this movie again - and if you've read this far, that probably tells you all you need to know. Until next time...

Elite Squad: The Enemy Within

It's sad, but (mostly) true: the action genre has devolved into a state which rarely produces both solid storytelling and effective action. Lucky for us, director Jose Padilha didn't get the memo. Elite Squad: The Enemy Within combines pulse-pounding action, unflinching political commentary, and compelling characters with fascinating moral dilemmas; it results not only in one of the best films of the year, but one of the best action movies in recent memory.

Elite Squad: The Enemy Within
Director: Jose Padilha
Starring: Wagner Moura, Irandhir Santos, Andre Ramiro

It's easy to see why this movie currently stands as the highest grossing movie of all time in South America (passing Avatar during its release last year): the movie features a complex web of political corruption that surely strikes a chord with the viewership down there. It's full of universal themes about brutality, human rights, the prison system, local government, and elections, so it's also easy to see how this movie is relevant to any nation, democratic or otherwise. Blending some story elements from City of God and The Departed with handheld Michael Mann-esque action sequences, Elite Squad: TEW cares just as much about its story as the action beats...and that's exactly how it should be. I don't mean to sound elitist (get it?!), but sometimes it's great to see a movie like this after seeing so many watered-down studio films year after year. If you watch as many movies as I do, you've likely grown to recognize the patterns of safe studio filmmaking, and movies like this - ones that break the mold a little bit - provide a cool breeze after bathing in the aroma of typical Hollywood sameness.

Nascimento (played by Wagner Moura, the Brazilian Mark Ruffalo) is the leader of BOPE, a special forces division in Rio de Janeiro that busts skulls to get things done; they're like the Expendables if those guys were actually awesome and not old. When a prison riot goes bad (a righteous setpiece in the first few minutes of the movie), Nascimento is moved into another position and, after discovering a sh*tload of high-level corruption, takes it upon himself to battle against the system. A left-wing professor named Fraga - coincidentally is married to Nascimento's ex-wife - runs parallel to our hero throughout the movie, becoming a thorn in his side not only because of his human rights complaints, but also because of the influence he has over Nascimento's son. (Don't worry - they could have overdone this plot point, but it's handled pretty perfectly.) Nascimento must come to grips with the realities of the political system in his country and do what he can to uncover the corruption before things get any worse.

For those of you completely averse to reading, I've got some bad news: there are subtitles. But the performances are so good, the visuals so striking, and the storytelling so engrossing that it shouldn't matter - this movie straight up kicks ass in all the right ways. The slums of Rio are presented similarly to their depiction in the excellent 2003 film City of God (the writer of that movie co-wrote this one, too), though not quite as slickly this time around; there's a lot more at stake here than the loss of one kid's innocence - the fate of the entire country hangs on the actions of Nascimento. Much of this movie is presented in such a smart way that it's honestly a bit shocking to experience, especially considering that if Blockbuster stores were still a big thing, you might have seen something like From Paris With Love sharing a shelf with Elite Squad: TEW. Guess which one actually belongs in the Dumpster out back?

If you've been disappointed with the releases of 2011 so far, check this one out. It'll give you a jolt of what movies are supposed to be like and remind you why you dig action movies in the first place. Until next time...

Anonymous

Anonymous offers an alternate historical account of the creation and popularization of the works of William Shakespeare. Based on a real but unsubstantiated theory, the plot suggests that all of Shakespeare's famous plays and sonnets were actually the work of the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), a wunderkind writer who is shackled by the constraints of his upper class status and therefore can't release the plays under his own name. The Earl teams with a young playwright, Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) to create the ruse, choosing a drunken actor named William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) as his avatar.

Anonymous
Director: Roland Emmerich
Starring: Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Jamie Campbell Bower, Rafe Spall

The biggest compliment I can give Anonymous, aside from it being a decent period drama, is that it doesn't feel like a Roland Emmerich movie. That director, famous for huge blockbusters like 2012 and Independence Day, hasn't made what I would call a "good" movie in close to twenty years, so it's nice to see him scale back his typical "disaster porn" and take on a more personal, controlled film. The movie works particularly well in the first half, as the Earl suffers as he watches his own plays from the balcony of London theaters, unable to accept the applause and credit bestowed upon the blithering young actor. It has shades of The Prestige, in which Hugh Jackman's character, relying on a body double, must take his bows beneath the stage to complete the illusion while his double relishes in the ovation above.

But by the end, the movie seems to get too wrapped up in the politics of its setting. The magic of the first half gives way to plodding explanations of character motives that have nothing to do with the much more interesting "who is the real author?" question. Rhys Ifans, soon to be donning scales as The Lizard in the upcoming reboot The Amazing Spider-Man, is solid as the Earl of Oxford, but it's Jamie Campbell Bower, who plays the younger version of that same character in flashbacks, that provides this film with an emotional spark. Real life mother and daughter Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson play the older and younger versions of the Queen, respectively, and both actresses are excellent.

Speaking of flashbacks, this movie LOVES them. It jumps through the timeline often, and structurally it can leave the audience scratching its collective head at times. The film opens with a performance of a play (which is the movie we're about to see) in modern day New York City, and quickly transitions into the "film world" with Ben Jonson being questioned as to the location of the works of "Shakespeare." It flashes back one year earlier, setting up characters and explaining the world, and then flashes back forty years before that, skipping back and forth between those last two time frames for the majority of the film to detail the relationship between the Earl of Oxford and Queen Elizabeth across the years. Confused yet? It then skips back to one year later, and wraps up with the modern day New York stuff again. It all makes sense, it's just a little messy from a storytelling and editing standpoint.

Is Anonymous worth seeing in theaters? There's certainly no epic scope to it, so I'd say it's not necessary. Is it worth seeing at all? As with all film choices, that's up to you - but I'll recommend a home video viewing if you're at all interested in Shakespeare, good period pieces, or revisionist history. It's inspiring at times, favoring the power of words over swords on battlefields; though the film never explores these acknowledgments too deeply, it still touches on them in an engrossing way for most of its duration. Until next time...

The NJNM Podcast: Ep. 63 - Videodrome

In this week's episode, Tyler and Ben discuss David Cronenberg's 1983 film, Videodrome.

Introduction

Character Name Game Intro - 3:26

Media Consumed

Tyler

Dracula - 3:53

Wolfman - 6:20

The Three Musketeers - 14:18

"Once Upon a Time" - 12:13

Ben

Helvetica - 13:30

Review

Videodrome - 19:45

Wrap-Up

Next Time: F/X and F/X 2 - 43:17

Listener E-mail/Voicemail/Twitter - 45:03

Character Name Game - 48:32

Hallow-wood Hills Horror Movie Game - 50:20

Where You Can Find Us - 1:00:55

The Three Musketeers (2011)

There have been many film adaptations of Alexandre Dumas' classic 1844 novel, but this steampunk-inspired version of The Three Musketeers from the director of Mortal Kombat and Alien vs. Predator looked so purposefully terrible that I just had to see it. Much to my surprise, it turns out that the first half of the movie is totally competent (and even fun!), and it's not until the latter half when things go off the rails and drag this film down into the realm of the mediocre.

The Three Musketeers
Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
Starring: Matthew Macfayden, Ray Stevenson, Luke Evans, Logan Lerman, Milla Jovovich, Christoph Waltz, Orlando Bloom

I won't try to convince you that this is a great movie. But it is a lot better than it has any right to be, and that's mostly due to the fact that this story, at its heart, is so much fun. There's heroism, deception, loyalty, betrayal, romance, swordplay - so many classic elements that it'd be hard to completely destroy the inherent awesomeness of this adventure. The screenplay is laced with humor, and for the most part, the actors make it work. (There's an additional character tossed in for "comedic relief" that was totally unnecessary, but that's to be expected from almost any studio film like this.)

Another reason this movie is better than it should be is some fantastic casting. Say what you will about the rest of this movie, but the casting director knocked this one out of the park. Logan Lerman is excellent as the cocksure D'Artagnan, turning out my favorite performance of his career. Matthew Macfayden plays the jilted Athos with style, leading the group with a straight face through the film's wildly anachronistic twists and turns. Up-and-comer Luke Evans (who should be a household name in a few years with upcoming roles in big time projects like The Hobbit) brings just the right level of gravitas to the role of Aramis, something that Charlie Sheen failed to do in my definitive film version of this classic tale, the 1993 Disney film of the same name. Ray Stevenson is the best fit of everyone in the cast for his character, the surly and comedic Porthos. He's brash, charming, and easily the most entertaining of the heroes.

Perhaps the biggest casting coup was snagging such big names for the villainous roles. Academy Award winner Christoph Waltz doesn't quite match Tim Curry's over-the-top sliminess from the '93 version, but brings his own level of quiet menace to the role of Cardinal Richelieu. Orlando Bloom's ridiculous haircut makes more of an impression than the actor himself in this movie, but he's still fun to watch as the dapper and deceptive Duke of Buckingham. Mads Mikkelsen is perfect as the evil Captain Rochefort, and even Milla Jovovich (wife of this film's director) is sufficiently seductive and well-equipped to handle the action elements of her role as Milady de Winter, the double-crossing assassin and Athos's former love interest.

I was actually shocked at how much I liked the first half of this movie. The sword fight sequences are spectacularly choreographed, and at no point does it ever feel like a bunch of loosely trained actors swinging fake swords around. Paul W.S. Anderson's direction is surprisingly confident and precise, and the editing is simple and effective. The geography of the action is well established at all times, and avoids the shaky cam trend of the past decade. Even the sets are beautiful, and Sony should take a good look at these for its upcoming film adaptation of the Assassin's Creed video game. It's only when the movie starts really concentrating on the steampunk elements, introducing giant airships based on stolen designs from Leonardo da Vinci - ahem, Hudson Hawk - that it starts to lose its luster. Because of how solid the first half of the movie was, this part of the film feels like studio intervention ("give us something that looks COOL!"). If they had avoided the ridiculous aspects altogether, this could have been a truly great interpretation of this story.

Despite the dreary second half, I actually liked this movie overall. It's far better than the "so bad, it's good" I'd initially hoped for, and if you can sit back and have fun with the spectacle of it, you're sure to be entertained. I saw it in 3D, which provided some highlights during map transitions between countries and during the Pirates of the Caribbean-inspired airship battles, but ultimately 3D isn't a necessity for The Three Musketeers. If nothing else, this movie has stopped my knee-jerk reaction to immediately write off Paul W.S. Anderson movies as unwatchable. This is perfect lazy afternoon home video entertainment. Until next time...

Paranormal Activity 3

Continuing the exploration of mysterious hauntings in Katie and Kristi's family from the first two films in the series, Paranormal Activity 3 takes an already successful formula and manages to improve upon it. Catfish directors Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost create another suspenseful and terrifying entry into a franchise that's become a staple for Paramount.

Paranormal Activity 3
Directors: Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost
Starring: Christopher Nicholas Smith, Lauren Bittner, Chloe Csengery, Jessica Tyler Brown

After a brief introduction to the characters from previous films talking about old home videos, this movie flashes back to 1988 and details the inciting incident in the childhoods of Katie and Kristi. Their mother Julie thinks Kristi is going through a phase with an imaginary friend, but her new boyfriend Dennis (the clear protagonist this time out) is shocked to find out there is much more going on than anyone anticipated. The acting is pretty solid from everyone involved, including the child actors (which is a shocking statement if you know me and my stance on kids in film). The girl who plays young Kristi is especially creepy, and there are a couple of secondary characters - the grandmother, Dennis' best friend Randy - who round out the cast with some great moments, including a phenomenal scene in which Randy and Katie play Bloody Mary in the bathroom (which is notably different from the trailer, which shows Katie and Kristi playing the game).

I'm convinced that the biggest star of these films is someone who's never actually seen on camera at all: the editor. This movie is a master class in building and releasing tension, and it makes this franchise one of the most frightening I've ever seen. It's not the script that gets everyone riled up - this story is essentially a Poltergeist rip-off from one of my least favorite directors of year, Christopher B. Landon - it's the editing. Rarely does a movie make me examine each shot so closely, constantly scanning the frame for signs of things that are out of the ordinary. It's exhausting watching these films, and by the time they reach their conclusions, there's always a no-holds-barred rumble with the demon haunting these characters.

Paranormal Activity 2 added to the structure of the first film by adding security cameras to the mix; instead of scouring the image from just one camera set up over the main couple's bed, we watched multiple security cameras as they rotated through the feed, giving us more images to pour over. For me, the goal is always to try to spot the abnormality as quickly as possible; it minimizes the scariness if I know what to look for and where it's coming from. Trouble is, the filmmakers are onto me and my train of thought. In PA3, they've added yet another element to the fray, and it's perhaps the scariest yet - an oscillating fan with a camera attached to it. It may sound stupid if you haven't seen the movie, but if you've witnessed it, you know that the unyielding and indiscriminate back and forth motion is responsible for some of the film's scariest moments.

I don't know if I can say I actually enjoyed this film because it scared the hell out of me, but it's certainly more of the same tension-filled frightening moments this series is known for. In other words, if you liked the first two, you'll like this one. And I know I gave Chris Landon crap earlier, but I have to applaud one quick line he wrote regarding memory loss that allows this movie to seamlessly transition into future films. Until next time...

Ghoulies

Welcome to another entry in the Spooktacular Shocktoberfest Big Horror Movie Scare-A-Thon. In case you didn't get the memo, most of the films covered in this year's series are going to be downright terrible, and Ghoulies is no exception.

Ghoulies
Director: Luca Bercovici
Starring: Peter Liapis, Lisa Pelikan

This pathetic Gremlins/Critters knockoff was somehow released in theaters in 1985. Seemingly contrary to the poster, the filmmakers made the problematic decision not to rely on the creatures as much as the human actors around them. That's a problem because the acting is hilariously bad - and yes, we're talking almost Troll 2 levels here. The series inexplicably spawned three sequels, including the hilariously-titled third installment, Ghoulies 3: Ghoulies Go To College.

This movie opens with Malcolm Graves preparing a Satanic ritual in the basement of his extravagant California mansion, complete with multiple Ghoulies sitting around watching the proceedings. If you're wondering if the film addresses why there are Ghoulies present at this ceremony, or if it goes into the history of the Ghoulies, what they are exactly, why they exist, or offer any relevant information about them whatsoever, the answer is no. Anyway, Malcolm, complete with Jello-colored green eyes enhanced by some uninspired special effects, is about to sacrifice his infant son Jonathan...for some reason. All of a sudden (is there any other kind of interruption?), an old man named Wolfgang interferes with the proceedings and saves Jonathan's life. Fast forward 25 years, and a strange narration informs us that Malcolm is buried on the land and Jonathan has inherited the mansion. Ol' Johnny's there with his girl, Rebecca, and they meet the creepy Wolfgang, who's now living there and working as the groundskeeper. While fixing the place up, Jonathan stumbles across the old demonic journals and How-To Guides for Conjuring Ghoulies.

Rebecca calls for a party - it's the 80s after all - and after the huge soiree is whittled down to about six stereotypical friends (druggie duo, sex-crazed slick haired dude, bimbo, nerd, etc), they all go down to the basement for some devil magic hocus pocus. Jonathan leads the charge, chanting and drawing pentagrams everywhere, and when he supposedly conjures a Ghoulie, nothing happens...yet. Everyone goes upstairs, but the Ghoulie appears a little later and...does nothing. That's the thing about the Ghoulies - they barely do anything in the entire movie. Sure, they bite the occasional person and maybe are responsible for five total deaths across the film's runtime, but they're fairly harmless when it boils down to it. They're pretty similar to the tiny creatures in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, actually, except these have a bit of that nostalgic practical effects vibe that Troy Nixey's creatures were sorely lacking.

So Jonathan (who resembles a poor man's Nathan Fillion) drops out of school and becomes obsessed with black magic, much to the dismay of Rebecca, who gets super pissed at him for doing his whole "dressing in a giant robe and carrying around a plastic trident" routine. She tries to leave him, but Johnny's too quick for her - he conjures up two midgets (NOT Ghoulies) who have mind control powers or something and they don't allow her to exit. Brainwashing his friends, Jonathan tries to perform a ritual so he can get ultimate knowledge and power (duh). 

But remember Malcolm, dear old dad from the beginning? He's resurrected and totally evil, bursting onto the scene and wrecking people left and right. He challenges Jonathan as Master of All Ghoulies (I'm making that up, but just barely), but Johnny's saved by - YOU GUESSED IT! - the old man groundskeeper, Wolfgang! He's dressed in his own robes, and he and Malcolm have a Wizard-Off (TM), resulting in a bunch of questionable CG and an earthquake. Oh yeah, and spoiler alert - all of the friends who have been killed up until now, Rebecca included, are miraculously brought back to life and escape. But that's not all - the gang realizes (oh come on, like you haven't figured this out yet?) that they've got a few extra passengers on board as they drive away. It's Alvin and the Chipmunks, singing and dancing the whole way back to town. I'm kidding. It's Ghoulies.

Everything about this movie, from the acting to the sets, directing, and creature design, is dull and unoriginal. Even the poster, which features that (I'll call it classic) image of a Ghoulie emerging from a toilet, provides more of a psychological impact than the entirety of the actual film. Legend has it that the movie was already done and that image was created as a marketing tactic, so the director went back and inserted one shot of it actually happening into the film. Soon after, he received tons of complaints from parents trying unsuccessfully to potty train their kids, thanks to that image supposedly making things more difficult for them. There isn't a hint of life on display here, and the entire endeavor feels like a cheap replica of things we've seen before - kind of like those Chinese superhero knockoff toys.

Unless you're a glutton for punishment, or someone who has a very specific set of goals for this Halloween season like this gentleman, I'd say skip this one and watch Troll 2 again (or its documentary counterpart, Best Worst Movie). Keep your eyes peeled for more "horror" (and maybe some legit horror) movie reviews in the coming days at NotJustNewMovies.com. Until next time...

The NJNM Podcast: Ep. 62 - Raging Bull (Guest: DC Pierson from "Mystery Team")

In this week's episode, Ben and Tyler are joined by DC Pierson (from Mystery Team and DERRICK Comedy) to discuss Martin Scorsese's 1980 film, Raging Bull.




Introduction
DC answers questions about his book possibly being made into a film - 1:18
Character Name Game Intro - 5:16

Media Consumed
Tyler
"2 Broke Girls" - 5:40
Grizzly Rage - 11:00
Jason Goes to Hell - 14:18

DC
Swimming to Cambodia - 15:02
Monster in the Box - 17:45
Gray's Anatomy - 19:03

Ben
Pretty Woman - 22:50

Review
Raging Bull - 28:30

Wrap-Up
Next Time: Videodrome - 1:15:15
Listener E-mail/Voicemail/Twitter - 1:15:55
Character Name Game - 1:28:30
Where You Can Find Us - 1:30:33

The Thing (2011)

Though everyone involved with the production claims The Thing is not a remake of John Carpenter's 1982 film of the same name, it's pretty clear after seeing the movie that this serves dual purposes as both prequel and remake. Set three days before the events of the Kurt Russell classic (which we reviewed on the Not Just New Movies Podcast, by the way), this version tells the story of the discovery of the titular creature and reveals how it was unleashed.

The Thing (2011)
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Eric Christian Olsen

In winter of 1982, Norwegian scientists discover a massive spacecraft buried in the ice in Antarctica. Lead scientist Sander Halversen and his research assist enlist the help of American paleontologist Kate Lloyd, who travels with them to the site and aids in the discovery of an alien body trapped in the ice. Halversen demands a tissue sample (tsk, tsk), and after refusing to listen to Kate's warnings, takes it anyway, awaking the creature from its 100,000 year slumber. The "thing" can take the shape of anything it touches, and as it slowly makes its way through the camp killing everyone one at a time, it leaves the remaining survivors paranoid and increasingly suspicious of each other.

For as much reverence as these filmmakers claim to have for Carpenter's movie, they failed to learn one of the most important lessons exemplified by that film: sometimes computer graphics are no match for classic practical effects. Carpenter's The Thing was made in 1982 and, for the most part, those effects still hold up and are freaky as hell. For every scene of effective CG here, there was a misfire reminiscent of Dwayne Johnson's awful animated face in the final minutes of The Scorpion King. If you're here solely for the gross-out factor, then you may have found your match; there are some pretty gruesome effects (many that feature two heads melding into one hideous body), and there's no shortage of nasty tendrils bursting through people's chests.

Most of the problem with the movie being this strange hybrid of prequel and remake is that it robs the film of any sense of drama. We know exactly how it's going to end - stay after the first few credits for a quick lead-in to the '82 flick - and as soon as this version of The Thing moves inside the Antarctica station, we slowly start to realize that it's essentially recreating every scene from its precursor without enough variation to make it an interesting film on its own. That's the difference between something like this and Matt Reeves' Let Me In: while ostensibly an American remake of the Swedish vampire film Let The Right One In, Let Me In has just enough deviation to justify its existence. Reeves attached his own sense of atmosphere to that movie, so even though a lot of the same things happened, it still has a bit of a different feel than the original. Van Heijningen's take on The Thing just feels like a boring rehash of what came before, with the occasional easter egg (there's the axe in the wall!!!!!1!!!) to theoretically satiate fans who know Carpenter's flick inside and out. Nice try, but I'm not buying it.

This isn't an offensively bad movie, it's just impossible to compare it favorably to the classic it so blatantly rips off. Kurt Russell's character from '82 has been split into two characters in this version: Mary Elizabeth Winstead as the scientist, and Joel Edgerton as the helicopter pilot. (The fact that Russell was both makes that movie even more badass.) Winstead is a bit more lackluster than I would have liked; I was hoping this would be a career launchpad for her, but unless it pulls in some big numbers at the box office, I don't imagine this will open any leading lady doors for her any time soon. Edgerton barely shows up and clearly suffers from "too little to do" syndrome. He's proven himself as a solid actor (ahem, Warrior), but it's pretty obvious his character is an afterthought. With the exception of the ridiculously over the top Halversen (played by Ulrich Thomsen), who spouts lines like, "We have to rely on science" with a straight face, no one else in the cast does anything warranting comment.

There are more flames here than in any other movie, perhaps ever. (That's including films like Backdraft and things of its ilk.) Flamethrowers never run out of fuel, and it seems as though there are ten of them lying around the station for no good reason other than to be picked up by our characters. For a movie set in Antarctica, the characters don't ever appear to get cold, going so far as to regularly wander into the supposedly freezing weather outside without even covering their faces. The movie falls prey to typical Hollywood plot holes (why is everyone driving around outside if other characters claimed they disabled all of the vehicles earlier? Why did that single grenade cause an explosion the size of Rhode Island?), but that kind of stupidity is par for the course in a movie like this.

As if you couldn't tell by now, I won't recommend this to anyone. The Blu-ray of Carpenter's film is pristine, so there's no excuse not to watch that one instead. It's better crafted, has meaningful suspense, and contains good performances. The 2011 version is like watching the '82 movie in a dirty mirror: the entire concept is backwards, and though most of it looks similar, upon closer inspection you're just seeing a dirty reflection. Until next time...