Happy Halloween!
Of course, I wanted some form of horror for this week's Netflix, so I went through my queue to see what I had. I'm not really a big horror person, so it took a lot of scrolling, when my eyes fell upon "Black Sheep" and I knew I had to go for it. I knew it was killer carnivorous sheep. The fact that sheep don't even have upper incisors doesn't stop them. And on top of that, I knew it included zombie were-sheep. Two hours of cheesy goodness, I figured I could point and laugh and have fun with it.
I was pleasantly surprised. It's not Night of the Lepus with a budget; it's actually an absolutely brilliant parody. In fact, it's one of the more skillful parodies I've seen in any genre, and hands down the best monster movie parody I've ever seen. Most monster movie parodies either take it so far over the top that they pass right by funny and land squarely in stupid, or take themselves too seriously and end up as just bad monster movies. This hits just about the perfect middle ground, where it's played straight but you can't take it seriously.
There are two flaws that make me say "just about" instead of just "perfect". First, Experience is a bit over the top at the start. If there were three of her, the movie would have been dead on arrival, but as is she's just kind of annoying until she gets into the nitty-gritty of the story. The second is that the ending depends on juvenile humor that I'm just not into. Up until that, I was thinking about buying myself a copy; the parody is that good otherwise.
Even with that, though, great fun. You should see it. You probably don't want to do see with me, though, because I squee in the middle of Scary Flock scenes and go "OMG, they're so CUTE!"
And when we reveal the Oldfield sheep, my reaction is "Oh wow, what a beautiful Corriedale." Actually, I don't know that it was a Corriedale. The commentary talks about how they just found the tallest, nicest-looking local sheep they could, so in New Zealand odds are that it's just another Merino that's been trimmed.
Oh, and in my opinion, the effects have the perfect balance of good and cheesy. The were-sheep get-up is actually really good. Incredibly good. And yet rampaging sheep are obviously sheep puppets, and the "carnage" scene has something Monty Python-esque. But it works, because... it's a flock of rampaging carnivorous sheep, for God's sake. It is Monty Python-esque.
And I also loved a shot where they basically admit that yeah, sheep don't have upper incisors. (It's actually even funnier with the commentary, because it seems the actor didn't know that until the director points it out, so the actor goes "so, they really can't hurt you at all, can they?" "Well, the lower teeth are really tough so they can rip up hardy shrubs...")
So, great parody movie.
On the DVD promos, "1408" looked really good. The other two horror movies just looked like "victimization of women theater", though; no thanks.
As mentioned, I'm not so much a horror person, but when I do watch I generally prefer ghost stories to monster stories. Monster stories just aren't scary to me, because not only is it never going to happen, there aren't even "true dangerous monster stories" like there are "true ghost stories" (with the exception of the chupracabra, I suppose). But on the other hand I don't generally care for serial-killer horror either, because it's either victimization of women, which I don't care to watch, or it's unrealistic because statistically speaking most serial killers' victims are women. [Yes, I do realize the seeming Catch-22 there. It is possible to make one I'll like (M, you're an awesome movie. I love you, Pete Lorre) but it's hard.]
A good ghost story I can get down with, though.
Speaking of promos, I stumbled across "Changeling" on the front of IMDB. That looks really good. This weekend isn't so great for me, but I may head to the theater next weekend.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
We are officially live.
The Nitpickers' Guide to Highlander now officially has a new home at its own subdomain: http:\\www.highlander.jinnayah.com . The old page has been removed except for a link to the new.
Part and parcel with that is a new episode riffing: Something Wicked.
And for those keeping score, my new general page is at www.jinnayah.com . Right now it has basically the same stuff, except less of it. Better organized, though. :)
Part and parcel with that is a new episode riffing: Something Wicked.
And for those keeping score, my new general page is at www.jinnayah.com . Right now it has basically the same stuff, except less of it. Better organized, though. :)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Movie: There Will Be Blood (spoilers)
Hmm... Where do I start with this one? Oh, I know. I've got a question.
What idiot wrote this thing? My. Gosh. I haven't seen a more pointless or more boring movie in a very long time. No one warned me this thing was going to be told in real time. By all means, please show me every excruciatingly dull second of Mr. Plainview's day. Wait, did he brush his teeth? You can't leave out details like that! *head desk*
Also, there is no reason for an 8-year-old struck deaf in an accident to also become mute. He won't have any volume control, but he will be able to talk -- and in fact probably will more than usual due to frustration at not being able to have two-way communication. Learning sign language so he can understand others makes sense; not being able to talk, doesn't. :P
And WTF was up with the goat's milk? Hey, why don't we spend another 15 minutes or so watching the kid drink that? It's not like the movie's too long or anything.
I don't mind long movies, as long as there's, you know, movie going on. I do, however, mind spending 3 minute takes watching a kid drink his flippin' milk. You know, when it took a full 15 minutes (I checked) before there was a speaking line, I really should have shut the DVD off then and gone and done my dishes or something. There are brief scenes of action, and then long LONG expanses of nothing. It's like they only had half an hour of story, so they wrapped it in bubblewrap and and put it in a huge box with a bunch of foam peanuts.
This was all an excuse to beat a delusion faith healer to death. I'm OK with that, and heaven knows that it's enough to get ya two Oscars, but we could have done that in the first hour.
And yet despite that, for a movie titled "There Will Be Blood", there was shockingly little blood. There was, like, no blood. Because blood implies action, and that's just not in the budget for this one.
Ugh. So, in summary: there's two and a half hours of my life I'm never getting back.
What idiot wrote this thing? My. Gosh. I haven't seen a more pointless or more boring movie in a very long time. No one warned me this thing was going to be told in real time. By all means, please show me every excruciatingly dull second of Mr. Plainview's day. Wait, did he brush his teeth? You can't leave out details like that! *head desk*
Also, there is no reason for an 8-year-old struck deaf in an accident to also become mute. He won't have any volume control, but he will be able to talk -- and in fact probably will more than usual due to frustration at not being able to have two-way communication. Learning sign language so he can understand others makes sense; not being able to talk, doesn't. :P
And WTF was up with the goat's milk? Hey, why don't we spend another 15 minutes or so watching the kid drink that? It's not like the movie's too long or anything.
I don't mind long movies, as long as there's, you know, movie going on. I do, however, mind spending 3 minute takes watching a kid drink his flippin' milk. You know, when it took a full 15 minutes (I checked) before there was a speaking line, I really should have shut the DVD off then and gone and done my dishes or something. There are brief scenes of action, and then long LONG expanses of nothing. It's like they only had half an hour of story, so they wrapped it in bubblewrap and and put it in a huge box with a bunch of foam peanuts.
This was all an excuse to beat a delusion faith healer to death. I'm OK with that, and heaven knows that it's enough to get ya two Oscars, but we could have done that in the first hour.
And yet despite that, for a movie titled "There Will Be Blood", there was shockingly little blood. There was, like, no blood. Because blood implies action, and that's just not in the budget for this one.
Ugh. So, in summary: there's two and a half hours of my life I'm never getting back.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
No, Netflix, I'm REALLY not interested in "Patch Adams".
I dunno, maybe Robin Williams does a great job and it's a wonderful movie. But the problem is, I've met the real Patch Adams, and he's a major dick.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Movie: Batman
(Just to warn you, there's a little spoiler for Dark Knight in here too. Because I just can't help bringing that movie up a skosh in comparison.)
This week's Netflix offering is the 1989 Batman, the one with Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Ah, man, remember when that was just the coolest movie ever?
It's not the coolest movie ever any more. Actually, it's... terrible. There's a reason it's out of print. Which is actually kind of a shame, because it would be excellent Rifftrax fodder.
It's bad. It's so bad, I'm not even sure where to start. Yes I do. Jack Palance. Jack Palance is in it. 'Nuff said. I can't even see the name "Jack Palance" without immediately think of the MST of "Outlaw of Gor" (interestingly enough, made the same year as Batman here) and all the goofy hats he wore. But even without goofy hats, he's still here in this movie doing the Jack Palance voice. You know, where he's trying to sound really intimidating but actually sounds chronically asthmatic and constantly gasping for breath.
Maybe you don't know. Good for you. Suffice to say, Jack Palance = bad.
Let's see, what else do we got bad? Oh, I can't do that, I'll type out the whole movie. Hey, how about "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight? Oh, I just like the sound of it. It's just something I say to all my prey. ... Even though we're an hour and 24 minutes in and this is the first time I've said it. And I'll only say it one other time and that'll be in flashback.... OK, look, so maybe I don't say it very often at all." Or the first gangster boss guy who gets electrocuted with the joy buzzer and it's just... No. Just no. Or Batman walking around in the cape and raising his arms like Dracula so you just expect him to go "blah".
Oh, it hurts. It really hurts. My brain is already heading back with a shovel going "there was no reason to take this out of the 1990s."
Oh, and it really saddens me that it's gotten to this point, but... Well, is it just me, or do all of Danny Elfman's soundtracks sound more or less alike?
Well, was there anything good about the Batman movie, or were we all just high on hair spray fumes in 1989? (You know what I'm talking about. Don't deny it; I've got yearbook photos.)
OK, yes, there were a few good things:
1) Best Alfred ever.
2) The 1990s Batmobile had style in ways the new one can only wish for. Sorry, I just don't care for the wheeled tank -- at least not the one that looks like a wheeled tank.
Also, I regret that sequels never fulfilled the implied promise of Lando Calrissian as Two-Face. :(
Sadly, I think "Batman" had a major effect on most of the comic book movies to follow, and not necessarily a good one. There's the need for a backstory where one was not needed and in Joker's case, did not previously exist. (Well, in Joker's case it was one of many, but anyway.) There's the irrational need to kill the villain at the end. Why? Why did "Batman" do it, even? It's the Joker. You catch him, you send him to Arkham, he escapes in 6 months and goes on a rampage, lather, rinse, repeat. It's practically part of the schtick.
And that leads me to my final thought. Ever notice how in all the modern Batman movies, Batman never kills... except when he does? I can't think of a single one where Batman isn't directly responsible for someone's death. Hell, the "no killing rule" was a major plot point in Dark Knight and it gets broken.
This week's Netflix offering is the 1989 Batman, the one with Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Ah, man, remember when that was just the coolest movie ever?
It's not the coolest movie ever any more. Actually, it's... terrible. There's a reason it's out of print. Which is actually kind of a shame, because it would be excellent Rifftrax fodder.
It's bad. It's so bad, I'm not even sure where to start. Yes I do. Jack Palance. Jack Palance is in it. 'Nuff said. I can't even see the name "Jack Palance" without immediately think of the MST of "Outlaw of Gor" (interestingly enough, made the same year as Batman here) and all the goofy hats he wore. But even without goofy hats, he's still here in this movie doing the Jack Palance voice. You know, where he's trying to sound really intimidating but actually sounds chronically asthmatic and constantly gasping for breath.
Maybe you don't know. Good for you. Suffice to say, Jack Palance = bad.
Let's see, what else do we got bad? Oh, I can't do that, I'll type out the whole movie. Hey, how about "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight? Oh, I just like the sound of it. It's just something I say to all my prey. ... Even though we're an hour and 24 minutes in and this is the first time I've said it. And I'll only say it one other time and that'll be in flashback.... OK, look, so maybe I don't say it very often at all." Or the first gangster boss guy who gets electrocuted with the joy buzzer and it's just... No. Just no. Or Batman walking around in the cape and raising his arms like Dracula so you just expect him to go "blah".
Oh, it hurts. It really hurts. My brain is already heading back with a shovel going "there was no reason to take this out of the 1990s."
Oh, and it really saddens me that it's gotten to this point, but... Well, is it just me, or do all of Danny Elfman's soundtracks sound more or less alike?
Well, was there anything good about the Batman movie, or were we all just high on hair spray fumes in 1989? (You know what I'm talking about. Don't deny it; I've got yearbook photos.)
OK, yes, there were a few good things:
1) Best Alfred ever.
2) The 1990s Batmobile had style in ways the new one can only wish for. Sorry, I just don't care for the wheeled tank -- at least not the one that looks like a wheeled tank.
Also, I regret that sequels never fulfilled the implied promise of Lando Calrissian as Two-Face. :(
Sadly, I think "Batman" had a major effect on most of the comic book movies to follow, and not necessarily a good one. There's the need for a backstory where one was not needed and in Joker's case, did not previously exist. (Well, in Joker's case it was one of many, but anyway.) There's the irrational need to kill the villain at the end. Why? Why did "Batman" do it, even? It's the Joker. You catch him, you send him to Arkham, he escapes in 6 months and goes on a rampage, lather, rinse, repeat. It's practically part of the schtick.
And that leads me to my final thought. Ever notice how in all the modern Batman movies, Batman never kills... except when he does? I can't think of a single one where Batman isn't directly responsible for someone's death. Hell, the "no killing rule" was a major plot point in Dark Knight and it gets broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
