Back to the Future Trilogy (1985, 1989, and 1990)

Back to the Future Trilogy (1985,1989 and 1990)

The joys of being ill allow for more movie viewing opportunities. These 3 films were sitting on the PVR waiting for me when I got back from the holidays. Now having watched them, I am happy to finally review them. The first is iconic and by far the most remembered of the three. Nearly everyone born prior to 1985 has seen it. The other two, well memories get fuzzy and the people who have sat down to watch them drops off significantly. Which is a shame, because I really think Robert Zemeckis intended to tell the story as a trilogy.

The first film follows Marty Mcfly as he is thrust back in time to 1955. A wonderfully simplistic version of the world he is used to. Doomed to disappearing into nothingness if he doesn't set out to make things right like getting his parents together, working with his good friend Doc Brown, thwarting the bad guy, and getting back.... TO THE FUTURE.

It's a fun, simple film despite the laws of time travel they set out to establish. Easy to follow and the pacing is decent, it's no wonder why this film became a classic what with an original story and some decent effort put into it's execution.

The first film ends where the second one begins (albeit some minor casting differences) and we find our same hapless heros thrust in to the crazy futuristic future of 2015. That's right folks, in a mere 4 years we will all be using hover cars, using archaic computer systems, and watching tv in standard definition again. I'm looking most forward to the hoverboards personally.

Story-wise and film-wise, this is the weakest film of the 3. It feels discombobulated and the pacing is off. The story is rushed and all the "future" scenes feel off. It's like when they finished the first film, the premise of travelling to the future was cool, but then with the success warranting a second film, they thought, "Oh crap, we actually have to follow through with this...". So we have a jarring story about a book, that only serves to get us out of the future as soon as possible.

The one upside is that film serves to establish the premise of the 3rd film in the wild west. And like that we too segue into the third film, where once the story settles again, the audience can get their bearings, and appreciate story again. The 3rd film follows Marty as he endeavours to rescue Doc Brown from 1885, and we are treated to some quality film work again. Mary Steenburgen joins the cast as a romantic interest for Doc Brown and the "Biff" of this time period is "Mad Dog" and definitely the most inspired of the bullies of each era.

All in all they are good films. The first and 3rd are much better than the second, but such is the case with most middle films in trilogies. They were great original stories and created iconic characters we all know and love today. The may not have aged well (especially the second one) but they are still fun.

The good: Michael J Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, and Thomas F. Wilson. All were great in their multitude of roles.

The bad: 2015. If it looks anything like it did in the second film, yikes....

Final Thoughts: If you haven't watched these films lately go out and rent em. Enjoy the time it takes you back to. Enjoy the ride.

Add to the vault? I would definitely add this trilogy to the vault. The Blue Ray special edition would be a fantastic trip through time every now and again. It may be a few years in between each viewing, but these films are like wonderful little time capsules and I would definitely re-watch them again and again.


So bear with me but here are the trailers for each installment of the series:

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:

Black Dynamite (2009)

Black Dynamite (2009)

What in hell was I thinking with this crap. I know, I know. I am probably not the target audience. But I can enjoy 70's exploitation flicks as much as anyone else. This film is obviously riding the coattails of other grindhouse flicks that started making a resurgence thanks (for nothing) to Quentin Tarantino.

This flick follows the adventures of Black Dynamite, a protagonist who refers to himself in 3rd person, as he goes the ridiculous motions of avenging his brother's death, getting smack off the streets and fighting "the man". It's filled with sexism, racism, cornball antics and jokes. It's trying so hard to be funny, tongue-in-cheek, and such that it's more irritating than anything else.

My problem with grindhouse flicks are not that they are a guilty pleasure for some, but that they are made at all. I actually do love the ridiculous trailers that are made for these films but that doesn't mean I want to actually want to see a film of the same caliber.

It's tough to review. Unless I was back in university and drinking with a bunch of friends, I can't see why anyone would actually make time to watch this drek.

The good: Michael Jai White, was obviously inspired in wanting to do this flick. He's never been a terribly good actor but he does badass well. Even though he's wasted in this drivel.

The bad: The rest.

Final Thoughts: There are undoubtedly blaxploitation or grindhouse enthusiasts out there that may not agree with my sentiments, and by all means, I applaud you. Shine on you crazy diamonds. But this film, in my humble opinion.... sucked.

Add to the Vault:  Maybe if I grew up in the 70's I would feel differently, but no. Not ever.


Here is the trailer for Black Dynamite, which I assure is 100 times better than the actual film... which still isn't saying much.

Home Alone (1990)

Home Alone (1990)

This is a belated holiday flick I meant to review before my holiday hiatus but didn't have a chance to. So here's the quick recap of Home Alone.

What can I say? I'm a sucker for films that quite often are the source of ridicule to others. I know many adults around my age that would have been the target audience when this film came out, who swear they dislike the film. For that I have to call BS, as for me, every year around Christmas this is one of the magical films that immediately transport me back to being a 9 year old kid again.

It hearkens back to a time when directors still put in effort for what is admittedly a tough genre to tackle. You've seen me gripe about uninspired holiday flicks looking to make a quick buck and serve little more than to induce sleep, but once upon a time directors actually cared. Chris Columbus is thankfully one of those directors. I often wonder how films like this get pitched or become a labour of love based on the premise alone. I always imagine the conversations that must have taken place, "So I have this great idea. An 8 year old kid is forgotten at home by his family at Christmas, a couple of burglars try and rob the place and shenanigans ensue." "SOLD!" *throws money at the director* Truthfully though, I imagine John Hughes attachment to the project may have had something to do with that.

Still, I am glad they did sell the premise. The film isn't perfect, nor should it be. You know the plot, it's geared towards kids, and yet thankfully I don't care. I unabashedly love this flick. Definitely a must watch every season.

The good: The cast. Everyone has their place and have become as familiar as the movie itself. Catherine O'Hara is especially good and Macaulay Culkin is enjoyable as well. I was talking with my wife about how it really was a testament to his charisma as a child to hold the film essentially by himself and not become irritating beyond merely precocious. John Candy always breaks my heart a little bit to know he's gone. Seeing him in this with Catherine O'Hara always makes me remember their SCTV days. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern are also enjoyable as well, playing the bumbling crooks with enough heart and maliciousness to be great villians (unlike that previous flick I reviewed with Chris Kattan and some obese man-child).

The bad: Once again the portrayal of law enforcement. EGADS. I shouldn't care but seriously they are the epitome of every bad stereotype in this film. Fat, lazy, donut eating fools. And we are supposed to believe that a phone call from a frantic mother wouldn't have elicited a bigger response other than the presumption that it was a hoax. Sheesh people.

Final Thoughts: Don't let naysayers and cynical holiday grinchs keep you from enjoying this holiday classic. Up there with Scrooged, Muppet Christmas Carol, National Lampoons Christmas Vacation, and others, this is one film that should be enjoyed every year.

Add to the Vault: If it wasn't pretty much guaranteed to be on TV every year, I would probably own it already. I will definitely mark it as "To be added to the vault" but so long as they keep playing it I will likely hold tight. Next year I will endeavour to review the second installment, which I remember to be decent but honestly I haven't watched in probably over 10 years.

This concludes the holiday stretch of movies, and I apologize in advance for the next review.

Before that though, enjoy the trailer for Home Alone:

Scrooged (1988)

Scrooged (2003)

Wow, I saw the date on this and I can't believe it is over 20 years old. Man, I am getting old. This is undoubtedly one of my favorite holiday films. A goto film for getting firmly into the holiday season. It is by all accounts a retelling of the classic Dickens' A Christmas Carol, but oh what a retelling it is. Some may feel that this flick is dated, firmly embedded in the 80's, I however don't. This film for me is a timeless classic that is as relevant today (especially today) as it was back in the late 80's.

What's that? You don't know the Dickens' tale? Well Bill Murray plays Frank Cross a CEO type media mogul, who is a right bastard. Probably could give Billy Bob a run for his money. Cue ghosts, shenanigans and redemption.

But there is so much more going on. There are subtleties and hidden gems galore, which is why this film can be rewatched time and time again. Heck, I could probably give it another go one or two more times before Christmas gets here.

The good: Bill Murray, such a comedic goldmine he is! The effects! It was late 80's but such cool imagery, the ghost of Christmas Future is still creepy awesome to this day! The score! Danny Elfman has hints of some his most iconic work in this flick and hearing it as a taste of his future genius is cool.

The bad: The fashion. Ha ha.

Final Thoughts:  This is such a warm, fuzzy movie that I have nothing but good things to say. One of my all time favourites that has stayed with me since I watched it as a kid.

Add to the Vault: Undoubtedly. If it wasn't clear that you should run out and watch this movie immediately, you should go do so now. Well what are you waiting for?


What? You are still here? Gah, fine... here watch the trailer for Scrooged!

Bad Santa (2003)

Bad Santa (2003)

Ah nothing like a movie about a down on his luck criminal/department store Santa to truly get you in the spirit of the holidays. Our next holiday flick is one most assuredly a LOT of people have seen. It was marketed as slapstick comedy and I am sure many people were surprised at the final result. I for one loved this flick because it was so unabashedly honest in the story it wanted to tell.

For those not in the know, Billy Bob Thornton plays the absolute most vulgar, disgusting, pathetic Santa rendition this side of a B-Horror movie. Billy Bob's Santa is something everyone has feared to experience either as kids or as parents with kids, but thankfully one can assume there are many measures in place to prevent someone of his caliber ever getting close to your young 'uns. But as with most holiday flicks, we have at the heart of the story, a tale about redemption. This is a man so far gone that he only really has two options, kill himself or die in his own vomit. But the real exploration of the film lies in the hidden but obvious 3rd choice, that perhaps maybe, just MAYBE, this man can find some semblance of humanity before he is completely lost.

Billy Bob is also a small time crook, that we are to believe is capable enough that despite one brief stint in the clink pulls off heists with his little person partner that keeps him fed, sheltered and more importantly liquored until the next Christmas. At the time of the film, Billy Bob is pretty far gone and probably won't make it another year if he continues his ways. Cue the rest of the cast ala the possibly mentally challenged boy, the attractive and impossibly patient bartender, and the senile grandma. 

Joining Billy Bob is a cast that includes but is not limited the late great John Ritter, Lauren Graham, and the dearly departed Bernie Mac (who I have never really appreciated as an actor/comedian before, but I enjoy his role in this film). The bulk of the film is meant to have similar effect as a cheap horror film in that it tries to shock you at every turn with it's unrelenting filth, but in this day and age it is surprisingly (for good or for bad) tolerable compared to a lot of stuff television and film audiences get inundated with on a near daily basis. It gets points for trying though and the film is still charming enough that the desired effect is achieved, if only because we want to play along.


The good: The cast. Billy Bob takes top billing, but this film wouldn't be the same if it rested solely on his shoulders. The no-holds-barred (mostly) approach was also appreciated but...

The bad: ... I am not convinced that it is truly no holds barred. I think they stayed "safe" with a lot of content, and the true magic of the film is tricking the audience into thinking that it is the most foul thing that could EVER be a holiday flick. I am rarely ever a fan of slapstick, so when the film resorts to it in a couple of isolated spots it felt like it was a different movie (maybe one starring Chris Kattan?) The pacing is also a little clunky at times, the plot is straight forward but a couple of times it felt like they were just throwing scenes in for the sake of filler.

Final Thoughts: This film is ultimately a heart warming feel good holiday flick despite all the smoke and mirrors trying to convince you otherwise. Nothing witnessed on screen is truly terrible or outright evil, just bad. In that sense it more than sufficiently lives up to its name. In a good way of course.  Maybe don't watch it with the kidlings but keep it on the high shelf for you and your friends if you ever pull a Christmas flick marathon to get you in the festive spirit.


Add to the vault? I will say yes. I am going to add this title to the vault. There is enough in this film to forget and re-appreciate every year, which is about how often I feel I can enjoy this film. So as bad as this Santa is, it is in my good books.

Oy! Don't leave yet without enjoying the surprisingly relatively safe for work trailer for Bad Santa.

Christmas in Wonderland (2007)

Christmas in Wonderland (2007)

Well after a brief hiatus I return, hot on the heels of a slew of Halloween themed movies, with Christmas movies. New and old, good and bad, I will watch them. And first up for this season is Christmas in Wonderland, which really should be titled... Christmas Eve in West Edmonton Mall (aka Santa's house).

The film stars an uncanny cast of Patrick Swayze in his second to last movie filmed before his unfortunate passing, Chris Kattan, a nearly unrecognizable and forgettable Carmen Electra and Tim Curry phoning in another pay cheque. Oh how I will always love thee Dr. Frank-N-Furter, between Rocky Horror and Legend and your turn as Pennywise, you continue to do schlock as long as you want, I won't complain.

Anyways, back to the flick. Story in short. Typical paint by numbers holiday movie about a down on their luck family who have lost the Christmas spirit save for the little girl who holds Santa near and dear. Swayze is the dad who just lost his job after relocating his entire family to Edmonton, Alberta for his new career. Kids hate Canada, he is broke, and mom is stuck in an airport in L.A. until Xmas day. She tasks him with shopping for the family. He leaves the kids with the oldest son, while he shops. Kids find a bag of money, hijinks ensue.

SPOILER ALERT: In the end, family finds Christmas spirit, everything works out via Santa ex machina, and life is good yet again.

We all know how it is going to end, that is the point of the holiday flicks. What does this one have going for it that made it stand out? Well it featured my old stomping grounds of West Edmonton Mall being the sole location more or less for the majority of the flick. Granted this West Edmonton Mall, while still being the largest mall in North America, is drastically different in appearances (at least externally).

The movie version of West Edmonton Mall:

Compared to the rather drab and boring real version which is how I affectionately remember the mall I grew up with:

But really who goes to a mall for the exterior? So what if they took a little artistic liberty? The inside they faithfully captured, and as much as I generally despised the mall for the hordes of people and the annoying teeny boppers that saturated the place, there was a lot about the place that was pretty cool.



Like this:

So did I really just watch a movie because it was filmed in West Edmonton Mall in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada? Yep. The film doesn't have much else going for it. Like I said it is paint by numbers. You have the bumbling crooks (bonus points for the obese mentally deficient farting goofy one, they are always extra funny....), the bad cg parts, the doe-eyed little girl that believes enough for everyone, the wacky antics, the stereotypes, etc, etc.

This is what annoys me about these films though. They are obviously just a paycheque for most everyone involved, save for the child actors who are most likely looking for something to have on their demo reel. However, with a marginal bit of effort, the folks involved could have made a pretty decent flick. It wouldn't have been timeless necessarily but it may have been good. I miss the effort of films these days especially around the holidays. The latest CGI Christmas Carol may be a worthy addition (I have to re-watch it), but aside from that there hasn't been a half way decent Xmas flick in a long time. That's why people flock to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, Scrooged or even older fare. If you have recommendations let me know. You can see from my library list that I own Muppet Christmas Carol, which I hold in high esteem as one of the better versions of the Christmas Carol story.

The good: The locale. It was good to see the old mall, despite how much I avoid it, even if I were to visit today. Patrick Swayze was decent too, obviously happy to just be working at the time. The gent who played Santa was a charming fellow.

The bad: The rest. Who really finds slapstick humour funny without a decent story attached? I know, I know, it's obviously a kid's flick that is meant to be family friendly fare. But story needn't be sacrificed for that does it? Chris Kattan, such a wasted actor in my opinion. He's done some brilliant work when a director can rein him in (ala House on Haunted Hill). The stereotypes. My gawd. Not every flippin Canadian walks around saying ABOOT or EH? all the time. The RCMP is portrayed as bumbling buffoons, marginally less idiotic than the hapless crooks. And is Canada so bad that the only female the older brother can find attractive is another displaced girl from L.A.? And what's with her name being Shane? I can't say I have ever met a female Shane. But I digress.

Final Thoughts: A forgettable holiday film. Check it out only if you are a hardcore Swayze fan (which I'd recommend you re-watch Road House instead) or if you have a family and need a throw-away flick on the PVR to occupy the kids for two hours. I did find it amusing that it was Christmas Eve in the film and despite the movie talking about how busy the mall is, it wasn't even a fraction of how busy that damned mall can be on a regular weekend let along Christmas Eve. It wasn't that bad I guess, it was fine to have in the background while I put up the Christmas tree.

Add to the Vault? Not in the least. But take heart, I will be reviewing some other holiday flicks that I don't currently own and will most like be added to the list.

So to welcome you into the holiday season, I leave you with trailer for Christmas in Wonderland!

Leap Year (2010)

Leap Year (2010)

Romantic comedies are so hard for me to review, especially when I share the viewing experience with my wife. For the record, my wife seems to loathe romantic comedies and we find ourselves engaging in playful bickering back and forth about the absurdities in the film and her lack of romantic whimsy. This is where, I must admit that I am much more of a suck for romantic comedies than she is. Sacré bleu! This film was no different where for much of the film my wife was insistent that she would know what happened next and yet 9 times out of 10 she was wrong. Mwaha!

The story of the film Leap Year, involves a successful Boston woman (Amy Adams) who is fed up with her long-term boyfriend's inability to commit. He's a doctor or realtor or something and he gets whisked away to Ireland for some emergency thing.

Anna (Amy Adams) finds some ridiculous Irish tradition in which on leap years, February 29th, in Ireland women can propose to men and have it be all socially acceptable.Yay for progression! So off she goes on a impromptu journey to Ireland. But obstacle after obstacle hinders her attempts to get to Dublin in time to propose to her boyfriend. Along the way, she and we meet Declan (Matthew Goode) a jilted bitter owner/operator of a failing pub. He gets commissioned to take her to Dublin and high-jinks ensue and we bear witness to the magical transformation of Amy Adams from a prudish self-involved deluded woman, to spontaneous whimsical woman who can love.

So essentially a paint-by-numbers Rom-Com right? Well yes and no. It's predictable in the long run as most if not all Rom-Coms are, but as I described above, the clichéd moments you'd expect to see don't always occur as you'd expect. The film was self-aware enough to admit that some conventional plot devices would be too ludicrous in most real life situations, while ultimately still getting to the desired ending we all know and love.

The good: Amy Adams and Matthew Goode (not the singer) were enjoyable. The scenery alone is worth the film alone as we are treated to some gorgeous Irish locales. The attempts by the film, in places, to acknowledge that some situations would be too ridiculous to occur in real life.

The bad: The general portrayal of most Irish folk being annoying bastards willing to steal from ya, put you down, or generally just be annoying for a great portion of the film. Adam Scott was a waste as the initial love interest to spur Amy Adams into action while generally walking a fine line of not being dis-likable enough to cheer Amy Adams away from him into the arms of Matthew Goode.

Final Thoughts:  This film was good for what it was when I watched it. A pre-work, overcast matinee movie for a Sunday. Nothing spectacular or particularly memorable to raise it above the masses, but not stupid enough nearly to be amongst some of the serious dregs of the rom-com genre.

Add to the Vault? As much as I enjoy Amy Adams, this wasn't good enough to be added to the vault. A one off for sure, but maybe I will watch it again after a couple more leap years transpire.

Enjoy the trailer!

LEAP YEAR: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Leap Year (2010 film), Adam Scott

Weird Science (1985)

Weird Science (1985)

AHAHAHAHA what a dumb show. But it is so ridiculously enjoyably dumb that it is legendary. John Hughes, you were definitely dabbling in the wacky tobaccy when you concocted this one. I mean it is so diametrically different from the likes of Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Sixteen Candles or my personal favourite of the Breakfast Club, that presuming he was on possibly psychotropic drugs isn't as far fetched as you may think.

Okay maybe there are some similarities. Anthony Michael Hall (a Hughes regular) for one is back once again being the awkward loser character, joined by Ilan Mitchell-Smith (who?) as two teens who are hell bent on creating the perfect woman with computers. Something that many Warcraft nerds still aspire to today.

Kelly LeBrock (who many wouldn't know anymore, but back in the day she was hot stuff) is the proverbial perfect woman who joins our two misfits for the next 90 some odd minutes, which could easily be argued as Hughes' excuse to parade her in a variety of outfits that were presumably hot back in the mid-80s.

Like most Hughes stories, the overall intent is to share snippets of real teenage angst and frustration. Not daring to delve into Breakfast Club levels of seriousness, we are stuck with what essentially amounts to toilet humour (something that can be the entire focus of comedy movies these days) and one ridiculous scenario after another all thanks to the magic of Kelly LeBrock.

Now I would have been only 4 years old when this movie was released but I still have fond memories of enjoying this flick as a child and appreciating the goofiness long before I could fully understand the crudity transpiring on screen. Truthfully, the film is about two nerds who are basically attempting to create a cyber-woman to lose their virginity to. Oh sure you can argue that it is about gaining self-confidence, and getting people to like you for who you are, but you can't ignore the whole premise stemmed from two geeks that are trying to have sex with cyber woman. But oh ho ho, look how funny they are, they are so socially awkward that even when presented with the "perfect" woman who will do ANYTHING for them if they merely say the word, they can't muster the spunk to do the deed. Hearts of golds ladies, these two dweebs have hearts of gold!

So as ridiculous as the film is, it is a wonderful movie that although has aged terribly with its glorification of the 80s in any and all respect, it is still able to resonate with folks born in the 80s and I imagine most others too as it does touch on some universal themes.

More importantly, this film is as much about the peripheral characters as it is about the wacky geeks we are forced to follow around. Bill Paxton as older brother Chet practically steals the show, and a very young Robert Downey Jr. (lacking the Jr. in credits) makes an appearance as one-half of the antagonistic foils to our hapless heroes.

The good: Toad Chet is and will always be the highlight of the film for me. I could watch an entire film of Toad Chet's adventures. The fashion is so bad it's good. The party scene at Wyatt's house (btw did I mention Wyatt is apparently rich? So rich and a geek. I feel so sorry for him...) and the attempt to create Kelly LeBrock 2.0. Vernon Wells, who some cinephiles will remember from Mad Max or Commando, makes a decent appearance in this film as the baddie to act as a catalyst to turn our zeros to heroes.

The bad: The tedious bar scene was completely unfunny. Was Anthony Michael Hall trying to sound like a black man? Wow. Just wow. And no offence, but I can see why Ilan Mitchell-Smith kind of disappeared out of films after this one. Apparently according to Wikipedia he's an assistant professor somewhere and has a wife and two kids. Good for you Ilan. Wise choice. Oh and I have to be honest, some of the jokes are so dumb that you can't help but roll your eyes. Risk of severe eye strain should be a disclaimer at the start of the show.


Final Thoughts: A cheesy movie, but more importantly for me, an iconic movie. Movies like this inspired the imagination in me as a wee lad, and as such I can't knock it too hard. It has some scenes that I have been able to remember clear as day for most of my life and can always elicit a smile.

Add to the Vault? Yes. Another film I believe should be preserved and cherished from time to time. I hope that if I have any kids of my own, I can dust this film off someday, borrow a bra or two to wear on our heads and dive head first into the ridiculous.


Till next time, here is the Weird Science trailer from 1985.

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006)

At the request of the masses who read this site, I have been tasked with reviewing this film. I watched it originally back in 2008 I think, and re-watching it I find the same issues and positives as the first time around.

The premise of the film is as such, obviously playing with the religious angle, in that if one takes their own life they end up in limbo rather than some satisfactory afterlife. As such, we follow Zia a recent inductee into Limbo, who cut his wrists (hence the title). Now Limbo isn't that much different from regular life, aside from some washed out colours, a perpetual inability to smile by it's inhabitants and some off-kilter reality bending oddities just to keep it different.

Now Zia and his pal Eugene (the obvious comic relief in the film) are enjoying their non-lives as best they can, when Zia finds out his old girlfriend might also be a resident of Limbo. Cue roadtrip and enter "cute" hitchhiker Mikal (Shannon Sossamon) who shakes up Limbo. She's convinced she is wrongly a resident of Limbo due to a technicality. So without going further into details, the plot quickly becomes a "roadtrip" movie and aside from the oddities and Limbo and the whole "dead" thing, it is quite frankly a paint by numbers road trip movie.

Now I am sure I will ostracize one of the two readers of this blog by saying this, but this movie isn't THAT great. I will give it props for taking a whole warped twist on the roadtrip movie, but I can not help but feel that it doesn't really do anything with the premise. It's a tough gamble, it was already guaranteed to not be a commercial success because no distributer would let a suicide-centric movie hit the theatres, and the religious masses would no doubt be a tough sell as well. That being said however, if you are going to run with a premise, I feel like it should have gone farther. I get that Limbo is supposed to be just like life but even more mundane, but there are cool aspects that are hinted at. Things like the "miracles" or the beach scene, are interesting and could have been explored further, but instead we get a secondary plot involving a "suicide cult" (ho ho funny!) with Will Arnett and then whole angle that life and death is really just more paperwork and bureaucracy.

Or maybe I didn't get it. Maybe the whole purpose of having a movie set in a boring existence was meant to be boring? A couple of things I have to be honest about though, and this may render my opinions null and void. First of all, I don't like Shannon Sossamon. I find her a weak and wooden actress that was touted as the next "It" girl when she first hit the theatrical stage, but thankfully it would seem that Hollywood realized her ineptitude and she's been reduced to non-roles and indie films instead (something I still wait they would do with Megan Fox). So her role here, which is essentially a self-involved "love" interest, broke the movie for me at the core as I couldn't invest in her as a viable love-interest for Zia. She's in the same category as Zooey Deschanel for me and it's probably a disservice to me as an aspiring reviewer that I can't get past such issues.

Secondly, the suicide angle on a whole, while interesting and a neat twist, doesn't really work for me. I have zero sympathy for suicide in general. It's a selfish act and I can't empathize with it. I didn't really think the whole uplifting angle was warranted without making the world of Limbo something to really abhor. The fact that Limbo was just like reality for the most part, and that there may be a "get out of jail free" card, kinda makes the whole ordeal amount to little more than "meh". It comes across that it's really not THAT big of deal if you commit suicide, because in the end, if you want something enough, you can get it.

I don't know. I figure for that kind of payoff, I better see Divine Comedy level of ambiance and personal growth.


The good: Patrick Fugit as Zia and Shea Whigham as Eugene are enjoyable leads. I wish instead of Michael Cera, Patrick Fugit could get more roles as I can relate to his confident off-beat sardonic inherent nature more than Cera's "Oh look at me I'm awkward and witty in EVERY FRIGGIN FILM". Did I mention that Cera made me not like Scott Pilgrim as much as I wanted to? Anyhow, what else was good? Oh yes, some imagery thrown in like the beach scene. It made you feel dirty and itchy. That kind of imagery was something they could have really run with. I felt like the director watched a Terry Gilliam movie and tried to emulate the wierdness without really getting the weirdness. I see that the film had a $1,000,000 budget, which isn't much by Hollywood standards, but for an indie film it's quite a bit. If you ditched the suicide cult storyline you could have had some more dough to play with imagery. It would be remiss of me to not include Tom Waits, who I also thoroughly enjoy in most everything in. That guy could read the phonebook and it would be interesting. He also appeared recently as the "devil figure" in Terry Gilliam's Doctor Parnassus interestingly enough.

The bad: Shannon Sossamon. Wooden. Not like how everyone jokes Keanu Reeves is wooden but he can still make a decent movie, I mean wooden like why is she in film at all? The premise was interesting as well, but I didn't like how it almost too lightly handled the issue of suicide. It was either too light or not light enough, and without committing to it either way, it feels like a premise they wanted to explore but really were too scared to tackle head on.

Final Thoughts: Overall not bad, but I can't help but feel it could have been a REALLY interesting tale. Hell, ditch the comedic angle entirely (since a lot of the forced jokes didn't pan out anyway) and run with the whole romance and fantasy bits, and you may have a really decent movie.

Add to the vault? Not mine, I get why some people would enjoy it. It's definitely a dark twist on an otherwise conventional story. Does the subject matter automatically make it gold? No. Definitely not. So while I can appreciate other people's interest in it, it is only mediocre for me. E for effort though!

Suck (2009)

Suck (2009)

Well, well, well. Colour me surprised. No this isn't pornography. I recorded this solely on the title, expecting something akin to a crappy Wayans' brothers movie, or marginally better/worse (your pick) a Scary Movie crapfest.

Not at all what I expected. This little Canadian flick was actually somewhat enjoyable. I didn't expect it to fall into more of the "indie" category, and truthfully, I am not labeling it as an indie flick, but to be honest it isn't really a musical either. It claims to be a rock & roll comedy, and that is exactly what it is.

The premise is simple enough, a loser band (ironically named the Winners) is trying to make it big but really barely rise above mediocre. One band member (the arguably only x-factor to the band staying together and coincidentally an attractive female) gets seduced by a vampire, and slowly as the body count rises, the band becomes a success. What this film doesn't advertise (given the brief breakdown I read on the PVR) is that this film has iconic artists musical and cinematic alike. We are talking Alice Cooper, Malcolm McDowell, David Foley, Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins, and the occasional other person folks may notice out the ordinary.


The music in the flick is not done in a random "let's break out into song" camp style, but more-so heavily infused into every part of the flick. And it was actually kind of enjoyable. A lot of it was cover versions of songs that are attributed to the stars above, but even the original songs are enjoyable too. Just don't expect the next Rocky Horror Picture Show.

What about the comedy? Well some of it is silly, but even with the "gore" it is much more innocent than comedy in most movies which strives to be as vile as possible to generate a laugh or two. It obviously doesn't all work, but the heart is there. Rob Stefaniuk who directs and stars in it, shows that this was (like Zombie in the last review) doing something he enjoyed doing. I will say that the French-Canadian Hugo was a consistently funny addition.

Is it scary? No. Not slightly. It's a pretty tame flick. Ah well, all in the spirit of Halloween right?

The good: The heart. The music. The Canadian-ness. And the stop-motion transition scenes. Very cool.

The bad: Well it's silly but fun. A decent flick for free on the movie channel. Don't expect Blade, but it's definitely not as hokey as sparkly vampires.


Final Verdict: A proud little flick. The more I looked into it, I wasn't that surprised to see it won a bunch of awards. It's probably one of the nicest flicks that no one will ever see.


Add to the vault?  Nah. I don't even know if it is on dvd or blue-ray, but I would definitely give it another gander if I saw it on TV again in the future.