"Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2" - Zach's Take

Well, if anyone ever needed proof that kids are stupid, here it is.

I'm kidding, of course, but this movie was really bad. However, I can't really raise much ire over it. Thinking about the film makes me sad rather than angry. Depressed rather than giddy. It's a bit of punctuation on the downfall of director Bob Clark's career. Sure, he's made some bad movies. But he's also made some great ones, like A Christmas Story or Black Christmas. The fact that his career was reduced to this (preceded by Karate Dog) is just disheartening.

This sad wreck of a film concerns the "story" of four babies (whose names I can't remember) helping Kahuna, a man in a baby's body, prevent the evil Biscane (played by Jon Voight) from using his mind control to take over the world. Yep. Stupid and predictable.

Anyways, the main baby is the only one who believes in the existence of Kahuna. See, Kahuna is a kind of urban legend among babies, a hero who rescues kids from orphanages around the world. What he's doing in a cushy daycare run by upper-middle class yuppies is never explained. Kahuna is a child, he's supposed to be five or six years-old, but it doesn't make any goddamn sense at all, because when he was a toddler, he accidentally drank some bullshit potion his scientist father created that prevented him from growing up. Except, he clearly ages somewhat between when he is first exposed to the liquid and when we see him (both in flashback and present day).

There's so much stupid it hurts. I'm not sure how I expect to explain when the movie itself can't even convincingly do it.

Ignoring all the dumb plot elements, the movie is basically an excuse to set up these terribly-staged fight scenes between Kahuna and Jon Voight's minions. In between those boring scenes we have the sassy black baby saying crap like, "You go girl" and "What kinda milk you drinkin'? It's awful. Not a single joke lands, because they're all hackneyed turds found in slightly better children's films of the early 90's.

Aside from that, there's some trite message about "finding your inner self" and the four stupid kids get their stupid super powers in a stupid climax that feels both too long and too short to be satisfying at the same stupid time. It's also devoid of any of the titular "superbabies" for the most part. Seriously, the main kid becomes Brain Baby (see, I told you it was stupid) but does absolutely nothing during the final battle. He's on screen for maybe 20 seconds. Also, doesn't the fact that the movie is subtitled "Baby Geniuses" render his superpower redundant? If they're all geniuses (which they're not, in any conceivable fashion) then how exactly is any smarter than the other three dummies?

Also, it feels like practically every line in this movie was ADRd. What is this, an Italian film from the 60s? Okay, I get that not all of the cast members can speak in complete sentences yet (I'm looking at you, Scott Baio), but why does it seem like everyone was dubbed-over?

Luckily, this was number 1 on IMDB's bottom 100 when we first decided to go through the list, (it has since been de-throned by this) so it can only get better from here, right?

Baby Geniuses 2: Superbabies

And we're back.

Zach and I have decided to become the AFI of cinematic crap. We are using the IMDB bottom 100 as a general list, and after viewing all of them, we will create our own list of the "100 Worst Movies Ever Made."

This week, Baby Geniuses 2 topped the IMDB list. I had only ever heard about this film as a reference point. "Well it's bad, but it's no Baby Geniuses 2." And while I have seen a lot of terrible movies, nothing I've seen can really compete with Baby Geniuses 2. It isn't the worst film I have ever seen. I wasn't frustrated or annoyed as I watched it. I understand this film is for very small children and I'm sure it is appealing to them.

However, I believe this movie is everything that is wrong with movies made for children.

First, the movie gives children no intellectual credit whatsoever, yet it asks too much. The movie sets itself in Berlin in the sixties. There are references to the Berlin Wall and Nazis. Kids are not going to follow this storyline at all, and will more likely than not be bored out of their minds (I know I was). These scenes are juxtaposed next to men being kicked in the groin and cliche lines and racial stereotypes reused over and over again. I grew up with quality age-appropriate movies that were clever and fun without pandering to me or going over my head.

Second, Jon Voight?! What are you doing in this movie? I understand Scott Baio, but Jon Voight? I know you were in Midnight Cowboy, but don't feel pressured to sell yourself for the sake of a paycheck. You can do better!

Also, if these babies understand English, can type in English, and are aware of English...why then, baby geniuses, would you neglect to speak English? Now granted, I never saw the first of the franchise, but I don't really think there is a good explanation for this language barrier.

Overall, this move was really bad. I get that a 24 year old is not the target audience, but I would've despised this movie at 4--though to be fair, I was a very picky 4 year old.

I apologize for any grammatical/spelling catastrophes, but I am on cold medicine and just sat through Baby Geniuses 2.

"Red State" - Zach's Take

I really wanted to like Red State. I honestly did. In fact, Maria and I had no intention of reviewing it for CFP until she brought it up after we finished watching it. It's a huge misfire, a complete failure. An utter disappointment.

I was with it for the first 30 minutes or so, despite some awkwardly-acted speech and the complete absence of anything remotely resembling subtlety. Then, as Michael Parks' Abin Cooper delivers his endless sermon detailing the church's beliefs, I realized that's all this movie was going to be. Exposition, weak characterization, and pointless, go-nowhere plot threads.

The film follows three teenagers on a quest to get laid after responding to a Craigslist-like sex solicitation post from a middle-aged woman. Turns out she's a member of the Five Points Church, a riff on the Westboro Baptist Church (despite the film weirdly mentioning the WBC and distinguishing one from the other), a cult that has been capturing gays and killing them, Old Testament style. From there, the movie turns into a siege, as the ATF assaults the compound and a firefight breaks out.

Except the firefight is almost entirely in the background, as John Goodman's ATF Agent character spends ten minutes on the phone in a one-sided conversation with his superior officer. Oh, and that's the second time in the film we see him talking on the phone for an extended period of time. When he's introduced, he takes ten minutes to deliver even more exposition on the Five Points Church, who they are, why they're different from the WBC, and why they've been buying guns. Of course, Kevin Smith cleverly hides this exposition by having John Goodman's wife cook breakfast. Now that's cinema!

There's a point, late in the film, where John Goodman's character mentions that he rarely finishes his supper. Now, all congratulations are in order to Mr. Goodman for losing so much weight, but in Red State, he DEFINITELY does not look like a guy who rarely finishes his meals.

There's really a lot to dislike about Red State. It starts interesting plot threads in one scene that never develop because a character gets shot and killed in the next. It's stupidly nihilistic, like a first draft screenplay written by a 15-year-old kid who just heard about the Wesboro crazies and the atrocities at Waco. There's no payoff. No reason to care about anything that happens on screen, because it's either too silly to accept or too overwrought and melodramatic to have any impact.

There's one major thing that happens towards the end which feels like the movie is finally going to become interesting, only to be explained away in the final exposition dump. I mean, it would have been silly and completely out-there, but at least it wouldn't have been dull like the rest of the film.

I suppose we could applaud Kevin Smith for trying something new, but this movie feels really amateur. And while he might have stepped out of his comfort zone, nothing in the film feels bold or daring. It strives to be ambitious, but it feels like a small, contained movie, with a ton of bizarre tonal shifts. One moment it's a Hostel-style horror movie, the next it's an action, then a comedy.

Red State is, sadly, a bad movie. The only slightly redeeming thing about it is Michael Parks' acting, but the film surrounding him is so bad, such a chore, that it all goes to waste.

Please go back to being funny, Kevin.

Red State - Maria's Take

I have to give Kevin Smith some credit. He took a risk and also took full control of his own work. However, having said that, the new, "edgier" work he produced with "Red State" feels more like a step backwards than anything else. Before I review, I just want to restate that I give Kevin Smith some credit for stepping outside his comfort zone and working on a very ambitious, albeit overall amateur work.

The first words out of my mouth as the credits rolled were, "Well, that was very on the nose." There was nothing subtle nor innovative about the film. Characters were flat and most offensively misused. The acting was pretty decent. I think Melissa Leo always has the slightest tendency to overact and try too hard to steal whatever scene she is in. Michael Parks gave a good performance, but his character had little depth and was simply evil. What bothered me about the Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) character was there was simply no justification for his cartoonishly evil persona. I understand blind faith, but Abin had a weird, warped sense of morality. Kevin SMith asked far too much of the audience. We had to instantly buy that these people just read The Bible too literally and felt it necessary to murder those who are not perfect. I needed more story.

The writing was mediocre at best. Characters shifted loyalties without any explanation, plotlines went nowhere, and the whole film felt like a teenager's rant about religious zealots and corrupt government. Smith starts several different storylines, but ends them before they can get legs. Many of the storylines are far too convenient, and Smith is constantly telling the audience what is happening without any attempt at showing things. I understand John Goodman is a terrific actor, but he doesn't need to spend the last twenty minutes of the film explaining scenes Smith, for whatever reason, felt were unnecessary to film. There are a couple of instances where I felt completely ripped off--it is like if a death in a slasher movie happens off screen--something gets lost.

As we were discussing this film during the credits, I tried to make some analytical sense of what I had just seen, but it seemed unfair that I felt compelled to do so. There were many moments that appeared to be Kevin Smith attempting to channel the Coen brothers. Unfortunately, something got short-circuited in the wiring, because even the worst Coen brothers movie would put this disappointing film to shame.

I actually feel a little guilty for disliking this film so much. I am a big fan of Smith's and this one was more painful than the release of "Cop Out." He never promised that movie to be anything more than it was, but this film he was touting as the defining film of his career.

I do appreciate his attempt to stretch himself as a director and challenge his comfort zone. I think he had an interesting premise, but the execution failed to be anything more than a bizarre, overwrought siege film.

Must See-Attack the Block

Hi Everyone!

Sorry we have seemingly forgotten about our blog--we haven't! We moved across country and had to get our lives in order. Now all that nonsense is done, we need to get back to what is really important. Now, this entry is very different than our usual piss and moan sessions about the crap Hollywood spews with way too much money and not nearly enough talent. Last night, Zach and I were lucky enough to score tickets to a preview showing of the wonderful British film, "Attack the Block." This year movies have been very inconsistent. While "Thor" and "Scream 4" were both fun and enjoyable romps, both lacked the heart that drives, in my opinion, a truly exceptional film. "Attack the Block" filled that void.

Set in South London, we meet Moses, Pest, Jerome, Dennis and Biggz, a group of petty teenage criminals patrolling the streets of their beloved block, just looking for trouble. It is no spoiler to say that they become intrenched in an alien invasion, and they must band together in order to save the world.

In a lot of ways, this movie was supposed to get me excited about the upcoming J.J. Abrams helmed "Super 8," but instead, now I worry that "Super 8" could never surpass perhaps not even reach the level of enjoyment I experienced when watching this (fairly) low budget British flick.

The aliens, certainly very cool in their own right, take a huge backseat to the emotional changes that arc the characters as they unite to fight a common enemy. Moses, the leader of the teenagers, is a rough and gruff kid whose had an obviously difficult life. Whether he chose or was inevitably placed in the leadership role is an interesting character trait and the actor, John Boyega, brilliantly and subtley portrays the character with a passion to protect the only home he's ever had.

There are many funny moments, usually spewed by Alex Esmail's cocky but loveable Pest, but also shouldered by Nick Frost's pot-smoking Ron and Luke Treadaway's hipster Brewis. We were warned by many blog outlets that the biggest issue with the film is the thick accents of the lead characters. Not only wold subtitles have been wholly unnecessary, the language is a character in itself. Even swears and insults are written with such style, it reminded me of if "A Clockwork Orange" fused with Shakespeare.

I cannot endorse this movie enough. Please, when it gains (I hope) a wide release, take some time and watch it. Movies like this make all the junk we sit through completely worth it. Believe, bruv. Truth.

Coming Soon - "4 Life"

Does the trailer ACTUALLY include the words "A New Beef?" Nice.

This is probably going to be better than The Wire. Probably.

"Romeo and Juliet: Sealed With a Kiss"

Ugh.

Honestly, the review should just end there. This movie was so bad, easily the worst we have subjected ourselves to. I made the (retrospectively stupid) decision to watch a "romantic" movie last weekend because it was nearing Valentine's Day. For the record, Zach and I spent our Valentine's eating ridiculously large burritos and watching Adam Green's brilliant "Hatchet 2." To say I made a stupid decision picking this "family friendly" film would be the understatement of a lifetime.

I am a huge Shakespeare fan. I am not one to quote "King John" off the cuff, but I have taken several courses in the Bard, and have seen many, many terrible interpretations. This, my dear readers, topped them all.

First, the story is a very (VERY) loose adaptation of the work. For some reason, Tybalt and Paris have been replaced by the Prince. This boggled me. The Prince is supposed to be the peacekeeper. In this version, he is a lecherous villain who lusts after Juliet. He also looks more like a booger or "The Blob" than a seal.

Oh yeah, all major characters are seals...take a look at the title...see what they did there? The only main character not a seal is Friar Lawrence who is some voodoo spouting squirrel otter. The director also created a Dory/Flounder/Chip (insert any cute Disney comic relief here) character named "Kissy," voiced by his daughter. This character had confused motives and no real reason to exist in this universe.

This movie tried really hard to follow the Disney plot structure, but it failed on all accounts. Also, spoiler, nobody dies. Why would you even attempt a "Romeo and Juliet" adaptation without killing off at least one character as a means to move the plot forward?

This is a really hard review for me to write. I am honestly struggling. I hate that this director thought he could adequately re-imagine the Bard's classic tale. However, the man gave it his all. He single-handedly animated this work. Even though I want to rip it into shreds, as he did with Shakespeare's words, the man worked his ass off. He wanted it to be something great.

It was awful, painful, offensive, and stupid...and I now officially hate the song, "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star." But I will be damned if I don't give the guy some credit for sticking to his guns, even on a project so obviously flawed.

"Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss" - Zach's Take

Okay, so I know we haven't updated consistently or frequently, and I also know that we didn't post a "coming soon" for this flick. We apologize. Chalk it up to the stresses of employed life; sometimes, at the end of the day, you just don't feel like watching or writing about crappy movies. Sometimes you feel like watching good stuff. I know, I know, first world problems. Here's my ultimate point, people: don't get a job. Stay at home all day so you can watching streaming movies on Netflix and post your blather on the internet. The bills will pay themselves. Food isn't important. Exercise is overrated.

Speaking of bad advice, who told the director of Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss to go out and make this film?

I'm slightly torn on this review. Not because this isn't a bad film -- it most certainly is -- there's just an aspect of it that I kind of respect, which is that director Phil Nibbelink animated the entire film in himself over the period of four years (!). The down side, of course, is that it shows.

I mean, certainly the animation is mostly fluid, but the character designs and backgrounds are the most generic, Disney-style junk, which is not surprising considering Nibbelink is a former Disney animator. Sometimes the seals barely resemble seals, including the antagonist, who just looks like the gob of snot with the awful New York accent from those Mucinex commercials.

Quite honestly, this movie is bad in the same way many animated (and non-animated, I suppose) Disney films are.* It feels manipulative and cynical, in a we-must-fill-all-four-quadrants, coldly calculated manner. A marketing person's wet dream. There's the intolerable, "comic relief" character who's about as funny as leukemia, a pudgy, dopey sidekick character, and of course, the aforementioned mucus blob "villain." The Disney-fication even comes down to the character designs, as Romeo and Juliet each have the big, doe eyes intended to immediately elicit sympathy. Blech.

I'd like to believe that at one time Mr. Nibbelink had a modicum of originality and creativity, and that purely by virtue of working at Disney for so long his soul was stripped out of him.

I mean, this guy took four years of his life and had the opportunity to make whatever kind of movie he wanted. He could have made a mature, intriguing film, unfettered by a behemoth corporation that was only trying to turn it around and make some cash. He didn't have to answer to anyone. No dealing with upper management calling the shots and interfering with the creative process. No marketing idiots to deal with. He could have made something unique. Instead, he made one of the most insipid, shallow, and trite animated films of all time.

Don't even get me started on why the whole Romeo and Juliet aspect of the film is wholly unnecessary. Don't we already have enough terrible Shakespeare adaptations and "interpretations?"

Stupid, unnecessary, and an incredible waste of talent, Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss is one of the worst films we've subjected ourselves to for this site. That's something to be proud of, I guess.

*There are many Disney films that I enjoy. However, most are terrible, nostalgia aside.

"Airline Disaster" -Maria's Take

*Spoiler Alert*

The title is misleading. The "disaster" never happens...well, maybe when the investors threw money at Asylum to make yet another "contribution" to the film industry (ayuck ayuck).

Anyway, this movie is just bad. I don't know what I expected. I guess i thought this would be a "guilty pleasure" bad movie. One that was so bad it was funny. However, this movie just drags. Basically, this brand new Concorde-style plane is taking its maiden voyage. Little do the passengers know, the Aryan Brotherhood (take THAT political correctness) plans to hijack the plane to steal some bonds on board. Is that really the best Asylum could do? I can understand the Aryan Brotherhood, nobody likes them, they are a safe villian. However, they want to steal bonds? There is no political agenda, nothing the least bit controversial, and to top it all off, the villains are stupid. A lot of this felt like a ripoff of the original Die Hard. But where Hans Gruber is cunning, a truly worthy adversary, these bad guys make countless mistakes and it is just embarrassing to watch.

While the plane is being hijacked, the president, played by TV's Meredith Baxter (again with the political correctness), seeks the best way to deal with the Aryan Brotherhood's demands. Just for good measure, the screenwriters' (yes, plural, there were 3 actually) made the plane's pilot the president's brother. See what they did there? They reversed that ol' damsel in distress business. It is a really progressive movie (facepalm). Anyway, the president and her pilot-brother keep talking in code, using shared childhood memories to communicate. The problem with this bit of sentimentalizing is that the audience is isolated from this bit of reminiscing. I guess it isn't that important, but it just felt very lazy.

Long story short, after the plane nearly crashes in Richmond, Virginia (again, the filmmakers were trying to keep this as nonthreatening a movie as possible), it lands safely in a river near Washington, DC. Before safely landing however, it does take the the top off of the Washington monument. And, because of this movie's ridiculous social/political correctness, I cannot help but think this is some act of feminism... Ultimately, everyone is happy and the country is saved. Blah. Blah. Blah.

My biggest problem with this film as a whole, is it lacks sincerity. It is so drowned in its own smugness (lady president, lady air marshal, man in distress) that it makes it lame to watch. Film and literary archetypes should be the key factors in a film like this. I want misogynistic military guys acting tough, I want smart villains, I want gratuitous violence! A movie called "Airline Disaster" should not be the medium for one to stand on a soapbox and preach social progression.

"Airline Disaster"- Zach's Take

I'll be blunt: this film is a disaster. Incredibly hammy overacting, bland, murky cinematography, and a script that would make the Epic Movie guys cry "hack!"

But I kind of enjoyed it.

All of those terrible pieces coalesce to form an atrocious film that actually almost feels intentional. I mean, this is a film produced by Asylum, the shady characters who intentionally release blockbuster rip-off films to trick the blind, elderly, and the stupid. So there's no doubt in my mind that what they're doing here is purely to turn a quick profit. Not to get all Armond White on everybody but again, that sort of crass, cynical attitude really adds to the proceedings. It's enjoyably on a meta level, in a sort of people-actually-pay-for-this way. I'm not saying it has any deeper meaning, or reveals anything interesting. It's humorous in the same way that the Coen brothers find killing off their characters funny.

The basic story of Airline Disaster concerns the hijacking of a plane by the Aryan Brotherhood, in order to *spoiler alert:* steal money. Gasp! You see, we're lead to believe that the Aryan Brotherhood is doing this for ideological purposes and to free their imprisoned skinhead brethren. So essentially, the writers stole the twist from Die Hard and decided to execute it extremely poorly.

Speaking of Die Hard, remember when John McClane took essentially no initiative and stayed hobbled away in the basement until the third act? Oh wait, that's right. That's this movie. Only John McClane turned into some girl. And instead of a basement, she hangs out in the cargo of the plane for the majority of the film. Granted, at the end, she does finally get to kick some ass and smash some faces, but by that point, the character is so far gone. However, I must reiterate: this ineptitude only adds to the enjoyment of the film. It's like watching a train wreck or Natalie Portman's goofy laugh at the Golden Globes: you can't help but sit, stare, and be uncomfortable at the mess in front of you.

The whole thing plays out like one long comedy sketch or an episode of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. I'll put it this way, there's more than one scene where the plane narrowly avoids crashing in to Flynt, Michigan Washington, DC. It's an obvious attempt by the director to drag out the runtime. I'd say if all but one of the "near-miss" scenes were omitted from the film, the total length of the film would approach 50 minutes. Maybe. But, since those scenes were left in, we get nearly 40 minutes of truly terrible CG, shouting, and, oh yeah, what's that word for the opposite of tension? I don't know, un-tension? Boredom's not really the right word, because the scenes aren't technically boring, they're funny. I guess that's an achievement, right?

Goofy, derivative, and stupidly fun, Airline Disaster is a good time for all fans of schlocky cinema. It ain't no Silent Night, Deadly Night, but it'll do.

Coming Soon - "Airline Disaster"

Those scenes with the plane and jets are just placeholder animatics, right? Right?!!!

Oh god, what have I done?!

"Silent Night, Deadly Night: Part 2" -Maria's Take

Sorry for the break! The holidays brought a great deal of excitement to our household, so we took a short break from the blog. Never fear, we are back!

SNDN2, as it will be henceforth be known, is an entertaining movie. If you have been lucky enough to see the first in the series, you understand the black comedy/bizarre tone these movies emit. If you enjoyed the first one, you have to at least appreciate the second one. Why?

Because about 40% of the movie is either clips or shot by shot recreations of the original.

Our movie begins with Ricky, the kid brother of Billy who was the protagonist in the first film. Ricky, trying to deal with the events that transpired in the first film, explains his background to a psychiatrist. His explanations are uncanny. This is really the only thing that really bugged me about SNDN2. Ricky describes, in minute detail, events that he never experienced. Ricky is just a little kid in the first film. He spends the entire movie at the orphanage while Billy rampages through the Utah countryside. However, Ricky can recollect every event perfectly. Honestly, this is my only qualm.

SNDN2 is fun, its funny, stupid and outrageous. The kills are amazing and while the writing is weak, it never detracts from the absurdity of the overall plot. The actor playing Ricky is the worst actor on the planet. However, even though he is often laughable in his mock seriousness, he gets the character so perfectly. Ricky is such a strange character that any attempt of a realistic portrayal would be a hindrance to the film rather than an improvement.

There are many lines throughout both the original and this movie that Zach and I feel necessary to repeat again and again. After watching this movie, you will never be able to take out the trash without yelling a resounding "GARBAGE DAYYY!" at your spouse/life partner/cat.

It is a trashy masterpiece.

"Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2" - Zach's Take

Wow. So it's been way too long since we've updated. Apologies all around -- the holidays got the better of us.

Regardless, the film in question this week is Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2, the sequel to one of the most shameless, crass, and comedically sadistic movies ever made. It's, as I've mentioned before, a masterclass in trashy filmmaking.

However, the sequel is something of a minor classic. And there's really only one reason why: the first half of the film is simply Ricky (the protagonist) recounting the events of the first film to a psychiatrist. This boils down to liberally re-using footage from the first one. Thus, if you have seen the previous film, the first 35 to 40 minutes of the sequel are going to be kind of pointless. The good side to this, however, is that it essentially acts as a "best-of" medley of scenes from the first one. The ridiculous Mother Superior child abuse moments. The kills. The sheer insanity of it all.

In fact, I would say the only real moment missing from the footage is the scene where Billy (Ricky's brother, and the killer from the first film) gives a little girl an Exact-o knife after she claims to have been good all year. I mean, it doesn't make sense that Ricky would have known about that since he wasn't there, but he tells the psychiatrist plenty of things about the events of the first film where nobody but Billy was present, so logic and continuity went out the window the same moment common decency and pride did for the producers.

Once Ricky is done telling the shrink his story (and thus saving the producers a TON of money by only needing to make half a movie) we learn about Ricky's past encounters. Whereas Billy was simply a lunatic who killed "naughty" people on Christmas Eve, Ricky was somewhat of a superhero avenger type. He really only killed people who were harming others; an attempted rapist, a loan shark, and worst of all, a guy who talks in the movie theater. *Shudder.* You know, pure scum.

Oh yeah, and speaking of the movie theater. Guess which movie Ricky and his girlfriend are watching when the rude guy decides to start talking? Silent Night, Deadly Night. What?! Was this ghost-written by Charlie Kaufman? Again, in this dojo, all logic and coherence go out of the window. But you know what? That just contributes to the fascinating weirdness on display.

Another one of the many thing that adds to the overall bizarre nature of the universe in the Silent Night, Deadly Night films is that virtually all of the male characters are rapists. Or at the very least, driven by some strange hyper-sexual urge. I'm not trying to psycho-analyze these characters, but honestly, every single male character is either trying to have sex, trying to rape someone, or motivated by sex. Even Billy's character is implied to be suffering some sort of psycho-sexual issues. I don't know if that is simply the producers attempting to make some kind of point (most likely not) or, since these are very low-budget affairs, the producers are the usual type of grubby, creepy perverts that we think of when we picture porn producers.

Aside from all of that, is the film actually worth watching? Well, it is certainly not as good as the first one (good is relative here). However, it does provide a lot of entertainment value once you get past the clip-show of the first half. I mean, this is the movie that spawned the great "Garbage Day!" meme. I'd say use the first film as a litmus test. If you find yourself laughing hysterically when a deaf guy dressed as Santa is gunned down in front of a whole playground full of orphans, then I guarantee the sequel will be worth it. If you just read that previous sentence and wondered why anybody in their right mind would ever find something so twisted so funny, then you're probably at the wrong site.

For the uninitiated:

Coming Soon - "Silent Night, Deadly Night 2"

Awesome. This trailer is composed mostly of shots from the first film -- which is a MASTERWORK in trashy filmmaking. No joke. I hope this one lives up to the greatness of the first.

"The Box" - Maria's Take

As a fan of Jean-Paul Sartre, I was horrible offended by this film's constant "No Exit" references. It was as if director Richard Kelly read the play and decided he could tell a similar story better. And by "better," I mean with more aliens and a less coherent story structure.

"The Box," unlike many of the films we review, actually has an interesting starting point. Basically, random individuals are given a box with a button and a choice. They can either not press the button and walk away, or they can press the button, get a million dollars, but kill someone they have never met. There is apparently a Twilight Zone episode using the original Richard Matheson "Button, Button" storyline which I would like to watch for comparison. The basic plot is simple, but under Richard Kelly's sloppy direction and muddled storytelling, the film loses all sense of direction and coherence.

James Marsden is fine, a little hokey in his portrayal of a Mars-obsessed NASA employee, but not offensive. The same cannot be said for Cameron Diaz. Her over the top, yet still painfully wooden performance is so carelessly done that I laugh more than I sympathize at her plight. Her character is so contrived that in every scene she was outshone by another actor, extra or set piece. I have never much cared for Diaz, but now I find her unwatchable.

The true weakness in this film is the direction. Richard Kelly is a one note director. He creates weird, incoherent worlds that lack any semblance of character or story motivation. I know his fans might muse that I just don't get his vision, but I do see what he is trying to accomplish. He wants to beat Darren Aronofsky out for the title of "this generation's David Lynch." He makes movies that appeal to a very small, but very well-voiced section of the film going public. His works speak to a small group of people, and that's just dandy. However, these individuals, much like those who praise Holden Caulfield, criticize me for disliking their film idols. They claim I just couldn't possibly understand. Maybe they are right. I cannot possibly understand how a movie about martians could compare with Jean-Paul Sartre. I cannot possibly understand how the over-written, constantly emoting lines are suppose to make me feel anything other than anger that this film got made in the first place.

This movie is terrible plain and simple. If you are interested in a movie about martians, go watch a movie about martians. Not a stupid piece of cinematic sludge that utilize martians to reflect our own flaws as humans. The lack of subtlety in this movie just astounds me. It underestimates the intelligence of the audience and plays the role of the pretentious friend who always has some pointless factoid to throw into conversation to maintain their holier than thou delusions.

Ultimately, I did not appreciate our time together, Mr. Kelly. Not one bit.

"The Box"-- Zach's Take

I think The Box perfectly reveals Richard Kelly (and subsequently Donnie Darko) for what he (and it) really is: a shallow, pretentious, David Lynch wannabe.

He produces deliberately mysterious and nonsensical pieces of cinematic refuse for people who can't be bothered to actually search out real intriguing or thought-provoking films. Like M. Night Shyamalan, he has his devoted following of people who insist that his work is profound , or that "you just don't get it." No, no, I get it. It just sucks. It's cheap, easy, film school-esque attempts at artiness.

However, I don't want this to become a review of over-hyped filmmakers and their fanbase. The film at hand is The Box, an overwrought, self-indulgent mess. The dialog is horrible. The only real entertainment I got out of this film is from laughing hysterically at the exchanges between Cameron Diaz and James Marsden.

The central problem with the film is that things just happen to the characters. They take virtually no initiative themselves. Bizarre things occur for no reason, they say something stupid, and then the next scene comes. There's no real forward momentum to the plot, which is a huge problem with a film that is entirely plot-based. There's no character work done here, no growth, no change. The characters in the film are exactly the same at the beginning as they are at the end. This makes the whole thing feel stagnant, and makes the disappointment of the "mystery" all the more painful. You've been sitting through this thing for two hours, waiting for the payoff of all the silly and preposterous stuff you've seen on screen, with nothing else to care about other than the answers to the questions that the film poses. Which, when they are answered, tell you nothing more than what you most likely already presumed.

Just about the only positive thing I can say about this film is that effect for Frank Langella's facial disfigurement is pretty cool and convincing. Unfortunately, that same effect is done much better for Two-Face in The Dark Knight.

I'd really like to see Richard Kelly make a good film. Now, I know Donnie Darko has its fans, but be honest, when was the last time you sat down to re-watch that film? It's a one-off piece of mild entertainment. Once you see it, do you really feel compelled to revisit it? That certainly is the case with The Box. Lock this thing up, throw away the key, and send it off to Mars from whence it came.

Coming Soon - "The Box"

Luckily, if this gets too awful, I have a button that I can push that will make all the people on the TV go away.

"Mister Wrong" - Maria's Take

At least the title applies. Everything about this movie is just oh so wrong. And yes, before I really deconstruct the magnificent stink of this movie, let's get the pink elephant in the room out there. Yes, this movie stars Ellen DeGeneres as a romantic female lead opposite Bill Pullman. The irony is astounding. Now, moving on...

The casting director should rethink their day job. Not only was the chemistry between Ellen and Bill Pullman just awful, the chemistry between every character was just nonexistent. The only person cast appropriately was the horse leading Ellen into the sunset at the end.

I could spend some time pointing out every stupid cliche that this movie wasted my time with; but, I feel like it would be a better service to humanity to focus on my biggest problem with this movie as a whole. It did not make any damn sense. I don't mean that characters made choices without motive (which they did). This movie lacked any semblance of a cohesive story. This movie would make David Lynch frustrated and confused. "Mullholland Drive" looks like a freaking model of solid, cohesive story structure compared to this piece of shit. (David Lynch confuses me in case that wasn't coming across).

All the confusion really falls upon Bill Pullman's character "Whitman." He is this rich dude who seduces Ellen at a bar. He seems all charming and perfect until she tells him he should feel comfortable enough to be himself. He then starts stalking her, stealing things, and forcing himself into her life. The movie gets weird and creepy about a half hour in, and suddenly the light, rom-com mood shifts pretty drastically into a dark comedy. Well, I use the term "comedy" loosely.

This movie seemed to give up on itself about halfway through. Joan Cusack plays this bizarre ex-girlfriend who really is just a deus ex machina from the writers. This points offers me a nice segue into another concern with this stupid movie. As a former film student, I could hear the screenwriter in every single line. Now, this might seem like a stupid statement, but good lines make people forget they are watching a movie. Good lines are immersive. Not a single line in "Mister Wrong" had depth. Every attempt was so dripping with self-love by the writer that the whole film felt like a bad senior thesis.

I handpicked next week's disaster myself. I watched it before having seen this Ellen DeGeneres jewel. I made the presumptuous declaration that "The Box" was the worst movie I had ever seen. Enter "Mister Wrong."

But don't fret, "The Box" still sucks something terrible. It actually kept me awake one night with its putrescent funk. So, look forward to that!

"Mr. Wrong" - Zach's Take

What in the hell is going on with this movie?

It starts out rather predictably and formulaic: Ellen DeGeneres' voice over recounts the story of how she met Whitman (Bill Pullman) and ended up in a wedding dress whilst being detained in a Mexican prison (we've all been there). The thing is, the film goes for jokes that are inconsistent with the universe it has set up for us. You see, the film begins as a typical romantic-comedy crapfest, where all the "humor" comes from women complaining about how men suck and what have you. You know, the 90's-style stand-up comic junk.

Except, the thing is, with Mr. Wrong, the cutesy, hacky observational one-liners make Jerry Seinfeld look like Bill Hicks. You can hear the screenwriters smugly smiling themselves as each cringe-inducing line is delivered.

But then, suddenly, the humor shifts towards "wacky" and completely improbable gags and characters that are only "characters" in the most basic sense of the word. Just completely cartoonish and stupid. I'm looking at you, Joan Cusack, and you too, guy who played Bram on Lost.

Aside from the humor of the film, the structure is so twisted and contorted in an attempt to play "gotcha" on the audience that it never makes any sense. When the film introduces Whitman, he is suave, sophisticated, and soft-spoken. Then for no reason whatsoever, he finally decides to be "himself," which is when he starts getting zany and bombastic. Look, I get it. Sort of. I understand that it was a misdirection on behalf of the screenwriters, but it is a hacky, cheap attempt. Plus, we never learn anything about Whitman's character that explains his actions. Why does he feel compelled to pretend to act a certain way when meeting Ellen's character? Why did he leave Joan Cusack's character when she is so clearly perfect for him? Why in Flying Spaghetti Monster's good name is he attracted to Ellen DeGeneres? We're talking about a wealthy, attractive man who lives in San Diego, and he goes for Ellen?!

There's a million things wrong with this movie, and not a single thing right. First mistake: casting Ellen DeGeneres as a leading lady. Look, she was fine on TV or whatever. But who thought she could carry an entire film? She's not an actress, she's a comedian. She can't play anybody but herself.

What I suppose I'm getting at here is that Mr. Wrong isn't just a good example of the mediocrity of 90's mainstream cinema. It's also perfectly illustrative of the 90's as a whole. Idiotic, worthless, and better off to be forgotten by everyone involved.

Coming Soon - "Mr. Wrong"

Again, no trailer. Has the world already forgotten about the cinematic masterstroke known as Mr. Wrong? Is this the untimely end of Milhouse?

But seriously. Look at that poster. Of course, now it has an ironic quality about it, but even before Ellen came out this had to be one of the worst best posters ever created.