Alien: Resurrection

1997 unnecessary sequel

Rating: 13/20

Plot: The Company clones Ripley, who had been knocked up by a Xenomorph in the last movie, in an effort to get their hands on an alien. Things go predictably wrong. Meanwhile, space pirates!

Lord help me, but I kind of like this movie. Nevertheless, there is absolutely no reason for it to exist. There's a lot to like about it though. First, it's got a cool cast. You get big Ronny Perlman hulking around and badassing it up. He, like a lot of characters, unfortunately has some really stupid things to say in this movie. ("So, like, what did you do?" made him sound like a teenage girl, and "Must be a chick thing" just seemed too much like sitcom dialogue.) Jeunet regular Dominique Pinon plays a cool character with an even cooler wheelchair and gets to butcher some lines in English. (Apparently, his "Who were you expecting--Santa Claus?" line was originally supposed to be "Who were you expecting--The Easter Bunny?" but he couldn't stop saying "English Bunny," forcing a script change. What a dumb line that is anyway!) Dan Hedaya acts like even he can't believe he's in an Alien movie. He overacts stupendously. And there's Brad Dourif, a guy who doubtfully can play a normal character. Here, he simulates a make-out session with the alien in one of the stranger scenes from the franchise. And there's boyish and cute-as-a-damn-button Winona Ryder whose presence forces me to give this a Winona Ryder bonus point. No pun intended! In fact--no pun at all! Oh, and somebody named Kim Flowers just may the subject of the very best shot in a franchise with a goldmine of great shots. Again, no pun intended. The problem with this movie isn't with the cast. The problem is that it's probably way too quirky and has some pacing issues. And the characters, as I mentioned say some dumb things. (Ripley: "Who do I have to fuck to get off this thing?") Why did Weaver have any interest at all in bringing this character back anyway? The character she plays here is really inconsistent, sometimes acting like one of those too-human androids with less ability to emote and sometimes sitting down with Winona Ryder's character to engage in a little girl talk so that the move can grind to a halt. She does get to show off her basketball skills in what was probably the dumbest moment in any of these four movies, so maybe she was using this to audition for the WNBA. I'm not even sure the basic premise of this movie--cloning a Ripley and an alien--makes sense, but I suppose you have to forget all about science when watching some science fiction movies. Speaking of Ripley clones, one of the failed efforts was kind of hot, and if  you've seen this movie recently, I think you know exactly which one I'm talking about. In a few hundred years, everybody could probably have their own Ripley clone in their homes. Something else I find hard to believe about all this is that there are still people who are going to be smoking that far into the future. Seems like evolution would get rid of that stupid habit. I'm a Christian though, so I'm not even sure how evolution works. Despite the myriad of problems with this movie that shouldn't even exist, it is a little bit of fun and does look very good. It's no surprise that Delicatessen and City of Lost Children guy Jean-Pierre Jeunet can handle the visuals. The special effects are probably the best of the series, right from the start with some grotesque opening credits. There's a ton of gore if you're into that sort of thing. This, interestingly enough, sets up for a sequel way much more than the third installment, Alien Cubed.

Alien 3

1992 sequel sequel

Rating: 13/20

Plot: Ripley, that robot, and that little girl from the last movie crash land on a planet formerly used as a prison but now the home of some religious cult. And, then aliens.

Alien 3? Maybe it's Alien Cubed, but that makes me think I might have to do math. Maybe it's unfair of me, but I really want to penalize this for including an exponent in the title. This movie wasn't as bad as I feared it would be. Weaver goes completely bald, completing her metamorphosis into Bruce Willis. In a way, I respect this more than the second movie in the Alien quadrilogy. Wait a second. Is that even a word? I'm fairly positive the word is tetralogy, not quadrilogy. Anyway, I almost want to respect this more because it's not a big dumb Hollywood action movie. The music's also better in this one. The special effects? Not so much. I do respect that they still use puppets and guys in costume over computer effects, but there's a lot of blue screen use (Or is it a green screen? Why do I even have a movie blog? I don't seem to know anything! Is that why I only have 4 1/2 readers?) that looks really silly. I do like how the puppet/person-in-costume movies and looks though. The plot of this third installment just doesn't seem very confident. This one stumbles around a lot more than that graceful first entry and doesn't hit the excitement level of the second movie. There are some lackadaisical attempts to say something about religion or euthanasia, maybe, but the screenwriter's heart doesn't seem into it. There's some clumsiness--a scene where some guys are running away from the alien while holding sparklers, some humor during a scene where they're trying to trap the thing--and I had trouble caring for any of the characters with the exception of the robot who comes in briefly. The dialogue is really poorly written. There are certainly a lot of "fucks" in this movie, probably to make the guys all sound tough, but when Weaver throws out her own "fuck," it's almost embarrassing. Here's what I do really like about this movie though--nobody is spared in this one, shockingly. The movie starts by killing off a little girl who Ripley fought her ass off to save in the first movie. And yes, I apologize for spoiling the beginning of the movie for you if you haven't seen this. And then it continues by killing off characters who you're not really ready to see die yet. It's kinda ballsy, right up until the end. That ending, by the way, probably would have made a good conclusion to the franchise. Not sure why Alien to the Fourth Power was necessary unless somebody just wanted money.

My spell check tells me that neither tetralogy or quadrilogy are words.

The Invisible Man Returns

1940 sequel

Rating: 15/20

Plot: The titular invisible man sort-of returns. Actually, it's a different guy who needs to turn invisible in order to clear his name and save himself from execution after being framed for murdering his brother.

Vincent Price's first horror movie, but you don't get to see him until the final thirty-seven seconds of the movie. He doesn't quite sound like Vincent Price to me either, and there's a scene where he laughs that shows he had a ways to go before perfecting his Thriller laugh. The story is not all that strong, sort of like The Fugitive except for the lack of one-armed men and a protagonist who is invisible. The cool invisibility effects, topping the ones in the original, make this well worth checking out though. You get headless robed guys, Vincent Price's capillaries, and a really neat sequence involving a door opening, stuff being pushed aside, the impression on a chair cushion, and a telephone call being made. The best moment in the entire movie, however, is Forrester Harvey's character Ben Jenkins and the reaction he has to seeing (well, not seeing) the invisible man's eyes, a "Jumping Johosephat!" with some of the most over-the-top blinking you'll ever see.

I watched this on Svengoolie, a Chicago horror movie television show. The puns were difficult to endure.

X2

2003 superhero sequel

Rating: 15/20 (Emma: 20/20; Abbey: 16/20)

Plot: The X-Men and X-Women have to find a mysterious mutant monkey man who attempted to assassinate the president, and the bald guys' mutant friends have to team up with the Lord of the Rings wizard and his mutant friends in order to stop the government from killing all the mutants. It's thrilling stuff!

X2? Really? That's the title you're going with?

A question: I don't like those outfits on that poster up there. Why isn't Wolverine wearing yellow and blue like in the comic books I've seen? What am I missing there? I do like Rebecca Romijn's costume though. How hot would it be to date lizard girl, by the way? That scene where she's attempting to seduce Hugh Jackman in a tent forced me to make some adjustments in both my pants and my list of superheroines who I would like to have sexual relations with. That's right--I bumped lizard girl ahead of Wonder Woman. More perversity: Can a guy be horny enough to score with Rogue?

I doubt this movie is really a 15/20, but it's at least 2 points better than the first one. The effects are improved. The vanishing monkey man effect in the White House was very cool, and the vocal music worked so well with that action choreography. I think monkey man is my favorite X-person although I wouldn't be interested in a sexual encounter with him. My least favorite X-person is Cyclops, but I think that's because his need to wear sunglasses indoors makes him look like a complete tool all the time. I think a flaw in the story-telling with these X-Men movies is that all their superpowers and the way they all come together in these scenes just seems a little too convenient. Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Alan Cumming, and Brian Cox all seem perfectly cast, but again, I'm not a guy who is familiar with the source material for these things. There are a few missteps in this movie--a fight between Wolverine and Girl Wolverine, the weird plastic prison-escape (never understood that whole thing, by the way) with metal balls that managed to simultaneously look cool and be really goofy--but this is better written and has a better look than its predecessor. I'd have high hopes for the third installment, but I've heard bad things.

Kung Fu Panda 2

2011 sequel

Rating: 14/20 (Abbey: 16/20)

Plot: The titular panda and his pals return to stop an evil peacock from using a modern explosive weapon to destroy kung-fu and take over the world.

I'd suspect that if you saw and liked the first of these movies, you would enjoy this one, too. It's really more of the same with a great use of colors, the same interesting if a bit underutilized characters, a few new additions including Gary Oldman as the villain, and a lot of action sequences. The fight scenes, if my memory's any good, are better than the ones in the first movie. The animators have these kung-fu fightin' animals clash in some very creative ways, and the screen's filled with all this complex movement. I really liked how the peacock fought, the animators--folks who have obviously seen their share of classic kung-fu flicks--cleverly using his tail feathers like one of those fighting fans. As with the first movie, there's a mix of animation styles, and the 2-D stuff used to give some backstory or for dream sequences is really neat. The music is very good, and even better is the use of sound effects. The humor doesn't work for me at all, and the attempt to inject a little emotional depth into the story of a goofy panda trying to save the world with his kung-fu skills feels forced although I wouldn't want any less of Seinfeld alum James Hong's voice. I threw up all over my lap with the "My son is alive" ending. I also had to penalize this a whole point for a "Skadoosh"that reminded me that I was just watching a sequel. By the way, I don't see how a third one of these could work even though the ending seems to set us all up for one with a shot of a lost panda village or something. A third movie might just be 90 minutes of Jack Black saying "Skadoosh" actually. Actually, now that I think about it, that could work. Throw in an interesting bad guy--I'm thinking an evil walrus--and you might have something.

You know what could also work? An animated Bruce Lee movie. Think about it. That would be bitchin'!

I just noticed that this is directed by a woman, Jennifer Yuh, who is also directing the third installment. There's a delicate flamboyance here that just might be the result of having a female at the helm. I hope that doesn't offend any of my female readers because I meant it as a compliment.

Rocky Balboa

2006 sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a sequel to an original good movie

Rating: 11/20

Plot: The titular former heavyweight champion of the world is adjusting to a new life as a retired athlete whose fame has withered away, a restaurant owner who owns a burgundy jacket, and, sadly, a widower. That's right. They'll killed off Adrian, probably because of some contract dispute with Talia Shire. There's a fire burning (boynin' as Mickey would have said) inside Rocky, and he longs for one last chance in the ring even though he's in his 90s and can't find those ridiculous red, white, and blue shorts still drenched with his buddy Apollo's junk sweat. The new champion, a cocky and unchallenged Mason Dixon (seriously?), becomes disturbed when ESPN boxing analysts suggest that Rocky was a better fighter with a virtual match between the two proving them right. Rocky agrees to an exhibition match. Cue theme music/workout montage!

The best thing about this movie is that it isn't the last movie. This is the first one of these sequels where we don't have to watch a big chunk of the previous movie, presumably because they were all embarrassed by Rocky V. "What? This is how we ended it?" This makes for a more fitting end for our character (though a part of me was hoping this would end in his death) but it really feels like they've dug up a dead horse so that they could beat on it. Like a pinata, hoping that candy or maybe even money will come out. Everything that reminds me of the other movies feels tired, and everything that is different isn't really different. For example, Adrian's gone, but this movie still manages to have her stink all over it. His restaurant's got pictures of her all over the place, and there's a sickening scene where Rocky returns to his old crib and says "I remember when she was standing there" which of course makes an Adrian ghost appear. In the years that have passed since the last movie, Paulie's become a complete cartoon. My favorite Paulie moment is when he's rambling, "I got a watch! I got two watches!" I wasn't sure if that was comedy or tragedy so I laughed and cried at the same time. Another nice Paulie moment:

Paulie: Are you made because your wife left you?
Rocky: She didn't leave me. She died.
(Blubbery weeping)

Mason "The Line" Dixon (seriously, they really went with this?) has the boxing chops, but doesn't have nearly the personality of any of Rocky's other opponents, even Tommy Morrison in that last pitiful movie. There's the obligatory training montage where you get to see Rocky do all the stuff that he did in the previous movies when he was much younger. He even runs up those steps, this time with a dog. Here, it just seems like an excuse to show off how good Stallone thinks he looks as a guy in his 60s. Speaking of that, something artificial has to be going on there, right? And speaking of artificial, I didn't buy the father/son stuff in this. And where was Rocky's son anyway? You're telling me that they could get Skip Bayless in this, but Stallone's son was too busy? And holy cannibalism! There's Mike Tyson's tattoo! Iron Mike gets to say, "You got that midget with you right there!" which makes me wonder why the heck anybody would let Tyson improvise in a movie. And once you've thrown Mike Tyson talking about midgets in a movie, you have nowhere to go but down, so the boxing match that takes place afterward is anti-climactic. I'm not a boxing expert, but I'm pretty sure this fight would have been stopped in the 2nd. This lays the theme on so thick that the whole thing seems like an over-icing'ed cake collapsing under its own weight. It's like a very small cake, a heaping layer of Adrian, a layer of father/son, and at least five layers of redemption.

My two favorite things about this movie: Rocky's new quirk--a "How ya doin?" long after a "How ya doin?" is appropriate in a conversation. He does it twice. And the second is Angela Boyd's performance as "crazy woman who turns all gangsta in the bar" which is quite possibly the worst performance from any of the Rocky movies. And that's saying something! "A fool? I'm the fool? You're the fool!"

Rocky V

1990 sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a sequel

Rating: 8/20

Plot: Rocky's gotten too old to punch people anymore. He's also run into a little bit of money trouble after a crooked accountant robs him. It's back to the crappy part of Philadelphia for poor Rocky and his family. Things look grim until he meets a young boxer who he decides to train for the heavyweight crown. Meanwhile, Rocky's son Rocky Jr. starts to feel alienated and becomes cinema's first goth kid. Mickey's still dead. Creed's still dead. Read this plot summary with a rock anthem behind it, and you've got yourself a montage!

Say what you want about the idiotic Rocky IV, but this one is just dull. The title crawl from the right is thankfully back, and we get to see a big ridiculous chunk of that bout with Drago where the commies decide to change their wicked ways and root for the guy with the red, white, and blue boxing trunks. And then you get to see a naked Stallone. Fantastic. Drago must have hit Rocky pretty hard, by the way. That or Stallone just flubs up his lines. Half of what he says in those first couple movies seems to be "Adrian! Adrian!" and at the beginning of his movie, after that pounding from Drago, he actually calls his wife Mick. He also tells his wife that "Maybe [he] should take [her] upstairs and violate [her] like a parking meter" which is probably not something you should say in front of your son. Speaking of his son, played by Sylvester Stallone's actual son Sage Stallone, he seems to have just as much acting talent as his dad. He acts as well as you'd expect a guy named Sage to act. All the scenes featuring children in this movie are pretty painful, and the hip hop score doesn't help. The dirty goth kid running off after Rocky Jr. beats up his friend ("I didn't like him anyway!") is pretty cool though. It's almost like Stallone wrote for these young characters without having ever been a child himself. And when his son starts rebelling, illustrated by his earring and his use of double negatives? It just so simpleminded. But back to the father. There's an entire conversation that Rocky has with Rocky Jr. where the former barely seems like he can speak English. He's back to the braindead Rocky of the first movie! Later, he wears a sweatshirt that rivals that tiger jacket in Rocky II for pure awesomeness. Oh, and Rocky has learned magic. He pulls things from about fifteen different ears in this movie which I think might somehow be how Mike Tyson got the idea to eat Evander Holyfield. I can't explain it here because I don't have time, but I have a few charts and diagrams to explain it all.

But I'm really making this movie sound better than it actually is. Sage Stallone isn't even the worst actor here. No, that dishonor goes to Tommy Morrison as Tommy "Machine" Gunn, a character whom I could not have possibly cared less about. He does look like a heavyweight boxer, maybe a little more realistic than Mr. T. or even Drago, but he's the least interesting antagonist in the series by far, and Morrison's acting abilities are dreadful. I did like the Don King character played by Richard Gant who would later play a character who couldn't find The Dude's Creedence tape. And Mickey's back from the dead, spitting all over the champion with his zombie spit. Ok, so it's not an undead Mickey. No, that'll probably happen in Rocky VII.

The real problem with this movie is the ending. Like the other movies, this builds to a climactic fight between Rocky and the antagonist, but this is a wild no-rules street brawl. "My ring is the streets!" What the hell is the lesson supposed to be here? I can't believe this is the way Stallone wanted to end things with this character ("Yo, Adrian! I did it! I beat up some thug in the street which actually doesn't, you know, solve any of our problems at all!") and the trumpety theme music almost seems blasphemous after some experimental flashback weirdness and that idiot son of his saying, "Knock the bum out! He took my room!" So stupid. And I think George Lucas ripped off dialogue from this for his fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan. "You and me was supposed to be brothers. I loved you." I think Obi-Wan says that verbatim in Revenge of the Sith.

This movie was almost no fun at all. Rocky movies aren't supposed to depress me! One more to go, and I can't imagine a movie where Rocky boxes at the age of 90 or whatever is going to be any good.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

2011 franchise finale (until somebody figures out a way to squeeze more money out of this character)

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Heroic Harry and his helpers hunt for Horcruxes while warring wizards wrangle. A guy with nose envy prowls around in search of Potter. It's like an elaborate and magical (read: Satanic) game of hide and seek. Meanwhile, barely pubescent boys' magic wands wiggle as they discover Hermione's cleavage, and combined with all the spells and supernatural silliness, there's enough to piss off the Christian church for years and years. A choir director is heard saying, "What? They're kissing each now? I thought they just performed magic!"

I don't remember what I gave the last boring entry in the Harry Potter series, but I'd like the series to be around a 14 or 15. It's solidly entertaining, and the actors do such a good job of bringing these characters to life. It's a shame Richard Harris couldn't stick around for the duration, but I really am glad they were able to get these things spat out while everybody else was young enough. This last movie is packed with action, and the special effects are really good. I love that opening shot with the black ghostly things hovering over and around Hogwarts, and the destruction of the school, so whimsically magical in those first few movies, is shocking. I don't like watching wizard duels nearly as much as I enjoy a good lightsaber battle, but at least there aren't any of those jerky-camera fight scenes like in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I. I still think, despite this last book being split up into two lengthy-movie chunks, that things move a little too quickly at times. A lot of important characters die in these things, but the next big plot development has to be hurried along which takes away some of the emotional jolt. Snape's exit should have been a big emotional moment, and it's the one thing I really looked forward to after reading that last book. In fact, I might have given up on the movies if it wasn't for the anticipation of that scene. Maybe I was expecting too much, but I thought it was just another example of the makers taking movie shortcuts and taking away some of the power of that scene. Rickman's so good as that character though, and I thought it was cool that Rowling filled him in on his character's whole story after making him promise that he wouldn't reveal the secrets. Voldemort--is it just me or does his character become more comic the more we see him? He goes from the mysterious Villain with a Name You Can't Say to a bit of a doofus, doesn't he?

One of these weekends, I think I'll throw a Harry Potter movie marathon party, invite all of my friends over, and watch all eight of these movies in a row. I'd like to look at my ratings again. At the same time, it's nice to be done with all these movies. Maybe I should just move on with my life instead.

Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses

1994 sequel

Rating: 13/20

Plot: It's five years after the Cowboys do America, and the titular worst band in the world have fallen on hard times in Mexico. Tequila has taken the lives of some of the bandmates and gotten the rest of them in trouble. A savior arrives, Vladimir the manager returning after abandoning them at the end of the last movie and "never being heard from again." He's renamed himself Moses and promises to help get the Cowboys back to their native land. Promised land, I guess. Before they depart for Europe, Vladimir steals the Statue of Liberty's nose for reasons that are never explained very well.

What better way to finish off a year of movies than with an Aki Kaurismaki movie? This isn't as solid as the first Leningrad Cowboy movie unfortunately, but it does have my favorite actor Matti Pellonpaa in it and a scattering of funny bits. The musical numbers are all pretty good, my favorite being the one sung by "Elijah," the guy who's chasing them around for most of the movie trying to steal back the nose. That song ("Kili Watch") is just pure bliss. There's a lot of Biblical satire here, some which doesn't work at all. Pellonpaa's quoting of the Bible ("You shall not eat any disgusting thing. Also, you should not cook a kid in his mother's milk." [Wheezy laugh]) is great. The burning bush or water-from-the-rock scenes are a little too silly and random. This is filled with enough absurd comedy to make it worthwhile for fans of the first movie or for Aki Kaurismaki in general, but it's not exactly a great movie.

Urine Couch AM Movie Club (The Lost Episodes): Matrix Revolutions

2003 trilogy conclusion

Rating: 6/20

Plot: I don't know. I never really could figure these movies out.

Here's the scoop, Betty Boop. This was mislabeled in the TV Guide, and I sat down on the Urine Couch expecting to see the middle movie of the Matrix trilogy--Matrix Retarded--but got this instead. And this might be one of the most boring movies ever made. At least the second movie, as bad as it is, has a pair of albinos in it. This one has a lot of talking, a bunch of flying, some lurking, a lot more talking, a gratuitous sex scene, a handful of scenes from the first movie, some seemingly endless third world country ritual party scene, and more talking. A lot of the special effects remind me of some of the science fiction stuff you can catch on cable television. I wonder if any fan of the first movie was really happy with the way this trilogy concluded. I've probably said it before, and I'll say it again: The two sequels of The Matrix managed to make me dislike The Matrix.

Full disclosure: I remember sitting down to watch this on the Urine Couch, but I can almost guarantee it led to me getting paid for a 2+ hour nap.

Winnie the Pooh

2011 cartoon

Rating: 15/20 (Jen: 13/20; Emma: 19/20; Abbey: 20/20; Sophie: too young to rate movies, especially ones this explicit)

Plot: Pooh wants honey, Eeyore's lost his tael, and Owl's got everybody convinced that a terrifying creature called a Backsoon has kidnapped Christopher Robin. It's just another afternoon in the bedroom of a terminally deranged young English boy. You just know that in a future sequel, Owl and Rabbit are going to convince him to start his classmates and/or parents. Actually, where are his parents in these movies? Somebody better check the freezer!

This is not your parents' Winnie the Pooh cartoon! No, in this one, Pooh Bear is disemboweled in what has to be the most horrifyingly grotesque scene this side of one of those Saw movies. Actually, this isn't a carbon copy of the older Disney Pooh material at all. It shares a love for childlike songs, endearingly simple and nostalgic animated backgrounds and characters, a wonderful playfulness, and sweet little stories. It actually does some things better than the original. It blends its stories, some from Milne's text and some created specially for this, really well, perfect for the no-attention-span of modern kiddos. The 2D animation doesn't look as flat as the characters weave in and out of their settings. And this is a whole lot funnier than the original with some genuine laugh-out-loud moments. This new Pooh's got a wackier tone that is different from its predecessor while not disrespecting the previous stories or its source material. (It should be noted that my wife, a Pooh aficionado, did seem offended by a lot of the goings-on here.) I also really liked the voicework despite having to initially get used to the slightly-different-sounding character voices. Some guy named Jim Cummings, an actor with a resume packed with versatile voice acting roles, does both Pooh and Tigger. We recognized Bud Luckey, the depressed clown in Toy Story 3, as (of course) Eeyore. Luckey's more of an animator than an actor, but he could make a career out of voicing depressed characters. Checking imdb.com, it looks like he's got a handful of roles on the animated horizon--suicidal monkey, despondent puppet, moody Amish guy, heartbroken octopus. One of my favorite people, Craig Ferguson, is perfect as Owl, and John Cleese should win some kind of award for not making me miss Sebastian Cabot. I didn't care much for the songs in this one although there were some clever lyrics. Pooh's a briskly-paced barely hour-long breezy flick that's great for young children and funny enough for older ones. And it might help Disney make a buttload of money with children's clothes and stuffed animals, so everybody wins!

Shrek the Third

2007 sequel

Rating: 9/20

Plot: Shrek doesn't want to be the next king, so he and his friends travel to locate a true heir to the throne. Meanwhile, Prince Charming is still ticked off after the last movie failed to end the way he wanted it to, and he attempts to take over the throne himself. Oh, snap!

Well, they're just going through the motions now. I lost interest in the plot of this one almost right off the bat, and the characters, none of which I actually like at all, are even more grating here than they are in the first movie. There's not a single laugh to be had here, and the novelty that makes the first movie tolerable is almost completely gone. It's replaced with the reverberating sound of a cash register actually. I wish Dreamworks would grow a pair and kill a couple of these characters off. Pinocchio? Have him sawed in half? Gingerbread Man? Didn't he have his legs bitten off in the first movie? You know what else Dreamworks gets wrong here? There's a scene where a character actually does die, and they stomp all over it with halfassed humor. Then, they have a funeral scene where I'm actually supposed to be sad. In the fifteen minutes when this is all going on, they manhandle both emotions and leave me wondering why they even bothered. Why didn't they just have Shrek fart in Donkey's face for fifteen minutes instead? Pop songs, general loudness, allusions that aren't as clever as anybody thinks they are. This is just tired. They made a fourth one of these?

I've always wondered. You know how foreign countries translate the names of American movies and they sometimes turn out kind of funny? I wonder if this one is translated as Farting Moody Monster in Vietnam or somewhere? Somebody research that for me.

Cars 2

2011 sequel

Rating: 12/20 (Jen: 14/20; Dylan: 10/20; Emma: 4/20; Abbey: 10/20)

Plot: Lightning McQueen takes a challenge and travels to Europe to race against some cool European cars. While there, his friend becomes an embarrassing distraction, and the tow truck somehow winds up in the middle of this dangerous spy adventure.

The first Cars movie isn't one of Pixar's best, but it at least had some heart. The end gets to me, and the movie's worth seeing to watch the main character grow, to enjoy Paul Newman's performance as a crotchety old race car, and to appreciate the nostalgic little message. This movie has none of those things. It's one comic gag or cartoon slapstick scene after another, and most of the comedy doesn't work, at least for somebody like me who was more annoyed than amused with the character of Mater in the first movie. See, this one's got Mater as the star of the show, and it just doesn't work. It's like making C3PO the main character in a Star Wars movie. I wouldn't even agree that the character works in small doses, but an entire movie of Mater? I didn't ask for that, Pixar! I don't believe he says "Get 'R Done" in this one, something that dropped the first one at least a full point, but he does "Shoo-oot" enough to make me want to gouge my ears out. I kind of enjoyed some of the spy stuff with some action sequences and realistic animation that reminded me a lot of The Incredibles. The background and scenery animation is really great, and I liked a couple visual references to other Pixar movies. I'm also still amazed at Pixar's ability to inject so much personality into these car characters with very subtle facial expressions. But the story was too frenetic and unfocused, the spy stuff ran out of steam, and the comedy never worked for me at all. The movie's as shiny as a bucket of newly-minted quarters, but it just lacks that heart that I've come to expect from a Pixar movie. This is the first from the studio that I really have no desire to see again.

Shrek 2

2004 sequel

Rating: 12/20

Plot: The lovably flatulent ogre is back, fresh from his honeymoon with the fat chick. There's no time to just sit around and enjoy his swamp and his new married life though because the poor guy's got problems with his donkey, his in-laws, and an intrusive fairy godmother. And there's a cat in this one.

Dreamworks didn't really take advantage of their chance to make a half dozen or so Puss jokes, did they? I believe somebody at Dreamworks must be related to somebody in the Eels because they're in this movie and the first one. And I heard them in the third one, the Shrek movie I couldn't even finish, a few days ago. Speaking of music, here's the main question I have about this movie--the first time we meet the Captain Hook character singing at a piano in an inn, he's got Tom Waits' voice. But the second time, he's Nick Cave. What gives? I don't really like the more meandering story in this one, and the new characters, with the exception of the cat voiced by none other than Ricardo Montalban (well, he should have been), do nothing for me. The humor's flat, and I think the makers of this make a huge mistake with the kiddies when they give the characters they're used to completely different appearances for a lengthy amount of time. It was probably to sell action figures or something. Too many loud pop songs, too many pop culture references, and yes, too many fart jokes.

Urine Couch AM Movie Club: 2 Fast 2 Furious

2003 disappointing sequel

Rating: 9/20

Plot: The disgraced former cop from the first movie--you know, the guy with the hair--cuts a deal and agrees to work with an old buddy to help catch a bigtime drug dealer.

That's right! Got to watch these mo-fos back-to-back in the lobby where a Urine Couch used to be. I figured it would be more of the same, but this one bored me to tears. I think it's because the characters move around too much. Boring Paul Walker and his boring face get a sidekick, Tyrese, a guy who seems dynamic only because he gets to work with Paul Walker for the entire movie. Nothing in this derivative plot grabbed me, and I don't think I liked a single character. This really seemed hastily thrown together, an obvious effort to get this to theaters before fans of the first movie forgot there was a first movie. I'm just taking a guess that typical The Fast and the Furious fans are the type of people who forget things. You get some cool cars and a few more-of-the-same action sequences with the cool cars, but this one was so boring that it actually made me want to do motel work. And, folks, that's saying something. Biggest problem: No Vin Diesel. And there's a sentence that I never figured I would type. I wonder if watching a television edit of this affected my level of enjoyment. Regardless, I don't have any interest at all in seeing any of the other ten or so sequels. Then again, Vin Diesel is in three of them.

Urine Couch AM Movie Club: Little Fockers

2010 comedy sequel

Rating: 5/20

Plot: Jack Byrnes' health is failing, and after his other son-in-law proves unworthy, he turns to whatever Ben Stiller's character's name is to become the family patriarch. Oh, and Ben Stiller's character has children now, the titular fockers. Ben Stiller's character does some things that are mistaken as other things, and Jack loses faith in his son-in-law before a bunch of things happen that are sort of similar to the other movies.

I had completely forgotten that I watched this about a month ago! I enjoyed watching it about half as much as I did the other two movies. Did anybody ask for Little Fockers? Did anybody--even the biggest fan of Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Mother Fockers, Fockin' Crazy, or Fock This Garbage--love these characters so much that they just had to have another couple hours with them? Or is this just Hollywood trying to force-feed us crap? Here's a case of a movie where I like almost all the people involved but didn't like the movie at all. Ben Stiller? I like him. He's funny, and as I've written here previously, I wish I had hair like his. Owen Wilson? Like him. Dustin Hoffman, even an old Dustin Hoffman who's obviously just collecting checks at this point in his career? Like him. Barbra Streisand? I adore her! She's fabulous! Hoffman and Streisand's characters livened things up in the middle piece of this trilogy actually. DeNiro? Come on! It's DeNiro! Jessica Alba's underpants? I'm a big fan! They all try hard enough, but they've got a halfassed script and a predictable and flat story to work with. I'm not sure because I wasn't invited to co-write this thing, but I bet they finished a rough draft, had a few beers to celebrate, sat down a few weeks later for a rewrite, and decided that they didn't need to put any more effort into it because Owen Wilson was going to make it all funny no matter what and people would see the movie anyway. "We can just show Robert DeNiro looking all serious and Ben Stiller falling in a hole or something during the previews and people will line up!" Any comedy that has more bad child actors than laughs is in trouble. More bad child actors and about seventeen thousand more "God Focker" jokes. Seriously, DeNiro et. al. should be ashamed of themselves.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

2010 monkey-maker

Rating: 12/20

Plot: Harry Potter and his buddies are on a hunt for pieces of Voldemort's soul and the sword that will destroy them. If I had to divide my soul into seven bits, I'd hide the pieces in the following: my disc golf bag, my beat-up copy of Revenge of the Lawn, my autographed picture of Peter Mayhew (That's right, bitches!) that my brother gave me, my koala cup from the zoo that I drink tea out of, my Samurai Jack action figure, the souvenir penny with a picture of the three-eyed guy that I got at a Ripley's Believe It or Not, and Harry Potter's forehead. Then, I could fulfill a life-long dream of playing hide-and-seek with Hermione.

I am glad that Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint were able to do all of these movies. I wish Richard Harris would have been able to Dumbledore his way through all of these, but them's the breaks. This entry in the series is really dull and very poorly paced. As J.K. became more and more verbose with her books, the movies stayed about the same length. Chopping inevitably had to occur. This book is, I believe, a little shorter than the book or two preceding it, and most of the book describes camping. Camping is really kind of boring anyway, so to stretch this into essentially a five-hour movie doesn't make much sense. Well, unless you're trying to fill Hermione's magic bottomless bag thing with wizard cash, I guess. This juxtaposes scenes of the wizard trio camping with some jumpy and barely coherent action sequences. Director David Yates really only has one trick up his directorial sleeve (like a wizard's sleeve only without the perverse connotation): jerking the camera around. During a wand fight, the camera whirls higgledy-piggledy, and things get so wobbly during a chase through a forest that I'm pretty sure I would have had a seizure if I had seen this in the theater. I'm glad I wasn't a kid when these movies came out. I would have probably run around my big yard with a stick while screaming, "Halitosis bonerificus!" and jerking around so much that my neighbors would have thought I was epileptic. The special effects are still really good for the most part, the exception being when some good-looking CGI in the dark suddenly turns into a car chase thing that looks like it came right from Matrix II where the light makes the CGI look terrible. But the whimsy of the early movies is completely gone and replaced with nothing but dread. No, I don't think the tone of these last couple movies should match the first few, but it does suffer from not having the emotional versatility of some of those. There's a scene I really want to see in the final installment of this cash cow, but I'm not in a hurry. Speaking of that, was Alan Rickman in this movie for less than five minutes or was that my imagination?

And before you ask--No, my autographed picture of Peter Mayhew is not for sale. Neither is my soul. J.K. Rowlings' soul might be though if the price is right.

Manon of the Spring

1986 sequel

Rating: 18/20

Plot: Picks up ten years after the sad denouement of Jean de Florette with the hunchback's daughter, now a shepherdess who hunts and sells birds, getting her revenge on everybody who had a hand in her father's breakdown and ultimate demise.

Whereas Florette was all about breathtaking beauty, character, and tone, this one's more about the story and character. I wasn't as impressed with the cinematography here, but I was enamored with Emmanuelle Beart. She's lovely and replaces the beautiful images of the lush countryside. Or maybe the imagery was the same, and I was just distracted by Emmanuelle Beart. She gives her character this innocent rage that is just perfect. And I know I dug that harmonica solo. Yves Montand and Daniel Auteuil, are terrific in both of these movies, the latter despite having too many vowels in his name. I loved them as despicable villains in the first movie, and I loved them as villains you almost feel sorry for while they get what they deserve in this one. I really liked what happened with the characters here, and there are some twists that I just didn't see coming. In fact, I thought the movie was over and started to go into my winding down process (putting my pants back on, bracing myself to help stop the internal vibration, a few deep-knee bends) before realizing that there were a few more surprises left. This isn't quite as good as Jean de Florette, but it's a great completion of that film's story. And together, they make a wonderful and moving experience.

Cory, a delightful guy, tried recommending this during my "man" streak, the most impressive achievement in human history, but that would have been cheating.

Back to the Future III

1990 sequel

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Marty has to travel back in time to 1885 in order to save Doc Brown from being shot in the back by an outlaw. Unfortunately, the Delorean is damaged, so getting back to 1985 is a problem. But who would want to live in 1985 anyway? The music isn't as good, and Huey Lewis's penis hasn't even been invented yet.

Ah, a return to form. I love the Western/sci-fi mash-up here. The performers are all likable again, the meanness and general suckiness of the second installment is gone, and the story feels original again. This references its predecessors quite a bit, mostly in ways that are kind of funny or just neat (the bell tower connections), and I also liked allusions to some classic Westerns, most humorously with Marty telling everybody that his name is Clint Eastwood. I also like some of the anachronisms this new context for the characters allows--moonwalking, Frisbees, and the hilarious cowboy garb that the Doc insists are what men actually wore in the Old West. Thomas F. Wilson returns, and he not only gets a great character to work with in Mad Dog Tannen, but he absolutely nails it. Whereas the second movie in the trilogy looked like somebody had eaten too many helpings of special effects and vomited all over the movie, this goes for a less plastic approach. It also lacks the jarring frenetic quality of the second movie, instead sticking to a simple story told simply. There is some creative camera work, however. I really like some of the transitions in this, scenes where you have characters talking in the foreground while a new action is introduced in the background. I do think the final twenty minutes are a little goofy. I didn't care for the climax/denouement, probably because the return of the hover board from the second movie reminded me of how much that one stunk. Overall though, this is a fun ride.

I was talked into seeing this movie in the theater before I saw the second one. It was one of the most important moments of my life.

Back to the Future II

1989 sequel

Rating: 11/20

Plot: Doc Brown and Marty have to travel into the future to save the latter's kid from making a terrible mistake. While there, Biff steals the Delorean and travels back to 1955 to give his younger self a sports almanac. Biff's then able to build a fortune and make life really miserable in 2015 despite everybody getting the chance to fly around on hover boards. So the time travelling duo has to travel back to 1955 to fix things. And it all somehow pisses Crispin Glover off!

Me, minutes ago: "And it's only the first part of a trilogy. I'm sure the next one has to be great, too!"

Whoops! This one stinks! It can all be explained with a simple mathematical equation, the Glover Theorem:

Good movie with Crispin Glover - Crispin Glover = stinky movie

This is a complete mess from the get-go and gets my vote for most dissatisfying sequel of all time. The performers I enjoyed so much in the first movie are so over-the-top and sickeningly silly. Fox and Wilson have multiple roles, and instead of being clever like Zemeckis probably thinks it all is, it's just plain stupid. I was embarrassed for everyone involved. Of course, Zemeckis is also the same guy who gave us that creepy Polar Express garbage (possibly one of the worst movies ever made and so far the only movie that has made me wish the plane I was on would crash into a mountain) and who apparently thinks a remake of Yellow Submarine is necessary. The future whatever-town-that-is looks ridiculous, the special effects get in the way of the storytelling, and we're rushed through the fairly bizarre first-half story in a way that convinced me it was scribbled down furiously by either a coke addict, Robin Williams, or both instead of being written. The second half of the film is a little better, and things are almost salvaged with all the clever back to the past in Back to the Future moments, stuff that people who get off on time travel can really get excited about. But it's unfortunately too little, too late and nothing can save this from being gross.

Speaking of gross--I forgot to mention this in the Back to the Future write-up, but these movies have to have some sort of record for most product placement. Geez Louise! There aren't many scenes in these two movies that you can watch without seeing an advertisement for something.

Oh well. At least Crispin Glover made a wad of dough from this movie without having to do an ounce of work. I'm giving the movie a bonus point just for that.