Time Travel Movie Fest: Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea

1977 comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Nazis use time travel to try to give Hitler an atomic bomb. It's up to one man who pilots for a time travel tourism company to stop them and try his best to have a normal day.

Oh yeah, you know you're digging deep for a Time Travel Movie Fest when you start watching 70's Czechoslovakian sci-fi comedies. This is a clever little twist on the should-we-go-back-in-time-and-kill-Hitler moral dilemma that real time travelers are faced with. In this, the characters are going back in time to help Hitler which, of course, would create your usual paradoxes. But whatever because it's all in good fun. The budget doesn't allow for much, and the special effects are what you'd expect in a 50's B-movie. There's a rocket shippy time-travel vehicle, and there's some sort of mace used that freezes people and turns their skin green. I got a kick out of that actually, and there's a fun bit of physical comedy involving one poor guy who had that happen to him.

I was impressed with the lead actor--Petr Kostka. He plays dual-roles as twins, and really nails the different personalities--one, a regular Joe and the other a womanizing drunk--to create two different characters. a caricature or slapstick at all. Instead, they use loops of actual footage of Hitler during the opening credits to make him look ridiculous all on his own. If you've ever wanted to see Nazis marching backward or Hitler seemingly dancing to disco music, this is probably your best chance.

Hitler, with somebody checking out Hitler's posterior in the background

The music in this gets pretty goofy, and there are some parts that drag a little bit. But the movie's pretty clever, and some of the humor works. My favorite bit is a poke at America with some time travel tourists wanting to take a late-70's equivalent of a selfie with the fuhrer.

Time Travel Movie Fest: Triangle

2009 mind warper

Rating: 15/20

Plot: A day of sailing goes horribly wrong.

I didn't have high expectations for this low-budget movie and that rating actually seems a little high, but with a clever time-loop narrative and references to The Shining and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," this Sisyphean nightmare has an intelligence that makes it memorable. Writer/director Christopher Smith has about the dullest name you can think of, but there's nothing mundane about this movie's story, one that starts slowly but draws you in gradually as it feeds you all these intriguing clues. You won't know what's going on at first, and if there's a flaw in the early part of the story, it's that Smith doesn't really do much to make you even care. A lot of the first third of this movie consists of characters walking around a boat saying, "Hello? Hello?!" But there are some key moments--none which I'll give away since the less you know, the more fun you'll have--where you not only start to get it but can't wait to find out what happens next. The mystery of this one grabs you.

I'm not sure how much I want to think about this one, but I was impressed with the amount of work that others have put into interpreting and analyzing this movie. Here, for example, is a message board post on imdb, and it seems like the author put more time into it than I did any of my graduate work. I got a headache sifting through a lot of this sort of stuff and felt that I understood the movie well enough without any of that, but it's the kind of discussion that shows this off as a thinking man's B-movie. It reminds me a lot of Timecrimes or Primer, those time travel movies that, even if you don't like them, you can appreciate for the amount of creativity and thought that went into the storytelling.

It's not perfect. Things do start slowly, at least if you can say things ever start in a time-loop movie like this, and the acting and dialogue isn't always great. Liam Hemsworth is the biggest name in the cast; the rest are unknowns which is probably a good thing. I thought lead Melissa George was adequate even though her character spends a lot of the movie in this shell-shocked stupor. But the dialogue could have used some work. "God, you shot him! He said you shot him! You're a bitch!" is a terrible line no matter how you look at it.

This one's definitely worth a watch if these time-loopy things are your bag. There's suspense, mild horror, and touches of surrealism that drive a really interesting story.

Gangs of New York

2002 movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Gangs in New York fight. One guy tries to get revenge against Bill the Butcher for killing his father.

This is Martin Scorsese's kung-fu movie, sans actual martial arts but with more than enough "You killed my father" and a typical kung-fu hero journey to make up for the lack of kicking. You've got an underdog protagonist, a colorful ornery villain with henchmen, a love interest with ties to both sides, and a build-up to an inevitable fight scene. I don't care what you say. This is a kung-fu movie.

This movie's too long, probably too ambitious, and kind of gets a little saggy in places where Cameron Diaz's character is involved. I guess I can't complain about the length because this movie is really a spaghetti western as well as a kung-fu movie. The story meanders a little like they usually do in spaghetti westerns. I have no idea whether or not this is historically accurate and if things really meandered this way, but none of that matters to me anyway.

The gang names are cool and almost inspired me to start my own gang just so I can name it. You always hear about pop culture influencing young people to make poor decisions. If I do form a gang, go ahead and assume that I did it only because of Martin Scorsese. The Forty Thieves, The Dead Rabbits, The Bowery Boys. Those are cool names. Of course, there's also a gang named the Pansies which, truth be told, is probably the gang I would end up in. I can see myself as a Pansy. And then there are the Shirt Tales (maybe Shirt Tails) which just makes me think of these guys:

I'd like to see a remake of Gangs of New York with those guys actually. I want to see Daniel Day-Lewis stab that monkey to death.

By the way, that Daniel Day-Lewis is a pretty good actor, and he's even better when you give him a ridiculous mustache. The wardrobe helps, but if you take him out of this movie and insert anybody else, the movie's not as good. And that's a sign that you've got yourself a special performance. I mean, I think I would have been happy sitting through 167 minutes of terrible movie just to hear him say the word "excrementitious" in this. The character of Bill is complex, one of those bad guys you almost want to root for just because he's so damned interesting. Poor DiCaprio can't keep up and has a shifty accent, but the relationship between those characters--one filled with subtle and lingering stares and even some hand-holding--is dynamic from start to finish. But man, that Daniel Day-Lewis. It's the kind of performance you love more because he's restrained most of the time, making the really intense moments that much more intense. And it's the type of performance where you want to discuss things like posture and hunching and eyebrows and finger points and the way he can wear a top hat better than anybody else in the history of film. That's why he was chosen to play Lincoln actually. There are other good performances in this movie--John C. Reilly, Liam Neeson (playing himself), Jim Broadbent--but Day-Lewis is always who you want to watch whenever he happens to be on the screen.

Seriously, if you can wear a get-up like that and still scare the crap out of everybody, you should just win all the awards. 

I remember watching this when it came out and being amazed by the opening fight scene, one that builds in intensity. I had my son watch it with me, setting it up with a "Hey, Dylan--watch this fight scene," but I think he was underwhelmed. It's increasingly graphic, increasingly quick, and increasingly chaotic, and the camera angles and editing made what could have been just another fight scene with characters we don't even know and therefore don't even care about into something that I had never seen before.

Scorsese made an interesting choice to use Sonny Terry in this. That harmonica and whooping is recognizable, and it's therefore anachronistic. I liked hearing it though. Of course, I always like hearing Sonny Terry. My favorite musical moment in this, however, is this guy playing a hammer dulcimer as a fight is starting. He starts playing it a little more uproariously once the fight actually begins. I need a guy with a hammer dulcimer to follow me around just in case I ever get into a rumble.

Regardless of whether or not any of this is true, it does manage to remind us that these were tumultuous times in our history and that our country has a foundation of racism, violence, and criminal activity. It makes the experience a cynical one, doesn't it?

American Beauty

1999 Best Picture

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Various characters look for beauty in America.

I've seen this more than once, but I'm sketchy on its meanings. So instead of writing about the movie and continuing to give my faithful readers the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm going to try something new and just list a series of questions about American Beauty. Let me know if you have a problem with it. Feel free to answer all of these if you want.

1) What's another well-known, highly-regarded movie that has a dead narrator, the ultimate spoiler alert? I know Sunset Boulevard, but it seems like I'm missing other notable examples.

2) What's it say about me if the most indelible image in American Beauty--more than the rose petals falling on Mena Suvari even--is of Kevin Spacey masturbating in the shower? "Look at me--jerking off in the shower." The high point of your day, Lester? Don't I know it, buddy. Later, bravely pleasuring himself under the sheets with his wife right next to him--and don't argue with me because that does take a certain amount of manly courage--he says, "So shoot me! I was whacking off! That's right. I was choking the bishop, chafing the carrot, you know, saying hi to my monster!" in a scene where he's just a little too unhinged.

3) Masturbation, recurring, has to mean something, doesn't it?

4) Is there a more 90's movie than this? There are certain movies--Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, Trainspotting, The Truman Show, American Psycho, Magnolia, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace--that are quintessential 1990's movies because they deal with that kind of strange decade thematically or the characters just feel trapped there. The themes of American Beauty certainly apply to other decades, but the ennui feels like such a 1990's ennui. It's a decade that requires a selling out and a soullessness. And all that friction in a society that doesn't seem to allow for friction. I lived that decade as both younger and older than the characters in this, but I can still identify.

5) How good is Annette Bening in this? Sure, you remember Kevin Spacey because he spends time in the movie masturbating, but why did I forget how good Bening is? I'm actually pretty sure what she does in this movie, mostly because she goes through a wider range of emotions, is more impressive than what Spacey does. "What do you call this? Is this not a plant?" Her delivery of that line as she's trying to sell a house and the subsequent, slaphappy breakdown is terrific. She almost reaches Nicolas Cage freak-out levels, and when your performance is mentioned in the same sentence as Nicolas Cage, you know you've done something special.

6) The creation of an artificial sitcom world with the appropriate sitcom world tone is intentional, right? On the surface, you've got this halcyon artificiality. I'm convinced that if you turn the sound down for the first half of this movie and showed all the scenes in the Burnham's home to somebody who has never seen this movie, they could assume it's some 50's sitcom family. They'd be confused about their clothing and decor probably, but they'd probably expect that kind of exaggerated serenity. Instead, it's this exaggerated reality, like bizarro-sitcom stuff, creating this irony that can make a grown Beaver uncomfortable.

7) Speaking of sitcoms, how much Three's Company did Alan Ball watch before writing this? Interestingly, Ball's only got one other feature film writing credit in his filmography--Towelhead. He's written a lot for television, but I'm not familiar with any of it. I should check some of his other work out to see if he rips off Jack Ripper with everything he writes. The shocking climax of this one is created from misconstrued words and images like every episode of Three's Company.

8) And speaking of Ball's writing, does anybody else find the drama/tragedy parts of this and the dark comedy parts of this jarring? They clash, almost unapologetically, and when I first saw this, I had problems with it. Now, it feels a little more natural. I like the jarring.

9) With that cheerleader routine--with Spacey and the camera leering, those CGI roses popping out of Angela's chest, that spotlight--do we all become pedophiles? There are scenes in this movie that make me feel like a dirty old man, mostly because I am actually a dirty old man. The feeling is stronger than when I first saw this back when I was in my 20s. Since I'm much closer to Lester's age this time, I connected to what was going on in different ways. And some of those ways aren't comfortable.

10) "Fuck me, your majesty!" Is there a woman on Earth who could resist the King's eyebrows? Is there a man on Earth who wouldn't give his left nut (or his right nut) to have those eyebrows?

11) Is "Would you like Smiley's sauce on that?" one of the most perfect lines from any movie? I think it is.

12) Shouldn't composer Thomas Newman be more of a household name? It seems like everybody in his family, including the more-famous Randy, is a film music composer. I liked the music in this a lot, especially when it was used as a cue for the fantasy sequences or the times when there just ambient noise. It's probably my fault that I don't really known Thomas Newman, isn't it? I mean, the guy's scored some really really good movies. Thomas Newman trivia: He's been nominated for Best Original Score 11 times, but he hasn't won. One year, he was a double-nominee, but still lost. I bet he can't stand being around Randy.

13) So what is "beauty" to each of these characters? Ricky talks about God "looking right at you just for a second," and how "if you're careful, you can look right back" and see beauty. That's a little abstract though. Ricky sees beauty in plastic bags being blown around, so he sees beauty in the mundane. Lester sees freedom as beauty. His wife? She seems to find the appearance of success or maybe conformity as beautiful. What about daughter Jane? What about Mr. and Mrs. Fitts? I mean, other than Nazi plates. And Angela?

14) Is part of the magic of this movie in its way of being difficult to grasp? Unless I just miss the obvious (which is entirely possible), this seems pretty open-ended. There are loose-ends, questions that refuse to be answered, and seemingly a couple fistfuls of ways you could interpret the whole thing. There's satire, there's humor, there's tragedy, there's a chilling final line that could potentially stab you right in the gut.

15) Do I like that there's a single scene in this movie that is out of chronological order? It's the opening scene which doesn't happen until much later in the story. I don't think I like that actually. It's tricky, a red herring.

16) Should I even mention how I like the use of Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" in this? "There must be someway out of here, said the joker to the thief." It's a song that I've never been able to crack, at least not in any sort of complete way, but the idea of escape really fits with what's going on with the character.

17) Am I missing anything?

Time Travel Movie Fest: The Final Countdown

1980 historical time travel movie

Rating: 13/20

Plot: An aircraft carrier from 1980 is transported to December 6, 1941. Apparently, something important happened on December 7th, but I'm not enough of a history buff to know what that would be.

Random things I was distracted by while watching this movie:

1) The title--I couldn't get the Europe song out of my head. Obviously.
2) This reminded me of the game Battleship and how easy it was to cheat. "B3," guesses your opponent. Well, B3 was a hit until I just inconspicuously lifted my aircraft carrier off the board and put it someplace else. So, miss. Anyway, I kept wondering if that was going to be the surprise twist ending with this movie.

Lloyd Kaufman, of Troma infamy, executive-produced this and has a small part. It's not a tongue-in-cheek movie at all though. In fact, it's about as straight as it comes. I wish it would have tackled the ethics a little more. Here are characters who are faced with a moral dilemma about whether to change history and what the implications of that might be. Martin Sheen brings up the grandfather paradox like he knows what he's talking about, and the characters discuss the rights and wrongs of the whole thing a little bit, but there was so much more that could have been done with the idea. And it's hard to take Martin Sheen seriously because he looks a little too much like Charlie Sheen in this one. I really liked the concept here, but it just doesn't go anywhere.

I will say this--this is one of the few time travel movies I've seen during my Time Travel Movie Fest where the characters don't do anything that would create the paradoxes that often sink these types of movies or at least confuse people. For the most part, their little adventure doesn't change anything at all. I had to give it a bonus point for that.

Of course, that might be what makes the movie a little boring. It's a cool concept, but they go nowhere with it. They could have played with alternate time lines and other funky time-travel things. I suppose the budget limited them a bit. There's one scene that shows modern fighter jets and Japanese kamikaze pilots, shots that are almost surreal. I guess in 1980, it would have been hard to pull off a reinvention of Pearl Harbor with all these modern weapons.

Speaking of weapons, there's a lot of military fetishism going on here. This was made with the cooperation of the Navy according to the credits, and about 40% of the movie is just showing off the Navy's toys. With the over-the-top music, it started to feel like an advertisement for our military after a while.

I liked the time warp thing in this even if it was an antiquated special effect. The time travel itself is screechy and warped. It was pretty cool. But even though this movie won't be difficult to remember, it's not really because any of it is especially memorable.

Note: I have never lost a game of Battleship, probably because my little plastic ships frequently time-traveled.

Bad Movie Club: The 5 Kung Fu Kids

1988 kung-fu comedy

Bad Movie Rating: 2/5 (Josh: 1/5; Fred: 3/5; Libby: 3/5; Kristen: gave up; Alicia: gave up)

Rating: 9/20

Plot: Some kids get their marshmallow handbag mixed up with the marshmallow handbag of some criminals, and Nicole Kidman's not around to do anything about it.

Confession: I have no idea what happened in this movie. That happens when you're watching an Asian movie with no subtitles. Of course, it was dubbed. In German. How's that for an interesting experience? A kung-fu comedy dubbed in German. I can't say I'd recommend the experience. Josh, as a matter of fact, told me that this was the worst experience of his entire life. Or something like that. I'm paraphrasing. This is what happens when you put Fred and Libby in charge of Bad Movie Club for a night, I guess.

Actually, I'm not 100% positive that we even watched a movie called The 5 Kung Fu Kids. The title screen said Lucky Kids: The 5 Superfighters, but I can't find anything called that. I looked up the name of the director--Chu Chen Huang--and found this. Fred and Libby actually wanted to watch a kung-fu movie they caught part of at a restaurant called The Five Superfighters, but they mistakenly led us to this one instead.

Of course, it could be this movie:

Do I have a lot to say about this movie? I don't know. A fight sequence that utilizes bicycles isn't half bad, and the lengthy fight-filled climax has a few good moments. And a lot of people flying out of windows. In fact, it might break some sort of record for the most characters who break through windows in one movie. What else does this have to offer? You've got comical costumes; 4 kids who, if you squint and tilt your head to the side, kind of look like Herve Villachaize; some exaggerated sound effects, bicycle braking squeaks and misplayed trombones and Pacman dying sounds; a second BMC outing featuring Japanese hopping vampires; a soundtrack that can't figure out what it wants to be but does impress by lifting parts of the score from Raiders of the Lost Ark; characters dressed like Mario and Luigi; a trio of rectal gags and one fart attack. It's the sort of thing you imagine Japanese people laughing at, but I doubt it would have been any funnier even if it was in English and I could understand what the hell was going on.

Bad Movie Club has reached a new low.

I think I've seen these hopping vampires in four movies now. I can't say I understand what's going on there.

Goodbye to Language

2014 movie

Rating: 10/20

Plot: Hell if I know.

I want to make it clear that I did not watch this Godard movie in 3D like it was intended to be experienced. From what I've read, it's an even more mind-bending experience where the technology is used to fuck with the audience's heads more than anything. I read a description somewhere (sorry I can't cite the source) that talked about how studios are working hard to make 3D more comfortable for audiences but that Godard seems to be doing everything he can to do the exact opposite. I'm sure, if this alternate poster is any indication, watching this in 3D would have definitely improved things.

Yeah, look at that. I just can't imagine anybody seeing that and saying, "There's a movie I'd like to see." I don't think I've seen anything by Jean-Luc Godard that wasn't made in the 1960s, weird because I really like the stuff he did during that decade. Apparently, he's just as rascally as ever, even in his 80s. This is definitely what you'd call an adventurous endeavor, and Godard isn't doing anything--the storytelling, the cinematography, the music, the utilization of modern technology--traditionally.

The problem is that it doesn't feel like the work of an experienced avant-gardist. It feels like the work of a kid trying to impress his professors in film school. I know I should probably just trust Godard and assume that A) the story about a infidelity and doggies actually does make sense and B) he's saying something really really important, but I just couldn't crack the thing at all and really have no interest in making second or third efforts. If you eat pistachios at all, you know that every once in a while, you find one that is impossible to crack open. You look all around the thing for a tiny opening that you could use another shell or a fingernail to turn into a larger opening, but you can't. It's impenetrable, and eventually, you realize that you don't like pistachios enough to even bother anymore and just throw the whole thing away. That's kind of how I feel about Goodbye to Language.

Part of the problem is that it's just so cheap looking. Most of the movie looks like home video footage except a lot of it has the wrong colors. It has the look of a half-assed effort, and I know saying that is about as fair as me calling this whole thing pretentious because I didn't understand it, but I can't help it. There are individual shots that are artistically beautiful or artistically ugly, but most of what you see in this bloated 70 minute film will just make you wonder why it's there at all. It's the same with the numerous references to literature and history. Musical snippets start and stop abruptly, and it just feels like Godard is dicking around, like the whole thing is some sort of joke.

Yes, I'm aware that I'm probably just not smart enough to get this. But I couldn't take things seriously and even bother trying anymore after a scene where a guy poops. What the hell, Godard?

In the end, I suspected that Godard had nothing at all to say and just wanted to give his dog a starring role in a movie. His dog (Roxy Mieville) is pretty good, and I'm sure it had a stronger grasp on what this movie's about than I did. Here's Roxy, the Jaden Smith of dogs.

Yes, that's what a lot of the movie looked like. If only I could have seen it in 3D!

Horrible Bosses

2011 comedy

Rating: 10/20

Plot: Three friends having trouble with their horrible bosses borrow the idea of the characters from Strangers on a Train.

I don't really have anything to say about this one. It's a Hangover clone. Charlie Day overacts, Jason Sudeikis spouts lines that could probably be spouted by any character he plays, and Jason Bateman does his normal Jason Bateman thing. I'm not sure what Jennifer Aniston thinks she's doing with her career. Kevin Spacey is pretty good. Oh, and there's a character named Motherfucker. There are a few funny moments that might even make the thing worth watching, but it's all kind of the verbal equivalent of characters poking each other in the eyes, Stooges style.

Seriously, Jennifer Aniston needs a new agent.

Arizona Dream

1992 movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A turtle and/or a fish have a dream about people.

When I last mentioned Emir Kusturica on this blog, it was when writing about Underground, a movie that I loved. Here, Kusturica got a chance to direct a Hollywood movie with a Hollywood budget and Hollywood stars. I mean, here's Johnny Depp post-Scissorhands and ready to explode with all those mid-90's roles. Here's Faye Dunaway, stunning at 50-something. And here's Jerry Lewis, taking a break from telethoning to make some funny faces and noises.

I'm sure whatever production company gave Kusturica this money were thrilled with the results--a surreal comedy/drama with a baffling narrative and seemingly no interest in saying much of anything. I don't believe he's worked in Hollywood again, but I'm not sure if he's been banned from Southern California or anything. He's just the type of guy with the type of ideas that clash with what Hollywood usually offers.

I just think this movie, regardless of whether or not it means anything or really makes that much sense, just works. As any reader of this blog knows, I like my avant-garde with a generous helping of humor. You have to appreciate how assured the direction is. Add Kusturica to that list of directors who are capable of creating dreams on film, and with pink balloons over the Yukon wilderness or that fish undulating through the Arizona dry air or a shot of a dog in a movie theater, the imagery is great. There's an attention to detail here that I like a lot here, and you really want to pay attention because you assume there's symbolism at play. Eventually, you kind of decide that this is more like the work of a lunatic with a cast of lunatics playing lunatics and that if you're searching for symbolism, you might be trying to hard. As Gallo's character says here--"Bullshit artist, artist, whatever. Art is art."

A lot of why this works is its unpredictability. The dialogue's offbeat and consistently humorous, and there are all kinds of visual gags--pig snoring, a suicide attempt featuring pantyhose that is a beautiful slice of black comedy. The movie's so funny that you don't even end up thinking the movie's too long even though the movie is probably too long. But it's really that unpredictability that keeps this thing driving forward. You just never really know what's going to happen next. Jerry Lewis might start swinging a broom around in a car graveyard again. Depp, who is mostly a straight man in this one, might act like a rooster as some sort of fowl foreplay. Vincent Gallo might reenact scenes from North By Northwest or The Wizard of Oz. Throw in rainy pinata beating, lots of accordion, chair dancing, flying machines, guns, turtles, faux-Eskimo language, and anything else that Kusturica can think of, and you've got yourself a movie that is undeniably a mess. But it's a mess that more adventurous cinephiles might get a kick out of and even, if they really stretch things, learn from.

Depp's character provides this pseudo-philosophical narration. At one point, he says, "Sometimes you have to crash and hit your head on a tree to know what to do and realize that everything is meaningless." I'm not sure if I hit my head on a tree while watching this movie, but it might be the kind of thing that can help.

The score is provided by Kusturica-regular Goran Bregovic, accordion-heavy gypsy funk that blends with the Django Reinhardt tracks the characters listen and sometimes dance to or the weird Iggy Pop songs that are in this.

Anyway, I'm probably doing a terrible job of selling this movie, but I really did love it. I liked the performances--Depp as the straight man, Jerry Lewis who is doing exactly what you'd expect Jerry Lewis to be doing, Faye Dunaway who looks so good and plays this childish middle-aged mood-swingy part terrifically, a tragic Lilli Taylor, a controlled but still sort-of unhinged Vincent Gallo. They're characters who just shouldn't have been left in the same movie together, but Kusturica throws them all into the pot, stirs it up, sprinkles in some of that gypsy music and adds a pinch or two of surrealism, and then lets the thing simmer.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

2014 spy movie

Rating: 10/20

Plot: A group of spies has to stop Samuel L. Jackson from taking over the world. Two newly-trained recruits are thrust into the action.

Sometimes, I wish I were English so that I could get away with saying things like "geezer" and "tits up."

This movie irritated me, mostly because it overindulges and fails to reach its potential. And it had some potential as this ultra-modern Bond update complete with gadgets and comic book villains with comic book plots. It's not short on ideas, but writer/director Matthew Vaughn either doesn't seem to know where the lines are or just has no problem crossing into ludicrous and gratuitous territories.

Take the violence, for example. I have no problem with violence in movies. Tarantino, as far as I'm concerned, can take out as many of the bad guys (or even the good guys) as he wants and do it in the most twisted ways imaginable. Generally, we don't see regular folk dying though, and there are a couple scenes here--most gratuitously, a scene in a church--where a bunch of regular people are slaughtered in some of the most vicious ways imaginable. They don't matter to me, they don't matter to the other characters, and they don't matter to the director. After all, they're not real human beings, right? But there's the old rule in movies that characters who do really bad things need to be punished by the end of the movie, and I think the reverse should be true as well. It's unsettling when auxiliary characters are thrown onto the screen only to have their body parts ripped off, their heads bashed in, their stomachs pierced, or their bones cracked. This particular scene pushes the plot forward a tiny bit because we get to see the antagonist's plan in action, but enough was enough. The first stylized fight sequence is pretty cool--modern and elegant with its technological enhancements and creativity. Gradually, I just kind of got tired of seeing the same things over and over. By the final big fight scene, I'd stopped caring at all and didn't even really care what happened. It was all flash and no heart.

Kingsman sickens in other ways, too. Loud techno music accompanying every moment when a character does anything. A mention of Iggy Azalea. An ending featuring, for really no reason at all, a woman's buttocks and suggestions of anal sex. And a McDonalds commercial. That's right--a McDonalds commercial. There's big music, a platter full of McDonalds products, a "happy meal" pun, and a big Samuel L. Jackson grin at the end. Jackson should know better, but by the end of the advertisement-within-a-movie, I actually expected Jackson to look into the camera and say, with a lisp, "I'm lovin' it!" before Grimace and the Hamburglar pop into the scene to reveal that they're Jackson's henchmen.

This movie also carries some of the meta stuff a little too far. Jackson's character keeps referencing action or comic book motifs and then saying stuff like, "This ain't that kind of movie." If it was half as clever as it thought it was, it'd be cute. Mixed in with the rest of the silliness, it just seems kind of dumb.

I wish I liked the characters more. I thought Colin Firth, enhanced by those special effects, was cool--suave badassery. Bald Merlin's underdeveloped, but he's not a bad character. Michael Caine plays the same guy he always plays but with a twist you can see coming from a mile away. I won't even warn you about a spoiler there because the movie doesn't do a good enough job of hiding it. Samuel L. Jackson has a convincing lisp, so convincing that I actually started wondering if he had that lisp in every movie and I just ignored it. The whole bad guy plot is really silly, something you'd expect from an episode of the old Batman television show, and his bodyguard/henchwoman, although she works as eye candy with legs to die for, doesn't add all that much to the proceedings. Unfortunately, the main character (Eggsy) just isn't very likable. He's that cliched troubled young thuggish guy who, through the magic of movies, gets himself a second chance. I just didn't like the guy and was a little annoyed when the movie forcefed me Eggsy as the main character.

But hey! It's Mark Hamill:

Lookin' good, Luke!

Time Travel Movie Fest: Somewhere in Time

1980 Superman sequel

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A playwright gets a gift from an old woman, and while taking a mini-vacation to get away from life's pressures, he figures out that he needs to travel back to the early-1900s because he's got a chance to get some. It's further proof that a man will do almost anything if there's a chance he can get laid.

It's easy to see why this movie didn't do all that well back in 1980. Look at that hideous poster. At first glance, it looks like Christopher Reeve's got his hands straight down the front of his pants while a disembodied Jane Seymour face peeks out from the pink murk. Of course, in other countries, they went with other colors:

En Algun Lugar del Tiempo! I think that make the title Some Day Place in the Time, but my Spanish isn't very good. There's also this poster:

That has a strange vomit-y color, and the humans, thankfully the same size in this one, have a realness that clashes with the background. And there's this dvd case picture:

That one makes this appear to be the dullest movie ever made, but at least it shows off Christopher Reeve's suit which, as you'll see from my thoughts below, I think is the real star of the show.

This one gets the Movies A-Go-Go treatment, so these are my unfiltered thoughts as I watched Somewhere in Time for somewhere around the third or fourth time. I saw it with my dad once because it's one of his favorite movies. I showed it to my wife once because I thought she might like it. (She didnt.) And I think I may have watched it another time before this one, too. Anyway, my thoughts when I watched it this time:

There was a time in my life when I wanted to be Christopher Reeve. Or Harrison Ford. But Reeve would have been a close second. And I still to this day don’t even know if it’s Reeve or Reeves.

My father says this is on the list of his favorite films of all time. He especially likes the score by John Barry.

Ack! Old Rose from Titanic is capable of stopping both music and conversation during a post-play celebration.

So my dad likes the score, but that wouldn’t include that piece by Rachmaninoff which just makes you feel like something’s going to happen. It's just the perfect selection for this movie. Of course, at this point, that "something going to happen" is only a pissed-off Christopher Reeve getting inside an elevator.

Grand Hotel carpet--makes you want to examine the carpet for Kubrickian clues about the moon landing.

A note: I’d love to live in a bungalow someday. And wear a vest. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in that order, of course.

Trivia: In the first draft of Somewhere in Time, they had Christopher Reeve flying around the world really fast and reversing its rotation in order to travel back in time.

Hot damn! Look at the twinkle in Christopher Reeve’s eyes!

Poor guy, lusting after a picture of a possibly-deceased woman in the Hall of History. I can identify though because I remember doing the same thing as a kid, only not in Mackinac Island. Sadly, I had as much of a chance at that stage of my life with the dead black-and-white woman in the framed picture than I did with anybody who happened to be alive.

Perfect librarian glasses there.

Oh, my! He just found an even hotter picture of Elise McKenna in the magazine! I just hope he can restrain from shooting his wad, non-proverbially, right there in the library. I've been there, too, Christopher Reeve. I've been there, too.

A lesson learned: When you’re going to go ask your old philosophy professor about time travel, make sure you’re picking out just the right belt buckle.

Students walking in the hall outside the classroom lumber along like zombies. The desire for extra screen time? I'm guessing that's it.

This is the second time travel movie I’ve watched recently--the first was The Jacket--in which a character is using time travel in order to get laid. You’re Christopher Reeve, man! You don’t have to get an old-timey suit and bowler and practice flirting in the mirror to get a woman!

June 27, 1912. That was a long time ago, but still after the Chicago Cubs last won the World Series.

I guess you should have used Maxell cassettes, Christopher Reeve. If any cassette tape can whisk you back to June 27, 1912, it’s the one that blows the guy nearly out of his chair in those old commercials.

The score is really good. It blends very well.

Christopher Reeve’s going to get himself thrown in jail if he keeps smiling at children like that.

If I had directed this, five-year-old Arthur would have had a mustache. This movie would have gotten a lot better reviews if the kid would have had the same facial hair as the guy living in the bungalow.

There are scenes in Superman when Reeve, usually as Clark Kent, just seems huge and clumsy, having doors closed on him in the middle of a sentence or interrupting people who have no interest in anything he’s saying. He’s essentially playing Clark Kent without spectacles here, isn’t he? This is why I thought Christopher Reeve was over seven feet tall when I was a kid.

Before finding Ms. McKenna, I would have given that large pink-haired foreign lady a try.

Our first glimpse of Elise is nice--a reflection in a window at the same time Reeve spots her. And then the music picks up again and tells us how to feel about it all.

So let me answer the question you’re probably asking: Yes, I would definitely go back to 1912 to sleep with Jane Seymour, even if I had to wear a suit like that.

“Is it you?” I’m confused by that question, and I've seen this movie multiple times.

Rhythmic soup eating and a second chance at the pink-haired babe.

So far, almost everything Reeve is saying to Elise is creepy:

“I know everything about you.”
“You’ve no idea how far I’ve come to be with you.”
“There’s no need to be afraid of me, you know.”

That’s stalker talk. It’s a good thing she didn’t see him smiling at young Arthur earlier.

And she goes with him after he’s been thrown out for what reason exactly?

Reeve sleeping on the 1912 version of the Knights Inn Urine Couch. If I had been Arthur’s dad, he would have been chased away with the lot lizards.

“Good morning.” And now here's the part of the movie where she finds out that the guy only has one suit.

“Madam, if you do not walk with me, I shall go mad.” This entire scene could have used a rewrite.

Another scene with Reeve looking lasciviously at Arthur. This time, while holding a sack.

“See you around, Arthur.” Oh, boy.

Richard Matheson, author, in the scene where Reeve emerges after shaving.

"Yes, you can adapt my movie for the screen, but I demand a cameo! And I want a hat taller than Superman's hat!"

And there's Reeve having difficulty with a horse.

This walking scene reminds me of that Seurat painting.

This one--it also reminds me of a shot from Jaws. 

A guy with one suit who apparently can’t shave--Christopher Reeve better figure out how early-20th Century undergarments work because he’s quite the catch.

That’s not talking! That’s shoulder-grabbin’ and light fondling! And what a strange first kiss--upper lip nibbles. I’m going to have to try that move sometime.

This play scene: I’m all for improvisation and all, but I think she might be confusing everybody in the audience except for the guy with only one suit.

Let’s hear a soliloquy from the pink-haired lady. I bet that would be a lot raunchier.

I do like how that photograph works into their story. Back to the Future stole that move like I'm planning on stealing Christopher Reeve's upper-lip nibbling move.

Robinson’s handwriting seems threatening. And nothing good ever happens in a gazebo, does it? Just finish watching the play, Superman. Stay away from the gazebo.

Christopher Plummer might start taking bites out of the gazebo soon.

Uh oh. Another horse. And great, now Reeve’s only suit is going to smell like horse and hay.

More awkward kissing. Reeve really attacks that top lip, doesn’t he?

Here’s a change I would have made. Seymour lets her hair down and stares, almost at me in the future. The door slowly closes. Then, it fades to the two getting ready to engage in coitus. And there’s a candle. I think I would have either moved directly into the scene where they’re sharing chicken and grapes or shown Jane Seymour naked. The sex scene there was either not enough or too much.

Now, they’re kissing with mouthfuls of chicken. That always boosts the romance.

The slow-motion Christopher Reeve reaching where even his nine-feet-long arms are useless--that’s unintentionally funny.

Next time I hear somebody arguing in favor of keeping the penny around, I’m bringing up this movie. What happens to the poor guy here is enough reason to abolish the penny.

So here’s a question: If he could have successfully traveled back in time again, would that have created a paradox where Elise doesn’t meet him in the future and give him the watch and set in motion his whole trip back to the past? His horniness nearly caused time to implode.

Worst thing about all of this: Did he even get all the parts of his suit?

I don’t think a movie should end with this much moping, but the music is about perfect there.

Oh, I forgot. That’s not the ending. Here’s a much happier ending in which Christopher Reeve is reunited with his suit in some sort of fuzzy white eternity. It’s pretty gross.

I have to go back to the first scene because William H. Macy is in there somewhere. Ahh, there he is, the second actor to appear in this movie.

Now it's time to find out if Jane Seymour ever did a nude scene. Is that wrong of me?

Movie idea! A sequel to Somewhere in Time where somebody watches Somewhere in Time, buys two suits, hypnotizes himself, and then out-suits Christopher Reeve and wins Jane Seymour's heart. Arthur will end up murdering everybody. Working title--Somewhere in Time 2: The Man with Two Suits.

How many suits do you own, Cowboy? 

So where the heck did that watch come from? It's an enigma! 

Terminator Salvation

2009 superfluous sequel and money grab

Rating: 9/20

Plot: Ahh, who cares anymore? John Connor's now in the future, and he's turned into Batman or something. Arnold Schwarzenneger can't be bothered because he's turned into a politician. As long as there are explosions.

Moon Bloodgood, Common, and Jadagrace are all in this. And it's directed by McG, the guy who directed Offspring's "Pretty Fly for a White Guy" video and two Charlie Angels movies. So you've got a cast made up of the children of Frank Zappa and rappers, and a guy who decided his professional name was going to be McG. The whole thing made me skeptical way before the movie even started.

I'll start with the good. Danny Elfman scored this. It's a departure from what he usually does. It's a dark score, and although he does dark very well, it's a different, more modern darkness. The score is definitely better than the last movie. The sound in general is very good. Techno noise emanated from my television in a way that threw me right into the middle of the action. And the world building here is pretty good. It's all very artificial, but a lot of the scenery just looks so cool. Yeah, it's sort of modern-day video game cool, but I could still appreciate the artistic side of things. I thought they went a little too far with the Holocaust allusions, trying to create sci-fi concentration camp parallels with the prisoner transport and the arrival at their "camps," but now that I think about it, I was probably just reading into things a little too much.

I don't know whose idea it was to make a Terminator movie that didn't involve time travel and one that had very little involvement from Schwarzenegger. That's a little like having an Indiana Jones movie but only putting the title character in it for about ten minutes, isn't it? Sure, there's an "I'll be back" shoved into this because there just has to be, but I needed more Schwarzenegger. And it seems weird to type that.

All these non-Schwarzeneggers failed to grab me at all. Christian Bale, despite being as indestructible as a cartoon character, is genuinely awful in this. It's really a terrible performance, and I'm not sure how he can mess up something that should have been so easy. All he had to do is run around and scream all his lines, and while he does run around and scream all his lines, he somehow still manages to fuck it up. Kyle Reese is played by Anton Yelchin, and we get more bad acting from him. The script does neither of them any favors, of course. It was written with a copy of 1001 Action Cliches You Need to Know or something close by. "Come with me if you want to live." Seriously? "You point a gun at someone, you better be ready to pull the triggers." Yuck. Kyle Reese, the writers felt, needed to announce everything that is going on to the audience. "Aerostat!" he screams at one point, like it has meaning. The Arnold substitute is Sam Worthington, but his Marcus character never really makes any sense to me. And if you can't buy his human/machine hybrid character, this whole movie just isn't going to work. He bored me although during one ten minute chunk of film where he screams "Nooooooo!" about forty times, I did start to feel for him a little bit. The human characters bored me. The half-assed attempt at a romance subplot to capture the attention of women dragged to theaters to see this didn't work. It was all just pretty ugly, and I kind of felt angry at myself for watching it.

I will see the upcoming Terminator movie, just to figure out how they're going to explain Arnold's age. However, this is apparently a franchise that should have stopped before it became a franchise.

Time Travel Movie Fest: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

2003 sequel to a sequel

Rating: 12/20

Plot: John Connor's really become sort of a loser, but the robots still want him dead anyway. At least he doesn't have to be Edward Furlong anymore though. A naked woman robot is sent to kill him and all his friends even though that would create more paradoxes than any one blockbuster movie franchise can possibly survive, and the Arnold Schwarzenegger Terminator has to follow her into the past to help save them all. It's pretty close to the plot of the second movie actually and therefore doesn't really advance the story much at all.

Now that I'm caught up on Terminator movies, it seems like they've got a similar trajectory to the Alien movies. The first is a classic. The second is an entertaining but possibly overblown action movie. The third and fourth just tick people off. I did enjoy the 3rd and 4th Alien installments more than these and seemingly more than almost everybody else though.

My intention was to Movie-a-Go-Go this bad boy, but I kind of lost interest and didn't feel like I was making any sense anyway. Regardless, here are my notes:

Here’s what I’m going to be most interested in: Will there be a penis in this movie? The first two had penises, so I have to assume this one’s going to have a penis, too.

A question: Why do Terminators need genitalia at all?

John Connor sounds bored. As he’s riding his motorcycle. And it’s making me sleepy despite an explosion. Nick Stahl's testing some sort of boring vs. annoying theory.

Skulls! Terminators! That looks really cool.

Something tells me this Terminator chick isn’t going to have a penis.

“I like this car.” Snap, crackle, pop! Sleepy from new-Furlong’s narration, I missed what even happened there.

Victoria’s Secret product placement. Is this social commentary of some kind or just a cheap boob joke?

I hope girl-Terminator spends the entire movie talking about things she likes. “I like those shoes.” Crack! “I like that sandwich.” Snap! "I like that watch." Pop!

Termi-snake!

I think Skynet was my first Internet provider.

Ok, a tree’s on fire, and here comes the penis! Come on! Give it to me! I need this!

Wow. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s upper body looks really good. I’m glad I’m not seeing this in 3-D because those pecs would have knocked me off my couch.

Well, there’s the word “Cocktails,” but I still don’t think I’m getting any penis.

Look! It's Kinky Friedman playing a doorman.

[Ok, that's probably not even close. Regardless, I couldn't get that "They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore" song out of my head, and it probably distracted me as I watched the rest of this movie.]

These Terminator movies always have the goofiest fringe characters. Here, we get “Bitch, wait your turn” stripper guy.

And with “Macho Man,” I now wish that I was watching Can’t Stop the Music.

Ahh, I liked those sunglasses. He should have spent the whole movie with those.

This movie’s got too much barking.

Girl-Terminator has added people’s names to her vocabulary. So she likes things and can ask people what their names are. The scene where she tastes somebody who isn’t Katherine Brewster’s blood isn’t as cool as this movie thinks it is.

Wait, what? I watched this scene three times:
--Girl-Terminator has a foot on the vet’s throat.
--Arnold bounces into the scene in a pick-up truck and somehow hits Girl-Terminator but not the veterinarian Girl-Terminator is standing on.
--The truck hits a wall and other cars around it explode.

This car chase scene, mostly sans music, is damaging a lot of property. It’s really well done except the CGI people sometimes look fake.

“No, I am not shitting you.”

I’m going to start shopping like Arnold in the gas station. That’s awesome. Unfortunately, “Talk to the Hand” and this song with “funky, funky” in the lyrics may have just ruined the entire movie for me. I think it's time for another 15 minute car chase.

Blood on the framed picture--movie cliche.

Seriously, those sunglasses from earlier. This movie is tons better if Arnold would have just kept those.

“Oh, my God! Oh my dear Jesus God!” I suppose that’s an appropriate reaction to seeing your partner have a hand coming out of his chest.

Wait, coffins are bullet-proof? I’m not sure how that works.

Existential John Connors and Terminator…

“She’ll be back.”

Termi-tank! And look at those post-it notes flying!

A missile into the room they’re standing in...and no injuries at all?

That was one violent swirlie.

These two need to get a room.

Conflicted Terminator...stupid, and Arnold’s worst acting in this whole thing. When you give Arnold a character with human emotions, things fall apart.

I wouldn’t want to fly with somebody who had just sustained a head injury.

“I’m back.” Didn’t the script already play with the “I’ll be back” catchphrase?

[See? It's pretty easy to tell where I lost interest. Sorry about that, Terminator fans.]

Addendum: I've been watching so many time travel movies that it's easy for me to ignore the paradoxes created in them by all the time travel shenanigans. For whatever reason, the ones in these movies make me angrier. I'm not sure why that is.

Also, I accused this movie of not advancing the story much up there in the plot synopsis. It really doesn't do much of anything, does it? Does anybody really care about anything that happens here? Is it that the Terminator story is just wearing thin or is it that they just didn't have enough of a movie? Or does it matter because the special effects are cool?

My apologies to M.C. Gainey.

Donnie Brasco

1997 crime drama

Rating: 15/20

Plot: An undercover FBI agent becomes BFF's with a mob underling and starts to play the part a little too well. His wife isn't happy with him.

It's hard to take this "true story" seriously once that lion shows up, doesn't it?

I like this movie, despite the way it hits all the notes it's supposed to and has saccharine score. I like it as a character study of Lefty's character more than the story it tells with Depp's infiltration or his family issues. Pacino really carries this movie. I don't mean that as a barb on what the other characters are doing. Depp's fine even though I think his accent kind of drifts in and out and his mustache, his weightlifting, or his listening to his wife's breathing from a phone booth don't really convince me. Michael Madsen's fine as Sonny Yellow or Pink or Green or whatever color Sonny he is even though he reminds me of Vince Vaughn from certain angles. I also like pretty much everything Bruno Kirby says in this. "This is a fucking deformed Creature from the Black Lagoon claw I got here," for example. I can't watch a Hollywood gangster movie and ever think the dialogue is realistic, but of course, poetry doesn't sound like how people talk either. Excursions in the dialogue--cancer in the prick, John Wayne's death, etc.--are asides that add color to an already colorful story. I think my favorite piece of dialogue is this one:

Lefty (aka Half Cock, aka Horse Cock, aliases he actually seems proud of): Punch of salt.
Donnie: Punch?
Lefty: Punch. Punch of salt.
Donnie: Punch? Or pinch?
Lefty: Punch! Punch! Not pinch! What'd I say? Did I say pinch?
Donnie: Nah, you said, you said punch.
Lefty: Sometimes you don't make no fuckin' sense, Donnie.

It's meaningless dialogue, and somebody who didn't know what he was doing would have cut it from his movie. Here, it somehow manages to help us understand how this relationship is working, how it is going to work, and how it is not going to work. It foreshadows in a way that doesn't even make sense if you put a lot of thought into it. It doesn't quite have the punch (pun intended) of Nicholson's chicken salad sandwich scene in Five Easy Pieces, but it's another food-related bit of dialogue that I think does similar things.

This movie, when the wife subplot doesn't interfere, really is built on that relationship. That's what pulls the story, especially since the FBI people--other than Depp's character--ineptly do their jobs and these mafia dudes seem inconsequential. Donnie and Horse Cock's relationship creates the tension, builds the suspense, and carries the weight. I cared less about whether or not any of these gangsters were going to get busted than I did about what would happen with the friendship Depp and Pacino's characters had created. And I think that's what elevates this story a bit.

And man. Pacino. You almost feel like he could do this character in his sleep, a guy who's "busting his hump" just to be another spoke on a wheel. He's a habitual loser, and somehow, you know how it's all going to end up for the guy. When it happens, you almost feel good for him, like it validates his existence or something. He's like an animated version of a gangster, a loser underneath this nervous crackly shell, and Pacino creates this character not just with that rich voice he was gifted with but with all this terrific body language. Even the way he opens doors in this movie seems calculated and real. Add a ridiculous coat, a few references to shitting his pants, and face drooping, and you've got a memorable character that, even though the movie is named after some other guy, is easily the most interesting thing to see here.

This is a very good movie that I don't hear much about. It kind of gets lost in the flood of similar movies, I guess. That, or the lion and the appearance of Vince Vaughn as Madsen's stunt double throws everybody off.

Bad Movie Club: C Me Dance

2009 Christian movie

Bad Movie Rating: 3/5 (Amy: 0/5; Kristen: 0/5; Alicia: 1/5; Fred: .5/5; 0/5; Josh: 4/5)

Rating: 4/20

Plot: A "heavy Hispanic John Larroquete" (not my description) raises his daughter on his own following his wife's death-by-trucker. All she wants to do is ballet, but leukemia gets in the way. God decides to use her as a tool to win over non-believers.

And I'm so confused by the metaphor. Is this calling religion a disease? Because that's what it seems to be doing. And I'm not sure why God allows these movies to be made. Fred probably said it best when he asked, "If there's a God, why is this movie not watchable?" Satan had to have been involved in the production of this movie because there is no way this movie is going to win over people to Christianity. In fact, I could see it doing the opposite. I can imagine a person who's been going to church for thirty years saying, "Hold on a second. I'm not sure I want to be a part of an organization that would support something like this!"

I have no idea what the message is supposed to even be here. God uses you, and then you die underneath a Christmas tree? Sorry. That's a spoiler, but you're probably not going to see this anyway. And if you do, you'll thank me for being warned about the death scene. There's spilled eggnog and abysmal acting, and I doubt leukemia has ever been funnier than it is at that moment. You'll want to know it's coming or else you'll end up watching it and being afflicted with stigmata.

You know, I'm sure writer/director/supporting actor Greg Robbins (who played "Motel Customer" in Terminator, by the way) has actually interacted with other human beings. And I just don't understand how somebody who has interacted with human beings can write some of the scenes in this. Take the scene where a high school thug chases after the girl with leukemia, and then, after some of his pals--one armed with a crowbar--joins him, proceeds to. . .well, I'm not sure what they do. The entire scene makes no sense at all. The conversations the high schoolers have throughout this seem like they were written by somebody who read Archie comics while on acid. The dialogue gets especially disgusting every time they talk about the dead mom. It's sentimentality that would cause executives at the Hallmark Channel to lose their lunch. Throw in the weird way the mother is killed off in the first scene (a sequence that gives truckers a bad name), a pastor who announces that he's getting "pissed off," and one of the clumsiest death scenes you're likely to see, and you're going to assume Greg Robbins was raised like Kasper Hauser and didn't emerge from his basement until he was in his twenties.

This movie's got a devil, but he sort of just lurks around with some of those weird contacts you can buy at a place like Hot Topic. He's about the least charismatic Beelzebub I've ever seen in a movie. He's more interesting when he shape-shifts into Leukemia Girl's ballet instructor or, my personal favorite, Ralph the janitor, a Gomer Pyle-esque character who stares right into the camera and quite possibly your soul once his scene has ended. He's played by Gary Crain who hasn't been in any other movies yet but is more than likely on his way to greatness.

You know what's scarier than the devil? The music in this. I don't know where they found the woman who belts out a couple songs in this, but she made my eardrums bleed. Josh wondered if she was yodeling at one point.

One of us found out that this had a budget of 155,000 dollars. I know some of that was spent on a personalized license plate that said "C Me Danc" on it. I know some of it had to be spent on contact lenses to make the devil more menacing. There's an explosion and a car on fire, so maybe they spent some money on that. That explosion, by the way, took place at night (the maleficent truck driver scene) while the firemen are filmed at the scene with the burning car during the day. Maybe they should have paid a guy a couple bucks to watch for continuity errors instead of buying contacts. 155,000 isn't a ton of money or anything, but when you think about what a church could do with that much cash instead of what these people did, it makes you a little sad. And I'm sure it disappoints Jesus.

There might be a special place in hell for the people running Uplifting Entertainment.