So You Won't Have To: Blubberella

 For some reason, I decided to break the "no Uwe Boll" pact with myself. It's not the first time I've tried - as a fan of Jason Statham and Ron Perlman, I made it less than twenty minutes into In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, but I never bothered with House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Bloodrayne, Postal, Far Cry, or any other garbage I'm forgetting. I'm not interested in Dr. Uwe Boll, his propensity for boxing internet critics, or the fact that he genuinely could care less that his video game adaptations are consistently derided by just about everyone. Even people I know who like one or two of Boll's films can't be bothered to watch more than two.

So why start with Blubberella? Let's call the "trainwreck" effect. If you're not familiar with the concept of Blubberella, let's take a moment to look at the trailer.



You might understand how the Cap'n could think that Blubberella was maybe not actually a real movie. The film was allegedly shot simultaneously with (and is supposedly a parody of) Boll's Bloodrayne: The Third Reich, which gave him an excuse to use all of his Nazi uniforms, locations... well, I'm not going to lie to you. I'll never watch Bloodrayne: The Third Reich, so this is going to remain conjecture until someone else does and comments.

Instead, let's focus on Blubberella, which is (sadly) a real movie, albeit barely. The film is self described as a "comedy," but I didn't laugh once. If you find a litany of "jokes" about fat people, interspersed with anti-Semitic and homophobic references, followed by even more fat jokes punctuated with intentional anachronisms funny, you might not hate Blubberella. But let's be real, folks: I'm reviewing this to answer any lingering curiosity you had about this film. A film that features a morbidly obese "heroine" who is constantly ridiculed by other characters and the director.

 Instead of devoting paragraphs to tearing this film apart, let's save all of us some time and let images from Blubberella tell you everything you need to know:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Get the idea? What that doesn't convey is the pointless dialogue or "comedic" sound effects (for example, when Blubberella pulls a roll of bread out of her coat, Boll uses a slide whistle! Hilarious!) Scenes don't so much end as they simply fade out in mid-sentence, and if the dated cell phone gags don't get you, perhaps the "Clapper" joke will. There are pot shots at movie critics, lazy pop culture references (including Precious - yes, that's what the above photo is).Boll even uses a music cue that rips off Europe's "The Final Countdown."

To compensate for this (I guess), Boll decides to make fun of the movie he's making while he's making it, by having characters say "Now, despite my inability to carry a scene," "the following scene is really boring," and so on. If we're meant to excuse a horrible movie because the director admits it's horrible, then I must have missed that part of parody protocol. Blubberella is more Meet the Spartans than Top Secret, but without the simple competency one needs to construct a film. It's a collage of scenes that barely have anything to do with each other, that begin and end for no apparent reason, and tend to resemble cutaways from Family Guy strung together for 83 minutes. When all else fails, Boll trots himself out on camera dressed as Hitler, then plays board games and has a heart to heart with Blubberella. It's just embarrassing.

 As usual, Clint Howard sums up Blubberella with a line from the film: "That's not extraordinary, that's bullshit!"

 Bonus picture:

Blogorium Review: Jackass 3.5

 As some of you may remember, I reviewed Jackass 3 nearly two months ago, and the consensus was that the prank and stunt heavy troupe of daredevils were going out with a bang. Their desire to do bodily injury was on the wane, and some of the Jackass guys were more hesitant to go crazy. Even harder to watch was how much longer it took them to get up after bad landings. The film closed out with a montage of Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Chris Pontius, Steve-O, Wee Man, Preston Lacy, and the rest as children, in their first appearance on the show, and during the filming of Jackass 3. It felt like a fitting closing to the series from director Jeff Tremaine, with the small caveat that they filmed a LOT more footage than the film contained.

 How much more footage? Well, if you took Jackass 3 and Jackass 3.5's runtimes, edited out the connective tissue of the latter, you'd still have nearly two-and-a-half hours, plus another fifteen minutes of scenes deleted from 3.5. The good news for Jackass fans is that none of 3.5 feels tacked on, or superfluous. You could easily switch out vignettes from the theatrical release to the home video sequel (and vice versa) and be just as entertained.

  The structure is a little different from previous Jackass films: instead of transitioning from bit to bit, there are a series of interview segments with the cast (many of which appear to be in London) that provide context for why footage didn't make it into Jackass 3. It gives parts of the film more of a documentary / making of feel, although as the interviews increasingly become excuses for more pranks (especially between Bam Margera and Ryan Dunn). There's more fun with the Phantom camera's high speed frame rate, more mountain horseplay with the Dudesons, a great fake-out prank involving a fake "human bowling ball" that's actually an excuse for Johnny Knoxville to use a remote controlled helicopter to shoot paintballs at them. We also see some of the aftermath of failed sketches, like the Blowback (an attempt to clothesline a pole with a long wooden board), some more "painted man" gags, and at least one segment I couldn't believe didn't make it into Jackass 3. Let's just say it involves a wind-up metal rat, an electric mouse trap, and Steve-O's testicles.

There's a greater sense of fun in 3.5; the laughs are heartier, the sense of glee that accompanies each stupid stunt (and many of their failed outcomes) brings back some of the juvenile glee of the TV show and the first two films. Well, for everyone except Brandon Novak: in Jackass 3, it seemed like he was just hanging around for Margera to punch during a "Rocky." In 3.5, it's clear he was involved in a few stunts (one involving riding a toilet down a ramp and the other involving belt sander "skates") that end... badly. For the suffering Novak endured, I'm a little surprised none of his bits made it into the theatrical release.

Jackass 3.5 also seems to be a reaction to the "these guys are getting old" reviews that figured into the best reviews (the film does, by the way, have a "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes). After a hesitant start from Steve-O to let an alligator snapping turtle to bite into his posterior, the boys open up for a number of ridiculous, dangerous, and silly stunts. Steve-O's excitement to run down a wooden beam surrounded by fire (while dodging flaming medicine balls) is a marked contrast to the "Why do I have to be Steve-O?" in Jackass 3. To counterpoint the last film, Tremaine opens 3.5 with the boys racing somewhere in France from the train station to a crowd of cheering fans. He closes the film with another montage of footage from the film, but set to "Young At Heart," a rebuttal to the suggestion that the Jackass crew are in any way over the hill.

 It almost seems silly putting this disclaimer so late in the review, but Jackass 3.5 is really only going to appeal to someone predisposed to enjoy the series to this point. If you didn't like it already, I don't know how this would turn you around. Fans, on the other hand, will be happy to know that Jackass 3.5's 81 minute running time is more robust than Jackass 2.5, which felt like a collection of leftover footage. While it sometimes straddles the line between full-fledged extension of Jackass 3 and an extended "making of" documentary, Jackass 3.5 never feels like a "lesser than" entry. If you're looking for more trashy fun, or just to sate your desire for comical human suffering, look no further.

Retro Review: Trees Lounge

This October, fifteen years will have passed since the first time I saw Trees Lounge, a movie I'm constantly surprised to find people have never heard of, let alone seen. I can understand that John and Jane Multiplex might not be aware of a 1996 indie film written, directed, and starring Steve Buscemi, but even most indie-heads seem to have totally missed the film. It's possible that the popularity of Trainspotting overshadowed Trees Lounge, but then again I might just link the two together because I saw them both around the same time at the same place. With the number of Steve Buscemi fans continuing to rise in the wake of Boardwalk Empire, maybe it's time to look back at his first (and arguably best) directorial effort.

Tommy Basilio (Buscemi) is a functioning alcoholic that can't seem to do anything right but drink. He loses his job as a mechanic for "borrowing" money from the register and losing all of it at Atlantic City, and his ex-girlfriend Theresa (Elizabeth Bracco) is with his boss Rob (Anthony LaPaglia). Tommy spends most of his time in Trees Lounge, a neighborhood dive bar populated by (barely) functioning alcoholics, where he entertains the locals and charms newcomers with his drinking games. When Uncle Al (Seymour Cassel), an ice cream truck driver, has a stroke and dies during his route, Tommy takes over driving, although he's hardly a worthy successor. Tommy does strike up a friendship with Debbie (Chloë Sevigny), Theresa's teenaged niece. Their relationship irks Debbie's father, Jerry (Daniel Baldwin), and is only compounded when Tommy takes it too far. Can he turn his life around, or is Tommy Basilio destined to become another slouching barfly?


 I wish I could remember how or why I knew that Trees Lounge existed in 11th grade: it was so early into the age of the internet that I can't imagine that it came from that direction. There's an off chance I saw a review in the local newspaper (which is, curiously enough, the only reason I knew Donnie Darko existed five years later), and I do know that I was on a serious Buscemi kick, having finished most of his collaborations with Quentin Tarantino, the Coen brothers, and Tom DiCillo's Living in Oblivion (another movie that deserves to be better known than it is).

 Regardless of where I found out about Trees Lounge, I know exactly where I saw it: The Studio. I mention The Studio quite a bit; whenever I wax nostalgic about the concept of "grindhouse" theatres, that shoebox duplex of movies that weren't big enough for The Rialto and were too commercially unfriendly for The Colony (and believe it or not, there was a time when you could see Trainspotting with next to no one in The Studio, when people hadn't seen it and wouldn't for years). I saw Trees Lounge with a new-ish friend that transferred to the high school the Cap'n went to, one who shared an interest in "art house" cinema. Nobody else seemed that interested, and I guess that's been the story of Trees Lounge to this day.

 It really is a shame, because there's a lot to like about Trees Lounge: Buscemi's writing, directing, and particularly acting chops all serve the low-key story well, and he surrounds himself with great actors in smaller roles: Carol Kane, Seymour Cassel, Mimi Rogers, Debi Mazar, Michael Imperioli, Kevin Corrigan, Mark Boone Junior, and a brief appearance by Samuel L. Jackson, playing against the "type" he'd been cultivating while working with Tarantino. It's a film of small moments, of characters that hover in and out of the story, where the story is less important than the players.

 While I described the plot very nearly in full, Trees Lounge is more interested than your average "sad sack" alcoholic movie, even if it infrequently rises above a tone somewhere between downbeat and depressing. Buscemi is able to keep the character study engrossing because Tommy is such a likable loser; as an audience, we understand why people have trouble completely giving up on him, even though he seems to be incapable of keeping a good thing going. There's an easygoing charm in his performance, one that might surprise people used to Buscemi's twitchier, chatty performances in films like Fargo and Reservoir Dogs.

 Speaking of Reservoir Dogs, there's a moment early in the film where Tommy is driving around town, and he passes a familiar sight to fans of Tarantino's debut:

In the commentary for the long out-of-print "special edition," Buscemi insists that this was a coincidence and not intended to be a visual reference to the opening credits sequence from Reservoir Dogs. While I take him at his word, it struck us immediately in 1996 and continues to be a pretty big coincidence if you ask me.

 The out-of-print disc is, unfortunately, the only way to see Trees Lounge in widescreen, because when Lionsgate picked up the rights, they dumped the transfer and all of its extras for a pan-and-scan disc at a bargain bin price. The only upside to this was that when I finally - after years of unsuccessfully searching - found the first DVD, instead of paying $25, I only had to pay $7.99 since the updated retail price was lost on a bored employee at Coconuts. It may seem silly to have been so excited, but every now and then one feels that way when a movie goes overlooked for so long. Considering that it's better than subsequent Buscemi directorial efforts (Animal Factory, Lonesome Jim, and Interview), I'm hoping this review turns some of you on to a better slice of understated independent cinema. Think of it as proto-mumblecore, if that's what you're into.

Blogorium Review: The Dungeon Masters

  
The Dungeon Masters is a confusing film: in many ways, it feels like Trekkies, if less invested in the subject, or Ringers: The Lord of the Fans, if less championing. I get the impression that the film is trying to help audiences understand the world of gamers, particularly Dungeons and Dragons, but I'm not sure what the end result is supposed to be: inspiring or humiliating.

I really don't want to approach this in a mean-spirited way, but as the social awkwardness compounds on each of the film's subjects, one must wonder what Keven McAlester was hoping to accomplish in spotlighting the game masters. The film was initially supposed to be a history of D&D, and the opening of the film certainly reflects that, covering a convention of fans with short interviews, but quickly hones in on three subjects (who I'm not going to identify by name; the film does, and it isn't hard to find them, so I don't see much point in adding to that).

 Each is a Dungeon Master (or, as they prefer, "Game Master"), who manage a campaign (or game) for multiple players. The GM sets the rules, creates the story, and guides their players through a campaign (which can last from a few hours to several years). After the convention the cameras follow them home to focus on their lives when they aren't leading campaigns.

What struck me isn't so much that they reinforce particular stereotypes about "fantasy" fans / gamers / D&D players, but the construction of the film almost seems to revel in slowly unfolding how much like the outside world's assumptions about what "D&D Nerds" must be like. The editing deliberately withholds information in order to increase the discomfort for viewers trying to sympathize with the film's subjects.


 The first GM left a religious puppet show over "differences of opinion" and works as an apartment manager, although he hopes to jump-start his writing career and has met with a literary agent. At least, that's what we see at first. During a moment in his disheveled apartment, the door opens and his wife and son walk in, initially dispelling the implication he lives alone. Through conversation, it eventually becomes clear that he doesn't manage the apartment complex - his wife does - and that instead of "working full time," she argues that he "maybe works part-time" although he protests that he helps when she's not around. During a montage He explains how to "punish" your dice if they misbehave (complete with demonstration), delivers his epic sci-fi / fantasy novel (which he seems to be unable to cut down, per request), and shows disdain while doing sit ups. What exactly am I supposed to take away from this?

 The second GM is in the Army Reserves, a nudist, and likes to kill off every group he plays with. He openly admits that he doesn't always have an ending for his campaigns and prefers to punish his players for doing foolish things like deciding to (and this is a direct quote) "run through a door." During back and forth interviews with one of the campaign members and the DM, it's clear his expectations are really unreasonable. The player explains that he spent time trying to discover which door was the exit, only to realize none of them were, but the GM scolds the players (to the camera) for not "testing" the doors to his liking, so the door they choose leads to a "Sphere of Annihilation." Earlier in the film, he tries to kill off another party and fails to after being unable to defeat them by rolling the dice.

 The third GM is introduced in full make-up, explaining that she feels more comfortable as a dark elf. Living in Gulf Coast, Mississippi, the youngest of the dungeon masters alternates between Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft, and Live Action Role Playing (LARPing) while searching for work. Her desire to avoid large corporations was thwarted after a small business owner behaved inappropriately with her, and before the film she left her boyfriend because he played WoW "too much." She finally takes her makeup off halfway into the film, and moves in with a guy who seems cagey about their relationship status. Her ex-husband was violently abusive, leaving her emotionally distant and unwilling to "rely on anybody" moving forward.

The unifying link between the three is a desire to escape from their respective realities - one is running from his childhood, another lives in an underwhelming adulthood, and the last is trying to escape the omnipresent decay of post-Katrina Gulf Coast. It's easier to kill off your members and leave than say goodbye, or to deal with separation, and when he comes back after years of silence, the sense of discomfort - not only with his players, but also the family he abandoned - is palpable onscreen. The first GM is constantly shirking his real-world responsibilities - instead of finding work to support his  family, he decides to start a public access show about a villain who realizes he's bad at his job and decides to host a public access show.

 Their interview audio is often juxtaposed with drab, unappealing shots of parking lots, strip malls, and images of urban decay, which helps underline the desire to escape, but also lends a dispassionate, detached tone to the film. This American Life is sometimes criticized for being too "distant" from its subjects, but the construction of The Dungeon Masters often feels bored and condescending to its subjects. I felt like I should be laughing at their misfortunes (particularly the first and second GM's) but instead felt uncomfortable.

 Maybe the film hits too close to home: my father played D&D in college, and remains a big fan of science fiction and fantasy. I know a number of well adjusted adults who play D&D, LARP, and also engage in related activities that don't at all embody the stereotypes reinforced in The Dungeon Masters. I don't play D&D - I did once when I was 8 or 9 at a friend's house - but I don't look down on people who do. I know people who LARP and do CosPlay; do I think it's kind of silly? Maybe, but I've also seen the work they put into the costumes, and the sense of community they feel.

In the interest of fairness, I hated the Dungeons and Dragons movie, but mostly because it was a really bad movie.

 It's fair to say that horror fans are engaging in a more socially acceptable version of "geek" fandom, one that doesn't meet the kind of derision that Trekkies, D&D players, Star Wars or Comic Book fanatics do. The film community turns its nose up to horror and its fans, but the "heroes" emblazoned on horror t-shirts are covered in blood - they kill people in evil ways. People don't sneer at a Freddy Krueger the same way they do an Elf, but the fans aren't any less passionate or devoted to their geeky  subculture. It doesn't escape me that I write a blog about movies under the moniker Cap'n Howdy, and that I too embody a number of characteristics and ideals lampooned in the film.

 I don't mean to push people away from The Dungeon Masters - it's a compelling documentary, to be sure. It's entertaining, and does shine a light on a somewhat unrepresented branch of gamers, albeit in a less than favorable way. Rather than empathize with its subjects, instead we're left with an emotionally distant young woman, a unrepentant jackass, and a man with delusions of grandeur, caught on camera by a director that dwells on their inability to function as members of the real world. Entertaining? In an uncomfortable way - crueler audiences will howl with laughter - but yes, watchable by all means.

A Saturday Night Quickie

 Hello. The Cap'n here: normally I don't like to miss two days in a row without writing something, but extenuating circumstances are keeping me away from the computer for extended periods of time. I'll be back tomorrow with a new Trailer Sunday, followed by reviews for The Dungeon Masters, Jackass 3.5, a Retro Review of Trees Lounge, and hopefully some other interesting films later in the week.

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to the pervs who have been visiting the Drive Angry review with image searches for "drive angry naked chick" - which is now almost as popular as "what is the championship ring in The Mechanic" - I've opted to change the photograph because the point I was conveying is how trashy the film is, not to give you a "naked chick" to oogle. Surely you can find naked pictures of women without Amber Heard beating them up or skeezy fat guys taking cell phone pictures elsewhere on the internet.

 As for the aforementioned championship ring in The Mechanic, I've also amended that page with images of the ring, the Superbowl ring Jason Statham is looking at online, and the Superbowl Championship rings featured in The Rundown for comparison's sake. The only thing I'm certain of is that it doesn't match any 1992 championship ring I could find (NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL), but judging by the build of the guy, it's either for wrestling or football. I'm not sure what the "R" stands for, unless it's a University. It could, of course, not actually be a 1992 "World Championship" ring, but since the Blogorium has become a hub of traffic for just this purpose, the Cap'n will keep looking into it.

Odd, considering that The Mechanic is only okay and not a really good Jason Statham movie, that I would be devoting time to something as trivial as a ring, but the fact that it implies something will happen in the film that doesn't clearly resonated with more people than me.

Okay, I need to be off, but you folks stay tuned; there's plenty to come!

Newer News and Older Notes

 It looks like the inevitability of The Hangover Part III became a little more inevitable with the Box Office madness last weekend. While I tend to joke that box office numbers are directly proportional to the quality of the film, in this case I really can't even say that with a straight face. While The Hangover Part II is funny, which technically means it succeeds as a comedy, the sequel is one of the most flagrant examples I can think of recently of not straying too far from the original Or straying at all: the changes are all superficial, the character arcs are basically unchanged, and The Hangover Part II becomes strangely predictable even if you've only seen the first film once.

 Todd Phillips recently suggested that "if" they made a third film (Warner Brothers has subsequently hired Part II screenwriter Craig Mazin [Scary Movie 3 and 4] to start writing the next film) it would be the "finale" and would be "different" from the first two. Now it would be nice if that happened, and I don't doubt Phillips is sincere in his desire not to continue remaking The Hangover, I doubt Warner Brothers is very excited at the concept of a radical departure from the formula. Since audiences have demonstrated that they're willing to pay for tickets to a movie they've already seen, why risk scaring them away, or worse still, "ending" this emerging franchise?

But we all know the more pressing matter is what the Cap'n will do if I decide to see The Hangover Part III: Diminishing Returns - I can't repeat my repeat review. That's so passe, and besides, I must stress that it wasn't even my idea to begin with. I guess I have a year-and-a-half or so to figure that out, although if I'm going to watch a movie I've seen before, it probably isn't going to be The Hangover.

---


However, if you're looking for a way to separate me from money I don't have, you could come up with worse ideas than Shout Factory's Mystery Science Theater 3000 volume XXI, also known as MST3k vs. Gamera. As Volume XX was a Joel-centric set, Volume XXI is also a "theme" set, this time collecting all of Joel and the Bots' encounter with the giant, fire breathing turtle (or whatever Gamera is supposed to be). They also happen to come from Season Three of MST3k, when the show was really hitting its stride, and benefit from the fact that all of the films had already been a part of the KTMA pre-series season, giving the writers a second go-round.

For some reason, it never occurred to me that when Shout Factory picked up the Gamera series for release, it dramatically increased the chances that exactly this boxed set should come to pass. Since there's almost no chance we'll see Godzilla vs. Megalon again, this may be the best gaijin Mistie you can expect for a while.

---

Finally, I thought this tidbit might be interesting, and it allows the Cap'n to keep hoping: this week, Criterion's Facebook page posted a screen cap from Krzysztof Kieślowski's Red, hinting at a Blu Ray release of the "Three Colors" trilogy. What's significant about this? At first, it merely seems logical: Criterion has already released The Double Life of Veronique and fans hope that The Decalogue may find its way to "Spine Number" status down the line.

 That said, what I noticed immediately, because I still have the DVD boxed set of the Three Colors trilogy, is this impending announcement is significant for another reason. Red, Blue, and White were released on DVD by Miramax, who owned the rights and presumably sold them during the great "catalog dump" when the mini-major studio folded. Previously I had mentioned that as far as the press announcement indicated, the catalog was being split between Lionsgate and Echo Bridge (the former not being such a bad thing; the latter more so).

 At the end of the post I said that I hoped people would avoid Echo Bridge's mangling of From Dusk Till Dawn because a better studio might pick up the rights. I half-jokingly suggested Criterion pursue the film, not ever expecting it be reality. While it still remains hope on my part, the fact that the Criterion Collection is pursuing rights to previous Miramax titles (like the Three Colors trilogy) means that my pipe dream may not be so outlandish after all. Maybe we could see that Spine Number after all. Right after C.H.U.D.*.

* It was a great April Fool's Day joke, Criterion, but seriously get on that disc. Did you see the out-pour of fans supporting the idea of an actual C.H.U.D. release? I'd buy it today and I'm flat broke.

Retro Review: The Siege, Star Trek: Insurrection, and Rush Hour

 This is a little bit different take on the Retro Review, less about the specific films listed in the title and more about the reason WHY I sat through two movies I'll never watch again and a movie I haven't seen in nearly a twelve years and vaguely remember. The connective tissue between these three disparate, otherwise wholly unrelated films, has everything to do with George Lucas and May of 1999*.

 Although Star Wars doesn't receive the level of attention at the Blogorium that it might have ten years ago, I was once a fanatic of George Lucas' sci-fi / fantasy series. These days, in the wake of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, The Clone Wars movie and subsequent series (which I have not and do not plan on seeing), and the impending Blu-Ray release / 3-D re-release of the "saga," I just don't feel the need to write about Star Wars that much anymore. I'm not one of those hyperbolic "Lucas raped my childhood" idiots**, and I do sometimes smile or chuckle at a well placed SW reference, but most of the time I just don't think about the movies. Any of them, even if I'm more inclined to watch A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back than the other four.

 That was not always the case; from the announcement of the Star Wars prequels (some time after the 1997 Special Editions) until the release of Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, I was a rabid fanatic. You can ask anyone I knew in college freshman year, when I undoubtedly drove them nuts with taped trailers from Entertainment Tonight or the latest rumors from TheForce.net.More to the point, I was insufferable when it came to seeing the teaser trailer, and I had a habit of dragging very reasonable friends to movies we wouldn't see otherwise because the teaser was "rumored" to be attached. I was home from school on three occasions, and I think you can figure out what the first two movies were.


I'm sure you've all seen Rush Hour at this point; you've probably seen Rush Hour 2 and not Rush Hour 3 (at least, that's my level of interaction with the series). I heard that The Phantom Menace's teaser ran before the film, and that Rush Hour might be funny. I suppose we enjoyed it, although I'd be pressed to tell you much about Rush Hour. Thinking back, it seems like I remember as much about Rush Hour as I do Shanghai Noon (anybody see that movie?). It's an amiable comedy, notable (at the time) for featuring Tom Wilkinson, who I had seen in The Full Monty the year before. I can't honestly remember if the trailer was attached or not, but it seems like it wasn't.



  Skip two months later to Thanksgiving break of 1998, when a similar situation unfolded for The Siege.
Driving to the theatre, I swore up and down we wouldn't be as "let down" this time, and by "we," I meant "me" because compared to The Siege, Rush Hour was a walk in the park. Other than hating the movie, here are the things I remember about The Siege: Bruce Willis, Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, and Tony Shalhoub were in the film. It had something to do with a terrorist attack or the threat of terrorism or something, and Willis declared marshal law in New York. That's it. I never saw The Siege again, don't recall enjoying it, and have no plans to revisit the film. Considering that we (I) only went to see The Siege to watch that trailer, and the trailer wasn't there, I was doubly disappointed.

 How I eventually saw the teaser trailer or what it was playing in front of is lost to the ages, so I'm just going to assume I saw it online over and over in some horrible quality QuickTime on a loop, obsessing over the minutiae until the next trailer came along. Maybe it's even on a cd-r or a floppy disc somewhere, lost in the shuffle of the following decade.

  Star Trek: Insurrection is more of an appendix to the story, a movie I saw with my Dad for Christmas or possibly even early in 1999 for his birthday. The film itself is a elongated, mostly pointless episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that I'd largely forgotten until watching Mr. Plinkett's review of the film***. It's only really worth noting because I do know that the Episode 1 trailer played before Insurrection, and was arguably the highlight of the afternoon.

 This is not a Retro Review for The Phantom Menace (although I might do one of those down the line), so there's no need to get into whether the film lived up to the teaser or not. I just thought you might chuckled at the lengths to which a young and silly Star Wars fan would go to see a trailer. Not the movie, a trailer. Laugh it up, fuzzballs.

* You could also consider The Mummy to fit into this rubric, although its release was much closer to Episode 1. For whatever reason, I gave The Mummy's crappy visual effects a pass because, as I reasoned, "ILM put most of their effort towards Star Wars."
** If you don't understand why using a rape metaphor to describe your reaction to three shitty movies, you are an idiot. Period.
*** Appropriately, the reason I knew Mr. Plinkett existed was because of his now famous Episode 1 review.

Blogorium *ahem* Review: The Hangover Part II

I fully admit that I'm borrowing this concept verbatim from Outlaw Vern's review of The Stepfather remake, but for there were a few people who heard me say "The Hangover Part II is the same movie" and thought that was a good thing. I guess it could be if you want to pay $10 to see something you can get from Redbox for a dollar, plus popcorn and all the other accouterments, but to prove my point, here's my original review of The Hangover, amended to reflect the same movie The Hangover Part II.

---


The Hangover The Hangover Part II won't cure diseases, or bolster world peace. It's not likely to make many "top" lists, when "serious" and the "meaningful" films are to be had, but so what? The Hangover The Hangover Part II is a comedy that sets out to entertain, offend, and periodically shock you. And that it does very pretty well, in addition to being quite slightly less funny.

Forgive me if the Cap'n is late to the party. It is a well known fact that as much as I'd like to get out and see films during their actual release, I rarely do. To remedy this, I do attempt whenever possible to watch them on the fancy tv with the fancy picture and sound hookups. This part is mostly irrelevant as I obviously saw the movie yesterday and everything the follows is pretty much accurate. I even leave my phone on for that "authentic" movie theatre atmosphere. Normally speaking, it makes up for not seeing it with others in a darkened auditorium*, but I do feel I cheated myself out by not seeing The Hangover The Hangover Part II with others.


  If anyone at this point doesn't already know the plot of The Hangover The Hangover Part II, I will detail it in brief: this time, Doug (Justin Bartha) Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married, but before he does so his friends are taking flying with him to Vegas Bangkok for a blow out reserved bachelor party (that actually happens in an IHOP in the U.S.). The friends in question are school teacher Phil (Bradley Cooper), dentist Stu (Ed Helms) Doug (Justin Bartha) and soon-to-be brother-in-law invited against Stu's wishes Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Rather than seeing the bachelor party, the audience is introduced to the aftermath, as the very hung over and completely confused Stu, Phil, and Alan try to retrace their party trajectory. See, they lost Doug Teddy, Stu's soon-to-be-brother-in-law, and Teddy's dad already hates Stu who is getting married very soon.

Along the way, they run into escort / stripper Jade (Heather Graham) Kimmy (Yasmin Lee), who Stu married at some point had sex with / is a transsexual, a very not quite as naked  Chow (Ken Jeong), another Doug (Mike Epps) a tattoo artist (Nick Cassavetes), and Mike Tyson. What any of these people may have to do with a stolen police car a missing finger, a tiger drug dealing monkey, a baby Buddhist Monks, and roofies is up for you to figure out. Also, Stu seems to be missing a tooth have Mike Tyson's tattoo on his face. These, and other debaucheries come to light over the 108(ish) minute unR-rated Theatrical cut of The Hangover.

Early reviews indicated that the film was lacking on consistent laughs almost exactly the same movie, to the degree that the cast keeps saying things like "I can't believe we did this AGAIN!" - a point I disagree with - but compensated for very big gags jokes about trannies and boners strategically placed throughout the film. While most of the reveals as to how or why such strange things happened during the bachelor party are the source of the biggest laughs, I'm going to side with a more consistent mostly the same comic approach to the film, largely from character moments. Director Todd Phillips (Old School) hit the jackpot with the combination of Cooper, Helms, and Galifianakis. You could not put three more different people together, but they have a chemistry that sells the rampant absurdity of the story.


Cooper manages to make Phil, a complete asshole who starts the film stealing money from field trip funds a prescription pad from Stu's office, a reasonably likable dude by the end of the film. Ed Helms begins The Hangover as a henpecked loser dominated by Melissa (Rachael Harris) pretty much the same milquetoast dude as in the last film, and grows out of that "type" in a believable way to embrace his "dark side" for reasons that aren't really believable. You can actually buy his final scene with Heather Graham the guy who plays his fiance's Dad as something nothing that could happen between those characters.

Galifianakis runs away with the movie, partially because Alan is a walking non sequitur transformed into a total sociopath. Half of what Alan says doesn't make sense, and the way he makes connections or expresses whatever dementia going on inside that brain carries the humor past big joke set pieces. I was personally fond of the way that the film addresses some of his off hand comments but not others (like why he's not allowed near schools or Chuck E Cheeses). There's also a ridiculous payoff for a Rain Man joke earlier in the film that works because Galifianakis sells it so well. Well okay, Alan is actually more obnoxious at the beginning of the film which doesn't help things.

In the interest of keeping this review short, I won't mention all of the great supporting parts from Jeffrey Tambor, Rob Riggle, Matt Walsh, Paul Giamatti, Bryan Callen, Mike Epps, and particularly I guess Mike Tyson, who has a much better scene than just that is like the Phil Collins moment in the trailer, except this time he sings "One Night in Bangkok" at Stu's wedding. I'm not at all surprised that a sequel is in the works inevitable for The Hangover The Hangover Part II, because the combination of Cooper, Helms, Galifianakis (and, to a lesser extent without spoiling anything Bartha**), is too good to pass up revisiting the line for the midnight show was ridiculous when I was leaving Bridesmaids and people are going to pay a ton of money for something they already saw. I wouldn't mind seeing didn't see more of Heather Graham in a this sequel, as her character is criminally underused in the film, aside from a third-act con game in the casino she either asked for more money or was busy or something.

There is one complaint I must register with The Hangover The Hangover Part II, and it is a matter of personal disagreement. The Dan Band, who Phillips also used in Old School, show up near the very end of the film, and are featured in such a way that it nearly derailed my enjoyment of the entire film. I just don't like that group, and having them singing a lounge version of 50 Cent's "Candy Shop" isn't going to change that. the fact that it's really just The Hangover all over again, except in Bangkok. You can figure out almost immediately where Teddy is and everything else that happens is clearly misdirection.Why? Because you ALREADY SAW THIS MOVIE! Otherwise, The soundtrack the music alternates between bachelor party appropriate and inspired (like the use of Danzig's "Thirteen Black Hell" to open the film play over the opening credits).

If you're like the Cap'n and somehow slow to pick up on the universally positive buzz generally "meh" buzz that nevertheless has people turning out for The Hangover The Hangover Part II, now's as good a time as any to catch yourself up. I doubt you'll regret it, unless you offend easily or really like babies monkeys that smoke cigarettes.



* Please don't fail to note that I've been sharing excerpts of a paper I wrote extolling the virtues of seeing films theatrically. The irony is not lost on me, I assure you.
** It was not until writing this that I checked IMDB to figure out why Justin Bartha looked so familiar. Turns out he was the "nerdy" character in National Treasure. His part in The Hangover The Hangover Part II is enough of a departure that I never made the connection.

Blogorium Review: Thor

I'm of two minds when it comes to reviewing Thor, because as much as I want to convey to readers that the movie is not only watchable, but eminently better than the garbage passing itself off as "summer entertainment" year after year, I also feel a responsibility to point out that half of the film is much better than the other. I feel this is directly attributable to Thor's director, Kenneth Branagh.

Branagh, whose output varies from the likes of Dead Again to a remake of Sleuth, is best known for his Shakespearean films - Henry V, Hamlet, Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing, and As You Like It (as well as appearing in Othello) - and the influence of the Bard on his adaptation of the Nordic-God-Turned-Marvel-Comic-Hero is apparent throughout the film.At least, part of the film.
 
  In the realm of Asgard (one of the nine cosmic realms), Odin (Anthony Hopkins), King of the Gods, is preparing to step down and enter Odinsleep - his period of hibernation - but first must decide which of his sons to hand the throne of Asgard to. His oldest son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is brave, if stubborn, whose rule may be undermined by a sense of entitlement. His youngest son, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) spent his life living in the shadow of Thor, and while his mischievous nature is recognized, his desire to win Odin's approval is evident. When the Frost Giants invade Asgard and try to steal back the Casket of Ancient Winters (their power supply), Thor disregards Odin's wishes and travels to Jotunheim with Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander) and The Warriors Three - Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) - in tow to destroy the King of the Frost Giants (Colm Feore). Furious, Odin strips Thor of his powers and orders Heimdall (Idris Elba) to banish his son to Earth.

 And that's the first half hour or so of Thor. That doesn't take into account astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her advisor Dr.Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings), who discover Thor while searching the deserts in New Mexico for wormholes (or, as the film insists on calling them, "Einstein-Rosen bridges*"). No sooner have they found the brash, unruly son of Odin than Mjolnir, Thor's hammer, also falls to Earth and is discovered by S.H.I.E.L.D., headed up by Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg), who continues to appear in all Avengers-related Marvel films.

 The New Mexico part of the story, including a well-staged action sequence involving Thor, the S.H.I.E.L.D. team (including an extended cameo by Jeremy Renner, who will play Hawkeye in The Avengers**), is unfortunately the half of the film that doesn't really work. It's clear that Branagh is more interested in the Shakespearean power play at hand in Asgard, where Loki assumes power as Odin collapses after banishing Thor and proceeds to manipulate events in order to keep his older brother from ever returning. What happens on Earth, the place where Thor learns humility and earns his "God of Thunder" powers - which should be the most important part of the film - takes a back seat to Asgardian politics.

 Portman and Skarsgård are wasted in roles that serve no purpose: Jane Foster's developing romance with Thor never really makes sense because there's no story arc to support it. Selvig seems to exist in order to bridge Norse mythology to the story at hand (as is evidenced by the many times Skarsgård is forced to mention or read tales of the Viking Gods during the film), and for one good scene where he (badly) lies about Thor's identity to free him from S.H.I.E.L.D. captivity. There's also the after credits tease, but I'll get to that in a minute. I have no idea why Kat Dennings is in the film at all, as Darcy contributes nothing to the story unless the three screenwriters (plus two credited "story" writers) felt the pressing need to have three people discover Thor.

 Gregg is, as usual, fine as the "been there, seen that" second hand man of S.H.I.E.L.D. This time, he's on his own (Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury doesn't show up until later), and makes a credible Earth-bound foil for Thor, I guess. Since Thor pretty much gives up on beating goons after failing to raise Mjolnir, it's hard to really say. Again, the Earth-bound business feels perfunctory, second to the far more interesting Asgard story.

 Branagh seems to be more comfortable with Hopkins, Hiddleston, Hemsworth, Elba, and Renee Russo (who I didn't even recognize as Odin's wife Frigg) and the power struggle between father and sons. It's as though he's reveling in a pulp fiction twist on King Lear, and the film comes to life during throne room conversations. That's not to say that the Asgard half of the film isn't without its problems, though - another Branagh idiosyncrasy pops up that further confuses the narrative.

 Audiences have some idea when they are introduced to Loki that he's supposed to be the villain: his posture is slightly stooped, his hair is slicked back and his sullen, sunken eyes just scream "bad guy waiting in the wings!" But when the time comes for Hiddleston to shift from younger brother with an inferiority complex to full on baddie, Branagh doesn't convey that. This shouldn't be surprising: Branagh also devoted as much of his Hamlet as possible to give nuance to Claudius, typically portrayed as the moustache twirling villain. And there's something to be said for nuance, for giving a villain dimensions, or even to make him sympathetic, but Loki is such a muddled antagonist that he's never a genuine threat for Thor.

 In fact, Loki doesn't actually behave in a villainous manner until the after-credits sequence (directed by Joss Whedon, it turns out), where Selvig is summoned by Nick Fury to examine the Cosmic Cube. This brings me to another problem that isn't Branagh's fault, per se, but more attributable to Marvel Executive Producer Kevin Feige: the "set-up" effect.

 To be fair, Thor integrates Marvel characters (specifically Avenger-related) in a less intrusive way than say, Iron Man 2: there are small asides that indirectly mention Tony Stark and Bruce Banner; there's the aforementioned "Hawkeye" scene, and The Cosmic Cube is their way of anticipating the Captain America film to come. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is that Thor on Earth isn't really about Thor among humans, but as laying the groundwork for The Avengers, right down to the last thing he says to Agent Coulson before leaving for Asgard.

 Okay, so I've nitpicked Thor as a way of addressing why there's a small (but vocal) backlash against the film online, so why do I think it's better than most summer entertainment? Well, the Asgard sections of the film are very good, as is the battle with the Frost Giants. Hemsworth and Elba are both great; Hopkins hasn't been this watchable in a while, and while they don't make much of an impact in the story, Sif and The Warriors Three have a natural chemistry with Thor that hints at a stronger relationship than we see in the film.

 The film is also funnier than this recap might suggest, and the laughs are much needed considering how much "fish out of water" plot is glossed over. The effects are impressive, particularly the Bifröst and bridge of Asgard. More to the point I feel the need to stress that there actually IS a story in Thor, which is more than I can say for a lot of "summer movies." It may not be the perfect comic book movie, but if you don't mind the imbalance of interest on Branagh's part, there's a lot to enjoy in Thor.





* I mention this because Ain't It Cool News, of all places, has an actual astrophysicist that breaks down the science of Thor here, and it seems like while the name is appropriate, it's really just a fancy way of saying "wormhole."
** I mention this because Coulson never actually uses his Avengers moniker, so either you know about the casting or are enough of a Marvel fan to know why he chooses a compound bow over sniper rifle. Or both, I suppose. Otherwise, it's just "hey, why is Jeremy Renner in this movie?"

Blogorium Review: Bridesmaids

For the record, I was not forced to see Bridesmaids. I chose to see it. Believe it or not - and based on my track record, I'm probably going to surprise some of you - but the Cap'n does actually watch the occasional "chick flick / romantic comedy." In fact, of my own volition I've seen Bridget Jones' Diary, The Banger Sisters, Keeping the Faith, Say Anything, It's Complicated, Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles, America's Sweethearts, Amelie, Juno, and Sleepless in Seattle. I even liked some of them!

With that qualifier in mind, Bridesmaids is an unusual entry to the well worn genre: on one hand, I can't call a movie that includes a "girl talk" scene, two baking montages, and a surprise appearance by Wilson Phillips at the big wedding scene, just in time to sing the bride's favorite song, anything other than a "chick flick." The structure is pure "rom-com" - girl meets boy, girl pushes boy away, girl has meltdown, and boy comes back at the very end to drive away happily ever after.

Annie Walker (Wiig) is going through a rough patch when her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) announces she's getting married. When Lillian asks Annie to be her maid of honor, she takes on the responsibility of managing the bridal party: Rita (Wendy McLendon-Covey), Lillian's cousin tired of her husband and three children; Becca (Ellie Kemper), a newlywed with no life experience whatsoever; Megan (Melissa McCarthy), the groom's sister, a rude, crude, and socially unacceptable firebrand. Competing for Lillian's affection (and maid of honor title) is Helen (Rose Byrne), a wealthy homemaker who plans to lavish the bride in every possible way to upstage the lower-middle class Annie. Through her trials and tribulations of keeping everything afloat, Annie meets Officer Nathan Rhodes (Chris O'Dowd), possibly the only policeman in Milwaukee, a kind-hearted neighbor that takes a liking to our troubled heroine. Will Annie hang on as maid of honor? Will she realize that Rhodes is the right fella for her, and will they live heavily ever after?

Okay, the "happily ever after" is where we deviate, because Bridesmaids (written by Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo and directed by Paul Feig) may be the most depressing "comedy" you're ever going to see, heaping soul crushing, life debilitating events on Annie Walker (Wiig), including but not limited to losing her bakery and all of her savings, being kicked out by her roommate (Matt Lucas) and his sister (Rebel Wilson), moving back in with her mother (Jill Clayburgh), and being labeled "number 3" *ahem* buddy by perpetually horny Ted (an uncredited Jon Hamm). There are moments in the film where I genuinely wondered where the comedy was supposed to be coming from, or if Bridesmaids was still supposed to be a comedy at all and not an Alexander Payne-esque exploration of middle-aged misery.

The funny thing is that Bridesmaids is often uproariously funny, and not in a cutesy, "chick" friendly way - the film alternates between vulgarity and gross-out jokes, and has a number of laugh-out-loud moments: a dress fitting that turns into a vomit and shit-fest, culminating with Maya Rudolph kneeling in the middle of a busy street, soiling a sample wedding gown; the airplane ride to Las Vegas tops that by cutting between a drunken Annie crashing first class, much to the chagrin of a beleaguered flight attendant (Mitch Silpa) and the back and forth between Megan and a man who may or may not be an Air Marshall (Ben Falcone). It also opens with a goofy sex scene between Wiig and Hamm that quickly spells out their relationship while generating laughs. The film doesn't quite go as far as the "glory hole" scene in The Sweetest Thing, but Wiig and Mumolo's script doesn't hold back on the profanity. This is unquestionably an "R" rated comedy.

Kristen Wiig carries the film effortlessly, only showing brief flashes of Saturday Night Live characters (mostly during the airplane sequence), and does more with just a look than most comedians are capable of. I'm not sure why Hamm went uncredited, but he plays a no-nonsense sleazeball as someone who doesn't seem to care that he just asked you to "take a nap in my lap" while driving you home from an accident. O'Dowd has an affable quality to him that reminds me of John Cusack or Dylan Moran*, and early scenes between O'Dowd and Wiig have a real spark. Maya Rudolph has the thankless role of being the bride fought over by the ladies, and has to react to most of the mayhem (dress ruining scene aside), and I'd rather not spoil a handful of smaller roles.

All of the bridesmaids have great moments, but the VIP actually goes to Melissa McCarthy, who at first seems to be the "comic relief" character, designated to be the butt of every joke (and at times, I mean that literally considering how many fart jokes are in the middle of the film). Instead, she emerges as the unsung hero of the film, without abandoning any of the off-kilter humor of the character "type" - Megan and Annie have a late heart-to-heart that's more genuine than most of the romantic comedy "turn-around" moments, and by the way also gives depth to McCarthy's character that Kemper, McLendon-Covey, and Byrne never get.

Speaking of which, I was worried about the escalation and one-up-smanship (sic?) between Annie and Helen was going to dominate the film - it certainly felt strained early on during the engagement party, and for a while felt like one of Wiig's Penelope sketches on SNL, but it eventually moves into an open hostility between the two, one that Annie seems to perpetually lose. The inevitable comeuppance at the end was crueler than I expected it to be, and introduces a neurotic side of Helen so late in the film it almost doesn't register.

I don't mean to harp on the film, but part of the dark, depressing side of Bridesmaids (and I have to imagine this was how Wiig and Mumolo wrote it) is the way the relationship with Officer Rhodes and Annie develops. In order to avoid a silly contrivance to break up their budding relationship, Wiig's Annie instead turns an innocent gesture on Nathan's part into an attempt to "fix" her, and she blows him off in a way that, well, you wouldn't blame him for backing off completely. Maybe this is just the guy in me talking, but the way she tears him down says "no seriously, this is not reverse psychology, you ruined this forever go away" and the ways she goes about trying to win him back while still completely ignoring simple things like fixing her brake lights (which causes a hit and run midway through the film), don't really justify the way the film ends.

(It does, I must say, set up a funny visual gag involving an apology cake he ignores and raccoons.)

Bridesmaids has been (understandably) confusing audiences - most of the people in the audience I saw the film with were female, with the scattered boyfriend along for the ride - but much of the movie generated laughs, if sometimes in different points. I don't want to suggest anyone thinking of seeing Bridesmaids not to see it; I think you'll find many things to like, if not love, about the film. If you're predisposed to atypical romantic comedies, particularly of the Judd Apatow variety (he produced the film and director Paul Feig is a Freaks and Geeks veteran), then Bridesmaids is more than a match for the just-released The Hangover Part II. My only caveat is that when Bridesmaids gets dark, it gets very dark, and if you're expecting bright and funny and feel good, it might be edgier than what you had in mind. But you will laugh, and laugh a lot, so that counts for something.

And now I've seen my prerequisite "chick flick" for the year. We'll get back to your expected gore-filled science fiction action slasher cult exploitation films tomorrow...


Postscript: Watching Bridesmaids gave the Cap'n the opportunity to see trailers I probably wouldn't see otherwise - What's Your Number with Anna Faris and Chris Evans, Larry Crowne with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, and The Change-Up with Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman, possibly the most "guy friendly" movie of the three.
* Yes, I appreciate that Dylan Moran reminds most people, including me, of John Cusack.

Retro (TV) Review: The X-Files

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Blogorium Review: The Mechanic (2011)

The Mechanic falls into that unfortunate category of "mid-grade" Jason Statham films, where the movie is neither good enough to heartily recommend but also not bad enough to steer people away. It falls into the same category as War, The Transporter 3, Chaos, and Cellular - movies not good enough to be dumb fun like Death Race or Crank: High Voltage, but not as terrible as Ghosts of Mars or In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. It's not even an interesting side-step, like The Bank Job (a film I happen to think is much better than the rap it gets), or as inconsequential-yet-entertaining like The Italian Job. The Mechanic is watchable, if a bit dull, action oriented if awkwardly staggered, and predictable to a fault, but not necessarily dull.

Arthur Bishop (Statham) is a "mechanic," a specialty hit man hired to make assassinations look like accidents. When his boss, Dean (Tony Goldwyn) orders Bishop to kill Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland), his mentor, because the elder mechanic apparently betrayed a mission in Capetown, Arthur reluctantly does the job. Much to Bishop's chagrin, Harry's son, Steve (Ben Foster), a human wrecking ball of rage, comes to New Orleans seeking revenge against the unknown assailant. The mechanic reluctantly takes Steve under his wing, training him to kill without a trace (something the younger McKenna is reticent to follow). When it becomes clear that Dean lied to Bishop, the duo plan to take the boss out, but hiding the secret of who killed Harry McKenna grows more difficult the further they push.

Right off the bat, the fatal flaw of The Mechanic - the remake of a film people didn't seem to know existed - is Ben Foster's Steve McKenna. When I say a "human wrecking ball of rage," I mean that McKenna ignores everything that Bishop teaches him every single time they take a "job" and either makes a huge mess out of the hit or nearly gets himself killed. For no reason other than the film mandates master and apprentice stick together, Bishop keeps Steve around: after he ignores instructions on how to kill another "mechanic," after his carelessness turns a successful hit into a public shootout, and even when Steve finally discovers who killed his father, when Bishop has the option to dump and run. Instead, Steve is already living in the mechanic's secluded bayou home, and Bishop can't muster more than an "eh" that his pupil is single-handedly destroying his livelihood.

It would make sense if there was any way that Steve could figure out that Bishop killed his father, but the only reason it happens is a direct result of keeping him in the story. It's fair to point out that the film doesn't set up rules that Bishop should follow and then breaks them; it's the direct involvement of McKenna that sours the kills. At certain points, one has to wonder aloud why Bishop would keep him around at all.

Then again, this is a 90 minute movie that takes a long time to get where everyone knows it's going: after an assassination of a Colombian drug lord and voiceover explanation of what a "mechanic" does, everything moves nicely until Steve McKenna arrives in New Orleans. Then things slow to a molasses while the protagonists dance around each other, toying with something anyone who saw the trailer already knows is going to happen. Hell, what anyone who is following the story knows is going to happen because there's no other direction this film would take.

Speaking of which, I suppose I should do due diligence and mention that aside from the ending and some shifts in how the mechanic and protege bond, this version of The Mechanic isn't that different from the 1972 original starring Charles Bronson and Jan-Michael Vincent. Statham doesn't really draw any unfavorable comparisons to Bronson because he's really just playing another variation on the "Jason Statham Action Hero" part he usually plays, which is really only different from usual in that he's less snarky. Oh, and there's a moment where I said out loud "are we supposed to be rooting for these guys?" when Bishop permanently scars an innocent teenage girl by threatening to stick her hand down the garbage disposal. Why? To force a character we've just met into telling him where Dean works.

As much as Ben Foster is a vacuum that sucks the entertaining out of The Mechanic, I guess he's a step up from Jan-Michael Vincent. The original was directed by Michael Winner, who went on to make the first three Death Wish films; the remake by Simon West, who directed Con Air and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Believe it or not, it's kind of a wash; The Mechanic is competently shot, without any ridiculous editing flourishes that I noticed. I didn't regret watching The Mechanic, nor was I bored (my patience was tested a few times), and when it was over the general reaction was "it was pretty good."

I would like to mention one amusing moment, something that screams "deleted scene." That's really the only way to explain an otherwise superfluous moment: when Bishop goes to meet Dean about killing Harry, one of the thugs is wearing a "World Champion" ring, and there's a little back and forth while Statham and the bodyguard size each other up:

"Nice ring. How do I get one of those?"

"You can't, unless you're a world champion."

And then Bishop goes off with Dean to talk shop, but the seed has been planted: eventually, the "World Champion" and Bishop will square off and then he's going to take that ring. I mean, we've all seen The Rundown. That's how things work in action movies. Sure enough, just in case we forgot about it, later in the movie Bishop is sitting at his laptop, looking at a picture of the "World Champion" ring online, just before he and Steve head out to take on the bad guys. So where's the payoff? That's the last time we ever see or hear about that ring or Bishop's interest in it. What are you hiding, deleted scenes? What, I say???


 EDIT: For readers who have been checking in to find out what "World Champion" ring appears in The Mechanic, here's a handy visual guide to the scenes from the film:

 So here's the ring . It's a 1992 "World Champion" ring. A Google image search for NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL championship rings doesn't pull up anything that looks like the image in the middle (it looks like an "R").

  Later, Bishop pulls up Ask.com and a quasi-Google search engine and is looking at a Superbowl World Champion Ring (not the same one from earlier in the film). For comparison's sake, here's a "Miami" Superbowl World Championship ring as featured in The Rundown.

 

  So what can we say definitively? I'm not sure, but considering how the ring changes (and its significance in the film) something was cut from The Mechanic.

There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes than with The Mechanic. I realize that doesn't do wonders as recommendations go, but other than telling you it's not a bad movie, I'm not sure what you'd want to know. It delivers exactly what the trailers promised, with a little padding to fill out the run time. It's neither worth writing home about nor worth avoiding. If you're looking for an action movie you haven't seen yet, and want a middle of the road movie with Jason Statham, The Mechanic is as good as a bet as any of his other movies. You'll get exactly what you pay for, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing.