Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

"Great, my secret weapon is PMS. That's just terrific. Thanks for telling me!"

So back when I was a kid I actually enjoyed this movie. I was only 8 years old when this movie came out. 5 years later a TV series based on the movie premiered and I avoided it like the plague! 5 years after THAT, I caved in and watched it and loved it! The TV series was very well done, it was dark with a hint of comedy but it was much more serious than the 1992 film. After having seen the film again recently I realized how absolutely awful the film really is.

The movie plays out very much like the pilot of the TV series played out. It's about a girl, Buffy Summers, the popular cheerleader who is "the chosen one", the slayer. She is contacted by her watcher, who goes by a different name in the film than the TV series, played by Donald Sutherland. He shows her how to prefect the art and become the slayer. Not much more to it than that.

This movie is poorly put together, there's no time between scenes it immediately jumps from the last line of one scene to the first line of the next scene. Buffy is made out to be an empty headed "OMG" teenage girl who is, for lack of a better word, stupid. I believe this was their attempt to capture that "Clueless" like girl (I am aware that "Clueless" came out 3 years after this film, but I couldn't think of a better way to explain it). On the TV series Buffy was a former cheerleader and a carefree girl, but never was she really portrayed as stupid as she is in the film. To prove how stupid they really make her, at one point in the movie someone asks her what's wrong with the environment, her response is to get rid of the ozone layer. Really? I mean even the dumbest people in the world aren't THAT stupid! But the problem is that she is presented as stupid but when she meets up with her watcher she all of a sudden she becomes someone who cares about other people and apparently meeting him has raised her I.Q. as well.

The TV series is so much more well done, it's an intelligent series done the way creator/writer Joss Whedon wanted the movie done. The cast is better and Sarah Michelle Gellar is much more likable than Kristy Swanson. This movie is so lost it can't be found again. After seeing the TV series, this movie could have been so much better if they had just let Whedon do what he wanted to do.

My Feelings Toward 3D in General

Back in 2003 I remember going to see "Spy Kids 3D: Game Over", it was the first movie I got to see in the theater (or at all) in 3D! I went into the theater all happy with my crappy cardboard red/blue 3D glasses and waited for the fun to begin. And then I kept waiting.... and waiting.... and waiting... The fun never began because the 3D sucked. It didn't look like 3D at all. Years passed and I finally saw a 2nd film in the theater in 3D. This time around it was boasting the all mighty "Disney Digital 3D" and the film was a re-release of the 1993 film "The Nightmare Before Christmas". The 3D was much better, but about 5 minutes into the film I sat there wondering, "why the hell is this in 3D?"

Little did I know that 3D was going to become the norm. Since that theater experience 3D has continued to grow and now it's becoming almost impossible to NOT see a film in 3D. But why is 3D so big now and when it was first tried in the 1950s it failed? Well, obviously technology is the answer but why do people clamor for it? Why do people go running for the theater when they hear a movie is in 3D? I honestly have no clue. For some instances 3D works and if it's done well it works well, but for the most part there's no reason for it. 3D works alright in action films and horror films, but what's the point? 3D is nothing more than a novelty act. It's a way to have fun for a certain amount of time, but why would you want to watch every film or TV show in 3D?

When 3D TVs and blu-ray players began selling I figured it would die and I still feel that way. I stand there watching people shell out $3000+ for this crap and can't figure out why. In my opinion the 3D technology will die out eventually, because people are not going to wear big ass 3D glasses on their face for an entire movie or TV show. I've had people tell me "can you imagine watching football with this?" and all I can say is "yes, I can, getting headaches and neck aches from wearing glasses on my face for 4 hours!" 3D is stupid, nothing more, and what really drives me nuts is when they post convert movies into 3D. Meaning the film wasn't shot in 3D but was put through a process so it's in 3D later. What is the point of 3D if you're not specifically shooting FOR 3D? All it does is give the movie depth, that is all, is that really worth an extra $2 per movie ticket?

Another thing I noticed is that eventually the 3D effect wears off. Your eyes become desensitized to the effect causing you to have to take your glasses off for a moment then put them back on to get the effect again. I just don't get the excitement over it. 3D is nothing more than a way to get stupid people to go see a movie they probably didn't want to see in the first place.

Final Destination (2000)

"Carter, you dick!"

In 2000 the slasher genre which had truly began in the late 1970s and ended badly in the mid 1980s and reborn in the mid 1990s, had died down again. The horror genre was looking for something new, something fresh. Then came along a little film called "Final Destination". Looking back at the film now it's hard to believe how original it was. We have known seen 4 sequels to the film and it's getting a bit tired, but at the time the film was something new and interesting.

The film follows a group of students who are on their way to their senior trip to Paris, France. But, Alex (Devon Sawa) has a premonition about the plane blowing up and gets himself and a small group of people off the plane before it actually blows up. Something interesting happens then when those who got off the plane begin dying and in the order they died on the plane! From that point each of the characters tries to escape death.

Again with these films people are really just looking for the death scenes and not really the movie itself. In this film, since it was the first, there is much more character and story development than the other films had. The character of Bludworth (brilliantly played by Tony Todd) is a character that gives the audience all the exposition and it's done very well. Each of the death scenes is unique and that's what makes the FD films so popular. It's not a slasher film, it's a unique horror film that has the characters die off in interesting ways. And, unlike a lot of horror films, this one doesn't actually have an antagonist. The antagonist is death itself, but death is never seen.

The film is very entertaining because of the build up they use with each death. This is a tradition that is used in every FD film to follow. It gets better with each film but this one is fun because the film isn't making fun of it yet, there's tons of build up especially with the death of the teacher (badly played by Kristen Cloke), simply because the death scene is so involved. So much happens in that death scene and it's really exciting to see how they play everything out. The film is a popcorn flick and it's fun to watch!

Final Destination 5 (2011)

"Death doesn't like to be cheated"

Part 5's are usually pretty bad. Why? Because it's the same story over and over again. And by part 5 everyone is pretty tired of the story. And I can see how some people may feel that way walking into and out of "Final Destination 5", after all wasn't part 4 called THE Final Destination?

With the Final Destination films the story is ALWAYS the same. The movie starts out with a hero (or heroine) having a premonition about a group of people dying and then stopping those people from dying. Then death follows each member around killing them off one by one. Back in 2000 when the original film came out it was a fresh, new and exciting idea, 11 years later the idea is stale and it needs new spice every once in a while.

With "Final Destination 5" the new spice is a new rule. Before it was, there was no escaping death. In the first film if you skipped the pattern then that person who was skipped would be saved. In part 2 it was new life could save those marked for death and so on. In part 5 the new idea is if you kill someone else, you take their life. Kind of out there, but it works. Part 5 still is very much of the same, really with any FD film everyone is going there to see the deaths not the movie itself. And to me the most exciting part of the movie is the premonition scene. Those deaths are usually pretty damn fast and gory as hell! However, in this film I felt it was a little lackluster. There wasn't really anything special about the deaths. I felt the filmmakers were just trying to use the stupid 3D to the best of their ability and never mind to the effectiveness of the scene.

A note about the 3D: I didn't see the movie in 3D (on purpose), however there were a few moments when stuff was thrown right at the screen or a death scene was played out to work well in 3D. But, overall I felt the filmmakers didn't really take advantage of the audience in any way, after all some of the people (like me) were going to be seeing the movie in standard 2D (as it should be seen anyway).

Overall, I enjoyed the film and I especially LOVED the end of the movie. I saw it coming as soon as I saw the establishing shot. I'm not going to ruin it for anyone, but it was really cool (in my opinion).

Yogi Bear (2010)

Before I even start this movie is so bad I couldn't even come up with a good quote to accompany it!

Yogi Bear was never a favorite of mine. I love Hanna-Barbera animation but Yogi was never one of my favorites. That said the only reason I saw this abortion of a movie was because I wanted to meet Dan Aykroyd who was at a local theater when it opened. That said what followed was the most predictable and stupid piece of trash I've seen in a long time.

Yogi Bear is voiced by Dan Aykroyd, nothing really wrong with this he was just average in the role. Boo Boo was voiced by Justin Timberlake and at first you probably are thinking "Really? Why?" well he blows the voice out of the water! He was amazing, he sounded just like Don Messick doing the voice! Other than Timberlake's voice portrayal, the movie has nothing more to offer.

The plot is very basic some corrupt guy wants to building something (who cares what) and he decides to try and take the land from Jellystone Park. Interestingly, if Jellystone is a NATIONAL PARK then no one can come and take the land from them, no matter what the reasoning, in this case lack of people coming to the park. So there's a giant as plot hole in this stupid movie. So Yogi and Boo Boo decide to take it upon themselves to save the park.

What a big surprise! The movie is bad, just bad. Hanna-Barbera movies made into live action films are usually hit or miss. There have been a few hits (Flintstone, Scooby-Doo, Josie & the Pussycats) and a few misses (Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas) and this one is definitely a HUGE miss. The movie is boring and isn't funny. There was only one funny moment in the movie and it was ruined in one of the trailers.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

"Get your stinking paw off me, you damn dirty ape!"

I will admit that at first this appeared to be a stupid movie. I've never enjoyed ANY of the "Planet of the Apes" films. Not the original, not the 2001 remake, none of them. I don't know what it was about them, they just never held my interest. So, when I heard there was yet another coming out, I thought to myself "Really?". After hearing the concept of the film I was slightly intrigued but still held it to myself that the movie was going to be bad. I was pleasantly surprised!

The movie is very basic, it's a prequel to the original film and it tells the story of how the apes took over the Earth. Not much more needs to be said. The story was interesting with the drug they used on the one ape and how it proved to make that ape incredibly intelligent. And how that same drug was proven to cure Alzheimer's disease, in the case of John Lithgow's character. However, as time goes on and the main Ape, named Caesar, is taken by animal control after he attacks someone, the drug is proven to not only be very good for humans but kills them as well.

The movie ends with an amazing battle between ape and man on the Golden Gate bridge. However at the end of the movie it is implied that the apes just wanted to get away from humans and live in the woods. My guess is, as it is also implied, that the human race is going to die out thanks to this drug and because the drug is helpful in apes the apes will rise (no pun intended). The apes didn't want to kill humans they just wanted to live separate from them.

Anyway, I was glad this movie was good, it's the first "Planet of the Apes" film that I actually enjoyed! The movie is a great action film with some decent CGI, however there was one particular scene where the apes are charging a building where it was very clear it was CGI, it looked pretty bad. Oh, and also, for any "Harry Potter" fan, Tom Felton (a.k.a. Draco Malfoy) was in the movie and he got fucked up one of the apes! So he finally got his comeuppance!

Across the Universe (2007)

"All you need is love"

Who would have ever thought that some day we would have a musical based around the songs of The Beatles? Well, maybe a lot of people, I don't know. This movie kind of slipped under my radar, I didn't even know anything about it until it was about to come to video, but I was very intrigued to see it and I'm glad it was made.

I'm a Beatles fan, I admit and I've seen Paul McCartney in concert TWICE! But that aside the fact that a movie was made using the songs of The Beatles made this very interesting indeed. The movie plot is very basic, it doesn't really exist. Like so many other films about the 1960s this movie is just that, it's ABOUT the 1960s. I've heard from people who were upset that this movie didn't have a plot, well it wasn't a conventional plot. When you make a movie about the 1960s there's really no reason to have a plot simply because of all the stuff going on the 60s that was enough to make a movie about. But the overall "plot" (if you will) is a basic love story. A guy (cleverly named Jude) comes to America from England looking for his biological father. He finds him and then magically that story is over. He runs into Max a loner who goes to Yale (or Harvard I can't remember) but doesn't want that since it's what his parents want. Jude immediately falls for Lucy, Max's sister, who is fresh off her romance with her boyfriend who was killed in Vietnam. After that the story really focuses mainly on them and their on again off again relationship.

Some might be wondering how exactly they used the songs in the movie. Well, I think they intertwined them very well. Before Jude heads off to America he says goodbye to his girlfriend singing "All My Loving". When Max is introducing Jude to his friends he sings "With a Little Help From My Friends". A gospel choir sings "Let It Be" during Lucy's boyfriend's funeral. One song that was cleverly used was "Dear Prudence". The character of Prudence (who was gay) locks herself in a closet and her friends sing "Dear Prudence" to her to coax her out. Oddly though there was a character named Sadie yet the song "Sexy Sadie" was never used.

The one thing I didn't like about the movie was there was a character that looked like Jimi Hendrix and even wore the same clothes as him (against his own wishes) but it wasn't Hendrix. I just didn't get why exactly they decided to have a character that looked like him but not have it be him. I'm not sure if they were alluding to the fact that it COULD be him or not. Also, I'm not sure on this one but I think Sadie was supposed to be Janis Joplin, but I'm not 100% on that one.

Overall the movie is very entertaining and very much a film about the 60s. The movie is very psychedelic. The performances are fantastic and the movie ends incredibly well with a rendition of "All You Need is Love" and not a word spoken (other than the lyrics) a very good love story indeed!