preemptiveselfdefense Reviews

The Caretaker (I) (2012)

Different angle for a vampire movie

[7/10 · 24 September 2013]

This is a tough one to rate. Basically gave it an extra point for making the attempt. I get people not taking to it but their reasoning is odd to me. Being an Australian movie some people just ain't gonna like it. Just the vibe and whatnot.

The music. Yup, that's an issue indeed. Being musically inclined myself I think I figured out the problem. Sort of. The score itself isn't bad, and seems like the right instruments are being used and played appropriately. If I had to to name the main issue I suppose it's that it sounds like they couldn't afford better. Just produced badly, the EQ is way too biased to the high range, and comes off grating. Then they mixed it in too loud. Kinda like a big Hollywood movie how the strings will blast you w/some patriotic thing like a laugh-track telling you when you're supposed to feel something. Though in this case I'm not sure they got the feeling they were hoping for. Often distracting and at best can be tuned out.

There are several good things though. The "main" vampire character that you follow in the beginning is great, I thought. He's got a unique appearance that works really well later on. Kinda like the old Salem's Lot (cool vampire, not-so-cool movie). Old-school creepy. Has character and I really watched it for him.

There's not a ton of hardcore vampire violence or big action sequences. To me that was fine. Didn't feel like they made it work because they couldn't afford to or something (maybe that's where the soundtrack budget went, or someone owed a relative a favor there). I thought it all came together quite well.

There's a core group of characters and though I found some irritating, it was okay for the most part. There was some dialogue introducing a couple of them that was fairly painful to listen to early on, but you might have one hand on the mute button cuz of the soundtrack anyway so no biggie.

I feel you could watch this movie w/out really thinking too much and it would be adequate. But there's more there if you bother to notice. There's none of that vampire romance stuff. Tom Cruise's pseudo- homosexual Lestat wouldn't fare well in this particular universe. I'm usually pretty lenient w/any movie that tries something new. For instance, I practically loathe Vin Diesel but I'm okay w/Pitch Black being around even if I don't like it (Cole Hauser doesn't do his movies any favors in my book either come to think of it) if only for using a true sci-fi premise. Maybe not the best one, but I couldn't match it to any movies I'd seen in the previous decade or two. Same thing w/the Caretaker. The true meaning of the title isn't kept secret necessarily, but it develops more impact and depth as the movie goes on. Someone gave some thought not only to the vampire genre but also a plausible idea for how humans adapt to all sorts of stuff we really shouldn't have to.

There are some sour notes throughout. Some character motivations are more complicated than they would first seem, but some are just dead ends so you end up getting annoyed at times. Overall though, I'd say watch it. Just keep in mind, these people have some issues. Many of which would need some serious therapy to dig out. One character's actions, more than others, can be... confusing. Just stick it out, I doubt you'll regret it. Am I going to watch this again any time soon? No, pretty sure I won't, but I know I will again. If you're a vampire fan though, you should watch. They went for creepy and disturbing (as the whole vampirism concept really is) without spoiling it by laying out all the "rules" and negating the mystique. The focus isn't on visual horror, more the inner torture that most of the characters are submitted to.

I imagine becoming a vampire would kinda blow personally. You wouldn't think so from most of the movies you see though. Nowadays you trade mortality, soul and a tan for eternal life, orgasms just from eating, permanent make over and a new black leather wardrobe. The vampires in this movie's world are tortured beings that aren't wild hunters so much as hosts for a hunger that destroys them. Without the doctor they wouldn't have been able gotten that across well but he sells it. Just wish I had a subtitle track for some of the dialogue. Sound editor can just go ahead and go deaf though, might even help.

The Frozen Ground (2013)

Relatively positive review title

[7/10 · 23 August 2013]

Considering how many people watch Law and Order, and all it's...offspring, this movie should appeal to a ton of people. But, expectations are different for movies. Which is funny nowadays since most movies are watched just the same as TV shows: w/our collective butts majestically grafted to the couch (or whatever it is you enjoy sitting on). Would I pay for a movie ticket for this? No, but due to some strange economic magic, as movie ticket's increase in price I go to the movies less. Hollywood's response has been to stop throwing money at original ideas. Which is also strange, but in a non-sarcastic, seriously wtf are they thinking? kind of way (my friend texted me that Ben Affleck is going to be the next Batman. I could try to verify that but why bother? If it's true, I don't need that banging around in my skull. There's nowhere to put that information, no "spot" for it. Unless Kevin Smith directed it and had Affleck play a severely stoned {yet angst-ridden} Silent Bob/Batman hybrid. With like one grappling hook. And no rope. Yes, that would be awful too. As well. In addition. Remember Daredevil? I don't, and I forgot to feel lucky about that today. Probably bs anyway). I think I had a point. Yeah, this movie. Okay:

Nicholas Cage is truly the everyman. Most days I go to work I do a pretty good job. I have the ability to excel and do on occasion. And sometimes I just don't give a funk and kill time until I get my paycheck. I would say this is the "fairly good job" Cage here. He doesn't give off the impression he was hung over and just looked at his bank statement when he signed up for the job. His part is present for the bulk of the film and he carries it well enough, though Vanessa Hudgins(sp?) adds a lot as well. I'm just glad he's still digging in his heels and not going straight to DVD w/out a fight.

John Cusack gets to be homicidal and weird, but in an unpleasant way this time. So that's somewhat rare. I thought he did a good job. Seems like I should have more to say about it. It was a subdued performance, maybe that's why.

Good supporting cast too. Dean Norris and that one guy and that other guy that are both good but you never actually remember who they are all turn in good performances. My only general complaint, if you could even call it that, is I remembered/realized it was a "true story" movie about a 1/3 of the way thru. Pacing gives it away, I guess. Life doesn't go by whatshisnuts screenplay beats/hits formula or whatever they're all using now.

Don't worry, I do have some specific complaints. Going backwards here, the ending sequence I found to be borderline awful/laughable. Then again, I can't justify the existence of Nickelback fans and whichever band is playing at the end wishes they could open for Nickelback. At first it's alright where they're giving you the "here's how it turned out" facts over some scenes of looking for the bodies. All to the tune of the often-overbearing symphony score playing (more on that in a sec). But then it cuts to photos of the 17 women they know Robert Hansen killed and this lame ass rock song starts playing. Not lame rock ballad, more lame uptempo-ish vaguely positive sounding rock. Which seems out of place in what is a sort of video memorial for 17 women that got raped, tortured, hunted, murdered and buried in the snow by John Cusack (They do show the 18th woman that managed to escape/survive, so that's nice. Doesn't quite save it though, for me anyway).

Other grievance is I couldn't make out a couple sentences here and there, even after playing them over several times. They weren't too quiet or too accented or anything, but it was a problem in one place where I still don't know quite what she said. Especially in the beginning they throw a lot of info at you in a few spots. One character even goes, "Hold on" in the middle of one of those moments, then proceeds to not summarize anything and confuse things slightly more instead (well, not really...but kinda).

The music score. Yeah, it's loud sometimes. Sorta sucks. Annoys me that some music editor thinks he can make me "feel" something by blasting a string section at my head. I've found the screenplay and the actors better suited to that task.

All in all, it's good. Didn't have that incomplete feeling a lot of true crime stuff leaves me with. There were some nice touches here and there. Random stuff that didn't serve the story or hamper it, just kinda made it more real (starting to talk at the same time, wife being inexplicably insensitive to a rape victim, stuff like that). Go ahead, watch it. It's not like you were going to cure cancer today anyway.

Unless that's your job, in which case don't watch this crap. Get back to work and cure that crap so we can all smoke again (aah, the early 1900's....even babies smoked. What a country!)

Pain & Gain (2013)

Lame and lame

[2/10 · 11 August 2013]

I'm sure w/such a big movie others will go into detail about their feelings. Suffice it to say, this is not an enjoyable movie. I like all three of the main actors (and some of the supporting as well) and had no other biases going into it (I didn't remember it was a Michael Bay movie until the end credits). It's just no fun. It's about a total douchebag (Wahlberg), his dumb friend (Mackie) and another meathead excon that they drag into it (Johnson). They do all kinds of stupid and horrible crap, solely to advance their own vague and stupid agenda. Some really bad stuff, but not groundbreakingly bad or anything. The movie probably does a good job of telling the story it's based on. If not, it had to have done those people some favors; I doubt they could've been dumber or worse than what was portrayed. Basically, it's one of those movies where they did a decent job telling an unpleasant story that (I hope) few people will identify with. The only redeeming quality was the guy who does Monk (Shaloub something. Tony?) and the extremely resilient character he plays. That got a slightly audible laugh a couple times.

Don't do it to yourself. Even if you're bored and have nothing going on, you'll just be in the same boat afterward, but w/an extra tinge of annoyance and disappointment on top.

Scenic Route (2013)

Damn good

[8/10 · 24 July 2013]

This was a great movie. Dan Fogler in a drama threw me but I've always liked the other guy, even though he usually does rom-com stuff that doesn't appeal to me. Very good all around. Plot summary bears some similarities to Gerry, I think it was called (Matt Damon, Casey Affleck) but waaaay less boring. A couple times during the film I thought I had sorta "figured it out" and decided I wasn't liking it, but w/in 10mins it changed my mind again. Being fundamentally a one-setting movie wasn't a problem/didn't get bored. The actors carry this thing very well and are very believable. I'm not one of those people (and damn, there's sooo many) that try and like "solve" movies while they're watching them. I don't wonder whether the butler did it or not because I'm still watching the movie and why spoil it for myself? I did slightly anticipate a few things but only a minute or two before events would unfold. It will trick you, shock you, impress you, do all the good things a good movie should. I did find the initial dialogue/argument that kicks things off slightly forced on Foglers part but oh well, didn't know the characters yet. Makes sense in retrospect. The ending was great for me. Thought it wasn't going to sit well but Josh Duhamel sells it just w/the look in his eyes (I feel somewhat lame saying that but it's true). Many who got all booty-hurt about Inception will pop up again after this but I think it ended just right, which is a rare enough thing these days (as is being well done and at times surprising. And a relatively fresh idea to boot). I feel that this movie wants you to get some perspective and appreciate your life and what you have, since many of us get stuck thinking about what we lack (quite natural given the pain in the posterior that life is for most people). You should watch it. Definitely worth your time

Killing Season (2013)

It was a decent movie, BUT......

[5/10 · 13 July 2013]

I'm going to put aside whether or not the movie accurately portrays Serbians and Bosnians and all that, as I'm not super well-informed (as I was still in the American public school system at the time) and would be putting out more opinions than facts. Which I'm sure someone else will go ahead and do w/out my help.

As for the movie, well it's a pretty good movie. Thought it was gonna go the gross-out route for awhile but turned out to be a well paced flick. I saw someone mention The Hunted or whatever, that movie w/Benicio Del Toro and Tommy Lee Jones corpse. Aside from some general similarities I wouldn't bother comparing them. Though I didn't like The Hunted a whole lot either. They are both similar in that they are mainly about two soldiers that try and kill each other in the woods. As I recall, Tommy Lee Jones was supposed to have been the other guys teacher or superior officer, which at least slightly accounted for the age difference. Here, they don't even bother w/that. You're supposed to accept that Robert DeNiro and Travolta fought in the same war together. Well, maybe DeNiro's character was supposed to be an officer. Didn't look like it, but I was probably so distracted by the young soldier that had DeNiro's CGI'd 60yr old face plastered on it.

Basically, it's a good movie that is horribly miscast. Which is especially a problem when they're really the only two people in the movie for any appreciable length of time. Accents are tough, and people are overly critical, but in this movie they're just ridiculous. I've had a hard time taking John Travolta seriously in anything since Broken Arrow and Face Off and all that other horrible schlock. Maybe he did do a good accent (at least he uses it consistently) but he comes off sounding like FPS Russia with a head cold or something. DeNiro throws a little "southern boy" accent in every once in a while, but it comes and goes about as often as the arrows in Travolta's quiver (12,3,5,2,3....never stays constant).

(Haha, I said I wouldn't compare them then I went ahead and did anyway. Maybe my ex was right....)

So, if u can swallow that Clint Eastwood and Seth Rogen fought in the same war together, than you'll be fine w/this movie. It's a good movie if you have the mental energy to block out...well, how the actors look and sound...then you'll be fine. I'm glad they did it so that I can watch the remake in 4 years and enjoy that.

White House Down (2013)

It's just a big ol' steaming loaf of a movie

[3/10 · 6 July 2013]

Wow, what a bad movie. I like or at least tolerate all the actors involved and I also think the other movies this director's done have all pretty much sucked (except that one where the other Gyllenhaal outruns "coldness" which was so retarded I'll always treasure it).

Biases aside, be they warranted or not, this movie isn't good. Olympus Has Fallen? Way better movie, sorry. That one had good action, fairly lame but speedy plot, and I guess a better script and all that. This movie is just boring and in so many ways that I'm sure other minds than mine have itemized it all out by now.

Suffice it to say, it's just boring and lame. Don't they know that we at least sorta have to give a funk about something on the screen, otherwise who cares if the world's ending. And if your "end of the world" movie is PG-13 then that's just another sucky thing. The end of my life and the rest of my country or planet or whatever will be a totally acceptable to thing for 8th graders to watch? We'll go out so sad no one even gets upset enough to curse more than 2.5x or whatever? Lame, lame, lame.

Screw you Roland Emmerich. What you should do is make a movie about you blowing the living crap out of our side of the planet or something. They give you approx $130-150 million per movie. You just keep phonin' em in and holding back $40-50mil from the CGI budget each time until you've got enough for some plutonium and big ass Iron ROland suit. Then you could Godzilla your big robot up to the White House and shoot depleted uranium shells out of your conveniently located phallus cannon. With the big pool out front it could be like one of those cupid tinkling fountains. Very stupid, I know, but arguably better than his other stories.

(3 stars for blowing crap up and filming it. Could be useful for some documentary about our societal collapse 300 years from now. Seriously, I'm functional and somewhat un-miserable and creative, but I can't go out there and make my own giant robot machine gun weenie movie. Maybe that's for the best, but think about it. Think about the people you know and the movies you've loved and they pay $150,000,000 to this guy to make one of these things? Why? Uggghhh....I fell asleep during the end btw, full disclosure, fyi, whatever.)

Alright, toodles!

The Battery (2012)

Just think of it as a road movie

[7/10 · 10 June 2013]

Even the most resilient have burned out on zombies it seems, but this is definitely worth watching. I don't have anything particularly fascinating to contribute, but I was sorta on the fence about watching it and there's barely any reviews so hopefully I can held nudge a few people over. It's a basic movie. I assume due to budget but also doesn't need anything else; it works really well that way. Has realistic characters, which unfortunately pushes people away sometimes (annoying people and accurately portrayed annoying people still end up being annoying either way). Just watch it. There, that's my whole argument. I'm curious to see what he puts out next.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Don't, just don't

[2/10 · 17 May 2013]

I take issue with the term "spoil" since something can't spoil if it started out rotten. If I were dead, like atheist dead where you're just rotting in a casket for eternity, and some deity or something said "Hey, we'll getcha out of there for a couple hours and watch Mission to Mars" I'd say no thanks, I'm good w/the worms. Even disabled people w/no grasp of physics or even basic human interaction would stand up and go wtf several times during this movie.

I went to see this w/five other friends one afternoon. No one was really dying to see it but we were bored and it looked better than everything else playing (I'm tempted to go dig up what was released at the same time). A few of us were stoned, a few were not. No one had any particularly negative expectations. Four of us walked out saying what a POS and the other two just wanted to go and didn't want to talk about it. Oh, and two of us developed headaches.

It's been 13 yrs so I can't remember it all. I recall the alien thing at the end looking pretty damn stupid even for the cgi capabilities of the time. But one scene stands out. One scene is my go to when stupid stuff in movies is brought up. Here we go:

Spoiler/warning: Okay, so due to some explody thing happening or whatever, Tim Robbins ends up outside the ship in space and his wife (I think, maybe girlfriend) comes out to rescue him. Can't recall specifics but basically one of them is going to float out into space so the other one goes out to get them. BUT...the rope/tether thingy isn't long enough by like 4 feet! Oh no! So if she goes out those extra 4ft to grab him then they won't be able to make it back to the ship. They will be, hmmm let's bust out the ol' abacus...ah yes, they'll come up 4 feet too short. So what? That's called close enough to work with in my book. Couldn't someone grab a freakin broom or something and pull them in? It's 4 feet! 48 inches. A couple pairs of pants tied together or some shoelaces would do the trick. Someone could pee out the airlock and make a 4ft icicle (which would've been original at least). Well...nope. That just didn't occur to them apparently. No improvising in space. After all, astronauts are fairly stupid people, right? It's not like they'd have to have an exemplary grasp of physics and trajectories, ratios and geometry, to do their job. Okay fine, they were stressed. So poor Timmy is going to die in a stupid and extremely avoidable way. Fair enough. So what now? Do you A) Tell her you love her, I'll always miss you, sorry I talked you into that abortion last summer, etc. and float off quietly to your death? Or B) Say I love you or whatever he says, then stare right at her (from four feet away), open your mask (even though you still have air) and immediately freeze your face into some nasty ice mummy thing so that that's the last memory she has of you? Yeah, I know I know, rhetorical question. Of course it's B!! Scar that beeatch for life. Clearly she wasn't having a bad enough day already, might as well turn your face into a shattered meat snow-cone to punish her for not being able to think of anything 4ft long to save your ass w/on an entire spaceship.

The internet brings out elevated standards in people that I seriously doubt they adhere to themselves in daily life. I don't want to be that guy. When the hero in the cop movie fires 19 shots w/his Beretta before reloading, I let the other 2-3 rounds slide. Suspension of disbelief is part of the deal. But that scene was so damn stupid...you know, you can forgive a lot in relationships, but if your husband roofies your mom and sister into a three-way then shoots you in the left boob...well, you're probably not going to be able to get past that, no matter how much he apologizes. And this movie doesn't even apologize. It just keeps crapping on you. Watch that scene if u want, just don't punish yourself w/the whole movie. You'll hate yourself for it.

Thank you for your time and yes, I do consider my opinion to be fact. Ta ta!! :-)

Your Highness (2011)

Too high a price, monetarily and spiritually

[1/10 · 17 May 2013]

Hey hey, my first review (copied over from my old account for posterity). I went and saw this travesty for two reasons:

Firstly, it looked so bad I figured it had to be entertaingly bad. I mean who would spend $50 million to make something that looks that stupid w/out having a few tricks up their sleeve? There were positive reviews. In retrospect, I should've remembered that there's a lot of morons out there, and they all have opinions.

Secondly, I had nothing else to do that day. Unfortunately, I talked someone into going w/me and have to bear the guilt from that for the rest of my life. There's good people in this movie. Natalie Portman..uh ...lost a bet maybe? I can't comprehend why she's in this. I mean she did Star Wars and that was bad enough. I don't know. Damien Lewis is a fairly respectable actor. I don't get that one either. I bet it was probably a lot of fun to make, but that's it. They should've kept it hidden, like a hit and run or a war crime or something. We walked out w/approximately 10mins left. We would've left sooner but I'd paid for the tickets so I wanted to stick it out a little longer. Soonafter we had a screenful of Minotaur junk and that was the last straw. I laughed twice during the whole movie. I can't remember what the first thing was. Nothing too funny. But the second one, at one point someone catches a little Tinkerbell faerie thing, crushes it up and snorts it. I laughed at that, but then again, I used to do a lot of drugs. That's about it. I wasn't offended by anything in it, aside from the general offense to my sensibilities. It just sucked. Really, really bad. Not in a "so bad it's good" way either. Past that, way past that. Don't do it. Other reviews have covered all the myriad reasons not to go see this. It's not funny. I'm think I'm a reasonably clever sort and enoy smart, dark humor, satires, things like that. I'm also capable of laughing at a retarded kid stepping on a rake if the timing's right. This movie, however....nope.

YOU WILL LOSE A PIECE OF YOUR SOUL IF YOU WATCH THIS YOU WILL NEVER GET IT BACK

Revenge for Jolly! (2012)

Have you done all your chores...

[4/10 · 16 May 2013]

...because if you spend the next hour and a half watching this, then that toilet isn't going to clean itself. Maybe that's too obscure? I should preface this by saying that I did not watch the entire movie. Some may feel (myself somewhat included) that I don't have the ability to give a comprehensive review. Well, screw it; I'm going to anyway. Here are my thoughts:

I had this movie for a week or so and got it because it sounded good, but every time I went to watch a movie something else always looked better. I actually went on here looking for a little push to make myself watch it. At that point there were only two reviews so I figured I'd be the tiebreaker and watch it.

Well, as you already know, I didn't make it. It's one of those movie that isn't good in this amorphous, hard-to-define way. Like you can analyze specific things and it all checks out but stick it all together and it's a big suck-fest. There's plenty of wonderful celebrities but the few I saw just pop in and out (that could change later on). It's basically a movie about those two guys that no one's heard of.

Someone asked, "Who the hell is Brian Pestos?" or whatever they said. Something like that. Anyway, I don't know either but I don't like his face. No, that shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether a movie has merit. On the other hand, if you can't stand looking at someone and they're in practically every scene then you've got a problem. I felt greasier just watching him. You'll want to splash some cold water on your face ahead of time.

Before I dump on this movie anymore, I will say that it could possibly be good and I just wasn't in the mood. But that does tell me that it's one of those movies you've got to work with to enjoy and that's asking a lot of me. I'm an American and I deserve instant gratification w/as little effort as humanly possible. So yeah, this movie's horrible now cuz I say so, haha. Eh, I won't get rid of it just yet, but if I had to say, I'd say it sucks.

It's a Disaster (2012)

Great movie

[8/10 · 23 January 2013]

I came to watch this movie because I'm a David Cross fan and it's the type of premise that appealed to me. I thought it did a great job of depicting the disaster w/out spending a lot of money. Special effects budget was probably somewhere around 200 bucks. It's structured similar to that Jodie Foster/John C. Reilly movie that came out recently, i.e. a couples get-together. Very funny but a lot of it might go over peoples heads if they're into more obvious comedies. It's starts easy, paced well throughout and had a great ending. A really good ending. I really want to mention my favorite parts but I wouldn't want to give any kind of spoiler. David Cross is a good barometer for whether or not you'd enjoy this. If you've heard his stand-up anyways. Watch it, and if you didn't like it, sorry. Just go watch Big Momma's House again and bask in your impeccable taste for comedy and superior intellect. Ciao homies.