Top 50 Films of All Time

So thanks to a list created by a friend (over here) whose tastes and judgments I completely trust, I decided to give this Top 50 list a try. It was harder than I thought once I got past the 25 mark. I always have a good idea what my top 5 movies are at any given time, but beyond that it gets hazy. Like the aforementioned friend, I tried to only incorporate movies that moved me personally. Movies that moved the industry forward in some way or another. Just important films. Though there are a few on here that could be argued against on there merits in the latter area, all of these have a special connection or place with me. Some newer, some older, but all resonate with me on such a deep level.

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2. The Incredibles

3. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

4. Garden State

5. Kill Bill Vol. 2

6. Shaun of the Dead

7. American Beauty

8. Kill Bill Vol. 1

9. The Fountain

10. Love Actually

11. 500 Days of Summer

12. The Dark Knight

13. Synechdoche, New York

14. Battle Royale

15. Fight Club

16. Fantastic Mr. Fox

17. Pulp Fiction

18. Stranger Than Fiction

19. Inception

20. I Heart Huckabees

21. Amelie

22. Knocked Up

23. The Brothers Bloom

24. Rushmore

25. The Departed

26. Inglourious Basterds

27. Spider-Man 2

28. Road to Perdition

29. Children of Men

30. Pan's Labyrinth

31. Serenity

32. The Matrix

33. V For Vendetta

34. Oldboy

35. When Harry Met Sally

36. Punch Drunk Love

37. Memento

38. Chasing Amy

39. Snatch

40. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

41. Leon The Professional

42. The Prestige

43. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

44. Casino Royale

45. Closer

46. Stardust

47. Being John Malkovich

48. Magnolia

49. Lost in Translation

50. Army of Darkness 

So do you agree, disagree? Any egregious oversights, anything I left out that deserves to be up here (and yes, I know I left off the Lord of the Rings films, it was intentional).

Day 050 || Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant, 2009

Dir. Paul Weitz

"Vampires don't need cellphones!"

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant (from this point on known as Vampire's Assistant) is an odd film to peg down. It's a coming-of-age tale with vampires aimed at the Harry Potter demographic, all while seemingly hoping to reach an older, and wider audience. It doesn't quite succeed in those lofty ambitions, and though I favored it to the Harry Potter films (the only exception being Prisoner of Azkaban), it's a little shaky and on the whole a jumbled mess. However, it's an entirely engaging and watchable mess, that makes it very forgivable.

Vampire's Assistant tells the tale of two friends who happen across the Cirque du Freak, a travelling carnival of self-proclaimed freaks, including a man with two stomachs, a werewolf type of creature, and the staple bearded lady. But surprisingly traveling with them is Crepsley (John C. Reilly) an ancient vampire, who believes in keeping his victims alive instead of savagely feasting upon them...this is in direct opposition of a rival clan of vampires, the "vamponese" which sounds like an oriental off-chute of vampires, but is really just a fat guy (ironically named Mr. Tiny) and Ray Stevenson in homeless garb.

The story is pretty rudimentary. No surprises or real curveballs thrown, it hits all the necessary and obvious points and does so at such a fast speed that it feels like a lot of the film was trimmed down. The film would have better fitted with more story and character bits because it all feels a little thin and hollow.

That said, the visuals, varied characters, and some really great performances help to make this light and harmless film, at the very least fun and worth watching. It's not a great film, and it might even be a stretch to call it a good film...but I enjoyed it through out, and look forward to, and am keeping my fingers crossed for a sequel that can improve on all of the shortcomings. That shouldn't be too hard to do.

And this is easily more welcomed than Twilight.

3 out of 5

Day 049 || Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, 2006

Dir. Tom Tykwer

"I will look deep into your eyes...and drop by drop I will trickle my disgust into them like burning acid until, you finally perish."

Perfume is the story of a young man, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, born with an odd power, a power no man on earth could match...the power of the finest sense of smell known to man. After an accident he seeks out a way to keep and preserve smells of not just roses and the typical fragrances we're accustomed to...no, Jean-Baptiste is looking for a way to preserve human smells. Through any means.

Let's start with the good, because that will be an altogether smaller list. Tom Tykwer, a director I'm completely unfamiliar with, has a wonderfully scenic eye that he brings to the film. For as much as the film falters on so many levels, it's always breathtakingly beautiful, complete with panoramic views of older, foreign cities (much credit goes out to the production design here, as well), to wide open fields that are vast and colorfully painted. As well many scenes incorporate heavy use of flowers which add even more color and beauty to an already masterfully shot film. The narrator, played by John Hurt, is also one of the best things about this film. Along the likes of Stephen Fry, his voice is a perfect fit for narration, and it fits the whimsy this film tries so desperately to convey.

But that's where I start taking serious fault with the film. It tries to have a whimsical tone, but at the same time demands to be taken seriously. So seriously, in fact, that it makes it had to determine whether this is a comedy, drama, horror, or biopic. Sometimes a mixture of tones can work wonders for a film, but here it just heightens the faults with the script and the story. Imagine trying to mix A Series of Unfortunate Events with Zodiac...two films so completely different, that it's hard to see similarities, yet this film does just that, and does it really poorly.

Jean-Baptiste is our central focus, and he is very much an anti-hero, which some people will automatically not like. I'm a huge fan of the anti-hero and have no problem accepting this kind of role, however, the film tries in vain to get you to feel sympathy and care for this character, without earning any sympathy for him at all. He's played mute for most of the film, due to the character's lesser intelligence (I imagine, anyways), but instead of having that come off as a quirk or something we could look past, it ends up being a serious flaw in how the character's written. He isn't charismatic, and there's nothing endearing about him. I would be very surprised if anyone truly cared about Jean-Baptiste, even Tykwer himself, because it seems even the people behind the camera felt nothing about this character.

So on top of an uninteresting and non-sympathetic lead, we have a series of side characters introduced and thrown away as if they were nothing. It's clear the director didn't care about any of these characters because everyone Jean-Baptiste meets in the film, dies in a horribly random and meaningless way after he leaves them. Instead of evoking emotions from the audience, all this really does is cheapen every other character in the film, and tells us that we should only be interested in Jean-Baptiste's story and plight...but as I've mentioned he's an impossible character to get behind, let alone be interesting enough to be the lead.

And finally there's this ludicrousness that emanates the film from the beginning to the end. Jean-Baptiste is portrayed almost as a superhero with his sense of smell as heightened as it is. Again, this goes back to my complaints with the tone of the film, because it's really hard to take seriously. From the offset the audience is treated to an embarrassing shot of an infant Jean-Baptiste sniffing a kid's finger...now, that doesn't sound too ridiculous as I've typed it, but believe me, the shot is so weird and random that it took me completely out of the film. And then from that moment onwards, I struggled to get back into the film. But let's forget all those smaller scenes that may have bugged me, and they did, but it's one of the last scenes of the film, that portrays Jean-Baptiste on his way to getting hanged for his crimes...which then devolves into one of the biggest and oldest orgies caught on film...and sparked because of his heavenly perfume he created. Now, I know that was a long, most-likely run-on sentence, but read it again, because that actually happened. It leads to an overly long, and eye-rollingly bad scene that I can easily say is one of the most embarrassing things I've seen in a film. If I was Tykwer, I'd be personally ashamed that I put that on film, not because of the immorality of an orgy or anything, but just how basely stupid an idea it is. Jean-Baptiste walks away completely clean and free of the charges, because of this perfume he concocted. It's an inane and horrible way to end the film, and any kind of credibility it was trying to earn was absolutely lost at the end for myself.

This reviewer has written more than this film deserved, but believe me when I say it's not only an embarrassingly dumb, and poorly executed story, but it's easily one of the most far-fetched pieces of cinema I've seen...and that's saying quite a bit. If you want to see a good film about heightened sense, watch Ratatouille. If you want to see a film about an anti-hero done very well, watch American Psycho. But above all, please, please, please don't watch Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.

1 out of 5

Day 048 || The Hudsucker Proxy

The Hudsucker Proxy, 1994

Dir. Joel and Ethan Coen

"When you're dead, you stat dead. Don't believe me, ask Waring Hudsucker."

The Hudsucker Proxy is easily one of the worst titles for an otherwise genuinely great tribute to the classic comedies of the 1950's. This dark comedy tells the story of a young man, Norville (Tim Robbins) fresh out of college, voted most likely to succeed, who is struggling to find any sort of work at all. By luck or chance he winds up in the mail room of a huge corporation, Hudsucker Industries. When the owner and president of the company leaps out of the forty-fourth story window, the company board (led by a villainous Paul Newman) decides to hire an idiot, a moron, a proxy, to take over to drive the stock down and then swoop in and buy it all up for themselves. The fool just so happens to be young Norville, who might not be as base as he appears to be.

The story is pretty basic, and nothing here will really throw you for a loop. It's a simple comedy formula, and from the get-go we know how it's going to end...but all of that is easily forgiven as the journey to get there is so unique, fun, and completely engaging that it doesn't matter if the story is as mundane as it truthfully is. The film takes place in the era that it pays homage to, and it's easy to tell with sets built to recreate the 50's work environment. The production design in The Hudsucker Proxy is absolutely gorgeous and viscerally awe-inspiring. And it's all complimented by the Coen Brothers wonderful and brilliant use of camera work. The Hudsucker Proxy is one of the most visually arresting and engaging films I've seen in awhile and is a true testament to the brilliance of the team behind the film.

The film's over-the-top visuals, which I say as a sincere compliment, is a great surrounding for the characters who are all just as over-the-top, to try and fit in with the 50's vibe of the film. Some pull it off really well, Robbins, Newman, and a small, but great role played by Bruce Campbell, but some unfortunately don't cut the proverbial mustard. I'm looking straight at you, Jennifer Jason Leigh. Her character, Amy Archer, a love interest and foil for Norville, is not only so cliche that it's painful, but her execution is a little too wacky and zany to truly enjoy or get behind her character. Leigh's acting is not only terribly egregious, but is so distracting that it took me out of the film more than once.

The Hudsucker Proxy is an almost perfectly executed film, and had Jennifer Jason Leigh toned down the "50s talk", or was simply recast, I would have given it not only my highest recommendations but the highest rating. But her presence is so distractingly awful that I couldn't in all honesty give it a full recommendation. Fans of the Coen Brothers or films from the 1950's, such as It's A Wonderful Life (which this film borrows heavily from) will really appreciate The Hudsucker Proxy, silly name aside. Everyone else should watch it, if not for one of the most hilarious and brilliant payoffs in damn near any film I've seen, involving Norville's circle and what happens when it's released into the public. That one scene is proof of the genius of the Coen Brothers. The rest of the film isn't too bad either.

4 out of 5

Day 047 || Halo Legends

Halo Legends, 2010

Dir. Various

I debated with myself for a little bit whether or not Halo Legends could actually qualify as an actual movie due to many factors, but decided that regardless of the compartmentalized story segments (seen in several other films, such as Love Actually, Crash, Twilight Zone the Movie, or several others), or the fact that is was direct to video (which should never dictate or validate a film), that it should be taken as a film in such respects. Even if it isn't a very good one. And it definitely isn't.

Halo Legends, for the uninitiated, is a segment of short animated stories pinned together under the theme borrowed from a video game series, Halo, which has become a big part of gaming history. Whether you love or hate the games is regardless, if you're involved with videogame culture in the slightest, you know of the Halo series. So that in mind, a bunch of Japanese animators got together and came up with various takes on the Halo universe, much akin to the Animatrix, and how it explored several different aspects of the universe behind the Matrix films. In fact, if you've seen the Animatrix, you know what to expect here.

I was disappointed in regards to the quality here. Nothing ever reaches the sheer visual or animated quality of the Animatrix, and everything here just feels a tad bit cheaper than what was accomplished in the Animatrix. That might be in part due to budgetary differences, of which I have no knowledge of...anyways, the animation isn't the only important part of the package. The important thing is if the stories work together to create a better understanding of the world that fans love, and in some ways it does, and in some ways it doesn't. There are no new revelations, or anything new learned here, very much unlike the Animatrix. Whereas the Animatrix explored very vast, different, and creative areas in the world it payed homage to, everything here has been seen and done before in the games, with the exception of a couple of the stories on display, and they all slowly start to feeling boring and repetitive.

The first two shorts tell the history of the Halo universe, but if you've played the games, none of this is new or surprising, and it by the time the second story was being told I started to completely lose interest. This might not be a problem for those unfamiliar with the universe, but when paying homage to a series and making a project for the fans, it's an odd choice that doesn't payoff the way it should have. The rest of the stories are all variations on typical and cliched moments one would expect to find in a war story with the exception of two that really stand out.

One is called "Odd Man Out", and tells the story of a 'Thirteen-thirty-seven', or '1337', a soldier who is far from his titular description. He's a clutz and never really seems like he has complete control of the situations he gets himself into but always manages to pull through, much like one of my favorite comic characters, Deadpool. It's funny and done in a very over-the-top style that it makes it a breath of fresh amidst the drab and boring war stories found in the collection. Another story that stands out is Ghost, which again, for the most part is a typical war story, but it's done so well that I can easily forgive some of the more trite moments that comprises it.

I could go on and break down each single segment, in total I believe there are eight, but of those eight I really enjoyed two, I thought two were decent, and found the other four completely lacking in creativity, fun, or much value in all honesty. As a collection it falls flat on its face, and I'm sure those who aren't into the Halo universe will absolutely not get any satisfaction from this. Fans of the universe, might not even embrace this. It could have been so much more interesting and diverse, but instead it comes off as largely filler material with some brilliant bits hidden beneath all the thin and boring storytelling.

2 out of 5

Day 046 || The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker, 2009

Dir. Kathryn Bigelow

"And then you forget the few things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things."

The Hurt Locker is a movie most, if not everyone's, heard of by now. It's getting a lot of hype for being the defining war movie of our generation, and easily the most accurate and successful look at the current conflict in Iraq, or war, if you want to call it that. Those wouldn't be inaccurate statements, but to say it's the film of the year, or perfect would be stretching things.

Kathryn Bigelow, whose work I'm mostly unfamiliar with, has a great visual eye and style, that keeps what could have been a very drab and bleak looking film, viscerally engaging, with the use of camera cuts, pans, and color palettes implemented during key scenes. It's a very competently shot film, complimented by an even stronger cast. Jeremy Renner plays team leader, Will James, who is known as a wild man. He's seemingly careless and reckless in his duties as bomb tech, someone who disarms IEDs on a day-to-day basis. Renner plays the character superbly, not allowing James to become a cliche, which could have easily been the case. If it wasn't for his wonderful performance and the cinematography I'm not quite sure if this film would have received the attention and kudos it did.

Some of the other characters fall into the typical archetypes you would expect, and even the aforementioned James has a few archetypal moments that really feel like the film is just running through all the same old notes we've seen before, but it's never eye-rollingly bad and it never, not once, takes you out of the film. The film works best during the nail-bitingly tense bomb disarming scenes, where you really never know what will happen, and you genuinely fear for the characters. It's when the film shifts focus from these scenes that it becomes a tad unstable, giving way to either brilliance (a scene featuring James pre-military, home-life and a heart to heart with his newborn son), or embarrassment (a macho scene where the squad drinks and fights out their feelings).

On the whole though, The Hurt Locker does so much right, that it's really easy to forgive the few shortcomings which do exist, don't let the hype fool you. Is it film of the year material? Not in this reviewer's opinion, but it's a great film, and one that's easy to recommend to most everyone.

4 out of 5

Day 045 || Law Abiding Citizen

Law Abiding Citizen, 2009

Dir. F. Gary Gray

"I'm gonna bring the whole diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna get biblical."

Law Abiding Citizen is a film with an interesting and deeply philosophical take on a question that calls into accountability our judicial system. But any depth to this film is so heavily buried underneath explosions and typical action film cliches, that it winds up being entertaining, but ultimately shallow and disappointing.

That's not to say it's a bad movie. It's just an average film, done very competently and masterfully. This absolute worst thing is that you can tell there's a better movie here, and that there's a lot of really good material that could've been mined for more intellectual fare. Instead, any questions about the basic morality in effect is completely lost for most of the film, up until the final act where the film tells you who exactly was in the right. A better script would've made the good guy and the bad guy near indecipherable, and paint the entire film in a moral gray zone. What better a way to have us question morality, then to not pick a side and show both equally and fully. Imagine the kind of debates and perspective conversations a film like that could have crafted after viewings. Instead the only conversations being had after this film would include the likes of "Hey, did you see that one scene where the car exploded," or, "Wasn't Jamie Foxx nominated for Ray?".

I'm being harsh on the film, because it should have and could have been a more cerebral and intelligent film, but instead we get a competent, albeit completely throwaway, action film...one that wastes the talents of both its leads, Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx. There are a lot of great ideas underneath the surface, but in order to get to any of them, you would have to dig, really hard. It is an entirely serviceable and entertaining film, but one that this critic is in no rush to go back to for a second viewing.

3 out of 5

Day 044 || Black Dynamite

Black Dynamite, 2009

Dir. Scott Sanders

"Who the hell is interrupting my kung fu?!"

Black Dynamite is a clever and often downright hilarious tribute to 70's blaxploitation films that conforms completely to the genre by meticulously pinning down all the faults and highpoints of that era. But Black Dynamite does this knowingly and purposefully and it's a better film for it.

I've compared several other films to the grindhouse style of cinema before, but none of them really come as close to perfection as Black Dynamite. The only contenders to the thrown would be Tarantino's and Rodriguez' Grindhouse double feature, also filled with all the flaws and charms.

Black Dynamite is the story of Black Dynamite (that's his name, honest), who is an ex-CIA hitman, who just got back from Vietnam only to find that the ghetto is being overrun by a problem involving little orphans on smack, and a grim premise involving a spiked malt liquor being released to take the black man down. In fact, you could say Black Dynamite closely resembles Undercover Brother, but it takes the parody of the blaxploitation film even further by using washed out film effects and a grainy and dirty cinematic look that mirrors that era of film perfectly.

It's also helped by a stellar lead performance by Michael Jai White who has the strong, black, powerful lead down to a tee, and does it all so deadpan that it grounds the film and keeps it hilarious at the same time. The rest of the cast is charismatic and they all have their moments, but without Michael Jai White this film wouldn't work nearly as well as it does now.

My only problem is a third act twist that asks entirely too much from the audience in terms of believability, and seems like the director and writers (script was also penned by Michael Jai White) were winking a little too hard at the audience. And for such a grounded feeling film, the twist is so tonally different and is similar to the twist in Undercover Brother, where The Man was going to try to brainwash black people with fried chicken. Whereas that worked in Undercover Brother sense that film in over-the-top entirely throughout, it seems out of place here for some reason.

Overall Black Dynamite is great fun, and I've seen it made some top lists of 2009, and rightfully so. It's worth the viewing for fans of cinema both good and bad, especially if you could remember watching some of these types of exploitation flicks in your youth. It's hilarious and clever, even if sometimes the jokes run a tad too long. Altogether it's a film I highly recommend.

4 out of 5

Day 043 || Tokyo Gore Police

Tokyo Zankoku Keisatsu (Tokyo Gore Police), 2008

Dir. Yoshihiro Nishimura

Tokyo Gore Police doesn't mislead with it's title. If you know the title, you know exactly what to expect. It's a Japanese grindhouse flick, that delivers bucket fulls of blood and gore (the fountains of blood put Kill Bill Vol. 1 to shame)...and it features police, naturally. It's an odd, quirky, and confusing film that is very reminiscent of David Cronenberg's work from the 1980's. Tokyo Gore Police could easily be the foreign cousin of Naked Lunch or Videodrome.

There's a style that permeates throughout this film that makes it fun, engaging, and dare I say, charming. The shots and cinematography make the best out of the limited and small budget, and some of the effects are pretty fantastic. Sure, some are really, really bad, (mostly any of the CG bits, and a sequence involving a hand-gun, that's a gun that shoots hands, obviously), but for the most part the effects work and deliver in spades. Horror aficionados or fans of make-up effects with have a field day here, as the creature effects can be very, very convincing and shocking at times. I dare anyone who watches this film to forget the bizarre and haunting setpiece in the middle of this film, involving mutant prostitutes, specifically the human chair. It's creepy and subversive, and if Tokyo Gore Police's aim is to shock and awe, it succeeds on all fronts.

The story is a hogwash, and at times is downright laughable...but you kind of realize that going into it. Who wants to see a film called Tokyo Gore Police that takes itself super-seriously? I know I sure don't. That all said, there is something deeper here than most other films of this nature, as it seems to legitimately try to make a standpoint on violence (whether it's self-violence or violent video games). That standpoint, however, isn't quite as clear as it could be, and as it stands it feels more like an afterthought then anything substantial.

Whether or not the story or acting is up to snuff, and it is serviceable at best, doesn't really matter. Tokyo Gore Police aims to disturb the viewer, while entertaining them at the same time, and I can easily say that I was disturbed and entertained throughout the entire film. For anyone who saw the title, and said to themselves "That sounds stupid...but could be interesting", then I highly recommend the film. Tokyo Gore Police has it's fair share of flaws, but it is definitely worth watching, and when they promised a sequel after the credits, I was ready for round two. Definitely recommend for those who aren't squeamish.

3 out of 5

Day 042 || In The Mouth of Madness

In The Mouth of Madness, 1994

Dir. John Carpenter

"Even if everything else I've said is completely Looney Tunes, this book will drive people mad."

In The Mouth of Madness was one of several films I've caught a small glimpse of back in my youth from flipping through cable channels, aimlessly trying to find something to hold my interest. The brief bit I saw featured a disturbing scene involving a possessed woman crawling out of a car with her head completed twisted around. It was reminiscent of the scene in The Exorcist when Linda Blair's character comes down the stairs doing an inverted crab walk. For some reason just the thought of both of those scenes have stuck with me, for some odd reason or another. It's not exactly haunting, but it's something that doesn't even leave your head.

This film is about ideas like that. It's about the imagination of humanity and how something so shocking and revolting, something so evil is more likely to stay with us, than something good. How more people buy into fantasy or horror, than reality. It's about the very essence of reality, albeit hidden in a John Carpenter effects-heavy horror film.

To say In The Mouth of Madness is a typical horror film, or that it's depicts a cliched battle between good and evil, would be borderline ignorant. It's a deep and interesting film, that often times loses its focus, but does so much right that all of the smaller flaws are easy to forgive.

Sam Neill plays the lead character, a no nonsense detective who is hired to track down a missing novelist, Sutter Cane, who is in the same genre as Stephen King or Dean Koontz, but outsells and reaches a broader audience than both. All the clues John Trent (Sam Neill) finds lead him to a town that's not on any map and no one has ever heard of. It seems But Trent soon finds himself questioning reality and his own existence when he  finds the town and it's strange inhabitants. Something is rotten in Denmark indeed.

For the most part the film succeeds in creating a very paranoid, atmospheric thriller, and some scenes border on disturbing. There's quite a few that I'm sure will linger with me for a long time, including the scene I described at the beginning of the film. Some of these involve some great practical creature effects, and some are as simple as a group of children who seem to be possessed talking about "mother's day". It's the atmosphere that keeps the film afloat, along with a very likeable Sam Neill, who plays the character with just the right amount of attitude, wonder, and disbelief that keeps him grounded and relatable. Even amidst all the bizarre and larger than life events happening in the world that he inhabits.

The film manages to get lost quite frequently when it tries to reach for something deeper, and ultimately ends on a confusing and slightly disappointing note. I think it would have been more effective had they really nailed down some of the psychological and philosophical points that were trying to be conveyed earlier in the picture. As it's a film  from the early 90's, there are also some questionable make-up effects, a boy on a bike aging, for instance, and some of the acting really hams it up. All that said, In The Mouth of Madness is still an enjoyable and haunting film, that I would recommend to anyone who is a fan of horror genre or John Carpenter.

4 out of 5

Day 041 || Big Fan

Big Fan, 2009

Dir. Robert D. Siegel

Big Fan is the debut directorial effort from Robert D. Siegel, previously known for his scripts such as The Wrestler (co-writer) which was a character piece in a much similar way. The Wrestler is also a better film in just about every way. That's not to say Big Fan is necessarily a bad film, it's just one that has been done before, and one that had been done better at that.

Patton Oswalt plays the protagonist of the film who is portrayed in the first half of the film as a sympathetic sports fan, one whose fanatical obsession begs our pity and is relatable in a sense. We all have our hobbies and passions, and again, for the first half of the film I saw myself in the character. Then the film comes to a point where a big event happens, that has Oswalt's character having to make a really tough decision between the team he loves, the Giants, and doing the right thing. It's at this exact point in the film and forward that his character becomes borderline psychotic and frightening in his obsession. And it's at that point that the character becomes unrelatable and scary. The route he takes throws away any sympathies earned.

Sure, this make for a complicated character, but the huge problem with this is that he's extremely unlikable. One could make the argument that he's not supposed to be a likeable character, but when 90% of the film follows him to a tee, if he isn't likeable it quickly becomes a jarring, unpleasant and numbing trip. At the end of the film, instead of feeling relieved or saddened, as I would with most character arcs, I felt nothing. I felt nothing at all because I lost any emotional investment in this character at the end of the first act. It doesn't help that the second act, a transitional act in every sense, really drags.

But for all the negatives I have, this film does have a ton of potential. It's shot very well and the color palettes are interesting, if not purposefully handled here. The yellows, reds, and blues that dominate a monochrome scene are very indicative of the mood and atmosphere. And everyone gives a great performance, from Oswalt to Micheal Rappaport. It's an interesting and often times engaging film, but one that just doesn't manage to live up to the rave reviews surrounding it. Big Fan is an extremely average film which falters about as much as it succeeds, and it's all in part to an odd pace that permeates the film, and the strong lack of a likeable lead character.

2 out of 5

Day 040 || Legend

Legend, 1985

Dir. Ridley Scott

"The dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity."

Legend is one of those oft-regarded classic fantasy films from the 1980's, but happens to be one I have managed to miss for some reason or another. It's a fantasy epic that belongs right beside Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, and Dark Crystal, and if you're into any of those, I imagine you'll really dig on Legend.

Legend is the dark story of Princess Lili and Jack, who inadvertently give the opportunity to the Lord of Darkness to strike out against a mythical pair of unicorns who hold the power of daylight in their horns, so that the sun will never rise again and darkness can be eternal. Yeah...that long-winded summary isn't exaggerated, nor is it simplifying the story. It's a really bizarre concept, and one that's altogether base and over-the-top. But in fairness, most all fantasy movies are, so I can't really fault Legend for that.

What I will fault Legend for, is a drab and boring script and uninteresting characters that do not do justice to the beautifully crafted world surrounding them. The exception being the Lord of Darkness himself, whose motivations may be simple and uninspired, but Tim Curry's acting along with some really great character design pushes his character forward as one of the most interesting and engaging parts of the film. Sadly he's placed far too late in the film and we don't get to spend too much time with him before the film ultimately comes to it's end.

As I mentioned before the cinematography is gorgeous and often times stunning and breath-taking. Scott uses beautiful and dazzling color palettes to create such an incredibly rich and varied world, not only with the environments but with characters designs as well. The scene where Princess Lili is seduced into the darkness is as beautifully realized as it is strange and enigmatic, which is a compliment in every sense of the term.

But all of this design was wasted on such a hollow and uninvolving love story, one that fails to hold any emotional depth or complexity. Again, some people may eat this type of film up, but there's nothing substantial here outside of the sheer aesthetics of the film. The acting is competent, with the exception of Curry (who is exceptional), but the story is so mundane that it becomes numbing. Legend left me wishing Ridley Scott would revisit it now, seeing that he is capable of making both a gorgeous film, and now imbues them with rich and deep characters and lasting stories. As it stands Legend is a wholly competent film, and often times reaching moments of brilliance, but it's largely hollow and won't resonate with time. It's not a film I'd revisit, but one that, for the most part, I enjoyed watching, and would recommend sheerly for the visual concepts at play.

At least it was better than Labyrinth. Sorry David Bowie.

3 out of 5

Day 039 || Magnolia

Magnolia, 1999

Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

"And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And as the book says 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us'."

Magnolia is one of Paul Thomas Anderson's films that I have been meaning to see for awhile. Anderson's style and wit that he brings to all of his films makes it clear as to why he is heralded as one of the most important and greatest modern directors. His works easily compare to Wes Anderson's, Quentin Tarantino's and The Coen Brothers'. But with that level of genius and by non-conforming to the norm, Anderson's films are just as divisive as those aforementioned directors.

Magnolia might be one of Anderson's divisive films yet.

Magnolia tells several stories of seemingly unrelated characters and then slowly starts to pull all of them together in a cohesive way that mirrors several other films of the type, such as Crash or Love Actually. But whereas those two films took on racism and love, respectively, Magnolia aims it's sights seemingly on reconciliation and forgiveness. With loss and coping with loss. To say Magnolia was a happy and uplifting film would pretty much be a lie. It ends on a sweet, and heartwarming note, but most of the three-hour running time is filled with broken and damaged characters who have lost a great deal of who they are, be it to their own devices or because something was taken from them. Anderson paints a tragic portrait for all these characters, and he does it so masterfully.

To give all the credit to Anderson would be foolish, because without great actors, these characters wouldn't be brought to life so richly. William H. Macy, Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Riley, Phillip Baker Hall, and Melora Walters round out an impressive and astonishing cast, who make all the characters stand out. In any other film, giving the same amount of characters an equal amount of screen time might wash out or dilute the relevance and importance of a few of the characters, but here they all shine (for the most part) in their own ways. I say for the most part, because it might just be me, but I felt that Tom Cruise towards the end of his character arc, and Julianne Moore (to a much lesser extent), were over-the-top in their key emotional scenes...so much so that it almost became laughable. This is a very small complaint as they never reach the levels of absurd (and too over-the-top) acting that Daniel Day Lewis reached in There Will Be Blood. And aside those few scenes, they do superbly.

Another complaint was that the film feels largely unedited. I'm not sure if trimming off bits of the running time would necessarily be great for the film, as the reason why Magnolia works so well is because of the characters, and if you start cutting the film, you start cutting away at the characters. It seems like Anderson was in a rock and a hard place because the film definitely feels long, and it is, but I couldn't see places where I would trim it down either.

Overall, Magnolia was a great and emotional experience, one that will leave the audience touched, or completely confused and dumbfounded. In fact, there's a scene where frogs literally start raining from the sky, without any explanation at any point in the film. It's just a strange thing happening seemingly randomly that ties all of these characters together, and if that sounds too bizarre or strange for your tastes, you should probably avoid this film. For the more open-minded and curious though, I'm positive Magnolia will satisfy and deliver. It's definitely a film that the more I reflect and think about, the more I love and dig on it. I plan on watching this again soon, and showing more people, and I hope that with each viewing I appreciate it more and more.

5 out of 5

Day 038 || Attack Girls Swim Team vs. The Undead

Attack Girls Swim Team vs the Undead, 2007
Dir. Koji Kawano

"Let's begin with apples!"

I debated long and hard whether to write up an actual review for this film, or if for comedic effect (and to be quite to the point) simply write "F*** this movie", and have that serve as the review. For better or worse, I ended up deciding I might as well write up a review for what may be one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Attack Girls Swim Team vs the Undead was something I came across after watch The Machine Girl, which was a dumb, but entirely fun and entertaining Japanese homage to the grindhouse film. It embodied everything the grindhouse film stood for. So being as entertained as I was with The Machine Girl, I looked for more Japanese grindhouse features, and this one seemed to be something the community wholly recommended so I added it to my queue. And come on, all recommendations aside, that name screams dumb fun.

I was wrong.

Instead of a gory, thrillride, I was treated to the Japanese equivalent of a bad Troma film. The first time I noticed something was off was about ten minutes in and it seemed like the director had an eye for shots focused on women's butts or upskirt, panty shots. A little pervy, sure, but forgivable if it's fun and the horror stuff is played up well. Well, it never quite gets fun, and the horror elements are on par with a film made for a school project. Along with the script (if there even was one), and the acting. It's definitely a feat when even through subtitles and a language barrier you can tell the acting is really dreadful.

And going back to the pervy butt and panty shots, at several points I had to fast forward through overly long sex scenes. Often while watching this "film", I wondered if I accidentally came across a Japanese porno, because Attack Girls just reeks of the non-existent budget I imagine a porno flick would contain. And while it's never too graphic or sexually explicit (thank god), it does resemble something softcore and consistently awkward.

Attack Girls Swim Team vs the Undead sounded like it could've been a lot of fun, much in the vein of The Machine Girl, but it ends up being something akin to a reject Troma film...which means no plot, no acting, no budget, but plenty of T&A. If that sounds like it's up your alley, you might enjoy it, because apparently a ton of people do enjoy this as a guilty pleasure. I absolutely hated it, and if it wasn't for the rules established when I started this AFAD project, I would've turned it off at several places. This film actually makes me rethink giving Ong Bak 2 a 0 out of 5, because at least that could be considered somewhat artistic in comparison. To say Attack Girls is one of the worst films I've ever seen, is not hyperbole. It embodies everything a film isn't, and why it's popular in the least bit I will never understand. Avoid this film like the plague it is.

0 out of 5

Day 037 || The Time Traveler's Wife

The Time Traveler's Wife, 2009
Dir. Robert Schwentke

"I wouldn't change one second of our life together."

The Time Traveler's Wife is about a man, Henry (Eric Bana), whose born with a genetic disorder that sends him jumping through time without a moment's notice. While the condition sounds like it could be fun, it's not. He doesn't get the luxury of controlling where or when he jumps to, and every time he jumps to a different time and place, he ends up naked and defenseless. In a chicken and the egg type of scenario, Henry meets Claire Abshire (Rachel McAdams), or she meets him, it's never really clear how it starts...one of the great what-ifs of the time travel film often ponders. But meeting each other, they know they were meant to be together, and a troubled romance begins.

The Time Traveler's Wife should have been a movie I loved. I'm both really fascinated with time travel tales (see my obsession with Lost and several great films like Timecrimes) and I love cheesy and sappy romance films...I don't know why, I just do. In fact, a film that mixed both of these elements before, The Lake House, ended up being a really enjoyable film, one that I occasionally revisit.

The Time Traveler's Wife, however, managed to disappoint with a borderline mopey and dull script. It's a script that manages to turn time travel into somewhat of a bore. The genetic disorder is a clever twist, and the script deserves credit for that, but all of the romance scenes and everything else just falls a little bit flat. There's not a single memorable line in this film, and that's because all of the dialogue is what you would find in a basic love story. There's no "You had me at hello," or the speech Harry gives Sally when he's telling her all the things he loves about her. This script is just very bland. Serviceable, but bland.

Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams do have a very good chemistry together, and the cinematography is often times incredibly gorgeous, but the weak script, dialogue, and characterizations make it hard to truly appreciate this film. As it stands, it's inventive at times, but an altogether tedious affair which had so much potential for a brilliant melding of two very different genres.

2 out of 5

Day 036 || Couples Retreat

Couples Retreat, 2009

Dir. Peter Billingsley

"It's like a little kid gets a puppy for the first time, just hugs it so much, snaps it's neck. It's puppy cradle death syndrome. All that love is gonna snap that neck."

Couples Retreat is a film that received a ton of hate when it was released and it seemed like it would be one of those comedies that really failed on all fronts, despite in incredibly likeable cast. Maybe I'm soft, or some other discerning factor, but I don't think Couples Retreat really deserved all the hate. It's not a great film, nor does it really add anything new to the comedy genre. It's just a solid little comedy, that sometimes divulges a bit too much into sappy and mishandled melodrama.

The best parts of the film are easily the actors, since the script is paper thin. Seeing Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau back together is always a welcomed treat. It's like visiting old friends again. And the daftly underused Faizon Love is great as well, as a tired, old man who's trying to keep up with his new twenty year old girlfriend. Jason Bateman is good, but it's sad to see his character so minimalistic and unlikeable. There's nothing really interesting or deep about any of these characters because all of their situations and problems ring hollow.

It's a shame because there's no real focus here. It's either sappy melodrama or light and breezy comedy. The film never really finds its equilibrium and we're treated to two very different tones that sometimes synch up, but for the most part feels uneven. Couples Retreat would've benefited from picking one tone or direction and sticking with it. Either give us a light-heated comedy, or dig deeper into the characters and give us a better written script that actually tries to say something.

Couples Retreat is a quasi-dramedy much in the vein of The Break Up, but whereas that film had rich characters and the balls to actually try to make a point, Couples Retreat is an efficient and often funny comedy, that is altogether thoughtless and has nothing really interesting to say on the subject of marriage or the problems that arise within marriages. Fans of the actors will be happy to just spend time with the enjoyable cast, but everyone else might be a little disappointed to the lack of real substance. Recommended for a diversion, just don't expect anything life-changing.

3 out of 5

Day 035 || Transamerica

Transamerica, 2005

Dir. Duncan Tucker

"Hormones are hormones. Yours and mine just happen to come in purple little pills."

Transamerica is the story of a pre-op transexual, Steve or Bree, who a week before having the "big" surgery (I'm not sure what it's called, pardon the ignorance) finds out she allegedly has a son from her college years. And on top of that, Bree won't get consent for said surgery unless she meets and interacts with her son, in order to close off loose ends.

On the whole, it's a road trip film, except with a twist. It's Road House meets the Adventures of Sebastian Cole. Which probably isn't a winning endorsement, and that's because it's not necessarily a good thing. The elements that I loved and hated in the Adventures of Sebastian Cole are all on display in Transamerica. The son (Kevin Zegers) is unlikeable, and I mean completely unlikeable. The only thing redeeming his character had going for him was his openness and willingness to accept the transgender/sexual community (seen during the party scene). Otherwise he's a foulmouthed, drug addicted loser, and why Bree ever warms up to him is mindboggling. I don't think that's Kevin Zegers fault, he did a fine job, it's mostly the script's fault.

On the other hand completely, Felicity Huffman as Bree, was wonderful. Her character may not have been superbly written, but she carries the film. What could have been a Lifetime Original Movie performance was given class and detail. Her mannerisms portray years of abuse and hurt, without her having to ever say anything. And not for a second did I ever look at her as a woman trying to play a man trying to be a woman (wrap your mind around that), she came across as Bree through and through. Any kudos or nominations Huffman received from Transamerica, she deserved in full.

However, the rest of the movie is a mess. The story and production values mirror that of the aforementioned Lifetime Original Movie. The scenes are set up so drably and without any interest or style...which could be an argument that through doing this the director let's us focus on the characters and the story, but the only character worth paying attention to is Bree. The film feels and looks cheap, and it seems the only one who brought enthusiasm to the film was Felicity Huffman.

And the story is a muddled mess. It never really knows what to say or how to say it. It tries really hard to not be an "issue" film, but manages to hit all the notes an "issue" film would hit. Everything's left entirely open and ambiguous with most of the characters, to the point that there's no lasting effect, or nothing interesting said or hinted at. Even the end of the film is a copout, where Duncan Tucker pulls out ending things on a smaller happy note, wanting us to believe things are fine and dandy...but they aren't. Nothing's resolved in the film or even hinted at being resolved. It all just seems hollow and thinly handled. Through the all of the clunky melodrama, there's no meaning or message and that's the biggest problem I had with Transamerica. It's not a bad film, but it's not a good film in any sense of the imagination. Huffman shines as the lead, but everything else pales in comparison and looks all the more mediocre in comparison.

2 out of 5

Day 034 || Cidade de Deus (City of God)

Cidade de Deus (City of God), 2002
Dir. Fernandes Meirelles

"It was like a message from God, 'Honesty doesn't pay, sucker!'"

Cidade de Deus, or City of God as it will be referred to from here in, is the story of Rocket, a poor kid stuck in the slums Rio de Janiero. Rocket has a passion for photography which plays a pretty integral part of the story as he gets wrapped up in two rival gangs, one lead by Li'l Zee and the other by Knockout Ned. It's not an easy film to summarize because it's not focused enough to be given a black and white one sentence summary. Maybe not even a paragraph.

And in all honesty it's that lack of black and white that is the film's biggest asset. None of these characters are cliched or paper thin. They all have depth and character, and you never know who exactly to root for. There's a clear protagonist, the aforementioned Rocket who grounds the film, but he's not as clean or upright as you would expect. Being a part of the area he comes from influences decisions he makes here, and not all of them are morally sound. This makes his character not only fascinating, but ultimately human.

Not to mention the antagonists, Knockout Ned and Li'l Zee constantly cross the line between being likeable and altogether despicable, in much the same way someone like Tarantino would treat his characters. These are bad guys, through and through, and what they're depicted doing is horrific at times, but being very human and well written and acted, these characters are sympathetic at times, and even (gasp) relatable.

I previously mentioned Quentin Tarantino's work in reference, and there's more than just a similar treatment of the characters at work here, but the style and cinematography is all reminiscent of Tarantino's. The quick cuts, interesting camera angels, and the sheer sheen of the film are all spectacular. For a film about such an awful and bleak subject, it's a beautiful looking film...something of a conundrum, but one that works in favor of the film.

If I have negatives, and there are some, it's that the film is largely unfocused. We spend too much time with too many characters that the driving narrative is sometimes lost amidst the chaos and spectacle. But then when it picks up again, the film is so spot on that it's easy to forgive the flaws. I would easily recommend this to anyone who can get past the grim subject matter, and believe me I don't use grim lightly. City of Men is an interesting film that tries to tackle a serious socioeconomic problem in an interesting and engaging way. It's a film that's earned all the praise it has received, but could easily turn some people off.

4 out of 5

Day 033 || The Great Escape

The Great Escape, 1963

Dir. John Sturges

"We have in effect put all our rotten eggs in one basket. And we intend to watch this basket carefully."

The Great Escape is a cult classic that I'm sure everyone has at least heard of by now. It's the story of a band of officers, all different cultures and nationalities, joining together to escape from a WWII, Nazi POW camp. It's a simple story, told really simply.

Everyone around me, and in the film community, seems to love this film unconditionally, but I must say that I was disappointed and mislead into the greatness of this film. Firstly, the story is about as basic as they get, which is all fine and dandy, because usually a basic story allows you to fully realize and develop your characters...this is sometimes the case in The Great Escape. Steve McQueen's character, in particular, is such a great lead, and has a chemistry with everyone on the screen. When people remember this movie, there's reason that McQueen is usually at the top of the list of why. His final stunt sequence, a motorcycle chase through the hills of Germany is enthralling and holds up really well. But what really makes his performance memorable are the small character touches granted to him throughout, such as the glove and baseball and his rowdy celebration of Independence Day.

I'd be remiss if I left out James Garner in the review, who also plays a fascinating character, another American, who has all the charisma that McQueen has...albeit in a slightly different way. He plays a pickpocket, or a scavenger, who steals the show, along with McQueen, whenever he's featured. His interaction with Verner, one of the guards, is great and offers some much needed comedy.

The rest of the film, however, is extremely average. Maybe it's because I'm just now watching it, a near fifty years after release, or it's due to legitimate concerns, but it's definitely one of the more overhyped films I've seen. It's not a bad film, just one that manages to hit all the notes adequately, without really ever excelling anywhere but in the two leads I've mentioned. For starters, any of the other characters in the film are extremely flat and one note. This film liberally uses movie cliches, such as a man who digs tunnels, suddenly announcing his fear of enclosed spaces. Never mentioned this in the 17 previous tunnels he dug, but now, for dramatic effect and "tense" scene it pops up. Which leads me to another argument is that the only time I was really tense or felt worried for the characters was in the last stretch of the film, where we follow the actually escape. Any of that tension or fear is largely absent in the camp scenes, because the camp in all honesty doesn't seem that bad. Sure it's drab, and monotonously brown (much like the color palette of the film, zinger!) but The Great Escape portrays Nazis as friendly and nicer than jail guards are portrayed nowadays.

So add in some really cliched character bits, a lack of tension, and not to mention an extremely bloated running time (this film could have easily been trimmed, especially in the camp scenes), and you have several enough flaws to argue against this film's classic status. But for all the flaws I really did enjoy the last hour or so, and loved James Garner and Steve McQueen. God knows how this film would've turned out if they weren't a part of the cast. It's a good film, but doesn't deserve a lot of the praise it gets, I much prefer other classic escape films (Escape From Alcatraz) or even other films from that time and genre (The Dirty Dozen). Fro those who haven't seen it, I wouldn't recommend it, but I wouldn't discourage you from watching it. My opinion is about as down the middle as one could be, but because of the two aforementioned performances, I'm leaning slightly more favorably.

3 out of 5

Day 032 || Fletch

Fletch, 1985
Dir. Michael Ritchie

"Can I borrow your towel for a second? My car just hit a water buffalo."

Fletch is an 80's comedy vehicle for the often hilarious, and daftly underutilized, Chevy Chase (well, nowadays anyways). It's the story of a newspaper writer, Irwin Fletcher, Fletch for short, who stumbles upon an odd plot involving drugs, the police, and rich, eccentric socialites. It's not necessarily one of the most original plots, but for it's time, the fast paced humor, and Chevy Chase's performance as the titular character are more than enough to make up for any short comings.

I'm not too familiar with Chevy Chase's film career, and I've really only seen him in the National Lampoon Vacation films. Otherwise I couldn't tell you a single film he was in. I figured I might start off my Chase education with one of his classics, and probably most memorable role, Fletch. After an awkward start, where we're thrown into one of Fletch's cases, the movie either found its legs, or I got into the groove of it all. And once in that groove, I had a blast watching Fletch's fast retorts and quick wits, all leading to some really classic quotes and one liners. Many of which could stand up to several of the great 80's comedies.

I really enjoyed Fletch, and I thought it was great fun. It was hilarious, tightly paced, and well written and acted. As it stands, it's probably my favorite Chevy Chase film, and now I'm eager to delve into his filmography to find more gems like this. I'm definitely looking forward to catching the sequels, because Fletch is one of those characters that is greater than the film he's in. He's iconic and it's a shame Fletch isn't as culturally relevant anymore, as it's a film that easily stands toe-to-toe with Ghostbusters, Stripes, Caddyshack, and is hands down superior in every way over Animal House.

4 out of 5

Day 031 || Planet Hulk

Planet Hulk, 2010
Dir. Sam Liu

"Now Hulk know who to smash!"

Planet Hulk is the newest Marvel animated film that actually does something new. Instead of creating an entirely new story for these features, Marvel decided to model the film after one of the comic runs that was largely successful, that being Planet Hulk. Much like the first Ultimate Avengers feature. The movie is a lot like the comic, but more of a stripped down and clean experience.

The Avengers, or as we see in the film Tony Stark and Dr. Strange, due to copyright issues I imagine, capture and decide to send the Hulk to a remote island with no signs of life so his destructive properties will not do harm to anyone ever again. Unfortunately the planet Hulk lands on is a civilized one, that quickly captures him and places him in a gladiatorial setting where he's quested with three fights he must win in order to gain his freedom. It's an interesting concept, not in the plot, but in the relationships he builds with the other gladiators. The plot is really just a way for Hulk to smash stuff, and the comic even manages to wrangle in a fight between the Silver Surfer and the Hulk. Thanks to copyright issues again, the Silver Surfer never shows up. Instead we get the Thor reject, Beta Ray Bill. It's virtually the same fight, but nowhere near as epic or shocking.

My biggest complaint with the film is that it ends entirely too early and leaves important character bits out. The comic arc manages to keep going and eventually ends up being a tragic love story. What we currently get is a one minute scene towards the end that, out of nowhere, shows that Hulk and Caiera are in love. Any of the emotional weight, and the huge set-up for World War Hulk are gone. Also gone are many of the interesting side plots with Hulk gladiatorial teammates, especially Miek, and more importantly, any of the scenes where Hulk is being haunted by Bruce Banner, his former self, which gives the character a depth not found currently in the film.

The characters here are paper thin and are thinly veiled excuses for about eighty minutes worth of fight scenes. Which are done pretty well for the animated feature. They're on par for the course, but nothing truly remarkable or revolutionary. Without any of the weight, as I mentioned before, the film feels a little flat and a lot of the enjoyment could only be taken from the fight scenes. If you want more from your animated films, like I do, you'll likely want to stick with DC Universe films, especially Wonder Woman which had great characterizations and voice actors. Marvel animated features, with the exception of Doctor Strange, have really been struggling to get the formula down leading to a bunch of average films. And Planet Hulk is one of the lesser ones.

2 out of 5

Day 030 || Ong Bak 2: The Beginning

Ong Bak 2: The Beginning, 2008

Dir. Tony Jaa

There's no quote this time, because you'd be hard pressed to find anything worth repeating from the dialogue in this abortion of a film. And I don't use abortion strictly for shock factor, this film feels aborted and abandoned, but that is something I'll get to a little later on in the review.

Ong Bak 2 is the prequel/follow-up to the first Ong Bak, but as far as I can tell, there's no relation to the first film. Furthermore, there's not much of a coherency to the basic plot either. From what I gathered it's the story of a a young orphan (Tony Jaa) who is taken in by a group of outlaws after his royal family was killed before his eyes. Everything else that follows is your typical revenge flick...with the exception that typical implies some sense of normalcy.

Ong Bak 2 fails on most levels, and is surely a step backwards from it's predecessor in every conceivable way, with one exception. The cinematography is often times stunning, and often reaches beautiful. The color palettes used are very interesting and some shots are set up really well. And here's the but. Every time I was about to give credit to the cinematography, Jaa decides to set up a shot in slow motion. Slow mo shots aren't necessarily bad, as they can really emphasis key scenes are can be used to great effect to show how beautiful a shot really is. Well Jaa must have thought every other scene in this movie was the coolest thing ever, because close to every minute we're treated to another slow-mo shot. Not even necessarily one slowing down an action or fight scene.

And of the fight scenes, we're treated to three. One after he's joined the outlaws which has him fighting all the masters to prove his worth, which is pretty average, ending in a RIDICULOUS fight between him and a feral man, complete with the sound effects of a bear growling the entire time. Then later on we're treated to my personal favorite set piece in the film, which has Jaa fighting against a group of guys in Drunken Master style, which contains the quick pace and brutality that fans of his will love. And then towards the very end of the film we have a borderline exhaustive fight that goes on for about twenty minutes between Jaa and an entire army, it seems. And all of these fights don't come remotely close to anything we've seen in Ong Bak, The Protector, or even the recent Jaa imitation film, Chocolate. All of those have superior fight scenes, and all are better films. And for the record, I enjoyed all of them, just in case you might think I have something against the genre or Tony Jaa.

Altogether the fight scenes make up roughly half an hour, which leaves the other hour of the film filled with mindless and sappy melodrama, none of which is interesting or engaging in any single way. After the first 30 minutes of the film, it becomes a test of patience...it left me waiting for another fighting scene, and in all honesty, the end of the film. Which comes abruptly in the middle of the last fight in the film. It ends on a cliffhanger that doesn't leave the audience demanding the sequel, but instead imbues confusion and a cheapened feel.

To say I disliked Ong Bak 2 is an understatement. I loathed Ong Bak 2. For a film based around cool fighting set pieces, and taken only in the light, it's still an unoriginal failure. Worse, if it's taken for a film as a whole, it's easily one of the most pretentiously and shamelessly hollow excuse for ego-stroking I've seen. Tony Jaa is a great martial artist, no doubt, but a filmmaker he's not.

I'm placed in a lose-lose situation. If Ong Bak 3 does actually come out, I don't care anymore. The second one was so offensively boring and mindless, that it turned me off to the series for good. And if Ong Bak 3 doesn't come out, it makes Ong Bak 2 entirely worthless and needless, and all the more offensive. Ong Bak 2 is the worst of the worst, and in fact I would be remiss to even refer to this as a film, as that implies some sort of integrity and artist merit.

0 out of 5

Day 029 || Suspiria

Suspiria, 1977

Dir. Dario Argento

"Bad luck isn't brought by broken mirrors, but broken minds."

Suspiria is Dario Argento's seventies cult classic, and master work according to several genre enthusiasts. Being a horror fan myself, I really wanted to go back and get acquainted with some of the older films in the genre for this Film a Day Project. I didn't know exactly what to expect, but kept high expectations...which was clearly a mistake.

Suspiria is about a young American girl traveling to a foreign ballet school to study with the best, supposedly. Upon arrival, Suzy (Jessica Harper), witnesses a young girl panicking and running from the school, only to find out later that she was murdered that very night. And as Suzy spends more time at this school, it slowly starts to show that things aren't quite adding up and something's not exactly right.

To say this is Argento's masterpiece is definitely hyperbolic, or maybe everyone had such low standards for the genre when originally viewing this film that it stood out...either way, viewing it now, it's clear that Suspiria didn't age well. The film is beautiful, and it's shot in such a way that it conveys a technicolor nightmare. The color palette is constantly shifting, again, alluding to the dream-like or more apt nightmarish quality to the film.

Too bad none of that carried over into the acting or story. Sure, it's visceral and gorgeous, but from ten minutes in, you're going to know exactly what's going on. The surprise twist as to why the school is killing people off is laughable, and isn't anywhere near scary or horrific. Again, I use laughable.

Suspiria is a wonderfully shot and visually stunning film, especially for it's time, and has an atmosphere and jarring soundtrack that actually fits. It's sad that those are the only redeeming qualities, as this film suffers from a ludicrously inane script, ham-fisted acting (if it can even be called that), and a pacing that borders on tedious. I've heard several people say this is film that gets better and demands multiple viewings...but seeing as I barely tolerated one, I don't see my future self revisiting this one anytime soon. Am I glad I saw it? For the most part. There was a scene or two that stood out, but by the end of it I just felt exhausted, and not in a good way.

1 out of 5