Tag Archives: film ratings

Joe’s Random Movie Trivia: “Life of Crime” (2013)

Jennifer Aniston, Yasiin Bey, and John Hawkes in Life of Crime (2013)

Although it isn’t right out stated, this film takes place in the shared Quentin Tarentino film universe. The characters Louis (John Hawkes) and Ordell (Mos Def) are younger versions of the same characters Louis and Ordell in the film “Jackie Brown”. Played by Robert De Niro and Samuel L. Jackson.

Image result for jackie brown robert de niro

Making this film a prequel, technically.

It’s worth noting that the books that both films were based off of were both written by Elmore Leonard. “Life of Crime” was based on “The Switch” and “Jackie Brown” was based off on “Rum Punch”.

Advertisements

Avengers: Endgame review, coming soon!

I’m waiting out on some of the insane rush of Endgame it’s opening week. So in the next few week, I’ll post a review.

Thank you for your patience!

Joe’s Random Movie Review: “Hellboy” (2019)

David Harbour in Hellboy (2019)

While many fans of the comics in the films were disappointed when Guillermo Del Toro failed to deliver us a third film to his Hellboy franchise, a reboot was the next logical step. In 2019 that’s exactly what we got. This time, directly from Hellboy creator Mike Mignola and director Neil Marshall (Dog Soldiers, The Decent) have given us.

Milla Jovovich in Hellboy (2019)

In this age of remakes and reboot it’s easy to be cynical about such things. But in the case of the Hellboy franchise I think it is very well defended as a reboot. Because the franchise has such a rich mythology, specially in the comics, the Del Toro simply left it alone and wasn’t going to do anything with it. It’s exact same mistake that Warren Beatty made when he made Dick Tracy in 1990.

Daniel Dae Kim, David Harbour, and Sasha Lane in Hellboy (2019)

One thing that a lot of horror movie fans might enjoy from the new Hellboy movie as oppossed to the Del Toro films is that it actually ignores the whole superhero stereotype in some of today’s films. The previous films ahead actually focus more less on the superhero motif of Hellboy. Where is this new reboot actually focuses more on the horror and mythological elements.

David Harbour flat out as awesome as red. He gets the characterization perfect. It actually does in my opinion a much better job than Ron Perlman did. And Harbour’s performance we actually see Hellboy”s internal struggle to try and find a place in the world. In that way his version is a little bit more sympathetic, more grittier, and the kind of underdog that film fans want to root for.

This film is on also much closer to Mike Mignola’s universe. Including certain characters which make appearances besides Hellboy of course, and Professor Bruttenholm (now played by Ian McShane), it also has characters such as Alice Monaghan , Ben Daimio, even an appearance by Lobster Johnson.

Thomas Haden Church in Hellboy (2019)

This film was undoubtedly made for fans of a comic book, and such fans, myself included, were rewarded. It seems the only thing that’s really holding some back from total success, is the cynicism of people who regretted not getting a third original Hellboy film. Daniel Dae Kim in Hellboy (2019)

This film dares to be something different in this modern era of superhero films. It tried to ditch the superhero motif and present Hellboy as an all out gory horror film piece with quite a bit of humor and lots of action. Such a dark tone only helps the story.

David Harbour in Hellboy (2019)

Hopefully this film delivers us a sequel or two, because the universe set up in this one, has more action, more horror, more character development, and flat out is a good, fun movie.

6.5/10

“The Fly” (1986) The Deleted “Monkey-Cat” scene

Image result for monkey cat scene the fly

Shot, but later deleted from the film was a 6 to 7 minutes sequence in which the scientist Seth Brundle attempts to re-create the accident with his teleportation device that mutated him. He takes the surviving baboon from his earlier experiments in the film, and an alley cat that he found. Then tries to fuse the two together through his Telepods. But unlike his accident in which he in the fly were linked on a genetic level, the baboon and the cat become this hideously mutated two-headed creature. With the creature in obvious pain, Brundle picks up a pipe and proceeds to beat it to death. He then goes up to the roof of the building where he lives feels an excruciating pain in his side and attempt to climb down the wall but loses his grip. He didn’t slides down the wall and falls to the ground where a growth in his side appears. A mutated insect limb. Horrified, he tears it off.

Here are five facts about the scene:

Related image

1. Why it was cut.

Besides the fact, that it delivered to much gore too early in the film, the real reason it was cut was because test audiences could no longer sympathize with the character of Seth Brundle. At some point in this film our Protagonist becomes the Antagonist. And the problem with the film including this scene, was that you no longer cared about the suffering the main character is going through. It was pretty evident to the filmmakers as a result of the test screenings, but the movie was better off without it.

2. “Stage 4b”

Related image

This sequence features a stage in Brundle’s transformation not seen in the final film. Makeup Artist Chris Walas and his team dubbed it “stage 4b”. Walas said in interviews That was actually one of his favorite looks of Jeff Goldblum in the film. Because it had a Jekyll and Hyde quality about it. It was the halfway point between who Seth Brundle was in the beginning of the movie and into the creature Brundlefly that he later transforms into.

3. Director cameo

Besides his cameo as the gynecologist, director David Cronenberg is the one wielding the pipe that kills the creature in this shot.

4.

A large set of the warehouse wall was constructed for the shot where Brundle loses his grip and “slides” down the wall. To create this, the filmmakers made the wall slanted, like a slide so Goldblum could fall as well as give the illusion he’s sticking to it like a fly.

5. A shot from this deleted scene appears in the film’s original theatrical trailer.

Joe’s Random Movie Trivia: “Child’s Play” (1988)

Related image

In Don Mancini’s original script, back when the film was called “Blood Buddies”, the Chucky doll wasn’t possessed at all.

The original idea was that the doll was a manifestation of the little boy’s Id. And with a workaholic mother, an abusive babysitter, and other children making fun of him, all the victims in the film were going to be people that the boy had a deep, subconscious rage towards.

Joe’s Random Movie Trivia: “Dances With Wolves” (1990)

The Language spoken by the Sioux in the film is genuine Sioux Lakota, spoken by less than a thousand or so people in North America today. Very few people knew it, so a consultant  from South Dakota’s Sinte Gleska University was brought in to translate the script and teach the actors how to say the lines. The consultant for the film was Doris Leader Charge, who taught the Lakota language and culture at the university.

She has a part in the film as Ten Bears’ wife, Pretty Shield.

Image result for doris leader charge

Joe’s Random Movie Review: Mirror Images in “Falling Down” (1993)

Image result for falling down meme

Over the years after it’s release in 1993, the film “Falling Down”has gained certain popularity. In this chaotic world that we find ourselves living, audiences more and more find themselves sympathizing with Michael Douglas’s character, William Foster.

In the film, Foster a man who fired from his job building missiles to protect America from the Soviet Union, divorced and through a court order cannot visit his daughter. Decides he’s going to ignore the rules of basic society and go visit her anyway and along the way he encounters street gangs, gun violence, and various other predicaments that seem to be standing in his way. Along that time, Robert DuVall’s character Detective Martin Prendergast is slowly tracking Foster down. It’s very easy to fall into the trap of rooting for Foster because he seems to represent the everyman, but there is a great flaw in this theory. He flat out IS the bad guy. He has zero regard for anybody except for his own selfish ends.

The character Prendergast is actually much more relatable, but many people may not have much sympathy for him because this is a film were the hero is in fact the Antagonist of the film, and the villain is the Protagonist. But there are many images and subtle references to both characters as the film progresses that shows that they are mirror images of one another.

For example, in the first half of the film you’ll notice the both Foster and Prendergast dress very similarly. And as the film progresses you’ll see them both change gradually into what they both consider themselves to be. Foster who puts on the neo-Nazi’s jumpsuit almost making himself appear like a soldier. Prendergast simply puts on a suit closely resembling what he sees himself to be, which is a detective. Fitting imagery for both of them since they see themselves as both defenders of society.

The fact that both of them have families are also very similar. Foster is alienated from his family divorced and cannot see his daughter. Prendergast also has a wife and daughter. His wife has gone insane, so he feels as though he is lost her in a way. And his daughter is long since deceased the prior to the events of the film. So both men are alienated from their families.

 

There also seems to be a great lack of respect from their peers and both characters in the film. In the case of Prendergast we see that his other detectives and fellow officers do not really respect him that much and they treat him like he’s lower than them. Even though it’s obvious from the get go that Prendergast has probably been there much longer than any of the others have been.

We don’t actually see too much of Foster’s peers throughout the film, we could references in the people that Foster encounters along the way to see his daughter. From the bum who begs for change, to the two old men at the golf course that he encounters, to the man and his family that are taking care of the plastic surgeon’s house.

The special moment doesn’t even really come to mind until the final part of the movie. Which is something that a lot of fans of this film seem to take for granted. This is literally a film, where the hero and the villain do not meet one another until the very last scene.

The structure of the film this way seems to make the mirror image seem much more poignant and much more noticeable. It also makes it clear that this is the point of transformation for both men. Our protagonist, William Foster begins we can believe, as a good man who threw a set of circumstances thrown at him, has become the villain. Prendergast in reacting to Foster’s reactions to the world, has actually risen above his circumstances and actually become a hero in the process.