BRAND NEW SUGABABES VIDEO AND SINGLE "wear my kiss" IS FUTURISTIC ROBOT FETISH SEXY COOL!!!!

so some gay director (literally) just made a Nazi Zombie horror film staring a guy from PRISON BREAK.......YES!!!!!!

Joel Shoemaker is a crazy mofo. He got his start in the film industry as a window dresser at Bloomingdales in New York. (Really!) Then somehow got to make THE LOST BOYS, an 80’s classic horror comedy that jump started the careers of Corey Feldman, Kiefer Sutherland, and Corey Haim. The film was hot, sexy and cool. Verhoven went on to make some really amazing pictures, like A TIME TO KILL and TIGERLAND with Colin Ferrell and PHONEBOOTH and the most recent musical THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. There is a story that during the filming of PHANTOM, Mini Driver went up to him after a take and said “was that ok? I think I may have been a little over the top.” To which he responded with “well sweetie, people don’t pay for UNDER the top!” That sums him up perfectly. No matter what the films failings, if any, his pictures always look lavish and sumptuous and rich. After all, he also made BATMAN AND ROBIN and BATMAN FOREVER…..eek!

Enter BLOOD CREEK, a totally original hybrid of genres that come together to make one of the coolest horror films I’ve seen in a while. The films opens in sepia toned snap crackle pop 1930’s film stock, and true to form it takes place in the 1930’s. A German family is seen going about their farming duties on their barn in Wyoming; slaughtering the livestock, cleaning the house, and teaching their teenage daughter how to speak English with an American accent, so she’s not picked on at school. They have defected from the 3’d Reich, and want to start anew in America, setting up a very sympathetic group of people. Then they get a letter from Germany stating one of Hitler’s scientists needs to conduct experiments, and needs to do it in safety, outside of war torn Europe, and will pay the family handsomely if they allow this border to come live with them for a few months. Against the idea in principal. They are desperate for money, and are assured they will not have to participate or help this man in any way. The scientist, Dr. Worth shows up and starts asking about these rune stones, ancient rocks with Gaelic markings on them, brought over by the Vikings when they first landed on the American continent. It seems Hitler is obsessed with the occult, and these stone are said to hold magical powers, which this scientist is ordered to obtain and harness. Now, though the story above is fictional, all the details are in truth fact. The rune stones, Hitler doing extensive research into the occult, Germans defecting to America to start anew. See, I told you this was original!

The movie cuts to present day where a med student takes care of his ailing, abusive father, whose always going on and on about the “better son” who disappeared after a tour in Iraq, and “died like a hero.” Not long after this setup does the long lost brother (Dominic Purcell from PRISON BREAK) show up out of the blue one night, and taking his brother along for one hell of a ride. Apparently this war hero brother came home and on his way to a sweet family reunion was kidnapped by a family living in the sticks of Wyoming, and tortured. He escapes and enlists the aid of his brother to go exact revenge on this family from hell. Things take a “twilight zone-esque” twist when the family turns out to be the same from the beginning of the film, only they haven’t aged a day.

To go any further into the plot would spoil the fun. But just know that things get weird. I mean SUPER weird. For example, there is a possessed horse at one point that smashes through a window plucking out a poor guy and eats him. THE HORSE EATS HIM!!!!!! There are crazy exorcisms. There are decapitations by barbed wire. There are people killed, only to immediately reanimate as zombies and attack the very people they were fighting to protect moments earlier. OH and a full moon play an important part as well. Oh, and did I mention the monster chained in the basement? Yea, it’s weird, taking a page from the EVIL DEAD series of films, or even the most recent DRAG ME TO HELL. Anything goes, including the kitchen sink. The only thing missing is the jokey fun those other features had. There are no light hearted winks at the audience in this, it’s played straight.

I HIGHLEY recommend you see this movie, for the sheer audacity of it all. Think RUNNING SCARED only in horror film mode. Oh, and Verhovens panache and style are on full display, with every sequence being overlite, under cranked, or glossy. He goes berserk with the visual flourishes, but it only adds to the mad cap nature of this. Its one wild ride and a refreshingly original horror film.

And here is an OBNOXIOUS trailer that really doesn't do it any justice:

P.S. did they really mis-spell "magic" in there? WOW!!!!

KICK ASS just may be the coolest comic book film EVER!!!!

So there is the brand new poster for the action comedy from the director of LAYER CAKE, which was amazing by the way. If that doesn't do it for ya, then check out this clip:


HA-MAZING!!!!!! if your not sold on this after that clip (in spite of the fact that nicolas cage is for some reason wandering around on set while they filmed it apparently) then you don't have a pulse! here is the regular trailer that sells the film as a whole, but also doens't have any bad ass gunshots tot he face at point blank range like the above clip had:





KICK ASS comes out APRIL 16

SUGABABES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a song from 3 albums ago that recently went BACK into the top 20 charts in europe cause they recently did an acustic version of it at a funeral for one of the royals. here is the origional version:


And as i wait for the full version of WEAR MY KISS' video, here is the vid for their last number one hit "ABOUT A GIRL" featuring the hotty McHottness guy from the famous jett jackson and FLASHFORWARD!!!

The Not So Lovely Bones

Like the title character in the lovely bones, this film is lost. There are entire sequences that are so expertly handled and so well crafted you’re swept away in its storytelling. Unfortunately each and every moment is squandered with a really poor organazation of ideas and concepts. The plot is familiar by the trailer, or if you read the celebrated novel. Suzy Salmon is raped and killed, and stuck in the in-between while she watches her family back on earth fall apart, as well as her murderer slowly plan another attack.

There is a lot to work with here, but Peter Jackson has no idea what to focus on. Suzy’s afterlife is an often very scary place, which reflects her inner feelings of the turmoil she had to endure at the hands of a very scary pedophilethe. Her family life reflects this with the mom “not being able to cope” and abandoning the family. The father becomes a shell of a human, spending his days alone in total seclusion. However once Suzy starts to accept the fact that she’s dead, and she might want to move on to heaven, her family life picks up. The mom, inexplicably moves back home. The father learns how to love his wife again and not obsess over who the killer is. Everything gets all fine and dandy. So, is the moral of the story every time a family suffers a tragedy, if they don’t handle it well, it’s the fault of the deceased who just can’t let go? Or is it the other way around.

The film never gives a clear answer, which I suppose could be the point, but when it’s just so broad an interpretation there just doesn’t seem any reason for it. There is no closure in the ending, no revelations. She just decides of her own accord that “she’s ready.” That’s it. So why did we just follow you and your family for over a year, through ups and downs, all seemingly random events, for literally no meaning. This may be an elementary example, but it works: Remember in mighty morphing power rangers when the rangers would each individually get in elaborate fights with a monster, each one failing, only to at the very end say “let’s combine our forces and use out zords” and get the job done in no time flat? Well, same goes for here. There is no rhyme or reason for the events, as none are explored in any depth. So as a whole the film fails quite miserably, with little to no interest in a satisfying ending. It starts, keeps going, then suddenly and without reason stops. All the characters make decisions seemingly at will, with no motivation. I'm told the wife has an affair with the police investigator in the book, THEN leaves the family behind because she is not only unable to cope with her shilds death, but also unable to come to terms with her infedelity. Such character work is not found in the film however, with her departure and subsequent return given absolutly no reasoning.

That being said, Peter Jackson is a great storyteller, if not woefully misguided. There are sequences filled with such beauty or suspense, you’ll be transfixed for whole minutes at a time. A scene where the little sister sneaks into a neighbor’s house to find evidence of him being the killer is of Hitchcock caliber. I haven’t been on the edge of my seat like that in ages. Also, a scene where Suzy floats past all the crime scenes of all the people her murderer had killed. It’s scary, it’s sad, and it’s beautiful all at the same time. There are also some deep and interesting moral questions going on. In life Suzy was most looking forward to her first kiss. While in a dark, grey, garbage filled afterlife that reflects her inner struggle, She gives a moving and gut wrenching speech about how most people get married and have kids, all she wanted was a first kiss and “he took that away from me. No matter what happens, even if I go to heaven, I’ll never get that.” It’s sad and heartbreaking, and there isn’t an easy answer.

As I said before, the movie just kind of stops, with no rhyme or reason as to why she’s suddenly “ready to move on.” I’d say it’s worth a rental for sure, but if you want my expert opinion, go watch WHAT DREAMS MAY COME. It’s infinitely better and tackles much the same ground as this does. I’d be interested to read the book of which this is based, and see what came first, the book or the WHAT DREAMS MAY COME film script, because there are entire passages in both film that mirror each other totally. Even down to how the afterlife is represented. In the end Peter Jackson still comes out relativly unscathed as a filmmaker. His skill and craft are still on display in spades, however he needs to choose his projects more carefully. His previous film of a similar nature HEAVENLY CREATURES (Kate Winslet's first film by the way) was tender, sad, and at times downright scary. Two very unstable teenage girls become very dependent on one another, and when the parents seperate them, they take matters to the extreem. It was focused, sharp, and quick (even at well over 2 hours, every scene had a purpose and meaning). I for one would like to see Jackson return to even EARLIER roots and make a balls to the wall splatter gore-fest to end all gore-fests. He needs to stop fishing for awards and stick to what he loves, because his heart really isn't in the lovely bones.

HALLOWEEN 2: DIRECTORS CUT review/comparison

Halloween 2 has a lot more going on than you’d think. The first outing was a really fun, grim slasher with Rob Zombies signature “white trash hell-billy deluxe” outlook on everything. You either loved it, or you HATED it for throwing away all the classy suspense of the original in favor of straight up gore and filth. With the director’s cut of part 2, Zombie definitively ends his vision of the Halloween mythos. Also, not straddled with an origin story, tells a completely original story of life after trauma, and how people cope.

The film starts out literally the second after the first one ended. Laurie strode is walking down main street blood soaked and broken, having just shot Michael Myers in the head. Myers, thought dead, breaks out of the police van he’s being transported in and chases Laurie to the hospital to finish her off. Of course she escapes his clutches and he disappears into the night. Cut to two years later where the movie starts proper and Laurie is living with her besty Annie Bracket, a survivor of the first film, and her sheriff father.
Right off the bat things are different in the director’s cut. Not only is it 20 minutes longer, but dialogue has changed, and some scenes in the original have even been cut out. In the theatrical movie, it’s not clearly explained if the Meyers escape and hospital chase were a dream or not. Here it is specifically pointed out that it all really happened. Also of note is the general atmosphere. The director’s cut emphasizes the hostility between all the survivors, and revels in the fact that none of them are coping with the events of the last film very well.

Unlike last time, this is truly an ensemble pick. Annie, the best friend of Laurie and once "party animal" is now a doting motherly figure to not only to Laurie but also to her father, who is living with the lie that Laurie is really Michael Meyer’s sister. She cooks and cleans and is afraid to death of leaving the house. They even mention she hasn’t left it in two years. Laurie herself is suicidal, drug addicted, and angry, unlike last time when she acted as teh virginal brave one of the bunch. Now she has a wall sized poster of Charles Manson hanging over her bed!!!!! She keeps having nightmares of Michael, and this creepy woman in white stalking her. When she finds out her biological secret, she realizes maybe she is destined to become a murderer as the rest of her family had. Things get even weirder when she starts blacking out in broad daylight while she’s awake and having full blown conversations with her long lost mommy.

Dr. Loomis hasn’t dealt with the tragedy well either. He’s become a national sensation with a gaudy tell all book, and has no remorse when using the victims to his own gain. In one added scene at a book signing has him confronted with a very normal looking man, Until the man reveals himself to be the father of one of the dead girls from the first film and pulls a gun on him (a nice touch is the photo of the actual actress from the previous outing). Loomis is unfased, and uncaring of this poor mans grief. In a way, just like Laurie, He has lost his soul aswell.

Throughout all of this is a theme of a white horse signifying an unstoppable force, or fate. This aspect was briefly mentioned a few times in the theatrical cut, but now is expanded upon in lengthy therapy discussions between Laurie and her therapist (Margot Kidder, the original LOUIS LANE!!!!!!!).

All this leads to an ending that is much more…..final. I can see why the studio would want room left open for a sequel, and the theatrical ending isn't all that bad to begin with.However this new ending not only closes the book on this specific chapter, but is also a more logical ending. Also of note are all the little details thrown in. For example, in the first film there is a Montage of Michael trick or treating alone, while his mother strips all set to the classic rock song “love hurts.” Here, a main characters death, and ending of the film, has an “enya” style cover of that song playing, bookending the family dynamic perfectly. Also over the end credits are police crime photos of every one of Michaels victims, in order, from the first film, giving these last two entries a “stand alone” feel from the rest in the franchise.

* Also of note is the gore. I didn’t think it was possible, but there is quite a bit more added. Not even that, a main characters death is not only drawn out longer here, with her naked and blood covered body whimpering back to life for a final gut wrench apology to Laurie, but as the father screams over the victim, zombie plays home video footage spliced in, almost as subliminal glimpses, of the victim happy, playing with a puppy, and opening Christmas presents. This could quite possibly be the first time in slasher movie history where you actually CARE about the person duying.

In conclusion the Directors cut is not only gorier and harder, as expected, but it VASTLY improves upon not only the characters and their motivations, but the themes and over arching ideas that were started in the previous film. I highely recommend it if you can stomach it, and there is a reason why it was on my "top ten" list this year.

SPIDERMAN IS DEAD

So let me begin by saying that I never really cared for Spiderman at all. With me it's all about consistency. If your going to make a film based on a comic book, you need to decide from the beginning if your going to stay as faithful as humanly possible (300, sin city, dick Tracy) or if your going to take aesthetic liberties but stay true to the source material (X:Men, Iron Man, The Dark Knight). The Spiderman franchise never had a very good handle on this. Slapstick goofy comedy shared screen time with operatic soapy dramatics. Sometimes the action was hard hitting, and sometimes it looked like a Looney Tunes cartoon. Why update the spidey suit to look all cool, but keep the green goblin looking identical to his comic book form? The dichotomy was very off-putting. That being said, they were an all right group of films.

Until Part 3. That was hands down one of the worst things I’ve ever seen in my life. Why you may ask? Because it suffered from the same things batman and robin, batman forever, and fantastic four all suffered from. Too many cooks in the kitchen. The Studio always wants certain things that some test group told them would sell. They have to balance that with a director who has certain creative ideas and aspirations. Its art meets commerce. HOWEVER, when one outweighs the other, the shit hits the fan. Case in point? The X-Men franchise. Bryan Singer had a plan, and it was a long and intricate plan. He loved the comics, and wanted to bring a faithful, epic, layered story to the screen. He started with the first one, and then reached new heights with the second. At the time I honestly feel X-Men 2: X Men United was the best comic book film ever made at the time (obviously the dark knoght and sin city share that title now). Then what happened? Even though he had creative control, and was obviously doing a good job, the studio was spending soooo much money on it, they felt they had the right to some input (and shouldn't they have?). So Singer complained about the changes they wanted with the third installment, the studio said bend to our will or leave, and he left. Fuck you very much. Peace out bitches. So the studio hires a goon by the name of Brett Rattner to make the third one. Brett's not a bad guy, and a very competent director, but he's what they call a "director for hire." he has no vision. He has no creative drive. He does know how to agree with the studio suits and point the camera and say action and deliver whatever they want. Hence x men 3 was a marked step down in the franchise. Did they use any of the outlines or story ideas Bryan Singer had mapped out? No, screw that, we want MORE VILLANS!!!!!! so Cyclopes gets killed in the first 3 minutes, the jugernaught is there for absolutely no reason in the lamest power rangers leftover muscle suit only cause it was cheap, and Rattner knows cheap. The third film made money, but not like the first two. An if you ask anyone, I doubt part 3 was their favorite.

So Sam Raimi, despite my own misgivings about the spidey films, was the man in charge. Having made the classic Evil Dead series in the 70's, he knew how to squeeze the most bang out of a buck. Studios like that. He was also endlessly creative, as evident in his DARKMAN films, pseudo comic book films in their own right (albeit on a much smaller scale). So he had plans and outlined motives for the Spiderman universe he was creating. He introduced marry Jane to that astronaut guy in part two, with the plan that in part three he'd be up in space and bring the venom down with him. Well, the studio didn't want to waist time on character development and things like that, so part 3 started with it for no reason just falling out of the sky. The astornaut fiancé left at the alter? No time for that either. No explanation just cut it out. What about peter parker proposing to her? He kept trying to pop the question in part 3, and originally he was going to, but the studio didn't want to deal with a wedding, there wasn't going to be any action or VILLANS, so he never did. Raimi made these compromises against his better judgment, and it showed. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.....

So here we are at part 3. A release date has already been established for early 2012, and raimi was busy nailing out a script with the studio reared its ugly head once again. However this time he stood up for himself. The studio felt people want the character Spiderman, and it doesn’t necessarily matter who plays him or who makes it. So Raimi left, and the entire cast agreed and walked with him. That release date is still in place by the way, with the studio planning on quickly hiring a director for hire and having peter parker in high school dealing with his superpowers. So are they just rebooting it altogether like the incredible hulk (a very smart move in regards to the hulk, I still say that movie was better than iron man, no question), or are they going to pretend like nothing happened, and for no reason peter parker became 10 years younger. Who knows, but with a focus group making the decisions and not a singular creative force, you can bet it's going to suck!

I have to mention MARVEL studios at this point. They sold the rights of Spiderman, so they are not in control of it, but they are building their own universe of films in a way that everyone else should emulate. They hired Jon Favruea to make Iron man, a passionate and experienced filmmaker and writer with strong ideas. They hired Robert Downey Jr., a legitimate actor. And they have them complete creative control. That worked didn't it? Unhappy with how the first hulk turned out, they reboot it, pretending the first never happened. They get Louis leterrier, a famed French action film director and Edward Norton, a notorious perfectionist and control freak to not only star, but WRITE the film, and they both had creative control. That turned out to be a critical and commercial success. Now they have THOR in production, with Kenneth Branna directing. Oh, and Anthony Hopkins and Renee Russo, and about a dozen other amazing actors in it. Ryan Reynolds is currently prepping to be in their captain America reboot as well, collimating in an AVENGERS film featuring all of them together in 1012 or 13'. That’s how you do it. Invest in a very strong, proven creative force for both in front of and behind the camera, and then trust them. If they have a reputation, their going to want to uphold it. They’ll take pride in what they do, not just collect a paycheck.

lesson learned? Studios should stick with what their good at: Spending money. Directors and writers and actors should be trusted with what their paid for, creativity. If everyone just stuck to those rules, not only would comic book films be in a better shape than they are right now, the quality of movies in general would improve.