Jackass 3D review

Anyone who is even the slightest bit aware of what "Jackass" is ought to know well and good what a 3D made version of it would entail. Poop in 3D, penis' going random sometimes horrible things in 3D, absurd and painful stunts... in 3D. That's what it is like it or lump it. And how is it? The same as it ever was. If you enjoy their brand of low brow, but occasionally somewhat higher comedy then you'll love it just as much as their other pieces. If not, then you won't. Also if you don't enjoy their stuff seeing it really wouldn't make a lot of sense; especially in 3D with the added ticket price.

The added enjoyment of "Jackass 3D" really is the 3D. It's not always in your face, but when it is it can add to the laugh. If for anything then for the fact that you're about to witness something like a dildo fired from a cannon go right into your face. What can I say, sometimes we need that raw, gallows humor. Sometimes seeing a bunch of guys laugh as their friend willing gets his tooth pulled out by a speeding Lamborghini. Maybe the key to it all is the enjoyment and good sportsmanship we see from all of these guys. Perhaps it's similar to the concept of "Fight Club", in which for men to feel masculine they get into brutal fist fights, but never with emotion or disdain towards the other man. Simply to get that missing rush in life. There's always that friendship and respect despite everything. I suppose it would be different if after every time someone hit someone in the groin they would scream and yell and go into a full bizerker mode.

Most of all the stunt pieces and set up achieve their desired effect. They aim for a heavy degree of shock value, but also have some very clever public skits and pranks on one another that consistently work. There's no much more to be said then that really. I've seen it now in both 2D and 3D and found them both a lot of fun. If you've got the extra cash then by all means seeing it in 3D is a great way to go. If you don't then 2D is simply a really polished looking version of the same film. Either way "Jackass 3D" is fast, dirty and hilarious. If this is the final installment then the boys have gone out on quite a high note.

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work review

The mark of a truly good documentary is when it can take someone or something you dislike or simply don't care about and actually make you care. After watching "Exit Through the Gift Shop" which is brimming with topics that highly interest me and thus made me love the film and it's subject matter more while viewing it in somewhat of a different light, I then went for "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work". A documentary chronicling a year in the life of the groundbreaking comedienne/ talk show host/ red carpet interviewer/ plastic surgeon's blooper reel highlight. The result was an entertaining, witty, funny and seemingly truthful look at show business and a dimming star trying to regain her clout.

I grew up long after Rivers had 'peaked' in the entertainment world and thus have always seen her as that frightful looking, loud mouthed woman that talks about fashion while making rough attempts at humor. I was well aware that she had been a stand up comic, but I never really cared to see any of her shtick. However with this film not only did it make you understand where she came from and her importance, but also somewhat sympathize with a comic that in her heart of hearts always wanted to be more. Someone who wanted to be a serious actress. In addition to that it also showed that despite everything she is (to my surprise) funny and witty both on stage and off. Seriously... did not see that coming.

I do find comedians to be interesting people. Stand ups are especially interesting as they really must take a grand leap of faith to get up under those lights and attempt to make people laugh anyway possible. Seeing her life of doing fourth rate venues, attempting to get a new play off the ground and trying to get any work possible is a fascinating look into that two headed monster called show business. Much of Rivers' insights into it all are equally fascinating and most of all seemingly earnest. After all she's been doing this since the late sixties, is still around and living like a queen so she must be doing something right. At the same time we get a look at someone who is pretty damaged. A lot of the film steers slightly away from her various plastic surgeries, only touching on it near the beginning. From what I could gather it all seemingly came from her desire to be loved and how she never felt beautiful. Fairly classic tale of the whole thing I guess so perhaps no further discussion is necessary. Instead it talks about her quick rise to stardom, her falling out with Johnny Carson, NBC and FOX and the death of her husband and what followed. And despite it all... here she still is.

So how is it that Rivers, who is now more of a joke than anything has lasted this long? Because she's a work horse. She's constantly looking for new gigs anywhere possible to return to the spotlight and reinvent herself. In this day and age it isn't impossible obviously. Look at the huge Betty White following that's come around. Do I buy into it? No, but who cares cause everybody else does. Chuck Norris was even a fucking... thing for a while and why?! He can't act, 90% of his movies are shit even on the it's so bad it's good level and he's a fairly boring guy. But hey... if someone like Carlos fucking Mencia can be something of note then I firmly believe that Rivers can arise again as well. Through what though I don't know.

The one flaw that holds the whole film back from greatness is simply run time. It's all really damn interesting and entertaining, but it never seems to have a particular finale in mind until it's splashed upon you. It's inter cut with pieces of Rivers' stand up acts which are sometimes too over the top, but a lot of times far wittier and funnier than A LOT of the shit we hear from Dane Cook or other crap comedians around now. I almost feel like docs like this for other comedians who've lost their way could be a helpful tool for the public to see them in a different, more candid light as well as for them to exorcise some of their inner demons and get them out in front of them (Murphy and Myers, I'm looking at you). Despite all my highly mixed emotions going into the film, I'm very glad I did see it.

Exit Through the Gift Shop review

Question: have you heard of this film "Exit Through the Gift Shop"? If the answer is no then I'm not at all surprised and I'd highly advise you to head to youtube or imdb or whatever and take a look at the trailer and the reactions it's been getting from viewers. If you the answer to the question is yes, but you haven't seen it, then I'd advise you to find a fucking way to see it and pronto.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is a documentary directed by Banksy, a well known UK street artist that has widely expanded his particular brand of artistic, politic satire across the globe. And while the film is made by him its main focus is actually on a somewhat cartoonish and never dull frenchmen named Thierry Guetta. Thierry for several years has lived with a camcorder stuck to his hand. Everywhere he went, everything he did... was recorded. It wasn't until he met a street artist named Space Invader (made popular for replicating 8-bit characters on streets using discarded rubix cube pieces) that all his filming began to have a direction. From then on Thierry was hooked to the world of street art and through Invader was able to meet dozens upon dozens of other creative and mesmerizing artists.

However the question must be asked... why was he filming them? What was the purpose of it all; the end result? No one knew. Thierry didn't even know. But that didn't keep him from filming everything in sight. Eventually all Thierry's filming of artists came to a head when he wanted to meet the infamous Banksy, who is still a man of mystery. But by luck of the draw they did meet and became friends after a few quite rough, but rewarding events. Most of what they show and discuss is pretty hairy stuff and actually makes from some intense, tension filled sequences to the picture. Other encounters are quite humorous and light hearted, but help to really see a little bit more what these artists are really like.

I refuse to spoil much else about the whole film because it's best seen than heard about. I will say that by the end of the film your opinion on Thierry may change and you will question how sane or flat out insane of a man he really is. But not everything hinges solely on the very fucking interesting story of this man. It's also the best account of the world of street artists. Really in the 2000's it's been hard to identify what the counter-culture is. It's been pin pointed easily anywhere from the 50's thru the 90's... but now the lines have become quite blurred. Some might suggest that hipsters are the current counter-culture, but I highly disagree. My thought is the world 'culture' means more than shopping at thrift stores, smoking cloves and drinking cheap ass beer while sportin' an 'I'm-better-than-you' attitude. They're simply a more fashionable slacker. So I would identify the new wave of graffiti artists as that counter-culture. Guerrilla art that often is satirical of world happenings, the media and other hot button topics or concepts. Plus a lot of it looks cool.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" has a little bit of everything I love seeing at the movies. Not just in documentaries, but films in general. The characters, the humanity, the realistic humor, the tension, the stories and the experience of seeing something new and creative. As it stands right now this may be my favorite film of 2010; it has all the energy and creativity of any big brand film out right now. I urge you all to see this film.

Never Sleep Again review

It's things like this that remind me why I love movies, why I love horror movies and why these movies are important. If you're a horror buff, film buff, love the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' world or just have a curiosity into what it takes to make elaborate looking films with little to no money then this is epic, four hour documentary is for you. "Never Sleep Again" covers all seven Freddy Krueger films as well as "Freddy vs. Jason". You'll see tons of interviews with the stars of those movies (barring a couple who are quite large now) and their various creators as well as hear the tale of the birth of New Line Cinema. I do recall years and years ago hearing that New Line was the house that Freddy built and now I know why.

Wes Craven created the original story from hearing of real events in which people (mainly in Asian countries after the Vietnam war) were having vivid nightmares and trying their best to stay awake. One such story was of a boy who told his parents that he couldn't sleep or else he would die. The boy's father was a doctor and gave him sleeping pills. He never took the pills but after a few days without sleep he finally blacked out and they put him to bed finding the pills rolling around under the bed sheets and a coffee maker in the closet. That same night the parents awoke to the boy screaming and by the time they made it to his room he was dead. I happen to agree with Craven in saying, now that's an interesting story. Well he and others go in the every little detail as does the others involved about the thought process, filming, writing and effects design of each film in the series. If you've never gone through and watched all the Freddy movies then I would actually say go for it.

Unlike the "Halloween" or "Friday the 13th" franchises, Freddy is a different kind of lead; and while he did become a bit of a game show host after he was pimped out as much as possible he still had so much more than the other slasher hosts. Freddy could be funny and dark and make it all work together. Now I'm not saying all those movies are good, because that's not the case. But are they watchable? Yes. Can you find something entertaining about going through those films and looking at the crazy set designs and the old school effects and delve into it's cheesy charm? Yes. In many ways this made me long to see more horror done in these pre-CGI ways that's NOT torture porn or some clever variation of torture porn (lookin' at you "The Human Centipede"). It is fact possible to say that no other horror franchise is as original or interesting to sit through than that of the 'Elm Street' collection.

Granted my favorite slasher picture remains John Carpenter's "Halloween". There's many, many creepy, classy and trashy things I love about that film and I'll never forget the fear I had as a kid trying to watch it and jumping throughout the whole movie. But "A Nightmare on Elm Street" always fascinated me and I wished I'd gotten to see it when I was younger because while almost everything in it I already knew about, I could have still be freaked by some of the stuff around that age (I wanna say I was 7 or 8 when I saw 'Halloween' and had never seen a horror movie before that). I think the idea of a man that can kill you in your dreams is a shit load scarier then anything else really. It's hard to control you're mind in a dream. It's more like watching a movie rather than playing a video game so easily someone could snap your neck in a dream and that'd be your end.

There is nothing like this around anymore and it's kind of sad. Some people might want to argue that "Saw" is that, but it's not. There's not different between "Saw II" and "Saw V". It's all a continuously stupid series of senseless stories, bland characters and traps that are not longer interesting. Also it's main character Jigsaw is a boring mix of John Doe from "Se7en" and Hannibal Lecter. The 'Elm Street' series while not always having the best stories, still brought an original vision to the table and had fun with it each time. Those films aren't fun they're just clunky editing and lame set ups that kill any sense of terror. I know in twenty years or so they'll be a documentary of those films as well, but it won't be deserving. Hell I'm even sure the one for "Friday the 13th" was deserving, but this one... yeah I guess it is.

What this saga did was help launch acting careers for the likes of Johnny Depp and Patrica Arquette as well as careers for writers and directors like Wes Craven, Frank Darabont, Chuck Russell, Renny Harlin, Stephen Hopkins and Brian Helgaland. It made a horror movie character a superstar known the world over, granted causing him to lose much of his fear effect for fun and games, but for a while he was a mega star. Now I wish I could say the Platinum Dunes remake was worth while and I wish I could say, yeah in a few years we'll see Nightmare 2 with a bigger cast and budget and maybe even somebody a little more tested behind the camera. I wish Jackie Earle Harley, who's performance of Freddy Krueger was in fact quite impressive will get a second chance to expand on his version of the character. Unfortunately I can't say those things cause I don't see it happening. P.D. played it pussy and turning in a shitty, shitty film. Almost as shitty as what Tim Burton did with "Alice in Wonderland". It's made some money so yeah... perhaps Bay and company will throw down some more cash and look for better names for a sequel. But what's the point if you're not going to be original and daring with what you do?

Rather than think hey we have to stay as close to this film as we possibly, why not take away the lessons those sequels taught us. Do they have to connect? No. Does it have to be scary all the time? No. But we must be original and fun. I know they can do that and I'd love, LOVE I tell you, to see Harley as Krueger again with some real writing talent going on behind and a director who's not afraid, has unique vision of surreal horror and knows how to make a fun movie. I think it's possible, but not going to happen right now. But in the mean time pick up the DVD for this or watch it online ( as I did) and kick back for a lengthy look at the creative world of horror cinema at it's best, worst and everything in between.

Babies review

The main point of Focus Features new picture "Babies" is that babies are cute. Well generally they are. I've seen some not so cute babies, but for the most part those tiny people are cute and often very humorous to look at as they gaze around seemingly taking in the world around them. Is that enough for a documentary? Meh, sure why not. "Babies" is a pretty original concept and the film carries no narration and very little talking from the parents in the scenes with their children. Sometimes there will be music, but for the most part you're watching pure, raw, baby biz and I really like that.

But I'll say it works like a basic nature documentary sense of something you might see at an IMAX. You watch it, it's interesting and what not but you're always watching it and never really invested into it. It's not like that's a bad thing as it is pretty much designed as such, but it doesn't make me love what I'm seeing. Another point about "Babies" is that it's really a personal preference kind of movie. If you really love babies and/or kids or have never really experienced being around them, then this movie is right up your ally. If you have kids or not really a child person then it still might offer something fresh and interesting for you to view nonetheless, but you'll never like it as much as the first crowd probably. It is a very polished and well shot and edited documentary which includes families from Africa, San Francisco, Tokyo and Mongolia with the first and last families yielding the most interesting footage. For the most part the U.S. and Japanese families are a display of modern world parenting and what not which is all stuff we've seen over and over again. Sure they do cute things like the child getting noticeably frustrated about her toy and all, but there was always something really interesting seeing the other kids with their parents in the dry lands of Africa playing with rocks and bottles or stepping over goats and playing with their siblings in a field.

Clocking in at 73 minutes was also a wise choice as this isn't something that could carry on for a full hour and half or longer. Yes it's polished and looks like a movie, but too much of it might leave you feeling like you just got sucked into watching someones youtube playlist of their baby doing funny little things and you lost track of time. Personally it did take me a little while of watching to really get into it. I'm not a big kid person in truth. I like them well enough, but I'm not wild about em'. I know some day that'll change, but for now that's me. When I did start enjoying the footage it did work me over in the cuteness department and made me smile throughout the rest of the picture and perhaps laugh here and there.

"Babies" is as advertised and it works. I won't say run out and see it or anything like that, but it's nice and different. I'll admit while I didn't fully review Disney Nature's "Oceans" I did quite enjoy that a lot more than expected and while it too has that same lack of emotional investment, it was surprisingly large in scope and photographed several highly impressive and awe inspiring real world events. In the same token some people might call a child's first steps awe inspiring. I wouldn't go that far, but that's just my personal feelings on the matter. However I dare anyone not to smile when a baby laughs. That is undeniably cute always.

Not Quite Hollywood review

I'll be honest, I'm very finicky when it comes to documentaries. I imagine many people are, but I'm just a person where it's got to absolutely, positively be a subject I am completed interested in or I won't be able to care. So that said I've skipped the half a dozen acclaimed Iraq based docs of the past six years, several of the music based ones (although a few I do want to go back and watch Scorese's "Shine A Light", even though I heard it's not as good as "Gimme Shelter") and many involving politics which attempt to prove one suited parties form of thinking is better than another when in reality both are right and wrong and nothing will ever truly be solved by them. But that's a topic for another time.

Surprisingly the bulk of released documentaries about film mainly are on DVD's connected to the film itself, however earlier this year a film festival was set in geek capital of America Austin, Texas called the "Not Quite Hollywood" festival. Here they showcased boat loads of Australian exploitation films or as they're called ozploitation films. This was centered around the documentary made about their blooming film industry in the 60's and onward called "Not Quite Hollywood". If you're someone who loves film... more specifically varied forms of genre pictures including sexploitation, creature horror, sex comedies, high octane action films and pure trash cinema... then you need to pick this up on DVD pronto. Now if you're confused as to what any of that means then here's my best written definition I can muster. They are shoestring budgeted films that use extreme visual methods or subject matter or both in order to gain an audience.

The film begins with the first display of ozploitation films which were sex comedies of massively low brow standards. However you did get lots and lots of nudity... as will you get in this film. Later on horror started taking over and in many ways a lot of what we see in horror today spawned from some of their exploitation flicks as opposed to our own. They show clips from "The Howling III: The Marsupials" which is pure garbage, but it's hilarious how horrible it really is. Down the line you get pre-rehab, "Hoosiers" and "Blue Velvet" Dennis Hopper on the set of "Mad Dog Morgan" acting basically like the massive alcoholic and coke head he was at the time. But what's best is hearing EVERYONE living from that industry sharing stories about people and incidents and getting to see clips from films that are so far out there and ahead of their time that they could still stand up in theaters today.

Enter Brian Trenchard Smith who was something of an Australian Roger Corman (look him up to understand better what I mean), making grand scale films for the lowest possible price. And his films made a ton of money. In fact a lot of the final acts of this film involve him and his films. Of course there is a rather sad thought throughout which is, how come we don't get any Australian genre pictures now? The explanation is somewhat clear after the end of the 60's style of film making they had, in which all good things must come to an end and the ride from their type of cinema as far as large scale recognition like "Mad Max" seemed to be over. And as it stands the exploitation film market is largely thrown onto DVD with only a few voices like Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and Eli Roth getting major attention for films that are really just nice looking exploitation films. And there's nothing wrong with that.

So I definitely urge you to go out and rent "Not Quite Hollywood". It's funny, gross, shocking and exciting, something many major films now don't quite do. It provides a lot of those basic forms of entertainment we tend love when it comes to movies, but be warned it is definitely like playing devils advocate with these film makers. These are films that are not good in the traditional sense of it's a well made movie (some exceptions of course). These movies by and large are great because of how outlandish and ridiculous they are. Not one of those shiny, pampered ass "The Fast and the Furious" movies could dare hold a candle to some of the Aussie car pictures, which was where I first learned about their... 'rich culture' in genre cinema. Get friends, rent the damn movie, kick back and enjoy; and who knows maybe you might want to start snuffing out some schlock ozploitation films for yourself.

"Not Quite Hollywood" *** 1/2 out of ****