Resident Evil: Afterlife review

It's said that when a movie franchise hits #4 you've gotta be giving this audience a reason to come back. Usually the trilogy does the trick. The "Resident Evil" films are... well hell... shit. In fact the only one that (for me) comes close to working as a movie is "Resident Evil: Apocalypse", which is by many considered the worst of the bunch. I HIGHLY disagree. The difference between these shit burgers and movies like "Machete" or "Piranha 3D" is that these take themselves VERY seriously. Sometimes unbearably serious to where you can't believe that none of these characters are commenting on why fucking ridiculous it all is. What writer/director/producer Paul W.S. Anderson has done is basically taken various things from these games and put them in the movie while making some other shit up that he probably feels fits right in. This is no longer a zombie story, it's a bad sci-fi story of the "Battlefield Earth" persuasion.

This fourth and nearly unwatchable installment opens with Alice and dozens of her clones breaking into an Umbrella Corporation underground compound in an attempt to kill what appears to be the head baddie, Albert Wesker. Wesker is basically a blond, weak and often hilarious rip off of Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith character from 'The Matrix' films. Speaking of that little set of movies it's ripped off about a dozen and half times here, which is funny since the movie is over TEN YEARS OLD NOW. And yet with all the updated technology we have manages to cheapen the look of the effects despite having more money than Wachowski's did back in 99' . No easy feet I'm sure. Anyways the first massive and crippling logical flaw occurs after Wesker escapes and Alice goes in for her close kill when he injects her with something that is said to have destroyed the T-virus cells in her body that made her super human. Because it made sense in all the other movies that the same thing that turns people in the zombies turns her into Supergirl. Milla Jovovich delivers a terrible line thanking him for making her human again and the plane crashes into a mountain with a CGI freeze frame that looks like it's from a PS2 game. And then she walks away from the crash unharmed and no other explanation is given.

That piece pretty much should kill the movie outright and yet hey... it continues to Alaska and later to a burned out L.A. where a group of survivors took up refuge in a prison from thousands of zombies that just upon Alice and old friend Claire's (Ali Later) arrival have gained the strength and knowledge to dig under the prison and burst up through thick concrete to gain entrance to the shower room... which still works. You'll find out why later. In the prison there's about seven characters, but the only important one is Chris Redfield (Claire's brother) who they think is a prisoner and keep him locked up. Ok, so after all that truly boring bullshit involving piss poor characters, plot holes, plot craters and weak CGI we get to the truly terrible action scenes.

The shower sequence involving giant axe/hammer man ought to go down as one of the dumbest action set pieces in modern cinema. Basically the entire scene is in slow motion and plays out like dumb geek action movie porn, but lacks any real action to appeal to people who might know a thing or two about action movies. So what you're left with is Ali and Milla soaked, brooding and basically ninja warrior women(with the use of wire work of course). As I said earlier if this shit didn't take itself so seriously this might all work (well to a point), instead we're forced to believed a lot of incredibly stupid shit without much reasoning. Like per-say why in a world of zombies is there a 9-foot tall man in with leather skin, a sack mask and a giant hammer axe? Where the fuck was he at when shit went down? How come when we first see Alice and Claire they're both dirty as can be and next when they're flying to L.A. they are completely clean and NOTICEABLY wearing make up? But Anderson doesn't provide answers just more stuff happening that he apparently thinks is cool.

Most of the other action scenes are merely set ups to make his wife (Milla Jovovich... who by the way could do better) look cool in super slow motion out running a poor looking explosions. Sadly it doesn't work either as often she just looks kind of goofy. All this crap builds up to an enormously idiotic fight with Wesker in a giant white room under a ship in the ocean. How does it all end up? How it always does in these films. Now... why do I loathe this one, but actually somewhat enjoy the second and often considered worst installment? "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" was directed by Alexander Witt, a well known and impressive second unit director and cinematographer. You can see much of his work in Ridley Scott films with "Body of Lies" providing his best photographic work to date in my opinion. Witt seems to be the only one who might think these movies don't need to be as serious as Anderson wants. So basically he fills the movie with a good number of impressive physical stunts, over the top supporting characters and actually utilizes his R-rating for more than two fucks and a couple head shots. But what makes it all more funny and entertaining is that the zombie stuff is pretty cheap looking and he shoots it more like a parody of a zombie action movie. Witt might just get the joke, but Anderson sure as hell doesn't.

To him these movies are something else that I cannot begin to understand. The 3D (which apparently uses the same cameras as "Avatar") is very weak as are the effects and the action pieces. Furthermore Anderson can't have gone over this script hard enough to figure out it didn't make a lick of sense after the opening and worse yet neither did the actors. It's been a while since I've hated a sci-fi movie as much as this and yet people will eat it up like it's going out of style. Why? There are TONS of better films about girls kicking ass and looking good. There are TONS of better zombie movies, sci-fi movies and action movies out right now. I imagine in a few years there will be another "Resident Evil" and I imagine it will be pretty bad too... but honestly I can't imagine how Anderson or anybody else could come in and deliver a worst movie. "Resident Evil: Afterlife" has actually taken Anderson down in my mind to the level of Uwe Boll now.

Predators review

I find it incredibly odd how FOX in only a year and half has turned around from releasing 90 minute, half-assed, wussed up movies; to putting out some flicks that are actually closer to the gleefully over the top and fun films they became popular for. Despite my feelings on final act of "The A-Team" it was still one of the few summer films I had fun watching. Now they've managed to not just make another extremely fun film, but also the best "Predator" sequel/re-issue to date.

The best choice FOX could've have made was placing it in the hands of Robert Rodriguez and allowing him to produce it and lead the film under his Troublemaker Studios banner (which he's attempting to heavily expand so they can greenlight films). Rodriguez's interesting plucked up director Nimrod Antal ('Armored', 'Vacancy' and 'Kontroll') who opted to go less CGI and more practical action and effects. The end result in a fantastic throwback hunt picture instead of an all out action film or a half-assed attempt at a science fiction film. Oscar winner Adrian Brody leads up the cast which includes other less conventional performers Alice Braga, Topher Grace, Walton Goggins and Mahershalalhahaz Ali; as well as the likes of Machete himself Danny Trejo and Morpheus, Laurence Fishburne. Rather than deal with action throughout, we're given lots of time with the characters as they figure out where they are and what's going on.

As much as I dig Brody, I did tire of him figuring it all out first. Yes, he's probably the ultimate badass of the group, but still I might have liked it more had they gone with letting the discovery happen more so as they trekked through the jungle. When it came to the action sequences, they are spread quite apart. One thing I tend to forget about the first film is how there's only really heavy action in the beginning and the end; thus with this film there is partial action sprinkled about, but the real stuff doesn't come until the final act. But it's pretty worth it. They also work to add a bit more to the predator lore with the addition of a sort of alien, hunting dog creature that can gore you or at the least snuff out where you are in the woods.

As far as the 'Predator' film legacy goes, this is a tad under the first, but far above all the others. The crew really seemed to be fans of these characters and of the first movie so it appears that the proper mindset has returned to the alien badasses... thus no more running silhouettes with the predator and human running to fight together and save the day (thanks Paul W.orthless S.hit Anderson) . The entire vibe is that of the original movie. Photography wise, score wise (which by the way at the beginning the credits is a little number fans of the original might remember) and pace wise. Out of a summer of pretty rotten films with not even a sliver of fun or excitement, FINALLY we have something to kick back and really be entertained.

Daybreakers review

The way "Daybreakers" kicks itself off is to let you know a few things. The first is that the world in which it takes place in is strange and unpleasant. The second this is letting you know that this is a vampire story and that when they're in sunlight then burn... not sparkle. In fact there are several things in the film that jump up and are made more prominent, seemingly just to let you know that these are what vampires really are. However this is a different vampire tale, one set in a future where vampires are the majority and what's left of the human race is being hunted down and drained of all their blood to feed the masses. But that precious blood is running out and the people are beginning to lose control and also devolve in some ways. Actually when they don't consume enough human blood they turn into the picture above. Not cool for them. Enter Edward... wait... no not Cullen, his last name is Dalton played by Ethan Hawke; he's a scientist working on a blood substitute.

Edward's not a fan of being a vamp and in fact rarely drinks blood. He has a chance meeting with some humans and aids them in their escape. One of them notes who he is and decides to seek him out later and introduce him to Lionel Cormac, whose friends call him Elvis, played by the always entertaining Willem Dafoe. Elvis was a vampire, but was turned back thus he is the key. But the road our heroes face is long and full of backstabbing, vampire soldiers and Sam Neil as Edward's boss, who owns the blood harvesting company and is interested far more in profit then he is in any cures.

The mark of an impressive B-movie is really in the tech side of things. As long as things move along nicely and we are provided with fun sequences and good visuals, then we'll overlook plot holes and bad acting. Luckily there was no bad acting to make up for, but sure there's some plot holes and a some of the effects were a bit if-y, but then again that's part of the allure of B genre movies. They didn't have a hundred million, they just had spirit and what money they did have and they had to put it to good use and that was done here in spades. The world of "Daybreakers" is pretty specific and there are great strides taken to display how vampires would live out a normal life, from special cameras and black out windows on cars for day driving, to censors letting them know when UV light is entering. Seeing vampire hobos and cops and seeing them do what they do is pretty neat. But the film's major strength is in how fun and expanded they make the story.

"Daybreakers" is written and directed by Peter and Michael Spierig, the brothers who had some cult acclaim with "Undead", a low budget, low radar horror comedy a few years back. I wasn't a big fan of it, but this is a big step up. A lot of their humor from their last film is here as well as their effects techniques, but it's paced a hell of a lot better than "Undead", looks better and it's much more fun. There are some great single images in the film that really bring it all home and give you a good perspective on things. The big sequence at the end is perfectly captured at one point in slow motion with an entire squad of soldiers tearing into one another like they had chainsaws in their mouths.

It's sad seeing it so late and seeing that it didn't get too much play with audiences, "The Book of Eli" is kind of having a similar issue which is distressing as it's also a great example of genre film making done to perfection and a great character movie. But often these things happen and audiences attention aren't on movies in January except for their chance to catch the award favorites. In any case "Daybreakers" is a great return to form for vampires and a fun B movie that's the kind of escapism we need right now. It's bloody, funny and fast-paced.

MOVIES THE WORLD HATES, BUT I ENJOY PRESENTS... Robert Rodriguez's THE FACULTY

I've been toying with the idea of this blog section for a while. A nice way to display things I like that the vast populous will more than likely disagree with me on. So I've made this series I like to call "MOVIE'S THE WORLD HATE, BUT I ENJOY PRESENTS...".

I'm making it for two reasons. The first is to talk about some movies people don't discuss much, usually due to their distaste towards them or because they're for the most part forgotten. But are films that... yes I enjoy flaws and all and every film I talk about in this series is an imperfect film to me. The second reason is to show that you can say you like any piece of work so long as you can justify it to yourself and at least put up a good fight to others.

If I met someone that told me that "The Love Guru" was their favorite movie, I would tell them I definitly wasn't a fan of it but if they can gave me somewhat of an understandable reasoning then so be it more power to em', I guess I'll get it. On the flip side this can also validate those who think I really have little to no good taste and this is just a way for me to publicly stick my foot in my mouth. That might happen too so you should continuously read to find out!

Anyways I'm starting off on my current phase of horror films, more specifically B & C grade horror films. Upon it's Christmas release (something I don't understand, then again QT's "Jackie Brown" came out the same day which made even less sense) Rodriguez's ode to the science fiction "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" type pictures, "The Faculty" fell on deaf ears. Also at this time he wasn't known as visionary director Robert Rodriguez, he was simply the dude who made "Desperado" and "From Dusk Till Dawn". Oh how times have dramatically changed. With a screenplay by "Se7en" and "Scream" scribe Kevin Williamson as well it seems as if something just ain't right in the water. Here's two guys with good track lists and a fairly simply type movie so what's wrong?

THE FLAW(S)
Williamson's dialogue in "The Faculty" is somewhat dumbed down. Now I'm saying that in comparison to "Se7en", but that's something understandable. Besides the crowd this is aiming for is the "Scream" loving crowd, but it's a little dumbed down from that as well. At the same time he doesn't make these stereotype teenagers idiots. They are kids who've read books and seen movies and have enough wits about themselves to survive on more than just luck (which they have some of that too).

Another note is that this both is and isn't a Rodriguez film. Just as David Fincher's "Panic Room" is and isn't a Fincher film. Remember the style of old Rodriguez differs from the style of the new. Yes they both aim for lower budget costs and employ several acts of visually trickery of the special effect and in camera type, but back in the 90's he was still working his way up the ladder. So with that there is some sketchy as hell CGI in the movie. Not completely God awful stuff. I'll say it's still better then what was in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", but for that time it still wasn't quite up to snuff some of the time. A lot of his style then was changing and molding more and more just as it did in "From Dusk Till Dawn" which I love, but is also a very imperfect film. Also this was made for a teen audience. Where as his last horror fair was made for the more... devoted R-rated audience. "The Faculty" was for "Scream" fans and kids who would and could sneak into it's auditorium from whatever they were seeing as a rouse.

The biggest factor in that plan however is this, if that teen crowd doesn't find it in it's first week... they probably aren't going to find it at all. And a Christmas day release isn't going to help you any. It doesn't matter what critics say because if it makes money then it wins no matter what. Years later it's a film on DVD that's remembered more for it's butchering on basic cable rather than for anything else. Critics didn't loving it so it didn't have that to fall back on and the people didn't come. And then it was lost in the shuffle of things.

WHY I LIKE IT
Is there a layer of biases in favor it? A little, but not much. I first saw "The Faculty" when my mother rented it on VHS (remember those?) not too long after it hit video stores. Around this time movies were starting to sink in and I was getting ever more interested in their creation. Horror later became my segway into that world. Speed up to now and I've just re-watched the DVD that I bought of it yesterday and that nostalgia is still there, but there's more. Having learned names and faces I respect things like the casting choices of fairly unknowns mixed with actors and actress' who's status was at the time wavering. Back then Elijah Wood was known for "Flipper" and "The Good Son" for the most part. Now he's the main character of one of the most respected film trilogies of all time. Josh Hartnett was almost a complete nobody and now he's a full blown star. Jordana Brewster has two 'Fast and Furious' films under her belt and Clea Duvall is quite a prominate character actress for film and television.

Couple that with the likes of Salma Hayek, Jon Stewart, Famke Janssen, Robert Patrick and yes the glory that is Ain't it Cool News creator Harry Knowles as teachers. Back then I couldn't have given two fucks, but now I'm like that's the coolest teaching staff ever. Not unlike Rodriguez's awesome "Planet Terror" police force of Kyle Reese, Sex Machine and the original El Mariachi. I love that kind of shit in movies.

And yes I'm a sucker for science fiction. Most stuff at least can hold my interest for it's duration which is more than what I could say for other genre pictures. It's got a strong character push that yes has some dunder headed talking at times, but their actions and some conversations are more intelligent then the average high school horror flick. I love KNB's make up effects of giant parasite shape shifters and skin burrowers. And I love Rodriguez's small odes to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "John Carpenter's The Thing" that he seamlessly lays in here.

FINAL CALL
"The Faculty" is what it is. It's a Rodriguez/Williamson teen horror flick. It's soundtrack fits into the many of the other 90's films in this same genre, but I feel it knows what it is and what it's doing. The film never aspires to reach great heights in the cinema stratosphere nor would I ever think it would. The curse of B-movies, especially horror and science fiction horror B-movies is that success may never happen with the majority, but for that minority whom personally seek it out you are something special to.