Movie Review: How To Train Your Dragon

At least now we know (and so does Dreamworks) that if Mike Myers should ever a) be killed by Kanye West or b) seek too much money or just not feel like making another one in the film franchise, Craig Ferguson would pass as the voice of Shrek.

Stay Out of Puddles

Title:  Retribution

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  This film was directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa.   He did the original version of Pulse as well as Cure, which I recently reviewed.

Introduction:   This is one of the six films made for the J Horror Theater series.   I got it from Netflix.

Location:  Inside some places, outside some places, mainly near water.  It had a budget, yes.

Plot:   Victims start mysteriously dying by being drowned in puddles and other such displaced salt water.  It looks as if the killer could be any number of people and this J Horror film mixes elements of suspense (more like a thriller than a tap you on the shoulder scary type of movie) but does have elements that will cause you to jump out of your seat at times.

Acting:  It’s subtitled, but from what I can tell it’s up to par.

Production:  It looks like this movie was in theaters and that’s because it probably was.

Sex/Nudity:  No, which is good because it would’ve really taken away from the plot and suspense.

Special Effects:  See: Production

Overall Verdict:  I really did like this movie, even though it’s not quite like the traditional horror (or even J Horror) that you might think of.   There aren’t really the straight out scary parts, such as in The Ring or The Grudge—well, there are they’re just more subtle and you kind of have to pay closer attention to the plot.   It’s that “whodunit” mystery mixed with the classic twists that would make Alfred Hitchcock happy.   It doesn’t have the gore you’d expect from a slasher film, it’s just a smart, very well done thinking piece.   It really does leave you guessing, even after you finish watching it.   I recommend you see this movie at least three times.

YOU CANNOT KILL DAVID ARQUETTE

Title:  The Tripper

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  Umm… Yeah, too many to list here.  You just have to watch it, because even the cast list it gives you isn’t complete.

Introduction:   I actually heard about this movie when it first came out.   I saw David Arquette plug it on Jimmy Kimmel Live, back when I had cable television.   I hadn’t seen it, but saw it for sale at Games Plus and, well, the rest as they say is history.

Location:  Several different places, but primarily the woods where hippies die.  I don’t know what they had in terms of a budget, but it was pretty decent I’m guessing.

Plot:  There is a musical festival of sorts going on the middle of the woods somewhere.  Cool points:  A band playing at said fest is Fishbone.   Cooler points:  The music promoter is portrayed by Paul “I’m Too Old Now To Be Pee Wee Herman” Reubens.    So your typical group of college aged kids (two guys, two gals) are headed to this music fest when they run into some trouble.   A group of what can only be described as rednecks mixed with lumberjacks (One of whom is played by David Arquette himself) throw a bottle and hit the character played by Lukas Haas in the back of the head.   This becomes a running theme, with these redjacks (?), as does the music, drugs and trippy psychedelic scenes.   Then the killer emerges and starts killing people.  Want to know the coolest part?  The killer is dressed up (and talks like) none other than Ronald Reagan.    Yes, this movie centers around the idea of a drug-hating Ronald Reagan killing hippies.   If that doesn’t sell you on it, maybe Jason Mewes can.

Acting:   You have such a mix of cast members here, it has its ups and downs.   Lukas Haas is just too cool for words, while we also have Jason Mewes in the main cast and he’ll always probably be typecasted as a horny stoner.   The acting is too, dare I say, sophisticated for a teenage type movie (think Can’t Hardly Wait), but it isn’t going to exactly be The King’s Speech either.   The balance between what is expected and what the actors deliver seems appropriate.    It’s like when they cast those Blue Collar Comedy guys in movies as rednecks or professional wrestlers as prison guards.   It just works.

Production:  This movie was in select theaters across this country before going to DVD.   It shows, as this looks like a movie you’d see in theaters.   It’s shot in the woods a lot, so think of a version of The Blair Witch Project that doesn’t look like it was shot with a cell phone camera.

Sex/Nudity:  While there is a lot (and I mean A LOT) of unnecessary female nudity, there is also quite a bit of male nudity (I’m talking full frontal here)   It makes sense, in some twisted way, that we finally get to see both sides of the coin (if you will) since it seems like horror movies can have some random girl flash her boobs for now reason, or out of nowhere we get some chick running around completely naked (Remember that My Bloody Valentine remake?)   So it’s about time we start seeing the male nudity as well, and outside of a John Waters or bromance at that.    Now you homophobes who will not want to see this will know how I feel when unwarranted nudity ruins a perfectly good horror movie for me.   But yeah, nudity and lots of it here, folks!!

Special Effects:  Despite the number of slashings in this movie, my favorite scene will always be when Jason Mewes gets his hand cut off.   That’s the perfect representation of the special effects in this movie as well.   Though they look mostly believable, at times they can also look slightly over the top—which is how any good slasher movie should be.

Overall Verdict:   At the time this was made, David Arquette was still married to Courtney Cox and not going through a nervous breakdown or divorce.   The thing is, you give the right tools to a true fan of horror and the freedom to do what they want, then you’re going to get a halfway decent horror picture.   Now, if you gave that same horror fan their choice of Hollywood actors and actresses, along with the special effects budget of Scream and the money to back it all from Friends (Come on, she was making a million dollars an episode, people!), then this is what you come up with.  And I mean that in the best possible way.   It seems like most fans of horror make movies that barely get a budget, whilst the big budgeted movies come out looking like crap, cheap knock offs and are rarely even entertaining (much less scary) at all.  So to have someone such as David Arquette who wanted to make this film, had the means to do so but also the desire for more than just, “Hey, let’s bring back Freddy and see if we can make some money!”… I mean, realistically, David Arquette could have purchased the rights to Pinhead and brought back the Hellraiser movies if he really was only concerned with money.  But no, he wanted to make a good slasher type movie and that is exactly what he did.   Of course there is some comedy thrown in, but come on, it’s Jason Mewes too.  SEE THIS MOVIE NOW.

Like Jaws, Only Awesome

Title:  The Host

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  Probably not.  This seems like one of those movies you’ve either heard of somehow or you haven’t.

Introduction:  I got it from my local library… for free!!

Location:  All over a city, near waterside, basically running away from this giant land-fish thing.

Plot:   Some scientist dumps some bad materials into the ocean (eco-friendly undertones message!) which causes some fish to get giant and mutate into killer beasts that primarily live in water but come on land every so often to feed.   This plot centers around one kid trying to save a girl and their running around together, along with everyone else, trying not to be killed.  Let me just say this:  If you like movies that have scenes where large groups of people are standing around, unknowing of the impending doom that is about to crush and eat them, then this movie is for you.

Acting:  It was only half in English, but it was still decent acting.

Production:  Looked like a big budget movie from theaters.  (Think The Day After Tomorrow, only with a better plot)

Sex/Nudity:  No time no time!

Special Effects:  See: Production.

Overall Verdict:  The case to this movie compares it to Jaws.  I liked it better than Jaws.  But if I had to compare it to another movie, I think it’d be more accurately compared to Roger Corman’s Piranha.  Sure, that has a sort of Jaws quality to it as well (and admitted so), but I really think those two movies go so much better together.  Let’s just leave Jaws out of this, shall we?

Pick a Title Please

Title:  Ninja’s Creed or Royal Kill

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  This movie “stars” WWE’s Gail Kim and (at the time) WWE’s Jimmy Wang Yang.   It also has Lizzie McGuire’s best friend in it.

Introduction:  From the library.   How could you pass up a Gail Kim movie?

Location:  All over the streets and houses and, man, someone is about to get arrested for trespassing.

Plot:  This plot is old and tired, and so is this movie.   There is only one heir left to the throne of wherever (everyone else got killed) and she lives in somewhere with Eric Roberts as her dad and she doesn’t know who she is, blah blah blah…. So this guy who doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page is coming to protect her from the woman sent to kill her (played by Gail Kim) and it’s basically a martial arts film that is low on action and has a lot of pointless scenes where you wonder what’s going on and if maybe the camera crew got lost but they kept the footage in for some odd reason.   Anywhoooo, this movie is passable as a B Movie or cult fave, for sure.

Acting:  At one point, Gail Kim says something and then says the exact same thing again.   Something which didn’t need to be repeated, but blatantly was.  That’s how I feel about this entire movie and the actors in it.

Production:  It had virtually no budget (from what I hear), but it still looked halfway decent.

Sex/Nudity:  No, no and no.

Special Effects:  They were what they were, which was all right.

Overall Verdict:  AS a cult comedy or just something you put on as unintentionally funny or to make fun of while laughing (I really need to find out how to MST3K movies), this will pass.  If you want to take this movie at all seriously… then you’re going to be disappointed.  I only can imagine that they changed the title from its theater to DVD release because it did so poorly in theaters.  “Hey!  Isn’t this that Royal Kill movie?  It’s got Gail Kim and everything… No, it must be something different; it is called Ninja’s Creed after all.   And ninjas are cool!!”    You’re not fooling anyone, movie!

This Movie Is Too Scary For Theaters

Title:  The Fog

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  This is a review for the original, directed by John Carpenter, not the remake starring Tom Welling.   Sorry, Superman.

Introduction:  This was purchased as part of a sale at Games Plus.   It was the one copy they had that wasn’t the remake (They had about five copies of that version)

Location:  In and around a small town.   Not a phonebooth movie, they definitely had some sort of budget.

Plot:  This involves an ancient curse where some crazy pirates come back with the fog and murder people based upon their being killed some odd years ago or whoever… Ah, who cares.   All you need to know is that there are great mysteries in the fog.  If it doesn’t make you a little more paranoid when you see a “dense fog advisory” come on your television screen, maybe it will at least make you slow down on the back roads.  

Acting:  The acting is very passable.  Some of these actors even went on to do other things.

Production:  This movie might have been too scary for theaters, but it still had the quality to make it into them.

Sex/Nudity:   No and no.   It would’ve added nothing to the plot.

Special Effects:  They’re good, despite what John Carpenter thought.  The remake was highly unnecessary.

Overall Verdict:   If you have to choose between two versions of this film, go with the original.   John Carpenter has never done me wrong and this is a perfect example as to why.   This movie will scare the hell out of you.

The Real Freddy vs. Jason

Title:  Hatchet

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  This movie has cameos by Tony Todd and Robert Englund, but the main character of Victor Crowley is portrayed by none other than Kane Hodder.  Yes, it is a horror movie lovers wet dream in terms of casting.

Introduction:  I was aware of this movie at one point in time by title only.  I had no clue what it was about.   Then, as the sequel was released, I read more about it and more specifically that Kane Hodder was in it, so I decided to put it in my Netflix queue.  But, before I could get it from them I found it for sale as part of a great deal at Games Plus and decided to just buy it.

Location:  Though it starts on the streets, it takes place primarily in the swamps of New Orleans.   While this qualifies this as a phonebooth movie, it is cool to note that this was the last movie to be finished filming before Katrina hit.

Plot:  There is a legend of a mad man who lives in the swamps of New Orleans and kills people because of some back story that doesn’t really matter as much as the fact that we have finally, once again, gotten back to the roots of old school horror and a “villain” has been created that can withstand the test of time.   I’ve always said we needed a new movie monster to parallel Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers, The Candyman, Leatherface, Pinhead, etc. and Victor Crowley is this monster.   Unsuspecting tourists getting ripped apart in the swamp by a deformed looking character portrayed by Kane Hodder?  This should get at least ten sequels.

Acting:  For what it is, it’s actually not that bad.   There could definitely be (as has been) worse.   Though the kid who played Rudy on the Cosby Show is in this with the guy from Dodgeball who went on to do Bones (and I swear the tour guide is Lance Krall), but still, it’s not so bad of acting.   The girls (especially the two who think they’re in a spring break video) are a bit over the top, but, you know, so is there whole concept with the camera guy anyway, so you tend to ignore that.

Production:  It looks like it could have been in theaters and I believe it was.

Sex/Nudity:  In the opening scenes, there are some bare breasts, as this movie is during Mardi Gras and women want beads for some unexplained reason.   There are also two annoying female characters who think they’re in a Girls Gone Wild type video being filmed by some guy who is really just a personal perv.   This also leads to some unnecessary nudity, but nothing more than topsies.

Special Effects:  One of Victor Crowleys victims has the top of their head ripped off.   Yes, it is that good.

Overall Verdict:  This is the new age of classic horror.  I’m going to track down the sequel and then patiently wait for more of these movies to be made.  Victor Crowley is the new badass that horror films have been missing.

The 13th Monkey

Title:  Shutter Island

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  Leonardo Dicaprio, Mark Ruffalo and Ben Kingsley all round out the cast of this movie that you’ve probably seen if not heard of before.

Introduction:  I got this movie from the library on DVD.  It was a big to-do in theaters and I believe it is even in Kane Hodders Top 5 on Rotten Tomatoes.  That was enough to convince me to watch it.

Location:  While it starts on a boat, it takes place mostly on, duh, an island.   You can tell it had a bigger budget look than, say, Safety In Numbers but you do have to wonder how much money from this budget went to pay the actors, as it is a phonebooth movie.

Plot:  Leonardo Dicaprio plays a cop who comes to Shutter Island to discover the truth about what’s going on there after a patient goes missing.   The whole thing is a psychological thriller and *SPOILER ALERT* it ends with a big twist that, quite honestly, I saw coming from a mile away.   Look, I’m all for the “which reality is real” type of plots in movies.   It adds an unknown dimension to the movie that leaves the viewer (hopefully) guessing.  I can see- to an extent- how they wanted to play that card with this movie.  Is the main character really a patient or are they just trying to make it seem as such so they can silence him on what valuable information he’s learned.   Either way, I think this movie loosely steals the plot from 12 Monkeys, a much, much better film.   The only thing I can imagine is that either a) 12 Monkeys wasn’t as big as I thought it was back in the day and my appreciation for it stands alone (like my fascination with Dolph Lundgren) or b) It has been long enough now that the majority of people going to see this movie (say, teenagers) have no idea that a movie such as 12 Monkeys even exists.   It’s like how a teenager could’ve thought that Disturbia was a great new plot and concept, as they have no idea who James Stewart is.   Again, I’m not trying to say that this movie is any direct rip-off of 12 Monkeys, at least not so much as it warrants a lawsuit.   All I’m saying is that this movie is a cheaper, less good version of 12 Monkeys.   And having seen 12 Monkeys, this movie just disappoints me as it was somewhat predictable.

Acting:  It’s what you’d expect from a big budget Hollywood movie.

Production:  See above.

Sex/Nudity:  No, not really, which is good.

Special Effects:  Hollywood, yo, Hollywood.

Overall Verdict:  I’m more likely to watch 12 Monkeys a hundred more times than this movie again.  But so is the problem with this movie.   After watching it once, you’ve uncovered its secret and therefore feel like you are done with it and it can be forgotten—you can move on.  12 Monkeys is a movie that no matter how many times I may watch it, it never gets old for me.  The fact that I’ve seen it before and know the ending makes it no less enjoyable to me, which is the complete opposite of Shutter Island.  I would be a liar if I said I thought I would ever watch Shutter Island again.

Points of Anger: eBay

Over the last year or so, eBay has developed some rather strict selling policies.  Maybe it's because they don't want "just anyone" selling the way that you can on Craig's List or maybe just because they're bored and wanted to make eBay seem better when it's really the same place to buy unwanted crap that it's always been.

In either event, I still find that it is not the sellers (always) who are at fault on eBay, but rather the negative feedback is mostly garnered by a bunch of whiny buyers.  Seriously, people, you're buying off of a website and you probably have never even seen the item in person before.  What annoys me are people who expect items shipped ~righr away~.   If you want an item ~right away~, go to the store and buy it.  Otherwise, quit your complaining.  We are all slaves to the postal service.  

So I got this rather detailed email from my newest complaint baby, who will be left anonymous for his own sake, that I thought I'd share with you.  First, I will show it to you in its entirety, then I will break it down with my points of anger. 

Hello, Got my <item name removed to promote anonimity> in today and im very very disappointeed in the way you shipped it. Its crushed the package was flat when I got it! I do a lot of buying and selling on ebay and this not how you package something like that. I emailed you before about this figure, I wanted you to end the auction and let me buy it. I really really been trying to find this figure and if you didnt know its rare. Anways the package itself is crushed the figure is ok but now its worthless. Im going to leave negative feedback unless you change my mind. Im so sorry to be like this. Thanks
~~POINTS OF ANGER~~

Hello, Got my <item name removed to promote anonimity> in today and im very very disappointeed in the way you shipped it.

This message was sent to me through eBay and I got it on a Sunday. If he had received the item in the mail Saturday and just didn't check his mail until Sunday, why didn't he say so?  I know that when I'm expecting things I've won from eBay in the mail I practically camp out by the mailbox until they come.  This guy was either a) So excited for his item to come that he didn't check his mail every day or b) is trying to con me into believing that his item somehow magically came to him because he's the ONLY PERSON ON EARTH WHO GETS MAIL DELIVERED TO THEM ON SUNDAY.

Its crushed the package was flat when I got it! I do a lot of buying and selling on ebay and this not how you package something like that.

Granted, grammar is not this kids friend, but I kind of can get what he's saying here.  His package is "crushed flat" and that's not how you should send something to him.  He also wants me to be aware that he does a lot of buying and selling on eBay, so he knows.   REALLY?  I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO SEND YOU CRUSHED ITEMS?  GEEZ, YOU'RE A GENIUS!  MY EBAYING WILL NOW BE SO MUCH BETTER FOR THESE WORDS OF WISDOM.   But seriously... despite what every whiny brat on eBay may believe, I cannot control the mail.  Also, on top of which, who is to say that it would have made any difference had I sent it to him in a box?  Sure, I used a mailer envelope, but I have yet to have anyone else complain.  No, for this kid to have been satisfied, I would have probably had to send it in one of those black boxes that can survive a plane crash.

I emailed you before about this figure, I wanted you to end the auction and let me buy it. I really really been trying to find this figure and if you didnt know its rare.

Aw shit.  Any time someone messages me about an auction (especially asking me to pull it), I just know they're going to be trouble.  Why can't eBay make an option where I can keep pests like this from bidding on my items?  If you message me asking me to pull an item, I should be able to block you somehow.  Fair and simple.   And I like how he points out that it's rare.  If it's so rare then a) He should have spent more than $15 on it and b) Why wouldn't he message me and ask me to overnight it to him or something?  Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to message me about the shipping method before he won it (or at least before I shipped it)?  No, it wouldn't.  BECAUSE HE WAS TOO BUSY ASKING ME TO PULL THE LISTING.   Idiot.

Anways the package itself is crushed the figure is ok but now its worthless. Im going to leave negative feedback unless you change my mind. Im so sorry to be like this.

Wait... Did I just read that right?  The packaging is crushed, but the figure is okay?  So that means the figure is all right, so if he opens it up and keeps it loose it will be fine, right?  No wait, now he's saying it's worthless.  WHICH ONE IS IT BOY??  WON'T YOU MAKE UP YOUR FRAGILE LITTLE MIND??  And, seriously, he is NOT sorry to be like this.  He was just born this way.  Or he has something wrong in his genetic make up.   Either way, if he was really sorry, he wouldn't be threatening me over the internet.  It's like speeding up to hit a pedestrian and then saying, "Oh, I'm sorry to be that way!"   You know what you're doing.  Don't apologize for it, just don't do it.  Duh.

Thanks

YOU'RE WELCOME.   Douche.

If I Could Be Political For A Minute...

People always ask me about my politics.  What are my political values?  I don't value politics because they don't value me.  Left wing, right wing, chicken wing, I don't care-- you're all the same to me.  Here's what I believe in.  Give me any label you choose, it's your freedom.

If a man lives in a secluded area (let's say he owns a large piece of property) and he chooses to roam freely on such property without any clothes on while singing country songs, so long as no one can see or hear him, he should be allowed to do this.  However, if this man happens to live in a subdivision or an apartment where his neighbors either don't wish to see him naked or just happen to hate Tim McGraw, then this man should not be allowed to do such things.

Basically, my theory on politics and the United States of America is that, very simply in its basic form, I believe in freedom.   If what I'm doing doesn't harm you, then I should be allowed to do it.   Obviously, killing, raping, stealing, etc., these are all things which pose an obvious threat to others and should not be legal.  But what about some of the biggest things people don't want legalized while other people do?  Let's look at them, shall we?

MARIJUANA,   That's right, I said it-- POT.  Should it be legal?  Why the hell not?  I vaguely recall a commercial where kids are driving a car while stoned and they run over some girl on a bike and probably kill her.   All you Reganheads and "Just Say No" era straight laced gangsters need to get your facts in check.  First off, people who are stoned are less likely to drive than people who are drunk.  Potheads are most likely to eat everything in their pantry then fall asleep while watching Judd Apatow movies.   Drunks drive home from bars, just remember that.  Yes, pot could be dangerous, but no moreso than alcohol... which is legal.  So as long as you put rules on it, sell it, tax it and use the money to fix my damn roads.   (Though somehow this will probably start a debate to bring back prohibition)

GAY MARRIAGE.  Why is everyone mad if two people of the same sex want to get married?  You know what offends me as a married person?  Not much, but how about the celebrities who are married and divorced the same day?   Two guys getting married isn't what's making a bad name for marriage.   The fact that you think of Megan Fox when you're having sex with your wife is what's ruining marriage.  (Or Bruce Jenner)    Does it offend you?  Sure, but lots of stuff offends me.  And we can't make being a redneck illegal, now can we?  So the real question is, does it harm you?  Nope.  Legalize it and move on.  It's called "Land of the Free", not "Land of the Free Only If You're Straight".

Next up.  MEXICANS.  People want to deport all the illegals.  Why?  They didn't come here the fair way?  You're so justified in your cause because your ancestors killed many native Americans to get your spot here.  You should learn to shut your mouth about immigration and go feel badly about your white guilt.  If black people weren't slaves at one point (or good at sports) you'd probably try to deport all of them too.  Right, White America?  Pssh, White America.  What an oxymoron.  What happened to the place where all cultures converge?  But not Mexicans.  Nope, it's "give me your tacos and get the f--- out:".   Do illegal Mexicans take your jobs?  No, you just don't have a job because you're lazy and you don't want to pull weeds and take orders from some rich, lazy white dude like yourself.   And what about them driving without licenses and insurance?  You know how many legal people are here, driving without auto insurance?  I bet there is a number there somewhere.  You should look into that.   Then you should legalize immigration.  Don't have an "open border" policy.  Make these people come in and get drivers licenses, pay taxes, be able to afford insurance and, oh yeah, earn a living wage.  Mexicans aren't bad for this country- legal or not- people who think they are bad for this country are the problem.   Besides, if we're going to deport anyone, let's check the immigration status on Justin Bieber.

What else offends you?  I don't care.  The question is, does it HARM you?  And if the answer is "no" (which it probably is), then let it go and get back to your life.   Everyone is a adult-child now.  You hear me?  You're all a bunch of stupid babies.  Everyone is so over-sensitive these days.   Sexual harrassment... Yeah, if money's not involved, not much you can do about that one.  But everything else, man... stop being so concerned with other peoples business, all right?   If meat is murder, soon vegans will rule the world and we won't be able to eat meat anymore.  Think about it.  In fifty years, pot will be legal but you'll have to go to some underground market for a hamburger that tastes like mice.   This is what happens when you all get too sensitive.  Is it better to be a vegan or eat meat?  Who cares.  It's not my soy you're eating, and it's not your cow I'm eating, so let's keep doing what we're doing.  Now if you tried to eat someone I know, then maybe we'd have to start passing laws.   But that's back to my original point:  Human murder is wrong and offensive, but not murder of animals.  What makes us so different?  Your mom will miss you when you're gone, if somebody ate you.  If I eat this cheeseburger... from a cow that was bred, and lived a life just to be slaughtered and fed to people like me... well, then that cow served its purpose and you can't really say anyone was harmed, right?

And don't get me started on religion.