Cam Bert

As expected I was not a fan of this movie. I very much agree with Paul that this movie has comedy chops but it just keeps getting in the way of itself. Rather it walks this fine line of being a wacky comedy and being a B-movie pastiche. Let's start with the first real joke, the car exploding. The gag of putting "VFX: Car on fire" or whatever it was is a fine joke. It's a little inside to film making process when shots like that exist in not yet completed films. Yet, in a real B movie would that shot exist? No it would be a terrible effect or some stock footage. Imagine that scene but say they cut to clearly some stock footage of a car in an open area that's clearly not that location exploding. Still funny but yet actually in keeping with B-movie style and behavior. Both are fine jokes yet one is an homage and the other just a joke. To me it's more like he wanted to make this silly movie but could only get a little money to make it so he decided "if I deliberately make it bad then I can get away with doing things on the cheap." This was a comedy first that they slapped B-movie onto to cover up possible short comings. That's the problem. B-Movie is not a genre. To take tropes from all these things and try and put them together muddies the waters. To support this point look at the movie Manborg. Manborg was a super low budget (a few thousand) Canadian movie from the early 2010s. That movie was trying to be a send up of 1980s sci-fi post apocalypse movies. Story-wise the movie is pitch perfect to those types of movies. Yet there are jokes within it but the story and how it plays out is on point for an 80s bad movie. It is clear what it is mimicking. There are good in jokes like a character being Australian a nod to the ozplotation films of the 80s that show it is aware of its roots and what it was doing. Visually the film doesn't capture the full look and feel of the 80s because they use lots of green screen. Yet the cheap costumes and the filters they use add to a retro film. It's a goofy movie that cost nothing to make and was made out of love of films of that genre. Now Velicopastor is suppose to be doing a similar thing yet it just leaves you with more questions. The hosts note they aren't sure when this film is suppose to take place. They note the Vietnam war but there are no visual clues that this is a lost or dated film. The cars are modern, the dress is modern, none of this evokes a specific time or type of "B-movie." They read claims from the director that the film was baked in an over and dragged around in a car. Did anybody notice any grain or film like quality to the movie? No it looked digital for for that budget was most likely digital. There is nothing in this film other than stilted acting and dialogue that indicates it is suppose to be a "bad movie." Both Manborg and Velicopastor are super low budget movies that are comedies. The main difference one is a B movie parody first and comedy second while one is a comedy first and a b movie second. Of course this is all subjective to the viewer and your mileage may vary. Personally I feel if you want to be a funny parody like Airplane!, Young Frankenstein, or Black Dynamite you must be what you are parodying first, and not like Superhero Movie or Meet the Spartans where the framework of what you're parodying is a set up for jokes within the movie and really has nothing to do with the movie. Paranormal Activity, Eraserhead, Primer, and El Mariachi budget's combined equaled that of Velocipastor with enough left over to make something like Manborg. Having no money is no excuse to make something purposefully bad.

Michael J Fox shouting out Anvil must have given some poor Can-Con worker a mini-stroke.

Totally. I mean I wonder if the implication was that he raped her. She hates the church with a passion so much it makes her hate her mother. To get that level of hate I would assume it was because she was sexually assaulted. Her mother didn't know this so her being angry at her mom for being into the church so much just seems a bit misplaced. It really failed to come together. When I think their familial relationship is brought up when she storms out of the mother's house, because saying "We're going to mom's house" is something a couple would say. It's not an immediate implication they are siblings. Yet I still didn't by it until she was with that drip in the supermarket and even then he did feel more like a third wheel than a love interest.

I am not looking forward to this movie. There is nothing more I hate than these movies that are trying to be bad on purpose. I think the reason a lot of us like so bad they are good movies is that they are earnest and honest with their schlock. There is a big difference between the first Sharknado and the third one. It went from doing something silly and fun to being way too in on the joke and taking the humor away by not even trying or trying to be funny when it is just lazy. That's why I think Black Dynamite is one of the best comedies of the last 20 years or so. It understood what made blaxplotation films fun and bad and recreated that in an honest way for laughs. To the point where there are subtle things like booms dipping into shots and purposeful "bad" acting that sell those jokes. It comes off as a bad movie, but you know everything was done for a reason and thought out to be a reference or callback to these movies its making fun of. Most of the time these film makers think that you just slap something together and call it intentional you call all laugh at it even though it's just an excuse for them to actually craft jokes or film something with style.

Let's talk astronomy and what this movie got right, wrong and very wrong. First the right. Hamal is indeed a star that is part of the Aries constellation and yes technically during that period of April the Aries constellation would be visible from New York from roughly 7 AM to 8 PM. Now the wrong. They start off by saying that the star Hamal is going supernova but it is nowhere near going supernova. This is a very rare occurrence. The next major star to go supernova would be Betelgeuse and that's estimated to be in within 100,000 years which in astronomy is fairly soon. In fact we know when a star will go supernova because it's light gets dimmer and dimmer which happens over centuries and as far as we know this has not been happening to Hamal at all as it is still one of the 50 brightest stars. Finally, what they got very wrong and by very wrong I mean none of the writers thought to use google level wrong. Throughout the film we are shown the constellation of "Aries" and it is depicted as three stars making a triangular shape. This fits it with the three people that died in 1986 being reincarnated and repeating 30 years later part of the story. This is very thematic but unfortunately... that's not the constellation Aries. Aries has three prominent stars but there is also a forth star that is part of it. The bigger problem is that these three prominent stars don't make a triangular shape at all but more of a line with a hooked end shape. So why the confusion? Right by Aries is another constellation called Triangulum which as you can guess by the name is three stars that do very much make a triangle. In fact when we see the mural in Grand Central Station you can see Triangulum above Aries's head. It is this constellation that we see throughout the movie when we cut to the constellation in the sky and the triangular shaped imagery. The real Aries at Grand Central Station only has two of it's four stars prominently highlighted. This movie arbitrarily throws one more highlighted star but puts it in the wrong spot and wrong direction so it can in fact make a triangle.

When Daario the second first feels a drop of water it is when hitting his alarm for 9:10AM. Upon being hit by said droplet he rushes into the kitchen to find something to write the events upon. He notices the dead fly and adds that to his list at the same time as the droplet of water. Then a plane flies overhead and he check his watch and writes down "11:15 plane" which is a good two hours since his alarm went off. So that means one of two things happened. He hit the alarm, immediately went to his kitchen noticed a dead bug, and spent two hour looking for his kitchen paper or he hit the alarm, went to the kitchen, noticed the bug, took out the kitchen paper and waited there in that spot for 2 hours until the next event happened. In either case, for a day full of these odd little things happening a two hour window at the start feels like an awfully big gap.

At the start of the episode Tall John made an off hand remark about how being an air traffic controllers wasn't a high end job. While that could be the case for smaller airports, Dylan was working at JFK Airport in New York where an entry level position is roughly $72,000 a year position. Let's assume that the woman was an entry level position because she only got to put labels on bars, while Dylan talked to planes and saw imaginary lines. A mid-level air traffic controller earns up to $135,000 a year. If he's a more senior one that can go up to $174,000 a year. Clearly that dashing older gentleman was the boss and probably earning $190,000 a year. Does this mean Dylan could afford that apartment? It very well could be a possibility.

I agree. Like the second to last song is basically Audrey II torturing Seymour until it eats him and I guess this plays off the sadistic nature of other characters but the payoff is unsatisfying for the audience. If he grew big and we see Seymour crushed in the rumble I think that would be a could place to jump into the finale scene with. I'm not against dark endings or endings where the bad guy wins. From age 15 to 22 I probably only wanted dark downbeat endings. However, there is a difference between the bad guy winning and having salt rubbed in your wounds. I feel The Mist falls into this as well. What the main character does and the outcome of it horrible and crushing enough but then there is a moment that just rubs salt in that wound and sours it all for me. In Little Shop you have Seymour get eaten AND Audrey II takes over the world. One of those things is enough but both does seem like excess.

Some of my favourite things I own are a few DVDs/Blu-rays from the 42nd Street Forever collection and Drive In Delirium collection. It is nothing but trailers from grindhouse and drive in movies from the 50s to the 80s. It always lifts my spirits just the sure unbridled creativity of it all. So many great ideas that with a better writer, better technology or slightly more money could be great and prime for a remake yet I have to see a remake of some 80s movie that is still just fine. Take something like The Thing, one of the greatest movies of all time and its a remake but most people don't even know it because the original is an old b movie. It updates and changes the material enough to be it's own thing.

Taren Edgerton is so not right. I just can't see it. Then again I couldn't really see him as Elton John and he wasn't bad. I was just hoping for someone a bit more unconventional. Billy Porter and Evans are good calls. The first time I saw the "alternate ending" was actually at a theater production. I then learned it was the filmed ending as well. One of the reasons I have multiple copies on DVD is so I could have both. The verdict? I kinda like the happy ending more. As much as I love the plants winning and climbing on the statue of liberty, I just don't feel it as much. It's honoring its b movie roots with this very 50s sci-fi type ending but I feel the song doesn't have to punch to really send you off on a strong note.

I love this movie. In fact it is one of a handful of movie I own multiple DVDs. The songs are all super catchy, all the performances are top notch and perfectly cast. It's a perfect movie and musical as far as I'm concerned. I will say as a child of the 80s and Saturday morning cartoons, I don't know what I think of first when I hear Levi Stubbs, Mother Brain or Audrey II. However, seeing this on stage a few times, nobody has ever been able to live up to Levi Stubbs.

I would say that Travolta and Cage always without fail give something 110%. Even if the movie is not worth it, they give it their all. Sure the movie is horseshit but that is never the fault of their own. I think Willis is slipping into that Cusack territory. Some of these movies he's just sleep walking through, or clearly he showed up and was like "You got me for a day, I will not do reshoots, I will not do ADR and I will not get out of a chair." When it's a more studio movie he tries but clearly he knows what films are being dumped and you can tell. Cusack I agree I don't think has tried since.... Being John Malkovich? I will admit I am a fan of his 80s comedies. I like Better of Dead and I liked Say Anything... but I think that was the extent of it. I think that's also part of the problem. He kinda got into his mind set that's who he was and has the ego as if this was still 1989. He's gotten older and more bitter and just gave up. Not charming, not talented, just flat and one note.

Excellent choice. I look forward to revisiting this.

I'm off two mind on it. When I did theater back in the day often they would suggest that we get the soundtrack and listen to it to get the songs down. However I found that you get so use to that version that when the movie or production does something different, or if they did something different, it throws everything off for you because you are so set on that one version being the right version. Like if you were to listen to the Hamilton soundtrack a million times and then when you go see the touring company it just seems off because you are wanting that certain thing that the soundtrack had. That said, if you are able to separate the things in your mind than I have no problem with soundtracks.

With all these TMNT gifs I'm shocked that nobody has posted that one of the one time they bit into a manhole cover because they thought it was a pizza and broke their teeth.

I'm so excited I'm coming out of my shell.

Cage, Travolta, John Cusack and Bruce Willis are the Mt. Rushmore of direct to video movies of the 2000s.

I can't believe I'm going to do this but I have to defend the blow job scene. Wait, hear me out, I'm not defending their choice to test him under pressure with a gun to his head and a mouth on his penis. No. Rather, from a writer stand point I get what they were trying to establish. So the writer of this movie wants you to think that John Travolta is a mastermind on a complete other level. He's got plans on plans on plans, he's got you check mated before you know you're playing chess. To that end he needed a plan for if Stanley was to turn on them or not deliver the cash at some point. Why else would he fake Ginger being an undercover agent and have Stanley think she was an innocent victim if not for it to work to their advantage later. Their plan was if Stanley turned on them threaten Ginger because he will help her which is exactly what happens in the movie. However, part of this plan was stringing her up by her neck and have her life actually be in danger. As we know from the end of the movie she was in on it the entire time so they never wanted her to die so why would they hang her? They only did it because they knew she would be safe. When they meet Stanley they test his ability to perform under pressure and in a panicked state. When they see he was able to do something so fast they know that they have a 30 second window they could threaten Ginger's life during. That scene, as gross and uncomfortable as it was in service of them knowing Stanley could perform later on with Ginger's life in danger and her suffering no permanent damage. That is why that scene is there. As to why sex had to be involved? I can not defend that.

Also, Hugh Jackman's character knowing enough about wines to go find some and not just grab random bottles is puzzling.

MECHASHIVA! MECHASHIVA!

Okay I want to talk a little bit about Stanley Jobson's FBI profile we see. So when The Lone Gunman are talking about him his profile pops up on screen. Here is a screen shot of it. It's hard to read but here is what it says that I have questions about. "PLACE OF BIRTH DRIPPING SPRINGS HEIGHT 6'2" WEIGHT 185 BUILD LEAN SCARS AND MARKS RIGHT SHOULDER 7" CUT" So as we all recall the opening shot is of Hugh Jackman shirtless hitting golf balls from his trailer. We all get a very good look at his upper body. Are there any note worthy scars or marks? Well he has a very bizarre tattoo that goes across his left shoulder. What about his right shoulder? Nope that looks perfectly fine and nice. So where is this 7" cut they are talking about? The tattoo he could have gotten after prison and therefore not on his file but if he had such a large cut on his shoulder that they had to make note of it why is it not visible two years later? That is unless of course we all assume this is some sort of penis reference. Yes I went there and I am sorry.

I have a golf related question then. So it looks like he's using an iron and not a driver in the scene. His shots seem to be landing around the 150 yard mark. If you are using a higher iron, wouldn't that be about right? Maybe his form was shit, but even the highest iron is going to what, drive 200 yards or so?

I remember liking the movie Thursday. I mean it is clearly a Tarantino inspired knock off but I remember it being fun. The problem is you're reading not so much the plot summary as the entire more beat by beat. The basic story is Tom Jane is a former hardcore criminal type guy. He's given up that lifestyle for a quiet suburban life. Unfortunately he upset a lot of people and they all now know where he lives. So the movie is him as his home is constantly being invaded by these former colleges and rivals who are looking to settle scores. The sex pot character is the most extreme of which.

Without hyperbole you could spend days talking about the opening scene and its monologue and where the scene falls into the timeline of the movie and you'd still only scratch the surface of it. There is so much to mine from it. However the one thing that really gets to me is why doesn't the swat team shoot Travolta? I mean at the end of the scene when he gets up and they point their gun at him he shows them he's holding what I presume is a dead man's trigger to the bombs. Fair enough, can't shoot him while he's holding it. But why didn't they shoot him sooner when he was just talking with his hands? There were great chances when he was lighting his cigar, which he smokes for all of 20 seconds and just leaves which is a total waste, or when checking his watch or drinking his coffee or one of the million actions he does with both his hands! How long were they standing there just doing nothing?

To expand on my last point a little and just spew some more love onto David Byrne (yes I should give more credit to the band but from what I hear he was very controlling and things were usually always his call) is that he made music in a weird way like art. He was always hearing things and bringing them in. A new style he liked, a new instrument he heard, etc. he would find some way to bring it in, use it, and keep it Talking Heads. To the same degree we're not just watching musicians go out on stage and preform, there is a lot of thought put into costuming and movements and everything that just elevate it all to a certain degree. It always leaves me impress and visually tuned in when most concert films I easily find myself tuning out because you might as well just be listening to the music the visuals are not that important.