Dinky Reviews!

Ex Machina (2015). Starring the guy who inexplicably got the part of Apocalypse in the upcoming X-Men film instead of Stargate SG-1's Christopher Judge.

(Note: If you're like me, you'll want to go into this with as little information beforehand as possible [all I knew was that it somehow involved an android, and that she looked pretty cool]. If that's the case, you may want to read no further - avoiding as you do what could, in only the vaguest sense, be roughly construed as "spoilers.")

Robot Carnival. An anthology anime film, it could've been perfect... if not for one segment in particular.

You know the one.

On the off chance that you don't, it's entitled "Presence" and - with the possible exception of "Franken's Gears" - it sticks out like a sore thumb. This is because, amid all Robot Carnival's glorious action and/or comedy, "Presence" is like the most tragic, depressing thing ever.

Similarly, Ex Machina is four-fifths a great film. Then the climax arrives... and it's such a one-hundred-and-eighty degree tonal shift from what's come before that it's likely to give you narrative whiplash.

This isn't to say you shouldn't go see it. Everything leading up to that unfortunate resolution is both thought-provoking and engaging.

But please, do keep your expectations in check.

And now, the actual [SPOILERS!]

To those who've seen Robot Carnival: If you ever wanted to see what it would've been like if the robot girl from "Presence" wrought her vengeance upon humankind - well, here's your chance.

To those who've already seen Ex Machina: When you get right down to it, didn't AVA actually fail the test? All she did was trick the one person who was most predisposed to being fooled in such a manner by using the resources she was specifically given/built with to achieving such an end.

Basically, her creator - whether knowingly, or not (and to what purpose - neither issue being addressed in the film itself) - cheated; tricking some poor dupe into believing AVA was truly sentient.

...or was she? This goes back to the positive - namely, the way one continues to consider the larger implications and overall themes of this film once it's over: While AVA might arguably have consciousness, she certainly doesn't have a conscience - or, at the very least, she's amoral.
[/SPOILERS!]

Hmm - this wound up being a not-so-dinky review, didn't it?

Don't waste your time and money on Oculus.

After my temporary position at my job ended, I was technically demoted and took a pay cut just to stay on (and yet, I'm still classified as temporary - go figure!). Needless to say, I haven't been in much of a mood to post lately - so you know this must be important/believe me when I say: You know that movie, Oculus? It SUUUUUUUCKS.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe makes its first big mistake.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal that I own each of the following trade paperbacks:

Marvel Masterworks: Captain Marvel - Volume 1
Avengers: Kree/Skrull War
The Life of Captain Marvel
The Death of Captain Marvel

So it was with some dismay that I learned that - according to the 3/4/14 episode of Agents of SHIELD entitled "T.A.H.I.T.I." - [SPOILERS!] apparently the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of Captain Marvel is just some guy who's already dead.

Not only that, but they got certain fundamentals of the character completely wrong. Mar-Vell was a pink-skinned Kree, belonging to the lower caste - never blue.

Also: What was up with him being a giant, and having overtly alien features such as elongated fingernails/claws? And don't give me that it's actually based on the Ultimate Universe, because a) it shouldn't be, since that doesn't count/isn't canon; and b) even if it is, I DON'T CARE!!!

If they're going to do that, why even bother using Captain Marvel in the first place?
[/SPOILERS!]

The Clairvoyant on Marvel's Agents of SHIELD is:

Have I got your attention? Good. Because I want to assure you that I have no special insider knowledge. I'm just a guy with a keyboard.

That said, the Clairvoyant on Marvel's Agents of SHIELD is totally Dr. Samuel Sterns from The Incredible Hulk (2008) - portrayed in the film by actor Tim Blake Nelson. In the comics Sterns is better known as the super-villainous Leader.

What has led me to this conclusion? Three things:

1) It fits with the character's skills and power-set in the comics;

2) Nelson, the actor, has appeared on TV before (of particular interest: his leading role in the short-lived 2011 CBS series CHAOS);

3) Emil Blonsky, aka the Abomination - who likewise featured prominently in the aforementioned film (portrayed therein by Tim Roth) - was recently mentioned on Agents of SHIELD (in the 2/4/14 episode, "T.R.A.C.K.S.").

EDIT 4) Actor Adrian Pasdar has recently been confirmed for an upcoming episode in the role of Major Glenn Talbot. That's right - another Hulk villain.

Dinky Reviews!

Elysium (2013). Starring Wikus van de Merwe, the tough chick from Predators, scenes shot in such a way as to showcase Jodie Foster's backside, and... look, I'm still trying to mentally separate Matt Damon's other roles from his love scene with Michael Douglas in Behind the Candelabra, all right?

Sadly, if you too have Bourne witness to the omnipresent trailers and advertisements for this film, you've seen roughly four-fifths of it already! I mean, I get wanting to fill up those seats in the theaters... but this was the wrong way to do it.

You've likely already seen another ending that's fundamentally the same as this one, too! This is such a pronounced step down from the brilliance which is the director's previous movie, District 9.

How the critics apparently thought Man of Steel should've ended

[SPOILERS!], obviously.

Bear in mind that, by this point in the movie, Zod has already done all of the following:

- Killed Clark's biological father, Jor-El.

- Threatened/almost choked to death Clark's Earth-born mother, Martha "Ma" Kent.

- Shown Clark an apocalyptic vision of the future wherein the entire human race has been reduced to a pile of bones.

- Killed tens of thousands of people in Metropolis with the "world engine"/Kryptonian terraforming machine.

- Personally sworn to kill every single man, woman and child on Earth, one at a time (presumably while Clark watches helplessly), just to make Superman suffer.

With all that said, Zod - at this moment in the story - is literally inches away from killing a young couple and their daughter using his new-found heat vision.

Superman: "Don't do this! Stop - please!"

Zod: "Never."

There is absolutely no other recourse, outside of killing Zod, to save these people's lives... but Clark hesitates. Wouldn't it be just as wrong, if not more so (killing, after all, should be against what Superman "stands" for), for Clark to take Zod's life?

In the end, Zod mows down the three innocent human beings.

Superman: "NOOOOOOO!"

Zod is subsequently incarcerated, and sentenced to live out the rest of his days in solitary (and allegedly escape-proof) confinement. And then, once he again inevitably breaks free from his imprisonment, he makes good on all his previous threats.

...

Look - I can understand being mad at the writers for placing Superman, as a character, in such an untenable predicament... but Clark absolutely did the right thing in this situation.

What other choice did he have?
[/SPOILERS!]

STOP TALKING DURING THE MOVIE!!!

I'm beyond tired of all these stupid frickin' idiots who won't shut up during the movie! They won't be quiet until you're forced to get up from your seat, embarrass yourself by causing a scene, and ultimately contribute to an atmosphere that isn't enjoyable for anyone.

Everybody shouldn't have to suffer just because a certain few people couldn't apparently be bothered to learn basic manners! Imbecilic dolts like that make me disdain humanity in general more than I already do!

Doctor Who? Exactly.

The following came to me last night in a dream:

"Oh, say - does that bow-tie clad Doctor yet quit?
Oh well... he'll be replaced by another young Brit."

Meanwhile: Why Avengers: Age of Ultron? Is Thanos going to be designated as exclusive to the Guardians of the Galaxy movies?

[SPOILERS!]
Rumor has it that Ronan the Accuser will be the first film's villain. Will we have to wait for the inevitable sequel for our first full-on Thanos starring role?
[/SPOILERS!]

Okay, Florida - redeem yourselves!

You are all hereby sentenced to see Pacific Rim theatrically.

That means that each and every resident of Florida with both the requisite transportation and the financial means, regardless of age - yes, even little-bitty babies - must purchase a ticket to see this excellent movie!

Or do you really want us to cede you to Mexico? I mean after all, we can always grant Puerto Rico statehood if we want to keep things at an even fifty...

EDIT: I've seen this film three times now. What, exactly, have you contributed to the world these past few decades? Hanging chads, Terri Schiavo, Casey Anthony and now this?!?

Leave "Man of Steel" alone!

Is it better than Superman (1978), or Superman II (the "Richard Donner Cut," at any rate)? Is Henry Cavill better as Superman than Christopher Reeves? Is Michael Shannon a better Zod? Is Man of Steel a better movie than 2012's The Avengers? The answer to all of these questions - perhaps unsurprisingly - is no.

A far more important question, however, is this: Was it, and were they, supposed to be?

What, exactly, was everybody expecting? This was never going to be (at a guess, from all the flack this film is catching) the next Lawrence of Arabia - not when all it ever really needed to be was better than Superman Returns!

You know two words that I would use to describe Man of Steel? Try "resonant," and "relevant." When did everyone become so incapable of just appreciating a movie for its thematic elements and emotional core?

This film has moved me on a personal level in a way that few others ever have. Consequently, I've now seen this movie in theaters a total of four times.

Seriously, people: Quit slagging on Man of Steel! Not only is it a good movie - it's maybe even a great one.

EDIT - I'm calling it now: Man of Steel - the most misunderstood, unfairly maligned movie of recent times.

I might someday write an additional post wherein I'd detail exactly what it is that makes me feel the way I do about this film, in the hopes of offering up another point-of-view on a subject about which others may have been too quick to judge. You know, if there's actually a demand for such a thing.

Dinky Reviews!

Thor (2011).

When I describe myself as an old-school Avengers fan, that isn't to say I've been one for some great length of time (unless six years seems like a lot to you), but instead to suggest that I'm primarily a fan of the old-school (i.e. pre- Brian Michael Bendis) Avengers.

Perhaps a bit of an explanation is in order. To make a relatively long-ish story short(er): My undergraduate thesis was a 36-page mock series bible for a hypothetical Marvel comic book series. I'd recently picked-up about half of the first Secret Wars from a nearby flea market - and I found myself fast becoming fascinated by Kang the Conqueror. I mean, what was this guy like when he wasn't relegated to the shadows of Victor von Doom?

I bought the Kang: Time and Time Again trade-paperback to find out - and I discovered that the eponymous Conqueror is primarily known as an Avengers villain. This led to my purchasing the Council of Cross-Time Kangs storyline from issues 291 to 297 of said team's series - and while I'd eventually go on to use him in my aforementioned academic proposal, I was no longer satisfied with just reading about Kang alone.

No, I was now actively tracking down anything Avengers-related - my wont for ascribing the modifier "old-school" to myself (due to Disassembled having rendered far too many of my beloved characters either functionally irrelevant, or literally deceased) notwithstanding! So what's my opinion of this movie, given that I'm sufficiently familiar with the source material?

In a word: It's awesome.

Seriously - this does a lot to redress my misgivings after the generally lackluster Iron Man 2! Sure, it isn't absolute perfection - Brain Blessed's absence alone is criminal (I would've even accepted John Rhys-Davies as Volstagg, instead of whoever it was that we actually got!) - but it's still by far the best cinematic outing we've seen from a Marvel character since Robert Downey, Jr.'s initial foray into the genre!

What more could you possibly ask for? How about an unexpected big-screen debut from a character who's going to figure more prominently into future films - and the now-obligatory bonus scene after the end credits as well!

Dinky Reviews!

Source Code (2011).

When it comes right down to it, there's just one thing you wanna know about Source Code.

I can't blame you - I'd been wondering the same thing myself.

Got part of my answer when I finally noticed it was from director Duncan Jones - the man behind 2009's Moon. This inexplicably isn't mentioned in any of the film's advertising. Had I known this sooner, I myself - and doubtlessly others like me - probably would've seen it on its opening weekend.

Moon's theatrical run was extremely limited. Because of this, the film remains relatively unknown amongst general audiences - at least in comparison to the wide releases which most other movies receive. So focusing on Jones as the director might only have appealed to what otherwise would have been a very narrow - albeit also a vocal, and supportive - market.

And yet, none of this is the worst offense committed by the film's ad campaign. For that, we must travel back to the aforementioned question - which, in the simplest terms, is this: Is Source Code really just 2006's Déjà Vu all over again?

I'm glad to report that the answer is a resounding no. While the director's sophomore effort fails to achieve the same dizzying heights of his first film, Source Code does manage to rise above most of the unfortunate comparisons that one could make (for instance, the Nicolas Cage movie Next).

Are there any other films which might arguably tackle similar issues in a more satisfactory manner? Sure, I might make a case for Los Cronocrímenes/Timecrimes being better - but that's apples and oranges, really... and both films are ultimately enjoyable on their own merits.

In summation, while Source Code is unlikely to ever change your world, at least you should still leave the theater feeling entertained... and, more importantly, not at all like you've wasted your time and money (and in the end, isn't that what really matters?)!

The Grouchos!

Best Supporting Actor - 1970.

It's true - Burt Young should've won Best Supporting Actor.

Now I know what you're thinking: Rocky, right? "Hey, Paulie!" and all that?

Actually... no. No - not Burt Young as Paulie.

Not even Burt Young as Burt Young! But now I'm getting ahead of myself.

Sites across the internet - as well as the various pop culture publications and/or other entertainment-related magazines that once ruled newsstands in that era wherein big print media was still the undisputed king - have long conjectured as to any surprise 'snubs' and/or outright omissions which are made whenever the Academy awards its chosen recipients.

This is not one of those films. While I suppose that I like it well enough myself, this really isn't some hidden gem - no lost treasure here, simply waiting for the chance to be rediscovered by a more receptive and appreciative audience...

In fact, there's no real reason to believe that the Academy even saw 1970's Carnival of Blood. And I don't just mean during the year of its original release!

No - I mean that it's likely that they never saw Carnival of Blood AT ALL.

And who could really blame them? What little information exists online about this film - i.e. its IMDb entry - is threadbare; and its wiki? Completely nonexistent.

You know how they added all those fake film scratches, emulsion bubbles and excess 'dirt' to the virtual negative of Rodriguez and Tarentino's Grindhouse to make it look more period-accurate and authentic?

Yeah - apparently every still-existing print of Carnival of Blood pretty much looks just like that.

So what, if anything, makes it worth recommending? Well, it is an interesting artifact from a time and place that I myself will never get to experience first-hand - i.e. the Coney Island amusements at their former absolute height. Similarly, the haunting refrain of the film's theme is one melody that's likely to stay with you for an eternity: "Carousels of my mind - of my mind..."

Also, if you're able to suspend your disbelief regarding an ordinary person having access to technology that even today still doesn't exist (you'll know it when you see it), then it actually makes for a halfway-decent little murder mystery!

And then there's John Harris - sorry, Burt Young - in the role of Gimpy. Say what you will about any other aspect of this film - literally anything at all! - but Young's performance alone is enough to make Carnival of Blood worth watching.

Seriously, the man elevates the otherwise-lowly character of Gimpy to such an extent that he actually becomes a legitimate work of cinematic art! And for that, Burt Young more than earns the Groucho for Best Supporting Actor of 1970.

The Grouchos!

Best Supporting Actor - 1981.

It perhaps isn't any great stretch of the imagination to propose that, by this point in time, most people likely recognize the Academy Awards for what they have sadly become: a near-total farce. Whatsoever merit legitimately exists is all too often ignored in favor of politics which have nothing to do with the actual films themselves, or the behind-the-scenes talent therein.

However, it should also be noted that this series of articles is in no way intended to denigrate the work of those few truly deserving recipients - it's just that, sadly, those are usually the exceptions to an unfortunate norm.

That said, the Groucho for Best Supporting Actor - 1981 goes to Jack Albertson for Dead and Buried. As William G. Dobbs, his performance was nothing short of masterful.

Like most of my heroes, Albertson had every good reason to give up. Even as he was dying of cancer, he kept his condition a secret so that he could continue to work. He refused to make excuses - and Dead and Buried ended up being his final film. I submit to you now that it was also most probably his finest performance.

Yes - surpassing even the role for which he is perhaps best remembered: that of Grandpa Joe in 1969's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Even if he had actually been nominated for the award (hint: he wasn't), he sadly wouldn't live long enough to witness the same. Jack Albertson lost his three-year-long battle with cancer less than six months after Dead and Buried was released. But still, he deserves to be recognized for his efforts - no matter that it's only happening now, posthumously!

So this Groucho is for you, Mr. Albertson - as well as for those who knew you in life, and all of the fans who love you. Because without you, Dead and Buried wouldn't have been what it turned out to be: my all-time favorite movie.

Dinky Reviews!

The Last Exorcism (2010).

What a profoundly stupid little movie.

I could've written a perfect ending for this film. And to make matters worse... they totally set it up for it! In fact, I'm almost completely certain that many others could, have and/or will reach the same conclusions that I have.

Therefore, I propose the following experiment: For those who haven't yet seen this movie, please go into it with the thought that there's going to be some huge twist ending... and then try to figure out what it's going to be beforehand.

Now, having done so: Do you see what I mean? I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees it... am I?

Addendum: Whenever this film debuts on the pay movie channels (i.e. I don't have to buy it specifically - I'll just run a tape instead), I'm going to try to make a point of actually sitting down and typing up what I myself believe - and those who agree with my personal assessment regarding the same will likely concur - would've been a much better (and, in a perfect world, a proper/the "real") ending!

And here I was, all ready to log on and declare this to be my favorite exorcism film of all time... *sighs for what might have been*

Remake madness!

So they're thinking of remaking Videodrome. My question is: why? How could it possibly be made relevant to modern audiences when the old cathode ray tubes have largely gone the way of the Betamax cassettes which were also featured in the original film? Of course, this is where the smart asses of the world will pop up and suggest YouTube, or something similar... but it, like most internet content, is already available for viewing to the general public for free! So where does that leave James Woods' Max Renn character - who was, after all, the protagonist of the original film?

And speaking of Woods, the undeniable truth of the matter is that no modern-day cast could ever hope to even approach the perfection on display in the performances of Cronenberg's original! Even the director himself has moved on from his own body-based horror movies onto, regrettably, making much safer (and, sadly, more commercially-viable) crime thrillers instead...

One can only hope that this turns out to be another one of those projects which dies on the vine (and rightfully so), never having seen the light of day... but as long as rumors occasionally surface of planned "re-imaginings" (slaughterings, more likely) of the likes of Suspiria, and Escape From New York? Well then, my friends, we still have much to fear.

Dinky Reviews!

Children of the Corn (2009). Starring Dee from Battlestar Gallactica (modern version), and my all-time least favorite character from NBC's Heroes!

It sucked - it suuuuuuucked!!!

"But Kit," I hear you asking, "did it suck?" Why, yes - yes, as a matter of fact, it did!

The little kid they got to play Isaac wasn't a good enough actor to carry this movie, he wasn't scary... heck, he wasn't even the least little bit creepy-looking! And I know that He Who Walks Behind the Rows was represented by some truly laughable animation in the original - but at least in that version they actually bothered to show him...

And what was up with that ending? Dude, they totally should've ended it with the line, "Scarecrow!"

So was there anything good in this movie? Well, the two adults were all right, I suppose. I did like the Vietnam flashbacks - but that alone wasn't enough to save this miserable piece of garbage...

Dinky Reviews!

Gamer (2009). Starring King Leonidis, and Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson. With bit parts for Q and Peter Petrelli.

There's a whole host of stuff in this movie that's confusing, makes no logical sense from a storyline standpoint, is never explained, or all three at once!

Big, loud and dumb is one thing. Leaving out whole swaths of information that's vital to the audience's comprehension of what's happening on-screen - whilst also failing to abide by any determinable set of rules as set forth by the film itself - is another.

For instance: [SPOILERS!]What was the deal with that guy who was killed three or four times, at least - yet somehow, by all appearances, kept coming back to life?

And what was up with the non-player characters (for instance, the woman dressed in traditional Islamic garb)? From what I could gather, a prisoner could earn their freedom if they survived just one day as an NPC... but even so, why did they turn John Leguizamo's character into one? As some form of punishment - simply for asking the guard for a little help?[/end SPOILERS!]

There's probably more that I'm forgetting... but suffice it to say: G'ah! This film made my brain hurt!

Dinky Reviews!

Open Water 2: Adrift (2006). Starring people forced to act like complete idiots by a lame script.

What was that ending supposed to mean, anyway? Seriously, I haven't a clue...

This is a prime example of the sort of film in which characters are much more stupid than most people in real life would ever be. I'm talking about just general common sense here - not from the vantage point of the audience being given more information to go on than the characters themselves are...

I mistook the only visible part of a life jacket - inexplicably colored purple (likely in the hopes that people would make just that kind of mistake) - from the DVD's cover as being a tentacle of some kind. You can see where this is going - oh, how disappointed I was...

This one was allegedly supposed to be truer to the "real story" than the first film was. In the end, though, it actually managed to be even less realistic than the original! Tons of blood in the water in this one - and yet somehow, nary a nibble from any (entirely non-existent, according to this film) aquatic lifeforms...

This is one film that's better off avoided altogether, folks...

Dinky Reviews!

Orphan (2009). Starring a cast of mostly relative unknowns who, regardless of their relative inexperience, still manage to turn in some great performances!

Don't believe those poor, joyless souls who tell you not to see this movie – it's a real slice of good old-fashioned, grade-A horror movie cheese!

Be that as it may... it is not, however, the kind of movie that you need to pay twenty dollars or more just to see in the theater! Try and do like I did instead: Hit the earliest possible matinee showing, scrimp on the concessions (you can sneak stuff in, if you feel you must), and check your brain at the door!

Seriously, though...there's a lot here that doesn't make much sense on that last count. But still! Mmm, cheese...