Hello Everyone and welcome to a pretty big weekend! We have Roland Emmerich’s latest disaster epic 2012, PIRATE RADIO, BOONDOCK SAINTS II: ALL SAINTS DAY, ANTICHRIST, GENTLEMEN BRONCOS, and CRUDE. Also opening at the Lagoon is SKIN, which I unfortunately didn’t get a chance to see.

Roland Emmerich sucks! I just hate everything he stands for as a filmmaker. Hated DAY AFTER TOMORROW and 10,000 B.C. Didn’t like GODZILLA and INDEPENDENCE DAY. I even didn’t care for STARGATE, and the only thing I liked about UNIVERSAL SOLDIER was the entertainingly awful performance by Dolph Lundgren. The only movie I liked of his was BRAVEHEART 2: THE REVOLUTION YEARS, I mean THE PATRIOT. It was dumb fun. But now he’s back in disaster territory again. Really, why does Emmerich have such a hard on for killing millions of innocent people?

This is a standard disaster movie if I’ve ever seen one. You know the drill. The first 45 minutes sets up the characters and the so-called plot. Let’s see… Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a scientist who discovers the world is going to end soon, so he becomes an advisor for the President (Danny Glover). We have author Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a loner who isn’t a very good father and is divorced from his wife (Amanda Peet). One day while camping at Yellowstone, Jackson meets a wacky radio DJ named Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) who claims the world is going to end and says that the government is hiding the facts. Well, the world does go to shit. Earthquakes happens, volcanos erupt, and cities begin to flood. These chain of events change Jackson into a better man as he tries to save his family by trying to take them to a secret government place where they have vehicles waiting to evacuate important people. It wouldn’t be a disaster movie with about a dozen or so unnecessary characters, so we get a Russian mafia dude and his family, two jazz musicians singing on a cruise ship, a budding romance between Helmsley and the President’s daughter. And of course we need a big douchebag to hate on, so we get Oliver Platt as a corrupt Presidential aide.

Like most disaster movies, 2012 is all kinds of ridiculous. Sure, the special effects are astounding at times but that doesn’t change the fact that this movie is simply retarded. I know there’s an audience for this. There’s alot of idiots out there. If you like watching half baked characters utter moronic dialogue as they try to out run fireballs, earthquakes and floods… then this is right up your alley. But I like my special effects to be backed up with a story I can get behind, like IRON MAN. Don’t get me wrong, I can enjoy a bad movie when it doesn’t take itself too seriously, but 2012 doesn’t seem to have it’s tongue in cheek. Occasionally there’s some odd inappropriate humor, usually involving Harrellson’s character or the Russian kids, but that left a bad taste in my mouth. I did laugh out loud a few times at attempts to be serious, like when a character sacrifices himself for his loved ones… the way it was executed was embarrassing and had me trying to hide the fact that I was laughing.

2012 boasts a great cast, but that doesn’t mean shit. There have been several disaster films with legendary actors that have been awful: WHEN TIME RAN OUT (Paul Newman, William Holden), METEOR (Sean Connery, Henry Fonda), and THE TOWERING INFERNO (Steve McQueen, Paul Newman, Fred Astaire, William Holden). This one is no exception. John Cusack is definitely one of the better actors in this. He actually seems to be really trying, as does underrated character actor Chiwetel Ejiofor. Amanda Peet and Thandie Newton don’t have anything to do except play the helpless female victims. Danny Glover makes a decent president. Oliver Platt is pretty bad as the biggest asshole on the planet. We also get a silly exaggerated Russian accent by Ziatko Buric as Yuri. His character is laughably stereotypical that he felt like a cartoon character. As did his ridiculous looking twin boys. Were we supposed to take any of this seriously? But it’s Woody Harrelson who takes the cake for the film’s worst performance. His radio disc jockey is so over the top and crazy that it seemed like his performance would have been more suited in a Ben Stiller comedy. Every line he spoke was atrocious. I know he was supposed to be the comedy relief, but he was too goofy. But who am I, people were laughing at him so either I’m a prick or everyone else is an idiot. I was happy at first to see George Segal as a Jazz musician, but he’s wasted in an overly sentimental role. It was nice to see Stephen McHattie (the lead in PONTYPOOL) as a no-nonsense military man. Why couldn’t Hollywood make him the leading man? That would have been far more interesting. Oh yeah, that’s right… he’s not well known enough. Fuck you Hollywood!

Emmerich has done it again, though I did like this better than THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, mainly because I thought the effects team did a fantastic job. The details they put into the collapsing buildings, fiery forests, and other mayhem-like things are incredibly intricate. I really liked the designs of the Noah’s Ark vehicles in the finale too. He sure knows how to create a good scene of destruction. So I guess it succeeds on that level, but I feel like you have to have a good story to back up 2 hours and 37 minutes of great special effects. I immediately noticed several scenes and subplots that could have easily been cut, but I guess it’s not any different than your typical disaster movie. And it wouldn’t be an Emmerich film if it didn’t have a scene with a dog trying to escape danger. Ugh!

So if you like this sort of shit and just like to watch cool special effects (and nothing else) for a of couple hours, then.. Merry Christmas! Not for me though. Like all of Emmerich’s films, it’s high gloss garbage.

PIRATE RADIO is the second film directed by acclaimed British screenwriter Richard Curtis, who wrote FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL and directed LOVE ACTUALLY. I liked both of those quite a bit. This was already released in England earlier this past Spring under the title, THE BOAT THAT ROCKED. Sometime this summer, Curtis recut his film because of reviews stating that it was much too long. Now 20 minutes shorter and under a new title, it finally gets a U.S. release.

Based on true accounts, this movie is about a pirate radio station. Literally. It’s 1966 and rock n roll music isn’t allowed to be broadcast on British airwaves, so a small band of DJ’s led by The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman) play rock music from a boat on the North Sea. A young man named James (Charlie Rowe) comes aboard the boat because his mom wants him to become responsible… I guess (that wasn’t always clear). He’s a shy kid but being on the boat opens him up to new experiences. He meets all sorts of goofy characters like the head of the station Quentin (Bill Nighy), a fat but lovable DJ named Dave (Nick Frost), Gavin who is an egotistical DJ (Rhys Ifans), and a handful of others including an idiot, a lesbian, and a guy everyone loves to pick on. There’s also a stuffy British official who is trying to shut down the station, played by Kenneth Branagh. The movie moves from shenanigan to shenanigan as these crazy DJ’s play pranks on each other and try to get laid when women come on board every saturday… until they must find away to keep their station alive when Branagh tries to shut them down.

I was really looking forward to this one. I thought the trailer (at least the first one) looked really good. Now, I know that Curtis wanted to make a leaner version because people complained that the original was too long, but I’m afraid the re-editing backfired on him. I thought this was way too short. The major problem being is that there are so many characters to develop and not enough time to do so. The pacing is very inconsistent. The movie spends hardly anytime at all setting up the time period or how important the station is to England, but then it spends several minutes on silly scenes that show James trying to lose his virginity. While those moments are pretty funny, I think the focus gets lost. There are alot of wacky and funny scenes in this, but it feels like the heart of the movie has been gutted out. Not one character is in this enough to be a real lead. I’m sure the inclusion of James was to be an “in” for the audience, but then he disappears for a good period of time throughout the film.

The cast is great though. Charlie Rowe does a decent job as the naive young kid learning about life from a bunch of hippies. Philip Seymour Hoffman is perfect as the reckless DJ, but his character wasn’t in it as much as I thought he was going to be. Nick Frost practically dominates the first half as an oversexed teddy bear. He’s terrific! I love the scene when he’s trying to get James laid by switching places with him. And kudos to him for getting naked in the movie too. I’m much lighter than him, but would never appear nude on film. He’s braver than me. But then he disappears after 50 minutes only to show up later when the plot demands it. Bill Nighy is solid, and Kenneth Branagh seems to be having a great time playing the bad guy. Also, Emma Thompson shows up for a bit as James’ mother and she’s very good. The rest of the cast is also really good, most notably Tom Brooke as Thick Kevin, who is a little slow. It’s his comic timing that makes several scenes laugh out loud funny.

Richard Curtis has written some great scenes and occasionally captures the spirit of the 60’s. It has a great soundtrack featuring British Rock like The Kinks, Rolling Stones, and many others. But the direction isn’t very strong. Individual shots are impressive, but they aren’t really cut together all that well. At times there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the editing, as it was all over the place. Lots of awkward cuts. I’m not sure if this was part of Curtis’ recutting. And my other problem is that it seems awfully rushed. There are no establishing shots to get into any scene, we’re just thrown right into the middle of them.

It really took me awhile to get into the movie, but I did eventually warm up to the characters. But the cast is so large that you don’t really get to know anybody that well. I really want to see the original version now to see if it’s longer length makes a difference. But who knows, that version could be just as jumbled as this one. I was ultimately disappointed, but there were several people at my screening that were laughing and cheering throughout. I think enough people will like this, but if the movie took it’s time, it could have been brilliant. There are funny moments, but ultimately PIRATE RADIO fell short for me.

THE BOONDOCK SAINTS barely got a theatrical release nearly 10 years ago, but gathered a huge cult following on DVD. For one reason or another, I never saw it until earlier this year. You know what? I wasn’t that impressed! It had a few neat things in it and I loved Willem Dafoe, but there are folks out there who think this is the best movie ever made. Hardly. Now, Troy Duffy got to make a sequel for the fans with nearly 100% of the original cast. I was curious to see how Duffy progressed as a filmmaker over the past 10 years.

The sequel, BOONDOCK SAINTS II: ALL SAINT’S DAY, takes place 8 years after the original. Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) MacManus are living in exile in Ireland with their father (Billy Connolly). When they find out that a Priest was killed in Boston, and that it was made to look like they did it, the MacManus brothers set out to find out who the culprit. On the way there, they meet a Mexican named Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr.), and after seeing him fight a guy for money, the brothers decide to make him a member of their team. Instead of Dafoe hot on their trail, we get a hot (in a MILF way) FBI agent named Bloom. She pretty much does everything Dafoe would have done if he were in this too. The brothers discover that the hit was arranged by some Italian gangster named Yakavetta (Judd Nelson) and what follows are a serious of shootings, foul language, and tasteless gay jokes.

It’s pretty faithful to the original in tone and content, which means I didn’t like it. It’s every bit as amateurish and juvenile as the first one. The story is just an excuse for exploitive violence and offensive humor. Now, I love offensive humor, so I guess the word I’m looking for is… disrespectful. It’s full of disrespectful humor. The movie is also nearly two hours, which it doesn’t have enough material for. After 80 minutes, it feels like a completely different movie begins, as Duffy introduces a new storyline. In the it’s defense, this was the best portion of the movie as it features Peter Fonda and something the fan’s are going to get a kick out of.

Both Flanery and Reedus are now in their forties as they try to look hip and cool while they shoot mobsters in slow motion, but it seems a bit tired. The movie doesn’t really know how to develop these two characters even further. It’s more of the same from them, which depending on what you thought of the first one is either good or bad. Funnyman Billy Connolly is still good playing it straight as their hitman Dad. Clifton Collins Jr. was hot and cold for me. Sometimes he was irritating as he constantly mugs the camera, but I think he has one of the film’s best lines. His “tagline” had me chuckling for a few minutes. Julie Benz is also awkward in a role which is supposed to make her appear sexy and sleazy at the same time. After spending half the movie struggling to find the right vibe, she finally gets into her character toward the end. Judd Nelson is really bad as the villain, but that could be awesome depending how you look at it. I still loved seeing Gerard Parkes, who played the lead on FRAGGLE ROCK, swearing up a storm as Doc. And Peter Fonda does a great job in a small role, sporting a terrific Spanish (I think) accent.

The main problem with both films is the fact that Duffy seems to be in love with himself. His script isn’t all that great. His dialogue wants to be so cleverly vulgar that you can practically see Duffy patting himself on the back when you hear a line like, “They will prison fuck us, up the ass, and will wipe their dicks on our Grandma’s drapes”. It feels so forced. I call this kind of self conscious, self aware dialogue, “the Kevin Smith syndrome”. Except sometimes, Smith can be funny (not lately though). Also, I found Duffy’s humor to be oddly homophobic. The only thing that I learned about his characters was that they don’t want anyone to think that they’re gay. What year are you living in Duffy? It felt really dated. I don’t mind gay jokes, but one: they weren’t even funny, and two: they felt disrespectful.

Duffy seems like a filmmaker who saw SCARFACE and GOODFELLAS… and liked them for all the wrong reasons. It’s like he saw how cool the violence was and how awesome it was that everyone swore all the time. He didn’t get the drama, the characterizations, or the moral messages that these films had. That’s why both of his films are so empty. There’s no emotional weight to them. Sure, they have hip slow motion shots of cool looking dudes shooting people to hip electronic music, but that’s all this movie has. I think visually, he doesn’t lack talent, but his writing seems to be that of a fifteen year old. He doesn’t seem to respect movies. He also doesn’t seem to have a wide range of taste. I betcha his top ten films of all time are from one genre.

Now, I don’t mean to be too hard on the guy. I saw him and Flanery last night at the local press screening, and their Q & A was very entertaining. Duffy seems to be a fun guy, maybe a little full of himself, but a fun guy regardless. His stories on the making of this were alot of fun, and I do hope he continues to make films. It’s possible that a BOONDOCK SAINTS 3 might be in the future, but I would like to see if he can do something else.

So if you liked the first one, I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t like this one. It’s made for the fans. But obviously, not for me.

ANTICHRIST is the latest controversial movie from Lars von Trier. I haven’t seen all of his films, but I liked most of what I’ve seen. Loved DANCER IN THE DARK, DOGVILLE, and liked THE BOSS OF IT ALL, but thought MANDERLAY tried way too hard to make a statement. This new one has been getting alot of press because of the provocative nature of the story. Apparently there was a lot of negative buzz at the Cannes Film Festival. The critical reception has been extremely divided, some call it a masterpiece while others call it one of the worst films ever made. When a movie gets this much hype, I get very curious to check it out for myself. Here we go… (This will be a spoiler-free review in case you haven’t read any of the blabbermouth critics that have given too much away already)

The plot is mainly straight forward. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg (there characters names are only known as He and She) play a couple whose infant jumped out of a window while they were having sex. They take it pretty hard, but since Dafoe is an analyst, he copes with his grief by ignoring it all together, focusing his energy on his wife, by trying to treat her. After a few agonizing nights in their home, he decides it may be best if they travel to their remote cottage in the wilderness. While there, things start getting a little weird. The trees around them seem to have some sort of strange aura, Dafoe sees talking foxes, and Gainsbourg begins to act very violently (not to mention extra-sexually) towards her husband. I don’t want to say too much more about the final act, but let’s just say that it’s all sorts of fucked-up!

This is a frustrating and hauntingly beautiful film. The opening is probably the best thing von Trier has ever directed. It’s black and white and entirely in slow motion. We see the couple having intense passionate sex through some stunningly gorgeous photography and graphic images (yes, we do see penetration, but it’s such a beautiful shot. It’s presented in an abstract way that we don’t even know what we’re looking at, until your mind figures it out: “Oh.. That’s a penis going into a vagina!”). And when we actually see their son fall out of the window, it’s heartbreaking. I found this sequence to be extremely effective.

The rest of the movie is non-stop intense! The early coping scenes with Dafoe trying to console his wife ring true and will strike a chord with anyone who has experienced any kind of tragic loss. Once it gets to the cottage is when things get weird, but for me this worked too. The events that take place in the second half are bizarre, surreal and can be interrupted many different ways. Some people (maybe most people) will have a tough time sitting through this. It’s extremely graphic (sexually and violently) and has at least a couple of the most disturbing scenes that I’ve seen this decade. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not a horror film, but a dark drama that transcends into a surreal universe.

Willem Dafoe proves to me one of our bravest actors, but he’s always shown that given his track record (WILD AT HEART, BODY OF EVIDENCE). He really captures the essence of a man who is both manipulative and passionate. Charlotte Gainsbourg (who won the best actress award at Cannes) is nothing short of amazing. Not only does she have to do some crazy shit, but she really embodies her character. She is so overwrought with grief that she slowly begins to lose herself. Her work is a major triumph.

von Trier had been using grainy digital photography in his last few films, but here we really get to see some amazing visuals from the man. Besides the opening, the rest of this is also gorgeous but in a different way. It’s handheld, but not in an irritating way. It heightens the intensity. The director has really proven that he is a true artist, whether you like him or not. The movie reminded me of two other films: DON’T LOOK NOW, as that one also dealt with a couple grieving the loss of their kid. That one also had some fucked up shit going on too. And IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES, which also was extremely frank in it’s graphic depiction of sexuality, and features some equally disturbing images as well.

ANTICHRIST is not an easy pill to swallow and you probably have to be in the right mood and frame of mind to see it, but it’s a true cinematic experience. It’s a unique vision from a gifted filmmaker. I can imagine that there may be many walkouts during the screenings this weekend. It’s a movie that’s bound to upset and outrage many viewers. If you like provocative and challenging films, then you won’t want to miss this one.

In the end, I’m not actually sure what happened in the film, I have a few theories. But I don’t think either is right nor wrong. This is a movie that’s supposed to get you to think. I’ve seen this over a month ago and it’s still stuck strongly in my brain. I don’t know if I necessarily would want to watch this every weekend, but it’s a one of a kind experience. And that’s why I go to the movies. To be shaken up and to see things that I wouldn’t in a million years even dream of. Loved it!

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE is a cult sensation. But I just didn’t get it. Laughed maybe three times in the movie. Then director Jared Hess followed that up with NACHO LIBRE, which was a slight improvement. I chuckled a half dozen times and laughed out loud once. Maybe I’m just not getting something. Now Hess has released his third film, GENTLEMEN BRONCOS.

It’s about a teenager named Benjamin who is an aspiring writer. The story begins when he attends a writer’s camp, where he meets an eccentric girl named Tabatha and an amateur filmmaker named Lonnie. While at camp, Ben attends a seminar hosted by famous Sci-Fi author, Chevalier. He also submits one of his stories called YEAST LORDS. Ben’s new friends think that it’s genius and want to make it into a movie. Meanwhile, Chevalier is in a writer’s slump and may be dumped by his publisher. But when he reads Ben’s submission, he changes the some of the names and out right steals his story. Of course, the consequences bites everyone in the ass. Also, there are little scenes of Ben’s story that are presented like a bad 60’s Sci-Fi movie, sprinkled throughout.

Conception wise, this is a pretty good idea for a movie. There are many opportunities for humor and satire… and Hess misses every one. Sheesh! I don’t even know where to begin. Well, the title sequence was pretty cool. It features a bunch of cool looking Sci-Fi book covers laying on top of 70’s wallpaper. I thought to myself that this was a great way of setting up the 70’s time period. The hair styles, the cars, and the clothes are perfect, but then when a character started talking about the internet, I became confused. Mr. Hess, just what world is your movie taking place in?

Then we meet the main character Ben, who is just not developed at all. We never know anything about him personally other than he writes awful stories that for some reason, people love. Because of this, we can never care for him.The movie overloads us with so many eccentric characters that would never exist in the real world that I started to wonder if this movie is supposed to take place on another planet. One thing about having weird characters in a movie that a director should know about is that you should also have normal characters to interact with them for some sort of contrast. But no! Everyone is so freakin’ weird!

This also features some of the most bizarre and embarrassing humor I have ever seen in a movie theater. There’s a moment early on when Ben is sitting on the bus with Tabatha and Lonnie. Tabatha squirts gobs of lotion on her hand and puts it in front of Ben, then she demands: “Give me a hand massage!”. He starts massaging her hand while Lonnie, in a very creepy way, moans in her ear. Tabatha also begins to moan in pleasure as Ben just looks confused. Talk about one of the most uncomfortable scenes of the year, and NOT in a good way. I can only guess that Hess thought this was funny, but it’s not even close.

Another thing that doesn’t work is the inclusion of the Sci-Fi story YEAST LORDS as a B-movie starring Sam Rockwell. In many ways, this reminded me of the bizarre and awful LEONARD PART 6. It’s about a hero named Bronco, who must find his Gonads as he rides flying deer with missiles attached to their sides. He also pukes up pink vomit at his enemies. The set design of the sci-fi story is a tad reminiscent of AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON, but this movie is not funny at all. It’s possible that the YEAST LORDS portion could have worked on it’s own as an homage to B-movies, but here it’s supposed to be a story that every thinks is awesome. No one in their right mind could love this story, it’s crap! Made no sense. It wasn’t even affectionately bad. I think this movie was supposed to be a feel good film where the underdog triumphs over the egotistical author, but it’s not. No character is established well enough to give darn.

Michael Angarano is completely clueless as he bumbles through his scenes as Benjamin. I think Hess just told him to act like he didn’t have a brain. Halley Feiffer is too eccentric to be likable as Tabatha. Even Tina Majorino in NAPOLEON DYNAMITE was a little normal so she had a little heart, but Tabatha is just strange for the sake of being strange. Hector Jimenez (who was Nacho Libre’s partner in Hess’ second film) as Lonnie gives one of the year’s worst performances! Every syllable out of his mouth is uttered with extreme irritating dictation. Ugh! I hated hated hated him! Jemaine Clement is awful as Chevalier. He resembles Benicio Del Toro, but he sounds like the villain from TOP SECRET as he has a very forced snooty british accent. He talks from the back of his throat the entire movie. Jennifer Coolidge is doing her eccentric mom thing again and it’s still not funny. Mike White plays Ben’s guardian angel and he sucks! There is one embarrassing scene when he’s holding a snake and it shits all over him. Funny… right? No! The only person who survives this mess is Sam Rockwell. He gives 100% as the hero in the Sci-Fi story. His performance isn’t that much different than the one he gave in HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, but the problem here is that he’s not given anything funny to do.

Hess’ direction is tedious. Everything is so simple. That not really a problem as I do like simplicity in films, but there is just a complete laziness that I find in his direction. Every shot is completely centered and looks like it’s made as if it were a sitcom. You’d think that he would change styles when the movie switches to the Sci-Fi story, but he doesn’t. Big mistake! Sure, there are some amusing bad special effects but they’re not used in a humorous way so they just serve no real purpose. The script is awful. There are several missed opportunities. Lonnie making an amateur film should’ve been full of filmmaking jokes, but nothing funny really happens. The humor is of the “so embarrassingly awkward that is just has to be funny” kind. This sort of humor only works if there is some heart in the movie, but there’s not. Instead, Hess thinks that he can fix everything by putting cheesy 80’s songs like WINDS OF CHANGE on the soundtrack. Lazy!

So I chuckled lightly once, and let out one burst of uncomfortable laughter during this. There was a (very) brief moment when Benjamin pukes that I thought was kind of funny. Otherwise, this was a real chore to sit through. Even at 89 minutes, it felt like an eternity. I hope Hess stops making movies, cause I don’t want to spend any more company with his creations. Not fun! GENTLEMEN BRONCOS is a complete disaster!

CRUDE is the latest Documentary by Joe Berlinger (METALLICA: SOME KIND OF MONSTER, and BLAIR WITCH 2…lol). It’s the story of the oil spills in Ecuador by Chevron. We see the effects that this has on local villages, and it’s heartbreaking. Parents losing their children, and many people getting seriously ill are among the consequences. This film follows the quest of one lawyer who is trying to sue Chevron. We seem him talk to witnesses, negotiate with judges, and trying to get famous celebrities to back up his cause, like Sting’s wife Trudie Styler.

Berlinger does some pretty good investigative journalism. Some of the footage that I found interesting involved the lawyer arguing with Chevron’s lawyers, calling them corrupt. But there have also been allegations saying that the “good” lawyer is also corrupt, accusing him of making things up just so he can get money from Chevron.

The documentary is well made, but my feelings about the film are mixed. That’s because that I had a hard time believing everything this American Lawyer had to say. At first he seems to be doing it for a good cause, but then we get scenes of him coaching witnesses and even telling Sting’s wife what to do. It’s very arrogant and seems shady. But maybe that’s just what a Lawyer does. I sure hate those guys. I feel really uncomfortable when I’m in the same room with one. I just had a tough time believing anything that came out of this guy’s mouth. It also didn’t help that he looked an awful lot like legendary pornstar Herschel Savage.

It was kind of cool seeing The Police perform for at a benefit concert, and it is upsetting to see the situation in Ecuador. Someone should be held responsible for it. I do think this is an important issue, but the film seems a little confused on just who is responsible. I think that may be the point, but it kind of made me mad. So at least Berlinger shook me up a bit, and that’s a good thing for a movie to do. But is it an enjoyable film? Not really. But it is an important one.

Here’s a recap (I use a 4-star rating system):
2012 [PG -13] – **
PIRATE RADIO [R] – **1/2
BOONDOCK SAINTS II: ALL SAINTS DAY [R] – **
ANTICHRIST [NR] – ****
GENTLEMEN BRONCOS [PG -13] – *
CRUDE [NR] – **1/2

So for me, the one to see this weekend is ANTICHRIST. You’ll have strong feelings about it one way or another. BOONDOCK SAINTS II is strictly for the fans, PIRATE RADIO was disappointing, 2012 will appeal to mindless idiots or people who have an affection for bad cinema, I don’t even think fans of NAPOLEON DYNAMITE will like GENTLEMEN BRONCOS, and CRUDE is an informative documentary that will make you angry.

That’s it for now!

Take care!!

Be geeky and watch movies!!!

Tags: 2012, AntiChrist, awesomeness, BOONDOCK SAINTS, DISASTER MOVIES, EMMERICH, john cusack, Lars Von Trier, napoleon dynamite, TROY DUFFY, Willem Dafoe, woody harrelson

This post was written by Austin Kennedy, Friday, November 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am and is filed under Diversionary Tactics, Musings, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.