When College Just Doesn't Work Out: A Review of Waiting

Sometimes I'll just be driving along, going to Walgreens to buy some RU-486 because the condom just broke, or going to buy some Gatorades because my hamstrings are in knots, and I'll see an Applebee's. Or I'll see a Bennigan's. And then I'll think of Waiting, a movie I saw first in the summer of '06. Immediately, my appreciation for these places will quadruple. For I see them not for what they are--a workplace for the rabble and a dining venue for those without taste--but or what they could be--a subculture brimming with quirks, deviance, and fun.

Shenanigans--the locus of the movie's activity--is such a place. It is the paradigmatically mediocre American eatery, stuck awkwardly between fast-food joints and true fine dining. As with all half-measures, it fails miserably, but this failure can entertain anyone cynical enough to accept it for what it is and laugh. And the waiters are indeed cynical. They realize that they are not flourshing--no eudaimonia is to be had in their line of work. But who is to complain? When work is done, they can live for the orgasm and the bong hit, forget their sorrows at the nightly staff-only parties. And when at work, they can continue their hedonism in all sorts of ways. For example: flashing their dicks at fellow employees (in all sorts of configurations: the bat wing, the brain, etc.), insulting each other, putting pubic hair on the food of rude customers. The list goes on, and with it, the fun, right up until closing time.

Are there any flaws? Perhaps. I am undecided whether this is a flaw or merely a curiosity, but in any case, it wants for explanation. Most of the employees are suffering from some obvious personality flaw, or simply not enough intelligence, or maybe weakness of will, and that is what keeps them in their rut. Dean (played by Justin Long, the Mac guy) has no such problems--he is ambitious, intelligent, and has good character--and at the end of the film we see him move ahead with his life. But Monty, who is just as smart, if not smarter, and just as resouceful, remains stuck in his ways at the end of the film, and there is not even a hint that he will improve his lot. Is this some tacit argument against determinism? I leave that weighty question to the viewer.

Critics of Cloverfield: Chumps with Keyboards Need to Just SHUT UP

**look out for spoilers**
Yeah, I saw Cloverfield. What’s it to you?

Nowadays everyone’s got an opinion of everything, and because of the internet they can tell everybody who’ll listen what they think. Ahh, you say, this is delicious irony coming from a BLOG—that infamous vehicle for spouting ill-researched, misspelled and often unnecessary views of everything under the sun. Agreed. I don’t have all the answers. But I do believe there’s a tendency to destroy everything around us in an attempt to make ourselves feel better—and at least I spell things kerectly.

Let’s take Cloverfield, for example. I saw it on Friday. I still don’t know what I think. There were moments in the movie I couldn’t separate myself from the feeling that I was actually there, terrified, and gape-jawed like a redneck at a tractor pull. It just hit me in such a personal way that I don’t think I can separate myself from it. Maybe it’s because I used to date a chick named Elizabeth who lived in NYC, and I have a brother I’m very close with. Or maybe it was the copious amount of whiskey I happened to catch in my mouth during the movie, but either way I don’t know what I would do if I was in the position of the film’s hero, Rob. Though I can safely say I would flip out a helluva lot more than he did if anything ever happened to my brother. But the main point is… I still don’t know what to think about this whole film, because while 80% of it touched and terrified me, the last 20% left me not just nonplussed, but completely disheartened.

**Spoilers Begin**
At heart this is a disaster movie and a tragedy—that is, until the monster starts actively hunting down our originally innocuous heroes. I was totally into the film until the creature lashed out and hit the helicopter—I mean are you kidding me? The whole film the giant thing is preoccupied with scrambling willy-nilly around the city, and finally at the end he takes a personal interest in Hud, it seems, who “taunts” the monster and subsequently gets plucked from the sky and then eaten!? That’s where an indie-inspired idea turns completely Hollywood, and bells go off in my head saying Schlock Schlock Schlock! Apparently the writers decided that the 3rd act of the film should completely ignore the thematic and stylistic “realism” of the first 2 acts. Sad. It really had me until then. All my other complaints in it are completely personal (NOT ROB AND BETH noooooo!)
**Spoilers End**

Personal history, inebriation, and stylistic choices aside, it was a well executed thrill ride that really delivered on its promise of mayhem—if you can get past the barfematography, which I think really varies on your age. I have the feeling the older you get (and less experienced with video games you are) then the worse you’ll fare. Which I think is a really brave directing choice considering you’re undoubtedly going to alienate a lot of your audience. Also, the preformances were fantastic. The 4 young actors in the film did such a good job of being "realistic" that there were times you just forget you're watching a movie. So kudos to that, but that’s of course only my opinion…

And this brings me back to everyone on the internet with some sort of judgment on Cloverfield. Here’s a great, if typical comment on the film:

“And the reasons why it F*&#@ing sucks: 1. Hud 2. What the characters are doing for the entire movie makes absolutely no sense. 3. A lot of other things make absolutely no sense. 4. Nothing is resolved in the end.”

Umm, thanks, “mordochai”(if that IS your real name!) sheer film scholar brilliance right there. Well how would you feel if someone you didn’t know wrote this about you?

“And the reasons why Mordochai F*&#@ing sucks: 1. Him 2. What he writes online makes absolutely no sense. 3. A lot of other things make absolutely no sense. 4. Nothing is added to the world by his existence.”

Just because we enjoy freedom of speech here in America doesn’t mean that everyone has something to say. Or, that I should be subjected to your ignorant, stereotypical, angry, pointless, profane, misguided, selfish, self-centered, misspelled and nonsensical ramblings. Hey random internet opinionaters, here are a few suggestions for the future:
-Spell check what you’re writing and make sure it makes sense.
-Don’t speak to me like I’m your friend (I’m not) or that I know exactly what you’re talking about.
“man tha thing was soooo dum why would you evr do hat. You know!?!”
Hmmm… You’re right. I agree 100%. You’re an idiot.
-Also, if you’re one of the many crazies who flood the internet with bullshit about9/11 Truth, warnings of the end of the world, Reptillian shape shifters, UFOs, or any other of the many conspiracy theories out there… PLEASE come up with a better motto than “Wake up to the TRUTH!” Because that just sounds like a Folder’s Coffee commercial and it doesn’t make sense. Oh, and drink sea-water while punching yourself in the face because you’re a waste of everyone’s time and the world would be better off without you.
But seriously,
CLOVERFIELD IS REAL, ITS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Y’know… that’s actually kind of fun. In a societal-masochistic sort of way.

Make up your own mind about the film. I still haven't.

Jason Statham Defies Death, Unfortunately

I am guessing the answer is no (and rightfully so) but did anyone have the incredible misfortune of seeing "Crank" in theatres or on DVD? If so, my condolences to you and your family. This movie was a marathon suckfest from beginning to end that left audiences begging for their 90 minutes of life back. The plot was one-dimensional, the writing must have been done by a 13 year old with ADHD and the closest thing to a redeeming quality was the fact that Amy Smart was in it. For those of you living blissfully ignorant of this Tinsel-Town-Turd, let me catch you up to speed. Statham plays an assasin who is injected with a poison that will kill him unless he keeps his heart rate up and adrenaline pumping through his body. Naturally, our hero (?) speeds around town doing anything and everything to stay alive, namely having public intercourse (this is where Smart because briefly important) with dozens of intrigued Asians watching. Statham dies in the end. *SPOILER ALERT!*

....Oh shoot, was I suppose to put the spoiler alert before I say what happens at the end? Sorry, folks! Trust me, you're not missing out. I just saved you from flushing your time and money down the toilet. But I am not writing to warn you about a movie that's been out for a while now. I am writing to warn you of its sequel due out in 2009. Yes, their making a sequel.

And here's the troubling and confusing thing, my friends: Jason Statham is in it, playing the same guy. Apparently in his movie contract Statham has a Jesus clause that allows his characters to come back to life and carry on making horrible movies. I thought at first that this could be a prequel but then I read the plot blurb on IMDB:

"Chelios (Statham) faces a Chinese mobster who has stolen his nearly indestructible heart and replaced it with a battery-powered ticker that requires regular jolts of electricity to keep working."

It can't be a prequel because in the original, Statham has a very real heart (depicted using special effects). How do they plan on explaining this one? I, for one, look forward to finding out. Maybe I am overanalyzing, but that's kind of our job on this site.

DISCLAIMER: I will shout from the rooftops that I am a Jason Statham fan. He's my borderline man-crush. He was great in Snatch, The Italian Job and even The Transporter. Plus, if you read his recent spread in Men's Health magazine, you'll understand how hard this guy works to stay ripped and healthy. As I start to watch my hair line receed, it's good to know that balding men can still kick ass AND get the girl.
...having said that, allow me to retitterate not seeing Crank or Crank 2:High Voltage. 2007-2008 will be a dark time for Statham. He's churning out box-office bombs faster than Al Qaeda. Don't worry Jason, I still love you.

The Ultimate Girl Movie: A Review of Atonement

Disclaimer: I did not view this film to the end; I had to leave the theater to ice my knee. Furthermore, I watched it with my ex-girlfriend as sort of a last official date (we broke up the next day [fair warning, ladies!]). Therefore, my perception of the movie may be somewhat tainted. What the following review lacks in accuracy, I hope to make up for with entertainment.

I don't want to give away too much, but I will say this much: this film is absolutely full of sexual references and images, but without in the least bit being sexy. Indeed, it removes almost all hope of arousal by dropping the C-Bomb on numerous occasions (the C-Bomb is a word). And the flirting and foreplay is very difficult for a contemporary young man to appreciate, especially the epistolary flirtations. The closest thing we have, I suppose, is Facebook messaging, and even that is not good enough. In short, the romance of the film, from start to finish, does not resemble in any way the sort that the virile contributors to this blog know firsthand.

Another thing about the film, difficult to appreciate, is that the only sexual encounter between the two lovers for years is a period of intercourse lasting about 30 seconds and interrupted by a nosy child. They refer to it later as a momentous act. Perhaps in antiquity it could have such importance, but to a modern male viewer, it seems a flimsy basis for any continued love, more a reason to scorn the male protagonist of the film than sympathize with him.

Why can’t we kill the 80’s?

Hey Generation X… MOVE ON!
(and ok I know Speed-Racer's from the 60's... but the point is the same... read on)

I recently stumbled upon this website the other day, and I believe it was the last straw in convincing me that everyone over 25 is trying to culturally drag us back into the 80s, or at least any time period before 1990. This conspiracy goes much father than a simple t-shirt that says “Hey! I watched Thundercats, which means I want you to think that I don’t care what you think of me, so that must mean I’m cool.” No no no. Its much more sinister…

Allow me to explain how this works…
There’s general consent among everyone nowadays, that retro = cool. And granted, Top Gun is sweet, and the music is so gay its manly, and playing volleyball in aviators and daisy dukes with your guy friends while spurning the wearing of shirts is ok because its retro—but then again the definition of retro is that its cool because its old. Any shirtless tool playing volley ball and listening to “Playing With The Boys” who hasn’t seen Top Gun is instantly 40% more creepy and 70% more gay than those who’re doing it because it’s a funny reference. Same percentages apply for singing “You’ve lost that loving feeling” in a karaoke bar.

Nowadays we’ve got something worse going on: Retro Remakes that attempt to update old plots for the sake of garnering new audiences. Its like musicians covering the old classics…only the best way to describe this new phenomenon in films is, Recycling.

So if you think I’m making a big deal out of nothing, here’s a giant list for your reading enjoyment of recent and upcoming films and TV shows with original ideas over 20 years old:
Cartoons:
Transformers, TMNT, Speed Racer, Dragonball Z, Garfield, Alvin and the Chipmunks, GI Joe, Scooby Doo, Justice League (aka Super Friends)
TV Shows:
Knight Rider, American Gladiators, Bionic Woman, Starsky and Hutch, Star Trek, Miami Vice
Action/Horror:
When a Stranger Calls, The Wicker Man, Conan, Rambo, Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones, Amytyville Horror, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hills Have Eyes, Planet of the Apes
Combinations:
Aliens Vs. Predator, Freddy Vs. Jason

I know proven ideas make money, which is why sequels always do better than the original, even when they’re terrible. But this is much more than that. Are Studios so over-run with 30 somethings trying to relive their Saturday morning cartoon memories that they’re willing to subject us to live action versions of ALL OF THEM? Can’t wait for Snorks, Heathcliff, Thundercats, Smurfs and Carebears. Does anyone realize this is going too far!? Does anyone except fanboys really think a Speed Racer, Dragonball Z, GI Joe or Justice League movie will actually be good?

Just kill me now if all my generation will be able to come up with is remakes of Pokemon and Power Rangers.