Starship Troopers (1997)

Director: Paul Verhoeven Stars: Casper Van Dien, Jake Busey, Michael Ironside, Clancy Brown

Review:

Human versus alien bugs. That is basically it. I saw it when I was 13 or 14 and got my kicks of action out of it. Roger Ebert called it an bloody gory movie for kiddies, but as I re-watch it today in my 20s, I disagree. Starship Troopers (1997) is a much deeper than it appears to be.

Our hero joined to army for citizenship, and on his video call to his parents, his hown town, where his parent was, was hit by alien bug invasion. The video cut off due to supposedly weather, but as we see our hero walks away from the camp, we have the whole incidence known as an alien attack and casuality count. Our hero have walked for several steps and that would take no longer than a minute, and they got the whole truth and make a propaganda about it? It obviously symbolize the federal government have conspired it to gather the hatred for motivation of invasion.

Propaganda in minutes after millions have died, and they did not know about it beforehand?

The federal government sends infantry troops in to invade the planet. Why? As it happens the future I assume they got nuclear weapons, and with the strength of nuclear weapon we have now we could destroy a whole planet if we wanted to. We didnt for the modern wars since we still have to live on this planet and for humanity reasons. Well we do not live on the alien planet and they are bugs so humanity reasons does not count, why couldnt they just nuke the whole planet with automatic spaceship? Resources. Government sends living human for reasources. That's how cold humans are.

Infantry is necessary "because they cant push (the nuke) button if you disable your arm.". You believe that?

The hero's girl/slut got really high score in mathematics. She became a starfleet pilot, a real bad pilot. "Oh not Ibanez again. She's crazy.", a passenger of her flight exclaimed. But no she is not crazy, she is just a woman, and we all know woman cant drive. First she almost trashed her fleet into the docking bay on her way out for no reason, and got her fleet nearly in collision with a meteor since she changed the route. Okay the meteor was un-expected for everybody but it definitely is her fault for letting it getting so close when she was in space which the radar would have detected it from a thousands miles away, while she spending her time on flirting with her senor. Her senor said "You know what I want.", and they were almost kissing. Great. That's how she got her role as a pilot, as a whore. That's how corrupted the government is.

Couldnt you have seen it earlier, with nothing else in space....?

Later our hero's girlfriend died, and have a space funeral. Why would she have a space funeral when thousands and millions of people died and went into oblivious, since if they all have a funeral it would not be done until the next millennium. God this government is corrupted. And when our hero heard there is more casuality for victory (of resources), he welcomed it with comfort. That's an alarm of mass brainwash people!

Why does only she got a ceremony?

Ok so in case you havent got it I was kidding. This movie sucks. But it does have it's own good. As I have mentioned: Human vs Alien bugs. That's it. That's what you expected, and that's what you got. The special effects looks good and it's a good blend on minitures and CG. It gots some organic feeling that tells you there is some real things there, and got the CG on something hard to create in real life even in small size. It's quit un-necessary to show the things happened in the boot camp but it got some exciting action on the bug's planet.

Michael Ironside is in this movie, and I really like this actor. He is so exaggerated evil in the Scanners (1981), that it is hard not to love him. What a pity that his career was ruined by Highlander II (1991).

So it has a theme of violence philosphy going on, and does violence solve everything? Well it does solve something but not everything. Does the movie try to tell us anything? About violence? About our arrogance as the only being with vast intelligence? Well at least it tells us to save some blood for the brain, and not to lend your only source of defence towards a whore.

Why wouldnt you use the knife yourself rather than let the chick escape and get back to her ex-boyfriend?

The Tree of Life (2011)

Director: Terrance Malick Stars: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken

Review:

To be honest I havent even heard of the name Terrance Malick until The Tree of Life (2011) won the Palme d'Or of the Cannes Film Festival 2011. After a little researching he is fairly unknown and has only directed a few movies before. The whole affair gets dramatic when Terrance Malick was banished from the festival due to his Nazi comment, but won the prize afterall. Does Cannes give him the prize to show how im-political the festival is? You'll be the judge.

So I went to see it, fully aware of people's comment of it being boring, having no clue what's going on, and dont know what the plot is. Firstly there is no plot. There is even no character. The whole movie is about a life. The images of universe would represent the state before we were born: somewhere in the universe, maybe some kind of spiritual existence, and then life forms as microscopic organism. Then we see birth, as an infant child and learning to walk. As the movie progress life complicates. We have emotions: jealoucy, hatred, sorrow. We goes through death, have problems with our father, financial difficulties. It was not a story but an attempt of show us and remind us what life is. From as simple as trees, grasses, water, to as complex as human relationship.

Some criticize the movie of having no new throughts about life. I would have to say it has to be this way. We all have our own reasons of being as complex as we are. The point that we all agree is we cant go back to the way of a child. That is why most arguing dialogues are muted. The reason does not matter. It just try to remind us how simple it used to be, and how irrational we was. The viewpoint is generic since we all goes through the phases of doubts of our parents love and dislikes of our father. It is not a perspective but a display of different impacts that each adds to our complexity of life.

Frankly it would be pretentious to say this movie is not boring. It is. The universe image can be cut shorter and I could not figure what the dinosaur scene adds. I have some idea of getting what life is long before human influence, but I am not sure. Also Brad Pitt and Sean Penn does not have real function but to trick people in. Especially Sean Penn, which actually gets nothing to do or say but walking around. Would it still won the Palme d'Or if some unknown actor plays the part of Brad Pitt and Sean Penn?

I do not hate this movie, but I may not watch it for the second time. I think I do get it, but I think there is better movies this year. I makes me think of my relationship with my father, but having a hard time to get into the whole god thing since I aint Christian. Afterall, the Cannes festival is more or less political biased. 

Repulsion (1965)

Director: Roman Polanski Stars: Catherine Deneuve, Ian Hendry, John Fraser

Review:

There are very few directors that have been into movies since the 1960s who are still delivering to this very day. Roman Polanski is one of them and from all directors I could think of, he is the only one. Repulsion (1965) is his earlier work that bought him into international notification. 

In 1960s, when the terms like schizophrenia and OCD were lesser known to the general public, people fear of what those mentally disordered people perceive. Repulsion sets the formula for the psychedelic film about mentally disordered to come. Psycho (1960) was also about the mentally ill, but it never see things in the perspective of the insane, but Repulsion follows the mind of the disordered almost like a conscience stream.

So the flows goes like this: first it shows the audiences all the elements that haunted the lunatic, and then gradually the protagonist witness surreal things happening around him/her. The happenings grows stronger and stronger, and more unrealistic. Finally some normal people invaded and discovered that most of the surreal hauntings were only happened in the protagonist's mind.

In Repulsion the protagonist is a girl who is very depending and attached to his elder sister. She works in a grooming house, in which her workmate is female, and her clients are females. Male invaded her world when her elder sister had a boyfriend, which occasionally stayed overnight. She could not handled it, and when her sister were away for vacation, she really gets into her mind.

The films shows she both repels and fantasied of being abused. She dreamt of being raped, in which we could tell it was her nightmare. But later we see her put on her lipstick and lied on the bed, almost being prepared of the imaginery rapist. She is also a mysophobia, in which she would gag over an unwashed cloth, but could do nothing about a dead rabbit taken out of the fridge because she was so traumatized by her fantasies.

What is so scary or thrilling about the scenes? Well Repulsion does lost her charm due to age. As we were mostly understand about mental disorder, we could tell right from the start that the protagonist is having a psychotic episode. You know fairly well that what is real and what is not, which kills some of the thrills about wondering whether it is truely happening or just inside her head.

However, in the 1960s, it is truly an inspirational and influencial film, that the whole theme became a cliche nowadays. Dont get me wrong I absolutely love the genre of surrealism and illusions, and to get to the root, watching Repulsion is compulsory.

Cinema Extreme #3 - The Human Centipede (2009)

Director: Tom Six Stars: Dieter Laser, Ashley C. Williams, Ashlynn Yennie

Review:

This is the first time I watch this movie myself, but I have heard others talk about it and watched somebody made fun with it, I am really biased with this one. This is that kinda movie that base on only one concept, and the shocking value does not last long, especially when I have known it so long before watching it.

The Human Centipede is about sewing people's mouth to other's head, so he can only be fed on other's feces. It is gross, but when you get over it, it doesnt any other thing to show for.

The plot is simple. A crazy doctor want to connect three people ass to mouth. He did. He played around with them after the surgery. Two policemen came to investigate about missing persons. The three people try to escape but failed. The leading piece killed himself. The doctor had a fight with the policemen and all of them died. The last piece died from eating shit for a few days apparently. The middle piece was left alone crying. The End.

Why does he want to make the human centipede? What was he trying to accomplish? It was never fully explained other than his pride of being a good surgeon.

To stretch the above to a hour and a half movie would need to insert pointless scenes that creates no tension at all. Like we see one girl tried to escape, dragging her unconscienous friend also. How would she even leave the house without notice, and how would there even be a movie if the Human Centipede was not realized? How would the audience expect there is the slimest chance for her to escape? So towards the end the leading piece stabbed the doctor with a scalple, which available for him all the time. What is he waiting for before, and why he did not finish the doctor off I have no idea. And naturally I also have no clue on why he committed suicide when the doctor crawling to him wounded, given he is the least suffered of the three.

The concept is shocking and gross at first, but gets boring quickly and the doctor is so laughably stupid that it really helps you get over with the whole ass-to-mouth thing. So is this extreme cinema? Many people considered it is, but I have doubts. Actually it's even kinda funny.

Theatre of the Dead #14 - I am Legend (2007)

Director: Francis Lawrence Stars: Will Smith, Alice Braga

Review:

I am Legend (2007) is a movie adapation of the 1954 novel in the same name written by Richard Matheson, which is the inspiration of the whole zombie idea, and influenced even Night of the Living Dead (1968). It stars Will Smith and showcases some beautiful visual. But I hate this movie. To me this movie is pointless and un-necessary, and nothing more than a ATM for the production company to milk the movie-goers.

The only man around wandering on abandoned empty street?

I understand it based on the novel, but I couldnt help but feel it just captured the success of 28 Days Later, and the production said, "You know what, I can make a better movie with higher production value!" The main idea surrounds Will Smith being the last man on earth and his loneliness, which very much like the first half of 28 Days Later. It did nothing that hadnt been done, and despite that fact that the visual is better and it shows the whole New York city being abandoned, but I feel sick knowing there is no heart in it and the whole thing is solely for the production to cash in.

Will Smith's acting has always been screaming commercial to me. He is not bad and on the contrary, he is really good, but it makes you feel it is cold and calculated in every possible way for you to pay to get into the theatre. He makes everybody like him, and that is evidence of lacking personality. There goes the right word which I have been searching to describe this movie. This movie has no personality. It is carefully calculated that most of the crowd would walk in and pay, and that is all this movie cares.



The movie starts with some Dr. being interviewed on TV about her new vaccine or something. Apparently it's a virus that has genetically engineered to help human rather than do harm. It poses good theory that some experts actually praises the high possibility that it actually happens. I am no expert in bio-chemistry and all I care is what does it have to do with the movie. And you know what? Absolutely nothing. It can be the some research for new Viagra which went wrong and that would not make any difference. The zombies here are afraid of daylight, but does it matters anything? Nope. It just makes excuses for our hero to hang out during daytime.

You were hurt so bad that could get up? Damned!

The plot is alright with some moments that can be nitpicked. When Will Smith is trapped (and Yes, trapped by the zombies), and paralyzed his legs, he used his hands to drag himself away. But we have only seen him hurt in one leg. Cant he jump with a single leg or something? So he dragged himself for a while, under some screaming of the zombies coming, and after a while he finally jumped with a single leg. Why didnt he do that at first? Is he so hurt that he would rather be eaten by the zombies?

Oh so you can. Maybe you just wasnt in the mood back then.

Towards the end he met some other survivors, who told him there is a whole survivor's colony up on the north, since the virus wouldnt stand the cold. "How did you know that?" Will Smith asked. "God told me so." Oh great. Evangelicalism in "Signs" (2002) style. If God can be so specific to tell you the whole fact, why havnt he told you the cure of the virus directly? Oh right it is because Will Smith that should become legend, not you. Whatever.

"God told me." If I start praying now will God tell me the next lottery number?

And zombies can lay traps. Ok I can deal with that. But zombie that have a wife and cares about her? Remember all those moments a zombie bite off the flesh of its loved ones? Remember the gravity of one become a mindless corpse that have no feeling but hunger and eat anyone he sees, even his family? And now one that is emotionally comprised and cares about his women?

I am Legend (2007) is nothing about a trap to make us take our money from our pockets. It is so derivative that I despise it. And I know that it may be supposed to talk about nature and how wrong we are to alter it with science, and I call that whole idea bullshit. It is a block-buster movie and that's it. Zombie movies so far were low-budget and bold to display gore and violence, and this movie has no balls. That single fact could make it lame.

Theatre of the Dead #13 - Land of the Dead (2005)

Director: George A. Romero Stars: Simon Baker, John Leguizamo

Review:


After 30 years George A. Romero, the father of the zombie genre, comes back with Land of the Dead (2005). The expectation is high and critical response is generally good. However to me, some of the magic from the original trilogy is gone. The situation is ridiculous and it is difficult to suspend my disbelief on the whole premise.

Apparently this movie loosely picks off after the original trilogy. Now that people have developed a systemic way of dealing with the whole zombie apocalyze thing. Defenses have been setup and people barracaded inside, and life goes on for them. Some rich people can live in a skyscraper called Fiddler's Green, and poor people live on the skirt of the city within the blockage. Every once in a while some hired mercenaries went out in an armoured and armed vehicle to get supplies from abandoned supermarkets or other places. Our main characters are two of those mercanaries, on a final night out but for different reasons. Denbo (Simon Baker) wants to get out of the city, and Cholo (John Leguizamo) wants to have his own apartment in the Green, but they will both be pissed for not having their wishes come true.

The zombies are obsessed of watching fireworks. The smart zombie, like the audience, has no idea why.

Problem: what are these guys working for? Money. In a world that is full of zombies, and we havent seen them breeds any poultry or grow anything, food supply is gonna run out fast, and we have been told that they stayed like this for years. I am pretty sure food and water supply is in shortage. So what can they do with money? Buy supplies. Are they dumbs? They grabs supplies out in the jungle of zombies just to get money for some supplies that they would already have if not sold them out? Besides, money dont mean jack-shit without a operating issueing bank, and I dont think the banks are open under zombie days.

What have these stupid rich assholes contributed to the situation? Aint that obvious protecting them for money is stupid?

That being said, why is the people hired for money to protect the rich, that doesnt do anything but shopping. The residents in the Green, whom I imagine would be accountants, lawyers, or investment bankers, do nothing but shopping and having high teas. What do we need them for since clearly the stock market and court has been shutdown, and we do not even have an account.

Lastly, with that much of firepower, they could easily end the whole thing by killing all the zombies. You can just run it over with the armoured automobile.

Having an argument with the door wide open. Brilliant. Guess what happen next.

I understand it sort of address the problem of the contrast between rich and poor, but this scenario seems far-out for me. I imagine it more like in Mad Max 2 (1981), in which people trade supplies for supplies, and there is no rich man that can just sit down and enjoy art.

Now with that out of the way, we look at how Romero dealing with the zombie scenario again. In Land of the Dead we goes back to the Romero zombies, which are slow-moving, but like in Day of the Dead (1985), they can learn. A more intelligent zombie seems to learn how to use tool, shot a gun, and walk underwater. He leads other zombies to breach the perimeter of the city, and storm Fiddler's Green. I have already talked about how I do not like the learning idea, and while in this one they do not seems like retarded, it is closer to a point that we can reason with them. So are they even mindless zombies anymore...?

Tom Savini makes a cameo in this and it does kinda awesome to kinda suggest this is the same character from Dawn of the Dead.

The plot and characters are pretty standard. Money arguments and interest conflicts cause troubles, and Cholo wants to kill the richest by threatening them he would storm the place for ransom, while the good guy Denbo has to stop him for the innocient riches, pretty much like in many other movies such as The Rock (1996). We can have the story goes in other post-apocalyptic situations, like nuclear war, tsunami, epidemic, you name the rest. Zombie has nothing really to do with it.

Overall, I would not rate it good. Although comparing this to other movies at the time, it does take a bold step to make something different, but doesnt really work for me. On the entertaining level I would rate it more or less the same as the Dawn of the Dead remake (2004) gives me, and aint that a shame. George A. Romero would follow this with Diary of the Dead (2007) and Survival of the Dead (2009), and things got worse. Maybe in all walks of life, we got it at some point and lost it.

Maximum Overdrive (1986)

Director: Stephen King Stars: Emilio Estevez, Pat Hingle, Laura Harrington

Review:

Ah...Stephen King, one of the most popular horror novelist of our time. Funny fact is that horror movies based on his stories usually sucks. Sure The Shining (1980) is an absolute classic, and I do like IT (1990), but if you count the garbage ones there are a million more. This time is about killer trucks that move by themselves. Well...that's about it.

At the beginning of the movie we were told earth is in the tail of a comet, and we see trucks and other machinery moves by themselves, causing harm to human beings. That is the whole idea of the movie, and the rest is mostly slapstick comedy routines. It is a little funny at the first ten minutes or so, watching people falling clumsily into water or so, but after 20 minutes it really outstaged its welcome, and hopeing for something to happen for a change.

Guess what happened next.

The characters are stupid, forgettable and annoying. Some of their misfortune was not even remotely connected with the whole "machine coming alive" thing. One ugly chick who just got married just wont shut the fuck up. I hate her chicken voice and I waiting to see her die the worst possible way. But she survived. Oh what the hell.

Oh I'm sorry man...Thanks for get rid of one monster on earth though.

There is a difference between movies that make people forget about logic, or does not have any logic at all. This movie is the latter case. Why do trucks turn over when you shot bullets at it? Why the trucks wont crush down the honky tonk earlier? Why the girl immediately believe some DJ on the radio talking non-sense of staying off any highway? Why they do not fire a rocket launcher at the machine-gun vehicle? Oh the hell with reasons.

Hey plastic or wood is insulator!

What could possibly tip him over?

This is a junk film, sure, but was it even worth a laugh? I personally do find it quite hilarious, as I have said the jokes are really monotone that based on only slapsticks. Some people argued, "It's worth a watch just for the AC/DC soundtrack." Yes the whole soundtrack comes from AC/DC, Stephen King's favourate band. It tried to give a "O Yeaaah!" response after something blown up or someone got killed. After the 10th "O Yeaaah!", it becomes "o yeah?" or "o shit". If you love AC/DC so much, why not just listen to their CDs?

At the end, we were told, by text on the screen, it was from an alien masterplan all along and the comet tail has nothing to do with it. O whatever. After this failure Stephen King swore to never direct again. Thank god.

Quentin "Foot Fetishist" Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino is one of the best director in our time. His movies are bold, stylish at the same time fun to watch. His Pulp Fiction (1994) is regarded by many others to be their favourite movie ever made. It came to media attention that some Indian girl spilled the beans about a night she had with Tarantino. "And thus began the weirdest 10 minutes of my life - having my feet made out with by an Oscar-winning filmmaker while he pleasured himself," she spoke to the media.

This aint news. This is what everybody have already known ages ago, even before he drank champagne out of Uma Thurman's shoe, if you have seen his movies. Many scenes were just weird, like it was shot through the eyes of a foot fetishist.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
The movie that brought Tarantino to international fame, Reservoir Dogs (1991), almost features an all male cast and have no chance for foot fantasies. However in Pulp Fiction (1994), John Travolta discusses with Samuel L. Jackson about foot massages. Samuel L. Jackson said foot massage is nothing like licking a woman's spot of "holiest of holiest". John Travolta argued, "Would you give a guy a foot massage?" But I dont think when Travolta said this line, he fully knows what foot massage means to Tarantino.

"Would you give a guy a foot massage?"

There is also this scene that especially shows Uma Thurman's bare foot with strange camera angle. Usually to cover up someone's identity, one would shot the backside, or not showing the full face. In Tarantino's style, he shot her feet.

Aint the pose a little bit weird for one just casually standing? Is it especially to show the foot?

Correct me, but does one need to be bare feet to do the twister dance?

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
From Dusk Till Dawn is a movie directed by Tarantino's friend Robert Rodriguez. Tarandino had a role as sort of a mental killer, and oh boy aint Tarantino's acting bad. However he does look obsessed when drinking wine from Salma Hayek's feet. The scene apparently is used to establish the seductive power of Salma Hayek's role, that she can make others fallen under her spell. But down inside, you cant help but wonder if Tarantino is really acting in that scene.

Hey indian girl, is that night something like this?

Kill Bill (2003)
It's Uma Thurman again. She have to wiggle her toe with her mind after get her legs disabled from long period of coma. The scene makes sense but we audience have to stare the toe with her for like 3 minutes. What movie else you got to see just woman's toe for 3 minutes? Also the whole disabled leg thing was inserted just for showing this scene, since it does not cause her any actual trouble at all.

It has a more close shot scene, but this is enough.

Death Proof (2007)
Tarantino went totally out of control in this one. There is no more subtlety or excuse, but just foot scene after foot scene. He even made Kurt Russell a foot fetishist too.

It gets a little disturbing on thinking what's on Tarantino's mind in this shot.

Girls are always bare feet inside a car, and wearing flip-flops on street.

I imagine this is a tough scene for Russell.

Acutally the only foot I found awesome.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
As if Tarantino got it out of his system in Death Proof, he was more conserved in this movie. But he just couldnt help just add this one shot.

But honestly it does not seem out of place and it fits within the storytelling. So it could be considered acceptable.

Tarantino is a really talented director, but his romantic attachment ran to, shall we say, the exotic. I accept different...sexual behavior, but injecting the fantasies into movies for everyone is anothing thing, especially when those movies are such enjoyable. Those things are best kept to yourself.