Youtube Wednesday with 'Avatar' trailer

Ladies and gentlemen, with this I would like to announce the next flick I'm watching in theater. Come join me!

Twitter vs Hollywood

I read something a while ago which left me in a very good mood. It concerned Twitter, the popular social network which allows you to tell everyone when you're scratching your ass at the bus stop in real time, and movies.

In a society where people will still pay nearly 8 € for a movie and a large drink, you want to know exactly what to watch. Especially this being a society where there is also a huge pile of bullshit called Hollywood somewhere on the Northern hemisphere which approves any script with a number in front of the title. It's nothing short of shameful that American Pie had so many sequels we could set our watches by the time it took Jason Bigg's dick to get stuck somewhere. Reviews take time to be uploaded, and many of them are severely biased. Some, almost as much as the ones you get in newspapers. Unless someone marched down to the theatre before you and could tell if a movie was worth those 8 € or not, you'd pretty much sit down with your large drink and hope for the best. This is not fair. Hence why I don't blame anyone who will rip a movie off the Internet and watch it. Why should we pay so much without knowing there is some quality to the experience?

When I was a kid, the only way to be in the clear was the aforementioned: I would only watch movies on their last weeks at the box office, after everyone else did, so I could be forewarned. If the rumors about the flick were bad, I'd simply wait for it to come to DVD and rent it. I failed to watch good movies on the silver screen, and I also watched plenty of movies in theatre which weren't worth my time getting there or the money I paid to sit and watch them. The Internet helped, but the problem remained. Hollywood would get money anyhow, at least for the first two or three weeks, and if they kept getting money, it didn't matter how many Internet users went online saying the movie sucked balls after the first two weeks. They'd keep on doing it.

Twitter seems to be helping moviegoers make a difference in this process. Since it can be accessed and updated via cellphone or palmtop, you can find out if a movie is good or not by following other user's tweets. If someone watched a horrible movie in the morning, you'll know before you buy the ticket in the afternoon. This in turns forced Hollywood to improve the quality control of their scrips: there is no force in this world as strong and relentless as public opinion, and if they hope to change the way all those Twitter users talk about the movies, they must try their best, once again, to make truly entertaining and truly good movies.

Having in mind there are about 6 million users on Twitter every day, this leaves me in a very good mood. .

YouTube Wednesday with Retro Toons

On my last log, I told you a little about Fire and Ice. Along with a trailer for it, I'd like to tell you a little more in this YouTube Wednesday. I loved it when I was a kid: it's a cartoon about a group of heroes' struggle against an overlord who wants to cover the world in glaciers. Ralph Bashki directed and wrote it in 1983, a work somewhat different from his previous movies. See, Bashki worked especially in social comment before... batshit social comment. Hey Good-Lookin', debuting in 1982, was set in the 50's society, and Fritz the Cat, by far his most well-known piece, came out in 1972 and satirized all of the 60's decade. It was also the most disturbing thing I ever looked at after Meet the Feebles.

As for Fire and Ice, it has pretty awesome voice acting (anime dubbers of today, eat your heart out!) and had character and art conception by Frank Frazetta, one of the great fantasy illustrators out there especially as Ice Age stuff is concerned (he did Conan the Barbarian-inspired art), so it's worth a view. If you get the time, take a look at it.

'The Uninvited'

I have mentioned in the past that Americans suffer from a sort of trauma or syndrome which makes them unable to enjoy a decent movie unless it is spoken in their own language. After dwelling a while on this, I think there's a little more to this trauma (other than money, of course. Money is present in every instance). I think Americans must have some sort of problem with the Axis producing movies out of more or less original ideas when they've been adapting comics and cartoons into film for years now. As such, as soon as someone from that part of the world makes a decent, high-grossing movie, America is quick to do the same, or take the same concept and remake it. Envy does kill: the deformed incubus of this process is a lousy, unfinished-looking movie, with its corners cut so that one concept can easily be absorbed by the minds of a completely different culture from the one that spawned it. If not, take a look: Honogurai mizu no soko kara (2002) became Dark Waters (2005), Ju-On (2002) turned into The Grudge (2004), Chakushin ari (2003) was sent to the West as One Missed Call (2008), Ringu (1998) went The Ring (2002) and I'm only mentioning a few. And of the aforementioned, I only liked The Ring, both as standalone movie and remake.

Following in this tradition, The Uninvited, having dropped on my lap this very year, is a remake of a Korean movie called Tale of Two Sisters, which won several awards in Fantasporto 2003. I came to watch it when everyone else did, about two or three years later. I enjoyed Tale of Two Sisters, but it wasn't an epiphany. It's not like the first time I watched Ju-On and spent a week with nothing else in my head. It's not like being twelve, watching The Exorcist for the first time and instinctively knowing this is one of the movies that revolutionized the industry. But it was an interesting movie, with an ending twist I did not completely guess. It kept me amused and I'd sit through it again happily. If this had made my top 20 favorite movies, I might be angry as a crow at the idea of a remake. But as it is, I can't help but simply feel nauseated and annoyed.

So, much like Tale of Two Sisters, The Uninvited tells you the story of a teenage girl who has just returned home from a mental hospital after being convicted over grief for the death of her mother and attempted suicide. She comes home to her father, her sister and their evil stepmother, who used to be Mum's nurse. The problem is, our heroine can't remember the circumstances of her mother's death, and little by little it starts dawning on her, as the ghost of her mother keeps haunting her, that the stepmother might have had a little bit to do with that. Then you have a pretty shitty twist ending. Charles and Thomas Guard did this, their first theatrical movie (which is always a good bloody sign), with Emily Browning as Anna (psycho teenage haunting victim, and you also know her from Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events), Arielle Kebbel as Alex (her feisty sister who does a lousy job keeping up with her Korean counterpart, previously seen in The Grudge 2) and Elizabeth Banks as the stepmother Rachel Summers (seen very often in romantic comedies, which is also a good fuckin' sign!) I should warn you at this point that SPOILERS will haunt you if you keep reading from here on, so if you're yet to watch this and you don't like them, you know what to do.

(I also want to leave you a note that this movie should't be confused with 4 Inyong shiktak, a 2003 Korean flick which also came to the West under the name The Uninvited. What I'm reviewing here is the 2009 American version of Tale of Two Sisters, just so we're clear.)

First of all, the concept of hauntings is common to both Western and Eastern cultures. It may change slightly, but it's common (in Japan ghosts walk funny and make odd noises, and in Indonesia you have pocong which comes wrapped in its own shroud, we at this side of the globe seem to like unseen ghosts better - the poltergeist, for instance). I was sort of glad that The Uninvited decided to keep cultural visions of ghosts separate: in this, every ghost you see looks Western, no ladies in white crawling and doing odd noises for us. So, from here on, all we need is to transplant the concept and we're done, okay?

Nope. Seemingly, the premise behind the Korean version is also too complicated for American audiences. So they did take the best part of the concept away: trying to figure out when you have hallucinations and when you have ghosts. After my second watch of Tale of Two Sisters, I realized that this was slightly more complicated than it seemed at first. Since I knew what was coming - Soo-yeong has been dead all along and the stepmother might or might not have had an affair with Soo-mi's father, yet she definitely doesn't live in the house - Soo-mi might be hallucinating of her sister and the stepmother, or she might hallucinate about the stepmother and be haunted by her sister's ghost, or she might take up personas of both at different times (in the dinner party scene, Soo-mi obviously took up the persona of her stepmother), it's pretty open to interpretation. The movie does its best to subtly tell us that there are ghosts in the house, namely Soo-yeong and the girls' mother, since people other than Soo-mi see them and they can't all be hallucinating.

On their attempt to tone down the original story (or perhaps trying to complicate it to show some creativity, I'm not sure) screenwriters managed to make a split personality movie. What was the problem with keeping this movie about the four people who actually matter: the two girls, their father, and the stepmother? Instead, you get two misshaped subplots: one about Anna (playing Soo-mi's part) and a would-be boyfriend, which adds absolutely nothing to the situation and seems like an excuse to slide in two or three more spooky scenes that aren't all that spooky; and the huge - nay, humongous subplot about the murderous, identity-changing stepmother. In The Uninvited, the stepmother is pretty much real, and apparently, she does hold an affair with Anna's father, having moved in with him. What may or may not be real is the fact Anna gets haunted by a little girl and two boys who were murdered by her stepmother while she was destroying the life of another family before coming into Anna's. And by the end of the movie, we're hinted towards the "not guilty" - Anna was influenced to believe this by another patient in the mental hospital. So... what for?

One of the cool things in the Korean movie was that Soo-mi hated her stepmother for three reasons: thinking she was taking her mother's rightful place (since the stepmother pressured the father/helped commit the mother to a mental hospital and thus led the mother to commit suicide the very day she was supposed to be taken there) and harming Soo-yeong (since Soo-yeong tried to save her mother when she found her hanging in the closet and ended up suffocating when the closet came crashing down on her) but also transferring her own feelings of guilt (everyone heard the closet crashing and nobody bothered to see what was going on, and Soo-mi attempts to place all the guilt she feels for not checking on Soo-yeong into the stepmother persona). What you end up with is a very subtle and passive-aggressive hatred which, considering none of these people is actually present, sounds even more apeshit if you try to face all dialogs having in mind the only people there are Soo-mi and her father.

In the American version, Anna is the sole responsible for the accident that took her mother and sister's lives. No suicides, and the stepmother was actually having an affair with the father already. She attacks the stepmother all the same, but because of an imagined fear that she might be a murderer. The whole "murderer stepmother" subplot doesn't seem to fit well anywhere! The Uninvited ends up being more confusing and less interesting. Before, you had an easy-to-follow plotline that was highly subjective. Now, you have a pretty objective, one answer only, hard-to-keep-track-of plot!

Let me also sneak this in: what the fuck sort of unimaginative title is this? Oh, it matches the unimaginative poster like ugly shoes to an ugly purse. Right. I'm sorry.

From here on, you already know a movie cannot stand on its own legs if said legs are sound effects, special effects and acting. Especially this sort of sound effects (unimportant. Dramatic chords here and there, it would be just as bad if there was none), special effects (I see decomposed and deformed bodies are in again. Funny, I thought that had gone away with the 70's. Also, blue is the new "realistic", like brown in gaming) and acting. Let's face it: most actors in this are way out of their league. Kebbel is the only one that's ever been in a horror flick before, her part in Grudge 2 was minor, and even if The Uninvited asks for more presence, her part is still very small. Even if she did want to add up to the movie, there aren't many ways in which she could. Browning wasn't all bad, but again: this movie can't stand up on her alone.

Overall, it's a bad counterpart to Tale of Two Sisters. Watch that if you're looking for an hour's worth of entertainment, forget about The Uninvited and don't give a cent to watch this. It's one of those bland, flavorless and American-oriented flicks I find unimaginative and not really worth any money or time. I've lost the time up until now. Don't do the same!

'The Alphabet Killer'

People have realized a while ago that murderers are fascinating people. They have different modus operandi, different callings, some are spur of the moment people, some plan ahead, some stage their corpses in different ways, some eat them and some rape them, or all of the above if you're dealing with a true blue batshit psycho. Over the years, several movies have been made based on the life and times of different serial killers: about three or four different criminals were used for Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs and a whole (very boring) film depicted the way of the Zodiac killer. All of these usually have a small sentence at the bottom of their movie poster saying "Based on a True Story", so that we can go home a little more uneasy, knowing that somewhere at this very moment, someone is squashing a prostitute into a tub like an orange and bathing on the resulting gore with a rubber duckling.

The Alphabet Killer (2008) is a serial killer flick. The very tag line of this is also "Based on a true story", but you and I can't be fooled, especially after being told pearls such as The Exorcism of Emily Rose and A Beautiful Mind are also based on true stories. Perhaps a more correct way to put it would be "Ever So Slightly Based On True Stories Which We're Not Positive If Ever Really Happened In the Way We Portray". Still, after watching it, I must say I understand why that sentence was included in the advertising and at the beginning of the movie. It's an excuse, of course. It's the screenwriters and production saying that they can't help it if it's an 1h40 bore, because the story IS boring.

The plotline follows detective Megan Paige, played by Eliza Dushku... Paige is trying to catch a criminal known as Alphabet Killer... a guy who kills young girls with the same initials. You know: the first victim is Carla Castillo, then you have a Wendy Walsh, and then a Melissa Maestro... while this actually is based on a true story, it is the weakest MO for a killer I have ever heard about. On a weak attempt to make the story a little more interesting, we're given a subplot of detective Paige struggling with schizophrenia-slash-ESP so she is discredited, dramatic, suicidal and suffering from a bad case of the shakes. Long story short, she sees victim's ghosts. You will also see quite a few SPOILERS from here on forward, so if you actually want to take a look at this, stop reading before I start with the really heavy complaints.

The plot is already very limp. Apparently obvious clues that even the crew of TV's CSI could pick up (or their average audience members for that matter) are forsaken in favor of giving the impression that detective Megan Paige is a tortured genius of investigation. From the moment you have two or three victims with so much in common, including the church they go to, the movie should've been over: pattern is found, killer is found, end of story. Police departments are actually a little bit smarter than that. It baffles me how nobody else could find out that all three girls frequented the same church, so that detective Paige can do it at a point in the movie where pretty much everyone thinks she's a loon. I like to call this a manipulated plot: whoever wrote this loved Megan Paige and made up their whole story around her. They chose to have all other cops on this case apparently wanking around to give the impression she is actually the only officer who does some work around there. A work that ceases being recognized from the moment she starts going nuts.

Concerning the schizophrenia or ESP subplot... I can understand why it was put here. Schizophrenia and ESP have become increasingly popular in cinema on the past few years. With a weak plot built around an unsavory character, screenwritters wanted something that would spice up the story. It is obvious to me they were going for ESP, especially after the intro speech Paige gives off-screen at the beginning of the movie: in a case like this, everyone you want to talk to is dead. In the meantime, they decided to try and balance things towards schizophrenia, and failed miserably because the charade was killed on the first minute of screening. The ability to contact the dead, get driven mad by them and eventually being haunted by them forever and ever in the mental hospital should have perked up the story a little, make it more interesting, hide the very obvious ending twist... but it didn't. Audience is used to ESP on a story at this point, and they've seen it portrayed much better than it is here.

And what we have here, overall, is a poor use of a tried-and-true resource. This is not a whole movie made about ESP and ghosts, what matters here is the killer, and as such, ESP has to be used in moderation and at the right times. It should subtly lead our "heroine", provide hints perhaps, push her a little when she's about to give up on a particular lead. ESP in The Alphabet Killer was used as a way to get cheap thrills and descredit Paige (again - a manipulated plot). If indeed the ghosts of the victims wish Paige to solve the case, why do they pop at at the worst times, making her cower in fear and get locked up in a mental hospital?! What is the point of the whole church scene, other than scare the living lights out of Paige?! I mean, it's not even particularly imaginative: little girls, looking dead, black contact lenses, it's a wrap!

You can spot this killer about a mile away from a certain point in the movie, too. Always suspect a guy who shows up in a killer movie with the sole purpose of being the person closest to the lead actress and who has an apparently obvious reason NOT to be the killer. I usually do. There are no more good mysteries: it's usually the person who has obvious reasons not to be the killer, or someone cleared as a suspect at the beginning of the investigation. Eighty-five or so percent of what I've seen lately is like that. And, of course, since the real case has never been solved, the story cannot end well: Paige is finally locked up, tortured by the ghosts, and closes the movie saying that she must get out to catch the guy. Bullshit ending for a bullshit ending twist. Gee, the killer was the person the lead character trusted the most! I never saw that one coming!

The music is overdone for this movie. I feel like everyone thinks they're John Williams at this point. Effects, like I typed before, are sorta cheap. And now, ladies and gentlemen, my biggest complaint about this bloody thing. Brace yourselves. I am going to very much enjoy this, and I hope so will you: here comes.

Eliza Dushku is the biggest fuckin' flaw in this flick. There you go.

Before watching The Alphabet Killer, I decided to read some reviews. Disliking official newspaper and magazine reviews, I took to the Internet. The Internet is just as flawed, make no mistake, but people here seem to be less stiff about saying they wasted two hours of their time on Earth watching bullshit. I was frankly amazed at what I got: everyone kept writing that Eliza Dushku was the star of this. Eliza Dushku made the movie worthwhile. Eliza Dushku was amazing in this, and, quote, "soooooo pretty". All the while, I was asking myself: who the fuck is Eliza Dushku? After watching the movie (and already thinking Eliza Dushku sucked), her face did seem somewhat familiar, but I couldn't really put my finger on it. I once again took to the Internet and... oh fuck. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Angel. Tru Calling. The Unholy Trinity of Poorly Thought-of TV for Teens.

Turns out, Eliza Dushku was Faith in the first two, and lead actress of the last. That's from where I knew her: I actually watched the first few episodes of Tru Calling. She belongs to that generation of young actors nobody wanted to see outside of TV... or even inside it! Sarah Michelle Gellar, David Boreanaz, Jennifer Love Hewitt, you know what I mean. Unfortunately, all of them were already catapulted onto the big screen, and so was Eliza Dushku. And back me up here: they can barely pull acting skills to manage more or less comic teenage TV series, let alone a bloody movie! And The Alphabet Killer stands as the why. Dushku acts her part as if she was very conscious she is doing a shit character in a shit plot for a shit movie. Someone told her, on set, that she should do the face she did in Tru Calling whenever she had to run... constantly (I mean do the same face constantly, because she spent over half the airing time of the episodes acting as if she had explosive dhiarrea). No emotion, and the few she attempts to show (accompanied by close-ups, of course, so people can actually see the subtle changes in expression that aren't there) are so fake she would do best to use a Richard Nixon mask. She blows chunks!

(And she's not that pretty either, IMHO. I can do the same effect on my eyes if I take twenty minutes to apply my make-up.)

The movie is not worth watching. Plain and simple. Remember Room 6, which I reviewed a while back? I am tempted to put them together, although The Alphabet Killer is slightly more agreeable visually and has slightly better effects. But seriously now: not worth watching. Go watch a better serial killer movie. Go watch The Black House (2007). Go watch Voice of a Murderer (Geu nom moksori, 2007), that was nice too.

Summer Releases 2009

I find it most depressing to check out what movies I can look forward to during the Summer. It's a ritual I do on the first week of June almost every year, and every time I do, it seems to me like the movies get worse and worse.

2009 was no different: I sat down this afternoon and decided to check what was coming "to a movie theatre near you" (which is bullshit, because the nearest one is some 40 minutes away on public transportations and the one that was actually down the street from here now belongs to some Catholic variety of church) and... well, why don't we run through them together and I'll tell you the hows and whys, okay? Keep in mind I'm not saying these are all going to be shit: I am only telling you how they sound... in three months, we can check if they were actually as bad as all that.

- Land of the Lost (space-time vortex comedy for kids in which some deadbeat scientist, his smartass assistant and a redneck are sucked back in time so that dinosaurs are featured in the flick. Perhaps amusing if you're 10. Boring and unfunny at my age, and someone please shoot Will Ferrel. He should have never left MadTV)

-My Life in Ruins (romantic comedy, 'nuff said)

-The Hangover (flashback comedy in which three guys are trying to figure out how the fuck did they lose a friend during his own bachelor party, two days from his wedding... sounds like something on the lines of The 40-Year Old Virgin, do not want)

-Imagine That (comedy for the whole family with Eddie Murphy finding the answers to life in his would-be daughter's imaginary land. Eddie Murphy, by the way, is one of those guys I'd rather watch doing stand-up than family flicks. I've seen my share of his family flicks, having almost snored my way through most of them. If The Haunted Mansion wasn't the most boring shit I sat through in 2003, it wasn't very far from it. I don't really care for family flicks anyway, so this is out of my league)

-The Taking of Pelham 123 (action remake, 'nuff said - although the plot sounds rather nice. Some nutjobs take a whole subway train's worth of hostages and will shoot one every minute until the ransom is paid. Denzel Washington is in it, yay! So is John Travolta, eww!)

-Year One (caveman-ages comedy with Jack Black. Two lazy cavement are kicked out of their tribe and must fend for themselves... do I really want to watch this? I love Tenacious D and Jack Black has made me laugh in the past, quite often so, but... caveman-ages comedy? This sounds like some four or five other movies I've seen in the past: staged in ancient times for modern pun purpose...)

-The Proposal (romantic comedy with Sandra Bullock - enough fuckin' said!)

-Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (a sequel that seemingly will wreck whatever the first one had of good. I'm not even going to say why: watch the trailer and tell me if you think any differently. The first Transformers movie was swallowed with some difficulty - I'm pretty sure there is no mug of beer big enough to make me swallow this one)

-Public Enemies (gangster drama with Johnny Depp... seems to come in the same line of work as The Libertine and feature a similar acting style. Here's how I see Johnny Depp: he's very versatile, looks good on the big screen and is probably one of the biggest wackos in Hollywood, which is actually a good thing. There are movies starring him I loved... and then there are movies starring him that I hated, usually the romances. I found The Libertine a near 2-hour yawn... even if set in the crazy 20's, I don't think this will be much better. Still, Christian Bale is there too and Michael Mann produced Hancock and Heat, so I'm a little tempted to watch it)

-Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (the second was already lousy. This will probably not make it any better)

-I Love You Beth Cooper (aff... teenage romantic comedy... if you ever catch me watching one of these, you can stop the DVD because they're torturing me... sole exception being The Breakfast Club, which wasn't really much of a comedy and had very mild romance)

-Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Harry Potter again?! How many bloody novels are there?!)

-(500) Days of Summer ("an offbeat romantic comedy", said the plot, and I didn't want to read any further)

-Orphan (American horror movie based around a little girl, which I will most likely watch and then rant about. Nothing new here.)

-The Ugly Truth (romantic comedy, 'nuff said)

-Aliens in the Attic (sounds like a bad duplicate of Goonies to me, with a little Signs tossed in for good measure: OMG teenagers must save their community from aliens hiding in the attic! Fuck off...)

-Funny People (after I read about this comedy in which a comedian has a near-death experience, I yelled in horror for almost a full minute and came close to having a near-death experience too. I'm sorry, Adam Sandler has that effect on me)

-G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra (well, G.I. Joe fans, welcome to the horror we at other fandoms have lived in for several years now: your fandom will now be adapted into video for the delight of the masses who had never heard about it before. It's a screwed-up situation, isn't it?)

-When in Rome (romantic comedy set in Rome, 'nuff said)

-Julie & Julia (Meryl Streep? Might be go- oh wait, it's also a romantic comedy. 'Nuff said.)

-The Time Traveller's Wife (drama-romance about a guy who suffers from Chrono-Displacement Disorder and his wife... it sounds like The Butterfly Effect, which wasn't half bad, and despite Eric Bana being in it... I don't know. If the drama is not too snot-faced, tear-stricken and filled with overacting, it may actually be a half decent film. Or not... I decided to check what Chrono-Displacement Disorder is: it means he time-travels out of the bloody blue... damn this IS a copy of The Butterfly Effect! Plus, the original novel was written by a woman. How much money do you wanna bet that it's a blubbering drama?)

-The Post Grad Survival Guide (sexual situation-based comedy about a college grad who returns home and walks nose-first into the iron post of adult life along with a family of crazy stereotypes. Probably narrated in the first person. Unimaginative, seen it, boring ad infinitum)

-Inglorious Bastards (a movie about a mass collision of the French resistance, German officials and Americans soldiers in a Nazi-conquered France. It's described as a "war-action-comedy", and it's made by none other than Quentin "I'm-completely-fuckin'-apeshit" Tarantino. I usually like his movies, so I'll probably take a look, but I'm not setting my hopes up too high... it's a remake)

-The Boat That Rocked (a comedy about four radio DJ stereotypes set in the 60's... doesn't sound particularly interesting up first, but since it is an interesting decade for music, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. I didn't like the "rated R for sexual content" reference, those are usually comedies based on naked situations in front of important people, and those don't really... float my boat)

-Final Destination: Death Trip 3D (in the name of crow and all things sacred, another one?! Let me tell you something... as a horror movie enthusiast I've seen all three Final Destination, and I have this to say about them all: good concept, shitty actors, poor delivery. Now they're putting it in 3D, which is like adding a spoonful of battery acid to an already pretty acidic pot of bile. I don't think I'll be caught dead watching this one, even if I am saved from Death sometime during the end of August!)

'Cujo'

I wanna leave very clear here that I am not a fangirl. I have brushed (vigorously and with enthusiasm) on the border between fangirlism and keeping most of my braincells intact, and as such I have made it through 20 years of fandoms with only a few minor vocabulary quirks, a couple of strange (if awesome) hairdos and no tattoos of the Federation logo, Wolverine claw marks, Freddy Mercury's face, Dragon Ball #3, Triforce, Raistlin's eye or The One Ring. I do, however, like Stephen King's books a lot - which does not bar me from admitting the man managed to tap the key to primordial and irrational fears once, and has been tapping it so often for so long and with such strenght it's now stuck and melted down to bullshit. But I shall approach that in its own article, for now, let's get to the point.

I tend to look back at a time when Stephen King's books weren't bullshit and he still had the gift with love. The man could pick up a ride in the subway, arguably the most boring moment of your day, and make it so that you'd soil your pants just thinking about it without resorting to any of the existing clichés. It is because of this I love Cujo - it could happen to anyone whose balls Murphy decided to bust on a Monday.

So Cujo shows you the worst days of Donna Trenton and her son Tad's life. Which would be, locked inside a car for days in the peak of August while a rabid St. Bernard keeps close watch waiting for the moment to rip away a steak off their frail, soft bodies. Directed by Lewis Teague in 1983 (Lewis Teague being responsible for the very funny if Indiana Jonesque The Jewel of the Nile in 1985), it featured Dee Wallace (recently seen in Halloween's remake), Daniel Hugh Kelly (in its debut, although he would later show up in several TV series and Star Trek: Insurrection) and Danny Pintauro (as little Tad, being hired for the series Who's The Boss? afterwards. Also did anyone else find it odd his last name is "Pintauro" and the car he and his would-be mother get stuck in is a Pinto?)

From here on, as usual, rabid SPOILERS will be watching closely, so close this browser window if you have no interest in ruining movies for yourself.

I liked Cujo for several reasons, aside from the fact it is a situation likely to happen to anyone with industrial amounts of ill luck (like, for instance, me) and it having been made in the 80's, before the era of the CGI. It was beautifully made, making the best use of trained dogs and effectively explaining the setting in the first ten minutes without a single line of dialog: this is a huge dog who gets rabies and it's only a matter of time until something horrid happens. It is also a movie that, if made by Disney, would feature a series of close shots of the dog's eyes implying a "Kill Me" wish as if the dog was actually conscious in there somewhere and actually wanted to stop ripping throats off people. And probably a shot of its teenage owner crying as someone lifted a double barrel onto its poor, disease-altered nose. Which would be wrong, because that's not how rabies acts, and would turn an otherwise decent thriller into a tearful drama.

Instead, you get the fairly faithful picture of what a St. Bernard with rabies is like. It's a huge dog, a heavy dog that usually wouldn't harm a fly but which happens to be mad. Sure, it's not anyone's fault (but his asswipe owner's, who didn't give it proper shots, and the man dies - badabing), surely not the dog's, but this is hardly the time to pity it - it wants to kill you! This is a problem with modern day horror: it somehow wants to make you see situations from the threat's point of view. And I do, really. This is not an evil dog, it's a sick dog, but that doesn't alter the fact it wants me dead!

There is also a subplot-like story about Donna Trenton, our heroine du jour, who has a successful, loving husband and an adorable 4-year-old, but still decides to cheat. Her husband finds out about it as he is about to leave on business, and so they're in bad terms by the time she is faced with the dog. I still don't know how I feel about this, seeing as apparently she is cheating out of boredom (and I can empathize with doing stupid stuff because you're bored out of your bloody mind, but that's not the point). The point is: how does a tragic-romantic subplot fit in a story about a maddened dog? Normally, it wouldn't: this is about Donna, her son, the fact nobody will be around to miss them for a few days and the fact there's a rabid dog wanting to kill her. Unfortunately the novel version of Cujo is as easy to find in national territory as the Ark of the Covenant. So I don't know if there is more to this subplot than reinforcing the Trenton couple relationship by placing her in danger's way or leaving the impression that people who do bad things, like cheating, get bitten in the ass by karma. But still, it is a welcome break from normal Hollywood romantic subplots in which the protagonists live in the perfect, flawless marriage before the shit hits the fan on them. So it's something I usually dislike, but in comparison to the mainstream way of doing it, it actually becomes a colorful marshmallow in an otherwise undiscernible sea of bland toasted oats.

At this point I should probably bring out that this was made in the 80's and what we nowadays understand as "mainstream way of doing things" wasn't set in slabs of stone yet. Go 80's.

Subplot issues apart, the acting is pretty good from the leading cast, and the dialog is actually bearable. The only line I found offensive to my intelligence was that the dog's owner, shortly before dying at the jaws of his own pet, decides to clarify what's happening in case they're showing this movie to a retarded audience: "Cujo? Oh my God... you're rabid!" I could hear the cynical moviegoer in the back of my head clapping tediously and making me chuckle, facepalm and yell obscenities (not necessarily in this order), but I can let that one slide since the character's own irresponsability towards Cujo, who of course trusts his owner to take care of him, is repaid in full when he dies a gruesome death.

The soundtrack is as it should be: secondary. Nobody cares for the soundtrack of Cujo as they would for, say, Star Wars. It's a thriller, it doesn't need an epic soundtrack (Saw, I'm looking right at you: nice music, bad timing), it just needs something that will help with ambience from time to time and this is exactly what it does. I'm glad to see that at a point, not everybody in the movie making industry were complete dolts.

The golden scene in Cujo is delivered about midway through the movie. I find it absolute gold because I know the hand of Murphy when I see it, and I can see it so clearly in this scene that I was able to tell he chews on his fingernails. In this scene, Donna and her son are inside the Pinto, having driven it to a mechanic workshop in the middle of nowhere because it's in dire need of fixing. The car further proves it's a piece of crap by dying at the workshop door. Shortly after, the dog shows up, and the thriller per se begins: Donna is stranded inside a car in the peak of August with her infant son. After a while, she decides to check if the car will start after cooling off, and she is given a chance: the car actually starts! In this setting, any of us would get out of dodge without so much as a blink. But this is not what Donna does: instead, she turns the car around, looks at the St. Bernard like she's a nose hair away from flipping the bird at it, insulting its mother and blowing tailpipe smoke right up its nostrils, and utters a very smug "Fuck you, dog". Of course, Murphy doesn't like smug, so he decides to repay it: the car dies again, this time for good. For me, this is absolute, Murphy-made gold.

The worst scene would probably be a half-hearted attempt by a police officer to save Donna and her spawn. A single cop drives into the workshop and leaves the car to check out the surroundings. He would eventually spot Donna and her son inside the Pinto and help them. But of course Cujo, lost in the annals of hydrophobia, thinks otherwise, and charges for the police officer (dare I say, like a cop to the box of donuts?). So... you are an armed police officer and there's an INCOMING RABID ST. BERNARD, what do you do? Pull out old Mabel and shoot it before it reaches you would probably be your answer... but not this particular police officer's. Instead, he decides to run, and since Cujo is arguably in a better shape, the cavalry goes to smithereens before even realizing there was a problem.

In conclusion, it is a movie worth watching, it will keep you interested and it's well-executed, and probably one of the nicest adaptations of a Stephen King novel to movie, like The Shining or Carrie. It is also the man's favorite, that alone should say enough. If you're giving, say, Desperation or Rose Red a thought, I would advise you to check this first. It's much better, has much less pretention and it's from the time Stephen King wrote good novels and decent movies were made out of them (anyone who mentions Maximum Overdrive will be murdered horribly with gold clubs and gum).

Ten Tips For Picking Movies

#10 - Sequels are bad, mmmkay?
They are. They are! You don't believe me? Go watch any movie that has a 2 in front of the title and see if I'm wrong. Stand-alone is more likely to do good than a sequel, even if you enjoyed the original movie. And if you didn't watch the original, by crow do it before you try the sequel, lest a good movie be wrecked for you because it was turned into a franchise. Nobody in his right mind would watch any of The Exorcist if they missed the first. Because not only do they make little to no sense, they also suck.

There are, of course, a few exceptions which prove the rule. Sometimes, it's impossible to tell a story in one movie, so various are made: The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, the works. These are the good ones, they follow the story. Even so, you want to watch them in the right order, or you won't get shit about what's going on. Again, nobody watches The Empire Strikes Back before A New Hope. Another exception is, movies adapted from books which already have tried and true sequels: Aliens follows Alien in novel as well as in movie. I found every sequel to the original very decent, even if the first remains my favorite.

Now let's pick another movie with sequels, Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind... what did the sequels add to the original story? Nothing. Was it worth it? Nope. Was it as good or better than the original? No! What reason to watch it? Well unless you want to see Johnny Depp play a schizophrenic drunk pirate... (which is actually more appealing than it should be...)

You know a way to minimize damage when watching sequels? Take a whole day to watch the original and its sequels. If there are too many sequels, take a whole weekend. That way, maybe you can actually see some sense in it all. So if you're short on the time and/or the cash, forget taking up a sequel to something. Also keep in mind: the older a movie is, the less likely it is to suck.

#09 - Avoid remakes and adaptations.
Recently, Hollywood has been adapting a lot of stories from other media into motion pictures. Comic books seem to be a big favorite. Older or foreign movies are being redone too. Why? They're either out of really good ideas, or did it once and it worked way too well, bringing the box office an awesome profit, and dooming the process to constant repetition.

As remakes go, I think it's simply wrong. I find only two logical purposes for remaking an old or foreign movie. The first is that it draws attention to its original counterpart: you watch the remake, get curious, look up the original version and check it out. The second is, it caters to the American need to have every good movie spoken in their own language. You know, like the Spanish with porn.

There's nothing wrong with adapting an all-time favorite to the big screen. How do you think Batman made it all these years? The problem comes when they'll adapt everything... and make sequels out of them. The X-Men franchise was already pretty jaded to begin with. Now that they made movies out of it, they're gonna suck them for all they've got: you had three successful (more or less) movies, now they're gonna bother to make movies for isolated characters too. There are two (crappy) Hulk movies already! Why!? Seriously, in every feasible way, the first sucked on toes (except for Velvet Revolver's best song at the end) and we didn't need to try again to see it sucks. I doubt even Hulk fans considered those great movies. So unless you wanna see your childhood further raped or you, like me, masochistically enjoy having a will to gouge your eyes out with a spork, avoid them.

As for adaptations... stop being a pussy. Find the original version, get some subtitles if it's a foreigner and watch that, and then, if curiosity's too hard to resist, take a gander at the American version. You don't have to go very far: even the lousiest Ju-On movie was better than its Eastern counterpart. And they were made by the exact same director.

#08 - Distrust innovation in actor careers.
Some actors are multi-talented, and can on command do drama, action, comedy or horror. Some actors were made for one style alone, and fail horribly when they try to do something else. Actors, like all human beings, have wills and aspirations. Some of them have dreamed of doing, for instance, drama. But their debut was made in gangster movies and that's where they've stayed. They are free to go for their dream parts... unfortunately, they usually suck at their dream parts.

When you think of Robert De Niro, what comes to mind? Deer Hunter, right? Half-mad Vietnam veteran. Taxi Driver, yes? Completely mad cab driver. Raging Bull, okay, stubborn boxer. The Untouchables, very cool, biggest gangster of them all. Goodfellas, of course, a gangster again. Cape Fear, maniac. But try Hide and Seek... or Angel Heart... it will be very clear to you that he was not built for that sort of movie. De Niro actually played one of the worst incarnations of Satan I had ever seen.

So when you pick a genre, check the cast. If you know someone from another style, move on to the next title, because there are very good chances that is gonna suck. You wouldn't watch an action movie with Billy Crystal, would you?

#07 - Accept modern American movies will have bullshit.
Ah, bullshit. They feed you a healthy dose of it everyday, through every media available. It's no different in cinema. And if it's Hollywood, well, welcome to the Empire of Bullshit.

It is almost impossible to find a movie in which you get no bullshit whatsoever. When picking a movie, you must find a way to accept that it will have some bullshit. Like the jump Power Rangers style that allows our hero do come out of a gas explosion without a scratch. The impossible car chase. The scene that comes out of nowhere and adds nothing whatsoever to the movie. The hideous, unnecessary twist ending. You will get bullshit anyway - live with it. It is now a matter of deciding how much bullshit you can take and what bullshit is too far fetched for you to swallow. A carefully reading of plot on the back cover of the movie or the Internet can usually help you decide. But first, you must accept there is no such thing these days as a bullshit-less movie.

And it's not just the USA... bullshit, like air, seems to be everywhere. Independent films will feed you bullshit and excuse it as "creative" and "intellectual". The Asian movies will give you unexplained bullshit nobody understands (especially if Takashi Miike is within one hundred feet of the set). European movies will try to pass their bullshit as either "classy" or "we didn't have much of a budget". Me, I'd rather believe there is a purpose to bullshit other than "this is the best we could come up with", so I'm taking an Asian movie over a Hollywood feature any day.

#06 - Disbelieve the main awards.
I have a tendency to distrust any movie that got an Oscar for whichever feature. Because I have seen Oscar winning movies and actors go beyond the limits as crap is concerned. The usual standard for movies is... hideous. And if you have a line of movies which aren't worth their budget, and you must choose among them the one that is less of a crap... no matter how less of a crap it is, you're still gonna end up with crap.

Everyone toots about The Return of the King getting a shitload of Oscars, and I in no way say it was a bad movie... but look at what was running against it: Lost in Translation was one of the biggest flops of 2004. Master and Commander sucked. I think at this point everyone agrees all copies of Mystic River should be buried and forgotten along with Atari's E.T., and preferably in the same place... and did anyone even bother to watch Seabiscuit? Do you see where I'm getting? Suppose you decide to run a marathon and everyone running against you has a limp... of course you're probably going to win, but your victory is meaningless: you were running against a bunch of crippled people! No matter how good you are, you get a medal for simply having two functioning legs when all others don't!

You know what I'd like to see sometime? An Oscar Award ceremony where no prizes would be awarded. The jury would simply say all movies of the year were sub-standard and they refused to award prizes so as not to lower audience expectations. That would be good. That would force the people in Hollywood to actually put some serious effort into making good motion pictures.

An award means absolutely nothing. In fact, I have more fun checking out the nominee list of Fantasporto, no matter how bad it is, than I do checking out the winner list of the current year Oscars.

#05 - Disbelieve the ratings.
Never - and I mean ever - believe newspaper reviewers. Ever. Newspaper reviewers never say it like it is. These are people specifically paid to write good reviews. They write reviews by a model, guys! They start off by making a runthrough of the actors' and director's careers, give you the plot, the awards, and say they liked it... what about why this or that is good? You never read that! They never tell you why they liked it: they just say it's good. Unless they are forced to say something about the movie was bad. If they must say something's bad, they do so right in the beginning, and immediately tell you why they think it's good. Example: "Despite flawed, Pile of Crap is a movie which will keep you on the edge of your seat with incredible action, stunning effects and the fantastic talent of leading actor John Bullocks!" So you are actually told the movie is flawed (and for the newspaper reviewer to tell you it's flawed, its flaws are so big they're impossible to ignore) but after the first comma, they do everything possible to still get you to watch it.

Here's another trick: when they throw in a lot of meaningless and overly complicated, overly elaborated words to make a movie sound better than it is. Example: "Pile of Crap is a journey of self-learning, a turmoil of unleashed emotions, a mystifyingly deep and sensitive picture." You read that sentence and go, "Holy shit, I gotta watch this!", but... what exactly did they tell you? Can anyone tell me what exactly "a journey of self-learning" means? Because I've seen that particular sentence applied to countless movies, and I'm starting to believe it means, "I couldn't find anything good to say about this so I'm just going to write some meaningless philosophical crap here and hope moviegoers will attempt to find the meaning at the theatre." And what about "deep"? Newspaper reviewers love the word "deep". You know what "deep" means, in this context? Profound, thorough, intense, heartfelt. Now go watch Legally Blonde 2 and come tell me it is a profound, thorough, intense and heartfelt picture, because a lot of reviewers consider it a "deep" movie.

You want a more accurate picture of how a movie is? Wait two days after it comes out, and check forums at IMDb. It's just as flawed, opinion-wise - but at least, they'll give you specific reasons why they liked / didn't like a given motion picture. I find it more rewarding to read from a guy who got nothing out of it but a loss of 90 minutes of his life, than from a guy who gets paid to convince people to go watch something.

#04 - Be mindful of plot over cast and director.
Everyone is entitled to a mistake. If you usually like Francis Ford Coppola movies, his newest feature is likely to be of your enjoyment, but it may so happen that this time, Coppola went Crappola. This is why you don't watch every single movie a director makes. I like Zack Snyder a lot - but I have no doubt in my heart that at some point in his career, he will direct a movie which will make me go "What the fuck was he on?!" And I enjoy watching Christian Bale act, but oh crow, keep me away from the latest Terminator flick.

Good directors can sometimes pull the most horrible plots... and bad directors can wreck the best ideas. Just like a good actor can sometimes screw up a whole movie, or an unknown bloke can be the shining star of an otherwise crappy movie. Please, do not pick a movie just because your favorite's in it. Read the plot first. I can't tell you how many bad movies I could have easily avoided if I had ran my eyes over the plot on the back cover of the DVD. This is the order you want to check out a movie on: name first, plot afterwards, then director, cast and cover as a last resort. And you are only checking actors here because of #08. Remember: you watch a movie for the story. Watching your favorite actor butt-naked is bonus. And you don't need to watch a movie if your only goal is to watch Angelina Jolie's rack. The Internet's there for that.

#03 - Consider how to view it.
Some movies, you enjoy alone. Some are meant to be watched in a crowd. Some you want to watch with a few selected friends. And some are meant to be watched however the heck you want to watch them. Horror movies are easily enjoyed alone or with a group of friends, but lose a lot in a crowd that yells, giggles and makes a fuss. Comedies are meant to be watched in a group, unless you like getting your chuckles alone. Your girlfriend may not like martial arts movies, so you'll watch it with the guys.

The person you're with may wreck the movie for you. And I'm not even talking of chatterboxes who will talk about completely unrelated things while you're trying to watch a movie, or those who try to predict everything that's going to happen next and completely kill whatever surprise there was left. I'm not even talking about those guys who repeat character lines after they're spoken, or those who make you stop your DVD every ten minutes because they want a snack, need to go to the can, cellphone rang... nah. I'm talking about taking someone who liked Van Helsing to watch Eraserhead. I'm talking of gathering a group of squeaky girls to watch a horror movie you actually are interested in. I'm talking about taking ten guys to watch The Bridges of Madison County, arguably the most pussified film ever made. Even if I am to talk about the first few cases, you wouldn't take them to watch a movie you're really interested in, would you? You'd probably rather pick a movie you've watched before, or one where you don't mind the talking and the interrupting. On Brokeback Mountain, I actually welcome any pause we make... I hated that.

#02 - Consider where to view it.
I am a firm believer that consumers shouldn't have to pay for something they don't know if they'll like. In fact, I believe you should be allowed to check out magazines and comics before buying them. Not reading them end to end, but just checking them out. See if it's promising. If I like something, I don't mind paying the just price to own it. But without a previous show, well... The same happens with movies. That's why there's trailers: so you get a preview of how it'll be. But as we all know, trailers feature only the best parts, and at times, parts that aren't even in the whole thing. Trailers lie. You should be allowed to watch the first fifteen minutes of every movie for free: no bullshit, first fifteen minutes, and if you're interested, you'll pay to watch the rest. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen, which leads me to issue #02: not all movies are worth watching in a theatre.

When I was a little girl, I though there were only two types of movies worthy of theatre views: the ones that featured awesome landscapes, or the ones with super special effects. As I grew up, landscapes became less important and effects became all CGI, which were more enjoyable in a small TV because I couldn't see they were CGI as clearly. In time, it sank that any movie could be enjoyed in the theatre, provided it wasn't complete shit... but here's the problem: if you are watching a shit movie in theatre, it's a miserable experience. You can't pause it... you can't pick something else... and of course you can leave, but you're going to loathe the € 5.70 you paid to watch it for a good while. Your alternative to going through this sort of experience?

First, if you have any doubts about a movie, don't immediately choose to watch it in a theatre unless you're going for the company. I saw Boogeyman in a theatre for the company, but the movie is lousy and the time I spent sitting there was nothing short of Chinese water torture. There are plenty of options for you if you're not sure a movie will be good. Rent it. Borrow it. And, of course, steal it - if they were so interested in stopping piracy as they say they are, they'd allow us to watch the first fifteen minutes of any movie and stop feeding us bullshit trailers. You can find bootlegs so easily these days, and going to the movies is so expensive, you may actually prefer to gather some people at your place to watch it. And if the movie proves true, you can always go see it with better quality.

One more thing about moviegoing. There are two types of movies not worth your cash: 3D movies and IMAX features. 3D is yet another gimmick to get you to go to the movies, and it's not so awesome as people make believe it is. In the 80's maybe, but not at this point. As for IMAX features... here's my experience: loud, boring, unnecessary, eye-straining, once again, don't spend money on it. That is my personal advice.

#01 - Know your sources.
Reading about a movie before watching it is always a good idea. You know why? Because I once rented Alone in the Dark for the title only and only midway through it did I realize there was only one director who could've made that pile of crow: Ewe Boll.

Better than reading is talking to someone who watched it ahead of you. I hate it when I'm the first to watch a movie, because it's going in blindly. I don't mind at all that someone runs ahead and then tells me what they thought... provided, of course, they have some cred to their word. I know this guy that usually watches movies way before me, and we usually have similar opinions about movies. I trust him when he says it's good, and I trust him when he says it's crap. If I watch it afterwards or not (who am I kidding, I watch everything) is my choice. In movies as in dating, you sometimes need a wingman, a trusty partner who can scout ahead for you. If you trust each other's opinions, you may even choose to scout for each other, so that each of you only needs to watch half the shit you'd normally watch. My point: if you're asking an opinion about a movie, ask it from someone with some knowledge of the matter, and whom you know has an opinion more or less like yours. It is the best way to avoid crappy films.

My Complaints about 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine'

Alright folks. I went to the theatre a couple of hours ago to watch X-Men Origins: Wolverine... and I swear to crow I tried to be as open-minded and impartial as possible when judging it, because I've been in the business for a while now and I know this sort of adaptation is never done right. I tried to put aside my usual flaming. I tried to forget this was made by a director with no relevant previous experience, and written by two bozos: one responsible for Troy (2004) and the other for Swordfish (2001), movies respectively with too many characters for its length and a stupid ending twist. And I actually liked Swordfish, I just thought the ending was bullshit and anyone who hires John Travolta for anything at this point has taken one too many snorts of cocaine. I tried to forget that I have followed in the canuck's footsteps since I was six and know him almost as well as I do myself. Seriously. I tried.

But, as usual... there are things I just cannot forgive. Because they aren't logical, or because they mean character destruction. While I wasn't thinking of doing an organized review to the movie without seeing it at least once more, I did write a list of complaints while waiting for my bus back home. As such, here they are: be warned, they have a SPOILER laced skeleton. Here they are, the picky ones and the justified ones, in no particular order:

• Victor Creed (Sabretooth) is not Wolverine's brother. Marvel once made us believe they were father and son, respectively, but that's bullshit too. According to the versions made canon, they are half-nephew and half-uncle. Wolverine was a half-brother to Sabretooth's would-be father, Dog, as seen on Origin.
• Wolverine and Sabretooth were in the Spanish Civil War together and later on a special team along David North (Maverick) and John Wraith (codename Wraith, not Spectre). That's from where they know each other. There is no indication they'd ever met before that period.
  
• Wade Wilson was not part of the original team in which Wolverine and Sabretooth were featured. He was a regular joe dying of skin cancer in a medical research centre paralel to the Weapon X Project, where a fake healing factor was introduced to attempt to save him. He is not a mutant and after the healing factor was implanted on him, he became a mercenary rather than a soldier.
• Chris Bradley, a.k.a. Bolt, was also never in the aforementioned team. He was an X-Men for a brief period and is much younger than any of the people in that team. His powers include absorbing and channeling energy. He does not make electricity out of the blue. He did know Maverick and idolized him, but that was about it.
  
• The guy known as agent Zero is in fact Maverick. He is not Korean. Few have ever seen his face.
  
• The girl known as Kayla is a Blackfoot Indian called Silver Fox. In a fake memory implanted by the Weapon X Project, she and Wolverine had a relationship until she was murdered by Sabretooth. She never died, however, and later became leader of the Hydra. Her sister is not Emma Frost.
• Wolverine could tell a fake dead from a real dead easily through scent. He can tell a killing injury from a faked one, we've seen him do that. He would not buy near-dead Kayla: let's not forget heightened senses when it's convenient. Even if I want to believe he bought it due to stress and lack of experience, I can't: he's been in several wars, he knows the dead from the living!
  
• I have never seen accounts that Wolverine was in the war between North and South states. He was in both World Wars, the Spanish Civil War, (some say Cold War as well) Vietnam and several galactic conflicts. It feels like they tried to cram as many wars under his belt as possible. If someone, however, can point me in the direction of canon participation in this one so I can alter my resume, I'd be very thankful.
  
• Wolverine cannot in any way have a fear of flying. He belonged to a Canadian parachute division in WWII.
  
• Fred Dukes (Blob) never worked with Wolverine. He is a member of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, Mystique's and Magneto's troup of goons.
  
• At the time of the Weapon X Project, if Scott Summers was already alive, he was wearing diapers. Emma Frost cannot in any way be much older than him. And before she joined the X-Men, she was the White Queen of the Hellfire Club.
  
• The only thing that can cut a diamond is another diamond. Adamantium cannot be cut by adamantium, or Wolverine would be able to chop off his own claws at will. There is no way that bullet could even make a dent on Wolverine's skull - and check it out, precisely in the same place where Wolverine got shot in the first X-Men movie so the bullet could hit him! What are the odds?! That was the most half-assed way I could picture Wolverine losing his memory.
• Three Mile Isle that ain't. If something, it's Genosha. It's off the coast of Africa and not in the middle of America.
  
• What the fuck happens in this movie? Anyone freely walks in and out of everywhere, no guards, no problems... Wolverine walks inside the operation room where they are finishing up would-be Deadpool, and back out, nobody stops him? He walks right out the door after the adamantium is placed on his skeleton, nobody stops him either? Don't tell me the budget wasn't enough to hire a few fake soldiers or guards that could be photoshopped into hundreds... because canonly, when Wolverine left the Weapon X facility, he left a massacre behind...
• They also seem to have gotten lazy with the claw props. Because while in the first X-Men the claws looked real, in this they look like CGI. As do, in fact, half the shit we see. In X-Men, things were believable. Now check out the bathroom scene and tell me those look even belivably real to you.
  
• Wolverine has gone through a total of 2 canon memory repressions, that I know of (considering the Logan miniseries, three). One happened when he was about ten and he did it on his own to forget the death of his father and general bloodbath in the Howlett estate, as featured in Origin, after which he went by the name of Logan. This is not pictured in the movie. The second was arranged by the Weapon X Project. So I can see the second (a half-assed adaptation) but... where's the first?
• Logan only got the codename Wolverine after joining Department H and the Alpha Flight. It was also there he got his original costume. Before that, he was known as Weapon X.
  
• Anyone who takes the mouth out of Deadpool kills the character, and deserves to be shot with nerf down the throat until suffocation occurs.
  
• Deadpool brings his own katana swords from home. He doesn't pull them out of his arms a la Wolverine.
• Deadpool does not have murderous energy blasts from his eyes. In fact, even if he did, once he was dead, they would go off: your body shuts down seconds after the head is severed. One of the most stupid ways to destroy a green screen set I have ever seen.
  
• Deadpool does not teleport like John Wraith. The only powers Deadpool has is a very fast healing factor (implanted, not natural) and the ability to change his mind every 6 seconds (consequence of way too fast cell renewal). In the movie, he is called Deadpool because other mutant powers were "pooled" up on him. In the canon version, he is called Deadpool because he was the top man in the "cesspool": he made it out of deadly skin cancer to become the most annoying merc in existence. Could nobody come up with a better "final boss" for the movie? May I suggest Ferro? Scylla? Stryker? Or maybe stop trying to cram so much useless information, characters and storylines in one movie and get to what we came here to see? Fuck these screenwriters.
  
• Even if I want to place this movie with the X-Men trilogy as a separate setting from the Marvel universe, I cannot. Wolverine saved what would become the first members of the Charles Xavier School from the facility. So... did nobody mention they were released by a hairy, clawed mutant? None of those kids was in school to recognize him later on? If Xavier picked up Scott Summers inside, he didn't pick up or know of Wolverine's presence? How can he be a complete mystery on the first X-Men?
  

'Dead End'

Dead End is rather obscure. I've been looking for information regarding it and it's a pain in the crack. The directors are ghosts (pun obviously intended), the actors are hard to track and try as I might, I can't find the fuckin' theme song anywhere. Which is a pity, because I actually like it.

Here's what I found. Apparently two men, called Jean-Baptiste Andrea and Fabrice Canepa (I knew it couldn't be made by Americans...) both directed and wrote this, Andrea being a little more popular than his partner in crime and having also written and directed a movie called Big Nothing (2006). As actors are concerned, by far the most known is Ray Wise, playing Frank. You will recognize him from Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003), Good Night and Good Luck (2005), probably 24 (playing Vice President Hal Gardner), and the Western adaption of One Missed Call just last year. Plating the mother, Laura, you have Lin Shaye from Snakes on a (Motherfuckin') Plane. Mick Cain and Alexandra Holden are TV series actors, the Lady in White starred also in American Beauty (1999) and that's about it. This movie appears very early on any of their careers and apparently did a lot of good for them all. In fact, it won its directors several awards and a nomination in Fantasporto. I can see why: you look at this from a distance and you honestly think, like I did, it's gonna suck...

If you ever took a countryside trip somewhere during the night, you know it's spooky. It's miles and miles of trees, not one car in sight, no lights, nobody to help you if something happens. And if you're taking a trip, let's say, South, you know a good part of your way will be made in a straight line, in the middle of miles and miles of trees. It's spooky shit country. Scary stuff is begging to happen. And the USA, who have some of the most crowded cities in the world, and some of the greatest lengths of free woodland crossed by roads known to Man, is the perfect place for something like this to happen. Dead End is about a family on their usual yearly pilgrimage to Grandma's house for Christmas dinner. The father decides to take a shortcut through the countryside, and eventually the whole family finds itself trapped in a looping road, which seems to go nowhere, while a ghostly woman dressed in white and a black car seem to chase them about, killing one by one. At this point the movie is already pretty spoiled, so I'm gonna leave my usual SPOILERS alert here. Don't want to have this one wrecked for you? Don't read past the red. And this is the sort of movie that really spoils if you know the story.

What happens here is explained in the Tibetan Book of the Dead. This family is caught in a pre-death dream. They all doze off inside the car -including at one point the father, who is driving. The car crash they think they nearly had, they actually did have. And in the dream, they proceed to die one by one, presumably in a way representative of how they died in reality, and usually starting from the one who was killed faster (mauled into shit) onto the one who survived the longest (heart attack, we assume), up to the sole survivor. I liked how this was done, because not only this logical order was respected, but even the entities haunting the family in the woods have a meaning: the lady in white was in the car they hit, and the man in the black car was the one who reported the incident and called an ambulance for the sole survivor of the crash.

While actors are pretty much unknown, I did like the acting. A lot. A lot indeed, keep in mind this is the B-series, and we were taught not to expect much from that. All my five R go to Lin Shaye, who did one of the freakiest death scenes I had ever seen, and looked positively terrified (or insane) throughout the whole thing. The weakest actor, in my opinion, was actually the first to go. Cheers!

The sound is amazing. You hear all sorts of noises while the family is stranded in the road. Common woodland sounds, odd background music, strange stuff from everywhere... I mean, turn the lights off and the sound up and try it. It was one of the few movies I showed my family they watched in complete silence from the beginning to the end: no comments, no jokes. And, once again, this is a B-series. Went straight to video. I found it by sheer chance because, as you can see from the above picture, the cover is nothing special. Nothing that would've caught your interest up first. Reeker (2005) was much inferior and had a much more mysterious cover, in my humble opinion. So what happened here? How is it this managed to be awesome where others fail?

It went by everything I have been saying throughout the years. Good usage of a small budget: they can't show a lot of things because they don't have the cash for awesome special effects, they keep most stuff hidden. In fact, this is one of those movies where it doesn't make much sense that you see a lot of stuff. We're in the middle of nowhere and it's dark...

Then, not over-complicating the plot. You don't have the budget to manage a lot of things, so don't add a lot of things. A family, a car, two antagonists, one stretch of woodland road as scenery. They're going to their Grandma's, they get stuck, they die, small twist at the end (in fact, a twist within a twist, if you fast-forward the credits and see the small scene right after them), that's all. Nothing big. The creators realized that this wasn't supposed to be impressive. Nobody needed to get out of this movie commenting on the awesome effects or the actors they've seen here and there: the movie just had to be a good, run of the mill movie, and that's what they did.

Third pointer: if you got away with one good movie, don't make any sequels. Up until now, everything okay. I'm glad there's a movie that proves my theory that the bigger the budget, the bigger the chance to mess up. Dead End is easily downloadable and also rentable, so check it out.

Ten Romantic Comedy Plots That Suck

"If a movie can be described as a romantic comedy, you can usually find me next door playing pinball." ~ George Carlin

#10 - They were fine until the third leading actor arrived.
You all heard the saying, "Three's a crowd." Apparently this one follows the premise. You have a man and a woman who are madly in love, want to get together, marry and screw around, but there's someone in the middle who won't let them. It can be the mother-in-law, a stupid friend, the neighbor, someone who wants one of the ends of the couple bad, you name it, it's been done.

You know what bothers me about these? Why can't they just say "Fuck off"? Anywhere you are, whoever you are, if you found your significant other (your one true significant other, because love is never fake or a mistake in romantic comedies) would you let someone walk in and keep you when you're about to get some unless they're bleeding to death? If you found your true significant other, would you let someone, anyone, stop you from getting together with them, get married or even date? No! You'd say "Fuck off" and toss them out the window if they didn't comply soon enough!

But no. Because if that was so, the movie would end in half an hour. They'd introduce the lead cast, move them into a set with a window, have the first or second interruption happen, the meddling subject being tossed out, carried to the morgue, a happy wedding, the end. Instead, they grant you 90 to 120 minutes of rather unfunny problems, frustrating situations, dialog between actors on the subject that they just can't tell the idiot to fuck off for whatever reason and everyone finally and painfully reaching an understanding for a happy ending. The idiot ceases being an idiot and everything goes well. It is a complete flatline of a movie. It's 90 to 120 minutes of your life you can never get back and if you're renting or watching on the theater, 3 to 5 euros you can't get a refund on. Avoid them like the plague.

#09 - She is full of shit. He has a lot of patience.
This genre was founded and shaped by Sex and the City. Let me give you any episode of Sex and the City: four women hop around any available beds while the one telling you the story drives an audience and a man nuts by saying 'yes' to a relationship with him at the beginning of the episode and 'no' at the end, or vice-versa.

See #10 here. Guys... guys. Suppose a girl carries you on her palm for days, weeks and years. Unless you enjoy suffering, you will eventually let it sink, and tell her to go to Hell. The sad thing is that there are women who watch these movies and copy them into real life: they carry guys around for eons saying it will happen, and when they're about to take a bite off the cookie, the ladies pull it away and take everything back. I know people to whom this was done once, twice, three times, and they still chase after. For them I have three words to tell their women: "go", "to" and "Hell". But there is more. These movies are filled with bitches who should shut their piehole, and instead keep telling their indecisive friend one of two things: either that this isn't a good idea, or that they're fools to deny it. Usually you have at least one of each per movie, to add to the confusion.

And just try to understand that script like a sensible, intelligent person. The first time she says it's not possible because he's always busy. Then she goes back. Then she says it can't happen because she hasn't gone over her last boyfriend. She goes back again. Then she says it's not meant to be because she's confused, not sure this is what she wants. She goes back once more. By this time she runs out of excuses and just says it's over because it is. And of course, she will go back before the end of the bloody movie. Suppose you go watch this... it's like the movie is stuck in the same segment. She says yes, then no, then yes, then no, then yes! It is the most frustrating thing you'll ever see!

Sex and the City, respective creators and copycats, you know what? Go to Hell!

#08 - They were adapted from classics. The whole thing is literary murder.
Before my life was turned inside out, I was getting my degree in English literature. During it, before and after, I ran my eyes over several classics in that language. And Hollywood, as usual, wrecked it for me.

The Importance of Being Earnest. Taming of the Shrew. Both set in modern days and with new and improved dumbness. Are you fuckin' kidding me?! Cyrano de Bergerac, did they become mental or were born retarded?! I give that they were comedies and concerned romance to begin with. But you know what reasonable directors usually do when they decide to make adaptations of classic plays to the big screen? They set it in the proper time. You know what asshole directors do? They set it yesterday. But keep the speech as it was written originally! Who the fuck says "I come to wive it wealthily in Padua" today?! This isn't funny, or romantic. It's stupid.

For curiosity purposes and general deficiency as learning from mistakes is concerned, I have sat through dozens of these pictures. Some were romantic comedies, some were not. It makes no sense to adapt shit to modern days. Especially as romantic comedies go. First because it's adapting good plays to bad movies. That can hardly be avoided, though. Now along with having a ridiculous setting for its script, throw in: a 20-ish actor pretending to be older, with a great dentist who never combs his hair in the morning; a 30-ish actress pretending to be younger who couldn't be funny if she was dressed like a clown; a supporting cast the sort you find drinking in alleys; and a director who was given way too much artistic freedom. It is usually at movies like these I take a big bucket of popcorn along. I eat the popcorn while waiting to be sat, and then barf into the bucket throughout the movie.

#07 - One of them has some sort of issue. The other doesn't care.
You know, whoever gave soap opera screenwriters a dictionary, or the definition of the medical condition which causes someone to lose their memory partially or completely should be hanged upside down and beaten with bamboo swords. There is nothing screenwriters (soap operas' and romantic comedy's alike) love more than amnesia. Especially if hilarity ensues from said amnesia.

In several movies, amnesia plays a big part, especially in helping Adam Sandler get a chuckle or two. Americans finds cancer too serious, so that was not included. But it's not just that: it's a minor physical deficiency, it's trauma, stuff like obsessive-compulsive syndrome, having been hurt in the past (I reckon this is also borrowed from soap operas), you name it: as long as it won't kill you by the end of the movie or is so serious it'd cut the "comedy" part they want the movie to have, it's been done. The record is held by a movie called Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo (1999, and "male gigolo", by the way, is a very redundant expression) in which you have freak height, freak weight, Tourettes, blindness, insta-sleep syndrome and a missing limb. It's like a modern version of Freaks (1932) if it was ever adapted as a romantic comedy.

The message this is trying to transmit is that appearances don't matter, and that love surpasses all obstacles. What it really transmits is that minor quirks in your personality or looks will make you look like a freak in the eyes of society, undeserving of love until you find your Belle, who is perfect and completely ignores whatever problem you have. I don't know about you, but any guy who was still in denial about who I am and how I am after the first few dates would get the walk.

#06 - He is a loser. She is the prom queen. They both have stupid friends.
Romantic comedy set in college or highschool... most often aimed at teenagers and one of the greatest catalogs of stereotypes ever filmed. It's always the same: you have your preps, your jocks, ninety-seven girls called Stacy, Ashley or Amber, your gothic / punk / emo /metalhead crew (whatever's considered rad, worrisome and forbidden at the time) and of course, your nerds. If schools in USA are really all like this, America is more doomed to idiocy than I first thought.

The premise of this is another very old saying, slightly based off physics: opposites attract. So usually you have the will-be prom queen and doubtlessly prettiest girl in school, who dates either the king of all preps or the master jock. Said counterpart, of course, is a douchebag and treats her like shit, but she still dates him because "he is, like, totally handsome?" and they make a pretty pair. In walks the biggest loser in school, doubtlessly nerdiest guy in the lot, and all these people go through thick and thin, until she finally dumps her boyfriend and sticks with our would-be hero. Sometimes you have this adapted to adult years: pretty secretary who ends up dumping the company CEO for the reclusive computer programmer, attractive girl who chooses the loser over the winner. You get the drift.

So. Does it sound like bullshit yet or do I need to explain? These movies were created with the loser as target audience. To show that appearances don't matter, and it also doesn't matter if you're a mouth-breather and a social reclusive, love will find you anywhere you are. Which as you know, isn't true. Unless you go out and actively meet people, like the best part of us doesn't, you're gonna end up alone. Also, does anyone still identify with the people who appear on this, so that they can enjoy the movie? Is anyone like, or want to be like any of the characters featured in a movie like this one? Or is this another round-up of stereotypes without much sense? The screenwriter probably watched Grease one time too many.

And the friends these people have! Yes, because the attractive girl is never a source of the "comedy" half of the movie. And unless he is humiliated for some reason, neither is her boyfriend. The comedy comes from the nerd and his friends, or the jock's friends, both of which are dumb as bread. They're not just quirky or ridiculous, they are actually really stupid. Because at some point some of them will come up with schemes to join the two which are so far fetched they sound like they were made up in a Tom & Jerry episode, or one crowd will be humiliated by the other throughout the whole thing. Oh, did I mention there is a possibility both cliques will actually end up one huge batch of friends at the end? Get outta here...

#05 - One of them has an artful hobby. The other doesn't have a hint of talent.
When screenwriters need to make someone whimsical, or a free spirit, or plain "unique", they give them an Eastern religion, philosophy of life and/or an artful hobby. For some reason, it's usually the girl. In fact, if they want to make someone "unique", an artful hobby is involved somehow. It can be dancing, or painting, collages, sculpting, pottery, whatever. It can be fuckin' macramé, it's gonna be there. And it usually is the cornerstone of the whole plot: it's the one thing that will unite the couple and bring them together into loving bliss at the end of the movie. If she dances, he wants to learn how to dance. If she paints, he is absolutely breath-taken by what she paints and can't stand not meeting her. If she makes collages, they are not a boring as crow homage to her trip to the Dead Sea, they're the most stunning thing he ever saw (which shows he aims rather low and settles for very little, if you ask me). If she does macramé, he either wants to learn how to do it, or purchase everything she does out of it, even if it's just a bloody knot.

Now, ever since Dirty Dancing, this has been a staple in romance. There has to be something pretty to look at which will join the two characters in the same place at the same time. Dancing in particular is perfect, because it involves a lot of body activity which of course reminds the audience of sex: if they're not going at it, they're dancing. They can be doing both. Let me tell you something: people with hobbies may be more interesting because of what they put into it or what they get out of it... but they are not, in any way, "unique". Nobody is bloody "unique". Everyone identifies with someone or something else. If you had been absolutely devoid of any contact with any civilization or living things, you would be truly unique. That would be the only way in which you could. Otherwise, throughout your infancy and teenage years, you have been influenced by and relate to a thousand people, some you know, some you emulate. Giving someone an art-based hobby does not in any way make them "unique".

The comedy part of the deal comes when he tries to get closer by learning whatever it is she does. If it's dancing, he has two left feet. If it's painting, he couldn't hold a brush straight to save his life. If it's collages, he's gonna glue himself to the couch. If it's macramé, the first thing he does is an improvised finger trap. Stupid friends and on-again off-again stuff like in #09 may also be tossed in for good measure.

I'm gonna apologize in advance to anyone who finds a 90 minute celluloid about dancing or painting interesting. I think it's fuckin' boring. I don't feel particularly amazed by painting or dancing or macramé. A shitload of people do it. That's right: it's not so astonishing that someone knows how to tango, a lot of people go to schools specifically to learn how to tango, it's not awesome. It would be awesome if she could actually paint and do the tango at the same time. Do not lower the common standard! Also, if I was trying to teach someone how to dance and they kept stepping on my toes over and over, I wouldn't find it romantic in that "He is so lovably clumsy" way. I'd find it frustrating and painful. Overall, the artful stuff is just masking one of the other pointers in this list. They are the sour bread that goes with a bad meal.

#04 - He is a successful businessman. She doesn't speak a word of English.
Still on the school of love conquering all, apparently language barrier is not a problem either. And we're seeing this more and more as time goes by. Usually you have an American and someone else: Mexican, Spanish, Portuguese. The misconceptions that arise from the fact they don't speak the same language provide the comedy, and somehow, in a non-physical way, they fall in love. Eventually the non-English side of the couple tries to learn a bit of the language so they can contact with the other end of the deal, but no matter how hard she tries (did I mention it's also usually the girl?), she never manages to learn proper English in the movie.

Now... for those of us who do not believe in things such as the Sasquatch and love at first sight, this comes as odd. How do you fall in love (note that I am making a very clear distinction between "love" and "attraction") with someone you know jack about? You don't, right? Even as one-night stands are concerned, there's always some sort of topic of conversation: what's your sign, what do you do, do you like Italian food... anything! When someone finds a boyfriend abroad, they usually need to have contacted in any way in order for it to happen! I don't care if it's a language, a set of numbers which translates into a reality, mimic, Pictionary, Morse code, whatever! They must have known something about one another and in order to do this, they need to communicate! What do you see in these movies? They communicate via gestures, but only about unimportant issues. How in crow's name do these people fall in love when they can hardly ask in which side of the bed does the other person prefer to sleep?

Okay, so it's plain bullshit. It's a movie - it's fantasy, okay. But even fantasy has its limits. If it's not anchored to reality somehow, it can't happen. Did you see A Knight's Tale (2001)? Okay. Did you buy people in Medieval ages singing We Will Rock You? Of course not! There should be a horror movie based on this premise, in which two people who don't speak the same language meet, she falls in love with him, but he's a serial killer who preys on foreigners and has an intent to kill her instead... they tried to do something similar with Hostel, but fuck, even there, there was a common language! You need a common way to contact in order to have someone killed, but you don't need it to fall in love with them? C'mon!

#03 - One of them is married. The other begs to differ.
Adultery, plain and simple. Anyone who's been cheated knows these movies are shit. Apparently one end of the happy couple is married, but then falls in love with someone else. So what do they do? Do they sit down and have a calm conversation with their spouse about it and plan to try and leave the marriage on good therms? Of course not. That's not interesting plot-wise, and sadly, it's not what usually happens either. Instead, they cheat, and somehow either fall in love again with their spouse by the end of the movie or manage to get a divorce and settle everything up peacefully.

Settle everything peacefully? Get a second chance with the wife? Nah, fantasy's fantasy, but this is pushing it.

What's romantic here? This is not a story about two lovers going against all odds to stay together. There is very little romantic value to adultery, it's depressing: the one who cheats feels bad about cheating but does it anyway, the one who is partner to the crime feels worse because its counterpart won't leave the spouse, and the one being cheated on is plain sad. And while I like to see the circus catch on fire and find it frankly hilarious, assuming this is comedy you can actually laugh at instead of smirk, calling it funny is a really big stretch. You know, this is a movie that fails at all categories. It fails as romance, as comedy, it's not even half a decent drama... as I see it, adultery makes good plots for slasher films but that's about it.

And worse still, you have those in which the couple wants to cheat, but dares not. Still the married end won't leave the security of marital life. Blue Ball city. Most tedious.

#02 - One of them doesn't believe in love. The other begs to differ.
One of them says he doesn't believe in love. This may happen either because they've been disappointed in the past, or because they never did find love in the first place. And of course, eventually in walks the dreamy partner who will prove them wrong. We spend the whole movie seeing the usual stupid friends giving mixed opinions about the whole deal and our leading lady or gentleman being tossed to and fro by indecision: will he stick to his / her principles, or will he / she give in to the roaring passion? Damn, this is a hard one to guess.

Everyone is entitled to change opinions, but you know what? I'd like to watch a movie in which someone would decide it wasn't worth it. A movie in which she doesn't wanna see his socks in the same drawer as her pantyhose. One of those movies in which he decides her country CDs have no place with his rock albums. A movie in which either of them decides they don't wanna wash twice the dishes and twice the laundry. That would surprise me. I might enjoy that. I might give all that reflection and stupid friend advice a value if there were a couple of these movies to balance out the ones in which, of course, they decide they will compromise. As we are, you can tell this type of sucky plot from the first five minutes: she doesn't believe in love? In walks Prince Charming. He doesn't believe in love? The Princess should be just around the corner.

And what's with this bullshit of "not believing love"? Does anyone anywhere actually has no faith in love? Of course, after getting a disappointment or if they never got anything going their way, they'll say it. But I doubt anyone is willing to completely renounce love, money or the extra slice of pie. Watching this is like watching an addict trying to drop the smokes: they may say they don't want anything else to do with nicotine, they may even struggle to keep true to it, but as soon as the shit hits the fan, there we go: in comes the old pacifier.

Let me address this as well. Everyone is pretty in Hollywood, we all know that, unless the part specifically asks for someone plain. But why is it that in these movies, the side of the couple who begs to differ is always handsome? You know what it looks like? It looks like the other side is selling their principle for a set of abs or a pair of boobs. You guys, this is the 21st century. There is no need for a relationship in order to have sex... in fact, some prefer it that way! Renouncing love is the same as renouncing sex now? Apparently, yes, because if you watch this sort of movie, this is the idea the screenwriter gives you. What a pack of crow droppings.

#01 - He hates her. She hates him. They go at it like weasels.
And so we reach the final instance of our absolute suckage. It's like sticking your nose in a vacuum cleaner, that's how much it sucks. You've all see this, right? And it falls along with entry #06. Opposites attract: you will even hear it said in real life, that if two people absolutely hate each other, they are likely to end up together. So you are given a movie in which a man and a woman are competitive about something. They can work in the same place and want the same promotion. They can be neighbors who hate each other's music. Or two professionals of the same trade forced to work together by Destiny. Whatever it is, they get on each other's hair, and if they're not sleeping together mid-movie, you have yourself an unpredictable plot. By the end of the movie, they're getting married, and because this is a romantic comedy, they're gonna argue then as well, while the whole reception chuckles happily and the priest shakes his head in a patronizing way.

Whatever happened to enemies? Someone who can play all your keys in reverse and leave you seeing red? If you're murdered and the police asks your friends if you had any enemies, is there someone they can name? What happened to the bitch you hated in school? The guy who always made fun of your weight? Is it possible that true enemies were all copyrighted by horror movies and will end up dead in the first 20 minutes? Whatever happened to friendly rivalry? Or even plain rivalry? Something that gets you out of bed a little earlier in the morning. Whatever happened to saying that your rival may be hot but you wouldn't fuck him or her because you don't want any part in anything that gives him or her pleasure?

Alright, so if you're already thinking I'm an asshole because I like my violence, let's approach this from another angle, shall we? Whatever happened to admitting someone else is better at something that you (never existed) and stop making a fuss about it? Whatever happened to doing your job and minding your business and not giving a crap about the guy working next to you (also never happened)? Because let's face it: they may be great in bed, and they may be great in the one event that will make them realize they will work better together (which happens near the end of the movie, of course), but otherwise, they will attempt to top each other throughout the movie, way into the marriage and eventually compete about who files for a divorce first. The only sane way to watch this movie is in reverse: start with the wedding and show the slow deconstruction of a relationship.

Again, it's boring. It's like watching Death Note and assume L is sleeping with Light behind the scenes (control your joygasm, oh fanfic-writing fangirls). It's pointless. Why are they making all that noise, put them in a room with a bed and put the audience out of their misery! You know already that if a man and a woman hate each other, they will end up together... fast forward to the ending and save yourself time, it's not like it's impossible at this point... geez what a waste of a perfectly good film budget. The only good thing about it is that it only lasts for 90 minutes...