Chapter 24: The Increasingly Poor Decisions of the Viewing Public

Okay, let me go on a bit of a tangent if I may. With Battleship (2012) blitzkrieging every cineplex in the entire United States in a few days I have just one thing to say...well technically two things. The first is: really?! No really?!! The second thing I want to say is: why? This movie is no doubt going to be popular. Certainly popular enough to get back its bloated $200 million budget then perhaps a few million more to put in the coffers for the sequel. The reasoning behind its popularity will partially stem from its advertising campaign which is one of the best I've seen in a while for a movie that clearly looks like it was made by fifteen-year-old's. Still no PR person is putting a gun to your head so the blame for this new tent-pole explosion-gasm lays squarely with the viewing public.

Now there are people who will watch anything simply because they have nothing better to do and will gleefully shell out $10 for a mediocre movie. I'm not talking to those people. I'm talking to normal everyday people who don't live and breath popular culture. Those smart enough to get big-boy jobs, pay bills on time for the most part and like a good story no matter where it comes from. People who saw The Godfather (1972) and didn't think it sucked. Reasonable people who while looking at the movie poster or gleaming the trailer will say "that looks awful...but I'm still gonna see it anyway". Why?

Here are a few other excuses I know you have used in the past: "I'll have to bring along the family, I know insert thirteen-year-old boy name would want to see it." Don't have kids? How about "It looks so bad I just have to check it out." Sound familiar? There's also "Whatever man its gonna be stupid but its gonna be great too." Seriously why? Why do you to torture yourself? Why do you torture others...yes others.

We as Americans have such an individualistic streak that we often don't realize that our decisions effect others on a large scale. When you see ads telling you the amount of plastic bottles we throw away are enough to circumnavigate the globe six times, they aren't saying that because you have a stint on Jeopardy in an hour, they're saying it because the more bottles you buy, the more they make, the more they're wasted so buy a Brita filter already. Movies are kind of similar. By watching shitty movies, you're rewarding movie-makers with your money and you're encouraging them to make more shitty movies. If you stop watching them they'll stop making them.

And don't give me the excuse that quality is in the eye of the beholder and "its all subjective man". Yes to a large degree preference in film is subjective. Comedies are especially hard to gauge because they live or die based on whether you find them funny or not. But you can't sit here and tell me Transformers 2 (2009) made a lick of sense. No one can tell me G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) or Alice in Wonderland (2010) made any sense either. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, greyhound-bus-sized plot holes that flow against the logic created by the story, sloppy directing, writing and bad acting. Perfect storms of putrid crap.

I hate it whenever someone says "sometimes I just want to shut off my brain and watch something stupid." If you can think critically please do so if for no other reason than you have something to talk about later. What they're really saying is "I want to be a brainless consumer of mass media with little thought on its implications on me or others." No doubt after Battleship has gone through its run Candyland is going to get its own big screen adaptation followed by Life, Monopoly and, wait for it, a remake of Clue (1985).

What's you're favorite movie? Big film buffs and noted critics will throw 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or Citizen Kane (1941) at you, blah, blah, blah, but if you had to choose you'd make a semi-decent choice by critical standards likely without even knowing what critics say about it. Why? Because you're a reasonable and intelligent human being! Reasonable, intelligent people like you, me and nearly everyone you know don't have G.I. Joe on their top ten or even top 1,000. So why would you spend beaucoup bucks to watch the sequel to a movie you aren't that crazy about?

So here's my call to action, the next time you see a movie trailer or poster and you think to yourself "that looks dumb," don't watch it. If you're curious about it, wait until it comes out on DVD and Blu-Ray. By then the majority of the profits will go to whoever your video rental provider is and not the studios who have the power to make higher quality films but choose not to. On the flip-side those smaller odd looking films you think you might be interested in, don't wait for those to get out on video, watch them in theaters if you can. They may not have big explosions but in reality how many times have you seen a hero nearly escaping a giant fireball or a national monument being blown to smithereens? It's gotten to the point where it's no longer fun.

Now that I have gotten that tirade off my chest I can fill you in on my latest foray into the list of 100; the only films I'm allowed to watch. I decided to treat myself with a French thriller one of my movie-savvy friends put on there called Tell No One (2006). The plot concerns Dr. Alexandre Beck (Francois Cluzet) a pediatrician who tries to put his life back together after the brutal murder of his wife (Marie-Josee Cruze). Led to believe his wife may still be alive, Beck is chased by the police who suspect him of a string of recent murders and a mysterious group of henchmen who are framing him.

I hate trying to review titles like Tell No One. The strength of the movie is dependent on the twists and turns the plot makes yet its impossible to discuss them without ruining the movie for parties interested. I can throw adjectives like intricate, labyrinthine and byzantine at you but you really can't appreciate them without sitting down and watching the movie yourself. So what is a guy to do but discuss non-story elements.

The acting is topnotch; all the secondary players are convincing in their roles and Francois Cluzet does a fine job displaying competence and bewilderment in equal measure. I  personally think he looks a bit like Dustin Hoffman so during a lot of the chase sequences I was reminded of Marathon Man (1976) in a good way. For those of you who care, there's a fair amount of nudity which is stereotypical of modern French cinema. Its not entirely done for sexual thrills but its there in a matter-of-fact kind of way which is kind of refreshing. In American films there usually has to be a reason central to the plot for someone to be naked. Failing that, if its female nudity they're seen more as a symbol than an actual person. Male nudity...its an R-rated joke. French films however see nudity as a natural extension of the character's body not to be sensationalized or glorified. Its just there.

But I'm getting off point. The truth is Tell No One, to me, was entertaining, well made and an effective thriller in the form of Alfred Hitchcock. Do the plot twists eventually convince the movie's audience? Well like most things that happen in the movie industry, that's largely dependent on you the viewer.

Chapter 23: Not Coming to a Theater Near You

Over the past couple of days I have had many people come up to me with plenty of movie recommendations that, unfortunately I won't be able to see for a while. So many in fact, that I have had to start a list of movies to watch after I am finally done with this project. Rest assured that if I have heard of it, chances are I will watch it in my lifetime but after this whole thing is done and over with, the first few movies I will watch will be my choices and no one else will have a say.Out of the 100 I have to watch, I am proud to say have finished a slog of new movies from said list. Two were never released in theaters, two more were likely never released in theaters in the tri-county area and one is still in theaters though not at the same cineplex that's playing The Three Stooges (2012). They were Trust (2010), Black Dynamite (2009), Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011), Feast (2005) and...sigh...Zombie Strippers (2008).

I watched Salmon Fishing in the Yemen at the local art theater with my girlfriend. The theater itself is a local landmark which in addition to having movies also provides a midsize concert venue and even hosts its own film festival. Since my workplace has not brought Salmon Fishing to a theater near me, I figured I would either have to watch it in the next few days or wait for it to come out on DVD in the months to come. I've been to this particular theater before but I have never seen it as crowded as I did a few nights ago. I've been there a few times, sat in both of their screening rooms and never have I seen more than a few dozen people. It seemed the true life story of a determined sheik and British officials introducing salmon to Yemen was popular among the 55 to dead crowd. Seriously the entire theater except us looked like the cast of Cocoon (1985).

The movie itself was fun and heartwarming, the story stayed relatively true to the real events and Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt make for charming leads. I kind of wish that the love story between the two wasn't so phoned-in and obvious but by this point everyone has been so accustomed to perfunctory romance. The mood of the movie also seems to wade from helm to stern. during the first hour or so the inherit ridiculousness of such an undertaking provides many moments of genuine humor but as the next act opens and the characters' personal lives become the focal point, things become a little dull.

The side stories provide a little bit of upswing. Their is an assassination plot that provides a little bit of suspense and laughter and when Emily Blunt's boyfriend comes back from Afghanistan after being MIA for months, he provides a pretty interesting complication to the story; or would have, had his character not been treated so shabbily. Still Salmon Fishing in the Yemen ranks up there with one of the better movies I've seen this month.

Trust is a close second to Salmon Fishing. It's was one of those movies that featured some great performances, a solid story and sharp social commentary but you wouldn't want to watch again. The story centers around a young teen girl (Liana Liberato) who is seduced by a child predator and how she and her family (Clive Owen and Catherine Keener) deal with the trauma. If you were a training child psychologist, this movie would provide an excellent case study. If you know someone who has been the victim of such a terrible crime, this movie may provide a window into what they are going though. If you are the victim or the immediate family member of one, this movie will unnerve you its that convincing of a story. But if you're like me, a casual moviegoer that knows no one who has been the victim of sexual assault and pedophilia, the impact of the film is only at arms length.

Oddly enough this film reminded me of last years 50/50 (2011). It was for all purposes a great movie but at the end of the day who wants to watch a raunchy comedy about a man suffering with cancer? I can't tell you how many people I have unintentionally drawn away at the movie theater while trying to describe that film. Oliver Stone's World Trade Center (2006) and Paul Greengrass's United 93 (2006) are also cut from the same cloth. People come to see movies to be entertained not challenged or exposed to anything negative that exist outside their bubble. Does that mean Trust is a bad film? Absolutely not. I would go so far as to say its the best movie about its subject matter. Though I suppose that's not a ringing endorsement.

Black Dynamite on the other hand reminded me more of Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) and Hot Fuzz (2007). While trying to be a parody of old blaxploitation movies from the 70's like Shaft (1971) and Black Samurai (1977) it ends up playing much more like a true to life exploitation film; right down to the period detail and cinematography. With a good amount of T&A and a particularly over-the-top performance by Michael Jai White, Black Dynamite would have been incredible had it not been so meticulous in its approach. How can you make fun of a genre that already makes fun of itself? Granted I have only seen Super Fly (1972) and Darktown Strutters (1975) but when one is about cloning black leaders by a racist Colonel Sanders to subjugate black culture its not hard to imagine another true to form blaxploitation film where Richard Nixon hatches a plan to make black mens' members shrink.

Speaking of making mens' members shrink, Zombie Strippers. I saw that particularly rancid piece of gutter trash only yesterday and their are simply no words to describe its awfulness. I'm serious! I can go through the gambit: horrible, detestable, loathsome, revolting, abominable, inconceivable, no word exists in the English language that can accurately describe such a war crime against cinema. And I came in with no expectations. No positive ones at least. I don't know how the movie did it but it didn't even meet my exceedingly low expectations. If this movie was a food it be lutefisk with a side of brussel sprouts, if it were a real person it'd be Hitler and Stalin's love child, if it were a depth in the ocean only James Cameron would have seen it. This movie's complete polar opposite is the cure for cancer.But I digress, let me give you a description: After a crack team of soldiers kills a laboratory full of zombies, one manages to escape. He stumbles into a strip club and infects the ladies who develop an unquenchable bloodlust...and the need to strip. Realizing that his clientele have a ludicrous attraction to bloodied and decomposing body parts, the club owner (Robert Englund) decides to keep them around seemingly unaware of the problems they'll likely cause. I shit you not that's the plot.

Co-starring Jenna Jameson and a hodge-podge of who gives a flying fuck, this movie fails on all levels. Now by this point some of you may be saying "awesome, this movie sounds like its so bad its good!" Let me be clear; there is so bad its good, so bad its bad and then this. I would not recommend this to my worst enemies and I absolutely do not recommend it to you. This is Ark of the Covenant type shit; avoid with prejudice.

I actually watched it at a friend's house which was part of a double feature. We watched Zombie Strippers then after washing out our eyes, sat down and watched Feast, which was like watching The Godfather (1972) by comparison. If we have watched Citizen Kane (1941) afterwards my mind might have exploded. Feast isn't anything special to write home about. Its a gross, schlocky monster movie that failed to really scare but provided some intended and unintended laughter. So it was firmly in the so bad it was good category.

The plot is pretty simple. A group in a remote desert bar are terrorized by a bunch of horrible monsters. The film's only noteworthy features are 1. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon produced it as part of second season of their reality show Project Greenlight (2001-2002) and 2. There is an uncomfortable amount of monster seamen. I actually remember an episode of the show where Affleck and, I'm assuming director John Gulager were discussing how to avoid an NC-17 rating for the film while still incorporating a monster sex scene. This discussion involved a prototype monster-dong the size of which would make H.R. Giger blush. Needless to say the scene was 'tastefully' incorporated. The dong, at least the one portrayed on Project Greenlight was not.

38 movies out of the 100 are out of the way. That's more than a third in a month and a half. If the timing is just right, I'll be able to catch The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in theaters though its probably not going to be the first new film I'll watch. That spot is reserved for Guy Maddin's A Brand Upon the Brain (2006). Now for those of you who have never heard of the movie or the director, rest assured I am not surprised. I first came across the name when film critic Roger Ebert put his quasi-documentary My Winnipeg (2007) on his 'Top Ten list of 2007'.

The first movie I saw of Maddin's was Careful (1993) a film about a town who live in an avalanche prone valley and the secrets and lies the weave. Watching it on Netflix instant I knew then that this particular Canadian director had and infinitely creative mind. He's known for taking influences and camera/special effects techniques from early cinema and juxtaposing them with modern sensibilities. What results is a warped other-worldliness to his work, like coming across a time capsule from an alternate dimension. He's not for everyone, but by the time I got around to seeing a few of his films including My Winnipeg, I was hooked.

I'm also interested in catching up on some of the "classics" I have yet to see. While Event Horizon (1997) is something I'm marginally intrigued by, I still want to watch Tokyo Story (1953), The Rules of the Game (1939) and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948). Don't get me wrong, popular films everyone has seen like A League of Their Own (1992) and Glengarry, Glen Ross (1992) are on my short list but movies that are guaranteed not so suck will be a fine alternative to Feast II: Sloppy Seconds (2008). It'll be a much needed deprogramming so Super (2010) will have to wait.

Chapter 22: Sometimes Truth Isn't Stranger Than Fiction

My movie watching habits have begun to slow down as of late. Fourteen days into the month I have only seen seven films which is definitely not as far as I was this time in March. Looks like I'm going to have to step it up if I'm going to make it to the Dark Knight Rises in July. Unfortunately the easy-to-find movies are being weeded out of the herd too quickly leaving me with a lot of films I seriously can't find just to rent. Blackout (1978), My Life Without Me (2003), and Kids (1995) specifically are nearly impossible to find. Others like Yo-Yo Cop Girl (2006), Soul Plane (2004) and Get Carter (1971) need a Netflix snail-mail account for me to view them.

For the record, after asking list contributors for a mulligan on the last Twilight movie it seems the majority have decided to let me slide. For those who are unaware, I have asked friends and family for a list of 100 movies I have to watch and can't watch any new movies until they are viewed. Since the last Twitlight movie will be released in November, and banning me until then from watching new movies I want to watch would be torture, I asked if was okay for me to watch all 99 films instead. In exchange, I would not only go to the midnight premiere of the final movie, I would dress up larp-style for the occasion. And yes I will post pictures because life is too short to not have incredibly embarrassing pictures of yourself on the internet.Now on to the main event; the films I have seen recently Nowhere Boy (2009) and Ned Kelly (2003), both of which coincidentally are based on true events. Or are they? What makes for a good biographical epic anyway? Since watching movies is a visceral experience I'd like to think the best movies based on real events like Gandhi (1982) and Amadeus (1984) keep the spirit of the person or event intact. Small embellishments or endearing character traits can sometimes add to the story so long as they don't go overboard. Anyone remember Patch Adams (1998)? How about Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)? Two stories certainly worth telling that were dragged in the muck because of one two many tall tales.

Well, I didn't think it was possible but it seems it can work the other way around too. You can have too little embellishment, too little false characterizations and too little drama. Thus was the case of the 2009's look at John Lennon's adolescents Nowhere Boy. Now anyone who knows me knows I'm a pretty big admirer of The Beatles. Not big enough to own all their albums on vinyl but big enough to actually know which album is which. You could say in comparison to others in my generation who have never actually seen them live, I'm a fan. I say all this to put my opinion of Nowhere Boy in a context. You may be a bigger fan than I and loved the film in which case bully for you. I however found it dull.

John Lennon's early adolescence consisted of a broken household and a lost identity. Living with close relatives for most of his life, the young John meets his birth mother only after the death of his uncle. His aunt, of course is not a fan of them gallivanting around Liverpool when he should be doing his homework. Nor is she a fan of John starting a band with schoolmates for that matter. Things however reach their climax when John begins to put the puzzle together and confronts his mother with complex questions like "why did you leave me?" "who is my father?" and "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?"

Its all pretty heavy shit and if it were anyone else the story and its resolution would have worked, but this is John fucking Lennon! Seeing him breaking a washboard over a friends head in a drunken rage or wagging his pecker at school girls makes him look like a particularly unadjusted teenager not the symbol of love, peace and awesomeness I've pictured. I'm not saying he wasn't a total asshole in grade school, he likely was, but why is his broken home worth the biographic treatment? If anything it should consist of a very small part of a hero worshiping epic starring Michael Sheen and directed by James Manigold. Not the whole subject of a movie about a poor boy with an Oedipus complex starring the kid from Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging (2008).

At least Ned Kelly provided some name actors and and interesting storyline. The famed tale of an Australian outlaw who became a nationalistic symbol of pride for Irish Aussies. As the movie goes, Ned Kelly and his family (Heath Ledger) are abused by the English bobbies until an escalated incident forced him to go on the run with his brother and best friend (Orlando Bloom). As Ned and the boys rob banks to stay alive, their story and fair treatment to Australia's underclass make them virtual folk heroes.

It was a fair movie, and a competently made western but it just isn't memorable in the least. All the performances were so-so, the directing was nothing to write home about and besides a climax involving metal suits of armor, the story was once again unbefitting its subject matter.

Its worth noting that the first full-length movie ever, Ned Kelly and His Gang (1906) was about the exact same outlaw. This little nugget of information, more so than the movie got me thinking about some other supposed outlaws that live on in popular culture. Billy the Kid got the star treatment in a handful of films including Young Guns (1988) and 1973's Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid; Jesse James was portrayed in American Outlaws (2001) and The Assassination of Jesse James... (2007) and of course Butch Cassidy was the lead in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). All were portrayed as larger than life wild west figures who stole, cheated and killed only to be considered folk heroes hundred years later. They were also white men and cowboys so don't expect sympathetic portrayals of Mumia Abu-Jamal or Assata Shakur anytime soon.

Overall I was disappointed with this latest batch. Both were heavy on the historic details but light on truly unique and dramatic storytelling. Its a shame because both could have been outstanding pictures had more risks been taken. I guess truth isn't as strange as fiction.

Chapter 21: And I Said "What About Breakfast at Tiffany's"?

As a connoisseur of all things movies, Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) was probably one of the biggest and most embarrassing films that have remained unseen by me. Its not like I haven't had the chance to see it in the past. Blockbuster almost always has it in store under the "classics" section, Netflix has been streaming it online for god knows how long and TCM plays it a few times a year. This is in addition to a couple of friends who have it on DVD. So why haven't I gotten around to seeing it? Well part of the reason is because its a precursor to the modern chick-flick. I've never been a fan of the genre with the exception of Ghost (1990) and Titanic (1997). And even those movies can be classified in other ways: supernatural thriller and disaster film respectfully.

The largest reason why I never got around to seeing Breakfast at Tiffany's is Blake Edwards, the director and most overrated auteur of his time. Famous for the original Pink Panther franchise (1963-1993), Blake Edwards may have been considered talented when slipping on a banana peel was still funny but watching his brand of broad, genteel comedy today feels like the stale jokes grandpa used to make. Don't believe me, watch the "classic" A Shot in the Dark (1964) and see how it stacks up to say the worst Judd Apatow movie you can find. The only movie of his I marginally enjoyed was Micki + Maude (1984) about a bigamist who impregnates two different women.

But I digress. After all, Breakfast at Tiffany's isn't really a Blake Edwards movie, its an Audrey Hepburn movie. An actress who has had a much better track record as far as impressing me. My Fair Lady (1964), Charade (1963), Roman Holiday (1953) and my personal favorite Sabrina (1954) are all great movies I thoroughly enjoyed. Plus with a story originally penned by Truman Capote the film has a potential to at least be decent.

In a word it was a decent film, but there were things that really bothered me. The story surrounds a young lady (Hepburn) who flirts with high society and dreams of riches but lives in an empty apartment with a nameless cat. She meets Paul (George Peppard) who has just moved into the apartment building and instantly feels a connection with him. It's a swanky Manhattan romance with a fairytale feel throughout it.

Of course I can't really mention the film in full without mentioning Mickey Rooney's incredibly offensive Mr. Yunioshi caricature. Even for 1961 his portrayal of Holly's ornery Japanese neighbor had to have been incredibly offensive. Its even sadder when you consider putting a corn-fed honky in Asian prosthetics was actually quite common both before and after Breakfast at Tiffany's. White actors Peter Lorre and Warner Oland played offensive Asian stereotypes in the form of Mr. Moto (1937-1939) and Charlie Chan (1926-1942) respectively. Oland also played the original Dr. Fu Manchu (1929-1932) because Swedes so obviously look Asian. Even as late as 1976 Peter Sellers played Confucius quoting China-man detective Sidney Wang in Neil Simon's Murder by Death. With all this, people wonder why China's taking over.

But lets talk about the less offensive problems. George Peppard is so milquetoast and bland as Paul that he seems to be a spectator in his own love story. Every important development is taken with a disconnected shrug of the shoulders that when his affections are finally proclaimed they seem like the utterances of a petulant child who just woke up from a nap.

On the flip side of the coin, Hepburn does a decent job; her Holly Golightly character is charming enough for most audience members to ignore her obvious psychological problems. What psychological problems you ask? At one point she peeks into his apartment through the fire escape, crawls into his apartment interrogates him with a bunch of personal questions, sleeps in his bed then barges out after he asks her anything. Then through most of the movie she tries in vain to marry a rich sugar daddy despite the fact her little writer friend is so obviously falling in love with her.

I just don't see a very bright future for these people. I'm not saying people like Holly and Paul don't exist in real life, nor am I saying they aren't likeable or deserve happiness, I just don't see their relationship lasting past finding a cab in the rain. Even when the movie ends on a high note, I can imagine things falling apart within the next few minutes. They both come to the crushing realization that they're both unemployed and broke, her defense mechanisms will invariably come back online, he gets angry, she goes back to her apartment to find her child they failed to mention from the book and he grows some cojones and says "screw you I'm going to Disney World". Now that would be a more realistic ending.

But as it stands Breakfast at Tiffany's is a serviceable love story and a fine movie that I'm sure holds special meaning to some. People like my roommate, who find it to be one of the best romantic comedies of all time will no doubt think the same even after I have savaged it on this blog. Who am I to poo-poo it.

Chapter 20: Hey...Don't be a Dick

If movies have taught me anything its that crappy people will eventually get what's coming to them. Sure that lesson may not be true 100% of the time; or 50% of the time or 25%, and its not like you'll be around to see them get their comeuppance anyway, but if there is one lesson that is destructively reenforced through media and casually accepted by the public its that karma is real! And real it must be because how else could you explain the bankers responsible for the 2008 economic collapse being put in jail or Jersey Shore being cancelled after only one season...okay so maybe karma is a bunch of BS but wouldn't it be nice? I mean, if supervillains nearly always end up falling into a badly placed lava pit in their self-destructing volcano hideout it only makes sense the same thing happens when some dillweed is texting in a crowded movie theater.

The reality however is no, that guy who screamed at me over the condition of his fries at work then asked for an extra hotdog "for his time" is not going to fall into a helicopter blade anytime soon. Nor is the jerk who burned your fries for that matter. Chances are after you walk away that douche is going to keep on being a douche until they finally keel over; likely at a ripe old age, in the comfort of a hospital bed among caring friends and family. Meanwhile you'll likely get an ulcer from harboring animosity and amassing homicidal thoughts towards anyone who slights you. Believe me, I know its hard but sometimes you just have to let it go.

Speaking of getting exactly what you deserve and homicidal thoughts; Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)! It was only the latest movie to be crossed off the list and one of three movies I have seen in the past couple of days. The others were Run Silent Run Deep (1958) and Starman (1984) both of which were good. Run Silent Run Deep in particular was very well made considering it was released more than 50 years ago but Frankenstein is the film I want to discuss here.Now aside from Young Frankenstein (1974), I have never actually seen a movie based on the titular doctor. I have never seen the 1931 Boris Karloff version nor Andy Warhol's 1973 adaptation. In fact, I have never even read the novel. Yet the mythos of the character is so ingrained in our culture that the story is known by almost all. Dr. Frankenstein, a gifted but brash scientist digs up an assemblage of body parts and reanimates them to create a monster he regrets.

In this adaptation, The story is told by Dr. Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) to Captain Walton (Aidan Quinn), a man looking to make a name for himself by reaching the North Pole. Frankenstein's major impetus for creating life after death stems from the death of his mother giving birth to his younger brother and his major love interest is his adopted sister Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter). My guess is family is important to him.

While in medical school he befriends a young medical student named Henry (Tom Hulce) and professor Waldman (John Cleese) with similar fascinations with "alternative medicine". Waldman warns Frankenstein not to venture further down the rabbit-hole but of course he does and nearly dies of exhaustion attempting to bring his experiments to reality. Once the monster (Robert De Niro) is brought to life, the doctor balks at his experiment and immediately regrets everything he has worked for. The monster however wonders away carrying with it the doctor's journal so naturally the only logical thing to do would be to just forget all about it.

Naturally, as with virtually all movies, the bad guy gets his just desserts and we all learn an important lesson on the folly of scientific exploration and achievement. You heard me, the folly of scientific exploration; because progress is an incredible evil that must be stopped or else risk unleashing horrible monsters that will inherit the earth. Its not like Frankenstein could have done a few things differently like have a protocol for destroying the monster then studying it to find where he went wrong. Or failing that he could have always locked the door to make sure his monster doesn't escape.

Not that anything really went wrong to begin with. The monster was capable of cognitive thought and motor skills, could speak, read, write and play the flute. It didn't perform "Puttin' On the Ritz" but had the song been around in the 1700's I bet he could sing it. Additionally, at the beginning of his second life, he was capable of kindness, mercy, and sympathy. The only bad thing about the monster was his ugly mug. For that reason the good doctor gave up on his project, lamented over what a terrible thing he has done and collapsed sobbing on his pillow like a girl who wasn't asked to the prom. Question: You made your creature out of random decaying body parts, did you expect it to look like Megan Fox?The rest of the story follows the monster who wonders around for a while before he begins to plot his revenge against the doctor with relentless flair. Frankenstein meanwhile gets caught up in period-piece melodrama complete with lavish sets, high society gatherings and Ian Holm. Eventually things turn tragic then just plain gory and at the end of the tale, Captain Walton turns his ship around so he may live to be brazen another day.

To be fair the main message of Frankenstein has been around for ages. The Matrix and Terminator imagine worlds where our hubris creates machines that take over the world. A much better (and underrated) adaptation of the story, Splice (2009) involves a similar creation who is begotten by two impertinent scientists who look to achieve practical purposes like curing disease. Conquering death does have its practical purposes I guess but hypothesizing "in order to cure death we must create life," is like saying in order to stop war we need to build better weapons. Furthermore the psychology of the creature and the scientists involved are important factors in the decision making processes in Splice. Frankenstein leaves many of those nuances unexplored leaving you with a good looking movie that seems too frazzled to be impacting.

Honestly I think the dangers of technological and biological advancement are far outweighed by their benefits and if you read a little deeper into movies like Frankenstein you would realize that the lesson isn't necessarily technology is bad but that hubris, if left unchecked can destroy all the inherent benefits of any scientific discovery. In other words, don't be a dick.

Chapter 19: Twitlight - Breaking Wind (Part 2)

Twas the first of April which, for many, if not most of you is nothing but another day. For my family and I however, its kind of like a second Christmas or Black Friday depending on whether you're the butt of the joke. Yes, April Fools Day is a big deal in my family at least since I was a little boy and was scarred for life when my dad woke me up to tell me I was going to the doctors to get my shots. Since then, his pranks have gotten a lot more elaborate with such classic chestnuts like faking a major illness, faking the hospitalization of my mother and my personal favorite, stealing my car so I would be late for work. You'd think all this tomfoolery would anger me but instead of playing the victim I simply remember the immortal words on my family crest "don't get mad get even." At least that's what I think it says, it's all in German.

This year I think I may have topped myself. Last year I crept into their garage after dark and reprogrammed my parent's GPS so it only spoke French. It took them a while to figure it out since, while they try to be tech savvy, they're still AARP members. This year Danni and I snuck into the garage once more, this time with bags of party balloons and vials of glitter. Our mission; fill the balloons with glitter and fill both my mom and dad's cars to the brim with the inflated party favors. It took hours and by the end we were both very dizzy. Additionally, Danni informed me she had a slight allergy to latex so at the end of three hours she looked like Goldie Hawn, But we did it!

They exacted their revenge by turning off my cellphone service which I found out only after trying to return from break at work. This inconvenience left me locked out of the movie theater until a customer opened the back door letting me in. Danni, who is also on my parent's plan was also without communication. When I called to tell my parents "well played," my dad told me the intent was to switch numbers on us which actually would have been quite clever. Many of my more cell-dependent friends later asked if my parents hated me.

Fate also exacted its revenge in the form of Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011). One of my roommate's co-workers had a copy and since I am a quarter of the way to my goal, I thought why not celebrate a little. For those who actually read and follow this trite little nook of cyber-litter, you may remember the drinking game we played last time we visited the lives of Bella, Edward and Jacob (Chapter 5). Not wanting to change tradition we uncorked a few bottles of Arbor Mist and let our hair down.

For those who forgot or don't know the rules they are as follows.
Take a shot/sip when...
1. Someone says the word vampire or wolf or any variation including "newborns".
2. Whenever someone sparkles.
3. When the father appears in police uniform.
4. Whenever someone is brooding.
5. Whenever an obnoxious hipster indie song is being played in the background.
6. Whenever someone doesn't have his shirt on.
7. Whenever someone gives an unrealistically generous gift, does a foolishly gallant act or otherwise bends the rules of common sense for Bella.

Drink the rest of the bottle when...
1. Someone unattractive or out of shape is on screen.
2. Something in a scene makes you feel anything other than sleepiness or the need to plant your face in your hands.

Unfortunately rule #3 didn't apply in Breaking Dawn Part 1. While the dad was present, and was surprisingly accepting of his eighteen-year-old daughter marrying her pasty faced boyfriend, he was not that important to the plot. What is important to the plot is Edward and Bella take the plunge so she can become a vampire like she's always wanted. Jacob pisses and moans, and Bella has unprotected sex while still human resulting in her mutant baby trying to eat its way out of her womb. You know, true love and all that good stuff.My roommate, whose expertise on Twilight I value as much as one reasonably can, filled in some of the holes that went unexplained or glossed over in the flick. Why can't they just turn her into a vampire while pregnant? Because it would kill the baby. Why is the act of sex with a vampire while human potentially deadly? Because their skins as hard as diamonds and they're super strong. How can these vampires live for eons amassing enough money to afford a private island off the coast of Brazil without the IRS at least knowing about it? And for that matter why would vampires want a vacation home in sunny Rio anyway? Just shut up and watch the movie!

Amy did bring up an interesting notion that was not explained in the movie nor, she believes, explained in the book. How can they even have sex? Vampires have no pulse so they have no blood actually coursing through their veins. It only stands to reason that Edward can't get his little Dracula to stand at attention. So Bella is waiting to be turned, just so she can have human carnal knowledge of a cold corpse with a flaccid iditarod. Perhaps if you're being turned into a bloodsucker while you're performing (its been known to happen in vampire movies) then you'd have a fully erect projectile for always and forever but that would be a very inconvenient case of rigamortis. You'd never be able to wear mesh shorts, birds would always want to perch on you and all your vampire friends would always call you Vlad the Impaler. But on the positive side you'd actually achieve every pubescent boy's deep seeded fantasy; you could use you're dingus as a weapon!

Of course its all fun and games until someone gets pregnant. That's why its important kids, to make and keep important commitments to your loved ones. In this case, commit to spending the rest of eternity with a manipulative Gothic horror monster before getting jiggy with it or else be forced to drink O- slurpees while your ribcage and spine breaks from the force of your bloodthirsty monster child. By the way, the baby's name is Renesmee a mix of Bella's mother's name and the punchline of a cruel practical joke. The newborn is also imprinted by Jacob which is a way for a werewolf to leave his marking that disappointingly doesn't involve rising his hind legs.

In the end, Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a vapid, stupid, glacierly paced movie with very little going for it other than the welcome sight of Bella withering away. So its a substantial improvement from the rest of the series. I actually look forward to the next and hopefully final chapter in the franchise. Maybe if I get liquored up before the premiere (or during), I would only remember the good parts, like the credits.