Theatrical Review: Skyfall

SKYFALL
2012
Rated PG-13
"Mommy was very bad."

I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of James Bond. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's nothing to the franchise. The iconography is peerless, the tradition legendary, and if there is a single person on earth who can order a vodka martini, "Shaken, not stirred," without feeling like a poseur, I've never met them. Still, as much cultural significance as the films have had, they always seemed kind of corny.

Until, that is, Mr. Daniel Craig took over.

The first time I saw it, I openly declared - much to the horror of many friends and family members - that Casino Royale was not only the best Bond movie, but that Daniel Craig blew even the much revered Sean Connery off the screen. And, despite its many detractors and its chronic case of weak villainy, I still think that - if only for its tone - Quantum of Solace is better than at least 90% of the rest of Mr. Bond's outings. The shift away from the wink-wink, nudge-nudge silliness that had positively strangled the franchise since even before Connery called it quits was such a breath of fresh air that, for the first time in my life, I found myself eagerly awaiting a new James Bond film.

Expectations, as it turns out, were a tad too high.

I had my first inklings the first time I heard Skyfall's eponymous theme song on the radio. Now, I love Adele - I have probably listened to her album 21 at least that many times - so I don't want you to think my dislike of this song stems from some stylistic grudge I bear her. The problem here is that naming the theme song after the movie is a nod back to the bad-old-days of Bond, to songs like Duran Duran's "A View to a Kill" (Gah!), Tina Turner's "Goldeneye" (Gah!), and Madonna's "Die Another Day" (Double-Gah!). It represents a step backward to a time which I had dearly hoped lay buried in the past, never to be resurrected.

Sadly, I hoped in vain.

Now let me qualify. I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think Skyfall is a bad movie. It certainly isn't the shameless type of snark-and-schlockfest that the Brosnan Bonds had devolved into by the end. It's just that it's a little too wink-wink, nudge-nudge for my taste.

My biggest complaint is that there is a way to tell a story that goes back to Bond's roots, and this isn't it. The implication here is that - despite the fact that Bond only earned his 00s two films back - he's been doing this forever, and indeed the filmmakers imply that all of the Bond movies happened some time between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. It just doesn't make sense within the rebooted storyline unless you do some serious mental gymnastics. (CLICK HERE for some of the best I've ever seen.) But even if you can pull that off, once we get the winking reveal that Naomie Harris's character makes at the end, the chronology falls apart again. It's just sloppy storytelling for the sake of fan-service, and I simply cannon support that philosophically.

But like I said, it isn't all bad. Despite all of the self indulgent wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more-ing on display, there is still some great action to enjoy here. Also, as anyone who's followed the franchise for any amount of time knows, a great villain covers a multitude of sins, and here we have a truly great villain.

Javier Bardem's demonically affable Raoul Silva may be the greatest Bond villain of all time, and I don't say that lightly. While I have never been a huge Bond fan, Bond villains are among the best in the business of being evil, and Bardem's pitch-perfect performance aside, Silva is complex, well written, and - even at his most diabolical - disturbingly sympathetic character. I'm sure that I will rewatch this movie many times if only to see him strut.

So, despite all my complaints and reservations about 007's future, I liked the movie. Though shameless fan-service and backtracking to the cutesy cleverness of Old Bond kept me from enjoying it wholeheartedly, Bardem's performance and director Sam Mendes's steady hand both manage to make it worth revisiting, even if it isn't up to the standard set by Casino Royale. Still, the film ends with a title card reading, "James Bond will return!" If the drop-off in quality from Casino Royale to this is any indicator of future trends, perhaps it would be best if the filmmakers don't keep that particular promise.

8/10

-GABE

Thanks for riding along! Be sure to leave a comment, question, or suggestion for a future review down below, and click on our banner (also below) to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, and subscribe to the channel so you don't miss future videos! You can also CLICK HERE to go to our Facebook page, or HERE to go to our Twitter page, both of which will ensure that you're updated whenever we upload a new video or post something new to the blog! Hop in, buckle up, and show your support!

DVD Review: Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III

LEATHERFACE: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III
1990
Rated R
"There's roadkill all over Texas."

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn't my favorite movie, but it's one of the few I consider to be perfect. The movie's scope and execution is so pure that I can't help standing in awe every time I watch it, so much so that just writing about it here makes me want to go watch it again. That being the case, I had it in mind to review all four of the original Texas Chainsaw movies during 31 Days Of Fright. Sadly, being a family man and having a full time job, I just couldn't find the time to pull off a six hour marathon of screams, saws, cannibalism, and cross-dressing, and for some strange reason my wife didn't think it would make a good family movie-night event. Go figure.

Still, I hadn't yet seen the third installment in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre "series" - I put it in quotation marks because, for the life of me, I can't seem to find the logical chain of events that connects the third and fourth films to the first two - and I had shelled out four hard-earned dollars to buy it, so I decided to give it its own review, shorn of prequels and sequels. Considering its position within a "series," this might not be appropriate, but watching it as a standalone movie might actually have put it in the best possible light.

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III - despite the claims of its theatrical trailer - isn't where the real terror begins. That's not to say it isn't scary. The movie definitely has its share of chills and jumps, but few movies can compare to the sheer horror of the first film. I'm sorry to have to say it, but this movie is not among them.

If the filmmakers had just called the movie Leatherface, and left off the subtitle, I would have said that this was the first (and least) remake of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The plot is basically the same, though there are decidedly fewer victims lined up at the get-go, and the film adds nothing - apart from a rather flashy new chainsaw - to the mythology of Leatherface and his twisted family. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but it's a step backwards. Though decidedly nowhere near as good as the first, at least The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 had the virtue of going to new places and trying new things. This one is basically just more of the same, only not as well done.

It was neat to see Viggo Mortensen (The Lord of the Rings) as the sadistic ladies man "Tex," and Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead) in the stereotype-shattering role of a gun-wielding survivalist. Sadly, Ken's is the only character here who manages to dodge the stereotype bullet. I won't spoil the ending (though, if you watch it on DVD, the menu spoils it for you), but despite the "Don't mess with Texas" slogans that bookend the movie, it seems like this is exactly what the filmmakers were trying to do. As I ejected the disc, I couldn't help feeling that the writer and/or the director were taking great pains to lump an entire state in with Leatherface and his creepy relatives; as if all of Texas was one big, inbred family working to cover up a great cannibalistic conspiracy. Much like a kiss from Leatherface, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

In the end, I didn't dislike the movie. I just felt that it seemed like a very thinly veiled attack on an entire state, and that it didn't hold up very well as a successor to the Texas Chainsaw dynasty. Taken on its own, it's okay, but if you're looking for some real scares, go back to the original. The saw may be family, but this member of the family is showing some recessive traits.



6/10

-GABE

Theatrical Trailer:

Thanks for riding along! Be sure to leave a comment, question, or suggestion for a future review down below, and click on our banner (also below) to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, and subscribe to the channel so you don't miss future videos! You can also CLICK HERE to go to our Facebook page, or HERE to go to our Twitter page, both of which will ensure that you're updated whenever we upload a new video or post something new to the blog! Hop in, buckle up, and show your support!

DVD Review: 21 Jump Street

21 JUMP STREET
2012
Rated R
"I think I shit my pants."

I don't suppose it's necessary for me to restate how much I despise remakes, reboots, reimaginings, adaptations of previously published materials, and sequels on general principle. Every time I hear about a new one, I want to punch a Hollywood producer in the ear and say, "You hear that ringing? That's the echo of your empty head, you unimaginative, pandering dumb-dumb!" So it's safe to say I wasn't exactly thrilled when I first heard they were making 21 Jump Street, The Movie.

Fortunately for me, I have a support network. If you've been a Road To The Movies viewer, you're undoubtedly familiar with my occasional co-host, Seth. Seth is the only man I trust implicitly when it comes to movies. We don't agree on everything, but over the years the movies he has taken the time to recomended have proven him trustworthy again and again, to the point that when he says, "Gabe, you've got to see this move," I don't even question it. It may take me a while to get around to it, but I know that it's only a matter of time before I not only watch the movie, but have a great time doing so. This is not my opinion. It is empiricism, pure and simple.

If you've followed Road To The Movies for a while now, you might also recall that I'm not much for Jonah Hill. He is, in my opinion, a one-note performer. At best, his performances can be summed up thusly: Irritating, fat loser tries to act cool, falls on his ass, makes an idiot out of himself, and in the end shows himself to be a lovable guy underneath it all. At worst, just subtract the last item in that series. Same thing every time. Usually. But not here. Sort of.

The filmmakers' expectation-defying use of Jonah Hill is a perfect example of what makes 21 Jump Street enjoyable. They take the role that Hill has been typecast into, then turn it on its ear, not by changing the Jonah Hill archetype, but by changing the world around him. Suddenly, Hill isn't the outsider trying to be cool and making a fool of himself; he's the cool guy who - despite his foolish antics - finds himself making all the right moves entirely by accident!

This is 21 Jump Street's greatest strength: Its self-awareness regarding all of the overused tropes of both the past and present - mining an '80s throwback for movie material, jocks vs. nerds, unlikely buddy-cops, Jonah Hill's entire career - its very existence is reliant upon. In understanding everything that makes it one of the worst movie premises of the last several years, it dodges the trappings of such a premise and turns out to be one of the best movies I've seen this year.

There's a shining moment within the first five minutes or so, when Nick Offerman (my personal hero and owner of one of the top five mustaches of all time) says exactly what we're all thinking and sets the tone for the entire film. It's a moment when the filmmakers lean in and say, "Hey, we get it. You didn't ask for this and you don't need it, but if we can all agree this was a bad idea, maybe we can have some fun with it." And it works.

It's not a perfect world scenario. Ideally, theaters across the country would be projecting original stories that take us to new and exciting places we haven't been to before, but let's face it, this isn't a perfect world. A dollar spent at the theater is a vote cast for the type of movie we - collectively - want to see more of. The idiot masses - yeah, despite what you'd like to tell yourself, I'm probably talking to you - keep casting their vote for sequels, remakes, reboots, reimaginings, and re-whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-'ems, and there's nothing a guy like me can do about it. 21 Jump Street, The Movie was going to happen. Alf, The Movie is going to happen. The Commish, The Movie can't be too far off, and despite my best efforts, there's nothing I can do to stop it. The best I can hope for is a movie that knows how to kick my expectations in the crotch and - despite the familiar territory - take things in a new direction rather than simply retread the same old ground.

This is that movie. Or, at very least, it's close enough for Hollywood work.

7.5/10

-GABE

Red Band Trailer:

Thanks for riding along! Be sure to leave a comment, question, or suggestion for a future review down below, and click on our banner (also below) to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, and subscribe to the channel so you don't miss future videos! You can also CLICK HERE to go to our Facebook page, or HERE to go to our Twitter page, both of which will ensure that you're updated whenever we upload a new video or post something new to the blog! Hop in, buckle up, and show your support!

The Man With The Iron Fists - Quick Trip and Full Review

Sorry these took so long to get posted to the blog. It's been that sort of month.

RTM's Quick Trip Review



RTM's Full Review

Thanks for riding along! Be sure to leave a comment, question, or suggestion for a future review down below, and click on our banner (also below) to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, and subscribe to the channel so you don't miss future videos! You can also CLICK HERE to go to our Facebook page, or HERE to go to our Twitter page, both of which will ensure that you're updated whenever we upload a new video or post something new to the blog! Hop in, buckle up, and show your support!

31 Days of Fright, Day 31: Lennon and Loaf review Halloween

In the final installment of our 31 Days of Fright series, we dig back into the RTM archives to bring you our failed television pilot that would, nearly 35 years later, become Driveway Video Discussions.

Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future episodes of Driveway Video Discusions. And be sure to look back through the blog archives to catch every single day of our 31 Days of Fright!

31 Days of Fright, Day 30: 30 Days of Night

Welcome to day 30 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Gabe closes out the month with...

30 DAYS OF NIGHT
2007
Rated R

Vampires are not romantic.

Look, it’s not like I don’t get it. The whole concept of the vampire is very sexual in nature, what with the exchange of bodily fluids and all the neck-play involved. Obviously there is just naturally going to be a certain level of sexuality involved in any vampire story, but quite frankly, I’m sick to death of sexy vampires. Vampirism isn’t sexy, it’s just sexual. Personally, I blame Bella Lugosi for the confusion.

Count Dracula – at least as imagined by Tod Browning, via Mr. Lugosi – was a seducer. Seduction is sexy. It can even be romantic. I get that. The problem is that, at its core, the act of vampirism isn’t romance, it’s rape. It isn’t the wooing of a consenting partner into a mutual act, it’s taking by force and leaving the victim as a shell of what they once were. It isn’t civilized and seductive, its brutal and animalic.

That’s what I like about the vampires in 30 Days of Night. They are ugly and brutal and merciless. They’re cunning, but cunning isn’t a mark of humanity, it’s the mark of a predator. The creatures that descend upon Barrow, Alaska in David Slade’s adaptation of the Steve Niles/Ben Templesmith comic are anything but sexy, which is exactly how it should be.

The story – for those of you who don’t already know – is that a group of vampires arrives in Barrow, Alaska just in time for the month-long darkness that leaves the town essentially cut off from the rest of the world. The vampires are preceded by a Stranger (Ben Foster) who sneaks around town destroying anything that could be used to communicate with the outside world – cell phones, sled dogs, helicopters, you get the idea – in preparation for the invasion. I won’t give away any plot points beyond that, except to say that what follows is a full fledged blood-bath of Biblical proportions, and that only a small handful of the town’s residents survives to drive the story – and the conflict – forward.

I’ve heard from some that this movie isn’t faithful enough to the comic series, and I can’t really argue, as I’ve never read it. If you have read it and you’re the type of person who demands absolute loyalty to a movie’s source material, I guess you might be disappointed. Personally, I’ve always said that every story should be judged solely on its own merit, and not upon how it compares to what came before or what comes after. I really don’t care how faithful it is to the comic series. This movie is scary, intriguing, engaging, and – most of all – still as gripping as ever after the fifth viewing. If that doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, by all means, feel free to give it a pass.

I’m not saying the movie is without its flaws. There’s a certain level of illogic underlying the whole thing. I won’t get into specifics, as it might spoil certain plot points, but it should suffice to say that the motives and actions of certain characters don’t always make the most sense. Still, even having had the logical flaws pointed out to me, I just can’t bring myself to give a crap about them once the story gets rolling. Perhaps I have an overactive suspension-of-disbelief muscle, but the whole thing still works fine for me.

So there you have it. As I said in my Nosferatu review (CLICK HERE for that), vampires were my first horror love. The vampire sub-genre as a whole has been pretty disappointing in recent years, but vampires are a resilient species, and I don’t believe we’ve yet seen the last good story they have to offer. In fact, if movies like 30 Days of Night are any indicator, I think they've still got some delightful tricks up their sleeves. Am I being overly optimistic? Maybe, but what can I say? I guess I’m a romantic.

8/10

-GABE


Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!

31 days of Fright, Day 29: The Omen

Welcome to day 29 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, something frightening happened to Jonathan, he thought about it, and it turns out it was...

THE OMEN
1976
Rated R

I was rather stuck on what movie to review for today. Hundreds of movies were rocking around in my brain, begging to be chosen, when suddenly, Gabe mentioned that neither of us had done a review of an antichrist movie. So why not go with quite possibly the scariest one: The (original) Omen. It’s been about 9 years or so since I’ve seen this movie (although I have seen the remake quite recently) and even today it’s easy to remember why this film scared me half to death. It really is genuinely that scary. It could just be nostalgia talking, but this movie takes me back to my childish self, before I became so jaded and calloused, and that’s saying something.

It all starts with the newborn son of a couple dying shortly after being born. The husband is convinced by a priest to substitute the child with a baby born recently whose mother died right after she had him. He agrees without telling his wife, because he’s worried that she’d lose her mind if she found out. They happily decide to name the child Damien. And then shit gets weird (to say the least).

A lot of people today have either seen the original, the remake, or read the books, so many of you know what happens next. But, for the sake of people who haven’t experienced the grisly glory that is The Omen, I’ll stop there with my description. There are too many surprises and out-of-nowhere violence to go any further. And really, that’s one of the things that make this movie great. It’s creepy on two levels. There’s an almost timid, yet horribly unnerving, creepiness about Damien and the way he looks and talks (or doesn’t) and moves, and then there’s the in-your-face gore and mayhem throughout the movie (and trust me, there’s a lot of it). They balance so well, you have to give props to the director for pulling it off. It really isn’t easy to make a good horror movie that doesn’t feel one-note, because so many people stick to a set structure. This movie re-wrote said structure.

And it doesn’t stop there. The acting in this movie is superb, but I did have a few problems with how overly expository the dialogue was, but that’s a problem with the time period, not the writer (see my Exorcist review for more on this by CLICKING HERE). Also, they had the writer of the novel write the screenplay. I have no way to express how much I love when this happens. A lot of authors usually don’t write their own screenplays simply because scripts are an entirely different style of storytelling than books. There’s almost no room for description in a screenplay, and everything has to move a lot faster, and mostly through dialogue. There have been several flubs from authors who really just didn’t know how to adapt their own work, but in this case, it worked marvelously. David Seltzer (the author of both the book and the film) really kept to the story he wanted to tell in both formats, and it comes though extremely well. The music only adds to this. It’s ominous and creepy, yet strangely happy and upbeat at certain parts. It almost contradicts itself, but that really makes the viewer more aware of the terror right in front of them.

If you’re sick of the same-old and the mundane, I highly suggest giving this movie a try. It’s genuinely creepy and a really fun ride. It’s hard to find someone who has seen this movie and really didn’t like it, and it’s actually scary, much unlike all these crazy Japanese remakes and PG-13 horror made specifically to pander to middle-school kids. But if you’re curious, watch it for yourself and see, it scared me (and still does) and it’s a wonderfully made film, for you film buffs out there. So remember, “If something frightening happens to you today, think about it. It may be... The Omen”

9.5/10

-JONATHAN



Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!