TORONTO AFTER DARK FILM REVIEWS (Part 1) The Last Lovecraft

What’s going on everyone, Pierce ’The Punk’ Derks here taking some time out of my wacky life to bring you a review of my experience at 2010’s Toronto After Dark Film Festival.

‘What’s this after dark thingy you speak of Pierce?’
You’re not alone loyal ThisWeekInGeek.net reader and listener.

Young children and hobos constantly ask me this question on the busy streets of Toronto… along with the typical ‘where’s my mommy’ and ‘can you spare a buck?’..like I have time for that.

So for those of you who are unfortunate not to know of its awesomeness, TAD (Toronto After Dark) is a film fest that features “8 Nights of Horror, SCI-FI, Action & Cult Movies!”

Without further ado, here is my review of the opening gala film…

The Last Lovecraft (USA 2009, Dir Henry Saine)

Last Lovecraft follows the story of Jeff, a typical dude who’s too focused on his pointless cubicle job existence to see his life is going nowhere fast. The only thing positive about Jeff’s life is his best friend Charlie, your typical aspiring comic book writing slacker always trying to get his high strung friend to cut loose.

One day after work everything changes when Jeff learns he is the last descendant of acclaimed writer H.P. Lovecraft…and of course just like all relatives of the visionary author, it’s up to him to save the world from an ancient evil by protecting some relic.

Wait… did I miss something?

The two friends decided they are way over their heads and must team up with Paul, a stereotypical nerd/ Lovecraft aficionado from their high school days.

What follows is a typical buddy-comedy meets road-movie with horror sprinkled throughout  as they rediscover themselves and their friendship as they try to save the world.

This film sells itself off as a Cthulhu comedy, which I must admit, is a unique and much needed addition to the over saturated horror sub genres.

Think it sounds awesome?

I did too…unfortunately this film fails on every conceivable level and never delivers on its monster movie promises.

This leads me to my three main problems with the film, delivered in point form.

1. The Characters

Jeff and Charlie are a cliché of the buddy team up we’ve been seeing in countless films ever since the success of Clerks. They are Dante and Randal, minus original writing and charming actors to bring them to life. What we’re left with are two individuals that you never believe have an ounce of friendship between them.

You end up loathing Jeff as he’s not so much ‘likable misfit’ as much as he comes across as an asshole. There’s not one single redeeming quality about his character, and as such, you don’t care about his story or what happens to him in the long run.

2. The Writing

I knew I was in for a treat when in the film’s first 10 minutes  I was introduced to our main character in his cubicle as he utters the line…

“Is this all my life is?”

…

Dude…are you serious?

Did he actually just say that? Could you possible write a more direct and asinine piece of dialogue to try and explain the character for us?

That’s an internal thought, not something you embarrass the actors and insult the intelligence of the audience by having the character actually go and say.

Dreadful lines like this continue to pour on through the film as we get ideas and exposition blatantly fed to us rather than having it unfold through dialogue or character development.

Along with the terrible exposition and dialogue, we get comedy bits of ‘gold’ that have nothing to do with character, timing, or wit and quickly deteriorate into people yelling, cursing grannies, and homosexual hillbillies.

3. The Style

At this point you probably think ‘C’mon Pierce, it can’t be that bad?’

I will admit there have been many films I’ve enjoyed that suffer dreadfully in latter two categories, but they make up for it with a sense of style.

You know,  a sense of direction, something that separates them from the rest of the cinematic filler out there.

This has none of it.

Even the opening credits come to us from a preset animation in After Affects.

For a horror movie you would expect at least some good gore…right?

Nope.

Instead we get a camera than pans ups up away from all of the action as we see either shoddy CG blood splatter against the wall or just a shadow. Mix this in with flat, lackluster cinematography and slow tedious editing (a character turns in one shot fully and then when it cuts to the next shot he’s still turning…editing fail) and you get the visual equivalent of…of… a stale donut.

The eye candy could have been so delicious and sweet…but instead it’s just bland and crusty.

That’s why I disliked this film so much, it’s not so bad it’s good, it doesn’t have the visual style to make up for atrocious writing, and it doesn’t have the heart in the story to make up for the poorly designed characters.

It’s just bland and boring throughout.

The only area where this film succeeds is with the monster design. You get to see some gorgeous looking tentacle beasts and other such Lovecraft-ian goodness… I just wish the actual film would have actually been a strong format to show off these lovely works.

Furthermore for an opening Gala event at TAD the fans deserved better! In recent years we’ve received the infectiously fun Black Dynamite and modern day masterpiece Let The Right One In on opening nights. Why drop the ball this year guys?

This thing also received the Silver for ‘Best Independent Film’ in TAD’s Vision Awards. This thing won while a unique film like Rubber was snubbed? Come on After Dark, you know better.

With so many amazing, innovative, and genuine horror comedy hybrids out there in recent years…

This film has no excuse.

Sorry guys, I know you’re passionate about your project, but a cool concept does not make a good movie.

Overall The Last Lovecraft get’s a disappointing 02/10.

Stay tuned for more Toronto After Dark reviews…and don’t worry, they’re not all this bad.

Pierce ‘The Punk’ Derks

Double D’s Double Feature: Scott Pilgrim and The Expendables Reviews

Hey people of the movie-verse, how’s it hanging? David “Double D” Denis here and I’m gonna be bringing you two reviews this week since I went to see two movies at the cinema this past weekend. Of course I had to see both of these movies because I was psyched out of my mind for each for different reasons. I am talking of course about Universal’s big-budget Canadian comic book adaptation Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and the adrenaline-fuelled Sly Stallone vehicle The Expendables. So, I decided to talk very briefly about both for your amusement and betterment, because hey, that’s what I’m here for!

OK, so let’s start with Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. I was unbelievably pumped for this film. Why wouldn’t I be? I live in Canada. I’ve been to Toronto a million times though I’ve never lived there and I read all the graphic novels prior to seeing the movie. I also played the video game, listened to the album and watched the teaser, the trailer, the international trailer, all the TV Spots, the interactive trailer and even got excited when a poster was revealed. Scott Pilgrim was something for guys like me, awkward gamers who also liked independent music and action movies. The audience for this film was me and I was psyched for it beyond belief. Then the axe fell and this movie became one of the biggest box office bombs of the summer. I quickly discovered that the audience I was a part of must be a small one, because the same thing happened to Kick-Ass, another movie targeted at my generation. It makes me wonder if anyone’s going to keep making movies for 20-somethings anymore if we stop supporting them. It’s a shame and I’m surprised this film bombed, mostly because it didn’t deserve to, because it’s a fantastic film.

Now saying that this film is fantastic doesn’t mean it’s not without problems. It’s a movie that attempts to condense six books of info into one film. That would be like if they tried to make three Harry Potter films instead of eight. A lot gets lost in translation and fans may be upset to find that their favourite moments have been taken out or altered to cut down on what would have been a three-hour long movie if everything was included. The character that suffers the most from this transition unfortunately is the main love-interest and femme-fatale Ramona Flowers, played by the gorgeous Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who you may remember as John McLane’s Daughter Lucy in Live Free or Die Hard. Ramona gets pushed aside to being mysteriously side-lined for most of the movie, which is unfortunate. Another unfortunate issue is that condensing all 7 evil ex fights into a single movie means the film feels like it’s moving very quickly from fight to fight at times with little room to breathe in between. Edgar Wright does as good a job as he can of condensing Brian Lee O’Malley’s masterwork into a single film though, balancing subplots around the main plot without making it ever feel to clunky, but by the time you get to the last few fights you might be asking yourself when all this fighting is going to end.

These are all just little quips for a movie that never failed to entertain me however and despite a plot that seems a bit rushed at times the film never feels like it’s just going through the motions. Wright definitely cared about the source material just as much as any fan and puts his own unique spin on things that is never boring or unfunny. This film is a witty, intelligent and entertaining roller coaster ride of pop-culture references and epic battle-scenes. It’s everything a summer blockbuster should be with everything from a CGI monster fight to a Seinfeld scene complete with laugh-track. Wright pulls out all the stops on this one and his lack of restraint works out perfectly as the video-game-esque world of Mr. Pilgrim translates just as intelligibly to film as it once did to comics.

Now let’s talk about the big pink elephant in the room, Michael Cera. Everyone seems to hate this guy, finding his awkward sad-sack persona tiresome, but I have to say I can’t really imagine anyone else playing Scott. Cera delivers the performance with just enough wit and pathos to make you really like this guy despite how much of an idiot he often is. Actually, if anything Cera made Pilgrim too likable. It’s almost hard to get mad at this guy when he’s being such a jerk sometimes. He really does pull it off though and I’m glad he was cast, even if a lot of people I know can’t stand the guy for whatever reason. I do find Cera gets type-casted sometimes, but he’s a more capable actor than most people give him credit for. The rest of the cast pulls their weight here as well, especially Allison Pill, who plays the sarcastic dry-witted drummer in Scott’s band Kim Pine and Kieran Culkan as Wallace Wells, Scott’s gay roommate. I seriously cannot imagine anyone else playing these roles so perfectly. Kieran delivers all of his lines so dead-on I was shocked I haven’t seen this guy in more stuff. Wright did a great job of getting the right people for the job. Even people I had my doubts about do a great job here. I hope I see Johnny Simmons and Mark Webber in more stuff after this too. I had never heard of either of these guys before this film. They play Young Neil and Stephen Stills respectively and do so to near perfection.

Anyways, for the unfortunate few who haven’t read the graphic novels and don’t know much about the films plot, (you really should go out and read them since they’re awesome) Scott Pilgrim is a pretty simple concept really. Basically Scott Pilgrim is a 22 year old unemployed loser who finds the girl of his dreams in the form of the mysterious Ramona Flowers and now must defeat her seven evil exes Mortal Kombat style in order to win her heart. It’s probably the most interesting metaphor anyone could ever use for a young couple trying to deal with each other’s baggage. On top of that Scott has to deal with trying to break it off with his current girlfriend, Chinese high-schooler Knives Chau and compete with his band Sex Bob-omb in a Toronto Battle of the Bands that lands the band a spot opening for a famous group called The Clash at Demonhead that happen to include Scott’s ex-sweetheart as well as the third of Ramona Flower’s seven evil exes.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is a film with a different surprise around every corner and just when you thought Edgar Wright has run out of interesting situations and sight gags in his bag of tricks he surprises you with another fantastic joke or fight scene or both. A lot of the humour is unexpected, in-your-face and of course hilarious. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is not to be missed. Even if you’re not an Edgar Wright fan or a Michael Cera fan, I challenge you to give this film a whirl. I think you might be pleasantly surprised by how much fun you’ll have.

I give Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World a 4/5

.

Next up we’ve got The Expendables. I was psyched about this movie for entirely different reasons than I was for Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. The main reason being that I love classic 80’s and 90’s action movies just as much as the next guy and when I found out that Sylvester Stallone was compiling a dream team of action veterans like Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis, Jet Li, Jason Statham, Mickey Rourke and even Arnold Schwarzenegger to get together and make a fast-paced 80’s style action movie about a group of mercenaries I was like, “Yes! Finally my dreams are becoming real!” Of course I still don’t have a hot Asian girlfriend, so not all of my dreams have come true, but I’ll take what I can get.

The Expendables more or less delivers on its promises. It’s violent, gory, action-packed and a lot of fun if you like movies that are violent, gory and action packed. It however is also not without its fair share of problems. The foremost of these issues is the films cliché-ridden plot. Basically here’s the plot: There’s a bunch of good guys, except one who betrays them (bet you can’t guess within the first ten minutes) and they all get hired by the FBI to stop a former FBI agent who’s financing a dictator on a small island in the gulf of Mexico. There you go. Now you know all you’re going to need to know about The Expendables.

What you don’t need to know is that this film is a heck of a lot of fun, despite lots of clichés and completely ludicrous moments, the fun kills make it all worth-while. I was a little disappointed by the lack of participation by some of the film’s stars, besides Statham, Li and of course Stallone and the ending is a little tacky, but I had so much fun that I didn’t really care all that much.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I might be getting the flu or something because I feel disgusting, but that about wraps it up for that review anyways. It’s a short review, but what else is there to say? Fun movie, lots of death, go see it.

I give The Expendables a 3.5/5

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go throw up now. I’ve been David “Double D” Denis. Stay tuned next time for more awesome reviews from the source you (hopefully) trust!

P.S.: It’s now the next day after writing this review. I feel much better and although I came close to throwing up, I managed to hold back just enough to keep my 16 month non-barf spree going. I was going to go back and rewrite this review, but honestly almost throwing up towards the end is what gives it all its personality, so screw it. I really don’t have much more to say about The Expendables anyways. To be honest, you can probably tell if you’re going to like it or not from the trailer. Anyways, catch you guys later when I’m hopefully not feeling like balls. Ciao!

Double D’s Double Feature: The Other Guys Review and Top 25 #25: The Sandlot

Hey guys! I haven’t blogged in like forever, so thanks for welcoming me back and since I’m back I’m starting a new series of Double Features that will include one of the movies on my top 25, unless I haven’t seen a recent movie lately, in which case I will only talk about one of the top 25 movies. Keep in mind that this is an ever-changing list and no, it may not have all the movies you love on there and yes, three of the slots are reserved specifically for The Lord of the Rings. Also, keep in mind that if I could go down to 26 it would probably be either Jurassic Park or Robocop.

Anyways, so let’s start off with the review for The Other Guys. I saw this movie on Monday with my friend Will in Welland, Ontario expecting a decent comedy and I was pleasantly surprised by what I got. I’m not a huge Will Ferrell fan. I find his naive, mildly stupid persona isn’t as charming as it’s supposed to be, but it worked perfectly for this film. In fact, just about everything worked perfectly in this film. It took me about 15 minutes to get used to the films overall tone, but once I did I began to understood the irreverence that director Adam McKay was going for. The film is over-the-top and crazy, but it knows it and it’s also hilarious. This is probably McKay’s best work to date, ranking right up there with Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.

“What made this film so hilarious?” You might ask. The answer is simple. It’s the writing. This is easily one of the best written comedies I’ve encountered in years. With everything from Will Ferrell’s perfectly told and perfectly ridiculous back-story to a scene where Will Ferrell and Eva Mendez use an old lady to convey sexual messages to each other, I was practically rolling on the floor the whole time. This movie was a virtual tirade of humour from beginning to end and I couldn’t help but adore it. You might say I have a demented sense of humour, but I say I don’t care when this film caters to my demented needs so perfectly. Pay attention to Will Ferrell’s perfectly timed lion vs. tuna speech, because annoying College kids are gonna be quoting it for years.

Alright, let’s talk about the cast. Ferrell plays Officer Allen Gamble and Mark Wahlberg is his partner, Officer Terry Hoitz. We’ve also got appearances from Michael Keaton as Captain Gene Mauch, Eva Mendes as Allen’s wife Sheila, Steve Coogan as business mogul David Ershon and of course Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne “Formerly Known as The Rock” Johnson as Highsmith and Danson, the guys Allen and Terry have to replace. I was wary about the casting of this film at first, especially since I’m not a huge Ferrell or Wahlberg fan, but damn, everybody pulls it off perfectly. Ferrell’s naivety is perfectly suited to Gamble’s pencil-pusher persona and Wahlberg manages to channel every ounce of his energy into hating Ferrell’s character so much that you actually feel sorry for him. My only complaint about this movie would have to be that Wahlberg plays the jerk persona a little too well at first and you end up hating him for the first 20 minutes or so. I didn’t really start liking him until I found out he could dance ballet. Let’s not forget all the other minor roles here, especially Jackson and The Rock (I don’t care if he goes by Dwayne now, I’m still gonna call him that!) as the super-cop team, that for the short time they’re on screen are absolutely perfect at being the cops that everyone’s jealous of. In fact one of the films funniest lines comes from Jackson who tells Will Ferrell that if he wants him to talk, he’ll shove his fist up his ass and use him as a puppet.
Next up, I shall discuss the plot. It’s pretty simple really. In fact, I’m going to try and explain the entire plot in a single sentence. Let’s see how this works out. So, Samuel L. Jackson and The Rock (f**k this Dwayne s**t!) are super-awesome cops, but Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg suck, especially because Mark Wahlberg’s character accidentally shot Derek Jeter before the world series, but when Jackson and The Rock drop down (literally) it’s up to Ferrell and Wahlberg to step up as they take on a wealthy businessman played by Steve Coogan, who they believe is embezzling billions of tax payer dollars. OK, that was just a really long run-on sentence, so maybe I won’t do that anymore, but I figured it was worth a shot.

So, this review’s pretty short, but to be honest, I don’t have much to say about this movie other than it’s a hell of a lot of fun and that you should go see it, because it is one comedy joyride you will not want to miss. Seriously though, it’s really funny. What else can I say?

I wasn’t kidding about this being short, but hey, at least there’s a bonus Top 25 review coming up! I give The Other Guys a 4/5.

Now to talk briefly about the first movie on my top 25. I was going to make it a top 22 to celebrate my 22nd Birthday, but that would mean that I would have to remove three movies, so screw that! Besides, I promised ages ago that I would do a top 25, so top 25 it is and here’s the first entry, The Sandlot. This is the one that barely made the list, because it’s not nearly as good as the others, but did make the list based purely on how much I love it. Plus this film is in the list for the main purpose of representing my childhood. It’s a daunting task, but some movie had to do it. So I picked The Sandlot, because what movie better represents just about everyone’s childhoods than this modern classic from 1993. Even though the film is set in 1962 and I wouldn’t have been born for another 26 years I can still relate to the characters and their problems and situations and it’s that universal ability to relate that makes The Sandlot such a classic among those who have seen it.

For the unfortunate few who haven’t seen The Sandlot, it’s basically the story of a young boy who decides to join a local team of baseball players under the guidance of his mother, who thinks he’s not getting out enough. The boy, nicknamed Smalls, is a bit of a point-dexter though, so it takes him a while to pick up on the game, but soon the other boys adopt him as their own. They’re not part of a league. They don’t play any other teams. They just play with each other all day for the whole summer to have fun. Most of the film is very episodic, with the kids going from one situation to the next. The three that always seem to stick out to me are the one where Squints tricks the beautiful Wendy Peffercorn into giving him a kiss by drowning in the deep end at the local pool and then eliciting CPR from the unsuspecting life-guard, the one where the boys take chewing tobacco and end up throwing up on a carnival ride, mostly because I couldn’t sit through it as a kid, (though it seemed a lot tamer when I watched it again as an adult) and of course the climax where Smalls accidentally hits a signed Babe Ruth baseball over the fence at the end of the Sandlot, which happens to be guarded by a bull-mastiff who the boys have nick-named the Beast and all the different ways that the kids try and get the ball back without crossing the fence or getting killed.

It’s a distinctly memorable movie for anyone who’s seen it and if you haven’t, do yourself a favour and watch this and if you have kids, watch it with them. They’ll thank you for it later. This is the perfect movie to watch during this time of year. It’s about summer. It’s about first kisses. It’s about first failures, first triumphs and those little moments in life that we hold onto because they mean something to us. The Sandlot is more than just a movie to me. It’s a keepsake of precious memories that aren’t actually mine, but ultimately that’s what a good movie should be; a collection of interesting memories that don’t belong to you. We feed our brain with these memories and ultimately childhood memories, whether good or bad are the most precious of all, because they mean the most to who we eventually become. It is with this in mind that I will make the claim that watching The Sandlot at an early age will actually make you a better person later on in life. Yes, I am serious. And even though this movie wasn’t good enough to get any higher on the list I still love it to death and it will always be one of my favourites.

Next Page »