TheZakCave

Film & Music Review & Retrospective Blog

[thezakcave]

Why Indiana Jones and Aliens Make Sense - Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Ten Years Later

Why Indiana Jones and Aliens Make Sense – Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Ten Years Later

        By Zak Kneipp

               When George Lucas announced his intention to bring Indiana Jones back after nineteen years fans around the world ran through emotions anywhere from elation to utter fear. The year was 2008 and Lucas had just finished the Star Wars Prequel trilogy. Faith in Lucas had waned mostly due to the lackluster reception of the aforementioned trilogy however Indiana Jones was a different animal entirely. As long as Harrison Ford was wearing the fedora, with Steven Spielberg directing, and George Lucas writing what could go wrong? Well…. A few things apparently. Now ten years later I welcome you to go on a journey analyzing the reasons why this film works, and doesn’t work, within the Indiana Jones universe.  

               Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released on May 22, 2008. Fans gathered prepared to see their favorite archeologist swing into action albeit at the spry age of fifty-eight. For the most part ol’ Indy didn’t disappoint. Harrison Ford did many of his own stunts and we got plenty of fan service from the opening reveal of our hero and his escapade through the classic secret Radiers warehouse, last seen as the Ark of the Covenants final residence in Raiders of the Lost Ark, to the final moments of the film in which Indy and family witness more other worldly phenomena akin to past Indy adventures. Peppered in-between the classic Indy goodness was what would become the dividing factor in the question of just how good the film really is. While any film can be analyzed and nitpicked to the moon and back; for the sake of clarity and time we will only focus on a few big points that fans dislike about this film.  

               The Opening - Mole Hill Paramount Logo Dissolve – Many fans critical opinion of Lucas’ heavy use of CGI and catering to children is put on blast within the very first scene of the film. While the CGI prairie dog and dirt hill look silly and childlike it still follows the classic Indiana Jones trope of dissolving the Paramount Mountain logo into a similar looking object. This has of course been seen in each film starting with Raiders and its iconic dissolve into virtually identical mountain peaks before revealing a silhouetted Indiana Jones. While, in the prequel Temple of Doom, the image of mountains on the gong struck at the opening serves as the dissolve. And of course the rocky formations of Arizona in The Last Crusade rounded out the first three iconic opening dissolves. All three of these examples have become memorable in their own way. While the fourth film opens on a CGI dirt mound of which an equally CGI prairie dog emerges before being run over by hot rodding teenagers.

               This is only a brief moment and what follows could arguably make up for it as we are thrown directly into the adventure. Russian’s posing as Americans hot rodding alongside the kids for a spell before pulling off and back to their true mission. Plus we get an homage to Lucas’ “American Graffiti” with the whole scene it self. We also get a little National pride with an ever popular at the time American Flag shot before witnessing the merciless arrival of the Soviet badies that will serve as the defacto Nazis of this film. Then we are greeted with a classic Indy reveal. And of course some backstory, character development, and an epic chase scene through the Raiders’ warehouse now revealed to be Area 51. That then leads to the next point of geek contention.

               The Nuked Fridge – A call back to a different script and honestly the first legendarily ridiculous moment of the film, in what would otherwise be a pretty cool set piece regardless, was the nuked fridge. Indy is being chased by his Soviet captures and stumbles into a nuclear testing site complete with small completely functioning town full of mannequins. The sirens begin to air and Indy is left to be dissolved in the explosion. However in a move of genius or utter stupidity Indiana Jones gets into a lead lined fridge and is hurled hundreds of feet into the air and even further away before crashing down to the ground and falling out to a stop virtually unscathed. Indiana Jones just survived a nuclear bomb. The resulting shot of Indy standing silhouetted against the mushroom cloud of mass destruction only briefly makes up for the lead up to the shot.   

               Ok I’ll give it to you that one was pretty bad. Like… Die Hard 4: A Good Day to Die Hard bad. The idea of him stumbling onto a site like that was, however, cool. The whole situation up until the fridge and afterwards with the silhouette was great actually. But like I mentioned; this nuked fridge concept was taken from a completely different script to a completely different film. That film was in fact Back to the Future. In the original screenplay for the film Doc Brown creates the time machine not out of a DeLorean but a lead lined refrigerator that sets off a nuclear explosion every time it is used. Both of these concepts were thankfully stricken from the final film and what we got was Steven Spielberg greatness. But the whole nuked fridge thing found a way into this film after all those years. What comes next?

               Shia labeouf as Henry “Mutt” Williams-Jones – Many were disheartened to learn that Sean Connery would not be reprising his role as Henry Jones Sr. However the inclusion of an illegitimate son to mirror the relationship between Indiana and his father from the third film would be a key factor in this films story. It’s not a bad idea. But many would complain that the choice of Shia labeouf was one not as well thought out. At the time he was mostly known for the Transformers film series and his three year starring role on the television series Even Stevens. But he was already generating mixed reviews in the world of public opinion. The implementation that he would take up the mantel at the end of the film only fanned the flames for fans who want nothing to do with the man. Plus he swung with monkeys from CGI vines like Tarzan in this film. And I give it to you I don’t like the guy that much either. With a fifth film announced I push for the character to be aged up a bit and recast with Chris Pratt. Who has already previously been linked as a replacement for Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. That is the only way to make lemonade out of that lemon in my opinion.

               The MacGuffin – The crystal skull that the film is centered around is also one of the bigger issues with fans. It’s otherworldly supernatural power stemming from an alien race of “inter-dimensional” beings somehow didn’t sit well with the fans of an archeologist that previously searched for fabled biblical relics like that Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail... not to mention a made up cults strange magic rocks. But the idea that aliens might exist is just too much for some I suppose. What people seem to dislike the most is the heavy CGI intergalactic beings and the very Close Encounters of the Third Kind ending with their ship emerging from a mountain and flying away. The remnants of the event are quickly covered up by mother nature against another silhouette of Indy looking on.  However this is the exact point that makes this film an Indiana Jones adventure. Why you ask? Because every Indiana Jones adventure is a product of the time period it is set and includes historically relevant references.

              Let me explain. With Raiders it was 1936 and the Nazis were searching for biblical/occultist relics that could prove their superior race ideals to be true. This is of course a factor in the real life history of the time period believe it or not. Hitler and many members of his political umbrella were reported to be occultists. In Temple of Doom we find Indy in 1935 India battling a different kind lot of occultists who had enslaved a small tribe and had an affinity for removing beating hearts with ones bare hand. While The Last Crusade returns Indy to the Nazi riddled adventures of 1939 fashion. These films draw upon popular culture and historical / mythological facts and theories of the time they are set. Obviously if you fast forward twenty years to the 1950’s you get Indiana Jones in the correct time period for his age, while battling the correct bad guys for the era, while including popular culture references like the science fiction elements, area 51, early nuclear proliferation and the CIA... blending them into classic Indiana Jones tropes.

             We now have four films in the Indiana Jones universe. All of which stand on their own ground in their own ways. Temple of Doom has long been the majority pick for worst of the three by many accounts. But it would seem that with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’s release Temple has some competition. We can only hope that the fifth and final Harrison Ford led Indiana Jones film, currently on the 2020 horizon, sends our favorite adventurer off in epic fashion. This final film will likely right any course changes and go out with a nostalgic bang with a promise of more to come from a new cast of characters. Or perhaps a recast Indiana. Because as we know Han Solo has been recast for younger stories. What the future holds for Dr. Jones is undoubtedly exciting. But dont worry. I doubt we will be seeing our favorite archeologist bite the dust in this final film. Those of us who were around for the 1990's remember that Indy lives deep into his 80’s or 90’s, albeit missing an eye, thanks to the Young Indiana Jones television series. Which is made cannon as one of its adventures, an encounter with Poncho Villa, are mentioned by Indy himself in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  So at least we don’t have to endure another classic Harrison Ford character’s death. RIP Han Solo. Now bring on Indiana Jones 5! What do you think about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and/or the Indiana Jones franchise? Let us know in the comments!  

[thezakcave]

Avengers Infinity War - First Reaction and What the Future Holds

Avengers Infinity War - First Reaction and What the Future Holds

By Zak Kneipp

The Russo brothers bring us the culmination of ten years and eighteen films worth of universe building the likes of which will surely be attempted for the next few decades by various other properties. That is to say that Avengers Infinity War Babe Ruth’s the ball directly out of the park in pure action packed fashion. Welcome to the beginning of the end. Reader be warned. Spoilers ahead.

 From the opening moments in which we are greeted with the distress call of Thor’s Asgardian refugee ship (last seen in Ragnarok) where we witness the deaths of Loki and Heimdall (the latter of whom sends a defeated Hulk back to earth via bi-frost to warn the others) to the massive final battle between Thanos and the entirety of the Avengers across various locations… sans Hawkeye and Ant-Man who are on house arrest… we are greeted with a virtually non stop action packed superhero fest. The most defining and deeply dramatic of all the marvel films to date; this is everything a fan could have dreamt. But even as the shine of first viewing adulation brightly gleams in this reviewer’s eye. There will undoubtedly be kinks in the armor of this epic team up film. Until then lets just indulge a bit.

 Hulk is thrown via bifrost straight through the large round window and into the stairs of Dr. Strange’s home and we are greeted with the title card. Quickly after we find Tony Stark explaining a dream he has had to Pepper while walking through New York when Dr. Strange appears via magic portal and asks Tony for help with Bruce Banner emerging from behind him to ease Tony’s defenses. Tony is informed of Thanos’ impending arrival and the assumed death of Thor. However when asked to contact Captain America and the rest of the Avangers Banner is informed of the events in Civil War and the disbanding of the Avengers. Before Tony can call Cap on the flip phone given to him in Civil War our hero’s find that Thanos’ children have arrived to collect Vision and Strange’s infinity stones. Tony reveals his new nano suit and we discover that Hulk can control whether or not Banner changes and he is seemingly afraid to come out to help. Peter Parker jumps into the fight and is soon sporting the Iron Spider nano suit made by Tony as he Iron-Man and Dr. Strange are jettisoned away to Titan on an alien ship. All while keeping the witty banter to a healthy level while not taking away from the seriousness of the events taking place.

 That is just the first ten or twenty minutes of the film. What comes next is a massive race against time as Thanos collects the remaining Infinity Stones in various locations across the universe. With each hero getting fair service and their meetings logical and well planned out. We have pairs and groups of heroes coming together across universes. We have hints to what comes next also. We now know that Ant-Man and Hawkeye were absent from Infinity War publicity because they were in fact not in the film. We know that Ant-Man will likely take place during and after Thanos’ snap of the fingers that effectively erase half the population of the universe. That’s right. The Film ends with a massive battle between Thanos and the remaining heroes left on earth. Thor arrives with the StormBreaker  axe and wipes out the majority of the alien army and ships in a stunning show of power and fury culminating in his driving the axe through Thanos’ chest. However before Thanos can die he snaps his fingers and as Thor questions what he has done Thanos backs away into a portal. Leaving the remnants of earths heroes to pick up the pieces as friends family and civilians fade away into dust before their eyes.

 We know one thing for sure. Time travel is a big deal now. Dr. Strange uses it to see all the outcomes of the battle with Thanos and reports that out of the millions there is only one where they win. And it is here that we get the biggest plot hole. Ironman, StarLord, Mantix, Dr. Strange, Spiderman, and Drax have Thanos captured and are attempting to remove his gauntlet. By trying to pull it off. However as it is almost completely removed the plan is foiled by Quill’s rage in learning that Thanos has killed Gamora. And so I beg the question. Why didn’t they just cut off Thanos’ arm? Iron man has a nano suit of seemingly endless possibilities. Strange could make a magic sword. But I this is nitpicking as the entire scene is truly remarkably well crafted and the resulting outcome is spectacular to witness.

 Beyond that what we have here is an epic build up to the next phase of films.

 The sole end credits scene finds us in transit with Nick Fury and Agent Hill as people start to disappear. First Agent Hill fades away, then as Fury rushes to pick up a transponder and contact what we discover to be Captain Marvel he fades away as the message sends.

 So who faded away with the other half of the universe?

Falcon

Scarlet Witch

Spiderman

Star-Lord

Groot

Mantix

Drax

Bucky

Dr. Strange

Black Panther

Nick Fury

Agent Hill

Probably The Wasp

Probably Hank Pym

  Who bit the dust before the snap?

Heimdall

Loki

Gamora

Vision

 Who is left to reverse Thanos’ destruction?

Captain America / Nomad

Black Widow

War Machine

Iron-Man

Bruce Banner / Hulk

Rocket

Okoye

Nebula

Probably Captain Marvel

Probably Hawkeye

Probably Ant-Man

 So what can we expect moving forward?

 A prediction from myself would lend to lots of time travel elements bringing us back to square by the end of Avengers 4 (rumored to be called Infinity Gauntlet). We are going to get an alternate version of events that will repair the damage Thanos has dealt while setting up the stage for a new group to take over the MCU. Ant-Man and his quantum realm discoveries will surley factor into a plan put together by the remaining Avengers. We already know that the majority of the characters that faded away due to Thanos’ finger snap will be returning as many of them have sequel films slated for future release. There is no way Marvel is going to kill off Black Panther right after his first solo film broke box office records. Same can be said for the Guardians crew, Spider-Man, Dr. Strange, Bucky (who is maybe 5 pictures into his 9 picture deal), and most likely all of the characters that faded away at the end of the film.

 Here is what is up next for the MCU in order of release:

 Ant-Man and the Wasp – Said to take place before and during the events of Infinity War.

Captain Marvel – Said to take place mostly in the 1990’s.

Untitled Avengers 4 – Rumored to be titled “Infinity Gauntlet”

Untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming Sequel – Story status unknown

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 – Story status unknown

[thezakcave]

Re-Casted: 12 Angry Men

 The Original Cast

Martin Balsam as an assistant high school American football coach. As the jury foreman, he is somewhat preoccupied with his duties, although helpful to accommodate others. He is the ninth to ultimately vote "not guilty", never giving the reason for changing his vote.

John Fiedler as a meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds up, so does his courage. He is the fifth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

Lee J. Cobb as a businessman and distraught father, opinionated, disrespectful and stubborn with a temper. The main antagonist and most passionate advocate of a guilty verdict throughout the film, he is the last to vote "not guilty".

E. G. Marshall as a rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with the facts. He is the eleventh to ultimately vote "not guilty". Marshall is convinced after concluding the witness' eyesight was in question.

Jack Klugman as a man who grew up in a violent slum, does not take kindly to insults about his upbringing. A Baltimore Orioles fan. He is the third to ultimately vote "not guilty". When Klugman died in 2012, he was the last surviving juror.

Edward Binns as a house painter, tough but principled and respectful. He is the sixth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

Jack Warden as a salesman and New York Yankees fan, who is so eager to leave in order to attend a baseball game that he becomes impatient with the deliberations, despite the fact that the defendant's life is at stake. He is the seventh to ultimately vote "not guilty".

Henry Fonda as an architect and the first to vote "not guilty". At the end of the film he reveals to Juror #9 that his name is Davis, one of only two jurors to reveal his name.

Joseph Sweeney as a wise and observant retiree. He is the second to vote "not guilty". At the end of the film, he reveals to Juror #8 that his name is McCardle, one of only two jurors to reveal his name.

Ed Begley as a garage owner; a pushy and loud-mouthed bigot. He is the tenth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

George Voskovec as a European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen. He is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar. He is the fourth to ultimately vote "not guilty.

Robert Webber as a wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive. He is the only Juror not sure what to vote, changing his vote more than once during deliberations, initially voting "guilty", changing three times until he is the eighth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

My Proposed Modern Day Recasting

Sam Rockwell - Actor best known for his portrayal of Chuck Barris in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and a turn as an evil businessman in Iron Man 2. His everyday guy and witty demenour can lend to the character of Juror #1 once played by Martin Baslam.

Ron Howard - Actor/Director best known as Richie on Happy Days and for various award winning films as a director. His physical reslemblance is perfect and his acting abilities haven't been showcased in many years. A welcome return in a remake such as this would be a willing sight.

Sylvester Stallone - Actor best known as Rocky in the Rocky Franchise. Sly can give a mean speech when he wants to and dammit if this character doesn't have a lot of fire and bark along with working class family tones and the regret of loss. Stallone would crush this part. 

Jamie Foxx - Actor/Musician best known for his portrayal of Ray Charles in Ray. A change up here. Foxx started out as a comedic actor and transitioned easily into action and drama. He could bring new depth to this character. And with it maybe another award for the shelf.

Mike Gordon - Musician best known as the Bassist of Phish. I dont know if Mike can act but he sure looks the part. And i couldn't resist pointing it out as im a huge Phan.

Josh Brolin - Currently Thanos and Cable in Avengers and Deadpool franchises. Best Known for starring roles in No Country for Old Men, MIB 3, and Nightwatch. With a wide range of emotion and great talent Brolin is an asset to have in any film.

Mike Rapaport - Comedian, sitcom star, Podcast host. Rapaport could easily play the role of a everyday guy that just wants out of jury duty so he can get to a game. And bring a fair amount of humor to it also.

Tom Hanks - Best known for his portrayal of Forrest Gump. I mean. Tom Hanks. Nuff said.

Christopher Lloyd - Best known as Doc in the Back to the Future Franchise. He is the right age and looks the part. Pair that with his great skill in acting and his physical resemblance and its a lock. 

Denzel Washington - Known for Starring roles in Fences and Training Day. Washington can deliver the tone and fire needed for this role. He should be in every movie. They would all be infinitely better for it. But i would love to see his take on this character. 

John Turturro - Best known as Jesus in The Big Lebowski and as a CIA agent in the Transformer series. He is funny and serious and can lose himself in this role quite well. 

Jon Hamm - Best known for his starring role in the television series Mad Men.

What do you think? - Zk

[thezakcave]

In Defense of Blade Runner 2049 - By Adam Timmons

In Defense of Blade Runner 2049

_By Adam Timmons

Against my better judgement, I’ve been perusing Twitter, Youtube, and other corners of the internet to get a sense of people’s reaction to Blade Runner 2049 and I’ve been disheartened to find that a great many people are being very vocal about their dislike of the film. I’ve seen it referred to as “empty” and “shallow,” particularly in comparison to the original. I do not understand this criticism, as the film is figuratively overflowing with content to discuss, decipher, and interpret at virtually every turn. Blade Runner 2049 is every bit as engaging and astounding as the first film, and it has so much to offer narratively, philosophically, and atmospherically. 

Take for example the character of Joi. Introduced early on in the first act, Joi (Ana de Armas) is a holographically projectedAI that serves as a romantic interest and companion for the film’s protagonist K (Ryan Gosling). Their relationship is one that is founded on emotional intimacy, not physical contact. As a hologram, Joi cannot touch or be touched by K and can only go where her projector—fixed to a linear track that runs the length of K’s apartment—will allow. The physical limitations placed on Joi become a compelling visual metaphor for the intangible, but very real limitations that women face every day. In fact, Joi’s first appearance sees her dressed in the style of a doting 50s housewife, clearly meant to place her in the role of housekeeper and caregiver. However, Joi is able to transcend these limitations somewhat when K buys her a portable projector that allows her go anywhere he brings the device. While this frees her from the confines of the house and the role of housekeeper, she is still tethered to the portable projector and by extension to K.  Her arc seems to run parallel to that of the women’s movement; her freedom is conditional and there are still some things that she simply cannot do. 

If that were all that was interesting about Joi’s character, that would be enough, but there’s still more to unpack here. The unconventional relationship which K and Joi share seems to be a point of contention or controversy in the world of Blade Runner 2049. In a conversation where a group of sex workers discover that K has a relationship with Joi, one of them remarks that “he’s not into real girls.” This one line, seemingly innocuous, cuts to the heart of one of the film’s biggest philosophical questions: what does it mean to be real? The sex worker who utters the line is a replicant, a robot designed to do manual labor in place of actual humans. Therefore, the distinction she seems to be making here is one that hinges on substance: the replicants, while robotic, still have a body and can be considered realwhereas Joi’s ethereal form relegates her to the status of a facsimile, a cheap substitute. This position is challenged by other characters in the film, including K. In one of the film’s more bizarre moments, Joi hires one of the sex workers from the earlier scene to come act as her body so that she can have sex with K, telling him “I want to be real for you,” to which he replies “You are.” K already sees and acknowledges Joi as real because to him, realness is not tied to physicality. While he doesn’t elaborate further, the implication seems to be that Joi’s sentience and personality and enough to prompt K to view her as real, as a person in her own right. 

Further complicating this issue is another tension that exists in the film: that between humans and replicants. Just as some of the replicants treat holographic AI like Joi with disdain and dismissal, so too does much of the human population look down on replicants. Their creation and use for the purpose of off-world labor and their treatment at the hands of humans in the film make replicants an obvious analogue for African Americans and other exploited minorities. To further this comparison, the humans in the film use pejoratives like “skin job” and serial numbers in place of names to put distance between themselves and their robotic counterparts. Because replicants were engineered and not born, they are seen as somehow subhuman, as not real. As K so eloquently puts it during a conversation with his lieutenant (Robin Wright), “To be born is to have a soul.” The distinction this time around is more abstract: it isn’t a body that makes one real, but a soul. This makes K’s personal journey through the film all the more compelling. Upon discovering that he might in fact be the first replicant born into this world instead of manufactured, he begins to have an existential crisis. He is torn between his loyalty to his lieutenant and his desire to be real, to validate his existence and break free of the limitations of being a replicant in this dysfunctional and highly prejudicial society. 

This question of reality is perhaps best embodied by the mystery surrounding Deckard: is he a human or a replicant? This ambiguity regarding Deckard’s true origins is carried over from the first film (at least, some versions of it) and is addressed by the film’s de facto antagonist, Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). In a cryptic conversation between the two, Wallace seems to suggest both possibilities are true, and Deckard’s response is simply this: “I know what’s real.” Presumably, he’s talking here about himself, but the vagueness of his response here leave room for speculation. Is he talking about himself? If so, what exactly does that mean? Our instinct as humans ourselves might be to read this as Deckard insisting on his humanity, but I’m not sure that’s actually the case. Consider this: with the introduction of the idea of replicants that can be born instead of made, the physical distinction between humans and replicants becomes negligible. They can propagate as a species now, just like humans can. Deckard knows this, as he is the father of the replicant child that the film revolves around. Therefore, he may very well be acknowledging that he too is a replicant, but that this makes him no less real than other characters in the film. For Deckard, then, what makes one real would seem to be self-determined. The film does leave room for alternative interpretations of this pivotal scene, however, prompting its viewers to come to their own conclusions about the nature of reality instead of trying to make a definitive stance one way or the other. 

Some might choose to see this as a shortcoming of the film, that it is more interested in posing questions than asking them. I don’t think this is, strictly speaking, true. The film might not offer a definitive answer to the question of who among us is real, but it plays out in such a way that several different characters each offer a thoughtful response to the question. Thus, the film doesn’t offer one answer to the question, but many different answers. It is a film marked not by a single truth, but by possibility. Where some see a film that is “empty” and devoid of subtext, I see a film marked by deep introspection on some very powerful questions. It may appear “empty” at times, but those moments of atmospheric quiet are there for the audience’s benefit to allow them to ponder the deeper implications of these questions: What is reality? Can a robot have a soul? Can love transcend the boundaries of physicality? What does it mean to be human? For each of these questions, Blade Runner 2049 has not just one answer, but several. I urge the detractors among you to give it a second chance, you might be surprised at what you find waiting for you.

[thezakcave]

The Martian film review

Tittle: The Martian

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Screenplay by: Drew Goddard

Based on: The Martian by Andy Weir

Starring:   Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Sebastian Stan, Aksel Hennie, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Donald Glover

Runtime: 141 minutes

Rating: PG-13 for some strong language, injury images, and brief nudity

Release Date: October 2, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

Ridley Scott returns to the helm for another journey through space. This time not to battle evolutionary aliens but to, perhaps similarly, explore the reaches of the human will to live. But is it another Ridley Scott stop and go or does this film stand air tight? Can Ridley bring Damon home or will this film’s trajectory fall short? Most of us know if we have seen it…

This film is an example of the right leading star and the right director coming together...

With a source material that is solid and interesting, see: knocking it out of the park, The Martian plays to the many strengths of Scott’s directorial skills while also being careful not to slide into the doldrums of those same stereotypes. Instead of being identical to some of the, occasionally, drawn out Ridley Scott efforts of yesteryear you are given very small reminders of past work. All be it from the beginning.

Be it the approaching storm, setting off Damon’s Watney to be left behind and start his mission of survival, reminiscent of the storm from Scott’s Alien prequel Prometheus. As well as seemingly borrowing the same, all be it slightly more NASA hued, Mars space suits. However much you are reminded of said film rest assured the Martian is light years more enthralling and a far better story. Without giving too much away. You should just listen up and see this film. What’s taken you so long anyway? But no really... This movie has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. And 6 Oscar nominations. So...

–OVERALL OPINION–

Featuring another quintessential performance by Matt Damon and an impeccable supporting cast this film stands as a fine example of holding all the right cards and playing them at just the right moments.

–WHAT NOT TO MISS–

Another Ridley Scott trademark self surgery scene!

The stellar supporting cast in Ejifor, Daniels, the Aries crew and others.

Damon’s entire performance! Ok if I had to pick… Pay attention to his reactions to the wind while counting the last of his potatoes after a slight mishap to the the HAB.

The only thing you could miss would have been the 3D cut of the film where you often forget your even watching a 3D movie. Hardly noticing the effect. And of coourse I too, like Watney, wish there was a bit more variety in music.

Zaks Rating: **** 4/5 Take that Neil Armstrong.

[thezakcave]

Old Dogs Die Hard: Why We Need to Re-boot Bruce.

If I hadn’t seen the last installment of the Die Hard franchise… That turd of a cash grab that was 2013’s lackluster A Good Day to Die Hard… I would have told you one more was going to be made with ‘ol smirk n grin himself Bruce Willis….

But after seeing that film. And coming to the realization that Bruce Willis seems to have become a curmudgeon of an old man. Bitter for some reason and difficult to work with while seemingly phoning in performances left and right. The last installment was so poorly received that the powers at be seem fit, three years later, to develop a prequel of sorts. Taking aim at source material from a graphic novel titled “Die Hard: Year One”. Reportedly this is a film to be set in the present (et la Bruce Willis) while also flashing back to  the past… i.e. a new younger fill in for Willis.

With the way this franchise has gone I have doubts that this is going to be a viable or well thought out film. They seem to basically be hoping that they spark some Looper hype by finding someone to play a young McClane opposite Willis himself.

While I would rather see the Ben Trebilcook written Die Hard 6 make it to the big screen. A screenplay reportedly sending Willis to Nakatomi headquarters in Japan, on the anniversary of his saving of the hostages from the first film, to accept an award of some sort. Reportedly even teaming him back up with Sam Jackson’s “Zeus” (Die Hard with a Vengeance).

Trebilcook would hopefully take McClane on a character defining journey that returns Willis’ McClane back to his “Everyman in extraordinary situations” character type while tying the entire franchise up nicely for an end to a decent run.

If this is not our option and Year One is…

….Well….

I would almost venture to say I would rather see the franchise rebooted with Stephen Dorff as the title character of John McClane.

Blasphemy they scream from the rooftops. John McClane IS Bruce Willis you say. I would say that too. If it weren’t for the litany of terrible stories that follow around old man Willis at every turn these days.

Gone seem to be the stories of a kindhearted jokester on set( just ask Kevin Smith). Happy and fun to work with. And enter the Dynamo diva that is good ol Mr. Clea… I mean… Bruce Willis. He who wears bath robes to interviews and talks about how tired he has become of being shot at in films. Yes it seems that with his hairline his will to go on as a beloved action star has also receded into the doldrums of times passing arms. According to actor/director Kevin Smith (who also acted alongside Willis in Live Free or Die Hard) he couldn’t even get Willis to re-shoot a take of him getting out of a car let alone be receptive to any kind of direction. And that was for a comedy where the co star (Tracy Morgan) was the polar opposite. Happy and putting in his all.

Yeah Cop Out sucked because of Bruce Willis.

He was even, as reported by Cinemablend, replaced in The Expendables because of his $1 Million dollar a day price tag. A movie full of his own contemporaries. Friends. Where he had already appeared in two films…. he wouldn’t take a $1 million dollar price cut for 4 days work.

It seems that Willis has had enough of what made him famous and has decided to play for the pay. His diminishing box office presence, outside of Die Hard, is a true example as he seems to pull a Nick Cage and cashes in on most with no more than a cameo in direct to DVD films. This alone is a testament to his lack of connection with his once well honed craft.

So. Let’s just hang up the white undershirt and lace up those shoes Bruce, it’s time to walk on.

If the studio and Willis are eager to lay out an origin story for McClane’s, now superhero like, NYPD detective then by all means just end it now. Give us a fresh face that can appreciate the opportunity and play to the audience. And audience who could actually put themselves into his shoes, or lack there of, while watching the film.

While I would have agreed over the years that Willis was the only person that should be McClane I have to admit, at this juncture, with the downhill slide that is the last two installments (though I liked Live Free or Die Hard) unless they return to McClane’s original character type… I see absolute zero draw for another over the top extravaganza of a Die Hard film.

So. Take McClane back to real life.

Stop with jumping onto harrier jets from freeway overpasses and hanging out of helicopters from a tethered vehicle.

Stop with the “yeah I saw it, I did it, let’s kill some bad guys because that’s what McClane’s do” nonsense.

If you want a real, down to earth fish out of water action thriller then hire Stephen Dorff to take Bruce Willis’ place.

He is the prime candidate for replacing Willis.

Why?

I’m not going to try to justify this with an extended explanation. Other than to say, watch these Stephen Dorff films…

Officer Down

Felon

Den of Lions

Brake

Tomorrow Your Gone

And have a look at these pictures of Dorff and Willis.

Now ask yourself this… Would you rather see Dorff take over and give a performance that 1995… or even 1989 Bruce Willis would have been happy to give… Or would you rather another half assed go around with old man Willis phoning in a paycheck while we flash back to, who? Joseph Gordon Levitt in the Looper make up?

Don’t get me wrong I would love it if Willis could somehow pull off a performance in an Actual Die Hard sequel one more time… I am all for Trebilcook’s vision and begrudgingly so even the Year One vision (if done well)

Look. I’ll watch it. I’ll probably like it to a degree, but it won’t be a Die Hard movie unless McClane is back to his roots.

So, go ahead, you tell me.

Yippie Ki Yay Mother Fucker.

-ZK

[thezakcave]

The Ghostbusters Re-boot: Not an Issue of Gender

Sony has spoken. The impossible as become possible. We have waited years for a new Ghostbusters film. Long enduring false starts, negotiation break downs, contract disputes and studio setbacks to bring us to a moment in time that seems to have finally broken the camel’s back. We finally get our long awaited Ghostbusters 3…. Or do we?

The announcement was met with great excitement. Then, immediately thereafter, coupled to it was the doldrums of new age Hollywood. The original cast and creators have been cast aside in favor of a newer, more hip, direction. An All-female cast.

Now before I go further we need to get a little in depth here to understand the final idea of this little ditty of an article.

For many, myself included, the original Ghostbusters is a childhood mainstay. Originally conceived by Dan Aykroyd as another staring vehicle for himself and comedic partner, and legend, John Belushi. Having come off the success of their first feature film The Blues Brothers.

Then Belushi died of a drug overdose. And all of Aykroyd’s plans went with him. Multiple films in the pipeline needed to be scrapped entirely or rewritten.

After a few years a few were made.

Spy’s Like Us now starred Aykroyd with friend and SNL alum Chevy Chase in Belushi’s role. And the Ghostbusters would be re-envisioned from intergalactic space police to college professors who go into business for themselves busting Ghosts in New York. With Belushi replaced by Bill Murray. An instant success the film would go on to spawn a sequel. Critically met with less fervor, due to heavy CGI effects, yet still a fine addition.

After that we waited and every once in a blue moon we heard rumblings. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis had the story down. They just needed the green light from Murray and the studio. But Bill Murray had other plans. He wanted to stretch out a little. He wanted to give the Paranormal Psychologists a break after a lackluster second act. He wanted to do other things.

Who knew it would be an over two decade long break.

In that time Aykroyd kept pushing. He kept working and he kept writing. And Murray, well, he kept saying no. Then Aykroyd did the next best thing up his sleeve. He made the sequel to his 1980 masterpiece The Blues Brothers.

And it was, for some, really. Really. Bad. And for others a nostalgic game of catch up with characters they have longed to see again.

Its nothing compared to it’s predecessor. 

But i am one of the ones who liked it.

However Blues Brothers 2000 lackluster performance would solidify the fate of any project Aykroyd wanted made after that and only buffed Murray’s opinion on a third installment of Ghostbusters.

At one point it’s said Murray even shredded a copy of the script reportedly having told Aykroyd:

“No one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts!”

Regardless something strange started to happen.

Murray started to warm up to the idea.

There was a video game release for Xbox 360. The original cast including Murray would reprise their roles in voice and likeness. The story? Written by Aykroyd and Ramis themselves. One of the discarded scripts Aykroyd tried so hard to produce. His “Ghostbusters in Hell” concept. It turned out really well. Everyone was happy. And the game breathes new hope into an otherwise dim future for the franchise.

With that the chance of a new film had a glimmer of hope. Murray remembered how fun it could be. Talks started up again. Rumor mills started turning. And suddenly original director Ivan Reitman was confirming involvement in a new film. Ramis, Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson are all excited and ready to go. And Murray… Well he was still kind of on the fence. Aykroyd would be asked at every interview he did if the film were a possibility and in true fashion he would divulge a good amount.

The script is ready. Two writers from the Office were hired to re-work it. Here’s the idea. The Ghostbusters accidentally open a door to a hellish parallel dimension of New York. With demons and other creepy baddies for them to fight to get home and save their city. And here’s where our characters are now.

Aykroyd’s gear head Stantz has lost a leg to diabetes and can no longer drive the Ecto 1.

Ramis’ Egon is too big to wear the proton back.

And Murray… Well… We might have to make him a ghost… Or maybe he won’t be in it at all… we are just waiting on Bill Murray.

But the story is solid and the originals are in the background as they train and pass the franchise to new actors while still giving the fans their dose of the real deal. A perfect idea as far as I’m concerned.

Then Harold Ramis died of a rare disease few even knew he was battling.

And with that our dreams of a reunited Ghostbusters sequel seemed all BUT ready to be made.

Reitman would soon back out. Unable to see a point in returning without Ramis AND Murray. It would seem the end had finally come. Then a film called “The Interview” with Seth Rogan and James Franco caused an international snafu and Sony was hacked. Revealing a whole lot about the company and their films. Including the future of Ghostbusters 3…. What was discovered would bring both joy and discomfort to the masses.

Besides the realization that many of the staff were unhappy with the amount of Adam Sandler films being churned out by the studio. They were reportedly seeking a lawyer willing to take on a low profile case against Bill Murray to convince him to participate in a third film. Even further that Paul Feig of Heat and Freaks and Geeks fame would be directing an all-female led Ghostbusters reboot.

And then… the big wrench in the works

Channing Tatum was reported to have been in contact and highly enthused for a chance to produce and star in his own all male Ghostbusters sequel hoped to be made the next year.

This caused such a ruckus that Tatum had to make excuses to back away from the idea. Sadly. Because two films cannot co-exist? Or even complement each other? They have to be competing forces for a politically correct Hollywood to fight over and make examples of. Completely pro “re boot” claim that all anyone wants is for it to fail because of, basically, male pride. That all these sad fanboys cant handle a woman taking over their male roles and doing it well if not better.

The other end of the ensuing argument stems from the attempts Hollywood takes to shake things up in hopes of sucking the life out of everything they can for the sake of money. To fashion the guise (gimmick) of some kind of envelope pushing agenda to make real change in an industry that is nothing but fake….

They throw their big expensive award ceremonies that mean nothing to real life and give grandiose speeches of how lucky they are to have been given this opportunity to change because they are such good people.

Now think further.

If a film/filmmaker/actor is snubbed and they happen to be in a “hot topic” film. If you speak bad or poorly about such a film/person. You risk a reign of abuse and comments from all around you. You’re a racist, a misogynist, a chauvinist.

Don’t get me wrong. This can undoubtedly be true for some of the people critical of the decision to re-boot the series with an all-female cast. So before jumping to immediately disregard those who are not too excited for this film as terrible horrible people who need to “get with the times”. Hear me out.

Why?

Because this is not just a matter of feminism vs male pride. Though it has become that. There is a more reasonable and honest response for those who don’t want to see this film in its current state. At least for me… and, I expect, many others. The fear is not that the lead cast has been “replaced” with Females it’s that a reboot suggests the previous creators and beloved characters have been phased out. With further reports suggesting that though the original cast all have “cameos” they are not playing their previous characters.

This. Is a terrible injustice to a beloved franchise and quite honestly will be pretty jarring to see. Especially when all any of us have ever wanted was them to return and give us one last hurrah. And we were really close to having it.

lets get this one thing straight though. It’s not that we don’t want an all female cast. The actresses cast in the reboot are all proven and skilled at their craft. They will undoubtedly make a hit. It’s that we don’t want to see what has come before thrown away when they could just as easily make a point to be a part of this new franchise. Even for fleeting seconds in one film to pass their torch to this new cast.

If we are lucky these reported cameos of the original actors are just a ruse to throw us off the scent of a bigger BETTER surprise. Perhaps they are cameos of their original characters being sought out by the current leads for advice or assistance?

Even this scenario is a seemingly fitting passing of the torch. And hopefully one that’s more likely to be the outcome to a franchise whose fans would have been perfectly happy watching a bunch of fat, old, men chasing ghosts.

[thezakcave]

Black Mass film review

Tittle: Black Mass

Directed by: Scott Cooper

Written by:  Jez Butterworth Mark Mallouk

Starring:  Johnny Depp, Joel Edgerton, Benedict Cumberbatch, Rory Cochrane, Kevin Bacon, Jesse Plemons, Corey Stoll, Peter Sarsgaard, Dakota Johnson

Runtime: 122 minutes

Rating: R for brutal violence, language throughout, some sexual references and brief drug use

Release Date: Sep 18, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

Johnny Depp returns to his roots in a gangster biopic backed up by a skilled cast and some poor story choices. Can Black Mass live up to the likes of Donnie Brasco? Or does it fall flat like Transcendence?

Find out after the jump

Went into this movie expecting a balls out gangster flick. For the most part this film delivers. With a few key issues.

 Johnny Depp is not as focal a point in this film as one might have expected. In fact the most important character actually seems to be Joel Edgerton’s FBI agent. The man who would convince Bulger to become an informant and who would also doctor information to make Bulger more of an asset to the investigative efforts than he actually was.

 Maybe it’s the advances in filmmaking technology but I couldn’t help but notice Edgerton’s horrible wig/hair and the caked on makeup on most of the cast.

 It might be me but it seems like ever since the Departed came out everyone wants to do a Boston accent. Even... Benedict Cumberbatch... who, despite being a phenomenal actor, should not.

 The pacing of this film is hit and miss. I feel as though the director could have utilized the interview aspects of the film that take place later in the characters’ lives as they respond to the allegations against Bulger and themselves.

 It is said that Ben Affleck was to direct a Matt Damon lead Bulger film however Black Mass slowly enveloped the project into its own efforts. I wonder what may have been.

--OVERALL OPINION--

 A good gangster film but nothing compared to Donnie Brasco or GoodFellas. The Makeup was rough. Depp is not the focal point of the film as much as his FBI counterpart. Pacing is a little hit and miss with underutilized character development opportunities in interview scenes.

--What Not to Miss--

Bulger’s opening scene silently watching and eventually chastising a fellow gang member disgustingly eat peanuts from a communal bar table bowl.

 The many recreations of Bulger’s violent murders. Startling and dramatic scenes.

 Bulger’s frightening demeanor shift while having dinner with his FBI handlers after one gives Bulger his secret family recipe for sauce

Zak’s Rating: *** 3/5 Decent crime biopic but nothing special.

[thezakcave]

The Transporter Refueled film review

Tittle: The Transporter Refueled

Directed by: Camille Delamarre

Written by: Luc Besson Bill Collage Adam Cooper

Starring: Ed Skrein Ray Stevenson Loan Chabanol Gabriella Wright Tatjana Pajković Wenxia Yu Radivoje Bukvić Lenn Kudrjawizki Anatole Taubman Noémie Lenoir

Runtime: 96 minutes

Rating: PG-13 for sequences of violence and action, sexual material, some language, a drug reference and thematic elements

Release Date: Sep 4, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

It's been seven years since Jason Statham's Frank Martin has driven trough our cinemas in high octane sharp dressed style and, with that, his smoldering stoic demeanor. We are met after such a wait to witness an attempt, and I say attempt because that’s just it... an attempt, to capture lightning in a bottle once more.

Without the aid of the thunder cloud that conjured it up the first three times.

That's right even Statham couldn't be bothered to return to his star making role. Citing a poor financial offering for his services and a busy schedule for his absence. For this, and a cacophony of other reasons, Transporter: Refueled manages to hit and miss its way through a litany of mistakes and overall poor choices.

Check out the trailer and find out why in my full review after the jump!

Well folks that's about it in a nutshell. No spoilers banner needed because that's just about the entire movie. Now..

Let the fun begin...

Literally lets start at the beginning... as it has us meet the main group of baddies in 1995 as they descend upon a street side hooker ring run by African gangsters.

We then fast forward a few more years... though not the present... where we get flashbacks for every single person we just saw doing that very same thing in slow motion as they all talk about how long they have known each other.

Just utter garbage. Painful even.

Moving on...

The Fight scenes are hit and miss. Skrein’s an actor, not a fighter, and he had to undergo training and learn choreography. Some scenes look decent. Like the back room club scene where Frank stumbles upon some henchmen playing cards.

Others... like the scene immediately after... where Frank decides to be a bad ass and take out a bunch of goons/as he is walking in front of his car/as it idles slowly forward towards a closed gate/cut between his fighting and the three blondes in the car freaking out about stopping the car for no real reason.

For a series known for speeding up scenes and choppy fight shots we are able to witness some sloppy moves by Skrein. Very slow moving choreographed fights where you can literally see these guys going through the motions, so to speak. 

The ending fight between Frank and the big bad Russian baddie was terrible.

In fact this movie is pretty bad. It has a feel to it that seems like a Transporter film. Ed Skrein is a decent Statham knock off in voice and look. But he fails to capture that dangerous preciseness and confidence his predecessor holds.

The best thing about this movie is Ray Stevenson as Frank Sr. Who’s on screen relationship with Transporter Frank Jr. better than that of Statham’s Frank and the Inspector of the previous three films.

In the end this film fails. Im sure it would have been a different story with Statham back as Frank. But it would literally have to be a different story. Or at least a little tighter. Perhaps with Statham in the role of Frank Sr. presumably reprising his role and Skrein as the new Transporter i.e. Frank Jr.

Not to take away from Stevenson. He really was the best part of this film. Cant stress it enough.

So...

--OVERALL OPINION--

Ed Skrein is a vocal match but other wise shaky Jason Statham knock off. Awful flashback scenes. Hit and miss over all bad fight scenes. Stupid idling car towards the gate fight scene was dribble. Over all car tech was a little much. Ray Stevenson was the best part of the movie. Ending sucked.

--What Not to Miss--

... I don’t know... the first two movies were pretty good. Third one was alright... How about don’t miss them..

Zak’s Rating: ** 2/5 Watch the originals instead.

[thezakcave]

Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation film review

Tittle: Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

Directed by: Christopher McQuarrie

Screenplay by: Christopher McQuarrie

Story by: Christopher McQuarrie, Drew Pearce

Starring: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Rebecca Ferguson, Ving Rhames, Sean Harris, Alec Baldwin

Runtime: 131 minutes

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of action and violence, and brief partial nudity

Release: July 31, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

Tom Cruise. The seemingly unstoppable force behind the character of Ethan Hunt. He climbs up buildings, he hangs from airplane doors, and he jumps on couches. The latter jab aside this film is a bit hampered by Cruise’s public problems. Especially since his divorce and his trying to build a family man image for himself, and even for his character Ethan Hunt, for so many years. There is an alarming lack of romantic parturition between himself and the female lead opposite him. Here’s the trailer. Review after the jump…

Taking place directly after the events of the previous installment; In this mission Ethan Hunt is once more forced to go rogue. Again hunted by his own government. With a new villain backed by a shadow organization full of old Secret Agents thought long dead. This is a fun film. It’s full of action and is thoughtfully mixed with a humor slowly curing over the last two films. Mostly thanks to Simon Pegg’s “Benji”. However it is not without its short comings. This is, in a nut shell, the new James Bond film Specter.

In fact besides the usual tropes of Ethan, trying to pass through impossible security measures to attain an asset, this film franchise has basically become the American James Bond.

Don’t believe me just watch the opera scene that looks like something out of Quantum of Solace. Or the catacombs scene from the same film… Or see the Rogue Nation for yourself. It’s worth a look regardless.

–OVERALL OPINION–

Decent spy film for a franchise with a 50 year old lead, with questionable mental stability, doing all his own stunts. This is a bit of a rip off of the newest Bond outing with a conglomeration of other Bond tropes mixed in with the franchises own.

–What Not to Miss–

The Full scene glimpsed in the trailer featuring Tom Cruise hanging onto the side of an airborne plane.

The big security override scene

The Opera scene

The humorous ending callback to Baldwin and Renner’s IMF disbursement trial hearing.

Zak’s Rating: *** 3/5 Not bad

[thezakcave]

Sinister 2 film review

Tittle: Sinister 2

Directed by; Ciaran Foy

Written by: C. Robert Cargill Scott Derrickson

Starring: James Ransone, Shannyn Sossamon, Robert Daniel Sloan, Dartanian Sloan, Nicholas King, Lea Coco

Run Time: 97 minutes

Rated: R for strong violence, bloody and disturbing images, and language

Release Date: August 21, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

What is it about the Horror genre that, as predictable as it is, it is able to keep drawing in the crowd. I, for one, stopped being entertained by the offerings of most serious horror films long ago. Even most of the ones meant to be humorous I’ve shied away from. Unless the names: Raimi, Rodriguez, Romero, or Craven are involved its generally a no go for me. And with Wes Craven’s recent passing that list grows smaller. But sometimes in those rare occasions I do see something I normally wouldn’t; there are little gems hidden in the ruff.

Films like:

Silver Linings Playbook

Straight Outta Compton

The Judge

Most Disney/Pixar films

Sinister 2 is not one.

In fact… Sinister 2 is not so much a gem as it is a highly polished turd we feel like we’ve flushed on more than one occasion. The perpetual floater you cant believe keeps coming back for more.

So here’s the trailer and my review follows after the jump.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!Oh and maybe some stupid ass spoilers too!!

I don’t know… maybe I just grew out of the jump scares and silly demons…

Maybe it’s the ghost children with their snarky “children of the corn” leader…

Just by the way he was acting… i mean physically the way he was playing his character…

I bet he was the kind of actor on set that everyone wanted to lay out with a nice back hand.

With his stupid fucking zippo. He probably flicked the shit out of it between takes too so everyone could see how cool he was.

What a fucking turd…

anyway… maybe it was that… maybe it was the insanely contrived spousal abuse subplot…

The two annoying brothers chosen by the sinister force to make their stupid ass film killing their poor Mom and jackass Father. 

Or maybe it was some of the sillier film canister deaths directed by the ghost children… Like the rats… Or those dumb fucking alligators.

Maybe it was that this movie makes you think of every other film possible but Sinister. 

Here are some stills from Sinister 2 that are reminiscent of other… better films.

Up first is this shot reminiscent of Children of the Corn.

then below…

… well… the above looks like the Punisher decided to drop by the Children of the Corn to kick some ghostly ass.

Even with their somewhat creative variety of deaths this movie was nothing you haven’t seen before. Even the main lead, The only carryover from the first film, is a Bruce Campbell esq conglomeration of Dewey from scary movie and the actual character from Scream Dewey is based on. That’s right I care so little I would rather tell you I wouldn’t exert the force to check and see what the character from Screams name was than to actually look it up to help this review along or add punctuation to this rant. Just like you really shouldn’t care too much about this movie.

But seriously this guy looks like Bruce Campbell

Besides James Ransone’s resemblance to Bruce Campbell i didnt much like this film. But to be completely opposite and play Devils Advocate…

If you like the genre and enjoyed the first film then I’m sure this is more than enough to tantalize your jump scare and gore taste buds. There, devils advocate has been given a word in edge wise.

Lets keep this shit show a rollin’

–Overall Opinion–

That snarky lead ghost kid and squirrely little bastard brother make me want to slap everyone involved. The Father is a contrived over the top antagonist. The carryover co star of the first film reminds me of a doofy Bruce Campbell. which is probably the best thing about it. Unless your a fan just skip it. If you must see it stream it/“rent”.

–What Not to Miss–

For the first time nothing… just do yourself a favor and

See one of the vastly superior films released this year…. or ever.

Even if its equally bad.

In fact… Go watch Vacation (2015) instead.

See Spider-Man on Broadway.

Go to a Nickleback concert.

Hug your kids.

Take the dog for a walk.

Read my other reviews…

or

ya know….go see this movie.I guess you could like it.The choice is yours.        

Zak’s Rating: * 1/5 Skip it. Miss it.

[thezakcave]

Mad Max Fury Road film review

Mad Max Fury Road Banner (Final) by DevanGill devangill.deviantart.com

Tittle: Mad Max: Fury Road

Directed by: George Miller

Written by: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris

Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne

With Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Zoë Kravitz, Abbey Lee, and  Courtney Eaton

Run Time: 120 minutes

Rated: R for intense sequences of violence throughout and disturbing images

Release Date: May 15, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

Surely by now many of you have heard rumblings of the return of George Miller’s titular character in the Mad Max series made famous by Mel Gibson. Indeed Mad Max: Fury Road has exploded onto the scene, taken helm by its new Max, Tom Hardy, to mass critical success. Garnering an unbelievable ninety-Nine percent fresh rating on rotten tomatoes at the time of its release Fury Road has seemingly lived up to its predecessors in a big way. However the story of Mad Max started long ago. Even longer than the fifteen years it took to bring the current film to fruition.

Here’s a quick retrospective of each of the original trilogy. For you hardcore Mad Max fans or anyone who needs a brush up on some Max history. If you want the meat of the review scroll down past the spoilers banner to see the Fury Road segment.

In 1979 George Miller simultaneously wrote and directed Mad Max. An edge of the apocalypse thriller set in the near future where society is on the brink of breakdown. Gangs of marauding bikers and motor heads roam the Australian outback. The only protection society has from the barbaric criminals are a dwindling police force of skilled leather clad “interceptor” officers led by their top drivers; best friends Goose and Max. A maniacal gang member named Nightrider is terrorizing the streets on a high speed chase with the Interceptors. Max picks up the pursuit and soon Nightrider loses control of his car and crashes to a fiery death.

In retaliation for the death of Nightrider his fellow gang members lead by Toecutter wage a war upon the officers they deem responsible. Toecutter sees that Goose is burned beyond recognition. The gang then takes to terrorizing Max and his family eventually running down Max, his young wife, and their toddler son, Sprog, in the middle of the road. Max recovers from his wounds and steals the high powered fuel injected Interceptor to take his revenge; Setting out to roam the deteriorating roads a Warrior with nothing to lose. This is the backstory for what would become the Mad Max trilogy of films that preceded the blockbuster that is the current installment in Fury Road. 

What would follow Mad Max would become the most recognizable and esteemed installment of the series in Mad Max 2 known in the U.S. as The Road Warrior.

Set some time after the events of the first film we find Max even farther out into the barren wastelands roaming the highway in search of gasoline to fuel his interceptor. A scavenger on the run from the wasteland warlord Lord Humungous. Max finds himself tangled in a plot to help a small group of people escape their oil mining compound and free themselves of the warlords terrorizing reach.

Then of course there was the even more despot Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

Max, now interceptorless due to its destruction in Road Warrior, is swept up in the middle of a colony of lost children who have mistaken him for the pilot of a downed airliner now a legend to their people. Besides this Max is captured by a War Lord played by Tina Turner and forced to work as a slave underground and fight to the death in the caged “Thunderdome”. 

Enter Mad Max Fury Road over three decades later.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Possible Spoilers Ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Possible Spoilers Ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Max is forced to help a fleeing war rig full of pregnant slave women to a green mecca not seen in years. Pursued by the War Lord Immortan Joe, Hugh Keays-Byrne, and his large war party Max engages in one giant car chase. Epic and full of maddening glorious fury.

The newest installment seems to take place before the Road Warrior as Max is in possession of his interceptor once again. Director and creator George Miller offers a more vague idea of the timeline in interviews, leading up to and after, the films release stating it is supposed to be following the legend of Mad Max the Road Warrior; therefore there is no linear timeline to follow as he never intended there to be one… however if you have ever seen at least the first two films you would know they are connected to a linear timeline. This is but a minor issue as we are also told that this is absolutely supposed to be the same Max made famous by Mel Gibson.

Though theories abound that this is actually the feral child who took a liking to Gibson’s Max in the second film. See the link below for more of that theory!

http://nerdist.com/mad-max-fan-theory-will-make-you-want-to-see-fury-road-again/

Fury Road has been met with widespread acclaim from fans and critics alike. Don’t be fooled though. This is not a straight Mad Max film. This is more a film focused on Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). A general of sorts in the warlords “army”. She is on a mission of redemption. To save the sex slaves who are forced to breed future warlords. Furiosa bring them to her home she calls the green place. They happen to run across Max when he is thrown into the chase against his will. He soon realizes his only way out is to help the runaways and perhaps find a little redemption of his own. 

With that Mad Max Fury Road destroyed box office expectations and revived a long gestating film franchise. A simple film concept with no script and instead shot entirely from story boarded concept art. This film was originally titled Mad Max: Furiosa and it makes sense as Max has very little to say besides grunts and mumbling. Still a great performance from all!

–WHAT NOT TO MISS–

The multiple easter eggs to the previous films. Including the music box, the Gyro Captains leather helmet and goggles, and the many hidden weapons.

Everything from Max’s costume to the maddening visions he is stricken with.

The Return of original film antagonist  in his new villain role of Immortan Joe

Really there is just too much to add so…

–OVERALL OPINION–

This film is a masterpiece from a visionary writer director. If you loved any of the original three films do yourself a favor and see this one. Even if you have never seen the original films and just need a break neck, high octane, dystopian, vehical driven action film. This is you film. Out now on Bluray and online streaming.

Zak’s Rating; ***** 5/5 Run don’t walk - see this film now!

[thezakcave]

Straight Outta Compton film review

Tittle: Straight Outta Compton

Directed by: F. Gary Gray

Screenplay by: Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff

Story by: S. Leigh Savidge, Alan Wenkus, Andrea Berloff

Starring: O'Shea Jackson Jr., Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Paul Giamatti

Run Time: 2 hours 30 min.

Rating: R for language throughout, strong sexuality/nudity, violence, & drug use

Release Date: August 14, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

You are now about to witness the strength of street knowledge.

Which is the first thing you hear and exactly what you get even in the first few opening seconds of the N.W.A. biopic Straight Outta Compton. As Eric “Eazy-E” Wright (played by Jason Mitchell) retrieves a pistol and some drugs from a speaker in his trunk. The tools he needs to make a deal at a local dope house that nearly sours before the gang busting LA police department arrives for an impromptu raid.

Of course Eazy escapes and the scene is set for the kick off of what may be one of the best biopics ever filmed.

No exaggeration. This film is incredibly well done. From start to finish it is chalk full of the full spectrum life had to offer on the streets of Compton LA circa 1986. From comedy to drama and everything in between. Held fast by a talented cast and uncanny resemblances...

This film is a powerhouse.

For many the subject matter is a hesitant one. Gangster rap, as it came to be known, has always had a connotation of violence and intimidation that many found off putting.

However this film works hard to make its audience understand who these young men were and what they witnessed growing up in their dangerous city of Compton’s stomping grounds.

The film itself is a testament to banning together to tell the most accurate story possible. With all the original members of the group having executive produced or consulted on the project. Minus the late Eazy-E who’s widow stood in as executive producer along with group leaders Ice Cube and Dr. Dre.

At a run time of 2 hours 30 mins this film packs a lot of depth. It has to cover ten years in the lives of five men. Not to mention their manager. Select wives, girlfriends, business associates, friends and family (all important to the story) that have to be fit in. It’s no wonder the film stood at an original running length of over three hours.

All of which I would be happy to see restored and witness in its full glory among its home video release.

Why, as someone that was never fond of the music, could I be so on board with a film centering around that very subject?

Because when a film is done right. When every aspect of it has been worked over and set in place. The characters, the cast, crew, cooperation of those involved in the actual events… When it all comes together to tell a greater story. Racial tensions. The birth of a new genre. A new generation. That’s when the magic happens. It happened for this film.

So…

Hey Dre I got something to say…

To spare any spoilers I’m going to get right to my

OVERALL OPINION:

Go out and see it. Rent it. Buy it. And wait for the awards to roll in come the season. Because this movie is going to clean up. Maybe not as well as it might have if it were released in a quieter year. But it will undoubtedly stand as an example of one of the best biopics filmed in current history. Hands down.

--What Not to Miss--

O'Shea Jackson Jr. And his unbelievable portrayal of his father O'Shea Jackson Sr. Aka Ice Cube.

The remarkable cast as a whole.

A brief scene with an uncanny Tupac look-alike who has reportedly snagged the late rappers own long gestating Hollywood biopic treatment.

The groups historic riot inducing performance of "Fuck the Police" in Detroit

Paul Giamatti turning in another epic performance as a controlling music manager/caretaker. See his equally blistering performance in the Brian Wilson/Beach Boys biopic Love and Mercy.

The creation of the N.W.A. Anthem Fuck the Police.

The Easter egg drop of the fictional origin of Bye Felicia

Reference to Ice Cubes writing of his breakout comedy film Friday.

Lastly if you skipped to the end SCROLL UP PAST --What Not to Miss-- for my OVERALL OPINION.

Zak’s Rating: ***** 5/5 Must see

[thezakcave]

Vacation (2015) film review

Title: Vacation (2015)

Directed by: John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein

Written by: John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein

Starring: Ed Helms, Christina Applegate, Steele Stebbins, Skyler Gisondo.

With Chris Hemsworth, Leslie Mann, Chevy Chase, Beverly De'Angelo, Charlie Day, Ray Livingston, and Keegan-Michael Key.

Run Time: 99 min

Rated: R for crude/sexual content and language with brief graphic nudity. 

Release Date: July 29, 2015

Review by Zak Kneipp

In 1983 National Lampoon’s Vacation took to the many movie screens of the world packed with laughs and positive reviews. The Chevy Chase vehicle that would launch a franchise (three feature length sequels, one short film, and one direct to video spin off) would endure the tests of time to become a beloved “family” comedy series the likes of which Chase has yet, or has ever, been able to duplicate. Now thirty years later we are greeted with it’s spiritual successor In the form of 2015’s Vacation.

A soft reboot/sequel focusing not on Chase’s integral family man Clark Griswold but that of his now equally dimwitted son Rusty and his own haphazard brood of Griswolds. This vacation is both brimming with potential while also falling massively short of the original. This may not be entirely the films fault.

So let’s start at the beginning.

The original film depicts a family in need of some quality time away from their usual lives. The answer to their prayers? A cross country car trip to California to the world famous moose laden Wally World amusement park. As we all know now, antics and mishaps pepper the trip. By the end of the film Clark has a nervous breakdown, Family is tested, and bonds are strengthened. All while hilarity ensues.

Both films have basically the same plot.

The only difference here is the time period and character focus.

In the previous installments of the franchise Rusty Griswold, and equally so his sister Audrey, are very aware of their fathers spastic and dimwitted nature. Both are tested by it and seem to be more align to their mothers intellect. Often times pointing out the tediousness and ridiculous nature of Clark’s antics. This fact however is lost upon the new film. And rightly so. For this film to work you have to believe that the young man that you watched grow up through four films has gone from a seemingly normal teen into a doppelgänger (if not even more of a dodo) than that of his father Clark.

Fine. As the old observation goes: the older you get the more and more you realize you act like your parents.

Or something like that…

So this is not a far fetched notion to think that Rusty, now in his formative years, has started to take on traits of which he grew up loathing in his father only to now look back fondly on the family experience. Ultimately, and quite ironically, the goal Clark had for all those Vacations. 

Ed Helms is great, I loved the idea of him taking the helm (no pun intended) of the role of Rusty. But once you really look at it you can see its just Ed Helms playing/ Andy from the Office/ playing Chevy Chase. Or maybe His persona is so engrained in that character, this family man, working class guy, who’s always ready to sing is just too close a comparison to draw a new fresh portrait. 

With that said i feel like this was also a passion project for Ed Helms. He has been a vocal fan of the original series.

This new film is a fond nod to its predecessor. While literally breaking the fourth wall early on in a longer conversation with his family about his surprise family trip. “I’ve never even heard of the original vacation,” whines Rusty’s oldest son. “Doesn’t matter,” replies the chipper Rusty, “The new vacation will stand on its own, m’kay?”

And that it does. This vacation is a hard nosed balls out attempt to revitalize a beloved franchise for a new generation. That tries so hard and plays so loud that it comes off as more of a late night parody. A nostalgia trip you are supposed to take along side Rusty. That just doesn’t let you hang on. Not because its going too fast. But because its just that hard to get on board.

That sounds harsh. I don’t want it to come off as particularity bad. I actually liked this film very much when compared to other installments into the series.

I’m looking at you Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddies Island Adventure.

Yes that statement deserved its own line. 

What is it that makes me feel so strangely about this film? I liked it. but at the same time it just didn’t feel right.

I feel as though perhaps this can be chalked up to the worst injustice cast upon this Vacation… the trailer.

While it may have enticed many of you to run out and see the film the trailer commits the most heinous of trailer stereotypes…

Just in case someone thinks i need to say it….

—SPOILER ALERT—

The trailer for this film shows what may have been the funniest moments. Almost every set piece is showcased in that damn thing. It really took away from the experience and didn’t leave much in between comedy wise.

If you absolutely have to watch the trailer here it is… 

So what else was kind of off here?

As many fans, myself included, celebrated the news that original star’s Chevy Chase and Beverly De’Angelo were returning to their roles in cameos once we are finally given the opportunity to see the two the reality of time really kicks in.

What the hell happened to Chevy Chase?

I’m sorry. But the man is looking rough these days. I don’t quite know why it was so shocking. But regardless of the drastic nature of Chase’s physical appearance another aspect bogged down the triumphant return of Clark Griswold to the silver screen. What i most wanted to love about this film just made me feel kind of… sad. And maybe that’s the best way to say it. Chevy’s performance in this film is a shell of his former glory to the point that it is just sad.

If you can run to the bathroom or concession line to avoid the guitar closet gag. Please heed my words and do it. Best not to destroy the image of the bumbling physical comedic talent that was Chase in his prime. Not to mention his wit. Which is completely lost in his older years. And for the film entirely. 

That’s what this film lacks the most.

Wit.

Clark Griswold was a bumbling wrecking machine. But he had the ability to play off his short comings with a quick wit or retort. Where Clark would overplay something like the cowboy themed bar he and his family visit in the first film he would also have a quick, sly, and witty remark to mumble about cousin Eddie. 

Rusty Griswold is just a bumbling innocent, ignorant, fool. He is played as an over the top dimwit. Almost to the degree of a live action family guy. As if Clark was stuck in cowboy bar mode. Forever overplaying his ignorance. 

So to speed up an already deep winded review

Ed Helms is a great actor. But he’s just being Ed Helms. However it may not be his fault because the trailer ruins most of the film’s gags. The car is ridiculous. Chevy Chase is sad. And the film feels like an over the top parody that has no wit in its lead character.

With that said this new family has potential and i wouldn’t mind seeing what other Vacations they might have in store. Try as i might i cant dislike Ed Helms. Though I hope if that rumored Fletch sequel/prequel/reboot happens someone gives Ryan Reynolds a call. The guy would be perfect for any Chevy Chase inspired role. But that’s for another blog.

By the way, a few positives of the film or - What not to miss-

The hilarious bickering between the two new Griswold children played by Steele Stebbins and Skyler Gisondo.

Charlie Day as a river rafting guide. Hilarious, and perhaps the best gag in the film.

Leslie Mann as Rusty’s sister Audry and Chris Hemmsworth her well off weather man husband talking about her job.

The Plastic Bag callback

Seal’s Kiss From a Rose

This film is full of callbacks and little nods to the original film. I suggest watching the original first to pick up on all the Easter egg goodies left by the writer/directors of this installment

OVERALL OPINION: Decent comedy worth a watch. Buy the movie ticket so they have the incentive to give it another try with the same cast. 

Zak’s Rating: *** 3/5