Out of the Furnace

I've been a huge fan of Christian Bale ever since American Psycho. Very few well known actors immerse themselves in their roles like he does. So I was happy to see him playing an all-American in what was advertised as a revenge flick.

But it wasn't a revenge flick. It was falsely advertised as a movie about a man avenging his brother's death by whatever means necessary... and it didn't deliver.

Kiss him?

The main issue I had was that the movie itself is two hours, and he doesn't try and get revenge for his brother until there's 20 minutes left. He doesn't even fight hordes of villains, like I thought he would (even though he successfully meets the gang who kidnapped and murdered his brother). Sure, it was fun to watch Woody Harrelson as the supervillain (whom I've been a huge fan of since watching True Detective), and I really liked the chemistry between Zoe Saldana and Christian Bale, but I got annoyed when I realized the conflict was just Casey Affleck's character wanting fast money. That's almost the entire plot of the movie.

Kiss him?

If I can sum it up in one word, it's "unsatisfying". I kept thinking Christian Bale was going to become some sort of hero, but he just ends up pursuing Woody Harrelson (Harlan DeGroat) with a sniper rifle near the end right after the police told him specifically not to.

On the plus side, there were a lot of funny moments. It's got an all-star cast (including Willem Dafoe, and Forest Whitaker), but ultimately, I wish the actors could have improvised the entire thing. That would have been a treat.

Kiss him?

Conan the Barbarian

"EEEEIIEIEN!!! EEEEEIIIIIIRRRRN! EEEAAAARGH!", says Arnold Schwarzenegger (and a bunch of his impersonators). This is what I thought Conan the Barbarian would be, as a movie.

Surprisingly, it's more than just a googly eyed, romanticized version of what you might think-- a young Schwarzenegger-esque brute who cuts people in half.

I just said it's more than that!

I've always known there was a story to this movie, I just didn't know what to expect. First of all, it doesn't take place in our world. It takes place in a mystical, fictional land known as "Cimmeria". The world is like a melting pot of Medieval Mongolian Vikings. Even more interesting is the fact that it's not an original concept. It's based on the works on a short lived writer named Robert E. Howard, who made the world of Cimmeria in the early 1930s. "Conan" as a character was added a few years later. (I mention this because I'm a firm believer that you should always establish a world for your characters to live in before you make the characters, themselves. That way, you can avoid having to accommodate their environment to their capabilities and in turn, you end up with a richer, more believable world).

The movie itself is just fun. The writing's not phenomenal, but it's full of ridiculous and hilarious performances by Schwarzenegger and the one and only James Earl Jones. Without spoiling anything, I will say I was surprised that Conan doubles as both a barbarian and a thief. I really thought this was a movie about Arnold swinging a sword on the beach for two hours, cutting the occasional head off as passersby try and pass him by. It's more of a bank heist/western film chronicling a buff man's quest for glory and vengeance.

While watching it, I really felt immersed in its bizarre lands. If you like video games where you mercilessly and unrealistically destroy thousands of tyrant-led goons, if you like movies about a group of friends who set out on a seemingly impossible adventure, if you want something as gritty as it is goofy, do yourself a favor and watch the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian. I'm honestly excited to see its sequel, Conan the Destroyer!

Escape From New York

I've always respected Kurt Russell. I think what's most remarkable about him is his ability to don the eyepatch in so many movies, he turned "Kurt Russell eyepatch movies" into its own genre (Escape From New York, Escape From L.A., Captain Ron).

He's also a hilarious badass (see Big Trouble in Little China)

Escape From New York stars Kurt Russell as Solid Snake-- I'm sorry, inmate and veteran "Snake" Plissken, as he tries to escape from Manhattan island, which is now a giant state penitentiary because the U.S. government isn't smart enough to put all those prisoners ANYWHERE ELSE in America. Seriously, they just gave Manhattan to a bunch of prisoners and put a giant wall around them.

Needless to say, the movie is ridiculous, but I really liked it. It wasn't even a particularly smart movie. It could have done with better acting, more intricate sets, a more fleshed out world, but it did have a fun tone, the always terrifying Ernest Borgnine, and the awesome Lee Van Cleef (the "bad" from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly). It's post-apocalyptic/dystopian, which I loved since I'm always looking for more movies like The Road Warrior.

This is Snake Plissken, the main character in this video game-ish movie.

I recently had a conversation with my good friend, and we were debating which was the better medium: T.V. or movies. I fought for movies, while he argued that shows are better because they allow for more character development (which, in my opinion, is usually for the worse since most shows just drag on for way too long for ratings, not caring so much about character development, but overly-convoluted and/or uninteresting plots).

Then I thought about what this movie would have been as an hour long show. The first episode would be all about the American president getting his plane hijacked (this happens in the way beginning, I'm not spoiling anything). The second episode would be all about Snake Plissken having flashbacks about in his war days as he's being transported to Manhattan penitentiary. The third episode would be about Snake deciding whether or not to work with the United States Police Force (that's what they're called in this universe) as he remembers the bank heist that got him into prison. To give you an idea of how long this would drag on, this all happens in the first fifteen minutes in the movie, but would have taken three hours if it was a show. Do you really need that in your life?

You tell me.

The point is this: Escape From New York is a fun adventure movie, and although it's not a comedy in the traditional sense, there were moments in the film where I found myself laughing and cheering for certain characters when they did certain things. That's always good.

American Horror Story

I know it's not a movie. But I'm starting to feel like some shows are so powerful, they're like really long movies.

I was originally very skeptical about "American Horror Story" for two reasons:

1) I don't normally watch horror movies. The Conjuring and The Cabin in the Woods piqued my interest.

2) The show is made by Brad Falchuk and Ryan Murphy-- the makers of "Glee". I'm open minded, but an ex-girlfriend tried to get me into "Glee" some years ago and it just wasn't happening.

Still, "Breaking Bad" just ended, and as I was thirsting for another gritty, hypnotic show, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So I started watching the first season of AHS and fell for it instantly. The extent to which the show would go in revealing horrifying scenarios was unparalleled. The haunting intro, the twists, even the way the camera spun were all elements that worked toward making arguably the scariest show on television.

Season one was fantastic. It was set in L.A., based on a struggling marriage, mentally shattered youth, conniving neighbors, and a haunted house. There was just enough mystery to keep you wanting more, with an "Oh shit" moment almost every episode. Most shows (in my experience) don't have that effect because they're just not compelling enough. I didn't even know they can show what they showed on t.v.

Uhhhhhhh... hi.

Season two was even better! It was set in a Catholic asylum in the 1960's. They tackled all sorts of serious social issues of the time including homophobia, war, segregation, all of which are oppressive and controversial enough already without characters being held in captivity while having to fight demons. There were so many good twists in this season that I, a guy who gets bored of most "good" media, couldn't wait to see the next episode. There were "Oh shit" moments multiple times per episode. Just to give you an idea of how immersive it was, they play a french song for the asylum inmates. They play that song over, and over, and over again. It's insane.

Then there's James Cromwell-- the freakiest guy in the world.

Unfortunately, they decided to make season three about witches. Here's why that was a bad idea: Seasons one and two were good because they were about ordinary people trying to survive their environments. They were constantly looking for a way out of nightmarish places. That's horror... reminds me of my time in Florida.

Not only is the concept not scary, the execution was lackluster. Here's the premise: Four witches are recruited into a "Coven" (which is really just a big, empty sorority house). They literally have no agenda but to slowly learn more magic (See Harry Potter). They each have a unique power (See X-Men), but often talk about getting all the powers so that one of them can become the next "Supreme" (The leader of their dumb group).

Almost every time a witch dies, she just comes back. Sometimes it's with a spell, but they usually don't even explain it. She'll just show up in the next episode with some throwaway line like "Guess who's back, bitches?" and start eating soup with the girl who just killed her. Is this a contract fulfillment thing? Did the writers have a plan for the season or did they drunkenly write each episode week by week, overlooking contradictions? Who knows?

I think the idea of witches would have worked if the show wasn't centered on the witches, but regular people in the town being terrorized by the coven. It could have been about one family, or separate stories that eventually led to an epic finale in which the townsfolk either vanquished or got vanquished by the witches. Instead, it ended with some stupid Goblet of Fire tournament where they all were "tested" to see who has all the powers... yeah.

That's how I felt by the end.

Were there still some freaky moments in season three? Sure. There was an emotional scene near the end of episode nine. There were some decent WTF moments throughout the show, but none of it compared to the fright and taboo of the first two seasons. Fingers crossed that season four will be bold and compelling like the first two. We're all rooting for you, FX.

Don Jon

He cares about a few things: his bwody, his pyad, his riiide, his fyamily, his choich, his boyees, his goiyuls, and his pwohn. This movie had a surprising amount of substance considering the way it was advertised.

I ended up seeing this movie in my human sexuality class, which has nothing to do with my review. I just wanted you to know where your community college funds are going.

It starts off with Joseph Gordon also Levitt as the Incredible Hulk. Seriously. He looks like an adult this time.

See? Look at that shit.

It doesn't take long for the movie to get to the point-- he has a porn addiction and he always goes out with his friends to have as much sex as possible. Then he meets Scarlett Jo and Hansson. He falls for her and the rest is a development of their relationship and his struggles as he accepts this girl as his one and only. I won't spoil the ending, but it's not your average chick flick.

What makes this movie stand out from a lot of others from 2013 is the boss, Tony Danza.

He's the boss.

Everything Tony Danza ever says is hilarious. Seriously, I couldn't watch his reality show "Teach" without laughing. He's just got a positive vibe.

I recommend this movie to anyone with an open mind. It's funny, fast-paced, and the characters each have a good reason to be on screen.

Never Forget.

The Lone Ranger

People warned me at work. They said, "Philip... don't watch The Lone Ranger. It's two and a half hours of nothing."

Maybe I'm paraphrasing and maybe that's not a direct quote. But I've been warned nonetheless.

What makes The Lone Ranger so hard to watch is what makes every recent Disney live-action movie so bad-- it's contrived.

I've noticed ever since the Pirates sequels that Walt Disney Studios is trying to go for a more "gritty, edgy" feel with their movies. Pirates of the Caribbean 3, for example, starts off with a boy getting hanged, immediately followed by a hooker getting shot in the face.

The Lone Ranger contains scenes of murder, cannibalism, even several allusions to rape. But they market these films for all ages... so who are they for, really?

My problem with these movies is that they're clearly Frankenstein monsters. Too much of the studio gets involved and the movies end up having no real sense of direction or even target audience. There's no unique style to The Lone Ranger, John Carter, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Oz the Great and Powerful. They just write the most generalized dialogue so as to attract the widest possible audience. They drag on, delivering one liners that the writers or producers think would be funny for a trailer. There's no substance, no empathy for the characters on screen because they're clearly just vessels for the writers to fill in screen time. Which brings me to my next point.

This.

Since when was the old Lone Ranger t.v. series supposed to be "badass"? For some reason (which it turns out is the massive audience turnout), Hollywood is obsessed with making every possible character in literature and vintage t.v. more "epic" and "hardcore". In Disney's revamped version of "The Lone Ranger" (I'm just going to spoil it), Jack Sparrow and Armie Hammer fight the tyrannical William Fichtner and Tom Wilkinson over silver and the transcontinental railroad, or something. I don't know. Disney movies always have too many subplots and flashbacks-- The point is it's unnecessarily convoluted to the point where I wanted to stop half-way through but forced myself to finish it so I can preach to the world and help you. Save yourself, child! Watch a real western like:

For A Few Dollars More

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Django Unchained

3:10 to Yuma (the original)

True Grit (the remake)

No Country for Old Men (a modern western)

Or how about Tombstone?

I've just listed seven fantastic westerns that are so entrancing and so proper in their genre, they don't need hours of circular dialogue and feral CGI bunnies (which The Lone Ranger has plenty of).

Oh, also, Hans Zimmer plays the Pirates of the Caribbean theme throughout the entire movie until the final boss battle where they play the William Tell Overture finale for almost fifteen minutes straight. Yes, really.

You've been a good sport for reading this blog. I think I'll write about a good movie next time.

Au revoir,

-Philip