Tag: Patrick: BMT

Nine Lives Recap

Jamie

What?! Tom Brand (Kevin Spacey) is a high powered business man who only cares about one thing: his brand (get it?). After getting a cat as a present for his daughter, a freak series of events leaves his body in a coma and his spirit trapped in the cat! What a cat-astrophe! Can he learn to love and live as a cat before his business is sold and he loses his family forever? Nine Lives!

Why?! The primary impetus in the film is that Tom Brand is a shitty guy and needs to change. He loves his family, but doesn’t show it very well and appears to love his business and himself more than them. So the mysterious pet store owner, Mr. Purrrkins, turns him into a cat to teach him lesson. Basically, if he can’t learn to live as a cat in his own house, then he can’t learn to love and will remain a cat forever.

How?! It isn’t really made particularly clear how being a cat will teach Spacey to love or what he had to do to be free. He is just told to act like a cat. However by the end of the film you come to understand that it’s more about being there for the people in his family when they need him (just like a cat is… or whatever). He plays with his daughter and comes to understand that simply being there is what she needs. He snuggles with his wife and comes to understand that he needs to be a comfort for her when she needs comforting. And finally he comes to understand that he needs to recognize his grown son for the skills and loyalty that he has ignored for so long. Throughout the film the son is dealing with a fairly complex business scheme that the COO of Brand’s company has undertaken in the absence of Tom (just what the kiddos are craving in a film: intricate business talk). Only by truly understanding his son’s contributions to his success is he finally able to be free.

Who?! I’ll give a little shoutout to Talitha Bateman, who played the daughter of Tom’s first wife from a new marriage. Not only is she already a BMT veteran (playing Teacup in The 5th Wave), but she had one of the better running gags in the film. It becomes clear that she is a minor internet celebrity and posts amusing videos to a youtube-type channel. It’s an unacknowledged subplot of the film and even initiated my favorite joke of the film (where a security guard tasers his partner in the testicles while trying to catch Tom as the cat… can’t go wrong tasering testicles).

Where?! Pretty standard New York City fare. We get direct confirmation of the setting, numerous license plates, and even some GPS map visuals. However it is definitely not integral to the plot. Could have been Chicago pretty easily. C+.

When?! There is nothing that explicitly tells you the date. Did I give up? No! Scouring the film I found a scene on a bus with an extra reading a New York Times. The front cover clearly indicates that it was the April 2nd, 2015 issue. A vast majority of New York City dwellers will be reading the current issue so we can say that the film takes place on or around April 2nd, 2015. I’m the best. D-.

One last quick note about Nine Lives. It is the newest edition of Chris Klein’s Number Line, where we try to collect integers that appear naturally in a film’s title. This is the 17th such title that we’ve watched (Patrick’s Note: We watched the 17th title a mere week before the beginning to 2017? Coincidence or a sign from above?). It’ll end the day that Chris Klein himself makes a number line title… so it’ll never end. Hooray! I’ll also make a visual for this game for the site at some point. For now you just have to trust me.

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Nine Lives? More like Weak Try (haaaaaaalf-rhymes. Nine Lives is a surprisingly hard rhyming trick). We watched Nine Lives, a movie where Kevin Spacey is a cat. I slide head first into second with the lowest of low expectations, let’s go!

  • The Good – This movie isn’t as bad as you would think. Merely by not having Kevin Spacey act like a cat and instead put him in a movie-long coma it was a major win. Things are a bit fun, but it’s a kids’ movie. Do you like kids’ movies? I don’t. So I didn’t really like this movie. No skin off my back.
  • The Bad – Basically this movie immediately jumps in the middle of a very adult story of corporate power brokerage. It is boring to me, let alone kids who just want to see a cat run around. The CGI cat looks terrible. This is also not a body switch movie. Kevin Spacey does not run around acting like a cat. That was definitely in the original script, but they clearly cut it in order to get better talent all around. He is in a coma during the movie, and thus never acts like a cat. Mistake for entertaining Patrick, smart move in making this movie tolerable.
  • The BMT – There are a ton of things going for this movie from a BMT perspective. It has a terrible CGI animal; to the point where Kevin Spacey was probably on set for two days, and in the studio for two more, and that was his shooting schedule. They definitely made back their money from LG and Lexus in product placement. And this is a classic example of mixing two genres: why are kids interested in high level corporate sabotage again? Oh yeah, they aren’t, why is that literally half of this movie then? It is BMT, but just by being a great example of: (1) Body switch that isn’t body switch, (2) mixing an adult storyline into a kids movie, (3) product placement, (4) star power that was on set for fifteen seconds total. It is solid. But not as bad as you would think.

Obviously let’s go for a Prequel/Sequel/Remake and obviously we are doing a sequel. I will call it Ten Lives. The cat from Nine Lives is living out his ninth life with the Spaceys when sadly it is time to say good bye. But nay, after winning in the business world and winning with his family, there is only one last thing Kevin Spacey needs to conquer … the afterlife. Travelling through hell Kevin Spacey learns exactly how much his earthly success means for his soul. Spoiler alert: Not much!! Upon finding Mr. Fuzzypants can he convince Cat St. Peter that their furry friend deserves a tenth life? Find out in Ten Lives!

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Gods of Egypt Recap

Jamie

I’d like the record to show that I actually didn’t mind Gods of Egypt all that much. It was at times beautiful (albeit inconsistently so) and played a bit like Thor (patently ridididiculous, but still fun). So in the end I was actually surprised that this landed at 16% on RT. I guess perceived/actual racism can go a long way. Let’s get into it.

What?! It’s been years since Set took the throne of Egypt from Horus and left him blind and powerless. A mortal thief, Bek, steals and returns Horus’ eye (the source of his power) in the hopes that Horus can bring order (and the woman he loves) back to Egypt. They must work together to defeat Set before he destroys both the world and the afterlife in his own vain pursuit of immortality. Gods of Egypt!

Why?! The main driving force in the film is the aim to take down Set and return Horus to the throne. Even before we learn that Set is aiming to destroy the world and obtain immortality, we know that Horus, Bek, and his lady love Zaya want to take that power from him for totally different reasons. We have Zaya who worships Horus and wants him to bring order back to Egypt, we have Bek who needs Horus to bring Zaya back to life (she died, duh), and we have Horus who really doesn’t give a shit about Bek and is more focused on his own sweet tale of vengeance. Interestingly, this whole triangle of motivation is very similar to the motivations in Ride Along… It’s basically just Ride Along in Egypt… Now I’m having fun imagining this film starring Kevin Hart instead of [Insert Anonymous Actor’s name here].

How?! The original plan is that Horus is going to squelch the source of Set’s power, the desert fire, to leave him weak and vulnerable. Then he’ll have a chance to defeat him since he only has one eye. They first go on a quest to get some of the heaven’s water to squelch the fire, then they need to find Thoth to solve the riddle of the Sphinx who guards the fire, but they are stopped before they get a chance to destroy Set. When all seems lost and the world is being eaten by a giant space demon (seriously), Horus learns that all he ever had to do to defeat Set was to believe in himself a whole bunch and everything was cool (it’s like a children’s movie). Unfortunately none of this actually makes it possible for Horus to bring Zaya back from the dead… psych! Ra totally comes down from his spaceship and is like “No probs, bro,” and everyone is alive again at the end. It may be the truest example of Deus Ex Machina in cinematic history. Literally God comes down from the heavens and fixes everything. Hoo wee, what a weird plot.

Who?! I wanted this part to be highlighting the “Planchet” of the film, however so many of these films don’t have a shred of humor in them. Sure there are quips between Bek and Horus, but it’s on a Hitman: Agent 47 level of laziness. Instead I’ll just highlight that this marked the return of Rufus Sewell to our BMT lives (seen first in Bless the Child). Hopefully we can complete the Sewell trilogy with the XxX precursor Extreme Ops, which looks aaammaaaazzzzziiinnnggggg.

Where?! Boom. A+ in the hizzouse. Set in Egypt as the title informs you. Although, you would have thought it was set in Europe given the cast and accents. Zing!

When?! Uh…. ancient? It’s… uh… ancient times. D.

If that didn’t get you excited for the film then… you probably won’t like it because it’s just as ridiculous as I described.

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Gods of Egypt? More like God I Feel Ripped Off (I was going to say gypped, but that is racist. The more you know). This was one of the most anticipated movies of the year for us, so I went in with a bunch of expectations. Let’s go!

  • The Good – I liked the world building. It was interesting and the script was able to be a lot tighter than you would think given the subject matter. I hate the “this should have been a Game of Thrones like show, not a movie” nonsense, you could say that about almost anything. But this could have probably sustained itself as such a thing, and I would have been thoroughly entertained. It’s not that bad … because “that bad” for this movie is literally the worst film of the year. It isn’t the worst film of the year which is actually an achievement.
  • The Bad – The acting. The CGI was pretty atrocious. Actually, the movie itself is beautiful, no joke. But a bunch of scenes are really just terrible. I would say that while he gives it his all, having Gerard Butler in the film hurts it because it ends up too over the top. They should have stuck to totally television actors and gone from there, I think it would have ended up being a bit better.
  • The BMT – Yes. I would say 40 is just about appropriate for the film. Definitive, top 10 (maybe 5) for a year. But not the worst by any stretch. To kick it up a notch it either would have had to make literally no sense (it was shockingly coherent as I said) or just looked like a complete pile of shit throughout. But it didn’t. Part of me is impressed it managed to charm me at all, I’m down for a sequel to be honest.

Boom. Speaking of which let’s do a little Sequel Prequel Remake and rock a sequel. I think you fast forward a bunch of years and Horus is killing it as the main god. He rules a prosperous Egypt and the people love him. But alas, all good things come to an end. Ra is set to perish (they make it clear gods merely age slowly and aren’t in fact immortal in this world), and he reveals that Horus as the ruler of Egypt must lay down his mantle and take the throne. Refusing, Horus goes in search of a mythical weapon to forever strike down Apophis that would allow him to remain in Egypt after Ra’s passing. Meanwhile, Set, escaping death and returning to an Egypt missing its king, attempts a takeover of the kingdom. In the end, Horus battles Set yet again, and ultimately strikes a deal: Set can remain in the land of the living on Ra’s ship to battle Apophis, a beast which it turns out is vital to Egypt’s continued existence as well. … Confused? Me too.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Mother’s Day Recap

Jamie

Thank god for my rhetorical questions this week. Not sure I could have kept track of the storylines in Mother’s Day without my undivided attention on the necessary details. I use the word “necessary” ironically of course. Let’s dive in.

What?! Not everyone in Atlanta is ready to celebrate Mother’s Day. Sandy (Jennifer Aniston) just found out her ex-husband eloped with a 20-something hottie. Jesse (Kate Hudson) is surprised by a visit from her estranged, xenophobic Mom. Kristen (Britt Robertson) is trying to deal with abandonment issues rooted in having been adopted. Bradley (Jason Sudeikis) is struggling to raise his two daughters after the passing of his wife. Egad! Will they find a way to laugh, love, and live on… MOTHER’S DAY?

Why?! This is an important question for any Garry Marshall ensemble holiday flick. The answer ends up being quite simple: “Because it’s fucking [insert name of holiday], duh! Now go kiss [the person you’re supposed to kiss on said holiday].”

How?! Loaded question. The holiday is the purpose, driving us to the inevitable conclusion that everyone kisses their loved ones. How we arrive at the conclusion comes in a variety of flavors. Interestingly, for Mother’s Day that flavor seems to be a rainbow of different shades of grief and loss (and hilarity?… if you find grief and loss hilarious). For Bradley the story is him learning that he and his daughters will grieve differently over the loss of their mother/his wife. For Jesse it’s her mother having to come to terms with Jesse’s Indian-American husband and her sister being gay (loss of her idea of what a family is). Fortunately she quickly reaches acceptance after five minutes of playing with her mixed-race grandchild. For Kristen it’s the acceptance of her own story of being adopted and accepting her mother (Julia Roberts) despite her flaws. Finally, we get the full five stages of grief from Sandy as she comes to terms with the new structure of her blended family and her sons’ new stepmother. I just went all Professor Smadbeck on you. Would be interesting to go back and see how big a role grief over loss and change plays in the other Garry Marshall films or if it’s unique to Mother’s Day.

Who?! This is a toughie since the cast is so huge. I have to give a shout-out, though, to the only significant African-American character in the film, Kimberly (played by Loni Love). If it wasn’t for Loni this would be the whitest movie since Gods of Egypt (booooooooom). She had some fun lines and hit a respectable two on the Planchet scale. Even more interesting? She’s an electrical engineer by training. Worked eight years at Xerox. Talented lady.

Where?! Spoiler alert in the trailer, this took place in Atlanta. Pretty solid setting too with many mentions throughout. But not vital to the plot. Only convenience. It gets a C+.

When?! This is a rare A+ for the temporal setting. Takes place Mother’s Day, duh. Right there in the title and the crux of the entire plot. Bask in it, for it will likely never happen again.

I had some fun with that… more fun than I had actually watching the film.

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Mother’s Day? More like Bottler’s Day! (Boom, that is a deeeeep British bants cut right there. You bottlers!) We’ve completed a Garry Marshall trilogy. Did we hate it? Or did we merely dislike it? Read on to find out. Let’s go!

  • The Good – There are four main stories (Hudson and the racist parents, Aniston and the “tween” second wife, Sudekis the widower, and Julia Roberts with her daughter she never met and the daughter’s British comedian boyfriend), and of those only the last is truly effective. Sudekis, Aniston, and Olyphant are all fine. Only the Hudson storyline is a hard miss. I think that is better than at least New Years’ Eve. They’re improving!
  • The Bad – The Kate Hudson story. It is crazy disrespectful of what you might call “southern” culture. The parents are straight up racists and bigots, irredeemably so. To the point where you are expected to not bat an eye that their two daughters (1) didn’t tell them they both secretly got married and (2) both had a child. They hid their grandchildren from them! Why? Because they are racists … irredeemably so … except once the mother plays with the child for about 10 seconds, then’s all cool … let’s go for a picnic! Hooooooooooooooooooorseshit. But that is a Garry Marshall film. This was probably a primary reason the film got such terrible reviews. It genuinely sinks the entire experience.
  • The BMT – Sure. All three of them are naturally. This is probably the middle child (and without Hudson’s part it would be the best by far I think) behind Valentine’s Day (I think, I don’t really remember), but ahead of New Year’s Eve. Watching these three and the future BMT Christmas Eve would be quite the holiday marathon.

I need a game. I’m not sure if there is a name for this yet, for now I’ll call it the Mechanic Sklogification. It is like sklogification (in which we change the plot of the film to suit our needs) except the intention is to fix the film a bit. I’m targeting the Hudson storyline. Here’s the key: Hudson and her mother were both in the wrong. The mother obviously was a bigot, and Hudson shouldn’t have hidden the fact that had a child from her mother in the end. So have everything proceed as normal, but focus on a final confrontation in which both sides are laid on the table. “You’re a racist” “I said hurtful things, but you were my 20 year old daughter dating a much older man, I would have said anything to get you to stop. It still didn’t give you the right to hide my grandchild from me” “So you’ll accept my mixed-race family and that my sister is gay?” “I accepted it all the instant I realized I could have you both back in my life again, I was just too stubborn to admit it”. Tears, everyone loves this movie (not really). But seriously the vignette’s issue is more that it treats southern culture like a movie villain, almost as if the entire movie was written and stars “liberal Hollywood types”. Watching it unabashedly insult literally millions of people with their simplistic version of liberal-conservative culture class was frankly shocking.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

London Has Fallen Recap

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! London Has Fallen? More like Mundane and Rotten! Man, I’m all about the half-rhymes recently. Looking back at some old examples we are a far cry from the peak of this mini-game … Paul Fart Mall Crap, that is the best I’m ever going to do. Anyways, what do you get when you cross Michael Bay with the grossest parts of the torture debate surrounding the show 24? This movie. Mike Bannon is a sociopath, y’heard?

Before getting into let’s say a few words about the original Olympus Has Fallen. It doesn’t qualify at the moment (48% on rotten tomatoes), but I rewatched it as prep and … it is the most violent action film I’ve ever seen I think. Really rather gross. Mike Bannon is a sociopathic Jack Bauer wannabe who just tortures everyone (and it totally works, natch, just horseshit). The CGI is middling to bad. And the president might be one of the dumbest fictional presidents in history. I could go on for days at how inadequate this movie is, but that isn’t really here nor there. I just needed to set the stage a bit before we got into it … let’s get into it.

  • The Good – I mean, action. If you like explosions, and dirtbikes, and guns, and helicopter crashes, and headshots from Gerard Butler from 40 feet away on the run, and explosions, and your brain slowly dying as doctors look on perplexed, then this is the movie for you!
  • The Bad – The CGI is terrible. Eckhart is still the dumbest fictional president in the universe. Bannon is still a sociopath. Morgan Freeman is still the only good thing about this movie. The use of London is nothing more than an excuse to blow up well know (but not American) landmarks. The movie is indeed racist, but not in the way I expected. I mean, yeah, the basic Muslim enemy is over the top, but what really shines is the Italian Prime Minister with his mistress at Westminster and the French President intentionally being late (and the terrorists building that into their plans!). I’m sure there were a few more with the Canadian, German, and Japanese heads of state all getting some airtime, but those two were just mind blowing. Almost as good as the jabs they took at Russia early on! I’ll leave it there.
  • The BMT – Hell yes. This movie is so turn-your-brain-off dumb that you could pretty easily psych yourself into watching it edited for cable any day. I want to see Bannon become instant besties with the SAS lieutenant every day! You see, I would include the man’s name, but on IMDb he’s literally called “SAS Lieutenant”!!! This movie can be fun … you just have to be all about torture like early 2000’s Jack Bauer. Then you are golden. Easily a 40 BMeTric though. Easily. Officially amped for the trilogy.

I’ll actually leave it there. The BMT-view with Olympus Has Fallen will be my game this week.

Jamie

Seriously, I can now understand why Eckhart isn’t coming back for the third film. He seems to get stupider and stupider each time around. But let’s get to the root of this thing with the 6W’s.

What?! Mike Bannon, our hero from Olympus Has Fallen, is back on the beat as the President’s number one serial killer. When many of the world’s leaders are lured into a deadly trap in London, he’s the only one who stands in the way of their ultimate goal of killing the President of the United States. London Has Fallen!

Why?! Presumably you are asking, “But, why? Why do the terrorists want to do this to us? Is it our freedom?” Good question. The answer is the same answer to why Mike Bannon does anything in the film: vengeance. The UK government/world coalition took out the main bad guy’s family during a wedding ceremony and he now wants to kill the President on national television to prove a… what’s that? Did I say ‘wedding ceremony’? Uh… yes. The government killed his family while they were celebrating a wedding with several hundred innocent civilians. But don’t worry. Morgan Freeman totally said they had no idea it was a wedding… although the agent who ordered the bombing was disguised as a caterer for the wedding, so…. Just gotta take his word for it. Besides, in the grand scheme of the ethical questions that arise in these films this is small potatoes. Our hero is a sociopath.

How?! For the most part the audience is left in the dark on this one. Just have to trust that it’s the biggest conspiracy ever, involving hundreds of people infiltrating all levels of the UK government and entirely taking over one of the biggest cities in the world. By the end they throw you a little bone and reveal that a dude high up in MI6 was in on the plan. Still, Olympus Has Fallen is already hard to believe and this is 10x bigger and more complicated.

Who?! Gotta give a shoutout to Bryan Larkin, a Scottish actor who plays the head of an SAS elite squad that helps Bannon in the end. Besides looking and sounding like a buff Alan Cumming to the point where both Patrick and I thought to ourselves, “Gee, Alan Cumming is really taking some weird roles,” he also immediately becomes Bannon’s best friend. After knowing each other for about four minutes they are already exchanging one-liners at the end of the film. He hits a 5 on the Planchet scale.

Where?! Easy A+ for this one. Obviously takes place in London. It’s in the title! The only thing to add is that there are at least three scenes that take place in the country of Yemen. If we ever did a worldwide mapl.de.map this is good for that. We can’t use Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. It was too well reviewed.

When?! We actually don’t know. Patrick swears that it has to be when it’s cold cause the President is running in tights at the beginning of the film. But perhaps more experienced DC residents can watch the film and shed some light on the subject. Overall they did a good job of totally obscuring any and all indication of what month or day this took place. F.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Under the Cherry Moon Recap

I went bonkers with Settings 101 this week so I’ll keep my assessment to a minimum. Besides my take is boring, while Patrick’s is fun. That’s because I was mostly bored by Prince’s bizarre vanity project. Unlike Purple Rain we don’t get to be entertained by random Prince concerts (which was obviously amazing). Instead it kinda meanders around whatever plot it has (a Pygmalion-like knock-off) with Prince primarily tasked with ogling Kristin Scott Thomas and occasionally dancing around or playing the piano… but not performing. It was only not boring because it gave you the opportunity to observe some pretty terrible acting. This is made all the more amazing by the fact that Kristin Scott Thomas was only in the movie because Prince’s girlfriend (who was the original casting choice) turned out to be so bad that they literally couldn’t keep her in the movie. Yes it is real bad, but leaning towards boring for me.

It was a very lucrative Settings 101 for Under the Cherry Moon. That’s because I was looking for both the physical and temporal setting. In the case of physical it was pretty straight forward. We are introduced to the setting of the film using a shot of a hotel in Nice, France. How do I know it’s in Nice? Well the hotel is labeled “Nice.” Further, as Prince aims to establish his character as a hustler looking to marry rich he and his hustler friend peruse the newspaper for hints of rich ladies in the area. One article that catches their eye is the announcement of the birthday party of heiress Mary Sharon in Grasse, France… just a short 40 minute drive from Nice. So perfect, it is clear that we are set in the French Riviera, but not so much to get to A territory. Still at the C-C+ range. Clear enough, but not instrumental to the plot (just instrumental to Prince making the film), and not specifically provided to the audience. As for the temporal setting there are no moments where anyone says “Oh hey, what a wonderful day in 1985.” But we can pretty easily assume that it takes place in the 80’s given that there are personal computers seen occasionally in the background and Prince whips out a chrome-style boombox at one point. Lucky for us we can somehow still narrow it down to an exact date. That’s because that same newspaper article announcing the birthday tells us that it is occurring on Friday, September 13th. No year is given, but 1985 did have September 13th land on a Friday. We get further proof of 1985 in a later scene where Prince has the record ‘You’re Under Arrest’ by Miles Davis conspicuously propped up on a chair. That record was released in 1985, so unless we are to presume the film takes place in the future in 1991 (the next year where September 13th is on a Friday… unlikely) then we get a very soft exact date of September 13th, 1985 as the day of the birthday party in the film. Phew. That would be a C-. Exact date but not important to the plot and very difficult to ascertain. Boom. I. Love. Settings

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Under the Cherry Moon? More like Cautionary Swoon (nailed it). I think Jamie and I disagreed on this, but let’s savor those moments before you realize my true feeling, let’s go:

  • The Good – The music is at the very least ok and at the very best glorious Prince. I thought parts of the direction were interesting as was the eventual choice to release it in black and white … and I’m done.
  • The Bad – I think this film competes strongly with Howard the Duck for the worst film of 1986 and I thought it was far worse than any of the other films we’ve seen for the 1986 cycle (outside of perhaps King Kong Lives which isn’t a real movie so that doesn’t count). It is not shocking that Howard the Duck and Under the Cherry Moon ultimately tied for worst picture that year. Let’s see: worse actors is easily Under the Cherry Moon, worse writing I think was Howard the Duck, worse direction I think goes to Under the Cherry Moon, worse soundtrack goes to Howard the Duck. And ultimately Howard the Duck is the worse movie, but it was closer than I could have expected. The acting alone in Under the Cherry Moon is like watching amateurs dress up and crack jokes in a period comedy (oh wait … that’s exactly what this movie is). I did not like this movie, and yet it is fascinating in a very strange and magnetic way.
  • The BMT – Yes, a thousand times yes, although this film is more boring that something nuts like Howard the Duck. This is more like you are watching bad jokes and bad acting sustained on screen all wrapped up in a bizarre gift. I think the BMeTric would be something like 40, distinctly above average, but not alluring enough to attract the number of votes necessary to get over the top.

Phew. I hated that movie didn’t I? I think, in the end, that is going to be the one takeaway from this cycle that kind of made it all worth it. Under the Cherry Moon is probably top 25 as far as bad movies of the 80’s for me and it needed to be watched at some point.

Let’s Remake this guy! Imagine that. I’m thinking Justin Bieber hanging in Paris fleecing young debutantes out of their millions. And then he finds love, oh what a world. The bumping Bieber tunes anchor this romantic turn for the young music phenom who appears poised to become a movie star in his own right! Starring Justin Timberlake as his world weary partner in crime and … I was trying to find a young french actress and the only one that kind of fits the bill is Adèle Exarchopoulos from Blue is the Warmest Color. Funny enough Bieber and her are the same age. One word Netflix … fate.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Solarbabies Recap

Jamie

Ahhh, here’s the 1986 I know and love. Unlike No Mercy (which was Not That Bad™ and fairly typical) this falls right in line with King Kong Lives, Howard the Duck and (from what I’ve heard) Under the Cherry Moon. Read: weird shit. But despite only existing through a series of lapses in judgement, it actually has some bright spots. It looks a lot better than I expected and the game they play is legit the best fake sport I’ve seen put to film (this would be a good deep dive to undertake: fake sports in film). Overall though, it kinda reminded me of Ice Pirates, except not in on the joke.

On the face of it Solarbabies is not particularly interesting for Settings 101. There is little to no evidence of where it takes place outside of “in the desert.” The only evidence that can be seen is a license place on a car that some bounty hunters use as a primitive horse-and-buggy. While it’s not exactly clear what state the license plate is from (through some internet sleuthing I’m pretty sure it’s California), you would only really be able to say that it’s likely that the film takes place in America. A single California license plate can show up anywhere. So while it’s tempting to give this a D-, you have to give it an F. There is no setting that you would ever be able to put on a mapl.de.map. Sigh. These types of films are pretty rare. All of the angst about the physical setting of Solarbabies did get me thinking of a second class for BMIT similar to Settings 101. Instead of asking where the film takes place (and seeing how definite and specific you can get), you ask when the film takes place. Most every film can be narrowed down to an past, present, and future. A number will get to a year. There are a set of fun ones that can be narrowed down to particular weekends due to movie matinees, calendars on the wall, holidays, and funny stuff like that. Then there will be the solid few that get to an exact date by virtue of a intertitle or a major plot point revolving around it (think Back to the Future). While Solarbabies doesn’t have an exact temporal setting per se, it is stated that the film takes place in the year “41.” Most people take this as meaning that it takes place 41 years after some apocalyptic event dried out the Earth. So that’s something, but not really an exact year. There are some interesting internet theories about what else the “41” could mean, including one spoken about on the podcast How Did This Get Made? that gives us an exact year. This is that the film takes place in an alternate timeline where the nazis won the war in 1941 and started a thousand year reign. Thus the film takes place 1000 years later in the year 2941 and the climactic destruction of the Eco-Police HQ/hydroelectric dam marks the end of the reign. There are actually several aspects of the film that support this theory including the nazi-like characteristics of the villains’ uniforms. It’s certainly interesting, but the temporal setting is not definite and at best would be a C- (it does have an exact year of sorts, but it’s not great).

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Solarbabies? More like Bizarre Eighties! Amirite. Like, … this movie makes the eighties look bizarre, you know? Anyways, Solarbabies, Theodore Rex, Barb Wire, Left Behind. Potato, potato, potato, potato, let’s get into it!

  • The Good – This movie is way way better than it should be all things considered. When they say it is a rip off of Mad Max that is actually a compliment: this isn’t like the Asylum ripoffs you see (like Transmorphers or Atlantic Rim), this is like a group of people got together and tried to make a Mad Max film. And it isn’t nearly as bad as you would have expected given that description. The rollerball-esque future sport they play actually looks like a real sport: I would watch the London Bridges versus Manchester SBRGC play that game (SBRGC = SolarBabies Roller Game Club obviously).
  • The Bad – Most things, but you see that list of four ridiculous movies I wrote in my intro? This is the best of those four. It might be the best not-a-movie we’ve seen actually. That isn’t the say it is good. This movie is obviously awful. The music is so dumb. The acting is pretty bad across the board. The script (from dialogue to the basic premise) is ludicrous. This movie is bad. But if you know that going in … it would probably satisfy a thirteen-year-old on a rainy Saturday. That is the highest praise this film is going to get, revel in it.
  • The BMT – Yes, but only based on reputation I think. The movie is crazy and I would definitely watch it in a BMT marathon, but the marathon would be something along the lines of Barely There Movies. Solid 25 BMeTric.

Actually let’s see if I can’t get a solid cycle for a 6 movie Barel Movie-Thon extravaganza (Transition and Chain Reaction are impossible to predict so…): Theodore Rex (Comedy), Gymkata (Action), Troll 2 (Horror), From Justin to Kelly (Romance), Solarbabies (SciFi), Barb Wire (Razzies). Mac and Me would also need to get in there somehow, so maybe force a transition. Solid cycle right there of barely-movies for sure. I think there is actually a name for this game, like The Ideal Ideal Cut Cycle or something, so I’ll leave it right there.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Mechanic: Resurrection Recap

Jamie

This week we watched Mechanic: Resurrection in theaters for BMT: Live! A tradition whereby the bad movie twins attempt to find movies that have even remotely similar US and UK release dates. I’m going to take it upon myself to put this film into context with the original Mechanic and the 2011 remake. I’ll let Patrick do most (but not all) of the talking about Mechanic: Resurrection. The original film starring Charles Bronson was very similar to Get Carter. He is an old school gangster that gets a little caught up with some personal feelings, which puts him on the wrong side of his boss (in this case he takes a shine to his hitman mentor’s son and decides he wants to train him to be his replacement, which doesn’t make his boss very happy). In the end they decide to take him out and he is killed (but not before killing everyone that got in his way). That’s almost exactly Get Carter, but not quite as good. With the 2011 remake they shifted from a subdued thriller to a straight action. As a result, Statham and Ben Foster had to bumble and stumble their way through every job. They botch everything. Of course this is what happens when you want to make a hitman thriller into a straight action. They have to fuck up every job so that their only escape is through massive stunts and violence. It was shit. It’s actually super surprising that it got >50% on RT. I would have pegged it at high 30’s. Almost every change made from the original was a mistake and there was some rididididiculous writing on display (I could write a whole blog post on the medical jargon employed in the film, for it was absurd). So nowhere to go but up, right? Wrong. I feel like it’s been awhile since I’ve been able to say that a film we’ve watched is truly awful. Mechanic: Resurrection is truly awful. It’s like the makers watched last year’s horrendous Hitman: Agent 47 and looked around and said, “Shit… they’ve cracked the code. Perfection,” and browsed through whatever properties they owned so they could create the exact same film for this year. It was nonsense. The funniest thing about all this: the remake actually got the plot right this time! Instead of just having the hitman screw up in order to create action they had him cajoled into doing sloppy and near-impossible mission in order to save a loved one. That actually makes more sense, and yet it was still a pile of trash.

God damn do I love Settings 101. Once again we got a great settings film in Mechanic: Resurrection. It also was one of the more difficult films to assess of our recent fare. On the face of it Mechanic: Resurrection is a classic B settings film. Everywhere you go you are told explicitly through intertitle where exactly you are in the world. So you are never confused as we jump from Brazil to Thailand to Malaysia to Australia to Bulgaria. But as you can see from that list this is essentially a roadtrip film (what Patrick termed the globetrotter film). Do I consider it set in Australia? Thailand? Bulgaria? If we were making a mapl.de.map is this penalized because it doesn’t spend a lot of time in a singular location? After much gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes we came to the conclusion that this would not be a penalty. Here they are clear enough and the locations used well enough that this earns a solid B+ in Settings 101. It’s all about how clear the location is and how much it factors into the plot. For the record I would push for the film to count towards Bulgaria. I feel like it was the most solid location of the five. Australia has an argument as does Thailand, but that would be my vote (I’m sure you all were wondering).

Patrick

‘Ello everyone? Mechanic: Resurrection? I’m going a little NYPost back splash on you: The Mechanic Should Have Stayed Dead! Buuuuurned. It was BMT Live! So far I would say we’ve been remarkably successful with our in theater choices, did the streak continue? Let me put it this way … I have OPINIONS! Let’s hear them.

  • The Good – Who can’t resist a little Statham charm, and a little gratuitous Jessica Alba butt that makes you feel a bit dirty, you know? Considering the overall quality of the film some of the shots they managed to get are impressive. One more word: globetrotting. C’mon, everyone loves some great views.
  • The Bad – Nearly everything. I’ll speak a bit more on the theater experience below, but this is as close as I’ve ever come to walking out of a film. Five minutes in I thought “seriously … what the fuck is this?”. Usually bad movies are skilled people with good intentions when everything goes wrong. This, somehow, came across as watching people bad at their job do it badly. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and say the budget just didn’t match the aspirations. Amateurish is the word to describe the film. Expository would describe the script. Literally, there is a whole thirty minutes with pure monologues which sound like this: “Crain and I grew up as child soldiers trained in the East End. I escaped, and he’s never forgiven me for it.” First, seriously, c’mon, my workmates got a kick out of the mere idea of child soldiers trained in the East End, it is ludicrous. Second, how didn’t this come up in the first movie? This mysterious past didn’t come across in the slightest until literally right now. Alba’s backstory was equally ridiculous and is just deadpanned to the camera for a minute straight. Tommy Lee Jones is a gunrunner with a heart of gold! While mind you, still controlling the entirety of the European and South American arms trades, as if only “the little guy” needs guns in those parts of the world. I could go on for days, and I have. I literally whispered to myself “is this the worst movie I’ve ever seen?” Of course it isn’t, it isn’t even the worst movie I’ve seen in theaters, but while watching it it certainly seemed like the nadir of something.
  • The BMT – I would watch this movie a thousand times over. If there is any good in the world this movie will ultimately break 50 on the BMeTric and enter the pantheon. But I fear it will go the way of Hitman: Agent 47, forgotten and forgiven for all the hurt and pain it had caused. For shame.

As promised a little note on the Theater Sklog-sperience: This was my first venture to the Westfield mall in Shepherd’s Bush and the Vue there is fantastic. Great seat, courteous audience, awful awful (awful) movie. As I walked there I reflected on the fact that Hitman films just … kind of suck. You have a superman of a “good” guy, and the only way the kills are action-y in reality is if the person screws them up. The original Mechanic did a good job combatting both of those pitfalls and yet still was kind of boring (it’s like Get Carter, but I liked Get Carter more). The remake has Ben Foster literally screw everything up twice just so we could get some action. Not a good look. Even walking there I knew I wasn’t going to have a great time.

I’ll leave it there because I’ve written a lot. Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Bonfire of the Vanities Recap

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Bonfire of the Vanities? More like Bonfire of the Banalities. I had a tough time figuring this movie out, and I’ll tell you why. Let’s go.

  • The Good – For much of the movie it is well acted. I was rather impressed with Hanks, Willis (surprisingly), and especially Melanie Griffith. It is, for decent stretches, at least fascinating. I would say I was more confused as to whether this was supposed to our world or a truly surreal satirical take on our world, and perhaps that is what kept my attention, but there were certainly bits I did like.
  • The Bad – Where to begin … I mean, I know this movie is a satire, but it does come across as genuinely racist. Like it is painting a picture of a world it imagines exists and then takes the unfortunate tack of taking down the strawman caricatures it creates, as if that is meaningful. I kept grasping at things, trying to think how I could make the movie better in some tangible way, but the unfortunate thing is: without reading the book I didn’t know! I knew the movie’s approach couldn’t be the book’s angle because it would have been torn down and cast out of society with vigor. But how it differed I didn’t know. Reading the IMDb notes and realizing they were forced to recast the judge as black (Morgan Freeman) makes oh so much sense. At times I really couldn’t believe what I was watching. I found it shocking. I knew it was supposed to be satire, but it is so weak that occasionally you get lulled into the sense that you are watching a real movie only to be shaken awake by angry and awful people and actions. I found the first half of the film stressful, and the second half unpleasant (if slowly relieving as you realize that things are kind of going to way you’d expect them to go). So there you go. I did not think this is was not that bad, but perhaps that is the mood I was in, willing to take this silly movie a bit too seriously. And yet my feelings seem to mirror the critical reception at the time, so I’m giving myself the benefit of the doubt.
  • BMT – I’ll keep this short. I thought it was boring, but shocking enough to warrant a solid 25 and maybe (maybe) I’d throw it to someone with the tentative recommendation that you are watching a truly strange movie come to life. I do kind of want to read the book about the making of this movie. It must have been simply bonkers.

Let’s see. Sequel/Prequel/Reboot would be fun to try and figure out who would play all of the people in a reboot made this year (plus, hey, it’s not like we are having a serious discussion on race in the United States at the moment …). So in the Tom Hanks role I wanted someone with that boyish charm, who can play someone you kind of want to hate a bit, and as close to 35 as possible (a believable age for the social position Hanks was in in the movie), and I think Andrew Garfield in that role would work really well. You could definitely believe him on Wall Street and then sympathize as his world falls apart around him. Bruce Willis comes across a lot older than he actually is (also 35 at the time), but also the literal alcohol character is tough to pull off I feel like these days, they are either now much older or the perpetual party boy type deal (like Miles Teller in The Spectacular Now). I went a little older and found Danny McBride which I think could work, even has the comedy chops if they wanted to go that direction again. Jeremy Renner or Joel Edgerton could both work as well. Scarlett Johansson in the Griffith role rounds out the important bits. Recast Freeman in his own role and you got a stew cooking.

There isn’t much beyond the three leads to make this movie again if they cared. The rest of the cast you could debate back and forth, but really that is unimportant compared to actually getting the tone right.

Jamie

As we finish our Now A Major Motion Picture cycle heading into our transition week, I can start to think retrospectively about the collection of books that I’ve (largely suffered) through. In most cases the books and the films were either very similar, bordering on straight adaptations (Pinocchio, Phantoms, The Choice, and The 5th Wave) or wildly different (Fair Game, Get Carter, and Random Hearts). The Bonfire of the Vanities stands out because it’s not really in either category. The first half of the film is basically a straight adaptation, with only minor changes to how characters look or behave. Halfway through the film though, it veers wildly off course. Starting from a scene where our main character Sherman McCoy wanders out of a courtroom in which he has been indicted on charges of reckless endangerment, we, as the audience, also wander helplessly from a film that made some sense, to one that makes no sense. I was so confused by the tone change at that point (anchored by what I knew from the book) that I actually assumed for a while that what we were seeing was a dream sequence (spoiler alert: not the case). It seems at this point that the filmmaker decided that he no longer liked the film he was making (probably because all the characters are terrible people) and decided that the movie needed some bucking up. Let’s all of sudden make Peter Fallow a hero (rather than the shitty pulp tabloid man that he is in the book), let’s have Sherman comically brandish a shotgun in a crowded party, and let’s make the climax of the film be the just acquittal of our valiant hero (!!!) Sherman McCoy. In the book this climax was just only in that it took all the shitty, vain people involved in the story and destroyed them all in a blaze of glory. In the film none of the characters are developed enough to convey this (and the ones that are developed have been developed into nicer, softer characters) so that the climax is played straight. Gross.

Funny enough this probably wouldn’t have made a difference to me if I hadn’t read the book. I wondered if I would have thought the film was well-acted and well-written (albeit a bit aimless), and produced in that Hollywood way to make it pleasant enough. I thought that I might have even said It’s Not That Bad.™ With the book, though, it seemed like a disaster. In the end I think Patrick and I agreed though. The fact of the matter is that the book is considerably more shocking in its racism than the film and in that way you can see the satire. It creates caricatures of real NYC dwellers of the time, but magnifies the hidden racism that roils beneath in order to satirize the institutions in the city (police, law, finance, politics). But how the film reigned back the exaggeration and dared to soften the McCoy and Fallow characters destroys the satire and in turn makes it simple offensive. Basically, I was wrong in my assumption that I might not be offended if I didn’t have the book to anchor me. His recap proves that I would have probably been even more offended.

Perhaps it’s a byproduct of all these films being based on books, but we’ve had a nice little run of films with very distinct settings for Settings 101. Once again we have a film that gets an A! In this case The Bonfire of the Vanities is a takedown of the New York City elite. Obviously they couldn’t change the setting or else the entire message would be lost (instead they just lost the message through shitty character development). We get several shots of the New York skyline, a close-up shot of Sherman McCoy’s New York license plate, clear “Manhattan” and “Bronx” highway signs, and a climax that centers around the idea of a white Manhattanite running over an African American youth in The Bronx. Kinda hovers a bit between A- and A as there isn’t really a distinct New York landmark used as a prop. But as the setting itself is vital to the plot and unchangeable, I give it the A. Once again, misses out on the coveted A+ by not having the setting in the title of the film.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

The Choice Recap

Jamie

This week was our Romance category, and nothing screams Romance like Nicholas Sparks’ instant classic The Choice! The Choice presents an interesting case for the based-on-a-book cycle. This is primarily because I found the book to be somewhat offensive. And not even in the hyperbolical sense (like “the editing in The Choice offended me”). It was truly offensive. For those who haven’t read the book, the plot isn’t too far off from the film: boy meets girl, girl has boyfriend, they fall in love, she leaves boyfriend, they get married, there is an accident, the boy must make a choice regarding whether to take the girl off life support. Thus the title The Choice. Now all this would simply be incredibly sad if this choice had to be made because Travis and Gabby (our main characters) had not thought through the situation in advance (which would be pretty common given how young they are). With no advance directives laid out, Travis would have a gut wrenching decision to make regarding the woman he loves. Is he ready to let her go given the quality of life that she would endure otherwise? Here’s the rub though: she did have an advance directive. She signed, with Travis and a lawyer witnessing, an advance directive stating that she wished to be taken off life-support in the event that she was in a coma for more than 120 days. So the choice is actually whether he is going to follow her advance directive… … … and he chooses not to. I understand that this is an incredibly tough decision, but ignoring an advance directive and going against Gabby’s wishes… that’s not right. That’s the wrong choice. I’m sorry. It is. It was her (and their) choice and they made it together and then he disregarded it. And then for Sparks to have the gall to have Gabby come out of the coma and imply to the reader that Travis made the correct choice is even worse. It’s offensive. Straight up. It’s all a little less offensive in the film for two reasons: 1. The movie is poorly told and edited, so the offense in question is actually kind of hard to grasp. I don’t think this is on purpose, but it softened it a bit nonetheless. 2. They seemed a bit more aware of the problem. There was a particular scene where Travis’ dad (a vet) decides that he is going to buy a new lizard for a little girl  whose pet has died and pretend that it lived by some miracle, instead of breaking the bad news to her. It’s almost a metareference to the entire story, “Yeah, here’s a miraculous story of Gabby coming out of the coma (when we know that the truth is much harder and harsher a reality). But it’s nicer for you sweet, naive audience.” As you can probably tell I had OPINIONS about the adaptation.

Alright, well this can hardly be judged for Settings 101, but here it goes anyway. Everyone everywhere always knows that this book/film is set in North Carolina. Why? Because it’s a Nicholas Sparks book, duh. They are all set in North Carolina. Like Phantoms, though, they don’t really go out of their way to mention it much. Fortunately for The Choice it has a few things going for it: 1. License plates confirmed the location. 2. It was shot on location in the actual setting of Wilmington, N.C. so the restaurant and beaches and stuff are well known Wilmington landmarks (!). 2. Gabby is from Charleston and we see Travis drive there (passing a Welcome to South Carolina sign no less) along the coast, so realistically they can only either be in North Carolina or Georgia. All adds to a C. Now normally for a film that only definitively proves its location through license plates and the like you would be in the D range, but come on! They filmed in the small coastal town where the book took place! That’s kind of crazy. Gotta bump that up to a C.

Patrick

Olá a todos! That’s right, I was on holiday (as they say) in Portugal for the week and naturally I carved out some time to watch The Choice (more like … My Choice is Nope! (?) I’m not sure, there isn’t a good rhyme [EDIT: My brother pointed out that using the version of nice pronounced like noice you could get something like “The Choice?! More like Not Noice!”, it is pretty good. Better than the garbage I put out into the world. Thanks bro]) … not really, I watched it when I got back. And I must say, let’s get into it.

  • The Good – Huh, the main woman was kind of cute in a I-Can’t-Quite-Figure-Out-How-To-Do-An-American-Accent-Properly kind of way, so that’s nice for a rom dram. The scenery was unbelievable, really putting NC right up and center. Fighting the good fight in showing how the 1% are just like us, you know? (Seriously though, everyone in this movie was quietly and absurdly wealthy and they almost conspicuously don’t mention it).
  • The Bad – The main guy looks like a cartoon, in such a way that he could only ever exist in Civil War movies (jelly much Patrick? Whatever, he looks like a cartoon). The movie is pretty dull. The ending is absurd (you don’t just shake off a 100 day coma lady, c’mon!). The movie is 20 minutes too long. Both main actors are terrible. If I could freeze this movie in a time capsule I would as a testament to “this is what a bad romantic drama is”. The perfect ending to Nicholas Sparks’ production company I must say.
  • The BMT – Hell yeah. This movie is crazy bad and there is one scene that kind of saves it for me (think motorcycle ride in the rain ending with a singing church scene, it is amazing). But if someone said let’s watch this and make fun of it I would definitely do it … for an hour and then tell them to stop because it isn’t worth it at that point.

Phew. I did have opinions. Major opinions. I’ve felt like my responses have gotten a bit stale over the past few weeks so I’m going to go back to Sequel Prequel Remake and then start mulling over some new games when Jamie goes on vacation. Here I think we definitely need a Prequel where we see Travis just smashing it in NC for a summer. Fresh out of college you see him rebel a bit against his father’s dreams for him as a vet. He buys a boat, buys a sweet adirondack chair and makes a life promise with his best buds that they’ll never get married! But oh, a blast from the past as his old high school squeeze blows in threatening to derail all of the summer shenanigans for the newly minted graduates. Can this sleek southern gentleman juggle his friends, his summer plans, and his heart?! The Choice 2: Summer Fling. There is definitely some southern dreamboat on the CW who would kill in this role.

Obrigado,

The Sklogs

Phantoms Recap

Jamie

I’m going to try my best to stick to the adaptation, since that is my major contribution this cycle. As expected, Phantoms reminded me of Stephen King in the beginning. Often King starts with some major unexplained event and the characters confronted with the event must battle the unknown assailant, while also coming to terms with why they have been chosen to do battle. This is the same with Phantoms (where a set of characters find themselves in the midst of a town that has entirely disappeared). The big difference right away is that Koontz’s characters are primarily squeeky clean. They are goodie-two-shoes small towners with nary a blemish to their names. I prefer King’s method where the narrators are often outsiders with some real (or perceived) character flaw. Still, pretty similar in the beginning and I thought the creepy atmosphere of the book was actually really well done. Then it goes totally awry. Koontz spends long stretches of the back half of the book concerned with a total (pseudo)scientific explanation of the events at hand. As a result it became super slow. As for the adaptation, I can’t lie. I actually kinda dug the film Phantoms. It’s certainly not a scary horror film (I was not scared once during the whole experience), but I am a fan of Horror/Sci-Fi and this was at least halfway decent. It had OK atmosphere, a nice performance by Liev Schreiber as a smarmy deputy, and the occasional great practical effects. To boot, the adaptation was actually fairly impressive given that while I read the book I explicitly told Patrick that I thought it was unadaptable. I was wrong. They did fine. In fact I would say most changes made were actually for the better. My biggest gripe? A change to the ending. In the book the seemingly invincible monster is decisively destroyed. Hooray. In the film? We get a garbage precredits twist where the monster (in the guise of Liev Schreiber) appears in a different Colorado town waiting to kill again (in the sequel). Not digging that at all. Ventured one step too far into cliche. Anyway, I’ll let Patrick delve deeper into the film itself.

I am definitely going to do a Settings 101 for this film. This is a pretty good case of a low grade settings situation. Everywhere you look they talk about how this film was set in Colorado, so I was expecting them to be driving to the town passing a “Welcome to Colorado” sign or have insert titles tell the audience where we are. Nope. As far as I could they didn’t even say the word “Colorado” in the entire film. There was one instance of a zoom on a license plate, a 303 phone number is mentioned, and it was filmed in Georgetown, CO, so there isn’t really any doubt, but not as prominent as I would have though. Staunchly in the D+ category of settings. On top of that the book isn’t even set in Colorado (it’s set in California). Not sure why they bothered to change it. Bizarre.

Patrick

‘Ello everyone. Phantoms!? More like Phan-DUMBS!! How does the movie compare to the book? What was the deal with the setting of the film? Was Ben Affleck the bomb in Phantoms? All that and more literally immediately right now, let’s go!

  • The Good – There were a few solid practical effects all things considered. Also a few okay performances, Liev Schreiber’s performance at least seems like acting and made some semblance of sense. And it was a valiant attempt at adapting what is in reality a very difficult book to handle from both a length and … let’s call what needed to be done “necessary alterations” to a sci-fi horror book.
  • The Bad – Oof. Let’s start with how it failed as a horror film. It wasn’t scary. It didn’t have nearly enough characters to pull off the necessary kills to get you into the creature feature territory. And despite some good practical effects most were silly to the point that it made the bad guy laughable. Onto how it failed as an adaptation. It unnecessarily changed the motivations behind Affleck’s character to the most cliché choice possible. It aged up the Rose McGowan character unnecessarily. It completely botched the ending. It cut out one of the more effective side stories involving an escaped sociopath. And finally as a movie. Affleck literally yells throughout the movie, he is not the bomb. Rose McGowan is terrible, sorry. Sure, the horror genre isn’t great for literature, but this one was actually a pretty good read. And the movie is not good as a movie in its equivalent genre (at best).
  • The BMT – Surely. This movie though might be too small. It really does come across as a TV movie, kind of like what It ended up being for Stephen King. People treat it like a real movie (kind of) but it is really unpolished and silly and kind of low budget. And that is probably the best excuse you can give Phantoms. Dean Koontz has never successfully adapted a book into a movie, so they don’t really give him a chance, and this one gets weirdly close, but also kind of sucks.

Just to briefly touch on the setting before Jamie grades it: The change from California to Colorado was astonishing to me. We considered it for the mapl.d.map oh so long ago, but rejected it because the book was set in California and there was no immediate evidence watching the beginning of the movie that it was in fact Colorado, and then the biggest piece of evidence it was Colorado? The trailer! It doesn’t need to be Colorado, was California in the source, so why change the setting? Perhaps only Dean Koontz knows … where is an audio commentary when you need it?

And a little mini-book review myself as well. I thought this book was shockingly good personally. I don’t really go for horror books. I like the idea of them and read It and The Shining by King … but neither scared me. Not once. Phantoms though? Actually really creepy and effective in the first act. Koontz certainly seems to follow in the King footsteps with weak third acts, but Phantoms I think proudly stands next to King in pop-horror literature. All the more reason the lack of scares in the movie disappointed me in the end. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is by far Koontz’s best horror book though. And I agree with Jamie, his obsession with providing a scientific explanation bordered on ludicrous and does derail the book. The second and third acts are weaker, but I still liked it damn it!

Cheerios,

The Sklogs