DVD REVIEW: TIMECOP 2 THE BERLIN DECISION (2003)

Director: Steve Boyum Writer: Mike Richardson & Mark Verheiden (comic series) Gary Scott Thompson (written) Starring: Jason Scott Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, Mary Page Keller, John Beck, Distributor: Umbrella(AUS)

WARNING SPOILERS!!!

TIME COP 2: THE BERLIN DECISION is the follow up to the 1994 hit movie TIMECOP starring Jean-Claude Van Damme (and a lesser extend the 1997 failed tv series of the same name, starring Ted King). In typical sci-fi movie fashion with the Ryan Chan (aka The Time Cop aka Jason Scott Lee) explaining the world in which the film is set. He works for the Time Enforcement Commission (TEC) and his job is to arrest anyone that abuses time travel for there own personal advantage. So after the opening titles we film out the movie deals with the cinemas favourite bad guys! That’s right Lesbians Vampires’!!! Um.. I mean Nazi’s. Ryan and his group have to do some kind of mission in Germany. Two of his team members (Miller and Sasha) decide they’re going to do the world a favour and kill Hitler. Could you really blame them? Ryan, being a stickler for the rules of the space, time continuum decides to stop him. He kills Sasha but Miller gets away. The decision in Berlin (or the Berlin Decision as it were) would affect the rest of known time. I just have to point out that actor playing Hitler doesn’t really look like Hitler. The only reason you know it him is by his moustache (that’s if you haven’t confused him with Charlie Chaplin).

So Ryan wakes up in 1890 then goes into exposition about how time travelling effect’s him and the reason behind his job. It turns out the government thought TEC had too much power and allowed an history preservation agency to use the technology.… which of course was a bad idea as people like Miller abused it. Now sadly this is where the film falls apart. Ryan is in the 1890’s looking for Miller’s men. The film never really links the name Miller but the character from the pervious scene. So at this point I was a little lost. I was still thinking Miller was an off screen villain. So a few scenes drag on…. To a scene in which Ryan looks down at this watch, is confused then has a strange childhood flashback. He is interrupted and told O’Rourke (his hard arse boss) wants to see him in his office. This happens to be the most important scene of the movie (but this isn’t obvious until later.) The Doctor (Mary Page Keller) who happens to be called Doc is having a some what interesting conversation about the technicalities of time travel with O’Rourke. Doc argues that O’Rourke isn’t giving his men enough rest time between missions and they’re all going crazy as a result of it. We learn that when Ryan was in 1890’s he really was on 30 days suspended duty. It was assumed it would serve this out in his current time line. It was never stipulated which time frame he had to do it. So that morning he left for 1890’s. He spent his 30 days there, and then returns to his current time line that afternoon. Clever huh! Doc tries to plea the moral and physical implications of doing this. O’Rourke doesn’t care. Ryan comes in the end of the scene to ask her out. We learnt that Miller is actually in jail (I still have no idea who Miller is. Maybe that 1890 scene would have been better used by having Ryan capture Miller). Doc leaves. Ryan tells O’Rourke that he is contemplating leaving the service all together (as he is going crazy). Before any real decision can be made the typical female sci-fi voice tells them there has been a time breach.

A time cop called Douglas tried to bring a younger version of him self back to the future on the same time line. Bad idea! If you do that, you end up looking like a mutant. So the problem is this. If Douglas dies, he will also die in the past and every criminal he has every brought in will go free. They send another time cop to go back and stop him from doing it but he gets fried in the process. There current time line starts breaking down. In the words for another time traveller known only as The Doctor “a timey whimy” thing happens. Miller is in the World Penitentiary for the Criminally Insane (WPCI) as a result of all the timey whimy stuff he gets free and starts killing off all of the TEC. Ryan has to go back in time (before Miller brakes out) to stop him (which is extremely dangerous). He gets to the World Penitentiary for the Criminally Insane (which looks just like a normal jail. For such a great name I was expecting a little more). Miller tells him he is going to kill him in time. Ryan gets pulled back to the future. He pleas to go back. If the time travel won’t kill him Miller certainly will. Just before he gets relaunches he feels the need to talk to Doc about there date (his timing seems a little inappropriate) anyway Doc has no idea what he is talking about. Then tells him her husband died in the war. Thus alerting in to the fact that his currently time line has changed. He gets back to the WPCI to find out that time line has changes once again and Miller isn’t there.  Back to the future things have changed ever more (O’Rourke has a kick arse eye patch now). So there is only one solution to Ryan’s problems. He needs to go back to the old west to stop Miller. In the old west he finds character from the movie playing other characters (that’s clever and saves money). So this hoe down doesn’t last that long and they end up chasing each other through time.

Finally Miller attempts to kill Ryan’s father. Ryan stops him but get shot and transported back to the future (at the same time). There we find out he was actually shot in his watch (how ironic). Ryan travels back in time AGAIN. This time its’ EVEN more dangerous but hey what has he got to lose. He travels back to a flash back he had at the start of the film… ummm.. I mean he time travels back to a lecture father gave while he was a kid. His father is lecturing on time travel. Young Miller happens to be one of his students (what’s the chances of all of this trying in so nicely). Anywhoo Miller ends up killing Ryan’s dad in the toilets. Young miller comes in. Ryan has a chance to kill him but he decided to kung fu it out with Miller like a man. Ryan dose this really impressive side kick then takes off his shirt and shows why he was cast as Bruce Lee in DRAGON. I wish Miller would take off his shirt. His shirt is so ugly it makes my eyes want to vomit. By this time all the main characters have crowed around them. Ryan is about to kill Miller but changes his mind when he see the utter disgust on his mothers face. He pled with young Miller to change. Something good must have happened as they all fade away. So back to the future (for the final time), now remember the most important scene of the movie. Ryan goes on to play out a condensed version of that scene. That is: Doc tells O’Rourke how dangerous time travel is. O’Rourke doesn’t care. Ryan asks Doc out, and she shoots him down. The female sci-fi voice goes on to tell everyone there has been a time breach. The movie ends on Ryan doing a double take! DA DA DAAAA!

The script has some interesting elements to do. It presents time travel as a dangerous thing that can effect a both a travellers body and mind. This is a fantastic idea that hasn’t really been explored in time travel moves before. The first ending is interesting. Very rarely do you see action orientated movie end on the bad guy evolving into someone better. Usually the bad guy just dies. The film’s second ending (the time loop) is a little cliqued but the idea of Ryan being permanently stuck in a dangerous time loop is cool enough to work. The script was just a little too confusing for its own good. They’re just too many time shift and the whole 1980’s sequences just seems needless. Maybe I wasn’t paying attention had enough but the movie was just hard to follow. The direction is pretty average. I wasn’t worth of the material. The parts involving time confusion were very effective. While the special effects went bad, they were just cliqued. E.g. when they time travelled there was a pond ripple effect. TIME COP 2: THE BERLIN DECISION almost was one very cool movie. The script just needed a little more work and better direction. If you after a time travel movie just watch old episodes of DR WHO instead.

LESLIE MORRIS

DVD REVIEW: TAINTLIGHT (2009)

Taintlight is about a teen (or is that tween) named Stella that movies to Bonejack Heights. At her new high school she falls in love with a vampire named Edgar, and that’s about it.

I found the title of the film a little puzzling. I knew it was a Twilight (2009) parody but I just didn’t get the title. What’s a Taint? I asked my good friend google and they told me is the space between a vagina and the rectal opening. Yep, I guess from that alone you know if you’re going to like this film.Taintlight is the latest featurette by Chris Seaver. I don’t have a lot to say about this film. In fact I’ve cut and pasted large sections from my Terror at Blood Fart Lake (2009) (which is his pervious release) as my criticisms are exactly the same.

I recently wrote an article but Steven Seagal. I talked about how his movie titles and poster art are all interchangeable. I feel the same way about the films of Chris Seaver. His films boil down to the same “middle of the road sex banter” that’s just placed in different situations. There is nothing unique about any of this films.

Chris Seaver is a filmmaker who is more interested boasting about the number of films he’s made and how quickly he’s make them, rather than worrying about the quality of his craft. He boasts about how fast he can films his films “…we shot 2 movies back to back in 8 full days!” then he talks up the lack of quality “if you wanna see a really low budget, cheesey b-movie parody…, pick it up”  I like how he suggest that the really low budget aspect is a selling point. All things being equal no one really wants to watch a really low budget movie. No one goes to the video store and picks Transmorphers (2007) over Transformers (2007).

I don’t have a problem with his content aiming pretty low, but I do have a problem with his craft being low. Even the worst Roger Corman film is apt on a technical level. You think after 30 something films and 20 years of filmmaker he could learn how to hold a camera straight, use a zoom correctly, learn how to do a second take. Examples of poor craft can we seen through out the film. Maybe Chris Seaver should have spent those 8 days shooting one quality feature length instead.

I know this sounds petty but what annoys me most about Chris Seaver is that he often refers to his featurettes are feature films. In fact Taintlight would have to be the longest Chris Seaver films I’ve seen. It clocks in at 65 minutes, and it comes with behind-the-scenes featurette that almost run for half the time of the actual film. If you needed even more insight into the film it comes with an audio commentary!!! What fascinating insights do these extra features bring? I have no idea as life is too short to watch them.

The film also features one of the worst Chris Seaver characters to date. There is a Michael Jackson werewolf named Jack? Jack is a third generation vhs booleg of Teenape (I love Teenage). I have no idea why they just didn’t use Ski Wolf in the role? What else can I say about the films itself? The music is good.  The actors as fine, but there is no stand out performances. I should also note that I’ve never seen Twilight (2009)  so I can’t say if it’s an apt parody

This film lacks any basic exploitation elements. When you watch a film like this you want laughs, boobs and gore. I got nothing. Granted humor is subjective, but boobs are gore are not. For me the humor of the film feels like the same “middle of the road” dick and fart jokes, that is laced with that “Simpson-que” sarcasm that I’m sick to death of. This film would have been much better if it had more extreme situations. This film has no “what the fuck did I just see” moments.

I don’t want you to think that I’m anti Chris Seaver. I tend to only write about things I find value in. I think Chris Seaver has the potential to make great films if only he took his craft more seriously. Filmmakers should treat their audience, not give them the bear minimum. Good parody films are filled with different types of humor such as visual gags, word play, and over the top sequences. Taintlight is just the same old Chris Seaver crap. This film delivers nothing. Avoid at all cost. Watch Ski Wolf instead.

LESLIE MORRIS 11/11/09

DVD REVIEW: STREET RACER (2008)

Director: Tep Konuralp Writer: Carey Van Dyke, Shane Van Dyke Starring: Clint Browing Distributor: The Asylum

STREET RACER is a “by the book” sports movie. Thankfully I like “by the book” sports movies. This one is filled with all my favourite cliques.

Insert one ‘troubled teen’ who cripples a kid in an illegal street racing accident. Cut to five year later and his ‘evil parole officer’ has manipulated him street racing again. If he doesn’t he will go straight back into jail. He has also arranged him to work as a mechanic and a hospital (as a cleaner). He soon befriends his ‘nerdy best friend’ who is useless but is there for exposition. ‘Nerdy best friend’ takes ‘troubled teen’ (well ‘troubled mid- twenties’) to a bar where all the other street racers spend their days drinking and sitting on their cars. They soon find the ‘not so bad guy’ who happened to be the same guy ‘troubled mid –twenties’ raced five year ago when he crippled the kid. What are the chances of that! Conveniently ‘troubled mid –twenties’ befriends the crippled kid (and his ‘hot sister’) at the hospital, and through love and friendship he teaches him how to walk again. So two bad guys, a love interest and cripple kid… we’re only missing one thing the Mickey-que mentor character who happens to be the owner of the mechanic’s. He likes ‘troubled mid –twenties’ because (according to the nerdy best friend) ‘troubled mid-twenties’ reminds him of his dead son. I’m sure you can fill in the blanks.

What’s good about this film is that it has a sense of humour. The main character is called (I kid you not) John Wayne, the mechanics is called Hot Wheels. Red (the Mickey-que mentor) is one funny guy. He has a bunch of winning lines my favourite would have to be “sure, its on fuck you avenue”. You will really love him when in the middle of his inspirational speech (you know the one just before the big race where he tells him ‘it’s not about the race, and it never was) he tell John (and I quote) “fuck you, I’m not a fountain cookie and I don’t do wax on and wax off” Now that’s inspirational!

My favourite bit would have to be in the final race his random chopper comes out of no where and starts giving a commentary about the race. The chopper pilots sound stoned and they are clearly too high (pun intended) to acutely see the race. But is all done in good humour. The main song is catchy. The bad guy has a very satisfying demise. Asylum fans will be pleased to know the film is filled with there standard stock footage. This film has some sound problem but it’s not as bad as the asylums sound problems. But saying that is like debating what’s better getting shot in the leg or arm.  The car races themselves are a little weak, but really what were you expecting.

This is an odd film to review. I’m not sure weather to recommend it. It’s clearly more coherent that the average Asylum film. I’ve got a feeling it might be a little too straight for the average Asylum fan and a little too cheap for everyone else.  What the hell, Take a risk and watch it! Its not like your doing anything productive with your time anyway ;p But just remember like all Asylum films it should ONLY be watched with beer and a good buddy or at 3am in the morning (I choose the latter) I think under those circumstance you could have fun with it.

LESLIE MORRIS 24.06.08

SCREENER REVIEW: POISON SWEETHEARTS (2008)

Director: Andrew Campbell, Lucas Campbell Writer: Jared Bullis, Andrew Campbell Starring: Raymond Turturro, Ashleigh Holeman Distributor: TEMPE DVD

POISON SWEETHEARTS is an anthology of short stories about good Cleveland girls who go bad! Interspersed between each story are mock educational films that help inform the viewer about the female terror. The film is filled with pretty girls and retro feelings and Simpson-que sarcasm.

The marketing for the film is a deceptive. Looking at the dvd cover one would think it was a neo pulp “good girl goes bad”. After reading the synopsis you’re none the wiser. I came to the conclusion that it must be a “girl gang” movie? Which is fine with me as I love “girl gang” movies. I cant describe my disappointment to find out its an anthology of short films. I hate short films! I wanted to see a feature film DAMN IT! Short films belong my youtube not my dvd player! Why don’t filmmakers understand that NO ONE wants to see short films! Short films are rip off, even more so when the movies publicity make little effort to alert you to this fact. It’s alluded to at best. This inaccurate advertisement only hurts the film. I was lost for the at least 15 minutes. It was only until the second films I worked out what was going on. I was hoping that at least all the girls would get come together at the end of the film as that’s very common with these types of films, or maybe all the stories will intertwine just like PULP FICTION. Nope, nothing, not even close! It’s just a bunch of similar themed short films. I have no idea why there isn’t some kind of epilogue? The film only runs for 70 minutes for goodness sakes!!! It’s not like any of the section are packed with plot, fifteen minutes could have been cut and addition forty five minutes of an actual movie could have been filmed and placed at the end. That would have been a great movie. POISON SWEETHEARTS is all set up with no pay off.

What this film does best is appropriate styles and cliques from the 50’s to the 80’s and mix them together. I found this very appealing. The film constantly walks the line between absurd, camp, dry and just DAMN cool! But at times the film its just too over the top such as entire SWIMMER section. This is the only section were the comedy isn’t being played straight and its also the only section is isn’t funny. Also the film uses old school ‘Hershell Gordon Lewis’ type blood. You know the type it looks like a melted crayon. The reason behind using it would that it gives it more of a retro feel. But everyone hates that blood, it looks stupid and the only reason people used it first place is because it looked correct to the eye but photographed terribly. I hate to sounds like a nit picking but in these types of films the audience knows they’re not going to get dramatic chainsaw fights or car chases so we enjoy the simple things such as guy covered in realistic looking blood (and naked woman if we can get it). It’s like being promised a woman but getting a transvestite. Once again I could be nit picking, I could have a valid point or maybe I just really hate that type of blood (as much as I hate short films). For me it was another example of all set up no pay off.

The cast are fantastic. The real standouts are Roza Haidet (as the Young Impressionable Girl) and Raymond Turturro (as Scheme S. Schemer). There a few actor who are miscast… well I not miscast as much as just way too young for there roles such as the Husband and Wife from the third section. All the characters are incredibly likeable in there own ways. This is a credit to the actors considering how weak the script is. I highly doubt there even was even one. Despite the weak material there is strong direction. Visually it’s interesting, but at times its a tad predicable (just like the script). I going to run the risk of sounding like a hippy now, despite all its flaws the vibe of the film is right. The movie and the music are both tone perfect. As I said before I really enjoyed how they mixed cultures and styles. My favorite blending of styles occurs in the second section which a 50’s schoolgirl falls for a 80’s hip hopper.

In the audio commentary they said they were inspired by Grindhouse Trailers. The wanted to make a movie that was extended trailers as the Grindhouse movie them selves never paid off. If they had bothered to do anything research they would have found out in the last few year they’re have been many fantastic, no budget, Grindhouse inspired movies such as MAD COW GIRL and CHAINSAW SALLY. Ironically like the the Grindhouse films they described this film doesn’t pay off. I feel like I could be sound too negative about this film. It was just a disappointed to see so much raw talent no to waste. All the elements were there if only they, if only they had more ambition they could have had a cult classic on there hands. At its best, it’s a quirky and unique, at worst lazy and predictable. If you’re into neo pulp no doubt you’ll get some pleasure from it. For me it was worth watching just to find out about The Campbell Brother. They are both talented and I look forward to seeing there other films. I hope they return to the neo pulp genera and next time they deliver a little more.

LESLIE MORRIS 01.07.08

VHS REVIEW: PAYBACK (1988)

THE BACHELOR BOYS 12.06.08

Director: Addison Randall Writer: Addison Randall Starring: Roger Rodd Distributor: Troma

VHS REVIEW: KNIGHTS (1993)

THE BACHELOR BOYS 12.06.08

Director: Albert Pyun Writer: Albert Pyun Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Lance Henriksen, Gary Daniels Distributor: N/A

DVD SCREENER: KING KAUFMAN: THE PASSION OF LLOYD (2008)

Director: Shauna Jaeger Writer: Shauna Jaeger Starring: Lloyd Kaufman, James Gunn Distributor: ?

KING KAUFMAN: THE PASSION OF LLOYD is a 45-minute look at schlock film director Lloyd Kaufman. It’s not a biographical look at his life as much as people talking about different aspects of Lloyd. The documentary shows Kaufman to be a man of many contrasts. One moment he’d a fearless self assumed self promoter, the next he’s trying to convince actors in there early 20’s that Troma is legitimist business and so on.

The most insight full interview was from James Gunn. His critique of Lloyd is articulate and insightful. Gunn shows Kaufman to be charming, warm, self-assured genius. Gunn’s comments hold great weight as he’s an intimate friend with Kaufman he also wrote his biography. Gunn possible knows more about Kaufman than his wife. Out of everyone in the documentary Gunn is by far the most emotionally accusable.

The director Shauna Jaeger goes on to interview Lloyd directly. If you don’t know anything about Lloyd it will become obvious that Lloyd is always “on”. He’s very good at playing “Lloyd Kaufman” the character. He doesn’t give strange answer and much as jokes. He tends to deflect everything with humor. While entertaining, it’s a little counterproductive for the documentary as a whole. I got the feeling he dose this not because he doesn’t want to answer the question as much as this is how he interacts with the world. But still would it kill him just to play it straight for 5 minutes. As he is the willing documentary you’d expect he’ll give a certain degree of honestly that he might not normal show. It’s not all bad, Jaeger dose manage to catch one or two honest moments, such as Kaufman talking about being an outsider. This interview ends on an interesting now were Jaeger pretty much trips Kaufman on a lie. Sadly the cameraperson for the section had Parkinson’s disease and the camera work in shaky and awfully distracting. Some sections are pretty weak. The “Professor Lloyd” section is just a “how to” arm rip guide that’s available as an extra feature on there dvd’s for years.

The style of the documentary is great. It’s playful and punchy. In content was a little lacking. There is too much filler and for my money it doesn’t go deep enough. I guess this is easier said than down when your dealing with Lloyd “deflect it” Kaufman. One of the pitfalls of the documentary genera is that the filmmakers are limited to the information people are willing to give up. But don’t get me wrong, it’s not like it was a 45mintue fan film in the honor of Lloyd. I think this movie and Lloyd can be summed up in two quotes from the documentary. The first one comes from Sam Anderson who is a young Troma fan “Lloyd has kind of a character he puts out to Troma fans and I think it’s at least one aspect of his personality. I think there is another side of him that’s .. a little bit more frustrated than optimistic.” And the second one from James Gunn “He’s too complex to sum up in one sentence”.

The documentary isn’t that groundbreaking, but is entertaining for what it is. This one is for Troma Fans only. If anything watching it wanted me to reread “Everything I know about filmmaking I learn from the Toxic Avenger”.

LESLIE MORRIS

DVD REVIEW: JAN-GEL : THE BEAST RETURNS (2001)

Director: Conrad Brooks Writer: Conrad Brooks Starring: Conrad Brooks, Dale Clukey Distributor: ALPHA VIDEO

The sequel is just more of the same. A group of evil gypsies have captured Jan-Gel are getting him to aid there crimes.  It seems to be a post modern comedy with references to PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, the first JAN-GEL and other epic video monster movies. For whatever reason Dale Clukey didn’t reprise his role as Jan-Gel, Brooks felt the need to hide this fact in a Plan 9/Bela Lugosi-que kind of way. Brooks ingeniously shots around this fact by shooting still photographs as Clukey as Jan-Gel and having Jan-Gel getting shot in the head at the start of the video, thus having to wear a bandage. Also the end of the video (sorry for spoiling it) has a Hollywood producer who wants to make a movie about Jan-Gel. Then he goes on to mention that they want Tor Johnson (and Ed Wood regular player) to play Jan-Gel.

Jan-Gel 2 features a lot of actors and props from Garland Hewitt backyard epic BRAIN ROBBER FROM OUTER SPACE. BRAIN ROBBERS being Hewitt’s unofficial sequel to PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It took Hewitt 13 years to complete and it feature Brooks reprised his role as Patrolman Jamie.

This video has more things going for it than the original, but it less entertaining. It has better actors but they all give bad performances with the expectation of Joel D. Wynkoop. This video also features Gus Perez. Perez is one of the few naturally born bad actors. This voice has this strange tone and meter to it that makes it impossible for him to making anything sound natural. Perez is reprising his role from BRAIN ROBBERS. Well that least this video feature one cute girl.

Gus Perez acting up a storm!

That one cute girl.

It a good thing that both movies are included on the one dvd or no one will ever see the sequel. The dvd cover is good. It features a picture of an army and several planes that don’t appear in the film. Also the tagline is a line from Ed Wood’s “Bride of the Monster”.

After watching these two films you’ll ask yourself what was going thought his mind. Thankfully to 40 minutes making or featurette will answer this question: Even less that you think! The “making of” is just raw footage from one video camera. Brooks tried to do this best Ed Wood impersonation. He keeps on calling people Kid, sarcastically mentioning how they are making a million dollar movie, he even call the “making of” a fascinating documentary about the making of a low budget movie. Its kind sad, but they if he is having a good time they what’s the harm.

“I’m a Hollywood Producer Mr Brooks.”

There has been great debate as to weather how well Conrad really knew Eddie Wood. Some have suggested that they were acquaintances rather than friends. Brooks has only an extra is six of Wood feature. Two of his appearances are him in stock footage from an uncompleted Wood project called HELLBORN. Wood even fired him off the set of BRIDE OF THE MONSTER. His films try to be like Ed Wood’s but fail miserable. Wood’s films are charming, surreal, honest and good natured. Brook’s films feel like a bunch of older people exploiting themselves for no apparent reason. But believe me or not, there are several other people in the hi8 monster video game (David “The Rock” Nelson) who are for more entertaining. But still there is something strangely compelling about the film that makes you keep watching. You’ve been warned.

LESLIE MORRIS 24.06.08

DVD REVIEW: JAN-GEL : THE BEAST FROM THE EAST (1999)

Director: Conrad Brooks Writer: Conrad Brooks Starring: Conrad Brooks, Dale Clukey Distributor: ALPHA VIDEO

Conrad Brooks is an interesting obscure pop culture character. He was a bit player in six films of Edward D. Wood Jr. After a 20+ year acting hiatus he returned to work with some of the world best B directors such as Donald Jackson, Mark Pirro and Fred Olen Ray. In the last few years he has became the name you want, when you don’t have money for a real one. From what I can tell if you pay for his transport he’ll be in your film. And why not, it keeps him active and out of the house. He has directed several monster video. The second one being Jan-Gel.

JAN-GEL: THE BEAST FROM THE EAST is a simple “beauty and the beast” monster video. Jan-Gel Tor Johnson-que caveman monster that kills a bunch of people then of course Conrad Brooks (playing himself) is called in to track him down. And when I say “kills a bunch of people” I mean the camera cut away, we hear screaming and we assume they’re dead.

Jan-Gel is Brook’s attempt at a 50’s sci-fi parody. It hard to tell if they are being “good bad” on purpose or they really just couldn’t make a better film. In any case the video ends up being bad, bad. The credits of this video suggest there was a writer, a soundman this isn’t reflected in the movies. The video seems to be entirely adlibbed but not in a good way. But this could have something to do with the fact that the video seem to be filled with Brook’s 60 something non actor friends. Everyone with the exception of Brooks seems constantly confused and at lost what to say next.

Confused old lady,

Dale Clukey who pays “Jan-Gel”… dose a good… ummm.. Dale Clukey doesn’t do a terrible job. He commits to the role 100% and looks great as Jan-Gel. Brooks is a very limited actor but he has an odd B movie charisma that seems to pull him through. Brooks has this (for lack of a better words) acting device he has been using for the past 50 years. When he wants to emotion that his character is thinking he turns his head askew, while shacking his head and smacking his lips. He doses it in the scene with Paul Marco in Plan 9 and he’s been doing in every movie since. That doesn’t sound like much, maybe you have to compare this films just to see how identical it is.

The sound quality is appalling. To start with I thought they were just using the in build camera microphone as I could hear internal noises the camera was making, that until I start seeing the boom microphone.

Microphone on the left.

Microphone above Conrad.

In compared to the rest of the film, the music isn’t that bad (isn’t that good either). Also you may have noticed I’ve been using the term video. I don’t say it to be belittling. I say it because it was shot on analogue video tape… possibly Hi8 tape? But for even these standards the quality is low. Scenes are constantly out of focus. This film has two redeeming qualities. Firstly it’s short, secondly it has the FUNNIEST “man fighting a rubber snake” scene ever committed to Hi8 tape. Just when you think the scene is going to end, it goes on for another couple of minutes. It’s genuinely really funny in a painful kind of way.

LESLIE MORRIS 24.06.08

DVD REVIEW: THE MARINE 2 (2009)

Director: Roel Reine Writer: Christopher Borrelli, John Chapin Morgan Starring: Ted DiBiase Jr, Michael Rooker Distributor: FOX (US)

Recently I’ve been rewatching the Cannon/Golan-Golbus back catalogue. During the 80’s they produced classic action films such as The Delta Force (1986) and Missing in Action (1984). They also produced some not so classic films such as Death Wish 3 (1985), Masters of the Universe (1987) and Ninja 3: The Domination (1984). Regardless of they place in cinematic history all these films delivered a special kind of over the top action, the likes of which have not been seen since Cannon/Golan-Golbus’ demise. Companies like PM Entertainment and Nu Image have tried to recapture the magic, but it took the WWE to bring it back. The WWE doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel, as much as deliver simple, well done action films.

The Marine 2 is an unrelated d2dvd sequel. This time around a terrorist group takes over a five star resort. It’s up to Marine recon sniper Joe Linwood (Ted DiBiase Jr) to save to day. Stupidly Joe tries to then down with a group of local militia. Joe soon realized that if he is going to win he needs to do it “one vs hundred” style!  Apparently the movie is “Inspired by a true story”. As the WWE has gone to no effort to elaborate; I’m presuming its just pr jive.WWE wrestler Ted DiBiase Jr  takes over the franchise from John Cena. Ted DiBiase Jr isn’t a bad actor, but he’s not a real one. This is most obvious whenever he shares screen time with the effortless Michael Rooker. What he lacks in the acting department he makes up for in the action! His predecessor, John Cena and The Rock where a lot better.  This is ok, as the movie lacks and real bad guy. Sure, the movie has one but he rates lower that Keanu Reeves on the personality index. The real star of the film is Michael Rooker. He gives a fun performance as the sidekick/mentor character. Rooker is a great actor for the fact he made a real, likable character out of pretty much nothing. Every other actor in this film had more material to work with, but ended up with far less.

The first half is lacking action as they’re too busy setting up what is a pretty simple premise. When the action does kick in it’s very engaging. The film also feature many WWE styled manplosion we’ve grown to expect. (Manplosions are like explosions but much, much bigger and more masculine)

For my money the film has too many guns and not enough body slams. It’s beyond me why you would hire someone known from their fighting abilities then give them a gun? Thankfully this film has one really good fight scene toward the third act. The fight is natural and fluid, and this is reflected in the camera work. This camera is there to serve the fight, not the other way around. The scene has many long, smooth, unbroken tracking shots which allow you to see what’s going on. There is nothing better than seeing a fighter pull off moves without the aid of editing.

ement

Keep you eye out of this impressive drop kick that DiBiase lands on cement.

This film was directed by Roel Reiné. I have no doubt that he is going to be a massive director due to his ability to mix action with art. One of his directing trademarks are stylistic action scene in which feeling and tone are given preference over any type of realism. Moments like this can we seen thought this film and the Steven Seagal helmed Pistol Whipped (2008).

I was a little disappointed with this film. I didn’t enjoy it as much as other WWE films. I think was largely due to weak leads. Action wise it delivers everything I expected. It’s worth renting at least.

LESLIE MORRIS 01/01/10