More movies I've seen June 12th to July 10th

More movies that I've got to catch up on with "reviews"—seen between June 12 and July 10.

Pineapple (2008). I found this craptastic movie via YouTube's free movies. I must say that the description and movie art is what made me take a chance on viewing this one. I thought "exotic dancer...sexual experimentation" meant a bearable movie. I must admit this movie severely challenged my theory of female nudity makes movies better. Unfortunately, there was basically one woman that got nude (I think there may have been some brief shots of others but obviously not memorable enough for me to recall) and this woman was not very alluring. She wasn't ugly but she wasn't someone I felt I needed to see nude time and time again...and again. Final verdict: It's not worth the bandwith. You can surely find better entertainment somewhere else other than this movie.

Cinderella 2000 (1977). This was another YouTube free movie. I was intrigued by the word "soft-porn" in the synopsis. Tha's about all the interest this movie provided. I know it's a movie from 1977 but I expected it to be more pushing-the-boundaries that it was. In fact, the only boundary it pushed was my level of tolerance. The acting was beyond horrible. And I was looking for the "soft porn" but never did I see ANYTHING that would make me think of "soft porn." I think the B-movies with the likes of Shannon Tweed or Joan Severance had more T&A sex scenes. Final verdict: This movie provided no entertainment value at all. It should be archived in the tomb of crappiest movies of all time. I ended up fast forwarding through much of the movie.

Single White Female 2: The Psycho (2005). One more of the free movies of YouTube. I remember the first Single White Female and thought it was a pretty decent flick. It didn't hurt that it had the hotness of Bridget Fonda in it. However, this movie was not so good. In fact, it could be said this was an exact replica of the first movie just with different actors. The two main female leads and the one sub-main female lead were pretty attractive. The problem is that none of them showed their boobies. Oh we had some side boob, some bottom boob, but there was no full-on frontal boob. It was quite disappointing, especially when everyone of the women were trying to sleep with each other or other men. Very disheartening that they didn't provide the boob shots! Final Verdict: If you've seen the first one, you've seen this one too but better. If you've seen this one but not the first, you missed out on a better version. It might be worth watching the first after this one but why waste any more of your time.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011). I heard the American version of this movie was the bomb. I didn't have high expectations because I saw the Swedish version and was not impressed. With the hype from many people about "these exciting book(s)" being made into a movie (Swedish version), I did expect a better Swedish "Tattoo" movie. Now the movie wasn't totally worthless, I did enjoy the nudity of Noomi Rapace albeit in a weird kind of way because she was way too skinny for my preferences and the hairy arm pits were a little distracting. Anyway, I got a little sidetracked there. I don't want to write on tehe 2009 movie but the 2011 movie. But it's hard because I feel the same about both movies. So, I like Daniel Craig as an actor to an extent. He's a little typecast in the sense that he's always playing a violent or villain role: see Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Defiance and Cowboys & Aliens. He just seems angry. I didn't believe him as a washed up journalist. He looked more like a guy that could make lemonade when given lemons. Rooney Mara's portrayal of Lisbeth made me feel like I was watching the 2009 Swedish version. In my opinion, there was almost no difference between Rooney or Noomi's portrayal. They were both way too skinny and the wardrobe choices were very similar across both movies. I guess Rooney didn't have hairy or as hairy arm pits. Overall, the movie seemed more like a digital reproduction of the original. Kind of like when you see those old color Disney animated movies and they say stuff like "digitally remastered." That's about what I got with this movie. I mean the actors portraying the characters were different and the filming looked like the difference between VHS and miniDV but the storyline and wardrobe was just too similar for me. It had me wondering why the hell they made an American version. Is it because Americans have to prove they can do things better? Maybe in some instance, but with this movie I don't think they did any better. Seeing Daniel Craig walking around in the movie I was expecting to see a fight break out every other second because, to me, the vibe of the movie had more of his version of a 007 movie. I truly feel like I could have never seen this movie and still "seen" it because I saw the 2009 version. Final verdict: It seemed to have garnered a lot of good reviews and positive opinions. I'm not sure why because overall it was no different than the Swedish version. I felt the same way after seeing this movie as the Swedish version: are the books better or am I missing something? If you want to see this movie, go ahead because it's not an overall disappointment. I think I'm more disappointed because I already saw this movie with Swedish audio and English subtitles.

Gone (2012). First let me start by saying I have a crush on Amanda Seyfried since I saw her in Big Love. She has a natural prettiness to her but she also has some very big breasts. I pined for her to show these lovely lumps everytime I saw a new episode of Big Love. She came very close in one episode but I don't think she ever did during the show...I'm not totally sure because I haven't seen the last two seasons of the series. Then I started hearing about her role in Jennifer's Body. I thought for sure she'd be showing some boobage but I was sorely disappointed. Doubly disappointed because the "she's-pretty-now-but-she-won't-age-well" Megan Fox didn't get naked either. Many reviewers said she got naked but it was false nakedness. Megan was wearing skin-colored pasties. Then I started hearing even more rumors about her role in Chloe. These rumors seemed to be more definitive in their assessment of her REALLY showing boobage and some scenes with Julianne Moore. Bonus having the aging Julianne looking damn hot and showing her nakedness! Amanda made a few more movies that I hoped for boob-flashing but I didn't fully expect it as it didn't fall in with the storyline of the movie. Alignment is not always necessary but storyline and character usually are good signs of what to expect. So, then we come to Gone. Something about the synopsis made me have hopes of Amanda boobies. Forewarning, the only Amanda boobies you get to see are braless shirts/tanks. It's okay though because I've seen them and I can visualize them in my head when I see her. Now for the movie. It wasn't a bad movie. I think it was interesting concept. Girl gets kidnapped. Girl luckily escapes. Girl commits herself to help deal with the memories of the ordeal. Girl gets out and lives with "sane" sister. Girl's sister disappears. Girl reports it to the police and they now label her Crazy girl even though she committed herself and wasn't officially diagnosed as crazy. No authority will listen to or take crazy girl serious. Crazy girl knows her sister has been kidnapped by the same person she escaped from. Fuck the police—Crazy girl is determined to find and save her sister! The movie had parts where things just wouldn't happen. Would the detectives really ignore her concerns? Instead of investigating would they really look to arrest her for carrying a weapon because she was formerly but voluntarily committed? She carries a weapon because the criminal she escaped from is still out there...DUH! There were just some frustrating parts that I just couldn't believe would happen but maybe that was the director's point. If so, he did a good job then. If not, it was just too predictable and obvious and made for a not-so-enjoyable movie. Final verdict: I guess you won't be disappointed if you watch this movie. Don't think about it too much and you'd enjoy it. "Anal"-yze it and you might half-heartedly enjoy it. I've seen worse, much worse. It seems like movies that want to make you think aren't doing a very good job of expressing that in the sense of the predictability of some of the occurrences in the movies.

Movies I've seen from June 1st to June 11th

I've been able to watch a few movies over the past couple of weeks but haven't had a chance to do my lame review type thing with them. Hey, at least I'm honest and direct to the point with my "reviews." So, on with it...

Chronicle (2012). This movie wasn't too bad. It was a little slow to begin and it didn't get much faster until almost the very end. The majority of the video was shot in the "Blair Witch" style—a character in the movie videotapes everything which essentially becomes the movie. The plot was somewhat predictable because the kid who gets picked on the most ends up not being able to be mature about his new-found powers and then all hell breaks loose. I initially got a "Heroes" vibe from the movie with the kids getting their powers and having (trying) to stay incognito. With the previews and trailers that were shown up until the movie coming out, I expected a little more action, adventure and excitement. But instead I got more of a home video, amateur video, viewing experience...Oh, like that other movie with the alien thingy...um...Cloverfield. Yeah, lame like that. One of the few exciting parts was when the guys figured out how to fly. How cool would it be to do that? The way it was portrayed with the guys' excitement and all was very good. Final verdict: Watch it if you have to but I wouldn't seek it out. It's a forgettable movie.

The Grey (2012). I don't know why but I've always liked Liam Neeson. Luckily, most of his movies have been decent and watchable. This was no different but it wasn't one of his best. I've come to realize that Liam Neeson is a master of all things in many of his movies. In The Phantom Menace, he was a Jedi Master skilled in "hocus pocus." In Taken, he was a master in finding people, places and things when there is nothing more than a dust mite for a clue. In Unknown, he was a Billy Badass spy without a memory of that but was able to still find out who he really was (later) with nothing more than a dust mite for a clue. In The Grey, Liam Neeson is a master of wolves. He knows their types and their habits and he kills them to protect those that work for the rich oil companies in the most barren places. The plane all these workers are on crashes in frozen Hell somewhere and it becomes a fight for survival against the elements but especially the overly intelligent wolves. I mean I know wolves or pack animals in general are pretty smart but these wolves were on steroids! Anyway, the movie played out fairly well and one by one the survivors are killed. Throughout the movie though, it is mentioned that they are either hungry or feel threatened and that's why they are as vicious as they are. Well, the aren't really eating all the victims because when they attack one, they are ready to attack another instead of eating the first one. So, I guess this should lead to that fact they feel threatened and aren't hungry even though they are in the MIDDLE OF FUCKING NOWHERE BUT SNOW land. The movie didn't really have a definitive ending. Liam's character is obviously the only one still alive and he decides to take a stand with broken bottles taped to his hands like brass knuckles. Yes, boy and girls, it the freezing depths of -40 below, electrical tape still adheres! The movie ends without knowing what really happened but there is an assumption that he died but not without taking a few of the wolfy bastards with him. Final verdict: The movie was interesting enough. Almost thought it might become like Alive and a character actually mentioned this movie, but it was it's own storyline. It was overly or consistently exciting, some parts predictable and expected, but it also was dragged out too badly. I would say this is a pass unless you just want to quell your curiosity about how the movie is for yourself. If that's the case, borrow it from a friend or wait for it to be on Netflix so it'll fall under your already paid monthly fee.

The Woman in Black (2012). This movie was quite slow. It had its moments but overall it dragged. The storyline has been done before, if not exactly the same very similarly. It was interesting to see Daniel Radcliffe in something other than Harry Potter but I found myself expecting the other characters in the movie to call him "Harry" in the British accent. On more than one occasion my youngest and I were waiting for him to say, "Expelliarmus," "Lumos" or "Wingardium Leviosa." The rating for this movie is PG-13 but I think I've seen worse in the Harry Potter movies or even in some made-for-TV SyFy channel flicks. The movie is dark in filming and in nature. I think it depended too much on the lighting and the eerie music and just general shit like that. I think I imagine it as more of a book than a movie. I'd probably like the descriptive writing of the scenes in a book versus seeing it poorly done in the movie. Final verdict: Wait until next time when "Harry" tries to depart from what he is known for because this isn't going to change that.

Against the Dark (2008). Curiosity got the better of me on this one. This kept popping up in my Netflix "recommendations." I guess the system has picked up on the fact that I watch random shit...and sometimes the movies are literally just that...SHIT! So, I took a stab in the "dark." Ha! See what I just did there? Anyway, this is typical Steven Seagal fodder. I just realized his last name is sea gal. Is that some kind of mermaid or something? Oops! Back on focus. This is better than some of his latest but it still was bad! Seagal is part of a elite "cleaning crew"—when the government fucks up they go in and clean it up. What's funny is this elite team has two pretty hot chicks in 6-inch stilettos and Matrix-style clothing, two fairly hulking guys in cut-off shirts and then Seagal in typical Seagal regalia...black shirt, pants, boots and trench-type coat walking around with just a Samurai sword draped over his arm or shoulder. Seagal and his team are sent to eliminate vampire-types from a quarantined area and only have so long to do it as well as find non-contaminated survivors. Everyone in Seagal's team is eventually eliminated (except for one guy, I think but can't remember for sure). I think the area was bombed and contamination spread was averted. Final verdict: Like always and before, let me waste the 90-120 minutes of my life watching this so you don't have to. You can watch any Barney & Friends episode and get more entertainment and enjoyment out of it than watching this movie!

The Art of War III: Retribution (2009). This is a sad, sad follow-up to The Art of War I & II. I mean "II" was a downgrade from "I" but this is leaps and strides way worse. If I dare, and I do dare, this is on par with "Against the Dark." The fighting, if you can call it that, was just horrible. I think I've seen worse fighting in cheesy 80s movies. This was made in 2009! I can't believe the amount of SHIT movies they produce even if it may be straight to DVD. I'd hire the salesman that pitched this movie to investors. He probably sold them some ocean front property in Arizona as well. This movie was so freaking awesome that I can't remember a single scene. I remember the fight scenes were lame but I just don't remember what they were or any other scenes of the movie. Final verdict: If the only thing you know about this movie is that I wrote up a half-assed 'review' of it, keep it that way.

The Air I Breathe (2008). This is one of those multiple characters, multiple stories and how they intertwine with and affect each other without knowing it. I didn't know what to expect with this movie but I figured it couldn't be too bad since it had some fairly well-known actors in it like Kevin Bacon, Brendan Fraser, Andy Garcia, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Forest Whitaker, and Kelly Hu. But sometimes that's not enough. I would say that it was a decent movie. It wasn't overwhelming but it also wasn't underwhelming. It kept my attention but at times just barely. Just like many other movies that weave many stories into one, it did do a good job at that. Final verdict: It had its moments. It wasn't consistently fast-paced nor did it drag. It had a decent interwoven storyline and might prove very interesting to others than me. I watched it in two sittings but that's just because I started watching it at work and then a day or so passed before I remembered that I was watching it and needed to complete it.

Blood & Chocolate (2007). The synopsis of this movie and falling under "horror" on Netflix made me think this would be a good (or okay) movie to watch. I was wrong. I thought that being a paranormal-type movie about wolves that it would at least have some female nudity but I was gravely mistaken! I felt like I was watching a made-for-tv Disney or Nickelodeon movie. The acting was sub-par and the filming was just as bad. I gave this movie more chances than I typically do and it never came to change my disappointment. The graphics were terrible and did I mention that the acting was absolutely horrible? Final verdict: Read the Twilight books or watch the Twilight movies. Hell, even watch the movie called Wolfen from the 80s and it is still better than this movie. So don't bother even taking a second glance at this movie.

Shark Night (2011). Still on my hunt for an interesting action "horror" movie, I ran across this little dingleberry on the anus of shit films! I came to find out later when I looked for the movie link on IMDB that this was actually in "3D". Oh no, this movie was even greater shit than it was before! I thought there were scenes that looked like they were meant for 3D but I didn't pay much attention to the movie title or description. What I thought was this: College kids going away for fun: TITS are sure to be flashed. College kids going to a lake house: hot chicks in bikinis and TITS are sure to be flashed. College kids swimming in the lake with girls in bikinis: TITS are sure to be flashed. What actually came to pass? I was thoroughly disappointed because the closest we got to TITS being flashed were a little side boob and tits covered in bikini tops. What's my philosophy? You can make a shitty movie a 1/2 to 1 star better if you show some gratuitous hot chick tits and ass. Therefore this movie completely failed all the way around. This movie had a couple of recognizable actors, the male and femal leads, but I don't exactly recall what movies they played in. I'd have to IMDB them. I just do remember them in another movie or two. The acting and graphics were horrible. Again, not the CGI you'd expect from a 2011 movie. The sharks were way to intelligent for being just sharks that were released into a salt water lake without being some sort of laboratory experiment or such. There was this one part where the shark was following a guy on a waverunner that was hawling some serious ass. And I know they say sharks can swim fast but this guy was hauling and the shark was swimming with big side-to-side motions instead of more linear direction. All of a sudden the shark jumps out of the water in front of the guy, still hauling ass, and latches on him from head to about waist and goes back into the water with his catch. So, first of all the shark just ate a rider that was on the back of the waverunner, then it was smart enough to time it's jump perfectly to nail the driver without hitting anything else and the shark is big enough to deep throat the victim from his head to the waist. That's just total bullshit even for a movie. I could go on but I digress. Final verdict: Even if I had 3D glasses all I would have felt was the shitty movie splattering on my face. I've surely seen worse but this movie was a waste of time, money and film.

Dirty Deeds (2005). I went into this movie thinking it was along the lines of "Not Another Teen Movie"—I guess because they both have Lacey Chabert in them—or "The Rules of Attraction." I guess you could say it sort of follows along those cheesy-type teen high school movies. It also has Milo Ventriloquist...it's funny how I can't spell his last name but I can spell "ventriloquist," huh? Anyway, this guy has always reminded me of a teenage/very young adult Sylvester Stallone. I guess they sort of had the same facial stroke or something. I don't know. Milo just reminds me a lot of Sylvester. Back to the movie: I think this could have been a much better movie with some better writing...and maybe better acting. It wasn't horrible. It just didn't continuously grab my attention and make me WANT to continue to watch it. But I did anyway because I hate to not complete viewing the movie usually not matter how bad it is. It's very rare for me to quit watching one but it has happened. Anyway, it had some occasional funny parts along with some lulls. Just nothing overwhelmingly funny and interesting. I guess it could be more likened to the movie The Hollywood Knights but not as good even though it is a more recently made movie. Final verdict: If you find yourself very, very bored or at someone's house who is already watching it, you might sit and watch it for a spell. Hopefully, it will be during the "good" parts of the movie. Otherwise, watch and episode of The Wiggles and you'll get a bit more entertainment value.

The Clinic (2010). This movie sort of intrigued me from the picture and movie description. Plus I was looking for some good/decent horror/suspense movie. This wasn't it. It also had Andy Whitfield in it and I wanted to see how he acted in something besides Spartacus. It had some suspense but it wasn't really horror in my definition of the word. I'm thinking scary horror like zombies, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, etc. This was not quite there. The concept of the film was interesting. It just wasn't executed very well. The movie dealt with pregnant women who were near term, were abducted , the babies were birthed via c-section, and then the ladies were left in tubs of ice to "heal" until they regained consciousness. I have experience with a woman after c-section and these women would not be able to do what they did immediately after "surgery." Yes, yes, I know it's a movie but some things should be kept "real" or as near to it as possible. These women were using their stomach muscles to sit up, roll over, sprint, jump...sounds like dog tricks, huh? Basically, the women were removed of their offspring to see which of them would survive the attempts of the others and their own to find their child. They basically had to cut open the c-sections to find little colored tags that would match the tag of their baby because none of them have seen their baby and that's the only way to tell which one is theirs. There is some more plot info that I won't spoil because I know you're going to run out and rent it now. Again, it's a novel concept. It just wasn't done well. It did show some nice boobies of the "main" female character which would add half a star to my rating. Final verdict: You can pass. I wasn't impressed with this movie at all. It was pretty predictable up until the end when you find out why these women were kidnapped and their babies taken. I didn't expect that plot line but it isn't worth watching the entire movie.

Night Junkies (2007). This was another one of those I came across in my search for an enjoyable horror movie. It too was not it! In fact, I would pick watching The Clinic again versus watching this one the first time. The acting was horrendous and no amount of tits and ass could have saved it. I don't know what the recent "trend" is for movies to be shot in a "Blair-Witch-home-video-camcorder" style but I don't think these people understand that this doesn't make the movie. This may make the movie seem a little more interesting if the movie is good and interesting itself. Otherwise, it just makes a shitty movie even more shitty and the grainy video becomes very distracting and irritating. Final verdict: You would be wasting your time if you stopped to read the synopsis of this movie in Netflix or anywhere for that matter. I think the makers tried to ride on the whole Twilight vampire thing and they failed miserably!

More and more I'm beginning to wonder why Netflix is all the hype when they have a catalog of some of the worst movies ever made. I'm sure the ratio of bad to "good" movies on Netflix is like 2000 to 1. Good thing it's costing me under $10 because I would not continue with this mediocre catalog. That being said, they have had some recent additions that are good movies, in my opinion. However, I've already seen them via my Blockbuster Total Access Plan. Anyway...

The crappy movies on Netflix

So, I think I've mentioned this before but I watch crappy, shitty movies so the overall population doesn't have to. I try to forewarn you before you waste any second of your time. So please, allow me to continue to waste mine because I've got nothing else to do. That's not true. I actually want to get the most out of my Netflix membership so I am trying to watch movies that seem interesting or appealing on the surface but typically are not so when I start to watch them. It's just weird how Netflix has a movie library of, I don't know, a million movies and about 1% or even less are actually worth watching (excluding most TV shows in their library). How did something with such a piss poor selection become so dominant in the online streaming realm?

Anyway, allow me to briefly respond to a half a day of my life wasted on the following movies:

---

Mark of the Devil (1970). This was truly one of the worst movies I've seen...And I've seen a lot! I know it was made in 1970 but it was just overly dramatic. The acting was not good and the "terrified" acting was over the top. I must admit that I was first drawn to the movie by the hopes of lots of naked "witches" but I was sorely disappointed. I looked forward to the gore and was sorely disappointed. I then tried to rely on the story line for any substance and it was just too open and predictable...especially the ending. The description on Netflix says that barf bags were handed to the audience upon first showings because it was so "gross and graphic." Personally, I did not find a bit of it graphic or gross. Maybe it was horrific in nature based on historical fact but nothing that would make me turn my head or even come close to barfing in a bag. As I said, "OVERLY DRAMATIC!" Apparently, this movie was all that bad back in the 70s because a sequel was made. You can view the trailer here. It doesn't look like Part II was much different than Part I but it was sold as "including and all-star cast." All-star in Europe only maybe. Funny thing about Part II is the trailer shows a character played by Reggie Nalder who was 'Albino the Accuser' in Part I that was choked to death by the local Lord of the land. Guess no one else was available. FINAL VERDICT: Just keep on browsing by this one!

Ghosts of Goldfield (2007). I was looking for a good or even decent horror movie and this was most definitely not it. The cover was encouraging and having Kellan Lutz in the cast made me think this was at least going to be watchable. Boy, oh boy, how wrong I was. The filming quality was so 80s more than 2007. After watching a little, I thought there might be some good "comfort-me-I'm-scared-sex" scenes but it was not happening. The ghost in the story had a seemingly nice body with ample bossoms but the most you get of them were a quick side boob shot. Roddy Piper had a cameo/part and his acting was super stiff and lame. I'm wondering if this was one of his first gigs or maybe he was just bitter that he had to do something so horrible because maybe he's run out of money. Not that he's a great actor, but even former pro wrestlers turned to acting should have standards. He'd probably have done better cameoing in an actual porn flick. This movie may have had some potential with a better script and more budget money but as it is, I cannot believe it was ever produced. I can't see that they made back any money from production unless Netflix paid them enough to break even. FINAL VERDICT: Another one that you can just walk on by!

Sacred Flesh (2000). I watched this movie strictly for the hopes of tits & ass. I was not disappointed. I don't recall much of the storyline and the acting was average at best but the T&A was a bonus. This was very close to soft-core porn...the likes of which you'd see on the Playboy channel back in the mid-90s where they'd take a real porn and cut the actual scenes of penetration or fellatio out. It's kind of weird and exciting to see 'nuns' masterbating or enjoying the flesh of one another. FINAL VERDICT: Fast forward to the nakedness and watch only the nakedness. This hour and a half movie will be reduced to 20-30 minutes and you'll not have missed any of the storyline because that's not why you watched it in the first place!

Vampires (2010). This movie was very, very difficult to watch. Not because of the horror but because it was just plain unexciting and uneventful. It was humorous at very rare times but overall I felt like I had done something very wrong and this was my horrendous punishment. The concept could have been done much better. The movie is French and it includes English subtitles. The subtitles didn't take anything away from the movie because there wasn't anything to miss in the movie. I actually watched this over a period of 4-5 days. That's how slow it was. I would have just quit watching but I have this need to finish my movies (except for a few rarities) no matter how bad they are. It's like I feel unaccomplished in my task if I don't complete the movie. FINAL VERDICT: The movie cover is the best thing about this movie. No need to waste any of your precious life seconds on this garbage because I already did!

Exterminating Angels (2006). Based on the description of "exploring female sexuality...fantasy and reality begin to blur", I decided to check this movie out because in my eyes it promised female nudity. It started out a little slowly but it didn't disappoint. The over all movie was not that interesting and it was French with English subtitles which made it difficult to watch. Again, it made up for it with the hot, gratuitously naked main female cast. FINAL VERDICT: Just like Sacred Flesh, fast forward to the nakedness and enjoy them then move on.

Hollywood Sex Wars (2011). This movie was a campy comedy with the occasional funny scenes. Again, I decided to watch this movie with the hopes of gratuitous nakedness. It was sporadic at best but good to see with humor included. The movie was overall watchable because of its campy comedy vibe but make sure you go into it knowing it's not going to wow you. FINAL VERDICT: Go into it knowing that it's not a tip-top movie but it does have it's moments of comedic value. You can pass on it but I don't think it's a complete waste of time if you do happen to watch it.

Lake Consequence (1993)

Lake Consequence (1993). I remember when Joan Severance was one of the 'new' B-movie girls during the 1990s. It was almost like she was in competition with Shannon Tweed but I think Tweed made double or even triple that of Severance.

I was browsing Netflix this evening and came across a movie that had Joan Severance in it. I had to reminisce. I think I've seen all her movies that mattered...which are those that had her nude in them. You know, the important ones.

Apparently I either missed this one or don't remember it at all. IMDB says it's a TV movie but I'm think it means straight to cable. Interestingly, this movie had a young Billy Zane...which he apparently hasn't had a lot of hair on his head for sometime.

FINAL VERDICT: Anyway, I think you can pass on watching Lake Consequence. If you have the undying desire to watch this, at least you'll get a few chances to see Severance in the buff as well as one other pretty attractive woman.

The Day the Earth Stopped (2008)

The Day the Earth Stopped (2008). This is a total rip off of all the other "The Day the Earth..." died, stood still and any others like that.

What sucks is this movie sort of started out with so much potential. The "destroyer of earth" in the movie who just happens to be a very hot chick lands on earth and is totally and completely naked walking around the forest for about the first three minutes of the movie. I was thinking, "Damn, this may not suck after all!" Too bad that was the best part of the movie.

The sad thing about this movie is that C. Thomas Howell directed and "starred" in this craptastic version. There was also a brief appearance by Judd Nelson. Judd was billed as "starring" but he has like 5-10 minutes in the very last part of the movie. Poor Pony Boy and John Bender...are they this hard up for cash or to maintain work...because this isn't what I would want to be remembered for.

This movie was worse for C. Thomas Howell because if he wanted to be taken somewhat serious as a director, I'd have to say he failed. Don't get me wrong. I've always like the guy but his attention to detail is way off. Granted there are budgets and shit but this was made in 2008 and I think even something like iMovie could have edited out some of the flawed scenes. I'll just poke fun of a few.

First, this female destroyer lands on Earth naked. She's "saved" by Howell's character because he thinks she's been hurt or something because she's on a highway in the forest naked. He later finds out she's the other alien they've been looking for because they already caught one. Anyway, she's taken back to this makeshift base and clothed. She's wearing white sweatpants, a white wifebeater and a bra. She's a freaking alien for George Lucas's sake. She doesn't need or even care for using a bra! Hell, she's already flashed her boobies so what difference would a bra make anyway!?

Second, there is a part where Howell is relieved of duty because of his insubordination in not wanting to harm the femalien. He leaves the base but comes back because saving her is the right thing to do. He gets back inside the base just as the alien robots send out an EMP, essentially killing anything (which is everything in the world!) that runs on electricity for an uncertain amount of time. He gets the femalien to one of the governmental SUVs and it won't start. DUH! The femalien uses her powers to start the car and they escape. They are driving within the city when Howell decides to stop for some stupid reason in the middle of the street. He is dumbfounded and asks to the femalien, "How did you do that?" I mean really! Who the hell cares!? You escaped be happy and don't ask 'why' or 'how.' Idiot! So before he can get an answer this gun-wielding guy jumps on the hood and tells them to get the hell out of the car because he's carjacking them as they have the only running vehicle in town! The camera angle is behind the carjacker looking through the windshield and somewhat over the vehicle just in time to see a "boys in blue" vehicle pass by in the distance. "Only working vehicle" huh? That's what we call bad editing and as the director, Howell should have seen that.

Third, there is a 'chase' scene within the city near the end of the movie. Yes, after all the electronics have recovered from the EMP. Howell is once again in a hijacked governmental SUV and is being followed by other governmental SUVs. They make the same right turn over about 5-7 mins of run time. You can see the same building, the same fencing, the same road and the same random objects caught in the frame. Yes, it's the reuse of the same clip. The least they could have done was filmed it on a street without distinguishable scenery or props.

FINAL VERDICT: Well, I didn't go into this with high expectations to begin with. I felt like it was going to be a made-for-TV movie on the Sci-Fi channel but those movies are actually better! I mean this was made in 2008 and the technology was still very good with CGI and such that they could have created better footage in some teenage kids garage! If you have Netflix, the best footage of this movie happens in the very beginning with the femalien walking nude in the forest. After that, you can watch if you want as long as your expectations are low...very low.