Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010). I'd have to say that this is one of the least advertised but funniest movies I've seen. I don't recall ever seeing any mainstream or "underground" promotional trailers for this movie. I do recall seeing the trailer for it in the previews on some other low-budget 'horror' movies but that's about it.

I went into this movie knowing it wasn't hugely known. I also didn't expect a whole lot. I'd have to say that I would recommend this movie to just about anyone. It's along the same lines of humor as like an Austin Powers movie...cheeky, funny, entertaining and worth watching. Some of the scenes were pretty hilarious.

FINAL VERDICT: I would definitely watch this if you have the opportunity. It is like Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector combined with Friday the 13th combined with something like Caddyshack. It is campy and funny and was just an overall joy to watch.

Boys and Girls (2000)

Boys and Girls (2000). More random Netflix movie surfing. This looked like it should be funny. It wasn't too bad. It wasn't too good. It was somewhere in the middle but closer to bad than good.

It's a story line that's been said and done many times with many different casts. Jason Biggs is still playing the same old goofy, nerdy guy trying to find his confidence. It's comedic but you can see it in almost all of his movies. Freddie Prinze Jr still looks like Fred to me even though this was before Scooby-Doo. Claire Forlani is just hot in a weird kind of way for me.

The acting wasn't the best although I'd have to say that Biggs and Amanda Detmer probably played their parts the best...again, Biggs' role wasn't a huge stretch for him.

What I liked most about this movie was the credits. It seems to be big practice in movies these days to put stuff in the credits. Sometimes, it's better than the entire movie so I would think directors should probably do a double take before doing it. This is the case with this movie. The roughly two-minute clip in the credits is better and funnier than the entire movie. I could explain it but it's worth every second to watch it.

FINAL VERDICT: Watch the movie if there is nothing else to do and you just want to do something. If you want a good quick laugh, watch the credits clip. Capture it somehow and watch over and over when the need arises.

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.

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games. I took the kiddos to see the 10:15 p.m. showing Saturday night. They originally tried to negotiate the midnight showing early Friday morning but luckily the tickets were sold out. Also, I would have been very tired for work on Friday and they for school. Not to mention, I did not want to fight ANY crowds for this movie.

So, I purchased the books Thursday evening because my oldest had read the hard backs from a friend over the past week. The 1st book was returned before the 2nd book was lent so I was unable to read the physical books. I probably wouldn't have finished the 1st book in a few days much less a week anyway. I just cannot focus that much on reading at one time no matter how good the story is. Hence, I purchased the e-books through my Kindle. I figured I could at least read the 2nd and 3rd before the 2nd movie comes out in a year or two. Thursday night, I got to read up to chapter three. I didn't get to read much on Friday so deciding to see the movie on Saturday was going to force a decision upon me after the movie: continue to read book one or let it go. I decided to continue to read to compare what I saw in the movie versus the book version. I've heard and read that some things were left out of the movie.

Many of the reviews were positive, some mixed but mostly positive. What I've read has ranged from "it was awesome!" to "it was well made even though not completely true to the book" to "even if you haven't read the books, you'll like this movie." I obviously fall in the last category and based on this comment, I would agree but not wholeheartedly.

I think it was a good movie. I think it was lacking. Maybe I'm biased because I like high action, adventure and intrigue. I do think it was a decent movie. I think it was too generic and there have been many story lines based on a similar concept of terrible, 'gruesome' competitions in arenas or fight-the-system. (See The Running Man, Gamer, Tron, Children of Men, Escape from New York/Escape from L.A., etc.)

FINAL VERDICT: Go see it. You'll probably like enough to say that it was worth the ticket price. I on the other hand will continue reading the first book and move on to the other just because I think the movie just didn't do it for me from the little bit that I did read of the book (about 2 1/2 chapters) before seeing the movie.

Edward Furlong & High Hopes (2006)

Dude, what the hell happened to John Connor?

From this:


from The Terminator

To this:


from High Hopes (2006)

Scary!

FINAL VERDICT: Even though I didn't write any specifics about the movie, I would pass on it. It just wasn't as good or funny as I expected it to be with the 'comedic' cast.

Fallen (1998)

Fallen (1998). I was watching this movie on Netflix today. It's not that bad of a movie being that it's like 14 years old but I'm trying to get my money's worth out of my Netflix membership by watching movies that I may have missed over the past 10 to 20 years.

Anyway, I'm getting near the end and I noticed a discrepancy in the filming...which I often do and my wife hates it when we watch together. About an hour and seventeen minutes in (according to play on Netflix), Denzel's character has to shoot a person wielding a gun at him and about to shoot. The first screen shot is just after Denzel's character shoots the person with one shot. The second screen shot is of Denzel's character just after they show the person get shot, hit the ground and then they return to view Denzel's character. Do you notice the difference?

vs.

If you didn't see the discrepancy, it's the gun. The first image clearly shows the weapon is empty after the one shot. The slide is back which reveals that the chamber and clip are empty. The second image shows the slide in it's "normal" position as if the gun was still loaded. Someone messed up on the editing but I guess something so minimal typically isn't picked up by a "normal" watching audience. They probably figured it was cheaper to not reshoot the image.

FINAL VERDICT: It's a little slow most of the time. It is just barely watchable but there are probably other movies to "waste" your time on.

Kevin Smith - Too Fat for 40 (2010)

Kevin Smith - Too Fat for 40 (2010). I watched this back around the first week in December 2011 via Netflix. I must say that I wasn't all that impressed. As far as stand-up goes, Kevin Smith sucks. I know he's not a stand-up comic and I think he admits as much in the show. I just really didn't get the point of the show. It was slow, boring, and I found myself wanting him to channel Silent Bob and have Jay appear to make the show interesting.

I feel sorry for all the suckers who purchased tickets to attend his show live. I would have been very disappointed but I also would have never purchased in the first place. There aren't many "really" funny people that I would pay to see. Maybe Larry the Cable Guy, Jeff Foxworthy, Ron the 'Drunk', George Carlin, Richard Pryor or Howie Mandel (before he became really weird).

I think Kevin should stick to making 50/50 movies: half are good/decent and the other half are shit. He's almost like Adam Sandler these day but Sandler seems to have a bigger following which continues to encourage him to make some shit movies. However, it does speak volumes at the money Sandler must have since his Saturday Night Live days with his Happy Madison Productions and such. Anyway...

FINAL VERDICT: I wouldn't waste your time with Too Fat for 40. It was mind-numbing, horrible and I barely endured it. I had to watch some high-action movies or something after to get over the downer 'Too Fat' caused.