Stay Alive Review

"Come to me, clouds. May you rise as an evil storm born to rip them open. Let the cover of night bear witness and destroy those who resist so they shall harm me not. Let the blood of many cleanse me, preserving beauty eternal, I pray you." 

"The Prayer of Elizabeth" - "Stay Alive"

- -

Released in 2006 under the direction of William Brent Bell and distributed by Buena Vista Pictures/Hollywood Pictures on a budget of $9 million; "Stay Alive" is a "video game" movie that takes the elements of survival horror games and puts it into the style of "The Ring" only less scary and wishing you were playing the game, then you have no doubt made something atrocious. Before I get into this review, let me explain how I got to know this movie as you should know, this film was what you might call "a sleeper hit" (at least that's what IMDB says). This film was barely marketed, I never saw any trailers for it, I never saw posters for it, barely anybody talked about it, this film just came and was swept under the rug known as time to collect dirt. So now you're all wondering, how do I know about this movie? Issue 148, pages 62-65 of GameInformer.

Before you ask, yes; I've been a long-time subscriber of GameInformer (since 2004 if you must know) and if you happen to own that issue, you'd know that in that particular issue and on those pages, they did a Behind-The-Scenes spread on the movie. Yep. That is how I know about this movie and I never watched it, until now…was it worth that 4 page spread? F*CK NO! THIS IS THE WORST VIDEO GAME MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!

Plot: On a planet where video games are more important to people than life itself, Hutch MacNeil (Jon Foster of "Accidentally on Purpose" fame) finds out his best friend, Loomis Crowley (Milo Ventimiglia of "Gilmore Girls" fame) is dead, when the night before, he called him to tell him about this game that's "freakier than 'Fatal Frame'" yet it's never explained how he got his hands on this game other than some lousy excuse that "he was Beta-testing it." So he plays the game along with his "friends" and his boss from work (Adam Goldberg of "A Beautiful Mind" fame) who casually just takes him into his office to ask for gaming tips, decide to play the game even though multiplayer survival horror games were rarer than threequels from the Valve Corporation (okay, that was a joke, but seriously, the notion of multiplayer and survival horror didn't even come about until "Left 4 Dead" proved it was profitable)and they discover the game only begins when you read off this prayer (which is f*cking impossible considering that voice-identification wasn't possible yet as I judge from the remotes they're using, Microsoft hadn't created voice-activated games) and once you do, it automatically creates your game avatar and gets you playing right away. But when Hutch's boss dies in the game, they discover that you are killed by the ghost of Countess Elizabeth Bathory the same way in real life. So it's up to Hutch and his unlikable friends, October Bantum (Sophia Bush of "One Tree Hill" fame), her brother Phineas (Jimmi Simpson of "Date Night" fame), Hutch's random love interest Abigail (Samaire Armstrong of "Dirty Sexy Money" fame), and Swink Sylvania (Frankie Muniz of "Malcolm in the Middle" fame) to come together and defeat this evil video game that is never explained where it came from, how it got into Loomis' possession or how it has the ability to make people so shockingly stupid and they die for their stupidity.

Christ, if my poor-man's summary of this movie has shown, this movie has WAY too many flaws that shouldn't be overlooked. They make mention that Loomis was probably Beta Testing the game, if that was the case, for a game that supposedly hasn't been completed, it seems to be advanced enough to activate only to hearing your voice, which doesn't require a microphone or anything, knowing what you're wearing so it can create your avatar for you and it also seems to have the ability to unpause itself just so hazards can attack you. You could argue this is all magic, but it only further demonstrates the laziness of the screenwriting and how the hell a Countess who lived in Hungary acquired a mansion in the United States and had a graveyard and tower built there. The game takes more contradictions to it's own game rules than the constant changing rules in the "Scream" franchise, especially near the end where, for some unexplained reason, Swink helps Hutch rescue Abigail by leaving a crowbar right in front of him, opening a door for him and throwing roses, all in the game, but it just inexplicably occurs in real life…Hello? Explain this movie?!?! I could have easily turned this into a Cult Corner review, but I didn't because I already have plans for The Corner this month. But what I'm getting at is this is one of the most lazily written films I've ever seen. It's basically "The Ring" but instead of a haunted video tape, it's a haunted video game but without the creativity of what Hideo Nakata or Gore Verbinski brought tot he screen with their respected versions, which used the idea that something so innocent like watching TV could actually bear something evil and that watching a tape all the way through, you will lose your life in an allotted amount of time. Point is, if you really want to watch a movie about an object that requires a television screen to view it, this is not the one to watch. It treats it's audience like they're idiots. I've heard the extended cut does at least explain where the game came from, but if you can't explain something that gives vital information in the theatrical release, then f*ck you, you've failed as a filmmaker to cut something so necessary from the original script- oh wait, the director was also the writer….hey, would you all like to know what film William Brent Bell directed recently this year? "The Devil Inside." You know, that exorcism movie with that horrendous ending that earned $100 million worldwide because people are unbelievably stupid? Yeah. I think that ought to say everything you should about this shmuck of a director.

Characters:

Translation; what f*cking characters? There are none. These are the most unlikable people to come from a video game movie since "Gamer." There is nobody I rooted for, nobody I could connect with; I wanted all of them to just drop dead. Phineas is such an uncaring asshole, Hutch is mourning the death of his boss, who is a complete idiot by the way, and what does he suggest they do? Keep playing the game of course! October was a f*cking moron, who the hell walks into a construction set because they see some creepy bitch inside?! Nobody would but the filmmakers needed an excuse to kill her off. Abigail? Nothing interesting about her, in fact, when she and Hutch kiss, it's the most sporadic kiss in human existence. What point does she serve? No point at all but to annoy me. Hutch is no better as he just whines and yells and complains. Sure, he has some form of character development with his fear of fire, but it's so vastly underplayed that it might as well have been left out of the movie. It seems that Frankie Muniz is at least trying, while his character is obnoxious. To see them die is like a gift, you feel happy to see this idiots get killed off instead of wanting to see them survive.

Production: What point should I go into this any further? The cinematography is boring, it's like they just shot outside the city road and onto the back roads. The only thing production-wise that I can at least praise is the video game they're playing, which, I have to say, looks friggin' cool and it makes me wonder, why didn't they design a game like that to be released along with the movie? Could you imagine how much money they could make on the game than the movie? It would have been innovative for it's time; a survival horror game where you work alone or with friends to survive a haunted house, solve a mystery and kill The Countess. Though this is a thing that bugs me about this game is that the game can't seem to decide if it's gameplay is First-Person perspective or third-person perspective, just like other survival horror games like "Silent Hill" or "Resident Evil," seriously, pick one or the other, you can't have both…unless it's The Elder Scrolls or Fallout 3 where you can do that, ironically, this movie came out on the same year and month The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was released on game shelves for Xbox 360 users; further making this movie really outdated and making me feel like an old man….damn you William Brent Bell!!!!

Bottom Line: You know what, I take back what I said about the "Resident Evil" and "Silent Hill" movies, at least they TRIED! At least they followed the games, even if they had little to nothing to do with them, they had source material to work with; this movie has sh*t. A horrible excuse for a story that only serves as an excuse to watch people die even though they're not playing the damn game, the characters are the most sterile and hateful characters you want to see die. When the most interesting and entertaining thing is the video game itself and yet you don't allow the audience to play it, then you have really put all your focus onto something that shouldn't have been made, but did they create a video game to be released along with the movie? Hell no, these filmmakers clearly had no intention to entertain you but you make your wallet lighter. Take it from me and watch "Ringu," a far smarter movie than this or a better idea if you own or have downloaded the following games, I suggest you go and play those games: "Silent Hill," "Resident Evil," "Amnesia The Dark Descent," "Condemned Criminal Origins," "Doom," "F.E.A.R.," "Dead Space," "Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem," "System Shock 2," and yes, "Fatal Frame," which is an incredibly FREAKY game if you want to scare your pants off. Believe me, these games are much more interesting and have a better written-story than this one POS movie.

Oh, I feel I should mention this, but in the movie itself, issues of GameInformer show a cover of the game at the end, well I can tell you firsthand, from the eight years I've held onto my magazines and I can assure you, no issue bears that cover, good! Even GameInformer knew this movie blew! It's a video game movie that is way too literal with the "video game movie" title.

I could just keep on writing how much this movie pisses me off, how much it defies video game sensibilities and screen-writing logic, I could go ON, so instead, I'll sum up this review by quoting one of the greatest film critics who ever lived with a quote that perfectly sums up my feelings on this movie:

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

Roger Ebert - "North" July 22, 1994

Final Rating: 0.25/5

Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for when we burning through celluloid.

These guys just perfectly represent how I feel about the movie.

Ip Man 2 Review

"Ok, I am Ip Man of Wing Chun."

-Donnie Yen "Ip Man 2"

- -

Released in 2010 under the direction of Wilson Yip and distributed by Well Go, "Ip Man 2" is a sequel to the martial arts film "Ip Man," a film that was loosely based off the life of martial arts trainer Yip Man, the same man who trained Bruce Lee. While I've always had a weakness for foreign martial arts films along the likes of Jackie Chan, but Ip Man never really caught my interest. I always thought it was just an American butchering of an original foreign flick. In actually, this film was the opposite, it was a film that was made lovingly and with permission from the Ip Man family and made, supposedly, close to Yip's life. Because of my anthropologic background, I, of course, did research and found that yes, Yip Man's life was turbulent and it often times did lead for him to occasionally force his hand when needed. Well, since I've put this review on hold for far too long, I think it's time to get crackin' and see what all the hubbub is about.

Plot: After the events of the first movie, Ip Man (Donnie Yen) moves his family to Hong Kong where he continues to teach the art of Wing Chun as a form to make a living. Despite an early setback, he eventually grabs the attention of future stunt coordinator to Bruce Lee, Wong Shun Leung (Huang Xiaoming) who brings in disciples to make the school thrive. But trouble arises when students from opposing schools start to clash with Ip's students, namely Hung Chun-nam (Sammo Hung) who tries to coerce Ip to retire his school, but Ip refuses to give into his threats. But the movie suddenly takes a change in tone when British boxing champion Taylor "The Twister" Milos (Darren Shahlavi) comes to Hong Kong and insults Chinese boxing, which leads to Master Hung challenging Twister to a fight, where he loses his life. Ip challenges The Twister to a fight for the honor of Chinese martial arts as he utilizes the Eye of the Tiger and defeats Ivan Drago to make an passionate speech about "everyone can change" and…wait….that's not what happened…

Yeah, talk about a complete shift in tone. The first hour of the film has this build-up of Ip losing the lease after his students get into a fight in the streets as he confronts Master Hung and they're about to continue their fight when it just stops as Ip saves Hung's kid from getting a boot to the head and just like that, conflict between them is over and now we're onto the next conflict with Ip's conflict with this racist boxer who kills this old man that Ip initially disliked and then suddenly liked. I know some of you are about to harp on me that it's a concept of respect and honor, but seriously, this narrative transition is so sudden that the movie goes from "The Chinese Connection" to "Rocky IV." I'm aware that this is supposed to have been based off actual events from Yip Man's life, but I did my research and guess what, Taylor Milos doesn't exist. Yeah, the filmmakers, in an effort to create this big climax, literally pulled this racist world champion boxer out of their ass just to give Yip someone to fight. While I have found records of Yip fighting boxers before, barely anyone I could find bore the name "The Twister" or were World Champions. So much for being "authentic to Ip Man's life."

Oh yeah and at the end, the movie does a throwaway with including a kid who's name is Bruce Lee, which is utter bullsh*t as his name while he was in China was Lee Jun-fan, while he was born in San Francisco, his family returned to Hong Kong, 'Bruce' was the name he was given when he moved back to the United States where he did fighting and stunt choreography until he finally got his acting credit from the 1971 film "Fists of Fury" (known overseas as "The Big Boss.") But to be direct, the story is fine, the complete shift in tone was a strange choice to me, as I felt the whole conflict should have been between Ip and Hung and that could have carried the entire movie, but I guess Wilson Yip must have watched "Rocky" the weekend he was writing the screenplay and he decided he wanted to have a scene where Ip beats up a boxer. If this doesn't bother you, that's fine, but it's very distracting to me.

Characters:

Donnie Yen: I want to again point out that upon writing this, I have not seen the first Ip Man so I cannot really judge whether he does a better job here than he does in the previous movie. With that said, this performance is so familiar that I kept thinking I watching a movie from the Shaw Brothers. He's a patient and calm teacher who always has something wise to say for the situation, whenever he fights someone, he always keeps a calm expression on his face, even when he gets beat up, showing very little surpass. Sure he smiles once in a while, but he mostly keeps a straight face. Even Jet Li put more expression into his straight face. Now I know it's not fair to judge an actor by his performance, especially since he's supposed to be playing a real person, but I seriously doubt Yip Man was this stiff.

Lynn Hung: You know how Talia Shire's Adrian character from the Rocky movies just serves to nag and bitch at Rocky for getting into these fights? Well, take that but instead, make her more engaging and removed the bitching and just downplay the nagging and you actually have someone who doesn't hinder Ip's progress to teach or fight. She's supportive when she needs to be and even when Ip has to fight The Twister, she doesn't berate him, she encourages him to fight the bastard.

Huang Xiaoming: Hmm, brash impatient youngster who learns under a master; check that off the list. He's not bad, but once he and Yip have this little talk about remaining vigilant, he doesn't really do much else to the plot, it's like the script forgot about him.

Sammo Hung: You know what? He was the only guy I actually liked more than Ip Man in the movie. Sure, he was kind of a douce bag, but at least the movie developed a reason why he's such an ass. His choreography is impressive as well as his determination to defeat The Twister for his insults really had me rooting for him the most, even if it was pretty obvious that he wasn't going to make it to the end of the movie (see what I mean by predictable?) He was the best actor in this film in my opinion, both going for his swift hands and his complex performance.

Darren Shahlavi: He plays a douchebag pretty well. I found his dialogue sounding like it had been dubbed in at times (it sounded that way to me, I don't know about the rest of you) but his assholery should have really been the major drive of the film. Instead, they just throw him in at the half-way point and then, suddenly, now he's our antagonist, but something makes me ask if this guy was supposed to be played by an American since his attitude is more something I would expect out of an American boxer than a Britsh boxer, even if he is racist, at the Brits have a sense of fairness as well…most of the time, this movie takes place after imperialism, what do you expect me to say? I already mentioned this guy was never a real person to begin with, so let's just leave it at that and say, he was an ass and to see Ip whoop his ass is satisfying.

Everyone else is just meh to me. The same sort of performances I expect to see out of Shaw Brothers or Jackie Chan film.

Production: What's there to really say? For a movie that's set in the 1950's, I kept thinking the movie was set in the olden days that most martial arts movies take place. Sure, they have cars and radios but from the way most of Hong Kong looks, you would think it was set in the 1920s or the turn of the century (minus the Victorian era clothing), I don't consider that a criticism but just a nitpick, which still doesn't ruin my view that the movie really looks good and the look of old Hong Kong looks authentic. The choreography is impressive, from fight scenes in a fish market that reminds me of a fight scene from Jackie Chan's "First Strike" where Jackie fights some guys with a table, a broom and a ladder and this one scene where Ip fights the other masters on a table surrounded by stools is actually pretty unique and well crafted. The music is okay, it works when appropriate and it feels authentic, it's no "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" but it works. 

Bottom Line: This was what Hail was trying to insist I watch for 2 months? Well, it's not bad or obnoxious or hair-pulling like "Doomsday" or "Centurion" but it's no "Hero" or "Enter the Dragon." I can forgive a sub-par story with flat characters so long as it has some really great choreography and neat cinematography and a protagonist I can root for. This film had only two of those down; I mean no offense to the Ip family if they should stumble across this, but the hero in this movie comes off as stiff and rather distant to me. For a film that's focused on being authentic to the life the man who trained Bruce Lee, I'm sorry but Bruce knew how to tell a more cohesive story with a character for you to attach yourself to. It's common for martial arts movies to switch gears often times, but this film takes it way too far by switching gears from a "old method vs. new method" theme to turning into the Chinese equivalent of "Rocky." It may have helped if I saw the first one, but HttC said it wasn't necessary, so I took his word for it and, while it at least managed to give some recount of the previous film and why Ip Man is now in Hong Kong, I still found myself left in the dark. Is this a bad movie? Not at all, it's just that there are much more martial arts movies out there, like the Jackie Chan movies, Jackie made a ton of those and his stunt choreography is amazing in them like "Legend of The Drunken Master."

Final Rating: 3/5

Abduction review

"You're gettig a glimpse behind the curtain. What we're engaged in here is a polite war. It's not about bullets and bombs, borders or territories. The currency of this war is information. Zeroes and ones, Nathan. Data."

- Alfred Molina "Abduction"

Released in 2011 under the direction of John Singleton and distributed by Lionsgate on a budget of $35 million; "Abduction" is a action thriller vehicle meant to pull magazine model Taylor Lautner out of the Twilight franchise and turn him into an action star. But with a screenplay by Shawn Christensen, the frontman for the band stellastarr*, (I have taken the time to hear some of their music and I have concluded that these guys are the hipster equivalent to Creed and Panic at the Disco) the chances of doing so fell hard. Some hope of this film's success came from the reputation of John Singleton, the man responsible for the critically acclaimed "Boyz n the Hood"as well as the critically panned "2 Fast 2 Furious" and the remake of "Shaft." So with a director who's had more misses than successes, a screenplay by a guy who fronts an annoying indie band nobody gives two f*cks about and an actor whose fame comes solely by his lack of clothing, this movie was BOUND to succeed!!…right? Well, since nobody saw this in theaters, let's give it a watch and determine if it should have deserved better.

Plot: 18 year-old Nathan Harper is a guy who, despite some terrible nightmares seems to have it pretty good, (he has an iMac and a Macbook and a motorcycle) but that all changes when a class assignment with high school crush Karen Murphy (Lily Collins) leads him to discover a website of missing children with his face on the site. Questioning this bizarre occurrence, he calls the site's operator, getting the attention of Serbian terrorists and their leader Nikola Kozlow (Michael Nvqvist) who sends agents to his house where the kill his parents. Escaping from them with Karen, he attempts to contact the police but is intercepted by the CIA as operative Frank Burton (Alfred Molina) tells him he's not safe. Before he can collect his thoughts, his psychiatrist Dr. Geraldine Bennett (Sigourney Weaver) picks him up, telling him that he can't trust anyone as she literally has him hit the gowned running to go find a safe spot but not even bother to give him any information or try to comfort him over the fact that his parents are dead. So now he's on the run to find some answers to questions that he could just willingly ask people but instead, gets none whatsoever, forcing him to waste two hours to lead to an ending that lacks spirit.

Okay, I have to admit, this script is a LOUSY excuse to call a thriller. There's so much here that could be fully explored and fleshed out, but it doesn't take advantage of that. We have a CIA operative who is corrupt CIA agent, why is he corrupt? No explanation other that he just is and he has questionable motives. the best way I can describe it is like you took "The Bourne Identity" took a hacksaw to anything that young people won't even comprehend or understand, replace Matt Damon with a teenager for the young people to try to connect to, then just have two young people hook over all because they have to go on the run together; presto, you've got an easy $50 million! It's not like teenager would want to go see something else, like "Conan the Barbarian," "Contagion," "The Killer Elite," or "Moneyball." The movie ultimately lacks a fully-focused drive to make us, the audience, care to see this teenager find the answers this brat is looking for outside of just "his parents are dead" and instead of setting out to avenge them, he focuses on finding out "who he is" and stuff that Doug Liman managed to flesh out better with his thriller in 2002. Usually, the thriller genre is about withholding information from the audience so that we, the audience, can learn what he learns and are invested. But by the time we reach the ending, we already figured out that the evil guy is behind Nathan's nightmares.

Funny thing is, the first 10 minutes of this movie give the impression that the movie could be something else entirely. The whole bit with Nathan discovering that his parents aren't his real parents, that could have become an interesting drama about a young man making the discovery that he was adopted and he tries to find his true father. That has so much potential and I would totally dig it! I would totally get on board for that idea! But no…instead it becomes an action movie…nice going Lionsgate, ruin a potentially interesting drama and maybe actually get Lautner to go against typecast...

Characters:

Taylor Lautner: What's the most important thing a thriller requires? A central character to lead us through the film to confront his or her problem. This guy clearly can't seem to act his way out of a box unless he's beating up people. The closest he comes to actually doing something without any help is taking on one unnamed Russian/Serbian and in a scene that makes me think they wanted to try and do a homage to "From Russia With Love" only without the exploding briefcase. All joking aside, he is awful, really a dull lifeless, whiny f*ck. I just can't connect with this guy at all, he offers me nothing that I could give a f*ck about. He just mugs his way through the movie and does some kickboxing and parker but 80% of the movie is him mugging and running. 

Lilly Collins: Ironic that early in the film, Sigourney Weaver advised Nathan to just ditch her, while she is just advising that he work alone, I think she was really warning him to get rid of this incompetent bitch because she offers nothing to the narrative but just a cocktease of a sexless sex scene and an excuse for Nathan to confront the evil Siberian terrorist guy. She just whines and complains and reminisces about she and Nathan in 8th grade and why they weren't dating after that, which is stupid. She doesn't really offer anything of value outside of annoyance; you should have taken Sigourney's advice and ditched her when you could have spent more time by yourself exploring yourself and developing your character.

Alfred Molina: Was there some debt he owed to Lionsgate or did he get caught trying to leave Indy in the temple again? As a character, he has more motivation to do the things he does, but he doesn't fare much better than any of the other actors in this film. He just comes off as a creepy pedophile, at least he does to me.

Michael Nyqvist: Whooooooo, I'm the evil eastern-european terrorist guy who killed your parents!!! WHOOOOOOOO SOOOOO EVILLLLLL!!!!!! Yeah, this guy is an okay actor, nothing I can brag about. He's evil and he plays evil well enough, but he lacks depth and appeal. He's just evil because he's a terrorist who wants some files of CIA or whatever. Remember his performance in the Swedish "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" film? Far more fleshed out and memorable a character than in this film.

Sigourney Weaver: She just sprouts exposition and then she's out of the movie until the end. That's all you'll get out of it.

Acting is somewhat competent enough, but nothing really memorable. Not much I can really touch on.

Production: You know, this is a little too standard a thriller. A Suburban house? An Amtrak? A cafe in what looks like the cheap man's Bronx? A baseball stadium? That's really the most interesting the cinematography even gets, practically not even leaving the East Coast, sure they try to go to Nebraska but they don't even meet the guy they're supposed to meet, but since Pennsylvania underwent a tax credit program, Lionsgate took advantage of this, that way, being able to stay under budget. The editing competent to at least show the action scenes, the costumes are nothing to brag about, the soundtrack is mixture of whatever's popular, from Train to Black Stone Cherry, with additional scoring by Edward Shearmur. I wish I could say more, but there really isn't much to say considering that for a thriller involving Serbian terrorists, the film feels very limited to one designation, which, for a conspiracy thriller, you would think it should be more spread out, like, maybe go across the Atlantic Ocean perhaps? Or wait…dang it, I'm thinking too much about "The Bourne Identity" again. 

Bottom Line: After watching this movie, I can see why nobody saw this film. The best way I can describe it is think of "The Bourne Identity" but give away the ending an hour into the movie, make Matt Damon whinier and uninteresting and give the character a weak and barely explored motivation as a reason for him to go through the mystery. This movie is an example of how not to make a thriller; sure, it has the outline of a thriller, but the execution is a poor effort. It's hard to really support the protagonist and learn what he knows when we are given more information than the protagonist is, we come to the conclusions faster than he can, which almost begs the question, if we already know the answers, why are we still following this guy? The acting isn't the worst I've seen, but it ranks up there with Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes," the acting is that bad. One final thing I have to stress, why is this movie called "Abduction?" Nobody getting abducted or kidnapped, so it's really a poor choice in the title and perfect representation for the confused narrative of the movie. There's a lot here that I can at least give the director credit for, but there isn't enough here that I can't recommend a second watch.

Final Rating: 2/5

Until next time, I'll be here stoking the fires for when we burn through celluloid.