Yesterday, I saw Bewitched with my friends Dave Faber and Lindsay Grooms. We all unanimously agreed it was painful. The main problem with the film is that its simply not funny. The actors try so hard to get laughs that they fail to realize how annoying they are. Nicole Kidman acts ditzy, Will Ferrell mugs for the camera, and every one else is just there for the sake of filling out a supporting cast. In the film, Nicole Kidman stars as a real life witch, who through a set of contrivances has been cast to be in a remake of the show Bewitched. Will Ferrell plays a self absorbed, washed up actor that gets cast to play Darren in the remake. He is flat out annoying and rude to every one on the set, yet for some odd reason Kidman falls in love with him. There's no logic to this romance, it seems to happen out of necessity, so audiences can laugh at all the film's supposedly hilarious hijinks. The only funny sequence in the film happens thirty seconds before the end credits, in it a nosey neighbor is spying on Kidman and Ferrell. She urges her husband, Abner to come to the window and look. He ignores her and reads his paper. Then a tree magical grows out of Kidman's lawn, the lady shouts,"ABNER, ABNER," flails her arms, and faints. This was the only silver lining in an otherwise tortorous film going experience. Magical movie memories my ass!

Top 10 over-rated films of all time, Part I

1. The Shawshank Redemption - The tag line for this film was "You can't break a man's spirit." This maybe true, but you sure as hell can bore him to death with one dimensional villains, long winded monologues, and every cliche' known in the film world. I wouldn't have a problem with this film if so many people didn't think it was one of the "all time greats." However, for some reason this film has been prematurely labeled a classic by so many people, when in reality it's not that good. Compare this film to any other film set in prison and you will see that it is no different from the rest. It borrows heavily from Birdman of Alcatraz, The Great Escape, and Escape From Alcatraz to name a few, but it never distinguishes itself from any of these films. Where does the redemption part fit in, considering Tim Robbins character is a wrongly imprisoned man? In what way does he redeem himself? It's not the worst film ever made, but my no means is it a classic.

2. Shrek - Like The Shawshank Redemption this film has been labeled a classic for too quick. When critics talk about Shrek they often use words like "clever" and "original" to describe it. However, what is so clever and original about film where the majority of the laughs derive from pop-culture references. Practically, every scene in Shrek has a reference to current films and trends. I lost all hope for the film when I heard the oft used Smash Mouth song "All Star" playing during the films opening montage of Shrek getting his day started. In another groan inducing sequence, Princess Fiona takes on Robin Hood and his merry band of men Matrix-style. This scene had potential to be funny, but then the filmmakers decided, "I think we need a Matrix reference thrown in for good measure. People love Matrix references, they never get old." The reference might have been funny had it not been done to death by every other comedy post-1999! Even more annoying is Mike Myers decision to give Shrek a Scottish accent. It's not only a bad Scottish accent, it's one that fades through out the course of the film. Listen Mike Myers, your Scottish accent is NOT FUNNY. It got old once you left Saturday Night Live, yet for some reason you feel the need to revive it in EVERY film you are in.

3. The Matrix - Time has not been kind to The Matrix; its effects are no longer impressive due to the amount of imitators and the needless sequels that have come out in the last five years. Unfortunately, despite what the fan boys say, the special effects were the only thing The Matrix ever had going for it. The acting is as stiff as any Star Wars prequel and the dialogue is equally asinine. Why is that in The Matrix people feel the need to answer a question with another question? Why can't every one just spit out what they mean? Stop talking in riddles and get to the point. Of course, some one will respond by saying, "You just don't understand The Matrix. It's really deep with it's religious icons, it's take on technology, etc." I understood it fine, just because a film thinks it has something to say doesn't mean it is good.

4. The Princess Bride - I like the Princess Bride, it is a good movie but people seem to have the false notion that it is a timeless masterpiece. It's not, the film is very much dated to the 80s, mainly due to the appearance of Fred Savage playing Nintendo. My main gripe against The Princess Bride is how it feels the need to hammer into your head about how wonderful reading truly is. At the beginning of the film Fred Savage's grandfather, Columbo (Peter Falk) walks into his room, has him turn off the Nintendo, and begins reading a book, much to Fred's annoyance. It is a book after all, therefore it must be boring. As the film progresses, Fred gets heavily into the book and is anxious to know what happens next. At the films conclusion, Columbo leaves Fred, and Fred asks if Columbo will come back and read the book again. Fred has learn a great lesson: reading is magical, we shouldn't waste time playing video games, we should READ! I wish some one would make an anti-reading film, in which the character loses everything due to his obsessive book reading.

5. Requiem For a Dream - I will summarize the story to Requiem For a Dream in three words, thus saving you an hour and a half of your life: DRUGS ARE BAD! Despite all the film's flashy techniques, there's not really much at it's core. The film is well made, but it's excessiveness becomes redundant after twenty minutes. It's like Darren Aronofsy decided one day to, "Screw subtlety, let's pound it into the viewers heads how evil drugs are." After awhile the endless split screens, montages, time lapse photographer, and overbearing soundtrack wear out their welcome and become pretty boring. I have never liked the film, but it has a following because people tend to think depressing films are deep and far more important than mindless Hollywood dribble. I disagree on both accounts. Depressing films are genre in themselves, and rely heavily on the same iconography to get their message across. Requiem is one long morality play that relies heavily on flash, not substance to get its message across.

I will post the second half of my list some time soon. Feel free to argue/agree with me, I'm curious what you all think about my list.

I WANT YOU TO READ MY BLOG! If you don't read it nor like it, then you are truly Un-American. Either that or completely sensible.

Lindsay Lohan seems to be a hot topic in the news these days, and if she's hot enough for the news, she's hot enough for this blog. If I must make a post about Lindsay Lohan to get more readers, than so be it. What can you say about Lindsay Lohan? People either love her or hate her! I am part of the former camp myself. How can you possibly hate Lindsay Lohan? The girl has brought hours of joy to this otherwise miserable world. Her films are highly entertaining to watch, even if they are not for the reasons intended. In Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, she got to sing in an updated version of My Fair Lady, which contained the David Bowie song "Changes." One could see this as an insult to David Bowie, I found it rather amusing. It may be a desecration, but at least it doesn't pretend to have any significant meaning, unlike the awful Britney Spears song "I'm not a girl, not yet a woman." It is what it is, you can either enjoy it or be pained by it. In Mean Girls, she is given yet another musical number in which she sings Jingle Bell rock in a tight, short skirted Santa outfit. One could view this as painful, I found it hysterical.
There are two running themes in every Lindsay Lohan film (later films any ways):
1) All her films have a scene in which every one gets pissed off at her because of her dishonesty. In the course of each film she lies about herself to make friends. However, her lies and deceits eventually come to haunt her, and she loses every one. Realizing it was wrong to lie to all her friends, she makes it up to them by doing an extraordinary feat at the film's climax. In Drama Queen, she stars in an updated version of My Fair Lady and wins back every one's affection, while setting a washed up rocker on the right path. In Mean Girls, she wins a mathlete competition and wins the respect of her peers. In Herbie: Fully Loaded she wins not only the big race at the end, but the love of millions. Lindasy Lohan always wins in the end despite her lies, half-truths, and deceits.

2) There is always at least one scene that requires her to wear an outfit that shows off her busty figure. In theory her films are supposed to appeal to little girls, yet they seem to pander to the desires of teenaged boys and lonely old men. Lindsay Lohan is either a great teenaged actress or a barely legal, heavily dressed adult film star working in the industry. You decide.

Vincent Price - BEST ACTOR EVER!

This is a picture Andy Guy drew for me last year after we saw Peter Pan. It is with out a doubt a great work of art. Andy Guy, I salute you.

I have often been accused of being a bitter person, this is a charge that I can not defend, because it is indeed true. However, I have decided that for once in the history of this blog...nay in my life I will write something that is positive. This was not easy task, as I hate almost everything. What could I possibly write about that would make me feel positive? The answer: $5.50 DVDs at Wal-Mart. If you have never been to Wal-Mart, then I urge you all to look past any prejuidices you might have against the place and stop on it to look at their $5.50 bin; chances are you will find something good. A good deal of my DVD collection I purchased from the $5.50 bin. I found the following films lying in the bin:

Hot Shots
Magnum Force
The Enforcer
Where Eagles Dare
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Batman: The Movie
Rambo: First Blood, Part II
Rambo III
Silver Streak

Many of these DVDs need a home, therefore please find it in your heart to walk into a nearby Wal-Mart and purchase some. They will bring you great joy. I know they have brought me great joy.

I have added a few links to my wonderful sight.
Matt Majewski is the one who inspired me to start my own blog, so you can either thank him or blame him for the creation of this site.
Dave Faber loves bad movies, therefore he is a wise man. Check his site out, the kid needs support.
Will Marean is from California, and chances are he will have a delightful section in his blog all about surfing. If not, then he is a liar.
Kevin Neville, well.. take pity on the guy he has a uni-brow. Please visit his blog, let him know he is loved. He needs it. I remember one time he walked up to and said, "Goggins man....I don't know if I can make it through college. My uni-brow is getting in the way of my studies. So,I gave him some worldly advice, "Don't think....act!" He was enlightened and because of my wisdom he graduated. I'm a hero!

Why Star Wars Prequels are pointless, Part II

Yesterday, I discussed three main reasons why I felt the Star Wars prequels were pointless, today I will expand by opinion by offering up a few more reasons. I hope you enjoy.

4) Anakin and Palpatine
In Revenge of the Sith, this relationship was finally given the proper attention that it should have gotten in the first two films. In Episode I, Palpatine encounters Anakin once and says, "We'll be watching your career with great interest." That's about the only time the two even share the same frame together. In Episode II, we get one scene between Anakin and Palpatine in which Anakin thanks Palpatine for his guidance. Now, here's the problem? We never see any of Palpatine's guidance! All of it is implied. That's the problem with prequels in generally, we are told all we need to know, but we never are shown it. There's nothing to suggest in the scene in Episode I and the scene in Episode II that Anakin would thoroughly trust Palpatine. It would even be nice to know what Palpatine's guidance consisted of? This relationship is established so poorly, that it's hard to believe that Anakin would forsake the jedi, forsake Obi-Wan and Padme, just so he could follow a man he has no reason to trust. There should have been more moments between Anakin and Palpatine that show us how he has gain Anakin's trust and how he poisons Anakin's mind for the very beginning.

5) Anakin and Obi-Wan
Anakin himself is a riddle. The main thing that we never get to see is his training as Jedi. We hear about the times he has saved Obi-Wan, but we never see any of his training. Considering training is an important part of being a Jedi, it would make sense Lucas devote sometime of the trilogy to Anakin's growth as a Jedi. It's only through his training, we can fully grasp just what kind of mentor Obi-Wan was to Anakin. We get one brief sequence in Attack of the Clones were the two bicker back and forth about protecting Padme, but other than that it's hard to really know just how the two view one another. Anakin whines Obi-Wan holding him back, but then the next moment Obi-Wan is "like a father" to him. How does Obi-Wan really view Anakin? It isn't until Revenge of the Sith when he says, "I loved you like a brother" that we get any indication Obi-Wan cared about Anakin. Their relationship seems to be a professional one at best. Remember, Obi-Wan didn't originally want Anakin to be trained as a Jedi, he only agreed to train Anakin because he was honoring Qui-Gon's request. Does Obi-Wan have any resentment towards Anakin or are Anakin's accusations all in his head? Does Anakin have a reason to be bitter towards the Jedi or is he exaggerating everything that is going on? How is it in Episode I Anakin is all for becoming a Jedi, yet in Episode II he is resentful of the Jedi? Did this resentment come on it's own terms, or was it part of Palpatine poisoning his mind?

6) Needless cameos from characters in the original trilogy
I find it annoying that Lucas constantly had to have characters from the original trilogy popping all over the place for no reason, except to give fans something to cheer about. Think about it for a second, in the three prequels name one thing C-3PO does that helps move the story along. Nothing! He does absolutely nothing in the prequels except make stupid jokes and ask Padme, "Are you all right?" The film would have been exactly the same had C-3PO not been in the movies. Narratively speaking, there is no reason to include C-3Po in the movies, he is does not play a crucial part in determining the outcome. Then there's Chewbacca cameo in Revenge of the Sith, he has two brief scenes and in both of them he manages to do absolutely nothing. Again, he's there for the sole sake of appeasing the fans. His presence itself becomes a distraction, because his being there takes the viewer out of Revenge of the Sith and brings them back to the original trilogy. "Look it's Chewbacca, I wonder how he meets up with Solo? Oh well, back to the movie!" These cameos were not needed. If the characters played a vital part in the story I could understand why Lucas would put them in the film, but they don't. They just waste minutes of precious screen time that could have been used to develop the lead characters. And I won't even get started on Boba Fett, that's just to annoying even to discuss at this time.

Well, I think I shall take a break from all the prequel bashing. I promise to have more non-related Star Wars post in the future.

Really?
You know what's annoying? When women fish for compliments by knocking their looks. It's the most annoying thing on the planet. A woman desperately needs someone to verify she is attractive, but since no one is paying attention to her, she makes the first move by putting herself down. Men generally fall for this tactic and convince the woman she is not ugly. Here is a typical exchange:

Woman: I'm ugly.

Man: No, you're not!

Woman: Yes, I am. My nose is too big. I wish I had a smaller nose. Everytime I look in the mirror I cringe.

Man: You're nose is fine. You're not ugly, you're a fairly attractive woman.

Woman: Really? Do you REALLY think I'm attractive?

Man: Yes, I do!

Woman: No, you don't. You're just saying that to be nice.

Man: No, I mean it. You are an extremely good looking women.

Woman: REALLY? YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?
Man: Yes!

Woman: Oh, that's so sweet!

Then the conversation ends and awkward silence fills the air as the stupid man tries to think of something to say to the woman.
So men, next time a woman puts down her looks, don't argue with her, agree with her. It will end the conversation in no time flat, and you won't have to worry about the awkward silence that follows.

I hate it when people go to a movie, walk up to the vending stand, and complain about how expensive prices are for food. The only reason why vending prices are so expensive is because people are so willing to pay expensive prices for a bucket of popcorn. Think about it, if a company does a great business by selling over priced popcorn, do you think there are going to lower the prices? No, they will keep raising them, because people will pay high prices if it means enjoying their movie with popcorn.
A comment I always hear is, "This is highway robbery!" No, it's not highway robbery, because no one is forcing you to buy popcorn. You could easily walk past the vending stand, go into the movie and save five dollars in the process. The ironic thing is that most movie theaters are surrounded by restaurants, grocery stores, etc. If you really want food, why not just stop at one of these places prior to the film and pick up something there. A box of Dots is a dollar at Target and it's twice the size. Walgreens carries lots of candy, so why buy some at a movie theater. Movie theaters are interested in making a profit, not saving you money. If you want to save money, don't buy snacks at the movie theaters. If people stop buying snacks, then they would lower the prices. Think about! That's my main gripe for the moment. As you can tell, I am a movie theater employee, therefore I am on the dark side.

There are many people who love the Star Wars prequels, I am not one of them. I don't find them to be the worst films on the planet, but I do feel that they are pointless. The frustrating thing about the prequels is that they had the potential to be good, if not great. But instead, what we we got was a mediocre series. There are so many problems I have with the prequels, but rather than list them all, I will select a few. If I listed them all, this blog would go on forever.

1) The lack of villains in Episodes I and II.
I admit I enjoyed Episode III, mainly because of Senator Palpatine. He was a great villain in my opinion. I enjoyed his villainy to the fullest. However, in Episodes I and II, the villains are nowhere to be seen. In Episode I, we get a few brief glimpses at Darth Sidious, but nothing memorable. Darth Maul has at best about ten minutes of screen time. The Trade Federation hardly count as villains, because when ever they meet any sort of resistance, they back in a corner. And don't get me started on the battle droids. It's hard to take them serious as villains, because they are given lame one liners like, "Roger, Roger!" There was literally no sense of urgency at all in Episode I. In fact, when Qui Gon and crew arrive on Tatooine, they are given plenty of time to meet Anakin, find spare parts for their ship, and watch Anakin win a pod race. There's no sense time is running out for them at all. That there might be consequences to pay if they don't hurry. In fact, Qui Gon's first encounter with Darth Maul happens just as they are leaving Tatooine, his presence doesn't motivate their leaving, he just happens to show up. His presence in that scene doesn't progress the story, it's there fore the sake of being there.
In Episode II, Count Dooku isn't introduced until an hour and a half into the film. For the most part all he does is talk, talk, talk. He is a rather boring character despite being portrayed by Christopher Lee. We learn he was a jedi, but we are given very little information as to why he turned to the Darkside. There was no urgency in this film as well until the last thirty minutes. Prior to that, Anakin is given lots of time to wow Amidala with his incessant whining and creepy stares.

2 Padme - Anakin relationship
They dialogue is bad in these sequences, yet that's only half the problem. The main problem with the Anakin-Amidala romance is how poorly Lucas sets it up in Episode I. In the Phantom Menacne Anakin is a ten year-old boy, Padme is supposed 14 years-old. There's not one moment in Episode I that implies Anakin and Padme have formed any sort of bond. For the most part, she is an older girl that he finds pretty. Just because Anakin thinks she is an angel, doesn't mean he is necessarily in love with her. There's nothing in Episode I to suggest that Anakin would be thinking about her non-stop for ten years. He doesn't seem interested in Padme, rather is all about becoming a Jedi. His whole goal is to become a great Jedi, not make love with an older woman. All of a sudden in Episode II, we find out that he has obsessed over Padme for ten years straight and is upset when she gives him the cold shoulder. Padme herself is inconsistent between movies. In Episodes I and II, she is a mature, strong willed woman who will do anything to save her people. In Episode III, she is very weak willed. When Anakin turns to the dark side, she loses the will to live, despite giving birth to twins. Her death feels forced, like it HAS to happen so the original trilogy can exists. But in the context of the prequels, her death is unconving. Padme has survived through so many terrible situations, yet to suggest she would just lose the will to live once her whiney husband turned evil is ridiculous. Some where between Episode II and III, Padme became less a fighter and more Betty Crocker. Her death should have been more dignified than it was.

3) Lucas' unwillingness to let the visuals speak for themselves.
The prequels are anything but subtle, Lucas must always reinforce the visuals with dialogue, just to make sure the audience understands what is going on. Therefore, it is not enough to show Darth Vader destroying a room after learning about Padme's death, he has to shout, "NOOOOOO!" as well, just so the audience is aware that Vader is upset by her death. In Episode II, the audience is shown Count Dooku's war room, in the background is a hologram of the Death Star. However, it's not enough to keep the hologram in the background, Lucas needs to give it a close up to make sure the audience knows it's the Death Star. Then to emphasize that it will play a pivotal part in future Star Wars sagas he has a character refer to it as "the ultimate weapon." This sequence has no reason to exist. It doesn't progress the story in any way, and it mainly there to give the fans something to talk about. "Did you see the Death Star?" However, it is distracting from the main story that is being told. Why even introduce the Death Star when it won't be introduced until A New Hope.
Then there's that annoying sequence in Episode I, in which Yoda and Mace Windu are talking about the Sith. Mace asks, "Which was killed the master or the apprentice?" The camera then pans over to Palpatine, who is singled out from the rest of the crowd by given a sinister close up. This scene is not needed. One, any one who is familiar with the original trilogy knows Palpatine is the emperor, therefore we don't need Lucas to reiterate the point for us. Secondly, for people who have not seen the original trilogy, and this is their first Star Wars film, this is a dead give away. We are told far in advance who the evil Sith lord is, and therefore are baffled why the Jedi ( who supposedly have great powers) are so blind that they can't figure out until Episode III.

These are three points, if I am so inclined I will post more reaons why the prequels are pointless. I don't think the prequels are awful, all three have a few good moments thrown into the mix, but they really weren't needed.