'Fast Five' (God, I wish I was kidding) trailer

Yes...another Fast and Furious movie. Why? I don't know. But, here's an awesome quote from this gem of a movie, "And above all else, never...ever... let them get in cars." This fine quote is followed by various shots of cars revving engines, girls in short skirts walking slowly and Paul Walker and Vin Diesel in a car ("Let's go surfing...dude!). Then the lines get even more stupid, "This just went from mission impossible to mission in-freakin'-sanity." Yes, that was an actual line uttered in this trailer.

Then it just gets more ridiculous with shots of trains smashing into trains and then people jumping off the train onto speeding sportscars in the desert. Oh, always remember that if jumping off the roof of a building, flailing wildly and then crashing into a tin-roof and falling more...you'll be fine. It happened in a Fast Furious Four Five Fun movie. Alsom this model is fully loaded! Ugh!

Oh, dear GOD...it gets worse! They actually take two sportscars, yank out a safe from a bank and drag it through the streets as it slides around and smashes into things. Please, Mythbusters, please do an episode on how stupid this is!

'The Wicker Man is Gone in 60 Ghost Riders'...

AKA: Drive Angry.

As if I need to say anything more that what I typed above...Here is the description Apple provides for this "movie":

'In the newest 3D action-adventure from the director of MY BLOODY VALENTINE, DRIVE ANGRY stars Nicolas Cage as Milton, a hardened felon who has broken out of hell for one last chance at redemption. Intent on stopping a vicious cult who murdered his daughter, he has three days to stop them before they sacrifice her baby beneath a full moon. He's joined by Piper (Amber Heard) - a young, sexy waitress who liberates her ex-boyfriend's cherry-red muscle car in order to help Milton. Now, the two of them are hot on the trail of the deadly leader of the cult, Jonah King (Billy Burke), who believes it is his destiny to use the baby to unleash hell on earth. But the bloodthirsty cult is the least of Milton's problems. The police are after him too. And worse, an enigmatic killer known only as "The Accountant" - who has been sent by the Devil to retrieve Milton and deliver him back to hell. With wicked cunning and hypnotic savagery, the Accountant will relentlessly pursue Milton at high speed across the country until his mission is accomplished. Fueled by high octane and pure rage, Milton must use his anger to go beyond all human limits to avenge his daughter's murder, before his last chance at redemption is revoked.'

If you STILL need some kind of proof that this is a stupid waste of what I would have once called Celluloid, but now deem pixels, here's the trailer where we see Wickerman/Ghost Rider combine with Gone in 60 Seconds to make this...thing.

'Hard Rain' Trailer

My friend moved down to Austin and mentioned that it was raining a lot today, so I told him he should have a jet ski and if it comes to it, he can recreate this movie...

It's an oldie...but an oldie. I can't say goody, because let's be honest, if you've watched the movie or the trailer, you know what it is. Mostly nostalgic, humorous crap.

Sadly, I saw this in 1998 at the theatre. Best part? Jet ski chase through the elementary school. Honestly, the movie is about a town being flooded because, I suppose, a hard rain is a fallin'. Then two armored car guys get stuck and Morgan Freeman and his thugs, who want to rob the bank, or something, rob them too. Yet, Mr. Slater (not A.C.) has hidden the money and then becomes the prime suspect. Also, Randy Quaid is the sheriff (I'm the WHAT?). There's also a chase on jet skis. I couldn't find a clip of the ridiculous chase on aforementioned jet skis, but here is the trailer!

'My Soul to Take' Trailer

Hmmm...it's almost, just almost, as if Wes Craven recently watched 'Scream', remembered it made a lot of money, watched some of his other movies, realized people also watched them, and then thought, "Let me mash them all together into one, giant, shitty piece of shit...and MAKE IT 3D!" Because that is what this movie looks and sounds like.

Pay no attention to the fact that the kid they show getting killed in the beginning is shown moments later when the group of idiot teenagers are standing in the woods, even though they insinuate that the kid died 100 years ago, or whatever the story is...I don't care.

Basically, they tell the whole story, little Jimmy has dreams, or something, of someone getting killed and then those people seem to have been killed. A bunch of idiots go into the woods on the very night Hobo John disappeared or something and they all start dying. But Hobo John might just might be the daddy of little Jimmy. Or little Jimmy might be the killer. Most likely, it's either his mother (SO original) or little Jimmy's sister, angry that Hobo John/Daddy never loved her.

That about sounds right. And IT'S IN 3D!

'The Last Exorcism' Trailer

At first I thought: "Oh come on! Another one!" That was followed by: "From Producer Eli Roth? Alright, so it's torture porn."

Who asked for another exorcist? The original is not scary, it's kind of funny. The 92 remakes that came out just a few years ago weren't scary...they were stupid. So why was it necessary to make another Exorcist movie?

It's good to know that they are clearly trying to cash in on some of the [REC] goodness with their shitty horror movie.

'When In Rome' Review

Alright...let me preface this with the fact that I like Kristen Bell. I also like romantic comedies. Sure they are formulaic and there is nothing new to them. You watch them because...hell, I don't know why.

That being said, there are a few things that a romantic comedy requires in order to work. There needs to be two primary characters with chemistry. In this modern world that doesn't need to mean a man and a woman (see 'Imagine Me & You). However, those two characters need to have some kind of chemistry, otherwise the movie doesn't work. This is the case with 'When In Rome'. Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel have ZERO chemistry. None what-so-ever. It's like watching two complete strangers awkwardly pretend to like each other; which is exactly what it is, except they are actors and it should look like they like each other, or at least have some kind of interest in each other.

A romantic comedy also must have a story. Let's look at a couple of examples: 'Never Been Kissed' (one of my favorites). Journalist Josie Geller is a dowdy, dateless woman who goes back to her high school to write about teenagers today (well, 1999-today). She ends up meeting a man, her teacher, who is her same age though he doesn't know this, and she falls for him. It's funny, witty, predicable but, entertaining. There is chemistry between Drew Barrymore and Michael Vartan. There is a story. It works. Another is 'Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day'. The story is moving, and funny and sweet: Mrs.Pettigrew, a governess, gets fired and sneaks her way into the home of Delysia LaFosse, who mistakes her for a new hire and she immediately whirls her into her glamorous life and many boyfriends. But, true to romantic comedy form there needs to be a coupling. This movie has two: Miss Pettigrew meets and falls in love with Joe, a ladies underthings designers and Delysia has to choose between her true love Michael and the man who gives her all she wants monetarily, Nick. The actors are believable and likable, there are two stories, Bharat Nalluri is a great director and the production design is fantastic.

So, what about 'When In Rome'? What didn't this movie have? It didn't have anything that a romantic comedy should have. I already mentioned the chemistry part, but it doesn't have a story, charm, appeal, emotion...anything. It's like an hour and a half of looking at a screen trying to count the pixels on the digital projection...from the back of the theatre. Seriously, that's what I was doing. People were laughing and I was trying to figure out why I was just sitting there, then I realized these were the same people who willingly paid to see Alvin and the Fucktards 2.

'When In Rome' is about Beth, a workaholic who can't keep a man because she loves her job too much. She even says, "When I find a man that I love more than my job..." She says something else too, but I honestly only paid attention when I wasn't counting pixels. What's her job? Well, she's a curator. Where? Apparently at the Guggenheim, but we don't learn this, unless you recognize it in the beginning, until later. Oh, they also use the exact same music tracks in the beginning of the movie that they used in the trailer; it's like the laziness never ended. She's at some kind of thing and her friends (an obligatory fat girl, skinny-odd girl and a male-gay) all tell her that her ex (the gorgeous and underused in everything, Lee Pace) is there. She goes into this long diatribe about how he wouldn't dare show up there, blah, blah, blah, until the three friends all stare drop-jawed at her and she says, "He's behind me isn't he?" Yes, that's never used in anything, so thanks for putting it in here. This never happens in real life; in real life a person that overheard something would either walk away or bust in and say, "Yeah, I can hear you!" Oh, and then the ex starts yakking about how he was wrong and wants to start new and...as she's assuming he means with her, he says, "I'm getting engaged!" Everyone assumes the two of them are and...you get it.

After this VERY brief idea of who this character is, and a brief realization that you don't give a shit who she is, and since you were given little to sympathize with her over, you know you don't care to learn anything else about her later (don't worry, you won't), now we meet her sister who just pops up at her apartment announcing she's getting married to some dude she met on that plane to Italy. BUT THE WEDDING IS IN TWO DAYS! And Beth has an important exhibition that Morticia Adams has put her in charge of! Oh Deary Me!

Boom! We're in Rome. No more character development, nothing. Just 'I need to go to Rome', a bitchy boss, and a cab ride showing the audience all the places in Rome everyone already knows about. She's the Maid of Honor and everyone is waiting for the Best Man. In rushes...(I have to look up his name, I honestly have no clue what it was. Ben? Chuck? Percy?) Nick. Everyone looks at him, his phone rings, he drops it, and drops it, and drops it and drops it and drops itanddropsitanddropsit! So many God-damned times that after the first forty-two times you get the freakin' point. They awkwardly glance at each other and then a bunch of scenes from the trailer (I'm not even kidding) take place. At some point (more trailer scenes) she ends up in the Fontana D'Amore, drunk, and starts gathering up coins. Every coin she picks up had a wish for love attached to it (more trailer scenes. They could have had something with this premise and I think this is where the original idea grew, but it just went off into the ether somewhere along the line.)therefore every persons coin she picked up falls in love with her. Of course they are all men, she must have been wading in the 'Men Only' part of the fountain.

More and more stupid shit happens that really had no point other than to annoy the crap out of the audience. All the dumb men chase her around and all the while she "falls in love" with Nick, though we don't see why or how or even care about either of them. We don't care about anyone in this movie. But the problem is that she thinks he threw a coin in the fountain and so he's not really in love with her. But how to know? Don't care. You know how it ends and in this movie, it doesn't matter, you just want it to end.

The one funny part of this movie was when they went to some kind of "lights-out" restaurant where you eat in the dark. Apparently this is a real thing, though lord knows why anyone would want to eat in complete darkness. Why is this funny? Well if you are a fan of 'Flight of the Conchords' you will recognize the weird waitress/hostess as Mel the obsessive fan of the two boys from New Zealand. That's the only good thing and it ends pretty quickly when, for some stupid reason, all the men following her show up at the restaurant with night-vision goggles to profess their love to her.

Oh, you get more pratfalls, like when Nick runs into a tree and falls into one of those open sidewalk grate things that are in New York. People actually laughed, though it wasn't in the least bit humorous; not even worth making fun of. Coming from me, that's bad... If you are going to use pratfalls, you have to use them wisely and make sure that the actor doing them can pull them off (Drew Barrymore getting hit in the face by the door, for example). Neither of these two can make them work. Sorry.

What else do you get? Oh, you get BAD dialogue. Some of the worst, cheesiest dialogue ever. Sappy, stupid looks and kissing that is so bland and WTF? in feeling that even the purest little soul could watch and think, "Twilight was hard-core porn compared to this!" The dumbest and most inane thing was having Pedro not only play John Heder's cameraman, talking like Pedro but playing Juan or something, but then for some reason, adding him, as Pedro from 'Napolean Dynamite', in the end dance-montage that no one asked for, nor believes. It was so stupid!

A movie that I find this bad (So bad I can't even bring myself to mock it) only comes along so often. It's been awhile. You might ask: What the hell happened here? How did this get through with no one bothering to say, "Let's shelve this one?" Who the hell directed this crap-fest? Well, in answer to that last one, Mark Steven Johnson, that's who. If you said, "Who?", well I'll make it easy for you: Dare-devil, Elektra and Ghostrider. 'Nuff said. He also had a hand in writing various parts of all that crap listed above.

In closing, let me state: I found this movie so inane, stupid and worthless as entertainment that I would have watched a quadruple-feature line-up including '2012', 'The Day After Tomorrow', 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' and any of the 45 various 'Ice Age's, 'Shrek's or 'Saw's; and for note: I pretty much hate all of those things.

'Alone in the Dark II' Yeah, there WAS a I

Who remembers there was a 1? No one? That's what I thought.

While I am being cheeky, I will say that I did see the first one because I think I may have gone brain-dead; or I became brain-dead as a result of watching the first one, I don't know. It was Uwe Boll, so I tend to get confused because his movies are shit.

Anyway, the first one had Christian Slater, Tara Reid and some other people stumbling around in a badly acted, badly written, badly directed box-office flop. In theory it should have made sense: It was a well known and well liked franchise. But the cast and Uwe Boll made it obvious it was shite.
See for yourself:


Well, don't worry! Some retards plopped money down to make a sequel that really makes less sense than the one Uwe made...if that could be possible! It has a lower budget, a lesser cast and dumber story. Plus, it's straight to video! Check out the crap below!



But if I could be serious for just a moment: Nothing could ever topple the rage and anger I felt playing the stupid Alone in the Dark video game on the Nintendo Wii! That dumb character wouldn't jump when he was supposed to and the controls were so aggravating I felt like stabbing a hobo right then and there. The Irish/Russian rage was building so much that my living room was lucky I wasn't drinking or Hulk would've gone "smashy-smashy". No one should spend life after life trying to get the retard to jump to an area that he wasn't supposed to go just to find out that I had to turn to the left. Nor should they spend life after life trying to climb up a damn building on a rope because the stupid Wii remote wouldn't respond quick enough. Holy Hell-fire, I don't know what is worse: The Alone in the Dark movies or the video game? (I know the answer: the movies...it's Uwe Boll, for God's sake, nothing is worse [except maybe Emmerich])

'Furry Vengeance' trailer

In lieu of discussion over the trailer, we will be having a memorial for the blog writer:

Barb Morrissey
1980-2010
Died after watching the trailer for 'Furry Vengeance'.
Her extreme dislike of talking animals, anthropomorphized to rise up against humans, was elevated too high and she sighed so loud her heart exploded.

'Frozen' trailer

Ok, before I even watch this trailer, it sounds a lot like 'Open Water' only on the ski lifts.

Here's a rundown pre-trailer watching. Three snowboarders get left on the ski lift and the ski patrol turns off the lights and lift until the following weekend. They start getting hypothermia and I start getting angry over the fact that there is NO WAY a ski resort would leave passengers stranded on the ski lifts. Even if they are closed until the next weekend, they would have security or something on the resort so that people don't come and ride down the mountains while they are closed.

Let's see if I start getting angry while I watch the trailer:


- "14 Miles up...dangling from a lift...no one can hear you freeze"

- I bet at the end they unstrap their coats and plummet into the waiting mouths of the sharks below.

- Actual words on the screen: "Will do for skiing what JAWS did for swimming". Oh dear God!

-Why the fuck would wolves be running around under them? That would seem like a little bit of a tough meal to wait for. I mean, they'd be better off going and finding a deer, or something over three moronic humans on a ski lift dangling from the line.

- Oh sweet merciful crap! Here are the last things that flash by: At least one person getting nom-nom'd on by at least one wolf. One of them (probably the nom-nom one) jumping from the lift. First legs out, then legs straight down until a sickening celery-stalk crunch rings out no doubt. And the girl one getting her bare hand frozen to the ski lift.

This is probably going to be one of the dumbest movies of 2010. And that tagline I made up better not get stolen by the studio. I'm copywriting that bitch!

'Cats vs. Dogs: Revenge of dumb talking animals'

I hate these movies. I hate animated, talking animals. What do I hate MORE than animates talking animals? Why, I hate REAL animals that are animated to talk, that's what. I think drug references, and Bond references and trying to cover up the fact they wanted to call it 'Revenge of Pussy Galore' but most likely couldn't get it past censors, is stupid. It's dumb. And making kids want to go see the "cute little animals" (that aren't cute when made to talk and move their mouths) so their parents have to sit through 80 to 90 minutes of mind-numbing stupidity, is stupid.

The entire premise of this movie, which I've since learned is a sequel, is that this ugly cat is trying to get revenge and dressed up like a puppy and infiltrated some house and now all the cats and dogs have to save the world, or some garbage.

Why does this anger me so? Because after a year of some really good kids' movies (UP, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs), 2010 gives us this tripe. And it's tripe people will go see and then they'll make more tripe from a different animal, if you like the metaphor.

If we work hard enough...we CAN succeed!

Alright, I've said it before. If you stop going to see crappy movies, they will stop making them. Case in point: Some awful movie with Robin Williams was scrapped by Disney after Old Dogs performed horribly bad. This is something I could have told them before wasting money on it, but whatever. Now, news rolls in that the sequel to Wild Hogs, Wild Hogs 2: Bachelor Ride (yeah...that was the name), has been scrapped as well.

Now, let's give it a go with movies like 'Chipmunks 2: Electric Boogaloo' or whatever the abomination with chipmunks that talk, go to school and hit on human woman is. This should be the mission of all parents and singles out there. We can't do this alone. Lie to your children and tell them the movie is sold out, not out yet, you missed it; whatever it takes to stop them from making live-action/CGI-talking animal movies. If we try hard enough maybe we can stop the Marmaduke movie I just saw a poster for last weekend.

I'd say to try to stop Roland Emmerich movies, but even though I hate his movies, I have to say...without them my masterpiece Code Name: Rainbow Brite couldn't have been a reality.

I Watch Stuff

Cast of 'Predator' remake, say it ain't so...

I'm sorry...but Adrian Brody and Topher Grace in the unnecessary and un-asked for "remake" of Predator? This is seriously a joke right? It can't be true.

How can you go from these guys:


Yeah...Arnold, Jesse Ventura, Carl Weathers, Sonny Landham, super-huge biceps and chew and swearing; guys you believe could at least stand a chance against a monster/alien in a freakin' jungle.

To these twirpy boys? If these burly dudes don't make it out and the "jungle comes alive and takes them", what the hell chance do these two skinny fucks have?


I mean, I like Topher Grace and all, and I know "acting" wasn't a requirement for 'Predator' the first and second go-rounds (I don't count the other 45 rehashings because they are, well, stupid), so since he isn't really a good actor that isn't the problem. The problem is that you are casting two guys whose weight and body mass COMBINED doesn't equal the heft of one eyelash of ANY of the original cast.

On the other hand, I have NO idea what the plot is and it will no doubt involve one or both of these guys playing "scientists" &/or "government liasons" who get sucked into a terrible situation dealing with a government secret &/or genetic mutations...that is just a given because I can't seriously be expected to believe either of these dudes could be paramilitary/mercenaries/guys who could hold their own without pomade and a chauffeured limosine and a latte.

And one of my favorite things about 'Predator' is the gah-donk-a-donk-a-donk-a music that I can't find (Hey, there is a used copy of Alan Silvestri's soundtrack on Amazon for $188.00!) a sample of; it's when they are trouncing around the jungle and the 'Predator' is tracking them. Watch it, you'll know it!

'Stan Helsing' "movie"

If you watch this trailer and do anything akin to laughing, I might have to track you down and kick you in the coccyx, seriously. If possible, this "spoof" has become the dumbest piece of shit to grace a DVD. It's kind of like when that one stupid "spoof" made fun of Paris Hilton being a dumb, slutty moron; it's not funny when we all know it's true. It's not clever or ironic...or funny. Look! Pinhead has giant pins sticking out of his head, just like regular Pinhead...but they're BIGGER! Now let's laugh? Freddy Krueger has a Hamburger Helper hand that he slaps people, all standing in a row, with! And he says "bitchslap", SO 1996 and relevant. Oh my god, oh my god, let's take Van Helsing and make it Stan Helsing! It's genius (no, it isn't!).

Why? Why would someone finance this? Seriously? Someone pitched this idea to someone and that someone gave the other someone MONEY to make this...thing.



Thanks IWatchStuff ?

Dirty Dancing 'remake'...yes, you read that!

Seriously...stop it now! Just stop it!

Now Lionsgate thinks it's time to remake another 80's classic: Dirty Dancing. That's right!

I don't understand why this is happening. There has to be a huge stack of original ideas hanging out somewhere. I know that they think if they gather up all the old movies that made money or that people remember and remake them, people will pay. Sadly, people WILL pay to go see them. Those people are called 15-20 year old girls. They should be stopped.

I'm sure the remake will be "updated" and no longer take place at a summer camp. It will also include 90% Twilight and Disney cast members.

This is a bad idea.

Stop.it!

iMurders trailer

iStupid. iDumb. iRetarded. See, I can do it too! I can put a lower-case 'i' in front of words too and make a title. Hey, Robbie Bryan? I wouldn't put my name at the end, or the front, or at any point of this movie. Why do people nobody has heard of always insist on putting their names in the trailers?

I don't know either...anyway, this delightful film (it's not delightful) has the look and feel of a mid-90's computer game trailer. Which wouldn't be a problem if it was the mid-90's and it was a video game. It's like someone took half a dozen characters from everything from gay comedy to Lifetime Original Movie, and plopped them into a movie that covered the story lines of anything from Scream to P2. Yeah...that one!

Let's watch the trailer:


People play a game (oooh) on a site called FaceSpace (umm...sorry? FaceSpace? Why not TwitBook? Or MyFace?) and DIEEEEEE horrible deaths! How does someone get 'systematically killed' in a chatroom? They might get killed in their homes after visiting the chatroom, or did we also rip-off Virtuality too? This trailer makes my head hurt!

Hi! Can you be more condescending please?

Look, I am not one to get offended by anything. But there is one thing that sets my phasers to destroy (like the Star Trek reference?) and that is condescending talk about women only being interested in cooking/cleaning/big closets to put their shoes/clothes/purses in.

So when I saw this headline from one of my favorite sites: San Diego Comic Con: Not Really For Girls? I just had to run over and read. This isn't something io9 was saying, they were reporting on two specific things. One being a contest put on by IGN open only to males in the United States aged 18-24 to win a "journalistic assignment" in a tie-in for District 9. The irony is well...ironic (see, if you aren't aware District 9 is a movie about some aliens from outer space that land on Earth and are forced into internment camps and deals with issues of treating intelligent beings as second class citizens [in this case the irony is that this contest is open to only males and treats women, who aren't the "target" audience as second class citizens. I know it's not completely the same...but the second topic of this article deals with the second-class citizen part])

IGN claims it's not their fault (as is covered on io9) because it was a marketing event from the studio aimed at a narrow audience...apparently girls don't like alien movies. Funny...I quite like them (Just NOT Fire In the Sky and certainly not Communion) guess I'm not a woman, or over the age 18-24. They've since decided this is probably not the best image to throw out there and have created an "equal" contest for those pesky females. No one who came up with this contest thought about the fact that a lot of these men might actually enjoy being interviewed by a cute girl asking about District 9?

Now onto the other topic covering Comic Con. It's an article from the L.A. Times! Apparently women only care about Twilight and New Moon (look, I just saw the first one and while I enjoyed it, I'd hardly scream for the stage to get near those pot-head kids). They mention True Blood (which I love) and rushing to the stage to offer to (wait for it...) do Jake Gyllenhaal's laundry on his abs! Look, no offense to Jake Gyllenhaal, but I wouldn't offer to do his laundry, nor any man's laundry on anyone's abs or in their washing machines; they can do their own damn laundry, this isn't 1952!

What makes this article so annoying is that they assume women don't watch or play things targeted at men and wouldn't want to go to Comic Con just for the good ol' geekery of it, or to see people in movies or shows they like for any other reason other than "they take their shirt off".

Apparently, according to IGN and The LA Times, women should be happy to wash clothes and see shirtless men...while I don't mind washing my own clothes and seeing a nice looking shirtless man, that isn't what I am interested in seeing at Comic Con. I wonder why there isn't a Boy's Guide to Comic Con, wherein we see how many women take their tops off? Hmmm...

What the hell is this?

Okay, I'm ONLY posting this because sometimes we all need a laugh. Seriously...listen to Skynet sing away for this girl. By Skynet, I of course mean a vocoder. My question is this: Why do these people keep getting record contracts when they can't sing without the usage of a machine to make them, sometimes, sound good but usually sound like shit? This sounds like shit. I get Styx using it in Mr.Roboto and Aerosmith using it...they don't suck.

And...here are some other things to ponder: Why are her boobs motionless and so far apart when she's standing up? Why does it look like she is wearing one of those Halloween fake-boob breastplates? I know they are fake, but why would you spend that much money on tatas that are roughly a mile apart and do not move? I don't get it!

Here's the laughter-inducer: