June 19, 2011
— Ace Probably better than you were expecting, and probably are worth a watch (especially at Red Box prices), but not really actually good.
Also, bear in mind the Unexpected Christian-Disrespecting Content Warning posted in white font (invisible until you click over it) below. Drive Angry. Two and a half stars (out of four).
Nic Cage claimed, like all actors do, that he was the hugest fan ever of the superhero he depicted in a movie. In Cage's case, it was the disappointing, but not Daredevil-level disappointing, Ghost Rider.
Well, I think he was telling the truth about that because he basically made Ghost Rider Part II: This Time We Don't Have To Pay Marvel For The IP Rights.
This movie isn't great, but I really enjoyed its dopey, determined-to-entertain spirit. This is one of those movies where it seems like they focus-grouped a bunch of 14-year-old boys what they'd like to see in a movie -- "I'd like a movie that explores the theme of Heavy Metal album cover depictions of Hell;" "I would appreciate the symbolic tension of ramming a broken bat through someone's eye" -- and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way. You wouldn't want to take a 14 year old boy's advice on much, but as far as girls, cars, guns, and explosions, they have a good enough bead on things.
The movie opens with a vision of Hell -- looking a bit like a 19th century industrial-labor-camp prison, but with an orange, firey sky -- and, if I've googled this correctly, a black 1964 Riviera escaping out of it along a bridge over a lake of fire.
Yes, they have muscle cars in Hell.
And over this image, the great William Fitchner narrates something or other about not even "the badest-ass motherf**ers in Hell" being able to escape. At least not for long.
Having escaped from Hell to the physical world (we never see the actual mechanism of the transition from one plane to another, though, given the movie's basic tone, it almost certainly would involve a car-jump over a lake filled with fire-breathing alligators), our hero, John, ahem, Milton, is now chasing down some Bad Guys like Mad Max with a sloppy mullet. He shoots them with a tactical shotgun, subtracting one guy's hand from his body with a blast. He gets information from them about the Big Bad, and leaves the wreckage to burn.
Does he walk away from the conflagration in slow-motion? Of course he does. Burn, baby, burn.
As his Hell Car was totaled in that chase, he goes on foot to a diner and decides to make friends with a pretty waitress, not because she's pretty, but because he's noticed (if I've googled this right) she has a black 1969 Challenger with the license plate DRIVE ANGRY) in the parking lot, and that's just swell.
At this point the movie becomes a two way chase. Johh, ahem, Milton and his waitress with the hot ride chase after the minions of a Satanic cult leader who intends to sacrifice Milton's granddaughter at the moment of the true full moon, and thereby open a gateway to Hell or gain demonic power or, I don't know, who cares. Whatever.
And meanwhile William Fitchner, playing some kind of supernatural marshal only called "The Accountant," chases John, ahem, Milton. Fitcher is dressed in the FBI's uniform of sensible navy suit and dark tie, and has a special Demon Coin with a cute magical power. I think he felt the basic role here was a little similar to his role as Agent Alex Mahone on Prison Break, so he plays this ruthless, implacable, but kind of funny demon-hunter with a queeny kind of prissiness. The performance works, given the goofy context of the movie, but there's always a big Wink to the audience implied here. And even a B-level William Fitchner performance is better than most people's A.
On the negative side of things: This is not a big budget film and despite all this pre-release hype I'm reading about doing these awesome car chases with real cars and no CGI... I was pretty bored with the car chases, which were not particularly high-speed nor particularly inventive nor particularly metal-crunching spectacular. And I'm pretty sure I saw some CGI rear-projection when the camera is in the interior of the cars. I actually wondered if this movie had a different working title, and "Drive Angry" was selected late in the process to suggest a more car-chase-heavy movie than it actually is.
Oh, the movie has some damn pretty cars. And the movie obviously loves these cars. But in terms of action direction, the car stuff was very middle-of-the-road low-side-of-middle-budget stuff.
Also on the sort-of negative side: Shoot 'Em Up had a similar spirit of "Let's just be stupidly juvenile here." Shoot 'Em Up also featured a scene where Clive Owen is having sex with Monica Belucci as a whole team of bad guys enter the room to kill them, and, of course, never stops having sex as he kills 20 guys, because, well, it's Monica Belucci. You don't stop.
That scene is given an homage here, and by given an homage, I mean they just ripped it off completely. The only change they seem to make is that there are somewhat fewer gun-kills in favor of a few more hand-to-hand weapon kills.
Doesn't really bother me all that much -- I can afford to see the same scene a couple of times -- but a clear swipe. And also-- no Monica Belucci.
On the plus side, the actress playing the Waitress, Amber Heard, is actually pretty damn good. You have to have a specific skill-set to be a good actress in one of these kinds of movies. You have to be eye-candy (obviously), but you also have to project a fiery, bad-girl persona that suggests you are the sort of woman who punches men in the face when she feels like punching them in the face. Despite her hot looks, she does punch a guy in the face with a fair amount of emotional conviction. Cage and Fitchner play their parts more broadly, but Heard actually seems to want to turn in a semi-plausible performance, and actually succeeds. (Note: I said "semi.")
Another plus is the the inspiration from drive-in action movies of the 70s. I remember a part of Magnum Force where Harry Calahan's pretty, hippie-ish downstairs neighbor asks him, out of nowhere, "What does a girl have to do to sleep with you?" (Answer, IIRC: "Try knocking.") 70s action movies tended to push the Hero Gets Sex So Easy fantasy alongside the Hero Kills Bad Guys So Easy fantasy. I always thought that was a little pander-ish, as if I was to get super-excited by the idea that someone, not me, was getting laid.
But, having said that, Hollywood has really run away from that completely, where every action hero is divorced or on the rocks in his relationship, and is totally like a normal guy in the gettin' action department, and has feelings and stuff because he's a well-rounded character.
Well, in this movie, a waitress (not Amber Heard, but the actress who played Kenny Powers' old flame in East Bound and Down) immediately suggests she'd like to sleep with John, ahem, Milton, and he responds by grabbing her by hair and sucking face on her. Unappetizingly, which is the whole point. A subtle bit of goofing on itself. Okay, maybe subtle isn't the right word. Just a little shout out: Hey, remember the 70s, when these guys all had to dodge high-quality ginch like so many machine-gun bullets?
And now a Minor Spoiler/Content Warning for Religiously-Minded Movie Goers. This is in white-color font, so it's invisible; drag your mouse over it and hold to get it to appear. Edit: Since some people are surprised at the idea of white-font spoiler material: This is in White Font not to protect the dignity of Christians from reading such Unspeakable Thoughts, but because this particular bit of discussion is about an Act III (end of the movie) plot turn, and is therefore a minor spoiler. As I said. "Minor Spoiler." Decide for yourself if you need to read the Spoiler material, or skip to the end.
Back when I was always trying to think of plots exactly like this (you know, the Terminator with a different backstory), I had a minor twist on the Satan mythology: What if Satan wasn't the Prince of Evil, but instead just a bureaucrat still working for God, just administering the prison called Hell?
This movie has the same idea, and trots it out in Act III, to explain a very minor plot twist which is not really a twist but just what you assumed would happen anyway. And it could have been explained with a simple line: "I don't like my boss." If you see the movie, you'll know what I mean.
Anyway, the reason I discarded that idea was simple: It's a cute-ish idea, a cute-ish spin on old mythology. But it alienates a lot of the public who take the actual Satan mythology more seriously than as a bit of fiction to play with and subvert for the sake of minor plot point.
So, in this movie, William Fitchner informs us that Satan actually doesn't like it when a bunch of ignorant inbred morons sacrifice a baby in his name, and actually is just a guy with the job title of Warden of Hell, and is actually a "quiet, thoughtful man. Reads a lot." (Or words to those effect.)
Now, this little idea is absolutely unnecessary to the plot. It also implies, or flat-out says, that the Satanists' idea of sacrificing the baby to open a door to hell is doomed to fail, for there is no such spell at all, and Satan isn't interested in the dumb rituals they've cooked up.
Although I do think it's a borderline-cute idea, I don't get why moviemakers would be so thoughtless, or so unconcerned, about alienating a solid 25-33% of their anticipated audience for an idea that really is pretty obvious reconfiguration of the myth and not the sort of thing that's going win someone an award for screenwriting.
It's just a comic-book-level cutesy idea. Worth it? I don't think so.
It's not the idea that bothers me, since I don't take the Satan mythology very seriously. It's the idea that they knew, or should have known, this barely-worth-it notion would put off people, ticket-buyers, and just didn't seem to care.
Maybe I'm too sensitive on this, and religious people will tell me, "Meh, no big deal."
The only vaguely pro-Christian spin I can give this 30-second-patch of the film is, "Well, at least it's saying that Satanists are stupid buffoons in addition to being evil.
Anyway, summing up, sort of crappy movie that knows it's sort of a crappy movie but also knows that sort of crappy movies can be kind of fun, or at least should be.
A lot of movies will feature the Hero, sounding all bad-ass, vowing to not only kill the Villain, but post murder, disrespect his corpse in some novel way.
And in most movies, of course, that's just a bit of Tough Guy bluster.
This is the sort of movie where the Hero is a little bit more literal than usual.
And that's something.
Other Reviews: Adam Carolla and Bill Simmons didn't seem to like it. Scan down; one of the first five entries on this page. Edited: A commenter said they liked it, but so far, they don't seem to.
The Red Letter Media guys kinda liked it.
It's that kind of a movie, like a catchy, disposable, derivative pop song, where you kinda like it, but aren't really sure you should.
Posted by: Ace at
11:15 AM
| Comments (167)
Post contains 1979 words, total size 12 kb.
Posted by: Charles Johnson at June 19, 2011 11:23 AM (x3YFz)
I can't wait for Ace's DVD review of the Adjustment Bureau which comes out on Tuesday 
BTW ace if you see the commercials for the DVD it looks like they still play it as Man on the run from powerful guys Thriller type.
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 11:24 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:28 AM (M9Ie6)
Its basically a 70s style grindhouse film with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Its some what akin to "Machete" in that way, though not quite as good.
If you like muscle cars, explosions, and Southern redneck stereotypes, and come into it with the expectation that the movie is low on plot but high in cheesy action, you'll like it.
The characterization as "Ghost Rider 2" is somewhat apt, though frankly, I think this one was actually more enjoyable than Ghost Rider (more campy).
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 11:31 AM (KNy97)
Posted by: Andrew Brietbart at June 19, 2011 11:33 AM (sMgrb)
This sounds like the kind of movie I would watch in a lazy mood, kinda like Black Swan or something. There's a place for those kinds of movies, especially on sleepy, hot Sunday afternoons.
Would you put car chases in your own script, Ace? Or dinosaurs? I think car chases, dinosaurs, and giant insects are necessary ingredients to good movies. The recent remake of King Kong would have been perfect except for the stupid ice-skating scene, and the presence of Jack Black.
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at June 19, 2011 11:33 AM (C7KNt)
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:33 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at June 19, 2011 11:33 AM (C7KNt)
Posted by: fluffy North, Decoder at June 19, 2011 11:34 AM (4Kl5M)
And Drive Angry didn't have Eva Mendes in it,
.As for the "Satan is only a bureaucrat" angle, put me down for the "meh, it's no big deal" group. Nobody is going to see Drive Angry for any theology described in it.
Naming the hero John Milton is a "slap forehead" moment. The only movie I saw with any character named John Milton that I liked was The Devil's Advocate.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 19, 2011 11:36 AM (c0A3e)
===
Ace, I'm not a "religious person", but no big deal.
Really, you're trying to expound on what's basically a throwaway line. It has nothing to do with the main point of the film, which is to showcase explosions, muscle cars, and T&A. If you're REALLY so into the "Satan mythology", you're watching the wrong movie, and that's what you were after, you'd have turned the thing off after about 20 minutes.
I actually liked the throwaway line in question, just because it actually brought SOMETHING semi-literary to the rest of this otherwise juvenile production.
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 11:36 AM (KNy97)
Posted by: John Milton at June 19, 2011 11:39 AM (4Kl5M)
Some of these stinker movies he plays ion he should have never taken the script. But from what I hear he has to because he can not control his spending. He is perpetually broke so he has to take every script offered, whether they are good or a POS.
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:39 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 11:39 AM (nj1bB)
That quip about lazy Sunday afternoons is apt.
This one brought me back to some of the campy movies I used to see on local network TV as a kid in the late 70s Saturday afternoons (ie after morning cartoons and "Kung fu theater" were over!).
I think this one in particular came to mind when I was watching it.
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 11:40 AM (KNy97)
Posted by: Kyle Busch at June 19, 2011 11:40 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: Ace's TrapperKeeper at June 19, 2011 11:41 AM (KsI1l)
Posted by: osoloco at June 19, 2011 11:41 AM (dpAW/)
Maybe I'm too sensitive on this, and the religious people will tell me "no big deal".
It's not a big deal. It's just a movie. Anyway, I like Satan myothology stuff (doesn't mean I believe it at all), and I don't think that means I don't take Satan himself seriously. In fact, I'm currently addicted to an manga/anime that talks about Satan being leader of Gehenna (look it up) and fathering half human/half demon children in our world! Oh, and then his demon son wants to become an Exorcist and kill him. It's just stupid, fun stuff....
Posted by: EmilyM. at June 19, 2011 11:42 AM (nCspf)
Posted by: Mike at June 19, 2011 11:42 AM (KsI1l)
LOL, last Sunday I watched Sorcerer's Apprentice with Nicholas Cage. Now that was a movie that I am glad I didn't have to pay any money to watch.
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:43 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Storm Front at June 19, 2011 11:43 AM (avIjo)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 11:45 AM (nj1bB)
======
I don't see it that way.
How could anyone who thinks of themselves as a "Christian", after sitting through the first 70 minutes of sleazy explosions, T&A, disembowelments, eye sockets being gouged, etc, suddenly get offended by THAT line?
"As a Christian minister, I was fine with the scene where John Milton, back from Hell, was f#$king a waitress and shooting people in the head, but that bit about Satan being a bureaucrat. . .that's blasphemy!".
I say if this movie is "disrespecting" anyone, its people with good taste or more than 50 functioning neurons.
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 11:45 AM (KNy97)
Posted by: Jose at June 19, 2011 11:46 AM (WTNJJ)
As for the "Satan is only a bureaucrat" angle, put me down for the "meh, it's no big deal" group. Nobody is going to see Drive Angry for any theology described in it.
Naming the hero John Milton is a "slap forehead" moment. The only movie I saw with any character named John Milton that I liked was The Devil's Advocate.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 19, 2011 03:36 PM (c0A3e)
Wouldn't that actually be more of a Book of Job interpretation of Satan too? Since that's basically a book of Satan challenging God to demonstrate how much his followers will still love God even as they are put through hell? But it involves Satan and God talking.
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 11:46 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 19, 2011 03:45 PM (Xpu2t)
Not the porn. That shit it gross.
Posted by: EmilyM. at June 19, 2011 11:47 AM (nCspf)
Posted by: wtp at June 19, 2011 11:47 AM (4RFKN)
They have it laying in the rotation on one of the STARZ channels that DISH is giving free for a year.
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:47 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at June 19, 2011 11:48 AM (C7KNt)
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:50 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 03:39 PM (M9Ie6)
Three words that sum up the totality of Nicolas Cage's career (highlight to see the spoiler everyone): not the bees!
Posted by: CAC at June 19, 2011 11:51 AM (JEVge)
I love Turner Classic Movies, because I can watch older movies which I actually like commercial free from the comfort of my home.
Posted by: Theresa D. at June 19, 2011 11:52 AM (zviG6)
WWII, Nazis, dinosaurs, vintage style graphics, what more could you ask?
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 19, 2011 11:52 AM (Fo83G)
Steve McQueen, yummmmmmm!
Posted by: Peaches at June 19, 2011 11:53 AM (afUO8)
Disney still turns out about 1 in 5 that are OK.
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:54 AM (M9Ie6)
Maybe I'm too sensitive on this, and religious people will tell me, "Meh, no big deal."
Meh...... no big deal.
With the the real overt hostilities directed at people of faith...... this is definitely on the front side of the bell curve.... so far in front that the graph is still flat.
Posted by: Jumpin Joe Biden at June 19, 2011 11:55 AM (ffV1/)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 19, 2011 11:57 AM (Xpu2t)
Posted by: Mike at June 19, 2011 11:57 AM (KsI1l)
Now that was a real sinker too. That was one of those scripts he should have tossed.
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 11:59 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 11:59 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Ned Beatty at June 19, 2011 12:00 PM (4Kl5M)
As far as movies depicting Satan as the warden of hell or movies which don't portray or which make fun of what I believe, I'm a meh on that one, too. I agree with #45.
Posted by: Theresa D. at June 19, 2011 12:00 PM (zviG6)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 19, 2011 12:00 PM (Xpu2t)
Posted by: Brass at June 19, 2011 12:00 PM (v/Ofr)
Well seeing that I was probably about 10 when I saw it, I don't remember much about it. Just that (like "Drive Angry") it was about some sort of Satanic cult, and of course the famous ending where everyone started melting (I was like "WTF?").
Like all of these, the trailer was probably better than the actual film.
But you gotta admit, with William Shatner, Ernest Borgnine, and John Travolta in there, the film has just got to have some "ha-ha" value somewhere.
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 12:01 PM (KNy97)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 19, 2011 12:03 PM (hIWe1)
Wouldn't that actually be more of a Book of Job interpretation of Satan too? Since that's basically a book of Satan challenging God to demonstrate how much his followers will still love God even as they are put through hell? But it involves Satan and God talking.
That's one way Job can be interpreted, although there is a much bigger lesson to be gleamed from Job rather than one of mere suffering and renewal (i.e. Job was only being tormented to show how much he loved God).
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 19, 2011 12:04 PM (c0A3e)
Excessive Global Warming
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 12:04 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 19, 2011 12:04 PM (Xpu2t)
Oh Fitchner *draws hearts all around his name* Best part of The Dark Knight is when he shutguns the bad guys.
BTW, Amber Heard is hawt and also a follower of Ayn Rand. (Also from Texas)
And also plays for my team. Pardon me, I need to do a victory lap or 12.
Now for the obligatory on any discussion of a Nic Cage film.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 12:05 PM (sf+iw)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 19, 2011 12:07 PM (NITzp)
Posted by: wtp at June 19, 2011 12:08 PM (4RFKN)
Paul. That really upset me because I love the Pegg/Frost/Wright movies and I found the completely gratuitous nature of the insults to be intolerable.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 12:09 PM (sf+iw)
Posted by: wtp at June 19, 2011 12:10 PM (4RFKN)
BTW, Amber Heard is hawt and also a follower of Ayn Rand. (Also from Texas)
And also plays for my team. Pardon me, I need to do a victory lap or 12.
Now for the obligatory on any discussion of a Nic Cage film.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 04:05 PM (sf+iw)
I'd like to watch one of your practices
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 12:10 PM (oVQFe)
That would explain why she dropped her religion for atheism then.
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 12:11 PM (M9Ie6)
That scene was hilarious.
I deliberately skipped the Wicker man remake . .the original was actually quite good, and I knew any remake would just have to pale in comparison.
Is it worth seeing Cage's version for pure camp value?
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 12:11 PM (KNy97)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 19, 2011 12:11 PM (BOUBB)
ort of Call New Orleans" ace? Cage's character in the movie is a drug addicted cop that can't stop his bad behavior because of it. Sorta like Cage's addiction to being in debt in real life leads him to doing bad movies. Or something. Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at June 19, 2011 12:12 PM (rS3u3)
No, go on youtube and look for the wicker man and then the clip that has the best parts. The part when he punches a girl in the face whilst in a bear suit is fantastic too.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 12:13 PM (sf+iw)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 19, 2011 12:13 PM (NITzp)
Yes, if you like seeing Nic Cage beating up and being beaten up by women.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 19, 2011 12:14 PM (c0A3e)
Gah, thanks for the warning. I'm not overly sensitive to stuff like that but when there's no point it for it or if it goes too far, then I see red.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 12:16 PM (sf+iw)
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 04:11 PM (KNy97)
Dust off your bong, take a few shots of tequila, and download the Rifftrax, and you'll laugh so hard you shit yourself.
Otherwise, you'll be praying for noose.
Posted by: CAC at June 19, 2011 12:16 PM (JEVge)
Best scenes from "The Wicker Man".
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 19, 2011 12:16 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 19, 2011 12:17 PM (NITzp)
Con Air is awesome though mainly for Buscemi.
Also, wtf, I was trolling around imdb and there's a movie of Moneyball? How? Why?
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 12:21 PM (sf+iw)
Thank you.
Not only was that 128 seconds lifted totally out of context fun and undoubtedly 100x better than the whole movie, but you've also probably saved about 88 minutes of my life.
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 12:23 PM (KNy97)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 19, 2011 12:23 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 19, 2011 12:24 PM (NITzp)
Posted by: tangonine at June 19, 2011 12:25 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at June 19, 2011 12:26 PM (C7KNt)
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Azof, Bly, UK at June 19, 2011 12:27 PM (C7KNt)
Posted by: DngrMse at June 19, 2011 12:27 PM (AjI3i)
Typical teen flick, but the writing was brilliant and she nailed it. I like that girl.
Posted by: tangonine at June 19, 2011 12:27 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 19, 2011 12:29 PM (BxtCd)
Battle: LA was good. Scifi, action, disposable hero movie
but the military were the heroes. No shade to it; there wasn't one "bad" marine... they were just heroes.
Very entertaining, despite the unbelievability and pseudo-science of much of it
Posted by: Truman North at June 19, 2011 12:30 PM (K2wpv)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 19, 2011 12:33 PM (NITzp)
Battle: LA was good. Scifi, action, disposable hero movie
but the military were the heroes. No shade to it; there wasn't one "bad" marine... they were just heroes.
I was just going to bring that up. I watched it last night and was thinking how much better it was than I was expecting. There's a nice undercurrent of heroism is being scared shitless and still doing what you have to do. It also very quietly pointed out how freaking smart the troops are. This a a grunt ground unit who think things through and improvise and are able to go in and accomplish things independently. Like you said, they are depicted as heroes throughout with no irony whatsoever.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 12:34 PM (sf+iw)
Posted by: Joejm65 at June 19, 2011 12:36 PM (A0wuE)
I get the distinct impression I am a winner for having read this review instead of spending a couple of hours watching the movie.
So I've got that going for me.
Oh, and I turn down sort of hot women all the time (I play in a rock band). Cuz I'm married and scared of disease, but mostly cause I'm married and a terrible liar.
Posted by: Meremortal at June 19, 2011 12:40 PM (Usk3+)
Love this from the article: "If you wonder why the fame,
Of this trio so huge is,
It's 'cause we hope we're smarter than,
Moe and his fellow Stooges."
Posted by: Theresa D. at June 19, 2011 12:41 PM (zviG6)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 19, 2011 04:29 PM (BxtCd)
If you like Daredevil, good for you, friend. But I assure you my dislike for the movie goes well beyond my distaste of Ben Assfleck.
For starters, there isn't a compelling reason for the hero to become a hero. His father, a mob enforcer, was killed off because he selectively refused to obey the mob boss. Daredevil didn't have a good role model to guide him on the way to become a hero, therefore Daredevil lacks a sense of direction (which is what the movie needed to show for Daredevil to become a credible hero).
Also, how the hell did Daredevil get all his crap? He was a poor lawyer and his father didn't have any money. That's a big continuity issue problem.
And Electra? Please. That goes double for Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin - both didn't play their characters well, (IMHO).
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 19, 2011 12:42 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: naturalfake at June 19, 2011 12:44 PM (I49Jm)
When Christians start ignoring it as "meh", they'll stop doing it
Posted by: kbdabear at June 19, 2011 12:45 PM (so1xa)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 19, 2011 12:46 PM (eOXTH)
Has anybody watched the Cenk Uygar clip in the sidebar?
Try it with the sound off and just read the captioning, you'll get a whole new perspective on the Weiner affair.
Posted by: gebrauchshund at June 19, 2011 12:46 PM (iYwUw)
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 03:59 PM (oVQFe)
Yeah, I'm super-sensitive to anti-conservative/anti-Christian messages grafted gratuitously onto films and this sounds like a meh for me too. Frankly, the redneck portrayal sounds more offensive.
Milton (the real one) has the whole "fallen angel" bit and a number of accomplished writers have played with the nature of Satan over the centuries.
I suppose it has the implication that God is, in fact, the cruel one, who creates Hell for the purposes of torture. Rather than a loving God, He's an angry one.
But I think that requires a lot more thought than this movie is demanding.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 19, 2011 12:47 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: railwriter at June 19, 2011 12:50 PM (m4hn1)
Posted by: wtp at June 19, 2011 12:50 PM (4RFKN)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 12:52 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: USS Diversity at June 19, 2011 04:30 PM (RPYjQ)
starring Cameron "Bush Raped Me" Diaz? No.
Posted by: tangonine at June 19, 2011 12:53 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: naturalfake at June 19, 2011 12:54 PM (I49Jm)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 12:54 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 19, 2011 12:55 PM (c0A3e)
Yeah, I'm super-sensitive to anti-conservative/anti-Christian messages grafted gratuitously onto films and this sounds like a meh for me too. Frankly, the redneck portrayal sounds more offensive.
Milton (the real one) has the whole "fallen angel" bit and a number of accomplished writers have played with the nature of Satan over the centuries.
I suppose it has the implication that God is, in fact, the cruel one, who creates Hell for the purposes of torture. Rather than a loving God, He's an angry one.
But I think that requires a lot more thought than this movie is demanding.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 19, 2011 04:47 PM (73tyQ)
Yeah honestly I think the series Supernatural did some of the best modernized take on Angels and Satan within a Paradise Lost context. Satan is actually trapped in hell but some of the corrupted souls that are demons and his followers seek to break him from his cage to bring about the Apocalypse. Angels are not exactly nice and more warriors of heaven and need to take over a person's body to walk the earth because their actual bodies and voices would destroy most people. But to occupy a body, they must have that person's permission, and even Lucifer must gain the consent of his vessel to take over his body.
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 12:55 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: railwriter at June 19, 2011 12:56 PM (m4hn1)
(EX: Ace's twitter-rant against Stranahan last night.)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 19, 2011 12:56 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 12:56 PM (nj1bB)
Haha. This is where we find ourselves--terrified that someone may be offended by a post on a blog. Guess what--some Christians can bear reading things that insult their faith. Between this simpering and the whiny "please don't post racist stuff on my blog, or at least be bothered to read my windy whine about why I can't be bothered to grow a pair and prune my blog." On the one hand, the blog refuses to treat its readers like adults; on the other, it refuses to treat those readers who behave like children, like children.
Ace: proud owner of a blog vagina.
I miss the Ace of old, where adults were trusted to be adults.
Posted by: railwriter at June 19, 2011 04:50 PM (m4hn1)
Kill yourself.
Posted by: tangonine at June 19, 2011 12:56 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 12:57 PM (nj1bB)
My degree is in geology. I work now in antique selling. I like good vs. evil games.
I am doomed!
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 19, 2011 12:57 PM (Fo83G)
Initial reviews on "Bad Teacher" are mixed-to-negative.
I wouldn't make special plans to go see that one.
I'm more intrigued by "Cars II", which opens next week.
Posted by: looking closely at June 19, 2011 12:58 PM (KNy97)
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 19, 2011 12:58 PM (Fo83G)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 19, 2011 01:00 PM (QcFbt)
Translated to Drive Angry, the bad guys are sacrificing people to Malik. Since Malik is not opposed to God's Justice, he hasn't patience for this. It's just more paperwork he has to deal with when Allah audits him.
(And now I'm wondering whether the Muslims borrowed the theme of Moloch from the Old Testament. . .)
Posted by: Zimriel at June 19, 2011 01:02 PM (JdM1M)
Basically, with the white color font text for something
that might offend “religiously minded” readers, you are partially censoring
your discussion of a movie plot twist of little import.You are kowtowing to the sensibilities of religious people who can't tolerate even a theoretical concept that might offend them. I sure hope that's not 25-33% of the population. I'm betting it's not even 5%. I'm thinking that if Islam was the religion under discussion, those that could not even tolerate reading about an idea that might involve non-dogmatic religious ideas, then such people would be called fundamentalists, or even jihadists.
I know there are Christian religious sites where blasphemous
ideas and concepts are not discussed, but I thought this was a mainstream blog.
If thatÂ’s our future, then there are greater threats to liberty than 0bama, because he can at least be voted out.
Posted by: CanadaGuy at June 19, 2011 01:04 PM (+J68k)
Posted by: naturalfake at June 19, 2011 01:05 PM (I49Jm)
Basically, with the white color font text for
something
that might offend “religiously minded” readers, you are partially
censoring
your discussion of a movie plot twist of little import.You are kowtowing
to the sensibilities of religious people who can't tolerate even a
theoretical concept that might offend them. I sure hope that's not
25-33% of the population. I'm betting it's not even 5%. I'm thinking
that if Islam was the religion under discussion, those that could not
even tolerate reading about an idea that might involve non-dogmatic
religious ideas, then such people would be called fundamentalists, or
even jihadists.
I know there are Christian religious sites where blasphemous
ideas and concepts are not discussed, but I thought this was a mainstream blog.
If thatÂ’s our future, then there are greater threats to liberty than 0bama, because he can at least be voted out.
Posted by: CanadaGuy at June 19, 2011 05:04 PM (+J68k)
it was a spoiler. get the fuck over yourself. idiot.
Posted by: tangonine at June 19, 2011 01:06 PM (x3YFz)
Yeah, I agree, it's utterly pathetic when people are ignorant of the convention of using white text for movie spoilers.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 01:06 PM (sf+iw)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 01:10 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Zimriel at June 19, 2011 05:06 PM (JdM1M)
I really hope it's NOT AverageJoe because this shit is getting tiresome. Let the banhammer fly.
Posted by: ErikW at June 19, 2011 01:11 PM (zZRYY)
I watched Beneath the Dark a couple days ago. It's basically an unfinished (in the artistic-failure sense) remake of Carnival of Souls, encased in a hyper-dense block of '90s-style Independent™ ham. So it's above average. I would recommend it...
But.
The first dialog exchange in it is a take-you-out-of-movie-world no-context/no-content/no-payoff dig at Fox News. Why? Because fuck you, that's why.
I'm not even in the demographic that's getting the fuck-you there, but I have some damn human empathy, so I just checked out and went into artistic-forensic-examination mode for the rest of the show. The movie obviously didn't want me in it, so I bailed out. And I find myself doing that all the time lately.
I don't think your example above is much of an example (thoughtful-bureaucrat devil is an old-timey Jewish thing), but haven't you noticed the trend? Dividing the "anticipated audience" into the welcome and unwelcome is what popular entertainment is increasingly about. It's become the premise of "middle" culture.
And I can't get used to it. It surprises me every time.
"All must serve." Great. That'll work out great. This time.
Posted by: oblig. at June 19, 2011 01:11 PM (xvZW9)
Whoever it was who wrote sura 43 - I don't think it was Mo - had the Jewish idea on his left (Satan, God's prosecutor) and a Coptic Christian idea on his right, which he'd inherited from other suras (Diabolos, the naughty angel banned from Heaven).
So he put both in his sura.
Why, I still don't know. Sura 43 is a rambling mess. It's arguing that Muslims should accept Jesus but at the same time it doesn't want them to elevate him back to the Trinity. I imagine the author biting his nails and rewriting the thing over and over.
Posted by: Zimriel at June 19, 2011 01:18 PM (JdM1M)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 01:20 PM (nj1bB)
So he put both in his sura.
Why, I still don't know. Sura 43 is a rambling mess. It's arguing that Muslims should accept Jesus but at the same time it doesn't want them to elevate him back to the Trinity. I imagine the author biting his nails and rewriting the thing over and over.
Posted by: Zimriel at June 19, 2011 05:18 PM (JdM1M)
Trying to find a way to make it a bit easier to convert Christians perhaps? But knowing he can't take Christ back to Son of God status.
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 01:20 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 01:23 PM (nj1bB)
Just saying, I don't know if I would have gone with it, given how hard it is to get a profitable movie in the first place.
Looks like most Christians don't care about this part of it. Eh. I didn't know. Writing for a conservative audience I feel I have to include warnings about content people might not like. Let them decide.
As one commenter said, given that the first 70 minutes are about a demon escaping hell and then graphically murdering people and having weird sex with cocktail waitresses, maybe it is a little over sensitive on my part to think THIS is where the movie would lose an audience.
Posted by: ace at June 19, 2011 05:20 PM (nj1bB)
Well like you said you're not one of those likely to be really offended by this but know that there are those out there that don't exactly take kindly to digs at their religion. But since you're not one of them your sort of flailing around at understanding where that line actually is on the meh/how dare you! area.
Like alexthechick mentioned, its something like what was done in Paul and I think you even had it in your review of that movie that is going to be taken as more of an insult and disrespect than what was done here.
Posted by: buzzion at June 19, 2011 01:25 PM (oVQFe)
Christians have compared high order Demons to beauracrats since the Screwtape Letters. It's just higher on the ladder, really. Christians believe the Devil is part of God's plan, and indirectly does God's work. This isn't that revolutionary.
Oh, and Christians can enjoy movies with sex and violence...thanks. That doesn't mean we want our beliefs slammed when it isn't important to the plot.
Posted by: Crazee at June 19, 2011 01:26 PM (H3ujh)
Looks like most Christians don't care about this part of it. Eh. I didn't know. Writing for a conservative audience I feel I have to include warnings about content people might not like. Let them decide.
Well, the Christians who read this blog aren't the stereotypical Ned Flanders type. Most of us have testicular fortitude, including the chicks.
Good on ya for thinking about us, tho.
Posted by: ErikW at June 19, 2011 01:29 PM (zZRYY)
Posted by: christian paul at June 19, 2011 01:34 PM (BOUBB)
In Paul, there's no fucking reason to take it to the lengths they do other than a purposeful attempt to be jackasses about religion. It also shows a complete ignorance of Christianity. There's nothing in Christianity to oppose the concept of intelligent life on other planets. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole series of books about this. So it's meant to be insulting and it is insulting and it's pointless and if the makers of the work loathe me, I will do them the favor of reciprocating.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 19, 2011 01:34 PM (sf+iw)
Posted by: Joe R. at June 19, 2011 01:36 PM (1zcXE)
Posted by: fluffy, CC at June 19, 2011 01:37 PM (4Kl5M)
I never got my Sekrit Sikh Decoder Ring.
The box of AceofSpades HobO's promised a 'surprise', however, I'm beginning to think that Hepatitis-C was the surprise they were hinting at...not a decoder ring.
Posted by: garrett at June 19, 2011 01:37 PM (Y7qU9)
Posted by: Vic at June 19, 2011 01:44 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at June 19, 2011 01:46 PM (60TKB)
Although, personally, I'd think this really would take too many blasphemous liberties with Christian doctrine.
Posted by: Zimriel at June 19, 2011 01:50 PM (JdM1M)
Posted by: fluffy at June 19, 2011 02:12 PM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: Immolate at June 19, 2011 03:25 PM (0pB27)
Fichtner
Eff eye see aytch tee en ee arr.
Posted by: Robert at June 19, 2011 04:18 PM (4q6A5)
Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at June 19, 2011 04:36 PM (NLWij)
Yep. Actually, it might already be in post production. I think it's due out next year.
And Ghost Rider was WAY worse than Daredevil. Coincidentally, they were directed by the same guy. But Daredevil was a much better film. Ghost Rider was a massive godawful piece of shit.
Posted by: Robert at June 19, 2011 04:44 PM (4q6A5)
Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at June 19, 2011 04:52 PM (NLWij)
Posted by: syphilis test at June 19, 2011 09:45 PM (Eak6F)
Posted by: Oakley Sunglasses Sale at June 19, 2011 11:01 PM (nd8Zp)
Posted by: Ïå·®SEO at June 19, 2011 11:03 PM (nd8Zp)
Posted by: north face at June 20, 2011 02:45 AM (LGHKZ)
I bet it was originally named "Bat out of Hell" and based on the old Meatloaf album.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 20, 2011 02:50 AM (/zYUh)
Posted by: laddy at June 20, 2011 05:56 AM (49mGu)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2766 seconds, 295 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: beep! beep! at June 19, 2011 11:20 AM (c5Nbw)