Monthly Archives: August 2012

REVIEW: “THEM!” (1954)

by

3

I’ve recently started revisiting some of the 1950’s sci-fi classics. I remember growing up and watching many of these films whenever I had the chance (which wasn’t often in the days of no cable TV and only three watchable local channels). The 50’s and early 60’s sci-fi genre saw mankind up against everything from huge tarantulas, sea monsters, giants, and a large assortment of alien threats, and as a young boy I loved them all. Of all of the 1950’s sci-fi creature features, “THEM!” most certainly ranks among the best of the bunch. “THEM!” was first conceived as a 3-D project from Warner Brothers, at least until a series of on-set technical issues arose. So the production team created the film in glorious black and white and I can’t imagine it any other way.

The movie’s main threats are giant ants which mutated as a result of radiation from a nuclear test detonation over the New Mexico desert in 1945. These massive insects are well over 9 feet long with bone-crushing mandibles and are byproducts of the new atomic age (at least new in 1954 – when the film was made). In fact, it’s Edmund Gwenn’s Dr. Medford character who paints the new nuclear world as a terrifying, unknown, and unpredictable place. That theme plays in the background of the entire movie and while maybe not as effective today, it’s still easy to see how it could create a fear and tension on its own.

The ants are first discovered when New Mexico state trooper Sgt. Peterson (James Whitmore) and his partner come across a little girl wandering aimlessly through the desert. She’s in shock and unable to tell them who she is or what she’s doing. They end up connecting her to a demolished camper of a now missing vacationing family. A string of other mysterious deaths, including Peterson’s partner, leads to F.B.I. Agent Graham (James Arness) being called in to help with the investigation. Dr. Medford (Gween), a leading myrmecologist from the Department of Agriculture also joins the investigation along with his “expert” daughter Pat (Joan Wheldon). They discover the reasons behind the deaths and their main goal becomes killing the bugs while containing them within the desert. But that doesn’t work out so well and before long they have a potential global crisis on their hands.

The story is attributed to a collaborative effort, but combined with Gordon Douglas’ marvelous direction, it is extremely clever and well constructed. The story starts off with a murder mystery feel as the officers, agents, and scientists piece together clues to uncover the mystery behind the deaths. What’s impressive is that it doesn’t feel manufactured or underplayed. The early investigation scenes are very well conceived and helped even more by Douglas’s slick use of his cameras. Smartly, the movie doesn’t reveal the ants right away which builds the suspense and anticipation so that when we finally see them, they have been established as a serious threat. Of course by today’s standards there’s nothing particularly scary of unnerving about them. But I still have no trouble going back to when people first saw the film and I still get a little giddy when I hear the ant’s menacing screeches.

I also love the way that everything in the story is taken seriously. Sure, there are some moments of good humor, but as a whole, the story is told in a very factual, pokerfaced way. One reason this is so good is because it leaves the audience toying with the possibilities that these bizarre and outlandish things could happen. While the writing is essential to this, the performances are equally important. Whitmore, Gwenn, and Arness are perfect fits for their roles. Wheldon is good as well although she isn’t all that convincing as an esteemed entomologist. But there are other small but fun roles to be found. A young Leonard Nimoy has a brief scene as an Air Force communications officer. Fess Parker also has a brief but entertaining part as a boozer stuck in a mental hospital.

“THEM!” has been recognized as an influential movie within the science fiction genre. Many great films that followed featured elements that could be traced back to this movie. For example, I couldn’t help but connect the idea of a queen laying eggs deep underground only to have them destroyed by flamethrowers to one of my favorite sci-fi treats of all time – James Cameron’s 1986 classic “Aliens”. It’s also a movie that helped usher in the new era of horror/sci-fi cinema. From the classic Universal monsters to the age of big bugs and spacemen, “THEM!” was at the forefront of the transition. I don’t doubt that many modern moviegoers will have a hard time digesting not only this movie but the entire genre. But the genre holds a special place in my heart and “THEM!” was the quintessential big bug movie.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

5 Phenomenal Movie Haircuts (that are so bad, they’re good)

by

28

I had a tough time putting this list together. First off you have the iconic haircuts – haircuts that aren’t exactly bad but have an iconic status in cinema. But then you have those that are just so bad that they’re good – those wacky haircuts that defy common sense. But even though these are some pretty goofy hair styles, you just gotta love them. Now considering that goofy is on the scalp of the beholder, I wouldn’t go as far as to call this the definitive list. But there’s no denying that these five movie haircuts, which are so bad that they’re good, are phenomenal.

#5 – Gary Oldman – “Dracula”

Ok, how on earth do you even begin to describe Gary Oldman’s hair in Frances Ford Coppola’s telling of “Dracula”. It’s almost like receding Princess Leia buns turned gray. Oldman has had several movies that have featured truly atrocious haircuts. But there’s something so crazy about his Dracula “do” that I had to include it on this list.

#4 – Jim Carrey – “Ace Venture: Pet Detective”

Jim Carrey’s Ace Ventura haircut is like Ed Grimley’s on steroids. The big looping front come to a point and is completely over-the-top. But as ridiculous as it is, somehow it perfectly fits this nutty character that Carrey came up with.

#3 – Jon Heder – “Napolean Dynamite”

“Napoloen Dynamite” is one of those movies where at least three or four different characters have hairdos that could qualify for this list. Napoleon’s stands out mainly because it hasn’t met a comb in weeks. But again, just like with Ace Ventura, the goofy haircut perfectly fits this goofy character.

#2 – Nicolas Cage – “Raising Arizona”

One of my favorite Coen brothers movies is one of their earliest, “Raising Arizona”. Nicolas Cage’s character H.I. “Hi” McDunnough is as goofy looking as he is dumb and that’s largely due to his crazy, wild hair. I’m not 100% sure how they made it do what it does, but his hair seems to have a life of its own. In a film full of laughs, it says something when some of those great laughs revolve around this awful hairdo!

#1 – Javier Bardem – “No Country for Old Men”

What is it with the Coen brothers and bad hair? In “No Country for Old Men”, Bardem plays one of the most memorable villains in cinema. He’s brutal, scary, and menacing and he pulls it all off with one of the most hideous haircuts I have ever seen. “No Country for Old Men” is one of my personal favorite movies and Anton Chigurh, hair included, is one of my personal favorite villains.

That’s a lot of hair! So who did I miss. Take time and let me know a wonderfully awful movie mop that would have made your list!

REVISITING “THE HUNGER GAMES” – 3.5 STARS

by

8

With this week’s release of the incredibly popular “The Hunger Games” on DVD and Blu-Ray, I had a chance to see it for a second time. I thought it would be fun to share my review of the movie again for those who may be newer to my blog. What are your thoughts on this much talked about picture? Were the odds ever in your favor as you sat down to see what all the hype was about? Here’s my take.

It’s been called the next big thing at the movies. It’s projections point to an opening weekend of around $150 million. Fans are filling theaters with anticipation. With such hype and expectations, how is it that I had never heard of “The Hunger Games” before seeing its first movie trailer? Expected to be the first in a profitable series, “The Hunger Games” is based on a series of novels written by Suzanne Collins. It’s a dystopian science fiction film that’s based on a preposterous premise yet it manages to be strikingly entertaining.

With the “Twilight” series mercifully set to end later this year, “The Hunger Games” is looked at as the next big franchise and has even drawn some misguided comparisons to the romantic vampire versus werewolf films. But there are several things that separate “The Hunger Games” from the “Twilight” series. First, this film opens itself up to a much broader audience. The movie embraces several good sci-fi and action elements that should appeal to a wider variety of moviegoers. “Twilight” made millions but had a much more restricted target audience. Also “The Hunger Games” made a point to bring in quality performers and it really shows in the finished product. The acting is head and shoulders above the teeth gnashing performances in “Twilight”. In other words, “The Hunger Games” has more to offer than many of the other popular multi-million dollar series.

The movie takes place in Panem, a nation broken up into 12 districts. It’s a futuristic world that features a capital city filled with advanced technology surrounded by landscapes that resemble the Ozark or Smokey Mountains. The power and affluence are confined to the Capitol while the outer districts are filled with poverty-stricken villages struggling to survive.  We learn that years ago there was an uprising in the districts that resulted in a strong militaristic response from the Capitol. After quenching the uprising, The Capitol instituted “The Hunger Games”, an annual competition that required each district to provide one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete against each other in a survival fight to the death. There would be only one winner and that winner would receive fame and glory. The games were intended to serve as a lifelong punishment for the district’s uprising and to show the twisted view of mercy and forgiveness of the Capitol.

To add yet another warped component to the story, The Hunger Games have become a Super Bowl like event. Much like 1987’s “The Running Man”, citizen’s throughout the capital city watch and cheer the games like they would a major sporting event. Special events and talk shows centered around the participants and leading up to the games are soaked up by the heartless and blood-thirsty Capitol crowds. In contrast, those watching in the outer districts do so not out of sport but out of concern for their loved ones. The movie goes all out to show a stark economic and moral difference between the wealthy city people and the poor district citizens. It’s a contrast that looks to play a bigger role in the future films.

The movie starts inside the very poor District 12. Jennifer Lawrence plays Katniss Everdeen, a tough 16-year old girl forced to take care of her mother and little sister Prim (Willow Shields) after the death of her father. The sisters gather together with the other kids from their district for what’s called “The Reaping”, a random drawing to find out who will represent the district as “tribute” in the year’s games. When a terrified Prim is chosen, Katniss steps in and volunteers in her sister’s place. Joining Katniss from District 12 is a baker’s son named Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). The two are shuttled to the Capitol where they are prepped and paraded around until the day for the games is upon them.

You can’t talk about “The Hunger Games” without talking about Jennifer Lawrence’s performance. A lot of great young actresses tried out for the role including Saoirse Ronan, Chloe Moretz, Hailee Steinfeld, and Shailene Woodley. But Lawrence was chosen and she was the perfect choice. Since I first saw her in her Oscar nominated role in “Winter’s Bone”, she’s been one of my favorite young actresses. Here she gives a strong and committed performance that feels true and authentic. In fact, she often times rises above the material and when the story goes a little off-track she manages to elevate it and carry it on her shoulders. It’s a brilliant performance and she fleshes out every quality of her character that you would expect.

Lawrence is joined by a nice supporting cast including Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, a bumbling boozer who is the only survivor to ever come out of District 12. Stanley Tucci is great as Caesar, the voice of The Hunger Games. He hams it up with his wild blue hair and huge grin but he’s also a bit slimy and disturbing. Elizabeth Banks plays Effie, a Capitol liaison to District 12 and Lenny Kravitz plays a stylist who has the job of making Katniss and Peeta make a good impression. We even get Donald Sutherland delivering his signature overly dramatic but perfectly effective lines as the sinister President Snow. While these supporting performances are quite good, some of the younger actor’s work doesn’t quite measure up.

The story itself captures a lot of what makes for good science fiction. It also does a nice job building up the tension leading up to the start of the games. I also saw myself emotionally caught up in several of the movie’s more heart-felt scenes. The action sequences aren’t as plentiful as some have advertised and the violence is strategically edited to ensure the PG-13 rating. But I did find watching teenagers hack each other up, some with pretty flippant attitudes, to be a bit uncomfortable. I also felt the tributes (the Hunger Games participants) to be inconsistently written. Several are introduced in a way that makes you think they are significant but they meet their demise in fairly meaningless fashion. Better writing could have made the tributes (aside from a small handful) feel more important therefore giving the games themselves a lot more weight.

There were also a few head-scratching moments in the story. Throughout the preparation leading up to the games, everything seemed to focus on making a good impression in order to gain sponsors needed for survival. The wardrobes, the introductions, the interviews – everything was for the purpose of sponsors. But during the games, sponsorship didn’t have much of an impact at all which made all the posturing seem pointless. I also couldn’t help but wonder what a society would find entertaining about kids having a survival fight to the death. Look, I understand that they were sick and morally bankrupt people. But a 12-year old little girl in a competition to the death shouldn’t be that interesting even to the most twisted and perverse individuals.

But even with a story’s occasional clunkiness, there’s something that drew me into the world of “The Hunger Games”. From the very start, I found the film created a futuristic society and sociopolitical environment that was surprisingly realistic even though it’s science fiction. I also felt the film’s fluid pacing helped create several moments of genuine tension that had me on the proverbial edge of my seat. There are also several heart-wrenching and emotional scenes that never felt fake or manufactured. And while the ending was a little underwhelming, it puts in place several intriguing possibilities for the next film. “The Hunger Games” is a movie that could have been better with a little more polished and thought-out script. But it’s also a film that puts together a disturbing yet enthralling world that I was totally caught up in. Combine that with an amazing performance from Jennifer Lawrence and some strong supporting work and you have the groundwork for a very satisfying franchise. May the odds ever be in our favor as this series moves forward.

“THE EXPENDABLES 2” – 4 STARS

by

7

Ok, let’s get one thing out of the way first. Anyone who is going into “The Expendables 2” expecting a deep, penetrating narrative and Oscar caliber performances are clearly going for all the wrong reasons. This sequel to Sylvester Stallone’s 2010 film is bigger, louder, and for my money better than the first picture and it’s an unashamed 80’s action movie homage that had me hooked from the first moment. Is this an exercise in challenging and complex filmmaking? Far from it. But it is an honest and unapologetic movie that knows exactly what target it’s aiming for and hits it dead center. Does that mean it’s a perfect movie? Most certainly not. But it’s a ton of fun for those knowing what to expect and I defy fans of these “Who’s Who” of action movie heroes to walk out without a smile on your face.

Sly Stallone co-wrote and stars in “The Expendables 2” but this time he passes the directing duties to Simon West. This contributes to what I think is one of the biggest differences between this and the first film. The first movie had its share of salutes to the classic action pictures but overall its tone was much more serious. The sequel is much lighter with lots of playful camaraderie, intentional cheesy one-liners, and a self-deprecating humor that’s woven from start to finish. What’s really great is that all of this works so well. The movie and it’s actors constantly poke fun at themselves and at many of the things that were commonplace during the 80’s action craze. The old guys constantly makes fun of their age. They spoof each other’s famous one-liners. Even Chuck Norris tells a Chuck Norris joke. And their names are a hoot. Aside from Stallone’s rather tame Barney Ross, you have Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Booker (Norris), Trench (Arnold Schwarzenegger), Mr. Church (Bruce Willis), Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), Toll Road (Randy Couture), and Yin Yang (Jet Li). While it sounds like a G.I. Joe roster, it classic 80’s cheese. But could any of the names be better than that of the movie’s antagonist, Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme)?

But while there is a lot of humor throughout the film, this is a straight-forward, in your face, action movie filled with bullets, blades, and blood. The movie starts out with a bang – a really, really loud bang. Director Simon West lets the audience know right away what they’re in store for. The team is reintroduced via a thundering rescue mission soaked with gunfire, huge explosions, and machismo. Afterwards, Barney is approached by the shady Mr. Church to carry out a simple retrieval mission. But things go terribly wrong when Barney and company cross paths with Jean Vilain. After Vilain gets away, the team sets out on a revenge-fueled, save the world mission that doesn’t pull a single punch. They shoot, punch, and knife their way through hordes of baddies on their way to the big final showdown that we know from the start is coming.

The movie takes you on a ride from one extravagant action set piece to another so there’s plenty of opportunities for the huge cast to get their moment in the sun. They all kick a lot of butt each with their own unique style of buttkicking. And while the body count is huge and there is plenty of blood, West keeps the extremely graphic violence seen in the first film mostly in check. But action movie junkies get more than their money’s worth. The action sequences are furious and intense and while they do dabble in the absurd, it never goes off the rails enough to lose the audience. In fact, it’s those few moments of absurdity that were for me the most nostalgic. The action scenes are cleverly constructed and edited and they’re clearly the film’s bread and butter.

I’ve mentioned a couple of times already that the cast is having a lot of fun. Everyone fits in nicely and the back and forth banter and old school “I got your back” virility never grows old. The characters each have their own personalities that we get to enjoy despite the almost nonexistent character development. Stallone and Statham are best buddies. Lundgren straddles the line between heroic and insane. Crews and Couture are the muscles of the bunch. Then you have Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Norris who are basically…well…Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Norris. But I don’t think I enjoyed anyone more than Van Damme as the cold-blooded villain. He’s clearly having a blast and he nails his character. I loved every scene he had and yes, he can still do the flying spin kick.

It’s been a lot of fun reading critics guiltily try to explain why they enjoyed “The Expendables 2”. Me, on the other hand, I’m not ashamed to give a movie praise that entertained and excited me. And look, I could easily spend time harping on the plot points that didn’t work, it’s extreme predictability, and some of the sub par performances. But instead, I recognize exactly what “The Expendables 2” intends to be. It clearly won’t be a movie for everyone. Those with no connection to or interest in the 80’s action genre or the actors probably won’t connect or be interested in this picture. But I get back to one key thing – I had a lot of FUN. I grew up on these guys and this movie took me back. I laughed, I was wow’d, but most of all I left the theater knowing I had gotten what I came for. Maybe that’s why the flaws are so easy for me to overlook.

“THE RAID: REDEMPTION” – 3.5 STARS

by

11

Relentless, brutal, and unapologetic. These are three words that perfectly describe writer and director Gareth Evans’ Indonesian action picture “The Raid: Redemption”. This isn’t a movie for the faint of heart. It’s a bloody ballet filled with kicks, punches, broken bones, blades, and bullets. The action is furious and non-stop and Evans makes no bones about the type of movie he’s making. It’s heart-pounding and occasionally thrilling, but don’t expect much in terms of plot or character development.

When it comes to its story, “The Raid: Redemption” is about as simple as it gets. An expectant father named Rama (Iko Uwais) is a rookie member of an elite SWAT team who are sent out on a deadly mission to capture an evil drug lord named Tama Riyadi (Ray Sahetapy). Tama operates out of the top floor of an old rundown apartment building. When the SWAT team infiltrates the building, they quickly discover they’re in over their heads. Sealed in from the outside and up against waves of Tami’s killers, the team has to fight their way from one floor to the next trying to make it out alive. I actually stretched the synopsis out longer than necessary. This is really just a concoction to set the stage for a series of intense and quite honestly impressive fight sequences. The story does throw a couple of curve balls to try to make the plot a little more interesting, but in the end it’s not the story that you’ll be talking about.

Now to be fair, Evans doesn’t intend to create a deep, thought-provoking, narrative. That is a straight-forward, in your face, action picture and the action doesn’t disappoint. In fact, I would go as far as to say that “The Raid: Redemption” features some of the most intense “WOW”-inducing fight scenes you’ll find. The movie is a steady mix of gritty gun play and 80’s-styled chopsocky kung fu. What separates the film from so many other action romps is the slick style in which it’s filmed. Evans uses some fantastic camera tricks to give the scenes a stimulating and unique look. I was also amazed at the way he was able to make the action so clear and vivid within the confined spaces of small rooms, narrow hallways, and congested stairwells.

But perhaps my biggest praise is with the way Evans stayed away from so many of the modern action movie conventions that we’ve seen over and over. I’m mainly speaking of the ridiculously overused herky-jerky handheld cameras and frantic editing that so many filmmakers employ to give their action scenes a feel of “chaos”. Here, Evans is much more about letting us clearly visualize the incredible stunt work, fight choreography, and special effects. That’s what gives this movie a more genuine sense of chaos and intensity than other films. It also helps that the movie features some amazing martial artists led by Iko Uwais. Often times the camera will just pull back and we’re allowed to watched these guys show off their skills. Gimmicks aren’t needed. These guys are truly amazing and when they start swinging and kicking you can’t take your eyes off of them.

As I’ve mentioned, “The Raid: Redemption” is a hyper-violent film and it doesn’t shy away from the blood. Throats are slit, necks are broken, and bullets rip through people throughout. But at the risk of sounding completely contradictory, the violence doesn’t come across as overly gratuitous. In many instances these are realistic depictions of violence and while the movie shows it, rarely does the camera linger on it. There are also several moments where the camera turns away at just the right time to make you cringe but without showing you what you know has happened. There’s plenty of blood but it’s presented in a way that makes it much more than a graphic gore-fest.

The idea behind “The Raid: Redemption” is a good one especially for those intrigued by fast-paced, video game styled action. The concept of a group of men trapped in huge apartment building filled with baddies is exciting and there is a genuine tension that flows throughout the film from the moment the SWAT team realizes they’re trapped until the final scene. Unfortunately at the end all I could reflect back on was the incredible action involving underdeveloped characters that I knew almost nothing about. The movie puts all it’s eggs in one basket and it works really well in that one area. But storywise it suffers. While the film does try to toss in a few bits of drama here and there, they do nothing to help this movie which is fun, kinetic, but ultimately brainless escapism. But is that a bad thing? Not necessarily.

LIEBSTER AWARD

by

9

My thanks to Ruth over at the wonderful FlixChatter movie blog for passing on this cool award. To my shame, I was awarded this once before and I let it slip by without passing it on. This time I’m gonna do better. So, just so everyone knows, this award has its own unique rules”

  1. Each person must post 11 things about themselves.
  2. Answer the 11 questions the person giving the award has set for you.
  3. Create 11 questions for the people you will be giving the award to
  4. Choose 11 people to award and send them a link to your post.
  5. Go to their page and tell them
  6. No tag backs.

11 THINGS ABOUT ME (gulp)

  1. I’m a funeral director. I’m not an embalmer or anything like that. I take care of families who have lost loved ones. Now you know one reason I loves movies. With this job I need an escape.
  2. I have a ridiculous love for Humphrey Bogart. I have almost every movie of his either on DVD, Blu-Ray, or VHS, even the weird obscure titles. I have all sorts of Bogie collectibles including a limited issue stamp sheet, a neck tie, a certified death certificate, and a life-sized cut out standing right next to my side of the bed. Weird, huh?
  3. I’m a deacon at my church.
  4. *NERD ALERT* I have a huge collection of autographed baseball cards. Hall of Famers, current players, you name them. I have hundreds and hundreds of authentically signed cards. Also have a some signed football and hockey cards. I’m not into getting autographs any longer, but I’m still really impressed with my collection.
  5. *NERD ALERT* I also have a massive comic book collection. I’m not buying books these days but I have comics dating back to the early 60’s including some of the first Avengers and Spider-Man books. I also have some awesome old Batman and Detective Comics stuff that I’m pretty proud of.
  6. My wife and I are only two years from our 20th wedding anniversary. She’s simply the best. This past June we celebrated early by spending a week in Paris. What a ride it’s been.
  7. I despise raunchy comedies.
  8. I live in a small town with a population under 5,000 people.
  9. I’m a huge fan of the Denver Broncos and the Texas Rangers.
  10. Some people drink booze and some do drugs. French fries in ranch dressing are my vices.
  11. I also have another blog site dedicated to my articles on Paris – Paris Through New Eyes

RUTH’S QUESTIONS:

  1. Who’s your favorite movie actor who’s currently starring in a TV show? This is really tough mainly because, other than sports, I practically watch no television. But I guess I would say the underrated Sean Bean who is on “Game of Thrones”.
  2. Could you date someone who does not love movies? No, my wife wouldn’t let me!
  3. What makes you want to have a movie blog? From a really young age, I wanted to be a movie critic. Obviously that never happened but my enthusiasm over talking about movies hasn’t lessened. And while I’m not a very good writer, I love the idea of sharing my thoughts about something I love with people who share that love.
  4. Which director/actor collaboration you’d like to see [it has to be people who have never worked together before? I would love to see the Coen Brothers write and direct a picture starring Johnny Depp. Can you imagine just how wild and nutty a film involving those three would be?
  5. What dish are you good at making? Ribeye steaks on a charcoal grill. Steakhouses have nothing (and I do mean nothing) on me. My wife will testify to it.
  6. Any encounter with a celebrity you care to share? The biggest encounter doesn’t involve a movie star. Bob Feller, the Hall of Fame pitcher for the Cleveland Indians and arguable the greatest right-handed pitcher of all time, bought me a chocolate milk-shake from McDonalds. I won’t go into detail about all the time we spent with him that day but it ended with this baseball great buying a kid a milk shake. Amazing.
  7. Since the Olympics is still going on, what’s your favorite movie set in London? Wow, this is a great question. I think it might just be “Dial M for Murder”, one of my very favorite Alfred Hitchcock films.
  8. Which is your favorite movie writer [could be a journalist, novelist, etc.] Screen writer? Joel and Ethen Coen. I think those guys are geniuses. They have such range and I love almost all of the stuff.
  9. Which do you prefer: sweltering heat vs. cool, rainy days? I’m a sports guy so I guess sweltering hot days. But I do love cool rainy days as well.
  10. Favorite outfit/costume from a movie? Christian Bale in the final version of the Bat Suit ala “Dark Knight Rises”.
  11. Which actor/actress you initially detest but then slowly warming up to [feel free to reverse the question, that is an actor you initially love but now can’t stand]  This one was tough. I have to say Adam Sandler. Early, early in his career he put out some movies that weren’t great, but pointed to what I thought would be a good comic career. Instead, Sandler pumps out a junk movie every year and I’m instantly turned off whenever I see his name attached to a project.

MY 11 NOMINATIONS

I’m sure some of these great bloggers have already received this but they certainly deserve more recognition:

  1. Marked Movies
  2. All Eyes on Screen
  3. 3 Guys 1 Movie
  4. My FilmViews
  5. Love Your Movies
  6. I Love That Film
  7. The Film Discussion
  8. Today I Watched A Movie
  9. Film Phage
  10. nediunedited
  11. dbmovies blog

AND NOW MY QUESTIONS….

  1. What’s your biggest movie guilty pleasure (a movie you love so much even though you know it’s bad)?
  2. What actor or actress do you vehemently dislike and why?
  3. What are your thoughts on the current 3-D craze?
  4. What do you think was the best decade for movies and why?
  5. What the scariest movie you have ever seen?
  6. Have you ever walked out on a bad movie at the theater? Which one and why?
  7. What are your aspirations for your movie blog?
  8. Siskel or Ebert? Why?
  9. Who is the most beautiful woman or most handsome man in movies? (Heavy stuff here!)
  10. Do you have any weird movie novelties or collectibles? If so, what are they?
  11. Name three other movie blogs that you love to keep up with.

There ya go! Simple questions and to the point. Answer away my movie-going friends!!!