Digital Man (1995)

Well, here's one for the annals. Despite a myriad of semi-recognizable faces, including the always gruff and graceful Adam Baldwin (Firefly), the less popular although always classy Don Swayze (yes, of those Swayzes) and a couple of old dudes who both managed to end up in Not Another Teen Movie (yikes!), poor Digital Man remains well below the reputable-reel obscurity meter. Imdb user comments treat it pretty well with four-fifths of the comments being extremely positive. Then again, there are only 5 comments, and absolutely no useful accompanying data, so I guess we can't exactly call this an underground cult feature. It's pretty good though, if I do say so myself. The sets are awesome and well-lit. The cyborgs ooze and spark appropriately. Things explode constantly, and you can only barely see the edit lines around the CGI space ships. While the dialogue is mostly useless (why does he keep calling that black dude 'doo-rag?' is that offensive to anyone else?) and the soldiers mostly hairless, the hicks give it a more home-town feel with their shotguns, poor grammar and altogether rowdy personas. The amount of gayface, however, is totally unacceptable. We get some titties, always a plus, as well all the bare, greasy, overly muscular chest that one person can deal with. The guns are ridiculous, and look like they were made from spare auto parts, but at least they were constructed. You have to give props (pun intended) to films that actually go about constructing what they need to make a formidable sci-fi feature. And the CGI that is used is mostly tasteful, with a few Tron-like graphics, some virtual ninjas and a few over-the-top Planetary Traveler sequences. Other movies I would cite when describing this nineties ninny are Tremors, Cyborg, Space Truckers, Robocop, Starship Troopers and just a touch of the Ghostbusters (it's all in the lasers). And let's face it, those are awesome films. Written and directed by Phillip J. Roth, a "cyberpunk schlockmeister" and presider over a long history of obscure sci-fi action, Digital Man even works in a few philosophical themes including AI influence and use in society, self-awareness and the mind-set of cyborgs, and still manages to throw in a little human-superiority-over-machines. Supercool. And, I found the trailer.

Final Judgement: "The singularity is near and Digital Man explores the homoerotic consequences; mmm, tasty!"

For a nerdily fantastic guide to awful/awesome sci-fi, check out this site.

The Scorpion King (2002)

Man, for being a completely useless shoot-off of The Mummy franchise, this film certainly did it's fair share of grossage (no, I'm not referring to Dwayne Johnson's tits). You can spend 90 minutes staring at cleavage and greasy bodies wearing animal skins and not have any idea what the plot is, or if they even bothered with one at all. But then again, there are said greasy bodies. The priestess especially is always on the verge of flashing her cooch [at least she's used to it]. Mmm...peanut sauce. And you have to give credit to Michael Clarke Duncan for being the largest Oscar nominee alive. I mean, you could bounce into outer space on that belly! Dayum! There are also lots of weapons: Swords and axes and arrows and giant fists, gunpowder (factuality not required [i mean, did you even think this film could care less about historical accuracy?]), giant sticks, etc. At multiple points during the movie, you may actually think you've teleported to Disneyland. I've never seen such conveniently placed quicksand pits and booby-trapped caves! Also, the requisite bazar scene was probably just found footage from some other movie, it was so stereotypical. Then again, there were harlots. Ahh, the harlots. Just another reason to put more cleavage in the film (the sheer genius!). So much cleavage! It's like reading one of those shitty fantasy romance novels at Top Foods. The kind with the naked dude and dudette on the cover (and she's wearing more clothes), and a giant sword and maybe a hell-beast. Oh wait, I guess I should have read the trivia. Apparently, '"the "Gomorrah Bazaar" sequences were filmed on a re-dressed Spartacus set on the backlot at Universal Studios." Ha. I knew it! Here's some other good trivia:

"More scenes had to be shot due to the movie being around 70 minutes long after being edited [so there wasn't a plot!].

Dwayne Johnson has said that he intentionally shied away from using any trademarks of his WWF character The Rock, in order to give the Scorpion King character a life of its own. The only exception was "The People's Eyebrow," which he does in response to another character's reference to a harem. He said he included the People's Eyebrow to acknowledge the "millions and millions" of Rock fans [that fucking shit has a name? If that's taken, what does he call his dick?].

Vince McMahon is an Executive Producer on the movie only because of the use of the name "The Rock" which he owns [pathetic].

The cave that the Rock and the bandits come out of is the bat cave from Batman [more reused sets! I really just mention this because Batman is so awesome.].

Director Chuck Russell wanted to incorporate a physical feat into the movie which only the Rock could perform. That is why there is a scene where the Rock springs to his feet from a position where he is lying on his back. Director Chuck Russell said that he had never seen a 6'3" man do that [I've also never seen a man as pretty as the Rock (that skin, those eyes, that hair...), but you don't hear me giving interviews about it]."

And of course...."This movie is a prequel of a sequel of a movie that was a re-make of another movie that was made 70 years ago."

Ah The Scorpion King, how worthlessly money-grubbing you are...And, if you didn't think there was anything more desperate... Oh shit! I spoke too soon! That looks way better than the first one!

I deem it: "The most pathetically successful attempt to drain money from the testosterone-frenzied men of the world."

Real Genius (1985)

Well, I keep a rare few comedies on my shelves. I'm not sure what it is. I seem to enjoy the subtler side of life, so maybe searching out irony and humor in the inadvertent gets my throttle up higher than the more blatant busy-bodies. As mentioned, there are a few exceptions. If the movie has animals in it (ie Turner and Hooch), or is deeply dark (Dr. Strangelove), then I am incrementally inclined to enjoy it. But the more flamboyant comedies just never really touch me in the right place. Val Kilmer specialties seem to be beyond this proclamation, because it's hard to deny my love for Top Secret, and I just can't get enough of Real Genius. I mean, this movie is sheer gold. First of all, it's actually based on Caltech, and rowdy references, such as the writing on the steam tunnels, the contest cheat, the DEI initials, and all sorts of other undernoticed uniqueness, directly correlate with real events and places. Secondly, it's directed by a woman. Now, that in and of itself is an interesting accomplishment. I mean, let's face it, there just aren't a whole lot of female film directors (i guess we shouldn't hold it against her that the only other notable thing she's done is Material Girls with the Duff sisters; yikes!)! Woman + nerd movie with video game references, lasers, top-notch one-liners, perverse pranks, 80's college life and intellectuals? It's a dream come true! And Val Kilmer in the 80's is the hottest thing around (unfortunately, looks like that can't last forever [see below]! That hair, that smile, that utter recklessness and tomfoolery! But unlike Top Secret, Real Genius plays on the edge of absurdity, with nothing seeming quite too silly. And, as every intellectual knows, school isn't everything (and suits and ties mean even less!). It's really one of those "had-to-be-there" movies, so just watch it! For some awesome screenshots, check this site out.

I deem it: "The best comedy I've ever seen (and then some)!"

Freejack (1992)

What a surprise: yet another awesome sci-fi movie with a furiously fantastic cast, a "novel concept," a mid-sized budget, a post-apocalyptic premise, poor reception and a string of bad reviews. Let me say it again: what a surprise! You'd think that putting Emilio Estevez, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo and Mick Fuckin' Jagger into a film about a futuristic bounty hunt would get people all riled up (in that tingly way). But no, they have to pan it. (whine ensues) "It's not realistic because it's set in post-apocalyptic 2009, way too close to '92..."; "there are too many chase scenes..." "why did they have to build props and sweet vehicles....that's just cheesy..." This one's especially good: "Any almanac should have told a scriptwriter who cared that November 23, 2009 falls on a Monday, not a Thursday." Hey there hoighty toighty! Well, in the words of that terrible culinary reality show Hell's Kitchen: fuck off. I think the futuristic-mobiles are freaking sweet. I love a good post-apocalyptic NYC. The idea of stealing a healthy, pre-pollution/nuclear waste body at it's moment of death in order to shove the shitty soul of some rich dude into it and therefore prolong their undeniably useless existence is not only tubular to the max, but it sounds like something Cheney's been working on in his basement. I rejoice in the reasoning that Estevez looks too healthy for this neo-New York (too repetitive?) and uses his 90's-life working skills of race car driving to avoid trouble as he's constantly chased by a cherry Jagger. Does he even get away in the end? And the acid-trip/I'm in the "spiritual switchboard" where souls are kept after the body dies (but only for 48 hours)/computer network Jesus-land is outrageously awesome. Yes, the movie's a little long. Yes, Mick Jagger talks funny. Yes, Russo is really hot and Hopkins only has a small part. These points are not nearly negative enough to detract from any of the other great things. The film also features fantastically freaky cameos by Jerry Hall (Grissom's masked ex-wife in Batman), Amanda Plummer (the fierce fanatic called Honey Bunny/Yolanda in the practically epic Pulp Fiction), and Frankie Faison, the creepy bay-rat eating prophetic madman who has been in no less than 3 other movies with Anthony Hopkins (the Silence of the Lamb series; and as different characters! I guess he plays 'generic black dude.') and 1 with Rene Russo (Thomas Crown Affair). Now, those are some good eats! Finally, this frightfully frolicking film bears its balls with a friendly R-rating, cited as being a result of violence and cussing (it's no "God damn shit; God damn piss" Circuitry Man though, that's for sure!), although I'm fairly certain that it was the undue viewing of Estevez's underwear and pasty white thighs that pushed it over the edge. Now, if someone just could tell me how the same person named him and his brother... Oh wait! Charlie Sheen's real name is actually Carlos Irwin Estévez! Damn, that's hot. I also threw up some pictures of the comic book based on the movie. Even hotter. And I couldn't find any cool enough pictures of the crazy cars, so I grabbed this climactic clip instead. Hottest!

Final Judgment: "Seriously sweet post-apocalyptic produce."

Switchback (1997)

Another movie that flies under the radar...with a stub of a wikipage, a complete lack of interesting trivia, and a surprisingly A- list cast, Switchback certainly deserves (at least a little) recognition. I guess when there are like 100,000 big studio serial killer movies, it's easy for one to fall to the wayside. I certainly had never heard of this movie before running into it at a local discard-VHS retailer (Rasputin?), but I knew immediately that I would buy it and watch it and then probably post about it. Why? you ask. Well...the action-drama features Dennis Quaid, Danny Glover, and Jared Leto for a start. It also has some succulent sidekicks, including, but not limited to, R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket) and Ted Levine (Death Train! oh and Monk). There are tons of outdoor scenes, murder, blood and guts, car crashes, train crashes, suspense, confusion, and a cadillac filled with pornographic photo clippings. Sound familiar? That's because this bewildering beauty was written and directed by legend (at least in my head) Jeb Stuart! Now, while Jebbie-webbie has written the screenplays for some of the greatest 80's-90's action films (Leviathon, Die Hard, Another 48 Hours, and The Fugitive), his directing is about as titillating as his hick name. I mean, why did this movie need to be 2 hours long? Can anyone tell me? I actually had to watch it over 2 days because it was just 2 fucking long. And for what purpose? Why couldn't they just make every shot less than 2 seconds like any 2-bit, trusty action film? Or at least kill a lot more people? These are questions that I ask myself every day, or at least every day that I remember that I own this movie. There's not too (aren't you glad I stopped with those douchey numbers?) much more to say about it. It cost only $34 million and still couldn't manage to recoupe half of that. There weren't enough female characters, and no naked ones at all. Also, what happens afterwards? Why do they just end after so much invested time without letting us know any of the cursory consequences? And am I supposed to feel a little suspicious and offended when the only black character is the bad guy? I certainly feel uncomfortable when I watch Live and Let Die (ps. this clip has everything I love: Olympia shout-outs and awesome music!).

I deem it: "A sexless hick parade meets a killing-time-until-the-kids-come-home-from-soccer passion for mothers everywhere."

I'm sorry to say that I couldn't find pictures of that awesome cadillac anywhere. Trust me I looked.

Dragonworld (1979)

Well, I do not know if it was my psychic powers or your telepathic ones, but the name of this book I have been so long searching for came to me in a dream the other day. Daydream or night dream, I couldn't say. It's a pretty easy title, so I guess the skeptics may be more...skeptical. But there are also a shit-ton of books about dragons out there, so I shall remain inspired none-the-less. And it's not quite a million pages or 1300 pages or whatever I thought before. But at just under 600, you can understand my confusion, right? I mean, let's face it. Everything was bigger back then. It does include 80 pages of hand-drawn illustrations which is just awesome.
Now, I just need to procure it somehow.....
Psychic thoughts?

Reign of Fire (2002)

Damn, this movie is smokin'! And I don't just mean because it stars Christian Bale, Gerard Butler and Matthew McConaughey with a big fat cigar in his mouth. No, it's because the dragons are burning the world to smithereens! This probably won't come as a surprise, but I like movies with dragons in them. I like dragons in general. As a child, I read a substantial quantity of dragon-based books, one of which I am still searching for in my current sub-adult stage. It was awesome and like 1300 pages and there were hand-drawn beautiful illustrations and this kid leaves his village and goes to live in this awesome dragon community. So if you think you know what I'm talking about, just give me a shout. Anyway, back to this hunk-studded film. It's pretty amusing. I actually looked up the bio of the director because of his portrayal of McConadouche as this bad-ass, huge, gruff American with terrible grammar and a smoking problem. Compared to the calm and sensitive Brits, I was undecided as to whether the director was mocking Americans with this ridiculously alpha male character. Lo and behold, the director's from Texas. So I guess that explains that. One of my favorite parts about this fine feature is the fact that it combines dragons with a post-apocalyptic future, both topics that I deem intriguing and awesome. And the CGI is not too terrible at all. They explore the scientific world of dragons include sexual dimorphism and plausible fire breathing techniques derived from the study of the spitting cobra and the bombardier beetle. The movie also delves into topics like the politics of small communities, adoption, the practical methods of taking down a giant flying beast, and the comedic reprieve of acting out a classic Star Wars scene. And who says sci-fi/fantasy is useless drivel? Well, there are a lot of impractical parts of the film as well, most of which the critics can't bear not pointing out (oh yeah, double negative): 'Where do they get their fuel? Why don't the children look like they're actually starving to death? Why isn't this movie about dragons hibernating until the 21st century and then reemerging to completely obliterate human society more accurate?' Whatever dude. Live a little. Forging onward...the movie cost about $95 million to make (hence the decent CGI), which I guess it's cool since it made a paltry $43 mill during its theater run. I guess we can only hope that DVD sales were good (can we blame it on 9/11 or the financial crisis? maybe seeing the cities burn wasn't a big turn on in July, 2002.) To it's credit, Reign of Fire was filmed almost entirely in Ireland. There are also rocket launchers, helicopters, paratroopers, ridiculous stunts, Izabella Scorupco (of Goldeneye computer nerd fame), lots of fire and dragons and a good 101 minutes of (literally) smoldering men. That's hawt (too used?). Oh, and the humans win. Hope I didn't spoil it!

Final Judgment: "Scorching and scientific?: It's too good to be true (ohh, that's why Godzilla with Broderick was such a bust...)!!"


PS. I totally recommend reading these "Ruthless Ratings." Ha, weather. That's good.

Just because I can....

...I thought I'd throw in this classic clip featuring a few of my favorite fairy tales.

Twin Musical Tesla Coils Playing Mario Bros.

Ahh, the glory.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Well, after being assaulted by the words of hamster_douche so few days ago, I was under the sinking impression that people commonly harbor disdain for this epic piece that so prominently dominates my childhood. That backberend lordswike is not worth a bordar's spittle! Thus, I was pleasantly surprised to see the generally positive comments residing on imdb. In fact, I even agree with the majority of the points provided. Yes, it's nice to see a prominent black character who can kick your ass and doesn't just get killed off for dramatic effect. Yes, the costumes are awesome; it's so refreshing to see something that not only appears to be thought out, but spread out. It's like the studio finally realized that, not only does it look better to actually recreate the literal ambience, but it's a lot easier to film on location and have open space for horses, and to generally use a beautiful place to make a beautiful movie. There are a couple of castles, lots of gorgeous greenery, a town square, a dungeon, a church, a witch's den and that super awesome village in the trees (reminiscent of a miraculous movie of foragers set to star Costner and come out in '95? Oh wait, it's the same director! No wonder both of those movies are so awesome!). They even hum actual Medieval tunes; accurate and there's no copyright to deal with! I don't know what it was like in Medieval times, but I while watching this gem, I don't even have to doubt their retelling because the costumes seem so plausible and layered (costumes are the primary bring-me-down from the suspension of disbelief high). I also don't doubt that having such a ridiculously super-cool cast makes the movie that much better. I mean, Morgan Freeman's facial tattoos and freaky scimitar are totally awesome. Throwing Sean Connery in at the end is classic and a joke all at the same time. Yes, Christian Slater is whiny and annoying, but so is his character, so it works out perfectly. Alan Rickman is the greasy individual to play such a creepy character (when he tells that girl not to cover herself....ugh). And let's face it: Robin Hood has never looked as good as with that 90's feathered, shoulder-length, awe-inducing hairstyle. Ohh how the middle aged women are touching themselves. Costner sure has a way with the middles (aged and ages). Delightful. Also, retired former head of the British Board of Film Classification James Ferman said that passing this movie as a PG was his only regret over his time in office. That means, despite the rating, you get some swearing, some nudity, lots of creepiness (molestation included), and some seriously sick violence. Hawt. I guess I should have known that I wasn't the only one to appreciate this "time-piece" (Spencer hates it when I call it that. Ha.) since it recouped its $50 million budget 3-fold, and that's just in theaters. And it was nominated for an Oscar (oh wait, that was just for the original song; what is it with Bryan Adams and all these fruity Medieval tracks he sings?). Damn, Kevin Costner used to be so hot (he was good for the industry I mean). Now what has he done? It's always these stupid actors who are like "I'm so ashamed I was in this awesome movie like Waterworld" and then what do they go and make?: Fucking Swing Vote. Now, that's pathetic.

I deem it: "Panty jelly for every generation!; An uryn to the uncunning!; Superbly satisfying!"


Oh, and this is totally tubular:

Alastair MacLean's Death Train (1993)

I actually own this movie by the name of The Detonator, which sounds classier and (seemingly) deliberately hides the fact that most of this movie revolves around a train. Now, while this move (centering the plot of a movie entirely around a large transportation vehicle) has certainly worked for Keanu, it can easily get a little bit old. I guess that's why they decided to spice up this flick with a couple of rocket launchers, some nukes and, of course, the requisite sexism. Final consensus seems to be that this is a top-notch made-for-TV movie. While it's not hard to see the limits of that statement, I have to agree. This movie is not bad, not bad at all. On the other hand, it's certainly not good. In fact, the only thing saving it is the impressive (B) cast list, including Patrick Stewart, Pierce Brosnan, Christopher Lee (Saruman), Ted Levine, and Alexandra Paul, who (unbeknownst to me) made her fame in one of those epic red one pieces as a standard on Baywatch. However, her presence here is certainly limited since she keeps her clothes on. That and she's just a little butch for my taste. What a waste. The entire movie is spent with Pierce insulting her talents because she's a woman and Alexandra consequently acquiring a larger and larger arsenal with which to decimate the male opposition. She's in control of all the violence, so Pierce is essentially a useless piece of man-meat. And while they try to emphasize his soft side (he doesn't run over a rabbit during a motorcycle race ["there's only one type of bunny I'll stop for!" jeers his competitor]), it's hard to trust anyone with a shitstache. The movie is actually summarized best by the clearly anticlimatic ending during which they are unable to shut off the second nuke only to find that it was a purposely designed as a dud by the now deceased German scientist who was paid to build it (I just wanted to see if I could do it...). Good thing we have those trusty/softie German scientists to rely on! Lord knows, the U.S. of A. wouldn't be where it is without them! Anyway, about the only thing worth noting about this film (and it's not the fact that they made a sequel which I, [unfortunately?] own) is that it's filmed principally in Slovenia and Croatia (where else could they rent and destroy a large train while filming from the heavens?) which means that it's not only shot on location, but it's all handmade special effects. Otherwise, it's mostly forgettable. In fact, I can't even really post any more about it because I don't remember what happened. And in this case, I don't think that's a good thing. Sadly enough, it shares its name with several other films and some real life Romanian tragedies. Bonus points for the awesome cover art and the blatant James Bond rip-off. And you gotta love that the director sticks to what he knows!

Final Judgment: "A dreary action piece never meant for anything besides Thursday night USA filler material."