My Non-PC Review of STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS (&, Yes, There's "Spoilers" Included!)

The movie poster for Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

"You know you're about to get your ass kicked by a girl, right?"

"I'm Luke Skywalker, bee-yoch!"

"Hey, Rey, the Millennium Falcon is THIS way!"

  

Darth Vader & Snoke: Separated at birth?

"Aren't you a little BLACK to be a Stormtrooper?"

Meet the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order!

"Chewie, I'm about to be stabbed by my son's lightsaber!"

"I am Jedi! Hear me roar!"

"I'm Finn: ex-Stormtrooper/sanitation worker extraordinaire!"

Captain Phasma: proof a lady boss can SUCK as much as a man!

Good question!

For anyone who's been living under a damned rock for the past several months, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the long-awaited continuation—notice I didn't say sequel—to the original Star Wars trilogy. Let me preface this review by saying I thought Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a thoroughly enjoyable SW film. That being said, there was hardly a scene in the movie that WASN'T, shall we say, reminiscent and/or borrowed from not only the original trilogy but also the much-panned prequels.

First, here's a basic rundown of the plot: the movie picks up purportedly 30 years after the end of Return of the Jedi. The Republic that Skywalker & friends fought so hard to restore is being threatened by an Empire-like group called The First Order headed by an Emperor, uh, I mean Supreme Leader named Snoke who only appears via hologram ala the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back. SL Snoke's apprentice is helmet-clad lightsaber-wielding Kylo Ren who, as it turns out, is not only a Darth Vader-wannabe but is also DV's grandson as he is the Force-sensitive offspring of none other than Han Solo and Princess Leia. Luke Skywalker (SPOILER ALERT!) is MIA throughout almost the entire movie until the very end because he feels responsible for Ren turning to The Dark Side while he's training him (and others) as Jedi (and is “influenced” by Snoke much in the SAME way his father was “influenced” to turn to TDS by Emperor Palpatine). Everyone—or nearly everyone, I should say—is looking for Luke because they desperately need his help not only defeating The First Order but also helping the Rebellion, uh, I mean Resistance blow up the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller, which is a big-ass space station that is the actual size of a planet and apparently has the power to destroy multiple planets at once. (Diehard Star Wars geeks will undoubtedly recognize the name Starkiller as being George Lucas's original name for Skywalker as well as being a character in a Star Wars video game called The Force Unleashed, if I'm not mistaken.)

And, yes, there's a small chirping robot—named BB-8—whom its master, a wisecracking ace pilot named Poe (not to be confused, of course, with that OTHER wisecracking ace pilot—oh, what WAS his name?), implants him with part of a map that purports to tell the whereabouts of Luke that the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order is also seeking. In the opening scene of the movie (after, of course, we see the obligatory shot of a massive Star Destroyer flying into the frame; I assume they're STILL called Star Destroyers), Poe is handed said piece-of-map by a “wise” elder—whose name I didn't quite catch—who just happens to look—and talk—like Obi-Wan Kenobi. Then the big bad Empire, uh, I mean, The First Order shows up to get into a firefight that somehow resembles the firefight at the beginning of the first Star Wars. And, oh yeah, this all takes place on a planet called Jakku that just happens to look like Tatooine from—you guessed it!—A New Hope.

You already see where THIS is going, don't you?

Along with the original characters, we're introduced to “new” characters. Besides said chirping robot BB-8 (who does resemble a rather familiar robot, but NOT the one you're obviously thinking of, as I'll discuss in a bit), we're introduced to Finn who's the black Stormtrooper—and, yes, they're STILL called Stormtroopers—everyone made such a big fuss over (at least in the beginning when he was first introduced in the movie trailer). Finn—whose name is given to him by wisecracking Poe after he helps Poe escape—has a crisis of conscience after he watches his fellow Stormtroopers cold-bloodedly kill villagers after their boss Ren decapitates the aforesaid village elder (well, at least it WASN'T an arm this time!). Next we meet a young woman named Rey who's a scavenger on Tatooine, uh, I mean Jakku who also turns out to be Force-sensitive (and who's also been likened to Luke, which is rather appropriate since, according to Star Wars lore, Luke was initially a female). Anyway, Finn, Rey AND BB-8 all manage to meet up in that oh-so-coincidental way Star Wars is most known for, although in The Force Awakens viewers, diehard Star Wars fans or no, REALLY have to suspend disbelief, especially how they first meet Han Solo and Chewbacca (and, I must say, while it was still entertaining to watch, I still rolled my eyes when I saw THAT setup). I won't go into any grand detail on how they meet (for those few who haven't seen the film yet), but let's just say out of ALL the spaceships Finn, Rey AND BB-8 could have hijacked while running from the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order it just HAD to be the Millennium Falcon, proving that the galaxy is MUCH smaller than one would think indeed! (And why-oh-why would Han Solo allow himself to be Falcon-jacked like THAT?) Personally, I feel this was all set up this way by the writers so that Han can utter his line that we say ad nauseam in the trailer: “Chewie, we're home!” (Insert audience tears here!)

One criticism I've read from other reviewers of The Force Awakens that I kind of disagreed with was how (SPOILER ALERT!) Rey manages to “defeat” Ren during their obligatory climatic lightsaber battle (while using Luke's famed lightsaber, no less!) even though, unlike Ren, she hadn't been “trained” in the ways of The Force yet. Well, in all fairness to Ren, he WAS already wounded when (SPOILER ALERT!) he got shot by Chewbacca who was understandably upset after Ren KILLED HIS VERY OWN FATHER HAN SOLO WITH HIS VERY OWN LIGHTSABER when Han, at Leia's urging, attempts to bring his estranged son back to The Light Side (sound familiar?). And, after he first knocks Rey unconscious by using The Force to slam her against a tree (nice!) and he engages in a lightsaber fight with Finn (who's apparently NOT Force-sensitive), Finn manages to strike a serious blow against Ren before he gets sliced & diced by Ren. Then Rey wakes up just in time to use The Force to retrieve Luke's lightsaber before Ren can get his hands on it and, though Ren nearly defeats her, she apparently gets her second wind and . . . well, you know the rest (even if you haven't yet watched the film!). At one point we see The Emperor, uh, I mean The Supreme Leader tell one of his henchmen to abandon ship before the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller gets blown the f up—in a climatic battle scene that's reminiscent of (surprise!) A New Hope (only on a strangely smaller scale)—and to pick up his apparently defeated apprentice Kylo Ren so he can “complete” his training. Another criticism of Kylo Ren was that he wasn't as “evil” as his famous granddaddy Darth Vader. Well, Ren DID kill his own father. I mean, Darth didn't even manage to kill his own son Luke and wouldn't let the Emperor fry his whiny ass to death as he picked him up with the hand that Luke didn't chop off (seriously, what was up with George Lucas and his apparent fetish for limb-chopping?) and tossed him down into the generator of the new Death Star in Return of the Jedi.

Along with all the rebooting, there are some genuine moments in The Force Awakens; like, for instance, I myself got a tad bit emotional during the scene where Han reunites with his former love Leia. Even Chewbacca walks over and gives her a big hug. Of course, C-3PO has to interrupt, much to Han's obvious chagrin. But, unlike when he interrupted their famous first kiss in The Empire Strikes Back, he seemed to realize his “mistake” and went on about his way, red arm and all (oh, right, SPOILER ALERT!). This was an understated scene unlike many of the other scenes in TFA (I mean, if Leia had said “You got a lot of guts comin' here!” ala Lando Calrissian in ESB I would've walked out of that damn movie theater right then and there!). And then there was the later scene where Han and Leia discuss how they coped after “losing” their son to The Dark Side. This could've been a scene in any other movie where an estranged couple discuss the “loss” of their son to, say, drug addiction or crime or the like. This, too, was an understated scene thanks in large part to the acting chops of Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher. I also rather enjoyed the interaction between Han Solo and Finn and Rey, which I found to be some of the more entertaining scenes in TFA. Of course, I think I can safely speak for the vast majority of other Star Wars fans when I say it would've been nice to see Han & Luke interact with each other before Han--well, YOU know!--but alas that WON'T happen.

One thing I was kind of worried about is that The Force Awakens would be WAY politically correct (and anyone who's read my political blog knows how much I utterly loathe any & all things politically correct!), especially after reading some of the comments made by director J.J. Abrams before the movie came out about wanting more “diversity” in the films since some—or many—have complained about the “whiteness” of the previous films (Lando Calrissian & Mace Windu, take note!). But I was actually relieved there didn't seem to be as much of the PC BS as Abrams would have led people to believe. Some non-PC sites and/or blogs took issue with the character Rey, in particular the scene where, while running from the Stormtroopers on Tatooine, uh, I mean Jakku, Finn attempts to grab hold of her hand and lead her to safety and she scolds him by saying how she doesn't need anyone to hold her hand. Some critics, especially “anti-feminist” critics, have charged that this scene was supposed to strike a blow for feminism. Another interpretation of this scene could be that the character Rey had been living on her own for a long time, according to the story, and therefore had to rely on herself and didn't need—or at least she didn't think she needed—anyone's help. Something else critics have taken issue with—again, especially the “anti-feminist” ones—was how “easily” she was able to fix the Millennium Falcon as opposed to Han Solo who, according to these critics, knew the Falcon inside and out. However, if everyone will recall in The Empire Strikes Back Han could barely keep the ship flying and finally had the ship “fixed” at Bespin (before, of course, he found out his “buddy” Lando had “betrayed” him and the others to the Empire in the by-now-infamous dinner scene where Han shoots at Darth Vader but to no avail). Besides, is Rey being able to expertly “fix” the Falcon and/or being able to fight off Kylo Ren anymore “unbelievable” than Luke Skywalker in A New Hope being able to expertly fly an X-Wing fighter—a ship he'd, of course, never flown before—and being able to use The Force—something that he'd only recently learned the existence of (like Rey, unsurprisingly)—to destroy the dreaded Death Star? Or the charge that Rey was an “expert” shot with a laser blaster even though she didn't know where the “safety” was (seriously, laser blasters have “safeties” on them?), is that anymore “unbelievable” than Stormtroopers being able to hit anyone and everything BUT the major protagonists? Still yet another criticism of the Rey character--there again, largely from the "anti-feminist" critics--was that she was able to "understand" Chewbacca. Hell, I'm STILL trying to figure out how in the Wookie hell Han Solo could understand his furry ass.

Just saying!

However, if Abrams was indeed trying to be PC or “feminist” with the Rey character, I actually think he failed miserably. Why? Well, while she did literally slap Finn's hand away at the very beginning of their burgeoning relationship, later on she runs up and hugs him with tears in her eyes when she learns that he “convinced” Han & Chewie to help him rescue her from the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller base. So I guess the not-so-subtle message here is that, in spite of what a woman initially says, she STILL needs a man to “rescue” her. And what the hell was up with all the damned crying from Rey? I mean, she cries about half-a-dozen times in this movie. Hell, I don't ever recall Princess Leia EVER crying, not even when Han Solo was getting his pirate ass frozen in Carbonite in Empire. (Thankfully, there are NO Carbonite-freezing scenes in TFA.) As for the other women in The Force Awakens, there's Captain Phasma, the female leader of the Stormtroopers who ends up “betraying” the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order at the slightest provocation and THEN gets dumped into—what else!—a garbage chute when the MEN are finished with her. (Nice!) And then there's Finn a.k.a. The Black Stormtrooper. At first we're led to believe he's this well-trained warrior when, on the ice planet that houses the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller (Hoth, anyone?), we learned that he “worked” in sanitation. Yes, you heard right, J.J. “Mr. PC” Abrams made the ONE black character in his film A JANITOR. Way to be PC there, J.J.!

And, just think, people thought Jar-Jar Binks was a “racist” character!

Overall, I give Star Wars: The Force Awakens a solid B rating. I would, of course, have likely given it a higher rating had it NOT “borrowed” so heavily from the originals and/or the heavily-panned prequels (did you catch the reference to the clones?). I mean, the similarities between all the movies reached the point that it sometimes bordered on parody; like, for instance, the scene where the Rebellion, uh, I mean The Resistance were standing around in the conference room—which, of course, included none other than fish-headed Admiral “It's a trap!” Ackbar from Return of the Jedi—looking for that ONE all-so-important vulnerability on the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller and Han Solo quipped how “easy” it was to destroy these things could have VERY easily been a scene from Mel Brooks's “classic” Star Wars parody flick Spaceballs. Hell, even Emperor, uh, I mean Supreme Leader Snoke's visible head scare is in practically the same place as Darth Vader's head scare when Luke takes his helmet off in Return of the Jedi (which have led some to theorize that Snoke is actually—somehow—Darth Vader incarnate, which, of course, ANYTHING is possible in SW!).

In the end, J.J. Abrams did with Star Wars pretty much the same as he did with his Star Trek reboots: he made highly entertaining films that really didn't add much, if anything, to the series. Of course, diehard Star Wars fans—including many movie reviewers who gave this film a high rating—watched this movie through nostalgia glasses, so they were more likely to give its apparent flaws more of a free pass unlike the much-panned prequels. (I read somewhere J.J. Abrams was intially going to make the new Star Wars film more “original” but decided against it because he DIDN'T wish to receive the same amount of shit George Lucas got for his heavily-criticized prequels. But, say what you want about the prequels, which I actually LIKED, at least GL attempted to give SW fans a different cinematic experience than what they got watching the original trilogy, which, of course, is why I feel a lot of SW fans got “upset” about the prequels, but I digress.) Hopefully the next Star Wars flick WON'T be a retread of The Empire Strikes Back—and with that literal cliffhanger ending where Rey presents the newly-found Luke with his very own lightsaber I'm not too sure (Luke meeting Yoda at Degobah, anyone?)—and the newer characters, especially with Finn and Rey, will get fleshed out more. (We already know quite a bit about Kylo Ren whose backstory—that unsurprisingly mirrors his granddaddy Darth Vader—could have been made into its very own trilogy.) It probably goes without saying that both Finn and Rey will have some long-lost “personal” connection to one or more of the original characters; like, for instance, Finn will be Lando's long-lost son—as some people have surmised—and Rey will probably turn out to be Yoda's long-lost cousin or something and that's why she's so Force-sensitive (hey, with SW you know ANYTHING can happen!). 

I think TFA's biggest sin is that J.J. Abrams played it WAY too safe in terms of doing something more original with the film given the franchise's history of cinematic innovation (and, yes, that also includes the overly-panned prequels). Of course, I'm sure corporate behemoth Disney--who, as you probably already know, also "owns" Marvel and a whole slew of other entertainment entities (which, of course, could explain a lot!)--probably had at least a little something to do with THAT since they obviously wanted a return on their huge investment (which they apparently got as Star Wars: The Force Awakens was one of the biggest if not the biggest box office hits of all-time).

Oh yeah, earlier I mentioned about how the robot BB-8 looking similar to another robot. Back in the late-seventies Disney—which, of course, bought the Star Wars franchise from SW creator George Lucas a few years back for a paltry $4 BILLION (most if not all of which Lucas reportedly donated to charity)—released their very own space movie in a blatant attempt to try to cash in on the Star Wars craze that was going on at the time—which didn't quite work out as well for them—called The Black Hole. Anyway, in TBH, there was a robot named Vincent that bore a striking resemblance—albeit a cheesier resemblance—to BB-8. Here's a picture of both robots and you can decide for yourself:

BB-8 or . . . 

Vincent?

Lastly, for those getting "upset" about Star Wars: The Force Awakens (along with the universally-panned prequels, which, again, I really LIKED), and even those who've highly praised this flick in spite of its apparent flaws, I'd just like to remind everyone that, at the end of the day, Star Wars is STILL a movie about a bunch a guys (and gals!) flying around in spaceships blowing shit up, OK? (And I can say THAT since I am a lifelong Star Wars fan as I saw the original trilogy when they first came out back in the seventies,) 

May the Schwartz, uh, I mean the Force be with you!

A sidenote: Some diehard Star Wars fans were reportedly "upset" when others decided to "leak" online and elsewhere about the fate of beloved smuggler Han Solo (including a guy who actually had the fate of Han literally spelled out on the back of his truck), and this even reportedly included, believe it or not, death threats (such as rightie commentator Katherine Timpf who made a "joke" about Star Wars and its sometimes rabid fans while appearing on Fox (Non) News about how she didn't want to watch a bunch of nerds hitting each other with nerd sticks, which I found rather amusing myself). Anyway, apart from the fact you can see the scene were Han meets his fate coming a mile away in the movie, Harrison Ford spilled the beans himself about his character before TFA came out on Conan O'Brian's talk show when he appeared with director J.J. Abrams, saying how he ONLY agreed to reprise his celebrated role if J.J. agreed to--you guessed it!--killed off his character (and, of course, pay him a buttload of moo-lah as Ford was reportedly paid far more than his co-stars in TFA). And, if you watch the clip, you can see a visibly nervous J.J. Abrams literally squirming in his seat next to Harrison as he spills the beans about Han's fate. Whoops!

Here's another video review of TFA (from YouTube) that's less-than-"positive" than mine:

Here's why the new all-female Ghostbusters movie will bomb (from YouTube)

I actually laughed my ass off at this video thinking that someone had the balls to put this out in THIS politically correct age. I myself don't plan to watch this movie for the SAME reason I don't plan to watch, say, American Sniper or the last Mad Max movie because the producers of these films attached a "message" to these films even though they're technically supposed to be an action and/or a comedy film. When I see a comedy film I want to laugh just like when I watch an action film I want to see shit get blown up. The LAST thing I want is for there to be some "political" message tagged on even if it's a message that I happen to agree with. Besides, those damned SJWs--and we all know how much I just LOVE that group!--have praised BOTH the new Ghostbusters and the last Mad Max movie, so that's enough to turn me off to BOTH films. Besides, I wasn't that big a fan of the original Ghostbusters, so there you go!

Was The "Feminist" Furor Over Mad Max: Fury Road Fabricated?

"Don't worry, we'll save humanity using our feminine wiles!"

Sure looks like one to me!

Sounds about right!

Yep!

"I am woman! Hear me explode!"

"How dare you call MY movie feminist, you chauvinistic bastard!"

Salon.com: one of the "feminized" sites that praised MM.

You can also take my balls since I'm NOT using them anymore!

Yes, we ALL win! Especially the feminists!

This is the Mad Max I prefer! "Feminism" NOT included!

Return Of Kings writer Aaron Clarey stepped into a hornet's nest when he dared wrote how the film Mad Max: Fury Road might—and I say might—just be a (gasp!) feminist film and encouraged men to not go see this cinematic piece of outright feminist propaganda. Media outlets like The Huffington Posts and The Daily Beast furiously (pardon the pun!) condemned Mr. Clarey, accusing him of being a (double gasp!) misogynist and such. This in spite of the fact that both the top stars of Mad Max Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron (or, more appropriately, Charlie Theron and Tom Hardy!) both called MM a feminist movie. Plus the film's director George Miller—who, of course, directed the original Mad Max—hired none other than the author of The Vagina Monologues Eve Ensler as a consultant on the film. Not only that, but Miller herself came out and admitted—sort of—that he had in fact directed a feminist type film.

What I found most intriguing about the controversy is that the controversy went from “How dare they call Mad Max a feminist movie!” to “How dare they criticize Mad Max for being a feminist movie!” In other words, these sites claimed Mad Max wasn't a “feminist” movie while at the same time extolling its “feminist” virtues. Also, in all the articles I read addressing the controversy, the only source of the boycott was Mr. Clarey's article. There was no other mention of any other so-called Men's Rights Activist or any specific MRA group attached to said boycott. I mean, one would think that if this boycott by those damnable MRAs were as widespread as the media led everyone to believe, there would be at least a couple of other names and/or organizations attached to said boycott. But that wasn't the case. So either all the writers of these articles bashing the boycott were either misinformed or the whole entire controversy was little more than a fabrication to help sell movie tickets and/or pushing a feminist agenda.

I choose the latter.

Honestly, would this really surprise anyone, including all the feminized commentators, both female and male, who lost their minds over ROK's boycott of Mad Max? I mean, I can just imagine someone in the movie studio's marketing department finding Aaron Clarey's ROK article about Mad Max and they sent out a few strategically-placed links in the comments section in feminized sites such as HuffPo and The Daily Beast and presto! Instant controversy! Let's face it, moviegoers by & large weren't clamouring for another Mad Max movie the way they were for, say, another Star Wars movie, thanks in no small part to star Mel Gibson's by-now-infamous drunken anti-Semitic tirades and/or his over-the-top crazy phone calls to his baby mama. This was actually one of the reasons, along with 9/11 and Heath Ledger's death (who was initially slated to play Max), why it reportedly took so long for director George Miller to make his latest Mad Max film. So, when Mad Max: Fury Road was finally completed & released, he needed publicity as all films need. And, in today's politically-charged feminized climate, what better way to help publicize a film like this than to insinuate its feminized message and bash anyone who dares question said feminized message (even though it didn't have a feminized message!).

For the record, I myself have not yet seen the latest Mad Max flick nor am I really clamouring to see it, controversy or no. So I can't really say for sure whether or not I personally feel it's a feminist movie. However, judging from what I read about the film (including from those that actually praised the movie who, while they condemned the boycott, conceded that indeed it was a feminist movie), there is indeed a case to be made for Mad Max's feminist credentials. Of course, George Miller or any movie director is perfectly free to make any type of film they wish. But, what I'd like to know is, if Miller wanted to make a female-driven action film, why didn't he just go ahead and make one? Just drop the Mad Max character entirely, especially since Max was apparently more of a secondary character in this film, and make Charlize Theron's character the main star? Of course, the answer to that may be because female-driven action films have a rather spotty track record at the box office. For every Thelma & Louise (which was an apparent ripoff of an earlier B-movie called Assault Of The Killer Bimbos) there are at least a half-dozen Tank Girl's (which bombed so bad that it virtually killed actress Lori Petty's movie career). Even Charlize Theron's attempt at headlining an action flick—i.e. the live-action version of the cult cartoon Aeon Flux—bombed at the all-important box office. And the reason for that is, for all the talk of feminism and such, moviegoers, both men and women, don't want to see women in the dominant role in action films. They want to see the men swoop in and rescue everyone, including—and especially—the girl, similar to the way they want things to work out in real life. Again, in spite of all the cinematic feminist talk, men want to imagine themselves as the rescuer and women want to imagine themselves the ones being rescued. Period.

At the end of the day, it's all about money, feminism or no. And, while the movie will undoubtedly make a profit (at the time of this writing, it has reached the $100 million mark), it still didn't make the big splash at the all-important box office George Miller and the movie studio were obviously hoping for, which, like I implied earlier, is what I believe really drove the controversy. I mean, it didn't even reach number one on the box office charts the weekend it was released as it made about half the money that the flick Pitch Perfect 2 which did debut at number one.

Of course, the thing I found most hypocritical of all about the whole insipid controversy surrounding Aaron Clarey's Mad Max article—which even Clarey himself said was ridiculous—was that the same feminists/feminist sympathizers who scoffed at the idea of a boycott of Mad Max: Fury Road by the apparently imaginary MRAs were the same ones who all but advocated a—that's right—boycott of the Clint Eastwood film American Sniper about military sniper Chris Kyle months earlier—many of whom hadn't even seen the film—because not only they claimed it “promoted” the Iraqi war but that it also promoted—again, that's right—masculinity. And we all know just how much the feminists and their sympathizers really hate that!

Besides that, one thing the feminized reviewers of Mad Max: Feminist, uh, I mean Fury Road failed to address is that, if Charlize Theron's character Imperator Furiosa was so strong and whatnot as said feminized reviewers insisted she was, why then did she need the “help” of Max to begin with? Just saying!

A sidenote: Here's the link to the Aaron Clarey article from "anti-feminist" site Return Of Kings for anyone who is interested in reading the piece that started all the Mad Maxine, uh, I mean Mad Max feminist furor to begin with: http://www.returnofkings.com/63036/why-you-should-not-go-see-mad-max-feminist-road

Here's a video review (from YouTube) from someone (yes, a man!) who actually watched Mad Max: Fury Road and said yes, it WAS a "feminist" movie!

And, while we're at it, here's Aaron Clarey's video response to all the critics of his article:

Fifty Shades Of Wayne (Batman/Fifty Shades Mashup Trailer)

Thanks the stars Ben Affleck WASN'T in this trailer!

RELIGULOUS

Religulous is comedian/talk show host Bill Maher's documentary--or mockumentary, whichever way you want to look at it--about organized religion. Anyone who knows anything at all about Bill Maher knows he's most definitely NOT a "fan" of organized religion, and he most definitely holds NOTHING back in this film. In the film, he targets pretty much all of the major religions, including Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and, his seemingly favorite target, Christianity. About three-fourths of the film consists of Maher interviewing various "religious" figures and mocking their "beloved" religions to their faces. Some take it in stride while others are quite noticeably upset at Bill's mockery; like, for instance, towards the beginning of the film where Bill is challenging the members of a little--and, no, I'm NOT making this up!--Truckers Chapel and one of the members expresses his disdain at said mockery of his "religion" and kindly walks himself right out of the church. (At one point during the film, Bill himself walks out of an interview after he gets rather annoyed at this rabbi who blatantly contradicts himself to Maher.) At times during the film Maher speaks directly to the camera and talks about the "questionable" parts of various religious stories; like, for instance, when he compares what he calls the "similarities" between the stories of Egyptian deity Horus to that of Jesus Christ. (This drew some heavy criticism from "Christian" scholars, as one might have expected.) Overall, Religulous will no doubt play well to Bill Maher fans. Religious types, of course, might take "issue" with it. I actually started to feel kind of sorry for some of the interviewees as Bill was blatantly mocking them, but then I recalled all those times one of these "religious" types would come up to me and denounce ME for not "believing" as they do and kindly inform me that I was going to you-know-where, so whatever feelings of empathy I may have had for some of these people quickly went away as Bill was throwing some of their sanctimonious BS back at them. (This, of course, doesn't include all those times a Jehovah's Witness or two would show up at my front door and bug the hell out of me about their "religion" and such.) And, if you haven't figured it out already, I, like Maher, am NOT what you'd call a "fan" of religion, organized or otherwise, so I didn't really take "issue" with Religulous. Actually, I thought the most interesting parts of the film were the deleted scenes that were featured on the DVD, which features mostly more interviews that for whatever reason weren't included in the final film. I actually think Maher should re-release the movie with the deleted scenes included on video. (I know that would REALLY make these "religious" types happy!)

Here's the aforementioned Truckers Chapel scene from Religulous (from YouTube): 

WHY I WON'T BE SEEING AMERICAN SNIPER

The movie poster of American Sniper.

The book cover of American Sniper.

Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle.

Chris Kyle holding a copy of his book.

American Sniper is the movie based on the "autobiography" of the late Iraqi war veteran Chris Kyle who was deemed--I think by Chris himself--"the most lethal sniper in U.S. history." The movie was directed by Clint Eastwood (yes, THAT Clint Eastwood!) with actor Bradley Cooper (of The A-Team fame) playing Kyle. The movie has even garnered a few Oscar nods. With all that said, I will not--I repeat--NOT be going to see American Sniper. Why? Well, for one, I am SO sick & tired of being told who to "admire" in this country. I mean, I can make up my OWN mind who I want to "admire" and/or hold up as a hero. And, though I feel sorry for Kyle's family (who was shot to death at a shooting range along with a companion by an ex-Marine reportedly suffering from PTSD named Eddie Ray Routh), I can't muster up admiration for someone who was a trained killer and, above all, someone who publicly boasted of being said trainer killer and who propped his own self up as a hero. I know, I know there'll be those--mostly on Fox (Non) News!--who'll undoubtedly denounce me as being "unpatriotic" and how I don't "support" the troops by not lending my "admiration" of Chris Kyle. To which I say is complete & utter BULLSHIT! I mean, there are countless veterans who acted just as "heroically" as Mr. Kyle and even more so but we'll NEVER hear their names much less their stories. That's, of course, partly because a number of veterans don't wish to "exploit" their war experiences. There's also the countless number of veterans who are languishing away at veteran's hospitals--remember the controversy about the shoddy medical treated of military veterans at VA hospitals like Walter Reid?--and who are suffering from PTSD and who are homeless--an estimated one-third of our nation's homeless are in fact veterans--or who have committed suicide. You get the picture. So, I ask, what makes Chris Kyle's "story" more "heroic" than any other veteran's? Going back to the movie, the film itself is probably a "good" movie, at least technically so, and I'm sure Bradley Cooper did a pretty good job portraying Kyle (he, at the time of this writing, has garnered an Oscar nod for his role in the film). But, there again, I have absolutely NO interest in seeing this apparently overly-jingoist film. (I also felt the same about that torture porn-fest Zero Dark Thirty.) In any other context, and I know I'm going to get flak for saying THIS one, Chris Kyle would probably be regarded as a serial killer, you know what I mean? Once again, for those who would denounce me--once again, on Fox (Non) News!--as being an unpatriotic troop-hater, Chris Kyle boasted in his book how much he "loved" killing and how much "fun" he thought his "job" was. Writing of the Iraqis in general, he wrote, "I hate the damn savages," adding, "I couldn't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis." He also stated how he knew without a single shred of doubt how EVERYONE he shot was a "bad guy," including the women AND children he apparently "loved" to shoot. Hell, he even bragged about murdering Hurricane Katrina looters (although that was never verified). On top of all that, he also reportedly boasted of looting the homes of Iraqi families in Fallujah. So, once more, I ask the question: WHAT IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK IS SO DAMN "HEROIC" ABOUT CHRIS KYLE? AND WHY IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK SHOULD I PAY GOOD MONEY TO SEE A FILM GLORIFYING HIS MURDER-LOVING ASS? AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY ARE WE GIVING CHRIS KYLE MORE "ATTENTION" THAN ANY OTHER VETERAN WHO WOULD NEVER BOAST ABOUT HAVING TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE AN "ENEMY" OR NOT? Well? I also can't for the life of me understand why Clint Eastwood would choose to make a movie glorifying THIS (so-called) "hero" after he made what was deemed an "anti-violence" film the western Unforgiven (but then, he WAS Dirty Harry, so there you go!). Also, I must say I find it more than a little ironic--and, yes, hypocritical!--that the very same right-wingers who've been Chris Kyle's BIGGEST cheerleaders have routinely condemned the "violence" of, say, rap music. Just saying! In any case, Chris Kyle's life AND death prove the old adage to be VERY true: You live by the sword, you definitely die by the sword! And if THAT makes me an "unpatriotic traitor" or whatever in the eyes of the Republican-ass-kissing D-Bags who've propped THIS guy up as some type of damned superhero, then so be it. So be it! A sidenote: Chris Kyle, before his death, claimed on shows like--where else!--The O'Reilly Factor how he punched out Jesse Ventura (yes, THAT Jesse Ventura!) at a bar because he, according to Kyle, was "bad-mouthing" the military and the government in general (and this surprised him WHY?). He even mentioned the "fight" in his book, although he didn't mention Ventura by name. Ventura ended up suing even after Kyle's death and wound up winning in part because of the reported "inconsistencies" in the witnesses accounts of the alleged incident, including from Chris's very own testimony. So, again I ask, if this part of Kyle's book is (allegedly) false, how the hell am I supposed to "believe" the REST of his book?

Here's a clip of Jesse Ventura discussing his case against Chris Kyle on Piers Morgan's now-defunct CNN talk show:

BATMAN

Batman is the 1989 theatrical version of the legendary comic book character directed by noted eccentric film director Tim Burton. The film stars Michael Keaton--who had previously starred in the title role of Tim Burton's earlier film Beetlejuice--as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jack Nicholson as Batman's archenemy The Joker. The film shows billionaire Bruce Wayne as he begins his "moonlighting" as the Caped Crusader in his quest to fight crime in the fictional city of Gotham, the very crime that led to him witnessing the shooting deaths of his mother and father during a robbery as a child (which we see in flashbacks). Also in the film, we see the origins of The Joker who starts off being a murderous henchman of a major Gotham crime lord. During a fight with Batman, the future Joker falls in a vat of acid and winds up with a permanent smile on his face and all but winds up insane, which, of course, makes him all the more dangerous. Not only that, but Bruce Wayne figures out it was The Joker--back when he was a low level criminal--who had murdered his parents, which, of course, makes him all the more determined to stop the murderous clown. The issue I've always had with the Batman character is that he's either made too campy (ala the classic sixties TV series starring Adam West in the title role) or he's made too serious (ala the Christopher Nolan films with notoriously intense actor Christian Bale in the title role). I think Tim Burton's Batman finds the perfect balance of camp and seriousness. I also felt Jack Nicholson made the perfect Joker (some Batman fans, of course, might cite the late Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight as being the all-time best, but I digress). Of course, an added bonus to the film is that there's no Robin ("Holy annoyances, Batman!")! And it's most certainly a damned sight BETTER than the hilariously campy Batman & Robin (which starred incredibly miscast George Clooney in the title role and pretty much killed the Batman franchise until Christopher Nolan rebooted it with his Batman Begins)! A sidenote: Diehard Batman fans took serious issue with the casting of "comedic" actor Michael Keaton as Batman, at least initially so, but most eventually warmed to him when they saw his performance as The Dark Knight in both Batman and its darker sequel--which, of course, was also directed by Tim Burton--Batman Returns (which also DIDN'T include Robin!). Batman was also noted for its breaking box office records at the time and also for beginning the "trend" of "darker" superhero films. (I'll, of course, let YOU decide if that's a good or a bad thing, OK?) 

ONE FOR THE MONEY

One For The Money is a 2012 action "comedy" that stars Katherine Heigl (of Grey's Anatomy fame). In the film, Katherine plays a down-on-her-luck former--and, no, I'm NOT making this up!--lingerie seller who turns to--and, again, I'm NOT making this up!--bounty hunting to help makes ends meet. She goes after a former flame of hers--whom she once ran over with her car on purpose--who's an ex-cop wanted for murdering a suspect. While she believes he's guilty of the crime he's accused of, at least at first, she finally reluctantly agrees to help him prove his innocence. The film, though it does have its entertaining moments, is pretty formulaic and has a nineties feel to it. The main reason to watch this particular flick is for Katherine Heigl's performance. Although she might not have the best reputation in Hollywood (Anne Hathaway, are you listening?), I myself have long been a fan of Katherine Heigl even back during the days she was starring in such low-budget cinematic fare like Bug Buster (co-starring the guy who played Sulu on Star Trek). I would recommend this film for diehard Katherine Heigl fans and/or if it's a slow night and you've got nothing better to watch. Oh yeah, there's also a sexy shower scene in this flick that, while Katherine doesn't show EVERYTHING, she comes pretty damn close!   

Here's a clip of the Katherine Heigl shower scene from One For The Money (enjoy!): 

HALLOWEEN II (the Rob Zombie remake)

Halloween II is the sequel to rocker-turned-film-director Rob Zombie's controversial remake of John Carpenter's late-seventies horror classic. The film, for those few of you who have never seen or heard of the Halloween flicks, further documents notorious mask-wearing murderer Michael Myers. The sequel focuses less on Michael and more on Laurie who is Michael's long lost sister (who was played by actress Jamie Lee Curtis in John Carpenter's film and following sequel along with two other sequels). The film begins showing the aftermath of the first film where Laurie shoots Michael and she gets sent to the hospital while Michael "escapes" out of the ambulance he's being carried off in. Just like in the first sequel, Laurie "imagines" Michael is stalking her while she's in the hospital. She and everyone else involved with the case believes Michael is dead. However, unbeknownst to Laurie, not only is Michael still alive and continuing his gruesome killing spree on his way back to her but she also learns that she is Michael's long lost sister after reading Dr. Loomis's book--Dr. Loomis being, of course, the doctor who "treated" Myers before his bloody escape from the loony bin--about Michael's bloody killing spree. It probably goes without saying that Laurie is none too happy finding out about this and it ends up seriously screwing with her head. Michael ends up kidnapping Laurie and takes her to an abandoned shed. Throughout the movie, Michael sees visions of his mother along with his younger self who "instruct" him on what do to. While in the shed, Laurie also "sees" their mother and her younger brother who likewise "instructs" her what to do. To make amends for what he's done, Dr. Loomis enters the shed while the police is surrounding the shed with their guns drawn and tries to convince Michael to let Laurie go. Now there's two different endings to this flick. The theatrical version--spoiler alert!--shows Michael stabbiing Loomis literally to death before being shot by police. Laurie then grabs Michael's knife and, after telling him that she "loves" him, stabs him to death before stepping outside the cabin while wearing Michael's infamous murder mask. The "alternate" ending, the one which Zombie reportedly preferred (and another spoiler alert!), shows Michael gripping Dr. Loomis in a bear hug outside the shed before removing his mask and showing his face (something he, of course, has NEVER done in any of the earlier films) and he says "Die!"--his first works EVER spoken--and fatally stabs Loomis. The police then shoot him down. Laurie then steps out and grabs Michael's knife and walks over to the lifeless body of Dr. Loomis. As she's staring down at the doctor's body while holding her dead brother's bloody knife, one of the cops inexplicably shoots her. Both endings show Laurie in a loony bin imagining her mother walking towards her next to a white horse. Frankly, I prefer the theatrical ending myself since I think it makes Michael Myers LESS scary unmasking him and showing the actor's face (the actor in this case being former pro-wrestler Tyler Mane who played mutant villain Sabretooth in the very first X-Men movie). Plus it didn't make much sense, at least for me, to have Laurie shot by police and THEN showing her in the nut house or whatever (so does THAT mean she only "imagined" her encounter with Michael like she did in the hospital?). Again, frankly, I think Rob Zombie likes screwing around with moviegoers (as he seemingly did in his notoriously nonsensical the earlier-reviewed Lords Of Salem flick). However, in spite of the two vastly different endings, I still think Rob Zombie's Halloween II is a pretty decent--albeit gory-as-hell--remake of the classic film (which, I must admit, I wasn't the biggest fan of to begin with). It was certainly a hell of a lot better--again, at least to me--than the rather crappy sequels throughout the eighties and nineties (with the exception of H2O which marked the return of Jamie Lee Curtis in the Halloween franchise and which would have to be my all-time favorite Halloween film). And DON'T get me started on that godawful third Halloween sequel which didn't even feature Michael Myers at all. Even WITH the rather questionable "alternate" ending, Zombie's Halloween sequel was certainly a hell of a lot better than THAT! A sidenote: Halloween fans will probably know there was likewise an "alternate" ending to the first Halloween sequel that was shown on TV known as the TV cut. Maybe--just maybe!--Rob was paying "homage" to this by filming an "alternate" ending to his own Halloween sequel. You think? There was also a grisly murder "connected" to the first Halloween sequel where a deranged man by the name of Richard Delmer Boyer repeatedly stabbed elderly couple Francis and Eileen Harbitz to death back in 1982. It was revealed in court that Boyer suffered from hallucinations and that he had seen Halloween 2 while under the influence of PCP, marijuana and alcohol. Boyer was convicted and sentenced to death. The case became known in the press as the Halloween II Murders when the flick became the first motion picture in American legal history to be entered as "evidence" in a murder trial. Predictably, the brutal murders caused SOME "moral" critics to call for ALL horror/slasher flicks to be--that's right!--banned. Good thing that DIDN'T happen! Actually, I think Rob Zombie or somebody ought to do a movie about this, wouldn't you agree?

Here's a video someone posted on YouTube combining both the theatrical and alternate endings of Rob Zombie's Halloween II that I found rather interesting: 

NINJA

Ninja is a 2009 martial arts film about an orphaned American who was left at a dojo in Japan when he was a child and trained in the ways of the--you guessed it!--ninja. (Ninjas, for those of you needing a history lesson, were mercenaries and/or assassins who operated back in feudal Japan until they were completely outlawed by the Japanese government and forced to operate underground. Or something like that!) Anyway, the plot of Ninja has been seen in countless other martial arts/ninja flicks: the American has a heated rivalry going with another member of the dojo. When said rival is ousted by the sensi for disobeying the rules, he becomes a brutal assassin-for-hire who vows revenge against the dojo who ousted him. He also wants a "secret weapon" that the dojo is hiding so it doesn't all into the wrong hands. When the ousted member comes to the dojo and makes a not-so-thinly veiled threat, the sensi asks the American and his daughter--whom said American has the apparent hots for--to take said "secret weapon" to a "friend" of his for safe-keeping. Along the way, they get violently attacked by the thugs who work for the underground crime organization that the ousted dojo member works for who end up killing the sensi's friend. The American and the sensi's daughter gets arrested by police for the murder. While they're being interrogated by police, the ousted dojo member breaks into the police station--after he attacks the dojo and ends up killing his former sensi--where he kidnaps the girl. After going after the crime organization his rival works for, the American offers the "secret weapon" in exchange for the girl. You can probably figure out the rest here, can't you? Actually, in spite of its familiar plot, Ninja is for the most part a pretty decent martial arts film and not nearly as cheesy as I thought it would be. It helped that the acting was actually better than what one normally sees in a flick like this (and, believe you me, the acting in at least some of these flicks tends to be sub-par at best!). Plus the fight scenes--and, of course, there are plenty of them--are actually well-choreographed. For those who are into martial arts/ninja films, Ninja might be worthy of a look (especially since they don't seem to make as many of these type of flicks as they used to).

TUCKER & DALE VS. EVIL

Tucker & Dale vs, Evil is a 2010 horror/comedy film--from Canada, no less!--about a couple of good ol' boys who get mistaken for serial killers. While on "vacation" at their "vacation" home (which is really a beat-down cabin in the woods!), Tucker & Dale come across some snooty college kids who immediately look down their noses at them. One night while they're doing some night-fishing, Tucker & Dale catch one of the hot college chicks falling into the lake and hitting her head on a rock knocking her unconscious while she and her friends are out doing some late-night skinny-dipping. So they decide to take her back to their cabin and nurse her back to health. Of course, her snooty college friends mistakenly believe that the rednecks kidnapped her to do unspeakably horrible things to her. So they take it upon themselves to "rescue" her from said redneck degenerates. This, of course, doesn't go none too well for said snooty college kids; like, for instance, when one of them makes a run at Tucker while he's throwing some old wood through his wood chipper and, just when Tucker turns around, the snooty college kid falls headfirst into the wood chipper. Hilarious! Anyway, it turns out that the "leader" of the college group harbors a serious grudge against any & all rednecks/hillbillies as his mother was the lone survivor of what was known as the Memorial Day Massacre where a hillbilly serial killer went on a murderous rampage in the very same woods 20 years earlier. And things go from bad to worse as he and his college buddies "accidentally" set fire to their cabin when they again try to "rescue" her and the head college guy kidnaps the girl when he believes she's "gone hillbilly" and Dale goes and rescues her. One of the things that makes Tucker & Dale vs. Evil so funny is that it pokes fun at all the horror flicks over the years where the killers are usually--you guessed it!--psychotic hillbillies. And, yes, there's enough hardcore gore in this flick to satisfy even the more ardent horror flick fan! Best line in the flick (from Dale): "I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad I'm not hung like a bear!" Second best line (from Tucker): "He's heavy for half a guy!"

Here's a video collection of some of the best clips from Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (from YouTube):

ZOMBIE NIGHT

Zombie Night is a 2013 horror flick released by film production company The Asylum, which is the company that produces all these cheesy horror/sci-fi flicks you tend to see on the Syfy channel such as the, uh-hum, classic Sharknado. Asylum flicks usually features stars who are, shall we say, past their prime, and Zombie Night is no different in that regard as it stars Daryl Hannah (of Splash and both Kill Bill movies) and former child star Anthony Michael Hall (of The Breakfast Club fame) along with the guy who played the best friend in that Ferris Bueller flick. Anyway, to be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this flick because, as I believe I've posted before, I'm not the biggest fan of zombie flicks--with exception, of course--as they all tend to be so damn repetitive. And the "plot" of Zombie Night is also no different in that regard as it shows the inhabitants of a town trying to survive a sudden zombie horde that inexplicably begins one night (with corpses rising from the grave, dead people turning into zombies, the usual). In spite of the fact that we've seen this very same "plot" in countless zombie flicks before, Zombie Night actually turned out to be a pretty entertaining film; again, in spite of the fact that I'm not the biggest "fan" of zombie flicks. It helped that it had more higher-caliber stars that what you normally see in Asylum flicks (like, for instance, "stars" who appeared in cheesy nineties TV shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and Baywatch). Truthfully, I initially primarily watched this flick because it starred the lovely Daryl Hannah whom hasn't starred in too many films since she made a big splash (pardon the pun!) in the second Kill Bill movie (remember that awesome sword fight between her and Uma Thurman, which, to me, was the best part about the movie). There's also a couple of--dare I say it!--rather heartbreaking scenes in this film; like, for instance, when Daryl Hannah's character is forced to shoot her mother--played by the actress who played the mom on the classic TV show The Partridge Family--in the head after she suddenly dies of a heart attack and then--of course!--comes back to life as a dreaded zombie. Of course, Zombie Night won't be considered a classic film, zombie or otherwise, but, for someone who is a diehard (again, pardon the pun!) fan of zombie fans, they could do FAR worse than Zombie Night (and, believe you me, I've seen some pretty damn cheesy zombie flicks!).

Here's the trailer to Zombie Night (from YouTube):

DOA: DEAD OR ALIVE

DOA: Dead Or Alive is a 2006 "karate" film based on the video game of the same name. The film stars noted TV and movie stars Jaime Pressly and Eric Roberts along with an assortment of hot scantily-clad kick-ass chicks! The "plot" of this flick, such as it is, involves a group of (so-called) martial artists who get "invited" by this "evil" rich dude--played by Roberts (of course!)--to compete in this martial arts competition called--you guessed it!--Dead Or Alive. The "contestants" include . . . aw, who the hell cares! All you REALLY need to "know" about THIS flick is that it features a bevy of, like I said, hot scantily-clad ass-kicking chicks, including Miss Pressly (again, of course!)! I'm not sure if the ladies did all or most or part of their stunts in this flick, but, again, WHO CARES! Picture a cross between Enter The Dragon and Mortal Kombat--only with LOTS more T & A!--and you'll get an idea of what THIS flick is like, OK? Oh yeah, Eric's character is planning to take over the world or something with these computer-enhanced sunglasses that can predict another fighter's moves or some such thing. I'd just thought I'd throw that out there for those who actually "care" about the "plots" of flicks like this. In the end, DOA: Dead Or Alive may NOT be regarded as among the greatest martial arts movies of all-time (like, say, Enter The Dragon starring the late great Bruce Lee), but, there again, with THIS much T & A chances are you WON'T care! I know I sure didn't! (Yeah, I know, I'm a perv!)

Here's the "introduction" scene of Jaime Pressly's character in DOA (from YouTube): 

GRUDGE MATCH

Grudge Match is a 2013 movie starring Sylvester Stallone and Robert De Niro. In the film, Stallone and De Niro star as two aging boxing rivals named Razor and Kid, respectfully, who agree to one last boxing match that they agreed to fight years earlier but didn't when Razor abruptly "retired" from boxing (which isn't totally explained in the film, by the way). Apart from their boxing rivalry, there's other bad blood between Razor and Kid as Kid slept with Razor's girlfriend and wound up getting her pregnant. Kid's grown son meets with his father after his mother finally told him the truth about him after her husband who had raised him passed away and he agrees to train him for the fight much to his mother's chagrin since she hates Kid's guts. Razor at first refuses to fight his old boxing rival when the offer is first presented to him by a younger boxing promoter named Slate (played by comedian Kevin Hart) whose boxing promoter father had screwed him over financially. He reluctantly agrees because he needs the money in order to properly take care of his ailing boxing trainer (played by Alan Arkin). Along the way, Razor reunites with his ex-girlfriend to find exactly why she ended up sleeping with and getting pregnant by his boxing rival Kid. (Razor's girlfriend is played by Kim Basinger. It's actually nice to see her in a film since she's starred sporadically in movies in recent years. Personally, I feel Miss Basinger is a rather underrated actress who I feel would have had a bigger movie career had she NOT gotten hooked up with that bullying, child-abusing, homophobic D-Bag Alec Baldwin, but I digress.) The climatic boxing match between Razor and Kid might be a bit predictable--although there is a twist to the fight on Razor's part (which I, of course, won't reveal here!)--but it's still entertaining to watch. Of course, Stallone and De Niro have both starred in two of the most famous and most beloved boxing movies of all-time, namely Rocky and Raging Bull; again, respectfully. And, though Grudge Match will most likely not be as famous or as beloved as those films, it's still a pretty entertaining little film nonetheless and is a flick that I feel hasn't gotten its just deserts, at least in my view. And, while it's entertaining to watch Stallone and De Niro's interactions in the film (they starred together previously in Cop Land), I think the most enjoyable part of the films are the highly comical interactions between Alan Arkin and Kevin Hart, though they are few and far between, at least in my view. There's also a highly comical post-credits scene which actually reunites boxing legends Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield as Slate tries to convince them to do a "reunion" boxing match. (Tyson, if you'll recall, infamously bit off Holyfield's ear during their one & only boxing match together.) And, again, you'll just have to watch to movie to see how THAT goes!

DETENTION OF THE DEAD

Detention Of The Dead is a 2012 horror "comedy" which is just as it sounds. This flick has been described as a cross between The Breakfast Club and Night Of The Living Dead. And that pretty much describes it. But, for those who haven't figured out the plot of this flick by now, a group of high school students in detention--a jock, a cheerleader, a nerd, a bully, a goth chick and a stoner (yes, just like in TBC!)--all of a sudden have to fight off a zombie horde when a zombie virus inexplicably decimates their school. A couple of the scenes are an apparent rip-off of TBC: the scene where some of the students fall through the vents and the scene where they bare their souls to each other or whatever. My own personal favorite character in the film is the "goth girl" Willow played by actress Alexa Nikolas who's best known for her role in the Nickelodeon TV show Zoey 101 and in the--of course!--zombie TV show The Walking Dead (in which her character was killed off after only appearing in a few episodes, by the way). She was kind of like the Ally Sheedy character in TBC, though not as, shall we say, intense. (Alexa is also known for a picture that surfaced online of her kissing Vanessa Hudgens, of which she also appeared in a music of Vanessa's, but I digress!) I believe I've stated before on this blog how I'm not the biggest "fan" of zombie flicks and/or TV shows, but Detention Of The Dead at least attempts to do something different in the zombie genre (which, in my opinion, is more or less a rip-off of George Romero's late-sixties zombie classic Night Of The Living Dead), and it's actually not a bad film as far as zombie "comedies" go. If you're a fan of The Breakfast Club AND Night Of The Living Dead (with a bit of The Faculty thrown in!), then Detention Of The Dead could very well be the flick for you! Best line in the flick (from Willow, of course!): "Everyone in this school knows you've got a mouth that could suck start a jet engine." Second best line in the flick (again, from Willow!): "Goth chicks kick ass!"

Here's a clip of Willow from Detention Of The Dead (from YouTube):