Cynical Cinema

The main thing you will notice about Cruising Bar 2 on DVD is that the production values and the effort are much greater than those that went into Cruising Bar.  Michel Cote returns as all four main characters, in a movie that picks up 19 years after the first one ended.  In the original, you will recall (or more likely, you won’t, because you probably didn’t see it), Cote played four guys looking for sex as they hit the town for the night.  Jean-Jacques is the “peacock”, a man who is so self-involved that he is incapable of loving anyone else.  Serge is the “worm”, a nerdy, creepy weirdo who has no social skills and questionable personal hygiene.  Gerard is the “bull”, a man who cheats compulsively on his wife with any willing warm body.  And Patrice is the “lion”, a mullet-wearing movie stuntman who battles with substance abuse problems.

Well.  That was the first movie.  And apparently, in the 19 years since that one hit the screen, these characters have been utterly incapable of growth.  (If you watched this movie on DVD when it came out a couple of years ago, you will be confused about the names - they changed them for the English subtitles the first time around.  Thankfully, this time they did not.)  We meet all the same guys, in all the same situations.  The “peacock” is fussing over his ultra-expensive sports car.  The “lion” has just been dumped by his girlfriend, who says she can’t “do it any more”.  The “worm” does not have a woman at all, because he is physically objectionable.  And the “bull” is coming out of house after house in his neighbourhood, after servicing all the housewives in the neighbourhood.

The last time, each of these characters had just one goal in mind on that particular night.  To get laid.  This time around, the movie takes place over several days, and they have much different goals.  The “worm” is trying to find true love, the “lion” is trying to get his life back together, with his job and his daughter.  (Apparently, in the nineteen years since we left him, he has managed to conceive a child.)  The “bull”, having been booted from the house by his wife, is trying to win her back.  And the “peacock” is investigating the possibility that he might actually be gay.  All of these issues are resolved by the end of the film, some more satisfactorily than others.

When we first see the “bull”, he hasn’t changed in any way.  He’s banging everyone he can, and his wife gives him the boot.  He immediately falls into a state of despondency, and can’t even bring himself to plow his moderately attractive receptionist any more.  The “worm” is in the process of losing his job as a stuntman, after he accidentally knocks the star actor for whom he is standing in, off a roof, possibly killing him.  I say possibly, because we never really find out.  I think the scene was supposed to be funny, so I will go ahead and assume the guy survived.  Because otherwise, it was not very funny.  The “peacock” gets dumped by his girlfriend in a particularly embarassing way, and the “worm” is involved in an incredibly gross scene involving a fat pregnant woman and water breaking.

So this is our re-introduction to some reasonably memorable characters, and it is better than it was the first time around.  I gave Cruising Bar a 3/10 rating, but that was mostly because of the awful subtitles.  Here is that review:

http://blog.rogersradiointernet.com/cynicalcinema/2008/06/09/cruising-bar-ormeet-market-orcruising-bar-out-tomorrow-310/

For that movie, it could well have received a 5/10 or even a 6/10, had the production been better.  And for Cruising Bar 2, the production IS a lot better.  But the story is less compelling.  The jokes revolve around a very few gimmicks - for example, there are scenes where it LOOKS like the “worm” is having sex.  Or masturbating.  Then we find out he isn’t.  It’s his sister, and she’s going into labour, and she’s not having sex with him.  And he’s filing his nails, he isn’t flogging the blue dolphin.  The “lion” keeps screwing things up, and can’t get anything right.  Most of this stuff is more cringe-inducing than it is funny.

That being said, there are some scenes that made me laugh.  One in particular involved the “lion” describing his erection to his doctor.  Another few scenes that really work are some scenes between the “peacock” and his psychiatrist.  But basically, we’re seeing the same thing over and over.  The “bull” keeps trying bigger and more expensive ways of winning his wife back.  The “worm” buys a dog to pick up chicks at the dog park, then he joins a dance class…anything to meet a woman.  And it goes on and on until I’m pretty tired of watching.  The one thing this movie does better than the first is that it actually resolves many of the issues the characters have.  So it is unlikely that there will be a third installment in this series nineteen years from now.  At least, I hope.

I have just come from the advance screening of Quantum of Solace.  I went with my buddy Mark, and we discussed the movie in a rather in-depth way on the drive home.  And it occurs to me, only now at this moment, that we never discussed the title at all.  And wrack my brain as I might, I can’t for the life of me remember what it means.  Or what scenes in the movie were relevant to this title.  I’m at a loss.  I really can’t understand where this title came from.  It doesn’t, really, even sound very cool, or very James-Bondy.  It could just as easily be the title of one of those sci-fi movies about cute children and magical bunnies.

The word “quantum” means only “a specified amount”.  Quantum physics refers to the smallest discrete amount of some physical property that a system can possess.  And the word “solace” means “comfort or consolation”.  So, really, this movie could have been called A Specified Amount of Consolation.  Or, A Modicum of Revenge.  Or A Certain Amount of Vengeance.  Because I suppose, the idea behind the film is that James Bond is getting revenge upon those who caused the death of his girlfriend Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale.  Perhaps that’s what it means.

But just because I don’t understand the title does not mean that Quantum of Solace isn’t cool.  Because it is.  It’s very, very cool.  Just like in Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is the most badass Bond of them all, with less charm and more hardcore skills-of-a-badass.  I remember saying when I watched that first film that he reminded me, (and I mean this) more of George Lazenby than of any other Bond, in that he puts more emphasis on being tough and mean than on being clever and charming and slick.  And I like that.  But now, having watched this second Daniel Craig installment in the Bond series, he no longer reminds me of George Lazenby.  And even though he ends the movie bloody, beaten up, and exhasuted, he doesn’t remind me of Bruce Willis either.  He reminds me of Daniel Craig.  And that is a terrific thing.  I said it in the last movie, and I will say it again about this one - Daniel Craig is the best actor to play James Bond.  Ever.

Quantum of Solace kicks off right where the last one left off.  We see a car chase through the mountains, and before Bond destroys the opposition with some fancy driving and some gunfire, we know what’s going to happen when he opens the trunk.  Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) is going to be in there.  Possibly still alive, more likely dead, what with all the crashing and bullet holes.  This is one of those car chases where a bunch of stuff is happening all the time, and the camera leaps from the road to the car to the hand on the gearshift and then back to the road.  Bond’s car appears to be headed toward an impossible gap between say, two dump trucks, where not even a bicycle could fit, then we flash to his gearshift and then back to the road, where his car comes out of some mess of traffic where it had clearly not been split seconds before. 

This must be one amazing gearshift.   In Quantum of Solace, we don’t see a single one of those fancy James Bond gadgets that are a staple in this series, and I think it is safe to assume that this gearshift is one of them.  There is no Q to explain how it works, but it appears to be able to teleport Bond’s car from one side of a snarl-up to the other.  This would be an extremely useful gadget for the average commuter, but until it hits the mass market it’s best that such a prototype would be used to save the life of James Bond.  Now, I have no idea how the henchmen chasing him manage to execute similar manouevers, perhaps they have stolen this same amazing technology and they are chasing Bond to get his copy of the instruction manual.

There are other chases in this movie, some that make more sense (editing-wise) than others.  There is a terrifically intense rooftop-chase scene on foot, and while it doesn’t compare to the one in Casino Royale where Bond chases that guy with the mad monkey skills, it is pretty cool nonetheless.  There is a plane chase, where Bond is able to make a fighter plane crash through a combination of smoke from his engine and…turning left…I think.  Either way, there is a fireball and the other pilot loses and Bond made it happen somehow.  Then there is a boat chase.  It flows rather nicely but is based on a rather questionable premise. 

You see, a woman named Camille (the smoking hot Olga Kurylenko) has just mistaken Bond for an assassin.  And she has tried to shoot him.  He divines that she is in league with the bad guys he is chasing, so after she attempts to kill him he follows her.  So far so good.  She is one of the bad guys, she will lead him to the other bad guys, and he will exact his bloody revenge for the death of the Woman He Loved in the first movie.  He watches Camille interact with the bad guys on a pier, and then watches her get onto a boat with some other bad guys.  He manages, telepathically I suppose, to figure out that the bad guys on the boat are going to kill her.  She is still one of the bad guys, as far as he knows, and she has already tried to kill him.  Yet he decides, in a situation that must be against his better judgement, to rescue her by stealing a boat and ramming a yacht and then kidnapping her.

Perhaps the twenty seconds he spent with her in her car before she decided to kill him were enough to convince him that she was alright, basically a nice person, with a warm heart and a purity of purpose.  And that her decision to murder him with a gun was really just an unfortunate but understandable misunderstanding and he holds no grudge.  He clearly doesn’t need her for anything.  She gets knocked out during the boat chase.  Now, she IS in league with these bad guys, and must know something that could help Bond get his men.  But he didn’t save her to find out what she knows.  He merely hands her unconscious body to a perplexed bystander and continues on his way.  So…why did he save her life?  What was that all about?  Perhaps he knew (because she is obviously the hottest chick he’s met and it’s a James Bond movie) that she will resurface later and feel kindly toward him for all that life-saving boat-chasing action.

So, the boat chase is gratuitous.  But it is cool, and John Woo himself might even be impressed with that one.  The chase on foot makes sense, the chase in the plane makes sense, and it is easy to understand how the car chase could have come about.  All that was missing in Quantum of Solace was a submarine chase and a space-shuttle dogfight.  Next movie, perhaps.  Actually, that wasn’t all that was missing in the film.  There are no gadgets.  There is no Q, although there is an M.  He only sleeps with one woman, and it isn’t the one we expect.  There are no duplicitous women.  Not once did I hear him say “Bond.  James Bond.”  Nor did he mention a martini, shaken, stirred or otherwise.  He is drinking something that looks suspiciously like a martini on a plane at one point.  And he makes quite a point of letting us all know that he has no idea what the name of this silly, fruity drink might be.  Which is far cooler than actually ordering one.

Because this Bond has no need for fruity drinks or charming cleverness or slick lines.  He is not Pierce Brosnan, after all.  He is Daniel Craig, and he’s a bull in a china shop compared to Brosnan, who was more like fine china at a rodeo.  Does that make sense?  Maybe not.  Who cares.  Brosnan was all hair gel and arched eyebrows, Craig is all guns and fists and scowling.  Which is far more badass, makes for a far more badass movie, and enhances my enjoyment considerably. 

I was worried a few times near the beginning of the movie.  For a while, it looked like it was going to be one chase after another without a break for explaining the story.  When those concerns were alleviated, it appeared as though Quantum of Solace might fall into that middle-years-Bond trap of having too many characters and too much intrigue and a story that was difficult to follow.  Like, who’s that bad guy?  How does he relate to that other bad guy?  What exactly is the plan here, and how does Bond even know these people are evil?

But fortunately, that is not the case either.  Soon, we learn exactly what is going on.  The American spies (including Felix, played by Jeffrey Wright, who was also in Casino Royale) are doing business with the Bad Guy Boss, Dominic Greene (played by Mathieu Amalric).  Greene is a rich, shadowy businessman who runs some kind of bizarre clandestine organization, apparently the same one responsible for the death of Bond’s girl Vesper in Casino Royale.  He is setting up a deal with a deposed Bolivian dictator, which would return that dictator to power in return for some abandoned desert in the middle of the country.  Greene has managed to convince the Americans that there is oil in that desert, and that is why the Americans are willing to look the other way during this Bolivian coup d’etat.  However, he is deceiving them.  His real target is water.

And that’s what made me enjoy this movie most of all.  The bad guy.  Sure, Bond is a badass.  And yes, Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton are ridiculously hot in the Bond-girl tradition.  But this bad guy is a little more layered than the standard Bond villain.  He is similar to the other villains in the series, in that he commands a cartel of bad-news international players who can make things like coups take place.  But he is different in that he doesn’t have a crazed plan for world domination.  He isn’t after uranium or plutonium or even oil.  He is after water.

The idea here is that he will control, from his “useless” patch of desert, Bolivia’s water supply.  And he will make the people of that country pay him for their own water.  And he will get richer.  That’s about it.  Not only is it a rather small-scale evil plan for a Bond villain, but it is also plausible.  Sure, it is the kind of evil plan that shows a complete disregard for human life, but it could really happen, in this world.  In fact, it often does.  We all know there are corporations who buy up water rights in poor countries.  So Dominic Greene, in Quantum of Solace, is not only the most realistic evil villain in a Bond movie, but he is also an amazingly plausible villain for any movie.

Then again, there are still the implausible James Bond touches.  Like the final showdown in the five-star hotel in the middle of the desert.  This just wouldn’t work.  It may be an amazing place, but if it’s hundreds of miles away from everything else, then who would ever go there?  Even the richest people on earth, who want the solitude that comes from such complete isolation, would much rather have that solitude in the mountains near lakes and rivers than in the middle of the open desert.  I assume. 

Not only is this hotel fiscally unrealistic, but it also contains far more tanks of hydrogen than one would anticipate.  This is a pretty poor architectural plan if this building will be your evil-guy hideout.  After all, if one wayward truck say, backs into the garage and explodes, this could (conceivably) lead to a chain reaction of hydrogen-tank explosions that would destroy the entire place.  Perhaps.  I can’t complain too much, if that (hypothetical) giant explosion ending came after both the leading man and the leading lady got their respective sweet revenge on the people who had done them wrong in the past, and had a badass walk off into the sun.  And also if that leading lady was the ridiculously hot Olga Kurylenko, and that leading man was the totally badass Daniel Craig.  That would be OK.  If it happened like that.

Guillermo del Toro is one of my favourite directors in the world.  He is the man behind the best of the Blade movies, Blade II, the incredible recent film Pan’s Labyrinth, and of course the first Hellboy film, which I really liked.  The thing that made Hellboy great was that it didn’t look like other superhero or comic book movies.  It looked like something totally new.  Dark, spectacular and imaginative, the world occupied by the characters was vivid and appealing.  And Ron Perlman as Hellboy was perfect.  A completely new type of comic book hero.  The spawn of hell, a creature who existed to protect the world from the supernatural creatures that threaten to destroy it, who at the same time has the emotional maturity of a 19-year-old.  He smokes cigars and drinks beer and basically lives the life of a young adult, only he lives it in isolation, separated from the world by the government which uses him to do their dirty work.

Hellboy II:  The Golden Army is very similar.  The set designs are once again vivid and wonderful, the creatures and monsters Hellboy has to face are once again interesting and really cool looking, and Ron Perlman is as good as ever.  (Perlman, I should add, has worked with Del Toro twice before - once in the original Hellboy, obviously, and once as the coolest bad guy in Blade II.)  However, the creatures are not quite as cool as they were the first time around.  Partly because they remind me of a lot of other creatures.  Guillermo del Toro creatures.  There is a bizarre creature with no eyes in it’s head, but rather in it’s wings, that at one point helps to heal Hellboy.  And it really reminded me of the creature with eyes in it’s hands from Pan’s Labyrinth.  The bad guy, an elf prince named Nuada, played by Luke Goss, reminds me very much of the bad guy in Blade II.  Perhaps that is because, now that I’ve done my research, in Blade II the bad guy Nomak was played by…Luke Goss.  But he seems to be made up the same way in this one - he’s just Nomak with hair - and it’s a little disconcerting.

I really don’t want to rag on Guillermo del Toro for ripping off…himself.  Once you’ve created such memorable stuff in your career, it’s not such a bad idea to revisit the things that worked once before.  After all, we all want to hear the new AC/DC album, knowing full well it will be exactly the same as every other AC/DC album.  But the story in Hellboy II is a little weaker as well.  This movie could have been a much deeper commentary on the “nature of heroism” and so forth.  Not that I’m asking it to be The Dark Knight, which would be an unreasonable expectation, but this sort of thing is hinted at so often in the movie that it’s disappointing not to see it fleshed out.

Hellboy is of course, being a young adult at heart, eager to escape from the close confines of the government lab where he is housed.  He now lives with his girlfriend from the first movie, played by Selma Blair, a woman who can control fire.  And he’s constantly at odds with the government management, represented ably by Jeffrey Tambor.  Hellboy wants to be a hero, beloved in the city, and wants the public to recognize him for his good deeds.  Basically, he feels he deserves to be a celebrity.  And perhaps he’s right.  The government wants to keep him under wraps.  They want to relegate “Hellboy” sightings to the tabloids, creating a “bigfoot” or “loch ness” aura around him.  And perhaps they’re right.

There are a few scenes where Hellboy IS seen by the public, and even though he has clearly just helped them out, they are afraid of him and assume he’s a bad guy, because, well, he looks like the devil.  All of this stuff would be really interesting if the movie was willing to go into it, but it never really does.  Also interesting would have been the real motivation of the elf prince, Nuada, and his relationship with his twin sister.  He wants to resurrect the Golden Army, an unstoppable force, to take over the world from the humans.  He points to the fact that the elves and mystical creatures have abandoned the world to the humans many years ago, and human beings have just screwed it up.  Unless these supernatural creatures reclaim the world from the humans, the Earth will be destroyed.  And it’s their Earth too.

This could be a really fascinating debate.  Is it worth killing the humans if you know they are in the process, inadvertent or not, of killing you?  Does the word of the elf king, given to the human race many thousands of years ago and forgotten by today’s people, mean more than protecting your environment?  I could see this movie becoming a serious ethical dilemma for everyone, but it never goes there either.  Nadua is the villain, he wants to destroy all human beings, and he must be stopped.  He is evil.  End of story.  It;s too bad, because Hellboy II is every bit as visually impressive as Hellboy, the cast is equally terrific (although I do miss David Hyde Pierce as the voice of Abe Sapien), there is still a lot of good humour and the energy is still fantastic. 

But Hellboy II does not reach the level of Hellboy simply because it sets up some interesting stuff that never pays off, in favour of throwing even more impressive and stunning visuals at us.  And all of that is great - Guillermo del Toro is one of the directors who can make the best use of a massive budget - but it’s a little overwhelming while the story ends up being a little underwhelming.  The first one was a must-see.  And if you liked that one, this one is a should-rent.

To suggest that Mother Of Tears completes a trilogy is, frankly, suspect. Technically, it does indeed complete a very loose “trilogy” that legendary Italian horror director Dario Argento began in 1977 with the brilliant classic Supsiria. The second movie in this “trilogy” is called Inferno, and it was released in 1980. I suppose that a trilogy can be finished twenty-eight years after the second installment, but the only things connecting these three movies are the director himself and a vague similarity in the stories of the witches that populate each one. Alliance Films released Mother of Tears October 14th, and it is attempting to cash in on the underground cult status of the legendary Suspiria. But the two films are not even close to being in the same league.

Suspiria was a masterpiece of tone and suspense. The soundtrack was magnificent, the filming new and the set design was visually stunning. All of this combined to create an atmosphere of foreboding, genuine tension, and some truly terrifying moments. An almost psychedelic assault on the senses, it’s a colourful, vibrant, and horrifically violent film that really works in nearly every way. I say “nearly” because the acting is not stellar, the script is pretty weak, and the climax to the film leaves quite a bit to be desired. But the quality of the rest of the film more than makes up for the problems, and it ushered in a whole new genre of horror films, initially in Italy and then the rest of the world. Inferno was quite good as well, but any film would have difficulty measuring up to Suspiria when being referred to as a “sequel” to that classic. Anyone remember Chinatown 2? Yeah, I thought so.

Mother of Tears features some of the things that make almost any Dario Argento movie worth watching. It is visually stunning, as one would expect, and has a terrific score that heightens the fear factor and the mood. The camera work is impressive, and there is a tremendous amount of graphic gore. Also, the film features many, many boobs, two of them belonging to Argento’s daughter Asia (remember that Vin Diesel movie XXX? Yeah, I thought so.) Asia Argento is the star of the movie, playing a woman named Sarah who works at a museum, and begins to look at a strange, ancient urn that is dug up by a construction crew in Rome. Within a few minutes of the appearance of the urn, there is an appearance made by a monkey. That is quickly followed by some shadowy men in cloaks who ratchet open Sarah’s friend’s mouth until her skull splits, then disembowl her and strangle her with her own intestines.

After escaping from these men in cloaks, Sarah runs off, and no more references are made to the men in cloaks again, in the whole film. They merely disappear, and some witches begin to appear instead. The rest of the movie involves cheesy apparitions giving Sarah advice, and what basically amounts to a long chase through Rome from one person who might be able to help her to another person who might be able to help her. Each of these people is killed (graphically) before they actually get around to helping her. Which, unfortunately, means they also get killed before they get around to explaining anything to her. Which means that we, the audience, never have anything, ever, explained to us. We do need some explanation. Instead we get this strange and incomprehensible series of chases, culminating in a strange and incomprehensible ritual and SPOILER WARNING: perhaps the easiest, most anti-climactic dispatching of the main villain in movie history.

In the meantime, the city of Rome goes crazy, with the citizens turning on each other in graphic scenes of assault, stabbings, shootings, beatings, and infanticide. In fact, I think there may be more children, many of them infants, killed graphically in this film than I have ever seen in a movie before. There is even a scene where we see a witch who has eaten what is presumably a fetus, and she is attached like a fish on a hook by an umbilical cord that is still attached inside another witch’s uterus. To call this violence “excessive” doesn’t begin to cover it. I expected some truly heinous scenes, knowing what Dario Argento is all about, so I wasn’t terribly freaked out by any of this, until my own personal phobia of nipples was triggered when a cop gets his nipple sliced off. Only then did I turn away in disgust and curl up in a ball.

The biggest difference between Suspiria and Mother of Tears is that while the acting, plot, and climax are thin in both, this isn’t enough to detract from Supsiria’s classic status. And both feature great camera work, great music, and great set design. But this isn’t enough to elevate Mother of Tears out of “garbage” status. Both movies will likely be considered classic by some. Both will be considered garbage by others. I split my vote here, and for me, Mother of Tears just doesn’t make the cut.

Clerks (********8/10):  Alliance Films is releasing a three-DVD set of Kevin Smith movies on October 21st, and it’s a set well worth revisiting. While Smith is still best known for his movie Clerks in 1994, he has done many other good films. Clerks was a tiny little indie movie, shot by Smith and starring his friends, in black-and-white and for a minuscule budget, that managed to become a hit, and a cult sensation in future years. It remains a slacker classic, one that will still set off a spark of painful recognition in anyone who has worked a retail job. The eight hours at a time of standing around doing nothing. (Actually, the retail jobs I’ve had have involved eight hour shifts full of busy work. Like “cleaning” things that are already clean, so it doesn’t look like you have nothing to do but stand around for eight hours.) The dialogue is crisp, fresh, filthy and hilarious, and the actors are all considerably better than one would expect for a film that cost $27,000 to make.

Clerks II (****4/10):  That being said, Clerks is substantially over-rated. It gets high marks for being very good for a $27,000 movie, and it is. But the dialogue is what carries it, and it is basically just as good as watching an hour and a half of really good, funny stand-up. And it’s influence has mostly extended to other Kevin Smith movies. With mixed results. For example, Clerks II, which was very disappointing. Clerks II is not as good as Clerks, but there are some fantastic moments of nerd dialogue. The best is a scene where Lord of the Rings nerds battle Star Wars nerds for the title of One Trilogy To Rule Them All. But the movie culminates in a scene involving a man, a donkey, and sexual intercourse. Kevin Smith seems to think this is very funny, and he’s right to a point. The characters seem to think watching a woman having sex with the donkey will be an interesting thrill. But when they find out it’s a man and a donkey, apparently that’s just gross. Either way, it’s SEX WITH A DONKEY! Who cares if it’s a woman, a man or an octopus? The joke runs out of steam after three minutes, but goes on for thirty.

Chasing Amy (**********10/10):  But where Clerks has become over-rated in the past 14 years, other Smith movies have been under-rated. And one of those movies is Chasing Amy. Ben Affleck stars as a comic book writer who falls in love with Joey Lauren Adams, who is a lesbian. Some brilliant dialogue comes from Jason Lee, who plays Affleck’s best friend and illustrator. His Jaws-style comparison of scars received during oral sex with Adams is fantastic, and his dissection of Jughead and Archie’s homosexual relationship is magnificent. In fact, this entire film is magnificent, in the way it approaches young people in relationships. Jealousy, homosexuality and sexual experience are all given a brand-new, totally refreshing treatment, and the results are both intelligent and hilarious. Chasing Amy deserves to be considered one of the all-time greatest angst-and-relationships movies.

All three of these films are featured on the new Threesome With Kevin Smith set. Clerks is a must-have, a classic that while it doesn’t hold up over time remains hilarious and must be watched by those who haven’t yet seen it. Chasing Amy is a classic, a movie that will stand the test of time and then some. The DVD of that movie included in this set is from the Criterion Collection, a series of classic films released with incredible restoration and the best picture imaginable from a regular DVD. And the third movie is Clerks II, a disappointing effort that has decent moments. I suppose it is included in this set because it is the logical companion to the first film. But I would have much rather seen Clerks, Chasing Amy and Dogma included together, since Dogma is also a very under-rated Kevin Smith movie. But as it stands, two out of three isn’t bad.

When it comes to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, you get what you expect. It isn’t Raiders of the Lost Ark, or even The Last Crusade, but it is still better than Temple of Doom. Harrison Ford, now 88 years old, returns in this latest installment from Lucasfilm and Steven Spielberg as the archaeologist professor turned spy, soldier and superhero. Joining him once again is Karen Allen, his main squeeze from Raiders who apparently was always “the one”. Also signing up is Shia LaBeouf, who plays Allen’s son, a tough-kid Marlon Brando wannabe in the 1950s. His presence is announced in a fairly cheesy and hilarious fashion when he shows up riding a motorcycle, dressed up as Brando in The Wild One. And frankly, his presence in the movie is largely pointless, despite the big revelation that everyone saw coming from the start.

Cate Blanchett, the sublime actress responsible for such brilliant performances as Bob Dylan in I’m Not There and Katherine Hepburn in The Aviator, is as good as expected as the evil woman searching for the titular Crystal Skull for the Russians. (It’s the 50s - the Cold War is still big news.) The standard Indy fare is here - the friends who betray him, the kid who’s along for the ride, the hot-and-cold romance with Karen Allen, the fear of snakes, the temples full of trap doors and levers and booby traps, and the ridiculous action escapes from danger. Harrison Ford is as good as ever as Indiana Jones, making light of his age at the very beginning - “this isn’t as easy as it used to be”. References to classic moments in the first three movies abound. “Looks like you brought a knife to a gunfight”. And the warehouse that houses the ark of the covenant appears again at the beginning. Is that the corner of the ark we see?

I heard people complaining a bit about the movie when it ended - “Come on, farfetched much?” But in point of fact, the whole series is magical and mystical and farfetched. This isn’t really less believable than the ark of the covenant, the holy grail, and a mystic temple where people pull your heart out of your chest. So come on people. Jump on board and enjoy the ride here. For me, the farfetched ending here just adds to the B-movie feel that has been the hallmark of the Indy series up until this point. Is there anything more B-movie than…the way this ends? I don’t think so. John Hurt, Ray Winstone, and Jim Broadbent round out a cast that appears to have been selected more for cachet than for anything else.

There are moments which are, even for the Indiana Jones series, a strain on credulity. Like the one where he escapes a nuclear bomb by hiding in a fridge, or the one where he makes an escape from a warehouse on some kind of super-high-speed rocket device. But all in all, the story moves along insanely quickly, as you would expect. The protagonists encounter several interesting ancient cultures, if only for two minutes at a time. The evil bad woman lives through the killer ants and the plunges off waterfalls to make an appearance at the very end. The duplicitous friend perishes when greed gets the best of him. And the demise of the evil woman is as Indiana Jones as it gets.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the poster child for “popcorn movie”, the definitive summer blockbuster, where you sit down for two hours of non-stop action, check your brain at the door, and allow a guy in a fedora carrying a bullwhip to assault your senses with one stunt after another. It’s a testament to the skill of Spielberg and Ford that they make it so easy to shut off your brain. An almost-worthy inclusion into the Indiana Jones Franchise, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is worth the price of a rental. And the price of a small popcorn. It comes out October 14th courtesy of Paramount Home Entertainment.

Alliance Films is releasing Pulse 2: Afterlife on October 7th. It’s the sequel to a movie starring Kristin Bell that a few people saw. The original film made 20 million dollars at the box office, pretty good for a small-budget movie. It then went on to do reasonably well on DVD. So quite a few people have seen Pulse. I, unfortunately, am not one of them. And I believe this has put me at a decided disadvantage when it comes to the sequel. Pulse 2 apparently takes up right where Pulse left off, which means that for those of us unfamiliar with the original film we are lost right away. There’s a creepy guy in a red suit doing some stuff, then a creepy lady in her kitchen holding scissors and searching for her daughter. At first, I thought that this was going to be one of those horror movies that just presents a whole bunch of creepy, scary images without trying terribly hard to make sense.

But that was not the case. After ten minutes, this bizarre disjointed narrative is abandoned and we are back to the regular horror movie plan. A father and his young daughter are trying to escape from…something. Had I seen the first film, I have a feeling I would have understood from what they were fleeing. All I could make out was that it had something to do with dead people appearing through computers and cell phones and killing the living. I really don’t know how the first movie presented this. Maybe that was all they did in that movie too. But it’s confusing and strange, and we are just supposed to accept that these are the scary people and those are the good people and you have to run this way and red tape keeps the ghosts away. If they are ghosts at all.

But even on that level, even with the complete suspension of disbelief and the suppression of any questions I might have had about the plot, this movie still doesn’t work. The little girl is cute, and pretty, but she doesn’t really have much to do except screw up her face when she is sad, and screw it up again when she is scared. At times, she talks as though she is eleven, at other times she appears to be about four. We really don’t know how old she is supposed to be. And we don’t really understand her father’s relationship with her, or with her deceased mother, or his new girlfriend who is obnoxious and awful. Well, at least she gets naked. And then melts into a weird blob of goo.

I don’t ask that a sequel to a movie stand completely on it’s own. In fact, if it does stand completely on it’s own, why bother calling it a sequel? Speed 2, I’m looking at you. But I do ask that it is still entertaining if you haven’t seen the first. You’ll enjoy The Godfather 2 more if you have the reference point of The Godfather to work from. But even if you don’t, you can still love that second movie. Same goes for Aliens, Hellboy II, or even Friday The Thirteenth Part II. Horror sequels are the easiest movies to do. So explain just a little more so we can enjoy the movie without being distracted by the four thousand questions buzzing through our heads. But in the case of Pulse 2, I don’t think even that would have helped. This movie is pretty lame on it’s own. And this sequel doesn’t even involve Kristen Bell!

Harold And Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay hits DVD today, July 29th, from Alliance Films. It picks up right where the last one left off, with the pair having just returned home from White Castle. And now, they are preparing to go to Amsterdam to track down Harold’s new girlfriend Maria so he can profess his love. As they get onto the plane, Kumar makes a reference to the film Eurotrip. He says “this is gonne be just like that movie Eurotrip, only it’s not gonna suck, it’s gonna be awesome”. Well, it turn’s out he’s mostly wrong. While the new Harold and Kumar IS better than Eurotrip, that isn’t saying much. It still sucks.

The opening scene, picking up right where the superior Harold And Kumar Go To White Castle left off, involves a really gross fart joke and an even grosser masturbation scene. It’s not funny, it’s just gross. As far as opening scenes go, this is one of the worst in movies. Now, the film does get (marginally) better as it goes on. There is a good scene at customs that pokes fun at racial stereotypes and airport terrorist profiling. When they get onto the plane, that stereotyping continues, and it’s good for a few more pointed and clever laughs. When Kumar pulls out his smokeless bong in the airplane washroom, however, the laughs end as the incredulity sets in. Rob Corddry, from The Daily Show, provides a few funny moments as the federal interrogator, but again the possibilities for serious social commentary through humour are completely wasted.

Quickly, the pair get arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay, where the inhumane treatment of prisoners is played for laughs, but not clever or pointed ones. And it isn’t funny either. They escape Guantanamo right away, hitch a ride to the U.S. with a boatload of Cuban refugees, get to Miami and go visit a friend. The Cuban immigrants could have provided a pointed satire on American policies on immigration…but they are wasted as well. Instead we get a party with hundreds of hot chicks naked from the waist down. That Eurotrip comparison is getting more and more apt. Harold and Kumar quickly manage to acquire a fancy sports car, and set across the country to finish two gigantic movie cliches - one being clearing their name, and two being to break up a wedding between the love of Kumar’s life and the Bad Guy of the movie.

This cross-country trip is the bulk of the movie, and has some decent moments. There is a lot of satire involving racial politics - the big scary basketball playing black guys who are actually upstanding citizens and orthodontists. The redneck inbreds who have a totally modern trailer equipped with all the modern electronic gizmos. And Rob Corddry, who shows complete insensitivity and utter idiocy when questioning black people, jewish people, Indians and Koreans. But the title of the movie is Harold And Kumar Escape From GUANTANAMO BAY. Guantanamo Bay. One of the most reviled, infamous and easily-lampooned American institutions. So why focus the satire on racial differences, instead of on Guantanamo Bay? Or terrorism? Or the treatment of Arabic-Americans? Or anything that is evoked by the phrase “Guantanamo Bay”? Every single moment that appears to be a set-up for that kind of sharp, intelligent satire is utterly wasted. For example:

Rob Corddry, berating witnesses, uses the phrase “you thought our national security was a joke?” Which is clearly a set-up for a good bit but…nothing. Harold and Kumar are in Gitmo, and they begin to get into a very interesting dialogue with two Middle Eastern men who clearly are terrorists. But just as the conversation reaches the level of interesting, the gay oral sex jokes begin. And then they escape. They are in Guantanamo for what appears to be a total of two minutes. And on their cross-country road trip, the only person they meet who is even close to a Muslim is their buddy who’s throwing the pantsless party. And rather than delve into something deeper, the big joke they get out of this guy is gross full frontal nudity. Hahaha…his penis is gross…

Once again, just as in the first film, the best moments in Harold And Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay come courtesy of Neil Patrick Harris, who has a slightly longer cameo in this one. With Doogie Howser, the boys make it through a roadblock, visit a whorehouse, and have drug-induced hallucinations about unicorns. These are the best parts of the film, and the meeting between Harris and Corddry verges on classic. But as far as the rest of the film goes, it’s pretty difficult to appreciate. I understand why it was made - White Castle was a big, surprise success, so it would stand to reason that they would attempt to capitalize by making a second feature. But a little effort in doing so would have been nice.

The effort, in this case, appears to have been made entirely with the DVD. The bonus features are pretty neat. You can watch the movie on a different setting, one that allows you to control the outcome. Some of the changes are throwaway changes - like, you can make the pantsless party a topless party. Why the filmmakers would have bothered re-filming that entire scene with bare boobs instead of bare bottoms, I don’t know…oh wait. I do know why they would have done that. Other options allow you to change the movie so that you’re watching an entirely different movie, one that was filmed long after the first one was over. If you decide not to let Kumar smoke his bong on the airplane at the beginning, for example, you get a twenty-minute alternate version of the movie where they actually make it to Amsterdam and meet up with Maria, and Kumar falls in love with a new girl and gets married.

But the problem is that these are special features that force you to watch more of a movie that already sucks. And I wouldn’t recommend that.