Ed was recently diagnosed with Acute Leukemia, and is doing his best to keep his spirits up.

Ethan and Aaron help him out by making him talk about cancer and viral outbreak movies!

Please take some time and maybe contribute to his medical expenses and Help Ed Douglas Kick Cancer’s Ass!

Joined by Ed Douglas, they rank and discuss the Marvel Movies, which have come so far in less than a decade!

They discover that the movies in this decade are transitional, mirroring the civil unrest that was going on at the time.

Last chance.

Let’s talk about the Mandarin. If you are familiar with the books you don’t need a Cliffs Notes run down of the character. Wikipedia has this to say:

The Mandarin is portrayed as a genius scientist and a superhumanly skilled martial artist. However, his primary sources of power are ten power rings that he adapted from the alien technology of a crashed space ship. Each ring has a different power and is worn on a specific finger.

Or, in a nutshell, he’s a Mandarin Chinese man with magic alien rings.

This was NOT the portrayal chosen for Iron Man 3. While the media seemed to suggest a more traditional portrayal of the Mandarin, even the official plot synopsis said so:

Tony Stark’s world is torn apart by a formidable terrorist called the Mandarin; he starts an odyssey of rebuilding and retribution.

However this would not be the case. They went a different direction with him, after a series of events cause Tony to go on a crusade to find the Mandarin culminating in Tony finding him in his Malibu home. It is revealed that the man thought to be the Mandarin was in all actuality a washed up, drug addicted, alcoholic stage actor named Trevor Slattery (played by Sir Ben Kingsley) hired by Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) to put a more traditional face on the name of his nefarious plans. Sir Ben was AWESOME, both as the Mandarin, and especially Trevor. He’s the kind of guy I’d like to hang out and eat cake with!

There is an argument that Killian is the REAL Mandarin. He says so in the final battle of the film, which is being touted as evidence by those lacking subtlety and independent thought. I’m more of the impression that there really was no Mandarin, he was nothing more than an idea constructed to throw Tony and the authorities off of Killian’s scent.

As I have hinted at, the comic book purists HATED this, with the general war cry being, “BOO HOO HOO they changed things,” and, “They shouldn’t mess with the Mandarin. He’s Iron Man’s MAJOR villain,” and other boring things like that (I seriously almost fell asleep typing this).

I, on the other hand, loved this twist and I have several reasons for it! Let us deconstruct the Mandarin and really look at these perceived slights against the character.

First off, I’ve noticed that all of the people who take a stance against changing the character on principle quickly betray that stance by showing they don’t actually know the character. They’re basing it on what they think the Mandarin should be. They think he’s:

When this is closer to the truth:

Simply put, the Mandarin is an offensive, archaic relic of the past that we are best moving away from. I’m all for history, but he doesn’t work. Stan Lee had this to say about the creation of Tony Stark:

I think I gave myself a dare. It was the height of the Cold War. The readers, the young readers, if there was one thing they hated, it was war, it was the military….So I got a hero who represented that to the hundredth degree. He was a weapons manufacturer, he was providing weapons for the Army, he was rich, he was an industrialist….I thought it would be fun to take the kind of character that nobody would like, none of our readers would like, and shove him down their throats and make them like him….And he became very popular.

This is fancy, nostalgic talk for, “I made a guy everyone one would hate for shits and giggles.” If we can agree that Tony represents “The Man” then it isn’t too big of a stretch to say the Mandarin represents the “everyman”. High tech vs. low, new age vs. traditional. And frankly, it’s amazing that considering the character was created at the height of the cold war, that he isn’t a freaking Russian!

And to add insult to injury many of the detractors of the Slattery Mandarin say that they should have just updated the character to a Taliban member and it would have worked. Seriously?! Blatant unintelligent racism is EXACTLY what we need in this post 9/11 escapism picture isn’t it?

All of this is fine and dandy. But let’s boil away all of my bullshit rhetoric and look at the Mandarin’s bones: he’s lame and dumb. A martial artist with magic alien rings, versus the one of the most intelligent well-funded people of his age just doesn’t work. ESPECIALLY considering the two previous films. I sometimes like to think above my station and imagine what I’d give as a poster quote for various films. For this one I’d say, “The first two are about the Iron, three is about the man.”

There is a clearly discernible theme running throughout the trilogy of Tony becoming less reliant on technology and not just being “a man in a can”. This final film really beats that drum with Tony, not the suit, being the winning component in the final conflict of the movie. Tony had to battle low tech with high, but not as a 44 year old story of metal vs. magic. The world we live in now is different. Because tech is here to stay, we have to find its place in our lives, not the other way around. This is very true for Tony Stark! He’s got a mini arc reactor in his chest for god’s sake! Anything more than this would be too much.

Like any good hero, he’s got to have a good villain. And that is where the Mandarin comes in, or more specifically Killian. Iron Man 3 nailed what I thought was a more realistic and threatening villain for the times we live in. Let’s face it, what’s the TRUE bigger threat to you? The Taliban, or the fear our society has for what the media tells us the Taliban will do to us? Perpetuation of racism is nothing new. We just have a new face in the Taliban. Think about it. Every time there’s an act of violence, our first thought is, “Terrorists?” when it rarely is. The argument can be made that many acts of violence and prejudice are made out of fear of what those different from us might do to us. And this seems be exactly what Killian relies on. By creating our fears personified in the Mandarin, he creates a lightning rod for the government and Iron Patriot to strike at while he’s safely going to board meetings at Stark Industries looking for corporate financing. I’m more scared of the prospect of a fear mongering, media controlling, weapons maker than I could be of a man with magic alien rings…. But maybe the purists are right, “Screw that, cuz it used to be like this.” Sigh.

What’s inevitable in life? Death and Taxes.  Well, Tax Day was last Monday, and we decided to take a look at some of our favorite movies and characters … and kill ‘em.

It’s a straight-forward show about the best deaths in movies, and we each take a different approach to how death is treated therein …

Memorable posters are just that: memorable.

We then take the gloves off and talk a bit about our favorite movie posters, a slideshow of which you can see below!

Well, he speaks to a lot of people, especially as creators, but we like to think we’re special, so he’s talking to us, not you.

Okay, you, too.

We talk a lot about his film career, but talk more about his most recent developments as a podcaster and, daresay I, visionary and modern-day Renaissance Man who goes where the puck will be rather than where the puck is.

In an entirely unoriginal turn of events, we claim that we came up with it before he did, and launch a whole network.  Oh well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

About Kevin Smith

Kevin Patrick Smith (born August 2, 1970) is an American screenwriter, actor, film producer, and director, as well as a popular comic book writer, author, comedian/raconteur, and internet radio personality.

He came to prominence with the low-budget comedy Clerks (1994), in which he appeared as the character Silent Bob. Smith’s first several films were mostly set in his home state of New Jersey, and while not strictly sequential, they frequently feature crossover plot elements, character references, and a shared canon described by fans as the “View Askewniverse“, named after his production company View Askew Productions, which he co-founded with Scott Mosier.

Smith also directed and produced films such as the buddy cop action comedy Cop Out, as well as the horror film Red State.

Smith is also the owner of Jay and Silent Bob’s Secret Stash, a comic book and novelty store in Red Bank, New Jersey. He co-hosts several weeklypodcasts that are recorded at various locations around the world and released on SModcast Internet Radio. Smith is well known for participating in long, humorous Q&A sessions that are often filmed for DVD release, beginning with An Evening with Kevin Smith.

Pulp Fiction

Pulp Fiction is to me, like the first gal you kissed under a starry night in the country. Sure, I’m a different person now than I was then. Sure it isn’t perfect and at nearly 20 years old it’s starting to show its age. But it will always be special to me.

With its meteoric success, academy award nominations, and wins,it’s hard to recognize this as an independent small budgeted movie. I will grant it wasn’t micro-budgeted,but it was modestly made.

Only with Quentin Tarantino, modesty is impossibility.

modest is for the mortal!

With names like Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken, even John Travolta this doesn’t occur to the uninitiated as a low budget movie.

This is amazing, but this movie’s creative financing isn’t what made me fall in love with it. Matter of fact it took me years to realize what it was that did it.

It was its density. By this I mean everything that was crammed into this movie. Yet it was very streamlined, far from convoluted. What I mean by this is I’d say in the past 19 years I’ve seen this flick 100 times, conservatively! And when I watched this with the trivia track of this movie I was intimately familiar with I actually learned things I didn’t know about the story!

For instance, did you realize it was Butch who keyed Vincent’s car? Or that Vincent isn’t as big of an idiot as he appears when he is killed? That wasn’t his gun he left on the counter. It was Marcellus’ as evidenced by the proximity of Marcellus to Butch’s apartment. And he’s got two cups of coffee! Wild!

Or let’s look at how the surface it seems like a crazy violent movie. Think about it. Nearly all the extreme violence happens off camera. For example, Marvin getting shot. We are reacting to Vince and Jules’ reactions. Plus, despite this movie being about group of loser criminals, while the morality of the movie could be disputed, one cannot argue that it’s karmic at the very least. Most of the bad things happen to bad people. Marcellus, a criminal boss, is raped; Zed, Maynard, and the gimp are all rapists who are killed, the same with the boys executed by Vince and Jules. So despite all the bad things happening in this flick they don’t happen without consequences. That’s just good film making!

I think the thing I love most about Pulp Fiction is simply Quentin’s passion. You don’t have to enjoy his films but no one can deny his love of movies! It’s infectious. And it turned me into who I am today!

This is why Pulp Fiction easily ranks as my #4 favorite movie of all time!

Next week: Little Shop of Horrors!

And that annoys us.

Underrated flicks abound out there in the cinemasphere, and we have our opinions about some of them out there, and want to get you, our dear listener, to seek them out and love them as much as we do.  From the movies that everyone hates and we kinda dig, to the movies that everyone remembers when reminded of and we remember all the time, here you will find a guide to those movies that don’t get rated.

Also, Ethan’s going to be a papa in this episode from the shadowy past of Confessions of a Movie Snob.

That signpost up ahead … you’re about to enter … A Lost Episode!

This annual event pits pop culture movie figures from various eras randomly against one another in a tournament to the death (or near death … or whatever).

Each year, around this time, for the next five weeks, we will be holding an ultimate showdown of pop culture film icons from all kinds of films. Each year, we will randomly select 32 participants from the pool of carefully selected movie heroes and villains, and then pit them against each other in five rounds of fisticuffs, gunfights, and battles of wits and you, our faithful listeners, will vote each week on who will win.

Here are the rules:

1. No characters from comic book movies. Comic books have a long and rich history that will undoubtedly color the judgment of voters. If we limit the selection to movies only, and only from non-mainstream comic book movies, this should help limit that problem. Therefore, no Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Hellboy, etc. Characters that began in film and were later adapted to comic book form is perfectly acceptable.
2. No characters from television. This is for movie roles only.
3. Most characters that originated in literature are also exempt.  There are some exceptions when the character has taken a genuine life of their own in their movies, and become something totally different from the original books.
4. Only one character is eligible from each film and film series. Therefore, only one character from the “Star Wars” films or “James Bond” films would be eligible.

Every two weeks, we post the bracket for the round, with a poll for listeners to vote for winners in each match. If we go with 32 characters, that means the first round would be 16 matches, the second round 8 matches, the third round 4 matches, the fifth round 2 matches, and then the final round.

We’ll announce the winners on the shows the following week, when we will add in the votes of Ethan, Aaron, and whoever our guest host is that week.

Round Two …

There are a lot of rumors flying around about the now-back-in-development Justice League movie from Warner Brothers, and we take a crack at what we’d like to see, and what we’d like to do with this superhero franchise that seems to be teetering on the edge of a knife, one step away from being amazing, and one step away from falling into colossal failure.

About the Justice League

The Justice League, also called the Justice League of America or JLA, is a fictional superhero team that appears in comic books published by DC Comics. First appearing in The Brave and the Bold #28 (February/March 1960), the Justice League originally featured Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash (Barry Allen), Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), Aquaman, and the Martian Manhunter. The team roster has been rotated throughout the years with characters such as Green Arrow, Captain Marvel, Black Canary, the Atom, Hawkman, Elongated Man, Red Tornado, Firestorm, Zatanna, Hawkgirl, Cyborg, and dozens of others. The team received its own comic book title in October 1960, when the first issue was published. It would continue to #261 in April 1987, which was the final issue. Throughout the years, various incarnations or subsections of the team have operated as Justice League America, Justice League Europe, Justice League International, Justice League Task Force, Justice League Elite, and Extreme Justice.

Be sure to check out Manuel’s project “Comics For Christmas” it’s a really unique and good cause!

Ever since then I’ve been trying to build my definitive top 5 list. 4 were easy. But deciding on number five hasn’t been. I’ve  had several flicks in that spot over the past year or so. Until I really thought about it. I’ve decided  my rock solid #5 is…

Shaun of the dead

Shaun of the Dead

I know what you are thinking. ” the zombie movie? Ugh!”

And you’d be partially right. “Shaun of the Dead” is a zombie movie. It has all the zombie movie tropes for sure.

However, if you really look at it as I have you’ll be amazed at just how devastatingly well made it really is!

This is one of those movies that has a little bit of everything, for everyone.

To begin with, it was made fresh off the cult hit “Spaced” with the principal stars, a rocking soundtrack containing hits from Grandmaster Flash, Melle Mel & the Furious 5, to Queen, as well as non heavy handed homages to the classic Romero flicks  from the title, to Shaun’s mum being named Barbara.

But don’t take the general marketability of the flick to mean it doesn’t have its depths.

On top of the general pleasing nature of the flick. It’s also deserving of serious cinematic analysis.

Beyond the zombie apocalypse, another layer of the supernatural can be observed. In the apocalypse being nature’s mechanism for achieving Liz’s desire for Shaun to grow up and offer a stronger commitment to their relationship. Much the same has been suggested for the classic Hitchcock flick. “The Birds”

This is a theory that I fully support, however in an effort to be honest I want you to know that this is not my theory. Actually it was suggested in an essay entitled “MEANINGLESS CAUSE AND DESIRE IN THE BIRDS, SHAUN OF THE DEAD, AND THE WALKING DEAD” written by my friend Craig Fischer, contained in the invaluable “Triumph of the walking dead“, edited by my friend James Lowder. Don’t take my familiarity with the creators as a shameless plug. I find this book to be required reading for any fan of The Walking Dead, zombies, or horror movies in general!

I feel that Mr. Fischer’s analysis is sound based off of the timing of the events coinciding with Liz’s “spectacular binning of Shaun”

 I also see it in the cautionary tale shown in David and Diane’s fate when they were complacent about the reality of their relationship. There is genuine pathos, and tragedy shown when David’s death is directly caused by his jealousy of Shaun. Despite Diane growing up and admitting that David always loved Liz, she still chooses to join David in his fate.

Most interestingly I see it in the story arc of Shaun’s well-meaning and buffoon of a best friend Ed. Ed is obviously a major force in holding Shaun back. Shaun is justifiably protective of Ed. However in a delicious bit of cinematic continuity Ed is bitten and killed and turned by their disapproving roommate’s zombie alter ego. However after the events of the movie we see Shaun and Liz in what appears to be domestic bliss, until it is revealed that Ed’s zombie is kept in the garden shed in what seems to be an effort to compartmentalize Shaun’s life. You know that isn’t going to end well. I see this as a blatant “? ending” as Freddy Kruger’s glove pulling Jason Voorhees’s mask back to hell, and Darth Vader’s revelation that “No, Luke I am your father!”

there is no way this could end badly!

All of this is great. And at the same time this is a movie that finds its way into my Blu-Ray player monthly at least. And I’ve truly gotten a lot of mileage out of what is seen by many to be just a zombie movie. For these reasons and more “Shaun of the Dead” is easily my #5 favorite flick!

Uncool Aaron.

Next week-

We get right down to it and talk about our favorite women in movies … well, some of us do, and some of us talk about the women who kick all kinds of ass in movies.

Who are your favorite kick ass women?

P.S. This episode inspired this wonderful blog entry! Thanks Latanya!

My locked in 5 favorite films of fall time!

Ladies and gentlemen, trees and multiforms!

I Love movies, I’m passionate about movies.
For years now people have been telling me I should be a professional film critic (I prefer the term movie reviewer,  film critic sounds staunch and negative) but my low self esteem and belief that I have nothing to offer have held me back.
Until now. I’m unsuccessful as it is. I’d rather be unsuccessful striving for my dreams. I’ve heard it often enough from enough people that I’m going to give it a try!
But I need to build a portfolio. I’m going to start by reviewing my five favorite flicks. I think my strongest asset as a film reviewer is my ability to express my passion for the flicks I love. And this is a good place to start! Check back the next five Sundays for Aaron’s top 5 favorite flicks! 

This annual event pits pop culture movie figures from various eras randomly against one another in a tournament to the death (or near death … or whatever).

Each year, around this time, for the next five weeks, we will be holding an ultimate showdown of pop culture film icons from all kinds of films. Each year, we will randomly select 32 participants from the pool of carefully selected movie heroes and villains, and then pit them against each other in five rounds of fisticuffs, gunfights, and battles of wits and you, our faithful listeners, will vote each week on who will win.

Here are the rules:

1. No characters from comic book movies. Comic books have a long and rich history that will undoubtedly color the judgment of voters. If we limit the selection to movies only, and only from non-mainstream comic book movies, this should help limit that problem. Therefore, no Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Hellboy, etc. Characters that began in film and were later adapted to comic book form is perfectly acceptable.
2. No characters from television. This is for movie roles only.
3. Most characters that originated in literature are also exempt.  There are some exceptions when the character has taken a genuine life of their own in their movies, and become something totally different from the original books.
4. Only one character is eligible from each film and film series. Therefore, only one character from the “Star Wars” films or “James Bond” films would be eligible.

Each week, we post the bracket for the weekly round, with a poll for listeners to vote for winners in each match. If we go with 32 characters, that means the first round would be 16 matches, the second round 8 matches, the third round 4 matches, the fifth round 2 matches, and then the final round.

This year, we will post the preliminary winners of the first round on January 29, the second round on February 5, the third round on February 12, the fourth round on February 19, and the ultimate winner on Oscar Night, February 26.

We’ll announce the winners on the shows the following week, when we will add in the votes of Ethan, Aaron, and whoever our guest host is that week.

Round One …

Click Here to Vote in the Current Round

The Die Hard series is a series of action movies beginning with Die Hard in 1988, which was based on the 1979 bestselling novel, Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp. All five films are centered on the character of John McClane (portrayed by Bruce Willis), a New York City police detective.

Die Hard (1988)

Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990)

Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

Back by absolutely NO demand, it’s the Indomitable Order of the Zone of Ruthaz, Join Ethan as he leads Aaron, Chris, John, and Paul as they name their Nominees for the newest member of the Zone of Ruthaz!

About Mark Hamill

Mark Richard Hamill (born September 25, 1951) is an American actor, voice artist, producer, director, and writer, best known for his performance asLuke Skywalker in the original Star Wars trilogy, as well as his voice role as the Joker in Batman: The Animated Series, its various spin-offs, and the video games Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City. Hamill has also lent his voice to various other villains and anti-heroes in various other animated productions.

About Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Jerome Tarantino is an American film director, screenwriter, producer, and actor. He has received many industry awards, including an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, a BAFTA and the Palme d’Or and has been nominated for an Emmy and Grammy.

Born in Knoxville, Tennessee, Tarantino was an avid film fan. His career began in the late 1980s, when he wrote and directed My Best Friend’s Birthday. Its screenplay would form the basis for True Romance. In the early 1990s, he began his career as an independent filmmaker with films employing nonlinear storylines, satirical subject matter and the aestheticization of violence that often results in the exhibition neo-noir characteristics. His films include Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Jackie Brown (1997), Kill Bill (2003, 2004), Death Proof (2007),Inglourious Basterds (2009), and the upcoming Django Unchained (2012).

His movies are generally characterized by stylistic influences from grindhouse, kung fu, and spaghetti western films. Tarantino also frequently collaborates with his friend and fellow filmmaker Robert Rodriguez. Tarantino has been dubbed a “director DJ”, comparing his stylistic use of mix-and-match genre and music infusion to the use of sampling a DJ exhibits, morphing a variety of old works to create a new one.

About Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Joseph Leonard Gordon-Levitt is an American actor and director whose career as both a child and an adult has included television and feature films. He is best known for his roles in the films (500) Days of Summer, Inception, 50/50, The Dark Knight Rises, and Looper, and for playing Tommy Solomon in the television sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun. Gordon-Levitt began his career in commercials as a child before making his film debut in Beethoven. He has also starred in 10 Things I Hate About You, Manic, Mysterious Skin, Brick, The Lookout, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and Premium Rush, and played a supporting role in Steven Spielberg‘s Lincoln. He founded the online production company hitRECord, in 2004.

About Peter Jackson

Sir Peter Robert Jackson is a New Zealand film director, producer, actor, and screenwriter, who is well known for his The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (2001 to 2003), adapted from the novel by J. R. R. Tolkien.

He won international attention early in his career with his “splatstick” horror comedies beginning with Bad Taste (1987) before coming to mainstream prominence with Heavenly Creatures (1994), for which he shared an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay nomination with his wife, Fran Walsh. Jackson has been awarded three Academy Awards in his career, including the award for Best Director in 2003; he also won the BAFTA,Golden Globe and Saturn Award for Best Direction the same year.

His films also include Meet the Feebles (1989), Braindead (1992), Forgotten Silver (1995), The Frighteners (1996), King Kong (2005), The Lovely Bones (2009), and the upcoming The Hobbit trilogy, which will include The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013), and The Hobbit: There and Back Again (2014). He also produced District 9 (2009) and The Adventures of Tintin (2011).

Jackson was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2002. He was later knighted (as a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit) by then Governor-General Anand Satyanand at a ceremony in Wellington in April 2010.

About Jessye Sedergren

Jess is a host of the podcast “Don’t Drink the Kool Aid”. she’s active in the skeptics movement with guest spots on “Ardent Atheists with Emery Emery,  Post Raputre-Looting podcast. as well as having a letter read on the Popular WTF With Marc Maron podcast! she currently lives in Seattle, Washington.

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) finds a clue that might help him understand why his parents disappeared when he was young. His path puts him on a collision course with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), his father’s former partner.

All of this is true. However as this is a reboot we need to see how young, nerdy (suspiciously good looking, fit, and stylish nerd, but I digress) Peter Parker comes into his fate as your friendly neighborhood web slinger. This is where rebooting such a successful series so close to its original film is to this movie’s detriment. I get it. I know I’m more knowledgeable about this story than most people are. I get it that not everybody saw the original movies, and that Stan Lee’s idiom that every comic book is somebody’s first is a truth for movies, too. I get it. I understand that story must be established. However, I think 90 minutes of material that we’ve basically seen before is a bit excessive.

But all is not lost; there are definite positives to this newest installment. First off, Andrew Garfield was a much more believable Parker. Some of my favorite moments were some truly awkward moments of post-bitten Peter not understanding his own strength.  Garfield’s awkwardness was much more physical than Tobey Maguire winking at the camera in that “I’m really cool in real life” take on the role. And unlike Bryce Dallas-Howard’s portrayal of Gwen Stacy, Emma Stone chooses to play the character as likable! Add in a few very admirable supporting performances by Martin Sheen, Sally Field, the unoriginal “Asshole” himself, Denis Leary as Captain Stacy , and Rhys Ifan’s harmless turn as Curt Connors, the cast is capable and well rounded.

The real improvement of the series is a tonal shift. Much like this summer’s Prometheus,this really doesn’t feel like a summer movie. Many of the recent summer action extravaganzas feel the need to shove an action beat every 15 minutes or so. This one chooses to more focus on the quieter moments between Peter and Gwen, or Peter and Uncle Ben or Peter and Cpt. Stacy. This was refreshing. I also appreciated the conflicted nature of Dr. Connors. The Doctor was a good but beleaguered man. The Villain of the flick was The Lizard and it doesn’t feel like the suppressed rage within him. It was mostly a chemical reaction or the animalism of The Lizard.

I enjoyed this movie. I still prefer Spiderman 2. The Amazing Spiderman is a close second. However I’m I wondering if I actually enjoyed what is promised in the soon to come sequels. Had the Toby Maguire Trilogy never happened I would have enjoyed this more than I did. Such a close proximity affects. You’ve heard the saying “Too little too late?” well this is the opposite too much too soon.

About Thrillers

Thriller and Suspense Films: These are types of films known to promote intense excitement, suspense, a high level of anticipation, ultra-heightened expectation, uncertainty, anxiety, and nerve-wracking tension. Thriller and suspense films are virtually synonymous and interchangeable categorizations, with similar characteristics and features.

If the genre is to be defined strictly, a genuine thriller is a film that rentlessly pursues a single-minded goal – to provide thrills and keep the audience cliff-hanging at the ‘edge of their seats’ as the plot builds towards a climax. The tension usually arises when the main character(s) is placed in a menacing situation or mystery, or an escape or dangerous mission from which escape seems impossible. Life itself is threatened, usually because the principal character is unsuspecting or unknowingly involved in a dangerous or potentially deadly situation. Plots of thrillers involve characters which come into conflict with each other or with outside forces – the menace is sometimes abstract or shadowy.

‘Battleship’ tells the story of two Navy Brothers one a successful captain (Alexander Skarsgård) and one rebel(Taylor Kitsch) who is forced to join by his brother after an chicken burrito stealing incident gets tazerd. However this fateful chicken burrito stealing incident also gains him the affections of the young daughter (Brooklyn Decker) of a Navy Admiral (Liam Neeson). This is quite a chicken burrito! Whenever I eat one all I gain is indigestion. Not a hot girl and an officers commission in the Navy!

This story is interrupted by aliens! That attack for no other reason that I could tell than ‘just cuz’. Wash, rinse, repeat. I could go into the story but who cares. It’s a story that’s been told several times before. Aggression from a foreign invader but our earthly pluckiness is too much for them to bear. And throw in a badass one liner (Mahalo Motherf—explosion!)  It’s a dumb turn your brain off action flick. What do you expect?

Apparently people expect more. I haven’t seen a more indignant audience in years!  How dare they make a movie based off of a board game? Personally I don’t see this as any more of a stupid of an idea than Transformers, G.I. Joe, Smurfs, or any other of these nostalgia dripping flicks that seem to swell up the summer movie box office.

I didn’t particularly like this movie. It’s not my bag. As much as I enjoy seeing Liam Neeson in anything he’s not enough to save this one.

Overall this movie’s biggest downfall is being based off of ‘Battleship’.   Other than one scene is showing the familiar firing grid, and the aliens using ammunition that us ‘Battleship’ veterans will recognize as the white and red pegs used in the game there is very little connecting it to its source material. This feels like a script that was retrofitted to fit a franchise rather than written from the ground up as ‘Battleship’. But to be fair if they were 100% faithful to the game the entire flick would be a static shot of two fleets shooting at each other until there was a victor. And it seems like people would prefer it if that is what we got.

This isn’t a movie that I enjoy. I don’t hate it. I nothing it. However I am different than most in that not only do I not scream ‘why is this piece of crap being made?’ I completely understand why it’s being made. It’s a studio reaction to all of the nostalgia laden flicks I mentioned earlier. Studios see box office success for movies like that and try to repeat the success. So you don’t have to like this movie. Just understand if you’ve bought tickets to any of those movies then you are complicit in movies like ‘Battleship’ I’ve accepted that fact. So if you hate movies like this then all you have to do is not go. It’s really that simple. movie studios react to silence much more than righteous indignation.

I’m not going to waste time here and go over the plot and characters. You’ve already seen it. If you haven’t you aren’t reading this.

We know it’s a financial success, but what about critical success? I’ve read everything from best comic book movie to date to sucks fucking donkey dick.

Neither review is right, or wrong.

The thing about ‘The Avengers’ is it isn’t a perfect film. There are some pacing issues in the first act, some forced character development, and some laughable dialog. But that’s missing the point. You don’t go watching a movie like The Avengers for David Mamet like dialog. And if you do you have bigger problems than whether or not you like a movie.

‘The Avengers’ is a victory lap for marvel studios. It’s the culmination of the past successes from the original ‘Iron Man’ forward. It doesn’t waste our time telling us who these characters are again. It knows that we’ve all seen the previous movies. And if you haven’t the characters aren’t exactly Hamlet. But don’t distress! Tony Stark briefly tells Loki who they are all in case you weren’t paying attention.

I liked ’The Avengers’. I liked it a lot.  That’s not to say it doesn’t have its problems. But they don’t really matter. By the time you start analyzing what’s going on you are treated to some really clever Joss Whedon dialog. And as soon as you are done laughing you are treated to some awesome eye candy. I’d recommend skipping your Ritalin that day because ‘The Avengers’ is an assault on your senses but in a good way if you get my meaning.

It has the over the top action that is a staple in summer movies. And if that’s not what you want you should sit this one out. It suits this movie.  You shouldn’t be expecting a psychological romp full of social minutia. Let’s say the third act puts aside the action for Loki and Tony Stark playing a chess game for the fate of the world. That would be a bigger sin that Iron Man going mouth to ass on a giant space centipede could ever be.

The stand out in this movie was Mark Ruffalo’s take on the Hulk. He really seems to have done his homework for this role. He nailed the balance between rage and super genius that we’ve been sorely missing in the previous Hulk movies. And add to that Joss Whedon knows the character. He understands the power that he is holding at bay and gives us a real reason to be afraid of making him angry!

So all in all I liked it. It’s not a perfect film. But I think it just might be a perfect Avengers movie. For my taste I still prefer some of the previous Marvel films to this one for the same reason I’m not a big X-men movies. I prefer a smaller more personal story.

But support of one thing isn’t criticism for another.

We were assigned to write an essay about the films and what they meant to us, and I felt that people who follow Confessions of a Movie Snob might be slightly interested in reading it.

For those of you who are wondering, we will most certainly be doing an Alfred Hitchcock episode in the future, but, in the meantime, enjoy some of my thoughts and experiences that revolve around the master, Alfred Hitchcock:

I’ve been a fan of Hitchcock for many years.  He is arguably the most influential director in the history of cinema, having influenced the likes of Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan, and countless others.  His impact can be attributed to his lengthy 50 year career as a film director in Great Britain and Hollywood, covering such dynamic films from “The Lodger” in 1927, “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” in 1941, to “Frenzy” in 1972.  During his career, Hitchcock showed that he could direct all kinds of films, from romantic comedies to thrillers to outright horror films.  It is in the four-year microcosm of 1950 to 1963 that we can see the dynamic range of Alfred Hitchcock, and see several films that vary in size, scope, and tone that have gone on for generations to shape and mold modern directors today.

I grew up watching James Bond movies when I was a kid.  I remember vividly watching “Dr. No” and “Thunderball” with my father in our family room some evenings, munching away on popcorn and not catching the overt innuendos present in the sexually charged films.  I was young and didn’t notice that kind of thing. A “James Bond” film is a genre in and of itself, much like a “Hitchcock” film is as well.  Little did I know when I was young and wide-eyed sitting on my parent’s living room floor that a man who would eventually become one of my all-time favorite directors, Alfred Hitchcock, made a “James Bond” movie three years before “Dr. No” exploded across movie screens around the world.  In 1959, Alfred Hitchcock released “North by Northwest,” a glamorous Hollywood production with huge stars and exotic locations, featuring megastars Cary Grant and James Mason.  Watching this film for the umpteenth time, I realized it was a giant spectacle, showcasing huge panoramic set-pieces and notorious villains.  It had action, chases, and all kinds of thrills – just like a James Bond film.  “North by Northwest” had to be a clear influence on directors like Terence Young and Guy Hamilton, but it’s not a connection one generally thinks of when performing a comparison between a film like “North by Northwest” and “From Russia with Love.”  However, it’s clear that the famous crop-duster sequence in “North by Northwest” had to be an influence on Terrence Young when he filmed the scene in “From Russia with Love” when James Bond is terrorized by a helicopter.  It is this kind of creativity that a director like Hitchcock cultivated in his peers.  I’ve grown to love and cherish “North by Northwest” for its charm, wit, and pure Hollywood style.  Where the sexuality and action were front and center in James Bond films of the time, “North by Northwest” was subtle in its panache.  Hitchcock’s sleight of hand in the sexual tones of the film is startling when realizing that “North by Northwest” was released in 1959, in the middle of Code-era Hollywood.  Hitchcock was able to do a huge film with huge stars and control every aspect of the movie with flair and deliberate execution.

Fascinatingly, one year after releasing “North by Northwest,” Hitchcock does a small, low-budget, black-and-white “slasher” film in “Psycho.”  Notwithstanding the mesmerizing performance by Anthony Perkins, whose iconic portrayal of Norman Bates was surely in the mind of Anthony Hopkins when he slid behind the Plexiglas in “Silence of the Lambs” as Hannibal Lecter, Hitchcock shows filmmakers and film-goers alike that you can tell a compelling, memorable story without spending a large amount of money.  Turning away from the huge sparkle of “North by Northwest,” the grittiness and edge of “Psycho” shows us a surreal world of madness and murder.  Hitchcock, who made Perry Mason menacing in “Rear Window,” takes a small, lanky nice-looking man like Anthony Perkins, and turns him into a terrifying powerhouse that sets a benchmark for all psychotic murderers in films to come for the next 30 years.  In particular, the various scenes in Norman’s parlor are quite compelling, with the looming, fearsome birds of prey hanging high on the ceiling, and the timid, shy woodland birds nesting on the furniture.  The Parlor itself is a representation of Norman’s mind, a thing that is serene, yet menacing with a miasmic presence of oppression and fear that hovers over it in each scene, like Norman’s mother hovers over Norman even after her death, and how the stolen money hovers over Marion Crane when she is making her escape from Arizona.  Not only did Hitchcock create a terrifying movie, he also sets an example for filmmakers that you can scare people without disgusting them, a lesson many horror directors have forgotten in the last 30 years.

Finally, Hitchcock ends his four year journey with “The Birds.”  Again showing how dynamic he can be as a filmmaker, Hitchcock presents us with what seems like a tried-and-true “Hitchcockian” formulaic film with a pretty, sexually aggressive blond and a boy who lives with his domineering, overprotective mother.  However, Hitchcock pulls back the curtain to reveal that he’s just playing a trick on us – the boy is really a successful man, not “castrated” at all in his ability to get things done, the woman actually is looking for a maternal figure in her life, and needing some stability and happiness, and the mother is just concerned about not being needed any more.  There are no sinister motives from any of the characters in the film whatsoever.  Everyone turns out to be genuine and forthcoming in their complex, but normal, personalities.  It’s then as if Hitchcock decides that this world is clearly run its course, and brings those birds back from Norman’s parlor in “Psycho” and lets them loose on the perfect world being created in “The Birds.”   This film feels like a natural follow-up to “Psycho” in that when Norman is sitting there, staring us down at the end of the film, he is about to share with us a metaphorical fable about what happened in his mind that caused him to do what he’s done.  In that sense, “The Birds” is an allegory to a descent into madness in one’s own mind.  Everything seems fine, and then an unstoppable, but familiar force descends and throws your perfect world of Bodega Bay into chaos.  Not only does Hitchcock turn heels and, instead of giving us a clear villain like he did in Norman Bates, a villain with a face and tangibility that acts like a force of nature, he gives us a force of nature that acts like a tangible villain in “The Birds.”

Hitchcock is probably one of the strongest influences on film in history.  His silhouette acts more like a shadow, stretching across decades of filmmaking providing shelter and inspiration to countless generations of filmmakers in decades past, and decades to come.  Hitchcock left a legacy of fantastic work that is, luckily, still available for consumption to brand new audiences over 30 years after his death.  It takes a true visionary to create something that is timeless, and Hitchcock has done that, like DaVinci with his paintings, Michelangelo with his sculptures, and Beethoven with his music.

A superhero film, superhero movie, or superhero motion picture is: action, fantasy and science fiction film; that is focused on the actions of one or more superheroes, individuals who usually possess superhuman abilities relative to a normal person and are dedicated to protecting the public. These films are almost always action-oriented, and the first film of a particular character often includes a focus on the origin of the special powers including the first fight against the character’s most famous supervillain archenemy.

Most superhero movies are based on comic books, where the fantasy genre is most dominant in the medium’s mainstream image. By contrast, several films such as the RoboCop series, Darkman, The Meteor Man, Up, Up, and Away, Unbreakable, The Incredibles,Hancock and Megamind are original, while The Green Hornet is based primarily on the original radio series and its 1960s television adaptation, and Underdog is based on a classic cartoon.

A film director is a person who directs the actors and film crew in filmmaking. They control a film’s artistic and dramatic aspects, while guiding the technical crew and actors.

A new director working on feature films might earn as much as $200,000 a year, while the most successful can earn over $500,000 per film plus a “back-end” percentage of the profits, which in some cases can lift their income to several million dollars.

Directors are responsible for overseeing creative aspects of a film under the overall control of the film producer. They often develop the vision for a film and carry out the vision, deciding how the film should look, in other words they make their vision come to life. They are responsible for turning the script into a sequence of shots. They also direct what tone it should have and what an audience should gain from the cinematic experience. Film directors are responsible for deciding camera angles, lens effects and lighting with the help of the cinematographerand set design with the production designer. They will often take part in hiring the cast and key crew members. They coordinate the actors’ moves, or blocking and also may be involved in the writing, financing and editing of a film.

The director works closely with the cast and crew to shape the film. Some like to conduct rigorous rehearsals in preproduction while others do so before each scene. In either case, this process is essential as it tells the director as well as other key members of the crew (director of photography, stunt coordinator, hair stylist, etc.), how the actors are going to play the scene, which enables them to make any necessary adjustments. Directors often use storyboards to illustrate sequences and concepts and a director’s viewfinder to set up camera angles.

The director also plays a key role in post-production. He or she works with the editor to ensure that the emotions of the scene and the close ups, mid-shots and wide or long shotsappropriately reflect which character is driving the narrative. The director also advises on the (colour) grading of the final images, adding warmth or frigidity to the composition of the shots to reflect the emotional subtext of the character or environment. The director will sometimes participate in the sound mix and musical composition of the film. In the subsequent promotion of the finished film, if a director is well known his name and image is used to promote the film alongside the stars of the film, but having an image is not the primary function of a director, as they are judged by their creative talent and ability to run a production. It is the second most powerful “behind the scenes” profession in the movie industry, after the producer, but the director traditionally has complete control “on the floor”.

And we name off the newest inductee in the zone of ruthaz!

Documentary Films strictly speaking, are non-fictional, “slice of life” factual works of art – and sometimes known as cinema verite. For many years, as films became more narrative-based, documentaries branched out and took many forms since their early beginnings – some of which have been termed propagandistic or non-objective.

Documentary films have comprised a very broad and diverse category of films.

Originally, the earliest documentaries in the US and France were either short newsreels, instructional pictures, records of current events, or travelogues (termedactualities) without any creative story-telling, narrative, or staging. The first attempts at film-making, by the Lumiere Brothers and others, were literal documentaries, e.g., a train entering a station, factory workers leaving a plant, etc.

The first documentary re-creation, Sigmund Lubin’s one-reel The Unwritten Law (1907) (subtitled “A Thrilling Drama Based on the Thaw-White Tragedy”) dramatized the true-life murder — on June 25, 1906 — of prominent architect Stanford White by mentally unstable and jealous millionaire husband Harry Kendall Thaw over the affections of showgirl Evelyn Nesbit (who appeared as herself). [Alluring chorine Nesbit would become a brief sensation, and the basis for Richard Fleischer's biopic film The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing (1955), portrayed by Joan Collins, and E.L. Doctorow's musical and film Ragtime (1981), portrayed by an Oscar-nominated Elizabeth McGovern.]

The first official documentary or non-fiction narrative film was Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North (1922), an ethnographic look at the harsh life of Canadian Inuit Eskimos living in the Arctic, although some of the film’s scenes of obsolete customs were staged. Flaherty, often regarded as the “Father of the Documentary Film,” also made the landmark film Moana (1926) about Samoan Pacific islanders, although it was less successful. [The term 'documentary' was first used in a review of Flaherty's 1926 film.] His first sound documentary feature film was Man of Aran (1934), regarding the rugged Aran islanders/fishermen located west of Ireland’s Galway Bay. Flaherty’s fourth (and last) major feature documentary was his most controversial, Louisiana Story (1948), filmed on location in Louisiana’s wild bayou country.

Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, better known for King Kong (1933), directed the landmark documentary Grass: A Nation’s Battle for Life (1925), the first documentary epic, which traced the travels of the Bakhtyari tribe in Persia during their migrational wanderings to find fresh grazing lands. The filmmakers’ next film was the part-adventure, travel documentary filmed on location in the Siamese (Thailand) jungle,Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927), about a native tribal family.

Other European documentary film-makers made a series of so-called non-fictional city symphonies. Alberto Cavalcanti and Walter Ruttman directed Berlin – Symphony of a Big City (1927, Ger.) about the German city in the late 1920s. Similarly, the Soviet Union’s (and Dziga Vertov’s) avante-garde, experimental documentary The Man with a Movie Camera (1929, USSR) presented typical daily life within several Soviet cities (Moscow, Kiev, Odessa) through an exhilarating montage technique. And French director Jean Vigo made On the Subject of Nice (1930). Sergei Eisenstein’s October (Oktyabr)/10 Days That Shook the World (1928, USSR) re-enacted in documentary-style, the days surrounding the Bolshevik Revolution, to commemorate the event’s 10th anniversary.

It’s a diverse range of movies, and a totally subjective look at various genres and movies, and we even apologize a few times for liking some bad, bad movies.  Guilty pleasure movies cover a wide range of film, but they generally are bad in some way, shape, or form, and we’re totally enamored with them for one reason or another.

In this episode, Ethan and Aaron talk about their Oscar picks for the 84th Annual Academy Awards.  They give you a run down of the nominees, and try to make some sense of the nominations while, at the same time, pick their winners.

They also give us an update on the latest round of the Pop Culture Movie Showdown, and also talk a bit about the newest round of Indomitable Order of the Zone of Ruthaz nominations!

It’s easy to review movies that I hate or love. I find it difficult to review the movies that fall somewhere in between, the ones that neither please nor offend me.

I have chosen to brand these as “movies I nothing”. “The Woman in Black” is one such movie.

“The Woman in Black” tells the story of Arthur Kipps, a single father ever since his wife died giving birth to their young son Joseph (Misha Handley). Arthur is a lawyer who is tasked with settling the estate of Alice Darblow, owner of Eel Marsh where she lived with her husband, son, and sister.

Kipps’s boss at the firm tells him in no uncertain terms that settling the estate is his last chance or he will no longer be employed.

Kipp finds himself unwelcome at the nearby village and when he gets to work at Eel Marsh he finds various supernatural forces working against him.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

This is a story we’ve all seen before in some form or another. The Comparisons to “Dracula” are particularly difficult to overlook, be it the locals who refuse him lodging to encourage him to let sleeping dogs lie, or the carriage driver refusing to take him to a residence that local legend says is haunted.

Although these comparisons are fun considering “Dracula” is a tale that has been told by Hammer Studios before.  Hammer Studios was resurrected in 2007 by Dutch consortium Cyrte Investments, and this is the fifth movie produced by the resurrected studio.

One thing that stands out in this story is the character of Arthur Kipps.  Played by Harry Potter alumni Daniel Radcliffe, much of this story rests on scenes of Radcliffe reacting to various horror story beats.

He’s neither bad nor good. I do commend Radcliffe on effective portrayal of the internal sadness of his character. There are no scenes of him breaking down crying at photos of his wife. Instead we rely on seeing his sadness in his face and actions.

His son is his reason for doing everything, and had his son died in childbirth, I doubt Arthur would have found any reason to continue living.

“The Woman in Black” was directed by James Watkins, whose only other directorial effort is 2008’s”Eden Lake.” He shows expertise in the making of “The Woman in Black..”

While the sets and scenery look very convincing, the only part of his direction I take issue with is how he sets up the shock beats.

In any horror film, there are parts that are meant to scare the viewer! In “The Woman in Black,” I found these moments telegraphed.

You could see them coming a mile away and as soon as I figured out his style, Iwas pointing out what was going to happen before it did.

I will admit that if you don’t over-analyze the film, you might find yourself jumping more than once.

Then there is the ending …

Without getting into specifics, I do not know what to make of the ending.

Is it supposed to be happy or sad?  Is it supposed to be bittersweet or the start of a new chapter?

I’m all for not being spoon-fed in a movie and coming to my own conclusions, but this movie isn’t cohesive enough to justify taking a stand.

There isn’t enough of a connection to any of the characters for this to feel necessary — the protagonist doesn’t seem to care about anything but his son, so there is little to connect with him as a character. You see so little of his son that you don’t feel any connection to his well-being.

With the antagonist, her story isn’t fleshed out enough to understand her. Is she justified? Or was she a bad person in life as well as in death?

Ultimately, there’s no emotional connection to make you care, so the matter is irrelevant.

Those that know me will back me in my saying that I am a 6^th degree, black belt Hammer Horror fan. If they put it out, I’ve seen it and I’ve damn well got an opinion of it.

To me there are few film team ups as great as Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. I think that this has, and will continue to harm me in this, and all future Hammer Studios productions.

It has some of the tropes the classic Hammer films, such as the village pub being the Victorian equivalent of an internet chat room. It’s where they go for all of their information, and instead of help, they find a venomous elitist group who don’t take kindly to an outsider coming in and asking questions.

One thing that I’ve come to expect from hammer studios productions is the movie ending on an unfocused still shot of the vanquished baddie (usually Christopher Lee). Don’t take this to mean I’m looking for a happy ending all of the time. Instead I just suggest this thought, instead of the ending we were given in this film, how much would have changed had the movie ended as soon as we see the final shovel full of dirt fall on the coffin?

I’ve come to realize that little would change.

This ending wouldn’t suggest that the original ending couldn’t have happened.  It leaves it up to the viewer to supply the ending to the film based off of what they’ve taken out of it.

In this case, an ending like that would have really helped this movie because what we were left with left much to be desired.

All this being said I still don’t know what to take out of this movie. It’ isn’t particularly good or bad. I’ve seen this type of story before, but there are things that help this one stand out above the others.

Ultimately only you can decide if you want to see a movie and I cannot help you make that decision. If you want to see it then do so, just don’t expect a classic Hammer studios production from it.

So I’m not one to expertly dissect and analyze a film like “The Vow.”

“The Vow” is a film starring Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum, and it revolved around the married couple after a tragic car accident wipes out the memory of Paige (McAdams) for the last several years, including the time that she met, fell in love with, and married Leo (Tatum).

The film is based on a true story of Kim and Krickitt Carpenter.

It’s an expected outing of a film starring McAdams, especially, from her past in films like this one, such as “The Notebook.”

The strongest point of the film is the chemistry and charisma of its stars.

Tatum and McAdams sell a very believable, lovable couple of young adults.  Their circle of friends doesn’t seem contrived, nor does the history with the parents of Paige.

It was a nice treat to see Sam Neill back in a film again, being a fan of his from back in the days of “Jurassic Park.”  Neill plays Paige’s judge father, Bill Thornton, and he is joined by another recognizable star in Jessica Lange, playing Paige’s mother, Rita.

The film goes against the conventions of the genre by pulling a few tricks out of its sleeve, and not being cliche when it comes to the usual suspects in a film like this.

For instance, Scott Speedman plays Jeremy, the former fiancee of Paige, and we, at first, don’t know why Paige left him.  We automatically assume that he cheated on Paige, giving her the life-changing instigation she needs to end up with Leo.

As an overall “Chick Flick,” this movie delivers.  It’s not high art, but it’s a good movie to go to with your sweetheart.

Check out her musings here.

While along with everything, this list has its detractors as well as those that want an addendum added to this list. However, this is generally agreed to as “The List.”  All stories fall into this classification, and many stories combine any number of these elements.

“The Grey” is a story that combines all of them.

It is unique in that depending upon which element you follow one could find this movie anywhere from faith affirming, to down-right awful.

“The Grey” (2012 dir. Joe Carnahan) focuses on a small group of oil workers who are stranded in the great white north following a fantastically visceral airplane crash. Afterwards they soon learn that they are being hunted and systematically killed by a pack of resident wolves.

Serving as the de-facto leader of the group is Ottway (Liam Neeson). His authority comes not from his position held in the company, but from his knowledge and experience with wolves.

At one point, we witness Ottway screaming to the heavens for God to acknowledge his plight and to show himself to him. After giving God a fair chance to show himself, it becomes clear to Ottway that God is not going to show.  He growls in a way that only Liam Neeson is capable of and says, “Fine I’ll do it myself!”

Retirement plans, stock options, and keys to the executive wash room be damned! I’d be following Ottway, too!

Ottway is a man’s man, a hard-drinking, wolf-killing badass.  At one point he makes Wolverine claws out of minibar booze bottles and electrical tape!

Snikt, snikt, wolfaboos!

However, this isn’t 1959 and John Wayne doesn’t star in this film.

In our introduction to the character, Carnahan shows that Ottway doesn’t care if he lives or dies, so therefore, neither do we.

Something remarkable happens then and we really do learn to care about these characters and root for their survival.

I found myself wondering about half-way through the movie whether or not this is a situation they can actually survive.

Part of Ottway’s turmoil comes from his lover, almost ethereal in her beauty. Her story is told to us through his dreams in moments of semi-consciousness. We mostly see her and Ottway sharing a bed and her telling him, “Don’t be afraid.”

The most emotional of moments come in silent moments of anguish over being separated from his lover. This was especially difficult to watch knowing Neeson’s own loss of his wife in a freak skiing accident.

Neeson is a good enough actor to have been capable of this kind of emotion long before the loss of his wife, yet he is a brave enough actor to drag that back up to show us genuine loss.

Furthermore, Ottway isn’t without compassion. Following the crash, and finding a mortally wounded passenger, Ottway takes the time out to bluntly tell him that he is going to die and then helps the man die with dignity, having the man cling to thoughts of his daughter.

Neeson has rarely been better.

Notice that Ottaway is the only character that I’ve mentioned thus far. This isn’t solely based off my bias for Liam Neeson.

Not solely.

The other characters serve as little else than something for Ottway to talk at, or for something for Ottway to kick the crap out of. They essentially serve the same purpose as Wilson from “Castaway.”

For that matter with a few more passes on the script this could have been reworked as a one man show for Neeson, like “Castaway” or “I am Legend.”  Liam Neeson is a great enough actor for this to have worked.

From the little I’ve read about other peoples’ reactions to this, the main point of contention seems to come from the ending.

Like many movies lately, the ending leaves you with more questions than it does answers.

I’m not put off by this.

I saw it as an exercise in faith and it wisely allows you to come to your own conclusions about what happened.

In this information-drenched age, many movie goers seem to resent being made to think. They would rather be told what happened than have the burden placed upon them to decide for themselves.

Not even the after-credits scene will answer any of your questions. It only compounds those questions that the pre-credits ending left you with.

This is a movie that encourages you to think, and that is a sign of a good movie!