"Transformers: Age Of Extinction" - - Really, dude? Transformium?

It probably won't surprise any of my regular readers that I'm a fan of Michael Bay's "Transformers" series. Now, before you hipsters choke on your $100 scarfs, first let me say this: Why is it that people who hate "Transformers" seemed to love "Pacific Rim?" They're the same movie, except in "Transformers" I can actually see what is going on instead of watching two . . .somethings wrestle 10 miles beneath the ocean surface. They both have the same flaws (awful humor, boring "character" development). So why does "Pacific Rim" get a pass.

*I think you should know how bad this movie is if I'm comparing it to Pacific Rim, but let's continue on anyways.

"Robocop" - - This Tin Man Has A Heart, But No Brain

Oh Robocop. How you influenced so many childhoods with your reckless violence. Back in the 80's and 90's, it was normal for an R-rated film to be made into toys and cartoons for kids. Rambo had his own cartoon, Aliens had it's own toy line, and Robocop had not one but two cartoon series along with a slew of action figures.



 "Robocop. Robocop. Roboooooooocop. Robocop. Robocop, Robooooocop. Oh Yeah. Robocop. Robocop. Robooooooooooocop. ROBOCOP!" Just in case you missed the lyrics.

So it's a little odd that an ultra-violent movie about the overreaching arm of corporate greed can become an animated series were Robocop has enough gadgets to have him promoted to Inspector, and then in turn become a PG-13 movie that spends half of it's time using animation in lieu of practical effects. But again, we're talking about an industry that turned a dark horror movie about a man eating plant into a Broadway musical, then back into a movie, then eventually into this:

My favorite episode is when the dentist
showed up high on laughing gas and pimp slapped Seymour.

But we're not here to discuss Hollywood's need to regurgitate it's product into every available medium. That's obvious and it's been said a hundred times over. The question is: "Is Robocop (2014), on it's own, a good movie?"

The answer, sadly, is no.

"Baby Geniuses 3" - - Where's Casey Anthony When You Need Her?

A long while back, a good friend of mine named Santiago had confessed something horrible that was happening to him that he was powerless to stop.

"My daughter, all she ever wants to watch is Godzilla (The Matthew Broderick version). Three, four times a day, it's just on repeat."

I worked at a movie theater when "Godzilla" came out. One of the privileges of working there was the free movies. Well, one day I had some time to kill so I went to the theater. Two "good" movies were playing at the time: "Godzilla" and "Deep Impact." The problem was "Deep Impact" was in theater 9, and there was a dead rat in there. It had been in there for a few days and despite several attempts we couldn't find it's corpse. Theater 9 stank so bad people would ask for their money back. Now, when you smell, what you are actually doing is inhaling the microscopic particles of whatever is causing the smell. So I knew I had a choice between watching "Godzilla" or inhaling decaying rat guts for two and half hours.

"Deep Impact" was a pretty good movie.

"Cat Shit One" - - Watershit Down

Oh "Cat Shit One," you know if any movie would bring me out of kidney stone induced retirement it would be something nonsensical like you.

"Cat Shit One" is the story of two rabbits shooting a bunch of camels in the Middle East. Iraq, presumably, maybe Afghanistan. It doesn't seem to matter. And that's the problem.

"Cat Shit One" is based on a comic book (or manga for you nerds out there) about an anthropomorphised Vietnam war. The rabbits were the US, the Viet Cong were cats, the British were rats, etc. No ninja turtles, so I never read it, but according to Wikipeida it's been an ongoing series since 1998. The Animated Series, of which there is only one episode released since 2010, updated the conflict an unnamed Middle Eastern country.

But you see, when I think of cats I don't think of Vietnamese people. The analogy doesn't quite work so it just is there. But when you portray Arabs as camels i.e. camel jockeys being a racist term, it's a little less fun and a lot more bigoted.

"Assault On Wall Street" - - Talk Is Cheap, But So Is Ammunition

I'm going to start this review out with a link to "National Suicide Prevention Hotline's website."

That's not a joke like "Oh my God this movie is so bad you'll want to kill yourself." There is a really intense, sad, and realistic  suicide scene in "Assault On Wall Street." So if you're ever thinking about that, remember there is always someone out there to help you out.

Now on with the review.

Uwe Boll is known among genre film fans for making two of the worst movies that you'll ever come across. "House Of The Dead" and "Alone In The Dark" were both based on video games and they were both terrible for different reasons. "Alone In The Dark" was too boring. "House Of The Dead" was too . . . well, words cannot explain.



If you noticed there is no house in that trailer, you're not alone.

Anyways, Uwe Boll has a legion of haters who dog his every move, and a petition was started to get him to stop making movies. For a long time he was able to crank out film after film with (allegedly) huge tax breaks from the German government but those ended and he had to move on from films like "Bloodrayne," "In The Name Of The King," "BloodRayne 2," "Far Cry," and "Bloodrayne: The Third Reich." All of those are video games turned into movies and all of them are bad to mediocre.

But as a fan of bad cinema, I knew I had to watch anything Uwe Boll puts out. After all, this is the guy who hates critics so much he challenged them to a boxing match. So when I found out Boll directed a movie based on the Columbine shootings I knew it was going to be full of cheesy goodness.

Nope. I was wrong. His film "Heart of America" was actually good. Surprisingly good. Not just good by my low expectations based on his previous films, but it was a well-done character study about two out of place kids looking to take a little bit of that helplessness out of their lives. It's been 5 years since I've seen that movie and parts of it still stick out and I watch a lot of movies. I've forgotten I watched "Elysium" twice already and I just saw that a few weeks ago.

So in my mind, two Uwe Bolls existed (and yes, I'm getting to the review of "Assault On Wall Street" don't rush me!). There was the Uwe Boll who made some awful films and the Uwe Boll who made awesome films. Every so often a director might make a misstep in their career but with Boll it seemed like each leg was going in a different direction.

He actually made a good movie based on a video game, "Postal," which told the story of a dude who gets pushed around by society and decides to push back. It was crass and insane and very, very violent. And it worked. His movie "1968: Tunnel Rats" was about brotherhood and fear in a time of war. Trite? Sure, but it was well made. You felt claustrophobia kicking in even when they weren't crawling through dark tunnels peppered with traps.

And then he made "Rampage."



Insane, sick, perverse, violent "Rampage." As a film it offers no moral critique on gun control or mass shootings. It is as if we are a cameraman in a war zone and unable to interfere or interject in any way. It's brutality is what makes it work. And the ending is jaw dropping and I don't say that often regarding twists but it is.

As shocking as "Rampage" is, it is a film I enjoyed watching. I'm not sure I could do it a second time, but it is a great piece of "terror cinema." The book "The Collector" has been found in the possession of multiple serial killers of the years  and I'm sure "Rampage" has unfortunately inspired or may inspire in the future mass shootings. That aside, and that's a big aside, I recommend "Rampage."

NOW ON TO THE REVIEW which I'm sure you were all wondering if I would ever get to.

"Assault On Wall Street" is another take on Uwe Boll's version of the Angry White Male but this time the parts just don't add up. This movie does a lot of things right, but some key choices make this movie too didactic.

The movie is rife with speeches about how capitalism is evil and the working class gets crushed under the blocks of the pyramid. Which is fine. I think a lot of people feel that way. But this is brought up constantly throughout the film, to the point that even the main bad guy (a Wall Street hawk who makes his company screw the small investors) gives a speech about how he is such a bad guy and America was founded by bad guys and there is nothing any one can do about it.

He's saying that, by the way, as a gun is pointed at his head.

It would have been more powerful if in the end we didn't know who to side with because that is what is happening anyways. Some people love the system and some hate it but most don't really care. They want what they want and they either get it or they don't. But having it so black/white, the movies loses some of it's punch. To see the bad guy at the end actually defend capitalism the way someone on Wall Street would could make the viewer more torn over the hero's journey and add heft to the film.

There's also more than a few scenes of economic talk between somebody and our protagonist. And that may work when we believe our protagonist is capable of understanding anything that is being said.

"Give me your lunch money . . .and a second mortgage on my house."

There's a reason my little brother laughed out loud when I told him Mark Walhberg was playing a scientist in the next Transformers movie. Some people look like lunk heads. Dominic Purcell is a fine actor. He just looks like someone who would beat me up at a bar. It's discriminatory on my part but every time they cut back to him during a discussion he looked like he was listening to someone sing opera in sign language. He doesn't look like the "Everyman" he looks like the "EveryCaveman."

So we have long winded speeches to a character who looks like he can't spell APR. Why would I recommend this movie?

The descent from family man to mass murderer is done right.

Unlike "Alyce Kills," this movie has a slow steady drip of disasters. It's not one pivotal moment that affects the characters but weeks and months of constant crap that finally causes action. For someone to say "I think I'm going to murder someone" either takes a split second bad judgment call or planning. In "Assault On Wall Street" we see both happen and by the end it is a realistic conclusion to someone who had lost everything. It's not just that he has one bad stock investment. The brokerage house comes under investigation, he has mounting debt, his career as an armored car driver is in jeopardy because they are bonded. He borrows money, hires a lawyer to sue the brokerage which declares bankruptcy so now he has to hire a bankruptcy lawyer. It's just one thing after another.

I'd recommend this movie to people who can stomach both the speeches and the violence. It's also an interesting character study but I'm sure most people will rent it because they like the message: Wall Street Sucks. Those people will not be disappointed.

But to me, its a bit of a disappointment because my hopes were so high after "Rampage." So that's a good thing, Mr. Boll. I actually have high expectations now when I see your name on a film.

Keep making movies, buddy.