The Flop 10 – the Worst Ten Films of 2012

Upon me falls the sad duty to take stock and tell you, honestly, what were the worst or most disappointing ten films of 2012. So here we go.

 

10 To Rome With Love

Some films feature on this list, not because they were objectively amongst the worst films of the year, but because they were very disappointing in comparison to a precursor. After the surprisingly ironic and thoughtful Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen’s return to farce and stereotype – even though not without some good jokes – is one of these disappointments.

 

9 Wrath of the Titans

Wrath of the Titans is the opposite of To Rome With Love: An equally clear and unexpected improvement on the first film of the franchise. However, when that first film is the abismal Clash of the Titans, this by no means indicates that Wrath… is any good. At least it did feature an actual titan…

 

8 Man on a Ledge

Poor Sam Worthington stars in two movies on this list. Bu unlike Wrath of the Titans, Man on a Ledge actually had the balls to pretend it was a smart and sophisticated thriller. Something that was finally disproved when Genesis Rodriguez (that’s her actual name) strips down with no apparent reason in the plot. Nice to look at, but utterly stupid. Much like the film then.

 

7 Dark Shadows

Perhaps we should give Tim Burton some credit for actually trying to adapt a crap soap opera. Perhaps. But Burton has a reputation. He has talent – as he showed later in the year with the gorgeous Frankenweenie. For a film maker of Burton’s stature there is simply no excuse for making something so boring and incoherent.

 

6 The Watch

Alien invasion films are so 2011. Vince Vaughn was never funny in the first place. Stiller must be expected to deliver more. Jonah Hill was supposed to have grown up a bit after Moneyball. And the fabulous Richard Ayoade deserves a much better Hollywood debut. Extra dislikes for ruining an apparently original set-up.

 

5 On the Road

It is good that we now know for certain that Jack Kerouac’s famous beatnik novel does not translate well to film. And is genuinely outdated. Terribly unlikable characters are a stallwart of the worst fiolms of 2012, and On the Road is no example. Especially the talented female actors in this film (Kristen Stewart and Kirsten Dunst) are particularly badly treated.

 

4 Rock of Ages

Really. These 1980 wannabe rock songs did not need sugarcoating. Nor did they need to be performed by kids who appear to have wandered straightaway from the Disney channel. Good supporting roles by Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand cannot save this trainwreck of a musical.

 

3 John Carter

Missing all your marks, looking like a drug addicts fever dream, being utterly silly and failing massively at the box office (Disney reportedly lost some 200 million dollars on this single film) are not enough to be called the worst film of the year. But it does get Andrew Stanton’s trainwreck of a blockbuster on third spot.

 

2 Alles is Familie

Another film that is here because it utterly fails to live up to the standards of a precursor. 2007′s Alles is Liefde was a delightful romantic comedy – even better than Love Actually, from which it stole its concept. But this ‘semi-sequel’ has no likable characters, nothing ot no-one to relate to, no balance or structure, and – most importantly – no good jokes.

 

1 Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

A ‘film’ that looks and sounds like a computer game. Like there are so many out there – every summer. But this one (produced by Tim Burton and directed by none less than Timur Bekmambetov) had the guts to sideline the sad history of slavery as something invented by fantasy monsters. Shocking.

At Least There’s Titans In It – the Wrath of the Titans review

Admittedly, there are few films that I’ve looked forward to less than Wrath of the Titans. It is the sequel to a film, Clash of the Titans, that I dubbed the worst film of 2010. News that its production was greenlit by the studio, back in december 2010, gave me a nasty rash. But because I also do not want to miss out on the opportunity to see write a brutally scathing review, I decided to go and see it.

I must say, by the way, that the trailer had actually been slightly promising, mostly due to an effective use of Marylin Manson’s Eurythmics cover of Sweet Dreams.

And you know what. Wrath of the Titans is fine (dir. Jonathan Lieberman). It is okay. It is definitely not going to be the worst film of 2012. It did not bother me (apart from some ill-judged ‘appropriations’ of Greek mythology), it did not hurt my eyes or split my eardrums. In short: it did not anger me.

Of course it is still stupid nonsense. The plot synopsis should make that clear: Demi-God Perseus (Sam Worthington), after having saved the world from the Kraken, now lives as a single fisherman dad, trying to forget his past. Yet there is a struggle between the Gods, and Ares and Hades (Ralph Fiennes) plan to set free the terrible Titans, ancient monster Gods who once ruled the Earth. Zeus (Liam Neeson) is captured and then it is up to a reluctant Perseus to save the world once more. He sets out with a small band of warriors and has to fight Cyclops, Minotaurs and Chimeras before he can collect the weapons he needs to beat über-Titan Kronos.

As I said: nonsense. But entertaining enough. Moreover there are three emotional relations between characters that carry the flimsy adventure plot. These relations (between Perseus and his son, between Perseus and Zeus and between Perseus and Ares) are generic, but they are strong enough for the duration of the film.

The 3D is middle-of-the-road, but much, much better than the dreadful conversion job done on Clash. The sequence in the Labyrinth has actually quite effective 3D effects. Sam Worthington’s Australian accent and his lack of dramatic talent are still a problem, but at least he has got a haircut this time that can pass for Ancient Greek. There is a very funny cameo of Bill Nighy, as Hephaestos, and Rosamund Pike, who I always enjoy watching, is a generic but sufficient warrior queen Andromeda.

Most important: Wrath has got Titans in it. That was always something curiously lacking from Clash: that a film with the word Titans in it had not Titans in the film. If you enjoy silly mythology/adventure/battle films, than Wrath of the Titans is a flick as good as they come.

Better than Trois Couleurs: Rouge – the Man on a Ledge review

There is a man on a ledge. He is going to jump of the ledge, to his certain death. Or is he? For at least half of the film, Man on a Ledge has a very apt title. Just as Titanic. Or Psycho. Or Run Lola Run. This is the only way in which the film is better than Trois Couleurs: Rouge, Wings of Desire and The Secret in their Eyes. You can understand from the title what the film is about.

Except of course for the fact that for half of the film, we’re not with the man on the ledge. We’re with a guy and a gal in a building, with a mean businessman in a meeting, with cops on the ground…Now, if only Man on a Ledge (dir. Asger Leth) had been just about a man on a ledge, who may or may not jump (or fall), and perhaps about the damaged negotiator trying to talk him out of it, it might have made an excellent thriller. Or drama. Oh, and if it hadn’t starred Sam Worthington, the Australian bloke who, with all the good will in the world, is not a versatile actor, and who really needs futuristic robots (Terminator Salvation), Olympian Gods (Clash of the Titans) or blue 3Dified supersmurfs (Avatar) around him. Just him, on a ledge, having to actually act; doesn’t work.

But before I start reviewing a fictitious film I would like, let’s get back to Man on a Ledge. The plot is simple. Sam Worthington is an ex-cop sent to jail for a crime he did not commit. Who then escapes and instead of making it across the Mexican border decides to climb on top of a New York hotel and threatens to jump down while his brother (Jamie Bell) and the latter’s girlfriend (newcomer Genesis Rodriguez, very handsome, huge rack, can’t act for pants) prove his innocence (by committing another crime, although no-one seems to bother about that). It is that kind of a film.

It is the kind of film in which the police negotiator with the damaged past is a young gorgeous blonde woman (Elizabeth Banks). Who whines at her SWAT-team sending superiors to stay out of ‘her’ negotiation.

It is the kind of film that throws in completely random acts to stall the plot (throwing down money from the building to create a chaos) and then fails to have them effectively stall the plot. This is a movie that is beyond-the-pale dumb. The heist carried out by Bell and Rodriguez is incredibly boring, despite its resemblances to Ocean’s Eleven. The difference between the two films is that in Ocean’s Eleven you kinda knew what the crew were up to, what they had to do or get done in order to break into the casino vault. In Man on a Ledge stuff just happens and passes by unexplained. Why does Genesis Rodriguez have to crawl down a ventilation shaft if she and Bell already have the password to the vault? I can’t think of any other reason than to give the audience a good look down her neckline.

Tower Heist was also very dumb. But at least is had Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy. It was fun. Nowhere is Man on a  Ledge any fun.

The dumbest thing, though, is, that if a distributor of this film would want to quote this review for promotional purposes, then in the first paragraph he or she could find the stunning sentence “better then Trois Coulers: Rouge”. Oh boy.

Stop thinking! It is a visual treat! – the Immortals review

Theseus. Wasn’t that the guy who killed the bull-like beast in the labyrinth in ancient Greek mythology? Yes. That’s the guy. Then what is he doing in Immortals, searching for a magic bows and seducing oracles? God knows. Or, as in Tarsem Singh’s film, the Gods don’t know. They’re sitting on top of Olympos looking down on Theseus’ exploits and wondering why Zeus won’t let them help the hero in his quest to save humanity from Mickey Rourke’s acting.

Wait, I’m starting to mix things up now. Let me try again. Immortals is the new film by Tarsem Singh, a director who is known better for his visual flair than for his fantastic plots and characters. He made such films as The Cell and the lesser known The Fall. Immortals’ plot is a strange mix up from various elements and stories from Greek mythology, which explains the magic bows and oracles. Although not Mickey Rourke.

Rourke is king Hyperion, a tyrant with a grudge against the Olympian Gods. A pretty big grudge, considering that he spends his life destroying Greek civilization and is bent on releasing the monstrous Titans, the only creatures who can battle the Gods. For that he needs a magic bow, but Zeus’ has chosen Theseus (Henry Cavill, in two years to be seen in Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel as Superman) to lead the Greek armies against Hyperion. Apart from being a boring good guy, Theseus also has some personal motivations to fight Hyperion.

Did I just mention Zack Snyder? I think I did. What a coincidence. For Immortals is advertised as ‘being brought to you by the producers of 300’. Well. That is a bit of a stretch. Sure, it shares a producer or three (out of a grand total of fifteen! producers on this film), but neither Singh, nor writers Charley and Vlas Parlapanides had anything to do with Snyder’s blood-fest battle film.

Nonetheless, there are similarities. Especially in its battle depictions and its colour palette Immortals resembles 300. But it also shares DNA with Clash of the Titans (in featuring the Olympian Gods and using a fantasy Ancient Greece) and with Conan the Barbarian (extensive torture scenes, over-the-top villain and revenge motifs). The good thing is: Immortals is better than all these films. Even though it is not that good.

For a start: Immortals looks better than 300. Singh has a feeling for uncommon, but purely cinematic perspectives and camera moves, whereas Snyder merely duplicated the pictures from Frank Millar’s graphic novel. Singh also uses the 3D effectively, by staging in depth rather than width (for instance during the final battle). Being better than Clash of the Titans and Conan the Barbarian is not a big achievement, but Singh shows the Olympian Gods with more humanity (or anthropomorphism if you like), and generally more convincing than Louis Leterrier in Clash. Rourke’s character is pathetic, and the actor does a perfect ‘late-career-Brando’ by mumbling his way through the dialogue and cashing a fat cheque. But even then it still beats the nonsense that was Stephen Lang in Conan.

Immortals (the film twists and turns and struggles to justify its moronic title) is not for weak stomachs. It is incredibly violent and painful. Consider that a warning. Also, another warning: the big ‘money shot’ in the trailer (you know which one I mean) comes very late in the film, and when it is there it feels like a big cheat. “What, that’s it?” Merely a setup for in inevitable sequel I suppose.

Where We Stand: Nine Months in the Multiplex

It is September. We’ve had the Oscars, Cannes and the blockbuster season, and this weekend saw the end of the Venice film festival.  So, most of what was to happen in film this year has already happened. Time for a little overview then.

Last year I kept lists of the best ten and the worst ten films of the year. I’ve done the same thing for this year so far. And to start off on a good note: this year’s worst films aren’t that much worse than last year’s worst films. 2011’s Clash of the Titans was Conan the Barbarian, in terms of noisy nonsense, but Conan still offered some fun. Last year we had a Sex and the City sequel, this year we had the third Transformers movie. Those two cancel each other out. The same goes for Sucker Punch and Prince of Persia, and for Get Low and Fair Game. The ‘worst films of 2011’ list, for all the dreadful terrors that are on it, is not my main concern.

I have two main concerns. The first one is the list of films that should have been on the ‘worst film’ list, but aren’t there, because the list is already filled. I’m thinking of Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter, of the superfluous The Eagle, of the failed Horrible Bosses and the incoherent The Rite (review forthcoming). That these films are now in the large bulk of ‘mediocre’ films is a problem.

My second concern is the ‘best films of 2011’ list. There are films on there that really don’t deserve to be there. Mainly because I am still to stumble upon anything resembling A Serious Man, or The Hurt Locker. True Grit, though good, was nowhere near the Coen’s best work, and Oscar grabber The King’s Speech felt strangely tame and artificial, despite outstanding performances.

So on this year’s ‘best of’ list, so far, we find such films as Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Rango. For a film to be simply exciting (Rise…) or simply funny (Rango), and for it to showcase impressive technological advances (both) is now good enough. Just compare: In 2010 the one animated movie on the list was Toy Story 3. Now it is Rango.

Of course The Fighter was excellent, and so was Black Swan. And Bridesmaids was fantastically funny, despite the excessive vomiting and diarrhea. Source Code is the closest we’ll get to an Inception this year. But it is the closest to it, not a match. Furthermore Bridesmaids doesn’t hold up to Four Lions or Kick Ass. And I am yet to find anything as emotionally charged as Winter’s Bone or El Secreto de Sus Ojos. Harry Potter 7.2 was satisfying, but not much more than that…

Nothing to feel really good about then? Well, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger were not as bad as I expected them to be. They were surprisingly entertaining actually, apart from the action scenes. X-Men: First Class lived up to its expectations, and Fast Five was an outrageous guilty pleasure. These films kinda make up for the big let down of Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides.

But in conclusion, all in all? Quite too many films did not live up to potential or expectations or the sheer common decency of meeting the lowest level of quality you can still get away with. 2011 is just not good enough. Yet.

What’s left to look forward then? Well, the award films will start pouring in, with strong contenders in We Need To Talk About Kevin, Martha Marcy May Marlene, War Horse, The Help, The Iron Lady, We Bought a Zoo and The Ides of March. And perhaps the The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo remake. But I’m looking forward most to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which really should see Gary Oldman pick up a long overdue little gold statue.

Best of 2011 so far: Black Swan, The Fighter, The King’s Speech, True Grit, Rango, Source Code, Bridesmaids, Harry Potter 7.2, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and The Tree of Life.

Worst of 2011, so far: The Green Hornet, The Green Lantern, Paul, Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Unknown, Sucker Punch, Get Low, Conan the Barbarian and The Tree of Life.

Yes. Malick’s is in both categories. Everyone who has seen it will understand.

Missing: Liam Neeson (Oscar™ winner) – the Unknown review

Who is this guy? I mean, he looks and sounds like Liam Neeson, but it can’t be the man that gave show-stopping performances in Schindler’s List and Michael Collins. Or can he? Like Neeson’s character in Unknown, the latest instantaneously forgettable b-film thriller he is acting in, I seem to have waken up in a different reality in which Liam Neeson is reduced to a middle-aged, gravel-voiced Chuck Norris upgrade.

The Oscar™ winner now has managed to appear, in within the space of less than four years in such pointless disappointments as Taken, The Next Three Days, the godawful Clash of the Titans and now Unknown. Voice duties in Ponyo and the ridiculous but entertaining The A-Team don’t make up for the fact that he already signed up for the Clash-sequel Wrath of the Titans. Did he go through an expensive divorce or something? Otherwise you’d think that an actor of his qualities need not take such jobs. Or the guy indeed is not Liam Neeson after all, but some ballsy pretender stealing his life.

Which is basically the story of Unknown, which plunges the American dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) into the most stereotypical Berlin, to give a lecture about microbiology only to find himself back in a hospital four days later, while someone else has taken his place, name, identity and wife. Bummer.

So there’s Neeson, but other A-list stars have been lured into this otherwise straight-to-video project. January Jones, the gorgeous Mad Men blonde with the best name in Hollywood plays his wife, in a role that required nothing of here besides dressing up and showing up on set in time. Diane Kruger (Troy) is an immigrant taxi-driver with too much back story and Bruno Ganz and Frank Langella make an appearance as old spies. Langella cashes his cheque, but Ganz really tries (and succeeds) to turn his former Stasi spook into a sympathetic character.

All these people inhabit a stereotypical Berlin that checks all the boxes: Victory-pillar, Kurfürstendamm, Brandenburger Tor, Straßenbahn, Friedrichstraße, underground dance clubs, illegal immigration, porn cinemas… Almost as clichéd as seeing the Eiffel Tower from every hotel room window in Paris. Almost.

And then there is running, and shooting and explosions and a Middle Eastern prince, and a scientific idea that will change the world as we know it. Director Jaume Collet-Serra’s most (in)famous previous film was the Paris Hilton vehicle House of Wax. Good for him that he is moving up the ladder then.

And so, on a happy note, we end this review of Unknown. Now let us join in a prayer for the soul of Liam Neeson.

End of the year round-up: The Worst Films of 2010* **

*Dutch release dates

** As I am no professional critic I have not seen everything. Films such as The Social Network, Scott Pilgrim and Sex and the City 2 have so far managed to elude me.

10        The American                                                              

Anton Corbijn plays Sergio Leone. He gets the visuals and the pace right, but the film is far too self-conscious and overdosed on religious metaphors.

 

9          The Town                                                                    

Good action scenes and Jeremy Renner don’t make up for a bunch of clichés, terrible dialogue and way too much Ben Affleck.

 

8          Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time                             

Pretty entertaining in its own league, but earns its place in this list to that terrible plot device that makes you feel “cheated” out of the game.

 

7          Iron Man 2                                                                  

Overloaded, overloud and a mere commercial for future Marvel films. Its obsolete director has left the franchise by now.

 

6          The Expendables                                                         

Could have been a funny, high-profile JCVD. Ended up with Jason Statham reading poetry.

 

5          Green Zone                                                                 

Outdated politics are more important in this film than character and emotion, and an overdose of  shaky camera ruins the last act.

 

4          Fair Game                                                                   

A film so dull that I could easily take a toilet break. Unprecedented.

 

3          Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps                                

Shia Leboeuf compares the stock exchange bubble of 2008 to the Cambrian explosion, but the film is a massive implosion of wasted talent and opportunity.

 

2          Shrek Forever After                                                    

Disgraceful, uninspired money grabbing with not a single original idea and the worst excuse for 3D conversion of the year.

 

1          Clash of the Titans                                                       

Quote from my review: “An incoherent, ramshackle waste of celluloid”. With plenty of fierce competition Clash of the Titans manages to have been the number one contender for my worst picture of the year ever since April. Last week’s news that a sequel is planned gave me a nasty rash.

Blockbuster Season 2010: The Round-up

Okay. So that’s it. It is the first of September, and although some big loud action movies are still to premiere on Dutch screens, I call it a day for the blockbuster season of 2010. September is the month in which we’ll get to see Machete and Piranha 3D, but it is also the month of the Venice Film Festival and, interesting for the locals here, The dutch Film Festival in Utrecht.

And what a weird blockbuster season it has been. Whereas other years were actually good (2008 saw The Dark Knight, Iron Man and only had The Incredible Hulk to cry about) or very bad (2009, if only for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and GI: Joe) 2010’s summer saw its major titles sink, but saw other, unexpected, films deliver.

Tent pole pictures such as Green Zone, Iron Man 2, Clash of the Titans, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and The Expendables all disappointed, some to the degree of outright awfulness. Robin Hood was okay, as were Predators, Knight and Day and From Paris With Love. And these four films actually belonged to the B-list to be honest.

Of course, Inception was great. If my review seemed critical, it was only because I set the bar higher for that film. Three other films that I really enjoyed were Centurion, Kick-Ass and Salt. Big pictures of course, but not the movie events that dominated the summer. The A-Team was a delightful guilty pleasure, but it disappointed at the (U.S.) box office, so unfortunately there will probably not be  a sequel.

So, apart from Inception, what was the blockbuster season of 2010 about? Well, to be honest, it was not really about big loud action movies. Of course Inception was big and loud, and an action film, but it does not belong to the same league as Armageddon or Transformers. The other films that drew large crowds this summer were, well, kids movies.

Toy Story 3 was amazing; the only film in 3D that was worth the extra bucks so far. It deserved to be as successful as it was. Shrek Forever After (also in 3D) was a disgrace, but it was a popular success. Let’s just hope that Dreamworks will leave Shrek alone now, and in time I may forgive them. Finally, there was the remake of The Karate Kid, which was far from faultless, but was carried by great performances and had a sincere heart.

The big debates now will focus on two questions: is 2010 an exception, or are family films the future of the blockbuster season? Harry Potter will of course finish with two big bangs, but what’s next? The other question: what to think of 3D? Is it the future of the business? The savior of cinema? Some studies suggest otherwise. I think it will only work as an added attraction for films that were from the first moment thought of as 3D pictures. Avatar for instance, or Toy Story 3. Turning ‘normal’ 2D films into 3D, sometimes with the help of inadequate conversion processes, only helps to kill of the hype and the audience willingness to pay extra.

So this was it: the blockbuster season. One film I’ve yet to mention is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which has had its American and UK release, but will only hit Dutch screens this autumn. I don’t expect too much of it. It seems immature fatiguing nonsense, with an unlikable hero who thinks the L-word refers to lesbians. Geek stuff I guess. Must be, with Michael Cera doing that Michael Cera thing that some people seem to like.

 

(This trailer is so annoying that I want to see and then hate this film)

So, let’s ease into the autumn, towards the Holiday season films and the first contenders for awards season 2011. Just a few titles you may already want to look up: The American, 127 hours, Four Lions, Tamara Drew and Terence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Terence Malick? Yes. Terence Malick. Also, there is the ‘new Slumdog Millionaire’ with Africa United. I’m looking forward already.

A passionate plea to stop grading films!

A-, four stars, C+? Both professional (read: published on paper) and online film critics seem to be unable to not grade films. As a quick indication of whether or not they are any good I gues. But quickly argued: this is utter nonsense. As in: it makes no sense. There is simply no point in arguing whether Inception, for instance, is a five star film (Empire), or only deserves a B+ (Tom Shone). I was asked why I don’t give grades or stars to the films I review. This is my answer.

Two arguments against grading films:

One. Because a film is not a math problem. Within the reasonably established and limited universe of mathematics, with its onw rules and regulations, 1 + 1 equals 2. But you can not break films down into elements such as acting, writing, directing, sound, cinematography or art direction. All these elements co-exist and work together in an infinite number of possible ways. Let alone that you can set up scales to judge each element’s value and award points through accumulation. Well you could, but if you’d write a review based on that methodology no-one will take you serious, and more important, no-one will enjoy reading it.

Two. Movies do not exist in a reasonably established or limited universe. They exist in each person’s own imagination from the moment they’ve been seen (or made, or promoted, depending on your perspective). Some appeal more than others to one person or another, purely based on their subject matter, genre or that person’s state of mind at the moment of watching. Professional, or professionally inclined reviewers try to take a neutral or objective stance, claiming to judge a film on its own terrain, to its own standards or in relation to its pretentions. They thereby fail to acknowledge that this terrain, these standards and these pretentions do not exist. Who should establish them? The director? Mostly he is hired by a studio or distributor to make the film. He is also highly depending on his co-workers. The studio marketing department? They merely sell a product that has been created by other people… What I am left with is the critic himself. He sees a film, perhaps having read about it previously, or having seen a trailer. And then it is up to him (or her) to determine a film’s terrain, it’s neighbours in that terrain (or at least the ones the critic has seen) and its aspirations, which when seen from this perspective are merely the critic’s hopes or expectations. However, still believing in the possibility of reviewing a film objectively, the film critic does not engage his own aesthetic sensibilities.

In this critic’s universe, giving Toy Story 3 five stars and Knight and Day only three, tells us nothing about the actual films, neither about the critic himself. It is by definition impossible to make a sensible claim regarding these films internal value expressed in discrete numbers or grades (see argument one). Also, the critic, by convincing himself to be objective while not actually being so, makes it impossible for the reader to extract from the grade attributed to the film the critic’s personal sensibility. Because the genre differs we don’t know whether the critic actually thought Toy Story 3 was the better film, or that he just prefers family films over action spectacles.

So I do not grade.

Rather I describe the film, and try to express my experience of the film, as I sat in the cinema. I do not judge, but compare my experience of films to the expectations I had of them. I do not claim to be able to tell you whether or not one film is better than another (except, in the rare incident of for instance Clash of the Titans, which I though was so bad that it infuriated me). I compare or make links where I think it to be appropriate. I can tell you, in 700 words, only very little about any actual film. But taken together, these reviews tell you something about me, about how I experience movies. And compared to your own experiences, you may take my reviews as recommendations or warning signs. But you would not learn anything by reading that I gave Iron Man 2 only two stars.

The Back-alleys of Hollywood – Trailers from the Asylum

They astonished us with Titanic 2, Snakes on a Train, The Paranormal Entity, War of the Worlds 2 and 100 Million BC. I am talking about the wonder that is distribution company The Asylum (and its related production houses, like The Global Asylum). Now, as the proper cinema parasites they are, they prey on the expected success of Piranha 3-D, and on the unexpected success of their own film Mega-Shark vs. Giant Octopus from last year. The Asylum is pleased to give you: Mega Piranha!

Just to give you a little insight in what the Hollywood back-alleys look like these days, a couple of The Asylum trailers:

First Mega-Shark vs. Giant Octopus. Based on the internet hype about its trailer, it actually got a cinematic release in the US and the UK. The trailer is somewhat spectacular, but the film is real fodder.

Then: War of the Worlds 2. A terrible insult of both the original and Spielberg’s more-than-decent remake:

 

What are we waiting for? Well, perhaps 100 million BC, a film that steals its title from 10.000 BC, which it has no relation to at all. Rather, it seems to combine Jurassic Park and A Sound of Thunder. One youtube comment drew attention to that fact that The Asylum apparently uses a Nintendo 64 to do the visual effects.

Finally the one we’re all looking forward to of course: Mega Piranha. Somehow, my favorite line of film dialogue is in it: “It wasn’t an explosion, it wasn’t a terrorist. It was a giant Piranha!”

 

This stuff makes Clash of the Titans look like The Shawshank Redemption, really.