Continue reading "Sirius vs XM Radio" »

Posted by bringthedoo at 09:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

You seen the link on ApeChild.com; you've gotten annoying spam emails offering free iPods, or free Dell desktops.  So why believe any of this crap?  That's a damn good question.  I didn't believe it at first, but I still signed up for the slight chance that these offers may be real. Now I'm sitting here enjoying my brand new 20gb iPod that I received in the mail last week.

Jan 2005 Update : Over 10 apechild.com users have now gotten free gifts from these sites! Also, the new mini iMac and the iShuffle are now offered.

Feb 2005 Update : The new Playstation Portable (PSP) is now offered.

July 2005 Update : Recieved PSP, Dell 4700, & Mini Mac (awesome)

(click for larger photos)

(1/2005 Update! Here's proof of a free 17" flatscreen)

(2/2005 Update! Here's proof of a free photoipod)

If you haven't heard, web sites started to pop up this summer offering free things such as iPods, TV's, desktop computers, etc....  This wasn't anything new, however in the land of the blogs, rumors started that people were actually getting their free offers in the mail.  Soon after, various news sources started to report on this new advertising model.  After reading a Wired News article, I decided to try it out.

So how do you get your free iPod or other gift?  

1.    Sign up on one of the free offer sites.  During the signup you are asked about various offers and surveys, all of which you can decline.  

• FreeVideoiPods (Apple's new 30 or 60gb video iPods!, just released 10/2005 [New!])

• www.freeiPodNanos.com (Apple's new ultra thin, iPod with a color screen, just released 9/2005 [New!])

• www.free360xbox.com (Pre-order your FREE Xbox 360 today - Wireless online gaming system / media center, to be released 11/2005 [New!])

• www.freedigitalcameras.com (Choose between 5 different, badass 5-7mp digital cameras or a MiniDV Camcorder[New])

• www.freeminimacs.com (Apple's brand new slick mini mac (80GB, 1.42Ghz PowerPC G4)! [New!])

• www.freepsps.com (The brand new PSP (Playstation Portable) from Sony [New!]
  just released!)

• www.freeipods.com (20gb ipod, ipod mini, or $250 iTunes gift certificate)

• www.freephotoiPods.com (The brand new 40GB Apple iPod Photo)

• www.freeipodshuffle.com (The Brand New Apple iPod Shuffle (1GB). Quick and easy to get! [New!])

• www.freedesktoppc.com (Get a new computer - choose between 2 Dells, a Gateway, a Compaq, a decked out gaming PC by Cyberpower or
  (New : a Sony VAIO w/DVD-+R))

• www.freeflatscreens.com (15-27 inch flat screen TV's or LCD monitors)

• www.freedigitalcameras.com (Choose between 5 different 5-7mega pixel cameras New)

• www.freehandbags.com (Get your lady a purse)

• www.freegamingsystems.com (Don't have an X-Box, PS2, Gamecube, or Nintendo DS? Get one for free!)

• www.freecondoms.com (Wrap it up for free!)

• www.freepalms.com (Palm Tungsten T3, Tungsten C, or Zire 72)

• www.pvps4free.com (4 different portable video players [40GB iPod photo included!])

• www.dvrs4free.com (80 Tivo or 80 Hour ReplayTV )

• www.cameras4free.com (4 Sony or Canon digital cameras to choose from )

2.   After you are signed up, you must complete one of their affiliate offers and get credit for it.  

Here are a few of the offers(bold=easiest to complete), what you have to do, and how long it takes to get credit:

• Blockbuster Online (Must complete 2 week trial for $9.99, you will recieve credit in 1-3 days, best offer if you ask me)

• InkBlvd (You must have a printer right? Order $30 in ink, get credit in 1-2 days, another great offer)

• Columbia House DVD (Join the DVD clubs, get credit in 3-5 days)

• GM Card (Easy and fast! Sign up for the card, get credit for your offer fast!)

• Plus many other ones rumored to be quick

3.  Get 5+ friends to also complete one of these offers.

4.   After completing your requirements, you confirm your shipping address and place your order.  Here's my time line of things happening:

8/2004 - Joined freeipods.com, completed my offer

9/20/2004 - 6 referrals all completed their offers (I only needed 5); my order was placed

9/23/2004 - Order status switched from "processing" to "sent to vendor"

10/20/2004 - It shipped (from Singapore)

10/26/2004 - FedEx dropped it off at my house

12/2004 - Recieved 17" flat screen monitor

1/2005 - Recieved 40 GB PhotoiPod

3/2005 - Recieved 1 gb iPodShuffle

5/2005 - Recieved Dell Dimension 4700 w/monitor

5/2005 - Recieved Mac Mini (awesome)

6/2005 - Recieved Sony PSP

So after very little effort of signing up and completing an offer, then waiting a few weeks, the idea of the "free gadget sites" quickly went from myth/scam to "F- Yea! It worked!"

Final Update Summer 2006:

Posted by ddy at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBacks (0)

Straight out of the ApeChild.com review laboratories comes the late summer/fall gear report.  This could be the start of a weekly ApeChild.com gear/gadget/gaming section, so we'll have to see how things go.  If you have a product for review, contact us and maybe we'll let you send us free shit.  

Continue reading "Gear Report Volume 1" »

Posted by ddy at 02:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Starring Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas; directed by Andrew Adamson and Kelly Ashbury

Dr. Scott rates it   out of five bananas

Wow, it’s been awhile, huh? With all the other shit that I’ve been publishing lately, I haven’t sat down to write an actual film review since...well, about two weeks ago. And that was for a film that’s now out on DVD. Not only have I been busy writing (as those of you who’ve been receiving chapters of my forthcoming book, FASHIONABLY LOST will surely understand), but I’ve hardly had a chance to get to a theater.

Alot of that has to do with what’s in theaters. I’ve seen so much bullshit in movie theaters over the last year or two, I’ve gotten to the point where it’s gotta be something pretty special to get me to make the journey to my local Googleplex. And take into consideration that I rarely pay for films anymore. Today, I was inspired to go see SHREK 2. I loved the first film, liked what I saw of the trailers for this sequel, and it was a bad weather sorta day here in Dallas, so why not?

The question, of course, is: Did the sequel live up to the original?

Yes, yes, and more yes. I’ve only seen SHREK 2 once, but I’m already convinced that it’s even better than the original. There are more characters, more pop culture references (I saw allusions to THE LORD OF THE RINGS, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, ALIEN, SPIDERMAN, and about a dozen others I can’t recall on the spot), more locations, more everything. I guess the best place to start reviewing this one is the "more characters" part.

Who would have thought Cameron Diaz could look this hot?

There’s Shrek, of course, as well as Donkey and Princess Fionna. They’re all voiced by the actors and actresses that did the voices in the first flick, and they’re still just as entertaining as they were the first time around. But, ah, didn’t I say "more characters"? That I did. The big star of this one, whom I predict will become the real "star" of this series if he shows up in the just-announced SHREK 3 and 4, was Puss in Boots, voiced by Antonio Banderas.

Puss is hired by a Fairy Godmother with revenge on her mind. See, her son– Prince Charming– didn’t get to make Fionna his wife, even though that had been promised to him by Fionna’s father. When the Godmother finds out that Shrek is the one she ended up with, she’s furious. She sets in motion a series of obstacles that will tear Shrek and Fionna apart, chief among them the hiring of Puss in Boots to assassinate Shrek. Puss shows up in a floppy, Three Musketeers-style hat with a similar sword. His real secret weapon is the "cute face" he makes whenever he’s threatened– a gag that gets used throughout the flick. Banderas brings an enormous amount of personality and charm to the character, making every scene that he’s a part of that much better.

The Fairy Godmother is played by Jennifer Saunders, who some of you may recognize from the British TV series ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS (which I usually refer to as ABSOLUTELY UNFUNNY AND UNDESERVING OF THE PRAISE BESTOWED UPON IT). I loved how dark they made this character, and I particularly enjoyed the running jokes about her diet and the visit we make to her enchanted potion factory.

I can now officially say that Antonio Banderas is a pussy.

Which brings me to another point– the locations in SHREK 2 are lightyears beyond the locations from the first film. They burst with the sort of detail and background jokes that are atypical of the animated features from Pixar. Pay close attention during the visit to the enchanted potion factory, in particular the workers therein. There’s a great sight gag when Shrek appropriates the uniform of one of these workers.

Another scene that was bursting with detail involved the arrival of a slew of fairy tale celebrities to the King’s castle. There are huge crowds, a Joan Rivers-look alike (and I wonder if that wasn’t actually her doing the voice of the character; if not, it was a spot-on imitation), and all kinds of carriages showing up to drop off the celebs. I particularly liked the carriage carrying Sleeping Beauty, and how she evacuated the carriage face-first into the floor, dead asleep. Great touch.

In addition to these new, hilarious characters and all this exquisite detail, a bunch of the minor characters from the original SHREK show up to help their buddy get what needs to be done, done. The Gingerbread Man, who so many people loved in the first film, is back (with little icing stitches where his torn off legs have been reattached) with a meatier role, as well as a surprise transformation late in the film that needs to be seen to be appreciated in full (think: GHOSTBUSTERS). Pinocchio shows up again, too, with some embarrassing secrets of his own. The Three Blind Mice also return, as do the Three Little Pigs. All are used to serve a purpose within the story; in other words, they aren’t brought back just to take up time and give us some easy laughs.

In fact, nothing about SHREK 2 seems like "easy laughs". What I mean is, all the jokes (and they come at the rate of about 3 per minute) in SHREK 2 are genuine, non-filler humor. The writing is always clever, never dumbing itself down even with the idea that this should be a kid’s flick. There are many, many sequences here that will please children, but they’ll please adults even more. Look for a COPS parody in the third act, and keep your eyes peeled for the contraband that the cops (here playing their role on a show called KNIGHTS) take off of Puss in Boots ("That’s not mine!").

The obligatory "Shrek and his Pussy" comment goes here.

I laughed through the vast majority of SHREK 2. The jokes come faster and funnier. The characters are more developed, and the ones that have already been established are given more to do. The story– Shrek and Fionna travel to the kingdom of Far, Far Away to meet Fionna’s parents– is, on the surface, pretty threadbare. But the writers have really put alot of effort into mining this plot for all its worth. The film is short, maybe 90 minutes, but not a moment is wasted as far as humor and cool visuals are concerned.

If you liked the first SHREK, you will absolutely adore SHREK 2. I applaud the DREAMWORKS animation division. They’ve now stepped their game up well enough to run alongside the Pixar guys as equals, leaving Disney in the dust. I, for one, am grateful for this new renaissance of animation, since everything that Disney’s made since THE LION KING has been a big pile of ass.

Bottom Line: SHREK 2 is an outstanding film, perfect for a date or by yourself on a rainy day. You will laugh at the film from start to finish, and you’ll have your socks rocked directly from your feet by all the intricate detail, sharp writing, and brilliant song usage going on in the film. This is one of those rare, rare, very rare occasions where the sequel has surpassed its original in terms of...well, everything. See SHREK 2– Doctor’s Orders.

Word,

Dr. Scott

Posted by Dr. Scott at 03:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

Starring Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Vivica A. Fox, Daryl Hannah, Michael Madsen, David Carradine;  directed by Quentin Tarantino

Dr. Scott rates it   out of five bananas

Well, it’s over, folks. KILL BILL, the glorious epic that has consumed Quentin’s life for the last several years, has been released upon the public. Maybe “unleashed” is the better word. The most exciting thing about this volume is that it’s even better than the first. Plus, the film is far different from the script that I’ve had for the last year or two, so I was pleasantly surprised by the film on many occasions.

Let’s do a little recap, just for the slow people out there. Uma Thurman reprises her role as “The Bride”, an assassin that used to work for the evil death-pimp Bill. She tried to get out of his employ, disappearing and getting engaged to a guy who ran a used records store, and Bill didn’t take it very well. On the day of her wedding rehearsal, The Bride is beaten, shot, and believed dead by Bill and the other members of The Bride’s assassin squad (The DiVAS). She wakes up after four years in a coma to find her baby missing (she was pregnant at the time of her “death”), her legs atrophied, and with a mind set on revenge. The bulk of KILL BILL– in both films– revolves around The Bride tracking down these 5 bastards and killing them off in spectacularly bloody ways.

In the first film, The Bride (Hereafter referred to as “TB” because I’m too lazy to keep writing out “The Bride”) eliminated two of her former team members– played by Vivica Fox and Lucy Liu– before sending a message to Bill that she was coming after him, too. We found out in the final moments of VOLUME ONE that TB’s daughter had not, in fact, died when TB was attacked. When VOL. TWO begins, TB is going after Daryl Hannah (as Elle Driver), Michael Madsen (as Budd, titty-bar bouncer for hire), and, of course, Bill.

Uma likes her swords like she likes her men.

One of the big problems I had with the first film– I liked it, but there were some pretty substantial flaws I couldn’t love unconditionally– was the shallowness of it all. The film was like one, long fight scene, and I found myself yearning for the trademark “Tarantino Dialogue” and complex plot structure. It was a revenge tale– nothing more, nothing less. So, I was enormously happy to find that VOL. TWO was a return to the things we fell in love with in Tarantino’s earlier films: The pop-culture infused dialogue, the complex plot structure and screwed up chronology, the off-beat and frequently verbose characters. It was because of these things that I loved VOL. TWO while I simply enjoyed VOL. ONE.

As I’ve already mentioned, the plot for VOLUME TWO is simple– more revenge, more fights– but the film is saved from being a retread of VOLUME ONE by its dialogue and characters. TB has two underlings to off before she gets to Bill...and there’s that issue of TB’s daughter floating around that needs to be resolved. The film follows TB as she tracks these people down, undergoes some serious injuries herself, and disposes of those who have wronged her. The ending is satisfying, something I had concerns about ever since I heard about the film’s plot.

In the acting department, Uma Thurman goes all out to impress us and win us over as The Bride. She obviously went through some hellish training for this role, but it’s paid off: There’s not a single moment where you don’t believe she’s actually doing the things that she appears to be doing. She brings a lot of heart to the role, and the scenes where she finds out about her daughter are enormously touching. These were some of my favorite scenes in the film.

Michael Madsen is...well, not as good as I expected. He was very...adequate, I guess. I loved, loved, loved Madsen in RESERVOIR DOGS, but he seemed very sluggish and low-key here, something I wasn’t expecting. He’s as heartless here as he was as Mr. Blonde, but I dug that character more.

Pretty hot for, you know, only having one eye.

Daryl Hannah, on the other hand, was better than I expected. The scene wherein she describes the effects of a snake bite from the deadly Black Mamba is hilarious, and she was just as believable in her fight scenes as Uma was in hers. These two have a knock-down, drag-out, no-holds-barred, dirty-ass fight near the midway point in the film, and it was just as entertaining as the first film’s “House of Blue Leaves” segment. The way the fight ends, in particular, was absolutely perfect, and there’s a money shot in this sequence that had the audience I saw the film with shrieking with laughter, revulsion, and applause. You’ll know it when you, er, “see it”.

The real star of the film, though, is David Carradine as the titular bad guy. What charisma! What a face! Originally, Warren Beatty was slated to play Bill. But he pussied out when he learned he’d have to undergo some serious training with swords and martial arts for the role. Great career move, there, chief. You could have familiarized yourself with a whole new generation, made fans of them all, but you didn’t want to wear yourself out swinging a sword around. No matter: David Carradine is phenomenal. So phenomenal, in fact, I’m going to dedicate an entire follow-up paragraph to him.

See? Here it is. Carradine gets some of the best lines in either of KILL BILL’s volumes, and he gets a handful of monologues that I predict will become just as quotable as PULP FICTION’s “Royale With Cheese” discussion. I particularly enjoyed the “Superman” monologue, as well as the story he tells about Pai Mei (more on him in a moment). He delivers every one of his lines as though it were the last chance he’d ever get to talk in front of a camera. Who knows? Maybe it will be. Tarantino has achieved yet another “career resurrection”, but it could go one of two ways for Carradine from here: The Travolta Route, which leads to overexposure and a slew of fat-ass paychecks; Or, the Robert Forster Way, which leads to...not much. I hope it’s the former.

Now, let’s talk about Pai Mei. The sequences with this kick-ass martial arts master were show stoppingly great. The audience I saw the film– rowdy to begin with– was in stitches every time Pai Mei stroked his evil beard in an evil manner while laughing evilly. Just great stuff. You’ve all seen that shot of the dude jumping onto the end of TB’s sword, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg for this sequence. I think that this chapter– called “The Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei”– was my favorite portion of the film.

You wouldn't to see this assassination squad waiting outside YOUR house.

Another sequence that deserves some mentioning is the “Lonely Grave of Paula Schultz” chapter. In this portion of the film, Tarantino gives us what might be the most effective and squirm-inducing “Buried Alive” sequence ever committed to film. Look for the stretch where the screen goes totally black and the sounds of dirt falling on a pine-covered coffin lid come crashing out of the theater’s speakers. This, too, was one of my favorite parts of the film.

In all, each sequence seems to top the next, all building up to an ultimately satisfying and tense confrontation between TB and Bill, during which a lot of questions will be answered and a few mysteries solved. I should mention yet another sequence I really enjoyed, before I forget to talk about it: The sequence where Bill and TB talk at the chapel before TB’s wedding rehearsal is just brilliant, establishing menace through some tense dialogue exchanges between these two (TB: “Are you gonna be nice?” Bill: “All my life, I’ve never been ‘nice’. But I’ll try my hardest to be sweet.”) This is just a great, solid piece of filmmaking that I think many of you will enjoy more than the first. I give this film my highest recommendation– Doctor’s Orders.

Bottom Line: KILL BILL VOLUME TWO is better, much better, than VOLUME ONE. You will have one helluva time watching this flick. You’ll gag, you’ll laugh, you’ll applaud, you’ll stare in amazement at the fucking morons who brought their 3 year old kids to the film who decided to stand next to my aisle throughout the film. Well, okay, maybe they won’t be there...but you’ll feel my pain, right? Check out VOLUME TWO, and with someone who loves Tarantino movies. And make sure the person you bring stays awake (unlike my date for the evening, who wasn’t sleeping because the film was boring but because they’d had a long-ass day and blah, blah, blah), because they’ll be missing one of the most exciting films of the last several years. See VOLUME TWO, folks– Doctor’s Orders.

Word,
Dr. Scott

Posted by Dr. Scott at 03:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Starring Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Vivica A. Fox, Daryl Hannah, Michael Madsen, David Carradine;  directed by Quentin Tarantino

Dr. Scott rates it   and a half out of five bananas

Any of you who’ve been reading my reviews from the beginning know that I’ve already reviewed KILL BILL. In fact, it was the first “formal” review that I ever did for The Doctor’s Mailing List. So, you’re probably wondering: Are you really this desperate for new material, Doctor? Well, yes and no. It’s KILL BILL DAY here at ApeChild.com, and we thought a look back at The Bride and her mission would be appropriate– especially with VOLUME TWO coming out this Friday.

Some of you, as I mentioned, will recall that I’ve already reviewed KILL BILL. But I took a look at that review and, well, it sucked. Back when I wrote that first one, I was writing all my reviews with this silly “format”, breaking the review up into sections like “Best Actor or Actress in The Film” or “Worst Scene” or, in KILL BILL’s case, “Ugliest Feet Belonging to an Actress With The First Name Uma Who Also Just Broke Up With Ethan Hawke” (oddly enough, this category also appeared in one of the gay porn reviews I sent out, but that’s another story). The “format” was gimmicky and only there as a crutch, something to fall back on because I didn’t feel like I’d be able to organize my thoughts well enough to present the information in paragraph form. Well, now I feel like I can.

Whether or not you feel the same way is your problem.

Uma, the Goddess of kicking major ass.

So, here I am, back with another angle on KILL BILL. Most of you are just as die-hard geeks about films as I am, so you’ve probably already seen the film and have read all manner of articles and reviews about it already. You know that the film found its way onto many of the country’s critics’ “Top Ten” lists for 2003. You know that Uma was nominated for a Golden Globe for her work here. You know the plot, you know who survives the first film, and you know about the cliffhanger ending. Thus, we don’t need to discuss any of that.

Rather, I’d like to concentrate the bulk of this re-review on something that hasn’t been discussed so much in all those other reviews: The sheer joy for film watching and making that’s evident in every frame of KILL BILL. I got the same impression watching KILL BILL that I did while regarding Johnny Depp’s performance in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: These people had a blast making this film. This isn’t anything new for a film directed by geek favorite Tarantino. His first film, RESERVOIR DOGS, was a rich, pop-culture infused stew of all the things Quentin admired about his favorite movies– the shocking, stylized violence of John Woo; The “honor amongst thieves” theme of Kurosawa; The rat-a-tat dialogue of Scorcese’s mafia films; The gritty glamor that can only be found in exploitation films of the 70's. It was a perfect marriage of all of these things, and the beginning of a soon-to-be-legendary career.

Tarantino went on to direct PULP FICTION, arguably the most important and influential film of the 90's. Again, his love for all kinds of films permeated every aspect of his film: The dialogue, the characters, the fractured timeline, the pitch-black humor and violence. While RESERVOIR DOGS announced Tarantino as a new force within the industry, PULP FICTION cemented the status.

After PULP FICTION, Tarantino became one of the strongest, quotable “flavors of the month”: Starring in and writing FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, directing episodes of ER and the short-lived, Margaret Cho/Asian-American sitcom ALL AMERICAN GIRL, starring in a broadway revival of WAIT UNTIL DARK (more on that in the epilogue)(that’s at the end, chief), starting his own division of Miramax, called Rolling Thunder, just so he could release films like MIGHTY PEKING MAN and SWITCHBLADE SISTERS into theaters across the country. PULP’s success gave him the opportunity to do all the things he ever wanted to do, whether we wanted to see him do them or not. Somewhere in all that, he shot JACKIE BROWN, released it to widely positive reviews, and then...the flavor’s month ended. Tarantino fell silent.

The next time you ask for a happy ending at your local massage parlor, make sure she isn't hiding a samurai sword.

Years passed. Film geeks awaited his next project with baited breath, trading gossip about what the next film from Tarantino might be (at various times, his follow-up to JACKIE BROWN was one of two Elmore Leonard adaptions he’d secured the rights to– KILLSHOT and 40 LASHES LESS ONE, a sequel/prequel to PULP and DOGS called THE VEGA BROTHERS, or possibly a World War II film called INGLORIOUS BASTARDS). The truth was, no one knew what he was up to for a solid four year period, which was a long enough stretch of time to cause film geeks to question their allegiance to Lord Tarantino.

During these Tarantino-less years, much happened in the world of film: The popular home viewing format evolved from VHS to DVD. Comic book films came back, and came back with a vengeance. Acts of unspeakably horrific terrorism occurred on our own, American soil. Angelina Jolie stood strong in her flat-out refusal to sleep with me. These were tumultuous years. And then, an announcement was made: “ Quentin Tarantino–you guys remember him, right?–well, he’s finished a script, and he’s gonna make another one of those movie things. It’s called KILL BILL”. There was much rejoicing.

I went out and rented the first film last night from my local Nazi Germany– oops, I mean “Blockbuster Video” (Ever worked there? Hell on Earth, my friends). In the time since I’d seen KILL BILL, I’d forgotten a lot of the little flourishes within the film that made it great. I will be the first to admit that, several months after I’d seen KILL BILL in a theater, I wasn’t the biggest fan of the film. It seemed shallow, like Quentin could have done any number of things I would have liked better, stuff with more dialogue, character, plot, story. But watching it again last night, on a much smaller screen, I fell in love with it all over again. If you haven’t seen KILL BILL, then you need to go rent it right now so that you’re not lost when I come to your house, break down your fucking door, and drag you, screaming, all the way to the theater by your hair this Friday to see VOLUME TWO. KILL BILL has that sort of effect, where you want to show people the film and let them see how cool it is. Even if it means breaking down a few doors.

What I loved most about KILL BILL was the almost total lack of computer generated stuntwork or effects. After seeing MATRIX: RELOADED, it only took a few days for me to realize how hollow and...well, unsatisfying the film was. Sure, it looked cool, but most of what we saw there was just some really high-priced computer animation. The fights in KILL BILL were the real deal, and that makes all the difference in the world. I was picking my jaw up off the floor after every confrontation scene in KILL BILL, particularly that whole “House of Blue Leaves” sequence wherein Uma, as The Bride, hacks her way through an army of masked Yakuza thugs. One fight in the film, that one that took place between Uma and Vivica Fox, didn’t get the attention it deserved: That was balls-out, knock-down, hair-pulling, exploitation-era street fighting, and God bless Quentin for giving us a dose of it.

Naughty Nurse: Sexy yet lethal.

But KILL BILL isn’t all about the fight scenes, which is what some critics would have you believe. Moreover, this is a film about style. Consider the fact that the film changes its appearance and tone with every new adversary the Bride confronts. For Fox’s character, we find ourselves in a 70's era blaxploitation movie. For the backstory of O-ren-ishii, we’re treated to an extended, hyper-violent, beautifully crafted anime sequence that virtually stole the movie. That “House of Blue Leaves” segment was pure Kung-Fu-Sonny-Chiba-Enter-The-Dragon intensity, featuring a brilliant sight gag involving a Japanese man-servant who resembles Charlie Brown. I loved these abrupt, jarring changes in tone throughout the film; It felt like I was getting three films’ worth of entertainment in one shot.

The acting was adequate, with the exception of Lucy Lui. I’m not a Lucy Lui fan, first of all. I’ve never understood the “sex appeal” that everyone’s telling me she possesses. I’ve never been bowled over by her physical presence or fight work. But here...well, she was all of the things the hype surrounding her for the last several years had promised. Intimidating, charming (especially in the “Board Room Decapitation” scene), and gracefully sexy with a sword, she was the standout for me in this one. Special attention should also go to Sonny Chiba, who was far more charismatic and funny than I ever would have thought he’d be. The argument he has with his assistant over who’s going to bring Uma the bottle of warm sake is priceless.

This isn’t a film you can spend hours dissecting. It’s a straight-forward revenge tale, soaked in blood and reveling in its own shallowness. It is pure entertainment, impossible to view without feeling like you’ve mainlined it. KILL BILL provided me with one of the best times I had in a theater this past year, and I’m pumped for the sequel.

Bottom Line: KILL BILL is nothing but style, with much to spare, and deserves to be seen by anyone who counts themselves as a film geek. Uma Thurman pulls off what could have been a silly, wink-wink role in the hands of a lesser actress (imagine if, say, Cameron Diaz had played The Bride...yikes), and Tarantino makes up for all that lost time by packing in dozens of films’ worth of entertainment into the 90-some odd minute running time. See KILL BILL, and come back for seconds this April.

Word,
Dr. Scott

Epilogue: I told you I’d say a bit more about WAIT UNTIL DARK, and I will. Back in 1997, Tarantino was cast as Harry Roat, a hoodlum attempting to break into the apartment of a blind woman to steal a cache of drugs that mistakenly ended up in her possession. The critics were savage about his performance, but when I was lucky enough to see him–from ten feet away– when I went to New York that summer, I was smitten. After the show, The Man Himself came out and signed autographs for everyone, taking the time to talk to me for several minutes (Quentin, to me: “So, how’d you like the show tonight?” Me, to Quentin: “Man, you were a fuckin’ pimp”. Quentin: “[wild, Woody Woodpecker-style laughter] Thanks, my friend.”). It was one of the best nights of my life, and I was thrilled that the guy was so cool to his fans. Fuck the critics, Quentin, you’ll always be one of my heroes.

Posted by Dr. Scott at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Starring James Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Claudia Gerini, Maia Morgenstern; directed by the Lord Mel Gibson

Dr. Scott rates it   out of five bananas

It's time for a pop quiz for those of you who have seen THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Please put away all your anti-defamation league pamphlets and religious texts. Please stow all vitriol and Anti-Semitism paranoia under your desks. Don't worry, folks- it's multiple choice. Ready?

Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is A) A horrifically violent, nearly impossible to watch film; B) A powerful Biblical epic with truckloads of talent behind the camera; C) A good film, to be sure, but not necessarily a "great" film; Or, D) All of the above.

If you answered D), you'd be damn right.

I finally got around to seeing THE PASSION this evening, and it was just about exactly what I expected it would be. Nothing I have ever witnessed on a movie screen or on a television set could have prepared me for the brutally graphic violence of the film. And, for the record, keep in mind that I've seen every TEXAS CHAINSAW film that's ever been made (even that woefully deranged "remake/reimagining" with Renee Zellwegger and Matthew "Naked Bongos" McConnaughey). It's impossible to discuss THE PASSION without getting into the violence, so we may as well get that out of the way right now.

Roger Ebert's review of THE PASSION stated that it was the "most violent film (he'd) ever seen". I agree. I wasn't surprised by the violence- how could I have been?- but I was shocked that the film managed to land an R-rating with the notoriously prude MPAA. The only reason this film is playing on thousands of screens across the country with that rating is its subject: Jesus Christ. How can this be? Think back to the last film that was released with the dreaded NC-17 rating- SHOWGIRLS. The MPAA deemed that inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17...but not this? There's something very wrong with that. In the showing of THE PASSION that I attended this evening, I saw more than a few parents with children- toddlers!- in their laps. I cannot be more clear about this: THE PASSION is not anywhere near appropriate for anyone under the age of 14 or so.

I'm a member of the tail end of Generation X. When I was growing up, violence was seeping into television and films a little more with every day, and this resulted in an entire generation of children growing up to be desensitized to violence. I'm not in any position to say whether or not this is a good or bad thing, but I do know that violence in films doesn't bother me. I don't particularly enjoy seeing violence, but I certainly don't shy away from it. That said, the amount of violence and the graphicness thereof in THE PASSION nauseated me. Gibson's camera does not flinch, does not pull any punches, does not grant us a reprieve from witnessing the most famous execution of all time.

And, what of that? Some have questioned the need for this gruesome display, but the answer seems plainly obvious to this critic: This is the story that he wanted to tell. As a writer-slash-director- and, you know, as the guy who put up all the money to make this film- Gibson has every right to give us whatever film he feels like. His intentions here were to give us a brutal, unflinching re-enactment of the death of Jesus Christ. Every film that has featured a dramatization of the crucifixion has sugar-coated the truth: This was a horrific, messy way to die. I can only assume that Gibson wanted us to see this death in as realistic a manner as possible. Thus, was it necessary? Yes, if this is the film that Gibson wanted to make. Is it difficult to watch? Enormously so. Will it be too much for many filmgoers? Absolutely. You may not like the violence, but you can't argue with its authenticity.

Now, let's move onto the next problem the film has faced: The charges of anti-semitism. First of all, let me say this: If you have not seen a film, you are in no position to make claims about its content. Far too many people cried "Anti-Semitism!" before THE PASSION was even released, and the truth of the matter must be highly embarrassing for all these alarmists: There isn't a trace of Anti-Semitism anywhere in THE PASSION. There are Jews who cry out for Christ to be tortured and executed; There are Jews that plead for him to be spared.

The Pharisees demand that Christ be killed, and when they can't get Pilate to carry out the execution, they seek a sort-of "second opinion" from Harod. I don't know much of this Harod character, but here he's portrayed as a bombastic, slightly drama queen-ish guy (and, with that eyeliner, maybe a touch of drag queen-ishness, as well ). When he finds Christ "crazy, but not guilty" of any crime, they find themselves back in front of Pilate. By this time, the Pharisees have riled the congregation into a frenzy with their accusations against this man who's been quite the rabble-rouser of late, and Pilate does everything in his power to avoid having Christ crucified. In the end, it's not enough, and the Pharisees get their wish. As far as I know, this is historically accurate. Yes, the Pharisees were Jewish, but is it not correct that it was these men who were the primary antagonists in the crucifixion? It's totally irresponsible to raise a cry of Anti-Semitism over this film, Period.

And, while we're talking about this, I am aware that Mel Gibson has a loony-ass father who's made a fool of himself by publicly proclaiming that he doesn't believe the Holocaust occurred. For the people claiming that this indicates the presence of Anti-Semitism in THE PASSION, let me say: Pleeease. Take your conspiracy theories to David Ike, folks. There's nothing Anti-Semitic about this film. I think anyone claiming that the film features anything approaching Anti-Semitism should A) see the film before they keep making foolish statements, and B) apologize for such irresponsible accusations.

Well, now that we've got the majority of the controversy out of the way...how's the flick? As entertainment, the film fails. Who could possibly be entertained by this horror? This film was made to make it clear (to all who are interested enough to check it out) what it was exactly that Christ went through in the hours leading up to his death. To be honest, I had no idea that the man's death was this horrific. I know that I keep using that word, but it's simply the most appropriate. And, as we all know, horrific things are not usually entertaining (unless, of course, we're talking about SHOWGIRLS again). As a tool for teaching those who aren't informed, the film is an enormous success. It has people talking, it has people thinking, and therein lies The Doctor's Golden Rule, which many of my readers know by heart at this point: Whenever a film inspires conversation, debate, or deep thought in its audience, it has succeeded. Thus, while I wasn't entertained by THE PASSION, I was held in rapt attention the entire time, and I learned a thing or two in the process. And, sure enough, there I was after the screening, standing out front of the theater, smoking a cigarette, and debating what I'd just seen with my fellow moviegoers. Success!

Jim Caviezel does a fine job in the role of Christ. To be frank, he really doesn't have much in the way of dialogue or acting after about half an hour of screen-time; His job mostly entails that he appear to be in a tremendous amount of pain. There are scenes, though, where Caviezel is given the opportunity to humanize Christ, and I thought this was the most important thing the movie had to offer. In any film I've ever seen that featured Christ as a character, he's always seen proclaiming things in a very stern manner. THE PASSION shows us, in flashback, a Jesus who had a sense of humor, a Jesus who...smiled. Think about it: Have you ever seen a film where Christ is allowed to have a good time? As I said, this humanizes Christ, and I thought that was just great.

I'd like to mention one or two other scenes that I thought were particularly effective. The first occurs in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Christ is speaking to God through prayer. Satan shows up, embodied by an androgynous figure in a black, hooded robe (What else was he gonna wear? Well, besides acid-wash jeans), and Satan attempts to "psyche out" Christ. As Satan watches Christ praying, we see a maggot or some small, white worm wiggle its way out of the Evil One's nostril. It's just a split-second thing, but it was so unsettling and unexpected. Very interesting choice here, and it leads me to another sequence that I really enjoyed.

As we're all aware, Judas Iscariot performed history's greatest betrayal when he turned Christ over to the Pharisees for a bag of silver. Judas is there when Christ is taken into custody, and we see that he's remorseful about what he's done. A few scenes later, Judas shows up again to plead to the Pharisees that Jesus be freed. He tries to return the silver, too, but the Pharisees aren't having it. Totally wracked with guilt, Judas stumbles out onto a street, where he gets accosted by some children playing in the dirt nearby. As they poke and prod him, we see the kids from Judas' point of view: They have twisted, wrinkled faces and wildly spinning eyes. Again, highly disturbing and effective.

It's a little off topic, but on the basis of these scenes (as well as one other one, which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen THE PASSION yet; For those that have, I got three words for you: Evil. Grinning. Baby.) , I'd love to see what Gibson could do with a good horror script. He doesn't overplay these scares, and you might even miss them if you happened to look away for a moment. I wasn't expecting these sort of subtle flourishes within the film, which made them all the more effective and scary. It's an interesting choice, especially when we consider that the rest of the film seems to be presented in as straight-forward (or, rather, as non-supernaturally) as possible. That is, of course, until the final ten minutes or so. There's a stunning shot of a tear falling from Heaven that stopped my breath cold, and I loved the way that Gibson shows us the resurrection without quite...showing it. You'll see what I mean.

Gibson is a brilliant filmmaker, and the cojones it must have taken to make this film would be so large they could only be measured in theory, like space. Gibson also gave us BRAVEHEART, and on the basis of these two films, I have no doubt that he is an enormously gifted director of film. The frame composition, in particular, was extraordinary: Any frame from the film could be an oil painting by one of the masters. I thought that presenting the story in the original languages- Aramaic and Latin- was a stroke of genius, lending yet another realistic layer to the film. Whether you like THE PASSION or not, or agree or disagree with Gibson's reasons for making it, it's inarguable that he is wildly talented and a true visionary.

Bottom Line: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a terrifically difficult film to endure, but it's an important film. As a lazy Agnostic, I learned a thing or two over the course of the film, and found myself with a deeper respect for this carpenter who may or may not have been the Son of God. This film is not for everyone, obviously, but it's an ambitious, superbly crafted film that should stand the test of time against many other Biblical epics. I applaud the courage with which Gibson made this film, but the hideous violence prevents me from being able to wholeheartedly recommend it. For those with a strong stomach and a desire to learn, THE PASSION proves to be a powerful, moving, rewarding experience.

Word,

Dr. Scott

Posted by Dr. Scott at 03:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Starring Pierce Brosnan,Shannon Elizabeth, Mya, Heidi Klum, Willem DaFoe, and John Cleese as "Q"

ApeMaster rates it   out of five bananas

How's this for a review: this game fucking rocks.  There's not much more that needs to be said about the latest installment of the James Bond video game franchise, which has been inconsistent over the years to say the least.  Finally, after several miserable attempts to recreate the quality and success of the original GoldenEye for the Nintendo 64, the creators of the Bond games are able to produce a thoroughly enjoyable title worth hanging on to.

Everything or Nothing, while not necessarily a perfect title for the true gaming snobs, combines some of the best elements of the finest PS2 games ever.  Now in third person view, we get a real feel for Bond's physical form, but with all of the accuracy and shooting capabilities of a first person shooter.  Borrowing from Metal Gear Solid: 2, James can now hug walls, rappel up & down buildings, crouch, and stealthily sneak up on enemies -- and without the slowness in action that turned many off from MGS:2.  I was also struck by the similarities between Everything or Nothing and the linear objectives and explosive action of the Medal of Honor series.  One such mission in which Bond must sneak and snipe his way through a crypt-like graveyard in New Orleans seemed strangely similar to a courtyard scene in Nazi Germany from MoH.

But the real fun in Bond is the integration of thrilling automobile missions and secondary gadget sub-objectives.  Borrowing from the granddaddy of all PS2 franchises -- Grand Theft Auto -- Everything or Nothing provides plenty of vastly entertaining driving excitement, some of which is strictly linear & mission-oriented, some of which is open-ended.  With an array of spine-breaking vehicles at your disposal -- including a suitably rocket and gadget-equipped Porsche Cayenne, a crotch rocket, an Astin Martin, and others -- Bond is free to explore exhilarating Saharan & South American landscapes, French Quarter New Orleans, and many other meticulously recreated backdrops.  And unlike previous Bond games, the auto missions are central to the story.  Add to this helicopter objectives, wall-scaling rappelling capabilities, radio controlled cars, and a bomb-rigged robotic spider, and the fun never ends.

Or does it?  A few of my gripes with Bond are with the relative ease and pace at which I seem to be coasting through the game.  Even though I have yet to beat it, it seems as if the end can only be a few missions away, and this bums me out.  In the more open-ended gameplay of some of the missions, I can't seem to shake my thirst for blood generated by countless hours of Grand Theft Auto.  The innocent pedestrians are incapable of being run over, blown up, beaten to a bloody pulp, or destroyed with Bond's rockets and cannons, and they seem to flee just in the nick of time.  More random violence, please.  And my last minor complaint is the way in which you change weapons; it seems like there are too many unnecessary button clicks, which kind of breaks up the intensity and action of a hairy situation.  But overall, the problems with Bond are few and far between and are more than made up for by the game's sheer awesomeness. 

If you are are a fan of Metal Gear, Medal of Honor, and Grand Theft Auto, or were turned off by the lackluster quality of previous Bond titles, give Everything or Nothing a try.  The slick Hollywood movie-style production quality of EoN is unparalleled among the throngs of craptastic games being churned out daily.  And a Bond title wouldn't be complete without a bootylicious cast featuring the likes of scantily-dressed & boob-enhanced Mya, Shannon Elizabeth, and Heidi Klum, providing plenty of realistic looking eye candy as a huge bonus.  The characters, with all of their expressions, movements, and mannerisms, are extremely realistic and the animation is simply superb.  It actually feels like you are participating in a Bond movie.

Get Everything or Nothing without hesitation and put yourself in Bond's shoes for an action-packed, addictive journey.  I give it four out of five bananas.  Now if I can only unlock the level where James gets freaky with Mya, Shannon, and Heidi at the same time...

Please note that while this review examines the Playstation 2 version, this game is also available for the XBox and GameCube.

Posted by ApeMaster at 04:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0)

Starring Tobey Maguire, Jeff Bridges, Chris Cooper, and William H. Macy; directed by Gary Ross

ApeMaster rates it   out of five bananas

With the cold weather we've been experiencing lately in Vermont, I've been stuck inside watching more DVDs than usual lately.  The other day I decided to rent Seabiscuit, which has been praised as an Oscar candidate for it's feel-good, come from behind tale of a horse given a second chance and by a jockey whose heart and passion for his horse were greater than his skills on the racetrack.  It's a tale of adversity over tragedy during a time in our country when people had little else to feel optimistic about.  Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

I have to admit, I thought Seabiscuit was a good, entertaining movie.  The acting and film production were superb, as were the depression and post-depression era cinematography and set design.  Some of the camera angles and racing sequences have to be seen to be believed, and make you feel as though you're right in the middle of the pack.  While Tobey Maguire and Jeff Bridges' respective performances as jockey and millionaire-horse-owner were excellent, I felt that their relationship was slightly under explored.  Oscar winning actor Chris Cooper, who plays Seabiscuit's trainer, also puts on a great performance, but his role was strictly resigned to that of a supporting actor and doesn't get enough screen time.  In one of the of the wackier roles in the film, William H. Macy -- brilliant in any role he plays -- provides much needed comic relief as an eccentric radio DJ who follows every move of the Seabiscuit team during their triumphs and tribulations.

That being said, I thought Seabiscuit had several weaknesses.  In addition to being shamelessly subjected to nearly every corny underdog, spirit-lifting cliché in the book during the film's 141 minutes (which was a little too long in my opinion), the film was grossly predictable (wait, you mean Seabiscuit wins?!?).  Some of the ending scenes were waaaay too overly dramatic and over the top for my taste.  Near the film's end, when Tobey Maguire recites the line, "It's better to break a man's leg than a man's heart," I thought I was going to vomit.  "He didn't just help me.  He helped all of us!"  Could it get any cheesier?

Seabiscuit is a good flick.  It is an uplifting, feel-good movie worthy of praise and deserving of a watch, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an achievement of filmmaking worthy of Academy Awards, as has been suggested by some critics.  While the film has its share of overly-dramatic and predictable moments, it is worth seeing for the slick production value, great acting, and amazing horse racing scenes.  My official recommendation is that while it is worthy of a rental from your local video store or Netflix, I couldn't necessarily see myself wanting to own this one on DVD for multiple viewings.  I give it three out of five bananas.

Posted by ApeMaster at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0)

ddy rates it  and a 1/2 out of five bananas

The Crystal Method is back with their third album, The Legion of Boom. Being the media giants we are, ApeChild.com has received a promotional copy to review.

I became a Crystal Method fan in 1997 when their album Vegas hit the stores. I think Vegas is still their best album to date, bringing hard electronic music to the mainstream. The Legion of Boom keeps up with tradition and delivers some deep, dark, loud electronic/rock music.

This time around Crystal Method has a number of guests performing with their heavy beats and bass lines. Former Limp Bizkit guitarist Wes Borland adds a heavy guitar feel to a few tracks while the human beat box Rahzel raps over a track or two. Other guests include John Garcia from the band Kyuss (vocals), Milla Jovovich, Lisa from the Bellrays (vocals), and Hanifah aka Sha-kay (vocals). With the combination of these artists you'll hear typical Crystal Method with vocals which include rapping, rocking, spoken word, trance-like female voices and free styling. Most of these additions to the band work with one or two tracks being a bit shallow.

Overall, this album sounds distinctly like The Crystal Method. If you are a fan of their past albums, I recommend picking this up. While it's not necessarily ground breaking or inventing anything new, it is a pretty good album worth checking out. On the other hand, this music is definitely not for everyone. If you are interested in checking out The Crystal Method for the first time, check out the sample tracks on Amazon.com or buy the album Vegas first.

Right now (as of 1/6/2003) you can preorder The Legion of Boom on Amazon.com for $10.99 and you receive immediate access to a full digital stream of the full album in what they call your Digital Locker. I've never seen this feature before; try it out and tell us what you think.

On I side note, I have two comments on how the promotional CD was given to use. First off, it's by far the coolest CD case I've ever seen - even though there was no album art included. You press a plastic lever at the back of the case and the CD pops out the front. (Very cool) Second, this promotional album included some digital right management system so that I had to agree to some license before listening to it. Because the album wouldn't play normally in WinAmp or Windows Media Player, I finally agreed only to find out it only plays in a web page off of the CD with Windows Media Player embedded. I hope this is not the case in the final release, as this was highly annoying.

Posted by ddy at 03:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (52) | TrackBacks (0)

ApeMaster rates it   out of five bananas

The latest breakfast creation from McDonald's has been creating a buzz about fast food that's rarely been experienced before.  The McGriddle, which was introduced on June 10, 2003 as a permanent item on the breakfast menu, is the cross pollination of an Egg McMuffin with an order of Griddle Cakes.  The result of this Frankenstein-like experimentation is a sandwich that is a scrumptious treat to start your day.

I was always a fan of the original Egg McMuffin sandwich when it arrived on the scene, with either bacon or sausage.  With the success of the McMuffin, McDonald's also added the Egg Biscuit sandwich, which was basically the same thing with a biscuit instead of an English muffin.  Looking back over the years, it seems I've improved many a Friday morning hangover with merely my Sausage Biscuit extra value meal.  The morning grease is normally just what the doctor orders after a night of heavy binge drinking.

I had seen signs for the McGriddle in the window of our local McDonald's several times, but had yet to try the tasty treat until just this past week.  After a night of heavy drinking, I arrived at work and flipped the radio onto the Howard Stern show, which is a morning ritual in our office.  Howard, Artie, and others wouldn't shut up about the new McGriddle.  Artie had already eaten three of them that morning, and fans were calling in challenging him to a contest to see who could eat five McGriddles the fastest.  All the chatter about the McGriddle proved to be effective advertising, whether it was intentional or not, and we were quickly on our way to see (and taste) what the buzz was about.

Our tasty treats arrived hot and fresh, and looked remarkably solid in form and shape -- which is quite rare for McDonald's food.  At first bite, I was pleasantly overwhelmed with flavor; it felt as though I were eating a pancake with maple syrup before quickly changing to the taste of a McMuffin.  The soft pancake gave way to sausage, cheese, and egg before again being surrounded by a gentle maple flavor.  It was either less greasy than a normal Egg McMuffin, or the griddle cake buns did a better job of absorbing the grease.  Either way, I really enjoyed it.  The McGriddle was gone after four or five bites, and like the crack addicts in the alley behind our McDonald's, I was jonesing for more.

I give the McGriddle four out of five bananas.

- ApeMaster

ddy rates it   and 1/2 out of five bananas

The other morning at work I was slightly hungover and listening to Howard Stern. Throughout the show, McGriddle breakfast sandwiches were being mentioned every few minutes, almost as if the crew was being paid by McDonalds. One of the guys on the show was claiming that the McGriddle sandwiches were so good that he had eaten four of them that morning. I couldn't take it anymore, I broke down and ran to my local [ghetto] McDonalds.

After opening the brown, paper to-go bag on my desk, I immediately smelled a heavy scent of maple syrup; so far so good. I proceeded to eat my bacon, egg, and cheese McGriddle, savoring every bite. My gut-rott from the gin and tonics the night before was slowly disappearing.

I'm not really familiar with the term griddle cakes, I was raised calling them pancakes. Either way, these maple syrup flavored cakes complemented the bacon egg and cheese just right. The griddle cakes are not nearly as dry as the heavy biscuits that previously plagued McDonalds breakfast sandwiches. One other point worth noting is that you would think the cakes are sticky because of the heavy syrup taste/smell, they are not, in fact they feel lightly toasted.

Overall McDonalds Griddle cakes are the shizznit; they are one of the best things to come out of McDonalds in years. Run to McDonalds right now and see for yourself, you will be impressed.

Posted by ApeMaster at 04:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Starring Robin Williams, Connie Nielson (Gladiator), Michael Vartan (TV's Alias), Gary Cole (i.e. Bill Lumbergh, Mike Brady, etc); directed by Mark Romanek

ApeMaster rates it   out of five bananas

One Hour Photo is a mind-fuck, a psychological thriller that takes us on a journey through the desperate, obsessive, and twisted mind of a one hour photo clerk who becomes fixated with a family by living vicariously through the photos they drop off each week.  The film succeeds on so many different levels by employing the "less is more" mentality, creating a eerie, suspenseful feeling of unease and unpredictability.  It is this subtlety that delivers so much more than others in the genre based on not what we see, but what we don't see.  Through brilliant acting, crisp & vivid cinematography, and a compelling sense of sympathy for the psychopathic lead character, One Hour Photo is excellent even with a refreshing lack of violence, gore, or other flashy effects.

Robin Williams stars as Sy Parrish, a depressing and lonely photo technician who takes extraordinary pride in the quality of his photos despite being treated like shit from all of his coworkers and customers.  Without friends or a family of his own, Sy becomes fascinated with a local family who comes in regularly to develop their photos.  He knows their names, where they live, and has seen nearly all of the important events in their lives caught on film.  He almost considers himself part of their family.  As we learn more about Sy, it is difficult to feel anything but pity and sympathy for him.  His existence is so lonely and the film so depressing that I actually felt like blowing my brains out a few times while watching this.  (NOTE: Don't see this movie on drugs).  In one of the most compelling moments of the film, Sy leafs through some old photographs at a flea market while the following words are going through his mind:

"I'm sure my customers never think about it, but these snapshots are their little stands against the flow of time.  The shutter is clicked, the flash goes off, and they've stopped time, if just for the blink of an eye.  And if these pictures have anything important to say to future generations, it's this: 'I was here; I existed; I was young; I was happy; and someone cared enough about me in this world to take my picture'."

Whoa.  That's some pretty heavy stuff.  You can't help but feel the sadness, loneliness, and desperation within his life.

But while you cannot help but feel pity for Sy, you know there is something darker lurking beneath the surface.  You can sense that something will blow at any moment, and the film builds slowly and brilliantly as the true nature of Sy's obsession becomes apparent.

Vividly set and photographed in the sterile and pure environment of a mega-discount store (a la Wal-Mart), One Hour Photo has a precise look and feel due to the excellent cinematography and artful direction from Mark Romanek.  Connie Nielson (Gladiator's uber-hot Lucilla) is a treat for the eyes, and Gary Cole (Bill Lumbergh from Office Space) is hysterical in any role he plays--even when he's not trying to be funny--and this one is no exception.  Robin Williams easily gives the performance of his career playing a psychopathic freak.  It's ironic; Robin Williams spends his career making the shittiest movies.  But after his recent roles in One Hour Photo and last year's fantastic Insomnia, he has proven that he's capable of convincingly playing a darker, creepier character.

Rent or buy this DVD without hesitation.  While some may complain of the lack of intense action and violence, as well as the somewhat anticlimactic nature of the ending, most will truly enjoy the depth of this film.  I know I sure did.

Posted by ApeMaster at 04:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (0)

ApeMaster rates it   out of five boners

The ApeChild community reviews the flick everyone's talking about and the one everyone wants to believe is real.

Admit it.  You've seen the web site and heard the rumors.  You want to believe it's real but you know it's not.  You want to see it for yourself but don't want to waste your cash.  Being like most people, we at ApeChild.com, in a service to our local and greater online community, decided to acquire the tape, see it for ourselves, and share our thoughts with the world.

As the story goes, Britney Spears sought help with her backhand from tennis star Anna Kournikova.  Anna agrees to meet Britney at a hotel in L.A. on a day when both of their schedules permit and gives her some lessons on the court.  A guy with a camera hides in the bushes and films the two, and subsequently sneaks into their penthouse suite where the two go to change.  One thing leads to another, and you can probably imagine where it goes from here.

Britney Does Anna arrived approximately four weeks after it was ordered by an anonymous volunteer.  In addition to the featured footage, it also contains some 'bonus' materials, which I will discuss shortly.  The film opens with a surprisingly flashy trailer and excellent sound, most of which can be seen on the Britney Does Anna web site.  After a quick, low-budget introduction from the marginally-looking stars of the subsequent bonus footage, the film starts off with Britney and Anna warming up on the court.  Since the premise is that the footage was captured on a home DVR by a voyeur hiding in the bushes, the camera work is intentionally wobbly and unpolished.  The actresses do actually resemble their intended celebrities, although you have to work hard not to examine their faces too carefully in order to play along with the plot.  While the actress playing Anna looks quite similar from a distance, it is Britney who does an excellent job of playing the part: her hair, makeup, and ditzy body language are convincing.  The key is never to focus directly on either girl long enough to spoil the fantasy, and luckily the constantly shifting camera work and rarely focused angles help make this possible.

While the amount of time on the court seemed a little longwinded at times, particularly in anticipation of the events to come, it did provide the predictable plot introduction and segue to the second act.  After Anna spots the cameraman in the bushes, a security guard chases him off into the hotel where the two are staying.  His friend working at the hotel takes him to the Penthouse suite and lets him in to hide.  Britney and Anna soon arrive to relax after their workout on the court, and the pace of the film finally begins to pick up.  Anna decides to show Britney what they "do in Russia after practice," and predictably, the two end up in the bedroom taking each other's clothes off.  Anna's faux Russian accent is a riot, and Britney quickly proves that she's interesting in learning Russian culture.