3000 Miles to Graceland Review (2001, Action/Adventure/Crime Thriller, Warner Bros./Franchise Pictures/Morgan Creek Productions)

This used to be a guilty pleasure.

But not anymore. Demian Lichtenstein was previously a music video and short film director, not having gained any kind of notable standing in the biz. This is his first full-length feature, and it really shows. I used to get some kind of kick out of watching this movie, even if it baffled me in so many ways (why even mention Graceland at all? They don't go anywhere near Graceland!), but since my last sitting I can't stand it anymore. Masochism only lasts for so long, I guess.

The opening sequence shows us one of the MANY flaws of the movie right out of the gate: misuse of resources and rather bland special effects. We have two cartoon portrayals of scorpions, rendered in laughable CGI, duking it out in the desert. Defenders of the film, even with few legs to stand on in the act, like to point out how this represents the conflict between the two main characters of the film. You know, Russell & Costner on the film poster. However, this sequence is too shitty to recommend and it coalesces into one of the most hit-and-miss parts of the movie. And that is saying something.

After some really lame jokes, including several fart jokes in quick succession, the plot seems to begin. Our "hero" Michael (Kurt Russell) runs into a bratty, 11-year old rip-off of Jesse James (he's even stated in the movie to be named after the legendary bandit) and he then runs into Courtney Cox, or Cybil (with a 'C' for emphasis, repeated throughout the film like a really poor gag). They have bizarre sex scenes, made so by the sheer theatricality of both, and Michael takes off for the heist.

Wait, what?

Yeah, so the point of all the Elvis impersonation is that it's a gimmick meant to get them into a casino so that they can rob it. It's also the Riviera. Now, the remake of Ocean's Eleven gave us a moderately entertaining build-up to the more entertaining final act, and so it works in that film. Here, there's almost no build-up at all and because of it, it doesn't work. Plus, Ocean's Eleven still saw the team having to give the heist their all; here, they just storm into the money-counting room, take what they want, and blast their way out. Where were the guards, anyway? The two security personnel who were watching the cameras were a complete joke, too, only catching on well after the money-grabbing was done. The team here shoot up the entire casino like they have lost all sanity, even blowing a dwarf through the air, and they help an old slot jockey woman win the jackpot (oh, yeah, this was supposed to make all of us laugh). Meanwhile, perhaps a symptom of poor editing, everyone who is watching the Elvis impersonation show seem to be completely oblivious to the carnage happening right around the corner. It's very off-putting when you seem to be watching two different movies in one, neither of them good to boot.

Anyway, a very preposterous cliche is committed on screen, following this turn of events: A lone gunman, a detective perhaps, comes running at the team as their elevator is about to ascend to the roof. The gunman gets his had stuck in the door as it closes, and he's firing wildly. It's a small elevator so at least ONE person should have been hit by now, right? Well, that one person has to be the one black man of the team. He is smack dab in the center of the gun's position, after all. Plus, Bokeem Woodbine was probably asking for more money for the role so they had to flip him the bird in some creative way. As they are flying away on helicopter, they try to revive him only to toss his dead body overboard. Roger Ebert made a commentary on this particular part of the movie and absolutely tore it to shreds because of it.

Then some hypocritical double-crossing happens and the actual plot kicks off. Cybil (with a 'C') and her snotty son tag along with Russell in order to make off with the money that Costner somehow didn't, and a chase ensues, Cybil (with a 'C') abandons her son with Russell in order to get that money for themselves (but she still likes Russell so it's okay or something), Costner catches up with them all in the Northwest United States (possibly Oregon or Washington), Ice-T shows up as a "one-man army" and gets killed within minutes because his character is actually an idiot, and Costner gets killed because he's the bad guy. And everyone else make off with the money on a boat while Uncle Kracker's fifteen minutes of fame still plays as the credits roll.

There are so many nonsensical sequences in this film that it is totally mesmerizing. Not in a good way, of course. The betrayal that Cybil (with a 'C') plays out in an awkward fashion while off-beat country music plays, oh and a Schnitzel is standing on the road next to Russell after he tries to stop Cybil (with a 'C') from getting away. Every scene with her son makes me want to kill the kid, but thankfully his acting career didn't seem to live on. A poorly-edited couple of scenes involving Jon Lovitz as a fence of sorts plays out, acting as a twist that Cybil (with a 'C') isn't actually dead. Some idiot of a lawyer (1-800-1GO-FREE!) shows up as a failed joke. Costner steals an inconspicuous mascot truck from an old man. Costner goes to a gas station, fills up his ride, douses the place in gasoline, kills its owner, steals the owner's wife (sister? Cousin? What the fuck?), blows bubble gum with her and gives her away to the leader of what actually looks like a low-rent 'biker gang'. The brat tries smoking and pukes doing it. Same brat previously relieved himself in a gas station bathroom, getting repulsed by what may have been the fifth fart joke in the movie so far. He manages to steal a hefty wallet from a guy he bumps into as he's walking. Russell is still the 'good guy' while all of this goes on.

Costner catches up with Cybil (with a 'C') and the brat while in that goofy truck, interspersed with snippets showing Cybil (with a 'C') 'reacting' to the hit & run tactics of Costner in truly bizarre and exaggerated ways. Previously, Russell & Cox have an argument in a hotel while Russell is naked (concealed by a towel, thank goodness) and Cox actually caresses him underneath. She wants more money from Russell but the latter tells her to shut up and keep pleasing his phallus. They report Russell's stolen car to the police and it ends up backfiring on him, also reuniting him with Costner for a few minutes. He gets bail thanks to the brat. Sappy revelations are made when they bring Cybil (with a 'C') to a secluded, but rather beautiful location overlooking the local treeline and she confesses to what she had done before. He leaves them to their devices. Oh yeah and later on, Costner teams up with his go-to-guy and says that they need a team of gunmen to hold off heavily-armed police. Ice-T shows up, probably making a few thousand for his brief appearance, and Costner understandably growls about the lack of a 'bunch of guys'. Go-to-guy assures Costner that Ice-T "IS a bunch of guys" and predictably, because this movie hates black people so fucking much Ice-T gets killed while spinning around shooting machineguns, on an overhead hook-line. The former's kill count remains a total mystery for the rest of the film. Go-to-guy takes a few bullets for Costner, Costner derides him, and Costner gets cornered. 

Before he gets cornered he "provides cover" for the brat, who Costner kidnapped and brought to this scene. Let's not forget that law enforcement won't 1) shoot at a minor who is 2) unarmed and not even the tiniest threat to the police, nor is he the fucking target. Costner has a big fucking machine-gun and mows down many of the local law enforcement before taking a number of shots himself. He stares himself in a mirror, revealing the love & hate relationship he has for himself, while Elvis music plays. Oh and I must state that previously in the movie, it is discussed that Murphy MAY just be one of Elvis' many illegitimate sons, and that Murphy believes he is such. Murphy also got into a goofy fucking shootout with some town Sheriff in the middle of nowhere, for no particular reason. Costner avoided the bullet, slightly, because the Sheriff's bullet BOUNCED off of Costner's bullet while his kept on course. Of course, Costner had to win that duel because physics only benefits the title characters.

Russell survives another shot to his torso, revealed to have been wearing YET another vest. He's taken away by, you guessed it, Cybil (with a 'C') and her bratty son, and they go to Russell's boat. They sail off, somewhere, with nary a care in the world for their destination and even the film doesn't give a toss. And that's a wrap.

I know I went kind of all over the place, but so did the film. Another thing that goes all over the damn place, other than the vapid plotline, is the soundtrack. This soundtrack makes no sense, other than when classic rock/R&B/blues play of course. We've got electronica, dance music, nu-metal, funk music, country, blues, contemporary pop; everything you can think of is in this soundtrack. The thing is, however, is that this soundtrack is total nonsense. Where's the theme of the whole thing? Why is Spineshank in the score? Why choose Uncle Fucking Kracker to close the film?

And the heist sequence. It should have played out later in the movie, with more buildup. Instead, it happens right away and it really isn't all that thrilling to watch. The stakes aren't that high, even, since they don't steal all that much money anyway. The gimmick is there, and that's fine, but no one in their right mind should care about the end-product of what we got for a "heist" movie. 

Then there's the fucking title, which is absolutely misleading. What the fuck does Graceland have to do with the entirety of the movie? Yeah, Elvis is from there, but Elvis, and the impersonation of such, is all that the film even brings up. The action plays out as far as the Midwest, but then slingshots back to the west coast. The title could have been totally different and it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

The film has quite an ensemble cast, with Courney Cox being the eye-candy (and she's really not a bad actress) and Russell being the anti-hero. Costner is obviously the big bad, but Costner lacks the gravitas to really sell it. Everyone else doesn't matter because they ALL die. And the movie fucking hates black people, because none of the black cast members get a good showing (the only one who doesn't die instead gets a broken nose, courtesy of Costner). And that fucking kid should have been killed. We also get David Arquette, Christian Slater, and even the meager Kevin Pollak. But all of them are wasted, even if David Arquette's role is relegated to that of 'comic relief' (note: pulling terrible dance moves, farting all the while, isn't my idea of comic relief), or Bokeem Woodbine is destined to fulfill the tired trope of "Black Man Dies First."  It's like if Steve Buscemi's "Carl" character from Fargo was fed into the wood chipper within five or ten minutes of screen-time; it would have sucked.

And the action isn't all that good. It's all flash with either a lack of or plain infuriating substance. Sometimes I felt like I was watching several different movies throughout its duration, accidentally spliced in and of course, doing nothing for the material at hand. And the direction is terrible. Lastly, why the fuck would you even put "Maryland" in the title when they don't go anywhere close to Maryland? It has nothing to do with the movie!


F

The Good:

+ Courtney Cox was sexy. Still kind of is today.
+ Kurt Russell TRIES, at least, to act in this role.
+ There's a Steve Ray Vaughn track that plays somewhere
+ There could have been something halfway decent here...

The Bad:

- ...however, the end result came out terrible.
- The plot
- Wasted cast.
- Kevin Costner hardly even tries as the bad guy.
- The heist plays out much too early.
- The "Black Man Dies First" trope is in full effect here.
- Those two fucking U.S. Marshalls don't do anything for me. Oh, they finally do something at the end, which is killing Murphy, but everything before that is an annoying distraction.
- This movie, in fact, hates black people. No black person is given a good role. And I'm Caucasian!
- Inconsistent soundtrack that hardly ever plays to the mood.
- I wanted to kill that Jesse kid.
- Poor editing. (The shootout in the casino is a strong example of this)
- Contains 5 or more fart jokes.
- The final third of the movie is sleep inducing.
- Ice-T is a "one-man army" who ends up only killing a couple of cops. Gets killed because he's spinning on an overhead hook-line shooting two sub-machineguns because ACTION MOVIE!
- Uncle Kracker music in the credits? Fuck you.
- Nonsensical plot twists.
- Totally insane diversions from the plot, including that gas station sequence. What is up with the girl? Why blow it up?

Doom IV/2016 (PC, PS4, Xbox One, 2016, id Software/Bethesda)

Doom is back.

Then again, it has always been here. From 1993 onward Doom has shaped and re-shaped the First Person Shooter genre with each release. Yeah, even the re-hashes of the "classic" era. The very first title gave us the gift of shareware distribution, a new way to play with others, and truly visceral & in-your-face gameplay. Doom 2 didn't introduce much but gave us a more honed experience with tougher (new) monsters, the infamous double-barreled shotgun, and far more effective level design. Final Doom made the series start to look stale and the ever-increasing difficulty didn't help matters. And Doom 64, love it or hate it, was the epitome of how atmospheric and creepy the franchise can be. 

Doom 3 took the series in another direction almost entirely. Or at least it was initially supposed to, much to my disappointment. If you're going to do something new then go with it, but if you're going to play it safe with old mechanics, don't do it worse than with previous installments. While it was graphically outstanding for its time (in spite of the decidedly saran-wrapped look of everything and the low polygon counts that were never addressed with the advent of improving gaming hardware) the game seemed to lack an identity of its own gameplay-wise. It didn't help that because of the loss of John Romero, the genius behind the superb level design of the classic games, Doom 3 had decidedly underwhelming (albeit more grounded in reality) aesthetics in mind. And most of the game was set in tight corridors. It could challenge you, sure, but the old games were far better in this regard. And more fun. Oh and don't get me started on the flashlight mechanic. Many people loved that but I found it to be an example of laziness on part of the team. I mean, the game is set in the 2100's after all...

Now, 12 years of waiting has given us a game that had many of us worried, but delivered far more than we had thought. Initially envisioned as a sequel to Doom 3, set on Earth (!) no less, that was scrapped due to being dubbed a "Call of Duty" clone, with too many set-pieces and lack of thrilling gameplay. Plus being on Earth should afford you much more breathing room, right? Well, a newer iteration of id Software seemed to remember what made this series fucking badass, and gave us this game. While the entire suite isn't perfect *cough* derivative multiplayer *cough*, the one aspect of the game that really matters is what makes this title better than the franchise has been in practically two decades. Yeah, better than Doom 3. 

Immediately you realize that this title was made for the sole purpose of giving you a total joyride, blowing demons apart as you would. Our marine, or whatever he is now (he's the Doom Slayer now, but still Doomguy nonetheless), outright smashes a possessed guy's head as it attacks him after he wakes up in shackles. You proceed to do the same to all of his immediate buddies. We get treated to a view of who is definitely the game's antagonist, and stumble upon a newly realized suit of marine armor. He puts it on, hears some decidedly robotic voice plead for his co-operation, and hearing about how the UAC fucked up again he smashes a screen. You better get used to him smashing important things throughout the game, because it seems like Doomguy has now had enough of everyone's bullshit. After all, if this is the same Doomguy as of yesteryear then how can you blame him for having to destroy Hell numerous times by now? Thanks to the UAC, of course.

Anyway, it immediately dawns on you that this is, no kidding, a fast-paced shooter. Not only do you move fast but your enemies, at least demonic ones, do as well. And if they're not lobbing fireballs at you while keeping a modest distance from you, they're closing in to get a swipe at you. Get used to that, too. It gets harder and harder from here. You are not going to be playing this like Call of Duty at all, so if you're used to sitting behind cover, then you're going to be out of your comfort zone entirely.

It's been said that this game follows a very similar formula to that of Painkiller, another FPS title that I enjoy playing that, too, has been compared to the likes of Doom. Painkiller gave us sequential progression, wherein you get sealed up in a room and have to clear out the bad guy quota to proceed. It's not as obvious in Doom 2016, but you will notice it if you play enough, or even care to realize it. Not that this detracts from the experience because the game is a fucking blast to play.

One aspect that I admired about this outing is that it encourages you to play with an open mind. From exploring the levels for all of its secrets & collectibles, to changing up your tactics as the forces of Hell bear down on you with the countless combinations of tactics they are capable of. It opens up replayability and promotes active participation. To stay still is tantamount to throwing in the white towel, but you still know that Hell will just fucking gut you like a pig anyway no matter how they get you. Just like you did to them the entire game. Pay Hell unto Hell, they say? Pay Hell unto Doom Marine, too. You're sick of the UAC and of Hell, and Hell is sick of you.

It has awesome pacing; the story is kind of nonsensical but funny & interesting in spite of that; you can acquire various upgrades for your weapons, suit, and runes that grant you additional functionalities like increased pickup range and others. Enemy designs are as good as ever, often paying homage to the classics and to Doom 3. And rather than lumber at you, many of them haul ass in your general direction to get as much of a furious, hate-filled punch or swipe in as possible. Weapons have "oomph!" again and when you think the game isn't cleverly mixing things up enough, their various upgrades present more possibilities in battle. 

Level design was important to the single-player aspect of Doom 4, because had it been slouched at all, or reduced to the very tedious and restricted corridors of Doom 3, then this game wouldn't be as impressive as it actually is. You're not going in straight lines this time around, and you're not going to be restricted to just backpeddling away from an oncoming threat. Levels tend to be not only very open, but have many twists and turns and, most noticeably, height plays a huge role this time around. Since Doomguy now lifts himself up on ledges and can gain an upgrade in the game to make this process more efficient, you WILL be climbing ledges, crates, cliffsides, and whatever else there is in the environment. There are also secrets strewn about in all of the levels, multiple ones each, and often just outside of your general vision. The game encourages exploration in this way, and it's fantastic.

I can't really say the same about multiplayer. Doom has never, in my opinion, had truly breathtaking multiplayer. The classics definitely brought some big new technology to the table, thus opening up multiplayer options at the time, but they have not since stood the test of time. That distinction actually belongs to the franchise's sister series, Quake. Nonetheless, there's no excuse for what we got here, given all the "this isn't Call of Duty; this is Doom!" hype we were given leading up to its release. While that statement was mostly true, there's one glaring elephant in the room that makes the game resemble COD; load-outs. People did tell Id that they didn't like that functionality, but someone didn't listen and it made it to the final product. So instead of having to grab weapons in the level as you compete against others, you can now start with two weapons of your choice at the expense of getting others as you play. By resorting to this method they've actually created, inadvertently, massive weapon balancing issues. Because of this damn near everyone equipped only certain weapons, making it another missed opportunity. And that game narrator just sounds uninterested. Where's the deep, booming voice we heard in Quake 3 Arena? Unreal: Tournament?

SnapMap is another major feature of the game and while the potential for greatness was there, there were a number of issues at hand. The limitations are those issues. You can only play with up to 4 players in your creations, you can only use pre-made tilesets in your designs, and the maps tend to be rather small because of the limits. Some very creative, sometimes hilarious results have come from the community because of this mode, sure, but unless Id/Bethesda commissions some major overhauls to this mode, it won't have lasting power.

But like many who are enjoying Doom 4, I mostly judge a game by its single-player experience. And in that regard, Doom 4 succeeds admirably. Doom is relevant again, and I'm fucking happy about it. Let's just hope those guys who made the multiplayer suite don't come back in the event that we get a sequel. And can it be set on Earth, this time?

B+

The Good:

+ Fast-paced, brutal combat
+ Enemies are fun to fight again.
+ All of the weapons are useful, and they're all a blast to shoot with.
+ Much better level design than Doom 3. Why? Because it's not a corridor shooter, now!
+ Even zombies pose a threat, unlike in the aforementioned game.
+ Levels are made for you to explore, promoting growth in the process
+ Many upgrades, boosts (runes), and the like open up more gameplay options
+ The Hell levels are worth the time to experience.
+ That fist-bump sequence.
+ That opening sequence. Holy shit!
+ Doomguy doesn't give a shit anymore, and would probably give Duke Nukem a brutal Glory Kill if he ever ran into him. You've been warned, Duke.
+ Generally nice to look at
+ SnapMap is great, in theory.
+ So too, could have been the case for the Multiplayer suite...

The Bad:

 - Texture pop-in issues
-  SnapMap ends up being a disappointment.
- The Multiplayer was an even bigger disappointment.
- Classic levels (these are secrets found in each level) were translated quite strangely in this game. They do bring nostalgia factor, but they don't function the same and it's awkward to play in them.
- It eventually ends.
- It may remind you a bit too much of Brutal Doom, which is a starkly overrated mod for the classic games.
 

Teenage Mutant Megan Fox Review (2014, Action/Comedy/Sci-Fi, Paramount Pictures/Nickelodeon Films)

Cowabunga, said no Megan Fox ever.

Once mired by idiotic announcements that the film would be about alien, mutant, ninja, turtles who happen to be teenagers (?), as well as other Michael Bay hokum, people were worried for a while that this would be a complete flop of a movie. So Michael relented, sobered up just long enough to change his mind, and we then got this product. I won't lie; this film isn't Oscar material, but it does what it's supposed to. At least in most cases it does.

So the film follows our gang, after something like twenty-five minutes of poorly-acted April O'Neil thanks to the latent (still) talents of Megan Fox. A wasted opportunity Shredder and his boring-as-hell Foot clan are the bad guys. April O'Neil Megan Fox is connected to everybody in this universe, too, because Bay had to suck up to Fox in some way or another I guess. On another note, Fox apparently likes, or liked the comics so that had to mean she was going to do a stellar job, right? Well, if you didn't find some of her scenes in the first twenty or so minutes cringe-worthy then you might find the rest of the movie watchable since her role diminishes a little. Otherwise, I've warned you of what you're getting into. There's a reason I called this "Teenage Mutant Megan Fox" and that's because this film centers almost entirely around her.

Our heroes are treated exactly like the Transformers, which so happens to be another property that Michael Bay wanted to bless with his cerebral brand of film-making (I hope the sarcasm was obvious). They don't appear in full until around 25 or so minutes into the movie. And by the time they do appear it's revealed (in typical Bay fashion) that they're loud, superhumanly strong (I'll get to that in a bit), and make for ample opportunities of copious amounts of explosions. The latter point is Michael Bay 101 so given that he's the producer of this movie, you had to see it coming.

If this outing gets one thing right, it's the action. Future installment flaws aside (thanks to the aforementioned superhuman strength the turtles now possess), you can't pretend this movie isn't fun in any way. Incessant, freakishly annoying shaky cams aside, it's a blast watching them swing and kick, slice n' dice through The Foot, even if the Foot in this movie consists entirely of gun-toting goofballs who don't stand a chance against our heroes at all. The final fight scene in particular takes the cake, and let's not forget the Splinter vs. Shredder melee earlier on, the former of whom manages to hold his own against the antagonist for a few minutes before getting beaten. Keep in mind that the Shredder is utilizing a strength-enhancing suit of power armour, which was obviously the only way he could stand a chance against the turtles. Of course, while all that fun stuff happens, ordinary humans like April and what's his name, the guy who objectifies her every five seconds, can't even give us anything like the spectacle of the turtles because they're lame human beings with no superhuman strength to speak of.

That's roughly all the film actually gets right. The backstories are all fine enough, but it's the way it's executed that leaves some things to be desired. For one, April is at the center of fucking everything in this movie. She owned all the turtles AND Splinter as pets as a child; HER dad inadvertently performed experiments on them, not knowing they were for a sinister purpose (apparently carrying out a plan that was a ripoff of the first Amazing Spider-Man film which in this movie universe took at least a dozen years to execute); SHE has a connection to Eric Sachs/Sacks, one of the brains behind the evil plot of the movie; SHE put them in the sewers of New York (why?); SHE unites the turtles to fight a greater enemy; SHE manages to deliver the killing/defeating blow on the Shredder. That's not covering all the damn screen time she gets. Was Megan Fox really that damn attractive? I guess so!

That's not all of it, either. It's hard to discern whether this film is truly for kids or for youth, or adults, or god knows who because of the rampant sexual innuendo and imagery. We're not talking nudity here, but objectification (not to come across as a self-righteous type but it's quite blatant in this movie) of mainly Megan Fox. She's trying to do her part in the mountain scene? Let's focus on her ass hanging on the passenger window! Michaelangelo first meets O'Neil? Come across as a stalker type and drop highly-suggestive sexual innuendos, which, given the character's species and their 'assets', comes across as REALLY FUCKING CREEPY. O'Neil's reporter partner drops half-wit come-ons every chance he gets. Her first on-screen reporting immediately earns her comments about her boobs. Nobody takes her seriously, professionally OR personally, which includes the likes of a washed-up Whoopie Goldberg for crying out loud. So, why are we supposed to?

And then there's a scene where the turtles return home after having met Meg-- er April O'Neil in the flesh, only for them to be caught by Splinter having disobeyed an order. They are instructed to perform odd feats of endurance while Splinter teases them with...Pizza Hut. The entire scene would be right at home in the commercial segments of cable television, not in a god damn movie. It's such invasive advertising that I was taken aback by the audacity of it all. There's subtlety and then there's TMNT, in which shitty brands of greasy pizza made with no love & care gets advertised as if everyone involved depended on the act for dear life. I can handle subtle product placement in small doses, but such flagrant  commercialism is absolutely toxic to children who most certainly do watch movies like this, and most of all it is truly off-putting as it brings you back to shitty reality where pizzas like this exist.

You really do have to turn off your brain if you want this movie to work. And that's how it managed to succeed. The movie would have fared a tiny bit better had the cameras not been handled in such an inept fashion, thanks to non-stop shaky cams. And the turtles look fucking scary, and their persons are crowded with all kinds of crap that does nothing for them as characters. Oh and a little less Megan Fox would not have hurt, either.

In speaking of characters, namely that of the eponymous turtles, they barely have any. Michaelangelo so far is the only one of them to have developed a character, with Donatello coming in a moderate second. We see Leo & Raph bickering with one another but speaking for myself, I don't feel it. Really it seems to be that the only character traits that even survived in this version is what role each turtle serves for the group. Yet in that regard this film is extremely late to the party anyway. As the turtles are trying to save the day they all confess things to one another, with Raph going on a bender about how in spite of his fighting with them all (kind of a lost cause as it was poorly developed in the movie), it's all because he feels weak compared to the rest of them. Then all of that is played for laughs almost immediately.

Splinter probably gets the most character development of our mutant heroes, and he kind of kicks the most ass. He takes on the Shredder all by himself, and holds his own for a short period; he's the nucleus of the group; he's played by Tony Shalhoub. Oh and he has a really bizarre looking rat-stache.

There aren't as many explosions as you may think, considering this is a Michael Bay production through & through. But like any Bay film there are a host of puerile jokes to be heard, even a racist one here and there. In one scene, the turtles are returning to their sewer hideout in the most physics-defying way seen in films in a long time, and they all dive at the same time into a hole. You guessed it if you know what happens as a result but what really nails it is the oncoming fart joke. Yep, that should please the kids plenty for this one.

I think the real deal breaker for me here is that this film doesn't have a strong identity of its own. Yeah it's certainly the most kinetic and the shiniest Turtles property to date, but on its own it is at best a mediocre effort. All that saves it are the action scenes and even they pose problems because in this new continuity there are few characters who can stand toe to toe with the turtles because of their inexplicable super-human strength. Karai shows up in the movie, and in retrospect I have no idea why as she's not a physical match for the turtles at all. Shredder had to don a suit of power armour to take them on, and because it's likely been destroyed as of his defeat, he might have to mutate himself in order to pose a threat again. And then there's the Foot, who all kept shooting at the turtles' bulletproof bodies even though it was obviously futile, and otherwise had no fighting skill at all.

A sequel is underway, probably coming out for mid-Spring, and it is apparent that a few noisy complaints have been addressed. The turtles, for instance, won't be so over-detailed and thus, hideous. The Foot clan will be ninjas again. And Casey Jones makes an appearance. On the other hand, Tyler Perry will be one of the villains and we all know how much regard he has for this medium (he has none at all).

C

The Good: 
 + The action is fun.
+ Didn't end up the way Michael Bay originally intended.
+ Splinter (at first) hands Shredder his ass. Alone.
+ It ends.
+ The sequel is fixing some of the glaring issues with this film.
+ The elevator scene reminds us why the turtles are appealing in the first place.

The Bad:
- The Shredder isn't well played. He also NEEDS power amour to fight the turtles
- Why is Kirai even in the movie? She can't do anything except shout.
- The Foot are just gun-toting idiots.
- Rips off The Amazing Spider-Man entirely with the endgame scenario.
- That Pizza Hut endorsement.
- Sometimes nauseating shaky cam. Enough with this garbage!
- Is it for kids? Adults? Teenagers? Perverted old men? I am leaning towards the latter.
- Megan Fox still can't act.
- The turtles have superhuman strength, which seemed to replace their ninja fighting skills.
- The turtles look fucking scary.  
-  Megan Fox, or April O'Neil as we have to call her, is the center of the universe. 
- Takes 25 minutes for us to finally see the turtles. 
- VERY little character development, and the turtles are reduced to just archetypes.
 

Ezra Levant's Hilarious, Yet Predictable Tantrum on Election Night

That's kind of an overdone title, but it's completely appropriate because it is true. I know it's been a few weeks since the election and Trudeau was just sworn in as Prime Minister last week, but ever since the night in which (to be linked to later) article in question was published I felt like saying something about Levant's hissy fit sore-loser tirade on his inappropriately titled "The Rebel" website. Of course, that same tirade is centered entirely around the election.

I want to open with a tangent, probably a few paragraphs long I am sure. As convincing as some of his headlines may be to the casual observer, and all of them are very cynical indeed (and because of this, they can be grabbing; I'm sure Levant learned this trick in his years as a polemicist), sometimes fear-laden ones. So if you're looking for the hot scoop, are gullible (easily influenced by partisan "journalism"), and are eager to hear the full story even if most who are telling it are telling you spin, then you're probably already buying into his asinine garbage. Every single thing he writes isn't to inform readers, but to persuade them into taking on his way of thinking. He's either attacking somebody like a frothing attack dog, or defending one of his buddies (usually in the non-renewable energy industry, such as former emperor Prime Minister Stephen Harper) like a frothing guard dog. Sometimes I am surprised he doesn't take a contributor role at the circus that is Fox News because he really would fit right in.

There are important things to bring up before digging into his very bullshit-ridden article to which I will link, regrettably, because it will probably just generate (as little as possible given that I know I don't get much traffic at all) a few page views vital to his cause. Anyway, Ezra Levant has a funny history that he doesn't tell you on his site, in which he self-proclaims to be the "Rebel Commander", the use of which is more telling than anything else. You see, there's a reason he has defended our outgoing Prime Minister and his reign of terror for the entirety of his, well, reign; they're not only former colleagues (they probably will resume this relationship at the very least given that Harper has moved back to Calgary, on a VIP flight provided by the Prime Minister himself!), but they are also friends. This, to some, is some silly thing called a "conflict of interest" wherein you defend something, be it a person, cause, or group/organization because you have a vested interest in it, either and/or personal or professional. Without being too condescending in pretending to be a living, breathing dictionary, Ezra Levant has a personal stake in exactly everything that Harper does, and has done.

It also needs to be stated that Ezra is directly tied with the non-renewable energy sector in a professional matter. His book, "Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oilsands" was not written by accident; it is entirely PR-driven propaganda meant to stave off any criticism directed at the oil sands by redirecting any ire people may have for it at Middle Eastern oil, namely Saudi Arabian & Iraqi oil. Anyone who is fucking anyone knows and would agree with Levant that the oil sands certainly has a moral advantage over the other stuff because of the lack of people getting killed over it, but that really is all that you can say about it. The oil sands has a red ledger, too, and while most people gloss over this by saying "well at least it creates jobs/you don't hear about any issues with it do you?", you can still find out that it wasn't all roses. You know, dumping the discards of bitumen extraction into local geography that included bodies of water (or seeped into bodies of water, as most polluters wish wouldn't happen but it truly does), and the Alberta government mistakenly placing all its eggs in the energy-sector basket (look where that's gotten us).

Never mind that Norway has a far superior economic model than we do. They're handling all of this same stuff better than we ever have and probably ever will, no matter who is running the government and to boot, they're far happier than we are. Makes you want to move there, eh? Whatever, this is about Levant and not about happy Scandinavians. In any case, as Levant was biting his nails in disgust and dread over his fellow Canadian voters giving a 39.5% majority vote to the eeeeeeevil Liberals that one fateful October 19th evening, he was slamming his keyboard to come up with his very predictable reactionary article: Justin Trudeau won. What now? Keep in mind that Levant is the same charming personality who went on a completely insane tirade over Trudeau photo-bombing (with permission, mind you) a wedding photo wherein he gives the bride a peck on the cheek. That wasn't the only time Levant had gone after Trudeau in such a petty fashion, because Trudeau bit him back in response. Oh that Lil' Trudeau, he likes attention don't ya know it?

His article is full of fear mongering, hate mongering, and straight up logical fallacies so numerous and potent that you could use it in University to make a case for "what not to write in Journalism 101" He violates all the rules in the book and happily takes things out of context when he wants to, because providing the real context would hurt his own narrative. The next block is straight out of the article for the purpose of point-by-point response:

Justin Trudeau just won a majority government. Get ready for the pain.

He promised to raise taxes, raise spending and put our country back into debt.

He vowed to kill the Northern Gateway pipeline and to bring in new carbon taxes.

He said he'd abandon our military mission against ISIS terrorists, and take in 25,000 Syrian migrants by Christmas.

Do you doubt he’s going to do it?

His ideas will be a disaster. Government will grow. Personal freedom

will shrink. Our national security will be weakened. And our foreign

policy will tilt far left.

Trudeau is the candidate who said he admires China for its “basic dictatorship”, and promises to normalize relations with Iran.

And who’s going to stop him?

The political left controls most provincial legislatures and the courts. Every university and NGO pushes to the left.

But the worst is the mainstream media. For nine years, they weren’t just watchdogs — they were mad dogs. I called it “Harper Derangement Syndrome”.

Well, after watching the media's pro-Liberal bias in this campaign, do you doubt that they’re about to become Trudeau's lapdogs?

So who will hold the Liberal government to account? Who will shine a light of public scrutiny on what Trudeau does — his fan club at the CBC?

The Sun News Network is gone. The National Post is in disarray. The Conservative Party itself will now be consumed with a divisive leadership race.

So who will be the people’s opposition?

 The rest of the article is blatant self-aggrandizement that seems to be a very funny, sore-loser like response to the election results. If you read some of the supporting comments on the article you'll see people making such inane and logically self-defeating arguments as, "Only 68.1% of eligible Canadians voted and only 39.5% voted for the Liberals so the majority of Canadians don't support them", even though the most effortless refutation to that argument is that a smaller percentage of voting Canadians voted for the Tories so even less people support them. But can you expect brain power from loyal readers of Levant's inept ramblings?

But let's respond to the temper tantrum on display, shall we?

Justin Trudeau just won a majority government. Get ready for the pain.

If he and his government roll back at least some of the cuts Harper's government made to healthcare during his tenure, then at least someone will be able to ease whatever pain comes from this election. If it ever does, anyway.

He promised to raise taxes, raise spending and put our country back into debt.

As for taxes, the only increase would be on those who are in the 1 percentile range. You know, the people who hold the majority of the wealth in his country and have been allowed to pocket more and more of it from the rest of us while the cost of living continues to surge faster than what we actually make at work. Yes, every year we'd get a minimum wage increase, usually of 25 cents per hour, but can $10.50 an hour help you keep your barebones bachelor suite in Vancouver afloat for even a whole month? Probably not. As for spending, you know what they say, "you gotta spend money to make money." 

An oblivious bragging point for the Tories right now even though by rights they shouldn't, is how they 'balanced the budget'. Unfortunately, you don't achieve that while the country is in a recession wherein several hundred thousand Canadians lose their jobs in less than a year and thus are unable to spend as much money around the country as they could before, let alone contribute to tax collection. You get a "balanced budget" by making cuts to various programs, mostly for ideological reasons. On the subject of spending (especially of the lavish variety) remember that Harper, during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto, personally spent $1+ billion in securing police security forces that went on to commit crimes against humanity that will line the history books for years to come. Also remember his "Economic Action Plan" that put more money in the pockets of his political pals than in those who were said to be benefit from it such as post-secondary students, which included myself for two years during the early 2010's.

As for debt, we aren't alien to that. There is such a thing as "debt recovery" although I am sure that right-wing blowhards like you love to deny its potential manifestation in the case of Trudeau's run in the government. If the USA can get on that road to recovery, then surely we can.

He vowed to kill the Northern Gateway pipeline and to bring in new carbon taxes.

Don't forget that he wants the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward, so he's not all bad, guy! But, when it comes to carbon taxes, if you have read any interviews with Trudeau in the past year you'd know that he finds a centralized, federal approach is dated. Rather, he wants it to be left to the provinces. Indeed, Quebec (Alberta's most hated target), B.C. and even Alberta have their own systems for carbon taxation. The latter two in particular are revenue neutral and Alberta's system actually brought about a decrease in individual tax rates. There's no other platform that his party has pertaining to carbon taxes, so lying about it just gets you nowhere, Ezra.

He said he'd abandon our military mission against ISIS terrorists, and take in 25,000 Syrian migrants by Christmas.

If you mean that he'd abandon Harper's current methodology of putting boots on the ground to get killed aimlessly while only protecting Syria & Libya, as Harper's government was only willing to protect those two regions in spite of ISIS' continuous and worrying growth throughout Asia and even Northern Africa, then yes. But to say that he wouldn't do anything about that conflict but abandon it, a conflict for which there is a huge conundrum with no simple solutions, is  simply fallacious. He now wants to do it the responsible way, which I assume to mean restoring our image as peace-keepers who distribute medical and food aid to affected regions rather than trying to look like gung-ho glorified killers. The Syrian refugee crisis is another conundrum for which there are no simple answers. You need to take in at least some, but if you're going to let paranoia and fear of a few possible ISIS fuckheads taking advantage of this exodus determine your final decision on the matter then ISIS has already won. As for doing all of that by Christmas this year? That's a stretch, regardless if Trudeau said it or not. Because the plan now is to get something done by 2016.

Do you doubt he’s going to do it?

Loaded question of the century. You had already made up your mind prior to even writing that; you just had to come to terms with it and accept it.

His ideas will be a disaster. Government will grow. Personal freedom will shrink. Our national security will be weakened. And our foreign policy will tilt far left. Trudeau is the candidate who said he admires China for its “basic dictatorship”, and promises to normalize relations with Iran.

What a load of crap, all of it. You don't know if something will be a disaster until it is actually implemented and its effects are felt. But unlike what the media in this country wants to tell you, you need to let things take their course before you can judge them. Even prior to the Alberta NDP government enacting any kind of tax increase, rather just announcing a possibility of them, you had media and their friends in the energy sector (mostly) committing crimes against humanity by laying off hundreds, even thousands of people just over the possibility of a tax increase on the wealthiest Albertans. And then the NDP themselves said that "no tax increase will happen on their watch" and the companies betraying these now unemployed Canadians looked even worse than before.

How will the government grow, exactly? And personal freedom will actually grow at least a little bit because he wants to legalize marijuana, which reduce the number of new felons added to our criminal justice system. Lots of people like to smoke the stuff in this country, and under Trudeau they won't have to worry about merely being seen possessing the drug. I dunno, man, that sounds like more personal freedom than the other way around. 

How will our national security be weakened? If anything, the Liberals will be more open diplomatically (not shunning the United Nations is one thing) and won't be so antagonistic towards foreign bodies. What's wrong with that? Or do we have to maintain the status quo that really is much ado about nothing? What you probably like, Levant, is his apparent position on recognizing a Palestinian state; he won't. 

The last line is especially egregious and is perhaps the most sinful handful of words assembled in the article. What Levant is purposefully doing is trying to engineer a train of thought; the thought, in your gullible head of course, that Justin Trudeau actually likes that China is a "basic dictatorship." That would be the case if it were what he said, but it isn't. Granted, I've read what he really said and frankly it isn't all that much better, given that it infuriated a lot of people, but you be the judge.

From the CBC's article - Justin Trudeau's 'foolish' China remarks spark anger (click here to read):

The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: "There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime."

 Base level literacy reveals that he didn't express admiration for their basic dictatorship, but for the economic recovery they made, for which the basic dictatorship as he calls it is partially responsible. Mind you his choice of words was still rather poor, being that China has a reputation for squelching political dissidents and controlling information traffic in the country, whether by televised media or via the internet. They certainly don't have a sterling reputation as a bastion of freedom, but he's at least partially correct. Just like, and you can't deny this, the fact that Hitler's reign of terror in Germany jump-started an economic recovery for the country that was hit the hardest following World War One (the Treaty of Versailles did the country no favours) and the Great Depression. You could certainly say a lot of bad things about Adolf, for sure, but he did do something right, even if people suffered pain & death in the interim.

To cut this one short I will state an observation I've made over the years about self-professed right-wingers: they are very quick to commit such fallacies as quote-mining (as seen here) and cherry picking, so this is no surprise to me.

And who’s going to stop him?

You obviously fancy yourself as the one who is going to stop him. Provided you get donations from your readers. As if you didn't get enough from the crowdfunding drive you ran in order to jump-start your shitty site in the first place.

The political left controls most provincial legislatures and the courts. Every university and NGO pushes to the left.

Even the ones run, partially or in full I am not entirely sure, right here in oil country? Athabasca University ring a bell? It's pretty much paid for by interests for which you fight, Levant. 

Otherwise this point appears to be a non-sequitur. What does this really have to do with Trudeau winning the election? You do realize that Atlantic Canada, half of which historically voted Conservative in most elections, was fucking swept by the Liberals this election cycle? That came as an absolute surprise to me given that I've come to know about the place after living there for over half a dozen years.

But the worst is the mainstream media. For nine years, they weren’t just watchdogs — they were mad dogs. I called it “Harper Derangement Syndrome”.

Another egregious example of you sticking up for your good buddy Harper, no matter what reality says otherwise. Our media just happens to be a lot more partisan-neutral than you'd like. Also, you conveniently leave out the fact that Harper not only detested our media, but controlled it with an iron fist. Media blackouts and self-serving demands like not attending debates where "tough questions" would be asked of him were just some of the routine acts he's pulled off, all so the people of Canada don't see him for the chickenshit bully that he is. He hardly ever gave them a chance, that is unless they were your former TV station Sun Media where he was treated like a fucking GOD! 

And good on them any time they'd actually hold him accountable for his actions. I know for sure that you want something like this done to Trudeau and on that I'd absolutely agree, simply by virtue of him being Prime Minister, but when it's done to your good pal(s) you turn the other cheek and pretend the rules don't apply to you.

Fuck that.

Well, after watching the media's pro-Liberal bias in this campaign, do you doubt that they’re about to become Trudeau's lapdogs?   

It should be mentioned that Post Media was fucking outed, on election night (only echoed in the media shortly thereafter) for trying to get every single paper the organization owns, which includes your god awful "Sun" rags by the way, to endorse Stephen Harper. In the editorial sections, especially. Who was the National Post guy present with Peter Mansbridge that night? I forgot his name but you know who I'm talking about. That's the guy whose ties to the National Post was cut because he refused to endorse Harper.

But granting you this, if they do become his lapdogs, then they should by all means be held accountable for this infraction, whenever or however it takes place. See how easy that is? Mind you, you and your ilk would be given the same fucking treatment were things different on election night.

So who will hold the Liberal government to account? Who will shine a light of public scrutiny on what Trudeau does — his fan club at the CBC?
   
Hopefully the legitimate media, and not your "rebellious" one that carries such a blatantly obvious partisan agenda. There will definitely be scrutiny directed at his cabinet's actions. What matters most is that it is as fair and partisan-free as possible. I know that you and your toadies at The Rebel and anything in Post Media won't grant him that, so you guys can piss in a hat.
  
The Sun News Network is gone. The National Post is in disarray. The Conservative Party itself will now be consumed with a divisive leadership race. 

So who will be the people’s opposition?

Thank the cosmos for the first part! And the National Post is a disgrace to journalism, so hell fucking yes to that, too! And it's about time they get a new leader. Maybe then they won't alienate so many voters and might actually charter a new course for Canadian politics. Or maybe they won't. 

And you don't care about the people, so please, don't pretend. You care about yourself and your rich buddies in the oilsands and in the PC party, not the people who actually have to struggle to get by in this country that has allowed itself to be overly dependent on industry that has since failed it. But by all means keep entertaining us with these inane rambles about Trudeau, for whom you have a very fascinating yet creepy obsession.
 

AM1200 Review (Horror/Thriller, DreamLogic Pictures)

Get ready for spoilers.

Well it took a while to track this gem down and I finally did tonight. It's a short film of only 39 minutes but those minutes are never squandered. The film was also met with a limited physical release. People who have watched it describe it as Lovecraftian, and when you too give it a gander, you will see exactly what those people mean.

One thing that pops out about the film is the film's minimalism. It has standard filmography that doesn't break any new ground on its own, but that's not befalling of the film's quality. The quality comes from the pacing and of course the eponymous "AM 1200", a radio station from which our anti-hero catches a distress signal. At night. A number of strange goings on, starting with some of his electronics on hand shorting out or suddenly ceasing their functions, mysterious lights forming in the wilderness, and of course the seemingly abandoned radio station all hint at something sinister.

So he goes inside, daft as that may be, and he too tries calling for help. More odd things make him go exactly where he's needed. As he investigates the radio station, noticing a barricaded door in the interim, he comes across a man detained to a pole. The man has clearly come out of some strange spell for he's not only entirely irrational, but is borderline psychotic. The encounter gets stranger and stranger hinting at a greater, more sinister force at work, but then his actions lead to the protagonist being forced to kill him.

After he does this, a strange, unexplained force seems to assault his mind. It's a struggle that he ends up losing and it gets the better of him. He grabs the detained man's body, hauls him over to the barricaded door, removes the barricade, then brings him down a cellar staircase. He hoists the body onto a workshop table of some sort and in a cold fashion he dismembers it. After he takes possession of a couple of those body parts, and brings them toward a hole in the floor.

Our protagonist peers into the hole, which at first resembles a well filled with water. Then something shifts within. It is this something that beckons him to offer the fruits of his horrible misdeed as a twisted feeding ritual. When this is done, he clambers toward the radio equipment that is still working and makes a call for help. The cycle continues.

So with the plot out of the way, let's get down to basics. First is the most noticeable aspect of the film: it is very short. This is not to the detriment of the product because everything that needed to be shown to the viewer was indeed all that was necessary. Ever heard of a little something called "excess" or "bloat", when referring to movies? Well at least this film can't be declared guilty of this. It's short and to the point, which is perfect. And because the film will very likely leave you with questions about what actually happened, that means the mysterious aspect of the plot was written well. It's a horror film with a cosmic tinge. In other words, the perfect Lovecraftian horror film.

Ray Wise, not exactly an A-Lister by some means (he's had credits in RoboCop, Jeepers Creepers 2, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, and Twin Peaks to name some), does show up in flashbacks to establish the protagonist's backstory, before he's on the run in his car to be exact. Not much is done with Wise's character otherwise but the whole sequence in which he appears does help to cement the film's dreary tone, something akin to a neo-noir film.

There are damn near no special effects used at all. And this actually works to the film's benefit because it ends up being, feeling so raw. When inexplicable lights appear in the woods, seeming to float their way closer and closer to our protagonist, you do feel a bit of dread as to what it is. As more and more strange goings-on manifest to scare the main character into taking shelter. One feeling that you may get from watching the whole thing is that it is all so minimalist. The radio station of note seems particularly tiny, but that adds to how fucking creepy the place is. Then towards the ominous ending you learn the terrible secret literally lurking right underneath.

If you want powerful chills coupled with modest brevity, then AM1200 is the horror flick for you. My only complaint right now is that the official DVD for this rather short (not that it's a downside in itself) film warrants a fifteen dollar price tag. If you think that's reasonable then by all means get it, and show your friends.

B+

The Good: 

+ Nothing in the duration of the film is wasted. It builds up to something, shows us the source of the horror, then sets up more atrocities.
+ Eric Lange delivers convincing emotional responses to the strange occurrences in the film.
+ Makes you keep guessing. That's how you do suspense!
+ The lack of music overall compounds the dread.
+ The radio station is definitely the creepiest part of the film.
+ Is inspired by the works of Lovecraft.
+ That thing in the hole.

The Bad:

- The film's brevity may actually turn off some viewers.
- Leaves  you wanting more.
- The film's price tag is a tad on the steep side.
- Little is done with Ray Wise's character beyond providing backstory to Lange's character.

 

                                                               

The Avengers: Age of Ultron Point-By-Point Review (2015, Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Science Fiction, Disney/Marvel Studios)

 

 

What Rocked:

• Feels bigger; the scale is bigger, more locales are explored, a lot more heroes are involved (and in retrospect when Infinity Wars I & II come out, this will have nothing on the two-part third act), and the stakes are bigger. Loki wanted to rule the world like he always has, whilst Ultron wants to kill everybody and replace everyone with cybernetic beings.

• No slow start. The very opening of the film sees the Avengers beating the ever-loving shit out of HYDRA goons. And the whole scene is awesome.

• Contains a clever jab at Disney, in the form of a joke (that kind of runs its course a bit too much), that pokes fun at how they're still sensitive over coarse language cropping up in major film properties. If only you guys could witness how foul-mouthed much of your target audience actually is, Disney!

• The pacing of the film seems better at times than in the first film, but at other times (yeah, no specific examples needed, just watch the film)...

• Ultron is arguably more menacing as a villain than Loki, but he's a lot more one-dimensional. Loki has a huge inferiority complex and he's not irredeemably evil, plus he's leashed by Thanos. Ultron suddenly wants to pull a Skynet almost right out of the gate. And he hates Tony Stark. Still, I had the feeling that Ultron would have done far more damage than Loki had he been allowed to. And you know what? He did.

• Quicksilver & Scarlett Witch. I liked them both. The former for his cocky wit and the latter for the sheer possibilities her abilities may bestow upon the franchise (much of what she is capable of in the comics is left intact in this film).

• Hulk is one of the better developed characters in the film. In one scene in particular, the Hulk himself sees the destruction he (and Stark, don't forget him) caused and the fear he has struck in the hearts of bystanders. This causes him to feel remorse, and it is on full display. Then he goes through the same offhanded treatment he gave to Thor in the previous movie. Guess what that is. 

• Avoids being a "destruction and special effects at the expense of bystanders' livelihoods" fiasco as seen in the lackluster Man of Steel.

• The Hulkbuster vs. Hulk fight, while feeling a bit cut short in the end, was satisfying.

• Hawkeye is no longer borderline useless. He actually does some damage this time around.

• Captain America, thanks in part to the quite exceptional "Winter Soldier" film last year, shines brighter than he did in the first outing.

• Johannson is as hot as ever as Black Widow. And she was pregnant through most of the filming!

What Didn't Rock:

• The editing was clearly done in haste and to placate the fierce demand for a (condensed) theatrical release, some scenes were altered drastically or removed entirely.

• Thor, aside from a few tricks pulled off with Mjolnir as per usual, does damn near nothing of note.

• The action appeared too blurry, seemed far too closely shot at times (the first battle with Ultron comes to mind), and there are so many jump cuts I felt like I was watching a god damn Michael Bay film.

• We see Black Widow trying to seduce Bruce Banner, hinting at a ship between the two, but we just don't feel it. Not to mention that considering what happened in the first movie (hint: Banner loses control of his Hulking out and almost does her in), it doesn't make fucking sense.

• Ultron made a few too many jokes to be believable as a cold, determined, calculating AI. I know Joss wanted us to feel some human traits in him but they pushed that angle a little too far. It was hard to take him seriously at times. The "we all create the things we dread" scene, anyone?

• Stark's role in, inadvertently I must add, making all the film's shit occur (though Banner's reluctant supporting efforts in letting the shit hit the fan could be considered for him a pass) barely gets mentioned nor taken to task. Sure, Thor hoists him up in the air in anger for his ambitions regarding The Vision, in light of what they produced previously in the film, but that's about all that happens.

• Nick Fury shows up all of a sudden. The tens of millions they spent on shoehorning Samuel L. Jackson into the sequel, in spite of SHIELD having been dismantled previously (and if you're on top of the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D spinoff, whatever remains of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the shadows is led by Coulson), could have been spent on improving the film in other aspects. So yeah, we didn't get an AoS crossover.

• *MAJOR SPOILER -- YOU'VE BEEN WARNED* Quicksilver gets killed so unceremoniously and suddenly that it's a complete mystery as to why Disney & Marvel went to such great lengths to secure the film rights to use this character. And as it turns out, screwing the nail in the coffin further, is that this character isn't set to re-appear in the MCU for "quite some time." What the fuckery ensues.

• Hulk is played more seriously this time around, and his character suffers for it. Although he does show some humanity at the climaxes of his rampages, the film portrays him in a darker way that kind of at times kills the excitement that he generated previously in the first film. At least he still smashes.

• Twenty minutes or so is spent at the Hawkeye family farm out in the middle of nowhere. Although it's a breather episode in an otherwise frantically-paced film, it serves as a big tease that amounts to exactly the opposite of what it was teasing at (considering Joss Whedon's methodology in foreshadowing the deaths of his characters). And that's also when Nick Fury just suddenly shows up. The entire duration spent at Clint's getaway house served to divide the fanbase, big time.

• The scene wherein Ultron comes to life for the first time, in particular when he's in the form of a holographic programming display (oh Hollywood, AI programming has come a long way from that. You silly Willies), is narmy as all hell.

• Ultron's development is rushed.

• Ultron is vulnerable to being pigeonholed by shutting off the internet. I'm not kidding. And that's just what happens, so of course he's not going to be as menacing as he is in the comics wherein he's pretty much invincible.

• PLOT HOLE: As Ultron is trying to extract Vibranium from Ulysses Klaue (that's his name here), he gets interrupted by a swift appearance of the Avengers. They end up destroying the Ultron chassis present at the scene and though the Avengers are briefly side-tracked during this conflict, one can assume that they wrapped up loose ends here while Iron Man has to round up a rampaging Hulk. The hole here is this: how the fuck does Ultron manage to get the Vibranium he needed to assemble his doomsday device? Said doomsday device consisted of a huge (think long) column of vibranium holding up an entire city way up in the air. That's a lot of vibranium that he, based on what we see in the movie, never attains.

• Based on word of god, we're not getting an extended cut that would, you know, work to correct at least some of the slights seen in the final product.

• Did you know that Joss Whedon considers this to be a good product? That it's exactly what he wanted it to be? Yeah, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Whedon. You're clearly too creatively fatigued for the MCU at this point and I welcome the Russo brothers for any future instalment with which they're involved.

• Should have been split into two parts: part one would have been to set up the events to transpire and be rectified in the second part (as well as establishing character developments and properly introducing and developing new characters), while the second part would see the important action and the inevitable climax to the storyline. Everything would have been developed better than what was seen in the final product.

• A Carol Danvers (a.k.a, Ms. Marvel) and a Spider-Man appearance were cut. The latter is understandable though, given that the landmark deal between Sony & Disney didn't come to fruition until just shy of the release of the movie. But Ms. Marve/Captain Marvel was part of the early drafts of the film.

• We're not going to find out who that mystery woman briefly glimpsed in one of the trailers is. Sorry guys. At least not in this messy film.

• I still enjoyed the film.