the films of the 2000s

BENNETT PLACE : SECTION SEVENTEEN

CINETEXT -- part three

STATIC SHOTS

part three -- napkins

EYES WIDE SHINING

WEDNESDAY/ROOM 237
"Musica Ricercata, II (Mesto, rigido e cerimonale)" by Gyorgy Ligeti

& to all a good night

BENNETT PLACE : SECTION SIXTEEN

CINETEXT : part two

STATIC SHOTS

part two -- Merry Xmas

TEN SOMEWHAT ADEQUATE SEQUELS : PART TEN

Why it's better?
It doesn't take much talent to recognize when a sequel is made just for sequel's sake (MIB II, Ghostbusters II), & when it actually is part-part of a larger thread (Empire Strikes Back, Kill Bill 2). The difference between these two types (& there are other reasons for sequels) is that the prior almost always comes off as forced - sometimes manipulative even. Back to the Future Part II obviously falls under the latter. In fact, Empire Strikes Back is the perfect comparison. Like Empire, BTTFII has no beginning, middle, or end -- it simply is the middle.
So, structurally, it is precise and correct in its 'sequel criteria.' But how does it hold up within the role it plays? ie, the 'second act.' Sure, all three films present conflict, but none as urgent and drastic as the concept of the antagonist more or less ruling the world. And therein lies the best device of the film: in part one, the past - or, time travel in general - is the bad guy; the problem that must be rectified. In two, time travel becomes the helpful & essential device to defeat a less abstract villain. & it's in that way that it's 'better' - in part one, the negative effects of time travel are illustrated with a fading photograph. In two, the effects are here in the present, staring us in the face. An appropriate subtitle for the film (though thank god it didn't happen) would be Back to the Future Part II : Back to the Past.

Why it's worse?
This is another instance when 'originality' plays a huge huge part. No matter what they did, they couldn't top the innovation of the first. And, while part two is, indeed, a riveting 'second act' and not a 'sequel for sequel's sake,' the first act of Part II really promised otherwise (and, ironically, that's how it was sold to audiences). The gimmick of the gadgets and fashion of 2015 was exactly that - the gimmick. Apart from the Sports Almanac and the Hover Board (which, apart from the DeLorean, was the coolest thing to come out of the series - as well as playing an important role in the remainder of the series), the first 30 minutes of Part II are almost completely inconsequential. But, for the sake of bringing the Almanac into it - yes, it was important. It just didn't hafta take so damn long.

"Since when did you become the physical type?!"

STATIC SHOTS

part one -- David Lynch

WOWMANWOW season 2 : episode 16

WOWMANWOW season 2 : episode 16 - watch more funny videos

TEN SOMEWHAT ADEQUATE SEQUELS : PART NINE

Why it's better?
Well, it's better than part one, cause... well, just cause.
NOES is kinda unique to other horror franchises (at least in its first four installments). Unlike the F13s or Texas Chainsaws, the mythology, setting, scope, and tone varies in the first half of the series. More specifically, the first one is a 'dream demon' story, & the second is a tale of possession. Also, the first is a 'fuck you' to overprivileged white kids, & the third just kicks em while they're down.
And the fourth wraps the elements of all three into one. But in a good way. Dream Master is more or less part one all over again - but better. Better, like, Renny-Harlin-is-better-than-Wes-Craven kinda better; less abstract (in good ways), more tightly constructed. Granted, neither of them illustrate the cerebral characteristics & existential horror of nightmares, but, at least Renny knows action. It's less of a rehashing kinda thing, & more of a polishing kinda thing. & I don't mean the Platinum Dunes brand of polish.
Yes, Freddy was jokey/scary in all the movies (his scariest in 2 & 7, jokiest in 5 & 6). Part 4 is the medium. He is the 'most Freddy' in Dream Master. While it's not my favorite of the series, if someone were to ask 'what's a NOES movie like,' or, 'who's Freddy Krueger,' I'd show them 4.
Not surprisingly, if you look at all Nightmare merchandise & publicity, the images of Freddy are usually taken from 4. Hell, my own tattoo is from 4.
Freddy and the Elm Street series are so specifically 1980s, & Dream Master has it cranked to 11. Sure, in the hair, fashion, & dialogue. But it's also noteworthy to point out that it has one of the best rock soundtracks ever - if not the best. Any Time Life 80s compilation pales in comparison. Seriously.

Why it's worse?
Ok, it's kinda rehashy. If it were an actual 'reimagining' deal, it could be forgiven.
But, I can only assume this was due to casting. Had Patricia come back for Kristen - or even if Tuesday Knight had carried it out to the end - I'm sure the movie would have taken different directions. Kristen's 'powers' from Dream Warriors was the (seemingly last minute) hook to carry on through part 4, thus making a bit of 'torch-passing' a major plot point. So, ultimately, Lisa Wilcox carries on the Kristen role - figuratively - which merely creates the illusion of change. That I didn't fall for.

"Swish! Killed a fish"

"What Makes It Special" wins Telly

TEN SOMEWHAT ADEQUATE SEQUELS : PART EIGHT

Why it's better?
Like Lethal Weapon (and most action franchises), the first can come off as somewhat cerebral - if only in comparison. And by cerebral, I mean there's a lotta pesky plot to deal with. That's not to say there's no plot to Die Hard With A Vengeance - but it's bare bones. And that's good! In fact, yes, that's 'why it's better.' It starts with a bang - literally.
The first two films are like episodes of Scooby Doo, in which McClane just can't help but meddle. Because, who else will? & the third is the Scooby Doo episode we never saw - what if all that scheme foiling came with a price? The third does what a sequel should do (& Die Harder didn't) - providing one blurry, yet straight line to the original, while taking a sharp right turn.
Funny - if they'd had a backtalking sidekick for the lackluster second movie, it would've only been more lackluster. Yet this tired concept totally rocks Vengeance (as Sam Jackson does most things).

Why it's worse?
The higher up we get on this list, there're going to be less 'worse' things to take notice of -- keeping in mind that any and every sequel has one very specific flaw: lack of originality. It has to - no matter how much it strays from its predecessor(s).
So, yes, the phrase "the film that started it all" holds bearing in any and every franchise.
I like Jeremy Irons. And I like Bruce even more. Though, I don't know about you, but when I hear the words Die Hard, I picture Alan Rickman. & well, he wasn't in Vengeance.

"All brothers don't know how to shoot guns, you racist motherfucker."

BENNETT GOING BLUE :: you are now being redirected

Ok, remember that thing about the thing? Forget that.
Let's be adventurous & try something new.

Based on the polls, the majority of you seemed pretty psyched on the smutty transition. But not enough.
It also displayed a general sense of uncertainty otherwise. So, how do we make everyone happy?
Like, really happy?

Well, now you & your unpolluted eyes will have a choice. Come to Bennett for the movie / music stuff. & if you want pornography... well, you have the vastness of the interweb for that.
But! you will also have Crimestopper Home Entertainment

Crimestopper is like a tangier Bennett Media. All posts are created/edited/treated by the very 'people' who've brought you this very site. So if that kinda thing gets your wetness wet, then go & get it.

http://crimestopperhe.blogspot.com/

TEN SOMEWHAT ADEQUATE SEQUELS : PART SEVEN

Why it's better?
Similar to, say, Empire Strikes Back or Kill Bill 2 -- Hellbound is a much needed, logical, well thought-out continuation of the first. Not too many changes in tone & subject matter, but it's not a simple do-over like MIB2 or Ghostbusters II. Hellbound provides one of the greatest surprises that (too few) sequels has to offer: it provides answers to questions we didn't know existed, & gives backstory to layers we hadn't noticed. Instead of forcing out a sequel in yet another horror franchise in an attempt to push the narrative forward, it remains rooted and merely unfolds elegantly.

Why it's worse?
Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth is my favorite. But that's a whole other thing.
The rules of this particular game is how they live up to the original (and, once in a while, the other sequels). The thing about Hellbound is: yes, it's a bit better than the first. But! could not be as good without the first. Both films on their own are incomplete, yes, but the first is incomplete is a sorta mystifying kinda way; it's a bizarre tale, & the foundation of that bizarreness may or may not come from the fact that it's a bit of an unfinished thought.
So, really, it could go either way: Hellraiser, on its own, can either be a perplexing ragbag of violence and eroticism that leaves the viewer in blissful wonderment...
or, one disjointed half of a two-parter.
Whichever it is, the second film obviously can't fall back on that 'standalone' quality. Though, again like Empire Strikes Back; if these two films were one long movie, Hellbound would be the best part.

"I...Remember!"

Bennett Media is going BLUE

Forget going green.
After dancing around it for I don't know how long, Bennett Media will change its tone ever so slightly, and start showcasing some more adult-related material.
Now, this doesn't mean 'all nude all day;' this will still remain a film/music site. Though rest assured, any & all pornographic material will still fall into those categories.
And yes, it's gonna get filthy.

What will change?
Well, not too too much. This site has never shied away from sexual content, & if you haven't been intimidated yet, you should be alright. But, in the end, you will just have to judge for yourself.
Film/director tributes will still happen, as well as music videos & wowmanwow. However, internetters, the site as a whole will become NSFW.
As far as the mechanics go -- starting 11.2.09, every time you visit, you'll be 'warned' of the content, which should come as no surprise - as I'm warning you now.

Coitus?
There will be videos & photos & artwork, as well as a few suggestive links on the sidebar. As always, all content will be edited by me in some manner (as well as stuff shot & directed by me
...more on that soon).
Of course, I'd like to point out that the blood & guts has always been present & pretty lurid & will continue to be so. But who cares about that? am I right, people?

So, there it is.
Yes? No? You're not really surprised, are you?
Have a Coke & a smile, take some time to adjust. Until then, take a look at the poll in the sidebar & lemme know just how bummed you are.

TRASH STASH : issue 006

metamorphosis

featuring Elmer Bernstein's unused music cue for the 'transformation' scene from An American Werewolf in London

TEN SOMEWHAT ADEQUATE SEQUELS : PART SIX

Why it's better
Part one was riding on the momentum of the comic book/cartoon/merchandise. And when that kinda anticipation builds, it really leads up to one thing: the initial reveal.
And! Furthermore! The initial reveal (in both movies) comes during the opening title card. Both movies use the exploitation gimmick of a bold, colorful title (in these cases, the immediately recognizable Turtles logo) over a freeze frame. In the first, it lands on top of Donatello's shadow cast upon dark sewer pipes - saturated in warm familiarity, sure, but not a striking image.

Part two already had so much going for it, it could do no wrong (at least in the way of that 'initial reveal') because this film was riding on the momentum of the comic book/cartoon/merchadise/successful first film. So, we weren't waiting to see what the turtles looked like or sounded like or how they carried themselves. We were just waiting to see them again! & what resulted is one of the greatest (catch me on another day, & I'll say the greatest) title cards of all time.

Shredder gets more screen time. & in that time, he proves to be more colorful; not in a foundering, Freddy Krueger kinda way, but he definitely lightens up - and the reason for this is that, unlike the first movie, Ooze is much more of a Turtles vs. Shredder story - which is very much what we (I) want! In other words, the first really set it up, & part two knocks it down -- or, it's meant to anyway...

Why it's worse
Ohhhhh dear, oh dear.
Well, for starters, I place part one at the same level as Burton's Batman; in quality, tone, & texture. Same Level. To put it differently, I hold it in extremely high regard & it's exactly how it should be.
So, the easiest & most obvious backslide is replacing Casey Jones with a teenage pizza delivery boy who does karate. This is bad for several reasons:
Like Slimer, Frank the Pug, Short Round, Jar Jar Binks, and Scrappy Doo - somehow, someone, somewhere, thought the children's movie wasn't nearly childish enough. That, somehow, no way could a sequel to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles appeal to kids. At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Because, yes, Casey Jones was a very mature element & high point of part one, and what made it better (& worse that he was absent in two) is that Elias Koteas's performance (like all of his performances, as few as there are) is underrated to the point of tears. And while he said/she said banter rooted in 'sexual tension' always feels forced & causes a lotta eye-rolling, the scenes between Casey & April are actually really really good, and can hold their own against most of the action sequences (which, ironically, feel forced). Yeah, it was paint-by-numbers dialogue, but it was an attempt at maturity, and reciprocated between two great actors playing great characters, respectively...
Which brings up another point - in part one, Judith Hoag plays April as sweet & spunky; almost kinda hippie-ish. Worldly. She wears shorts & sits with her knees to her chest. She has literal antiques in the attic & a cliched 'family farm.' Ooze replaced her with Paige Turco, as a cold city slicker. She wears suits. Her apartment is sterile & she's generally disgusted with the messiness of the teens. Apart from the obvious division of acting ability (and, sorry, looks) there was a serious character relapse in the writing here; from character to caricature.
The subtitle Secret of the Ooze promises some mystique or unveiling of some kind. But, in fact, there was no Secret - we kinda already knew all about it & weren't given any new information. Like the exhilarating title card, it's one of several promises that simply don't follow through...
So, we got some ooze floatin' around; maybe there's a chance of a Rocksteady & Be-Bop?!
Nope. Close, but... nope. And why not? Seriously - why not?! Instead we get Tokka and Rahzar, who, let's be honest, are filling in. We can at most project our fantasy that when they fight them, they're fighting Rocksteady & Be-Bop.
And they do! They fight them! They fight Shredder, his mutants, and the Foot Clan in a 'climactic sequence' in this Turtles vs. Shredder movie. How great is that?! What element could possibly be added to make such a sequence less great?

You know, nostalgia is fun, & irony will get a chuckle outta me, & we can always point & laugh at dated popular culture & make fun of the way things were. But you know what? Sometimes, I don't wanna. I can't call something "awesome" when it's clearly just stupid. I'm sure I've stressed it before, but I don't believe in guilty pleasures, because I have no guilt for what I take pleasure in. Thereby, I carry no guilt for the climax of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II The Secret of the Ooze, because, I don't take pleasure in it.

"And I thought all the really good dungeons were in Europe."

She's Into Black Guys - Video 2

performed by Bodega Girls

TEN SOMEWHAT ADEQUATE SEQUELS : PART FIVE

A sequel is a work of literature or film that is written after a completed work, and is set in the same "universe" but at a later time. It usually continues elements of the first story, often with the same characters, although this is not always the case - for example, if the main character dies at the end of the first work, a new character (e.g. their son or daughter) may take up their role in the sequel.
-- wordIQ.com

Why it's better
There are a couple movies on this list that are more than "moderately adequate." In fact, a couple are even "as good as" their predecessors (& in some cases, successors). I'll go even further with Halloween III and say that sometimes, late at night, in those frenzied moments before the sandman, I almost always consider it to be better than all other installments.
Yes, all.
Part one is full of abysmal dialogue delivered through inadequate acting. The story is full of holes, & moments of actual, solid suspense tally up to one or maybe less.
& so, the biggest flaw people find in Season of the Witch is that it doesn't continue that trend(?)
Halloween is one of the best lit movies of all time, & probably the best lit 'nighttime' movie ever. Only second to that is - yes, Michael Myers is pretty badass & has a cool mask. Though it kinda ends there; his backstory/mystique/motive/strength/powers weren't really pressing in part one, and have all but been destroyed by its sequels.
Most of em.
After Myers is 'killed' in II, the bigger, more important character lives on - October 31st. That's what people don't get -- or, they get it & don't care. Go to any message board or read any review, & more often than not, you'll find this line somewhere:

If it doesn't have Myers, it's not Halloween.

So, I just gotta ask: were parts 4 through 8 really that spectacular? Did the inclusion of Myers help them at all? You know, it was kinda spooky when he disappears at the end of part one, but when Loomis plainly and inexplicably survives a massive fireball at the end of II, it kinda sucks the spookiness out of Myers's longevity.
I'm not championing III simply by default, because, I will say that, apart from the fact that it is one of the most clever, logical continuations in a franchise, it is also legitimately chilling. It's startling and disturbing, and I can list all the films that fall under that criteria on my hand - at least for me.
Very few films of any genre dare to depict murdering children in gruesome ways. & when they do, it's for shock value.
Sure, it's used that way in Halloween III, but it's the fucking plot! Seriously! That's just too much awesomeness to put into words.
Halloween the holiday is really only about two things: kids & costumes. So, in that sense, Season of the Witch is more Halloween than Halloween. You know?

Why it's worse
Tommy Lee Wallace isn't John Carpenter.

"I don't believe this commercial. It never stops."