8. When it comes to movies, the term “lazy” is often used when some aspect of the movie feels a little too…easy. Like the hero in some adventure movie finds the lost artifact they’re looking for without having to face some sort of personal or literal demons, or two characters in a romantic comedy fall in love without making any sacrifices or getting to know each other very well. In cases like these, well…it comes off as kind of lazy. However, to me, one of the laziest things a movie can do can be summed up in three words: Two Weeks Later.

Now, that’s not to say that specifically a two week time jump has to occur to make me roll my eyes in opposition, but pretty much any passing of time that is recognized with a suitable title screen, and has no point or consequence for the characters or story…to me, that’s lazy. Often, it just seems like a writer or editor decides that nothing of importance to the main story of their movie has to happen for an extended amount of time, and the audience is so stupid that they won’t understand why there’s snow on the ground all of a sudden, so they insert a title telling us what they thought wasn’t important enough to show.

Can you think of one day of your life where nothing happened? Where you never spoke to anyone or did anything that impacted anything else in the forward motion of the timeline of your life? I’m sure all of the contrarians out there will instantly shoot me down, but I’ve got to believe that every day matters, and that’s why the title “two weeks later” bugs me the way it does. In my opinion, it ruined the first half of Zodiac, constantly breaking up any momentum or tension by constantly segmenting the story and reporting the amount of time passed between breaks in the case, and also added to the laughable melodrama of Twilight: New Moon, as Bella mourns the loss of Edward by sitting in the same chair for three months straight.

The frustrating thing is that it’s not like this is an unavoidable roadblock when it comes to conveying the passing of time in a movie. Obvious methods, like montages and cross-fades, have been utilized since editing started becoming as important a tool in filmmaking as it’s grown to be, and even creative direction, in something as subtle as the last shot in Signs (as much as I hate to give M. Night credit for doing something well), or something as blatant as the shifts in color in the Kill Bill movies and American History X when differentiating between two different timelines, gets the point across without resorting to titles.

Now, I realize that the use of these kinds of labels in Zodiac may have been a deliberate creative choice, so as to make the movie feel more like the case files that the story was directly lifted from, which is why the movie’s usually praised for it’s unique style of storytelling. And the use of this device right there in the title of 28 Days Later works into the idea that we don’t see what has happened in the past given amount of time, so we can experience the world that Cillian Murphy’s character wakes up in alongside him, which is kind of the idea and purpose of the story and the choice to not let the audience see what has happened. But, for the most part, these help tell the story in a purposeful and deliberate way, or, in other words, not how its usually used.

Sitting in the theater, watching Insidious earlier this year with fellow That Was Junk writers Josh and Kyle, a nice cross-fade was used to show that the main character’s child had been in a coma for quite some time, leading me to lean over and proclaim to my friends, “See, they didn’t need a title screen.” Except, about ten seconds later, when a screen popped up that read, “Four Months Later”. Right after a doctor states that he doesn’t know how long the coma will last, they take away all of the cleverness and subtlety they had otherwise used up to that point, and trade it all for an easy way out. That’s why it seems so lazy to me. It feels like it’s taking away from the story, as if nothing interesting happened in the four months that had passed. As if nothing had happened at all. Also, it feels like the filmmakers kind of just gave up in trying to figure out how to convey the visual information necessary to tell their story to the audience, and just assume, “Well, they’ll just accept that. It’s not like they’ve got any other choice.”

I know, of all the things to complain about, “two weeks later” is a pretty insignificant piece of film trickery to focus on, but when I asked the other writers of the site what I should write about, they wanted to know why I complain every time it pops up, so, here we are. Now, this isn’t necessarily a make-or-break element for me when it comes to judging a movie. I’m sure that there are many movies I love that have a couple of these stupid inter-titles, but that won’t keep me from being annoyed every time I do see it. I can’t help it. I’m an idiot.

Jonah Hex

The sequel is a funny thing. It at once tries to create something new enough to draw in fans of the original, but also stick close to the formula that made the first one famous, so as not to alienate said fans. It’s a thin rope to walk, and, more often than not, it leads to an angry or confused fan-base, a disappointed studio, and a movie that doesn’t reach up to the quality of the first one about 95% of the time.

So, how did the makers of The Hangover Part 2 deal with this dilemma? Easy. They just remade The Hangover with more destruction, more obviously improvised nonsense, and, this time, more foreigners.

While it’s not an exact remake, per se, Part 2 finds it’s main characters once again preparing for a wedding (this time for Ed Helms’ Stu), only this time they’ve been transported to the magical land of Bangkok, where they encounter unhelpful police, understanding prostitutes, stolen wild animals, and a small, naked Asian gangster. Or, in other words, all of the same things they encountered in The Hangover, except this time followed by the word “again”. At times, it feels like the filmmakers were almost superstitious, as if they were afraid that changing things too much would make the movie less successful, an example of this seen with the pointless inclusion of Justin Bartha’s Doug, again excluded from most of the movie’s events, and seemingly only included in the movie at all because, hey, he was in the first one! But while many of the jokes and characters have been recycled from Las Vegas, there are a few elements that feel like attempts at taking advantage of the new setting to create some new obstacles, including an encounter with some Buddhist monks and…actually, that’s pretty much all the Thai culture you’re going to get here.

In addition to the repetition of events, another major problem Part 2 suffers from is the fact that these characters, their behaviors and reactions to the various troubles they find themselves in are exactly the same as in the first Hangover. They haven’t grown or learned from their past experiences at all, aside from having the common knowledge to constantly reference how much it sucks that this is all happening to them again. And what’s worse than that is the lack of any interesting input or purpose Zach Galifianakis or Bradley Cooper have (returning as man-child Alan and douche-bag Phil, respectively), simply following Stu as he searches for his missing soon-to-be-brother-in-law, the only conflict in the movie that feels important. While this lack of character development or arc didn’t matter as much in the first Hangover, seeing as we were just getting introduced to these characters, this time around, their unhelpfulness and disinterest in actually doing any of the things they have to in order to find out what happened to them makes the characters not only unlikable, but also unfunny, and kind of just miserable.

However, while the situations and characters may not have changed, there was still some fun to be had in Part 2. The mystery of what happened during our main character’s blackout is just as intriguing this time around as it was the first time, sometimes so much so that the movie forgoes the comedy for clues and some pretty dark revelations. At times, it feels like the main reason the characters can’t remember the previous night isn’t due to drugs or alcohol, but because the filmmakers realized that showing what happened might depress and disgust some of its audience. And that’s totally meant as a compliment. In addition to the piling on of horrific drunken antics to these character’s already broken psyches, the return of Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow, this time in a more substantial role, provides a majority of the laughs, as the depths of his depravity and self-destructive tendencies get to spend a little more time in the spotlight than in the previous installment.

Unfortunately, for all of the good in Part 2, nothing ever feels new or exciting enough to justify putting these characters through the ringer one more time. As far as the story and situations are concerned, they’re probably on par with the first movie, but the fact that everything feels that much less original this time around brings the movie down a notch or two below that one. While some scenes entertained, many were simply baffling, feeling like they were included only to remind people of the first movie they all loved so much, creating a overall weaker movie this time around. Hopefully, when the eventual sequel to this comes out in two years, Todd Phillips, his cast and writers will have learned from the mistakes of this attempt, and take a few more chances. Until then, however, fans will have to make due with their two matching party movies, maybe creating some new drinking game where they take a shot every time male genitalia pops up on screen. There’s enough of it.

5 out of 10.

Have you guys heard of this?…
There’s this movie called BLUE VALENTINE, right? It’s got Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams and maybe some other people or whatever and it had an infamous oral sex scene and it also had a futuristic motel room and an old guy and some kids and a moving company and a lot of closeups and a ton of fights between a couple that used to, and maybe still does, LOVE each other and a hospital and a laugh that is just so cool. It was critically praised. It was revolutionary. Never had a movie truly shown the range of a realistic relationship between A MAN AND A WOMAN. People loved it. Hanh Nguyen loves the effin’ S out of it.

I will give no personal opinion on the subject.

Hey ThatWasJunk readers. I know that we have been severely lacking in content lately, but there is a reason. We have begun pre-production work on our first ever feature film. Unfortunately, we are all very poor which means that we are greatly lacking in the funds necessary to make this project the best that it can be. That is why we need you, our millions of fans, to go to the link posted below and offer donations. If we don’t reach $5000 by June 15th, then we will receive no money. No money leads to poor acting, makeshift equipment, and illegal shooting practices. We are begging you because we are desperate and lack shame. Any contribution helps.  Find it in your hearts and wallets to lend us as little as five measly dollars.  Buy one less drink at the bar, or skip that tub of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream.  Donate it to a worthy cause and a bunch of people trying to live out their dreams.  Thank you.  - That Was Junk

Pennsylvania People Kickstarter- Click this link to read more and offer a donation

I hate the phrase “so bad it’s good”. While many people have decided that the key to making an enjoyable movie comes with great writing, revolutionary effects and camerawork, and believable acting, I know hundreds who would be willing to line up just to tell those other people that a movie doesn’t have to be good to be great. While many would consider such classics as Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Crash to be the pinnacle of filmmaking, I can say without guilt or remorse that I had more fun watching Piranha 3-D in a theater with my friends than I ever would watching any of those other movies. There’s just something about seeing all of the horrible and disgusting ways a human body can be torn apart (even if it is painfully and hilariously fake), that a highly praised period piece or art-house drama just can’t come close to. When it comes to these kinds of gory, inexplicable, often mind-blowing science fiction and horror movies, I’ll take any opportunity to see them, especially with an audience, and, of course, the more obscure and mysterious, the better. So, once eBay, Amazon, and Bittorrent have run their course, where does one go to find those hard-to-find, film-print-only, lost-for-a-reason movies?

Well, along with our two film festivals, another great resource when it comes to seeing rare and unusual movies in Philadelphia is Exhumed Films. Formed in 1997 by Dan Fraga, Joseph Gervasi, Harry Guerro and Jesse Nelson, all from the South Jersey and Philadephia areas, Exhumed Films is a film programming group who rent out venues, usually the International House in Philadelphia, and put on double features, special screenings and marathons of well-known, out-of-print and bizarre movies that, in some cases, haven’t been seen since their original release. Well, this weekend, in response to the fanboys cries for even stranger and rarer movies, the guys at Exhumed Films have decided to put on eX-Fest, a twelve hour marathon of seven obscure exploitation movies, all from different genres, but all hopefully as bizarre as past fan-favorites Raw Force, Boardinghouse, Lady Terminator, and Wicked Wicked (look them up, you won’t be sorry).

Having attended a lot of these screenings, as well as the four 24 hour horror marathons that have been held during the last four Halloweens, I’ve been lucky enough to be exposed to so many great movies that I otherwise wouldn’t have been able to ever see, or, in many cases, even be aware of. So, of course, what choice did I have but get a ticket to eX-Fest as soon as it was announced? Here, I hope to convey some inkling of the hopefully unexplainable insanity that will be projected in front of me during this marathon, and get the word out about a few movies that, as it has been revealed, were never released on home video, and even one that doesn’t even have an IMDb page (actually, turns out it does…it’s just in Italian).

So, without anymore nonsense from me, here’s the rundown:

Cut Throats Nine (1972)

Not really fitting the “exploitation” nature of the program, Cut Throats Nine is simply a western that follows a father, along with his daughter, who sets out to transport a chain gang made up of murderers, rapists, arsonists and thieves, in an attempt to discover which of them killed his wife. While the story has its moments, the mystery is intriguing, and the members of the chain gang do a good job of being menacing, horrible men, the whole movie is far too generic and slow to be very memorable, aside from its unexpected and bleak ending, which almost makes the whole thing worth watching. Also, a foot amputation motif doesn’t hurt. Hey, you’ve got to cut the dead bodies from the chain somehow…

5 out of 10.

No Way Out (1973)

After seeing the trailer for this at a previous Exhumed event, I knew I had to see this mafia revenge movie, but I couldn’t find a copy of it anywhere, seeing as it hadn’t been released in the US. So, you can imagine, after giving up all hope of ever seeing it, when the title popped up on the screen, I knew that this would be worth the price of admission alone, and I was not disappointed. Watching Alain Delon, one of only two French bad-asses in film (the other being Jean Reno), effortlessly move through mob bosses and hired assassins over a variety of exotic European cities, brutally shooting, stabbing, and crashing his way to get revenge for the death of his wife and son makes for a very entertaining movie. While some of the action scenes may not look very well thought out, the questionable reality of them makes them only more exciting than if they were any slicker or staged, leaving doubts that maybe when Delon flies across the median of a highway, crashing into an unsuspecting VW Bug, it might not have been a part of the shoot at all. It’s not something you see every day, but that’s what makes it so awesome.

8 out of 10.

The Face With Two Left Feet (1979)

Described prior to the screening only as “Travolta-sploitation”, this obscure Italian teen comedy made a few years after the release of Saturday Night Fever, finds a group of young, Travolta-obsessed, hotel employees attempting to transform their friend (Guiseppe Spezia, a professional Travolta impersonator who bears an uncanny resemblance to the famous actor) into Tony Manero in order to win him the girl of his dreams. It’s a bizarre, unpredictable movie that seems to only exist due to some copyright infringement oversight (although that fake Bee Gees song they keep using is pretty good), but, for what it is, it’s kind of incredible. Seeing the group of teenagers sneak around, pull pranks, fight and dance in unison, despite their almost always being arrogant and unlikeable, is impressive nonetheless, as the choreography in many of these scenes makes them completely unrealistic and goofy, but in a very entertaining way. As this was a chance find by one of the Exhumed guys in the collection of an unsuspecting friend of theirs, and exists only on the internet as an un-subtitled clip on YouTube and Italian IMDb page, there’s probably very little chance this will ever be available to be seen anywhere, but if you ever get a chance or hear of a screening of this movie taking place, take my word and see it.

8 out of 10.

Savage! (1973)

I’m not usually a big fan of blaxploitation movies, as they’re usually boring, poorly made, and generally more concerned with their message than anything else, including being entertaining. Savage!, however, about a mercenary who comes to help a group of rebels in the Philippines overthrow their government, turned out to not only be one of the more entertaining movies I’ve seen in this genre, but also just a really good action movie. Keeping the bullets and knives flying almost all the way from beginning to end, Savage! kicks all kinds of ass, all the while keeping a sense of humor, and never forgetting its central idea, exclaimed by the titular character, that “Freedom is everybody’s business”.

7 out of 10.

Redneck Miller (1977)

Seemingly made so the director could show off his motorcycle in a movie he could fill with his friends, Redneck Miller tells the story of a country music DJ who gets caught up in a case of mistaken identity as a drug dealer accuses him of stealing his latest shipment. While the movie is good for a few memorable lines (after almost letting his girlfriend get raped, DJ tells her, “Baby, you can take a lot of loving, but I can only get killed once.”), the whole thing was way too drawn out and repetitive for me to consider it good. After having sat through four movies, I finally took the opportunity to go to the bathroom and get something to eat in the middle of Redneck Miller, as the drug dealer was warning Miller about the dangers of messing with him, and demanding that he find his shipment. Upon returning twenty minutes later, I sat back down, only to once again see the drug dealer warning Miller about the dangers of messing with him, and demanding that he get his shipment back…or else. The movie only has about fifteen minutes of story, and repeats it about four or five times until the finale, which features one of the weakest fistfights I’ve ever seen (not that it was bad, just in the fact that after taking a few punches each, both sides were already dazed and falling down). Either way, Redneck Miller would have to be my pick for the weakest movie of the marathon, and hopefully a poor indication of what hick-sploitation can be.

4 out of 10.

Five Fingers of Death (1972)

Like blaxploitation, I’m not a huge fan of these older kung-fu movies. While the fight scenes can be impressive, there’s usually nothing about the characters or story that’s interesting enough to keep my attention, as they’re naturally used as a poor filler to place between the fight scenes. And while Five Fingers of Death starts off as just another kung-fu movie (apparently, the one that started the US kung-fu craze in the 70s), by the end, I couldn’t help but be engrossed in the struggle of the characters to overcome the evil dojo in the big martial arts competition (plus a little Iron Fist and eyeball gouging doesn’t hurt). While it does go on a little too long, the fight choreography and direction make all of the action exciting and almost unbelievable, but I’m sure some obvious wirework is responsible for that. While this hasn’t necessarily converted me into a devoted kung-fu movie fan, Five Fingers is still a really good example of how to make a cheap fighting movie that can serve its main purpose (to show off some cool kung-fu), but also be pretty good as just a movie.

6 out of 10.

Cinderella (1977)

And to finish it all off comes this unexpected, X-rated version of Cinderella, featuring a number of jaw-dropping sex scenes, bizarre musical numbers, and a horrendously racist fairy godmother (who is actually the town thief who takes advantage of Cinderella’s naïveté). However, against all odds, this strange sexploitation movie might have been the funniest and most entertaining movie of the day. While watching some of the more graphic scenes with an awkwardly silent audience, all collectively tugging their collars in unison with each thrust, may have made it one of the strangest movie-going experiences of my life, there’s no denying that this mixture of Mel Brooks, Rocky Horror and any number of XXX-parodies was made to entertain. Every performance and joke is completely over the top, the songs are surprisingly catchy and hilarious, and the whole ordeal knows exactly what it is, and does its best to be the most sexual, strange, embarrassing movie you’ve ever seen. And, for the most part, from it’s corn-cob dildos to its entire snapping vagina-centered third act, it’s very successful as a comedy, moreso than it probably is as just a soft-core porno. To quote the king, upon discovering a massive erection beneath his bed sheets one morning, “Fetch me my baggy pants! I’m taking this one into town!”

8 out of 10.

The Hangover PART II: PART I

In ’09, movie history was made
When an R comedy made tons of cash
A tiger, a baby
Stu’s wedding (maybe)
And all because 4 dudes had a bash

Phil was so great, but kind of a jerk
And Alan was basically retarded
Doug wasn’t all there,
Or Stu, to be fair,
And now we’re back where we started.

The asian guy’s here, and so’s Tyson’s tat
But Bangkok has them now
So let’s raise a toast
To the guys we love the most
And hope there’s a 3rd somehow

-Josh Phillips

ANYWAY!!! – I hate THE HANGOVER. I don’t think it’s an awful movie, but it absolutely blows my mind that people die over it.

“OMG, BRO! You see that!? That asian dude was fuckin’ naked! A tiger!? How nuts is that!? Zach Galinarnarkis just hit that baby with a car door! ROFLCOPTER! No WAY! NO FUCKING WAY! TYSON!?!?!?!?! I MIGHT PASS OUT! TYSON PUNCHED THAT DUDE! WHHHAAAAAAATTTT!!!!??? HOLY SHIT……Stu was on the roof the whole time! I KNEW IT! That’s crazy! Sweet flick, bro magnum!”

Spare me.

It’s not awful that a movie did so well. Just that THIS movie did so well. But the real reason I wrote this post was to comment on this year’s THE HANGOVER PART II…
Five fucking stupid things about THE HANGOVER PART II in ascending order from least fucking stupid to most fucking stupid:
#5 – Stu got Tyson’s tattoo. Really cool. Seriously. Not! But seriously, it’s so great. Super sweet hilarious.
#4 – Holy shit they hit a pig! How was that written in the script? – “And then they hit a hanging pig. It blows up with blood and guts. Stu screams. Everyone laughs”
#3 – Mr. Chow is back!!! Hide your children, hide your wives. Think he gets naked again!? I can’t wait for that tiny asian wang. (get it? wang. Asian. wang.)
#2 – They really fucking did this shit again? I knew they weren’t too slick, but CHRIST! Movies should absolutely be ridiculous, but I don’t like when it’s used as an excuse for a lack of creativity.

#1 Part I – The tagline is “Bangkok has them now”.  It should’ve been “Yes, again”. Not like the tag of the first one was “Las Vegas has them”.
#1 Part II – THE HANGOVER PART II? REALLY!? Is it part of a whole? Is it a full arching 3, or more, part series with a single story to be told? NO – It is not the second PART of anything. It is only the SECOND Hangover movie. It’s not like the 1st stopped somewhere and now we’re catching up with our characters where we left off! It’s just another one. The  same exact one.
THE HANGOVER 2.

i’m just now realizing how weird the word ‘part’ is. part. part. part. part. part. paaaart. p a r t. p art. pa rt. weird. it’s just ‘party’ sans ‘y’. maybe that’s why it’s “the hangover part II”! IT WAS A TYPO! IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE “THE HANGOVER PARTY II”!!!! I SOLVED IT!

It’s funny to think that for as many movies that are released every year, both in mainstream and art-house theaters, there are hundreds, if not thousands more, that only ever play in festivals and special screenings, and are never released for the general public. Thousands of movies that people put all of their effort and money into, that no one will ever see, or probably even know about. One of the benefits of living in Philadelphia is that ever since the Philadelphia Film Society and TLA Video Group parted ways a few years ago, we now get two film festivals every year: Philadelphia Cinefest and the Philadelphia Film Festival. And with two festivals, there are twice as many opportunities to see dozens of movies that not only might not play anywhere else, but also might not ever get to be seen again. Luckily, with the past week bringing this year’s Cinefest, I was able to see Beauty Day.

In the early ‘90s, public access cable television fans from around the Niagara Falls area were treated to the painful and funny escapades of Ralph Zavadil, who, as his alter-ego Captain Video, performed, shot and edited his own “Jackass” style stunt show nearly a decade before Johnny Knoxville and his crew became famous. However, as documented by filmjunk.com contributor Jay Cheel, after realizing that the twentieth anniversary of his character is coming up, Zavadil sets out to do one last, outrageous show for any fans who might still be out there. Beauty Day, which comes from the lyrics of a made up song Captain Video sings to himself as he performs his stunts, succeeds on a lot of levels, but what’s most surprising is the focus the documentary takes on Zavadil’s life both before and after the Captain Video years. Where the filmmaker’s could’ve gone the easy route of just stringing together some of the Captain’s more memorable feats with fan commentary, they instead go deeper into what caused Zavadil to create the character, what’s happened to him since the show’s end, and how surprisingly little a part the Captain has played in Zavadil’s life. It’s not that often you see a documentary subject who’s life has featured more interesting twists and events apart from the thing they’re documented about, but Zavadil’s use of his video skills to rescue him from an ordinary life provides a number of hilarious, tragic, and incredible stories for the filmmakers to work with.

However, while Zavadil may not have any problems recollecting all of the horrible things that have happened to him, at times, while going into his philosophy and the importance of what he did with his show, things tend to get a little too serious. This may be the fault of a somewhat self-serious subject, but when placed next to the same subject extolling anonymity and how silliness saved his life, it just doesn’t fit together too well with his musings on the importance of his work. Along with this tonal shiftiness, many of the revelations that come from Zavadil’s life feel oddly placed throughout the film, with many seemingly important elements thrown in and then forgotten. (SPOILER) With about a half hour left in the movie, it is revealed that Zavadil has a daughter who he didn’t know existed for the first twelve or so years of her life, until he is contacted by her mother, but expressly told not to contact her on his own. After the story of their first meeting and his introduction to her, we see a side of Ralph that wasn’t apparent throughout the rest of the movie, giving the audience a new perspective into the subject. However, after all of the set-up and reuniting of the father and daughter, this subject is quickly forgotten, as she is never mentioned again, and falls to the background of the movie, despite Ralph’s claim that she has become an important part of his life. (END OF SPOILER) There aren’t any problems that take the movie too far off course or make it any less enjoyable, just some strange storytelling choices that make it a little harder for the audience to connect to an already bizarre man.

Seeing Zavadil open up about everything from his personal relationships to his contentment with everything that’s happened in his life, as well as seeing a man who many seem to consider a legend and cult figure finally get recognition, makes for not only a great story, but also makes Beauty Day a pretty good documentary. Despite some minor flaws, there’s more than enough provided by Zavadil’s extensive home video library, interviews with friends and family, and a sincere love of their subject shown by the filmmakers to make this movie more than just a love letter to Captain Video, but a legitimate, well-made documentary. Perhaps they were lucky in finding a subject so open to having his life and legacy dissected by strangers, but whatever the case, the filmmakers found a great subject in Zavadil, and used this asset to make a movie that almost equals the admiration shown by all of his fans and supporters.

7 out of 10.