Real Thoughts on BATMAN V SUPERMAN

So, "Batman V Superman" finally came out, and as expected, audiences are pretty much polarized. What wasn't expected was all the hate seemingly being thrown at the film. Yes we get it: it's not a Marvel movie. It's dark, and gritty, and rarely holds back. It has a pair of balls on it the size of the fucking Statue of Liberty. Coming off of "Man of Steel", a film in which Superman killed Zod, we have a film with a brutal Batman and even features a dream sequence in which Batman kills people and Superman burns insurgents alive.

Yeah, this isn't a typical take on either character. You know what though? Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it's just me, but I've grown kind of tired of the bubblegum, lightweight universe of the Marvel films. I'm not shitting on them, I've just gotten bored with them: in the end, they're all the same shit. "Age of Ultron", "Ant-Man", "Thor: The Dark World", and even "Guardians of the Galaxy" to a much lesser extent, all bored me to tears.

You can say whatever you want to about "Batman V Superman", but one thing it isn't is boring. It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination. There's editing problems, big story problems, plot holes aplenty, and some big leaps in logic. That being said, it's still a live-action comic book brought to life, which is what these films are supposed to be in the first place. Ben Affleck is surprisingly wonderful as Batman, Jeremy Irons is awesome as Alfred, Jesse Eisenberg isn't too bad as Luthor, and when Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman first appears...well, I won't lie, I had a nerdgasm. Seeing Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman all on screen at the same time made me smile ear to ear. That in itself is an accomplishment.

So yeah, if you didn't like "Man of Steel", you won't like "Batman V Superman" one bit. If you did however like "Man of Steel"...you'll more than likely dig this more. Either way, don't believe all the haters. Check it out and see for yourself.

The Problem with DEADPOOL and the Sins of Nerd Culture

It's pretty safe to assume that by now that you've all seen "Deadpool" by now. Any negative thoughts I had about it in the past were thankfully put to rest, and the film is a highly enjoyable blast. The massive and surprising box office reception it's gotten appears to have paved the way for R-rated comic book films to be the next big thing. So big that apparently we're getting a Blu-ray release of an R-rated version of "Batman V Superman" somewhere down the line, and we might get that "Lobo" movie we all deserve, and for fuck's sake, we're probably getting an R-rated "Wolverine" flick too.

Now this isn't the first time we've seen an R-rated comic book movie. We've had "The Crow", "Kick Ass", "The Punisher", "Watchmen", and more besides. Their box office returns were between middling and okay, but never anything earth-shattering and unexpected like "Deadpool" was. Granted, "Deadpool" had no budget, it's own studio didn't believe in it (yet somehow managed to market the holy living shit out of it), and it would have never seen the light of day were it not for that "leaked" test footage that Ryan Reynolds probably paid somebody to leak because he hasn't been in anything worth a shit in over a decade.

Regardless, "Deadpool" happened. Everyone loves it...my god does everyone love it. I haven't seen a movie get this much of a self-masturbatory celebration in a while, maybe even more so than "Force Awakens". And yeah, it's enjoyable and all, but come the fuck on, "Deadpool" isn't the greatest thing ever for fuck's sake. Then again, this is part of the nerd/geek culture we now live in...anytime a movie comes out featuring a property that people get nerdy about, there's always a little bit of pessimism associated with it right before release...then it comes out, ends up being surprisingly not bad, and people go nuts about it.

Now this isn't necessarily a problem...well, maybe. It's just like I said, "Deadpool" is enjoyable as hell, but it isn't anything really great. It's just seeing people go so damn gaga over it can be mind-boggling. "Force Awakens" suffers from the same fate, so do just about all the mainstream Marvel movies. We put this shit on a geek pedestal, and most times we put it up way higher than we really should. Are these kind of flicks enjoyable? Absolutely they are. They bring out all our inner-12 year olds and give us a sense of escapism for a couple hours, which in itself is a good thing I guess. But still, seeing the overwhelmingly positive receptions that some of these things get, which are honest to fucking god average at best most of the time, really just makes things a tad bit...yawn inducing.

Or wait, maybe I'm just super fucking jaded and old and all this shit just bores me to tears anymore.

Yeah...that's probably it.

My Thoughts on the SUSPIRIA Remake

Oh Dario, Dario, where art thou Dario?

You know what? Don't answer that. After seeing the last few films Dario Argento has made, I'm convinced he's lost to us forever, but that's a story for another day.

Anyway, one of the most beloved and cherished horror films in cinematic history is Argento's 1977 masterpiece, "Suspiria". A film that features brilliant storytelling, gut-wrenching gore, lush set design and colors, and gorgeous cinematography. It's a classic of the horror genre, and nothing Argento had done since can even come close to reaching the greatness that "Suspiria" managed to do.

So of course, it needs a remake, right?

Well tough shit folks, we're getting a remake of "Suspiria".

That's right, and it looks like it's happening here pretty damn soon. So soon in fact that casting is already underway. I had heard that so far we're getting Dakota Johnson (who I'm told showed her boobs in the adaptation of soccer mom porn for morons "50 Shades of Grey") in the lead, as well as Tilda Swinton, who I assume will be the big evil bitch of the film (and I don't have a problem with Swinton, she can literally do anything).

Now, here's the thing: "Suspiria" is a film that is definitely not for everyone. In terms of its storytelling, it didn't spell out everything for the viewer. There's a lot of elements in that film that are either kept ambiguous or are just told through the film's direction. Movies, especially mainstream American ones, don't do that anymore. Instead, we'll more than likely be getting a dumbed down, hastily-put together take on the film by a crew and producers who simply don't get the source material or rather don't want to...because intelligent filmmaking, especially in horror, doesn't appeal to the masses.

This happens all the time: just look at the recent "The Witch"; an intelligent and thought provoking horror flick that has been shit on by the general public because it doesn't spell things out and isn't easy to digest. "Suspiria" is such a film, and an American-ized modern day remake will more than likely be flat out crippled by stupidity. I'm going to list some horror flicks, most of them classics, that have been remade in the past decade or so and totally miss the mark that was set by the films they were adapted from:

The Fog
Halloween
Assault on Precinct 13
The Thing
Dawn of the Dead (okay, this isn't that bad, it just ignores any kind of social commentary that the original had)
Martyrs
Mirrors
The Ring
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (like four times)

Yeah, you see where I'm going with this right? This remake of "Suspiria" will end up having the same result. It's fucking clownshoes.

In other words, fuck this, and fuck it hard.

Giving the Finger to the New Ghostbusters Film

We've known about the new, all-female "Ghostbusters" film for a while now, but it looks like the marketing machine is about to kick into high gear. We've already had teasers, set pictures, posters, merchandise, etc.; and even fucking Ecto Cooler is making a comeback apparently. That's right, the nostalgia train is here, and it's time for everyone to get on board for this one way trip to shitsburgh. We're going to be getting a shitty retread of a classic franchise/license that is going to be so half-assed and half-hearted that now when we think about "Ghostbusters", we're going to be thinking about this shitty, modern take on it too.

Yeah, in case you can't tell, I'm not for a new "Ghostbusters" movie.

We've had remakes and reboots of every fucking thing under the sun lately, so it really isn't a surprise that we're getting a "Ghostbusters" one. There was talk of a potential third film for years upon years, but thanks to Bill Murray consistently dragging his feet and the death of Harold Ramis, that became nothing more than a fantasy. Granted we got a pretty cool video game in 2009 that re-united the original cast (which is honestly what I consider to be "Ghostbusters 3"), so at least we got something good out of the deal.

So yeah, the reboot machine got turned on for "Ghostbusters", featuring an all female cast of modern day comedians... oh and apparently there's some kind of involvement from Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd too, who will not be playing their classic roles, but as new characters instead. So yeah, it's a full on reboot, and it looks to be one with little to no thought put into fucking anything. I mean c'mon now, the main antagonist of the film appears to be the ghost from the classic logo. That really took a lot of thought huh?

Look, I don't care if you want to make an all-female "Ghostbusters" film or any other all-female take on any other property. That doesn't bother me at all. What does bother me is that we truly are seeing the bastardization of a beloved property that is being re-processed for mass modern consumption. The classic first "Ghostbusters" film is an example of pure lightning in a bottle. It's a perfect blend of humor, action, and most of all, imagination. To put it bluntly: it's perfect. "Ghostbusters 2"...well, that is far from perfect. Regardless though, it's still enjoyable, and still retains that degree of imagination for it to stand on its own.

This new "Ghostbusters" flick looks devoid of imagination...or anything else really. It's shat-out studio garbage, banking on the fact that it has the name of a beloved property that it will rake in a shit load of money so it can spawn a whole new franchise of mediocrity and keep that money train coming in. How about we not let that happen guys? It's only when you stop giving studios your ticket money that they'll stop making the shit film adaptations of beloved properties that everyone (me included) bitch about on the internet.

So yeah, in case you can't tell, I won't be seeing the new "Ghostbusters" flick when it comes out. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't see it either.

Then again, if there's a steady paycheck involved, I'll believe anything you say.

Another Shitty HELLRAISER Movie is Coming

So, word got out that we've finally got a new Hellraiser movie coming out...and it's coming out a lot sooner than we expected.

In fact, it's already filming...

...and it doesn't have Doug Bradley in it as Pinhead...

...and it's super low budget and features a number of the crew from Hellraiser: Revelations...

What does all this mean exactly? I'll tell you what it means...

...it means it's gonna fucking suck.

Anyway, here's the deal: the Hellraiser franchise has gotten the shit end of the stick more often than not, with this new film being the tenth entry in the franchise. The only films in the series that are really worth a shit are the first two installments, which are what Clive Barker was the most heavily involved in. The direct-to-video releases Hellraiser: Inferno and Hellraiser: Hellseeker aren't bad for what they are, but they miss the point of Barker's groundwork.

A few years back, Dimension Films commissioned a hastily put together installment called Hellraiser: Revelations...and when I say hastily put together, I'm not exaggerating. To ensure the studio didn't lose the rights to the franchise, they had to pump out a new film. They did, with a shoestring budget, laughable effects, a piss poor story, and a new laughably bad Pinhead because Doug Bradley wisely chose not to be a part of it. Clive Barker publicly derided the film, and with good reason. If you ever have the displeasure of watching it, you'll see what I mean.

Now with this new film, Doug Bradley has chosen not to play Pinhead again, and it looks like this was another wise decision on his part. The fact that it looks like this piece of shit is being thrown together as quickly as the piece of shit that came before it pretty much tells you everything you need to know. This is going to be flat out awful, and everyone involved in it knows it.

The Hellraiser franchise deserves better than this. What started as some fairly innovative horror films that started de-evolving into run of the mill slashers and even got worse as time went on. The fact that the franchise is still around, even with shit sequels, shows that whatever impact it has had still resonates. That in itself goes to show that we all do in fact desire more Hellraiser...but we want Hellraiser done right...not cheap imitations.

Over the past few years, there's been lots of word about a Barker-helmed remake/reboot of the franchise. Believe it or not, I wouldn't have a problem with such a thing. Granted, I really don't think that'll ever happen for a variety of reasons, but I'd still rather see a fresh take on it from its creator than another deluded sequel.

So yeah...this new Hellraiser flick? Fuck it, fuck it right in the ear.

25 Years of SONIC THE HEDGEHOG and His Five Most Underrated Games

Sonic the fucking Hedgehog has really been around for 25 fucking years???? Sweet bare-assed baby Jesus, I can't believe it's been that long. It really honestly doesn't seem like it was all that long ago when I first discovered the amazing joys of playing the original Sonic game and running at blazing speeds in 16-bit glory. And now, here we are, 25 years later, and Sonic is still around...well, kinda.

There's a shitload of Sonic games out there, and there's seemingly a new Sonic game every year or so, for better or worse. Sonic has starred in some of the best video games to ever see the light of day (Sonic's 1, 2, 3, and Sonic & Knuckles) to some of the absolute worst games ever made (the 2006 game simply titled Sonic the Hedgehog, and last year's Sonic Boom on the Wii-U). So yeah, he's had good times and bad times, but despite all that, he's still an iconic video game mascot.

So since we all mostly know what Sonic games are good, and which ones are shit, here's a small list of some truly underrated Sonic games that don't get mentioned nearly as often as they should be:

SONIC CD (1993) - Sega CD

One of the handful of games that made a Sega CD worth owning was SONIC CD. This game had the typical kind of Sonic action, but mixed things up with time travel elements to bring new dimensions to the gameplay. This resulted in changing level layouts that gave the game massive replayability. This combined with the fantastic music really made this game stand out. Unfortunately, no one really remembered this game for quite some time. It wasn't until it was eventually re-released on PSN and Xbox Live in 2011 that it started to get the appreciation it really deserves.



KNUCKLES CHAOTIX (1995) - 32X

Yeah I know, Sonic isn't in this, but technically it's still a Sonic game, so blow me. Anyway, you play as Sonic's asshole buddy Knuckles along with a cast of other characters that I don't think have appeared in any Sonic game since. Instead of the speed-based gameplay, this time you are attached to another character using rubber-band physics. This is how you maneuver through the game, and while it takes some time to get used to, it is worthwhile. Sadly because it was on the 32X, no one fucking played it, so the game faded into obscurity. It hasn't been re-released at all either...like at all. I'm hoping that one day Sega remedies that, but it's bloody unlikely.



SONIC ADVANCE 3(2004) - GAMEBOY ADVANCE

While the Sonic games hitting consoles around this time were hit and miss (mostly miss), the Sonic games hitting the GBA were damn good. The first two SONIC ADVANCE games get talked about a lot, but the third doesn't nearly as much as it should. Maybe it's because this installment introduced a team-up dynamic in addition to the amped-up speed gameplay. Either way, this game is a total fucking blast and I still pop it in now and then to this very day.



SONIC COLORS (2010) - WII

I hated SONIC COLORS the first time I played it, just all the other Sonic games that appeared on the Wii. Unlike them however, I warmed to SONIC COLORS. It mixes the 2D and 3D elements of prior Sonic games, and often feels like you're playing a live-action rollercoaster. However, the game actually has seamless mechanics and it looks vibrant and controls super fucking well. Until SONIC GENERATIONS came along and did everything better, I'd actually say that this is the best Sonic game to come out of this era, it just may take a while for you to warm up to it.



SONIC CHRONICLES: THE DARK BROTHERHOOD (2008) - NINTENDO DS

A Sonic RPG? Developed by BioWare (creators of MASS EFFECT, KNIGHTS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC, DRAGON AGE)? On the fucking DS? Are you mad?!?!?!?! Well, such a game exists, and it's actually pretty damn good. Sonic and his whole cast of assholes transition pretty well to the RPG genre surprisingly, There's an engaging combat system and the game is a joy to play. However, it has a cliffhanger ending that will never get resolved, since EA bought BioWare and the game sold like shit to begin with. Still, it's fun and everyone should play it.



So yeah, there's some Sonic games you may have missed out on. If you did, you should go play with. Or go Google search Sonic Rule 34. Thank me later.

Is Playboy Not Having Nudes Really a Big Deal?

Very soon, Playboy will be launching their new issue which will be the first to feature non-nude models...and also a cover that looks like snapchat vomit. That's irrelevant though, because this really does mark the end of an era.

Me, like a lot of guys over the decades, got their first taste of female nudity glancing at the pages of Playboy. Tastefully nude pictorials and the occasional nude celebrity were Playboy's bread and butter for decades; but in this era with internet porn, every fetish literally being just a click away, and celebrity sex tapes being "leaked" every other week, what Playboy had to offer in terms of their nude pictorials had grown stale and become known as old hat.

I myself hadn't picked one up in quite some time, because honestly what's the point with everything I just listed? Well, the other thing that Playboy offered in abundance was their wonderful articles. Yeah yeah I know the old joke: "na man, I only read it for the articles". Well, the magazine has usually always featured some great and informative articles, interviews, editorials, and more. These are what kept Playboy head and shoulders above its much more explicit brethren like Penthouse and Hustler, and what will continue to keep them head and shoulders among other print men's magazines as well, which usually offer the typical scantily clad women, except the photography work is shit and any articles featured are written at a fourth grade reading level by someone that probably uses the word "bro" a lot in real, everyday life.

So yeah, it's actually not that big a deal that Playboy is going non-nude. It's definitely the end of an era to be sure, and I do think that maybe one day they will revert back to their old ways, but for now let's celebrate what the magazine has done in terms of the trailblazing that Hugh Hefner and co. have accomplished, and be happy that we'll always be able to reminisce about where we saw our first boobs and such.