Category: Uncategorized

Here at Gorgon Reviews, we sometimes like to change up the review format. For instance, this review will basically be a question and answer format for the movie Chop Kick Panda.

Question 1: Is this just some poor man’s ripoff of Kung Fu Panda?

I dunno! I will let you be the judge. Here is the cover.

As you see it is very different. This Panda is not wearing Pants.

Question 2: So it is a CGI movie about a martial arts panda?

Well. Kinda. First off, despite the cover, it is not a CGI movie. The movie looks as if it was made on a flash animation program for some quick computer thing. Yet instead of a quick video thing it is a full movie (of 40 minutes in length).

The amount of the movie that is actually martial arts is hard to say. In this place, Serenity Falls, the Panda is a janitor who had some lessons at a dojo. For some reason he has a kid, who he tells he is the best thing ever to. Movie even begins with a weird self dialogue about how great and legendary he is (like KFP). In fact, he is so legendary, that even his legend is legendary. They say that about 4-5 times in the movie, which means about once every 8-10 minutes.

So yeah. Some tiger wants some special amulet in the dojo? And tries to get it during a sleepover thing there. And yeah. That is about it.

Question 3: Hmm. That sounds kind of lame. At least there is lots of cool fighting?

As far as I could tell when I watched it, there was about zero fighting. A lot of off screen fighting. A couple on screen jabs. And that was the movie.

Question 4: But…but…the title! It says — Wait. Chop Kick? What the fuck is a Chop Kick?

Good question. I assume it is similar to the Kick Punch, but more Asian.

And less robots!

13 in a few ways reminded me of the movie Mean Guns. Okay. Barely. But lets just say people die, and there is money available in both movies.

Ice-T isn’t in 13. But 50 Cent is.

The beginning of this movie is pretty slow (and arguably the ending). Sam Riley, some no name, is an electrician at some dude’s house. Dude dies though. For some reason or another, he opens his mail and sees a message with a key, telling him to go to a lockbox. He does, finds another message and a train ticket. At this point, he is like, fuck it, lets do this shit. Despite not knowing anything, he keeps going along with the checkpoints, getting frisked, searched for wires, etc. And you know what? He is fucked.

He is now taking part in a weird “tournament” where very little skill is required, just luck. A group of about 20 or so individuals, complete with numbers on their shirts (guess which number is our main guy?) pretty much play russian roulette. They are made to stand in a circle, each with one bullet, spinning chambers and all, and pointing their gun at the person in front of them. When a light goes on, they shoot. If they survive, congrats! If not, well dead.

Why is this? Because of gambling! Lot of people are watching these games, making very high stake bets. I couldn’t really understand most of the betting terminology though passed around. Each shooter has a handler to help them through the rounds, and someone who represents them for bets and what not. 50 Cent had brought in Mickey Rourke to participate. They have an interesting side story themselves.

Jason Statham brought in his brother (for the fourth time) and Alexander Skarsgård ends up helping main guy. At the same time, David Zayas is playing a detective looking for this underground gambling ring (he is good at being a detective I guess). So overall, there are three rounds, each with increasing bullets. At the end, 2 people are randomly selected to stand face to face in a duel, with 3 bullets.

Yes, this is all for gambling. Yes people die. But hey, if you survive until the end you get lots of money too. That makes it okay?

I will admit, I think this poster is pretty cool.

So the acting isn’t the best. But you probably expected that. This is a pretty low budget movie. It is probably too long at 90 minutes. The scenes to get to the gambling arena place took awhile. But the tournament, I just described it, doesn’t take that long either. So the ending after the tournament, if not completely expected, is kinda of slow too. Nothing unpredictable happens after it either. So that kind of sucks. This is one of the times I would have preferred a 75~ minute movie or so. Or, if they wanted, they could have had a lot crazier good acting, in regards to how the different “contestants” were handling the pressure of the game.

But this movie if anything was interesting for the majority chunk of it, and I like that it tried something new, if not horrible to think about.

I should start off by saying I do not hate foreign movies. Subtitles can be annoying if they are barely in a movie (so if I am not watching fully, I might miss something) but if I know it is all subtitles, I should be fine. One of my favorite movies I’ve seen this year was over two hours and subtitled.

But I am soooo bad at Kung-Fu/Martial Art movies. Sure, sometimes the fight scenes are good. But I feel like half of them tell the same story. Especially a story like what Shaolin offers.

A lot of my Shaolin Monk knowledge comes from Mortal Kombat.

So Shaolin is a movie with China and Warlords. Some dude is bad, some bad things happen. Dude goes to a Shaolin Temple after losing everything, to redeam himself. Jackie Chan is in this movie as a smaller role, as the cook for the Monks. Training sequence, attack from gun people for main dude, but everyone wants to protect him still. Eventually finds redemption, a lot of people die, and somehow Jackie Chan is secretly still good at fighting.

But yeah. It all seems unoriginal. It had beautiful scenery, clothing, homes, etc. The fighting was usually interesting, especially the Jackie Chan fight (I guess because it was less serious? You know how he does it).

“What are you talking about? Jackie Chan only does serious fights!” – Response to Review

So yeah. This could be a fantastic martial arts movie. But to me it is just okay. I promise I won’t review these again, hah.

When I first saw the trailer for The Wolfman, I assumed it would be like all of the old werewolf movies, with nothing really new behind it.

Then I realized I hadn’t really seen any actual older werewolf movies, just a bunch of dumb cheesy ones. Looks like I should give the Wolfman a try!

Alright, so maybe my only werewolf movies are Underworld, Van Helsing, and Harry Potter 3. Sue me.
And yes, I will ignore that other one I just reviewed.

The movie stars Benicio Del Toro, a Shakespearean actor who is sent back to his home for his brothers funeral. Some people think it is from the trained dancing bear that the gypsies had (err) and others think a Werewolf (equally implausible, I guess). Wanting to get some answers himself, he goes to the gypsy camp where he is of course hurt by a werewolf, gaining its curse. Now he has to both try and live with his curse, and try to stop the man who killed his brother. His dad is played by Anthony Hopkins, his brother’s lover is Emily Blunt, and Huge Friggan Weaving busts out the mutton chops for a detective role.

The acting in this movie is fantastic. While watching it though I had no idea why a werewolf would go on a crazy rage killing spree. I always figured it was just for food, but it seemed like the werewolves were killing just for killing sake. It could also be explained by people shooting at them, but eh. Who knows.

The special effects and make up were pretty top notch. Makes sense that the film won best make up. I loved the scenery and music too. Not to mention Hugo’s mutton chops.

But overall I thought it was still lacking. Maybe it was the ending, wasn’t my favorite. Didn’t care about the main dude that much either. Probably because I am heartless, but he went for his brothers widow pretty damn quick. Predictable stuff happened also. But the asylum was also pretty damn cool. But still lacking.

Did I mention Hugo’s mutton chops yet? They’re kind of a big deal.

So I came upon this title by accident. I was on Jeremy Sisto‘s imdb page (who is kicking ass on Suburgatory), and saw the title. I immediately went “OH MAN MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!” I was assuming it was some pseudo sequel thing to what every existentialist worth his lone self would know about, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Yes, the movie based upon the play of the same name, both fantastic.

I already feel like this is a mouthful.

This movie has not much at all to do with that movie/play. They do makes some references to the work, but its not at all related (Yet Tom Stoppard apparently told them to go for it). The play/movie is a personal favorite of mine, full of some great quotable gems, so that was a shame.

“We’re actors! We’re the opposite of people!”

So anyways, this movie takes place in modern NYC. Jake Hoffman is forced to be the director of the play, in a theater owned by John Ventimiglia. Everyone else involved is a vampire. They want to do the play that they made up, which is the name of the movie. All the director really wants to do is win back his ex girlfriend, Devon Aoki, from none other than Ralph Macchio! Sisto is barely in the movie, as a cop guy.

Eventually they realize that their version of the play is actually a true story, with a real Hamlet, and involving real vampire’s during Shakespeare’s time. John V goes around performing the play, turning the actors into vampires and audience members around the world. Similarly, the real Hamlet is out there trying to stop him. The only thing that can stop him is the Holy Grail.

Does this sound ridiculous? Because it is.

It is hard to figure out what is going on most of the movie. They had different play sequences throughout, and it was supposed to be all interweaved and surprising, but it just felt clunky and confusing. For all I know this could be some super meta type of movie that I just don’t get, but I don’t want to get it either. The acting was bad and cheesy, and well, just bad overall. It probably would have been better if I just watched the original movie again.

“We can do rapiers… or rape… or both!”

Why hello Spiderwick Chronicles. Good news, there are zero spiders in this movie! Which was my biggest worry. All I knew this was some fantasy kids movie, based off some book series no one has heard about.

Maybe because it only comes in giant hardback, with old pages and is bound by a spell?

The story involves Mary-Louise Parker and her 3 children moving into an old house in the woods, thanks to divorce! It used to belong their great aunt, but she is in crazyland now. The twins are played by Freddie Highmore, who was Charlie in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. One of the twins was all rawr Divorce and angry, the other is a smart pacifist. Anyways, rambuctions twin discovers a book of fairies.

Now, for some reason, if this book about fairies (made by Spiderwick. They are his Chronicles) gets taken by Goblins, everyone will die. Some plot points were awkward. Like them trying to destroy the book, instead of Goblins. I mean, what? A great book of knowledge, and they just wanted to end it?

Nick Nolte plays the Ogre shape shifter king of the Goblins dude, while voices are provided by Seth Rogen (a hobgoblin) and Martin Short (I dunno? A House Elf or something?). Seth Rogen just likes voice acting now, with Monsters vs Aliens and Paul.

So overall, the story was interesting though. Of course no idea how it is to the books, but who cares? The CGI seemed to only be creature based, which is nice. I liked the look of the goblins. Kinda cute in a rawrawrawrgnashgnash kind of way.

“You must pay the troll’s toll if you want to get into this boy’s soul!”

OoohhhhhhOooohhHhOOHHHHH. (That is ghost noises).

A retelling of the classic Red Riding Hood tale. For some reason the advertises of this movie made sure everyone knew that the people who did this movie also did Twilight. Clearly setting itself up for a not so serious movie.

The story stars Amanda Seyfried, who can be great and sing, but neither of these things really happen in this movie. She lives in a village where it always is winter and near a dark forest (I assume). They used to be attacked by a werewolf, but it stopped when she was a kid. She fell in love with a woodcutter, but he is lame and an orphan. FLASHFORWARD TO NOW. She is being forced to marry some other cute boy, who is prestigious or something.

I will say that I could not tell the two guys apart. This lead to some confusing moments for me.

OH NO WEREWOLF ATTACK.

Or just giant CGI wolf.

He kills her older sister. Eventually they call in Gary Oldman to come and kill the wolf! Even though Saul from Battlestar Galactica (oh how he has fallen) thinks he killed it already.

Blah blah. Witchhunt in the village. People thinking its everyone else. Eventually it is revealed. It is dealt with. And then a different dumb ending.

Alright first of all, the entire village just seemed fake. Even if they were in the woods for real, everything just seemed like shitty CGI to me, even her damn hood. In terms of guessing who the wolf is, I had about two guesses. One was right. Hooray. But I didn’t care. I also found it ridiculous that after the reveal, the wolf was still killed (spoiler?). Like, don’t be a bitch Amanda.

ESPECIALLY if you compare that ending with what happened right after it. That makes it even more stupid.

I wasn’t even interested in the movie for that long. Gary Oldman’s character was even annoying. He mentioned like, four or five times that he had to kill his own wife because she would be a werewolf. That was about all he said. Where I come from, killing your wife isn’t celebrated or a reason to get to do what you want.

“Give me that sandwich sir. I killed my wife.”

But rawrrr. This movie wasn’t good. I haven’t given a 0 in awhile, because that means I am mad I wasted my time with the movie in addition to it being pretty bad. Oh well. This fits my bill.

Jeff Bridges is a great fucking actor.

Did you know that? Even in the shitty movies, he is the best part.

His computer generated self however is not as good as the real thing.

True Grit is not a remake of the other movie. It is based off of the book, just like the first movie. I know some people who refuse to watch it because its a remake of a “John Wayne movie”, but that is wrong.

The main star is actually Hailee Steinfeld, a young girl who is out to get the man who murdered her father. She hires Bridges, a ranger, to find him for a fee. She also lets Matt Damon know, who is already looking for the same man. The man played by Josh Brolin.

So the movie is about the search for the murderer, normally a mans game, but including the addition of a spunky little girl, who knows what she wants.

Right now she wants buckets of water.

So all the acting is fantastic in this movie. I am not sure why Hailee was nominated for best supporting actress. She is NOT a supporting actress in this movie, she is a main actress. She should have been nominated for Best, and beaten Natalie Portman for it. I bet its some bullshit age / first time reasons for the choice.

The Coen Brothers have been trying to perfect their “Western” movies for awhile, and they have done so with True Grit.

This movie stars Ryan Reynolds and he is Buried in the ground, unsure why, and left with his phone and lighter.

You are now caught up with the synopsis.

There is also eventually a flashlight, some glow stick shit, instructions, and other stuff that happens. I feel like if I say any of it, I am spoiling part of the movie.

I can say that we thankfully get to hear other people talk, in his phone conversations. I figured this movie would be partially told through flash backs, like all those other things, but nope. We get Reynolds in a box. Just him! I like that. Flashbacks is the lazy way out.

This film is probably banking off of the success of 127 Hours, much like the horrible Wrecked tried to do.

There is one part near the end that bugged me. It showed the camera zoom out and I guess it did that to make him seem even more helpless, but then it made it look like there was no ceiling. When there obviously was a ceiling. So that was just dumb. He had barely any room over his head, not this 8 feet or so that it made it seem out of no where. They made that clear when he had to scrape his head in order to turn around.

What this movie does a good job of doing is make you hate people, assuming you didn’t already do that. You won’t be too mad at Ryan, as really, its hard to find faults with any of his actions. Aside from that previous pan out frame, it does a good job of making the viewer feel trapped in a box the whole time too. Normally I hate that feeling, but that is usually with boats. You are supposed to feel trapped in this movie.

“Why must people be so stupid!”

As a side note, his birthday is apparently March 23rd. One day before mine, cool! Also, it had a very wow ending.

I have found writing this review very hard. Not because I don’t have a lot to say, I have tons. I just…don’t know how to say it. So it will probably seem to be a dumb review overall, which is unfortunate for such a great movie.

The Illusionist should not be confused with the Edward Norton movie of the same name. It is an animated french film, that takes place in Scotland. Aside from being animated, 95% of the film is silent speaking wise, focusing more on music and pantomime. The speaking that does take place in the movie is French or Gibberish, or both. I am not entirely sure.

To call this a simple film is an understatement. The animation gives an old vibe to it, but it is beautiful at the same time. It is like the background of an old cartoon, where everything is kind of faded, but you know what is about to be interacted with as it has a different glow to it. Except in this movie, the background and people all seem to be the same.

Your face is all the same.

The story tells of an old Illusionist who is traveling across Scotland, performing simple parlor tricks for money just to travel on further. Eventually he meets a young girl at a Parlor, who believes his magic tricks to be real and follows him on his journey. She lives with him in some city while he gets an agent and a local gig at a theater. The relationship with the girl is like a father/daughter thing, not something creepy, jerks. The remainder of the story shows as he tries to make it through his life with magic, in a world that doesn’t seem to care anymore.

The film itself is pretty short, ending right under 80 minutes. To me it went by very quick, and I was surprised as it was about to end. The ending scenes were very sad, possibly depressing, but “real”. I had no idea I was going to, but I definitely shed tears, seemingly out of no where.

There is only a few characters, but it is interesting how they all change in such a simple animated movie. I went from confused about the girl, to upset, to angry, to confused. There is some other performers here too, a trio of acrobats, a ventriloquist, and an old clown. I cannot say I know anything about the original author of the movie, just that I know it is some 50 year old script that finally got produced. It was a pretty famous French dude.

Finally, the bunny. The Illusionist has a pet bunny, and from the animation style point, I think its the cutest bunny I have ever seen. The way it runs around, gets irritated. Every time it was in a scene, an instant “awww’ would just fill my head.

Look at him squirm. Don’t you just want to hug it? If I could, I would own a bunny like that. Too bad animations can’t exist in our 3D world. Yet.

I found this movie to be incredibly touching, and that is without knowing the probable dozens of hidden messages throughout, that the original script writer was probably trying to deduce. If you ever get a chance, you should just definitely give it a try. It went up against Toy Story 3 and How To Train Your Dragon for Best Animated Picture, and after seeing all three, I fully believe this should have won.