Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

The_MOW Blog

  • This film shows that wrestling is not as "fake" as its detractors say

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Beyond the Mat  (1999)

    For over a century, the world of professional wrestling has entertained its fans, and been the target of people who say it's "fake" without making a logical reason as to why they say it's fake.

    This documentary, marketed as "The film Vince McMahon DOESN'T want you to see," follows professional wrestlers from the independent circuit (local/regional promotions that put shows on in the area the company calls home) and two of the biggest professional wrestling promotions in the late 1990's, the World Wrestling Federation (renamed World Wrestling Entertainment not too long after the release of this film) and Extreme Championship Wrestling (which was bought out by the now-WWE a few years after the release of this film), and wrestlers who are no longer in the spotlight.

    The film does not have budget of a major Hollywood release, and it shouldn't. It's not about the glitz and glamor the fans see, it's about the men and women who put their bodies and lives on the line every time they step inside the "squared circle" (the ring).

    The film focuses on just a few wrestlers. Namely Mick Foley (wrestling under the name Mankind, the reigning WWF World Champion), Terry Funk, 1980's star Jake "The Snake" Roberts and to a lesser degree, Jerome Young, who wrestled in ECW (and still wrestles as) New Jack. It also focuses on to indy (independent) wrestlers, one of which I've heard of in magazines and online. It also features Darren Drozdov, who was literally hired in front of the film's cameras and given the gimmick (character) known as "Puke", based on the fact that he was able to make himself vomit at will (I kid you not! He is shown demonstrating this "skill". However, he would later be repackaged as Droz. At the end of the movie, it is briefly mentioned that he was paralyzed during a match three months after filming wrapped. Eight years later, he is still in a wheelchair.)

    It doesn't present the wrestlers in their respective characters, it presents the persons behind the characters. It shows Foley as a loving family men who is a big kid, It shows Funk nearing one of his numerous retirements (he is notorious for returning to wrestling after retiring). And it shows Roberts as a drug addict (he is shown lighting up a crack cocaine pipe on camera).

    You get to see the behind-the-scenes business of three promotions, an independent promotion, the WWF and ECW. It shows Foley discussing a pay-per-view match with Dwayne Johnson, who was known as "The Rock" (this is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson who is now an actor who starred in such recent movies as "Gridiron Gang" and "The Scorpion King"). You get to see ECW as it makes its debut on Pay-Per-View Television debut, which includes an incredible inspirational speech by then-owner Paul Heyman. And we get to see the backstage aftermath of the Mankind/The Rock match, which literally brought Foley's young daughter to tears to the point that Foley's wife has to remove her children from their front row seat and bring them backstage (Foley received multiple shots to the head with a steel chair in the match, which is shown through the film crew's camera).

    Another wrestler the film focuses on is one of Foley's longtime friends, Terry Funk. Funk, a second generation wrestler whose brother Dory Jr. also wrestles. We get to see Funk as he goes to the doctor, who advises him to get knee replacement surgery. This prompts him to announce his (one of many) retirement at the reception of his daughter's wedding. We then follow him around he begins to wind down his career. We see him, and his family, at the debut ECW PPV, ask a wrestler who never made it as a major star to referee his final match, to the post-match ceremony at his retirement show where ECW owner Heyman declares Funk the ECW World Heavyweight Champion for Life.

    The show also touches on other major names in the business at the time, but doesn't focus on them like Foley, Funk and Roberts. There are brief segments on Jerome Young (better known as New Jack), Joanie Laurer (better known as Chyna) and a few others. There are also interviews with other major, and not so major names, the weirdest having to be with Matt Hyson (known as Spike Dudley). Hyson was a wrestler with ECW, which was known for violent, bloody matches. We learn that Hyson's previous job was a third grade teacher, and he was an English major who loves Shakespeare. As he is bleeding from the forehead, thanks to an injury sustained in the ring prior to the interview, the movie's producer asks him to recite his favorite line from Shakespeare. Hyson then recites a line from memory -- as blood pours down over his face.

    The most uncomfortable, and saddest segment features 1980's star Jake "The Snake" Roberts. Robets had hit rock bottom at the time this documentary was filmed. He has become addicted to crack cocaine, and is shown smoking the drug shortly after meeting up with his estranged daughter in an uncomfortable reunion. He has had a hard life. A result of rape of his then 13-year old mother, who has a strained relationship with his father, a well-known wrestler who never reached the height of fame Jake did. Years later, in a WWE-produced DVD retrospective on his career, Roberts blasted how he was depicted in this film, to the point of bad mouthing the producer and Terry Funk.

    What this movie does not address is the "wrestling is fake" debate. That is mostly because it show's what pro wrestling is -- entertainment that takes a toll on the bodies and lives of those in the ring. After seeing Foley, and Mr. McMahon (Vince McMahon's stage name) being stitched up after a show, you may reconsider how "fake" wrestling is.

    The only downside of this film is that wrestling fans are the only ones most likely to buy or rent this movie. However, I suggest that people who do not watch wrestling (especially the ones who say "wrestling is fake") view this movie if you ever come across it on television along with the documentaries "Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows" (which puts Vince McMahon in an even worse light than "Beyond the Mat") and the television documentary "The Unreal Story of Professional Wrestling" (A&E still airs it from time to time) to better understand the true nature of the business.


  • Lots of action for a kids movie

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Jumanji  (1995)

    In 1969, "Alan Parrish" (Adam Hann-Byrd) and the object of his schoolboy crush, "Sarah Whittle" (Laura Bell Bundy) play an unusual game -- which sucks "Alan" into itself. 26 years later, two children (Kirsten Dunst and Bradley Pierce) move into the abandoned "Parrish" place and find the game, called Jumanji, in the attic.

    As the two play, they release a now adult "Alan" (Robin Williams) from the game, along with some wild animals and carnivorous plants -- and one mean hunter (Jonathan Hyde, who also plays the father of "Alan") who wants to kill "Alan."

    This is very much a special effects movie. In just about every scene is CGI and animatronics creatures. When it comes to the CGI animals, they are obviously computer generated. Look closely at the hair of the monkeys -- it is obvious that it's not realistic looking. Also, the shots of the human cast merged into scenes with CGI creatures are inserted near perfectly. After over a decade since this movie was originally released, it's still hard to tell where the human cast members are inserted from being shot in front of a green screen.

    Although the performances are pretty good from the entire cast, the characters are not developed greatly. They are only developed enough to understand their backstories. At least two characters have the least amount of development, and are used only to advance the scenes they are in.

    One thing this movie does well is action. It gives just enough of a break to take a little breather. The action is fast paced, and shot nicely.


  • Not the best way to end the trilogy

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Robocop 3  (1993)

    The "Omni Consumer Products (OCP)" has tightened its grip on Detroit, to the point that the police department is now a division of the company. With the help of OCP's new Japanese owners funding everything, it appears that the dream of tearing down Detroit and replacing it with the advanced "Delta City" will finally happen. However, there are a citizens who have taken it upon themselves to fight using any means necessary -- including using violence and weaponry.

    To tighten their grip on the citizens, "OCP" employs "Rehab Teams", which are basically military police headed by a maniacal leader named "McDagget" who employs even greater violence to try to bring the rebels to his brand of justice. However, after the death of his partner at the hands of the "Rehab Team" lead by "McDagget" himself, the rebels have a new partner in their fight -- "RoboCop" (Robert Burke).

    This is not the greatest way to end the cult favorite movie trilogy. It is probably the most forgettable of the entire series in fact.

    Although the story is pretty good, the script is not the best. And because of the weak script, the performances are only fair.

    The one thing that seriously hurt this movie is that it is PG-13, while the others were rated R. Because of the rating, the action sequences are very much less violent than the other two, and the language is toned down quite a bit. I believe they were trying to market "RoboCop" to a more broader audience at this time. They released a cartoon series for television, and had "RoboCop" come to the aid of a professional wrestler known as Sting in a heavily hyped appearance on a World Championship Wrestling pay-per-view telecast (the PPV was even titled "Capitol Combat '90: The Return of RoboCop"). If you ask me, this was a serious mistake like when they turned "Rambo" into a cartoon.

    Another problem with this film is that the budget is lower than the previous instalments. The first movie was known for the incredible special effects, make-up and obvious stop-motion effects. In first movie had major splatter when the "bullets" hit their target, that was obviously missing in this film.

    None of the performances stood out, with a slight exception of Burke, who takes over the title role from Peter Weller. There was also some problems with the development of the new characters introduced in this movie.

    Sad to say, I can only recommend this one if you happen upon it on HBO or On Demand. It's not the perfect movie, but it is pretty much watchable.


  • Violent, campy and memorable fun

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Robocop  (1987)

    New Detroit police officer "Alex Murphy" (Peter Weller) has been tranfered to a precinct in one of the most violent parts of town after the on-duty death of another cop.

    During the hunt for wanted criminals in their hideout, an abandoned factory, "Murphy" is shot and killed. Upon his death, the "Omni Consumer Products (OCP)" obtain his body and intergrate it with the most advanced technology available to create a crime-fighting cyborg codenamed "RoboCop".

    Eventually, humanity overwrites programming, as "RoboCop" begins to remember his former life as he continues to fight crime. He also has to deal with the possibility of being replaced by a non-cyborg machine as a replacement, which is strongly supported by a high-ranking OCP executive.

    The first things you will notice about this is the graphic violence, the special effects and the sometimes oddly placed fake television commercials. You will also notice the pretty strong performances from the main cast.

    If you are not into bloody movies, then this one is not for you. The bloody scenes are few, but are very graphic. The make-up and other special effects are used very well in these scenes.

    Like I said before, the main cast put forth good performances. Some of the characters seem to be written better than others though, which may be a reason that there are some weak performances by some of the cast that make them a bit campy at times.

    The special effects, except for the previously mentioned make-up effects, still hold up for the most part, possibly due to them being fairly simple. One special effect that does not hold up well is the "ED-209" robot that is competing with "RoboCop" for the job as the ultimate police officer. It is very obvious that it not only added into scenes in post-production, the animation of it is pretty bad. As it moves, the figure becomes blurry. It appears that the animation of the "ED-209" is one of the things that they used to cut corners on the budget.

    When it comes to wardrobe, nothing really stands out and looks more like it belongs in the 1980s than in the "near future". The one piece of "wardrobe" that stands out more than others is the "RoboCop" costume worn by Weller. Mixed with make-up effects, it is one of the most memorable pieces of costuming in movies.

    Except for the "ED-209" and some of the performances, there really isn't any cons in this movie. Paul Verhoeven directed his first American movie very nicely. To the point that it has become a cult classic.


  • An Unlikely Hero

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Blankman  (1994)

    "Darryl" (Damon Williams) and "Kevin" (David Allen Grier) are brothers from Chicago who were raised by their grandmother (the late Lynne Thigpen). The boys care more about the classic live-action television series, "Batman" than politics like their grandmother.

    As they grew up, "Kevin" becomes a cameraman for WWHY-TV who can easily get s date on Friday night. While "Darryl" becomes a nerdy inventor-wannabe who has never been with a woman.

    Then the unthinkable happens. "Darryl" and "Kevin's" grandmother is murdered by some assailants who barge into the campaign office of a top candidate for mayor. This eventually gives "Darryl" the idea to become a masked superhero like "Batman" using his inventions that are made from home appliances.

    Naming himself "Blankman", "Darryl" gets the attention of not only the criminal element who are trying to purchase the newly elected mayor, who was suppored by "Darryl" and "Kevin's" grandmother, and the "Lois Lane"-type television reporter, "Kimberly Jonz" (Robin Givens), who catches the eye of "Kevin," but has eyes for "Blankman".

    Yet another not-so-great recommendation from Yahoo Movies Personalized Recommendations. However, this one has its moments.

    The first problem is the comedy. Too few jokes produce a chuckle. In fact, none of the jokes produce a good laugh. Another problem is that the supporting cast is not well written, and the script is predictable beyond words.

    When it comes to predictability, you just knew that the grandmother was going to be killed near the beginning of the movie just seconds before it happened. You also knew that the lead female role, which was not well written if you ask me, would fall head over heels for "Blankman" instead of "Kevin" even before they had their first face-to-face meeting in the film.

    One thing that makes the movie worth seeing, other than Williams and Grier, are the inventions created by "Darryl" for his alter-ego. If you laughed at "Data's" "Jaws of Life" in "The Goonies", then the ones in this movie should make you laugh as well.

    Another problem with this film is the chemistry of the cast. To me, most of the cast were just there to collect a check and did very little to make the relationships of the characters believable. The strongest chemistry was between Williams, Grier and Givens. Personally, I wanted to see "Kevin" and "Kimberly" get together more than "Robin" and "Darryl"/"Blankman". I think that the blooming romance between "Kimbnerly" and "Blankman" was poorly written in fact, as I felt no chemistry between the two characters.

    If you ask me, don't even rent this one. Wait until it comes on HBO or another movie channel. Then wait for a rainy day when there is nothing else on television.


  • Doesn't really make me want to read the book

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Based on one of the most popular novels out now, the story follows "Robert Langdon" (Tom Hanks) and "Sophie Neveu" as they search for the most sought after relic in all mankind -- the Holy Grail. Together, they follow cryptic clues that sends them around the Eastern Hemisphere in search of the relic.

    But, as they search, there are those who want them stopped at all cost. And they must watch their backs, or their search will end -- as well as their lives.

    First of all, let me say that I have not read the novel. And after watching the movie a couple of times, I am less interested in reading the book than I was before seeing the film.

    First of all, the only thing that will keep you interested is the clues that are presented. They are quite interesting in fact. Another thing that is unique is the special effects used to focus on the clue (clues are highlighted in some scenes).

    On the other hand, the biggest problems with the movie is pace as well as acting. The movie is frequently lagging in my opinion. As for the acting, nobody, not even the usually real good Hanks, is good. And to make things worse, Hanks was the wrong person for this role and had an inconsistent performance, as he performed strong in some scenes, yet had a weak performance in others.

    The supporting cast for the most part were quite weak. They did nothing more than weakly advance the storyline.

    Another drawback is that the movie can be hard to follow if you aren't paying close attention. If you turn your head at just the wrong moment, you will miss a major twist or clue that is important to the plot. I also noticed that, in my opinion, the actors were sometimes hard to hear at times. I do not have a hearing problem, but sometimes I had to strain to hear what was being said in English. Speaking of languages, I strongly suggest that you keep your eye on the screen when there is a high chance that a foriegn tongue will be spoken, as the English translation will be shown with subtitles on the screen.

    Another nice part of this movie is that, for the most part, was shot on location at places depicted in the book. This would help with the feel of the book for those who have read it.

    Ron Howard did a pretty good job at mixing special effects, beautiful location shoots and a twist-filled story to make it watchable. I would say watch it at least twice to make sure you didn't miss anything.

    This movie isn't for everybody however. If you are not into lots of special effects, or a mystery story with a new twist every other scene, then this one is not for you.

    I would say that this might be a good second choice to rent if your first choice is not available.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
262728293012
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31123456


Categories
 


Advertisement