Archive for the I Category

Iron Man 3 (Shane Black) NO SPOILERS

Posted in I on May 7, 2013 by moviemoses

If you will permit, I have a bit of a tangent to talk about but I promise this will eventually relate to my thoughts on Iron Man 3. I am not huge into comic books anymore. It is not that I don’t love the characters because I do. It is not that I don’t love the adventure; I do. It is because comic culture has this neurotic fear of change. This is something that is shared by both the makers and the buyers. Now I can understand why from both sides. From the comic book company perspective you want to keep things as static as possible to keep the run going as long as possible to sell the most books. After all, if Batman for examples conquers his demons then that would kind of be it. There would be nothing left for his character to do. From the public perspective we kind of dislike things that are different and prefer the safe norm. Much like fast food we know what we are getting and are fine with the same but fulfilling formula.

But there just reaches a point where it all gets ridiculous. Nothing changes. Okay, I take it back. Things eventually change, but evolution is more observable than character changes in comics. It took what: 60 years for Superman to marry Lois Lane? People still go into full blown freak outs at Superman Returns’ sub plot that Superman and Lois had a kid. Spider-Man even made A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL in order to bring the comics back to the status quo. It reaches damn near comedic levels at times. Batman has either reached self parody or is doing its closest modern interpretation of Sisyphus. Instead of being destined to pushing a boulder uphill for all eternity, Batman has to catch the Joker again and again and again to the end of time.

That is why I am loving the current crop of comic movies. The Nolan Batman trilogy is perfect to me. We have Bruce Wayne who is broken in the beginning, he becomes Batman to try to fix things, he gets into adventures which are fun, but ultimately realizes the flaws in his character and overcomes them. And when it is over it is done. Over. Finished. You have no idea the sigh of relief I gave when we actually had a finished story arc and the balls it took Nolan for him to finish that way. Because I know, the movies being like the comics, we would have Bruce Wayne cloning himself to fight clone Joker in the year 5054. People wanted to complain about how little Batman there was and how Bane wasn’t quite like the comic and blah blah blah. Need I remind people that Ra’s al Ghoul wasn’t the same in the movies as he was in the comics nor was the Joker the same. I know I’m going to get nerd essays coming down the pipe about how wrong I am. Yes, I know we had some brief one offs with psycho Joker like in The Killing Joke, but for the most part Joker was always portrayed as this buffoonish, well, clown. It was only really at The Dark Knight when we get this anarchist punk rocker who believes in chaos…thing. My point is this Batman was different as told through Nolan’s vision and it was fine.

This leads me to Iron Man 3. Finally. The reviews for Iron Man 3 were for the most part overwhelmingly positive. But then you have the small percentage who want to label it the worst thing ever. Now I’m sure many will accuse me of straw manning but I tried reading as many people’s negative comments to see where they were coming from and they all pretty much amounted to this.

There are plot holes and bad writing! This isn’t like the comics. That character isn’t like that in the comics. The suit doesn’t do that in the comics. That character wouldn’t do that. Unfaithful!

To which I have to remind you just because something is different from the source material doesn’t mean it is a plot hole or bad writing. And just because it is different doesn’t mean its bad or the worst thing ever. The Iron Man of the movies is different from the Iron Man of the comics. It’s as simple as that. Yes, characters and aspects are changed but it is done in service of telling a story. For the longest time as a kid I listed Batman & Robin as my worst movie of all time and now I’ll come clean and say I was a moron for saying that. Schumaker intentionally made B&R like the Batman show of the 60’s. It was his artistic decision to make it campy and goofy and I cannot fault him for the simple fact he didn’t make the Batman movie I wanted. Don’t get me wrong, I still don’t like B&R, but it is for other reasons.

The point is during the movie, I could pin point several moments and scenes where I noted to myself „This is where the comic book Iron Man fan just yelled out ‘Betrayal!!!!!!!’ in the theater.“ But this was also the point where I tell people to loosen up. The movie and plot works in its own right and just because something is changed doesn’t mean things are ruined forever. It works in the same way we have 60’s Batman and the animated Batman and the comic Batman, and the Burton Batman, and the Nolan Batman.

I really liked Iron Man 3. Shane Black does a great job of playing to Downey’s strengths of his charisma, while at the same time mixing that with some intense scenes. In other people’s hands, the tonal shifts would be jarring. But Black has enough experience in just Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang alone to show he has the talent to juggle those elements.

Yes, there are some more fantastical elements in this movie, but in a universe where just one movie ago we had Stark fighting alien dragons along side a Thunder God and a Hulk, can we really throw up the realism flag? Yes, there is more emphasis on Stark instead of Iron Man and I like it. As I said, I prefer engaging stories and good character arcs. It ends on a note that leaves a sour taste in some people’s mouths but I like there is resolution. I think there is more tension when it is Stark who has to deal with problems outside of his suit and the absence of the suit makes the times when it does show up even better.

This is not a perfect movie at all. While I like the emphasis on Stark, I think it is at a loss to side characters like Rhodes and Pepper Potts. Favreau handled things better to where Stark and Potts were good foils to each other where here she is severely downplayed. The writing can also be sloppy at times. It is hard to really delve when I am not giving spoilers. Also keep in mind I don’t think any of the Iron Man movies are totally perfect. For example the first one had a third act problem where the writers all of a sudden realized they needed a villain and rushed Jeff Bridges out. I enjoyed this one about as much as the first one at least the first time through. Maybe things will be different on repeat viewings. I think for fans of the Iron Man movies there is plenty to enjoy and is a great entry in the series. For those that are heavily tied to the comics I can only suggest you come in with a thicker skin and check your expectations down a few notches. This is an Iron Man for the Marvel movie fans, not necessarily for the fan fans.

Interiors (Woody Allen) 1978

Posted in I, Woody Allen Retrospective on October 16, 2011 by moviemoses

Finally got back to my Woody retrospective.  When last we left, he just got an Oscar for one of the all time classic comedies in Annie Hall.  How does he follow up?  Why a love letter to Ingmar Bergman of course.  Looking at it now we are used to Woody easily transitioning between the comic and the tragic but back when this movie came out it was a gamble.  Up until this point, we only knew him as an extremely talented comic writer/director/actor.  Seeing people’s reactions to this I’m sure is akin to the movie trailer cliche of a record scratch in the music followed by the characters awkwardly looking at one another.

Annie Hall was an obviously big moment in the career of Allen.  First off, it gave him a blank check to make whatever he wanted since he more than proved himself to the studios.  But more internally, Woody was disappointed.  He wanted to make something more serious and thought Annie Hall, despite its groundbreaking nature, was a compromise.  Allen wanted to make something more like one of his film idols in Ingmar Bergman.  Allen put a lot of his new found cred on the line in making this movie that was so out of form and it was showing in his behavior.  Allen was desperate to save the film and fearful of Interiors bombing.  Through a lot of hard work, he later boasted he pulled it (the movie) out by the “short hairs“.  Interiors received many positive reviews however Allen was ultimately disappointed by the end result of the picture.

I am finally getting into some undiscovered country.  I have seen a good portion of Woody Allen but it was mostly his influential work from the beginning and end of his career.  I missed much of the middle of his career.  I mentioned this before with Tiger Lily but it is strange when you see a film that gets no strong reaction.  Most of the time you see people’s reaction to a Woody Allen film is that they either love it or hate it but strange when they are ‘meh‘ to it.  Once again, I get caught rambling so I should get to actually reviewing the movie.

Interiors is about a family composed of mother Eve (Geraldine Page), father Arthur (E.G. Marshall) and their three daughters Renata (Diane Keaton), Joey (Marybeth Hurt), andFlyn (Kristin Griffith).  Eve is domineering and feels she has to control every aspect of her life.  After their children are all grown up, Arthur separates from Eve causing her life to go into a tailspin.  The daughters are having their own troubles which are made worse by their mother sinking to suicidal levels.

Allen went all in with the drama so as to not have any confusion with the audience.  This is the first time Woody does not appear in the film, not to mention the fact there are no jokes in this movie.  A character laughs once which I’m sure he was pissed about not finding out some way to write out all good emotions.  I kid Woody Allen of course.

Truth is I enjoyed Interiors.  Interiors is about the psychology of the characters and how they deal with the reality of their lives but mostly with death.  Renata buries herself in her art trying to create a lasting legacy while Joey is someone who has unlimited artistic ambition, but no natural talent.  The real focus is with Eve.  Eve tries to make a world for herself so she doesn’t have to face reality.  She is so controlling whenever she goes to her daughter’s apartment she has to tell her how to design the place as well as physically moving furniture around.  Usually when someone leaves a marriage you may naturally tend to think he is being unreasonable not to try to work it out.  In this case, you almost want him to leave the country to get away from her.  Arthur waits until the kids are all grown up as to not damage them and then goes off to find some happiness of his own.  The separation though, completely shatters her world.

Geraldine Page gives an absolutely spot on performance here.  I’m sure many actresses would read Eve as a  ‘psycho mom‘ and completely chew the scenery.  Page though is very subtle both in her maniupulation of her family and in the storm that is raging inside of her.  There is so much tension in the scenes where Eve is visiting with her daughters.  The daughters know the reality of the situation.  They know that Arthur is never going back with Eve but never had the heart to fully tell the truth.  There is always this tension in the air as you feel Eve is always on the verge of exploding even though her face is always stern.  The daughters don’t know whether to keep feeding Eve the lie that Arthur will come back or give her the bitter truth.  Whenever Joey gets fed up, you see Eve push every subtle psychological button and work every manipulative trick in the book to get her way.  There is just so much about the family dynamics that are spot on that I can’t believe there is so much tension in a story about an upper class family going through a divorce.    This movie is very thought provoking in the ways you see the characters all trying to find meaning in their lives but looking in the wrong places.

I can see several reasons why people might not enjoy this movie.  This movie is Woody Allen going in an extreme.  There is a lot of drama, a lot of dense dialog, and a good portion of angst and depression.  I can understand this movie not being someone’s cup o‘ tea.  I think that this movie isn’t brought up in many Woody Allen film conversations, not because this movie is a bad film, but because he has made a ton of films.  There are so many great comedies and dramas that it can easily get lost in the shuffle.  I personally found this very interesting and a great first attempt at a dramatic picture.  Next up on the retrospective is Manhattan.

Invictus (Clint Eastwood) 2009

Posted in I on September 28, 2011 by moviemoses

I guess to get right to the point; Invictus is just like any standard inspirational sports movie of the past few years.  If you have seen Miracle, Remember the Titans, We are Marshall, Invincible, etc. then you’ve seen this movie.  Now I will say the scope of this movie is a little bigger than the other movies.  Invictus is about Nelson Mandela who is just becoming President and having to deal with strong lingering race issues.  Mandela became personally involved with getting the country’s Rugby team to the World Cup to kind of rally everyone under a common goal and to bridge the gap between the races.  The captain of the team Pierre is played by Matt Damon.

There are several issues with this story though.  The rugby scenes aren’t all that interesting and they make no attempt at explaining it.  In fact, there is a running joke that even Mandela’s personal guard have no f*cking idea what is going on in the game or if what is happening is a good thing.  There is no attempt at even explaining any of the rules which makes the climactic game almost a confusing mess.  I’ll admit my rugby ignorance brought on by my American upbringing but even I was watching the last game and saw them kicking what seemed to be field goals and thinking to myself “Wait, they can do that!?  They didn’t tell me they could kick the ball and score it.”  And no, this is not a request for people to tell me the rules of rugby or say its better than baseball or football or whatever.  I’m really not all that interested.  But even the playing scenes which should be very action oriented are not well shot and not all that interesting.  I think even for Rugby fans the final game would be rather underwhelming cinematically speaking.

The story, for being a Clint Eastwood movie, is surprisingly stock and bland.  As I said this is every stock inspirational sports movie.  A bad news bear like team of losers unite under an inspirational leader and make the impossible journey to the finals against the eeeeeevvil bad ass team (in this case New Zealand).  Along the way, the team learns that judging people by their skin color is not really a good thing and be better people.  We don’t really learn about Mandela’s presidency or his decisions.  In fact, another joke is that people will come to Mandela with issues and he will be like “Uh huh, who do they play next in the World Cup?”  And maybe it’s my personal grinchiness coming through, but it takes away from all the feel good message when you realize South Africa basically swapped political aparteid for economic apartied.  While the black majority may have won some small battles, the white minority still owns all the wealth and jobs and the blacks are even more destitute than before.

And NO, I do not want to discuss international politics or economics in relation to South Africa or the rest of the world and if you do you shall be banished to the Blaghole!  I’m just saying the situation is not as rose colored as the movie paints.

What ultimately kills this movie is there are no real characters to follow.  Mandela is played well by Freeman, but he is such a saintly figure we really don’t see him as a person.  We just see him as a guy who gives inspirational tidbits to people and a quote machine.  Even though we follow Pierre around for the majority of the movie (and Damon also does a great job, especially with the accent) we don’t learn much about him either.  His role is also to give inspirational speeches and to talk about how brave Mandela was for surviving over 20 years in prison.  We don’t learn about him as a person and he does not grow at all during the course of the movie.

Invictus is not a BAD movie.  If you do go in for all these inspirational “real life” sports movies then you will get some enjoyment out of it.  It is just very by the numbers.  And I actually won’t flip all the blame on Eastwood for this one.  From what I heard, Freeman had this as a passion project for several years and basically asked Clint to do this as a favor.  So I can understand Clint not having his A game for a movie he didn’t originally intend to do.

Inception (Christopher Nolan) 2010 NO SPOILERS

Posted in I on July 21, 2010 by moviemoses

Okay, this will actually be very difficult to do this without any spoilers but I will give it a shot. First I will give a very brief synopsis of the film. Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a new kind of thief who can enter the mind through dreams and steal memories. In order to be with his kids he accepts the trademark ‘one last job’ to accomplish that. The job involves not the theft of an idea but “inception”; the implanting of an idea into someone’s head without them knowing it. This is thought to be an impossible task but Cobb agrees to it.

I found this to be an excellent film from top to bottom. Nolan is shaping up to be a complete package when it comes to being a director. Here is a guy who can craft complex and intriguing story lines, handle actors well to get good performances out of them, make impressive visual effects, and wrap it all together into a movie satisfying for the general audience and even a snob like me.

Let’s talk about the technical aspects first. The visuals are beautiful and the whole movie is imaginative. I still don’t know how they did some of the hallway scene. And while the movie tries to have grounding in reality, they can still play around with visual paradoxes and strange city scapes. The music is a great compliment to the action in the movie.

The story is where I can see the movie losing people. Some people will be confused, some people hate twists, and some hate getting “jerked around” by an unreliable narrative structure. While there is a lot going on, at no time did I feel lost. You just have to pay attention the whole way since you are keeping track of multiple plot threads. There is a surprising amount of depth to this movie. There is not only a satisfying thriller at the base level but plenty of hidden messages and themes to digest later on. This is going to be a movie I am going to watch numerous times and get many different things.

This is not a perfect film (I’m not sure there is such a thing). I do have some minor quibbles. For example the climax does drag a tad due to the number of plot threads we are following. It gets a bit bogged down trying to keep track of all the characters and all the action. Without thinking too hard on everything I’ve seen, I can pretty confidently say this is my favorite of the year so far. While this film may not be for everyone I think it is worth a shot if just for the spectacle. This is an impressive movie.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (Terry Gilliam) 2009

Posted in I on June 14, 2010 by moviemoses

It’s strange that although I don’t think highly of Gilliam I have seen all of his movies. You would think I would figure out by now I’m setting myself up for failure but I dunno. It’s just, even with Gilliam’s best movies, I see them as being great but not the masterpieces fans tout them to be. I will give him all the credit in the world for being visually inventive and one of the most imaginative directors out there, but that doesn’t change the fact I think he has big deficiencies as a storyteller. So why did I think Imaginarium would be any different? I didn’t. My girlfriend made me watch this.

The story is very muddled and confusing but this is as clear a synopsis I can give. The devil (Tom Waits) has had this relationship through the ages with this kind of master mentalist named Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer). They have a series of bets as to who can claim the most souls. Parnassus wins immortality but realizes its not all its cracked up to be. So he makes another deal where he gets back mortality with the condition any child he has, the devil will claim its soul on the 16th birthday. Parnassus has a daughter and to save her life, he makes another bet with the devil. The first with five souls wins her life. Along the way, Parnassus runs across a mysterious stranger with amnesia (Heath Ledger) who wants to help him.

As I said, this story is very murky. I personally found it funny that at the 50 minute mark, even Tony (Ledger) had to sit the characters down and ask basically what the f*ck is going on. So, Parnassus has this magic mirror that people go through and it transports them to the person’s manifestation of his/her imagination. There they encounter a choice between Parnassus and the devil. These are the most simplistic choices ever presented to people and it makes you wonder where the devil got his rep as a master of lies. Take for example a boozer who goes through and is presented with the choice of climbing an endless mountain of stairs or having a drink at a bar. Stuff in this movie is just not all that clear though. What happens if Parnassus wins the soul? What do they really gain? Why do people stay with Parnassus? Why does the devil have such an interest in Parnassus? If the devil is really in this world but no other mythological agents, what kind of theology are we working from here? What ARE the devil’s motives? Why do they want souls? Why is this the easiest way to get souls? I could go on but you get the picture. I can understand Gilliam trying to tell the audience to just roll with the story and not dig too deep but he sabotages himself by making everything so mysterious. Gilliam intentionally keeps all the characters mum supposedly to build up suspense and the mystery but all he ends up doing is frustrating me with unclear answers. There are also the truly bizarre moments like when we get a song and dance number from a group of cross dressing police men. This seems to be an attempt to go back to his Monty Python days, but in this context it is so out of left field that it derails the movie instead of helping it.

I also find the characters to be patently unlikable. Parnassus is the worst person of all. For one, he is someone so rock stupid that he constantly makes bets with THE DEVIL and is surprised when he finds out the devil is not entirely on the up and up. Everyone join me here in saying…DDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!! Not to mention the fact Parnassus is putting peoples eternal souls at risk for his own personal gain. In some cases, people are forced into the mirror and they end up being taken by the devil. It also says something that Parnassus doesn’t try to help people in making this test. I can maybe understand not making the choice for the person, but Parnassus doesn’t help the person at all with what is going on. It is like throwing someone in the middle of the Atlantic to teach them how to swim. Without even a little guidance, it is not surprising he loses so many souls to the devil. The other characters are no better. Anton is supposed to be the romantic lead, but he comes out as insecure, jealous, ineffectual, and at times creepy. And as if we needed to up the annoying factor, we have Vern Troyer in this movie. Now he is not getting raped by monkeys, but he is still annoying. Also, characters go through mood swings and drastic changes in character. Parnassus is a drunk, but now he’s not, now he is a basket case, now he is a resilient spirit, etc.

I have been ignoring talking about Ledger because that is what most people have been sidetracked by in their reviews of the material. Most of the viewer reviews I have read are solely dedicated to talking about this being a testament to Ledger and how moving it was to see him in this last performance and how haunting it is etc etc. I understand Gilliam loved Ledger and he was trying to honor him, but in a way he sabotaged the movie as a whole. This is now the focal point of the movie. This is what people will always see and view the movie as. I’m not talking about the morality of this or saying what Gilliam did was wrong, but this movie is no longer the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus; this is the Heath Ledger Memorial Film. He has let real life undermine whatever story he was trying to tell with this. Ledger isn’t even the main character of this movie. The scenes where he enters the Imaginarium is taken up by cameos by Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law. And to be fair, Farrell actually does the best work despite the limited screen time. Although that is not so say Depp couldn’t also have been good if they just re-shot the Ledger footage with Depp.

The movie is beautiful to look at, especially the Imaginarium scenes. The acting is overall good and Waits absolutely steals every scene he is in. Once again this fits into Gilliam’s strengths/weaknesses of having a ton of imagination (no joke intended) but crippling storytelling problems. In the end, I was more frustrated than enchanted by this movie.

Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino) 2009 NO SPOILERS!!!

Posted in I on May 31, 2010 by moviemoses

Yeah, I’ll try to be as non-spoilerish as possible.   I have said for the past 12  or so years this movie has been in development (off and on) I would believe there is an Ingourious Basterds movie when I see it (much like Boondock Saints 2).  Well I finally got to see it and it was great.  One comparison I heard that I kind of like is a spaghetti western crossed with a WWII movie.  At times it did have that Once Upon a Time feel to it.  I also agree that the trailer is very misleading when it kind of promises a Dirty Dozen type movie and its a more ensemble piece.  We do get a much smaller role from the Basterds than you would expect.  The Basterds storyline is intermingled with a story of a Jewish woman trying to get revenge at a film premiere.

What I loved so much about this movie was the really tight writing and the scenes had so much tension in them.  There are scenes where characters are being interrogated and it is so intense and events keep piling on which culminate in something massive.  Those were very gripping scenes and it was a joy seeing that back and forth interplay.  The acting all around is great.  Even Brad Pitt who from the trailer looked a little out of place hamming it up more than anyone else.  His character is hilarious and while he is over the top, so is everyone else.  And that’s not a bad thing.  Even though the movie is this out there fantasy it never goes too far to take you out of the experience.

Well, there are a few things which went a little too far.  I would say they were times when Tarantino got  a tad overzealous in his style.  One of the characters is introduced and we get this 20 foot tall pop up of his name in the same style you would see Superfly or Dolomite introduced along with Sam Jackson giving a monologue on what a bad mothafucka he is.  I gotta admit that shift in style really made me scratch my head.   I mean, when did the Basterds turn into Shaft?  And for absolutely no reason we get Mike Myers doing a scene as a British army officer.  He is not really there for laughs and I think serves more as a distraction than relevant to the plot.  And I guess I will also agree with Spoony that we didn’t necessarily need so many interrogation scenes.  However I didn’t really have a problem with it.

So yeah, I think this is up there as one of Tarantino’s best works.  All of the warnings given before are true: you do have to go in with the mindset this is not so much a movie about the Basterds, and be prepared for a lot of foreign dialog.  But this was an intense, action packed, and funny movie and worth the price of admission.

In the Electric Mist (Bertrand Tavernier) 2009

Posted in I on May 31, 2010 by moviemoses

You know, usually I dismiss movies like this as the Direct to Video crap Blockbuster usually shills out.  There were two things that made me reconsider: its got Tommy Lee Jones, and this is one of the few DTV movies that I saw frequent television ads for.  Also it did look semi-interesting as Jones playing a sheriff investigating a murder.  I should have stuck with my first instinct.

Anyway Jones plays Dave Robicheaux, a sheriff in some podunk county in Louisiana.  Dave gets in the middle of investigating the murder of a young girl and a 40 year old case of a black man getting shot.  Really this movie is just one big NBC Mystery Movie of the Week with a bigger budget than most.  I half expected it to be penned by Nora Roberts and starring Tom Selleck.  Everything about it is just so bland and standard and TV movie of the week.

The plot is bad just because any amount of common sense cop work would solve this case.  There is one scene where Dave is framed for murder.  Dave is shot at in the dark and Dave fires blindly in that same direction.  When he goes over to investigate, he finds the body of an informant he was going to meet thereby framing him for murder.  Of course that becomes a plot cul de sac when the cops get it through their thick skulls that the bullets from Dave’s gun don’t match the one in the victim’s head and, oh yeah, the victim was dead about 32 hours prior to Dave’s incident!  We are not talking CSI future crime lab work, we are talking about common f*cking sense!  That’s 20 minutes wasted and that is just one example of the type of writing throughout the entire movie.

Okay, let’s talk about the acting.  The acting is all phoned in.  You are enticed by actors like Jones, and John Goodman, and Peter Sarsgaard but they all drone through their lines like they got better sh*t to do.  Jones is probably the worst offender of this movie.  He stumbles through like he drank a quart of Robitussin before every scene and every once in a while tries a half hearted Creole accent.

One final thing before I wrap up this review.  The ending came out of nowhere and is one of the most WTF moments of this year.  Its so bad I have to share it.

Okay so at one point Dave’s Dr. Pepper was spiked with LSD and he hallucinates a conversation with a Confederate general from the Civil War.  He continues to have little pow wows with the general during the movie even when the LSD wears off and his family thinks he’s crazy (I almost expected him to have conversations with Jesus ala Rescue Me).  At the end of the movie everything is being wrapped up by narration and we cut to Dave’s daughter looking over an old Civil War history book.  She flips to one page with a photo where we see the unit with the Confederate general and we see Dave.  In fact, his daughter makes the statement “Dave!?” and the movie ends.  WHAT THE F*CK DOES THAT MEAN!?!?!?  What, is Tommy Lee Jones a reincarnated Civil War soldier?  Is he a time traveler?  Is he in fact, an immortal like Connor McLeod?  Was he somehow absorbed by evil like Jack Torrence at the end of the Shining? Is he a shape shifter?  This twist comes out of nowhere and it means absolutely nothing!  What the f*ck are we supposed to make of it?  ITS JUST….AAAAAAARRRRRGGGH!!!

Don’t watch this movie.  Skip it for the DTV sh*t it is.