Hollywood has been repackaging my childhood for years. And frankly, I love it. You can’t beat the onslaught of movies based on comic book heroes and 1980′s franchises. I’m on the edge of my seat for Thundercats, and I’m holding out hope for a Gobots flick. This weekend I had the privilege of seeing The A-Team on the big screen, which, as a child, I watched in syndication on TV. The experience was WONDERFUL.

I loved this movie. It’s an all-out, over-the-top, explosion-fest summer blockbuster. Go, turn your brain off, and enjoy. The rest of the review is riddled with spoilers.

First and foremost, I’d like to offer the words of wisdom a friend gave me upon hearing I would be seeing The A-Team this weekend: “Everything the A-Team did was real.” I, of course, scoffed. But I was wrong. The A-Team is real. The stunts performed in the movie can be substantiated through various historical events and simple research. For me this confirmation, which is detailed below, adds an element to the film that is missing from so many action flicks. The A-Team, through its realism, transcends from top-notch action flick to a one-film cultural renaissance.

Take for example, the flying tank sequence. Basically, our heroic quartet are attempting to escape a sticky situation via hijacked airplane. They hijack a cargo plane on the tarmac. Inside the plane is a tank. Long story short, the cargo plane is shot down. But the gang escapes by airdropping themselves in the tank.

As the tank is plummeting towards terra firma, Hannibal (the leader of the A-Team, played by Liam Neeson) orders his boys to fire the cannon. This seemingly frivolous act is in fact a method of steering. By using the main cannon of the tank to adjust their course the A-Team lands the tank safely in a lake. Had they not fired the cannon all four of them would have been killed when the tank crashed into a mountainside. At first the tactic seems ludicrous. But when you really sit down and think about it, the concept of using a cannon to steer a falling tank has genuine merit. So, I did a little research and a similar event had occurred in real life. 

During the Cold War a group of East German refugees attempted to fly over the Berlin Wall. Of course, they were shot down. However, much like our film heroes, these three men and one woman bailed out of their plane via a small tank and used its main gun to steer over the wall.

The truth goes a little further with regard to the shipping container that the A-Team dumps into a river, only to have it float using airbags. Seriously, car airbags bolted to the side of the container to make it float? To give you the specifics, it was a normal shipping container full of $100 bills and they used four air bags to each of the long sides (a total of eight airbags).

This didn’t happen in the Cold War, however, I did experience something similar personally in the summer of two-thousand-ought-three.  Some friends and I decided to sell novelty jockstraps and pudding cups out of a shipping container. To gain business from foot traffic we positioned ourselves, and the shipping container, on the Market St. bridge overlooking the Schuylkill river. Long story short, we had an altercation and the shipping container was pushed over the side into the river.

Fortunately, one of my business partners was a quirky engineer who was going to use the container in a test after we moved the merchandise. In preparation for the test the engineer had nailed ten airbags to each side of the container. When the container landed in the water the airbags deployed and it floated — barely. While the A-Team’s container was woefully under-airbagged, I feel it was close enough to count for realism.

Finally, there is the stalwart moment towards the climax when the villian fires a hand-held rocket at the hull of a cargo ship – blowing a hole through both sides of the hull. I can see where people would question the realism in this scene. To them I say: ships blow up all the time. Most of the time it occurs when marine life uses a rocket launcher on the hull of a ship.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my well researched and eye-opening look at The A-Team.

I’ve been a fan of David Cross since the late 1990s when his sketch comedy show, Mr. Show with Bob and David, aired on HBO. He is a harsh, vulgar, and insightful comic who calls attention to serious issues through exaggerations so extreme most people are instantly offended. I remember one sketch that assaulted America’s public schools by juxtaposing Hitler and Anne Frank — brilliance. So, when I saw his book, I Drink for a Reason, I was psyched to download the audio book from iTunes and give it a listen. Wow! Does it suck! The comedy takes a turn for the worse about two hours in; it moves quickly from amusing social critique to the trite ramblings of a tired comedian. 

The best example of Cross’s follies are his numerous references to why the reader is lazy for buying the audio book rather than purchasing the print edition. Apparently, anyone wanting I Drink for a Reason on audiobook baffles him. The first three times he made that joke, I laughed. Then it went from not funny to really annoying — after all, I did pay for it. So I will answer his nagging question: David, I bought the audio book because, while a great comedian, you’re an unmeritorious writer who doesn’t deserve to share shelf space with essayists like David Foster Wallace, Kurt Vonnegut, or David Sedaris, much less with literary classics by authors like Willa Cather, Herman Melville, or Edgar Allan Poe. But I thought it might be fun to listen to you ramble on my daily commute — I was wrong. 

Another problem with the book is the recycled content, which is ironically placed after a brief rant about how he doesn’t want to write a book of his old tired stand up routines in print. However, there is no wink to help the listener to know if this is meant as a joke or not. My opinion is, not. The material is clearly outdated and too often the punch is quelled if not lost entirely. 

The pieces about Cross’ feuds with Larry the Cable Guy and Jim Belushi are hysterical. They make up an hour or so of the total read time. This not to say I didn’t occasionally chuckle at other spots, but I was hoping for more from Cross because his humor is more evolved than people like Larry the Cable Guy. Oh well, I’ve read much worse. 

Everyone has bad days, and I’m hoping this was a bad day for David Cross. I’d still be willing to give his next book a listen, though I’ll probably wait to see if it goes on sale.

Since the beginning I have claimed to be a Family Guy fan. And I suppose I still am. It’s fun to watch a show push boundaries and earn a fan base purely on cut-a-way gags. But, I was watching Family Guy in syndication and realized the following: I’ve never really liked this show; left to my own devices I’d never watch it; but I love being someone who watches Family Guy when I’m around other people. Yes, I realize this is fucked up.

The jokes are okay. The social commentary is weak if present at all. And most of the time it’s not that funny. But it’s awesome to sit at the bar or around the diner table and quote the episodes. In fact, if I’m watching alone I laugh (on average) three or four times an episode. Add one person the viewing and I laugh eight to ten times.

I don’t feel bad or whore-ish about “the situation” (yes, that’s a Jersey Shore reference). (Yes, I feel dirty, like a dirty-filthy-whore admitting I watch the Jersey Shore.) I have the same Family Guy phenomenon with summer blockbusters– I can’t enjoy them alone. I need other people around to make the experience work (I just realized I’m a voyeur). And the worse the entertainment the more people I need to watch it with me. For example, Family Guy requires one person, but I prefer two or three. Transformers 2 required a full theater and even then I wasn’t enchanted, but I did laugh…a lot.

I’m beginning to see the world slightly differently. I suppose this is something that has been happening to be me regularly since I was young and now is the moment I’m choosing to think/talk about it. Some people call this maturity (but I don’t). As I was watching Brian take Meg to the dance, I began to process everything I think is wrong with the show. Not stupid or irrational, just wrong. There are too many gray areas. Too many things that don’t have set rules, and that played fine for a while but later seasons abused the privilege resulting in an unclear realm of possibilities.

Conversely, South Park is a show that’s retained its relevance and meaning season after season by producing the exact opposite effect. I’ve seen every episode of South Park, and some may be dated but they were meaningful. I watch these episodes alone because most of my friends stopped watching. And I laugh. I laugh ten to fifteen times in twenty-two minutes.

 While I’ll continue to watch and enjoy Family Guy. Deep down I’ll know (and now you’ll all know too) that it’s only funny because my family (sibling, girlfriend, friends, hobo I brought home to watch TV with) is present.

The memoir craze has been going on as long as I can remember, which is about 10 years. Anyone who wants to criticize my knowledge of the publishing world should remember that 10 years ago I was in high school and spent most of my time trying to discreetly look down girls’ shirts. I wasn’t that discreet. But, let the record show I was never perverted enough to look up anything, nor was I scholarly enough to look up anything. To be honest autobiographies aren’t my cup of tea. Sure, I got curious, especially in college, and I’ve read a few, but generally the genre falls flat unless the person is famous or serious addictions are revealed. Beg, Borrow, Steal: A Writer’s Life by Michael Greenburg is an exception. This memoir is a solid and engaging read as you see Greenburg’s life through New York City snapshots.

As Scott Stein once said to a short stories workshop he was conducting, “Writers love books and movies about other writers.” At the time I balked, but it’s true — very true. The whole reason I wanted to read this book is because it was a writer’s autobiography. Specifically, it was a writer I’d never heard about or read which gives the experience a sense of camaraderie. Instead of sitting with my writing buddies trying to figure out how to get a book published or sell a poem, I read about Greenburg’s adventures in screenwriting, the publishers rejecting his first completed novel, and a smattering of random adventures.
 
The stories follow a loose chronology starting with his family and childhood moving forward through the publication of his first book. Some are amazing and gripping while others felt flat so I skipped out half way through. And therein lies the beauty of this book: take it or leave it. Greenburg does a great job offering each of the 44 independent chapters. His style, a hybrid of conversational and literary first person, lets the book flow together. Because events and characters may only appear in one or two chapters, the read isn’t broken or interrupted if a chapter is skipped.
 
My favorites include Greenburg’s experience as a street vendor, when he sells fake cosmetics to a regular crowd of women. When his conscience bothers him, Greenburg reveals the products are forgeries (instead of stolen). To his surprise, no one cares — they came for their reasons and the moral implications didn’t bother them. It’s a really charming chapter that shows how far he’ll go to continue to write.
 
The commentary chapters on his youth, family, and religion are excellent. Greenburg transforms the fundamental American experiences, immigration and integration into a society, with a firm calm voice. While the work doesn’t dig deep enough to say it plainly, Greenburg is the product of three worlds: his Jewish ancestry, his family’s New York business, and a writer at large in contemporary times. You get a vague sense of how maddening it must have been to internally reconcile those different facets without the book turning into melodrama.
 
In another chapter he discusses a conversation with his daughter: it’s on the verge of Hurry Down Sunshine’s publication and the author is seeking the blessing from one of his central characters. This chapter is a little longer than the others, maybe four or five pages instead of three, but Greenburg expertly ramps up the tension within the reader by showing his internal conflict in a raw and charismatic way. The reader understands Greenburg needs to publish this book for his own sake and sanity, but needs his daughter’s love and affection. It’s the strongest short in the book and left me breathing a sigh of relief.
 
My only major issue is the lack of writing process discussed in the book. Greenburg shows his audio recording sessions from his first novel and numerous writerly encounters between himself and various people — great. But, as an aspiring writer in his audience I wanted him to talk about how he developed his process and the submission issues he faced with his first novel. There is never a moment where I feel we get behind the mirrored-self-narrator and reach Michael Greenburg directly as a writer. For example, Steven King’s On Writing gives the reader unabashed accounts of how he came to write as he does, making the book both interesting and helpful.
 
I enjoyed reading Beg, Borrow, Steal, and it made me want to read his first book: Hurry Down Sunshine.

I would just like to take a moment, one single little moment, to express how happy DVD packages make me. I bought Star Trek (2009) recently, which is to say it came out on Tuesday and I owned it before this is posted. And it came as a part of what A Christmas Story devotees would call a statue: a model of the Enterprise. It has its own stand. I can barely look at it without needing to wipe tears from my eye.

Horror is a genre of the unnatural: things that shouldn’t exist but somehow do; things that do things they shouldn’t; anything and everything that defies the law of physics, biology, and offends the human sensibility. Zombies are an easy example: they aren’t dead when they should be and they do a lot thing dead bodies don’t normally do like walking around and attacking the living. While zombies don’t unnerve me (not even the new fast running crazy zombies) there are some shows and films that do.

A Haunting
This hour long show last four short seasons on the Discovery Channel. Each episode, based on actual events, shows a particular haunting following it from start to finish.  Most of the episodes follow more dangerous and traumatic haunting. Like any TV show some episodes are great and some suck, but the show is willing to routinely show the darker side of haunting or paranormal encounters. A refreshing contrast to most shows on other networks like the Travel Channel that tend to stick with benign ghosts.

Paranormal Activity
This Blair Witch style horror suspense movie really plays with your head. I won’t give away the plot, but everyone I know who has seen this movie has experienced some aftershocks. The film expertly takes minute details from everyday life and transforms them into a horrifying experience. Add to that the research that went into this film and you’ll be lucky to sleep with the lights off.

A Haunting in Connecticut
This is a based on actual events film chronicling the haunting of a family that moves into an old house. The house was the site of a physic and a necromancer. Scary events ensue. The story is nothing new, I remember watching a documentary on this same topic a few years ago. The fictionalized version is scary but not terrifying. It falls into that pleasantly frightening halloween flick.

Honorable Mention: Supernatural
A TV show that follows two brothers, Sam and Dean, as they hunt down various weekly monsters and/or face the apocalypse. This show jumps between stand alone episodes and a massive multi-season plot. I wouldn’t call any episode(s) scary, but I really love watching it. The monster of the week shows are generally amusing, but the apocalyptic plot arc is awesome. The arc starts in season three (I think) by pulling various elements from seasons one and two together. I’m not sure if these were well thought out plants or just serendipitous writing. Either way season three, four, and five (the current season) are excellent. Though I’d understand if people refused to admit they watched a show on the CW.

It rarely, if ever, gets talked about, but it is possible to find a good horror movie. To qualify, a good horror movie is a good movie with an element of the unnatural that is scary or at least creepy. These movies are generally easy to spot because you’re shocked at the director’s ability to tell a story. I blame the industry. If there weren’t so many terrible and incoherent horror movies the following titles wouldn’t be so stunning.

Descent
A smashing little horror flick about a group of female cave crawlers who fail victim to mutated humans from a distant past expedition. Sounds like a standard horror movie to me. However, the characters are well developed. They aren’t Mamet, but there is a greater degree of depth and interpersonal conflict than a normal horror movie. Additionally, the setting adds tremendously to the plot. Caves are creepy and confine — bad things happen to people in tomb like locations. Moreover by trapping the characters in a cave or series of caves the story becomes plausible. This is a great Halloween pickup for a nice gore-encrusted evening.

28 Days Later
Quickly becoming a classic, Danny Boyle, who won an Oscar last year for Slumdog Millionaire, redefined zombies by allowing them to run, yell, and ooze. Plus the backdrop of London/England makes the vista shots more interesting.

Zombieland
Sometimes it’s not about doing something original, it’s about doing something right. Zombieland is going to rise as a horror cult classic. The production values, writing, acting, and directing are all above their more recent (post-28 Days Later) competitors. Wrought with strong comedy elements this self-deconstructing post-apocalyptic zombie fest, this film is still in theaters and no one seems to care. Unless they’ve seen it, then they won’t shut up about it. Do yourself a favor and get in on the ground floor.

Friday the 13th (1980)
Say what you will about the movies that followed, the original is fantastic. We all know the plot and I assume most of us have seen it, but much like A Muppet Christmas Carol I try to watch this once a year.

Vampires were scary at one point in time. I remember watching the 1931 version of Dracula starring Bela Legosi and feeling shiver go down my spine from time to time based on nothing more than solid acting. But let’s face it the vampire scene has changed and not in a good way.

Vampires have left the realm of horror and entered the slagheap of popular culture. Decent vampire flicks, like John Carpenter’s Vampires, have given way to incoherent spin-offs like Twilight.

What bothers me isn’t how awful Twilight is, and it is AWFUL, I mean MST3 level of shittiness. But it’s their treatment of the vampire myth. Vampires don’t sparkle in the sun; they burst into flames. Even True Blood, which drops certain myths (for instance vampires can set foot on hollow ground) to simplify their crap-tacular premise, however they maintain most of the unnatural and supernatural qualities. When those qualities are removed, like they were in Twilight, the horror element is lost.

Vampires aren’t terrifying creatures of the night anymore. They’re normal high school students who drink blood and turn into a disco ball in sunlight.

What’s worse is how fully pop culture has embraced the bastardized vampires. Take for instance The Vampire Daries, which I can’t bring myself to even watch. When I point out to people, and by people I mean people who like Twilight, that what they’re watching isn’t really a vampire they point to their bookshelf and say (more or less), ‘That’s how it was in the book.’ As if a handful of YA, teen oriented fiction, can override over centuries of tradition.

So the only thing I can do is accept this loathsome end to a once proud villain. I’m working on my own vampire ”book” where they can go out in the sun, but only if they’re on hollow ground or eating garlic or have been first staked through the heart. They sparkle in moon light, but can’t drink blood unless their underground seducing a werewolf or, sometimes, a mummy.  

My horror movie roundups continue — Not all horror movies are scary and full of dismembered corpses. Some are quirky, funny, and enjoyable as a cross-genre exercise. Horror comedies are a rarity. A horror comedy is a movie that is both scary and funny by intent (Shaun of the Dead). Not to be confused with a horror movie that’s funny because it’s so awful it’s physically painful (Friday the 13^th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan). Still some do exist and are totally worth seeing when you want something Halloween-esque but not terrifying.

Shaun of the Dead
Summary: Zombies invade England, but the formula is a romantic comedy.

This is a simple case of boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl; but they fight zombies the whole way through. If you ask me that’s a hell of a romance. I mean what could possibly say I love you more than slaughtering droves of the undead to protect each other? Answer: Nothing. The icing on the cake is Simon Pegg and Nick Frost who are one of the most promising comedy pairs in recent memory. If you watch one movie on this list make it this one.

The Evil Dead Trilogy
I love Bruce Campbell! And to watch these movies you pretty much have too. Basically it’s Bruce fighting the forces of darkness. There is very little difference between Evil Dead 1 and 2; terrible weekend at a haunted cabin. The comedy is more notable than the horror. For example, a possessed girl sits indian style on the floor and sings London Bridge is Falling Down. I realize in a blog that sounds stupid, but on film it’s hysterical. Then Raimi, who wrote and directed the entire trilogy, yanks the audience back to a state of fear and tension within a few heartbeats. The effects are dated so be prepared.

The third film, Army of Darkness, is AMAZING! Bruce is transported to another dimension and faces off with the forces of darkness once again. There is a good and evil Bruce. It references the original Day the Earth Stood Still. And we get to see the infamous chainsaw hand. Granted it’s in 1992 special effects terms, but at least the third installment completely overcomes its period shortcomings.

A friend told me that this series stared the horror/comedy genre back in 1981. I can’t substantiate that in any way, but I’ve said it in front of a number of movie gurus and never been corrected so it’s at least as accurate as Wikipedia.

Scream- but it’s a tough call
Summary: Serial killers terrify a small town.

Many people would argue that this is a serious horror movie that falls short. Those people should seek mental help. Anyone who breaks into a cold sweat at the thought of Matthew Lillard stabbing Neve Campbell should most likely be culled from the human gene pool. And it’s directed by Wes Craven – I’m not a fan. Still, I really like this movie. It’s not scary, but as cute and endearing as a serial killer movie could be.

Club Dread
Summary: A murdered slaughters people at a paradise-esque resort.

Most people I know think this movie sucks…hard. I suppose if you were looking for Super Troopers 2 or a standard horror movie, disappointment was inevitable. On the other hand if you went in with a completely open mind and slightly artistic eye this film is quite a treat. That said there is a down side: the Broken Lizard crew didn’t seem to feel comfortable playing both roles. There were several moments when I wasn’t sure if they wanted me to feel fear and laughter simultaneously or if it was just an awkward moment.

Re-Animator
Summary: A mad scientist reanimates corpses. But things don’t go as planned.

I’ll admit I haven’t seen this flick in a few years. But I remember it clearly as a hysterical over the top macabre zombie romp with plenty of comedy. To be clear this is a cult film. Unless the Evil Dead series the movie takes itself much more seriously. It’s from the 1980s and based on a Lovecraft short story– it’s not for everyone. It’s probably a bit dated for most modern audiences. You have to work harder to get into the film because the special effects can’t carry you over the line.

Next week I’ll talk about vampires, and whether or not they even have a place in the Halloween landscape.

Well it’s October, or as I call it: Horror Movie Month. It’s baffling to me how movie studios release titles like Halloween 2 (the new Rob Zombie version) in late August. Or February in the case of the new Wolfman, which I’d love to see any weekend in October, but not sure I’m interested in it as a Valentine’s Day date flick. Granted, I’m not a numbers guru but basic fucking logic dictates that you release horror movies around Halloween and Christmas movies in December. Anyway, since there isn’t really a cool horror movie in theaters I’d like to take the next five weeks to do a video round up — Yes, I’m that egomaniacal. This first installment will focus on classic and old horror movies.

Night of the Living Dead
Film buffs, horror lovers, and my mom should all like this movie (though I’m not guaranteeing my mom). Granted special effects weren’t great in 1968 when George Romero came out with the original Night of the Living Dead, but he didn’t need it. The original movie wasn’t a primordial 28 Days Later (running around slaughtering zombies); it was an attempt, successful in my opinion, to explain how people operate in a crisis situation. The house full of people (and social commentary) could have escaped, could have worked together and trusted each other, they could have survived, but didn’t because humans on their most basic level are nothing but cruel hateful beings looking out for number one (or so the movie would have us believe). There is, however, a silver lining to this zombie-infested cloud: the humans that do work together will live to fight another day.

Dawn of the Dead — then and now
While neither one is something special, having seen both versions I’d vote for the remake. The zombies are scarier and move faster. Plus no 70s style anything.

Them!
Not only do you have to like horror to enjoy this flick, you need to be a fan of 1950’s style horror. It’s a movie about giant ants. Actually it’s more or less a 45 minute short that repeats itself in a new setting. It also starts Edmund Gwenn, who played Santa Claus in the original Miracle on 34th Street. This falls under both classic and old. Most people would be bored to tears trying to work their way through this piece of shit, but I enjoyed seeing the old style and complete lack of scientific knowledge on the part of the public. I knew in high school things like this could never happen, but apparently my grandmother still lives in abject fear of radioactive mutant bugs.

Halloween (old and new)
Everyone I know has seen it. For many people in my age demographic this was the first un-edited horror movie we were allowed to watch. As such it holds a special place in our hearts. Objectively it holds up pretty well despite its age. If you haven’t seen this movie I’ll assume you’re a weirdo, live under a rock, or have a substance abuse problem (I would include granola in that category).

Alien
Still awesome. Still terrifying. Still amazed Sigoruney Weaver was ever that hot.

Friday the 13^th (original only)
I loved the original. It was quick, terrifying and logical. The new one didn’t appeal to me even out of curiosity.

Next week: Fluffy and Funny Horror Movies