My poor Wolfman II

Well folks, we are coming right down to the wire. The Wolfman will be released in less than 48 hours given midnight showings on Thursday night. The truth will be known soon: Was the 16 months of delay and reworking necessary? Was it productive? Did this turn out to be the epic cinematic catastrophe that so many declared was marching towards its inevitable ruination? Did it turn out okay?

The initial word looks decent. 544 members of IMDB have reported in with reviews. The score is massive. It is getting 8.9 stars out of 10. Of course, this is probably cast and crew members reporting in to give the movie a serious push. The score cannot hold at that level. If it does, that will be sufficient to make The Wolfman on of the top 20 movies ever released.

I have better news than this: An early critical review showing was held for pro critics. The first 7 have already checked in with Rottentomatoes.com. By a vote of 4-3, the T-Meter now stands at 57 with a strength score of 5.3. Whether you know it or not, that is a very encouraging sign.

Many good and solid action/horror movies get mixed reviews from professional critics. Many professional critics believe that a movie with action/horror theme cannot be rated as 'good'. In order to be 'good' a movie must contain emotion meltdown themes surrounding drug addiction, mental illness, divorce and homosexuality. This is A content to many critics. Gay coming out movies constitute A content. Those movies have to be talked up as Oscar contenders. Werewolf movies are inherently B content and must be downgraded accordingly. The rumors themselves can be a cause of bias. Critics may have their poisoned pens loaded, and their spectacles sharply cleaned, looking extra-hard for blems.

When you control for art school biases, and rumors of disaster, a score of 57 is not bad at all for a werewolf movie. Remember, I have no interest whatsoever in the A content that Hollywood produces, and I do not apologize for that fact. I haven't got the slightest interest in the world in the emotional meltdowns that Hollywood stars experience because they (a) discover they are gay, (b) get divorced, (c) alienate their children in this process, (d) turn to heroine for comfort afterward. I am not interested in watching them go through the 12 steps to life recovery. I am not interested in watching a psycho therapy session in progress. I am not interested in seeing how they allegedly achieved inner peace. I will not payout my hard-earned money for a ticket to see such rubbish. I am a B movie guy, and I am lovin' every minute of it. Werewolves are great stuff for me.

Ergo sum, the sort of critiques that are being leveled against The Werewolf are only mildly worrisome. The one critic who declared that the movie is poorly paced, he worries me. Pace is everything in an action/horror movie. Furthermore, when a movie goes through as many associate editors as The Wolfman, it usually means that they are dealing with issues of pace and coherency. The rest of the critics don't worry me. The positive things said about this movie do seem to outweigh the negative... once bias is controlled.

I have been hopeful that this movie will turn out well. The previews do look good to me. It is dangerous to believe in previews. These are too often the very best part of the movie cobbled together. You can make anything look great that way. The number of editors, pace issues, and coherency issues do worry me a lot.

Drag me to Hell: Okay, let's get this over with.

So I just arrived home after seeing "Drag me to Hell" at the AMC16 in Woodland Hills. What did I think?

Sam Rami got up on his hind legs and pitched one hell of a nasty 185 mile-per-hour beanball right between my eyes, that's what I think. The movie is very well made. It is well written. It steals from some of the best old horror film classics of the 1930s and 1940s. It is well edited. The effects are numerous and photo-realistic. Many of the shots are brilliantly conceived. The editing is excellent. The musical score is good. In short, the technicals are all extremely strong. It is destined to become a classic among those who like horror movies. It is probably the best horror film since Quarantine. This was Sam Rami's attempt to out-do the Exorcist. He was trying to make the scariest movie of all time, but he was trying to do it with a lot of skill and dexterity... in his own style.

Did I enjoy it? Fuck no. Did I find it entertaining? Once or twice. Would I want to repeat the process? Fuck no. Would I recommend it to anyone? Only if you live for this kinda shit. Would I like to show this to my mom? That would have a certain sick comedy value to it. If I had kids 10 or under would I let them see this? Absolutely fucking not! No, fuck no!

First, let me express my shock and dismay that this movie has been given a PG-13 rating. This movie is far more intense, twisted, sadistic and hyper-nasty than a lot of NC17 movies that I have seen. Rami socks it too you right between the eyes at 185 miles per hour... with great sadistic joy. It is also loud; loud enough to damage your hearing in several places. It is far, far, far beyond gross. It is hyper-nasty. Yet, because there are no nipples, no breasts, no ass-shots, no sex, no use of the S word or the F word, no illegal drugs, no tobacco to speak of, they gave this flick a PG-13. Don't take your kids. I pity the 7 year old who sees this flick. He will be brain damaged for life. I have seen hardcore pornography that is far sweeter, nicer, cleaner, more loving, more positive, and with better Christian family values than this movie. A lot of this stuff is over-the-damn-top.

What the hell happened at the Motion Picture Association of America, INC? How the fuck did this one get through with a PG-13? Who fumbled the football? Which Ref blew this call? Somebody aught to look into this egregious error.

Even if you are old enough to gut this one out without damage, it just isn't enjoyable. This one goes down the drain just because it is too damn sadistic to be enjoyed. I got the feeling that a real sicko sadist was at the controls of the camera, trying to torture me. He was trying to entertain himself by trying making me squirm. As the PBS documentary "Torturing Democracy" will teach you, the worst form of torment is to watch some undeserving soul subjected to torture for no good reason. This was Rami's strategy for making you squirm. That I do not appreciate.

On Friday, the Los Angeles Daily News ran an article in which the pitch line said "Sami Rami comes off as such a nice guy. Who knew he was a sadist?" I did not expect that to be the ultimate take-home point of this film, but indeed, that is the ultimate take home point of "Drag me to Hell".

Ultimately I can't recommend this film. In short "Drag me to Hell" is the 2009 equivalent of "Borat" back in 2006. Very critically praised, to hyper-nasty to wear-well with time.

Finally, it should be noted that UP won the box office contest this weekend. It was a landslide. Drag me to Hell finished in third place. UP hauled in over $68 million. Drag me to Hell hauled down $16.6. That is basically a 4 to 1 victory. Call it 28-7 in football terms.

I suspected this would be the result as I made my third failed attempt to see Up at the IMAX in 3d this morning at 9:30am. It was already sold out. So was the 12:00pm showing. Wow... The people have really jumped on Up! Also, Drag me to Hell also has far fewer screens and a far lower per-theater average. Something to be greatful for, I am sure.

I will see Up in the next few hours and report back to you here.