Back to the Future Trilogy

If there’s one thing that the 80s gave us were great movies. Some may argue with me and talk about the music of that era—80s music—and say how ingenious and innovative that music was…I call bullshit! But that’s a discussion I’ll save for a rainy day. The movie—or movie trilogy—I want to discuss in this post is the Back to the Future trilogy, basically the pinnacle of 80s cinema.

The year of 1985 we had Ronald Reagan for a second term, the economy was strong after the terrible 70s with inflation going through the roof, and everything felt great in America. Movies were a staple for me back then and there’s really no time for me to go through all the films I had enjoyed throughout that decade.

One film—or films—that had stood out during that time was Back to the Future with Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Christopher Lloyd as Doc Emmett Brown. It was a Universal Studios film directed by Robert Zemeckis and produced by Steven Spielberg. With that combination, how can you go wrong?

You can’t…not with this film. Back to the Future is pretty much tied for my all time favorite movie, and movie trilogy, right there with The Godfather. However, the Back to the Future trilogy has a stellar three films, where The Godfather trilogy only has the first two, with the third being good yet mediocre.

Even though the idea of all the films has a simple story of time travel, the story and setting make this movie work. And let’s not forget the Delorian as the time machine, thankfully not the time machine they originally had an idea for which was a refrigerator.

First off, let’s talk about the cast.

Originally cast as Marty McFly was Eric Stoltz. He received the part when Michael J. Fox had scheduling conflicts because of his TV hit at the time, "Family Ties." Now Stoltz was already into it, scenes already filmed with him and Christopher Lloyd, when the studio executives didn’t think he was right for the part. Some arrangements were made to have Michael J. Fox film his scenes when he could and scheduling was reshuffled to accommodate him.

As Doc Brown, Christopher Lloyd from Taxi fame was brought in to play the over-the-top scientist who’s constantly inventing things and trying new experiments. With his white hair and theatrical expressions throughout the film, Lloyd is a highlight of the series.

The film opens with a panning shot of Doc’s home, showing one of his inventions that uses some robotics and other cartoonish novelties to start breakfast for him and his dog.

The shot also pans through a number of clocks, one particular one that shows a clock face with a man hanging from the minute hand which foreshadows the climax of the movie. By the looks of this scene, it appears Doc hasn’t been here for a while.

Marty enters, but we only see him from the knee down, and the reason is to see what his skateboard bumps into under the bed.

Marty then goes through the steps to hook up an electrical guitar to some gigantic speaker amp as he turns up all the mains to the max. He strikes a chord but the speaker explodes, sending Marty back through the air and crashing through a bookcase.

The phone rings and Marty answers it, hearing Doc on the other end as he asks Marty to meet him at the mall that night. When they meet up, the film goes into the crux of the film.

I doubt if anybody out there has never seen this film; it’s a part of 80s history if you ask me. The chemistry between Fox and Lloyd is great and special at times. The film has a great mixture of comedy and action, with special effects that still hold up to this day. The cast, as a whole, work together so well.

The sets of both 1985 and 1955 contrast very well and that’s a good thing. As the movie starts, we see a normal looking town with the cars of the 80s and type of dress we see of that time. When Marty ends up in 1955, it’s noticeable right away with the music coming out of the music store playing the "Sandman" and "Davy Crockett" songs; a boy passes by bouncing on some spring gadgets attached to his shoes; all the men are wearing fedoras and suits; the Texaco station shows a car pulling up and about five attendants running out to service the car. The whole town looks cleaner and everybody looks different. The same goes for Marty as he walks through the town and receives weird looks from folks as they stare at his 1980s type of clothing.

Thomas F. Wilson as Biff is hilarious as the typical bully of the 50s who isn’t that smart but takes pleasure in being the tormentor.

Crispin Glover as Marty’s father, George McFly, plays the part awkwardly and is equally goofy as the teenaged version.

Leah Thompson as Marty’s mom doesn’t do much during the 1985 scenes, but as the teenaged version, she was a delight and stepped into the 1955 part very well.

The plot is contrived so effectively and is easy to follow along, but you can feel Marty and Doc’s frustration as they try to figure out how to make things right.

The future depends on it.

Back to the Future II takes place right after the first film ended with Doc returning from the future and taking Marty and Jennifer back with him to the future. The Delorian flies now, equipped with a hover conversion, and it doesn’t need plutonium for time travel anymore. Instead, there’s a Mr. Fusion contraption located in the back of the car. They all get into the car and they fly off with Biff watching the whole thing in shock—which comes into play later in the film.

As Doc takes them into 2015 and we see all these futuristic flying cars (funny since we’re almost there and I’ve yet to see any hover conversion technology being developed), he explains to them why he needed to take them with him. Jennifer (played this time by Elizabeth Shue) starts asking a bunch of questions so Doc puts her to sleep with some futuristic contraption. He explains that they need to keep Marty’s son from going to prison, because that event will cause a chain reaction that destroys the family.

Pretty thin, right? Well, it’s okay because the film is entertaining and basically sets up part three. In fact, part two and three were filmed back to back, so essentially both movies should be considered as one long story.

Anyway, when they arrive and lay Jennifer down in some alleyway as she’s still knocked out, Marty encounters the old Biff as well as his grandson, Griff. Not only that, but he comes face to face with his son, Marty Jr. The effects of that time may seem a little worn here, but still are fun to watch. I remember watching this as a 20-year old and wondering how the heck did they do all this.

Anyway, Marty ends up being able to fix things—after a futuristic retread of the skateboard scene of the first movie—so that his son doesn’t go to jail. So before they leave to go back to the future, Marty decides to buy a sports almanac that tells all the scores of all sports games of the 20th century (although I don’t know how that’s possible in in a book that looks as thin as a comic book). Doc finds out and throws the book away in the garbage can, but the old Biff sees this, remembering Doc and Marty and the Delorian from 1985 flying away. He goes to the garbage can and retrieves the book.

In the meantime, Doc and Marty encounter a big problem when the police find Jennifer lying in the alleyway. In the future, identification is checked by a thumbprint and since your print never changes, they think she’s the Jennifer of the future and take her to her home. Doc and Marty then have to help her get out of the house before she’s seen by the future McFly family. The future McFly clan is played by Michael J. Fox as he plays three different characters here. He plays the daughter, son and his future 48-year old self. Also, Leah Thompson makes an appearance as Grandmother McFly.

While both Marty and Doc are away from the Delorian, the old Biff shows up in a taxi and steals the Delorian, taking it into the sky and you can hear it explode into time travel off screen.

At the house Jennifer is finally on her way out without being seen but runs into her future self before walking out the door. They both stare at each other, one saying “I’m old!” the other saying “I’m young!” and they both pass out.

The Delorian comes back and parks in the same spot. The old Biff gets out but looks like he’s ready to have a heart attack as he has trouble getting his cane out of the car. The top of it breaks off as he finally gets it and walks off.

Doc and Marty get Jennifer back to the car and they take off, going back to 1985. But it’s not the 1985 they know, but an alternate 1985 that they find out had something to do with the old Biff stealing the Delorian and going back to give his younger self the sports almanac.

Doc and Marty then have to fix everything that’s been messed up and that’s the minor flaw of this film. It just gets way too convoluted to follow and you really get confused with a lot of the multiple characters. Other than that, it’s a fun movie that ends in a cliffhanger.

The final film, Back to the Future III, opens with the last few minutes of part two. Somehow, lightning strikes the Delorian while Doc’s inside of it hovering in the air and the car disappears with a couple of strange smoke trails. Marty stands there dumbfounded as a mysterious car pulls up with a man getting out and walking towards Marty. Turns out, it’s Western Union with a letter for Marty—a hilarious scene that makes you wonder if that would really actually happen, but of course you have to suspend disbelief for a movie like this.

The letter is from Doc and he’s living in the Old West of 1885, existing as a blacksmith in Hill Valley of that time. He gives instructions for Marty to pick up the Delorian from an old mine shaft and have the 1955 version of Doc help him fix it to make it work.

Of course, he gets to the area in 1955 of where he went back to 1985 in the first film, near the clock tower just as his other self left. He runs up to Doc and tells him that he’s back but Doc freaks out and passes out.

Later he convinces him he’s not some figment of his imagination and they get to work, finding the Delorian at the mine shaft and getting it out. As Doc’s hooking it up to the Delorian, Doc’s dog, Copernicus, walks off and stands at the adjacent cemetery and doesn't come when they call him. Marty goes and gets him and sees a gravestone for the Doc that's living in the Old West.

The marker shows that Doc died in 1885 by Buford Tannen (a distant relative of Biff, of course) seven days after he wrote the Western Union letter. The young Doc and Marty both decide that Marty has to go and rescue Doc and bring him back.

After getting the circuits fixed with 1955 components and the tires replaced with 1955-type whitewalls (too funny), Marty goes to 1885 only to be attacked by Indians as they shoot arrows at the car. He finds a cave to hide the car in but discovers an arrow punched a hole through the gas tank.

So through part 3, Marty and Doc have to find a way to power the car to make it go 88 miles-per-hour without using gasoline in order to get back to 1985, all the while avoiding Buford Tannen who wants to kill Doc over a matter of $80.

Throughout this whole trilogy, the story arc is magical and great for the whole family (if you don’t mind a few profanities like “shit” and “son of a bitch”). The cast is perfect, although Crispin Glover didn’t come back for parts two and three, and the sets and special effects are thorough all the way through. It will make you laugh and the action is not too violent, but when Marty McFly outsmarts Biff or Griff by causing him to crash into a manure truck or wagon (a repeating little theme throughout the arc) you’ll find yourself applauding Marty.

My final “bit” on the Back to the Future trilogy may not be impartial since I consider it to be the all-time best trilogy I’ve ever experienced. Though Michael J. Fox is not the best actor in the world, he’s so loved by audiences large and small that it’s impossible not to like these films.

Rent it, watch it, and love it.

Star Trek

Since the first episode of Lost, I’ve thought of J.J. Abrams as a genius. Here’s a man that knows how to deliver the goods to the audience and not bore us with drawn out narratives or stick lackluster fillers in to make up for time quotas.





Not only does he know how to produce great fanfare for us entertainment seekers, he also knows how to promote it. Think back to when we all went to see Transformers and saw that mysterious trailer where we saw explosions inside a big city, with buildings collapsing and ending with the Statue of Liberty’s head being thrown down a street and landing right in front of the camera. Remember that? You might also recall how the trailer didn’t even have a title! All we saw was the date of 1-18-08. I went nuts! Apparently, so did a lot of movie goers, because the Internet went ballistic with a few sites and so many theories as to what the movie was about. See, nobody knew that this was coming; nobody knew that J.J. Abrams had this project going on, so the surprise was evident throughout the fans. The trailer caused a buzz that I haven’t witnessed since the Independence Day trailer debuted showing all these shadows that showed up everywhere with everybody looking into the sky. But at least that movie trailer had a title to let you know what was coming.

When the title was finally set (as Cloverfield) we all waited with baited breath for it to arrive in theaters and finally had the privilege to see that extravaganza. But before it started, another teaser trailer delighted fans of both J.J. Abrams and Trekkies alike. We hear famous quotes from leaders speaking about space travel. As we do, the screen showed construction workers welding on this big metallic service. While we are seeing this, the screen is widening. Finally, we hear the familiar voice of Leonard Nimoy speak the words, “Space…the final frontier,” and the screen widens enough to see that the construction workers are building the USS Enterprise. The screen goes dark and shows the Star Trek emblem/logo, with the clever "Under Construction" tag ending the trailer. Yes, J.J. Abrams knows what he’s doing and conveys it favorably by giving the audience what they want.

The movie opens with action as the USS Kelvin discovers an electrical storm in space, revealing an enormous spacecraft that houses the Romulan, Nero, and his crew. The gigantic ship is no match as it opens fire on the Kelvin for a while then has Nero pop up on the intercom screen asking the captain, Robau, to come on board for a talk. As Robau prepares to go into the shuttle, he names the first officer, George Kirk, to man the ship as captain while he’s on board the Romulan ship.

As expected, things go bad and it turns out that Kirk’s wife is on board, 9 months pregnant with their child. As mentioned in the trailer, George Kirk was captain of the ship for 12 minutes and in that time he was able to save 800 lives.

The opening of this film was just what I expected of Abrams; not that I knew what the plot was or what exactly was going to happen, but just the fact that I knew he’d open with something that would knock the socks off the audience. The look of the film was something of a grand scale and gave the audience what they wanted to see.

The look of the USS Enterprise as it was docked and being constructed on Earth gave it the scale it needed; with the young James T. Kirk watching it from afar, it looked colossal and massive. And in space, the ship kicked ass! Never have I seen the Enterprise go into battle like this one did in this film.

Chris Pine as James Tiberius Kirk worked well along with the other cast, as this movie gives them all something to do and not use them as background filler. Zoe Saldana as Uhura was used excellently as the communications officer, an expert in alien linguistics. John Cho as Sulu didn't just sit behind some make believe control panel and press buttons, he was able to kick some ass in one amazing scene. Simon Pegg was hilarious and well put as Scotty. And the young Anton Yelchin was perfect as Chekov.

Two actors in this film were perfectly cast as Dr. McCoy and Spock.

First, Karl Urban channeled DeForest Kelly's personality brilliantly without making a caricature of it. The scenes with Kirk and McCoy were perfect and didn't go too far with the fun of it.

Secondly, and the best actor cast for this film, was Zachary Quinto as Spock. He embodied Spock perfectly, but I don’t think t was a big effort. If you’ve seen Quinto in the TV show, Heroes, you’ll know that his character is very much like Spock’s. Not to say that he’s a one dimensional actor, but just to show that he was perfect to fill in the Vulcan ears.

The story was well done, the action and visuals placed flawlessly, it didn’t ruin the continuity of the other films since this is basically the origin of all the characters and the cast came through without a hitch. Really, there’s nothing I can complain about in this one.

My final “bit” on this flick? I’m not a big Star Trek fan, but this is something I’ll probably want to own once it comes out on Blu-Ray. It doesn’t bore; it doesn’t go too much into the Star Trek familiarity that will keep the non-Trekkie confused and not know what’s going on. In fact, if you want to get into the old television series or watch the Star Trek movies of the 80s and 90s, it may be wise to go into this film first as an introduction to the saga.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Marvel has had quite a few strings of done-right-comic book films under their belt with The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Punisher: War Zone, and now X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Back again with the adamantium claws is Hugh Jackman, jumping right back into the role without missing a beat and looking as good as ever. Along for the ride are Ryan Reynolds as Wade/Deadpool, Liev Schreiber as Victor Creed/Sabretooth, Danny Huston as William Stryker, Kevin Durand as Fred Dukes (then later as The Blob), Dominic Monaghan as Bolt, Taylor Kitsch as Gambit, and Daniel Henney as Agent Zero.

Just like the second X-Men sequel, this one is not directed by Bryan Singer. Instead we have Gavin Hood taking the helm for this blockbuster and he does a great job at it. Since I had never heard of him and saw that he doesn’t have a big résumé in http://www.imdb.com/, I kind of thought that this might flop, be campy, or just all out suck. But it didn’t and Hood proved himself worthy of knowing how to direct a hit.

The film starts right away, showing us Wolverine as a child and how he first used his mutant powers. Interestingly enough, the claws that first come out are bone claws—rippled and primitive-looking. Of course we should know and expect it will look that way, but it’s still fascinating nonetheless.

Again, without boring us with lengthy narrative or any unnecessary boring character development, throughout the credits we see all we need to understand Wolverine’s age and what he’s experienced in his life by showing him fight in revolutionary wars in the 1800s, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War.

It’s at this final era that Wolverine meets Stryker and that’s where the story begins.

The movie as a whole had a good flowing story that kept you wanting more and as a comic book geek that knows a little of the X-Men lore, I waited for answers to the questions I had in my mind. Even if you’re not a comic book aficionado like me but you’ve seen the first three X-Men films, you’ll want to see what Wolverine went through in order to get his whole skeleton covered with adamantium.

As for the other performers in the film, they played their parts well and didn’t overfill the screen making the film crowded like so many comic book films of yesteryear.

Ryan Reynolds as Wade/Deadpool was awesome in the beginning of the film, showing us his ability with his swords—that was an amazing part of the film! However, the way they went with Deadpool’s story toward the end of this flick kind of strayed away from the comic books, but that’s okay.

Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth was good as well, although I was waiting to see him transform into the Sabretooth that we all know and love from the first X-Men film, complete with the mane and tattered clothing. Both Jackman and Schreiber were great and they worked together well, seeming to have a good chemistry as hero and foe.

What can I say about Danny Huston? I loved him in 30 Days of Night and in Wolverine he was just as great. He played a perfect young Stryker that Brian Cox played in X2: X-Men United.

Kevin Durand is a good actor and has played a lot of very different parts. I first saw him in The Butterfly Effect as the Hispanic convict in the jail cell with Ashton Kutcher and then I saw him in 3:10 to Yuma with Christian Bale. As Fred Dukes, he was faultless; as The Blob, it was kind of funny. I don’t know how they made that fat suit look so perfect.

Unfortunately, Dominic Monaghan as Bolt was a little boring. As a mutant in the Weapon X project, he was needed for his power of controlling power; but for his time on the screen, he didn’t do much with it.

Now, one character I was looking forward to seeing was Gambit. The character is such a bad-ass in the comics so I wanted to see what they could do with him on screen; they didn’t disappoint. Gambit’s power of charging anything he touches and throwing that power out at anybody or anything is so cool and they got it right.

One of the coolest characters in the Weapon X saga of comic books is Agent Zero, played here by Daniel Henney. His ability and skills with guns is amazing and the film surpassed what was read and seen in comic books. The scene in Nigeria when he starts shooting up the place is so wickedly overwhelming that you can’t help but wish you could be as bad-ass as Agent Zero. The little slo-mo cut of him tossing his guns in the air to free his hands to get out his spare clips and then putting them in as they come back down into his hands make an old guy like me giggle like a googly-eyed school girl.

My final “bit” on it? X-Men Origins: Wolverine lives up to what it should’ve been (and probably exceeds it in my opinion) and it really does not disappoint. There are so many kick-ass claw fights between Sabretooth and Wolverine; you can practically feel the scratches and stabs as they go on right in front of you on the screen. You’ve got guns and swords, kicking and punching, all kinds of mutant powers…this film really delivers. Some surprises will make you smile and after watching this, you’ll probably want to go home and watch the first X-Men movie…I know I did. Don’t miss this one!

The Day the Earth Stood Still

I went in to this film, watching it on DVD via Netflix at home, knowing that quite a few critics panned it for being mediocre and not worthy of watching it. As always, I go into a film without taking critics’ evaluations into account because I want to go into a movie fresh and not have a mindset that a film is going to be bad or great, giving me a predisposition one way or another. But I couldn’t help but glance at a web site that had an article about The Day the Earth Stood Still with the word, mediocre, in the headline. So I read through it briefly seeing that the movie was not worthy of paying nearly ten dollars to see it.

Boy, were they right!

I’m glad, now, that I didn’t venture out to see this flick in theaters when it was released. The article I read from that critic was right, but I think they went a little easy on this film because I thought it was worse than what they wrote.

First off, I thought they had a pretty stellar cast, with Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, and Kathy Bates playing some of the main characters. But as it turns out, their talents were completely wasted in this film. But that’s not what failed this movie.

Let me go over some of the things I didn’t like about this flick.

The beginning started off strong, showcasing a little bit of the special effects we will see in the rest of the movie, which is some bright sphere that shows up in the 1920s on some mountain that Keanu Reeves human character is climbing and camping out on. He sees the brightness and investigates, seeing the orb and paces forward towards it as he stretches out his hand to feel it. The screen goes black and we see Keanu passed out on the ground. He comes to and gets up, looking at his hand, and we see a square scar on top of his hand as if something was cut out of it and healed immediately.

The film then goes on and shows that it’s the present; and this is when the film goes downhill for me.

We’re introduced to Jennifer Connelly’s character and her adopted child. Now, at first, I thought it was a little girl because with that mop on top of the child’s head, I think anybody would make the same mistake unless they were familiar with Will Smith’s son, Jaden Smith. The kid had attitude from the get-go. He was instantly unlikable, in my opinion, and he really had gotten under my skin as the film progressed. As I watched any scene that Jaden was in, it took me back to when I first viewed Jurassic Park II, and how they introduced Jeff Goldblum’s adopted daughter (which there was clearly no need to have her in that flick as well). Yes, the original The Day the Earth Stood Still had a little boy in it, but at least he had been needed in the story as he helped Klaatu get to know human civilization. Jaden’s character just complained and whined throughout the film, constantly giving attitude and even snitched on Klaatu! What a little bastard! Spoiler alert, but when he was dying from the microbe bugs at the end, I was hoping his head would explode sending that bush on top of his noggin into space.

The one scene that Jaden Smith clearly couldn’t pull off was the scene at Arlington Cemetery. He had just asked Klaatu to bring his dad back to life, after witnessing that ability earlier, but Klaatu said he couldn’t. It wasn’t explained, but I’m guessing he can’t bring back the dead after the person has been gone for a very long time. Klaatu walks away and Jaden is on his knees in front of his dad’s grave, bowing his head and trying to succeed in appearing grief-stricken. It’s almost laughable…I’ve seen better performances in a kindergarten play. Jaden’s parents need to stop getting movie producers to do favors for them by sticking their untalented kids in movies where they undoubtedly don’t belong.

But enough of that little bad actor, let’s get into the other aspects of the film. Kathy Bates as the Secretary of State was utterly wasted in this film. As a very talented actress, she really didn’t have much to do and that’s a shame. Her performances were basically telegraphed in and it didn’t seem like she even wanted to be there. Jennifer Connelly was effective as the scientist needed with all the other scientists and doctors as they hauled them off to the giant sphere that suddenly arrived. Now, the scene where they get to the humongous orb and see that something is about to happen, I thought to t myself, finally. The alien comes out and it plays out like the original where a soldier decides to fire his gun and wounds the alien. The difference here is that the alien actually looks like an alien and that’s pretty cool. Out comes G.O.R.T. and it plays out pretty cool, even the alien code words from a weak Klaatu that stop him. You might notice I used an acronym for the mechanical being that comes out to protect Klaatu and I’ll explain later why that is. The scene where Klaatu appears from the sphere is short-lived and quickly cuts to the hospital, but it does follow the original pretty well here. When at the hospital, another cool shot is showcased here when they discover that the alien skin is not actual skin but a biomechanical suit that melts away to show the human body that it was protecting. You kind of guess right here that the sphere that showed up in 1928 took a DNA sample from the climber and used it to clone a human to create Klaatu’s body. Not a bad twist to the original. We’re then treated to the boring rigmarole of Klaatu going to a different part of the base to be tested by polygraph, but then he escapes. From here, the movie gets pretty boring, almost a long drawn out searching for Klaatu.

What's kind of interesting is when the army contains the giant robot that was left in front of the orb to protect it (I guess) and they transport it to some sort of bunker to see if they can probe it and test on it. It's here that they call it G.O.R.T., "Genetically Organized Robotic Technology." So, instead of a name like Klaatu claims in the original, in this one the humans name it. But at this point, the movie gets a little interesting.

I won't give away the ending, although it doesn't really have any twists nor is it worth hiding it from anybody, but the bottom line is that this movie is very boring and doesn't warrant a viewing.

My final "bit" on this one? Boring sci-fi schlock that Hollywood just couldn’t get right, with wasted talent from actors and actresses and too much screen time from that annoying little mop-headed boy.

Podcasts:
And one off-the-cuff topic I wanted to throw out there is podcasts. I love to listen to movie podcasts and there’s one I found out there that is number one in discussing horror movies and that’s the Horror Etc. Podcast. You can find them at http://www.horroretc.com/. The hosts really know their stuff and are very entertaining when conversing about horror movies.

Remakes — What Worked? What Didn’t Work?

It seems, as of late, Hollywood is allowing a new trend to go on and on, which I’ve been really getting tired of the last few years: Remakes.

For decades, Hollywood has allowed a few movies to get remade and it usually works, satisfying audiences who get to see an older movie get redone in a more modern era, utilizing effects or new filming techniques to make it better. The earliest Frankenstein movie was a short silent film of about 12 minutes shot in 1910 (and hard to find) that showed the monster as a long-haired Tim Burton-esque person who ran around and terrorized victims. But then it was remade in 1931 as the famous movie that we all know and love with the outstanding Boris Karloff as the monster. In that same year, even Dracula with Bela Lugosi was a remake of the silent movie, Nosferatu. These two films are examples of films that were a good idea to have them remade, seeing that they were silent films that were remade as talkies. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Even films that were in black &white that are turned into colorized pictures, I agree with that as well. What I don’t agree with is how they were both remade again; Dracula, by Francis Coppola in 1992, and Frankenstein, by the blowhard Kenneth Branhagh in 1994.

But then again…there are quite a few remakes that clearly didn’t work. Obviously, most remakes are filmed and distributed just to make money. Again, some are well done and some look like no thought was put into it. Let’s go through them and see what worked.

One of the best remakes I’ve seen in my time is the 1982 John Carpenter film, The Thing. Originally made in 1951 as The Thing From Another World, John Carpenter’s version pretty much keeps the same formula with a team of men in the Antarctic who find, through the nearby Norwegian base, evidence of a UFO finding. Somehow the alien that came to earth in the spacecraft infiltrates the camp and creates havoc. You really don’t know how things get out of hand as the movie goes on and I think that’s how Carpenter meant it to be. It’s basically a mystery of who is human and who is the alien. Because this alien is not just a monster, but a virus that goes from species to species, absorbing and copying them. I’ve said it before, this is not some guy in a mask representing the monster, but a pathogen or bacterium that goes from human to human (or dog to dog in one horrendous scene) leaving the men stumped at how to rid it. Finally, this remake works because of new special effects from the 80s that weren’t around in the 40s. It truly frightens the audience a lot more than the original film and surpasses it just with the gritty performances by the cast. Also, Carpenter’s style of directing with his ability to set the mood creates a level of fear totally felt by the viewer.

Another remake that I felt was substantial was 2007’s 3:10 to Yuma with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe. I had never viewed the 1957 original with Glenn Ford, but I felt this was warranted, being that it was 50 years since the original was made.

Now a film that had been remade twice, and which I think the last remake worked incredibly, was King Kong. The original 1933 film with the clay-mation Kong was a classic, putting aside the choppy special effects of the stop-motion ape. But the 1976 movie by the Dino DeLaurentiis company was not that great. In fact, it gets more and more unwatchable as time goes on. Granted, the special effects of it’s time was all right, but they had to rely on rear projection and miniatures to make the giant ape look like anything but a guy in a gorilla costume. But Peter Jackson’s King Kong of 2005 was awesome. Most of the film had to rely on CGI to make the ape look real and it was expected, but the use of it to make a 1930s New York was jaw-dropping. Definitely the first half was a little long in the tooth, but the second act definitely made up for it.

A remake that’s sort of a guilty pleasure for me, and has been bashed by a lot of critics as well as fans of the title character of this film, is Roland Emmerich's Godzilla. I felt that the historical look of the monster from the Japanese movies is very well known, but let’s face it—it’s just a man in a rubber suit walking around miniature sets. 1998’s Godzilla brought in a nice CGI monster that seemed more believable as a giant iguana-esque type of creature that wreaks havoc in New York. Yeah, the plot was kind of thin, but it was enjoyable. I’m sure everybody was expecting a big powerful film after the success of Emmerich’s Independence Day, so maybe that’s why the film was panned by critics and fans of the famous monster, but I liked it.

Those were a few examples of movies that are okay for remakes and how movie producers won with their choice of redoes. But what are the criteria for a remake?

I really believe that filmmakers should wait at least 3o years before they decide to remake a film and that’s perhaps if the original was not a popular movie. For instance, I don’t think anybody should ever remake Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane. Those are films that worked because of the era that they were made in. But virtually unknown films or films that had a small fan base or maybe films that were good but suffered due to special effects constraints, these should be remade to make it better. I don’t know what it is…I mean, you can just think of a movie and know if it’ll work or not…but that’s if you know movies and audiences. It just seems that the powers that be over in the big studios of Hollywood don’t see this too clearly.

Here’s where I give my opinion of films that NEVER should have been remade.

One popular film, again by John Carpenter, is the 1978 classic, Halloween. The original film spawned seven sequels through the 80s and 90s—two of which were sort of reboots of the franchise, depending on how you look at them. But the formula for the original was perfect: a little boy one Halloween night kills his sister for no apparent reason and goes into a mental institution for most of his life, only to escape 15 years later to return to the town he lived as a boy and continue his killing. At no point during this movie does it explain why he became this way; his own doctor doesn’t even know. It’s just explained by the doctor that he’s just plain evil. Now, almost 30 years later, Rob Zombie gets the nod to remake this classic. I had my doubts, because I saw what type of movies Zombie made with House of 1000 Corpses and The Devils Rejects, so I knew it was going to be very different. Sure enough, Zombie filmed a reason for this child’s turn to wickedness and how his family was to blame a little bit for it, in their white trash ways (a recurring theme in Zombie's movies). He just gave too much explanation where it should’ve been clouded in ambiguity. All in all, it was a good film and made lots of money…so much that it’s birthing a sequel this year (2009). But there was really no need to do it besides for the motivation to make a lot of money. The first one was perfect…why remake it???

A few years ago, June 6TH 2006 to be exact (6/6/06-ooooh scary), the remake of 1976’s The Omen was released. Again, not a bad movie—I thoroughly enjoyed it—but there really was no need for it. The 2006 version really didn’t add anything new to the mix when they made this, so I don’t see why this was recreated. The 1976 version was a classic and still holds up to this day, so it’s pretty transparent that making the 2006 version was just the new movement of movie producers to find an old money maker and recycle it in order to squeeze out more money from movie-goers.

In 2007, yet a further film that was remade from a lesser known feature was The Hitcher. The original with C. Thomas Howell and Rutger Hauer was perfect and needed no changes whatsoever. The Hitcher was a perfect thriller with Hauer playing a perfect psychopath. It’s not like there were any special effects that were outdated or certain clothing fashions that look ridiculous…it was just a way to make moolah.

Now, I left the worst for last. For me, this has got to be the worst remake ever attempted…and that remake, or should I say atrocity, was Gus Van Sant’s 1998 flop…Psycho. Man, what a stupid idea! Van Sant decided to remake the film shot-for-shot, all scenes exactly the same dialogue, the same running times for each scene, nothing unique at all! Why was this greenlighted??? The only things I saw that were different was when Vince Vaugn, as Norman Bates, is peeping through the hole at Anne Heche’s character when she’s getting undressed and you hear the unquestionable sound of Norman Bates masturbating. Another scene cut in some weird shots of something that was forgettable. I don’t see what the point was about this! It was utter crap that Universal Studios should be ashamed of being a part of. Alfred Hitchcock probably rolled over in his grave twice for the dense audacity of a second-rate director trying to better or equal the masterpiece of 1960’s Psycho.

And you know what? Someone’s going to try it again in 2011 with The Birds. The 1963 original was brilliant, but it could be improved upon if done right. Another upcoming remake I really, really disagree with is A Nightmare on Elm Street. The 1984 original scared the hell out of me and still does to this day. It was an exceptional film by Wes Craven and really shouldn’t be messed with. I mean, who can replace Robert Englund (it was announced that he wouldn’t return in this remake—Jackie Earle Haley will fill in the claws in this one) as Freddy Krueger? Of course I grew up with this film and seems like I first viewed this a few years ago. But I do have to realize the movie’s 25 years old! I don’t know, maybe they’ll do something fascinating, but I doubt it. Why couldn’t they just continue with the Freddy vs. Jason franchise? And speaking of horror movie icons, how about The Wolfman that’s coming out this year? That looks like something to look forward to. It’s been over 60 years since the original, so I think this one deserves a redux. I was able to see a little bit of a trailer when I went to Universal Studios Halloween Horror Nights last year when I toured on the tram ride and it looks great! I’m definitely going to be in line for that one when it hits theaters.

The list goes on and on with upcoming remakes, from Scanners, The Creature From the Black Lagoon, Bonnie & Clyde with Hilary Duff (much to Faye Dunaway’s chagrin)…looks like remakes are the thing of Hollywood’s future. I guess if it works, we have a good movie-going experience; and if it doesn’t, well then I have something to blog about.

And that’s my “bit” about remakes.

My Top 20 Horror Movies of All Time

As I’ve written many times before, my favorite movie genre is horror. When I go out to purchase a new DVD or Blu-Ray, I usually stroll through the horror aisle first and foremost to see if there’s a new title out that I currently don’t have in my collection (which is vast, by the way).

The supernatural, 80’s slasher fare, 40’s and 50’s Universal Studios horror, even a few of today’s schlock is what I look forward to watching. I really can’t explain my love for the sort; it just excites me to view the special effects and realism of what I’m seeing on the screen. If it makes me cringe or jump, that’s a plus.

Anyway, I thought long and hard about my favorite horror films of all time and maybe some of you will disagree with it, but hey...it’s my opinion. I have altered it once because I did forget a good one that I failed to add to the list. So, without further ado, here’s my top 20 list of horror movies:

Number 20 is The Exorcist. Now, any film featuring the supernatural scares the shit out of me; especially if it’s a film that deals with the devil possessing someone. The movie still holds up to this day with its special effects, both audio and visual. At one time, the scariest part of the movie would be when Linda Blair’s character spins her head 180 (or was it 360?) degrees. Now, I’ve got to say with the recently released DVD’s extra footage, the part when she walks down the stairs like a spider is very spooky.


Number 19 for me is Scream. It’s the first of many films that was written intelligently, paving the way for the new horror of the 90s. No more maniacs that won’t go down no matter hw many bullets you put in them, no silent killer that has no motivation whatsoever for their killing spree, and no killer magically appearing in one place when you left them in a whole different place (well, it does happen, but you find out in the end how it was done). The killer (or killers) in this film has a reason to do what they do, which you find out in the film’s climax. And, of course, the rules are presented on how you survive a horror film, as explained by Jamie Kennedy’s character. All in all, this film was a serious film that had bits of comedy, as well as references to the classic horror films of our time.


Number 18 is one of the two classics I have on my list. The film is Psycho and it’s a great movie. Of course, time and trends age this film and make it a little imperfect, but Alfred Hitchcock was a genius. The directing and filming techniques for the kills were (and still are) chilling. He really knew what the audience would enjoy seeing and what would unnerve them. The film as a whole was a bit atypical at the time. What film has ever focused on the main character for nearly half the movie before they’re killed off? And Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was a perfect choice. He plays someone who appears odd, but you don’t know exactly why he seems odd. What stands out the most is the editing of the murder scenes, especially the infamous shower scene. One of the two best Hitchcock thrillers.


Number 17? Jeepers Creepers. Yes, the movie was original and scary, basically something I hadn’t seen before. During the time where Freddy, Jason, Michael and all other slashers of their ilk were not so hot anymore in the box office, we get a new icon of horror to add to the genre. The Creeper comes out in full force in this flick, truly mysterious and obviously deadly. From the first scene with his weird, yet powerful, truck, the first sign that this guy is trouble is when he’s dumping a body down a storm duct. The image of the Creeper turning around to catch the kids watching him while driving by on the road…that made my gut wrench, just knowing that the kids were in for it. Unlike most horror films, this story doesn’t finish with a happy ending. However, it surprised me nonetheless. I only wish the sequel was better or at least on par with this one.


Number 16 on my list is The Birds. It’s the second (or first?) classic I have on this list. Another superb film by the master of suspense and let me tell you, if you take birds for granted, this film will change that. Our feathered friends of the skies are no friends at all in this film. The mystery of why these birds are attacking and killing people scares you and that’s the genius of Hitchcock at work here. He gives you the where, he gives you the how, the what, the when, but he doesn’t give you the why; that’s what gets you. Again, for the era during which this film was made, the special effects are pretty good and don’t really look cheesy. The film ends unresolved but leaves you with that haunting vision which I’ll never forget.


Here we are with number 15 and it’s the film that introduced us to Jason Voorhees: Friday the 13th Part II. Of course, the sequel couldn’t be made without the original, but I really feel that two of the sequels are scarier and give you more of that visual eerie feel, not to mention the frightening image of Jason; not with a hockey mask but with the sack. The scenes that build up to his reveal are daunting and chilling. The visit to Alice (the survivor girl from the first film) in the beginning of the film, is a spooky scene I’m sure we all experience when we’re alone in a house or apartment…minus, of course, the visit of a maniac. Basically, the set up with Alice’s dream catches the audience up with what happened in the first film and the little speech Paul gives around the campfire, gives you all you need to understand about the Jason Voorhees legend. Also, this is one of the three films that portray Jason as a human and not some undying zombie that’s unstoppable.


Number 14 on the list is Halloween. John Carpenter’s film sure did set up a precedent of how to keep suspense and to capture an audience in that tension. The peculiar characterization by Nick Castle, who plays Michael Myers (or “The Shape” as he’s credited in the movie) in this one, sets the tone for the film and how the character was represented. The slow yet fixed gate that Michael has and the almost mechanical movements he makes (like the scene where he sits up then turns his head slowly toward Laurie Strode) undoubtedly makes the character more odd and creepy. But John Carpenter’s ability to create the tense mood shows in the lighting and visuals of this piece. It’s a classic.


My number 13, The Thing, plays out more into the sci fi variety, but is equally a great horror movie. Especially when you put the special effects into play, it really confirms as such. I remember when this film came out, it made the news for one reason—the special effects. No movie, at the time, had such gory and gross special effects that turned one’s stomach. Even today, with all the CGI technology in films, very few have as much gruesome imagery as The Thing did back in the early 80s. Some of it was a little ridiculous (i.e., the “spider-head” that was supposed to be walking around, but only seemed like a remote controlled car), but most of it was shockingly effective in grossing us out. Of course, this film is a remake of a film from the 50s, The Thing From Another World, with the name shortened to just The Thing. But instead of having some monster looking like a made up actor in a latex monster mask, "the thing" was a virus of sorts that was able to absorb the characters in the movie and take over their bodies. One by one, the men on this remote Antarctic base were being taken over by the pathogen from another world. Being that this movie was released at the same time E.T. came out, the majority of movie-goers at the time chose to watch a good alien film rather than a scary one. But this film is a model for sci fi horror and a must-see.


Number 12, Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, was marketed out to be the last film in the series, hinting that this was the end of Jason Voorhees and the end of the Friday the 13th series. As far as I’m concerned, yes, this is the end of the series. The film starts where part 3 left off, essentially at the crime scene. Part 3 left Jason at the barn, apparently dead from the blow to the head with the axe. The cops are all over the scene, including a police helicopter lighting the place, and the ambulance shows up and takes Jason to the morgue. Well, it turns out he’s not dead and escapes with a couple of brutal kills, taking off back to the area where he does his thing. The movie then introduces a new set of teenagers traveling to a cabin for the weekend. It also introduces the Jarvis family who happen to live next door to the rental cabin. To top off the potential victims, a guy by the name of Rob shows up to look for Jason, avenging his sister’s death from a previous movie. Soon, Jason arrives back from the morgue to pick off each victim, one by one. The kills are great, the special effects shining through, made by the mastery of Tom Savini. The showdown with the remaining victims against Jason is one for the books. Truly terrifying and the saga should’ve ended here, but obviously the movie makers wanted to make some more money out of this cash cow. My advice? Do not get the boxed set, but just buy parts 1 through 4. The rest is worth a view if you haven’t seen them, but nothing to write a blog about. The Final Chapter rocks!


During the 70s and 80s, most of Stephen King’s adaptations weren’t all that great. Some of them succeeded (Carrie, Christine) and some of them bombed (Cujo, Maximum Overdrive). But number 11’s Pet Sematary, really worked for me. When I read the novel during the summer of 1987, I couldn’t put it down. I think I read it within a couple of days while I was incapacitated after having my appendix taken out. I thought to myself at the time that the story would make a great movie and in 1989, while sitting at home one day, I saw the trailer for the film and I nearly shat myself. Pet Sematary really worked for me as a Stephen King book variation. I say variation because there were subtle differences from the book to screen, but it really won me over. The film and story ask sort of a hypothetical question: If a loved one of yours died, would you bring them back to life if given a chance? I think most people would. Another thing I liked about the film was that it really embodied the look I had in my mind for the houses in the film and even the path to the pet cemetery itself. Fred Gwynne was surprisingly perfect for the role of Judd Crandall. I thought I would’ve had the image of Herman Munster in my head the whole time, but I didn’t. Anyway, I highly recommend the film, but don’t see the sequel.


Number 10….never sleep again…yes, A Nightmare on Elm Street. The 1984 film by Wes Craven created a true monster with Freddy Kruger. The movie is an original piece, something we’ve never really seen before and it’s such a great concept. A killer waits for you in your dreams…how can you escape that? Everybody needs to sleep; it’s not something you can avoid for long…eventually you have to sleep. Now, it’s never fully explained how Freddy is able to get into the dreams of his victims, but who cares? The story behind Freddy of why he does want to kill the children from Elm Street is insightful to say the least, but that’s not what makes this film great. Honestly, it’s the performance from Robert Englund that makes the character, Freddy Kruger, so ghastly. With the budget Craven had to work with, it’s a wonder the film was ever made. But the visual effects are terrific and mesmerizing…the dream world, as terrifying as it is, was created perfectly here. The scenes in the boiler room just make you cringe and make you glad you don’t have dreams like these. But who knows? Maybe after watching this…you will.


Number 9: The Mist. (See my March 26th review)


My number 8 movie, Saw, started the new (and short-lived) trend of torture porn. But this entry to the new sub-genre of horror introduced a smart mystery thriller along with the gory and violent visuals we now come to expect from this series. Some twists and turns are thrown into the story, making this very interesting. It’s not just a movie about a couple of guys stuck in a bathroom. What seems to be a couple of poor schmucks chosen by some psychopath turns out to be something different all together. When you find out that everybody involved actually has something to do with what is going on, it really blows your mind. And when you get to the ending, you want to watch it all over again to see how everything adds up. The writers and directors of this film really knew what they were doing when they constructed this film. It’s too bad that all the following entries couldn’t follow suit.


Number 7 is another 80s classic…An American Werewolf in London. First and foremost, the special makeup effects by Rick Baker were (and still are) awesome and breathtaking. Honestly, I don’t think this film would be as well received by horror enthusiasts if Rick Baker hadn’t done the effects. Secondly, the directing by the always giddy John Landis was strong. The scenes were eerie when necessary (like the walk through the moors) and exciting when building to the great climax (the famous Piccadilly Circus scenes). Being that it’s the time before CGI, the special effects are remarkable and come at a perfect time. Also, it shows a new side to transforming into a werewolf; instead of it being an easy transformation, this film shows it as a painful and terrible alteration. Breathtaking!


Yet another Stephen King adaptation, number 6’s The Shining is one of my favorites from Stanley Kubrick. All other movies directed by him seem very odd and menacing when they don’t need to be. In this film, his style of direction fits to create the spooky tension The Shining needs. Now, this is one book I never read from Stephen King. I’ve read most of his books from his vast library but I have a rule that I don’t read books if I’ve already seen them as a movie. I’ve heard a lot of King fans were upset about this film and I have no idea why. I’ve even read that King himself didn’t like the film and how Kubrick changed some aspects of the story. Other than that, Jack Nicholson’s performance lends to the unnerving tale and the movie set of the hotel is downright scary. For years after watching this film, I was scared of Jack Nicholson in any role I saw him in. Unlike many thrillers, the movie’s conclusion is very satisfying.


Number 5’s Re-Animator is a gross-out spectacular. Not only is this a great story, taken from an H.P. Lovecraft short story that was made modernized for the big screen, but it was the start of the late 80s to early 90s effects-laden era of horror. It stars the oddly wonderful Jeffrey Combs as Herbert West, a young college student who invents a serum that brings the dead back to life...re-animates them! A lot of gore and sickening visuals make this film a true horror underdog since not many people saw this in theaters. But when it circulated in VHS rentals, it became a cult classic. The headless professor scenes are definitely a standout in the film. A must-see for any gore-hound like myself.


The film, Poltergeist, for me is number 4 and it’s a special film. Because, not only is it terrifying and features the supernatural in a frightening manner, it also has a family tone to it. The reasoning behind this is probably the fact that Steven Spielberg was on set most of the time and directed a good portion of it, although the credit went to Tobe Hooper. As it turns out, E.T. was filming in the same Arizona neighborhood at the same time. But because of the director guild’s rules at the time or maybe because he was contracted by Universal Studios to direct E.T., I guess Spielberg couldn’t have credit for Poltergeist. At the time, usually films about haunted houses were filmed on sets that appeared to be run down or old Victorian houses…something that looked like it would be haunted. Poltergeist takes place in a regular suburban neighborhood, nothing scary or terrifying about that. But when this film gets to its climax, the shit really hits the fan. The flick has terrific performances by the cast, very believable and memorable.


Number 3, Child's Play, is a classic. In this film, the “Good Guy” doll is a popular toy that is beloved by children, has its own line of clothing and sleepwear, breakfast cereal, a TV show…basically it’s a very popular icon for children; it’s sort of like a new type of Cabbage Patch Kid. At the start of the film, Charles Lee Ray, a serial killer wanted by the law, is being chased down by a detective late one night. He tries to find a safe haven within a toy store, but the detective is closing in on Ray and is able to shoot and wound him. As a last ditch effort, Ray tries to find something…we’re not sure as he’s crawling around and leaving a bloody trail behind him. Suddenly, he grabs a “Good Guy” doll out of the packaging and places it in front of him, staring into its eyes. He starts speaking out verses in some sort of gibberish until he’s yelling it out. Finally he screams, “Give me the power I beg of you!” A lightning bolt comes down into the store and everything explodes, sending the detective flying. Ray ends up dead and the detective is satisfied. But it turns out Ray transferred his soul into that doll. After the prologue, a mother buys the doll from a vagrant and it turns out to be the “Good Guy” doll Ray transferred his soul into. It isn’t long before we get to see some creepy living-doll-type horror in this imaginative piece. The one true scary part is when the mother is starting to believe her son when she notices the doll had been speaking the whole time without batteries! Very scary and thrilling.


As we inch closer to the number one spot, here’s a little film that holds a dear spot in my heart…number 2 is Creepshow. Oh yes! The warped minds of Stephen King and George Romero come together to make an awesome anthology film; the stories written by King and the filming directed by Romero. I wasn’t able to see this in theaters when it came out, so I had to wait for it to show up on Showtime one night. Let me say, the one story that stands out and left me nearly shitting my pajamas was “The Crate” with the lovely Adrienne Barbeau and Hal Holbrook. But every story has its own feel, almost like individual movies in itself. “Father’s Day” had the eerie mansion with the cemetery in the back, complete with ground fog and haunting music. The “Jordy Verrill” story that starred King in a hilarious performance made you think twice about checking out a meteor. “Something to Tide You Over” with Ted Danson and Leslie Neilson turned out haunting performances as well. But the last act with E.G. Marshall as the ruthless and agoraphobic Upson Pratt in the “Creeping Up On You” story was overpoweringly disgusting in a grand way. All the stories in this film do not disappoint. I just wish Hollywood would make more of these films.


And the number 1 horror movie on my list is the most frightening movie I’ve ever seen. The film, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, scared me silly and nearly drove me nuts for years to come. Probably the first masked slasher of all horror icons, Leatherface delivered the goods and provided the scares. From his blunt application of a mallet to his nonchalant utilization of a hanging meat hook, Leatherface was truly a force to be reckoned with…and let’s not forget the chainsaw. Probably what frightening everyone who watched this film back in the day was the foreword read by John Laroquette before the film started, stating that the film was based on true events. The visuals were upsetting (the furniture in the living room), the sounds were alarming (the aforementioned chainsaw), the characters were fear-provoking (Leatherface and family), and the thought of being in this situation was very terrifying. I don’t think any film will ever topple this film off my mental mantle and if one does, it better be a damned great horror film.

Super High Me

One of my favorite comedians is Doug Benson from Best Week Ever on VH1 and I really enjoy his commentary and comedy on that show. His latest CD, Professional Humoridian, is very funny. He also has a podcast called Doug Benson’s I Love Movies which is hilarious and showcases his love for movies.

In his act, he’s mentioned how he had an idea for a documentary film on the same level as Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me called Super High Me. In the film he brings up how someone approached him to actually do the movie after they heard his joke during his show.

Although shot amateurishly, the film delves into some facts and political aspects of marijuana. Doug Benson is known for smoking weed, he claims it himself in his comedy routine, and most of his jokes are based on him being stoned and the perception one has while being stoned.

Like Spurlock in Super Size Me, what Benson wants to achieve in Super High Me is to stop smoking pot for 30 days—to sort of clean himself of the drug—then smoke pot continuously for 30 days (from when he wakes up until he goes to bed).

Throughout the first 30 days, he takes a series of tests during his sobriety, and the second 30 days, he takes the same tests, all to compare how he is when he’s sober and to compare when he’s under the influence.

In between some of the footage he gets, he interposes tidbits of information regarding the history of marijuana. I didn’t really look into how factual the statements were, but at least the film points out how the federal laws can overturn state laws; meaning, the medicinal laws of California can be squished by the federal law of marijuana being illegal.

As Doug Benson goes through his 30 days of not smoking cannabis, he gets a full physical, including checking his lung capacity and checking his memory. Amazingly, he’s able to get a doctor to be a part of this experiment and incredibly, he checks out well—seemingly not affected by his 17 years of pot smoking. He also goes on to take an SAT and scores very well, in fact above average.

Throughout the first 30 days, many of his friends, peers and cohorts ask him how he’s doing, believing that he might experience some sort of withdrawal. But he makes it clear that, although he wishes he can smoke pot during his 30 days of sobriety, he really doesn’t feel any addictive urge to smoke.

Interspersed throughout the film, you see his act playing out in different states. He interacts with the audiences in these different parts and gets their take on the medicinal marijuana laws, or lack thereof, in their state.

All the tests Benson takes while he is sober, he then gets to take while intoxicated on cannabis. I won’t spoil the outcomes of these tests and I don’t know if there is really anything proven after the fact. But the film as a whole is interesting and if you enjoy Doug Benson or the comedy of any other comedian who jokes about pot then you’ll enjoy this documentary.

My final “bit” on this pot-umentary? If you like Doug Benson and are akin to his type of observational humor, then you’ll like Super High Me.