THANKSKILLING: Thanks and Shanks

Director: Jordan Downey
Writers: Jordan Downey, Kevin Stewart
Cast: Lance Predmore, Lindsey Anderson, Ryan E. Francis, Aaron Ringhiser-Carlson, Natasha Cordova, Chuck Lamb, General Bastard, Wanda Lust, Jordan Downey
Runtime: 70 mins.
2008

A great deal of the fun that comes from watching bad movies is marveling at the incomprehensible story and design choices the artists made. Sometimes a line of dialogue or a prop or an edit is so baffling that it becomes absurd, and you get to wondering how the mind of a creator could possibly perceive such a thing as entertainment. All of this becomes more complicated as you delve into the realm of intentionally bad movies, an issue I discussed in my Zombeavers review. The people who make the Sharknados of the world don't have the demented creative energy of an Ed Wood figure; they just have an appreciation (or a disdain) of these creators, and the desire to somehow replicate their work with an added layer of irony. These bad-on-purpose movies don't tend to come out nearly as interesting.

Zombeavers circumvents this issue by putting genuine care into its story and craft. Everything about the movie is ridiculous, but it's played straight so it works on a dramatic level. Thankskilling does not share this trait, nor can it reach the heights of bad-movie-as-hilarious-commentary as something like The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. Movies like Cadavra are thoughtful about why bad movies happen, and they critique those cultures. That commentary bleeds into the camerawork, composition, editing, etc. Unfortunately, within the realm of bad horror movies, Thankskilling represents the idiot teenager giggling at dick jokes.

TOY STORY 3: Toy Movie 3 Is the Greatest Movie of All Time

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Here comes Toy Story 3, a film that many young adults got weepy about.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Lee Unkrich
Writers: John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich, Michael Arndt
Cast: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, Don Rickles, Michael Keaton, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Estelle Harris, John Morris, Jodi Benson, Blake Clark, Emily Hahn, Laurie Metcalf
Runtime: 103 mins.
2010

As much as any person has ever been a target demographic, I was the target demographic for Toy Story 3. As I relayed in my Toy Story review, Toy Story was the first movie I ever saw in a movie theater, and I was obsessed with it during my youth. I owned my own Woody doll and Buzz Lightyear action figure. I had a Rex and a Mr. Potato Head. I grew up with these characters. My fondness for the franchise was something my whole family shared. It wasn't a case of parents tolerating their kids' fixation with some dumb cartoon, as I imagine is the case with movies like Cars. We could pop Toy Story in any time and everyone would enjoy it.

Fast forward fifteen years to 2010. I had just graduated high school and was sliding my way through the last summer I would have before going away to college. That's a terrifying time, full of anticipation both hopeful and anxious. There is a pervasive sense that you are about to take an unknowable leap forward, so you also spend quite a bit of time looking back.

Lo and behold, along comes Toy Story 3, a movie about a grown up Andy getting ready to go off to college, and the trauma faced by his forgotten toys. Andy's arc is relatively minor within the plot of the movie, but it is the emotional underpinning of everything that happens: he must learn to let the toys of his youth go, and in doing so leave them in a more caring environment than he would be able to provide. The final goodbye of Toy Story 3 hit me hard. I know many people felt this, but it was as if the movie was speaking directly to me. This franchise had raised me, and now it was time for me to move on.

UP: Just a Piece of Latex in My Eye

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. As anyone who has watched Up already knows, it is a masterwork in emotional manipulation. And I mean that in the best possible way.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson (co-director)
Writers: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy
Cast: Ed Asner, Jordan Nagai, Christopher Plummer, Bob Peterson, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 96 mins.
2009

Nothing makes me cry. I'm not a tough guy, I've just never had easy access to my emotions. Crying isn't weakness, it's a release valve. One that I'm often envious of. Most of my favorite stories throughout my life have failed to move me to tears. In recent years this has been changing a little bit; as I learn more about movies and the craft that goes into them, it has made me more capable of accessing and understanding the emotions at the center of the story via an intellectual conduit. Maybe that makes me sound like a sociopath, but that's how things are. I have to understand before I can participate.

With that said, I will readily admit that the famous opening montage of Up makes me cry like a fool every single time I watch it. For those not in the know, Up is the story of a curmudgeonly old man who lives alone. The first five or so minutes of the film contain a montage showing his progression through the decades with the love of his life, Ellie. It is one of the most elegant, effectively manipulative feats of emotiontugging that I have ever seen. The story it tells is so simple, as is its montage format. But this sequence of silent glimpses into the lives of this couple--strung along to a tremendously moving Michael Giacchino composition that crops up again and again in the movie, always reminding us of this opening salvo--yanks the rug out from under us so hard, it could almost be considered cruel. Of course, the sequence is not just an exercise in pathos; it also establishes the character of Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) with maximum economy. Thanks to these five minutes, any time Carl is kind of a dick in the movie (which is not uncommon), we can never hate or resent him for it, because we have seen the exact emotional arc that has brought him to this point. Everything he does is out of a bullheaded sense of love, even when his decision making is misinformed.

100th Post Extravaganza!!! with special guest writer Nicolas Cage!

Ladies. Gentlemen. Everyone in between. I'm pleased to share this momentous occasion with you. Post-Credit Coda has reached its 100th post! This would have been possible without your continued support, but it would have been much sadder.

No sadness today! Today we celebrate. And what better way to celebrate than to recruit someone more famous than I am to say things about himself? That's right, I reached out to none other than the iconic laconic bubonic Nicolas Cage, and to my adequate surprise he accepted. As such, I've selected what I consider to be Nicolas Cage's Ten Greatest Most Timeless and Everlasting Movie Posters, and requested that he give us a few tidbits about each of these milestones in his storied career.

With Nicolas Cage on the docket, I don't imagine you care to hear any more from me. Before turning it over to the grandmaster of alabaster, I just want to thank you all for sticking with me until this centenary post. You are all a national treasure.

- - -

Hello audience, I am Nicolas Cage. You probably know me from my cinema roles such as Sason of the Witch and Top Gun. I get many fans who want me to do things, but it is rare to receive a message from a fan wishing me to discus the ephemera of film culture such as cinema posters, a topic that is admittedly ancilary to what we would normally think of as cinema. My friend Brian here has selected what he believes to be my ten best cinema posters and being impartial from the day I was born, I have no grounds to argue with him upon this. I will merely act as a historical beacon in this retrospect, making quantitative rather than qualtative commentary.

At any rate I thought Brian had an easy task because I've only been in a couple dozen pieces of cinema or so, but Brian informs me that I have in actuality acted in over seventy five pieces of cinema. This shocks me but it points to a God's Honest Truth: time flies when you're having fun.

I have informed Brian that I don't know how it works here in Post Credit Coder but in my life I cannot rank any aspect of my own cinema, so I choose not to rank these posters. I have asked him and Brian is kind enoguh to let me speak of them in alphabetical order. This pleases me as the alphabet is the great universal equalizer.

WALL-E: All About Eve

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. We've arrived at WALL-E, which has one of the great first acts of any movie ever.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Andrew Stanton
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Jim Reardon
Cast: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard, MacInTalk, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy, Sigourney Weaver
Runtime: 98 mins.
2008

If we were to only take the first 30 or so minutes of WALL-E into account, it would be a perfect 10/10 movie no question about it. The film opens with the camera roving through the galaxy to the sound of an upbeat old timey song. As the camera moves in on earth, our wonder turns mournful as we are blasted with imagery of an abandoned planet, mistreated and misshapen by centuries of irreversible pollution. It is in this trashy wasteland that we are introduced to our first, central, and for the moment only character: WALL-E. WALL-E is a trash compacting robot given the impossible task of cleaning up the Earth by humans who have long since died off. Yet the relics of humanity remain, and a blissfully large portion of this film plays out like silent slapstick steeped in sentimentalism. WALL-E recovers artifacts that his robot brain cannot easily comprehend, and he utilizes them in whatever charming way suits him. There's something comforting in this little robot gathering the remains of humanity around him in an effort to create an identity for himself in this lost world, and something immensely tragic as well.

Then one day all of that changes. A rocketship drops a drone named EVE, a sleek feminine hyperfuturistic robot whose purpose on Earth is not at first clear. As she sets about her duty, the narrative morphs into a love story, with WALL-E craving the companionship that he had never before allowed himself to admit he wanted. The narrative is at its heart a simple and familiar story, but the way it plays out on the apocalyptic stage makes it feel almost mythic in its gravity. This is spurred along by phenomenal production design. The world may be dead, but the sheer glut of detail parading across every shot makes it feel more alive than any other movie setting I can readily think of. The soundtrack is alternately light and melancholy, a masterpiece composed by stellar Pixar contributor Thomas Newman. The camerawork zooms, pans, and pulls our attention masterfully through the desolate futurescape.

RATATOUILLE: Pasta al Rodente

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Ratatouille holds the dubious distinction of being Pixar's most underrated film.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava (co-director)
Writers: Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Emily Cook, Kathy Greenberg, Bob Peterson
Cast: Patton Oswalt, Lou Romano, Ian Holm, Janeane Garofalo, Peter Sohn, Brian Dennehy, Peter O'Toole, Brad Garrett, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 111 mins.
2007

When we look at Pixar's stable of repeat directors, currently numbered at four, choosing the best of the bunch may be an impossible task. We can throw out John Lasseter (Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Cars, Cars 2) right away. Although he was responsible for kicking everything off with Toy Story, he also claims a hefty portion of Pixar's mediocre entries. We're left with Pete Docter (Monsters, Inc., Up, Inside Out), Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E), and Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Ratatouille). Such a selection between titans inevitably comes down to personal taste; in my mind the war rages between Stanton and Bird, both of whom have since gone on to direct live action movies, and both of whom are returning to direct Pixar sequels now that their most recent films have flopped financially and critically (John Carter, Tomorrowland). Whether that is good news or bad news, only time will tell. Perhaps the relative successes of Finding Dory and The Incredibles 2 will help me pick a favorite.

As far as I can tell, Brad Bird is not often at the top of people's favorite Pixar director lists. A cursory googling tells me that Docter is typically the favorite. This one even puts Bird at number five. Maybe he gets points docked for starting his career with The Simpsons and The Iron Giant rather than being born and raised in the Pixar system. I'm inclined to think it also has something to do with Ratatouille being the most regretfully underrated film in Pixar's canon.

CARS: Porn for Children

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Now Cars.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: John Lasseter, Joe Ranft
Writers: John Lasseter, Joe Ranft, Jorgen Klubien, Dan Fogelman, Kiel Murray, Phil Lorin, Bonnie Hunt, Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson, Don Lake, Steve Purcell, Dan Scanlon
Cast: Owen Wilson, Bonnie Hunt, Paul Newman, Larry the Cable Guy, Cheech Marin, Tony Shalhoub, George Carlin, John Ratzenberger, Michael Keaton
Runtime: 117 mins.
2006

I went into this looking forward to Cars. It's not every day you get to experience a new Pixar movie, and this was one of the two I hadn't seen (Cars 2 being the obvious counterpart). I had no high hopes, just a willingness to be lightly entertained.

Instead I disliked Cars from the very first shot. The psych-up voiceover interspersed with blurred shots of cars zooming past the camera and slow pans across the sleek shiny red metal exterior of the main character. It's meant to titillate, to ingratiate. Already, mere seconds into the film, the cars are presented as fetish objects meant to be worshiped and purchased in small plastic form. What better way to sell merchandise to children than to take something they already love, slap a face on it, and stuff its mouth with witty quips? Note that I do not use the term "fetish object" lightly. Maybe you think my post title a bit harsh, but the definition of pornography is a cultural artifact intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. What's more erotic to a child than the thrill of moving fast, or the noise of a revving engine? Cars is eroticism for children the way James Bond is eroticism for adults. My point is only enhanced by the movie's baldfaced insistence upon cars objectifying other cars, both for their athleticism and their sexual capacity. I'm not even joking, watch this movie again and notice the moments when one car stares at another's ass, or when a car delivers some sexually explicit line of dialogue that confuses you on a purely pragmatic level but also on the meta-emotional level of why is a Pixar movie forcing me to concoct unspeakable images of motor vehicles engaged in coitus???

SPECTRE: Blow Feld

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is upon us. This review is the culmination of a week spent with Daniel Craig and his rugged take on Britain's most famous spy.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth
Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Rory Kinnear
Runtime: 148 mins.
2015

Spectre continues the trend of every Craig Bond film to somehow fumble or dishonor the genre-topping example set by Casino Royale. To be sure, Casino is a tough act to follow, but if any of the next three films had picked a unique identity and stuck to it, they would have fared better. Instead they feel like pale, wrongheaded imitations. Skyfall trailblazes better than the other two because it attempts to salvage Bond's psychological complexity from Casino; Spectre may come out the worst in this regard, because rather than stealing psychological or tonal cues from its predecessors, it merely siphons plot detail after plot detail into its own shambles of a story.

At its best Spectre is a film of moments. The film opens with a stunning continuous shot that follows James Bond and his quarry through a massive Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City. The camerawork, choreography, and aesthetic are all thrilling, and the subsequent helicopter fight isn't too bad either. Moment.

James Bond and Dave Bautista's charismatically silent henchman character Mr. Hinx rumble in the confined quarters of a train. This is the only time the film packs a punch. Bautista's massive wrestling physique smashes Bond through walls and furniture in a stunning display of brutality. Moment.

James Bond has an unexpected, hilarious, and exceedingly likable conversation with a small animal. Moment.

It's when these moments are strung together into something resembling a narrative that it all falls apart. The connective tissue is forced and awkward. The pacing is glacial. All to eventually disappoint us with a plot that is trying so hard to be something exciting that it ends up being nothing at all. As long as the movie delayed that plot from kicking in (and it spends a considerable amount of time doing so), I was having a good enough time. But when Bond finally faces off with the villain, the movie reveals its idiocy and just sort of plods through to the end.

THE INCREDIBLES: The "I" in Team

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. The Incredibles is one of my favorite superhero movies, and makes a case for being the most entertaining of all Pixar's output.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Brad Bird
Writer: Brad Bird
Cast: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Sarah Vowell, Spencer Fox, Jason Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Bird
Runtime: 115 mins.
2004

Only just now am I realizing that The Incredibles is the only Pixar movie with a single credited writer/director. Typically these movies have at least one co-director and a laundry list of story and screenplay contributors. Bird taking the reins unsupported on the entire creative process is unheard of for such a collaborative organization, but I suppose it's thematically in keeping with the message of the film.

The Incredibles, after all, is a story of Supers. Following in the medium-shattering footsteps of Alan Moore, Brad Bird takes time to set up a world in which superheroes are popular, potent, and praised by police and populace--only to shatter that world with a government edict that makes superheroism illegal, told in slick newsboy-style spinning newspapers and black and white clips. Thereafter we jump ahead to today, and find that our hero Mr. Incredible has become regular old Bob, wage slave at an insurance company and lackluster family man at home. His wife Helen (Holly Hunter), the former Elastigirl, is desperately trying to keep their marriage alive by putting the past firmly in the past. This includes heavy restrictions on their children Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Spencer Fox); they are never to use their powers in public. Life is dull for Bob, but this all changes when his secret latenight heroism sessions with old friend Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) transition into something more involved when he receives a secret message about a secret mission from a secret source.

SKYFALL: Old Dog Old Tricks

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is soon upon us. As such I will be spending this week rehashing the Daniel Craig Bond movies in preparation. Skyfall is the most polarizing of Craig's Bonds, a movie that I like very much and also find myself wagging a stern finger at.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan
Cast: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Berenice Marlohe, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney
Runtime: 143 mins.
2012

When I claimed a few days ago that Casino Royale is and will probably remain the best Bond movie, I received in response an outpouring of love for Skyfall (for me an outpour is two people). I'm going to quote pieces of their responses without permission.

"Maybe in terms of scale, Casino Royale wins just because of the sheer amount of character creation. But there's a lot of humanity injected into the Bond character during Skyfall as well. In terms of his struggle with his past, family issues, and aging... Not believing he can be the same caliber of agent he once was. No other Bond movie approaches that level of analysis of his internal psychoses. You know, since when does James Bond have anxiety?"

"The real payoff of [Casino Royale] is in Skyfall, not in Royale itself. Skyfall is, at its core, about the trauma of loss & memory: the trauma of the Reformation (and you could argue this is really when the Empire started) and then the loss of Empire. What happens when England finally loses enough that they have to deal with the trauma they've been ignoring for centuries? . . . This is a new type of Bond. Still the markers of the one we knew before, but it doesn't shy away from the pain and violence that is inherently a part of being Bond. . . . Mostly I think the Craig Bond films can't be separated quite as easily, as they completely depend on one another."

These are two very similar and eloquent responses in defense of Skyfall's merits. Clearly there's a lot of Skyfall love out there, a love which I share. Skyfall was the movie that hooked me into the Bond franchise (when I first saw Casino Royale I was too young to care about much beyond the action). Moreover, they're absolutely right in pointing out that Casino and Skyfall are of a piece. One is an origin story about the man who became the agent, the other is a retirement story about the agent in danger of becoming the man. One recreates Bond for modern audiences, one investigates Bond's relevance for that audience. One reboots the series, one reestablishes the series regulars.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE: Shaken Not Turd

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is soon upon us. As such I will be spending this week rehashing the Daniel Craig Bond movies in preparation. Quantum of Solace is the sequel to Casino Royale that everyone rapidly realized they never wanted.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Marc Forster
Writers: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Cast: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright
Runtime: 106 mins.
2008

Quantum of Solace is not un-entertaining. This is one of the two compliments that I will give it. The other compliment is that Marc Forster has this directorial tic that I enjoy: he ends all of his action scenes with moments of stillness where the sound mixing bottoms out and lets you catch a breath. Unfortunately it is pleasant in part because the action scenes are not very good.

It's hard to put a finger on exactly what went wrong with Quantum, but every which way you look is a decision that seems at least a little bit wrongheaded. First and foremost, Quantum is as far as I'm aware the only James Bond film that functions as a direct sequel to its predecessor. As in, the story elements and character arcs are so dependent upon what's come before that a newbie walking into this movie would have nothing to latch onto but confusion and boredom. As easy as it is to blame the studios for this decision... well, we should probably blame the studios. Bond films have always absorbed and reappropriated current Hollywood trends, and this time around they bit the bait of serialization. In an era of sequels, and at the cusp of shared universes (Iron Man was also released in 2008), it only made sense for Bond to go after the unfinished business of Vesper Lynd's untimely death.

CASINO ROYALE: A Fragile Instrument

Spectre, the 24th entry in this 53-year-old franchise, is soon upon us. As such I will be spending this week rehashing the Daniel Craig Bond movies in preparation. First up is Casino Royale, the reboot that sparked a Bond pop culture resurgence.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Director: Martin Campbell
Writers: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis
Cast: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright
Runtime: 144 mins.
2006

Casino Royale is a reboot of an everchanging character. I'm no Bond expert; I've only seen one non-Craig Bond movie (Goldfinger), but I've read Film Crit Hulk's book about the franchise. It's clear that while Bond maintains certain signifiers and character traits (he dresses well, uses his own name, beds the ladies, etc.), each iteration of the character has been fluid in how exactly Bond's character is played. Some interpretations have been more debonair, some more action oriented, some more comedic. Even within actors' arcs the tone of each film swayed drastically between grounded intrigue and out there absurdity. Here we are decades later, and in returning to Bond's first mission Casino Royale tasks itself with answering the auspicious and difficult question: Who is James Bond?

Seconds into the film Casino Royale stakes its claim and makes its statement of intent in two beautifully intercut black and white scenes. These are Bond's first two kills, one of which leads to the other. The second kill is suave, witty, and stylish. Bond is waiting for the double agent as he enters his office. Bond has emptied the bullets from the gun in his desk. Bond is always in control. This is a classic James Bond scene.

Meanwhile, Bond's first kill is like nothing we've ever seen in this franchise. Craig strides into a nasty overlit bathroom with a sense of cold purpose, and he starts a brawl brutal beyond the likes of which we are used to in a PG-13 movie. Faces are smashed and bloodied, mirrors are smashed, stalls are smashed, toilets are smashed, sinks are smashed. Even the most solid edifices are breakable in Bond's new world. This scene has nothing to do with the elegant, efficient combat of former Bonds. Here Bond is, as M (Judi Dench) later calls him, a blunt instrument, and the scene takes great pains to communicate the great pains involved in this line of work. This perfectly executed fight lets the audience know that this isn't your grandpa's James Bond anymore. Casino Royale shares responsibility for creating modern studios' fixation with the "gritty reboot," but at least in this case it was entirely called for, as a healthy dose of realism was something that Bond desperately needed to keep his character fresh.