the babysitters

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796302

the babysitters is one of those movies where i am not sure i should admit to seeing it.  in this case, it is because the plot involves a bunch of minors prostituting themselves out with married men.  the rationale for them doing so was basically just to make money, which seemed a little weak.  or maybe the protagonist (aka the pimpstress) was motivated by a feeling of betrayal?  it was not clearly communicated.  anyway, this fell short of being soft core by a clear margin, but there was still enough skin to engender a kind of guilty titillation.

the babysitters has no surprises aside of the sheer number of "what?" moments.  kudos for having the pimpstress solve her own problems instead of calling in one of the male characters to beat someone up, though.  i give it two troubled dollars.

don jon

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229499

don jon is a movie all about a bro.  holy fucking christ do i dislike bros.  sprinkle in some cheap shot porno clips, a channing tatum/anne hathaway cameo, and tony danza, and you have a movie with something for everybody.  except for me, because i dislike bros and i am not a masochist.

don jon gets two dimes.

bangkok revenge

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1784600

(fifth in a series of fever-induced reviews.)

bangkok revenge is a life support device for a series of fight scenes.  they are not even good fight scenes.  this movie just completely fails to deliver along any axis of entertainment.  everybody involved seemed to be completely aware of this fact, so they all just phoned in their performances.  which is too bad, because by fully committing to the train wreck, they could have made this into a great bad movie.

bangkok revenge gets one scar on the left temple.

parker

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1904996

(fourth in a series of fever-induced reviews.)

parker is a thinly-veiled remake of the classic revenge flick payback.  i do not mind that it is a ripoff because i like the general way these stories play out, but i do like to see a little more effort in the attempt to make it look as if it is not a ripoff.  a little less plagiarism in the blatant ripoff, in other words.  there is absolutely nothing interesting or original about this one.

parker gets two hay bales behind the livestock shed.

zack and miri make a porno

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007028

(third in a series of fever-induced reviews.)

zack and miri has to be the classiest movie that seth rogan has ever been in.

zack and miri gets one cappucino.

solomon kane

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970452

(second in a series of fever-induced reviews.)

i heard that solomon kane was a classic, but it seems to me that the person who told me that needs to be severely punished.  this was just a normal pile of crap.  bad writing, bad acting, eye-rollingly bad plot, and plot twists that were in no way surprises because of the clear signage for miles ahead of them.

you might be thinking to yourself that i misheard the recommendation, and that it was a recommendation for *citizen* kane, which actually is a classic.  but no.  the recommendation came complete with imdb link and picture of box cover.  and besides, i do not care.  someone needs to pay for this outrage.

solomon kane gets one witch-boy.

red dawn

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234719

(first in a series of fever-induced reviews.)

red dawn was a fabulous 80s movie, both when they made it in 1984 and when they remade it in 2012.  they did a fine job of not trying to do anything lofty or self-aware, just stuck to the formula and delivered a solid action flick.  there should be an academy award for delivering the right movie, and red dawn should win it twice.

so what is red dawn?  in a nutshell, thor and peeta take on north korea.  do not trouble yourself with the details, such as questions about what kind of superweapon they used.  no good will come of them.  just shut up and enjoy the show.

red dawn gets three wolverines.