However the ongoing problem is neighbours doing renovations on their houses, mowing the lawn, working on their cars or sitting outside while talking and playing with their noisy dog.  There’s not much I can do about them, since you can’t choose your neighbours and I can’t exactly ask them to do their work during the night.  I got new neighbours though, and after a couple of months I came to like them, because they hadn’t done any of the previously mentioned crap that other neighbours had. Finally I was sleeping well and loving it.

For some unknown reason my brother asked me how I liked my new neighbours, and I told him that “they are actually pretty good”.  This I now realize was a huge understatement and because I took them for granted, it seems that they have decided to punish me by getting a drum set.  So instead of hearing muffled voices of people and dogs or the occasional echo of hammers hitting nails, I now hear hours of repetitive unfinished drum loops as they practice every evening.

On the plus side I didn’t let it affect me too much since I cleverly set up my old bunk bed mattresses in my junk room and have been able to sleep undisturbed for now.  Still, I am hoping that the drums are just a fad and I can go back to sleeping in my bedroom closet soon.

Road of No Return‘s DVD cover stars gravel-voiced Michael Madsen and martial arts master David Carradine, in this quirky DVD cover about two chain-smoking hitmen who enjoy pointing guns and looking cool… on DVD covers.  As far as DVD covers go, it’s pretty good!  Of course the actual movie doesn’t follow these two, and is painfully, painfully bad.

We rented this movie partially in the hopes of seeing a hilarious ripoff of a Tarantino flick, since the back of the box proudly listed Kill Bill and Resevoir Dogs; the kind of failure that might suck as much as Last Hour, which also starred these two fine gentlemen.  What we did not expect was a story about little girls and racial stereotypes…

"Hey Molly, what's a bait-and-switch?" "Well, it all starts like this..."

Yes, this movie is in the same vein as Brothers in Arms, being a boring, politically correct, hidden agenda about racism and feelings.  Reviewing it on its own terms would not only be dull, but it would be doing injustice to the grand vision of its writer-director-producer Parviz Saghizadeh, so instead we’ll look at it for what it really is: a concealed predator, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting victims. Victims like us.

There are plenty of movies with misleading advertisement, and although it can lead to a satisfying twist (such as Vanilla Sky), most of the time it’s just annoying as hell. Road of No Return, meanwhile,  is actually designed to punish those who are attracted by its premise. It still follows the guise of a regular movie, but it replaces everything you’d want to see (action, danger, suspense) with exactly what you don’t want to see (touchy-feely melodrama). Shifting the spotlight from Madsen to a literally nameless character who’ll serve as the main character from here on, we’re forced to join a gang of utterly one-dimensional “hitmen” with no personality except the stereotype the represent. A big black man with no education and a hard time expressing his feelings (codename “Blackey”); a calm native American who smokes the peace pipe and reads a book on the Great Spirit of Mother Earth (codename “Indian”); and an obnoxious white supremacist from the south who chews tobacco and mocks other cultures (“Whitey”). Amazingly, the only well-rounded, intelligent and unbiased one is the Middle Eastern man who goes by the name of “Foreigner”.

That’s a coincidence, of course. The nationality of the writer/producer/director has nothing to do with it, I’m sure.

"MAAAAAW?!"

In the above image, you can see “Whitey” spitting out his food when his mom arrives at the gang’s lodgings.  Now I want to discuss why a movie like this needs to be a bait-and-switch.

Those who have seen its true face will understand that, like the hideous swamp creature, it does so out of necessity.  After all, nobody would rent a movie with the actual main characters on the cover, entitled something appropriate like “Stupid Lessons on Racial Diversity From People You Don’t Care About”, now would they?  No, you need to make people think they’re going to see a cool movie, perhaps in the vein of Resevoir Dogs or Kill Bill, which are both prominently listed beside the actors’ names on the back of the DVD cover.  Then, when they pop in the disc… BAM! The hideous swamp creature clutches its victim and begins its desperate struggle for victory.

The Whitey-Mom relationship is bordering on slapstick comedy, but with a twist: it’s actually an excuse to expose “white power” as hypocritical! We find out from his mother that Whitey is not as “white” as he thinks he is. No, his father was actually a mixture of all sorts of races, and he got raped frequently in prison! Shocking, I know!  Why are we supposed to care? I guess we’re supposed to relate to him, since, after all, we’re despicable Tarantino-movie-loving Western bigots ourselves.

Here, a group of Asian evangelists interrupt a standoff in order to preach the Gospel.  The “Blackey” character tells them that Jesus was black, while the Asians argue that he was Asian.  And the three Mexican guys who are also involved in the standoff?  They think he’s Mexican.  Wow, what a great commentary… thanks for arbitrarily throwing it in?

The racism of this movie is glaring, but because it’s not “white power” racism it’s supposed to be acceptable. In one scene, where Blackey and the Foreigner are eating at a diner, the Foreigner harmlessly observes that Blackey likes to eat fried chicken. Blackey, hypersensitive to racial stereotypes, flips out and says that it’s a “racial observation”, but Foreigner (as per usual) doesn’t show any sign of flaw or bias, and tries explaining himself.  Blackey doesn’t care about that, and starts saying that the Foreigner’s roast beef looks like a vagina.

I don’t know what kind of vagina Blackey (or for that matter, Parviz,) has been looking at, but to me it looks more like the Rakk Hive Monster from Borderlands…

Roast Beef Monster?

This movie is nothing more than a list of bland, outdated moral lectures thrown randomly on a pile for viewers to hear.  It was marketed as an action movie in order to attract the audience that Parviz wanted to preach to, because he (or perhaps the publishers) realized that nobody cared about the stupid shit he was talking about, or would watch the movie unless they had been tricked.

Lesson learned: don’t trust foreigner writer/directors.

The year of 2009 ended with yours truly speaking on the phone with a sad sounding operator about the type of oven baked sandwich I wanted to order.  Things were looking bright, until he informed me that they did not have the variety I desired — out of stock.  “Alright, I’ll have the next best,” I thought to myself optimistically.  Nope, out of stock there, too.  “Oh well, I should try something new,” I mused, picking a third variety.  Again, denied.

“What the hell is going on here?” I ponder.  The fourth choice?  Impossible.  The fifth?  No-can-do.  I haven’t faced this much rejection since I tried speed dating, and I’m losing my cool.  The last option is a “Veggie” sandwich, and you know I’m too much of a man for that sh*t.  Instead, I figure I’ll just “Mix and Match” three of those little pizzas instead.

“Sorry, we can’t do that,” says the voice, unmoved.

Laughing, I tell him I have to call back, and hang up the phone.  I understand that it’s New Years morning and everything else is closed; I understand that they’re bound to run out of some things; but what I don’t understand is why this unfortunate shmuck doesn’t have the courtesy or the ability to give me three pizzas, when one of the 3 options is completely unavailable.  Time to revise the plan, obviously.

After looking again, I settle for a Calzone and Large Fries.  The others both ordered fries with theirs, and I’ve never had some from this place before.  I call my new operator friend again, and tell him what I want.  But sure enough, “We don’t have any more fries, would you like Yam Fries instead?”

“Do I have to pay the extra dollar for the Yam Fries?”

“Yes that’s a dollar extra.”

I cringe inside.  “Okay, I’ll have that, then.”

“Oh, we don’t have any more Yam Fries either, sorry.”

YAM FRIES.

Desperate to finish this charade, I cancel the fries and finalize the order, knowing very well that the chances of our local restaurant being out of Yam Fries is about as likely as me actually having gone speed dating at some point in my life (ie. never happen.)  But now the question burned: was this guy f**king with me?

When we picked up the order, we asked whether they were indeed out of both regular and Yam french fries.

“Out of them? No way, I’ve got like three cases of them,” answered the manager, in a tone that suggested it would be quite retarded if they had.  We explained the situation to him, and he followed up by phoning the call center and bitching at the manager there.

So I guess that’s justice?  Thanks for that, Guy Whose Job it was to Take My Order on New Years.

It certainly sounds like Billy Corgan but it doesn’t sound like something that should be released as Smashing Pumpkins. Then again since he’s the only member left, I guess you can’t differentiate between them anymore, which makes me pine that much more for the the whole band to get together again.  They won’t however so in the mean time what is the “new” Smashing Pumpkins like?

The new mascot for Smashing Pumpkins is ready to fire his lazer

Song for a Son apparently had it’s basics thrown together in about 15 minutes because Corgan felt inspired while writing it.  It pretty much sounds like crap, but I’m hoping this first song is more about the lyrics than the music. In particular when he sings “I am one of many, many more to come” I think he is referring to the next 43 songs he plans on releasing.  If that is the case I can forgive the song for it’s droning verses and annoying guitars, since it’s merely an introduction to the album and the (hopefully) good songs that follow.

Yes, in spite its wonderful premise — a band of charismatic black cowboys rob a bank owned by David Carradine — this movie does its best to stomp all over the feel-good expectations that viewers will no doubt be having when they rent it, leaving us feeling tricked and disappointed early on. You’ll realize you’ve been the victim of a “bait-and-switch” the moment you listen to the dark-skinned protagonists seriously debate the appropriateness of using the word “nigger” with a black deputy who has come to arrest them. Mind-numbing political correctness ensues for the remaining 80% of the movie.

Blah blah blah, please die already.

In this re-imagining of the Wild West there is no systemic racial discrimination, nor is there sexism.  One gets the impression that colored people aren’t even minorities, since the town is apparently populated with an equal number of dark and light skins.  The Sheriff is a woman of course, the cowboys are all dark, but we are never given the sense that this is unusual; we must simply accept the fiction and carry on.  Why?  Who knows.  But before you get worried, rest assured that the richest and most evil men are still all white idiotic men.  I suppose it’s fine to pretend that blacks were well-spoken gentlemen of the prairies, but unreasonable to pretend that one of them would rise to power and become corrupt.  We wouldn’t want to reinforce negative stereotypes…?

Anyway, that’s not the problem with Brothers in Arms.  The problem is that all of this era-altering bullshit comes at the cost of believable characters, enjoyable pacing, and interesting action sequences.  It’s as if the creators were literally so concerned with avoiding landmines and preaching their gospel that they forgot to include something the viewer might actually want to see. Even the opening credits seem to punish the Western action movie  fan, as the camera slowly pans back and forth over a sloppy blueprint of some simple-looking bank for 15 minutes straight, ensuring that anyone who mustered up some excitement has been safely sedated by the time the opening scene plays. And if you don’t believe me, think about this: the main characters literally spend most of the movie laying down on the ground and talking about their feelings…

We ain't leavin' until all our interpersonal conflictions be resolved, boys. Let it all out now...

Times were tough, but they were tougher; this is the key to understanding the appeal of the cowboys, and it is nowhere in this awful movie.  Cowboys were hard-bitten sons of bitches living outside the law, fighting just to get by.  They worked, killed and played by their own rules, and they answered to no one but their own sense of justice.  Strong and silent—or otherwise wild—they knew that talking about your feelings is gay.  Hell, isn’t that the same appeal of gangster rappers?  It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, so be a man and take what you need!  Just look at the lyrics of this timeless Snoop Dogg song featuring Kurupt himself, entitled “For All My Niggaz & Bitchez”:

Well it’s that slow flow, D-O-double-G, nigga
See these other fools but you can’t see me, nigga
Who am I? (It’s Kurupt motherfucker)
Do or die (We gives a fuck motherfucker)
So slow your roll, I’m In Control like Janet
The loc-est twenty-one year old nigga that’s on this planet
Take it for granted, if ya wanna, cuz I’m gonna
grab my strap then clear the corner, beeotch!!

Truer words have never been spoken.  Not only does this perfectly explain the mentality of the “streets” today, but also the Old West.  Think about it. And when you’re done thinking about it, look at this shit:

Here, Kurupt's feelings are hurt when this bitch calls him a dapper dandyboy.

The failure to acknowledge the obvious similarities between the ghetto ‘hood and the Wild West not only comes off as a missed opportunity, it undermines the grim reality of both at once.  Rather than playing on the themes of lawlessness and desperation that were/are so pervasive, the movie seems to imply that minorities have always had the freedom to work and gain wealth by honest means — meaning that robbing a bank and committing crimes is truly unjustified! …Unless of course you actually listened to all the dreary meandering of the characters (we watched these parts in 1.5 speed to hurry it up) as they all take turns explaining how the evil white man personally took the time to deprive them of everything they had, in which case the question becomes why their plans for revenge and riches are so god damned stupid.

Finally.

There’s a lot more I could say about this trainwreck, from its completely illogical plot points to its Celine Dion climax song, but it’s just not worth the page space. Comically bad movies are supposed to be filled with insane (yet oblivious) moments of hilarity, but this movie is self-aware to the point where it feels like the product of a humorless committee of liberal white university students being paid to discourage the glorification of Westerns and black stereotypes simultaneously via the medium of a film.  And that’s why this never-ending grind gets a Level 2 Badness Rating… It’s just not worth making that much fun of.

If you are like me and have become obsessed with every aspect of this movie, you may want to check out its official website for some more classic Last Hour quality.  I must give a spoiler warning though: if you decide to read the synopsis, it pretty much goes through the entire movie and tells you what happens.

Let’s look at the movie plot outline that it gives. [I suggest you either follow along on the official site or click to enlarge, so you can read it for yourself. -Mr. Wolfe]

Movie Plot according to official website

Here is a list of corrections/observations I would like to make:

1. Since the first sentence starts with the word “How” it seems to me like it is asking a question, and should have a question mark at the end of it.  Also, it should say “in THE middle of Hong Kong” not “in A middle of Hong Kong”, don’t you think?
2. “THIS five characters” should be “THESE five characters.”  Come on guys, let’s get this right and show these blokes some respect.
3. So the door is unexpectedly opened, and after a while they “notice” they are “locked up inside”?  It should mention something about them entering the house before they become locked in it.
4. “…the last hour is viewed live as a stopwatch appears in the corner of the screen.”  Huh? This is a blatant lie, and should be removed from this plot summary.
5. “The unbearable suspense combined to the hectic rhythm make you feel impressively distressed.”  This unbearable sentence combined to the horrible grammar make you feel intensely depressed! Holy cow guys, who writes this stuff?
6. Lastly there is no way to compare the losers in this movie to the characters in Usual Suspects.  As for being left breathless up to the last minute? I can only see that happening if you choke on some popcorn, or you have an allergic reaction to terrible movies.

The website also has a synopsis for the film that requires some attention:

Synopsis part 1

Synopsis part 1:

1. Three years after the death of his father Monk receives a letter from his dead father.  This is arguable since there is a flash back at the beginning of the movie that takes place 3 years earlier but it transitions back to “present day” before it shows his father dying. [I also want to point out that the sentence structure implies the letter is signed by Monk, not his "dead" father. -Mr. Wolfe]
2. The house that Monk arrives at may resemble a bunker on the back half, but the front half of the house has glass walls which… isn’t very bunker-like.  As for having no way in, we find eventually that it has at least three doorways on the ground floor, which they actually check before giving up on getting inside. [Not to mention the other ways of getting in, which are used later. -Mr. Wolfe]
3. Now as for these five guys arriving at the house with “Not one knowing anything more than he has read in the mysterious document” this is a HUGE, blatant lie.  Poker, Monk and Poison all have extra plans going on during the ordeal and know more than the letter says.

Synopsis part 2

Synopsis part 2:

1. The sentence starts by specifying “These five characters” and then lists each of their names.  In the very next sentence—without introducing anyone else—it states there are “SIX criminal masterminds”.
2. The next section has a lot of things that are arguable:
   1. “…old mansion house in a remote and desolate spot.” There is no real evidence that the building is an old mansion, since it kind of just looks like a crappy hotel; and the surrounding area is never shown, so we don’t know if it is remote or not. [Can't be too remote considering how quickly it can be accessed from so many angles. -Mr. Wolfe]
   2. “…alone…” They obviously aren’t alone after meeting each other, but beyond that, at least two guys are shown getting arrested in their cars later on, which we can assume are chauffeurs or crime partners associated with the criminals.  Also, Monk has his brother inside the building setting up traps, and Poison has her uncle nearby, dressed as an unconvincing Chinese peasant.
   3. “…on foot…” Each of them arrives at the building by walking there, but must have driven to the location and have a vehicle near by especially since we see the cops arresting at least two guys. [Where they parked their cars is mentioned by Detective Stone's partner later on, I believe. -Mr. Wolfe]
   4. “…at the crack of dawn…” I don’t know exactly what a sunrise looks like in Hong Kong, but if it’s anything like the ones I’ve seen, this movie must take place later in the morning or maybe afternoon.
   5. “…the distrustful band of arch criminals unite under the common goal of acquiring the vast wealth…” This is never verbally agreed upon, and everyone enters the building without actually knowing what’s going on. [Plus, they aren't nearly as distrustful as the average person would be in that situation, especially since they know full-well that each of them is an "arch criminal"! -Mr. Wolfe]

Synopsis part 3

Synopsis part 3:

1. “…the arch criminals are tense…”  Actually, anyone who watched the film would see that four of them are having a good laugh at the expense of Poker, who couldn’t shoot through the glass door.
2. “…the door flies open to reveal an incredibly beautiful woman…” Generally speaking, this would be right but we gave her the nickname Monkey Face instead of Poison. [Sure, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the only question here is whether you find a monkey's face beautiful. Also, the door doesn't "fly open", it very slowly rotates. -Mr. Wolfe]
3. “Lured by greed…” Curiosity and stupidity are the real reasons they enter.
4. “…they are locked in and there appears to be no way out…”  After checking the revolving door and finding it locked, the next thing they think of is the door on the roof; they could also use either of the side doors they found earlier, or shoot out the glass walls, which the front half of the mansion is made of.
5. “…each gift is blah blah blah…” The gifts in no way appeared to be one of a kind, especially the lousy dart board. [What are you talking about, man? They're priceless artifacts! Remember that inconspicuous deck of cards?? -Mr. Wolfe]
6. “6 criminal masterminds. 6 identical letters. 6 gifts from six dead fathers.” Calling them criminal masterminds is quite an overstatement. You actually have a Kung Fu fighting parcel carrier, a rooftop-running burglar who’s already spent 19 years in prison, a human slave trader/killer with government contacts, a corrupt casino owner, an assassin for hire, and an undercover cop posing as a poker player. Not one of them is a mastermind of anything.

Synopsis part 4

Synopsis part 4:

1. “…strangest of strange situations…” Although the whole movie is extremely stupid, this can’t possibly be the strangest of strange situations.
2. “…hardened criminals…” Once again I want to point out that one is a cop, and others are much too whiny to be considered hardened criminals.
3. “…searching for a treasure far grander than their wildest dreams…” If you combined the WILDEST dreams of these already rich criminals and made a treasure that was FAR grander than those dreams you would apparently find a stack of dollar bills that couldn’t be worth more than a few million.  Way to dream big guys.

Synopsis part 5

Synopsis part 5:

1. “Casino was killed by a… ghostly apparition” The so called ghost used a gun, which seems inappropriate for a spectral being, but if a ghost did use a gun, why would they hold it against the victim’s head instead of just shooting from a distance, which is what a gun is for?
2. “He moves like lightening, kills in the blink of an eye and doesn’t leave a trace.”  This is, in fact, not a ghost, but rather the brother of Gordon Muller, known as Monk.  How does this old man move like “lightening” or kill in the blink of an eye without leaving a trace?  It’s never explained, just like alot of other crap in this movie. [To be fair, the ghost man does have a mustache, so maybe that explains everything. -Mr. Wolfe]

Synopsis part 6

Synopsis part 6:

1. “…the cops have been joined by the FBI…” It’s the CID actually.
2. “…a man working his way down the chimney/a lone FBI agent is no match for 6 hardened criminals…”  If you’ve seen the movie and are confused by this, it’s because they don’t send one FBI agent down the chimney, but rather a TEAM of CID agents down the ROOFTOP STAIRWELL. [At which point one of them gets shot in the leg and... well, you know his story. -Mr. Wolfe]
3. “…last hour begins as a stopwatch appears in the corner of the screen…”  Again, this is a lie.
4. “…unfolds in real time…”  This is a lie.
5. “The unbearable suspense combined with the hectic rhythm of events is guaranteed to distress the most stalwart of minds.”  The most stalwart of minds will be distressed if they watch this movie… especially if they try to comprehend just how terrible it is.
6. “Is…” This is not a mistake or trick on my behalf. The last sentence of this synopsis is actually cut off on the website after the first word! There may be a few who are actually interested in what the rest of the sentence is, but most people are probably just glad someone finally put an end to this.  If

Every now and then we come across something so comically bad that it not only causes us to laugh, but consumes our days, filling us with obsession. Here we take a closer look at one aspect of the previously reviewed movie Last Hour, in which a gang of six world-renowned criminals are tricked into wasting a bunch of time in a poorly designed mansion together. More specifically, we look at the hostage situation that unfolds about half way through the movie.

Last Hour has a lot of stupid things about it, and the hostage situation is one of them.  It happens like this: the head of the Hong Kong C.I.D., Agent Ron Stanax, finds out about Detective Stone’s sting operation and takes command of the situation, but quickly gets tired of waiting and has his men storm the building. One of them is captured by the criminals, and thus becomes a hostage.

The first thing to notice is that when he sends the men, most of them just run across the moat bridge, but there are two special guys who snorkel across the water with big bags in tow. They undress and put dry clothes on, and rejoin the others.  Question: why couldn’t they just run across like everyone else? Especially with the heavy cargo they were carrying, wouldn’t that make more sense? Everybody, including the criminals, approach from different angles without needing to go across the water, so why do these few agents bother to go through that unnecessary trouble?

Also, if they use snorkels, that tells us they weren’t supposed to be seen, right? But again I ask “why”? At this point the criminals are busy “finding candles, lighting ‘em up, and putting ‘em all over the house,” so there’s no particular danger of being seen. The others weren’t trying to be stealthy, and there’s certainly nothing too stealthy about this:

Two C.I.D. agents snorkel across the moat instead of just crossing the bridge like the others.

So what was the point? Presumably they are carrying their gear and dry clothes, so what the hell are these guys thinking? Or for that matter, what was writer/director/producer/actor  “Kobe” thinking?

Next, the agents scale the building and approach the door on the roof. It’s referred to as an impenetrable “bunker” in both the movie and the back of the box, but I guess having an easily-accessible, flimsy door on the roof is part of keeping it up to code?  The big fragile glass dome that the agents later break into also seems to betray the “bunker” claim, but hey, you gotta stay stylish! Anyway, things go sour instantly when this guy gets shot in the leg and is taken hostage:

Hong Kong C.I.D. agent shortly after being shot in the leg.

This guy was chosen to lead the assault on the mansion-bunker, so it’s a bit surprising he got taken down so fast. Don’t they prepare for these scenarios? Then again, who could have predicted that the armed-and-dangerous gang of criminals would try to shoot them? Thankfully Mr. Hostage is a master of pain control, and shows no sign of pain or weakness in front of his captors, not even limping or wincing once afterward. You may think this is just poor writing, directing and acting, but remember that these guys are true moat-swimming Hong Kong professionals.

The gang takes their hostage and go back down the stairs, to the hallway.  Here he is at the mercy of the criminals, who decide to use his own handcuffs to attach him to the doorknob of a room and force him to sit down.  Black Jack then holds a gun to his head and tells him to “put it — in — your mouth,” referring to a handkerchief or something.  Although Black Jack wants to kill him, the rest of the gang instead decide to go look at a cane in the bedroom down the hall.

This is when the mysterious “ghost” takes the opportunity to kill the hostage… or at least that’s what we have to assume.  All we really see is the agent squirming, and then a shadow passes over him and he’s dead.  So what actually killed him?  I’m guessing the “ghost” used the snake (later revealed to be his pet) to inject poison into him, but later we see it attack, and it just bites a chunk out of a guy to kill him. So who knows what killed him.

I would like to point out a few things about this guy’s situation. Think about the fact that he only has one hand chained to the door knob.  This leaves him free to 1) pull out the handkerchief and yell for help,  2) stand up and enter the room through the door he’s chained to, 3) kick, punch or otherwise resist his killer, since his leg wound doesn’t seem to bother him at all. A strong enough man might even be able to break the little doorknob and make a run for it. But no, he just sits there and does nothing, even while completely unguarded. I guess he’s not that great of a moat-swimming Hong Kong professional after all.

Also, if he has hand cuffs, shouldn’t he have the keys? The criminals took his handcuffs, but he should still be able to get the keys with his free hand. Nope, he decides to simply die instead. And although it doesn’t make sense to me, I think agent Stone explained it best, when he asked “How old is that agent inside there? 30? 35? He’s just a brainless kid.”

Rest in peace, brave agent. We will not forget you.

Stanax? Stranax? Whatever! You're a fff....

A shiny black Cadillac is parked in the middle of the street. The reflection in the driver’s side door reveals an ambulance not far away. A wet-eyed little girl sits in the back of the car, looking at a dead man in the driver’s seat. A gray-haired gentlemen sits dead next to him. A police officer quietly approaches the vehicle, opens the door, and takes the girl to the back of the ambulance.

Intrigued by the opening scene? Then you really need to start paying attention, because this movie will not serve you the answers on a silver platter. Starring tough-guy Michael Madsen, ganster rapper DMX, post-mordem sex icon David Carradine, and a couple of nobodies, Last Hour will have even the most clever viewers scratching their heads along the way. You may find it in the Action section, with the word “EXPLOSIVE” printed on the back of the case, but trust me, its also one heck of a mystery! Next scene…

PRESENT DAY, HANGER NEAR MEXICAN BORDER

A greasy, long-haired man stands alone under a spotlight. It’s night time. A truck pulls up in front of a row of parked cars, releasing a dozen or more immigrants from its cargo box. They clamour to get inside the waiting vehicles. Three well-dressed men walk up to the greasy mullet, and hand him a case. A dense, hardly-discernible European accent speaks.

“I still can’t figure out how you did that trick, Monk. We’re been trying to do that for 10 years. No success. And believe me, we know all the powerful people in America.”

“Yeah? I got a few friends myself,” replies the ever-raspy Michael Madsen, simply owning that tangled wig.

The Monk

After a short, incomprehensible exchange of words, the character “Monk” flashes a revolver and the three men walk away. Now free to speak their native tongue, we read as one of them asks for permission to “take care of him”. The case-handler calmly answers with a question of his own:

“Do you know why they call him Monk?”

The legend, according to this man, begins with a Catholic boarding school in Germany, where Monk — barely thirteen at the time — was about to be whipped by an actual monk as part of a punishment. But rather than bending over, he took the offensive and used the religious man’s own weapon to choke him to death. He then set fire to the building, killing 18 sleeping monks inside.

“Since then, each time he’s out to kill someone, they say he makes the sign of a cross. Fucking Psycho!” And sure enough, just as they turn to look at him again, he makes the dreaded sign… and the screen flashes to black.

I don’t want to walk you through the whole movie, but if you love eccentric killers with ambiguous pasts and even more ambiguous motives, you will love watching the introduction of the next 6 characters: Shang, Casino, Blackjack, Poison, Poker, and Detective Stone. Each seems to be vaguely connected to one another, and each happens to find themself at a mysterious mansion at the same time, thanks to cryptic instructions sent to them via letter. Layers of questions surround the coincidental meeting, and armchair detectives will need to pay attention to each subtle detail if they want to stay ahead of the twists. But not too closely, or you’ll lose track of the rapidly-moving plot.

Like, remember that thing about how the Monk character makes the sign of a cross before he kills someone? Seems pretty important, huh? Well he never does it again, even when he’s about to kill someone; this goes to show that a lot of careful thought went into making the characters believable, since real people tend to contradict established plot points and mislead you into thinking certain things are significant, when in fact they are not. Can you tell the wheat from the chaff on the very first viewing?

Other times you’ll find yourself slapping your forehead for missing an obvious clue, such as when the character Blackjack, played by DMX, throws a dart against a dartboard at the end of his introduction scene. This may seem like a meaningless, generic gesture, designed to add punctuation to the moment, but later on this very same dartboard appears in the mystery mansion, begging the question of who had access. Actually, each of them has a personal item in their room, and the movie does us the favour of focusing on this phenomena for a good 7 minutes straight, flashing back and forth to the “hints” so often that simpletons such as myself lose track of what we’re watching. Clearly, a cunning mind is needed to keep pace.

A good representation of what the gang does best. Notice the dartboard in the background.

An extremely delicate sense of hearing is also needed, since Last Hour suffers from some severe audio imbalances. Some parts are muffled, other parts are drowned out, and other times it’s way too loud. Without exaggeration, roughly 30% of the dialogue in this movie is impossible to understand, which is an unfortunate fact considering there is no subtitle option included in the DVD. Even with high-quality speakers turned all the way up, you will be hard pressed to understand a third of what is said in this movie. The other 70% of the dialogue is audible, but has been re-dubbed (due to being originally inaudible, no doubt,) meaning that what characters are saying never seems to match up with what’s on the screen. This takes the viewer out of the scene and makes otherwise serious moments seem farcical. Those who are accustomed to watching French films with English voiceovers may find this acceptable, but this humble reviewer wishes that all of the conversations were audible, considering the dense plot. For such a high-quality movie to have such mangled sound is troubling.

Thankfully, if you’re having trouble understanding things, you’re not alone! This motley crew of badasses are constantly befuddled by their circumstances, and spend the majority of the movie trying to calm each other down and explain things to one another. This is especially true once the lights are turned off, which forces them to cope with darkness on top of everything else. The unconquerable Monk soon decides it would be best to “get some candles, light ‘em up… put them all over the house!” The gang immediately agrees, and the next thing we know they’re walking around with candles in both hands.

Detective Stone, meanwhile, has problems of his own to deal with.

While operating in China (which is where the movie is set) the detective and his partner are confronted by local authorities who insist on interfering with his operation. Even with the mansion surrounded and the criminals locked inside, the C.I.D. butts in and tries to take over the situation, inadvertently giving the gang a hostage in the process. When Detective Stone sarcastically congratulates the C.I.D. commander, he replies with a vicious air quote rebuttal:

"It's called 'Standard Operating Procedure!' This is a hostile situation!"

Not to be confused with comedian Louis C.K., this character is actually played by otherwise-unknown Karl Eiselan, who pretty clearly does not know what the hell he is doing on camera. To say that he throws a wrench into the movie would be an understatement, which is why I feel the need to devote so much space to him. Even the unflappable legend David Carradine struggles to keep a straight face next to Eiselan, barely managing to squeeze out his retort: “Listen, you snot-nosed puppy: I’ve been handling… hostile situations since back when you were still popping your pimples!”

“But you were showing an obvious inability to handle this one!” Eiselan shoots back, looking like a nervous high school student in a class film.

Carradine glances at the camera and puts his hand to his face as he begins his next line. “Well, you know, I could handle it a lot better if you weren’t standing right next to me, hopping from ff… one foot, to another… like a… four year old who has to go to the bathroom!”

As the scene continues I begin to imagine the number of bad takes that must have happened between these two, and the toll it must have taken on David Carradine. Later he will literally forget the name of his rival character, in what seems all too much like a non-scripted outburst that was kept purely for its emotional impact. The fact that Carradine’s caustic lines don’t logically fit at all with Eiselan’s responses is only one of many reasons why this unforgettable scene smells so fishy; although whether it was scripted or not is not for this humble reviewer to decide.

Meanwhile, having apparently placed candles in every area of the mansion, the 6 reputable criminals wander around with lazy curiosity, as harmless tricks are played on them by an unseen prankster, raising tensions. We never see the candles, of course, but we can assume that they’re around because every corridor and room is lit by a dim strobe light, fading in and out hypnotically. Actually, not all areas are lit this way. Background areas are consistently lit with vibrant blue lighting for some reason, as if there are unseen windows letting in a flood of blue daylight. In any case, it certainly adds more mysteries to the story!

As the story steadily rises to its climax, characters begin to vanish and die, creating yet more opportunities for the survivors to practice their highly effective calming techniques. Even when their group has been whittled down to three, thanks to slit throats and trap doors (yes, trap doors!) they overcome anxiety and remain surprisingly casual, proving once and for all that intensity is not needed to make a good Action/Thriller movie. What is needed is for the audience to pay closer attention than ever to the clues.

What clues, you might ask. How about the ones contained within the invitational letters — you know, the ones we are never privy to? Or how about the mysterious numbers that the criminals have tattooed on their bodies? Or what about the strange painting of the six old men known as the “Phantoms”, who are depicted sitting next to the very same sentimental artifacts that our protagonists found in their rooms?

Hidden in this painting are many valuable clues.

Sure, all of these clues are withheld from the audience until this one final scene where they are all revealed and explained at the same time; and sure they only serve to raise more questions rather than answering anything; and sure the final batch of “twists” are stupid enough to make me temporarily drop all pretensions of this being even a halfway f—ing decent excuse for a B-film — seriously I feel like smashing the Director’s skull in with a hammer and use it for an ashtray! – but you know what? That’s the mark of a great movie: it makes you feel something.

It keeps you guessing. It has trap doors, strobe light candles, and DMX arbitrarily rubbing the breast of a statue during a heist in a flashback; it has shitty wigs, horrible voice dubbing, and an opening scene with a little girl that never becomes significant again; it has inaudible conversations, no subtitle functions, and enough holes to make a spaghetti strainer jealous. In short, it tries incredibly hard to be cool, but ends up with more ridiculous moments than you begin to count.

Thank you Last Hour. We will not easily forget you.

Level 5 Crappy Badness. Does anything get worse than this?

Everyone stayed sitting during the opening band, which was nice, but once the main band hit the stage it was like one of those stupid “waves” people used to do — except it didn’t go back down. From what I could piece together it was due to a flood of losers running to the stage/their seats, forcing those who were already sitting down to stand up and let them past. The people behind them wanted to see the band so they stood up, which happened to each subsequent row in turn. Either that, or the people in the first row couldn’t see past the “Hey look at me I’m dancing completely off-rhythm in front of the stage” people, and thus decided to ruin it for everyone else too. Clearly the floor was not sloped steeply enough in any case.

My companions and I were (as usual) the last ones to partake in the silliness, but you can only stare at a row of drunk douchebag’s faded-jean asses for so long until you have to stand up and check out the band you paid to see. Thankfully, this is where our Grade-A Canadian Apathy becomes so useful.

I declare the Standing During a Seated Concert Experience to be Level 2 Badness.

PS. Matthew, I’m sorry if shouting “MORE POLKA!” before your wonderful performance of “Apparitions” was bad timing on my part. I just couldn’t take the awkward silence.