First, it supposedly features a (relatively) new, ultra-advanced 3D technology that works better than the old red/blue glasses kind. Second, it is the first slasher film to make it into the theaters in some time (even if it is a remake).

Sure, we’ve had our dose of thrillers, chillers and torture porn, but we’ve lacked a good old fashioned slasher and the latest releases of the major slasher franchises have only reminded us how low the genre can go.

So how was the movie? Well, I’m going to break it apart into its two elements and discuss them individually before I try and bring it all together. Hopefully, by the end of it all, we’ll have some idea where the movie stands and whether anyone else should bother seeing it.

The 3D Effect

The Real D technology that My Bloody Valentine 3D used has actually been used on a bunch of other films before. According to Wikipedia, which also has a write up on how it works, Chicken Little was the first movie to use it. If you haven’t heard of or seen a Real D movie, it’s probably because you’re over the age of 12. All of the movies to this point were either animated kid-friendly movies or concert films. My Bloody Valentine 3D was the first R-rated film to use the technology and I would argue the first “serious” movie to try it out and the first to have a large number of 3D theaters to see it in (most have had only a limited 3D release).

My first gripe was with finding a theater close by to see the 3D version. Though every theater was playing the film, none in the New Orleans area seemed to have the 3D version available. Instead, my wife and I had to make the forty-minute drive to Slidell to see it through the 3D glasses.

Regarding the glasses themselves, as I said earlier, they don’t use the standard red/blue lenses. Instead, they look a lot like very lightly tinted, highly unfashionable glasses. If you put them on during the daylight, they make things a little bit darker, but you can still see clearly. However, do read the packaging, it does warn you that they are not meant to be used as sunglasses (not that anyone would want to be seen in public wearing these things).

That being said, the technology was actually very impressive at times. Though we may have sat a little bit too close to the screen (we were about eight rows back), we got the effect nicely and the movie, for the most part, made great use of it. Lots of pickaxes, shotguns and treelimbs protruding from the screen as well as blood spatter, jawbones and other things flying at the audience. The effect wasn’t flawless, but it wasn’t bad either.

The problem with the effect is that they had to use it throughout the entire movie. This meant every scene was 3D to some degree, even when actors were just standing around talking. While that isn’t terrible and does add some depth to those scenes, if your eyes wondered of the focus point of the scene, the screen was blurry. You are almost forced to focus on the center of attention the entire movie or risk getting serious headaches.

In the end, though the effect wasn’t as solid as the ones you’ll see at the 3D cinemas in Disney World, which are simply unreal, it was pretty good and, at times, very convincing.

The Movie

Slashers have to be graded on a different curve than other films. They don’t win Oscars, they inspire people to do great things (let’s hope not at least) and they don’t make people think. Like slapstick comedies, kung-fu movies and action flicks, they’re goal is to keep you entertained for the length of the movie and let you free into the wild.

If we use that scale, MBV3D did a tolerable job. Everything about the film was mediocre, if not outright generic.

The film centers around a small mining community that, ten years ago, was the scene of a vicious murder spree following a mine collapse. Fast forward to the modern day, the killer appears to have returned (magically I suppose) and, coincidentally, one of the people that escaped the first rampage has returned to sell the very mine that started it all.

Yes, the plot is pretty stupid, but it’s par for the course on slasher films. It made sense, gave us a reason to have all of these characters together and… that was about it. The acting, likewise, was only lukewarm. No performances stood out though no one really stunk up the screen either. Once again, par for the course in slasher films, if not a bit ahead of other recent stabs at the genre.

The movie was sufficiently violent and gory but nothing really stood out. It had all of the elements of a standard slasher flick, murderer on a rampage, lots of blame, some creative deaths, a gratuitous nude scene (I’ve never understood this desire to mix softcore pornography with ultra-violence) and tons of blood.

The greatest accomplishment of the flick was avoiding some of the more laughable cliches in the genre. It breaks some of the “Scream” rules but yet manages to keep it generic enough so that you won’t feel out of place watching it.

It’s biggest problem though, is the one it brings on itself. The writers decided that they wanted it to be a bit of a “whodunnit” film too, something that has been a part of a few other slashers with mixed success. Unfortunately, MBV3D pulls it off with all of the grace and elegance of a Ford Pinto crashing through an orphanage while on fire.

If you don’t predict the ending of this movie it is either because A) You’re a moron or B) You did predict it but discarded the correct answer thinking that answer was too obvious.

In short, the movie is a stock slasher film and nothing more. At its best it is a little above average and, at its worse, it’s a little below. Compared to other recent movies like Black Christmas, it’s a good film, but it isn’t going to take a place among the classics.

Bringing Them Together

The final question is whether the 3D part actually helped the movie. I have to say that I don’t know. The pickaxes flying through the screen and other effects were cool, but they didn’t add much to the movie. The 3D elements were one of the most interesting parts of the film and I certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed it as much without them.

That being said, the difference is relatively minor in most areas and I’m not sure I can justify both the increased cost (tickets were 10 dollars each) and time to see it in 3D. I’m glad that I did, so that way I’ll know I didn’t miss anything, but I still feel as if it was a dubious trade.

The simple truth is that the 3D effects didn’t really add much to the movie, though they did add some. It gives you something to look at during the short down periods and adds an interesting effect to the action sequences but it doesn’t make a mediocre movie a great one.

In the end, it is a gimmick. Is the movie better with it than without it? Sure. But how much so is highly debatable.

Bottom Line

I don’t think MBV3D is going to take a seat among the slasher greats. Though it is one of the better ones to come out since the Scream trilogy attempted to can the entire genre, we’ve got a long way to go before we have another idea worthy of a real franchise (and subsequent murder by sequels).

Though the 3D effects do add some entertainment to the movie, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a lukewarm film, even in a genre that has never aimed to be more than mediocre.

If you’re in the mood for a slasher film MBV3D will fill the need nicely and, if you can see it in 3D reasonably easily, do so. If you’re not a slasher fan or want to see a truly good movie, then I would steer clear.

If I am forced to give it a numeric score, I would give it a 5/10 for the 2D version and a weak 6/10 for the 3D.

But while James Bond himself might have always been a borderline case of self parody, especially with his one-liners, it was a pair of movies that took that sense of humor to a natural new height. “Our Man Flint” and “In Like Flint”, also known as the “Flint” movies, lampooned Bond not through silly gags or fart jokes, but by simply being more “Bond” than 007 could ever hope to be.

If Bond has a “Bond Babe” then Flint has a dozen. If Bond is a black belt then Flint is a master of a dozen martial arts. If Bond speaks four languages, Flint speaks every single one and can talk to dolphins to boot (thus making him part Aquaman too, I suppose).

Flints movies were not action movies nor were they outright parodies, they were a strange hybrid of the two, meant to be both funny and totally awesome at the same time. Though self-aware and self-depreciating, it was still almost suave enough to pass as an actual comic book spy romp.

The Flint movies, much like their title character, is hard to nail down and define, but simply too cool to turn away from.

The Basic Premise

Flint, as mentioned above, is a parody of the Bond style of spy movie and, as such, it follows the same basic outline.

Both of the movies begin with some evil empire plotting to take over the world. In the first, “Our Man Flint”, it is a group of scientist blackmailing the world’s governments by controlling the weather and in the second, “In Like Flint”, it is a group of feminists seeking to replace the president and cower the world with nuclear weapons.

From there, it is up to Flint to stop them using a wide array of gadgets, intellect and brawn to get the job done. What turns Flint from a Bond knock off to a Bond parody is that all of this is pushed to eleven. Where Bond is super-human smart, Flint is able to pinpoint the region in the world to find bouillabaisse with the exact proportions found on the feathers of a poison dart. Where Bond has gadgets, but Flint’s cigarette lighter allegedly has 82 different functions, including the ability to shatter objects with sound.

In that regard, Flint is not a parody in the style of Austin Powers. In fact, those used to that kind of “in your face” parodying will be very lost in the Flint movies. Flint’s humor is much more subtle, coming from the sheer ridiculousness of the movie and its characters but it is a degree of silliness that is only removed from the “serious” spy movies by a razor-thin edge.

If you don’t watch the Flint movies closely, you might mistake it for a serious 60s spy flick. The humor is deadpan and requires your complete attention. Much like “Police Squad” (though not so much the “Naked Gun” movies that followed), if you aren’t thinking and aren’t aware of the culture, you don’t get the humor.

In short, it’s a spy parody for people who like spy movies.

The Good

Overall, the movies are solid in terms of writing and acting. James Coburn turns in a great performance as Derek Flint. Lee J. Cobb does an equally sound job playing the straight-edge Lloyd Cramden, who is the head of the top-secret Zonal Organization for World Intelligence and Espionage (Z.O.W.I.E.) that “commands” Flint.

However, other than those two, there aren’t any characters to speak of. The villains are stock, the women are stock, the scientists are stock, everyone one is stock and that is part of the design of the movie, watching this outrageous super-spy trample over a cardboard-cutout of a global plot.

For the most part, the movies are solid and fun. The dialog is good, the acting gets the job done and the movie manages to maintain its surreal tone throughout, keeping it just far enough removed from traditional spy flicks to make it funny but close enough to somehow make it believable at the same time.

The Bad

The first movie “Our Man Flint” is definitely the stronger of the two. Though both are somewhat slow to get off the ground, “In Like Flint” seems to drag longer and have less substance to it. To make matters worse, the gag really is played out pretty completely after the first flick and the second one doesn’t bring much new to it.

Also, despite the provocative cover art, the movies seem to suffer from an extreme lack of sexiness. Though both flicks are flooded with beautiful women, the insane volume of females being another element of the joke, none really stand out nor are given any chance to really shine. The women almost become part of the scenery, not part of the movie, a natural consequence of throwing so many at the screen at once.

For example. Flint starts both movies with either three or four beautiful live-in “playmates” and constantly has other women thrown at him through the course of the flick. Though a fitting spoof of Mr. Bond, I can think of several Bond flicks that felt sexier than either of the Flint movies, despite having much less skin and fewer women.

Still, these are not deal breakers and, in a strange way, actually add to the charm of the movies. Though the slowness seems to drag the second movie down a bit, especially during the beginning and middle, both remain enjoyable, if one can approach them with a willingness to think and laugh.

Conclusions

To be honest, the Flint movies aren’t for everyone and I have to wonder aloud who they are for. It’s a comedy without any “jokes” other than its own existence. Even if you get the jokes, you won’t likely laugh out loud or be rolling in the aisles.

Flint is, in my opinion, a movie targeted at the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crowd, it is a movie for people who like to make fun of movies. You can sit there, do you best Tom Servo impression and insult this movie with immunity. That is what it was made for.

If that sounds like a good way to spend an evening to you, then you will love Flint.

This is not to say that Flint is a “bad” movie, like the ones usually features on MST3K, but rather. that it is one that invites itself to be laughed at, not with. If you like that kind of thing, then you’re probably a mean spirited person that shouldn’t be allowed near children, but definitely someone who is going to enjoy the Flint movies.

Honestly though, I think that says more about you than the movies…