there is one rule: Review ONLY Movies, not series. Okay?
Let me tell you last thing before making your review. THE VERDICT. The Verdict is composed of 5 categories:
1st:
VisualFX - What does it looks like? Isn't it realistic? Does it have problem in the making?
2nd:
Storyline - Is it satisfying and cool to watch? Is it complicated? Cool? Or a pain in the eyes?
3rd:
SoundFX - Does the movie make you crank up the volume? Nice ka-booms and blast? Or it's just a pain in the ears?
4th:
Violent Factor - How violent is it and how much blood spilled? Is the movie gory enough?
5th:
Overall - The final verdict! What can you say about the film? Is it AWESOME? Or Lame?
The Scores:
90 to 100% - Tippety top! Cream of the Crop! If heard about it, then buy this movie on DVD!
80 to 90% - A great movie. If you like the effects of it, you should watch it!
70 to 80% - Cool enough but a little lacking. Still, if you really want to watch it.
60 to 70% - A movie scuppered by an annoying flaw or two. Shame.
50 to 60% - Above average but only just. Spend your cash in a videogame!
40 to 50% - Quite simply not very good.
30 to 40% - Oh dear. Perhaps the producers, should watch some cool 'films'.
20 to 30% - What the..!? This looks awful!
10 to 20% - Not a movie at all but a film of mental torture! AHHH!
0 to 10% - Like dangling your diddlies in a mincing DVD player!
(NOTE: After reviewing, make sure that in the Overall percent score, you must add up the percent scores of 4 categories then divide it by 4, so we can know the Overall score = VisualFx + SoundFx + Storyline + ViolentFactor then divided by 4. Get it?)
Let's start, shall we?
I'll start:
Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
VisualFx: (82%)
- VFx is cool. With the first scene of RotS, war above Coruscant, the VFx is awesome. Especially the lightsabers, the Clones, Gunships, and AT-TE. Very cool and splendid.
Storyline: (88%)
- The story continues to this one with the protagonist become the famous Lord Vader. And the birth of Luke and Leia. The story was sorrowful, that I can totally say YES! (Not sorrowful for me, but to others) The Jedi will be extinct! Sith will rule the galaxy! HAHA! <---- Sound like Emperor Palpatine. But it's a SW special.
SoundFx: (93%)
- The SFx is uber-cool. With the blast of the Gunships to the battle droids with Ka-BLAM!! Cool, magnificento! Grin With the lightsaber still sound the same, w00t! Especially newly performed voice of the droids!
Violent Factor: (17%)
- The SW movies will not be more violent than others so kids can really watch the movie with not parents! YES! Uber-cool!
Overall: (70%)
- The final saga, the final movie. I'll miss you SW. But hey, I do have it's DVD though! Oh, getting Off Topic here. Grin The movie is cool but goes deeper to the dark side of the force.
Vantage Point Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toxicshock.tv%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fvantage_point_movie_poster.jpg&hash=0f4c9580c30b0a88bf92e97cba89f9e83419b5c3)
THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS
VisualFx: (72%)
- Some of it pretty good but nothing special. Some of the parts where cool like when the building explosion because it feel like it was happening. But seeing the same scene over again, got annoying and became boring.
Storyline: (10%)
- The story is about dogged Secret Service agent (Dennis Quaid) who had stopped another bullet for this president a year earlier. Then there's an American tourist (Forrest Whittaker), a Spanish cop (Eduardo Noriega) who might or might not be a part of the plot. And there are the terrorists and an ex-special forces commando who has the biggest part in this whole ludicrous plot. The story really sucks the plots lack in depth and has no character development what so ever. The whole movie feel like an episode of 24 and the movie don't have any by sense of action just like the trailer did. The whole "rewinds" thing in the movie was so annoying and there was no point of doing it over and over again. Even worse, they leave to "rewind" in the worst spots. I also hated the ending when the President wasn't killed and a fake president was killed! So overall the story is cap and very boring.
SoundFx: (93%)
- The SFx is great! The explosions sound awesome and the gun shots sound so real. I like some of the music that was played.
-Violent Factor: (17%)
The Violence' in the movie was very low, there is a lot of shooting but there no blood unlike movies like Rambo or Saw. So there no blood in the movie, so enjoy it without feeling sick of seeing blood.
Overall: (13%)
- This movie just sucks and, a waste of time and money. I wish I got my money back after seeing this piece of crap. The trailer looks awesome but this movie is not. I wish I saw Jumper but instead I saw this movie. Go see Rambo if you want an Action Thriller movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theplaza.ca%2Fmoview%2FPics%2FFilms%2F2004%2FCatwoman%2Fposter1.jpg&hash=608e0ac66cda6fe1a1c3fc2ff99c8ac6ee92ee3f)
VisualFx: (65%)
Overall it's all pretty good, but creating CG cats is never easy. Those effects are quite iffy but they done a good job. The sweeping panoramic shots of Hedare HQ are really good.
Storyline: (14%)
Not good at all. It's not very imaginative and is predictable from start to finish.
SoundFx: (87%)
You can hear almost everything including the leather suit squeking everytime Catwoman moves! The whip has some great sounds as well as the city itself; lots off noise and racket.
Violent Factor: (36%)
If by violence you mean kicking, punchingetc then yes it is quite a violent movie. If you mean gore, then it's not at all. Theres a few blood splatters here and there but nothing drastic at all.
Overall (79%)
I really enjoy the movie myself. If you ignore the dire plot and Halle Berry's over-the-top Catwoman you can see that it's really a enjoyable journey to take. Probably the best part of the movie is the great mix of R&B music that suits the movie and character of Catwoman brilliantly.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000AP04P6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=58525e1631db3c2801cb5fb270daed2da2fdde15)
First movie to be made of AVP. Maybe this movie IS the best than AVP2 after all.
VisualFx: (96%)
- Even with the old Vfx, the mask of the Predator still is the best from the old movies, especially the Aliens suit or even the face is truly the one that is cool. In AVP2, the Aliens chin is like being stretched a little. And the Predator's mask for the mouth is a little too long. That's how AVP is still the best than AVP2.
SoundFx: (96%)
- Same rate with the Vfx, the Sfx has cool sound and some original shout-sfx of the Predators. And background music when the two species faces is good. Very good.
Storyline: (99%)
- The story really takes on the ancient times of how the people really built something from the teachings of the Predators, but when every 100 years the Preds come back and expect a ritual-sacrifice. But when all fates was change, the Aliens almost rule the whole pyramid. Still Predators are there to take care all the problems. The story is cool and easily understandable.
ViolentFactor: (47%)
- VF of this movie is not above it's average. Cause we always see the blood of the Aliens and Predators. Even the inside organs of the Aliens. And I recommend that you watch this movie with your parents, if you're 13 years below.
Overall: (98%)
- From the director of Resident Evil, Paul Anderson, created this masterpiece by combining and making a new rivalry of species. Alien Vs. Predator, a magnificent masterpiece.
::)
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 08, 2008, 12:00:23 AM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000AP04P6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
First movie to be made of AVP. Maybe this movie IS the best than AVP2 after all.
VisualFx: (96%)
- Even with the old Vfx, the mask of the Predator still is the best from the old movies, especially the Aliens suit or even the face is truly the one that is cool. In AVP2, the Aliens chin is like being stretched a little. And the Predator's mask for the mouth is a little too long. That's how AVP is still the best than AVP2.
SoundFx: (96%)
- Same rate with the Vfx, the Sfx has cool sound and some original shout-sfx of the Predators. And background music when the two species faces is good. Very good.
Storyline: (99%)
- The story really takes on the ancient times of how the people really built something from the teachings of the Predators, but when every 100 years the Preds come back and expect a ritual-sacrifice. But when all fates was change, the Aliens almost rule the whole pyramid. Still Predators are there to take care all the problems. The story is cool and easily understandable.
ViolentFactor: (47%)
- VF of this movie is not above it's average. Cause we always see the blood of the Aliens and Predators. Even the inside organs of the Aliens. And I recommend that you watch this movie with your parents, if you're 13 years below.
Overall: (98%)
- From the director of Resident Evil, Paul Anderson, created this masterpiece by combining and making a new rivalry of species. Alien Vs. Predator, a magnificent masterpiece.
OMG!!!!!!!!! 98% for AVP?? ???
Yes, that's my true review in AVP. AVP is alot better in Storyline than AVP:R.
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 08, 2008, 12:50:06 AM
Yes, that's my true review in AVP. AVP is alot better in Storyline than AVP:R.
I'd rather drink my own piss than eat my own shit but that doesn't mean the piss tastes delicious.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifipedia.scifi.com%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0a%2FLake-placid2.jpg%2F230px-Lake-placid2.jpg&hash=ea9ab1030ed3b1b640f00003898d0cfba06375a6)
VisualFx: (2%)
Stuff at the swapmeet has better SFX
SoundFx: (45%)
Eh,Average is all i can say
Storyline: (3%)
-Generic,Horrible story,with shitty characters
ViolentFactor: (60%)
Over the top cheesy gore
Overall: (13%)
-A horrible film with horrible acting,with a shittier sequel,Lake Placid fails
Jeez, thats a bit harsh! I'll do the shittier sequel... ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nathanfurst.com%2Fimages%2FLP2%2520Snapshot.jpg&hash=4e58d63c7dd99c609981976decaf422fcc0c9c31)
VisualFx: (10%)
How did we go from Jurassic Park to this?! Horrible stuff.
Storyline: (5%)
Complete re-hash of the first one. You've got the female paelentologist that likes the male sheriff, the funny guy, the hunter guy...
SoundFx: (23%)
I must admit some of the croc sounds are really good. The must have dubbed them a little because they sound a lot deeper and menacing that normal crocs.
Violent Factor: (79%)
It's got lots of bloody arm severes, decapitations and lots 'o blood. Violent stuff.
Overall: (34%)
It's a bad movie full stop, but I can't help but watch it now and again. The main comic relief element is a character called 'Crazy Sadie' who's given some pretty funny lines. I guess it's one of those movies that are so bad they're good.
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 08, 2008, 01:27:01 AM
Jeez, thats a bit harsh! I'll do the shittier sequel... ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nathanfurst.com%2Fimages%2FLP2%2520Snapshot.jpg&hash=4e58d63c7dd99c609981976decaf422fcc0c9c31)
VisualFx: (10%)
How did we go from Jurassic Park to this?! Horrible stuff.
Storyline: (5%)
Complete re-hash of the first one. You've got the female paelentologist that likes the male sheriff, the funny guy, the hunter guy...
SoundFx: (23%)
I must admit some of the croc sounds are really good. The must have dubbed them a little because they sound a lot deeper and menacing that normal crocs.
Violent Factor: (79%)
It's got lots of bloody arm severes, decapitations and lots 'o blood. Violent stuff.
Overall: (34%)
It's a bad movie full stop, but I can't help but watch it now and again. The main comic relief element is a character called 'Crazy Sadie' who's given some pretty funny lines. I guess it's one of those movies that are so bad they're good.
Is he using a paintball gun??
Quote from: Private Hudson on Mar 08, 2008, 02:42:14 AM
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 08, 2008, 01:27:01 AM
Jeez, thats a bit harsh! I'll do the shittier sequel... ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nathanfurst.com%2Fimages%2FLP2%2520Snapshot.jpg&hash=4e58d63c7dd99c609981976decaf422fcc0c9c31)
VisualFx: (10%)
How did we go from Jurassic Park to this?! Horrible stuff.
Storyline: (5%)
Complete re-hash of the first one. You've got the female paelentologist that likes the male sheriff, the funny guy, the hunter guy...
SoundFx: (23%)
I must admit some of the croc sounds are really good. The must have dubbed them a little because they sound a lot deeper and menacing that normal crocs.
Violent Factor: (79%)
It's got lots of bloody arm severes, decapitations and lots 'o blood. Violent stuff.
Overall: (34%)
It's a bad movie full stop, but I can't help but watch it now and again. The main comic relief element is a character called 'Crazy Sadie' who's given some pretty funny lines. I guess it's one of those movies that are so bad they're good.
Is he using a paintball gun??
The Only good thing about Lake Placid 2 is the sexy girl in it :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartfiles.art.com%2Fimages%2F-%2FKill-Bill-Vol-2-Poster-C13021186.jpeg&hash=63832cb4fcd178b6d929b8c7c2565c5751f8c509)
VisualFx: (0%)
Has absoloutely none whats so ever!
Storyline: (77%)
Since the first one lacked in story, Tarentino makes up for it with this. It has a lot of back story and you see how most the characters became who they are. The whole 'Pai-Mei Training' was really interesting to me.
SoundFx: (68%)
In the fights of coarse you've got the cheesey, classic noises that are made when a punch is thrown. It all seems to blend into the movie really well and you don't seem to notice.
Violent Factor: (83%)
Although not as bloody as Vol 1, this movie is still pretty grusome. The standout point for me is when The Bride takes out Elle Drivers right eye with the flash of her hand. Her standing on it and all the puss ozzing out doesn't help either. :P
Overall: (74%)
Not as entertaining and fun as Vol 1 but ozzes story which most audiences found better. The music suits it really well and theres a nice little wink at the credits to a possible Vol 3 (Elle Drivers name is marked with a '?') The standout point for me is the cabin fight with Elle Driver which I just think is great to watch.
i thought the first lake placid was a good movie....
Disagree with the AVP review, way too high.
I might write one up if i have time.
^I'm currently watching the movie again. I'll edit my review this time.
I'll be reviewing AVP:R.
Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem
"Final Part of the Sequel. One Vs. More."
Visual-Fx: (84%)
= In viewing the movie clearly, I noticed that the scout ship size and characteristics has changed. As for the Wolf/Predator it's body isn't muscular than the other Predators in the last AVP movie, the only cool thing about the Wolf is it's new Dual-Plasma Cannon and improved Wrist-Blades. With the Wolf's new visions, the Specimen-Track Vision is cool and not irritating in the eye than in AVP. Then, the Xenomorphs (Aliens), their body became quite flexible and has a new improved face. The Pred-Alien, hybrid of the Xenomorphs, have some problems in it's effects, the V-fx of the Pred-Alien is quite overused, or even too overused, it's body is not really in a great and attractive side, but in the unattractive side. Lastly, the Facehugger's new V-fx has really attracted me. The movie is good in its Visual Fx.
Sound-Fx: (81%)
= The S-fx in this movie is..... Good enough. The Dual-Plasma Cannon's fire and explosion effects are not good enough for me. With the original voice-fx of the Predator is there and that's good to hear. Xenormorphs s-fx is good too, using its old S-fx from the original movie is great than changing it's S-fx. 2 Words: Good-Enough.
P.S.: BLOW ME AWAY by Breaking Benjamin maybe the official song for the movie, rumors said it.
Storyline: (89%)
= In continuing the AVP sequel really got me hyped, because of it's new character, the Pred-Alien, will be shown in AVP:R. The story really continues the last part of AVP. The story is placed in Gunnison, Colorado (WARNING! Spoilers maybe ahead!) And the part of the Predator's planet will be shown also. With the Predator's great warrior and the hybrid of the Xenomorphs, the Pred-Alien, face each other one last time. And the new president of Weyland Industries, Ms. Yutani, will be shown in this movie also. The company's name is changed to Weyland-Yutani. If you already saw ALIEN, then you have already noticed the name. This is when the Alien franchise is next.
Violent-Factor: (71%)
=Much blood is spilled in this movie. This isn't a movie for kids.
Overall: (81.25%)
=The AVP, Alien, and Predator franchise is complete, so it's cool. The movie is good for all who sees it.
I disagree with that on so may levels, I'll need to do my own! ^ ;)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwatchstuff.com%2F2007%2F07%2F26%2Fcloverfield-poster-thumb.jpg&hash=328c6879a0c7f20d303d1b28c47770225ddc14c1)
VisualFx: (98%)
Very impressive. There wasn't one bit of CG that looked fake, it looked totally real. The details on the parasites and the monsters itself is just brillant.
Storylne: (42%)
Simple and basic but realistic and the same time. I guess if you really cared for someone that much you would risk your life to save. Might have been predictable (I knew HUD would get killed) but it's a good story in it's own right.
SoundFx: (100%)
Amazing. The sounds of the army shooting at the monster and the tanks bombarding it was just fantastic in the cinema. The tunnel scene in particular is very good; you can hear the distant commotion up above, water dripping from the ceiling, pipes hissing etc.
Violent Factor: (54%)
Nothing terribly gruesome but the scene when the girl explodes because of the bite was quite an eye opener. Plus when HUD is killed you can hear the monsters teeth grinding into his flesh.
Overall: (97%)
A masterpiece in my opinion. Why no-one thought of using a every camera in a monster movie earlier I'll never know. It's everything a monster movie should be; realistic, heart pounding and scary. Forget Godzilla, this is the real deal. 8)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwatchstuff.com%2F2007%2F09%2F24%2Favpr-poster.jpg&hash=a3387ce5fe17ec5da16fd096de954e888e955e14)
VisualFx: (79%)
What few CG shots it has, they look great. The ship crash scene is pretty impressive as well as the Warriors and the PredAlien emerging from the manhole from afar.
Storyline: (10%)
Very boring. All the other movies had interesting locations and good characters, AvPR does the exact opposite giving us a boring, everyday town full of uninteresting people with everyday situtions. The fact that Wolf is sent there to 'clean up the mess' is the only part I like.
SoundFx: (85%)
You can tell a lot of work has went into the sound design. A lot of the locations eg the sewer has brillant sounds. You can make out every water drip and chain clanking which makes the scene probably the most intense in the movie. A shame it was so short.
Violent Factor: (74%)
It's a lot more gory and in-your-face than AvP, chestburstings, decapitations, headbites etc make it a lot more realistc and gritty. The only obvious promblem is that it's all crappy CG blood which doesn't exactly go 'back-to-the-roots'. The only decent horror shot is in the powerplant with the worker, that was a nice shot.
Overall: (23%)
The worst in the series in my opinion. Full of daft dialouge and conon fodder characters that doesn't make it a horrifying movie at all. Saying that it does have it's moments; Wolf looks and acts like a Predator should; the hospital scene is really cruel and Alien-like, the battles while short were very well done and the fact that the creatures are nearly all suit work was nice to see.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthecia.com.au%2Freviews%2Fs%2Fimages%2Fstarship-troopers-poster-0.jpg&hash=696a75c5a68cc8d36eb0a28dea25376ffff587fb)
"A Sci-Fi movie with great visual effects, 4 THUMBS UP!"
VisualFx: (94%)
= A magnificent V-fx in Starship Troopers, more realistic than ever. A 1990s movie got a big score for having the most improved V-fx. Without a doubt, the computerized cutting of bodies in each scene in the movie made it more attractive than ever. As well as the weapon of the marines, it's quite high-tech when you see it. The ships are quite magnificent.
SoundFx: (78%)
= The Bugs roar isn't that impressive than the other Sci-Fi Alien movies, guns S-fx is good, but not good enough to hear. Ships S-fx is more like an ordinary Jet. The S-fx isn't that good. At least they tried their best to improve it.
Storyline: (66%)
= With it's storyline focusing to a war with an alien-bug species in Klendathu, the end of Buenos Aires, and the capturing of a brain-bug. With no explanation of where and how bug was created to destroy mankind in using meteorites. The story isn't that good. It's more focused in action and gore. But the movie has quite cool battle scenes.
Violent-Factor: (89%)
= With many troopers massacre, the movie is full of gore.
Overall: (81.75%)
= Has cool V-fx, bad S-fx, and good Story. Last 2 words: COOL-MOVIE.
2001: A Space Odyssey review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F0b%2F2001Style_B.jpg&hash=01bce3f9eb81bd343e2002ce0089b236f21939cb)
2001: A Space Odyssey review
VisualFx: (97%)
- The visual effects are awesome for a movie that came out in the 60's. I love the shot of the moonscenes, it was so real at the time and this was before the Apollo landing on the moon as well.
SoundFx: (100%)
- The sound is amazing and every bit of the music is awesome. Also sprach Zarathustra is the best movie score ever made IMO.
Storyline: (100%)
- The story is perfect, the whole movie deals with thematic elements of human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial life which making it so great. The movie is about a concerned with intelligence as the division between animal and human, then asks a question; what is the next division? Technology is treated as irrelevant to the quest then literally serving as mere vehicles for the human crew, and as a shell for the immature HAL entity. Story told as a montage of impressions, music and impressive and careful attention to subliminal detail.
Overall: (100 %)
- This movie is perfect on every level and everything about this movie is perfect. It great to watch and I recommend this to anyone. This movie is hard to understand at first but it gets better when you watch for the second time. If wasn't for this movie, there would be no Star Wars or Alien/Predator. This is the movie that started it all!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movieposter.com%2Fposters%2Farchive%2Fmain%2F3%2FA70-1967&hash=337cd034b1cfa725bc0b0554a041bb60cecfa362)
VisualFx: (54%)
Not bad for the time, but luckly theres only a few shots that use CG. Most of it is completely real which I think is always good to see.
Storyline: (96%)
Probably the selling point of the movie. It tackles with nearly every humans emotion; love, hate, fear, happiness etc. It really is the best survival movie I've seen, not only do the survivors fear each other, but also the extreme cold, the weather and a killer Grizzly bear. Perfect
Violent Factor: (69%)
Theres the occasional blood splatter like when the gulls slam into the plane,legs being broken etc but most of the violence comes from the Grizzy (which died just after filming :()
Overall: (86%)
The movie has got just about everything you could want in a survival movie; great setting, terrific acting and a good ending. Got a wonderful soundtrack that fits in beautifully with the panoramic shots of hills and mountains. 8)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi259.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh292%2FMmZ_Avp%2FBorat.jpg&hash=b85950909c1c20fcec19c02e58681371d7878783)
VisualFx:(0%) There weren't really any Visual Effects.
Storyline:(70%)It was something the audience had never seen before,but could've been better.There were some very innapropriate parts,And I laughed through them all
Violent Factor:(40%)The only real violent area in this film were Spoiler Ahead when Borat and the Fat guy got into a fight chasing each other naked through the Hotel
Overall:(70) One of the best comedies I've seen.I honestly think it surpasses Epic Movie and Scary Movie.Most of this film is actual experience someone from Kazakhstan might encounter was well when coming here.
Rating: * * * * 4 stars
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fz.about.com%2Fd%2Fmovies%2F1%2F0%2Fs%2Fm%2FN%2Fsaw3poster3b.jpg&hash=dd6ae818ddf8f5af8c8f3528ad4c54fc281fd326)
VisualFx: (0%)
None
SoundFx: (63%)
The sound never really stood out for me, but when Jeff is walking the corridors of Jigsaw's lair theres a lot of lights flickering/buzzing and and an overall scary theme to it.
Storyline: (86%)
Probably the best so far. I liked it how it wasn't the same situation as before with people trying to save themselves by righting their wrongs. This movie has a more emotional side to it and is all about forgivness. Having Jigsaw plan all this out while he's dying in a bed just shows how intelligent he really is.
Violent Factor: (98%)
This movie is harsh. Very. The makers said they wanted to amp up the gore level and they weren't kidding. Lots of ugly looking traps end up with rather brutal deaths. 'The Rack' trap near the end is probably the most horrible thing I've seen in a movie.
Overall: (84%)
A great watch. I'm suprised at this series in that in many ways the movies are getting better as they go on. This one, while it doesn't have such a big shock twist like the first two, it's still a well thought out and intelligent script. Great acting throughout, especially from Tobin Bell, who just keeps making Jigsaw all the more iconic.
Special effects does not only mean CGI.
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 08, 2008, 01:53:05 PM
It's everything a monster movie should be
Which I find ironic, since it's not
really a monster movie :P
Jumper
VisualFX: (87%)
The best part of the movie. It didn't look that fake.
SoundFx: (70%)
Nothing special very average.
Storyline: (67%)
Again nothing special but I do have to say it was very stupid at parts.
Overall: (72%)
A dumb movie which I found kinda fun and stupid at times.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 09, 2008, 01:07:54 AM
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 08, 2008, 01:53:05 PM
It's everything a monster movie should be
Which I find ironic, since it's not really a monster movie :P
I always saw it as a love story, featuring a monster.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.answers.com%2Fmain%2Fcontent%2Fwp%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0e%2F200px-Jaws_3d.jpg&hash=ee860c5583f73aed9027326f53d9cadbbcbbf021)
VisualFx: (3%)
Since it was one of the first movies to use CG, it's obvious it ain't gonna look good. All of the stuff is pretty horrible, probably the worst being when the shark charges at the control room at the end. :-X
Storyline: (64%)
It was a good move to set it somewhere other than Amity and what better place than a newly opened Sea World? The fact that it's the baby that starts killing first and then big mama comes it was a nice touch. It also has a scarier tone than the others had with the shark being bigger and having a more emotionless face.
SoundFx: (54%)
Nothing really stood out exept when you hear the shark 'roar' under the water, it has kind of a cool gargling sound with really made the shark sound big and menacing.
Violent Factor: (77%)
Pretty bloody for a PG (or 12). Theres a big increase in blood this time and the most attacks in any of the movies. One pretty violent scene is near the end where the guy is caught in the sharks throat, it kills him just by moving it's jaws up and down and you see the blood coming out of it's gills. Hated watching that as a kid, gave me nightmares. :P
Overall: (35%)
Definitley not the best Jaws, but definitlety not the worst either. The setting is good and the acting is pretty average considering who's starring. The shark looks a lot meaner this time which I think helps with the more adult theme that the movie has. I like it how the theme tune is a lot sharper this time and more fast paced than before.
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 09, 2008, 12:31:13 PM
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/0e/200px-Jaws_3d.jpg
Storyline: (64%)
It was a good move to set it somewhere other than Amity and what better place than a newly opened Sea World? The fact that it's the baby that starts killing first and then big mama comes it was a nice touch. It also has a scarier tone than the others had with the shark being bigger and having a more emotionless face.
The storyline was abysmal. It was basically about a Mother shark taking revenge on those who killed it's child. Honestly, what the f**k?
It's nearly as bad as Jaws 4.
I was ok with, it least it was different than the first two which basically had the same storylines.
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 09, 2008, 03:46:52 PM
I was ok with, it least it was different than the first two which basically had the same storylines.
Fair enough. At least it's better than Jaws 4. f**k me the end for that was bad.
Roy Schneider's wife can magically recall her husband shooting the barrel in the sharks mouth, even though she wasn't there. What the f**k? How does someone do that! :D
Not to mention the fact that the Shark roars. ::)
Hey, it roared in the first one too! ;)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fallposters%2F44%2F1800018844p.jpg&hash=ea86d4a76385d150cdede59e0e520cd39b8fb19d)
VisualFx: (28%)
Pretty horrible even for the 90's. Jurassic Park was made 7 years earlier and they haven't improved a bit.
Storyline: (74%)
Not actually that bad. The fact that a cure for Altziemers is found in the brains off Mako sharks might seem a little farfeched, but I think it pulls it off. Theres also a moral leason thats not to screw with nature or it will screw with you which I think is pretty powerful.
SoundFx: (62%)
Nothing really special to be honest.
Violent Factor: (83%)
It's a shark movie so of coarse theres gonna be a lot of blood. :P A lot of the horror is usually sucked out by crap CJ, particularly the death that results in a twitching leg.
Overall: (80%)
Great popcorn movie that has just the right amount A-movie horror and B-movie lines. Good acting from all the cast especially from Safron Burrows and Samuel L Jackson. Great animatronic effects and a iconic score that I find better than Jaws.
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 09, 2008, 07:31:48 PM
Hey, it roared in the first one too! ;)
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/allposters/44/1800018844p.jpg
VisualFx: (28%)
Pretty horrible even for the 90's. Jurassic Park was made 7 years earlier and they haven't improved a bit.
Storyline: (74%)
Not actually that bad. The fact that a cure for Altziemers is found in the brains off Mako sharks might seem a little farfeched, but I think it pulls it off. Theres also a moral leason thats not to screw with nature or it will screw with you which I think is pretty powerful.
SoundFx: (62%)
Nothing really special to be honest.
Violent Factor: (83%)
It's a shark movie so of coarse theres gonna be a lot of blood. :P A lot of the horror is usually sucked out by crap CJ, particularly the death that results in a twitching leg.
Overall: (80%)
Great popcorn movie that has just the right amount A-movie horror and B-movie lines. Good acting from all the cast especially from Safron Burrows and Samuel L Jackson. Great animatronic effects and a iconic score that I find better than Jaws.
80%!??! It's one of the worst films ever! :o
Somebody Please do a review of "A Series of Unfortunate Events"
10,000 B.C Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fb%2Fbf%2FTen_thousand_b_c.jpg&hash=d969f90b95a1601acbc5029a1a09b3fe842aff7f)
VisualFx: (65%)
The woolly mammoths look great but everything else look fake and outdated.
Storyline: (20%)
The story is about prehistoric epic that follows a young mammoth hunter's journey and free Evolet and his tribes people. The story sucks because it lacks in depth and most of it is predictable. The movie also dons't follow history rigth (I don't remember pyramids in the ice age). 85% of this movie is boring and i almost fell asleep during the first hour of the movie and it too long as well (The movie is over 2 hours). The charachters where forgettable and i didn't care about them that much.
SoundFx: (70%)
The sound is great, the action is loud and the music is very good.
Violent Factor: (40%)
Theres a few blood splatters here and there but nothing drastic at all.
Overall (50%)
Overall the movie is not good at and disappointing effort from Roland Emmerich, the only good thing about the movie is Camilla Belle was hot. This movie is not fun to watch at all and it just borning. Independence Day and Stargate where way better this movie. Just rent it on DVD when it comes out.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yume.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F11%2Fplanet_terror_poster1.jpg&hash=5aac4774f9b6ba5522fa88049be763706b693d45)
VisualFx: (63%)
The movie isn't a special effects bonanza but the few it does have are pretty average. It could be that come of the stuff is meant to look bad becasue of the 'not-too-serious' vibe it has. Some of the stunts are done in CG but it manages to pull them off nicely.
Storyline: (70%)
Classic story. Set in a rural middle-of-nowehere town where a deadly gas has been released that causes the natives to turn into ugly, stupid, cannibalistic zombies. Cheesy, but classic. It aslo has a really great comic undertone and some pretty hilarous lines too which just makes it all the more watchable.
SoundFx: (82%)
The weapon, blood and explosion effects are great. It sounds very real although the kill effects (like when a zombie is squished by a bus) might sound sweet but are a little tiresome.
Violent Factor: (95%)
In-your-face head booms and over-the-top blood splatters run amuck in this flick. They're very cheesey but it's just nice to looks at. Some of the effects are actually pretty realstic too.
Overall: (92%)
Zombies, babes, guns and gore - what more could you need? 8)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuperherohype.com%2Fnextraimages%2Finternationalx32.jpg&hash=c4e566eb7367d1f7319dbf7e4cd30f8ff8e99acd)
VisualFx: (89%)
All of it is pretty dang good. Since it needed the most CG shots out of all the movies, it's good that they were better than before. The 'Pheonix Rising' scene were Wolverine/Storm are fighting Juggernaut/Calypso and Prof X battles Jean is definitley has the best.
Storyline: (37%)
I expected more since the first two have pretty decent stories. There were parts in the story that I just got bored with and I wasn't truelly into the movie until the 'Last Stand' begins. It took a risk by killing off two of the heros but in the end, I guess it gives the movie a more serious and real life vibe. The introduction of the cure I thought was a genuis idea because you've got many mutants that hate their power and few that love them.
SoundFx: (64%)
The complete chaos of when Jean becomes Dark Pheonix and she completely destroys her surroundings was amazing. Hearing everything from rubble crumbling, glass smashing etc really puts you in the situation.
Violent Level: (48%)
The most violent outta the lot but obviously nothing too over-the-top. Saying that the noises of when Wolverine slices into his victims with his claws I thought were pretty brutal for a younger audience.
Overall: (66%)
I really enjoyed it when I first saw it, but when I looked past the amazing effects, brillant score and great fight scenes I really saw the plot as a really big let down. My favourite part about the whole thing is that Jean Grey, who was one my favourite heros before, has suddenly become evil. I got quite a few suprises with her, especially when she kills off her boyfriend minutes into the picture. :P
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi149.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs62%2Fmadvp%2Fmerchlep3posteralt.jpg&hash=f60e7abf03a26941e8ae823328b8a185be029b08)
Visual-Fx: 20%
Well, for a low budget comedy/horror movie what can u expect? They are no t the best let me put it to you that way!
Storyline: 40%
Compared to the rest of the movies in the series this one has the most enjoyable and fun storyline to it. It a mindless mayhem of fun but if you want something with great depth, then screw off :P! I mean a leprechaun in Las Vegas? What else do you need :P
So what you get is a Leprechaun loose in Las Vegas, and he is trying to find his gold shilling. A verity of different characters find this shilling. When u have possession it grants you one wish, and as selfish as they are they all use it with ignorance! But at the same time you have to good characters who are trying to fight the leprechaun. In the processes the main characters of the film is bitten by the leprechaun and is slowly turning into one. He must kill the leprechaun befor he fully transforms.
Sound-FX: 20%
Nothing special at all. Quite average for its type of film.
Violent Level: 90%
You have body's expanding and blowing up, robot hookers electrocuting men, people getting chainsawed in half...and more! So yes, this leprechaun doesn't play nice.
Overall: 78%
If you like mindless fun movies with lots of gore and dark humor with rhyming leprechauns! This this movie is for you!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Ftrailers%2Funiversal%2Fimages%2Fjp3_poster.jpg&hash=d4bb853433fe1f6aa83d0c88e4d3070cef8a0bf1)
VisualFx: (89%)
The JP movies always seem to have the best CG and /// ain't an exeption. A lot of the shots they combined Winstons animatronics with CG versions and they look almost exactly the same. Some terrific CG on all the dinosaurs especially the newly introduced Spino.
Storyline: (32%)
The first two had very good, strong stories all thanks to Micheal Crichton. As soon as I heard that he had no input whatsoever, I knew this movie would suck storywise. It all seemed very rushed and that it didn't have much thought put into it at all. Saying that it was nice to see a new bad boy on the loose, deeper insights into Raptor intellignece and new dinosaurs.
SoundFx: (64%)
Nothing terribly impressive but the sound of the tropical forest is just excellent. Great vocals from the Spinosaurus and the Raptors too.
Violent Factor: (60%)
Each movie seems to get more an more violent, and this one takes the risk of losing a PG rating. A lot more blood this time around plus a rather nasty kill when the Raptor stabs in guy in the back with it's lethal foot claw.
Overall: (74%)
Lacks the story of the first two, but is definitley the most action packed and exiting. Awesome Spinosaurus attacks and chase scenes with the Raptors. All usual the classic JP theme is a joy to hear and the overall acting from the cast is very good. All I can say is that I'm dieing for IV. ;D
(Requested by Zero)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2FIMAGES%2F151%2FCROCODILE.jpg&hash=cfe0645649dbfb9f9a30c0b983a39324d55bbf8e)
(Haven't seen this in ages, so bare with me)
VisualFx: (57%)
From what I can remember the movie had a few CG shots of sattalites in space, but thats really about it. I think there was also some CG shots of when the sattalite piece is eaten by the croc, which were pretty average at best.
Storyline: (33%)
On the whole it's basically about a croc that eats a satalite piece that falls from space, daft agents are sent to retreive it and Steve and Terry capture the croc, unknown to them that they look like their trying to steal the piece for themselves. Very basic plot but easy for kids to follow.
SoundFx: (55%)
Nothing really stood out, pretty average in many ways.
Violent Factor: (5%)
Being aimed at a young audinece, it's has no blood whatsoever. The croc nabs a cow and tries to grab a woman in a tree at one point, but I guess that would still count as violence.
Overall: (58%)
From what I remember I really liked the movie when I saw it in the cinema (I must have been 12 at the time) It's kid-friendly approuch meant that adults enjoyed it too and I guess thats what made it do so well. Although the movie itself while fun, it was pretty average. But the great thing about it, is that is sends a clear message to care for the world and all the animals that live in it, something Steve had been so pationate about. I guess I wouldn't enjoy it as much now, being older, but I think the movies message is what makes it loved, if your young or old.
RIP Steve Irwin
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nst.com.my%2FCurrent_News%2Fnst%2Fblogs%2Ffillips%2Fimages%2FEscape%2520from%2520New%2520York.bmp&hash=d21d025542c012bf297b7d21d5f152fdd9fb6231)
Escape from New York Review
Escape from New York Review
VisualFx: (20%)
The movie don't have any CGI because it a movie that came out in early 80's. Some effects where good for it time but not good as The Shining or Tron.
Storyline: (90%)
The story takes place in 1997 where New York City is under lock down due to all the crime in the world. Then a new prisoner named Snake Plissken is offered his freedom if he goes in frees the President and finds a tape with important information for the conference. Snake agrees but to ensure his co-operation he is injected with a small but powerful explosive that will only be destroyed if his mission is successful. The story is great and I just love it! I love the dark setting and the grimy feel that movie has. I love the concept of the movie has (With New York City being a Huge Jail wasted land).
SoundFx: (82%)
The weapon and explosion effects are great. The music is great and I love the opening score. The music fits well with all scenes in the movie.
Violent Factor: (10%)
The movie is not that violent, there some blood but that about it. There is a lot of shooting but it not bloody.
Overall: (95%)
Overall I highly recommend this movie; it has a great story and an amazing action hero. This movie has great action and this John Carpenter film is easily one of his movies next Halloween and The Thing.
Well it has been 9 years since Stanley Kubrick death, so i'm going to review his last movie.
Eyes Wide Shut Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Ff%2Ff2%2FEyes_Wide_Shut.jpg&hash=751cedced5d77f81a94af12a19d299adc4040eb9)
VisualFx: (3%)
This movie really didn't have any CGI (Not the last time I remember). Some scenes contain computer-generated people in the foreground obscuring some of the more explicit sexual action to avoid a NC-17 rating.
Storyline: (70%)
The movie is about a New York City doctor, who is married to an art curator, pushes himself on a harrowing and dangerous night-long odyssey of sexual and moral discovery after his wife admits that she once almost cheated on him. The story is not bad but the movie's pacing is slow and it hard to understand at first. The ending was wired like when Dr. William tells her everything, and they screw.
SoundFx: (64%)
The score is brilliant but everything else is average.
Violent Factor: (1%)
The movie is not really violent but there is tons of graphic sexuality, like the orgy scene for example. This movie has a lot of graphic sexuality, so it not a kids movie.
Overall: (69%)
It a good movie and it was nice to see Kubrick last movie to be seen. If you like other movies that were made by Stanley Kubrick then you may like it. This movie is a good Drama Thriller and it worth checking out. You may want to rent it first because it not for everyone and people who don't like Drama won't really like it. But other than that, the movie is a good movie and you may want to check out the director cut on DVD.
RIP Stanley Kubrick
Had to be done... ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jawsmovie.com%2F4%2Fjaws4poster.gif&hash=72e462c0033dfe200868a13289736ee7323afbea)
VisualFx: (0%)
None (Probably a good move after seeing Jaws 3's attempts)
Storyline: (1%)
Pathetic. The first three had normal, everyday Great Whites with an inceased size. The Revenge has a pshycic mutant murderer that deliberatley goes after the Brody family. The worst story I've seen in a movie... peroid.
SoundFx: (38%)
Very average.
Violent Factor: (65%)
Not as nasty all Jaws 3, but still has a lot of blood for a PG rating. The attack at the start of the movie is only violent because of the quick editing. Same with Ellen's 'Dream Attack'.
Overall: (8%)
Not a lot I can saw about the movie ^, it's just really really bad. To think Universal started off with the best shark movie ever made and ended up with the worst. Thought the story is dire, the cast works well with what they get although it's clear Micheal Cain is only in the movie for publicity purposes. He was even asked once why he done it in the first place and he replyed "I wanted to buy a nice big house." :)
I Agree, Shallow & Pedantic.
I'm bored so i'm going to make another review.
End of Days Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F7%2F73%2FEnd_of_days_ver5.jpg&hash=156b94dfcd24635b73c76260c7881c5eaf39f30b)
THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS
VisualFx: (85%)
The movie has some really good effects. The Devil at the end of the movie looks great and visual effects like the atmosphere is great and the dark tone fits very well with the movie. The only things I don't like about the visual effects are is the lighting. Some parts of the movie where dark and you count see what going on. Other then that the visual effects are great.
Storyline: (60%)
The movie is about a cop named Jericho Cane who is under deep depression because his family was killed bay evil force. Later on his job he goes out to catch a crazed priest who robs a bank and he just before he can catch him, the priest said "The 2000 years have ended and Satan will be release out his person" then he get shot later. So later he must find a girl named Christine and rescues her from a group of Catholic assassins. It also turns out that Satan tricks Jericho into leading him to Christine then Christine is taken by Satan and his followers, with Jericho beaten and left for dead. The movie ends in a church when Satan's assumed body has been destroyed when Jericho kills his self then New York celebrates the start of the year 2000. The plot is pretty good if the movie didn't have so many plot holes. I like the idea of how "666" is "999" to scared people of the Y2K back in 1999. If the movie didn't that many plot holes then I would love it.
SoundFx: (73%)
The score is great, the opening themes great and dark. I love the sound effects in the movie like the rubble crumbling, glass smashing etc that happens in the movie that really puts you in the situation. The only thing I didn't like in the movie when the rock music that plays in random parts of the movie (Like the rap music that plays in the sex scene).
Violent Factor: (89%)
The movie is very violent and there is tons of blood in this movie. There is tons of shooting in this movie and scenes where you see Jericho Cane (Arnold Schwarzenegger) hang on a cross and you see blood on his face. There also a scene where you see an old lady setting on a bed with blood everywhere on the ground. This movie also has a sex scene in it and some graphic sexuality. So this movie is not kids under 15 and for people who scared of blood.
Overall: (65%)
Overall the movie is not bad as everyone said it is and the movie has some cool moments. This movie is different from the other Arnold Schwarzenegger movies (Like Predator and Commando) and I like the idea of Number of the Beast from the Book of Revelation. If you like horror movies or a Schwarzenegger fan then you may like it. This movie is not bad I as remember it was back in 2003 or 2004 (I saw the Crappy TV version). All I can say is to rent the movie if you like it then buy it.
The Fountain
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00005JPAP.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=e59f8b8bdfda26317e67a5b564733da3c95606e5)
VisualFX
The visual effects are great and realistic, but they do not take the cake here. The visual style of the photography does. This is probably the best looking film I have ever seen. We always get a sense of emotion from it. It is beautiful, be it in ancient Spain or a nebula in the future.
EDIT-
THERE IS NO CGI IN THE WHOLE MOVIE. WOW!
99%
Storyline
The storyline is unfocused. You are kept confused throughout the film, and even a little bit after. Good. That is exactly what is wanted from you. You draw up your own conclusions from this. It was unfocused, and therein lies the beauty of the film. The writer juggles ideas and never drops a single one. This is also the first film I remember crying from. Touching. 90%
SoundFX -
The sound was fine. I was watching it on an HD TV, and the speakers were built in. I heard everything, and a small part towards the end made me jump. The sound is good, and the score is amazing as well. 89%
Violent Factor
We only see blood when we need to. Nothing is excesive. In fact, many times it is off screen. People do die, but in realistic ways. The only time I cringed was in a scene involving a man tatooing his finger by cutting it. Other times were only in line with the story. 30%
Overall
One of the best films I've seen, even if a tad confusing. This is up there with the greats. The acting was solid and everything felt real. Critics didn't like it so much when it first came out, but many didn't like 2001 either at first. They'll see.
97%
Se7en Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg501.imageshack.us%2Fimg501%2F6803%2F386pxseven28movie29postip0.jpg&hash=844ebfcca940d2806880aaab7b87568f2caf9f06)
VisualFx: (89%)
the visual effects are great and realistic, scenes where people get killed are great. The atmosphere is amazing and makes you part of the movie. They're very little CGI is used in the movie, there some of the stunts are done in CG but it manages to pull them off nicely.
Storyline: (92%)
Well the movie is about a detective named David Mills (Brad Pitt) has just moved into the city with his wife, Tracy (Gwyneth Paltrow) in hope of finally settling down. Mills will take over the job of Detective Lt. William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) an old cop who has seven days until his retirement begins. Later they found a deranged serial-killer named John Doe and is involves choosing seven victims who represent egregious examples of transgressions of each of the Seven Deadly Sins. The story is amazing and makes you kept confused throughout the film. The concept of the seven deadly sins for killing people is amazing. They're very little movies with the same concept but fail badly. But Andrew Kevin Walker did amazing on job on this concept.
SoundFx: (90%)
The sound is good, and the score is amazing. The score fits very well with the movie and fits well with the movie scenes that happen in the movie. The score is creepy and it fits perfectly with the tone that the movies has.
Violent Factor: (80%)
There is a lot of blood in this movie. There scenes where you see people get killed and blood all over there body. There is a lot of disturbing scenes in the movie where you see dead bodies on the ground and people without there skins on their body. There no sex scenes in the movie but it a gory.
Overall: (87%)
Overall this movie is great and everything about this movie is amazing. The made brilliantly by David Fincher and it was big improvement over this last movie at the time (Alien 3). The only thing I don't like about the movie is too slow at the first but the movie gets way better in the middle and end of the movie. This movie is must buy and people who like Mystery or Horror movies will enjoy it.
Requested by Ratchetcomand
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2F153%2F862511%7EMimic-Posters.jpg&hash=d667a04adab9a23ae1f6c3b8e265add4d01a0734)
VisualFx: (74%)
Many of the creature CG is pretty good, better than A:R and Anaconda of that year but nowhere near as good as Independance Day or Godzilla. A lot of the creature effects are suit work which also gives the creature a creepy, real vibe.
Storyline: (63%)
The basic story of humans being killed by muatnt bugs is nothing new, very cliche and cheesey. But this movie makes it work and instead of opting for your classic fun bug movie goes for a real dark, moody horror movie that just makes it stand out even further. I also thought that the reason the bugs are being introduced to combat a deadly disease that infects children was genuis idea.
SoundFx: (86%)
Nothing really stands out during the first part of the movie but when the real horror takes place in the sewers, the movies sound is just brilliant. Very detailed sounds in the sewers themselves make them come to life and inturn make the Judas Bugs even more terrifying.
Violent Factor: (58%)
Doesn't have a great deal of blood or gore. One thing I admire about this movie is that it does what few horror movies have the guts to do = kill off kids. I was pretty shocked at how violent the kids death scenes were and I guess that really makes you hate the JB even more.
Overall: (75%)
One of the few horror movies of the 90's that really got to me. Great creature effects, sound design and and overall scary tone. A very creepy score really helps with the horror. Great acting from all the cast, espiecally Dutton (who by the way sacrificed himself 5 years earlier to another nasty monster ;)) Another two crappy sequels followed but this is the real deal.
Requested by Ratchetcomand
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F2e%2FGodzilla_%281998_Movie_Poster%29.jpg&hash=3cedaae8d7b376758da999d400e12ac2fd4ed85d)
VisualFx: (93%)
Pretty impressive stuff overall, one of the few movies that is on par with Jurassic Park. None of the CG looks fake or crappy exept mabye a few parts in the end. The light reflecting on the babies scales doesn't really look good at all. Apart from that awesome effects all around.
Storyline: (58%)
I'm personally sick of movies being set in New York, but when I first saw when I was 8 I obviously didn't care. It actually scared me quite a bit seeing this enoumous beast waltzing right through the city without a care in the world. The best part of the story overall for me is the whole Madison Sqaure Gardens Nest in the movies finale. Pretty classic in my eyes and showed you that size doesn't really matter... :P
SoundFx: (75%)
The vocals of Godzilla himself are just genius. Very iconic and mutant-like. The gunfire in some scenes is just brilliant and the overall noise of the city really sucks you into the movie.
Violent Factor: (27%)
No blood whatsoever, basically people being killed off screen.
Overall: (82%)
An awesome movie that left me in aw back when I saw it at the cinema. I thought this was really happening and I had and still do have a blast watching it. An obvious popcorn movie, but an excellent one. The overall acting is very average but eveything else is just breathtaking. One of the few remakes that are superior to the orignals.
Have you seen any of Toho's Godzillas?
Requested by Ratchetcomand
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthecia.com.au%2Freviews%2Fa%2Fimages%2Famerican-werewolf-in-paris-poster-0.jpg&hash=4816459f33839a8253a4cbf7e4aa7e1ab89e7807)
VisualFx: (59%)
Pretty good for the time. I expected worse but was suprised at how real some of the CG is. Saying that some of it is pretty iffy. Scenes where you've got a Werewolf standing still or hardly moving are ususally the best ones as the fur effects are really good.
Storyline: (37%)
Very basic, very much like a trashy teen travel movie at the start. Going on later to a trashy murderous cult movie. A must admit I do like it being set in Paris. Although Werewolfs are seen as muderous creatures they appear in this movie as a sort of mix between killers/romantic. I don't know what it is, I just got that vibe... :P
SoundFx: (55%)
Very average, although the Werewolf vocals were very good. One scene in which one uses the vocals from the first movie was a nice touch.
Violent Factor: (75%)
A lot more bloodier than the original. One horrible scene in the first one is obviously the transformation, but in this movie it's been reduced to a quicker, less painful looking one, probably to reduce the certificate. A lot of the violence also comes as humour, like a when the undead womans organs keep falling out and blood just keeps pouring out.
Overall: (64%)
Has nothing on the orginal but is a fun movie in it's own right. It's very underrated, although it's slapstick and not-so-serious vibe is probably what causes it to be. Acting isn't too good and the plot is little to be desired. Other than that, it's just a fun movie to watch. Definitley not the worst Werewolf but... wait... no it could be worst.
Blade Trinity Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lise-lottesworld.se%2Fcomponent%2F_images%2Fzone_images%2FMovieReview%2FMovieReview_Blade_Trinity_050820_1212.jpg&hash=1e59b7f9458b78943746396675d7979126024858)
VisualFx: (72%)
The CGI is really good, it was an improvement from Blade 2 and I pretty surprised at how real some off the CG is. The action VisualFx are nice but there not good as Spider-man (And it Sequels) or X-men 2. The one thing I did like about the Visuals was some light reflecting in the movie. It not bad but some parts of the reflecting makes some scenes look dull and burning.
Storyline: (34%)
The movie takes place 3 years after Blade II. Blade has been joining forces with two vampire hunters, part of a group called the Nights talkers, as they tackle the powerful and ruthless villain named Dania Talos. The story is pretty basic and there nothing more to it. I also I didn't like Ryan Reynolds character that much. He didn't have that much development and he was very burning to like. He was annoying for half the film. Another bad thing about this movie was Blade Trinity has as much bad laughter with the characters like Darke (Who also know as Dracula). He was one the worst villains in the Blade Series and I also hated the actor that played as him. Blade role in the movie is bad and he doesn't play that much in the storyline. Yet another flaw is that movie has stuff in the movie that is useless like Whistler has a daughter. Who really cares if Whistler's has a daughter? So in the end, the story is not very imaginative and is crap from start to finish.
SoundFx: (65%)
Nothing really special, pretty average in many ways. Although the opening theme was good and some of the music that where playing in the fight scenes where good. I still don't like The Rap music in the Blade movies and I never have. But other than that I really did enjoy the music score that the movie had. The song "Weapons of Mass Distortion" by The Crystal Method that was played in the finale was great.
Violent Level: (90%)
Just like the other Blade movies, the movie has a lot of Blood and Gore. There are scenes where you see people get killed and dead bodies everywhere. When Blade slices into his victims with his sword is very bloody. So if you don't like Blood or Gore then is warn because this movie has a lot of it.
Overall: (49%)
So overall the movie is worst in the series and Blade Trinity was a big disappointing. This movie was a terrible way to end a good movie franchise and they should have ended the series with Blade II. I would love to see another movie but it not going to happen due the frailer that this movie had. This movie would have been so much better if Blade had a better role and if the movie didn't had that much humor in the movie. I was disappointed that some of the movies that Mr. Goyer has written are excellent films (Like Batman Begins) but this movie was not excellent. So in the end, Blade Trinity is not worth your money or your time.
Do a review on Rob Zombie's Halloween Plz
Quote from: Zero on Mar 31, 2008, 11:00:24 PM
Do a review on Rob Zombie's Halloween Plz
Sure. I do it later.
I want to know what somebody else thought of The Fountain.
It's my new favorite film.
Quote from: Alienseseses on Mar 31, 2008, 11:27:14 PM
I want to know what somebody else thought of The Fountain.
It's my new favorite film.
I haven't seen it yet but your review is good.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartfiles.art.com%2Fimages%2F-%2FMrs-Doubtfire-Poster-C10134484.jpeg&hash=ccc49437b49051831c2a9977bcb6ca80e1dc5d9a)
VisualFx: (0%)
No CG usage at all.
Storyline: (88%)
Robin Williams dressing up a Scottish nanny just to be with his kids is pretty comical, but underneath it all it has a very strong message about family, love etc. Of course one of the most loved parts of the movie is that it's just so dang funny. I literally had tears running down my face as some parts when I first saw it. Definitely one the funniest movies of the 90's.
SoundFx: (50%)
Your average of a movie.
Violent Factor: (2%)
No real blood or anything drastic, exept mabye at the end where Maranda's boyfriend is chocking in the resturaunt might be seen a 'violent'.
Overall: (85%)
A really fine movie with an original plot and terrific acting from Williams and Field. A quirky and somethimes touching score from Harold Shore suits the scenes perfect. Definitely one of Robin Williams best movies, proving that he's just as great with drama aswell as hilarious comedy. Anyone who hasn't seen it yet... shame on you! ;)
I saw it on a TV on a bus. :D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fz.about.com%2Fd%2Fmovies%2F1%2F0%2Fx%2Fo%2F7%2Ffinaldestination3poster.jpg&hash=af6a2aec26672f536346df76553929c404f2320d)
VisualFx: (63%)
Pretty average stuff. A lot of the coaster crash is CG which is pretty good. The movie obviously features a lot CG blood, which a lot of is pretty decent. At least better than one AvPR.
Storyline: (80%)
Probably the best one yet. The teens esacpe deaths grip as usual, although this time the main character Wendy has clues in which how her friends will die. This allows audience to take part in the movie, trying to figure out what will kill who. A found myself doing exactly this and being quite suprised at what the deaths actually turned out to be.
SoundFx: (53%)
Nothing really stands out exept the coaster crash at the beggining which I thought used great sounds.
Violent Factor: (77%)
Third movies are usually the bloodiest in a franchise and FD3 is no different. All the deaths are pretty brutal and and definitley make you wonder if that could actaully happen to you. I've never been on a roller coaster before, or a tanning bed or used a weight lifter in a gym but I don't think I ever will know...
Overall: (79%)
My favourite of the series, probably because it really chooses great settings for the deaths and really takes you into the movie with guessing them. A great theme tune and an overall creepy score works well with the scenes. A suprisingly superb performance from the lead, she looks set to be quite a star in the future. An overall fun, entertaning movie with a great plot, great characters and great ideas.
Halloween (2007) Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F7%2F7b%2FHalloween2007.jpg&hash=80b4e402fdc447d0e1c7356182df41375086a273)
VisualFx: (5%)
Very little CGI was used in the movie. There some scenes that were made on a green screen but that about it. The movie didn't have that much CGI because Rob Zombie was trying to make this movie have an old school feel to it. Which is not bad because movies like these don't use that much CGI?
Storyline: (45%)
The story is based on a 1978 movies made by John Carpenter but it not a really remake. It a prequel telling about Michael Myers history as a kid. The story is about a 10 year old kid named Michael Myers who just kill his mom and his other family members and now be sending to Jail. 17 years later he returns to his hometown to find his baby sister but he also being track down by a guy named Dr. Sam Loomis, now he is going to kill anything in his path. 95% of the movie has nothing do with original movie what so ever. The whole movie feels rush and try's to focus more on Michael Myers then the other characters. The other characters in the movie where lame and had no development. The ending from the original movie is change and different from the 1978 movie. The movie was too short as well and it one of those movies where you wanted to see more because the character development was bad and you wanted to know more about them.
SoundFx: (75%)
The sound is very good in the movie which surprises me because movies like this have very bad music in this. The opening them is very good and it a nice remix of the original them. Some of the score works well with the movie because there scenes in the movie where the score makes the movie feel dark and scary which works great.
Violent Factor: (89%)
The movie is very violent and it has a lot of blood. And it has a lot of gore and rape. There are scenes where Michael kills people with his knife and it very graphic. There scenes in the movie where you see Michael torturing animals to death and there is a rape scene as well. So don't let your kids see this unless there older.
Overall: (54%)
So in the end, Halloween is just another bad remake of a classic. It was cool seeing Michael Myers past and all but the movie just so bad due to it has nothing due with the John Carpenter Halloween. The movie also sucks due to it Rush Story and bad character development. The dialogue was bad and the movie try to better then 1978 version but failed. The main reason why this movie was so bad because the movie focus too much on Blood and Gore unlike John Carpenter version. The original movie was so great because it was based on suspense and had great character development, not blood and pointless gore. The major problem with is this is a film that DID NOT need to be remade, he should just made a prequel and it called "Halloween Zero" then remaking it. If you're Halloween fans then you may like it. The movie is worth a rental and nothing else. Just see the original movie because it 10 times better than this Garbage.
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CALLED THE REMAKE GARBAGE@
Quote from: Zero on Apr 01, 2008, 01:23:26 AM
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CALLED THE REMAKE GARBAGE@
Well, it was.
Beowulf
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impawards.com%2F2007%2Fposters%2Fbeowulf.jpg&hash=9404629b8a7b53300f709b15e2f52d8eef59ee43)
VFX-
The whole film is VFX, and pretty darn good, too.
100%
Storyline:
Niel Gaiman and Roger Avary made a good script for this. Instead of just taking the original story, they made it thematic, with arcs and full circles and themes. I love it.
90%
Sound-
I have to admit I jumped a few times in this film because of shocks, aided by loud sounds. The soundtrack is top notch as well.
80%
Violence:
This film got away with a lot of blood with a PG-13 because it was animated. Imagine it was R.
92%
Overall:
Great film. Won't satisfy all, but nicely done.
92%
Spawn Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F1%2F18%2FSpawnmovieposter.jpg&hash=ab39905b2cda58bb8675da8d39ea890d34981c11)
VisualFx: (78%)
The movie came out in 1997, so the visual effects where great at the time. It outdated now but some parts of the movie are still good. Some CGI in this movie i did not like was Spawn cape, it looks fake and wired. Malebolgia looks horrible as well, his mouth didn't move at all. The costume and devices of the costume are fantastic and looks very nice as well. The hell scenes look pretty cool for it time, the backgrounds in hell look very fake and ulgy looking.
Storyline: (55%)
The Movie is based on a comic with the same from Image Comics. The story is about a guy named Al Simmons is murdered by his boss in Korea. After Simmons died, he was send to hell and he made a deal with a demon named Malebolgia, who will make back to life if he helps him lead his army to earth. After he came back to life, he came back as a Hellspawn and he must take down his boss before he takes over the earth with his killer virus. The story is not very good because it has very little do with the comics. The story it self feels rush, like they where puting a buch of issues into one. If they made it based on issues 1-8 then it would be good. The script was pretty week, both simplistic and confusing at the same time. People who never read the comic book woun't know that much about the story. The movie it self is too silly and not dark as the comics. It should have been The Devil's Advocate meets Darkman. Instead, it is Ghost Rider meets The Mask.
SoundFx: (10%)
You can't say anything about the flim score because there not really a score to this movie. You will hear some rock movie but that about it. The song "Satan" from Metallica and Orbital sounds pretty cool in the opeaning of the movie.
Violent Factor: (29%)
No blood whatsoever, you see people get shoot that are being killed off screen. That about it really. You see Simmons body get burn into flames but that the most violent thing in the movie you ever see. Most of the action in this movie is very cartoony and has the same level of violences is the same as the Batman movies and Steel. So it ok for your kids to see this movie.
Overall: (60%)
I like it when i was 8 but i when i got older and read the comics more then i did back then, the movie is not very good. Overall Spawn is a poor comic book adaptation but it still a very good popcorn flick. If your a Spawn fan (Like my self) or like action movies you may what to rent it first. It's still a good enough DVD for a lazy afternoon, but just as a one time rental.
I'm bored and i made another review.
Hitman Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bran.dk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fhitman_the_movie.jpg&hash=93a7113f53df0fd6f1cf04d16b99715479f23198)
VisualFx: (63%)
Pretty average stuff and nothing new. Most of the action scenes where good but there nothing special. Most of CGI you have seen before in most movies like Die Hard or Blade.
Storyline: (48%)
The movie is about a guy named Agent 47 who is hire to take down a Russian military in Eastern Europe. He also team up with a mysterious Russian woman and it up to agent 47 to save the day. The story is not bad but it not very good. It just the movie was so boning and you expect the movie to have a lot of action because the movie is based on a video game of a people who kills people without fear. The movie is dull and don't have that much character development. You really don't care about the characters other then Agent 47.
SoundFx: (50%)
Your average action movie. The soundtrack is dull and boring, not something you would listen to now and then. The action sound effects are loud just like another action like Transformers and King Kong (2005). So everything in the sound in the movie is average except the ending theme is very good. I enjoy listening to it and some scenes fit well with the concept of the movie.
Violent Factor: (60%)
The movie is pretty violent but not violent as the Saw movies though. There some parts of the movie where you see blood on the ground but that about it. The movie didn't need an R rating but the deaths are pretty brutal in the movie. So this movie may not be for everyone under 15 or over.
Overall: (62%)
Overall Hitman is just another average action movie and it not worth your money. Hitman is better than the other video games movie such as Mortal Combat, Resident Evil and Alone in The Dark but it still not that great. If your fan of the games then you may like it but if you're not fan then don't waste your time seeing this movie. This movie is worth a two day rental at blockbuster.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc-i.hitflip.de%2FB00004THFX.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=103c86bb93bc12250a886a66acd9fe757fc15a7f)
VisualFX:(80%)The whole "Camera" was what made it special.We hardly see any of the Witch throughout the movie,until the very end.
SoundFX:(70)The sounds made by the "Witch" creeped the f**k out of me.The weird buzzing noises outside the tent aswell.
Storyline:(80%)Three College Students are doing a Documentary on "The Blair Witch".They first get eyewitnesses.Then,they go in search of the Cemetary where the 7 murdered children were.Basicly,they hear f**king creepy noises throughout the way and back.Then one of the characters,Josh goes missing.At this point,the audience is on the edge of the seat.
Violent Factor:(50%)The only real violence in the movie were either offscreen,or hidden.I won't give alot of info out.
Overall:(89%)I really enjoyed the movie and even though Several people told me it was shit and boring,it shows a "what if" situation.If you enjoy Hardcore movies that f**k with your own mind,watch this.
I'm bored and i want to make another review. It bit crappy because i'm too tired to type (It almost 12:00 AM).
Hellboy Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpaisley.presys.com%2Fgraphics%2Fhellboy.jpg&hash=92633f0b2bb823cd47fcc4b79b6ab34fbdc7b79a)
VisualFX: (85%)
The visual effects are awesome even though the movie has a low budget (The budget is 66 million). The monsters in the movie looks great and Hellboy look great. The CGI is awesome as well and Guillermo del Toro systel is great. If you liked X-Men or Spider-Man don't expect the movie to have a simple story because some parts of the story is hard to understand unless you didn't read the comics. The movie has some good scenes and it a fun movie to check out.
Storyline: (70%)
The movie is based on a comic with the same name (Hellboy). The story takes place in WWII where a group of Nazis attempt to use black magic to aid their dying cause but find a baby demon and they don't know what is it. They later named it Hellboy then Sixty years later, a young FBI agent named John Myers is sent from Quantico has came to New York City, and is identified as Squeaky Clean Waste Management Services. Later Hellboy who is defending the city and he must pair up with John Myers to stop a evil force. The story is pretty good and it flows the comic book pretty well. But people who never read the comic book, would hard time to understand the story. The story is nice but it not for everyone.
SoundFx: (53%)
Nothing really stands out but it pretty good. Some parts of the music is good but it average. The scenes in the battles are cool but i seen better. I also can't say that much because i didn't care about the music that much.
Violent Factor: (40%)
Not really violent and there is no blood. There is a lot of fighting and some shooting. It not graphic but some scenes may scary younger kids (4-10). So it not violent and but it ok for your kids to watch.
Overall: (75%)
Overall Hellboy is a very good movie and it worth checking out. The character development is good and Hellboy is a awesome superhero. This movie is not good as Spider-man or X-men but it a still fun movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.movieeye.com%2Fstore%2Fimages%2Ffight-club-dvd.jpg&hash=ecc28bc4f6a2cec6868129673d6a412ed64e42a9)
VisualFX: Not much but there is a cool opening sequence where you see the inside of the human brain and all the neurons. Has great camerawork and visual style as well. No shot in the movie looks fake (except that penguin but it's probably supposed to look like that). 90%
Storyline: This is more to do with characters than story but it is about a guy who starts up a secret club where men go to fight eachother and that eventually evolves into a terrorist group that wants to takes revenge against corporations. I reallly can't say much more without giving it away. 75%
SoundFX: Pretty good - the sounds of the punches are realistic, has a great score too. 85%
Violent factor: Very violent and sometimes gory as we see people getting bashed to a pulp with bloody faces, and other violent scenes. 97%
Overall: One of the best black comedies ever made. 95%
American History X Review
This review has spoilers
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2FIMAGES%2F22%2F21_AMEFXAH1.JPG&hash=610bd0bed8e990d019c3d0d191b3b4b21e93dfdf)
VisualFx: (50%) Not much but there is a cool opening sequence where everything is in Black and White which fits well in the theme when Derek Vinyard kill someone for shooting. Other than that, there very little CGI.
Storyline: (97%) The story is about a Neo Nazi named Derek Vinyard is tried and sent to prison for three years for the murder of two guys who tried to steal his truck. 3 years later, he returns from prison to find his younger brother, Danny, caught in the same web of racism and hatred that landed him in prison. I really don't want to spoil the movie too much; I can't say that much of it. The story is very original and one the most powerful movies I seen in years. The performances were amazing and I love Edward Norton role in this movie.
SoundFx: (90%) The score is amazing and the opening theme is amazing. I love every bit of the score and the music that was playing in the basketball game is great. The gun shots and the other action scenes are very realistic.
Violent factor: (80%) The movie is very violent and there is a lot of fight scenes in the movie. There is a blood in this movie but that much of it. At the end of the movie where Derek brother got shot is very bloody and there is a lot of gore at the scene of the movie.
Overall: (95%) Overall American History X is amazing movie and it won the best movie of 1998. The story is dark and deep, it shows all the bad stuff between the blacks and whites. The stuff is still happening today! The movie has the most powerful story that you will ever seen. So the movie is worth checking out for sure. I got the movie for like 10 dollars at the movie bin at Ebgames and you should buy or even rent it.
Lets see some reviews of "American Gangster" and "Into the Wild"
2010: Odyssey Two Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.wired.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2F2007%2F07%2F13%2F2010_2.jpg&hash=18e4ffd01a204a14d86555f1d3205afa39e4d5c4)
VisualFx: (82%)
The visual effects are awesome for a movie that came out 24 years ago. The computers, monitors, and graphics in the movie are great looking and the artwork is very nice. The CGI is outdated now but it was great looking back then. I love how Peter Hyams had to recreate the models from scratch for 2010.
Storyline: (75%)
The story takes place after 9 years after 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd is going to Jupiter to find out what happen to Bowman, him and his crew must find reactivate HAL-9000 to know what happen after Bowman left the ship. Another thing I like about the movie is that it answers some of the questions that the first movie left off. The story is easier to follow and learn then the first movie. The thing I didn't like about the movie was Hal and Dave Bowman had small roles in the movie but it was nice seeing the actors who played as them return. The story may not be amazing and don't have the same feel that first movie but the story is still great.
SoundFx: (69%) The movie has some pretty good music and it has a great score as well. Some parts of the score are very good but the score is not mind blowing like the first movie had. I didn't like the ending theme that much. Other then that the music is pretty good.
Violent factor: (5%) Just like the first movie, the movie is not violent at all. There some scenes where the person gets hurt from falling down but that about it.
Overall: (82%) So in the end, 2010 is a good sequel and it good movie as well. It not amazing as 2001 but it great movie to watch because the storyline is more understandable. The performances in the movie are great but the book is better. If you like the first movie then you may like 2010 as well. So overall 2010 is a great sequel to a great movie and it is worth checking out.
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on Apr 09, 2008, 10:45:25 PM
At the end of the movie where Derek brother got shot is very bloody and there is a lot of gore at the scene of the movie.
Thanks for spoiling it.
I fogot to add spoilers. Thanks for reminding me.
Quote from: Zero on Apr 01, 2008, 01:23:26 AM
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CALLED THE REMAKE GARBAGE@
You asked for a review you got it. ::)
American Gangster Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsneakerboxx.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F10%2Famerican_gangster.jpg&hash=d84abebbc62a60e7e24f9b528337fff2fbcf766e)
VisualFx: (10%)
Not much visual effects are used in the movie. Some CGI is used in the action scenes but that about it. The visual effects not amazing as "Transformers" but nothing else you can say about them because the movie used very little CGI.
Storyline: (89%)
The story takes place in the 1970's where a guy named Richie Roberts, who is a detective that works to bring down the drug empire of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). Then later his product is superior is now currently available on the street in New York City and his prices are lower. I don't want to add more because I don't want to spoil movie. The story itself is great and the characters are great as well. The scenes in the movie are fun to watch and it also based on a true story as well. The only problem of the movie is that it was too long (Over 2 hours) and the story starts off too slow.
SoundFx: (70%)
The score is very nice and the opening theme is nice as well. Everything about the music is good expected for the rap music in the movie. I think having rap music in the movie was pointless and makes the movie look silly at some points. Beside the rap, the score is great.
Violent Factor: (57%)
Nothing terribly bloody but there scenes where people get shot and you seen blood that about it. There is a lot of sex though. There also a scene where a man set a flame and then shot which is bit violent.
Overall: (90%)
So overall, American Gangster is a great movie and it Ridley Scott best movie in a while (His movies went down a bit since 2001). I recommend to gangster movies fans or Ridley Scott fans, actually to those viewers who enjoy good movies because this movie is the movie is great and the art view in the movie is amazing. The movie may not be action pack like Scarface but the story itself is very good because it has interesting facts about the drug deals in the 70's. So in the end, American Gangster is awesome and it won the best movies of 2007!
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on Apr 11, 2008, 12:04:48 AM
American Gangster Review
http://sneakerboxx.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/american_gangster.jpg
VisualFx: (10%)
Not much visual effects are used in the movie. Some CGI is used in the action scenes but that about it. The visual effects not amazing as "Transformers" but nothing else you can say about them because the movie used very little CGI.
Storylne: (89%)
The story takes place in the 1970's where a guy named Richie Roberts, who is a detective that works to bring down the drug empire of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). Then later his product is superior is now currently available on the street in New York City and his prices are lower. I don't want to add more because i don't want to spoil movie. The story it self is great and the characters are great as well. The scenes in the movie are fun to watch and it also based on a true story as well. The only promble of the movie is that it was too long (Over 2 hours) and the story starts off too slow.
SoundFx: (70%)
The score is very nice and the opeaning theme is nice as well. Everything about the music is good expect for the rap music in the movie. I think having rap music in the movie was pointless and makes the movie look silly at some points. Beside the rap, the score is great.
Violent Factor: (54%)
Nothing terribly bloody but there scenes where people get shot and you seen blood that about it. There is a lot of sex though.
Overall: (90%)
So overall, American Gangster is a great movie and it Ridley Scott best movie in a while (His movies went down a bit since 2001). I recommend to gangster movies fans or Ridley Scott fans, actually to those viewers who enjoy good movies because this movie is the movie is great and the art systle in the movie is amazing. The movie may not be action pack like Scarface but the story it self is very good because it has interesting facts about the durg deals in the 70's. So in the end, American Gangster is awesome and it one the best movies of 2007!
You do know it was based off of a true story right?
And that the real Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts are still alive?
^I know it was based off a true story but i didn't know they where still alive.
Quote from: Huol on Apr 12, 2008, 04:34:13 AM
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on Apr 11, 2008, 12:04:48 AM
American Gangster Review
http://sneakerboxx.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/american_gangster.jpg
VisualFx: (10%)
Not much visual effects are used in the movie. Some CGI is used in the action scenes but that about it. The visual effects not amazing as "Transformers" but nothing else you can say about them because the movie used very little CGI.
Storylne: (89%)
The story takes place in the 1970's where a guy named Richie Roberts, who is a detective that works to bring down the drug empire of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). Then later his product is superior is now currently available on the street in New York City and his prices are lower. I don't want to add more because i don't want to spoil movie. The story it self is great and the characters are great as well. The scenes in the movie are fun to watch and it also based on a true story as well. The only promble of the movie is that it was too long (Over 2 hours) and the story starts off too slow.
SoundFx: (70%)
The score is very nice and the opeaning theme is nice as well. Everything about the music is good expect for the rap music in the movie. I think having rap music in the movie was pointless and makes the movie look silly at some points. Beside the rap, the score is great.
Violent Factor: (54%)
Nothing terribly bloody but there scenes where people get shot and you seen blood that about it. There is a lot of sex though.
Overall: (90%)
So overall, American Gangster is a great movie and it Ridley Scott best movie in a while (His movies went down a bit since 2001). I recommend to gangster movies fans or Ridley Scott fans, actually to those viewers who enjoy good movies because this movie is the movie is great and the art systle in the movie is amazing. The movie may not be action pack like Scarface but the story it self is very good because it has interesting facts about the durg deals in the 70's. So in the end, American Gangster is awesome and it one the best movies of 2007!
You do know it was based off of a true story right?
And that the real Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts are still alive?
you should put a bit more in the violent factor section. There was a man set a flame and then shot, the gangsta shot in the head on the sidewalk, and the cokain bust
Quoteyou should put a bit more in the violent factor section. There was a man set a flame and then shot, the gangsta shot in the head on the sidewalk, and the cokain bust
I forgot about that scene. Thanks for reminding me.
Transformers Review(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F6%2F66%2FTransformers07.jpg&hash=69a351ec01f75ef8ffd13d3afc1818d442b7bc12)
VisualFx: (95%)
Pretty impressive stuff overall, the transformers look awesome and it looks awesome when they turn into cars. The explosions look awesome as well. The movie has the best CGI I seen in a long time since The Day After Tomorrow.
Storyline: (60%)
The movie is based on a cartoon with the same name. The story is about a kid named Sam Witwicky who buys his first car after getting a good grade in school. Then after buying his first car, who is an Autobot named Autobot Bumblebee. Bumblebee defends Sam and his girlfriend Mikaela Banes from the Decepticon Barricade, before the other Autobots arrive on Earth. It turns out that Autobot came out to earth to look for the all spark, and the war on Earth heats up as the Decepticon attack a United States military base in Qatar. I don't want to add more because I don't want to spoil it for you. The story is pretty good but it has too much Comedy and you know what was going to happen next. Most of the character from the old TV shows where not in the movie which I hated the most. Other then that the story is good.
SoundFx: (98%)
Amazing. The sounds of the army shooting at the transformers and the tanks bombarding it was just fantastic in the cinema. The explosions sound so real and when the buildings when destroy sound awesome. The movie had some awesome music like Disturbed which was cool as well.
Violent Factor: (27%)
Not really violent, basically people being killed off screen. There is a lot of shooting but you don't see anyone getting shot or anything. So it ok for your kids to see this movie.
Overall: (80%)
Overall Transformers is a very good movie, I had a good time at the cinema. So far its Michael Bay best movie and it the best live action movie based on a cartoon (Which is rare because most of them suck). The acting is very average but the movie has tons of action and Transformers fans (Like Me) will enjoy it. If you like action movies then this movie is for you.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FSONIS%2FC1621%7EBatman-Begins-Posters.jpg&hash=42b4edd37848fe852afd20d33f9ded3715229991)
VisualFx: (60%)
Storyline: (100%)
SoundFx: (90%)
Violent Factor: (40%)
Overall: (100%)
Quote from: vortep on Apr 12, 2008, 06:11:03 PM
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/SONIS/C1621~Batman-Begins-Posters.jpg
VisualFx: (60%)
Storyline: (100%)
SoundFx: (90%)
Violent Factor: (40%)
Overall: (100%)
Lol
There should be another thing to factor in: Nudity.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horrorphile.net%2Fimages%2Fresident-evil-extinction-movie-poster11.jpg&hash=4ce2cd5a4aab1810bfcc03127230435421d46ed4)
VisualFx: (90%)
As for CG, the movie is pretty average. A lot of the blood and creature effects are done this way as for some of the building shots too. The real visual beauty of RE:E comes from the camera work. They done an excellent job of giving the third chapter a real epic, big scale vibe. The panoramic shots of miles of sands are great.
Storyline: (71%)
Each movie gets bigger in scale and this one couldn't get any bigger. With the infection first spreading through an underground lab, to a city and now to the entire world. One strange thing about the storyline is that it completelty strips the Earth of all trees and greenery, something that I'd never thought the T-Virus is capable of. Milla Jovovich's charatcer, Alice, is really the centre piece of the story with it almost completey revolving around her and yet again Jovovich gives a great performance. As a movie written by Paul WS Anderson would, the movie has a lot of characters and although he tries to give them some strong points, he just fails yet again. Though his dialouge is weak, Andersons story telling is on top form with a great setting, an impressive bird attack and as usual gives as a brilliant cliff-hanger.
SoundFx: (68%)
Nothing really stood out, although I thought the 'slo-mo' shots and the Tyrant vocals were great.
Violent Factor: (63%)
Most of the movie is filled with black blood (zombie blood) but theres a few scenes were nice, fresh human blood adores the screen. A lot of nasty deaths follow and overall the most violent entry to the series so far.
Overall: (87%)
I really enjoyed this movie. From the time I sat down in the theatre seat to getting up at the movies end, I had been taken to another world. Great action scenes, creature effects and catchy score by Charlie Clouser. It was nice to hear Marylin Mansons original theme back. One major complaint amonst fans is that the series has gone for more action rather than horror. None of the movies have been creepy to me, although I thought the end fight when Alice enters the underground lab was pretty atmospheric and intense. Thats probably just because I'm prone to frights I guess. :P
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 13, 2008, 01:30:45 AM
One strange thing about the storyline is that it completelty strips the Earth of all trees and greenery, something that I'd never thought the T-Virus is capable of.
Probably 'cause it's the most ridiculous idea ever.
Quote from: Blaz on Apr 13, 2008, 01:35:26 AM
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 13, 2008, 01:30:45 AM
One strange thing about the storyline is that it completelty strips the Earth of all trees and greenery, something that I'd never thought the T-Virus is capable of.
Probably 'cause it's the most ridiculous idea ever.
I am Legend ripped it off and renamed it ,"KV Virua"
You mean RE:E ripped it off. I Am Legend was a novel.
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 13, 2008, 02:33:56 AM
You mean RE:E ripped it off. I Am Legend was a novel.
Wow,I never knew.If I'd known I woulda picked up a copy already.
Learn something new everyday. ;)
Has anyone seen a movie called Rouge or Black Water (same movie I think) about a giant crocodile? Isn't long out, wouldn't mind seeing a review of that.
^^ I wouldn't mind seeing that.
One of the worst excuses of a horror film I have recently watched was Dark Water by the looks of the DVD case,but it's pretty chilling.
The 'giant crocodile genre' is getting over used nowadays, but I've got a strange urge to see this one.
Theres a movie called Dark Water but it's about a haunted hosue.
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 13, 2008, 02:33:56 AM
You mean RE:E ripped it off. I Am Legend was a novel.
Quote from: Zero on Apr 13, 2008, 02:40:18 AM
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 13, 2008, 02:33:56 AM
You mean RE:E ripped it off. I Am Legend was a novel.
Wow,I never knew.If I'd known I woulda picked up a copy already.
In the novel, it wasn't man made, it was natural but mutated by Cold War events, and it turned people into vampires.
In the film, if anything, it was like the Rage virus.
Blade Review
THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F1%2F19%2FBlade_movie.jpg&hash=e8774932ba5d385469ae5e2ce3a6e85cf9313226)
VisualFx: (60%)
Some of effects where nice back in 1998 but it average. Some of CGI looks fake and bit cartoony. When Blade kills a person the person death looks fake and cartoony. The action scenes visuals do look nice though and really good.
Storyline: (75%)
The story is based on a superhero with the same name. The first part of the movie takes place in 1968 where you see a human mother bitten by a vampire during pregnancy then later she gives birth to a human vampire named Blade but howler Blade has all the powers of the vampire and none of their weakest spots. 30 years later, Blade is now a vampire hunter for revenge on his mother's death and fight along with Abraham Whistler and he must stop a vampire named Deacon Frost and who is trying to destroy the Human race. The story is very good and it dark just like a how any Comic book movie should be. The only thing I don't like about the story is that the movie was not same as the comics but the story is still fun to watch.
SoundFx: (70%)
The song is pretty average. The music is nice and some of the score is good but it average and nothing new. The gun shots sound nice and parts of the action scenes are very good.
Violent Factor: (90%)
The movie is very violent and has a lot of blood. When Blade kills the vampires with his sword is very graphic and you will see a lot of gore. When Blade mom gives birth is very bloody and there also a scene where forst gets killed at the end which is pretty much has gore as well. So this movie is not for younger kids.
Overall: (80%)
So in the end, Blade is a awesome comic book movie and it one of the best Marvel movies next to X-men and Spider-man. If you like horror or action then watch this film because this movie has a lot of action and blood that you will keep you entertained. If you like the comics then you will like this movie as well. The only thing I didn't like about this movie was it too short. So check out this movie and the sequel (Blade 2) as well.
Another review. Sorry for the double post.
Psycho 1998
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F4%2F44%2FPsycho98.jpg%2F200px-Psycho98.jpg&hash=f60e1e3eb701c3c21c3670095213fcb81f0d63c1)
VisualFx: (10%)
Not that much CGI was used in the movie because it slasher and most slashes don't use CGI that much. The visual effects are really bad and the movie came out in 1998 but movies like Dark City and Godzilla had better CGI. The scenes where Norman Bates tries to kill the girl in the shower scene look like crap and fake as well.
Storyline: (5%)
The story is remake on a classic movie from Alfred Hitchcock. The movie takes place in 1998 when Marion Crane is trying to pay off her rent and chose to steal a lot of money. Later she runs off then she stops off by an old motel, run by a guy named Norman Bates. So she is later killed by Norman in a shower then her Lila sister comes and teams up with a detective who is trying to find the one who killed her sister. The story itself is bad and tries to re-imagining of the original but failed so bad. The movie was nothing like the original and had no suspense like the original movie had which made it so good. The original was so good because it had such a great story but this movie try to do that but end up like crap. The movie was trying to be like a modern teen slasher (Like Urban Legend) at the time. Psycho was not mean to be a pointless slasher with blood and gore, it was about suspense not bad acting and pointless deaths like the shower scene (The original shower scene was so much better).
SoundFx: (30%)
Some of the score is pretty nice and some of the music is pretty scary at some points. The shower scene score was good but not as good as the score in the original had. The music is not bad but I seen well. The music is the only good thing about the movie.
Violent Factor: (73%)
The movie was pretty violent, the original was not that violent but this version is more violent. The shower scene was pretty bloody and you see a dead body at point of the movie. The movie has some blood adores the screen when someone gets killed. So the movie way more violent than the original movie.
Overall: (8%)
So in the end, Psycho was bad slasher that tries to be good but turn out like crap. This film is an insult to the Hitchcock name and should have never existed. The story was bad and you just don't care about the people in the movie that Norman kills because you barely know them when he catches up with them. The acting was one of the worst acting I ever seen in any movie in the 90's. This movie was even worst then the Black Christmas re-makes and that was utter crap. Go see the original where you can enjoy one and a half hours of suspense and see the true horror what made that movie so great and not this piece of trash.
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 13, 2008, 02:44:33 AM
Learn something new everyday. ;)
Has anyone seen a movie called Rouge or Black Water (same movie I think) about a giant crocodile? Isn't long out, wouldn't mind seeing a review of that.
Actually they are two separate films.
Rogue being about some hugeass crocodile using animatronics and CGI, Black Water being a cheaper film using only real crocs. Whilst I've seen Rogue, I saw it ages ago and can't remember as such from it, so I won't review it.
But, I remember enjoying it.
But, I am a sucker for B-grade monster flicks. A basic lowdown on the story is some American tourist (and other random fodder) is a vacation reviewer or something, and goes to Northern Territory in Australia to check out some place and he and some others go on a boat trip to view some crocs. Well whilst out there they notice some smoke or something and go to investigate, finding a broken boat. They then get hammered by above croc and get stranded on a tiny island, which as the day wanes on, gets smaller as the tide rises. So the rest of the movie is about they wanting to escape. I must say they creature itself, from memory, was pretty sweet looking. It was pretty lame and cliched, but I still enjoyed it.
As for Black Water, as far as I'm aware, it isn't out. But knowing me, I'll go see it when it does ;D.
I just tought of this.
"JVA: Jaws Vs. Anaconda" :o
Quote from: Da-Wolf on Apr 13, 2008, 06:15:11 AM
I just tought of this.
"JVA: Jaws Vs. Anaconda" :o
this is the most off-topic shit i've ever read...
Quote from: Silver Surfer on Apr 13, 2008, 09:08:27 AM
Quote from: Da-Wolf on Apr 13, 2008, 06:15:11 AM
I just tought of this.
"JVA: Jaws Vs. Anaconda" :o
this is the most off-topic shit i've ever read...
I know. >:(
Blade II Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F6%2F6d%2FBlade_II_movie.jpg&hash=fc36eeb53a1ffee02f594b07771ae02b73bb7b46)
VisualFx: (73%)
The visual effects are way better then the first movie. The reapers look great and cool looking as well. I like how the vampires and reapers in the movie are both Live Action and CGI which is really cool. Some of CGI does look bit bad (Like when the people get killed) and some of the scenes with the reapers does look bit fake. Other then that the CGI is very good. The action scenes in the movie are awesome and look great as well.
Storyline: (72%)
The Movie takes place 3 years after the first movie (In the year 2001) and Blade is now works with a kid named Scud. A rare mutation has occurred within the vampire community and making a new group of vampires called the reapers. The Reapers drink a lot of blood and they prey on vampires as well as humans, transforming victims into Reapers themselves. So later Blade teams up with the vampires race to stop the Reaper population from wiping out the vampire and human populations. The story is not even based on the comics but it still very cool. It was cool seeing Blade teaming up with the things that he hates the most just stop with an evil race that even may kill him. The story is verying entertain and fun to watch.
SoundFx: (60%)
The score is ok and nothing special. I hate the rap music that is playing the movie because it makes the movie look cheap. Some parts of the score are boning and not something I would listen to.
Violent Factor: (90%)
The movie is just as Violent as the first movie, there is a lot of blood and gore in the movie. The scene at the blood bank has a lot of gore and makes you want to throw up. There also a scene when Scud blows up into prices and you see his body parts everywhere. When Blade kills people with his sword is even more violent than before. I'm surprise it didn't get a NC-17 rating.
Overall: (85%)
Overall, Blade 2 is solid sequel and it the best in the series. Fans of the first one and the comics will not disappoint them. The performances are very good and Ron Perlman (Who play as Hellboy in Hellboy and as Johner in Alien: Resurrection) was awesome in the movie. The movie has more action, better special effects and it a very worthy sequel. I think they should have ended the series with this movie because the 3rd movie was garbage.
I was bored, so I decided to make another review. Sorry for the double post.
Hannibal Rising Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fd2%2FHannibalrisingposter.jpg&hash=e6396f6d7e4e347340efe0bd2a67b77484a12284)
VisualFx: (60%)
As for CGI, the movie is pretty average. That Visual effects where used in the movie and some of it was pretty nice but I seen well.
Storyline: (40%)
The story is a prequel to Man hunter and telling the past of Hannibal Lecter. The story tells about a child and young adult led to his remarkable way of medicine and place. Later on Hannibal is now a teenager living in Paris and living with his aunt Lady Murasaki Shikibu and studying at medical school. Later there searching there looking for his sister's murderers and hopeful find the satisfying his desire for retribution. The story was not very good because it was so boning and the characters where very dull. Manhunter, Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal had very good storied that where entreating but this movie was so slow and was not fun to watch. It was nice seeing a prequel in all but the story need to be so much better.
SoundFx: (70%)
The sound is average although I do like some of the score though. The very detailed sounds in the WWII scene were pretty good.
Violent Factor: (70%)
The movie is pretty violent and all the deaths are pretty brutal. The movie is not very bloody like Silence of the Lambs but it still violent to get an R rating. There are blood splatters and some of it is pretty nasty. When Hannibal Lecter kills his is victims was violent and don't let your younger kids see this movie.
Overall: (51%)
So overall, the movie is not very good and it not as great as the other 3 movies. Hannibal Rising is the worst in the series in my opinion and Red Dragon was even better than this movie. The movie is dull and not scary as Silence of the Lambs was. The idea of a prequel was nice and the acting is pretty average at most parts of the movie. If you like the other 3 Hannibal movies (Even Red Dragon) then you may like this one. But the movie is worth a two rental and nothing else.
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on Apr 13, 2008, 04:36:01 PM
Blade II Review
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Blade_II_movie.jpg
VisualFx: (73%)
The visual effects are way better then the first movie. The reapers look great and cool looking as well. I like how the vimpires and reapers in the movie are both Live Action and CGI which is really cool. Some of CGI does look bit bad (Like when the people get killed) and some of the scenes with the reapers does look bit fake. Other then that the CGI is very good. The action scenes in the movie are awesome and look great as well.
Storyline: (72%)
The Movie takes place 3 years after the first movie (In the year 2001) and Blade is now works with a kid named Scud. A rare mutation has occurred within the vampire community and makeing a new group of vimpires called the reapers. The Reapers drink a lot of blood and they prey on vampires as well as humans, transforming victims into Reapers themselves. So later Blade teams up with the vimpires race to stop the Reaper population from wiping out the vampire and human populations. The story is not even based on the comics but it still very cool. It was cool seeing Blade teamping up with the things that he hates the most just stop with a evil race that even may kill him. The story is verying entertaing and fun to watch.
SoundFx: (60%)
The score is ok and nothing specail. I hate the rap music that is playing the movie because it makes the movie look ceap. Some parts of the score is borning and not something i would listen to.
Violent Factor: (90%)
The movie is just as Violent as the first movie, there is a lot of blood and gore in the movie. The scene at the blood bank is very gorey and makes you want to throw up. There also a scene when Scud blows up into pices and you see his body parts every where. When Blade kills people with his sword is even more violent then before. I'm suprise it didn't get a NC-17 rating.
Overall: (85%)
Overall, Blade 2 is solid sequel and it the best in the series. Fans of the first one and the comics, will not dissapoint them. The performances are very good and Ron Perlman (Who play as Hellboy in Hellboy and as Johner in Alien: Resurrection) was awesome in the movie. The movie has more action, better special effects and it a very worthy sequel. I think they should have ended the series with this movie because the 3rd movie was garbeg.
Can you do a review on Blade 3
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftopofmind.files.wordpress.com%2F2006%2F08%2Fsnakes.jpg&hash=7661e65ae0ed263ddb0a7dfab35cd900e5d25ff2)
VisualFx: (68%)
Nearly all the snake effects are done with CG. Some of the effects aren't that good but there are a few that look real enough. Mostly the close-up shots that look good. A lot of the exterior plane shots are in CG too and they're pretty average I guess. The visual style is also pretty average. but the camera is nearly always moving and shaking and really makes it feel real.
Storyline: (59%)
After witnessing a murder, a man is to be transported across the sea to testify against the killer. The killer finds this out however, and fills the plane he is fying on with hundereds of poisoness snakes. Very cheesey storyline but it's does a great job of fitting all different kinds of phoibias into one movie. The fear of snakes, flying, enclosed spaces etc really make the movie come alive. Some pretty hilarious deaths ensue once the snakes start to attack the passengers; ambush places including sick bags, oxyogen compartments and toilet seats.
SoundFx: (82%)
The snake effects are great and they sound totally real. Since the movie is based in a plane the entire time, sound is obviously a constent factor. It really feels like your in a plane and the sound really adds a big realism factor. The score is also very good aswell.
Violent Factor: (76%)
The movie starts with a pretty brutal death, but obviously most of the violence starts onboard the plane. A lot of snake strikes and blood marks where they hit. Infact most of the blood isn't caused by the snakes at all, most is caused by objects in the plane.
Nudity: (55%)
As a B-movie would have it, there is a pretty in-your-face sex scene. Nothing too drastic, but the 'Mile High Club' scene is quickly haulted by a little bugger.
Overall: (94%)
A really fun, entertaining romp that doesn't take itself too seriously. Samuel L Jackson of coarse makes a really likable, bad-ass character and he is perfect for the role. The supporting cast does a good job too which I was quite suprised with. Definitley one of my favourite movies purely because it's just so fast paced and funny.
XxX Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F09%2FXxx_movie.jpg&hash=9db4fbf07b0c79ded6f72c471eb7cf3e8ddfdbb5)
VisualFx: (62%)
The effects are cool. Some of the effects aren't that good but some of action scenes visuals do look nice though and really good.
Storyline: (70%)
The movie is pretty much an American James Bond. The story is about a guy named Xander Cage who plays sports but one day the US Government has hire to him to take down a organization that may just be planning the destruction of the world and the leader is named nihilistic Yorgi. The story is pretty cool and it better then the newer James Bond movies at the time. It bit silly seeing a sports guy taking down an organization but it not bad at all. It fun popcorn flick.
SoundFx: (85%)
The sound is pretty awesome. When Stuff get blow up it sound totally real. The score is ok as well but it seen well. The soundtrack is pretty awesome and Drowning Pool remix of the movie is awesome and better then original version of "Bodies".
Violent Factor: (17%)
The movies are not really violent at all. There is a shooting but that about it, there some random stuff getting blowing up but that about it. So this movie is safe for your kids to watch.
Overall: (67%)
Overall XxX is pretty fun movie. I like it when i was 11 when i saw at the cinema but when I saw it on DVD, I didn't like it as much. Samuel L Jackson plays a pretty good role in the movie and Vin diesel was better then I thought he was. So XxX is a good to rent on DVD just to watch on a good rainy day when you have nothing to do.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuffwelike.com%2Fstuffwelike%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F07%2Fsaw4-poster-big1.jpg&hash=e13d54a8b98ca943d043507152631c24df6919fc)
VisualFx: (76%)
Like all the Saw movies, IV has a great visual style. Nothing much more to say about it, it's just really cool. The CG on the other hand; which is used a lot for the blood effect, aren't really as realistic as they should be. Doing blood effects has never been easy and this movie just proves that further.
Storyline: (55%)
Set directly after III, the movie follows Sgt Rigg, who is suddenly trust into a game in which Jigsaw promises can help cure is 'obbsession' (he tries to save everyone he can). Very much like III, the main character is in no danger themselves but has to make a chioce on whether to save someone that is going to die. The problem is that all the victims Rigg encounters are criminals; child polestors, rapists, etc. At the same time, two FBI detectives are on hot heels of the game and plan to stop the torturous plots for good. Unkown to them, they are playing too.
SoundFx: (85%)
The sound effects in IV ares pretty good, especially on Blu-Ray. A lot of light flickers, chains clanking, screaming etc really take the horror to another level.
Violent Factor: (100%)
Cringe worthy. Disgusting. Brutal.
Overall: (68%)
These movies have always had good, un-raveling stories with good twists. This movie has a good one but it's not as entertaining or exiting as the other three. Of coarse the movie has a top-notch cast and the great Tobin Bell just takes the Jigsaw character to a whole new level. The movie gives an interesting back-story on why John Crammer became Jigsaw and started what he did. I was quite optimistic about how they would continue the story with Jigsaw being dead, but they done a good job. Not as good as the others, but a worthy entry to this brilliant franchise.
Rambo aka Rambo 4 Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fcf%2FRambowallpaperkr8.jpg&hash=be7e206c6570e3c6be18ae87d7610f3b5c1ffd3f)
VisualFx: (80%)
What few CGI shots it has, they look great. When People got shot and killed look very good and the blood effect are realistic. Most of the action scenes look very realistic as well.
Storyline: (80%)
The story takes place 20 years after Rambo III. John Rambo has retreated in a village near the Burmese border but one day a group of people ask him to go to Burma but he refuse to go. But then the village is attacked and the missionaries are kidnapped, so it up to Rambo to save them and stop the evil forces of Burma. The story is great, it bit simple but it very good. The good thing about the story is that you care about the characters when they get killed or hurt. The villains are realistic and the story is very entreating. The story also shows what is happening in Burma and that people get killed their everyday for years now. This is one of those action movies that have a message to the real world.
SoundFx: (75%)
The score is pretty good and I enjoy listing to the score ending them in the soundtrack. The explosions and the gun fires sound great. I didn't really care about the music in the movie that much but the movie has very good sound.
Violent Factor: (90%)
The Movie is very violent and way more violent than the other Rambo movies. The deaths are disgusting and brutal at the same time! You see people heads get rip off and dead bodies everywhere. This movie is not for kids or anyone who don't like Blood and Gore.
Overall: (83%)
Overall I love the movie and it won the best movies of 2008 (so far) next to Cloverfield (Which I also enjoy). Rambo is a great action movie and it the best Rambo movie since First Blood. This is not like any of the 80's action movies that Rambo III was. The movie is brutal and realistic at the same time. The only thing I did not like about the movie was that it was too short and the first part of the movie was bit boring. So in the end, Rambo fan and fans of the action movies will enjoy this movie.
I was hoping someone would do a review of that. :)
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviesonline.ca%2Fmovie-gallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2FInTheNameOfTheKingPoster.jpg&hash=99c4dd76761f8f2552153d89d27d2f3d06979c67)
VisualFx: (10%)
The visual effects are pretty cheap. Nothing much more to say about it but the sword fights look fake and the actors where not even trying to act in the movie. The fire in the movie looks good but that about it. Pretty much everything of the Visual Effects is bad and nothing special.
SoundFx: (45%)
It Average is all I can say. I didn't care about the music in the movie that much.
Storyline: (3%)
The movie is based on a video game. The story is about a guy named Farmer that is about sets out to rescue his kidnapped wife and avenge the death of his son to team up to destroy a evil race of animal-warriors who are controlled by the evil Gallian. This has to be the one of the worst story lines ever made. It so cheap and Lame. Animal Warriors?! Everything in the storyline is garbage and you will laugh at everything in the movie. The Story tries to be like Lord of The Rings but Failed.
ViolentFactor: (7%)
Not really violent at all. You see some dead bodies in dungeon and there some blood in the movie. There is sword fighting in the movie as well. So this movie is ok for your kids.
Overall: (6%)
So in the end, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale is a very bad movie. Everything about it sucks and it makes Eargon look like 300. This may be Uwe Boll best movie but it still crap. This movie may have one of the worst storylines in the past 10 years and the acting was garbage. So do not buy or even rent this movie.
Woah what happened to Ray Liotta. From Scorcese to Boll. :'(
Sorry if the review has a lot of typos. I'm school right now and i'm in a rush at the moment.
Anaconda Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.serpenti.it%2Fcinema%2Fprovini%2Fanaconda.jpg&hash=3d7168f56d3e0e881b6d235922877ba83a5ef31f)
VisualFx: (59%)
Pretty good for the time. The Anaconda is pretty good looking but movies like Spawn and Steel which came out the same year had better visual effects then this movie.
SoundFx: (79%)
Pretty nice sound effects. You can hear almost everything including when the Anaconda attacks the people in the movie.
Storyline: (14%)
It about group of group of documentary makers in the rainforest that they are stuck in a rainforest but then they are attack from a giant snake. I don't want to spoil the movie but the story is not very good. The story is not original and reminds me of Jaws but with a Giant Snake. The characters are boring and it funny seeing them gets killed in the movie: D. The snake is not a realistic reptile and Anacondas are not fast. The ending is pretty bad and everything was so silly.
Violent Factor: (60%)
There is some blood is spilled in this movie but it not very Violent at all. You do see the Anaconda attack and eat the people in the movie but nothing drastic at all. But I won't let your kids to see this movie because it will be too scary for them.
Overall: (32%)
So Anaconda is not very good but it a fun B movie. Acting isn't too good and the plot is bit corny at some points. The movies do have good actors like Owen Wilson, Jon Voight and Jonathan Hyde which is a good thing in the movie. The another thing I did not like about the movie it was very believable at all and the pointless blood made the movie look like a bad monster slasher movie. Another thing that sucks about this movie is that the sequel is even worst then this movie. Don't see this movie unless you buy it for $10 or less, or rent it if you have nothing to do after School or Work.
I'm watching AvP-R tonight ;D I'll do a review later
Theres no point in posting it here though is there... :)
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 18, 2008, 10:07:16 PM
Theres no point in posting it here though is there... :)
I'm doing it on Ratchet's request ;)
I fixed all the typos in my reivews. My last Review for today.
Troy Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviecitynews.com%2Farrays%2Fimages%2F2004%2FTroy%2FTROY.jpg&hash=7edd2c2fa5ca7576a05c7f0b46a024811469e2f8)
This Review may have a few spoilers
VisualFx: (76%)
Nothing much more to say about it, it's just really cool. The CGI on the other hand; which is used a lot for the fighting scenes, isn't really as realistic as they should be. Spider-man 2 had better CGI which came out the same year that Troy did.
Storyline: (30%)
The story is about some guy named Troy. The After Menelaus finds out that his wife was taken by the Trojans, he asks his brother Agamemnon to help him get her back. Then Agamemnon sees this as an opportunity for power. So later they send 1,000 ships holding 50,000 Greeks to Troy to find and defeated Trojans. I don't remember that much because I have not seen the movie in such long time. The movie is so dull and it not even historically accurate. Also the movie had nothing to do with Greek mythology and the Greek gods in this movie where a joke. I hated when Agammemnon died at his wife's hands on returning home after conquering Troy because the story became so stupid after that.
SoundFx: (60%)
It Average is all I can say. The Music was pretty nice though.
Violent Factor: (76%)
This movie is pretty violent; I can see why it got an R rating. The movie has a some amount of graphic violence and some sexuality & nudity. There is a scene where a guy gets cut with a sword. So it violence movie in the end.
Overall: (40%)
Overall, I hated this movie. The acting was bad and the story had nothing with Greek mythology. The movie has a great cast and a good director. The movie went to good in the first hour to total BS in the rest of the movie. The Characters where very bad and everything was noisy, and badly rubbish. I would give this movie a lower then a 10% but I did enjoy the special effects that movie had and the casting was great but too bad the acting sucks. So don't even Rent or Buy this movie.
Quote from: Zero on Apr 18, 2008, 10:09:30 PM
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 18, 2008, 10:07:16 PM
Theres no point in posting it here though is there... :)
I'm doing it on Ratchet's request ;)
I mean your aswell posting it in the AvPR board, not here. Then again, I done a review here too... :P
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citadelata.com%2Finfo%2FMovie%2Funderworld_poster.jpg&hash=1622df2cd1fc5e7a3a5d119d5832501ac2253570)
VisualFx: (79%)
Director Len Wisemen gives the movie a wonderful visual look. Every shot has no more than three different colours in it which gives the picture a good moody, realistic feeling. The only thing that lets it down is the few CG shots it has which without lack of better word, are horrible. They are usually used for a Werewolfs jumping etc although there is one point in the movie were the Werewolf CG is pretty dang spot on.
Storyline: (83%)
Very deep and realistic, the movie has an interesting backstory in which Vampires and Werewolfs existed side by side. The Vampires were everything the Werewolfs (or Lycans as they call them) weren't. They were advanced and civilised and used the Werewolfs as no more than slaves. When the leader of the Lycans, Lucian, breaks free from his entrapment he wages a brutal war against his enemies. Thousends of years on, the movie itself follows a young, beautiful Vampire "Death Dealer" named Selene. She finds out that beneath their city streets, Lycans are growing strong again and that they have been doing genetic experiements to create a Vampire/Werewolf hybrid, hoping to recindle the flame of war. Theres a lot to take in, but it's all very interesting and well thought out.
SoundFx: (75%)
Very well done sound design. Very atmospheric and gritty, especially on Blu-Ray. The score is brilliant too, very industrial sounding and it suits the movie perfectly. Best score I've heard in a long time.
Violent Factor: (70%)
A lot of gun fights, fist fights and blood baths making this quite brutal for a 15 rating.
Overall: (77%)
The first half of the movie really sucks you into it's world and you'd probably be fairly entertained. As the movie goes on however and the backstory is revealed, it goes slighty down hill. I found it all interesting personally but my attention was quickly haulted, The last half of the movie is very good however with a lot of great fight scenes and creature effects. Kate Bekinsale gives a really good performance as the movies lead, as does Scott Speedman aka The Hybrid. The movie also has great set design and it's hard to tell that they had to reuse many because of the tight budget. Mabye not a movie you'd want to watch over and over again but it's one of the few mythical monster movies that really carves a deep groove.
Little Nicky Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.collegepublisher.com%2Fmedia%2Fpaper960%2Fstills%2F42e93b2a7a44e-55-1.jpg&hash=57e5e74a35e30fcf427a9a9f53568fd024440dc3)
VisualFx: (60%)
Some of The Visual effects are bit bad. Hell in the movie looks horrible and it does not look very good at all. Some scenes in the movie look like the fire effects look nice but everything looks cheap. But then again it a comedie and comedies never did had amazing effects in movies.
Storyline: (73%)
The story is about Satan who wants to retire and he wants to his two sons to be the new king of Hell but none of his two sons are good enough for the job. Then his other son Nicky (Adam Sandler), who is all good but very little evil is send to earth to release evil. Then his brothers leave Hell and freezing the wall of Heaven and damned the souls to Hell. So it up to Nicky to save his dad and stop his brothers then bringing them back to Hell. The story is pretty cool and it different from Adam Sandler movies. The story it self is very funny and a lot of random stuff will happen and it give you a good laugh. The story has a good sense of humor and the characters are pretty good. The funniest character in the movie is the dog who teaches Nicky how to survive on Earth.
SoundFx: (55%)
The movie does not even have that much of a score. You will hear some Heavy Metal type music in the movie but that about it. The soundtrack in the movie is pretty good. The soundtrack has bands like Disturbed, Powerman 5000, Everlast and some other good bands.
Violent Factor: (12%)
The movie is not even that violent. You see a scene where Nicky gets killed by the bus and blood gets spattered on his two friends, the number 666 is made. That only violent thing in the movie. But this movie is not a kids movie. Has a lot of humor is very inappropriate and the movie should not got a PG-13 rating. The movie should have a got R rating.
Overall: (77%)
Overall, Little Nicky is a good Comedy. When i frist saw the movie when i was 11 or 12, i was cracking up :D. The movie has a lot of dark and inappropriate humor that will make you laugh until the movie is over. A lot of stuff in this movie is funny as hell and the movie is very underrated. Ozzy Osbourne is also in the movie as well. If you like Adam Sandler movies or Dark Comedy movies then you will enjoy this movie. So in the end, this movie is hilarious and it worth checking out :D.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fz.about.com%2Fd%2Fmovies%2F1%2F0%2FZ%2FU%2FD%2Fthedescentposter.jpg&hash=deaa7fdbc516978c9e007fa8e5a0e324c9c41f9d)
VisualFx: (84%)
The movie has a suprisingly epic look for one with such a tight budget. Director uses all the classic horror movie tricks to give you all the jumps and scares a horror fan could want and more. It also uses a few CG shots for panormaic shots of the caves, creatures etc. Some are passable but many are quite degrading to the overall quality of the movie. Although the movie is very dark, everything is lit perfectly and you can see everything you need to see with ease.
Storyline: (95%)
A group of six female adventurers go deep into an unknown cave system in hope of naming it. After a rockslide causes the only way out to be blocked, the woman have to band together to find a way out of the maze of tunnels. The longer they stay down, the faster they 'descend' into madness. The darkness and the claustraphobia are the least of their problems however as the cave system is home to a horrific race of humaniod beings known as 'Crawlers'. Completely blind, but armed with excellent hearing and an unholy appetite, they waste no time in attacking the new meats.
SoundFx: (90%)
Being set in a massive cave system, the movie needs a good sound design and it delivers brilliantly. Every sound is hightend making it one of the best sounding horror movies I've ever seen. David Julyan gives an awesome score, both creepy and sometimes touching. As with nearly every British horror movie, the music suits the movie perfectly.
Violent Factor: (89%)
Pretty nasty stuff. Nearly all of the gore shots are done in-camera which just adds to the realism. Some of the effects are slightly over-done but it looks good never the less. Of coarse most of the violence is caused by the Crawlers which just makes them look all the more threatning.
Overall: (100%)
I really love this movie, and if your a fan of horror, you will too. One of the best modern horrors around today with an original story and interesting new creatures. Excellent acting from all the actresses and very good suit performaces from the creatures. The ending left me a little disappionted but since a sequel is rumoured it don't give a toss. Overall if the ending was changed and a few CG shots were taken out, the movie would be a pure masterpiece. Makes me proud to be British! :)
Somebody do a review on the Iron Giant,it's my favorite child-hood movie
I have not seen Iron Gaint since it came out in 1999. I don't remember that much about it. Sorry.
Haven't seen it either. :-\
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fanboy.com%2Fimages%2F28-weeks-later-poster02.jpg&hash=f20f2260bffbf722aea43e8b4d7e16193a0434a4)
VisualFx: (94%)
Weeks has a reminisent visual style of Days. Although both movies look very similar, Weeks has a much bigger scale and a more epic look. Very much like Underworld, Weeks only has up to three different colours in a shot which causes the movie to ooze realism.
Storyline: (75%)
Set 28 weeks after the first movie, mainland Britain is now starting to be re-populated by the US army. All infected have now died of starvation and the country is now safe to start again. Don (Robert Carlisle) is reunited with is two kids and they all grieve over the loss of their wife and mother (who Don thought was killed) Later on however, the mother is found alive and she is brought into the 'Safe Zone'. She is infected with Rage, but is unaffected by it's attributes meaning her blood is a potential cure for the virus. As luck would have it Don himslef gets infected by her during a kiss and soon the whole 'Safe Zone' becomes a 'Death Zone'.
SoundFx: (80%)
The Infected have very disturbing sound effects as do the blood spatters. The movie has a lot of gunfire and explosions and all are top-notch. Really sucks you into the situation and is totally real. The movie also has a similar score to the first movie which is completely fine in my book as it had a very iconic one.
Violent Factor: (94%)
A lot more gore this time around with blood adoring the screen at least every 10mins or so. The Infected this time have as habit of shuvving their thumbs into victims eyes, which is all captured in brutal and bloody detail. At one point in the movie a group of Infected are mowed down with heliciopter blades and blood literally spatters screen.
Overall: (94%)
One of my favourite horror movies and once again is another British breakthrough. Acting throughout is very good and suprislingly good from younger actors. The movie bosts a lot more action unlike it's predessesor which makes it all the more exiting and watchable. A 28 Months Later is hinted at in it's cliffhanger ending. It really is a breath of fresh air to get horror movies like these nowadays.
______________________________________________________________________
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviesonline.ca%2Fmovie-gallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2FFunWithDickAndJanePoster.jpg&hash=507b76a5f3e41ebae618b4e89d4f27ea74585bd6)
VisualFx: (63%)
Petty average. No CG usage at all, but then again theres no need for it storywise.
Storyline: (65%)
Dick and Jane are living the American dream. They have lots of cash, a beautiful house and good jobs, everything is perfect. That is until the company that Dick works for, Globodyne, goes banktrupt and suddenly his world is turned upside down. Not able to find jobs and with their house at stake, the couple are forced to rob and steal to get it all back.
SoundFx: (68%)
Sound wise theres nothing that stands out in the movie, but the score is very good. Very comical and quirky.
Violent Factor: (8%)
A few punches are thrown here and there, but most of the violence is very slapstick and nothing that will get you cringing in the least. (Mabye men though)
Overall: (79%)
Although this is a remake, the movie is very original. Both Jim Carrey and Tea' Leoni give very good, comical performances aswell as Alec Baldwin. A very funny, feel good movie that is just a joy to watch start to finish. Definitlely one of the funniest movies of recent years. :)
88 minutes review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdrama.com%2Fimagescrit%2F88minutesaffhd.jpg&hash=10aca0be852f733bec374e894d9a05e7ce5bd642)
VisualFx: (63%)
Petty average. The fire and the explosions look cool and the blood is bit fake looking though. The movie didn't use that much CGI other then the explosions
Storyline: (58%)
The movie is about a guy named Dr. Jack (Al Pacino) who works for the FBI and he is a teacher in a college as well. One day Jack gets a phone call telling him that he has only eighty-eight minutes of life and he must find out where and who is this person is. I don't want to add more about the story because I don't want spoil the movie because it just came out this week. The story has a nice idea of a storyline but the movie had way too many plot holes in the movie. The first part of the movie is pretty entertaining but it gets worst until the last half of the movie. The story was difficult to follow and I didn't understand why the movie was called "88 minutes" until the last 20 minutes of the movie. If the movie had more spent in the editing room then the story would have been great.
SoundFx: (68%)
Some of the music in the movie is Rap and some Rock, but the score is very good. The score fits well with the movie and it pretty good.
Violent Factor: (12%)
Nothing terribly gruesome but you will see a small amount of blood when someone gets shot. There are parts in the movie when you see a girl hanged upside naked. But the movie should have got a PG-13 rating not an R rating because Cloverfield was more violent then this movie.
Overall: (60%)
88 minutes is not a bad movie but it would be better if the movie was 88 minutes long. Al Pacino was great in the movie but the other actors in the movie where poor. I wish the story was better because everything was horribly put together and the ending sucked. This film will not win any awards but it may get a Razzie nomination. The movie was better then "The Number 23" but 88 minutes is still an ok movie to rent when it comes out on DVD.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.black-magic.co.nz%2Fhome%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F06%2F30daysposter.jpg&hash=a1ff166ba421b5e7cc95c566c69f891ff60b8963)
VisualFx: (88%)
A great visual look in this horror, loaded with panoramic shots that give the thing very epic, yet isolated look. Very dark too, but the moonlight that shines on the snow below is more than enough light.
Storyline: (94%)
Set in a rural town in the Artic, the story is that the whole place is plunged into total darkness for one whole month. During that time a hoard of ancient Vampires emerge out of no-where to feast on the settlers. The towns Sheriff, along with his with wife, his brother and a small group of villigers band together in the hope to outlast the darkness before they fall prey to the creatures.
SoundFx: (90%)
Excellent sound effects here. A lot of very realistic wind and snow effects, plus the classic creaking floorboards etc. The best sounds however are from the Vampires themselves. They have a very creepy, original scream plus a very well thought out laungauge. The score is also very well done too.
Violent Factor: (89%)
Most of the blood in this is seen during the first half on the movie, with the Vampires doing an all-out slaughter on the town. One controversial shot in this, is when a Vampire is seen feasting on the body of a small, blood soaked little girl. This shot is very short however and it's clear that a dummy was used. A lot of head shots, severings and of coarse the classic neck bites which are were most of the gore comes from.
Overall: (93%)
Another one of my favourite horrors, this movie is both creepy and extremely entertaining. Great setting and story, plus some great acting from all the cast. One of the few modern horrors that really focuses on character development and gets you to care for them all. The Vampires are my main favourite part in the whole movie however. They have great movements and sounds, aswell as a very imposing presense. The Vampire movie is finally scary again.
War Wager is in a happy mood,every review since last Friday has been over 79%
;D Luckily most movies I've seen have been good.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmov8.com%2Ftemp%2Ffcyxy%2FThe_Iron_Giant%2Fhaibao.jpg&hash=92383e84a5222161520bd47be59952946933afc9)
VisualFX:(90%)It was pretty good for it's time in the world.The Giant's animations seem to look more like a Transformer at some times.
Story:(80%)Basicly,a giant robot from outer space crash lands off the coast of Maine in the Late 50's and a Government Agent,Kent Mansley is parynoid about Invaders from Mars and his "big promotion." Meanwhile,a young Boy,Hogarth,find the Giant at a power plant and saves him by shutting off the power.The Giant has no memory as to why he i9s on Earth.Watch the rest yourself,it's a great movie for younger children
SoundFX:(60%)As Vinn deasel for the Giant's voice,othing else much to mention
Violent Factor:(2%)MostlyOther than a dead deer,only tanks getting blown up and a Nuclear bomb are the only violence.
Overall:(92%)I loved this movie when I was 9 years old,I sill do.It has great acting,great storyline,and a secret at the end.The moral of the story is,"You choose what you are."
could someone do a review on "The Man" ???
Quote from: Da-Wolf on Apr 21, 2008, 01:23:09 AM
could someone do a review on "The Man" ???
I never heard of that movie before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_%282005_film%29 :o
Never heard of it. ^ :-\
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horroria.com%2Fi%2Fnposters%2F06%2F30%2F63088-FD.jpg&hash=f43adbbe22dad809ae0a0572e7bc3dfa16621243)
VisualFx: (67%)
To be honest, the movie does look quite good. Nearly every shot is clearly thoughout and it looks very horror-ish. The only down side is that there is really no grittiness to the images which gives it a sort of plastic, unrealistic look.
Storyline: (38%)
A group of teens decide to take a break from the world of school and camp out at a remote cabin on a distant island. Once they settle however, they begin to get attacked by groups of killer dogs hellbent of having lunch. A few years back, an attack dog breeding centre was infected with a unique form of rabbies, that caused the dogs to turn into cute and cuddly but violent and visious monsters.
SoundFx: (63%)
Nothing stands out at all throughout the movie but the score sounds very 80's horror and is a joy to hear at some parts.
Violent Factor: (45%)
The dogs basically do what real dogs do in real life; shake the living hell out of their toy. Though in this case their toys are the humans. One particularly nasty scene is when a dog pushes a girl through a window and both her and the dog are impaled on the pipes of an old roundabout.
Overall: (22%)
A very boring, un-scary movie that I really do regret wasting money on. Being produced by the great Wes Craven, you'd think it would at least have some scare value, but it has none at all. The characters, the story and the acting are all horrible and the dogs look like... well... normal dogs. You'd think they would have at least added a few 'horror' features onto them, but no. Having a gorgeous little German Shepard running towards you would make you want to kneel down and clap it rather than run for your life. :P
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 21, 2008, 10:42:04 PM
Never heard of it. ^ :-\
http://www.horroria.com/i/nposters/06/30/63088-FD.jpg
VisualFx: (67%)
To be honest, the movie does look quite good. Nearly every shot is clearly thoughout and it looks very horror-ish. The only down side is that there is really no grittiness to the images which gives it a sort of plastic, unrealistic look.
Storyline: (38%)
A group of teens decide to take a break from the world of school and camp out at a remote cabin on a distant island. Once they settle however, they begin to get attacked by groups of killer dogs hellbent of having lunch. A few years back, an attack dog breeding centre was infected with a unique form of rabbies, that caused the dogs to turn into cute and cuddly but violent and visious monsters.
SoundFx: (63%)
Nothing stands out at all throughout the movie but the score sounds very 80's horror and is a joy to hear at some parts.
Violent Factor: (45%)
The dogs basically do what real dogs do in real life; shake the living hell out of their toy. Though in this case their toys are the humans. One particularly nasty scene is when a dog pushes a girl through a window and both her and the dog are impaled on the pipes of an old roundabout.
Overall: (22%)
A very boring, un-scary movie that I really do regret wasting money on. Being produced by the great Wes Craven, you'd think it would at least have some scare value, but it has none at all. The characters, the story and the acting are all horrible and the dogs look like... well... normal dogs. You'd think they would have at least added a few 'horror' features onto them, but no. Having a gorgeous little German Shepard running towards you would make you want to kneel down and clap it rather than run for your life. :P
You wasted money on that?For god's sake,it's a Sci-Fi Original movie,hell you can watch it on channel 69
I know, what was I thinking. :P I thought since Craven was involved it had a chance of being good...
The Guyver review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi161.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft222%2FRatchetcomand%2FGuyvermovie.jpg&hash=9fb031c4e135ad3fbca0f79a0e24f7d78be72d5e)
VisualFx: (60%)
For a movie that came out in 1991, there not that bad. The Guyver outfit looks very nice and it looks pretty cool in some parts of the movie. The special-effects with the humans turning into Zoanoids look cool. But most of the CGI is bad like when Guyver rebuilds Sean's body from a cellular level looks very fake looking and when Sean Barker turns into the Guyver looks bad as well. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Alien 3 had better effects then this movie and they came out the same time.
Storyline: (14%)
The movie is based on an Anime with the same name. The movie is about a guy named Sean Barker (Sho Fukamachi in the anime) finds an alien device that can turn his body into a Bio Booster Armor and has became a Superhero named The Guyver. Later a Alien race called the Zoanoids has came to earth for the Guyver armor and they kid nap Sean girlfriend Mizky and it up to The Guyver to save the day. The story sucks because it had very nothing to do with the anime. The story is corny and it was too much of a superhero movie like Batman and Superman where at the time. The movie made very little sense and the character development was bad as well.
SoundFx: (8%)
The score is bad and it just techno music mix with bad hard rock into one. It sounds very bad and you don't want to even listen to it. The sound that the Guyver sounds cheap as well. Nothing else to else much to mention other then it sucks.
Violent Factor: (12%)
The movie is not violent at all. There are a few scenes with blood but there no nasty scenes or anything. The only violent thing that movie has it that there is martial arts fighting in the movie. So it ok for your kids to see this movie.
Overall: (22%)
Overall, this movie really sucks and it not very good live anime action movie. The acting is bad, the dialogue sucks and the movie gives The Guyver a bad name. You might have a good time renting it because some parts of the movie where ok. The sequel is way better and it more funs then this garbage. The costumes are good but the only good thing about this movie.
King Kong (2005) Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi252.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh6%2Fsalad_fingers_666%2Fposter_kingkong.jpg&hash=42c582b4dba7190be9c048a1c272d353b46af481)
Visual FX: (87%) Well, this is the man who gave us The Lord of the Rings, and those visual effects were amazing. The effects in King Kong are just as good, the creatures and locations that are digitally created are really believable. King Kong was amazing, he had me, his movements, expressions, and look were so real. Some of the dinosaurs were pretty well done as well, the V-Rex looked amazing, the bugs were creepy as hell, the Brontasaurus were good, but you could easily tell they were CG. A few creatures looked pretty fake, I meant he CGI was good, but they didn't look as real as King Kong.
Storyline: (78%)A troubled director hires an actor named Ann Darrow during The Great Depression. They eventually board a ship with some trouble along the way, they face minor road bumps through the ship ride but eventually make it the mysterious location Carl Denham has been yearning to reach. The mysterious Skull Island, filled with deadly Natives and a variety of creatures, included the star of the show, King Kong. A giant ape and the last of his kind. Along the way we meet Jack Driscoll, a screenwriter who was the main reason Ann joined the film, Captain Englehorn, the Ships captain. And over a dozen sailors, and crew members for the film. After a horrible loss of two people, Ann is kidnapped by the Natives. She is sacrificed to Kong, but instead of killing her, Kong begins to take an interest in her. Meanwhile, Jack, Carl, and everyone on board the ship race to rescue her while trying to survive the many creatures of Skull Island. It's a good story, but it's a bit lame. I mean, what happens in between is nice and flows well, but I don't really think a lot of you would actually go back for one girl. And I am still confused on how they brought Kong back to the city, either way, the story is decent and is good in my book.
Sound FX: (89%) The roars, howls, hisses, screeches, etc. of the creatures are amazing. They sound real, Kong's roar is scary, loud, and eye-opening. The dinosaur's roars are pretty amazing as well, some sounds are a bit lame, like the bug noises seem alike. They were good, but not great. The score for the film was alright, but this film has good enough Sound FX.
Violent Factor: (33%) The film has some pretty nasty deaths, getting eaten, smashed, stabbed, but nothing is bloody. There is barely any blood in this film, the deaths are gruesome but nothing that would make you gag or cringe. You can probably take younger kids to see it without being worried about blood. There isn't much foul language, I think an occasional damn or hell, but nothing too crazy. Either way, this film is good for about 10+
Overall: (72%)
The film is a good one, a few problems, it could have been better. The only real complaint was the length of the film and some SFX that I could actually catch and were easily noticed by the audience. All in all, this is a film that I enjoy a lot.
Guyver 2 Dark Hero Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdreamers.com%2Findices%2Fimagenes%2Fpeliculas.7264.IMAGEN1.jpg&hash=3fe427645691f2044f17876bbceef91741943150)
VisualFx: (65%)
For a movie that is direct to DVD is pretty good. The Guyver outfit looks awesome and the Zoanoids suits are cool. The Guyver Zoanoid outfit looks nice as well. The only thing that is bad about the visual effects that there corny and not that much of an improvement over the first movie.
Storyline: (75%)
The movie takes place one year after the first movie. Sean Barker is now trying to find why the Guyver unit forces him to fight and use for good. Later he goes to a place where where scientists discover an ancient space craft and Kronos has return for the Guyver unit. Now The Guyver must stop the Kronos and before they get the Guyver unit. The story is bit lacking but it still very good. The movie is bit darker and it true to the anime unlike the first movie. The story is cool and it very entertaining. The story is better then the Mortal Kombat movies in my opinion. David Hayter (Who plays as Solid Snake in the Metal Gear video games) played a great Guyver as well.
SoundFx: (30%)
Not bad but the score is way better then the first movie. The sound effects are nice like the sound effects in the fight scene are very good! The score is nothing special but it better then the techno music that we got in the first movie.
Violent Factor: (60%)
The movie is more violent then the first movie. There is more blood then the first movie and this is one is Rated R unlike the first movie. There is a scene where a guy head gets his head cut off while in a river, the water turns red. Don't let your kids see this movie because it nothing like the first movie. The death scenes are graphic and bloody as well.
Overall (72%)
Overall Guyver 2 is very good and fun action movie. It one of those direct to DVD movies that are good (Unlike Starship Troopers 2). The movie is more true to the anime and the fight scenes in the movie are great as well. The costumes are better and it has more action then the first movie. If your Guyver fan or like Action movies then you will like this movie. I hope they make another Guyver movie soon.
Another Review from me. I was bored and i always wanted to review this movie. Sorry for the crappy typos, i'm in a rush right now.
The Thing Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fc1%2FThingPoster.jpg&hash=4ee97e95fdf1b3a2bed030e652c99238451c2845)
VisualFx: (78%)
The special effects are pretty awesome for a movie that came out in the early 80's. There outdated now but the effects are great. The scene in the movie where The Thing takes over the person body was awesome and looks so cool. Also when the Thing pop out the dog looks cool as well.
Storyline: (90%)
The movie is about a group of American Scientists that are researching outpost in Antarctica in 1982. Later they found a parasitic alien organism that is capable to take over the victims bodies by feeding on it. The Thing takes over the dog body and a group of people. Later The Thing has take over everything in it path. Then doctor has come to a conclusion that there no way to stop this alien life form. J.R Macready (Kurt Russell) must find out who is infected already, and who can be trusted because The Thing has been taking over people bodies. I would add more but I don't like to spoil the story for the people who have not seen the movie. The story is great because it simple but yet very well. The story is very good because it scary and it shows people fight for their own survival from something that can take over anything in it path. And also the thing can be anything and you don't know who can be trust which makes the story scary.
SoundFx: (70%)
The sound effects are very good and the music fits well with the Antarctic theme in the movie. The score is very good and creepy as well. The ending theme of the movie is very good as well. The one thing I don't like about it was it was too electronic and some parts of the score are bit boring. Not the best score but it good overall.
Violent Factor: (80%)
This movie is very violent. The movie has a lot of blood and gore. The scene where the thing takes over the dog body is bloody as hell and there is blood where the people get shot as well. A lot of scenes are very graphic and any one, who doesn't like blood, should not see this movie.
Overall: (90%)
Overall The Thing is great movie and awesome horror movie as well. This is one of Carpenters best films next to Halloween and Escape from New York. I like how we don't know anything about the Alien or anything about it. This makes it such a great movie. If you like Horror movies then you will love this movie. This movie is must buy for any carpenter or horror fan. This movie has it all to make it such a great movie. The movie has the great atmosphere, a lot of blood and a scary alien monster.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billnighy.info%2Fimg%2F2007%2Fpotc3davyjones.jpg&hash=5bdfbd8baf6504b10ebef95247880470c5c89d62)
VisualFx: (97%)
The CG in this movie is absaloutley brilliant. Everything looks great, but the motion capture CG on Davy Jones ^ it's just amazing. Really the best CG character ever put to film, period. As will the other two Pirates, the movie has a lot of panoramic shots; making it as epic as ever.
Storyline: (55%)
Set a few months after Dead Man's Chest, the movie opens with Elizabeth, Barbossa and the rest of the crew recruiting the help of the Singapore pirate lord. Although he doesn't aid them, they gain a new ship and a crew, and set off to World's End to rescue Jack. Meanwhile, the Royale Navy has entrusted the help of Davy Jones to start an all-out war against pirates and hope to clear the waters of them forever. All the pirate lords of the sea's, including Jack, must band together if they are to have any chance of survival.
SoundFx: (74%)
Very good effects here, the best being in the whole Maelstrom battle in the movies finalle. Pretty breathtaking stuff, not a lot else to say. The score is excellent too. (As usual)
Violent Factor: (30%)
I found this movie quite suprsing in that it goes for a much darker root than seen before and this obviously means more violence. I'm suprised they even managed to get the rating they did, as the movie opens with a pretty powerful hanging scene. Theres hardly any blood, mostly just slices of people being stabbed or shot. Pretty strong for a Disney movie never the less.
Overall: (62%)
In keeping with Pirates tradition, the movie is pretty humerous. No-where near as funny as the hilarous Dead Man's Chest, but is funny still. The plot is very confusing, and it's hard to keep try on who's with who. Theres a lot side switching that can get tiresome after a while. A part from the bad, the movie is still very good and is still watchable. The worst of the trilogy, but hopefully The Fountain Of Youth will change that...
Quote from: War Wager on Apr 25, 2008, 06:40:52 PM
http://www.billnighy.info/img/2007/potc3davyjones.jpg
The worst of the trilogy, but hopefully The Fountain Of Youth will change that...
Wait, are you actually hoping the new film will be worse then Parts Two and Three? They were horrible! I'm hoping, you know, they are actually good, like the fantastic original.
No, I'm hoping part four will be better than three... ^
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartfiles.art.com%2Fimages%2F-%2FAnacondas-Posters-C10138775.jpeg&hash=102fed1919a5a42b6dc0f7ddebc6634388eb301f)
VisualFx: (52%)
From an artistic stand point, the movie looks very averge. Director Dwight Little has been critised with not having a specific visual style and this movie just further confirms that. The CG used with some of the creature shots are nothing short of horrific. Most of the effects make the snakes look like giant monsters, fake looking ones at that. But with very few scenes; like when the Anaconda slithers down in front of a guy, the graphics are actually pretty good. :P
Storyline: (57%)
A team of scientists are sent into the deep jungles of Burnoe to find a rare plant knows as 'The Blood Orchid'. The flower has life increasing properties and in so will make billionares of those who put it to the market. After hiring themselves a captain and a boat, the crew set out into the abyss. After taking a wrong turning, the small boat plunges off a waterfall, leaving the characters stranded in the thick jungle. Little do they know that the Blood Orchids location is also home to a large nest of Anacondas that have been growing in size because of feeding on the flower.
SoundFx: (68%)
The jungle surroundings sound very good and the vocals on the snakes are very good too. They sound very big and menacing. The score is pretty decent too, very tropical and tribal.
Violent Factor: (46%)
There is really no blood at all but the movie is still pretty violent. A lot dead bodies and and a lot of brutal attacks. It's not as grotesque as the first movie but you still have the classic 'eating-whole' scene. One nasty scene is when the characters encounter the dead corspe of an Anaconda, with it's body spilt open. Out of the wound, a human leg sticks out, covered in inners.
Overall: (55%)
First off, Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid is a very cheesey B-movie. But that doesn't mean it's not an entertaining one. Overall it's still a bad movie, with very wooden characters and lame acting but it's just fun to watch. We're getting Anaconda III and IV in the near future and with David Hasslehoff in both leads, I can't say I'm looking forward to them. :)
I thought the special effects in Anaconda were great!
Doom Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoom.ugo.com%2Fimages%2Fgalleries%2Fdoom_filmtv%2Fdoom_movie_picture_18.jpg&hash=a02f30c418d13f6107da1406cc06a08e7bcb7266)
VisualFx: (65%)
Overall it's all pretty good, but the monster looks fake. The CGI looks very fake as well and does not look like real. Cool visual effects but they need to be better.
Storyline: (5%)
The movie is based on the video game on the same name. The story is about a group of people who go on a mission to Mars. So a team of Marines, leaded by Sarge, is assigned to rescue the personnel and retrieve the research data has to come to Mars. So later something went wrongs happen and a group of monsters has been made. A hellish zoo of demons, Imps, Barons and Hell Knights has taken over Olduvai and the Marines must stop them all. The story really sucks because it nothing like the game at all. The monsters are from hell not something that went wrong. The whole "24th chromosome" thing was so stupid and the movie feel like a rip of of Aliens then a Doom movie.
SoundFx: (87%)
Very good effects here, the best being in the space ship. The sound effects are great and all of the weapons sound like if there real. The sound that the monsters make great as well.
Violent Factor: (36%)
The movie is not that violent. There's a few blood splatters here and there but nothing drastic at all. There is a scene in the movie where you will see a guy bleeding to death. You will see some blood when the monsters killed as well. It not a movie that you should let your kids watch because it bit scary to them. You may laugh at the blood and gore in the movie though.
Overall (17%)
Overall Doom is a very bad movie. The movie is nothing like the game and Mortal Kombat was even better then this piece of crap. It not evens an action pack movie, just people walking round corridors with guns. The movie may have great sound effects and some cool visual effects but the movie gives doom a bad name. The Doom video games where scary but this movie is not scary and it just a cheap horror movie. If you're Doom fans then don't buy or rent this movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emerchandise.com%2Fimages%2Fp%2FTRD%2FpdPOTRD0005.jpg&hash=9a274fd0b0c4c336621dcca521194b6f3161dc61)
VisualFx: (73%)
The camera work in this flick is very good and it has an overall 'cool' look to it. The CG is actually pretty decent, as the year 2001 saw a lot of other good CG effects in movies. The lighting in the temple sets is very good and it ultimately makes them look larger.
Storyline: (75%)
Lara discovers an old clock in her mansion and finds out that it's counting down to hearl the arrival of the 'Planetary Allignment'; a point in the space in which all the nine planets form a vertical line. In an ancient temple in South Africa, lies a dial in which great power will be trust upon to however unlocks it at the time of the alligment.Two pieces of a triangle; the only key to the dial; are hidden somewhere in the world and Lara must reach them before the Illuminatie, a secret organisation, do. Or the world could very well be destroyed.
SoundFx: (69%)
It's got everything you'd expect from a action movie; great sounding weapons, explosions etc. The score for the movie is great also and seems almost based on the games themselves. You remember parts of them as the score plays in some parts.
Violent Factor: (30%)
Very limited violence wise, pretty much just punches/kicks etc. A few gun kills but there is basically no blood. That is exept a scene near the end in which Lara has to move a levitating knife with her bare hands and you see blood start to trickle down her palms.
Overall: (68%)
A very entertaining and fun flick, and a very worthy video game adaption. One of the few game based movies that really draw from it's source and give you what you exepect from an adaption. Angelina Jolie is perfectly cast as Lara Croft, I really can't see the role being played as good from another actress. Nice action/fight scenes, aswell as good acting from the whole cast. Not the best movie in the world, but by far not the worst.
Tomb Raider was just a chance to ogle at Jolie for me. :D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dan-dare.org%2FDan%2520Mario%2FSuperMarioBros-TheMovie.jpg&hash=45206864d9ba2313fa2e32ce38cf7e38d0b6ced8)
VisualFx: (43%)
Nay
Storyline: (6%)
Lol
SoundFx: (51%)
Hmm
Violent Factor: (8%)
Nope
Overall: (1%)
Ugh
Iron Man Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwatchstuff.com%2F2008%2F03%2F07%2Firon-man-poster-2.jpg&hash=f033e8b08fe5f478e1198562055dade2f3f4d737)
This Review may have Spoilers
VisualFx: (98%)
The movie has some awesome CGI in the movie. There wasn't one bit of CG that looked fake, it looked totally real. The explosions look so real in the movie as well. Iron Man suit in the movie look awesome and his sliver outfit look the best IMO. Every time Iron Man fly's it makes you feel like if you where flying as Iron Man his self. The Final Battle in the movie had very impressive CGI in the movie and it looks so awesome. The Visual effects overall in the movie are so amazing. I have not seen any CGI that was breath-taking since The Matrix.
Storyline: (85%)
The movie is based on the comic book with the same name. The movie is about a guy named Tony Stark who is on a business trip to Afghanistan and has came to show his new weapon called the "Jericho Missile" which is a cluster bomb. Later he was later attack and kidnapped by the terrorist group in Afghanistan. Later he is trap in a cave and the terrorist want to build a weapon for them to attack. Later he teams up with a guy named Dr. Yinsen and helps him build armor. Later Dr. Yinsen is killed and Tony has made his first Iron Suit then he attacks the village and escapes back home. He returns to the United States, Stark declares that Stark Industries will no longer manufacture weapons and later on he builds a better Iron Man suit with more speed and more power then before. I don't want add more because I don't want spoil the whole movie but the story it self is great. The movie goes by the comic books very well and the characters in the movie have good development. The story mix with humor, drama and action in very good way. The one thing I did not like about the movie was the first part of the movie was the first scene that you see in the trailer. I did not like how Tony tell everyone that he is Iron Man at the end of the movie.
SoundFx: (100%)
The sound in the movie is amazing. The sounds that the army makes when shooting at people in the movie or when Tony Stark launch the bomb to Afghanistan sound real and if it was happening. When Iron Man fly's in the sky sounds like that Iron Man was flying in real life. The score for the movie in the movie is not bad at all. It not nothing special or memorable but it still very good. It was nice seeing some old school rock songs from Black Sabbath and ACDC in the movie.
Violent Factor: (16%)
The movie is not that Violent. You people get shot in the movie a few times and villages get blow up in the movie as well. Nothing is gruesome but you see some blood on Tony body after getting attack from the terrorist.
Overall: (90%)
Overall Iron Man is an awesome movie. The movie has good character development, the humor is good and Robert Downey Jr did a great job as Tony Stark / Iron Man. The movie also has great pacing and tons of the action. The movie will not make you bored while watching the movie and it will keep you entertains until the movie is over. Iron Man is the best superhero movie since Batman (1989) and it best Marvel movie next Blade 2 and Spider-Man. You will also see Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury at the end of the movie which is cool. Iron Man is worth your money and time.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.art.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2Fregular%2F10368000%2F10368111.jpg&hash=34173add21b944e054357df9f59cdb560492b23d)
VisualFx: (96%)
Some terrific CG here, aswell as a good visual style. The fight scenes are almost entirely CG but it looks so realistic it makes it as entertaining as ever. One of the better movies of 2004 with impressive CG, a lot better than Anacondas, Catwoman etc.
Storyline: (80%)
A few months have past since the movie and Peter Parker has continued to fight crime in the 'city that never sleeps'. Life isn't easy however as he has to balance his life as a superhero with his normal life. He is getting more and more detached from Mary Jane, Harry Osborn and all that are close to him because of his curse. To make matters worse Dr Otto Octavious, a brilliant scientist, has ended up with intelligent smart arms attatched to his back. After a terrible accident, claiming the life of his wife, he decides the only way to honour his wife is to continue his work and re-create the machine that caused the accident.
SoundFx: (97%)
Great sound effects as usual but the main point that stood out for me are the noises of the 'smart arms' that are attacthed to Doc Ock. They have a creepy, original screetch that really makes them seem like smart, alien objects. An amazing score too, better than the first.
Violent Factor: (21%)
No blood, expept from a lot of cuts of Spideys suit after encounters with Doc Ock. The fights themselves are pretty brutal, as both titans get smacked around here, there and everywhere.
Overall: (93%)
One of the best superhero movies made so far. All the actors excell in their roles and really bring realism and humanity to the characters. Amazing fights, especially the train battle which is probably the best Vs battle I've ever seen. A strong plot goes along with a strong... well... everything. :P The best Spider-Man in my opinion, and probably the most entertaining one we'll ever get. I could be wrong though...
Quote from: Aeus on Apr 30, 2008, 08:38:40 PM
Tomb Raider was just a chance to ogle at Jolie for me. :D
You could always try
Gia.
Um...so I hear. ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2006%2FBlackChristmas.jpg&hash=a971cae3b17704f23ed044a5d47908e5663f0c7b)
VisualFx: (63%)
Visually it looks very slasher-movie-average and pretty amiture. It takes a lot of camera techniques from Halloween with having the camera constantly positioned all around the actor/actress making them feel that they're constantly being watched.
Storyline: (34%)
It's Christmas Eve and the occupients of a modern sorority house are settling down to have a nice evening together. A snow storm rages on outside causing roads to be blocked and ultimately cause them to be stuck in the house. As the quite evening continues, the women recieve a strange phonecall with an eerie vioce on the other side. "Get out of my house." The person mutters. "I'm going to kill you." The deranged murderer Billy Lance, who lived in that same house many years ago has escaped from prison and is hell bent on given the girls a Christmas they'll never forget.
SoundFx: (66%)
Nothing stands out apart from score. Shirley Walker, who also done the music for the Final Destination series, takes the classic Christmas tunes and gives them all a horribly sinister twist.
Violent Factor: (75%)
It's a slasher movie and it does it's name justice. A lot of blood follows from the movies second act and a lot of splatters. I don't want to spoil the deaths themselves because a few of them are actually quite good, but it's overall a little over-the-top.
Overall: (53%)
It's a remake, so I didn't expect this flick to be very good. I haven't seen the orignal Black Christmas (which was infact the very first slasher movie, came out way before Halloween) but I think this movie is quite decent. Of coarse it's very cliche' and you can probably guess who will live and who will die. It does have a slight twist in the end but it's not one that will shock you completely. If you like seeing attractive girls get killed off in over-the-top, bloody ways then you will probably enjoy this. :)
Quote from: War Wager on May 06, 2008, 06:45:22 PM
http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/10368000/10368111.jpg
A few months have past
it passed two years.
Quote from: Da-Wolf on May 18, 2008, 08:13:48 PM
Quote from: War Wager on May 06, 2008, 06:45:22 PM
http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/10368000/10368111.jpg
A few months have past
it passed two years.
do what the commercial says ::)
The Matrix Revolutions Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg5.allocine.fr%2Facmedia%2Fmedias%2Fnmedia%2F18%2F35%2F14%2F18%2F18364904.jpg&hash=3fa401ca64f562627b7d9101e5760279745f744b)
The review may have a few spoilers
VisualFx: (95%)
Awesome stuff that the movie has. The fight scenes are amazing and I never seen a fight scene in a movie look so awesome before. The rain in the movie looks great as well and looks very real looking. The movie has the best special effects and the visual effects are better then the first two movies.
Storyline: (57%)
The movie is about Neo discovers that somehow he is able to use his powers into the real world too and that his mind can be freed from his body, as a result of which he finds himself trapped on a train station between the Matrix and the Real World. Then Zion is preparing for the oncoming war with the machines with very little chances of survival of the earth then Neo must free him from The Matrix to believe that he is the One who will end the war between humans and the machines. The story is not bad but it feel like if the movie hole movie was rush. I did not like how they killed off everyone like Neo and Morpheus in the movie. The story was a poor way to finish the series.
SoundFx: (70%)
Great sound effects as usual but the score was boring. The score was nothing new or special to listen to in the movie. It did sound darker then the other two movies but nothing memorable. I like score in the first two movies better.
Violent Factor: (10%)
Just like the other Matrix movies, no blood except from there is a lot of fighting in the movie with the battle with Neo & Agent Smith in the movie. You see some gun shooting in the movie but that about it. There's is some blood when that rocket woman gets killed by a Sentinal and a blood patches on Neo and Smith's teeth as the fight. Nothing bloody or R rated in the movie.
Overall: (62%)
The Matrix Revolutions is better then the second movie but it still not very good movie. The action was entertaining and the visual effects where amazing but the story was just a bad way to end a great series. The ending was pretty confusing and it was hard to understand. You may like it but it still not very good movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovefilm.com%2Flovefilm%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F2%2F20072-large.jpg&hash=8ed4f8523867923c3557c43809e82d883bf3b2ba)
VisualFx: (84%)
The whole world of 1984 was realised brilliantly in this movie - with a distinctly 1940s, wartorn look that is extremely grey and depressing.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apfn.org%2FAPFN%2F1984-movie-open.jpg&hash=418959921c1939f6bdf803764dd8895190804d0a)
Storyline: (100%)
It's based on one of the best books ever written, and is the most faithful adaptation. It keeps the grim tone and downbeat ending.
Basically we follow Winston Smith (John Hurt) as he rebels against Big Brother (the all-powerful government in this movie).
Let me tell you about the kind of world he lives in. The state regulates every single activity you do. Hell, even thinking out of line with the government is called a "thought crime" and is punishable by brutal torture and/or death. And the most disturbing thing is that people worship Big Brother, as they are manipulated and controlled.
SoundFx: (84%)
Ok, I guess. Not the best sound as it is a fairly old movie. Has a pretty good music score - not something you'd notice but fits the movie well.
Violent Factor: (84%)
The torture scenes at the end may be hard to watch for some people - they are pretty brutal and John Hurt's (who is utterly brilliant in this, btw) acting makes it hard to watch as his spirit is broken.
There is also some nudity in there, for those who are offended by that sort of thing.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fwmansuebook%2Fang200.jpg&hash=a9d3897ebd6adb5d9b8c1e05edfa1d03d4eb0924)
Overall: (92%)
I think this is the best kind of movie dealing with this subject matter. It is the most realistic and follows the book 1984 the most faithfully.
Other movies have been made inspired by 1984 (V for Vendetta, THX-1138, Brazil) but I think this is the best.
Beware though, this is a very depressing movie and a grim reminder of what may happen one day if the state manages to control everything in our lives (you can often see real-life parallels to 1984 - like the surveillance state in Britain).
John Hurt and Richard Burton are brilliant in this, btw.
A warning though to those whose attention span is almost zero - this movie has a slow pace so if you get bored watching episodes of Pokemon - then you probably won't like this movie. ;)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FMG%2F195976%7EPredator-2-Posters.jpg&hash=0eb7d93215adaff3ff244bae25f1e9dc418d02a7)
VisualFX (96%)
This movie had great special effects - the predator cloak looked awesome. Creature designs by Stan Winston's company were top rate.
Storyline (15%)
Just a rehash of the plot of the first Predator - but without the imagination and themes of that movie. The only thing changed is the setting.
Really this movie is just Lethal Weapon crossed with Predator.
SoundFX (60%)
Predator sounds were great but not as good as the first movie (I like the first movie's shoulder cannon sound better). The music is the same too.
Violent Factor (82%)
Lots of gore and violence in this movie - with stabbings, decapitations, skinned bodies, etc. Not as violent as Predator, though.
Overall (38%)
Predator 2 is overrated by fans I think. It is not really original - just another dumb early 90s action movie - a cross between Predator, Lethal Weapon and Aliens. This makes it derivative and mediocre, at best.
In fact, at the rare times I watch this movie - I mainly just skip straight to the penthouse and the warehouse scene. Because the character stuff is so boring and cliched (not as bad as AVPR though). The actors are good but they cannot match Arnie or the other guys from the first film. The one exception is King Willie - he was great in his brief scene.
Plus the setting is really boring - I liked the jungle setting better in the first movie.
QuoteJust like the other Matrix movies, no blood expept from there is a lot of fighting in the movie with the battle with Neo & Agent Smith in the movie. You see some gun shooting in the movie but that about it.
Theres blood when that rocket woman gets killed by a Sentinal, plus theres a few blood patches on Neo and Smith's teeth as the fight. ;)
Quote from: gameoverman on May 19, 2008, 02:16:44 PM
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/195976~Predator-2-Posters.jpg
VisualFX (96%)
This movie had great special effects - the predator cloak looked awesome. Creature designs by Stan Winston's company were top rate.
Storyline (15%)
Just a rehash of the plot of the first Predator - but without the imagination and themes of that movie. The only thing changed is the setting.
Really this movie is just Lethal Weapon crossed with Predator.
SoundFX (60%)
Predator sounds were great but not as good as the first movie (I like the first movie's shoulder cannon sound better). The music is the same too.
Violent Factor (82%)
Lots of gore and violence in this movie - with stabbings, decapitations, skinned bodies, etc. Not as violent as Predator, though.
Overall (38%)
Predator 2 is overrated by fans I think. It is not really original - just another dumb early 90s action movie - a cross between Predator, Lethal Weapon and Aliens. This makes it derivative and mediocre, at best.
In fact, at the rare times I watch this movie - I mainly just skip straight to the penthouse and the warehouse scene. Because the character stuff is so boring and cliched (not as bad as AVPR though). The actors are good but they cannot match Arnie or the other guys from the first film. The one exception is King Willie - he was great in his brief scene.
Plus the setting is really boring - I liked the jungle setting better in the first movie.
I 100% agree. Great review.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthecia.com.au%2Freviews%2Ff%2Fimages%2Ffreddy-vs-jason-poster-1.jpg&hash=5e23f563f98293a360a44c7db135e40078f5e9e3)
VisualFx: (54%)
Visually very average, looks just like most of the other Nightmare and 13th movies. The few CG characters is uses are not good, 2003 was really a bad year for CG in movies (Minus Return Of The King and a few others)
Storyline: (77%)
Freddy Krueger has lost his grasp on Springwood. The police have managed to completely erase him, no info can be found on him. If no-one knows about him, no-one is scared. In an attempt to rekindle the flame of terror, he resurrects the horrific hockey mask killer, Jason. If he let him loose on Elm Street, fear would once again be installed in the residents and Freddy could fully return. However, being the unstoppable murderer that he is, Jason just doesn't stop. As Freddy begins to regain power, he finds that the only way he can return home is to defeat is puppet.
SoundFx: (68%)
The sound effects are quite good, especially in the dream sequences. The score is much better however, the whole movie sounds very dark and eerie. For the fight scenes, a lot of rock music is used, and although it isn't my thing, I think it suits the fued the two killers have with each other very well.
Violent Factor: (85%)
Being a teen slasher, it is very over-the-top. I haven't seen a more bloodier movie of this genre, there really is blood everywhere. The most brutal part of the movie, I think, is at the end when both Freddy and Jason find themselves in a bloody death lock in which they just pull each other apart.
Overall: (72%)
To me, FvJ is really the only worthy Vs. movie adaptation. The two iconic killers are put together in a realistic and plausable way. Robert Englund, is of coarse, excellent as the hat wearing, razor bladed, chistmas sweater wearing demon. The acting from the human members of the cast are average at best, in fact they're not that good compared to the original movies. Entertaining and quite humerous in some places, Freddy vs. Jason is very good movie and deserves a sequel.
Quote from: War Wager on May 19, 2008, 02:31:27 PM
QuoteJust like the other Matrix movies, no blood expept from there is a lot of fighting in the movie with the battle with Neo & Agent Smith in the movie. You see some gun shooting in the movie but that about it.
Theres blood when that rocket woman gets killed by a Sentinal, plus theres a few blood patches on Neo and Smith's teeth as the fight. ;)
Oh yeah i forgot about that. The Matrix series was never had any R rated stuff in it. All 3 movies should have been PG-13. Oh i forgot to add spoilers to my review as well. I made another review because i was bored.
X-Men Review(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F8%2F8c%2FXMen1poster.jpg&hash=ddc165ed93c247b6d921920756baf36323dba744)
VisualFx: (89%)
This movie had great special effects. The movie came out one year after The Matrix and the visual effects are the best CGI I have seen in 2000. They still look awesome today as well.
Storyline: (90%)
Based on the comic book with the same name. The Human and The Mutant race are at war with each other. A group of mutants have gifts to give them supernatural powers and guy named "Professor Charles Xavier" has established a school where mutants can feel accepted and can learn to control their gifts. They where attack by a mutant organization lead by "Magneto". Magneto believes that this dispute between humans and mutants will go against each other and that mutant race should rule the earth. So it up to the X-Men to stop Magento before it too late. The story in X-men is really awesome and goes well with the comic books. The movie is dark, realistic and entertaining to watch as well. Along with Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Blade" (At the time), X-men has the best comic book storyline in a movie based on a comic book.
SoundFx: (70%)
Good sound effects in the movie, there ok I guess. The sound effect where the people in the movie fight sound awesome. The score is pretty good as well. Nothing as well to say about the sound in the movie.
Violent Factor: (25%)
Nothing is really that violent in the movie. Pretty much the violent level in the movie is at a PG-13 level. The fights themselves are pretty brutal; the battle with Wolverine and Sabretooth was pretty violent.
Overall: (82%)
Overall X-Men is a great movie and it stills a very good movie. I like the first movie then the sequels and it one of my favorite Marvel movies. Huge Jackman was great as Wolverine and the casting was very good as well. The plot was original and dark, the plot go well with the comic books as well. The dialogue was bit badly but I did not care. X-Men is a great movie that people will enjoy whether or not they are fans with the comic.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antoniogenna.net%2Fdoppiaggio%2Ffilm%2Frocky4.jpg&hash=b1dc19586a6dfcc2a3c4debe2450c37c8a9f162b)
VisualFx: (80%)
This movie had great special effects. The figth scenes are awesome looking!
Storyline: (6%)
Just a rehash of the other movies. Some russian dude comes to fight Rocky and Rocky lose against him. Rocky goes to Russia and he comes back, he wins as well. It not very good and you know that Rocky will win as always.
SoundFx: (71%)
Some of the score is very good. The music in the movie is awesome and it nice to listen to when watching it.
Violent Factor: (8%)
Not very violent at all. Just some blood and that it.
Overall: (25%)
Rock 4 really sucks and the series should have ended with the 3rd movie if you ask me. It is not really original and the movie makes it derivative and mediocre at it best. Silly plot, stupid scenes and a lame villain. None of the Rocky movies where so damn cheesy before until Rock 4 came.
The character are so boring and Rocky was beated like a whip in the first battle. Rocky 4 is not very good at all and you should skip this movie, see Rocky 1,2, 3, 5 and 6. The movie was a silly popcorn flick like Rambo III and Death Wish was back in the 80's. The movie makes me want to forget about it because it sucks so badly.
Rock 4 is waaaaay better than 5.
Rocky 5 had a great villain and a very good story. Rocky 4 was too silly and did not had the same story leasson feel that the first 3 movies had. Rocky 4 was a joke IMO.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fz.about.com%2Fd%2Fmovies%2F1%2F0%2Fu%2Fy%2F5%2Fhideandseekposter.jpg&hash=d8d6e01508667711f8797448545f846773b5f288)
VisualFx: (74%)
The movie looks very good and it has an overall creepy atmosphere. The way the house is shot makes it look warm and invieting, yet strange and sinister at the same time.
Storyline: (75%)
After his wife kills herself in their bathroom, David and his now distraught daughter Emily move to a remote town in northern Canada. As David tries to get closer to his daughter, he meets a woman that is very much in the same position as him; she lost her husband (divorce) and is now alone with her own daughter. Although things have turned upside down, David see's this as a chance to start over. As things begin to look brighter however, Emily develops a strange relationship with a mysterious boy named 'Charlie'. Although Emily is persistant that this is a real person, no-one else has seen him. Strange things begin to happen around their house, including many grissly murders. Charlie's games have gone sinisterly over board and both David and Emily are now in mortal danger.
SoundFx: (76%)
The effects for the inside of the house are done very well. It might look like a nice home, but through sound the place is transformed into something worse. A great score here too. The theme is done purely by piano, but it brilliantly captures the innocence and terror of the movie perfectly. The rest of the music is very dark and forboading.
Violent Factor: (58%)
Not overally bloody, but there is a gruesome scene at the start in which David finds his wife dead in a blood bath. The violence takes a step back from then on, until the murderes occur. One scene features David walking into the bathroon and finding that the sentance "Now look what you've done" over the wall written in blood. What lies under the water may be upsetting for some animal lovers. :'(
Overall: (70%)
A really great, perhaps, underated flick with a great story and great performances from all the cast. The main point for the movie for me, is that you are introduced to a few strange people in the movie and you just know that one of them is Charlie. It'll keep you guessing until the very end and the twist that occurs is brilliant. Unfortunatley is ripped straight from a Steven King novel, turned movie that came out a few years before. I think it is more powerful in this movie however and it is put to better use. If you love movies with storyline's that make you think and suprise you, Hide & Seek will not disappiont.
Hide and Seek has seven different endings....
But the theatrical is the best.
Alien Resurrection Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00000ILDG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=95555db1562e01281c8a3071c47d239c17bd82aa)
VisualFX (78%)
This movie had some good special effects. The opeaning ship scene is good looking and the under water scene look pretty awesome as well. The one thing i don't like about the CGI was that a lot of action scenes look fake. The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Armageddon had better CGI.
Storyline (15%)
The movie takes place 200 years after Alien 3. Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has been bring back to life by a company who clone here. The Weyland-Yutani Company has dissolved and now the United Systems Military has assumed the task of breeding and harnessing the deadly aliens. So later the Aliens break out and got on the lose on the ship. Later Queen's secret was revealed, it exposed a bizare DNA mix-up that left both Ripley and the Queen have give brith to a new breed of a alien called "New Born". Later they go back to earth and the New Born Dies. The story is not very good and the movie has a good amount of plot holes in the movie which makes it hard to watch. I hate the hole idea that how the clone aliens and try to train them as pets. And Ripley with Alien DNA was a stupid idea. The movie was a cross between Jurassic Park, The 6th day and Species.
SoundFX (60%)
The score is pretty good and i like the theme at the end of the movie is good. The rest of the music is very dark.
Violent Factor (87%)
Lots of gore and violences in this movie! People geting killed in the head, the Chestbusters are more bloody then the first three movies. There was also a scene when the Newborn rip the Queen head off which was pretty brutal. Alien 3 was more Violent though.
Overall (50%)
Alien Resurrection really sucks IMO and it the worst in the series. It is not really original and the movie feels like a direct to DVD movie. The character stuff is so boring and lame. The actors are good but not good as Aliens or Alien 3. The movie has a bad conpect, bad acting and a lame storyline. You should skip this one and see the other 3 movies.
:o
Ok... it's on...
Sorry but i thought A:R was the worst in the series. AVP & AVPR where almost close at the level. Alien Resurrection is a movie that i will watch once and never again like Godzilla.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.helena-world.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2F20071115_helena01.jpg&hash=c06027353e9c1ff3c28ef03c966f69322d483fe5)
VisualFx: (100%)
Tim Burton movies are always ozzing style in this masterpiece is no exception. Infact it's the best to date. A good balance between realistic and unrealistic makes the London in this movie very atmospheric and creepy. Infact very much like Alien3, the colour tones and mood of the setting even makes it somewhat depressing, but the plot is so thrilling you probably won't mind.
Storyline: (84%)
After being arrested and transported all over the world for a crime he didn't even commit, barber Benjamin Barker returns to London with a new name; Sweeney Todd. Learning that his wife has killed herself and his daughter has been raised cruely by the strange Judge Turpin, he decides that they have to pay. After meeting one Mrs Lovvet, the maker of the worst pies in the whole of London, he re-opens a barber shop above her own. They both eventually devise an grotesque plan; Todd would kill his customers and send their bodies down to Lovvets to spice up her meat pies.
SoundFx: (88%)
The muisc in this movie is perfect for it. Very creepy, mysterious and orginal. Since the movie is a musical, the vocals from the actors/actresses are very important, and they're all very good. Even from Alan Rickman who has a pretty deep vioce.
Violent Factor: (82%)
The movie isn't overally violent from start to finish, but the scenes where Todd slits his victims throats are quite in-you-face. Blood even splatters across the camera at one point. Judge Judas's death is pretty damn brutal and the score that goes along with it makes it all the more terrifing. The only down side for me is that the blood doesn't look too real, it looks a sort of pinky colour rather than dark red.
Overall: (100%)
Amazing movie, a stone cold classic in my eyes. It has everything; blood, music, acting, humour, song and a brillaint visual style. The movie recieved lots of awards, but I really thought Helena Bonham Carter deserved a Best Actress award, she really is very good and her vioce sounds so sweet. The movie also has a few suprises and twists that you may or may not see coming, but it just completes this movies dark, evil pressense.
I don't even know why i'm reviewing this :P
Alone in The Dark Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F92%2FAlone_in_the_Dark_movie.jpg&hash=ffd8380e61272d2f165e05403e16a63f1d766cb3)
VisualFx: (3%)
The special effects are terrible! Everything looks so fake. When the lady's (I forgot the name) head got ripped off it looks like something from a old 60's movie. The Xenos looks very fake and not sracy. The gun shots in the movie look bad as well, when the person get shot they don't even look dead.
Storyline: (1%)
The movie it self is based on a video game that came out on the atari and later on PS1 and Sega Dreamcast. The movie is about a supernatural force and Edwar Carnby finds himself on toughest on his career with his archaeologist helping him to find back through time in centuries. I don't remember that in the game in fact the movie has nothing to do with the game at all. The movie has very little plot and feels like a movie that came out from a school project that was made for a grade for there movie class. In the movie there are monsters in the movie called "Xenos" which are some black demons in fact these xenos are a true rip off of the Xenomorphs from the alien movies. The soliders in the movie are a rip off of the colonial marines from Aliens (1986).
SoundFx: (2%)
The movie has no score what so ever! You brealy hear any music at all. There a song called "Wish I had An Angel" from Nightwis and that about it. The song is not even that good at all. Don't bother geting the soundtrack.
Violent Factor: (10%)
The movie isn't violent at all, there is a few scenes of blood and you see people get shot. Nothing bloody or anything that is R rated.
Overall: (0%)
Overall, Alone In The Dark is very very bad movie and you should ever buy it or rent it. In fact this movie is so bad it makes look Battlefield Earth like 2001: A Space Odyssey. This movie is so bad that it dons't need a review. If you find a copy then burn it at once ;D ;)!
[The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movieposter.com%2Fposters%2Farchive%2Fmain%2F7%2FMPW-3576&hash=8bf20b0cd3b7ce89eee7938cbcfad58e9d8ca75a)
VisualFx: (90%)
- VFx is cool. The CGI used in the fight scenes are great and the fire in the movie looks great. Gollum in the movie look great as well and Gollum look disturbing, amusing, almost lovable at the same time. The movie had the best CGI in 2002 next to Spider-Man.
Storyline: (88%)
- The movie takes place afther the first movie. The Fellowship has now been broken and Frodo and Sam take Gollum prisoner and continue on to Mordor on the mission to destroy The One Ring. The two towers between Mordor and Isengard, Barad-dur and Orthanc, have united in their lust for destruction of the earth. Later Frodo meets a group people named Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Pippin and Merry who have join to destroy Isengard. The story was good and it went by the book very well as well. Some parts of the movie where remove and that beginning of the movie was actually closer to Fellowship of the Ring. Overall the movie has a great story and the story was almost better then the first movie.
SoundFx: (95%)
- The music in this movie is almost perfect. A lot of the score is amazing and it one the best music to be used in any action movie made in the past 6 or 7 years. The new theme of "Requiem for a Dream" is amazing and it better then the original them. The sound effects used in the battles are awesome and sound great at the sametime.
Violent Factor: (22%)
- Not very bloody, but there are some gruesome scenes in the movie but that about it really. The battles in the movie where violent but I don't remember that much violence's in the movie.
Overall: (78%)
- Not good as the first movie but still a very good movie. Great CGI and a very good story that will make you want to see it again. If some scenes where not remove then I would give it a higher rating but I did not care about it that much. The Two Towers is one of the best movie of 2002 and it still great.
how dare you give The Two Towers an 78. :o
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fb%2Fb2%2FBarbarellaPoster.jpg&hash=e2dedfebff94ca8924ac5591087f8a88086ddd1b)
VisualFx: (0%)
The worst visual effects I've ever seen. This is what scifi looked like before 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Storyline: (5%)
Some crap about a guy building a weapon and because the whole society is about 'love' (hahaha) they send Barbarella to stop him.
SoundFx: (10%)
Lame.
Violent Factor: (1%)
There is no violence in this movie - it's like an adult version of a children's cartoon.
There is some nudity in it, though.
Overall: (2%)
Horrible trash. Only good to laugh at.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Ff%2Ff2%2FEyes_Wide_Shut.jpg&hash=751cedced5d77f81a94af12a19d299adc4040eb9)
VisualFX (80%)
The sets are really good and it has that visual intensity all Kubrick films have.
Storyline (60%)
This movie is hard to understand. Not much of what people do in this movie seem to make any sense.
But I think that's the point.
SoundFX (90%)
The music was very good - very memorable.
Violent Factor (0%)
No violence, but a ton of nudity.
Overall (75%)
Not a big fan of this movie - but it is interesting. Not as good as Kubrick's other movies, though.
House of Dead Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.axelmusic.com%2Fresources%2Fcovers%2F0%2F012236148890.jpg&hash=8ec4061cfda8380399588fd031fb7f2a0b900d66)
VisualFx: (0%)
The worst visual effects I've ever seen in any movie that cameout in the 2000's. Everything looks fake and the Zombies look like crap. The movie looks like a TV movie on the big screen!
Storyline: (5%)
The movie is based on the video game with the same name. The movie is about A group of teens arrive on an island for a rave then only to discover the island has been taken over by zombies. So it to the group of teens to save the day before the zombies take over the world. This game is nothing like the game at all! The movie has a lot of plot holes that it not even funny at all and it makes things confusing at the end of the movie. It makes Resident Evil look like a oscar worthy in comparison to this pice of crap.
SoundFx: (20%)
Not bad but i seen better. Some of the sound effects sounded nice but that about it. You hear some rock music played in the movie but the score is not very good at all.
Violent Factor: (50%)
Overtop groe and pointless blood. The movie trys to be violent as the game but it worked well but failed to be scary. There is Blood that even splatters across the screen at one point. So i would let anyone see it if they don't like a lot of blood.
Overall: (2%)
Overall House of Dead is crap and just plain awful on every level. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, the acting is so bad it makes "Mortal Kombat" look like "Lord of the Rings", the CGI is crap and it looks like a movie that came out in the late 80's. This movie is not even good to laugh at, this movie is so bad. Don't even see or buy this movie ever!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.serpenti.it%2Fcinema%2Fprovini%2Fanaconda.jpg&hash=3d7168f56d3e0e881b6d235922877ba83a5ef31f)
VisualFx: (66%)
The cinematography is average for a movie of this genre but the best and worst come from the CG. At some (infact most) points, the movie uses a CG snake instead of a animatronic. They're terrible, they really age the movie and for one that came out in 1997 you would expect more. However, in the movies finale when the Anaconda slithers down to the tied up humans, the CG is excellent. How they managed to make most shots to look sh*t and one great I'll never know.
Storyline: (63%)
A documentary crew travels deep into the Amazon jungle on river barge to search for an ancient tribe. As they travel, the come across a strange stranded hunter, one which claims he knows where the tribe is. The mysterious man pushes the crew deeper into the maze of jungle, passing a mysterious wall and many monuements of giant snakes. As luck would have it, this whole territory is ruled by a massive man eating Anaconda and it relentlessly purses the humans. The hunter reveals that this was his plan all along and that he intends to capture the animal, using the others as no more than bait.
SoundFx: (78%)
The effects done for the snake are very well done. They obviously don't sound like that it real life but through sound it makes the creature seem much larger and menacing. It also features a horrific 'scream' that sounds vert out of place, but since it was made with the intention not to be completely real, it makes sense.
Violent Factor: (65%)
The movie doesn't have a lot of blood, but if finds new ways to be violent. Everytime the Anaconda attacks it always breaks something; a neck, a back, a body etc. The most memorable but gross death is were the snake completely devours the hunter whole as he continues to struggle.
Overall: (95%)
I'm aware that this movie isn't universally loved, but I think it bloomin' briliant. It's obvious that it doesn't take itself seriously and that it has a very strong B-movie vibe. It reminds me of the classic monster movies of the 80's. The acting is average but the perfromace from Jon Voight is sensational. He really makes his character work, making him likable yet unlikable at the same time. The music, setting and animatronic effects are great too and overall completes this underated flick as a B-movie classic.
The Big Lebowski Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fallthingscool.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F11%2Flebowski.jpg&hash=f2d579b4a8b2ae3fca3f8c41f44cded747ee0e7c)
VisualFx: (60%)
Not bad but the CGI could have been a bit better. The CGI used in the dream sequences look good but a lot of it looks fake and not realistic at all. For a movie that came out 10 years ago, it ok but Godzilla (1998) and Deep Impact had better visual effects.
Storyline: (80%)
The movie is about a lazy guy named "The Dude" Lebowski who has been mistaken for a millionaire Lebowski. Later his house gets trash and his rug get destroy, he later meets the real Lebowski. Later he gets an order to get some retribution for his soiled rug and that his kidnapped wife. So The Dude and his bowling buddies go out to get the money and the Lebowski wife. The story is really good and it funny as well, the story is not funny as Airplane or Monty Python and the Holy Grail but the story is entertaining. The plot is simple and easy to flow in the movie; you won't have problems watching the movie.
SoundFx: (69%)
Not that much of a score but there is some parts of the movie where they play some rock music and old 60's music in the movie. It not bad thing but I wanted to see more of a score of the movie though.
Violent Factor: (8%)
Not really violent at all but there is a screen when Walter smash a car with a golf club (I guess that counts a violent moment in a movie). There is a fight scene where a guy gets his had cut and it bleeds. Not a violent movie but there is a lot of strong language in it, though.
Overall: (73%)
Overall The Big Lebowski is a funny movie and it has it moments. The movie is filled with hilarious dialog and situations that will give you a good laugh when you watch the movie. It not good as everyone said it is but the movie is worth checking out and it the best movies of 1998. I would suggest to people to see it, who wants to see a good comedy.
I can't believe you gave Lord Of The Rings a higher percentage than The Big Lebowski.
The Big Lebowski was funny but not funny as everyone said it was.
Wow were on a roll here, 7 reviews in 1 day.
I haven't seen this movie in a while so bare with me:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.rottentomatoes.com%2Fimages%2Fmovie%2Fcoverv%2F46%2F180746.jpg&hash=a5f6fff93816d62d45f1e9943b7cb9774844db1c)
VisualFx: (58%)
From an artistc view point, I think the movie does a good job of capturing the darkness and eerieness of the urban enviroments. It makes the place feel very unsafe and dangerous. Apart from that theres nothing that stands out really. There is hardly any CG creatures at all.
Storyline: (46%)
Months have past since the Judas Breed incident and all have thought to have been killed in the underground explosion. Or so they thought. One still lives, studying the humans even further and starting to move from the citys sewers to the urban settlements. A teacher (who had a small part in the first) is trapped in her school along with an young orphaned boy, a horny teen and the last remaining Roach.
SoundFx: (70%)
The sound effects for the Raoch are slightly altered from the first Mimic, probably to give it more character since there is only one this time. The music is also slightly different too, but is hardly featured through the coarse of the movie.
Violent Factor: (25%)
No blood. No guts. The Roach just kills his victims off screen, followed by screams and sharp ripping and cruching noises. They are all pretty much the same.
Overall: (46%)
With a much lower budget than the original, this movie fails to make a mark in the series. It has an uniteresting and poorly written script and a plot that is all over the place. There is also too many storylines going on and it ultimately draws you away from the real one. Also too many cheap scares. Saying that, I really like it how there is just one Roach this time and having the end part set in a dark school was a good choice. Since there is only a few CGI effects, the suit has to be believable and fliud and I think they pulled it off. The ending I think is one of the better parts, showing you that Judas Breed is a constantly evolving one. Overall not a good movie and a poor sequel to a much loved original.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F98%2FLegendposter.jpg&hash=2ab2328c58ffb6a12f22947cf5d31a0ccd0e489a)
VisualFX (95%)
It's a Ridley Scott movie - there's no way you can watch a RS movie and say to yourself: "oh that looks like shit" - because the visuals are always detailed, atmospheric and interesting to watch. It's like your actually there - not one shot looks fake.
Storyline (70%)
I dont know - some typical fantasy-type stuff. I've only watched the first 20 minutes. But I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on tv.
SoundFX (90%)
Great music and sound FX that goes great with it's fantasy setting.
Violent Factor (40%)
I've only seen the first 20 minutes - but it doesn't look very violent to me. It's only rated PG, anyway.
Some small children might find it frightening, though.
Overall (94%)
For some reason I've avoided this movie. I think because I don't like Tom Cruise. But I decided to rent it out. Well, it is visuallly amazing as expected.
I'm not a big fan of fantasy movies in general but this looks to be one of the best of them.
Armageddon Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Ff%2Ffc%2FArmageddon-poster06.jpg&hash=a2bd555c3b90b6ef18d8db9cff2307c48a784aa0)
VisualFx: (95%)
Pretty impressive stuff overall, the asteroids look real. None of the CG looks fake or crappy exept mabye a few parts in the end. The movie cameout in 1998 and the still awesome looking.
Storyline: (63%)
The movie is about a asteroid that is a size of texas and it going to hit the earth, it twice the size that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years. Then NASA's been caught with their pants down and needs a new plan to stop the asteroid but nothing is wroking and the earth may be doom. Later a guy named Harry Stamper has been hire to train astronauts who will go to the asteroid, drill into the center and detonate a nuclear warhead to destory the asteroid before hit the earth in 10 days! The story is good but the movie focus too much on Bruce Willis' character and his daughter then action. Some of the acting is cheesy and the drama scenes where borning but the story was still very good. My favortie scene in the movie is when New York City is damaged by hundreds of small meteorites.
SoundFx: (85%)
The sound effects are awesome and when the meteorites attack the city sound awesome. A lot of the explosions sound great as well. The score is very well done and the theme song is very memorable. A lot of the music in the movie is great and the soundtrack is very good as well.
Violent Factor: (7%)
No blood whatsoever, basically stuff being blowing up from the asteroids. It not violent movie at all and you don't have to worry about blood in the movie.
Overall: (70%)
Armageddon is good movie and i love it when I saw it at the cinema back in 1998. I still like it and I had and still do have a blast watching it. When i saw it again back in 2006 on TV i did not like it as much but after seening it again, i like it even more. The overall acting is corny but eveything else is just awesome. If the movie had more action scenes then i would give it a higher rating. Overall the movie is a good movie and i think deserves a better rating on IMDB.
:D
Sweet nibblets are we going to rest?!
Haven't seen that yet, might just rent it now.
Quote from: War Wager on Jun 04, 2008, 10:43:04 PM
Haven't seen that yet, might just rent it now.
What movie are you talking? The review I post or Gameoverman post?
My last Review for today.
True Lies Review(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F4%2F44%2FTrue_lies_poster.jpg&hash=44b755afe8c00e2db42ad5b3dff1b4417fc4cc93)
VisualFX: (80%)
Pretty much of the CGI is awesome and it was great for it time. The explosions look great and look pretty real as well. Nothing else to say about the visual effects other then it great.
Storyline: (72%)
The movie is about a secret agent learns of his wife's extra-marital affair. For many years living in the suburbs he never know that he had a another life that he know about it and he thinks his job always has been a computer salesman then a secret agent. Later a group of terrorist network he calls "Crimson Jihad" and they are threatening to Nuke the U.S and kill everyone on earth. Harry must stop the terrorists and hopefully stop the terrorist before they blow up the earth. The story is good but it too simple, i wish James Cameron added more to the story. The story is a James Bond style mixed with The Rock and Lethal Weapon.
SoundFX: (70%)
The music is pretty nice and i remember the score being pretty good as well. The song played by Tango Project in the movie was good. The music in the movie is nothing memorable but it still nice.
Violent Factor: (38%)
The movie doesn't have a lot of blood i remember there was a lot of shooting in the movie. I have not seen the movie since the late 90's and i don't remember the movie being that violent.
Overall: (80%)
Overall True Lies is a fun action movie and it great to watch when you have nothing to do. True Lies is one of Arnold Schwarzenegger best movies next to Terminator, Predator, Total Recall and Conan the Barbarian. The movie has a lot of action and the acting is pretty good as well. The movie is pretty much a american version of James Bond and it best spy movies as well. I hope we willl see a sequel one day when Anrold retruns in 2011 or later!
Requested by Rachetcomand
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reeldeals.com%2FShowPic.aspx%3Fid%3D2927&hash=ef540a6636820b0ac72ca3eb6b0b3e923c073dd0)
VisualFx: (69%)
The CG in Lake Placid is average at best. Compared to other movies that came out in 1999, it's the best (Deep Blue Sea for example has cringe worthy graphics). It's nice to note that there are only a few of these shots, as the filmakers opted for a animatronic crocodile more than a CG one.
Storyline: (44%)
After a man is killed by a mysterious creature (yeah right), 'Fish and Game' and sent to investigate this quiet lake for whatever the animal may be. Also to join the ranks is a uptight, snobby paelientologist from New York, who ends up getting caught up in the investigation. After passing a large tooth as being from a bear right down to a dinosaur, they eventually discover that it's owner is a massive 35ft Asian Crocodile that has migrated to calmer waters. Over the top comedy and mayhem unsues as they try to capture the beast, before it makes 'em all dinner.
SoundFx: (70%)
The effects for the croc and pulled straight out from what noises they make in the wild. They're obviously made a lot deeper but the roars, growls and snarls the croc makes are reminisent of real life ones. The movie also has a very good score, not exactly creepy or menacing, but mysterious and slighty cheesey.
Violent Factor: (58%)
There is a gruesome death right from the start and the movie just doesn't seem to hold up from there on. It's decapitations galore...
Overall: (76%)
Another hard B-movie with an A-move cast, but thats just what makes it work. The performaces are cliche and slighty camp but are totally watchable. There is also some pretty humerous comedy that lightens the mood, aswell as some of the deaths that are laughable in themselves. Another decent creature feature and one of the better ones of the 90's.
Happy Birthday for this movie and i will review because i was bored.
Godzilla 1998 Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F2e%2FGodzilla_%281998_Movie_Poster%29.jpg&hash=3cedaae8d7b376758da999d400e12ac2fd4ed85d)
VisualFx: (92%)
The visual effects are pretty awesome and they where amazing for it time. The atmospheric feel works out well with the movie and a lot of action scenes in the movie look great. Some of it looks outdated today (I have not seen the movie since 1999 on VHS) but from looking at pictures of the movie, it still look great. The American Godzilla (Zilla) looks awesome as well. Most of the time in the movie, it rains and makes the setting so borning. I seen this movie at least 4 or 5 times in my life and i don't have plans to see it again. This movie
Storyline: (10%)
The movie is a lose remake of the original godzilla movie that cameout in 1954. The movie begins in the Pacific Ocean where the French do a weapon test and one of them drop on a island. Later that day, a ship was attack by a unkown monster and that monster later goes to New York City. Later a guy named Nick Tatopolous is called in to investigate the matter, and he quickly arrives at the conclusion that a giant, irradiated monster known as Godzilla has been created by the explosions from the french. When Godzilla (Zilla) attack the city, it truns out that the monster is Pregnanet and it going to lay eggs in the Madison Square Garden, so it up the USA army to stop the monster before it destory New York City. The story is bad on every level and i don't how to get stared on the movie. The movie is nothing like Godzilla and there is only one or two scenes from the 1954 version of Godzilla. The movie has no character development and you don't care about them. Most of the time in the movie, it just pointless scenes of Nick Tatopolous and his girl friend. The story just sucks and it simple as that.
SoundFx: (75%)
The sound effects are pretty good and the score is nothing memorable. I think the sound effects where the Army fires at Godzilla sounds pretty good. I don't remember that much of the score or any of the movie other then Puff Daddy song was good.
Violent Factor: (8%)
No blood or gore whatsoever, it pretty much people being killed off screen when Godzilla attack New York City. It ok for your kids to watch this movie.
Overall: (35%)
Overall, Godzilla (1998) sucks and i hate this movie. I saw it at the cinema back in 1998, i love it then i hate it when i watch it on VHS. The overall the acting is crap and none of the actors acted like they care if a Gaint Monster attack the city. The movie is nothing like the orignal Godzilla movie at all and the story is pretty borning, you only see Zilla (The American Godzilla) 5 or 6 times in the movie. There is nothing interesting in the movie and you should not waste your time or money on this movie.
A new review from me :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F38%2FSchindler%2527s_List_movie.jpg&hash=8e785aea255db57d6d8ada7c2becd5e63ddaa99a)
VisualFx: (80%)
No CGI was used but the visuals are detailed. Nothing else to say.
Storyline: (100%)
The movie takes place in WWII. The movie is about Oskar Schindler uses Jews to start a factory in Poland during the war. He witnesses the horrors endured by the Jews, and starts to save them. I don't want to spoil the movie because that woun't be fun. The story is amazing and it shows how evil the Naiz's where!
SoundFx: (70%)
Pretty good stuff in the movie. The sound effects where great and very nice music. I don't remember that much of the music in the movie.
Violent Factor: (88%)
There is a gruesome death right from the start and finish in the movie. The movie is pretty burtal but they had to do that to show how evil the movie really is.
Overall: (100%)
This movie is amazing and it sums up how story and art go well with the movie. Schindler's List is a film that everyone should see before they die! Everything about this movie is perfect and there is no flaw in the movie.I give the film an "10" (wishing I could give it a higher grade than that)!!!
Here is a movie none of you have probably seen but anyway.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F8%2F83%2FBad_boy_bubby.jpg&hash=31c90ecd21456966797a844e190259287ca22507)
VisualFX (90%)
The movie has a naturalistic look and was shot by something like 32 cinematographers. The beginning is very bleak and claustrophobic but it changes as the movie goes on. There is a crane shot in the movie that is pretty epic and long.
Storyline (95%)
Brace yourself, because hollywood would never make something like this.
I'll quote wikipedia:
Bubby is a 35-year-old man who has never set foot outside his mother's two-room slum. She kept him from the world outside, telling him that there is poisonous gas out there and without the gas mask he will instantly suffocate.
When Bubby's father returns home after 35 years, Bubby is driven out to head into an inhospitable world.
SoundFX (96%)
This is genius. They actually used binaural microphones and stuck them on the actor's head and recorded the dialogue that way. This way you hear everything the way the main character is hearing it.
I can't quite remember the score because I haven't seen it in a while but I'm getting it soon on dvd.
Violent factor (90%)
There are some scenes here that are either gross or disturbing. Abuse against cats, we see scenes of incest, murder involving plastic wrap - not that violent but some people may be creeped out by it.
Overall (98%)
This is one of the sickest, most twisted surreal comedies ever made. You won't believe your eyes and ears, let me tell you.
All the actors are great, the dialogue is funny as hell (you will be ROFL alot in this movie) and it is offensive to the extreme (I'd advise Christians and/or animal lovers NOT to watch this movie, hehe).
If you are a fan of offbeat, sick black comedy, then you will love this.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F9c%2FUsual_suspects_ver1.jpg&hash=39291d62d0818caca759fb3f2e225c1539773667)
VisualFX (70%)
The movie has a naturalistic look it and looks very cool as well. The art direction is ok but nothing specail or anything.
Storyline (5%)
The movie is about truck hijack in New York, five conmen are arrested and brought together for questioning. As none of them is guilty, they plan a revenge operation against the police. The operation goes well, but then the influence of a legendary mastermind criminal called Keyser Söze is felt. The story sucks so much balls, it makes AVPR look like The Godfather. Perhaps my largest problem with the film is that it trusts the audience to be stupid - to see things in extremes and to not possibly see the truth. Spacey's portrayal of Kint is so reserved, inwards, and meek that we couldn't possibly think. The first 95 minutes are uninteresting with little to no thematic development at all.
SoundFX (84%)
The movie also has a very good score. I really like the music used in the crime scenes but nothing that great but it still cool.
Violent factor (10%)
The movie has very little blood and no nudty at all.
Overall (2%)
The ending sucks and the twist was bad as hell. It remains to be true that there's a distinct lack of craft present here. A twist wouldn't save it from that, and my thoughts would only slightly be better. Bryan Singer has no directing skills at all and he makes Micheal Bay look like a good director. The acting, from Kevin Spacey to that Baldwin brother, is average to crap! Do not see this movie at all ;)!
Requested by RoboPredalien97:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache5.art.com%2Fimages%2F-%2F-%2Fposter%2FL-27-2742-the_dark_knight-Z00DNRSW.jpg&hash=5149b11038178031d50efbab464f84249f045d1f)
VisualFx: (96%)
In one word, TDK is awesome to look at. It's very stylised and epic looking plus shows off some remarkable cityscapes. It's refreshing to know that after the other CGfests of 2008 like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, TDK has very little CG at all. From the top of my head the only CG in the movie is Batman's plunge and soar over Tokyo, The Joker's fall from the construction building and the nasty side of Two Face's face. Excellent.
Storyline: (83%)
Very mature if a little complicated, TDK's storyline and script is masterfully written and is very deep and realistic. Instead of your usual superhero movie cliche, TDK focusses more on the crime in Gothom rather than just Batman beating up the criminals. It pours a lot of emotion into the movie and makes it more of an adult movie than for kids.
SoundFx: (90%)
The score for this movie is exceptional. It sounds very up-to-date, modern and is really a joy to listen to. The theme done for The Joker is little more than genious, a very raw and harsh assualt of the ears and definitely helps in making The Joker terrifying and Heath Ledger's performance all the more special. The gun fire, punches, car chases and explosions sound awesome too as does Bale's Batman vioce (Lol just kidding)
Violent Factor: (33%)
Very harsh, it's a wonder it managed to slip past a 15 rating. Theres very little blood but hangings, point blank shootings, pencils being shuved through eyes, lips being spilt with knifes? Not for young kids thats for sure.
Overall: (100%)
The Dark Knight. What else do I need to say?
Whether people are fed up of hearing it or not, TDK really is a well done and exceptional piece of modern cinema that quickly takes it's rightful place as a classic. All the performaces are top notch, but Heath Ledgers Joker is just amazing. Funny, scary, likable and unpredictable, it really is the strong point of the movie for me. Aaron Eckhart also gives us a great performance, you can tell he really gives it his all. His transition from Harvey Dent to Two Face is brillaint and although he gets the last half of the movie, he totally owns it. It didn't feel rushed at all. Some may even say that he is scarier than The Joker and I agree in many ways. TDK is probably the best movie of the decade and is definitley worth your time.
And if Ledger doesn't get an Oscar, people will die. Starting tonight. I'm a man of my...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgO_2QHBghA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgO_2QHBghA&feature=related)
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 08, 2008, 12:00:23 AM
Overall: (98%)
- From the director of Resident Evil, Paul Anderson, created this masterpiece by combining and making a new rivalry of species. Alien Vs. Predator, a magnificent masterpiece.
Normally Id say you got problems, but, then again, an opinion is an opinion.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fb%2Fb3%2FLFoDHPoster.jpg&hash=411e320d25027bf6faf4224a0e06d7781f01c99d)
VFX (35%)
Parts with explosions like a SUV blowing up in a elevator shelf was okay. All of it weren't good nor bad. But thats just my opinion.
Storyline (80%)
A detective against a group of cyber terrorist? I like that. "Live Free or Die Hard" or "Die Hard 4" starts with John McClane picking up a young hacker called Matthew Farrell who is involved in breaching the FBI computer systems. Helping the cyber terrorist and soon they are attacked by people who are working for the terrorist. So the story continues from there. I don't want to spoil to much if you haven't watched the movie. Anyway its good.
SFX (80%)
From guns firing and explosions making the movie more excited! The sounds are really great!
Violent Factor (70%)
Now violence, oh how I like it. The violence in "Die Hard 4" is quite violent. From punching people in the face, shooting them, getting hit and stuff.
Overall (80%)
Overall this is really good like the rest of it's older movies. If you like action or want to complete the trilogy "Die Hard 4" is for you.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhollywoodgothique.com%2FmyPictures%2Fnightmareonelmstreet.jpg&hash=73bd9ed4d815dc6f58296ab1a407bc9b70bac04f)
VisualFx: (87%)
Wes Craven gives the movie a real creepy look and gives the settings real atmosphere and eeriness. The special effects still look good today, obviously they look dated but they were really good for the time.
Storyline: (90%)
Tina, your average teen, is having terrible nightmares. One night... you know what, you probably know the story already. :P
SoundFx: (85%)
The score here is great. Exceptionally creepy and very 80's like. A very memorable theme, one of those that instantly remind you of Freddy as soon as you hear it. Not only that, the sound effects done for the dream scenes are excellent also.
Violent Factor: (83%)
Not an overally bloody movie, but when blood does hit the screen, it hits it good. Very gory deaths from Tina and Nancy's boyfriend Glen.
Overall: (89%)
One of the best horror movie's ever made. Original, well acted and well told, NOES is just as popular today as it was back then. The character of Freddy Kruger is really genius, everyone knows who he is, what he does and what he looks like. A real shame it spawned some awful sequels but it is and always will be a terrific piece of horror.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe2%2FTMNTMoviePoster.jpg&hash=9a7ab70ddbbc01b96a3840cb5c54b865859e6b8a)
VisualFX 90%
No CGI but the production looks fantastic with the realistic sewers and the New York locations. The turtle's and Splinter are great creations brought to life by Jim Henson's workshop.
Storyline 95%
Pretty much follows the first comic I've been told and is also quite dark for a kid's movie.
SoundFX 92%
Great score and the turtle's voices are spot on.
Violent factor 88%
This actually was quite controversial when it was released, but all the violence is fantasy only. There is alot of martial arts in it, and all the turtle's use their weapons but non-fatally.
There is some blood when Shredder back-hands Splinter but that's the only time there is blood.
Overall 91.25 %
Movie of my childhood and it still hold up today. I think it's because of the actors - they all turned in really good performances.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F9f%2FVforvendettamov.jpg&hash=a790867c4b310eeec6a014538a0e3f933708497c)
VisualFX 95%
The Big Ben blowing up was very impressive and great dystopian look reminiscent of the comic.
Storyline 55%
Well this gets a low rating because the Wachowski's basically raped the original graphic novel. Alan Moore has disowned it. The thing is, they did not include some major themes from the novel, and instead made it more about contemporary US politics. That means in a few years it's going to look very dated.
It definitely needs a remake.
SoundFX 88%
Tchaikovsky and explosions never sounded better.
Violent factor 93%
Lots of brutatility in this movie, but not much blood or gore.
Overall 82.75%
The best part is when it follows the novel (the part about the letter) but otherwise it strays too far from the novel but it's still entertaining and a good movie. If only they didn't shit all over Moore's work.
I have written some reviews for another forum but they are not done using the rules for this thread. Is it OK if I post them anyway?
Sure ;).
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbatcave.stopklatka.pl%2Fgrafa%2Ffilmy%2F3%2Fplakaty%2Fbatman95_poster01.jpg&hash=cf5eb29566097fa185858df9113625fb948ae565)
VisualFx: (75%)
Unlike the dark and gothic takes on Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, the third installment is more for the kids than anything else. It looks like it's taken straight out of a Marvel comic as the scenes are very colourful and campy. Lowers the realism of the movie but I guess that was the idea.
Storyline: (35%)
The Riddler joins forces with the psychopathic Two Face in an attempt to take over Gothom city. Using a state of the art contraption, The Riddler is able to extract all the thoughts, memories and fantasy's from all who use it. Batman as usual tries to stop them but is now aided by a young, athletic acrobat nicknamed Robin.
SoundFx: (78%)
The score, as with everything else in the movie, is slightly over-the-top and comic-like. A good score none the less but no where near as powerful and forboding as the previous. Other than the movie sounds pretty average, but a lot of bass is used in a lot of the action scenes and especially the opening titles.
Violent Factor: (8%)
No blood from what I can remember but a few punches and shootings here and there. Nothing too drastic at all.
Overall: (60%)
To be honest, Forever isn't actually that bad. I'm not a big fan of the campy, kiddy versions of superhero movies but it's watchable at least. I think Tommy Lee Jone's as Two Face is great, extremely watchable and definitely the selling point of the movie for me. Jim Carrey, being Jim Carrey, over acts on The Riddler but he can be quite watchable too. I watch these movies for the villains and Forever does a good job of portraying them as cliche' but often humorous characters.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.originalprop.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F04%2Fdie-another-day.jpg&hash=7829bc7cc5f308458e46d6ed21e9fbb5d8211f7d)
VFX (35%):
Nothing special, same as always.
Storyline (5%):
The story is about James Bond is sent to investigate the connection between a North Korean terrorist and a diamond mogul who is funding the development of an international space weapon. The story is corny and lame as hell. I mean the movie has the most unrealstic weapons to be used in the series like cars that can't not be seen in the human eye. It try to be cool but it failed miserably in the process. High-octane stunts and reviting story lines have always been a part of James Bond films, ever since "Dr. No" introduced us to the super-spy in the 1960's.
SFX (80%):
From guns firing and explosions are good and it the only good thing about the movie.
Violent Factor (20%):
Nothing violent but people shooting each other.
Overall (11%):
There is nothing in this film that feels original or fresh. And the John Woo influenced cinematics have no place in a Bond film. Shitty acting, borning action scenes and lame story makes gives the series a bad name. Sometimes i wish this movie was not made :-[ >:(! Thank god a reboot was made in 2006.
I'm adding a new category - acting.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviecritic.com.au%2Fimages%2Fchopper-eric-bana.jpg&hash=93be1c233cf09c026266fc6275d82821bf571c0b)
VFX 94%
Production design is really good, they actually shot in a real prison and the cinematography really captures the era well, and the dark nature of the story.
Story 92%
Based on a true story (partly truth, partly fiction), of a notorious criminal.
SFX 95%
I don't know what to mention here but the music. It has a great soundtrack of songs I've never heard of but good music anyway.
Violent factor 98%
Very realistic and brutal violence. We see a guy get stabbed in the face and bleed to death, another guy get stabbed multiple times in the back and chest, a dude getting shot in the stomach and a man being shot through the head. Plus the main character who cuts his own ears off.
Acting 99%
Brilliant acting especially by Eric Bana. It's not like they are acting more like they are real people.
Overall
(94 + 92 + 95 + 98 + 99)/5 = 95.6%
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.driveinmovie.com%2FNY%2FHunterMountain%2Fschedule%2FRaiders.jpg&hash=bbb68897df74dba34d6feff053da0ebf6c763b9e)
VFX(85%) Cinematography is great! There are some fake looking blue screen shots, but that's kind a point of the movie, ending ark opening is quite of stunning. Otherwise, it's a damn fine looking movie.
SFX(100%) Sound effects are awesome, and dynamic. John Williams music makes this movie a masterpiece. Great Score!
Story(70%) A typical adventure story,The year is 1936. A professor who studies archeology named Inidana Jones is venturing in the jungles in South America searching for a golden statue. Unfortunately, he sets off a deadly trap doing so, miraculously, he escapes. Then, Jones hears from a museum curator named Marcus Brody about a biblical artifact called The Ark of the Covenant, which can hold the key to humanly existence. Jones has to venture to vast places such as Nepal and Egypt to find this artifact. However, he will have to fight his enemy Renee Belloq and a band of Nazis in order to reach it.
Violent factor(40%) This movie is really violent for a PG movie, there are headshots, people getting chopped by propel, brutal fistfights, people being run over by a truck and the facemelting in the end.
Acting(95%) Great cast! Harrison Ford is awesome as always, Karen Allen is good in female lead, and Paul Freeman, very charismatic villain.
Overall(100%) Must see movie! This movie does everything right, being one of the best movies ever made. Makes me feel child again, every time i see it, and never get bored!
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
Forgot about this topic, well I re watched Indy 4 recently and the old trilogy, I think I was being too enthusiastic last time. Here is my re-dux review (SPOILERS************):
I enjoyed the 50's glowy film style film style, but it still doesn't have the same feel as the first 3. I particularly enjoyed the first half (the town was awesome, as was all the buildup to the chase), but I think it lacked slightly in the second half, as I wasn't too keen on the alien (even though more realistic, it was the unrealism of the earlier films that were so cool), though it was reflective of the period.
Major annoying aspect was the damn animals throughout the film (monkeys and animals in the opening sequence). Acting generally was top notch, but there some moments that made me cringe, one main part that springs to mind is Indy falling over in an exaggerated way after the rocket sled. It was good that there wasn't overall too much SFX, which was great, but there was still too much in the end of the film.
As much as I think Shia was the right person to pick as Indy's son, I don't really like the idea of Indy having one, nor getting married. I always liked the previous films of him being single and dating different women. I think the wise idea would be him too hook up with Marion (was still cool to see her, though her character as a bit underused), and Mutt be his younger sidekick, much like Indy and the Tempe of Doom.
The wedding scene was too over the top happy, and if this is the last film, not a good scene to end the series (compare to Indy 3 ending riding off into sunset). I think the other factor that will limit me from enjoying the film as much as the others was the enemy. Everyone hates Nazis. But without getting too political, not all communists are as nasty as Nazi's. Nazi's in theory and practice has evil written all over it, communists in theory don't, and not always in practice.
Overall its hard to give a rating. It has many problems, and doesn't match up to the original trilogy. That being said, its still a fun film. It beats most typical adventure sequels (compare to The Mummy 3), and I am still looking forward to seeing it on DVD. 6.5/10
Raiders - 10/10
Crusade - 10/10
Doom - 7/10
Kingdom - 6.5/10
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffd%2FIn_the_line_of_fireposter.jpg%2F200px-In_the_line_of_fireposter.jpg&hash=1dd84656d7f68176e47a4cf5f0f01ce9d12d261b)
VFX 90%
Good use of blue screen compositing in the crowd scenes. The film is shot very epic with a distinct visual style.
SFX 95%
Ennio Morricone is a great composer and he made the score for this film.
Story 100%
The script is so good for this movie and it's directed so well. Hollywood only produces movies like these very rarely.
It's a political thriller by the way, but not your usual one, it has a great emphasis on the characters.
Violence
Well I'm not going even going to bother rating violence. It has the exact amount it needs to tell the story. If you love gore then you are watching the wrong movie.
Acting 100%
Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. Enough said.
Overall
I give it 97% (the score on Rotten Tomatoes). It's brilliant in every way.
If I may I would like to add a new category, "Sex"
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.teamsugar.com%2Ffiles%2Fupl0%2F2%2F22660%2F12_2008%2Fcronenbergcrash.jpg&hash=86a003b6d92ec7660b9cc84ccf6f8f6cf042413b)
VFX 50%
There is no CGI but the cinematography is pretty good
SFX 80%
The car crashes sound great and the night city has some strange mood. The score by Howard Shore is excellent and hypnotizing.
Story 60%
The story is original , its abou people who release sexual power by car crashes but the movie turns into a porn drama after 40 minutes
Violence 40%
Nothing much , a guy flying through a window and crushing his skull , later we see blood coming out of it, a woman has a big scar on her leg, a man has scars on his face.
Acting 90%
James Spader gives a great preformance and Elias Koteas gives a perfect preformance and does everything flawless , the females cast is good but has some flaws.
Sex 100%
A huge ammount of explicit sex scenes. Sex in cars , sex on cars , lesbian sex , sex on a balcony , sex under a highway , sex in a carwash... Sometimes there is so much sex that even I get sick , woman's vagina is seen many times , the movie has real sex where we see a man's penis entering a vagina :o
Overall 80%
And interesting and very entartaining movie with great preformances and cool cars , however the huge ammount of sex turns the movie into a porn.
^I saw that movie 8 years ago. It's one of the sickest movies I've ever seen. ;)
National Lampoon's Van Wilder
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe1%2FNational_Lampoon%2527s_Van_Wilder_Poster.png&hash=d006b600d09322db20104afa774872afcc1e4529)
VFX (30%):
The CG scenes are awful and everything looks like it should be made for TV. The cinematography is pretty good but that about it.
Sound (50%):
The sound effects are avange and nothing to say about the movie really. Ennio Morricone did the score for this movie and i would say it his worst yet at making music. The theme music and in the audio suck pretty badly.
Story (20%):
Movie is about the most popular kid on campus meets a beautiful journalist who makes him realize that maybe he's afraid to graduate. So when his father puts a stop to his cash flow, 7 years into his time at college, it looks like the party might finally be over for Van. The movie is just another Teen age comdie and nothing new at all.
Violence (5%):
No violences at all and just very little of it.
Sex (90%):
A big amount nudty and a good amount of sex scenes as well. If you like boobs then you may like this movie.
Overall (5%):
There's a scene involving dog semen and a cream filled pastry. That should say it all and please skip this movie because it not worth your money or time.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FMMPO%2F505306%7EZodiac-Posters.jpg&hash=80f2aee20d5966db647ab1beeba166f3824765fb)
VFX: (95%)
Being directed by the great David Fincher (Se7evn, Panic Room, Fight Club, Alien3) the movie has a very unique, stylish look. Theres a few CG shots here and there to give the movie some scope and they're all very good.
Storyline: (86%)
Based on the true story on the Zodiac Killer, the story revolves around a meek cartoon artist searching for clues as to who the Zodiac is. The killer leaves all kinds of letters telling the police force and newspapers exactly who he has killed and who they were. This leads to audience participation in the usual 'who dunnit' genre. Years pass and the police has still not caught the Zodiac, but the cartoon artist hasn't stopped searching. Looking for this mystery killer has taken over his life and set aside his wife and kids. A very well thought out and excellently written script.
SFX: (75%)
A lot of music from the 60's/70's/80's is used to define the time periods, but the movie score is quite good too.
Violence: (52%)
Not that much blood, but theres a few point blank shootings and stabbings. Not too strong but not too shallow either.
Acting: (97%)
Excellent. All the cast are on top of their game, everyone really does a swell job. Robert Downey Jr. is my favourite, he's totally watchable and even a bit suspicious...
Overall: (76%)
The first half of the movie I thought was excellent, went along at a nice fast pace and kept me watching. After the first hour and a half though I started to get a little bored. They kept on thinking they find the killer but they turn out to be wrong. This happens a lot throughout the movie. Definitely worth watching however, a great piece of movie making.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fcc%2FFGF.jpg&hash=b5637a9eeb0276b36755402648278183fe9f3efe)
VFX: (10%)
Just your everyday looking comdey movie. Noting else to say really.
Storyline: (70%)
It about unemployed cartoonist moves back in with his parents and younger brother Freddy. When his parents demand he leave, he begins to spread rumors that his father is sexually abusing Freddy. There is really no storyline at all other then stupid crap going on in the movie.
SFX: (15%)
No musical score but it has some rock songs in the movie from Green Day and U2. It also has a Rap Song at the end of the movie from Snoop Dog.
Violence: (52%)
There is no real violence in the movie but there is some blood in the movie like where Gord Brody put a dead deer skin over his body and where he rips a baby out of a person smoucth. There also a scene where they watch the original Prom Night on TV and shows some blood on the screen. Gordy and his friend, Darren are standing on a half - pipe built outside Gordy's home. Darren tries to do a bit of skating, and trips up and breaks his leg - bone poking out through the skin, blood everywhere, and Darren screaming.
Sex: (80%)
Some pretty nastey stuff and there is a sex scene with a horse where you see another horse having sex with each other on top of each other. Gord also has sex with his girl friend by wiping her on the butt.
Acting: (20%)
Noting to say about the acting other then it just Tom Green acting like a dumbass as always. Some of the actors where good and I don't know why Rip Torn (Hamlet) is in the movie. He is great actor like him in this in movie.
Overall: (38%)
Overall this is a very stupid movie and who the f**k wants to see Tom Green act like a idoit for two hours. If you liked "The Tom Green Show" that aired on MTV during the late 90's then you will enjoy this film.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg148.imageshack.us%2Fimg148%2F1108%2Frobocop22zt.jpg&hash=7c3858211875ffa0639dbccc3f08283da943eaa9)
Visual FX (60%) While Verhoeven's Robocop had a realistic and raw look, this is totally different, there's plenty of colours, Robocop suit is changed from grey to blue(wich i like), looks like a good comic book. Also, one of the last Hollywood movies to use Stop Motion, it's dated yes, but possibly best stop-motion animation you'll ever going to see.
Storyline (50%) Nothing too original, we get the same carachters as in first part, the script is probably the weakest thing about this movie
Sound FX (90%) Dynamic, lot's of different type of gunshots and some sounds from the first film (like robo's walking)are improved
Music (85%) No Basil Poledouris this time, but im still surprised they hired oldschool composer Leonard Rosenman to do the music. Most people hate the score (mostly, because there's no Poledouris theme playing or the choirs), i personally LOVE the new theme, it's really dynamic, heroic, memorable and makes you feel, like your seeing something BIG.
Violent factor (90%) It's not as gory as the first robo, but really meanspirited and sadistic.
Verdict: (80%) I'd say it's VERY underrated movie, sure, if you compare it to first one, but it wouldn't be fair. There wasn't almost nothing left from the subject, after the first Robocop. The ending duel beetween Robo1 & Robo2 is great!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2Fthescifigeek%2FSARULHLNqcI%2FAAAAAAAAAJA%2FQGl2G9glym4%2FStarship%2520Troopers%25203%2520Marauder_thumb%255B3%255D.jpg&hash=2c0a9a1e31a15724f29ad726072b946240a79dae)
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder.
Visual-FX: (15%)
= The visuals of the first Starship Troopers was spectacular, even for a 1997 movie, it had the best visual effects I have ever seen. Yet, ST3:M had the worst visual effects since ST2:HotF. Even for a computer generated effects, the Bugs really looks like crap. That also goes to their new robot and guns.
Sound-FX: (61%)
= Good and stunning explosions and gun power. Srsly, I hate the song sang by Sky Marshal Omar Anoke, it tones like oldies song for me. Yet the lyrics are stupid.
Storyline: (21%)
= There's nothing good about a story being stranded in a planet that is full of bugs that talks nonsense all the time about religious acts and beliefs. I prefer ST2:HotF than this one. Story was crap and stupid, nothing had improved for 4 years of planning for production of ST3:M.
Violent Factor: (79%)
= Yes. The rating says it all. There's still blood and gore, the specialty of this movie was only violence and sexual themes. Nonetheless, it didn't changed in its Violent Factor.
Overall: (44%)
= The worst Starship Trooper movie since Starship Troopers 2. Nonetheless. Paul Verhoeven first Starship Troopers was the best. A 1997 Starship Troopers film beats a 2004 and 2008 Starship Troopers films.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stephen-king.de%2Fimgav%2FRunningMan.jpg&hash=6e32fc03b03cd17b8776f84d922808651f0b096c)
VFX 95% - has this 80s cyberpunk look to it - great sets, explosions, the ruins of LA have a real gritty feel, the fights are spectacular and ultraviolent.
Sound 100% - Superb score, it's got that electronic ultra-80s scifi tech feel. The main theme is really good and surprising deep, it is very memorable.
Plot 100% - based on a Stephen King book, movie is a dystopia set in the future where prisoners are put on a reality tv show where they have to try and survive while they are hunted down by uber-gladiatorial warriors. Such an awesome idea and the movie is very thrilling.
Violence 100% - this is typical ultraviolent OTT 80s hardcore Schwarzenegger stuff. Great. They don't make 'em like this anymore, we can't seem to get R rated scifi movies anymore.
Acting 100% - Arnie is great as always, the guy who plays Killian is a great, sleazy and memorable villain, Maria Conchita Alonso (Predator 2) is really hot and good in this. Yaphet Kotto of Alien fame and Jesse Ventura of Predator are also in this.
Total 100% - Simply great, up there with Predator, Total Recall and Terminator as one of those classic Arnie flicks from the 80s.
^^You're kidding?
I liked it, but it's not a good film. Definitely not on the same level as The Terminator.
Quote from: severen76 on Nov 01, 2008, 05:59:19 PM
^^You're kidding?
I liked it, but it's not a good film. Definitely not on the same level as The Terminator.
I ain't kidding I loved it - great dvd and I've always liked this movie. It's on par with Terminator, Predator and Total Recall.
Well I don't agree, but whatever. :)
Why, what didn't you like about it?
I'm going to post a couple of reviews that have done for other websites.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi236.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff37%2FAVP66%2FAlbum%25202%2FSTATE_OF_GRACE.jpg&hash=a34c703d97e5ca85f905a0bdf336a129bc2bf01b)
"You believe in the Angels, or the saints. And you believe it, but it hasn't anything to do with reality"
State Of Grace (1990)
Director: Phil Joanou
State Of Grace is about Terry Noonan who returns home to New York's Hells Kitchen after a ten year absence. He soon hooks up with childhood pal Jackie who is involved in the Irish mob run by his brother Frankie. Terry also rekindles an old flame with Jackie's sister Kathleen. Soon, however, Terry is torn between his loyalty to his friends and his loyalties to others. Sean Penn and Gary Oldman are excellent in this film and they have a great chemistry which can be very funny or very serious at times. Although I would say Oldman has the best lines in the film. Oldman plays his aggressive troubled character in his own unique memorable way.
Some of the best scenes in the film I think are when Terry (Penn) and Jackie (Oldman) set a building on fire and then run through the flames laughing hysterically and also when a man is talking about how he shot his dog just because he bit him. Another great scene is when Jackie gets two severed hands out of a fridge and starts wiping them all other Terry which is really funny.
Terry who is a undercover cop is throughout the whole film wishing that he never got involved with the people he used to live around. The thing that really pushes Terry to end these killings done by Frankie (Harris) who is the head of the Irish mob in the film who wants to join forces with another crime organisation is when Frankie kills hid brother Jackie who is Terry's best friend. This leads to my favourite scene in the film at the end of the movie which is the slow motion shoot out between Terry, Frankie and Frankie's men which is very violent. The soundtrack by Ennio Moricone isn't to bad either.
Rating: 8.5/10
Feel free to comment.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi236.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff37%2FAVP66%2FAlbum%25202%2FRambopic.jpg&hash=5f205925682baf057d4fbd7f49b3ca53b5f20b29)
"Live for nothing, or die for something. Your call"
(Favourite Films)
Rambo (2008)
Director: Slyvestor Stallone
The fourth Rambo film brings back the character to its recognisable roots that we were familiar with in First Blood with even more action, violence and battle scenes than the other films. We see are hero back in Burma where he has to rescue a group of christen aid workers who have been kidnapped by the local army of Burmese soldiers where plenty of classic Rambo scenes follow. The films soundtrack was very good and similar to First Bloods soundtrack which I liked. I though most of the film was shot quite well with the camera style following Rambo's point of view.
Rambo is as tough and violent as ever as he has to go back to his old ways and accept that war is in his blood to go and save the people and kill the soldiers. You can see he is still haunted by his past in the flashback sequence which I though was effective but I was confused why they used footage from the alternative ending to First Blood. The action scenes were great towards the end of the film when Rambo massacres all of the soldiers with the machine gun. The ending could have been a war films on its own. One thing about this film is that is interesting is that Stallone tries to show us the real life crisis in Burma by showing footage of the atrocities in the opening of the film. One point of the film was to raise awareness on the subject.
In the end I think this film is just as good as First Blood and Stallone gave another great performance as John Rambo. I sometime like to consider this as the third Rambo film because Rambo 3 was so bad I pretend it doesn't exist. I am looking forward to Rambo 5 which is coming out next year and if the rumoured plot for this film is true then it sounds quite good.
Rating: 8.5/10
Nice review. Can you do on the new bond movie with out spoilers.
Quote from: B-Rad G on Nov 02, 2008, 07:19:53 PM
Nice review. Can you do on the new bond movie with out spoilers.
I might next Wednesday when I go to see it again as I feel I might of missed some of the plot points the first time I watched it.
Quote from: War Wager on Mar 16, 2008, 07:36:13 PM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/images/jp3_poster.jpg
VisualFx: (89%)
The JP movies always seem to have the best CG and /// ain't an exeption. A lot of the shots they combined Winstons animatronics with CG versions and they look almost exactly the same. Some terrific CG on all the dinosaurs especially the newly introduced Spino.
Storyline: (32%)
The first two had very good, strong stories all thanks to Peter Benchley. As soon as I heard that he had no input whatsoever, I knew this movie would suck storywise. It all seemed very rushed and that it didn't have much thought put into it at all. Saying that it was nice to see a new bad boy on the loose, deeper insights into Raptor intellignece and new dinosaurs.
SoundFx: (64%)
Nothing terribly impressive but the sound of the tropical forest is just excellent. Great vocals from the Spinosaurus and the Raptors too.
Violent Factor: (60%)
Each movie seems to get more an more violent, and this one takes the risk of losing a PG rating. A lot more blood this time around plus a rather nasty kill when the Raptor stabs in guy in the back with it's lethal foot claw.
Overall: (74%)
Lacks the story of the first two, but is definitley the most action packed and exiting. Awesome Spinosaurus attacks and chase scenes with the Raptors. All usual the classic JP theme is a joy to hear and the overall acting from the cast is very good. All I can say is that I'm dieing for IV. ;D
Peter Benchley?!!!! My god I've just died a little inside.
Crikey! I mean Micheal Crichton! RIP!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.takehollywood.com%2Fcore%2Fmedias%2FdynamicLibrary%2FMyOffice%2Fmod_filmography%2Fpicture%2Ffilmography_148.jpg&hash=464e92a2f1ced28fd9142abe97f236355d06bfc1)
Storyline 98%
Based on the life of Jim Morrison, some truth and some fiction. Pretty much covers all the highlights.
Score 100%
I think most of The Doors' music is included on here.
Sex 95%
Lots of sex and hot 60s chicks in this movie.
Acting 99%
Val Kilmer does a seamless performance as Jim Morrison (he apparently did his own singing). The rest of the cast are brilliant too.
Overall 100%
It rocks, a great movie what can I say. Maybe not entirely accurate, but a highly entertaining movie. Makes me wish I lived in the 60s.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovefilm.com%2Flovefilm%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F1%2F8541-large.jpg&hash=45b14897ce79b44d76ff136fe6bbd171adb8fa7c)
Score 80%
Ok but not really memorable.
Acting 73%
A little over-dramatic in places.
Sex 64%
A good sex scene is ruined because of annoying edits.
Plot 45%
A couple's daughter is killed so they go to Venice and for some reason they think their daughter is alive in the city. A bit weird and confusing but ok. The ending is wtf.
Overall 45%
This movie is incredibly weird and annoying. I hate the director's style. He has important scenes and puts random edits in there to stuff that has nothing to do with the scene. The ending is bizarre. Maybe I'm impatient but I just don't get this movie.
Stealing Harvard review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00007M5KK.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=7d32a15455470311477d576d1ad99879f7dd276f)
Visual Effects: (5%)
Lame and dull looking for a comdey.
SoundFx: (64%)
Nothing terribly impressive but it has some nice music played in the movie.
Storyline: (70%)
A man turns to a life of crime to pay for his niece's tuition for her first year at a prestigious university. His girlfriend want him to pay a $30,000 down payment on a house. His friend is trying to help him get the money.
Violent factor: (4%)
No violenices at all other then Jason Lee in the movie get his foot cut and there is some blood.
Sex: (2%)
There is none since it Rated PG-13 but there are a few boob shots.
Acting: (65%)
Tom Green and Jason Lee are awesome together in this movie. Lee is as dull as ever and Green is funny but not as funny as he could be but they still pull off a good oscar winning role for the movie. I especially liked Elaine's dad; his character was the funniest.
Overall: (70%)
Tom Green at his best and I wish Tom Green was still acting today. Tom Green fans may not like it, though. Cause the comedy is rather subdued and very devoid of gross humor but it still a good movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.availableimages.com%2Fimages%2Fpreviews%2F9%2520Songs%2520%282005%29.jpg&hash=8b0b7e74055a85343c9c7e9f307c98ff3afe99cb)
SoundFX 35%
There is a bunch of sequences with different bands. All the bands seem crap, though.
Storyline 30%
Music. Sex. Small talk. Sex. Antarctica. Sex. Music. Sex. That's pretty much it.
Sex 100%
This is the most hardcore of any mainstream film I've seen. You see penetration, ejaculation, oral sex, masturbation and more all in explicit detail.
Overall 45%
Not too sure what point the director's trying to make. That relationships are mostly abysmal?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.kth.se%2F%7Etomase%2FTomas%2520Ekholm_files%2FPorcaro%2520Albums%2FDune.jpg&hash=0d48715da91bf7211f31aeaeb8e70699325be217)
(Theatrical cut only)
VFX 98%
If you like pre-CGI old style 80s effects done well then you'll like this. It's not quite Star Wars, but it has a very different look.
The cinematography and production design is excellent btw. We get exotic and epic locales like strange machine structures, giant statues, a fleet of spaceships entering port, alien deserts, weird worlds, alien creatures and monsters... It's epic like no other.
My only gripe is the lack of grittiness that Star Wars and Blade Runner did so well (and they preceded Dune).
SoundFX 99%
Music is really awesome in this, terrific score (main theme in particular). Sound design is good too.
Acting 85%
Melodramatic not realistic, but what makes up for it is the quality of the actors. Brad Dourif, Patrick Stewart, Max Von Sydow to name a few.
Violence (33%)
Only a few violent scenes... nothing to worry about.
Overall 94%
Unfortunately I have not read the book so didn't fully understand it. The thing I liked about it that it was epic visually and created whole new worlds. We just don't get movies like this anymore. It was too ambitious though I think - I heard they spent 44 million on it (alot for 1984) and apparently David Lynch was forced to make cuts by the studio. It was meant to be 3 hours long or so I heard. No I haven't seen the other versions yet because I've read that they are not as good, and besides Lynch didn't supervise those other versions (he apparently abandoned it like David Fincher did with Alien 3).
Anyway, it's good and weird sometimes so watch it when you're stoned to get more out of it, lol.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthisdistractedglobe.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F08%2FTime%2520After%2520Time%2520poster%25201.jpg&hash=e07ea9420096a28907484df4103d9af84c809121)
VFX 95%
The beginning is in Victorian London and the whole production is given lavish detail to recreate this era.
Then it moves to 1979 San Francisco, which is more generic but it still has great locations and production design.
All professionally shot and edited also and done very well.
The time machine looks cool, btw.
SoundFX 95%
No cheesy 70s music thank god but a classic, robust adventure score that harks back to the old classics like The Time Machine (1960).
Acting 100%
Best reason to this is the acting.
Malcolm McDowell is perfect as HG Wells with his innonence and scientific curiousity. Mary Steenburgen is likeable and has great chemistry. David Warner is cold and calculating as Jack the Ripper.
Storyline 99%
HG Wells builds a time machine in 1893. Jack the Ripper uses it to escape to 1979 to hide from the police. HG Wells travels to 1979 to stop him and take him back.
HG Wells VS Jack the Ripper.... and it's a battle of wits, the script really brings out these two as you see them going against eachother like in a chess game.
Overall 98%
Awesome. It's got two of the coolest historical figures in a story about time travel. The opening part with Jack the Ripper stalking the London streets one of his best cinematic moments. The characterisations are really good (maybe not historically accurate but this is a movie not a documentary) and the way these characters interact is fascinating. I love this movie - you can actually watch the whole thing on youtube, too.
Btw, Nicholas Meyer directed it who was responsible for Star Trek: Wrath of Khan and The Voyage Home.
Fresh from watching it on ITV for the first time, so...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.texaschainsawtours.com%2FPics%2FRemakePoster.jpg&hash=43427af26404375540fcbee2433e1519ba231470)
VFX: 87%
I thought this movie had a very interesting and stylish look. The movie seems to be separated in two by the camera movements; at the start the camera is fixed and there are long slow pans, when the horror starts however the camera of thriving all over the place. Really sucks you into the movie and makes it more intense.
Storyline: 75%
You probably know the story but I think it's still as fresh today as it was back when the original was released. I haven't seen said original so I'm not sure how much as changed, but I like the overall plot in this one. Very suspenseful and nail biting.
Acting: 84%
Surprisingly good. I wasn't expecting much but the performances I thought were actually quite great. Especially from the lead female, I was on the edge of my seat when she was being chased by Leatherface.
SFX: 77%
The score was very forboding and 'primal' I thought. Really gives the movie and the character of Leatherface a more terrifying edge. Sound effects done in the house were really good also.
Violent Factor: 70%
Not overall bloody but still pretty sick. Brains being blown out, legs being sawed off, getting hung from hooks like batches of meat... it ain't pretty.
Overall: 86%
I thought this movie was excellent. The start didn't exactly appeal to me but I was sucked in more and more as the movie went on. It had characters that I liked and that I felt sympathy for, hense I was scared for them. Had a lot of good emotionally strong moments too and had some overall heart. An excellent horror movie. Whether it's better than the original I'm not sure, but I'm sure to check out The Beginning before that.
I thought the original was better.
I've got a feeling this will be a controversial review, but here goes...
*contains spoilers*
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nedgallagher.com%2Fjournal%2Fimages%2Findy4teaser.jpg&hash=d40c41b48a437f6c1a37320db8d2afc3a78865e7)
VFX: 100%
I think the CG in this movie is stunning, never really seen anything like it. The scene near the end where the alien spaceship is removing itself from the Earth was breathtaking, the CG is really top notch. Theres actually quite a lot of CG in the movie overall but I really don't see the problem.
Storyline: 67%
A little bit too 'out there' for many but Indy needs to find an mysterious crystal skull and bring it back to it's original home deep in an Amazon kingdom. Along the way he reunited with an old flame and discovers he has a son. Fairly straight forward but the movie doesn't really take itself seriously and throws in a hefty number of laughs. Nothing wrong with that but it sticks out from the previous Indy's like a sore thumb.
SFX: 88%
Really well done effects here, the action scenes sound fantastic as well as the score by the great John Willaims. Sucks you right into the action and gets the adrenaline pumping.
Violence: 20%
Not overall bloody but theres obviously a lot of hand to hand combat as well as some sword fights and gun kills. One particularly brutal scene features no blood at all but is when a Russian general is swarmed by giant ants and pulled into their Hive screaming.
Overall: 87%
Being that I haven't seen Raiders and Doom for ages and haven't seen Crusade at all, I really had a blast with this flick. Nothing much more to say. Sure some parts are a little too cheesey but it's extremely entertaining and features some heart pounding action scenes. The 'Jungle Rumble' is fantastic. Not exactly loved the world over but this movie quickly took it's place as one of my all time favourite movies.
ICHI THE KILLER
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2Fsazbr6.jpg&hash=0b959ee498fccafdf91d6a420259ce2b14546e86)
VFX..80%
The Main Effects in this film come with the violence... Some of blood shooting out from people were done using CG effects along with some of the gore and i believe the title sequence is made from CG sperm.. hehe.. This really isnt a film about using CG effects anyways..
STORYLINE..100%
Ichi The Killer.. ahhh where to begin.. I dont want to spoil anything for anyone who has never seen this movie... It comes off at first like your typical Yakuza film, but then it takes a VERY VERY twisted turn into depravity that few can handle... In the end your left dumbfounded as to what you have just seen... Few movies that I have watched have been able to pull this off, and Ichi The Killer does it quite well...
SFX...80%
The sound effects you will get use to in this film are mostly blood and artery spurting, vomit, women screaming from rape and beatings, etc, etc, great family fun.... hehe
VIOLENCE...100%
Im a sucker for Gore and horror, but goddamn this movie is f**king relentless... It starts off with a woman being beat for not making enough money, only to be raped violently afterwards.. other scenes consist of one of the main characters cutting his own tongue off, He also gets punched in the mouth only to rip the fist off of the guy who punches him with his teeth upon getting hit.. Ichi the main guy in the film has razor blades built into his shoes and uses them to cut whole bodies in half.. to make this short... heads get crushed, women beat and raped, blood, guts, gore, sperm, This f**king film has it all........
OVERALL...100%
Alot of you may not have seen let alone herd of this film... Do yourself a favor and track it down and check it out... The film has spawned an anime and it is based off of a manga from what i know.. Alot of crazy shit comes out of japan this being one of the sickest, most disturbing, yet fun film i have ever seen... Its DEF not for the ones with a weak stomach or some form of moral f**king values... Its main theme is Sadism v.s. Sado masochism... that should tell you right there what your in store for...
^Awesome, I've been meaning to check that one out for awhile. As for Indy 4 - *vomits*.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F412C99DS8PL._SL500_AA240_.jpg&hash=65bfab39efbbf3eff7dabfec36f6408590f9f4e4)
Acting 70%
Christopher Walken is the only notable actor in this movie, all the other actors are bland as hell, but the wife isn't bad because she seems very realistic.
Plot 88%
This is about a guy who claims he was abducted by aliens. It plays it realistically about how his family and others would react but the guy seems crazy anyway. Anyway, despite getting raped he "communes" with the aliens at the end, wtf?
VFX 74%
The effects are low budget, the aliens look creepy enough though. Fire in the Sky looked better.
SFX 54%
The jazz score is a little annoying sometimes the music when the aliens arrive is cool.
Overall 85%
I like it, it's really funny when he get's anal probed, and it's a very weird movie. It's kind of a mix between realistic and surreal. The guy who directed it, is an Australian and he also directed Howling III: The Marsupials.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F8%2F8e%2FStar_Trek_IX.jpg&hash=f8e50467eb7fd2a6531d719abe1f66c481f27769)
VFX: 70%
Their cheap as hell now but back then they where pretty awesome and some scenes still look pretty decent.
Storyline: 67%
The movie is about a mission to observe the race of Ba'ku, suddenly behaves as if having to fear for his existance. The peaceful Ba'ku, whose planet offers regenerative radiation and therefore incredible lifespans, live in harmony with nature and reject any kind of technology. Their planet and their culture is studied by the starfleet and the associated Son'a - in secrecy. But the So'na, lead by Ru'afo, intend to abduct the Ba'ku in order to take the planet for themselves and for the starfleet officials.
SFX: 85%
I have to say that the sound visauls are pretty awesome, I love the sound of the gun fire in this movie. The musical score in the movie is very well done too.
Violence: 25%
I have not seen the movie since 1999 when it came out here in Cuba but I recall no blood at all since it rated PG in the USA.
Overall: 72%
Not the best Terk sequel but it worth checking out. It not as good as First Contact and the Borg but it still a good sequel. Star Trek: Insurrection' is a very underrated film, and a film that deserves way more credit.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishflicks.com%2Fimages%2Fben%2520hur.jpg&hash=9f28bb6c380d8f7484ce8b867b6070151a0f01d8)
VFX: 90%
There are some obvius bluescreen shots here and there in the galleyscenes, but the stunning cinematography and great looking sets makes this really good looking even for this day. The famous chariot race is nicely shot. The film is shot in unbelievable large aspect ratio (2.76:1). Epic.
SFX: 70%
Those early films to have 6 track stereo, and it mostly works fine. It's nothing todays hometeather standards, but for it's time, it's great!
Music: 100%
Miklos Rozsa wrote the score in 8 weeks, it's really stunning and memorable. The music sounds BIG and plays big part in this movie.
Storyline: 90%
Judah Ben-Hur lives as a rich Jewish prince and merchant in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 1st century. Together with the new governor his old friend Messala arrives as commanding officer of the Roman legions. At first they are happy to meet after a long time but their different politic views separate them. During the welcome parade a brick falls down from Judah's house and barely misses the governor. Although Messala knows that they are not guilty he sends Judah to the galleys and throws his mother and sister into prison. But Judah swears to come back and take revenge. As simple as it sounds, it really doesn't make you bored.
Violence: 40%
People are runover by horses onscreen, and also some blood here and there, there's also a scene, where we see a slave with his hand ripped off. I'd say it's really violent for a G-rated film.
Acting: 100%
Solid. We get great performances from everybody, Charlton Heston really makes you care for his character. Also Stephen Boyd as Messala makes a memorable role.
Overall: 100%
Classic. Everybody should see this movie atleast once in their lifetime.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.happyhorror.com%2Fpix%2FHalloween-II-1981-on-DVD-Second-2-Horror-Movie-Michael-Meyers.jpg&hash=c7241a44889103ffa491cf236b7ce0c6813fe209)
Storyline: 95%
Set during the same night the first Halloween took place, Laurie Strode has been taken to hospital for her injuries. Dr Loomis continues his search for his murderous patient and learns that Laurie is actually his sister. The reason he is going after her. Micheal heads into the hospital and begins a killing spree amongst the inhabitants, eventually leading him to Laurie once again.
I think the hospital setting is great. Setting a horror movie in a hospital instantly gives it some disturbing and tense value.
VFX: 70%
Looks like your aveage 80's horror flick, no camera work that stands out. Though it does a great job of keeping the scenes dark, yet not dark enough that you can't see. Myers is hidden quite in a lot of the shots only allowing you to see that disturbing pale mask.
Acting: 87%
Very good. Everyone puts in a good performance, though Curtis and Pleasense are the better ones.
Score: 98%
The music in this is exceptional. Written again by John Carpenter, he gives the score a more intense and forboding vibe and makes 'The Shape' even more terrifying. The actual Halloween theme is a little weird sounding, but the chase music is intense and really gets under you skin. Best score in the series.
Violence: 82%
A lot more blood this time around and overall much more violent than before. Though the movie pulls of the best scares when it uses no blood at all. Theres one scene where a woman is killed via scorching hot tub which is pretty dang brutal in my opinion, it's the music that does it.
Overall: 93%
Subsequently better than the original for me. Probably my favourite out of the lot. Much better acting and a more intresting setting. I liked it how it continued right from where the first stopped, making it feel like one long, suspenseful movie in all. One of my favourite horrors no doubt.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F4%2F40%2FStar_Wars_Phantom_Menace_poster.jpg&hash=a0b502551b1d7cdb7c613116b8be55801d99c2d6)
VFX: 10%
This movie has one of the worst CGI I ever seen. The Lightsabers in the movie look like crap and the visuals look so ulgy as hell. Their are scenes in the movie with the race scene where you can see the car bash into a rock but you can see some parts of the ship outside of the rock. Lucas must have been broke to make good visuals for this movie.
Storyline: 1%
"The Phantom Menace" is that he simply has no story to tell. The movie is about Jedi knights, Qui-Gon Jinn and a young Obi-Wan Kenobi, along with a Naboo outcast, named Jar-Jar Binks, must help Queen Padmé save her world from greedy trade executives, and along the way, they discover a young boy, named Anakin Skywalker, who has the potential to be a powerful Jedi himself. Lucas fails to make scenes like these believable, we can't help being conscious of how he's manipulating the plot in his effort to connect the two trilogies. Another good example of this problem is Anakin's portrayal as a potential Jedi and why make a prequel in the first god damn place.
SFX: 77%
The score is made by the great John Willaims and their nothing wrong with that. Nothing new but it only decent thing about this movie.
Violence: 20%
No blood or gore at all but their is a scene when Darth Maul gets cut into half. It pretty violenet i guess for a Star Wars movie.
Overall: 5%
I always hated this movie and I still f**king hate this movie. Lucas f**k things up for a amazing series and why did he made a prequel then a Episode 7? I mean the history of Star Wars should be untold and four sequel episodes would have been so much better. There is not enough room to write all the terrible things about this movie other then Lucas sucks so balls now because he killed his own series. f**k you lucas and f**k this movie too for now and forever!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcfs3.tistory.com%2Fupload_control%2Fdownload.blog%3Ffhandle%3DYmxvZzY0OTAzQGZzMy50aXN0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzEvMTcxLmpwZw%3D%3D&hash=1ac0403977bdc92e9ae4cfed97a190474fffce5c)
Violence/Gore 95%
Fans of gore are in for a treat. The gore here is so over the top and gruesome. The most spectacular scene is a woman giving birth to a full grown man, with lots of blood and gore.
Sex/nudity 88%
Hot french girl gets totally naked with full frontal nudity in this.
VFX 45%
OTT gore and cheap effects. Cinematography and visuals are rather dull.
SFX 32%
Cheesy synthesiser score.
Acting 73%
Pretty good for such a low budget horror movie. The actors do their best with the material.
Plot 67%
Cross between ET and Alien. It's kind of confusing sometimes and there are alot of bizarre sequences.
Overall 85%
What makes it work is you will remember this movie for it's weird atmosphere and shocking gory sequences. Things like the dwarf clown, the aforementioned woman giving birth to a man, etc.. It's a very offbeat and strange movie. So bad, it's good.
Quote from: gameoverman on Dec 05, 2008, 01:20:20 AM
http://cfs3.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzY0OTAzQGZzMy50aXN0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzEvMTcxLmpwZw==
Violence/Gore 95%
Fans of gore are in for a treat. The gore here is so over the top and gruesome. The most spectacular scene is a woman giving birth to a full grown man, with lots of blood and gore.
Sex/nudity 88%
Hot french girl gets totally naked with full frontal nudity in this.
VFX 45%
OTT gore and cheap effects. Cinematography and visuals are rather dull.
SFX 32%
Cheesy synthesiser score.
Acting 73%
Pretty good for such a low budget horror movie. The actors do their best with the material.
Plot 67%
Cross between ET and Alien. It's kind of confusing sometimes and there are alot of bizarre sequences.
Overall 85%
What makes it work is you will remember this movie for it's weird atmosphere and shocking gory sequences. Things like the dwarf clown, the aforementioned woman giving birth to a man, etc.. It's a very offbeat and strange movie. So bad, it's good.
funny.... I just ordered a copy of this online yesterday...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashfilm.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fimages%2Fjourney3dposter.jpg&hash=d75fa8edc3184a930ec5b3a849858b05714396e6)
Storyline: 72%
With a cliche' backstory of death of a father(s) a trio find themselves living the pages of a novel. A entire world near the Earths core, complete with a sea and thriving eco-system. As soon as they get there however they find that the core is heating up fast, draining up all the water and their chances of escape.
VFX: 88%
Some of the 3D effects are pretty impressive, but when the 3D takes a backseat you're basically watching a red and green movie, while wearing nerdy looking glasses.
SFX: 75%
Pretty good, the scores got a nice 'wow' factor to it.
Acting: 68%
Average, although Fraser is quite good.
Violence: 0%
I really can't think of any violent scenes.
Overall: 68%
Not a bad movie. A little predictable if a little boring in places, it's a bit of a missed oppertunity. Some scenes were pretty good including the 'nasty fish with big teeth' and T-rex attack. Probably won't watch it again but mabye I will for some of the 3D effects.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F93%2FDeep_Impact_poster.jpg&hash=30e7a1b9a2c1677ebd47711f9a20b2a202e4a9cf)
Storyline: 80%
A very simple plot but very good and writen too. The movie is about comet is on a course to collide with Earth, and people must cope with the fact that they will die. The President has devised a plan to keep as many humans alive as possible. Scientists have built giant caves big enough to hold a million people, and the government is going to have a lottery to pick 800,000 people to live in the caves along with 200,000 scientists, artists and doctors.
VFX: 90%
Amazing CGI, the water tide waves look so real that I piss my pants back in June 1998. A few CGI shoots of the comet look decent but everything else looks amazing. It too bad it did not win a oscar.
Music: 95%
The score is wonderful and the music is very epic. I love the sound effects too.
Acting: 58%
Average, although Morgen Freemen does a great job in the movie.
Violence: 1%
I really can't think of any violent scenes. If you count the scene where the comet destory Paris then yes.
Overall: 88%
Great movie and it beats the crap called Armageddon. The writing is better. The acting is better. It is smarter, more real, more thoughtful, more effective then a pop corn movie. Check out the movie if you have the chance.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemanews.gr%2Fv3%2Fother_images%2Fposter%2FUnited93_2.jpg&hash=c9370a2cb7cce4528f3d1f9f11b9218246b38033)
VFX 96%
Very vibrant, crisp, sharp looking picture (to be expected for a recent movie), the cinematography is very good as is the editing.
SFX 90%
I can't remember if there was any music but if there was there wasn't much. That's because they don't need music to create the drama as what is happening onscreen is dramatic enough.
Acting 100%
Acting is awesome, very realistic. No big stars so it's more believable. I think they actually used some of the real life people who were involved on that day as well.
Plot -
There is no plot, this is pretty accurate to exactly what happened on 9/11. Maybe some things were made up to fill in the gaps of things they didn't know, but it's pretty darn accurate to what would probably have happened. The suspense and buildup is awesome though, even knowing what will happen (as no one survived) and because it actually happened for real it makes it even more suspenseful and interesting.
Overall 100%
This is an awesome movie and it's really going to take you back and remember the events of that day and see the incredible things that were going on. Hell, I didn't even know the full story of flight 93 until I saw this film. You'd think what would you do in that situation... And the thing is you see it from the terrorist's point of view as well and what was going through their mind as they went on their suicide mission.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi124.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp7%2Fdynoflyer%2FHaunt%2520Forum%2520Pics%2FUndead.jpg&hash=077662b990eb600e66c4b416a5894d02920164b7)
VFX - 64%
Some scenes had good effects, but the CGI scenes were very poor IMO. They aren't the worst effects but they're definitely in need of improvement.
SFX - 70%
The sound effects were decent, guns sounded right, lots of other cool sounds too. However the music just didn't fit. The music built no suspense, and really just sounded like they just went with whatever random idea they could think of with no consideration for genre. That being said, again the sound effects themselves were good.
Acting - 50%
Most of the characters are either too boring, too able, or just say "f**k" too much in one sentence. They take like an hour to figure out how to kill the zombies and act like it was the most complicated thing in the world. The only good character was the fisherman guy who was also ironically the most unrealistic due to stunts he pulled that were literally impossible. There's a scene where the fisherman jumps, does a flip, and the spurs off his boots connect to the wall where he is able to hang and shoot at zombies with two pistols, all the while keeping his "badass" face on.
Plot - 2%
The plot is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in a zombie film. These meteorites are giving off radiation in a small town in nowhere Australia and turning people into zombies. Doesn't sound that bad right? Well to make things worse it begins to point to aliens having done this. The rain also appears to be dangerous and must be avoided. Another stupid plot effect is that some people start coughing when it's going to rain, which makes little sense. So anyways they later find out that the aliens are using the rain to heal the people of the disease. and that's it. until the ending where one person who even though was drenched in the rain, still managed to stay sick and somehow spread the infection like a plague, which leads to showing the main female character going outside with a giant cage filled with zombies out front waiting on the aliens to come back. Worst f**king plot ever.
Violence - 98%
That seems to be the only thing this movie excelled at, a bunch of violence and gore. There was a scene where the heroine had a saw blade on a broom and was severing body parts with it.
overall - 6%
If you just like shitty movies, see it. If you're looking for a zombie flick that actually makes sense avoid this at all costs. The only good thing about this movie is that it's got a lot of gore in it. All but one character is boring, the ending sucks, and the plot is like a bad video game idea that got turned into a movie instead.
It been while since I made a review.
The Dark Knight review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F8%2F8a%2FDark_Knight.jpg&hash=0f0198a14a5222b378b5561900dd777882f67834)
Storyline: 95%
The movie takes place like a year or two after Batman Begins. Batman has begin to take effort to bring order to Gotham, with the help of Lt. James Gordon and newly appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent but there is a new foe called "The Joker" and has a new wave of chaos into the city then it up to Batman to save the day. I don't want to spoil the rest of the movie but I can say that The Dark Knight has a great story and I think Nolan did a great job on making it based on "The Long Halloween" comic.
VFX: 88%
I don't recall any CGI in the movie at all other then the scene where the money burn into fire and a few action scenes but other then that the cinematography is very good as is the editing too.
Acting: 92%
One of the very few things that makes The Dark Knight awesome and the acting is one of the best things about the movie. Ledger as the Joker was dark, funny and twisted at same time. His version of the Joker is, without a doubt, one of the most terrifying movie villains of all time. The acting in this movie was great as ever and the casting is the same from Batman Begins expect for Katie Homes did not returns but who cares really because she was bad in Batman Begins. None of the drama is boring and the movie was bit long but it was worth it.
SFX - 95%
All the sound effects used in the movie where well done and the sound effect used when The Joker blew up hospital sound great too. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard returned to score once again and they did a very well done too since I love the new music added in the movie and it was very well done.
Violence: 15%
There was no blood but their is a scene where Harvey Dent get burn and it might scared a few little kids. There is a scene where a guy gets hit in the eye with a Pen but their nothing to worry about since I would let your kids see this as long they have a adult to watch it with them.
Overall: 90%
One the year best movies and This movie no doubt will win best picture sure. The movie was great and I love everything about it but I did though the first ten minutes where bit dull but it gets better later on in the movie. I was bit disappointed with the ending but I'm not going to spoil the ending though. Sure the hype for the movie was crazy but the movie was worth the wait, and if you have not seen it then you are missing out because this movie is one the best movies of 2008.
QuoteVFX: 88%
I don't recall any CGI in the movie at all other then the scene where the money burn into fire and a few action scenes but other then that the cinematography is very good as is the editing too.
Shows you just how good the CG is. Tumbler reconfiguring and the Batpod bursting out, Batman flying over Hong Kong, Joker falling from building, Two-Face's bad side etc. The scene with the money bonfire wasn't CG at all.
It look like CGI too me. Here is another review.
Hancock Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fc9%2FHancockposter.jpg&hash=7b17ded4ab0dcea11e6ff2f29f16531cd6053b81)
Storyline: 76%
The story is about a superhero named "John Hancock" and he lives in Los Angeles but unlike most Superheros, he is a lazy and rude guy that cares about him self and he has cause millions of dollars in property damage from carelessness from his powers. Hancock has save a person live from a train and the guy is named Ray Emery (Jason Bateman from Dodgeball) and has offer Hancock to come over to his place and he has a mission to change his superhero's image and have the public cheering him. The story is not too bad, it has a few good ideas but it should have been better like with the character development should have been better too.
VFX: 80%
Some of the visual effects are great and the scenes where Hancock fly looks great. Some of the fight scenes look great too and I feel like some of the Rain scenes look a bit crappy though but the CGI is still great though.
SFX: 64%
Average, some of the music used in the movie where good. Nothing else to say really.
Acting: 72%
Some of the Acting where decent and Charlize Theron (The Italian Job) was good. I do think Will Smith did a great job as a Superhero and he pull it off very well.
Violence: 18%
Nothing really bloody but there a scenes with people getting shot and a scene with Hancock putting a guy inside of his butt. The movie is not really a kids movie but kids at the age of 7 - 14 won't have any problems with the movie.
Overall: 73%
Hancock is good fun to watch and it was a good summer popcorn flick. Will Smith play the Superhero I wanted to see from him in a long time and I like to see him in a comedy again since I like him in roles in a comedy then a serious drama. The first hour and fifteen minutes where great fun and the movie is worth a solid rental.
Another review. Sorry for the double post.
End of Evangelion Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F9e%2FEoeposter.JPG&hash=6f35317301ea7537772b58609a28bdeb57bb1298)
Storyline: 98%
The story is a theatrical ending of the TV series and I can't really say about it but I will do my best. The story is about the final Angel defeated and Eva pilots think their task is done. But it is soon revealed that all they've been fighting for is a lie when they found out that some corporation wanted to eliminate the Angels so it would be free to carry out the Human Instrumentality Project and ushering in a new level of human existence. The pilots of their 2 remaining Eva's units mentally in no condition to fight and future of humanity lies in 14 year old Shinji's hands. The story is absolutely stunning and mind blowing. I never seen a story so dark and beautiful at the same time and the ending was very well done too.
VFX: 100%
The Animation is very well done and one of the best 2-D animation I seen used in most anime movies. I love the artistic point of the movie has. Everything in the movie has such a beautiful look to it like no other animated movie has.
SFX: 93%
Shiro Sagisu (Bleach) is the composer for the movie and the movie has one the best music used in a animated movie I seen. The movie is differnet used in the Anime series but not a bad thing since the TV show has amazing soundtrack too.
Acting: 88%
Since the movie animated that means their is no really any acting other then people doing the voice acting. I only seen the Bandai/ADV films dub and I can't say anything about the Japanese voice acting since I never saw the movie in Japanese. The American voice acting is well done and one of the few animes in the USA that has great voice acting.
Violence: 82%
The movie is really violent and has a large amount of blood. The scene where Eva unit 2 gets hit in the head is pretty graphic and there is other violent moments in the movie like Eva-01 ripping Bardiel/Eva-03 limb from limb and which is bloody as hell.
Sex/nudity: 20%
I remember a few nudity scenes but nothing else to say. I don't remember any sex in the movie at all.
Overall: 97%
One of the best animated movies I seen and it on my top 10 favorite movies of all time too. The movie is powerfully deep, but also amazing on the physical conflict level as well like no other animated movie. The emotional impact of this movie is amazing and the movie is much like 2001: A Space Oddessy was because the movie has stuff left out where you have to answer it your self. If you never seen this movie or watch the series then check it out now because you won't find a animated movie like this and the series it self is very well done too.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FPYR%2FGPP51015%7E300-Posters.jpg&hash=02a2763797afb9e460937866106e55ad521a54cb)
Storyline: 77%
Based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller, '300' follows King Leonidos in his attempt to stop the growing power of Persia from engulfing Sparta. Hugely outnumbered, but far more organised, he and his army of 300 Spartans charge their forces.
VFX: 97%
If theres one thing '300' does well, it's looking good. Like 'Sin City' (though not as extreme) this movie has a very stylish, epic look that suits the story brillaintly. The CG is quite good too, done by Hydraluax (the infamous Strause Bros company). The blood looks so great, like straight out of the pages of the novel. It appears from the wound and then completely disappears seconds later.
SFX: 90%
Fantastic score by Tyler Bates. It's a glorious mix of rock, tribal and orchestral, it feels very greek-like. Probably one of the best scores written for a movie. The SFX that go with the action on screen are excellent too.
Acting: 85%
Well casted. Everyone handles their roles great, but particulary Lena Headly (The Sarah Conner Chronicals). I felt she was perfect for her role as the Queen of Sparta and I felt she was the most watchable.
Violence: 63%
Being a war movie, of coarse theres a lot violence. Dismemberments, stabbings, decapitaions; all the basics really. But it's all CG and of coarse intently fake looking, so it's not 'as' violent in that sense. Still pretty brutal none the less.
Overall: 88%
'300' is an exceptional movie. I loved every minute, especially the fight scenes which are all stunning. It's so brillaintly shot and gorgeously violent, you just want to watch it again and again.
^You forgot about sex/nudity - like the prophecy chick, erotic nude dancing and Lena Headey getting naked and giving up her body... hell yes. :P
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2Fadc%2F10048201A%7EBram-Stoker-s-Dracula-Posters.jpg&hash=ce9e5e2ae24a87d8fbb8ef7dd16be22b4407c43f)
Storyline 90%
Awesome as it follows closely the novel.. but there is a deviation with the love story - like it or hate it, it does give a bit more depth to the story and pathos for Dracula.
VFX 92%
All old-style and practical effects - looks very good and the visuals and production are just stunning to look at. Recreates a sumptious Victorian and gothic atmosphere. Only let down is some dodgy matte paintings - but it was 1992 after all.
SFX 95%
I don't know who did the music but it's one of those classic orchestral scores that really gets you in the mood and the atmosphere.
Acting 90%
Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are perfect as Dracula and Van Helsing. Alot of good British actors. Tom Waits is great Renfield. And then there's some hot actresses like Sadie Frost and Winona Ryder who are very enjoyable to watch. Only bad thing is Keanu Reeves who does a bad english accent.
Sex/nudity 97%
No sex but vampirism is kind of a metaphor for sex anyway. Lots of half naked women writhing about, it's so hot watching gorgeous girls lusting for Dracula. We have sexy vampire chicks too including Monica Bellucci who is one of the seductive 'Dracula's brides' (that sequence where they have a blood sucking vampire orgy is awesome). I don't think anyone would mind losing blood to get it on with such hot vampire chicks. XD No vampire lesbians unfortunately but oh well.
Violence 90%
Awesome - not much gore but lots of blood and decapitations. Very violent of course because it's about undead creatures who suck the blood of the living.
Overall 99%
Best Dracula adaptation. The others are good but they don't have a hyper-stylish and erotic atmosphere like this does. It's such a classic that you will never forget this movie. I saw it in 1992 when it was released and I have always watched it when it was on tv. Only recently when I saw it again and got the dvd did I really start to appreciate it's awesomeness. It's just one of those classic Victorian gothic tales and Bram Stoker is a genius to weave myth, history, horror, sexuality and modern literature together like that. But it's his book which is why vampires are so popular and even now they are releasing new vampire movies every single year. Anyway, this, I have to say is the greatest adaptation of his work (although i know some will disagree with me).
Godzilla: Final Wars Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F06%2FGodzillaFinalWarsPoster.jpg&hash=7732bf3d599223a9dca120828b66149990ef2538)
Storyline: 48%
The movie takes place in 2010 where Godzilla has been frozen underground for over six years now. Meanwhile they found a old mummy named Gigan where it was sent to destroy the Earth 12,000 years ago, and that a forthcoming battle between good and evil will eventually arrive. Suddenly, a handful of monsters all appear around the world at major cities and the EDF promptly swings into action like The American Godzilla, Rodan, King Ceasar and a few other monsters have arrive to destroy major cites across the city. Then a alien race has arrive on earth and their called the Xilians then reveal themselves, and they are friendly and that they have captured the monsters. They also warn the Earth's governments about impending danger in the form of a meteor. Consequently the Space Nations is established, an alliance that would unite Earth and other planets. But it turns out their evil and they have plans to take over the planet but they made a risky decision and free Godzilla as he is Earth only hope. The story it self is not very good since we have too many Humans moment and the movie takes ideas that we already seen before in the older movies. The movie also rips off action scenes from The Matrix, Infernal Affairs and X-Men which makes the movie more lame.
VFX: 60%
A few of the action scenes in the movie look cool and some of the suits in the movie look great but the CGI for The American Godzilla look like crap and most of the action scenes used in the movie look really stupid as you can see their hands inside of the wall sometimes.
SFX: 35%
The music in the movie was crap and the movie feels like it was used for a Video Game. The music from Akira Ifukube where so much better then what we got.
Acting: 69%
It was not too bad if you ask me then acting most Japanese acting looks and act the same. The American dub voice acting was pretty bad and the scene with the Black Guy in New York City was awful and his acting skills where pretty bad.
Sex/nudity: 0%
I don't recall any Sex or Nudity at all in the movie.
Violence: 5%
Just a few scenes of blood but nothing R rated or anything. All of the Monster violence have no blood and their safe to watch.
Overall: 58%
Better then few of the Godzilla movies that cameout in 1999-2003 but that saying much since the movie has nothing to new offer and the movie was a bad way for Godzilla's 50th anniversary. If you want a good Godzilla movie in the Millennium series then watch Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daathrekh.com%2Ffiles%2Fpage0_blog_entry16_1.jpg&hash=9fed8529c618d88c1c0c2a2c526acc0f537027e1)
Plot 65%
A remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). Basically the same, it just updates it a little. They added one subplot, and it's kind of pointless, and the resolution is a little cheesy.
VFX 75%
The nanobot swarm is the coolest effects sequence in the movie, but everything else is just the same old cgi stuff you've seen in countless other movies.
Gort is cool, but when he arrives I wasn't thinking "f**king awesome, badass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", instead I was thinking "oh, there's Gort, nice cgi, hmmmmm".
SFX 50%
I can't even remember the musical score and the sound FX were nothing special. Average.
Acting 52%
The two leads are both popular and charismatic people, but they're are not as good acting-wise as the actors in the original movie.
The little kid is annoying, he doesn't really have a purpose (just some plot device, but the payoff is a little cheesy like I said above).
There are no real "characters" in this movie as the people are just there to move forward the plot, and that's it.
Violence 0%
I think it would be cooler if they made it R. Would have more impact.
Overall 50%
It's watchable, but average. You will only see it once.
The Good
*Klaatu mentions we are only one of a few planets in the Universe able to support life. I thought that was cool.
*The nanobots eating everything in their path was a cool sequence.
*Gort kept the same design as the original, but he was bigger and meaner.
*"Klaatu barada nikto" (though you only hear it briefly)
The Bad
*It was kind of boring.
*The original was better - it had a better script, better score, better pacing, etc.
*Original Gort seemed more badass to me, even for the 50s, he made a far more spectacular entrance (yes, cgi cannot equal good filmmaking).
*We never got to find out more about the aliens. That sucked.
*Micheal Rennie pwns Keanu Reeves (Reeves just acts like a robot)
*Why did we not see inside the spaceship? Even the original showed us that.
*Plotholes - why do aliens need to kill humans, surely there must be a better solution? In the original, they wanted to kill us because we'd become a threat to galactic peace because we keep blowing the shit out of eachother (ie Cold War).
I wouldn't waste your money at the cinema. Rent it on dvd, it's a pretty dull movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heartlessdoll.com%2Fsilent-hill-nurses.jpg&hash=f736ec6359c99500b7d639657b0b3956dfe8c416)
Plot 62%
It follows the first game of Silent Hill's plot very loosely (although I haven't played the first game so I'm not 100% on that).
The main problem is it starts off very well with her going into the town looking for her daughter, but then all these nutty religious people enter into it which I didn't like so much. I really wish she was just alone and there were only a few people she encountered because that is what Silent Hill is to me.
VFX 100%
Visuals are fantastic and very true to Silent Hill. Sets look great, cgi looks great, makeup, costumes, cinematography, everything looks awesome.
SFX 100%
They got the actual composer from the Silent Hill games (forget his name). VERY SMART MOVE.
Acting 68%
Radha Mitchell was good, I didn't really care much for anyone else.
Violence 98%
Sweet. You get some nice gore in this one. People getting their skin ripped off, mutilated corpses, people getting ripped to shreds. It's hardcore R-rated, it's the shit.
Overall 74%
Mostly I liked it but it has alot of flaws that become more apparent each time you view the film.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F4144F0Z4K8L.jpg&hash=f1cf503e93514c678855fc05143a1dc1b3ad2c22)
Plot 100%
Basically it's about 3 central characters, Leon who is hitman who lives alone. Mathilda, a 12 year old girl living in a horrible family situation and Stansfield who is a psychotic, corrupt DEA cop.
The film centres on the relationship between Leon and Mathilda, after the latter's family gets killed by Stansfield and his cronies.
The plot moves along beautifully, as it explores these characters. It is kind of a poetic film in many ways.
VFX 100%
This film just looks awesome despite being shot in 1994. Every print I have seen is crisp and clear looking. The visuals have realism to them, probably from being shot mostly at daytime, and it really gives a great sense of New York. The cinematography is flawless, every shot is perfect. Editing is great and perfectly paces the film.
SFX 100%
Eric Serra is an awesome composer and he can do it all - tense action music, emotional music, etc. It kind of has a french feel to it which makes it unique from other action scores.
Acting 100%
Jean Reno - a great actor, he really underplays the role which I liked.
Natalie Portman - really amazing how good she was considering she was only 12 years old.
Gary Oldman - holy...... greatest villain ever.
Violence
It has great action scenes that are just badass. No gore though for you gore-hounds.
Overall 100%
I can't find any flaws in this film. The director's cut is even better - the extended international version. I've seen this movie dozens I've times and it's great every time.
^ It has a great soundtrack too. I mean I don't like Bjork, but Venus As A Boy suits the films so well. Also Sting's Shape Of My Heart is one of my favourite songs too.
I've never seen the extended versions because they've never been released over here (criminally) and I haven't got a multi region DVD player either. :-\
I liked the Bjork songs, actually. Forgot about those. The other songs were great too.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.tinypic.com%2F205z421.jpg&hash=dafc5fb143609c90842352c1cac00d87eeac6440)
Plot: 78%
The story begins with an environmentalist group protesting in a forest against a corporation. The corporation has Lumberjacks at work at the same time as a science team, who are working on an unknown serum. Despite being told not to cut down the serum injected trees, a lumberjack does it anyways and winds up cutting himself on the upper chest near his neck with the chainsaw. Some time after the head of the corporation sends his son to find out what's going on after a while of not hearing from the lumberjacks. it is revealed that somehow the serum has turned people into zombies, when it's supposed to help trees grow back, and the surviving scientists, lumberjacks, and hippies must team up to stay alive. The plot takes a few twists and turns when one guy goes basically insane and they run into another group of people around the end.
VFX: 75%
The visuals are decent. While the violence scenes are done well, the major flaw with the visuals is that the zombies are yellow. I kid you not, yellow.
SFX: 80%
Good sound effects overall, and some decent music. The zombies could have sounded better but they aren't as bad as some movies.
Acting: 78%
Like most movies of this genre, the acting could use some work. Some of the characters are rather boring and stale, while others are actually pretty cool. Unfortunately the cool ones die off leaving the assholes and the over dramatic lady.
Violence: 88%
This movie had good violence scenes. The most gruesome was probably when the zombie got put in the wood cutter and the protagonist got sprayed with blood.
Overall: 70%
The movie itself isn't bad, but it could have used some work and a revised script. The ending 10 minutes or so felt really rushed, like they just got tired and said "f**k it" let's just finish this. Also, the zombies could have done without being yellow. It's worth a watch but it wont be leaving a major impact on the horror genre.
Gran Torino Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fc6%2FGran_Torino_poster.jpg&hash=760eadb4ac69d40f726a1bc828046e6cab48446b)
Plot: 72%
The story is about Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), a Korean war veteran that lives in a changing Detroit neighborhood where it full of gang crime and a group of immigrants moves next door to him just after his wife died, he pretty much hates everyone and refers them as "gooks" and "barbarians". Walt in the movie meets a boy named Tao that is under pressure from his gang member cousin and tries to steal his Gran Torino (Which is a 1972 car) but Tao runs away then his cousin comes to his house that is about to kill him until he saves his life and the life of Tao's family, now he must protect them from the gangs that infest their neighborhood and leans how to get along with the people that dislike the most but becomes to like them later on. The story is very good, it was like American History X meets Death Wise but the story is surprisingly humorous and sad at sametime. The movie just cameout and I don't want to give out any info other that.
VFX: 3%
Well it a Drama and their is no CGI or anything like that but some of the gun scenes in the movie look cool. Nothing else to say really.
SFX: 65%
The sound in the movie was good, the sound audio was nice and the way that the bullets sound good. The movie had some rap and rock music played during the Gang fight scenes but none of it was good. The music at the end of the credits was good though.
Acting: 75%
Clint Eastwood was awesome and it been while since we saw him as bad ass because he has not been acting in roles like this then he used too, and he has been directing movies then starting in them. The other actors where good expect a few of the gang members in the movie where I feel like their acting was bad at most parts.
Violence: 10%
Nothing really bloody at all and their are a few scenes of blood in the movie like when a person got shot, and Walt Kowalski cough out some blood. The movie would have been PG-13 if it was not for the bad language in the movie.
Overall: 80%
This movie was awesome and it was a nice way to start off 2009 with a kick ass movie since movies at the beginning of the year are crap expect for last year with movies such as Cloverfield and Rambo. This was the movie that I wanted to Clint Eastwood play as for a long time now because I wanted to see him as a bad ass like he was back in the 60's and 70's. Everything about the movie was great but I wish they added a few more action scenes and the ending was a good suprise though (I'm not telling since I will spoil the movie for everyone ;)). This movie was very good drama and if you think that this movie is a action movie then you are going to be disappointed because this is not a action movie and don't think Clint Eastwood is going to become a Rambo or Dirty Harry type of a person. This movie is a full price movie and you should see it now if you get the chance.
Coming soon: The Spirit review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dga.org%2Fnews%2Fv28_3%2Fimages%2Fdod_sept03%2Feraserhead-full.jpg&hash=cbc74efdd8630ec37003a38dc17a1b015a493076)
Plot
Well, do movies need plots? Not really. It's the story of one man's journey, a very strange journey into the sub-conscious.
VFX 78%
The whole thing looks like a nightmare. There are some really gross stuff happening and some weird creatures, fantastic sequences and strange people. The settings themselves are familiar yet bizarre.
SFX 95%
Very atmospheric and dark, whether it's a baby crying or strange industrial sounds. I think it's one of the best unconventional soundtracks.
Acting 96%
Perfect casting - actors with unique qualities. I like that.
Violence
It is not violent but potentially very disturbing.
Overall 97%
A masterpiece of surrealism. I am a big fan of David Lynch and this is one of his best movies.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51XDQMXP7FL._SL500_AA280_.jpg&hash=d02422c13715599d99732b221a54e19ba7d9c774)
Plot
This is based on the book by Bram Stoker (author of Dracula) called Lair of the White Worm.
An archaelogist unearths a strange skull, and it turns out it is connected to an ancient legend. A strange woman arrives in town looking for the skull. This woman, it turns out, is some kind of vampire, snake-like creature and she worships a giant worm (which the skull is of). She is also looking to sacrifice a virgin and only the descendant of the original man who slayed the worm can stop her.
VFX 88%
Ken Russell has a very distinctive style, some scenes are very dreamlike and others are like a wild acid trip.
SFX 82%
The score is kind of over the top and campy from what I remember. It has a really cool folk song in it though about the ancient legend of the worm.
Acting 96%
Hugh Grant - plays upper class twit, perfect for the role.
Amanda Donohoe - a super-sexy, seductive, predatory female who sacrifices virgins and will bite your penis off with her vampire teeth. Awesome.
Others - that girl at the beginning, I was like wtf. Some really eccentric performances, here.
Violence 70%
The violence is kind of over the top and funny. Not extreme or brutal.
Sex 85%
Alot of naked chicks, some brief orgy scenes and alot of weird erotic stuff.
Overall 87%
I don't know how anyone could resist seeing this movie based on the cover. You'd think, oh one of those movies.. The thing is it bad or a cult movie. It's a very cult movie, if you like that kind of movie. Sit back, have a drink or drop some acid and enjoy this hilarious and weird movie.
Isn't that the one with Hugh Grant in it?
Quote from: SiL on Jan 14, 2009, 06:44:43 AM
Isn't that the one with Hugh Grant in it?
Yes, I did mention that in the review. It's his greatest role, I think. ;D
The Spirit Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F7%2F7c%2FThespiritposter.jpg&hash=0cf50bd334dfc1f20f059f64045d5e328affcccf)
Plot: 8%
The movie is based on a comic book and the movie is about a rookie cop Denny Colt returns from the dead as the detective known only as the Spirit to fight crime. After he finds his nemesis, the Octopus that wants the Spirit dead so he can have his Immortality then wipe out all of Central City. The movie feels like it does not even have that much of a plot at all and everything in this movie was too silly to be taken serious. The story sucked so bad that I walk out in the last 30 Min's of the movie.
VFX: 95%
The cinematography is amazing and I love how everything in this movie looks. It much like Sin City but it not in black & white, the movie has a old 40's style to it. Everything in the movie looks awesome, one of the very few good things about the movie.
SFX: 82%
The Spirit soundtrack is done by David Newman. The music is very nice, the movie has a 40s jazz sound married with iconic heroic music and even a touch of the spaghetti western much like A Fistful of Dollars. Nothing else to say about the music really other then it awesome.
Acting: 10%
Gabreil Macht is a good Spirit but everyone else in the movie sucks. Samuel L. Jackson act so stupid as a bad guy that I feel like I was watching Mr.Freeze again on the Big Screen but with a different actor. Scarlett Johansson in the movie act like crap that she did not care if she was acting or not in the movie
Sex: 70%
You see a good amount of naked girls in this movie but you don't see their full bodies though. There was like one or two sex scenes if I recall since I have not seen the movie since it cameout.
Violence: 25%
Nothing really violent at all other a few scenes of blood and Samuel L. Jackson use a Toilet against the Spirit. There is also a scene where they kill a cat just for the fun of it. Seeing Sarah Paulson and Eva Mendes without a shirt on is the only reason to see this movie.
Overall: 9%
This movie was awful and I'm Glad that I saw it for free without paying any money for it (I had a free ticket), I really wanted to like this movie since I love the look of the movie but the movie was so silly and stupid to like this movie. The movie is full of stupid jokes, lame fight scenes and bad acting. You should just buy the Dark Knight on DVD or wait for Watchmen to come out in another few months from now.
No no, don't buy The Dark Knight on DVD. It's a really bad transfer, I downloaded a screener before the dvd was even released and the quality of that is only a little bit worse than the dvd.
But seeing The Dark Knight is a much better choice then go see the Spirit. The movie sucked so bad, I never seen so many bad jokes in a comic book movie since Batman & Robin again.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi224.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd284%2FHarshadewaA%2Fomen_poster.jpg&hash=0dbc929b390e957046700d259bf42ad0abb2046b)
Plot: 85%
Haven't seen the original, but I'm guessing the basic story is the same. On the 6th day of the 6th month in the year 2006, the Antichrist is born. His arrival basically spells doom for Earth as it is it's job to wreak havoc and chaos upon it.
VFX: 87%
The movie is shot wonderfully and does a good job of creating atmosphere and forboding. There are a few CG shots which were quite good too I think. A lot of colours tones are used to create different moods throughout the movie eg harsh greys for emotional scenes, real dark and gloomy tones for the more horrific ones.
SFX: 75%
The score is captured brilliantly in a very religious almost medieval way. Theres a great sense of evil, dread and a strange innocence in the opening theme which is played in the opening and end credits. Effects else where crank up the tension before assaulting your ears when you least expect it. You'll probably jump at least once.
Acting: 95%
Great performances all around. All the actors excel in their roles and really give career defining performaces. Mia Farrow is particularly creepy.
Violence: 64%
Theres not a great deal of violence here but theres a few bloody moments. Most notably the famous death scene in which lightning strikes a pole on a church roof, said pole crashes through a stain glass window and both pole and glass are impaled right into a panicking priest below.
Overall: 76%
I was quite surprised at this, as I didn't think it would be my kind of movie. Despite me not being that interested in anything religious, I was surprisingly intrigued and on-edge throughout the whole story. A totally watchable horror that does almost everything right and gives a nice cliffhanger ending. As for me, I would prefer this was a stand alone. All it needs is another lackluster sequel to rain on it's parade.
^And the original is a classic, so..
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcatvertisement.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Felephant_man2.jpg&hash=f1dd706980d65658fa84b246f50676b8598b7d84)
Script 90%
This is based on the true story of Joseph Merrick (he is called "John Merrick" in the movie), who had a severe deformity and because of this became somewhat of a celebrity in Victorian England. The real story is fascinating, but you have to use dramatic licence for a movie. Nevertheless, it does have great dialogue that is realistic and doesn't hit you over the head with sentimentality like most movies would.
Visuals 95%
The film is shot in black and white - the reason to emulate the period and give it atmosphere. I think that was a good choice as it makes it look more timeless. It really does give a good picture of Victorian London, though.
Makeup FX 99%
Using simple techniques, they sculpted the cast of bodysuit for the actor from an actual cast of the real Joseph Merrick. The makeup looks so good, and allows the actor to express himself within it.
Score 90%
Not the greatest score in history, but a simple, understated score that doesn't try and manipulate and hits the right notes.
Acting 100%
Some badass British actors in this:
John Hurt - totally disappears into the role, he gives a touching and believable performance.
Anthony Hopkins - great job as the man of science who has sympathy for Merrick yet has moral dilemmas of his own.
Rest of cast is also great.
Overall 100%
Siimply awesome classic by David Lynch that is perfect from start to finish. He has some interesting ideas about the immortality of the soul which is why I love the ending.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartfiles.art.com%2Fimages%2F-%2FThe-Crow-Poster-C10047718.jpeg&hash=278ba6cd0771a0fb1e421cf338be9db887a73c69)
Direction 100%
Alex Proyas brings his great visual style to this. He started out in music videos. Just like the Strause Brothers. But unlike them, he actually knows how to make a movie.
Script 100%
This is a great script because it moves the plot along at great pace and has excellent dialogue. You really believe in this world and the characters are so distinctive and they all have their moments.
Visuals 100%
This vision of a decaying metropolis goes one step further than Batman (1989) or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990). Gritty, rain-soaked streets filled with garbage and debris, a city filled with crime and nihilism. It's the most dark, gothic setting you could imagine.
Score 100%
Holy crap - not only do you have a great orchestral motif, but a great rock score of the best 90s bands like The Cure, Nine Inche Nails, Joy Division, etc..
Makeup FX - 100%
The Crow's makeup is just as iconic as Heath Ledger's Joker.
Acting 100%
Wow - Brandon Lee is awesome in his final role. Micheal Wincott, Ernie Hudson, etc - badass collection of actors.
Overall 100%
A classic. Perfection. They are remaking this - wtf? Why remake pure brilliance.
^^Yes.
It's 4:44 AM, I'm bored. I'm going to do another review.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sf-radio.net%2Ffilmwelt%2Fimages%2F484%2Cmain.jpg&hash=019510371c11092664a936ff822c507a20373c21)
Direction 65%
The guy who made this is a comic book artist and it shows in the visuals. He adapted this movie from one of his graphic novels. Only thing is, it's mostly about the visual effects and the actors are secondary. I also think this was made to be a cult film, for fans of the graphic novel.
Script 58%
Dialogue is a little stilted and strange. Characters reciting poetry at random moments for example. Also because it's a French film with English dialogue.
Plot is kind of strange. Maybe it's better to read the graphic novels. Honestly I forget what this movie was about, some thing with Horus in a floating pyramid needing to possess a human body, make babies and there's this parellel dimension involved amidst a future involving eugenics and body modification....
Visuals 88%
Fantastic visuals for the most part. This is one of the first movies with an entire digital backdrop. The vision of a future New York is unique. Pure eye candy. And the design is just like a French graphic novel. Only problem is those horribly fake looking cgi characters.
Acting 67%
They're ok - weird blue chick is hot, didn't care much for Nikopol,.. Then there is "John", some inter-dimensional being?? And Horus?.. Yeah, whatever..
Score 52%
Nothing memorable, I'm listening to it right now and it's ok but not great.
Sound FX 93%
Quite impressive, actually. Very immersive of being in this futuristic city with flying cars and stuff.
Makeup 69%
Meh.. blue chick looks alright.
Overall 75%
Great visuals, weird story, interesting setting, it's almost a cgi movie except for a few actors. I liked it. I would like to see more films like this.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifipulse.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F07%2Fthe-invisible-man.jpeg&hash=09b7355d4c288946ff3b265875fd6f22376a7f7b)
Direction 100%
James Whale was a genius, I mean this is a perfect example of a classic 1930s Universal horror movie.
Script 100%
HG Wells was still alive when this was made, I don't know if he had any input. It's the classic story of his novel The Invisible Man. It's very smart script too, and has epic dialogue.
Visuals 100%
If you like creepy black and white movies.. well the sets and costumes are really good. Cinematography good for the time.
Special effects 100%
Genius how they did the invisible man effects - it still looks good today and they even used those techniques for Memoirs of an Invisible Man. They were quite inventive back then, I like alot of these old-fashioned effects, I always wonder how they did them.
Acting 100%
Acting back in the 30s sometimes seems a little stagey, yet this is full of sincerity and they just give it their all. Even the comic performances are still funny. The guy who plays the invisible man has a cool voice, his name was Claude Rains and he pretty much makes that role.
Score 90%
It has a nice orchestral score that plays at the right times, old fashioned but it suits the tone of the movie.
Overall 100%
It's classic but the reason I like it is the black comedy, the dialogue, the cool effects, the acting and the story. It's my favourite movie from the 1930s and my favourite Universal horror movie.
I have a movie blog now btw where I'm posting up all my reviews here (eventually) and talking about other stuff that has to do with movies - http://awesomemoviesthatilike.blogspot.com/ (http://awesomemoviesthatilike.blogspot.com/)
AVPR
Direction 5%
These guys need to hone their craft more - they simply don't know what the hell they're doing most of the time. "Oh, let's just fix the camera on that actress' ass." "You don't want to go near that thing" "The skinned body is so cool - we have to get it in the movie."
AVPR has a cynical irony behind it, no sincerity.
Script 0%
Shane Salerno wiped his ass on a piece of paper and gave it to John Davis. John Davis was thinking - "Wow this guy nailed it on the first draft!"
Visuals 4%
The cgi is pretty good in some spots - if only you could see it. The whole film is mired in murky darkness. Not to do with the lighting - as the cinematographer (the same guy who was DP for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre) did a good job - but some kind of post-production "fix".
Special FX 25%
There is some good cgi as I mentioned plus an interesting look at the predator homeworld. But the alien practical effects are just pathetic. The predator looks good though. The predalien is a joke of a design, but in execution it is better than the other aliens.
Sound FX 30%
I liked that they brought back many of the old school sounds. The predalien with it's 'chainsaw roar' is not bad. The alien squeals though are a bit much. Other than that nothing really unique or special about the sound design in this movie.
Score 42%
It lacks sublety and has too many homages (much like the film) but it's a suitable score that is perhaps underserving of being attached to a film like this.
Acting 1%
The 1% is for the lead actress who in a better movie could make a great Ripley substitute. Everyone else is a total bore and they are so fake and pathetic with every bit of dialogue.
Overall 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000%
This movie is a f**king disgrace. f**k you Fox, Tom Rothman, John Davis, Strause Bros and Shane Salerno. Fox wins, we lose!
^You forgot to add the movie poster.
Max Payne Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fdb%2FMax_Payne_poster.jpg&hash=d3dfa152991c16fbde3bfd6f1e74c409addc3cc2)
Plot: 35%
The movie is based on a video game from Rockstar and the movie is about a guy named Max who is investigating and finding the murderer of his wife then he must find this drug that is giving the people to make them high so they can see some demons from Hell. So then he is to solve a series of murders in New York City that are a DEA agent whose family was slain as part of a conspiracy and an assassin out to avenge her sister's death. I never played the game but this movie made very little sense because I feel like the whole movie had a bunch of stuff left out and I hate how the movie changes the plot by investigating the murderer to finding some drug. I also I did not understand what was the deal with that guy at the end of the movie? The movie feels like a giant mess in a person bath room that should be clean but their too much to clean up. Overall the story sucks and it simple as that.
VFX: 75%
The visual effects where pretty good and I like how the movie was trying to keep the feel of the video game but the snow in the movie looked fake, the bullet time used in the movie did look awful though. I did like how the demons looked in the movie and how the final battle was made in the movie which look really cool too.
SFX: 62%
Not bad but nothing worth talking about really since there is nothing really unique or special about the sound design in the movie. They did had a Rob Zombie song played in the party scene though.
Acting: 70%
Mark Wahlberg was a great Max Payne and he pull of the role very well which is a good thing since he looks like Max Payne, and fox hireling him was the best choice they did with the movie. The other actors such as Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace) and Beau Bridges (Jerry Maguire) where pretty good in the movie too, also Chris O'Donnell (The kid that played Robin in Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) is also in the movie but his role is pretty small though.
Violence: 20%
The movie has a very small of amount of the blood and most of the violence's in the movie is shooting but you don't see that much action in this movie though. Not a movie that I would see my kids under 7 to see but a kid over 11 would able to see the movie fine.
Overall: 52%
Max Payne is better then most video games movies such as BloodRayne, Wing Commander and Resident Evil but that not saying much since the movie is not very good at all. The movie was boring, the story made very little sense since the movie had a bunch of plot holes and the movie was made for a "PG-13" rating instead of an "R" rating which is stupid because the game is rated M. I never played the games before but didn't the game had lots of action because this movie had like three or four action scenes in the movie while the movie had more drama and pointless humor then action. Overall the movie is worth a rental nothing else.
Quote from: Kaworu on Jan 29, 2009, 02:02:49 AM
^You forgot to add the movie poster.
No... I had to disable image dithering so no poster. I'm on a wireless plan which means limited monthly downloads. Wireless is really primitive here, I only get 6000 MB per month unless I get prepaid as well.
Halloween (1978)
Plot: 90%
The plot for this movie is one you will most definitely recognize. It has been rinsed and repeated over and over again in the form of pretty much every slasher ever made. This is because this is effectively that first one, the one that pioneered the genre. However, I don't give it it's credit because it was the first, I give it because it is the best. Here's the story:
Michael Myers has been locked away in Smith's Grove - Warren County Sanitarium for eight years after the murder of his sister Judith on Halloween night in 1963 (when he was six). Treating him all the while has been Dr. Loomis who eventually comes to suspect that Michael is nothing more than pure evil. Myers, escaping in a stolen car when he is about to be taken to be tried for murder as an adult, returns to his old home Haddonfield, Illinois where he begins to terrorize and kill the resident teenagers.
Direction: 100%
John Carpenter made Halloween with only two films behind him (Dark Star (1974) and thriller Assault On Precinct 13 (1976)) and a tiny budget, but he made it to the best that it could be. Halloween was one of the first horror movies to be filmed in Widescreen format and Carpenter uses this to full advantage as the wide vista gives him ways to unbalance the composition with places Michael could jump out of, leaving the audience nervous and constantly guessing. The opening scene is a credit to Carpenter's skill as a director with the P.O.V shots adding a haunting voyeuristic feel to the murder of Judith Myers, and the way it is flawless executed proves itself to be a perfect of example on how to effectively use Steady Cam. His direction in this movie created the formula for which almost every slasher film would later use.
Score: 100%
Carpenter composed the score for Halloween himself and it is fantastic. I simply cannot imagine the film with any other score and is no wonder that it has become iconic. It is used to excellent effect in the movie, ratcheting up the suspense that extra notch every time it oozes its way on screen telling you that Michael is somewhere near. This is something only used to a greater effect in Jaws in my opinion. Here's the score here. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rkZYTg5iM18)
Violence: 60%
Unlike other films of the genre, Halloween doesn't have buckets of gore. In fact it has barely any. However the way in which Michael kills his victims is incredibly visceral and brutal, especially when he kills the girl in the car. I think this is more effective as where most slashers do the cheap thing of simply disgusting the viewer with gore, Halloween takes you out of your comfort zone with the realistic violence that really gets under your skin making it all the more terrifying.
Acting: 80%
The acting in this film is remarkable for the genre. Each actor puts in a decent performance but Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence really shine as the conservative Laurie Strode and the obsessive Dr. Loomis. It also wouldn't be fair to not mention Nick Castle, who played The Shape/Michael Myers. He truly creates an inhuman character who chills you to the core. The only characters who irritated me were Laurie's friends at first, but they quickly grew on me.
Overall: 90%
Friday The 13th, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Scream and many others all came to be because of this film. They're all great in their on regard but Halloween truly stands on it's own when it comes to the quality of the film. It is an incredible ride of ever increasing suspense and nerve shattering scares. I recommend this to anyone who likes the slasher genre, the horror genre or just plain great movies and landmark cinema: you do not want to miss the night HE came home!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.discovermagazine.com%2Fbadastronomy%2Ffiles%2F2007%2Fcloverfield_poster_real.jpg&hash=c0f82fa119ea64b14c7d02fdf5c030a6153ba5bf)
Direction 90%
I don't know how these people do this since it's only one camera but it all must be well planned. It was pulled off very well.
Script 81%
A very simple plot that mimics The Birds in that people's personal problems reflect some larger event. The thing is you care about the character's little dilemmas more against a cool backdrop so it works. I'm not criticising it.
The lines are good - some humour and no cheese.
Visuals 92%
This is not about perfectly framed shots but visceral action, all hand-held cameras that's like you are experiencing the action as it happens. They did it very well - seamless, actually. You will be taken in by it.
You will find some similarities to real life amateur footage taken of disasters, especially 9/11. This was admitted in one of the special features on the dvd.
Acting 72%
They are acceptable actors, but I think the main reason they were chosen was for pure eye candy. Unnaturally attractive people at that.
Score -
No score since this is supposed to mimic real amateur footage. There is music over the end credits, though.
Overall 95%
Cloverfield is an original take on movies like Godzilla. What would it be like to experience that first-hand? It's very clever in how it's made and the special effects are very good. It's like a roller coaster ride and this movie may be a classic 20 years from now.
I like it, I think it's one of the best movies I've seen in ages out of hollywood.
95%? Ew.
You're right, it doesn't deserve 95%.
More like 99%.
You forgot the decimal point between the two 9's. Horrible film. IMO.
Underworld Review
VisualFX: Overall, what visuals this movie had, were pretty good. The suit work was great, especially with the Lycans (werewolves). The highlight for this movie probably has to be its stylish, Gothic horror look and set designs were really terrific and looked pretty realistic. The makeup and suit work for Viktor in his newly awakened state was really, really good. Overall really good. The flaws in visuals would probably have to be the transformation of human to Lycan. You can easily tell that it's a work of visuals. I would have preferred it more if it was live-action. Another downfall is definitely the Lycans crawling on the walls or ceilings. It looks so ridiculous and because of this has a comical effect. Shame really!
Verdict: 65%
Storyline:The biggest highlight of this movie. The plotline is really interesting and it kept me interested, though I doubt it'll keep general audiences the same as me. It is slightly predictable at times, but the back-story of how the Lycans and Vampires first came at war is really fascinating. While the plotline is quite simple, the dialogue style can make it difficult to understand at times, but nonetheless, overall really good.
Verdict: 84%
SoundFX:The SoundFX is pretty good, but that's all I have to say. It is not a pain in the ears, nor does it make you crank up the volume. The roars, shrieks and howls of the creatures are pretty much the same as other versions of them in different types of films and TV series and whatnot things like that. On the other hand, the score was mediocre. While I liked the Gothic, horror styled score, the modernized music dubbing over certain sequences made it awkward, but this film is cross between old and new, so it's nothing really drastic, that's just my opinion.
Verdict: 66%
Violent Factor: It is a Vampire vs. Werewolf film, a literal death match, of course there is blood split and gore. Loads of blood and gore, but most deaths are implied off-screen. If you have a weak stomach, you may not want to watch this movie as it is gory, but not on Saw level gore.
Verdict: 75%
Overall: Cool enough and pretty original, but still it is very lacking in terms of character development, in the sense that some characters are just there for cannon fodder. Contrary to that point, there are some characters that are really, really good and bad ass, yet they are underused, for example Raze or in the case of Lucien (Lycan Leader) and Viktor (Vampire Elder/Leader) suffer the worse deaths- in my opinion, they have been killed off far to quickly and could have been saved for sequels. Still I recommend you watch this.
Verdict: 72.5%
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fee%2FFountain_poster_1.jpg%2F200px-Fountain_poster_1.jpg&hash=36a4fbc0a8eeb75170cd2f451eead4bb7ff92593)
Direction 43%
It's "ode to my wife". Yes, he has his wife in it, and it's sappy sentimental stuff.
Script 34%
A mix of plotlines that doesn't make any sense, the dialogue is cringe-inducing and the overall message is simplistic.
Visuals 46%
Aside from the space scenes, the visuals really aren't that great. The conquisitador stuff is way too lavish and OTT. The scenes in the present are boring. The vision of him in the space bubble is kind of ridiculous. I love movies with weird visual imagery but not when they make little sense. Some dude drinking semen out of a tree - crap!
Acting 21%
I just didn't like these people. I didn't care at all about them.
Score -
Can't remember the score.
Overall 24%
It sucks. It's boring, pretentious, preachy, overly sentimental... I can't believe why anyone would compare this with 2001. 2001 was a visual masterpiece about humanity's place in the universe. This is just some crappy message about accepting death and one man who can't let go of his dead wife.
I liked Pi, though, but even that just took the easy way out in the end. Requiem for a Dream was so ridiculous in showing that people who do drugs get committed, get their arms amputated or are forced into doing hardcore acts in strip clubs. A little ridiculous, as is this movie.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F8%2F86%2FThe_Silence_of_the_Lambs_poster.jpg%2F215px-The_Silence_of_the_Lambs_poster.jpg&hash=ba11d6dbea3d8f69ff325dd972d131a9bd865ad6)
Direction 100%
Jonathan Demme really knows how to get good performances and tell a good story. On the dvd the actors praise him plus he managed to make a classic movie on a low budget with little prior experience in this sort of genre.
Script 100%
Based on the acclaimed novel by Thomas Harris. A great adaptation. The dialogue just pulls all the punches. The characters are great. The plot moves along at quick pace with lots of twists and turns. Hannibal's escape is somewhat of a departure from the main story, but it is very exciting and well done.
Visuals 93%
This is not a movie about perfectly framed shots - the camera focuses on the actors, because this is an actor's movie. But the settings, a rural town, Lecter's prison, the FBI HQ in West Virginia, all give the film an atmospheric quality.
Acting 100%
Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter - badass (that guy is brilliant in everything, but everyone knows about Hannibal Lecter because of Hopkins).
Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling - she does great in a difficult role. Her character goes through alot of crap in this movie (getting semen thrown on her face, etc) She is very tough and determined yet very sympathetic. There is no love interest for her or anything like that (everyone in the movie hits on her, though), she just goes through the movie, despite being small and a woman in a man's world and you believe in her.
Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill/Jamie Gumb - really creepy villain. Most people talk about Lecter but this guy is way more creepier. The scene with him dancing with his penis inbetween his legs - holy shit.
Score 96%
A good orchestral score by Howard Shore, who also scored the Lord of the Rings movies.
Overall 100%
A classic. Still holds up today because of the great acting and the story. Of course it's Hannibal Lecter that made this film so famous, but there's much more to it than that.
Coraline Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F36%2FCoraline_poster.jpg&hash=66bb589c0bd955dc2d6763d6f5bf45cdb8e9d722)
Plot: 70%
The movie is based on a kids novel from Neil Gaiman (The creator of Sandman) and the movie is about a girl named Coraline Jones (Voice by Dakota Fanning) moves into the Pink Palace Apartments in Oregon and with her loving but distracted parents. As she move in she would later found a stray black cat (Voice by Keith David) that is familiar to the neighborhood and finds a small door that Leeds into another world based on her life and encounters beings who claim to be her "Other" Parents who are more social and nicer then her real Family. The Other World prove to be much more interesting and as she wants to live their more then the real world but she later finds out it a trap. I won't spoil the rest of the movie but the story is good, dark for a kids movie and overall simple. Nothing mind blowing but the movie has a good story never less.
VFX: 95%
The visual effects in the movie are amazing and I love the art direction used in this movie. Everything looks like wired, cool and lovely at the sametime and Henry Selick (Nightmare Before Christmas) direction used in this movie made everything look so perfect. Their are a few flaws but it does not matter though.
SFX: 80%
The music used in the movie was good and I never really cared for the score used in this movie. The music was done by a French composer named "Bruno Coulais" and has done the score for popular movies outside the USA like Don Juan in 1998. This is his first American film that he compose the music for.
Acting: 88%
The movie has so solid voice acting and the screenplay for the movie was very good, everyone in the movie did their lines right for the movie. The movie has voice actors such as Dakota Fanning (Cat in the Hat, War of the Worlds), John Hodgman (Baby Mama and appeared in the episode "No Exit" of Battlestar Galactica), Teri Hatcher (Tomorrow Never Dies, 2 Days in the Valley) and Keith David (Who did the voice of Spawn in the HBO Spawn Animated Series in 1997). Overall the voice acting is great and everyone did a great job.
Violence: 0%
No Blood or Gore at all, nothing in this movie is violent to watch but their are a few scenes in this movie which may scared Small Children.
Overall: 88%
Overall the movie is a great movie and I really enjoy it. I would give it a 90% but I saw the 2-D version and the movie does have a few flaws like it was too short and the final act in the movie was too simple really since the movie should have been longer and had some more story devoplemt. The movie has a great art direction, a nice story, solid voice acting cast and creepiness from the beginning to the end. Check out the movie if you get the time.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcm1.theinsider.com%2Fmedia%2F0%2F79%2F34%2Ffridaythethirteen3poster.0.0.0x0.298x450.jpeg&hash=b5524fcc29aaae5fc91ed9f234b68cce57c11809)
Plot: 30%
You're usual slasher plot that takes place in another smaller camp not far away from Crystal Lake. It follows the same cliche' rules; you have sex - you die, you do drugs - you die, you don't turn your brain on - you die. The movie ends up with your usual 'final girl' and after a long chase sequence she finally kills Jason. (mwhaha)
VFX: 62%
Director Steve Miner takes the helm once more after of the success of Part II and makes the highest grossing movie of the series (minus Freddy Vs Jason) The visuals aren't terribly interesting but the theatrical release was in 3-D and this is obvious even when watching the normal version. The re-realeses on Blu-ray don't have the 3-D except the US versions. (Which is also apparently the only part of the world that's getting the Blu-ray version of Part 1)
SFX: 75%
Why they decided to turn the theme into some techno disco music is beyond me, but it sounds quite funky. Not scary, but it captures the movies B-movie theme well. The classic 'ki ki ki ma ma ma' is used a lot but I ain't complaining. It still sends shivers up my back.
Acting: 24%
If you want cheese, you got it. It's really hard to take any of the performaces seriously, especially with the lines some of 'em are given. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. It just makes you want Jason to kill 'em sooner which is part of what makes the movie so fun.
Violence: 70%
Not a gory movie, but prides itself in packing in a lot of stabbings, impalings and head squishings.
Overall: 65%
I've only seen this and the far superior remake, but from what I've heard this is meant to be one of the best of the 80's series. Theres a lot I didn't like about it; a lot of the teen scenes were a little boring and predictable and the editing is usually quite bad. I really didn't like how they tried to recreated the dream ending of the first movie, it really has no 'oomph' to it and it's just a silly homage. They shot another two endings that would have worked much better. I see that Stan Winston designed a face for Jason, would have preferred that that made it into the movie. I did overall enjoy the movie though, it's one of those 'so bad, it's good' scenarios.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.movieweb.com%2Fprod%2Ff%2Fs%2Fw%2FDVpV4ppxRG4fsw_l.jpg&hash=321559e834e8d5411420e4201b2c688dcdec3a5b)
Plot 100%
Most people don't have a f**king clue that this movie exists. Well, neither I. But first thing I noticed was the cover and I thought wtf is this?
Hmm, it's got a cover with a dude holding dynamite. And that dude is played by Christian Slater. I'm not a big fan of Christian Slater but he was in one classic movie that I liked called HEATHERS.
So I read the back to see what the plot is and have never heard of any movie like this before. Completely original plot. So I did not hesitate to buy it.
Script 100%
Well, after watching it I was completely BLOWN AWAY by how well developed the script is. The writing is total genius, so much subtlety and multiple layers. You will have to watch it more than once to pick up on everything in it.
To say the tone of this movie, would be a dark comedy/drama.
Acting 100%
Which leads to the acting. Christian Slater TOTALLY DISAPPEARS into the role of Bob Maconel. You cannot even imagine anyone else playing him. Perfect comic timing and delivery of dialogue.
Great support is given by William H. Macy (guy is a solid actor), Elisha Cuthbert who is not a dumb bimbo but plays a very mature and complex role and the rest of the cast who are also great.
Visuals 80%
This is more of an actor's movie than a visual masterpiece which is cool. Not every movie has to have great visuals as long as you can f**king see the thing *ahem*.
Some people have bitched about the cgi. Well, the cgi isn't supposed to be realistic because it exists totally in the character's head as a fantasy so I can forgive the dodgy cgi (it isn't that bad, really).
Score 95%
The score is perfect for this movie, it has a great soundtrack of songs I've never heard before that fit perfectly.
Violence/Swearing/Gore/Nudity
Violence - low
Swearing - yes, quite a bit of swearing ("Those f**king bastards are dead")
Nudity - yes, some female nudity in this
Gore - none
Overall 97%
This movie has cult classic written all over it. It's way under-recognised for what it is - a low budget, independent movie. But it kicks ass and it's the most original movie I've seen in years. It's also one of the blackest comedy/drama I've ever seen. Besides another black comedy/drama classic called The Young Poisoner's Handbook (also check that out it's awesome).
It's also got great entertainment value. A fun movie filled with good performances. And realistic in that you may be able to recognise many of the characters and situations (or even stereotypes maybe).
DO NOT watch the trailer btw. It makes it out to be a happy love story which it is definitely not. Probably trying to appeal to the "chick flick" demographic.
Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantmonstermovies.com%2Fcvr%2F000086.jpg&hash=0fe1da9cdf8fd035f1e0ecaf59aab0d39dd93c22)
Plot: 68%
The story of this movie is a direct sequel to the original Godzilla and it takes place 48 years after the Original Godzilla was killed in 1954. One day, A new Godzilla attacks Japan in 1998 and then again four years later in 2002, the Japanese parliament decide to commission a robot constructed from the original Godzilla's bones and had made a new MechaGodzilla called "Kiryu". One day Kiryu's soul is awoken by Godzilla's roar, and goes out of Control then begins to attack Japan with out Warning then a lonely female soldier, tries to settle matters involving another pilot and stop Kiryu. Not a great plot but the idea of Godzilla soul inside of a Robot was a cool idea and the story is pretty simple nothing Oscar wining or anything but the overall plot of the movie is good and it different from the other Mechagodzilla movies that we seen in the past.
VFX: 75%
One the best things in the movie is the visual effects and the movie does have some film movie shoots (Like the sun rise scene of Kiryu) used in this movie where great. Their are a few scenes in this movie that where very nicely shot and some of the visual effects used in battle against Godzilla look pretty decent from the other three Godzilla movies that came out a few years before like Godzilla 2000. The visual effects are not at Lord of the Rings level at the time but their good for a Monster film like this one. The outfits that they used for Godzilla is not too bad and it looks like his G2k (Godzilla suit) that they used in Godzilla 2000 (1999) and Godzilla vs. Megaguirus (2000). Kiryu himself looks great for a guy in a suit that plays as robot and most outfits like that look fake and something that you would seen in a ABC family TV movie but this look pretty good and the design for the Monster look awesome too. You got the love cannons that the monsters has on it shoulders.
SFX: 73%
The sound effects that they used in the movie for the battle scenes where nothing special since I did not really care for them since I watch the movie for the story then sound effects or the way that the actors talked in the movie. The music is not too bad at all Michiru Oshima did a good job in the movie as the Composer and has been best know for The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess for the Nintendo Wii and Gamecube. first Godzilla film since The Return of Godzilla not to feature any of Akira Ifukube's themes and it not a bad thing since Michiru Oshima did a great job with the music and it nice to do a different theme then the same old Ifukbe's themes that we hear before.
Acting: 24%
I have not seen the movie in subs and the dub for the movie was pretty awful. The voices that they used for the actors where awful and it seem like the actors did not care for the movie when dubbing the movie. I seen voice acting dubbing in the older Dragon Ball Z episodes made in the 90's then this which is really saying something since that dub was awful.
Violence: 5%
The movie has no blood or gore at all, the movie has nothing to worry about when it comes to violence's since it a Godzilla movie and all the Godzilla movies have been Family safe since 1956 when the Godzilla first came out in the United States. The only violence's that you would see in this movie is two monster hitting each other back and Kiryu using his cannons to kill Godzilla.
Overall: 72%
Godzilla Against MechaGodzilla also know as Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla III from fans and most people call it like that since it the 3rd main film with him as the lead role (Unless you count Terror of MechaGodzilla) is my second movie in the Millennium series and the movie overs a good story, and some great visual effects that used in the movie. Once you get the past the awful dubbing then the movie does have a great conpect that was pretty new for the Godzilla film series and good action scenes that are both silly and fun to watch. Not a great movie but I enjoy it for begin a better movie then the other two Godzilla movies in the Millennium series like Godzilla 2000 (1999) and Godzilla vs. Megaguirus (2000). Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001) was a much better movie though and this movie is not too bad to rent on a rainy day. If your not a fan then skip it but if you're fan that has not seen it then check it out.
I was going to do a Watchmen review but I will wait later once the movie has been out longer since it hard to a review with spoilers.
Planet of the Dinosaurs Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsu.edu%2F%7Edelahoyd%2F1978.jpg&hash=ded6408114180dcf785231bd392985d46dea0696)
Plot: 50%
The movie is about a group of people where in outer space and they crash into a unknown Alien planet with Dinosaurs on it. Now the remaining eight people aboard the ship decide that survival is their primary goal and begin to explore the planet that they have landed on. The story is very simple and nothing amazing really but I will give it credit for giving us the first Dinosaur movie in Space.
VFX: 70%
For a movie that came out in 1978, the visual effects look nice and all the dinosaurs look very good too. Other then the Dino's used in the movie, the Cinematography looks very good and the art direction used in the movie was not too bad. Movies at the time like Superman and Alien do have better special effects but this movie has some decent stuff for a 70's movie. The significant amount of stop motion dinosaurs where great and it even won a Saturn Award in 1979.
SFX: 62%
The music is not too bad and the Dinosaurs in the movie do sound nice. Nothing else to say other then music score was decent and the music is done by a person named John O'Verlin.
Acting: 15%
The acting is the worst part of the movie and the all of the actors where awful. The only famous actor in this movie was Max Thayer and he has been know for movies such as The Man Who Wasn't (written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen) and he must be the only one with the most experience amongst the other actors in the movie.
Violence: 9%
Other then a few Dino's fight scenes and a scene where a person gets eaten by a T-Rex, their is no blood or gore at all. This movie is safe for all ages.
Overall: 58%
Overall for a low budget B movie it not bad at all and their is a lot of things that should have been better like the acting and the overall story should have more depth. If you want to watch a Dinosaur move or a movie for a bad laugh then check this one out since it pretty rare. It worth a rental but you are better off watching a older Dinosaur movie like 10,000 BC or The Lost World (1922).
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wildaboutmovies.com%2Fimages_3%2FHillsHaveEyes2MoviePoster.jpg&hash=47b44d0c544a03e7047bdfe9a0380d724339ad9e)
Plot: 52%
Set 2 years after the first bloody outing, THHE2 bases itself around a group of trainee National Guardsmen in a routine training mission. Guess what happens... This movie really does have one bloody cliche' after another and it does get tiring fast. You'll find yourself mapping out the whole bloody movie way before it finishes. The 'concept' of having trainee soldiers fighting the mutants is actually quite good but it's so poorly executed in the movie.
VFX: 75%
Like the first movie, theres a lot of nice open shots of the surrounding hills which creates a nice isolated environ that works well. They don't give it an 'epic' feel but they're bloody nice to look at, especially on Blu-ray.
SFX: 74%
The score is heavily influenced on the first movie which is a good thing considering how bloody good it was. Apart from that theres nothing really that stands out from an audio standpoint other than the sound of gun fire and screaming echoing throughout the hills.
Acting: 30%
Bad stuff. What a leap from the first movie. You're introduced to many gorgeous men and woman that you'll probably not give to hoots about. The characters are so one dimensional and poorly acted they're bloody beyond caring for.
Violence: 87%
You may have noticed the word 'bloody' mentioned a lot, this movie is. Guts spilling and blood splattering for the sake of it. I think the movie actually goes a bit far and borders on tasteless. This is apparent from the opening in which a woman graphically gives birth to a mutated baby. Theres a lot of sexual violence too. If enjoy like random killing and cringe worthy gore, this will be right up your alley.
Overall: 24%
Not suprising at all, but this a classic example of a shitty sequel. What has happened to Wes Craven these days? He used to be one of the top names in horror, but he's been producing some rather lackluster/shit horror. I actually thought this would be 'good' as I thought 2006's movie was pretty brillant. Oh well, another series killed...
The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sdnhm.org%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Frr_beastp8.jpg&hash=2df13b80b2a1db19bf7dd335163eeffe9a7898a1)
Plot: 70%
The movie is about a explosion that awakens a 10 meter tall, 30 meter long fictional carnivorous dinosaur known as the Rhedosaurus, thawing it out of the ice where it had been hibernating for 100 million years. The monster starts making its way down the east coast of North America, sinking a fishing ketch off the Grand Banks, destroying another near Marquette, Canada, wrecking a lighthouse in Maine, and crushing buildings in Massachusetts. The monster's rampage causes the death of 180 people, injures 1,500 and does $300 million worth of damage. Now the military must stop the monster from destroying more of the city and also stop a prehistoric germ, which begins to contaminate the populace of the city. The story is simple and it not Oscar winning or anything but it for it time, this was the first movie that had a Giant Monster destroying a city. So I will give it credit for giving something new for it time.
VFX: 78%
For it time, the visual effects where great and they where nothing that people seen before. Creature effects were assigned to Ray Harryhausen, who had been working with Willis O'Brien, the man who created King Kong. The puppet for the Monster looks great and the visual designs for the movie look very good as well.
SFX: 73%
The music was done by David Buttolph and he had scored over 300 movies in his career. He is best know for the composer of the original 50's version of House of Wax and David does another great job on the music score. The sound effects used in the movie where good for a 50's movie and everything sounds good as well. Nothing worth talking about.
Acting: 60%
The acting seems cheesy now since it a old movie but for a movie at the time, it was pretty decent. Most of the casting is unknown but the movie has some good actors like Paul Christian (Who was in a movie called "Skullduggery" which was based on the French novel Les Animaux dénaturés by Jean Bruller) and Paula Raymond (Blood of Dracula's Castle). Most of the cast members are dead and not too many people know them today.
Violence: 6%
Nothing is violent at all other then a scene where the monster eats a person and some scenes where the Army try to kill the Monsters with bombs. It Rated PG here in the USA and it should be find for your kids to watch (I saw the movie when I was like six or seven).
Overall: 78%
Overall this movie is a great classic movie and yet another awesome done by Ray Harryhausen. I grew up watching movies done by Ray Harryhausen and I still enjoy this movie today. This movie was first of it kind since it was the first movie to feature a giant monster awakened or brought about by an atomic bomb detonation to attack a major city. The movie became so popular at the time that even it was a inspiration for Godzilla which spawned movies from 1954 through to 2004. I think people today will skip this movie as a B movie but the movie is still a great movie and you might want to check it out.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FMMPO%2F505050%7EUltraviolet-Posters.jpg&hash=2a916e1fa78163438e64f78949f88928dd2b47b3)
Plot: 57%
Set in the distant future, a deadly virus has spread across the world turning people into 'Hemopheges' or Vampires. These infected people have all the classic traits you would associate with Vampires: fangs, the need for blood, extreme agility and power etc. As the years go on the government (which is viewed in the movie as some evil cooperation) has essentially wiped out these 'other people', but a few still stand strong and fight back. One of these Hemopheges, and the one the movie follows, is Violet (Jovovich pretty much reprising her Alice role from the RE series). She finds out that a cure for her 'disease' has been discovered and comes in the form of a mysterious human child called '6'. She despises the human race, but forms a close friendship with '6' and feels the need to protect him. The government now want the child dead and, of coarse, Violet takes the fight to them and kicks some ass.
It's kinda complicated but the plot is interesting none the less. Similar to Aeon Flux.
VFX: 85%
Being based on a comic series, the movie does a terrific job of creating a futuristic, visually stunning world. They done something to the whole movie, like they've 'smudged' all the colours together, it's kinda hard to describe. Definitely a good visual experience.
SFX: 72%
The music is quite original and the main theme sounds very heroic, modern and suiting to the character. The sound effects else where are very good, the action scenes sound brilliant.
Acting: 50%
Average really. Milla Jovovich is a decent actress, it's just I don't think she gives the character as much depth as she should have.
Violence: 27%
From memory a few bloody wounds, gun and swords fight, nothing in-your-face. 'Clean' basically.
Overall: 55%
This movie did not do well and I'm aware it's not critically appreciated either, but all it is is entertainment. It tries to get a story told, but it does get a little confusing at times, if a little boring. It does look unique though and has some nice action. Worth a look.
Transmorphers Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F2a%2FTransmorphers.jpg&hash=3d9de75c2aed3b9746865a9b81cff01c078a491a)
Plot: 3%
The movie is about a race of aliens that pilot robots has conquered the Earth and forced humanity underground. After three hundred years of domination, a small group of humans develop a plan to defeat the mechanical invaders in the ultimate battle. The movie is nothing original at all and it takes ideas from I Robot, The Matirx, 12 Monkeys and Transformers. I seen ideas from a third grader that can make a more of a original plot then this.
VFX: 10%
The CGI for the robots look awful and the way they are design are so terrible looking. The way how the background and the art direction looks so cheap. The CGI in this movie makes Jason X look like The Dark Knight and that really saying something since Jason X it self looks like a direct to video movie. The Robots in this movie look like something from a old Xbox game that came out over six years ago.
SFX: 33%
Just average really since their nothing worth mentioning. The robots in the movie do sound decent and their is a few sound errors where the robots will sound like a totally different character.
Acting: 7%
The acting in this movie was so terrible and everyone in this movie can't act at all even if their life was put on hold. Most of the time the actors will over act and will make things laughable to watch. None of the actors in this movie are good and their all from TV movies and shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Boa vs. Python. Most of the actors in this movie are reused actors from the other studio movies like The Apocalypse and 9/11 Commission Report. Matthew Wolf (Who did the voice of Thor in Hulk vs. Thor and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) is the only famous actor in this movie and not even him can act. The movie has such awful lines like "We fight Machines not People" which is one the most awful thing to write down in a movie screenplay.
Violence: 12%
From what I can remember their was a few blood scenes and a nude scene. Nothing to worry about but I would not even let kids see this movie since their better off with a better movie like Transformers.
Overall: 4%
Overall this movie is.....Just AWFUL! Oh god. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Everything about this movie was so crappy that I was not able to finish it since the acting and CGI made me want to stop. If you see this movie on DVD or TV then skip it and watch a better movie. I seen B movies like Raptor Island which are way better then this and Raptor Island is Best Picture of the year compare to this piece of garbage.
Someone requested this review, so..
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F1%2F1c%2FWatchmenPosterFinal.jpg&hash=1eecf61ee4ac19d63111a6631f7e8ce53bf18a7a)
THEATRICAL CUT
Plot/Script -
This is based on the highly rated graphic novel by Alan Moore. On many "best of" lists, I haven't read it, but from the reviews it seems to have stuck pretty closely to the comic. The major change was the ending - no squid.
Anyway - this has a highly complex plot and alot of characters but it just doesn't skillfully weave it all together to make a 100% coherent film. But I'm not rating on it until I see the extended edition, as granted there are alot of issues condensing this graphic novel down to a 2 hour and 40 minute film without completely changing it.
Time will tell.
Visuals 94%
The CGI is great but the cinematography I did not find that awe-inspiring especially after the great work on The Dark Knight.
Of course the film is full of memorable images like the pyramid in Antarctica, the naked blue "god-man", Rorschach with his constantly shifting ink-blot mask - classic images from the comic that are well brought to life.
Sound 70%
Score - the soundtrack wasn't that great, I mean they could've chosen some better period music but maybe it was a rights issue.
Acting 81%
Huge cast of unknowns here so I'll go by character:
Rorschach - this guy really made the movie for me, he really nailed this character who was kind of like a mix between Dirty Harry and The Punisher. Great performance.
Dr. Manhattan - understated performance of a god-man was kind of surreal. Another great character.
Nite Owl II - "the normal guy" his main arch that he can't get it up unless he's playing superhero.
Silk Spectre II - uber-slutty is the word, I can't say I liked her character that much and didn't really care for her story.
The Comedian - very small part for this guy, we don't find out much about why he turned from a rapist/killer to someone with a conscience.
Ozymandias - did not like this guy, his delivery is a bit flat and he looks like a pretty boy.
Violence
Lots of blood, people exploding, stabbings, mutiliations, attempted rape - it's all very over the top, though. Not as bad as Snyder's 300 but very comic book style.
Sex
Alot of sex, surprisingly. Frankly, I did not like the sex scenes, the one in the ship was a little ridiculous.
Overall 85%
I did like this movie, it's even in my top 10 comic book movies but not anywhere near the top of the list. It's main problems for me were an incoherent structure, some boring or stupid scenes and bad dialogue.
However, it's interesting to me that it is about moral ambiguity and drawing grey lines around such things as false flag terror attacks and covering up the truth at all costs. I'm sure the Illuminati will love this movie.
Now I compare it to other comic book movies I liked:
*It definitely wasn't straightforward in it's narrative - but it didn't handle the complex narrative well. If you like more straightforward stuff than I recommend something like Iron Man.
*It went for some realism, but The Dark Knight far succeeded in that department.
*X Men 2 managed to deal with the emotional issues in a less forced way.
*The production design didn't go for real world, terribly fantastic or gritty. Slightly noirorish, but it didn't have as much character as such films like TMNT (1990) or Batman (1989). And TMNT was set in New York but every shot of NY in Watchmen felt like it was filmed on a stage or computer generated (Ghostbusters is another great NY movie).
*Rorschach was a badass and beats out pretty much any other anti-superhero IMO besides Marv who could plainly kick his ass.
*Dr Manhattan is the ultimate naked superhero dude, better than Silver Surfer.
*The idea, though is original and I think Moore is a genius.
Quote from: gameoverman on Mar 12, 2009, 04:14:41 AM
*Dr Manhattan is the ultimate naked superhero dude, better than Silver Surfer.
Pfft, nah.
Quote from: Aeus on Mar 12, 2009, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: gameoverman on Mar 12, 2009, 04:14:41 AM
*Dr Manhattan is the ultimate naked superhero dude, better than Silver Surfer.
Pfft, nah.
SS doesn't have penis. Nuff' said.
Night of the Lepus Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F97%2FNightoflepus.jpg&hash=33801d10e59f0bc23f790393cc61b2d16ec1e414)
Plot: 20%
The movie is about a person that serum for disrupting the breeding cycle of rabbits. However, their daughter Amanda has become attached to the rabbit that has become the serum's test subject and switches it with a rabbit from the control group. Now these Rabbits are over 7 feet tall and out of control to eat people. Just your average B movie. Nothing worth mentioning.
SFX: 15%
The Rabbits sound good but that about it. I never pay attention to the score since I was too busy laughing at this movie.
Acting: 9%
The acting in this movie is laughable as hell and everything they said in this movie will make you laugh. The actors try to act scared from the Rabbits in this movie will make you laugh even more and it more funny how they act when they get killed. The movie does have some actors like Stuart Whitman (Nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor for his role as a child molester in The Mark.), Janet Leigh (The 1980 movie of The Fog), Rory Calhoun (Pure Country) and DeForest Kelley (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan). DeForest in this only good actor in this movie while the others are just awful.
Violence: 50%
This movie is Violent and does have a good amount of Blood and Gore. There is a scene (Yet funny) where a guy get his head rip off from a Rabbit and a scene where they are discovered a dead women body which is brief and bloody. There is a scene where a guy get has arms and legs cut in half. The blood looks very fake though.
Overall: 12%
Overall if you want a movie to laugh and get drunk on a Friday Night then see this movie. Everything in this movie is funny and bloody that makes this movie a wild ride. Yeah the acting sucks but it the actors in this movie makes this movie pure comedy gold, and I never laugh this hard at a old B movie since Killer Klowns from Outer Space. It rare to find on DVD but the movie should be on Youtube to watch for free though.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F5%2F52%2FSharkwater_poster.jpg&hash=5a7b4019a3a7a0d76e209acda0cf74d601ae2e11)
Message: 100%
A documentary about the oldest inhabitants of the seas. The great thing about this doc that totally stands out from the others is that it packs a strong emotional punch. Really gets to you that without sharks we're basically screwed. They've been conveyed as monstrous, bloodthirsty wraiths for decades (no thanks to Jaws, great movie but damn, look what it's done) but in real life sharks are just acting on instinct, and most of the time it's our own fault we're the menu.
VFX: 80%
Stunning camera work here, captures some impressive stuff. Really makes you see how gorgeous the ocean really is and how everything down there coexists together perfectly. A totally different world from up above.
SFX: 92%
The score is excellent. Nuff' said.
Violence: 30%
A lot of footage of fishermen killing sharks. Cutting off their fins, silting their throats, throwing them back in the water and sailing off. A lot of other innocent animals being slaughtered too. Sick.
Overall: 83%
The message from this masterpiece is clear. Not only does it convey an extremely important issue, it's good entertainment too and quite thrilling in some places. If you like beautiful cinematography, fast moving entertaining and Planet Earth, check this out.
Punisher:War Zone Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fcf%2FPunisherwarzoneteaser.jpg&hash=acf0adc17fb2fdb883000502bc19b312881a6e0f)
Plot: 32%
The movie is about Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson) who is an six years into his vengeance-driven zeal as the Punisher and arrives at a person house then kills everyone for no reason at all. Then later that Billy Russoti (Dominic West) has escaped to his recycling plant hideout by Detective Saffiotti (Tony Calabretta) who along with Detective Martin Soap (Dash Mihok) then brief fire fight between Castle and he ensues, ending in Russoti being thrown into a glass-crushing machine which ends up leaving the gangster hideously disfigured. Then later he doesn't die, but all of his skin tissue is removed then leaving him permanently disfigured. Billy attempts to restore his former beauty, but the plastic surgeon doesn't help much. After killing the surgeon, he chooses to remain focused on killing the Punisher, going under the name "Jigsaw". Nothing else really since this movie is more about the action then the plot which is a bad thing since I don't have a clue what is going on and the movie has very little origin story for The Punisher. I like the story in the 2004 movie much better since it was based on the Graphic Novel "Welcome back Frank" while this movie is based on the MAX comics which is not a bad thing since I love the comics but this movie really lacks in story.
VFX: 80%
Some great visual effects and I like the dark feel that the movie has since it feels like a Slasher superhero movie. The makeup effects that where good too and The Jigsaw (Not be confused with the villain from Saw since this Jigsaw came out first) look cool, and look like the one from the comics.
SFX: 72%
The movie is composed by Michael Wandmacher and it not too bad really for a person that never really composed music for a movie for the first time. The movie does have a great music soundtrack with bands like Rob Zombie, Slipknot, Slayer and Rise Against. Also a song called "Take Me Away" by 7 Days Away which is a good song and it a band that made a song for a movie then won the contest that they had back in late 2007.
Acting: 58%
The movie does have a good cast of actors like Ray Stevenson (Who is best known for playing Titus Pullo in the BBC/HBO television series Rome), Dominic West (Chicago, 300), Julie Benz (Saw V, and also well known for her role of Darla on Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Dash Mihok (The Day After Tomorrow, Romeo + Juliet), and Doug Hutchison (Con Air, The Green Mile). Their all great actors and Ray Stevenson pulls off a good Punisher but the way they act makes the movie so dull to watch since they act like they care less about what is going on and T. J. Storm (Bloodrayne) was awful in the movie. I wish Ray Stevenson as The Punisher would had more lines to talk in the movie since it would make the movie more fun to watch.
Violence: 87%
Talk about over the top violence in this movie and the violence fit well with the movie since it a Punisher movie that is about a Superhero that kills people for revenge since gore and blood fit well with the movie of coruse. Their is scenes where The Punisher gets stab in the eye with a chair, a person gets punch in the face then it face breaks in half, cuts a man's throat, breaks a woman's neck then Billy falls into a large vat of glass bottles that are being crushed up for recycling. Their is no sex at all but their is a lot F words used in this movie and this movie is not for kids at all.
Overall: 68%
Punisher War Zone is mixed in the bag for me and it not a bad movie or anything but it not as great as most people said it is. The dialogue is rather crappy and Their was not enough scenes of The Punisher since the story try to make it based on the other characters then The Punisher it self. The action scenes where fun to watch in all but their was not enough of them, and that we get boring (but yet dull) scenes of the other characters in the movie that you would care less about it. If you'r a Punisher Fan or like action movies then you might like it, but overall it not the Punisher movie that everyone has been waiting for and the first movie is just a bit better which is not saying much.
Well the first Punisher film is the best out of all of them anyway. >_>
Yeah it is and I do like it more then I did the first time.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horror-movies.ca%2Fwatermark.php%3Ffilename%3Dposter_anacondas3dvdimage.jpg&hash=89f9cb9781308408ae46a45731b6c09a29a25ecd)
Plot: 10%
In a secret lab in the middle of no where, the pharmasudical gaint Wexallhall is illegally doing research on giant Anacondas. The movie really isn't clear why, but somehow the snakes are immune to some sort of poison and thus are able to provide a cure for cancer or some shit. The facility houses a 60ft long mutated Anaconda and a 'Queen' Anaconda which is even larger. The two snakes escape into the wild and a rag-tag group of hunters are hired to take 'em out.
VFX: 23%
Holy hell. It could just be that I'm too used to big budget Hollywood-style graphics, but the effects in this movie are real bad. Quite laughable actually, a scientist is impaled through the chest with a tail (ya, the Condas have spiked tips on 'em) and the blood that flows out look like something out of some 90's PS1 game. The snakes themselves are hideous looking too, they too look like things from some cheap video game.
SFX: 30%
The score is so darn cheap it's unbelievale, quite horrible actually. The Condas sound like a cheap mis mashes of a dinosaur, a hawk and a Predator.
Acting: 37%
It's amazing these people were actually paid. Rotten stuff overall and some nasty line delivery (not that the lines are even good anyway). The only two that save this movie from being a complete turd is John Rais Davis who plays the company executive and The Hoff who plays the main hunter dude.
Violence: 66%
Pretty silly and over-the-top, especially at the beginning. Some of the deaths are quite funny, intentional or not I'm not sure.
Overall: 26%
Gawd damn does this suck. Can't help but watch some of it though, mainly just scenes with his Hoffness.
The blood in that impaling scene totallys reminds me of something from Conker's Bad Fur Day.
Quote from: severen76 on Mar 26, 2009, 10:29:18 PM
Well the first Punisher film is the best out of all of them anyway. >_>
Are you talking about the one with Dolph Lundgreen?
Yeah that one.
It really is good.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alltrailers.net%2Fimg%2Fmovie%2F400%2Ftaken-2996-poster-large.jpeg&hash=1bded6bdcf8d007734c35cb1885e02fd65aaee94)
Plot: 85%
A former spy (Liam Neeson) travels to Paris intent on finding his daughter after she is kidnapped there. She was taken by an illegal group of immigrants that capture young travelling woman, put them on drugs and turn them into prostitutes. Using all the skills he's developed over his long career, the one-man army quickly and brutally ascends up the ladder of scum, driven with the incredible power that is a father's love.
VFX: 83%
I really love the sleek, modern look this movie has. The action scenes are shot wonderfully and the overall cinematography keeps the movie going at a tense and knuckle biting pace.
SFX: 77%
Everything sounds great. Gun fire is loud and realistic and the car chase is rip roaring assault on the ears. An excellent and emotional soundtrack too.
Acting: 94%
Neeson is quite excellent here. He really creates a tough, hard edged but instantly likable character with ease. Supporting cast are very talented too, but Neeson definitely steals the scenes.
Violence: 72%
The brutality here is just visceral. You really feel that this guy is a skilled, no nonsense ass kicker that would kill you in a second if you got in his way.
Overall: 88%
Definitely the one of the best movie I've seen in a long time. Liam Neeson's performance is both powerful and captivating and you really get into the story because of this. I honestly think he should be considered for Best Actor. It's violence pulled off so elegantly and the overall mature mood of picture makes it one definitely not to be missed.
Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviexclusive.com%2Freview%2Fevangelion1youarenotalone%2Fposter.jpg&hash=f908269bb47fa7016c621fd79e9c3421717ce0d3)
Plot: 78%
If you see the anime then you know what happens and this movie is a remake of the first six episodes with some stuff added into it. The story is takes place in 2015 that has suffered do to a mysterious disaster known as second impact that occurred in the year 2000 killing off much of the world life then a unknown monster called "Sachiel" appears in Tokyo 3 and it is apart of a race called The Angels. The protagonist of the story is a whiny teenaged boy named Shinji who is summoned by his estranged father to Tokyo 3 (Tokyo 1 and 2 got destroyed) to save the Earth from Evil. His father is the head of the organization Nerv which was made to protect humanity against the angels. Later in the early part of the movie you see that Shinji is informed much to his surprise that he is to pilot what appears to be a giant purple robot called "Evangelion" to fight against the attacking angels. Unless you want to be spoil what happens next then my best choice is to see the series or look it up on google. Since this is a remake that means things have been change around like any other remake since we don't see the second half of this battle through Shinji's flashback and it happens all at once like in the Manga which is better and cooler too. I also feel like the story feels rush in the second half of the movie since they remove the part where how Touji finds out he's a pilot since he wanted to beat him up for hurting his sister that was killed in the city during the battle with Sachiel. Overall the story is great and it has a few flaws but not enough to ruin it for me or anyone else that seen the series but newbies might have a problem with it though.
VFX: 97%
The animation for the movie is amazing and everything look fantastic such as the layout designs, how backgrounds look and the overall animation looks great. The movie also fused with 2D animation and 3D animation also which they did so great that most movies failed at.The only flaws I had with the animation was that a few scenes where to bright that made a few scenes hard to see.
SFX: 92%
The music is almost is the same as the original and most of the music that they used in the original series is still added into their as well with the sound effects. The movie also has a new ending song called "Beautiful World" from Utada Hikaru (A Japanese pop artist) which was chosen from her single Beautiful World/Kiss & Cry. She also provided a reprised remix of the series original ending theme "Fly Me to the Moon". The movie is composed by Shiro Sagisu who also did the score for the original series and the popular anime called "Bleach". Nothing else to say other then the music is great and Shiro did it again as the composer.
Acting: 60%
Nothing to say about the acting other it voice acting and the movie has all of the voice actors from the original series return for the movie. I seen the series in subs before and I never care about the Japanese voices before but I'm used to them from playing the video games. Not bad voice acting but I never care for them anyways.
Violence: 77%
This movie is violent and has good amount of blood in the movie such as Evangelion Unit 01 rips Sachiel arm off then their is red blood coming out, Evangelion Unit 01 gets hit in the head then the blood is squirting outside it head, a small amount of blood on Rei Ayanami hand and the final battle with Ramiel has a large amount of blood then it spurting everywhere outside it body then you see a large amount of blood cover across on Central Dogma after that. Their is also a few nudity scenes in the movie and I would not not recommended for children under 14 or 15 years of age. This movie got a PG rating here in the United States and I was suprise a lot by this since people should be responsible and cautious when choosing whether or not to let children watch a movie like this or most recent one like Watchmen without knowing the source material.
Overall: 91%
Overall this movie was great and I really love it since I have been waiting two years for this movie, and it was worth the wait. This might be the best 2D animation movie I seen in a while now since they stop making a lot of 2D movies now, and we get a bunch of crappy 3D movies like Fly me to the Moon and Star Wars: Clone Wars. For those who are new to the series, I quite sure this will serve as an excellent starting platform into the series and might want to check this out first or rent the original series on DVD. If you're fan like my self then you will enjoy this movie a lot since it lot easier to understand the plot and intention of the characters, and with all the plot making more sense than the original series, and not to mention that the action scenes are much better too. I was lucky to see the movie today and it was a great experience I had at the movies in a long time next to The Dark Knight. If you get a chance to see this movie then check it out at a movie screening or wait for it on DVD this fall. If you want a movie with a great story, beautiful animation, fast action and a movie that has science mixed with some reglion, check this out.
^Thanks, I might check that out. I wiki'd Evangelion just to see what it was about and I was surprised how deep it seemed in terms of themes, characters and plots, etc.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geektyrant.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F02%2Fneverending-story.jpg&hash=560857a4ea51edf8c977d4167af7ed58a05eec5b)
(US version, not German version)
Script 90%
Don't expect complex dialogue, this is all based on fantasy except for a few scenes but those are only to tell the story. It's actually a very good script because it gets across what it needs to and does so with the right emotional punch.
Now I know this adapted from a book. I haven't read the book, so sue me. It's a good movie, it might not be a good adaptation of the book though.
VFX 95%
If you can get past the obvious matte lines and other dodgy 1984 effects, there are some spectacular shots here that really bring the world of FANTASIA to life. The creature and puppet work is also really good - the giant rock guy, the huge turtle, the evil wolf and all the other creatures are memorable.
Score 100%
The score for this is KICK ASS. Awesome. I love it. Probably the one of the best fantasy movie scores.
Then there is the song at the beginning which I love. Damn that song is awesome, timeless even. I listen to it often.
Acting 95%
Normally I hate child actors but these ones are likeable. I can identify with the kid - he ain't annoying and same with Atreyu and that Empress.
Violence -
It's a children's movie, it's not violent but there is strong scenes like when the horse dies, you see a knight get vaporised into a skeletal corpse and some kids may be frightened by the wolf character. It's like a fairytale, almost, you have fantasy and there is some darkness and danger in there.
Overall 100%
CLASSIC. Yep, I said it.
Though I saw it when I was a kid, it was perfect nostalgia for me to grow up with this movie which brings light to darkness. Because basically it's about keeping your imagination and that the world is full of endless possibilities. The NOTHING, which is what is consuming Fantasia, is what happens when you lose your imagination. It is such an awesome movie, I don't need shit like Harry Potter because that stuff is LAME.
The best fantasy is either written by JRR Tolkien, Lewis Carroll, old tales collected by The Brothers Grimm, the Zelda series or THE NEVERENDING STORY. Hellz yeah.
Quotehttp://^Thanks, I might check that out. I wiki'd Evangelion just to see what it was about and I was surprised how deep it seemed in terms of themes, characters and plots, etc.
Yeah since the whole series deal with allusions to biological, military, religious, and psychological concepts and you can say it much 2001: A Space Oddessy of anime. It not a kiddie anime like Dragon Ball or Pokemon for sure. It a anime that will f**k up mind for sure.
Well here is another review and Happy 10th Birthday to The Matrix.
The Matrix review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fc1%2FThe_Matrix_Poster.jpg&hash=b09b52d3c99490825c7209612db86bf8465dbaaf)
Plot: 87%
The story is about an guy named Thomas A. Anderson (also known as Neo), lives an ordinary life then leads into a secret life as a hacker under the alias "Neo", and wishes to learn the answer to the question "What is the Matrix?". Cryptic messages appearing on his computer monitor and encounters with several sinister agents lead him to a group led by the mysterious Morpheus, a man who offers him the chance to learn the truth about the Matrix. Neo accepts by swallowing an offered red pill, and abruptly finds himself naked in a liquid-filled pod then he finds out that it is 200 years later, and the world has been laid waste and taken over by advanced artificial intelligence machines. So Neo must save the world and find out the truth about his world by shedding light on the dark secrets that have troubled him for so long. The movie has a great story and it was one of it kind at the time. Movies like Total Recall and Dark City do have similar ideas but The Matrix in my opinion had more fun of a story.
VFX: 90%
Amazing visual effects and everything in this movie look amazing for it time and the visual effects still look great today even though some of it CGI looks a bit dated. I remember I saw this when it came out and I was blew always on how everything look because it feel so real and it was nothing anyone buddy seen before. The movie used Bullet Timing which was new for it time and it made a zoom in shoot of a gun bullet then it make it very slow. The slow monition for the movie is great and it still works well today.
SFX: 82%
The music used in the movie where awesome and the songs used in the movie fit well with the movie also since the movie has a soundtrack from Rob Zombie, Marilyn Manson and Rage Against the Machine. The film's score was composed by Don Davis (Warriors of Virtue, Star Trek: The Next Generation) and he does a good job on the score too, but I did not really care for the score in the movie since I was too busy watching the action and story then the music it self.
Acting: 73%
The acting is good and all the actors in the movie do a great job in the movie for their roles. Nothing else to say really then it average and nothing amazing but still very good. Keanu Reeves (Speed, The Devil's Advocate) does a good job for the lead role since he is offend wooden in his movies but he pulls off very well to become the next biggest action hero in histroy. Laurence Fishburne (Event Horizon, Boyz n the Hood) and Carrie-Anne Moss (Forever Knight, Suspect Zero) where also good. Not to mention Hugo Weaving (Babe, Bangkok Hilton) was great and plays yet another villain that will become apart of movie histroy.
Violence: 12%
Nothing violent at all other then a small scene of blood and a lot of Melee fighting. Their is a lot of gun shooting but their is no blood or gore when they shoot each other at all. This movie should have been PG-13 then R but the people at MPPA can be idiots at some points.
Overall: 87%
Overall The Matrix is still a great movie and the movie still hold off very well today. I remember it when cameout back in 1999 and it was no like movie I seen before since it give me nostalgia feeling of the movie and how everything look. It give science fiction a new look forever and the movie really did change movies now these days. Too bad the sequels ruined the series with a awful ending that made very little sense and it should have been a stand alone movie. I hope James Cameron Avatar will have the same nostalgia feel that The Matrix did 10 years ago by giving us a science fiction movie that change movie history.
Day of the Dead 2008 review
Plot- 50%
Standard fare. Zombies take over small town. Army chick, her brother, army guy, good zombie and evil scientist try to survive. That's it. The zombies aren't like most zombies- the infected people freeze in their tracks, grow lesions, and have the ability to run on walls and be superhuman in general. Uh huh.
Effects-
PRACTICAL- 62%
The makeup is kinda neat. The gore was obviously fake, but still kind of cool. Funny how that works. Some car stunt work, sort of. People jumping from windows. Car running into zombies. OK, not great, but entertaining.
CGI- 15%
There was ONE good instance of CG in the movie, and it was super-cliched. A zoom in to the blood cells inside of a zombie as the DNA is changed. All the CG blood in other shots, or fire or gunshots or ricochets looked really really fake to me. The blood defied physics. The wall-crawling zombies were really fake as well.
Sound and Music- 30%
Nothing memorable here at all with the music. Standard suspense stuff. Nothing great. I expect more from Tyler Bates. Sound was OK, but the effects for the gunshots sounded... meh.
Acting- 49%
Also, nothing memorable. Ving Rhames has a very short role. I didn't care about anybody. Salazar was a Jar-Jar type of stereotype. When somebody says, "nice spear", he replies "You see a black man with a sharp stick and you think it's a spear." He also doesn't seem to care much about the horrors going on. He has one good scene, where he's holding a gun in the face of a newly-bitten. His dialogue, though, is just bad.
Camera Work-
I have to review this part. Mainly because it's the kind of camera work that has you thinking, "they can do better." It's not even bad enough to say "it's the best they can do." It looks competent. They can do better.
And the coloring! That was awful! Punisher War Zone neon but with even less thought put into it! Oh, their in an air shaft! ALL YELLOW! And there is never a definitive black. The darkest it gets is dark blue.
OVERALL:
As a remake- 1%
How is this related to Day of the Dead at all? "Zombies." The zombies? They are not the same at all. In the Romero classic, did zombies scream as they jump twenty feet and crawl on a wall at speeds Spiderman would envy? "Some characters have names from the original." So why were they completely different? "Bud." Bud? You mean your attempt at Bub that misses the whole point? Bub was to show that zombies can be tamed through memory. Bud is a weakling soldier who is bitten, turns into a zombie, has a crush on the army chick, and sits in the backseat of a military vehicle for the majority of the movie before being nabbed by other zombies, fire a few shots at a zombie and missing, and being ripped apart? The one who does nothing but annoy us? The one with so much missed potential?
"Well, we tried." Shut up, no you didn't, go away.
As a film in general- 39%
Entertaining yet stupid. If you were to edit it as I am right now and cut out as many stupid parts as you can, tighten the pace, change the colors, you might get a 60%. But then it would lose over 20 minutes. Mine has.
I'm no critic, but I want to see one of you review "The Game"
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi685.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv220%2Fhorrorreviews%2Fjasonxuse.jpg&hash=340483da1eeb30720d7535013f42e5e1d90d8599)
Jason X
Plot - 21%:
It just had to happen,Jason Voorhees in space,Jason escapes captivity at Camp Crystal Lake Research Facility(wow),only to be frozen along with another scientist for nearly 400 years,and Earth is somehow a non-habitable wasteland,such a high budget film
VFX: 35%
Being that its in space,and its supposedly a Friday the 13th film,there should be enough low budget crap for you.
SFX: 23%
If the crappy atmosphere of the film doesn't help,how 'bout some PS1 game music.
Acting:28%
A bunch of random dips you never heard of and will probably never see again,random old mumbly dipshit there to waste screentime,that doesn't help to move the dead plot in anyway,check.
Violence:61%
Some low-grade gore effects,I have to admit the liquid nitrogen kil is the only exciting one.
Nudity:47%
You get some awkward nipple pinch scene that helps in no way at all,and two chicks with their tits out towards the end in a scene where Uber-Jason(Robo-Jason) is put in a virtual-reality Crystal Lake,circa 1980.
Overall:28%
The film trys to start off "scary" and whether intentionally or not,turns into a comedy,with no suspense or horror elements at all,towards the end of the movie it just feels like a low grade sci-fi flick with someone that distantly resembles Jason Voorhees,the horror element died somewhere along the way,the lame sets and quick cheap score job from otherwise great Harry Manfredini doesn't help either.
What do you think of the concept of having Jason in space?
^ The concept sucks ass, it's just a gimmick for franchise's that run out of stream. Jason belongs at Camp Crystal Lake that's all there is to it.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_KeMB0faMcdo%2FSDLSbJZsFjI%2FAAAAAAAAAAk%2FRNgrNAPKz70%2Fs400%2FTropic%2BThunder%2BFinal%2BPoster.jpg&hash=7fee4866908d9a9fa0fea6398fc6be7e0359521c)
Plot: 76%
A small band of actors are hired to play roles in the movie version of the book 'Tropic Thunder' written by war veteran 'Four Leaf'. The director can't control his actors and the whole movie looks set to go up in flames. Determined not to be made a fool out of, Four Leaf tells the director to take his actors into the real jungle and shoot the whole movie guerrilla style. Unfortunately, everything that happens in the script really does happen for real.
VFX: 80%
The jungle looks great on screen, looks like more than just your typical war movie. Some great comedy camera work too (eg having stuff happen in the background while your attention is meant to be else where).
SFX: 88%
Sound is crisp and clear and is what you'd expect from an action movie of it's quality. The score is really well done too, a lot of rock tracks in there.
Acting: 73%
It's a good mix of talent and it's interesting that some play their characters seriously and some don't. Either way they end up being funny anyway. Robert Downey Jr. is exceptional Sgt Osiris. He really created a great comic icon and the stuff he comes out with is just hilarious. The voice is just brilliant. Tom Cruise, love him or loathe him, is outstanding too.
Violence: 59%
Intentionally meant to be silly and unrealistic, this is apparent from the start. All in good fun though.
Nudity: 20%
In the Directors Cut theres a quick flash of some tits in a magazine, literally for seconds.
Overall: 88%
A controversial and original movie than nobody saw coming. The storyline isn't to everyones taste and one could probably be easily offended, but it's all in good nature. Theres never a dull moment and the whole movie is packed with laughs that never seem to get old, some classic stuff here. Definitely one of the best comedy's ever made.
_____________________________________________
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horror-movies.ca%2Fwatermark.php%3Ffilename%3Dposter_deathrace-international.jpg&hash=b2c387090be6dcc6d40bf6306239e1e0117353a9)
Plot: 7/10
It's far in the future and the world has fallen far into decline. Unemployment rates are sky high and violence is even more acceptable than before. A new form of entertainment called the 'Death Race' is set up on a prison island that pits the inmates against each other in races that they are free to kill each other in. Winning a certain number of races allows an inmate to walk free.
VFX: 8/10
Gritty and stylish are the words that come to mind because the state of the world is captured brillaintly within the prison walls. The races are terrifically shot and their fast cuts and swift camera moves really pump up the adrenaline.
SFX: 10/10
The movie really does sound amazing, this is proven not only it's catchy, cool soundtrack but in the races which are loud and realistic.
Acting: 6/10
Not bad. None of the actors are bad, it's just not all of them work with lame ass dialouge that well.
Violence: 7/10
Nice violence that works well on the whole. Not over the top, but can excagerate a little if it wants too.
Overall: 9/10
I really think Anderson out done himself here. It's common knowlage that he sometimes reffered to as 'the worst director in history' but he's far from it. The script is actually quite good, best he's done, but he still has a nack for cringe worthy dialouge. He also seems to have an obbsesion of trying to cram in lots memorable quotes into DR, but when he comes up with stuff like 'Okay cocksucker. F**k with me and we'll see who shits on the sidewalk' it makes you wonder why he even bothers. I though Resident Evil was decent and AvP was good, but I find this quite excellent. You don't need an amazing script to make a good movie and this movie proves it. Theres no denying the story isn't exactly deep, but it's gritty tone and rip roaring action well than make up for it.
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 07, 2008, 07:25:42 PM
there is one rule: Review ONLY Movies, not series. Okay?
Let me tell you last thing before making your review. THE VERDICT. The Verdict is composed of 5 categories:
1st:
VisualFX - What does it looks like? Isn't it realistic? Does it have problem in the making?
2nd:
Storyline - Is it satisfying and cool to watch? Is it complicated? Cool? Or a pain in the eyes?
3rd:
SoundFX - Does the movie make you crank up the volume? Nice ka-booms and blast? Or it's just a pain in the ears?
4th:
Violent Factor - How violent is it and how much blood spilled? Is the movie gory enough?
5th:
Overall - The final verdict! What can you say about the film? Is it AWESOME? Or Lame?
The Scores:
90 to 100% - Tippety top! Cream of the Crop! If heard about it, then buy this movie on DVD!
80 to 90% - A great movie. If you like the effects of it, you should watch it!
70 to 80% - Cool enough but a little lacking. Still, if you really want to watch it.
60 to 70% - A movie scuppered by an annoying flaw or two. Shame.
50 to 60% - Above average but only just. Spend your cash in a videogame!
40 to 50% - Quite simply not very good.
30 to 40% - Oh dear. Perhaps the producers, should watch some cool 'films'.
20 to 30% - What the..!? This looks awful!
10 to 20% - Not a movie at all but a film of mental torture! AHHH!
0 to 10% - Like dangling your diddlies in a mincing DVD player!
(NOTE: After reviewing, make sure that in the Overall percent score, you must add up the percent scores of 4 categories then divide it by 4, so we can know the Overall score = VisualFx + SoundFx + Storyline + ViolentFactor then divided by 4. Get it?)
Let's start, shall we?
I'll start:
Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
VisualFx: (82%)
- VFx is cool. With the first scene of RotS, war above Coruscant, the VFx is awesome. Especially the lightsabers, the Clones, Gunships, and AT-TE. Very cool and splendid.
Storyline: (88%)
- The story continues to this one with the protagonist become the famous Lord Vader. And the birth of Luke and Leia. The story was sorrowful, that I can totally say YES! (Not sorrowful for me, but to others) The Jedi will be extinct! Sith will rule the galaxy! HAHA! <---- Sound like Emperor Palpatine. But it's a SW special.
SoundFx: (93%)
- The SFx is uber-cool. With the blast of the Gunships to the battle droids with Ka-BLAM!! Cool, magnificento! Grin With the lightsaber still sound the same, w00t! Especially newly performed voice of the droids!
Violent Factor: (17%)
- The SW movies will not be more violent than others so kids can really watch the movie with not parents! YES! Uber-cool!
Overall: (70%)
- The final saga, the final movie. I'll miss you SW. But hey, I do have it's DVD though! Oh, getting Off Topic here. Grin The movie is cool but goes deeper to the dark side of the force.
I totally agree with you I enjoyed Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith. it was excellent. it had awesome space battles and i enjoyed the ultimate lightsaber duel ever which is between Anakin Skywalker now named Darth Vader vs his former master Obi-wan Kenobi. i also love the duel between Obi-wan and General Grievious and also the duel between Jedi Master Yoda vs Darth Sidious or better known as Emperor Palpatine. It was also great seeing Peter Mayhew back as playing the awesome Chewie. the musical score by John Williams was excellent as always. i give Star Wars EP3 5 stars!!!
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 08, 2008, 12:00:23 AM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000AP04P6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
First movie to be made of AVP. Maybe this movie IS the best than AVP2 after all.
VisualFx: (96%)
- Even with the old Vfx, the mask of the Predator still is the best from the old movies, especially the Aliens suit or even the face is truly the one that is cool. In AVP2, the Aliens chin is like being stretched a little. And the Predator's mask for the mouth is a little too long. That's how AVP is still the best than AVP2.
SoundFx: (96%)
- Same rate with the Vfx, the Sfx has cool sound and some original shout-sfx of the Predators. And background music when the two species faces is good. Very good.
Storyline: (99%)
- The story really takes on the ancient times of how the people really built something from the teachings of the Predators, but when every 100 years the Preds come back and expect a ritual-sacrifice. But when all fates was change, the Aliens almost rule the whole pyramid. Still Predators are there to take care all the problems. The story is cool and easily understandable.
ViolentFactor: (47%)
- VF of this movie is not above it's average. Cause we always see the blood of the Aliens and Predators. Even the inside organs of the Aliens. And I recommend that you watch this movie with your parents, if you're 13 years below.
Overall: (98%)
- From the director of Resident Evil, Paul Anderson, created this masterpiece by combining and making a new rivalry of species. Alien Vs. Predator, a magnificent masterpiece.
I dont see what so great about AVP. it totally sucks!! paul anderson is the most sorriest piece of garabe of a director i have ever seen in my life. all his movies sucks and i dont know why in the hell did fox let him screwed up what was supposed to been a great movie. the movie doesnt have the feel of either ALIEN, ALIENS, or the Predator movies. i love all the alien and predator movies but both avp movies suck.
first of all the storyline sucks having it on Antarctica with a pyramid supposedly built by humans on Antarctica a long time ago. paul anderson never studied ancient history because humans never built anything on Antarctica because it was a frozen waste land when man started to walk the earth. man appeared 10 million years ago and Antarctica was a frozen waste land but it was once freed of ice but that was back in the late Cretaceous period when dinosaurs was still ruling the earth.
2nd the look of the aliens and the predator was horrible. ADI cant make the alien look like the alien anymore and even both alec and tom who worked on aliens and predator with the greatest make-up effects artist the late great Stan Winston and they still cant get the aliens and the predators to look right. at least in AVP-R the predator looked a bit more like the Predator from both Predator and Predator 2. I wish ADI went back to Giger's design instead of making it looking so stupid.
3rd i hated the f*cking cast in both movies. the cast is horrible and they were so damn boring even Lance Henrickson who i am a fan of even his character as Charles Bishop Weyland was horrible. i hated the idea of both female leads to be bacially a rip off of Ripley. when anyone in both movies started to get killed off by either the Aliens or the Predators i just didnt care about them but in the earlier movies from ALIEN, ALIENS, ALIEN 3, ALIEN RESURRECTION, AND BOTH PREDATOR AND PREDATOR 2 the cast in those movies were awesome but its hard to care about the characters in Alien 3 because they're prisoners.
4th the special effects and the CGI of AVP and AVP-R was really dumb. the cgi of the aliens looked so fake and it looked too cartoonish. Paul Anderson said he hates using CGI but he prefers practical effects. he had so much CGI used in AVP and the queen looked horrible and she looked so much like a cartoon character.
i give AVP and AVP-R no percent since both movies sucks. I dont see how AVP is a damn masterpiece but i can say its a master piece of sh*t!!!
Dragonball Evolution Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.costumzee.com%2Fview%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Fdragonball-evolution-poster_350x521.jpg&hash=b7844c298245418fcbbff87d868785b62be10dc9)
Plot: 9%
The movie is based on a popular anime with the same name and the movie is about a young high school kid named Goku that has a crush on some girl named Chi Chi and on his 18th birthday that he gets a Dragon Ball but mean while a evil alien named Piccolo arrives at Goku house then kills Gohan as Piccolo plans to use all seven dragon balls to take over the universe. Goku later meets a girl named Bluma that is also looking for the Dragon Balls also as they travel to find Master Roshi, and get training to save the world from evil. The movie makes very little sense and the movie does not tell how Piccolo came from or tell who Mai (Piccolo henchmen) is. They don't even mention her name and the movie has no character development at all. The only good thing about the story that has some good homages to the original series and the story intro for the movie was cool.
VFX: 28%
Some of the visual effects look cool but everything looks so outdate which makes you think this movie came out in 1998 or 1999 since the Lava looks like something from a PS1 game and some of the ki blast look like bad lighting then energy blast. I did like how some of the fight scenes look such as the battle with Piccolo which look cool. Shenron (The Magical Dragon) looks fake and does look like something from a cheap TV movie since I seen better visual effects in Godzilla movies. I wish they work on the visual effects a bit longer and the movie looks so outdated.
SFX: 70%
The movie score was composed by Brian Tyler (Rambo, Eagle Eye) which I think he did a great job at. The movie opening theme was very good and most of the score was well done. The score is the one the very few good things about the movie and the movie also has a song played called "Rule" by Japanese singer Ayumi Hamasaki. Overall the score is pretty good and it not too bad at all.
Acting: 40%
The acting in this movie was not bad or good but somewhere between the two since Justin Chatwin (War of the Worlds) played Goku which was a awful choice since he act nothing like Goku at all, and he is a big idiot then he is in the anime. Other actors/actress in the movie such as Emmy Rossum (Mystic River), Jamie Chung (I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry), and Texas Battle (Final Destination 3) where wooden and feel like they where not trying enough when acting as their roles. They even have Chow Yun-Fat (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) in this movie as Master Roshi and I don't know why he wasted his time on this movie since this movie might end his acting career in the United States seeing how awful he acted in this movie. The movie has two good actors which are James Marsters (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) which he plays as Piccolo and Joon Park (Speed Racer) which he plays as Yamcha. Joon Park pulls off the role Yamcha very well since he acts like Yamcha from the show a lot and he even sounds like him, James Marsters did a good job on Piccolo but too bad that he had very little screentime in the movie. Even Ernie Hudson (Ghostbusters) is in this movie as some Guru but I don't why they had him as that role in the movie. Overall the acting is mixed in the bag and their is only a few good actors in the movie.
Violence: 14%
The movie has no blood at all and the movie is Rated PG which means it ok for kids. The movie has very fast hand to hand combat and scene where Chi Chi gets cut in the arm which is the only violent thing in this movie. This movie is safe for anyone and nothing to worry about.
Overall: 60%
Overall Dragonball Evolution is one those movies where it so stupid that it can be fun to watch. The movie has flaws but the corny factor makes me enjoy this movie and I will be buying this movie on DVD. The movie give me those nostalgia feeling seeing that I'm a big Dragon Ball fan that I found this movie to be enjoyable and doesn't ask anything serious from the audience. The movie sucks as a Dragon Ball movie and the movie is a good popcorn flick as a Action Movie. Overall the movie was so bad that I almost enjoy it, and the movie is worth checking out on DVD for a good laugh.
Quote from: XENOMORPH ALIENS on Apr 17, 2009, 03:46:39 AM
Quote from: Secret Hero on Mar 08, 2008, 12:00:23 AM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000AP04P6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
First movie to be made of AVP. Maybe this movie IS the best than AVP2 after all.
VisualFx: (96%)
- Even with the old Vfx, the mask of the Predator still is the best from the old movies, especially the Aliens suit or even the face is truly the one that is cool. In AVP2, the Aliens chin is like being stretched a little. And the Predator's mask for the mouth is a little too long. That's how AVP is still the best than AVP2.
SoundFx: (96%)
- Same rate with the Vfx, the Sfx has cool sound and some original shout-sfx of the Predators. And background music when the two species faces is good. Very good.
Storyline: (99%)
- The story really takes on the ancient times of how the people really built something from the teachings of the Predators, but when every 100 years the Preds come back and expect a ritual-sacrifice. But when all fates was change, the Aliens almost rule the whole pyramid. Still Predators are there to take care all the problems. The story is cool and easily understandable.
ViolentFactor: (47%)
- VF of this movie is not above it's average. Cause we always see the blood of the Aliens and Predators. Even the inside organs of the Aliens. And I recommend that you watch this movie with your parents, if you're 13 years below.
Overall: (98%)
- From the director of Resident Evil, Paul Anderson, created this masterpiece by combining and making a new rivalry of species. Alien Vs. Predator, a magnificent masterpiece.
I dont see what so great about AVP. it totally sucks!! paul anderson is the most sorriest piece of garabe of a director i have ever seen in my life. all his movies sucks and i dont know why in the hell did fox let him screwed up what was supposed to been a great movie. the movie doesnt have the feel of either ALIEN, ALIENS, or the Predator movies. i love all the alien and predator movies but both avp movies suck.
first of all the storyline sucks having it on Antarctica with a pyramid supposedly built by humans on Antarctica a long time ago. paul anderson never studied ancient history because humans never built anything on Antarctica because it was a frozen waste land when man started to walk the earth. man appeared 10 million years ago and Antarctica was a frozen waste land but it was once freed of ice but that was back in the late Cretaceous period when dinosaurs was still ruling the earth.
2nd the look of the aliens and the predator was horrible. ADI cant make the alien look like the alien anymore and even both alec and tom who worked on aliens and predator with the greatest make-up effects artist the late great Stan Winston and they still cant get the aliens and the predators to look right. at least in AVP-R the predator looked a bit more like the Predator from both Predator and Predator 2. I wish ADI went back to Giger's design instead of making it looking so stupid.
3rd i hated the f*cking cast in both movies. the cast is horrible and they were so damn boring even Lance Henrickson who i am a fan of even his character as Charles Bishop Weyland was horrible. i hated the idea of both female leads to be bacially a rip off of Ripley. when anyone in both movies started to get killed off by either the Aliens or the Predators i just didnt care about them but in the earlier movies from ALIEN, ALIENS, ALIEN 3, ALIEN RESURRECTION, AND BOTH PREDATOR AND PREDATOR 2 the cast in those movies were awesome but its hard to care about the characters in Alien 3 because they're prisoners.
4th the special effects and the CGI of AVP and AVP-R was really dumb. the cgi of the aliens looked so fake and it looked too cartoonish. Paul Anderson said he hates using CGI but he prefers practical effects. he had so much CGI used in AVP and the queen looked horrible and she looked so much like a cartoon character.
i give AVP and AVP-R no percent since both movies sucks. I dont see how AVP is a damn masterpiece but i can say its a master piece of sh*t!!!
Well, everybody got different point of views. So, you can't judge them if they like it or not. Same as the "Twilight" movie. <_< What's so special about that movie, anyway?
As for the topic, I request someone to review "Evil Dead".
Dogma Review
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rickmanistareview.com%2Fdogma99.jpg&hash=61640438476b4942f01e5715c686c2bc1c5aefda)
Plot: 85%
The movie is about a girl named Bethany Sloane who is abortion clinic worker with a special heritage is called upon by God and got a message from Metatron to go to New Jersey to save the universe from two Angels that are trying go to back to Heaven but if they do that then it will prove God wrong and everything will fall apart. She is plan to go New Jersey as she will made two prophets name Jay and Silent Bob that will help her on her quest as she will meet Rufus who is the thirteenth apostle that will also help her to the save the universe from evil. I really enjoy the story a lot since it was funny, dark and original at the same time. Kevin Smith does it again with his screenplay writing since he is know for his other movies like Mall Rats and Clerks which came out couple of years before Dogma was release in 1999. The dark humor is the best part of the movie since it full of extremely foul-mouthed, and hilarious obscene phrases. The satire of the movie is religion it self and the movie has a anti religion and anti Catholicism message. Since it a movie it not mean to be serious and most people will take it too personal if they watch it, but I would say that this movie is the Doctor Stangelove of Religion since Doctor Stangelove had a anti nuclear message behind it and it made fun of it just like Dogma would do with Catholicism. The Characters them self are well done and they may not be the best characters that Kevin Smith made but their very likeable, and most of them are funny too like Rufus played Chirs Rock, and you have Jay and Silent Bob that appear in Kevin Smith other movies like Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy. They also had their own movie in 2001 also called "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". If you seen them in Kevin Smith other movies then you would know that their drug dealers, mainly marijuana, who spend most of their time standing in front of stores selling their product which makes them funny.
VFX: 70%
The visual effects are nice and not too bad for a 90's movie since the movie is almost 10 years old, some of the visual effects still look decent. The CGI that they used for the wings on Metatron, Bartleby and Loki look ok but nothing state of the art or anything since the movie had a $10,000,000 budget which is a lot lower then most movies that cameout that the time of the release like End of Days and The World is Not Enough. Dogma is not of those movies that is based on visual effects but more on the story, if you want to see Terminator 2 or Matrix visual effects then you are watching the wrong movie. Their is a scene where the Hockey kids can rip a hole in time & space which looks awful since you can tell it done on a bad green screen. The Camera work is nice and their no flaw with that also. The visual effects are not great but not a direct to TV visuals neither.
SFX: 77%
The sound effects are nice and nothing to say about them really since the sound audio sounds no different from any other movie. The gun fire is loud and realistic, the music score done by Howard Shore (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring ) is good too, and I did like the ending music theme which I think he did a good job at. I never really care for the film scores in movies unless it loud and playing at it point where it can be stuck in your head for good like the theme for Jaws. The music score is average and nothing to say about it other then it good and download it if you enjoy it.
Acting: 76%
The acting is very good and the actors lines in the movie where well written too. Ben Affleck (Daredevil, Good Will Hunting) and Matt Damon (The Departed, Saving Private Ryan) where great as the lead villains in the movie and had some funny moments too. They pull it off well enough as two fallen angels and the movie also has Chris Rock (Lethal Weapon 4, Bad Company), Linda Fiorentino (Men in Black, Jade), and Alan Rickman (Play as Professor Severus Snape in the Harry Potter series) as the main roles in the story which they all did a great job in the movie. Linda Fiorentino was a bit wooden at some points in the movie but every one where able to pull a great funny roles in the movie, and Chris Rock might have been the funniest person in the movie without a doubt. Jason Lee () also play as Satan and he was pretty good at the role too. He should have been a bit more evil though, but the overall cast and acting is solid.
Violence: 32%
The movie is not too violent and does have some blood moments where people get shot for no reason at all and their a scene where Bartleby snaps a person neck in half, and a person falls out of the sky then gets smash into the ground. The movie is Rated R due to the humor and sex-related dialogue. I would not let kids watch this movie though.
Overall: 84%
Overall Dogma is a kick ass movie and I enjoy the hell of it many times. I seen it before on TV like a few years ago and did not like it since I did not understand it but seeing it now makes each viewing better. The acting is good, the humor is great, the dark setting works great with the movie as well. The movie is one hell of a ride and thoughtful viewing experience that both old and new fans of Kevin Smith will enjoy. If you like Kevin Smiths other movies or want to see a new comedy then check this movie out. The movie is worth your money and time, this is the best Kevin Smith movie since Clerks in my opinion.
Someone do a review of Faust: Love of the Damned. It's based on a comic book created by David Quinn and Tim Vigil. It was directed by Brain Yuzna.
I didn't care for it to much but I would like to see someone else take a crack at it.
'EVIL DEAD'
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F06%2FEvil_Dead_poster.jpg&hash=130aa535effef4a34c50ada8a933e119588ea3f3)
Certainly one of the most unique and plainly gorey films made, EVIL DEAD takes the undead/zombie angle in a different direction.
The acting may not be award winning by any stretch, but the content, style and scares are the real strong points here.
So, let's examine what makes ED so appealing to not just horror buffs, but teenage couples of all generations when they look for a good fright flick on a Saturday night.
The most striking element is the film's style. Sam Raimi has an original style that is perfected in his very next film, not surprisingly the sequel, Evil Dead 2.
The style is not your normal meat and potatoes direction - quirky angles, strange noises, extreme close-ups and off kilter shots really help un-nerve and discomfort the audience.
This helps make the scares and gore more terrifying and horrific.
The story seems to start fairly formulaic as a group of friends look to stay at a deserted cabin, but soon becomes less contemporary as the Demons rise to posess the living (later known colectively as Deadites). It seems to be familiar territory, but somehow it still seems remarkably fresh and brash. The 'tree rape' for example still evokes a nervous terror filled giggle from audiences.
The end is one of the classic cliffhangers of horror cinema and whilst used at the start of ED2, it is almost glossed over as ED2 swiftly and simply retells the opeing of the first film - munis the large cast in favour of one girl and Ash, the hero of film one. It goes without saying that this caused some confusion upon release of ED2.
The title in its unedited form is 'Evil Dead: The Ultimate Experience In Gruelling Terror' and in that it doesn't flounder, the gore effects still hold up well today, even the stop motion scene of melting Deadites still grosses people out today, as does the infamous stabbing of a character's ankle with a pencil - arguably one horror's most iconic scenes.
In conclusion, overall, and from my point of view as someone who isn't really a horror buff, its quite entertaining and of course still chills. Along with Hellraiser its one of the few Horrors in my collection that did indeed grab me for its style and originality. As a fun and scary genre film it garners a 7.2/10, or 72% if you will, despite the quite hideous acting from over 50% of the cast, which inturn shows how important the style and direction is in making it a classic.
Thank you so much for the review, Nachtfalke.
It gives the hype of renting this film.
----------------------------------
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolcdn.com%2Fmoviefeatures%2Fwild-hogs-poster-300&hash=ceb23ae8e4f0ad44bd60425428960c96d84dbee8)
Watching movies is totally fun, especially a movie with a mixed genre which make it unique. I'm not really a fan of the films of Walt Becker, but his film "Wild Hogs" just made my day worth the living. I mean, a film consist good soundtracks, casts, and bikes, not just bikes but big bikes like the "Harley".
The Movie
WILD HOGS tells a story of four suburban people deciding to rev up their routine suburban lives with a freewheeling road trip. Doug, Bobby, Dudley, and Woody, these four "Wild Hogs" crossed paths with the fearless and infamous group of bikers, Del Fuegos, which made Madrid to be the ring of these two group of bikers.
The life of the four Wild Hog is the center of them all. Doug (Tim Allen), a dentist that has problem of his LDL, Bobby (Martin Lawrence), a wild hog who is afraid of his wife and got a horrible job at the Firm, Dudley (William Macey), a geek or let's put it simply: a Computer Programmer, that had issues on talking or having a conversation with a woman, Woody, the worst of them all who got divorced from his successful swimsuit model wife and got broke. Woody is John Travolta, and the head of the Del Fuegos which makes their trip to be interesting is Jack, role of Ray Liotta.
The acting is good, plain good. The cast did a nice job of showing their assigned character to life. There is a little problem of William Macey's role though, if you observe "Dudley" closely, you may notice that he is just a plain geek with no other act. Just plain stupid, that's all. The screenplay is terrific, nothing is better than that right? The film is kind of shallow but nice though for a 2007 film.
WILD HOGS is one of the exciting movies of 2007 by Walt Becker. Honestly, this is the first film of Walt Becker that I have ever seen. But hey, I liked it and I'm sure that you will too.
5 out of 10.
I want to see that so bad ^
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shockya.com%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Funderworld_rise_of_the_lycans_movie_poster2.jpg&hash=b4ae0ab7a3da95a5f74febd09ff3344a8cfdeb7c)
Plot: 7/10
A prequel to the first movie, the story follows Lucian and his place in the vampire coven which is lead Viktor. Born differently than other Lycans, he can change back and forth between Werewolf and Human whenever he wishes and poses strength and agility never seen before. Enslaved and working as a blacksmith in the vampire fortress, he starts a relationship with Viktors beautiful daughter Sonja. His love for her knows no bounds and she feels the same. After making a daring escape in which he leads a few his fellow enslaved Lycans out of the castle, he summons the help of pure Lycans (werewolves that can't change back into humans) living outside the walls to help in a huge assault in the hope of over throwing the vampires forever.
The only downside to the story is that if you have seen U1 and U2, you basically know how it ends.
Spoiler
Sonja is killed by sunlight, and Viktor doesn't really die
VFX: 8/10
In keeping with the previous Underworlds, ROTL has the same visual styles and look. Very limited colours, with deep blues, blacks and greys making the majority of the scenes. Looks great though, really works well with the whole medieval setting and dark tone. The CG in the first and second flicks was average/good at best, but they've really upped their game with this one. With a bigger budget, they've produced some excellent effects, particularly the Lycans. Seeing them flip effortlessly between trees and racing full pelt across open fields in their hundreds is great.
SFX: 8/10
Really great audio and soundtrack, not much else to say.
Acting: 7/10
The acting has always been a strong point in these movies and this continues here. Rhona Mitra (Doomsday) puts in a good performance as Sonja and Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead) clearly enjoys himself as her crazed father Viktor. By far the strongest performance is from Micheal Sheen who plays Lucian, he really makes you feel for his character and his sympathise with his motives.
Sex: 5/10
Theres a brief sex scene between Lucian and Sonja, but it's basically slow flashes that don't reveal and 'bits'. Still, it's a sex scene.
Violence: 8/10
By far the most brutal of the movies, gorehounds will be happy with all the decapitations, impaling and generally bloody mayhem. The sight left after Lucian receives a back lashing with a bladed whip is pretty nasty.
Overall: 8/10
By far my favourite of the three. I never really expected much of this because the first two weren't really that good anyway, but I was pretty impressed with this. I liked how it was more from the Lycans point of view this time around and makes you realise that you've basically been following the real villians in U1 and 2. Just as talky' as the others, but moves along at a nice pace that I was never bored. The end battle is pretty smart, with the Lycans finally getting some violent payback after (or in this case, before) their pwnage in the other two movies. I'd absolutely recommend checking this out, even if you didn't think much of the first two because it's very different. My favourite movie of 2009 thus far.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F29%2FStartrekposter.jpg&hash=ac51da4dfd7925f7bdff09f667e3fa717a2bf5c7)
Star Trek
I would like to stress that when I walked into Star Trek I had very little knowledge of its past. Of course, I knew that there was a 60s show with William ('The Shat') Shatner playing Captain Kirk; and Leonard Nimoy wearing pointy ears as this guy called Spock who did this thing with his fingers that looked like this: \\//. I had also seen two of the previous films in the theatrical series, namely Star Trek: Insurrection, and Star Trek: Nemesis. Ask any serious 'Trekkie' and they'll tell you that those aforementioned instalments were, in a phrase, bantha poodoo. You see, I had always fallen into the 'Star Wars' camp, believing George Lucas's vision of a Sci-Fi fantasy galaxy to be the definitive vision of the future (well, past in his case). But I was determined to view this latest entry, this 'reboot' of the franchise. Why? Well, did you read any of the reviews? Simply put, it's been the most critically praised film since The Dark Knight. Anyway, I had high hopes for something that I knew next to nothing about, and yet for some reason was feeling rather excited about.
My newness to Star Trek was horrifyingly made clear when the person I was sitting next to let out an excited "Ooooh!" when a notably audible BLEEP sound was emitted from the hull of a looming starship right at the start of the pre-title sequence. However, all my fears left me as the film kicked off with one of the most aggressive space battles I had seen in a film for quite some time. As if all the death and destruction wasn't enough (an electrical storm, super rockets, and people being sucked out into the vacuum of space!), they even threw a birth into the mix. That 'birth' was of a certain baby Kirk, and believe me when I say that by the time the end credits roll, he will have had one hell of a ride... and so will we.
Acting as a prequel/reboot (and, in some ways, a sequel) to the past films and television series, we are naturally taken through the early stages of Kirk's life (including a relatively pointless bit of 'vintage' vehicular destruction) as well as Spock's. If there's one thing that you'll learn from this film, it's that you don't fu#k with young Spock! At this point you may be thinking that this could be a painfully slow-moving film with a ton of build-up to its more spectacular sequences. But that's the beauty of Star Trek. The pace never lets up. There is never a dull moment. It is constantly, always, continuously engaging. This isn't just because of a string of awesome action scenes (though there are plenty, with a brawl on top of a drilling platform thousands of feet high in the air about half way through the picture being a definite highlight), though. Indeed, much of the fun that this film exerts comes from watching the two leads: Chris Pine and Zachary (OMG SYLAR!) Quinto as Kirk and Spock respectively. Something just seems to... click when they're on screen, be they together or apart, and present themselves as exceptional co-stars. But while Pine comes across as the roughish love child of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, Quinto excels as the half human, half Vulcan (pointy ears, raised eyebrows, bowl haircut) struggling to come to terms with his mixed origins. Even the supporting cast manage to turn heads, with Simon Pegg managing to inject some much-needed comic relief at certain points as Scotty.
But there must be something wrong with it, right? Unfortunately yes. Fortunately though, it's a very minor niggle. The problem lies with the villain, Nero, played by Eric Bana. He's a Romulan (greeny-yellow skin, also has pointy ears, Darth Maul facial tattoos) who's travelled through time with the intention of exacting revenge on poor Spock. I will not reveal why for fear of spoilers, but it all makes for an interesting storyline. Now, Bana is a fine actor and he carries out the emotionally distressed Nero very well... when he's actually on screen. As much as I liked watching the crew of the Enterprise banter away, I kept on thinking: Where's Nero? Is Nero going to appear soon? NERO PLEASE! A great Sci-Fi film needs a great villain (cough Vader cough), and while I liked what Bana did with the part, I just wanted more. But like I said, that's a very minor niggle.
To sum up, Star Trek is an all round fantastic Sci-Fi movie that has been built from the ground-up to cater for all tastes, whether you be a hardcore Trek enthusiast or not. Go see it for yourself and experience the remarkable sense of enjoyment and likability that it emits. As for the director, a certain J.J. Abrams, may he live long and prosper.
4.5/5
I apologise for not keeping to the traditional percentage system, but I believe that by presenting the Star Trek review in that fashion, I can give a more meaningful account of the film.
Nice review mate! :)
Quote from: Vulhala on May 29, 2009, 04:06:17 PM
Nice review mate! :)
:o Thanks very much!
I'll attempt to put up some more at later dates. It'll probably be a mix of new(ish) cinema releases and DVD favourites.
Quote from: War Wager on May 19, 2009, 06:56:22 PM
I want to see that so bad ^
http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/underworld_rise_of_the_lycans_movie_poster2.jpg
Plot: 7/10
A prequel to the first movie, the story follows Lucian and his place in the vampire coven which is lead Viktor. Born differently than other Lycans, he can change back and forth between Werewolf and Human whenever he wishes and poses strength and agility never seen before. Enslaved and working as a blacksmith in the vampire fortress, he starts a relationship with Viktors beautiful daughter Sonja. His love for her knows no bounds and she feels the same. After making a daring escape in which he leads a few his fellow enslaved Lycans out of the castle, he summons the help of pure Lycans (werewolves that can't change back into humans) living outside the walls to help in a huge assault in the hope of over throwing the vampires forever.
The only downside to the story is that if you have seen U1 and U2, you basically know how it ends.
Spoiler
Sonja is killed by sunlight, and Viktor doesn't really die
VFX: 8/10
In keeping with the previous Underworlds, ROTL has the same visual styles and look. Very limited colours, with deep blues, blacks and greys making the majority of the scenes. Looks great though, really works well with the whole medieval setting and dark tone. The CG in the first and second flicks was average/good at best, but they've really upped their game with this one. With a bigger budget, they've produced some excellent effects, particularly the Lycans. Seeing them flip effortlessly between trees and racing full pelt across open fields in their hundreds is great.
SFX: 8/10
Really great audio and soundtrack, not much else to say.
Acting: 7/10
The acting has always been a strong point in these movies and this continues here. Rhona Mitra (Doomsday) puts in a good performance as Sonja and Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead) clearly enjoys himself as her crazed father Viktor. By far the strongest performance is from Micheal Sheen who plays Lucian, he really makes you feel for his character and his sympathise with his motives.
Sex: 5/10
Theres a brief sex scene between Lucian and Sonja, but it's basically slow flashes that don't reveal and 'bits'. Still, it's a sex scene.
Violence: 8/10
By far the most brutal of the movies, gorehounds will be happy with all the decapitations, impaling and generally bloody mayhem. The sight left after Lucian receives a back lashing with a bladed whip is pretty nasty.
Overall: 8/10
By far my favourite of the three. I never really expected much of this because the first two weren't really that good anyway, but I was pretty impressed with this. I liked how it was more from the Lycans point of view this time around and makes you realise that you've basically been following the real villians in U1 and 2. Just as talky' as the others, but moves along at a nice pace that I was never bored. The end battle is pretty smart, with the Lycans finally getting some violent payback after (or in this case, before) their pwnage in the other two movies. I'd absolutely recommend checking this out, even if you didn't think much of the first two because it's very different. My favourite movie of 2009 thus far.
I love the 3 Underworld films,they are just....enjoyable.
The first two bored me a fair bit.
Quote from: War Wager on May 30, 2009, 12:25:13 PM
The first two bored me a fair bit.
My opinion:
1 was boring, 2 was fun, haven't seen the 3rd one.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F2c%2FJudge_Dredd_promo_poster.jpg&hash=8772c2f07bb03c1206bc701c67baba0834d8fa88)
I saw this movie a while ago and thought it was alright, haven't read any of the comics though.
Storyline - In a post apocalyptic future Earth, most of the remaining population live in overcrowded 'Mega-cities' ruled by a fascist police state known as the Judge system. Enforcing this system are 'judges' filling position as judge, jury and executioner. Judge Joseph Dredd, the titular and main character, is framed by Judge Rico who is plotting to take-over Megacity One.
Theres quite a few characters I haven't mentioned and I could go on with the plot summarisation but i'll just skip to my opinions on this. From what I know about the comics, this is a pretty typical Judge Dredd adventure so they couldn't have done this much better. 80%
VisualFX - The Visuals and CGI are pretty damn good, Megacity one is rendered in its massive, futuristic glory with tall, crowding buildings. Hammerstein (from some other 2000AD series) makes an appearance and he looks paticularly good here with his rusty brown plating and black, visible wires, you can really tell its him. Considering it was released in '95 it still looks pretty decent today. 90%
SoundFX - Sound in this movie is as good as it could've been with the just-right whizzing of speedy futuristic vehicles and the sizzling, sparky sound of breaking electronics. 80%
Violence - It isn't that violent, there are a fair number of explosions and maybe the odd bloodspot, the fights and shootouts are fairly brutal though. 30%
Acting - Stallone as Dredd was a poor choice, even if he was popular at the time, he just sounds stupid shouting the famous "I AM THE LAW!!!111!!" quote and was generally hard to take seriously. Everybody else isn't bad, Rob Schneider is okay as that hacker kid and his jumpy, cowardly personality. 65%
Overall - Its quite an entertaining movie and not a bad attempt at bringing Dredd to the big screen, give it a watch if you've got the time. 75%
^Thanks for reviewing that, the movie is underrated and almost forgotten, but it was a decent flick.
I think too Judge Dredd is an underrated movie. It had good comicbook feel and great music by Alan Silvestri.
^^ I didn't actually pay any attention to the music xD.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F8%2F80%2FMary_shelleys_frankenstein_ver2.jpg&hash=db8d2113ce5933e1a6bc499f094eeb2752c18ced)
Storyline
It is based on the famous book. I don't know faithful it is to the book, but the plot is very similar to the classic 30s Frankenstein movies.
VisualFX
Pretty good recreation of late 17th Europe. Cinematography was average. No lighting issues, but the picture quality could use a clean up.
SoundFX
Didn't like the score - too dramatic and not atmospheric enough.
Violence
This should have been violent and gory but it cuts away whenever something happens. There is one gory and shocking bit in it, but I won't spoil it.
Acting
Average. De Niro is an ok Frankenstein, not great but ok.
Overall 65%
I didn't hate this movie, but it could've been wayyyyyy better. Some parts were just ridiculous. Like when this girl sets herself on fire, then runs through the hallway setting everything in her path in flames, then seconds later the whole house is burning down. W T F ?
It's just a silly movie that takes itself way too seriously. I thought it'd be like Bram Stoker's Dracula but it has no style and it's pacing is all over the place.
A bit of a mess but worth watching at least once.
I wrote this review up a while ago on Amazon.co.uk, and you can probably tell. Even though I don't really like my review, I still wanted to share my thoughts on this DVD box set since it is well worth buying.
Oh, and the picture is of a seperate version. The one I'm reviewing can be found here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fly-2-DVD/dp/B000ERVG34/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1245342065&sr=1-1
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F41ZZG0PE5NL._SL500_AA240_.jpg&hash=f175bc71c3a79c254fd2c4ce853a77532d9d4844)
The Fly I & II DVD box set
Anyone who has seen the original The Fly, made in 1958 and starring Vincent Price, will have some idea of what to expect from this remake; a terrible teleportation accident in which a fly gets into the same teleportation device that the main character is in. But while in the original, the result was that the human body came out of the other device with the head and arm of the fly (vice-versa for the body of the fly), the result in this remake is much more horrible.
Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) is the doomed scientist who is dabbling in the use of teleportation, and Geena Davis plays Veronica, the journalist who is covering his work and who is also Brundle's love interest in the film. Together, they perfect the teleportation sequence to transport organic tissue. Brundle becomes angry; however, as he believes that Veronica is still seeing her ex-partner and magazine editor, Stathis Borans (John Getz), and proceeds to test the "telepod" on himself and accidentally splices himself with a common housefly. What follows is a truly disturbing sequence of events as Brundle gradually decomposes into something far from human, while Veronica finds herself caring for him. Directed by the masterful David Cronenberg, and featuring a great cast as well as completely believable and grotesque special effects, The Fly is a terrifying romantic horror film with an underlying message in the form of ageing and inevitable death.
As you mightexpect, The Fly 2 doesn't really live up to the first film. Despite this, it is certainly a competent horror film in its own right. Unlike the original, there is no underlying message, and there is certainly no strong romantic sub-plot. Instead, the film concentrates on conventional sci-fi/horror/gore techniques and in those respects it certainly succeeds and is therefore very entertaining at times. What effectively makes this film are the special effects, which have certainly been improved upon since the last film (in which the effects were great themselves) and makes the (infrequent) gory moments very convincing. The plot concerns the son of Seth Brundle and how he is being kept like some form of lab rat at Bartok Industries (the company that funded Brundle in the first film). It is not long, however, before his dormant insect genes take over, and he takes revenge on those that have kept him and lied to him over the years, making for some truly intense final scenes.
I highly recommend that you buy this set. There are very few special features aside from some satisfying audio commentaries, but the picture and sound quality of both the films has definitely been perfected, unlike many other DVD's of older films which just seem to have been copied and pasted onto a disk. Buy it for the films and not the extras and you won't be disappointed by this exceptionally good box set.
But be afraid... very afraid.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fcb%2FTF2SteelPoster.jpg&hash=02437b24fccca8eb1bcad33bc5fc7c0037279a6e)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Have you ever been kicked in the face? I haven't, but I'd imagine that the sensation of being kicked in the face is similar to watching a Michael Bay movie. Ever since his 1995 directorial debut, Bad Boys, Bay has had one single objective: to make us succumb to his "Make everything in sight explode and reduce the story and character development to a minimum", style of filmmaking. Some people love him for this. Indeed, many of his films are extremely enjoyable, whether they feature the unlikely yet ingenious team-up of Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage (The Rock), or rather scary looks at the future of cloning (The Island). But each one, despite having a budget of gargantuan proportions, has been far from perfect, often dividing critics and fans over just how good they really are. This reached its zenith with the 2007 release of Transformers, based on the ever-popular 80s toy line and cartoon series that lives fondly in many a person's memory. But the film was awful. It was Bay at his most self-indulgent, featuring two of the least interesting leading characters in recent history, a story that could have been written on the back of a stamp, an agonizing running time (143 minutes!), and last but not least, a camera that could not be kept still, rendering the (admittedly impressive) looking robots as nothing more than a series of colourful blurs. But now Bay is back; armed with a sequel that boasts an extra fifty million dollars and an even longer running time (150 minutes!!). The question, though, is whether or not he can improve on that travesty of an original.
In short, yes, he does. Truth be told, I actually enjoyed most of the first half of this film, regardless of how mind-numbing it all was. But I could not resist the potential Bayhem that was to be had, and willingly gave in to the pure awesomeness that was the opening battle in Shanghai, as the Autobots (assisted by a human team called NEST) hunt down a group of renegade Decepticons hiding there. And who can't resist the sight of Optimus Prime transforming out of his truck form and diving out of a helicopter before latching onto a massive, spinning wheel based Decepticon (and all in super slow motion, I should add, so we really get to see the details)? From there we are given an ominous warning that The Fallen is coming, and the film gets underway proper. Naturally, we then meet our human stars, Sam Witwicky and Mikaela (played by the always underwhelming Shia LaBeouf and popular poster-girl Megan Fox respectively), as they prepare to become separated once Sam moves off to college. Of course, their relationship feels somewhat contrived, but all is forgiven once Sam's parents make their appearance, and they prove to be just as enjoyable a duo as they were in the first Transformers. Without giving away too much, it's not long before Sam realises that he is once again the target of the Decepticons, is pulled out of college and is thrust into the robot civil war. To top it all off, the evil Megatron is revived early on, stronger than ever before; and it shows during the tragic climax of a forest-set metal mash up.
By that stage, however, the film has just about reached its half-way point, and you'll be amazed at how fast the time has flown by. But now Fallen violently judders to a halt, all its (and our) energy used up, and we begin to realise that there is still about an hour and a half left of this. It has yet to introduce a whole raft of new characters, and cover a huge amount of exposition. The term, 'bloated', is an understatement. Ironically, the titular Fallen (an ancient Prime) is virtually lost in all of this with a criminally short screen time. Sure, he gets to strut his stuff as he makes his presence felt, but the film wastes no time in making us traipse along behind Sam and Mikaela as they try to figure out just how they are going to save the world again. In many ways, this is where it all goes wrong for Fallen, as the film instantly switches from entertaining summer blockbuster to a painful rape of our senses. Indeed, once the exposition is out of the way, it's back to the action as Bay unleashes the mother of all climactic battles set in a desert. But it just isn't much fun. It's too loud and there's too much going on. And all the while Bay is swinging the camera around as fast as he possibly can (I kid you not, if someone had been sitting in the front row there would have been projectile vomit). Plus it all goes on for what seems like an eternity, with no end to the constant explosions and speeding robots in sight.
On the note of robots, Bay felt the need to include many, many more in this film than in the first one. While in Transformers there was a handful of Autobots and Decepticons that we got to know quite well by the time the credits rolled, here we are presented with literally dozens of Transformers, most of which vary vastly (ranging from nifty little motorbike ones to a grouchy cane-wielding giant). This is sure to make some fan boys go wild, but everything backfires when the film can't quite give them all the attention they deserve. The large majority of them get no lines of dialogue whatsoever, and yet many that do are only on screen for less than a minute in total across the entire film. I challenge anyone (with the exception of die-hard fans, of course) to recall any of the secondary robots' names once the film ends without looking them up on Wikipedia. But perhaps the biggest problem emerges in the case of The Twins, two seemingly inbred Autobots who act as a team and embody the most annoying of racial stereotypes (just imagine if there were two Jar Jar Binks's in The Phantom Menace), and yet are lavished with untold amounts of attention. And as for The Fallen... well, what a letdown. Thankfully, though, some changes do go well. Megatron has much more screen time for this go around, and his abusive attitude towards whiny second in command Starscream is sure to please followers of the cartoon. Also, there are many more close-ups of the Transformers, revealing the masterfully detailed CGI creations that they really are.
To go back to my original question, I would say that watching Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen feels like getting a roundhouse kick to the face from Jean-Claude Van Damme! Despite a promising start, Bay inevitably ends up repeatedly bashing us over the back of the head with his filmmaking stick as he falls back on tried and tested techniques that were never that popular to begin with. I have no doubt that there will be those who will love this, and I have no doubt that a third film is in the works at this very moment; and who knows, it could well be third time lucky, right? Regardless, Fallen is a bad film. Yet one can take solace in the fact that it is still an improvement on its predecessor. But just a small one.
2/5
Sand Serpents
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319736/usercomments-7 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319736/usercomments-7)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi149.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs62%2Fmadvp%2Ffunny_people.jpg&hash=13ef858f1c236ce1225022dd21ab559e3943a4eb)
Funny People
First off i love Judd Apatows '40 year Old Virgin' and 'Knocked Up'. It seems with this one he aimed for the drama/comedy approach with the Apatow direction style.. which for me worked really well. With a more serious tone yet ridiculously funny we finally get to see a Skinny non-stoner Seth Rogen which was...... weird yet almost a relief to see a change in character. Adam Sandler throws his original goofiness into the film and yet adds depression which i thought was interesting to see.
I think i remember the movie being about 2 Hours long which was plenty, by the end of the movie you actually feel like you know the character as if they were your neighbors.
The Film struck me as having a 1st half and a 2nd half, but i don't wanna give anything away.
Great acting, directing, writing, and jokes Funny people is a win for Apatow
8.5-10
Just got back from seeing a pre-screening of District 9. I'll just go ahead and say it in one sentence: this movie was great and I highly recommend it. You actually give a shit about the characters because of how the events are shown, and the directorial style made this movie unlike anything I'd ever seen as far as movies go. It felt like a war documentary, and it worked.
The special effects were great. With the aliens, it was hard to tell if they were CGI or animatronic (or a mix of both) because of how seamlessly they interacted with the characters and the environment. Moving objects around, interacting physically with people, it was all really convincing. I also liked their facial design, as well. They looked alien, but had enough facial features that you could discern emotions and personalities without a problem. It made them a lot more sympathetic while still keeping them "extraterrestrial".
The documentary style worked great, but part of me wishes the movie was more consistent with it - you'd get long stretches of "documentary" footage, interviewing people, security camera footage, news footage, but then it would cut to handheld shaky-cam footage that wasn't "documentary" footage and it sort of broke the "effect". I understand that a lot of scenes couldn't have played out the way they did if they'd kept strictly to the "documentary" footage, but I think it would have been an interesting challenge to keep the style 100% consistent and still tell essentially the same story. I don't think it would have been impossible.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is still outstanding, it's just a bit of a minor quibble that I was thinking about after the movie ended.
Also, this really isn't a spoiler, but this movie doesn't pull any punches. If you're squeamish, this movie has its fair share of "gross-out" parts. I mean, I'm not squeamish, but it kinda caught me off-guard how far they took some stuff.
All in all, highly recommended. REALLY highly recommended.
^Excellent. I can't wait to see District 9.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbokunosekai.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fmisery.jpg&hash=5702588bc34e3aa6a7b76910f8770e5bf9ff1abd)
Trailer (note the use of Bishop's Countdown :D ) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkzPpaHqM9s
This is one of the best thrillers I have ever seen. It's based on a Stephen King book and stars Kathy Bates and James Caan, both who are excellent in their roles. The movie came out in 1990, which was a great year for movies. Movies of this era seem to have a particular style to them, it's hard to explain but I really like it. I won't go into the plot, just watch the movie, it's a life or death psychological thriller, but not your usual kind. It will have you on the edge of your seat the entire time, it's also quite smart and very well acted. And I have to say, Kathy Bates plays the craziest bitch in a movie I've ever seen.
5/5
^Love that movie. Cathy Bates is so believeable in it.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F00%2FGijoeofficialposter.jpg&hash=87b2b5507a618f15975221fca7b96946007a90ed)
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
To put it bluntly, I have never seen an episode of G.I. Joe. I have never owned a G.I. Joe action figure. In fact, I wasn't even aware of this particular 80s franchise until earlier this year, when I first laid eyes on the trailer for this picture. So, I was not bound to any kind of nostalgic attraction to this particular big-budget extravaganza; and that may well have paid off for me.
But you've got to hand it to Stephen Sommers, the man who gave us Deep Rising, both Mummy films (the third does not exist), and Van Helsing. None of these films are really what one might consider to be 'classics', but Sommers has the ability to turn anything he directs, regardless of how dire the source material may be, into something that never fails to entertain. I am pleased to report that G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is no exception. It's simply two hours of mindless, unrelentingly stupid fun that cannot fail to put a smile on your face... unless you've seen the cartoon, where you run the risk of having your hopes and dreams get smashed.
The 'plot', for want of a better word, concerns the villainous MARS (Military Armament Research Syndicate) organisation, headed by Christopher Eccleston's James McCullen, a turncoat weapons designer who attempts to steal his own nanotechnology (containing nasty little nano-mites that posses the ability to literally eat through an entire city) from the U.S. Army in order to further his own evil plans. Naturally, his initial attack is foiled by the elite team of G.I. Joe, a secret division of the military (led by the always reliable Dennis Quaid), that employs the use of "accelerator suits" that – you guessed it – "accelerate" the user, allowing such mundane abilities as running and jumping to be enhanced tenfold. But things don't really get going until the forces of evil have made off with said nano-mites, and it's up to G.I. Joe to get them back. This mission leads them through a number of exciting set pieces, including an "accelerator suited" romp through Paris, filled to the brim with an untold number of exploding cars, which culminates in "the trailer shot"; while the film concludes with the Joe's attacking McCullen's underwater fortress. These action sequences are expertly staged for the most part, but there are times when the camera work descends into Michael Bay levels of unsteadiness. But Sommers generally lets us get a good look at exactly what's going on, even at the most hectic of times.
Now, a quick word on the characters: this movie has everything. There are beautiful femme fatales, ninjas, mind-controlled henchmen, mad scientists, a master of disguise, and horribly disfigured baddies! Like I said: everything. As mentioned before, I have never seen the G.I. Joe cartoon, but those origins can be seen in such wonderfully over the top antagonists. It's difficult to take a single one seriously (the pick of the bunch being a grotesque individual simply going by the name of 'The Doctor', whose voice makes Christian Bale's take on Batman look normal by comparison), but they all add to the overall charm of the film, and it won't be long before you find your favourite. The protagonists, on the other hand, are a little more bland when looked at. Granted, Dennis Quaid is always awesome (he saved Jaws 3!), but as for the others, well we're presented with 'big strong guy', 'super-intelligent girl', and 'humorous French technician'. Also, Channing Tantum unconvincingly gurns his way through the film as our central hero, Duke, whilst Marlon Wayans is really just there to play 'comedy sidekick' as Ripcord. It's also a shame that none of their back stories are explored in any notable detail, save for the silent ninja, Snake Eyes. But they're believable and likeable enough as action heroes.
And on that note, it's not perfect. There are plenty of flaws that stick out and make themselves apparent, not least of which is the script. It's disappointing having to watch such... able thespians work with the kind of garbage that would make George Lucas blow a raspberry; and the most criminal lines go to Sienna Miller who, despite clearly enjoying herself as 'The Baroness', invokes cringe after cringe via such seemingly innocent lines as: "Nice shoes." She has worse ones, but they're too good to give away here. On a similar note, something has gone quite wrong with Eccleston's Scottish accent ("A wunt tha whaarhades rehdee in un ower!"), though on a positive side this provides welcome chuckles. Also, the final act suffers from an overload of vendettas and clichéd revelations. In fact, it's amazing how much the last battle plays out like a sub-aquatic take on the assault on the second Death Star (you'll notice certain similarities immediately). This sudden explosion of unoriginality is rather jarring, and takes your mind off the important issues at hand this late in the plot.
It's called The Rise of Cobra for a reason; the ending might as well have TO BE CONTINUED pop up in large white lettering. Oh yes, there will be sequels. But we should look forward to them, however many there may be. This has managed to establish a solid collection of likeable characters that will hopefully be investigated further in the coming years, and from the small amount of research I've made into the original cartoon since seeing this, it's clear that there is a rich history to plunder for future adventures with the Joe's. Now... I can only hope that next year's Thundercats adaptation doesn't get screwed up. Unlike that other film!
3/5
QuoteBut you've got to hand it to Stephen Sommers, the man who gave us Deep Rising, both Mummy films (the third does not exist), and Van Helsing. None of these films are really what one might consider to be 'classics', but Sommers has the ability to turn anything he directs, regardless of how dire the source material may be, into something that never fails to entertain.
If you're a hyperactive 2 year old on a sugar-high you'll be entertained. Van Helsing - that movie took stupidity to a whole new level, I could not even finish watching it.
f**k GI Joe, btw.
Pah! Sommers has fun with his films. It shows.
Also, The Mummy was the film that Indy 4 should have been!
I don't care what anybody says, I loved Van Helsing.
District 9
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi70.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi114%2Frandy7027%2Fdistrict9poster3-1.jpg&hash=ddbcf1debb91c13a1e6f5e66c3c7c7bea22ba658)
VisualFX- The Visuals for this movie are breathtaking and the budget of $30 million dollars that it was done on made it even more un-believable for how well the creatures, mothership, etc looked. Although im not surprised because of the studios that worked on it all like Weta digital, Image Engine etc. But in my opinion think for one of many reasons that this film deserves an award for the work.
Storyline- The storyline is not the usual..it has a mix of many genres today. Drama, Action, Sci-fi, (mainly what this movie contains) The story is not like many others, its easy to follow, although left some questions unanswered and thats what calls for a sequel. It's cool to watch if ur a fan of POV or "Queasy-Cam" Style films, although small portions of the film are like that. The story is cool, satisfying, original and creative.
SoundFX- The SoundFX for this movie is excellent from the sounds of the weapons to the guttural growls and chatter of the creatures sounds crisp, nice. The various weapons that are used throughout the movie have their distinct sounds that doesnt spew generic noises. The environment is filled with sounds from choppers, talking and other ambiance. The soundFX is also another one of the great factors of the movie.
Violence Factor- This movie is VERY violent and gory at it's times, I do not recommend this for the young ones. Throughout the movies there are gory scenes, blood splatter, dismemberment, explosions etc. I guess its the reason why its rated R, But in my opinion the gore and violence makes the movie alot better when showing the nature of the creatures...other than that its just plain awesome!
Overall- My final verdict on the film is that its worth seeing in theaters, Heck its worth seeing twice! You will not be bored or dissapointed. If you felt a little iffy like I did, when you see it you have alot of fun and spend your money's worth.
Score- I give this movie a 100% for the low amount of budget used to make such a spectacular film, the plot, effects and every other little thing about it! This one I will be picking up on DVD and digital Copy. (for all you portable media whores like me)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F4%2F4f%2FSupermariobros.jpg&hash=4d17cc2b0b32e39e56a0f24e3c109914a0519682)
Yep, this is the first live-action movie based on a video game, the enormously popular Mario games. Now, this movie is often given a very bad wrap, it was a box office and critical failure, and many fans don't like how it is too different from the games. But I love it, so sue me.
The movie loosely follows the several concepts from the game, just cleverly updated to a Blade Runner/Brazil-esque type world that exists in a parallel dimension. I actually like the changes they made, they couldn't actually do a literal adaptation of the game for the movie, yet they still included lots of easter eggs for the fans.
Now the actors, this movie has a great likeable cast - Bob Hoskins is perfect as Mario, Dennis Hopper really relishes his role as Koopa. The rest of the cast are also great - John Leguizamo, the actress who plays Daisy, the guys who play the Koopa cousins, Toad, Big Bertha, etc - a wonderful cast.
The game characters - some of my favourites:
The Goombas - omg I love these guys. They looks so cool.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_drUMJ9HF-tQ%2FR9G7J6yV_hI%2FAAAAAAAAB1o%2Fe8uei-04EZc%2Fs400%2Fgoomba.jpg&hash=71c212b2d36a8243d1ffea69b00fa5d46d7f3e16)
Yoshi - now it's funny because Yoshi kind of looks like a velociraptor (remember this was the year Jurassic Park came out) but he looks pretty damn cool, a very neat little practical/animatronic effect.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dan-dare.org%2FDan%2520Mario%2FSMBMovie-DaisyYoshi.jpg&hash=855761da5a9143a4aa3eed3f137364d63db10bf7)
Bob-omb - well the Bob-omb certainly got the respect it deserved but I'm not sure if I liked the Reebok reference (damn product placement).
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamesetwatch.com%2Fmariomovie7.jpg&hash=e9eba9f435f870885e93f21511a31059d6298db0)
Conclusion - well what can I say, I think this movie easily beats other video game movies of it's era. Street Fighter and Double Dragon? C'mon. Mortal Kombat, maybe. Anyway, this movie is just fun and enjoyable, I'd check it out, just don't expect a literal adaptation of the games.
A WARNING THOUGH - this movie contains a lot of references to Reptilians and a few references to disturbing parallels to 9/11. Just watch the movie with this in mind and you'll see.
I thought that id dare and throw this up ok here goes the Matrix series there I said it and get this I liked the film it was an eye opening kung fu film but the girl who played Trinity was mingin also Elrond made for one of the best vialians of all time you could just tell from the first time you saw him he was mean as any of the best villians except Darth vader k
Quote from: Übermensch on Aug 22, 2009, 03:05:12 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Supermariobros.jpg
A WARNING THOUGH - this movie contains a lot of references to Reptilians and a few references to disturbing parallels to 9/11. Just watch the movie with this in mind and you'll see.
That post got a huge laugh out of me.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.videogum.com%2Fimg%2Fthumbnails%2Fphotos%2Frogue.jpg&hash=d811abae68e7eea0771aab1e852b61d21de8a122)
We all know the whole 'man vs beast' concept has been done to death in Hollywood, with few successful attempts. A popular creature in horror is the crocodile, which has unfortunately been subjected to crappy, tacky B-movies (though 'Lake Placid' was good) that just don't do justice to the real life animal. Then along comes 'Rogue' to "reboot" the genre so to speak and give a fresh take on a terrifying reptile.
The story starts out innocently enough, with an Australian tourist boat venturing into an unknown river system in response to distress call. Venturing into it's territory, a giant 35 foot crocodile maroons them on a tiny mud island and causes the travelers to put their differences aside and work together to stay alive.
Simple enough, but it's arguably more suspenseful than 'Jaws' in that the characters are in constant danger from the moment they're stranded; the tide is rising quickly, darkness is creeping in fast and the crocodile is just unwillingly to leave the intruders alone. In a nice twist, the characters here actually come across as real people and are well played (with a particularly strong performance by Radha Mitchell). This obviously makes it all the more intense when they get attacked. 'Intense' is pretty much the word to describe the movie as a whole actually, theres some pretty gripping scenes in here that rival a lot of older horrors. Unlike those however, theres a heavy reliance of CG with the occasional use of animatronic. Though considering the movies budget, the FX they managed to pull of are impressive:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everythingscary.com%2Fphotos%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F11695_rogue_screen_crocodile_water.jpg&hash=79cc16903e3b3c94e5312472ae3cbcfb30c9ccaa)
Okay, theres a few naff shots in there, but overall you buy this as a living, breathing animal.
The music is pretty good too, with good use of traditional Australian instruments and vocals in the opening credits giving it a nice epic feel and the starting journey of the tourist boat itself is both playful and exciting. If a little creepy. The croc themes are pretty standard to the creature; sharp violin cords mixed with strong bass, but it definitely does the job. Overall, 'Rogue' is definitely worth a look and is best watched with the lights off and the sound way up. Infact, next to 'The Descent' I'd say it's one of the best modern "monster" flicks to come out of Hollywood in a long time.
8/10
I haven't seen Rogue yet, but if you liked it you should check out Black Water.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816436/
The DVD cover makes it look pretty lame, but it's really good and very realistic.
Been meaning to check that out, thanks for the link.
Might want to check out Primeval too.
The Box
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.culch.ie%2Fimages%2FTheBox001.jpg&hash=1e4a6e15ae9534e4483eee6b4af70bd13cc75c60)
Norma and Arthur Lewis, a suburban couple with a young child, receive a simple wooden box as a gift, which bears fatal and irrevocable consequences. A mysterious stranger, delivers the message that the box promises to bestow upon its owner $1 million with the press of a button. But, pressing this button will simultaneously cause the death of another human being somewhere in the world; someone they don't know. With just 24 hours to have the box in their possession, Norma and Arthur find themselves in the cross-hairs of a startling moral dilemma and must face the true nature of their humanity.
This movie is based off of a Twight light Zone 1986 episode "Button, Button" i remember watching it and it had the very same plot as this movie but instead of them becoming wealthy at the start she didnt push the button because her and her husband knew that some random person would die because some old guy that brought the box to them but at the very end of the show she pushed the button. The old man who delivered the box to the couple was supose to be the grim reaper. The box was used for people to do his dirt work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone)
The Twilight Zone episode was actually based off of a short story that was published in 1970 by, oddly enough, Playboy, and was written by Richard Matheson.
Quote from: War Wager on Oct 12, 2009, 10:19:21 AM
http://cdn.videogum.com/img/thumbnails/photos/rogue.jpg
We all know the whole 'man vs beast' concept has been done to death in Hollywood, with few successful attempts. A popular creature in horror is the crocodile, which has unfortunately been subjected to crappy, tacky B-movies (though 'Lake Placid' was good) that just don't do justice to the real life animal. Then along comes 'Rogue' to "reboot" the genre so to speak and give a fresh take on a terrifying reptile.
The story starts out innocently enough, with an Australian tourist boat venturing into an unknown river system in response to distress call. Venturing into it's territory, a giant 35 foot crocodile maroons them on a tiny mud island and causes the travelers to put their differences aside and work together to stay alive.
Simple enough, but it's arguably more suspenseful than 'Jaws' in that the characters are in constant danger from the moment they're stranded; the tide is rising quickly, darkness is creeping in fast and the crocodile is just unwillingly to leave the intruders alone. In a nice twist, the characters here actually come across as real people and are well played (with a particularly strong performance by Radha Mitchell). This obviously makes it all the more intense when they get attacked. 'Intense' is pretty much the word to describe the movie as a whole actually, theres some pretty gripping scenes in here that rival a lot of older horrors. Unlike those however, theres a heavy reliance of CG with the occasional use of animatronic. Though considering the movies budget, the FX they managed to pull of are impressive:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everythingscary.com%2Fphotos%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F11695_rogue_screen_crocodile_water.jpg&hash=79cc16903e3b3c94e5312472ae3cbcfb30c9ccaa)
Okay, theres a few naff shots in there, but overall you buy this as a living, breathing animal.
The music is pretty good too, with good use of traditional Australian instruments and vocals in the opening credits giving it a nice epic feel and the starting journey of the tourist boat itself is both playful and exciting. If a little creepy. The croc themes are pretty standard to the creature; sharp violin cords mixed with strong bass, but it definitely does the job. Overall, 'Rogue' is definitely worth a look and is best watched with the lights off and the sound way up. Infact, next to 'The Descent' I'd say it's one of the best modern "monster" flicks to come out of Hollywood in a long time.
8/10
Huh at first glace this looks like a Syfy film. I really want to see this now.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sawvtrailer.com%2Fimages%2Fsaw-v-poster.jpg&hash=76783a93a83685c5f9bd381cc54aece0d6040ffb)
Everyone seems to have conflicting views about the 'Saw' series, but across the board, the first is considered the best. The rest trash. Critical response hasn't stopped Lionsgate releasing a new movie every Halloween however; they can be made fairly cheap and bring back much more than their budget. Pretty much the sole reason is the series has become so iconic is because of it's harsh, brutal violence and sadistic situations. This perhaps cheapens the series somewhat, giving the gore centre stage above the story, but it was a stagetic move. People like grossing themselves out. Either way you cut it, the 'Saw' series is one of the most successful horror franchises ever and as long as it makes money, there will be more to come.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg5.allocine.fr%2Facmedia%2Frsz%2F434%2Fx%2Fx%2Fx%2Fmedias%2Fnmedia%2F18%2F66%2F80%2F75%2F18999146.jpg&hash=28a4eaabb61ff4cd47f88b62a0f08d28651a2289)
'Saw V' is definitely the weakest of the series as it's story is pretty bland and uninteresting. Basically the "new" Jigsaw continues his weave of torture and punishment, while trying to throw off the police force from his trail. A group of shallow business workers awake to find themselves thrust into a game in which they are given instructions to "be something they're not" in order to survive. And that's it. There are however even more intriguing flashbacks showing John finally starting his "work", testing his first subject plus setting up the traps post 'Saw'. These are really the only interesting parts of the whole movie, played out well by the ever great Tobin Bell. The acting elsewhere is watchable at best with the cast including Costas Mandylor, Scott Patterson and Julie Benz. One of many factors 'Saw' fans crave is the ever occurring twist in the finale that (following the first movies "What.The.F**k" reaction) seems to have been going strong. With a tagline like 'You Won't Believe How It Ends' you'd expect to be blown out of your seat, but alas, you're not. Heck, there ain't even a twist, simply minor revelations.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joblo.com%2Fnewsimages1%2Fsaw5-website-pic1.jpg&hash=009aa59a28b8a8be00f7b7c88a50f188fdfea63d)
The traps, which I guess should be considered
some importance, are actually not bad. The opening one certainly has the 'ouch' factor. The business 'jerks' are put through a slew of tests which give them to opportunity to work together but, ignoring the rules, only really care about themselves. This mistake becomes apparent by the final test. The final test, by the way, is horrible. I honestly felt like passing out. Definitely one of more cringe-worthy situations in the series. An interesting note is that 'V' is the first in the series to use some CG in it's traps/aftermaths.
Overall, 'Saw V' is very much lacking in all aspects of what made the others work. Doesn't come across as well-made as the other four and doesn't harbour the same 'style'. Seems quite rushed actually. If it weren't for it's violence and occasional flashbacks, it could very well bore the socks off of some. For a movie that was meant to bring the series to a close (haha) it just doesn't do justice to what has come before and it's clear the writers are running out of ideas. Hopefull they upped their game in 'VI' and are saving something unexpected for 'VII'...
5/10
ABC "V" TV SERIES http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQoSCEMzJYE
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrandhighonline.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Fv-logo-001.jpg&hash=1c5553c864a3ebaafc017cac73dd7503a2fbeefe)
So is this how 2012 will play out damn reptilians
Rewatching 28 days later:
For anyone who hasn't seen this movie: Britain is infected by a deadly virus named Rage which transmits through the blood, this virus transforms its hosts into rabid animals and Britain is basically overrun. The protagonist links up with some guys, goes to find some soldiers, the soldiers want to rape his friends so he escapes, sabotages the complex and comes back to rescue his friends.
The film was pretty good, but there were a few quibbles I had with the film:
-The infected are running around in the soldier's mansion, one of the soldiers glances over, spots one of them, decides to make a quip along the lines of: "You've got nowhere to run now." instead of SHOOTING it. Then one of them runs towards him from a corridor and he doesn't shoot that one either.
-In the same mansion one of the soldiers starts talking and looking at the woman he's taking hostage, despite the presence of various deadly infected running around in the same mansion he is in. He gets killed by the protagonist.
OK storyline, ok special effects, ok characterisation, nothing that 'wowed' me. = 7/10
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwearemoviegeeks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fhalloween-2-poster.jpg&hash=e020b3ed6d4a8e3344912a68ad281670c5c47b44)
Lets face it; Rob Zombie's 2007 remake of the John Carpenter classic 'Halloween' isn't exactly the most loved movie in the world. It got pretty much panned critically for soiling on everything that made the 1978 movie so iconic; replacing proper chills and suspense with frequent bloody violence and lingering nudity. That said, I'm one of the few that truly
loves Rob's remake. I did see it before the original, but found it much more engrossing and it had more of an impact on me. Carpenter's movie, as good as it is, damn near bored me to tears. I found it really hard to care about any of the characters and never got any of the proper scares that it seems to be consistently praised for. But anyways, Zombie's movie grossed a healthy amount at the box-office, so a sequel was inevitable.
The plot for it is fairly simple: Michael Myers disappears for two years, comes back, and goes after his baby sister again. Of course amongst that, you've got all the usual stuff you'd come to expect from the series with Mike hacking his way through innocent peeps and leaving a nice bloody mess in the process. One of more unusual aspects is that you've got him being "haunted" by visions of his dead mother, urging him on in his quest to be reunited with his family. Another is that it takes the character of Dr. Samuel Loomis, played out as a consistently likable character before, and turns him into a complete ass.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fimg%2F2009%2F08%2F29%2Falg_movie_halloween2.jpg&hash=63ed0ab80d8c8dd3b35ab6bc162dc03102cbdfd4)
The most striking thing about the movie, for me, is just how sadistically violent it is. I've never seen anything like it. From what would be a simple stab in the older movies, is turned into a much more grisly and graphic moment. The attacks would just linger on and on to the point where you'd feel uncomfortable watching. I even
wanted them to stop at some points. Another striking feature is the style the movie has. 'Gritty', 'bleak' and 'realistic' are words that spring to mind. Zombie brings a very unique look to his movies and this is a terrific visual experience, full of shots that really stick with you even past the carnage. Another pretty exceptional factor was that I was on the edge of my seat from start to finish. I've never really felt that most horror movies. Mike has a real threatening, forboding and pretty scary presence that is only helped by the ultra-violence he passes out so randomly. The mood created when he appears on screen certainly got the heart thumping.
Did I enjoy 'Halloween II'? I guess so. Then again, maybe I didn't. I'm honestly not sure. It has an appropriate tone, fairly likable characters and cinematography on it's side, but the violence? Not sure what to make of it. Theres some pretty unsettling scenes in there than can get you wondering if you're actually 'enjoying' it. 'H2' is definitely a Rob Zombie picture. Much different than the first, with a much harsher and "weirder" story that certainly ain't up everyone's alley. I can't even come to a definitive rating. But I'll be damned if I don't want to see it again.
^ Nicely done, although calling JC's original
Halloween boring is akin to calling Mel Gibson ugly. For shame...
Anyways, here's the first part (I did over 6000 words!) of those completely unnecessary mini-reviews I did last month.
A Nightmare On Elm StreetStill great, but let down by a "Whaaaa???" ending that simply perplexes me. Oh, and I'm actually looking forward to the remake; since I think it's needed.
4/5
A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's RevengeWhat were they thinking?! Actually, I know - they were trying to take the sequel in a new direction so as not to carbon-copy the original. Too bad they failed! Miserably! This is a steamy, homoerotic pile of crap. Although it is worth watching to see Freddy's response to the foolish teen who tries to reason with him.
1/5
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream WarriorsYeah! This is more like it! The film wisely neglects mentioning any of the events that took place in part 2, and instead strives ahead as the first true sequel. But what makes it so enjoyable is that the themes introduced in the original movie are expanded on, so we are treated to much more creative and gruesome dream sequences (the "sleep walking" scene springs to mind). Adding to this are several cases of very well done practical effects, including a stop-motion Freddy string puppet. Plus, we find out more about Krueger's past. It's nice to see Nancy make a reappearance too, and we get the sense of a 'grudge match' between her and Freddy.
BUT, what lets it down is the characters. They are either really,
really annoying (Kincaid...), or just stupendously thick (Laurence Fishburne is the most easily persuadable, er, male nurse ever). You want Freddy to kill them.
3/5
Oh, and it has an awesome theme song, which I'll post here:
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream MasterIt's... good. Surprisingly good. Film series tend to implode once past #3 (cough-Jaws-cough), but Renny Harlin manages to serve up an imaginative slice of Krueger mayhem! True, it's a bit slow at times, but the movie delivers rather well on those all important dream sequences; the highlight here being a girl that turns into a cockroach.
Also, Kincaid dies first!!! In fact all the annoying survivors from Dream Warriors are dusted off in the opening act. Alas, they are replaced by a bunch of
even more annoying and/or stereotypical dumbasses. Seriously, what do these writers think? "Ahh jee, we need: a jock, an asthmatic nerd, a headstrong girl with an embarrassing phobia, and a shy and socially insecure heroine. My god - we're original!" *limp-wristed high fives all round*.
And we get to see Freddy wearing sunglasses! Wait, is that a good thing?
3/5
A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream ChildI really don't have much to say about this. It's average. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason for this is because, for the most part, this film is really rather boring. Nothing particularly interesting happens. Having said that, it is worth watching for an unfortunate motorcycle incident, as well as another scene involving... "Super Freddy". And Freddy's new makeup sucks.
Meh.
2/5
Freddy's Dead: The Final NightmareThis, on the other hand, is quite fascinating. The Nightmare series seems to have jumped ship to the comedy genre with this installment. Or at least it's a comedy for most of the time. The truth is that the movie can't decide on a tone. Freddy will be goofing around with slapstick antics, while his victim will be experiencing true terror. Now, this was often the case with previous installments, but then Freddy usually managed to be somewhat scary. Here he's just amusing, and it doesn't always gel well with the violent deaths (there's quite a bit more gore in this than the others).
Still, I must applaud it for the levels of originality on show. Part 5 was alarmingly bland, so this comes off as a breath of fresh air, regardless of the uneven tone and completely barmy plot elements. Also, it's undeniably entertaining at times (Krueger parodying Nintendo's marketing campaign is hilarious). It was interesting to find out more about Krueger's past, too, and it gave an extra edge to his evil.
Quirky.
3/5
Freddy VS. JasonGood fu#king lord... It's been a while since I last saw this particular crossover, and I'd forgotten just how goddam relentlessly blood-splattered the film is. Seriously! People get fu#ked up to the extreme; and when it comes to the main event, both horror icons get the living gore-drenched shit kicked (slashed) out of 'em.
So if you're a gore hound, then I can guarantee that you'll love this movie to (bloody) bits. But that's
all there is to the film. Gore. Gore and breasts. Gore, breasts and drugs. There is nothing else. Not a
scrap of real substance. Nightmare 2 at least had a homosexual subtext...
I suppose I'm trying to say that Freddy VS. Jason is awful. Sure, it's entertaining in a sick kind of way, but let's try to consider it with our brains switched on for a change. Now I could launch in and target such problems as, say, the literally
dozens of cardboard characters, or the overly ridiculous plot (echoing Freddy's Dead), or how it's all agonizingly repetitive. I have other problems, though.
Firstly, is anyone else as confused as I am about the Nightmare series' chronology? It makes no sense. The timeline is completely warped because of the whole "10 year gap" thing that was introduced in Freddy's Dead, yet one character in Freddy VS. Jason sates that they've had 4 years of peace! Matters aren't helped much by the fact that this movie never acknowledges how Krueger was supposed to be killed once and for all at the end of Freddy's Dead. Instead he's merely been "forgotten about". Weak.
I suppose this is where selective amnesia comes into play. You don't have to consider this as part of either series' canon. They never even made a sequel - well, not a film sequel, there was a comic book called Freddy VS. Jason Vs. Ash (yeah, now that's a film I would
love to see), but I don't think that counts. Oh but of course, there was Jason X! Perfect. Look, let's just say that both franchises ended with Freddy's Dead, and Jason Goes To Hell, shall we? This was nothing more than a fun little experiment that I'm sure everyone involved with had a lot of fun making. Still, it's a shame that Englund had to hang up the knifed glove on such a low.
1/5
Phew, now I can shelve these DVDs for a few months and move on to... oh wait, there's one more...
Wes Craven's New NightmareWell, here we are then. The end of the line. Now I know that Freddy VS. Jason wasn't made until roughly a decade after New Nightmare, but the fact that this movie takes place within a whole other dimension, namely ours, makes it the ultimate Nightmare film whichever way you look at it.
So the movies have ended, and Freddy's dead. But now he's invading the real world. Brilliantly, the center of his attention is Heather Langenkamp, the actress who played Nancy in the original and third instalments. Here she plays herself living with a fictional husband and son. But she's not the only familiar face putting in a personal appearance. There are numerous supporting roles, including John Saxon and Robert Englund, and even appearences by Robert Shaye (the producer) and Wes Craven, along with a few other little cameos. I won't reveal anything else about the plot, as it is an interesting one, and you will indeed learn more about Krueger's true evil.
It's easy to write this film off as nothing more than a pet project of Craven's; and while at times it may all seem a little self-indulgent, there's no denying that the concept is a fascinating one. After numerous by-the-numbers sequels, this was more than a step in the right direction. Sure, die hard fans my be disappointed by the small body count, but there's so much more to New Nightmare than gore for the sake of gore. There is actually, dare I say it,
depth.
Of course it's not perfect. Heather's son is a little annoying, and really just spends most of the time screaming his lungs out and speaking in a raspy voice in an attempt to 'creep us out'. But it's not a massive problem, and the positives far outway the negatives. For instance, this is probably the most suspenseful of the Nightmare movies, and there are a few good scares. Freddy's new look is suitably menacing too, though he seems like less of a burns victim, and more what Darth Maul would have looked like if he'd made those 'decorations' by cutting off strips of his skin. But it fits with Craven's attempt at making Freddy scary again, and for all intents and purposes, he succeeded. You won't find Krueger playing Nintendo here, no sir.
To top it all off is the concept, which I have already mentioned; helped to no end by a strong script and great performances. This truly is a very well made, thought provoking, and most importantly of all,
scary horror film.
4/5
Until April then, Freddy...
ManhunterIt's not often that I'll refer to a film as being a 'masterpiece'. That word is overused to the extent that films such as Transformers 2 are labelled as one should the reviewer find himself enjoying it (the twat). 'Masterpiece' should refer to a piece of work that is simply outsanding. Striking, even. In any case - a true work of art.
Manhunter is one such film. It has been crafted with such perfection and skill, that to call it anything less than a 'masterpiece' would simply be incorrect. Everything about it, from the visuals to the sounds, to William Peterson's central performance as the mentally tortured Will Graham, to Tom Noonan's bizarre killer Francis Dollarhyde, stands out in such a way that it will surely leave a long-lasting impression on you.
Michael Mann's masterpiece.
5/5
The Lost BoysGood 80's vampiric fun. There wasn't anything particularly special or notable about the film, though Joel Schumacher's talent for creative camerawork shines through, as does Kiefer Sutherland's great performance as the villainous head vampire, David. Plus the soundtrack is generally fantastic.
Though it is stuck in the 80s... and that's not a bad thing! Usually.
3/5
Part 2!
Jason XI'd love to just type: 'A pile of wank', and leave it at that. But I feel as though I need to say more. My mind is split, you see. On the one hand, there's the simple fact that this film is awful. On the other, there may actually be certain qualities located within this shit-heap that could be worth defending.
For instance, the sci-fi setting does indeed breath fresh life into this smouldering corpse of a slasher franchise. Granted, we got a fair bit of ingenuity with Jason Goes To Hell... but was that set in
space? Exactly. Now, all of a sudden, Jason gets a whole load of new toys to play with, including liquid nitrogen, industrial-sized screws, and... uh... Actually, now that I think about it, that's about all the creativity there was. Sure, there's a little bit of "virtual reality" fun, but for the most part it's back to the machete/brute force combo that's been serving him so well since Part 2. Shame.
Which
means that the space ship the movie is set on... has very little to offer in reality. In fact it makes everything worse. All the tension that (infrequently) came from the woodland stalking of Friday films long since passed, has vanished - replaced with a boring series of dimly lit corridors for Jason to stroll down. Of course, inherited Friday problems return (annoying characters, weak and stupid plot, and "He's dead! We're gonna' be OK!" *splat* moments), along with a reluctance to admit that
Jason should be in hell. Like Freddy vs. Jason after it, I deem this as being unworthy of a place in the series' established canon. Oh, and I don't want to even
think about Uber-Jason...
A pile of wank.
1/5
The OmenJesus. It's been a few years since I last saw the original film, but I'd forgotten just how unnerving it is. Maybe it was to do with my viewing conditions. Here I am - sitting up close to my laptop with my back to the door, and the lights are switched off. The sound was up too.
Now they say that that is the recommended way to watch a horror movie if you want it to truly succeed in scaring you. They were right; The Omen really got to me. It's all about atmosphere, with extreme closeups of peoples' eyes partially covered in shadow, steady shots complemented with superb lighting, and Gothic choir chanting. Of course, there are also long periods of time without any music whatsoever, but those moments are often even more suspenseful because of it! Everything comes together to create an air of pure dread.
And it works! This is from a completely different school of horror to, say, something like Halloween. Whereas that movie gradually (and excellently) built up tension before unleashing a BOO! scare, The Omen is comprised wholly of suspense. This doesn't try to make you jump; rather, it simply keeps you in a state of constant insecurity. But when the horror does indeed come, it leaves you with your eyes wide open in shock (instead of making you rocket up into the air by about five inches). After that, you're taken straight back to the movie's unrelenting grip of fear.
But at the end of it all, you'll still be asking yourself why Doctor Who didn't just take a step to the right!
*looks over shoulder*
5/5
Damien: Omen IILance Henriksen is in it. That alone lands the film a mark. Other than that, however, this is a by-the-numbers sequel. That doesn't make it bad though, it's just a shame to see this movie fail to deliver the same sense of horror that its predecessor did.
The emphasis here is on the death scenes. Not only are there more of them, but they are also more spectacular. But while the gore-factor is ratcheted up a notch it's good to see that Damien: Omen II doesn't try to drown is in man-juice. Most of the kills are relatively blood-free, and this works to its advantage since the build up to these murders is expertly carried out, resulting in an intense sequence.
The performances are also strong (like in the original), and the actors manage to carry the story rather well. This is surprising, considering how the "story" only amounts to a sequence of deaths intended to keep our attention from wandering. It's not without its plot holes either (how did the daggers get back to Bugenhagen?); although that is only a minor complaint.
Lance!
3/5
Omen III: The Final ConflictAlrighty then, boys and girls - are you listening? Good, because I'm about to blow your mind simply by giving a brief synopsis of Omen III's plot. Ready? Okay...
The general gist of the movie is that the second coming of Jebus is nigh (yeah, alright, this isn't totally unexpected considering the religious themes and all), so things aren't looking good for the now 32-year old Damien. That isn't his only problem, though, as a crack-squad of (wait for it)
commando monks (!) are issued with the task of assassinating the Antichrist with those special daggers that were first introduced in the original movie. But on top of that, it's not long before a bunch of stars collide (or something), and Jebus is apparently reborn on earth. So what does Damien decide to do? Well, murder all the newborn babies in London, of course! But how will he go about such a task? It turns out he issues his orders to his legions of disciples (of which there are a
lot - ranging from nurses to boy scouts. Yes, really) at a mass meeting that takes place in what I think is supposed to be a quarry but... oh, my head hurts. There's so much going on that it beggars belief.
So yeah, the plot is crazy (I guess they were trying to make up for Omen II's shallow effort). It's a shame, then, because it's simply not very good. It all seems to keep building up to this
final conflict but, well I don't see it! To make matters worse, the movie ends on the mother of all anticlimaxes; a factor that annoys me greatly when you consider how both Omen I & II's endings were very well done. And it's STILL NOT SCARY!
But it doesn't matter... because Sam Neill plays Damien. That's right,
Sam Neill. He was relatively unknown at this point, but his performance is excellent. He just looks evil, and delivers all his lines with an undercurrent of menace. One moment that stands out in particular is his chilling soliloquy - directed at Satan and Jebus in a darkened room containing pillars and a life-size crucifix adorned by an inverted Jebus. It's a staple of the original Omen trilogy that each film is filled with strong performances, and in that respect, they certainly went out on a high note.
To sum up, crazy plot or no crazy plot, this is a very well made film. The direction is solid and the acting is fantastic. Also, there are enough trademark Omen "death scenes" to keep you entertained; and even though we are introduced to them with a gloriously brain-splattering demise, the rest substitute gore for the series' preferred method of atmosphere and intensity. And to its credit (sort of), the child killing subplot was a brave and no doubt controversial move for the filmmakers to include.
But still... Commando Monks!
3/5
Omen IV: The AwakeningUrgh... I hate it when they do this. Even though "The Final Conflict" (Chapter/Nightmare - the list goes on) has already happened, a sequel just had to be put into development! Now, normally you'd expect the follow up to have lots of dosh invested in it and enjoy a wide theatrical release, but that's not the case with Omen IV. It was made for TV.
*shudder*
And it most certainly shows! The horror has been toned down to such a degree that, even with the subject matter (a baby girl is adopted by a family with political connections, and as she grows strange and unexplainable incidents happen. Sound familiar?), the film actually has something of a light tone; most notably during the scenes with the private detective who reminds me of Wayne Knight but isn't.
Of course, those Final Destination predating "Omen Death Scenes (tm)" suffer the most. They range from the spectacularly unimaginative (two characters simply seem to die of a stomach ache), to the creative - yet disappointing (one guy gets hit by a wrecking ball). Now you might be thinking, 'But TJ! That wrecking ball death sounds awesome!' It certainly could have been, would be my reply, but all we're treated to is the sight of a ragdoll getting thumped into. Oh, but they suddenly cut to the image of an egg dropping to the floor and splatting open. I guess we'll just have to let our imagination do the work for us, right? Wrong; because we've already seen the comical ragdoll effect! It doesn't work! There's also a decapitation, but that TV restriction gets in the way again and we don't actually get to see the end result. I know the Omen movies take pride in atmosphere over splatter, but the more inventive deaths just aren't executed (pun...
intended!) as well as they were in the previous movies. The only decent demise comes when a woman is defenestrated by a dog!
But for all my complaining, Omen IV isn't a terrible film. It has a few well filmed scenes, and considering the TV budget, it's slickly made. I'd be lying if I said I didn't like the ending, too. It wraps things up darkly, and even features a twist (although if you haven't figured it out by that time then you deserve a slap). No, it's just a depressingly average film. And it's also unnecessary! The Final Conflict clearly showed us that Jebus was back in town! And that we had to look busy...
2/5
Back soon...
Omen 666Quote from: TJ Doc on Oct 14, 2009, 11:57:56 PM
Jesus. It's been a few years since I last saw the remake, but I'd forgotten just how identical it is to the original. Maybe it was to do with my viewing conditions. Here I am - sitting up close to my laptop with my back to the door, and the lights are switched off. The sound was up too.
Now they say that that is the recommended way to watch a horror movie if you want it to truly succeed in scaring you. They were right; The Omen really got to me. It's all about atmosphere, with extreme closeups of peoples' eyes partially covered in shadow, steady shots complemented with superb lighting, and Gothic choir chanting. Of course, there are also long periods of time without any music whatsoever, but those moments are often even more suspenseful because of it! Everything comes together to create an air of pure dread.
And it works! This is from a similar school of horror to, say, something like Halloween. Whereas that movie gradually (and excellently) built up tension before unleashing a BOO! scare, The Omen is comprised of poor attempts at emulating such tension. This just tries to make you jump;rather, it simply keeps you in a state of constant insecurity. But when the horror does indeed come, it probably will succeed in making you rocket up into the air by about five inches. After that, you're taken straight back to the movie's unrelenting grip of fear.
But at the end of it all, you'll still be asking yourself why David didn't just take a step to the right!
Most. Pointless. Remake... EVAR.
3/5
(but entertaining enough)
Part 3!
Near DarkThis is the movie that makes vampires look awesome. Before, they were just there to be villains; a target of our hatred. Near Dark, however, presents them in such a light (dark?) that there will indeed be times where you'll think:
Man, I wish I could be one of them. The Lost Boys tried this, but ultimately became too bogged down in making them straightforward antagonists, whereas here our minds are constantly conflicted over the matter. Should we hate them or not?
This is because the Vampires in Near Dark are undoubtedly evil. It's just that they have such a good time doing what they do. When they're luring unwary people to their deaths, or simply terrorising helpless victims, it just looks like fun, regardless of the horrific results. Adding to this is the pitch-perfect casting. Not only do we get
Lance Henriksen (!) as Jesse, the "pack" leader, but also
Jenette Goldstein (!!) as his undead squeeze, as well as (prepare to be blown away)
Bill Paxton (!!!), proving himself once again to be the ultimate badass whilst he plays the smooth and just a little insane Severen.
But what really stands out in this film is its atmosphere. Amazingly, Kathryn Bigelow (who at the time was in a relationship with James Cameron, which may or may not have had something to do with the casting) succeeds in blending a large and diverse number of genres. We already know about the vampire element, but this is also a western, a road movie, and a romance. What you get as a result is one of the most unique films ever made. You'll go from feeling startled by the movie's frequent (but never too graphic) violence, to admiring the wonderfully dusty cinematography, to getting a rush from the action sequences, and to being drawn into Near Dark's many touching and poignant scenes (helped to no end by Tangerine Dream's mellow soundtrack). There's nothing else quite like it.
Unfortunately it's not perfect. The area that suffers the most is the plot. It's not that it's
bad; far from it - Near Dark has an excellent story! It's just that there are a few little 'issues' I have with it. For instance, dawn just seems to happen too quickly, or when it's necessary to move the plot along. I realise that it was probably unavoidable, but it is very noticeable. Also (and this is really just
my problem), it's anticlimactic. You might not think so, but it just ended too quickly for me. Ultimately, though, my complaints shouldn't nearly be enough to damage anyone's enjoyment of the film.
'
Who ordered pizza?' :D
4/5
Friday The 13th (2009)You know, even though I welcomed the remarkable change of pace that was Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday, to a film series as stale as Friday The 13th was by that stage, taking the titular character into space with the next installment, Jason X, was a step too far.
And that's exactly why this remake succeeds. It takes Jason back to the woods for some bare-basics slashing. It's all very simple: teenagers come to Crystal Lake for some premarital bonking, and Jason kills them. Bloodily. Surprisingly though, the writers managed to add an interesting enough subplot involving a guy looking for his missing sister; so there's more to this movie than just tits 'n' gore.
But that's not all this remake manages to achieve! The characters are,
whisper it, likeable... Well, most of them are likeable. One guy's a dick. But it's okay, because we're meant to dislike him! He's the resident knob. Speaking of characters, Jason has never looked better. Derek Mears not only has the perfect physique for the psycho-killer, but also acts in such a way that Jason becomes menacing for the first time in God knows how many sequels. And he runs, too! None of that plodding and teleporting bull, but rather a realistic approach to the Jason character, where he uses underground tunnels to cover large distances quickly. It works (though there will surely be many butthurt fanboys as a result, the wimps).
While the kills may not have been the most inventive (the film actually wastes a few opportunities for maximum gory carnage), they are certainly carried out with skill; and there's more than enough splatter to keep you entertained. With that in mind, it's clear that the new Friday The 13th ticks all the right slasher movie boxes, and ticks them well. Heck, it may be the best Friday yet...
Oh, and:
Quote from: severen76 on Oct 02, 2009, 07:52:18 PM
Epic boobs were epic.
3/5
Fright NightAlongside
The Lost Boys and
Near Dark,
Fright Night completes what is essentially an unofficial vampire film trilogy from the late 80's, although this was made first in 1985. It's also probably the best of the trio, too (though this is indeed an arguable matter). This is mostly due to the movie's style. Whilst
The Lost Boys attempted to make it look hip and cool to be a vampire in the 80's, and
Near Dark took a gritty and atmospherically hard edged approach to the Nosferatu,
Fright Night spins something of a more traditional take on the genre.
That's not to say it's all business as usual, though. Sure, there are classic vampire film conventions aplenty; including stakes, crosses, garlic, bat and wolf transformations, a creepy old house, and even a couple of vintage
Dracula-style plot elements. What's so impressive, however, is the constant undercurrent of humour that subtly runs beneath the dominant horror aspect. Basically,
Fright Night is to vampire movies what
Scream is to slasher movies! A quasi-parody! It's doubtful that you'll laugh out loud, but you will notice and appreciate the film's ability to make fun of its own genre. And for that reason, this is a film that's way ahead of its time.
But what with this being a vampire movie, you can be rest assured that there is certainly some horror to be found.
Fright Night may not be the most terrifying film ever made, but it does contain some genuinely frightening sequences - helped to a large degree by several gruesome makeup effects lavished upon lead vampire Jerry Dandridge (and minions). Dandridge is portrayed by Chris Sarandon, and I'll be damned if he isn't the coolest vampire ever depicted on celluloid! Imagine if Dracula was a young, hip bachelor in the 80's. That's Dandridge! He's effortlessly suave, and faces no challenge in seducing any female characters the story should provide him with. Severen may have been badass... but Dandridge is the
man!
In direct contrast is Peter Vincent (wonderfully portrayed by the late, great Roddy McDowall), a jittery has-been vampire movie star who main character Charlie enlists to help destroy Dandridge (his new neighbour, as luck would have it). McDowall's character screams hopelessness, and he hilariously runs scared from several vampiric confrontations. Charlie, on the other hand, is somewhat less compelling. He should get an award for 'Most Naive Protagonist Ever' or something (watch the scene where he tries to convince a police detective that his neighbour is a vampire... oh dear). But I guess it adds to the charm. Typing of charm, things get a bit raunchy at times - and Brad Fiedel's (of
Terminator fame) synth score compliments the film's sensous atmosphere greatly.
For real...4/5
The Fly (1986)Errr, yeah. Gross.
Seriously, though, this is one of those films that just gets better and better every time I see it.
The Fly is a timeless classic; easily aping its 1950's predecessor (of which this is a remake) and taking bold leaps and bounds for the horror genre. Being a Cronenberg movie, it's all about the body horror. When Seth (OMFG JEFF GOLDBLUM!!!1!) Brundle steps out of that telepod, only for his body to begin decaying thanks to that titular flying insect being in said telepod with him at the same time, the movie taps into the universal fear that we, as human beings, are indeed gradually decaying. But apart from that, this particularly gloopy film crafts one of the most convincing love stories ever told! Not to mention one that is tragically doomed. It's a...
Ahhhh! Nnnnn! Must. Resist! Noooo... don't, TJ. Don't! Mmmmmm.... Maaaa....
MASTERPIECE!!!
5/5
The Final Part! (?)
Halloween, Halloween II & Halloween H20: 20 Years Later
My bum hurts.
There's nothing I can type about the original Halloween that hasn't been typed for a bajillion freaking other reviews, so I'll keep this part short. John Carpenter is the undisputed master of suspense horror. He has the ability to ratchet up tension like no other director can, and unleash the greatest BOO!-scares in the history of cinema. Indeed, Halloween is like the Carpenter checkbook of his films. All his greatest qualities can be found in it: unbearable suspense, spooky lighting, minimal gore (maximum effect), and that score composed by Carpenter himself. Not to mention a simple plot concerning an escaped mental patient by the name of Michale Myers stalking babysitters, including one Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). It all comes together to create one of, if not the, scariest horror movies ever made. In any case, it's the ultimate slasher flick; and that's all that matters.
Halloween II, on the other hand, is a more complicated beast. I don't think I'm surprising anyone by stating that it doesn't live up to the original. Thing is, though, that was inevitable. When put next to it's predecessor, it's nothing short of tepid by comparison! So, one must base the film on its own merits, if one is to give it a fair review. Upon doing this, one may be surprised to discover that this is not a bad little film after all; just a far-from-great one.
In fact I'd be lying if I said that I didn't like Halloween II. It does a good job of picking up from the first film's nail-biting cliffhanger ending, and manages to end with a satisfying conclusion (which, I should mention, was intended to permanently finish the story of Michael Myers; and it really should have ended there). Beginning and ending aside, there's more than enough to merit the film for too. I point primarily in the direction of the sequence where Myers chases Laurie Strode through the hospital corridors that the meat of the film takes place in. She has more than a few close calls, that's for sure; and such moments are certainly intense. The performances are (for the most part) strong too, with Donald Pleasence giving it his all as the somewhat barmy Dr. Loomis. Naturally, the supporting cast consists mainly of knife-fodder, but they're convincing enough.
But it is far, oh so far, from perfect. This film has a whole host of problems, not least of which is the fact that it just isn't scary. Rick Rosenthal can't match Carpenter in the horror stakes, I'm afraid; and this fact unfortunately shlurps through during some key moments. Take, for instance, the scene where a security guard is investigating why the phones in the hospital aren't working. It's a long and drawn out segment, featuring him navigating his way through the dark with a torch, that not only features two failed attempts at a BOO!-scare, but also has a hilariously bad payoff. Michael might as well have stepped out of the shadows and gone: "IT'S HAMMER TIME!" It would have at least meant they were trying to be funny.
More stupidity lurks elsewhere, just in case you were wondering. Halloween II should get an award for 'Unluckiest Teenager Ever', or something. The poor guy just happens to be wearing a mask similar to that of the real killer, and whilst wondering why he's having a gun pointed at him he wanders into the road... only for a police car to plough into him! Said vehicle then pins him with full force against a van! Amazingly, it gets worse - the van proceeds to explode, roasting the kid. Jesus. That guy had school on Monday!
I also particularly like the perfect indented outline left by Myers on the front lawn of a house after his fall from a balcony early on in the film, but now I'm just nitpicking. Bottom line - Halloween II is a solid slasher that, while never matching the dizzying heights of its predecessor, is still an enjoyable effort. It's certainly better than most of the other slasher crap being churned out at the time; not least of which is the same year's (1981) Friday The 13th: Part 2 (shudder).
And so we come to Halloween H20: 20 Years Later; and I'd like to take this moment to go on about the Halloween series' problem with continuity. You see, H20 is the seventh entry in the franchise. Well, sixth really, since Halloween III should not count, but that's a whole other issue. But yes, there was a Halloween 4, 5 and 6 (the last of which featuring a kill where Michael Myers impales a Strode relative to a fuse box, making him explode; so Myers predates Indiana Jones in the ridiculous stakes - 'nuking the fridge' should become 'exploding the Strode' in my opinion). What makes H20 so interesting is that it completely ignores the events that took place in those instalments. They dealt largely with Michael Myers going after Laurie Strode's daughter, and over the course of this trilogy, the reasons behind Michael's evil were revealed. We ultimately discovered that he was being controlled... by... Druids...
Yeah. Aaaaaanyway, H20 acts as though those movies never took place, placing Jamie Lee Curtis's character in the position of a headmistress at a private school, who is also an alcoholic and is overprotective of her son. She lives in fear of the fact that Michael could well come after her again... wait a minute! Sorry, but Michael was pretty messed up at the end of Halloween II. It was clear that they wanted him dead. So what, did he just get up, dust himself up, and walk out the hospital doors? Making matters worse is the fact that H20 doesn't even bother to explain how this is possible. Exposition, movie! It's your friend!
And when Michael does indeed show up, he doesn't bear any of the scars from the first two films! Spoiler alert, but near the climax of Halloween II, he had both his eyes shot out. Heck, he got a coathanger in one eye during the original. But here, nothing! Not a scratch! This movie even dares to give us a closeup of his (now perfectly healed) eyes. It's just plain silly (and the same can be said for his new mask, too). Oh, and movie... don't tease us with a dangerous mechanism if you're not going to utilise it. Please?
But enough of my ranting, since H20 is actually rather decent. Whilst it does sag in the middle under too much teen angst, it opens very well and suspensefully (the prologue even includes a cameo from a classic character), and features a final act containing the Laurie vs. Michale smackdown that I'm sure many had been waiting for since 1978. What's more, it ends brilliantly; and I'd have been happy to wait a decade for Rob Zombie to do his remake thing, as I'd be safe in the knowledge that the original saga had ended on the highest of high notes. But they made Halloween: Resurrection. The bastards.
But screw that film. And screw all that Druid related crap too. This is the real Halloween saga; we get to see an evolving relationship between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers across three films that builds to a head in a terrific final confrontation, and doesn't leave you wanting more. Also, as a Halloween night's viewing pleasure, you could do much worse than this unofficial trilogy.
4/5
This concludes my October horror film reviews that (almost) nobody read. There'll be plenty more for next year, though! Until then, it's back to normal.
TJ Doc out...
I see you used defenestrated in your review of The Omen IV. Stealing my word, are you? Bastard! *shakes fist at TJ Doc*
Sorry! I admit, your frequent usage of such a godly word inspired me to include it in that review. Think of it as my way of... honouring you.
I agree that those boobs were epic.
All six of 'em.
Haha. I only remember the end pair.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Nov 02, 2009, 09:52:27 PM
Sorry! I admit, your frequent usage of such a godly word inspired me to include it in that review. Think of it as my way of... honouring you.
I thank you, good sir, for this honour. I shall sleep well tonight knowing that I have further spread the usage of this word.
The Forbidden Kingdom
Visual FX: 40%
This movie is of course using the magical feeling of Crouch Tiger. Lots, and lots of impossible feats, but the interesting part is that this movie doesn't do it constantly. Not everyone can preform such abilities. Nothing about the visuals are new or unique. This is like watching the same chines fantasy movie again and again. some of the backgrounds are very neat looking and others are very laughable, looking like they are right out of The Power Rangers.
Sound FX: 20%
Same sounds you hear in every over the top kung fu movie. Rocks crumbling and the sound of lettuce getting beat with a stick everytime someone gets hit.
Storyline: 10%
The storyline is ridiculous. This has the cliche of being a teenagers fantasy. It's a cross between Bullet Proof Monk and Ninja Turtles 3. A kung fu movie obsessed teenager is magically sent to ancient china where he must return a cool looking staff to the MONKEY KING that was frozen in stone by the warlord god that tricked him in a duel. By doing so he will unfreeze the Monkey King. The story is hard to fallow only because it is so uninteresting. It also feels like one big chines movie cliche, and like it's America making fun of chines myth and culture.
Violent Factor: 50%
Well it's got lots of fights but little blood. That's no a bad thing. It's as violent as any other Jackie Chan movie. A lot of punches and kicks with no one really getting hurt.
Overall:
This movie for the first time stars both Jackie Chan and Jet Lee. Two legends of the kung fu movie world. It should have been epic for a kung fu movie. But unfortunately I just couldn't wait for this movie to be over. It runs for 1 hour and 44 minutes and felt to long. I never got a connection with any of the characters, making it so i didn't care if any of them die or not. There are some cute parts, but not as many as you hope for from a Jackie Chan movie. Even if you just want to see Jackie Chan and Jet Lee fight each other don't bother. They only fight once before teaming up and it's not that cool. overall this movie was a waste of time and killed the fantasy of see Chan and Jet fight, just like Aliens vs Predator. Actually this movie makes AvP look like a great film. I know what you're thinking "Clinton that's not possable". Please trust me. If you haven't seen this movie don't. The only time you should see this movie is if you got too drunk and had to choose between this or Super Nanny. Even then it should be a hard choice. I give it:
30%
Oh, never done a comment on a film using this kind of scheme, let's try out! :o
Personal Review of GODZILLA (1998)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiusedtohavehair.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fgodzilla-1998.jpg&hash=85a0b01447aaf703d878cba70e06ccc094dd236d)
Visual FX:
Godzilla is the first film portraying a Giant Monster using Computer Graphics Imagery. Despite this, it has one of the best examples of special effects ever in Cinematography History along with Jurassic Park, Men in Black, and other Movies., and adds a touch of realism never seen before in this genre. This considering that the effects are "shabby" comparing them to the original intent, making the movie in another format. At the last moment the Movie got the wrong format and this lowered the potential of the CGI. The Animatronics created by the master Patrick Tatopoulos are literally incredible and have really fluid movements.
Overall: 100%
Sound FX:
The crumble of the palaces, explosions, Godzilla's roar, its' babies roar... the Sound effects are very well done and give the movie a more powerful feel.
Overall: 100%
Storyline:
It's the tipical Monster Movie Plot: Giant Creature is born from Radiations, creature arrives to famous city, creature destroys city, and stuff. On this general basis is added a bit spice, and various homages from other movies (naming, the original Gojira, The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms, Alligator and Jaws), makes Godzilla a classic in a big budget version. Under the Mayor storyline the movie develops some other subplots very well, and sustains itself very well during its 140 minutes.
Overall: 70%
Acting: All the main cast is good, except maybe for Pitillo. Jean Reno is charismatic, Azaria is simply Legendary, and Broderick is... himself. Good interpetation from Kevin Dunn (yes, Sam's Father in Transformers)
Overall: 80%
Violence Factor:
There isn't really much blood in the movie. There are implied splatched people, crushed people and people eaten, but practically always in a far inquadrature or off-screen.
Overall: 12%
Overall Rating:
Godzilla is maybe the most underrated movie I have ever seen. It got me into the Monster Movie Genre and I still love it at this day. Along with King Kong and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms you should go for this if you want to see an American Giant Monster. The Creature, designed by Patrick Tatopoulos, has a tremendously amazing design, and performes great destruction sequences, and despite the opinions of fans, it is really smart. Look at it when surprises the Helicopters from behind, or destroys the Submarine using its same weapon. One of the best of this genre, I highly recommend Godzilla for all Monster Movie, except for hardcore Gojira fans who will hate it almost certainly because of its difference with the original.
100%
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2Finvfys.jpg&hash=c20faa289c58d56dcaae8fc6a5783dd3281bc7c6)
1981.
While watching some
Jaws videos today on Youtube, i stumbled upon this movie, which i haven't seen in 15 years.
Storyline:This movie came out in 1981 i think, and of course it was born out of the many Jaws rip off movies that came out around the same time.
Taken from IMDB:
Ramon the alligator is flushed down the toilet as a baby and grows into a gargantuan monster by eating the corpses of laboratory animals who have undergone dubious hormone experiments, thus providing all the ecological and social subtext that one could possibly wish for, even if one doesn't normally go for films about giant alligators eating people left, right, and centre is the inevitable and tragic result of Ramon's decision that the outside world looks rather more interesting than the sewers.
Visual FX: There are no VFX in the movie, only a couple of miniature shots. Some are plain obvious, some are really well done. The Alligator puppet look rather good, especially for a low budget B movie, i was actually quite surprised how well the FX were done for this flick, especially the gore stuff.
Sound FX:The sound design for this movie was OK, nothing spectacular though. The original sound FX were recorded in MONO, and as you would expect for a movie done in '81 they don't shake your surround system.
Direct comparison? The Terminator mono soundtrack.
Acting:Overall the acting and dialogue are natural and don't seem over the top or cheap at all, like i originally expected it to be. Again, that was a pleasant surprise.
Violence Factor:There is plenty of fun stuff in this movie. Dismembered arms and legs, dead animals and lots of blood. The violence seems just right and never over the top, but at the same time gives you what you would expect for an 'R' rated horror flick.
Overall Rating:Under all the Jaws rip offs and bad animal horror flicks that came in droves at the time this a
diamond. The flick is extremely well made, suspensefull, has well developed characters that can stand on their own feed and it simply never gets boring.
Under all the rip offs i think this movie never really got out, but if you love this kind of stuff as much as i highly do i recommend this one, and if you're a fan of well made horror movies, i remmoment this one as well.
Overall: 75%
Transformers 2: f**king piece of shit, Michael bay needs to stop making retarded special effects and actually makes films
2/10
I watched this the other night, I figure I'll write a review if anyones interested in watching it. :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fda%2F007LTKposter.jpg&hash=967754eb04f77aa4702b542d18cca8028399509c)
1989
Storyline: This is the 16th entry in the James Bond series. Timothy Dalton stars as 007. When his friend Felix Leiter is brutally tortured by a Colombian Drug dealer Franz Sanchez, (Robert Davi) Bond decides to go rogue and get revenge on Sanchez.
Visual FX: The thing I love about these movies, this one in general is that, before CG all the stunts were done in a practical manner. This film does that, with a wonderful Tanker truck chase on the winding mountains of Mexico.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe3%2FPermis8.jpg&hash=476e9a83d5ba8af293b3e4bf215aee7ea61af15d)
Scene from the tanker chase
Sound: The film sounds great, everything from the famous Bond theme song to the explosions that take place.
Acting: Timothy Dalton was considered the closest to Ian Flemings James Bond, serious stone cold killer who had little room for humor. Robert Davi who plays Sanchez plays the villain in a sly manner, a man who demands respect. Talisa Soto who plays the Bond girl Lupe comes across as a little wooden.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fc%2Fce%2FFSanchez.jpg&hash=5c73af668e675cbd4edf78537d511d6dbea49d4a)
Robert Davi as the villain Franz Sanchez
Violence Factor: This is when the series took on a more mature tone. Even before the Pierce Brosnan films, there is considerable more blood, such as people being eaten and mulled by sharks, and someones head exploding.
Overall Rating: I really liked License To Kill. Timothy Dalton's performance as Bond seems underrated or overshadowed by Brosnan and Craig. But LTK is worth checking out. It features a young Benicio Del Toro as Sanchez's henchman. I also liked it because it goes *outside* the Bond formula, with him going rogue, taking NO orders from MI6.
9/10
QuoteViolence Factor: This is when the series took on a more mature tone. Even before the Pierce Brosnan films, there is considerable more blood, such as people being eaten and mulled by sharks, and someones head exploding.
Yeah, this and the large lack of gadgets is what really sets LTK apart from the other Bond films. I'm guessing you watched the uncut Ultimate Edition DVD? I was really taken aback by the gore the first time I saw the film in it's entirety.
Yep. I actually liked that the film took on a more mature tone. It kinda moved away from the silliness of the Moore films. Director John Glen talks about how at the time, they wanted a story that was "pulled from the headlines" and at the time, the the drug wars and cartels were running rampet. The only gadget I recall was the camera that converted into a rifle and the explosive toothpaste.
Yes those were the only gadgets. Ironic, when you consider that Q gets his largest role of the series in LTK.
That's right! :o interesting...
I should see it. It's one of the few Bond films I haven't seen.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Mar 14, 2010, 04:44:21 AM
I should see it. It's one of the few Bond films I haven't seen.
You might like it. For once Bond's not taking any orders from MI6 ::)
------
Just finished this today...
*Contains Spoilers*
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F9%2F97%2FStreetFighterMoviePoster.jpg&hash=273daa63b39f55eabf3e4801542b230e8f1e48e9)
1994
Storyline: A military force known as the Allied Nations has managed to enter the fictional South East Asian nation of Shadaloo to combat the armed forces of a drug lord turned General named M. Bison, who has recently captured several dozen AN workers. Via a live two-way TV broadcast, Bison demands AN regional commander William F. Guile secure a $20 billion ransom in three days, or he will kill the hostages and the world will hold Guile and the AN accountable. One of the hostages, Carlos "Charlie" Blanka, an AN trooper and Guile's best friend, is used as a test subject for Bison's super-soldier experiment, conducted by a reluctant Dr. Dhalsim. Guile's assistant. (Wikipedia)
Visual FX: Well, this movie doesn't have too many effects, since it's a fighting movie. But there are a few dodgy ones. I thought when they made M. Bison fly through the air it was pretty neat!
Sound: Great sound, every snap crackle and pop!
Acting: This is where the movies falls short. Van Damme (Guile) strangely is the weakest part of the film. His acting is a bit cringe worthy in the film. Raul Juila (M. Bison) gave one last great performance. He was dealing with cancer at the time, but one wouldn't notice because he did such a fantastic job playing a maniac.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.boston.com%2Fbonzai-fba%2FOriginal_Photo%2F2008%2F07%2F30%2F1217443871_0497.jpg&hash=8388848c9be1f57d0806348eaefe034757eefc70)
Violence: There's little blood if any in the film. Mostly hand to hand combat with gun battles sprinkled in. Mostly at the end, with an assault on M. Bison's fortress.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nerve.com%2FCS%2Fblogs%2F61fps%2F2009%2F01%2Fstreet-fighter.jpg&hash=2d7733f70437c2667bb636be32a3428572eeab8c)
Overall Rating: Truth be told I like this movie a lot. It's actually a really good adaptation which is funny. It has the colorful campy costumes like in the games and so forth. It features Ken and Ryu. I think despite what the "critics" said, this was a fun movie. One of my favourite Van Damme films despite his acting.
7/10
I haven't seen it myself but the review from the Nostalgia Critic is hilarious stuff.
That film was painful to watch.
Tee-hee ;D
STARSHIP TROOPERS
Do you want to be a citizen?
Starship Troopers begins in the middle of a bloody battle between the Human race and giant man-hungry bugs. The humans are over-powered and a reporter who is acting as a narrator to the audience is killed off in an awesomely dramatic style. Flash back a year and we meet Jonny Rico (Casper Van Dien) a school student with dreams of joining the Federation and becoming a citizen, oh that's right, during these early school scenes we learn that to legally be considered a citizen one has to join the Federation and serve in the military. This world we see is very military focused and those who don't join up, I guess face scrutiny and scorn from society in addition to the lack of some basic human rights such as having children! However what seems on the surface as military propaganda is in fact a satire condemning it. The satire is subtle, almost unnoticeable, however it works perfectly. A prominent theme of the film is is the human practice of senseless violence without reflection or empathy, which parallels the senseless aggression of the "Bugs". Some critics missed this however and condemned the films apparent support of such behaviour. The message in fact was simple - War makes facists of us all.
Full Metal Jacket
Against the will of his parents Jonny Rico joins the Mobile Infantry branch of the Federation, saying goodbye to his girlfriend Carmen (Denise Richards) who joins the fleet, and his best friend Carl (Neil Patrick Harris) who is psychic and joins the federation as a high ranking officer. He feels it is his duty to serve in battle and ultimately become a citizen. During Rico's training we meet Zim the training instructor, the steretypical kind, almost exactly the same as the instructor from Full Metal Jacket. The good thing about these training scenes is that they are light hearted and fun with great character development. Rico shows outstanding promise and becomes Squad Leader, a posistion that he does not keep for long. During a live fire excercise Rico tells one of his squad to remove his helmet due to malfunction an act that results in said squaddies death. Rico is repramanded in the form of whipping and is stripped of his leadership. In shame he leaves the mobile infantry with the intention of going home. Cue, plot device to make him stay. The bugs launch an attack on Buenes Aires and destroy Rico's hometown killing his parents. Now they've done it! Game on. Rico stays and the battle begins!
PROMOTION!!!
These battle scenes consist of Rico's awesomeness and Rasczak's (Michael Ironside) badassery. They are extremely entertaining, nothing is better than seeing a solider jump on the back of a building sized bug and throw a grenade into it's innards, there just isn't! Rico's potential shines and every other scene (it seems) he get's a promotion.
SFX
Not much to say here except phenomenol. Simply put the special effects are flawless. When i first watched it thought the bugs were real! They have not aged poorly they still stand on their own merits.
Conclusion
Couple the action scenes with Rico's personal troubles with Carmen, his friendship with Ace (Jake Busey), his new love interest Dizzy (Dina Meyer) and his goddamn promotions and we get a grand epic that not only entertains but contains a deep social message. The acting can be questionable at times, however it is generally unnoticeable. Van Dien does a perfect job as our hero despite being given some bad dialogue. Did I mention, it is quite a cheesy film.
10/10
Time to review my most favorite movie of all time (and im DEAD serious about that):
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transformers2trailer.net%2Fimages%2Ftransformers_movie_poster_optimus_prime.jpg&hash=d59a2690fc4f9e61c3e6b41dff82f262f6cbae1b)
This is a hard one to review in the standart formular of the reviews, so i gonna make it different.
At first: When i first watched this movie, i didnt knew who Micheal Bay was and i never watched another Micheal Bay movie before. The first time i heared the name was in the trailer, which looked actually really cool. So i gone with an open feeling into the movie.
And as soon as the movie ended, i was never the same again, believe it or not, this was kinda a live changing movie for me. This movie got me really interested in directing movies and in movie making in general, even if i had made some small small movies before. Also, it helped me a bit to find my own philosophy. When i got the movie on Blu-Ray, i started to like it more and more, because i saw that there is much more to this movie than just action and fx.
At first, the storyline: Actually, i dont think that the storyline is so bad, it is also not so simple. It fits perfectely into the rest of the movie. However, the first time somebody watches Transformers, he usually just pays attention to the visuals. I, for example, needed to watch the movie three times to get the whole plot, not because its so extremly complex, but because of the way its telled. The plot in this movie is more realisticly telled than in most other movies, not everything is downright explained to you, you really need to pay attention to get everything.
Also, many things focus around "coincidences", and i mean this in the good way. The characters in this movie have a general idea what they want to do, but nothing works out like planned, like in the reality. When does something always work like planned? In a different movie, like Indiana Jones or something, the plot would be a straight-lined, but here, many things that had meaning in prior chapters of the movie just loose their importants because of coincidences. Its an unique attempt at storytelling which really works in this movie.
The characters in this movie are hard to rate. I like how Shia plays Sam, but its not extremly outstanding. Also, the main characters are the Transformers, however, their voice work really fit well to each robot, especially peter cullen which voices Optimus Prime. You can really feel the emotions behind that character, and he has two really cool and meaningfull speeches in the movie.
Of course, there is much outstanding action in this movie and perfected CGI, but the movie has also its really beautifull moments. In fact, my favorite scene is not an action scene, but the scene were the Autobots arrive on Earth, its just pure Atmosphere, so beautifull. The music is also a big part of this movie and i think perfectly matches to the images they are set to, this mix of beautifull images and outstanding music always gives me the chill.
The sound design in this movie is also really REALLY good, watch this movie with a good sound system, or else you will miss alot.
Micheal Bay really did a great job at directing all this, nobody could have made a better Transformers movie, NOBODY.
Also, i wouldnt say that the music, sound and visuals are the only things this movie is based on, the real faszination of this movies comes from somewhere else: I actually know many people who dont like visual heavy movies AT ALL, they didnt liked Avatar, Aliens or Predator or LOTR. But they liked Tranformers. And i think i know why:
Its the overall concept. The concept of having giant robots in the main acting roles as well as good and bad guys is an extremly unique concept in the movie world. Its like a childrens cartoon, but for grown adults which have a brain. It lets you somehow feel like a child again, and that is really a big part of it. Every scene where a transformers is on the screen is just magnificend. As Steven Spielberg said to Micheal Bay: Transformers is a new genre in the movie world. So, this movie is acutally really original. And that mixed with a good telled story, outstanding Visuals, Music and Sound, thats the perfect movie.
However, its not without i flaws.
At first, i like to point out that i think some of the humor in this movie is horrible misplaced. I mean, i mostly works well, BUT A FAT GUY WHICH CAN HACK INTO A SUPERCOMPUTER??!!! ARE YOU f**kING KIDDING?! Yeah Micheal Bay, why, why do you do this to us? Do you really thought that would be a good idea? The rest of the movie is perfect, but then you throw A FAT GUY WHICH CAN HACK INTO A SUPERCOMPUTER at us?!
Also, i dont like how some of these humor interrupts action scenes. I just dont like it. But i dont know if thats bad script writing or just Micheal Bay. I would like it if this movie had a bit darker tone to it.
Overall, when you already watched the movie and sayed it "sucked" because its a micheal bay movie, watch it again, and if you havent seen the movie yet, go check it out, because this is really one of the best (action) movies ever made, probably the best action movie of the 2000 decade.
VisualFX The visuals are fanastic and CGI really was perfected in this movie, this quality of CGI still hasnt been surpased, but often copied, like in movies like "Iron Man" or "GI JOE". The transformations scenes in this movie are just outstanding, they are the most beautifull thing ever put into a action movie.
Storyline Simple, but originall (for the movie world of course) and nicely telled.
SoundFX Wow, this is great.
Violent Factor Not much violence, exept if you cant Transformers vs Transformers violence, then this movie knows no mercy. However, this movie has no need for blood and gore.
Overall Well, everything has been sayed, its awesome.
Overall rating: 95%
I thought Transformers was alright but nothing special. My main gripe with it is that the human characters are pointless and unnecessary. It would have been better if it was like the old cartoons. I'd porbably give it a 6/10. It is a decent flick, definately worth watching. The sequel however is utter rubbish and I hate Michael Bay with a passion.
Quote from: Harkus on Mar 18, 2010, 04:17:26 PM
I thought Transformers was alright but nothing special. My main gripe with it is that the human characters are pointless and unnecessary. It would have been better if it was like the old cartoons. I'd porbably give it a 6/10. It is a decent flick, definately worth watching. The sequel however is utter rubbish and I hate Michael Bay with a passion.
Mh, i have also mixed feelings about TF2, but i dont think its Micheal Bays fault, but the fault of weak script writers. I mean, the story is pointless and doesnt work together with the story of the first movie, the humor in TF2 is just soooo lame, whoever was responsible for that, omg. However, the first half of TF2 has some nice action scenes (the forest fight was just incredible) and some good dialog, but all these beautifull scenes are non existend and the transformation scenes are rushed. Also, the acting in in TF2 is a joke, especially from Megan Fox.
And second half is just bad, the action is bad, the acting is bad, story is weak, the only cool thing, however, way to short is the Devastator transformer. Seriously, i cant watch the second half of TF2, its just boring, the first half atleast entertains. When i watch TF2, i usually stop after Prime died, because it just gets boring then.
But there are some things that i like about the movie: Again, i think the Transformers are magnificent as always, especially Optimus Prime. I really love his argument with that CSI/Whatever guy.
However, one thing i want to point out: Transformers 2 might have the most well made action scene i have ever seen in a movie, and i think, that is the only scene which stands out, of course, the forest fight.
It was one of the very few moments in my live where a movie really took away my breath, and i mean that how i write it here, i couldnt breath after Optimus Prime sayed that awesome one-liner + the following kick ass(the scene i mean comes at 2:55, im serious, everybody who likes action should watch this scene on blu-ray on a big screen): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TCYPkRMnY
I would give TF2 maybe a 4/10 or maybe a 5/10.
TF2 does have some redeeming features but personally I felt it was a wasted oppurtunity, yes the script writers are at fault but so to is Michael Bay. On principal I hate him, he makes borderline mediocre movies and acts all arrogant about it as if he is awesome. I will say Bad Boys is the only movie of his I will say is better than mediocre, it was pretty awesome in fact.
Quote from: Harkus on Mar 18, 2010, 05:10:01 PM
TF2 does have some redeeming features but personally I felt it was a wasted oppurtunity, yes the script writers are at fault but so to is Michael Bay. On principal I hate him, he makes borderline mediocre movies and acts all arrogant about it as if he is awesome. I will say Bad Boys is the only movie of his I will say is better than mediocre, it was pretty awesome in fact.
THATS EXACTLY HOW I FEEL.
However, as i said, i dont know any other micheal bay film than TF1 and 2, and i think TF1 is way better than mediocre.
Well, i think Micheal Bay is a master in his work (action films), he perfected the action. But he mostly fails to add more to his movies than that and action alone never makes a good movie. TF1 is the exeption for him, i think.
He is generally good with action, Transformers and Bad Boys being films he makes successfully. watch Pearl Harvour though, arguably the bastardisation of modern cinema, but maybe that is me being over dramatic.
Pearl Harbor was worth watching only for Beckinsale. :-*
The Rock is his coolest film IMO.
I can't get enough of that movie, you just have to imagine that Sean Connery's character is actually James Bond and you're all set.
"Losers try their best. Winners go home and f**k the prom queen." - Best line in that whole film!
HAHAHAHA, that's just awesome.
I found Michael Biehn a redeeming feature in The Rock. Cage doesn't do anything for me at all.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc.thewarezscene.org%2Fi%2F135397%2FSherlock%2BHolmes%2B%282009%29%2BPrespa%2Bhotfile.com%2Bhotfile.jpg&hash=1c32b28374c721781f0e30ba2a8023f6b57d90ee)
Time to review Sherlock Holmes.
VFX: Well there is a good amount of VFX in this but when its done it done well and looks natural, its not the highlight of the movie but its good anyway.
Storyline: The storyline is pretty good, it is interesting, and the way sherlock holmes unravalles things is one of the highlights of the film for me.
SoundFX: Its very clear, and the sounds effects are very well done.
Violent Factor: Well there is enough violence, and i absolutly loved how sherlock holmes goes through and sees how he will defeat his opponnent.
Overall: Overall this is a pretty good film, and sherlock holmes fighting senquences really sets it apart.
Score:80%
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fironmantonystark.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Ffinal-iron-man-movie-poster.jpg&hash=66802a2424c58c930606bda34ec2723b224b8c89)
Yup, Iron man
With the 2nd coming out soon lets review the first one...
1. VFX
I thought the VFX were pretty good in this movie. The suit looked just beautiful on the big screen and the action was absolutely perfect.
2. Storyline
Definitely one of the best superhero origin stories i've ever seen. It had a good plot and was enjoyable through the whole movie. It was the perfect mix of action/comedy/and other things.
3. Sound Fx
It had nothin special about the sound. It was a normal movie with normal sound. You can hear it.
4. Overall
It is one of my favorites and i love it! I have to give it a big A with a 96/100 overall! If you live in a cave and haven't seen it...GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SCORE: 96
Good review. :)
Thanks :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdvd.easycinema.com%2Feasy%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2F4%2F91714-large.jpg&hash=32a583c6e4a169a2680c2827625b6848eef8c58c)
Renegade Justice (aka Urban Justice (aka Seagal Kills 50 Black Guys))
Steven Seagal sure has had quite the career, hasn't he? He's a dojo owner turned fight instructor, turned actor, turned environmentalist, turned singer, turned lord of the straight-to-video realm. Say what you will about his many terrible performances, but you can't say he hasn't made the most of his working life. And so now, in his twilight years, it's a little sad to see the Anti-Buddha stuck in this rut of one terrible STV flick after another, with him being plagued by bad dubbing and body doubles throughout them. But then along came Renegade Justice in 2007; promising to take the Fat Lord back to his lethal avenger roots with a very much back-to-basics revenge plotline. But was it really the glorious second (or third) coming of The Seagull? Well...
So Seagal's young vice cop son (who looks like a creepy Mark Wahlberg impersonator) gets killed, and Seagal makes it his mission to "find the mothafocka who killed mah surn". Seriously, he talks like that. I often wonder if the man even has an accent he can call his own any more. But to give Steven credit, he whispers all his own lines himself without any jarring dubbing to be heard (although he does shout at one point. Very suspicious indeed). Along for the ride is his massive, all-encompassing leather coat that... honestly doesn't help to hide how much weight he's put on at all. Tragically, the pony tail could not take part in this adventure, so Seagal instead tries out his horrible quasi-mullet look and fails. Boo.
In order to accomplish his mission, our Lord moves into the most nightmarish corner of suburbia imaginable (where everyone and their dog talks in gangsta') and begins kicking black people in the balls. A lot. When he grows tired of destroying gangbanger testicles, he shoots black people instead (many black men died to bring us this mediocrity). Now, I'll get to the fight sequences in a moment, but I have to mention the gun battles first. Whenever Steven shoots someone, they fall down in a dodgy frame-by-frame slow motion manner. Ev-ery-sin-gle-time. I-ma-gine-if-I-typed-the-whole-rev-iew-like-this. A-nnoy-ing,-is-n't-it? I think only three dudes died in regular-mo. And as well as all that (and rather amusingly), the blood squibs are not only massive, but also purple in colour. It's like all the characters are full of that "mood slime" from Ghostbusters II.
But of course, all anyone really watches a Seagal movie for is the aikido fight scenes. So how are they here? Well, they're there alright. There are a good number of dust-ups and it's actually quite refreshing to see Lord Steven do them by himself. That's right, no stunt doubles! Or at least none that I could see. In fact it's a bit unsettling to see Steven so active. But it's a shame that they're edited so hyper-kinetically, meaning we can't really appreciate all the thuds, chops and slaps like we could in his golden days. And (somewhat inevitably), they're all absurdly one-sided. The Seagal is like an unstoppable, triple chinned force of nature throughout. And it all ends with a fight that is, amazingly, even more in Seagal's favour than his Gino – "I wear a beret to work" – Felino vs. Richie – "Imma gunna git screwed" – Madano showdown from Out For Justice.
What's most surprising about Renegade Justice, however, is just how simplistic the whole film is. This is revenge, pure and simple. There's absolutely no strings attached, so you don't have to worry about any preachy messages bogging down the violence (yes, I am glaring at you, The Patriot). This extends to Steve's character, who has no moral qualms about whatever he does, however brutal it may be. As a result, his character manages to become quite dull (even for Steven!). It would have been nice for him to have had something of a personality, rather than just STEVE SNAP!!! For example, having knocked one hoodlum clean out, he calmly squats down and breaks the thug's back. Bit much, maybe?
Is Renegade Justice a good straight-to-video effort from Seagal? Well, no. The film is murky and unpleasant, and at times extremely boring (someone who's seen this must have fallen asleep during the very embodiment of tedium that was that car chase!). Events never seem to become entertaining. Whilst it is a relief to see Steve doing something a little (read: a lot) more old school in nature, especially after watching him bend time and space in Belly of the Beast, the film is still so annoyingly sub-par that there's virtually nothing to recommend about it. There's a little ray of hope coming from Eddie Griffin's oddly barmy villain, but he only keeps the film from becoming terrible. Not even a Danny Trejo cameo (the movie's best bit) can help it that much. "Meh" has never rung so true.
Just... go and watch Marked for Death instead. At least then you'll get evil Jamaicans.
Yay! The reviewer hath returned!
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 10, 2010, 06:16:24 PM
Just... go and watch Marked for Death instead. At least then you'll get evil Jamaicans.
I think you mean 'At least then you'll get
Keith David."
Steven Seagal
Actor. Musician. Martial Artist. LAWMAN!
Quote from: Aeus on Jun 10, 2010, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 10, 2010, 06:16:24 PM
Just... go and watch Marked for Death instead. At least then you'll get evil Jamaicans.
I think you mean 'At least then you'll get Keith David."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKE-HF6B7lg
Very true.
Quote from: First Blood on Jun 10, 2010, 10:38:19 PM
Steven Seagal
LAWMAN!
I forgot...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99E16w0PxCA
*shudder*
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Jun 10, 2010, 09:01:48 PM
Yay! The reviewer hath returned!
This may be the start of a Seagalogy.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 11, 2010, 12:09:11 AM
Quote from: First Blood on Jun 10, 2010, 10:38:19 PM
Steven Seagal
LAWMAN!
I forgot...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99E16w0PxCA
*shudder*
How great would it be to commit a crime and have Seagal pull up in squadcar. :D
:D
I love how they quote Under Siege at the end.
Ok I was gunna do this in the last movie you watched thread but I wrote to much.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fd7%2FDistrict_nine_ver2.jpg&hash=d06146c2ee1540ada70aa9e9316cf845740c7ed7)
I know it may look like a lot but please read it. I worked hard on it and I know I may seem abit to praisey but like I have said before I am easily pleased, and this is a good movie anyway so I am super pleased with this and hope for a sequel.
VisualFX - They are perfect, the prawns look realistic enough to not take you out of the experience though it is not up to avatar level though there is no need for them to be, the only thing on the cgi or prawn front that I think could be improved was the occasional blurriness of the prawn they were occasionally out of focus at the beggining but that was done on purpose I would of just chosen not to do that.
On the non alien visuals everything was perfect the weapons (which were amazing never seen gun fights to be so fun to watch.) were all so unique and explosions and all that were also perfect especially some shots were the camera got dirt on it or cracked or the more common blood splatter just added to the epicness and the attention to detail, and there is more but if I write to much no one will read it so I will leave it at that
99% That may sound a bit fanboyish but really there is nothing wrong about them they are very belivable and I think this is now what I expect for a movie.
Storyline -The storyline to this film is so unique and different, that it is one of the only films that has made me think wow what a great story it has, I love the mockumentary beggining and ending it is blended perfectly it just gave you enough clues to keep you interested and not to many to ruin it the writer should be awarded and the director as well esspecialy considering it was his first big feature film and also since there is no acting section I might has well put it here, when you think about it there were no big actors in this yet the acting for some of the characters is oscar worthy. Anyway back to storyline, The only problem I had with it was the hospital scene I felt a bit quesy though I know it was needed for the story to move forward, and yer I think that's all about the storyline, apart from I liked the fact that there was not a proper villain apart from the company reminded me of aliens though you could call that mnu marine guy the antagonist though I felt that the situation didn't really have him as the enemy just a pawn I see the enemy more as the people behind the scenes. I like films like that though it is more realistic since in many situations there isn't a obvious bad guy.
95% Again this is one of the most unique, intriguing, smart film stories I have seen in ages it still remains fun though.
SoundFX -Again nothing to complain about, though unlike the other categories nothing to praise either they were really good for what they were but again it didn't really stan out for me like the departeds. Though I think it is better than alot of films just nothing special. Not much else to say except the gun sounds and explosions and stuff was top notch.
80% Considering I said it was average you might think it is a bit to high but I still think it is better than most average movies just it didn't really stand out much.
Violent Factor -It was very violent don't get me wrong but that is not why I love this movie. I prefer more from my films than just violence. While it is true I like quite a lot of films that have lots of violence. So it didn't come as a shock to me how violent it was I was expecting it, the violence in this also wasn't the films main point it went a lot deeper for example all the alien guns created such violent deaths but at the time I didn't notice because I was so caught up in the story so I think it had the perfect balance, I also touched on this in one of the other sections, but I loved all the camera effects like the cracked lens, and the blood and brains that landed on the lens it was just the icing on the cake.
90% Really nothing more to say this movie is just amazing.
Overall -100% I know you guys will think I am a bit nooby for rating it so high but this is one of my favourite movies of all time if not my favourite. This is one of the only scifis that I can take seriously (predator and alien are also in the scifis I can take seriously list ;)) I think the story was so unique and interesting, and the action was brilliantly directed. That it would be a sin not to see it at least once, and I want to see a sequel hopefully curing wikus because he is one of the only characters ever that I have felt real empathy for and felt so sorry for him.
Hopefully at least one member reads it and then watches the movie if you haven't already hope you like my review.
Good review. And you're right, It's an excellent film. I guess my only problem with it would be the occasional plot hole but the film's far too enjoyable to get bothered by them for long.
What plot hole?
For instance: Christopher spends twenty-something years trying to fill that little canister to just the right amount... and then Wikus ends up spraying loads of it into his face.
And yet this doesn't seem to bother Chris. You could probably come up with your own explanation for this, but it's still a strange little plot hole.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Aug 07, 2010, 07:10:19 PM
Good review. And you're right, It's an excellent film. I guess my only problem with it would be the occasional plot hole but the film's far too enjoyable to get bothered by them for long.
Thanks and I didn't notice them untill you mentioned it I was to caught up in the story.
InceptionNow look, I can go on talking about this movie for ever, but I won't, I'll keep it brief.
Along with District 9 of last year, this movie has given new life to the sci-fi genre, and reached new heights of creativity. Christopher Nolan never disappoints and seems to improve with each movie. The acting, the cinematography, the special effects, the mind-bending action scenes, and the overall layout of the story- EVERYTHING.. makes me love this movie to death.
10/10- A modern masterpeice
Spoiler
Two Things:
- The scene where Arthur is fighting the sub-concious security gaurd in the hallway with the shifting gravity blew my mind- it was the coolest fight I have ever seen in film.
- It totally stopped spinning ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc01.deviantart.net%2Ffs71%2Fi%2F2010%2F228%2F3%2Ff%2FScott_Pilgrim_Movie_Review_by_razorsprites.png&hash=fbf5e24e5a14e824930a59baf3d87db38ffd5ce5)
=Scott Pilgrim vs The World=
======Movie Review======
Scott Pilgrim Vs The World, based on the now infamous comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley.
But does it please the fans, or fail miserably in the process?
So, whats it about?
First off, the movie gives an awesome looking 8-Bit "Universal" logo, while playing a chiptune
version of the music. I thought that was a nice touch. Anyway, the film opens up saying
that Scott Pilgrim, obviously the antagonist, is 23, but dating a high-schooler named
Knives Chau. Saying more may spoil the movie, so I'll let you see that for yourself. Anyway,
he meets Ramona Flowers, who is played off as the girl of his dreams. But, as you know, to
be with her, he must face her "7 evil exes". Matthew Patel, Lucas Lee, Todd Ingram, Roxanne Richter,
The Katayanagi Twins, and Gideon Graves. And I'll let your see the film for yourself there,
since the rest is mainly fight scenes and talks with Ramona.
So, how does the film hold up?
It kept me entertained, but it started to get a little slow around the time Scott beats Lucas Lee.
It starts to become easy to tell who is one of the exes, ruining the suprise. But, the visuals in this
film can be amazing, especially during the fight with the Katayanagi Twins. Like the book, the
film doesn't take itself seriously, let alone treat itself like a movie. Because of the way
everything plays out and all of the visuals, as I'm sure you've seen in the ads, it feels that
you're watching a playthrough on a video game rather than a movie at some points. Which can be
good or bad, depending on your taste. But like I said, the slow parts can really make the flim
drag.
So, is it any good?
I personally give the film a solid 3 and a half out of 5. It will keep you entertained, yes.
But the slow parts can really make the film drag. Plus, the ending is a bit dissapointing. But,
in the end, you'll enjoy it.
QuoteOverall -100%
Quote10/10- A modern masterpeice
Good god. District 9 was an ok movie but I wouldn't give 100%. Inception was a pretentious movie with some of the lamest action scenes I've seen in awhile.
You must have very, very high standards. How can you call a zero-gee fight scene lame? Or one where the gravity is literally shifting from wall-to-wall as two people beat the shit out of each other?
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Sep 21, 2010, 01:14:24 AM
You must have very, very high standards. How can you call a zero-gee fight scene lame? Or one where the gravity is literally shifting from wall-to-wall as two people beat the shit out of each other?
Because I didn't give a shit about those characters.
The fight between Neo and Smith in The Matrix is what you would call a real epic zero-g fight.
The Town
This faces obvious comparisons to movies like Heat and The Departed, when really it shouldn't. The Town is it's own movie, and it's a movie full of great thrills, fantastic acting, and even a few good laughs. Performances are strong across the board and Pete Postlewaite is just creepy and menacing as hell.
At times, the movie is bogged down by a sometimes to all-too-present love story, but quickly makes up for any lost time with fantastic and truly intense action sequences complemented by some awesome cinematography. The dirty mean streets of Boston look amazing, and the accents are dead-on.
Another thing that really hit me was the audio. It seems it got the war movie treatment with no fabricated weapon sounds and the actual live-round noises being kept un-edited. Me like. From the screech of car tires, to the blaring sirens on police cruisers, to the thunderous roar of an automatic weapon, this movie is pretty much an orgasm in your ears. Okay, that's kind of f*cked up.
Great movie, and I highly reccommend seeing it in theaters.
9/10
I'm going to do 10 short reviews:
Avatar (2009) - The special effects of Avatar are not so special since the failed to "wow" me and the paper-thin plot and boring characters failed to interest me. Overall, a horribly lame effort for the most expensive movie ever. 1/10
Nikita (1990) - I think, the first ever movie with a sexy female action lead (sorry, I don't consider Ripley that sexy) plus stylish, gritty and very intelligent thriller that also balances drama and character. Brilliant acting and direction all round. 10/10
Predators (2010) - this movie is a lame rehash of Predator. Bad pacing and a horrible script that not even an oscar winning actor can save. Makes Predator 2 look like a masterpiece. 3/10
Inception (2010) - for a movie about dreams, this is incredibly boring. The action scenes are repetitive and uninteresting. The plot is a convoluted mess and I didn't give a shit about any of the characters. 4/10
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) - this is one of my favourite films of all time. It has a unique atmosphere and such a haunting quality that it is unforgettable. 10/10
Demolition Man (1993) - back when action movies were more original. The action is awesome, but it's the clever script that really makes this great. 8/10
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - this is the worst piece of shit remake I have ever seen in my life. 0/10
The Vanishing (1988) - this is how you construct a plot, focusing on the motivations of the characters, centering around a mystery that leads up to a chilling and haunting conclusion. 10/10
City of the Living Dead (1980) - more based around atmosphere than plot, this is an extremely gory movie that has such a great style of horror, it surpasses the bad acting and somewhat shaky dialogue. A true masterpiece of gothic horror. 9/10
The Man Who Laughs (1928) - best acting I have ever seen in a silent film, the story is a classic and the imagery extremely memorable. 10/10
Quote from: DrGediman on Sep 26, 2010, 11:01:46 AM
Overall, a horribly lame effort for the most expensive movie ever. 1/10
Would if it was.
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 holds that honour.
QuoteA Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - this is the worst piece of shit remake I have ever seen in my life. 0/10
Not seen Zombie's
Halloween?
Quote from: SiL on Sep 26, 2010, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: DrGediman on Sep 26, 2010, 11:01:46 AM
Overall, a horribly lame effort for the most expensive movie ever. 1/10
Would if it was. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 holds that honour.
If that's true, then I stand corrected.
QuoteQuoteA Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - this is the worst piece of shit remake I have ever seen in my life. 0/10
Not seen Zombie's Halloween?
They're both as equally bad as eachother.
Still a terribly lame effort for the highest grossing movie, though.
ANOES 2010. Easy review - terrible POS.
Nosferatu '79 - note to Michael Bay - this is how you remake a classic horror film.
Quote from: DrGediman on Oct 12, 2010, 11:52:52 PM
Nosferatu '79 - note to Michael Bay - this is how you remake a classic horror film.
You seem to have a pretty good taste in movies, and I had never seen the 1979 version of Nosferatu, so I got a copy and realised it was German and it doesn't have subtitles argh.
There's an English version. Not dubbed, though. Apparently, they shot it twice. Once in English and once in German. Though I hear the German version is better, as most of the actors are German actors, and hence they say the dialogue better in German.
Since I'm a lazy ass, mini reviews sounds like a good idea...
Saw 3D (2010) - 1/5
Complete waste of time. As a fan of the series I've always looked past the gore and self mutilations to find a really well thought-out and and intelligent storyline that connects all the movies together brilliantly. Here, the "plot" has nothing to do with the other six and pretty much consists of spikes and body parts flying out at you for 90mins. Nicely buries and pisses on whatever dignity the franchise had left.
A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) - 3/5
Yes, I enjoyed this movie. Has an overbearing sense of dread and some genuienly disturbing scenes that a lot of directors wouldn't have the balls to film. Regardless of what critics think, I'd say this is a pretty solid remake that focuses more on what a true monster is.
King Kong (2005) - 4/5
About 2 hours too long, but another solid re-imagining IMO. Great cast, brilliant action and an epic score that really pulls on one's heart strings. How they got me to genuienly care about the giant mass of CG amazes me.
Exam (2009) - 5/5
A brilliant and exceptional British thriller that features some good talents. Going too much into the plot would ruin it, but it has a killer script and tension that's hard to come by in movies these days.
Hello everyone, hope I am doing this correctly so here goes, my reviews on the last two films I have watched recently :) many more to come as I'm always on the ball ;D
The Lords of Flatbush (1974)
I have never heard of this film before, came across it whilst reading about Sly Stallone on IMDb and with a cast including Henry Winkler, Perry King (Han Solo auditioner for 1977 classic) and Amand Assante I knew I had to watch. In all honesty I didn't see much in the film that was entertaining or exciting, there is allot of dialog and emotion on show as a group of tough young guys in a Brooklyn gang live their lives over the course of afew weeks (I think). Nothing much really happens accept for much smooching with girls in their parents houses and a marriage at the finale, if you think of the film classic 'Diner' then your on the right track but 'Diner' is much more interesting than this, only watch if your curious to see a very young Stallone and pre-Fonz Winkler (yes this role did lead to the Fonz obviously) which is an intriguing lure.
Saw 7 (aka. Saw 3D)
Well you all know the score here right, we all know the plot and whats gonna go down so all I can tell you is no surprises anywhere, this film is pretty much identical to last five films accept the first which was a decent original horror.
Not to say its all bad though, yes this is just torture porn for sick people to enjoy haha its almost like a snuff flick, lots of people get killed in even more nasty ways than before (being slowly roasted alive in a large steel drum being the worst for me). I can imagine the director and co sitting around a table for days trying to concock really evil vicious ways to die lol!! abit worrying really.
Anyways there's one thing to be said for these Saw flicks and that's the excellent twist in the tail endings and this is pretty much up there with the best. Every one of these films has always caught me out and made me smile with its clever U-turns which do equal why they have been able to make so many, the final twist or sting in the tail for this seventh installment took me by surprise and was a nice bookend to the story, although it raised more questions hehe
Gotta admit the Saw films are addictive for the plots, even though you know there will be a twist its still just kinda neat. Question is which method of death was the worst from the whole series? if its even finished....
Tangled
Yes this is a kids film so I can't expect to get too involved but I admit I did about half way through. Its a slow starting film really, the story is based on Rapunzel and her hair of course and there for it is abit sickly and boring for awhile, characters aren't too inspired, Rapunzel is made out as a slightly dumb blonde type which was annoying frankly but her little chameleon pet was oh so cute hehe
Flynn the scoundrel or bandit is just a rather dull pretty boy made to look slightly Brad Pitt-ish *yawn* but his mannerisms are amusing at times, this really is the films best attribute, none talking body language, most characters and animals all have some nice amusing little sequences of body language that do make you smile or go 'awwww' in a typical Disney way. The small enemy relationship between Flynn and the Captains horse is nice and the little chameleon pet of Rapunzel will really make the kids squeal with delight :) I did enjoy the lill green fella's cutesy facial expressions hehe
Animation wise this is damn good in all areas as Disney really sticks two fingers up at Dreamworks, I was really impressed with the cgi here, the characters are so so smooth and move with excellent fluid motion, lip sync is very good with the voice work, landscapes look delightful and facial work on the human characters is really very realistic, kudos.
As I said it is a slow burner at first but I did get into the 'action' as things get more exciting and characters bond, I did find the plot basic (of course) but Disney do well to make it work and not feel stretched as 'Rapunzel' is hardly a long storyline. Not so sure about the rather poor film title but this is a solid Disney film, better than previous efforts, and shows they can still compete with the big boys in the cgi universe.
Metropolis (1927)
First time seeing this epic and I will be honest as I usually am, I found most of this very boring haha! I knew it was a silent pic and black n white of course, even better!, but the plot in this is totally not what I expected. I always thought this was a kind of 'Frankenstein' story, creation of a robot, but it turns out its actually partly that but more so based around a religious theme of a woman (almost akin to Moses and worshipped as a saviour) leading the lowly workers to revolt against the high and mighty city planners which then proceeds to turn to a disaster movie and then ends with a Gothic horror type finale in the realms of 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame'.
Its hard to take the whole film in as its very complicated with all its messages, themes and metaphors which are both obvious and hidden, the characters are all very well portrayed and much deeper than you expect as the film progresses although the lack of wording (missing or taken out?) makes it hard to follow and pick up all the information you need, a read on IMDb may be required.
The real reason to watch this film is of course the visuals, stunts and musical score, where to begin!?
The score is an opera, its first rate, top class, its as good as any known Hollywood musical and practically tells the story on its own...which its suppose to do I might add. Every person and every event is recorded with the perfect tune/note/theme tune which guides you along the way as if you were listening to a classical orchestral piece.
The visuals and design of the film are the real stand out spectacles with absolutely incredible special effects ranging from model work to matte painting to create a blend of crafts that truly puts some modern films to shame and this was in 1927 remember! The stark harsh black and white contrast adds to the German expressionism to give it that Gothic, gloomy yet quite realistic feel which I really believe would be lost in colour, the camera angles and forced perspective used to create the towering skyscrapers and sprawling jungle of buildings is simply perfect, you just can't fault it and its so very easy to see where many top directors of the biggest sci-fi and Gothic films in history have gotten their inspiration, but I don't blame them for one minute.
Not only the city impresses, the costumes worn by the city planners and their leader 'Fredersen' don't appear dated too much...just smart basic and believeable whilst the set designs and future work on show are pretty accurate of our age and do look really nice (video phone), the offices and building layouts just look right, liveable, clean and well thought out, much like first impressions of 'Blade Runner'.
All this without even mentioning the near perfect body suit used to create the robot 'Maria'! the sculpture work is iconic and begs to be worshipped! not only does it look like a real working robot but the actress inside gives a beautiful silent, slow performance with hardly any effort used, merely standing and walking but giving everything to the suit to make it work on every level, the scientists lab around her is gorgeous looking too and those now memorable assending/descending glowing halo's that surround Maria as she sits are the icing on the sci-fi cake :) ( now of course the stuff of the classic B-movie)
Not only are the effects amazing but the stunt work during the second half of the film is quite risky and daring to say the least, as the machines crumble after the workers revolt the sets come crashing down in eye widening sequences, the huge props fall apart and chuff out smoke whilst the flooding scenes mix neat model shots with quite large sets and huge amounts of extras used (there are some quite stunning scenes with masses of extras used during the film all without the use of cgi making them very special indeed). Some of the sets must have been vast or at least give that impression, many sequences look like stage sets in a theatre with some props taking up almost all the space with their realistic scale, it really does stun you to see it.
A historic film that defies belief, everything is so well done, such precision work and so old you just wonder how film makers can make such trash these days. The story is boring and alittle hard to follow I have to say, lots of odd images, ideas and character arch's going on which isn't surprising seeing as its getting close to a hundred years old (83 so far) but you watch for the craftsmanship on display, the effects, lighting, camera angles, set designs, models, costumes...all these deserve to be viewed and shown or taught...this is the art of proper film making.
Skyline
Now I liked this film despite numerous numerous bad reports from virtually everyone, yes it has clunky acting and yes the plot has lots of holes but its actually a good fun sci-fi romp. As said the plot has its problems agreed, aliens come down (for no real purpose it seems) to nick every humans brain (it seems) and that's it, there isn't really any other explanation. The aliens themselves are a hybrid of many other movie creatures eg. The Matrix, ID4, Cloverfield, The Mist, Monsters etc... although I admit it isn't easy to create a unique original alien anymore these aren't too bad but maybe the brothers should of stayed away from the usual tentacle option again. So despite the aliens not being too original looking they are effective and do create tension throughout....although how they pilot their space cruisers and starfighters is beyond me lol!!
The effects are a mixed bunch much like the acting, on both counts there are times when they are both pretty decent and do the job well, other times both fare rather iffy and show this up for the cheap B-movie stuff it really is, not that is a problem to be honest as you must accept this as B-movie guff and you will enjoy awhole lot more. Again though I must oppose the mass reviewers and praise the brothers for some neat cgi from the comforts of their bedroom as it is effective if maybe alittle bit close to a videogame in-game sequence hehe
Acting is very average yes but its not as bad as people make out, the cast are unknowns which works well for the film and makes it more realistic (unknowns are always a winner) or that little bit more believeable. Personally I thought all cast members were quite OK, apart from the odd moment or speech with some hammy lines (David Zayas) nothing really detracted from my enjoyment of this 'War of the Worlds' clone. There is a nice sense of being trapped and forced to hideout within the building which many viewers have moaned as cheap or 'weak story telling' but in my opinion it works and the cast do a sturdy job in bringing that across.
A slightly more serious take on 'Independence Day' with added 'War of the Worlds' plus bits of various other films. Its unoriginal with one sequence involving US jet fighters going up against the alien mothership being a total 'ID4' rip but an intriguing little ending which could lead to interesting things in the future even if rather silly, question is why is it called 'Skyline'?
Quote from: Hubbs on Dec 18, 2010, 04:16:29 PM
Skyline
Now I liked this film despite numerous numerous bad reports from virtually everyone, yes it has clunky acting and yes the plot has lots of holes but its actually a good fun sci-fi romp. As said the plot has its problems agreed, aliens come down (for no real purpose it seems) to nick every humans brain (it seems) and that's it, there isn't really any other explanation. The aliens themselves are a hybrid of many other movie creatures eg. The Matrix, ID4, Cloverfield, The Mist, Monsters etc... although I admit it isn't easy to create a unique original alien anymore these aren't too bad but maybe the brothers should of stayed away from the usual tentacle option again. So despite the aliens not being too original looking they are effective and do create tension throughout....although how they pilot their space cruisers and starfighters is beyond me lol!!
The effects are a mixed bunch much like the acting, on both counts there are times when they are both pretty decent and do the job well, other times both fare rather iffy and show this up for the cheap B-movie stuff it really is, not that is a problem to be honest as you must accept this as B-movie guff and you will enjoy awhole lot more. Again though I must oppose the mass reviewers and praise the brothers for some neat cgi from the comforts of their bedroom as it is effective if maybe alittle bit close to a videogame in-game sequence hehe
Acting is very average yes but its not as bad as people make out, the cast are unknowns which works well for the film and makes it more realistic (unknowns are always a winner) or that little bit more believeable. Personally I thought all cast members were quite OK, apart from the odd moment or speech with some hammy lines (David Zayas) nothing really detracted from my enjoyment of this 'War of the Worlds' clone. There is a nice sense of being trapped and forced to hideout within the building which many viewers have moaned as cheap or 'weak story telling' but in my opinion it works and the cast do a sturdy job in bringing that across.
A slightly more serious take on 'Independence Day' with added 'War of the Worlds' plus bits of various other films. Its unoriginal with one sequence involving US jet fighters going up against the alien mothership being a total 'ID4' rip but an intriguing little ending which could lead to interesting things in the future even if rather silly, question is why is it called 'Skyline'?
I agree with this. 6/10 for me.
Quote from: Hubbs on Dec 18, 2010, 04:16:29 PM
why is it called 'Skyline'?
For the same reason the second AvP was called Requiem.
It's
*drums*
*More drums*
Spoiler
LOLRANDOM
That's the only answer.
^ Hmmm well it does look nice on the posters doesn't it hehe 'Skyline' nice word combo.
Starcrash (1978)
So this is probably one of the worst sci-fi films made haha and I don't think it was suppose to be with a cast including Christopher Plummer and David Hasselhoff. Sure they weren't big stars back then, well Plummer may have been known, but this is suppose to be a reasonably serious flick, an equal or challenge to the mighty Star Wars perhaps? maybe Plummer thought this could be his sci-fi moment of glory? alas it was not to be.
The effects are terribly bad and full of inconsistant space battles, costumes are your typical nasty shiny 'Flash Gordon' camp affair, the sets are all flashy neon lights and the acting is rather below standard hehe One or two models and costumes (mainly the robot) aren't too bad and Munro in her sexy skimpy space bikini is nice but apart from that its really pretty awful.
Unstoppable
Well those Scott brothers sure know how to make rip roaring films don't they :). I went into this with lots of mixed feelings, its about a runaway train, hardly the stuff of great films is it and I've seen many turdy similar films in the past, hell the title is even abit lame really isn't it. I couldn't really think how Mr Scott could make this bluecollar job look cool but by jove he did haha lets see now....he's made the Underground/Subway look cool, working on board a submarine look cool (although it is kinda cool really isn't it but I bet you never thought about it before his film), stock car driving look cool and making all fighter pilots look like young handsome brooding studs. Well now its the turn of the humble loco driver to be.....COOL!
From the outset the way the loco gets loose and goes on the run is laughable to be honest, I dunno if this happens in the US allot (scary if it does, this is based on a real event!!) but the way everyone seems to think its funny and not a problem that a loco is unmanned and running away is frankly bizarre. As the story developes we do get the typical Scott direction of trying to make us think that working in a loco yard (train driver) is cool, its filmed with dramatic angles and in-job jargen that some won't follow but it sounds good. Somehow all the grunting, cocky cowboy like drivers, a sexy controller and fast talking engineers doesn't really match reality (I have first hand knowledge of this hehe) but it makes you wanna work there doesn't it ;)
Little silly niggles aside the film is a spectacular affair with sweaty tense action and thundering collisions that look really expensive and make you wince, they seemed to be using real loco's here as I saw no cgi used anywhere, all very impressive stunts. Location work is beautiful too I might add, rural US of A with lovely foilage of Virginia.
Scott knows how to make a gritty fast film and this delivers on every level I assure you, despite the rather 'old' plot idea and very obvious conclusion the film is terrific fun and will have you biting your nails to the last second..despite knowing damn well they will succeed hehe. His usual choice of actor Washington is on board (after wanting tonnes more money in his deal *geez*) and adds the perfect stoic rundown everyman to the film, Pine is also fine but can't quite match Washington for realism in the job, plus he looks too heroic really.
Only problem is, the way they manage to actually stop the loco, they could of done just that at any point at anytime as far as I can tell, the whole time your thinking 'why not just do that? all you need is a fast car', then they do at the end, oh well, all aboard for a chuffing good ride.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Dec 18, 2010, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: Hubbs on Dec 18, 2010, 04:16:29 PM
why is it called 'Skyline'?
For the same reason the second AvP was called Requiem.
It's
*drums*
*More drums*
Spoiler
LOLRANDOM
You do know what requiem means right?
I do.
Does that fit with AvPR?
Mmmm....
O yeah.
We can celebrate a Requiem thereafter for the dead Brains of who have watched the film.
There's nothing in the second AvP that would fit a religious tone, nor even something deeper than flat. Requiem is something I'd have given to Alien3, for example.
Tron Legacy 3D
Firstly the soundtrack in this film provided by Daft Punk is simply amazing, really really cool techno futuristic sounding rhythms that cross both our current time and the 80's perfectly, close to beating 'The Matrix' if not beating it, its actually so good it really deserves to be used in a more epic sci-fi film.
As for the film itself its a mixed bag really, of course the effects are awesome and look beautiful, BR will be sexy as hell, but we all kinda expected that didn't we so its nothing that surprising really but they do look sweet. Afew minor changes in design with small things like the light cycles and their light ribbons etc...but its still good, the city or 'The Grid' looks gorgeous and costumes are rightly cool.
All the time though I was kinda thinking of other film ideas, the whole thing does kinda play kinda like 'The Matrix' and like the said film its alittle silly in places which ruins the epic possibilities, the whole dance room/bar sequence with the 'Zuse' character felt really stupid, the way Kevin just becomes a really good 'game player' the minute he enters 'The Grid' was abit too far, the 'Quorra' character does look abit too much like 'Aeon Flux' and the story behind 'Tron' and why he becomes a baddie isn't really explained properly. Its still a fun ride and starts well, acting is abit clunky from all to be honest with newboy Hedlund coming across pretty wooden and Sheen acting for the wrong film completely but its just lacking a punch in my opinion which is highlighted by a pretty average ending really. I just think a slightly longer film with abit more time on certain stories would have been better, I just hope they don't go down 'The Matrix' route with even worse sequels but I think that will happen.
As for the 3D, well I read a review that said not to bother and see it in regular 'vision', I have to agree here. To be frank there is hardly any 3D in the film, there is a message at the start telling you scenes were made in 2D and to keep your glasses on at all times but it was very disappointing to be honest, virtually no 3D for what I could see and what there was made no difference to the experience atall. The 'Yogi Bear' trailer was more 3D than the feature haha and again I have the same problem with this gimmick, the glasses make the picture duller due to their tint, take the glasses off and the picture is much brighter, I am still far from convinced with this new fangled technology hehe and unfortunately every trailer was for a film in 3D!! dear lord ::)
PS. Saw the new 'Pirates' trailer and I was surprisingly lured and intrigued hehe looks OK but we will see.
Black Swan
I felt very uncomfortable watching this film, was that the intension? not that I didn't enjoy the film but it actually made me very nervous, tense and fidgety as Nina cries and struggles to be the perfect Swan Queen.
The performance by Portman is strong, harrowing and quite unnerving as she causes herself injury both mentally and physically to become everything she dreams of, beat the other girls for her dream role and also to be exactly like certain female dancers, she aspires and takes an almost creepy obsession. Portman clearly put allot into this film as her moves are pretty darn good from what I saw and could easily be a real ballet dancer, she also is painfully thin (like all the girls) which makes her more fragile and vulnerable which inturn makes you care and follow her story closely.
Many scenes in this film did make me wince I must admit when Nina injures herself through over practice and as she has visions of turning, in a 'Fly' like manner, into another form...a black swan!
The cast is brilliant throughout this slightly depressing story, Cassel is perfect as the slightly slimy dance director who does or doesn't want Nina sexually, parts of his story are alittle predictable and you know whats gonna happen when he's around but your unsure if he will be true to Nina right to the end.
Dance routines and the look/feel of the film is spot on, its all as you would expect in the world of ballet and dance with some girls being bitchy and the director being abit of a slave driver for the perfect sequence but its very realistic and the use of handheld camera's at times really helps.
I think the plot is well done as your never sure if Nina is having crazy visions or what is her imagination and what may not be, the way she self destructs is obvious but its well done and will keep you glued to the screen.
I think the way this film made me feel throughout is a nod to how well it was made and how good a performance Portman puts in, she really hammers home the sheer pain, frustration and anguish she is going through to reach her goal and then hold on to it, she's virtually in tears or about to break down the whole way through!! this in turn really hits you hard as you find yourself feeling her emotions and suffering, I had to pinch myself at times to remind myself I wasn't actually having these problems myself.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Film three of the classic children's story and so far so good :) The first film was pretty good with a cozy look and being the most well known of the series , the second film was much better in a 'LOTR' type way with some great battles and cool characters and this third outing although not quite as good as the previous two is still a decent firm fantasy.
I did get a strong feeling of 'Alice in Wonderland' meets alittle bit of 'Pirates of the Carribbean' and 'Sinbad' as I watched this, the first story has a great uniqueness to it but this third is a mixed bag of various elements seen in other films although the original book was probably written before most. Although the film is a great ride for the imagination its not quite as groundbreaking as your hoping for, cgi is decent in places yet obvious in others with some rather obvious 'green screen/blue screen' going on. The location work is lovely and costumes /sets are top quality but nothing really looks outstanding or much of a difference from the second film.
Continuity is good with the cast but shame about the cast haha most are really quite hammy and haven't improved with time, Barnes looks the part but just can't act very well whilst new character 'Eustace' played by Poulter is the most annoying little shit I've seen on film for some time, I trust Poulter isn't sounding like that in reality?
I'm intrigued to know how far they will take this franchise, 'The Silver Chair' is already in motion and I must admit I'd like to see all seven books made but the obvious Christian parallels or allegories could be a problem again. In this third film we already have little Reepicheep assending into Aslan's country which is both a slight tear jerker and thinker for the kids hehe does he die? no, he's in Aslan's country, is that heaven? ;)
Also the way the whole series ends,
Spoiler
Aslan taking all the main characters to his country only to reveal they all died in a train wreck in their real world so now they will remain with him in his country...the REAL Narnia,
so Aslan is Jesus or God and Narnia is heaven hmmmm
The final book is really quite a depressing story with everyone dying and Narnia being destroyed, Aslan then judging everyone as to wether they can enter his country 'hmmmm' once again hehe
I am really curious to see if they go that far and make the final book, would be interesting and I may need a hankie!
Takers
What starts out as a rather mundane and unoriginal looking bank heist film actually turns out to be pretty good as things progress. The reason is the group of characters that are well portrayed by the cast, each one is interesting and adds to the group and story making it a great team/elite unit flick. Hayden Christensen, Michael Ealy, Paul Walker and Idris Elba of 'Losers' fame are the main members here and really do well with their characters, it actually feels like another 'Losers' film...just urban set.
The action is actually alittle sparse but what you do get is nicely done, a pretty cool 'chase on foot' sequence and the setups for the heists being well thought out and having good dialog in the process, its never boring. Think of this as a more fun version of 'The Town' maybe mixed with alittle 'Point Break' and without the lame Affleck, basic but a good romp.
Alpha and Omega
Possibly the worst kids animated film I've seen for along long time, the look of this film is extremely basic and I'm not sure if that's on purpose or not.....surely it can't be!! it all looks so poor and much like a Saturday morning cartoon with shoddy animation, bad lip sync (or none), rubbish cliched characters and a hugely unoriginal plot. Voice casting involves one or two big names but I doubt they realised what a bottom of the barrel film this would be as we all know animated films these days are hot stuff....apart from this, shame for Dennis Hopper as I think this was his last project.
The whole film stinks badly from start to finish with some terribly bad sequences that are just shamefully poor and embarrassing even for younger viewers haha they must know a good animated film when they see it these days.
The Fighter
Families huh can't live with em' can't bury them in the back yard, I have no idea wether this is an accurate account of the Ward/Eklund boxer brothers so you gotta just go with the flow, and its a tough current people.
To be honest I found this really quite boring for about half the film as nothing much happens atall! Wahlberg is his usual type self as Mickey, nothing really special in his performance from most of his other films where as Bale totally over acts for most of the time and just seems like an idiot after an award. Now I admit I'm not a fan of Bale in anyway but until the halfway mark he just comes across as someone who clearly needs an Oscar, at about the point where he is thrown in jail then we do see some decent acting at last, that goes for Wahlberg too.
Once Wahlberg starts training for real and the fights within the family start that is when the film perks up and becomes much more interesting. Not much boxing to actually be had throughout but what there is is very well done and makes you feel the blows, its alittle 'Rocky-ish' at the final fight as it looks like Mickey will lose but then comes back to win heroically, kinda Hollywood perhaps? or did this really happen? still its an upbeat ending which is good after ALLOT of dreary family fights and dialog about not much.
Not as good as I thought it would be and I enjoyed 'The Wrestler' allot more but its still a good film and better than most on offer...if you like boxing of course, if not then don't bother.
Quote from: Hubbs on Jan 05, 2011, 07:05:46 AM
Bale totally over acts for most of the time and just seems like an idiot after an award. Now I admit I'm not a fan of Bale in anyway but until the halfway mark he just comes across as someone who clearly needs an Oscar, at about the point where he is thrown in jail then we do see some decent acting at last
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi970.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fae185%2FCaihn%2FGifs%2F011.gif&hash=561e28250956ac0d162726d07cbef8463b09db3d)
Little Fockers (Meet the Parents 3)
Well the cast sure does save this doesn't it, the original film was a really really good comedy with some golden moments of awkwardness and embarrassment that many will relate to, the second was pretty forgetable and now this third and hopefully final saga is better than the second but can no way top the first.
Most of the humour in this is basic toilet humour, fart gags, typical kiddie gags and silly pratfalls, nothing wrong with this if alittle original but this isn't. As I said the cast keeps it above water just as Stiller is always a good laugh as the everyman and De Niro is brilliant as the stiff straight laced suspicious father trying to protect his family name. The film doesn't really stray from the simple premise that won everyone over in the original with lots of moments between Stiller and De Niro which are fun but just slightly stretched now, the best scene in the whole film being Stiller having to inject De Niro's 'little fireman' with adrenaline after De Niro takes some Viagra type pills, very amusing and very painful looking :)
That's it though, nothing much more to shout about, silly and reasonably fun, your typical Hollywood comedy that will always be made with different star combo's forever more....and Owen Wilson is damn annoying as ever.
Gulliver's Travels
I like Jack Black I really do, most of his films are a good laugh and some are better than that but this new film is possibly a contender for the worst film of 2010. The whole thing is pretty poor from the lame effects to the lame childish gags and an ending that just defies crapness lol!! I can't recommend anything in this film, it really is a total waste of time.
Whiteout
A reasonable suspense thriller based in Antarctica which is really the only little difference that it has to offer. The whole film is very predictable with the characters, twists and action sequences, the fact its based in snowy wastes being the only attraction. The landscape does add a eerie spooky remote feeling to the film which is good and makes you feel the cold for sure hehe but its all far too easy and we've seen this type of thing many times before, nothing new really, by the books.
Shanghai (2010)
What a cast!! Ken Watanabe, Chow Yun Fat, John Cusack and Li Gong in this almost epic 40's noir type mystery cross war flick set just before the Pearl Harbour bombings. The film looks beautiful with lavish sets touched up with cgi cityscape's dotted throughout, a nice mix of models and cgi which is easy on the eye, a good balance. The costumes, cars, buildings and sets in general are all perfect and lovingly put together which is clear to see, allot of effort in this film for the grand look.
Of course the cast compliments this nicely with great performances all round, despite Cusack maybe being slightly out of place, but even minor or brief roles are well played by known character actor faces from both the West and East.
The film is a big vision, a vision of one of China's oldest and largest cities but its a slow burner for sure so don't get excited expecting lots of action, there are sequences of gun fighting and 'mob' type hits but for the most part this is mainly dialog in good looking locations. I'll be honest, this film did get a touch boring throughout with many characters, changing relationships, alliances, crosses and much spy/espionage chat (you need to pay attention) but little spy/espionage thrills, what there is was short and sharp and benefits from excellent camera work.
There are moments of quality acting and sombre visions of war which does really make this film special, the noirish private eye side gives it a fresh look and unique feel as you sometimes forget its a war film with the smoke filled gambling dens and neon lights that twinkle in the Shanghai streets. Its all gorgeous to watch but not quite as interesting story wise, swaying alittle towards abit muddled or confusing at times, I need to see it again really.
Six String Samurai: The most badass, hysterical, and touching film I've seen in ages. Highly recommended. That is all.
The Wrestler
Second viewing and it still chokes me up slightly, the way Randy dies doing what he loves doing but the fact he walks away from Cassidy, that kills me, why didn't you just not go out on that last match Randy? you could of gone with Cassidy and probably lived happily ever after :(
Great film, great performance, shame the director is a little bit of a shit (looks like it too), why do all directors seem to have beards? lol!
The Green Hornet
To be honest I think they made this purely to see the 'Black Beauty' realised in a live action film (the car), there is so much car porn in this film its quite incredible haha I am abit of a car bod though so it was quite nice to see Reids garage. Still the whole thing is predictably your typical blockbuster fare with silly stunts, obvious cgi in places and a very very very unoriginal plot which is the Hollywood standard plot mould for all films in this genre.
The very odd 'Terminator' style pov vision used for Kato when he fights was rather strange and misplaced I must say, also the nasty violent segments and graphic deaths of one or two people (Chudnosky especially) seemed also out of place for what is advertised as a film for all, curious mix.
Cast wise Rogen wasn't too bad as Reid despite him sounding like Fozzie the Bear everytime he raised his voice, some of his quips were amusing yet harmless and his clumsy overweight action attempts were funny in a 'Naked Gun' type way. Chou as Kato was as you would expect....slick, slim and with a Bruce Lee air of coolness but the fact he is the guy that does all the actual hero stuff and Reid/Hornet gets all the attention was pretty formulaic. Waltz was good as the baddie of course although this type of film seems way below his standards, Diaz was hardly used and quite right too as shes practically useless in everything shes ever done and a terrible actress.
Usual silly adaptation from Hollywood here, the original show was a cult thing but this is just bog standard over the top nonsense much like 'Charlie's Angels' and 'The A-Team' which will be forgotten in the blink of an eye, I'm still waiting for adaptations of all the original TV shows....'Airwolf' and 'The Six Million Dollar Man' come on down ::)
The Tourist
Well I've never seen so much obvious makeup on actors in a regular film in my life!! Depp and Jolie are totally caped in it haha both have heavy eyeliner, major tan/complexion touch ups, heavy cheekbone highlights whilst Depp I'm sure has had his little beard coloured bahaha its pathetic.
Judging from the musical score on this I'm guessing the director was trying to add a lavish classic feel to the proceedings which would maybe mimic old Hollywood classic love affairs from the days off Gable and Bogart, unfortunately Depp and Jolie can't pull that off. The acting is terrible as usual from Jolie, she looks terribly thin and bony making me simply unable to understand her sexual appeal. Depp is watchable despite makeup slapped on him with a trowel but yet again comes across as his other movie character persona's made worse by the inclusion of his English accent AGAIN!!
Plot is small n cute but hardly revolutionary, obvious and unoriginal springs to mind more so much like everything else in this film. A huge ego trip for guess who? and not worth the time of day, for Depp and Jolie fans only....maybe not even for Depp fans of the male persuasion ;)
True Grit
I haven't seen the original film so unable to compare but as a stand alone western (for me) is was a good film that kept me interested, nothing special I must say, I don't understand why everybody has been going nuts over it.
The acting is very good from all involved this is true, Bridges is brilliant as Cogburn and slurs it up a treat being drunk fat and old but alas its very hard to understand what he says...on purpose? Damon is fine as Laboeuf but didn't blow me away with his performance, I felt an older man was needed there, Brolin and Pepper are surprisingly good as dirty grubby outlaws or loners with there almost Neanderthal speech and low brows but again nothing amazing, the main kudos goes to young Steinfeld with an excellent performance that ranges from damn right annoying at the start to bewitching by the end.
Another star of the film is of course the location work throughout, America still blows the mind with its mix of vast desolate vistas crossed with rugged harsh ranges of rock, the changing weather on show really adds to the realism and makes you feel and smell the land, so yes this film is very authentic looking from scenery to costume.
I did enjoy the film which I didn't think I would, not a huge western fan but this did have a different taste to it, probably from Coen direction (haven't exactly followed their work) I'm sure as there are small moments of humour that you wouldn't normally see in this type of film, and this does help you relate and care for the characters. I must say overall its nothing I haven't actually seen before lets be honest here, its good but the western genre isn't exactly original when it comes to these kind of films, maybe they should make a film simply about a farmer on the plains raising his family. Still this genre has been created very well in recent years looking better than ever, I feel like I'm learning about the old west and its history as I watch :)
Pandorum
I came out of this movie feeling a little mixed, though on the whole I liked it. There were several ideas in this that I found genuinely scary, and plenty of claustrophobia and in general skittishness. It does falter a bit in the middle, but the story picks itself up again for the last few scenes. My main problems, aside from some iffy writing in the middle, are the cinematography, lighting, and creatures.
The movie was shot rather badly. In some scenes, being dark worked, but in others not so much. Also, the framing was incomprehensible some times (not in a good way), and the tinting was often lurid. The movie would have had much more production value if the producer hired a different DP.
The creatures, again, a mixed bag. On one hand, their design isn't scary in close up, and often we see full body shots. Also, some times their motions are very obviously sped up in the edit, and when they're supposed to be having a feeding frenzy, they just look like they're groping. On the other hand, if shot and acted correctly, the creatures could have been much cooler, since the prosthetics on their own are fine. Also, the aura around the creatures is very scary sometimes. Just hearing them approach an otherwise quiet room is unsettling.
I really dug the acting in this, and the plot had me going the whole time. The director clearly had a vision, and while the movie was flawed, it was worth the view.
I give it a 6/10
Burlesque
WOW this was predictable fluff, if your thinking along the lines of 'Moulin Rouge' and 'Chicago' your not far wrong, basically with the same plot from 'Showgirls' and errr well its basically 'Showgirls' but Burlesque.
Its not a bad film but its just very very average with very little on offer for catchy memorable tunes/songs, all the usual cliched characters and predictable events during the film and very little acting talent on show to boot. The appearance of the film is lovely with a real glitzy, razzle dazzle 'Cabaret' look and feel, the dancers are all superb and look stunning but Aguilera is poor as the lead, looks the part but just can't act (much like Kidman in 'Moulin Rouge'). Cher is actually not a bad choice for the club owner as she looks the part of an aging dancer refusing to let herself grow old gracefully, suits her plastic looks perfectly, whilst Gallagher looks and plays almost the same character/role as Maclachlan in 'Showgirls', Tucci is the cliched gay close friend and assistant to Cher.
To be honest I was amazed Madonna and Lady Gaga weren't involved and that's the problem here, the lack of real raw acting and dancing talent and the use of boring huge star names that take all charm and realism out of the whole idea....the very unoriginal dull idea.
Its a nice try but its too in your face and not believable, hard to nail down but it just doesn't work, too many tried plot ideas and maybe the club was too extravagant and big, maybe it should of been more lowkey, a slightly more humble approach?
A Gene Kelly beater this certainly is not ;)
The Night Flier
I enjoyed this creepy kooky vamp flick, every minute of it :) its not an amazing film or well acted but it just has a nice eerie atmosphere that doesn't scare but merely adds to the halloween type feeling and makes you feel all good about vampires and their legend.
As I said the acting is alittle rough around the edges, Ferrer was never the best in the books but he plays a grumpy heartless pressman pretty well although he lacks a real punch. Rest of the cast are so so, adding not much but neither taking away, the real highlight is the brilliant makeup effects on the vampires face when finally seen, really nice design and look with a unique fang structure. The fact he uses an all black plane to get around is unusual for a start haha different I give it that but why would a vampire need a plane? hehe
A nice short story from King which like many of his others is abit limp in the scare department but have a nice light hearted supernatural charm to them which equal reasonable films like this, I liked it due to the vampire element which always makes you think of the lore.
Faster
Well what have we here....Dwayne Johnson, in an adult action film much akin to the 'good old days' of mindless gun totting 18 rated Arnie flicks, and whats more amazing is its actually a half decent film.
The plot runs close to 'The Crow' with some minor differences of course but its an out n out revenge film with the usual types of plot twists that you can kinda see coming really. The violence is hard and brutal which surprised me as I expected it to be a film aimed at teens what with Johnson being involved, he doesn't exactly fit the mould for a violent film to be honest, you keep thinking he's gonna say something dumb to lighten the mood. He doesn't say much throughout the film though which I think was a nice touch (much like Eastwood in his spaghetti westerns, which are hinted at on 'the killers' mobile) and the violence is gritty and realistic as he takes people out one at a time.
The film does feel stretched to the limit as the sub plots involving Billy Bob Thornton and Cohen with their respective issues are really quite uninteresting and slow down the killing badly, but I guess you can't just have constant killing. Afew minor silly moments here and there like Johnson simply being able to walk into an operating theatre during an operation, his Chevelle (car) somehow being able to hold off a Ferrari in a high speed chase sequence and the ending isn't as good as it could be.
One last thing, shouldn't the film be called 'Driver' instead of 'Faster'? sounds better to me.
The Mechanic (2011)
Better than your average action fest but nothing too stunning in this Bronson remake. Statham seems to be the new JCVD (albeit with more guns) for this generation these days as he churns out one 'shoot em up/punch em up' after another of varying quality, this one is reasonable and realistic which is good but there is nothing new here.
Foster adds a decent edge to the film which adds the realism turning it from your usual silly gun ho action flick into something alittle more gritty, Statham can't compete with Foster and gives the muscle of course but his continuous performances as special ops, elite soldier/cop/assassin type people is growing a tiny bit weary, much like Seagal and how he always always plays top elite special ex forces types.
Nice action sequences that are quite brutal and a disturbing bedroom sequence with Foster and his gay target make this stand out from the flock I admit but the ending is weak and predictable, much like all Stathams action flicks so if you like then you will enjoy this.
The Social Network
The acting in this film is very good, I don't know who all the actors are in the film I admit but they all do very well and bring the plot home, I had no idea how complicated and deep the story behind a simple internet friends site could go. The site in question I find average at best to be honest, completely pointless frankly but anyways....this film is made well and performed well. The problem is I just couldn't care a less about any of the people involved, the story behind Facebook and what happened to get it online etc...I found the whole thing so so very boring and uninteresting from start to finish, yes I can tell good acting when I see it but that didn't stop me from thinking when on earth something mildly exciting may happen.
I did find some parts curious as the heat was cranked up and friends were at each others throats over the whole pickle but to be quite honest who cares!! haha a bunch of youngsters all arguing over who owns what and who did what, who created this that and the other oh god.....I just found the whole film completely pointless much like the actual Facebook site.
The Duellists (1977)
At the beginning I was growing alittle bored with this film, allot of talk and nothing much interesting at that, slowly you get a sense of the two main characters and who they are, what they want and there is the film. Two soldiers at each others throats through the Napoleonic era from a simple silly cross of words, it sounds almost stupid but it shows great human emotion as you follow Carradines character and watch him grow tired and bored of the feud while Keitel is perfect as the egotistical and virtually combat obsessed Feraud who loves a good duel. With his quick temper and short fuse causing the main quibble and many others throughout the story you see both characters change and grow in terms of attitudes as well as looks and styles of the age.
This is where we see Ridley Scott's attention to detail and his master of visual art, the film looks stunning all the way through, the costumes are pin point right down to the buttons on the men's tunic's, the sets are small but look fully authentic and the landscapes of Europe are sensational!
How Scott got the shots as he wanted is beyond me because it looks as though he made a deal with God for some haha he must have waited some time for just the right weather. Whats more amazing is this was all done with no cgi assistance of course, its all very real which makes it even more impressive and shows just what you can do if you work hard and really really care about what your doing without simply relying on the lazy digital way out.
You could never guess it was made 34 years ago now as it looks and plays just as well as any modern historical epic, the sword fights may be few but look perfectly realistic as if the men are really thinking what they're gonna do next to try and live, whats the next move here, no fancy over the top movements (love the way D'Hubert pauses just before the start of one duel to simply sneeze, intended or not I don't know but its alittle something that just makes the moment more real).
Seeing as it was Ridley Scott's first film its a hell of start and really doesn't seem like it a tall. Only thing I could say is the film makes you wanna see more of the history going on around them but you don't really see anything, its tantalising and hints at it making you want more, not a bad observation of course.
Burke and Hare (2010)
So here is a John Landis film you may have missed seeing as its an Ealing production, much like Landis' other UK based hit 'American Werewolf' its full of British stars of both film and TV with plenty of blood n gore along the way :) If you like Burtons 'Sweeny Todd' then you will probably enjoy this (minus singing of course) as it has the same grimy dark look and black humour.
Based on real fact of course the film is pretty close to the truth, bar one or two things, but does try to lighten the mood with visual gags and utilizing the full gamit of odd ball expressions/features from the classic cast, think 'Sleepy Hollow'. The problem is at times the film does get abit too silly and loses the dark atmosphere, not a huge problem but it comes across as childish when you really want the edgy 'American Werewolf' shock moments instead. There are some nice bloody sequences of course which look excellent as does the entire film to be honest, the sets, costumes and location work is really grim and authentic, Landis knows how to find bleak British locations.
Its a shame this hasn't been given the proper release it deserves as it is a decent Landis flick with all the right boxes ticked for fans of his previous work, as I said Tim Burton fans may enjoy too.
Time Bandits
Haven't seen this for along time now, not since I was a kid I reckon and its aged badly really. I really found myself thinking how stupid the whole thing is and how it could of been so much better hehe the small sections with Cleese, Palin and Connery are of course the better moments as you get that classic 'Monty Python' feeling from the look, location, costumes and the type of dialog used.
The Robin Hood section with Cleese is brilliant simply because of Cleese, the Greece section has that 'Life of Brian' feel to it where as the small segments with Palin feel alittle 'Holy Grail' which is typical of Gilliam of course along with other films 'Jabberwocky' and 'Brazil'.
I find the film very choppy really, some bits are quite cool with some great imagination on show where as allot of it is pretty daft and ropey looking, the whole ending against baddie David Warner is the worst part of the film. I find Gilliams work to be like this genrally in my personal opinion, some is brilliant, some is totally nonsense, but he is more of an artist I think so opinions will differ.
Jabberwocky (1977)
One of Gilliams best for me with a stunning British cast of all stars, the look and feel of the film is so obviously Gilliam mixed with Monty Python which is very familiar and reassuring when you watch...you know just what your gonna get and you know its gonna be dark, grim, dirty, gory, unique and very creative. Gilliam is so good at visualising the medieval/dark ages look with his sets, costumes, use of light, use of locations, imagination and without huge amounts of money, yes it does look very much like 'Time Bandits' and 'Holy Grail' which does feel alittle overused BUT there are some many nice touches with that bleak eerie look that you just can't help but enjoy.
The characters do feel slightly cliched and again abit too 'Python-est' but they are all fleshed out so well by the classic cast helped along with brilliantly cheap yet effective costumes and sets. The story is basic and to be honest the film does feel rather dull and strung out through the middle as we look forward to the monster slaying bit hehe allot of 'not much' going on during the middle but again...it looks cool.
Some glorious gooey moments throughout are the highlight for me with some really nice makeup and effects using good old fashioned methods, the Jabberwocky looking cheesy yet nicely 'Burton-esq' :) Its hard to think this is 34yrs old now!! it still looks great and hasn't aged too badly, love the films name too.
Yogi Bear
Call it morbid curiosity...I grew up with the cartoon along with all the other classic Hanna Barbera toons (I'm sure they will make films of those too) and just had to check out how they had ruined this iconic animation hehe
Yes its for kids so you know its gonna be very basic but this poor cgi excuse really is an insult to the original cartoon, I really really don't know why they do this as it won't do much and will be long forgotten within weeks. The film looks very colourful and bright which is nice whilst the cgi fur on the two bears is really well done, especially when its wet, but they just don't match the live action background one bit and simply highlight the still obvious flaws with cgi.
The acting throughout is lame accept for Mayor Brown played by Daly who is amusing whilst the voice of Yogi by Danny Aykroyd is pretty bad, surprisingly Justin Timberlake sounds OK as Boo Boo.
Can't recommend this I'm afraid, well not for adults looking for a retro blast anyway, kids will enjoy I'm sure.
Season of the Witch
'We're gonna need more holy water!'
Yep from that line you can tell what your gonna get hehe a nice mix of fantasy, possible historical action and alittle horror and you have this reasonable film which kinda runs along the same kind of atmosphere as 'Solomon Kane'.
Its start off alittle poor with some bad looking cgi battles and the story skipping across the years as the hero's tell their tale which shows them as almost invincible knights killing everyone! It is alittle mythical which is nice and adds to the mystery of the fable but nothing too original. Pearlman and Cage do fit the bill well in this film and add to the adventure giving it that 'Bruce Campbell' feel in places :) there are some nice scenes with evil magic in use and some good neck snapping deaths to boot, plus Cages hair actually looks real and normal in this film!
The film trundles along nicely right to the finale where it gets much more fantasy based which is fine but as usual cgi corrupts the creators and we get a very crappy looking baddie and an average ending. Shame as there are some cool moments and its definitely one of Cages better efforts that he is churning out these days although Pearlman saves his ass really....Pearlman is coolness period (kicks S.L Jacksons arse anyday of the week lol!).
Paul
Wasn't too sure what to expect with this to be honest as the whole 'E.T.' concept has been done so many times in different variations but normally being kiddie flicks of horrendous puke inducing sentimental crapola. This was not like that I discovered, far from it!! you quickly find that Paul is a foul mouthed alien who is pretty at home with earth and its customs.
To be honest what Paul is able to do is pretty daft really, you find yourself rolling your eyes as he magically heals people with the power of his mind (in a Jesus type way), even shotgun wounds it seems! he can also transplant all his mental knowledge into your brain again through the power of his hand on your head hmmmmm
Yes the whole thing is suppose to be a silly outrageous comedy I guess and it is amusing at times but lets not get over excited here, its very childish, obvious, dumb and clearly relies on the little alien swearing to gain the laughs, voiced by Seth Rogen who didn't quite match for me.
Not as clever as 'Hot Fuzz' or 'Shaun'
The Dilemma
Is this an advert for the Dodge Charger? for Dodge? or the brick like cars Americans call 'muscle cars'? well it looks like its all of those together in one of the worst plots I've come across for ages. It revolves around the two main characters putting the engine sounds of a Charger into a crappy little electric car model (for some reason) or something along those lines, pointless anyway.
The whole film is a terrible mess of comedy, slapstick and heart wrenching drama which as you can imagine sits badly and makes you feel rather uncomfortable. Vaughan has churned out many turdy films in recent years and this is no different which is a shame as he can be a funny guy and be in funny films, James on the other hand still hasn't found his place in the movie world and still can't find a winner 'Mall Cop' being his best effort so far, whilst the usually lovely Ryder is showing her age these days and just comes across as annoying, too skinny, too pale and with a bad makeup job.
A complete waste of money and everyones lives and only backs up my theory that studios are so lacking in ideas now they will just greenlight anything to roll out films, as long as it has some biggish names then its a go.
Drive Angry
First up the name for this film is bad, real bad, secondly Cage is back with another dubious looking hairdo and really not believeable as an ass kicking badass (never was) and lastly after about 15min of watching this I realised this wasn't a film in the same vain as 'Con Air' but yet more pulp, 70's style nonsense which we have Tarantino and Rodriguez to thank for, I actually wanted more 'Con Air' type stuff.
The plot had me all over the place to be honest, at first I thought it was just a simple revenge action flick, from there I got vibes of 'The Crow' and that lead to 'The Prophecy' with little ideas pinched from various other films along the way (Cage putting on shades to cover his shot eye in a T2 moment). Yes its meant to be totally over the top, extremely violent, cheesy, cliched, hammy etc etc...but that still doesn't really detract from the fact its just utter crap that doesn't make any sense lol! The best thing about the film is the car usage and the soundtrack whilst the rest of the film is unoriginal and boring. Don't get me wrong I love a good guns n explosions action flick but I prefer one with just alittle common sense but this just felt like it was jumping on the bandwagon following 'Machete' but with much more tacky cgi and bad bluescreen effects.
Quote from: Hubbs on Mar 21, 2011, 03:55:11 AM
The Dilemma
Is this an advert for the Dodge Charger? for Dodge? or the brick like cars Americans call 'muscle cars'? well it looks like its all of those together in one of the worst plots I've come across for ages. It revolves around the two main characters putting the engine sounds of a Charger into a crappy little electric car model (for some reason) or something along those lines, pointless anyway.
The whole film is a terrible mess of comedy, slapstick and heart wrenching drama which as you can imagine sits badly and makes you feel rather uncomfortable. Vaughan has churned out many turdy films in recent years and this is no different which is a shame as he can be a funny guy and be in funny films, James on the other hand still hasn't found his place in the movie world and still can't find a winner 'Mall Cop' being his best effort so far, whilst the usually lovely Ryder is showing her age these days and just comes across as annoying, too skinny, too pale and with a bad makeup job.
A complete waste of money and everyones lives and only backs up my theory that studios are so lacking in ideas now they will just greenlight anything to roll out films, as long as it has some biggish names then its a go.
f**kin' a.
When the best part of a movie is a character played by Channing Tatum, you know something is f**ked.
^ But that wasn't the best part lol! There was no best part :-\
I'm trying to be charitable, man! D:
^ Roger roger..
Hall Pass
I honestly had no idea this was a Farrelly brothers film when I started to watch this haha I only started to think it after I saw ALL the regular cast members from almost ALL their previous films and of course the blatant smut. If of course you like childish college boy humour with the inclusion of boring bleached blonde barbiedolls then this is certainly for you, I have liked previous Farrelly films, 'Kingpin' being a classic, but this just seemed alittle too 'Police Academy-ish' for my liking.
When I say 'Police Academy' I mean for adults obviously but much of the humour is just toooo dumb instead of clever dumb..if that makes sense. There are some very good small sequences which made me laugh, the day by day progression of the guys woman hunt from day one was neat, when Wilson and Sudeikis are caught on cam bad mouthing their supposed best friends in their home was a good laugh and there are some nice visual gags too but also some really sick visuals!
If you wanna see a white and black mans 'fireman' in full view and a guy take a dump on a golf course then look no further, yes its that in your face with no cuts.
I did enjoy parts of this film sure but overall its abit dated/old hash and showing the Farrelly Brothers to be past their prime and having had their '15mins of fame' methinks, the cast was weak here too which didn't help (unlike 'Kingpin') and Wilson is sure taking anything he can get right now, definitely past his cutesy loveable rogue period I reckon.
Rango
Well this is an odd one to be sure, what we have here is a beautifully animated cgi film that is so highly detailed it makes your eyes hurt. The level of realism, colour, reflection, shadow and texture on the faces of each and every character in the film is stunning and just makes you wanna buy the Bluray right now, surprisingly this isn't a Dreamworks or Pixar flick either but a Nickelodeon flick so the bar is raised by an outsider.
So apart from the glorious visuals what else do you have? well not too much to be honest, the weird thing about this film is the setting, at the start it appears 'Rango' is set within a live action world where he must/will contend with humans or human problems at his scale eg. 'Toy Story'. Once the film moves along it becomes very clear that the film is actually set in a totally surrealistic fantasy world where there are humans BUT the characters all live within their own world with their own wood built town with barrels, crates, individual buildings, drinking glasses, guns and even toilets!! This is rather odd to get your head around as you have a fantasy world of talking animals in their own town which is much like a human town but at their scale which also somehow merges in and out of the human real time world eg. Rango walks across a busy highway at one point.
Another thing that struck me as I watched was how close this represented a cgi Muppet film haha all the characters are so wacky, rough looking and brilliantly loony that you can't help but think of Jim Hensons creations, 'Muppet Treasure Island' sprung to mind, plus 'Rango' himself with Depps voice work, the characters floppy flexible vulnerable frame and big bulging eyes is very much a Kermit clone.
The rest of the voice work is very good and the cast behind them are well chosen but if you find Southern, Texan, Mexican cowboy type speech annoying (as I do to be honest) then you will get fed up of the whole twangy hillbilly redneck/Mexican accent verbal thing real damn quick.
Plot is unoriginal of course but there are some nice funny moments on the dialog and visual side, not a great deal but enough for you not to get bored. As for the kids..well I dunno, this film isn't actually that much of a kiddie based film really, yes kids will be the main flock but the whole thing is alittle more towards the older persuasion in my opinion, not totally of course but its not a silly kiddie flick and possibly abit too clever maybe for kids, close call.
Decent cgi film that wins you over through looks alone but doesn't reward you with much more really, Depp is pretty good as a voice and should maybe stick with it as his acting performances have become all too similar in recent years, lastly for a chameleon film there isn't much colour changing camouflage going on strangely.
Gun (2010)
Very short film with a very unoriginal and pointless plot simply revolving around Kilmer getting out of prison and getting friendly again with an old friend (sort of) in 50cent and his ruthless gang, from then on they gun run together whilst Kilmer is relaying info to the cops to get himself freed from jail for good.
The whole film is one big typical cliche and frankly not much of a good example for young black boys, I really dunno why people continue to glamorise gang/rap culture as it does give the younger generation, mainly black, the wrong idea. In this we see, as usual, a cliched black gang gunning down other gang members to the sounds of horrendous rap music which of course is about violence and guns ::) is this really needed?
Curtis Jackson (50) is a poor actor and to be honest Kilmer doesn't do much better inbetween the mindless banter from cops and gangsters, the whole thing is just a complete waste of time and as said an advert for gang culture and guns! the question is what has happened to Kilmers career and why reward these 'rap artists' with film roles that do nothing accept give black males a bad image (unless they are rich rappers of course).
Unknown
If you liked 'Taken' with Mr Neeson then you will certainly like this adrenaline rush of hot pursuit, pretty much the same kind of realms as the film just mentioned with less violence but Neeson again rushing around trying to uncover the truth whilst getting into all manner of scraps along the way. To be honest I actually thought this was a sequel to 'Taken' when I first heard of it.
The film is pretty tense actually and you do find yourself really getting behind Neeson as he tries to explain to people the facts, you really wanna shout to screen 'listen to the man he speaks the truth damn you!!!!' haha
The film sucks you in and doesn't let go for a second, well almost, there are some slow sections when you find yourself just wanting Neeson to get running around again and do something. You know there are gonna be twists aplenty at some point as its non too hard to predict and you know he just can't trust anyone....so run damn you run!!
Stiletto (2008)
A pretty impressive cast line up can't save this poorly made film from coming across as a shoddy TV movie type affair, the plot is your basic revenge theme only the killer is a sexy female ala Nikita.
Its actually just a complete rip of the Besson film really and all other Nikita style plots/films but its not even convincing with really dodgy acting, bad editing and poor action with obvious doubles etc..
The main cast are some big character actor names....Biehn, Berenger, Forsythe but they are also names that peaked along time ago and clearly now take anything that comes along, Berenger is really badly cast as a mob boss here. There are some sequences shot with handheld which does add abit of realism to the whole thing but everything is just a big cliche and has been done many times before, its bordering on just plain silliness at times with certain scenes and dialog.
Legacy: Black Ops
Meant to be an engaging claustrophobic, wall crawling, nerve jangling, flashback driven tense affair but turns out to be rather dull and boring with a plot that doesn't really explain itself too well leaving you guessing what the hell is going on.
Acting wise its a vehicle for Elba and he does show promise even if he does kinda force the issue too much, whilst everyone else is pretty bland. Problem is the films title and cover gives you the impression its gonna be a gun ho type shoot em up, problem is its not that in the slightest haha its very different and of course physiological but do you really wanna watch a film where a man goes slowly nuts holed up in a grotty little motel room where absolutely nothing happens for the entire time accept one punch up?
Loaded (2008)
Fairly decent film which isn't entirely original or well acted but the young cast do OK to keep you interested (especially the girls hehe) and there are some reasonably nice sequences with fights, shooting and cars to satisfy the brain but 'Lethal Weapon' this ain't. Vinnie Jones has a surprisingly good little cameo as a drug kingpin utilizing his gruff cockney accent against the over tanned bleached teeth of a youthful cast, he is the only person to add a touch of danger and realism, kinda.
Ninja 忍者 (2009)
Well this action takes you right back to the late 80's early 90's haha if you picture 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' but with blood and for an adult audience then you have 'Ninja'. I won't lie to you I found this silly nonsense kinda fun to watch hehe it was full of totally ridiculous set pieces, hordes of blade fodder in the form of a never ending supply of henchmen all wearing identical outfits which is simply hilarious and some really over the top cgi blood spurting :) yes this was an epic slice of hokum.
I gotta admit there was some nice imagery throughout the film with the ninja suits, especially in the dark rainy parts and the dojo sequences at the start, some cool fights and moves and some nice weaponry to boot...its a film about cool ass ninjas...think about it.
Totally predictable and extremely corny with all the regular goodie and baddie cliches but admittedly Adkins (the goodie ninja guy) has probably the best looking torso I've seen since Jason Scott Lee in 'Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story'! as a man I must admit I was impressed! a definite challenge to all the regular 80's action men (yet acting wise he's dire).
I really didn't know they made films like this anymore lol! yet I'm pleased, really brought memories of my teen years flooding back, the only thing missing from this Shinobi 忍び epic is Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa.
Limitless
An interesting concept about a guy taking a drug that enables him to use 100% of his brain at all times, nice idea which isn't really brought across fully in my opinion as the film just seems to lack a kick. The story seems to wander across afew sub plots which don't really get explained too well and I found myself asking 'how did that happen? when did that happen? where did he get that? and why did he do that?', too many little moments like that happen throughout.
The whole plot is quite neat but made in an unoriginal way, the guy starts off as a nobody and after taking the drug is able to 'cheat' life and get lots of money, girls, material things and a certain amount of power, its something that has been done before and its very predictable right up to the end. The acting from the top cast is very good and really makes you believe what's happening, as the film progresses it does get quite tense as Cooper runs out of drugs, has the mob after him for more whilst De Niro wants his big money deal sorted....its does get your palms sweaty for Cooper.
There is some interesting camera work to show the drug use and how it effects, the use of almost black and white before drug use to then Bluray sharp colour once the drug is taken is a nice idea and does give you a sense of being 'high' or 'alive', you can feel the characters sense of invigoration and liberation apon the drug use. What I didn't like was as the film progresses the people that take the drug go from being sort of super intelligent to also being alittle super human too. Either the effects start to weaken or they need the drug in a dangerous situation so they just pop a pill and bingo! they're kinda super human and can fight, run, leap and practically do anything which just kinda spoils to idea, it goes overboard abit.
The ending spoils the film too as Morra (Cooper) ingests the drug in a rather stupid and unrealistic way by lapping infected blood up off the floor from a recently dispatched baddie, plus there are more 'how did that happen' moments along with a weak finale that again leaves you thinking 'huh?'
What springs to my mind is if this drug is so good and controllable why doesn't everyone, mainly Van Loon (De Niro) just take the drugs themselves instead of relying on Morra for results, too many questions for me.
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Ritchie uses almost every known British character actor/soap star for his gang romp revolving around the simple premise of some guys owing a gang boss a large amount of money. The cast is impressive you gotta admit, of course you gotta be British to probably get the most from it but the collection of oddballs and gangsters are all so well cast and played it just shoves the seedy, gritty, dirty, 'Del boy' London grim in your face perfectly.
There is certainly a Tarantino style going on throughout as the story tends to twist n turn amongst all the dreary looking locations, the whole film seems to have a brownish tint to it, almost an enforced grimy hue to really bring the rough dilapidated streets of London to life. To be honest you don't even need to follow the story you just watch it for the continuous use of cockney slang and hints of vicious violence between various roughians, (a case of less is more with the violence) at the same time all this is accompanied by a glorious soundtrack.
A slick cool visage of thugs and wheeler dealers of varying levels of intelligence all mixed with a dark gallows humour that makes you unsure wether to giggle or shy away. The four main characters are a good balance of your classic 'EastEnders' types with a dollop of 'Only Fools n Horses' comedy on top in a world where the Kray brothers could still be walking the streets and where Vinnie Jones as 'Big Chris' brings another level of atmosphere with his final act.
Bosh! job done Guv'
Snatch
'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels 2' could be its real name, Ritchie is back with the second in his British gangster trilogy ('Revolver' being number three) and this time due to the success of his first venture he clearly has more money to play with so he brings in some big name stars.
The film is almost the same kind of thing to 'Lock Stock' being another gritty, dirty, slimy cockney collaboration of tales all revolving around yet more oddball wheeler dealers, thugs and gangsters as they all try to get ahold of money, jewels and each other in (again) a Tarantino type way with more gallows humour.
The cast again is fantastic and includes yet more British actors that were somehow left out of the first film, over Ritchie's films he's used every known British character actor or soap star we have haha The inclusion of some big Hollywood stars actually, for me, brings the film down slightly, they don't seem realistic and can't fit into this exclusively British world thus the film loses its sense of realism, a big Hollywood star doesn't always equal a good direction to go.
To be frank the film does really have a R. Rodriguez feel to it eg. 'Mariachi' was made, it did well so RR remade it bigger and better. 'Snatch' does seem to fall into that catergory to a degree, it does feel almost like a reboot or upgrade of 'Lock Stock' as some of the cast that do show up in both films are playing the same kind of role, mainly Vinnie Jones who can't really play anything else. The film has the exact same grotty feel to it with your typical South/East London looking pubs, alleys and streets, more cockney dialect to confuse any non Londoner, more hints at vicious violence but without actually showing that much, some glorious fights and more swearing than you can possibly imagine haha
The only thing I don't like about the film is all the silly names everyone has, I just get the feeling Ritchie was trying too hard to make it in the same vain as American New York gangsters, your typical hood with his catchy nickname like 'Billy the rat' or 'pool table Pauly' for example lol! it just seemed abit daft.
Basically this is another triumph for Ritchie despite making the same film all over haha Alan Fords portrayal of 'Brick Top' is also probably the most chilling baddie I've seen in years.
Oi!!! geeeza!!
Quote from: Hubbs on Apr 10, 2011, 06:55:36 PM
Spoiler
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Ritchie uses almost every known British character actor/soap star for his gang romp revolving around the simple premise of some guys owing a gang boss a large amount of money. The cast is impressive you gotta admit, of course you gotta be British to probably get the most from it but the collection of oddballs and gangsters are all so well cast and played it just shoves the seedy, gritty, dirty, 'Del boy' London grim in your face perfectly.
There is certainly a Tarantino style going on throughout as the story tends to twist n turn amongst all the dreary looking locations, the whole film seems to have a brownish tint to it, almost an enforced grimy hue to really bring the rough dilapidated streets of London to life. To be honest you don't even need to follow the story you just watch it for the continuous use of cockney slang and hints of vicious violence between various roughians, (a case of less is more with the violence) at the same time all this is accompanied by a glorious soundtrack.
A slick cool visage of thugs and wheeler dealers of varying levels of intelligence all mixed with a dark gallows humour that makes you unsure wether to giggle or shy away. The four main characters are a good balance of your classic 'EastEnders' types with a dollop of 'Only Fools n Horses' comedy on top in a world where the Kray brothers could still be walking the streets and where Vinnie Jones as 'Big Chris' brings another level of atmosphere with his final act.
Bosh! job done Guv'
Snatch
'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels 2' could be its real name, Ritchie is back with the second in his British gangster trilogy ('Revolver' being number three) and this time due to the success of his first venture he clearly has more money to play with so he brings in some big name stars.
The film is almost the same kind of thing to 'Lock Stock' being another gritty, dirty, slimy cockney collaboration of tales all revolving around yet more oddball wheeler dealers, thugs and gangsters as they all try to get ahold of money, jewels and each other in (again) a Tarantino type way with more gallows humour.
The cast again is fantastic and includes yet more British actors that were somehow left out of the first film, over Ritchie's films he's used every known British character actor or soap star we have haha The inclusion of some big Hollywood stars actually, for me, brings the film down slightly, they don't seem realistic and can't fit into this exclusively British world thus the film loses its sense of realism, a big Hollywood star doesn't always equal a good direction to go.
To be frank the film does really have a R. Rodriguez feel to it eg. 'Mariachi' was made, it did well so RR remade it bigger and better. 'Snatch' does seem to fall into that catergory to a degree, it does feel almost like a reboot or upgrade of 'Lock Stock' as some of the cast that do show up in both films are playing the same kind of role, mainly Vinnie Jones who can't really play anything else. The film has the exact same grotty feel to it with your typical South/East London looking pubs, alleys and streets, more cockney dialect to confuse any non Londoner, more hints at vicious violence but without actually showing that much, some glorious fights and more swearing than you can possibly imagine haha
The only thing I don't like about the film is all the silly names everyone has, I just get the feeling Ritchie was trying too hard to make it in the same vain as American New York gangsters, your typical hood with his catchy nickname like 'Billy the rat' or 'pool table Pauly' for example lol! it just seemed abit daft.
Basically this is another triumph for Ritchie despite making the same film all over haha Alan Fords portrayal of 'Brick Top' is also probably the most chilling baddie I've seen in years.
Oi!!! geeeza!!
Love these two movies. Great times with my dad watchin' them.
"Fee 'im to the pigs, 'arold."
Undisputed Trilogy
Undisputed
The Mike Tyson story this could be hehe Mr Chambers (Rhames) goes to jail for an accusation of rape and becomes an even bigger media typhoon than he was before. At first I didn't think much of the film to be honest, it was cliched and kinda boring really plus Rhames as 'Chambers' was an annoying character who you wanted to see beaten.
I soon discovered that my feelings towards Chambers actually fuelled my enjoyment as the film continues and Snipes character 'Monroe' comes into play, the tense build up between the two up to the obvious finale does get you going. Lets not get over excited here this is your typical 'Rocky-ish' story with all the usual characters, dialog and scenes, not original but a good beat em up when the fists fly.
The final fight is well done and you do feel the blows as Snipes and Rhames match up and sweat over each other haha I'm pretty sure Rhames would win in a real fight though as he looks pretty darn solid.
Undisputed 2: Last Man Standing
Now this is rare!! a cheap straight to DVD sequel that not only is better than the original but a really good stand alone film!! Here we have Michael Jai White replacing Rhames as 'Chambers' and being setup on a drug charge to get him into a Russian jail to fight the top inmate...Scott Adkins as 'Boyka'.
The plot is stripped down and the most basic excuse for a 'beat em up' I've come across for some time haha add to that the usual cliched inmate characters along with the usual vicious prison guards and warden and you have your usual prison flick. The main difference here is the amazing fight sequences performed by Adkins who, after seeing 'Ninja', has become the most impressive martial artist I have seen in a long long time. The man is solid, well built and can move gracefully achieving moves I have only seen in computer games, his acting isn't too bad in this film either to be honest...no worse than a young JCVD.
I can't lie, this film is the best fighter I've seen since the early days of Mr JCVD and films like 'Bloodsport' and 'Kickboxer' yet this film is so much more realistic, bloody and with much much better fight sequences. The fights are fast fluid and breathtaking as gymnastics are combined with stunt work to produce battles you would expect to see in the 'Tekken' computer game, I can't begin to say how impressed I was when I was expecting just a run of the mill crappy poorly made B-movie.
The only thing that let it down was the simple fact that I don't think Chambers could learn and become good at kickboxing in that short space of time plus I'm pretty sure in a real fight a kickboxer would beat a boxer but any ways expect to be surprised.
Undisputed 3: Redemption
Third and final outing? again we are back to see Boyka this time rise from the ashes and become a world class fighter again as he turns from being the baddie fighter in the second film to the hero in this third. The story follows on from the second with Boyka having a badly damaged leg after losing his fight to Chambers, from there on we get another well run plot of over coming an injury to join in a tournament against other world fighters to get freedom, think 'Bloodsport' or 'Street Fighter' or any other fighting tournament flick, they're all the same really.
Again I was surprised with this film as I expected a real waste of film but again this is actually a pretty decent fight flick with again some fantastic fight sequences. Yes all the other fighters are your typical cliched types from various countries, one fighter from Brazil being a complete copy of 'Eddie Gordo' from 'Tekken' right down to the outfit, the only difference with this film is all the fighters can actually do the kind of super moves you see in 'Tekken'. Some of the moves and gymnastic abilities on show are amazing and the best I've seen in a film, yes the acting is so so and the plot is predictable but a real effort has been made with these two sequels to make the fights look bloody good and that they do.
All the cast is persent from the second film so continuity is spot on which is really nice, same with location too and all the fighters look the part and as said move damn well, if you like 'beat em up' films that hark back to the days of JCVD then you really can't go wrong here, this film series is a well made little franchise and a fourth film would actually be pretty cool.
Yellowbeard (1983)
Pretty lame film with a sterling cast of legends most of which are sadly no longer with us, you could look at this as another 'Monty Python' type film along side others like 'Jabberwocky' and 'Time Bandits' but alas this film doesn't have much of the laughs and visual flair that those films do. The plot is your basic Treasure Island type thing but just totally crazy and loony hehe most of the jokes are prat falls and childish along with allot of sexual japes, again which are kinda dumb and childish.
Unfortunately this was the last proper film for 'Python' Graham Chapman and also the last film for British comedian Marty Feldman, its a shame that the film is known for those two sad reasons and not much else, only for total fans really as there isn't much to recommend in this silly film, even the stellar cast can't save it.
The Eagle
Well I'm loving all these historical films being made these days :) really interesting and gloriously epic and this film despite not being a huge Hollywood flick is really decent and worth the watch.
The plot revolving around the mystery of the Ninth Legion (Legio IX Hispana) has been passed around the history books for along time and no one really knows what happened to them but this film goes along with the safe bet that they were simply ambushed and beaten by local tribes (probably Picts) and all killed or executed.
Of course the film isn't totally accurate, the story that one Centurion (Aquila) goes behind enemy lines with a Briton slave to recapture the Eagle standard is pure fantasy, the way the film concludes is also pure fantasy and maybe should of ended in a more realistic fashion. Despite the obvious historical flaws, you can't blame the creators for alittle artistic license, this film is excellent fun and really well made from the costumes and tribal speech right to the fantastic location work.
The real Scottish Highlands and Glens are used for the backdrop in this film and boy does it work, some of the scenes look tremendous, really barren n bleak with rain n clouds aplenty, also the use of native tongue for all the tribal scenes really adds to the epic quality and realism although I'm unsure if they looked as they are portrayed, they do have a kind of Amazon rain forest type of look to them (think 'Apocalypto') or 'Last of the Mohican's' Huron look.
I'm also unsure if the local tongue used in the film is based on anything real, same with the 'Seal' tribe, never heard of them and its thought the Picts would of been the natives of the time.
Great fight sequences and a much more real feel to the film than the recent 'Centurion' which had a more blockbuster type urge to it. I'm unsure if anyone would really be that bothered about a flag standard that they would go through all that, not sure the Roman hierarchy would be bothered about it either as they would probably be more concerned about losing men and ground than the actual metal standard. Its all good and well acted from both the Roman front and Tribal front with Tatum and Bell looking quite similar to each other haha and the tribal warriors of Caledonia also playing their parts really well.
Rio
Beautiful looking film that's probably the best I've seen since 'Finding Nemo', the detail and colour on display is vibrant and in your face as you are whisked around Rio, Brazil in the company of many loud and brightly coloured birds.
The constant problem with this genre now is all the films are pretty much exactly the same, the plot here is something we've seen in virtually every kiddie based cgi film, the characters are all the same, the outcome is obviously the same, basically step by step its like all Disney films...very predictable and all from the same blueprint or factory conveyor belt, all the same.
Yes the kids will enjoy and yes it looks truly gorgeous but there simply isn't anything new here accept the fact that its all based around a different animal species, Hollywood seems determined to make a cgi film around all animal species on the planet, on one last note the musical score in this film is awful, some really god awful songs from various modern artists.
Scream 4
Wow I loved this film...no not really, If ever there was a complete waste of time, money and resources its this film. What on earth was the point in this I have no idea, its exactly the same as the previous three films with no imagination involved and absolutely nothing new. Its not scary, its not funny and its not clever, the fact the characters in the film talk about how lame these types of films are trying to somehow make it cult-like or ingenious is hilarious and merely highlights how poor this film really is.
What I still find amusing is how a guy in the stupidest mask ever is scary haha also how he doesn't trip over his own flowing black robe lol!! The whole thing is completely farcical, predictable and cliched to the max, without a whiff of hiding these facts either, but its still not clever in anyway, so if you wanna be zapped back to the 90's then feel free to watch. Personally the only thing I can think of when watching is everyone involved is clearly desperate for work haha
Gangs of New York (2002)
I saw this on cinematic release and didn't like it to be honest but since then I have read up on the history behind the film and was surprised to find out its actually very accurate. This got me interested again in the film so I decided to watch it again.
The first thing that hits you about this semi epic is the fact it looks amazingly realistic from the sets to the costumes in every scene and every aspect. All the characters look greasy, seedy and unwashed whilst carrying the perfect sense of 18century New York across to a tea with their remarkably good accents, this of course helps with a good choice of cast. Day-Lewis of course is the man in this film with his 'Dick Dastardly' whiplash moustache, gleaming glass eye, coarse voice and tall slim body all dressed in close fit waistcoat, top hat and full length coat is strangely 'Burton-esq' and intimidating. The constant use of his knifes and meat cleavers in the film is quite un-nerving I must admit hehe the scene on stage with Diaz and his knife throwing act is quite a tense moment that really shows his savage nature at humour. Day-Lewis maybe the best actor of our age for me and this performance really does show his dedicated nature to bringing out a character from simple walking motion to the quite eerie expressions of his face whilst trying to tame or perhaps contort his facial hair.
His impressive performance is also accompanied by Gleeson, Neeson, Broadbent and surprisingly Diaz (for once) yet the inclusion of Scorsese favourite DiCaprio for me was a bad choice as despite being a quite decent actor now at the time of this film he simply wasn't good enough in my opinion and didn't look the part either, my opinion.
The plot is intriguing set against the 18century New York draft riots, mass immigration problems from the Irish mainly and the ongoing scuffles between many factions for the control of The Five Points area. As said the story is accurate with little use of artistic license which is highly notable and again surprising, many names of people and gangs are real as is the depiction of racism, murder of blacks during the riots and bloody warfare between the gangs, some of this on my first viewing I thought may have been fantasized.
The film isn't a true flowing epic though in all honesty, its very good and enjoyable but I think the look and feel of the film is the true winner here, you can almost smell the rot, damp and dank haha The plot does get rushed towards the end I feel and the finale isn't a good one, a slight anticlimax and one inaccurate aspect of the film, the ending of the film lets it down.
Memorable scene, Cutting explains to Happy Jack Mulraney how he wants the killer of a poor innocent little rabbit caught :) some of the best facial expressions I've seen since De Niro :)
Blood and Bone (2009)
Well I had no idea Michael Jai White was a martial artist or kickboxer, I last saw him in 'Undisputed 2' but before that I only really know him from 'Spawn', looking at his career he hasn't done that much to shout about really. Now all of a sudden I've seen him in two martial arts films and it looks like he's making another, I never got a whiff of his martial arts capabilities in 'Spawn' and he wasn't as big as he is now so some major work out has been going on hehe
As for this film its your typical JCVD vehicle really accept its for Jai White, the plot is your average new guy on the block who can kick the crap outta all comers and gets to be the big dog and take on the head big dog for lots of cash....guess who wins. Its nothing special and not too well acted either but lets face it you only watch films like this for the fighting (just like most JCVD films) and once again you get some top notch martial arts here boyyo.
Jai White is built like a tank right now and the only person to come close would be Scott Adkins in my opinion, this film has some very good yet short fights that show Jai White to be a Wesley Snipes ass kicker for sure haha very very impressive but maybe not quite as impressive as Adkins for gymnastic grace and skills but its darn close. One thing is for sure these guys would kill JCVD I reckon, their moves make Mr Van Damme look quite quaint and dated frankly, when JCVD attempted the 'Guile flashkick' in 'Street Fighter' it was a trick of the camera, Adkins and White seem to be able to actually do moves like that for real!!
Anywho....this film is your basic 'beat em up' with nothing new to offer but has excellent fight sequences and that's all you want really in a film like this, highly enjoyable if rather totally unoriginal :)
I am Number Four
Pretty undecided about this little sci-fi adventure as its very very silly and a complete mix of everything from the 'Star Trek-ish' universe looking main alien baddies ('Star Trek-ish' meaning they look crappy n tacky like much of the 'ST' universe), the 'X-Men' type super powers that the hero has, also abit 'Superman-ish' too in plot, the cheesy looking laser fire from the weapons (and the cheesy looking weapons) that could be from anything like 'Star Wars' to 'Flash Gordon' and then the 'Terminator' style plot with Tim Olyphant's character and Michael Biehn type acting in fact. Oh and then there's the terribly cliched tough female character (Number Six) who is basically rather terrible hehe.
Apart from the dubious borrowing of other ideas its a reasonable little adventure that keeps you amused, its very 'safe' in the fact there's no swearing or harsh violence and can be watched by anyone but at the same time its also flawed in this way for adults mainly.
Problems are everywhere with the film to be honest as you never really find anything out, where the baddie alien race or the peaceful alien race 'Number Four' is from, why the baddie aliens are destroying planets, why all these alien races look like humans or do they look different and wear some kind of suit? what are those big monsters? the goodie alien races history and the 'Legends' etc...there's loads of stuff that's not explained even slightly and thus you are kinda wondering why.
Bottom line...its a fun film if you don't mind not really knowing anything about anything in the film lol!! the big bat-like monsters are pretty cool and look good, cgi is abundant and generally awful looking, the baddies look like something from across between 'Blade II' and 'Battlefield Earth' with the oddest looking alien outfits since 'Battlefield Earth' and the ending is set for more sequels in an obvious franchise wannabe.
13 Assassins 十三人の刺客
Think 'Seven Samurai' and you have this new modern film which not only equals that classic picture but in my mind it goes one step further and possibly betters it. Hard you may say, true, but this film captured me and didn't let go until the final Katana came slashing down.
Based on a supposed true incident set loosely around 1844 and a remake of the 1963 black n white film 'Jûsan-nin no shikaku', a senior government official hires twelve unemployed and poor Ronin to assassinate the Shogun's sadistic brother due to the fact he kills, rapes and maims innocent people at will. Not a terribly difficult plot to follow and none to original either, the source for many many film of this type and of course has its similarities to 'The Hidden Fortress' and 'Seven Samurai'.
The film is basically (for more than half of it) a dialog piece as Shinzaemon Shimada gets together his swordsman and plans his attack, we see how evil and careless Lord Naritsugu is as he 'plays' with peasants and we see the Samurai train for their assault. The film has subtitles for the Western audience and at first I admit I was becoming worried I may lose interest but unlike '7 Samurai' the dialog isn't too dull and the film doesn't crawl slowly, instead you have lively moments hinting at action to come. This of course is all seconded to the amazing scenery and costumes on display that truly bring 18Century Japan into your living room, the clothing worn by all looks drab and lifeless yet real, the sets are sparse and dark yet perfectly recreated (if you have been to Japan you will know) and the sparing on display is realistic and unlike your more common Hollywood fare. The film for allot of the time is a straight look at how Japanese people got along really, it shows life and hardship for most classes (Samurai were normally poor and homeless) and lets you in on the culture, if your not careful you could be fooled into thinking there will be no action hehe
As the film progresses all of the above I have mentioned simply gets better and more vivid as the Ronin make their way to the village they will turn into a blood bath, the film was shot in Northern Japan (Tsuruoka in the Yamagata Prefecture) and makes full use of the lush green countryside and woodlands, the village for the finale is slightly more your usual set affair which does lose some realistic momentum but never mind.
The final 40 min or so of the film is a relentless onslaught of flashing katana's and streams of blood as the Samurai take on Naritsugu's men with traps and skills that Sly Stallone and his 'Expendables' wished they had shown haha Yes the action is fast and hard to follow but most importantly it looks real, its muddy, messy and not pretty fancy moves...its Samurai warriors hacking their way through semi skilled soldiers all of whom both Samurai and soldier fight for honour.
As the heads roll and the Ronin run around I must say its hard to follow whats going as all the characters wear the same type of outfit in the same colours, as it would be, only certain members hair styles separate them. Alas with 13 men its hard to care for all and hard to make each member a valid part of the film, so when one dies you struggle to think who he was and thus you don't care so much, the only actor I recognise is Tsuyoshi Ihara and of course his character 'Hirayama' was the most fierce of the team so I followed him easily but other Ronin used different weapons so one or two were easily picked up on.
The best film of this genre I've seen ever I think...yes and that includes the more famous black n white films too. The last film I saw of the Samurai would have been 'The Last Samurai' with Cruise and Watanabe which was your typical Hollywood flashy view but a decent effort spoiled by the inclusion of a big ego like Cruise, '13 Samurai' is epic for its accuracy and look, there is nothing original here and at the same time nothing too over the top, accept afew scenes in the village at the end, in short its a damn fine film.
Sucker Punch
Well this is sure as hell pretty looking but not really much else on offer I'm afraid, still that was alittle expected from what I saw in the trailers.
This is pretty much everything you could ever want in a film, every genre and most popular films are ripped and borrowed from to create this outrageous world from 'The Matrix' to Lord of the Rings' to 'Dungeons 'n' Dragons' to 'Hellboy' to 'Sky Captain' to 'Mutant Chronicles' etc....
The whole film is virtually a cross between a music video and a computer game, more towards the latter of course, the plot is boring and uninteresting to be frank and you find yourself yearning for the action set pieces where 'Baby' starts to dream. Those action sequences although very borrowed from other films are extremely cool looking and very exciting but again not as good as I thought, the cgi ranges from looking spectacular to down right dreadful with obvious green screen work and some horrible cgi actresses being flung all over the shop. Still the imagination on show is very very good with beautiful detail and lovely backdrops, the Japanese Samurai demons, medieval/dragon battle and the WWII sequence were excellent fun, shame about the rest of the film and the fact all the main girl characters were basically invincible. Overall it was like a big advert or trailer for the latest games console at the E3 Expo.
Deep Rising
Excellent monster mash and over the top riot of sea faring proportions which borrows from afew films but keep its tongue firmly in its cheek as a no bars hold B-movie.
The way the plot unravels is much like 'Aliens' with a mish mash crew of cut throat mercs and civilians being surprised and taken down one by one by an unexplained sea beastie, the casting is unique and perfect for the posse of renegades who each have their own quirks and style which, again, does remind you of the classic marines from 'Aliens'.
Its a very silly and obvious layout but Sommers doesn't try to hide this fact and goes all out with nice scares and some nasty gut churning makeup and cgi for the victims. The cgi does now look pretty dated and there is some really nasty blue screen effects but at the time this felt so good and really impressed, I saw the film on release at the cinema back in 1998 and I enjoyed then as I do now.
Your typical popcorn flick with nothing to worry about in terms of depth, probably one of the best ensemble casts for awhile in a B-movie and a really terrific creature all add to a fun time. The text at the start gets you thinking about the deep for real and the ending is great stuff haha why no sequel??
Ghost in the Shell 10/10
This was an amazing film. This movie was every bit as detailed and immersive as Blade Runner. It felt as though those two films could coexist within the same continuity. The visual style was very reminiscent of that film, but it was still it's own. I absolutely loved it. This was simply a beautiful movie to watch; everything from the massive and expansive skylines, to the crowded and claustrophobic city streets, to the futuristic yet still believable interiors, were superbly realized on the screen. One of the finest animated films I have ever seen in that regard. The design aesthetic in the vehicles and firearms was great as well, at once being familiar in function and a throwback to previous cyberpunk films, yet still remaining stylistically unique. The soundtrack was also great. Kenji Kawai's haunting melodies really added a lot to this movie, causing it to come alive as much as the stunning animation and interesting characters. Much like Vangelis and Blade Runner, or John Williams and Star Wars, this film would simply not have been the same without this moody, and beautiful, score.
The story was also incredibly interesting. Set in the early 21st century (where cyber-terrorism is a very serious threat, and cybernetic enhancements are common among government agents), it follows Motoko Kusanagi, a cyborg counter-terrorist operative. Her agency, Section 9, is attempting to track down a prolific hacker known only as the Puppet Master. As she closes in on him, she discovers that he is more like her than she could have known, and is far different from anything anybody expected. There are many recurrent themes throughout the narrative; mirror images and copies; what does it mean to be alive; the blurring of lines between man and machine; the reality of consciousness. All of them are incredibly provoking, and each of them is masterfully touched upon in the film.
The characters are also all great; from the artificial and strangely beautiful femme-fatale Motoko; to the enhanced and gruff, yet still caring, Batou; to the almost-completely natural Togusa; and many others, they all bring their own feel to the screen, making the film come alive, and making me care about what was going on.
Overall, one of the best animated films I've ever seen, and a movie that I cannot recommend highly enough. Especially if you love sci-fi.
The Last of the Mohican's
So the question is which film is better? 'Mohican's' or 'Dances with Wolves'? hmm tricky but for realism its probably 'Wolves'.
A lavish romantic epic I think fits this historical offering, sweeping and glorious in both location, costume and score, this film is a Mann production of perfection. A true swashbuckler based on the 17century novel which was known to be pretty mixed and inaccurate yet a real fantasy which would not look out of place with Errol Flynn in the starring role.
The most impressive thing about this film is clearly the cinematography and the musical score, the vast landscapes are breathtaking and capture the period to a tea whilst the score is strong and emotional with some beautiful tribal/native pieces that play without any need for dialog atall! the final chase sequence is a prime example to this as the action developes accompanied by a heart pounding score with no need for any dialog or explanation.
Certainly a change in pace for Mann as he's kinda known for crime thrillers or modern day films but you wouldn't think it from seeing this film as the battles sequences are some of the best I've seen in a film with brutal hacking and slashing and plenty of blood. All the cast are major players in the industry and add to the epic quality of the film, Day-Lewis being one of the best actors of this age for sure and Studi being the most realistic looking native Indian to hit the screens hehe
Women love this film for the romance and the dashing Day-Lewis, personally I enjoy the score and I admit the love story is enticing but its the score that gives this film its life. A living romance novel and a gripping period action film that is brilliantly realistic and much better than the original novel...which is unique in itself.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on May 07, 2011, 05:43:24 AM
Ghost in the Shell 10/10
[...]
And once again, I hear great things about that. Guess I'll have to give it a look one of these days.
Yes. Yes, you will.
Don't make me come for you, TJ. Not after all we've been through.
Source Code
*Spoiler Warning*
Now this is heavy, real heavy, I'm still trying to figure out the physics involved in this haha maybe I'm just dumb I don't know but this really got me thinking as it neared the conclusion with the actual conclusion itself quite a mind bender.
Now when I say mind bender I'm not sure wether the director intended that or its just badly made with many questions left unanswered. I can't really go into much in this review as it will give away too much, I'm afraid this film is very difficult to talk about without spoilers. Basically its a good film and it will really keep you glued to the screen all the way to the credits, the acting isn't exactly top notch and there isn't really any hot action but there is allot of thought on alternate dimensions or universes and what you think is or can be real ;)
Its not a mixed up story, the plot unfolds quite easily and you know whats happening in general, its reasonably idiot proof for most of the film, but as the plot thickens and the finale comes things become odd and leave many questions about Gyllenhaal's character, how he manages to 'carry on' after the conclusion, is he in an alternate dimension? he is dead? how did he save the train when its not real but merely a program or simulation? has time been altered in reality at the end of the film or just been changed?...as Gyllenhaal is still alive in the programme, why did his call to Goodwin reach her in reality when previous attempts he tried to reach people in reality didn't work?how come Gyllenhaal's character doesn't die when he's switched off? and so forth...
Its a very cool film which gets the brain working but its not perfect, I'm quite sure in most cases where Stevens has eight mins to do his mission more than eight mins actually passes haha also its quite annoying how he keeps saying over and over he wants to save the girl never understanding that's its all just a computer simulation, just wanna slap him hehe
Very clever and alittle reminiscent of 'Minority Report' in a certain aspect, worth the watch.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
So am I the only person who thinks the Potter machine has kinda run out of steam somewhat? I mean come on...its been seven films now! (that is 'Police Academy' territory) yes they have all been very good and I am impressed by the continual level of quality for each film, obvious love has been given, but the last two have (for me) been alittle dull and are getting ever more confusing.
The problem is there are seven films and unless you know the stories well or have seen the previous six films recently its very hard to remember whats going on, the amount of characters and backstory, although impressive no doubt, is also cumbersome and heavy going on non-Potter know it alls. The fact there is still yet another film to go is somewhat of drag frankly, its obvious what will happen without reading the book, I just think that the franchise has slowly dried up and lost its sparkle which isn't surprising after seven films.
As for this new sequel its very well made as are all the films, the effects on display are really nice and look good even though there is allot of cgi. The continuity is spot on with everyone mucking in after all this time which is an impressive feat alone and most importantly the imagination and Potter universe is still vivid and glorious and probably the best fantasy based world there is now, up there with 'LOTR' and 'Star Wars' for sure.
The problem with the film is it seems alittle pointless and abit of a money maker in the sense that not too much amazing happens and it all feels like drab filler for the much highly anticipated final installment. The characters jump around the place so much that I lost track of what was going on, that and the huge character roster as well, it felt very choppy and just one average set piece after another with no real purpose other than to make more money by making two films. I know getting every detail from the original book in the film is commendable, kudos!, but I just got thinking that maybe allot of this detail wasn't really needed as this film really really draaaags and then ends on a rather uninspired conclusion.
Personally I still prefer the first three films when the kids were young and the magic seemed more fun and 'Disney-like', as they have grown older and the films have become darker I think the light hearted magical sense has gone and left a more depressing boring teen affair which harks more towards franchises like 'Twilight'...kinda. Impressive as the franchise is I have just lost interest in it along with the young actors as I have read in the past, not hard to realise why though.
Best sequence in the film is easily the small animated scene where Hermione explains what the Deathly Hallows are, lovely little sequence that reminded me of something from a Tim Burton film.
Thor
So we have the next big Marvel hero adaptation on the long highway to 'The Avengers' with 'Iron Man' so far being a surprise decent film, this time its Thor's turn to roll the dice. Again I am pleasantly surprised at how reasonably competent this film is, I thought this would be a hideous mess but actually its not too bad. I'm not gonna get carried away and say its a brilliant film as it isn't, in my opinion 'Iron Man' is better but this is OK despite the silly material. Branagh has done well in his attempt and done half the work in the casting, all players add good realism and gravitas to the cheesy plot allowing the film to just about get by. Hopkins, Hemsworth and Hiddleston are the best contributors of course and were great choices for the roles, they looked right and didn't come across camp in any way haha
The effects are decent and not too obvious, a very colourful and vivid film and some good stand out moments like the 'Rancor' type creature on Jotunheim showcasing decent cgi. The Frost Giants looked reasonable but slightly childish for me whilst the giant metallic Destroyer looked rather B-movie-ish and tacky to be honest, abit like 'Gort' from 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' 1951. Asgard was impressive and colourful looking neat and sharp harking back to cityscape's of the new Star Wars trilogy and just as good.
I'm not up on the whole Thor comicbook plot to be honest but I admit I still found faults with things in the film, obviously Thor and his homeworld are aliens, an alien race (which are exactly the same as humans? hmm) but also somehow manage to have horses, ale, roast beef, pork etc...in their realm too? kinda silly methinks, oh and everyone speaks English it seems haha.
There is nice humour throughout which is good, Thor getting accustomed to earth has good moments, but 'the Warriors Three' felt way too farcical and lame frankly, they just came across as inept posh talking sidekicks much like C3PO from Star Wars haha they also looked like characters from a kids cartoon which let down the rest of the quite good costumes actually.
You never find out about the other realms, there is no real reason for why Odin goes into a 'coma' or 'sleep' and the Frost Giants did seem kinda lame, uninspired and unoriginal (if they were made for the film?) with a silly name, of course if you know the comicbook all this might be common knowledge but for myself it isn't.
Overall I liked this but lets face it it was pretty hokey really, a modern day 'Flash Gordon' if we're being honest here, it wasn't camp but it was very very gentle and cartoony which I did suspect as Thor is a hard character to put on film I think. Its a valiant attempt but I just think it could of been better or abit more serious and less like an action figure promotion.
The Aviator
Roll up roll up...Scorsese's second big historical epic, this time recounting the life of tycoon Howard Hughes from the 1920's to 1947. Again Scorsese uses DiCaprio for his main role yet for once I think we see the best of DiCaprio in probably his finest performance so far.
The film is epic in cinematography as well as casting and direction with every frame highly detailed and given amazing depth with the score. Every scene and every shot looks perfect and seems to have been done with painful attention to accuracy and setup, the clothes the cast wear to the amazing sets are all beautifully done whilst the story of Hughes life is handled with care and includes a large range of big names from both show business and the financial world, I'm unsure if its all accurate but it damn well seems like it when watching.
A long film yes but it doesn't feel like it as there is so much going on throughout the film with so many people popping in and out of Hughes life, along with his personal conquests, that you find yourself wondering about what all these other people did and what happened to them, it makes you wanna read up on the whole history of it all. Its also really interesting to see many Hollywood legends portrayed by modern day stars and I was impressed at the levels of dedication shown, Blanchett, Beckinsale and a small cameo by Jude Law as Errol Flynn were all superbly done, especially Blanchett who clearly spend allot of time nailing Hepburn. DiCaprio is the star of this piece though for sure with a brilliant performance as Hughes that almost became annoying as he portrayed Hughes' compulsive disorder to nerve jangling levels, started to make you twitch watching him do it haha Can't forget about the amazing costume department though and their work, everyone looked so good in their duds, faultless right down to the massive amount of extras in many scenes.
From the creation of his epic 'Hell's Angels' to the obsessive and devoted creation of his aircraft through to the courtroom drama's between himself, Trippe and Senator Brewster to the finale and his flying of the Hercules 'airboat'.....this film is never dull even though I really thought it would be hehe probably one of the most accurate period films I've seen and a surprise from Scorsese really.
Troy
Homer's The Iliad is the basis of this film and wether or not the actual Trojan War took place or not this film actually does the story/fable much justice with its glorious and lavish looks. For me the mystery behind this ancient Greek plot is all the more intriguing and boosts my favour for the film, from what I see and have read Petersen's film is quite accurate to what we know of the event, everything seems to play out as it should and there doesn't appear to be much Hollywood tomfoolery going on with the details, well not too much.
One Slight argument could be raised about a minor detail, Achilles relationship to Patroclus is not known for sure where as here they are cousins. As for some other bigger issues...King Agamemnon wasn't killed in Troy but returned to Greece, Paris did actually die in Troy during the war and Helen of Troy may was suppose to have been taken back to Sparta, so alittle artistic license used it seems but not too bad, why it was done that way I don't know.
As for the film...well it looks gorgeous, the location work really sets this up beautifully as everything looks a soft sandy golden colour against the piercing blue Aegean Sea although not actually filmed against the Aegean Sea. The Walls of Troy are powerful and impressive looking as the Greeks attack them throughout, the battles are huge with vast channels of warriors facing off against the city walls and each other, some excellent battle sequences I assure you. The scope of the battles is probably the best aspect of the film really, allot of historical films have good battles in them these days but you really get a sense of size here plus its all in broad daylight so its gotta look sharp.
The look, the costumes, the sets and the battles can't be faulted but unfortunately one thing lets all this down badly and that's the casting, pretty much every member of the cast is a bad choice and doesn't fit the bill atall, harsh but true. Brian Cox as Agamemnon is far too much of a villain in the film and practically hams it up..you'd think he was in the next ''Die Hard' flick! Gleeson looks the part but his Irish-ness keeps coming through...he's in the wrong time period and army and Pitt simply can't act too well I'm afraid, always his major downfall and he looks too buff and pretty for the part really which takes away a sense of realism.
Bana really puts in a poor show here for some reason, I just didn't feel the power he should have, the emotion just wasn't there plus his Aussie accent kept creeping in, the same for Bean with his Yorkshire accent which isn't covered atall!! so you have King Odysseus with a Sheffield/Yorkshire accent for Christ's sake! Then you have the very weak talented Bloom who somehow manages to keep getting cast in big films, yes he looks perfect for this role but he simply can't handle the weight of this type of epic film. Lastly we have the mighty Peter O' Toole who again like other cast members just doesn't seem to have the power or weight needed for the role, he came across as tired and almost reluctant to embrace the role, a stunning actor for sure but he didn't seem right here.
Its a damn fine film to take on Homers ancient poem but I just wish Petersen had used a cast that wasn't simply chosen for their big name status at the time, I would of thought he had more sense than that and as a result he lets down this film which could of been truly epic in every aspect.
Bad Taste (1987)
Mr 'Lord of the Rings' Jackson directs and stars in this gloriously tacky yet extremely gory sci-fi spoof cum comedy as one of a bunch of rather ugly fat aliens in human disguise trying to capture humans for their fast food chain...yes.
Sounds like a sketch from the mind of Terry Gilliam and Monty Python and it actually plays like it too to be honest, its very wacky and over the top with really gut wrenching deaths and mutilations on show but they are so extreme they become comical. As for production, what production? lol! talk about minimal!! the whole film is hand held cam with the film looking like a home movie made by your uncle at Christmas when he's had too much to drink bahahahaha!
Everything is done on the mega cheap and clearly allot of help from friends who got nothing for their work...for the love of their project for sure. The only thing that does look quite good are the rather unnerving alien masks, pretty fake looking of course yet somehow eerie, abit like something from 'Naked Lunch' maybe, the films cover always had a kind of 'video nasty' feel to it, or maybe that's just me.
The end of the film is a nonstop gun fest with death all around and major claret on show hehe good use of weapons too by the looks of things, some definite training would of been required there I reckon unless they knew how to handle weaponry already. Totally bizarre plot mixed with a cheap as chips film that almost puts you off watching at first as its so basic yet a good example of guerrilla type filming with very little to work with.
The Frisco Kid (1979)
So what do you think? Harrison Ford and Gene Wilder? good action flick combination? good 'Indy/Star Wars' mixed with the Mel Brooks regular? haha well I didn't believe it either but this is the first time I heard that these classic stars were teamed together in a flick, talk about unusual double team!
This is your charming gentle and good natured Wilder film with plenty of silly laughs and visual gags plus allot of heart with a nice happy ending to make you feel good :)
I can't really say anything bad about this film as it doesn't take itself seriously and is so good natured, just like Wilder himself, it just makes you smile. Wilder the Polish Rabbi and Indy err I mean Ford is the dashing scoundrel of a bank robber who are both pitted together on a trip to Californian in the old west whilst avoiding the law. The plot is very similar to other films with Wilder as again he is wrongly accused/mistaken for a crime he didn't commit in this film and thus allot of wide eyed lunacy occurs hehe
Can't go wrong with Gene Wilder you really can't, yes the film is soppy but its just classic golden comedy from a master.
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Follow up to the reasonable effort that didn't to do badly apon release and managed to thrash JCVD and 'Street Fighter'. This isn't too far from the first film really in terms of layout and fights, nothing too spectacular and not well acted, more pantomime than cinema, but like the original there are little rays of sunshine here and there, the odd little glimmer of decent action or set.
Lets not get carried away here though haha its so unbelievably cheesy and hammy yet all the cast seem to take it seriously, worryingly so James Remar who clearly needed the work. We do see more characters in this outing which was quite nice, a much wider range and some of whom didn't look that bad but again like the first film its hampered by outrageously bad cgi effects all over the show along with some nasty looking bluescreen work.
Due to this being an epic failure the third planned film, Mortal Kombat: Devastation, was shelved, not too surprising. Also interestingly...Sly Stallone turned down the role of 'Baraka', Lambert would of come back for this sequel but was comitted to another film, Michael Jai White was gonna be 'Jax' but got 'Spawn' instead and Tony Jaa and Ray Park both were stunt men in this film :)
The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975)
A classic cast line up including Feldman, Wilder, DeLuise, Kinnear and Le Mesurier unfortunately can't quite save this brilliantly original wacky tale which sounds and looks better than it really is. Its a huge shame to be honest as you really really think this is gonna be an epic in the same league as 'Young Frankenstein' but its just lacking bite, the cast do well for whats on offer but it just isn't too funny plus there are some really cringing song n dance routines here.
Dom DeLuise is probably the best for a good chuckle as usual with his jolly japes and camp capers hehe whilst Feldman and Kinnear are decent too but alas Wilder comes across as kinda blunt with his miserable character. Some nice sequences like the stagecoach fight but also some pretty dire ones like the finale make it touch n go, still its a nice flick and worth a look if you like Wilder.
Funny About Love (1990)
Very limp and soppy romantic comedy about a couple wanting to have a baby, then breaking up in time after they can't have one then they meet other people and eventually after realising they do love each other they get back together again. I only saw this simply because it was a Wilder film and usually most of his films are good fun but this really is a film for the ladies haha not really funny, alittle slapstick here and there but mainly its a light hearted ladies flick about a young couple and their relationships with each other and others, more of a gentle drama directed by Leonard 'Mr Spock' Nimoy of all people!
Fright Night (1985)
Seeing as the rather dubious looking remake is due out pretty soon I thought I would go back and see the classic original and see if it was still...classic.
At first I must admit the start and build up to this kooky horror is slow and not that spooky or interesting, its the usual stereotypical American teen problems, teen look accompanied by all those glorious 80's cliches, styles with a bog standard plot.
So the rather basic stuff aside the fun starts of course when the vampire action kicks in with bites, transformations, werewolves and melting corpses haha The real gem in the film is the icky makeup and special effects that still look quite good today bar afew dodgy looking bluescreens and puppets. The best looking sequence is the death of 'Evil' from wolf back to human after he is staked, really good sequence with some excellent makeup and bodycasts that equal 'American Werewolf in London'. The vampire makeup is really nice throughout too with the best being in the finale with different stages of 'Dandrige' as he gets wounded plus a good melting death of his henchman (the weird homosexual henchman type guy lol!).
Its silly and basic but has a glowing special effects/makeup portfolio to its name which is both ingenious in craft and workmanship plus it has that great 80's look and feel thats just un-remakeable. Oh and you gotta love that 80's synthesizer heavy soundtrack that sounds like its been made by your younger brother in his bedroom over a weekend haha.
Fright Night 2 (1988)
Pretty much the same plot and layout as the first film really which I guess is a shame as its nothing very original but I suppose they stick to what works and this does work..again.
Slightly more speedy with the plot and more interesting as you know whats happened previously so there's not much boring teen angst stuff going on at first, it doesn't take long before we hit vamp speed. So we have more vamps this time round which is nice as the small group are quite a cool little bunch with plenty of variation and imagination on display, I especially love 'Louie' the werewolf looking vamp, 'Belle' is a unique looking vamp kinda in the flashy outrageous style of singer 'Prince' and Carmen is beautiful as 'Regine' the sister of 'Dandrige' from the first flick.
As said its the same as before plot wise so nothing special there but again we have some lovely makeup and special effects to show yet more melting, crumbling, exploding and dissolving vampires in their last throws, still have some dodgy looking puppets at times with some obvious cheesy sets and bluescreen but it still manages to look better than cgi in my opinion cos at least the effects/sets/makeup are real. Its a good sequel which just gives you more of the same with more imagination in the way they do it, 'how can we make a vampire death look even more fantastic and gooey?'
Interestingly some ideas and sequences do seem to have been heavily borrowed from the classic sexy vamp flick 'Vamp' (1986) with Grace Jones, if you watch the two there are definitely similar ideas being used with the sexy dance routines of Regine and even her final death scene where she raises a skeletal forearm from her freshly cooked corpse. I still find myself asking why on earth 'Brewster' doesn't give in and become a vampire lover with Regine...I would of for sure haha.
Action Jackson ( 1988 )
I love these 80's henchmen with their black outfits, mullets and inability to shoot straight, add to that some extremely over the top action sequences and a large piece of wood in the form of Weathers and there you have it..a perfect 80's action film.
This film is your typical tough guy flick with the same kind of action as many many other classic films like 'Lethal Weapon' and 'Red Heat' etc...funnily enough this film has afew main cast members from Arnie flick 'Predator' with Landham and Duke along with Weathers. Talking of the cast this film has a mega cast of stars and 80's faces...Robert Davi, Thomas F. Wilson, Craig T. Nelson, Sharon Stone, Ed O Ross, Miguel A. Nunez Jr and the ultimate henchman Al Leong :) Only guy missing here is Arnie himself.
I gotta admit I never really liked this flick as it just seems like a big action vehicle wannabe and just can't quite compete with the real big boys like Arnie, Sly, Bruce or JCVD. Weathers is a good tough guy, looks good and talks the talk but I just don't think he's got the swing to hold an entire blockbuster film all on his own, for me he works better with other big names to spar with eg. 'Rocky' and 'Predator', the same goes for the main bad guy played by Nelson, he's slimy but isn't quite evil or threatening enough. Overall its a slightly unimpressive outcome but that lively 80's buzz is hard to ignore ;)
Bloodrayne: The Third Reich
Boll keeps on churning out his films despite none of them ever doing well and here is the third in the quite poor 'Bloodrayne' franchise adapted from the much better and much sexier computer game. This time its the Nazi's to get a thumping from the sexy vamp and quite unbelievably this film isn't that bad and is considerably better than the hideous second film set in the Wild West.
Its basic all the way through and doesn't really show much in the form of class of course but its a stable film with reasonable bloody fights including some serious slashing going on, the location works for the film and does add a chilly bleak atmosphere, costumes are decent enough (Pare in his black leather Nazi commander uniform with matching black leather hood is actually pretty cool) and the direction isn't all that bad overall, definitely moved up a league from the 'Boll Division' to B-movie status methinks.
If he could just move away from constantly using Michael Pare....
Rhinoceros (1974)
Based on a play by Eugene Lonesco this film is pretty odd if you know nothing of the play its based on, I don't know the play so I did find the plot strange indeed and I can see why it was a failure upon release. This is a shame of course as all the sequences with Wilder and Mostel are comic genius, their facial expressions and body language is fantastic and show two men of comedy...one at his peak and one reaching for his peak.
I admit the whole film is pretty dull and uninteresting ACCEPT for the first 35min of the film, this start is sheer brilliance with Mostel on an epic performance that's off the scale with his stuck up, vain schmuck against Wilders timid, shy and weak 'Stanley'. The only other sequence in the film that's any worth is the second big scene with Wilder and Mostel where Mostel 'turns' into a Rhinoceros...yes that's right, but you don't see the rhino of course, this is an old film.
Hanky Panky (1982)
Very weak and lifeless comedy/murder/detective film which can't quite decide what it really wants to be overall, Wilder of course is a comic genius and Radner was also at her peak of powers but neither really come across as funny or interesting. The whole film is pretty dull with nothing much happening anywhere, one minute its a 'who done it?' the next its a slapstick farce? could work but here it simply doesn't and its a shame as everyone loves Wilder and wants to see him in good films.
Heat (1995)
Well this was it, now 16 years old yet back in 95 this was THE film of the year for action, suspense and the two biggest, serious and some might say best actors of our time to face off, bust each others chops and see just who had the bigger impact, the biggest appeal and the hardest set of kahunas haha.
Much like 'Point Break' the film kicks off fast and doesn't let up till the credits role, its not continuous macho action like 'PB' as there is allot of build up and dialog involving the sting to get De Niro and his gang but when the action does hit its like a freight train in the face.
I haven't seen this since its cinematic release and thought it may have lost some edge...it hasn't, its razor sharp and hardly looks dated in anyway, it could of been made today, you could never tell apart from the actors age of course. So apart from Mr De Niro and Mr Pacino you have a big name cast of stoic solid character actors and Val Kilmer, to be honest everyone is perfect accept Sizemore and Kilmer for me, both of whom just don't fit this kind of epic slick heist film with Kilmer being too weak and not believeable whilst Sizemore fits B-movies or less intelligent action flicks..in my opinion.
The story arch is perfect and smoothly takes you from one plot point to another even having a small sub plot in a way with the character 'Waingro' who slips in and out of the main heist plot perfectly without causing any questions from the viewer. The film never lets you out as you struggle to decide who's side your on as the audience, do you root for De Niro as the criminal/anti hero type who finds love yet must give it up to survive or do you go for Pacino who is simply trying to keep his family life together and bust a dangerous gang of armed robbers? right to the end your never sure who to cheer for, its a personal choice almost like choosing your own ending.
The highlight of the film of course must be the fight fire just over midway on a busy main downtown street, from a quiet, calm yet tense sequence it suddenly erupts into a massive onslaught of loud gun fire from the automatic weapons as the criminals must duck, cover and evade police covering each other step by step. The sequence may be one of the best gun fights ever filmed with heart racing camera movement to cover all the actors and bullet holes that spray the police cars, its fast, loud and relentless plus it looks damn real too. Add to all this a tremendous moving score for the very end as the credits role after the two main men of the film finally lock horns and you have a near if not perfect film from Mann, probably his best.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
And so the 'Secret of Monkey Island' continues...err I mean the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' of course, and with this knowledge and a slight sense of dread I ventured forth to see the film in regular 2D vision as I am completely fed up with this 3D craze.
How long!? OK the film is over two hours long and way too boring basically, I honestly found myself getting rather bored whilst watching as its quite dull to be brutally honest with you. The plot simply sees Sparrow off on another adventure to find the fountain of Youth before Barbossa or the Spanish, its not a great stretch of the imagination just like the outcome.
There really isn't too much to recommend here as its just all very repetitive and pretty much the same as the last two films all of which weren't as good as the original. The original was unique, a first, it had a good story, this new film just feels like a run of the mill rehash that's now too silly (fire breathing galleons?) and has lost its originality.
Its better for losing Bloom and Knightly but Cruz isn't much better fair whilst Claflin is annoyingly wet n dull, Mcshane doesn't quite have the foreboding presence to be 'Blackbeard' and Depp has now become abit too camp and not as funny as his witty remarks dry up well and truly. This doesn't help when there's not much going on in the film, a rather stupid slapstick chase sequence at the start and afew general sword clashes here n there is all we get, the mermaid sequence isn't too bad accept to the point where they manage to sink an entire galleon! longboat yes, galleon!? hmmm.
This gave me a strong feeling of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' whilst watching, not as good of course but the layout is similar and so to is the finale, the quick final sequence of Blackbeard being the best bit as its alittle gruesome yet not too far..just like 'Indy'. Number five you ask? yep I'm sure there will be as almost all the characters are left open for further stories, some of which could be interesting...but only one or two, and by the way...stick to the end of the rolling credits ;)
Feast Trilogy
Feast
Doesn't pretend to be original, far from it, this is your basic group of random survivors holed up and fighting off some nasty monsters with little weaponry. One by one people go down as the creatures rip them apart, no one knows where they are from or what they are, its a very simple premise but always effective.
This isn't as good as I thought it would be as the creatures do look ferocious enough in the face but when seen from head to toe they do look rubbery and obviously a man in a suit. Of course you don't see them much as the camera work is fast n furious when the action kicks in and this is actually one problem with the film, the action cuts and moves very fast and its hard to follow and know who's been killed.
There is a good sense of being uneasy as you watch the film though as you genuinely don't have a clear idea of who will survive from one minute to the next, there are afew 'Ellen Ripley' wannabes but not even they are guaranteed to make it hehe Plenty of gore and body parts and the always amusing sight of a bunch of people facing mortal danger yet still intend on beating each other up and acting aggressive to one another to help their precarious situation.
Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds
Same as before with a group of folks trapped now in a small town as they get eaten one by one yet still manage to kill each other and other survivors they find along the way.
Following on from the first with a couple cast members and simply adding lots more blood and gore all over the show yet losing any kind of quality in the process. This film is pure B-movie if that, the effects are very dodgy looking with terrible bluescreen shots, the creatures look even more rubbery than before as they run around and the cast are lacking at best, some of the main characters don't even have a single word to say during the entire film!
Feast 3: Happy Finish
Well the first film was pretty reasonable, the second went towards B-movie in a big way but this final installment has really gone down the plughole. Its a total mess in every aspect, the plot is all over the place as the characters don't seem to have any plan or anything to do as they run around just getting killed, there seems to be some zombies living under the town now for some reason and I've never seen so many characters come and go in a film haha new people enter the fray and get killed within minutes!
The ending is completely off the wall, well there isn't a proper ending as such and the blood n gore is still high but this seems like a ploy to attract viewers...seeing as there is no plot. The story is carried on from the second film but nothing much happens or is explained so don't go thinking you must see this last part unless you just wanna see more people getting killed and not much else.
Nemesis (1992)
Pyun regulars Thomerson and Klyn once again alongside decent B-list character/action stars Oliver Gruner, Brion James and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa are the best thing in this film and thats it, the film is mixed up plot wise and chock full of hammy set pieces with hammy acting. The hammy acting is reasonably enjoyable whilst being amusing at the same time but its a shame about the terrible plot, although some nice effects on the cyborgs here and there, expected more for a 90's flick.
Blast (1997)
So here we have 'Die Hard' in an Olympic stadium haha well its actually based around what could of happened if the Atlanta Olympics (1996) had come under siege from the terrorist attack which the FBI actually stopped in reality.
Despite that interesting plot it does come across as 'Die Hard' in a stadium, Ashby is the sole hero/janitor who can save everyone and his wife in this complete plot rip of 'DH'. Of course the difference here is the acting is bad, fights and action are poorly executed and its clearly more of a TV film as the whole stadium consists of about 20 people not including the terrorists. The way Divoff tries to plays it so hard, cool and serious as the baddie top dog is hilarious plus the sight of Rutger Hauer with a weird Native American Indian style haircut complete with braids is pretty peculiar.
Born To Ride (1991)
A good boys own type adventure yarn with all the right elements for viewers of all ages and both sexes, but with an eye on motorbikes, smoking and looking cool in a James Dean kind of way the guys will probably enjoy more.
You could compare this to classics like 'The Great Escape' or 'Where Eagles Dare' accept the cast is young and unknown but this works well in the film and the story. Its alittle silly, a young hotrod biker is given the choice of jail or helping the army teach its recruits to ride bikes, unlikely but who knows. There is much tomfoolery and crossed wires of course as the biker punk gets to grips with his new role but its enjoyable to watch and throw in a soppy romance between him and the Colonels daughter so all bases are covered for all.
Things get even better as the young troops get sent on a mission to Spain, in a bike race oddly, which equals alittle bit more gritty action against nasty Germans/Spanish with some killing going on but nothing graphic. A good Sunday afternoon flick to watch with a nice happy ending to lift you, can't spoil the film as its pretty obvious what will happen :)
Crazy Six (1998)
Another Pyun film with a good cast roster hmmm this guy reminds me of Uwe Boll in that he makes generally poor films yet somehow manages to recruit good actors most times. Another boring dull film with a plot that really doesn't interest thus you lose the plot out of boredom and not caring, it could of been reasonable sure but it clearly has a very limited budget, is filmed in the oddest location and having Burt Reynolds ponce around a crumbling run down Eastern European town in his cowboy hat and cowboy boots acting like a 'Walker Texas Ranger' Clint Eastwood wannabe is pretty dumb...yet possibly the best thing in the film.
Hubbs is the Roger Ebert of this site, it seems. More prolific here than anyone.
^ Hehe I watch allot of films before and after work :P and I'm on the film section the most as I find you can only talk so much about Aliens and Predator ;)
Mean Guns (1997)
Not a bad concept from Mr Pyun this time, a crime boss gets all his enemies in one place and holds a competition to win 10million, thing is the competition is an outright killing match between everyone with no rules accept survive anyway you can. This of course equals a mass of gun fighting and violence as baddies scramble to win and survive which could of been totally cool but Pyun has gone down the lighthearted route and added a silly soundtrack of upbeat tunes along with a black/gallows type humour. I like the idea of gallows humour but I just feel this could of been much better as an out n out serious hard action flick. Still its pretty good, has afew of Pyun's regular favourite cast and the always annoying mistake that allot of action flicks suffer...a seemingly never ending stream of henchmen/cannon fodder which always leads you to ask yourself...'where did they all come from?'.
Quote from: Alienseseses on May 31, 2011, 12:43:41 AM
Hubbs is the Roger Ebert of this site, it seems. More prolific here than anyone.
C'ept I don't hate Hubbs. :laugh:
Quote from: Hubbs on May 31, 2011, 04:16:13 PM
I find you can only talk so much about Aliens and Predator ;)
Oh so very true...
Oh, I dunno. I've gotten very passionate about Aliens on occasion...
Streets of Fire (1984)
Very strange mix of 50's noir, musical and light hearted soft action which didn't really work for me, I was rather surprised as its a Hill production I expected a kick ass adult action flick but instead you get this curious blend which comes off like a high budget TV film. Great casting with allot of big names that weren't back then of course...Paxton with a dubious haircut, Moranis trying to be a tough guy and failing miserably, Pare being a plank of wood with his deliveries and Dafoe looking worryingly gay in his shiny black PVC outfits. The whole thing is pretty lame really and the dialog is laughable not to mention the acting from everyone, plot is stupid and pointless but it does look ok with all the old cars and dingy looking sets.
Priest
Let me start by saying, forget yr 'X-Men: First Class' and 'Pirates of the Caribbean' THIS is THE film for action so far this year period.
I'm not gonna lie to you but this film borrows from every top film you can think of, there are many elements taken from the likes of 'Star Wars', 'The Matrix', 'Blade Runner', 'Blade', 'Aliens', 'Wild Wild West', 'Judge Dredd' and some visual styles from classic Westerns. All of which can be seen throughout for sure but this does not take away from this stunning post-apocalyptic sci-fi thriller.
The start of the film is excellent with a gorgeous animated intro sequence explaining this films fantasy universe and what has gone before, the sequence is great stuff and is easily an animated series franchise in the waiting ready to go up against 'Clone Wars', I would watch it :)
From there we get introduced to a very 'Blade Runner' heavily influenced city which is constructed in the form of 'Mega City 1' from the 'Dredd' universe (a city behind massive walls where outside there is nothing but wasteland), yes its not too original but by golly it looks damn good. Everything you see is stylishly designed from clothes, buildings, signs to room interiors, to the smallest detail and it all looks practical too, this includes the amazing looking speeder bikes..er Batbikes...sorry motorbikes that are used, merely a turbine engine with a seat haha, they look powerful and slick.
I was hugely impressed with the first 20mins of the first and really wanted to see more, unfortunately from there we move into the wastelands where it goes to a more sci-fi Western theme which is still nicely done but it gets a tiny bit hokey, the landscapes you see are fantastic. We see Urban doing his best Clint thing along with his Clint hat, the fact that he is the main villain was obvious and also kind silly really, why is it all people that are best friends with the hero, that get killed by the enemy, then come back from the dead blaming their best friend for their death!?
Anyhows as the film moves on we do get some silly 'Matrix' style slow-mo fighting with a rather dubious way of killing the 'Hive Guardian' but none the less it doesn't detract. The vamps in the film look awesome and scary, their heads look slightly like Giger designs but they work well with steady cgi and with the mix of vamp slaves (humans that are half vamp, think 'Blade), the larger guardians and the mysterious Queen there is a good species evolution here for further exploration.
Casting is good here too with recognisable names but not big names which always works better in my view, Bettany is excellent here with his calm Jedi-like performance, you could see him as a Jedi easily haha same can be said for Maggie Q with her decent Jedi-like performance, both are not over the top but more understated and reserved as they battle along. Urban is more comicbook but he looks cool admittedly, its a shame the finale gets too comicbook-ish over the stylised future we were given at first.
This isn't gonna win any Oscars and from what I've read it hasn't wowed allot of people, why I don't know because I found it tremendous fun with gorgeous graphic design work used throughout making it a highly stylised distopian future set noir thriller...at least for the first 20min. Yes it gets abit silly as it progresses through and I wish they could of remained in the city (hopefully the sequel eh) but its still a vampire flick bottom line. I feel for Bettany as I enjoyed 'Legion' with its John Carpenter-like style and presentation which was underrated, this too is HIGHLY underrated and has immense promise with its vampire mythology and universe. I can't understand why people would enjoy semi decent fluff like 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Stranger Tides' and knock a visually impressive and promising fable like 'Priest'!
If you liked any of the films I have mentioned before then I see no reason why you won't like 'Priest', think 'Blade' set in the future or Jedi fighting vampires in a Blade Runner/Western world ;) highly recommended.
Kung Fu Panda 2
The first film was good and visually stunning, this sequel is just as good and just as visually stunning :)
Dreamworks have had a rather inconsistant run of cgi animated films in my opinion with the best up till now being 'Over The Hedge', 'Monsters Vs Aliens' and 'How to Train Your Dragon' but Kung Fu Panda for me is the clear winner in their roster by far.
My love of the East of course makes me slightly biased towards the subject matter but no one can deny the beautiful visual display this film offers from start to finish, every frame is luscious, crisp, sharp, full of energy and bubbling over with life. Not only is this fantasy world colourful and fantastically well animated but it actually looks pretty close to real Chinese countryside and Pagodas etc...The atmosphere and design work is the best I've seen for along time with so much detail and this is just the background!
The characters are all great fun too with their own unique fighting styles, movement and personalities, I love how Dreamworks have created each character with their individual look and way of interacting as a team. None of the main heroes ever seem left out and all get some amusing lines, the bonus in this film is we get more fighting creatures with their own unique styles yet they all fit in so well and don't seem wasted. Each animal uses his or her body shape/physicality's to their advantage for fighting, it sounds simple enough but you try and think of a way a crocodile or ox could be martial artists and look good doing it ;)
I loved the whole team when they are together near the finale, its just such a kick ass team each with their own moves, would make a great 'beat em up' for console gaming. Same goes for the baddies too, all the wolves look damn cool whilst 'Shen' the Peacock again works so well when its come to movement/style and across the board (for once) all the voice work is perfect to every character, Seth Rogan and 'Mantis' being my favourite :)
I should also mention the fantastic delicate oriental paper puppet style animated sequence at the start of the film which explains the story leading up to the main plot, truly beautiful sequence worthy of any real life historic tale. Can Dreamworks keep up the good run? Kung Fu Panda 3 I'm sure will be here soon (judging by the end) and I can't wait.
f**k, Hubbs, do you do anything BUT watch films? :o Bravo
I tend to watch allot yes hehe I'm a film buff ;D thing is I never watch TV ever!! nothing, and I don't often play on any consoles either so watching films is my only thing really.
X-Men: First Class
The problem with this film is its too soon since the trilogy and isn't needed, the whole film felt poor in every aspect especially the dreadful effects throughout the film. Bad use of greenscreen and cgi made action sequences look very average, the characters looked plain silly eg. the Beast makeup was just terrible compared to 'Last Stand', Azazel looked like a bad halloween job and Mystique just looked poor..very poor indeed, her transformation effects were terrible! not a patch on the trilogy.
Its not all bad I admit as the first 30min of the film is pretty solid stuff with good character building mainly with 'Erik Lehnsherr / Magneto', we also get a nice recruitment sequence to boot, always a winning move that, nice to see the different characters brought together into a team ready for action. The same build up for the baddies is also good with plot building surrounding Shaw and Frost just a shame we don't get anything for their henchmen eg. Azazel. The plot? its an overflowing mess of Nazi Germany, Cuban Missile Crisis, teen angst/romance (as usual) and civil rights for mutants, in short there's too much going on plus the many super freaks running around all squeezed in.
I think the film designers did well to make the film look dated back to the 60's with sets, designs, wardrobe and dressings, the X-Men outfits are pretty decent too much like the black numbers from the trilogy, but of course the main casting is probably the best thing in the film. Bacon, Fassbender and McAvoy all add a much needed element of class to the film which is sorely lacking from the younger cast who are all pretty dire to say the least, in short the three main guys save the film with straight stoic performances which are believeable and they do look kinda similar to the earlier films.
I still had issues with the film as it concluded like the constant 'side swapping' that happens here and there with the characters, why does Magneto suddenly decide to go against Xavier at the end? why does Mystique go with Magneto when she loves Beast? why did Angel go with Shaw? why at the end does almost everyone just go off with Magneto dumping Xavier? also should Shaw and Darwin get killed? I read differently about their comicbook incarnations and how come Magneto can fly all of a sudden at the end? guess I'm not fanboy enough huh. In the end this just felt strained, some things looked good whilst other things were pretty bad but remember this is an honest review from a guy in the middle, I'm not gonna say its a great film simply because everyone else says it is and its the new X-Men film, if its poor I will say so and this was deeply average.
Troll Hunter (2010, NOR)
So Scandinavia has trolls it seems hmmm well you could believe it after watching this film if 'The Blair Witch Project' hadn't been made first of course ;) and there is your problem really, the way the film is made from start to finish is really a rip of 'TBWP' right down to the text warnings at the beginning/end of the film. You really can't help but compare the two, the only difference being one is witches one is trolls.
Let me be clear that's totally fine as the film is actually a pretty neat mysterious/doc type flick with plenty good moments, nothing that's gonna scare the pants of you and nothing that's gonna amaze you but its solid stuff. The whole film is of course in hand held cam mode (or so it seems) for realism which works, the actors all play along with innocent naive expressions on their faces as they learn of the fairytale wonder before them whilst the gruff, bearded, emotionless, big game troll hunter mooches around barking instructions to the camera crew and generally being a mans man.
Its enjoyable light stuff which is directed really well and does succeed in making you kinda believe, you do of course see some trolls, mainly at night or through night vision, so its actually hard to tell if the effects are any good or not, they seem to look good but I actually couldn't decide wether they were cgi or possibly stop/go animation. None the less the finale is the highlight of the troll chasing with a decent looking 'Jurassic Park' style sequence which looks good but like the film is abit of an anticlimax right at the very end.
Your Highness
Well I never thought I would hear Natalie Portman say 'cock' or swear even, shes such a little miss perfect type haha well this film was full of surprises such as that, the fact its foul mouthed and quite a vulgar film for one. This brought thoughts of Mel Brooks 'Spaceballs' and 'Men in Tights' straight away when the film kicked off yet not as funny simply or rude, I wasn't impressed for some time to be honest, the verbal was off putting and hardly funny whilst the whole thing looked cheap, cliched, dated and pointless.
Danny McBride is of course the main source of laughs and well cast (never heard of him before though) yet I got the feeling that Ricky Gervais would of been perfect for this role. He is the best thing in the film character wise but admittedly his servant 'Courtney' played by Rasmus Hardiker did bring some good moments of dialog, Justin Theroux is decent and humorous at times as the evil sorcerer and Charles Dance gets slightly carried away and takes it all rather seriously haha damn good wig though.
I think of this as an 'Evil Dead: Army of Darkness' type flick with moments of gratuitous violence and quite strong adult humour mixed with silly visual gags, some of which are actually quite funny whilst some are abit childish and make you cringe as they are shoved in your face (the f***kening!?). A cocktail of all sorts which works here and there, definitely not a kids film (as I thought) and still surprised Portman was involved.
Belladonna: 'How are you going to make me love you?'
Leezar: 'If your vagina is anything like my hand, there will be no problem'
Fast Five
Fairly disappointing, over long and actually slightly dull new (and hopefully last) chapter in this chav racer franchise, amazing it has lasted this long really but the films have been a roller coaster of quality for me. First film was a boy racer flick complete with dumb neon underside lighting, second film was abit of a rehash with an added undercover element and colourful new street racer characters which wasn't too bad, third film was a straight to the shops deal which many didn't like BUT is actually by far the most superior of the franchise due to the excellent and very realistic 'drift' racing making it a proper street racing film. The fourth film regroups the original cast and has more drugs n criminals in the plot equalling slightly pointless street racing crowbarred in but looks good and has some excellent auto's on display.
Now we have number five which seems to have ditched allot of the street racing element and is more of an out n out heist flick along the lines of 'The Italian Job' remake with flashy over the top car/people stunts, the usual regular cliched team of criminals and the usual regular cliched breaking in techniques that we've seen so often we could all break into banks lol! There is a hint of street racing but that's all we get..a hint, we don't see the guys winning their fast cars. I think the stupidest scene in the film is where they race police cars together, they just waltz in and steal four cruisers, apparently, then try to make us believe that regular police cruisers are fast souped up motors!! and manual!? (of course they use fast cars in reality)
Highlight is the fight between Diesel and Johnson, two big slapheads grunting n sweating over each other which is pretty decent but after that it gets silly again as both Johnson and his female partner decide to join 'Toretto' and his criminals in the heist! The final big chase/escape sequence is impressive with tonnes of destruction and wreckage that commands attention yet I wonder how many innocent people Toretto manages to kill right at the end haha
If you want street racing you won't find it here, this is a bank heist flick which isn't too original, reasonable mindless fun but nothing new, seen this kind of thing so many times. On a final note I might add....there's no way Toretto's Dodge Charger could ever compete against Brian's Skyline GTR at the end ;)
Orcs!
A film that doesn't take itself seriously in any way which does save it from being just cheap D grade horror nonsense, infact the silly humour, over the top gore and cheapness works in its favour and creates a kind of small budget, homemade 'Evil Dead: Army of Darkness' feel :)
Tongue firmly in cheek the cast are daft and reasonably watchable whilst they battle endless men in cheap costumes with some quite good makeup, the film turns into a last stand type scenario and gets quite cool in a tacky way, its very basic and very crappy really but somehow its enjoyable. Nice DVD cover too.
Dollman (1991)
There is something about this B-movie that I like, its hard to pinpoint as the film is so ridiculous and belongs in a cartoon realm, I guess its the quaint 'Twilight Zone' charm of the plot and the cheesy yet fun effects mixed with some great hammy acting.
Pyun regular Thomerson gives his best 'Dirty Harry' performance here as 'Brick Bardo' (great name :) ) complete with silly shades and a long trench coat, his gritty strong voice barking out silly dialog left right n centre to the wonderfully cliched baddies and gang members lead by a young over acting JE Haley.
This film does seem to have a cult following (nowadays, apon release no) and its easy to see why as its highly enjoyable through its highly nonsensical premise, classic lead character and brilliantly bad effects, Pyun's best film along side 'Cyborg' for sure which I'm sure came as a shock to him.
Knights (1993)
Albert Pyun must have a cyborg/robotic fetish methinks as most of his films tend to revolve around them or include them, again we have more killer cyborgs that need to be taken down by human resistance. I might point out that Mr Pyun's other fetish is post apocalyptic scenarios as again this film is set in a distant earth future where everything is gone and its er....apocalyptic.
I watched this simply down to the casting of sci-fi stalwart Lance Henriksen and big name Kris Kristofferson, the rest of the cast are the usual people Pyun ALWAYS uses (yep Thomerson in there again). The plot is stupid and much the same as other Pyun films, the effects are pretty ropey, looks like a TV movie, and as usual there is much martial arts tomfoolery going on from both cyborgs and humans.
Massively cheesy with a whole joint of ham from Henriksen as the cyborg leader which almost saves the film but doesn't, the rest of the film is so poor and basic looking that it can't even be enjoyed as a B-movie I'm afraid.
Silver Streak (1976)
Probably the main film for Wilder and Pryor in their careers but in my opinion not their best film together, second best behind 'Stir Crazy'. This is still brilliant stuff mixing proper thrills and actual nasty murder for Wilder with his usual wild eyed lunacy haha the film isn't hilarious as you may expect and is kinda slow burning from the start as the plot builds plus Pryor doesn't come into the fun till about halfway. The giggles do arise when Pryor enters the fray naturally and the film does pick up at that point, until then its a kind of semi serious murder mystery on a train with a slice of 'Hitchcock' blended in which is fine but not stunning.
This is an old film now and it is pretty dated but it does still entertain as Wilder will always do no matter what year it is. The cast is classic, especially Patrick McGoohan with his 'Dick Dastardly' type villain, the scenery is quite stunning throughout the train journey, gentle musical score and the finale is still pretty impressive with the train wreck, amazing effects back in the day. A soft, pleasant, relaxing Sunday afternoon film which will make you smile and tweak your senses with a dash of murder most foul :)
Anaconda
Saw this film when it first came out and I enjoyed back then I must admit but watching it now it hasn't held up too well. First off the cast is quite an odd bunch and pretty mismatched even for a motley crew of unique adventurers, Lopez and Ice Cube are totally miscast and out of place, Voight looks the part but goes completely overboard with his performance going from good n hammy to a downright laughable cad and loses all his presence. Wilson is also miscast but its odd to see him in basically a role as monster fodder and merely a background character, the only two that fit the film for me are Stoltz and Hyde who are both decent as your typical jungle hunter/explorer types.
The film starts off OK and you do get a feel of impending doom with nice eerie murky surface water shots and some decent character building but once the snake has been fully exposed and the eating really kicks off the cracks really show. The cgi now is pretty bad and doesn't match against the live action a tall, its very obvious and takes a HUGE amount of fun from the film, the sets are clearly sets, the action is really daft and it is so so formulaic and cliched. There are some good model heads for the anaconda and one or two in-genius ideas for cam angles and snake shots but this really looks like lame rubber monster hokum these days, its not made any better by the fact they made the anaconda roar and scream.
Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid
Strangely enough I actually liked this sequel over the first film which was a big surprise as I really expected a complete pile of nonsense and that would look pathetic. So much to my amazement I found myself enjoying the film from start to finish, yes the plot is basic and your typical group of adventurers taken down one by one but its actually made pretty well on location and it does look real.
The effects are about on par with the first film but just that tiny bit better due to advancement with cgi effects no doubt, allot of the snake effects are in the dark or heavy shadow so its hard to pinpoint if they are very good or not but I guess that's how to properly deal with a creature and make it effective.
As said location work really adds allot to this film and raises it above your average B-movie, the scenery looks like real jungle and what sets there are look authentic, nice boat/river work too.
Casting is reasonable with no big names but all characters are fun to watch, Messner is your gruff unshaven 'Indy' type hero whilst Marsden is great as the British scientist/villain, the rest are your usual mix of stereotypes that we've seen before but always fun to see new creative teams of oddballs. This lesser known cast actually works better than the big name cast from the first film in my opinion as your not overly sure who will survive to the end and it just feels that bit more authentic.
Everything about this sequel is just above the first film, believe it or not but its true.
Anacondas 3: Offspring
Now this is more like it haha here we have a real straight to DVD, TV movie pile of crapola, everything about this film is very poor from the laughable cgi snakes to the laughable corny team of hunters that try to catch the anacondas.
Not even the Hoff can save this film from the bottomless pit of poo that is the D-movie. The cast is of course weak and all look n act like hammy extras from the reject list, the outrageously bad team of hunters are hilarious as they are made to look like any classic band of hardasses you can think of from the cinematic world, their over acting and verbal quips are golden moments of tosh lol!
I simply can't recommend anything about this film as its simply terrible, dreadful cgi snakes that look like a high school student has created them over the weekend and probably the worst looking bluescreen/greenscreen work I've seen in a proper production since I was a child, these sequences in the jeeps are almost Ed Wood standards and quite literately, unintentionally of course, sidesplitting.
Anacondas 4: Trail of Blood
Well this was just an extention of the third film and like the third film its very very poor in pretty much every aspect. Again I can't recommend this film in any way as everything is bad, the effects again are terrible with appalling cgi on the anacondas and very dubious blood/body animation on humans being eaten by the snakes and this all takes place in a what looks like a local wooded area. The casting is again all unknowns (of course) with one or two returning from the third film, Linden Ashby pops up to continue his D-movie career, hes the only biggish name here apart from John Rhys-Davies who returns..for some reason.
Put it this way...if you thought the third was bad then there's no point watching this, in fact I would give both this and the third a miss as both are just one bad film chopped into two and utterly rubbish, talk about destroying a franchise.
Ha, I was literally going to post asking you to review those. Niceness.
You seen all the Lake Placid flicks?
Aagh. I was already in horror when I discovered that a Lake Placid 2 was made in the classic B-movie style of the Sci-Fi channel (boobs, bad CGI and nonsense all around). When I saw the DvD of Lake Placid 3 I had multiple reactions and thought about many things, one of those was to pick it up and give it a taste of a flamethrower.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Jun 20, 2011, 05:49:02 PM
Aagh. I was already in horror when I discovered that a Lake Placid 2 was made in the classic B-movie style of the Sci-Fi channel (boobs, bad CGI and nonsense all around). When I saw the DvD of Lake Placid 3 I had multiple reactions and thought about many things, one of those was to pick it up and give it a taste of a flamethrower.
3 was better than 2 but thats like saying nails on a chalkboard is better than a knife and fork scratching on a plate.
Navy Seals (1990)
This is probably one of your perfect over the top, kick ass, gun ho, testosterone filled macho man fests, the cast is what really rocks here with a classic list of 80's action stars...Sheen, Biehn, Paxton and Rossovich, can't get much better than that :)
The plot is pretty much one set piece after another with little plot inbetween which normally would be poor but this film is practically a late entry in the 80's so its easily forgiven plus its gloriously silly in places leaning clearly towards action man over realism, this film has a high popcorn count...no thinking required.
Plenty of flashy stunts with many witty one liners and a suitably kick ass finale as the guys run around in Beirut, its not over the top with blood and swearing and proves you don't need that to be cool (Expendables take note), think of this as the 'Top Gun' of a special forces based film.
The Producers (1968)
Its a shame Mostel didn't have the chance to make more films with Wilder as they are such a fantastic pair more so than Wilder n Pryor even. Mostel was such a brilliant comedian with facial expressions, movement and verbal and this Mel Brooks classic shows this in every way.
The plot is actually very clever, simple but clever but the way each and every character is formed and played out by the terrific cast is the key to the films genius. The whole film is basically quite insane, loony even, Mostel is like a cartoon character as he ranges from cunning to charming then U-turns to in your face rants whilst Wilders meek, clever and paranoid performance compliments the odd couple duo, very much the new Laurel n Hardy at the time.
Brooks fav choice Kenneth Mars is again in a role that is quite memorable as the shell shocked loyal Nazi whose love letter to Hitler becomes a surprise hit, his performance like everyone else is quite loony and in my opinion better than his character in 'Young Frankenstein', not as amusing as the two leads.
The film is off the wall and comes across as a feature length Monty Python sketch with some of the best characters created, what also works so well are the sets and costumes used. Everything is really quite down to earth and of its time, there doesn't appear to be anything fancy used or any large amounts of money spend, its simply a great example of a character/plot driven film which is purely relying on the genuine skills of its cast.
Unlike other Brooks films as its actually kinda sensible, totally over the top and in your face with outrageous acting but its not a spoof, it also still holds up perfectly and doesn't seem outdated in a comedy sense, obviously the costumes and Nazi side are getting on abit these days.
Everybody should see this :)
Dylan Dog: Dead of Night
OK well for starters we have seen this kind of thing now many many many times over, there is nothing new here and nothing that really impresses to be brutally honest. Despite that this is still a reasonably enjoyable monsters n myth film with a creative side that is clearly down to its comicbook origins.
I don't know anything about the comicbook but its quite old (1986) so I can't say for sure but I do believe this comic may have given rise to other such characters and franchises like 'Hellboy', 'Underworld' and probably others, the problem is they have left this adaptation too long and missed the boat. This a real mix of many cool ideas and the first to spring to mind was 'Van Helsing' as 'DD' is very much a monster mash with everything from Vamps, Werewolfs, Zombies, Ghouls and demons, add to this a neat little touch of black humour from 'Beetlejuice' with zombie sub plots involving zombie support groups complete with flyers and a zombie 'bodyshop' where the undead go to fix themselves up haha clever touches like that make this film fun to watch.
Now the first 30mins of this film is dull I can't lie, I was getting bored as nothing was happening, the idea is sort of like an old detective film with narration from Dylan as he investigates clues, its nice and gives the film a touch of class but ultimately its kinda dull too.
Things start to spice up as creatures of the night come into play and the plot thickens, we discover a huge 'uber zombie' is killing folk and there's a battle going on between certain humans and the undead ergo..abit like 'Underworld'.
The problem is the film does get more enjoyable but you just can't help but relate everything to many of the films I've already mentioned, you feel as if you've seen this before and you know whats gonna happen, the other problem is the effects aren't all that great on the werewolves, the vamps don't look anything new with their facial design (think 'Lost Boys' or 'Dusk Till Dawn) and of course zombies will always look the same. There is a quite lovely piece of makeup/prosthetic work at the finale where baddie vamp leader 'Vargas' transforms into a mega demon of some kind, looks absolutely fantastic but again it also looks identical to 'Darkness' from 'Legend' and 'Marcus' from 'Underworld 2' plus his appearance is a total anti-climax. In short the cgi work isn't the best and neither are the stunts really, blood n gore is minimal which is fine but makeup is probably the winner over cgi here, the cgi is about on par with the first 'Underworld' flick and obviously dated.
There is a hell of allot of imagination going on here which is terrific and as this character came about in 86 I'm sure he came before much of what we already know in terms of night creature mythology and had this been made before allot of well known films then I'm sure it would have received a much better reception and may well have be known as a cult semi classic like films such as 'Blade' and 'Underworld'. Its a shame as despite the large amount of monsters all fighting for screen time the film doesn't feel clustered and it is nicely done with good humour and a nice detective angle, the zombie side is easily the best plus point in terms of originality (almost).
If you try not to compare, this film is good fun and with better cgi work I wouldn't mind a sequel as Routh as Dylan is a likeable character who isn't over the top and arrogant and I did enjoy the monster mash. Shame they had to include the always cliched and now over used bit of martial arts n weapon fighting from the female lead, have her a hardass sure but lets not go down the boring 'Milla Jovovich routine' again, no need for that in the sequel please.
Stake Land
Very sombre and bleak vampire/zombie flick which is straight as an arrow with no silly effects, flying through the air or martial arts nonsense. Let me key you in here, this is a vamp flick but its basically 'effectless', no glowing cgi deaths for vamps here. Based around a plague infecting humankind leaving few survivors in a post apocalyptic world, the main two leads, one boy and one adult male, drift through the US taking out vamps whenever they can and savaging what they can on their way to Canada, not too original is it hehe.
Well yes its not very original in any way, in fact its totally 100% not original and very predictable to be honest, the film is fantastic in looks and atmosphere for sure, its dirty, grimy, gritty, murky and quite depressing, this isn't your regular flashy vamp flick. The acting is also top notch with no huge names used which is better for the film in this case, lead hard guy 'Mister' played by Nick Damici in a performance which is quiet, understated and solid much like Jean Reno in 'Leon', in fact I kinda refer to this as 'Leon with vampires', his sidekick played by Connor Paolo is also pretty understated yet powerful in performance, little dialog from either throughout relying more on expression and action but it works, there is also a fine performance from a pretty old looking Kelly McGillis.
Those are the plus points, cast and atmosphere, unfortunately as said the plot has been over used to death but nothing is really explained in the film, no idea how the plague started or why it turns people to vamps, there are many spots in the film where I was asking myself how or why eg. why does Mister leave the youngsters at the end? why is Canada the only safe place? (I presume because of the mention of weather temp) and the chopper sequence was pretty questionable too. There is no backstory for Mister or any hint of and whenever these kind of things happen (US specifically of course, chock full of lunatics) why do you always get groups of religious lunatics trying to kill the remaining human survivors for no real reason? haha no rhythm or rhyme it seems. On another quick note...there is always plenty of fuel in these films too haha even for a chopper it seems!
Basically I wanted to really like this film but I just found myself rolling my eyes at the plot as it unfolded, especially the religious cult part, which is a shame as the acting is good and it looks great. I can't help but think the vampire/zombie genre may well have used up all possible known ideas and concepts now as new films are just too similar.
Transformers
Oh dear oh dear...this must be the perfect example of a modern day film and how bad they can be with the dreaded cgi monster. Where to begin! first off using Bay as director was probably the worst decision made when this film was being created, the man can make good action flicks yes but this sci-fi cartoon creation of epic proportions was not meant to be like this. The film is a mess from start to finish with loud noises and visuals that make no sense to the naked eye, yes it all looks very pretty shiny and flashy but you have no idea where the Transformers begin and where they end.
I wasn't expecting an amazing plot nor was I expecting an adult based film, even though the original cartoon was actually quite dark in places and we all knew it would be hard to translate the robots to the big screen, but at the end of the day as an old fan of the original cartoon and toy line I hated how they made the Transformers look in this film.
Only 'Prime' and 'Bumblebee' actually looked visually pleasing as all the other robots were practically indecipherable, a huge maze of shiny moving parts which I couldn't tell if even a head was present! Yes the transformation sequences looked kinda neat but again I had no idea what was moving and where! a complete U-turn from the original cartoon where you could actually see how the robots transformed. I just hate how only Prime looks like the original concepts, I understand they updated the robots but the fact hardly any of them resembled their original designs killed me, for some reason all the Decepticons were very pointy and had spikes, why? also I noticed every vehicle was a US vehicle, a good example of how Bay and Hollywood totally 'transformed' this cool franchise into what they wanted. Bumblebee an ugly looking Camaro!? and what the hell did they do to 'Megatron' and 'Frenzy'!? :(
So apart from the mass of in your face cgi what else is there? what is left if you take away the effects? nothing, the film has nothing else to offer a tall. The acting is bad, B-movie bad, we're talking 'Godzilla' remake bad, John Turturro gave me some smiles but apart from that this is 'Independence Day' acting right here, plenty of sappy 'jive talkin' and Fox looking like shes made out of plastic with her bright white teeth and ridiculous amounts of orange bodytan lol!
Kids will enjoy this film I'm sure as they have probably not seen the original material, its loud, got lots of explosions and slow motion fighting, I myself cringe at how gaudy and terrible this trash is, the whole human side of the film is totally pointless! the real live actors are completely defunct and could literately be sidelined. Whilst the big robots are all fighting away in an orgy of shiny cgi nuts n bolts we get little snippets of the actors running around driving stuff and trying to look busy or like they're actually of any use haha then out of the blue one soldier manages to shoot and kill a Decepticon easy as pie! (had to do it from jumping off a moving motorbike for some reason). It all leads me to think they should of made a fully cgi animated film like the old 86 movie.
Best thing about the film? they listened to the old school fans and got Cullen back to voice Prime, when Prime says 'sorry my bad' I put my face in my hands.
No, quite simply no.
Trancers (1985)
Tim 'king of the sci-fi B-movie' Thomerson is again in yet another time travelling sci-fi flick and again he's a cop with a really good name...meet 'Jack Deth'.
Yep another cracker alright :) this film makes Pyun's films look megabudget and the acting top class, there really isn't much I can be positive about here, its not even enjoyable as a daft B-movie like 'dollman'. Terrible 'effects' with dreadful acting and some almost 'Ed Wood' style moments of corn and action, plus the plot is stupid and incomprehensible at times. Look out for Helen Hunt and Thomerson with dark hair! amazingly Thomerson acted in another four more of these with Helen Hunt.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
So I've noticed that everyone in this film is covered in large amounts of tan makeup haha everyone is quite orange at times. So Mr Bay brings us his second Transformers film, its got a good title and sounds like its gonna be dark and brooding, hopefully like 'Empire Strikes Back' it would be the sequel that betters the original. Alas I was disappointed hugely by yet another loud cgi filled mess which was overly long and actually became alittle dull.
The main issue for me being the constant redesigning of classic Transformer characters into characters that are virtually unrecognisable as anything but a mass of shiny moving parts. Most of the transformers look terrible with some dreadful designs, I can't for the life of me work out why they have designed the Decepticons to look spiky and more insect like, there are specific Decepticons for that and they are called 'Insecticons'. Plus most of the Decepticons don't even look like Transformers they look more like robotic aliens from another film 'batteries not including' and 'short circuit' springs to mind hehe, the Decepticon disguised as a female student was the worst offender.
I don't mind reinventing the characters for a new age but lets try and be sensible here and not go over the top, I mean what the hell was going on with 'Mudflap' n 'Skids'!? talk about your politically correct Transformers for the black audience geez! not too obvious, then you have the wildly bizarre looking 'Devastator', I actually didn't mind his new look too much but for some reason they make the large 'bots' more like monsters in a 'Godzilla' way instead of characters with actual sense. 'Jetfire' was probably the best looking new character but again like all the characters he's too much with allot of needless extra bits n bobs that make the overall design far too busy and very difficult to distinguish or decipher.
They keep totally reinventing what the Transformers look like and making them look poor, why not try to keep them reasonably similar to their original designs? for a start the original designs look so much cooler, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
As for the film itself I found the first half quite dull as we are introduced to Sam's life after the first film, things pick up as the Transformers become more prominent and we build up towards a showdown in Egypt but the finale is so drawn out and actually loses its impotence because its just keeps on going. Its also rather stupid too as you have all these military guys running around trying to attack the Decepticons whilst looking all heroic but the film already established how useless humans are fighting Transformers prior to this so its just all noise and time wasting.
Not only that but the creators make the crucial mistake in any film by having faceless characters just for death sequences, in the finale when the Decepticons begin their assault numerous robots touch down and fight resulting in many deaths of unknown Decepticons. Add to that the fact they also killed off all the main well known Decepticons too! Devastator and Ravage dead!! what the hell!! they are main characters in Transformer history! and so cheaply too. I still don't understand why they didn't include more regulars in both of these films, regulars like 'Thrust', 'Ramjet', 'Laser Beak', 'Rumble', 'Thundercracker' etc...same for Autobots too.
End of the day this film looks pretty yes, the cgi is very very highly impressive with the detail and blending of live action sequences but that's it, the film is a visual feast with nothing else to offer accept noise and a blur of unrecognisable images. The acting is pretty dire frankly and the whole thing is so cliche ridden eg. slow motion running with explosions behind and lots of amusing military cheese haha.
If this was a film unrelated to Transformers then I might be more kind to it, ever so slightly, despite the mass cgi it would be an imaginative film and bold but seeing as its suppose to be an adaptation of a beloved childhood cartoon colossus of epic proportions and legendary history I simply cannot say it deserves any of the hype it got.
Third time lucky perhaps? we shall see.
Red Riding Hood
Wasn't too sure what to expect with this being based on a children's fable yet filmed as a serious horror/thriller flick, to my pleasant surprise it was quite enjoyable and had a nice gothic almost German expressionist type feel to it that you might expect from directors such as Burton or Gilliam.
The film isn't much of a horror as its not really scary a tall so don't be thinking its gonna be a blood fest, there are some bloody moments but nothing extreme. The film is on a fine line between fantasy and thriller with an element of sexual fantasy running through the plot for young teenage girls, nothing strong, think along the lines of 'Twilight' teenage angst mixed with 'Cursed' or alittle bit of 'Ginger Snaps' but not as in your face as those films, there is still an enjoyable werewolf film here.
Much fun comes from Oldman as 'Father Solomon' the werewolf hunter who gives a boarder line hammy performance but adds edge and giving the film that much needed bite of realism or stability, without that the film could easily have become laughable. Seyfried also gives a good performance as the lead 'Valerie' which keeps the films head just above the water, apart from her and Oldman the rest of the cast aren't too good.
Glorious visuals, nice and gloomy, dark and brooding set amongst snow coated forests of aggressive and gnarled looking trees, the sets are convincing yet the wolf cgi is slightly dubious in places. Simple plot which is handled quite well seeing as its only based on a short fairytale, it won't mesmerise you but its a decent solid werewolf flick.
Flight of the Navigator (1986)
Always loved this Disney flick, great effects and adventurous plot that is kinda 'Back to the Future' mixed with 'Explorers' purely for kids with an extraterrestrial twist.
The effects were fantastic for the time and it was the first film to use environment mapping, the CG was some of the first used in motion pictures and in my personal opinion they still hold up very well today, I might add they also used stop motion in the mix too! truly classic workmanship.
As said the effects were always the star attraction with this film, the ship looked way cool (simple design for today of course), the hydraulic alien arm thing inside was nicely designed, the ships interior was really well designed and looked almost like the interior of the 'Predator 2' ship whilst the other aliens creatures were all decent muppet style creatures which were simple fun and amusing.
The whole film was so well made and showed so much vivid imagination, it was colourful and a really exciting ride for kids at the time, I loved every minute of it. The only thing I never liked was Paul Reubens voice as the alien later on in the film, that spoilt the sensible aspect of the plot and made it stupid with his 'Pee Wee Herman' voice. SJP made up for it being very very cute and one of my first kid crushes :)
Explorers (1985)
Another classic kids flick from a time when imagination seemed to flow like a waterfall, made a year before 'Flight of the Navigator' and along the same kind of lines but much more wild with a stronger fantasy element. The direction from Dante is spot on giving this film a pure family feel which anyone can enjoy whilst the plot is simple yet also has some thought involved with the creation of the kids homemade ship and how they get it to fly.
Visuals for the time were slick and colourful with an air of mystic as allot of the action is during the night, the classic look and feel of the 80's gives this film such a charm much like many other fantasy films of the age, 'E.T.' being a good example. These days of course the effects do look dated but they still do their job and will thrill young viewers as I'm sure the wacky, zany aliens will too. Off the wall and a mix of 'Max Headroom' with 'Pee Wee Herman' and you have the fun creations in full bodysuits that are obvious yet at the same time great fun to watch (like many 'Star Wars' creatures).
Personally I always found 'Flight of the Navigator' more enjoyable than 'Explorers' as it was alittle more sensible in general and really did make me wanna travel in space as the navigator hehe. 'Explorers' was always great fun to watch as the plot builds but I was always kinda disappointed at how the aliens were handled, nice idea to make them kids but I thought they should of been more grounded to give the ending alittle more heart perhaps.
Think 'Goonies' in space ;)
The Tree of Life
I can't give a rating for this film. It transcends being reduced to a simple numerical grade of quality. This was a film unlike any other that I've seen; the only movies I can think of that are even comparable are 2001 and Solaris.
The story was very good, but told in a very unconventional way. There is almost no dialogue; characters rarely interacted through conversation. The events are shown in disjointed fragments, out of order and with a feeling of distance and fading, interspersed with a few very surreal shots, which worked perfectly. From what my brother and I could make out, the story is about Jack (Sean Penn) experiencing a mid-life crisis, reflecting on his life, going through the strong memories of his childhood, and his relationship with his borderline abusive father (Brad Pitt). The disjointed and distant nature of the various scenes really worked for that, because that is how memories are. They come in fragments, the sense of reality faded by the passing of time, details and events forgotten or warped by the mind. I believe that the segment following the birth and evolution of the universe was representative of Jack attempting to find meaning in his life. The parallels between his life in 1950s Texas, and the universe at large were profound. Catastrophic events; moments of wonder; miracles. The thing is, very little of this is immediately apparent. The story is not made explicit; the majority of it is told through symbolism and metaphor. You must truly think about what you have seen in an attempt to figure it out, which I loved. Such a wonderful change from most of the movies coming out nowadays. The film did drag on a bit at the end, but that was a relatively small problem.
This film was mainly driven by emotion, however, not story. Emotion that was created by beautiful visuals, music, and some of the greatest cinematography I have seen in any film. The ordinary and everyday was shot in such a way as to fill me with feeling. The most deeply touching moments for me were the scenes of Jack as an infant; growing up, moving from baby to toddler, trying to make sense and come to terms with his new brother. They had me on the verge of tears; about as close to crying one can come without actually crying. Watching this child wandering through the world, staring around in awe and wonder, laughing in joy, crying in pain, interacting with his brothers, it just brought back wonderful memories and filled me with nostalgia. The simple joys that a child experiences, that simply good and pure emotion, were just emanating from the screen. Christ, I'm tearing up just thinking about it. It was truly beautiful. As Jack grew up, the emotional impact was lessened, because he was growing older. The emotions were no longer as powerful. We see as he grows bitter and rebellious. These feelings as well were conveyed to me; his growing hatred for his father especially.
The most visually stunning portion of the film was undoubtedly the evolution of the universe. Anyone would find it absolutely beautiful, but I (being a lover of space 'porn') found it completely breathtaking. The swirling primordial clouds of matter coalescing into dust and gas were astounding. The further development of these collections of particles into nebulae and galaxies was wondrous. The Pillars of Creation, the Horsehead and Cat's Eye nebulae were all visited, and I have never seen them portrayed so beautifully. Stars were born and planets were formed. The Earth slowly cooled as volcanoes spewed molten rock and ash into the air, meeting with the seas in an endless struggle. Molecules coalesced together; amino acids and proteins were formed, and eventually the first life. Evolution was followed and dinosaurs walked, before being abruptly wiped out by a cosmic collision. Shots of the Saturnian and Jovian systems in all there glory were there as well; the dozens of moons, the delicate rings, the swirling clouds and perpetual storms of those gaseous giants. The entire sequence of events was just marvelous, and is up there with the Star Gate for the sheer amount of awe that it inspired within me. My favourite shot from that entire thing was when the camera was flying through the Milky Way, ascending across the galactic plane; stars flew past, yet the center stayed distant, out of reach, forever. It just perfectly expressed the absolutely unimaginable size of the galaxy and, by extension, the universe.
This film was quite simply beautiful; visually, narratively, and emotionally. One of the few films that not only made me think, but actually required me to think. It satisfied me intellectually and emotionally. A welcome change of pace from the average summer blockbuster. Watch this film. You will surely get something different from it than I did.
Green Lantern
Right from the off we are plunged into a thick plot involving lots of odd names and allot of pretty colourful cgi effects, no hanging around as we discover the main baddie, the main goodie and an alien crashes on earth in his oddly shaped escape pod/ship.
To be honest when we meet Reynolds and start to get a taste for him I found myself enjoying his light banter and down to earth performance, sure he's covered top to toe in pathetic fake tan makeup which seems to be all the rage right now ('Transformers' flicks) but he comes across well as the everyday man albeit with a job as a test pilot. What I found rather weak at first was how quickly the plot rushes and thus we see 'Hal' zapped in a bubble to a site where he discovers an alien life form, is given a ring and lantern and told to say an oath into it lol!!. Rather a bizarre thing to happen to anyone yet Hal just takes it all in without breaking a sweat, not overly fussed about discovering alien life it seems and just buries the body...plus the lantern looks like a cross between a Christmas decoration and a toy hehe.
In fact the whole intro sequence where Hal gets taken to an alien planet, sees the alien city and then a mass of alien lifeforms (Green Lanterns) is nicely done and looks great but the fact Hal doesn't have a heart attack at what has happened to him is kinda hilarious really, you'd think you'd be in shock somewhat. Oh and all aliens can speak English too ;)
The effects throughout the film are dubious to be blunt, a mix of brilliant colourful lights, mainly green, nice space and landscape vistas and some reasonable alien work here and there is marred by terrible blue/green screen work against live action characters, some bad cgi work on certain aliens and pretty much all the Lanterns superhero effects look cheesy and dated, the sequence where Hal is trained and the helicopter crash are probably the worst examples of this. Allot of the battle sequences involving the the Green Lantern/s tends to look like a dated computer in-game sequence and slightly toonish almost, not really bad but not exactly stunning considering what can be done, all this of course isn't helped by the rather crappy looking superhero outfit and silly 'Green Hornet/Robin' mask.
Makeup on characters is actually pretty nice looking, 'Sinestro' looks sharp with decent looking 'Spock' ears, 'Abin Sur' with his purple skin looked good and Hector was actually pretty scary and dark for a film aimed at younger people, not ugly but just slightly disturbing in appearance and actions.
I actually started off enjoying this, the colourful characters, the light hearted over the top superhero silliness of it all was fun but the ever increasing daftness of the plot and action (the way Hal just nips back n forth from between earth and 'Oa' is amusing, sure he's a superhero but really?) added with allot of cheese and your typical superhero cliches (the 'Parallax' can defeat many Lanterns all at once but fails against one in the end!?) really began to take its toll. Unfortunately there are now so many superhero films made and being made that we have seen everything there is to see and they are all basically the same accept for a different outfit on the hero. 'Avengers' may be the last superhero flick that will be deemed decent and slightly original apart from that all these superhero films are now really running out of gas.
PS. cue Lantern sequel.
The Lords of Discipline (1983)
I love these old 80's flicks with these awesome cast rosters :) of course at the time most were virtually unknown, Biehn, Paxton, Judge Reinhold, William Hope, Rossovich, Prosky and David Keith all perform well to make this novel adaptation very enjoyable to watch.
Filmed in the UK at Wellington College set as a Military Institute, the story is a strong, harsh and almost bleak look at a school for cadets rising up against the first black young man to join their ranks. Probably quite true to life back in the 60's US and alittle uncomfortable at times watching with allot of strong verbal, its not particularly violent or nasty to watch its emotionally solid, shows how a moral code can be abused or even corrupted and makes you think..which is good.
The location is perfect for the film and really feels like a US camp, along side the young cast and stoic older actors to guide them the film is simple yet high quality despite not being anywhere near as good or hard as the original book, worth alook for sure.
It would seem my Last Movie You Watched reviews fit much better here, so I will start now.
The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Wes Craven's cult classic still strikes a chord, being one of the stronger entries in his career.
The story is very simple at first glance. The Carter family is stranded in their trailer on a trip to California. They are attacked by a savage clan living in the nearby mountains. Looking at first like a basic slasher film, it gets much more disturbing due to the fact we are not dealing with a group of oversexed teenagers and a masked maniac. What this film is truly about is a battle to the death between two families, two families that are not all that different when looked at closely enough. Both the Carters and their attackers celebrate their victories, have quarrels amongst themselves, become angered when harm comes to their kin, and most surprisingly, can be just as brutal.
Character wise, the film works very well. The Carters and their attackers are two well rounded, recognizable groups that have their own individual traits and personalities that make them interesting in their variety.
The acting varies. At times it seems very believable and appropriatly intense, and at other times it seems either forced or just odd. Robert Huston and Virginia Vincent are especially guilty of this, letting their acting falter here and there. The strongest acting in the film belongs to Dee Wallace, Michael Berryman and Lance Gordon. Wallace clearly shows that she is a rising talent and Berryman and Gordon and effective and creepy villains. Everyone else involved could have done better, but they could have done worse too. The one who steals the show however is Striker, a German Shepherd who plays the Carter family dog The Beast. The Beast is by far the film's most interesting character, and also one of the better actors in the film. Both Striker and his trainer deserve mention for their collaborative effort. A great performance from an animal.
The music is nothing special. There are times when it is dark and subtle in tone such as where Bobby and Brenda set up a trap at their trailer but at other times it comes off as a cheesy 70s action film such as when Doug and The Beast track down the cannibals' layer. Other points in the score come off as either forced action or just bland bells and whistles. Not disastrous, but more imagination could have been used. There are a few points in the film that show just how good a score it could have been.
The first half of the film is a very interesting show of suspense using basic things. One such scene is where Bobby goes off into the desert to look for The Beast whom he hears yelping, unaware it is in fact one of the cannibals. The imitation suddenly changes to a goat, and then to various other animals. The confusion the audience feels, as well as Bobby, is a good way to sum up the foreboding feel of this part of the film.
The second half is when the violence explodes on screen. It must have been a nightmare when it first appeared, but it still has me squirming in my chair. The violence, while not bloody, is very nasty. The center piece of the film, the notorious trailer invasion, a quick and chaotic mess rivaled only by the Singin in the Rain scene from Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, includes many of the same elements from that scene. A lingering feeling of dread looms over you after this scene. It is effective in solidifying the subtle fear of before.
The setting of a desert is used very well, including none of the houses and mines that the remake deemed necessary for some reason. This landscape is like an alien world. It is barren and threatening. The jagged knife like rocks, the deep empty canyons and the empty stretches of desert really help the feeling of isolation. It also makes the film feel like an incredibly dark western at times, especially during the film's final act.
There are times when Wes Craven directs the film in much the same way as Last House on the Left, in a very gritty and amateurish style. This gives it a very documentary like feel, making is seem much more nasty when it has to. However, there are points in the film where Craven goes for a more traditional directing method, and these moments really make the film seem more artistic, such as an early scene where Bobby chases Beauty into the nearby mountains. Had craven directed the entire film in this style, it probably would be better received by audiences today. Switching back and forth between styles does have a jarring effect, which can certainly help a film of this type. Whether or not it works in this case is something else, and it is actually hard to tell.
The editing is one of the best parts of this film. While the red stuff is not too visible, the quick cuts make the scenes seem much more visceral. The aforementioned trailer invasion is tightly edited to be quick and brutal. Other superb points are in the film's climax. The quick edits during these scenes create the illusion of visible violence, and are ultimately more effective than buckets of blood. It always has and always will work.
This is a sad Craven film. Sandwiched between his debut with Last House on the Left and his comeback hit Nightmare on Elm Street, this one is largely forgotten. Though it truly is a personal favorite of mine, its flaws are undeniable. In spite of all that is going against it, it still works and is certainly worth a viewing for not just horror enthusiasts, but film enthusiasts in general. It is all the more tragic in that Aja's blood soaked remake didn't bring it into the limelight, but pushed it into the background further.
Shutter Island
A different change of pace for Scorsese with this one, mob films and historical bio flicks aside this time we get an old fashioned murder mystery type noir which you could easily see Bogart in. Set in the mid 50's this is actually your stylish Hollywood film noir but set on an island so unfortunately you don't get the bright neon lights of dingy bars and seedy alleyways but what you do get is a very good dark, bleak, spooky island which kinda feels abit like 'Dr Moreau' at times with all the insane folk and cells.
Typically for Scorsese the film looks tremendous and really highly stylised, all the cast look dapper in their suits and fedoras, the cars are classics and some of the sets are really nice and stately with all those solid wood furnishings that look so good in a mildly smokey cigar lit environment. Mr Kingsley fits so well into his role its almost scary as he struts around the main study room, his unique dastardly looking features so ripe for this type of period. Alongside him are an array of top actors from Levine, Ruffalo, Koteas, Sydow, Haley and lastly DiCaprio whom I still can't quite enjoy in a film for some reason, his very youthful looks still let him down in my opinion as he, for me, just doesn't look or feel the part here, his weak moustache doesn't help either.
So it all looks tops and has a solid cast but the plot isn't quite as unique as I first assumed, its not obvious what will happen true...but when it does happen it doesn't feel too much of a shock or too original either really. The story unravels well and I admit I didn't suspect the twist in any way as Leo runs about frantically, nods to Hitchcock seem present in style and imagery but right up to the end your not entirely sure if what has happened is real which is good.
Overall the whole twist concept wasn't as stunning as I thought it would of been judging on what I've heard and read, the other thing is the whole film is actually almost a remake of an old 20's silent film called 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari', the first horror/chiller/thriller type film of its kind which also introduced the 'twist ending' ;)
A decent change of pace that gives a fresh diversion from the usual type of films released (much like 'Black Swan' was), well acted, looks good and does keep you on your toes right till the end.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Jul 01, 2011, 03:29:50 AM
The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
This is a sad Craven film. Sandwiched between his debut with Last House on the Left and his comeback hit Nightmare on Elm Street, this one is largely forgotten. Though it truly is a personal favorite of mine, its flaws are undeniable. In spite of all that is going against it, it still works and is certainly worth a viewing for not just horror enthusiasts, but film enthusiasts in general. It is all the more tragic in that Aja's blood soaked remake didn't bring it into the limelight, but pushed it into the background further.
Only reason I saw the original version was because I saw that they were doing a remake... so I did see the original because of the remake, which many people I know have as well. I'd argue that against the last point.
'Blood soaked' only comes across as an unfair criticism, really, just degrading what actually was good about the film. I'm certainly not a minority for thinking that in respects, it's actually a better movie than the original; I'm not even all much of a horror fan but I got
a lot out of it. Unfortunately, like most remakes that are
actually good (a rarity in the horror genre), they'll face an unfair comparison to the originals (a lot like Peter Jackson's King Kong) where they differentiate, forgetting that nobody wants to see the same film twice.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Jul 01, 2011, 03:44:55 AM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Jul 01, 2011, 03:29:50 AM
The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
This is a sad Craven film. Sandwiched between his debut with Last House on the Left and his comeback hit Nightmare on Elm Street, this one is largely forgotten. Though it truly is a personal favorite of mine, its flaws are undeniable. In spite of all that is going against it, it still works and is certainly worth a viewing for not just horror enthusiasts, but film enthusiasts in general. It is all the more tragic in that Aja's blood soaked remake didn't bring it into the limelight, but pushed it into the background further.
Only reason I saw the original version was because I saw that they were doing a remake... so I did see the original because of the remake, which many people I know have as well. I'd argue that against the last point.
'Blood soaked' only comes across as an unfair criticism, really, just degrading what actually was good about the film. I'm certainly not a minority for thinking that in respects, it's actually a better movie than the original; I'm not even all much of a horror fan but I got a lot out of it. Unfortunately, like most remakes that are actually good (a rarity in the horror genre), they'll face an unfair comparison to the originals (a lot like Peter Jackson's King Kong) where they differentiate, forgetting that nobody wants to see the same film twice.
A fair point. There are plenty of decent remakes out there. I don't really hate Aja's film. I just don't really care for it, having three very large bones to pick with it. The radiation angle, the loss of the scenes where the cannibals talk amongst themselves, and the handling of the final act.
Upstaging would have been more appropriate for that final statement.
And a fair response; I wish more people could just respect other's opinions as you do. :laugh:
Chaos (2005)
Statham goes up against Snipes in this twisty thriller which turns out to be as slippy as a snake towards the end when you don't totally expect it. Its not a huge deal really as I knew Statham couldn't die in a flick haha he's not the type, but I didn't see him going bad, kinda thought he would pop up and save the day.
The film kicks off with a good short 'Die Hard' type sequence which makes it seem this film will kick ass, alas it doesn't as after that the film becomes a rather slow burning detective thriller with much talking and allot of tracking people followed by questioning. To be honest it gets very dull and loses all potential from its action man cast, the ending is a surprise yet not an original concept but its still interesting to actually see the bad guy win for once.
Runaway (1984)
The man's man Mr Selleck is on top form here and so is that iconic tash as he goes up against a nasty robot controlling villain with his feisty blonde partner in a not so distant future (that future being waaay in the past now).
Written by Michael Crichton and using some (at the time) top looking robot effects mixed with computer wizardry and fancy looking imagery the film actually does achieve the aim of being set in a regular world now accompanied by robots with all kinds of duties. It reads like an Asimov story and is quite good fun despite its age, the acting is amusing and hammy, Gene Simmons is great fun as the evil baddie and the weaponry on display is quaint, its almost like a comicbook flick.
Its actually kinda cool to watch this film and recall all this old technology, I think I actually remember those little spider robots being shown on TV way back, maybe on 'Tomorrows World' or something like that, loving those big chunky computers and the fact that Selleck couldn't track evil Simmons when he called up because Simmons was using a mobile phone haha how did we all survive without mobile phones!?
Its all obsolete but its still much fun to watch which almost goes for most of Selleck's work.
Airheads (1994)
Probably the first rock band type comedy I saw after 'Spinal Tap' and there hasn't been too many since accept for 'School of Rock' and 'The Rocker' of the top of my head. This, now old, comedy was a small release in the UK I believe and didn't really do that much (a typical Fraser release) and you can see why sort of, its not a terrible comedy but its not that great either, its steady stuff.
There are some good laughs dotted around and one or two nice visual goofs but nothing really really amazingly funny, the main trio attract really with Buscemi, Fraser and Sandler, when he was making more risky comedies, the support are good too although Mantegna is slightly miscast.
Its amusing and its a good flick to watch with friends on a weekend, Fraser gets alittle whiny towards the end and when I think about it the plot is alittle like 'The Blues Brothers' with the same ending, not a classic but just above average.
Suicide Kings (1997)
Odd title but a decent mobster/thriller comedy with the man who has played a million mob bosses at the heart of the show as always. Without Walken this would probably have been very very average and not as amusing, Walken is so dead pan and shifty its eerie, I dunno how he does it but his gangster performances never get weak no matter how many he does or how repetitive they are.
Rest of the cast are your average straight to DVD filler types alongside Leary who in the mid 90's was pretty popular and not bad as a hardass but at the same time a slightly mouthy, annoying and arrogant git too. The plot is actually quite good and serves all manner of good moments both tense and giggly as we build towards the predictable twist in the plot....just a matter of who to choose.
Has some dark moments and plenty of gallows humour but quite a sad sombre ending.
Super 8 (2011)
May contain minor spoilers for people who haven't seen it
I went to see this one a few weeks ago. This movie is pretty obviously an homage to E.T. And I think that presents a problem in itself because E.T. captured the wonder and fantasy very well, but then again the alien in E.T. was small and lovable. In this movie however, it was a thirty foot death machine. So basically you had to take the E.T. style elements like the kids and the really great 70's old school atmosphere, and combine that with more sinister monster movie type elements. This kind of makes you feel like they took two different films and just mashed them together. Overall I do think they pulled it off to the best of their ability, but it still feels a little off.
One thing they did really well is the sound and visual effects all through the film. Any one who saw the entire train crash sequence knows exactly what I'm talking about. There's another scene about halfway through the film where the creature's "abilities" are causing all of the military's ammunition to curve all over and fly anywhere but straight. In this sequence you find the kids running through the havoc and crossing straight through the danger. This scene feels very similar to the crossfire sequence in Cloverfield, and to me one was of the best in the movie.
The characters are well done I would say. Of course since there's a monster and all the monster related scenes, there isn't that much development to the kids but what is there is very good.The movie actually did have a very good since of humor. There is some funny banter with the kids and at the end you get to see the completed zombie movie the kids had been working on. It's called "The Case" and it's pretty hilarious and it makes a cool Romero reference.
Overall I really did enjoy the movie despite the few gripes I had with the story. It's a good popcorn movie with a cool monster and good actors.What more could you want from a movie like this.
7/10
Dragon Squad (aka.Dragon Heat, 2005)
Very flashy and very very stylish in your typical Asian action John Woo type way but the whole thing does tend to feel like a computer game, almost like 'Time Crisis' the movie.
I only really checked this due to Michael Biehn in the cast but there is also legend Sammo Hung and model Maggie Q, the rest of the cast are unknown to me but they are your regular slick good looking young Asian stars.
The action is here pretty relentless at times with constant gun fights, never ending ammo supplies and a reasonable amount of claret flying around. Don't get me wrong the action is really decent and almost boarders on gun porn but at the same time I've never seen so many guns fired with bullets whistling by characters and pinging off metal yet no one on the good side or bad side gets hit!! well it takes a damn while anyway.
So slick its shiny with ultra over the top coolness, plenty of slow motion fancy moves and more undercover jiggery pokery you can shake a stick at, is it good? its average but abit too overboard for me.
Death Race 2
Well for a straight to DVD release this was pretty solid stuff, in fact its just as good as the first in terms of looks, action and quality and kinda surprises me why it never got a proper release. Well that's what I thought at first haha after finishing I realised why it may not have gotten a bigger release, simply its just the same as the first in everything.
Now don't get me wrong its not a poor film, its actually a decent 'Running Man' style flick with good destruction derby sequences and plenty of pointless over the top blood BUT its the same as the first. Nothing new here anywhere I'm afraid right down to bringing back another 'Frankenstein' and using all the same types of cars.
Cast attracted me with Rhames, Goss, Trejo and Bean (great line up) plus there are some nice girls in here too ;) but the film kinda rollercoasters and has good bits and poor bits and then bits which are directly copied from the first. Never did like the computer game angle it uses with the race either, comes across as a WWF show, apart from that if you can accept its basically the first all over then enjoy.
The Mercenary
Very curious film this with a rather unexplained and muddled plot which doesn't really have any reason to it that I could see. Its not a bad film per say but its unexciting and uneventful despite having Trejo on the front cover looking badass, in fact Trejo's role is almost a supporting role as he does virtually nothing throughout accept appear in life after death sequences due to the fact he tries to kill himself all the time.
The plot is slightly moving and is not your typical guns n gore flick, which I thought, instead its about redemption, finding yourself and sacrifice in a way...but not as deep as that sounds, but there is of course some guns n blood. Also stars the gorgeous Ling Bai as a ladyboy haha
Trancers Hexalogy
Trancers (1985)
Tim 'king of the sci-fi B-movie' Thomerson is again in yet another time travelling sci-fi flick and again he's a cop with a really good name...meet 'Jack Deth'.
Yep another cracker alright :) this film makes Pyun's films look megabudget and the acting top class, there really isn't much I can be positive about here, its not even enjoyable as a daft B-movie like 'dollman'. Terrible 'effects' with dreadful acting and some almost 'Ed Wood' style moments of corn and action, plus the plot is stupid and incomprehensible at times. Look out for Helen Hunt and Thomerson with dark hair! amazingly Thomerson acted in another four more of these with Helen Hunt.
Trancers II: The Return of Jack Deth (1991)
Holy crapola Batman this is.....errr crapola! after the quite dreary first film we somehow got this quite dreadful sequel that pretty much scrapes the bottom of the barrel alright. Thomerson is back as 'Deth' again for some reason, obviously needing work and Helen Hunt is also back for a cameo as she's realised to get out.
The plot is totally muddled and all over the show, there is quite a nice sci-fi plot deep down in there somewhere (touch of 'Terminator' time jumping in the mix) but its being totally buried under a rotting B-movie. Laughable 'effects', terrible 'acting' really bad sets and props plus virtually no costumes what so ever haha looks like Thomerson wore his own clothes. I might add the exploding ham scene was so bad it was brilliant.
Only Thomerson gives any reason to watch a tall, he can't save the film but he does inject a tiny amount of fun with his dry harsh tough guy performance ;)
'Don't worry, ladies. They're biodegradable'
Trancers III: Deth Lives (1992)
Getting alittle better after the dreadful second film yet still highly cheap and nasty with laughable everything hehe. This time 'Deth' does have a rather neat partner in the form of a large android called 'Shark' who actually looks pretty sweet with his fish/fin mask, not brilliant makeup effects but its nice looking and different. The special ops training and fighting camp are really bad in this haha some great fake looking fighting and bad stunts work a treat in making this hilarious when its not really suppose to be.
Still chasing Trancers all over time n space Thomerson is witty as ever and on top form with his tough guy persona which still manages to make me smile despite the utter crudness going on all around haha I dunno why Thomerson keeps doing these but he is the main attraction for sure. The first two films seemed to be semi serious but this third film definitely shows everyone is having a good time making it as it vies towards an 'Evil Dead' formula with plenty of wise cracks and visual tomfoolery.
Trancers IV: Jack of Swords (aka. Journeys Through the Dark Zone, 1994)
Number four and back down we go, the roller coaster continues with Jack Deth and his adventures through time, this time its back to dreadful trashy B-movie without any amusing trashy charm hehe
Thomerson is still firing the wisecracks but the medieval setting for this is really bad looking, this kind of location can either work and look quite good or not work and look real bad, this is the latter. Everyone is running around what looks like some local woods (you expect to see them run into a car park half the time lol!) around a Romanian castle but you can tell which are sets or real, lots of really iffy looking fights and weapon usage and a really cheesy baddie at the top of the tree.
Plot wise its getting abit messy and horrendously corny and cliched...actually I kinda lost the plot to be honest, too many characters and little sub plots going on with rather messy direction and cutting, still it doesn't matter as you know Deth will win somehow ;)
Trancers V: Sudden Deth (1994)
Hmm this is just the same film as number four basically, they have made one long film and cut it in two but as this isn't too long they have filled about the first six/seven minutes with backstory from the last film! weak.
So its the same again with the same people and the same baddie leader who conveniently comes back from the dead to be the baddie leader in this film again lol! So if you read my review of number four you will get an idea for number five, identical stuff at a run time of 1hour 14min!!
Trancers VI: Life After Deth (2002)
With the loss of Thomerson this franchise dies and this final film shows it. A cast of nobodies in a D-Movie if not lower with home video style effects, action and acting coupled with the exact same run of the mill plot. They even crowbarred in footage of Thomerson as 'Deth' at the start making us believe hes in the film albeit for about three min, bad move as that always comes across as phoney eg. many Bruce Lee films after he died.
Gone are all the cool witty wise cracks from Deth with that classic tough guy flair which always gave these films a tiny edge.
Demonic Toys (1992)
Yes its totally stupid and not in the least bit scary, I dunno why its referred to as a horror, but this cult is highly enjoyable with its basic charming effects. Of course its ridiculous and has a high trash content with strong levels of cheese but with a film about killer dolls what do you expect, its much more of a light hearted horror/comedy.
The main swing here is the dolls of course, a killer teddy bear, a baby doll, a robot and a jack in the box, all of which actually look kinda cool, not scary more eerie and bizarre, think killers Muppets haha. The sequences where the dolls attack are pretty amusing and the highlight of the film, with their limited movements and funny voice work its hard not to enjoy despite how silly it is watching a grown adult thrash around as he's being attacked by a psychotic Fozzie the Bear lol!
The whole concept is hard to pull off but its an interesting one with toys coming alive, much like 'Toy story' and 'The Twilight Zone' its a fun route to explore, plus the dolls are always well designed and made with obvious care and attention.
Demonic Toys 2 (aka. Demonic Toys: Personal Demons, 2009)
Seeing as this was made recently it makes it hard to accept the crapness involved as these type of films tend to work better knowing they were made back in the 80/90's but despite that its still a reasonable horror with fun doll mania.
The plot is pretty much the same as all the killer doll films previously accept with a different setting but the effects are slightly better or alittle more technically advanced than the rest. The dolls still look good but we're missing 'Mr Static' and 'Grizzly' and instead have 'Divoletto' which is a devil looking doll, nice design and very 'Puppet Master' but he doesn't do too much.
Nice setting and the usual kills accompanied with some rather poor acting but we all know what we're getting here, not as good/classic as the first but its still solid if you have a doll fetish ;)
Live Free Or Die Hard
In a year dominated by disappointing sequels and the start of a franchise that would leave movie fans widely divided to the point of bloodshed, there was one film that brought something back that we all missed. That film was Live Free Or Die Hard, the long awaited fourth film about the adventures of reluctant hero John McClane.
McClane (Bruce Willis), now divorced from his wife and down on his luck is called to take hacker Matthew Farrell (Justin Long) in for questioning. After avoiding an assassination attempt, McClane and Ferrel discover that the hacker has unwittingly assisted terrorists lead by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) in starting an attack on the US infrastructure.
Four actors hear deserve notice. Bruce Willis is the one who steals the show as John McClane, one of the greatest action heroes of all time. Despite being quite a bit older than his last outing over 10 years prior, he still is the same guy. Still immature, still cracking jokes, still having more luck than even Master Chief could pull off, and still cracking some of the best damn one liners ever. Justin Long as Farrell is a great sidekick. He is lovable, smart, knows how to assist when he and McClane are in a jam, and is no less crucial to the overall plot. McClane sure knows how to pick em. Olyphant as the villain Thomas Gabriel is a bit of a weak spot. The Die Hard series has always had impressive villains, and Thomas is impressive when it comes to his plan. The problem is he doesn't seem too threatening at times, sounding a lot like he is whining rather than delivering a genuine challenge. Olyphant was miscast in this role, but still manages to hold it above water good enough. Finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead as the now grown Lucy (Is daddy coming home with you?) does pretty good. While at times she comes off as a basic teen eye sore, there are parts where she actually does seem to have that little McClane spark in her. She has appropriate aggressiveness and desperation during her scenes. Perhaps she will be mowing down terrorists a Christmas not too far from now. BTW, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World just went up in awesome points because Ramona Flowers is John McClane's daughter.
The director Len Wiseman does a very interesting installment in this series. The most epic and stylized of the bunch, it does seem out of place plot wise. But Wiseman made a wise decision and stuck close to our heroes in framing and in story in order to make the action seem more focused as it was in the previous three films. But there is one problem that could become serious. I have not seen any of his other films, but I have seen previews to the Underworld series which he directed and they do look similar to what I saw here. This is actually a very bad sign. Wiseman managed to pass this time, but if he doesn't expand his directing style, it will become a trap that he will not be able to escape from, and this will be repeating the motions for the duration of his career. Try some new things Wiseman. You show some promise.
The action is not like a lot of Die Hard action we have seen before. Die Hard action usually is close quarters, under tables, in elevator shafts, on airport skyways, on subway trains, etc. The action in this film is much more open, with building after building getting decimated and an almost ludicrous use of vehicles. While each film progressively expands scale, there are times where it doesn't feel like a Die Hard film due to it being so open. The best points of the film are the close quarters areas like the van dangling down the elevator shaft. Once the destruction of a freeway starts, it crosses past the point of believability, something that the first film had nailed on the head. However, the action does do its job. It keeps you nailed to that screen while McClane fights it out. I suppose it isn't so bad to see him take on new types of challenges. Let's see how he fairs against aliens.
I must talk about the effects in this film. While there are the usual CGI shots, I saw something I never thought I would see again. Miniatures. Glorious, wonderful realistic miniatures. How great it was to see a physical effect again. And they look wonderful. The CGI is also very good, showing most impressive work during the jet sequence in the film's conclusion.
The cinematography and scoring are the usual style for an action film these days. Nothing too impressive or artistic. Just enough to see what is going on and keep the tone of a scene appropriate. The better parts score wise are actually the little snippets of music lifted from the original classic, because those noises get that nostalgic blood pumping and make us remember where it all began.
The latest Die Hard film took the steaks a bit too high in my opinion. This would have been a satisfying end to the series because it was so out there, but with possibly two more on the way, how are they going to outdo the scale here? We will have to wait and see. McClane hasn't dealt a bad handto the box office or fans. Let's hope he keeps up the trend.
Bottom line, Live Free Or Die Hard is probably one of the best action movies of the 2000s. Despite its flaws in style and direction, it does offer a most wonderful welcome back to one of the most beloved action heroes of all time.
And Hollywood, about that aliens thing. Don't get any cute ideas.
Evil Bong (2006)
Charles Band continues with his Full Moon movies of which some are cult classics and quite good where as this is unfortunately not too good. I mean really....its about an evil haunted bong that kills people when they get high from puffing on it, but do they die? not overly sure if they do according to the end but does it really matter?
Unsure how Band got this made really haha nothing here to recommend unless you like a tiny show of soft porn in the form of boobies, not too much I might add. On another note its nice to see tiny cameos from other Full Moon movie characters such as 'Jack Deth' 'Gingerbread Man' 'Ooga Booga' 'Ivan Burroughs' and 'Jack Attack', totally pointless but I always liked how Band films are all linked together..sort of.
Doll Graveyard (2005)
This is probably one of Bands best films to date although not exactly an original concept but its pretty well made and directed coming across as a sensible thriller. Again we have killer dolls on the loose but much like 'Puppet Master' they do look really good and have been well designed and made, I especially liked the samurai and German dolls.
Its very very predictable with nothing new to bring to the forum but simply if you like these types of horrors then you will certainly enjoy, by now Band is pretty much an expert at shooting dolls so this is quite good and not just trashy cheap stuff, just don't expect top class acting or thrills. Nice film title :)
Bad Channels (1992)
Probably one of Bands cheapest looking and oddest flicks, if that's possible, and certainly in the B-movie realm. No real sense behind the plot other than aliens trying to capture human females for some reason, this all takes place in a radio station with allot of cheap looking effects and hammy alien suits. Its not too predictable as its pretty off the wall with at least two music/band sequences in the film which make the whole thing seem like something of MTV, its very dumb but it does have a certain charm to it plus its the prequel to 'Dollman Vs Demonic Toys' and has a very short sequence after the end credits with Tim Thomerson as 'Dollman' ;)
Zone Troopers (1986)
More B-movie fluff for Tim Thomerson to revel in haha this time hes behind enemy lines in WWII but his squad gets wiped out and on top of that he must content with an alien that has crashed its ship in the area.
Excellent film title which really gives you high hopes for a rockin flick and to a degree you do get a pretty decent action film with lots of gun action and Nazi blasting. The first half of the film isn't too bad and along the lines of the 'Dirty Dozen' minus the better acting skills and top cast of course, as the alien comes into the plot the film still manages to hold its own but towards the end of the story we meet more aliens which look suspiciously like humans with white hair in rather campy outfits.
This is where things start to get abit 'Flash Gordon' looking with crappy ray guns, bad outfits and a dodgy looking spacecraft, shame really as the first crashed spaceship looked quite good and the stranded alien actually had a decent mask and look not far from something you might see in the 'Mos Eisley space cantina' in Star Wars (the aliens we meet towards the end are male and different from the stranded alien which is female).
Very basic but fairly fun and amusing how no one ever seems to be that shocked to find visitors from outer space.
Dollman vs. Demonic Toys (1993)
Suppose to have been the first 'vs.' film made so really this film is a groundbreaker if we are honest about it. Its a very silly premise of course and the back story behind it is muddled, basically this is the sequel to 'Bad Channels' 'Dollman' and 'Demonic Toys' all at once which in itself is pretty impressive and unique but alas they screwed up the continuity badly by making 'Nurse Ginger' as the sidekick from 'Bad Channels' when it should of been 'Bunny'.
That aside this is actually good fun and continues the cult craziness of the previous films with the added bonus of Thomerson back as Dollman. Most of the film is filled with flashbacks unfortunately which does take up time and seeing as the film is one hour!! you can tell they struggled to fill out the plot.
Effects wise its about on par with the other films accept this time we have lifesize Demonic Toys going up against 'Brick' which don't look too bad really, the fact they are real or stop motion makes all the difference which would be lost using cgi, almost modern day Harryhausen films...almost ;)
Blood Dolls (1999)
Yes I can't believe it either but Band still somehow manages to make yet more killer doll flicks without anyone saying...'hey, haven't we done this before?'. This doll flick is pretty much the same as 'Puppet Master' accept the dolls are much more detailed, extreme looking, twisted and bizarre but also really decent looking too.
The whole film is kinda off the wall or more like a twisted fairytale as the dolls are controlled by a villain with a normal human body but he has a shrunken head (think 'Beetlejuice') that actually looks good I must admit. His main henchman is a human version of 'Jack Attack' from 'Demonic Toys'...basically a big guy with clown face paint on which was alittle disturbing I guess, all this and a sexy girl rock band imprisoned in a large cage for his amusement haha sweet.
The plot is..again..a bad guy using the dolls to kill for his own evil plans, afew different plot twists here and there buts its the usual thing really, not much else that can be done I guess, to be frank its just a chance to do a puppet film with a new fun set of killer dolls really, much like 'Doll Graveyard'.
Its competent and solid as a doll horror, doesn't look cheap n nasty and the characters are good fun.
Dolls (1987)
Yep found another doll film but this time from Bands Empire film company and not directed by the man himself. Surprisingly this doll flick is different from all the rest with its plot, this time its very much like a fairytale or even a Stephen King story. An old couple that make dolls in a big mansion in the middle of nowhere take in lost or stranded folk and shrink them down turning them into dolls depending on the persons character, if they're good or bad.
So a slightly different spin with this film which is nice and gives it a fresher feel, the dolls are not weird looking killers either they are just normal looking old fashioned toy dolls from various times, almost 'Pinocchio' in design, style and feel.
Cast is good in this too with the old couple being especially well performed, no one really well known but they all play their parts well enough too make the film seem better than it maybe should be, infact the whole film looks good with decent well lit sets, dark hallways, plenty of shadows and the classic thunder and lightning all giving the right atmospheric glow.
Not scary but more of a 'Scooby Doo' creepy feel to it which is just right as its obviously hard to make killer dolls come across as genuinely scary.
Quote from: Hubbs on Jul 11, 2011, 09:50:29 AMDollman vs. Demonic Toys (1993)
Suppose to have been the first 'vs.' film made so really this film is a groundbreaker if we are honest about it.
What about this one then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong_vs._Godzilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong_vs._Godzilla)
^Well I did say 'suppose to have been', I'm just going on what I've read, maybe it was referring to Western films.
Freejack (1992)
Loosely adapted from the sci-fi novel 'Immortality, Inc.' back in 1959 but failing to match the original source and instead opting for a more cyber punk/neo distopian future mix which almost always tends to fail in films for some reason, accept for 'Blade Runner'.
Afew films spring to mind like 'Johnny Mnemonic' and 'Lawnmower Man' when watching this as all are the same kind of future based flop, over the top with terrible effects, sets, costume and acting, all as if no one actually attempted to make the films appear realistic or coherent. Freejack is slightly better than the others with a more stable plot and a half decent style and look but the casting was horrendously bad and ruined any chance of even the smallest kudos.
Estevez simply isn't a good actor and that's it, he can't play the action man and proves it here, Russo in my opinion is like a piece of wood and not much better looking whilst Jagger is in there as a gimmick to try and gain more interest simply because its Mick Jagger playing a villain, plus he looked ridiculous wearing that fighter pilot helmet thing. Hopkins is obviously there to try and gain some respect for the film and add a touch of sci-fi class but he can't save it and comes across rather flat.
Uninspiring.
Hubbs double posting is against the rules, instead edit your original post.
The Salute of the Jugger (The Blood of Heroes, 1989)
Bit of a forgotten Hauer cult classic this with your typical popular post apocalyptic world where only the strong survive. Haven't seen this in many many moons and it wasn't quite as cool as I remember it but still decent, the plot has now been copied over and over by many films since but as this was back in 89 it feels like its one of the first, almost.
An Aussie flick so you would be right in thinking there's a touch of 'Mad Max' in there but there's also allot of classic barbarian type stuff and strong Roman Gladiator themes too, you wonder if Scott took inspiration perhaps. The 'game' itself is kinda odd and simply revolves around sticking a dog skull on a stick in the opponents half, like a touchdown really, whilst you batter your opponents half to death to protect yourself and your players, dogskulls because they eat dogs in the future, why use them for this? who knows.
When you watch the game I did kinda get the feeling in reality it wouldn't last more than 5min or less haha but artistic license in heavy use of course. The actual games aren't as violent as you'd think with minor blood and not much carnage, the film is quite tame really now but back in the day it was suppose to be pretty brutal haha Hauer is perfect for the role as the quiet leader, Delroy Lindo in a surprise role and the rest of the team are pretty good too whilst the Aussie outback really gives this a bleak barren feel.
Nice ending which isn't totally predictable...if you watch the uncut version, the US version was cut for some reason.
Quote from: Hubbs on Jul 13, 2011, 06:22:06 AM
The Salute of the Jugger (The Blood of Heroes, 1989)
Bit of a forgotten Hauer cult classic this with your typical popular post apocalyptic world where only the strong survive. Haven't seen this in many many moons and it wasn't quite as cool as I remember it but still decent, the plot has now been copied over and over by many films since but as this was back in 89 it feels like its one of the first, almost.
An Aussie flick so you would be right in thinking there's a touch of 'Mad Max' in there but there's also allot of classic barbarian type stuff and strong Roman Gladiator themes too, you wonder if Scott took inspiration perhaps. The 'game' itself is kinda odd and simply revolves around sticking a dog skull on a stick in the opponents half, like a touchdown really, whilst you batter your opponents half to death to protect yourself and your players, dogskulls because they eat dogs in the future, why use them for this? who knows.
When you watch the game I did kinda get the feeling in reality it wouldn't last more than 5min or less haha but artistic license in heavy use of course. The actual games aren't as violent as you'd think with minor blood and not much carnage, the film is quite tame really now but back in the day it was suppose to be pretty brutal haha Hauer is perfect for the role as the quiet leader, Delroy Lindo in a surprise role and the rest of the team are pretty good too whilst the Aussie outback really gives this a bleak barren feel.
Nice ending which isn't totally predictable...if you watch the uncut version, the US version was cut for some reason.
i loved this film as a kid.
i think the game is somewhat based of a version of Gaelic football X lacross.
you're right about the roman influence, i always expected the "catamite" part of the Road to look something like this shame they never filmed that that part for the John Hillcoat film.
Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat ( 1988 )
One the oddest vampire flicks I've seen for sometime with a blend of western, redneck, comedy and horror which doesn't really come off 100%. I was hoping for an 'American Werewolf' type film and this is certainly bizarre enough to pull that off but the effects are pretty tame and nothing really truly exciting actually happens.
There is a good cast in here its gotta be said, E. Walsh, Ireland, Caulfield, Carradine and horror comedy legend Bruce Campbell but the direction is weak and the film fails to grab your attention as a spooky vampire thriller, the fact that all the vamps are almost all old people and regular working Joe's just doesn't work here. I have seen some vamp Westerns before and they have always added to the mythology with their own cool ways but this misses the target simply cause it doesn't feel like a vamp film, its too camp and cheesy plus it looks kinda cheap too, shame as the films poster was always really nice.
Who's Harry Crumb? (1989)
The ever lovable John Candy manages to make you smile throughout this film despite it being somewhat childish with some pretty lame predictable visual gags. A simple plot involving an inept private eye trying to uncover a kidnapping and inadvertently succeeding through his own blundering, a slight copy of 'The Pink Panther' methinks but its a fun little farce giving Candy the oppertunity to try many character disguises....think 'Fletch'.
Its all very silly yet likeable as Candy uses his girth in all manner of ways to make you chuckle, classic 80's actor Jeff Jones is the perfect dastardly foil to Candy with Tim Thomerson in an unusual role as a slightly useless badguy henchman.
Overall you are lead through a nice array of amusing sequences which are fun, I won't lie and say they are great and hilarious simply because Candy is the star ergo they must be great as that isn't the case, if this film had been made today it would probably be long forgotten very very quickly but that also does testify to the skill and charm of Candy.
Not his best film but its up there in the top five.
Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn (1983)
How about that for a film title huh, talk about getting you hyped for a sci-fi fantasy guns and swords type action flick with monsters, princesses and possibly even spaceships and landspeeder type vehicles, well yes that's what I was thinking after seeing the poster haha I was thinking along the lines of 'Krull'.
I must report that the film isn't quite how I thought it would be, yep its a sci-fi and yes it has laser guns, landspeeders and the odd monster but its terribly cheap looking in places with virtually no plot. Now I know I shouldn't expect anything amazing from an unknown film but you always hope there is a hidden gem don't you, on the plus side there is some nice imagination here mixed with allot of elements from other obvious sci-fi. The big one eyed humanoid aliens were made up quite well and did remind me of 'Klingons' whilst all the outfits were your typical 'Mad Max' affair, especially the vehicles and the heroes leather outfit, there was a touch of 'Krull' type magic involved and of course your regular mutant baddie warrior.
I shouldn't be too harsh really as it was made along time ago when certain big films were the rage and this was merely jumping on that bandwagon, in fairness its not too bad, not good but certainly one of the better cheapo fantasy sci-fi films from the depths of the B-movie abyss.
Blood Out
American film with most of the main roles going to British actors, well I say actors but none of them are really proper actors hehe Vinnie Jones, Tamer Hassan and Luke Goss, all Southerners and all pretty hard..accept Goss.
50Cent appears briefly despite being billed as a main player whilst Kilmer is miscast as a big drug lord. Starts out pretty well with some good tense action and a solid revenge plot building in the same type of vain as your average Seagal or JCVD flick. Allot of hand held cam work adds to the atmosphere as Goss goes on a one man army kick ass spree to avenge his brother and it does feel gritty and rough if alittle glossy with that Hollywood touch, not as bleak and tough as '187' or 'Harsh Times'.
Things do get silly unfortunately as the film progresses towards the end, its kinda hard to believe that the stringy wiry Goss is hard enough to beat all these big guys up hehe especially the fight at the end which does smell of certain JCVD films. Holes are uncovered in the plot which make you question sequences and the ending is abrupt and kinda rushed, its mainly a vehicle for Goss much like 'The Transporter' was a vehicle for Statham but this is abit too late and dated really, still its kinda cool to see a trio of cockneys in the main roles of a US film.
The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982)
Mr Pyun's first film and after seeing it probably his best film with possibly the biggest budget and release success over all his productions, on top of that the film was actually reasonably well received and got a small toy line too!
On the visual side this film is really nice showing allot of detail with some lovely sets and location work, the costumes on display really add to the mix too with lots of medieval armour, period type dresses/garments along with your more common barbarian/warrior approach. Of course if you think along the lines of 'Conan' 'Red Sonja' 'Krull' and even old swashbucklers with the likes of Errol Flynn you will get a good idea of what this film is like. Everything you relate to your average Dungeons & Dragons fantasy is in here, a hero who's parents are killed by an evil tyrant comes of age and comes back to kill the tyrant with his band of mercenaries armed with a powerful three bladed sword, add a demon who also seeks revenge against the evil tyrant, a damsell in distress and the charm of 80's light and sound effects alongside over the top killing.
The whole film is very cliched and predictable with allot of hammy acting but its suppose to be that way really, it doesn't hide that fact and nor is it suppose to be a serious drama, in terms of action its abit placid with lame fighting and silly blood but in terms of design and looks it beats Arnie's 'Conan' hands down!. The sequences with the evil undead demon sorcerer are really decent makeup wise and reminded me of 'Darkness' from 'legend', when the demon sorcerer perishes the effects are really really good too, quite a surprise.
Its a slow burner in places and kinda rollercoasters with the excitement but it does have quite a classic feel about it, almost historical or Shakespearean in places with names like 'Cromwell' and the elegant attire. Afew minor silly spots do remind you its a silly fantasy, one being the three bladed sword that looks too cumbersome and heavy to wield properly and then you discover it actually fires the blades individually as projectiles! very 'Krull'.
Surprise winner if you enjoyed all the other similar fantasy films of the 80's, if you didn't then best avoid ;)
Cars 2
Split right down the middle with this new Pixar flick, never really got on with the first one as I found the idea of a whole film around talking cars just too clunky an idea to work. Its a fun idea of course going back to 'Herbie' but there's little that can be done with cars in my view, apart from obvious door movements and windscreen/headlights as eyes, its also hard to relate to cars as characters like you can with toy or even bug characters, probably because we all know they are mechanical and not living things.
Anyway, on the downside the whole thing isn't very original, its just a rehashed story with different characters and basically it HAD to have a race in it. For me the whole James Bond spoof side to it was poor and lacked imagination, we've seen this so so many times now its just dull plus what the cars get up to is just too daft to enjoy really, you can tell the creators had a real hard time trying to get a car to move as if it was a real living person involved in espionage and generally it looks pretty stupid. I still can't stand the redneck voice provided by 'Larry the Cable guy' (use your real name you idiot!!), Caine as 'McMissile' was uninspired and cliched, Izzard was miscast with his voice, dunno how he keeps getting work and I didn't like or understand why all the police and military cars in the UK sequences had stupid big hats on, looked like something out of a children's afternoon cartoon.
On the plus side like all Pixar films it looks totally beautiful and silky smooth, I absolutely loved what they did with Japan, how it looked with the graphic designs, neon logo's, all the Japanese cars being small clean and compact, the little bed cubicles where you go to sleep, the futuristic toilets accompanied by little cartoon helpers on a screen etc...it all looked exactly as Tokyo, Japan should and is in reality. All the countries the cars visit are all rendered amazingly well with perfect little touches to express that countries uniqueness and quirks, the same can be said for all the cars too, each country has all the regular cars you would see driving around in reality and they all look so real and shiny hehe. Of course some vehicles look better than others but its fun to spot all different types of cars throughout the film, much like spotting all your favourite toys from your childhood whilst watching 'Toy Story'.
In the end I love this film for its crystal clear pinpoint pixels and how gorgeous it looks, on the other hand there wasn't much in the film that was very fulfilling and memorable (like allot of new cgi films these days), not overly funny, exciting or emotionally grabbing...just a simple OK. I would say its better than the first as it has atad more depth but in the end with all the vehicles with faces including planes, trains and ships I kinda felt like I was watching a mix of 'Thomas the Tank Engine', 'Jimbo and the Jet Set' 'Little Red Tractor' and 'Bob the Builder'.
Frequency
A great work from 2000. John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel) digs up his deceased father Frank's (Dennis Quaid) old radio and turns it on. An Aurora Borealis is overhead. Due to the phenomenon, John gets in touch with his father in the year 1969 and is able to prevent his death. As a result, a serial killer who died after killing three victims now survives and kills 10, one of whom is Frank's wife and John's mother. The murder is set to happen a week later in the year 1969. As John uses his police skills to uncover the killer's identity in the present, Frank sets out to prevent the murder in the past.
Once again, we must start with the acting. Our two leads are great. Quaid is initially disbelieving of the identity of the man he is talking to on the radio and delivers this well. Once he does believe, he really captures the wonder of finding out what his son will become in 30 years. Quaid interacts with his adult son in much the same way he does with his son as a child, referring to both incarnations as Chief. He also expresses an appropriate amount of fear and sadness when he hears of his wife's possible fate. Jim Caviezel as the adult John also displays much talent. His desperation in trying to convince his father that he is in fact his son, his discovery of his mother's 30 year old murder for the first time, him telling his father about future events. These two performances are show stoppers. Others do well here too. Shawn Doyle is a wonderful (and creepy) villain. I will say he seems more effective in his 69 incarnation than his 99 incarnation. Perhaps it is the makeup they used, perhaps it is because the 69 version got more screen time. But that 69 version is a cold menacing monster. Elizabeth Mitchell is also very good as Julia. Her 99 incarnation gets little screen time sadly, but her 69 incarnation delivers a strong, loving and angelic character. You can understand just how much is at stake whenever she is on screen. Finally, Andre Braugher is great in both incarnations as Frank's friend and John's boss. He shines best when Frank tries to prove to him he is talking to his son in the future on the radio by describing the world series as it will happen in a matter of hours. When the events start unfolding as Frank described, Andre's eyes grow wide and he laughs to himself as he begins to believe the story. Great all around.
The premise is used creatively. A time travel movie where there is no time travel. Who would have thought of it? John telling Frank to hide something in a place where no one will find it for 30 years, Frank burning a desk and the burn appearing in the present, John keeping track of events using old news articles. It offers so many possibilities, and all the possibilities that are used, they are used well.
The special effects in this film are used sparingly. The opening scene where Frank fights a CGI fire is exciting but there are times where the effect is a bit weak. It doesn't get off to a good start in this way. But when the Aurora Borealis shows up, it becomes a character all its own. Dancing across the night sky in a brilliant show of light that watches over and guides our heroes through the entire film. It also really captures how an Aurora looks, no easy feat. Small things like desks being burned and radios being fixed are impressive. One sequence at the start of the film is eye catching. It shows the world separating, one earth being normal and the other being static in appearance. One of the most visually striking moments in the film that sets up just what is to come. The final morphing of John's house in the present is probably the film's most memorable effect, and it does work quite nicely with lamps, pictures, cabinets and couches changing from one type to another. There are many things that can be picked out in this few seconds so I won't bother. Suffice to say it is beautiful.
The music by Michael Kamen captures what this film really is about. The relationship between father and son. It is full of beauty, emotion and personifies the love, wonder and desperation of both characters. Probably the best use of music is during the exciting finale of the film.
Editing had to be skillfully done in order to capture the two talking to themselves across a 30 year gap, and it is done well. The transitions between eras are seamless, even when they grow more rapid. It is surprising just how well these scenes fit together, especially in the hiding the wallet and climax scenes.
I am not sure what to say about director Gregory Hoblit. I have not seen any of his other works. Perhaps they are good. Perhaps not. There are two theories in art. One if the great artist theory where an artist consistently puts out wonderful pieces. The other is the great work theory where a striking and memorable work is created before the artist fades into obscurity. Perhaps Hoblit is the latter. Hopefully he is just getting started. Time will tell I suppose. He sure did great here.
Frequency is a very interesting take on time travel. Only the information actually travels across the gap. But events can still be altered as a result. This moving and engrossing father and son tale is one for the ages. It certainly is one of the most fascinating What If movies.
Sorry for the double post. I just got this review done.
First Blood
One of the central films in Sylvester Stallone's very rocky career. Forgive the bad pun.
Depressed drifter and Vietnam Vet John Rambo (Stallone) is travelling cross country when he arrives in the town of Hope Washington. After being arrested for vagrancy by Sherriff Teasle (Brian Dennehy) Rambo suffers a PTSD flashback, breaks out of the police station and runs off into the nearby mountains. What follows blurs the lines between a police manhunt and an actual war.
We must start with acting as usual. Suffice to say this is one of Stallone's best films. Despite what would be done to the character in the sequels, it is one of his best roles as well as far as this film goes. Here Stallone does a good job. At the start of the film Rambo is upbeat at the prospect of seeing an old friend. After that is shot down, his demeanor changes. He becomes depressed, short tempered, and in some places becomes a walking nightmare. He plays desperation, sadness, rage, all rolled into one ticking time bomb of a character. Brian Dennehy offers a loathsome but still sympathetic villain. One of the subtexts of the film is his Korean War experiences, which he feels were overshadowed by Vietnam. This explains his often unreasonable reactions to Rambo. As the film goes on, he becomes more sympathetic but also more obsessed with catching his white whale. During the final scenes, one finds themselves hoping for Teasle to survive this ordeal. Finally Richard Crenna as Colonel Trautman. His character goes through an interesting ark revealed only by his dialogue and mannerisms. At first he is cocky, almost bragging as to how good a solider he made Rambo. But as time wears on, he discovers at what cost his training came and slowly evolves into a father figure that Rambo desperately needs. The best acting in the film comes from Stallone and Crenna during the final showdown in the police station. So remember folks, Stallone does have talent, he just needs to know where to use it. Be sure to keep an eye out for Bill McKinney (the rapist mountain man) as Kern, a police officer who shows Rambo sympathy.
The action in this film is low key, taking a back seat to the character study of Rambo. There are impressive set pieces such as the motorcycle chase, the chopper chase, the high jacking of the truck, and the final destruction of the town. These thrilling and suspenseful scenes and done as realistically as they can be done, the motorcycle chase including an actual car crash. It is during these sequences where Rambo's dilemma becomes clear. Is this a war or isn't it? Each of these scenes is right out of a classic war film. But by far the best "action" scene in the film is when Rambo stalks and disables Teasle's deputies one by one Guerilla style, using camouflage, Punji Sticks, his knife, etc. A not so much thrilling scene but a nightmarish one. It is no wonder Stallone refers to Rambo as a modern Frankenstein monster in this film. It is a fair comparison.
The music is some of Jerry Goldsmith's finest work of his entire career. The low six note motif repeated throughout the film really captures the suspense Rambo feels as he stalks the mountains avoiding cops. A highlight of the film is when Rambo high jacks a National Guard truck. The music played during this scene is astounding, containing a heroic but frightening sound that propels the scene into epic proportions. Many of us know Goldsmith from his work on Planet of the Apes, Alien, and the memorable music from Star Trek, The Next Generation as well as some of the Star Trek films. His music here is right up there with those masterpieces.
The setting is one of the film's best points. Rather than a war torn jungle or desert, this is a simple little town hidden away in a vast wilderness. The mountains have many a place that catches the eye. Cliff faces, thick trees, abandoned mine shafts, the perfect place for a Vietnam vet to go bonkers. By far one of the best chapters of the film is when Rambo explores an abandoned mine shaft, with only torchlight to guide him. The no doubt freezing water and the deep orange glow of the flame light creates a feeling of dread and claustrophobia. Good thing Henry Jones wasn't there. He would have never made it past the rats. Finally, there is the town itself. It looks not like a place that could possibly become a war zone, but in the film's final act, it does. Oh boy it does. Believe me, this town looks the part once Rambo gets started.
Ted Kotcheff directs this film well. His career has not exactly been lucrative with average films like Weekend at Bernie's and Uncommon Valor. He has however gone on to contribute to Law and Order SVU, so apparently his works involving police officers are winners. That aside, Kotcheff really does capture the story well. He beautifully showcases the setting and keeps a close eye on the characters as they play out their drama. I find little flaws in the direction.
Camera work. Oh boy is it good. Always very tight, making the forest itself seem like it is closing in on our desperate protagonist. Some of the best work is in the above mentioned mine shaft sequence. The town is shown as innocent and vulnerable, the wilderness is photographed breathtakingly, the characters are shown intimately. There are a few quips with it. The scene where Rambo high jacks the truck contains a group of shots right out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. There is no denying it is a good angle to capture such a scene, but more creativity would have been nice. Other than that, this camera work is something special.
First Blood launched a mediocre but much beloved franchise where Rambo became a symbol of masculinity. It is largely forgotten that Rambo's first and best outing was when he was a scared and vulnerable human being attempting to fit back into society amidst a slew of rejections. This may not be Rambo's best known adventure. It is without a doubt the one with the most depth, the most heart, and the most important thing to say. Forget the piles and piles of bodies that would come. They pale in comparison to this compelling odyssey.
The Dead Undead (2010)
A vehicle for Luke Goss as obviously people like him as a vampire and admittedly he is good as a blood sucker. This film is clearly a low budget cheap as chips affair with not too much on offer in the effects arena accept for allot of gun porn hehe the acting is pretty bad from the unknown cast as they do their best 'Blade II Blood Pack' 'Aliens Colonial Marines' impression (badly) and don't really bring across the danger they are clearly in.
Totally unoriginal plot as vamps fight against vamp zombies and are taken down one by one by the surging horde of flesh eaters, its also been made in a way that we've all seen before really, again think 'Aliens' or any other unit of men in a last stand situation.
Basic makeup and very basic looking stunts, explosions and action, filmed mainly with hand held cams it seems which makes it more realistic but also enchances the cheapness haha and a rather blunt quick ending. Vernon Wells cameo at the very end is kinda cool but done obviously to gain that cool kudos.
Dead Silence (2007)
Well I gotta admit this did sort of spook me which did surprise as I was expecting another silly killer doll film much like the Puppet Master series. Instead we have an intelligent chiller about a curse from a dead woman back in the 40's who was accused of killing a boy and was murdered by the local townsfolk in revenge, thus she returns from the grave to wreak revenge on descendants of the townsfolk using her beloved dolls as a kind of terror calling card and a way of getting to her victims.
Doesn't sound too great I know but its actually a really decent horror with plenty of little jump moments and allot of nice imagery and visual spookery from dark eerie houses, hallways and graveyards to the ever popular and unnerving close ups on sinister doll faces along with creepy moving eyes.
A nice cast help the film along with lead Ryan Kwanten (looking abit like Pat Swayze) being a likeable innocent detective of the mystery, Michael Fairman playing the old coroner warning of the impending dangers, Donnie Wahlberg as the tough take no crap police detective and Bob Gunton as Kwantens father. The whole film just moves along really well and has clearly been directed and put together with some care and attention, this isn't just a sloppy horror flick, a nice twist in the tale completes the story wrapping it up in a nice chilling bow :)
Mr. Popper's Penguins
You know what...this is sloppy, highly predictable, daft, schmaltzy and totally cliched beyond belief with every form of sickly hanky inducing move possible, I'm utterly amazed it hasn't been released at Christmas as its that kind of vomit fest...YET at the end of the day its just plain and simply fun.
The most overused plot ever...career minded man has someone/creature brought into his life that starts to screw things up for him and put his precious career in jeopardy. He hates said creature/person and tries to get rid of it asap, failing to do so. Over time he grows to love and care for said creature/person and starts to think its really OK after all. His career and life is put on the line in the end and he must choose between his precious career and new found love/life with creature/person, he chooses creature/person, everyone loves him for it and he lives happily ever after with creature/person and family.
Personally I think Carrey has long lost his golden touch and his goofy films no longer hit the target as they once did back in the mid 90's, in this film hes simply the same Jim Carrey as he is in all his other silly films but slightly more reserved, no change. His broad tombstone grin, floppy hair and madcap antics now seem rather dated and boring as he clearly looks aged and past all this, do we have to put up with silly repetitive childish comedies forever more now?
So yes this film is fun and cheerful (accept for the hugely annoying girly teen boyfriend issues we are subjected to from Popper's daughter) without too much of Carrey's lunacy but its also very very lax stuff and hardly hitting the heights Carrey is used to. Kids will love I'm sure as the penguins are pretty much the stars of the show being oh so cute hehe but to be honest you've seen this film already...many many times before, its that formulaic.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Right well I'm gonna be brutally honest here and admit right away that I had no real idea of what was going on in this film :) I know Potter needs to defeat Voldermort and vice versa but that's about it. The problem being that I have indeed seen every Potter film, at least five of them at the cinema, but I have only seen them once, never read the books and simply forgotten whats been going on as the films have been going on for about eight years now. So over this time I have lost the plot as it were and been flooded with so many characters its very hard, in my opinion, to keep track of all events without watching the whole lot in order..again.
So apart from that I tried my best to guess what the hell happened lol! Basically it looks gorgeous, the film is a fantasy work of art with some of the best cgi I've seen since Star Wars, Potter beats all challenges for cgi recently. The dark gothic scenery's, spooky woods, 'Hogwarts Castle', Hogwarts interior etc...is all superbly done and really makes you feel the film inside out, kudos on the dragon too, absolutely amazing cgi work there, it looked damn near real!
Casting of course for the entire franchise has been like a tour de force of top British thesps, comedians and characters actors, everybody you can think of from Warwick Davis to Rik Mayall to John Cleese to Richard Harris to Alan Rickman to Ralph Fiennes, the list is endless and gives these films probably the greatest cast lineup of modern cinema, simply astonishing.
There so many little touches in these Potter films that just scream loving tender care as they have been crafted, every scene has things going on in the background and foreground that keep you interested, inside Hogwarts each painting has some motion going on, little creatures pop out and fly around all over the show whilst lighting effects and makeup again add so much to the process to bring it all to life, the makeup on Warwick Davis in his goblin guise and as 'Prof Flitwick' are perfect examples of how good it has been created and applied.
So everything is still on top form for Potter Part 2 but alas I felt the actual film was slightly an anti climax, whilst we build up to the final conflict tension is high and the musical score gets more dramatic but when we start to get the battles I kept thinking its gonna get really kickass any minute now...any minute now its gonna blow the roof...any minute now...but it didn't :(
Don't get me wrong the battles on show put 'LOTR' to shame for cgi, loved the big ogre/troll things, but they just weren't as epic as I was hoping for, the whole finale seemed abit flat, abit lacking that final punch, the fact we kept going from the battles to dialog sections I think broke it up too much and deflated the impact.
The moment of truth as certain key figures are killed also seemed a slight let down as you don't actually see them get killed, I'm not being morbid but you'd think they deserved a good send off much like any good character in 'Star Wars' or 'LOTR' would get but all we get is dead bodies with no explanation. We then come to the big showdown between the big V and the big H and again I felt slightly let down by the rather uninspired wand battle that conspired, its not bad but its not exactly 'Obi Wan v Anakin' epic either. Again there are too many little breaks in the action which I think lets the flow down when really you need to stick with it to really breathe in the fighting atmosphere and get behind the hero, the actual ending for the wizard confrontation was fine but alas in my opinion lacked bite.
Nice final ending if rather cliched but I guess that's how the book goes eh, in theory there could be more Potter fun with the offspring then. I enjoyed the film like I have done with the whole franchise as its been a breath of fresh air in originality terms (you wouldn't think that now with all the fantasy films that have followed) and really dug deep into classic British fantasy, fable, fairytales and folklore, a fine set of stories and amazingly an excellent set of movies that never once really let us down that much, unique in itself that if you think about it. I'm now curious to see the Bluray boxset of all eight films, how much it will cost and what amount of extras we will be granted access to.
Goodbye Harry, its been memorable :)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
So here we are again and right from the start with the intro of 'Shockwave' I was disappointed yet not particularly surprised, moving on we are introduced to a talking 'LaserBeak' and a small troll like Autobot called 'Brains'! oh my heart sinks and we haven't even begun.
OK well on the plus side there is some nice humour in this new installment from various characters that did make me smile, Turturro as always is quality with his snappy dialog where as Malkovich adds an impressive little performance I didn't really see coming, small but sweet. Ken Jeong is an uprising star in my books and his performances have all been good so far, in his short role here he doesn't disappoint with a cracking little show, unfortunately we still have to sit through the annoying screaming and twitching of LaBeouf whose participation in these films has damaged his credibility bigtime.
As for new entry Rosie Huntington-Whiteley....well I've not seen a more horrifically bad performance in sometime, the girl is beautiful, she can pout like no ones business and I'm sure she models well but acting is clearly a step too far and should never be tried again, its actually fitting shes in this film as to be honest this glitzy overblown mess fits her pretty princess attitude perfectly. Shots of Whiteley up against super cars? check, anyone notice she's still wearing her posh high heels during the finale showdown lol!
Anyone actually asked themselves how a geek like LaBeouf's character somehow manages to get these girls in these films!? talk about fantasy! Basically the inclusion of 'bling' actors such as Gibson pretty much sum up the whole franchise.
The film gains a tad more respect with the continued talents of Weaving and Prime himself...Cullen :) added to the gang are Nimoy and Remar, Nimoy of course being experienced in voicing 'Gavaltron' in the animated and better Transformer movie of 86.
Credit where credits due you must applaud the cgi effects, they are very impressive and look good as they screech around highways with multiple explosions going off around them, it looks faultless and along with Bays pretty direction and fetish of the military, explosions and slow motion against sunsets its a picture for sure. As before we still have the same issue as the previous films where its virtually impossible to tell what the hell is going on when the bots fight, you still can't distinguish between Autobots or Decepticons accept for their eye colour with most Transformer characters just coming across as large, shiny, whirring, clicking statues of cgi metal. The rather long finale highlights this problem by adding massive amounts of building carnage and debris into the mix making it completely impossible to make out what on earth is going on, its just insane!
I still can't stand the recreation of classic designs for the new film, the new creations they come up with for new Transformers are terrible and why do all Decepticons look like monsters, insects or wild animals!!? did I even see a 'Predator' type Decepticon with dreads at one point?
The film is overly long and HUGELY cliched (every cliche in the book), much of the film feels like a music video or adverts for super cars as Bay tries to evoke emotion but fails miserably by adding rock music over sequences of supposed trauma and 'horror' and the whole thing is sooo 'God Bless America'.
There are also so many poor sequences with questions such as how did Sam kill Starscream exactly? what was that gauntlet thing he had? how did the Sam and the others manage to get out of the skyscraper that was practically destroyed and virtually at a 90 degree angle? they just walked out of the doors it seems with no worries lol! where does Optimus and the main Autobots vanish too for most of the finale battle? and who was that crappy balding professor looking Autobot with the British accent that got executed!!? just faceless characters for killing...poor film making.
People say this is the better of the trilogy, I can't see it, its abit darker as we see people killed in this film plus Optimus being brutal at the very end but for me this is just as bad as the previous two making it hard to try and decide which is the better film, is there a better film?
Sanctum
After a slowish start I really got into this caving adventure which did bring out allot of goosebumps on me haha talk about tension and making you nervous whoa!!
From the moment the team get trapped below it makes you sweat as they try to work out how to get through the maze of tight tight underwater tunnels, its all very visually murky and suspenseful with plenty of tight spaces and dark caves lit merely from helmet lights or glowsticks. I think the cast were pretty good in this despite what I've read with Roxburgh as the tough father coming across especially well with his gritty performance as he pushes the team forward.
A Cameron film so you do get flashes of 'The Abyss' yet not as exciting plus Cambo's new pet 3D was in use but I saw this in regular 2D and it works fine so wether 3D makes any difference I'm not sure.
Its a little bit predictable and corny as each member is lost one by one and the ensuing fight between the last remaining three characters as Gruffudd's character seemingly loses it wasn't really needed, that made it silly when it could of remained sensible. That did come across as though it was added simply to raise the stakes and try and make the film more exciting when really the claustrophobia of their situation was plenty.
Not sure why its called 'Sanctum', possibly down to Roxburgh's character telling his son that being in these caves was his life, they were his church, maybe. Very realistic and well made and NOT an action film if that's what your thinking or looking for.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)
Now a very stereotypical vampire film with all the cliches and predictable stuff you can imagine which now is really quite lame to watch even if you look past the cute retro appeal.
The effects and makeup are very basic much like the acting but at the end of the day this was a film for teenage girls to swoon over Luke Perry hehe Teenage boys had Swanson whilst an air of class was attemped with the inclusion of Hauer and Sutherland, Hauer looking your typical classic Dracula in tucks, flowing cape with slick back hair and Sutherland your typical Sherlock Holmes clothed Van Helsing type.
If you look closer there is actually quite a strong cast in there, at the time of course they were all unknowns. Its all silly childish stuff as it was meant to be but very dated now and pretty crappy.
Once Bitten (1985)
One Jim Carreys first films and its a pretty fun little vamp film with lots of nice moments and a very sexy Lauren Hutton :)
The plot is extremely simple and kinda like a vampire version of 'Teenwolf' with all the teenage boy angst and virgin issues but that's what makes the film fun I guess. The whole sexual undercurrent with Hutton trying to 'have' Carrey is good fun in a kooky kind of way but also you can't help but wish Lauren Hutton would do the same to you haha its childish but naughty at the same time.
Carrey is good in this too I might add and clearly shows some of megastar talent that was on the way, alittle impression of Robert De Niro midway through is really good plus we see some rubber face antics here and there. Cleavon Little's performance in this is fun too as a gay/camp servant to his vamp Mistress, probably the best character in the film.
Its all fun and silly but not as good as 'Teenwolf'.
After Hours (1985)
Unusual type of film for Mr Scorsese this one which he hasn't really been back to explore since which is a shame as this is one of those quirky interesting cult films that is pretty good, weird and bad all at once.
Griffin Dunne is a great character actor and really shines here as a regular guy just trying to get home, although its his own fault he gets into all these sticky situations. A myriad of circumstances all rain down upon Dunne as he wanders from street to street in 80's New York (when NY was grotty too) which do leave you feeling quite uncomfortable or uneasy as he tries to solve problems and help people in order to gain trust or simply afew bucks to get the subway.
Its brilliantly done by Scorsese as you really do feel for Dunne's character and find yourself talking to the screen as you get a hunch of the trouble that's coming his way, you just want him to get his keys back or finish one errend before he gets caught up in another hehe
Great ensemble cast throughout with a perfect grimy almost spooky look and feel to it, not a perfect film gotta say, has its ups n downs, alittle dull in spots. I wonder why Dunne isn't in much else, he did this and 'American Werewolf' and that's about it really.
Vampire's Kiss (1988)
So I actually thought this was a vampire flick in the realms of 'American Werewolf' perhaps but in fact it turns out to be a physiological dark comedy about a guy who thinks hes a vampire hehe so slightly disappointed but after watching the film I did think back in a positive way.
I did like the film to a degree, Jennifer Beals was smoking hot while Cage's performance was fun if alittle too similar to previous character performances. The way he changes his voice throughout was amusing but did recall other characters, his outbursts and rages are fun to watch too as is his descent into thinking he is a blood sucker, I loved the sofa coffin and buying the plastic teeth :)
At first I was alittle lost as to what was going on, was it real or all in his mind, I wanted it to be a real vamp flick but alas it seems to have been all in his mind, towards the end it does get tricky to decide what was real or not...hmmm
Fun mainly to see Cage at his wackiest with some glorious over acting but it also shows how limited he is too as you feel you've see him do this before in exactly the same way.
The Monster Squad (1987)
Very silly film with a very silly dated idea of bringing all the classic monsters together harking back to old Universal monster mashes but boy is it totally cool :)
The plot to be honest makes no sense and isn't even explained too well, basically Dracula turns up in a small town after an amulet and brings Frankenstein's monster with him, somehow 'Gillman' ('Creature From the Black Lagoon') and raises 'The Mummy' from the local museum...'Wolfman' is already there in the town it seems.
From there on we get a daft yet wicked 'Goonies monster mash' with allot of kid tomfoolery mixed with some excellent Stan Winston makeup and prosthetic work on all the creatures, Frankie's monster, Gillman, Wolfman and the Mummy all looking topps.
Classic 80's monster masks n makeup, tongue in cheek with plenty of corn but still miles better than the cgi 'Van Helsing'.
Something Wild (1986)
Sort of a more up to date version of 'After Hours' with a more extreme, loud and in your face storyline as Daniels is dragged from one humiliating scene to another by wild child Griffiths who at first seems determined to get Daniels into trouble.
Sure enough Griffiths character slowly gets Daniels in all heaps of bother as they evade checks and steal money from stores, its kinda predictable but not as uneasy watching as 'After Hours' as its more 'out there' and regular people are less likely to do that sort of thing haha
Casting is abit off for me in this as Griffiths never was much to look at in my opinion and she hardly comes across as a law breaker whilst Daniels has never really been a good actor from day one haha.
Things get better acting wise when Liotta turns up as the crazy jealous ex-con but the plot gets alittle out of hand too as things go from light hearted comedy to dark and uncomfortable, as only Liotta knows how, and the film becomes less enjoyable really.
Zookeeper
I like Kevin James, I really liked 'The King of Queens' and I do think he can be really funny especially with his tubby in your face antics but he isn't having much luck in the movie world.
This is basically 'Dr Doolittle' (the modern version) with very little other imagination used, its practically a copy! The animals talk and help James with his love and life issues and that's it, nothing more. We have seen the talking live action animal thing before and its a pretty lame idea frankly which looks poor too, but we have also seen the talking animated animal idea too many times so this film couldn't win in the originality stakes in any way.
Its very soppy and really dumb, of course its a kids film but even kids may get bored with this, James is of course the main attraction for older viewers and he is quite amusing with his dialog and performance at times but much like 'Mall Cop' its nowhere near enough to save the film.
The Plague Dogs
Martin Rosen, director of the acclaimed Watership Down adaptation followed up on that success with this adaptation of another Richard Adams novel.
A terrier named Snitter (John Hurt) and a mongrel named Rowf (Christopher Benjamin)escape from an animal testing lab and head off into the wilderness. When they begin to starve, they begin to kill local sheep to survive. They are befriended and assisted by a fox named the Tod (James Bolam). Their antics eventually catch the attention of the authorities. Soon they are on a mad dash to escape their return to a private hell, and getting deeper and deeper into a new one.
Our three leads are in top form. Hurt worked with Rosen on Watership as a strong and confident leader. Here he changes gears and becomes a vulnerable and in desperate need of love from Rowf and The Tod. In two films of pretty much the same genre (though drastically different in atmosphere) it really stands as a testament to his talent. His high pitched and constantly sad voice really tugs at the heart strings. Benjamin does just as well. He perfectly captures the simultaneous rage and terror that Rowf feels throughout the film. He has a stunningly good delivery at the start of the film when he yells "Do you think you're the only one who hates this damn place!?" at another dog. Finally comes James Bolam as the awesome The Tod. The Tod proves to be a rock for the audience, having everything that Snitter and Rowf do not. He is confident, sure and does not fear danger, willingly going into tough situations ahead of them. Bolam's dialect makes the character all the more lovable. An all around amazing triumvirate of talent that makes these three characters unforgettable.
This film is not for the squeamish. The first image is of Rowf struggling to stay above water in a tank and sinking to the bottom before getting fished out by the scientists (White Coats as he calls them) who stick a tube stuck down his throat and such the water out. And it gets worse. There is dead sheep, dead puppies getting thrown into furnaces, blood running into rivers, and probably the most shocking and out of left field scene in animated history. You will know it when you see it. Take my advice, if you want to watch this film, get ready. The emotionally squeamish will also want to keep on guard because this film is a tear jerker and then some. These two dogs carry such sadness about them that even The Tod cannot keep them hopeful. The minute the film starts, you just know you won't be walking away with smiles. But if you know a good film, you will be walking away satisfied.
The music is one of the film's more variable points. There are times when it seems overly joyous especially towards the start. However, it certainly picks up power as the film gets progressively darker and more intense. Such musical glory can be heard during the infamous hunter scene (don't ask) and the helicopter chase at the end of the film. The theme "Time and Tide" by Alan Price is also very interesting in that regard. The first half is appropriately bleak yet beautiful and soothing, but the 2nd half explodes into a choir. It really destroys the atmosphere of the song and does not at all go with the film's final haunting image. The 180 the theme pulls is probably the film's one great flaw and still bugs the hell out of me.
As the film is animated, that must be addressed in place of effects. The animation is amazing. Made by the same company that did Watership Down, it is clear that these people had gotten better at their craft. The characters are gorgeous. Lifelike representations of their respective animals with realistic texture sand colors as well as mannerisms. The world the animators create is the exact opposite of the one of Watership, whichw as a world of desperation and hope. This world is a bleak world of sorrow and despair, with deep blues and browns, and blood reds staining the Earth. There is no place for laughter and smiles. It is dark and yet somehow right, perfect and beautiful.
Martin Rosen only did three films. Watership Down, this, and a live action film that quietly flopped. His two animated films are among the best ever made. He does not shy away from violence in these films at all and remains honest and straightforward with the story, not deviating from it in the slightest. Even Don Bluth adds bright colors and songs to a lot of his works, most often not to their benefit. Rosen never takes that chance. Perhaps this is why this film didn't do well when it was released. Damn shame too. There is still the thought that animation is for children. Not Rosen's work. Any parent that took their kids to see this deserved to pay for the therapy bills. While Watership Down's target audience is debatable, it is blatantly obvious that this was made for adults. Pity many of them scoff once they see a hand drawn film.
The film's action and pacing are at times quite fast paced and at times quite slow. But there is a rhythm to it. During the slower scenes, the dialogue between the characters really makes you part of their world, holding your breath and waiting for their next gamble. During the faster scenes, it is like a darker version of The Great Escape, with chases through forests, down walkways and across fields. At times you might wonder why the score makes so many clicking noises, only to realize it is your own chattering teeth.
The characters are what really make this film special. These three tragic protagonists really capture your heart, and the pain and suffering they go through make this film a very difficult but very worthwhile sit.
Remember the words of Frith from Watership Down.
"What is, is what must be."
That is the case with this film. Any other feel, any other plot point and any other ending would have brought it all crashing down. The way this film is, it is a giant. A truly great animated film that more people should see.
Mighty Joe Young (1998)
Remake of the classic original which had classic Harryhausen effects, this newer model actually does justice to the first film whilst giving us a much more vivid visual treat.
The original film was created by the same team that made the original King Kong film so you obviously have allot of similarities in plot and action sequences but I guess you gotta over look that alittle. The newer film is similar with its plot yet tweaked here and there with minor changes but its almost along the same lines, the main changes are of course the effects which do look surprisingly good for a film made in 98 with cgi of the time.
All 'Joe' sequences are pretty darn good showing allot of good hair detail including movement and that shine gorilla hair has, mixed with exceptional puppet/masks using animatronics by the legendary Rick Baker you can see why it looks so good. The cgi is the main surprise though which is really well done blending with most backgrounds pretty well, some sequences are obvious but its not bad at all, I must admit I was taken aback when viewing this again at how well it stands up today.
Its a typical Disney type film of course with cliched characters, allot of corny moments and predictable setups but the original was actually like this too so Disney have remained reasonably faithful. Its still very much a 'Kongish' film right up to the final moment and myself I didn't really like it when Joe gets loose and runs amok then saves the kid, too kong-like and mawkish at the same time but its still an above average film mainly thanks to Baker and his work.
The Rookie (1990)
First time I've actually seen this uncut it seems as allot of the swearing and violence...err I've never seen before hehe. Clint teams up with a slightly chubby yet fresh faced Charlie Sheen to take down the nasty yet comically dastardly looking Raul Julia in this by the numbers cops v baddies buddie action flick.
It shows how my taste has changed as I recall loving this when I was a teen but watching it now it really is quite lame with terrible performances from everyone, Clint is just 'Dirty Harry' again albeit with more humorous dialog and Sheen is just Sheen like he is in every film he's made.
We move from setup to setup as the good guys plod along piecing together evidence whilst getting into all manner of outrageous problems and taking various body blows. Lots of shooting n missing, stereotypical bad guy characters and one very good car stunt out of a building and voila! your typical Saturday night takeaway 80's/90's action flick, Sheen for the young and Clint for the old.
Super 8
For the most part I thought this film handled the time period extremely well, set in the late 70's and looking really spot on in costume, cars, sets and hairstyles this film did bring back memories of films of my youth. That really is the only plus point I can think of though as the film is really clambering to emulate many many classic kids adventures from that said period.
To a degree it works but all the time I couldn't help but feel this was an attempted remake of 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' accept with a slightly different approach and creature. You can see from miles off that Spielberg was involved as the film really does have his stylistic hand prints clearly all over it, certain scenes scream 'Close Encounters' and the long build up of characters is very much his way. This isn't a bad thing of course as the film is certainly better than I expected and totally different, I was assuming it was another 'Godzilla' 'Cloverfield' type film so to have a sensible character driven film was a pleasant surprise.
The film is alittle bit boring at times as you do wish the plot would charge up somewhat but the approach is interesting if unoriginal. Cast is very good with the kids of course, they are likeable if forgetable, grumblings of 'Goonies' sprung to mind at times, where as the adults are decent enough to pull off the idea.
Problems arise with the the film ending like 'Close Encounters' ;) and generally being like the said film on the whole..with hints of 'E.T.', the alien is abit of a mess design wise and makes me wonder how a creature like that could construct anything seeing as it only seems to have tentacles, the train crash was way too big and impressive to be realistic if you ask me and why didn't the alien just build its ship anytime it wanted like it does at the end plus how do those little floating building block things work exactly?
Its a solid film which has been very well crafted, add on some solid acting and a likeable concept and its a winning move for once, could of done without the swearing maybe and a better ending would of helped for sure. Missing or lacking that big fantastical KO to the canvass to make you think 'WOW!' but it works, just suffered from over hype methinks.
The Producers (2005)
Hmmmmmm so very very tricky to decide here, what can I say.....I enjoyed this film as a film on its own and when not compared to the original, as a stand alone farce its a great piece of comedy but of course it so difficult not to think and look back to the original material.
To be honest this is a classic example of a remake that, in terms of the movie, didn't succeed in doing anything other than show you should never try to remake a classic. Of course because of the flick there was a big renewed interest in the forgotten classic and a very popular theatre show which is all good as its perfect for the theatre in every sense but the actual film is a poor imitation.
There are certain parts in this film I loved, mainly anything to do with Nathan Lane who is a superb comedy actor with fantastic ability in facial and physical comedy, some of his leers and chubby prat falls are brilliant and really compete with Mostels first performance. On the other hand there are some truly awful moments of...plagiarism basically where the same funny lines or sequence has been attempted from the original and it just bombs hard :( some scenes simply cannot be replicated from the genius of Wilder and Mostel.
A huge issue with me was the casting of Broderick who is so so so so weak an actor I just don't understand how he gets work, is it all simply down to 'Ferris Bueller'!!? Terrible actor and he really shows it here with a dreadful performance that lets the whole film down badly. Sure he can sing alittle, move well and he does look the part but he just isn't a strong enough character for comedy, he's too shy and reserved and a bad partner to Lanes terrific comb over sleaze.
To be honest some of the casting is poor in this film accept for Lane, Beach and Bart all of which were inspired choices. Thurman and Ferrell were totally out of place and show why it can be a bad decision to cast big names when lesser known folk would work so much better, also Lovitz could of been used in a better role instead of the extra unneeded sequence he was in. Where was Dom Deluise that's what I wanna know, the perfect film for him.
The film looks fantastic I gotta say, well it basically looks like a stage performance that's just been filmed really, not a bad thing as the colour and razzle dazzle is all very well directed and comes up peachy on your screen. Lots of musical numbers and extra padding to fill out the length which is again nice but also loses some of the originals charm, the charm of 'less is more' and this new film really does go overboard when it didn't have to. Obviously the film was meant to be a precursor to the real theatre production (a prequel hehe to see how it would fare) which is fine but I don't know why they went down the musical route with the film instead of sticking to the better farcical comedic angle, I just felt allot of the essence was lost trying to craft the film into something else when they still could of done the theatre show and kept the film like the original.
Last thoughts are positive for the film as its nice to see musicals back on the big screen looking as lush as this but as a remake its nowhere near as good as its forebearer, quite a poor copy in places but it does have its highlights which can make you forgive. If your seeing this for the first time then I strongly recommend the original of course.
Dark Angel (aka. I Come in Peace, 1990)
What on earth is going on with the film title here I dunno but I prefer 'Dark Angel' for sure, anyways this was Matthias Hues big flick for which he is most remembered for which isn't much to shout about haha.
Very silly sci-fi flick about an alien drug dealer sucking endorphins out of human brains to sell galactically, its very hokey even for its time and without Lundgren would be total B-movie schlock. Even with Lundgren its still pretty poor with bad effects, terrible acting with only afew impressive car stunts on hand. I mean really..how can you take this remotely seriously with a gang of thugs called 'The White Boys' that are all dressed in suits and look like killer 80's yuppies lol!
It is a classic dumb sci-fi B-movie for sure but I just didn't really like it that much, Benben was annoying and the whole thing was trying way too hard with the obvious mismatched buddy cop/hero duo squabbling with each other setup...resulting in forced lame humour.
Drop Zone (1994)
I remember when this came out it was quite a big action flick for Snipes, its funny when you look back on these old films and see how bad they really were hehe. One of two skydiving flicks released in the same year (much like the two Robin Hood flicks) but quite different from each other surprisingly.
This film is a slight rip on the far superior 'Point Break' in my humble opinion, just replace surfing with skydiving and you pretty much know what I'm talking about plot wise and action wise.
Problem is the action is rather dull, repetitive and dated even back then with a boring gang of baddies lead by the too old Gary Busey and a whole host of similar aerial set pieces that are clearly not the stars haha. Very much a by the numbers action flick that isn't as good as other by the numbers action flicks.
Terminal Velocity (1994)
The second skydiving action flick released in 94 and again its not exactly a brilliant film but fairs somewhat better than 'Drop Zone' in my opinion.
Charlie Sheen is cast after the possibility of Cruise was lost so obviously instead of a huge blockbuster this is more of an average run of the mill actioner, its not too bad to be honest as Sheen was always best in silly action fests and doesn't disappoint here with his funny quick quips and slightly classic James Dean Hollywood appearance.
Abit of class is added with Kinski and Gandolfini plus an interesting plot that does keep you guessing for awhile yet not too long but its actually good fun watching Sheen blunder his way through the mystery with some decent stunts and fist fighting. The most impressive stunt being a car dumped out the back of a plane with Sheen in the drivers seat, clearly not the star but its a fun sequence and better than watching skydivers mince around in the air with 'Drop Zone'.
Watch out for the ending in this as its a real duffer with some nasty bluescreen going on, allot of bluescreen used in this film but the ending just looked the worst..for a simple shot.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Classic political thriller and fuel for future conspiracy theories.
Major Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra) is plagued by a bizarre recurring nightmare where his platoon is in the clutches of communist leaders who have brainwashed them. He contacts his former Staff Sergeant Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), a central figure in the nightmare. He begins to discover the dream actually happened, and that Shaw has been conditioned to follow commands upon a trigger being uttered. He tries to uncover why.
Frank Sinatra is superb as the increasingly paranoid and frightened Marco. Clearly tortured by his nightmare which he begins to feel is real. When it finally dawns on him that it was true, his acting on the train to New York rally captures the feeling of despair and fear. Eventually he becomes determined to save his friend from the sinister forces at play. Laurence Harvey is amazing as the tortured and angry Raymond Shaw. During the trance sequences, his acting is much like we would see in The Terminator 20 years later. When he is free, his rage and sadness at his home and social life really makes him a sympathetic character. Some of his best acting is seen when he has scenes with his mother where he still is a frightened and oppressed child. But he steals the show during the scene where he tearfully recounts to Sinatra the time his mother destroyed a relationship he had with a young woman, delivering his famous "I'm not lovable," speech. Speaking of the mother, it is no wonder Angela Lansbury was nominated for an Oscar in this film as Shaw's cold blooded and monstrous mother. One of the best villains in cinematic history, Lansbury is probably the film's most memorable character, the self centered and camera posing attitude being visible from the first line she utters. Seeming like just an average bitch at first, she evolves into a walking nightmare. James Gregory comes close behind as the comical but despicable caricature of Joseph McCarthy, who slings accusations at anyone who disagrees with him and follows Lansbury around as if on a leash. A very funny but detestable character in a sea of bleakness. Gregory does a good job in providing the audience with uncomfortable laughs. Janet Leigh is next. Nothing against her talent as an actress and the scene she shares with Sinatra on the train to New York is good, but she really is not that critical to the plot. A nice performance that is not altogether necessary.
I must talk about some of the film's central points. The brainwashing session is beautiful. It begins with the soldiers in a hotel lobby listening to a Garden Club meeting on hydrangeas. In a single 360 shot, the camera pans around the room and returns to the soldiers, now in a lecture hall with a communist scientist telling of how he has conditioned them. Fascinating how the subjective and the objective come into play in a single shot. The scene cuts back and forth between the hallucination and the real scene for the duration of this scene. The deaths of the two soldiers, (especially young Bobby's surreal and spooky death) are frightening indeed. Almost as scary as Leigh's own death in Psycho. Up next is the now classic fight scene between Frank Sinatra and Henry Silva. It is not every day you see a man take a chunk out of a table with a single karate chop. No wonder Sinatra broke his hand during this brutal and frantic fight scene. No cabinets, windows or tables are safe during this tussle. The influences on fight scenes in future films are clear here. Finally the finale at the political rally, probably my favorite scene in the film boats one of the best, most satisfying and most sobering conclusions in film history.
Speaking of those scenes, they would not have been the wonders they were without those wonderful sets. The set design for the brainwashing session and the rally is beautiful. Very surrealistic and clean. Almost too clean. So clean that you know it will get messy by the time the scene ends. These two sets, the moment you see them, you are filled with a sense of dread. They seem very unreal, very nightmarish. In sharp contrast with the naturalistic sets which populate the rest of the film. But still well done. The simple one room set of Senator Jordan's New York apartment is memorable, perfectly catching the tragic events that take place within it. Other sets Shaw's apartment is put together quite nice for the fight scene, everything seeming to be put in the perfect location for maximum action, but not in a phony way.
Usually I am very complimentary of the music, but here I must say it didn't have that profound of an effect on me. The entire film could have contained no musical soundtrack and it would have made little difference, say for the opening credits. The theme in the opening credits is a very sad hymn like tune, which is appropriate given the inner struggle that Shaw begins to go through as the film progresses. The music in the trailer was full of thrills and chills, and it saddens me that score was not used for this film. It would have been a show stopper. The scorer here is basic and does its job, but is not something I would recognize immediately.
The editing of the film is very good. Very tight, rhythmic and chaotic. Very great work by Ferris Webster. Best scenes are the fight sequence and the political rally. Editing is a very underrated part of the movie making process. Had this film been edited together differently, it would not have been the same. Sound editing is also very noteworthy. in one very strong sequence, a scene ends with a gunshot. As the scene dissolves into the next one, the gunshot seamlessly transforms into a clap of thunder. A very powerful example of editing.
John Frankenheimer who directed this film clearly knew what he was doing while making this film. He seems to have had a career of modest success, but this is without a doubt his masterpiece. Looks like Frankenheimer is responsible for a great work.
Before this review ends, I must say the motif of the deck of cards is used to maximum effect. You will never look at a Solitaire game again after this film. Every time someone sets down those cards, you will watch them close, and hope they don't walk out the door when they set down the Queen of Diamonds. Much more effective than the nanotechnology used in the remake.
The Manchurian Candidate is a paranoid and politically incorrect film. Given its subject matter, it is quite interesting that is takes a stand against the recently defeated Joseph McCarthy. At its heart is not a conspiracy theory, but the story of a young man's desperate attempt to escape from his cruel mother and dimwitted stepfather. A very human story wrapped inside an assassination scheme. It was put together perfectly.
The Philadelphia Experiment (1984)
Highly enjoyable adventure which is supposedly based on the real events of 1943 involving the USS Eldridge, of course there is no evidence to support the stories but the spooky possibility of it all is still fun to think about and actually adds to the films enjoyment.
Yes it looks pretty kooky now with lots of errors and dodgy effects but like many old films that's part of the fun, actually the effects for the time vortex aren't too bad and the shots of the vortex hole in the sky with lots of swirling cloud around it are quite good still.
The acting is very basic and hokey with chief of cheese Mr Pare and one of the Queens of the 80's Nancy Allen both in a very soppy love plot, lots of military types running around being ordered by lots of scientist types haha its all very cute.
Its really the perfect boys own adventure with a love interest, daring heroism, mystery and a happy ending which can't fail to make you smile..it will also make you wanna jump through time vortexes too hehe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChjyCR8V2Bg# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChjyCR8V2Bg#)
Who doesn't love this kind of stuff :)
Super
So how to explain this! let me see...I guess if I say..think a realistic and actually more shocking 'Kick Ass' that might give you an idea. I was totally surprised by this one I admit, I have known of it for awhile and was really interested to see it as I like Rainn Wilson and thought this would be a loony off the wall super hero spoof, I was rather wrong it seems.
Yes there is some good funny moments with your typical spoof super hero type stuff, the crazy ass suit, his use of weapons, getting his ass kicked and running away etc...but these get few and far between as the film progresses. As time passes we actually get quite a deep emotional story of loneliness, misery, depression and despair as the lead character tries to evaluate his life, reinvent himself and earn respect, popularity and love. At the same time we get quite shocking violence, an under age sex sequence, drug use and a quite sad ending with no real reason to smile, all in all its a very mixed bag which at times makes you smile, then makes you gasp and ends on a downer.
Its well made and Wilson performs well, possibly his best so far showing true emotion, Page is alittle over the top for me whilst disturbing at the same time and Bacon kinda felt outta place in his portrayal. To be honest I kinda felt abit depressed after watching it and left disappointed as maybe abit less graphic violence and more fun would have worked better.
Coneheads (1993)
SNL madness but oh what glorious madness this is :) with an epic cast of comedy greats and character actors...,Aykroyd, Spade, Farley, Lovitz, Hartman, Sandler, Griffin, Sinbad, Drew Carey, Tom Arnold, Whip Hubley, Posey, DeGeneres and Jane Curtain, quite the list there.
The film itself is virtually B-movie in essence and doesn't hide the fact with crazy over the top acting and cheesy looking effects which at the same time do still kinda hold up today, the sequences where Aykroyd gets his teeth capped and the fight against the 'Rancor' type monster in the finale are fantastic examples of bad/good effects.
The whole film is that classic wacky genius you expect with Aykroyd and his unique thinking along with his amazing ability to reel off large segments of dialog without pause or fault. Other stars have a good time here too, especially Farley who strangely enough is the main love interest in the film and great little cameos from Sandler and Lovitz, nothing that hilarious but its funny.
Its such a silly, basic, childish plot and idea but its been so well directed and lovingly created with that good old fashioned SNL 80's originated comedy that it just can't fail to win.
Congo (1995)
Wow I remember seeing this at the cinema, being released and trailers etc..it feels like eons ago haha At the time I quite liked the film but didn't think it was awesome or anything, on a rewatch I'm still quite liking the film for its good old fashioned jungle adventure theme and nice character work.
I think the casting is a winner here mainly with Ernie Hudson as a smooth well spoken guide in the old classic Hollywood sense alongside Curry hamming it up as a Romanian philanthropist, both of which you are never quite sure if they will turn out to be bad guys. Rest of the cast is alittle wet but there are afew nice cameos thrown in.
Problem with this film is the dodgy looking puppet/animatronic mask work on the friendly gorillas which just doesn't quite look right, the nasty vicious grey gorillas look quite good and scary with decent mask work but movement for all apes concerned is obviously men in suits and just doesn't work. Location and sets vary from being nice to very obvious but does the job just about, the whole film is along those lines really, it does the job by the skin of its teeth, it could of really sunk but just about holds its own and comes across as a fun B-movie without becoming an actual bad B-movie.
Hobo with a Shotgun
Second film to be made from the small collection of trailers from the Tarantino/Rodriguez collaboration 'Grindhouse'. The first 'Machete' was a loud in your face mess but was just about watchable down to the brilliant character of Machete and the use of Trejo, this second film is again loud and in your face but isn't quite as fun as 'Machete' for me.
OK so I accept that the film is a no bars hold violent revenge/vigilante thriller with the usual amounts of claret on show that I would now come to expect from RR and Tarantino but this film travels down a route that is really quite nasty and slightly disturbing frankly.
Yes the violence is very comicbook and of course very silly in places, plenty of gun killing going on much like say...'Robocop' with big bullet wounds and blood pumping out all over, the issue I had with the film is the quite nasty violence that was maybe just a step too far. A good example of this was when one of the bad guys kills a school bus load of kids by burning them all to death with a flamethrower inside the bus.
The style of the film is actually a good idea having a hobo go around cleaning up a rotten town, quite the classic concept, Hauer as the hobo was a great casting choice with his grizzled old face much like a grizzled Clint, he staggers around and takes bad guys out with sharp dialog. The look and design is of course grindhouse/exploitation and a homage to all those old crappy flicks, personally I really don't like those kind of flicks as I always just took them for cheap films simply trying to squeeze in tits n ass for the hell of it, if you want that then you might as well watch a porn flick. Anyway, there is a certain 'Crow' vibe going on in this film if you ask me, the extreme unique badguy characters, the dingy lighting with only afew colours used and of course the vigilante theme.
I think this film could of been a much better film had it been made more sensibly without the grindhouse aspect and less ridiculous violence, I like the idea of a hobo going around being the no name hero, its simple and works. This film has its good moments but also has many silly moments too, the worst being 'the Plague' that look like characters out of 'Monty Pythons Holy Grail' and go around killing absolutely anyone including staff in a hospital, at that point the terms 'less is more' or 'over the top' spring to mind despite it being deliberately so. Starts off well but slowly degenerates into a showcase for shock value or bodycount and trying to spill the highest amount of blood ever.
Terminator Salvation
The latest in the Terminator series, a film that is 50/50 in the quality department thus far.
John Conner (Christian Bale), one of the commanders of the Resistance is up to his neck in the machine war. Meanwhile Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) a death row inmate mysteriously escapes from a Skynet facility. Finally comes the third player in the tale. Teenage civilian Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) is on Skynet's hit list. Only John Conner knows why.
I will say that the acting is not too impressive. Bale seems to be stuck in Batman mode with this, doing that deep brooding voice of his and barely hiding his accent. He doesn't do a terrible job by any means, but seems to be going for uber-badass and failing to capture the appropriate despair of the situation. Is it just me, or was this a serious miscast? Bale just doesn't seem right for Conner in my honest opinion. Next comes Worthington as Wright. Worthington doesn't do any better in this role, remaining flat and unresponsive through most of the film, only showing emotion in a few choice moments, and doing so very poorly. I know this character has a fan base, but I am not one of em. Now Yelchin, there is a promising actor. Not only does he play my favorite character in the entire Terminator mythology, he does it perfectly. He looks like a young Biehn, sounds like a young Biehn, and has the same mannerisms as Biehn. When he reprised the famous "Come with me if you want to live." (which was first done by Biehn and not Arnie), I shat myself with delight. At least there was one actor I could get behind.
The look of the film is surprisingly dull. I will be rather harsh in this regard because the original film had only a 10 million dollar budget and it got the Future War looking perfect. This film had 20 times that budget and missed the mark and then some. The sad thing is the main problem with these sequences are the lighting. The eerie blue is absent, the purple lasers are nowhere. It was attempted to make this look like a modern war film, which it does. The very big problem is that is not what the Future War is supposed to be.
The effects are pretty decent, with some nice animatronics and CGI effects. The flying HKs look close to how they did in the original film, but then come the new creations of Skynet. While I don't like the designs of the water, motorcycle and gatherer terminators, I will say the effects are well executed.
The action scenes involving the Resistance seem to fall very flat, with the exception of the Skynet climax. The stuff between Reese and Marcus seems to fall just short of the mark, but satisfies the appetite for suspense well enough. Perhaps it is because Yelchin actually made me care about his character (which I already did before the movie even started). There are a few points where there is blatant unoriginality. The scene where Marcus leaps a barbed wire fence on a motorcycle is a blatant clone of that ever so memorable shot from the 1960s WWII masterpiece The Great Escape. I like an homage as much as the next guy but this one just seemed like thievery. Next comes the fight between Marcus and the T 800. This scene was stolen from Terminator 2, which in turn stole it from Terminator 1. How many times do we have to see a terminator get hit by the hero with a pipe? Biehn did it just fine the first time, thank you very much.
The writing in this film is average. There are a few nice nods to the original films and the reveal of Reese on the hit list is well done. There are times where characters seem underdeveloped and others are there for the sake of being dicks (a-la Ironside). Not a terrible job but just barely passable.
The director is not a very good one, at least not yet. McG's best known works prior to this where the hit and miss Charlie's Angels films. Looking at his lineup, he seems like a very poor choice, not doing anything that had the dark beauty of the first Terminator film, or the suspenseful action of the 2nd. Hammy action seems to be his strong suit, if you can call that a strong suit. That being said, he actually did an okay job. He captured the action well enough and when his actors did well, he managed to put some emotion on screen. The producers took a gamble and barely made it with him.
Terminator Salvation is a step up from the not quite as bad as everyone says T3, but still fails to recapture what was lost after T2 (or for me, T1). Aside from my glowing praise of Yelchin as Reese, which I will admit it likely due to bias, this film was a so so action thriller that, while not failing to entertain, does fail to leave a real lasting impact with this viewer. Fortunately, Yelchin brought back someone I have been waiting to see again for a long time, and that alone will be the reason I see this film again. Welcome back DN38416.
Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)
Four stories by four directors, Spielberg, Landis, Dante and Miller, a great collection of directors and a neat selection of spooky tales. This is actually a great movie adaptation of the series which doesn't loose what it should be about and go overboard, the stories are remakes from the series including one original story.
First tale about a racist bigot who is somehow transported back and forth through time from Nazi Germany to Vietnam experiencing racism against himself has an obvious strong message of justice or revenge against prejudice in a very simple way. Landis does a reasonable job with the simple tale but its alittle uninspired and would of liked a more horror based tale from the master of comedic terror.
Tale two from Spielberg is again rather uninspired but you can tell miles off its by Spielberg with its warm glow and gentle heart, a tale of old folk who dream of becoming young again and with the help of a mysterious old man in their retirement home they do overnight. Easily the tear jerker of the four and the nicest with strong similarities to the film 'Cocoon' which probably pinched the idea hehe.
Tale three is clearly made by Dante, like tale two you can see the directors style clearly and by the way the short film looks design wise, trademark Dante finger prints all over with his fav actor Dick Miller used again. A fun and very eerie tale of a boy who can make anything he wishes come true and holds a group of people captive in his bizarre home, pretending to be his family the small group of people are merely scared of the boy and can never leave fearing the young boy may wish something terrible upon them. Its a spooky tale if you think about it and works very well, parodied by 'The Simpson's' in a 'Treehouse of Terror' episode surely means it deserves respect :)
The final tale by Miller is a remake of the classic Twilight Zone episode which featured a young William Shatner 'Nightmare at 20,000 Feet', again parodied by 'The Simpson's' earning it even more respect and fame. A terrified airline passenger is driven insane by a combination of the fear of flying and the fact he can see a monster on the wing of the plane ripping apart the engine. Probably the best of the tales with a great concept and cool creature to boot, Lithgow does well as the passenger going insane from nerves and anxiety with a performance equal to the original whilst the gremlin looks perfectly kooky and unnerving.
Mixed bag of tales, the two from Dante and Miller being the best, Spielberg's is reasonable but boring and Landis I think picked the wrong type of story to best suit his abilities. Love the intro/end sequences with Dan Aykroyd and add to that a full list of top names in the cast all equal a decent film, could of been better but it still wins.
Tales from the Darkside (1990)
The alternative to the Twilight Zone movie but not quite in the same league in my opinion, the film consists of three stories within a wrap around story told by a boy who is going to eaten by a witch of all things haha.
First tale see's a man use a 3000 year old mummy to kill afew select people, an adaptation of a Arthur Conan Doyle short, not a bad story and handled reasonably well with good makeup on the mummy and some bloody deaths dealt out. Big cast names in this story with Buscemi and Christian Slater and a nice ending make this tale the second best of the three.
Second tale is an adaptation of a Stephen King story and the weakest of the three, an old man is sure he is cursed by a cat which is trying to kill him after it supposedly killed his sister, the reason is because the old mans pharmaceutical company killed many thousands of cats in testing a new drug. Pretty lame story really which isn't really spooky in the slightest, the cat is obviously some sort of demon which is cool and this is shown in the way it kills the hitman who has been hired to get rid of the cat, I just think it could of been more scary simply.
Third and final tale stars James Remar and is about a guy who witnesses the death of a man by a gargoyle type creature, the creature lets the witness live if he promises not to tell anyone of what he saw. Easily the best story even though its not explained too well and leaves you asking why by the end, some great makeup and effects in the finale as we see a transformation similar to finale in 'The Fly' with Jeff Goldblum, really nicely done without the use of cgi, no surprise with Dick Smith being involved.
Overall not as good as Twilight Zone the movie and abit more adult in content with much blood n gore on show but still it has two good stories which if you like 'the Zone' you will I'm sure like these.
Celtic Pride (1996)
Good fun loopy comedy with Aykroyd and Stern as a couple of obsessed Boston sports fans that kidnap Utah's top basketball player just in time for the NBA finals.
Great simple plot that works really well but the duo of Aykroyd and Stern really makes the film hit top stride. Stern being a crazed on the edge father and Aykroyd as his timid submissive best friend make a great combo, Wayans is also actually very good as an arrogant selfish top player really nailing the role, all together its really quite amusing as the trio get into all kinds of trouble as the big game approaches. I liked how the boys had to pretend to support the Utah Jazz in order to get close to Wayans character so they could nab him haha some good facial/physical comedy on display there. Not a well known flick but well worth it if you find it.
The Great Outdoors (1988)
Bit of a classic comedy that was watched by the whole family over the years whenever it would be show on TV, like many old Candy films it was a bit of a ritual to view these type of 80's comedies.
The family holiday that hits disaster is a common theme with the likes of National Lampoons Vacation series being another classic and a much loved film when I was growing up, 'The Great Outdoors' isn't quite as good as 'Lampoon' to be honest, its a fun ride with some good moments but nothing outrageously funny.
Candy is actually slightly upstaged here by the always good Aykroyd as the slimy 80's yuppie haha the rest of the cast including Annette Bening is rather weak like the whole film really, its simply Candy and Akyroyd that make it decent. Its cheesy and full of those obvious dated sets hehe plenty of silly stunts with doubles and the usual animal attack phobias by your typical terrified of nature yanks lol!
My Fellow Americans (1996)
Perfect casting as Jack Lemon and James Garner play American ex-Presidents in quite a believable way in both terms of looks and attitude. A brilliant team up with both actors being on top form with witty dialog and some great one two's as they bicker and fight across the Southern Appalachians trying to get their evidence of a conspiracy back to the current President.
The film is really quite underrated and plays out so well with the two leads having superb timing and really nailing their moments with good old fashioned classic comedy. The plot isn't too complex, it looks really good with some great looking sets (I presume) of the White House, Airforce One plus some nice location work as the two stars bumble through nature.
Was meant to be a Lemon and Matthau double team flick but to be honest I think this duo works better as Garner really fit the role so well, highly recommended :)
The Couch Trip (1988)
Another top Aykroyd comedy (does he ever make abad one?) alongside Grodin with his usual extreme character portrayal and Walter Matthau in a slightly weaker role than his partners.
88 was a good year for Aykroyd with 'The Great Outdoors' and this, two good films but this one clearly being the best, if not as well known, with Aykroyd in scorching form as a smart ass convict getting himself to a loony bin and then a top flight job as a doctor on the radio.
Sounds average but the way in which Aykroyd performs his role is such a joy to watch with his usual quick fire dialog that he can unleash at any given moment as he has shown in many of his films. The whole film is basically an anarchic comedy with the main character being a total fraud, yet a lovable roguish fraud that you just wanna see win :)
Much better than so many modern films due to Aykroyd coming across as quite an intelligent person who genuinely knows his stuff instead of just memorising lines, its also nice to see a comedian in film who can make you laugh with his wit and use of knowledge instead of just making stupid faces and acting like a complete moron Mr Carrey.
My Stepmother is an Alien (1988)
Another film for Aykroyd in 88 only this time in my humble opinion its a weak one with a very silly B-movie type premise and a poor performance from the over hyped (at the time) Basinger. Even Aykroyd can't save this very average film with his usual zany comedy and fast quips, the effects are really dated and I don't think event that good for its time whilst the comedy is lacking, all the film does really is show how poor an actress Basinger is. Look out for a very young Seth Green and of course Alyson Hannigan.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Now I will admit I love Tim Burton and most of his work but I too was shocked and fearful of his agreement to take the helm of this sci-fi action flick revamp/re-imagining. Many directors were considered and to be honest I think many of them would have been perfect for the film but Burton does add his usual unique artistic style which can be glimpsed throughout the film in armour design, landscapes sets etc..
So straight to the point I actually liked this Burton version of 'Apes' mainly because its a fun romp which is both silly entertaining cheese and has that classic semi serious sci-fi element to it. First up the visuals in the film are tremendously good and really make the film stand out, total kudos to Rick Baker and his team, the man totally nails the ape look for all the characters to a tea. The best clearly being Roth as 'Thade' with a fantastic makeup job, next up must be Duncan in his gorilla makeup but how about Shadix and Giamatti in their orangutan (I think) makeup..amazing!
The film wins with the look for sure, not only is the makeup excellent but the sets are nicely worked, location is well suited, the apes costumes and battle gear is well designed and the space sequences also look and work well, all in all it pretty much like a top class Star Trek film hehe I mean a good Star Trek film by the way ;)
Casting choices were good accept for Wahlberg who wasn't quite right for me, thankfully we had no Depp to endure here but the use of many solid character actors such as Warner and the imaginative use Tagawa really help lift the film, who could imagine Tagawa as a gorilla.
I really enjoyed the film on my second viewing, my first was on release at the cinema, and I believe its because the 'Apes' classic plot can be made many ways and is open to interpretation from different angles, its not a case of it only works one way like allot of classic films, 'Apes' is a franchise that you can seem to mould and recreate without upsetting the originals. This Burton vision is simple yet highly enjoyable as a fun sci-fi romp, not too heavy, not just copying the original, touch of artistic license and the attempt at a twist ending which was brave but rather illogical, trying to equal the original but failing there I'm afraid. Still the little use of cgi for much of the film is always nice in my book.
Canadian Bacon (1995)
Very clever and very amusing comedy staring yet not centred around John Candy, this is more of a vehicle for many good character actors including Alan Alda, Rip Torn, Dan Aykroyd, Kevin Pollak and G.D. Spradlin.
The US President is losing in the approval ratings so on advice from his yes men he invents a war between the US and Canada, that is the plot and its brilliant. Michael Moore writes, directs and cameos in his film which is far better than you would think despite it vanishing into obscurity after release.
A minor political satire mixed with black comedy and outright stupidity added with some great performances which really send up the US government, Alda and Torn in the war room together are brilliant, there is also quite abit of influence here from other classic films. One such scene where Dan Aykroyd as a Canadian policeman pulls Candy over in his truck pointing out that the graffiti on the side of his truck must be in French as well as English for all French speaking Canadians which bares a very close similarity to the classic scene in 'Monty Python's Life of Brian' where the Roman centurion orders Brian to spell check his graffiti he had scrawled all over the Roman walls.
Great little gem :)
Uncle Buck (1989)
Probably one of John Hughes most loveable comedies with a beautiful performance from Candy as 'Buck' in your typical Hughes teen angst cum family fun flick that must please all.
The whole film is so Hughes with the lovely suburban setting, big dream house, bratty teens, innocent kids with lots of prat falls and silly childish gags that are predictable yet simply fun. The plot is simple enough as the slobbish Candy must look after his brothers kids for afew days, this of course equals much tomfoolery and bumbling from Candy as he adapts to his new posher surroundings and tries to befriend the kids.
Candy's character is alittle similar to his character from 'Planes Trains and Automobiles' to be honest but Candy as we know does it so well, Hughes doesn't mess around and simply gets the best from Candy, the best that he knows will be liked. Macaulay Culkin present here in a pre 'Home Alone' performance that clearly got him that famous role as again his character is pretty similar in both films but he does fit these 80's films so well I gotta admit.
Its all very predictable yes but Hughes just had this skill in making golden teen flicks and family films that just worked perfectly even though they were abit samey, a case of everything coming together at the right time for that one time in history which can never be repeated, Candy was the ultimate family comedy character.
Creepshow (1982)
Classic franchise written by Stephen King and directed by 'zombie' Romero, starring an all star old school line up including the legendary Leslie Neilsen, Ted Danson, Hal Holbrook, Adrienne Barbeau, Ed Harris, Don Keefer and Stephen King himself....some greats in there folks. The stories are basic but this may be down to the fact the franchise is based on the old 50/60's E.C. Comics.
Like the world class 'Twilight Zone' 'Tales from the Darkside' and 'Tales from the Crypt' Creepshow is an anthology of horror tales that aren't exactly 18 rated horror but just kooky fun that would fit your halloween party perfectly. The stories vary from quite good to rather average to be honest with minimal gore.
The film is comicbook style with some lovely animations of 'the Creep' a hooded skeletal zombie who spins the tales with his nice cackling laugh hehe the stories also have allot of 'toon' imagery throughout which are suppose to give the impression of boarders within a comicbook, nice but not needed for me. The whole film is also bookended by a short tale like all these anthology films.
As for the actual tales they are a mixed bag to be honest, the first being a zombie returning from the grave to get his birthday cake he never received, this has Ed Harris (with hair!) and is reasonable but nothing too special. Second stars King as a dumb farmer who foolishly touches a meteorite that lands in his crops and slowly becomes infected and overgrown with a mysterious space fungus or plant life. This story is better and more original than the basic zombie story and shows King in a really goofy role for some reason.
Third story involves Neilsen as a rich jealous man who sets up a nasty fate for his unfaithful wife and her lover Ted Danson, probably the nastiest short in the film with a horrible way to die but the fact Neilsen is the bad guy makes it hard to take seriously haha expecting George Kennedy to pop up at any moment hehe.
Third story stars Holbrook and is a good simple creature tale as a crate containing a large furry razor teethed monster eats people who dare go to close to the crate, lots of blood and some good fun 'Critter' type eatin in this one :)
Last story isn't too good in my opinion as a hypochondriac businessman lives in a hermetically sealed apartment terrified of bugs and germs, a story derived possibly from Howard Hughes and not very original with a predictable ending. Overall the stories could of been better but they do have charm and are still enjoyable.
Creepshow 2 (1987)
Stephen King and Romero are back for more tales of terror hosted by 'The Creep', again the film is bookended by a short story that starts off as live action but then transforms into that eerie cartoon style that looks so good in the Creepshow films.
The stories again are a mixed bag this time not with quite as great a cast line up as before but we do have George Kennedy this time :)
First up is a story of an old wooden Indian Chief statue coming to life to get revenge on the youths who killed the old owners of a general store where the Indian is on display. Kennedy is in this story and it is a good one with a nice revenge plot but it is predictable, nice effects on the wooden Chief though.
Second story is slightly better than the first with a group of teens stuck on a raft in the middle of a lake because an oil slick type monster that is devouring them one by one. Nice spooky idea that, despite the monster looking like a flat pancake floating on the water, works well especially effects wise when the teens are sucked under by the creature.
Last story is the weakest and simply involves a woman hitting a hitchhiker with her car and the hitcher coming back to haunt her for the rest of her journey. Pretty lame predictable plot which must have inspired 'I What You Did Last Summer'.
A slightly better selection of short stories over the original minus the good cast but still nothing really outstanding or as memorable as 'Twilight' or 'Darkside', still I must admit I like this old Creepshow flicks very much, love that 80's US halloween style.
Creepshow III (2006)
A change of pace with this latest sequel, no connection to the previous two films Romero or King but the whole film takes the Tarantino route with intertwining stories that mix and collide with each other as the different stories progress. To be honest the film is pretty good despite reviews that I have read, the stories are dark and bloody but not that original yet they still hook you and keep the atmosphere nice and spooky.
The short stories are quite good but they kick off with a weak offering about a bratty girl mutating into her true form everytime the TV remote is used, doesn't make much sense and isn't that interesting yet it does have some nice makeup effects. After this all the other stories are mixed in together and we see characters from each segment showing up in other stories.
There is a murderous prostitute on the rampage, a vampire killing folk, a man who buys a radio that can speak to him and help him make money, two college guys who think a professor has built the perfect woman and a cruel miserable doctor who gets his come upance. The way the stories all merge is really well done and you get lots of little plot tit bits from each part that explain other questions from other parts...plus some references to the previous two Creepshow films. I was expecting a real cheap looking flick but instead this is actually quite decent and well worth the honour of being Creepshow 3.
Cowboys and Aliens
I really wanted to like this, believe me, I really tried to enjoy the film, I love the concept or idea of mixing two genres like this, much like say...Samurai v Spartans or Cowboys v Ninja hehe :)
The main problem with this film for me was it was simply kinda boring for the most part, the dialog was tedious as was most of the film until the aliens attacked but even then the action was generic and uninspired. There was too much cliched stuff going on here for me with Craig being the 'slit eyed beneath the brim of his hat' leather faced tough guy cowboy who can beat up lots of guys at the same time whilst Ford is just his grumpy self in a cowboy outfit haha.
I really didn't like the casting of Craig in this film as he didn't really fit the western feel for me, he wasn't necessarily bad but just doesn't look like a cowboy type, the alien creatures weren't too bad and gave me a 'Halo' vibe which I quite liked but their ships didn't impress that much.
To be brutally honest I think the whole film was an anti climax and kinda drab, I was really expecting so much more but it just felt very 'meh', even the film poster wasn't exactly brimming with excitement when I saw it, just the three main leads standing in a triangle and that's it, with a rather dull font for the text above, shame.
The Shadow (1994)
In a true 30's period style this comicbook/pulp adaptation visually looks really nice and captures the atmosphere of the time perfectly, if you think along the lines of 'Dick Tracy' and 'The Rocketeer' then you will get an idea of the feel.
The character of The Shadow isn't anything really special to be honest, its just a guy in a cloak with a fedora type hat on and he carries two guns, always did seem like a poor mans Batman. The character fits his world just right though in both his crime fighting form and his alias as a rich good looking 'Bruce Wayne' type, his lair has a neat little secret entrance and he lurks around in the shadows nicely hehe.
The sets are really well designed throughout and look stunning I must say, everything from costumes to cars are beautifully done and recreated, it is obviously sets but that adds to the charm and works much better than cgi. There is of course some cgi present throughout which swings from being reasonable (looking back now) to abit hokey as it would be though but it still just about works today.
For some reason though we have another crime fighter who must face off against Genghis Khan or a relation of Khan, even though this character is from the original comics its odd how other characters have also had to fight Khan eg. 'Hellboy', what is it with Khan?
Still this is great fun and looks slick with a good casting choice in Baldwin for the main role, he looks perfect for the part of 'Cranston' the playboy and actually could well have been a good Bruce Wayne too I'm sure. This really is how 'The Green Hornet' should been approached instead of the geeky farce it was, shame The Shadow failed at the box office.
The Witches of Eastwick (1987)
If you wanna see Jack Nicholson doing his thing then this is probably the one to watch other than Batman, I've never known someone more perfect to play the role of the devil or a devil than Nicholson with his evil grin, arched eyebrows and that receding widows peak hair line.
The film was made for Jack and he plays it like a violin lol! sure he over acts but you just can't see anyone in this role, he's funny, devilish, off putting and quite eerie as the film progresses and things turn against him. On the flip side the casting for the three lovely ladies is more perfect casting if ever I saw it, Cher, Sarandon and Pfeiffer are all gorgeous together and make you wish you were in Jacks place with all his obvious wealth and power (is that Jack in the film or reality?).
The film is a gloriously Gothic horror/comedy of gallows humour and an amazing use of location, the musical score is wonderful and very much like the opening score for 'Beetlejuice', a kind of supernatural spooky tune that conjures all manner of halloween type imagery in your head, genius. Basically the film is all about sex and one guy trying to have three women haha it doesn't shy from that but its the dark ghostly approach that I personally love.
The Phantom (1996)
If you cross Indiana Jones with Tarzan and mix in some 'Goonies' type pirate tomfoolery then you pretty much have this fun cheesy boys own adventure. Actually if I think about it some more you could also throw in some camp Batman and Robin from the classic 60's series in certain sequences, it does get alittle bit too hammy in places I must say hehe.
Of course it is suppose to be almost a pantomine type flick with lots of silly lines and caddish villains but it is a touch too childish for me were as other pulp comicbook character adaptations like 'The Shadow' are abit more serious. The Phantom world is a pretty looking universe I must say, the jungle lair, 30's New York and the museum set where one of the skulls is kept are all really well created and have that lovely wooden stylish structured feel with that nice dark noirish colour range (much like The Shadow).
Effects are dated now of course and the fights do look rather gentle haha I almost expected 'Kapow!' to flash across the screen when Zane punched a baddie henchman. Its a good fun film which kids will enjoy and is totally set in the period comicbook action genre of oldschool superheroes. The Phantom isn't really a great character to put on film really as he's abit too dated and soft with his natty purple tights, simple black face mask which only covers his eyes and the fact he has a wolf and horse as his sidekicks hehe its so 'awwww'. Didn't really think much of the pirates that make up the bad guys, especially at the end which really turns into Schumacher type affair but it is all taken from the original stories so that's good I suppose, its just the original stories and ideas are very out of time now.
Doesn't beat around the bush and gives you exactly what it says on the tin which is a very light hearted period superhero flick with lots of charm, dames, cads and a dashing hero in a tight purple catsuit.
I love The Phantom in all its cheesy glory. ;D
Yeah that shit's awesome.
The Rocketeer (1991)
Its a real shame this film bombed so much at the box office, I really can't understand why it did so badly as its one of the best comicbook adaptations around, it captures the all American spirit of the time and harnesses that glorious 30's feel with every frame, Johnston really did superbly well with this film.
Just from seeing the old movie poster for the cinemas shows you how much care and attention to detail went into this film, the poster has a fantastic art deco design simply of the heroic character, its simple and minimal but does the job a thousand times over, I love it, one of the best posters made.
Although the character was created in 82 its an obvious homage to pulp comicbooks and matinee/serial hero characters of the 30's/40's, the idea is simple but works so so well. The whole film has that 'Indy' feel to it and completes a trilogy of classic pulp comicbook superheroes alongside 'The Shadow' and 'The Phantom'....in my opinion.
The film is nothing but fun and doesn't pretend to be serious or shy away from the ham n cheese, Dalton is the dastardly caddish villain who clearly is suppose to be Errol Flynn, Connelly is the damsell in distress, Sorvino is the classic American gangster in Al Capone style, O'Quinn plays Howard Hughes amazingly well and Tiny Ron is a character straight out of 'Dick Tracy'. New boy Campbell also does really well as the lead character giving the role a fresh feel and no ego problems which tend to come with big names.
The film looks great and has some terrific design work, the rocket pack looks cool and practical as does the helmet with its rudder fin on the top. Effects are decent enough with allot of bluescreen but of course nowadays look rather iffy but add to that some lovely stunt work and nice use of many old planes and cars. Plot is straight forward but does get abit beyond itself towards the finale, like how on earth a huge Nazi Zeppelin would be able to fly into the US undetected but I guess it is suppose to be the 30's so who knows. I must also mention the brilliant animated black n white short in the middle of the flick which shows the Nazi's intentions with the rocket pack, really nicely done and could almost be a separate film in itself.
I really can't fault this film in any way, sure its silly but its well worked escapism and an affectionate tribute to the era which anyone would have fun watching, without taking anything away from the creators you could almost say its like an adventure out of a young Indiana Jones early life/career, a prequel maybe ;)
This poster is sheer quality :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi998.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf109%2Fhubbington%2FHubbington3%2Frocketeer.jpg&hash=03f06aeed9058e717581fc71b5bd95bc2faea04d)
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
The only 'Apes' film I have seen is the Burton 're-imagining' and I quite like that version as it was visually stunning and a good fun adventure, this new film right from the start I could tell was gonna be a different animal altogether..no pun intended.
The effects on the apes at first during the character build up and introduction of 'Caesar' was slightly off in my opinion, it was good but not 'wow!' the faces did look abit plastic and too obviously cgi, but as the film progresses and the apes become more aware with Caesar growing in intelligence it seems the cgi gets better as well hehe. By the time Caesar is really plotting his escape and takeover the cgi on his face and whole body movement is really quite impressive. This goes for all the other chimps and apes too especially the gorilla and orangutan which really look fantastic up close along with body motion and hand movements.
The film plot wise is decent and a good ride, it starts slow no doubting that, there is allot of character and story building with the experiments and slow evolution of Caesar, at first I was getting alittle twitchy I must admit but the story does hold you just about and I did find myself really getting into it quite quickly.
Really the human side to the film is rather boring to be honest with Franco and Pinto not really gelling whilst Cox and Lithgow are merely background props (good props I might add) and disappear very quickly but you don't mind, its all about the apes and for most of the run time your just itching for the apes to break free and kick some homosapien ass!
When they do its well worth your money as the finale will get your heart pounding as you cheer for the apes to reach freedom, the damn humans are in the way but luckily we see some great man stomping but with intelligent action.
What was impressive was how Caesar would not let his fellow primates kill humans needlessly, of course afew do bite the dust but if Caesar was around he didn't want it, wether that is to show he has evolved and won't sink to that level or the creators just wanted a family friendly film rating I don't know ;)
The finale is really the cherry on the icing on the cake, a full blown Hominidae rampage through San Francisco with lots of very well realised chimps one gorilla and an orangutan. It is good that the film doesn't resort to lots of guns and masses of apes being killed, there is a small element of that but it doesn't get over blown into silliness which is good to see. One or two moments of Hollywood craziness perhaps like when the gorilla leaps onto the chopper from the Golden gate bridge and the use (again) of that iconic piece of dialog, does that really need to be used again simply because its an 'Apes' film?
One of the best films of the year so far for sure, actually been made with some thought and intelligence behind it, fits in well with the franchise originals, a solid musical score to emit emotion and heights of achievement and has a good ending, albeit slightly going for a roaring iconic '2001: Space Odyssey' grandiose type ending :) kinda does it too.
Freaked (1993)
Totally insane, off the wall surreal comedy fantasy which is also a total spoof and not to be watched if your expecting anything remotely sensible haha.
Alex Winter of 'Bill n Ted' fame is the main lead in this but for the most part he is cover in some tremendous prosthetics/makeup which look both effective and kinda daft at the same time. He is joined by quite a motley crew of character actors such as Randy Quaid, Bobcat Goldthwait, Mr T, William Sadler, Brook Shields and a cameo from Sam Raimi, watch out for Keanu Reeves in an uncredited role as 'Dog Boy'.
The plot is utterly crazy and involves toxic waste hence lots of monsters and bizarre mutants, each and every mutant character is well created and range from something simply like a guy farting allot to a guy that has a sock puppet for a head :) you see how weird this is.
All I can say is its a wild trip with tonnes of great makeup, wacky ideas and very little sense, almost like an old MTV music video.
Dick Tracy (1990)
Based on the hugely popular comicstrip from the 30's Tracy was merely a regular tough guy cop of the era that fought hoods, the main difference that made him so popular was the oddball mutant-like villains that he was up against which were pretty much like extreme caricatures.
Almost like a fantasy version of 'The Untouchables' the film has an obvious plot with good guy cops, bad guy villains, beautiful dames in nightclubs, lots of dimly lit offices highlighted by neon lights streaking in between the drawn blinds, fedora hats aplenty, tommy guns and sharp suits.
The film is also made in a highly inventive way, making everything look like a real comicstrip (very much like 'Sin City') using only the same few colours used in the original comicstrip and with lots of matte paintings and models. It looks very impressive even today with the neon selected colour palette, abit dark at times but its very effective and could be mistaken for cgi at times.
Add to that some fantastic costumes with highly colourised suits and pinstripes, all buildings in and out are coloured the same, a nice use of classic old cars as they zoom around and of course the tommy gun makes it all come together when when you see Beatty in a full shot firing it decked out with trenchcoat and fedora.
The film is very reminiscent of Burtons Batman of course and this might be to do with Danny Elfman creating the musical score, its excellent as usual but maybe abit too close to Batman in all honesty. The whole film does have that Dark Knight feel about it, the classic 'Shadow' type vibe which is to be expected but it still stands well on its own.
Like the comicstrip the hoods are one attraction with all the varieties of facial deformities on show, the makeup is really well done on all bad guys it just makes you wish there were more of them. Nice casting for all the hoods and policemen but the inclusion of Madonna wasn't required and should of gone to a proper actress and I firmly believe Sean Young would have made a better 'Tess Truehart', Young was the original choice.
Very stylish fun flick which is also a decent homage to the original material surprisingly, one of the better adaptations that has made been over the years which is just about the right level of violence and camp 60's Batman and Robin type action.
Into the Night (1985)
Odd combination of Jeff Goldblum, a depressed insomniac whose life is dull, uneventful and his wife is cheating on him, the other person being Michelle Pfeiffer who is a jewel smuggler and has some Iranians after her for some precious stones. The mismatched pair bump into each other, make friends and have to run from the nasty Iranians which leads to all manner of scrapes and tight situations none of which are particularly exciting or original.
The film is really quite dull much like Goldblum's performance and doesn't offer anything other than an impressive list of cameos, why? beats me. Pfeiffer and Goldblum don't blend a tall, the action is weak, its naturally very very dated and director Landis is one of the Iranian agents in (I think) his only full movie role.
Trainspotting (1996)
Probably the first British film to hit the bigtime after 'Four Weddings' and boy does it! talk about in your face. I've never read the book so I have no idea how it compares but the film seems to have been accepted pretty well with no complaints. When I first saw this film I really didn't like it to be honest, it was bleak and kinda depressing plus I was young, naive about drugs and unsure of the films presentation and style.
After watching recently I must admit I do enjoy the dark gallows type humour with sickening visuals, it does seem to engage and hold your attention very well, much like a car wreck, you don't wanna look yet you can't turn away hehe.
The cast really make the film what it is basically, the direction by Boyle is impressive and he knows what he wants looks wise but the main leads are terrific in their performances as they repulse you and charm you. McGregor is superb as 'Renton' and looks wonderfully pale, skinny and gaunt yet also makes the 'heroin look' kinda cool at the same time, a cult character and look for sure in cinematic history. After that Carlyle as 'Begbie' is much like a new Pesci with his small slim frame and wildfire rage from within that is both amusing and scary, Miller as 'Sickboy' is probably the funniest of the bunch with his natty Connery impressions and lastly Bremner as 'Spud' fits the druggie bunch perfectly with his 'Jack Skellington' profile and whip fast speech that is probably the strongest accent in the film.
I think one of the best things about the film is the lack of understanding with the dialog and Scottish slang, for anyone outside the UK it will be near impossible to understand I'm willing to bet haha its hard enough for me being British but it all adds to the total gritty realism and down to earth, edgy, streetwise vibe that you feel from the flick, seeing Begbie get into scraps whilst shouting every swear word under the sun is really very watchable despite being crass.
I see this as an almost Tarantino-esq style film really with its disjointed approach and over the top colourful characters (with odd names), even the films posters were abit 'Reservoir Dogs like' in their design.
Very much a character driven film with plenty of little plots buzzing around the main plot which happens to be about drug addiction, I tend to overlook the drug side and just enjoy the little sub plots going on which include some great surreal visuals. Can be a touch too depressing at times as I said but its certainly extremely unique and most definitely a cult.
Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight (1995)
The Crypt Keeper has always looked pretty dodgy if you ask me hehe a pretty bad puppet but hey its not all about him. The actual set for his crypt always looks cool in a Munster/Addams type way which is fun and kooky, nothing special though.
So ye olde Crypt Keeper intros the story which is a feature length plot and based around a group of people stuck in a building with a demon outside after their blood and a special key which one of them processes. Its kinda like a horror version of 'Assault on Precinct 13' with an 'Evil Dead' black comedy angle which does work pretty well I must admit. Billy Zane does a good job as the head demon hamming it up something huge and churning out some decent lines and visual gags, up against him is William Sadler who, for once, plays the hero and the only one who can stop the demons.
The action is good fun and chock full of decent makeup and prosthetics with lots of over the top blood n gore by the bucket full, the plot is actually quite deep revolving around demons dating back through the ages with 'chosen ones' being the only defenders etc....a bit more in depth than the usual Crypt tales.
Bottom line though if you like 'Evil Dead' or 'From Dusk Till Dawn' or 'Feast' then I'm sure you will like this ;)
Tales from the Crypt: Bordello of Blood (1996)
Another tongue cheek blood n guts rampage this time including lots of tits n ass too :) so its pretty darn good then haha. An unoriginal vampire tale this time, set in a brothel with lots of ladies eating biker types much like 'From Dusk Till Dawn' or 'Vamp' but nowhere near as good.
Plot is pretty standard but like the previous Crypt flick is does have a wonderful array of makeup and prosthetic effects all over the show with blood squirting and fangs flying, nothing you haven't seen before but it looks good. Casting is drab but does include 80's horror comedy star Sarandon and 80's teen star Feldman both of which raise the film slightly, Angie Everhart looks delicious as 'Lilith'.
You know what your gonna get with this franchise so your gonna love it or hate it, personally I see these films as an oppertunity to view good examples of horror makeup/effects normally without much cgi, plus they are always good fun on a no brainer level.
Final Destination 5
Well we all know how this goes and this new film goes exactly the same as the last four but personally I have always kinda enjoyed this franchise with its imaginative deaths and spooky karma.
The whole death and fate concept is a very cool idea and it is eerie to think it might be true and when your times up its up. This new film is no different from the others, the highlight being the major accident/death sequence at the start where everyone gets killed, always impressive, makes you wince and its fun in a rather morbid fashion.
The rest of the film isn't as fun as that opening sequence, we all know this, but the way people are taken by death is still in-genius and even nastier this time round. You know whats gonna happen near enough and at times it does make you think 'ouch! now that's gotta sting!'. Personally I didn't like Tony Todd's character in this as he seems to know too much about whats going on which makes you wonder how he would know,
Spoiler
also the ending sequence is good and has the whole franchises story appear to come full circle back to the first film revealing it is infact a prequel.
If you like this franchise then you won't be disappointed I'm sure.
Tales from the Crypt (1972)
Very old British horror anthology and the beginning of the 'Tales' movies based on the EC comic series. Five tales which have been retold now many times eg. 'The Simpsons' have their first appearance but don't really impress due to the age of the film.
The most memorable stories from this collection are easily 'Reflection of Death' where a man travelling in a car dreams he is gonna die in a car crash within the same car, 'Wish You Were Here' which is a neat little variation on the story 'The Monkey's Paw' by W.W.Jacobs and 'Poetic Justice' where some neighbours despise the old man next door so they try to get rid of him with unexpected results. Just like the modern films this film is also bookended by a wrap around tale which is quite good, a group of tourists viewing some catacombs get lost and find an old Crypt Keeper who tells them how they will die ;) kooky but fun.
The tales by todays standards are very quaint, very old fashioned and not very scary in the least but they are enjoyable as soft horror yarns and with the inclusion of one or two big names like Cushing and Collins it does tick along nicely.
Don't expect any great effects or even decent acting hehe but if you like the anthology concept with eerie tales then this is an interesting find.
Money Train (1995)
Snipes and Harrelson team up again for this so so action thriller as two transit cops that lose their jobs and end up trying to rob the moneytrain. The film kicks off pretty well with the duo tagging up together and bustin bad guys whilst somewhat rebelling against their anal boss, as you can expect there is allot of fast dialog, fast punches and swift stunts but not enough to really impress or save the film.
After the first ten minutes or so the film does get quite dull quite quick its gotta be said with not much action and mainly the boys squabbling over Jennifer Lopez, we get some good fighting moments with Snipes doing his thing and Harrelson being abit of a dweeb haha
The film really picks up again in the finale with the guys trying to work out what to do when the plan by Harrelson to steal the moneytrain goes tits up and they are speeding towards certain death with another subway train. Its definitely quite tense and its filmed/created pretty well giving a good sense of danger and speed, easily the best part of the film and just about makes it watchable, only just.
Falling Down
Bill Foster (Michael Douglas) tries to get home to his estranged wife to attend his daughter's birthday in the city of Los Angeles. After getting increasingly frustrated at the state of the city, its citizens and its business practices, he acquires a bag of guns and sets off on a city wide spree to vent his overflowing rage. His ex-wife is horrified what he will do when he arrives at her door.
Michael Douglas does a great job as out unpredictable protagonist. Not since Travis Bickle has the main character of a film made the viewer so uneasy. Given his behavior, we are incredibly fearful of just what he might do when he reaches the birthday party, and his wife's growing fear becomes more understandable. At times, he seems quite harmless and even has a few good natured laughs at his own antics, such as when he plays along with a bystander who believes he is filming a movie. At others, he seems cold blooded and capable of doing monstrous things, such as when he tells his ex-wife over the phone that murdering one's wife is still legal in South America. He is a great character to follow, keeping us on edge as to just what he is going to do next. Robert Duvall as the cop chasing him down offers much needed and entirely believable comic relief. Despite his tragic back-story (a manipulative wife and a two year old daughter who died) he carries himself with an odd sense of optimism and, while sympathetic to Bill's frustrations, is aware they can reach dangerous levels. Some of the best moments are when he snaps at his chastising wife over the phone and punches a co-worker in her defense.
The film is structured in a point by point, and incredibly realistic fashion. It begins when Bill abandons his car in the freeway and immediately jumps to his first attack, a vandalizing of a convenience store due to complaints at the high prices. There are plenty of spectacular moments such as the shredding of a phone booth and a rocket launcher being fired into a manhole in protest of road work, but no moment seems too over the top, comical, or bizarre so that it seems out of place of the realistic hellhole the movie portrays.
James Newton Howard does a decent score for the film. The score is especially good when Bill is running up a peer to meet his ex-wife and daughter. Aside from a few strong points, it is a relatively forgettable score and, while certainly not terrible, does not leave a lasting impression. Where is the theme of D-Fens? Surely such an interesting character deserves a readily identifiable theme.
Joel Schumacher is a rather infamous director due to the notoriously bad Batman and Robin, but would you believe he has done good films? Phone Booth and A Time to Kill being contenders for the number 1 spot. This however is probably his most risky film. He does show an eye for cinematic beauty. There is an especially beautiful shot here the camera pans from several sky scrapers down to Bill's eye looking through his shoe that has a hole worn into the bottom. One wonders where this went when he did his Batman films. The guy can make great films. These three prove it. He should try to find amore clearly defined style for future projects so he can do more winners.
The film, while sounding like and being advertised as a film about venting is far from that. Rather, we see the rapid deterioration of an already broken man until there is little left of him to save. It, despite the occasionally funny moment and several scenes where the audience cheers for our psychotic hero, is very downbeat bordering on nightmarish.
Falling Down is a classic of the 90s, a showcasing of the downsides of an urbanized society and its effects on an unstable citizen. A thought provoking and widely entertaining piece that had great potential as an independent film. Somehow the studio financed it, which is why it comes off as a commercial effort much of the time. In spite of that, it works great. A fine suspenseful drama that is sure to leave an impression. Recommended.
King Kong (2005)
Big name, big film, three hours and twenty minutes to be precise phew! just completed the extended version of this remake (Jackson likes em big huh) and I must admit I did enjoy the film from start to finish. The original of course is still the real king if we are honest about it but Jackson certainly goes for broke here and does come up trumps with a rollicking boys own adventure full of everything you could need for excitement.
This new version reminded me of many classic old monster flicks like 'Journey to the Centre of the Earth' and 'Clash of the Titans' rolled into one, everything from swamps beasties to giant bats to giant leech things manage to devour the hapless seafarers on their adventure into the unknown. Of course cgi is in extremely heavy use for this film with many creatures looking really good yet some maybe not so, sequences involving the cast amongst dinosaurs do tend to come off rather badly and obvious considering it was only made in 05, not just the creatures though as allot of vistas and scenes with cast in the foreground did look very fake from time to time with clear use of bluescreen.
Not quite up to the standards of Spielberg and his 'Jurassic Park' or recent monster flicks but this is easily forgiven as the film is such a fun ride. Starting in New York, with some of the best cgi of the film for sure, the film is grand in presentation and alive with colour and activity as 30's NY is amazingly reconstructed perfectly. We meet the cast and slowly get to known them alittle bit at a time which is unusual for a blockbuster frankly plus this makes up much of the three hour film time. To be honest all cast members are just about fine for their roles accept Jack Black who for me just isn't the right kind of actor for this type of film, he looked the part but came across as restrained and uncomfortable as he's more used to basically being unpredictably insane. Brody also didn't really impress me here with his odd mop of straightened hair and dull awkward performance, hardly a leading man in looks and not really overly effective as an action man either, bad choice in my opinion where as the original choice of Clooney I think would have fitted the bill and era much better.
The effects of course are the main talking point of the film with a mammoth amount of cgi being used and for the most part its all good. New York is a gem when viewed on Bluray, the sea sequences are decent but atad shaky here and there much like the dinosaurs but of course the main attraction is Kong himself who looks spot on and impressively fierce. Must admit I did keep thinking of 'Mighty Joe Young' whenever I saw him haha but Kong does look the business for sure, sequences where he fights the V Rex's are simply brilliant stuff and do the original proud by also managing to recreate move for move most of the old film.
Easily the best monster mash moments involve Kong fighting and roaring, motion capture is finely tuned to make Kong appear as a real gorilla should, his hair is dark and straight, hands and body move as they should in reality, his huffing and puffing is wonderfully done and most impressively they manage to give Kong a soul, a sparkle from within that makes you care for him, you want him to survive with his damsel and seeing him play with 'Darrow' as they build their friendship you really begin to love the big guy, more than you think you could ever do with a computer generated character.
The finale as we know would be impressive and it is right from the get go, Kong atop the Empire State Building is an awesome sight, it just looks damn good, the cam angles used as the bi-planes swarm around and swoop past make you feel the speed and do cause tension combining the height involved and the ever knowing outcome. I must admit I was sweating a touch as Kong leaps from his tiny perch so high up, at the same time you so want him to live and not get killed, the final moment with Darrow in the end is poignant as the score swells and what we all know happens, many kudos to the team for bringing so much to life in these moments.
There really is so much you could say about this film as so much happens and with tonnes of visual flare and panache. Its not totally perfect of course but to be honest the little problems tend to add to the charm of the film. The always handy monster chow that never seems to deplete....in the form of the scurvy sailors haha there's always one or two sailors around to be eaten by the latest monster to rear its head or if not eaten then get hurled against a huge rock, crushed underfoot or thrown into a deep ravine haha just like the films of old. As said the sequences with cast in the same shot as cgi elements can be dodgy, the Brontosaurus rampage is particularly iffy looking if truth be told.
Must add that some of the action sequences do get abit beyond the realms of acceptance if that's possible hehe the way Kong fights the Dino's and hurls Darrow around in his hands and feet is abit too crazy really, surely she would have been killed of a heart attack or broken limbs by the end of it hehe.
Could nitpick but I won't as the film is a highly enjoyable Indy, Harryhausen safari type romp with everything you could need for pure 100% escapism and adventure, the only thing missing is an erupting volcano.
I've also posted this here (http://reviewpit.blogspot.com/). With bonus pictures!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.screenrant.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fan-american-werewolf-in-london-poster.jpg&hash=174fad57122d76216d56b4d22f734bb3e64d7b6b)
An American Werewolf in LondonJust over a week ago,
An American Werewolf in London, directed by John Landis, celebrated its thirtieth anniversary. With that in mind, I recently gave it a slightly belated birthday viewing. And you know what? It still holds up today.
American Werewolf has the distinction of being one of the original 'horror comedies' (a horredy?). Not a comedic spoof of horror, but a film which, when done properly, can find just the right balance between the two genres. In this case, it's able to quickly turn from being light-hearted fun to an exercise in genuine terror, and so was ahead of its time in a lot ways. Take the early scenes set on the Yorkshire moors as an example, as we watch doomed tourist buddies David (David Naughton) and Jack (Griffin Dunne) amiably banter and bicker about everything from the weather to women. But it's not long before the rain sets in and, along with it, the howling starts. Soon they're running, panic stricken, from some unseen horror, yet even
then they try and make light of the situation. Of course, it all comes to a shocking and bloody end.
The film continues this balance of humour and horror throughout. I think my favourite scenes are those that focus on David and Jack together. There's always a great sense of chemistry between them. And I'm not just referring to their opening sequences. By far, the best gag here is that the two characters spend time with each other even after Jack has been mauled to death. He appears one morning before David's hospital bed with a smile on his face. Only problem is, his face has been ruined by claw marks, and his entire throat has been torn to shreds. As this image sinks in, he calmly points at David's breakfast tray and asks, "Can I have a piece of toast?"
That's brilliant. And there's two more scenes just like it later on. In each, Dunne's makeup becomes increasingly more gruesome to the point where he is finally portrayed by an actual practical effect! He also appears to become more snarky as his condition deteriorates (all things considered, I guess you can't exactly blame him). But he carries a serious message for David. Jack can only be at peace if the wolf's bloodline is severed. In other words, David has to die! It's not just Jack who's trying to get this message across, however. During their final meeting in an erotic theatre, he's accompanied by a handful of fresh corpses (a result of David's third act killing spree), who all offer up suggestions for how the poor werewolf could potentially kill himself. In particular, there's an excitable young couple who seem to be taking the whole death thing rather well, and are quite eager to suggest the simple use of a gun in the mouth ("Then you'd be sure not to miss!"). They're all sunshine and happiness at the time, too, despite being caked in blood.
On the opposite end of the tonal spectrum, some of the film's most frightening scenes take place in David's mind. While recovering in hospital after the initial attack, he has several disturbing dreams (in which he runs naked through the woods and rips a deer's head off) that soon morph into nightmares. In one, there's a truly startling jump scare that'll leave in image burned into your mind whenever you turn off the lights, while another starts off with a cosy image of life at home with David's family... before they're all suddenly massacred by a squad of machinegun-toting Nazi werewolves. Yeah, David's reaction of "
Holy shit!" is putting it lightly if you ask me.
Then there are the later scenes where, after his transformation, David prowls around London in search of potential victims. Gorehounds will likely be disappointed to discover that, save for one severed hand, these parts are virtually blood free. The standout sequence here involves one very unlucky train commuter, who is stalked through the blank corridors of a deserted subway station until he's finally cornered on a rising escalator. It's a masterful example of what building suspense can achieve over out-and-out violence.
Speaking of "carnage candy" (thanks,
Scream 2), the movie does eventually go all-out just in time for the climax. David's final, chaotic rampage through the speeding traffic of Piccadilly Circus is at once a devastating and hilarious sight. It's an uncompromising orgy of screaming crowds, crashing vehicles and crushed bodies which ends the film with about as big a bang as you could hope for.
You can't write
anything about
American Werewolf without mentioning Rick Baker's incredible special effects. I've already noted Dunne's extensive makeup, but as great as that is, it is of course the transformation scene that'll really blow you away. Emphasis was placed on making David's metamorphosis from man into beast look as painful as possible. They succeeded. Just look at the expression on his face as he watches his hand violently spread out into an inhuman shape. Then the same thing happens with his feet. Hair starts sprouting all over his body. His spine moves and crunches under his skin as he finds himself forced onto all fours. Lastly, his face elongates into something hideously canine. All the while, he's screaming. In the great 'Practical vs. CGI' effects debate, this film gives the old-school team a
major advantage. And you've gotta love how a light and breezy rendition of 'Blue Moon' plays over the whole, agonising sequence.
But it's not completely without criticism. I do find it odd how, despite them quite clearly being great friends, David never seems too choked up about Jack's death. Also, though it's still a memorable creature, the final werewolf design does at times resemble a walking carpet, and maybe isn't quite as fearsome as other cinematic lycanthropes (such as those from the same year's
The Howling). But since it spends so much time out of sight, this isn't exactly a major issue. And I'm sure many will be put off by the film's abrupt ending, though I do personally quite like it.
So, is
An American Werewolf in London still an excellent horror classic that's worthy of your time and attention even after thirty years? Absolutely. And there's a fair amount of great stuff I haven't even mentioned, such as the tense scene where David and Jack stop off at a (very local) pub called "The Slaughtered Lamb", or the sweet but tragically short relationship David shares with his nurse (Jenny Agutter). If you haven't seen the film before, then I highly recommend you go give it a watch.
Just, you know... stay off the moors and all that.
Great review. I haven't actually seen this movie, only An American Werewolf in Paris. Reading your review, that now strikes me more of a remake than an sequel to this. They sound very much alike at least. Will definitely check this out sometimes soon. :)
Well I haven't seen the sequel myself, but yeah, I heard it was more or less a retread only with clunky 90s CGI effects which didn't go down too well with anyone.
And thanks. :)
Great review TJ. :)
Whilst its been ages since I've watched the film myself, the subway sequence always stuck in my mind.
Poor guy just wanted to go home. :(
He should have taken a page from William "D Fens' Foster's getting home methods. David wouldn't have given him as much trouble.
An American Werewolf in London is one of Landis' best films. He tried out a new genre, yet kept what made his career in the first place. The laughs.
Your review really does the film justice. I think your criticisms are fair as well.
Quote from: Laufey on Aug 29, 2011, 08:52:30 PM
Great review. I haven't actually seen this movie, only An American Werewolf in Paris. Reading your review, that now strikes me more of a remake than an sequel to this. They sound very much alike at least. Will definitely check this out sometimes soon. :)
OOOO you should really watch the original before the naff sequel, the first film is the greatest horror comedy of them all ;)
Ironclad
Based around the real events of 1215 when powerful Barons of England grew tired of their King and came together to rebel against his rule. This film tells the story of the siege that took place at Rochester Castle in the County of Kent following King Johns decision to break the agreement of the Magna Carta made by himself and the Barons of England and then attempting to regain England for himself.
The film focuses mainly on the battle that took place between the Loyalists of King John and the Barons with whoever they could muster against the strong King. Now I must say straight away that you can't expect the film to be completely accurate and it isn't but for an independant film mainly British made with US assistance this is a very good and fairly accurate attempt.
There are some issues I believe with the historical facts such as the French being involved before the siege at Rochester, the fact that King John actually did take the castle in the end (pretty big mistake there methinks) and I don't believe there were any Danish mercenaries involved at anytime, not sure about Knights Templar's either, so god knows where they came up with that idea for the film and lastly King John was simply a bad king and not a bad person really, this siege was really part of a civil war which turned from a cause of 'more power to the people' to simply a scuffle for the throne and power by the Barons.
Of course the film has been taken down the Hollywood route I'm afraid, think 'BraveHeart', 'Pathfinder' or 'Centurion' etc...and you know exactly what I mean, the film is wonderfully made and shot but there are elements included purely to make the story more enticing to a modern audience. Now although this isn't a Ridley Scott flick they have tried their best to go down that epic route, all the action is hand held cams that shake all over the show to add that feel of raw blood n sweat in the heat of battle which does work. There is plenty of claret spraying n squirting from lopped off limbs and slashes to satisfy the goriest of mindsets and some good catapult action all set on location within Wales to give an excellent murky representation of gloomy medieval England.
The action looks good and its fast n fluid but there are hints of slightly amateurish shots here and there along with examples of basic acting from the extras in battle, if you look closely there aren't that many men in the battles, clever editing, and they aren't going at it hammer n tongs if you get me hehe. Also I should add afew shots using cgi, mainly of the castle, are a touch obvious but nothing too horrific.
The main issue I had was the typical Hollywood approach of having a band of guys all brought together with the usual 'Hollywood recruit' sequence. Each man being of different build and skill, one guy is a strong big fat bearded 'Little John' type, another is common mouthy and devious, another is a top archer, another is just a young lad, another is good with knives and women ;) and of course the hero is a Knights Templar who is an all round kick ass machine. Its just a bit too flash and silly really, of course they need characters the viewer can relate to and cheer for but its almost like a computer game roster for a 'hack n slash' fighter.
Great performances from a very good line up including Giamatti giving a good slimy side to his character despite the fact that King John wasn't really 'a bad guy', Dance is perfect as usual as is Jacobi and Cox again cast as a gruff leader/soldier. Purefoy does whats needed as the strong heroic knight but little more, Mara is cute as a button whilst playing scared and innocent, Crook fits the part for the era with his malnourished appearance, Aneurin Barnard is actually very good as young lad 'Guy' and also looks like a certain 'Hobbit' and finally add to that a couple of cockneys in Jamie Foreman and Jason Flemyng for that typical dirty, gritty, uniquely common English touch :)
Like history? then this is for you, just try to ignore the bits of cinematic popcorn excess ;)
Layer Cake (2004)
Along with Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn is the probably the second biggest director from the UK at the moment with some huge films under his belt, he is also the British gangster film maker of our modern age along with Mr Ritchie having made 'Lock Stock' and 'Snatch' together.
Those two films pretty much flash started the British gangster/underworld flicks back into being and created a whole load of copies in film style and imagery. 'Layer Cake' is Vaughn's attempt without his partner in crime (pun intended) and you can obviously see how that collaboration has rubbed off on him.
The film is pretty much like 'Lock Stock' and 'Snatch' and could almost be the third in a trilogy really, the plot is a hotpot of subplots wrapped around one main plot which all intertwine and work off each other well. Although its very familiar by now in visuals, dialog and concept its still somehow good fun to watch hardcases, fumbling crooks and foul mouthed crime lords all batter each other trying to get money/drugs/women/guns etc...one or the other.
It really is nothing new after the last two big Ritchie films it has to be said with virtually the same cast yet again, bar Vinnie Jones, the same outcomes and the same kind of violence all topped off with outrageously harsh cockney accents. Craig fits in quite well with this world as the well spoken sensible dealer and he does a good job unlike his usual wooden pouting performances, you do want him to win the day and its nice to see someone play a role in these types of films without awhole load of attitude and mouth.
Don't expect anything new to the genre with this as its the same again from Vaughn but its neater, tighter and not as ludicrous as the previous big two Brit gangster flicks, its still a lairy little sod of flick though hehe bosh!
Outlaw (2007)
British film that basically brings to light what state the country is in these days, how law abiding citizens seem to be let down or failed by the system whilst criminals appear to roam free with little fear of severe punishment.
Its a sad fact that the film is pretty accurate with the type violence and youth gang/hoodie culture that this country suffers and the plot behind a small group of men who become vigilantes against the crime is a very satisfying one. The cast is abit mismatched here for my liking really, Bean is perfect for the role with his butch South Yorkshire, manly, grizzled features and heavy accent but other members of the small gang are less effective and not as believeable despite the fact they are suppose to be weak. Dyer is a totally wrong choice in my opinion as he should be hosting something like 'Big Brother' or whatever, simply not good enough even for this small film.
In general the film is very engaging and keeps you stuck to the screen wanting to see the bad guys get battered, its this primal vengeance that most English people will feel when watching this film as we all know exactly what its like and what is going on in our city streets everyday and this film exposes and bleeds that fact. Problem is the film loses its stride as things progress more towards major drug dealers and then towards the end gets abit silly with out of hand gun battles against police. Its a shame because you really don't wanna see the good guys get involved against the police, you wanna see them kicking hoodie ass and getting away :)
The Inbetweeners Movie
Love the TV series so I was looking forward to seeing this immensely and to a degree I wasn't too disappointed. Its not as good as the half hour episodes but I didn't expect it to be, there are allot of gross moments during the film which are funny but not as much good dialog, I believe the characters aren't quite as good as they used to be really.
The original series was brilliant and allot of that was down to the characters, Bird as 'Will' was the main reason I got into the show with his fantastic performance in the very first episode. His facial expressions, the way he moved and his little quips which were fast witty and you could kinda relate to him. The show has lost that somewhat as its progressed and the film really does show this, there is very little really good funny dialog in the film which is a shame, allot of swearing of course as you would expect but that loses its charm quickly.
So the film is your typical English youth on holiday plot and it does wreak of it haha the type of place they go to, the type of young people there, the look of the area etc...without trying to sound like a snob its all very common, chavy and very accurate on how British youth behave abroad in certain Euro destinations. The plot is really very unoriginal and was done before by Harry Enfield with 'kevin n Perry Go Large' so I was disappointed when I read about it, there is a heavy romantic side to the film too which is nice and expected I guess which does equal the predictable happy ending with the guys all slightly growing up and reversing on their attitudes.
Nothing too much to shout about here really, there are some very funny moments (not many) and there are allot of really gross out moments and cheap laughs. Not as clever as the TV episodes and not as witty but for me this really is down to the fact they aren't in the school environment anymore where allot of the humour you could relate to from your own school days. If you like the TV show then I reckon you will enjoy this but maybe feel disappointed by its lack of sharp bite but I'm also sure you probably know to expect that.
The first series was and still is the best, the very first episode being, for me, the highlight with Bird at his best.
The Football Factory (2004)
Based loosely on a novel and directed by Millwall supporter Nick Love who clearly enjoys hard British gangs and fights you start to wonder if he participated in things like these himself haha. Basically this film is about football hooligans which belong to 'Firms' and enjoy nothing better than to beat the crap out of each other every weekend, whatever your poison I guess ;)
The film is actually pretty decent and does keep you glued to the screen as oppsing firms clash, lets be honest here there is nothing else on offer really, you know its about footie hooligans and you just wanna watch them fight lol, this film mainly follows Millwall and Chelsea.
The plot is reasonably interesting as it follows Danny Dyer and his moral dilemma of wether or not to continue being in a firm, nothing amazingly original and not too hard to predict either but like I said you watch the film for the violence period.
You know what your getting with this so for a footie hooligan flick its probably the best out there with a good cast of your regular cockney lads. Doesn't paint a very good picture of England lets be honest but truth be told we're just a bunch of hardnuts ;)
Chaplin (1992)
Not a huge success upon release and I'm not really sure why as this lavish epic is thoroughly interesting, charming and well made.
Taken a from a point of narration by Chaplin during an interview with a fictional character played by Hopkins the film simply takes you through Chaplin's life from one event to another although with many gaps. I'm not completely up with the life of Charlie but I have read that the film does take artistic license with the truth and of course skips allot of history. This really can't be faulted as my personal view from someone who knows very little about his life is 'does that matter?'
The film shows much of his upbringing from the dirty streets of Victorian London to his first jobs in the US, his breaking through into the business, becoming rich and world famous and his problems upon returning to the UK after the the first World War. Most of his big films are also covered in the bio and show just how much swing he had during his reign, the issue he had with controversial ideas and how his close friendships with top stars of the time like Doug Fairbanks helped him.
The film looks excellent in every sense and every scene but clearly the main attraction is Downey Jr and his portrayal of Chaplin. Not only does he genuinely look like Charlie but he manages to mimic the moves, walk, facial expressions and even the comedic slapstick Charlie amazed us with in his movies. To watch Downey making the classic films within the main film you would actually think Chaplin was still alive today starring in his own bio, amazing work to get it right.
Other cast members all add to the superb film both in their looks and portrayals, an amazing line up of known stars from both the US and the UK ranging from Dan Aykroyd to Diane Lane to John Thaw to Milla Jovovich. Kevin Kline is probably one of the better casting choices as he really does seem to belong in that kind of era, born at the wrong time methinks hehe and his lovely showcase as Fairbanks shows this.
As with any film of this nature some sequences are maybe over the top and heavy handed to create that teary eyed emotion but I guess that is to be expected and required to a degree. Never the less a worthy film from Attenborough that has been forgotten and easily sits in the top twenty of all time bio pics.
I meant to post this yesterday...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc01.deviantart.net%2Ffs71%2Fi%2F2011%2F245%2Fc%2Ff%2Fapollo_18_movie_review_by_razorsprites-d48n8bo.png&hash=f7ac4cdd2d6a16ca59aee0b8b149fa0b1c9bb913)
Apollo 18 Movie Review"There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon...budget cuts"So, today I caught the 12:15 showing of "Apollo 18".
Now you're all gonna ask me the same thing: What are my thoughts?
Going in to this, I was having mixed feelings. Part of me was expecting it to try
to do its job, and fail to deliver in the end. The other part of me was expecting
it to do its job well, and deliver a tense, unnerviving experience. And in the end..
it does a bit of both.
Warining, this review will contain a plot summary which WILL contain spoilers.
Avoid said summary if you plan on seeing the film.
Spoiler
The film opens up in a similar way "Cloverfield" did. Stating its edited down
found footage and blah blah blah. You get some minor backstory about the astronauts
for about 4-5 minutes, then they go to the moon.
Its a bit boring in the beginning, I'm not going to lie. They just do typical
astronaut stuff while once in a while something in the background will be
highlighted documentary styled. Usually a moving rock or a glimpse of the aliens.
The film really picks up when a body of a dead Cosmonaut is found. It begins to get
REALLY tense from that point on. An astronaut is infected, as you've seen through
the previews, and he begins to realize things. But, being crazy, his way of
handling them is...well...crazy. He realizes they're up there as guinea pigs to see
how these creatures react to humans, and his basic reaction is "OH GOD I MUST BLOW
UP EVERYTHING, I'LL NEED TO TAKE A HAMMER TO THE CAMERAS AND SACRIFICE MYSELF TO
THE ALIENS"
So he goes nuts for a while, and, while they are trying to escape, he crashes the
lunar rover. Heres the alien reveal. The camera flings through the air and crashes.
The footage is rewound and slowed down, revealing a giant hermit crab-looking
thing.
The crazy one runs off, and the not-crazy one just walks around aimlessly for a while.
He find the crazy one, who starts blabbering about how he can't leave.
He gets dragged into a crater, which is the home to these crab things. The not-crazy
one goes in after him, and is attacked. He lives, and finds the dead Cosmonaut's
craft, and tries to fly it. He sends a message to the DOD, only to be told he's too
high of a risk to go back home.
So he just lays there, when this other guy who I don't care about enougn to have
mentioned earlier, tells him he'll bring him back. The DOD then tells this guy he's
a risk and that he shouldn't do what he's doing. He basically just goes "LOLNOPE"
and continues. Then, the big payoff...
moon rocks float up due to the anti-gravity in the Cosmonaut's craft, aaand..
They hatch into baby aliens. They attack and kill this guy, and he crashes into
the other guy, killing him. Cue what the Government told the poeple, and then cut to
end credits.
So thats the movie.
It does its job well, but it relies SO HEAVILY on tension, it just wouldn't be
the same after the first viewing. The payoff I mentioned is pretty stupid. And
the aliens themselves aren't that interesting, design-wise. It can get confusing at
times, but not to the point where you're completely lost, you'll still be able to
follow the basic plot. But its not really an AWFUL movie, its not great either.
In total, I'd give Apollo 18 a
6.5 out of 10.
And no, "Bad Moon Rising" does not play during the credits.
^ Sounds interesting though,
Revolver (2005)
To be brutally honest I didn't really get this film or follow what was going on after about 30min into it. I know that Statham had been in prison and learning the perfect scam called 'the formula' for seven years and upon release he is out to get Liotta the casino boss. The inclusion of many different characters coming along and Statham being kind of owned by Benjamin and Pastore for most of the film as they help him do something just lost me completely, I really have no clue what the hell the point was or why.
Its easy to think this was just another Ritchie gangster flick as it has all the trademark attributes of this but its not, its much deeper than that surprisingly with a complex plot that twists inside out. It certainly looks swish and elegant with a great cast as you would expect but I couldn't make head nor tail of it, not even sure if Ritchie knew what he wanted with this.
Best character for me was Mark Strong as the hitman 'Sorter' who has that calm deadly silence about him and doesn't look anything like you would expect a hitman to look like, kinda like 'Leon' really.
Fright Night (2011)
Certainly a surprise to hear myself saying this isn't as bad as I thought it would be, lets not get carried away of course as it wasn't anything amazingly good but it was solid.
The film plays out much like the original of course with not much being changed, I didn't like how 'evil Ed' was turned so quickly into the film without much time to build more of his character, there was no emotion to his character like the original, the pain and fear of being an outcast and bullied and then the release of being transformed. I'm also still not really liking Farrell as the main vamp to be honest, the film is for a new modern age of course but I think it lacked that kooky old school vampire charm. Farrell was too flash and was made out to be more of a cheap womaniser rather than a hypnotic stylish vampiric lover.
Yelchin was decent as 'Brewster' and played the teen well, fully believeable and fit right into the plot nicely, on the other hand again I wasn't impressed with the choice of Tennant as 'Vincent' and the way he played him. The drunk slobbish actor who now presents an ultra Gothic 'Fright Night' complete with long hair, leather trench coat, eyebrow ring etc...in a kind of goth rocker appearance who then simply undresses into 'Dr Who'. Didn't like that a tall really as I prefer the original concept for him being a classic Peter Cushing type vampire hunter.
Cast aside the film did unfold pretty well and was nice and scary with some good creepy effects but not quite as much horror comedy. Although most effects were cgi unfortunately some of them were really effective, Farrell's face in the highway car crash sequence looked top notch as did Poots face after transformation in a slight homage to the originals 'big teethy smile shocker' sequence.
The film is thoroughly corny as it should be with fun vampire moments but the lack of 'hands on' makeup effects instead going with the dreaded cgi was always going to be its downside. The finale shows most of this which does spoil the film really as its no different to any other cgi based vamp flick plus it does tend to go alittle 'Lost Boys' mixed with 'Buffy'. Also a shame about the setting in hot sunny Vegas as that didn't really get my vamp juices flowing haha not really the kind of location for a creepy vampire flick if you ask me but hey ho.
Split right down the middle for me this one with some really nice effects in afew sequences but some bad choices of casting and new angles over the original just not sitting right with me. Oh and the film posters are terribly unimaginative.
Green Street (aka Green Street Hooligans, 2005)
Along the same kinda lines as 'The Football Factory' but nowhere near as gritty and in your face, this film suffers from a slight case of Hollywood glitz.
Not just because Elijah Wood is in it, that is one reason of course, but the violence just seems more coordinated and setup haha whilst the many British actors in the film all have rather hokey cockney accents which are rather forced, some not all.
The film centres around West Ham United Firm 'GSE: Green Street Elite' although the real firm is called 'ICF: Inner City Firm' and follows the guys around as they go to matches and plan on fights with rival firms. Nothing much different from other 'firm' flicks but the added plot of Yankee Wood who slowly fits in against his UK based sisters wishes and grows to enjoy the lifestyle.
No one really that well known in the film accept Wood who is TOTALLY out of place in this type of flick but I guess that's the idea right. Only thing is you simply can't see Wood ever getting tough enough to do what he does in the film, never in a month of Sundays.
Good entertainment but using allot of artistic license and second best to 'The Football Factory' and 'The Firm'....if your into these types of films.
Quote from: Hubbs on Sep 04, 2011, 06:34:22 PM
Fright Night (2011)
[...]
Even though you're iffy about it, I
am surprised. I expected you to be breathing fire all over the place. :P
Looking forward to seeing it myself.
Quote from: Hubbs on Sep 05, 2011, 07:56:59 AM
Green Street (aka Green Street Hooligans, 2005)
Along the same kinda lines as 'The Football Factory' but nowhere near as gritty and in your face, this film suffers from a slight case of Hollywood glitz.
Not just because Elijah Wood is in it, that is one reason of course, but the violence just seems more coordinated and setup haha whilst the many British actors in the film all have rather hokey cockney accents which are rather forced, some not all.
The film centres around West Ham United Firm 'GSE: Green Street Elite' although the real firm is called 'ICF: Inner City Firm' and follows the guys around as they go to matches and plan on fights with rival firms. Nothing much different from other 'firm' flicks but the added plot of Yankee Wood who slowly fits in against his UK based sisters wishes and grows to enjoy the lifestyle.
No one really that well known in the film accept Wood who is TOTALLY out of place in this type of flick but I guess that's the idea right. Only thing is you simply can't see Wood ever getting tough enough to do what he does in the film, never in a month of Sundays.
Good entertainment but using allot of artistic license and second best to 'The Football Factory' and 'The Firm'....if your into these types of films.
Better still watch - I.D Its the best of the football hoolligan films
Green Street 2: Stand Your Ground (aka Green Street Hooligans 2, 2009)
Pretty fun sequel that only has one character from the previous film as it is based around him, not sure why him but obviously the actor was the only guy happy to come back for another crack with this.
Put straight this is simply an excuse for a fight every few minutes lol! almost every scene ends up with someone getting beaten up or guys standing off against each other menacingly. Not much plot wise happens for most of the film accept a crooked prison warden dealing drugs amongst the bad eggs, but then out of the blue near the end the film turns into 'Mean Machine' and we get a goodie prisoner v baddie prisoner footie match.
Can't really say the match looks good as you don't see much footie from the bad camera work and the fact the prisoners just fight....as usual, what a surprise huh. It all wraps up nicely in a bow at the end and really does seem rather pointless despite being an OK film for fighting.
Main issue with the film apart from the lack of proper plot is the fact it looks like the prison is in the US! prisoners wear orange jumpsuits and outside they roam around without shirts on showing their big muscles and tattoo's despite English weather haha. The weather in fact appears to be very hot and sunny all the time and the prison seems to be set in a very sandy dusty almost desert like area, obviously trying to get a 'Texas, middle of nowhere' type feel going on or something which is odd seeing as its suppose to be set in an English prison, I thought it was in the US at first and was confused.
Like meaningless scraps? watch on, look out for Vernon Wells as the prison chief ;)
North By Northwest
Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) is mistaken for a secret agent by Phillip Vandamm (James Mason) and subsequently abducted, framed for murder, and chased cross country not only by the police, but by teams of trained assassins. His only hope is a mysterious woman named Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) and even trusting her begins to come into question.
This film displays superb acting. Cary Grant, mostly known for comedies is perfect for our klutzy businessman hero who is way out of his league. He delivers lines more like he is irritated than panicked at what is happening. He DID have tickets to the theatre that evening after all. One of Grant's finest points is facial expressions which he previously did perfect in Arsenic and Old Lace. Here, there is no shortage of such moments, especially his finer points during the famous crop sequence. Grant puts on a variety of "Oh shit" faces during that scene. Just about every one in existence. Eva Marie Saint is a show stopper as one of the best Hitchcock Blonds. She is strikingly beautiful, irresistibly seductive, and unbearably mysterious. This lady would be the dream girl of just about any man I know (including yours truly). She is also not there merely to give Grant a love interest. She is one of the central pieces of the plot, and she pushes it along very well. You don't know just what this beauty is up to until the film is about to draw to a close, and thus she is one of the film's best sources of suspense. James Mason is brilliant as the film's rather dickish villain. Dare I say he is the Hans Gruber of his day, coming up with the same types of comebacks to our hero's occasional wisecracks. He carries himself like a gentleman despite his ruthless behavior towards our plucky protagonist. The final point on acting is the amazing performance by Martin Landau as Mason's chief thug Leonard. Once you see him, you get the creeps. He seems much more dangerous than Mason's character and is at time a downright spooky mother f**ker. The two henchmen played by Adam Williams and Robert Ellenstein who follow Mason and Landau around also deserve notice as some of cinema's best flunkies. Why? Because they don't play it for laughs. When you see these two, you get scared. That is the mark of a good flunky. Jessie Royce Davis as Thronhill's mother Clara also leaves a good impression despite her brief appearance.
The action in the film is spectacular. There are three key action scenes that continue to wow audiences to this day. One is the opening where Thornhill is forcibly made to ingest a bottle of brandy and set out on the road to what the villains hope will be his death. The next is amazing scene where Thornhill evades assassination while at a bus stop next to a cornfield in the middle of nowhere, which culminates in one of Hollywood's great explosions. The final and most visually stunning scene is the chase on Mount Rushmore. Beautifully surreal and an amazing place to set an action sequence. There is fine matte work done here and camera placement is superb to make the monument seem monstrous.
The editing on the film is perfect, as is the case with many Hitchcock films. It is especially strong in the lead up to the crop chase where it is drawn out as long as possible so as to become torture for the audience. Car after car, person after person, silence upon silence until finally BOOM! Action scene. Timing is the key point of editing. If you are one second off, an entire scene can come crashing down. The editing here flows smoothly, each shot being perfectly placed and shortened for maximum dramatic effect.
The camera work is astounding, making use of every tool available at the time. Rear screen projection, matte painting, cranes, dollies. Each angle of the film is a work of art. Just look at how well Mount Rushmore is photographed during the final scene. Each frame is beautiful. Just as much cinema goodness is seen in the crop sequence as Thornhill frantically tries to escape his assassins. Each shot, even during the buildup beforehand, is brilliant. Of all the scenes in the film, that one seems to be the most ageless. It does look like a film that was made last week in the best possible way.
The music by Bernard Herrmann is one of the finest of his career. Once you hear the main theme, it is unforgettable. As usual Bernard Herrmann does Hitchcock proud with his brilliant orchestral arsenal. The theme in North By Northwest is one of the finest that cinema has to offer.
One thing I don't usually comment on is the opening title sequence, but here it has been earned. Saul Bass is one of the finest artists of this area of film, and shows that a title sequence can be more than just a show of words, but part of the story itself. The title sequence begins on a green screen when a series of vertical and diagonal lines appear. The words slide down these lines even as the lines become windows and it is revealed to be a high angle shot of the side of the United Nations building in New York, where a critical scene will eventually take place. If only people still made titles like this.
Alfred Hitchcock is, to put it bluntly, one of the best directors who ever lived. He never did one film that was horrible. At his worst, he was average. More directors should be so talented. His influence on cinema is undeniable, and it is very clear as to why when you see his distinct style. Every shot is made to look good, every prop serves a purpose, every word is delivered beautifully, and every character has significance. What Hitchcock does so well that most directors fail to do nowadays is to generate genuine suspense. He can make a matchbook a horrifying thing, and he does in this film. He also doesn't jump right into the action, but likes to create a good buildup before everything goes mad. The buildup is often more frightening than the event itself, but not in such a way as you feel cheated. He also didn't shy away from Guerrilla filmmaking, getting an illegal shot of the United Nations from a utility truck, with UN security in the shot. The timing he has for each moment of action always leaves the viewer startled and intrigued, such as the conclusion of the above mentioned sequence. He also doesn't shy away from humor, no matter how inappropriate the occasion. When Roger is trapped in an elevator with two men who plan on killing him, his mother makes the otherwise ominous scene deliberately side splitting. Old Alfred was called The Master for a reason. He proved once and for all that film is an art form. He was filmmaking's Leonardo da Vinci.
North By Northwest is one of those perfect films. A masterwork that, if the modern viewer is willing to pull their head out of their ass to see one of those old movies, will continue to thrill for centuries to come. When it was being made, it was called the Hitchcock picture to end all Hitchcock pictures. You know what? It just might be.
Great review! I love that film.
If only I had James Mason's vocal cords. :(
Bitch Slap
Where the hell do I begin with this film!! It has no plot, no interesting charcters, even a trio of hot-ass bitches couldn't possibly make this pile of shit worth watching!!!!
Plot
The plot is stupid and makes no f**king sense whatsoever!! It's just a trio of chicks that are doing random shit around some trailer in the ass-end of nowhere, fighting random people and with a lot of flashbacks that make no sense whatsoever. maybe there is a plot, but its so uninteresting and unengaging that i just don't care to look for it. The acting doesn't help either.
Acting
My god, the acting was TERRIBLE!!!! Not a single actor in this movie was convincing. Its like they weren't even trying. Its like hey were just reading the script and just filming them reading it. The acting didn't make me care about any of the characters, that weren't the least bit interesting anyway, and didn't help the plot which already was not worth the effort trying to figure out!!!
Special Effects
The special effects in this movie were alright. When the characters were around the trailer, the effects were ok, but in the flashbacks that basically make up what little plo there is, are f**king TERRIBLE!!!! I can't explain it, they're just so bad, they're cheesy, and... Christ!! THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!! And Lastly, the fight scenes are long and boring!! I've never been bored by action before, but the action in this movie really bored me. I'd rather watch a rock for 2 hours than watch those fight scenes!! Maybe its because I just literally don't care about anything that happens in this movie.
Final Verdict
This movie blows!! The only thing you could possibly look forward to in this movie is seeing the hot chicks naked. And guess what... YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THEM NAKED ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT EVEN A GLIMPSE OF A TIT!!!! Do yourself a favor, avoid this movie ata ALL costs!!! If you have to kill your neighbour, DO IT!!! Just avoid this movie!!!
Rating: 0/5
Johnny English (2003)
Well seeing as the sequel is out now I thought I would revisit this original comedy but I was disappointed with how badly this has aged and how lame it is. The film of course is a 'Bond' spoof which in hand is so so so unoriginal and boring as its been done to death many times whilst on the other hand the film does almost ignore the much better advertisements for 'Barclaycard' which the film is based on.
The original short adverts were so much better than the film probably because they were short and sweet where as the film is just too dull and literately uses every old trick in the book for laughs, shamelessly so, whilst being unbelievably predictable, childish and completely unfunny.
Lets hope the sequel is better with alittle more clever humour and less chucklevision humour, the original adverts did use the same type of humour but it was alittle more subtle where as this is just dumb kiddie stuff.
I still love that movie.
Shark Night 3D
Well despite a terrific looking poster this film turns out to be a PG-13!! although 15 here in the UK still doesn't equal much confidence.
So think 'Deep Blue Sea' but set in the American south in a lake and you have this really quite bad and pointless 'horror' film. Obviously there is ZERO originality here what so ever and chock full of all your pointless boring cliched characters and storylines involving young dumb pretty teens simply used as shark bait.
Utterly stupid plot involving some hicks putting the sharks in the lake to feed people too whilst filming so they can sell online, where did they get all the sharks!?. The effects are poor and clearly cgi, its too dark and frantic in places and for a shark attack flick there isn't much blood or gore so don't get your hopes up, end of the day this is just a poor waste of time film venture.
Red Hill (AUS, 2010)
You could be forgiven for thinking this is a Clint Eastwood style period set western and that's exactly what I thought it was upon seeing the poster design and film title, in fact its set in the present day and is more of a homage to westerns. Being set in the arrid merciless Aussie outback of course does make it more of cowboy than cop thriller for sure.
The film is pretty unoriginal lets be honest about it, the layout and events are nothing new and do smell strongly of certain saddle bound Eastwood adventures but again..lets be honest here, its a damn good Aussie version of certain saddle bound Eastwood adventures. Beating around no bushes this is a strong violent retribution/revenge thriller that almost kinda boarders on 'The Terminator' in some building and street sequences with its lightless settings, strong shadows and mute anti hero killer.
From the start you know something is amiss with the local police force and their gruff leader 'Old Bill', you can kinda tell what will happen really but it doesn't detract from the fun of the film one bit. The cast are unknown to me but pretty big in Oz, Bisley as Old Bill is perfect and really comes across well as the hardened no nonsense chief whilst Lewis is great as the mute aboriginal gunman who at first is intimidating and almost robotic like in his swift killings but you know all is not as it seems.
The lead Kwanten does sort of over act towards the finale as he goes from being a regular guy to a strong stern voiced gunman brewing over with cliches but you feel the tenseness of the finale and you find yourself glued to the screen really. Nothing really new to the table here but the whole film looks good and is well acted with a trusted source in the nasty revenge genre to always get the juices flowing, maybe some more nastiness to really bring home the need for revenge was needed though.
Highly recommended and much better fair than the usual over hyped glossy Hollywood guff that was 'No Country for Old Men', this is gritty and more down to earth with realistic characters, the Oz factor of course helps this hugely. Still not so sure what the panther subplot was all about though, why was it needed? oh well.
Really like Johnny English as well and will be seeing the sequel next week. :)
As it's October of all months, I thought I'd have a go at my own "Horror Season"... even though it's only a month long. Anyways, here's the first of what should be four reviews posted over four weeks (sorry, I know it's not quite
Monster Madness) leading up to Halloween. Hope you dig it.
Alien 2: On Earth (http://reviewpit.blogspot.com/)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi787.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy151%2FTJDocT84%2Falien2.jpg&hash=808f49b636142ce01c7b02cbd1f69330ca61bf68)
THIS FILM IS HORRIBLE
I should stop right there and save myself the effort, but it's
really bad... maybe not
AvP: Requiem bad (read: unwatchable), but still, it's awful. There will be
spoilers for this relic, but chances are I'm doing you a favour. Can't believe I picked this to kick off the month with...
But first, some history! For anyone who doesn't already know, the Italian film industry throughout the 70s and 80s was a thing of beauty for horror fans. Well, kind of. While highly imaginative gore fests like Lucio Fulci's
The Beyond and
The House by the Cemetery were being rolled out, there was a far less inspired side to the business – taking the form of many "unofficial sequels" to the more popular films of the time.
The most notable example of this would have to be Fulci's own
Zombie (known here in the UK as
Zombie Flesh Eaters), which was conceived as the Italian sequel to George A. Romero's zombie classic,
Dawn of the Dead, a film that was released in Italy under the title of
Zombi. SO, if you're still following this,
Zombie was first released in Italy as
Zombi 2 in an attempt to cash in on the massive success of Romero's film.
Several further numerical sequels to
Zombi followed in later years (even after
Day of the Dead), and each of them has around a dozen alternate titles just to confuse today's discussions on the internet. Other Italian sequels include the infamous Bruno Mattei's
Terminator 2 (in actuality an Aliens clone (http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/08/19/bruno-matteis-terminator-ii.aspx)), and at least a couple of attempts at one last
Jaws movie.
And yes,
Alien 2: On Earth (or
Alien 2: Sulla Terra, or
Alien Terror and even
Strangers) is indeed one of those unofficial sequels. There was a big gap between Ridley Scott's
Alien and its follow-up, so naturally
someone had to jump in. But
Alien 2 has a history of its own (bear with me!). Until this year, it had been languishing in VHS bootleg Hell, having never received a proper release in thirty years! So imagine the surprise when those lovely chaps over at Midnight Legacy announced a fully restored Blu-ray release for
Alien 2 last year. Since I'm the kind of guy who wants his film collection to resemble the back shelves of your local video rental store (do they even exist anymore?), I had to get a copy.
In retrospect, however...
So then, is there anything linking this film to the original sci-fi horror masterpiece? I WISH. As per usual with these Italian efforts, it's a sequel in name
only. So there's no Ripley, and there certainly aren't any Colonial Marines! Instead, the story is set on present day (1980) Earth and follows a group of doomed speleologists (nyah ha, I learned a word!) who encounter a decidedly inhuman force while exploring an underground cave system. There's also something about a returning space module and its astronauts disappearing, and I
think it's important, but it's barely even touched upon.
Which is the main problem with this movie – nothing adds up! Allow me to take you through it: the main character, Velma... or Selma... I'm not sure, but since IMDB is telling me it's Thelma, we'll go with that. Anyway, the film begins with
Thelma going to be interviewed on a talk show about her team and their spelunking activities. Meanwhile, the same show is also using copious amounts of blurry stock footage to report on the returning space module... again, I'm guessing right now.
After only a couple of questions, Thelma suffers some kind of mental block and almost collapses, stopping the interview. Unbelievably, the host seems to think those three minutes are all they need, but whatever, they've presumably got stock footage for that too! Thelma's boyfriend (whose name I neither know nor care for) runs over to comfort her and explain what's going on to the host, which leads to
this.
BOYFRIEND
You know, Thelma's telepathic and when something happens she senses it, even at a distance.
Oookaay then, sudden plot development... Now you'd think the host would respond with something along the lines of GET OUT OF MY STUDIO YOU CRAZY PEOPLE, but no, he just nods understandably and they say their goodbyes. Oh, I'm sorry, you were expecting logic?
After a quick talk with who I assume is her shrink (who happens to live on a small yacht out in the city bay – go figure) that solves absolutely nothing about her telepathic tendencies, Thelma and her boyfriend meet up with the rest of their team at a bowling alley. We then watch them bowl for a while. Th... There are
aliens in this movie, right?
That's another thing I don't like about
Alien 2. It's BORING. In order to pad out the already short running time, it loves showing us unimportant scenes for as long a time as possible. We had to wait an eternity for Thelma's doctor to make the rowing boat trip from his yacht to the shore. One of the earliest shots is of Thelma's garage door opening up, and even
that took forever! As if all that weren't tedious enough, we also spend a fair amount of the first half watching the team drive from destination to destination, first to a seaside store to pick
something up, I'm not sure what, and then a garage so they can change into their caving gear.
Although somewhere in between stops, this little girl's face does apparently get ripped off after she gets too close to a pulsating rock, but that's not what I'm watching this shlock for. Back to the nameless characters!
In all unenthusiastic seriousness, though, this is when things get a bit more interesting. While peeing against a wall, the only other notable character in the film (a budding novelist who takes his typewriter down into the cave with him for a candle-lit work session, I'm not kidding) finds a strange looking stone lying on the ground and gives it to Thelma. With that
charming gift tucked in her backpack, they descend into the cave.
Long story short, nothing happens for the next twenty minutes. They walk around admiring and snapping shots of the (admittedly pretty) stalactites/mites before settling in for the night. But brace yourself, as there's yet another excruciatingly drawn out sequence where they rappel down into the lower levels. Again, it looks nice and all – the beams from their torches make them resemble falling stars amidst the darkness
ohgodwhatamiwriting?We're
almost there. All that's left is a shameless
Alien rip-off or two. One of the other women notices how the rock in Thelma's bag has begun to pulse. Like the girl from earlier, she gets too close and we're treated to
Alien 2's version of the classic "Facehugger" sequence. In this case, it's a red blob shooting out of the stone and toward the camera... after which the film immediately cuts to another cast member taking a picture of a rock formation.
While I'm trying to make sense of what the hell just happened, the characters are fussing over what to do with the now unconscious lady. They fix her to a stretcher and lift her up to a higher position, whereupon we are treated to the single longest tracking shot
OF ALL TIME. The camera sloooowly crawls across the ground for around a minute until eventually reaching her feet. Then I reckon another minute, if not more, is spent on her legs, and I shudder to think how much longer it took to reach her face. Three or four minutes may not sound like too much, but in an 84 minute movie of
this calibre, Every. Second. Counts.
I swear it's like the film has been taunting me this entire time. But believe it or not, my patience is about to pay off. After witnessing almost an hour of virtual
nothingness... an indescribable alien globule breaks through the woman's face, pushing her entire eyeball clean out of the way in a torrent of gore. Certainly makes a change from chestbursting, right?
All is suddenly forgiven!
Alien 2 is finally delivering the goods! Slow pace aside, the next few scenes pack in a gory decapitation, a couple of extra torn up faces, gloopy dollops of red paint, large rocks with tongues (I don't know either), and a psychic staring contest that results in an exploding head. There's also a rat with glowing red eyes which literally flies right out of nowhere and attacks one of the cavers before never being mentioned again.
Wonderful!
Aaaand then the fun's over and we're back on the surface driving around with our only remaining survivors – Thelma and the boyfriend. Colour me shocked. Naturally, they take the time to stop off at the bowling alley (
WHY?) for a gloomy apocalyptic ending, by which point I'm trying not to fall asleep.
By the way, if you were hoping for impossibly biomechanical nightmares for aliens, then you're gonna be disappointed. Remember the red blob I mentioned? Yeah, well, that's more or less it as far as creature design goes here. Far as I can tell, the one which exits through the eye socket does get bigger, but we only ever see it as a messy collection of bloody tentacles. Couple that with how dark the underground setting is and you've got a recipe for
what the hell am I looking at?
There's really not much left to add, save for some wild speculation. Like, how did the alien rock even end up outside the garage? I guess lots of the stuff could have been entering Earth's atmosphere along with the space module, but it's never brought up. And was there only one alien down in the cave, or were there several? Am I right in thinking Thelma and the aliens share a psychic link? Should I be commending the film for letting me use my imagination rather than spelling everything out? Is this the original spelunking horror? Does anyone even care?
... Do I care?
I loved it! Makes me never want to ever sit through that film!
I do recommend the trailer. It may cut straight to the gore and spoil everything, but it's far more entertaining than the actual film. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRYbS4AypxE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRYbS4AypxE#)
And Cinema Snob did a review of it around a year ago (I think) which is worth checking out.
He did. It was a good one too.
I need to get back into this thread. I have seen some good stuff.
Edit
Arsenic and Old Lace
Mortimer Brewster (Cary Grant) on the eve of his honeymoon, discovers that his sweet old aunts Abby and Martha (Josephine Hull and Jean Adair) are mad serial killers. He frantically tries to get them put away without destroying their reputation when his brother Jonathan (Raymond Massey) and his flunky (Peter Lorre) show up to crash the party with a few corpses of their own. To top it off, Mortimer must deal with his increasingly impatient wife (Priscilla Lane) and his brother Teddy Roosevelt (John Alexander).
Sound insane? It is. Two hours of absolute madness and one of the most ballsy comedies ever made. This was my first Cary Grant film and it will always be one of my favorite performances of his because it borders on psychotic. As the film begins, Grant is collected, good natured, and very likable. The moment he discovers the first corpse, he grows increasingly nervous and spazzy. His facial expressions alone are comedy gold. Hull and Adair are both absolutely adorable and incredibly creepy. Their cheerful demeanor when they calmly discuss how they have been dispatching old men over the years is both the stuff of laughter and nightmares. I can see the headlines now. These actresses make it clear their characters are not so much cold blooded as they are clueless to what their actions really are (It is one of our charities!). Another show stopper is John Alexander as Mortimer's mentally ill brother who believes himself to be the former president. He is the source of some of the film's most delightful moments. By the time the movie is done, you will think he is Teddy too. Bully, just bully! Massey is the film's most frightening character, but he too has is fair share of funny moments. His classic excuse for a murder is one of the film's best running jokes. He does however come off as a real monster, and were it not for his over the top face makeup, he would have been one of the most frightening villains in film history. Lorre delivers a great performance as the reluctant flunky Dr. Einstein and Lane is great as the initially sweet but eventually stubborn and angry Elaine. The supporting cast that come in on occasion also make for fun times.
The humor of the film is basically a nonstop barrage of insanity from its ever so talented cast. Antics about hiding the body in the window seat, Teddy charging up the stairs, the audience getting teased with the threat of someone accidentally drinking the poison wine, the final brawl and the aftermath where Mortimer frantically tries to hide his aunts' actions. I challenge anyone to find a farce with this mad of a conclusion. The majority of the film's laughs come from Grant's exquisite delivery as his character gets ever closer to a psychotic break. There is also side gags a plenty and dialogue to die for. (This is developing into a very bad habit!) What is surprising is how the film holds this chaotic pace up. There is very rarely a pause in this house of whack jobs. Even after the villains have been vanquished, the setting still is filled with almost cataclysmic shenanigans. The closing scene is no less insane than the previous skirmish. No hammy message of morals, no tearful goodbyes, just Mortimer trying his best to keep his pretty little head from exploding. When Ian Malcolm was talking about Chaos Theory, he was no doubt referring to this film.
Once the film gets underway, it mostly confines itself to a single room with the occasional leave to an outside street. The film was based on a play after all. The set is a very well made and cozy little place. A great space to spend a chaotic two hours.
The film is shot in a very basic style. Cinematography was apparently the least of the director (Frank Capra's) interests. This is odd because the majority of his films are very visually impressive (It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) it would seem that he is trying to re-create the experience of someone who would go to see the play. In this case, it works fine. The camera stays back so the viewer can get a good look at all the action going on. There are occasional close-ups, but mostly the film will try to keep to that play atmosphere. The only time it really deviates from this is during the final brawl, where it breaks that convention in a very clever and ultimately hysterical way. It is good to see the tricks of the trade were used sparingly.
Frank Capra was one of the great directors, making the first film to win all five major Oscars (It Happened One Night) This is probably my favorite motion picture of his because it is so out there. Sheer madness not found in any of his other films which I have seen yet. Capra fits into the great man mold, being one of the most influential and successful filmmakers of the 30s and 40s. Usually his work is inspirational stories of triumph against great adversaries or feel good movies, but occasionally he will break out of the mold and try new things, as he did so very successfully here.
An insane, frightening and side splitting romp into a house full of madness and laughter, Arsenic and Old Lace really is a grand comedy. Just don't expect it to give you much rest. It literally does not stop until THE END pops up.
Ahh. That felt as getting my bowels unclogged.
And now for something with a bit more class (from a certain point of view).
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (http://reviewpit.blogspot.com/)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviegoods.com%2FAssets%2Fproduct_images%2F1020%2F198670.1020.A.jpg&hash=c40b3528eb4f992a81d39498c512fdaa3d157e3b)
I have a secret I must confess... Before two months ago, I had never seen
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I know, I know, it's inexcusable. You'd think I might be able to find the time for a nigh-on forty year old horror movie, but I'd always been putting off watching it for one reason or another. As far as classic horror goes, this had always been at the bottom of my list, buried under a heap of 80s slasher fluff and vintage zombie movies that I'm still playing catch-up with. Exactly why I'd steered clear of
Chain Saw all this time, though, I'm not so sure. Maybe I was worried about finding it badly dated, or perhaps it was simply because I wasn't too impressed by the short clips I'd seen on all those "Top 50 Horror Moments" type shows.
Well, whatever the reason... I was
wrong. And now I'm kicking myself.
If my viewing was anything to go by, then
Chain Saw has lost absolutely none of its power to shock. Watching it had a funny effect on me, like as if I was suddenly transported back into the early seventies. The film's visual style is of course directly responsible for this (although we shouldn't forget those classic hair styles the characters rock). It has a dirty, almost documentary quality to it that sets its style far apart from similarly themed films which strived for a more cinematic event. The camera never shies away from zooming in and capturing every grimy detail in extreme close-up, whether it's an artful display of human bones made into furniture, or the gnarled face of a rotting corpse. Here, everything feels uncomfortably natural. And that's where the horror comes from – we soon realise how something like this could actually happen (and yes, it was indeed loosely based on the same real life incidents that inspired
Psycho).
But this realism isn't merely limited to the film's harrowing atmosphere, oh no. The Texan cannibal clan contains some of the most deranged and utterly convincing horror antagonists of all time. I'll get to the big guy in a moment, but the remaining three unnamed family members are just as memorable. The 'Hitchhiker' is a worryingly unstable hotbed of insanity, with his jittery nature even going so far as to make me nervous; the 'Old Man' uses his elderly innocence to hide a truly sadistic and repulsive nature; while 'Grandfather' comes across as an affront against nature - there's no way that thing should live, and yet it does! Somehow,
ghastly just doesn't quite do this deranged family justice.
Of course, Leatherface deserves a special mention. Physically enormous, smeared with dry blood, prone to cross-dressing, and wearing someone else's face as a mask, he's nothing short of terrifying. And that's putting it lightly. This guy is like the complete antithesis to Michael Myers, and when I say that I certainly don't mean to make it look like I think one character is more frightening than the other. See, Myers is scary because of how cold and calculating he is. His singular, shark-like desire to hunt something down and then emerge from the shadows to kill it, coupled with the fact that we knew next to nothing about him (SHUT UP, there were no druids involved) resonates fear.
Leatherface, on the other hand... is scary simply because he charges straight at you, crying out with those bizarre animalistic noises, while swinging a
freaking chain saw over his head! And he never slows down. EVER.
It's enough to make a little poo come out.
The ears of many a gorehound would no doubt prick up at the slightest mention of this film, so the degree of violence
Chain Saw has to offer has always been a popular topic of conversation (in some circles, anyway). Usually, such a discussion about the level of bloodshed will involve Person 1, who hasn't seen the film, asking Person 2 (who has) about just how violent it is. Person 2 will then respond, telling Person 1 how there is in fact very little in the way of blood and guts on show.
This is true. And yes, for a horror film with a title like
that, the violence is surprisingly lacking in graphic details. But that does not for
one instant mean
Chain Saw isn't brutal as all hell, because it most definitely is. While the meat hook-hanging and chain sawing leaves a lot to the imagination, there's still a disturbing amount of realism to the proceedings. Your mind easily fills in the blanks. And when Leatherface brings that hammer down on one unfortunate victim, you
can feel it crack the guy's skull open, bringing him down like a sack of bricks. Even more horrific is the sight of the decaying Grandfather sucking blood from the tip of our heroin's finger, like some kind of pathetic vampire leeching out for a little more energy. There's no mistaking it: this is one gruesome movie.
It's hard to find a real fault to pick on. I suppose the cast of victims are mostly forgettable, but in a way their sheer generality adds to the picture's grisly sincerity. And even if you can't remember their names, the terrible and believable experiences each of them has to endure will surely stick with you for some time. There is a chance you may find yourself smiling during the more chaotic moments, such as when Leatherface becomes enraged and does his 'chain saw dance' (something the splat-tastic sequel would make downright farcical), or during the carnage that ensues when the family decide to let Grandfather try out with the hammer at dinner, but I feel this just works to the film's advantage. Much like
The Evil Dead,
Chain Saw holds, deep down, qualities of an extremely dark comedy.
Sure, today's generation of so-called Horror Kids may find the whole experience a little tame compared to the past decade's worth of torture porn flicks, not to mention the movie's own increasingly wacky and gory succession of sequels and reboots, but this is still an undisputed horror classic and a true landmark for the genre, with a serrated edge that has not been dulled with time.
Excuse me. A little poo?
You're right, I'm still trying to wash the brown out. :-[
I'm really liking your review blog, TJ.
Makes me wonder when we'll be seeing At the Movies with Monolith.
*hint hint*
Sounds like something I'd read.
*nudge nudge*
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 11, 2011, 12:26:57 AM
*hint hint*
Quote from: TJ Doc on Oct 11, 2011, 09:07:38 PM
*nudge nudge*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc#)
I really want to do this. Believe me.
The problem is I am not really one for jokes. I have a few good ones here and there, but no consistent stuff. The best I can do is reference another movie every now and then. Just can't seem to get those gears working.
I am also new at film criticism.
Granted, I would still like to do a little thing to discuss some favorites of mine.
Perhaps I can start out with something written and work my way up to vids if all goes well. But school is taking up lots of time.
The thing 2011
likes: The helicopter scene was hard to get over. It would've been better for them to have a simple nod to Griggs changing and just show Olav's face without the flood of intestines and tentacles.
likes: The Edvard transformation didn't really go anywhere. The whipping tentacle was pretty lame. Having him knock out more light would've rescued some of the transformation...made it eerie.
likes: Sanders at the end was pretty rough too. The scene was incredibly short and very "Alien" like which is okay as long as it had a bit more teeth to it.
likes: I thought the ship would have a bit of a zoological feel; as if the alien species was capturing other aliens to examine them and found the thing (or at least the imitation of another alien)
likes: The snow looked a little sketchy.
likes: The lack of continuity between the monsters in this film. Also the lack of connection, at times, between the thing outs of this film and of JC.
Dislike: There was a whole other scene that was suppose to have various thing outs at once (I read this somewhere and then heard it in an interview). There is a photo of some model maquettes there were really grotesque that you just never see in the film.
Likes: Loved the beginning and the end.
Likes: Loved most of the characters (just wanted to see more of them). Kate was perfect and Lars was our hero.
Likes: Loved the Juliette scene.
Likes: Loved Edvards hand turning.
Likes: Loved how they found the ship, the magnetic pulse (very much like the book).
Likes: How Kate went right into the teeth examination without hesitation. Very clever.
Likes: The music for the most part. It kept pace with the film very well.
Overall: 9/10
Half of those likes are you disliking something.
Quote from: Alienseseses on Oct 16, 2011, 05:15:07 AM
Half of those likes are you disliking something.
a little bit , there was a photo shot of other creatures they could have use in the film.
@TJ Doc
Never really had the urge to check out Chain Saw until now, you gotta way with words. Kudos
Why thank you... and this is why the site needs a blushing emoticon. :P
Monsters.
Good acting, great directing, superb soundtrack and engrossing visuals. The scene near the end of the film (you know which scene I mean if you've seen it) is absolutely gorgeous. A beautiful film.
8.5/10
Ides of March
I knew nothing about this going in, other than who was in it and the most basic premise. I expected an interesting and well made if forgettable little procedural, and instead I found an interesting and well made as well as memorable drama. I won't go into it too much, but the acting is top notch, as is the production value. The screenplay really made it work, though, portraying the political process as soul crushing and cynical. I found the beginning a little slow, but it really picks up when the situation starts to spiral for our protagonist, Stephen, a campaign head portrayed by Ryan Gosling, who recently starred in the gem "Drive". All of the characters are well realized creations, due in part to the actors' charisma and to the screenplay's intricacy. Even though the stakes are not that high for the audience, we're convinced by the end that for the players involved, the world is at stake. Not a small accomplishment. Well played.
8.5/10
Zombie Creeping Flesh (http://reviewpit.blogspot.com/)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi787.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy151%2FTJDocT84%2Fzombiecreepingflesh.jpg&hash=fe9fab72fec4ceab1c0dccf93f93b216a623223f)
1980's
Zombie Creeping Flesh is surely one of the most infamous Italian zombie films to released following the success of Lucio Fulci's
Zombie Flesh Eaters. It's got everything: extreme gore, baffling nudity, bad dubbing, and a never ending stream of stock footage. But more importantly, it's directed by none other than the late, great Bruno Mattei (or Vincent Dawn, as he went by for this particular case of zombiesploitation). The man behind a multitude of craptastic B movies, he was essentially Europe's answer to Roger Corman. So when his name pops up in any opening credits, you're guaranteed something special, even if it's for ALL the wrong reasons.
In keeping with tradition,
Creeping Flesh has more than a few alternate titles doing the rounds. Its original Italian title is
Virus, while in the US, it's known as
Hell of the Living Dead. I'm also fairly sure it went by
Zombi 4 at one point in time... and honestly, I'm undecided on whether this is better or worse than the
official Zombi 4.
Regardless, they're a lot better than what we got lumbered with, if you ask me. And what's up the UK title, anyway? I mean, sure, I get the whole 'zombie' part of it; but I don't remember any moments with 'creeping flesh'. Unless it's referring to the classically trained shambling zombies themselves, which I suppose would makes sense in a
way, but all those words make me think of are the sentient internal organs from Peter Jackson's
Braindead. I haven't felt this short-changed since I watched
Zombie Holocaust... and that was a cannibal movie!
But I should really look for something positive about the production to comment on. Oh hey, it's scored by Dario Argento's favourite prog-rock group,
Goblin! That's pretty neat, right? Well, I bet their involvement would be under any other circumstances, as the soundtrack here is comprised entirely of
Goblin music ripped straight from other horror films including
Dawn of the Dead, and even
Alien Contamination!
Guess I better talk about the actual film, then. The plot's your standard 'zombie outbreak in a third world country' deal, with the majority of the running time being set in Papua New Guinea. The
exact cause of the outbreak does mystify me, however. From what I can gather, a single rat manages to get into the secure area of a secret testing site, and this unleashes clouds of poisonous gas into the air. I don't understand how it adds up either, but at least we get to see the zombified rodent get inside a guy's ridiculously ineffective hazard suit and spray blood all over his visor.
It doesn't take long for the undead hordes to overwhelm the plant, and after a bit of graphic gut munching the film makes a radical shift in style to introduce our main protagonists. They're a crack squad of commandos led by Lt. Mike London, who are tasked with saving hostages from some seemingly insane gunmen in a scene that makes me think I've accidently put in
Italian A-Team. The
Dawn of the Dead soundtrack gets to flex its muscles, and the terrorists are soon lying dead on the ground. But not before their leader parts with these famous last words:
TERRORIST LEADER
You're all... doomed to a horrible death. Doomed to... be eaten up. First, they'll kill you... then afterwards... you'll be eaten... be eaten... devoured... by men like you... your brothers...
(dies)
I'm clapping right now.
So after that ominous bit of foreshadowing, the squad are sent off to New Guinea on a top secret mission. It's not long before they meet up with the movie's heroin, Lisa, a journalist who's there with a few friends of her own, including a not-so happy couple and a cameraman who looks EXACTLY like Inigo Montoya. Lisa's there investigating the sudden outbreak of violence within the native population (the kind where everyone suddenly starts eating each other, apparently). The couple she's with have also brought along a child who's been bitten... which means this encounter can't end well. And it doesn't. While his mother is off being killed by the zombie priest from the cover art, the boy dies, comes back to life and promptly eats daddy's lungs.
If there's one thing these movies could arguably do better than their American counterparts, it was the zombies.
Creeping Flesh is another example where the undead were really made to look that way. Many of them have rotted faces, smeared with gore and gouged out eyeballs, and in the case of the priest, half a face missing. Brilliantly, Inigo seems to think they could just "be drunk".
So far, the only names I've bothered to take notice of are London and Lisa (dunno if I should count Inigo). Now would be a good time to mention another squad member, Zantoro. This guy might as well be called Italian "Howling Mad" Murdoch, as he steals the movie to the point where I look forward to what he's going to do next more than I look forward to the comical gore effects. He approaches every situation with his eyes widened and his mouth spread into a crazy grin while giggling maniacally. He even lets himself get surrounded by zombies in a later scene
just so he can blow their heads off at close range! I can't decide who's overacting more: the actor or the guy dubbing him.
I bring Zantoro up mainly because he's the one who figures out that the undead need to be shot in the head. Too bad the other three squad members never cotton on to this. They'll continue to unload dozens of rounds of ammo into everywhere
but the skull throughout the film, no matter how many time Zantoro screams "IN THE HEAD!" at them.
I
also bring Zantoro up because he's the one who
empties his machine gun into that zombie kid's face without a moment's hesitation. And this was only after London had repeatedly shot pistol rounds into the boy's chest with absolutely no effect! Watching this snarling child get repeatedly riddled with gunfire is the kind of sight that's at once hilarious and deeply disturbing. A bit like the defecating scene from
The Human Centipede.
From then on, the rest of the film consists of this newly formed rag tag team travelling from location to location while admiring all the lovely stock footage. There'll be a line of dialogue, and then the scene will instantly cut to footage of a monkey swinging from a tree that was probably taken a decade earlier. Most of the time, the environment shown in the stock footage doesn't even match up with that which surrounds the characters, begging the question:
WHY BOTHER?
On their travels, they stop off at a native village just in time for the film's absolute nadir. I swear to Christ, this part makes me want to take a shower. No,
two showers. In order to get through safely, Lisa (who is rather in touch with the natives, according to Inigo) takes it upon herself to strip off her clothes, cover herself with tribal markings and then go for a walk through the village, at which point the stock footage goes into overdrive. But here's the thing: we see actual footage of tribal burial processions taking place (sourced from an older documentary), which means seeing real dead bodies that aren't in the best of conditions being carried around. It's uncomfortable to watch, and reaches the point where I'm not sure what's stock footage and what isn't, although the sudden swirling storm of grain is usually a giveaway.
We are then treated to such pleasant sights as a woman picking maggots out of a skull's eye socket and then eating them, as well as... Oh no, are they
disembowelling a dead crocodile?
What are they filling its intestines with? I didn't need to see that. But at least this isn't
Cannibal Holocaust, because if it was, I'd probably have to watch them butcher the poor thing to death first!
The scene goes on so long it actually causes one of the commandos to throw up. Thankfully, zombies show up and send the tribe into chaos, while the team are forced to make a break for it. They eventually end up by some kind of settlement and decide to investigate (not sure why, but I guess Bruno needed some padding). This leads to yet
another bizarre scene. While searching a house, two things of note happen. Firstly, a cat bursts from the stomach of an old "dead" lady (was it there for the warmth, or what?); and secondly, the least interesting commando takes the time to discard his weapon, try on a little green tutu, a top hat, and grab a cane so he can dance around in private for a bit.
You... you gave up right around here didn't you, Bruno?
Yeah, I don't need to go into this. It only takes a minute before the idiot's surrounded on all sides by abnormally stealthy zombies and reduced to a bloody corpse. But I shouldn't be complaining in the first place. His death simply gives a rapidly deteriorating Zantoro the excuse to go completely bananas, assault a crowd of the shuffling corpses with a burning torch, and turn into a hysterical wreck for the rest of the film. Not that there's much left of it, though, as they've just about reached the end of their journey.
That's right, after an eternity of driving, stopping, shooting and more driving, our heroes do eventually arrive at the sinister facility where all this horror began. Sadly, that rat from the beginning isn't waiting for them as a mutated final boss, and instead we watch them wander around this bland environment before getting killed one after the other. Makes the whole film look a tad pointless, right? Although I must say, Inigo the cameraman does deserve a round of applause for making it this far. Any other film would have killed him off an hour ago, so it's a little sad to see him go. Plus, they do throw in a little twist to keep things interesting.
But in the end, as terrible as
Zombie Creeping Flesh is, it's never particularly
boring. Aside from that gruelling detour in the native village, there's enough blood, guts and overacting to keep you entertained for the whole 100 minutes. Unlike that
other film, you're not going to be waiting an hour before someone's face finally explodes. And at the very least, it does answer the age-old question of whether or not it's possible to stick your hand in someone's mouth and pop out their eyeballs from the inside.
According to this film, the answer is a resounding
yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su6tvBxM0Bk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su6tvBxM0Bk#)
Just read that review over at your blog. Will check it out, if not only to see this guy. :laugh:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wn5ilaVGGho%2FTqW2gx7AF3I%2FAAAAAAAAACA%2FwSjuFbsTdFk%2Fs1600%2FCreeping%2BFlesh%2B3.bmp&hash=94f8eb9cb990000c2ffaeb127c10e219f4109310)
Oh, it's worth watching for Zantoro alone. His gradual mental breakdown is hilarious.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Oct 24, 2011, 09:39:54 PM
Spoiler
Zombie Creeping Flesh (http://reviewpit.blogspot.com/)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi787.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy151%2FTJDocT84%2Fzombiecreepingflesh.jpg&hash=fe9fab72fec4ceab1c0dccf93f93b216a623223f)
1980's
Zombie Creeping Flesh is surely one of the most infamous Italian zombie films to released following the success of Lucio Fulci's
Zombie Flesh Eaters. It's got everything: extreme gore, baffling nudity, bad dubbing, and a never ending stream of stock footage. But more importantly, it's directed by none other than the late, great Bruno Mattei (or Vincent Dawn, as he went by for this particular case of zombiesploitation). The man behind a multitude of craptastic B movies, he was essentially Europe's answer to Roger Corman. So when his name pops up in any opening credits, you're guaranteed something special, even if it's for ALL the wrong reasons.
In keeping with tradition,
Creeping Flesh has more than a few alternate titles doing the rounds. Its original Italian title is
Virus, while in the US, it's known as
Hell of the Living Dead. I'm also fairly sure it went by
Zombi 4 at one point in time... and honestly, I'm undecided on whether this is better or worse than the
official Zombi 4.
Regardless, they're a lot better than what we got lumbered with, if you ask me. And what's up the UK title, anyway? I mean, sure, I get the whole 'zombie' part of it; but I don't remember any moments with 'creeping flesh'. Unless it's referring to the classically trained shambling zombies themselves, which I suppose would makes sense in a
way, but all those words make me think of are the sentient internal organs from Peter Jackson's
Braindead. I haven't felt this short-changed since I watched
Zombie Holocaust... and that was a cannibal movie!
But I should really look for something positive about the production to comment on. Oh hey, it's scored by Dario Argento's favourite prog-rock group,
Goblin! That's pretty neat, right? Well, I bet their involvement would be under any other circumstances, as the soundtrack here is comprised entirely of
Goblin music ripped straight from other horror films including
Dawn of the Dead, and even
Alien Contamination!
Guess I better talk about the actual film, then. The plot's your standard 'zombie outbreak in a third world country' deal, with the majority of the running time being set in Papua New Guinea. The
exact cause of the outbreak does mystify me, however. From what I can gather, a single rat manages to get into the secure area of a secret testing site, and this unleashes clouds of poisonous gas into the air. I don't understand how it adds up either, but at least we get to see the zombified rodent get inside a guy's ridiculously ineffective hazard suit and spray blood all over his visor.
It doesn't take long for the undead hordes to overwhelm the plant, and after a bit of graphic gut munching the film makes a radical shift in style to introduce our main protagonists. They're a crack squad of commandos led by Lt. Mike London, who are tasked with saving hostages from some seemingly insane gunmen in a scene that makes me think I've accidently put in
Italian A-Team. The
Dawn of the Dead soundtrack gets to flex its muscles, and the terrorists are soon lying dead on the ground. But not before their leader parts with these famous last words:
TERRORIST LEADER
You're all... doomed to a horrible death. Doomed to... be eaten up. First, they'll kill you... then afterwards... you'll be eaten... be eaten... devoured... by men like you... your brothers...
(dies)
I'm clapping right now.
So after that ominous bit of foreshadowing, the squad are sent off to New Guinea on a top secret mission. It's not long before they meet up with the movie's heroin, Lisa, a journalist who's there with a few friends of her own, including a not-so happy couple and a cameraman who looks EXACTLY like Inigo Montoya. Lisa's there investigating the sudden outbreak of violence within the native population (the kind where everyone suddenly starts eating each other, apparently). The couple she's with have also brought along a child who's been bitten... which means this encounter can't end well. And it doesn't. While his mother is off being killed by the zombie priest from the cover art, the boy dies, comes back to life and promptly eats daddy's lungs.
If there's one thing these movies could arguably do better than their American counterparts, it was the zombies.
Creeping Flesh is another example where the undead were really made to look that way. Many of them have rotted faces, smeared with gore and gouged out eyeballs, and in the case of the priest, half a face missing. Brilliantly, Inigo seems to think they could just "be drunk".
So far, the only names I've bothered to take notice of are London and Lisa (dunno if I should count Inigo). Now would be a good time to mention another squad member, Zantoro. This guy might as well be called Italian "Howling Mad" Murdoch, as he steals the movie to the point where I look forward to what he's going to do next more than I look forward to the comical gore effects. He approaches every situation with his eyes widened and his mouth spread into a crazy grin while giggling maniacally. He even lets himself get surrounded by zombies in a later scene
just so he can blow their heads off at close range! I can't decide who's overacting more: the actor or the guy dubbing him.
I bring Zantoro up mainly because he's the one who figures out that the undead need to be shot in the head. Too bad the other three squad members never cotton on to this. They'll continue to unload dozens of rounds of ammo into everywhere
but the skull throughout the film, no matter how many time Zantoro screams "IN THE HEAD!" at them.
I
also bring Zantoro up because he's the one who
empties his machine gun into that zombie kid's face without a moment's hesitation. And this was only after London had repeatedly shot pistol rounds into the boy's chest with absolutely no effect! Watching this snarling child get repeatedly riddled with gunfire is the kind of sight that's at once hilarious and deeply disturbing. A bit like the defecating scene from
The Human Centipede.
From then on, the rest of the film consists of this newly formed rag tag team travelling from location to location while admiring all the lovely stock footage. There'll be a line of dialogue, and then the scene will instantly cut to footage of a monkey swinging from a tree that was probably taken a decade earlier. Most of the time, the environment shown in the stock footage doesn't even match up with that which surrounds the characters, begging the question:
WHY BOTHER?
On their travels, they stop off at a native village just in time for the film's absolute nadir. I swear to Christ, this part makes me want to take a shower. No,
two showers. In order to get through safely, Lisa (who is rather in touch with the natives, according to Inigo) takes it upon herself to strip off her clothes, cover herself with tribal markings and then go for a walk through the village, at which point the stock footage goes into overdrive. But here's the thing: we see actual footage of tribal burial processions taking place (sourced from an older documentary), which means seeing real dead bodies that aren't in the best of conditions being carried around. It's uncomfortable to watch, and reaches the point where I'm not sure what's stock footage and what isn't, although the sudden swirling storm of grain is usually a giveaway.
We are then treated to such pleasant sights as a woman picking maggots out of a skull's eye socket and then eating them, as well as... Oh no, are they
disembowelling a dead crocodile?
What are they filling its intestines with? I didn't need to see that. But at least this isn't
Cannibal Holocaust, because if it was, I'd probably have to watch them butcher the poor thing to death first!
The scene goes on so long it actually causes one of the commandos to throw up. Thankfully, zombies show up and send the tribe into chaos, while the team are forced to make a break for it. They eventually end up by some kind of settlement and decide to investigate (not sure why, but I guess Bruno needed some padding). This leads to yet
another bizarre scene. While searching a house, two things of note happen. Firstly, a cat bursts from the stomach of an old "dead" lady (was it there for the warmth, or what?); and secondly, the least interesting commando takes the time to discard his weapon, try on a little green tutu, a top hat, and grab a cane so he can dance around in private for a bit.
You... you gave up right around here didn't you, Bruno?
Yeah, I don't need to go into this. It only takes a minute before the idiot's surrounded on all sides by abnormally stealthy zombies and reduced to a bloody corpse. But I shouldn't be complaining in the first place. His death simply gives a rapidly deteriorating Zantoro the excuse to go completely bananas, assault a crowd of the shuffling corpses with a burning torch, and turn into a hysterical wreck for the rest of the film. Not that there's much left of it, though, as they've just about reached the end of their journey.
That's right, after an eternity of driving, stopping, shooting and more driving, our heroes do eventually arrive at the sinister facility where all this horror began. Sadly, that rat from the beginning isn't waiting for them as a mutated final boss, and instead we watch them wander around this bland environment before getting killed one after the other. Makes the whole film look a tad pointless, right? Although I must say, Inigo the cameraman does deserve a round of applause for making it this far. Any other film would have killed him off an hour ago, so it's a little sad to see him go. Plus, they do throw in a little twist to keep things interesting.
But in the end, as terrible as
Zombie Creeping Flesh is, it's never particularly
boring. Aside from that gruelling detour in the native village, there's enough blood, guts and overacting to keep you entertained for the whole 100 minutes. Unlike that
other film, you're not going to be waiting an hour before someone's face finally explodes. And at the very least, it does answer the age-old question of whether or not it's possible to stick your hand in someone's mouth and pop out their eyeballs from the inside.
According to this film, the answer is a resounding
yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su6tvBxM0Bk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su6tvBxM0Bk#)
Great review.
Also saw your one for
Eternal Darkness, a game that I have wanted to play for awhile. Damnit, it's hard to get my hands on Gamecube games these days.
Wow someone else who played eternal darkness, dem damn insanity effects, I threw my wavebird across the room on multiple occasions, nice review brings back fond memories.
Really is a shame that too human was a bit meh, had high hopes for Silcon knights.
I got that game and a Gamecube. Now I just need the time.
2010: Odyssey Two Review
VisualFx: (82%)
The visual effects are awesome for a movie that came out 24 years ago. The computers, monitors, and graphics in the movie are great looking and the artwork is very nice. The CGI is outdated now but it was great looking back then. I love how Peter Hyams had to recreate the models from scratch for 2010.
CGI in 1984? Don't think so...in fact I know so!!
The Postman Always Rings Twice- 1946 version
Two official adaptations of James Cain's roman noir novel have been made. The first was done in 1946. The most notable thing about it is that it's more or less a straight adaptation of the novel, nearly scene by scene, with changes made only to appease viewers of that time period. The story is about an affair between a man and a married woman, Frank and Cora, who then conspire to kill Cora's husband. The novel is quite explicit about the nature of the relationship, establishing it as violent and masochistic. In the film, this is changed to something more romantic and tame, with all of the novel's sex scenes being replaced with scenes of the couple swimming at the beach. Also, in the novel, the affair starts immediately, and in the movie, it takes time to build up. It works for the film, but diminishes the impact of the topic and changes the nature of the story.
The ending is different from the novel, too, but only a little. It's the same events, but with a bigger sense of closure than we needed.
Spoiler
In the novel, after having been acquitted of the murder of Cora's husband, the two live a mostly good life together, which gets rockier as the two begin to trust each other less. In the end, Cora dies in a car accident, and Frank, who was behind the wheel, is put on death row, found guilty for a crime he didn't commit, whereas before he was found innocent for a crime that he did. In the movie, all of this happens, but at the end, Frank tells the priest before going to his death that he's happy to die for his sins, as long as the world knows that he's paying for killing the husband, not for killing Cora. He then explains the title of the movie to be a metaphor. In the book, the title is never mentioned in the story.
Aside from a few other changes from the book, notably character names (Papadakis becomes Smith, Katz becomes Keats), the movie is a solid enough adaptation, if missing the kick that the novel had. Still, I couldn't help but feel that the story didn't translate as well to the screen as it should have. The final third of the novel works as a novel. It doesn't fit screenplay structure, and because of this, the whole final third feels like it rambles until it just stops. In any case, it's a movie worth seeking out, even if it's a muted adaptation.
The Postman Always Rings Twice- 1981 version
This version starred Jack Nicholson, and for the first two thirds, is a better adaptation of the source. It gets a lot of mileage out of showing more than telling the story, it has the violent/erotic feel of the novel, and the pacing is great. Shame about the final third, though. As soon as
Spoiler
the trial ended,
the movie lost all steam. The structure and tone was a mess. I lost all interest. It was just a string of scenes that had no purpose. The ending screwed it all up worse than that, though. It loses all of the novel's irony.
Spoiler
As I said, in the novel, Cora dies in an accident and Frank is put on death row for it, which is ironic because he got away scott free from the actual murder he committed. In this movie, Cora dies in the accident... and the movie ends. That's it. The final third of the movie was just the two of them living together, having happy moments, having sad moments, and then she dies. That's it.
It's a huge shame, considering how well done the script was for the first two thirds. The final third suffers from trying to be faithful at the same time that it attempts to be a different kind of story, and it doesn't work. Also, the film has abysmal cinematography, editing, and music. The acting is great, but the movie just disappoints too much in the end.
The original is yet another Noire classic I really should have seen already. My 'To Watch' list keeps getting longer.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Oct 25, 2011, 04:36:44 AM
Great review.
Also saw your one for Eternal Darkness, a game that I have wanted to play for awhile. Damnit, it's hard to get my hands on Gamecube games these days.
Track that bad boy down! Sell a kidney if you have to!
I'm sure Pn and Mono would tell you it's worth it.
I just said I haven't played the damn thing yet!
Damn it, I wish it was a movie. It is much easier to set aside time for those.
I got it at home, sitting there and waiting.
I think it cries sometimes. :'(
Ah right, I see.
It may not be a movie, but its episodic structure does have qualities of a TV series. SO you could just play one chapter every so often, which wouldn't take up much time and you'd be potentially avoiding any of that zombie-related repetition I mentioned.
Maybe. :P
I think I'll try that.
It's okay Eternal Darkness. You can stop crying now.
Reviews of Karacter and The Poseidon Adventure are coming up soon.
Happy, happy Halloween, Halloween, Halloween.
Happy, happy Halloween, Silver Shamrock! (http://reviewpit.blogspot.com/)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-emvbqqk2Z84%2FTq7zHk3898I%2FAAAAAAAAAC0%2FtablhPFHh_Y%2Fs1600%2Fhalloween%2B3.jpg&hash=ab5ebe5bc61aeb4a19d3fe79c2146ced23c628fa)
Michael Myers is dead.
Halloween II made that crystal clear. The writing/producing duo of John Carpenter and Debra Hill ensured there was no spooky cliff-hanger to sting the ending with and hint at further misadventures with the masked stalker. The night
he came home was finally over.
However, the
Halloween name was now hot stuff, having risen far above its indie origins. And after the financial success of its first sequel, another entry in the series was a given. But what could they do now that Myers was no more? The decision was to take the series in a whole new direction – a new and unique
Halloween story to be released on an annual basis. Carpenter and Hill stayed on as producers, Tommy Lee Wallace was picked to direct, while acknowledged sci-fi writer Nigel Kneale (of
Quatermass fame) was drafted in to write the screenplay (though he chose to have his name taken off the credits when Wallace was tasked with sprucing up the script).
The end result was...
interesting.
In
Halloween III: Season of the Witch, a distraught shopkeeper holding a Silver Shamrock pumpkin mask is chased into a hospital by a group of mysterious men in suits. Although seemingly safe in the care of Dr. Dan Challis (cult legend Tom Atkins), one of his pursuers calmly enters the hospital and brutally murders the bed-ridden man before (even more calmly) committing suicide via the classic art of instantly exploding car. Mystified by the incident, Challis ditches his divorced wife and their Halloween-obsessed kids so he can team up with the dead man's daughter, Ellie (career bombing Stacey Nelkin), to uncover the truth. With only the Halloween mask and Ellie's father's delivery records to go on, they travel to the secluded "company town" of Santa Mira, where Silver Shamrock is based. Once there, they soon discover an evil plot masterminded by Conal Cochran (
Robocop's Dan O'Herlihy), a demonic toy maker in command of an army of androids who intends to massacre the children of America on the night of Halloween using novelty masks infused with ancient, head-melting power harnessed from Stonehenge.
Now isn't that the
greatest synopsis you've ever read? Don't you just want to go on Amazon and order a copy right now? It's simply fantastic. Madder than a wheelie bin full of cats, but
fantastic. You can instantly tell from even the briefest plot summary that
Season of the Witch is a true gem, and about as far a unique departure from the initial slasher films as you could expect.
Sadly, that's exactly why this film fell into obscurity. Audiences weren't prepared for such a different approach to a series which had previously focused on the exploits of a murderous babysitter hunter. So
Season of the Witch was considered a failure, and has been singled out as "That one without Michael Myers" ever since, with many people not liking it simply because of that reason... which continues to baffle me. I cannot for one moment comprehend why anyone would not enjoy this film. It's got to be one of the most underrated horror movies ever made! There's far too much to love about it. Yes, I know it's silly, but just hear me out.
For one thing, at least as far as I'm concerned, the plot is
genius. Androids? Stonehenge? A megalomaniac who wants to dissolve our heads into a seeping mess of snakes, spiders and other creepy crawlies? Oh, yes
please! Granted, it takes a while getting to all that, but it's worth the wait. What I love is how they skirt around certain
major plot issues. Like, how did Cochran even get a whole piece of Stonehenge there in the first place? All we're ever told is: "
We had a time getting it here. You wouldn't believe how we did it." And that's all we need to know!
How about Tom Atkins as a star, right? As the Chuck Norris of horror, he alone is worth giving this a watch for. Maybe I'm biased, but it's great to see Atkins get top billing for once. Too bad we so rarely see more of him in anything close to a leading role. Maybe you could count the first half
Maniac Cop, but Bruce Campbell pretty much took over that didn't he? In regards to his part here, Challis is a funny character – he's likeable in a burly way (you just wanna hug him), but how am I supposed to feel about a guy who neglects his kids to run off on a wacky adventure? And
how does he manage to enchant all these ladies who are about half his age? First Jamie Lee Curtis in
The Fog, and now Stacey Nelkin! Is he really
all that man? We are not worthy.
Creating a new villain after Michael Myers was going to be a daunting task. After all, who could even
begin to measure up? Yet somehow with Cochran, they
nailed it. On the surface, he appears like the coolest grandfather of all time. How could anyone not love a guy who owns a toy factory? Then, after his true intentions become apparent, Cochran shifts gears to full-on
evil. The scene where he lectures Challis on the sacrificial history of Halloween is chilling and a definite highlight.
COCHRAN
Halloween... the festival of Samhain! The last great one took place three thousand years ago, when the hills ran red... with the blood of animals and children.
... Ho-ly crap. O'Herlihy clearly relishes playing such a maniacal role. And best of all, much like with Myers (before all that druid crap, anyway), his character is shrouded in mystery. Who is he?
What is he? We may never know for sure.
Truthfully, the other characters here are barely worth mentioning. Nelkin is little more than dead weight hanging off Atkins' manliness (but to be fair she is a good actor who thankfully refrains from screaming all the time, and does have a few late surprises in store); Challis' family are virtually nonexistent (his ex-wife is pretty much just a voice on the phone); while everyone else is introduced just so they can be gruesomely killed a few scenes later (let me tell you now, that one happy family is
DOOMED).
The original
Halloween has always been praised for its ability hold back on graphic violence in favour of a terrifying atmosphere.
Halloween II was, by comparison, a solid ninety minutes of slashed throats and syringes in eyes. I've always liked how
Season of the Witch manages to find a spot somewhere in the middle. Deaths are far less frequent than they were in
II, but they're arguably even nastier. Thanks to the more fantastical plot elements, we get to see a man's face being
literally broken, a head being twisted clean off and the after-effects of a laser beam to the mouth! All good stuff.
Two of the most important previous
Halloween elements make a return here: Dean Cundey's moody cinematography; and John Carpenter's (with Alan Howarth) inimitable synthesiser score. That pitch-perfect framing and lighting, combined with those eerie bleeps and bloops make for yet another film which positively drips with an almost tangible ambience. In other words, this is the kind of movie that's been proven
by science to be best viewed in the very early hours of the morning, with bonus points awarded should you watch it on a worn out VHS tape. Am I making excuses for my decade-old DVD which isn't even presented in the correct aspect ratio?
Perhaps. Universal are supposedly working on a Blu-ray (probably timed for the film's thirtieth anniversary next year), so if I'm still updating this blog in twelve months time, then I'll be sure to give it a review.
Despite combining the best of both worlds, the film as a whole is never especially
frightening (the infamous Silver Shamrock jingle
will invade your dreams, mind you). It's really just a LOT of creepy, highly imaginative fun. As for the
ending... oh my god. That's another story. I don't dare give what happens away on the off chance that you haven't seen it, but it's bleak, ballsy and all kinds of intense. It may not have the unexpected shock factor of something like
The Mist's closing frames, but those final few sequences are still some of the most emotionally exhausting moments ever committed to celluloid.
At least the film ended on a high note, because with its critical and financial failure, it was all over for
Season of the Witch, and the proposed annual
Halloween movie plan along with it. I often wonder how it might have fared if the title hadn't been prefixed with
Halloween III. Well, regardless of what could have been, the series continued. Six years later, using some supremely uninspired screenwriting skills, Myers and (even more incredulously) Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis were brought back for
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. From then on, it's been a continuous string of Myers-starring sequels and reboots, with
Halloween 3D expected to make an appearance within the next couple of years (apparently featuring, funnily enough, Tom Atkins himself in some capacity). And while there'd be a slight highlight with Laurie Strode's eventual comeback in
H20, most of them merely progressed further away from John Carpenter's original vision.
But
none of them were ever as remarkably original... or admittedly outright bonkers as
Halloween III: Season of the Witch.
I agree. Despite my liking for H20, Michael should have stayed dead after part 2. The whole "Michael wasn't in it." argument is just stupid. They would have given Die Hard a bad review if it was called Halloween III.
Just think of all the anthology classics we missed out on. Well, they got theri Michael Myers, and just look where that ended up.
*cough*KarateBustaRhymes*cough*.
The Poseidon Adventure
It is New Year's Eve. The SS Poseidon is struck by a tsunami and capsizes. As it slowly sinks, a group of survivors traverse the inverted and quickly flooding ship to escape before it slips below the surface.
Acting wise, the film is pretty good. The main cast of characters showcase their talents and achieve varying levels of quality. I will discuss my personal favorites as if I go through each and every one, we will be here a long time. Gene Hackman is the show stealer here as the heroic and ballsy preacher Frank Scott who makes it his mission to lead these strangers to freedom. He is strong, trustworthy, willing to risk his life to save others, and is short tempered towards those he believes are acting selfish or putting others in danger. He gets some of the film's most memorable moments, mostly due to his desire to go first to make sure the way is clear. I freaking love this man. Seeing this classic again at 12, I was blown away at just how awesome this character was, and he remains one of cinema's better heroic figures. Ernest Borgnine comes in at close second as the irritable and angry Mike Rogo, who wants nothing more than to get himself and his wife Linda (Stella Stevens) off this damn tub. His pretense to follow the masses is one of the things that puts the other survivors at risk, which is one of the reasons he and Frank don't get along so well. Despite his ill temper, he has a heroic streak of his own, most obviously shown in the exceptional vertical shaft sequence. Though this guy couldn't have saved everyone to begin with, he sure as hell could have by the end. Finally, there is Shelly Winters as the lovable Belle Rosen, one of the film's most iconic (and parodied) characters. Winters was so devoted to the part she gained 40 pounds to play it, which she sadly was never able to rid herself of. But perhaps it was worth it as her character is a gentle, kind and lovable woman whose heart is probably the most tender and loving out of all in this little group of survivors. Her requests that she be left behind, her desire to help, her concern for everyone else (especially the youngest of the group, Susan and Robin Shelby played by Pamela Sue Martin and Eric Shea) really paints her to be a kind and gentle soul who you can get behind right away. Other members of the cast, such as Pamela Sue Martin, Stella Stevens, Red Buttons, Roddy McDowall, Jack Albertson and Leslie Nielsen really do fine jobs, and where it not for space, I would give them their props as well. Yes, you heard that right. Leslie Flippin Nielsen is in this film in one of his more iconic dramatic roles prior to his comedic breakout in Airplane. I reserve my strongest criticism for Carol Lynley, who is the screamer of the group. Her character comes off as rather weak and somewhat irritating despite the sympathy for her plight. Shea also seems a little bit enthusiastic despite the whole ship turning over thing. If I was 10 and on this boat, I would be having a constant coronary.
The film begins on the ship prior to the disaster. It was shot largely on the decks of The Queen Mary. Shooting on an actual ship does add a lot to the film as it makes the setting more solid and real to the audience. Now of all the segments of the film, these pre-disaster scenes are the most dated. The styles of the early 70s, really do take a front row seat and no doubt contribute greatly to the film's reputation as classic cheese. I find this a bit unfair. Sure these scenes are dated, but they are necessary to establish characters. In spite of their feel, they get the job done and you get to know and like these people. But once the ship capsizes, the somewhat hammy establishing sequences are gone and we are thrust into a new world. The cheesy beginning is replaced by a surreal nightmare.
Let's talk about the sets. This movie would not have been the classic it is without these incredible sets. The inverted ballroom is probably the film's most memorable set as it really captures the destruction of the preceding event. The film really takes advantage of the idea of an inverted ship. We get burned out inverted kitchens with charred bodies strewn about. We got stairs they have to climb up. We got vertical shafts with surging water at the bottom, we got inverted corridors with walls of water overtaking the characters, we got submerged passageways with drowned crew and loose doors, we got an upside down engine room with rising water laced with flaming fuel. Good God these sets make the ship a character all its own. If these sets ever failed to convince, the film would have gone downhill and fast. Fortunately, that is not the case. Each one shows a gradual increase in the hellish nature of the ordeal of these characters. The situation grows more dire with each passing second; and the sets only serve to make that more obvious and heighten the film's epic levels of suspense. I especially like the vertical shaft sequence as it, more than any other scene in the film, captures a sense of foreboding and dread, which is given a marvelous payoff as the sequence concludes. For a thriller with tons of action, this scene is really damn creepy. The film was advertised as Hell Upside Down. Let me tell you all; that is a very accurate statement.
The effects in the film are damn good. The first shot of the titular ship is a miniature, but damn it, it is a big miniature. While the effect fails in a few areas, for the most part (especially in the opening shot ) it proves to be very convincing and never appears downright laughable. The tsunami has some problems. When seen though Nielsen's binoculars, it is a very convincing wall of water. However, when it crashes into the ship, it does appear dated in that it is no longer a wave but a spray of water. This however proves to be a minor complaint as the water crashing through the bridge windows and the capsizing sequence shown almost entirely from the inside of the ship make you forget that fast. Now about that capsizing. Aside from the exterior shots of the ship floating on its side and the underwater shots of it having flipped, the entire thing is done in life size. You heard me right. No miniatures. No phony green screen effects. Real people getting tossed about the ballroom as it flips, smashing into tables, getting crushed under pianos, sliding to the other side of the room and cracking their skulls open and falling into skylights. This surpasses Wolfgang Peterson's remake in effects for this scene alone. It looks real because it is real. This set was really made to tilt a full 90 degrees, and damn it, it looks fantastic. The only other effects seen after this are the above mentioned shots of the inverted ship. The first shot of the ship, as its lights dim and the screen is consumed with darkness, is very atmospheric and effective. The shots after that are some of the film's weaker effects which depict explosions occurring somewhere inside the ship. These somewhat dated visuals do very little to take away from the fantastic sets inside, so once again, very minor.
The music is either a big hit or a big miss. The big hit comes from rising musical talent John Williams, who delivers a kickass main theme for the movie that takes you away the moment it gets going. It not only captures the buildup to and the frightening nature of the disaster itself, but it also acknowledges the characters we will eventually follow. It is, to put it bluntly, beautiful music. Before his big break with Jaws, this film was probably his best work. He would go on to score other disaster classics like The Towering Inferno and Earthquake, but none of them would come close to this piece of work which shows great promise that would be delivered on with a bang three years later. The minute I hear this theme, my heart gets pumping. I cannot say the same for the Morning After. A notorious song that has not aged well, this song alone is probably the reason many do not enjoy this movie. Endlessly parodied and mocked, the Morning After is a mediocre and somewhat annoying tune that somehow managed to win an Oscar. You know how to fix this problem? Replace it with If We Hold on Together. It fits in here just as good as it did in The Land Before Time, but anything, anything but the Morning After! Okay, maybe I am being a little harsh on this classic piece of 70s cheese. It does have a certain charm to it, but really seems out of place on this film.
As an example of film form, this film works nicely. The cinematography is very nice, showcasing the spectacular sets to their full visual potential (again, the vertical shaft scene). In between medium and close-up shots of our stars, the camera takes a nice step back in order to show us the scope of the devastation on the ship. The camera work really gives the disaster a cataclysmic feel to it, another ingredient in the masterful suspense. The sound work is constant and complimentary to the visuals. Throughout most of the film, low rumbles of the ship's failing structure can be heard, and the explosion sounds have not so much of a boom, but a vibratory feel to them. You don't hear the explosion itself, but rather the ship reacting to it. This subtle touch really ads to the film's style, and heightens its abilities as a thriller. The editing wins on just about every level, especially during the capsizing sequence which seamlessly blends the chaos into one smoothie of death and destruction. Mmm.
The direction of Ronald Neame is very solid. This film is his best known work and it is no trouble to see why that is. He really does make sure to use the scenery to the film's advantage, all while trying to maintain an intimate connection to the characters. Most directors would have focused on the action, but Neame knows that without good characters, the action is moot. To bad he didn't carry this over to his big bomb Meteor. You had Sean Connery vs. an asteroid! That should have been an automatic win! So in this case, Neame falls into the great work category, though he did do a few other notable films such as the 70s adaptation of A Christmas Carol
The Poseidon Adventure is without question the finest of 70s disaster films and is a contender for the finest ever made. Even films that outdid it in the grosses never managed to recapture its spirit. It works not just because of its incredible sets and effects. There was much more at play here. There was a kickass score from Williams, there was a great script from Stirling Silliphant, and it was given life by a great cast who understood how to make us love their characters. Despite a few dated miniature shots, a cheesy song and some cracks in the acting, this film works. Its competition never stood a chance. In the words of Robin Shelby, I say this to all films that dared to try and dethrone this classic, in particular to the weak sequel and remakes. Shove it shove it shove it!
Quote from: TheMonolith on Oct 31, 2011, 09:22:56 PM
I agree. Despite my liking for H20, Michael should have stayed dead after part 2. The whole "Michael wasn't in it." argument is just stupid. They would have given Die Hard a bad review if it was called Halloween III.
Just think of all the anthology classics we missed out on. Well, they got theri Michael Myers, and just look where that ended up.
*cough*KarateBustaRhymes*cough*.
Maybe in...
some alternate dimension, audiences are enjoying the recently released
Halloween XXXII. I like to think that's a possibility.
And
TPA is awesome! Disaster movies aren't generally my thing, but that one's pretty fantastic.
By the way, you reminded me of something.
Since the occasion is fitting...
Halloween (1978)
We all know the story. Two babysitters are stalked by escaped mental patient Michael Myers. While this is going on, his doctor tries to track him down through the streets of Haddonfield.
Acting wise, the film is top notch. Donald Pleasence got a nicely needed career boost after several failures in quite possibly his most famous role, Dr. Sam Loomis. Loomis is the Ahab, the Quint of this story, and in that department he is one of the finest of all time. His constantly referring to Michael as "it" really makes it clear that he is the only one who understands just what his patient is. His performance is stunning. He shows an appropriate amount of fear, though nothing that trumps his determination to stop his patient. His chilling recounting of his times trying to treat "it" are among the film's highlights. My personal favorite piece of acting comes right at the end, when it is clear he has already accepted that he can never stop "it". Jamie Lee Curtis, scream queen for the ages. Many a mediocre horror film was saved by this astounding actress. Curtis delivers the first great final girl in movie history, a staple for future heroines going up against psychopathic and psychotic killers. Curtis carries herself with a profound shyness that makes the audience want to tag along with her, because we as an audience like her. This makes the film's final acts more desperate. At other times, she carries herself naturalistically in the scenes where she has friendly chats with her two co-stars (Nancy Kyes and PJ Soles, also two great actresses). She isn't a prude. When the time comes, she knows how to have fun. You see, if it has big tits, we don't care if it dies. But if she has a personality that we love, then we care. That, you Hollywood hacks, is how it works. Plus Jamie Lee Curtis is possibly the only horror film character to smoke a joint and live. Kyes and Soles, unlike those that would come after them, deliver us incredibly fleshed out and likable characters. They are fun, humorous and free spirited, just like most kids should be. They are not oversexed cold blooded bitches you want to die. You care. That is the difference between a cartoon and a horror film. Finally comes Nick Castle, who has delivered the finest performance to date of "it". The way he walks is so single minded, the way he moves is like a phantom, the way he turns is so mechanical. Castle knew he wasn't playing a man. He is playing a machine. Someone call Kyle Reese. He knows what he is dealing with when it comes to these. Jokes aside, Castle did it right. There is emotion on only the most miniscule level, there is only one goal coming from him. That was all we needed.
About that mask, I have one thing to say. Thank you William Shatner. This may be the greatest contribution you have ever made. Your face is a God send to horror cinema. I mean that in the best imaginable way.
As far as "it" goes, Michael in this film is far more effective than any future incarnations of him. Overpowering him in those installments seems to diminish his effectiveness in that it makes him too unbelievable. Here, he does seem not quite human, yet he doesn't seem impossible, something that the sequels lost. Also, this film captured the one aspect of Michael's personality that was in some cases blatantly ignored. That is his voyeurism, by far one of his most menacing attributes. Standing still and just watching with great patience before he moved in for the kill always carried more weight than running in like a maniac and stabbidy stab stabbing away. I'll touch on that later. The head tilt was used and misused as the series went on. Here it was a very minimalistic action. This guy liked what he did, and wanted to look at it. That's it. That is far scarier than deep meanings and motivations. The final thing in this film that works is something that was avoided (and thankfully so) in the series, and that is the one clear look we get at his face. That image lasting a few seconds took this larger than life character and made him more real than he has ever been in all the years since this film first appeared. He did have the face of the college student next door, which makes him, in that few seconds, quite possibly his most frightening.
The writing by Carpenter and then girlfriend Debra Hill is astounding. You can see their respective talents in the areas they focused on. Carpenter did much of the focus on Loomis while Debra fleshed out the cast. The work of each one greatly compliments the other. Carpenter's chilling dialogue from Loomis is in sharp contrast to the unaware playful chats of the teenage leads. The careful timing and resisting the urge to jump right into the action was wise for both of them. Each line doesn't seem comical or unbelievable. There is never a cringe-worthy or even mildly annoying line. Not even Linda's repeated use of the word "totally" seems unnatural. Just how they pulled THAT one off is beyond me, but they did it.
One cannot talk about Halloween without bringing up the brilliant cinematography. The gliding camera would go on to become a staple of John Carpenter's works, such as The Fog, Escape From New York and The Thing, all classics of their own. The way it drifts without the jerky movement creates such a unique feel, as if you are actually there. More so than the jerky POV shots of later times. It is used most effectively in the opening sequence, told entirely from the point of view of "it" as the film builds up to the first murder. Despite the common claims about the film, this is actually the only time in the original that we see the world through "its" eyes. Carpenter made a wise decision when using that sparingly. The gliding camera isn't the only thing that works. Carpenter seems to prefer a dynamic camera that captures as much action as possible to avoid a great deal of cutting. Granted, this was probably to save money, but it actually propels the film above and beyond. One exceptionally fine moment is after Laurie and Annie leave the hardware store. Loomis talks to Bracket, looking around to keep an eye out for "it", unaware that "it" is occupying the same frame, driving up the street after the two female leads. You want me to stop calling Michael "it"? Well...okay. Regardless of what you call the film's antagonist, this shot really is brilliant, and would later be reworked in other classic films (a-la Misery). There are plenty of other times throughout the film where much of the story is confined to a single frame, but this helps to build the suspense because it puts Michael in the same frame as our heroes long before he pounces. Now THAT is how you get someone scared.
Editing. This film fits together so damned well. Every piece falls neatly into place. No shot stands out as being wrong or off. Not one damned thing is jarring or ineffective. Even the most tightly edited sequences such as Laurie's fall down the stairs works. Sometimes the editing is so damn good, you don't even see it. Did you know the opening POV shot is actually three shots spliced in such a way you don't even notice? Now that is talent. I was clueless until I started watching documentaries. The scene of Laurie trying to get Tommy to open the door to the Doyle house as Michael approaches is fit together so well you feel as if you are stuck at that door with her. The shots of Michael are short, get the point across, and really make his slow approach carry real menace. A long sustained shot of his walk or inserts too short of duration just wouldn't have worked as well. It is not too short, and not too long. The final note on editing is the closing montage of locations in the Doyle and Wallace house before the final shot of the Myers house closes out the film. Not only is the final shot appropriate as it ends the film the same way it began, with a shot of the Myers house, but the montage really makes the previous tour de force of the best laxative you can ever find all the more effective. It solidifies Michael's inhuman phantom like nature amazingly, and would have been a perfect place to let him rest.
Music has always been a strong suit of John Carpenter films. From The Fog, Escape From New York, Christine, Assault on Precinct 13, Carpenter really knows the importance of a good score. He knows how to make a score a character all its own, which is what the music for a film should be. The score for Halloween is one of the best characters John Carpenter ever created. The moment that eerie and wholly original theme kicks in, you shit your pants. Nobody has ever come close to recapturing this specific version of the theme, and it is highly doubtful that anyone ever will. It perfectly complements the jack-o-lantern that slowly approaches the screen in the now classic opening credits sequence that was mimicked but never equaled in Halloween II. The main theme is not the only example of just how good the music is. Laurie's theme is also a very nice entry. The relaxed yet nervous and apprehensive feel of the music as it introduces us to Laurie really makes you understand just who she is. It is repressed, like her. It is nervous, like her. It is vulnerable, like her. Most importantly, it is lovable, like her. The music playing during Loomis' recounts of events is also very nice. 15 years of working with evil is summed up in four repeated notes. It is that good. Finally, there is the rhythmic chase theme, which once again has been mimicked but never equaled. Aside from the main theme, this final piece of music is probably the most famous from the film. It is, when you get down to it, even more simple than the Jaws theme. This one is literally a single note with some synth effects attached to it, a mere three elements. So why does it work so well? Because it is John Carpenter's music.
Setting the film is suburbia was a brilliant choice, because such a place is so damned safe most of the time. I hale from suburbia, so when I first saw this film, I really felt as if I was watching my own childhood home getting occupied by a masked killer. Haddonfield really is any-town USA in this film. They tried to put it up and make it stand out more in the sequels, but here it really is a nondescript and average place. It in many ways reflects the film's antagonist in this way in that so much can be projected on to it. In the end, there are no features that stand out, and that is why it works. You can, as I did, project your home right onto the screen in the same way you can project emotions onto Michael's mask. There are few things more frightening than seeing such things happen in a place you are currently sitting in.
This film, more than any other slasher film that would come after it, generates genuine fear. How? It doesn't have an endless string of killings. When I first watched the film at 14, I was expecting a gory body count. What I got was some of the most effective build-up ever put in a movie. So many films fail to understand that if you jump right to the killings, you have already lost the ability to create fear. Judith's death in the opening establishes the lethality of Michael at the tender age of six. The mauled repair man not only provides Michael with a new suit, it gives a hint of what he is capable of as an adult. You throw characters we like into such a situation, there is dread beyond words. Michael's voyeuristic behavior is in many ways more frightening than the killings because of the anticipation of what we know he is capable of, and our knowledge it is focused on a central character. Never before or since has a guy just standing there and looking at someone been so indescribably frightening. When it finally comes, you are afraid. The setting is also used to create a great sense of atmosphere. The old dark Myers house was the perfect place for Loomis' exposition on Myers' brief history. Oh nelly is it done nicely. I must admit however that I am much more impressed by the turn of events in the Wallace house. One of the most unsettling moments in the film occurs when Laurie attempts to call her friends. Across the street, she sees the lights inside turn on, then off. Something about that brief shot really spooks me out. When she finally enters the house, it doesn't go right into the macabre and the mad, it drags it out almost unbearably long before Laurie walks into the upstairs bedroom and all hell breaks loose.
John Carpenter is every bit a star of his great movies as his characters are. Ever since Assault on Precinct 13, he had such a definitive style that really showed the artistic intent behind most of his finest works. Films like Assault, Halloween, The Fog, Escape from New York, The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live and In the Mouth of Madness, even when they jump genres and tones, carry his greatness with them. One of the big praises for Carpenter is that he understands here, and in the majority of his other works, that excessive violence never creates fear. Movies that would have normally generated fountains of blood come off as tame in the gore department when Carpenter takes hold. Even some of his more brutal films like The Fog and The Thing only use onscreen graphic gore when it is unavoidable to the story. Due in no small part to this, his films will tower high above the gory schlock that would follow. When watching Halloween, one can see great potential was at work behind the camera. One must wonder if this potential was truly realized throughout his career. Carpenter is in many ways one of movie making's tragic success stories. He tried so hard to escape from his first big hit and was never quite able to despite him making several films either equally good as or arguably better than Halloween. One must wonder what could have been if Halloween didn't limit the public's expectations of Carpenter. Perhaps this is why he turned down directing H20. Just what could he have done if he had more budget, more freedom, that same ambition he went into Halloween with? What if he did that western he always wanted to do? One can only wonder. There is one undeniable thing however, and that is that John Carpenter made his mark on movie history and remains one of the most beloved directors that ever lived. Carpenter may not have achieved as much greatness as he could have in terms of the number of classic films he made, but he still achieved greatness, and that is more than most directors can say. Congratulations John Carpenter, you are a cinematic master.
Let me say this, when it comes to the sequels, I think they were for the most part made for the money, and when you do something just for the money, it runs out very fast. None of them have the heart and soul of this movie. Despite the fact that I do really enjoy Halloween II and the rapidly decreasing in popularity H20, I will go a step further than I did earlier today. Michael's story should not have stopped at H20. It shouldn't have even stopped at II. It should have stopped at 1. It was just so damned perfect.
Halloween is one of the finest, most subtly effective, most relentlessly atmospheric and most intensely frightening horror films that has ever been made or ever will be made. It is a perfect horror movie because it didn't set out to make money. It didn't set out to get recognized. It didn't set out to be great. It set out to do one thing. It set out to scare the living hell out of moviegoers, and it succeeded then, and is still succeeding today. I would liken Halloween to a stick of dynamite with the fuse lit. The flame gets going when Judith is killed, and all throughout the film, you nervously watch the fuse get shorter and shorter and shorter, waiting with eager and fearful anticipation of the coming explosion.
That is probably the most in-depth review of Halloween I've ever read.
Bravo, good sir.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Oct 31, 2011, 07:43:03 PM
Happy, happy Halloween, Halloween, Halloween.
Happy, happy Halloween, Silver Shamrock! (http://reviewpit.blogspot.com/)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-emvbqqk2Z84%2FTq7zHk3898I%2FAAAAAAAAAC0%2FtablhPFHh_Y%2Fs1600%2Fhalloween%2B3.jpg&hash=ab5ebe5bc61aeb4a19d3fe79c2146ced23c628fa)
Michael Myers is dead. Halloween II made that crystal clear. The writing/producing duo of John Carpenter and Debra Hill ensured there was no spooky cliff-hanger to sting the ending with and hint at further misadventures with the masked stalker. The night he came home was finally over.
However, the Halloween name was now hot stuff, having risen far above its indie origins. And after the financial success of its first sequel, another entry in the series was a given. But what could they do now that Myers was no more? The decision was to take the series in a whole new direction – a new and unique Halloween story to be released on an annual basis. Carpenter and Hill stayed on as producers, Tommy Lee Wallace was picked to direct, while acknowledged sci-fi writer Nigel Kneale (of Quatermass fame) was drafted in to write the screenplay (though he chose to have his name taken off the credits when Wallace was tasked with sprucing up the script).
The end result was... interesting.
In Halloween III: Season of the Witch, a distraught shopkeeper holding a Silver Shamrock pumpkin mask is chased into a hospital by a group of mysterious men in suits. Although seemingly safe in the care of Dr. Dan Challis (cult legend Tom Atkins), one of his pursuers calmly enters the hospital and brutally murders the bed-ridden man before (even more calmly) committing suicide via the classic art of instantly exploding car. Mystified by the incident, Challis ditches his divorced wife and their Halloween-obsessed kids so he can team up with the dead man's daughter, Ellie (career bombing Stacey Nelkin), to uncover the truth. With only the Halloween mask and Ellie's father's delivery records to go on, they travel to the secluded "company town" of Santa Mira, where Silver Shamrock is based. Once there, they soon discover an evil plot masterminded by Conal Cochran (Robocop's Dan O'Herlihy), a demonic toy maker in command of an army of androids who intends to massacre the children of America on the night of Halloween using novelty masks infused with ancient, head-melting power harnessed from Stonehenge.
Now isn't that the greatest synopsis you've ever read? Don't you just want to go on Amazon and order a copy right now? It's simply fantastic. Madder than a wheelie bin full of cats, but fantastic. You can instantly tell from even the briefest plot summary that Season of the Witch is a true gem, and about as far a unique departure from the initial slasher films as you could expect.
Sadly, that's exactly why this film fell into obscurity. Audiences weren't prepared for such a different approach to a series which had previously focused on the exploits of a murderous babysitter hunter. So Season of the Witch was considered a failure, and has been singled out as "That one without Michael Myers" ever since, with many people not liking it simply because of that reason... which continues to baffle me. I cannot for one moment comprehend why anyone would not enjoy this film. It's got to be one of the most underrated horror movies ever made! There's far too much to love about it. Yes, I know it's silly, but just hear me out.
For one thing, at least as far as I'm concerned, the plot is genius. Androids? Stonehenge? A megalomaniac who wants to dissolve our heads into a seeping mess of snakes, spiders and other creepy crawlies? Oh, yes please! Granted, it takes a while getting to all that, but it's worth the wait. What I love is how they skirt around certain major plot issues. Like, how did Cochran even get a whole piece of Stonehenge there in the first place? All we're ever told is: "We had a time getting it here. You wouldn't believe how we did it." And that's all we need to know!
How about Tom Atkins as a star, right? As the Chuck Norris of horror, he alone is worth giving this a watch for. Maybe I'm biased, but it's great to see Atkins get top billing for once. Too bad we so rarely see more of him in anything close to a leading role. Maybe you could count the first half Maniac Cop, but Bruce Campbell pretty much took over that didn't he? In regards to his part here, Challis is a funny character – he's likeable in a burly way (you just wanna hug him), but how am I supposed to feel about a guy who neglects his kids to run off on a wacky adventure? And how does he manage to enchant all these ladies who are about half his age? First Jamie Lee Curtis in The Fog, and now Stacey Nelkin! Is he really all that man? We are not worthy.
Creating a new villain after Michael Myers was going to be a daunting task. After all, who could even begin to measure up? Yet somehow with Cochran, they nailed it. On the surface, he appears like the coolest grandfather of all time. How could anyone not love a guy who owns a toy factory? Then, after his true intentions become apparent, Cochran shifts gears to full-on evil. The scene where he lectures Challis on the sacrificial history of Halloween is chilling and a definite highlight.
COCHRAN
Halloween... the festival of Samhain! The last great one took place three thousand years ago, when the hills ran red... with the blood of animals and children.
... Ho-ly crap. O'Herlihy clearly relishes playing such a maniacal role. And best of all, much like with Myers (before all that druid crap, anyway), his character is shrouded in mystery. Who is he? What is he? We may never know for sure.
Truthfully, the other characters here are barely worth mentioning. Nelkin is little more than dead weight hanging off Atkins' manliness (but to be fair she is a good actor who thankfully refrains from screaming all the time, and does have a few late surprises in store); Challis' family are virtually nonexistent (his ex-wife is pretty much just a voice on the phone); while everyone else is introduced just so they can be gruesomely killed a few scenes later (let me tell you now, that one happy family is DOOMED).
The original Halloween has always been praised for its ability hold back on graphic violence in favour of a terrifying atmosphere. Halloween II was, by comparison, a solid ninety minutes of slashed throats and syringes in eyes. I've always liked how Season of the Witch manages to find a spot somewhere in the middle. Deaths are far less frequent than they were in II, but they're arguably even nastier. Thanks to the more fantastical plot elements, we get to see a man's face being literally broken, a head being twisted clean off and the after-effects of a laser beam to the mouth! All good stuff.
Two of the most important previous Halloween elements make a return here: Dean Cundey's moody cinematography; and John Carpenter's (with Alan Howarth) inimitable synthesiser score. That pitch-perfect framing and lighting, combined with those eerie bleeps and bloops make for yet another film which positively drips with an almost tangible ambience. In other words, this is the kind of movie that's been proven by science to be best viewed in the very early hours of the morning, with bonus points awarded should you watch it on a worn out VHS tape. Am I making excuses for my decade-old DVD which isn't even presented in the correct aspect ratio? Perhaps. Universal are supposedly working on a Blu-ray (probably timed for the film's thirtieth anniversary next year), so if I'm still updating this blog in twelve months time, then I'll be sure to give it a review.
Despite combining the best of both worlds, the film as a whole is never especially frightening (the infamous Silver Shamrock jingle will invade your dreams, mind you). It's really just a LOT of creepy, highly imaginative fun. As for the ending... oh my god. That's another story. I don't dare give what happens away on the off chance that you haven't seen it, but it's bleak, ballsy and all kinds of intense. It may not have the unexpected shock factor of something like The Mist's closing frames, but those final few sequences are still some of the most emotionally exhausting moments ever committed to celluloid.
At least the film ended on a high note, because with its critical and financial failure, it was all over for Season of the Witch, and the proposed annual Halloween movie plan along with it. I often wonder how it might have fared if the title hadn't been prefixed with Halloween III. Well, regardless of what could have been, the series continued. Six years later, using some supremely uninspired screenwriting skills, Myers and (even more incredulously) Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis were brought back for Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. From then on, it's been a continuous string of Myers-starring sequels and reboots, with Halloween 3D expected to make an appearance within the next couple of years (apparently featuring, funnily enough, Tom Atkins himself in some capacity). And while there'd be a slight highlight with Laurie Strode's eventual comeback in H20, most of them merely progressed further away from John Carpenter's original vision.
But none of them were ever as remarkably original... or admittedly outright bonkers as Halloween III: Season of the Witch.
Yeah but, couldn't they have just called it
Season of the Witch and left the
Halloween part out? Woulda made more sense.
Absolutely. I think the III was the main issue, though. People would have seen that and naturally assumed it to be a direct sequel.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Oct 31, 2011, 09:22:56 PM
Spoiler
I agree. Despite my liking for H20, Michael should have stayed dead after part 2. The whole "Michael wasn't in it." argument is just stupid. They would have given Die Hard a bad review if it was called Halloween III.
Just think of all the anthology classics we missed out on. Well, they got theri Michael Myers, and just look where that ended up.
*cough*KarateBustaRhymes*cough*.
The Poseidon Adventure
It is New Year's Eve. The SS Poseidon is struck by a tsunami and capsizes. As it slowly sinks, a group of survivors traverse the inverted and quickly flooding ship to escape before it slips below the surface.
Acting wise, the film is pretty good. The main cast of characters showcase their talents and achieve varying levels of quality. I will discuss my personal favorites as if I go through each and every one, we will be here a long time. Gene Hackman is the show stealer here as the heroic and ballsy preacher Frank Scott who makes it his mission to lead these strangers to freedom. He is strong, trustworthy, willing to risk his life to save others, and is short tempered towards those he believes are acting selfish or putting others in danger. He gets some of the film's most memorable moments, mostly due to his desire to go first to make sure the way is clear. I freaking love this man. Seeing this classic again at 12, I was blown away at just how awesome this character was, and he remains one of cinema's better heroic figures. Ernest Borgnine comes in at close second as the irritable and angry Mike Rogo, who wants nothing more than to get himself and his wife Linda (Stella Stevens) off this damn tub. His pretense to follow the masses is one of the things that puts the other survivors at risk, which is one of the reasons he and Frank don't get along so well. Despite his ill temper, he has a heroic streak of his own, most obviously shown in the exceptional vertical shaft sequence. Though this guy couldn't have saved everyone to begin with, he sure as hell could have by the end. Finally, there is Shelly Winters as the lovable Belle Rosen, one of the film's most iconic (and parodied) characters. Winters was so devoted to the part she gained 40 pounds to play it, which she sadly was never able to rid herself of. But perhaps it was worth it as her character is a gentle, kind and lovable woman whose heart is probably the most tender and loving out of all in this little group of survivors. Her requests that she be left behind, her desire to help, her concern for everyone else (especially the youngest of the group, Susan and Robin Shelby played by Pamela Sue Martin and Eric Shea) really paints her to be a kind and gentle soul who you can get behind right away. Other members of the cast, such as Pamela Sue Martin, Stella Stevens, Red Buttons, Roddy McDowall, Jack Albertson and Leslie Nielsen really do fine jobs, and where it not for space, I would give them their props as well. Yes, you heard that right. Leslie Flippin Nielsen is in this film in one of his more iconic dramatic roles prior to his comedic breakout in Airplane. I reserve my strongest criticism for Carol Lynley, who is the screamer of the group. Her character comes off as rather weak and somewhat irritating despite the sympathy for her plight. Shea also seems a little bit enthusiastic despite the whole ship turning over thing. If I was 10 and on this boat, I would be having a constant coronary.
The film begins on the ship prior to the disaster. It was shot largely on the decks of The Queen Mary. Shooting on an actual ship does add a lot to the film as it makes the setting more solid and real to the audience. Now of all the segments of the film, these pre-disaster scenes are the most dated. The styles of the early 70s, really do take a front row seat and no doubt contribute greatly to the film's reputation as classic cheese. I find this a bit unfair. Sure these scenes are dated, but they are necessary to establish characters. In spite of their feel, they get the job done and you get to know and like these people. But once the ship capsizes, the somewhat hammy establishing sequences are gone and we are thrust into a new world. The cheesy beginning is replaced by a surreal nightmare.
Let's talk about the sets. This movie would not have been the classic it is without these incredible sets. The inverted ballroom is probably the film's most memorable set as it really captures the destruction of the preceding event. The film really takes advantage of the idea of an inverted ship. We get burned out inverted kitchens with charred bodies strewn about. We got stairs they have to climb up. We got vertical shafts with surging water at the bottom, we got inverted corridors with walls of water overtaking the characters, we got submerged passageways with drowned crew and loose doors, we got an upside down engine room with rising water laced with flaming fuel. Good God these sets make the ship a character all its own. If these sets ever failed to convince, the film would have gone downhill and fast. Fortunately, that is not the case. Each one shows a gradual increase in the hellish nature of the ordeal of these characters. The situation grows more dire with each passing second; and the sets only serve to make that more obvious and heighten the film's epic levels of suspense. I especially like the vertical shaft sequence as it, more than any other scene in the film, captures a sense of foreboding and dread, which is given a marvelous payoff as the sequence concludes. For a thriller with tons of action, this scene is really damn creepy. The film was advertised as Hell Upside Down. Let me tell you all; that is a very accurate statement.
The effects in the film are damn good. The first shot of the titular ship is a miniature, but damn it, it is a big miniature. While the effect fails in a few areas, for the most part (especially in the opening shot ) it proves to be very convincing and never appears downright laughable. The tsunami has some problems. When seen though Nielsen's binoculars, it is a very convincing wall of water. However, when it crashes into the ship, it does appear dated in that it is no longer a wave but a spray of water. This however proves to be a minor complaint as the water crashing through the bridge windows and the capsizing sequence shown almost entirely from the inside of the ship make you forget that fast. Now about that capsizing. Aside from the exterior shots of the ship floating on its side and the underwater shots of it having flipped, the entire thing is done in life size. You heard me right. No miniatures. No phony green screen effects. Real people getting tossed about the ballroom as it flips, smashing into tables, getting crushed under pianos, sliding to the other side of the room and cracking their skulls open and falling into skylights. This surpasses Wolfgang Peterson's remake in effects for this scene alone. It looks real because it is real. This set was really made to tilt a full 90 degrees, and damn it, it looks fantastic. The only other effects seen after this are the above mentioned shots of the inverted ship. The first shot of the ship, as its lights dim and the screen is consumed with darkness, is very atmospheric and effective. The shots after that are some of the film's weaker effects which depict explosions occurring somewhere inside the ship. These somewhat dated visuals do very little to take away from the fantastic sets inside, so once again, very minor.
The music is either a big hit or a big miss. The big hit comes from rising musical talent John Williams, who delivers a kickass main theme for the movie that takes you away the moment it gets going. It not only captures the buildup to and the frightening nature of the disaster itself, but it also acknowledges the characters we will eventually follow. It is, to put it bluntly, beautiful music. Before his big break with Jaws, this film was probably his best work. He would go on to score other disaster classics like The Towering Inferno and Earthquake, but none of them would come close to this piece of work which shows great promise that would be delivered on with a bang three years later. The minute I hear this theme, my heart gets pumping. I cannot say the same for the Morning After. A notorious song that has not aged well, this song alone is probably the reason many do not enjoy this movie. Endlessly parodied and mocked, the Morning After is a mediocre and somewhat annoying tune that somehow managed to win an Oscar. You know how to fix this problem? Replace it with If We Hold on Together. It fits in here just as good as it did in The Land Before Time, but anything, anything but the Morning After! Okay, maybe I am being a little harsh on this classic piece of 70s cheese. It does have a certain charm to it, but really seems out of place on this film.
As an example of film form, this film works nicely. The cinematography is very nice, showcasing the spectacular sets to their full visual potential (again, the vertical shaft scene). In between medium and close-up shots of our stars, the camera takes a nice step back in order to show us the scope of the devastation on the ship. The camera work really gives the disaster a cataclysmic feel to it, another ingredient in the masterful suspense. The sound work is constant and complimentary to the visuals. Throughout most of the film, low rumbles of the ship's failing structure can be heard, and the explosion sounds have not so much of a boom, but a vibratory feel to them. You don't hear the explosion itself, but rather the ship reacting to it. This subtle touch really ads to the film's style, and heightens its abilities as a thriller. The editing wins on just about every level, especially during the capsizing sequence which seamlessly blends the chaos into one smoothie of death and destruction. Mmm.
The direction of Ronald Neame is very solid. This film is his best known work and it is no trouble to see why that is. He really does make sure to use the scenery to the film's advantage, all while trying to maintain an intimate connection to the characters. Most directors would have focused on the action, but Neame knows that without good characters, the action is moot. To bad he didn't carry this over to his big bomb Meteor. You had Sean Connery vs. an asteroid! That should have been an automatic win! So in this case, Neame falls into the great work category, though he did do a few other notable films such as the 70s adaptation of A Christmas Carol
The Poseidon Adventure is without question the finest of 70s disaster films and is a contender for the finest ever made. Even films that outdid it in the grosses never managed to recapture its spirit. It works not just because of its incredible sets and effects. There was much more at play here. There was a kickass score from Williams, there was a great script from Stirling Silliphant, and it was given life by a great cast who understood how to make us love their characters. Despite a few dated miniature shots, a cheesy song and some cracks in the acting, this film works. Its competition never stood a chance. In the words of Robin Shelby, I say this to all films that dared to try and dethrone this classic, in particular to the weak sequel and remakes. Shove it shove it shove it!
Great review. Makes me want to watch it again.
The Hitcher (1986)
John Ryder (Rutger Hauer) attempts to carjack and murder teenage cross country driver Jim Halsey (C. Thomas Howell). Halsey however fights back, and sends Ryder to the side of the road. Getting away from Ryder however won't be so easy. Ryder pursues Halsey. He murders passing families, frames Halsey for crimes only to kill the arresting officers, taunts him with gasoline and empty guns. What does this madman want? Can Halsey not only prove his innocence, but escape the madman who follows him?
Acting wise, this film delivers with three stellar performances. The first is Howell's portrayal of Halsey. Howell had been in previous recognizable teen flicks such as The Outsiders, ET, and my guilty pleasure Red Dawn. I have yet to see The Outsiders, and I have not re-watched ET in a while, so I do not have much to compare his work. Suffice to say, he does a wonderful job as the frightened youngster. Howell manages to capture the frustration of being wrongly accused of multiple murders and couples it with the fear of this boogeyman that is constantly toying with him effectively. His talents are seen almost straight away with the terror he shows as Ryder taunts him with a knife, and his euphoria upon getting Ryder out of his car. From then on, his acting never falters. Up next is Jennifer Jason Leigh, a sympathetic young Nash, who is forced to tag along with Halsey. Her performance as a spunky desert gal is quite likable and makes for a nice contrast with the fear that Howell regularly shows. Her laid back intro to her finally attempting to take charge of the situation occurs very seamlessly. In most films this would have seemed out of character, but Leigh pulls it off well. Finally we have our star, Rutger Hauer as John Ryder. What can I say about Ryder? When he first gets in the car, he seems like an average Joe, but once he, in a nonchalant way, describes how he dismembered his previous driver, you immediately feel a sense of dread. Some subtle touches on Hauer's part really enhance this character's chilling nature, such as when he kisses a little girl whom we later see he killed shortly afterwards, and his gentle caressing of the frightened Halsey when they meet in a diner. The character, as dark as he is, still displays an odd charisma. Not quite Hans Gruber levels, but you start to kind of get a pretense of it, especially when he casually shoots down a helicopter and grins to himself in the spirit of an action hero. The delivery of several lines, even after the horrific...sequence for which the film is most remembered still manage to sustain this character's charisma. You like him in a weird sort of way, but not enough to root for him. Rutger Hauer took what could have been a throwaway slasher villain in a low key exploitation film and turned him into the stuff of legend. That should stand as a testament to his skills as an actor.
The writing is pretty good. The dialogue is believable and there are a few memorable lines here and there. There are no moments where it really fowls up or seems dated in anyway. The writing for Ryder is especially creative. Rather than have a very talkative villain, the writer wisely chose to keep the lines from this character to a bare minimum. Which brings up another point. The Hitcher is not in a lot of the movie, but you feel his presence as he pops up without warning every now and then. The majority of his action is concentrated in the film's first and final acts, with him appearing in brief but regular intervals in between, which you shall soon notice when I mention Howell's character more than his. This creates the feeling of a force rather than a man, much like Michael Myers of Halloween, but with bluer eyes and a big f**king gun. Kudos to Eric Red. You really caught a big fish with this one.
Aside from Ryder, probably my favorite aspect of this film is the cinematography. It is absolutely breathtaking, capturing not the spirit of a horror film, but rather a great western, especially in the final scenes of the movie. One exceptionally good visual moment is after Halsey has carjacked two cops. He breathes a sigh of relief as he tells them to return to the station so he can set things straight, but in the background, we see Ryder drive up in silence, letting us know of his presence before he starts shooting. Far more effective than any jump scare. The film is packed with many other such beautifully orchestrated shots which really give the film a distinct feel that is not present in many horror films. It feels epic. Some moments really evoke a classical Hollywood feel that goes above and beyond the exploitation schlock one would assume they would get from this film. The best camera work is seen in the final sequence of the film which is packed with so much breathtaking visuals that one would offer a legitimate argument that this movie is art.
The editing is tight and effective, and greatly adds to the film's suspense. Some of the more impressive sequences of the film, such as the gas station escape, the police station aftermath, the cop car chase and the...big moment, would have fallen flat had it not been for editing. The shots are kept tight in these sequences. You know what is going on, and the cuts greatly serve to enhance suspense as well as little character moments. A very good example is when Halsey frantically tries to warn a family who has picked up Ryder. The film tightly cuts back and forth between Halsey's desperate face, the confused faces of the parents, and the grinning Ryder in the back seat talking to the little girl he will soon kill. The quick edits in scenes such as this really leave you feeling like you have run a long way. They don't even give you time to catch your breath. That is just the way a suspense film should be.
The music is what I believe to be the film's weakest point. A late 80s synth score consisting of what sounds much like bells is the predominant theme throughout the movie and takes center stage during the above mentioned sequence as well as when the cops try to chase down Halsey and Nash. One often feels the music would have been much better placed in say, Commando as it results in these sequences feeling more like action scenes rather than genuine moments of horror. It is not all bad however. It seems to compliment the unpredictable nature of Ryder and bells evoke the Grim Reaper in a subtle way. Other times, the music fits much better, such as when Halsey wakes up to find the police station he is in is seemingly deserted. A low droning noise provides most of the horror score. While the music is the weakest point of the film, it doesn't come close to sinking it, and does give it a more unique feel than most horror/thriller films. While it could have certainly been improved upon and made more distinct and memorable, it does its job well enough to make this complaint a mild one.
The desert setting has not been used to well since The Hills Have Eyes. All of this film takes place on a single desert road in assorted diners, vehicles and motels, giving the setting a very linear quality. Even when the film leaves the road, it returns shortly after. The buildings in the film are relatively small, the rooms occupied relatively nondescript, which fits well with the setting we are being made to follow Halsey down as he tries to escape Ryder. There really is a vast feel to this whole area, like Halsey could go anywhere, and Ryder would still be able to find him. The setting is used to its fullest potential in two key sequences. One is the above mentioned car chase where Halsey and Nash try to outrun a swarm of cops while Ryder casually observes what is happening from a pickup. The narrow winding road that the scene plays out in really looks great, and evokes the feeling of many a classic chase sequence. The nest area is the final scenes of the film, which really emphasize the blankness and desolation of this locale. There is no cover. There is no salvation. There is only miles and miles of dunes, and one little snippet is being occupied by a madman and his terrified target.
The atmosphere of The Hitcher varies greatly. There are times when it is very ominous and creepy. Halsey undergoes quite possibly the film's most spooky scene when he wanders around a police station looking for the officers who arrested him. He follows a German shepherd and discovers, quite jarringly, that the dog is feasting on the neck of its deceased owner. The moment is not played for gore, but to add to the shock and horror that our protagonist feels when he sees the body. The dog's barking intensifies the moment when he looks around and sees the other two. Other times, it really makes its horror startling. One of the more unexpected and effectively done sequences is shortly after Halsey enters a diner and calls for help. He looks after Nash, who kindly made him some lunch while he was waiting, fries and a burger. As he relaxes, he is about to take a bite out of his next fry, only to see it is a severed human finger, causing him to vomit and run out of the station. The digit is seen by us before Halsey notices what he is holding, which draws out the moment very nicely. As one might have guessed from the above segments, there are also times where the film feels very fast paced and actiony, but this doesn't really hurt the movie. It rather captures the out of control nature of a narrative that only John Ryder could provide. The film does have some very horrifying moments even after such scenes, most notably the...big scene.
Okay. I have mentioned the big scene several times now. For those who have seen the movie, feel free to check it out in this spoiler tag. All I will say is the remake did it wrong.
Spoiler
The most memorable sequence of the film details the death of Nash at the hands of John Ryder, who tied her to a big-rig and its trailer. He eventually pulls her in half when Halsey denies his bizarre request to help him commit suicide. What is effective about this sequence is there is absolutely no gore at all, aside from a close up on Nash's scraped wrists. Her death is not shown in close up, but rather shown by the tires of the truck lurching forward so far that you know there is no way she is still in one piece. It is so chilling that it is no wonder the website Greatest Films included it on their list of greatest death scenes. The remake botched this effective moment by showing the gore front and center in such an overblown effect that the end result was laughable. Your mind filled in this dreadful scene much more effectively than a fountain of blood and guts. One of the most violent deaths in movie history, and not a drop of blood to be seen. All you need is that image of Nash tied between the two and that shot of the tires. A tasteless situation that could not have been more tastefully done.
I feel that sadly this qualifies as a great work rather than one chapter in the history of a great man. Nothing else in his career has been as well rounded and effective as The Hitcher. His most well-known works are a TV movie on John Gotti, a Van Damme film, and the horrid They. It is interesting because this, one of his earliest films, showed great promise when it came to film craft. Its lack of commercial success may well have sank a would be master. In recent times, he has shown a resurgence. He directed a series of made for TV movies starring Tom Selleck that have gotten some positive reactions, so perhaps there is still hope.
The Hitcher is one of the finest in 80s suspense. You have an A lister playing the lead villain and a likable duo of youngsters as your heroes. The tone, while variable, doesn't throw you off in any way. The look of the film is absolutely stunning in comparison with modern films, even the movie's own horrid remake. For those who want a dose of nostalgic thrills and chills, or if you just want to see a brilliant thriller, I would highly recommend The Hitcher as a prime example of the craft.
I agree with every word, Mono. That film is one of my favourites.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Oct 31, 2011, 09:22:56 PM
I agree. Despite my liking for H20, Michael should have stayed dead after part 2. The whole "Michael wasn't in it." argument is just stupid. They would have given Die Hard a bad review if it was called Halloween III.
Just think of all the anthology classics we missed out on. Well, they got theri Michael Myers, and just look where that ended up.
*cough*KarateBustaRhymes*cough*.
The Poseidon Adventure
It is New Year's Eve. The SS Poseidon is struck by a tsunami and capsizes. As it slowly sinks, a group of survivors traverse the inverted and quickly flooding ship to escape before it slips below the surface.
Acting wise, the film is pretty good. The main cast of characters showcase their talents and achieve varying levels of quality. I will discuss my personal favorites as if I go through each and every one, we will be here a long time. Gene Hackman is the show stealer here as the heroic and ballsy preacher Frank Scott who makes it his mission to lead these strangers to freedom. He is strong, trustworthy, willing to risk his life to save others, and is short tempered towards those he believes are acting selfish or putting others in danger. He gets some of the film's most memorable moments, mostly due to his desire to go first to make sure the way is clear. I freaking love this man. Seeing this classic again at 12, I was blown away at just how awesome this character was, and he remains one of cinema's better heroic figures. Ernest Borgnine comes in at close second as the irritable and angry Mike Rogo, who wants nothing more than to get himself and his wife Linda (Stella Stevens) off this damn tub. His pretense to follow the masses is one of the things that puts the other survivors at risk, which is one of the reasons he and Frank don't get along so well. Despite his ill temper, he has a heroic streak of his own, most obviously shown in the exceptional vertical shaft sequence. Though this guy couldn't have saved everyone to begin with, he sure as hell could have by the end. Finally, there is Shelly Winters as the lovable Belle Rosen, one of the film's most iconic (and parodied) characters. Winters was so devoted to the part she gained 40 pounds to play it, which she sadly was never able to rid herself of. But perhaps it was worth it as her character is a gentle, kind and lovable woman whose heart is probably the most tender and loving out of all in this little group of survivors. Her requests that she be left behind, her desire to help, her concern for everyone else (especially the youngest of the group, Susan and Robin Shelby played by Pamela Sue Martin and Eric Shea) really paints her to be a kind and gentle soul who you can get behind right away. Other members of the cast, such as Pamela Sue Martin, Stella Stevens, Red Buttons, Roddy McDowall, Jack Albertson and Leslie Nielsen really do fine jobs, and where it not for space, I would give them their props as well. Yes, you heard that right. Leslie Flippin Nielsen is in this film in one of his more iconic dramatic roles prior to his comedic breakout in Airplane. I reserve my strongest criticism for Carol Lynley, who is the screamer of the group. Her character comes off as rather weak and somewhat irritating despite the sympathy for her plight. Shea also seems a little bit enthusiastic despite the whole ship turning over thing. If I was 10 and on this boat, I would be having a constant coronary.
The film begins on the ship prior to the disaster. It was shot largely on the decks of The Queen Mary. Shooting on an actual ship does add a lot to the film as it makes the setting more solid and real to the audience. Now of all the segments of the film, these pre-disaster scenes are the most dated. The styles of the early 70s, really do take a front row seat and no doubt contribute greatly to the film's reputation as classic cheese. I find this a bit unfair. Sure these scenes are dated, but they are necessary to establish characters. In spite of their feel, they get the job done and you get to know and like these people. But once the ship capsizes, the somewhat hammy establishing sequences are gone and we are thrust into a new world. The cheesy beginning is replaced by a surreal nightmare.
Let's talk about the sets. This movie would not have been the classic it is without these incredible sets. The inverted ballroom is probably the film's most memorable set as it really captures the destruction of the preceding event. The film really takes advantage of the idea of an inverted ship. We get burned out inverted kitchens with charred bodies strewn about. We got stairs they have to climb up. We got vertical shafts with surging water at the bottom, we got inverted corridors with walls of water overtaking the characters, we got submerged passageways with drowned crew and loose doors, we got an upside down engine room with rising water laced with flaming fuel. Good God these sets make the ship a character all its own. If these sets ever failed to convince, the film would have gone downhill and fast. Fortunately, that is not the case. Each one shows a gradual increase in the hellish nature of the ordeal of these characters. The situation grows more dire with each passing second; and the sets only serve to make that more obvious and heighten the film's epic levels of suspense. I especially like the vertical shaft sequence as it, more than any other scene in the film, captures a sense of foreboding and dread, which is given a marvelous payoff as the sequence concludes. For a thriller with tons of action, this scene is really damn creepy. The film was advertised as Hell Upside Down. Let me tell you all; that is a very accurate statement.
The effects in the film are damn good. The first shot of the titular ship is a miniature, but damn it, it is a big miniature. While the effect fails in a few areas, for the most part (especially in the opening shot ) it proves to be very convincing and never appears downright laughable. The tsunami has some problems. When seen though Nielsen's binoculars, it is a very convincing wall of water. However, when it crashes into the ship, it does appear dated in that it is no longer a wave but a spray of water. This however proves to be a minor complaint as the water crashing through the bridge windows and the capsizing sequence shown almost entirely from the inside of the ship make you forget that fast. Now about that capsizing. Aside from the exterior shots of the ship floating on its side and the underwater shots of it having flipped, the entire thing is done in life size. You heard me right. No miniatures. No phony green screen effects. Real people getting tossed about the ballroom as it flips, smashing into tables, getting crushed under pianos, sliding to the other side of the room and cracking their skulls open and falling into skylights. This surpasses Wolfgang Peterson's remake in effects for this scene alone. It looks real because it is real. This set was really made to tilt a full 90 degrees, and damn it, it looks fantastic. The only other effects seen after this are the above mentioned shots of the inverted ship. The first shot of the ship, as its lights dim and the screen is consumed with darkness, is very atmospheric and effective. The shots after that are some of the film's weaker effects which depict explosions occurring somewhere inside the ship. These somewhat dated visuals do very little to take away from the fantastic sets inside, so once again, very minor.
The music is either a big hit or a big miss. The big hit comes from rising musical talent John Williams, who delivers a kickass main theme for the movie that takes you away the moment it gets going. It not only captures the buildup to and the frightening nature of the disaster itself, but it also acknowledges the characters we will eventually follow. It is, to put it bluntly, beautiful music. Before his big break with Jaws, this film was probably his best work. He would go on to score other disaster classics like The Towering Inferno and Earthquake, but none of them would come close to this piece of work which shows great promise that would be delivered on with a bang three years later. The minute I hear this theme, my heart gets pumping. I cannot say the same for the Morning After. A notorious song that has not aged well, this song alone is probably the reason many do not enjoy this movie. Endlessly parodied and mocked, the Morning After is a mediocre and somewhat annoying tune that somehow managed to win an Oscar. You know how to fix this problem? Replace it with If We Hold on Together. It fits in here just as good as it did in The Land Before Time, but anything, anything but the Morning After! Okay, maybe I am being a little harsh on this classic piece of 70s cheese. It does have a certain charm to it, but really seems out of place on this film.
As an example of film form, this film works nicely. The cinematography is very nice, showcasing the spectacular sets to their full visual potential (again, the vertical shaft scene). In between medium and close-up shots of our stars, the camera takes a nice step back in order to show us the scope of the devastation on the ship. The camera work really gives the disaster a cataclysmic feel to it, another ingredient in the masterful suspense. The sound work is constant and complimentary to the visuals. Throughout most of the film, low rumbles of the ship's failing structure can be heard, and the explosion sounds have not so much of a boom, but a vibratory feel to them. You don't hear the explosion itself, but rather the ship reacting to it. This subtle touch really ads to the film's style, and heightens its abilities as a thriller. The editing wins on just about every level, especially during the capsizing sequence which seamlessly blends the chaos into one smoothie of death and destruction. Mmm.
The direction of Ronald Neame is very solid. This film is his best known work and it is no trouble to see why that is. He really does make sure to use the scenery to the film's advantage, all while trying to maintain an intimate connection to the characters. Most directors would have focused on the action, but Neame knows that without good characters, the action is moot. To bad he didn't carry this over to his big bomb Meteor. You had Sean Connery vs. an asteroid! That should have been an automatic win! So in this case, Neame falls into the great work category, though he did do a few other notable films such as the 70s adaptation of A Christmas Carol
The Poseidon Adventure is without question the finest of 70s disaster films and is a contender for the finest ever made. Even films that outdid it in the grosses never managed to recapture its spirit. It works not just because of its incredible sets and effects. There was much more at play here. There was a kickass score from Williams, there was a great script from Stirling Silliphant, and it was given life by a great cast who understood how to make us love their characters. Despite a few dated miniature shots, a cheesy song and some cracks in the acting, this film works. Its competition never stood a chance. In the words of Robin Shelby, I say this to all films that dared to try and dethrone this classic, in particular to the weak sequel and remakes. Shove it shove it shove it!
The Poseidon Adventure is my favorite disaster movie and I really enjoyed reading your review. ;)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Based on a novel and probably one of the most realistic war films I have ever seen, WW1 is the setting for this unusual look at life for German troops at the front line. Unusual because its a 30's American film focusing on German soldiers and not the more obvious Allies of Britain, France and Russia.
Starting off much like 'Full Metal Jacket' the film covers a group/class of young German lads ready to join the ranks and fight for their country. From here on we follow them through harsh training and into battle where they very quickly realise the horrors of war, one by one they are killed off as the film becomes more and more tragic, and all this in a 1930's film!
The first thing that must hit you is the amazing look and work put into the film, its incredible! the realism of the trenches, war torn nomansland, the uniforms for both sides and the brilliant special effects, mainly revolving around some pretty big explosions near actors, are all superbly created. By today's standards everything still looks good whilst the black and white only helps the film look more realistic. The film could easily be the 'Saving Private Ryan' of its day, its almost as good as real footage.
Of course the actors are of a different age so one can expect performances without the type of 'grit' that we are used to today. Some scenes are almost slightly pantomime with some slightly funny moments of comedy and slapstick which lighten the mood (mainly at the start before the characters enter the war) but we all know moments like this add to the charm of old films.
Make no mistake though this film is a history lesson and seeing as it was made about 12years after WW1 actually ended its amazing people watched, especially as it followed the Central Powers. Being so close to the war is obviously why its so accurate, the harrowing sequences of men being mown down by machine gun fire, one after another without a chance, the screams of the young troops as they go crazy from the constant shelling, the mud, barren landscapes, bodies, barbwire and of course the famous bleak depressing ending for the main lead, nailing home how cheap life was.
I think the main point in the film is how the main lead 'Paul Baumer' starts off, like his friends, as a patriot young German wanting to go off and fight for his country, pushed onwards and practically lied to by his school teacher 'Professor Kantorek' into 'doing whats right', to 'save the Fatherland'. 'Baumer' then returns to his home town towards the end of the film only to find his school teacher spouting the same nonsense to more young boys, trying to get them to recruit, he is invited in to speak of the glory of war but instead rages how its all lies and there is nothing but misery and death for all who join up. He is shunned by his old teacher and branded a coward by the young boys, so he returns to the front line. Not long after this the film ends with his pointless needless death.
All Quiet on the Western Front (1979)
Remake of the classic 1930's masterpiece which of course these days is very very old itself, never really given the respect it deserved and not classed as good as the original but I found it just as hard hitting.
First thing I noticed was the story has been mixed up a bit, its not in the same order as the original, everything seems to have been translated across but in different stages of the film. This does actually work because it doesn't just seem like a carbon copy, there is also allot more detail in some sequences with different ideas for setting and locations, new angles and edits upgrading the whole film somewhat.
On the whole it does look better in places, a good example I prefer is the bleak ending in this version over the original, its still the same but made slightly differently and NOT showing the sniper. All that is heard is the fire of a rifle and then a cut to Baumers hands as they react and his body slumps into the mud, possibly more effective than the original sequence.
The cast are again decent for this adaptation with Borgnine playing the role of Stanislaus Katzinsky perfectly and maybe better than the original, Pleasance as the German teacher whom regails the young German boys with propaganda and the glory of war, Holm as the over the top Corporal Himmelstoss giving him a slimy, backstabbing, cowardly glow and finally Richard Thomas looking just the part in his WW1 German uniform although being a little bland.
The scope isn't quite on par with the 30's version, its still very good and very bleak but its missing that epic feel which I guess is down to it being a TV movie but is still the business. Very authentic with costumes, vehicles, landscapes, weapons etc...the battles are good but not grand but the waste of life, cheapness of life, desolation and despair is well conceived throughout, no shyness when it comes to mud soaked trenches.
Its a shame this has been overshadowed somewhat as its a very good war film and manages to recreate WW1 just as well as its predecessor. Its rough, gritty and gives new views on what was shown before which add to the atmosphere making it a must see if you liked the 30's film.
The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
Directed by Spielberg, produced by Jackson and with the writing talents of Edgar Wright this animated film has some pretty good input and the final product does show it.
The look of this film is extremely well presented with amazing computer animation mixed with motion capture to give all the characters a very realistic feel along with a clear fantasy element. This is by far the best example of a motion capture/cgi film (as you might expect) and includes some lovely imagery from scenery to detailed settings and locations whilst all characters ,including Snowy, move wonderfully well yet retaining their classic appearances.
For me personally I never really got on with Tintin, I never really liked the style of art used by Herge, can't say why but it just didn't look right, much like many European cartoons such as 'Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds' or 'Around the World with Willy Fog' the look, feel and style of art and animation was always slightly odd to us British kiddies back in the day, especially the obvious dubbing.
I can't hold that against the film of course as it does look excellent with US 'Hollywood' influence of course which helps a little. You sure can tell its Spielberg film though, the plot is pretty much a blend of typical 'Indy' style adventure with similar visuals and a good old fashioned swashbuckling yarn, thing is I don't think the bigwigs could make up their mind as to which.
The whole film is beautifully done and includes great voice work to match the motion capture, it has done pretty well in Europe so far (mainly the Continent) but I'm still unsure how the US will warm to Tintin and its unique look. Its a fun film but doesn't offer too much you haven't seen before and as said already you will get a strong 'Indy' vibe in many places which does give you the feeling you've seen this all before. A good start and a sequel would be welcome but after that this could get old fast.
Pathfinder (2007)
Fictional story about Viking raiders landing in modern day North America and fighting against native American Indians as they try to colonize.
Loving the idea for this pitting different types of native tribes against each other, nice concept which was taken up by Dark Horse comics and made into an equally decent graphic novel with amazing brooding artwork.
The film is highly stylised much like the graphic novel and looks gorgeous, the whole film is virtually in black, white and grey with hints of faded colour and only broken by the spray of blood spilt during some brutal battles.
Its not entirely accurate of course with the Vikings being really built up and laden with heavy metal armour and horned helmets to make them look fierce, it does work as they look amazing and powerful but obviously more comicbook than reality, almost a Conan feel to them really. The American Indians also look really good and much more realistic with some lovely costume and adornment design along with good makeup and hair styling. But its the cast used for the Indians that adds real class, Russell Means as a tribal chieftain really gives the film a more believeable feel.
The whole film basically one lavish set piece after another with not much dialog but there doesn't need to be as the plot is the most used and basic going. Local young tribesman leaves village, village gets destroyed by nasty barbarian types, young man comes back, gets upset and vows revenge, gets it, the end. Although the stunts and battles are tremendous looking the film is pretty shallow and offers nothing more really, unlike '300' which is based on truth this film is fictional so it feels more of a silly fantasy film than anything.
I did enjoy the film and if you like '300' then you will probably like this as its even more slick and brooding than that really, a real living graphic novel but probably helped by the release of '300'. I did enjoy the use of subs for the Vikings which really added to the quality (real Icelandic) and the rest of the cast is decent with Urban possibly in his best film so far, gets a little loose towards the end but this is a fine historical cum fictional offering if you enjoy savage clashes.
The Pit and the Pendulum (1991)
Charles Band takes on the classic Poe tale here with help from a surprisingly good cast including Lance Henriksen, Jeffrey Combs and a small cameo from Oliver Reed!
This film is combination of three classic Poe tales which aren't that bad but as you would expect pretty cheap n cheerful looking at times. There is an odd element of humour at times boarding on spoof yet despite this Henriksen does his best as the lunatic inquisitor Torquemada and gives a brilliantly over the top ham fest with a bizarre monk hair cut and his cutting round eyes.
Rest of the cast are pretty useless and the effects and sets go from reasonable to down right awful haha. Plenty of fake blood and cheesy dialog but I saw this mainly for Henriksen really, his presence elevates the film to a guilty pleasure.
Dr. No
James Bond heads to Jamaica to investigate the disappearances of two fellow agents, and uncovers a scheme by criminal mastermind Dr. No.
Acting wise, wow. Sean Connery is a spectacular James Bond, and it will take a lot to sway me after seeing this film. His delivery of the line "Bond. James Bond." is still one of the finest lines in movie history. After seeing this, I am convinced I saw the birth of the movie badass. A swab, sophisticated, intelligent and resourceful killer, bumping off people with ease, even when the threat has expired. Connery's acting during the scene where a would be assassin fires at him with an empty gun and he promptly puts two in him is as cold as it gets, and just oozes with cool. In this film, Connery gave mainstream life to a lot of things such as the post kill one liner which Arnold would make his staple but never equal. Above all, he never stops looking good, and Connery knows it. He seems to have a grin on his face most of the time, even in the most dire of situations, giving the audience the feel he is thinking "I got this."Oh boy does he got this, and Connery's acting makes that all the more believable. I don't think anyone else at the time would have been able to sell it; much like only Bruce Lee could sell the fatal one inch punch. Moore was originally considered for the role and would later take up the mantle in the sequels, but one has to wonder, would the magic have still been there? I was familiar with Joseph Wiseman from the Twilight Zone episode "One More Pallbearer" so it was a treat to see him show up in this. What I like about him is that he never gets mad or steamed, making him just as sophisticated as Mr. Bond, but more illegal. Like Bond, he seems somewhat full of himself, though he carries himself in a way where it seems much more extreme, believing himself to be a winner even where Bond will say 'Hey, wait a minute." That is what I like about this guy. He is just so full of himself you know that is what will get him screwed by film's end. Despite his overconfidence, he never gets mad. Wiseman does a damn good job at portraying this primarily though his facial expression, which seems permanently set on "Max Smug". Ursula Andress as the first great Bond girl Honey Ryder is pretty cool and sexy. Acting wise, I must say I find nothing remarkable for the most part. This is possibly due to the fact that she was overdubbed. I would have LOVED a nice thick accent as it would have made her more of a stand out. Once again, facial expressions really sell some good points, such as when she casually tells how she killed her rapist with a black widow. That was pretty good acting. I do feel she was cast purely for looks and should have been coached better because she does have real talent that wasn't fully exploited in the film. Finally, there is John Kitzmiller as Quarrel, Bond's right hand man for this film. Kitzmiller's calmness after his face has been sliced with broken glass made me fall in love with him immediately. He plays a very fun and likable character who greatly spices up the cast. He also doesn't go the usual route and become a panicky pussy. He has a bit of fear but nothing that makes him useless, which is why he really is quite nice as a character. Many more spice up the front of the camera, but we will be here all day unless I get to the point.
Usually when I thought of Bond, I thought of fancy dress parties, not tropical islands. I wondered, would this work for me as my first Bond adventure? Oh yes it does. There is fine usage of the setting with great scenes on the water, on winding roads, in caves, the works. I didn't even need the fortress at the end, but it really did work great. It is at this point that I got what I expected, not to say that I disliked what came before. It becomes a different film at this point, and special emphasis is put in the fortress and its scope.
Sets are very nice. Most of them look like they were shot in expensive hotel rooms but I watched a doco before viewing the film and found they had in fact been constructed for the film. This guy should be working for top hotels because they would make a boat load for rooms as nice as the ones we see. The room used for the interrogation of the two is really catching, what with the aquarium in the background and subtle touches here and there, like the famous painting that had actually just been stolen in real life turning up in the layer. The best set is probably the control center, which just screams "Spy Movie!" It really is a spectacular set with great scope and a nice look. Pool of radioactive water hiding a core, control panel fore the satellite, the consol where the big bad sits and nice rock walls that give it that nice fortress of death look that would become a staple of spy films for many years to come. It really does catch the eyes nicely.
As being the first bond film, I wasn't expecting much action. Boy was I wrong. The first film had to be a big enough hit to spawn sequels, correct? The action is among those reasons. Right off the bat we get some nice fight scenes, car chases, attempted killings, death traps only evil masterminds could think up and the escape from the exploding fortress. All of these are done well. The car chase is a bit dated due to a green screen effect but Connery carries himself so well you are willing to buy it. Even a very simple scene such as Bond catching his would be killer in his bedroom is really well done in terms of tension. By far my favorite action scene is the final fight between bond and Dr. No over the pool of radioactive water. All it takes is one slip and game over. Given there are twenty some Bond films, I kinda knew who was gonna win, but it was still nicely executed. There really is a nice style to the destruction of the fortress with person after person leaping from the structure into the sea. Even James Cameron couldn't match this one with Titanic. There is also some fine usage of more low key action and suspense, such as the scene where Bond has to remain still to avoid getting bitten by a deadly tarantula and Bond and his allies using hollow branches as breathing tubes to hide underwater from their pursuers. These more, shall we say, restrained scenes really give a nice overall feel to the film, not leaving you much time to catch your breath. You think it is time for relaxation? Wrong. The coffee is poisoned.
Let's talk effects now. They are pretty good looking. Some really fine miniature and animatronics work. One of the film's bit set pieces is the fake dragon made to scare away locals. It may look a bit silly by today's standards...Okay very silly but it still looks pretty nice. Those big jets of flame coming out the front can make one forgive the campy look of the device. I was very impressed with the miniature work of the base. I could tell it was a miniature but it still looked very good. Obviously this model was very substantial in size. The only thing that made me not guy its size was the water. If the water was matted in, I might have been fooled. But the effective explosion that followed fit the scale so well, I almost forgot about the water. That explosion doesn't look small. It looks very big. To do pyrotechnics in miniature really is challenging, and even some of the greatest films of all time (Last Crusade for example) have flame effects that don't quite work in scale, but this explosion looks large. Whoever did this effects knew what to do to sell the illusion. Very nicely done.
One cannot talk Bond without music. The hit song Jump Up really does fit the festive atmosphere of Jamaica and would still be a great choice for a beach party. If I ever head down to a beach with friends, I am playing that shit. Unlike The Morning After, it has aged very well. I was hearing music like this when was a kid. Color me impressed with how well it has stood up. But about that main theme. For them to still be using it after almost 40 years, it has to be good. It is just one of the finest ever composed and may well be the first truly iconic movie theme. You don't even have to see a Bond film to know what it is from. From those opening bars, you know you are listening to Bond. What a marvelous theme. Monty Norman should be put up with Williams, Bernstein, Goldsmith and Herman for that alone. Almost 40 years and virtually no changes. If ever a theme stood up well. It, like the great themes is more than just a piece of music. It is a character itself.
I am sad to say I cannot talk about film for much with this one as it is a first viewing and I need to see a film several times before I get a good feel for it. I will say that what I saw flowed smoothly and emphasized the action . Nice cutting between close-ups, long shots. The dragon scene is especially well done to hide the more violent segments but still make you go "Ooooooh!" The destruction of the fortress is especially packed with creative cuts and shots. By far my favorite editing is seen when Bond blows away his unarmed would be killer. There is no blood in the scene, but like the shower scene in Psycho, the cuts really make you feel the bullets tearing into the guy's torso, especially that first shot.
Terrance Young is highly thought of among film fans as one of the finest of Bond directors, credited with some of the more beloved entries in the series. He is able to depart from the mold in that he has made a fine suspense thriller Wait Until Dark. Looks like we got the great man at work here.
Dr. No is a fine thriller with beautiful scenery, tremendous acting, top notch action and unforgettable music. This series had to start somewhere, and while this wasn't the first adaptation, it is the one that really got the ball rolling with a bang. I highly recommend that one see this film, a fine 60s thriller that really showed that action films can have class.
Play Misty For Me
Dave Garver (Clint Eastwood) has a one night stand with devoted fan Evelyn Draper (Jessica Walter). Shortly after, he reconciles with his girlfriend and the two are back together. Evelyn will not have any of it and subjects Dave to a campaign of harassment and violence to lure him back into her arms, or kill him.
Acting, whoa nelly. This is probably one of Eastwood's most underrated roles in that despite it being Clint f**king Eastwood, you can actually buy him as an average joe who got in over his head. Eastwood plays a laid back and likable guy who just wants to set things right with the girl he loves, but can't due to the hold Evelyn has on him. At first he is polite with her antics and tries to be gentle, but as her tantrums and episodes grow increasingly nasty, he becomes more and more angry. Eastwood is actually able to display genuine terror. I never thought I would see him afraid, but he is scared out of his mind in this movie. When he gets phone calls, when he is racing to his girlfriend's house, when he is evading a vicious attack, when he finds his maid has been sliced up, he is afraid. There is an especially heartbreaking moment where after Evelyn has attempted suicide, she feigns a nightmare to get him in bed with her. He comforts her until she falls asleep. He however stairs blankley forward with the expression that Eastwood described as a caged animal. It is not far off. He is desperate to escape, and he shows it well. Perhaps more memorable than Eastwood is Jessica Walter's (Arrested Development) role as the psychotic Evelyn. What is exceptionally good about this role is that she begins as an average person, flirtatious, fun loving and just an all American girl. She plays it much like Kathy Bates would play Wilks in Misery a few decades later. Initially fun loving and manic, she slowly reveals her true colors. Unlike Misery however, we get an inkling of her violent potential right off the bat when she angrily yells at one of Dave's neighbors. After that, it is a series of brief glimpses until she finally goes overboard. From then on, it is an absolute nightmare, with public tantrums, stalking Dave and his lover, and eventually her homicidal behavior. When Annie becomes violent, she is like a rabid dog. She screams at the top of her lungs and just lunges like it is the last thing she will ever do. That look on her face just may outdo Annie, and you know that is saying something. Water played cinema's first mainstream stalker and brought the problem to the public mind, and she is still one of the finest villains ever put to celluloid. What is superb about these two is how they play off of each other. This movie just would not have been the same had it been any other two, much like Die Hard wouldn't have been the same without John or Hans. We have a victim and his victimizer played to perfection.
The film is made around Eastwood's home in California with much of it being shown on waterfronts and beaches. This greatly adds to the turbulent nature of the film but also offers some stunning beauty. This probably wouldn't have worked so well had it been in a suburb or city. This is a story of trouble in paradise. There are four settings the film uses. One if the radio station where Dave works, which feels nice and isolated. Whenever he gets phone calls from Evelyn in these scenes, the set kind of does add to the feeling of violation as it feels very personal. Dave's house is another spaces that is highly personalized, making one feel as if it could belong to no one but him, thus when Evelyn invades it, it is all the more traumatic for the viewer. The beach is by far the most sacred space in the film as it is where Dave and his girlfriend Tobie (played by Donna Mills) have their intimate moments. One of the more horrifying moments in the film is when they share a romantic moment, only for us to discover that this beach, which seems to represent their entire world has also been invaded. The final setting, which is where the film concludes, is the house of Tobie, which is absolutely perfect for the film's earth shattering climax.
The film is very effective as a thriller, and while not violent throughout, don't let that fool you. There is one scene that is up there with the knifing scene of Psycho for sheer visceral power, and that is the scene where Dave's maid is brutally attacked by Evelyn when she is caught invading the home. The cuts, the blood, the sounds. No music in this scene, but it is not needed. You can feel the rage and feel the violence of the attack. Also effective is the final showdown between Dave and Evelyn, where she strikes at him from the dark and retreats into the dark. Aside from the violence, there is much more to offer. Perhaps even more effective than the violence are the scenes of humiliation and outbursts that prelude them. One very well executed sequence is when Dave is seeing a woman who is interested in picking up his show, but his aspirations are thwarted when Evelyn shows up and proceeds to chastise and humiliate him in front of everyone, throwing a tantrum that a two year old would say is overdoing it.
The cinematography and editing are very well executed. I know I just said this for Dr. No, but it really does apply hear as well. When the violence is going on, it is not fleshy contact that sets off the "That's gotta hurt!" signals, but rather the quick cuts. One of the best examples of editing is when Dave races to his girlfriend's rescue after Evelyn has captured her. It cuts back and forth between his face and a portrait of him that Evelyn begins to slice up. What is nice about this is that when it cuts back to Eastwood, it is never the same shot twice, but rather a variety of angles and distances. Very well done. The cinematography really tries to keep a wide scope on things, letting us take in the scenery very well. The shot mentioned above where Evelyn is seen stalking Dave and Tobie is exceptionally well made. It begins with a close two shot of Dave and Tobie. When they fall out of frame, we see the woods behind them briefly. There is a quick zoom that reveals a blur that we thought was a branch was Evelyn's rage filled face. Even in such a detailed shot, she lurks in plain sight waiting to pounce.
We obviously know that Eastwood is a fine director, with works such as Sudden Impact, Unforgiven and the like. He is obviously in the Great Man category of artist. This film is a standout in many ways. Not only is it his only suspense film, it is probably as close to a horror thriller film he ever came, in his mainstream days that is. This film is almost Hitchcockian in its style, and it is so close to The Master that had you slapped his name on the credits, I will admit that it would have fooled me. So many people have tried to capture the work of The Master like DePalma, but Eastwood seems to have come the closest of them all with this tight little thrill ride. Somehow amidst it all, it is still his film.
Play Misty For Me is a film I had some doubts about despite its acclaim. I wondered "Could I ever buy Dirty Harry as a victim?" This film answered that question with a hard slap across the face followed by a "Hell yes!" This film is frightening, more so in some ways than most horror films in that this it is real. People like Evelyn exist, and target people seemingly without reason. This film was probably one of the first to address the problem of stalkers in a believable manner, and it is still quite possibly the finest of such films. No moment is over the top, but no moment lets your heart slow down.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upcoming-movies.com%2Fashx%2FWFTCRMImageFetch.aspx%3FImageType%3DPhotoImg%2526PhotoName%3D1b2ec984-6886-4632-a6de-9ef6c84a65b2.jpg&hash=ec52945f092bab8ea0ade3a2019677a869e8316d)
This movie... if you haven't seen it then watch it. It's the story of estranged brothers Brendan Conlon (Edgerton) and Tommy Riordan (Hardy). Brendan faces financial troubles and is in danger of the bank taking his home, Tommy is a marine vet who returns home after many years to his former alcoholic father Paddy Conlon (Nolte). Both brothers used to fight when they were younger, it is hinted that Tommy was the favored son of Paddy due to his numerous winnings, while Brendan was ignored for being somewhat of an underdog, the main plot of the movie revolves around the Sparta MMA Grand Prix Tournament, with a prize winning of 5 million dollars, both brothers have their reasons for winning so they compete. Of course at the end they face each other in a jaw dropping, tear jerking match.
Plot summaries aside, this movie is amazing. The acting in it is so amazing, each performance from Hardy, Edgerton, and Nolte is perfect. Edgerton is the main character of the movie, he doesn't have many bad qualities to him, he simply wants to fight for money to save his house to keep his family safe. Hardy is an angry vet who obviously has many negative feelings towards his father and brother for issues in the past. Nolte plays an ex-alcoholic father who is trying to reconnect with both sons but faces many obstacle due to his past mistakes. The family drama is so believable due to the actors making you really believe they detest one another. Tommy and Paddy's characters are so well portrayed and written in this film that you find yourself hating them and loving them almost simultaneously. I watched this movie four times in one week and cried every single time, their are two scenes in this film that you will find hard to keep tears out of your eyes.
The fighting in this movie is very well shot, it feels like you're actually at an MMA fight. You find yourself cringing at the pain inflicted by the fighters, you're cheering when someone wins, you're scared for the characters as they get beat on. The last fight between the two brothers is so hard to view, especially when you have a brother who isn't so close to you. Their's hatred, love, and so much emotional conflict in those punches you don't know if you should tell them to stop or cheer them on to beat the shit out of one another. The last minute of the fight you'll start crying, no thanks to the help of the song About Today by the National.
It's an amazing film, each actor deserves an award for their performance. I'm buying it for sure and will view it forever. It's among the top five favorite films for me now. I rank it up there with Rocky, and I enjoy it much better then the Fighter. This definitely is the Rocky of 2011. 10/10
Razor Blade Smile (UK, 1998)
Believe it or not but this UK made film is most probably the genesis for major US films such as 'The Matrix' and many future sci-fi films and vampire films, especially 'Underworld'.
The film is VERY low budget but shows the kind of imagery, cam angles and typical slow motion action that is now common place in all big films, the tight latex catsuit wearing hitwoman is certainly a much used idea these days.
Director West does well with virtually no money and using his parents house haha there are some really nice sequences here which look much better than you might expect. Cast is also quite unique really with some cult figures included such as Adamson, Warbeck and of course Daly, wonder if they were paid anything?
The film has some lovely hammy moments with some really delicious dialog, the obligitory sex scene for Daly, plenty of fangs and vampire hissing, a coffin full of weapons ('El Mariachi'?) and Adamson REALLY twisting the knob with his performance and facial expressions. In fact you can easily see an early Viktor from 'Underworld' with the character Adamson plays, almost a direct rip off infact, only Adamson is slightly more meaty than Nighy.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Dec 28, 2011, 01:11:31 AM
Spoiler
Dr. No
James Bond heads to Jamaica to investigate the disappearances of two fellow agents, and uncovers a scheme by criminal mastermind Dr. No.
Acting wise, wow. Sean Connery is a spectacular James Bond, and it will take a lot to sway me after seeing this film. His delivery of the line "Bond. James Bond." is still one of the finest lines in movie history. After seeing this, I am convinced I saw the birth of the movie badass. A swab, sophisticated, intelligent and resourceful killer, bumping off people with ease, even when the threat has expired. Connery's acting during the scene where a would be assassin fires at him with an empty gun and he promptly puts two in him is as cold as it gets, and just oozes with cool. In this film, Connery gave mainstream life to a lot of things such as the post kill one liner which Arnold would make his staple but never equal. Above all, he never stops looking good, and Connery knows it. He seems to have a grin on his face most of the time, even in the most dire of situations, giving the audience the feel he is thinking "I got this."Oh boy does he got this, and Connery's acting makes that all the more believable. I don't think anyone else at the time would have been able to sell it; much like only Bruce Lee could sell the fatal one inch punch. Moore was originally considered for the role and would later take up the mantle in the sequels, but one has to wonder, would the magic have still been there? I was familiar with Joseph Wiseman from the Twilight Zone episode "One More Pallbearer" so it was a treat to see him show up in this. What I like about him is that he never gets mad or steamed, making him just as sophisticated as Mr. Bond, but more illegal. Like Bond, he seems somewhat full of himself, though he carries himself in a way where it seems much more extreme, believing himself to be a winner even where Bond will say 'Hey, wait a minute." That is what I like about this guy. He is just so full of himself you know that is what will get him screwed by film's end. Despite his overconfidence, he never gets mad. Wiseman does a damn good job at portraying this primarily though his facial expression, which seems permanently set on "Max Smug". Ursula Andress as the first great Bond girl Honey Ryder is pretty cool and sexy. Acting wise, I must say I find nothing remarkable for the most part. This is possibly due to the fact that she was overdubbed. I would have LOVED a nice thick accent as it would have made her more of a stand out. Once again, facial expressions really sell some good points, such as when she casually tells how she killed her rapist with a black widow. That was pretty good acting. I do feel she was cast purely for looks and should have been coached better because she does have real talent that wasn't fully exploited in the film. Finally, there is John Kitzmiller as Quarrel, Bond's right hand man for this film. Kitzmiller's calmness after his face has been sliced with broken glass made me fall in love with him immediately. He plays a very fun and likable character who greatly spices up the cast. He also doesn't go the usual route and become a panicky pussy. He has a bit of fear but nothing that makes him useless, which is why he really is quite nice as a character. Many more spice up the front of the camera, but we will be here all day unless I get to the point.
Usually when I thought of Bond, I thought of fancy dress parties, not tropical islands. I wondered, would this work for me as my first Bond adventure? Oh yes it does. There is fine usage of the setting with great scenes on the water, on winding roads, in caves, the works. I didn't even need the fortress at the end, but it really did work great. It is at this point that I got what I expected, not to say that I disliked what came before. It becomes a different film at this point, and special emphasis is put in the fortress and its scope.
Sets are very nice. Most of them look like they were shot in expensive hotel rooms but I watched a doco before viewing the film and found they had in fact been constructed for the film. This guy should be working for top hotels because they would make a boat load for rooms as nice as the ones we see. The room used for the interrogation of the two is really catching, what with the aquarium in the background and subtle touches here and there, like the famous painting that had actually just been stolen in real life turning up in the layer. The best set is probably the control center, which just screams "Spy Movie!" It really is a spectacular set with great scope and a nice look. Pool of radioactive water hiding a core, control panel fore the satellite, the consol where the big bad sits and nice rock walls that give it that nice fortress of death look that would become a staple of spy films for many years to come. It really does catch the eyes nicely.
As being the first bond film, I wasn't expecting much action. Boy was I wrong. The first film had to be a big enough hit to spawn sequels, correct? The action is among those reasons. Right off the bat we get some nice fight scenes, car chases, attempted killings, death traps only evil masterminds could think up and the escape from the exploding fortress. All of these are done well. The car chase is a bit dated due to a green screen effect but Connery carries himself so well you are willing to buy it. Even a very simple scene such as Bond catching his would be killer in his bedroom is really well done in terms of tension. By far my favorite action scene is the final fight between bond and Dr. No over the pool of radioactive water. All it takes is one slip and game over. Given there are twenty some Bond films, I kinda knew who was gonna win, but it was still nicely executed. There really is a nice style to the destruction of the fortress with person after person leaping from the structure into the sea. Even James Cameron couldn't match this one with Titanic. There is also some fine usage of more low key action and suspense, such as the scene where Bond has to remain still to avoid getting bitten by a deadly tarantula and Bond and his allies using hollow branches as breathing tubes to hide underwater from their pursuers. These more, shall we say, restrained scenes really give a nice overall feel to the film, not leaving you much time to catch your breath. You think it is time for relaxation? Wrong. The coffee is poisoned.
Let's talk effects now. They are pretty good looking. Some really fine miniature and animatronics work. One of the film's bit set pieces is the fake dragon made to scare away locals. It may look a bit silly by today's standards...Okay very silly but it still looks pretty nice. Those big jets of flame coming out the front can make one forgive the campy look of the device. I was very impressed with the miniature work of the base. I could tell it was a miniature but it still looked very good. Obviously this model was very substantial in size. The only thing that made me not guy its size was the water. If the water was matted in, I might have been fooled. But the effective explosion that followed fit the scale so well, I almost forgot about the water. That explosion doesn't look small. It looks very big. To do pyrotechnics in miniature really is challenging, and even some of the greatest films of all time (Last Crusade for example) have flame effects that don't quite work in scale, but this explosion looks large. Whoever did this effects knew what to do to sell the illusion. Very nicely done.
One cannot talk Bond without music. The hit song Jump Up really does fit the festive atmosphere of Jamaica and would still be a great choice for a beach party. If I ever head down to a beach with friends, I am playing that shit. Unlike The Morning After, it has aged very well. I was hearing music like this when was a kid. Color me impressed with how well it has stood up. But about that main theme. For them to still be using it after almost 40 years, it has to be good. It is just one of the finest ever composed and may well be the first truly iconic movie theme. You don't even have to see a Bond film to know what it is from. From those opening bars, you know you are listening to Bond. What a marvelous theme. Monty Norman should be put up with Williams, Bernstein, Goldsmith and Herman for that alone. Almost 40 years and virtually no changes. If ever a theme stood up well. It, like the great themes is more than just a piece of music. It is a character itself.
I am sad to say I cannot talk about film for much with this one as it is a first viewing and I need to see a film several times before I get a good feel for it. I will say that what I saw flowed smoothly and emphasized the action . Nice cutting between close-ups, long shots. The dragon scene is especially well done to hide the more violent segments but still make you go "Ooooooh!" The destruction of the fortress is especially packed with creative cuts and shots. By far my favorite editing is seen when Bond blows away his unarmed would be killer. There is no blood in the scene, but like the shower scene in Psycho, the cuts really make you feel the bullets tearing into the guy's torso, especially that first shot.
Terrance Young is highly thought of among film fans as one of the finest of Bond directors, credited with some of the more beloved entries in the series. He is able to depart from the mold in that he has made a fine suspense thriller Wait Until Dark. Looks like we got the great man at work here.
Dr. No is a fine thriller with beautiful scenery, tremendous acting, top notch action and unforgettable music. This series had to start somewhere, and while this wasn't the first adaptation, it is the one that really got the ball rolling with a bang. I highly recommend that one see this film, a fine 60s thriller that really showed that action films can have class.
Great review, Mono. Glad to see you loved this film as much as I do.
You gotta get on them other Bonds, though.
Johnny Handsome (1989)
Curious little crime thriller based around a disfigured criminal that has a major face lift, almost like an early version of 'Face Off' really accept a little more realistic.
Its kinda unique because the film almost comes across as an endearing story of a criminal who turns his life around after receiving his new face but then turns into a silly revenge thriller towards the end, I thought the endearing story might have worked better.
The cast is pretty slick with Rourke as the main lead and almost a prediction of his future facial issues, Morgan Freeman looking and acting exactly the same as usual, Forest Whitaker looking really geeky with a stupid beard and Lance Henriksen looking completely hilarious in some very gay looking tight fitting 80's attire complete with a ridiculous earring.
Silly title and surprisingly for a Walter Hill film not that good, the problem being its almost two different films stuck together awkwardly.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Dec 31, 2011, 05:50:16 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Dec 28, 2011, 01:11:31 AM
Spoiler
Dr. No
James Bond heads to Jamaica to investigate the disappearances of two fellow agents, and uncovers a scheme by criminal mastermind Dr. No.
Acting wise, wow. Sean Connery is a spectacular James Bond, and it will take a lot to sway me after seeing this film. His delivery of the line "Bond. James Bond." is still one of the finest lines in movie history. After seeing this, I am convinced I saw the birth of the movie badass. A swab, sophisticated, intelligent and resourceful killer, bumping off people with ease, even when the threat has expired. Connery's acting during the scene where a would be assassin fires at him with an empty gun and he promptly puts two in him is as cold as it gets, and just oozes with cool. In this film, Connery gave mainstream life to a lot of things such as the post kill one liner which Arnold would make his staple but never equal. Above all, he never stops looking good, and Connery knows it. He seems to have a grin on his face most of the time, even in the most dire of situations, giving the audience the feel he is thinking "I got this."Oh boy does he got this, and Connery's acting makes that all the more believable. I don't think anyone else at the time would have been able to sell it; much like only Bruce Lee could sell the fatal one inch punch. Moore was originally considered for the role and would later take up the mantle in the sequels, but one has to wonder, would the magic have still been there? I was familiar with Joseph Wiseman from the Twilight Zone episode "One More Pallbearer" so it was a treat to see him show up in this. What I like about him is that he never gets mad or steamed, making him just as sophisticated as Mr. Bond, but more illegal. Like Bond, he seems somewhat full of himself, though he carries himself in a way where it seems much more extreme, believing himself to be a winner even where Bond will say 'Hey, wait a minute." That is what I like about this guy. He is just so full of himself you know that is what will get him screwed by film's end. Despite his overconfidence, he never gets mad. Wiseman does a damn good job at portraying this primarily though his facial expression, which seems permanently set on "Max Smug". Ursula Andress as the first great Bond girl Honey Ryder is pretty cool and sexy. Acting wise, I must say I find nothing remarkable for the most part. This is possibly due to the fact that she was overdubbed. I would have LOVED a nice thick accent as it would have made her more of a stand out. Once again, facial expressions really sell some good points, such as when she casually tells how she killed her rapist with a black widow. That was pretty good acting. I do feel she was cast purely for looks and should have been coached better because she does have real talent that wasn't fully exploited in the film. Finally, there is John Kitzmiller as Quarrel, Bond's right hand man for this film. Kitzmiller's calmness after his face has been sliced with broken glass made me fall in love with him immediately. He plays a very fun and likable character who greatly spices up the cast. He also doesn't go the usual route and become a panicky pussy. He has a bit of fear but nothing that makes him useless, which is why he really is quite nice as a character. Many more spice up the front of the camera, but we will be here all day unless I get to the point.
Usually when I thought of Bond, I thought of fancy dress parties, not tropical islands. I wondered, would this work for me as my first Bond adventure? Oh yes it does. There is fine usage of the setting with great scenes on the water, on winding roads, in caves, the works. I didn't even need the fortress at the end, but it really did work great. It is at this point that I got what I expected, not to say that I disliked what came before. It becomes a different film at this point, and special emphasis is put in the fortress and its scope.
Sets are very nice. Most of them look like they were shot in expensive hotel rooms but I watched a doco before viewing the film and found they had in fact been constructed for the film. This guy should be working for top hotels because they would make a boat load for rooms as nice as the ones we see. The room used for the interrogation of the two is really catching, what with the aquarium in the background and subtle touches here and there, like the famous painting that had actually just been stolen in real life turning up in the layer. The best set is probably the control center, which just screams "Spy Movie!" It really is a spectacular set with great scope and a nice look. Pool of radioactive water hiding a core, control panel fore the satellite, the consol where the big bad sits and nice rock walls that give it that nice fortress of death look that would become a staple of spy films for many years to come. It really does catch the eyes nicely.
As being the first bond film, I wasn't expecting much action. Boy was I wrong. The first film had to be a big enough hit to spawn sequels, correct? The action is among those reasons. Right off the bat we get some nice fight scenes, car chases, attempted killings, death traps only evil masterminds could think up and the escape from the exploding fortress. All of these are done well. The car chase is a bit dated due to a green screen effect but Connery carries himself so well you are willing to buy it. Even a very simple scene such as Bond catching his would be killer in his bedroom is really well done in terms of tension. By far my favorite action scene is the final fight between bond and Dr. No over the pool of radioactive water. All it takes is one slip and game over. Given there are twenty some Bond films, I kinda knew who was gonna win, but it was still nicely executed. There really is a nice style to the destruction of the fortress with person after person leaping from the structure into the sea. Even James Cameron couldn't match this one with Titanic. There is also some fine usage of more low key action and suspense, such as the scene where Bond has to remain still to avoid getting bitten by a deadly tarantula and Bond and his allies using hollow branches as breathing tubes to hide underwater from their pursuers. These more, shall we say, restrained scenes really give a nice overall feel to the film, not leaving you much time to catch your breath. You think it is time for relaxation? Wrong. The coffee is poisoned.
Let's talk effects now. They are pretty good looking. Some really fine miniature and animatronics work. One of the film's bit set pieces is the fake dragon made to scare away locals. It may look a bit silly by today's standards...Okay very silly but it still looks pretty nice. Those big jets of flame coming out the front can make one forgive the campy look of the device. I was very impressed with the miniature work of the base. I could tell it was a miniature but it still looked very good. Obviously this model was very substantial in size. The only thing that made me not guy its size was the water. If the water was matted in, I might have been fooled. But the effective explosion that followed fit the scale so well, I almost forgot about the water. That explosion doesn't look small. It looks very big. To do pyrotechnics in miniature really is challenging, and even some of the greatest films of all time (Last Crusade for example) have flame effects that don't quite work in scale, but this explosion looks large. Whoever did this effects knew what to do to sell the illusion. Very nicely done.
One cannot talk Bond without music. The hit song Jump Up really does fit the festive atmosphere of Jamaica and would still be a great choice for a beach party. If I ever head down to a beach with friends, I am playing that shit. Unlike The Morning After, it has aged very well. I was hearing music like this when was a kid. Color me impressed with how well it has stood up. But about that main theme. For them to still be using it after almost 40 years, it has to be good. It is just one of the finest ever composed and may well be the first truly iconic movie theme. You don't even have to see a Bond film to know what it is from. From those opening bars, you know you are listening to Bond. What a marvelous theme. Monty Norman should be put up with Williams, Bernstein, Goldsmith and Herman for that alone. Almost 40 years and virtually no changes. If ever a theme stood up well. It, like the great themes is more than just a piece of music. It is a character itself.
I am sad to say I cannot talk about film for much with this one as it is a first viewing and I need to see a film several times before I get a good feel for it. I will say that what I saw flowed smoothly and emphasized the action . Nice cutting between close-ups, long shots. The dragon scene is especially well done to hide the more violent segments but still make you go "Ooooooh!" The destruction of the fortress is especially packed with creative cuts and shots. By far my favorite editing is seen when Bond blows away his unarmed would be killer. There is no blood in the scene, but like the shower scene in Psycho, the cuts really make you feel the bullets tearing into the guy's torso, especially that first shot.
Terrance Young is highly thought of among film fans as one of the finest of Bond directors, credited with some of the more beloved entries in the series. He is able to depart from the mold in that he has made a fine suspense thriller Wait Until Dark. Looks like we got the great man at work here.
Dr. No is a fine thriller with beautiful scenery, tremendous acting, top notch action and unforgettable music. This series had to start somewhere, and while this wasn't the first adaptation, it is the one that really got the ball rolling with a bang. I highly recommend that one see this film, a fine 60s thriller that really showed that action films can have class.
Great review, Mono. Glad to see you loved this film as much as I do.
You gotta get on them other Bonds, though.
Way ahead of your partner.
(Lights cigarette)
*takes cigarette from Mono's hand, takes a drag*
Good.
*exhales slowly through nose*
Good.
The Hunted (1995)
Bit of a silly but highly enjoyable thriller set in Japan as Chris Lambert is hunted down by a clan of Ninja for disturbing a ritual killing. Funny thing is about this film is Lambert isn't really involved in much of the main action throughout, it tends to revolve around John Lone's Master Ninja character and Yoshio Harada's modern day Samurai.
The whole film is rather basic really from the slightly bog standard action and fighting sequences to the rather cheesy and unfunny humour that has been wrongly chosen, the whole thing looks a bit like a TV movie really.
My enjoyment came from my love of Japanese/Asian culture as a whole as I love to watch anything to do with the wild East. The film is basically held together by the gorgeous Joan Chen in a small role unfortunately, the inclusion of Takayuki Kubota in a funny role which isn't really that funny and wastes his skills and the legendary Yoshio Harada as Ichirou Takeda the samurai, Harada's performance in this film is virtually unprecedented as he plays it completely seriously and looks damn good whilst doing so. His rough, weathered, wise looks, his deep, harsh, booming voice together with his fighting stance...the man IS a modern day samurai, the word 'epic' in the dictionary has a pic of Harada next to it.
Lone can't quite get into the rhythm for me here, he doesn't quite fit his ninja character in looks or performance really (he is Chinese) and as I said Lambert is in the background really right up to the very end, but his out of place feel suits the film well. Average film with highlights from the Eastern world :)
30 Minutes or Less
Totally ridiculous farce of a comedy that is more of a guilty pleasure than anything :) Its pretty stupid but admittedly quite amusing in many places, not hilarious but definitely makes you smile.
The duo of Eisenberg and Ansari as the bumbling blackmailed robbers is actually a surprisingly fun pairing that work really well together, the bank robbery is a funny scene and their constant bickering will raise your spirits rest assured. The other winner here is the second duo of McBride and Swardson as the bumbling losers trying to blackmail the other bumbling losers hehe again their dialog is witty and amusing as they talk nonsense getting nowhere fast.
Holds together quite well throughout but apart from a few various sequences its nothing that special, the casting is well thought of for sure but the rest is a bit daft, think along the lines of the film 'Nothing To Lose'.
Warrior
This is the first film I've seen that focuses around the now popular MMA UFC competitions which involve fighters from around the world in all martial art forms. I found out about MMA a few years ago and was thrilled at the thought, being a JCVD fan since a young age I couldn't believe there was actually a real life legal competition which worked along the lines of the JCVD classic 'Bloodsport'.
Since then I have become hugely disappointed with so called MMA as there is really very little martial arts going on, it all tends to be big men bulldozing each other to ground and simply pounding and hammering each other into the canvas, no skill or MMA anywhere to be seen accept for extreme wrestling, the lighter weights are easily the better fights to watch with more skill involved.
This film does better than reality for the heavy weights as it actually shows some martial art skill being used, not much but its there if you look closely. Its one of the most accurate and realistic fighting films I've seen for along time or ever actually, the director has wisely avoided the cliches and much used ideas along the 'Rocky' route and 'The Karate Kid' route etc...and added awhole load of character building and back story to immerse the viewer.
It is odd why a teacher seems to be some kind of street fighter in his spare time to make extra money (doesn't a teacher pay well in the US?) and how both he and his brother just decide to enter the MMA competition for money when surely there are other easier ways but hey. The story is solid and gives the film a big needed injection of regular life instead of the obvious mindless fighting route other films go down. Plenty of emotion and family values which everyone can relate too but in my humble opinion I just thought there was a bit too much emotion stuck in, O'Connor really crams in as much tear jerking info as he can just in case we forget to cry and realise how sensitive the film is.
One thing after another from the brothers unforgiving history with their father, Tommy Riordan being a big war hero but doesn't like to talk about it and the brothers predictably fighting each other in the final whilst their father looks on.
The performances here are very good, not Oscar material but very good, for me Nolte stands out as the brothers father with a sterling job as he tries to reconcile with his boys. Joel Edgerton as Brendan Conlon also shines here as a father trying to make money to save his home and family with a very down to earth, believeable performance as a regular guy. Hardy as Tommy fits the role as a fighter but his acting doesn't hit the target for me, his pouting throughout and unnecessary 'I'm hard' walk/vibe/persona during fight sequences (especially late on in the film) isn't required, don't show off Hardy, just play it real like Edgerton did.
A fight film with a difference as it actually has a decent plot within it but I wouldn't say its as uplifting or heartbreaking as I've been reading, there are strong emotional qualities along with redemption, forgiveness and reconciliation but at the end of the day I felt more of a rush at the end of 'The Karate Kid' (84) to be honest hehe.
Kudos for one of the most realistic fight films around, kudos for the story but I've seen better drama films that have hit me harder with the tissues. For realism this is one of the best but for all out balls to the wall fighting that will make your jaw drop 'Undisputed 2/3' are still the best fight films for me.
Hugo
I will be totally honest here and say that for much of this film I really didn't quite see what was suppose to be going on, a boy who lives in a railway station working the clocks befriends a young girl who is the goddaughter of a miserable old toy maker who also lives within the station, together they try to make an old automaton work simply because his father never finished it.
I simply couldn't quite fathom out what the point was and where the film was going, I had read allot of good reviews for the film but was lost. There is a huge amount of dialog and not much else going on throughout the film which admittedly is rather dull making it slow going, there are inclusions of attempted humour with Sacha Baron Cohen as Inspector Gustav (Frenchman with London accent) who merely comes across as a poor blend of Kenneth Mars character Inspector Kemp from 'Young Frankenstein' and the silly tall French policeman from the British comedy 'Allo Allo'.
It is only towards the end of the film that you finally discover the film is actually a biopic about cinematic legend Georges Méliès (had a clue but couldn't see it up to this point) and everything you have been watching is snippets from his life into the world of film. From this point on the film changes from being rather dull to a fantastic homage to the great man and his wonderful silent movies with a sublime montage of actual footage and the way it was probably created.
Don't get me wrong the film isn't poor by any means, its a visual masterpiece capturing France 1931 and comes across like a dreamlike fantasy with surreal images and very good performances from a stellar cast. Kingsley as Méliès is of course the highlight with a lovely contrast between his youth and old age.
In all honesty the film is pretty boring up to about the last 30mins where you finally see the film for what it is, this last part of the film is amazing as it highlights a long forgotten craftsman and genius whilst also highlighting how good modern films can be if they try. Scorsese certainly surprises with this outing as from the look of the film you would never have guessed he directed, beautiful to look at and with historical accuracy to boot! may require another viewing.
The King of Kong: A Fistfull of Quarters
Up there with Winnebago Man as one of the funniest documentaries I've ever seen. The whole thing plays out in a truly cinematic seeming style, but it's all real. There's no moment where you go "Oh, they clearly just told them to do that"-- it's all believable, but totally insane at the same time. A shining example of the phrase "the truth is stranger than fiction".
It was shot in an almost cinematic way, and all of the people involved were true characters-- especially Billy Mitchell, the "current" Donkey Kong champion of the world, and total egocentric prick.
"Helen of Troy didn't get that much attention."
-Billy Mitchell
I know what you're thinking, "Seriously? A Donkey Kong documentary?" No, no, no, it's much more than that. It's a hilarious look at the aspect of competition in general. The people in the film take this all so seriously, and you laugh at them at first for it, but as the film progresses you really do start to understand their mentality on it. Except some of those guys, there's a couple of true worms in there, and Billy Mitchell and his "henchmen" are absolutely f**king evil. :laugh:
It's all centered around a guy called Steve Wiebe, who is mild-mannered, kind hearted, and talented-- though he has not followed through with any particular thing in his life. He has a wife and two children who are supportive of him, but concerned for his emotional health (especially his wife). He has a Donkey Kong machine in his garage, and when he tops Billy Mitchell's high score (that was set in the 80's and never topped since) and Billy catches wind of it through some old friends, things get heated... and it's truly f**king hilarious.
Billy is successful in the business world, and Steve is a modest every-man, so the two don't combine, which is where much of the comedy comes from. Billy sending spies (who really are the most fragile looking nerds) to the local arcade named "Funspot" (which is owned by well known people in the video-arcade businesses) to check up on Billy's score and checking for any tampering had me in tears with laughter, as these "spies" are some of the smarmiest, serious, weasels I've ever seen.
Really cannot recommend this film enough, it's one of the best comedy-based (with a tenderly dramatic core, however) documentaries I've seen.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Jan 10, 2012, 05:36:07 AMBilly sending spies (who really are the most fragile looking nerds) to the local arcade named "Funspot" (which is owned by well known people in the video-arcade businesses) to check up on Billy's score and checking for any tampering had me in tears with laughter, as these "spies" are some of the smarmiest, serious, weasels I've ever seen.
Flynn? ;D
Will check this out though, it does sounds great.
Salem's Lot (1979)
Now a pretty ancient vampire film and it certainly looks its age these days, made one year after I was born and I've only just got round to seeing it :)
Adaptation of a well known King novel of which I saw the film version which is simply all the episodes of the mini TV series stuck together into one movie. As said this was originally a TV series and you can see how it has been put together for this film version but that doesn't detract really, it kinda adds a little charm to the proceedings. Its not terribly scary by today's standards but there is a nice spooky atmosphere throughout which feels good on a cold dark rainy night.
Its a slow slow burner that's for sure, I must admit I was getting really quite bored in places as the film is three hours long and there's allot of dialog all the way through, not much vampire action to be honest. What action there is is now quite quaint and harmless really, not much blood on show and some pretty amusing melodramatic acting as people fall foul of Kurt Barlow, but the makeup is still very good, especially the eyes of the vampires.
The film is well made and a good adaptation I think as it does seem encompass allot from the original source, I haven't read the novel but there is a heck of allot of info packed into the plot with good backstories and character development.
Must mention the legend James Mason here as his calm gentlemanly demeanor accompanied by his smooth, eloquent, perfectly pronounced voice works wonders for the evil vampires right hand man, Hopkins and Price eat your heart out hehe.
A curious addition to vampire lore which is slightly dull but altogether well crafted, the look of the main vampire obviously has been designed after the classic 'Nosferatu' look but in turn you can see how many future vampire films have also used this style and look.
Quote from: Laufey on Jan 10, 2012, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Jan 10, 2012, 05:36:07 AMBilly sending spies (who really are the most fragile looking nerds) to the local arcade named "Funspot" (which is owned by well known people in the video-arcade businesses) to check up on Billy's score and checking for any tampering had me in tears with laughter, as these "spies" are some of the smarmiest, serious, weasels I've ever seen.
Flynn? ;D
Pretty much. :laugh:
Friday the 13th (1980)
A camp in New Jersey named Camp Crystal Lake is being re-opened after a run of bad luck which included bad water, several fires, a drowning and two unsolved murders. As several future counselors try to get the place in shape, they fail to notice that an unexpected guest has arrived, and they begin to get murdered horribly one by one. Just who, or what, is responsible?
Acting wise, this film is average. There is nothing really cringe worthy here, but there are a few standouts here and there. Kevin Bacon obviously showed some promise at this early age and it is a shame he didn't get more screen time before his now famous departure. Laurie Bartram as Brenda actually seems to have a nice strong personality that I liked a great deal. Other cast members do decent enough jobs so you are never taken out of the action. Adrienne King as Alice, our heroine is actually pretty nice. No Jamie Lee Curtis mind you, but still pretty nice. She conveys a feeling of terror quite well, and when she is being tormented, you buy it. The real standout in this film is Betsy Palmer. I love this woman. I really freaking love her. She has to be one of my favorite villains of all time, possibly even more than her protégé. What is nice about Palmer is this is against type for her and then some. She was primarily known for the film Mister Roberts and the TV series I've Got a Secret. This past of hers as the woman next door was probably the reason there was so much backlash against her for this film, despite it actually being one of her best performances. You heard me right. Betsy Palmer is fantastic in this film. She is genuinely frightening as a character. When you first meet her, it is all smiles. She is actually a comforting presence, but once she gets into her monologue, you know something is amiss. Her monologue before the big reveal is thick with atmosphere, and it is due in no small part to her performance. When she finally goes ape shit, oh boy does she go ape shit. She can turn it on and off like that. One of her creepiest talents is one that has been mocked many times. Speaking to herself in the voice of a child who she claims to be her dead son. "Kill her mommy. Kill her." Every time she says that I crap my pants. From a sweet middle aged woman to a mad rage powered animal, Palmer never got the chops she deserved for this film. Getting nominated for a Razzie here was just plain wrong and I attribute that more towards "oh, she played a nice lady before so she can't play a mean lady." Not as bad as nominating the score for The Thing though.
More so than any of the sequels, this film takes advantage of the wooded setting. It is beautiful. Nice peaceful creeks, thick and green forest, beautiful shining lakes and cozy wooden cabins. While it is beautiful, you do get the feeling of isolation. The woods are thick and hard to navigate, the lake is a formidable obstacle, and the cabins offer little protection from the intruder in your midst. The camp itself is used very nicely. Rather than the mad spree seen in subsequent Friday films, this one has a meticulous one by one trimming of the cast, and the camp is the perfect place to do it. The buildings are far apart and there are a host of places to stash a body, and you as the viewer know this. Damn it this camp is just plain creepy. Once that storm rolls in you know you are in for some serious shit, and the good kind of shit. The cabins are used very well in my favorite part of any slasher film, the chase scene. The chase scene is where that one surviving character, usually a very attractive and likable woman, has to face down the killer alone, but not before getting her cardio up. In this film, the chase scene is more of a twisted game of hide and seek. There is not a lot of running, but there is a lot of hiding in closets, locking doors and waiting for the right moment to strike type things going on. It really doesn't reach a visceral level till the final round, which I actually like. Instead, it makes very good use of the camp itself. You follow our final girl around as you await the next time ol killer lady will come out. It is exploited to its fullest.
Before the big reveal, the villain of the film is done much better than any other Friday film. Jason was a hulking monstrosity that grunted, groaned, and the like. Here, the killer is like a phantom, walking in and out of buildings unseen, waiting to pounce from the dark shadows. All you see are creeping feet and the occasional hand, but even that is when the film is being generous. Usually you don't see anything at all, almost like the weapons are doing all the dirty work on their own. Though not quite as effective as Halloween, this does make the killer an un-personified force, but it ultimately seems
less human in these segments which is why I like it. Any corner could hide them, any breath of wind could be them, any thud could be your doom. That is what works in this film. An unseen, unknown thing that walks among you, and is waiting for the opportunity to strike. The sequels lost that and they lost it fast. The last one that even attempted the same approach was Part 4, and by then the series was already getting tired.
Writing wise, the film is fine. Before the meat of the matter gets started, it plays out like a typical semi comedic coming of age film. The cast in the film is actually pretty likable and they do stand out as individuals, unlike the sequels where they became indistinguishable fodder for the killer. There is some cringe worthy dialogue, mostly from camp prankster Ned, but I write that off as an asshole who thinks he is funny but really isn't. There are some memorable lines, mostly from Palmer's character. There is some attention done to characterization in the first part of the film, which ultimately makes the main body more frightening and more nasty. Despite being average in the writing department, I actually cared whether these characters lived or died. I didn't want them there for a nice effects shot like all the ones in Friday's to come would be.
The effects in this film are astonishing. It starts off pretty basic with blood coming from the belly. You could do that with a water balloon. Once we get to our first throat slitting on the other hand, things change. We get arrows through necks, axes to faces, arrows in eyes, decapitations. Very grisly stuff, and all done by master make-up artist Tom Savini. Friday still remains one of his claims to fame, and it really is some of his best work. Unlike stuff like The Prowler or The Burning, the stuff in here is very simple and not elaborate, which ultimately sells the effect even better. His stuff in Friday 4 seemed too over the top to be real, while this stuff is gruesome but grounded in what the average human could conceivably do to another one. His makeup on Ari Lehman as Jason is very well done. You only see him in the dark and for a brief moment at the end, but he really does sell the deformaties the character has come to be known for. It just goes to show that Savini can also create a new character and not just kill the old ones off.
What disappoints me about this film is that the cinematography and editing really are average. There is really no exciting shots in the film or well edited sequences, which makes it come across as rather amateurish, which it sort of is. I feel that had the filmmakers really looked at Halloween, they would have seen it was not just telling a simple hack n slash tale, but it was doing it with an artistic eye, which is one of the reasons the film has endured. Here it just kind of felt like point and show stuff, which while it may be the basic purpose of a film, is not the way to make a great one. There is one scene however that does everything right, and that is one of the greatest scares in movie history.
Spoiler
After Palmer has been dispatched by our heroine, she sets herself adrift in a canoe and waits for the police to arrive in the morning. When they do, she breathes a sigh of relief. However, the decaying body of the child Jason jumps out of the water and pulls her in without warning. I did NOT see that coming when I first saw the film and I jumped out of my skin. I should have seen that one coming because I knew what a jump scare was. The shots of the lake are breathtaking, the editing is spot on to create the right mood, it just works so damned good. Why couldn't the rest of the film be like this? It is like a commercial for perfume where all hell breaks loose in the last few seconds. Its purpose is to get you to relaxe before it gives you that jolt. This was taken from Carrie, but it was done just as well here.
The ability of this film to actually frighten on the other hand is another story. I actually still get spooked out by this movie, and I don't spook easily. There are some brilliantly unsettling moments here as our phantom killer stalks the shadows, waiting for the next unlucky acting hopeful to wander too close. Probably the most effective of such moments involves the above mentioned Laurie Bartram, as Brenda. After leaving the main cabin, she enters the camps bathroom and shower building, which is here another cast member quite literally got the axe earlier. She brushes her teeth while humming, unaware she is being watched. In a nearby shower stall, from the shadows, there is someone there. The young woman is oblivious as a hand reaches out from behind a curtain, gently pushes it aside, and vanishes back into the blackness. She seems to feel something is amiss but she leaves, writing it off. Returning to the stall, the curtain is now completely ajar and the light fixture about it is swinging gently. Whoever was there, they just followed Benda out. This moment really is nicely executed, and is one of the few times the film truly shines in editing and cinematography. The shot of that shower stall alone induces shudders because you know damned well that someone is there, and there is also most likely a dead body there too. Friday the 13th is packed with several such moments, though they do at times feel spread a bit too thin. Had the film focused more on such ominous creepy moments, it probably would have been better received by critics. Instead, they focused on the gore and tits, and there isn't even that much tits. But this film really does get that spooky on. When I first viewed it at age 14, I really felt like it was a re-visitation of a classic campfire spook tale, so I got nostalgia along with my scares.
Ki Ki Ki Ki Ma Ma Ma Ma. Lets talk music. Harry Manfredini has made so much mad dollars off of that one riff, which has become the one unchanging element in the series, but what about the other music? Well, it is acutally pretty good. I recognize it the moment I hear it, and it doesn't even have to include the classic riff. This movie owes a lot to its pretty effective score. Granted, it is no Halloween score, even though this film had a larger budget so they were able to get more resources together and actually hire somebody. What I like about this score is it is quite a classical sounding piece. There is a great usage of violins and harps, as well as the occasional bell. There are lots of jolty noises that you can almost feel in your body. Halloween, while its score is better, never created a sense of physical discomfort, which is one of the reasons I like this music so much. It actually feels violent, like a stab or a slash. The whole Ki Ma thing was just icing on the cake. My thoughts on that? Well, I actually quite like the Ki Ma riff, which was done to reflect the schizophrenic nature of the film's antagonist. Kill Mom. Ki Ma. Perhaps a bit obvious, but still spooky. I still catch myself doing it every now and then.
Sean Cunningham is defiantly not a great director, though this film has set him for life. It might interest one to know that Cunningham actually made this film to finance a television series based on a children's film he did called Here Come the Tigers. Cunningham's dream was to make a career in such films, and while Friday the 13th gave him a nice house and put food on the table, it pretty much killed that dream because he was never approached to do anything other than horror films again. Don't you just hate it when that happens? Even Roger Ebert, who passionately (and I might argue bordering on irrationally) hates this film described Cunningham as an intelligent man who was victimized by the success of this series, which Cunningham will agree with in a certain way. I am not sure if this film qualifies as a great work. I would argue it does, but just barely. Even then I would be in a minority. Cunningham sadly never had a career, and he might have turned out something pretty special. This film, despite the reputation it has, shows real promise.
Sequels and how they relate to this film. Like Halloween, the sequels were done for the dollars and not for the scares. In that light, they are not as strong. The sequels to this film have the odd reputation of outshining the original, even though they are inferior examples of film. It was they who started many of the clichés associated with this series, like sex and drugs equals death. Do you know that the heroine in this film puffs a joint? Granted she got killed in the sequel but she survived this one so it still counts. Jason just wasn't as scary as ol Betsy, at least not after part II. Though I love parts II through IV very much, they are just not as good as this one is. They are too out there, too imaginative in their dispatching methods, focus too much ON the dispatching methods and really only perfected the chase scene, which should be the highlight of any slasher film. The final chases of those three films are really the only parts that show cinematic skill. Everything else is just filler for film and filler for graves until that final 20 minutes gets started. I want a scary movie, not an effects show. This was a scary movie.
So yes. I like Friday the 13th. I would call it a guilty pleasure, but I feel this is a legitimately underrated horror film. The sequels are very overhyped, what with everyone talking about how cool Jason is. If it isn't scary, it isn't working, and that is coming from a modest fan of those films. The incredibly silly nature of those films also seems to have rubbed off on this modest little stalk n slash chiller, which is pretty damn sad. I feel that the main weaknesses of Friday the 13th are that it focuses too much on being short and to the point. The plot is already simple enough. What could have sold this film better was it being done in style, something the filmmakers had the resources to do, as evident by the skill in which the final jump was done. In spite of my criticism for this movie, I do feel it deserves a place of true honor, and not because of the clichés it set. As a film on its own merits, it works. Friday the 13th will always hold a special place in my heart.
Scooby Doo (2002)
I saw this on its theatrical release mainly out of morbid curiosity really and even back then it was pretty damn poor. About the only thing they got right in the film is the casting of Lillard for 'Shaggy' who seems to have been born for the role. Rowan Atkinson must have been bribed with tonnes of cash to star in this crap.
The rest of the film is a terrible mess of horrendously bad cgi, unfunny childish humour and some very shoddy effects. The classic creation has been forced into the current age with a hideous modernisation including your obligatory rap/hop hop soundtrack that seems to come with most films these days for some reason alongside so many other god awful scenes it no longer bares much resemblance to the original creation.
I dunno why they couldn't go with a more sensible approach and a slightly more genuine ghost story. The cartoons were silly yes but still reasonably coherent and actually quite spooky for kids, but spooky in an enjoyable way, this film is basically just trash...and since when was 'Scrappy' a bad guy!?
As usual and with so many films these days, stick with the original material.
Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004)
Pretty much the same thing here with more nasty looking cgi and even more terrible looking effects, stunts and obvious stunt doubles. The cast are a little more into the flow with this one though, they gel better and actually come across as 'Mystery Inc.' with more success than the previous film.
There is still very childish fart type humour going on, unsurprisingly, which still isn't required as it wasn't in the original cartoon but on the plus side its nice to see ghosts and spooks from the original cartoon used for the plot, always liked that deep sea diver ghost :)
The inclusion of a nice array of phantoms and ghouls only slightly elevates this above the first film but its still quite awful, again...stick to the original cartoon.
Ong-Bak: Muay Thai Warrior (2003, THAI)
Tony Jaa burst onto the scene with this high octane Muay Thai fighter which really turned my head, a long time fan of good old JCVD I knew of kickboxing and Muay Thai but this film really displayed it properly.
Its a silly film lets be honest, like all fighter action films the plot is childishly basic and revolves around revenge, as they all tend to do. From there on you obviously get many excuses for Jaa to fight many guys who are much bigger and to show his prowess whilst remaining firmly faithful and good to his religion at all times.
The film is slick and well made with decent stunt sequences but its all about Jaa and his abilities which are impressive and very well choreographed. Could of done without the constant cheesy replays at different angles of virtually every little thing Jaa does, but if your a fan of these films you'll be used to that.
Ong Bak 2: The Begining (2008, THAI)
What can I say about this sequel, its actually very good surprisingly, nice idea and well made. Lets just get this straight, this sequel has nothing to do with the original film a tall but its just as good if not a little better than the original film.
This film is set in feudal Siam with a young boy (Jaa) being raised by a group of elite warrior bandits after his parents have been killed and he was captured by slave traders. So again the plot is very basic and revolves around revenge as usual, the film also tends to show Jaa doing his thing all over again accept this time set in ancient times and this time it looks even better.
The various forms of martial arts on display whilst a young Jaa trains and throughout the film is superb, a real MMA film straight out of the wild East. The action sequences are a joy to watch with flashes of colour, blood, fantasy and legend fused with various forms of combat, this film really does put some major Hollywood action films to shame.
Everyone and everything looks highly realistic from sets, hair styles and costumes to weapons and the beautiful locations in native Thailand. Really strong start to the film with a good intro of the warrior assassins but admittedly the film does lose its powerful grip near the end with its rather odd ending due to problems on set during the making.
A glorious mystical feel runs through this film combining genuine history with a lovely dash of artistic license :)
Ong Bak 3: The Final Battle (2010, THAI)
Going slightly off the beaten track with this final fight for Mr Jaa, this third film is beautiful to look at just like the second but its very unusual with a strong spiritual theme.
Following on from where number two left off we see how Tien (Jaa) is supposedly killed but then reincarnated and starts to train himself back to full fighting capacity so he can finish his goal. Its a huge swing from the last two films as much of this film is kind of surreal with strong Buddhist imagery, Jaa being a Buddhist monk himself this film was obviously a chance to give a peek into his religion.
The film isn't overly confusing but its slightly boring for the most part and feels like it just been made with outtakes from the last film, there is also the 'Crow Ghost' character who becomes the new enemy and offers, from a Western point of view, a more fantasy based feel and does look a bit like Lee from 'The Crow'.
In the end it is possible to become tired of seeing Jaa thrash countless men and that it does, the finale is Tien simply kicking the crap outta so many guys it becomes silly and dull, lovely camera work and lovely stunts/moves but by this point we have seen it all before, the novelty has worn off. That is the problem with this film, it feels rushed and like it was never meant to be, its also not really required as it should of finished with the second film.
The Protector (aka Tom-Yum-Goong, The Warrior King, Thai Dragon, Revenge of the Warrior, 2005, THAI)
A much hyped fight film from Muay Thai expert Tony Jaa with many many excellent stunts and chase sequences, the only problem is we have now seen all this before from various other martial arts experts.
The film itself is fine but its not really too original in any aspect, a simple revenge plot as usual and Jaa showing his skills yet again. Its very spectacular but I personally didn't get too engrossed, the most impressive thing about the whole film is the MMA fight sequences, mainly the fight between Jaa and Capoeira fighter Lateef Crowder.
This one fight sequence is the most impressive fight I've seen in years, its fantastic, Crowder is amazing and almost too good to be true with his moves. Add to this the following fight between Wushu expert John Foo and then a one off battle against wrestling strong man Nathan Jones which is impressive merely to see the size differences, think Bruce Lee v Kareem Abdul Jabbar.
To be honest the film is worth seeing for those three fights, apart from that its business as usual with this action film.
Paths of Glory (1957)
Despite being known as a bit of a classic Kubrick's anti war film was not a box office hit at the time of release and was actually frowned upon by various European countries for the portrayal of the military and its negative message towards the establishment in general.
It is clear to see the moral injustice carried out which is the films basis and the theme for the anti war message. The fact that men were shot by their own country for petty charges such as 'cowardice' or less shows really how poorly humans treated each other and at this time how life was cheap, high ranking officials grasping for honours by playing war games with real lives at stake. This of course caused the controversy at the time of release amongst military leaders, the truth stings.
As a film there isn't much better, there are numerous classic war films of the age and this Kubrick offering is up there with the greats. What is impressive, like 'All Quiet on the Western Front, is the trench/nomans land sequences are highly realistic looking with fantastic camera work, a real work of art showing mud, bomb craters and debris set in a barren misty wasteland scattered with bodies and barb wire.
Told from a French point of view of course (WW1 trench warfare against the Germans) but amusingly you wouldn't think it as the cast bare no attempt to sound French with everyone having an American accent, Wayne Morris as the drunken Roget especially with his slightly southern twang, these days that would be more accurate I'm sure.
But no one can dispute the quality of the cast line up with a strong headed Douglas leading the way with fire in his eyes as he tries his best to remain civil against a sly heartless Macready who in turn is trying to butter up the quietly cunning Menjou for promotion. There is added entertainment with a surprisingly good portrayal from Carey as one of the doomed soldiers as he displays some dark gallows humour to the whole affair and lets not forget a young Joe Turkel who will later turn up in cult classic 'Blade Runner'.
The films message is clear and virtually stated by Douglas during the court martial scene and its spot on. Kubrick's adaptation of the Cobb novel is pinpoint and speaks volumes, the fact the whole story is also based on a true event makes it even more poignant.
Quote from: Hubbs on Jan 21, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
The Protector (aka Tom-Yum-Goong, The Warrior King, Thai Dragon, Revenge of the Warrior, 2005, THAI)
A much hyped fight film from Muay Thai expert Tony Jaa with many many excellent stunts and chase sequences, the only problem is we have now seen all this before from various other martial arts experts.
The film itself is fine but its not really too original in any aspect, a simple revenge plot as usual and Jaa showing his skills yet again. Its very spectacular but I personally didn't get too engrossed, the most impressive thing about the whole film is the MMA fight sequences, mainly the fight between Jaa and Capoeira fighter Lateef Crowder.
This one fight sequence is the most impressive fight I've seen in years, its fantastic, Crowder is amazing and almost too good to be true with his moves. Add to this the following fight between Wushu expert John Foo and then a one off battle against wrestling strong man Nathan Jones which is impressive merely to see the size differences, think Bruce Lee v Kareem Abdul Jabbar.
To be honest the film is worth seeing for those three fights, apart from that its business as usual with this action film.
Say whhaaaattttt?
In terms of action, this is better than a lot of martial arts films. And what about the 5 min continuous take up a multileveled restaurant? Shit was proper son!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM2atZfn87M#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM2atZfn87M#ws)
^ Disagree, the first 'Ong Bak' was better than this, the sequence you speak of just seemed too fake and stupid if you ask me, Jaa's fight against Crowder was pure real time skill plus 'Undisputed 2/3' are still the best fight films I've seen.
Yes, but was a small elephant thrown across a room in Ong-Bak?
I rest my case. 8)
The best part of Ong Bak was my old trainer was in it briefly. I prefered Tom Yum Goong personally. Ong Bak 2 and 3 have great action but are horrible stories (not that anyone is paying attention).
The Protector had those hilariously retarded outcast side characters that you just couldn't help but want to adopt I mean love.
Not to mention a gang of rollerbladers permanently on standby in Sydney, just waiting for that signal.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Cor blimey gov! lovely bit of jackanory yet I'm kinda on the fence with this follow up, should be a cracking good yarn, looks lovely as did the first film, but in all honesty its slightly boring I found.
The plot is a sort of mixed adaptation of Doyle's story 'A Final Problem' and pure artistic license which works well, there is good character development, clever sequences and dialog and the continuity is well accounted for. The issue I had was the lack of excitement happening and then when there was action we have this silly slow motion thing being used way too much, amongst other things.
The fact that Holmes and Watson are highly skilled street fighters and seem to be well versed in some basic martial arts or at least defense...I never really liked from day one, it turns the whole idea into something it shouldn't be much like the recent Three Musketeers film. They could be good fighters, that's OK but why not a little more grounded and scruffy, it would be more realistic and less like a modern buddy action flick that happens to be set in Victorian London.
I really can't quite decide if I liked the film or not, I love the whole concept and the character Sherlock Holmes but I feel I enjoyed the first film more with its slightly more dark, gothic eerie look and feel. This film felt like a dull extension minus that murky misty old London town vibe.
Overall I just think Downey saves the film really, he is great fun as Holmes and brilliant casting and its this reason why I watched the film. Law still looks rather camp and is bad casting I feel, he tends to look like Holmes lover frankly haha but Stephen Fry was a welcome addition.
I'm 50/50, its good fun in places, mainly when Downey is on the go, apart from that its a bit dull and slightly uninspired. There isn't the fresh feel of the first film obviously but the sets, score, costumes and locations are still on top form, just lacking some va va voom.
The Street Fighter (Gekitotsu! Satsujin Ken, JAP, 1974)
Sonny Chiba was pretty much one of the first actors to become a star utilizing his skills in martial arts (in Japan), slightly more chunky or well built than Bruce Lee with a rounder face and thick eyebrows.
Released a few years after some of Lee's hit films Street Fighter is very similar in terms of looks, feel and costumes plus the way Chiba composes himself, his stances and poses during fights. The main difference being Chiba is playing a kind of mercenary for hire who isn't really all that nice instead of an outright hero, he's almost an antihero of sorts.
At the time this film was regarded as highly graphic and violent but of course these days its more amusing, there is some in your face bloody moments but the blood is way too fake looking to concern. Violence is fun and almost comicbook-like with the odd idea having been seen more recently in other fight films and videogames (MK), the testicle ripping scene has to be the most memorable.
Classic stuff and more gritty than Bruce Lee but with maybe less refined quality, Chiba comes across as more animalistic in battle, some lovely looking ladies in there too :)
War Horse
I thought this was going to be a gut wrenching tear fest with lots of death, blood and mud as brave English men trudge through the trenches of WW1, it actually turns out to be a very heart warming children's film of sorts, more educational than Hollywood if anything.
Yes the film is tear jerking but not as heavy I thought it would be, as Mr Spielberg was at the helm I was kinda thinking along the lines of 'Schindler's List' but boy was I wrong. Its based on a children's novel for one thing (didn't know this) and the film is completely down that route...for the younger viewer. The plot is basically the story of a horse as it progresses through various owners after the outbreak of WW1.
Fate, despair and luck all play a part for the horse and its short lived owners as we follow a brief history lesson and see how mankind can be both cruel and compassionate. This is displayed marvellously in a scene as an English Tommy and German soldier meet up in no mans land befriending each other (won't say why), a nod to the true event of 1914 when both sides met on Christmas day in no mans land...ate, drank, exchanged gifts and played a football game together. A real moment in history which showed how ranks of troops were merely unwilling pawns used in high commanding war games.
Now despite the ever increasing PG's we are fed the film is perfectly made by Sir Spielberg with the kind of direction, art and cinematography you would expect from the mortal God of Hollywood. The film looks perfect, nothing less, everything is beautifully created and looks wonderfully accurate and correct. Allot of this film is like a watercolour painting, the colours, the angles, the lighting and the flow from one scene to another is stunning, Spielberg is the Master.
There really is very little to fault here, the cast is chock full of English quality with performances most American stars can only dream of being capable of, right down the line from the bigger stars to character actors only British cinema goers will know of like Geoff Bell. The only quibble I did have was towards the finale the film does get a little too overly melodramatic to be honest, too many obvious 'lump in the throat' moments stringed together clearly trying to really nail the emotions at the final hurdle.
Must give a huge kudos for the animal training work that was clearly put in, many horses were used but you would never know, amazingly well behaved and very clever animals to perform as required.
As said this isn't a Hollywood/star studded film, its more of an educational film or aid for all children of all ages and it should be shown in schools. There is no blood and very little violence anywhere but the film is spot on, it isn't too heart breaking as I'm sure your wondering, we know Spielberg can make us blubber but for me this film didn't leave me a howling wreck on the floor. Everything is created faithfully but carefully edited and shot cleverly so as not too horrify but more to inform, embrace our countries proud history and hopefully inspire our youngsters to find out more for themselves.
The Artist
Didn't really know what this was about for along time, saw the posters everywhere but never really took much notice, then I saw the trailer and knew I wanted to see it...mainly out of curiosity.
Freakin awesome is all I can say, this film is 100% win from start to finish I tell no lie, yes it is a black and white film, yes it is a SILENT film and yes it is just like those old scratchy films you've seen in documentaries from the era, so why see it you ask?
If you wanna see a homage to old 1920's films with dashing well dressed chaps, cute dames and lovely choreographed sequences harking back to the days of the Hollywood musicals then this is for you. The plot isn't too original really, the film is very much along the lines of 'Singin in the Rain' in terms of the gentle charming humour and basic story outline, add to this a lead man who in my opinion looks very much like Gene Kelly and he dances well too!
The two leads in this film (to me) are unknown performers (unless you live in France) yet they look like Hollywood regulars and fit this film amazingly, Jean Dujardin is good looking, elegant and has good visual comedy skills whilst Bérénice Bejo is very cute and the perfect partner, a great match to Kelly and Reynolds. There are one or two well known faces from Hollywood in the film, Goodman has a main role within the film but he doesn't really fit the bill for me, just kept thinking 'oh its John Goodman in black and white'.
Its hard to think you could watch a silent film these days but it really is such a welcome difference or change of pace just to have a musical score, the only problem I had with the film was the lack of intertitles or text that comes up in place of sound/speech from the actors.
A great feel good movie with stunning visuals achieved using the basic technology of the time, its got plenty of charm, heart and warmth, there's something about a black and white film that is just so cozy :)
You simply can't help but enjoy and smile whilst watching this, younger viewers and teens beware...there are no explosions or cgi is this film (hurrah!)
Quote from: Hubbs on Feb 02, 2012, 03:38:12 PM
yes it is a black and white film, yes it is a SILENT film and yes it is just like those old scratchy films you've seen in documentaries from the era, so why see it you ask?
How do
any of these categories come into the equation of whether one should see a film or not?
I love
The Call of Cthulhu and it fits both.
^ Because many people will see or hear of these categories and think it sounds boring or lame or something they are not gonna be interested in watching.
Black and white, silent old films I'm guessing are not going to be a must see for about 80% of cinema goers. So one should think before going in, but I would say give it a chance.
The Big Year
So this went under the radar it seems which is a surprise really with a lead cast of Wilson, Martin, Jack Black and including many well known faces with cameos throughout.
Not totally surprising after viewing though, the film itself is fine, infact its a lovely original film which is very gentle, easy going and an all round family film smiles guaranteed. The one problem is its not really that funny when its clearly suppose to be a strong comedy vehicle with that cast trio. Must mention a now old looking Brian Dennehy who has a great small role as Blacks father in this that really makes you feel good inside.
That aside it is a great feel good film with some amazing location work and if your into birds then all the better. A more straight laced comedy with all the big names playing it sensible which is nice but the down side being its not overly funny but it still manages to keep you interested.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
Hmmmm what to think of this little gem hehe I saw this at the cinema on release (yes) and at the time I kinda liked it for some reason, now upon a rewatch I can't see why I thought that.
I guess at the time the effects were a little more impressive than today's standards of course plus there weren't the huge amount of fantasy films there are these days so this was quite a special little event. Looking back now it really is a terrible film haha the acting from everyone is just abysmal and full O' cheese, Irons goes beyond taking the piss really with his rather queer hissing, cackling and facial expressions whilst his second in command played by Bruce Payne is just the campest guy I've seen for ages...oh and he has blue lipstick on too.
The film revolves around the cliched to max partnership of Wayans, doing his best Eddie Murphy impression, and Whalin trying to be heroic and cool. The pair are just awful together and completely not amusing in any sense, there is of course allot of attempted humour throughout but it all falls flat on its face hard.
There really is nothing to recommend here other than to laugh at, the effects are the worse cgi you will have seen for a major release (even though its an old film yes I know), tonnes of obvious bluescreen and even the costumes, makeup jobs and props all look cheap and tacky.
I still can't understand why Irons would agree to this, ditto Richard O' Brien of 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' and quite the cult name here in the UK. I suppose its because his scenes were a homage to the classic 'Crystal Maze' he once hosted, almost a homage to him really, the guy is legend but this brings him down.
The film was indeed mauled upon release but at the time (twas much younger back then) I gave it some leeway, it kinda reminded me of the 'Mortal Kombat' film and how, even though it was weak, it still had a glimmer of quality. But now I simply cannot allow that leeway anymore, the film may be enjoyed by younger kids but basically its crap.
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005)
Not really much better than the first film, in fact the effects are less impressive and less frequent also making the film rather dull to say the least.
Payne reappears in this sequel despite seemingly being killed convincingly in the first film (minus his blue lipstick) but this time he's up against a team of five challengers. These five challengers/adventurers are the most boring and unimaginative looking set I've seen in an adventure film, surprisingly female orientated the team look drab and silly, admittedly close to D&D lore but uninspiring none the less.
The whole film is pretty dull really with nothing much happening right up until the end where there is some decent dragon action, I think D&D followers will get more of a kick out of this but newcomers will be less enthralled. I have seen worse and this isn't quite as cheesy as the first.
Age of Dragons (2011)
Reworking of classic novel Moby Dick but this time using dragons as the game or hunt as it were. To be honest this is a really neat idea, the only problem is its been made poorly which is a shame.
I think this could of worked had a little more time and money been invested, the cast are OK I guess..for an action type film, Danny Glover is a little miscast as Ahab perhaps but Vinnie Jones does surprisingly well as does the hero Sevier as Ishmael. Nothing to rave about of course but the cheesiness of it all suits them fine and you know to expect cheese.
Of course the effects are slightly off key, cgi is average but shows promise, even the use of old techniques used by Harryhausen are used at one point which almost works (oddly it looked better in the old mythology films of Harryhausen). Then you do have silly things which needed more planning such as the Pequod as a wheeled land tank/ship, didn't really work as it was way too small looking despite about eight adults apparently living in it with lots of quarters shown, plus how did it run? petrol? diesel? ;)
I must also mention my dislike of virtually everyone in action films these days being some kind of martial arts expert and able to defeat multiple enemies without breaking sweat, it really is so so over used and in this film so out of place, what's wrong with some good old fashioned fisticuffs?
A nice idea but the execution is weak, worth checking out if you like dragon flicks though.
Jack and Jill
Wow Mr Sandler! what on earth is going on here!? I realise you are not exactly flavour of the month anymore but was this REALLY needed??
Talk about shovelling the shit Jesus! there was a time when Sandler was quite amusing and his films about standing up for the average Joe's whilst playing the typical everyman were fun, but that was along time ago. His childish toilet humour now seems completely redundant and boring and this film really is a prime example of how basic and pathetic his films now appear. Sandler plays himself (as usual) and his twin sister who also (surprisingly) turns out to be kinda like every other character Sandler has played, that's all you need to know.
There is completely nothing here I can be positive about, its utter tripe from start to finish much like Martin Lawrence's 'Big Momma' 'comedy' films. What I can't believe is why Johnny Depp and Al Pacino would wanna star in a film like this for, its not like they need the work.
Parents (1989)
Quirky little number this, first time I have seen it and I quite liked it :) Came across as a 'Little Shop of Horror's' black gallows humour type of film to me with a slight sprinkle of tension.
Its an odd one for sure, Randy Quaid is perfect as 'Dad' with that eerie joker-ish smile of his, Mary Beth Hurt accompanies Quaid well as 'Mum' to make a great kooky couple. The various scenes of eating dinner with close ups of the meat really does make you uncomfortable and your mind swings from judgement to judgement on wether little 'Michael Laemle's' parnets really are serving up human flesh for tea hehe.
Personally I could never really make up my mind if the whole thing was a dream or just a little boys crazy imagination, the film plays out quite surreal which keeps you guessing. Being set in the 50's really adds that kind of bizarre yet fun twist to it, almost impossible to think such things could happen in a perfect all American home in the happy 50's. The cute sitcom like soundtrack adds zing, makes the whole thing out to be almost silly, light hearted or even a kids film, truth be told the film gets darker and darker as it goes on yet your never really scared, more intrigued and curious.
A real cult oddity which works due to the brilliant performances of all the cast members.
Immortals
Based very loosely on certain fables of Greek mythology but interesting none the less, I must admit to loving historical epics or action films set in ancient times and this is another fine fun film in my view.
Obvious comparisons to '300' of course, when I first heard of this film I thought it was the sequel to be honest, its pretty much in the same style lets face it, very heavily influenced I'm sure. This isn't a bad thing though as the film looks really really nice, a blend of dreamy surrealism, gritty sweaty glistening warriors in shining armour, heavenly Gods and some slow motion action all mixed together in a visual classical painting of sorts. So yes plenty of cgi but it works well as it did for '300' in a warm metallic colour pallet.
I still think '300' is the better film hands down, this film was a little slow with its story and didn't really have great acting either, not that '300' was full of epic performances but this film did feel a tad more pantomime, especially with the God sequences in their shiny golden 'Flash Gordon' type outfits.
Rourke wasn't as strong as I had hoped, not sure what I expected but he just didn't wow me, Cavill looked the part but his acting skills clearly need honing whilst the same can be said for Pinto who is absolutely stunning but lacks proper acting skills. Total miscasting of Dorff methinks, really couldn't see him in this type of film and is there a film where John Hurt doesn't slip into his role with ease? not really, nuff said.
The film was as I expected and I enjoyed it, if you like '300' I'm sure you will enjoy this with its graphic novel stylings, not as much blood and not as vibrant in the slaughter department but that's down to very different stories. I'm quite happy to see more films like this about ancient historical/mythical tales, why couldn't they have done the remake of 'Clash of the Titans' like this?
Journey 2: The Mysterious Island
Slightly silly title but if your unaware this is the sequel to the 'Journey to the Centre of the Earth' remake starring Brendan Fraser. Pretty much the same thing accept swap Fraser with Dwayne Johnson playing Hutcherson's stepfather for this adventure.
Lots of the expected really, you can't really fail to know what your gonna see here, big bugs, volcanoes, sea beasties, lost gold, deep thick jungles and Michael Caine playing your typical bearded oldboy intrepid adventurer...think along the lines of Connery in 'The Last Crusade'.
Despite that it is good fun if you enjoy light hearted fantasy much like the original 'Centre of the Earth' film. It is of course totally daft how Johnson and Hutcherson know how to pilot Captain Nemo's Nautilus, hijack large bumblebees and ride them like 'speeder bikes' and Johnson throwing a spear underwater but hey!...you overlook these things.
Enjoyable stuff and hopefully a third on the way, maybe a little less focus on Johnson though this time, he's admittedly a funny guy but boy does he love being the centre of attention.
Quote from: Hubbs on Feb 02, 2012, 03:38:12 PM
The Artist
Freakin awesome is all I can say, this film is 100% win from start to finish I tell no lie, yes it is a black and white film, yes it is a SILENT film and yes it is just like those old scratchy films you've seen in documentaries from the era, so why see it you ask?
Here's my problem with The Artist, it's
not like period silent films. There's no dynamism in the direction and editing or any cinematic flair to the filming. Silent films made back in the day understood that you had to make the visuals exciting and interesting to hold the viewer's attention. The Artist failed in this completely, to the extent that it felt like an hour and a half in a sensory deprivation tank. Short of a couple of ingenious sequences (ironically the ones which experimented with sound) and decent performances, I thought it was meritless trash. Would
much rather see one of the better silent films of the '20s and '30s.
^ Little bit harsh there methinks, considering most films these days I think it was a lovely breath of fresh air, as I said in my review its more 'Singin' in the Rain' in black n white than a perfect homage, but close enough for me to enjoy.
Quote from: Hubbs on Feb 02, 2012, 03:38:12 PM
The Artist
You simply can't help but enjoy and smile whilst watching this, younger viewers and teens beware...there are no explosions or cgi is this film (hurrah!)
I applaud your constant updating of this thread with your reviews and all, I find your greatest failing to be the presumptuous and off putting stuff like this.
Targets
Byron Orlok (Boris Karloff in one of his last movies) has become fed up with the movie business and decides to retire. For his fans, he plans to show up to a drive-in screening of his final film before his retirement. Across town, a seemingly normal and good natured young man named Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) begins getting strange ideas. What sort of ideas? He begins to wonder how well he can shoot passing motorists from atop a plant. He soon embarks on a senseless killing spree, shooting at random until he winds up at the drive-in where Orlok plans to deliver his swan song.
Let me start off with acting. This film has two great characters. Boris Karloff is exceptionally good as the bitter and annoyed Orlok. What is so good about it is Karloff did not have these feelings at all and in fact made several movies after this one, though fans and Karloff himself refer to this as his final film as it does have that feeling of a fond farewell. What is spectacular about him is that because he was actually dying of emphysema while making this movie, but you can't really tell he is in such poor health due to how well he holds his character. There are several shots where you can tell his legs are just short of giving out and in between takes he spent much time in a wheelchair with an oxygen mask. He was not forced to do this film though and even worked a few extra days for free (on his own insistence) because he believed in the project so much. What is most interesting about Orlok is you really feel that he is a real man, unlike any other role Karloff played .This is not to speak down to those past roles of Karloff playing big monsters and murderous thugs as they are indeed iconic. Here, he is every bit as interesting because he is simply an elderly man who wishes to sign out and go home to England. Some have said that Karloff is essentially playing himself, and in a sense that is true. Clips from previous Karloff films are used as examples of what he had done in the past. Karloff however does make a convincing and ultimately very likable character. He even has a few humorous moments, such as when he waked up in the morning and jumps at his own reflection, a reference to how his own image on film has conditioned even him to be startled. There are plenty of times where he displays great sarcasm and whit. This is a man you can relate to, understand and get behind. You cannot say the same for Tim O'Kelly.
Let me say this right now. Tim O'Kelly is probably the one villain in motion picture who scares me the most. Never before or since have I seen a performance so laid back, so innocent, and so cheerful suddenly change into such a monster at the drop of a hat. This film takes time to establish Thompson as a character, and he seems like an average joe, praying at the table with his parents and young wife, joking about the day, telling how he saw Orlok, etc. Then something starts happening. While at a shooting range, Thompson aims his rifle at his father who is setting up cans for them to shoot. Looking at his face, you get the feeling he is thinking "It would be so easy." Some of his best acting can be found in the sequence where he purchases several boxes of ammo from a gun retailer shortly after murdering his family.
When the clerk, an old friend of Thompson's, asks him what he plans on doing, Thompson replies "I'm gonna shoot some pigs." It proves to be quite unsettling and is one of the film's most memorable lines in both the literal wording and the delivery. Once the killing spree begins, he climbs atop the aforementioned plant and begins sipping on a cold one and eating a sandwich, waiting for that perfect car to show up so he can start. When he does, there is no remorse, no empathy, not even the slightest wince. He only draws in his breath so he can steady his shot better. Thompson was largely based off of Charles Whiteman, and it shows from a narrative aspect, appearance, and acting. He just doesn't care. There are even times where he lets out a frustrated yet casual sigh when he realizes he has to re-load. That is literally the only emotion he shows once he starts. Perhaps the defining character moment for Thompson is his final line in the film, which still retains its power after all these years. O'Kelly really deserves major chops for this role. I would inform him of this, but I would feel safer approaching Steven Segal to tell him how much I think his films suck. It is a damn shame O'Kelly left film after only four years. This is probably one of the most accurate portrayals of a public mass murderer ever put to film.
This film takes place in California near Hollywood. The contemporary setting is used well. At times it feels like two different movies are playing, with Karloff in a higher class area just chillin out and O'Kelly preparing for his exploits within the confines of suburbia. The stuff with Karloff is very relaxing and comfortable to sit through. You feel at ease and safe there. Once you get to suburbia in the Thompson home, there is a feeling that it should be safe, but a dark presence seems to be taking hold. This place looks like the house that the Brady Bunch should live in, but it just has such a feeling of dread. The house is used to its full potential once O'Kelly's killing spree begins. The plant is only used for a brief sequence but it too is made into a nightmarish place as Thompson makes it into a sniper perch. One will have to see this sequence to get the feel of just how awful the place is, in some ways because it is so nondescript. Finally there is the drive-in theater, which is where the film really reaches indescribable levels of horror and suspense. This any town setting is made into a hellish maze of cars bathed in darkness, viewed mainly through the sniper rifle's scope as the shooting is about to start up again. This place that should be fun becomes a hell well before the shooting even starts through the usage of creative angles and dark, high contrast lighting.
This is one very well written film. Bogdanovich wrote this screenplay fairly quick, but it sure doesn't feel that way. Each character is fleshed out and real, each line of dialogue is natural and smooth, each scene is ripe with entertainment or suspense. There are people in Hollywood who pour millions of dollars into scripts that take months to write and they don't come up with stuff this good. Even the characters who leave us soon (I will get to that shortly) leave a lasting impression for something other than their deaths. There is minimal dialogue which ultimately adds a great deal to the picture. You are given nothing as you watch the story unfold. This screenplay grabs you by the balls and won't let go until it is done. That is the mark of good writing.
Music. This may shock you, but there is none. There is no astounding score to add to what is happening, but somehow that works. While a score would have been welcome, it ultimately would have made the events seem fake. Music would have been a luxury as it would have offered a small bizarre comfort for the viewer by taking them out of the story just a little. A score does work well to create horror in films such as Psycho and Halloween and actually draws you into the story in those cases. Hear you are already inside the story. This is the real world, and the comforts of a musical score are denied us. Our music is the sharp cacophony of Thompson's rifle.
The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking. It greatly adds to the film, giving it a sense of agelessness. Bogdanavich not only wrote the screenplay, but also directed this film. This was his first film and he knows better where to point the camera than many modern directors, taking full advantage of the placement of objects within a frame. The night before the spree begins, there is a wonderful shot of Thompson in his home, concealed by darkness say for a cigarette he holds in his hand. Through the film we have gradually seen him lose his humanity, and by this scene, it is all gone. The best cinematography can be found in the plant and drive-in sequences. The plant really emphasizes the openness of where Thompson plans to start shooting. The shots are mainly long shots, putting a special emphasis on how large the plant is. This somehow makes the O'Kelly character all the more menacing as he makes his approach to his chosen perch. The drive-in is used expertly as well. The majority of the drive-in is seen through the scope of the rifle, straight on into the cars with their headlights off trying to pick a target through the windshields. The screen is, appropriately enough, made incredibly imposing. Think a movie screen cannot be frightening? Think again. Bogdanovich knows that this screen playing a classic Orlock film is ironically hiding a real monster, so he makes into what it is. A sort of mask for the character. Every time the lights go up, you sometimes feel as if the screen is doing the shooting itself. Also the shooting in this scene is done very well. It is achieved by the camera rapidly zooming in on where the rifle was aimed. Once the zoom stops, the bullet hole appears and whoever was in the way delivers a fine reaction to the hit. As with all great low budget films, this one makes fine use of scope and creative camera placement in order to make itself much larger.
One of the film's most effective shots is a panning shot. At the drive-in, we see a shot of a young boy in a car, looking to the driver's seat with tears in his eyes. The camera starts panning to the driver's seat where we see the boy's father, dead by a bullet hole to the neck. Off-screen, the boy's weeping continues as does the camera's panning. The shot leaves the car. The sound of a distant gunshot and glass shattering interrupts the shot and now, instead of weeping, there is only a cold, dead silence.
The editing is every bit as superb. Not only are the camera placements perfect, the placement of segments of film is also perfect. There is such standout editing when Thompson first arrives at the plant. He begins setting out his arsenal, eight or so rifles and handguns before he casually removes a beer and a sandwich from his ammo bag. He begins to sip on the beer and eat the sandwich, occasionally glancing up at the highway. Spliced in are shots of the cars as they pass by. He eventually picks up his new scoped rifle and starts following the cars through the scope, his POV shots intercut with his calm face, still chewing the piece of sandwich. The final frenzied shootout at the drive-in is shown through a collection of quick cuts and long lingering shots, which greatly increases the chaotic nature of the sequence. This may not be a bloody scene, but in a tried and true method, the editing makes it a violent one.
This film has one thick and unpleasant atmosphere. The lingering sense of dread that begins after the shooting range really powers the film, building and building into it reaches a head that has seldom been reached in film. I will sum up the atmosphere using the final shot of the film. In the final shot, there is a high long shot of the drive-in, empty with the exception of Thompson's car. As the credits start to roll, a cloud begins to pass over the parking lot from the bottom of the screen, It slowly works its way up to the top, the screen fading to black as the cloud nearly completes bathing the lot in darkness. This shot, more than any other, sums up just how one feels while watching this film. It is an endurance test, and I mean that in the best possible way.
I cannot write a review in good conscience without warning viewers just what horrors await them. Surely this 1968 Boris Karloff movie cannot be that frightening, right? Well let me just tell you of the scene a little under the halfway point and then you try and tell me that with a straight face. This scene is not a major spoiler as it is the catalyst that gets the plot going, though if you are already interested in seeing this film and do not wish for too many surprises, I have placed a spoiler tag here. The scene begins with an extreme close up on a type writer.
Spoiler
In red, the word DIE is typed. We see the typist is Thompson. He removes the paper from the typewriter and hears his wife approaching. Having just got up she walks up to him and moves in to kiss him, unaware he has picked up a 45 caliber handgun. She closes her eyes to kiss him so she doesn't see him place it against her torso. He fires, sending her falling back with a surprised look on her face. The gunshot alerts Thompson's mother, who comes running into the room. She finds him standing over his wife's body. Without word or pause, he shoots her and sends her falling back against the wall in a spatter of blood. Looking down to the floor he sees his mother's wallet with a few bills hanging out. Realizing she has had groceries delivered, he runs into the kitchen and finds the delivery boy. The boy drops the groceries and backs into the wall. Thompson shoots him dead. What follows is a torturous sequence with little editing. Thompson places the bodies of his wife and mother in their respective bedrooms, places towels over the bloodstains on the floor, drags the delivery boy into a hallway, washes his hands and leaves. He does so emotionlessly and in utter silence.The final shot of the sequence is a long pan of the bedroom rug, over both of the towels that the blood is starting to soak through. It rests on the letter that Thompson was typing at the beginning of the scene. It reads
To whom it may concern.
It is now 11:40 AM.
My wife is still asleep but when she wakes up, I am going to kill her. Then I am going to kill my mother.
I know they will get me, but there will be more killing before I die.
Peter Bogdanovich was one of the most successful directors of the early 70s, helming such classics as The Last Picture Show, Paper Moon and What's Up Doc? Targets was his feature film debut. The film got kicked off simply because Roger Corman was owed two days of work by Karloff and hired the young writer to direct a film for the express purpose of getting rid of those two days. Using this simple demand, the young writer made one of the most unique and effective thrillers of all time. This is a great work by a great man. Though Bogdanovich may have lost his touch, this film and the above mentioned films show his skills as a director. He even acts in the film, playing a young director of all things. He does not attempt to take away from his two stars and serves as a supporting character mainly for Karloff's ark. One reviewer said after seeing this film that Bogdanovich was the equal to Hitchcock. I can attest to this being a fair comparison.
Targets is probably my favorite film starring Boris Karloff and one of my favorite films in general. It seems sadly overlooked as this was done after Karloff's big heyday of success and produced by Roger Corman who was assumed to produce low quality films. This film is a major standout in the career of Bogdanovich as it is unlike any other he has ever done. Despite almost universally positive reviews, the film floundered at the box office and faded into obscurity, though it is starting to get some notoriety now. It has made the 1001 list and is shown in numerous film classes around the world, and considered among Bogdanovich's best films and one of the finest produced by Roger Corman. This is a thinker's horror film, but that in no way diminishes the horror of what are seeing. For those looking for a horror film of exceptionally high quality, this is the place to go. It remains much darker than most horror films however. This one is about the horrors of the real world, and aren't those so much worse than any monster we could ever think up?
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Feb 14, 2012, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Hubbs on Feb 02, 2012, 03:38:12 PM
The Artist
You simply can't help but enjoy and smile whilst watching this, younger viewers and teens beware...there are no explosions or cgi is this film (hurrah!)
I applaud your constant updating of this thread with your reviews and all, I find your greatest failing to be the presumptuous and off putting stuff like this.
That's a roger on your complaint and it is noted. The only reason I typed that was simply an honest statement as I don't think many people here will be interested in this film, I of course may be wrong, but overall my message was suppose to be...no cgi or action but give it a go :)
The Keep (1983)
Mann's second film and a controversial adaptation of Wilson's novel that didn't go down too well with either the audiences or the author. The film isn't particularly bad but there is obviously allot of hack editing going on and much of the original plot has been ignored or cut.
On the visual side the film is really quite cool looking, it almost looks like an early MTV rock video hehe the effects (for the time) were pretty swish and do hold the tone of the film together. There is allot of visual flair going on here which is one of the films saving graces.
Another plus point is the soundtrack by Tangerine Dream, as you would expect their usual blend of futuristic, electronic, enthral and spiritual sounds is quite unique and very uplifting to listen to. The only problem is this lovely soundtrack doesn't really fit this film, allot of tense moments don't really come across as I suspect they should have whilst the music floats in the background, you would expect to hear a score like this for a film like 'Blade Runner'.
The film is also confusing and unexplained, the original novel is straight forward but the film is a mess. The evil entity that is released seems to be angry at the Nazi's for killing 'his people' so I'm guessing it was a Jewish entity? and if it wants to kill Nazi's why not let it?. We also don't find out where the entity comes from, what it is?, what's its purpose?, who is 'Glenn'?, what is 'Glenn's' story? etc...
This isn't really a horror in my eyes, there isn't much blood or gore and its not scary in the slightest, it comes across as a slightly adult version of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' really. The entity or demon is a bit comical to be honest, should of been kept unseen really, shame as the sets, lighting and camera work all play well to set the mood.
I think first time viewers who have not read the novel will struggle with many questions but the blend of gothic horror set amidst WWII will keep most entertained and interested as it is well crafted. The cast of big names in early roles also works in the films favour, check McKellen in a pre 'Professor X' type role and Gabriel Byrne as the sadistic German SD Officer Sturmbannführer.
Hostel III (2011)
Next new outing for this torture porn series and there isn't much really I need to say about it, I'm sure most will know the premise by now.
Bunch of young guys and some sexy skirts get abducted by a few big meat heads and dragged off to be slaughtered for the entertainment of ultra rich folk, just your usual Saturday night out round these parts.
Much like 'Saw' the first film was good and original, the second also just got by but after number two they should stop. The idea has been used and the novelty is over, from here on its just the same thing but with new sick ways to murder people and this third film is just that. The only difference that the 'Saw' franchise has is the reasonable story throughout which contains reasonable twists n turns, this Hostel flick is just a stand alone story with nothing new to offer.
The Hunter (AUS 2011)
Filmed entirely in Tasmania and some of the scenery shot is quite tremendous, it really is the sparkle in this film, without it this it would be really quite average.
On the whole the film isn't exactly stunning, its an oddity really, Dafoe is sent into the outback of Tasmania to find the thought to be extinct Thylacine or Tasmanina Tiger after a few apparent sightings. He stays with a woman and her kids and helps get her life back on track and off medication due to her husband vanishing in the outback.
At the same time he of course gets very friendly with the woman and her kids, gets slightly tangled in local disputes between tree loggers and environmental groups against the loggers (of which the woman he stays with is part of) whilst also trying to solve the disappearance of her husband plus track a live Thylacine.
The problem with the film is it doesn't feel like its about anything in particular and it doesn't feel like there is any real conclusion at the end. Without trying to give the game away Dafoe does achieve his goals but doesn't do anything about it, he discovers what happens to the woman's husband but seems to do nothing, we're not quite sure exactly why the company hes working for wants him to find a Thylacine and at the end he does something which doesn't seem right, you don't know wether your on his side with his decision.
Dafoe is suppose to be a hunter, he tracks and survives in the wild, this we know, but seeing him roam the outback setting nasty steel traps and shooting mammals doesn't really sit right with me, he's suppose to be the 'hero' of the film looking after a lone woman and her kids but he doesn't really do anything other than kill animals and set traps, are we suppose to root for Dafoe's character?
The acting is superb with Dafoe and good old Sam Neill on form, the kids play their parts very well too but the plot is strange and jumbled and for lovers of wildlife it isn't quite what you expect. Well filmed, well crafted with lovely location work and a pretty real looking Tasmania Tiger in the finale (you know he finds it before you even begin to watch) but it seems down beat overall.
Chronicle
Very dull slow take off for this comicbook type film as we see a bunch of teens just messing around and talking crap whilst not much else is going on. The first half of the film is show through 'Andrews' camera as he goes around filming everything and its damn annoying, of course its building characters but to be frank it doesn't seem that way as its really uninteresting.
The way in which the three young males find the 'unknown object' in a deep dark hole after simply climbing down into it is a bit silly methinks, as if you would do that. The object looks a bit like the spiky crystal like pod in which Superman travels to earth in from the 78 film, anyway they all get infected or transformed or sick from the object and thusly gain telekinetic super powers...for some reason.
The film is really quite boring until 'Andrew' starts to get a little warped with his ways and begins using his powers for 'evil' or bad as it were. From that point on it perks up allot with much more tension and some reasonably good special effects consisting of average cgi and average bluescreen work but some nice telekinetic movement work on people in places.
There is a slight feeling of 'X-Men' as the sparks fly along with cars and chunks of building, almost a more realistic take with proper teen angst issues tossed in. The stress caused by family issues, school life and their increasing powers is well played out by the actor trio. The point where 'Andrew' finally decides he is now pretty much a more evolved human being and capable of anything he wants, a newly evolved 'apex predator', does add some great moments of edge of your seat thrills as you simply don't know what he will do next, he no longer cares for anyone including his super powered friends.
Filmed almost entirely with handheld cams, or CCTV in some sequences, does add realism to the action but it also annoying too, like other films in this style it can be hard to follow action as the camera jerks all over the show.
So the first half of the film is dull and slightly rushed maybe but it gets much better once 'Andrew' loses it, its almost like a male version of 'Carrie' really, Dane DeHaan does portray the breakdown and instability of his character very well. Overall some nice sequences like the boys trying their new powers as they develop them, strong moments of family feuding and a good finale.
Sister Street Fighter (JAP 1974)
Obvious spin off from the much much better martial arts film 'The Street Fighter' but has nothing to do with the former film, this is a stand alone story.
I realise this may be seen as a cult these days but I really didn't think much of it, the whole thing was so damn hokey and daft looking, almost like an Oriental version of the 60's Batman TV show!
All the fighting is clearly staged with fists and kicks nowhere near their intended targets haha the acting is worse than usual as is the dialog but the really sore point is the fact Sonny Chiba is hardly in it.
Apart from the fight finale Chiba doesn't really figure in the film despite the title, add to that the fact the film has nothing really to do with the original and the whole cheesy look of everyone and everything, the bad guys look like they have just stepped of the stage of a children's pantomime show.
The original Street Fighter was hard ass and vicious, this attempts the same but fails, a bit of blood n gore near the end but its little too late.
Quote from: Hubbs on Feb 20, 2012, 06:24:12 PM
Sister Street Fighter (JAP 1974)
Obvious spin off from the much much better martial arts film 'The Street Fighter' but has nothing to do with the former film, this is a stand alone story.
I realise this may be seen as a cult these days but I really didn't think much of it, the whole thing was so damn hokey and daft looking, almost like an Oriental version of the 60's Batman TV show!
All the fighting is clearly staged with fists and kicks nowhere near their intended targets haha the acting is worse than usual as is the dialog but the really sore point is the fact Sonny Chiba is hardly in it.
Apart from the fight finale Chiba doesn't really figure in the film despite the title, add to that the fact the film has nothing really to do with the original and the whole cheesy look of everyone and everything, the bad guys look like they have just stepped of the stage of a children's pantomime show.
The original Street Fighter was hard ass and vicious, this attempts the same but fails, a bit of blood n gore near the end but its little too late.
I've never seen that, but I remember it being mentioned in
True Romance :laugh:
The Grey
Rollicking adventure that feels like its for gruff hikers only as Neeson battles his way across the frozen wastes of the Alaskan wilderness with a motley bunch of blue collar Joe's fighting off savage wild wolves in a battle for survival where only the strongest will live another day and the weak get eaten...phew!
Bottom line, the film is good, very well made, great cast and performances plus it looks amazing filmed in Alaska...but at the end of the day its pretty much your common 'creatures take group down one by one till last man standing'. Not that this is a particular problem but like you have the saying 'its Die Hard on boat/train/oil rig' etc...here you have the saying 'its man v snakes/piranhas/alligators/sharks' etc...this time its wolves, basically a creature feature but a very realistic sensible one.
You do sense the Scott brothers influence throughout the film with its grand vistas, hard edge tension, detail and of course the small ragtag group of grunts that must battle against the odds. There isn't really much you can moan about with the film accept one thing, and that's the really quite incorrect negative perception the Grey Wolf gets in the film.
I'm no expert but I do know that wolves will not really act as savagely as they are portrayed in this film and for me this does knock the realism somewhat. The chances of a wolf pack actually doing what they do in this film is pretty low to be honest, they may try to kill or attack a wounded human or a human on his own but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stalk a group down and take them out one by one. Unfortunately like other films that have the same man vs creature theme it does tend to give the creature in question bad publicity which isn't deserved.
Personally I think the Oscar talk is a bit over the top, its a great atmospheric film which certainly makes you feel the chill and does have you caring about the groups situation which, in turn, really emphasizes how fragile life is. But while its realistic on one level its not very realistic on another (the wolf behaviour and the cliff jumping scene) and that just lets it down in my eyes. I kept thinking I was watching a horror film about snow werewolves most of the time but it is a deep enjoyable wilderness thriller.
Versus (JAP, 2000)
Rather bizarre film which I didn't really understand until the gone the midway point to be honest, the plot is odd and not entirely explained as you are spoon fed bits of it very slowly.
Its a blend of horror, comedy, sci-fi and fantasy really, almost has an 'Evil Dead' quality to it really, that kind of dark humour with over the top extreme characters. Mix that with a kind of 'Mortal Kombat' style plot about opening portals to other worlds which lie within the "Forest of Resurrection" but only with the blood of a certain woman etc...a bit cliched but fun.
The whole thing is highly stylised like all Japanese action films...its slicker than a frogs bathing suit, the main hero has dark longish hair and a full length black leather trench coat with black leather pants, dare I say looking a bit 'Crow' like. There's plenty of martial arts, sword play and clever editing along with unique camera angles, personally I think there has been an element of 'The Matrix' borrowed for this film hehe well that and quite a few other films.
Its well known as a cult but I wasn't overly stunned by it, its cool but nothing special really, a bit too cliched for me.
Tokyo Gore Police (JAP, 2008)
Well its certainly gory that's for damn sure haha I've never seen so much fake watery looking blood, it literately explodes from the screen into your face! fountains and streams of gushing blood at every turn.
The films instantly conjures thoughts of 'Robocop' and 'Starship Troopers' as we are introduced to little news flashes or adverts showing thick dark humour laced with heavy doses of satire, a privatised police force that 'protects' Tokyo against the threat of 'engineers' (self mutated insane berserker criminals).
There's such a colourful blend of genres here its hard to pin down really, think 'Kill Bill' with quirky fantasy and horror. The plot is bizarre and chock full of fetish and kink, rubber bound ladies and femme fatales, a real pleasure for all alternatives out there ;) Add a crazy mix of down right blatant B-movie effects alongside some pretty good gore effects combined with ingenious camera angles and surreal visions.
I liked the futuristic Japanese police with their black samurai suits and many of the nightmarish mutant engineers are fun to see in action, lots of katana face splitting and body popping with a man who shoots eyeballs from little cannon extensions in his eye sockets to a girl who's lower half becomes a gaping alligator-ish maw.
Its totally comicbook or manga I guess with so much blood it becomes funny rather than scary but that's the idea really, not vicious more screwball really but with some nice slick visuals at times and many memorable moments, I think I can see where Tarantino looks to for inspiration or is it vice versa? Loved the limbless pet gimp :D
Ali G Indahouse (ENG, 2002)
A strong character from the British comedian, his original crowd pleaser and probably more popular in the UK than anywhere else but despite that this film doesn't really hit the mark.
Like all movie adaptations of comedy shows that are typically 30min long, a feature length version doesn't quite make it in terms of laughs and plot. Unlike his other characters Bruno and Borat which are basically funny clips or sequences stuck together in doc style, Ali G tries for a proper plot line but fails.
Much like 'Mr Bean' the plot is terribly weak and can't hold you for up to 1h 30min, of course you get what you expect in terms of racism, sexism and plenty of sex and toilet jokes but its just not as sharp in a film, it works better as a comedy show for some reason.
Ali G is of course a brilliant character no doubt, totally taking the piss out of the modern young generation of middle/lower class whites that like to think they are black gangsters, whats even more funny is they don't even realise this hehe.
Probably Cohen's best creation but his weakest film, it does what it says on the tin but its still not as good as you would hope for, on the plus side there are some amazing looking women in the film :)
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Always thought the casting of Cage for this film was wrong, a complete misfire really, a younger unknown actor may have been better I think. He certainly fits the bill with the manic possessed tortured inner-demon issues that's for sure but the guy is too old lets face it.
So they have another crack at this and basically its slightly better than the first, not much, but it does have an edge. For a start the cgi and effects overall are better than the first, the GR looks darker and more burnt with ash and grim rather than the terrible cartoon look he had before. The action is BIG as you would expect, cgi in your face boy! as flames leap around and henchmen get turned into crispy toast, nothing you haven't seen before really so I don't have to explain anymore.
A few plot queries arise for me...why does the devil require a young boy to gain human form when he already has a human form? and why not use any boy instead of going crazy trying to nab one particular boy?. Why didn't the devil just make lots of guys like Blackout? and why not just do that from the start?
My original thought with Blaze (not being up on the mythos) is why does he turn into the Ghost Rider in the presence of evil? surely the devil likes evil? is it because the devil wants evil souls and the GR gathers them for him? can't the devil just do this himself?
Anyway its totally popcorn overdrive and completely daft as you would expect, I think the franchise is now officially dead seeing as this has flopped even more so than the first. Solution? make it like it should be...an adult venture with an 18/R rating, simple.
So end of the day if you wanna see lots of idiotic henchmen that never learn the simple premise of 'bullets don't harm the man/creature your firing at no matter how long you hold the trigger for, so just stop damn firing and run away you utter utter morons'...see this.
Rampart (2011)
Possibly one of Woody Harrelson's best performances for some time, maybe ever, as a dirty excessive cop whose actions are caught on tape and must face the consequences. The main theme behind the plot is its setting just after or during the 'Rampart scandal' of the late 1990's.
Don't know much about the Rampart scandal accept it involved lots of dirty crooked cops in LA who were also connected with gangsters, drugs, robbery etc...all the good stuff. I was slightly wrong in my assumption about the film at first, I expected lots of hood beatings and evidence planting amidst crack downs and underground gang warfare etc...not much of that, nothing in fact.
This isn't a huge issue though as the film is actually a very strong emotional rollercoaster for Harrelson's character as his job comes under threat for his wayward actions, his family lose faith in him and start to see him as a brutal cop whilst all the time things get worse as he continues with his shady actions to try and get money to pay for lawyers to save his job.
The film does become quite depressing as his downbeat situation gets worse, you do feel for the guy especially if you work in the same kind of role as Harrelson's character for real, its very close to reality as 'the company' take the citizens side and try to load everything on the single cop. You know he has bad judgement or over reaction but you also feel he doesn't do it maliciously.
I think the term 'hidden gem' covers this film for sure, find it and watch.
Above the Rim (1994)
Very cliched and dated gangster/basketball flick set in NY as a young black teen tries to get a basketball scholarship whilst battling against a local thug and his former basketball star brother who is now a security guard at their high school.
Everyone in this film is a cliche haha Shakur is yet another gangster (he couldn't do anything else, useless), Wayans is annoying and camp as usual, Duane Martin is the annoying loud mouth cocky star player and Leon is the quiet dark horse and probably the best thing in the film.
Basically you have all the usual gangster nonsense with all the hilariously bad street clothes worn by Shakur and co, lots of foul language, deals, guns and adults trying to get these dumb asses to grow up and get a life.
The only decent thing in the whole film is the small segments of basketball and the competition at the finale which does show some good genuine skills and reminded me a little of 'White Men Can't Jump' minus the comedy.
Bullet (1996)
Terribly disappointing gangster film with Rourke and Shakur plus Brody, Levine and Donnie Wahlberg! great character actor cast...poor film.
Not much to say really, the plot is nonsense and has Rourke as a Jewish con just outta the joint and living with his Jewish folks! in the mean time he deals drugs, does drugs and not much else really. Levine is his mental weapon obsessed brother who also lives at home and walks around in his Y-fronts all day, Brody is his other brother who is an artist and errr...they all somehow get by doing nothing, really I mean it, nothing during the whole film.
Shakur is another gangster (yawn!) who lost his eye to Rourke whilst they were banged up together so he spends the whole film acting tough and trying to kill Rourke, boring, predictable and totally a waste of time, oh and Rourke co wrote it.
Gang Related (1997)
Believe it or not but this is actually a decent cop thriller starring Shakur and Belushi! two dirty cops trying to lie their way out of killing an undercover detective by framing a homeless man.
The premise is fine yet unoriginal but its handled well, both Belushi and Shakur play their roles well and you do get immersed in the tension as they get deeper in doo doo. You know what's gonna happen to be honest but its a fun ride watching it unfold.
Dennis Quaid plays the homeless man but I dunno why really, his role isn't really a big deal despite it being an important part of the story and Quaid seems to be sleep walking his way through it, I think this must have been his sparse acting period.
Surprisingly good thriller, Belushi shows he can actually play it straight from time to time plus Lela Rochon is scorchingly hot :)
Gridlock'd (1997)
I found this quite a bleak depressing film with moments of humour, true its a dark comedy and a satirical look at the bureaucracy and needless paperwork that I'm sure most countries have but there isn't really anything upbeat about it.
Not that there is suppose to be I'm sure, a film about junkies trying to get into rehab or just looking for some help but only to come face to face with weeks of waiting and forms, enough to make anyone shoot themselves.
Its a decent film but not as good as it was made out to be in my opinion, Roth is simply his whiny foul mouthed annoying self but Shakur does a little better actually showing some emotion for once, Newton is just cute as a button but with little to do. I think the sub plot about getting involved in a murder case and having drug dealers on their tail kinda spoils the dark realistic comedy of their rehab mission, kinda makes it too daft and more Hollywood if you ask me. Definite cult and Shakur's last film.
Did you see Tupac playing bass during the end credits? In frickin' credible.
^ Why is it incredible??
He's very, very good. Coming from a rapper, I found that pretty damn surprising.
Godzilla Final Wars (JAP, 2004)
I admit I haven't seen any of the old Godzilla films from Japan and never really been into them but the poster for this film just intrigued me, it looked like a computer game cover which I wanted to play.
Dunno how they do it but somehow Japanese films always seem to look gloriously slick n glossy and at the same time completely insane and over the top whilst also managing to be really good. This is no exception with a mix of the traditional hammy looking 'men in suits' approach which all Zilla fans will know and love, combined with some bluescreen work, cgi and model work.
It sounds like a real cocktail and it is with some truly silly camera angles and in your face effects and stunts which wouldn't look outta place in tacky W.S. Anderson film being accomplished by Milla Jovovich but somehow the Japanese make it all look terrific, colourful, stylish and original, just like their computer games.
All the monsters are included in this Zilla epic, a real monster mash just like the old Universal horrors, plus there are cast members from various older Zilla pics also (apparently) which is great for fans. The film is a blend of many genres and ideas you could pick from lots of films, its such an outrageous ambitious looking project but clearly made with care for the franchise.
The film is a fans wet dream and for newbies like me its a great sci-fi monster rumble with plenty of great visuals and neat ideas. The characters are all a bit cliched but you kinda know that going in, still they all look good, kudos to Don Frye who looks great in his 'M. Bison' looking outfit, sounds daft I know but he really looks cool.
Despite not being a graphic novel or comicbook adaptation this film really does feel and look like one, I really can't give enough praise for the tasty visuals, its so pleasing to eye especially with the mix of effects on offer. Completely enjoyable for all we no knowledge of previous films required :)
Azumi (JAP, 2003)
Based on a popular manga series centring around a young girl who is raised by assassins and eventually set on a mission to kill off some warlords who threaten the peace of Japan.
More samurai than you can shake a stick at hehe yes we've seen this kind of thing before but for some reason that doesn't matter, there is nothing better than seeing a well made Japanese film about their past, yes this has allot of artistic license and is more fantasy based but its still damn fun.
A curious set of characters all led by their strict master and all played well by the cast, Aya Ueto as 'Azumi' is ultra cute, not the most authentic looking samurai but this is manga adaptation, the rest of the cast are unknown to me but do the job well, nothing too special or original but its entertaining. The deadly character of 'Bijomaru Mogami' is fun, an egotistical lethal merc who kills pretty much anyone for fun and is dressed all in flowing white, think along the lines of 'Vega' from SFII.
Action is fast fluid and bloody when it kicks in as you might expect but its not over done, there is the odd moment of high flying wire work which spoils it in my view, they love that in Japan for some reason. The plot is simple and easily followed, the film looks great in terms of costumes, weapons and location and it comes across perfectly as an adaptation.
Red Planet (2000)
The second Mars movie in the year 2000 and unfortunately it couldn't better the first offering 'Mission to Mars' but was actually a bit worse.
Again I was kinda hoping for a serious slice of sci-fi with a possibility of some epic lavish visuals and ideas but this film goes completely in the oppersite direction and gives you a more action based silly affair, to be frank you can guess by looking at the cast line up.
Kilmer, Sizemore, Bratt and Moss make up the space team this time and they do give a slightly better or less wooden performance than the team in 'MTM', you do get more of a grounded feeling from the characters instead of the perfect all American poster boy vibe you got with Sinise and Robbins in 'MTM'. Stamp heads the team to really try and give the film some gravitas but good old Terence can't quite get there, in fact his performance is the most stale of bunch oddly enough, I don't think space fits him too well.
You get the same kind of orbital and planetary issues as you would expect, nothing too original, it all looks very nice though, the space suits and ships are cool and well designed and Mars is well presented. The plot is fun and makes you think but overall the film is highly unrealistic (much more than 'MTM' despite that films alien inclusion) but does give a more grounded line of thinking with alien life and how it could work. The problem I had with the film was the sub plot revolving around the man made robot 'AMEE', it just felt disappointing that one of the main risks to the crew would be a 'Terminator' style man made robot.
In all honesty the film is fun and I quite like it, I like the whole space exploration concept and find it never gets dull and would welcome more films where teams explore our solar systems planets. It was a flop and I can see why, it starts off well but sinks fast into your average adventure, nothing outstanding, the 'Armageddon' of the two.
Mission to Mars (2000)
As the end of the 20th Century came to a close, in the final year, we were given the first of two sci-fi films based on the planet Mars, this was the first released.
It kinda came across that these films were like a kind of beacon, a sign for the start of greater things to come, perhaps we would reach Mars very soon, perhaps what we were to see in these films would become reality...alas no, not yet.
Even with a musical score composed by the legend Morricone this film falls short and its such a shame, to be honest its not too bad but clearly tries to be an epic and simply can't fill those boots. The plot obviously is revolving around adventures on and orbiting Mars, you know exactly what to expect really, the dangers, the tone, the atmosphere, the look etc...you can see it coming a mile off but you look forward to it because its space adventure.
The problem is the film is desperately trying to be like '2001' in terms of grandeur in scale and visions but its just too plain, there is an obvious attempt to make it as real as possible but nothing looks exciting or new at the same time, its all rather dull looking. The effects are quite good with models and cgi in use (too much of course), good sets, nice Mars work etc...but there is nothing truly EPIC here, it almost looks like a TV movie at times.
Casting is good, you simply can't do a space film without Sinise haha you just can't, the man just makes it look so...real! The rest of the team are decent, sensible and not overblown but maybe too big for the roles, the usage of unknowns would have been better I think.
The score again like the film just doesn't quite hit the mark in my opinion, Morricone is the man and his work here is good for sure but is it me or does it sound a bit too close to his 'Untouchables' score? everytime it played I just kept thinking of 'The Untouchables'. As for the rest of the score its unusual and simply doesn't work, emotional scenes are ruined by a quite odd and poor choice in music which totally takes you out of the moment, the film may be inspired by a Disney ride but there's no need to make it sound like a Disney kiddie film.
The whole film seems a tad rushed really, the plot jumps from one section to another not even showing the launches from earth or much travel, sure there are time constraints but maybe make the film a bit longer and add some realism or filler? characters are fleshed out mostly in flashbacks which mean nothing really, dialog is really cheesy which equals some pretty wooden/hokey acting from even Sinise! hehe.
Add to that a rather dodgy looking cgi alien, a basic plot finale which was sort of an anti-climax and tries a bit to hard to do the 'E.T.' thing with your emotions but kinda fails and then a very blunt flat ending. Enjoyable film which tries its best to really be something special but isn't, the better of the two Mars films, the more sensible one (the 'Deep Impact' of the two ;) )
Underworld: Awakening
Following on from 'Evolution' we see both the lycan and vampire species in threat from humans after being hunted down to the brink of extinction.
You know what to expect here and boy do you get it in spades, slow motion high flying kills, double gun totting shooting, swishing blades, spurting blood and endless dumbass man fodder to thicken the brew. In short its exactly like the newer 'Resident Evil' films and you half expect Jovovich to pop up and take over. The super lycan serum which results in an uber lycan is pretty much the pinnacle of crapola in this franchise now, a total 'Resi Evil' idea type rip off and it lowers the overall class of the whole series.
The plot is isn't tooooo bad, they manage to carry it on quite well and do a good job with keeping Corvin around despite Speedman not being involved, but the rest of the cast is pretty awful really. Charles Dance seems to be there only to provide a new Viktor type character and he clearly has difficulty speaking with his fangs in haha he even tries some of Nighy's head movements, the rest of the supporting cast all come across as B-movie fare frankly, even previous vampire actor Rea can't help the cause.
The whole film feels very basic really with some terrible cgi effects (worse than the previous films), the lycans look like shaven rats, transformations are pretty dreadful looking, the 'vision' perspective looks crap and the young Eve looks like something outta 'Mortal Kombat', everything looks plastic and fake.
End of the day it does what it says on the tin and we all know what this film is about so I can't moan too much but I just get the feeling they could of left it as it was. They really have gone way over the top with all this slo-mo action and the fact that Selene can kill endless lycans yet no one else can just loses any real acceptance of the universes reality anymore, yes its over the top fantasy but there is still a limit.
The thing is I can see this franchise really being milked completely into the depths of the 'straight to DVD' abyss which is a shame as it is/was decent but this kind of W.S. Anderson film making is becoming infuriating.
Goon
I was quite surprised to find out this was based on a true story and the events that take place in the film are based on reality...including the fights!
Now I admit I have no clue about ice hockey being British but I must ask, is fighting actually part of the sport!? I realise things can get heated like in any sport but are the fights actually allowed in ice hockey? they have players who just come on for fights!!?
It all seems rather bizarre to me but this is the basis of the story, a guy who is hired simply to fight during the games, I thought the film was a kind of silly spoof type comedy, especially with Scott in the lead, so the fact its actually a reasonable bio flick is quite amazing.
I do enjoy most sport films and this was fair, nothing special and nothing overly emotional, Schreiber was probably the best performance and actually came across pretty strong and grizzled. Not bad but hardly stunning, take it or leave it.
The Core (2003)
I dunno why but I do like this disaster film :) yes its totally stupid, totally unrealistic and completely along the lines of 'Armageddon under the earth' but to hell with it! its a fun ride.
Part of this is down to the likeable cast of science bods for me, Eckhart has always kinda been the bigger version of Scott Bakula in my humble view, a nice guy with floppy hair haha Karyon and Lindo are both solid as always and Tucci is fully enjoyable as the whiney scrawny egghead who will obviously kick the bucket hehe. Only downside is the Justin Bieber lookalike Swank who is just too damn wholesome and American to stand for so long.
The film is simply fun from the get go really, your typical disaster scenes across the world to the cool ideas the film makers came up with for the earth's interior, it really does feel like an updated 'Journey to the Centre of the Earth' when the crew break into a huge geode which then begins to leak lava. I think the creative team did well with whats shown as the crew progress deeper, I'm sure its wrong but it looks cool.
As you near the climax the plot does get a little more emotional as members fall by the wayside one by one much like all disaster flicks do and this does keep you glued to the screen somewhat, its very predictable but you wanna see it through.
I think the plot is well worked in this film, it seems like an impossible task but the theories of how you could actually jump start the center of the earth are clever I guess, you know its not real but it looks and sounds like it could be. I also liked the craft design they use, the 'space' suits and all the science guff they babble when the heat is on (no pun intended), a shame the ending is so flat but it beats the over blown all American showboating you got in 'Armageddon'.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)
Unusual crime thriller comedy that, bottom line, is just your common who done it? but has the added bonus of the surprise double team of Kilmer and Downey Jr.
Who would of thought that these two big names could play off each other so well with Kilmer actually being quite humorous as a gay private eye. Its all down to the writing of Shane Black of course, his quips and smart ass fast talk give both stars much material to work with and create this quite exciting banter which quick fires through the film.
To be frank if the dialog wasn't there then the film would be nothing as nothing much really happens throughout, its all down to Downey's visual comedy and Kilmer's snappy camp put downs, there is hardly any action or anything noteworthy to speak of really.
The Glimmer Man (1996)
Got a love/hate relationship with Seagal and his films, on one hand they are all completely nonsense of the highest order and rarely any good (unless your a Seagal fan of course). Its the same old formula with Seagal, ALWAYS being some kind of special forces guy or elite police force guy or ex-military guy etc...and called upon to save the good old US of A from nasty villains, always taking it very easy in the process (I've never really seen the guy run much during the action), always looks the same and always uses an obvious stunt double for everything lol!
On the other hand you can't complain because like JCVD or Arnie his films do what they say on the tin and everyone knows what to expect, if you don't like this type of film then you obviously don't watch. Many do watch because Seagal is one of the old 80's action man pack and does provide your daily fix of gratuitous violence and bloodshed.
This is probably one of his last better offerings before he got too fat and entered into the 'straight to DVD hell' of seemingly no return. We see Seagal in all his glory, providing his own wardrobe I assume as I have gotten the impression over the years he insists on wearing his 'ethnic' attire no matter what role he plays lol! I think he likes to be seen as a spiritual warrior of the East.
The action is predictable as is the plot and the characters are your typical mismatched duo with the obligatory unfunny quips from Wayans. Its basically the same old Seagal in the same old role doing the same old shit with the same old stunt double, guys run at Seagal, he touches them, they throw themselves head over heels through a window.
To be honest I never knew how or why Seagal managed to get into action films as the guy displays the least amount of action I've ever seen in an action film, but I guess some like his stuff and this isn't too bad, just don't expect any surprises.
Made in America (1993)
Very dated and awkward comedy with the kinda unfunny Ted Danson and annoying Whoopi Goldberg. The whole plot is pretty dumb really as Danson's character is made out to be the father of Nia Long's character after giving a sperm sample many years before, but he is white and Goldberg is black as is Long.
Its a nice comedy, very gentle and very heart warming but I don't think its too good really, at no point do you ever go with the premise that Danson could be Long's father, it just doesn't work. The mixing of a typical cliched white hick cowboy type who is a slimy car salesman with an African American woman who has a strong African background and her own African trinket store is an intriguing recipe for laughs but it doesn't really materialise.
Its all very cute and cuddly and harks back to the days of cinema when Goldberg and Danson were actually big name draws at the cinema haha remember that!? Throwaway comedy which is known for introducing a young Will Smith and Nia Long into the movies.
Sahara (2005)
So I've read this is THE most expensive flop in Hollywood history haha was a bit of a surprise to me I must say but I can see why really. The whole franchise prospects based on the Dirk Pitt novels has collapsed after this first film which isn't a big deal really seeing as the character is a combination of Indy and Bond and not really required.
The film is really a poor man's Indiana Jones, a poor man's Indiana Jones in the present day basically, yet somehow the film is almost two hours long and really quite dull. The whole film consists of the heroes running around African desert whilst being shot at by various people really, there is a silly plot about trying to find a buried American civil war ironclad warship and also a plot about stopping most of the African water supply getting poisoned.
Personally I feel like they have gotten the era's mixed up, McConaughey looks and acts like a kind of dashing cinematic silver screen legend of the 30's-40's yet he is in the present day and accompanied by the rather whiny and annoying Zahn. Both the main leads are always clad in desert colour outfits which all seems to have stemmed from 'Indy', there is the all too common vintage car racing through the desert whilst been shot at sequence, Cruz is completely pointless throughout, it tries to be funny but fails and the ending is a rip roaring anti-climax.
To be frank I think this failed because its set in the present day and we already have a character for that and his name is James Bond. These type of adventures seem to work better when period set, 'The Mummy' films and 'The Phantom' are good examples of this type of boys own wilderness set adventures that work in another era.
I still don't get how the CSS Texas was shown at the start of the film in Virgina, US and ends up in the Niger River, Africa, anyone?? plus on a final note..'Dirk Pitt' has to be one of the dumbest attempts at a 'cool' heroic name I've come across for some time hehe.
Executive Decision (1996)
One of the first action films I remember seeing where one of the big name leading heroes bites the dust very early on in the film, this was actually quite surprising at the time as you would have never suspected Seagal to die...at least not so early! As it stands this one 'action' in the film gives it real bite above so many others as you really are not so sure what will happen next and who will get blown away.
Obviously Russell won't kick the bucket, that you can put money on but the tension in this film is still feverish as you watch, even after all this time it still holds its own and packs a good solid punch. The plot revolving around Muslim terrorists taking over a passenger airliner with the aim of using it as a weapon of destruction is quite close to the bone these days after all the horrific things that have happened since this film was made, this does make you think and actually makes the film quite haunting and more realistic.
As it goes the film is pretty darn realistic anyway, the special forces unit all proceed in a believeable way, at no point is this film a shoot em up, its actually pretty tight and well thought out. The inner plane sets, aerial shots and bomb sequences all work really well and look good, looking at this film from the posters you would think its a mindless action fest but that is far from the truth, it really is a very good well made thriller.
Add to this a top notch cast with quite a few big names including Platt and Leguizamo in very likeable roles, Berry on ultra cute form and top British thesp David Suchet showing us that he's actually a really good movie actor as well as TV drama star and gives Rickman a run for his money as top well spoken villain.
RV (2006)
Without my little review here sounding too cliched this film could be and pretty much is a sequel to the classic Chevy Chase vehicles 'National Lampoon's'.
Its pretty much a by the numbers light hearted comedy set in the wilderness as Robin Williams tries to give his family a fun packed vacation and spent more time with them. Despite being very very predictable and completely unoriginal the film is actually quite amusing and very watchable.
Yes you know what will happen with every setup and yes Williams is being his own Clarke Griswold but damn it its fun. Williams is a likeable fun guy and the family casting isn't too bad either, Hutcherson as a body building obsessed wannabe 'homie' is actually quite funny but Jeff Daniels as the slightly religious, thick tashed rodeo type does grate, his character and family I guess are the cousin Eddie n co of the plot.
Sonnenfeld is a good director of family films and he does a fine job here it has to be said even if the film is nothing new.
I, Robot (2004)
So Hollywood took a classic collection of sci-fi literature and turned it into an action packed bullet time fest for Will Smith, hmmmmm. I think this film had some incredible promise being based on Asimov's short stories and could of been a classic sci-fi offering in the realms of '2001' or 'Blade Runner' but unfortunately Hollywood decided to stick Smith in the fold as the main character just to get bums on seats in the cinemas.
The casting of Smith was really a huge let down for me, a terrible and obvious piece of soulless money spinning simply to make this film into something that would appeal to the younger mass audience. Within the first five minutes of the opening sequence you can see how bad this decision was, we see Smith acting overly masculine as he swaggers about like the film revolves solely around him, his silly looking bobble hat thing which is tipped to the side trying to be cool and trendy, ear studs and a ridiculous outfit combination of black leather pants and a quarter length black leather coat. I mean really, is this a film based on some classic science fiction short stories or just trying to make Will Smith look as slick as possible with a gun, shades and motorbike. Must also point out this film has a small role for the annoying Shia LaBeouf -_-
The film does have some very good aspects in terms of effects that can't be denied, sure we have seen it all before and there isn't anything really outstanding on offer in the sense of 'things looking flashy and futuristic' but it all looks very clean smooth and realistic. The addition of the super sleek Audi concept car looked very nice I must admit but did we really need such a blatant advert in the film? the sequences just looked like car adverts, Audi paid for it yes, fine, but was it needed?
I did also like the robot designs, the older 'protector' robots looked a bit like something from the 'Star Wars' prequels but the newer 'NS-5' robots were well crafted and do have a realistic believeable look to them.
The problems I see with this film, it attempts to compete with classic 'epic' sci-fi films, it tries to be bold and boast a strong plot by constantly referring to the Asimov laws of robotics and using character names from the books as if this will make the film better, serious and closer to the much superior source material. Most of the nine stories by Asimov weren't really action based but simply more about robotic behaviour and mainly how the laws are used to solve problems, simply errors or malfunctions that the robots encounter in their daily routines. This film doesn't follow any of the nine stories I might add, its actually based on another separate story with Asimov's I, Robot notions slapped on top after the rights to the stories were acquired.
The only aspect which connects to one of Asimov's stories ('Robbie') is the way Smiths character dislikes robots, the way they replace human jobs and seem to be taking over the world. Smith of course being a black man also gives the chance to turn the tables on the prejudice hot potato with his character basically being completely against robots and their 'kind', he sees them as trouble, not to be trusted, he wants the robots to be trouble so maybe people will all turn against them. A basic angle yes but reasonably intriguing, a more suitable actor like Washington would have been the better choice to carry this across in my opinion.
This film is big, flashy with destruction, car chases, bionic arms, guns, over the top fights, an overly stupid ending which does spoil plus allot of over used slow-mo action, much focusing on the robots which looks nice but what's the point of bullet time sequences on fully cgi characters?. Whether or not Asimov would have liked this kind of approach I don't know but I'm sure a slightly more subdued slow intelligent piece of work was more in mind.
You do have classic spy novels that have been made into films/TV drama's that aren't filled with all this needless in your face action, at the end of the day this is yet again just another glossy Hollywood action/thriller film which has been thinly veiled with an attempt of serious sci-fi. Yes its a reasonable sci-fi film and better than most other offerings but if you want a film more closely based on an Asimov story then I suggest you watch 'Bicentennial Man'.
Battlestar Galactica: DaybreakScrew anyone who says otherwise, this is a fullblown movie. Just happens to have been released as a three-part television serial.
No less emotionally powerful and stirring the second time through, managing to have me alternatively laughing, crying, sobbing, fist-pounding, and so forth. Watching this, I had a very deep feeling of... I'm not even sure what to call it. It was part joy, part sorrow; a deep longing knowing that there is no more (barring
The Plan), yet a great feeling of completion knowing that this is it. The conclusion to it all. And what a conclusion it was. Pulse-pouding action, heart-wrenching losses, spirit-raising victories. This is a menagerie of everything that made the series so fantastic. While not every question was answered, they didn't all need to be. Every character received a meaningful and nigh-perfect conclusion to their arc, and that was what mattered. I think my personal favourite is Galen's; pitch-perfect for all the shit his character went through. Every single one of them is great, though.
The underlying theme to this entire film was redemption. Now, I won't give any specifics, but redemption was present, both on a large and small scale; with isolated individuals and entire races. Won't say anything more on that; just watch yourself to find out.
Bear McCreary, need to give him a shout-out. While occasionally his score was a bit too overbearing for what was happening on screen, such incidences were a rare occurrence. The music has always been a large part of what made BSG great, and it is no less the case here. Familiar melodies from over the years worked into new pieces, with some unique sounds as well, melding together to complete this emotional tapestry.
I cannot properly describe how great it is that such a deep and nuanced show, written piecemeal over several years, still managed to have such an utterly perfect and fulfilling resolution. Everything was tied up, narratively, characterly, thematically, and emotionally. The final scene is one of the greatest conclusions to any saga that I can think of; I am honestly having trouble thinking of anything that compares.
Spoiler
The fact that it had Jimi Hendrix certainly helped.
The tale of
Battlestar Galactica is one that will never grow old and stale. Like the best of sci-fi (or of any genre), it contains a fundamental human element and thematic meaning that will stay relevant for many years to come; as our technology continues to grow more advanced, our spirituality grows more varied (sometimes constructively, sometimes violently), our definitions of life and humanity grow more ambiguous, and our future seeming to grow and advance much as our past has, with civilizations rising and falling. All of this has happened before, but it doesn't have to happen again.
So say we all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6tfljPS8kU# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6tfljPS8kU#)
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Well well Mr Cruise you certainly are looking your years these days, no matter how much makeup you trowel on yourself you can't hide it Sir. Yep despite the clear amounts of money he spends to try and keep himself looking about 35, Mr Cruise is really starting to look out of place in these types of films. His dyed over straightened hair changes shape in almost every scene and his skin complexion is looking shaky with many wrinkles breaking through, he wouldn't admit it but I think Bluray is a fresh curse for these aging movie heart throbs lol!
So a thoroughly middle aged Cruise leaps n bounds around yet another impossible mission with his rather oddly cast team of specialists. The first film was quite decent and slightly unique, almost a young Bond adventure, the second had pretty visuals but was merely a huge ego trip for Cruise while the third is possibly the best as a serious action film but not overly violent or bloody.
The main big issue with this fourth film is thus, we all knew everything about the film before it was released, the big flashy stunt in Dubai was no surprise, with all the hype they killed any big surprises in the film. This problem, although a common issue, wasn't the only problem of the over hyping, the other HUGE problem was that one stunt basically made this film a one trick pony. By this I mean the rest of the film is really rather mundane, nothing special, the only good tense fun part is the Burj Khalifa stunt and that's it, after that its back to being rather mundane again.
That is how I saw this film, I really wanted to see the Burj Khalifa stunt, it looked amazing and I was shocked to hear Cruise had done such an extreme stunt, when I saw the sequence I wasn't disappointed either as its a very sweaty palm inducing scene haha and executed brilliantly. But that was it, the whole film revolved around that one stunt! I was merely watching and waiting to see that stunt, like waiting for the Titanic to sink in 'Titanic' or the attack on Pearl Harbour in 'Pearl Harbour'...the rest was just filler.
Don't get me wrong the rest of the film is fine its just not particularly exciting, impressive or sensible that's all. The cast are all average, the humour is average, the ending is weak and Cruise never seems to get hurt much despite falling from great heights many times, jumping out of speeding cars or even driving a car deliberately off a ledge from a huge height (the dumbest least believable scene), he also never seems to have to fight anyone that actually looks threatening.
In short the film is average accept for that one sequence in Dubai, the third M.I. film is still the best as this new one really seems to be pushing the boundaries of how much of a believeable pummelling and battering 'Ethan Hunt' can take. We get it Tom...your the unstoppable action hero...even at 50.
Man on Fire (2004)
Based on a novel which I didn't know and actually a remake of an earlier film from 1987, pretty much the same deal accept its set in Italy as at the time there were many kidnappings there.
This time Scott sets the film in Mexico City for its high scores in kidnapping and the grounded Washington takes on the role as Creasy. First thing I have to mention is how good this film looks, the Scott brothers know how to make films look sweet and this is no exception. You really get a hot humid, sweaty, sticky feel for this setting, you can sense the tension and stress on 'Creasy's' shoulders merely from the weather that swirls around him.
Mexico City is a vibrant colourful place and Scott makes full use of this with his camera angles and uneasy sequences which he seems to almost blur when combined with the native soundtrack and fast movements of the action, everything feels uncomfortable as you wait for the inevitable to happen.
The only issue I had with the film is its really quite predictable even if you have never seen the first film or read the book, Washington is stoic and owns his role but you know what's gonna happen at every turn. The film is also a bit slow really as we see 'Creasy' gradually gain 'Lupita's' trust and friendship which is needed of course but basically the fun doesn't kick in until she is stolen away, until then your just watching filler as it were.
I think the film wants to be epic but doesn't really make it, the cast is certainly aimed at a thriller epic and the musical score really really wants you to feel the emotion as it builds towards the end but I personally just didn't feel it. I think Tony tries to nick his brothers idea from 'Gladiator' with the haunting score towards the end, the kind of 'Clannad' type sounds do seem rather familiar.
Its a solid film with good performances but not as stand out as you would hope for, quite bleak and dirty with a real gritty essence but ends up becoming a typical vengeance thriller, better than most but nothing grand.
Act of Valor
God bless America, gun porn, plenty of stars n stripes, heroic sacrifices and a military funeral with full honours...its all very serious here I tell ya.
I have read this is kinda like a remake of the classic action fest 'Navy Seals', it does feel a bit like the Sheen/Biehn/Paxton vehicle accept for one thing, this film is highly realistic and minus the over the top characters...of course. In fact this film (like a few others) is so accurate you would think the SEALS are kinda giving their game away by allowing films like this to be made, you don't see action films showcasing the inner workings of how the SAS manoeuvre and take down targets, I'm not sure it would be allowed.
I have also read that this is pretty much just a recruitment drive for the US military/Navy, to get young men excited and wanna join up. Whether this may or may not make young men want to join I dunno, 'Top Gun' certainly helped I recall, one thing I do know, this is a rip roaring military action film which is damn hot and makes you wanna play 'CoD' hehe.
OK so you wanna see a film adaptation of 'Call of Duty' or 'Battlefield' then this is your film, the whole story plays out like a 'CoD' mission from start to finish with plenty of dubious greasy foreigners as the baddies. Its not hard to follow as the film moves from one action set piece to another interspersed with simple plot explanations from various military officers. The action is first rate and gets your pulse racing as the camera gives you a first person perspective from one of the SEAL team much like your well known FPS's, combine this with some excellent sequences mixing sniping, HALO jumping, extractions, room sweeping and plenty of bloody terrorist take downs :D
The film is set up well with a nasty terrorist act which you can obviously see coming but it does wrench your heart out, from that point on you wanna see some kick ass revenge. The first target, to extract a female hostage, is slick savage and amazing to watch with a long fast fluid sequence to rival any top action film around. I can't see how this can disappoint anyone who wants action. To be honest after that the film does lull somewhat, its hard to follow on from the excellent jungle shoot out at the start but the ending sequence in Mexico again is bang on form and shouldn't disappoint.
In short this film is all American as you would expect, its very bland and not hard to follow, its pretty much a whole video game mission and the acting is really quite bad haha no idea who the cast are but they are all wooden as hell. On the other hand if you wanna see some kick ass realistic SEAL team action gunning down lots of slimy terrorists and drug dealers with multiple close ups on various big kick ass guns...then this could be for you.
John Carter
Wow for a Disney film I was confused, really, I was honestly struggling to get my head around what was happening and all the odd names for various characters, places and creatures.
This hasn't done too well it seems, and I can see why really, the character of John Carter is very original and was actually created way back in the early 1900's. From what I can gather the film is actually pretty accurate to the characters story but there is one problem, this film has simply come out too late and merely resembles a mix of many other sci-fi films been and gone.
It was always gonna be hard to make this look really good and original and personally I think they kinda got it, kudos for trying but just falls short. Lets put all our cards on the table here, this film is basically 'Star Wars' with a bit of 'Stargate' and sprinkles of various 80's type fantasies. The whole film wouldn't look outta place stuck in the middle of 'Attack of the Clones', it just screams it from the first encounter with a four armed 'Thark' alien, the whole thing could just be another chapter in the Lucas universe.
I'm trying not to be too negative because the effects aren't all that bad, yep its stuffed full of cgi but I've seen worse and some of the creations are actually pretty cool, the huge white furry-ish beasties in the arena battle (Attack of the....I think you know) actually look pretty sweet methinks. The 'Tharks' are very obviously cgi but again look nice with some good imagination used, I liked all the beasts of burden throughout and that fat ball of blubber dog thing was kinda neat in a very 80's sidekick type of way. Bad side to effects would be the pretty dodgy looking blue/green screen usage from time to time and the way 'Carter' leaps around like a flippin rubber ball, I know he has agility due to the gravity or whatever but really? that high? that far? what is he a human sized flea!?
Visually the film is solid, even the film posters are quite nice, not much evidence that it actually takes place on Mars in my opinion but hey. Other problems take shape in the poor casting, West is a Sheffield lad and should stick to British TV drama's, Collins as the Princess is so very annoying all the way through and has waaaay too much makeup on and the hero 'Carter' (played by someone called Kitsch) is possibly the first action hero in a blockbuster that is kinda ugly and doesn't have excessive pretty muscles! actually that's kinda original.
I'm kinda split 50/50 with 'Carter', on one hand it is your very typical cgi filled piece of glossy trash that really is quite a scene for scene blatant rip off of the Star Wars prequels (AOTC), but on the other hand I like some of the imagination used and the design of certain creatures.
I also gotta give kudos for taking on an old, and in my opinion, difficult universe with a tricky plot that basically revolves around a man having an out of body, spiritual/astral projection 'experience' for no apparent reason...to Mars, which is teeming with life, apparently, and aiming it at younger folk.
Did it succeed? hmmm well no, problem being I think kids may get distracted by the wave of stupid names, choppy story and its actually a bit violent in places. Adults will have issues for probably all the reasons I have mentioned above, bottom line, its nothing new but I still kinda liked it in spots. Sequel? ended that way (who'd of thought it) and I'm OK to see it.
Payback (1999)
OK can I just say firstly...Lucy Liu and her character, LOVE it! :D absolutely my kinda woman in every sense hehe Liu is soooo damn gorgeous. Right that's my little perversion out in the open and out of the way, yep I'm a fetish freak...deal with it.
So apart from the delicious scenes with Liu what about the rest of the film? well its basically pretty darn good folks. In my view this is Gibson's last good film in an acting role, I also think its one of his best action thrillers too riding high alongside 'Lethal Weapon 1+2'.
There is a quite different directors cut of this film which is suppose to be more straight forward, I cannot comment on that as yet but personally I have always liked this film and see nothing wrong with it really. Sure its a little cliched and you always know Gibson will win in the end but he does get knocked around allot which is reasonably surprising for the good looking 'hero'.
Casting is great for all the characters here with a great slimy weaselly performance from Henry as 'Resnick', Paymer as the even more weaselly wet 'Stegman', Kristofferson is...well kinda as he always is and add some good backing in small roles from Bill Duke, John Glover and James Coburn, solid reliable casting there.
Violence is hard fast and totally enjoyable without there being that much blood, but you know what's happening, its adult only and it rocks. Thing is its all quite believeable too, its not just ridiculous over the top violence with no sense of realism, it all works well along with Gibson's little traps and setups.
I like the look of the film also, its almost in black and white, the picture is very bleak or washed out, kinda faded looking, shades of greys, blues, blacks and silver with not much else. Sounds odd but it sets the tone for the film whilst giving it some added class or distinction.
You can't go wrong here really, think 'Riggs' outta 'Lethal Weapon' only he's more badass and the series of events he's involved in are more sensible and darker.
Derailed (2005)
So I was gonna watch the JCVD thriller called 'Derailed' but after the first five minutes I realised I had the wrong film haha so I stuck with this despite Aniston being involved.
Honestly I was pleasantly surprised with this thriller, you don't think its a thriller and you don't see the quite decent twist in the plot, but its actually pretty good. I won't go into the plot for fear of spoiling it but its all about double cross, setups, scams...basically naughty lying laced with blackmail.
Bottom line the film is carried by an excellent performance from Cassel who is really quite evil looking and convincingly aggressive. His scrawny frame is deceiving as is his change in character to get into Owen's life which gives him the kind of presence that sends shivers down your spine, the fact that he won't stop makes him nasty and scary.
Owen does a good job as the husband in dire straits as he battles against the demands of Cassel's character, he looks the everyman and plays it well. Unfortunately Aniston simply cannot shake her comedic background and just cannot convey a decent performance in drama as far as I'm concerned, she just isn't convincing, purely a TV actor period.
For some reason someone thought the casting of 'Xzibit' and 'RZA' was a good move for this film, errrr no, they add nothing in their roles and I don't understand why they were even considered when simple more toned down characters would have been better. And can someone explain to me whenever these 'musicians' are cast in films the end credits always seem to role with a lame rap song? is that part of their deal or something!? completely wrong choice of music for the end credits here, totally ruins the feel.
From a slow start which feels like its gonna be crap to a pretty good thriller which does get you involved as the plot gets deeper. I didn't see the plot U-turn and it really makes things interesting as you root for Owen's character, before that its a little annoying as you tend to blame Aniston for his ever mounting problems but after the twist you see why.
Paycheck (2003)
Another classic Philip K. Dick story is brought to the big screen only this time its been 'Woo'd'. To be very very honest this is pretty much a poor mans 'Minority Report' with a bad cast, accept for the big chinned Eckhart, why this short story has not been given the same care as 'MR' I don't know.
The film plays out with Affleck (yes -_-) as a 'reverse engineer' who...actually I still have no idea really what he is suppose to do in his role, all I know is it involves having his memory wiped after he's done each job but this time he has been used and set up by the evil Eckhart.
Cue allot of running around, guns blazing everywhere, your typical Woo car/motorbike chase with standard silly slow motion stunts and of course your typical standard Woo point blank face off...or Mexican standoff. The concept for the film is pretty neat, not totally original in today's film world but it has promise, unfortunately like 'M.I.2' Woo was totally the wrong director for such a decent sci-fi story.
The whole thing looks bad, especially during the finale which looks like its been filmed on a set from the 60's Batman TV show, plus the acting is poor and hammy from almost everyone. Its all too predictable and quite simply its been done allot better with other films.
The Mummy (1999)
After many many different ideas and approaches a final concept was agreed upon and this franchise was kick started, note...I really will try not to mention Indiana Jones too much.
A very loose 'remake' of the classic Karloff horror film this was completely re-imagined and given the 'Indy' treatment with minor horror aspects. To be honest the film is actually a little scary in places with a few jump moments, bugs eating people and getting under their skin and lots of decaying mummies with good close ups, like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' the film achieves the family adventure status despite actually being close to the bone here and there.
The film of course had dated now and the effects that were break through for the day now look pretty dreadful in places, the cgi on the main mummy is dire, bluescreen work is obvious, sets are obvious and the sand effects also look poor. This is of course looking at the effects now, as I said back in the day they were pretty neato, the best examples that still actually look good today are probably at the finale battle with a group of Egyptian mummy soldiers and some real time models, suits and makeup, the severed forearm crawling for the sword is a good 'Evil Dead' moment.
I always did hate the way Imhotep turned into a mini sand tornado for his vanishing act and kinda flew out the window, really nasty video game effects and idea there, looked dumb then...looks dumb now.
The plot is cheesy and simple as are most of the performances, you can easily tell who's gonna die right from the start because most of the character actors here are the usual cannon/monster fodder in other films. I know the film is suppose to be a kind of homage to B-movies and those old daring black and white adventure matinee flicks but the cast do really give the film a rough n ready feel, its almost as if they couldn't attract anyone else. Everyone is pretty well cliched to the hilt here with your toff sounding British accents, trigger happy yanks, the horrendous Kevin J. O'Connor, the odd but well cast Vosloo who plays it deadly straight and a nice little turn for British comedian Omid Djalili in a rather stereotyped role.
Its definitely one of if not the best period adventure type flicks that can hold a candle to old Indiana Jones, the only other few films that can challenge 'Dr Jones' in my opinion are 'The Rocketeer' which would be a flying Indy hehe and probably 'The Phantom' and 'The Shadow'. Looking back is was a good fun ride, nowadays its still fun but more like a bad video game of sorts. I think they tried too hard and went over the top with all the guns, stunts and stuck in too much slapstick, sure it was meant to be a blockbuster (and that's its problem really) but less is more right.
The Mummy Returns (2001)
The one thing I can say about this sequel straight away is kudos for the continuity, Sommers has managed to gather all the original cast to carry on and this does wonders for an otherwise very average film. Usually you tend to see the odd character played by someone else which always looks poor in my eyes.
Any who we kick off again with more nasty villains after treasure and power which we all know will end in tears...and probably some kind of horrible face melting death, there I go with my 'Indy' comparisons again. This time we have the combination of Imhotep back for more punishment with his reincarnated love, the Scorpion King which doesn't really serve much purpose other than to give 'The Pebble'....I mean 'The Rock' a spin off franchise and a small group of nasty well spoken cads led by British thesp Alun Armstrong.
The main problem with this follow up is thus, they gave the now happily married heroes a son as baggage, this of course automatically equals a much kiddie friendly film with allot more slapstick, dumb humour and much much less horror. Of course the first film did very well so you can't blame them for opening up the film for an even wider audience but of course they lose allot of integrity and faith from the more mature fans. I should really point out that they take the Indy comparisons a bit too far by actually dressing all the villains henchmen in the same type of costumes as in 'Temple of Doom'....really that was the last Indy thing I swear.
The entire film is much more of a cgi show this time around, that wouldn't be an issue but the cgi really has not dated well, even less so than the original film, hell even at the time this cgi wasn't too good. Add to this allot more over the top action which becomes too silly, terrible bluescreen shots, a laughable effort at a cgi scorpion cross 'The Rock' monster and almost the same sequences shot for shot from the first film in places...did I mention the horrific cgi?
Yes you get what you pay for here, you want more ludicrous mummy blasting action? you got it, you want action figure characters all dressed in desert coloured attire spouting the most idiotic, state the obvious exposition dialog? look no further. Unfortunately like many blockbuster sequels they just get carried away and completely lose your suspension of disbelief. Can't complain too much as you know exactly what to expect from this and it doesn't pretend to be anything else, personally I think it was just a poor glossy rehash which is more cartoon than film. The final 20min as the action all comes together is one of the biggest cgi messes I've seen ever, everything looks really very clearly artificial, but hey the Egypt setting was an enjoyable ride.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Probably the best film of the trilogy in my opinion, the first was a nice idea but they tried too hard, the second felt like a complete rehash with terrible effects but this is quite a fun romp. Its very silly (having abominable snowmen help out at one point and a rather daft plane crash sequence) and over the top, but the likeable Fraser and classic boy's own adventure style really shines through. The cgi is really smart in this film, its very good, crisp and realistic (accept for a dodgy dragon transformation sequence).
I must admit you do get an 'Indy' shiver down your back (duh!) maybe we have seen this all before, especially the predictable story line involving father n son action and even a hint at Peru for another possible story, Indy went to South America didn't he hehe. Did I mention Indy there again? no no no no no...well maybe yes, it can't be helped, really it can't!
The setting in China adds a nice or different type of mystical feel, another countries mummies and history well explored, and a touch of class which you always seem to get when a film is set in the East, the landscapes look awesome in the final battle scenario also.
The final 20mins of the film are really good, really takes the film up a notch, excellent use of cgi for some epic army visuals and some great magic and monster fun.
Better than the lame 'National Treasure' films and a darn good Indy style flick in my personal opinion...I know everyone hated this.
The Scorpion King (2002)
So oddly enough this character was actually loosely based on a real Egyptian leader which does make things a little more interesting, not a franchise saver by any means but its cool to read up on it. This spin off is set 5000 years before the events of 'The Mummy' which does seem rather a long time to me.
Great title, slightly dull execution, we all knew what to expect here, Johnson running around half naked killing endless enemies with no apparent fighting skills. I will be completely truthful here and say this film isn't too bad, if you squint at it its almost pretty good, the fights are solid along with the stunts, cast does the job for the type of film this is and more importantly it actually looks good without any silly cgi to spoil the broth.
If you took out the historical setting you could quite easily say this was a sequel/prequel to the 'Conan' franchise really, its your basic swords n sorcery fantasy just without any monsters, its better than the recent official Conan effort. So yeah...this is not too bad, Kelly Hu looks lovely and Johnson is clearly learning the ropes showing promise.
The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior (2008)
Right now this is a prequel to the first Scorpion King film showing 'Mathayus' as a young lad and up n coming warrior. The lead for this film is a guy called Michael Copon and to be honest he does actually look like a young Johnson, credit where credits due the guy does pull off a reasonable young Johnson.
The same cannot be said for the dreadful Couture who can't act to save his life, the guy is a meat head and should only be used for fight sequences with his stature, why anyone would wanna use him for a speaking role is beyond me. The rest of the cast aren't too bad with a sexy young female, an intellectual Greek poet, a Chinese acrobat and a few mercs, quite a cute little band in a 'D&D' or 'LOTR' type way.
There are still some reasonably high production values here as the film just about looks OK, there is a battle against a Minotaur which could have been worse but has some good editing and a foray into the underworld which has some nice visuals. The finale is rather flat and does have a nasty cgi scorpion to deal with but overall I have seen much worse (this chapter is a bit more mythological), it still could have been much better of course, dealing with a young Scorpion King is good material to be mined but we have what we have.
The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption (2012)
I don't get Ron Perlman I really don't, the guy is a pretty big Hollywood star yet he still takes jobs like this! I know he does act in allot of cheap sci-fi/fantasy and some of it can be good cult stuff but surely he could see how bad this was gonna be.
So this is now the sequel to the first film as we follow an older 'Mathayus' as events lead up towards what would happen before 'The Mummy 2'. Usual appearance for the film of course but its notably cheaper looking with lots of really bad background extras hehe if you watch the battles (of which there are many) most of them haven't a clue what they are doing.
The plot is all jumbled up and dull, its all about over throwing this king or that king and getting another for assistance or whatever...I dunno really, I wasn't sure who is wanting what but all you need to know is everything looks cheap, even the fights don't look convincing.
I just find it hard to believe they even got the well spoken Billy Zane and Temuera Morrison in this! Morrison does actually look the part with his shaven head and Zane as always injects some humour into the proceedings which is probably the best thing in the film, the Scorpion King is played by some guy I have never heard of.
Its all terrible, pretty wooden, obvious shell sets, a big fat oaf sidekick character because its funny when he burps apparently and some dubious Mortal Kombat style magical characters at the end, I was not amused.
Death Trance (JAP, 2005)
An apocalyptic samurai, ninja, sci-fi western fantasy with characters that wouldn't look out of place in Soul Calibur, Mortal Kombat and various other Japanese RPG videogames, that is how I can best describe this eye popping flick, odd title though.
The main star here is again the ultra cool Tak Sakaguchi, here in a kind of supernatural samurai mode as a mythic character who drags a coffin behind him everywhere he goes (and an odd little girl in your typical Japanese 'The Ring' spooky fashion) as he basically slaughters all who stand before him. His name is 'Grave' and he searches for the ultimate battle....rock on that!
This film is pretty similar to 'Versus' in the location (a forest), it stars Tak as some kind of super hero again and the fact the story is really quite bizarre and makes no real sense, plus it appears to be in a place and time that don't exist. So basically Tak has nicked the coffin from a temple and is taking it to a spot in the forest so it can grant him anything he wants...it seems the coffin can do this. Or does it? a monk is also after Tak and the coffin to stop it being opened and releasing the Goddess of destruction who will kick start an apocalypse...that's not a good thing. The monk is aided by...wait for it...Steven Seagal Jr. yep that's right, or his real name Kentaro Seagal (sounds like a Mortal Kombat character), all of them battle bandits and non human creatures to reach their respective goals.
The film is fast and furious with fights breaking out all over the show and many of them being...well kinda average actually. Most seem too frantic and you can see the hits aren't making contact, also to be honest Tak isn't really a well built guy, he's cool but he doesn't really come across as tough and never really looks like he could really be whipping hordes of bad guys endlessly.
The look of the film is really what sets this apart, all the costumes are a kind of cross between traditional Japanese period wear with 'Mad Max', 'Water World', 'Conan', 'Krull' and many other fantasy type films throw in, it all looks highly stylish. Add to this a complete 'Army of Darkness' approach to the dark humour, camera work, extreme supernatural entities and wickedly evil looking weapons which do also include a kind of samurai 'boomstick' hehe.
Put it this way, the director of this film is Yuji Shimomura and he was the action director for 'Versus' (eh eh...you see, you see I came full circle there) and Devil May Cry 3 so I think you can get the gist of what I'm trying to explain here, the film is pretty much an explosive visual videogame. Its probably better than 'Versus' in my personal view as I reeeally didn't follow that a tall haha this is easier to follow plus it looks ace. I dunno why but the Japanese are just good at this kind of stuff, had this been a Hollywood flick with the usual overpaid names it would have been trash.
Jennifer's Body (2009)
Black horror comedy for teens starring Megan Fox? indeed. Ooook first problem here is the fact this film is rated R, so teens can't see it, at least young teens who lust after celebs like this and adults will find this complete and utter poo soooooo......
Plot is utterly utterly inept and simply revolves around a rock band sacrificing a vacuous Fox to the devil so they can become rich n famous, yes that's what I just typed...believe it. Turns out Fox isn't a virgin (ahem) so when the guys kill her she somehow becomes possessed by a demon (why?) who just happens to need flesh and blood to survive, dumb teen flesh and blood, not adults just teens, cue the 'horror'.
It ain't scary and it ain't funny, its just laaaaaame lame lame with Fox being really annoying because the film is clearly made to advertise her as the sexiest female around, she ain't. Acting is poor, effects are minimal and poor, you don't actually see anything gory and its completely pointless. Fox looks no where near as hot as in 'Transformers' because she isn't covered in a thick layer of orange tan makeup, so instead she looks normal, ergo not as hot as we all thought.
Can't see anyone liking this unless your a male under the age of 15 and that's only because there is some weak ass 'seduction' scenes and a tiny bit of lesbian kissing.
My problem with Jennifer's Body is that it promises a kick-ass transformation from geeky girl to badass in prison, but instead, explains that away as
Spoiler
a side effect of being bitten by a demon.
I wanted to see a character arc.
Excalibur (1981)
Set in the wilds of Ireland and with a pretty full cast of Irish actors which set in motion the careers of both Liam Neeson and Gabriel Byrne whilst also utilizing some classic/cult British names for spice.
Like Robin Hood there are many stories of the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the round table but this film is probably the most accurate in terms of an adaptation from original writings. This film is based around the tales from Le Morte d'Arthur and seems to follow each 'segment' quite closely (haven't read it so I'm not sure).
The overall essence of this film is like a fairytale of sorts, a kind of slightly cheesy shiny armoured fantasy with glittery sets, soft colours, strong religious/iconic imagery and a Clannad vibe running through it. The film reminded me of the classic British TV series 'Robin of Sherwood' which also starred the dastardly Robert Addie and the classic British fantasy film 'Krull', I think the latter took inspiration from the look of 'Excalibur'.
The design and look of this film is really very good, its clearly rather dated but it still has a high polish to it and looks quite epic. The locations are really well used and do give an impression of old medieval England and the costumes all make the sale. Of course this being the 80's the armour does look a bit fake, plastic and too shiny in places, there is a kind of music video feel to the proceedings in places haha some sets look a bit too sparkly, some characters have some dubious haircuts and to be utterly honest the acting/dialog is pretty hilarious in places but you can't deny the effort and scope of this historical fantasy.
This being in the days before cgi and when historical epics were all the rage the battle sequences here are small with some blood and minimal gore. You can easily tell they didn't have allot of people to make grand battles so clever editing is used with lots of darkness and fog hehe luckily Old England was a foggy place...or so I've been led to believe. The other slightly amusing thing was the soundtrack, there was original work here but the use of classical pieces slapped on top of key moments didn't really work. The combination of certain scenes and certain pieces of music felt very rickety and really did seem crowbarred in badly, you can see what the director was going for but it comes off more like something out of 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.
The plot is straight forward and it doesn't get dull despite the heavy romance of the tales, the film is rich and vivid in design and imagery giving the whole production much flare and class which works brilliantly because you know these were the days when everything was hand crafted. The film is a cult classic with a powerful poster that demands your attention, oh and Nicol Williamson as 'Merlin' is also another good reason to view with his unique quirky take on the character spouting some glorious moments, 'oh that's grand'.
High Spirits (1988)
So I'm betting this is a Neil Jordan film many haven't come across, a classically 80's production with a mix of your most well known 80's stars and some soon to be major stars. 80's golden boy Guttenberg is the lead here, alongside him are Beverly D'Angelo, Daryl Hannah, Jennifer Tilly, Peter Gallagher and Martin Ferrero, not forgetting British legends Peter O'Toole and Liz Smith with 'Fawlty Towers' star Connie Booth and Hollywood megastar Liam Neeson, hows that for a cast line up.
The film is pretty spooktacular in a quirky 'Beetljuice' type fashion, crammed packed full of fun effects that admittedly now look pretty ropey but definitely part of the charm. Glorious location with the real Irish Dromore Castle as the backdrop and a plot that focuses on Ireland's ghostly folklore in a family fun 'Addams Family' way. Some sequences are actually a little eerie though, the nuns with 'Jawa' like eyes, skeletal spectres flying around, various shots of the castle from afar and some nice interior corridor/room work makes you feel in the mood :)
Lots of hokey set/model work which still just about works, some really nice corpse makeup in places, a good kooky soundtrack befitting Ireland and the supernatural element plus the odd good chuckle. Think of this as a slightly more grown up version of 'The Haunted Mansion', a nice sweet film with Daryl Hannah looking her best.
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)
Probably Myers greatest creation which managed to eclipse 'Wayne's World' in terms of money made and cultural influences, the first film did well but this second outing did even better.
So we know the score with 'Powers', we know what its all about and this film merely doubles on that and goes balls out for a greater Bond spoof than before. Everything in this is almost a cultural reference to something, there are many in-jokes and clever gags which some young viewers may not catch, despite the incredible amount of lunacy involved the film is actually very sharp and witty.
Personally I'm not really a fan of Myers so you may think its crazy to watch a film where he plays all the lead roles, well yes..your right, but I must admit to having a guilty pleasure in watching 'Dr Evil' crack the whip and spew some excellent verbal. For me its all about 'Dr Evil', without this one creation I wouldn't be interested and luckily you get plenty of him here.
Myers limit is exposed in my opinion here as he literately shows us all he can do...childish spoofery (as we all know with 'WW') and a Scottish accent...and that's pretty much it. We know this because he uses his only other skill (Scottish accent) for 'Shrek'...which is also a spoof. I think if it isn't a spoof or doesn't involve his favourite accent he's pretty much screwed.
Also gotta be honest with the fact this second film isn't tooooo different from the first film, the first was fresh but this does seem a tad repetitive, probably why we got 'Mini Me' so 'Dr Evil' had more to go with. Its still darn funny in places and with continuity kept up with all major characters returning with original cast and everything looks as you would expect but is obviously boosted up thanks to the success from the original.
The whole film has that kind of trashy cheap B-movie look which also in-turn does have that kind of expensive trashy cheap B-movie look hehe but it does work, kinda like 'The Naked Gun'. Overall its just more of the zany Bond spoofery with a hint of added grown up humour which does make it more appealing over the first, less childish slapstick and more sn***ering silliness for childish adults ;)
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
Never mind the 60's the 90's are dated enough jez! this film brings back so many memories of my teen years and how this film really made an impact on those times, not me...just the time.
So apart from bad personal memories what else does this film offer? well actually its pretty good and probably one of the best Bond spoofs/parodies you will see. With a wide range of Bond films spoofed it covers all the regular cliched bases, all the set ups, costumes, plot ideals that you would expect from Bond plus allot of clever smutty humour hehe.
Actually Myers does really well with the whole British comedy thing, he does nail or encapsulate the genre very well, you could almost say its a modern 'Carry On' film.
Seeing as this is the first film its not quite as good as the second for me, everything is obviously being set up with characters etc...and the abundance of cameos was slightly worrying at first, kinda assumed it would be a mass celebrity ego trip but surprisingly it all adds to the fun quite nicely. The small cameos by Lowe and Ferrell are good (and fast) but the brief Tom Arnold cameo was probably the best if you like blatant toilet humour.
Hard to tell who this is aimed at really as there is much slapstick and childish humour but also some knife edge stuff also, lots of sexually visual gags and naughty names which are very suggestive but admittedly smile inducing :)
A much more easier character to get on with than 'Wayne Campbell' of 'Wayne's World' and a more universal concept methinks. Every possible stereotype is lanced, all costumes, sets, music, vehicles etc...are correctly presented as this juggernaut of the 60's era steams along with some crazy wild vintage kitsch and a performance from Myers that Carrey would envy.
Lost in Space (1998)
Hey you remember Matt LeBlanc? he was in 'Friends' for virtually the entire of the 90's and just like Jennifer Aniston he simply can't shake his 'Friends' persona, yes...him -_-
So this is an adaptation of the rather lame US TV series of the same name which always kinda seemed like a rip off of 'Star Trek' with kids. Being you typical 90's action flick the film is chock full of terrible cgi from a really nasty looking space alien monkey thing to lots of shockingly bad looking light/space effects.
There is a combination of model work which in places does look reasonable but alas most other areas of the film such as the sets are really poor and rubbery in appearance, whilst costumes are merely dull and unoriginal.
The plot is a complete jumbled jigsaw of a mess involving the age old notion of time travel, unfortunately you really have to have a tight plot to pull this off annnnd this doesn't. You don't care about any of the characters down to stale acting, Lacey Chabert looks as if she's been swimming the whole time and is oddly quite sexy with her squeaky voice, she was 16 at the time I believe, should I be locked up?. Even Hurt can't inject quality into this pantomime, Oldman fares somewhat better but there really isn't anything he could of done.
The original series was camp family space age fun so of course the film was never gonna be serious sci-fi but clearly they wanted it to be semi serious. This was the problem because the whole thing is basically a cartoon or as I like to think of it 'Batman and Robin' in space...with Matt LeBlanc who was clearly added to capitalize on his moment in the limelight. Just another attempted fast food franchise rolled off the Hollywood factory line, badly conceived, poorly made and vanished into obscurity.
Double Dragon (1994)
Set in the future of 2007 hehe well I didn't think it would happen, why do all these poor adaptations get set in post apocalyptic futures where gangs roam the streets in outfits you wore under the age of 15?
Again your typical 90's trash that went straight to the video shop and didn't even pass go, its called 'Double Dragon' but bares no resemblance to the videogame what so ever accept for character names and the fact the brothers 'fight' against various punks.
The film is pretty much like the first 'TMNT' film albeit a very bad version, its completely aimed at kids so everything is watered down to a babyish level which inturn comes off as hilarious. Like other kids action films of the time its all very colourful and quite imaginative but its so utterly pointless, action sequences are clearly added simply to make the film more 'exciting' when really you wouldn't miss them if they weren't there, point...less.
All characters are totally cliched and all look ridiculous in their costumes/face paint, your typical post apocalyptic gangs of punks dressed in horribly retro 80/90's fashions. Robert Patrick must have suspected this was gonna be a big blockbuster otherwise I'm sure he wouldn't have signed on for this, mind you the casting of B-movie action star regular Dacascos should of given him a hint.
This just feels completely not needed, un-required, no point in creating in the slightest. Its like they have a videogame that is/was popular so they just had to throw out a film of it no matter how it turned out, just to capitalise on the franchise, they just couldn't help themselves, and what has it achieved? absolutely zip.
Does anyone other then Hubbs post reviews here anymore? ???
I think most people just post in the Last Movie You Watched thread.
Quote from: Laufey on Apr 26, 2012, 10:40:19 PM
I think most people just post in the Last Movie You Watched thread.
That's where I go for film reviews. :laugh:
Quote from: Xenokiller on Apr 26, 2012, 10:37:53 PM
Does anyone other then Hubbs post reviews here anymore? ???
I do sometimes when I really want to go in depth. School has swamped me a bit though and I am trying to get back into other sections of the forum.
I think this thread is better for indepth reviews as Monolith said, 'last movie' is more for a quick mention.
The King of Fighters (2010)
You can't expect this to be really closely based on the popular SNK fighter as we all know how these type of films fare and this is no different frankly.
With a small selection of characters from the game and an overly convoluted plot this film feels way too bogged down with mindless dialog and not much fighting. Game franchises like this tend to have rather silly overblown stories behind their characters which tend not to make much sense or have any proper continuity, I give you 'Street Fighter'. This film is a let down as the creators have tried to encompass as much back story as possible but all that ends up doing is boring and confusing you with endless Japanese sounding names, places and objects which mean nothing unless you are a fanboy.
The fighting is pretty limp really and that's the killer blow, Ray Park growls and snarls his way through the film as the main bad guy and to be honest he looks the part..but that's it. The rest of the cast are nobodies accept for the overrated Maggie Q and there isn't really anything of interest to comment on.
Unoriginal fights, dull costumes, uninspired effects (what little there was) and some bad looking sets all make this a poor waste of your time. Its not horrific as was 'Street Fighter', much better than 'Double Dragon' (not hard) but nowhere near as fun as 'MK' and even 'Tekken' had some reasonably fun fights with the pretty boy cheese meister Luke Goss. Main problem here is they tried to make it way too seriously and it just doesn't work basically.
Scream series
I'm going to be brief here, since I'm exhausted, but I just sat through the four Scream films.
The first one is an out-and-out classic, with just the right mixture of horror and humor. The characters are surprisingly well written, and the actors live up to the roles and then some. Neve Campbell is fantastic.
Scream 2, shockingly, is as good as Scream, and sometimes better. It takes the idea and makes it bigger, introducing new characters and taking the story somewhere new, both literally and figuratively. The actors are still on their game, the characters are continued in consistent fashion- it's just a clever, well made movie.
Scream 3 is where things get shaky. I don't hate it as much as most people, but it does feel like a cheaper knockoff, a studio mandated sequel without a cause. It treads the same territory, isn't all that scary, and falls flat on many of its jokes. The structure is exactly the same. On the plus sides, there are some good lines of dialogue, and the recurring characters (and their actors) are as endearing as ever. Neve is still a pleasure to watch- she brings energy to an otherwise drab sequel.
Scream 4 feels more like the a proper send off to the series, and would have been better for it had S3 not been made. The characters still shine, some of the horror is proper scary, and it manages to surprise, even while riffing on the first (the premise is that a copycat killer is 'remaking' the original.) If I had one complaint, it would be that it might adhere to the first film too closely in some regards, but it never feels like a cheap copy a la S3. It feels more like an homage, a closing chapter.
So my ratings would be:
Scream- 8/10
Scream 2- 9/10
Scream 3- 5/10
Scream 4- 7/10
Fearless (2006)
Exquisitely lavish is a good way to describe this Jet Li film, I thought this was some kind of silly action flick or another historical ancient Chinese dynasty film with more semi bald Chinese blokes mixed with a fantasy element, but boy was I wrong. Turns out this is actually a biopic of a famous martial artist by the name of Huo Yuanjia as we follow his life of training in the art of Wushu.
I was slightly dubious as I started to watch this as many Eastern martial arts films tend to be very over the top with their fight sequences and use too much mystical hocus pocus over realism. To my joy this film is very down to earth and a very solid steady epic which clearly has had allot of time and effort put into it.
The first thing that hits you is the attention to detail on everything, the sets and costumes look beautiful down to the last tiny prop, all the cast look authentic for the era and the acting is most definitely top dollar. The story is slowish but never dull as you are slowly fed much Eastern wisdom and philosophy that really is a joy to hear. Li's soft calm voice is perfect with this in his role as he portrays the arrogant fighter in his prime, a man coming to terms with the beauty of life, kindness and honour and finally a wise compassionate mentor...but never at any point is Li an unlikeable person.
As for the fighting...the real crux of the matter for many, its pretty darn fine basically, what you have here is some stunning fast fluid and realistic fights displaying Wushu in its finest form from Li. I was so pleased not to see lots of obvious wire work or cgi nonsense to interfere, that's not to say there is just a small amount of wire work to add a small element of magic but it just about works without ruining your suspension of disbelief.
There is a strong 'MMA' undercurrent in this film also of course, the whole point was how Yuanjia challenged foreign fighters from all over the world and different disciplines to demonstrate and prove Wushu. This entails fights against boxers, lancers, kickboxers, fencers etc... and is possibly the first example of 'MMA', I have no clue whether it was or not but it certainly seems so which is interesting.
I have to give much kudos to this film and its direction from Yu, I was pretty surprised this came from Yu seeing as his previous films don't come close to this type of epic offering. I also must admit to not being a Jet Li fan and find many of his films too similar plus he really looks quite mean facially if you ask me hehe got evil eyes, never the less this film is damn high quality with superb work in every area making it a visual treat with stoic performances.
Dragon Eyes (2012)
So Mr JCVD is now taking roles as wise old mentors teaching the young stuff, reversed from back in the day when he was learning, that is pretty cool if you ask me, it just seems right like a perfectly fitting piece of jigsaw. Of course JCVD has still got all the silky moves but with age creeping up on him he is obviously not gonna be as believeable as in his hayday.
Cung Le takes on the role as main hero for this 'Yojimbo' remake (yep another one) a loner comes to a small town and uses the two local gangs against each other to get to the big man and bring peace. So completely and utterly unoriginal and to be frank its been done much much better ('Last Man Standing'), the warring street gang element doesn't really work for me here, it just seems like any other warring street gang flick where as 'Last Man Standing' worked really well due to the time period setting, it looked so darn cool.
The cast is a mix of your typical unknowns who all seem to be pretty proficient in martial arts to major player Peter Weller as 'Mr V' the main bad guy. Weller is clearly enjoying himself as he hams it up beautifully whilst for some reason he has been made to look like Frank Sinatra with his little hat haha Old blue eyes kicking ass.
As said JCVD takes more of a backseat role being the mentor in flashbacks and Le is the high flying number one. Personally I didn't take to Le as the main man, he looks solid enough yes but he just doesn't have that leading man quality to pull off being the hero, he's not exactly a great looking guy and I just didn't get the same adrenaline rush from seeing him fight. He can fight but its more of a scuffle plus his moves aren't as sharp or far reaching as others I've seen. Sure its more realistic but you kinda wanna see some fancy JCVD type air moves which make you go 'HELL YEAH!!', I wasn't really behind him feeling the rush. I love how everyone in these films is a martial arts expert hehe every bad guy and every random person called on to fight is a martial artist, I know it equals more kick ass but its kinda stupid isn't it.
A kind of videogame vibe to the style has been attempted in places eg. with the character intros which isn't really needed seeing as it isn't really kept up throughout but overall its a slick moody gangster action piece with a nice limited colour palette giving a touch of class.
A bit lacking for Mr Silver really, not quite up to his usual standards, a mixed bag of good and bad but more average really. Certainly more stylish than recent JCVD films but he isn't involved so much with this one sooooo...good film title, bares no real meaning to the film but its cool.
Contraband
OK the first thing to hit me with this thriller is the excellent cast and subsequent excellent performances they all give, Wahlberg, Foster and Ribisi really come together and blend well giving really strong tense portrayals of their characters.
All three of the main cast are around the same age (almost) and I think it shows as they seem to effortlessly connect, almost like a small group of your mates working together. I think Wahlberg has nailed the average blue collar working schmo to a tea in recent films but he does tend to be the same character in everything he does, oh well.
The film isn't exactly super exciting but more of a slowish burner as Wahlberg basically needs to get his hands on a load of dosh to pay of some criminals which threaten his family, yeeeeah not tooooo original is it. His so called best mate played by Foster is of course in cahoots with the bad guys and is playing Wahlberg's character (not really a spoiler don't worry), Foster is so good at being low down scummy guys, makes you wonder huh.
Its sort of a heist flick but also more of your typical blackmail, smuggling, gang, mobster type thing which is sort of cool but slightly underwhelming also. The whole thing lacks bite, you really wanna see Wahlberg kick some ass and pop some caps in some asses but he never really does that. Ribisi is a really good junkie redneck in this and he needs a major whipping and you just want him to get blow away, you yearn for some gun action but it never materialises and it just feels like a chance missed.
It does get reasonably tense at times but it just ends all too softly when you really wanna see some quality retribution for the good guys. Solid stern decent performances yes, pumping film...no, could of been so much more exciting, hard to even say it was an 'action' film really, or thriller, kinda somewhere inbetween.
The Avengers
SPOILER WARNING!
Yep I'm using the original US title for the film and not the lame Euro version 'Avengers Assemble' which sounds like a cartoon, all because the powers that be seem to think we're all dumb enough to mistake this new film with another rather old TV series and its mega budget flop film counterpart. Deal with it.
So lets do this thing...the first MEGA blockbuster of the year, how does it fare you ask, well its pretty good says I, not quite as GOOD as I have been led to believe (hyper hype) but its good.
We all know the score so why review it, the 'backup' films to this entry were all solid to great films with most having their favourites, my personal fav is easily the Iron Man films. So with all the guys together for the first time the film does start at a slow pace...for quite some time its gotta be said, I was getting a little twitchy in my seat. Allot of dialog and pacing around very metallic looking military facilities with a whole load of comicbook sci-fi jargon I really don't understand haha. The team are introduced one by one and things feel familiar a they should, a quick bit of action from Black Widow doesn't help though as it looks tacky and stupid in a Milla Jovovich type of way.
Honestly the film didn't really kick into gear for me until we get our first Hulk moment on board that huge flying aircraft carrier thingy (a bit too G.I.Joe there?), this is our first team action and its good, its very good :) everyone looks good and the action is sharp, slick and clear.
For me the whole film is all about certain characters and how they come across in battle, in general all the team battles in this film are really very good, as said by many all the characters get their time to shine and no one is left in the cold but clearly some characters just work so much better.
The finale is a firestorm of cgi action and really does blow your balls off with non-stop Avenger ass kicking, its not even hard to follow either, you can see what's happening and there's no silly shaky camera to make you ill, its all precise. Best action from a character goes to Hulk for me with some earth shatteringly pumped destruction going on, they really nailed him good in this one, of course Iron Man gets second spot. The cgi overall is excellent but its not like we haven't seen this kind of thing before though ;) its hardly ground breaking but it looks way better than the 'X-Men' 'Spider Man' 'Fantastic 4' films, I also liked the huge flying alien metallic dragon things, some nice design work there, the alien soldiers didn't look much (never got a good look really) but those big space dragons were ultra cool.
For me its all about Iron Man, easily the best character in the team, he looks fudging sweet, has great tech, the cgi looks best with him and Downey Jr is by far the best thing about this film. The guy carries the film when there is dialog with his witty comments and subtle sarcasm, the other players can't seem to put across the right angle, Ruffalo and Hiddleston are probably the best of the rest with Hiddleston giving Loki a slightly 'Joker-ish' play with his wry smiles.
As for the superheroes well they all look spotless, Iron Man as I said is my personal best and looks awesome, Hulk is a close second looking the best he's ever been here and actually appearing like Ruffalo facially so you can actually believe he transformed into this green monster, Loki hasn't changed much from 'Thor' and looks good whilst Thor also stays pretty much the same and looks fine. Now this is where I get picky folks, Black Widow (Johansson) looks sexy, a nice tight ass shot whilst she speaks with an incarcerated Loki I enjoyed muchly, but in this day and age her look simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore, its been done soooooo many times you think she could have been plucked from any number of films.
Captain America...what the hell did they do to his suit!? it was fine in his first film so why make it look so childish looking for this!? the hood part looks dreadful, thought so when I first saw pics of it. We all know of Fury so this leaves Hawkeye, probably the dullest looking character, I didn't like him.
Some niggles do come to mind, I wouldn't say its totally perfect but these maybe my own personal niggles hehe. Its clear Black Widow and Hawkeye are the weak litter in this film, neither really do a great deal and neither really look all that much to be honest, very dull. Hawkeye just seems like a silly character to use for this day and age, I know he's part of the original team but come on the guy runs around using a bow n arrow for Christs sake haha guns, guns, guns, knives, other worldly powers and super strength and this guy fires arrows! kinda funny really.
Plus he seems to be able to hit targets from high up without any consideration for weather, range, trajectory, altitude etc...it also takes him along time to actually run out, am I looking into this too much?.
Black Widow just doesn't really fit in the team for me, sure she's sexy and can fight but she carries two small handguns and that just comes across as rather pathetic in the midst of all out superhero war, like bringing a water pistol to a knife fight.
The other thing was Loki and his alien buddies, I presume Loki's exile was him falling into that abyss at the end of 'Thor'? how did he meet that alien race? how did he get to earth through the portal or get to the portal? and why does he even want to rule Earth? what does he get out of it?
I must also ask what the 'Chitauri' are exactly, when Iron Man downs the big mothership they all just drop, so are they robotic? or somehow connected to a central brain or something?. Trivial but hey that's how I roll.
So yes this film is very good and probably the best its gonna get for superhero team flicks and even superhero flicks to a degree, and when I say superhero flicks I mean superheroes which involve magic, sorcery, space, aliens etc...Batman, Blade, Punisher etc...are different beasts. I still wasn't blown away completely I must admit but for an eye popping mindless comicbook adaptation you can't really get much better, it does what its suppose to do with good cgi, good humour and great continuity from the previous films. Definitely a one off and historical moment as we get the first real superhero team movie, I can't see 'Justice League' topping it.
Payback: Director's Cut (1999)
After seeing both films almost back to back I can easily say that, surprisingly, the original theatrical version for me is the better or most enjoyable.
There is actually a huge difference between the two films as most was re-shot for the cinematic release and changed completely. This director's cut goes back to a slightly darker approach and omits Kris Kristofferson as 'Bronson' completely and merely has a female voice (sounded like Kathleen Turner) in place, the first 15min or so is radically different and uses allot of flashbacks which were used as solid story for the cinematic version, 'Porter' doesn't kidnap 'Bronson's' son anymore because we don't even see 'Bronson' now and the ending is also completely different.
I don't like the way this was put together and I'm glad they went with the version they did, the story isn't as clear in this cut, not seeing 'Bronson' doesn't really work in my opinion as you don't really get a feel for just a voice and the ending is really quite an anti climax that cuts off flat with no real feeling of retribution served, most of bad guys live!! you feel almost cheated out of some kick ass.
The director's cut is a more sombre affair basically, slightly darker and with less pizazz, of course had we gotten this version instead I would probably be saying the version we all know is too in your face and not as subtle but we didn't so it is how it is.
Almost disjoined if that's possible for a director's cut and simply not as fun or satisfying as the theatrical version, its worth seeing out of curiosity but I didn't gel with it, plus they cut some of the dominatrix scenes with the gorgeous Lucy Liu as 'Pearl'...hell no!!
Red Tails
Based on the Tuskegee Airmen of WWII albeit somewhat loosely, but still a pretty good close depiction of what life was like for African American airmen in service over Italy.
You can tell this is a Lucas production you really can, the dialog is terrible and the cgi effects are very reminiscent of 'Star Wars' effects, heck I even noticed the same audio used for explosions and engines I think, I'm not saying the film is bad but merely a clear Lucasfilm production (we know Lucas used WWI/II dogfighting as inspiration for his space battles...and it shows here). It has the look of an old 50's boys own adventure style comicbook or an old TV adventure serial, like the inspirations behind 'Indy', but on the other hand it also bares similarity to a videogame adaptation of old arcade Capcom classic 1942.
The visuals are of course crisp, clean, sharp, rich and colourful....in short it looks a treat, a comicbook come to life. The problems are the whole thing feels like a TV movie or one of those old TV adventure serials with all episodes stuck together to make a film. The acting is pretty wooden really, the cast are mainly unknowns to me apart from Gooding but it is all pretty hokey to be honest.
Best thing about the film is obviously the action sequences focusing on lots of dogfighting (again kinda seems similar to 'Star Wars', even using the same quick fire dialog here and there! 'I can't see him!' 'I'm on your tail' etc...). The rest of the film is really a bit dull but the dogfighting is brilliant fun to watch.
The characters are terribly cliched and boring which in turn means you know what's gonna happen a mile off. Again...visually I can't fault it, looks terrific but the plot is your totally unoriginal underdog routine with characters we've all seen before. Good intentions for a lively historical epic but it falls short, a shame, but its still a fun action film. The finale with the playing of the American 'The Star-Spangled Banner' is also a tiny bit too much for me.
Masters of the Universe (1987)
Oh my how delicious is this piece of 80's panto, some of the best badly adapted hokey nonsense I've seen yet somehow its so damn good :)
Where to start! this really is your typical fantasy film of the era, every cliche every funny little niche is here as you would expect and the funny thing is it was actually meant to be a blockbuster. I have since found out there were many problems in creating this film and it does show some what, the film is really nothing like the original He-Man cartoon in any way.
Effects wise this sorta stumbles through with some interesting ideas, some of the makeup is actually quite good, 'Skeletor', 'Beast Man' and 'Saurod' all have pretty nice makeup appliances and costumes which fit the He-Man universe. Other effects are laughably terrible with some awful bluescreen work, nasty models of which most seem ripped straight outta 'Star Wars', faded poor laser blast effects and some of the most hilariously bad stunts and fight choreography you will see. Most kicks and punches clearly (and I mean CLEARLY) don't make their intended contacts lol!
The cast are actually a mix of decent character actors which is the funny thing, some of these performances saved the film and gave it cult status. Of course Langella as 'Skeletor' is the co de gra of cheesy villains with his snarling voice and bellowing cries lusting for power. For me the best and most amusing performance was James Tolkan as the no nonsense cop 'Lubic' with his sharp tongue, gotta love that guy and his baldness.
Along for the ride is steady character actor Jon Cypher, fantasy actor regular Billy Barty, Meg Foster as the quite sexual 'Evil-Lyn' in her lovely tight barbarian-esq outfit with luscious lips (oh yeah!) and last of all Courtney Cox, yes THAT Courtney Cox of 'Friends' fame and as you would expect she's still annoying as hell even back then.
So yes the film is practically a joke with its Punch n Judy style and completely awful effects, fights etc...but it has gained allot of notoriety for just that. Even when I saw this back as a kid I knew the film bared no resemblance to the original material, it always bewildered me why the creators thought to create new bad guys when there were so many rich villains to use, who the hell was 'Blade', 'Karg' and 'Saurod' suppose to be!? where was 'Trap Jaw' 'Tri-Klops' 'Mer-Man' or 'Man-E-Faces'? the same could be said for the heroes also. Then there was the question of who on earth were all these stormtrooper type foot soldiers clad in black armour that were an idea rip from so many films!?.
I have since found out they were stuck in so 'He-Man' could kill things without becoming too violent for the kids as He-Man wasn't suppose to kill. I can see that now but it still doesn't work right does it, I can't believe Lucas never sued frankly haha even with the almost identical ending to 'ROTJ'.
Its funny to look back and laugh, even more so to think films like this actually made it to the cinema and were meant to be big money spinners hehe. I actually love how the film just goes off on its own tangent completely ignoring the source material, its so far gone its brilliant in such a bad way. Gotta love 'Skeletor's' golden coloured horned silver foil battle mask getup when he transforms at the end which seems to be a rip off from 'Big Trouble in Little China'!, the way Tolkan swears oh and the fact 'Teela' seems to be wearing a thin thong if you look closely as well :) kids film?.
21 Jump Street (2012)
Never saw the original TV series as it wasn't really on UK TV much as I recall so I'm unable to really comment on comparisons, but after reading up it does seem like this comedy is relatively close to the source material.
Basically some young looking dudes are put into a local high school to crack down on a drugs ring, the reason they are used for the case? they are young looking, pretty much the same deal as the TV show. Of course this film is akin to older films 'The Dukes of Hazzard' and 'Starsky n Hutch' in the sense that it mocks the original source and teen/cop flicks in general.
So in a spoof type way this is quite good, I found myself enjoying the typical piss taking humour as the two leads start off in high school themselves and move up into the police force together. You know what kind of gags and visual stunts to expect, a blend of 'American Pie' and 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop' with a hint of 'Naked Gun'...and it works just fine.
For me the film started to wane from around the midway point though as the guys get emotionally attached to people they meet in the school (very predictably) and things start to get a bit mushy. You know whats gonna happen in the end, its very formulaic and cliched but it does put a smile on your face for sure. I've heard a sequel is planned but I really don't think that is necessary as this barely keeps its head above water if we are honest. I did like the two cameos in the finale though, nice touch.
Devil Dolls (2012)
What on earth was the point of this Mr Band!? I thought this was gonna be another dubious yet enjoyable killer puppet horror comedy yet it turns out to be a compilation of three of his older films!!
'Demonic Toys' 'Ragdoll' and 'Doll Graveyard' have all been cut down to short 30min stories which make no real sense now and mainly show the dolls killing. If you wanna make a compilation of kill sequences from your films fine but don't market it as a new film for chuffs sake!.
Complete waste of time and utter rip off Mr Band, for shame. What was the point anyway!? why watch this when you can watch the whole film properly, milking the shit out of your films is an understatement Mr Band.
The Three Stooges (2012)
So I'm British and I don't really have any or much knowledge on this all American legendary comedic trio but I know of them and how it works. From that small bit of recognition I can see the effort put into this film from the three main cast members and must give kudos to their performances.
Yes the film is completely stupid, childish and babyish but of course that's what its all about, a classic mix of Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton with sound and no holding back with absurd ludicrous scenario's.
I've never heard of the main cast but have read of many big names that were in line for the main roles such as Jim Carrey. Even I can see this would have been completely wrong so I'm glad the cast are as they are, unknowns (to me), they pull off the recreation very well I think, they look good and sound good.
I think the stunts on show here are decent but nothing especially amazing, its all about the well rehearsed chemistry between the Stooges really, that's what shines through, the rest is your average Farrelly brothers schtick.
Does exactly what it says on the tin folks, you know what to expect and you get exactly that. If you don't enjoy this kind of farcical comedy or find yourself hating it as you watch then you clearly didn't check the label on the tin. Not totally my thing I admit but I can appreciate the skill involved.
Ok, here comes THE AVENGERS review that the movie deserves, Hubbs, like the review but would like to write mine and counter some things.
Keepin it short here I was really hyped for this movie and I say I was under-hyped for it, it was a wonderfully fun, humorous and action packed movie. Now let's start with the "problems" my only beef with the movie would be the score, not memorable but seeing these guys together, I couldn't care less about the sound track, now the other thing is SPOILERS I don't like the species of aliens they picked, I would prefer the Skrulls to the chitauri any day just to feel like they are in the same universe. I loved the giant serpents though and the fact the whole invasion was MAJOR SPOILER provided by Thanos that was great(and Loki having the mind gem at the end of the staff to control the characters was great) for a fanboy this movie had everything and more, great dialogue, action, humor, the whole nine yards, sure hawleye and widow weren't used as much but they still proved important members of the team,(Hubbs hawkeye did account for wind and gravity when he shot the HELICARRIER, he aimed way left and it hit) and as hawkeye would say "guns are for wusses" the Fter credits left us hungering for more and they did a great job of bringing these guys together in a way that wasn't corny(read the first avengers comic if u want corny lol) overall maybe just my fanboy obsession or just because it's a great movie I say at least 9/10 and personally a 11/10 great movie check it out
American Reunion
In all honesty...completely pointless, this franchise was perfectly fine with the original three and all the sexual toilet humour had been exhausted pretty good even then. Here we simply have more of the same obviously but its just not funny anymore because its all been done when the cast were younger and it made more sense.
I saw the first film when I was around 21 I think so I myself have grown up with the characters (sort of, maybe I'm a bit older?) as it were. Now I'm 34 (which I'm guessing is about the age of the characters for this new film, late 20's early 30's) and can look back at my earlier years with glee or trepidation just as in the film hehe.
Anyhow back on subject...from the very first sequence with Biggs and Hannigan in the bedroom I could see this was gonna be a tired rehash and not as funny, yes you know what your going in for with this film but you can clearly see its worn out. The cast all look older, slightly fatter with receding hair, well...they do despite the hard work from the Hollywood makeup department to combat these natural effects and make them appear still relatively young.
Best visual gag was probably when 'Stiffler' had finished 'chow time' on an old tubby schoolgirl acquaintance, pretty direct and smirk inducing. Apart from that its all very dumb and predictable as you would expect but not really in a good way anymore.
Haywire
Dear Mr Soderbergh, if you want to make a thrilling spy film then at least cast someone who can act in the lead! don't cast a so called mixed martial artist (this term is being banded around way too much these days), use them for stunt work. Yes Carano is fit firm and able to kick ass but her acting is wooden and stale which lets the whole thing down badly.
This espionage thriller is slick and lean with no Hollywood nonsense, this ain't no Bay machine, this is more intone with 'Ronin' but even more watered down to a cut throat hands on take down. The action is sparse but fast with no special effects to get in the way, no explosions, no music and no cgi what so ever, this baby has been stripped for maximum performance just like the Evo that gets driven.
That's not to say its without faults, the film starts slow after an initial bit of fisticuffs, Carano glares her way through the story as you start to feel...zzzzzzz!. Things do perk up quickly as the plot thickens...well somewhat, the plot is actually highly basic but the fights are nicely done, realistic without silly 'whallop!' sound effects (well almost). It amused me how Carano is able to take down heavy armoured police with leg kicks to body armour, she may be a good Muay Thai fighter but I doubt she would be able to do what she does but hey! I'm getting too picky aren't I.
Overall casting was big but unrequired, I think the inclusion of Carano lowers the tone really, she comes across way too much like an action figure, almost like a 'Black Widow' type character. The inclusion of Fassbender in a pretty cliched role didn't help either, almost an audition for the next Bond . Wasn't impressed with Ewan McGregor and his dodgy US accent, he really didn't seem to fit the bill for me whilst Banderas just seemed to be there to add more big names to the list as he does nothing, absolutely zero.
I think this film tries a bit too hard to be something more serious, maybe more of a 'Bourne' vehicle perhaps, but under the bonnet its just a simple double cross thriller with some excellent direction, fights and editing...soooo yes it is good then, it just thinks a bit too highly of itself.
Still not so sure why its called 'Haywire' though, makes you think its some kind of guns n explosion filled hyper action beast...but it isn't. I must add I hated the rather lame way Carano easily gets her man at the end on the beach, the rock bit, how on earth did he manage that!? lol!
It is pretty good by the way, just incase your not sure what I think at the end here, just not THAT good.
Radioland Murders (1994)
It does come across that everything Mr Lucas has put his chubby finger to since Star Wars doesn't quite turn out so well (apart from 'Indy'), the recent 'Red Tails' for example.
This goofy slapstick comedy on paper had promise and I was quite excited to watch it as the period setting plus the 'who dunnit' murder aspect I like. The whole thing sounded like a kind of 'Clue' or 'Haunted Honeymoon' type venture, that nice dated 30's to 50's setting with smart suits with well spoken chaps n dames all set within a spooky atmosphere.
Unfortunately this film is really quite boring and insanely stupid, there is way too much slapstick in your face screwball comedy...and its not even very good, just forced. Everyone is falling arse over tit every five minutes and the editing is so damn choppy, you zip from one pratfall to the next as if they were individual sketches pasted together.
Awesome cast line up, every well known character actor in Hollywood has been stuck in this but that can't save the film. Brian Benben was for me a bad choice of lead for the story, he's one of those guys that just fits TV roles better and he's also annoyingly unstable here with the most lame physical comedy display.
Good ideas with a great era and concept to homage but this falls flat on its face, it should of been a classic but somehow its been fudged well and truly, damn it Lucas!
Quote from: Hubbs on May 11, 2012, 02:45:38 PM
Haywire
Dear Mr Soderbergh, if you want to make a thrilling spy film then at least cast someone who can act in the lead! don't cast a so called mixed martial artist (this term is being banded around way too much these days), use them for stunt work. Yes Carano is fit firm and able to kick ass but her acting is wooden and stale which lets the whole thing down badly.
This espionage thriller is slick and lean with no Hollywood nonsense, this ain't no Bay machine, this is more intone with 'Ronin' but even more watered down to a cut throat hands on take down. The action is sparse but fast with no special effects to get in the way, no explosions, no music and no cgi what so ever, this baby has been stripped for maximum performance just like the Evo that gets driven...
Spoiler
Don't you remember the scene with the really fake cgi deer crashing into the car?
Dog Soldiers (2002)
Could this be the British werewolf equivalent of 'Aliens'? a group of soldiers forced into a tight space, trapped and being taken down one by one, it does feel like it when you watch.
But lets not take anything away from this film, its a low budget basic thriller which works beautifully utilizing all the right tricks in the book. The werewolves are kept out of sight for much of the time, lots of shadows and darkness, a good barren wilderness location, tense sweaty and claustrophobic with some good amounts of gore, not overblown.
Marshall really has taken a leaf outta Cameron's book, a leaf? nay...a whole flippin bush! as previously said the film really is 'Aliens' with werewolves but its so damn fun to watch (and British made) that you have to forgive the blatant concept rip off. The small group of soldiers really work well together and you do care for them as Marshall wisely builds the characters before hand, you know they're all gonna die but never sure which one will remain in tact at the end. Of course everyone is rather cliched and predictable with their dialog and portrayals, Cunningham is the nasty outsider ('Burke') who obviously will die but calmly growls and snarls his lines of doom to the rest in the mean time...just asking for it really.
Some brilliant sequences that go from outright horror to dark gallows humour such as Pertwee having his bowels/intestines superglued back inside him after a nasty attack. Things get quite tense towards the end as the lycans get too close for comfort and we start to see more glimpses of the pretty solid effects used. Men in suits of course and they do look original in design albeit a little like over grown Alsatians.
Its gritty, dirty, bloody, basic, effortlessly British, has cool movie posters and you want Cunningham to die right from the very start after he kills that poor doggie. At times it does feel like it could use a bit of Hollywood to really make more of an impact for some sequences and the score seems a tad lackluster. Overall this is a great human vs werewolf flick that really does show what 'Underworld' could of been.
The Illusionist (2006)
Its funny, you don't see any films about magicians then all of a sudden two pop up in the same year, how does that work? We had the same deal with 'Dante's Peak' and 'Volcano' also 'Armageddon' and 'Deep Impact'...weird huh.
Anyhow this magic show is period set as is 'The Prestige' only this time we are in Vienna at the turn of the century. The plot is a mixture of a love story, a who dunnit? and magic all entwined within the rich lavish world of Austrian royalty.
The film simply popped up out of nowhere and my first impression was a cheap low budget equal to 'The Prestige' which was quite a big hit, I was amazed when it turned out to be such a rewarding film. The cast are all excellent here and fit beautifully into this decadent setting, Norton, Sewell, Giamatti, Biel and Marsan, all brilliant, what more can I say. I probably enjoyed Sewell as 'Prince Leopold' the most with his unhinged delicate state, jealousy and fury in his eyes as he loses the plot.
The plot is intriguing but does seem to do a 'Usual Suspects' spin towards the end, your average twist which you can sense was coming but fun to watch none the less. The film is a joy to watch simply down to the lovely work on sets, costumes, location and the magic tricks of which the main ones are assisted with cgi methinks which is a shame but still mysterious.
I guess the whole film or story is suppose to be one big magic trick or illusion really, one big puff of hocus pocus as the main lead wins the day and his love in a swirling mist of deception. Visually stunning, realistic? yes, not bad a tall...I can taste the strudel, superbly well performed and very enjoyable but maybe a little simpler than it was meant to be.
Wild Target (2010)
Think 'A Fish Called Wanda' and 'Clockwise' and you have an idea of how this quirky little British film plays out. Bill Nighy is against cast as an ageing hitman who also looks after his ageing mother whilst doing his daily job of taking people out.
It sounds hilarious on paper and is a fun film, its just not quite as sharp as you might hope for. Nighy of course is the best thing in the film as the stiff upper lipped, tight assed gentleman hitman, a kind of 'Basil Fawlty' hitman who frowns upon anything modern or unusual in his world.
The rest of the cast are a jumbled mix of British character actors who add spice to the plot but not quite as much as Nighy. Freeman as the other hired assassin on the job is surprisingly eerie with his bleached teeth and slick hair, his partner in crime is Geoff Bell who always plays the scary hardman but parodies this beautifully here. Both are a great team up for this film and compliment Nighy so well, the other cast members do the job but nothing to rave about, Everett doesn't quite fit his role as head gangster if you ask me whilst Grint can't shake his 'Potter' background I'm afraid.
There isn't anything particularly original here, the hitman thing has been done to death but mixing it with an anal stuffy ageing British aristocratic business man type is a neat little idea. There isn't a great deal more on offer other than that small concept, the rest of the humour is average and the film does lull towards the end, the final idea of the two leads getting married and having a kid is rather icky frankly haha age gap much?
A nice entertaining black comedy which would have been perfect for John Cleese many years ago but Nighy is still good fare and still flies the flag for Britain just fine.
Get the Gringo (aka How I Spend My Summer Vacation)
So it seems Mel Gibson has really upset the apple cart in Hollywood, his new action film has been shunned in the US completely which is pretty bad considering Gibson can bring home the bacon.
As for this new offering well I'm confused, I have read allot about how good this is and how Gibson is back to his best but as far as I'm concerned the film is incredibly average. Its basically a prison flick as Gibson is caught trying to escape a heist at the start and is slung in a Mexican prison, from there he plays bad guys off each other to survive and gets tangled in all manner of gang related issues.
OK firstly there is hardly any action here, yes that's right, this is no 'Lethal Weapon' topper. One gun fight mid way through, a few punch ups and a so so finale and that's your lot, very disappointed there I was. The plot is a rehash of...well just about any and every prison/action flick you've ever seen, the main difference here is the setting. A huge prison set up like a small shanty town where criminals are able to serve time with their families including kids!, buy drugs, drink, own guns, use women, have anyone come and see them, go to bars etc...basically an inmate run facility where money talks. At first I thought this was nonsense of Gibson's creation but it turns out there was an actual prison facility like this in Mexico, it was known as 'criminal university' and this does make the film more interesting...almost.
I read somewhere that this film was actually suppose to be an indirect sequel to Gibson's 1999 action film 'Payback'. Apparently the main character in 'Gringo' is suppose to be 'Porter' from 'Payback' but simply in a different story, no connections to 'Payback' in any way, just a new adventure if you will. This new film does play out like 'PB' with Gibson's narration, the way he uses people and the fact he is a badguy again.
Low down scummy, gritty, dirty and seedy, you can virtually smell the sweaty under stains. Well made with good camera work giving a more realistic feel (but not shaky handheld cam), many Spanish speaking actors equalling subs which makes the film feel more grown up and Gibson grunting his way through it all perfectly but in my opinion its not a good film.
Very average swinging towards slightly boring if you ask me, I didn't care about any of the characters, there's no real info or back story on anyone including Gibson's character, the 'action' is subdued and sparse and its all very cliched. To be honest the heist we see Gibson tearing away from at the start looked more interesting than what happened after, why is this so hyped?
DOA: Dead or Alive (2006)
Yep this is a videogame adaptation alright, if its possible this is even more cheesy and ridiculous than 'Mortal Kombat' and 'Tekken' put together. Based on one of the more weaker 'beat em up's' which is famous for having very realistic boobs on the female fighters. I don't really know anymore as I've never really played this fighter, a poor man's Tekken methinks.
The plot is...well it doesn't really matter does it, like all beat em up adaptations its purely and simply about the fights whilst the plot is meaningless poo and completely incomprehensible. The same can be said for the actual videogames of course but you play them for fun whilst making a pathetic film with bottom of the barrel actors is another inexcusable matter. Anyway just to key you in the plot, surprisingly, is about a group of fighters that are all invited to fight in a tournament set up by a really obvious badguy on a remote island in the middle of an ocean. Hmmm something is a foot perhaps?
Its aimed at kids so as you can guess there is no real fighting whatsoever, its all nice and gentle with no violence or actual hitting in anyway really. I've haven't seen so much lame ass cgi and wire work for some time, couple that with hilariously bad costumes on some characters, close to the bone skimpy outfits on some female characters (that's all good), your usual exotic locations mixed with the ever popular Eastern arenas such as the bamboo forest (again) and the usual mix of cliched unoriginal fighters ('DOA' was a late entry into the beat em up world).
Its all very colourful with lots of flashing digital effects and stupid onscreen videogame type imagery just in case you forgot your watching a shitty videogame adaptation. The most unforgivable issue here though is the fact the fights are so poor and fake looking, the female cast maybe gorgeous and semi famous (Holly Valance) but they can't do the moves and they can't act like they can do the moves.
It may look pretty and shiny but this still manages to rank below most other crappy videogame films because its so dumb and vacant ('MK' and 'Tekken' had some grit at least). Had it come along earlier (like its actual videogame counterpart) then it might have fared slightly better, its still not as bad as 'Street Fighter'.
Strippers vs Werewolves (2012)
LOVE the title and LOVE the idea (who wouldn't?) but I was devastated upon watching that the film is actually pretty lame really.
A British low budget horror/gore/comedy which is probably suppose to be along the same kind of lines as 'American Werewolf' and 'Zombie Strippers' but alas it falls way short. I didn't expect an epic effects laden masterpiece of course but I did expect allot of raunchy half naked strippers and errrr more gore actually.
The girls are cute but sparse which is odd considering the title and hardly any ass on show a tall! *weeps*. The makeup on the werewolves swings from not bad to pretty terrible really, again I was expecting greatness but its a bit shitty looking really. Its all hands on makeup and effects which looks better than cgi anyday but this film cries out for just a touch more skill. On a visual note they seem to have tried to make the film appear like the pages of a comicbook, split screens with a bit of text and in a slightly cartoony way, kinda works but the rest of the film needs to be good to make it fully work.
A cult cast can't save the film either, Sarah Douglas of 'Ursa' fame in 'Superman II' has been in many silly low budget affairs, dunno why. A brief cameo by Martin Kemp, Lucy Pinder looking hot as a vampire bride but not really doing much, scary Brit hard man Alan Ford (again briefly), ex Bond villain Steven Berkoff (again again briefly!) and finally none other than Robert Englund who like the others listed here also appears briefly and doesn't do anything much a tall.
It does seem as though they got these cult names in just to raise the bar of the film on the grapevine, no one thought to give them something cool to do.
Such a missed chance for a gloriously over the top tits, ass and gore flick, I can't believe how badly they blew it, criminal. Had this been in the hands of Landis or Jay Lee the director of 'Zombie Strippers, it could of been hella cool.
Sahara (1995)
Remake of the 1943 Bogart film which I haven't seen so I can't compare, but believe it or not its actually a really decent film that boasts some great performances, great location work and a nice overall look of realism with uniforms, weapons and vehicles.
Belushi takes the lead as the American Sgt. 'Joe Gunn' (nice butch name there) and really does well with his role, he's strong decisive and all American as it should be god damn it. He is accompanied by a decent assortment of character actors portraying a selection of allied soldiers from various countries including France, England, Australia and Sudan. Each of the soldiers also come from different regions in each country eg. Yorkshire and London in England.
The film is your classic gun-ho, manly, machine gun totting heroism which could easily be a propaganda tool if you think about it, all the allied soldiers are salt of earth stand up blokes who think nothing of fighting till the bitter end, standing alongside their Sgt.
Yes its a bit overblown and not too realistic as this small bunch of gruff fellas take on a whole German battalion in the middle of the Sahara (within an ancient ruin) simply to halt their progress because the Germans think there is a water filled well there. But the simplistic plot and abundant all American stars n stripes mixed with various nationalities and their own patriotic views as they band together to stop the Nazi war machine is well presented with some exciting boys own type action sequences that would make 'Indy' proud.
With the odds stacked against them I think you can guess this small band of brothers fate, unless you've seen the Bogart version then you already know hehe but do you really think Uncle Sam's boys would fail to stop the Germans here?
The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) (2011)
So I saw the first film after all the hype and talk about it being really nasty and shocking, and like many films throughout the years I was scoffing at how rubbish those claims were. Original in terms of the idea yes but hardly shocking, more bizarre, and you didn't even see much.
Now we have the same issues all over again with the sequel, only this time its all completely bloody true I tell ya!!! Let me start by saying I have never felt quite so uncomfortable whilst watching a film since I saw the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'.
Right...so after I scrubbed my eyes and took some deep breaths I was able to clear my mind (kinda) and write about this errr film. I use the term 'film' loosely as this really does come across as director Six's own personal horror fetish fantasy. To be honest it is actually quite a unique piece of work and one could almost say its very arty or indie of sorts, apart from the gut wrenching gore of course.
The film is in black n white which does give it a stylish approach, it also makes it more unnerving and leaning towards more realism. Add to that is the clever idea of virtually no dialog but mainly sound effects, the lead character does not speak one word, he merely grunts, squeals, cries and moans in very disturbing ways. There is of course some dialog from various characters but its very short and to the point, no messing around here no sir.
The other thing about this film is the fact its not connected to the original in any way AND it shows the events of the first film as just that...a film. The main character in this sequel watches the first film on his laptop as an inspiration for him to carry out his own agenda, so the first film never happened in this franchises universe. Ashlynn Yennie who played one of the victims in the first film returns in this sequel as herself, so this sequel is basically in the 'real world' where as the first film is a film and fantasy/fiction.
At first I didn't like this idea as it reminded me of 'Wes Craven's New Nightmare' where Englund plays himself but after getting into the plot I think its a pretty ingenious way to go for the follow up, complete U-turn and makes it more interesting for sure.
Another plus point I must say is the casting of unknown Laurence R. Harvey as 'Martin Lomax'. Now this guy looks incredibly scary, spooky and quietly mental, he's short, disgustingly fat (his belly is a sight to behold), odd frog-like eyes and a receding hairline that's been made to look all greasy and demented. The way this guy just stares without blinking, his facial expressions when he gets upset, angry or excited just unnerve you BIG time!. Six did well in finding the crazy German Dieter Laser who looks like an evil Nazi scientist character type straight out of the videogame 'Wolfenstein', but he has outdone himself finding Harvey, how or where beats me but this guy is fudging creepy!, a big fat child like psycho who enjoys pain in rather eye opening ways.
Of course the plot is totally dumb with some plot holes you could drive a Land Rover through. The fact that people are getting shot and bludgeoned all over the show and no one hears or see's anything ever and how on earth this nut job manages to do all this on his own isn't worth going into really. The film cuts to and fro allot leaving it up to you to imagine how he did this and that or moved someone etc...
Its all about gore and shock value here folks, you do see nudity both male and female, you do see the lead character play with himself (you will see his little fireman), there is plenty of blood and head bashing, teeth smashing with hammers, tendon cutting of the knees, throat cutting, bullets to heads, force feeding, injections of laxatives, people eating excrement and seeing it dripping from mouths as they do, stapling faces to asses, hints of child abuse, crooked abusive doctors, harsh British language, mother killing....need I continue?
This film is actually so graphic the BBFC would not allow it unless it was heavily cut, I saw the uncut version and I can understand why, seeing the death of a new born baby by having its head crushed!? yep its pretty hardcore here folks.
Very dark, very bleak, seedy, murky and very sadistic, on one hand its very original and highly imaginative as a horror/gore flick, but it hasn't got the psychological or realistic vibe that the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' had. Its still very close to the bone and works well to make you uneasy, the sound effects alone will make you shy away in places believe me. Very nasty as Six delivers with his promise of more gore but you have to give kudos for the way he approaches it.
Until Death (2007)
A nice change for Mr JCVD here, he plays the anti hero whom everybody despises in his local police station. Mr JCVD is a bad cop who has a drug addiction which clearly affects his judgement leading to an undercover cop getting killed by another ex-cop friend of his who also turned into a bad guy...must be something in the water huh.
Its clear this is where Jean Claude has turned the tables and started to take roles with a bit more meat, roles that challenge his acting skills where he isn't just a kicking machine, and it works. Of course there is still plenty of gun action and Van Damme is still a bad ass but there is a strong undercurrent of real acting involved too and he's not too bad.
The film is held up with the help of Rea as the ex-cop turned drug kingpin (massive career swing there and it seems to be going well for him) who sneers his way through the action until the rather predictable conclusion. Yes its predictable and still cliched like all action thrillers but the European version has a different ending which does have a slightly original twist...for Van Damme anyway.
Still can't escape the 'straight to DVD' abyss but this admittedly is a much better film than his other action fluff, the Euro version has the better ending.
Battleship
'they ain't gonna sink this battleship no way!'
So without talking too much about the classic boardgame from my childhood this is BATTLESHIP!
Aliens come to earth and land in the sea near some US battleships, they are unfriendly, the ships engage in sea warfare and the humans win (check..the Americans save the world). Is that a spoiler? no no no no no, well yes but I think I can safely say everyone should realise this.
So 'Independence Day' at sea you say? well your pretty darn right mateys, this is indeed a complete rip of that errr classic alien invasion flick. The film is VERY by the numbers in every department, unbelievably cliched to the hilt and really very stupid. Oh and I forgot in this film they don't get the President to muck in oh no, they get all the old age ex-sailor pensioners to get stuck in haha ave it!
Is it good? hmmm well sort of, you know what will happen every bloody inch of the way no question, Taylor Kitsch's character is utterly predictable with his rebellious ways at first, then drafted into the Navy (this doesn't feel right), still a bit of a 'Jack the lad' in service, but turns into a leader of men when the shit hits the fan, grrrr leader of MEN!.
Casting Rihanna really didn't help this film one bit, right from the get go it gave the film a bad vibe of tacky sci-fi, she is also in damn near every fudging shot! plus she isn't that pretty looking without her usual swathes of makeup. Neeson is the other big name...why? dunno, lets move on.
OK so the effects are average really, the cgi on show isn't much, it doesn't look as nice as previous alien invasion films in my view. Does the job but overall the alien ships are uninspired and look like a cross between Transformer toys and Zoids toys (yep that's an 80's thing), didn't wanna mention Transformers but I had to .
The aliens themselves look a bit poor to be honest, humanoid with dumb facial expressions and these daft looking goatees on their chins that look like a patch of sea anemones. Their suits are better and made me think of 'Halo' somewhat, some nice futuristic spacesuit designs going on with 'Predator' vision inside their visors.
Again the weaponry the aliens use was uninspired and dull, their ships fire these boring shaped canister things that hit their targets but do nothing, after a few seconds they then explode...like wow! I since found out they are suppose to be shaped like the pegs in the boardgame of which this is based, yeah kinda stupid idea right there. They also fire Sonic the Hedgehog type mechanical metallic 'fury ball/disc' things that seem to have a mind of their own and zip all over the show seemingly blowing things up when they make contact. In short I'm sure the aliens could of destroyed all the humans very quickly if they really wanted to.
I can see what they have tried to do here and I don't blame them with the aliens/alien invasion obsession doing the rounds but its just come along too late. Completely zilch originality so don't go expecting anything new and cool looking but it is reasonably pretty looking at times. The football (soccer) game at the start is hilariously bad (all football wise UK viewers I'm sure will agree) and stay till after the end credits for an extra scene (sequel much?).
Nice try for a cash in on the current bandwagon but these things don't always work do they (-_-), strike two for Kitsch (who is this guy?) and will Hollywood ever learn? stupid question that really. This battleship has well n truly sunk...zing!
The French Connection
Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle uncovers a drug exchange is about to go down on the streets of New York. After a wire tap clues him off that the shipment is coming from overseas, he and his partner pick up the pace in order to make what may be the biggest heroin bust in US history. This film was loosely based on the real life heroin bust by Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso.
The acting in this film is just plain great. Gene Hackman as Popeye was a career making role. Before this, he was a relatively unknown actor, but this film changed him into an Oscar winner overnight. He plays an obsessed and almost mad cop so bent on his target he has little to no concern about those around him. He makes racist remarks in the film on at least two occasions. He has little respect for the rule of law and breaks many ethical and legal codes. Despite this, he is a character you like a lot. Quite an achievement. How funny it must have been for Hackman's former acting teacher who only a year before told him he would never make anything of himself to be watching the object of his slander receiving the highest honor a film actor can have. Roy Scheider is also very likable as Cloudy, the voice of sanity in the film. More calm, collected, and just a better person than Popeye, Scheider has the hard job of making us root for his partner even more, and he does so nicely. Some of his best acting can be seen during the sequence where a heroin filled car is stripped down to the skeleton and the climax of the film. Fernando Ray as Charnier is a great villain. His character can be summed up in one shot. Him playfully waving goodbye with his fingertips as Popeye cannot catch the trail to follow him. This image also serves as the card for his character in the closing still montage. He not only insults Doyle, he insults us as a viewer. What a dick.
The film is primarily set in Harlem New York, and the location is used very well. A bleak world without order and with death and drugs seemingly around every corner. Our introduction to Harlem is a somewhat funny sequence where Hackman chases down a dope pusher while wearing a Santa suit he was using as a disguise. Apparently this was actually done by Eddie Egan, the cop on which Hackman's character was based. In this scene, we lose any feeling of safety and comfort in this city, because even Santa gets in on the dirty business. By far the best usage of the city is the ending, which takes us to an almost alien world of decaying civilization. It is downright haunting. New York is not a bustling metropolis. It is a ghetto of death and despair. We cannot go for very long without it. An exchange between the characters occurs at the site of a car accident which is shown close up in all its grisly detail. This is the world of Popeye and Cloudy. It makes you understand why they are the way they are.
His film feels like a Jack in the box at times. Much of it is of Popeye and cloudy doing standard police work such as wire tapping and stakeout. They need to go to their superiors a lot and there is a great deal of exchange there. But every so often, the music winds down and something comes up to hit you in the face. This leaves you on the edge of your seat, like any good suspense film should. What is great about how this film handles that is there are numerous small action scenes, like tailing suspects and arrests being made. These still do little to prepare for the big ones to come, like the chase scene and final raid. The French Connection is carefully timed to a point that if it is not exactly precise, it is damn close.
Don Ellis didn't do a lot of film scores, and that really sucks because his work here is so darned good, especially the chilling opening credits music and closing credits music. They sound much more like the scores to horror films than cop thrillers, and that really works here. The opening credits music can be summed up in one word. Chaos. Pure uncorrupted chaos. It is a cacophony of sound that really captures a feeling of something without order and without reason. It immediately sets up a mood of suspense and dread, and that is precisely what the film gives us. Ellis gets the right idea in using the opening score to sum up the rest of the film, like the opening to Jaws. What is just as good, if not better is his ending theme. His downbeat and haunting theme during the final scene and the end credits haunted me for years after I watched the film at the age of 13. It doesn't have an obvious melody, but it is really damn creepy.
One of the things that makes the film so engrossing is the camera work. It is done in a gritty documentary style that was not done with many films at the time, let alone other cop films like the freshly started Dirty Harry films. There is a lot of shaky camera work that gives a feeling of captured reality as opposed to the capturing of staged action. There are a few exceptions though. One is the famous chase sequence between a train and a car. In this sequence, the camera work is more about Popeye's perspective than an unseen cameraman. This is best illustrated through the placement of the camera through the majority of the scene, right on the bumper of the car he is driving. What is a better way to capture the essence of a good chase scene? There is a shot to die for of Popeye's car right underneath the train tracks as it catches up to the train. Another exception is the final scene of the film where Popeye stalks Charnier into a warehouse. The scene is primarily shown in POV shots with a slight fish eye lens that really puts you in Popeye's shoes. It perfectly fits the above mentioned music by Don Ellis and is shot not like a police game of hide and seek, but like a gothic horror flick, a genre that would be modified for use in other avenues such as cop and sci-fi films.
The editing is done in two styles depending on what type of scene is going on. Most of the movie is shown through long and lingering shots that are like that of an observer. You. It allows you to take in what is going on around you as if you are walking down the street yourself. It effectively sets up the mood of the bulk of the film. In other sequences, the editing is tight and fast paced. The car chase sequences editing is unique to this point in the film. No shot lingers for more than a few seconds, unlike several minute long shots or entire scenes done with scant usage of cuts earlier in the film. Here, it has a rhythmic beat. Since this sequence takes place without a score, the fast editing almost serves as an alternative to the music. No wonder the film got an Oscar in this department as well.
The French Connection is not an action film, but it does have some top notch action in it, namely two sequences. One is the above mentioned car chase, which is considered the finest car chase in movie history, even better than Bulitt. I feel the scenes are equal, because they both show just how good a car chase can be when done in a certain style. Bulitt's car chase was done with long shots and landscape moments that made you feel like an observer, and you know what? It is astounding. The French Connection almost exclusively uses POV and close up shots to put you in the car with Popeye and guess what? It is also astounding. The final action scene is the police storming the lot where the drugs are being exchanged. It is a pretty tense and effective scene, and you get to see Roy Scheider blow someone away with a shotgun. Scenes like this do not sum up the entire film. They rather come out of left field. This enhances the films atmosphere because it shows just how hard police work is, and how out of the ordinary such instances really are. When they do come, you don't feel safe.
The ending of this film is one of my favorite aspects of it. I will discuss it here and talk about why I enjoy it so much.
Spoiler
Popeye has chased Charnier into a warehouse after the big bust has gone down. He spots a figure and believes it to be Charnier so he fires, killing the figure who turns out to be an FBI agent. Cloudy is shocked but Popeye is so consumed with his desire to nab Charnier that he re-loads and walks into the next room. A final off-screen gunshot rings out, and the movie ends. This ending stuck with me as legitimately unsettling when I first saw the film. At its core, the film is about the one that got away, and it leaves us in the same note that is leaves Popeye. Without closure. Anything else would have been a cop-out, so to speak. Charnier is still out there and Popeye will never be at peace. Instead he has been reduced to shooting at shadows, possibly for the rest of his life. This is what many real life cases are like. There is always that one that slipped through your fingers, that one that haunts you forever. For the film to so perfectly capture that feeling is something worthy of commendation. The person on which Charnier was based as eventually caught, but due to his involvement in the French Resistance, he never did receive full punishment for his crimes and was not extradited to the US. This makes the ending ring even more true to real life.
William Friedkin can rest assured that he doesn't have the great work mantle as he has directed many great films, including The Exorcist and To Live and Die in LA. The primary theme of the Friedkin films I have watched is they have a rather cynical tone to them. While I despise cynicism, Friedkin paints his view of a world where you cannot help but be cynical. It comes as naturally as the next frame. In Friedkin's selected filmography, The French Connection is one of the absolute best. It would have to be for him to win Best Director so early in his career.
The French Connection is possibly the finest police procedural film ever made. While not my personal favorite in the genre, it is clear why it has survived all this time. The suspense is tight and effective, the action is as good as it gets, the acting is Oscar winning, the music is both haunting and action packed and it was the first R rated film to win Best Picture. Now to those who are more critical of this film, I have one question to ask. Are you still picking you feet in Poughkeepsie? ;)
This is from the "Last Movie" thread, but its a little more in-depth than my usual posts in there, so I guess I'll put it here, too:
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on May 28, 2012, 12:26:41 AM
Alien Resurrection
This is my first time seeing it in a few years, and my first time seeing the uncut version of the film (I've only ever seen the TV edit). This film comes no where close to the first three, but then again, a lot of films don't. This is by no means a terrible movie, but its also not a great one like the past three Alien movies were. I guess I'll start off with the bad. The movie had quite a few stupid little moments in it: the breath-opening doors, the instant-alcohol cube thing, the bouncing bullet scene, and, perhaps my least favorite moment in the movie, Ripley 8 pulling off the facehugger. The fact that she was able to simply pull it off (even being the mutated clone she is) goes against everything that I found to be scary about that particular stage in the Alien life cycle. I don't even understand why it jumped on her in the first place, anyways; later in the film it was pretty obvious that the Aliens had no intention of impregnating her when they carried her into the hive. Also, keeping on the topic of Ripley 8, I could in no way bring myself to associate her with Ellen Ripley of the Alien trilogy; she was an entirely different character here, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. She is, after all, not the Ellen Ripley that we all know and love, but rather the byproduct of illegal scientific engineering. Which brings me to one of my favorite scenes in the movie, the scene where Ripley 8 encounters clones 1-7. This was a very disturbing scene, creepy in all the ways that an Alien film should be. It was one of the few scenes in the film where the emotions of the characters (Ripley 7 and 8 in particular) really hit home. Now, I know a lot of you guys are going to hate me for this, but you know what? I loved the Newborn. In fact, it was quite possibly my favorite thing in Alien Resurrection. Yes, it is disturbing and ugly and, in many ways, a disgrace to the "beauty" of the Alien. Yes, it was an abomination, one that I doubt any of us were really expecting to see, let alone excited for. But that's exactly why I loved it. The makers of the film succeeded in everything that they set out to do when they created the Newborn. It is revolting, and that's why it works so well. Continuing on with the regular Aliens, many people found them to be too animal like and too fleshy. While I agree with those statements and do not find the creatures' designs to be as well executed as in the first three films, I will say that this look worked in the film, due to all of the cloning and genetic engineering and all the other cases of science run amok.
So yeah, while I did enjoy the film, Alien Resurrection does not live up to the genius of the first three films (in a lot of ways, the second and third didn't live up to Alien as well). Rather than view it as a proper sequel I think that I, like so many other members here, will find it easier to enjoy this film when viewed more as a spin-off/side-story to the first three movies. This outlook on the film is made easier in that I found it hard to relate Ripley 8 to Ellen Ripley. That being said, the film is not terrible, and worth a watch from any fan of the Alien series. While not an amazing movie, it does offer a lot of interesting concepts and ideas that are often overlooked by the fans who dismiss the film as a whole.
In short, I'd give Alien Resurrection around a 6.5 out of 10. It had a ton of potential, and executed some of it really well, but it also fell flat in a lot of places as well. I'm glad that I finally own the movie and that I had the chance to check it out again before the release of Prometheus; now lets just hope that Prometheus delivers in some of the areas where this film didn't.
The Dictator
In this overly PC world (and ultra PC UK) Sacha Baron Cohen is an exhilarating breath of fresh air that is most welcome. This new film isn't quite as good as his previous films, 'Bruno' being the best for me, 'Borat' coming second and lastly 'Ali G' but this is only down to 'Ali G' needing a better film, the character is probably his best creation.
As for 'The Dictator' its a stirling effort in harsh political satire, more typical stereotypes and vulgar verbal humour but the approach lets it down. 'Bruno' and 'Borat' were brilliant because they were basically a collection of individual embarrassing real time sketches that humiliated other people of Cohen himself, these were all linked together to make a general plot.
This new film goes down the route of 'Ali G' by having a rather poor plot, it seems to run along the same lines as 'Coming to America' albeit a completely racist, sexist, bigotry filled version hehe. So the 'proper' story route doesn't really work as well for Cohen's skills if you ask me but there are still some great comical cringe worthy scenes to be seen. The language of John C. Reilly's character in his scenes are really quite unbelievable! your thinking...'should I be laughing at this? is it OK?...hmmm no ones looking, yeah it should be OK'.
I enjoyed it but its not the best he's done, the beginning was good when he was all powerful and the sequences where he is getting used to life not being all powerful were also good but it lags through the middle and the happy-ish ending spoils it a little. End of the day you all should know what to expect from Cohen and you all know he doesn't beat around the bush, this guy has balls!. Its offensive and in your face so only watch if you like the guy, simple really.
Point Break (1991)
If you ask me this was the first film to have the bad guys wearing cool/freaky looking masks whilst carrying out their heists. So many films since this have used that simple formula and most have worked don't get me wrong, its a great visual method to ramp up the tension, but I think Bigelow was the first (one of the first) to use it.
Its funny really, one of the best action flicks made and its directed by a lady, it just adds to the coolness is all I'm saying, a woman knows how to make guys look macho. 'Predator' was the perfect 80's testosterone filled muscle vehicle, 'Point Break' was the perfect 90's testosterone filled heist vehicle.
Its hard not to love this simple film, everything and virtually everyone looks tanned toned and rebellious. All the main male and female characters glisten in the Cali sun as the blue Pacific waves crash against the smooth beaches. Bigelow manages to combine the grittiness of a bank thriller with the far out dudeness of the surfer world, its near perfect in every sense while the casting is one of those one off moments in cinematic history.
The film kinda makes you feel unfit, you feel you should be raising a sweat just to make yourself feel better. You actually feel like an nerdy outsider who isn't worthy enough to step foot on their fine golden beach, maybe I should be throwing myself out of planes and having barbecues by the moonlight. You feel like you need to be much cooler and reckless after you finish watching this.
Can you picture anyone else as the wild wave Buddha 'Bodhi'? of course you can't, this role was made for him. The same can be said for Reeves (Reeves as a surfer, flawless choice there brah hehe) as the naive stuck up suit wearing 'Utah' who almost turns tables on his grouchy partner 'Pappas' played by the rubber faced Nixon lookalike Busey. John C. McGinley is hilarious as 'Utah's' desk jockey chief and he has one of the most memorable lines ever :)
LeGros shines as the slightly twitchy unlikeable 'Roach' and who can forget the solid and rather tough looking Vincent Klyn as 'Warchild', epic badass right there.
This film pretty much raised the bar for all other action films ever since, it set a benchmark and has been copied so many times, more or less ('Fast n Furious'...just 'Point Break' with cars basically, nowhere near as good I might add). Some of the best sequences in an action film right here folks, the bank robberies, the fights, do I even need to mention the on foot chase sequence? how good is that? still!. On top of that then you have some really beautiful surf sequences and damn good skydiving sequences, Swayze did all his own stunts too.
The tag for the film is 100% pure adrenaline and boy does it mean it, a raging flick that never lets up and has the added bonus of really good characters that you care about. Apart from the hideous surfer language that seems really really dated and corny the film is damn near perfect.
Iron Sky (2012, FIN, GER, AUS)
'Heil Kortzfleisch!'
So I think we all know right from the start this film is not to be taken seriously in any means or fashion in the slightest. A completely farcical UFO B-movie that is a mix of classic old 40's/50's sci-fi and complete schlock, any sci-fi or horror that involves the Nazi's tends to be trashy nonsense right.
Only this film isn't entirely a cheap tasteless excuse for smut in smart uniforms oh no, its actually a pretty neat little film that actually looks pretty good. Its almost in black and white for allot of the Nazi sections, a virtual grey scale of dull rusty metal bolted together with lots of sturdy fat rivets, thick 50's looking sci-fi cables and lots of impressive steel gantries for the kraut officers to leer from triumphantly.
I have to admit I wasn't expecting the earth here (no pun intended) but the cgi effects on most of the space battles, spaceships and Moon shenanigans all look quite crisp and clean with clearly much effort involved. The spacecraft are all your classic UFO shapes (with nice WWII influence) but one has to admit they do look kinda cool with the German kit on them. There is also a really nice steampunk, cogs n gears, 'Wolfenstein' vibe going on throughout the German Moon based sequences which really works well, kinda reminded me a little of Del Toro's work in 'Hellboy 2'.
Plot aside (seeing as there are plot holes you could fly a Zeppelin through) the film is good fun and does what you would expect with plenty of other invasion films copied in certain sequences. The acting is poor but Götz Otto makes an impressive display as the Fuhrer wannabe 'Klaus Adler', he snarls his way through his dialog in wonderful form really enjoying the villainy, and of course who can forget Udo Kier as the new Fuhrer. I believe Kier is in the dictionary under the word 'cult'.
For some reason I did expect more blood n guts in this, not extreme but it just begged for more claret to flow and maybe some Nazi experimentation, say Nazi space mutants or Nazi killer space robots made with human parts etc...I dunno maybe that's just me and my warped mind. I guess ze crazy German scientist 'Doktor Richter' gave the impression that might happen, nice character, complete stereotype but nice.
A combination of political satire and spoof mixed with B-movie UFO's and space Nazi's really, the best part being its not trashy and the space battles do look cool in a 'Starship Troopers' kind of way. I also liked the US president being a woman who looked suspiciously like Sarah Palin hehe.
Fortress (1993)
So deliciously cheesy you'd think it was an 80's flick. The plot is basic as hell and the action is bloody and in your face as Chris Lambert gets sent underground to the inescapable prison, the Fortress.
If you take the comicbook gore of 'Robocop' or 'Universal Soldier' and the futuristic ramblings of 'Total Recall' or 'The Running Man' and blend it all together you have this yummy main course. There really is every corny futuristic angle you could want in this film, a melting pot of ideas from various other sci-fi films.
Lambert is young and fit looking here which helps muchly as he battles the evil company and their clinical 'employee' Kurtwood Smith ('Robocop' eh) with his prison computer security system. Along the way there are your typical cliched fights with the prison bully (Vernon Wells), mutant prison robot sentries with very big guns, enforced stomach implants that explode and all your usual prison malarkey that has been enchanced for the future. This does seem to equal lots of robotic surprises.
B-movie fluff but at the time of release it was quite impressive as I recall. Of course the effects are hokey, the ideas hugely dated and you know how it goes even before you sit down to watch but its not trashy.
Personally I loved when you are shown how the stomach tracking device works if you try to escape or get up to no good, then low and behold someone throws a wobbly and you get to see exactly what happens lol! so obvious yet so cool (just like 'The Running Man' and the head popping collars).
Fortress 2: Re-Entry (2000)
Well good old 'Brennick' has once again been caught by the evil 'MenTel Corp' and banged up, only this time the prison is in outer space folks!
Yep the franchise goes right down the pan here as the original is simply remade all over again but in space...well a poor excuse for space. The first film had some class but this second is a really poor effort simply to cash in on more of the same. The effects are pretty bad with really obvious bluescreen work, acting is bad from all including Lambert who has nothing much to go on really and the space prison sets look dreadfully cheap and cheerful.
It really is a shame to see such a difference in quality with these two films. This second is actually pretty dull seeing as it retreads everything from the first literately. Only highlight is the sexy Pam Grier and errr that's pretty much it.
Prometheus(2012)
Taken from my MovieWeb account:
QuoteA team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race.
Isolating, emotional, mesmerizing, thought provoking, powerful, artistic, and a masterpiece; are all words that can be used to describe Prometheus. It has an open and grandiose scale of epic feel to the film that makes the movie even more awe-inspiring.
Noomi Rapace plays the leading role of Doctor Elizabeth Shaw. Her break out role as Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish Millenium Trilogy helped put her in the acting spotlight. Although I have not checked out her performance in those films, I'm sure after having her "exposure" to American audiences who aren't as familiar with her will make Rapace an even more popular actress in the coming years. She has that "female heroine" theme to her character, bringing a strong and emotional feel to Shaw. She's a woman who will not give up on what she is destined to find as she searches for the answers.
Micheal Fassbender plays the synthetic android, David. For further information on who his character is watch the viral video "Happy Birthday David". Michael Fassbender gives a role unlike any other that he has done before. He adds so much depth and characterization to David. He's probably the most well-written and easily the most developed character in Prometheus. Hopefully his acting in Prometheus will earn him an Oscar nomination.
Idris Elba is the wise ass Southern Captain Janek of the Prometheus; Idris Elba is abound with acting skills. He's like a black Johnny Depp, Elba can play any sort of actor he wants and they're all different. Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron (who's a total "grab-you-by-the-balls bitch"), Guy Pearce as Charles Weyland (who didn't age well after we last saw his speech from TED in 2023, also another viral video to watch), Rafe Spall, and Sean Harris also stand out in acting as each character is their own. The casting is perfect, Ridley Scott might have had an idea of "let's put seventeen scientist who don't get along that well, place them in the middle of nowhere out in the open, have them discover our beginning that could lead to our end and that's our movie". Well done, Ridley, well done...
Although Prometheus can be called "somewhat of a prequel to Alien" It is merely a film that takes place in the same Universe as Alien. To put it this way, let me quote from our very own T. Clark and his online blog (Insert Blog Title Here):
"Before one sees a movie like "Prometheus," two things must be accounted for: 1) prepare yourself to cringe and 2) don't walk into the theater with the mindset that this is an "Alien" film. While it can be considered a prequel of sorts, the film stands tall on its own....While a lot of comparisons can be made to the original "Alien," one can't sit through this film comparing certain aspects or else they'll never like it. "Prometheus" is a much different movie than "Alien" is."
Director Ridley Scott helped change the world of sci-fi genre with his film Alien from 1979. Thirty years later, Ridley Scott has done it again. Taking many inspirations from other sci-fi/fantasy films much like the creator of Alien, Dan O' Bannon himself; Prometheus' writer Damon Lindelof took inspiration from today's sci-fi and added some "Alien DNA" to Prometheus. While the script has a few plot holes, and the movie seems to have some editing problems mainly in the last act of the film, I'm sure in a future blu-ray release those will be filled in with an extended cut to help flesh out the movie's plot more. Their's a few similarities and "subtle hints" to Alien, but in no means is it a prequel to the film.
I enjoyed the movie for what it is. Sure it's not as "great" as everyone thought out and wanted it to be, but it's a damn good sci-fi movie that has wonderful visual effects, mild thrills and chills, a few cringe-worthy scenes and a beautiful soundtrack that's majestic in every symphony. It's a perfect "companion piece" to Alien, if not a wonderful "stand-alone" film for which it is. A stand-alone film. Prometheus to me, is like Inception, you need to watch it multiple times in order to understand and fully "appreciate" what this film truly is: a masterpiece...
For more film review's of mine click below, and you can find them here:
http://www.movieweb.com/u/ghostman/reviews (http://www.movieweb.com/u/ghostman/reviews)
Quote from: Rick Grimes on Jun 10, 2012, 11:18:25 PM
Prometheus(2012)
Taken from my MovieWeb account:
QuoteA team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race.
Isolating, emotional, mesmerizing, thought provoking, powerful, artistic, and a masterpiece; are all words that can be used to describe Prometheus. It has an open and grandiose scale of epic feel to the film that makes the movie even more awe-inspiring.
Noomi Rapace plays the leading role of Doctor Elizabeth Shaw. Her break out role as Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish Millenium Trilogy helped put her in the acting spotlight. Although I have not checked out her performance in those films, I'm sure after having her "exposure" to American audiences who aren't as familiar with her will make Rapace an even more popular actress in the coming years. She has that "female heroine" theme to her character, bringing a strong and emotional feel to Shaw. She's a woman who will not give up on what she is destined to find as she searches for the answers.
Micheal Fassbender plays the synthetic android, David. For further information on who his character is watch the viral video "Happy Birthday David". Michael Fassbender gives a role unlike any other that he has done before. He adds so much depth and characterization to David. He's probably the most well-written and easily the most developed character in Prometheus. Hopefully his acting in Prometheus will earn him an Oscar nomination.
Idris Elba is the wise ass Southern Captain Janek of the Prometheus; Idris Elba is abound with acting skills. He's like a black Johnny Depp, Elba can play any sort of actor he wants and they're all different. Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron (who's a total "grab-you-by-the-balls bitch"), Guy Pearce as Charles Weyland (who didn't age well after we last saw his speech from TED in 2023, also another viral video to watch), Rafe Spall, and Sean Harris also stand out in acting as each character is their own. The casting is perfect, Ridley Scott might have had an idea of "let's put seventeen scientist who don't get along that well, place them in the middle of nowhere out in the open, have them discover our beginning that could lead to our end and that's our movie". Well done, Ridley, well done...
Although Prometheus can be called "somewhat of a prequel to Alien" It is merely a film that takes place in the same Universe as Alien. To put it this way, let me quote from our very own T. Clark and his online blog (Insert Blog Title Here):
"Before one sees a movie like "Prometheus," two things must be accounted for: 1) prepare yourself to cringe and 2) don't walk into the theater with the mindset that this is an "Alien" film. While it can be considered a prequel of sorts, the film stands tall on its own....While a lot of comparisons can be made to the original "Alien," one can't sit through this film comparing certain aspects or else they'll never like it. "Prometheus" is a much different movie than "Alien" is."
Director Ridley Scott helped change the world of sci-fi genre with his film Alien from 1979. Thirty years later, Ridley Scott has done it again. Taking many inspirations from other sci-fi/fantasy films much like the creator of Alien, Dan O' Bannon himself; Prometheus' writer Damon Lindelof took inspiration from today's sci-fi and added some "Alien DNA" to Prometheus. While the script has a few plot holes, and the movie seems to have some editing problems mainly in the last act of the film, I'm sure in a future blu-ray release those will be filled in with an extended cut to help flesh out the movie's plot more. Their's a few similarities and "subtle hints" to Alien, but in no means is it a prequel to the film.
I enjoyed the movie for what it is. Sure it's not as "great" as everyone thought out and wanted it to be, but it's a damn good sci-fi movie that has wonderful visual effects, mild thrills and chills, a few cringe-worthy scenes and a beautiful soundtrack that's majestic in every symphony. It's a perfect "companion piece" to Alien, if not a wonderful "stand-alone" film for which it is. A stand-alone film. Prometheus to me, is like Inception, you need to watch it multiple times in order to understand and fully "appreciate" what this film truly is: a masterpiece...
For more film review's of mine click below, and you can find them here:
http://www.movieweb.com/u/ghostman/reviews (http://www.movieweb.com/u/ghostman/reviews)
That's one great review!
Tank Girl (1995)
I think this is the perfect example of an idea that worked better as an animated movie. Problem for this live action film is there are numerous animated sequences within the film which prove without a doubt that animated was definitely the way to go.
Credit where its due Lori Petty did a good job as the unhinged off the wall 'Tank Girl' with her ticks and facial madness. The film suffers from lack of originality and poor visuals throughout but Petty does manage to hold it together with her seductive emo like appearance and cute one liners.
This film suffers much like 'Johnny Mnemonic' (both 1995) in the fact they both show the usual unimaginative distopian future run by evil companies (or people) with the same types of ideas. 'Tank Girl' is much more obviously comicbook orientated with in your face flashy bizarre styles, fashions and attitude but the overused apocalyptic future thing lets them both down and always comes across as cheap n tacky looking if not done right.
Plot is basic and McDowell simply isn't much of a villain. There is never much of a threat going on, nothing to engage you and nothing to treat your eyes. The 'Rippers' (mutant kangaroos) also look pretty terrible and more like something from a bad 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' sequel but I did quite like the hologram idea for McDowells's villain towards the end, nice effect surprisingly.
As said before the animated sequences are far superior to the rest of the film, maybe a reboot is in order.
Piranha 3DD
On one front this film does exactly what it says on the tin, its a creature feature boasting no more than soft porn and mindless killing via nasty sharp toothed fish. If you enjoy this type of film then you will possibly enjoy this 'comedy' horror, there is nothing to explain as its entirely obvious all the way through.
On the other front you could also look at this as yet another completely pointless waste of money and time which offers absolutely zilch originality in any department.
Personally I enjoy creature features but this is pretty much bottom of the barrel stuff that wasn't needed and drags down the genre's good image. Its completely a rehash/rerun of the first film (almost identical for gods sake) that offers terrible effects both real and cgi coupled with lame vanilla 'porn' which only teenagers would find sexy.
Comedy horror? no, not at tall, not even remotely amusing. Although it does amuse me how the makers couldn't decide what they wanted it to be. It does start off as a reasonably sensible creature horror but totally deteriorates into a spoof towards the end, I half expected Leslie Nielsen to pop up, quite bizarre frankly.
Yes it delivers more pointless flesh eating goldfish which some may want but ultimately the film is so badly made, so trashy with dreadful...everything! Quite simply if you wanna see tits n ass just watch some porn, why bother watching this nonsense?
The only half decent thing was Hasselhoff enjoying a laugh at his own expense. The 'Baywatch' spoofing could easily be a fun film on its own, just drop the shitty piranha plot and you could have a winner.
Demolition High (1996)
OK so we all know of the old adage 'Die Hard on a...' well this would come under the term 'Die Hard in a school' literately.
Fun to watch but never a great actor Corey Haim leads this 'Toy Soldiers' rip off as a group of terrorists take over a rather sparsely populated high school and its up to him to save the day.
The whole thing is really very cheap and dumb but somehow enjoyable. The big bad villain is played by Jeff Kober and he growls nicely into the camera as he threatens the students. His accomplices are all faceless with no background development accept for one female who seems to be there simply for sex appeal and the fetish of watching a woman kill faceless policemen and security guards. She was obviously the directors fave thing as she adorns the films poster for some reason.
Haim even has his own white vest in some sequences in a cute homage (?) to the film they are ripping off haha. Loving the cheapness, loving Haim's huge ridiculous earring (what is that about?) and loving the total predictability of the happy ending. Had this been made in the 80's it could of been a trashy cult.
Demolition University (1997)
OK so the first film was 'Die Hard' in a school so one must assume this second film, going by the title, is 'Die Hard' in a university?. No your wrong aha! its not that obvious a rip off all over again but done even worse, its actually got nothing to do with any university so the title makes no sense what so ever hehe bet you didn't see that coming eh.
So Haim is back, how can the same shit happen to the same guy twice? beats me. If you liked the first then your in for a treat because this sequel is exactly the same as the first accept its set in a power plant and errr that's it.
So yes I'm not joking its exactly the same. The plot follows the same route, has the same characters all the way through including another sexy femme fatale that kills faceless security guards and ends as you have previously seen also. So not much to say really, its not as good as the first, the school setting was more fun, the bad guys were more fun in the first and this just seems way too overblown with threats of chemical warfare and blowing up power plants etc...although the first wasn't exactly sensible.
Haim's earring is smaller but his quirky cheeky attitude is still likeable which helps the film. Its still cheap and nasty but it does have some charm, just not as much as the original film.
In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds (2011)
A seriously grand epic with outstanding special effects and stoic acting all round...is what I might be saying if this were a serious attempt at a fantasy film, but its a Boll film.
How does he do it anyway? how does he keep getting major stars to act in his films despite the fact EVERYONE knows he makes crapola, its common knowledge. I realise money must have a say but even that would have to be impressive for some of the folk he manages to get. Maybe the stars think his work will become cults in time? or maybe Boll is involved with the mob and blackmails them into it hehe :o
So at last we have a sequel to the original Boll fantasy epic, not connected in anyway to the original, a different beast this time. When I say different I mean just more rips from other well known fantasy films, you know the films. Not actually sure if its suppose to be set in another dimension or the past or another world etc...
To be honest it doesn't actually look too bad, the location work in the 'fantasy zone' is decent and shows some nice gloomy overcast scenery with lakes mountains, forests etc...courtesy of Canada.
That's pretty much all I can say accept for some nice costumes, although it looks like the wardrobe ideas came from the videogame 'Assassin's Creed'. Everything else is obviously rather poor, plot is childishly basic with many many problems. The best revolving around the fact no one from the 'fantasy zone' is bothered by simple advances in human technology like Dolph's clothes, boots, shoe laces, hair cut etc...simple things they would be amazed by I'm sure.
Its not the worst film I've ever seen but there are so many basic issues and inconsistencies, like Dolph being able to defeat several trained martial arts fighters at once in the present day but unable to defeat anyone in the 'fantasy zone', why? if he's such a badass fighter. There is also a dragon towards the finale, it isn't too bad in spots but about as good as a BBC documentary for the rest of the time.
I suppose you can't look too deep into a Boll film, we all know what to expect. Its just a shame as I think if he just tried a little harder he could make some half decent films. Just don't be drawn in by the films poster as its way way more exciting than the actual film.
The Sitter (2011)
I like Jonah Hill and his tubby antics, at first I didn't really dig him but he has definitely grown on me over time. I think he is good as a retro kind of comedian, he brings back memories of golden 80's comedies with lots of visual humour and cheeky dialog, bit like Kevin James.
I was hoping this would be the case for this newish film but it turns out to be a bit of a blank for me. It starts off so well, really good moments which did make me laugh out loud, when he gets introduced to the kids mainly as I recall.
The plot is totally unoriginal (no surprise there) but it has the promise of greatness, hints of possible classic setups which could be remembered for years to come...but alas!
I really don't wanna put this film down but it really could of been so good. After Hill's character leaves the gay crack den (oh yes) run by Rockwell it just goes down hill (no pun intended) with most of the laughs sucked away.
Your yearning for some really good hilarious stuff, you can see it just wanting to burst from the screen and slap you across the face. Maybe some John Candy type gold or Steve Martin type wackiness, Hill has the skills to do it but where is it here!?
The film becomes cumbersome and dull, too much swearing and too much emphasis on action/fighting type scenes instead of good comedy. Yes that can all work but it swamps Hill too much and doesn't allow him to really let fly, which I think he can do much better than here.
It wanted to be good but just feels flat and recycled, nothing to really make you come back for more. It is quite an obvious rip of a certain older flick (maybe its a remake/reboot?) but for once that doesn't matter as they chose the right lead for good belly laughs. I just don't think they knew how to utilize him properly.
Men in Black 3
I liked the original MIB film for its pure originality, imagination, quirky effects and the fact Sonnenfeld directed. This gave the film a nice kooky fun feeling just like he achieved with 'The Addams Family'. The second film didn't really seem up to much, more of a rehash of the first, bit of a sell out.
I was worried this third film would just be another rehash but in a nice huge surprise its pretty neat. The plot revolves around time travel which can be problematic for a film but its handled well and at no time did I feel confused.
The real meat of the film is of course the effects and alien imagination on hand, think of the whole film as a Mos Eisley space cantina sequence. This has always been the best parts in the MIB franchise, seeing who is an alien or what seemingly dull average setup could be an alien ship/base/weapon/creature etc...As with the previous films effects range from being really good wet n slimy concepts with the aliens, some great mask/makeup work mixed with cgi. But then the action sequences tend to look rather fake and hokey, its pretty obvious and never seems to look any good really, way obvious bluescreen work.
Of course the film is pretty much a live action cartoon so one can't quibble but it does still look really fake throughout. That aside I do love the in-jokes and little touches such as revealing famous figures to be either aliens or working for the MIB, its been done but it still works and gives that nice undercover secretive atmosphere that surrounds the whole (real) Men in Black mystery.
A nice bonus of course with this new film is all the little jokes about the vast differences in technology between 69 and the present day. Some fun pokes at obvious changes in tech sizes and battery usage, I also liked how the aliens in the MIB HQ seemed to be dressed circa 1969 (60's in general). In other words they all look like aliens from cheesy B-movies of the time, well I presume that was the idea hehe.
To be fair its only down to Brolin as a young 'Agent K' that makes it work so well. I think its safe to say without him it would have been business as usual from Hollywood and another factory line sequel. Although I must also give credit to the design and creation of 'Boris' who is certainly a pleasing baddie and quite formidable for once.
Played really well by Jemaine Clement I must give kudos to the whole idea, the character is actually quite eerie with his gnashing jaws, 'Tusken Raider' like eye sockets and creepy crawly servants, its a shame we don't see more of his real features. I loved how he was well spoken also, sounded like Tim Curry...he could of played the part also methinks.
Must also say, I hated the casting of Emma Thompson, she totally did not fit in this role one bit. The younger actress used to be her younger self was a complete balls up, no way she looked anything like a younger Thompson...but I nitpick.
The film isn't gonna blow you away by any means. Its solid fun and has done well to breathe new life into the franchise but its still somewhat of a cookie cutter blockbuster. I think this third bookmarks the franchise nicely and there is no need to milk it further. Unfortunately there are talks of a fourth which you know will spoil everything, Hollywood just doesn't know when to quit and end on a high, gotta bleed every last dime until its derided and dry.
On a final thought for you...Nicole Scherzinger, oh my god is she hot!! damn hot!! scorching!!! why couldn't she have been more involved in her black latex/pvc outfit!?. Oh the disappointment of that, talk about teasing you geez.
Quote from: Hubbs on Jun 19, 2012, 12:36:08 AMAlthough I must also give credit to the design and creation of 'Boris' who is certainly a pleasing baddie and quite formidable for once. Played really well by Jemaine Clement I must give kudos to the whole idea, the character is actually quite eerie with his gnashing jaws, 'Tusken Raider' like eye sockets and creepy crawly servants, its a shame we don't see more of his real features. I loved how he was well spoken also, sounded like Tim Curry...he could of played the part also methinks.
Quote from: Hubbs on Jun 19, 2012, 12:36:08 AMOn a final thought for you...Nicole Scherzinger, oh my god is she hot!! damn hot!! scorching!!! why couldn't she have been more involved in her black latex/pvc outfit!?. Oh the disappointment of that, talk about teasing you geez.
We are in agreement. ;D
And yeah, I could definitely see Curry in that role.
Rodan
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F20%2FRodan_poster.jpg%2F220px-Rodan_poster.jpg&hash=a9c25aea907084b3fef28c8280aeec538e65601e)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timewarpmemories.com%2FRodan1956.jpg&hash=e8c1e3822e569dbc184566b340de7856cceeb91d)
Rodan is a film that I feel never gets as much credit as it really should, often being disregarded as a another typical monster movie with no worth save for mindless destruction and maybe the fact that it introduces one of the most famous monsters of the Toho pantheon. It opens with what seems to be a rather simple murder mystery taking place in a humble mining community. A man found dead, killed by some unknown but terrifying weapon wielded against him with incredible force. It's not long however before the threat is escalated as we discover an entire population of agressive prehistoric insects has been unearthed by the mining operation and is now becoming increasingly agressive with the human population as the attacks finally spill out into the village itself. Now it has gone far beyond a simple murder, and an entire town is at stake! Finally we get to see our title creature and soon an entire city is being razed by not one but two flying kaiju. The esclatation of threats- from shadowy slasher, to THEM!-like giant bugs, to finally an impressive and memorable kaiju- feels natural and Rodan succesfully combines no less than three generas in the same film. This isn't just another Japanese Kaiju flick folks, it incorporates elements of murder mystery while at the same time drawing on elements from the classic 50's creature features of America. The build up is intense and even though we all know what's coming it remains truly eerie. The scene in which a figher pilot is plucked out of the air by the mysterious UFO is both action packed yet at the same time somewhat unsettling.
The human characters are archetypal and don't really stand out, except for Yumi Shirakawa's Kiyo who is fragile yet never annoyingly shrill or wothless.
Rodan himself never looked better than in this film. With other Kaiju, there's something to be said about hindsight and refinement on the part of the creature designers and suit makers. In the case of Rodan, I feel that the design started to go in a direction that really wasn't good for it. The original Rodan was distinctive and threatening and monstrous without feeling carootnishly evil or ghoulish. With it's heavily wrinkled face that give it a somewhat Gargoyle-like appearance and it's dead shark eyes. It felt like a predatory monster, but not a overtly malevolent one which fit in with the concept that Rodan was just looking for food and a place to nest. The giant owl-like monster of the later showa films and the stiff, bobble headed pterosaur of the Heisei film just couldn't compare. Rodan's distinctive shriek is an excellent and enduring piece of sound design. While not as well known as Godzilla's classic roar every kaiju fan worth their salt knows that cry. The visuals are lush and enchanting, the destruction is on a scale much like the original Gojira's without being a boring retread and the ending is moving, highlighting the tragedy of these prehistoric creatures without resorting to demonizing the humans who are forced to destroy them.
All in all, Rodan is one of the best samplings the genera has to offer.
Wrath of the Titans
Colour me amazed! what in the name of Greek buggery has happened here?! The first film was a complete and utter abomination which brought shame upon Hollywood, it wasn't good enough to buff the boots of the original. I still don't think anyone knows what Harryhausen thought of it.
So I didn't have high hopes for this sequel, which I think is understandable. But to my amazement this franchise has done a complete U-turn and actually come up with a semi decent film, well at least in looks anyway.
Bottom line this is a monster mash of epic proportions, its takes the concept of the original Harryhausen masterpiece and expands it ten fold with dazzling imagery. This is really what they should have done with the first remake instead of making crap up, but what I really can't get my head around is why this sequel looks SO MUCH BETTER than the first!. The last film had the Kraken which did look damn fine, but even that doesn't come close to anything in this sequel.
All the monsters here look terrific, yes there is a time lapse between films of course but the divide between quality here is huge!!. What can I say about 'Kronos'...a colossus of an effect, eye popping! I haven't been so impressed by a cgi effect since gods knows when, I can't remember. He just looked stunning, stunningly real, as if they actually did awaken a real god from the fiery depths of the underworld, colour me stunned!. The only creature I didn't like was the Minotaur which looked like a naff character from 'Mortal Kombat' ('Motaro' without his horse back end).
To be brutally honest the film is kept alive by the effects, the rest of the film is filled with pitiful acting and some of the most bizarre collection of accents for ancient Greece ever. The hero has an Aussie accent, Bill Nighy for some reason uses a Yorkshire accent (Northern England), how on earth they came to that decision I don't know. Finally you have 'Agenor' who is said to be a thief so of course they give him a London cockney accent! why?? what are they implying?.
Yes the film is basic pantomime but so was the original classic. The cast list isn't quite as impressive as the classic but it suffices and everybody does their bit to try for that grandiose epic taste. The whole film does look really really good with lovely locations, great costumes, beautiful vista's and a solid score.
In short I think they have finally captured the classic fun adventurous look of ancient Greek mythology just as they did all those years ago with classic films like 'Jason and the Argonauts'. Yes this sequel does follow pretty much the same pattern as the first, ending with a big monster to battle in the exact same way with virtually the same outcome, but because it all looks so crisp you really don't mind or notice too much.
This new film gives you exactly what we wanted all along and what the classic did perfectly...well created mythological monsters. For once the cgi does do the trick as it should and could if used properly. Ignore the first film this is what you've been waiting for, hopefully the third will continue the goodness.
Parasite (1982)
This early Charles Band horror sci-fi kinda reminded me of early John Carpenter films, it does have a charm about it that shines even today. Set in the far future of 1992 where the world has met an atomic disaster and is run by one corporation called 'The Merchants'. They seek to control the riff raff with a deadly parasite which they force one doctor to create, who then goes on the run with it to try and kill it.
Same factory line plot about the future and it does look pretty similar to other films with the same idea but the cast sets it apart. The main role is played by Robert Glaudini who isn't your usual good looking type, he has a face of curiosity, he looks a bit odd, a bit regular and this helps you run with the nonsense. He is helped by Demi Moore in her second screen role before all the money and glitz, which provides a more grounded performance from her.
Its all still cheesy as hell by today's standards and it looks trashy of course (apart from the black Lamborghini) but back in the day I reckon it looked quite good...I'm guessing.
Another feather in Mr Bands cap is the fact he worked with Stan Winston in this film. Yep the mighty Winston created the parasite in question and probably had a hand in the gory effects also. Naturally this helps the film greatly as the effects and makeup are quite good, not outstanding but solid showing promise.
Actually quite a bloody film with some nice gore, plot is old and you can see the 'Alien' rip (which would of influenced allot at the time) a mile off. Overall its not bad and certainly a high point in Mr Band's rollercoaster career which seemed to move into killer doll territory as we all know...for some reason.
Loose Cannons (1990)
Looking for an interesting combination in casting? well look no further, Dan Aykroyd, Gene Hackman and Dom Deluise head this cop buddy flick. This film followed on from the popularity of the 'Lethal Weapon' franchise as did many others of the era and they are all pretty much the same. The unique carrot on a stick here is the casting really.
It certainly is an interesting choice, 80's motor mouthed quirky comedy legend Aykroyd, hard assed no nonsense Hackman and farcical spoof maestro Deluise (of the Mel Brooks/Gene Wilder spoof pack) all thrown together. This is the films downfall basically, the three leads are totally incompatible and never gel.
The film is your usual regular mismatched cop duo comedy/thriller with all the regular mismatched cop duo moments and sequences you would expect. Action is slow (with Deluise it has to be) and uninspiring and the attempted funny moments are just poor. Aykroyd is suppose to have a multiple personality disorder which you would think could be comedy gold...it isn't, its embarrassing to watch.
Pretty much a complete failure on all aspects, Hackman just doesn't fit into this kind of lunacy and it shows. Tries to be along the same lines as 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil' with Wilder and Pryor but doesn't come close.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
To think this this film came out when I was just one year old, just like 'Star Wars' which came out a year before I was born, makes me think.
I'm not a Star Trek fan and never have been although I did always enjoy the films with the original crew, never got into any of the TV series. I always preferred the Star Wars franchise for many reasons but one is because it always looked so superior. The first Trek film really does show the difference between the two franchises, not taking anything away from ST but it always did look more plastic and obviously fake.
The effects in this first film are a mixed bag really, the sequences towards the finale inside 'V'Ger' don't look too bad (nice '2001' type fantasy lighting effects), various ship shots look nice throughout and the costumes although drab don't age too badly. For the most part though this film has aged badly if we're honest about it, I don't wanna keep comparing it to SW but there is a clear difference in quality which still stands to this day.
What I did always like about Trek was the way it tries to be realistic or at least approach things in a realistic fashion. The start of the film is almost done in a Kubrick style with some nice camera work. Not sure if they are merely homaging or copying '2001' but you can see the influences in one sequence as we are treated to grandiose panorama of the Enterprise as she sits in her docking bay accompanied by a stirring Trek instrumental score. I do like the way Wise gave the film a slow pace, lots of character and background building alongside plenty of mission dialog and technical problems that might occur in reality for such a scenario.
The film was criticised for this slow unadventurous style but I like it, its one of the more realistic Trek films and could almost be tagged as 'serious sci-fi'. Another aspect of this film and other Trek films I like is the plot. Seems straight forward enough as the team are sent to intercept a mysterious alien phenomena heading towards earth, but I liked how the plot has its intriguing twist at the end. Its not groundbreaking but it just makes you think a little, right up to the very end your unsure what the hell will happen, how 'Kirk' will save the day and what's the deal behind the alien cloud thing, that's good movie making.
I really don't know why the film had such a hard time upon release. It carries on from the classic TV show with everything you would expect but on a grander scale. The continuity from the TV show to the big screen is handled well I thought although I'm no Trek expert. You have the typical Trek visuals and sounds, the crew handle most of the action from the ships bridge through the good old big screen on the wall, everyone is present and correct doing what they do etc...
Sure its not an in your face phaser fest with hand to hand fights with large lizard men but I for one thought the serious route was a good way to go. The film does feel more of an exploration adventure, it takes its time, slowly builds, lots of space jargon...you don't know what their on about half the time but it just sounds good, I use my 'realism' card again.
Overall the special effects look fuzzy in places, lots of beige colour schemes going on with the ship and crew, plenty of nasty bluescreen evident I'm afraid but its still very enjoyable sci-fi. Star Trek has its own little niche of being semi serious and approaching everything logically but still utilizing just enough fantasy to make it a pleasant ride.
Catch .44 (2011)
Odd title but familiar film with Willis taking part in another Tarantino-esq outing that does leave you feeling somewhat disappointed.
When I say Tarantino-esq I mean the plot is basically cut up and all over the show. We start at the end and work backwards with flashbacks aplenty to find out what happens. Thing is we never really discover the whole point behind most of it (only some characters) and frankly I didn't much care either.
The plot revolves around a trio of women (terrible casting and boring performances) whom I'm guessing are suppose to be sexy drug dealing associates of Willis (epic fail there). They are to wait in a diner and pick up a shipment but they are setup and everything goes tits up (yawn!). The problem is these characters aren't developed in any way and don't last too long either, so you aren't given the chance to like them and simply aren't bothered when the shit hits the fan.
The other characters are a mixed bunch that include Willis who is badly miscast as a drug dealing kingpin, Whitaker as a associate of Willis, acts well as usual but has this really annoying Spanish accent (I think it was Spanish) and Dourif in a cameo really. He isn't really important in any way, no point him even being there.
The setup and shootout that happens at the start (which is the end) is the best part. When you see it you wanna know what happens next but instead you are fed about 1h 20mins of flashbacks showing what happened before and how it all led up to the shootout, which isn't very interesting. So in short the finale stand off is the best bit where as the rest of the film is uninspired and dull with drab acting.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
This was the first Star Trek movie I saw at the cinema, and to top that I think I saw it whilst in the US of A too :)
So the story continues from where it left of in 'The Search for Spock' with Nimoy again at the helm. What can one say about this Trek outing, it certainly took a different route and clearly went for a more comedic approach. Was this the right approach? well maybe, I can't deny that the film is very entertaining with some well crafted family fun moments that make all the veteran actors even more endearing in their now historical roles.
How can anyone fail to love these guys? quite literately old age pensioners in space and still saving the earth, what a team!. So yes a big kudos for the alternate direction and some lovely amusing moments which can't fail to make you smile.
On the other hand did this film really do much to bolster Star Treks sci-fi rankings within the hall of fame/classics?. I'm not so sure really, we all know Star Trek has that little niche of semi serious logical sci-fi mixed with blatant fantasy but for me this plot just took one step too far. There is really only so far you can go before you have to step back and say 'hold on'.
Earth is in trouble (again) so the ageing crew simply decide to use a 'time warp' into the past to casually pick up some humpback whales and bounce back to the their present before anyone knew they were there. Now is it me or is this premise just a tad beyond the realms of a reasonably sensible film? the last film saw a character resurrected and now they can jump through time to fix problems, these guys can't be beaten!.
The story is an ingenious creation (but they do tend to come across allot of unknown energy sapping...problems), a good message about the environment and endangered species but for me the time travel thing just never sat well, its too convenient and renders the Enterprise crew almost insurmountable in any given situation.
That aside its a completely new breathe of fresh air to have the film set almost entirely on a planet surface, especially our own. This does infact render special effects almost obsolete for the film, almost. There are still many nasty bluescreen shots, standard obvious sets and some hideous whale footage crowbarred in but also the odd nice starship model, usual Trek look really.
I can see why this did well upon release as its a fun film with a good message and happy ending, its Star Trek all over. For me the plot has gone from generic in the last two films to completely outlandish in this film, much suspension of disbelief required here. Much like the previous two films I neither overly dislike or overly like this fourth effort. I enjoyed it for what's it worth and of course knew what to expect, but compare these Trek films to other sci-fi and they do look quite childish.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
To this day it still seems a funny choice to have cast Chris Lloyd as a Klingon. Such a wiry guy with a weak parched voice and definitely more of a comedic actor. I'm not sure he pulled it off really, I can see his his other amusing film characters shining through every time he's in shot hehe and he's not really very threatening. There isn't really any reason for him to be involved either, he's just there, in space, for no reason and decides to go after the 'Genesis' data, no background a tall.
So despite a slightly weak villain the main plus point is that the continuity carries on nicely from the second film with everyone present and correct accept the character of 'Saavik' (no longer Alley), of course the plot carries on nicely also. It actually feels very much like a huge film cut in two (this and 'Khan') or back to back filming, not much difference between the two.
The story does feel rather contrived with a major U-turn, 'Spock' had been killed off in a grand heroic manner to end the film franchise. The second film did well (unexpectedly?) so they had to think of a way to bring him back to life so the franchise could be milked further haha. This does equal much spiritual Vulcan jiggery pokery which is interesting but at the same time a bit heavy and tends to drag the sci-fi down into another realm or genre even. Personally I didn't like that side of the story, it just doesn't seem to work for me and its all too convenient.
I have always thought that the story behind 'David' being 'Kirk's' son was never really explored properly either. We discover this revelation in 'Khan' but its so subdued I would of thought we might get more in this third film, but no. Even in death 'kirk's' son gets no real epic send off, the whole thing from start to finish is glossed over pretty lazily really, oh well.
Everything else within the film is pretty much the standard look and feel of the second film simply carried on, nothing much to rave about really, its all quite average. Effects are still rather poor to be frank, the starship sequences look a touch neater this time but the planet surface of 'Genesis' has some nasty obvious set work accompanied by some even worse destruction effects as the planet disintegrates. 'Kirk' and company even remain in the same uniforms for this continuing adventure!. Both the second and third films have one other plus point in their favour and that was Horner and his instrumental score. The first film lacked a good score but this is fixed with gusto by Horner as he provides much needed emotion and vigor to the films. That was one reason the first film seemed a bit limp at times.
Its all a bit hokey in all honesty, almost like a young teens comicbook film. It does seem like this story idea could simply be a small chapter in the Trek universe that could of been explained within a TV episode, there really isn't any outstanding movie moments a tall. Speaking of hokey...don't you just love seeing Shatner in fist fights, the finale fight between 'Kirk' and 'Kruge' really was pretty dire to say the least haha. Talk about fluffy theatrical fisticuffs! never at any point does it look real or remotely intense, lets face it neither actors are the athletic fighting type. Absolutely terrible yet probably close to the real Star Trek of the mid 60's, I did enjoy that scene.
The whole film feels very much like a 'made for TV' movie and only slightly less cheaper looking than the second. The acting is wooden but that is part of the charm admittedly, we expect that, but the film just doesn't have any cinematic impact what so ever. Funnily enough this film does also feel closer to its TV origins than the semi serious sci-fi of the original (as did 'Khan'), I put that down to the low values of pretty much everything, 'cardboard effects'.
End of the day you just can't go wrong with a good old fashioned adventure with the old crew of the Enterprise. This film is probably a bit worse than 'Khan' but it still manages to be fun in a very silly quirky way whilst remaining faithful to original source material. Can't deny its always a good romp.
Keep an eye out for the small cameo by Miguel Ferrer as a crew member onboard the Excelsior.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
I remember when this was released many people thought it was the old crews final film due to the title. Then once people had seen it most thought that maybe it would be best if it was their final film.
This fifth adventure starts off on a good note with some nice sequences. A short intro with the main antagonist on the sandy world of Nimbus III which looks good (sandy desert like worlds always seem to look good in sci-fi films) and then a few good humoured sequences with 'Kirk' 'Spock' and 'Bones' enjoying their leave in Yosemite. Add to that a brief intro back onto the Enterprise where everything is in the process of being fixed and not working too well which gives 'Scotty' his usual opportunity to huff n puff, this also makes you smile.
After this pleasant start which all point towards the beginning of a good fun film things take a bit of a nosedive. Basically there is no real plot here and little explanation for anything. Renegade Vulcan 'Sybok' isn't really explained a tall unless you count 'Spock's' brief flashback where we are given more big news that he and 'Spock' are half brothers. We have no reason for his 'religious' crusade, where he came from or how he ended up on Nimbus III. There is also no explanation for Nimbus III, its inhabitants, its name (the planet of galactic peace?), why there are earth horses on it and why exactly everyone is on 'Sybok's' side.
Of course the main issue here is the fact they all run off looking for God in the centre of the galaxy. Personally I really can't think of a more risky idea than this! apart from possibly alienating a huge amount of the audience who will have their own religious views and beliefs that are sure to conflict. The flip side is you know straight away they won't actually find God as how could a sci-fi film proclaim what God would look, sound or behave like. How could the film makers preach or force their own beliefs and ideals of God on a world where there is such religious diversity.
So obviously you know the plots outcome and thus the film becomes pointless. On top of that the obvious alien creature/power, that isn't God, which they do come across is not explained. No idea what it may have been or what it wanted or how it lead them to believe it was the one true God etc...
Another issue that bewilders me with the Trek film franchise is how or why the special effects seem to have gotten worse as the sequels progressed. The first film really did have a slightly epic feel to it with some sweeping model work but this fifth entry really does look dire. As usual we get some dodgy looking bluescreen and shaky sets which I have come to accept (sign of the times) but the model shots look so poor in this.
The actual models are sound and are clearly well made but it just looks as though the act of putting them on film has been cheap and quick. From what I've read it does appear things were done as cheaply as possible and without the best folk available. To be honest you expect more from a huge franchise and its fifth sequel.
So a very silly choice of plot which could of completely back fired (amazed it didn't), plus it has too many similarities to the first Trek film with the 'V'Ger' story, dull pacing, poor effects and the rather creepy and definitely un-sexy fan dance by the aged 'Uhura' was a bit eww.
Not much really happens in this film after the events on Nimbus III in my humble opinion. Its a very mediocre outing throughout with a very predictable anti climactic finale which almost killed off anymore adventures for the original cast for good.
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
A new film, a new generation and the beginning of a newer franchise. I don't like these shorter one word film titles though.
The film kicks off with the handing over of the Enterprise from 'Kirk' to a new younger crew. You half expected the next generation crew to be at the hand over but not so. Shatner looks uncomfortable in this sequence (in my opinion), it does seem as if he would be quite happy to carry on being the immortal space legend 'Kirk'. It seems like a painful break for him and the original cast members that join him...Doohan and Koenig.
The same could be said for myself as a viewer, I've never been a Trekkie but I have always enjoyed the original cast. This new film starts off well and in familiar territory with the beloved 'kirk' 'Scotty' and 'Chekov' under pressure, but it quickly falls flat as we hesitantly hand over to the new duller crew.
The problem with the new generation is quite simply the new crew, Jesus they are bland! so very boring, the only character I think has some interest is 'Worf'. A Klingon male that has joined Starfleet and worked up the ranks, could almost be seen as a turncoat to his Klingon people, interesting.
Other characters in the film are all rather meek and uninteresting. McDowell's character isn't really very threatening and fails to crank up the tension when on screen, hardly a villain to remember. I must also admit I always hated Goldberg in Star Trek, she just seemed to big a name to have involved plus she really doesn't fit this type of genre if you ask me.
Other personal issues I have with this film and the new crew is the character of 'Data'. A tremendously annoying character that looks like a makeup mistake, terrbile effects when we do see his innards and whose humorous moments are rather forced and cringeworthy. His whole development during this film is along the same lines as 'Kryten' from British sci-fi comedy 'Red Dwarf'...yet not as good I might add. Of course my opinions are personal preference within the Star Trek universe.
Anyway the plot is pretty dull frankly, an odd choice of adventure, at least up until the 'Nexus' takes 'Picard' whilst part of the Enterprise crashes (film highlight borrowed from 'Star Trek III' perhaps?). Things do get a little more interesting then especially as we get 'Kirk' back. Still many questions arise during these sequences, what exactly is the 'Nexus'? an afterlife of some kind? where does it come from? how does it work? etc...How come 'Picard' can see and talk to 'Guinan'? and how come 'Kirk' had only just arrived there despite him entering the 'Nexus' 78 years prior?. Lastly, how come they can both simply decide to leave the 'Nexus' to where ever they wish?.
Maybe I missed these points I dunno but luckily it doesn't detract from the fun of having 'Kirk' and 'Picard' double up in a pretty cool franchise generation cross over. Alas they still decide to kill off 'Kirk' which I think is a mistake because he and his classic crew got a bloody good send off in 'Star Trek VI'. Seeing as he gets killed here you tend to think the character would deserve yet another royal send off with a big military funeral attended by all previous characters in a special episode or another film. Seems an anti climax to just leave it at this after all that has gone before.
As for the effects well of course they look sharper and bolder but most of the shots were cgi created with only a few models used. For me this is a shame and adds to the shiny plastic fake look of the film just like its TV counterpart, models always look better!!. The whole film did feel very much like an outstretched TV episode, more so than previous film offerings if you ask me. Like I said the plot is thin and could easily have been a simple episode (seeing as the effects aren't exactly much different). There really was no big silver screen stand out moment, the space battle against the Klingon sisters was quite good but that's all you get.
Overall I think this was a disappointing start for the next gen of Trek films. I admit it was always gonna be a hard sell to me as I never followed Star Trek after the original crew and never liked the next gen cast/crew. Despite that its still a very mediocre entry with a lot of dialog which could almost be construed as time wasting of sorts.
Seeing 'Kirk' and 'Picard' together was damn good I have to say. Seeing the 'Shat' back in action at the finale despite weight and age really puts a smile on your face, Trek fan or not. Lets not forget it was a three way battle including McDowell, that's a pretty awesome trio of legends duking it out right there folks :). Just a shame the rest of the film didn't live up to the action and excitement in the finale. It took the inclusion of Shatner to bring that excitement I might add, that tells you something.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
So here we are with the sixth and final adventure with the legendary old classic crew and by far the best film of the six in personal opinion. Yes I will say it now, this film is my personal favourite out of all the Trek films including the next gen crew and the recent prequel.
Its strange really, up to this point the previous films have been average in visuals and in some cases bland in plot, but this last entry really comes back with a bang. It does feel as if everyone really came together and pushed for the best send off possible for both the fans and the original cast...and boy did they get it right.
First up, visuals, what on Titan happened here? all of a sudden this franchise looks delicious. The sets look polished and real with actual depth, costumes maintain the naval militaristic feel as ever but look devilishly sharp, models glide through space with ease and rival some Star Wars work and all technical electrical effects actually appear as if they could be real, hardly any dodgy bluescreen anywhere folks!.
The whole film is packed with colour and flare making it an absolute joy to watch, the colour schemes are perfect (I loved the purple coloured shock wave that engulfed the Excelsior) with everything looking neat and pinpoint. It really is a complete departure from all the previous films and such a victory for all involved.
The plot is outrageously simple I must admit, again with the Klingon's. The Klingon's want peace with the Federation (well with everyone really) after a disaster threatens their homeworld, pfft now they want peace when they need major help eh. Certain factions don't want this, there is an assassination, 'Kirk' is blamed, imprisoned and everyone is at each others throats once again.
I think it was a wise move to use the Klingon's as the enemy in this final film. The Klingon's are the classic enemy and what better way to go down in a blaze of glory than kicking some Klingon ass (I think the Russian cold war theories/allegories can be laid to rest now). Of course by the end everyone is supposedly friends and at peace (or on the way to that) which is a bit wussy but I can see what they were aiming for hehe.
Talking of Klingon's, who would of thought Chris Plummer would make a brilliant Klingon huh? Some righteous casting there my friends, a sterling choice. Plummer is a Klingon badass in this despite the fact he actually does nothing other than spout Shakespeare...in Klingon. The mark of a great actor there, he merely struts around and throws out the bards work in his pitch perfect speaking voice yet at the same time he looks imposing, threatening and powerful, absolute badass! I loved the little touch with his eyepatch being bolted onto his face, literately bolted into his klingon skull.
There really wasn't a foot put wrong here in my opinion, lets not forget about Warner as the Klingon chancellor 'Gorkon'. The man wasn't involved for very long but again he made his presence felt with a great klingon character performance. Just like 'Chang' he looked every bit the complete warrior with his tusk cane and weathered facial hair, he also looked pretty tough and imposing too. Clearly both characters are remembered due to the actors that made them, they both really gave the film a classic 'proper' feel.
This final outing really had it all, great space battles, quirky jokes and even a good old fashioned alien filled prison on a snow planet, every sci-fi needs a good Mos Eisley cantina type moment. I loved that whole idea and seeing all the odd aliens (who wouldn't), just a shame it didn't quite look as good as it should of but there are some glorious location shots later on which really sell it.
Very much in tone with the first new prequel if you ask me, in fact the prequel borrowed the snow planet idea briefly methinks. An extremely fun film to watch which has all the hallmarks of an epic space opera, the typical good humour we all know and love plus bright vivid visuals that really heighten your enjoyment and add an almost comicbook adaptation feel to the proceedings.
A stirring send off with all the team inscribing their signatures across the screen against a space background whilst the classic Star Trek theme plays in the background. It was a beautiful way to go and almost brings a tear to your eye, and I'm not a Trekkie.
The final film, the best film and the perfect finale.
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Second film (or sequel?) for the next generation crew and this time there is no hint of the classic crew what so ever, its all new now baby.
So this next Trek rumble is a lot more straight forward plot wise and probably has the most action seen for awhile. Quite simply the 'Borg' are on the rampage and out to assimilate pretty much everyone they can, namely all of Starfleet. This goes a little pair shaped for them so they jump through time to assimilate the entire Earth...the naughty rascals. Is time travel a regular function for everyone in the Trek universe? handy if so.
I liked this film for the simplicity of everything and the fact you get some basic action mixed with some genuine tension along with the insecurity of not knowing what may happen, seeing as its the Borg. Bottom line there are plenty of deaths or assimilation's (close enough), a decent baddie, some good back story to Earth's future and plenty of phaser action.
Its not exactly a top notch sci-fi action flick lets be honest here, this is no 'Die Hard in space'. Visually it still all appears like the TV show only on a slightly grander scale, everything looks a bit plastic amongst the obvious sets, still has the 'TV look'.
Effects again are more cgi based than models unfortunately. The space battle against the big Borg cube ship thing at the start actually looks like a videogame sequence, obvious cgi without weight or depth. I know this is still only 96 but geez you'd think they could do better, compare this to Star Wars!. The deadly Borg look quite decent with some good facial makeup but their cyborg body armour, weapons and general body attachments do look pretty rubbery and plastic.
I really don't know who decided to put silly little flashing lights all over the shop, it just makes everything look so childish and fake. 'Data' again suffers with this indignity, when his android under layers are revealed it just appears to be bare grey plastic with stupid flashing fairy lights all over, so very crap looking.
As for the bad guys I do like them, space zombies if you will, lets face it that's what they are really. Part robotic and part organic space zombies from the planet Romero. I do like the Borg as they do actually come across as creepy plus they manage to add real tension and dread to a Star Trek film. Can't really over look the fact they are a mixture of various ideas from various other sci-fi/horror films all pieced together ('Hellraiser' springs to mind). Plus the fact that they transform whole areas into cold dead robotic hives that visually appear the same as the Borg themselves kinda copies ideas used in 'Aliens' but hey ho.
Apart from that the Borg are quite a cool creation and do actually add a genuine threat to the Star Trek universe. Yet at the same time they kinda don't fit in the Trek universe, they're almost too cold, calculated and merciless for the family friendly franchise. Not sure I ever really liked the design of their ship (I guess its a ship), why is it merely a large cube? what's the deal with that? On a final note why are they called 'Borg'? it does sound Swedish hehe.
The 'Borg' queen is a nice touch to the faceless enemy that does come across as an interesting character, not just a cyborg on auto pilot. She also has some really good prosthetic makeup on the face and chest regions, looks that bit more realistic than the other drones.
A definite improvement over the last rather dull film, a basic story which is more savage and quite dark in places, although not too extreme of course. I did notice this is another film where actually having some knowledge of a previous TV episode/s is slightly required. They got away with it for 'Star Trek II' and I believe they got away with it for this film also, but seeing that particular episode would appear to help when watching this film.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
The next generation crew steps up to the plate with a third film but does it knock one out of the park?. Well not to beat around the bush no it doesn't, its a full strike if you ask me.
I'm not gonna sugar coat it, gotta be cold here. For me this was easily the weakest Trek film so far, even worse than 'Star Trek V'. I know I have used the term 'outstretched TV episode' a few times in previous reviews with Star Trek but this one term really sums up this film to a tee.
Apart from the quite dreadful grey scale shade tone that accompanies every scene on board the Enterprise which somehow now seems more intrusive than in the previous two films, the plot is utterly non-engaging or even remotely interesting. A planet which harbours immortal regeneration powers that Starfleet and the alien race 'Son'a' wish to keep for themselves whilst at the same time evicting the local hippie population.
Say what now?? yes that's right, its basically all about evicting some perfect happy go lucky boring blonde haired blue eyed farm folk off their planet...and that's it. I'm not even sure if there were any bad guys in this! I suppose they were naughty, not really much of a threat though, it was just a few groups fighting amongst themselves really, nothing more.
The whole film is so so utterly pointless and dull for virtually the entire run time! It only kicks into action for a small segment near the finale and even that was very mediocre stuff. Everything looks exactly as it does on the TV show, there is nothing that would make you think this is a big budget movie. The effects are no better! you would think they might be getting better but no, this film actually goes a step backwards.
There is just something about the next gen design, even though these are movies they just can't seem to shake the look and feel of the TV series. The classic crew movies didn't always look tremendous but they were always much better looking than the original show, they always had real silver screen moments. I'm afraid to say this entry has none what so ever.
It seems as though everything is now fully cgi here, I'm not a fan of computer generated effects and I think this is a good example why. The only thing that looks good and realistic in this film are the space vista's, nebulae, planets etc...which is exactly what cgi is good at. Starships can be done well but here they are no better than their TV counterparts, satisfactory at best. There are still the age old issues of dodgy bluescreen going on but now they also have the added downside of completely fake cgi sequences on top.
So apart from the dreadful plot and god awful cgi are there any plus points? I guess F. Murray Abraham does add a sprinkle of class onto the proceedings, its just a shame he does completely nothing of interest for the whole film. The alien race he portrays (Son'a) are such a generic concept with little to no imagination in design, their faces are simply plain grey just like all the uniforms of the Enterprise cre...zzzzz.
So the film ticks along with tonnes of dialog including so much space jargon I felt completely bewildered and detached. I'm sure this one film has more Trek technical mumbo jumbo speeches than any other, by the end of the film I had actually lost how or what they were all suppose to be doing.
Add to this some really vomit inducing romance with 'Picard', really hokey sets, really fake plastic looking props, hokey fights and the very annoying practically perfect farm civilisation in their typically 'I'm a goodie' beige loose fit garments. Yeah I know its a Star Trek film and you come to expect this kinda stuff but by this point I think certain aspects of this really should be better.
The classic Trek crew were loved for their quirky comedic like adventures and Shatner's fluffy fist fights. The next generation crew just can't pull that off, they are too serious and too dull basically haha. For me they can't get away with the charming nonsense that the classic crew got away with.
This film lacks punch and energy, its a complete non entity and in my opinion will only please Trekkies. For fans it basically has all you need as its pretty much a very long TV episode so you can't go wrong. For neutral non-fan folk it will be a slow slog through some heavy dialog that will probably leave you dizzy and not much of a reward at the end.
Lockout
Hmmm dare I say a Die Hard clone in space? I don't wanna go there I really don't but I think I may have to slightly go there. 'Die Hard' with some continental Besson flare. That flare being evident in the rather short swish high speed bike chase sequence at the start that seems to be a curious blend of videogame and live action comicbook visuals. Either that or its just poor cgi, not sure, looked kinda neat though.
Of course its not exactly 'Die Hard' in space but once the action kicks in you do get that feeling from time to time. Prison in space ('Fortress 2') with lots of naughty spawns all in hibernation. Presidents daughter goes there to see if all the prisoners are being treated well (typical PC goodie goodie), Prisoners get loose (didn't see that coming), take presidents daughter hostage so the suits send another freshly convicted badass to save the day.
That badass being Guy Pearce who does add to the 'Die Hard' theory with his snug fit t-shirt and continuous quick wit during the most awkward moments. You do get the impression he's trying his best cocky smart ass Willis routine and while a few lines are sweet it gets dull fast.
From here on the action is violent and brutal with lots of big bald men fighting each other and running amok with guns. For some reason the leaders of this convict outbreak are two Scottish brothers, I got the impression they really wanted Gerard Butler for the lead bad guy seeing as the guy they have (Regan) is a dead ringer for him. If you like brutal Scottish lunatics portrayed by fellow countrymen of England and Wales then behold the glory before thee.
So the plot is completely flat out unoriginal but the look of the sets and space sequences are impressive. Everything does look realistic, not an overblown future with silly laser guns. The sets are of cold steel designs in various tones of blue and grey, add to this the nice lighting and shadow work to really give the place an epic gloss that is slick and ultra cool. I expect nothing less than quality from Besson with action and this film does deliver exactly that with some great visuals, mainly in space.
Its a good smack in the mouth film with lots of aggression which obviously you can't take seriously. Thusly small issues of how the prisoners manage to overcome hibernation so quickly after being released, Pearce's character giving Grace's character a quick trendy haircut so she can fit in with the general population of psycho's without them noticing she's a woman (yeah right!), the end sequence plummet and can gun turrets fire bullets in outer space/orbit?....you must overlook all.
Problem is at the end of the day its just a run of the mill action flick in space with a little bit of brains around the edge. It looks good and that's its trump card, a solid action flick and expensive looking B-movie.
The Running Man (1987)
Probably the first Arnie vehicle I ever saw as a kid and even then I thought it was average. Yes I know this could be seen as heresy but I must confess to never thinking a great deal about this film despite being a life long Arnie fan.
We all know the score with this film by now. The plot is based loosely on a Stephen King novel which is all about America being a police or totalitarian state, huge divides between the rich and the poor and of course death and violence being a popular much watched sport on TV. So basically a futuristic view on the ancient Roman civilisation and their bloody culture.
If you think about it its the perfect role for Arnie and various other muscle men just like many other Arnie films, this film pretty much started that craze. Today this kind of story is completely unoriginal but back then it was almost the first of its kind. To be fair its a videogame adaptation all the way haha Arnie's character must face each 'stalker' one by one, each has their own unique skill or weapon and they all have their personal 'level' or stage as it were. Guess what 'Sub Zero's' stage looks like?
The 'stalkers' are pretty cliched and generic now when you look back, 'Fireball' 'Sub Zero' 'Dynamo' 'Buzzsaw' and 'Captain Freedom', not hard to figure out what they all do...accept for 'Freedom' perhaps. A pumped bunch to say the least, Ventura looks full on steroids with his silly wig whilst Brown has a ridiculous wig himself (I think). The other 'stalker' cast members aren't as famous accept for Charles Kalani Jr. perhaps but 80's female action sidekick regular María Conchita Alonso alongside Yaphet Kotto hold their own.
Of course the film is made by the excellent performance of Richard Dawson who takes a creepy direction on what was his current job at the time as a gameshow host. Not only does Dawson ham it up nicely but he adds a very eerie, sadistic, two faced approach to the role. Its actually quite fun to watch him crawl and grovel to the audience. A real slime ball deviously charming the gullible live audience, whilst virtually blackmailing them for their trust and ratings by lavishing easy prizes upon them with seemingly genuine generosity.
It did make you wonder if this was how real gameshow hosts behaved behind closed doors haha but I imagine that was the goal.
The film does look pretty cheap, it did even back then. Sets are not much more than big empty spaces with stark lighting effects and piles of rubble everywhere. Hell even the costumes look like they've been handmade by the cast themselves. Lots of spandex, a basic ice hockey uniform, lots of leather n chains for background thugs and the most bizarre concept for 'Dynamo' who is covered in what looks like Christmas tree lights stuck on transparent plastic body sections. Why does he sing opera? judging by his helmet its a homage or calling to 'Ride of the Valkyries' and the character is clearly trying to impose fear and terror on his pending victims as he rides his buggy thing into battle. Doesn't work too well though huh.
Quick one for you, who on earth knows what 'Captain Freedom's' outfit was suppose to do or be? looked like something out of He-Man.
There's a lot more hinting at moments than actual visual sequences but there is the odd classic moment. I'm sure everyone recalls the infamous head explosion sequence, the ultra fast toboggan thing that transports Arnie down to the gauntlet game zone and Arnie slamming a pen into some scrawny pen pushing suits back...wince moment, 'ouch!'.
Its your classic dystopian futuristic 80's action flick obviously, with the classic update of gladiatorial battles for the blood thirsty masses. Many have copied it but clearly this borrowed from other sources also ('Escape from New York' visually). Jammed packed with all the Arnie one liners you could want, dancing big haired blondes, some good bloody moments and a perfectly sleazy performance by real ex-gameshow host Dawson as the manipulative gameshow host 'Killian' (nasty sounding name also).
Predictable of course but its fun to watch the audience and viewers slowly get behind 'Richards' as he defeats the 'stalkers' one at a time. Watching 'Killian' and his yes men squirm as they know 'Richards' is coming to get them. A bit silly how this one act of rebellion seems to bring down the whole corrupt system as the resistance starts to broadcast the truth and everybody just believes it straight away but hey...its an Arnie film.
'I told Killian I'd be back. I wouldn't want to be a liar'
Safe House
SPOILER WARNING!
If you need a powerful performance for serious high quality espionage/wartime/crime type thrillers then you call on Mr Washington, its common knowledge. 'The Pelican Brief' 'Man on Fire' 'Inside Man' 'Courage Under Fire' 'The Manchurian Candidate' etc...the man is a serious actor and doesn't do silly summer blockbuster fare.
That in mind who better to use in another serious espionage double cross thriller that looks as if it was directed by Ridley Scott. The film could almost be a sequel to 'Man on Fire' its so similar in terms of plot development, action sequences, locations and the character Washington plays. Well OK its not exactly identical but you can see what I mean.
So we swap the hot humid sweaty conditions of Mexico for the dry heat conditions of South Africa. Washington is an ex-CIA agent turned criminal who gets procession of a disc containing lots of dirty secrets about the CIA and other agencies. Its up to the inexperienced Reynolds to protect him, even though he doesn't really want to.
The whole film plays out as you would expect but unfortunately like too many other films you may have seen. What you get throughout is directed and filmed with outstanding quality and high production values but its not really very original. The action is top notch and certainly so extremely realistic you can taste the tension. A lot of deafening gunfire, fist fights that make you wince, some brutal car chases and crashes and all filmed within highly atmospheric real locations or sets.
So the problem is its just by the numbers and you know its all gonna end in double cross and twists...you just know it!. Without giving the game away there will be a lot of what I just said, but surely you all know that, its common practice in films like this hehe. The plot is simply your basic structured thriller which includes all the basic ingredients that are usually required.
Using some top actors for the main roles of course helps but it doesn't hide its short falls I'm afraid. I'm pretty sure most people will probably deduce what Gleeson is up to and the obvious fact that the top ranking suits in the story are most probably hiding something. Always the same with these high rankings US officials in thriller films.
Ruben Blades has probably the most common role in a film like this, he is an old time friend who Washington's character retreats to in a time of need. There is a small sequence where they reminisce, then they get down to business as 'Frost' requires his help one last time, then of course the bad guys find them in their 'off the beaten track' location and Blades' character is killed. Just as quickly as he is introduced he is killed off, merely a stop gap for the main character to get some vital last minute help and refuel as it were.
If you wanna see some excellent action set pieces then you can't go wrong here. Alas that is all your gonna get really as the plot is chock full of all the regular thriller/espionage cliches that we have all seen before. Its not a bad film, its very very well made, its just old hat. It also seems to try and morph into a 'Bourne' type concept right at the very very end, almost hinting at a sequel which might take Reynolds character into familiar territory.
Doom (2005)
We all know the game and how iconic it is, this film adaptation is less than iconic. Not that its a bad film though, surprisingly it keeps to the original source material and is actually made for adults only, one of its better qualities.
The plot flies close to the actual game story within the manual with certain aspects like the Mars location, teleportation experiments and the 'UAC' corporation. From there on the film goes off on its own tangent which encompasses all manner of regular sci-fi cliches. Alien remains found on Mars with extra chromosomes allow humans to become immune to disease and heal faster, experimentation's on subjects cause them to mutate into monsters which of course break free and kill everyone.
The really silly part is the fact that once inside a human host these alien chromosomes somehow are able to choose whether or not to turn the host into a monster or superhuman. It does this by determining how evil the host is or if the host has the capacity to be evil, indeed.
This basically gives the excuse for lots of undead like space zombies which I hated. So so so unoriginal and completely cliched sci-fi/horror, humans becoming the walking dead *yawn!*. The videogame is mainly about demons and monsters coming through a portal from hell I think, end of the day its more about monsters than undead humans. The disappointing aspect of the film for me was the fact that all the creatures seemed to be merely mutated humans and not real monsters from another world or dimension.
The disappointing plot changes aside the film isn't too bad really. Of course it plays exactly like 'Aliens' from the point of the marines (what sci-fi film with soldiers doesn't) and offers the usual over the top macho nonsense you might expect. The character names are all quite amusing and again totally cliched, but admittedly its based on a videogame so I guess they adhere to that well...'Reaper' 'Destroyer' 'Duke' 'The Kid' etc...
It always amuses me how these type of films include a 'Hudson' character, its like common practice now to do this. The character of 'Portman' is easily the 'Hudson' copy here, more of a perverted creepy womaniser this time but he still has that rebellious loose cannon characteristic which makes him the best guy to watch. Richard Brake portrays 'Portman' and am I the only one thinking he could make a brilliant 'Joker' the way he looks in this film?.
Rest of the cast are all your regular types with nothing much to hold your attention. Dwayne Johnson as the 'Sarge' is reasonable but not quite the face you need for this really, the guy is too nice. Early role for Urban here and he looks a bit chubby to me hehe.
Core of the film is effects and horror and whether it could pull it off. In my opinion it does pull it off just about and offers a decent slice of sci-fi action and gore. The film isn't top heavy with blood but it does get going from the midway point with some nice monster designs, slow increase of profanity and of course the classic 'FPS' sequence towards the end which is very nicely done and dare I say quite cool.
Not the overblown CGI fest you might have expected! yes I'm amazed too. Most of the creatures are men in rubber suits and detailed mockups which do look pretty good courtesy of Stan Winston's creature shop. Clearly effort was made to go down the 'Alien' route rather than the current trend and I applaud that.
Its a run of the mill standard gun totting action flick grounded within the common sci-fi setting of steel corridors and medi labs. It has its moments and is certainly not as bad as you might have expected, it beats 'Resident Evil' easily.
Snow White and the Huntsman
Going off on a different route with this classic tale, the Brothers Grimm might be spinning in their graves. I use the term 'might be' as perhaps they would of liked this epic offering, myself I can't quite decide.
The plot is completely upside down and inside out, this isn't your Disney story nor is it even close to the Grimm tale, apart from a few legendary sequences of course. Not that this is a big problem though as the story is constructed well and does flow nicely with all the elements required for Ms White's tale. Its just a rather big swerve from what you might expect.
The main issue with this film is obvious from about the point where we meet the evil Queen. This film is taken waaaay too seriously and is almost bordering on some kind of biopic historical epic. Theron seems to be going for Oscar gold here as she bellows and rants like crazy, most scenes are pretty overly intense, Snow White has her own little William Wallace moment towards the end as if we were in a real moment of British ancient history and there's actually quite a bit of blood and violence here.
Ironic I know, most times I yearn for more darkness and death with a serious tone in films these days as they are mostly aimed at the younger audience. But this time its just too much, amazingly.
Kinda got that feeling when we see Snow White breaching the evil Queens castle walls and hacking her way through lots of knights. Add in the odd slow motion moment and you start thinking we're getting a tad off track from what we have all come to know/think of Snow White.
Her childhood friend 'William' also adds to this notion when he shows us he's pretty much an invincible one man army and would put Hawkeye to shame in the bow n arrow ranks.
The film looks fantastic I must say, the visuals, locations and effects to conjure up this bleak murky fairy inhabited fantasy world are gorgeous. This is right up there with 'Legend' and is one of the best looking fantasy films I've seen for some time. Clear influences from various films jump out at you all over the show of course, the biggest being 'Lord of the Rings' with the sweeping mountain vista's, knights in battle and large CGI trolls. Other films such as 'Willow' especially at the start of the film for instance, infact the film seems to start more family friendly like 'Willow' but slowly morphs into a much darker gloomy affair.
Another problem if you ask me was casting. Everyone was fine in their roles accept for...yep you guessed it, Stewart. Despite my feelings for her (yep I have a crush) she really can't act too well. She tries bless her but all she ever does is pout, sulk and never actually says much whilst looking awkward and embarrassed most of the time...just like young girls do at her age infact. Of course she also brings with her the unwanted baggage of the 'Twilight' franchise which many do not like, not a good start for this fantasy franchise. Its very clear she was cast purely down to her previous fantasy film experience with vamps n wolves.
As for the rest they are all fine. Excellent performance by Sam Spruell as 'Finn' but Vince Reagan is becoming somewhat type cast as bearded men in time. Hemsworth is hard to understand at times with his attempts at an old English Northern accent but he looks the part perfectly. As I said before Theron is just completely detached from the film with her humongous epic attempts at an Oscar or so it seems.
As for the controversy about actors playing the band of dwarfs, I see no problem with that a tall, infact they were one of the best things in the film. These guys should of been in 'LOTR' haha, really well designed and realised, would never have guessed they were top stars like Hoskins and Winstone.
Its good to see some creepy gothic darkness which is what the Grimm Brothers were all about (to a degree), but this film seems to lose that aspect and go down the sweeping historical epic route at full throttle. A great fantasy film that looks tremendous on one hand, but I think everyone got carried away and forgot it was suppose to be based around a children's fairytale.
'FREEDOM!!' oh wait..
Iron Eagle (1986)
Released in the same year as 'Top Gun' and virtually a fantastic unauthorised sequel! nah not really. This really is your typical 80's kiddie fare much like 'Space Camp' 'Flight of the Navigator' or 'Karate Kid'. A pop tune filled collection of montages which take you from one action sequence to another. You could almost include 'The A-Team' and 'Rocky' in here as influences also.
To use another example if you will, this could almost be 'The Goonies in the Air Force'. A young teens father (who is a fighter pilot) gets trapped behind enemy lines after being shot down. He is up for a darn good hanging so its up to the plucky cocky good looking young teen to fly in there and bail his own dad outta jail.
Sounds ridiculous? well it is, Louis Gossett Jr tags along and assists the young boy as he himself is a grizzled old fighter pilot. With the help of more plucky young kiddies Gossett and Gedrick plan how to fly into a fictional Arab country and nab his dad. They do this with lots of very daft tacky action plans involving the kids stealing highly delicate info, ammo supplies, maps and even two jet fighters into the bargain. The young Gedrick and his friends can do all this quite easily it seems just because they all live on the Air Force base (their folks are in the Air Force of course).
As I said before they do all this with constant musical montages lol! When we do see some dog fights its as expected, pretty terrible looking and with some rather obvious models being blown up...badly, clearly plastic and cardboard.
Kids version of 'Top Gun' and completely family friendly apart from the odd curse word hehe. Can't believe this actually made it to the cinema in the same year as that Tony Scott film, what a difference! its more of a TV movie really. Best thing here is probably the soundtrack and the rather cool poster.
Iron Eagle II (1988)
Gedrick returns at the start only to be blown out of the sky in an early dogfight but Gossett lives on to play in another mission.
This time Gossett must train a small group of ragtag US pilots and a small team of no nonsense Russian pilots. Together they will team up to take out a nuclear warhead base in a diplomatically unnamed Middle Eastern country.
The story is actually based very loosely on a real mission also in 1981, that's probably the most interesting part of the film as the rest is pretty dire stuff. Half the film is just the two teams of pilots training and fighting amongst themselves in an almost 'Police Academy' type situation. Gone are the montages accompanied by 80's pop music, this time its a bit more serious and not aimed at very young male kids.
We still have the same type of flight sequences which look suspiciously like the same sequences from the first film, or at least filmed at the same time and carried over to this sequel. Everything was shot for real in Israel using Israeli pilots and jets (just like the first film) so is it coincidence that they set the first two films in Israel? money saver seeing as they were there?.
Air destruction and ground action utilizes a lot of models again which unfortunately do stand out as models, more so when they are blown up, just like the first film again.
Still desperately trying to capitalize on the success of 'Top Gun' but obviously not coming close. This film fails to even better the original as its taken too seriously and is still only TV movie quality at best.
They still couldn't resist the rousing Kenny Loggins type music track for the end credits, they really try to make this ice cool.
Aces: Iron Eagle III (1992)
Louis Gossett Jr is back for a third mission in this made for TV looking movie franchise. This time he's up against some drug smuggling Peruvians, some crooked US Air Force officers and all lead by an ex-Nazi officer (dunno how a Nazi officer can look so young, pretty sure this is set in the present day of the time).
So yes the plot is a complete 'A-Team' load of tosh and quite frankly it looks like an episode of the 'A-Team' haha. The whole thing is so quaint and charming with no swearing and Action Man/G.I.Joe level violence that you do find yourself enjoying the camaraderie.
The major plus point here is easily the fact that Gossett's character is now flying an old WWII Lockheed P-38 Lightning which looks just the ticket old boy :). Alongside him are a small group of retired aces/friends from Germany, Japan and the UK, each of them flying their own classic wartime fighters. The legendary Spitfire, German Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero, shame the Jap and GER fighters aren't genuine though.
The real treat of the film is seeing all four of these vintage planes fly together and maneuver though the skies against a group of basic modern jets (unsure what they were). Of course its all complete fantasy and hogwash as the classic planes have been upgraded with laser targeting missiles and manage to win but its easily much more fun to watch than high octane fighter jets zooming around.
To add another cheerful cult spice to the broth is the cast. Sure the four goodies are completely racial stereotypes like something out of a 'Pink Panther' movie but in a happy non offensive way I think. The Japanese pilot is none other than martial arts legend Sonny Chiba! a bit difficult to understand what he says at times but what a result for the production. The noble-like aristocratic Christopher Cazenove is pitch perfect for the 'chocks away' good sporting British pilot complete with a pencil tash and Horst Buchholz as the steely German ace.
Up against the good guys is the regularly cast foreign accent expert for baddies, Paul Freeman of 'Indiana Jones' fame ('Belloq'). Boxer Ray Mancini as a henchman and another regular bad guy Juan Fernández de Alarcon as the second in command henchman with his devious untrustworthy appearance. Overall quite a unique and interesting cast that really does help the film.
Its totally B-movie fodder and as I said, looks as if its been made for TV only. That said this film does actually look a bit better than the second film certainly, effects and pyrotechnics wise, there are some pretty impressive looking explosions dotted around. Unfortunately you also still have some dubious looking model work going on but I guess that adds to the charm.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish agreed but the combination of vintage war planes, early James Bond type action and the quirky enjoyable cast make this shine through the clouds.
Iron Eagle on the Attack (1995, aka Iron Eagle IV)
For some reason Louis Gossett Jr returns yet again for the fourth film in this very average franchise. This time he is now a retired flight instructor for delinquent youths, why do young criminals get to learn to fly for their crimes?.
Easily the worst film out of the four if you ask me. There is hardly any actual flight action other than a few sequences inside 'T-6 Texan' trainer aircraft. There is a bit of fighter action towards the end but its not much better than the previous film efforts in terms of effects or stunts.
The plot is terrible and involves more corrupt US Air Force officials trying to create deadly bio weapons on the sly. Yep you've guessed it, its up to Gossett and his criminal kids to save the day and stop them. The major issue I have with this film is the fact they decide to bring back 'Doug Masters' from the original film despite the fact he was killed off at the start of the second! how on earth?!. There is no explanation for this either, he's just there, good as new, errr continuity?
It doesn't matter anyway as the film is dreadful in every way, visuals, effects, plot, acting etc...A poor end for the franchise after a pretty good third film, Gossett must have had high hopes after part 3 why else would he agree to this?.
The Lorax (2012)
Based extremely loosely on the Dr Seuss story of the same name and as usual with Hollywood they have fudged it all up.
The story is an environmental one, an eco plot if you will about the effects of cutting down trees. Put simply (just like the original book did) there is a small town which is gloomy and polluted. The reason for this is because all the trees were chopped down to mass market 'thneeds' by the one they call 'Once-ler'. 'Once-ler' tells a young boy the whole story of how he destroyed all the trees to create his 'thneeds' and ignored the advice and warnings of the 'Lorax', guardian of the trees.
'Once-ler' regrets his actions and gives the young boy a tree seed to plant so that trees may return as well as the 'Lorax'. There is a bit more to it but that is the basic premise.
So what does Hollywood do you ask? well do you really need to ask? I'm sure you can all guess but I'll tell you anyway. Hollywood strips the story down and refits it with tripe filler and made up characters to fill out a decent length run time. Throw in some ridiculous vehicle chase sequences, cliched slapstick and jokes and some hideous musical numbers and there you have it, typical Hollywood trash.
Now I will admit the film looks lovely, full of bright bold colours, its cheerful, light hearted and with some nice CGI animation. BUT the lesson has been diluted and cluttered by fancy ass visuals and 'action' sequences. Yes there is still a nice message within the film, the finale shows what can be done if they jettison the crapola but that's only about a 3min sequence out of an entire film!.
I simply cannot understand why they thought to create new characters!. The new character 'Aloysius O'Hare' is REALLY annoying too, he just looks annoying, making him short...yeah that's not funny.
I realise they needed to fill the story to reach a reasonable film run time but if that can't be done then don't do it. Maybe try another route, don't just make a whole load of stuff up!. 'Once-ler' was suppose to be faceless, a boogieman like equivalent of modern faceless companies/corporations that destroy nature for their gain. You can't uproot that, that's the whole point!.
The world where this takes place isn't named, plus it isn't some bright, colourful, Willy Wonka type place with fancy technology!!. I see what they did with that sure but why?? stop changing the whole premise!!, it all looks like something outta 'Despicable Me'.
Of course we don't know how Seuss would take to it but I'm pretty sure the original fable wasn't meant to include futuristic vehicles, buildings, 'Once-ler' playing guitar, airship things and some god awful songs including the now obligatory hip hop pop song for the final credits which happens for almost all kids films now (more manufactured faceless nobodies singing forgettable songs that will fade into obscurity as quickly as they appeared).
I like the fact that Hollywood has tried to put across a good message...of sorts. I'm sure they are more concerned about another franchise to milk that will rake in the moolah but the initial positive effort is there. If only this could of been done more down to earth, with a little more sense towards the source material and maybe in a different media (stop motion would have been nice, Selick directing perhaps?).
At the end of the day its merely been mutated into another flashy, churned out, in your face CGI flick (in 3D -_-). How ironic, a polluted vision of Dr Seuss' simple little tale, such a shame.
Ignore this, stick to the original book or 1972 TV special, don't deny your children these.
The Majestic (2001)
OK this isn't exactly the most original idea ever and the whole thing feels a bit like an extended 'Twilight Zone' episode (one of the more sensible ones), but this truly is a beautiful film with the kind of performances that are guaranteed to make you smile.
A simple tale set in the 50's, a young man is accused of being a Communist and his life is turned upside down. One night he gets slightly drunk and drives his car off a bridge accidentally and ends up almost drowning. He gets washed up on the shores of a small town where he is believed to be a WWII soldier killed years before.
This is complete and utter American pie through n through and I mean that in the best way possible. Generally things like this can be quite sickening with all the Stars n Stripes patriotism and this does have that, truth be told this actually has more treacly gooey hanky moments than you can shake a stick at.
There is also the element of the all American Communist 'witch hunts' which is the whole plot beneath the surface. Its only kinda touched on really but its played out in a typically heroic way for the main character in the end. You think he will submit to the government, a government of so called democracy, but he fights for truth and justice and the American way. Yes the finale is a bit too vomit inducing for us non Americans.
What works for me is the pure visual spectale of the film with the typically quaint white building built US town set amongst the glorious Californian woodlands on the pacific coast. In short this film looks stunning, its made to look extremely whimsical of course but it works. The era makes this work even better as the sight of old classic US cars cruising around, small diners, the smart fashions, jazz/big band music etc...give the film a very homely taste that I think anyone (more so adults probably) can enjoy.
The cast is another reason to like this film, how can you not enjoy seeing Martin Landau in a brilliantly moving role. I loved 'Ed Wood' and this yet another portrayal of angst and heartbreak but even stronger than before. Gerry Black also gives us a lovely performance for the old caretaker of the Majestic, his gravelly raspy voice draws you in whilst his cheeky grin is heartwarming. James Whitmore has a small role but he sure fits in well, performance is perfect as is his costume and character design, looks good with the pipe. To be honest all the main roles are played well by a host of solid actors, many I have seen before and merely know by face, reliable character actors.
Then we have Mr Carrey, to be honest a brave move as before this he was known only for his comedies. This doesn't mean he was the right choice of course hehe, in my opinion he can't quite handle the kind of serious emotion involved here (at least at this period in his career) and you can see it. A case of being type cast for over the top crazy ass characters or idiots, due to this you keep half expecting him to do something or say something daft. Carrey never really looks too comfortable in this film surrounded by proper quality character actors, he was yet to break away from his over acting lunacy.
A charming nostalgic film that manages to homage the golden age of small town 50's America and the classic (and much missed) age of big regal looking cinemas, but is also a stirring tribute to the fallen of WWII. It is extremely cliched and cheesy, love it or hate it I doubt there will be any middle ground here. It really does pull all the obligatory heart strings to get you choked up, every old trick in the mushy book, but damn it...it works!.
Ice Age: Continental Drift
The final installment? well maybe that would be best as this fourth film is somewhat lean on ideas and humour I'm afraid.
The plot is getting a bit thin on the ground now, how can these guys have all this bad luck haha. The land on Earth is splitting up which by a series of unfortunate events separates the herd. Classic characters 'Manny' 'Sid' and 'Diego' are lost at sea, their mission (which they have no choice but to accept) is to get back to terra firma and find 'Ellie' and 'Peaches' (plus everyone else).
Following on from the previous films the herd now consists of the usual members but now includes the young teen 'Peaches'. As expected the story does revolve around this new character slightly but not entirely thankfully. As also expected this character is pretty annoying and uninteresting as a teen. Unfortunately we also have to put up with other lame teen characters who all speak like either hip hop artists or spoilt princesses in that typical American youth way. Absolutely hate when characters are realised this way as I'm sure other non American's do too.
On a little side note, why are all young characters in CGI films voiced by teen pop stars?. I realise they may be popular with the kiddies but surely there are better young actors that can used? young actors that can actually voice act properly that is.
Blue Sky also deemed it fit to include another terrible character this time in the form of 'Sid's' granny. Yep it really has come down to this, we now gotta put up with ancient relatives. Might be me but I didn't find this inclusion remotely amusing or interesting or useful even, what was the point? A poor stereotype and completely unfunny.
Of course its predictable but the plot just feels like the same stuff yet again. The inclusion of the pirate crew and their iceberg 'ship' is the only reasonable new offering that is worth some praise. A raggamuffin bunch of scurvy lily-livered misfits that look shabby and seedy much like the characters from 'Rango'. Their captain is the large ape 'Captain Gutt' which again does seem to be another rip from the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' franchise (much like 'Buck' from the last film).
To me he comes across as a 'Captain Barbossa' copy to be honest, the deep voiced well spoken cad who doesn't really care about his own men. Not much humour given from this guy either, he's fun to watch but much more eerie looking for the kids if you ask me, a touch intimidating maybe?. Generally speaking this film does basically take a page out of the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' book, no real originality or creativity from Blue Sky.
Lastly poor old 'Scrat' has finally run out of steam and ideas it seems here. The subplot is rather uneventful for him this time, I didn't really like how he is the cause of the continental breakup and I really didn't like the Atlantis idea for him right at the end. The concepts for him are getting too far fetched really, it should be simpler, but hey this is just my opinion.
I think this film goes back towards being a full on kids film again, just like the second. I really can't see how adults will enjoy it much with the inclusion of yet more small furry mammals, more love interests, teenage mammals and all the regular cliched visual gags that have been used before.
I don't wanna be hard on the film as its a great little franchise that has always looked good including this one but this really feels like a rehash with more average characters stuck in to try and garner more kiddie support. The female version of 'Diego' is another obvious lure, another way to try and stretch out the franchise for more possible sequels, maybe they will have kids too *groan*.
There isn't really too much outstanding happening here that's the problem, nothing I can look and say wow! about. The pirate crew maybe complete rips from else where but they are easily the best thing going despite not actually being that entertaining. The heroes are tired and nowhere near as fun, even good old 'Sid' has very little to say or do this time round.
Personally I think this has gone as far as it can go now. Most prehistoric creatures have been utilized and we've seen the ice age, the great thaw, the dinosaur age and now the continental breakup. Where or what else is there to do before these guys should really be dying out?.
House (1986)
Judging by the quite gruesome movie poster would you think this film was scary, its not. That was the problem with many old 80's 'video nasties', there box art was much scarier and intimidating than the actual film.
Anyway this franchise is classic 80's stuff with the kind of now cheesy rubber masked effects you come to expect and have seen in various other similar films. Again the idea does seem to stem from 'The Twilight Zone' or 'Tales from the Darkside' or even 'Tales from the Crypt'. Not an anthology of shorts but the plot behind the film could well be seen as an extended short from any of those films.
The whole concept is the legendary haunted house idea which does work well if done correctly. In this film William Katt must fight the spirit and zombiefied remains of his former comrade who he unintentionally left to be tortured in Nam. Its basic, predictable, silly, hammy, crude and completely not scary haha everything you want from an 80's horror.
The great thing about this film and others of the era is the hands on special effects which are always such a riot. Full length rubber suits and prosthetics which do look great on the zombie 'Big Ben', large drooling cupboard monsters, winged skeleton demons in stop motion, gremlins, alternate otherworlds behind the bathroom mirror etc...its all fantastic stuff which your never sure is real or imaginary.
If you like films like 'Night of the Creeps' 'Return of the Living Dead' 'Fright Night' etc...then I'm sure you'll get a kick outta this.
House II: The Second Story (1987)
Like the first film this remains inside the haunted house theme with two young males battling all manner of ghouls and monsters but heads down the horror comedy route.
If you think along the lines of 'Army of Darkness' then you get an idea what I mean. The only difference here is its not an adult horror comedy but much lighter. But contrary to what you might think this film is actually better than the first in my opinion.
The old mansion appears to be an ancient Mayan temple with gateways to other dimensions that is somehow protected or kept in line by a crystal skull. Said skull is supposedly buried with one of the boys great great grandfather sooooo off they go to dig him up. Long story short 'Gramps' the zombie befriends them and helps them defend the skull from the forces of evil, oh and they gotta save the girlfriend who gets kidnapped of course.
It all sounds like a kids cartoon but trust me its really quite good fun. The boys end up going into some prehistoric world with dinosaurs to get the skull after its pinched, they battle Mayan tribesmen, save a Mayan Princess, adopt a baby pterodactyl and a weird caterpillar dog thing plus there's the evil cowboy zombie gunslinger also after the skull.
It all sounds surreal but like other 80's fluff it looks great with some nice hokey effects that make you smile. There is also some pretty good makeup and prosthetics again with 'Gramps' the zombie and 'Slim Razor' the zombie plus some great kooky sets that look like something out of the 'Addams Family' TV show.
I also really liked the cast in this too. Johnathan Stark is great as the lippy wise ass best friend of Arye Gross. Both guys really click together and make a formidable 80's duo just like Makepeace and Rusler in 'Vamp'. Stark actually reminds me of an early Jim Carrey with his haircut and looks, Arye is a regular face for this era as was Bill Maher. Kudos to John Ratzenberger who has easily one of the best parts I've seen for some time, he is the 'Electrician and Adventurer', always ready to battle alternate dimensions at the drop of a hat. I loved the way he Coolly remarks that he deals with this kind of stuff all the time and always ready with his sword (kept hidden in his toolbox).
Yep its utterly off the wall but its a great light hearted horror comedy with some really good Indy type adventure with monsters and zombies...albeit in a very cheesy tacky way.
Wizards (1977)
Bakshi's first foray into fantasy animation and the experience he needed to gain confidence for his vision of 'The Lord of the Rings'.
The story is simply about a post apocalyptic Earth where mutants live alongside new races of elves, dwarfs and fairies...yes. Two brother wizards battle each other, one on the side of the elves and dwarfs, the other with the mutants. They rage war to claim/save the Earth as you might have guessed.
This sure is a weird combination of ideas that's for sure, hand drawn animation of goblins, elves, wizards, knights, mutants etc...Rotoscoping used for many battle sequences which appear to show various winged demons, orcs/goblins, many more knights and various live action sequences taken from other films and historic footage.
The whole idea is the baddie wizard with his mutants discover ancient buried technology from our present day and use it against the good forces. This includes planes, tanks, machine guns and a film projector which projects footage of Hitler and his Nazi's. Certainly an odd inclusion for what was meant to be for youngsters as well as adults. Never the less this animated film shows how propaganda when used correctly can be devastating just as technology can be. There are a few allegories within this film which are quite clever and would clearly go over a kids head, I was never really sure who this film was really aimed at.
There are plenty of bloody moments throughout just like in Bakshi's 'LOTR', lots of creatures getting cut down with blades and shot to pieces by gunfire, even an arrow and meat cleaver to the head for two unlucky characters!. Add to this hookers that hang around in the streets of the evil wizards city of 'Scortch' and the good wizard 'Avatar' has a sidekick fairy in training called 'Elinore' who is dressed in a very skimpy breast revealing little number ('Jessica Rabbit' eat your heart out). Clearly for the adults and clearly Bakshi utilizing his skills from previous urban based animations.
A strange mix of different concepts but definitely no lack of imagination and flare. The animation is your typical 70's look which I'm OK with I guess, it does age somewhat naturally but reminds me of many tatty old foreign cartoons from my childhood which were slightly obscure. A strong colour palette much the same as 'LOTR' incorporating nice dark cloudy skies, bleak murky landscapes and some decrepit dusty old cityscape's set the scenes nicely. The blend of animated characters and rotoscope is fine but not as natural looking as the latter 'LOTR', this tends to look a bit crowbarred together, plus the animated characters look a tad too cartoonish in places.
Overall its hard not to compare to this to his other cult work, but the Tolkien adaptation probably wins due to the story for one and the fact visually its a more oiled machine. 'Wizards' is an interesting but not very novel idea about simple ways vs technology. All the archive footage from Nazi Germany is possibly not required along with the baddie characters having Swastika's on them, comes across more like a fascists wet dream from time to time.
I do like this film more for the artistic side really, the rest is somewhat dull with a lot of dialog that is uninspired. Some characters look really good like the thin soldiers wearing gas masks, whilst others look like something from a cheap kids flick. Certainly worth a watch but its nothing to rave about. A Bakshi oddity which remains a full cult with intriguing visuals but little else.
Galaxy Quest (1999)
In all fairness this could easily be an unofficial sequel to the Star Trek franchise, a freak alternate universe thingy hehe. A cool satire or parody of the classic sci-fi franchise that mocks and homages whilst being immensely enjoyable to boot.
I never really thought I would like a Tim Allen film, he's never been my cup of tea and his films aren't exactly gold dust. This has to be his best and funniest film to date with a terrific Shatner type performance as the Captain. I love the way he oozes around the conventions basking in the glory that is he. The show revolves around him, it would fold without him, grasping at all the attention that comes his way...brilliantly done.
The rest of the crew is also created, cast and visualized perfectly. The best for me being Rickman as the tired failed dramatic actor 'Dane aka...'Dr Lazarus'. Alongside Allen with his ego trip Rickman is so so damn hilarious, the way he cringes at all the fans, shuns the ridiculous questions, the attention and rolls his eyes whilst squirming at the geeks that swarm around him.
Kudos to the extras that played the geeks and nerds. I dunno if they were actual fans of Star Trek or general sci-fi (I'm guessing they were) but I'll bet they were regulars to conventions. Whoever they were they really nailed the whole image and reputation these type of folk have haha. The interaction with Rickman's character in one sequence is flippin' comedy gold!.
The whole crew line up is excellent but the way the film floats between the 'TV in-show' and the real situation they are all thrown into is sheer quality. Surely the best humour must be how Allen's crew must adapt and recreate how to actually take command of a real starship, fire torpedoes, land, use communications etc...like they pretend to do in their show.
What is really hilarious is how its all so accurate to Star Trek! its so darn close you forget they are taking the piss haha. I love how Shalhoub tries to explain to Allen that their engine is basically screwed but in the most basic babyish terms he can. The way Rockwell points out that there's a red thingy moving towards the green thingy on the radar screen, and that he thinks they are the green thingy. Also the way he has constant panic attacks as he knows he's the expendable crew member that always bites the dust in these types of situations (redshirt).
The only crew/cast member that I didn't think fit was Weaver as 'DeMarco'. I realise the whole point of her character is she does nothing in their show but poor old Weaver does pretty much nothing in the film also hehe. Its odd to see her so sexed up too, the blonde doesn't suit her methinks, I reckon they should of cast more of a bimbo for that role myself (in reality), space slut played by a real life slut of sorts. Mitchell was another character that didn't have as much of the screen time but the sequences where he's trying to fly the ship, especially as they leave spacedock, are priceless.
I don't think it was too hard to nail the look of this film at tall, it only needed rickety sets and the odd bit of CGI. The 'TV in-show' scenes were nicely crafted to look cheesy, the actual sets for the real ship were also slightly leaning towards cheesy so no problems there. CGI in space was average but that went along with the films vision where as the makeup and prosthetics for the evil 'Sarris' by Stan Winston was both childish yet really cool. He pretty much looked like a missing mutant character from a 'TMNT' kids film, a typical action figure type design which kinda looked like the bad guy from 'Suburban Commando'.
Gotta love the way Allen's character slimes his way around 'Sarris' his first time in space yet not realising its all real, yes its obvious humour but come on...its funny stuff.
Such a perfect sent up of Star Trek, if I were one of the real Trek cast I probably would have been rather embarrassed to watch it. Its not suppose to look fantastic and its not suppose to be grand or serious in any way obviously. The humour is very silly, childish in parts yet devilishly wry, dark, sarcastic and ironic in others. If you love Star Trek or sci-fi you can't fail to enjoy this.
'Quellek... by Grabthar's hammer... by the Sons of Warvan... you shall be... avenged'
Inception
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi996.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf81%2FVecrotus%2FMovie%2520Posters%2FUntitled-3.png&hash=81e49dd71b20877e19f6a92c4f0d379880dd4365)
Although Inception, directed by Christopher Nolan, came out two years ago in cinemas, I only recently bought this movie on Blu ray. At the time of its release, reviews for this movie were highly positive and I thought at the time that this movie was released that, despite being a fan of Christopher Nolan's work, it was overrated. The trailers didn't get me excited exactly because I had very little idea of the sort of movie it was. I thought it was just a convoluted psychological thriller, full of bloated exposition, lack of action and paper-thin characters. I couldn't have been more wrong.
Inception follows widower, Dominick Cobb nicknamed "Dom" (Leonardo Dicaprio), a former architect who has spent years learning how to navigate through the minds of people via shared dreaming. Sometime before the events of the movie, Dom was blamed for the tragic death of his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard) and was thus forced to flee the United States and abandon his two children. Running across the world followed by anonymous corporations and police forces, Dom establishes himself as a skilful master criminal who with the help of a few allies performs corporate espionage, by stealing secrets from people in their dreams for other corporations to use at their disposal while all the time looking for a way back home; a way back to his children.
As with all other Nolan films, the movie begins in the midst of the action and you don't really understand what is happening until a good twenty minutes into the movie. Dom and fellow colleague and right-hand man, Nash (Lukas Haas) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are within the mind of business mogul, Saito (Ken Watanabe) performing corporate espionage. What they are after is not revealed and this scenario is merely a setup for the main plot of the film. After making a simple error that results in failure, Dom and his team are forced to flee and go into hiding as the corporation that hired them won't accept failure. However, after Saito makes Dom an offer he can't refuse, Dom sets about assembling a team and performing what is believed to be the most difficult type of shared dreaming: inception. Inception is the process of planting an idea within the subconscious of one's' mind; an idea that will either change that person or destroy them. Dom and his team must perform inception on the estranged heir, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), of a dying business mogul, to break up his father empire, for the world to survive.
I will speak no further because the rest of the film follows Dom and his team explaining what Inception is and how they are going to perform it. The last hour and half follows Dom and his team doing what they have been explaining for the last forty-five minutes and it is sensational. A sub-plot involves Dom confronting his wife in the form of a projection of his subconscious and coming to terms with circumstances of her death with help of new recruit: Ariadne. This sub-plot not only fleshes out the character of Dom as a complex and flawed human being, it also serves as the emotional heart of the movie and was my favourite part of the film, more than the main plot of the film. That said the main plot of the film is in no way poorly executed. Despite being a straightforward concept, a dream-within-dream, Nolan sets about crafting a complex yet very well-structured storyline that unfold in the film as a thrilling experience to watch. This is strength of the film; the experience of watching the plot unfold is another entity within itself, something that is very lacking in movies these days. This adds up to a very high replay factor with Inception. I've seen this movie five times now and I still haven't gotten tired of it. Each time I watch the film, there is something new to discover or understand. The more you watch this film, the clearer it becomes. If you're with this movie within the first ten minutes you will find this movie extremely addicting. By all means, this is one of those movies that are more enjoyable on a second-viewing.
Perhaps the biggest strength of this movie is the cast. The cast of this film are what make it the great movie that it is. There are eight main characters that we follow through the world of Inception: Dom (Leonardo Dicaprio), Saito (Ken Watanabe), Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Ariadne (Ellen Page), Eames (Tom Hardy), Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy) and Yusuf (Dileep Rao). You may have noticed that I have only named and tagged seven characters. That is because the final character is not a part of the main team. It is the main antagonist Mal (Marion Cotillard). All of the actors within this masterpiece do an excellent job in establishing who they are. Each character is well-defined and fleshed out and plays essential part of the main plot of the film. In the end, all of the characters in this movie are actually bad guys. After all, they invade people's dreams, steal their ideas or plant ideas for their own benefit. Despite this, none of the characters feel like your atypical bad guys and you actually care for the characters. The characters are three-dimensional to the point that there is someone for everyone to identify with. For example my favourite character was Eames, a thief and identity forger, played brilliantly by Tom Hardy. The character is somewhat based off of James Bond from 007 lore. There is even an action sequence in this movie that pays homage to certain scene from On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The movie features a lot of action scenes, and as the movie progresses they get larger in scope and more effects-driven. Despite this, you never lose track of the characters and what makes the action scenes even better to watch is that you care for the characters thanks to their three-dimensionality and the acting. Even Saito, who was most at risk of becoming a one-dimensional character, is well portrayed by Ken Watanabe and you care for the character. What made the acting in this film even better, aside from the rich dialogue the actors had to work with, was that each of actors had great chemistry with one another which elevated their characters to another level. I would love to see all of these actors again, in the same movie, working together as a group.
My only problem with this film was the special effects. For those of you who are familiar with Nolan's other works, you will know very well that the director favours practical effects over special effects. That said when you're making a movie where the laws of physics are virtually void you're bound to use CGI. There are some notable scenes in Inception that use CGI and although the special effects are virtually seamless with the practical effects, they are pretty forgettable, especially if you watch them on their own out of context. The effects driven scenes work best if you watch the movie in its entirety because you'll be more emotionally invested in those scenes. However, there is a notable scene that I enjoyed that holds up well on its own. Many may recognise it from the trailers where the character of Ariadne, a graduate student of architecture, literally folds one half of Paris upside down. Aside from that there nothing much to say about the effects, other than that they are realistic and don't take you out of the movie. However, my only gripe with this movie was wanting more to be done with effects in the dream world.
One of my favourite bits about this film, as with all other films directed by Nolan, was the score which was brilliantly crafted by Hans Zimmer. Despite the mixed critical reception the soundtrack received with critics, I thought that the score was one of Zimmer's finest works and it worked perfectly well for the film. The score took the already well crafted scenes to a whole other cinematic, emotional level. Much like Batman Begins, the score by Hans Zimmer worked best with the action sequences. However, unlike Batman Begins, it worked even better with some of the movies quieter scenes. Much like the script of the film, which was essentially a hybrid of action, horror, heist, drama and thriller films, the score was just as, if not more so, versatile. Despite the film being a mixture of different genres, the versatile soundtrack helped bleed the different genres together so that you never feel out the movie. I particularly enjoyed the score during the scenes between Dom and Mal, but perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie that become so emotionally provoking thanks to the score was the resolution between a Robert Fischer and his father, Maurice Fischer, at the end of the film. Overall, this is by far one of the best soundtracks I've heard and one of Hans Zimmer's finest works.
Despite this film focusing on a group of criminals and encompassing horror traits, it is not a violent movie. There is no gore in this movie but unlike Batman Begins, there are a few moments where blood is shown. Characters get shot and when they do there is blood shown briefly.
Overall, I thought that this is by far one of the best movies that I have ever seen and one that I would recommend for those who haven't seen to definitely not miss out on. Granted it is one of those movies that is more enjoyable on a second viewing, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a masterpiece. It is by far one of the best Nolan films I have ever seen, even better than The Dark Knight in my opinion. I regret not seeing this in cinemas because part of the success of this film lies in the experience of watching it unfold.
Rating: 5/5
Rollerball (2002)
Within the first few minutes of this film you can easily see the direction its taking and that its gonna be bad. With horrible computer generated images and heavy metal playing straight away its all too clear you are in for a modern piece of crapola.
The first action sequence has 'Jonathan' flying down San Francisco streets on some kind of skateboard thing, kinda like a toboggan or something. Its pointless, bland, completely uninteresting and makes no difference to the plot, just like the entire film. It is there we find out Chris Klein is our hero, playing the role James Caan did so well, what is totally ridiculous is in no way does Klein look like he could be a powerful 'Rollerball' player.
As for the game itself its a horrific mess of over the top unrequired gloss that is completely the opposite from the original material. All the players are decked out in pathetic costumes that look like something from a mardi gras, the women are squeezed into rubber/latex fetish outfits (I quite liked that) and the helmets worn just make you laugh, talk about nonfunctional for the game. Everything in this film is needlessly blown out of proportion whilst also ejecting the entire sterilised political bigbrother type concepts of the first film.
The other hilarious issue with this film, apart from the pantomime like costumes on the players, is the track or arena. The track where the games are held in the original film was a large circular hard surfaced arena like in speed skating (without the ice naturally). In this remake the track is a figure 8 shape with ramps, dips, bumps, high levels and what looks like chutes to skate down, in short it looks like a kids skateboard park cross adventure playground.
This whole concept completely removes you the viewer from the film as there is simply no way the huge amount of players and bikes could fit on this pathetic track/arena. You can see they don't in many shots throughout the film!, its a total fudge up I tell ya, a funny one at that. The action is a horrible muddle of skating, blood, fighting and stupid bike stunts all crammed within this tiny arena, at the same time you have other players skating down from higher levels or platforms for no apparent reason other than to look cool in the film.
Oh and the track/arena had its own rock band on the sidelines to play the right tone of metal to accompany the in-game violence. Do I need to mention how jokey that is? yes...yes I do, it was embarrassingly jokey, just like the oversized helmets some of the players wore.
I understand that the original 77 film had limitations of tech for the era and I'm sure it may have been more stylised and flashy if the creators had the modern benefits this 02 film had. But like many other films ('Star Wars') the limitations of the time proved to be the films winning key, this element like other modern films has been lost completely here.
Instead we are presented with an absolute turd of a film with shockingly bad 'action' set pieces (despite not actually requiring major action set pieces for the plot), dreadful visuals that might as well be that 'Gladiators' TV show complete with glitter and sparkles, a god awful thrash/heavy metal soundtrack just in case you forgot this film was suppose to be tough and your obligatory dire big name cast hot of the heels of other poor major blockbusters (yeah stick him/her in it, big name, can't go wrong, doesn't matter if they actually fit the role or not pfft!).
The finale is a typical example of how less is more. The whole film is an example of how less is more frankly but the ending is so cliched and dumb it was awkward to watch.
A vile modern remake that deservedly flopped bigtime thank god. Its just a shock that McTiernan was behind the camera for this, the man who gave us 'Die Hard' and 'Predator' for fudges sake!.
Hubbs, dunno if anyone ever told you before, but you could start a review blog. :)
Could do but I think more see them in forums of which I review for many.
Deathstalker (1983)
Hot on the heels of the Arnie vehicle 'Conan' came this Argentine-American production which quite blatantly jumps on that very same bandwagon.
In all fairness this isn't as bad as you might think. Despite being an obvious excuse to see females topless, a Playboy model as a brutal topless female barbarian, mud wrestling females, enslaved females, thongs galore and the obligatory barbarian sex scenes...there is some natty action to be had.
Cheesy plot you say? errrr yeah just a bit, no need to fill you in, just think of any swords n sorcery films. The main hero is played by Rick Hill and his blonde wig, very nice it is too, but he does look pretty sturdy I'll give him that. Bernard Erhard plays the rather generic evil bald sorcerer with goatee, but his approach is nice and hammy, clearly relishing the role. Dunno what that tattoo on his head is all about.
So not much happens really, the final fight to the death warrior competition is probably the best sequence with reasonable fighting going on. The rest is forgettable apart from the sequence in the castle with all the topless girls, but hearing Hill reel of his dialog is quite good fun.
The films title and poster are far more interesting than the final product. The poster actually has nothing to do with the film in any way really, its just there to lure you in I think. Low budget and camp, if it wasn't for the small amounts of blood and large amounts of tits on show it could almost be an Adam West vehicle.
Deathstalker II: Duel of the Titans (1987)
Look at the poster for this film, its damn cool with a really hot barbarian female, aggressive and looks like some old Amiga computer game box art. Remember the old classic computer game 'Barbarian'? I wonder if they got their box art ideas from these films and the poster art?. Now I look even the font on the text is similar for both, curious.
Now watch the film and you notice some slight differences with what you may have been expecting. Not that you really should be expecting much with this franchise. The cheap cheap low budget sequel to the first film really does earn the label of B-movie in every aspect.
The first film was reasonable but this is dire. The main lead looks the part but acts like a buffoon in lame attempts of badly executed humour. The continuity is gone as 'Deathstalker' is now a different younger actor, not that continuity was probably high on the directors list...or your expectation list either.
As before there are plenty of topless females running around, this is fine hehe, its just a shame they are all running the flimsiest sets you have ever seen. The comedy is in watching the bad acting against the homemade sets, just like good old Ed Wood.
Of course you can't really knock such a film as it was never meant to be a serious major production, although there is care involved clearly. Its nowhere near as good as the first and that was average at best, they actually use many old clips from the first film to flesh out this one. Bad move when you see the characters from the first film, ones that were killed even, errr did anyone check that?.
Deathstalker III: The Warriors from Hell (1988)
Third film and a third different actor as 'Deathstalker'. Probably the least interesting guy in the role so far, he's good looking sure but has a kind of Dennis Quaid look about him which equals a different kind of character.
This guy is a blonde version of the guy in 'Deathstalker II', cheeky and not overly muscular, in short neither are as cool as Rick Hill. Humour is the main ingredient as usual, well that and women's tits, its pretty much business as usual yet again.
The same locations, same costumes and same basic plot of 'Deathstalker' trying to beat an evil leader whilst saving the typically blonde girl. There is a plot about magical stones and trying to bring them back together but the outcomes are still the same. Amazingly the director hasn't used any stock footage for this outing which is nice and probably the only plus point. The adventure here is a bit dull really, action is sparse but production values seem a little better.
Again the films poster is pretty cool but in no way reflects the actual film. The films title is also obscure and doesn't really mean much but I guess it sounds good. First film still reigns supreme for me but people now know what to expect. Not to be taken seriously and gloriously a B-movie of epic proportions, playing on that fact now, by this point the cult status is looming.
Deathstalker IV: Match of Titans (1991)
Rick Hill is back! in this adventure he is up against an evil Queen with plans to rid the land of all the mightiest warriors.
Whilst the competition is in full flow the evil naughty Queen is killing off the warriors one by one (getting them drunk first) so there are none left to rival her. Of course she has forgotten how utterly cool and invincible 'Deathstalker' is and his overly tanned new buddy.
This is probably the second best of the tetralogy after the original film in my opinion. The plot and action is still as you would expect and nothing special but the humour is much better this time. Hill is clearly enjoying himself this time round, he's more buffed and his wig looks better hehe his new warrior friend also adds to the laughs. The guy is almost like an early Dwayne Johnson type sidekick.
Its all still highly cheap and cheesy but by now it would be wrong to change that. Every cliche in the low budget barbarian book is used all over again, blonde women are good, brunettes are bad, lots of tits and ass on show, soft core sex scenes at times and all wizards/wise men have long 'Merlin' type beards. Loved the stone slaves used by the Queen, some dazzling makeup and acting on show there I tells ya.
Still can't work out why they use the exact same archive footage from the previous films. The exact same reels are used! plus it still shows the previous characters that have been killed off!. At least use footage that doesn't show previous characters or footage not used before geez!. Anyway its all hokey as hell but you can forgive that, cult status has been gained somehow and Rick Hill is the man.
Barbarian Queen (1985)
Along the same lines as the 'Deathstalker' franchise, no surprise seeing as its another Corman production. Again you must check out the poster for this film, so so very sexy and awesome yet as usual nothing like the actual movie, such a shame.
Set in the Roman era apparently, never noticed myself, the plot revolves around a small band of female warriors and their Queen trying to save the Queens sister from nasty Romans. Nothing really happens for the entire film to be brutally honest and its really rather dull.
Of course there are the obligatory topless scenes for many female characters and some soft porn sexy moments which will keep any hot blooded male interested, but not for long. The finale is pretty good with a semi decent fight sequence within a semi decent set. All the sword fighting is pretty hokey looking but its fun to watch all the extras pretend to be proper swordsmen/women.
End of the day I watched this because of the cool film title haha. Yep I'm a perv, but for what other reason would any male watch this? certainly not for the epic historic storyline or quality acting oh no. Its Corman and its all about big breasted blonde women in skimpy outfits with swords killing men, expect nothing less.
Barbarian Queen II: The Empress Strikes Back (1989)
Not too sure what the title means here, there was no Empress in the first film and the plot doesn't relate in any way to the first film either. Characters are also different to the original film despite starring Lana Clarkson in both.
What we have here is a slight play on Robin Hood. A king is killed in battle so his unruly son claims the throne for himself including the magical scepter which is the source of the kingdoms power. The kings daughter (Clarkson) protests this naturally and is marked for execution to get rid of her...naturally. She escapes, joins up with some other female rebel warriors (just like that) and they all band together to win the kingdom back hurrah!
Now I hope your not expecting too much here, you know what this will entail, much like the previous film and all the 'Deathstalker' films. Plenty of tits and ass, skimpy outfits, females killing poorly skilled swordsmen, Clarkson on the rack again topless and errr more poorly skilled baddie swordsmen trying to rape big breasted women (happens a lot in these films).
Pretty much exactly the same as the first film, there's a good rescue scene from the gallows which is similar to the sequence in 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' with Errol Flynn. There is a nice sadistic little girl Princess who is heir to the throne (if Clarkson's character is gotten rid of, the whole point of the film) whom I liked, her spoilt bratty ways are fun to watch as all around her cower.
Just like the first film the finale is way better than the rest with a semi decent sword battle within the castle. Costumes are quite nice in this film it must be said, a kind of Crusades thing going on with the good guys whilst the sets look suspiciously like sets used before haha oh well. The lead male hero in this looks the part too, he actually looks like he could be in a proper film, the same can't be said about the cliched blonde lead Clarkson.
Well by now you will know if you like these films or not, a guilty pleasure possibly, just for a laugh and some naked girlie's perhaps. Not as good as 'Deathstalker' though.
Battle Beyond the Stars (1980)
Hot on the heels of a small sci-fi production called 'Star Wars' came this remake of 'The Magnificent Seven' and 'Seven Samurai'. If you haven't guessed the difference was the story has now been set in space.
A Roger Corman production so you might think it would be space trash, but at the time this was quite a big release as sci-fi was popular again. The people involved with this film is actually quite impressive, for one James Cameron was in charge of the effects (mainly models) so this explains why they look so detailed, imaginative and quite good.
The cast for the film is also impressive for the time, looking back they are all your typical B-movie players really hehe. Classic character actor Richard Thomas is the young hero, the legend Robert Vaughn plays a space merc, John Saxon is the evil space villain and George Peppard is the 'Space Cowboy'. Yep he has no name other than that, cos he's coooool.
All are legends in their own right (accept Thomas maybe) but you can't deny all have popped up in some glorious B-movie fluff in their time, film and TV.
The film on the whole is a brave effort and bold with certain ideas. The start of the film seems quite sensible with its 'Star Trek' like score playing accompanying slow camera pans of various spaceships...all very 'Star Trek-ish'. The costumes aren't too bad either, this isn't a 'Flash Gordon' type affair, well not too much. Of course you can see many similarities to other films in both costumes and various ideas but that is pretty inevitable seeing as 'Star Wars' came out in 78.
As the film progresses it does become a tad dull really, the whole time is spent with the hero looking for mercs to save his home planet. This is where the film tends to rollercoaster as some people he meets are pretty good in design, others are not. Take Peppard as the 'Space Cowboy', his ship's interior looks good, its well designed and has a nice Millennium Falcon feel about it, the character himself is cliched but Peppard makes the role work nicely.
Some ships looks good while others look terrible, laser effects are poor and not helped by the quite ridiculous sound effects used. The names used for some of these alien races, planets etc...tend to be rather daft too. Sets vary from scene to scene with the odd one looking nice but most looking rather plastic with merely lots of flashing lights everywhere.
Speaking of the Millennium Falcon, Robert Vaughn's character is a complete 'Han Solo' rip off in my opinion, right down to his boots haha. Other characters like the 'Nestor' and 'Valkyrie warriors' are just your typical B-movie crap frankly. They look like they were designed in the 50's, bad makeup, tacky fake plastic looking costumes and completely childish, real cheap sci-fi. From time to time there are some nice ideas though, the character of 'Cayman' is a nice addition with a reasonable looking reptilian mask.
Oh I forgot...the 'Valkyrie warriors' are stunning women with tight outfits that easily reveal their enormous breasts. Just like it would be in space, what? are you saying there aren't alien races like that?.
The film does get sillier and sillier as it goes on, the ham builds with performances and effects. I loved the evil laughter sequences by Saxon and his mutant henchmen haha classic stuff. A little bit of evil dialog then pause for some evil laughter with your henchmen. The makeup design for 'Sador' actually looks a bit like Ed Wood's 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' with the single face mark, the mark of the baddie.
The film kicks into gear towards the end as we see the final battle between 'Sador' and good guys. Lots of laser gun fights, dodgy space battles with the same model sequences being reused over and over and some great cheesy acting from all.
Its clear to see many influences in this film from classic sci-fi such as 'Star Trek', 'Lost in Space', 'Westworld', 'Forbidden Planet', 'Star Wars' and many films from the 70's. But you have to hand it to Corman and director Murakami as they too have influenced many sci-fi films with this. The whole concept of a 'space cowboy' may well have originated here, if you overlook 'Han Solo'.
The Hunger Games
Move over Potter and Bella here comes the new book for young adults/teens, and its quite violent!.
I'm not gonna go into the plot for this adaptation as it really is unbelievably unoriginal. This is my issue with this film (and book), the plot is dated, old, done many many many times, so why is this so hyped I ask?
First thing that does hit you is the fact the film spends a lot of time building the characters. Right from the start everybody is slowly developed so by the time the two leads reach 'the capital' you feel like you know them. This is good obviously and a real plus point for the film, to be honest I wondered if we were ever gonna get to the action, half the film is plot/character development.
The film is also made well despite not having a great deal of fancy effects or massive action moments. Its quite low key with average sets, a touch of CGI for the capital and interesting costume designs. In short it looks realistic when it needs to be and not some over blown post apocalyptic mega blockbuster mess.
As said there is one main problem with the whole adaptation (and book) and that's the plot. We've seen this all before, sure its well acted and made for genuine emotional punch but how many times have you seen a film about a sterile Orwellian authoritarian society that uses bloodsports as the main outlet for its violence lusting population?? .
There are so many other films and stories that have used this concept I simply don't understand why this is being talked about so much, because its for teens?.
So much isn't explained either. What happened to the Earth to cause this apocalyptic world? is the rest of world like this? why is the high society in 'the capital' all dressed up like cast from 'The Wizard of Oz' or some French opera? how did these districts get created?. Seeing as there are quite a lot of districts with what appears to be big populations surely it wouldn't be too hard to stand up to one city, they start riots easily enough within the film which cause problems. On the other hand why do the youngsters even compete? if no one complied and refused to kill within the games they couldn't carry on with them no?
The fact that almost all the young combatants in the games are not really introduced seemed a bit poor to me. We know about seven of them (briefly) out of 24, the rest are just faceless kill fodder. Loads of them get killed the minute they enter the games, then during many more get killed off so it does seem like there are maybe more than 24.
Maybe these things are explained in the book, maybe some of it has been altered for the film, I don't know but it does seem rather weak to me. Overall I did enjoy the film as these types of 'rebellion against a big brother society' films are normally intriguing and emotional.
Its well acted and well presented, but everything from the exposure of the young combatants by a slimy gameshow host type to the games being monitored by a control room of suits and techs is completely cliched, predictable and most of all unoriginal. A little too late for me in all honesty, this has been done and offers nothing new accept the fact youngsters compete. A controlled gameshow environmental variation of 'Lord of the Flies' if you will.
Fade to Black (1980)
A tour de force for a young Dennis Christopher in this easy going thriller. He plays a young man who is obsessed with classic old movies, an obsession that goes into overdrive when he snaps after his life takes a downward spiral.
All the folk that wronged or upset him he kills off by transforming himself into famous movie characters from various famous films eg. 'Dracula' 'The Mummy' 'Hopalong Cassidy' and 'Cody Jarret' from the Cagney film 'White Heat'. Along the way is good old Tim Thomerson as a criminal psychologist trying to help 'Binford'.
I say easy going thriller as Christopher is a very likable character in this film. His innocent looks and love of classic cinema is really quite fun to watch, the sequences where he transforms into various characters are really good too, charming really. The film isn't scary or horrific in any way, its very tame and almost like an extended episode of 'Quantum Leap' haha.
During the film there are the odd inserts from various old black n white films to show or mirror what's going on inside 'Binfords' mind, just like in the comedy 'Dream On'. None of murders actually involve any large amounts of blood or gore, its all done quite tastefully with cut aways and leaving it to your imagination. In fact almost all of the murders are merely accidents that Christopher's character brings on, but his lust for revenge gets the better of him near the end.
Great little thriller in a nice 'Murder She Wrote' type of way with some really nice makeup/prosthetics work. Look out for an early role by Mickey Rourke.
Starsky & Hutch (2004)
Always thought it was kinda funny that two undercover cops drive around in a souped up Gran Torino with a custom paint job. What's that noise? oh its the fuzz in their muscle car.
The first parody of one of the two biggest TV shows with cool cars, the other being 'The Dukes of Hazzard'. Its nothing too outrageously original overall, a simple drug kingpin needs to go down and the cool duo are on the case.
Its not really about the plot though, this film is just about the humour and having a good time. Like many Stiller films its a sly sneaky spoof like comedy which is light hearted but not overkill with silly jokes. The casting of Stiller and Wilson is really good as they both fit the roles just perfectly, Stiller actually looking very similar to Glaser. Both guys take to the characters like ducks to water and really make the whole film very likeable and watchable.
Other casting includes 'frat pack' members Ferrell and Vaughn, both of whom raise the film giving nice performances. Loving Ferrell and his slightly creepy 'Big Earl' character. So the cast is great and really holds the film together but then I must give big kudos to the look of the film. Set in the 70's and to be honest you could easily think it really was. Very impressed at everything from all the cars driving around, street trash including those darn pesky car chase sequence cardboard boxes, the costumes, hair styles and even the way they used the cameras to get all those classic 70's TV show angles and zooms. They did tend to cram in almost every cliched 70's tune they could muster though, didn't need that, we get the idea.
Of course they do cater for the car porn folk out there, plenty of Torino action naturally, maybe too much?. Gotta expect that I guess, it is a nice looking and sounding car and virtually a character in its own right.
I think they went the right way with this as a serious attempt would have been laughable and I'm glad they didn't reduce the concept to childish smut. Its a by the books action comedy flick, but the fact its a neat little parody of a classic cop show which has actually been well thought out makes this worth your time in my view.
A little snippet here that shows the American muscle car isn't really what you'd think hehe. They look good yes and have HUGE engines with tonnes of BHP but at the end of the day they are still slow bricks I'm afraid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiAE0VzTQTM#noexternalembed-ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiAE0VzTQTM#noexternalembed-ws)
The Raid: Redemption (2011)
What we have here is Indonesia's answer to Thailand's martial arts star Tony Jaa. Leading hero of the film Iko Uwais utilizes the martial art Pencak Silat for some major romper stomper fight sequences that would give Jaa a good run for his money I'm sure.
The plot is pretty much videogame-like and extremely basic. A team of SWAT go into a high rise block of flats within the slums of Jakarta. Their aim is to take out all criminal targets within and get to the big boss at the top.
This film has more of a 'Die Hard' approach than Jaa's films which tend to be more about a lone man fighting hoods. That said the basis is the same as is the look of the film with its dirty, gritty, sweaty atmosphere, its basically an excuse for some kick ass fighting that looks stunning from all angles.
Yes I'm mentioning Tony Jaa a lot but if you've seen his films and like his stuff then you know exactly what to expect from this (minus the small amounts of occasional religion). The only real difference is this film is much more brutal with some truly nasty screen wincing knife attacks and of course many bullets to the head.
On one hand I did enjoy the film as I do like good fight flicks, this dating back to my JCVD fanboy days. On the other hand the fights are slightly ridiculous as they seem to go on forever. It does actually get a tad dull after you've seen the same two/three guys pounding each other over and over and over and over almost taking turns in getting the upper hand then losing it etc...
Speaking of JCVD, these modern day martial arts fight flicks certainly make all the old 80's/90's stars look pretty tame. I look back at Seagal, Norris, Lundgren, Dacascos, Li, Yen, Adkins etc...These Southeast Asian films put them in the shadows bigtime!.
Impressive as it is the film is pretty much fight porn which offers nothing new if your really honest about it. The characters are very bland with most being simple nameless cannon fodder while the carnage is maybe a bit too much? I mentioned 'videogame-like' already, well this film is virtually a videogame level of any FPS you can think of.
My personal diagnosis...take the pending doom and desperation in 'Aliens' of a small elite team being taken down slowly. Add to that the highly stylised visual flair of 'Leon' with the kick boxing martial arts variations of Southeast Asia. What you get is nothing particularly new now (seeing as Jaa got there first) but it is a mean ass action flick with great production values that has been crafted well.
Here is my video review of Waxwork (1988)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0VPQdn9sXs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0VPQdn9sXs#)
Romancing the Stone (1984)
Is there any film that Douglas stars in where he doesn't manage to show or reveal bits of his anatomy?...mainly his ass. An early Zemeckis film with a cast that would reunite a few times after but was it any good? yeeeaa no.
Made a few years after another certain popular fedora wearing adventurer you could be forgiven for thinking this was a poor mans rip of that franchise. Indeed the whole look of the film is similar but instead of hot yellow desert sands we have wet sweaty green jungle, plus its set in the present day of 84.
Personally I really can't see why this was a hit upon release. The plot is quite a mess with many people all running around after other people and a map, poor action sequences, uneventful twists and dull villains...if any.
I don't wanna mention Indy but I just can't help it hehe. Douglas's character is decked out in virtually the same kind of gear and he has a silly macho type of name. Both him and Turner run around the jungle dodging snakes, soldiers, large ravines, crocodiles and drug runners doing pretty much what you would expect this type of film to offer albeit in a slightly more grown up fashion.
Douglas really isn't the right kind of leading man for this type of film, the guy always was so sleazy looking. Devito also struggles to inject anything into the film in my view despite clearly being stuck in it for comedy, the guy is not right for fast paced actions films. Overall the casting was horrible if you ask me, worst line up ever!.
Total hit and miss for me, really didn't like anything going on, found it dull and cliched. A typical mix of Indy and Bond yet adding nothing new or exciting to the fold. Had it come out before other films then it may have been a different story, oh and the films poster is way better than the actual film (common issue with some old 80's films).
My Expendables 2 Review :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAA_L7cBWUE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAA_L7cBWUE#)
Jewel of the Nile (1985)
Again we have the Indy comparison with this sequel. 'Temple of Doom' came out in 84 then along comes the sequel to the original Indy rip off in 85 and again its another poor mans version in my opinion. On top of that we're back to the most common terrain for all adventure flicks...sand dunes in the desert.
Now the original film was slightly adult in nature, swearing, soft sex scenes, drugs and slightly more mature action. This time the film has gone completely down the comedy route by amping up the action set pieces ten fold but making them more slapstick than before.
The first half of this film feels like a complete 'Temple of Doom' spin, yes I know its set in Egypt but the whole look and feel and the way Turner's character is treated is very similar to 'Doom' at the start. As the film progresses it does manage to shake the Indy vibe and instead could possibly be seen as an early influence for certain Brendan Fraser adventure flicks...well that's just my view.
Unfortunately the film just can't escape the need to follow in 'Dr Jones' footsteps so we have an entire action sequence involving a jet plane that is pretty similar to the Nazi plane fight sequence in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.
Well Indy comparisons aside (hard to do) the film is still pretty poor. Its chock full of plot holes and inconsistencies which are just silly. Yes I know you can't take the film seriously as at the end of the day its just a fun adventure film but come on!. For a start the trio (Turner, Douglas and Eisenberg) seem to walk and jog across half of Egypt (or somewhere in North Africa) for most of the film. One minute they are being chased by soldiers across a flat desert, the next minute after a brisk jog they are in a mountainous region and manage to climb up a huge cliff face without need for pause or water at any point!.
Plus I must add I was never sure where exactly they are suppose to be in North Africa. One minute they're in the fictional nation of 'Kadir', then they stray into Nubian land, then back into Arabic land, they cover a lot of ground it seems. Its all in the same region but its a big region.
I guess the continuity is good from the last film, same cast, I don't like the cast but they gel well. Devito has an even bigger comedy role this time and is still completely not funny, almost turning his character into a kind of 'Wil E. Coyote' farce this time, shameful. Speaking of shameful, the less said about the cheap sets the better methinks, whoa!.
Its admittedly cult 80's action fluff but I just can't give a thumbs up for this or the original. This is worse than the first as its been dumbed down badly, at least the first was more mature. You can certainly see where many other adventure flicks in recent years may have gotten inspiration as this has all the ingredients you would expect. Again the films poster is really good but this time gives a good impression of the action to be seen.
Air Force One (1997)
God bless those United States, the old red white and blue, the stars n stripes, the most powerful country in the whole wide world!!
Anyway, this is pretty much your standard terrorist hijack setup with all the regular ingredients that you might expect. Take 'Passenger 57' 'Die Hard 2' and 'Executive Decision' blend them all together, make the one man army hero the President (no vest) and voila!.
This film does well mainly due the huge appeal of Ford and his epic back catalog of movies. His ever lasting rugged good looks, calm manly voice and likeable charisma (even without the fedora) is the stuff of silver screen legend.
The other reason this works so well is Oldman as the main Russian baddie. He's got the stereotypical goatee, a heavy accent and he's really mean, another good Eurotrash villain. Along with Ford that's two rock solid performances which keep the film glued together, without them this could easily have been a very average run of the mill action thriller.
Another thing the film shows you is how nice it is or would be to be President with his highly advanced personal airliner. Never realised how luxurious the interior of the plane is, from top to bottom its like a long narrow mansion. On top of that you also learn a few things about the plane and how cool it really is. Is there really an escape pod on board?
The sets for Air Force One all look top notch and the action is also darn good but its also pretty daft at times. Lots of gun fire in mid air, kinda silly as you'd think at least one might pierce the fuselage, especially with all the machine gun fire haha. Then of course you have the obligatory faceless Russian bad guys, god knows how many there were at first or how many got killed but it seemed to be lots. Ditto for Air Force One personnel, people getting mowed down all over the shop, no idea who they are. Little character development for the bad guys or good guys accept for the odd main roles naturally.
End of the day its your typical action flick cunningly disguised as trying to be something a bit more intelligent...but really its not. Still looks the biz today but the CGI sequence at the end is pretty bad looking I gotta be honest.
'nobody does this to the United States'
My review for Q: The Winged Serpent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqHskD6obMo# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqHskD6obMo#)
Total Recall (2012)
Well I think Scott may have a hard time trying to impress us with 'Blade Runner 2' if he goes ahead with it. Seeing as this film has pretty much made the perfect interpretation of what a bleak futuristic heavily Asian populated/influenced city will look like by today's standards.
That is probably the only plus point about this new remake that I can give, the visuals. The rain soaked, dark, grimy, oily mechanical looking distopian Earth cities of the future are rendered quite beautifully. Both the 'the United Federation of Britain' and 'the Colony' look fantastic as you sweep across them during the film, not that I was surprised by this of course, it was inevitable that this element would be the films biggest asset.
This old 1990 version of 'Recall' was a loose adaptation of the Dick story, this new version is an even looser version ejecting almost all of the original material. There's no problem using some artistic license sure but why completely change everything?. If you do that's fine but then at least call the film something else, make it an original film stating influences, don't call it a remake/adaptation when its vastly different.
So the plot has almost completely nothing to do with the original Dick story, problem one. Problem two is the fact there isn't really anything new in this film we haven't seen already. You could almost say this film is 'I, Robot 2' or a mix of that film and a lot of 'Minority Report'. Yes the film looks sumptuous but it is your average vision of the future really, hover cars, hover trains, lots of holograms and lots of robots. The only new futuristic element I liked was the 'hand phone' and 'the fall' despite that concept being really quite unworkable in reality (I think!).
Touches on the old Verhoeven classic here and there, some small some in your face (three tits much!). A short plump ugly woman with a bad looking red wig saying she's staying in the 'UFB' for two weeks. This time her head doesn't come off to reveal 'Quaid' which I'm sure your suppose to think hehe. The new version for this trick is neat but not nearly as fun, you could say the same for the whole film really.
Another issue I had was the inclusion of a big robot force. I didn't really like this direction as it touches way too much on previous films as I've mentioned already. I did also get the feeling robots were used so they could have lots of gun battle sequences but without having to show lots of blood and people getting shot. I'm not saying that kind of stuff equals a good film but the 1990 version is famed for its over the top bullet squibs and violence and in retrospect it makes this new film seem very childish (not to mention the old toy merchandise side of it these days).
As for cast its lackluster if you ask me. Farrell does a good job as 'Quaid' yes, you don't need huge muscles to make a film of course but the inclusion of Beckinsale was a mistake though. She does her whole 'Underworld' thing and not much else really plus you know she's in this simply because her husband is directing. The other bad choice was Cranston as 'Cohaagen' who just wasn't threatening enough in any way. He wasn't necessarily bad but he just didn't really give off much of an evil tyrant persona, in no way did he come across as a villain, just a regular futuristic suit.
This film isn't a bad effort I must admit, its not a frame by frame remake which is good but as with many films these days its too late to make an impact, been here and done it. The 1990 version was huge because it was original and boasted awesome violence and that classic Verhoeven black political satire. This looks crisp and impressive but simply can't muster the same punch with either action or cast.
On a final note the 1990 version never really did give away whether it was a dream or not. The fade to white at the end is the only clue to it possibly being a dream. This new film doesn't seem to try for that mystery a tall, its all for one direction.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 31, 2012, 10:56:36 PM
My review for Q: The Winged Serpent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqHskD6obMo# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqHskD6obMo#)
Oh, David Carradine, why? :D
Keep it up, man. Good reviews.
Dark Shadows
To be honest I have never seen the original TV series or even heard of it before this film went ahead. Comparisons to the old TV show are therefore impossible to make but the whole idea does sound rather bizarre. For me this has been a bit of a hit n miss, its hard to nail down exactly why but it just didn't flow right.
As usual the films visuals are the big draw and make the film completely. Burton doesn't disappoint his fans by bringing the perfect look to the vampire story in all its moonlit glory. He does actually stray ever so slightly from his usual themes, not that the gothic vampiric visuals are anything you wouldn't expect but you don't see any of the common Burton touches like his trademark black n white spirals or characters/creatures that look like they have come from the world of Oyster Boy.
So looks and design are a big yes naturally but what about the rest?. Well its 50/50 for me, the period set vamp story is really cool but the 70's period story I didn't like. Its an odd blend of genres and I don't think they gel well a tall. I really did get the impression that Burton should of just made his own period set vampire flick and left this adaptation alone...or at least not set it in the 70's.
There is some adequate humour throughout the film, the culture shock for Depp's character is obviously the main funny stuff. Depp again pretty much does his now usual blockbuster type thing/character which grows tiresome. His quirky semi amusing characters were fun years ago but now after a good few run outs its no longer original. The rest of the cast are OK but nothing to shout about, I like how they all have typical Burton makeup designs. Bella Heathcote being made up to look like a live action version of a character from 'Corpse Bride' or various other Burton creations with her snow white face and big round white eyes surrounded by shadow.
Very much a 'Death Becomes Her' type flick with some fun ghoulish witch moments and lavish visuals for the mansion and vampire side of things. The rest of the plot set in the 70's just felt out of place and obviously dated but not in a good way, I don't wanna be watching films set in the 70's. A film of two halves, two halves that are a curious mix that for me didn't sit right. Add to that a tame loose plot, moments of soft horror and comedy in an uneasy balance and Depp...again!.
A new review :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMTANu5UvOo# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMTANu5UvOo#)
The Amazing Spider-Man
The Amazing Spider-Man? well not quite. With the Raimi franchise finished only five years ago in 2007 did we need a reboot of this super hero? in my opinion no we didn't and this film hasn't really changed my mind.
One can't deny the impressive new visuals and ideas for this new feature, Spider-Man does look good with new state of the art CGI effects and 'spidey' POV as he streaks across the night sky. The suit is pretty much the same albeit for some minor cosmetic differences, but Spider-Man's new moves during fights and skyscraper swinging are much more elaborate, sexy and closer to the classic motions we all know and love from the comics and those top notch Capcom 2D fighters even!.
That said I still see no point in this film other than to show off what I just pointed out. Yes Spider-Man looks much slicker as he should five years after the last film but other than that there is nothing new here. I might add its only Spider-Man that looks good in this film, 'Lizard' looks pretty ropey if you ask me. Close ups of his face and eyes especially are pretty nice but when the action kicks in he looks like a dodgy Godzilla with a weird facial design. Obviously trying to look somewhat like the actor Ifans but it doesn't work too well.
The plot for 'Lizard' is also kinda loose too really. He wants to turn everyone into lizards hmmm. Wouldn't that kinda make him no longer special? if everyone was the same as him he wouldn't be the strongest being around anymore, more importantly...why do this?. On another note, again I realise this is a comicbook adaptation but isn't this plot like something out of a kids Saturday morning cartoon? to be more precise...a 'TMNT' cartoon.
A lot of the film is so darn stupid also, OK its a comicbook adaptation but it just seems they have tried too hard plus trying to squeeze too much into the one film. The origins segments seem to fly past and before you know it he's Spider-Man and everyone is calling him that!. There isn't much exploration of his suit creation, he just makes it...just like that and things happen that are just too daft to make any sense.
'Parker's' first use of his spider powers on the subway home is one example. some guy does something completely pointless whilst 'Parker' sleeps (balances a beer bottle on his forehead?? duh!?). He awakes startled and leaps onto the carriage roof, sticking there, he jumps down and accidentally rips off a woman's top with his sticky fingers. Straight away some guys completely forget about the amazing feet they just saw and try to beat him up...as you would do of course.
Then of course there is all the obligatory high school fluff where 'Parker' does things slightly out of the ordinary yet no one ever seems to think how. Yes I know its all part of the comicbook lore and gives the film some funny moments but my god its so cliched.
Personally I see nothing here that beats the Raimi franchise by any great lengths. Naturally the effects are much better but cast wise I actually prefer Maguire (although Dunst was terrible). Garfield was quite annoying I found and didn't have any of the emotion, probably down to the fact Maguire is a good actor and Garfield is not...whoever he is.
I just feel this is all so ridiculous, they could do this every other year, just remake the same film with a pretty new cast and sparkly new effects, slap some gloss on the top and voila! yet another brand new origins remake. The thing is everyone will rush to see it too! (yes I see the irony in myself having seen it but I have a good reason for this...I'm a hypocrite). Its the same as before in a shiny new wrapper people! Hollywood must be rubbing their hands with glee.
With the amount of super hero films made and being made there really is no need for remakes/reboots of franchises that aren't very old. There are plenty of really good super hero characters out there Hollywood, lets see some of them get an adaptation, stop churning out the same spiel over and over!.
Purely by the numbers cookie cutter film making in every sense and offers nothing new. There are some nice fight sequences between 'Spidey' and 'Lizard' yes but that's it, I get the impression that's the only reason they made this, to show off cool fights between cool comicbook characters. Cast aside the only differences are the change in villain and the visuals are prettier, everything else is as you would expect so where's the fun?.
Menace II Society (1993)
Back in my days of school I heard of this film but knew nothing of it. It was commonly known as a 90's video nasty and was the talk of the town alongside other similar gangster films. The difference with these films over other horror video nasties was this genre was realistic and possibly influential to us kids, or so the grown ups said.
The film itself isn't exactly anything amazing really, just days in the life of some young street hoods as they commit crimes and generally arse about. What makes it so strong is the fact its so well made with amazingly good direction and gritty visuals you'd think an experienced directed was behind it.
So the fact this is a directional debut from the Hughes brothers is really quite impressive, the fact they managed to gather a damn good cast is also impressive. From Sam Jackson and Larenz Tate to Charles Dutton and Bill Duke, add to that many familiar character actors such as Clifton Collins in a minor role.
Of course the reason behind the films infamous rap is the brutal graphic violence and the fact the word 'fudge' is used about a billion times. I thought 'Robocop' was hard ass, this takes the biscuit! but what makes this so harsh is the fact its based on reality and probably many truths and stories. Whether or not it serves to inform youngsters about the wrong roads in life I don't know, I'm sure it will and does still shock but one could also say it may influence or possibly give certain youngsters bad ideas.
This is a huge debate and solely depends on the individual naturally, some will enjoy for the wrong reasons other won't, but the Hughes brothers deserve credit for exposing the cold facts that I'm sure many are sheltered from. To be honest I can see what the brothers are doing here but at the same time I can't help but feel they are also putting young blacks in a very bad light and not helping how other people look at them. One also can't help but feel the heavy use of racial language and much black v white propaganda also fuels the fire somewhat, but I'm looking at this from a British perspective.
Dated now of course but still able to shock with its explosive sequences. Much like the Wild West this film shows how cheap life can be (or still is) within certain areas of the US, but many countries have similar issues.
Scarily realistic performances from the cast (kinda makes you wonder if they have their own experiences), powerful moments of madness and all made very well without glorifying the story by making the lead character a hero. A story of self destruction that could easily of been avoided exposing the pity and futileness of these youngsters lives. Oh and Sam Jackson is much more terrifying and badass in this than 'Pulp Fiction', even for a five minute cameo!.
Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)
Now Forest Whitaker isn't the kind of guy you would normally think of for a smart ice cool hitman flick. His big lumbering appearance and droopy eye always gives him the look of a bad guy or suit type, not some ninja like assassin.
But here we are in dare I say 'Leon' for a black audience? is that wrong of me? cos this sure as hell is what it is. Take the overall premise of 'Leon' and virtually copy it scene for scene and you have 'Ghost Dog' but with a nice samurai code twist.
This film is actually based on a very good French film called 'Le Samouraï' which in turn also probably influenced Besson for his New York based hitman classic. Its pretty fair to say when watching that this is heavily influenced by those said films, from the hit sequences to the little girl who 'Ghost Dog' befriends but doesn't train...although that is hinted at somewhat towards the end.
Personally I love this film, its could easily be a sequel to 'Leon' and moves just as sexually and gracefully including some excellent hit scenes, albeit a bit brief. The film is kinda slow and builds around 'GD' training in the art of samurai whilst living his simple life caring for pigeons. Your not really sure if your suppose to root for this guy either, he's not doing good stuff after all. He works for the mob and kills people, breaks into properties and steals cars pretty regularly, he doesn't kill innocents but nor does he care too much about them or their material possessions.
Trying not to mention other films too much here but when you see the American mobsters in this it rings so many bells. The bad guys are a classic stereotypical cliched lineup of fat, aging, balding, badly dressed 70's looking rejects that could of come from any well known mafia flick you've ever heard of. I loved how they looked and spoke in that typical Nu Joisey/Nu Yawk fashion with their big tinted shades, dated tracksuits or leather coats, absolutely perfect. You could almost think of these guys as a parody really. Almost caricatures and exactly how you expect Italian American hoods to look and act with the addition of great names like 'Handsome Frank' and the all too common names of Vinny, Ray and Louie.
The cast are familiar too, all the regular faces that normally play wheezing old fat mafioso's. Their boss is Henry Silva who is pretty much the perfect face for a bad guy, a mafia bad guy. The man is a character acting legend plus his face is evil looking with those sharp cheek bones and odd stretched wrinkle-less like skin complexion, no wonder he was in 'Dick Tracy'.
There isn't too much action here like I said but that isn't a problem really. The film moves slow just like its main player and the outcome is resolved quite quickly really. The Japanese filling throughout is a nice touch which is obviously there because of the French film it plays homage to but it neither hinders or helps really, its just nice little touches that are pleasant to view. End of the day the samurai code doesn't really effect the film much apart from what 'GD' allows to happen.
Didn't think the film needed the African American influence of rap music though, would of been nice without that, more unique really as the old gangster thing still looms somewhat. Still a unique film though can't dent that. For me the film is made with the stellar casting for the bad guys, they are really quite amusing, Whitaker does well also in his calm near silent role. A must see film if you like this kind of thing but just don't expect tonnes of action.
Safe (2012)
Well...talk about double cross, intrigue and back stabbing, this film has it all and you never know who the hell's gonna get it next.
Statham is back, well he never left but he's back on his own killing everybody in his path whilst being rather nifty with a gun. Like Seagal, Statham is pretty much always cast as either a cop, elite cop, military special forces, ex-cop or ex-military special forces, the same role every time.
Now this isn't a huge issue but the attraction is definitely wearing a tad thin these days, much like it did with Seagal along time ago. In this rather unimaginatively titled film Jason is an ex-cop trying to protect a little Chinese girl from pretty much everyone whilst also trying to get hold of a disc with lots of dodgy info on. The little Chinese girl is the only one who knows the combination to the safe which stores the disc.
So cue tonnes of gun battles, fist fights, car chases and expecting to see Jason being somewhat invincible. Gotta admit the action is very good is this, nothing original of course but it looks top dollar with some excellent stunts and gritty gun fights. Body count is through the roof as Chinese, Russian mafia and NY police get blown away left right n centre...by Mr Statham. The good thing about the film is virtually everyone is double crossing everyone else including their own men, you never know who's gonna call who in this vicious circle.
Highly unoriginal but actually not too predictable although after the first few double crosses you know not to trust anyone, but everyone does look like a suspicious suit. A much better action flick than previous straight to DVD Statham efforts, good production values and very slick. Definitely the highest body count I've seen for some time but Mr Statham needs to expand his range now methinks.
Dante's Peak (1997)
There seemed to be a few disaster films in the 90's, there also seemed to be a trend for making identical films, this was the first for the double dose of volcanoes.
Now lets be honest here, there is a standard setup for disaster films which is usually always followed and somehow keeps on working. In this case we have Brosnan being the science boff who no one believes when he fears a volcano may erupt next to the sleepy mountain town of Dante's Peak.
From the very start its a waiting game, waiting for the fun to start when the mountain blows. The easy plot builds up many characters so we get to know them plus links to other folk so when it all kicks off we feel the emotion run deep. Its simple building block film making basically and this film actually does it well with likeable characters all the way through. I must admit Brosnan is pretty good here, never really liked him before but his calm heroic demeanor is very soothing amidst all the terror and tension, I really wanted him to survive with the woman and kids.
The other things that impress about this film is how realistic it actually is and how well they handle all the effects and action. At no point was I ever thinking how shoddy the film looked or how cheesy it was. All the acting was really very good with some genuinely tear jerking moments of emotion and pretty much all the volcano eruption special effects were excellent. In fact during almost every sequence of rock spurting action I was impressed by the effects which also included some good model work and good matte paintings of the mountain.
Most definitely a more realistic route for this particular slice of volcano drama, pretty accurate with volcano facts offering a good education really. The whole thing builds well and gives plenty of time for everything to come to a climax nicely, no rush and no fuss with obvious care and attention to all areas. A highly recommended natural disaster that has it all including the obligatory dog to really heighten your angst and wetten your hankie when the lava flows.
(This film also includes the infamous Wilhelm scream which is a kooky hokey scream sound effect used hundreds of times in various films. Google it and you will see what I mean and recognise I'm sure.)
Volcano (1997)
The second volcano disaster film released in 97 and clearly a different tone, didn't do as well as 'Dante's Peak' and its easy to see why.
First off the plot, like most all disaster films, is completely identical to that other volcano film. This film kicks off almost straight away with the action and pending volcano but overall its all the same. Simply replace Brosnan with Jones and the fact no one believes him until it just darn too late.
From there on the film becomes a ludicrously silly action/thriller which really should be titled 'Lava' as that's all its about, you only see the small volcano for a few shots. You can look at this film as more of a blockbuster 'arcade' type as its not very realistic and overly flashy. Sure its got everything you would expect in a disaster film including the heroic sacrifice, obligatory dog, a few people being melted away in lava (had to have that!) but it also has so much cheese. The forced racism sub plot between a white cop and black youth who at the end make up and help each other seemingly vanquishing the hatred? OK its a good sentiment but holy crap its lame.
The film progresses ever predictably towards its ever so obvious happy ending as downtown LA melts n bubbles away. You just move from one catastrophic setup to the next, some with your typical heroic bookend and some with your typical emotional bookend. The effects are pretty good in places yes, gotta give the film that, the lava does look pretty hot and you do get a good sense of sweltering sheer heat from the action.
The final finale is an utter ridiculous joke that simply doesn't help the film a tall. The way they solve the problem in the time they have is just plain comicbook stuff, add to that the over the top end sequence for Jones which is laughable. Luckily the solid Tommy Lee saves the film from utter B-movie obscurity with his craggy features.
Nowhere near as good as 'Dante's Peak' and nowhere near as accurate with the facts. Not a total problem as we know off the bat this ain't no serious flick. Unfortunately you can't help but compare it to the superior earlier volcano flick which ticks all the right boxes including realism and thrills.
End of the day this just feels like some Hollywood suit thought how cool it would be to see how much destruction and mayhem there would be if you moved a volcano from way out in the wilderness to a major city. Yeah we can cause lots of shit to blow up and melt in a city!.
Trespass (1992)
Directed by action maestro Walter Hill and with a lead role for Bill Paxton this sounds like a great combination. Alas this turns out to be a very by the numbers thriller that can't really muster up anything overly exciting.
The film is quite similar to another thriller by the title of 'Judgment Night' plot wise. Some out of town blue collar guys get themselves into a difficult situation with a local gang or hoods. In this film the two men are trapped within an old vacant building whilst looking for some lost stolen treasure while in the other film some men are lost and trapped within a broken down dodgy neighbourhood.
The problem with this film is the bad guys, a gang made up of stereotypical cliched black hoods that are covered in bling and can't speak proper English. The casting has big names admittedly and includes most well known black character actors but for some reason Hill chose to cast Ice-T and Ice Cube...oh dear. Needless to say the acting from this pair is dire and ruins any potential tension whenever they are on screen.
Overall there isn't really much tension a tall frankly, not enough to make you care whether Paxton or Sadler (good guys) make it out alive or not. Its an old film now yes so you could excuse the predictable obligatory stuff that's included, you know Sadler is the unhinged guy that will crack through gold fever (the lost stolen items) and you know all the hoods will turn on each other. Ice Cube makes that rather obvious the moment he utters his first words.
Reasonably entertaining but lacking real bite. The reason 'Judgment Night' was so cool was down to the great casting of Leary as the main bad guy, this similar film is missing that key casting. Paxton is limp, Sadler is better as a villain and action is AWOL. The ending is slightly unique in the fact it doesn't end as you would think, doesn't make it any better though.
Crimson Tide (1995)
Where would we all be without the good US of A to save the world at the drop of a hat huh. This time its the proud US Navy that gets to show us their stuff and stop those pesky Russians once again, darn pesky Russians.
A Bruckheimer/Simpson production and boy can you tell, a veritable feast for the eyes with the standard graphic novel-like adaptation imagery that looks glossy, sharp and always exciting (with the assistance of some guy called Michael Bay). All together these three guys created some memorable action flicks that really are the true meaning of blockbuster.
'Crimson Tide' is no exception, well maybe one small exception, and that's the fact this film is probably the most sensible, realistic action flick they've created. Now if you will, this is my little videogame analogy of these flicks. Most of the Bruckheimer/Simpson flicks are what I would call 'arcade' type action flicks, they're big, loud, flashy and give plenty of bang for your buck.
'Crimson Tide' is more of a 'simulator' action flick in the simple fact its more realistic with deeper tension. This of course would be down to the brilliant direction of Ba...errr Scott who knows his way around a good looking military action flick.
So in short the visuals here are crisp, smoky and sweat inducing in nice shades of green, blue and red. Life aboard a sub has been created seriously well and you really get that tight feeling as the camera peers down steel tubes and stairwells. Despite the fact almost the entire film takes place in the sub you never once lose interest as we go from action stations against Russian subs to one mutiny after another as Washington faces off against Hackman.
This of course leads me to the cast which is really superb here. Even the small fry roles played by small fry character actors are decent. The big guns naturally fire on all cylinders, Hackman is pretty intimidating as the sub Captain whilst Washington easily gains your support as the 'good guy' of sorts. Supporting roles are also solid with Gandolfini in his usual slightly nasty persona, the guy who likes to make his presence known, and Mortensen as the guy torn between his captain and friend.
Nice early build up into the film as we gather the crew and see what each are like. There isn't too much in special effects either as most of the action is simply viewing the crew and sub innards as each suspenseful situation looms, kicks off and passes. Brave move that pays off as you would expect lots of fancy CGI sequences. Finally a stirring moving bold musical score to really bring home the seriousness and heroism of the story...less you forget this is an American military thriller damn it!!
So end of the day yes you know how it will all end, pretty obvious of course. You know which man will stand tall and victorious by the end credits. You know there will be a change of character by the loser and you know there's bound to be a scene where men get trapped in the bowels of the sub and must be sacrificed to save the rest of the crew. Many typical scenes where the crew must decide who is in charge and if they're doing it the right way, the Navy way, the American way...cue rousing musical score and close ups of sweaty stern jawed faces.
I like to think of this as Scott's grown up follow up to 'Top Gun' (had to mention it). All the hallmarks of a slick military action flick but much more sensible without 80's pop music and male posing. I saw this opening night at the cinema (ye olde Warner Village cinema's) back when I was a young teen and liked it, I still like it now, what more can I say!?.
Daylight (1996)
Take 'The Poseidon Adventure' and simply place the whole idea underground in a tunnel and you have the film 'Daylight'.
This film has everything you would expect from your typical disaster film. The film starts by slowly building the characters one by one, giving them each reasons why they all end up using Holland Tunnel, whilst at the same time another sub plot sets up the reason for the disaster.
The reason for the outrageous incident is merely a car chase that causes a major crash into some toxic waste trucks...yeah so kinda lame then. All the survivors are the perfect line up of cliched stereotypical types which enables you to know who will live or die straight away. The setups for each type of character are all so obvious too...convicts and a cop, the old man, the panicky women and the one calm one etc...
You have a mouthy young black man who's also a touchy convict (gee I wonder if he lives?), a frail old white guy, screaming panicky women, the suit wearing business man, a wannabe hero, some other young convicts including Stallone's son, a cop and a tunnel worker. So you have one or two folk who are trapped there conveniently so all hope is not lost straight away eg. tunnel worker and cop. Most are obvious fodder for the collapsing/flooding/flaming tunnel.
What disaster film would be complete without the obligatory animal within the death and destruction?. Well this film doesn't let you softies off as there is (as usual) a dog involved which ALWAYS gets the viewers upset. Such an easy way to get the emotions running when the little doggie is in peril, its cliched, predictable and cheesy as hell but it never fails to work.
So into the fray leaps Stallone who has nothing to do with anything but just turns up and decides to save the day single handily against all recommendations from everyone. Oh wait, he used to be a chief medical something or other, meh...its Stallone, doesn't need a reason.
Despite the heavy grilled cheese the film does actually look really sound. All the effects/stunts look great and don't look seem to use too much CGI, bluescreen is evident and obvious but its not that bad. The initial disaster that sparks a chain reaction of events and a huge fireball is pretty impressive I must say, some good model work in there I think also. From there on the whole film constantly looks impressive with great sets that really give a good impression of a crumbling death trap with plenty of water, fire, rubble, metal debris and sparking electrics into the brew.
So yes the entire thing is one huge melted cheese sandwich which we've all seen before and know off by heart. You could say if you've seen one disaster film you've seen them all. Certainly this is very obvious stuff but its still quite enjoyable to watch mainly because it all looks really good. The tunnel setting is also quite original methinks.
Highlander: The Source
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE5-eCMG3jY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE5-eCMG3jY#)
Spoilers Ahoy.
Cocktail (1988)
What has Mr Cruise done to blokes over the years huh. He made us all wanna join the military so we could play with fighter jets and have a cool nickname, play/hustle nine-ball for a living, be a NASCAR driver...but at one point he also made all men wanna become bartenders. The image...behind a slick neon lit bar, fast money and easy sex, who would say no?.
Well the plot in this ever so 80's flick is a cocktail of drama in itself!. Kicks off as a loose dumb story about a young guy who learns to be a bartender and throws bottles around awful looking swanky yuppie/suit type bars. From there we get cheating, backstabbing and escapism to Jamaica where a soppy love story breaks out.
More backstabbing follows as we proceed to more heartbreak and the involvement with older rich women, much more fun then. Yet more breakup, death of a friend and eventual makeup leading to the obvious happy ending.
A veritable rollercoaster of a plot which is totally uninteresting and rather cringeworthy. Watching Cruise pose and strut around with his wide toothy grin and hair that can't decide to be straight or curly is somewhat painful at times. The bar scenes are really quite crap looking back, I remember how people thought this stuff was sooooo cool (laugh out loud!).
The cast is also another odd cocktail of choice. Aussie Bryan Brown who never really made much of a splash in Hollywood is a bizarre choice. Whilst Shue was never very attractive in my book and hardly sells her character, so dreadfully vanilla and dull!! geez!!. Brown is just totally uncool and annoying whilst Shue is a wet fish. Add to that the constant flow of hyped over acting and mugging by Cruise...oh god it makes you wanna vomit in your Singapore Sling!.
A film for the ladies I think as the only things that interested me was a few female arse shots and the thought of what life would be like as a sex toyboy for a rich middle aged business woman (I would of stuck it out). In places this film is very awkward to watch, bordering on embarrassing. So completely and utterly dated (in a bad way) and serves no purpose other than a history lesson on 80's social gatherings and what people thought was cool employment at the time.
A time when Cruise's ego was sky high alongside his over acting, mind you what's new.
U-571 (2000)
Well this caused a hullabaloo upon release, such a big hullabaloo that it even involved our British Prime Minister, some MP's and eventually President Clinton!. I do recall at the time that Britain was not too pleased about the historical rigging so Clinton had to smooth things over hehe was quite the headline.
Anyway if you can see past the huge numerous historical inaccuracies this wartime submarine thriller is pure adventure and action in a real boys own way. I don't mean to take anything away from the real memory of the maritime war effort but this really is a rollicking good fun film that will grab you and not let go.
A gripping plot surrounding the need to capture the Enigma cipher machine of the German U-boat U571. The crew of the US S-33 are sent in disguised as a German U-boat to infiltrate U571 and capture the machine without anyone ever knowing they were there. Of course things don't go to plan and this is where the thrills begin as the US crew fight to remain undetected and escape with their valuable cargo.
At first the film isn't overly impressive visually, seems to cozy, but as the story progresses things seem to get better, probably due to the moisture, sweat, heat and dirt buildup on crew and set. External visuals are lovely as we get many excellent pan shots of a real sub ocean bound with people onboard (not sure whether they are the actual actors).
Like other sub flicks ('Crimson Tide') most of the film takes place inside the German U-boat. Not as stunning or large as interior shots in said Scott flick but naturally size/tech varies between subs of then and now. What you do get is a very tight cramped experience which really offers an insight into how these boys lived in these tin cans. Realism is assured and is enough to give anyone a fear of confined spaces, the constant dripping from pipes and seals would do it for me.
Cast is quite a unique mixed bag here too. 80's action men Paxton and Keith are reunited after 'The Lords of Discipline', Keith looking the slick Bond type in his turtle neck and leather coat, a bit cliched maybe.
Other main leads went to hard man Keitel alongside wannabe action hero/romcom regular McConaughey. British actor Weber struggled to maintain his US accent which unintentionally gave me some chuckles. Of course one noteworthy element was the inclusion of Jon Bon Jovi in the cast, I think his first major role in a proper major flick. At the time most did ask why they couldn't have found a real actor for the role, his presence certainly made you wonder about the films credibility before release, a rock star in a legitimate war film?.
So with a mixed bag of various actors from various genres the film still managed to be one of the best war thrillers I've seen in a long while. Like I said the sub interior sequences are perfect and capture the hellish mood whilst the few special effects are nicely done and not over the top. Musical score doesn't quite hit the emotions as well as other war films, not overly memorable.
Despite the Americanisation of the truth this film still wins and delivers a ripping yarn alongside a good dedication to the real men of the time. Love the films poster also.
ParaNorman
Finally we get another 'Nightmare Before Christmas' type flick! Been waiting for this and yet amazingly it isn't Tim Burton behind anything (or Selick). Can't deny that's the first thought that entered my head...'this is a Tim Burton film...surely!'.
But no this isn't, its completely Burton free and what's more its pretty darn good. Visuals up first of course, what can I say, they look flippin great!. A blend of clay-mation with a hint of CGI in places but in that nice old school way which hasn't been made deliberately perfect. Characters, buildings, backgrounds etc...are not created exactly symmetrical but with a slightly twisted and dare I say...Tim Burton-ish approach (can't get around saying that sorry). Kooky is a good description word here.
The colour palette is also quite nice and offers a bold yet shaded range giving off a cozy comicbook feel. Animation wise its really slick too, smoother than other well known clay-mation films and with great depth in backdrops and vista's, loved the evil looking sky towards the end.
The whole zombie thing is cool and for some reason made me think of 'Thriller', I guess because this film actually has some quite semi scary moments. Usual mix of hocus pocus, curses and regular 'kids film type characters' but big close ups on undead faces, screaming howling zombies, zombie limbs flying off, evil witch forces and the odd small jumpy moment make this more for the older teen viewer. Visuals will entice the kids but the content will be appreciated more by slightly older kids/teens.
The story does turns out to be quite sweet in the end I might add, the finale is quite moving and in a way detracts from what has gone before really. Almost a total swing in mood from horror comedy to nice fairytale bookend.
Lots of nice touches throughout, I really liked how Norman is the only person who can see ghosts around the town. Nothing original there but a nice spooky 'Beetlejuice' 'The Frighteners' flavour, wish we had seen much more of that.
I knew I would like this as the whole concept is right up my alley and I'm sure anyone who enjoyed films like 'Nightmare Before Christmas' 'Corpse Bride' 'Monster House' etc...will enjoy this. Not overly original and characters aren't overly inspired but a fun haunted little ride with some cute lines of comedy and lovely visuals, just wish the ending wasn't so weepy.
The 13th Warrior
This movie is the story of Ahmed ibn Fadlan, a native of Baghdad who is made ambassador to a barbarian tribe far to to the north. On his way there, he encounters a band of Vikings and is recruited as the last of a group of thirteen warriors called upon to defend a kingdom from an ancient evil that comes with the fog.
I've loved this movie when I first saw it years ago, and I still love it now. The performances, from Antonio Banderas as Ahmed and the rest of the warriors who fight along side him range from pretty good to great. Vladimir Kulich (the voice of Ulfric Stormcloak, himself) is the epitome of bada** as Buliwyf, the Viking leader, and the others all get their moments, as well. I particularly liked Herger, the Northman who forms a friendship with Ahmed, although the rest are pretty cool as well.
The actions are truly bada**, including the massive battle scenes. The Wendol, the savage creatures of the mist, make for some splendid villains and are genuinely creepy in a few places.
The humor is also pretty good. A lot of it is built around the cultural differences between Ahmed and the Northmen, including their lack of personal hygiene and Ahmed's small horse. There is also a fair bit of humor about his lack of fighting skills, as well as his general fish-out-of-water status.
However, the movie's strongest element to me was the relationship that builds between Ahmed and his companions. At the start, Ahmed thinks of them as disgusting savages, while the Northmen view him as a near useless weakling. Over the course of the film, they come to like and respect each other as equals, culminating in a rousing scene before the final battle.
Overall, it's a fine film, and worth a watch.
8/10
Not sure why my folks let me watch that at age 9. It's been a while, but I remember the Wendol scaring the crap out of me. :-\
Rock of Ages
Two reasons why I saw this film, one the fact its supposedly filled with classic 80's rock tracks and two, the word on the street surrounding Mr Cruise's performance as 'Stacee Jaxx'.
Was pretty disappointed straight away to find out the plot is the most basic overused cliched idea that plays out just like 'Burlesque'. Of course being an all out musical you don't expect a fantastic story (well not in this day and age anyway) but the moment the lead female character leaves her small town for the brights lights of the big city I sunk in my chair and groaned.
Zeta Jones' character plot was sooooooo so damn cheesy and cliched too. A politician who is religious and against rock music because it corrupts and twists young minds yet slowly turns to the 'darkside'!! come on guys at least try for something a little inspired.
I think this would have been better with unknowns in the main roles too or at least people who can actually sing and dance properly. Using big name stars just doesn't help in my view, Cruise does a surprisingly good job as the perpetually drunk 'Jaxx' it has to be said but using someone like Alec Baldwin!!?. I have to admit that Brand was a good casting choice (one of the only ones), he looks the part and also acts the part in reality! unsure about his odd Brummie-ish accent though.
On the other hand then you have casting like Julianne Hough, your stereotypical boring limp wet blonde who has the same kind of vacuous part in 'Burlesque'.
I personally didn't get on with the film much. I kinda expected something akin to classics like 'Little Shop' or 'Rocky Horror' but all I saw was a cliched unoriginal concept with various classic songs butchered by various unknown people. Does make you appreciate the actual artists and their skills, oh and by the way many songs in this film aren't actually rock songs.
I can't really berate this film too much because it does exactly what its suppose to do and that's give you the viewer a good time without using your brain much. The plot is lame, acting generally is cheesy or bad and the songs are badly sung...but the big time visuals and dance sequences will be liked by many I'm sure. What gets me is the fact the creators have settled on such a basic boring idea when I'm sure this could of been something pretty special.
It's my favourite time of the year! So here is my video review of Hellraiser and Hellbound: Hellraiser II...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU5Woks2luo#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU5Woks2luo#ws)
I love your reviews just as much as TJ's. Good stuff man. :laugh:
Quote from: First Blood on Oct 01, 2012, 04:15:14 PM
I love your reviews just as much as TJ's. Good stuff man. :laugh:
Thanks dude!
Mad Max (AUS, 1979)
The now seminal dystopian semi futuristic Aussie vehicle based action thriller that brought Gibson into the limelight...plus its a dam good franchise.
A story that has now been ripped many times over right down to the last detail. We all know it, 'Max' is a leather bound cop in Oz who takes down nutters in his souped up Ford Falcon with the aid of his other fellow leather bound cops. A gang of bikers invade the peace of the territory and end up killing 'Max's' wife and child plus others which of course means revenge.
A simple premise but at the time the whole look and feel of the film was different if not totally original. The film mainly deals with 'Max's' peaceful life with his family and how society has broken down due to oil shortages. Actually somewhat slow for the most part, the start and finish are the high points.
The film kicks off with blistering pace as we get some fantastic car action with the now cult vehicles. Much like Japanese super saloons the cars aren't the prettiest to look at but they've got it where it counts. Great low camera angles, editing, deep rasping engine sounds and the odd bit of film speed up really do make these sequences feel gritty and real. The low budget seriously helps the film and certainly lives up to the notion that when you have little money you must be more creative which in the end will make a film look better.
Love the shots of 'Max' as he sits calmly in his car waiting for 'Nightrider'. Puts on his leather driving gloves, preps the car and then the still close up shot of his eyes behind tinted shades...reminds me of 'Drive'.
I have always thought this film does tend to lag through the middle as said before. After the initial turbo charged action the film sits back on the plot, this isn't bad as you do get character build up for the events to come but you can't help but yearn for more carnage.
Its hard to place this film if you ask me, the second is the best by miles and this one is also very good but its also a tad weak. The bad guys are fun but not really too threatening especially as they're on bikes. Hugh Keays-Byrne does add much needed flavour to the bad guys but I always felt he doesn't really do enough, just sits around and pulls faces. The way they kill 'Max's' wife and kid isn't very realistic either, not on bikes anyway.
The ending gets back into gear as 'Max' gets his revenge, what you've been waiting for the whole time. Whipping out the trusty Pursuit Special he tears up the highway and does what needs to be done in a reasonably satisfying fashion. The film may have been violent for the time but nowadays its very tame with obvious dummy usage.
The film doesn't date too badly, the cars are awesome and is it me or has there always been a kind of homosexual vibe to these films haha. A big butch leather bound bald guy with a thick handlebar moustache and the name of 'Fifi', it does make you wonder. The all male biker gang that wear makeup and stroke each other a lot haha and I've not even started on the sequel!
A solid entry made even better by the fact it came from nowhere with little budget. Just a tiny bit dull in the middle.
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (AUS, 1981)
The story continues as 'Max Rockatansky' is now a roaming lone wolf, a highway mercenary who does what he can for precious fuel and to survive.
For me this is easily the best of the trilogy as it gives you everything you kinda wanted from the first but didn't quite get. This film has become a legend over time, how many films, videogames, boardgames, TV shows etc...have used this formula and style since!.
The plot is even more basic than the first film and dispatches any notion of family, love or even friendship really. 'Max' is purely a roamer who cares for nothing but his dog and Ford Falcon, gas and sustenance are his goals. In short 'Max' reluctantly gains a friend in the form of the 'Giro Captain' and is shown a source of much gasoline. Again reluctantly he ends up helping the small band of protectors that hold the gas from a vicious gang of bondage clad desert thugs. All for more gas.
In short this film is virtually a constant set up for stunts, action and chase sequences, nothing much more than that. Definitely original in its time, all vehicles and costumes like this are now basically synonymous with this franchise. The used, dirty, seedy, gritty, rusty machine like world of the future also leans towards a Roman gladiatorial type look. The new gang of ultra thugs are a mix of American Indian, Roman gladiator, 'Rollerball' looking types that again also tend to appear very homosexual like the first.
Who can forget the iconic lunacy of Vernon Wells' character with his mohawk, leather chaps with bare thong clad ass showing and of course his collared blonde male bitch by his side haha. His utter madness and violent tendencies make him a scary gay loose cannon from hell as he lets out his war cries.
The rest of the bad guys are merely death fodder that end up getting blown up or crushed under vehicle tyres, but the costumes are all so unique and well imagined mixing fetish bondage gear with biker gear. Very cliched now of course but anything like this would come under the term 'Max Mad style'.
The bad guys easily make the film with their appearance and constant assaults, swarming over anything like ants. Their leader again is another brilliant visual treat and again totally homosexual looking. A huge tanned muscle bound man who speaks well, dresses in yet more black spiky strapped bondage gear and wears a hockey mask making him one of the best movie mysteries around. Who is this guy? what happened to him? and with the name 'Humungus' you again tend to think if that has anything to do with the gay theme. Naturally I have also wondered if the hockey mask idea had been pinched from a certain horror movie made the year before.
The good guys are more bland and boring with their stereotypical white outfits which indicate that they are clearly the goodies hehe. Baddies in black, goodies in white...oh the good old days of cliched action films. The 'Feral kid' character being rather annoying I must admit, the story is narrated by an older version of himself which is kinda neat but the actual character was just weird, but I guess that was the idea.
The film goes from one set piece to the next and not pausing much for breathe. The outback setting really works wonders for the film and gives a really nice bleak barren dystopian future feel. Of course the final tanker chase sequence is the most memorable and iconic action sequence of the film. Much like the iconic Indy truck chase sequence in 'Raiders' our hero takes on one bad guy after another as they try to derail the tanker resulting in some epic over the top carnage. What was also so original about this film was the fact that all the good guys that help 'Max' in this final chase get killed...including the hot female!.
Not even 'Max's' trusty old dog survives the ordeal. These darn movie men always know how to get a viewer upset and against the bad guys, have them kill an innocent doggie. Dam them and their cliched overused movie trickery!!!.
This is pretty much the perfect action film with everything needed and supplied with class. A small budget again proves better results tend to get achieved, it really does look like they just got a load of cars and buggy's and just stuck a whole lot of metal crap all over them.
Sparse in every sense, little dialog, a tough hero with no name type (although we do know his name I don't think its mentioned) and locations that are alien and rich with imagination. A fantasy barbarian film with guns instead of swords and fetish gear instead of loincloths. The ultimate used heavy metal junkyard post apocalyptic universe that influenced everything.
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (AUS, 1985)
For the last outing Miller has taken a different route for his lone wolf character. Gone are the highway chases, road wars and 'Max's' personal Ford Falcon, this adventure is a completely new kind of beast...with kids.
It does seem that Miller took a leaf out of the Lucas book of ideas for this film. A much more toned down 'MM' film with very little blood and road vehicle death fodder but an abundance of children in a kind of tribal 'Lord of the Flies' meets 'The Lost Boys' from 'Peter Pan' type way. Not too dissimilar to the way 'Return of the Jedi' went all cute n cuddly towards the end with a large tribe of teddy bears.
Although the change of pace was risky and in my view not completely a winning move, you gotta give kudos to the writers for being brave enough to go in another direction. This film doesn't really offer much in action or excitement at any point to be brutally honest. The first half set in 'Bartertown' is a complete bust really as all we get is a seedy dirty dusty desert town inhabited by lots of marauder types and weirdo's yet nothing really happens!.
The bad guys aren't really bad a tall, just a bit naughty I guess, the plot isn't really of any interest and goes nowhere and the only action is a rather limp fight between 'Max' and a huge helmet wearing footsoldier/bodyguard called 'Blaster'. We also find out the leader of this wasteland dump is errr...Tina Turner! yeeeah.
Of course we all knew this before the film came out but it was definitely the sign of the franchise hitting the rocks. After this average kick off things progress towards the desert where 'Max' finds a tribe of kids and this is where the franchise u-turns harshly.
Think of an early version of 'Hook' and you might get an idea of what I'm talking about. Its not as cringeworthy and terrible as said film but its pretty crappy really. From here on 'Max' babysits these kids until the plot leads them back to 'Bartertown' for...hmmm not much really, plot is absent without leave. The sets, costumes and makeup for the kids and their home is nicely done, doesn't look tacky or too childish, fits in OK with the 'Mad Max' universe.
After watching not much a tall in the form of excitement we do get a reasonable watered down car/vehicle chase sequence at the end. Its not as intense as you would expect and barely serves up enough thrills to raise a smile, violence is at a complete zero here folks.
As I said it was brave to go into new territory with 'Max' but maybe this particular idea wasn't the best way. There isn't really anything very memorable anywhere in the film, the title sounds daft and although the Tina Turner theme song is a good tune its all too Bond like and glossy.
I'm reviewing the old Universal Frankenstein movies for October on my channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Noy5Cw3foHw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Noy5Cw3foHw#)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OGJSHwOvEs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OGJSHwOvEs#)
Six Bullets
Another month another straight to DVD JCVD action flick, well almost. Quality wise JCVD's action fodder is slightly better than his other fellow aging action stars like Dolph and Seagal but its still all the same stuff really.
This time JC is an ex merc who helps the police in finding missing people or mainly kids. Expect the usual fudge ups and self loathing as JCVD's character goes from bottom of the barrel to back on form and saving the day, typical emotional rollercoaster drama.
Not much martial arts to be seen here, this is more of a kidnap rescue type thing, JC in military mode with stealth and plenty of gunfire. Predictable and has all the regular cliches that have been seen/used before in tonnes of similar films, but comparing to other straight to DVD JCVD films its not too bad.
22 Bullets (FRA, aka L'immortel, 2010)
Sounds epic and stars Jean Reno, I was expecting a rip roaring 'Leon' type gun flick but alas. The film isn't bad by any means but its rather slow with a lot of dialog, and with subs that can be a slog.
The action kicks off straight away as we see Reno's character having a good time with his son only to be ambushed by his car and gunned down in brutal fashion reminiscent of 'Murphy's' execution in 'Robocop'.
After seeing this I was thinking 'OK...let the revenge commence'. That is what the film is based around naturally, Reno's character getting revenge for his attack and uncovering who and why, which of course leads to the odd double cross.
The whole film is really well made, looks good and classy but its pretty boring in all honesty. There is the odd violent flare which gets you excited, Reno taking out the odd bad guy in revenge, but its few and far between. A more sensible thriller instead of the larger than life kick ass revenge flick I hoped for.
The ending is also rather uneventful to say the least. I felt somewhat disappointed by the end but appreciate the quality acting on show from Reno and other French actors, I think the films poster and title does mislead you a little.
The Color of Money (1986)
Tend to forget this was a sequel to the film 'The Hustler', probably because it feels like a Cruise vehicle for his young obnoxious over acting and toothy grin.
To be brutally honest I've never seen a film with such a huge amount of sulking, pouting and tantrums as in this film haha. Cruise along with Newman spend most of the film either screaming at each other or storming off in a huff! makes you wonder really.
Personally I don't think there is much here that isn't overly original, the plot is virtually 'The Karate Kid' but with pool or 9-ball. Its funny how almost every film Cruise has done he's some kind of 'top gun' in whatever the film is about. In this we have to put with the most dreadful performances of cringeworthy over acting as Cruise dances and struts around pool tables defeating all challengers showboating as he does so. The perfect role for Mr Cruise then.
The other two main cast members are second fiddle to Mr Cruise's antics but do their best. Newman seems subdued and bored to me, he looks the part still of course, the wardrobe for his character is great, the perfect lounge lizard pool shark type. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is actually really good as Cruise's girlfriend and probably gives the best performance of the three. Her quiet role is the backbone or foundations for the whole plot as she keeps both male ego's in check, somewhat.
Being a Scorsese film it looks sweet as a nut, everything looks damn realistic from the bitterly cold looking locations to the smoky seedy all male pool halls. Despite that the film stretches for that epic Oscar level but really falls short, visually its great but Cruise lets it down for me as does the basic plot. Also gotta say that I hated all the negativity from the characters in this film, sure its the plot but it just left me feeling annoyed and fed up with watching them.
The Fog (1980)
Filmed two years after the success of 'Halloween' and the kick off for Carpenter's cult movie making career. A cute little horror flick this, a nice old fashioned spooky sea yarn that wouldn't look outta place as a Scooby Doo plot if done that way.
Overall a very basic film with bottom of the barrel effects clearly done on a shoestring yet it still works effectively. I love the mist effects in this film as they remind me of many old classic black n white horror's. A really nice kind of 'Twilight Zone' feel about the proceedings that gives great atmosphere and a decent chill to the bone with all the misty cold dusk vista's.
As said the film is very basic but offers nice creativity on all counts. The nasty spooky ghosts are merely actors in dark clothes and shot in silhouette, the odd bit of seaweed draped on their arms and leader 'Captain Blake' has glowing red eyes. They simply turn up with the fog and knock on peoples doors hoping to be let in so they can kill you haha how polite!
Of course the cast is a classic line up of character actors, some of which Carpenter used for his previous popular horror flick, I don't need to mention them do I. Although personally I wouldn't have used Curtis again, bit samey.
I like this film very much, it has a great eerie factor with a plain and simple plot, no silly frills, a pure quality ghost story of old. Loved the use of a smoke machine to pump in the menacing fog at the required moments, so very cheap n obvious but so very cool.
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
Low low budget exploitation thriller which was Carpenters first proper film after the seriously low budget sci-fi 'Dark Star'.
Inspired by 'Rio Bravo' and almost any other old western really this stand off thriller is one of Carpenter's best films for me. Again the plot is very basic but executed so well. A group of men, mainly police and convicts and a couple women are holed up in a defunct police station as a large gang of thugs lay siege outside. Your typical last stand against the bad guys.
What works (like other old films) is the fact there isn't lots of fancy ass camera angles, huge explosions, tarty gun play and slow motion. Everything is created realtime and with as much flare and creativity as possible, this always (well mostly) works out for the better visuals wise.
I admit there are few sequences which do look rather hokey these days, when the hoodlums attack the station via the windows they don't seem to work out that's an easy way to get blown away. The final showdown involving an explosion isn't very glorious truth be told hehe but its still acceptable.
Hardly violent a tall watching today but back in the day there was a huff over one scene where a kid is shot virtually point blank. I can see why as it is a cold little sequence but these small quirks make you chuckle these days, adds spice to the film when you look out for the infamous bits.
The cast really help this film it must be said. Was never really meant to do anything money wise methinks, or suppose to be classic film making but the cast really juiced up the film to cult status. Stand out players easily being Stoker as the loan cop, all that's left after the initial bloodshed.
His stoic stern calm manner is the perfect leader, the perfect hero standing for what's right and true. Alongside him is Joston as the gruff tough ice cool convict who becomes Stoker's close ally. Joston's performance may be hammy by today's standards but its the perfect foil and is typical of many old classic western tough guys...'got a smoke?'
For a film that plays out within the small confines of a few rooms the tension is solid, you wanna see what's gonna happen. Not much happening outside accept for the odd shot of hoods running around, action is small, fast and quick whilst visuals are enough to get the job done.
My video review for Ghoulies Go To College...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJAtPERTIng# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJAtPERTIng#)
The Fog (2005)
The second remake in the same year for some of Carpenter's old classics and it doesn't seem like a lesson was learnt.
The age old saying of less is more goes begging yet again folks. This glossy remake simply offers nothing that the original doesn't offer in a better way. There are no real thrills, chills or scares anyway in this extremely poor remake. Not to say that the original was really scary, it wasn't, but it had great atmosphere and more importantly was for an older audience.
Yep you guessed it, this overly long remake is a PG-13 cert...oh good grief. The plot is of course nothing terribly scary, an old spooky sea yarn, but at least try for some genuine thrills and a creepy atmosphere. All you get is a pretty blonde boring teen screaming a lot, a token black guy, long drawn out effects which don't add anything and worse fog effects than the original!.
Some of the effects are nice admittedly but they aren't really needed, its like the plot, it just delves way too deep and goes on too long when it doesn't have to. A typical effect that shows the over the top nature of the production is the tsunami looking wave of fog that approaches the 'Seagrass'.
Despite the plot being too long it still manages to not make a huge amount of sense right at the end. The ghost effects at the end are also laughable. A complete and utter mistake for all involved, could have been decent if made correctly but it wasn't. Devoid of anything remotely interesting or even slightly scary/spooky.
My Frankenstein reviews continue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLwpepVug-c# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLwpepVug-c#)
Awesome reviews dude!
Another horror review! I love October. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgcs8ksPylE#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgcs8ksPylE#ws)
Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)
The first Carpenter remake released in 05, the year of the Carpenter remakes. Amazingly this isn't a shot for shot remake but actually a reasonable attempt at something slightly different. Must give kudos to the script writer/s for trying a new angle with the plot to add a touch of originality.
Its pretty much the same type of film as before accept this time the cops and crooks holed up within Precinct 13 are against crooked cops who want one of the convicts inside dead. Nice twist.
You don't really expect that to be honest, I just expected the same old thing with a load of gang thugs but this adds a new dimension. The fact its a whole team of crooked cops led by the nasty Byrne is really good. Bryne merely stands around and sneers a lot ordering his men to do stuff, but his presence really boosts the bad guys, faceless no more.
The good guys are now of course a group of big names but the choices are OK. Hawke is the Sgt in charge of the station and Dennehy is the cliched fat old moustached vet cop, whilst Fishburne leads the bad guys with Leguizamo doing another good twitchy gun nut.
On one hand this is a fun film, plenty of decent action, pretty violent, good visuals and good performances from the main leads. On the other hand it does get silly in places, very predictable of course and feels like they are trying too hard. I did wonder if they were having a swearing competition throughout, how many times can you say 'f**k'!?, as if that will make the film better saying it a hundred times.
The main issue is the simple plot point of a small group of convicts and beat cops up against a crack team of elite cops. Not just dumbass thugs but fully suited special ops type guys, yet they can't seem to crack this band of misfits, all of them end up getting killed! so much for elite cops huh.
This is a fairly decent action romp I can't deny, stupid in places and with a slightly lame finale but its fun to watch. A slightly different beast to the original which is good but at the same time you lose the mystery and suspense of the original. The unknown lurking shadows in the bushes of the originals bad guys.
There is a lot of stuff which has been tossed in here to flesh the whole thing out a bit more. Trying to make the film feel more of a serious Hollywood action thriller but its all pointless and not required, the beginning sequence especially. Think of this as a venture into 'Die Hard 2' territory, snow included.
The Prophecy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdY-OmoxxrE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdY-OmoxxrE#)
Thinner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjCyRBD7dt4# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjCyRBD7dt4#)
The Ghost of Frankenstein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJnYqdJxNwA# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJnYqdJxNwA#)
The Plague of the Zombies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9L3SW7nvhY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9L3SW7nvhY#)
Nightbreed (1990)
Cool film title, much better than the original novel title of 'Cabal', guess Morgan Creek was right on that little change. Unfortunately this film was one of those productions that suffered from heavy interference from the studio and thusly ended up being nothing like it was intended.
I can't even place what 'Nightbreed' is suppose to be really, a kind of horror, thriller, fantasy or translation...'Beetlejuice' with blood. Yes it is! this film is basically a grown up nasty version of 'Beetlejuice' with Danny Elfman doing the score even!.
The plot makes no sense whatsoever frankly, no real point behind it, no real motivations, explanations or reasons. Basically a diverse race of monsters that live below an ancient graveyard called 'Nightbreed'. Some young guy wants to join them and errr ends up helping them fight against the nasty humans that wanna destroy the city of 'Midian', the city of monsters.
Read between the lines there...the plot is saying we the regular folk are the real monsters, not the actual monsters. Not exactly an original concept huh.
This film is really quite odd. Chock full of bizarre creatures of the night, most of which look utterly stupid and not a tall scary. The effects are of course dated but makeup and prosthetic work is in good form with heavy hands on work, plenty of blood and some interesting gore, no CGI here folks. The problem being that most of the creature ideas are pretty daft looking, like a collection of cartoon characters. For example there is a female creature that seems to be a humanoid porcupine? eh?? and a male humanoid with a head shaped like the crescent moon for some reason.
Casting is just as unique to be truthful. Oddball character actor and usual badguy Craig Sheffer is the young hero here, he fits the bill perfectly really with his strange features. In for the ride is Cronenberg as a psycho trying to destroy the 'Nightbreed' race. Again he fits this film perfectly as the guy himself is pretty eerie and odd with his calm pleasant unsuspecting manner. Its his eyes that do it.
The film is known as a huge cult and you can see why. Clearly a lot of work was put in with monster designs, sets, makeup and matte work but the whole thing is just so damn surreal and without real reason that you lose interest. The monsters aren't scary and neither is the attempted creepy location/set work and atmosphere, but you do get the odd moment of nasty gore, so where do you stand?.
The wonderful familiar musical score from Elfman lures you into thinking your watching a fantasy film for teens, something like 'Legend' mixed with 'Batman Returns' with the weird undead creatures from 'Beetlejuice'. Some lovely visuals throughout and some terrific imagination but its all wasted on a poor plot and overall badly edited film.
You get the feeling this really could/should of been a classic epic horror fantasy, the foundations are there but it just hasn't been constructed correctly.
The Gorgon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R6Udtr47oo# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R6Udtr47oo#)
They Live (1988)
probably one of the most overlooked and underrated films by Carpenter yet possibly his most clever. All his own work and a quite beautiful look at how paranoia and fear within an ever decreasing economy can be exploited for a good story.
Now I'm not saying all Americans are suspicious conspiracy theory doom mongers but this film exposes that ever present trait whilst also scratching at the notion of constant gross consumer consumption, greed and subversive subliminal messages touching on hypnosis and domination.
To be honest the whole idea just shows how some Americans (including Carpenter) think most of the time, always looking over their shoulder and suspicious.
As for the film its a romp that just keeps going and you wanna know how it ends. The start is slow and dull, it takes time to get going but once 'Nada' finds the sunglasses of truth things get really interesting in a good way. I love how Carpenter made this film, its dated but still looks great as it has that nice B-movie look which is mainly down to the budget. Think of it as an unintentional result that happens to fit the whole films concept perfectly. Classic 50's alien B-movie fluff enhanced with time.
The whole idea is really very clever and imagined so well. We see the alien corrupted world controlling the now unaware obedient humans in their daily lives through the black and white shades 'Nada' finds. Without the shades the world appears normal, an illusion created to blinker or fog human eyes.
The aliens only appear when the shades are on and boy do they look creepy. Even though its obviously a simple mask the makeup and design is superbly created and really gives an eerie effect.
I have always been surprised with the great performance by Piper also. The guy was a WWF wrestler at the time for gods sake yet his acting here is great, just perfect. He really carries off the suspicion and awakening of the story to a tee. As for his character of 'Nada'...all I can say is the guy certainly has an element of 'Jack Burton' if you ask me.
'I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum'
I also like how this film isn't predictable. It keeps you guessing and your never sure how it will end or who will survive.
The subtle political jabs, crazy ass humour and out n out action is a curious blend but like Carpenter's 86 film 'Big Trouble in Little China' he manages to pull it off with ease and create another cult on his filmography. A great comicbook tale of mindless media/advertising supremacy on an Orwellian alien monitored Earth.
'Brother, life's a bitch... and she's back in heat'
The Wolf Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wj-tlwWBkc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wj-tlwWBkc#)
Escape from New York (1981)
In the distant future of 1997 the world has dissolved into a dystopian hell. so much so that the Island of Manhattan has been turned into a huge prison. Enter the man with the coolest name since Clint Eastwood's character which was cool enough to not even have a name.
'call me Snake'
Probably the roughest, toughest, coolest, badass since 'Bob Fett' and he has an eye patch. Not only is 'Snake' one cool son of a bitch but he is hired for the mission by another cool son of a bitch. Lee Van Cleef is 'Hauk', the guy in charge of this operation and is one hardass leather faced amigo...even at this ripe old age.
The mission, we all know it, get into Manhattan, get the President and bounce back across the prison walls before anyone knows they were there, simple.
'the name's Plissken!'
What can I say about this action thriller? its the best damn flick Carpenter made, its got everything you could need. For a start the cast in this film is truly epic, I mean look at it! some massive cult names there and this film was still a small budget affair!. Carpenter having made some already great small budget films continued to hammer out top class thrills whilst utilizing basic simple ideas and without the aid of top effects.
The atmosphere of the film is electric all the way through, so dark, creepy and almost medieval in appearance as 'Plissken' wades through the criminal scum. Naturally the bad guys are your typical cliched 80's bunch of fantasy cyberpunk fetish gear wearing bikers that wouldn't look too outta place in the 'Mad Max' universe. Stereotypical now...twas how it was then.
The visuals for the film are bleak and gloomy, plenty of shadow, not much is shown despite the sky high concept. Much is clever use of lighting, camera angles, models, matte work, sets and hard work. You really have to give it to Carpenter and his team for the way they managed to get this film looking so flippin good, at no point would you think your not on the grimy streets of NY. On top of that the film does have that near futuristic feel as though it could be accurate. Its not over the top with silly gadgets, weapons or robots etc...a reachable possible apocalyptic future which makes it more scary.
'When I get back, I'm going to kill you'
To be honest this film is all about 'Plissken', the new sheriff in movie town at the time, the new 'Dirty Harry'. If it wasn't for this character the film would never have been as good, this character makes the film. Not only is he ice cool with deadly smartass verbal, he dresses uniquely (for the time), looks butch, plenty of stubble, doesn't give a shit and is a complete loose cannon. Cinematic history was made when this fellow stepped out from the shadows, the ultimate anti hero.
Always amused me how Russell's costume kinda looked as if Carpenter and co simply threw it together at the last minute. Some military cargo pants, a vest and those odd silver shin pads...job done. Such a simple almost crappy look but its now iconic.
Not only is the main character a legend the musical score is also probably Carpenter's best. Previous horror flick 'Halloween' set the bar for its spine tingling tunes, his next film 'The Fog' was also haunting but did seem too similar to 'Halloween'. Before all that 'Assault' had a great videogame-like score which in my opinion is more on track with 'Escapes' theme.
For this film you still have the now classic electric tones but its much deeper than 'Assault', less of a videogame sense and more of a pending doom sense. Its pretty much 'Snakes's' theme tune really, his personal track as he swaggers slowly across this crumbling earth.
'The president of what?'
Like all Carpenter films the plot is simple and straight forward, visuals are just enough but the cast make it work. The fact 'Plissken' is on a health related time limit really adds some tension to the whole plot and keeps you glued to the action. The fact you don't know who will survive, no guarantees for anyone, makes the film even more fun and original for the time.
The action keeps going right to the bitter end and 'Snake' gets his sweet anarchic last word/gesture. The film almost corrupts you as you watch, 'Snake's' badassery is so infectious, you can't help but cheer as he strides away after fudging over the President and what he stands for. An almost anti-authoritarian vibe that runs right through this film which always works well in films.
Ps. Not only is the film tops but the films poster is also excellent.
'No human compassion'
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eyw2iGnViM# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eyw2iGnViM#)
^ Nice choice of horror films matey :)
Werewolf: The Beast Among Us (2012)
Judging by the cover of this film thoughts of 'Van Helsing' and 'Underworld' spring instantly to mind...and your not far wrong with that.
This is pretty much a copy and mix of both of those films chock full of lovely cliched characters and everything you've ever seen before in a werewolf movie.
Bunch of crazy hardass werewolf hunters come to a small village to purge them of the wolf horror. A young man from the village volunteers to help them do so but there are twists to come, many predictable twists that aren't too well hidden.
The film looks quite good with that typical bleak dark murky 19th century forest set Eastern European village look. The characters are basically rips from many other films and include your obligatory 'Hudson' type, the cool calm Clint Eastwood leader, the sexy ninja like female and a well spoken smartly dressed guy who throws lots of little knives. A kind of quirky 'League of Extraordinary Gentleman' type looking gang. The dialog is all the right kind of hero spouting fluff you have heard before, tight little one liners throughout the action just to emphasize these guys are cool and tough etc..
The reason I watched the film (apart from being a werewolf fan) was down to the reasonable looking effects. It swings from good to bad really, some shots of the werewolf's claws, eyes or silhouettes against the darkness are pretty neat and work well. Transformation sequence is fully CGI and a bit hokey but I've seen worse, whilst in full CGI motion the creature doesn't look that bad. Put it this way its no worse than the first 'Underworld' flick which had a much bigger budget.
Unknown cast accept for previous vampire player Stephen Rea, none of which are much to shout about although Guy Wilson who plays the young man from the village looks perfect for his character. Honestly for a straight to DVD film this isn't too bad and offers some nice visuals and claret soaked action, just don't expect anything original a tall.
Grave Encounters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ2hg8VxmFw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ2hg8VxmFw#)
The Campaign
Dare I say I pretty accurate representation of US politics and how party members behave?. Well maybe not that far but this sure is a good mocking of what US Congressmen get up to in their daily routines. When I say daily routines I mean all the slimy publicity stunts, ass kissing, grovelling...general PR stunts.
Wasn't sure about this one to be honest, Farrell films tend to have a huge swing meter ranging from great to total crap, this surprised me. First off this film is no kiddie fun flick, its an adult comedy all the way and better for it. I was actually really amazed at the level of vulgar swearing and sexual gags, completely hit me off guard as I was expecting something more tame.
Farrell's character is a winner here, his arrogant, loud mouthed, foul mouthed, clueless congressman who keeps sticking his foot in it and not really caring is genius. Easily one of his best performances for ages as he curses his way through the film whilst generally being corrupt, nasty and utterly unhinged, classic Farrell with no PG restrictions. Love that he is shown as the good all American Christian family man yet really he's completely the opposite, corny but funny.
Never heard of Zach Galifianakis much before this. Again its another winning character who is the perfect foil to Farrell's in your face congressman. Galifi....Zach plays your typical American Christian, both congressmen are supposed good Christians but Zach's character is basically the real deal, the good guy, gentle, timid and ultimately based on 'Ned Flanders' methinks.
Behind the plot are the even more corrupt 'Motch brothers' played by comedy legend Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow. These guys play characters that are similar in vein to the 'Duke brothers' played Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy in 'Trading Places' if you ask me. They are behind the scenes, behind the dastardly plot and not seen as much but add class and believability to the film.
Loved the PR stunts set up to gain valuable voters and how they are sabotaged by each congressman. Some are exactly as you would see in reality whilst some are truly hilarious, 'Brady' trying to sleep with 'Huggins' wife then broadcast it for example.
A cracking satire and spoof of good honest red, white and blue American politics. As a Brit the mockery of the typical religion obsessed wholesome Christian American family is very amusing. Its basically funny because its all based on reality, real folk and how US politics can be so childish and petty. Is there nothing more cringeworthy than watching real US politicians go on their greasy cross country voter campaigns.
Its all predictable right to the end but the lunacy and crude, sexist, un-PC toilet humour is outrageous, at times shocking, but down right fantastic I can't deny. Its good to see a proper no holds barred adult comedy, the cast benefit as do we the adult viewers. Its not original and its extremely rude but god dam its funny.
'Because Filipino Tilt-a-Whirl operators are this nation's backbone'
House of Frankenstein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5UUMQDTeSo# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5UUMQDTeSo#)
Madagascar (2005)
Dreamworks hit back with an animated tale about lovable zoo animals trying to escape to the wild. Always one step behind the mighty Pixar this feature seemed to be an attempt to try and combat the ever increasing list of Pixar classics that just kept on coming.
A curious blend of ideas really, the whole film is made to look quite sensible in terms of how things should look in reality. But there is a kind of Tex Avery/Chuck Jones feel to the main characters that is quite nice but also someone childish compared to the backgrounds and vista's we see. You then have the set up that the animals can all talk to each but not to humans, yet they can perform human acts without question.
The film slides from slightly emotional to sensible to most of the time outright off the wall. The plot is childishly simple naturally but it works OK, it actually gets a little twisted once 'Alex' the lion goes savage when his animal instinct kicks in. Problem is once the animals break out from New York the film becomes very average very quickly. Seeing how the animals live within their city dwelling was pretty good and made for some good clever laughs, nothing hilarious I might add but it worked.
The animals using the subway and at one point getting kicked in the nuts by an old lady does push the boundaries of even this fantasy. Unfortunately even that can't top the dreadful Lemurs they encounter on Madagascar, their leader for some reason given an Indian accent which is hideously unfunny.
The penguins were by far the best of the bunch for me as a small squad of military types led by 'Skipper' who sounds remarkably like 'Zap Brannigan' from 'futurama'. I can see why they got their own spin off. The rest of the animals are voiced well by a good team of big names but they aren't overly interesting really. Rock is plain annoying and that's the end of it, whilst Schwimmer is surprisingly well matched as the hypochondriac giraffe. Stiller does what he does in pretty much everything he's in, its fine.
Overall a very bright start but it just fades into a bland generic mess that includes a god awful hip hop sequence. The animation is fair, some smart visual gags here and there and the penguins are a great success but apart from that its all very meh. The impression I got was no one was sure which way they wanted to go with this film, so many alternative ideas colliding, bit of a mess.
Sinister
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7dV4iu3_o# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7dV4iu3_o#)
^ I've heard this is shit eerie lol!
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)
All the characters are back and all are voiced by the same stars as before so continuity is a go for launch. Starting life as a prequel we get a brief glimpse at the main characters when they were very young in the zoo and how 'Alex' got there.
From there we are back on Madagascar as the mammal team prepare to leave in their homemade plane back to New York. On route the plane crashes in Africa where they all experience the real wild of their dreams and 'Alex' finds his family.
This sequel is a much better story and better executed if you ask me. The idea of seeing how 'Alex' got stuck in the zoo and then accidentally gets back with his family again is a neat idea. The film is still a mix of off the wall madness, emotion and realism in the form of visuals but its a much tighter plot with better visual gags and better characters. Gone are most of the lemurs thank god.
Alas we still have to put up with the Indian accented lemur leader who is painfully unfunny still but we also have some good new additions. Alec Baldwin as 'Makunga' is a really well designed bad guy or creep. Definitely made to look a bit like Baldwin with the thick glossy hair and slick sneering appearance hehe all the background animals actually add to the fun also, especially the fun idea of all the zebras being identical in every way and all the giraffes being hypochondriacs.
The old lady makes a reappearance I'm afraid, this time even more outlandish than before. Not just kicking animals in the nuts but having martial arts fights with them now and eventually becoming some kind of evil force against all the animals, pretty bad idea methinks.
Animation is still the same style of course but its all sharper and more fluid with some stunning African backgrounds and water work. The whole film feels much brighter, bolder, colourful and more enjoyable than the previous which seemed a bit drab. Still have some dreadful hip hop musical intrusions again, these seem to be a must for modern youth, gotta have plenty of hip hop pop culture in there. Incidentally the hip hop tune 'I Like to Move It' sung by all the lemurs in the first film seems to have become the franchises theme tune as we get it again here...facepalm.
Everything has been improved (almost) and we have a better film. Kinda feels like 'The Lion King' but with much added lunacy and those cool penguins, the film wouldn't be half as good without those flightless little birds.
Casa de Mi Padre
Yet another Will Ferrell flick but this one has been kinda overlooked or missed completely in all honesty. A spoof of the classic tacky soap opera genre in a Mexican western setting, in Spanish with English subs right the way through.
Straight away the thought of subs almost puts you off really, this isn't a foreign epic where you look over that fact. The problem being this is suppose to be a parody of the soap opera genre, albeit Spanish/Latin American, and it really does feel like your watching a shitty soap opera.
So much so that it really is quite dull for most of the time, the subs don't help and the plot is damn thin. Personally I can't stand the whole Mexican/Spanish western concept so I dunno why I watched this really, probably because I didn't realize it was subs all the way through and I thought it would be more funny.
That's the other problem, the film isn't funny a tall. There are very few moments that made me smile, mainly the few bits which are clearly badly filmed with models or sets...filmed like that deliberately of course, spoof remember.
The finale with a reasonable mock shoot up is quite good fun, nothing outstanding, you could easily just watch that and forget the rest. Like many films from the 'SNL' team this idea would work much better as a sketch or simple trailer parody like Tarantino has made popular. As a full length film, even at 1h 20min, its just boring and annoyingly Spanish.
Wrong Turn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuQgcdW1CtY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuQgcdW1CtY#)
House of Dracula
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMJUGXlBD_8# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMJUGXlBD_8#)
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted
Third and final outing for the crazy animals? probably not lets be honest but do we really need another?. Not overly sure to be honest as this film is pretty bizarre yet admittedly very nice looking and probably fun for the kids.
This is the main negative point for me, yes the film is of course for the kids but there is little here for the adults this time. The last films had touches of comedy or visual moments that a grownup could smirk and giggle at, this new adventure really is a kiddie playground.
The visuals are amazing but is that a surprise? Most animated films these days are amazing looking and offer something quirky in styles. Despite the visuals being this films strongest point they haven't differed to much from the last two films, of course its all sharper, bolder, slicker and brighter but all the characters still seem some what bland and generic. My first impression was the fact that the circus characters kinda look like the characters from 'Kung Fu Panda' just nowhere near as stylized.
That said the circus characters are a breath of fresh air and do look nice. 'Vitaly' the Russian tiger is a grand looking fellow and visually striking...trying not to mention 'Tigress' from...oops!. I also must confess to finding 'Gia' the female jaguar character rather sexy haha is that wrong?. Hmmm probably is but damn it she is!! the soft slinky body form, the eyes and that voice!! had to slap myself across the face a few times.
The other issue for me with this whole franchise is the off the wall craziness of it all. The animals act like humans and seem to be able to perform human activities without much shock from onlookers. There is also much silliness such as the old lady character who fights 'Alex' the lion etc...the franchise starts off OK but gets more and more surreal as it goes.
This film goes for broke as the animal characters go totally haywire to the point where you forget they are actually animals in our world, so to speak. There isn't much differentiation between animal or human, not that it will bother the target audience and this is an animated kids flick but I'm picky about these things hehe.
The circus aspect is a welcome sight as the corny thought of the animals running around various famous European landmarks didn't bode well. All the circus sequences are lovely to watch in their ultra neon glory, haven't seen any traditional circus stuff like this since 'Dumbo' methinks. The original four main characters are now quite dull but the circus guys give a much needed boost, but its still the old penguins that save the day although not at their best this time.
Does make you wonder why the franchise is still called 'Madagascar' seeing as it has nothing to do with that island anymore but hey. I feel that another may be stretching the premise end of the day, they have come full circle and we've seen a good array of animalistic sights from city bound, native Africa, at sea and classic circus. 'Always leave them wanting more' I believe is the well known saying, and that doesn't necessarily mean do loads more.
The Whisperer in Darkness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGeoTQ4OGh4# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGeoTQ4OGh4#)
My short review of Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNHMlaw3VNU# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNHMlaw3VNU#)
Silent Hill Revelation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCgzYzsDhYY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCgzYzsDhYY#)
Wilderness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8lEYu7HfI8# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8lEYu7HfI8#)
The Monster Squad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bszr_6VC5NU# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bszr_6VC5NU#)
Inside Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5cdNcZUAEA# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5cdNcZUAEA#)
Skyfall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-58XRW_U988# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-58XRW_U988#)
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eNgnUhaEHs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eNgnUhaEHs#)
SPOILER WARNING!
The Dark Knight Rises
I will admit deep down I have always preferred the Burton Batman's I cannot lie. I think there are two camps for the Batman films and like marmite you either like or dislike them. Lets step into the Nolan universe one last time then shall we...supposedly.
So the film continues on from the previous two films and continuity wise its very well done. Everything and everyone is back in the places they should be ready to follow through on this epic portrayal of the Batman. Problems arise as we delve deeper into the story and the main villain 'Bane' begins to cause problems for our hero.
Of course being a comicbook adaptation you can't expect the film to be totally serious or sensible, there will always be elements of fantasy. The problem with this franchise is its made out to be a serious thriller type, the well used 'Heat with Batman' phrase springs to mind. Thusly the comicbook element has been somewhat drained away, yes it has, you can't really have it both ways folks and this third installment stalls trying to incorporate both sides. Make your mind up Nolan.
I'm gonna be harsh as such a ridiculously high level was expected with this film there seems no other way to bring it down to earth. Plot holes? yes, the plot isn't anything particularly original and its skips around like crazy. 'Bane' breaks Batman's back, OK, yet he then drags him to a prison somewhere in the middle of nowhere and leaves him to recover, what? why not just kill the guy and then you've won you silly villain. While I'm here, where was this prison exactly? a desert? the Middle East?? huh?.
Upon this we then have the rather daft notion that 'Wayne' then recovers from this horrendous injury merely by doing lots of push ups, sit ups and chin ups...oh after he was strung up with rope for god knows how long, eh?.
Once 'Wayne' is back to full fitness he manages to escape the inescapable prison naturally, but then hold on, one minute he's in the outback somewhere, next scene he's back in Gotham?. On top of that how did he get back into Gotham seeing as its locked down and cut off?.
Carrying on with 'Bane' his voice, I'm sorry but it just sounded hilariously stupid to me, like something from an old Peter Cushing Hammer Horror. I realise it wasn't suppose to be overly intimidating or forced like Bale's god awful Batman voice but come on! it was like some kind of chirpy English sort from 'My Fair Lady' haha. Add to that the curious design for his face mask which still kinda looks like a dog muzzle made in a school metalwork class.
As for the other anti hero character in 'Catwoman' I'm split. I still hold firm on the bad casting choice for this character as Hathaway looks far too weak and princess-like to be able to hold her own. The outfit was a hot potato and although in motion it didn't look too bad the entire idea that she is a top catburglar yet runs around basically showing off her whole head and face is so stupid. Surely this concept meant that 'Catwoman' required her much loved hood for cover? you'd think it would be a good move for identity secrecy. In dialog Hathaway performed well with her devious slinky ass but in action she simply didn't look right, as suspected.
To be quite frank the whole film was quite average really. The effects weren't anything to shout about like the ropey CGI football field explosion, the jerky rubbery Batbike thing and oddly shaped Batwing thing. Also the film did seem somewhat watered down this time also. I know death has not been shown in full glory in any of the films but even more so here, complete cut aways in some places, very childish for a hard edged approach.
We all knew from the outset that Batman was gonna get his arse kicked, what we didn't know was how it might all end. To be brutally honest the whole thing was very lackluster and seemed to even pinch a plot idea from the original 1966 caper with Adam West!. I am referring to the finale where Batman must make a decision to save Gotham City from the mighty bomb. Gee errr just fly away with it Batman?.
This film has shown how good the previous two films are for me, and I'm not the biggest fan of the second. It just seems as though this film ran out of steam, baddie character choices and eye popping set pieces. 'Banes' death was way way too weak for such a big presence, the 'Scarecrow' cameo felt unnecessary or crowbarred in for no reason, the 'Blake' character was always the obvious new 'Boy Wonder/Batman' type right from the get go and pretty much everything tied up very predictably right down to the fact that 'Wayne' appears to have survived after all, bless.
If you enjoyed the previous films then I'm sure you will carry on enjoying this final adventure, if not then you won't think much of this. It does come down to whether you prefer the fantasy aspect of Batman which is gloriously shown in the Burton films if somewhat over done at times, or you prefer the grounded, hard serious approach by the Nolan trilogy.
Visually dynamic (accept for the awful camo coloured tumblers), bold, flashy and with a great stellar cast but ultimately overrated and it still just doesn't feel like a Batman film. Cliched maybe but I just wish there was a little more dark goth involved in these films and less cop drama.
Expendables 2
'That thing belongs in a museum'....'we all do'
Although I hate to admit it...no truer words have been said. I have always been a huge huge life long fan of Arnie and JCVD, not so much Stallone, Willis or Lundgren, but overall I've liked them all for various different films. But there does come a point where you gotta step back and wonder, are these guys getting a bit old for this shit?.
Again gotta admit its a HUGE thrill to see Arnie, Willis, Stallone, Lundgren AND now JCVD all together in one film. The added bonus of Adkins, Norris, Li and Statham are like I say...a nice bonus. The only missing person now is Seagal, then the jigsaw will be complete.
Once more I must admit...even though its pure fanboy heaven to see these guys together the thrill doesn't last long. The real crux of the action, what we all wanna see which is all the above guys fighting at the same time, doesn't happen until the finale showdown. When we get there its fun but ultimately rather poorly done in an ultra cheesy semi parody, edging on spoof.
This is the problem the first film had and it gets worse here I'm afraid. When I first heard of this franchise I was hyped for it, I wanted to see a proper homage to 80's action thrillers. What we got was a silly, cheesy, over the top 'G.I.Joe' type explosion fest that wasn't taken seriously. In this sequel its more of the same yet with even more corn, lashings of ham and the most weak basic plot I've come across for some time.
The visuals are impressive no doubt, stunts are manic and in your face with gun porn through the roof...yet again. Of course you don't expect a thought provoking story with high quality acting, we all know what we'll get and the film does what it says on the tin for sure. The problem for me was the whole thing just felt like a long trailer, a collection of flashy set pieces one after another, almost like watching a theme park show in Universal Studio's.
The film basically consists of tonnes of faceless baddies lining up to be gunned to pieces by each member of the Expendable team, one at a time, in a heroic pose. A shameless fusion of constant gun battles one after another with little else in between. Dialog is terrible and really makes the film more of a comedy/parody than decent action film, amusing but frustrating. Norris wasn't really in the film, he merely had a cameo which was pointless and a blatant cold cash-in, seriously his whole sequence was so stupid. I was disappointed we didn't see much of Adkins in action and some one forgot to film Randy Couture but the sight of Arnie back in action warmed my heart...even though he is clearly too old now.
I also noticed that the blood on show was very clearly CGI added after, does this mean that the original version had no blood?. Was this an 'AvP' job and made into a higher rating for the DVD release with the original theatrical version being a watered down affair for a wider audience?. If so that does show how off track they were with this whole concept, like so many other films these days. Why couldn't this whole franchise have been a proper action thriller damn it!!.
Yes I was disappointed yet again, I saw it coming of course and I knew they probably wouldn't go from childish cheese to proper semi serious adult action flick...hope springs eternal, alas!. Despite my negative opinion this film is actually better than the first for what it is. Neither are exactly what I expected but this sequel is definitely slightly more fun than the first, highlight has to be Stallone vs JCVD. To be frank JCVD saves the film with his presence, problem is its all still completely ridiculous when it needn't have been.
I must confess to not seeing bad guys getting obliterated quite as much or as impressively for some time. The heroes empty entire clips (and never run dry) into legions of henchmen that come their way and not one of them gets injured haha. Well Stallone gets hit twice but it seems to have little effect on him. On top of that once again none of the Expendables team gets killed (apart from Hemsworth who's the newbie, so who cares), the team is invincible it seems which for me spoils the film. As I said for the first film, had a couple of them gotten killed off it would make things so much more interesting.
Again the idea is grand but the outcome is so very weak. A loud, bombastic, gun shattering riot of an action flick but in an almost pantomime style of presentation. Yes its fun to a degree but I wanna see hardcore action just like the old days please, not fluff with babyish dialog.
Chain Reaction (1996)
I remember seeing the trailer for this film way back in 96 at the cinema. It looked really quite cool and exciting, Reeves was flying high at the time and it boasted some snazzy CGI, talk about deceptive!.
The whole film seemed to be centred around one sequence. That sequence being the huge explosion that occurs near the start and wipes out a vast area of Chicago, nuclear in appearance. Now this was back in the days when CGI was still a newish weapon and big flashy destructive sequences like this were looked upon as impressive and breaking the barrier.
Looking back it is a nice effect but of course its dated and the cracks are showing, but I'm not gonna moan about that. The problem is the rest of the film is really quite dull, visuals are dull, action is dull and the acting is even dull despite a very good cast line up. Reeves is his usual monotone self, Weisz is a complete drip and Freeman now looks pretty cliche in his natty Malcolm X looking 90's suit and hat.
It really does feel like they wanted to show off their CGI destruction sequence so they made an entire film around that one moment. A completely by the numbers action thriller (if you can call it that) that covers every aspect you'd expect from the 'fugitive chase movie book'. Bland, boring, so very very predictable and the films title is one of those meaningless but cool looking/sounding types.
Resident Evil (2002)
There was much trepidation when this came to bloom way back in 02, an adaptation of the highly popular zombie horror videogame franchise? hmmm. Anderson's first foray into the adaptation world after some reasonable films like 'Soldier' and 'Event Horizon', his CV didn't look too shabby but previous attempts at this sort of genre proved dismal.
Amazingly enough this first offering in what is now an overly ridiculous 'Matrix' 'Blade' 'Underworld' monster mash mess is actually quite good and sticks to the original formula. It all kicks off inside the well known mansion but in an imaginative spin delves deep underground to the secret Umbrella facility. Here we get a very admirable 'Aliens' type thriller as a team of commandos battle to survive against a sadistic mega computer that runs the facility and of course lots of undead creatures/monsters.
So the whole film is contained within the underground labs instead of roaming the mansion which at first seemed wrong. Maybe they could of done with some mansion action but it actually works well. Later adaptation 'Doom' does seem somewhat similar in premise though, slight case of concept rip methinks.
Naturally the effects are mostly CGI for the creatures and they do now look rather crappy, very obvious. Of course you can't pan a film for that but the CGI hasn't dated well, where as sets and overall look for the film isn't too bad, zombies look a bit childish though. It is nice to see most of the videogame nasties in the film though, Anderson certainly did well not to stray far from the source yet add to it as well. Zombie dogs which aren't fully CGI but real dogs with makeup is a nice touch, a hint of the crows and 'Lickers' which are good n scary...accept for the fact they are all fully CGI. The 'Red Queen' computer character is a good addition to the fray and quite eerie at times also 'your're all going to die down here'.
This film is a welcome presentation of the franchise and shows what can be done if done properly. Its still mind boggling to me that the film is actually a reasonably scary horror flick! there are quite a few good jumpy moments and certainly no hesitation with blood. A creation of slow building dread and suspense is well handled throughout, alongside some nifty visual moments and a good if slightly cliched bunch of commandos all adds up to a darn fun ride.
Yes you can see many steals from other similar films (the usual tough bunch of soldiers taken down one by one) and the characters are all generic copies stemmed from a certain Cameron film but the fact its not a kiddie flick and watered down is fantastic and astonishing. There is no silly slow motion nonsense, no over the top set pieces, actually Jovovich plays it for real and isn't a 'Selene' clone from 'Underworld'...yet.
Probably the best of the series if you ask me, and it was an Anderson film!!. Its formulaic and cliched but still provides enough punch to do what its suppose to do...pretty much like the 'Doom' film.
Yep, the first one is the best of the RE movies. It's a bit odd how the two not directed by Anderson are arguably the worst.
Reign of Fire (2002)
Anyone for dragons? a scorched earth where humanity is almost extinct and small bands of survivors scrape along day by day eeking out some form of life in a desolate barren world. The only leaders left to keep the pitiful human morsels alive are Batman, King Leonidas and a bald tattooed Texan.
And thus the premise for 'Reign of Fire' is born, like a phoenix from the flames, like the one true ring from the searing heat of Mount Doom, like...I'm going overboard aren't I?. So yeah, totally cool movie title and a wicked idea no doubt, the problem being the final execution of the entire film.
An apocalyptic 'Mad Max' type future with a pocket of human wastrels holed up in an old castle in the north of England. An American ego joins the team (love how the yanks always butt in on a war hehe even in the future!) and together they all fight dragons, only problem is we don't see much of the dragons!. Of course there is dragon action but its few and far between and even then you don't see the dragons too much.
On one hand hiding the beasts does add more mystery and suspense, I can see that notion. But on the other hand we all know what dragons look like and what they do, there's really no need to hide them in the shadows ala Ridley Scott's 'Alien'. End of the day a dragon is a dragon and to be completely honest they aren't that scary, more mythical and fun really, like unicorns.
Other issues with the film is how utterly grey and dull it all looks, so very unexciting. Sure its an apocalyptic world set up north in a sea of ash but lets try make it somewhat visually thrilling for the viewer. The characters are all rather generic and somewhat annoying also, you kinda want to see them get eaten half the time. Bale has his stupid mockney accent again and just shouts all the time, Butler's character just seems pointless and you just know he's gonna end up crispy dragon meat, but McConaughey is more intriguing as the obvious 'Captain Ahab' with muscles and tattoo's.
Other than those three everyone else is unimportant and you couldn't care a less whether they live or die. Although seeing more folk getting baked or eaten by dragons is sorely missing here.
I also recall when this film came out that everyone was half expecting to see epic battles between helicopter gunships and dragons over the skies of London. Why you ask? because the films poster had that rather neat design advertising the fact. So it was disappointing not to see any of that, also disappointing not to see any real epic dragon fights a tall, just lots of flying dragons at a distance, roars, silhouettes and shadows. We finally get to see the big male properly at the end but only seconds before it gets killed, what's the point of that!?.
The whole concept is good and there are some nice moments in the film. The whole team effort of trying to kill a dragon by the Americans is quite fun to watch if somewhat ridiculous. Would you really do all that just to try and kill a dragon if you had a helicopter, lots of guns and a tank? surely you just blast it when its close by, its a pretty big target. Is the skydiving with nets really necessary? I still fail to see how that would even work, which it doesn't in the film haha. Also are dragons immune to bullets or something?? again surely a few good shots in the head, eye, legs or leg joints would at some point bring it down?, meh what do I know eh.
This film is a semi decent fantasy flick and it is fun but its just not as good as it can be. You get the impression there is an epic visual treat lurking which hasn't been fully realised. You can't even say its a good B-movie as the film had a big budget and was suppose to be a blockbuster, it did OK though.
Not bad but really lacking some punch. All I can think of whilst watching is how I could of done things differently to make the film more thrilling and in your face exciting. It just feels like such a wasted chance for a truly rip roaring fantasy, McConaughey's character just about saves the film really, without him it would of been totally dry. He goes down in epic glory too which was cool.
Final heat/fire pun...this film was definitely not as hot as it could have been, ZING!.
Killer Joe (2011)
Warning, the term 'trailer trash' and other derogatory slang terms for Southern State Americans will probably be used too much in this review.
Wasn't sure what to expect with this film but you do get the gist of it pretty quickly as things kick off. The films poster describes what it is and I can't really disagree, a redneck, white trailer trash, hick, corn on the cob chewing murder thriller with a strange fetish for fried chicken...in one scene.
The plot is straight forward to a point, a young Texan lad owes some local hoods money due to the lack of his drug dealing skills (I think). In order to get the money he decides to hire a hitman to kill his mother for the insurance, nothing special so far. As things get deeper we are presented with twists and double cross as family members have lied and 'Killer Joe' requires payment for his part of the deal.
To be honest the film is made by its characters. All players perform so well throughout and really set the tone. 'Ansel' played by Church is easily the best in the film, his slow lumbering baseball cap wearing 'Herman Munster' type is both amusing and captivating with that slow Southern draw. Gershon as the slutty loud mouthed mother in law is strangely sexy (that's Gershon though) despite her foul mouth and eratic behaviour, even when shes beaten its kinda hot...or is that just me?.
Hirsch plays the young inexperienced grubby hillbilly drug dealer beautifully even if the role is more standard than the rest. Temple is another piece of perfect casting with her very young pale innocent looks combined with the fantastically trashy outfit provided. Both of these young actors along with Gershon and Church make up a brilliantly low brow, dysfunctional, blue collar family of yokels that swing from moments of care and affection to violence and profanity in the blink of an eye.
Of course the main character is 'Killer Joe' played by McConaughey and he does surprise. Not really seen him in a role like this before, kinda familiar to Bale in 'American Psycho'. His ice cool calm detective lures you into a sense safety and security but can turn on a dime, yet he remains calm and collected. You can see him thinking about the situation in every scene, he is intelligent and deadly and doesn't think twice to battering a female to a bloody mess only then to act as if everything is fine and nothing happened.
The guy is scary as he smoothly talks to other characters, you know he is gonna do something nasty but when? how? how nasty? its intimidating and tense. Never knew McConaughey had it in him.
Yes the whole look, feel, sound and outcome of the film is slightly generic, the redneck visuals being cliched maybe?. There is a strong 'Deliverance' 'Blue Velvet' type theme running through the film which is uncomfortable. 'Joe's' 'taking' of 'Dottie' and sexually using her despite her youth and virginity which she proclaims is rather edgy and awkward to watch. The whole violent sequence with 'Sharla' isn't as bloody or nasty as expected but its damn suggestive and just has such a creepy vibe to it. The quick return to normality after this sequence followed by another quick burst to violent aggression from everyone is both shocking and bizarre frankly.
This film isn't outright shocking but more highly suggestive and plain cheeky, blue at times with full nudity. Even though there is much titillation it never really excites you in that way, the film has a dirty, smutty, greasy feel as if you need to have a shower whilst watching. Friedkin's curious blend of murder, dark humour, sexual content, a lot of typical Southern Americana visuals/social culture with likable oddballs is a good watch. The plot is nothing special and there are no fancy action set pieces, its all about the characters and none of them disappoint.
Super Mario Bros (1993)
So could this be one of the worst films ever made?? yep we have a contender. Huge on hype and anticipation but hugely sole destroying upon release. Its hard to comprehend what the creators of this film were looking to achieve, the style, looks, soundtrack, plot, basically any links to the classic legendary videogame are none existent.
The main issue with this film is the blatant fact it has NOTHING to do with the classic videogame. Apart from the two leads and the villain there is zero here to please anyone unless you have a metal and dinosaur fetish. True Hoskins does look wonderfully like 'Mario' in his red n blue jumpsuit and I did quite like the sliminess of Hopper as 'Koopa' but that's as far as it goes.
The whole thing is just so damn odd, its a corny thing to say but its basically 'Mad Max' 'Highlander II' and 'Blade Runner' styled futuristic visuals aimed at children but utter nonsense. I guess this could be forgiven if the visuals were good or original but its all so ugly and scrappy looking. As if no one could really be too bothered so they just tossed a load of sparking metal, badly dressed extras and the most bizarre designed cars I've ever seen...everywhere.
Nothing really makes much sense in any way whatsoever, sure its a kids film and Mario Bros isn't a stern reality based concept but some of the decisions in this film!. The effects of course are horribly dated now which you can't poke fun at really but geez its nasty!. Early CGI effects, terrible stunts with obvious wire work, awful costumes, the fungus king and awful hairstyles...yet the dino model/puppet of 'Yoshi' looks good and moves quite nicely.
It really does feel as if the bigwigs had gotten halfway through making one film and suddenly decided to turn it into a Mario film for kids. Just take the tonne of crappy looking junk they already had going and stick in some very loose references to Nintendo's big franchise and voila! instant Mario Bros movie hurrah!. I really believe this was the set of 'Lawnmower Man 2' transformed at the eleventh hour, and they still fudged that up too.
Its not too often that a film is really so bad, really its not!! and this was suppose to be a blockbuster and franchise builder!. Sure there are bad films but this is really really quite terrible in all areas with virtually nothing to save its ass. I did quite like the use of the old Nintendo Super Scope 6. But was that a clever little easter egg wink/nod for the legion of NES/SNES players or did they really think they could fool everyone into thinking it was a proper purpose build prop?. I'll let you decide.
The Rundown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b2yarklsXY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b2yarklsXY#)
Ghosts of Mars (2001)
Yep back near the millennium there was a bit of a Mars movie rush. Alongside a couple other action thrillers earlier in 2000 this horror thriller was obviously a more fantasy based trip to the red planet courtesy of John Carpenter.
You know its Carpenter straight away with most of his films but this was different. For a start the soundtrack was a lot of actual heavy metal performers playing pieces created by Carpenter. So yes the tunes are all Carpenters work as usual but it just didn't have the cool quirky simple electronic vibes you associate with his films. The heavy metal stuff just feels too errr heavy for what the film is, it tries to force the action and gore upon you with loud thrashing music which just seems childish really.
Naturally with Carpenter it looks cheap haha, everything is normally basic but created well with clever lighting, camera angles and editing. In this there is none of that craftsmanship, it really does feel as if John has sold out and given us a loud cliched straight to DVD action flick with no real thought or imagination. Everything also looks really really poor, terrible sets, terrible effects and makeup work and why are the good guys all wearing ski masks lol!. You can virtually see the edge of the sets half the time, we are talking TV movie standards here people!.
The plot is completely lame lets be honest, in fact it just feels like 'The Fog' but set on Mars or in space. That red dusty alien spirit cloud that goes around infecting the miners? come on John!. On top of that its all just a basic crappy zombie-ish horror theme. Humans are turned into mindless zombies that like to mutilate themselves and cut peoples heads off, errr gee, like wow!.
Its a shame because the cast is pretty cool with good names. A very young slim looking Statham with a bit of fuzz left on his bonce, Grier who is always sultry n sexy (why does she have to buy the farm so soon John!?) and Henstridge does add a 'Ripley-ish' current but personally I would of cast someone else. Yes 'Ice Cube' is there too being ridiculously over the top trying to make us all think he's a rough tough gangsta' in space, when will you grow up and use your real name jesus!.
All together this really does feel like a rehash of previous thrillers 'The Fog' and 'Assault on Precinct 13' all mixed into one. Completely inept in every area, very cheap looking and totally un-thrilling in any way, how Carpenter produced such a generic piece of crapola like this I don't know. You only have to look at the space zombie bad guys to see how poor it is, looks like the makeup was applied by themselves and thought up by teenagers.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
I grew up on a few big franchises through the 80's, 'Star Wars', 'Indy', 'Star Trek' and 'Lord of the Rings'. Of course LOTR was never much of a franchise as the only thing available to us (other than the actual book) was the Bakshi animated version, but I loved it. Grown out of it slightly now admittedly but still...lets soldier on.
I can't compare the animated film fairly to be honest but I must admit there was always elements of Bakshi's effort that worked so well. There are many elements of this Jackson effort I like also but as usual with so many modern films I do feel the over exaggerated hype simply forced people to adhere to the fact that this film is suppose to be 'epic'.
The start of this film is perfect, everything we see in 'the Shire' is just as you would expect and it looks wonderful. Straight away you can see the immense detail that has been put into the film with the interior sets inside 'Bilbo's' little dwelling (look at the metal framing on the back of his front door). Clothing, decorations, equipment etc...everything within the Shire is warm, cozy and thoroughly inviting to the point that you just wanna up sticks and live there. I still think they took some ideas from 'Willow' hehe.
We all knew what to expect with the look of the characters before hand but you still can't fail to be impressed with the quality of simple things like wigs and little items of clothing such as waistcoats. The plot trundles along nicely and like the 78 animated version its pretty similar in styles and visuals. The journey to 'Bree' and incidents within 'The Prancing Pony' all look great and have that perfect olde English atmosphere with much ale drinking amongst shady figures.
I enjoyed pretty much everything up to the point where the heroes meet up with the Elves 'Galadriel' and 'Celeborn'. At this point I found myself getting bored, the sequences here were heavy going and pretty dull frankly. Not that I expected anything else but I just felt the plot and interest slip away from me. From this point I was disappointed with what I saw, the film seems to lose a lot of its genuine old world atmosphere, the orcs and especially 'Uruk-hai' looked pretty dreadful and the fight sequences become extremely repetitive.
We know the heroes don't die so you know they will be slicing down the bad guys left right and centre but the fights looked pretty badly choregraphed to me with obvious fake fisticuffs going on. The orcs just keep on coming one after another whilst the main heroes merely glance at them with a sword or look at them and they go flying to the ground in screams of agony...hmmm.
I never liked the designs for the orcs either really. They always looked like something from a bad 'Star Trek' episode with silly fake contacts, silly fake teeth and the odd scar across the face. They are a random bunch so the odd one looked OK but I must side with the Bakshi film for this. I always loved how the orcs were in the shadows, faces obscured by darkness only allowing their eerie red eyes to glow through. The 78 animated film was much darker in tone with violence and the orc hordes, Jackson's film never captured that spooky essence for me a tall with either.
This leads me to the effects which a lot was done with CGI. Now this was to be expected of course, you can't really make a film about this fairytale without it. Back in the day CGI was blooming was used in everything but unfortunately it hadn't been fine tuned yet. The result for this film being somewhat sketchy to say the least. Upon release everyone barked on about how great the effects were, I never saw this, to me they were always pretty bad and naturally to this day now look even worse.
You can't be negative about effects on old films but like I said even when I saw this at the cinema it looked dire to me. Where it worked was landscapes, skylines and armies, there are some glorious village/kingdom shots in this film, the odd building/ruin/relic also looked good but the problem came with over the top action set pieces and creatures.
Alongside tonnes of hideously bad bluescreen effects some of the CGI is damn ropey to be honest. Sequences inside the 'Mines of Moria' are easily the worst in the film and look awful, the huge troll the team must fight and the 'Balrog' demon always looked fake. The orc pits surrounding 'Saruman's' castle were another badly realised concept, looking back they really do look like PS2 sequences.
A lot of the action always did look like videogame sequences to me, much like the army battles at the start of the film and in the following sequels. The same issue that CGI had and still does really is the effects tend to look plastic and obvious.
One of the films main assets if you ask me is the attention to detail on errr everything!. Jackson has tried to cover all aspects right down to the smallest detail which has to be applauded. The other main asset must be the real location shoots used for various parts of 'Middle Earth'. Far be it from me to say but at times the film felt more of a tourist advert for New Zealand than a film hehe yep that's me being cynical, but honestly the location work really did expand the Tolkien universe to new heights. Much like 'Star Wars' did with their locations.
Cast wise, well I can't fault this really, every character is well cast and every actor does a good job, nuff said. Hell even the extras for the elves looked perfect just standing there saying nothing but looking so...elf-like.
Something the Bakshi film lacked but this film had was a beautifully smooth ethereal spirituality to it. Jackson captures the mythical almost semi religious tones of the story (mainly through sequences involving the elves and their folklore) and really makes it feel historically believeable. All the while you are accompanied by gentle heavenly sounds and the type of music you expect from 'Clannad' or 'Tangerine Dream', it is in fact Enya on occasion.
I still prefer the Bakshi version for certain aspects but I like this version for others. I don't think this film was quite dark or forboding enough in various sequences, huge missed chances with the 'Ringwraiths' methinks, and merely having screaming ugly drooling orcs isn't really enough to say its dark n scary. I also loved how the Bakshi film didn't cower away from showing lots of blood, something this film lacked.
First half of the film I love but from the midway point I don't like, simple as that really. It seems to go from a beautiful fable to a daft videogame mashup, think 'Legend' at the start then 'Conan' from the midway point.
I can't rant on about the semi reasonable effects or lack of the odd bits and pieces here and there lets be frank, the film is much more than that. Even though its not a perfect adaptation of the classic tale its pretty darn close and manages to encompass enough adventure and excitement with just the right amount of emotion to thrill. I do think it has been over hyped terribly which is a common problem these days but it is still a solid film, just not as epic as you're led to believe.
No one should ignore the Bakshi animated film either I must say, a glorious piece of work that really does offer a damn good alternative to this film.
^The Orcs in the Bakshi film were far sillier looking.
The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L4zPr-NBzA# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L4zPr-NBzA#)
Yes I see your point, I can see how people would say that but I just loved how eerie they were and the fact you never really saw their faces. I LOVED their red glowing eyes, that really made them quite scary...when I was a kid.
I remember the orc breed that seemed to look like a cactus haha but the skull faced type one with the stringy hair was pretty intimidating I thought. I also thought the 'Balrog' was a good design in that film too, more mythical looking than the hell spawn type thing in the Jackson film.
Meh...each to their own of course but Bakshi's film has been with me since I was a little sprog hehe.
Quote from: Hubbs on Dec 03, 2012, 04:07:27 AMWe know the heroes don't die so you know they will be slicing down the bad guys left right and centre...
Tell that to Gandalf and Boromir. ::)
And I know that Gandalf came back, but he did die. And Boromir, well, he stayed dead.
Yeah...again I preferred the way 'Boromir' buys it in Bakshi's version. More arrows, more blood and you really feel for him as he goes at it one last time.
To each his own. Boromir's death in Jackson's movie is one of the death scenes that touched me the most in any movie I have seen.
Oh the sequence where he actually dies in 'Aragorn's' arms is nicely done but leading up to that could have been better I think. Could of really tugged on the heart strings a bit more as he goes down, his last stand displaying honour and courage etc..
I liked it when I was a bit younger, as well. The Balrog is probably the worst thing in that version.
I don't have a problem with the ending at all. From the moment the Uruk's show up at Amon Hen to the moment we see Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas give chase, it's all good. The moment when Boromir comes running to save Merry and Pippin still sends shivers down my spine.
He was one of my favorite characters, Boromir. At least he went down fighting.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Onward to Mount Doom, the perilous journey continues from where it left off. Still in familiar territory with this sequel as the 78 Bakshi film also covered most of what happens here, just about, so yes I can still compare to a degree hurrah!.
So as we crack on with the story its not long before you discover there's a lot of dialog, quite a lot, in fact bloody hell what have I gotten myself into!. Yes the first like two hours of the film is much dialog and not really very much else. Now if you're a Tolkien fanboy this will be music to your ears as Jackson does cover a whole heap of plot, although there are variations and changes still as there were with the first film.
I should point out quickly that all visuals, details, location work and performances are of course as you would expect and still on par with the first entry. There isn't too much need to go into all that as the quality is still just as high all round and I explained those standards in my first review.
This is of course the film where we meet 'Gollum' properly as a full fledged character. Now in my humble little opinion you either like this guy or you don't, personally I can't stand this character even back in the Bakshi film. I realise he is suppose to be a wretched creature but jesus christ he's annoying, annoying on the same level as 'Jar Jar Binks'. His voice just pisses me off and his design with those big eyes looks completely ridiculous, the guy has Disney eyes for gods sake!.
Again upon release this character got huge raving reviews about the CGI and all round rendering against the live action. Again I simply don't understand what the hell everyone was on about as I saw shoddy CGI abundantly with some awful rendering against live action characters in places. Its not all bad for sure, a scene with 'Gollum' sat on a rock next to some open water eating a fish shows how good some of the CGI could be. In general I was never impressed with this effect and his quite childish and basic looking features, the only aspect that looked real was his eyes, kinda.
So to be honest most of the film is really rather dull and slow for the most part. There are bits of interest within the plot that spring up to keep you awake ('Merry' and 'Pippin' with the orcs) and of course the odd eye popping moment of real scenery ('Edoras'). But lets be honest here, it all gets into gear when 'King Théoden of Rohan' decides to move his people of 'Edoras' to 'Helm's Deep' and everybody starts to suit up for war...WAR!!!.
Before we get there you have the intriguing sub plot with 'Merry' 'Pippin' and 'Treebeard'. Now this part of the plot I always liked and I loved the 'Ent' species, huge ancient old gnarly trees that could come alive, walk and talk. This was one area which never really saw the light of day in the Bakshi film.
I was happy to see that 'Fangorn forest' did live up to my expectations with its sweeping, mystical, magical appearance. I loved how light beams broke through the twisted huge trees, the gentle humming of insects in the background, the bold palette of greens, yellows and browns of the undergrowth, all together giving this harmonious fairytale utopia. Now this was never going to be an easy task creating living trees and to be honest I think the designs were pretty good for the 'Ent' species. Well the odd tree character looked a bit silly, the weeping willow type character didn't quite work if you ask me hehe why would that be in a forest? probably not a weeping willow I know but it looked like it.
Amazingly 'Treebeard' isn't fully CGI, he is actually a large puppet/model against bluescreen with the help of CGI later on naturally. To be brutally honest, the sequences with both 'Merry' and 'Pippin' riding around with 'Treebeard' are, well...pretty poor looking. The big problem with these films has been dreadful bluescreen effects which are hideously obvious to the point that the foreground is virtually a different brightness to the background. Hard to pull off yes but it does look very basic. The models are quite nice and better than the fully CGI 'Ents' but neither are exactly believable which I hate to say.
Anyway after a whole lot of plot development and slow slow character driven dialog blah blah blah we finally get to the meat of the film and what we've all been waiting for, the battle at 'Helm's Deep'. 'Finally we are here', I know that's what I was thinking, I'm sure you were too, yes you were don't lie.
Now far from me to describe myself as a 'battle whore' but this huge huge finale certainly got my nipples tingling with excitement. As the massive army of orcs, Uruk-Hai and god knows what slowly lurch closer you can't help but get pumped. 'Aragorn' summons his army of men and elves to arms, walking up and down the vast stone fortified wall of 'Helm's Deep' invoking a warriors passion into the hearts of all that stand beside him. On the other side of the wall in the pouring rain the orcs and Uruk-Hai pound the ground with their spears, baiting their foes...oh yeah its full on kick ass!.
In short the battle doesn't disappoint in any way, Jackson milks every moment for as much heroic posturing as possible with plenty of good short 'suit up' sequences just to make sure you know there is gonna be some epic hacking n slashing. The good guys are holding firm but slowly succumb and you really do start thinking how the hell are they gonna turn this around!. Its a full rollercoaster of emotion as the goodies crumble along with their fortress and become overrun.
The epic splattering of orcs, men and elves is interspursed with silly moments I have to say. The orcs manage to get the explosives into the drainage, the weak spot of the 'Helm's Deep' walls. But then they have one big orc do some kind of Olympic torch bearing act and run across the battlefield holding the igniting flame aloft for all to see and shoot at...eh?. Why not just light it when they dumped it?.
I didn't like the odd moment of Hollywood where 'Legolas' slides down some stairs on a shield like a surfboard whilst shooting multiple arrows one after another. Does this elf ever run out of arrows by the way? his pouch is always chock full.
When 'Aragorn' throws 'Gimli' across a quite large drop onto the main bridge at the entrance of 'Helm's Deep'. He then proceeds to jump it himself and they both fight off quite literately hundreds of Uruk-Hai. And when all the heroes come charging out of the fortress on horseback they pretty much go through hundreds of big sturdy heavy Uruk-Hai as if they were made out of paper.
Finally, when 'Gandalf' shows up with 'Éomer' looking down on 'Helm's Deep', errr that near sheer downward gradient drop they all ride down on horseback!! excuse me!!. Yes its little quibbles but things like that detract from the sensible story and I always notice this stuff haha.
The effects are better than the first film yet still have the same problems in my opinion. One good example of some pretty terrible CGI action would be the attack of the 'Isengard wolves' or 'Warg riders'. This sequence really is jerky with nasty bluescreen and a whole load of fake looking action set pieces. There are also many little moments throughout which simply don't look right, one tiny sequence shows 'Legolas' mounting a horse as it trots past him which is quite literately absolutely awful looking haha.
On the plus side the orcs and Uruk-Hai seem to look much better this time, not quite as hokey. The 'Ringwraiths' look good on their flying dragon-like steeds and there seems to be a bit more blood on show methinks too, ever so slightly more gooey and gory.
Overall I thought this film was for the most part rather dull and not as good as the first film. The finale battle is obviously the best thing in the whole film and without it there would be problems. The film does feel much more like a serious historical drama for the most part up to the final big battle. From that point on it obviously becomes a much stronger fantasy action film which it really needed frankly.
Not that the rest of the film is bad, its just a wee slow and dull, filling in lots of plot before it all heats up. The thing is the dialog and slow building in the first film was much more interesting because you're getting to know the characters and their world. Here its just filler getting 'Frodo' and the gang to the next big step, but kudos for getting it all in there and staying true to the book.
To be continued.....
Are you sure you didn't shoot your load off during the battle at Helms Deep, too?
LOL
Quote from: First Blood on Dec 04, 2012, 05:04:03 AM
Are you sure you didn't shoot your load off during the battle at Helms Deep, too?
I was so high on Viggo's prowess its entirely possible :P
More's the point, you
DIDN'T shoot your load while watching the battle at 'Helm's Deep'!?.
Quote from: Hubbs on Dec 04, 2012, 05:20:19 AM
More's the point, you DIDN'T shoot your load while watching the battle at 'Helm's Deep'!?.
No. That was saved for the battle at Minas Tirith. ;)
LotR? Bad special effects?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oC63H7HbI# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oC63H7HbI#)
Gollum is probably one of the best CG effects I've ever seen, right up there with the dinos from JP.
The Raid: Redemption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSZcQutsqnk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSZcQutsqnk#)
Universal Soldier (1992)
The first and easily the best of the entire franchise methinks. This Emmerich film is clearly a better and well funded film than all the rest. Its glossy all over from the camera angles, costumes, explosions and editing to the superb finale fight.
Totally over the top violence and with a very over used robot/cyborg plot line (can't really help but mention 'The Terminator' here, sorry). But this is still a good solid action flick, possibly Lundgren's best as well. The final showdown between Van Damme and Lundgren is seriously epic, very tense and Lundgren being pretty darn intimidating in his 'pyscho zone'. The way he is so unstable makes for a very nerve racking character to watch.
Some of the sequences where he questions people or attacks them is actually pretty violent. The guy is like a rabid dog as he tears people apart, knives them or just guns them down...'are we having fun yet!?'. Lundgren really pulls out all the stops with this badass bad guy, highly impressive.
Visuals are good all the way through and like I said all the action is first rate with some great fights. JCVD in the bluecollar diner is nice, also the initial sequence with all the UniSols at the start is cool. Well some are your typical JCVD fights and setups basically but we know and love em right. Walker is cute, Lundgren is fudging evil and its all very predictable of course, like so many other similar action fests.
Its a much darker affair than most of JCVD's work if you ask me, very gritty and dirty with some real adrenaline flowing through the finale. You really feel the heat and sweat at the end, and if you're not cheering for 'Devereaux' to kick 'Scott's' ass then there's something wrong with you.
Cheesy as hell (check some of the dialog) but holy shit this is a riot. High bodycount assured.
Universal Soldier: The Return (1999)
Despite being a direct sequel to the original 92 hit this film has since become defunct and ignored within the UniSol franchise. That is of course on top of the two made for TV films which are also ignored, so really the UniSol franchise is a bit of a mess.
You can see why this film was not a hit upon release and since ignored. The whole look of the film is not much better than the previous made for TV films. Everything is set within your standard cliched generic military base/weapons experimentation type facility, it all looks very dull, very grey and with plenty of glass and computer monitors to shoot up hehe.
The plot about the master computer brain taking over the UniSol project it looks after and basically setting all the UniSols free is basic but reasonable. This equal lots of faceless military types getting shot to pieces every 5min and plenty of 'Terminator' style posturing from the UniSols. The saving grace being the fight between JCVD and White, White being one of the best visual fighters in the biz. Unfortunately Goldberg doesn't quite get the true fight he deserves and merely lurches around as comical relief half the time, if you can call it that.
The whole film feels very watered down and not really in the same adult vain as the original film. There is even a 'Hal' moment in the film clearly ripped from '2001', its like they are trying too hard with the material. End of the day this film hasn't broken away from the 'made for TV' look n feel of the previous two efforts.
Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009)
OK so THIS is officially the sequel to the original 92 film despite it being fourth UniSol film IF you count the two made for TV films...geez!. So in other words they are trying yet again to reboot this ailing franchise, is it worth it you ask? hmmm sorta.
Simply the plot here is really basic, group of terrorists have kidnapped the Ukrainian prime minister's son and daughter and holding them hostage for release of their mates that are banged up. Enter the US military and their UniSol project to save the day. Twist is the terrorists have also pinched the top ultra UniSol and using him for protection.
So you have a slow build up of slaughter as the US send in some regular UniSols and basic troops. Its kinda cool that their is this one ultra tough UniSol on the bad guys side, Andrei Arlovski is a rough looking fella and he sure does look good in action. Super UniSol v regular UniSol, can't deny its fun to watch...but fleeting.
Violence is high and the fighting is solid as Andrei wipes everyone out, so far so good. It just gets rather daft really when the US bigwigs decide to bring back aging UniSol 'Luc Deveraux' to go up against the new 'NGU' (new generation UniSol). Of course its a film and not real but come on...are we really suppose to think the wrinkled JCVD would be able to defeat Arlovski? just watching the film gives you the answer haha no.
Then of course you get the added bonus of seeing 'Scott' return from the UniSol grave. Now yes I admit its cool to see JCVD and Lundgren go at it again but there is completely no need for this in the film. Its obviously just a hook to get people back to see the film, both action allstars back for the sequel. Lundgren's role is merely a cameo and pointless, plus the fight between them both is mainly stunt doubles from what I could see.
So Lundgren comes and Lundgren goes with a weak ass death which make the whole thing even more pointless. We then get a pretty good fight between JCVD and Arlovski which of course you know how it will end, even though we all know it shouldn't do.
Putting it blankly, this film is only good for seeing some decent fights between a super UniSol and some regular UniSols. Then lastly seeing JCVD fight Arlovski, and that's it, the fight between Dolph and JCVD is pointless and kinda fake. Everything in between you can fast forward through. The blood splatters enough to make this a reasonable adult action flick but it feels more like a tame excuse just to get JCVD and Lundgren back together again, desperately trying to achieve the glory of the original.
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning (2012)
What the hell goes on here? I'm still rather confused with this plot, on top of that it sucked ass!. This is now overall the sixth UniSol film but the third that is suppose to be cannon...somehow, and frankly it needs to be the last.
The plot is just everywhere, I still don't think I get it. Adkins family is brutally killed by the now evil 'Luc Deveraux', he goes into a coma but comes out some 9 months later ready to get revenge. Sounds good right? no, for half the film we follow Adkins around as he talks to people and generally doesn't do anything remotely interesting accept for going into a strip joint (obligatory in UniSol films now it seems).
At the same time Arlovski is back again as another character I think, I'm actually not so sure if he's a clone of his last character from the last film or not. Anyway he is back and running around fighting other guys for apparently no reason what so ever. It turns out he is a 'sleeper' UniSol and has been 'switched on' by 'Luc Deveraux' and is now fighting other sleeper UniSols to find the strongest and recruit them...I think.
The whole idea is 'Luc Deveraux' is finding sleeper UniSols to recruit into his 'UniSol church' or new order so they can errr all take over the world I guess, beats me. Since when were there lots of sleeper UniSols running around?? I thought all UniSols were kept under lock and key as top secret fighting machines. Now there are tonnes of them in this film, all living regular lives without knowing, only needing to be 'switched on'.
The whole thing is completely naff frankly and makes no sense, why is 'Deveraux' now a bad guy wanting to kill innocents?. I know he ran off at the end of the last film but he was still aware of being good. Why on earth is Lundgren back in this? who keeps recloning him?? he's obviously a crap UniSol cos he keeps getting killed horribly lol!. While I'm on the subject how the hell are the characters 'Miles' and 'Dr Colin' back in this? they were killed in the last film and they aren't UniSols just regular mortals.
I'm still not even sure if Adkins family were suppose to be real or just a memory implant, such a mess.
Yes there are two good fight sequences, one between Adkins and Arlovski and the other between Adkins and Lundgren. JCVD doesn't really feature much and his final fight isn't that much really, maybe age is finally creeping up on him, it certainly is with Lundgren methinks. He's very slow and his movements are clearly fake these days.
Very disappointed with this and really just another poor excuse for JCVD to team up with Lundgren and Adkins. I think the time has come for this franchise to hang up its military boots before it heads back into bargain basement made for TV territory again. You know at some point it will without the big stars of course.
And why is Van Damme's head painted half black and half white in the finale?? what the hell is that about!?.
The Relic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KhbarrpejA# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KhbarrpejA#)
Tactical Force (2011)
An Austin vehicle which I only saw down to the fact Jai White was also in the cast. Its a simple premise really, a group of SWAT officers use an abandoned warehouse type place for some training. Little do they know two rival criminal groups are having a heated meeting there too. As you can guess this leads to all manner of gunfire related issues and much fisticuffs.
A bit of a shameless 'Die Hard' type action film really, well I say 'Die Hard' but it has been done so many times by almost any action film imaginable. You have all the obligatory stand offs, gun battles, posturing, quick fire dialog, chases, wannabe Rickman status bad guys, the sultry femme fatale and the now regular inclusion of a few (so called) MMA fighters.
Do I need to say the whole thing is cheesy as hell, completely predictable and unoriginal? exactly. I quite liked Michael Eklund's (Ethan Hawke lookalike) slimy character but Shanks is trying way too hard to be a memorable villain. Also love how everybody in this film is a terrible shot lol! and many bullet hits against metal are CGI so that looks poor.
Yep this is a completely trashy throw away action flick but it does what it says on the tin, you get what you expect. If you want mindless fighting and shooting with snappy one liners then this is your ticket. For me Austin doesn't really cut it as a leading man in his own action flick, he just doesn't have...it.
Forbidden Siren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpxidNKAH8Q# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpxidNKAH8Q#)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The final chapter in this epic story and its an all out conquest that most probably gave all Games Workshoppers a joygasm. The last film was for 'battle whores' where as this film is most surely for the complete 'war sluts' haha.
There isn't really all that much story left in this final segment, the way Jackson has arranged it. Its merely about the last struggle up to Mount Doom for 'Frodo' and 'Sam' and lots of battles for everyone else. I have watched the extended cut so this way you get to see what happens to 'Saruman' and 'Wormtongue' which is rather stupidly left out of the theatrical version. Without this sequence you basically have no idea where these two guys go.
The only main thing that happens to 'Frodo' and 'Sam' until their important final act is the scuffle against 'Shelob' the spider. Now the CGI has improved somewhat over the course of these three films and finally its looking pretty nice here...at times. The whole battle against this massive spider is really well done and creepy enough to get the hairs on the back of your neck standing on end. I liked the corpses entwined in cobweb and dangling from the cave ceiling and 'Shelob' moves perfectly which is pretty terrifying for any arachnophobics.
Lets not beat around the bush here, this film is about war, full on axe swinging, sword wielding, arrow in the gut wrenching waaaaar!. This is enforced by the fact that half the film centres around the battle at 'Minas Tirith'. Pretty much the same deal as the battle at 'Helm's Deep' but this time its in daylight and with a few more baddies to content with. Personally I actually preferred the 'Helm's Deep' battle with its dark rain swept visuals and the fact the good guys are really pushed right back to the limit.
That's not to say the 'Minas Tirith' battle is no good, far from it, its very good. The design of 'Tirith' is also really nice and unique, dare I say slightly 'Star Wars-like' with that landing platform type section. Its the siege to top all sieges as orcs, trolls, deformed cross breeds and Nazgûl atop their flying steeds led by the 'Witch King' hit the walls of 'Tirith'. Its balls to wall as thousands of orcs slam every side of the mighty 'Tirith' walls with battering rams, catapults and mobile turrets. Can't fail to be impressed by the shear scale of this battle and the wonderful imagination involved, the sight of masses of orcs scaling ramparts whilst huge trolls use the 'wolf's head' to batter down the main gates is pretty darn epic, without trying to sound too cliched.
At the same time you have the smaller battle at 'Osgiliath' where 'Faramir' is getting whipped pretty good but looking heroic in the process (shame he's played by Wenham who always comes across a bit wet if you ask me). Cut back to 'Tirith' and like the previous big battles Jackson likes to swing the odds as the good guys appear to be winning only to be knocked back time and time again. Lucas must have been kicking himself.
Just as you're pausing for breath the next stage of the battle kicks into gear with the 'Haradrim' (who look suspiciously like ancient Persians) on their massive elephant-like war machines. This sequence did feel very much like a rip from 'Empire Strikes Back' and the 'battle of Hoth'. 'Éowyn' and 'Merry' charge around on their horse through the legs of these massive beasts of burden just like 'Luke' in his snowspeeder hehe.
The whole sequence is highly imaginative yet possibly one of the worst looking sequences in the film. This is where the dreaded bluescreen issue raises its head again folks. It doesn't really look much better than the quality of the speederbike sequence on 'Endor' in 'ROTJ', its very obvious. All the CGI horses look a bit jerky, especially when they are tossed in the air and the fact that 'Éowyn' is able to simple take down one these ginormous creatures merely by slashing its tree trunk like legs with a puny sword is stretching it.
The sequence where 'Legolas' jumps onto one elephant (I'll call it that for now) via its tusk then proceeds to leap around its body like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle cutting all the straps and harnesses whilst killing every 'Haradrim' warrior on board, then killing the elephant, then calmly sliding down the tusk to safety was completely not needed and horrible to watch. Both in terms of the awful CGI and the over the top, glossy action movie conception of it. Things like that can spoil a perfectly good sequence.
The only other sequence I must moan about is the 'army of Dead'. Now this has had some complaints and rightly so to be frank. You have this massive scale war where the good guys are on the brink of defeat, its top notch entertainment and keeping you poised on the edge of your seat. Then up pops 'Aragorn' and his new army of ghostly mates who promptly wipe out every bad guy within minutes, that's it, done, game over, finito and the good guys win.
This kinda ruins the climax of this grand war to beat all wars. It also leads you to think, why the hell didn't they just do this in the first place?. 'Elrond' could have given 'Aragorn' the sword 'Andúril' right from day one and they could have gotten the help of the ghost army to wipe out all the bad guys. This would have spared all this heartache and death surely haha ah what do I know.
To be fair apart from that most of the effects are much better in this film, well gotta over look the dodgy CGI horses. The 'Witch King' looked nicely evil and his flying steed always did look good, Shame he had such a weak ass death. The final part of the film on Mount Doom is a excellent visual feast and is a much better looking volcano/lava sequence than Lucas offered in 'Episode III'. Boy does it look really hot in Mount Doom! really impressed with the visuals for this part of the film. The design work on such simple things such as the jagged knife like rocks that project from the ground around the base of Mount Doom look awesome, almost 'Giger-esq'.
'Gollum' looks much tighter and sharper in the whole film, the fire in his eyes throughout this emotionally draining finale is near pixel perfect. Finally the scrawny creature actually looks right against his live action companions. I must admit despite the fact I was sick to death of seeing Wood's huge teary puppy dog eyes in this film he and Astin do deliver the pain and anguish of this scene to the viewer in a first class parcel performance.
Of course having lots of war also means some magical moments of dialog delivery from the cast, there are some good emotional hooks here. The sequence where 'Pippin' sings to 'Denethor' as his last son 'Faramir' surges towards certain death in a last ditch cavalry charge of 'Osgiliath' is haunting and reminds me of some proper historical epics. 'Théoden's' rousing final speech as his 'Rohirrim' army sits perched on the brow of a hill ready to tear down towards the massive waiting orc horde (William Wallace eat your heart out. I actually believe riding down the front line and tapping every mans spear before a cavalry charge is accurate, I think).
Of course this could only be topped by the speech from 'Aragorn' to his last remaining men at the 'Black Gate'. Then with the knowledge that 'Frodo' appears to be dead and facing the end he turns and sprints towards his unknown fate only to be followed by his friends, one last glorious push. 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends once more!' is what came to mind at this point.
The film is a bum number can't deny that, it feels like an age for the film to finally wrap up!. I don't think I've ever seen so much fighting in one film either, its none stop virtually. Admittedly it lacks the in-depth character building and dark intensity of the first film or the story development of the second, its more of an all out free fall 'Dungeons & Dragons' style.
Would Tolkien be happy with this trilogy? I'm sure he would have been despite much alterations and bits cut out. The story is so deep it may be impossible to film it completely. The first film is probably the best for story, atmosphere and lore, whilst the second is rather dull apart from 'Helm's Deep' at the end. Overall I liked this third film even if it did feel a bit like a toy merchandise dream and almost too big at times if that makes any sense. I think I was battle weary at the end of it all.
The end?
Ninja 忍者 (2009)
Well this action takes you right back to the late 80's early 90's. If you picture 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' but with blood and for an adult audience then you have 'Ninja'. I won't lie to you I found this silly nonsense kinda fun to watch hehe it was full of totally ridiculous set pieces, hordes of blade fodder in the form of a never ending supply of henchmen all wearing identical outfits which is simply hilarious and some really over the top CGI blood spurting. Yes this was an epic slice of hokum.
I gotta admit there was some nice imagery throughout the film with the ninja suits, especially in the dark rainy parts and the dojo sequences at the start. Some cool fights, moves and some nice weaponry to boot...its a film about cool ass ninjas, think about it.
Totally predictable and extremely corny with all the regular goodie and baddie cliches but admittedly Adkins (the goodie ninja guy) has probably the best looking torso I've seen since Jason Scott Lee in 'Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story'!. As a man I must admit I was impressed! and this is one of his early films too, before he became even more buffed for the 'Undisputed' franchise.
I really didn't know they made films like this anymore hehe yet I'm pleased. Really brought memories of my teen years flooding back, the only thing missing from this Shinobi (忍び) epic is Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa snearing his ass off, now that would have been the ultimate badassery.
Silver Hawk (HK, 2004)
So you thought the 'Avengers' was a good comicbook flick huh? well move over 'Iron Man' and 'Hulk', move over for 'Silver Hawk'!!!.
Not too dissimilar from various other Far Eastern fantasy martial arts flicks, this film merely came to my attention due to the casting of Michael Jai White, Luke Goss and the gorgeous Michelle Yeoh. Its your basic comicbook character action film but the hero is a heroine (Yeoh) and she isn't exactly a superhero but more like 'Iron Man', a person with money who fights crime in a nifty suit.
Well I say nifty suit, this suit simply looks like silver spandex with some silver painted goggles on her head and a long silver flapping coat. The thing that is so silly with this is everyone is virtually dressed in silver haha all the bad guys and henchmen in silver armour and everyone uses silver weapons or gadgets.
Surprisingly Jai White is a silent bad guy henchmen in this (looking like a certain character out of 'Mortal Kombat' and with some 'Biggles' head wear for some reason) and unsurprisingly Goss is the main villain. He is dressed in a 'Matrix' style full length silver trench coat (indeed) with prosthetic silver metal forearms and looking like Richard O' Brien's brother. The action is tame but reasonably well choreographed, nothing amazing but it does the job with no strong violence or blood.
All of the film is pure comicbook silliness which does look like something made for TV but a lot of Asian movies can look like this. You could almost think of this as a Chinese 'Batman and Robin' complete with fighting bad guys on bungee ropes, rollerblading ice hockey bad guys and 'Silver Hawk' has her own 'Batbike' type vehicle, its just not as camp. Well...that is until you see Goss in his skintight shiny silver vinyl costume towards the end.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwdYmtyGQvk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwdYmtyGQvk#)
Undercover Blues (1993)
Oh my this is pretty horrible, a really really typically bad lightweight 90's throw away comedy, if you can even call it that.
This film glides across so many other ideas and its so so very pointless it hurts. The two leads are actually really annoying and you just wanna see them get killed so much haha. Quaid and Turner being top undercover agents for the US that are dragged back into service on the promise of good pay, the hook being they take their young child with them everywhere, errr yeah! great!.
Cue lots and lots of lame, tame ridiculously bad looking fights with obvious doubles. Horrendous acting from everyone, a boring drab plot and a female baddie who is completely nonthreatening or even remotely interesting. The whole thing takes ques from Bond naturally and is set in the deep South of New Orleans but it just doesn't work.
The only reasonable part or performance goes to Tucci who plays an inept criminal trying to kill the heroes and going by the name of 'Muerte', which everyone mispronounces much to his frustration. This does garner some laughs, his girlish screams also amuse but that really is it.
OK fun for kids, stick them in front of this for the afternoon and they might enjoy. Not advisable for any adult to attempt the full running time, its utter dribble and a waste of your life.
Silent Hill (2006)
This Japanese created horror came along after the hugely popular 'Resident Evil' both in terms of the game and the film. Where as the first Resi Evil was a more standard action fest that ran with a generic plot similar to 'Aliens', 'Silent Hill' is a completely different approach. That approach being the film makers actually based this film on the actual game.
That is the first thing you notice straight away, this film is an actual horror film and tries to recreate the tension from the eerie game. The visuals in this film are actually pretty good and the whole thing certainly does feel like a videogame in the sense of camera angles, lighting and general atmosphere.
I must admit to being very impressed with the whole look of the film. Its not watered down in any way, there's plenty of blood, the monsters are highly detailed and very creepy (Pyramid Head looking damn good I must say), the town is rendered really well, it chilling, very dark and brings the game to life in a truly surprising way. A cheap run of the mill straight to DVD film this is not...amazingly.
The plot is slightly disappointing in the sense that it kinda wanders. At first the film is a solid ghost story with demons, intrigue and imagery that you may see in many Japanese horrors ('The Ring' for one with all the little girl shots). Unfortunately later the story seems to gravitate towards more of a religious theme including cults and witch hunting which is a completely different horror genre really. That's not what you expect and it weakens the film as all the demons, monsters and mutilated bodies all turn out to be just incarnations from a young child's mind (I think).
The whole 'person getting revenge by using his/her anger manifested in monsters/creatures' isn't too original really but I do believe this feeds into the videogames story, or at least various ideas from all the games. The film isn't short on bad bits though, can't escape that I'm afraid. Casting Sean Bean as an American was not the best idea really, his attempt is brave but heavily flawed. The odd silly moment including when 'Rose' heads off down into the hospitals basement, the lift seems to drop about a hundred levels! how deep does this building go!?.
The other main issue I had was the rather weak ending, a big anti climax really with a tame CGI finale. Not scary and not particularly interesting because you don't feel the bad guys are getting a good drumming. I also didn't get the finale twist at the end where 'Rose' and 'Sharon' seem to have remained in this alternative realm or dimension? how and why?? are they maybe dead? what gives here?.
You must give kudos to Gans for what he has accomplished here. Who'd have thought an adaptation of a horror videogame, which isn't exactly too far from the Capcom equivalent, would actually turn out to be a stable accurate conversion. The films survives on visuals and design of course, performances aren't that great and the story limps to a conclusion but it still manages to give you shivers whilst you watch.
The Condemned (2007)
Well what have we here, an early 'Expendables' type fighter? a 'Battle Royale' copy? or maybe just a 'Running Man' type thriller? well all this and many more films gone before.
The plot...a group of the most violent criminals are hand picked and dumped on a remote island. Each has a small bomb attached to their ankle which will detonate after a certain time limit. They have nothing but their skills to survive and the odd package dropped from a chopper. Only one can be left standing before the time runs out and that last man wins his freedom, FIGHT!!!.
So yes I think we have all seen this before, the general idea, and one can assume it will pretty much be like all the rest. It is a bit like a cheaper, low key, grittier 'Expendables' but with guys that aren't overly famous but a good selection of character hardmen and fighters of you will. Vinnie Jones, Nathan Jones and Austin are the bigger names here whilst other criminals are made up of really well built blokes and some good fighters like Masa Yamaguchi. Of course the plot isn't like the Sly vehicle but it is a nice ensemble of hardasses.
The whole film plays out like one setup after another, one fight, a bit of plot, then another fight etc...The fights vary from pretty cool to nothing much but its all very violent and bloody, not for the PG crowd that's for sure. All the characters have your standard backgrounds, the hero Austin is of course ex-Delta Force whilst Vinnie is ex-SAS gone bad, bog standard military guff really. All the while its watched by the internet crew and their boss who set it all up for profit and morbid kicks...tut tut so naughty.
It does work well really, can't lie, its good fun to watch but obviously stupid. Would they really include women? surely that would be rather unfair. The violence in some parts is quite close to bone really, Vinnie and his partner rape a women to death then find her husband (also a criminal) and burn him to death after beating him half to death!! so yeah bit sick.
You could say its even like 'Call of Duty' or any FPS, but with bloody murder and fights instead of gun runnin'. When the odd help package is dropped into the 'game' it does feel like a videogame of sorts.
Its certainly balls to the wall with guts n headbutts and the perfect action vehicle. Nothing original and no real surprises other than Vinnie being really quite evil, but its undeniably fun despite Austin being a plank and the ending being a big anti climax for the two main guys.
Vampires (1998)
Or known as 'John Carpenter's Vampires' if you wish. This film starts off really well with Woods and his vampire slaying team cooking up some vamps in their own unique way. They find em, harpoon em and drag them out into the sunlight via a winch on a truck. What I really liked about the film was this cool vamp slaying team, there were a few well known faces in there, character actors that really made a unique cool looking unit. Its such a shame that they all get wiped out early on.
This leaves Woods and Baldwin galloping up diarrhea drive without a saddle. It also seems to diminish the film before its even started, but wait! all is not lost. Woods character is a solid hard ass, he looks unashamedly cool with his black leather coat, blue jeans and shades, he's got a mouth on him, a wicked name and knows his way around most weaponry, in short he's an older 'Snake Plissken' with a short back n sides.
The plot is simple enough, its Woods v vampires, good enough for ya?. When I say vampires I mean just one badass head vampire (who looks suspiciously like the head nutter from 'Ghosts of Mars') and a lot of faceless stake fodder. Its all about Woods really, yeah he has the typical wet sidekick pushed on him, a newbie priest to look after, and there's Baldwin but to be honest they don't figure. You wanna see Woods swearing and kicking vampire ass.
When I first heard of this I didn't think too much of it, after 'Escape From LA' most were in shock and this really didn't sound very inspiring. But this does turn out to be a pretty decent western vampire flick along the lines of 'From Dusk Till Dawn'. There is plenty of blood and gore with some nice body part effects, obviously violence is high, nice visuals and your obligatory cowboy-like musical score.
Not your obvious Carpenter flick as it does seem more glossy than most, still looks a bit 'made for TV' here and there but generally its a tad more Hollywood. Doesn't add much new to the vampire lore either, only the way they harpoon vamps and certain weapons have a face lift of sorts. All your usual types of deaths, leaping around, decapitations, vampire pov, bone snapping sound effects etc...are present and correct.
Better than you would expect but mainly down to Woods, without him who knows. Its cheesy and not quite up to the standards of other more original quirky Carpenter films but it certainly holds its own amongst other vampire films. It does always amuse me though how all the characters know regular bullets don't have any effect on vampires, yet they continually empty clips into them as if it will do any good hehe.
'Can I ask ya somethin, Padre? When I was kickin your ass back there...you get a little wood?'
Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure (1984)
So back in 84 if you had seen Lucas and some Ewoks running around the redwood forests in California you could of been mistaken for thinking another Star Wars epic was on the way. No matter how badly we 80's kids prayed that was unfortunately not true, but we did get a semi decent Star Wars based adventure.
Set in between 'Empire' and 'Jedi' this film gives us a little more insight into the forest moon of the gas giant Endor. We see more native creatures, more of the moon and of course more Ewok culture. Now back in the day this film was actually regarded pretty highly, mainly because we had NOTHING else film wise based around Star Wars.
Upon a re watch the film still does hold its own very well. Lucas was in charge for both of these Ewok films and to be honest he did a fair job. The film is completely for kids obviously utilizing little human kids and good old 'Wicket' so you can't moan at the utter campy naffness there is. Acting is dubious and dialog is very basic, but you gotta give credit to Lucas for making a lot of the film in native Ewok tongue and having a narrator tell us the audience what the the hell going on. Almost like 'Dances with Wolves' for Star Wars hehe...I said almost.
So the rather annoying surly 'Mace' and his totally babyish blonde barbie doll little sister head off to rescue their parents from the 'Gorax'. A creature I have found out has been worked into the official Star Wars universe and is cannon, kinda cool. Along the way the team of kiddies and Ewoks run into other species that are of course nasty and generally have to work together to succeed. There are some nice creatures here, basic puppets, animation or stop motion, but its fine, kinda charming much like the old Harryhausen flicks and other old barbarian fantasy films. The film has that warm 80's 'Willow' type atmosphere, a sense of wonder and imagination that is absolutely great for young kids.
The main bad guy in the film is the 'Gorax' which is a man in a suit get up. The makeup is pretty good on this character and his whole look does fit with the 'wookie' species approach for the Endor moon. In general effects aren't overly great these days (of course), the giant spider in the 'Gorax' lair is brilliantly bad and the final fatal moment for the 'Gorax' also looks really hokey, but hey this ain't no mega budget film. Some nice good old fashioned matte painting work evident too.
Yes its childish and corny, yes some locations on Endor's moon looks suspiciously like California, yes the two main human kid characters are completely generic looking with 'Mace' obviously looking like a young 'Luke', but its still fun. Lucas did a good job here in my opinion, the film is perfect for its target audience and fun for everyone else too...if you like Star Wars. Supposedly cannon within the Star Wars universe also which is interesting.
Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985)
'Mace' and 'Cindel' return for the follow up story to their predicament. 'Cindel's' family don't get too far into the film which leaves us with the helpless princess and her best Ewok friend 'Wicket'. This time the duo must save their other Ewok friends and battle against 'Terak', a nasty pirate marauder and his rather band of dumb henchmen. Along the way they are helped by a kind but grumpy old man played by the legendary Wilford Brimley.
The whole plot is virtually the same as before really, some characters are taken prisoner, so its up to a small band of other good guys to save them. Naturally its still a full on kids film so its very comical, silly and a bit camp at times but that's to be expected. Acting again is pretty ropey but Brimley has a good go adding some flavour.
Much the same deal as the first Ewok adventure only this is slightly better methinks. The bad guys are a silly bunch but they certainly look the part and fit into the Star Wars universe perfectly. If you think along the lines of the 'Weequay' race that are seen in 'Return of the Jedi' and then just add the CGI animated 'Clone Wars' series characters lead by 'Hondo' for an idea of lots of them in a gang.
Effects are still sketchy but this is an old film, heavy use of stop motion animation which is really jerky but again it adds to the charm just like the first film. Gotta admit I loved the large dinosaur-like 'Blurrgs', a simple yet effective design which is pure Star Wars ('Willow' pinched the concept I reckon), even more so with the classic stop motion animation.
The whole look of the film is actually quite good and better than the first if you ask me. It still looks a bit cheap and basic but 'Terak's' fortress is nicely done and the forest moon of Endor looks less like California hehe. Costumes and makeup for the 'Sanyassans' are nice too, nothing original but they do the job, 'Terak' the leader looks the best of course, even has white balding hair which actually gives him a good sense of depth and history.
The witch/sorcerer character of 'Charal' seems rather pointless frankly as she does nothing accept turn into a crow, or raven? I dunno. Much more magic and sorcery in this adventure but still a quirky fun deeper look into the world of the Ewoks and their home. Overall a closer feel to the Star Wars universe for me and slightly more exciting but only just. A film aimed at kids which is extremely tame and admittedly the only reason it gets away with it is because its Star Wars.
Puppet Master X: Axis Rising (2012)
So here we go again with the tenth sequel in this killer doll franchise, how or why this goes on? beats the shit outta me. But anyway the plot carries on from the previous entry and yet again involves the naughty Nazi's and their evil plots. This time around the killer dolls appear to be fighting for good again and are helping a young man and woman stop the dastardly Nazi's from creating a breed of undead soldiers and errrr making more tiny killer dolls...indeed.
So that's the basic plot, what about the rest of it?. Well its pretty much business as usual from Mr Band, everything is rather tacky looking, cheesy acting, hokey sets and props altogether making you wonder if this is an actual horror film anymore.
I'm not saying I didn't enjoy this film I must add, its actually quite amusing and enjoyable as a low grade B-movie. The thing is I'm not so sure Mr Band is aiming it to be an amusing B-movie, I tend to think he still kinda believes these are serious horror flicks. Anyhoo the film is completely ridiculous yet thoroughly fun in an Ed Wood kinda of way.
The effects are very basic but as before the dolls all look pretty neat and well made, still obvious care and attention to the main characters of this horror franchise. Sure they hardly move apart from waving their little arms, which somehow is translatable to the human characters as they talk to them, but there is a certain charm to the little guys. They are classic 80's creations and almost part of cinematic history if you get me, despite being in a cheap ass franchise. Love the terribly racial stereotyped Japanese doll called 'Kamikaze' haha...jesus Mr Band!!.
The few human characters in this are utterly cliched and generic yet again fun to watch. The frail old mad German genius scientist, the crazy sadistic Nazi officer, the two goodie goodie heroes that are American as apple pie and the gruff all American buzz cut Sgt. Last but certainly not least is the most over sexualized in your face, boys only villainess character complete with flowing blonde hair, full red lips and an eye busting cleavage to die for. The main bad guy's female sidekick is possibly the best guilty pleasure in this film as she pouts, teases, arches and purrrrs her way through the film, letting out the most sexual evil laughs as innocents are slain before her *phew! wipes the sweat from his eyes*. Truly for the male graphic novel/comic book/manga liking demographic.
The hideously bad German accents make this all the more fun to be honest, lots of 've's' 'vords' 'vasts' 'veapons' and 'vants' plus some of the most excellent dialog since...well Ed Wood. 'thank you for being such a fine American', 'you just earned your ticket into the United States army', 'over my dead body Hans', 'I'll make those Nazi's pay', 'come and get me kraut', 'never screw with America!'.
So yes this is a bad film, a film so bad and cliched its fun to watch. Whether or not Mr Band is taking this seriously still I'm not so sure but its so so sooooo dumb and corny its brilliant. Not in the least bit scary and so basic a child could follow...and not be scared either. Anyone who has seen all the previous films will know what to expect but this film is much more comic book than the rest, almost a panto judging by the characters.
I still don't get the point of 'Leech Woman'. Why throw up small leeches into a victims mouth? apart from tasting horrible what's the point of it?? haha what do they do to the victim?? I don't think we've ever seen the result of this little attack pattern, oh well.
Killing Them Softly
SPOILER WARNING!
With a cast of stars including Pitt, Gandolfini and Liotta and based on a crime novel involving the mafia, hits and heists you would expect this to be excellent, so is it? yes! well no, hmmm...errr yeeaah...kinda.
The plot in this film is really very simple and pretty thin. Ray Liotta's character sets up his own poker ring operation for the loot and gets away with it scot free. Sometime later two losers do the same thing to Liotta's poker ring and they get away with all the loot...putting Liotta's character under suspicion. Pitt's hitman character is then brought in to sort out the whole situation and find out who stuck up the poker ring for a second time. Which I might add he manages quite easily it seems.
That's the game in a nutshell and like Pitt's acting its basic. This film is semi decent yet flawed, flawed in the sense that the plot is stretched out to 1h 37min with lots of pointless dialog. Most of which bares no relation to the actual plot but just drones on. The main sequences guilty of this are the dialogs between Pitt and Gandolfini, the latter of which just goes on and on about screwing hookers whilst drinking and not much else.
To be honest the plot is half way complete early into the film, Pitt has his job to do and it doesn't need this long to watch him do it. Don't get me wrong though the acting is terrific throughout from almost all players involved...well the stars, accept Pitt. Liotta is turned from tough guy to punch bag in this mobster story and he does it well. Gandolfini looks every bit like a real mafioso head honcho year by year and does what he does best despite the meaningless rambling dialog he has and Jenkins is solid n stoic as ever.
For me this film does highlight how very average an actor Pitt is surrounded by some serious acting stalwarts. Again don't get me wrong, Pitt does OK in his role and in any less of a film he would be fine but this is a grown up mobster flick and he just doesn't match up. I'm not really too sure why they would cast the guy in this type of film really.
One sequence I don't get with Pitt's character is when he whacks one guy...but using a shotgun?!. Not only that but he does it from a distance!, surely shotguns aren't that effective from a distance and surely carrying out a hit this way would attract a lot of attention from say...the noise?!. Not to mention the mess and damage, ah what do I know.
The other thing that bugged me was Scoot McNairy and his annoying tone of voice, the guy sounded like 'Shaggy' outta 'Scooby Doo' for pete's sake!! geeeez!. Didn't think much of Ben Mendelsohn either really. He's an Aussie actor and plays an Aussie in the film, the guy just didn't fit in the story a tall, typical US hoods and an Aussie, nah.
The profanity count is high and the violence is brutal, it may make you wince, possibly even jump at times but there isn't lots of it. As this takes place in 2008 there is also snippets from the real event of President Obama's election campaign and victory, why? I'm not so sure as it has no real relevance to the plot or its outcomes. There is a political message in here as Pitt's character states 'America's not a country, its just a business', its all about $$$.
The film is well directed whilst visually it looks slick and gritty, but its trying to hard to be a Scorsese product or trying to hard to be something unique and different. Either way it doesn't really make it mainly down to the fact there isn't much of a plot to speak of.
Django Unchained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8uAqkS9AKQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8uAqkS9AKQ#)
Lincoln
If you want a job doing right get Spielberg, on the other hand if you want to make an epic right get Daniel Day-Lewis. So this pretty much has the outright winning formula and 'Oscar' stamped across its forehead before you've even sat down. A biopic, about some American guy with dubious facial hair, beats me but the Yanks seem to think he's pretty important.
The films kicks off straight away in a battle, a rain soaked battle to the death with hordes of American soldiers literately at each others throats, stumbling around in thick knee high pools of mud. Everywhere we see men being bayonetted to death or trampled into the mud, the men are mostly black, a lead to the core of the story, yeah its taboo history right here, black slavery.
Now I'll admit I was kinda thinking we would see plenty of bloody gritty civil war action in this film, or at least hints of it. The start of the film does give that impression and I was gearing up for a right royal historical blitzkrieg but alas!! the start sequence is all we get and not a drop more. Yes this film is completely and utterly dialog driven as it follows Lincoln from one meeting to another with every figure/group/party of the time.
Now this isn't a bad thing and I wasn't bored a tall amazingly, the film looks so lavish, realistic and atmospheric I found myself merely enjoying the old ambiance of late 18th Century life. Its strangely calming and very pleasant to just sit back and take in all the sights and sounds, you can almost smell certain scenes they look so vivid and luscious.
The cast is impressive, it seems everyone wanted a piece of this practically guaranteed unstoppable Spielberg Oscar machine. Yet I found myself thinking (again) that its the rest of the cast that actually outweigh Day-Lewis. Yes DDL is the man, the king of epics, but his performance here is very quiet, very slow almost sombre, with the odd little sequence where he perks up a bit. Now of course I realize this is obviously deliberate and how Lincoln must have been but for me he is almost swallowed up by his fellow actors and their performances, Tommy Lee Jones, Hal Holbrook, Jackie Earle Haley, David Strathairn, Sally Field...hell even James Spader is good here.
I do think that DDL has rightly earned his reputation in films like this, but I also feel he seems to be getting automatic hype and praise in this film from that reputation when really its all the other players that really shine. Personally I felt Mr Lewis has been matched and beaten well and truly here, the strength of the cast is too great, kudos of course for all.
There isn't really anything I can say about the film in a negative view. Yes its mostly political dialog but its accurate, real, which is good, but I can understand that many won't enjoy that. The only thing I didn't really like was the way Lincoln's death was included. That may sound odd but showing Lincoln on his deathbed with doctors at his side, from my own artistic point of view, wasn't required. That's all they show, they don't reconstruct the actual assassination but it just seems clunky, strips the film of a solid dramatic ending and kinda takes away the legendary aspect of the man by showing him at the end of his life.
Ironically the ending of the film 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' was done in a much more thoughtful way, it doesn't show anything, just leaves it to history and what we all know. I think 'Lincoln' should have ended when we see the President walking off down a corridor in the White House, watched by his servant, leaving for the Ford's Theater. For Spielberg that's a surprising wasted chance for a nice emotional finale there.
So yes, a reasonable knowledge of American civil war/political history is required here methinks. I won't lie there is tonnes of heavy political dialog running right the way through this beast of a film and it will confuse and disorientate most folk (had me dashing for good old wikipedia on many occasions...and that was even heavier lol!).
I would also say, even though I'm no expert on this period, I'm sure certain elements have been over dramatised for the film. Always the way which I can understand of course but you can sense it clearly in many sequences. One could almost say this isn't really a film for entertainment but a lesson, a lesson that should be shown in all schools much like Spielberg's WWII epic 'Schindler's List'. Thick and slow going but rewarding no doubt.
Death Race 3: Inferno
My my what have we here...another straight to DVD sequel, should I be excited?. Well seeing as the first film was actually quite good fun and the second was semi decent fun if rather uninspired, I guess this could be good. Oh but its not...bugger.
So the plot, well I'm confused, yes believe it or not I am. According to Wikipedia the second film was a prequel to the original...eh? never got that, and this third film is an alternative timeline sequel to the original that follows on from the second...wha?. As far as I see it Statham was 'Frankenstein' in the first film and he escaped. Goss then got burned up in the second and took on the mantle of the MIA 'Frankenstein' character, and now he continues that role into this third film. Well that's how I see it dagnabbit.
So the usual videogame-like appearance/ideas from the previous films remain naturally, that mixed with the stupid Gladiators/WWF style setups and intros. The first two films get away with this but it now grows old plus this film does look much more tacky with obviously less money behind it, outside of the car sequences anyway.
'RAZOR!!!' 'watch out for him, he used to be a killer somewhere', oh so I guess he's the bad guy then, well he must be with a name like that, scary!. 'JOKER!!' oh I guess he must...ah you get the picture surely!.
The acting is of course ropey but we all knew that, you don't watch films like this for acting skills. Impressive how the continuity has been kept with all cast being retained from the second film, adds a much needed boost to the quality. Its a damn good job Tanit Phoenix looks good cos she sure as hell can't act a tall, her fight choreography is abysmal too. In fact all the fight sequences look terrible and badly constructed, clear misses everywhere, so tame and not required.
The biggest laugh of the film is a sequence where all these scantily clad women must fight to the death for the honour of becoming navigators to the male racers!. If ever there was a more obvious ploy to appeal to the wank happy young male viewer, well I haven't seen one this blatant for some time. Lots of women in nothing but hot pants and bras looking like something out of 'Xena Warrior Princess' all cat fighting and chopping each other up whilst getting blood spaying over their large plump bosoms lol!.
So so so stupid, not really sexy a tall (although clearly meant to be) and utterly pointless. Gee lets attract more fans simply by sticking in lots of half naked women in a mass killing orgy, plot relevance?...what's that mean?. Pssst...'Katrina' from the previous film is one of the winners, oops! what do you mean you didn't see that coming?!.
So yes its your typical 'Running Man' 'The Condemned' 'Battle Royale' 'The Hunger Games' blah blah blah you know. The problem here is we really didn't need yet another film of virtually the same shit all over again, accept this time its in a desert and with even more extreme camera jumping and editing. Seriously the camera cuts from one action shot to another so fast and often it will make you dizzy.
Nothing new, same cliches, same outcomes, same implanted body tracking devices, same visuals, same character types but with more half naked women and new cars (why are some guys driving trucks? surely they would be reeeeally slow in the sand? especially with large gun turrets on the back). Man I lost interest when the gorgeous blonde driver got killed off.
Funnily the car interiors are so complex looking I fail to see how anyone could drive them at break neck speed whilst trying to faff around with all the intricate touch screen monitors and controls. But I guess reality isn't on the menu here is it, I could go on but there really is no need. A videogame disguised as a film franchise, watch out for the next sequel set on snowy terrain...probably.
'Its a beautiful day to DIE!'
Cat People (1942)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQtpCQ1Gts# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQtpCQ1Gts#)
Hirokin: The Last Samurai (2011)
Space samurai on a distant planet says you? yes please says I. The villain played by the dastardly devilish looking Julian Sands?? oh my! this sounds great! Wes Bentley says you? hmm OK not bad, not bad, but I've gone slightly soft now.
Plus points...the film looks pretty sweet, its basic with obvious sets and errr a handful of bad guys, villagers and good guys used over and over but the location work looks nice. Set on the distant desert planet of 'Aradius' you can see straight away certain similarities to many other sci-fi/fantasy films, need I list them?. So everything looks very familiar yet admittedly rather nice with use of sunsets, twilight, dusk, early morning etc...the colours and hues are gorgeous at times.
Apart from that the film is your standard by the numbers 'chosen one' plot. A lone warrior saves a small tribe of people (aliens that look exactly like humans) from a tyrant human played by Sands naturally. All the bad guys look like Imperial guards from 'ROTJ' and Sands looks suspiciously like Sting in 'Dune'.
Its all very cliched and run of the mill stuff, yet the whole point is lost on me, I have no real clue what's in it for the evil Julian Sands to do what he does. Angus Macfadyen is the 'Yoda-like' Master, the all powerful leader, warrior and rebel who must train the eager 'Hirokin', cue lots of training montages set against facial close ups and with many shadows and silhouettes.
There seems to be a lot more style over substance really, very arty and nice to look at but behind that its pretty crappy stuff really. Doesn't really make much sense, why would a distant planet in the future (or so I assume) utilize the ancient Japanese samurai way of life, war and culture? where do they get their fuel, water and food from? etc...I could go on but I won't.
Shame the people/aliens of this poor village seem to totally outnumber the bad guys (but why would they even stay in this village?, the area offers nothing...leeeeave it!!). Oh and this alien race are called 'Arids'. You see what they have done there? 'Arids'...'Arabs'? or maybe because the planet they live on is arid?...ah beats the shit outta me.
Its a nice slice of B-movie sci-fi hokum that will please some fans of the genre. Its fun harmless stuff and Bentley does look the part I admit. May I suggest a better choice, if you like sci-fi hokum then I recommend 'Hunter Prey' which is a much better ride.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Well here we go again with another overly long grandiose epic based on some small unknown tale courtesy of a fat Kiwi. The much anticipated prequel trilogy (yes trilogy, don't get me started) to another somewhat well known literacy tale by some bloke called Token?.
'Far over the misty mountains cold, to dungeons deep and caverns old'
Yep this gorgeous line pretty much gives you the perfect clue to what to expect in this adventure, many caves and many caverns, dwarf country. From the off we are back in 'the Shire' and on very familiar ground as old friends are soon in the fold and we get another very useful eye catching prologue. The visuals straight away are much like an old pair of shoes, it all just slips back into place, you can see its a Jackson film, only sweeter this time.
Plot? errr its kinda simple, bit like 'LOTR', 'Bilbo' 'Gandalf' and a bunch of dwarves march off across Middle Earth (yep we're doing that again) to 'Lonely Mountain', the old home of the dwarves. There they will kick out the nasty dragon 'Smaug' (dragons have personal names? aren't they just creatures?) who took over the mountain dwelling from the dwarves in a really quite violent and unfriendly way. Why? beats the heck outta me, cos the dwarves had tonnes of loot inside the mountain and 'Smaug' wanted it all. Why would a dragon need tonnes of gold and jewels? is he going to buy himself a nice car? in fact why does 'Gandalf' care? on with the review!.
On the whole the entire film is pretty much as before with wonderful bold colours and imagination bursting from the screen in some sequences, and with dark shady doom and gloom in others. The detail again is superb with every last item you can see, location work is stunning (tourism on the up again) whilst makeup, sets and props are lavishly rustic and genuine. Weaponry stands out in this film as we see many nice swords displayed which do make you wanna own one yourself. But overall its most definitely a much much crisper, tighter, sharper affair all round, looking much better than the 'LOTR' trilogy as you would expect with time. Really I don't need to talk much about the visuals as its business as usual to be honest...but I will.
The only downside as usual with all these films is certain sequences involving the dreaded CGI monster. Yes skies, sunsets, landscapes, 'Rivendell', the 'Lonely Mountain' and hordes of orcs all look good in this format, but some things never change. The sequences involving the 'Warg' riding orcs still looked pretty rough and clearly fake just like the last time we saw them. These sequences really do look hokey to me I can't deny, like something outta 'Underworld', the same could be said for the sequences within the Goblin caves and the awful looking Goblin King.
I don't want to moan too much about this film as it was a solid entry but you can't help but find small issues. The whole Goblin caves section was pretty much another 'Moria' sequence really, it felt too much like deja vu. Plus the escape from the caves was really totally over the top with some quite ridiculous action sequences, very much like a videogame at times. Remember the elephant surfing 'Legolas' in 'ROTK'? yikes!. Did I mention how bad the Goblin King looked? oh yeah...what the hell was THAT about!? like an early concept for 'Jabba the Hut'...really!.
Didn't really like the whole tree climbing escape sequence towards the end either, that felt as though they had written themselves into a corner. Unsure how accurate this film is to the books seeing as I've never read 'The Hobbit' but that part really seemed kinda dumb. I'll just pop in that 'Azog' the orc chieftain looks more like a vampire outta 'Underworld' also, yes...I'm using 'Underworld' as a reference again.
To be brutally honest there are other elements that just seemed...pointless?. The character of 'Radagast the Brown' wasn't really explored much with no real reason to be there. A minor quibble as I reckon he'll be back with a chance for more explanations. The stone giants sequence seemed a bit irrelevant, unsure if its in the book but it felt like they needed something to fill that gap and add a touch of excitement. Oh and we have eagles saving the day again, boy those eagles are bloody handy to have around huh.
On the plus side apart from the visuals the dwarf company is handled well, cast well and perform well. I liked the variation on the characters even though 'Willow' crept into my mind. Was surprised to find out Graham McTavish was a dwarf seeing as the guy is about 6ft! his character was one of few that was a hardass, the others tended to be a bit dweebish, looked a bit goofy. What is it with the Scottish accents though? why are most dwarves Scottish? am I missing something on dwarf legend here?. Its just amusing that in these fantasy films its always Scottish or cockney accents hehe no problems, just an observation. I liked the dwarf names too, nice, very...dwarfish, but there should of been a mohawk dwarf in the company.
'dwarf scum'...'rebel scum' heh.
'Gollum' is back unfortunately, but hurra! he finally looks realistic apart from his Disney eyes medical problem, man that decision really mucks up his supposedly creepy looks. Some great facial expressions going on this time, really was impressed with the advancement there, but he's still annoying as hell with that fudging voice.
I must admit I feared the worst, I was reading the film is dull and stretched but I didn't feel it. I actually enjoyed this film more than a lot of the original trilogy. I guess it felt more adventurous as I had no clue what happens, never seen anything of it visually despite knowing how it would look after 'LOTR'. Its not quite as dark as 'LOTR', feels a wee bit more for the kids, hated the fact no dwarfs bite the dust (some must do eventually!!) but the fact technology has progressed is evident and makes most of the film truly memorable. Kinda makes you wanna whip out your Games Workshop miniatures and play, or Dungeons & Dragons, which ever way you role.
Still, the thought does spring to mind how on earth they will stretch it out over two more films. The first was gonna be sufficiently packed but I fear the second may well be reeeeally stretched seeing as the company is close to 'Lonely Mountain' as it is!. Lets remember this is only about walking to the dwarves old home and fighting a dragon, some films do that kinda thing in a standard 1hour 30mins. We will see, yesss we will see.
Frankenweenie (2012)
I'm not too sure what I think with this remake. On one hand Mr Burton is back on form with some classic Burton visuals and atmosphere yet on the other hand it feels like a rehash of all of his films quashed together. I do find myself thinking the same thing everytime I see a new Burton film.
Now don't get me wrong I'm a HUGE Burton fan and have been since 'Beetlejuice', but I can't deny that Burton has lost his touch recently and his last few films have failed to inspire. The reason for this being his unique quirky imagination has become somewhat stale and over used.
The original short film of 'Frankenweenie' was pretty neat because it was a curious cutesy homage to the classic monster film but wasn't dripping in Burton's typical trademarks. This new remake is gorgeous to look at and is indeed a wet dream for all gothic fans such as myself but as I review this I just can't help but think there is nothing new here.
OK its a remake so of course its not original but everything in this film has been hijacked from all his previous work. The suburban setting for the 'Frankenstein' family is the same typical Californian identikit urban sprawl that we've seen in many of Burton's films like 'Edward Scissorhands'. Some of the creatures in this film are literately ripped from his other films, the cat/bat creature and the werewolf-like rodent creature are both virtually the same creatures used in 'The Nightmare Before Christmas', and whilst watching the film you can see many little ideas dotted throughout from his other films.
The sequence where 'Victor' (Burton loves the names Victor and Vincent doesn't he) tries to bring 'Sparky' back to life has many little nods to previous films. Well I say nods but are they? I get the idea Burton simply can't resist putting these little kooky creations in his films ever since most of them appeared in 'Nightmare'.
The main character of 'Victor' is pretty much the same guy from 'Corpse Bride' with a dash of 'Vincent' and many of the child characters look familiar to Burton's 'Oyster Boy' stories. Now I'm not complaining because this is a lovely film which has a good heart and its fabulous to see Burton championing stop motion claymation in this day and age. You can appreciate the skill and craftsmanship involved creating these films, Burton and his team certainly deserve much credit and kudos for that.
There are some really nice touches throughout the film. The few characters that have a certain resemblance to classic character or actors of the horror genre, the 'Godzilla' homage was nice and this whole movie concept does work much better in this format. The old live action film felt a bit too silly but the whole idea fits the animation world just fine.
Anyway all I'm saying is despite the film being a nice return to 'classic Burton' of the 90's when his style (dare I say kink) was fresh and new. At the same time it is still a large rerun of his dark imagination all over again. I really can't help but wonder how long he can keep regurgitating his own ideas.
A beautiful visual halloween feast with lots of soul that will definitely warm the cockles of your heart. I just think Mr Burton really needs to broaden his horizons a tad as the constant use of certain styles, designs and cast is really getting thin. Other than that it is pleasing to see the digging up of that classic retro Burton of yore, just don't rely on that for your next projects Mr Burton. You can only make so many claymation films like this.
The Pact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Se3aSYIIdU# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Se3aSYIIdU#)
Inherit the Wind (1960)
A classic and controversial film that tells the story of a teacher arrested by the local church for teaching evolution to his students. A popular religious leader appears to prosecute him, and only a much reviled agnostic lawyer from the urban jungle can defend him. The town soon becomes mad in calling for the lynching of the teacher, but the tables soon turn when his attorney prepares a vicious onslaught defending the rights of every human being to think.
This film is one of the great progressive classics of the 60s, a time when interracial romance was being portrayed as beautiful in such films as Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and A Patch of Blue, and serious issues were being dealt with in such films as Judgment at Nuremberg and In Cold Blood. This was one of the first great films of the time to deal with the issue of scientific progress and the danger posed to it by religious extremism. In spite of its controversial portrayal of religion in America, it gained glowing reviews at the time of its release and its reputation has only grown since then.
Spencer Tracy's Henry Drummond, based loosely on real life attorney Clarence Darrow, is quite simply one of cinema's greatest heroes. He is like Atticus Finch of the good Mr. Finch wanted to cut you. His anger at the injustice in the town is never unbelievable for a moment, and his emotional and strong delivery of the dialogue gives the impression of an intelligent and dignified man. Tracy often opted to appear in socially relevant films, namely this, Fury, one of the first films to deal with lynching, the aforementioned Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and Judgment at Nuremberg, making him an icon of progressive and brave cinema. Even taking this performance without that in mind, it is quite brilliant. One need only see him to understand, but to write about the performance is a daunting task because it is almost indescribably as to just how brilliant it is. This is in sharp contrast to the film's villain, Fredric March's Matthew Harrison Brady, based in part on William Jennings Bryan, but written more in the style of Joseph McCarthy (and a prophetic portrayal of a certain reverend who waves signs around). Another brilliant performance, March plays the worst of holy rolling bigots, a man who will comfort a woman and ask her to explain her woes to him, and then use her confided words against her the next time they meet. Hardly an accurate portrayal of Bryan , the men who wrote the play used him as an amalgam for notorious fundamentalist mouthpieces and senator Joseph McCarthy, whose reign of terror left a scar across the union. March plays the character as if he was McCarthy with a Bible in hand, and that certainly would have been a force to be reckoned with. Also noteworthy are Gene Kelly's performance as Tracy's atheist friend and supporter, Claude Akins as a terrifying priest who riles up the citizens to call for blood, and Dick York as the persecuted teacher. There is literally no bad acting to be found, from the student who defends his teacher's rights to teach, to the hypocritical thumper who shouts ugly words at Drummond. A textbook example on how to act in a motion picture.
The film is set in any town USA in an undetermined era, though it seems to just as easily be set in the 60s as it is in the 20s where the real trial took place. I may be wrong but I didn't see a lot of visual tells as to just when it is supposed to have happened, but the setting in time is unimportant. The town seems innocent and wholesome at first glance, which makes what comes all the more terrifying. However, the town itself pales in comparison to the film's most prominent setting, the courthouse. It is a tight and intimate space with little wiggle room, which pushes the characters uncomfortably close, and makes the proceedings all the more tense and effective. The drama played out in the few feet surrounding the witness stand outdoes many of the major arena battles of Hollywood epics, which goes to show just how much can be done with such a location in the film medium.
The writing of this film is nothing short of remarkable, and it should be noted that this was written as a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (no, the other one), who are responsible for the majority of the film's brilliant dialogue before their story was polished for the screen by Nedrick Young and Harold Jacob Smith. It contains clever use of pacing that moves the story smoothly from one point to another, stirring, effective and shocking dialogue, find characterization of its leads, and is all around a masterwork of the typed page. Surely the play must have been every bit as remarkable as this film in script form, and it translates perfectly to a remarkable motion picture. It is quotable, provides a solid philosophical standpoint , contains profound wisdom and leaves you with lasting thoughts. A thinker will find themselves transformed by its brilliance.
Stylistically, the film is in the same tier as other groundbreaking masterpieces of the era, making fine use of editing and camera angles. One of the most memorable and chilling sequences in the film is when the reverend begins to rile up his congregation, filling them with anger as the teacher's perceived sin. In this sequence, the priest towers over them like a giant, while they blindly reply "Yes!" to his every command in a series of quick cuts that puts you right in the middle of a mob, a frightening and nightmarish sequence. The film's signature sequence is when Drummond calls Brady to the witness stand and meticulously points out the flaws in a literalist interpretation of the Bible. In this scene, the camera is close. You can see every muscular twitch on their faces, every slight change in mannerism, every alteration of even the smallest detail. These are two titans at war, but only one of them appears to be really thinking. This richly shot and edited sequence contains beautiful imagery that greatly compliments the point the film is trying to make, and is a fine example of film form.
The music of the film is a strong point to be certain. The most memorable piece of music is the taking of the normally cheerful tune "Old Time Religion" and turning it into a dark and sinister sound that chills the viewer. The same vocal artist, Leslie Uggams, shows a great range when she takes another religious song, "Battle Hymn to the Republic", and delivers it as a triumphant exit for Drummond from the film. Her contributions are the most memorable in the film, and William Steffe, the composer of these pieces also contributed the lynch tune "We,ll Hang Bert Cates To A Sour Apple Tree". Both are able to create dreams and nightmares with the tools they have been given.
Stanley Kramer easily falls into the great artist theory, with several masterpieces on his resume, with two of the above mentioned groundbreakers on his list (Nuremberg and Dinner) as well as the comedic masterpiece It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Furthermore, he also directed classics such as On the Beach and The Defiant Ones. His style is photographically rich and philosophically spellbinding in just how brave he is to break conventions and opinions of the time in which he worked, such as defending civil rights, condemning nuclear weapons and giving religious dogma a strict critical look over. He has made a few duds in his day, such as the disappointing film about the trial of notorious Vietnam war criminal William Calley, which purportedly took a sympathetic look which he did not deserve nor earn, but nobody is perfect. Kramer produced important films in his heyday, and they remain well beloved for that reason. He was a man who was not afraid to speak in favor of the less popular, and his films often were precursors to the changing views of the world.
The film is at times, a very frantic one, the mobs of fundamentalist bigots spouting hate full and ignorant rhetoric towards our heroes does make you feel as if you are the one being cruelly accosted. Overall, it is a movie for a listener. The film's best sequences are Drummond's eloquent and beautiful speeches in the courthouse that warn of the dangers of religious fundamentalism, and his clever reveals of hypocrisy on the part of Brady. You feel like you are there, and you hold on to every word of the characters that have been placed before you. Rarely are long expository sequences so engaging, but this film serves as one of the finer examples of such a piece.
The film is often accused of being anti-God by more extreme religious groups, and this is simply not the case. It is a film that advocates the truth as seen through the scientific method, but states, in one of its signature sequences, that humanity's dreams and imagination are every bit as significant a part of our identity as our endless chasing of the facts through testing and exploration. The final shot of the film is Drummond walking out of the courthouse with Darwin's The Descent of Man and The Holy Bible tucked neatly and together under a single arm.
Inherit the Wind was in many ways prophetic to the intelligent design debates of today, and its non-documentary style of storytelling has unfortunately made it a target for those who seek to oppress scientific discovery. In spite of that, it stands tall as a beacon of hope, a tale of humanity's ability to progress forward and evolve as we are meant to. It features triumphant performances by all involved, a great script by two masterful writers, memorable and effective music, a setting that puts you in close, stylistic strengths that display the finest of the motion picture's visual signature, a great artist at the helm, some good thoughts to pine over, and the ability to enlighten and change the viewer. It is an exhilarating experience, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
The final showdown for the next generation crew and FINALLY the Romulans get a chance to shine. Thing is they are overshadowed and pushed to the side by the Remans haha guess the Romulans had to wait for the reboot.
Sooo here we are again, Earth in danger from an alien race and 'Picard' also being abused by another alien race again. First he's assimilated now he's being mentally tortured by his power crazed clone who wants his blood...literately, some days huh.
I must admit I can't get my head around film responses at times, I've read this was looked upon negatively. Why? its actually a pretty good Trek adventure and possibly the slickest of the next gen films, maybe the best of the four. Certainly better than 'Insurrection' and 'Generations' and much more open for everyone instead of just the Trekkies, which is probably for the best if you think about it.
Plot wise this is total Star Trek, exactly as you would expect with overblown ideas and fantastic notions of sci-fi. Its not original and its not gonna surprise you but at the end of the day it does the job and entertains for the run time.
Hardy is the bad guy dressed in shiny black armour (and am I the only one who forgot all about him being in this?! I was like 'hey that's Tom Hardy!'), He's bald, he sounds like David Thewlis and he's unpredictable with bouts of sulky anger down to his young age, I presume that was intended. Put simply he was a darn good villain (finally) who was perfectly slimy enough to get under your skin, just what the franchise needed.
The rest of the bad guys all look really decent too. The Remans makeup/prosthetics are excellent in fact, first really good Star Trek aliens I've seen to be truthful. OK they do look like a race of 'Nosferatu', in fact a bit too close really, almost a complete rip off hehe but I must admit they look damn good, highly aggressive and imposing visually, kudos.
Actually the bad guys in this film coupled with the nice makeup and regal work/designs on the Romulans completely steal the show from the Enterprise crew. We all know the next gen crew are dull but they pale in comparison to the villainy on screen here, I actually wanted the bad guys to win this, would of been much more interesting.
It was also weak to see they finally got the balls to kill off one of the next gen crew ('Data') only to basically have him survive on by introducing an earlier model. I could see that coming miles away, and of course 'Data' conveniently manages to upload all his personal 'data' into the earlier model before he sacrifices himself. So basically 'Data' was killed but low and behold the replica earlier model takes his place complete with all 'Data's' personal memories and attributes, as if he had never left *groan*.
As I said earlier this is easily the best looking of the next gen films, probably all the Trek films. Production values look high as does everything in the film, all sets look quite swish with depth and a solid appearance. 'Picard' and his crew look as boring as ever in their grey uniforms but as I said before both the Romulans and Remans outfits all look superbly crafted and boarded more on 'Star Wars' quality.
Space sequences look delicious as they tend to in these films but this time the starships look much better than before. Its mainly CGI as usual but clearly much sharper and with some good looking weight to them, still not quite up to Mr Lucas' spaceships but getting close, the cloaking effect still looks a bit dodgy.
Must mention the rather sweet looking cityscape on Romulus at the start of the film, very much on form with another certain popular sci-fi fantasy, dare I say quite 'Naboo-ish'. A big kudos to the death sequence of the Romulan Imperial Senate also at the start. The infection and fast decay shown is some of the best CGI mixed with real time model work I've seen. These effects really put the film on good stead showcasing a newer sexier Trek offering.
I guess you could say this one film is merely an action film in Star Trek clothes and not exactly what Star Trek is all about. Where has all the exploration gone? the seeking out of new worlds and new civilisations etc...There is definitely more bias towards fighting, death, multiple laser blasting and even the obligatory action film 'car chase' sequence. But its hard to win with Star Trek, either its too flashy and gun-ho, not 'Trekkie' enough for the core fans. Or its too dull and slow for everyone like some of the older Trek films or its too in depth for non core fans and more of a Trekkie treat fan film.
Its not very original and is pretty much a cookie cutter production but what do you expect with Star Trek. Plenty of decent action in space and a bit on land with a moon buggy chase, some of the best effects so far (about time), great visual designs throughout with the usual high caliber imagination but maybe it loses the true Star Trek essence along the way?.
Entirely predictable to the last minute but ultimately very enjoyable like most of the good Trek adventures. Another good franchise bookend, this time for the next generation crew. It hasn't been as memorable as the classic crew films in my opinion but a valiant effort none the less.
Recoil (2012)
Hurrah! Danny Trejo is a baddie again, thing is I'm so used to him playing good guys or anti heroes it doesn't quite suit him anymore. The guy was more intimidating when he was more unknown, now he's a big star and the threat seems to have faded. Oh and he also looks old.
Anyway this Steve Austin vehicle is your standard revenge action flick which merely serves up more ass kicking than you can shake a stick at. The plot is so simple its almost pointless, bunch of bad dudes kill a cops family and wound the cop, for some reason they don't kill the cop but leave him to recover (as they always do). Once recovered the cop goes after them and pretty much kills them all until they are well n truly dead.
Back in the day this would be a JCVD, Sly or Arnie vehicle, unfortunately now these type of films go to lesser action stars like Austin. This large lump of meat simply lurches from one scene to another barely saying a thing. He finds a bad guy, grunts at him, then promptly kills him with a good solid beating.
I loved how corny this was, all the bad guys are in this biker gang and own their own biker bar complete with smokey seedy lighting, pool tables and slutty blondes (nice). They all dress in black attire...black leather waistcoats, black jeans, dark coloured bandanas, black leather jackets, biker boots or black cowboy boots, black t-shirts etc...and most have gruff looking facial hair. So just in case you're unsure, these are the bad guys right here, they dress in black and have Harley's.
The fights aren't even that well choreographed to be honest, its tame stuff with the occasional gunshot wound. Some nice locations and a cool US muscle car just about make this enjoyable to watch, most die hard, oldschool, action film freaks will probably enjoy. Why is the film called 'Recoil'? I don't rightly know but my best bet is...it looks and sounds cooool.
Murder of Crows (1998)
Despite the fact this film has the appearance of a TV movie its actually a decent little thriller. On the whole the film is quite tame and the plot is rather quaint, it could almost be a mystery for Agatha Christie's 'Hercule Poirot' or 'Miss Marple'.
The plot is about a lawyer (Cuba Gooding) who is disbarred and goes off to live in the Florida Keys to write. He meets an old man whom he becomes friendly with, the old man shows him his novel and promptly dies days later. The novel is a top class murder thriller so Gooding's character decides to sell it as his own book, it goes viral and he becomes rich.
It later becomes apparent that all the murders in this book are based on real unsolved murders, thusly Gooding's character becomes the main suspect. Its up to him to get to the bottom of the whole ordeal.
The film is obviously played out as if you the viewer were reading a book, there is a constant narration through most of the film from Gooding. There is very little violence, no swearing I believe and the odd moment of action...oh and some sex n ass shots. The stalwart Tom Berenger plays the detective hunting Gooding's character down in a nice almost apologetic way, whilst Gooding suits the role of the innocent helpless fresh faced young ex-lawyer perfectly with his goodie goodie looks.
Overall a very solid film which is more of a 'who dunnit?' than thriller, its not tense enough to be called a thriller. The films dark title kinda gives you the wrong impression really, the film is more like a classic mystery from the 40/50's era of the silver screen.
Argo
All this kicked off when I was but a mere sprog at the tender age of 1 year old, that's a long time ago folks. So Affleck steps up to the podium with an attempt at an epic, gritty, realistic political rollercoaster which is based on a true story where there wasn't actually that much danger truth be told.
Based on true events and more recently an article about the whole charade. The story involves a small group of Americans trapped in Iran after the US embassy was stormed and taken by militants. The group pretty much hide away in various places, moving around somewhat with the help of other foreign embassy folk until the Canadian Ambassador 'takes them in'. From there on the CIA conjure up a plan to extract the lost escapees by hoaxing the scouting of a major motion sci-fi picture and pretending the six Americans are crew members.
On the visual side of things this film did impress me, its pretty flawless as Iran is recreated right down to small details that were captured on film at the time (a man strung up by a large crane downtown). The clothes, hairstyles, cars, interior decorations, technology etc...are all spot on and captures the late 70's perfectly. The cast are all terrific and perform beautifully, I admit I don't know who most of them are (the escapees mainly) but they do a sterling job.
Alan Arkin is by far the best thing going for the A list actors on show. His gruff, rude outspoken manner is brilliant for his character of the film producer 'Lester Siegel' (fictional character), great Hollywood type name too. John Goodman is here again!! this time he does a good job as old Hollywood makeup artist John Chambers. Not only is his calm demeanor very likeable and pleasant but he actually looks like the guy too.
When it comes to the lead role of 'Mendez' played by Affleck I gotta take a step back from my enjoyment of the film. Like I say I did enjoy the film, but a nagging thought in my head just keeps telling me Affleck gave or saved the best meatiest role for himself...simply because it was his film and he could.
Yes Affleck does OK in the role, there is no machoism going on, no over the top acting, its all very straight laced and plain. But the fact his character was Latino and I don't think Affleck really looked like the guy either kinda makes me wonder why he just didn't cast someone more appropriate. Yes I realise what I just said doesn't mean Affleck wouldn't be good for the role and not give the right performance, but because he was the director I just sense a bit of self indulgence really. Meh! but that's just me.
So yep this was truly daring stuff, the kind of thing you'd half expect to hear from a dashing WWII adventure by us crafty Brits hehe. As usual though we do have the problem of the Yanks taking a lot of credit for themselves and ignoring everyone else. As with a few other war stories, certain other parties involved in this plot have unfortunately been given a bit of the cold shoulder. To the common viewer it won't make a difference of course but to those involved it has been noticed and caused a slight stir.
Most of the film is a build up for the finale which doesn't disappoint I guarantee. The whole finale is a bit predictable naturally but it still grabs you by the collar. Even the build up is interesting which surprised me as I expected lots of dull political/government spiel from lots of grey suited blokes with thick rimmed glasses and hair partings you could sail a boat down.
The film in general, I must give kudos to Affleck and his team for what they have achieved. Despite the need for adding a few Hollywood moments to rack up the tension like the runway chase and various sweat inducing confrontations, the film is reasonably accurate and highly enjoyable. Probably the most exciting tense ride I've experienced in a film for sometime where no one actually gets shot or killed!.
Ironclad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YGBHsDfLY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YGBHsDfLY#)
Top Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXkXYypC9w# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXkXYypC9w#)
Almost Heroes (1998)
This is one of those low key comedies that you saw on the top shelf at your local video shop purely by accident when you went in for something else...something good. You noticed it and it intrigued you because you'd never heard of the film. You took it down and looked at the back of the VHS box to see more, hmmm Chris Farley and 'Chandler' from 'Friends', could be good fun.
In brief this film is fun but very very very low brow and only works purely because of Farley's great screen presence. When I say fun I mean its good for the odd chuckle or visual moment but overall its complete and utter trash.
Dare I say fun trash, I can't deny I liked Farley and his wild, over the top insane physical comedy, childish yes but also amusing. All of this was of course down to his size but his facial expressions could be gold.
This is standard Farley fare with everything you would expect from the late comedian. The film is deliberately tacky and cheap looking with plenty of toilet humour, dumb visual gags, unrealistic sequences and Perry is in there purely to attract a bigger audience through his 'Friends' fame. Naturally he does just that by giving us more 'Chandler' wetness than you can shake a stick at, a period set 'Chandler'.
If you're a Farley fan then you can't go wrong. I liked it for what it is...just an extremely light hearted comedy no brains required, typical Farley fun fluff.
Beverly Hills Ninja (1997)
I suppose it was too much to ask to make it through the whole of this film without hearing the songs "Kung Fu Fighting" and "Turning Japanese". Translation, this is probably and predictably the most cliched film you will most likely see...but Farley is the star so we can forgive a bit.
This was the last film that was released whilst Farley was still alive I think, and despite the fact its completely a one joke/gag film its still thoroughly enjoyable. Farley is a ninja, a big fat ninja, a big fat ninja believed to be the prophesied 'great white ninja' and has been raised from birth by a ninja clan in Japan.
The whole obvious gag being of course that he's not the prophesied great ninja (or is he?), nor is he really very good at being a ninja at all. The whole film is pretty close to the classic 'Pink Panther' as Farley goes on a mission to help the stereotypical sexy blonde lady whilst being shadowed by his ninja 'brother' played by D-list actor/martial artist Robin Shou. In other words a bit like 'Inspector Jacques Clouseau' and 'Kato'...well I think so.
As I'm sure many of you can guess this leads to huge amounts of childish visual gags and childish prat falls of epic Farley proportions. Yes we've seen it all before by now with Farley, his quirky rubber faced antics, his slapstick, his surprising agility and his over the top loud outbursts...but dagnabbit it still makes me smile.
Farley may not be to everyone's taste with his extremely simple dumb routine but I for one love it. This setting and concept does add a nice hint of originality to Farley's portfolio even though the whole idea of a spoof martial arts film isn't. All the slapstick does get a tiny bit tiresome towards the end as the same visual jokes are regurgitated but overall its still a nice laugh out loud serving of chop socky action. As usual with Farley...brain is not required.
Black Sheep (1996)
Made simply because 'Tommy Boy' was an unexpected success, clearly somewhat rushed and not fully thought through. I have read that Paramount just wanted to team Spade and Farley together again asap, so we have this blunt comedy.
The idea isn't too bad, its all about a political campaign battle between the brother of Farley's character and the wholesome all American 'Evelyn Tracy' played by Christine Ebersole. As you can guess Farley's character is a clumsy embarrassment to his brother (played by Tim Matheson) and inadvertently causes all manner of horrendous goofs whilst in the public eye. This of course puts his brothers campaign in jeopardy of which his rival tries to take full advantage of.
Same old Farley I'm afraid which isn't too bad if you like the guy. I have said before and I'll say again I do like his antics, he is a funny fella and his films are nice feel good films where you can forget about any troubles you have. I also like how he tends to play the everyday man, regular Joe's, makes you connect with him that bit more.
Despite liking Farley this film does feel very forced with very little to show. The laughs are few and far between and what we do get is light at best. There are whole segments in the film where nothing really happens, the sequence where the pair find a bat in their wood cabin and spend almost ten minutes of the film dealing with it. There is a lot of lame filler which really has nothing to do with the plot, its just there to try and gain a laugh whilst padding out the film, or so it seems.
Even as a Farley fan I found it hard to enjoy this, there really doesn't seem to be any point to Farley and Spade being together here and half of what happens is irrelevant. I can't complain too much because this is obviously a dumb comedy, its not suppose to be anything else, but even so it feels very cheap and half hearted. In the end it really does feel like the two leads were simply thrown together for a fast money spinner off the back of a much better earlier comedy.
Hubbs, how come you post your reviews in the thread for the movie you're reviewing, and in this thread?
I tend to post films that don't have a thread here...if I can't find one, usually older films.
And I post films that do have threads in their thread...newer films normally.
A Thousand Words (2008/2012)
Its amazing how far and low Eddie Murphy has fallen, this guy used to be an action/comedy star, now he churns out straight to DVD rubbish. This film was made in 2008 yet due to major studio issues it wasn't released until last year 2012! now that's unlucky.
To be honest the film isn't all that bad, there is a nice spiritual Buddist/Hindu flow through the plot which is simple yet effective. Its an easy going 'Scrooge' type affair really, Murphy is a fast talking slick literacy agent ('Jack') who stretches the truth to make his deals. He gets his comeuppance when he tries his usual spiel on an Indian Guru and ends up getting cursed.
The curse being a Bodhi tree appearing in his garden, from there on every word 'Jack' utters a leaf drops from the tree, the tree dies as the leaves drop...and so does 'Jack'. Once 'Jack' realises his situation the tree only has 1000 leafs left, thus he must try not to speak anymore and hilarity prevails.
Seen something like this before you say? yep you would be right, the plot is very much like Jim Carrey vehicles 'Liar Liar' and 'Yes Man'. In fact this film could have easily been a Jim Carrey vehicle, the plot is perfect for him, its virtually 'Liar Liar' all over again, to a degree. Murphy is wasted here as his best asset is his loud mouth, without it he's rather dull. The problem is Murphy doesn't have the rubber faced skills of Carrey (who would have fitted this much better) to fall back on.
The laughs are very predictable as you can imagine but as said Murphy can't really pull them off very well, he's not that kind of visual comedian. The plot is sweet but again incredibly predictable and ends up being very very mushy towards the end, in fact I still don't quite know what Murphy's character really achieves to reverse his curse. Cliff Curtis as 'Dr. Sinja' is a nice cast choice but you almost feel the role could be given to Morgan Freeman as the character is pretty much the same as his 'Bruce Almighty' role. Lets be honest the whole cast of 'Bruce Almighty' or even 'The Truman Show' could replace the cast for this film and it probably would have done much better.
Its nice to see some Hindu/Buddist imagery and religious culture in this film but that can't really save it. A bad choice in casting lets the film down hugely, on one hand it could have been a sensible emotional drama, on the other a great comedy. In the end its neither and simple below average, its annoying as there is a nice story in here too.
Here Comes the Boom (2012)
What can I say about this film, is it a comedy? an emotional rollercoaster? it stars funnyman Kevin James so it must be a comedy. Well it starts off as a comedy sure but as the plot unfolds and we near the crux of the matter it becomes much more like a small drama. Its a strange beast really which didn't really sit well with me, let me explain why.
My first impressions of the film were two things, firstly it just seems like an excuse to make another film around MMA and the UFC. Secondly, Kevin James has always had a slight weight issue as I'm sure you all know. This whole idea just seems like a chance for him to lose some excess weight, gain some muscle, look good and basically get healthy whilst being paid to make a film. Now call me cynical but that's how I see it because I will admit James looks good in the final fight sequences.
A reason I think this is because the story is completely stupid. A school in dire financial straits needs to make cut backs which means the music department will go. This means Henry Winkler's character will lose his job, so up steps James's character to try and save his job by raising the money required. Doesn't sound too bad so far, but wait! James's character wisely decides to become a mixed martial arts fighter despite the fact he's overweight and way into middle age, hmmmmmm might wanna think about that.
The whole premise is just absurd, for a dumb comedy it maybe passable but this film actually tries to be semi serious. Even though James's character decides to commit suicide in the ring to try and save Winkler's job, it takes Winkler's character until the last ten minutes of the film to try and stop James's character from killing himself just to save his job!. You'd think from the start Winkler's character would feel a bit awkward knowing that his best friend is being beaten to crap on a semi regular basis just to save his job.
I guess if you follow UFC then you'll get a kick outta this, there are many various folk from the 'sport' that make cameos and have roles, if you don't follow then they could be anyone. Well you can tell who the real MMA/UFC folk are because they can't act, dress rather camp (can I say that?), have poor tribal tattoo's and wear bling.
In the end this just seems way too much like a comfy personal get fit dream project for James. Two of the main characters are from 'King of Queens' for heavens sake (not including James), James is absolutely covered in tan makeup to make him look good both in fight sequences and regular scenes and the film clearly goes from comedy to serious fighting for James midway through.
Its like 'School of Rock' which slowly morphs into 'The Karate Kid' (because you know what's gonna happen) and then finally goes into 'Rocky' towards the end. The fun aspect goes out the window as James heads into serious mode which actually doesn't suit him. The emotion towards the end is so forced it makes you wanna look away from the screen. I think James should stick to TV because even though I like the guy he hasn't made a single decent film I think, 'Mall Cop' was amusing in parts but that's it. This film doesn't really know what it wants to be but if James wants to continue making films then he should stick to funny ones.
Black Sheep (NZ, 2006)
Deranged killer man eating sheep, sheep?! there are only two countries in the world where you could imagine this being set, Wales or New Zealand. I will spare you the obligatory sheep shagging jokes despite the fact this film actually uses that crude old low brow country laugh for the backstory of one main character.
So a dodgy sheep owner on a farm is carrying out dodgy genetic experiments on his sheep to turn them into carnivores. Naturally a couple of people steal a mutant lamb to try and expose this but they accidentally release it causing a mass infection of the sheep.
So its pretty much any infectious zombie flick you can think of but replace dead humans with mutated sheep. Sounds insane and it is, but I guess animals of such vast numbers like sheep, cows, chickens, pigs etc...would be perfect for this type of genre. If you think about it they are the most unlikely creatures that humans would be worried about, so there would be the under estimation of danger along with their sheer numbers.
This film is labelled as a horror comedy and has clearly been influenced by 'American Werewolf in London'. The sheep are like 'weresheep', their bite turns people into half sheep half human bipedal freaks that look like weresheep and the blood n gore is through the roof with some great hands on makeup effects. There is even a homage to the classic moment in 'American Werewolf' where 'David' transforms and we see his face n body extending with cracking bones. This is pretty much copied here (mainly the face) and looks just as good I might add.
Not your average horror and not really scary, more of a fun idea (possible homage) showcasing some great makeup effects and good use of some real flocks. What I'm waiting for now is the same thing again but for pigeons in London, seriously it could work.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
'Jill Valentine' and three other people are holed up in an abandoned church trying to escape the ever growing army of zombies within 'Raccoon City' (one of the stupidest names for a city ever!). They are in a battle against a group of 'Lickers' and almost out of ammo, things look bleak.
Suddenly a bright shines through the huge stained glass window...'Alice' blows through the glass mounted on top of a motorbike. She lands perfectly, informs the survivors to take cover and proceeds to blow away all the 'Lickers' one by one in an eye shattering display of slow motion action enough to give any fanboy a hard on. At this exact moment the franchise dies, this is where the 'Resi Evil' film franchise loses the gritty grown up 'Aliens' clone formula of the first film and enters the realm of hyper martial arts and lots and lots of slow motion action.
The character of 'Alice' has been experimented on since the last film, apparently, which now gives her superhuman strength, speed and agility. This in turn takes the character and the film into the world of 'The matrix' and absurd action set pieces.
Don't get me wrong the film isn't entirely bad, the atmosphere and visuals of the film are decent whilst the abandoned 'Raccoon City' is created very well. You do get a great sense of dread from the deserted city, it feels dangerous and eerie with a really nice dark tone.
The film is still pretty adult I must say, there is plenty of blood, some gore and quite a few jump in your seat moments. The general survival concept is along the same lines as the first film with a small band of people trying to escape the City, its a solid idea which works. The problem is the inclusion of 'Alice' who drags the film down utterly with her over the top macho invincibility.
The inclusion of 'Nemesis' was of course required by all Resi fans and he is faithfully created, amazingly, although a bit rubbery. Not being a fanboy myself I just don't get why the 'Umbrella Corp' would release this huge monster simply to kill the remaining 'S.T.A.R.S.' members. Was this some kind of field test? and the fact they planned to nuke the City wouldn't that somewhat negate their precious creation?. On top of that they make 'Alice' fight this big guy for no real reason other than to have an exciting finale fight in the film...oh and something about seeing who is stronger, err why???. All that work just to have him fight 'Alice'?!.
The problem as said before is quite simply the character of 'Alice' and the fact we have to follow her around from one superhero sequence to the next. On top of that you have the pathetic alpha female rivalry between 'Jill' and 'Alice' (and both actresses) as both compete for sexiest zombie killer. 'Jill' wins purely down to her ridiculously skimpy outfit which is obviously in there just for the teen male audience. Because of course most special unit cops wear tight hot pants and a tight vest when in terror situations...wait this is a serious film?.
Its a brave attempt which literately just keeps its head above the waves and manages to be a reasonable film. Shame about all the slow motion crap but this is what happens when Jovovich is in a film. The film is basically let down by stupid action sequences which vomit on your suspension of disbelief, had these bits been more sensible or relatively realistic then the film could have been pretty solid.
Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)
With probably the most over the top, outlandish, in your face action sequence you've seen for sometime comes the fourth entry of the endless Resi Evil franchise. Now I REALLY am gonna try and not mention a certain Keanu Reeves sci-fi action film involving 'bullet time' too much if possible but its gonna be hard.
This outrageously insane kamikaze opening sequence where all the clone 'Alice's' storm the 'Umbrella Tokyo Headquarters' is actually a guilty pleasure I must admit. Its so ridiculously stupid using every cliche in the action film textbook and rips every possible slick visual imagery you can think of from various other action/sc-fi films...yet its great fun. Jovovich/'Alice' is sleek, sexy and deadly as the clones tear the faceless 'Umbrella' stormtroopers apart with machine guns and katanas. Bloody squibs bursting from the seams, bullet holes, hits to the head by 'Wesker' on his own men at point blank range, beheadings...oh my!!.
Only one question begs to be answered, where did all those 'Alice' clones get all those identical figure hugging catsuits??.
So the drudgery continues as 'Alice' goes from one area to the next battling the undead and watching more and more of hers allies go down one by one. This time she lands her plane on a huge prison in LA, not too sure why she would quite clearly get herself stuck on this prison, let alone almost killing herself and 'Claire' whilst trying to land on the roof. But she does because there are survivors there...but surely anyone would just fly by and find a more secure place? this prison is surrounded by millions of zombies! pfft your funeral.
The ensemble cast is actually pretty cool in this, on the same page as the first film although not many famous names. Alongside 'Alice' in this prison we have the token black guy who runs around in a vest so we can see his big muscles, at least he's well spoken. Standard fare sexy brunette who is British (at least she isn't a blonde), the excellent Kim Coates as a slimy film producer (nice touch Mr Anderson), a funny little oriental fellow, standard fare tough guy backup number two called 'Angel' and Wentworth Miller who again is behind bars.
To be totally frank this fourth film is completely run of the mill, bog standard stuff in terms of plot. Its simply another setup for 'Alice' to piledrive into with a new team of zombie fodder at her side. The thing is like the first film its still quite an enjoyable ride, its totally predictable, totally cliched and pretty much rehashes the same stuff all over again but in a different location. But thanks to a quirky cast the film is pretty cool I think.
There are still plot questions that hit me, especially as this is now the fourth film. Anyone notice that the 'Umbrella Company' has so many underground bases? also they are VAST underground bases!. How and when did they build them?? (under Tokyo??!!), how are 'Umbrella' so rich n powerful? Where on earth do all the 'Umbrella' henchmen come from? how come they are always safe? where do they get all their guns and ammo? how come they are so useless and why would they wanna do their evil job? why does 'Umbrella' carry on playing with the dead when the human race is almost extinct!? and finally not being a game player...who was that huge axe wielding guy? where the heck did he come from?.
I must also ask why the cities in this franchise are in ruins? the undead are eating everyone not blowing up buildings, so why are they all stripped down to their structures and burnt out?. The other main question was why some zombies can now run and have tentacles coming out of their mouths just like the vamps in 'Blade II'. When did this evolution occur?.
I can't delve deeper for obvious reasons, the film is what it is and we all know this, its Resi Evil, don't question that. The film does deliver in my opinion, it gives you what you expect with some decent visuals and good close quarter action. The finale against 'Wesker' is just as insanely 'Matrix-like' as the opening sequence and just as mind bogglingly daft, maybe more so. The rock soundtrack in the background means its officially cool, its official.
You do feel the tension in these films when the heat is on and its time to escape from somewhere. The fact 'Alice' isn't a superhero this time boosts the film giving a sense of uncertainty for once, even though you know she still won't die, still helps.
Man's Best Friend (1993)
This film is listed as a black comedy? well I guess some of the effects are now amusing sure. The plot is one that is sure to get emotions high, its all about medical experiments on animals by some mad/sadistic doctor who is trying to create the prefect super dog, and nothings gonna get in his way.
This means there are lots of sequences with animals shown locked up, experimented on, being captured etc...all the things that would make most animal loving people squirm uncomfortably. On the flip side because the film is based around a dog there are also some cringing soppy moments although we're not talking 'Beethoven' type soppiness.
The plot is basically a 'Terminator' 'Jaws' mixed idea but for a dog. The huge hound prowls around the neighbourhood getting up to no good like killing the postman, eating a cat whole, eating a parrot whole and half killing another dog by screwing it good n proper. The effects now are laughably bad with hokey puppets and a silly 'Terminator' style focusing eye close up from time to time. Although I must admit they do well to get the dog to look menacing at the right moments, but he's a cute big fella really.
The whole thing is totally dumb and looks poor today, its reasonably amusing just to see Lance Henriksen do his wide eyed crazy villain thing which he does so damn well. The ending 'twist' is sooooooo predictable but I'm glad they never made another as the whole notion is just stupid. A good example of this is the sequence where the dog camouflages itself like a chameleon would, riiiiiight.
Attack the Block (UK, 2011)
My first impressions for this British made sci-fi were not good, not good at all. We are introduced to a small gang of South London youths in your typical modern day gang get up...hoodies, baseball caps, tracksuits, gold chains around their necks, riding bikes and the obligatory Staffy pet dog. This foul mouthed bunch of yobs go about robbing a female passer by at knife point clearly relishing every moment of it. Its at this point I immediately hated what I saw.
Maybe its because I live in South London, I know London very well and have experienced gangs like this in reality. Maybe its the fact that South London is exactly like this with massive problems of gang culture, knife attacks, muggings and (some) youths generally acting as portrayed in this film. The gang consists of teens, mainly black with one white boy (who typically thinks/pretends he's black). Unless you know South London you will probably need a translator to understand what they are saying in this dreadful gangland/street culture way of speech that has evolved in London. The dialog is chock full of 'bruv' 'cous' 'blood' 'innit' 'for real' 'ghosting' 'ducking' 'breezing' 'fam' etc...they sound like morons and I hear it often in everyday life.
Yeah I know I sound like an old fart but this is what we have to put up with in South London, this film is very accurate, so much so its annoying. So basically I found myself hating the main characters in this film right from the word go, this gang are the 'heroes' as it were and we're suppose to root for them? yeah right. Twas only when the invaders popped up I got into this, well once this gang started to get some extraterrestrial 'retribution'.
The actual sci-fi element of the film is pretty good I must admit. The whole things runs along the same kind of lines as 'Aliens' (and tonnes of others) with the standard escape plot and the standard 'characters getting killed off one by one' idea. Nothing original but it is very effective setting it within the confines of a tower block.
It doesn't seem totally thought out though as why would these aliens only stick to this one block? there is a reason of course but surely they would spread out and explore. Also you'd think with all the noise, violence, bodies and general racket going off people might notice and call the police, surely there would be 999 calls going off every minute. Also no one ever thinks that maybe the discovery of alien life might be kinda important, if you wanna make money then maybe tell someone instead of smoking weed.
I must also give huge kudos to the design for the aliens as they look truly terrific. At first you're thinking they are gonna look rubbery and cheap (especially after the first encounter), but with a combination of CGI and men in suits the look is really quite eerie and original at the same time, amazingly!. Think big pitch black coloured gorillas with a set of bioluminescent jaws (teeth) that glow blue, sounds odd I know but they are highly effective and really lift the film. You wouldn't think this was a cheapish simple Brit flick horror, if it wasn't for the aliens this wouldn't be half as good.
So yes I enjoyed the alien aspect of the film and it doesn't hold back on blood n gore which is good. The main problem for me was the gang of scrotes that are fighting the aliens and meant to be bad guys turned good in a coming of age kind of way. This is in no way a feel good 'Goonies/Stand By Me' type group, far from it. Bottom line is they are all thoroughly unlikeable and I REALLY wanted all of them to get eaten by the creatures so badly. To be honest I'm sure there would be many South Londoners that would agree, if only there were some real monsters cleaning up the streets by eating all the hooligans.
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2
'Bella' awakens to her new life as a vampire, her eyes now glowing red and her complexion pale and delicate. She picks up things she has never noticed before, her senses alive and super charged for the first time. Her vision has pinpoint accuracy, her hearing detects the tinyest sounds and her agility is now superhuman. She runs off into the forest with 'Edward' to experience her new vampiric abilities. As she sprints through the trees at top speed, she sees nature in all its beauty, like never before with her new vampire vision. Everything can be seen in slow motion, the insects flying, the flowers blooming, she can hear various small wildlife buzzing, clicking and calling.
Yes, nature and its creatures seen and heard for the first time perfectly in all their glory, beauty, majesty...and then she rips out its throat.
The big finale to the epic 'Twilight' series finally dawns (hehe) upon us, the limp tale continues from where it left off. Unfortunately this means we go straight back into the vampire soap opera we had to put up with in the last deary installment. Its not as bad as the last film in that sense, at least this time we have 'Bella' getting used to her new vampire skills and scowling EVEN more than normal. On the down side we still have 'Jacob' sexually frustrated because he can't do it doggy style with 'Bella' and lots of average young actors with lots of poorly done heavy face makeup.
The effects are still pretty damn ropey all the way through, the CGI is near laughable in most sequences with terrible special vampire skill sequences of super speed. The wolves look like cartoons and characters look like ragdolls when knocked about in the air or where ever.
Worst new effect must be the new born child, was that thing CGI? it bloody looked like it. Jesus that looked eerie, I think it was either a fully CGI baby or a real baby with a CGI face! good god!, no wonder everyone thought it was evil.
The plot on the whole is much more interesting than the last film, overall this film is better than the last as that was terrible. Its all just a prolonged build up to the big fight at the end, but even that isn't entirely as it seems. Anyway the fight has been talked about a lot but frankly I don't see why. Sure its probably the best thing in the entire franchise but its hardly worth waiting for. Plenty of heads being ripped off and arms torn from their sockets whilst vampires and wolves go down in a flurry of sparkly action, but in no way is any of it original or really exciting.
I thought the whole bit about gathering vampire friends from around the world quite amusing, basically a recruitment montage. Its fun but highly generic and cliched, the amazonian female vampires in their tribal outfits, never thought Egypt would have vampires, one bloke from the American Revolution period who doesn't shut up about it (you'd think he would have let that go after a few hundred years) and the hilariously cliched Irish vampires complete with flatcaps, scarfs and dowdy, drab clothes that looked like poor labourers.
I've said before this franchise isn't as bad as many say and I will still stand by that. The first film was OK, second was fair and third was a bit better than them both, best not to talk of the pointless fourth. Yes the film is still chock full of sulky looking younglings, cheesy ass panto style makeup, lots of brooding, lots of dialog about things only the book readers will know of (or if you can remember from the last films, I couldn't), characters that pop up outta nowhere (I lost track), vampires that look and dress like pupils from 'Hogwarts' and of course Miss Stewart doing her best grimacing/pouting ever!
As you can guess the fans will love and probably mums with their daughters too. The franchise was always just an excuse for mums/daughters/teen girls to see some fit firm young men in very very soft acceptable porn, tastefully done of course. I'm sure its close to the source material and it has been good in places but it is a weak romantic tale really, drawn out over five films.
And what is the deal with 'Jacob'? the dude isn't romantically involved with 'Bella' anymore, but he still wants it doesn't he, doesn't he?. 'Bella' still keeps him around why? for threesomes? just to look at his nice body? to abuse him?. He gets a raw deal if you ask me, he gets to babysit their kid and generally be a dogsbody forever whilst watching 'Bella' and 'Edward' get it on. Maybe he likes that?.
This final episode is like the first three, its average and just about kept my attention although the originality of the original is of course long gone. A nice end credits sequence ties everything up in a sweet lovable girly bow, but will we see more of this supernatural heartbreaker? or is it indeed finished...forever?.
Total Recall.
Take half of Minority Report, half of Blade Runner, half of Terminator 3, half of Tron Legacy, half of Inception, half of Star Wars, and half of the original Total Recall, strip it of any intellectual discourse or genuine emotion or thought, and make it into one movie that is much less than the sum of its parts. Boom. Done. Total Recall 2012. The Facepalm version.
^ Agree :)
Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
A change of pace for the third film as we move outta urban settings and weapons/laboratory facility type settings for the open desert. Yep Resi Evil goes for the 'Mad Max' look complete with heavily armoured vehicles including the good old petrol tanker, you just can't go wrong with a tanker in your desert based fantasy flick.
The image of 'Alice' being more of a elemental/supernatural type superhero is enforced more in this new film after we learned how badass she was in number two. A motley band of survivors once again are in deep doo doo being attacked by hundreds of ravenous crows (crows in the Mojave desert?), until 'Alice' pops up and saves the day by scorching all the crows to a firey death with the mind powers she learnt from 'Professor X'.
The plot is just like all the other films, a small group of survivors in a different setting, getting taken down one by one, until only 'Alice' and maybe two others remain for the next sequel (where those two normally get killed off early on). I quite liked the idea of 'Alice' roaming the Southwestern US outback looking for supplies and survivors but stumbling across crazy killers that like to watch people get eaten by zombie dogs. You could totally see that happening in the US with all those religious nut jobs over there, real 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' type folk in the sticks over there.
On the subject of zombie dogs, why are they always rottweilers? what has happened to every other type of dog? is there some kind of special sale on zombie rottweilers?? cos they are everywhere!.
Actually this film felt somewhat muted and not as action packed if you can believe that. Looking back over all of the films this one definitely has a slightly slower pace, less interesting characters and less action...apart from the usual mass of gunshots to zombie heads. On the other hand the visuals seem more realistic (deserts always seem to look good on film) and the zombies look good, grittier. The sequence where the main bad scientist guy tries to domesticate a captured zombie harks back to the classic 'Return of the Living Dead' zombie franchise (third film), nice touch.
Despite a more straight tone as it were, this film does suffer from not being quite the ballistic overdrive of action the rest are. It almost doesn't quite fit within the franchise really but I liked the fresh location. The whole film does feel a little bit of an anti climax though, the finale with the mutated creature sums that up pretty well, but as usual the setup for the next sequel intrigues.
Hubbs, check your messageeeees.
I thought the zombie dogs were dobermans in the first movie.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Mar 02, 2013, 05:44:25 AM
I thought the zombie dogs were dobermans in the first movie.
Were they??! bugger it to hell!! meh they all look the same.
Red Dawn (1984)Set in an alternate 80's this film is based around the notion that the US is evaded by the Soviet Union and its Cuban and Nicaraguan allies. So its everything your standard red blooded, paranoid, religious Southern hick dreams of, a chance to roam around out in the sticks shooting people that may look like a threat,
yee-haw!!.
World War III, America v Russia, fight!, well almost. The film is interesting if slightly silly, I would of thought it impossible to evade and take the US considering its size and population. A film of its time for sure, a time when America was paranoid about the Russians (and vice versa) and had not too long finished up fighting the North Vietnamese.
on one hand its a more serious 'Goonie' type fantasy adventure, on the other hand there is a clear underlying message about the way people thought back then, tensions, imagination running wild, maybe even preparation ideas just in case, what better way to show the masses than with a movie. You could almost say it was a military promotion/propaganda to encourage youngsters to join up, stop the commies from trying this, don't be like one of these characters in the film (that get captured and killed).
Putting aside the hidden messages that aren't so well hidden (were they meant to be?) its obviously very dated and effects aren't like today, the action is very hokey. Lots of vehicles being blown up, men shot with no visible evidence of bullet holes or blood, booby traps, thick tashed bad guys etc...It is a grown up serious film though, the premise is serious as are the deaths of various characters and the way the film portrays both sides at crucial moments of morality.
To look at the film you could be fooled into thinking it was just another silly 'A-Team' brat pack affair, hell it was only missing Estevez and Lowe. Despite the now famous young cast there is a heck of a lot of emotion flowing through this, certain scenes will make your eyes well up even though you know its corny as hell. The dialog is like the action in its hokey as hell at times but along with the great location work you can't deny the film does pack some punch, somewhat.
Back in the day for American kids of that age group I'm sure this film was quite unnerving. As for American adults back in the day I'm sure it did make them wonder about the future. Altogether a film very much of its time which doesn't really work as well now, still fun thanks to a great cast but the edge has long gone due to circumstances changing over many many years. An interesting look back in time though.
I could be mistaken, it's been a few years.
I'll just plug my review blog here ;D
http://phubb.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://phubb.blogspot.co.uk/)
You can link to it via that little globe icon under my avatar if you want ;) the same stuff I've been posting here but I have other reviews you probably haven't seen which I will get up there. Thanks to Omegazilla for the advice, still trying to get the 'follower' thing to work, dunno if it does yet -_-
Dark City (1998)
Directed by Proyas, the man behind ' The Crow' and with a title like this you get an idea of what you're in for. You could say this was the film that influenced 'The Matrix' and from then on a tidal wave of other fantasy films. Not in terms of action but mainly visuals, mood, stylings, the odd set piece and of course the dream like plot.
Even though the film sounds like some kind of period set superhero type action film like 'The Shadow' its a whole different ballgame. The story is set within a sprawling city, a dark city naturally, that never seems to see daylight and no one seems to notice. The main character of 'Murdoch' awakens with amnesia and up for murder, from this point on he must try to fathom out how and why he's in this situation whilst trying to avoid mysterious shrouded characters that are trying to kill him.
It doesn't sound much of a thrillingly new concept but its the look and atmosphere that was new for the time. I say new, there was Burton's 'Batman' of course and 'The Shadow', but this type of dark comicbook/graphic novel approach wasn't anywhere near as common as it is today.
Take a heavy set 30/40's city complete with classic cars and fedoras, give much of the architecture and style a bleak black n white German expressionist tone bordering with gothic and a plot that harks back to old detective noir thrillers. The other cool thing was the city we see in the film is a mix of different architectural styles from different countries. Bits and pieces from all over so you're never sure where exactly you are, it also seems to have bits that range from industrial to basic urban to classical. Overall a very deary dream that does remind you of the cityscape from 'Blade Runner' somewhat.
I'll be honest, this film takes time to get to grips with, the first time I saw it (theatrical release) I didn't really like it. I'll admit I expected something very different, an action film, the film is much deeper than that. I only started to get the idea about the same time as Hurt's character starts to follow 'Murdoch'. Its then you realise what's going on and it all clicks, everything is not what it seems, the world you know isn't real...sounds familiar doesn't it.
I think the casting let the film down in terms of box office success. I loved the cast personally and thought each person gave the film credibility and believability. I love Richard O'Brien and wish he would do more films where as Jennifer Connelly's looks are so 30's America she could have been snatched from the era in a time machine. She already proved this starring in the other 30's period set adventure 'The Rocketeer' (part of the 30/40's action hero trilogy with 'The Shadow' and 'The Phantom'). Hurt is stoic of course where as Sewell is a proper British actor. The inclusion of Sutherland was the only member there to try and attract a more mainstream audience, I think.
I think 'Dark City' is a damn good thinker, philosophical to a degree, questions aren't completely answered and you can look at the story in many ways from many angles. This is why it didn't go down to well upon release, everyone including myself expected something else and at the time (again myself included) people were disappointed and a tad confused. 'The Matrix' filled that part in the jigsaw puzzle and gave people what they wanted, the dark gothic bleakness, something to think about with another good plot and of course blistering action.
Upon reflection I now see how good this film is with its possible symbolism's and allegories, if you scratch beneath the surface there may or may not be more to find. You could also look at this as an extended 'Twilight Zone' episode, which is how I see it really.
Red Sonja (1985)
The third film in the Conan trilogy...well it pretty much was wasn't it. This film is directed by Richard Fleischer who also directed 'Conan the Destroyer', the same studio, Dino De Laurentiis Company, made all three films, Sandahl Bergman was in this film and 'Conan the Barbarian' and of course Arnie starred in all three.
I mean lets be honest here, Arnie plays 'Lord Kalidor', the character is virtually a Conan clone, I dunno why they didn't just make him 'Conan' and be done with it. I believe 'Sonja' comes from the Conan universe originally (I may be wrong) so why not?. I'm guessing there may have been copyright issues somewhere.
So its the same story again for this fantasy adventure, need I describe the plot?. A small band of goodies up against an evil baddie leader and all her baddie warriors who are all holed up in an intimidating fortress. Arnie rides around in his rather unattractive red sparkly jumpsuit (changes to a black number out of the blue half way through) whilst Nielsen sports a long red mullet cut, but she's still cute.
This is suppose to be the weakest of the Arnie broadsword adventures but personally I don't see it. Its no worse than the other two and gives you just as much visual sorcery. In fact there's more fantasy stuff going on here than 'Barbarian', giant pet spiders, giant skeleton bridges, a metallic sea monster thingy and a silly 'Flash Gordon' style baddie wizard. This film boarders more on other films such as 'Krull' and a bit of 'Willow' in my opinion.
Reasonable amounts of blood and limb chopping but not overkill. Everything looks a bit tacky later on in the film but again no worse than the other two films. Unfortunately there is an annoying kid in this film, kinda like 'Data' outta 'The Goonies' or 'Short Round' outta 'Temple of Doom' (same kid actor there), tends to give the film a more slapstick approach at times, 'Conan the Barbarian' was always the most grown up of the three.
At this point I reckon Arnie was possibly getting worried he may end up typecast as a barbarian meathead in fantasy films. I can see why this was his last as all three of these films are very similar and not overly wonderful frankly. Still the musical score was always in good hands with Morricone at the helm, how did they manage that?. As a kid I loved these films, nowadays the rose tinted shades can't quite save them, amusing and naff, oh and the baddie Queen is a lesbian. Oh yeah, the whole story is down to Sonja simply rejecting her advances at the start. fancy that haha.
Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed
The bad teacher from Ferris Beuller's Day Off feels he has uncovered a conspiracy that Intelligent Design advocates are being persecuted against, and warns the world of the evils of evolution. Wow. Just wow. This may well be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Let's count the ways, shall we?
I will admit in advance that this is more of a rant than a critical essay like my usual reviews. I will comment in this films dishonest tactics, its horrid message, and just how morally reprehensible this thing is. And I warn you all. I get mad. Really really f**king mad. Also, I am not trying to attack religion. There are many religious people in my life and they are all really good people that I would lay down my life for if given the chance, from my family, which is predominantly Christian, to my friends who come from a wide variety of colorful and fascinating cultures, some familiar, some not so much. You can believe what you want as long as you don't harm anyone. The people who made this film have done a lot of harm. My rage is not directed at religion. It is directed at the monsters who made this film.
Ben Stein is a man we all know. His monotone delivery has proven a very great way to get the giggles going, from such classics as Ferric Beuller's Day Off, to a guest appearance of Freakazoid, to the Clear Eyes Commercials, and his game show Win Ben Stein's Money. What a likable character, right? Nope. Ben Stein shows who he really is in this movie, a closed minded bigoted fool. He constantly refers to evolution as "Darwinism" And the "Darwinian Gospel" But he is not alone in his asshole rants. He is joined by several martyrs of the ID movement who were removed from their jobs not as a result of their ID advocacy, but because they broke several regulations within the community whilst advocating it, some of which could have been easily fixed. Their scenes basically consist of "Oh, poor me. The evil evolutionists are so mean." And Ben Stein constantly praising their efforts in the face of "Darwinist wrath." It is enough to make you sick. His constant bad puns and lies of omission, especially by us people who know what the f**k evolution is, really gets you going. He tries to paint himself as a crusader for truth and justice, and argues that ID being kept out of schools is a threat to freedom. Some of us actually read the laws and are aware that ID is just a front for religion and schools are a government institution, so that would count as the government forcing religion onto people. That and some of know about the whole Wedge Document, which blatantly states that the end goal of this movement is not to give ID and evolution equal time, but to get evolution out of schools, period. Gee, it is almost Ben Stein is telling manipulative lies on behalf of manipulative liars.
The treatment of the interviewees from the opposite side of the spectrum is reprehensible, and you can really see this by their reactions in the film. People like P.Z.Myers and Richard Dawkins were duped into taking part in this documentary when the producers sent them requests claiming they were doing a documentary called Crossroads, and claimed to be part of another company called Rampant films, and even put up a fake web page for the interviewees to do research and see if the project was legitimate. The requests for the interviews were saved by Dawkins, Myers and others and immediately after this film was released, they were released to the public, showing clear manipulation and deceit on the part of these filmmakers. This is most visible during the climactic interview with Dawkins. During the first part of the interview, he is level headed and calm, speaking eloquently and politely. Once Stein begins to slam him, his reaction when he realizes he has been duped is heartbreaking. Say what you will about the man and his attitudes, there is no way you cannot feel sympathy for him at that moment. This is f**king wrong. That is a real man who realized he got swindled, and I feel immense compassion and sympathy for Dawkins having to go through this. Dawkins later said that since he now felt he had to be more careful and lest trusting of people, thus the joy in his life was "significantly diminished." I may not agree with Dawkins, but I will take his side over Stein. At least he isn't a lying sack of shit. Oh, and the interview is awful as well. Stein hammers Dawkins and forces him to say things that make it seem like he advocates ID secretly, then tries to guilt trip him into theology at the end of the interview. Real classy, asshole. If there is a God of kindness and love, It will take Dawkins over you any day.
Let's talk about the films technical aspects. They suck. Cinematography is typical documentary types of things, but there are also clearly skewed moments that try to paint ugly pictures of certain things. By far the film's worst moment as an art form (and there are plenty) is the segment when Stein begins to go on a rant blaming Darwin and evolution for the Holocaust. Apparently he decided to forget that one of the things evolution teaches is that diversity in a species is a good thing, so Hitler was effectively hurting out species in his vain attempt to destroy diversity. DUH! The film reaches one of its countless low points when Stein walks into the Darwin museum and goes up to the statue of Darwin, which is photographed to make him look like a monster, and Stein looks at him with sorrow filled eyes as if he is looking at a tyrant. Tell you what people, switch the subjects around and you got it right. Also, the people advocating science are often shot in darkened rooms making them appear sinister and evil, whereas the ID advocates are shot in naturalistic, outdoor or well-lit environments to make them appear good and nice. Fortunately, I can still hear words, and the people in the dark rooms are not spewing bullshit.
Lets talk about the lies, I mean the lies, I mean the lies, I mean the writing...lies. This film is so full of blatant in your face lies I am baffled by the fact that no one involved with this said "Hey, shouldn't we be more honest with this thing?" Oh wait, the ID movement is built on lies. Now it makes sense. There is quote mining abound in this exercise in depravity. One of the most notorious moments is the end of the "Evolution made Hitler do bad things." Segment where Stein quote mines from Darwin's "The Descent of Man" to make it appear that Darwin advocated genocide. Here is how Ben Stein read it in the film.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Now here is the actual quote plus the next paragraph.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Funny how the people who made this garbage accused evolution of leading to Nazism but then they themselves used common Nazi propaganda tactics to get their message across. A deliberate editing of a good book to make it appear evil. Hey, people who made this movie. You know there is a really bad sin called "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" right? Of course you do.
Oh, but there are more such low moments. One such sequence is a terrible cartoon sequence where someone is told they can win the first cell on the planet of they get 250 slot machines to go off at the same time and in the correct order, and the scene concludes with a cheap jab at Richard Dawkins. Truly the mark of the "glorious place" that Stein claims religion leads you to, you know compassion for your fellow man and all, unless they are atheist I guess. Several clips from several classic films are seen as well, with The Day the Earth Stood Still used to make fun of the alien seeding theory and Planet of the Apes used to show evolution as a bully against a good old fashioned God made man. One such moment was thankfully not included in the final cut. Stein used the song Imagine, you know, that great awesome and beautiful John Lennon song, as juxtaposed it over scenes of communist Russia. Fortunately, his widow was so disgusted that she sued the producers for twisting the late Lennon's words and by the time the court case died, it was too late for them to put it in the film.
By far the film's worst point is the extended segment where Stein blames evolution for the Holocaust. This segment features horrible images of Nazi concentration camps, actually takes us to several of the locations where the atrocities were carried out, graphically describes how the people were killed, and it goes on, and on, and on, and on. Whatever I didn't puke up before, I puked up here. They even get the author of some piece of shit book blaming Hitler on Darwin to say "Oh, Darwin totally did the Holocaust, man." They make vague references to sections of Mein Kampf as being inspired by Darwin. Hey, that's great. How about you show them? No? Well how about I read the book myself. Now what is this that I read? Hitler talks about God and creation and says he feels he is guided to do what he does by God? OOPS! The disregard and lack of caring for these 12000000 people who were maimed, tortured, mutilated, hanged, chopped, broken, raped, cut and burned and the callousness it would take to use them as a tool to vilify an opposition whose only crime is the desire to spread knowledge is the lowest of the low. The fact that Ben Stein, a Jew, got behind this cheap shot shows how little he truly cares about the Holocaust. He simply uses it and the victims, some of which were his own family members as a trump card. How big of a creep can you be?
The film's final act of depravity is the ending, where ben Stein sends out a call for people to fight for ID. Guess what he says? You guessed it. "Anyone? Anyone?" What a whore.
I hope to God this review finds the people who made this, because I have something to say.
I don't think you realize just how nasty what you made is. If you are a creationist, that is fine, show me some evidence that has not been debunked, and test it. That is all we want from you. That is not what you do here. All you do is accuse the greatest minds of the past several centuries of being responsible for some of the biggest most evil crimes the world has ever witnessed. How dare you. How dare you shovel these innocent people out of their graves just to slander science. You accuse them of being cheap on human life, but the fact that you felt so little compassion for these dearly departed souls that you merely saw them as a tool for this...thing shows that you are the ones who don't care. Ben Stein, shame on you.
This is one of the most astoundingly ugly and evil things I have ever witnessed in my life. These assholes are extremists who are no better than those behind the Spanish inquisition and Islamic terrorism. They are hate mongers and nothing more. It is filled with blatant falsehoods, lies and shall we say questionable tactics by its creators, none of whom have anything to be proud of for making this bigoted tripe, and if there is a hell, I am pretty sure that all responsible for this travesty just signed none wave able reservations for their places, because this movie is a sin. A sin that was punished as the people who made this film eventually went bankrupt. Was this sin punished by God or by society, or by a mixture of both? Doesn't matter. It was punished.
All people want from advocates of ID is evidence that can be tested and not just rants. But they are not interested in evidence. They are not interested in truth. This movie shows what their real goals are. They want to rape their religion into the world.
And let me drop the bomb right now. To those who don't already know me, I believe in the possibility of God and Gods, but I don't believe in this vile, hateful, deceitful excrement made by big mouthed boneheaded bigots. This "documentary" would make Joseph Goebbels blush. It is absolute trash and I would no sooner se ever copy of this miserable, mean and callous piece of shit thrown into a volcano. But we don't want to do that. We might hurt the lava.
f**k this movie. f**k the devils who made this movie. f**k the devils who support this movie. Yes. I am talking to you Chuck Norris. When I get home for break, I intend to show this film to my mother, a Christian and an evolutionary biologist and proud to be both. I bet she will be even sicker than I am.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 10, 2013, 01:44:20 AM
Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed
The bad teacher from Ferris Beuller's Day Off feels he has uncovered a conspiracy that Intelligent Design advocates are being persecuted against, and warns the world of the evils of evolution. Wow. Just wow. This may well be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Let's count the ways, shall we?
I will admit in advance that this is more of a rant than a critical essay like my usual reviews. I will comment in this films dishonest tactics, its horrid message, and just how morally reprehensible this thing is. And I warn you all. I get mad. Really really f**king mad. Also, I am not trying to attack religion. There are many religious people in my life and they are all really good people that I would lay down my life for if given the chance, from my family, which is predominantly Christian, to my friends who come from a wide variety of colorful and fascinating cultures, some familiar, some not so much. You can believe what you want as long as you don't harm anyone. The people who made this film have done a lot of harm. My rage is not directed at religion. It is directed at the monsters who made this film.
Ben Stein is a man we all know. His monotone delivery has proven a very great way to get the giggles going, from such classics as Ferric Beuller's Day Off, to a guest appearance of Freakazoid, to the Clear Eyes Commercials, and his game show Win Ben Stein's Money. What a likable character, right? Nope. Ben Stein shows who he really is in this movie, a closed minded bigoted fool. He constantly refers to evolution as "Darwinism" And the "Darwinian Gospel" But he is not alone in his asshole rants. He is joined by several martyrs of the ID movement who were removed from their jobs not as a result of their ID advocacy, but because they broke several regulations within the community whilst advocating it, some of which could have been easily fixed. Their scenes basically consist of "Oh, poor me. The evil evolutionists are so mean." And Ben Stein constantly praising their efforts in the face of "Darwinist wrath." It is enough to make you sick. His constant bad puns and lies of omission, especially by us people who know what the f**k evolution is, really gets you going. He tries to paint himself as a crusader for truth and justice, and argues that ID being kept out of schools is a threat to freedom. Some of us actually read the laws and are aware that ID is just a front for religion and schools are a government institution, so that would count as the government forcing religion onto people. That and some of know about the whole Wedge Document, which blatantly states that the end goal of this movement is not to give ID and evolution equal time, but to get evolution out of schools, period. Gee, it is almost Ben Stein is telling manipulative lies on behalf of manipulative liars.
The treatment of the interviewees from the opposite side of the spectrum is reprehensible, and you can really see this by their reactions in the film. People like P.Z.Myers and Richard Dawkins were duped into taking part in this documentary when the producers sent them requests claiming they were doing a documentary called Crossroads, and claimed to be part of another company called Rampant films, and even put up a fake web page for the interviewees to do research and see if the project was legitimate. The requests for the interviews were saved by Dawkins, Myers and others and immediately after this film was released, they were released to the public, showing clear manipulation and deceit on the part of these filmmakers. This is most visible during the climactic interview with Dawkins. During the first part of the interview, he is level headed and calm, speaking eloquently and politely. Once Stein begins to slam him, his reaction when he realizes he has been duped is heartbreaking. Say what you will about the man and his attitudes, there is no way you cannot feel sympathy for him at that moment. This is f**king wrong. That is a real man who realized he got swindled, and I feel immense compassion and sympathy for Dawkins having to go through this. Dawkins later said that since he now felt he had to be more careful and lest trusting of people, thus the joy in his life was "significantly diminished." I may not agree with Dawkins, but I will take his side over Stein. At least he isn't a lying sack of shit. Oh, and the interview is awful as well. Stein hammers Dawkins and forces him to say things that make it seem like he advocates ID secretly, then tries to guilt trip him into theology at the end of the interview. Real classy, asshole. If there is a God of kindness and love, It will take Dawkins over you any day.
Let's talk about the films technical aspects. They suck. Cinematography is typical documentary types of things, but there are also clearly skewed moments that try to paint ugly pictures of certain things. By far the film's worst moment as an art form (and there are plenty) is the segment when Stein begins to go on a rant blaming Darwin and evolution for the Holocaust. Apparently he decided to forget that one of the things evolution teaches is that diversity in a species is a good thing, so Hitler was effectively hurting out species in his vain attempt to destroy diversity. DUH! The film reaches one of its countless low points when Stein walks into the Darwin museum and goes up to the statue of Darwin, which is photographed to make him look like a monster, and Stein looks at him with sorrow filled eyes as if he is looking at a tyrant. Tell you what people, switch the subjects around and you got it right. Also, the people advocating science are often shot in darkened rooms making them appear sinister and evil, whereas the ID advocates are shot in naturalistic, outdoor or well-lit environments to make them appear good and nice. Fortunately, I can still hear words, and the people in the dark rooms are not spewing bullshit.
Lets talk about the lies, I mean the lies, I mean the lies, I mean the writing...lies. This film is so full of blatant in your face lies I am baffled by the fact that no one involved with this said "Hey, shouldn't we be more honest with this thing?" Oh wait, the ID movement is built on lies. Now it makes sense. There is quote mining abound in this exercise in depravity. One of the most notorious moments is the end of the "Evolution made Hitler do bad things." Segment where Stein quote mines from Darwin's "The Descent of Man" to make it appear that Darwin advocated genocide. Here is how Ben Stein read it in the film.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Now here is the actual quote plus the next paragraph.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Funny how the people who made this garbage accused evolution of leading to Nazism but then they themselves used common Nazi propaganda tactics to get their message across. A deliberate editing of a good book to make it appear evil. Hey, people who made this movie. You know there is a really bad sin called "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" right? Of course you do.
Oh, but there are more such low moments. One such sequence is a terrible cartoon sequence where someone is told they can win the first cell on the planet of they get 250 slot machines to go off at the same time and in the correct order, and the scene concludes with a cheap jab at Richard Dawkins. Truly the mark of the "glorious place" that Stein claims religion leads you to, you know compassion for your fellow man and all, unless they are atheist I guess. Several clips from several classic films are seen as well, with The Day the Earth Stood Still used to make fun of the alien seeding theory and Planet of the Apes used to show evolution as a bully against a good old fashioned God made man. One such moment was thankfully not included in the final cut. Stein used the song Imagine, you know, that great awesome and beautiful John Lennon song, as juxtaposed it over scenes of communist Russia. Fortunately, his widow was so disgusted that she sued the producers for twisting the late Lennon's words and by the time the court case died, it was too late for them to put it in the film.
By far the film's worst point is the extended segment where Stein blames evolution for the Holocaust. This segment features horrible images of Nazi concentration camps, actually takes us to several of the locations where the atrocities were carried out, graphically describes how the people were killed, and it goes on, and on, and on, and on. Whatever I didn't puke up before, I puked up here. They even get the author of some piece of shit book blaming Hitler on Darwin to say "Oh, Darwin totally did the Holocaust, man." They make vague references to sections of Mein Kampf as being inspired by Darwin. Hey, that's great. How about you show them? No? Well how about I read the book myself. Now what is this that I read? Hitler talks about God and creation and says he feels he is guided to do what he does by God? OOPS! The disregard and lack of caring for these 12000000 people who were maimed, tortured, mutilated, hanged, chopped, broken, raped, cut and burned and the callousness it would take to use them as a tool to vilify an opposition whose only crime is the desire to spread knowledge is the lowest of the low. The fact that Ben Stein, a Jew, got behind this cheap shot shows how little he truly cares about the Holocaust. He simply uses it and the victims, some of which were his own family members as a trump card. How big of a creep can you be?
The film's final act of depravity is the ending, where ben Stein sends out a call for people to fight for ID. Guess what he says? You guessed it. "Anyone? Anyone?" What a whore.
I hope to God this review finds the people who made this, because I have something to say.
I don't think you realize just how nasty what you made is. If you are a creationist, that is fine, show me some evidence that has not been debunked, and test it. That is all we want from you. That is not what you do here. All you do is accuse the greatest minds of the past several centuries of being responsible for some of the biggest most evil crimes the world has ever witnessed. How dare you. How dare you shovel these innocent people out of their graves just to slander science. You accuse them of being cheap on human life, but the fact that you felt so little compassion for these dearly departed souls that you merely saw them as a tool for this...thing shows that you are the ones who don't care. Ben Stein, shame on you.
This is one of the most astoundingly ugly and evil things I have ever witnessed in my life. These assholes are extremists who are no better than those behind the Spanish inquisition and Islamic terrorism. They are hate mongers and nothing more. It is filled with blatant falsehoods, lies and shall we say questionable tactics by its creators, none of whom have anything to be proud of for making this bigoted tripe, and if there is a hell, I am pretty sure that all responsible for this travesty just signed none wave able reservations for their places, because this movie is a sin. A sin that was punished as the people who made this film eventually went bankrupt. Was this sin punished by God or by society, or by a mixture of both? Doesn't matter. It was punished.
All people want from advocates of ID is evidence that can be tested and not just rants. But they are not interested in evidence. They are not interested in truth. This movie shows what their real goals are. They want to rape their religion into the world.
And let me drop the bomb right now. To those who don't already know me, I believe in the possibility of God and Gods, but I don't believe in this vile, hateful, deceitful excrement made by big mouthed boneheaded bigots. This "documentary" would make Joseph Goebbels blush. It is absolute trash and I would no sooner se ever copy of this miserable, mean and callous piece of shit thrown into a volcano. But we don't want to do that. We might hurt the lava.
f**k this movie. f**k the devils who made this movie. f**k the devils who support this movie. Yes. I am talking to you Chuck Norris. When I get home for break, I intend to show this film to my mother, a Christian and an evolutionary biologist and proud to be both. I bet she will be even sicker than I am.
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fic.pics.livejournal.com%2Fleabrady%2F39780856%2F7488%2F7488_original.gif&hash=5511aa0b862aef380a4d5bbdc95302ed1541d36b)
You don't really need to.
All you need to know is this is a horrible film made by horrible people.
In fact, why didn't I just post that? More efficient than a four page rant, no? :D
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 10, 2013, 03:34:16 AM
You don't really need to.
All you need to know is this is a horrible film made by horrible people.
In fact, why didn't I just post that? More efficient than a four page rant, no? :D
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net%2Fimages%2Fcm-16578-15029b7d51b01d.gif&hash=6690f6efbd8781caaafd3a27da35b3ffa7176e9e)
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
The first film to get Arnie on the way to the man he is today, and the first of three very similar fantasy flicks. Based on a pulp comic character from the 30's this film franchise turned the idea on its head and into a cult spanning many different formats and influencing other fantasy films, it also helped some videogames along the way.
The plot is simple, 'Conan' is taken from his family who have been conveniently killed by a band of nasty warriors dressed in black. He is put into slavery and made to do hard labour for the rest of his foreseeable future. The torturous slavery makes 'Conan' big and strong despite the apparent lack of decent food, nutrients, fishfingers or milk. He eventually is sold into gladiatorial fighting where he becomes a brilliant battler and swordsman and wins his freedom. From there on he's off to avenge his families death, as you do.
Obvious premise but its an old film folks. Yes the film is old, back in 82 things were different, what you see now when watching is a horribly cliched, predictable, hammy, semi cheap looking mess, but back then it was fresh...ish. All the bad guys wear black and look a bit camp with their wigs and handlebar moustaches, you wonder why exactly these groups of bad guys always attack and kill helpless useless peasants, what's in it for them? why they always leave one kid alive to grow up and take revenge on them?? and what is James Earl Jones character actually up to? what's his goal? his plans? why do all those people follow him? etc...
Yeah I know I'm being picky, it matters not really, the film is old and all these barbarian films are pretty much the same, its all about the spectacle and fantasy right. This first film is definitely more adult than the rest, lots of blood splashing about with limbs being hacked off hehe good stuff. Yet despite that there isn't too much action really, more character development surprisingly and what action there is has some nice effects too, nice snake work and some nice animated spirits also.
To be honest I've actually always preferred the original 'Beastmaster' film over 'Conan'. There a few nice moments in this but really its pretty tepid, if only 'The beastmaster' starred Arnie. And what the hell was that huge wheel thing 'Conan' pushes for half his life suppose to be? a mill? a well? or merely for torture? a plan that backfired for 'Thulsa Doom' methinks.
In the end the final teasing image and narration about 'King Conan' is actually far more interesting and intriguing than the film that preceded it.
Conan the Destroyer (1984)
So we've had basic plot idea number one: family killed, take revenge. This sequel goes with basic plot number two: given quest by ruler to find something, but its a trick...yes I just blew a huge spoiler so sue me.
Yep, the rather devious and clearly untrustworthy 'Queen Taramis' asks 'Conan' to go off and find a sacred object so she can awaken a God, hmmm I smell something fishy. So 'Conan' agrees because the evil Queen says she will resurrect his lover from the first film 'Valeria' if he succeeds, oh come on 'Conan' don't be dumb!. Did I mention this was all a big trick by the naughty Queen?.
The main draw here is the cast really, Arnie's team are a much more interesting group this time with the insane Grace Jones, annoyingly crap acting of Tracy Walter, Mako back as the obligatory team wizard, d'Abo as the young virginal Princess and ex basketball star Wilt Chamberlain, a very colourful bunch. They are all up against the gorgeous and stunning Sarah Douglas who as usual is doing what she does best, being a sexy evil villainous bitch, oh my!.
The main problem with this sequel despite its better looks, fancy titles, a bigger Arnie and overall slightly sexier production values, is the fact it was watered down. The film aims for more comedy, slapstick and visual buffoonery over blood n violence, nothing wrong with this I guess but for me its a thumbs down. The first film was more adult and gave the film a grittier nastier feel, this just feels like a kids adventure at times. Even with Basil Poledouris booming musical score (first films sounded like 'Total Recall', this sounds like its been extracted from 'Robocop') it doesn't make much difference.
I must admit to enjoying these films much more when I was but a mere sprogling. The fact its Arnie in the main role as 'Conan' saves the film from doom in my opinion as there isn't too much more on offer. There isn't much action of note, not much blood, set pieces are drab and the adventure a bit dull, the only thing to lift you is the nice monster sequence at the end (head looks a bit like the 'Brundlefly' creature from the Cronenberg film). That and Sarah Douglas being all sexy n evil (oh my Queen!), for me these films haven't aged so well and I still prefer 'Beastmaster'.
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (AUS, 1994)
Yes I'm thinking the exact same thing as you, how in dingo doo doo did they get Terence Stamp to do this?!. Two drag queens and a transsexual embark on a road trip across the Aussie outback to Alice Springs in order to put on a show. Little do they know that the hotel they are headed for is managed by a woman still married to one of the trio. Well the drag queen still married to the woman knows, he just hasn't told his friends yet.
The road trip idea isn't an original one that's for sure but turn it into a naughty drag act in the deserts of Australia and now you've got something. Sure enough the whole notion of doing something like this in the one country where homophobia and racism is not unusual and where men are men no question, is a brave move.
This film relies heavily on stereotypes, almost every character is a sly, but some might say perceptive, stereotype on the real world. The three main characters played by Weaving, Pearce and Stamp are very likeable, mouthy, bitchy queens that put each other down like no ones business, yet they clearly do care about each other greatly. These three are played up for the camera naturally, made to look loud brash and extremely catty, nails at high noon, but its harmless fun.
As for other characters or generalisations its obvious. All the men portrayed in the outback are checkered shirt, cowboy hat, jean wearing butch types that look a bit grubby. You have the typical manly gruff Aussie female called Sheila and a gold digging, trashy strip teasing Filipino woman. The only character you would expect to be bigoted is Bob Hunter's character who looks it but turns out not to be.
There aren't really any surprises in the film, most characters are exactly as you would expect them. As its set in the outback you do get the obligatory ideas before its even started, can't be helped, we have 'Crocodile Dundee' to thank for that folks.
Despite the screaming stereotypes and scene similarities to other Aussie films of the time the film is a great comedy. Just the thought of a po-faced Stamp in drag complete with a flowing blonde wig and earrings bitch slapping Guy Pearce and continuously coming out with sarky derogatory remarks is enough to peak my interest.
At the same time the film is very touching and sweet. On one hand you have Stamp's character trying to get over the recent death of her partner whilst also hoping to find herself again, middle aged, tired with her job and needing a new spark in her life. On the other hand you have Weaving's character who is trying to balance his life between what he is on the inside, his friends and of course hoping/worrying if his son will accept him. Plus if his friends will accept him for having a semi straight secret life.
This film along with another in the same year put Aussie film making on the map and has since created a huge cult following much like 'Rocky Horror'. Completely enjoyable ride no matter what your sexual orientation. A great soundtrack which doesn't go overkill with ABBA, superb performances from the main trio and with some truly gorgeous scenery/location work that I'm sure boosted tourism. Everybody wins with this one.
To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995)
Released one year after the Australian drag queen comedy 'Priscilla', Hollywood had taken notice of its popularity and as Hollywood does, it churns out a US version. Now this film isn't a remake of 'Priscilla' but quite clearly a leap on the drag queen bandwagon in hopes to hover up the new found success.
The outcome? need I really tell you?? its obvious isn't it, a poor equivalent naturally. You see the thing is, the Aussie flick was original and had a heart, a soul, there was a good story inside that made you love and care for the characters. The very real sensitive issues weren't rammed in your face, plus the casting was excellent and didn't utilize big name stars (at the time...apart from Stamp).
This glitzy US contender had none of that, the plot is as predictable as the rising sun. Two drag queens (and another that hitches along which they call their apprentice) go off on a road trip across the US to enter into a kind of national 'Miss Drag Queen' contest in CA. Along the way they get stranded in a small male chauvinistic run town where...guess what! they manage to change the towns bigoted ways (the men) and help the women become more independent and free from their male overlords.
Oh and they also assault a bigoted corrupt redneck police office type played perfectly by Chris Penn. He chases them through the film and displays the kind of prejudice you would expect whilst also begging the question, is his character in the closest perhaps?.
So you have every sexist homophobic angle you can think of covered just to try and scrape together an interest with the right audience and get on their side. The whole plot is so contrived and phony, no soul here, just a money spinner. A typical Hollywood production that forces the ideas of female oppression in a male-dominated society and homophobia down your throat, so heavy and obvious its hokey.
I think the main hook was just the fact that three big tough butch male stars (well two) are the drag queens. Normally in serious films or violent action films, Swayze and Snipes are the draw. Swayze actually does look quite elegant and beautiful as a wealthy looking middle aged female in 50's (I think) attire. Snipes doesn't fair quite so well frankly but Leguizamo as the third queen is again surprisingly cute looking, but bordering on slutty n easy which is his Latino character not my desires.
So really the only thing here was the shock value of seeing two hard action heroes and a serious character actor play screaming queens, that's why they cast them I reckon. Although I must give Swayze his dues, he does play the part of a man struggling with his inner feelings well. The battle against his disapproving parents is briefly played on but overall Swayze definitely musters some tender moments.
Apart from that there really is nothing else here to shout about, good morals maybe, but overdone. Had the Aussie film never existed then this would be looked upon as much more original and fresh instead of an average follow up. The soundtrack isn't in the same class as 'Priscilla', there are too many cheesy cameos, the plot is so artificial/mainstream/forced/laboured with an ending that rips off 'Spartacus' and of course overall, its just not as good as 'Priscilla'.
National Lampoon's Class Reunion (1982)
This was the second film to be released under the title 'National Lampoon's' apparently. Unfortunately it was a bit of a disaster and flopped, this could easily be held down to the fact that 'Animal House' was a smash hit before and this film lacked its cast and punch.
I guess this may have felt like a rehash of 'Animal House' without Belushi. The plot is merely a spoof on slasher horror films, a high school reunion in progress within an old dusty crumbling school is halted when one of the former pupils goes on a murderous rampage. This student being the butt of a practical joke years ago back in high school by his classmates which mentally scared him.
The main issue is there really isn't any murdering going on in the film. There's one kill I think, then the rest of the film is made up of the rest trying to find the killer. The sets and atmosphere aren't that bad I found, it looks like your typical cheesy haunted house affair with dark cobweb ridden corridors and classrooms. The humour is as you would expect from this franchise, its stupid, obvious, predictable and childish, but it serves the spooky quite genre well I suppose.
The cast are all pretty obscure, a few recognisable faces but in general no one that can match Belushi and co. All the characters are rather dull really, nothing very funny about any of them accept for Gerrit Graham's character who is a cowardly pompous stuck up rich boy (stereotyping at its best naturally).
I didn't think this was too bad in all honesty, its still miles better than all the modern equivalents such as the 'Scary Movie' franchise which takes its cue from this I'm sure. Its hammy as hell but lets remember this was made in 81, at that time all these jokes and setups were new. I suppose if you liked 'Clue' then you may like this silly horror comedy, not really much horror though.
Supergirl (1984)
After the third and rather dismal 'Superman' film we got this spin off from the franchise about Superman's cousin. To be totally honest any film revolving around spin off characters you know to be weary of, Superboy, Supergirl, Superdog etc...could easily be duff outcomes if created. However this film is actually a surprisingly good offering which I don't think did any harm a tall.
The main reason for this is the good casting, in my books. Slater as 'Supergirl' is a great choice as she not only looks the part but does a decent job portraying the character too. The Salkind's made the right choice in going with an unknown just as they did with Reeve and for me it really shines through. The casting of Dunaway as the evil 'Selena' is again another great choice because Dunaway does the bitch thing really well and she also has a brilliant presence as the evil sorcerer, a perfect fit.
Marc McClure back again as 'Olsen' gives the film some needed credit and believability within the Superman franchise and Maureen Teefy is also solid as 'Lois Lane's' younger sister. Everyone else is your standard background fluff and could of been played by many, harsh but true. Such a shame the Reeve cameo never happened as that would have been sweet.
The rest of the film is naturally pretty obvious plot wise but it does exactly what you would expect for the franchise. What I like about this is the fact all the effects are still just about on par with the Superman films, Slater flying, hovering and performing super feats looks fine, it doesn't look hokey (for the time). Doesn't have the overall shine of course but it still does the job well if you ask me, apart from the 'Argo City' sets at the start maybe.
We also get some nice background work/info on 'Argo City', 'the Phantom Zone' (finally) and the Omegahedron serves well for the story, it all ties in within the whole franchise nicely. What I mean by that is, it looks as if it could fit within the 'Superman' films without an issue.
Looking back now it is of course hammy but its still a fun adventure, I enjoyed it more when I was a kid admittedly. Supergirl looks cute but cool in her outfit and does a much better job of disguising herself with her alter ego of 'Lisa' than Superman did, at least she actually looked different. Kinda yearns for the Superman score but I guess that wouldn't be right I suppose.
Only thing, 'Argo City' is in space right? and on 'Krypton' right? so how does it still exist for this film?. Also at the end Supergirl flies into the sea to get back there, soooo is 'Argo City' under the sea? is there a portal she went through down there? is 'Argo City' in another dimension? am I being thick here of what?? kinda lost me on that one.
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
I was unaware that this film was based loosely on real soldiers, I had an idea it was close to reality but didn't realise the main characters were real, well Law's character. The film is woven into the intense Battle of Stalingrad and is solely about the duel between one Russian sniper and one German sniper.
I think this films suffers in the same way as some other historic films in the way they add a mushy love story. I can understand why they do this but it really does drag the main premise of the plot down, especially here. The setup is perfect for a real tense nail biter, the setting is a war torn Stalingrad and the effects/location teams have really done their homework here. Creeping in n out of bombed out buildings, masses of rubble, skeletons of buildings adorn the landscapes, bodies strewn around, the whole city is a shell of a former existence, a former life.
Into this land of ruin we have Jude Law as real Russian sniper Vassili Zaitsev who is pitted against German sniper (supposedly real) Major Erwin König. When you see either character on screen and lurking about it gets your heart racing, you wanna see what will happen, who will pick off who, predictably we know of course but the atmosphere is cracking. But my previous point, against this we have a droopy love tale which merely offers up sappy forced emotions to try and engage you further. Unfortunately all it does is kinda annoy you because you wanna see sniping action.
Being a film based on sniping and realism don't expect this to be chock full of explosions and mass action. What action there is is naturally slow but nicely nerve racking, well reasonably. It is a bit hokey because we all know damn well the main two won't possibly die until the end yet anyone else is fair game haha sniper fodder.
The film captures the propaganda of the time well, the way the Soviets made Zaitsev a national hero and tried to scare the Germans. Vice versa with the imposing threat of the older German marksman brought in to defeat the Soviet. All roles are played well in the visual sense, what I mean is all the cast look like they belong in this era, especially the drawn gaunt looking Harris. The only issue I had was the fact no one really tried for authentic accents bar Hoskins (looking like an angry Russian Hobbit). Law still has his cockney accent, Fiennes sounds English as does Weisz and Hoskins has a muddled cockney/Russian thing going on...but at least he tries.
I didn't really agree with one action that the director makes Harris's character (König) carry out in the film, a grim scene involving a young boy he trusts. Unsure how accurate that is suppose to be, I dare say its completely crap, they shouldn't really add things like that unless its accurate.
A well paced film that does show the realities of war to a degree if somewhat glorifying or romanticising it a touch. The Russians tend to drink and be generally rowdy when not fighting which doesn't seem too right. Not as epic as the films poster designs make out but still a decent war film focusing on a very good tale. The silent stern cold ruthlessness of Harris as the German sniper stands out for me here, but you still feel for him at the end. After all its war and every man simply does what he needs to do to survive.
V for Vendetta (2005)
There's a definite Guy Fawkes motive running through this film isn't there, didn't notice at first (yes I'm being sarcastic). kind of a kinky dressing up as Guy Fawkes fetish thing going on. The plot is strange for sure, set in the future of the 2030's, its all about a totalitarian run UK and a certain freedom fighter (with the noted Guy Fawkes fetish) who uses the old 16th Century attempted terrorist act as his main influence for his own terror attacks...of freedom.
A curious blend of fascism set against anarchy with an all American style matinée serial/pulp magazine hero in the middle. What I have always found weird about this graphic novel creation is the obsession with Guy Fawkes. I understand the notion of using the terrorist act of blowing up Parliament as brilliant symbol/sign of rebellion against the dictatorship that governs this universes UK, but why the need to dress up like Guy Fawkes complete with silly period wig and quaint facial mask?. Why would someone in the 2030's idolise and copy a 16th Century criminal, despite his treasonous act which isn't actually much to celebrate really.
Anyway I can't deny that Weaving's smooth charismatic tones were prefect for the voice of 'V'. He played the character in full as we know but his polite charming well spoken mannerisms really sold the whole anti hero character and gave him this endearing Errol Flynn like persona. Its quite strange to actually think that he was rather dashing even though his face is hidden behind that mask, you tend to forget he's wearing a mask really, its a good looking mask.
The less said about Portman the better frankly, she is becoming more and more annoying as she grows older. She spends the whole time in this film looking distraught with her mouth hanging open and gasping for air! its quite infuriating.
Who better to use for the fascist regime leader than the main lead for the film adaptation of the Orwell novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', John Hurt. Hurt's performance is pretty much limited to simply being on a large TV screen/monitor, but the way he barks out orders in a menacing torrent to his subordinates is really a joy to watch. In fact the whole design and look of the fascist party is really well done with clear references/influences from history in certain scenes of addressing the nation. Black and red are the strong piercing colours of the 'Norsefire party', cliched but effective, much like their whole exterior appearance really but lets not forget this is a graphic novel adaptation where visuals are everything.
Its visuals that do bring this film to life like many other similar films. The dark grey tones, dark alleyways, dark rooftops, the darkly cloaked anti hero, shadows galore and the much required dark anti hero logo that will eventually Adorn most badly lit vicinities. In short this is very much your Batman type affair accept it has a more simple minimalistic feel or approach, remember its set in merry old England and not a forest of gothic skyscrapers. The visuals can be striking at times but oddly basic at others, almost verging on TV movie standards.
A clever film where the main (anti) hero is more a symbol of the people, the movement and less of an individual person with fancy fighting moves. The fact they managed to resist showing the face beneath the mask is amazing frankly, seeing as they couldn't resist the old slow motion martial arts stuff (you can see The Wachowski Brothers were here)...but that might be in the graphic novel, I haven't seen it. Its all here with this film, totalitarian fears, media cover ups, secret police, total anarchy, genocide, dictators, torture and the destruction of our beloved Big Ben and Palace of Westminster, oh the sacrilege!.
I also liked the lesbian/gay sub plot in the film set within the fascist regime. Now I'm guessing this is in the graphic novel as its a brave move to be so bold with this kind of content (but this is a UK film, and the UK is brutally PC). The whole idea works perfectly against the extremist policies of the 'Norsefire party' and really brings fresh emotions to the surface, clearly using the realities of Nazi acts during WWII.
I enjoyed the fighting sequences and I liked the masked avenger known as 'V'. The film is heavily cliched but has many undertones which can be looked at in different ways. Unsure how accurate it is to the original source material seeing as Moore didn't like it but none the less its a thoroughly fun action film that boarders on operatic at times!. Still don't really see the need for the the Guy Fawkes motive though, other than it simply looks kinda cool and original.
Final note, why can't henchmen ever understand that maybe shooting the hero in the face might be more effective.
Commando (1985)
'I lied'
I think its fair to say if you are asked to create a list of the best action movies ever it would/must include 'Die Hard' and this film. Probably one of the most over the top, ridiculous, continuous action set piece films ever committed to film, it stars Arnie, his character has a silly name and its fudging fantastico!.
Lets be brutally honest here for a minute, back in the day this was the dogs bollocks, as a kid I LOVED it!. When the film was made it was suppose to be a serious adult action thriller, 18 cert, plenty of swearing and plenty of violence, no mistake...this was the real deal. Looking back now its a very different story, yes it still rocks ass but boy is it cheesy, predictable and cliched, if this were made now it would be an over the top CGI filled homage to be laughed at.
Thing is people nowadays have gotta remember these classic action films weren't suppose to be stupid at the time, they were (semi) serious films for adults. This is why many modern action 'homages' fall flat because they always go for the utterly ridiculous merely for laughs (and for a PG rating half the time), its not serious...yes I'm looking at a certain franchise Mr Stallone.
Yet despite how crappy the film actually is if we're honest about it, its a legend of an Arnie vehicle. Of course the main reason is because of Arnie, without him I'm sure this film wouldn't be half as memorable (sorry Sly), but its also the influence it had. How many action films can you think of that have pinched ideas from this film? even better, how many videogames have totally ripped off this film? a lot is the answer.
This film pretty much created the 'unstoppable one man army v hordes of bad guys' genre, much like Eastwood pretty much created the 'rugged good looking silent lone gunman who takes out all the bad guys in a town' genre. The tooled up rippled macho special forces super soldier that simply cuts through whole camps of soldiers and military vehicles, mowing them all down with a machine gun in each hand whilst the sweat glistens on his overly pumped body. Think of all the videogames where the main character/s are basically complete copies of Arnie in this film, just running around slaughtering enemies eg. 'Mercs'.
'Come on Bennett, let's party!'
Anywho we all know the plot here don't we, Arnie's daughter is kidnapped by the rather camp looking/acting Vernon Wells complete with chain mail mesh vest (oh yes), who in turn is being controlled by a hairy sweaty looking Dan Hedaya. This of course pisses Arnie off big time so he decides to go after his daughter and kill EVERYONE!!!.
When I say everyone I mean every last bad guy and his dog (not really). This begins a long series of battles that involve Arnie kicking the shit outta henchmen one after another until he gets to the baddie base camp and single handedly destroys it. When I say single handedly I mean just that. Arnie runs around topless with rocket launchers, large knives, Uzi's, shotguns and the awesome M60E3, quite literately blowing lines of men away like there's no tomorrow.
The sheer magnitude of killing going on in this films is incredible, its mind numbing! yet its totally tubular to watch. Arnie looks buffed as hell, he's in his prime, the biceps are bulging, the veins are popping, he's tanned up and he's got that weird haircut he used to have where its cropped on the top n sides yet a bit long at the back, afraid of the clippers methinks. The man is a mountain, a tank...and once he's set in motion nothing gonna stop this guy...not even hundreds of heavily armed troops.
Like all Arnie films not only is the action big but so are the one liners, the dialog. This film doesn't disappoint with tonnes of memorable quips that are the stuff of legend now (I like to use the word 'legend' now). Much of these witty snaps come up when Arnie must battle someone, no shortage of that here. Each and every henchman get his own chance to deliver some cool evil exposition and ultimately receive a timely last word from Arnie before he beats him to death, or guns him down, blows him up whatever.
'Let off some steam, Bennett'
The film is what you may call the pinnacle of 80's action fests, the prime example of pure 80's action gold in camo pants. The whole thing quite literately plays out like a videogame with end of level boss battles for the main henchmen, taking out vehicles and buildings for extra points and a roaring finale. It is incredibly dumb and cheesy now yes, not back then, but now yes. There are some nasty visual continuity errors throughout, hokey acting by dozens of soldier extras doing some of the most acrobatic deaths you will ever see, really wooden acting, a rather odd reggae/calypso type musical score and the most laughable bad guys ever.
I mean come on, what the hell is Vernon Wells character wearing and what does he look like, the fat tash and beer gut? really?. David Patrick Kelly as 'Sully' is a really annoying evil Michael J Fox looking clone and Bill Duke...is Bill Duke and his tiny ears. Altogether they are a funny bunch but memorable so job done I guess.
But still, despite all its flaws and with tongue firmly placed in cheek, the film manages to be one of the greatest action films ever. Not serious in terms of plot with the likes of 'Die Hard' but still violent enough to make your parents not let you watch it. All I can say is quite simply, if you are an Arnie fan you can't fail to enjoy this, one of his best films. Gun porn a plenty, bloody squibs, real stunts no CGI, Arnie never gets so much as a scratch during his ordeal and a small cameo for Bill Paxton. 'Rambo' always was a 'Matrix' wannabe hehe.
'I eat Green Berets for breakfast. And right now, I'm very hungry!'
8/10
'Crocodile' Dundee (AUS, 1986)
Like its star Paul Hogan this film was once big, real big, a force to be reckoned with, but has since completely disappeared into obscurity. There was a time when the slender blonde leather faced Hogan was everywhere here in the UK, mainly advertising beer and acting the gruff Aussie, it was very popular.
I think what is so endearing about this film is Hogan's character, his charm, lack of tact, surprising strength, rugged looks, Tarzan like abilities, gloriously over the top threads, blatant unknowing male chauvinism and the overall stereotypical rough Aussie masculinity bordering on rudeness we've all heard about. The epitome of the typical Aussie cowboy living in the merciless Aussie outback.
Yet despite all that he's still a decent man, good natured, bit of a ladies man and a very likeable fellow who does what's right (most times) or what he believes is right. He accepts who he is and we the audience accept it too, he's a bit of a lad (albeit middle aged lad).
I tend to think that the rather over board portrayal of 'Mick Dundee' is kinda toyed with for the international audience. I'm sure there are folk like this in the depths of the outback but the extreme stereotyping going on I think is there to make people laugh, give them what they expect but bigger. Everybody has a perception of different people from different countries and this is what many countries probably expected to see (at the time) when it came to Aussie blokes living in the bush (or Aussie males as a whole).
The ragtag, scruffy, unwashed, unshaven, dirty shirt wearing bar patrons in 'Walkabout Creek' pretty much some up the humongous stereotyping going on. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe this IS how blokes in small desert towns of Australia's outback look and behave!. Maybe all the 'sheila's' are rather butch with cropped hair and work behind the bar...beats me, but it seems a tad forced.
The plot is pretty much your Prince Charming type affair really, but in the Aussie outback, a modern day Tarzan. The beautiful blonde Kozlowski goes walkabout with Hogan's 'Dundee', gets into dangerous situations, shown how to survive, meets local Aboriginal tribes folk and slowly falls in love with the athletic bushman.
The first half of the film is set in the outback of Oz and displays terrific scenery alongside some great visual gags and exciting moments, including Kozlowski's ass. The second half of the film is set on the streets of New York and again displays some genius visual gags (for the time) alongside more expected exciting moments...you just knew the pair would come across street punks at some point.
What is amazing is back in the day (and now even) this film was a fresh idea, it was quite unique and still is really. If you scratch beneath the surface it tends to have a kind of 'Police Academy' motif/theme really, lots of obvious setups for hero moments, love scenes, silly gags etc...But its such a slice of good wholesome cheer I really can't fault it at all.
You know what I'm gonna say...looking back this film is horrendously cliched, cheesy and predictable, seriously so. But back in the 80's this was a tremendous hit and rightly so, it has everything you could want for a great fun time with a lovely happy ending. Only downer I can see is this franchise totally typecast Hogan and pretty much ended his film career as he never bettered this, his best rough bluecollar Aussie charmer.
7.5/10
'Crocodile' Dundee II (AUS, 1988)
Well we're back in the land of the rising sun...no wait, well the land of the bloody scorching sun anyway. Yep, the inevitable sequel to the original hit and to be fair, I have no qualms about it. The first film was a breathe of fresh air and managed to capture the fun spirit of old fashioned adventures with a charming hero perfectly.
This film did well upon release but got bad reviews, I don't really see why to be honest. Sure the plot is a bit textbook, daft and over used, but the whole idea of the Aussie bushman still trying to find his way around the modern big city of New York with its cultural differences, lingo difficulties and his general ignorance of anything outside of the outback is still just about amusing.
Can't deny that there are moments when your thinking surely he's heard of that before! or seen one of those!. When 'Mick' fails to pick up on a Richard Nixon impression and then admits he's never heard of Nixon...yeah OK you've been living in the wilds of Oz but SURELY you've heard of Nixon! come on!.
The main let down for this film is the stupid ass plot. Its basically your standard baddies kidnap 'Dundee's' girl and he's gotta save her. This incorporates much silly nonsense involving kiddie street gangs dressed in awful 80's 'gangwear' helping 'Dundee' out, its lame.
The second half of the plot (two halves just like the first film) sees 'Dundee' and 'Jane'...I mean 'Sue Charlton' back in native Oz hiding out from the bad guys who are now after them for revenge. All that way just for revenge? is it that important?. Anyway we are then given an overly long series of chase/hunt sequences where 'Dundee' uses his bushman talents to defeat the bad guys one by one.
Kinda got the impression that the despite the fact the first film was a big success it didn't involve any violence or bad guys for 'Dundee' to kill, and this is why we have this bog standard sequel storyline. First film was a nice romantic Prince Charming type story, this is Hollywood action time...Aussie style.
What's even more off putting is both 'Dundee' and 'Sue' are in mortal danger during this time from the drug dealers hunting them yet they treat it like some kind of happy camping trip with lots of hugs n kisses. The director can't decide what he wants, remain a lovey dovey rom com or venture into some proper jungle/desert killing action. Obviously it stays on the light side which equals some rather silly tame bad guy take downs which aren't really believable for the situation. The situation quite clearly shows that all the bad guys need to be killed off.
So yeah the story is crap and that's a shame because the franchise is fine for a sequel. There is just enough juice left in 'Mick Dundee' to squeeze out another fun film. The visuals gags are still keeping afloat just about, Hogan still looks the part perfectly as do all other cast members (great continuity) and the imagery of wild Australia in all its glory with the adding of more Aboriginal folk is still very welcome and quite original. But most importantly, overall its still a fun film that just about delivers...by the skin of its teeth.
6/10
Elvira's Haunted Hills (2001)
Bit late in the day for a sequel isn't it?! the first film came out way back in 88!. Despite the long hiatus Peterson still looks the business I gotta admit. Her two best friends are still big n bold whilst the rest of her still appears to be pretty fit.
As for the film, well its a bit of a change of pace from the first. Where as the first was a light hearted, slightly cheeky, goofy horror which was at least treated like a proper film. This sequel is more like a British 'Carry On' comedy, kinda leaning towards a spoof with cheesy slapstick, cheesy dialog, cheesy sets, hammy acting and of course lots of childish sexual innuendos...what did you expect?.
It seems to be a prequel if anything as the film is set in the 18th Century in the Carpathian mountains. 'Elvira' and her maid are running from their landlord trying to skip the bill and get picked by a caddish professor who takes them to the local cursed castle. Whilst there various silly things happen as the plot unravels in a 'who dunnit?' type murder mystery/family curse type of thing. Nothing to do with the first film.
Its all very stupid and looks pretty cheap, the only real highlight for me was the rare sight of Richard O'Brien portraying the castles owner 'Lord Vladimere Hellsubus' (great name). Not sure why the cult star has agreed to star in this puerile silliness, I guess a chance to simply let loose and chew up the scenery perhaps.
Influenced by Hammer Horror and Roger Corman films yet much much more B-movie-ish. Its still reasonable fun but I guess you gotta like the character of 'Elvira', mind you if you like trashy horror/spook flicks then this might appeal also. I quite liked it for the atmosphere and outrageous characters, camp fun.
5/10
Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles (AUS/US, 2001)
Well I guess you know what I'm gonna say about this third sequel. The first film was great and the second was decent enough but was walking a tightrope in terms of how much further they could take the franchise. This final film falls from that tightrope right into a large vat of poo.
The idea is weak, so very weak. The intrepid bushman is back, this time in LA, why? because his love must go there to run the family newspaper business for a time. This of course equals lots of pathetic predictable visual gags that refer to LA culture and anything remotely well known in the area. For example 'Dundee' goes to Paramount Studios for a tour, he ends up as an extra on movie sets and there is a hideous cameo by Mike Tyson, pretty much all the things you would expect from a comedy film set in the vile city of LA.
Its sad because it just seems that LA has nothing to offer in terms of locations or ideas that somehow don't end up revolving around the film business. I mean there are other tacky moments of course, you have the obligatory attempted drive by mugging by some stereotypical Latin American youths, dubious nightclubs, airhead blondes, fast food drive thrus etc...but still the whole thing still ends up revolving around the movie business with most sequences taking place on movie sets.
I get the impression that because the first two films were set in New York, movie folk in LA (the West) were jealous so they had to make another with 'Dundee' in their neck of the woods battling with their cross cultural problems.
I mean really, the whole notion is such a waste of time, you could of made a much better go of it in another country at least. Try 'Dundee' in Japan or Russia or Italy or where ever! sure the whole idea is still stretched and pointless but at least it would be more interesting, but no lets make it in LA, cos we can't possibly leave out LA.
Ignoring all rational advice we have this terrible result, a total cheese fest. Admittedly the continuity is again good with cast members returning, down side is 'Dundee' now has a brat (son of 'Crocodile' Dundee? thank god not yet), luckily he is not involved too much which begs the question why put him in there in the first place?. Hogan still defies the laws of time and looks damn good as 'Dundee', his weather beaten tanned leathery face still looks youngish as does his body, makeup aside.
With US/Hollywood meddling this final chapter in the Aussie franchise is a by the numbers load of fluffy crapola that didn't even need to be made. Could of been reasonable with better imagination. And what the hell happened to his croc skin waistcoat?! guess that wasn't very PC for nowadays.
3/10
The Craft (1996)
Supernatural teen thriller? hmmm I think we've had enough of that concept. But wait! this was back in 96 before the 'Twilight' films, plus three of the teen girls in this film are kinda slutty and dress in skimpy school uniforms!. Ahh well that's OK then, game on.
Yep back in the ancient past of 1996 this film came out of nowhere and was a huge sleeper hit, in other words no one thought it would do anything but it did. Massively popular with teen girls, a film aimed for them entirely and they lapped it up. I was in college back in those days and I recall the girls in my class loving it, kinda got you worried in case the film gave them any unsavory ideas hehe.
New girl in town feels slightly uncomfortable in her new surroundings and new school. Three other girls are the school outcasts and verbally bullied or made fun of by both the boys and girls. All the girls meet up and slowly become friends, all four have an interest in witchcraft or spellcraft, so they learn more, become witches and get revenge on all the kids that bullied them. The only thing is one of the girls goes too far and one has natural supernatural abilities unbeknownst to the others. Pretty straight forward but highly effective.
The good thing about this film was it wasn't a nice sweet lovey dovey romance flick like...well you know. It was actually quite dark and twisted with plenty of brooding devilish imagery all to do with classic witch folklore and actual spiritual lore. The whole idea is pushed way beyond the realms of reality naturally but there is slight truth and real meaning behind certain aspects of the Pagan/witch /Wicca folklore practices the girls get up to.
All four of these girls had some serious raw sexual energy also, these characters weren't your blonde princesses, they were devious and naughty. Even Tunney as the good natured girl was no let down, the film appealed to the boys just as much as the girls. The best of all being the wonderful Balk who starts off as trailer trash but evolves into a full blown gothic bitch complete with dog collars, black fingernails, black lipstick and at one point some nice tight shiny PVC pants! oh so good!. Balk also gives a brilliant performance as the unhinged 'Nancy', she is really quite unnerving towards the end with her big toothy 'Joker-like' grin.
Yes you could say this is just another 'Scream' type thriller with a nice pretty young cast, it also stars Skeet Ulrich who is no stranger to teens flicks. But it really isn't, its so much more than that, the basis is the same, its kinda predictable and is full of teen angst but in general its a much better teen thriller than most. Some of the CGI looks bad now of course but there are more real time tricks which is nice to see, lots of creepy crawlies involved.
You only have to look at the films poster, 'Bewitched' this is not! 'Sabrina the Teenage Witch' think again, and I repeat...there is no 'Twilight' crapola either. This is a dark, somewhat gritty, spirit invoking thriller that is a surprisingly good ride.
7/10
Short review:
Prince of Darkness (1987): Some intriguing ideas and creepy potential, not fully realized. The script is plagued with underdeveloped characters, little occurs the first two thirds of the story, and the plot doesn't really make much sense. Which is a shame, because this is a beautifully shot and well directed horror movie with style to spare. The last act in particular is riveting and parts of it will stick in your head for a very long time. Worth seeing if you're a John Carpenter fan, or a fan of gothic 1980's horror.
I'm glad I saw it, but it's far from my favorite JC flick. Or, to put it in comparison to his other films, on a scale of Ghosts of Mars to The Thing, I'd rate this somewhere around The Fog.
Identity Thief (2013)
From the director of 'Horrible Bosses' but alas this isn't anywhere near as good. Simple premise, a woman steals a family mans identity and maxes out his credit cards causing him all manner of issues which involve the law.
This is one of those films that just didn't sit well with me, the whole idea made me feel uncomfortable right from the start. This bloke has a nice happy family life which is brought to ruins by some fat binge drinking female who you just wanna smack in the face. Now I realise the director probably wants you to hate this thief character but it doesn't work, at no point in the film did I like her or feel for her, even when you're clearly suppose to with the sappy friendship that builds during the film and the obvious fluffy ending.
The whole time I'm watching all I could think of was what I'd do in that situation, if this happened to me, I sure as hell wouldn't team up with the woman and do what Bateman's character does, screw that!. The film is kinda annoying and just gave me constant nasty thoughts for McCarthy's thief character and how I'd kill her if it was me. On top of that she isn't in the least bit funny, neither is Bateman, the whole road trip pairing is really laboured and doesn't gel and nothing much happens throughout the film which is funny either.
The whole film is just about screwing people over with the added obligatory car chase and obligatory nasty criminals trying to kill the main duo, there isn't even much point in that sub plot. What's so stupid about this is the fact that at the start of the film Bateman's character discovers what's happened to him and eventually gets backed up by the police, yet his boss still says he gonna fire him for shit that's been proved wasn't him!! huh?.
Even the police detective doesn't fully believe he's innocent for gods sake! despite the fact its pretty clear identity fraud has been committed. That's like your bank calling you saying you've had suspicious activity on your account, you confirm the activity wasn't you but the bank doesn't believe you!. So no one at the start of the film basically believes Bateman's character is innocent, clearly he's done everything and no one believes in fraud. So to clear himself he goes off on this ridiculous road trip to find the culprit and bring her to justice! yeah like you'd do that, makes no sense whatsoever.
Literately nothing to recommend here, nothing funny about any of it, over worked, overly stretched, forced, awkward to watch with no redeeming qualities. Its like a wannabe 'Planes Trains and Automobiles' type vehicle but fails badly on every front. End of the day what is funny about something like identity fraud?!.
2/10
The Cabin In The Woods
Good, loved the idea, some monsters were cool, could have made it so much better.
3/5
S.W.A.T. (2003)
Kinda based on the American TV show but ultimately kinda not. Characters left out, new ones in, different ethnicity for the one member and turning one regular into the baddie. Kinda makes you wonder why they bother adapting these old shows if they're gonna change most of it. Luckily (amazingly) this film hasn't suffered too badly and is pretty much a stand alone action film, old TV show left by the wayside.
When this was first brought up I instantly thought it would be crapola, just a weak timid action flick that would probably border on comedy. Much to my surprise the film is an out n out serious fast paced cop flick, more serious in terms of realism than say...'Lethal Weapon', but with less of the comedy.
I think we can all guess its a film about a tough highly skilled elite team of cops, and this being a modern flick the testosterone is through the roof!. The clearly unfit Samuel L. Jackson leads a team consisting of Farrell, Rodriguez (again in another crack team of tough nuts), LL Cool J and two other faceless guys. In all honesty I think the team could have been better cast with better character actors from the 80's action genre, why we have to put up with these ex-rap/hip-hop stars with stupid names I don't know.
The plot is sort of obvious but not completely, you'd expect the usual last stand type ordeal with a team but the film shows some imagination. The main bad guy spends most of his time cuffed with cops which is a brave move, the good guys tend to be always trying to gain the upper hand and never really in control and of course there is betrayal, which spices things up. Its not exactly hard to predict but it plays out a little differently than most cookie cutter action films.
What is different is the fact half the film shows this team training, and what is shown looks pretty realistic I gotta say. Lots of skilled combat/hostage training with your cliched yet highly polished 'Top Gun-esq' over the top camaraderie and macho showboating with liberal splashes of gun porn. It all looks slick sexy and makes you wanna run down to the local cop recruitment centre and get shooting. Oh those boys in blue do look handsome in their nice perfectly fitting uniforms and actionman body armour.
The film isn't really very violent, it hints at some strong stuff, you just don't see it. I do tend to think that the film might have been much cooler had it been an all out adult film, bit more gritty and a bit less glossy perhaps. But in general its a solid action flick that you can easily enjoy without knowing the old TV show ever existed.
6.5/10
The Wild (2006)
Lets get one thing straight here, this isn't a bad animated film, not really, it just had the HUGE misfortune of coming out after 'Madagascar'. Well I'm not sure whether this came out too late or they did indeed try to rip off the mentioned film, probably just too late.
The plot, settings and entire idea is unfortunately almost identical to 'Madagascar'. A bunch of crazy animals all live together in a zoo lead by the mighty lion 'Samson'. One day 'Samson' accidentally upsets his cub son causing him to run away, get trapped and...you guessed it, get shipped off to Africa. So 'Samson' and the other animals including a Koala, Giraffe, snake and squirrel, all go off on an adventure to rescue 'Ryan' the lion cub.
I can't really go into how utterly stupid this is seeing as its a kids film. But alligators in New York's sewers, the fact they all end up in Africa from leaving NY is pretty amazing, no idea where in Africa though but a volcano?. And the fact there are hardly any humans around anywhere...including in NY. Yes I know its a silly kiddie film but lets have some degree of sense.
One major problem here is the characters aren't too spectacular and AGAIN almost identical to errr that other wildlife animation. The only character that shows any signs of creativity was 'Nigel' the Koala who has a British accent voiced by the brilliant Eddie Izzard. This little guy was pretty neat, Izzard does a great job making him a very nervous, easily scared, unfit, slightly squiffy fellow who hates the fact his likeness is a famous plush zoo toy souvenir. Its Eddie's dry, wry flat deliveries that make you laugh, well for us Brits anyway. Quite liked the Noo Yawker tawk of the sewer alligators also, that's a good accent.
Plus, Patrick Warburton, standard requirement for animated films it seems. Not a problem seeing as his voice is brilliantly funny, lucky huh!.
Its all completely and totally predictable with visual gags that have been used all before. The animation isn't that bad, a different style to 'Madagascar' with fur effects giving a little more realism, 'Ryan' the cub is undeniably cute. The wildebeests actually look pretty cool I though, quite evil and I liked the little intro animation revolving around them at the start.
Shame they chose to include modern pop music within the film but other than that its a fair animation that is fun to watch. Had it come out before that other silly zoo animation then the tables would be turned hehe but such is life.
4/10
Swordfish (2001)
Possibly the stupidest movie title ever? we do find out why during the film but still. Possibly the stupidest look for Travolta? the most camp hairdo? gotta be contenders huh.
This film is basically about hacking computers, stealing lots of money and transferring it here there and everywhere in a flurry of slick sexy sequences. That's pretty much it, Travolta's character tells us its all in the name of national security and for US protection against terrorism, which it does seem to be. So this begs the question why is Travolta and his goons made out to be bad guys when they're working for the US government and hitting back at dangerous terrorists?. The FBI finds out about the operation, OK its a dodgy op but what's wrong with it?.
Apart from being very much like an ensemble Bond flick the film actually offers a few interesting insights. Halle Berry's first topless scene is the big one (no pun intended), doesn't really add anything to the film and feels pointless but its there. This was only Vinnie Jones second major Hollywood film and again he has very little to say, still weird to see him in a Hollywood film at the time though. Only Jackman's second Hollywood action film also, after 'X-Men'. This was one of the earlier films for Cheadle which started to push him further into bigger action films. Likewise this was a film within a string of action films for Travolta that all kicked off after success with a certain Tarantino film.
A bland film really with little to show, the action is impressive but doesn't feel required. It also seems way way over the top just for the sake of it. The plot doesn't really make much sense, its simple yet made out to be grand and complex with lots of tech talk and government plots. Thing is you can see right through it, its just an action film with too many big stars that are knee deep in makeup. An odd collection of stars too, none of them really gel together.
I really got the impression that certain scenes and stunts are in there just to keep you the audience interested, as none of it serves the plot. At the start where Travolta's character is doing his own little 'Tarantino-esq' bit of dialog, Berry topless as said before, Jackman's character getting a blow job whilst trying to crack a code, sexy ladies asses on display, a car chase where Travolta uses an M60 machine gun (I think) etc...The story could be told without all that.
Its like a compilation of sexy smooth cool sequences which is assumed people will like. The actual plot and character development seems to have been added afterwards as an afterthought.
The finale typifies how the director tries to make this out to be a clever film. Travolta's character seemingly escapes in a chopper but gets blown to kingdom come by a rocket launcher. We then discover that a body double was in the chopper and 'Gabriel' tricked everyone. But how did 'Gabriel' know his chopper would get shot down? what if Jackman's character didn't use the rocket launcher? he didn't have to, he may not even of thought of it seeing as the weapon was back on the bus.
That was the clever twist the film had been building up to! that and another which wasn't exactly groundbreaking. So really the bad guys entire dastardly plan seemed to hinge on whether or not the good guy would use a particular weapon at a particular time, that's some good crystal ball skills right there.
5/10
Transylvania 6-5000 (1985)
Yes the title of this film is a silly twist on the classic Glen Miller song and they sure make the most of that pun throughout the film sheesh!.
I'm not quite sure what to think of this really, straight away its clear this is a low budget silly film which isn't suppose to be taken seriously and REALLY looks like its trying to be another 'Young Frankenstein'. Unfortunately it fails pretty badly with a serious lack of laughs and a huge amount of embarrassingly poor visual gags and prat falls.
Looking back now it looks hella shit of course haha really low budget with no special effects and hardly any set work either. The only thing going for it is the genuine use of Yugoslavian location work, they went all that way to make this?!!.
I'm still not so sure what on earth it was all about really, just a couple reporters looking for classic monsters in modern day (at the time) Transylvania. They manage to find all manner of weird locals and possible ghouls but all is not what it seems, so it seems. The whole thing is really pretty pointless to be honest, not funny, not very atmospheric and not exciting or engaging. The only thing is the impressive cast that weren't back then of course.
It really does feel like a poor mans 'Young Frankenstein' with Joseph Bologna doing his best 'Dr Fronk-en-steen' type impression, Michael Richards AND John Byner doing their best 'Igor' type impressions, Jeff Goldblum didn't need to be here at all and neither did Jeff Jones. On the plus side Geena Davis looks young and hot as the nymphomaniac vampire, best thing in the film!.
The films poster is much more creepy, kooky and fun looking, false advertising there, a spoof which isn't funny, hmmm not good that. Bit of a throw away trashy 'horror comedy' that I thought might be an old forgotten gem...but it isn't.
4/10
The Fan (1996)
Psychological thriller...cast De Niro...check, give him lots of chances to grimace and stare down his nose at the camera with his trademark uncomfortable look of disgust...check. And that about does it for all the requirements needed to make a good thriller about a nut job.
A slick thriller directed by the camp Tony Scott. Yes it has all his flashy nods like plenty of rock n roll tracks, fancy lighting and glossy sequences but at the same time its very insightful. The whole idea of looking into the obsessive, delusional almost addictive human behaviour when it comes to sports and a mans love for the game.
De Niro is a knife salesman, right off the bat that doesn't sound like a sound occupation. He has a stressful time with his ex-wife who's trying to keep him away from his son, he loses his job and to top it all the new major signing for his fave baseball team is playing badly. And he really likes this new player.
The problem is De Niro's character has an over the top obsessive love of the game, his home team and the new star signing. He thinks he can change their fortunes almost, he used to be a player so he thinks he knows everything and how players should play, he gets easily carried away at games, easily upset, disappointed with the results and performances he's seeing and basically starts to lose it. Of course this is all perfect for De Niro as portraying a man on the edge, a kooky lunatic slowly growing more and more angered with his situation is right up his alley.
The way we see him with his son at the game shouting profanity at the field and the people around him, getting more and more agitated and scaring his son. Its really quite uncomfortable to watch and makes you feel almost sorry for him whilst at the same time kinda awkward or embarrassed. I'm sure many of us have seen real people like this at real games, it can be a nasty situation if it developes into something further. De Niro nails this beautifully with his famous scowls and 'you lookin' at me' looks.
The story here is of course exaggerated and goes to a much darker place, although I'm very sure there are folk out there that are this crazy about their sports. Maybe not to this degree though. It doesn't feel too realistic though as De Niro's character seems able to get close to these big time sluggers very easily, at bars, in the stadium, at their personal homes, in gyms etc...surely it would be hard to do this generally. The way he manages to confront Del Toro's character and do what he does, plus get away with it, is also pushing the boundaries of believeability.
The fact De Niro's character is a knife salesman seems a bit forced also, that's like 'what's one of the most dangerous yet easily assessable/concealable things a salesman could sell without raising much suspicion and use effectively to kill'. Would be too obvious if he sold guns. It kinda gives the game away straight away about what he's gonna do doesn't it. The whole development of the story is really predictable if I'm honest, you can see what's gonna happen a mile off and De Niro has done this type of role a few times before. But its De Niro's acting that keeps you hooked plain n simple.
Its all about De Niro (trying not to say his name in every sentence here), Snipes does a solid job as the big shot new signing with the weight of the world on his shoulders but you watch for De Niro's psycho. The film is covering old ground a lot really as we've seen Snipes do all this before also in 'Major League'.
Thing is you feel for De Niro's character at the end, he's just a guy trying to be with his kid, teach him about his love for the game of baseball whilst maybe having a shot at his dream too. He's not a bad guy really, he didn't intend for it to happen the way it does, he's almost forced down that route by circumstance and people's attitudes. End of the day you can see both sides of the coin for the two main characters. These big players wouldn't be where they are without the fans, none of the team would be, so the players do have to play for the team and for the fans, they owe it to the fans to do their best and show appreciation for their support.
On the other hand a player should ignore everything that goes on with the fans because as Snipes' character says, when you're hitting they love you, when you're not they'll spit on you, the fans are a fickle bunch. So yes a player should really play for himself to a degree, do what he thinks is best and strive to achieve his own goals, but you will always need the team, two sides.
7/10
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
Based on the iconic American action figure which was originally based around real US military units/branches. Better known in the UK as the iconic 'Action Man' and was (I think) the only soldier based toy of the time, plus it had many accessories to boot!. I had an 'Action Man' plus a few vehicles when I was younger, I can never forget the extreme blonde buzz cut he had and 'Barbie-like' clothing hehe never really stuck with this particular toy.
Then whilst living in the US of A at a tender age of around 8 years old, I came across the G.I.Joe cartoon, I was hooked. Now I will admit up front I don't really recall any of the stories behind the franchise/characters, I only liked it for the cool action, cool vehicles and of course cool looking characters (bit like 'M.A.S.K.'). I might also add I believe this was the first and possibly only cartoon that dealt with terrorists? the good guys actually battling a force that isn't shy about letting themselves be known as terrorists, don't think that would happen anytime nowadays.
On to the film...hmmm tricky, very tricky. I was highly dubious when this was announced, even more so when it came out, the levels of CGI in this film was mind blowing. The story basically sets up a few characters on both the good side and bad and takes us through how 'Cobra Commander' comes to power. Sommers decided to only use a handful of the massive roster of characters which was probably a good choice but one wonders if a few more could have been stuck in there, the ones with cool outfits perhaps.
I liked how they kinda went about this as a prequel of sorts, setting up how the bad guys come to be, it also sets up the obvious sequel and seeing the main bad guys in full swing. The story was handled quite well I thought, like I say I don't really know the backgrounds to these people but after some research and watching the film it all fit together well, some changes aside *ahem*.
I liked how the main two villains ('Commander' and 'Destro') have their stories told and we see how they become their more famous personas. I liked the small flashbacks that gave us clues about various other characters and their backgrounds, and in all fairness I thought the characters looked pretty neat too. Sure they all looked like rehashed characters from other sci-fi/action films, nothing really original, but they looked solid, believable and realistic, not campy as was feared.
The problems arise with the acting for one thing, its awful!. Didn't exactly expect it to be stunning but these guys really do move and sound like plastic figures. The worst easily being Tatum followed easily by Marlon Wayans who I don't even think you can call an actor. What was worse was the fact certain actors seemed to take it seriously, Eccleston, Quaid and Pryce I'm looking at you, at the same time Levitt was doing a brilliantly campy Batman villain, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (jesus!) simply can't act end of and the same can be said for Miller.
I don't understand Hollywood sometimes, they wanna make an adaptation like this, clearly they wanna make it semi serious to appeal to the wider audience and to jump on the Bond/Marvel/'Mission: Impossible' type bandwagon which was in full swing. But then they go and cast people who can't act and who star in regular garbage, why on earth would you cast Wayans in this? right there you have a huge negative already, do you want an action flick or some dumb childish pratfall gag reel?.
We then come to the hideous CGI issue. This film reminded me of the 'Star Wars' prequels with their massive CGI elements and multiple finales, I think this film really tries for that similar final bang towards the end. To a degree they do achieve that, I can't deny the scope of the film is impressive with tonnes going on, plenty of visual imagination and action, all manner of crafts, subs, weapons, aircraft etc...all over the show. The problem is its so damn hectic its hard to make out what's going on, it really is a complete rip off from 'Star Wars' in how the films acts are staged and of course the CGI is bad, real bad, the cartoon looked better lol!. You can see its a Sommers film because 'The Mummy' films had dreadful CGI too.
Unsurprisingly the film is a very loud, fake looking, badly acted, explosion filled wet dream for Toys R Us. But you gotta look at this collectively, yes its complete trash of the highest order and yes Hollywood should know better. But on the other hand I'm sure the targeted audience will love it and wanna buy the toys, job done. Its a shame Hollywood never seems to learn and keeps producing such nonsense when they could make something half decent, especially with such rich material as this. But again at the end of the day we all know what to expect these days, we all know PG-13 is the favoured way to go and if you're honest the film does deliver what it promises for who its intended, you can't really deny that.
So yeah the film is rubbish and the prime example of modern day CGI filled crapola made purely for merchandise n money. I did enjoy some of it like I said, the plot wasn't half bad amazingly, the characters did look like their toon/comic counterparts I think (in some cases), shame about 'Cobra Commanders' crappy looking mask at the end. Miller was hot in her tight outfits whilst 'Snake Eyes' and 'Storm Shadow' were easily the best looking, most exciting and intriguing characters (bit like 'Scorpion' and 'Sub-Zero').
Offering plenty of bang for your buck no doubt and a fun brainless night in perhaps, I suppose it does what it sets out to do, just poorly. The sequence where 'Duke' and 'Ripcord' are suited up in those special astronaut type outfits and tearing through Paris to get to the Eiffel Tower, probably one of the worst effects/action sequences I've seen in a long long time. Truly ridiculous, bogged down with utterly lame visual comedy/gags courtesy of Wayans and it all looks nasty.
4/10
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Damn it Spielberg you did it again! I thought you wouldn't get me but once again you made me cry whilst watching one of your films, sheesh!. Right...'A.I.', batten down the hatches mateys, this could be a big one.
From the collective minds of Kubrick and Spielberg comes this lavish epic about a little robot boy who is brought into a young couples life. Based on a short story by a writer I admit I've never heard of, yet the idea could easily be mistaken for work from the brains of Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov or Philip K. Dick.
Lets begin, this film gave me a headache, not a bad headache, more of a problematic headache. I was stuck and didn't know what to think. The film is a massive story betwixt two ideas or genres almost, on one hand you have the first half of a film that centres around the human angst and emotion of trying to adapt to adopting a robot child. The pain of a mother who's child is at deaths door from disease, and the decision by her husband to offer her a brand new state of the art robot child that for the first time can learn and express love for its 'owner'.
The second half of the film then changes completely, gone is the sentiment and powerful family bound plot as we enter into a more seedy grim world. One could almost say the film adopts many visual concepts from other sci-fi films/genres, which do work on their own, but maybe not together with this story.
The story is enthralling and draws you in...but oh so many questions arise Mr Spielberg, where to begin!. Once we leave the comfort of the family orientated first part of the film we pretty much straight away hit the 'Flesh Fair'. Now this really did seem too harsh for me, a completely disjoined idea that harks back to a 'Mad Max' type world. Why would people of the future act like this towards simple machines? the whole sequence looked like some freaky red neck carnival. It also seemed like a huge setup for not very much, just a few minutes of carnage, was all that fan fair really required?.
This lead me to the question of why do this to old, lost, outdated Mecha's? (the term for robots in this film which sounds a bit Japanese to me). Now surely these robots cost a lot to make, much time, effort, design etc...went into creating them, so surely destroying them is a complete waste. Wouldn't fixing them up for simple labour tasks like cleaning or whatever, be more useful? maybe selling them on? and even if you did have to shut them down, just do it more humanly, why the need for all the violence?. The whole sequence just didn't seem sensible really, and it was thought up by Spielberg!.
Eventually we get to 'Rouge City', where is this suppose to be? why not use a real city?. Again the whole concept seemed out of place, the city seemed much more futuristic than everything else we have seen, plus the architecture was truly odd. The huge tunnel bridges with a woman's gaping open mouth as the opening? it seemed very 'Giger-esq' to me, quite sexual too, kids film anyone?. Then you had buildings shaped like women's boobs and legs etc...geez!. Its here we meet 'Gigolo Joe' who is superbly played by Jude Law I can't deny, but really at the end of the day, was he needed at all?. He is a nice character, very likeable but virtually bordering on a cartoon character, and why the need for the tap dancing?.
The makeup was very good for the Mecha characters, simple yet effective for both Law and Osment. Kudos to Osment of course for his portrayal of the robot 'David', I honestly can say its probably the best performance for a robot I've ever seen. Brilliant casting too I might add, Osment can act but his looks are half the battle won right there, he has this almost perfect plastic looking young face, its all in the eyes I think.
Speaking of characters how can I not mention the star of the film, 'Teddy'. Now this little guy was adorable, I still find myself wanting my own 'Teddy' *whimpers*. Every scene this little fellow was in I loved, I loved to see him waddle around and assist 'David' in his simple electronic voice. I found myself caring for all the characters in this film but especially 'Teddy', he was just awesome. Sure he seemed to have some kind of infinite power source but that made him even cooler damn it!. What really broke my heart was we don't know what happens to lill 'Teddy', we see him at the end but what becomes of him?? what Steven WHAT??!!. I loved that lill guy *sniff*.
As you near the end of the film and its multiple ongoing finales you literately get submerged in questions. 2000 years pass from the time 'David' is trapped under the sea and his rescue (the ferris wheel didn't crush the helicopter/sub thingy??), in that time the planet has gone from global warming jungles to a MASSIVE ice age? I mean a REALLY HEAVY ice age. Now I'm no scientist but that doesn't seem right. I might quickly add, in the future why are all the skyscrapers in New York in tatters? as if they've been burnt out?. Sure the bottom of them has been flooded but they look like skeletons! as if a nuke hit them, eh?.
The we get to the evolved Mecha's (or 'Close Encounter' aliens). How would these robots evolve into these angelic liquid-like creatures?? I don't get it, if the human race became extinct tomorrow would computers evolve into alien-like creatures?. Sure these robots can fix themselves and update themselves but that far? really?. Then you gotta ask yourself why would they be digging up old human remains? they know humans created them, OK they might not understand why but does that matter?. They clearly have highly advanced technology so why don't they travel space and look for new similar intelligent life?. Why bother with the human race, of which many despised them anyway, treated them like crap.
This then leads onto the resurrection part of the story. I still can't quite work out why 'David's' mother would only live for one day when brought back. There is an explanation from the advanced Mecha's but I couldn't follow it. Again we then have all manner of plot issues...why his mother doesn't recall her husband or son when she wakes, she doesn't question why 'David' is there, she's disorientated but doesn't question anything. She doesn't seem to remember anything like the fact she was probably an old lady when she was last 'awake', and she doesn't ask to go outside! they stay inside the whole time. You could say the advanced Mecha fixed it so she wouldn't recall anything so not to jeopardize the situation, but when she wakes she acts as if nothing happened and its just a new day.
Where the plot really gets silly is the fact this is all possible simply because 'Teddy' kept some strands of cut hair from 'David's' mother about 2000 years prior. Where on earth did he keep these hairs? its not like he has pockets, and what's more...why did he keep the strands of hair??!!. On top of that, and again I'm no scientist, but surely you'd need the roots of human hair for the DNA, not just cut strands, no?.
Now there are a lot of whines in there but unfortunately there are a lot of plot issues in the film. I won't and can't say its a bad film, its a truly fantastic bit of sci-fi with some lovely design work and visuals, but there are problems along the way. First half is a decent sci-fi story similar to 'Bicentennial Man', second half is really a rehashed rip off of the classic 'Pinocchio' tale set in the future.
The film garnered a lot of interest due to the involvement of Kubrick and Spielberg admittedly but its still a wonderful bit of work. Part sci-fi but all fairytale in the end, the film slowly becomes more of a children's tale the deeper you go, the narration nails that home if you think about it. The very end is kinda tacked on and doesn't feel correct, true, you can see they had trouble ending the film and a weepy ending was required so they made one. But god damn it works *sniff*.
The final sequence of 'David' lying besides his motionless mother still brings a lump to my throat as I type this now. We then see 'Teddy' join them on the bed and just sit down to watch over them both, like a guardian. Does 'David' actually die here? does he voluntarily switch himself off somehow? again...what happens to 'Teddy'? I'm not sure. But as the score swells and the lights dim, you can't help but wipe away a tear.
8/10
Hey Arnold!: The Movie (2002)
Like the 'Doug' animated movie this is purely for fans of the original cartoon. Totally for kids and no one else really, I can't see any adult (or child even) liking this at all unless they know the original series and have followed it.
This was probably my fave Nick toon beating even 'Rugrats', why? because you could relate to it quite well. Many of the stories tend to revolve around real situations that kids deal with in their daily lives, situations many of us will have gone through. The usual stuff like bullies, school, projects, parents, families, snow days, adventures using your imagination etc...
Next to that is the great array of loud quirky characters which fill this world, Dan Castellaneta voicing one of my faves in 'Grandpa Phil'. The oddly shaped designs of the characters is another little series trait and of course the hand drawn style of the cartoon is really rich, colourful and bold. Each toon has their own unique individual artistic style but 'Hey Arnold!' is really one of my favourites, its so pleasing to the eye.
As for this movie, its obviously an extended version of the regular 20min cartoon but as usual it can't quite live up to the original shorter material. The plot is quite a heavy one involving 'Arnold' and 'Gerald' trying to save their neighbourhood from being destroyed by some rich tycoon. This doesn't really work too well in my opinion as it just seems too much of a stretch for the characters to achieve. Some of the ideas by other characters to stop this happening are just daft (yeah I know its a toon but still), blowing a hole in their own street?. All in all it does feel like the writers have had problems trying to think of cute filler to take up the time. Even for a kids film its dreadfully average and predictable.
New characters are also kinda bland and uninteresting unfortunately. They are voiced well by a stellar cast but they just seem uninspired, accept for 'the Coroner' voiced by Chris Lloyd, he was quite cool. All the other regular characters are present and voiced by the regular cast so continuity is good and the film visually looks the same accept for the odd spot of CGI and its generally sharper naturally.
To look at this film is to love it, its Hey Arnold but so much crisper and more delightful. But that's about it really, the plot is heavy handed, it feels terribly stretched, they try to cram all characters in the background and the little amusing touches have disappeared!. All they needed to do was stick to a more kid friendly plot if you ask me or a continuation of the final series perhaps. Something we (the fans) can all relate to, exactly why the series was so successful in the first place.
5/10
The Guilt Trip (2012)
Amazingly this film is based on a real life experience which one of the writers had with his own mother on a road trip. Whether this actually makes the film any more interesting is up to you, personally for me it doesn't but the whole idea is very relatable.
My first thought was...my god! has someone actually seen me and my own mother out together one day and thought the embarrassing scenario would make a good comedy?. But in all honesty I'm sure there are many many people who could say the exact same thing.
The plot is simple, in fact its 'Planes Trains and Automobiles' just slightly altered, there's even a steak eating contest sequence. 'Brewster' and his very overbearing mother love each other but like all young adults and their parents there is friction. In this very sappy yet heart warming tale Seth Rogen's character takes his mother on a long road trip across the US from the East coast to Vegas and finally San Francisco for another small separate sub plot. Why? because he's trying to sell his new environmentally friendly cleaning product...annnd that's it in a nutshell.
In all honesty this film is very sweet and very weepy but ultimately its also very cliched and unoriginal. Streisand is clearly the best thing about the film with her typical Jewish mother routine. Always trying to feed Rogen's character, always asking if he's warm enough, always telling him to be careful and generally being nosey, awkwardly embarrassing and annoying at just the wrong times just like all mothers can be.
The plot is really really thin and offers little chances for fun apart from the obvious odd moment before a sales pitch. In general the start of the film is probably the best, as Rogen gets off his flight and meets Streisand at the airport, that sequence made me laugh, at that point I'm thinking this could be a winner. But the whole thing is pretty daft, would you really drive across the US to make sales? surely the gas would cost a fortune? maybe not I dunno.
Also the whole sub plot bit about Streisand's character trying to meet up with this guy she dated waaaay back before she had her child (Rogen's character), is ridiculous. She is hinging on the fact this guy would remember her and somehow want to get back together! after about...I dunno, 30-40 years or so! as if!. They only had a fling, if that, this idea felt really stretched.
The film wants to be funny, its so clearly wants to be the next big hilarious comedy, but it falls well well short. There are some easy opportunities for great comedy, both Rogen and Streisand being cooped up together for the whole trip in this tiny compact city car. Its yearning for some brilliant visual moments but they just don't come, even when they both go into a strip club, you're watching and waiting for the obvious embarrassing belly laughs...but no, still nothing.
Its a shame because its heart is in the right place and the premise is a good one (if completely over used), there's just very little to laugh at here. The film runs out of comedy fuel well before the end credits I'm afraid, but the chances were there.
4.5/10
The Return of the Musketeers (UK, FRA, ESP 1989)
Some 15 years later we have this late trilogy bookend for this noteable franchise. Funnily enough the film is based on Dumas' sequel novel Twenty Years After and that's almost the same amount of time which had passed from 'The Four Musketeers' and this third film.
So to look at the characters it really does feel very authentic as everyone has indeed aged some 20 years...almost. In fact the entire cast has all been brought back once again to don their fancy pants and wigs, quite impressive I must say for the continuity.
Again its pretty much business as usual for Lester and his crew, and once again they have produced/created a sterling offering which still manages to look and sound just as lavish and authentic as the previous two films. I can't fault anything on display in this film whatsoever, all the visuals, locations, props, sets, costumes, weapons etc...everything just like before is beautifully crafted and visualised.
The comedy is as you have come to expect from Lester with these films, both silly pratfalls wise and the various subtle little dubbed gags. The action is fair but feels a little too childish this time round, of course we know its suppose to be but this time it does feel just a bit too silly with very few kills. Can't help but mention that the age of the main four fellows clearly hinders the swashbuckling somewhat, makes everything feel a bit like a Benny Hill sequence at times.
Age aside everyone is still on top form, no slacking here as all cast members are clearly having a great time hamming it up in a flurry of swords, facial hair n wine. Oliver Reed was born for this role I believe, I'm not even sure if he knew he was in a film, just drinking, fighting and being loud. A great shame about Roy kinnear though, such a lose, even worse when its a needless accident.
It seems that one problem is that of Kim Cattrall as 'Justine de Winter'. She doesn't quite fit the bill in this role methinks, I can't quite put my finger on it, maybe her face looks too 'present day' or 80's, but she just doesn't fit in. I can see her in a daft sexy comedy alongside someone like Tom Hanks but just not in a period piece like this. It also bugs me that people must always alter things when they adapt, 'Milady de Winter' was suppose to have a son not a daughter, so why change it??.
Overall this is still a great fun film which all the family can enjoy no doubt. Though despite it still looking superb I can't help but feel its not really required. The first two films gave you your complete Musketeer fix, they explored every avenue, every nook and cranny of 17th Century France and pretty much gave you everything you could ask for in a swashbuckler.
This does feel a bit tired, a bit late in the day and a bit of a rehash really, just the same as before. Sure its not a bad thing and the characters being old is a nice spin which of course connects to the original source material but it just doesn't really offer you anything new. The first two films did it all perfectly and to be honest...better, this just feels like a return trip without the freshness.
Still a great film but simply not in the same league as the first two, it may even bore you in parts. And how the hell does the 'Count De Rochefort' survive the previous film to here?! He was well n truly run through, even in this day and age you wouldn't have much of a chance with that one, so how on earth he overcame that little nick is anyone's guess haha.
6/10
Iron Man Three
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi996.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf81%2FVecrotus%2FFilms%2Funtitled-1_zps031653d3.png&hash=d265ff075ee5f505751851834c51b3efe4d04ebe) (http://s996.photobucket.com/user/Vecrotus/media/Films/untitled-1_zps031653d3.png.html)
Directed by Kiss Kiss Bang Bang director Shane Black, Iron Man Three (as it is stylised onscreen) is Marvel's seventh instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and third entry in the Iron Man franchise. Set directly after the events of The Avengers, Iron Man Three picks up with quirky Tony Stark (played to perfection by Robert Downey Jr.) dealing with the consequences of his life as the armoured hero; this time suffering from a post-traumatic stress disorder after events that took place in New York at the end of The Avengers.
It seems Stark's work is never quite cut out as a new villain and terrorist rises at the same time. Calling himself "The Mandarin" (played by the varied Ben Kingsley), the bin-laden inspired villains detonates bombs across the globe, yet leaves no trace of what caused the explosion. Despite their best efforts, the government is clueless. After one of Stark's allies is caught in one these attacks, Stark vows revenge and publicly challenges the Mandarin, even giving him his own address... a decision that he may he soon regret, especially when it puts his loved ones in the line of fire (so the world doesn't know where Tony Stark lives?)
Though the movie does a great job in making this one of the best tales for Tony Stark (in particular, a subplot involves him coming to terms with his anxiety disorder, which though well done, doesn't get fully resolved), one cannot help but notice how little screen time is given to Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow) and Lt. Col James "Rhodey" Rhodes (Don Cheadle) this time around. Despite being rebranded the Iron Patriot and being publicised in the media, both real world and film, Rhodes has very little do even though he has more scenes as the Iron Patriot than he did War Machine suit in Iron Man 2. Though Potts has fewer scenes with Stark unfortunately, her character takes an unexpected twist near the end of the film.
Unlike the previous films, the story has an objective: the bad guy is killing people; Tony Stark must stop him. However, all is not what it seems and we are taken on a well-paced if a little convoluted adventure with Tony Stark. New characters are introduced, including a memorable appearance by canon foreigner Ty Simpkins who plays a 10 year old whiz kid who forms a budding relationship with Stark that is more of a big brother-little brother relationship than it is a father-son relationship. The witty banter between the two is fun to watch, if inappropriate at times, though sadly Simpkin's exits the movie half way through. In compensation for Paltrow's and Cheadle's relegated roles, JARVIS (voiced by Paul Bettany) appropriately has more dialogue.
In addition to the Mandarin, there are quite a few villains this time around who together form the components of research and at times, terrorist, organisation whose name fails to hit home; Aldrich Killian (played by Guy Pearce) plays the one of the creators of the Extremis virus: a virus that serves mainly to empower the main villain so that he can pose a significant threat to the protagonist and give characters an excuse to take of their clothes. Ellen Brandt (Stephanie Szostak) and Eric Savin (played by James Badge Dale) also appear as one dimensional henchmen. Despite the firepower, the villains are much more grounded in reality. They are much more real-world based and although it was refreshing to see Stark battle villains who don't wear Iron Suits for a change and as visually stunning as they appeared when enhanced by the Extremis, one can't help but wonder what their motives are. A lot of dialogue is thrown about as to what the villains intend to do but very little thought is given to why they do what they do.
Appropriately there are a lot more action scenes than the previous two. The visuals are polished and slick despite the lack of practical effects and a certain lack of Industrial Light and Magic. Of all three Iron Man movies, this definitely builds up to the most sensational climax with a final sequence between the Iron Legion vs. Extremis Soldiers. There are few small epic moments devoted to each amour, in particular "the Striker" and "Igor", though the speed of the action leaves one wanting to see more.
Although not as refreshing and lacking the surprise of Iron Man, Iron Man Three is a definite improvement from Iron Man 2. There is much more Iron Man, a more likable Tony Stark, engaging new characters, decent villains and more memorable action scenes even if the film fails to make a lasting impression and two out of the three stars having diminished roles. Iron Man Three is fitting end to the story of Stark, but we all know the journey doesn't quite end here.
7/10
^ Kudos :)
Observe and Report (2009)
At first glance an inevitable comparison to the Kevin James vehicle 'Paul Blart' springs to mind. To be fair you wouldn't be all that far off either, the whole basis for this film is very similar lets be honest. Both characters are working as security men in a mall and are wannabe cops. Both characters are portrayed as taking their job way too seriously when in reality they are merely shop attendants in a blue uniform. And both characters try to change their lives by applying for a job on the police force despite everyone thinking they haven't got a chance.
So yeah its pretty similar, the only major difference is the fact Rogen's character in this film is more unhinged and eerily prone to violent anger outbursts. This of course can be hilarious at times with Rogen's great comic personality and chubby features, but at the same time its also a bit disturbing and uncomfortable too.
There are plenty of scenes in this which made me laugh out loud, the way 'Ronnie' (Rogen) organises his small team of security men with the up most importance, as if they were special ops. His awkwardness around sexy perfume saleswoman 'Brandi' (Farris perfectly cast as your typical airhead blonde...again), the way he acts with jealousy around real cop 'Harrison' (Liotta), his ongoing feud with Arab shopkeeper 'Saddamn' and the way he exposes himself as slightly deranged, depressive and possibly dangerous to various people, especially in the police psychological examination.
On the flip side there are times when the film feels ugly, vicious, a bit sad and over the top with the violence, profanity and blood. The sequence where Rogen's character takes 'Brandi' out for a meal, she gets drunk and then they end up having sex, is rather dubious. Why? because 'Brandi' is completely out of it and vomiting whilst 'Ronnie' is banging her. It does seem a tad like rape, but at the same time the sight of Farris' head lurching to one side with puke on the pillow whilst 'Ronnie' goes at it is amusing I can't deny, a nervous laugh there.
There are other moments throughout which seem to go a bit too far also, showing 'Ronnie's' anger, the fight with the cops and Liotta's character, and the finale for the flasher. Its all kinda funny but kinda edgy too, at times you're thinking 'is it OK to laugh at this?'.
Saying this is a dark comedy is an understatement, its darkly dark alright and Rogen's cynical, sinister, in your face performance will either leave you laughing, cogitating or hating. I think I prefer this over the Kev James film simply because Rogen's performance is appealing to me here plus this film is more grounded ('Blart' goes goes down that 'Die Hard' route...). The ending is a bit simple and anti climatic but its a totally fun and rather controversial ride to get there.
6/10
Freelancers (aka Crossfire, 2012)
Didn't get much of a release, was pretty much snuck out straight to DVD. The cast is quite epic if you read the cover, De Niro, Whitaker errr...50 Cent and um Vinnie Jones, well come on its got De Niro and Whitaker sheesh!.
A crooked cop thriller, wait, a run of the mill unoriginal crooked cop thriller to be more precise. 50 (man that's easy to type) joins the NYPD with his two best buds. De Niro is his new boss in a special task force division, the same division that 50's father was once a member of before he was murdered. So far so good for 50 nickels errr Cent, only one problem...this division is crooked! not really a surprise seeing as I told you already. Huh maybe I should reword that, to hell with it!.
In all honesty this film is actually a good watch, well the first half or so. As we watch 50 and his two mates join the force and get with their respective partners things get real interesting. We learn early on all is not kosher in this city with the thin blue line.
50 is under the wing of Whitaker who is your stereotypical drug using corrupt cop, he ignores crimes, sells narcotics and kills people without thinking. Naturally 50 slowly gets corrupted himself by this lifestyle. 50's other two friends (one black, one white) find themselves with racist partners. But to make things even we get racism from both sides of the coin, the white rookie gets a neo Nazi looking redneck and the black rookie gets a black fat middle aged partner who dislikes whites.
This early part of the film is terrific as it shows some excellent dialog between these new cop partnerships, racial tension and violence. Everything is pretty cliched and old but its still grabs your attention or should I say morbid curiosity. The scary thing is each racist cop duo do have seemingly accurate points to make about each others people, its not very PC but the truth hurts and in America I'm sure it happens for real. What the older black cop says about his own people (mainly the younger generation) I'm sure hit home with many, clearly in the script for a reason.
As fast as we get this exciting stuff it fades away and we are left with just a dull informer cop thriller. 50 simply sees the error of his ways and decides to go undercover to stitch up the crooked cop ringleaders. Its weird because you are half expecting a really good racial bust up flick within the police force, but that just slips away.
The big guns in the film elevate this greatly, without them it would sink, of course they are very good, you know who I mean. Unfortunately they also show 50 for the very very average actor he is, you could say he's learning the ropes but no, you can see this guy ain't no actor. I guess this was a vehicle for 50 Cent because I can't really see any other reason for it to have been made, its a very dated concept which has been done many times before much better. Good start, had potential but totally loses its way from the midway point I'm afraid.
5/10
One Tough Bastard (aka One Man's Justice, 1995)
If Olivier Gruner was a top B-list action man, or the poor man's JCVD, then Brian Bosworth must be one of the best D-list action men. His filmography is short and features few well known films, other than this film you have 'Stone Cold', his best action vehicles.
So this is a really in depth intelligent well acted film that...no not really. A man fresh out of the military and with special skills in kicking ass, but its not long before his world is brought crashing down when some drug dealers kill his wife and child. I think we all know what happens next here...lots of gun totting revenge baby, oh and some ass kicking.
The main quirk here is the crooked FBI agent played by the wonderful Bruce Payne who is sporting one of the most ridiculous wigs I've seen. Not since Travolta in 'Swordfish' have I seen such a campy stupid looking hairdo, and its blonde!. Not only this but Payne's character also has a nose ring! would the FBI really allow one of their top men to look like this?!.
So off goes Bosworth as he looks for the men that killed his family, not as much out n out ass kicking as you'd expect, amazingly there is quite a bit of plot involved here. Nothing major but its not all explosions and blood put it that way, can be a bit jumbled at times. I kinda forgot what exactly Payne's character is trying to do but hey its all gonna end predictably so who cares right.
The other added bonus here is the inclusion of another top baddie character actor in Jeff Kober who always looks so damn evil, got a face like a demon. Oh and MC Hammer is in here too, although he's easy to miss without his clown pants on. Not the greatest action film in the world but its not too bad, if it wasn't for the terminally nasty Bruce Payne and Kober then it would be completely forgettable.
5.5/10
Angel Town (1990)
Oh back in the day, the glorious day of the top shelf, unreachable 18 cert films. This was the home of many horror nasties and dubious looking action movies that were deemed to be much too violent for the lower shelves.
So back in the early 90's at the height of JCVD's high kicking power he had one classic brawl flick come out after another. In the midst of this Belgian tidalwave of awesomeness came the smaller high kicking French power of Oliver Gruner.
This one film was pretty much his biggest vehicle ever (until the possibility of 'Expendables 3') and it took huge advantage of JCVD's recent fight fests. The plot is quite simply about one French student who comes to the US to study. He lives with a mother and daughter within a rough gangland neighbourhood (LA I presume, why its called 'Angel Town') and inadvertently becomes the saviour of the block. Yep you guessed it, he's gonna kickbox some thug ass.
The quality of this film is really gritty, but not gritty in a realistic way, more in a cheap low budget way. Here's me expecting something slick like the muscles from Brussels but instead we get a very dodgy audio track with tonnes of background dubbing and old fashioned fight effects, Gruner almost seems to be miming or badly dubbed himself and some very weak fight coordination/choreography.
The whole film feels so damn cheesy its unreal, yes I realise this is an old film but its nowhere near the standard of the old JCVD stuff. All the fights were very disappointing as everything looked really fake, you could see the kicks and punches deliberately missing the intended targets. On top of that the hit effects were like something out of an old western for pete's sake!.
The only decent sequence in the whole film was the short training montage in the middle where Gruner gets all sweaty and serious. This montage shows us some great moves that look real damaging plus Gruner looks good too, unlike the rest of the film where he looks like a bit of a nerd.
It was produced by the folks who gave us the awesome 'A.W.O.L.' ('Lionheart') with some Belgian fella, you can see the similarities here. Unfortunately its nowhere near as good in any aspect and shows Gruner for what he has always been...the poor mans JCVD, sorry Oliver.
Always loved how some of the bad guys have guns (look like uzi's), yet when they are watching their fellow gang members getting beaten up they don't actually use them! eh?.
4.5/10
Stash House (2012)
This film is made out to be an action film but to me it felt more like a thriller really. The whole idea is kinda similar to the film 'Panic Room' accept the panic room in this is the whole house.
The plot is simple yet not entirely well thought out either. A young couple buy a large house (which seems completely out of their league frankly) and are just about to move in. After some snooping they find a huge quantity of heroine stashed away (oh STASH house I get it hehehehehe), almost immediately the criminals that own the drugs turn up and start to terrorise them.
The thing is I still am not entirely sure what they are really trying to achieve. It turns out they don't want the drugs but are in fact after something else. Obviously I can't say but even when we do discover what they are after there is no real reason for it. There is naturally big dealings behind all this with big mob boss fatcats pulling the strings but the plot to me felt very shallow, almost as if its just an excuse to have some cool thriller action sequences inside a cool house/mansion.
Dolph turns in a good performance I must admit, he certainly has grown from his straight to DVD crapola he used to churn out. This film is a much better vehicle clearly with good production values and some care behind its creation. All the scenes look quite slick and moody with great lighting, the action gets pretty intense and bloody and the other lesser known cast do a good job (even though the female lead is really annoying when she cries).
Its not grade A stuff of course, there are issues here and there, the ending is particularly daft...tonnes of police at the scene yet no one is noticing what's going on by the ambulance? and where is the crew?. Better than the fluff you might be expecting that's for sure but end of the day the whole plot makes no sense really. Why on earth didn't the criminals just do what they wanted to do before the house was sold?! it just seems like they give themselves a lot of hard work.
5/10
Cross (2011)
So can anyone tell me what the hell is suppose to have gone on in this film? wait silly question. So has anyone actually sat down and watched this film?! no wait, has anyone actually heard of this film?? bingo.
Clearly a comicbook stylised film although I don't think its based on anything real, could be wrong. The start of the film shows you this with a little comicbook intro and it does look like it could be some fun, a hidden gem. The plot is daft and something about a Celtic looking cross amulet thingy that gives people power and has been passed down through generations. It ends up in the hands of Brian Austin Green and gives him super powers, mainly strength...oh and some odd green glow side effect too.
Green's character 'Callen' has a team of elite soldiers that work with him regularly to fight against Michael Duncan Clarke who is some kind of criminal kingpin. But then Vinnie Jones turns up as...errrr a viking warrior cursed with immortality and threatens mankind. Clarke and his bad guys join with Jones to take over the world or something like that, they are baddies is all you need to know.
So yeah, Vinnie Jones playing an undead viking warrior who is immortal, has a thick London cockney accent and for some reason is wearing an American 30/40's style bomber jacket. The good guys fair no better, we get no info on any of them frankly, no idea who they are or why they do what they do. They all have stupid names like 'Shark' 'Riot' and 'War', presumeably code names but they sound like Transformers and we don't get their real names if they have any. The baddie henchmen also have silly names too so I'm thinking this film is trying for some kind of Marvel superhero type angle, cool characters with cool names.
Despite the fact this is clearly a comicbook flick there isn't actually any real special effects or superhero-like sequences. We get some super strength moments from the hero who then shines/glows green and that's it! (the green looks dreadfully tacky too). Its like they have tried to create an awesome 'Spawn/X-Men/DareDevil/Avengers' type film but without any kind of budget...or plot.
The only thing that impresses here is the cast line up. A list of decent characters actors from past and present including Trejo, Sizemore, Jake Busey and Zabka from 'The Karate Kid'. Dunno why Sizemore's character is in this as he only pops up at the start and at the end, even though he's suppose to be after the bad guys and appears to have an important part to play.
You can see this was an attempt at something big but has fallen flat on its face. Incredibly poor B-movie, in fact its films like this that give B-movies a bad image, even as a TV movie it would be bad.
3/10
The Three Worlds of Gulliver (1960)
Very very loose adaptation of the famous Gulliver's Travels children's stories by Johnathan Swift. When I say loose I mean real loose as this film covers the first voyage of Gulliver and then parts of the second. It then ignores the remaining adventures completely and goes off on its own tangent.
It seems pretty accurate for the most part of what its covering from the novel, of course a lot is missing and it seems much is added or altered. Not that it matters really as the stories are probably too much for one film and what we get is a delightful family film that can't fail to entertain. The whole atmosphere and style with along with quaint visuals remind me very much of 'Hans Christian Anderson' with Danny Kaye, bright, bold, colourful, very pleasing performances and a cheerful easy going approach.
Speaking of performances I was surprised I really was, there is quite a bit of nice humour in this and when I say humour I don't mean kiddie laughs, I mean adults will giggle too. Its not heavy satire or rude but just nice amusing dialog that kinda leans towards Mel Brooks type material in places, but very easy going. The famous sequence where 'Gulliver' is tied down and being overlooked by 'Lilliput' officials is a really good humoured sequence with some nice chucklesome lines and visuals. Some really amusing bickering between characters and all played out really well by the cast.
Also later on when 'Gulliver' is in the land of giants ('Brobdingnag') the casting for the King and his personal magician is again very good, especially the King who such a jolly fellow. Must also mention Kerwin Matthews as 'Gulliver' who is made to measure for his role (no pun intended...or maybe it was hmm), this part fits him like a glove and he's a likeable chap too which helps. No idea who all the actors are to be honest but they are all excellent I must say.
As for good old Harryhausen...well despite this film being listed on his filmography there is little here from the great animator. Just an animated squirrel and alligator and that's it, both are great of course, the alligator being the better or more fun, but they are not seen for very long so. Sparse on Harryhausen stop motion I'm afraid.
I don't really see the heavy satire and various themes which are known within the original stories. Probably because much of the original material is missing or cut down, 'Gulliver's' time in Lilliput does show small hints of political satire from the Lillipit Emperor, his regime and decisions but I think this is mainly meant to be a family film.
I had some reservations about the film I must admit, thought it might be too tame and childish, but it turns out to be a lovely film with some outstanding visual size effects (although obvious in technique). Don't expect anything spectacular in terms of plot or ideas, the film is very basic and plays out like a bedtime story for children. But at the same time don't let that put you off because all the charming sets, perky characters and performances will make you smile.
7.5/10
Steal (aka Riders, 2002)
A heist flick with a difference, that difference being the young criminals use extreme sports to accomplish their goals. Think of it as 'Point Break' but with using various methods to robbing such as roller skating, climbing and sky diving, so not that original then.
Its a pretty standard heist idea really, the criminals are the best at their game, cops can't nail them, the leader of the gang is played by Stephen Dorff who falls for police detective Natasha Henstridge who doesn't realise her lover is the criminal she's after and the senior police officer is good old Bruce Payne. Oh and the mafia is also after the gang whilst using them at the same time, usual fluff.
Its all very predictable and reasonable fun, some nice stunts and car chases but nothing we haven't seen before. As usual the film is made more interesting because of the snarling creepy Payne who is always ALWAYS the bad guy, so yeah expect the usual twists, not that its much of a surprise, its Bruce Payne!.
Kudos also to Steven Berkoff as a wig wearing western cowboy-like mafia head honcho. Not sure if he was suppose to be a western cowboy redneck or some kind of teddy boy/Elvis type greaser, amusing though. Its basically been done many times before but its not terrible.
5/10
Nemesis (1992)
So apart from 'Angel Town' this was Oliver Gruner's other best known vehicle, probably one of director Pyun's best known films also. The plot is again about androids in human form and borrows heavily from many many other sci-fi films most probably the Terminator franchise.
Despite the fact this is a low budget sci-fi action flick the plot is so darn twisty. Basically its all about a cop who is part machine (body enhancements), trying to track down and stop rebel freedom fighters. These rebels are figthing against the government that are allowing a new type of android to take over which is duplicating or replacing people, or something like that.
Of course Gruner's half android character realises what is happening and changes sides to battle against the evil government assassins. These assassins are led by the wonderful low budget sci-fi master Tim Thomerson and bad guy regular Brion James, both of which give brilliantly hammy performances.
To be honest the plot is messy and confusing, so many characters and names flying about its easy to get lost at times. That aside the action is actually pretty good throughout the film with some really impressive set pieces and stunt work. Its not original by any means but there are some great camera angles, cool weaponry, plenty of squib action all coupled with a low budget visual appearance which gives that gritty and realistic look.
I must also give kudos to the neat android effects, the odd moment when someone gets blasted and we see their robotic interior. You'd think it would look terrible but its actually quite good, not stunning but very acceptable if completely unoriginal. The finale fight sequence against a mechanical endoskeleton kinda reminds you of something.
Impressive cast of character actors too I might add, Pyun always manages to get good B-list stars. I gotta admit I do like the visuals in this film, that kind of slightly colourless/washed out, cyber punk, wasteland set dystopian future. The action is way over the top but fun whilst Gruner looks good and does fit into this world perfectly.
6.5/10
Kingdom of the Spiders (1977)
Probably one of the more well known older creature features that has obviously gone on to inspire further films. To be honest one reason why this is more famous than others is probably down to having Shatner in the lead role.
The plot is pretty obvious really isn't it, the title says it all, its about spiders and they're killing everybody. But more specifically its about the use of pesticides and how they are wiping out the food source for all these tarantulas (yep that's right tarantulas). This is causing the eight legged creepy crawlies to band together and go off in search of larger prey. So naturally they are after humans after taking down some other larger animals.
What is so funny about this film is the fact that the spiders clearly have no interest in being film stars haha. In every scene the arachnids are merely milling around like spiders do, obviously more terrified of what's going on around them. At no point do they ever look scary or intimidating because it was obviously very hard to get these furry critters to do what was intended. The way some victims are lurching about supposedly dying whilst being attacked is quite amusing because you can see they are trying to balance the spider on themselves so it doesn't fall off or run away.
In 'Arachnophobia' the spiders are actually really creepy and do make your hair stand on end because they are skinny, bony, fast and look vicious. Plus the camera angles and use of classic phobias relating to spiders such as finding them inside things, in the shower, in food, the way they scamper around so quickly etc...In this film you don't get any of that because tarantulas are big thick furry things that look like hairy gloves basically. Sure they are scary but they move slowly or not at all and they are known to be harmless so the terror effect doesn't really kick in.
The other issue is the fact this small town is being over run by the tarantulas, yet when you get shots of the spiders outside they are just sitting there doing nothing, and there might only be about ten of them haha. There clearly wasn't much care for these furry fellas either as you see some get crushed and run over by vehicles in some shots!. I think the tarantulas are in more danger than the humans in this film.
Its hokey ass stuff that's for sure, a guilty pleasure that's pure 70's garbage. It hasn't dated too well either geez, the soundtrack is awful and the picture quality is terrible, actually looks like its been filmed on a handheld by students. It looks like a typical seedy 70's porn flick in places.
Its the sight of good old Shatner doing his thing which keeps you going. His over acting in places is the stuff of legend and hilarious, yet I gotta give kudos to him for picking up live tarantulas and having them on his body brrrr (if they were real that is). There are also some other nice shots of victims covered in webbing and tarantulas, brave extras, I wouldn't.
Mega cheesy and utterly ridiculous but reasonable fun, the films final twist is actually really good and quite a bold move, don't get endings like that much.
6/10
Despicable Me (2010)
At a time when we had the likes of 'Toy Story 3' and 'How to Train Your Dragon', a time when Pixar and Dreamworks ruled supreme (Pixar winning of course), along came Illumination Entertainment and gave us this supervillain animation.
The plot is pretty unoriginal really, jumping on the over used superhero theme. A supervillain is getting old and rusty, losing his flare for evil, at the same time a younger new supervillain threatens his status. So he devises a plan to steal the moon, the greatest feat of supervillainy he can come up with. But in order to carry out this plan he must enlist (adopt) the help of three very young little girls.
The whole superhero concept has been popular now for quite some time and in CGI animation its no different. Along with other similar flicks such as 'The Incredibles' and 'Megamind' the whole idea is beginning to feel a little swamped I can't deny. This film mainly centres on the supervillains point of view, how he lives, his daily habits, his job being an evil mastermind etc...a nice angle that was original until later in the year when 'Megamind' came out.
At his side are an army of little yellow minions that look like old 8-bit videogame characters not too dissimilar from Pac-Man. Now at first these little guys are quite amusing with their prat falls, face slapping and general simple minded tomfoolery, but it wears thin fast. Their whole routine is the same all the way through the film and I'm sure even kids may tire of it. I'm not even sure what the hell they are suppose to be seeing as all other characters in this film are human.
I really liked the initial idea of this film and the start, I loved 'Gru's' big gothic house squeezed in between a line of regular houses. I liked his outrageously over sized supervillain vehicle, his little demon-like dog and the interior of his lair which was like a cross between James Bond and Hammer horror. Lots of ingenious gadgets, secret doors/trap doors etc...in a thick gothic German expressionist-like design.
Unfortunately the film becomes way too sickly and sweet for me (yes I know its for kids mainly). After he adopts the three little girls and starts to realise he enjoys them being around, losing sight of his evilness, it just becomes quite lame frankly. The film isn't sure what it wants to be or where its going, even the humour begins to lag.
In the end all we're left with is a semi decent animated film which does look glorious no doubt, but with a plot that can't decide which route to go down. None of the characters are particularly interesting or fun, Steve Carell doesn't help make the evil 'Gru' any more memorable and the old scientist character that works with him is dreadful!. He's actually quite scary looking I think, plus with that awful cockney accent from Brand...utter fail.
Very wishy washy kids film that struggles to keep you interested and in no way competes with the big guns. Clearly trying to be zany and full of fresh ideas but you can see its not really worked out, its not a bad film, its just rather flat and anti climatic. How on earth this film was popular I don't know, the sequel was no surprise but I just don't see the hype over this.
5/10
Return to Oz (1985)
Dorothy has returned to Kansas, but after her stories of Oz persist for several months, her aunt and uncle worry she has suffered a psychotic break and send her to a mental institution for treatment. When a flood strikes, she is swept away to the land of Oz, only to find that it has lost all its magic, her friends Tin Man and Cowardly Lion have been turned to stone, and the Scare Crow is missing. With the help of a talking chicken, a wind up soldier, a man with a jack o lantern for a head and a disembodied moose head attached to a sofa, she sets out to discover why.
Yep. You heard that right. We go from the delightful musical of the 30s to this shockingly dark and intense but still imaginative and ambitious film. Obviously fans of the original may be put off by this film, which holds no punches at all.
Acting wise, the film is decently played. The main complaint is the actress who they got to play Dorothy, who is clearly about eight years younger than Judy Garland was at the time she films the musical. Most of the notable roles are voice acting parts, and they are decently done, especially the Gnome King who is appropriately menacing say for a few choice moments, but we will get to those in a bit.
Dorothy's companions are not as likable as the original trio obviously, though the original trio does make welcome appearances, especially the Scarecrow who assists in the film's climax. The talking chicken quickly becomes very irritating, and her only purpose in the story is not a loving companion like Toto, but rather this film's Deus Ex Machina, or rather the 2nd one since the ruby slippers return. The Jack O Lantern is a remarkable creepy character, constantly referring to Dorothy as "Mom" and losing his head every 2nd Tuesday. The disembodied moose head is a farely imaginative concept, but once again, serves only as a method of transportation. The only new character who serves any real purpose or has any real identity is the wind up soldier, known as The Greater Army of Oz. This character boasts an incredible design, well executed animatronics, and you really feel the connection between Dorothy and this character that was present with the original cast, so props there. If only there was more such chemistry to go around. The villains are one of the better executed parts of the film. The Wheelers, this films stand in for the flying monkeys, prove to be some really menacing SOBs. Additionally, we have another witch, though she isn't out big bad. This doesn't stop her from being effective at intimidating the audience in a variety of ways, such as when she removes her own head and holds it at her waste to taunt Dorothy. The Gnome King, an animated talking rock face, begins as a pretty menacing force, him and his smaller minion who observes the party from various rock formations. His thunderous voice and immense size, as well as some beautiful stop motion animation, really sell that this is not someone to be messed with. Of course this is utterly destroyed when he reveals the source of his power, the ruby slippers which he proudly flashes on his feet. No matter how much power they have, it is hard to take this guy seriously after that reveal.
The film does not boast the imaginative sets one comes to expect from an Oz picture, instead focusing on sucking the color right out of this otherwise colorful world. That being said, this is appropriate for the film's tone. The Emerald City has all the color sucked out of it, leaving only colorless stone ruins in its wake. The Yellow Brick road is overgrown with weeds and lies in disarray and waste. Vast underground caverns and great open deserts also contribute to the film's overall darker nature. This has a very unsettling effect on the viewer familiar with the more colorful 39 film, and fills you with a sense of dread for the majority of the film's running time.
Writing wise, there are little complaints. The film is an adaptation of two later Oz novels, combining them into one for the film's script. This means it is not really a betrayal of the original source material, and may well be closer to the original intentions of the author. It is because of this that the film has developed a strong cult following, and well deserved too. The dialogue of the characters is believable and flows freely; it is mainly the delivery by the actors that presents its problems. I also found the goal of resurrecting the original trio of companions to be a very compelling goal, so that was enough to keep me interested to see how things turned out. In spite of this, the film does boast one of the most unintentionally hilarious lines of all time. Remember that bit with the chicken? Well early on in the film, there is a scene when the henchman approaches the off-screen gnome king and informs him of a bit of bad news. "There is a chicken with her my lord." To which the king responds "A CHICKEN?!" All atmosphere was gone and I fell to the floor. As frightening as the gnone king is, he is the film's biggest source of laughter as well.
This film features some remarkable stop motion animation. Used to animate the talking rock faces and the gnome king, it really displays the beauty of this tragically lost art form, which created a very unique and surreal effect for characters in motion picture. Some of the finest stop motion I have seen in a long time, I would say it alone is worth the price of admission, and really does display the imagination one has come to expect from Oz.
Music is very unmemorable. Nothing special there.
All in all, this film was not my cup of tea, but I cannot help but recommend seeing it. Return to Oz is actually an above average fantasy film and is worth at least one viewing. It is easy to see why the film has gained a cult reputation as it does boast great effects work, a cast of interesting if a little creepy characters, and a no holds barred tone. Its flaws are undeniable, but it does manage to overcome them and hold the viewer's interest, and it is a fascinating look towards the darker side of Oz. Check it out if you are curious.
6.8/10
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
This was only Pixar's fourth film but you wouldn't think it, the visuals on display here are pretty much top of their game even by today's standards. What is so perfect about this particular film is like 'Toy Story' the premise is incredibly simple and derives from everybody's childhood. This is what makes 'Monsters' and the Buzz Lightyear adventures so utterly perfect, they touch on everybody's memories, no one can say they can't relate.
Think about it, the plot is so damn simple its genius! monsters that supposedly live in your closet, that's it!. Everybody knows of those deep dark places that brought a sense of dread when you were a sprog, under the bed, behind the curtains, in the cupboard, the closet, in the attic or cellar etc...
The way this simple idea is fleshed out I like very much, admittedly I may have gone a different route by not using such a factory line based company idea for the monster setup. That's the one thing I didn't really get on with here, I didn't really enjoy the harsh metal surroundings the monsters live in, seemed to cold and sterile, almost alien not monster, kinda too me out of the moment.
Visually its epic, in some aspects, others its more standard, the character of Sulley easily being the most impressive thing going with that blue fur of his (mega merchandise planning of plush toy sales there methinks). I only wish they had stayed a bit more spooky n kooky with the monster world instead of that rather bland clean direction, and 'Monstropolis' which merely looked like a regular US city! what a waste! man I had some ideas for that.
Likewise the characters went from excellent to meh for me. Of course the main two guys are perfect and their voices are pitch perfectly performed by Crystal and Goodman. Other monster creations are nice but lacked the same kind of horror element. 'Randall' (brilliantly voiced by Buscemi) for instance is just a lizard/chameleon whilst 'Celia Mae' seemed to merely be Medusa which was rather unimaginative. There also seemed to be too many generic looking characters if you ask me, blobs and tentacles etc...I would of loved Tim Burton's angle on this.
Gotta be honest I also felt like I was shoved out of the moment when the plot introduced 'Boo' the human child. Now I know this is the basis for the entire plot and it is for the younger generation of course but I just thought the whole thing went way too schmaltzy. The little kid was disgustingly cute to point where I really disliked the character and wanted to vomit.
Towards the end as we hit the finale the film does tend to go into a frenzy of fast paced action, it does get a wee bit too frenetic and hysterical as the characters are bounding through door after door. Again its a nice idea but kinda goes a bit too far and takes you out of the moment, you feel tired just watching it.
I think this film is definitely aimed more for the kids, sounds dumb I know but some of these CGI flicks are more universal and can be enjoyed by all ages. This film is the same in that sense but I think its much more kiddie orientated especially with the sweet relationship that builds between 'Boo' and 'Sulley' and the heartfelt ending. I did expect a bit more sarcasm from Crystal with his character but he seemed reigned in a bit to me, clearly a sign its more for the kids this time.
6.5/10
Earthquake (1974)
In one of the biggest box office draws of the disaster movie era, an architect, his spoiled wife, a grizzled cop, a psychotic national guardsman, a motorcycle stuntman, a widow having an affair, a CEO and several scientists are caught in a massive tumbler that levels the city of Los Angeles as well as the acting talents of its cast when they are thrown into melodramatic rescue situations in this effects laden thriller.
The film boasts an all star cast that includes Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, George Kennedy, Richard Roundtree, Lorne Green, Genevieve Bujold and the infamous Marjoe Gortner. This was a common trend in the 1970s known as the disaster movie, where an all star cast of up and coming players as well as vets of film would be thrown into disasters, both manmade and natural, and would have to fight their way out of them tooth and nail. The best of these films was The Poseidon Adventure, which I already reviewed. The worst was, well take your pick. There was Meteor, The Cassandra Crossing, The Concord, a host of bland and uninteresting action films featuring otherwise talented actors and directors. Where does Earthquake fit into the mix? Well, it is not very good, but it is far from the worst of the lot.
Acting wise is one of the areas where the film fails. Charlton Heston delivers one of his most teeth exposing performances with the leading man of Stewart Graff, an architect who tries to get building codes set higher, who has to deal with his bitchy falling star of a wife, Ava Gardner. Both of them ham it up to the max as a married couple who probably should have committed murder/ suicide by piranhas at this point. Both of them are thoroughly unlikable and uninteresting, so there is little concern for them when all hell breaks loose. Even worse is Marjoe Gornter. Yes, the guy from StarCrash. He plays a psychotic weekend warrior who, after being bullied by local thugs, gets an unhealthy dose of power and begins shooting down his detractors in the streets and even kidnaps a girl he had a crush on, Victoria Principle from Dallas fame boasting the worst Afro Wig of all time, with the intent of raping her. Why must there always be villains in these movies? His death scene remains one of the funniest ever put to film, flopping around like a trout once he gets put down. George Kennedy is the one actor who is able to pull it off in the role of Lou Slade, a disillusioned cop who gets his chance to be a hero once the city turns to him for help. With Slade, you get a real sense of humanity beneath a cynical outer shell, and when he eventually becomes the epitome of compassion and caring, you really feel it is legitimate. I think it is a testament to this character
Spoiler
that he survives this one.
All the other actors do very meh jobs. Yes, movie. You managed to make Shaft boring.
I would expect better writing from the man who gave us The Godfather Trilogy and the original Superman movie. Mario Puzo was just not on his game when he wrote this silly extravaganza. The dialogue is terrible, the characters, with a notable exception, are terrible, and about the only thing that deserves props is using the topography of the city to create a worst case scenario, but then again, that is the only thing good about this film. Also, the film features typical dumb disaster movie moves. "Hey gang, there has just been a bad quake, so how about we go into the sub basements of these severely weakened buildings to rest? What's the worst that could happen? Aftershocks?" Any sensible person would know that is a bad idea, which seems to be very lacking in these films. Perhaps George Fox has some of the blame in the matter as he did massive re-writes on the script, but Puzo still delivered his fair share of duds.
The special effects are hit or miss. The film displays some fine matte work by Albert Whitlock, who created such stunning matte work in films like The Thing and the Indiana Jones series. His work in this film greatly increases the scope to make it something epic, his beautiful work standing the test of time. The film also boasts impressive miniature shots, cleverly matted against life sized actors and sets. By far one of the most impressive shots of the film is a shot of a building as it crumbles while a crowd of people runs away from it in the foreground, a very well executed matte shot. A very accurate model of LA was built for destruction in the big quake sequence, but it suffers from the quake seeming to have mysteriously sucked up all furniture from the insides of the buildings that collapse. There is also some good water work when the dam bursts and floods the city at the end of the movie, as water is a hard thing to work with in miniature, but here it works very well. However, we still get some hilariously bad examples. One such example is using warped glass to make it appear that the side of a building is peeling away, but worst of all is the infamous elevator scene. This scene was threatened with an R rating upon the film's release as it showed several people crushed to death when an elevator crashes to the ground during the quake. The solution? Throw a bunch of cartoon blood over a still shot of the scene. I'm not kidding. They really do this. How about just cutting away as the elevator begins to fall? We all know what will happen when it hits the ground. Better not show it at all than fake it up for the censors.
The film does display nice sound effects and editing, which is to be expected as this was meant to showcase the new Sensurround system, which actually triggers low frequency vibrations in the theater to enhance the experience. The sound work is very well done, displaying a rich library of auditory wonders, put together meticulously for maximum effect. Can we get that with the writing now please?
Directing wise, this was pretty much the last leg of Mark Robson's career. He began working on Val Lewton films like Ghost Ship and the Seventh Victim before delivering the stirring and effective wartime thriller Von Ryan's Express. After Valley of the Dolls, he soon began to falter. His last film was the 1979 disaster (at the box office) Avalanche Express, noteworthy as the final film appearance of actor Robert Shaw, who the director joined in death shortly after photography was finished. This is not a great work, or the work of a great artist sad to say.
Oh John Williams, what did they do to you? Before his breakout hit with Jaws, Williams actually was the king of disaster film scores, writing the music for the three biggest hits of the era, The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno, and yes, even this slice of cheese which was a smash upon its release. Surprise, surprise, his score is relatively bland. Essentially, the main theme of the movie is just a recreation of his far superior theme for Poseidon, and is severely dated. Understandable since he was working on this score at the same time as The Towering Inferno, which clearly got much greater attention. However, there is one bit of music that works very well, and that is the end theme entitled The City Sleeps. It is a haunting, relaxing and very sobering little melody that makes one mourn for the loss of LA and all those in it. Like his score for The Towering Inferno, it should have been in a better movie.
The film's most notable contribution to popular culture was that it inspired the ride at Universal Studios. That is about it.
Earthquake is one of the better disaster films of the 70s, but the genre was so weak to begin with that it is not saying much. The only really good entry into this brief trend was The Poseidon Adventure. Even the biggest hit of them all The Towering Inferno has aged very poorly. Earthquake delivers an often boring, always hammy ride, its bland characters not garnering out attention enough to care about them when they undergo the dangers of the leveled city. Even the end of the film
Spoiler
where Heston and Gardner both get swept away by the water and are presumably killed
creates not even the faintest stir of emotion in the audience. This film has aged much in the same way that TransFormers probably will. A bit hit, pretty to look at, but lacking in the substance and character that make the spectacle worth seeing. Still, if you want some unintentional hilarity and nice action set pieces, Earthquake deserves a brief stay over if only for curiosity's sake.
6.5/10
Now for your listening pleasure, here is The City Sleeps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTUrlEbPcwk# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTUrlEbPcwk#)
RED (2010)
Considering the upcoming sequel, I thought it would be fun to give this film a re-watch, so here is my two cents.
Retired spy and super assassin Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is spending his days flirting with a telemarketer (Mary Louise Parker) when he is targeted for assassination. Trying to find out why, he gets together a group of colleges (Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox) and the group embarks on a journey filled with explosions, piles of corpses and laughs.
The films features very good performances by all of its leads, and all of them know when and how to deliver their lines to maximum comedic effect. Choice moments are the scene where Willis kidnaps Parker and begins to talk casually to her. She responds by screaming beneath the duct tape which covers her mouth as he carefully listens to her with stars in his eyes. Afterwards, he asks what she is interested in for dinner to which she replies, audible under the tape "Pizza" In written form alone this scene is funny, but is made all the sweeter by just how well the two play it. Another choice moment is when Malkovich is prevented from killing a flight attendant whom he believes was following them, and he begins to pout in that special way we all used to do. member of the cast gets their fair share of memorable moments, and a few welcome faces show up to spice things up. Karl Urban plays a decent villain, Ernest Borgnine makes a welcome appearance shortly before his death and Richard Dreyfuss plays a villain that is the hammiest of the hammy to the point that Morgan Freeman knocks him unconscious with a single blow. And he snores. Often times there are roles that any person can fill, but here, all these roles were cast perfectly.
Based on a comic book, I am unaware just how true to the source material it is, so I will judge it based on what I know. Writing wise, the film features witty dialogue, intriguing twists and turns in the plot, and never lets up for a moment. One of the things it does very well is actually use the action scenes to develop character. Often development is lost in action scenes, but here with every shot that is fired, you know the characters just a little bit better. Such moments are when Willis all too calmly and casually sets up a distraction to escape from his home moments after he has killed several red shirts, or Malkovich's standoff fight with a certain flight attendant. Probably the best example of this is when Willis and Urban get into a fight, exchanging dialogue as the blows come down, serving both development an expository purposes. While being wowed by this intense brawl, the audience also gets further connected with the characters. We have a good story, good characters to tell the story, and good dialogue spoken by the characters. Whoever is responsible, screenwriter or comic writer, good job.
Stylistically is where the film suffers the most. It really does not look any different from any other action film from the last 10 years. The screen composition shows no real skill and instead of putting us in the narrative like good camera work tends to, it just shows us what is going on and in a not very exciting way. That being said, there are some good moments, such as the transitional scenes that use post cards to introduce a new locale. These add greatly to the tone of the piece and make sure the audience does not lose the spirit of humor. One of the better shots of the movie is of Mirren as she fires a massive machine gun at a group of bodyguards while wearing a ball dress and high heels. There is something just so profoundly funny about this shot, which barely lasts a second.
The music is one of the less impressive parts of the film as well. We don't get any recognizable riffs or melodies that stick with you, thus the music does not become a character as it does in many films. What we get is in many ways the typical action score of this day and age. Heavy guitar and metal that grows to a crescendo during the more spectacular moments of the film. Themes for characters, the story itself, and scenes are not to be had. The music does contribute to the feel of the film, and some would argue that its lack of imagination does unfortunately rub off on the narrative itself, but it doesn't really hurt the movie. It just doesn't blast it to new heights like a truly great film score would.
This director is a newcomer, and I have only seen one of his films other than this one, the Jodie Foster thriller Flight Plan, which was really just an inferior remake of Hitchcock's classic thriller The Lady Vanishes. However, the actors do deliver good performances and good choices were made in putting this film together, things that a director must be given credit for. With this, he does snow promise. He has helmed the new film R.I.P.D with Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds. Will it be as good as Red or will it tank? We will have to wait and see. For the time being, this director has committed no major crimes against cinema. Let's hope it stays that way.
The action set pieces in the film are pretty small scale when compared to many of the action films you see today, but this film has something those scenes don't have. It is cool. Bruce Willis steps out of a spinning car to deliver return fire, John Maklovich shoots a rocket coming at him out of the air and more. These relatively inexpensive scenes (The film's budgets was only 58 million) go above and beyond what many a bland action film, such as the recent Die Hard sequel deliver. The action tends not to focus on wide set pieces and massive destruction, but instead on closed in action that puts you right up against the characters in the story, such as the fight between Willis and Urban or the scene where Willis escapes his house at the start of the film. With a fraction of the budgets going into films these days, this movie goes above and beyond with much less than a film like say A Good Day to Die Hard, yet delivers ever so much more. The action genre is in many ways the most difficult to pull off in any lasting manner, but Red has done it well.
Red is one of the best action films in recent memory, and shows that in spite of his age, Bruce Willis still has the stuff that many people in the genre cannot hold on to past 60. It is a light hearted bloodbath that really ropes one in. The characters have great chemistry, and this presents a large concern for me in regards to the sequel.
Spoiler
One has to wonder since Morgan Freeman is dead, just how will the film manage to keep itself going with the same level of charm?
Regardless, the first film should still be remembered for the laugh inducing romp that it is. If you have not seen it yet, give it a watch.
8/10
Turbulence (1997)
Pretty much your standard hijack type action flick only this time its about a crazed convict getting loose onboard an airliner. The premise is virtually the same as some other airline action flicks such as 'Executive Decision' and 'Passenger 57', the only difference there is terrorists capture the plane, same kind of shit though.
What I find silly about this film is the fact you never really find out about Liotta's character. At first he's denying outright how innocent he is and how evidence was planted on him. The cop accused of setting him up sure as hell looks and acts dodgy enough for you the viewer to believe it.
Liotta's character denies he's murdered anyone all the way through the film, even after he's killed a stewardess!. That's what is so stupid, he's going nuts on the phone (on the plane) to the police screaming about how innocent he is and that he has been set up. Yet he just strangled a woman to death and also screams that at the police whilst threatening to kill everybody else. So in the end you're left wondering...this guy clearly is nuts despite his early gentlemanly manner, but is he or is he not innocent of the previous charges for which he was arrested, and if he is (like he claims) why the hell is he going nuts killing people?.
Admittedly its easy to think he did do the crimes he's accused of and that's why he goes nuts but its never actually cleared up. The other stupid thing is the film is suppose to be a kind of suspense thriller on a plane with a killer. But for the most part the film centres around Lauren Holly trying to land the stricken plane (pilots killed off). Once she is locked up in the cockpit there is very little reason for her to leave that often, when she does there is of course some mediocre stalker type tomfoolery, but in general half the film is her landing the plane under instruction haha!. Its almost like an introduction film to basic airline piloting for newbies.
All that aside the film in general is a bit of a guilty pleasure really, its predictable as hell and utterly cliched, one of those 'Die Hard on a...' films. But its undeniably quite fun to watch Liotta freak out, sure everybody pretty much gets killed off straight away and the suspense direction doesn't really work (cos its not scary at all), but its still quite good nonsense.
5/10
Megamind (2010)
After a long long run of mediocrity from Dreamworks the studio finally started to find their stride starting with 'Kung Fu Panda' and the underrated 'Over the Hedge'. Then along came this little gem which once again uses the tired superhero genre but actually makes it work. This film kinda reminded me of 'Mystery Men', its a tired formula and stupid, but its so very funny.
The twist is simply we are following the supervillain and how is daily life unfolds, not totally original of course but making him a bit of an imbecile and buffoon is a nice touch. Basically 'Megamind' is the supervillain of Metro City and his nemesis is 'Metro Man'.
Both these guys are aliens who were saved from their dying home worlds by their parents, both stuffed into escape pods and blasted into space ala the Superman origins. The hero is basically a parody of Superman with his good looks, dark slick hair, powers etc...whilst Megamind is more of a genius without super powers but with super intellect.
Megamind: 'Your weakness is copper? Y-you're kidding right?'
But instead of a 'Lex Luthor' copy we have a quirky retro 50's design for Megamind, he clearly has been based on all those classic black n white schlock sci-fi movies where some of the aliens had huge vein riddled craniums (no veins here though). Both end up on Earth but one has the good fortune of a good upbringing, the other is brought up in a prison which warps him, I don't think I need to tell you which.
What I like about this film is the way Megamind actually beats his nemesis and we see what happens after that. Most films show the obvious good vs evil and we all know what will happen, but this film shows us what happens to the evil genius once he's actually won. And that is one small part that is so amusing, the way Megamind and his sidekick are so amazed and stunned they have actually won is hilarious! they never thought it would actually happen, and of course when it does happen they dunno what to actually do.
From there on we witness Megamind entering depression to the point where he must create a new superhero simply so he can have mega battles again. The whole story seems so simple yet its so very clever, what really works here is the fantastic voice work by Will Ferrell who kills it as 'Megamind', this character is so likeable. The fast, snappy, paranoid dialog from this character along with his nervous twitchy body movements makes this guy highly amusing to watch.
Metro Man: 'Well, I think your warranty's about to expire!'
Megamind: 'Maybe I got an extended warranty!'
Metro Man: 'Warranties are invalid, if used beyond their intended purpose!'
Admittedly the start of the film is easily the best with the funniest moments, pretty much all sequences with Megamind and Metro Man verbally abusing each other rein supreme. The character of 'Tighten' isn't really anywhere near as fun, he serves his purpose but I found myself dying for more Megamind and Metro Man, Tighten does make the film more downbeat but that is his job so...
Metro Man: 'It's REVENGE, and it's best served cold!'
Megamind: 'But it can be easily reheated, in the microwave of evil!'
By now I'm sure the whole superhero thing might be getting annoying, depending on your tastes, this plot isn't gonna help. This whole thing has been done to death now no question, but on the visual side I can't fault it, the destruction on display is almost as good as any modern superhero flick right now. The characters look a bit goofy but everything else looks superb, truly award winning.
For me this film was all about the verbal, its fast, witty, inventive, clever and much more adult themed in my opinion. Much of this is merely in small quips, facial expressions and quick glances all blended together with excellent voice work, the whole thing feels more like an animated Mel Brooks spoof/parody and Ferrell helps give it that slightly grown up feel. In no way is this a dumb silly kids flick oh no, I'm very certain most kids won't appreciate what's going on here.
One negative point for me was the soundtrack which at times was awful. Actual tracks from various artists blasted out during action sequences which felt totally out of place and kinda lazy really. Lets not create our own musical score, we'll just stick in random music tracks yeah, job done.
Very clever and much smarter than you'd think, a character who starts off as a supervillain, becomes slightly good but with evil intentions, then becomes good with good intentions and finally becomes an all out superhero, nice rollercoaster. Its a little dark in places which is great but surprisingly funny throughout, in short its way better than 'Despicable Me'.
7/10
Passenger 57 (1992)
The film that turned Snipes from a drama/comedy actor into a fully fledged action hero, at the same time securing his place alongside other action icons in the action man hall of fame.
Man this is so damn cheesy you'd think it was an old early 90's...oh. This is what you might call a thoroughly standard yet thoroughly enjoyably predictable action romp. Its not suppose to be anything overly realistic or overly serious, its pure and utter popcorn trash that spewed out over and over during the 80's and early 90's. A good comparison today would be the new films 'White House Down' and 'Olympus Has Fallen'.
The plot is very bog standard, text book action formula. Master terrorist 'Charles Rane' (Bruce Payne...hey that rhymes!) is being transported in an airliner to LA to stand trial. Along the way his evil henchmen and woman (Elizabeth Hurley folks! yep I forgot about that too) seize control of the plane, free Rane and begin their plan to...actually I'm not sure, escape somewhere I presume. Its now up to Snipes to kickbox his way through all the bad guys and save the day.
Is it REALLY a spoiler if I tell you he manages this? didn't think so. Yep from here on the film takes all the usual routes you would expect, admittedly there is a small surprise when the plane lands and the action spills out into a fairground but that kinda dampens the thrills for me.
In all honestly 'Executive Decision' did this much much better years later in 1996, but that film didn't have the growling face of thunder that is Bruce Payne. This guy steals the show every time, even in B-movie trash he can make turds shine. Not only is his hair a fantastic mullet of epic 80's proportions but he just has that face, that evil devilish smirk and those sly eyes, plus he kinda looks like Matthew McConaughey. Snipes is also solid but doesn't really add much to his character that we haven't see over and over ever since. But he's buff, likeable and for the time a breath of fresh air, plus he could do martial arts which was different to the regular action heroes.
Just from looking at the films poster you know what to expect here straight away. Its classic 'Die Hard' type fluff which is great fun if totally lacking in any real substance. Payne saves the film from drudgery and his character dies in the most predictable and obvious way...you know how, they're all in a plane for gods sake.
6.5/10
Dawn of the Dead (2004) In this remake of George A. Romero's seminal masterpiece, a ragtag group of survivors fight their way through the zombie apocalypse and barricade themselves inside a mall. When the situation turns ever more grim, they resort to desperate measures to escape from their prison.
Zombie films had not been doing well back in the day. The remake of
Night of the Living Dead had not created much of a stir and the only real classics in the genre were Romero's original trilogy. All of that would change when this remake came out and unexpectedly garnered audience and critical acclaim. It even received an A rating in the local newspaper back when I saw in high school. It quickly became the topic of conversation at lunch, excited teens talking about the gross out visuals, the cool busses, and the zoombies. Ha. Get it?
Zoombies...?
So how is it? Well, it is actually a very good movie. Giving it a recent re-watch, it still retains its thrills chills and spills. This version of
Dawn is in many ways what current zombie films strive to be, it it is easy to see why. However, the film is not without its flaws.
One of my favorite things about the original is the characters are so strong. They are in many ways the most interesting part of the movie, even more so than the titular zombies. Sadly, these characters are unable to stack up for one reason. There are too many of them. Our leads, Anna, Michael, CJ and Kenneth are very interesting and are good at grabbing the viewers' attention. But there are others. Ultimately the film has so many characters in this mall, it is difficult to get invested in them before their untimely demises or gripping last minute escapes. These characters include a recently orphaned young woman, a gangster and his pregnant wife, two additional security guards, a truck driver, a baseball cap wearing redneck, a gun store owner separated from the main group, a snooty rich prick, a somewhat bicthy girl and a gay organ player. Including the four leads. that brings us to a grand total of 15, and pretty much all of these latter characters are not given appropriate attention and instead serve as fodder for the flesh eaters or objects to flesh out our leads. Which is not to say the film doesn't try. Attention is given to the gangster and his wife, which sets up one of the more horrific scenes in the film and there is a romance between one of the security guards and the orphaned woman, but with so many people, the film is unable to give them all the appropriate attention in the time provided. It would have been wise for the writer to remove and/or combine some of these characters to make them more manageable, thus creating a greater impact when some of them do die. That being said, there are gems in this lot, and they are the ones we remember. The gun store owner for example is given remarkably good characterization in spite of being seen only through binoculars and whose only method of communication is writing on a sign.
The film is quite effective, featuring scenes and images that have since become signatures of the zombie subgenre. It opens in a scene that, dare I say, actually may outdo the opening of the original
Dawn. The original opened in a largely expository (but well done) scene, with the outbreak already in full swing and people scrambling to figure out what to do before it went to a ghetto housing project and introduced us to the flesh eaters. This opening follows our heroin Anna in a harrowing and surreal dash for her life when she wakes up to her neighborhood being overrun. It boasts impressive visuals, unexpected violence and is all around a very frantic and suspenseful scene. This opening may well be the highlight of the film. The film later begins to descend (or ascend, whichever you prefer) into
Road Warrior territory when the survivors unleash their armored death busses. Seriously, the moment you see these things, you expect Mel Gibson to pop out and get into a fight with some guy in a hockey mask who is screaming "Step away from the gasoline!" That being said, this serves as a strangely appropriate conclusion for this horror/action romp. As the sun rises on the busses as they barrel through the flesh eater filled streets, you really feel like the world you know has long since ended, and this will be the way of things from now on. Far from the ludicrously upbeat ending of the original
Dawn (which I actually think fits that film very well), we are given no such catharsis.
Spoiler
The film even features, in one of its most infamous sequences, a zombie baby. How hopeless does the situation have to be when a symbol of innocence has to be put down?
Zack Snyder has had a hit and miss career. He directed the recent classic
300 and helmed the smash
Man of Steel which I have yet to see and have thus far heard very polarizing reviews of, but he also made the very unimpressive and forgettable
Sucker Punch, nothing more than a knock off of
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with special effects thrown in.
Dawn displays one of his weaknesses as a director. The images are sometimes too pretty for a scene's own good. Now, there are gorgeous and well placed shots in the film. This film is bar none the most visually impressive zombie film ever made, and is in the running for the prettiest horror film of all time, featuring so many memorable visuals that contribute to the film's bleak apocalyptic nature. This is especially true for overhead and long shots that help the viewer get oriented into this collapsing world and show you just how screwed our heroes are. However, he also places some shots, slow motion gunshots, shells falling to the ground, and other such eye candy bits that they actually take you out of the action. These moments are when the movie feels the most like a comic book, and do not really work in the film's favor.
The setting of the mall was one of the main attractions to the original
Dawn, and gave way to some sharp satire amidst the horror of the film. It is not
Dawn without the mall, almost as significant as the dead. Whereas the original film used the setting very well, this film does not seem to utilize the freedom offered in such a location. Only scant attention is given to the treasures the characters have free reign over. There are a few hints at such activity, such as the characters looking over the merchandise and looting it (including one character trying out cloths at a store called Gaylen Ross in a nod to the original film's lead actress), but not enough to make this place seem like a Garden of Eden. Thus when the Garden is lost, you feel no real impact. Once again, this can be attributed to the film's all too abundant cast, who spend a lot of time dying. Can't miss that, can we? Commercialism had changed a lot since the 70s, and this film had a golden opportunity to lampoon it again. Sadly, they didn't take that chance.
This film deserves praise for its fresh take on zombies. I am more of a slow and stumble fan myself. It really heightens suspense when you see a shambling flesh eater slowly work towards you, building dread with each dragged step. Running zombies were given their mainstream debut in Dan o' Bannon's cult classic
Return of the Living Dead, but they are perfected here. They are transformed from slow and menacing walking walls to a crowd of ravenous rabid beasts, rocketing at you with speed that would put a track star to envy. It makes more sense for a zombie to be slow, what with rotting flesh and rigor mortis, but for this vision of Dawn, one cannot really hold it against the movie to invent fast zombies. On the contrary, it is one of the better points about the film that it did something original with the living dead, though both
Invasion of the Body Snatchers and
28 Days Later would have offered some inspiration.
Dawn of the Dead not only jump started the remake trend (and unlike all its cheap brethren managed to become a good movie in its own right), but is also largely responsible for the current zombie culture craze. It gladly managed to give attention to Romero's original classics, as well as ushering in a new era of zombie flicks such as
Shaun of the Dead (which was actually made at the same time) and
Zombieland. The remake of
Dawn of the Dead does what a remake should do, it stays close to the original, but is also different enough to work on its own terms. Unlike most other remake we have seen recently, this one does not leech off of the original, but is hardly a betrayal. Even Romero has offered modest praise to the film, and that should say something as to how well it works. Its flaws are undeniable, but they hardly drag it into the mud. Whenever someone asks you what started the current craze, all you have to do is point them here.
7.8/10
Driven (2001)
There aren't many films about Champ Car (CART) racing or F1 now I think about it (if any), we did have NASCAR in 'Days of Thunder' but that's about it really I think. But here we have this slick offering from Renny Harlin and starring Stallone...yep.
Lets not beat around the bush here, this is basically 'Top Gun' for racing cars. The plot is completely as you would expect from start to finish. It follows a young hot rod driver trying to win races and gain the trust of his managers and backers whilst juggling friendships and a romance with another drivers bird. Naturally this all leads to problems which affect his racing so he has to battle his inner demons, the press, the spotlight, the fame, family etc...all in time for the big world championship final. Gee I hope he can do it.
So yes everything has that typical Tony Scott/Bay/Bruckheimer type gloss which we've come to expect in films like this. Lots of fancy camera angles shooting very fast cars so they look ice cool, girls in tight skimpy outfits, the lifestyles of rich spoilt drivers, plenty of shades wearing, lots of petrol head lingo, dangerous slow motion accidents and all accompanied by a rip roaring soundtrack just in case you forget this is suppose to be ultra cool.
Predictable plot aside the film isn't all that bad really, the racing on show, I thought, was pretty sweet to be honest and I'm no F1 fan lets get that straight. These types of cars have no visual interest for me but if you try to fantasize real hard this could almost be pod racing in 'Star Wars' hehe. It appears that real footage has been interwoven throughout the film (effectively) but there is also a lot of real stunt work and race action which does work well in my opinion.
Most of the crashes did seem really good to me and quite impressive, and from what I've seen on real footage they are accurate looking too. Massive gas tank explosions, clouds of flames and car debris showering down everywhere, I liked it and it looked cool I gotta admit. Not all of the race sequences were that good of course but a rain soaked race was nicely done showing a drivers pov from inside his helmet as the rain hits his visor.
The best sequence is also the stupidest one, it involves the young hot rod driver throwing a tantrum and running off in a brand new car, Stallone chases after him in another. The catch...they are chasing each other on regular street sections, downtown Chicago. Of course this is absolutely ridiculous and probably impossible due to traffic, people and road conditions but I can't deny its a great adrenaline rush. The fact they actually seem to use real Champ cars on street sections makes for a glorious 'Fast n Furious' type moment which puts a grin on your face. Yeah you can see they aren't going as fast as the engine roar makes out but it just looks n sounds awesome! guilty pleasure moment right there.
Aside from the decent racing the rest is standard dribble involving the young hot rod constantly arguing with rich team owner Burt Reynolds, German rival Til Schweiger (who's character name is 'Brandenburg' just in case you forget he's German), his bit of blonde fluff girlfriend and his Jedi Master-like trainer Stallone. As you would expect in the world of rich racers there is lots of partying, dinners, grand openings, double cross, jealousy, rivalry, my car is better than your car etc...
Add to this all the regular Hollywood emotional crap like the young hot rod overcoming his weaknesses, the guru like trainer who is actually the best driver in the world ever!, girlfriend wars, a near fatal accident, the hard ass team owner who has a change of heart at the end and of course the HUGELY stereotypical big race finale. Surely you know what will happen right?.
Its all about the visuals and for me it worked, the film looks great, sounds great and makes you wanna jump into your car and drive like a maniac. I can see how it may have disappointed people wanting a really good sensible F1/Champ Car flick. Its a bit of a cluster fudge really, Harlin has clearly gone for realism but can't help himself by adding total nonsense moments that break that reality. So end of the day in terms of a realistic racing flick its touch and go, in terms of a fun rollercoaster flick its not too bad and should have you smiling, obvious nasty shabby CGI moments aside that is.
The film was a flop upon release but I kinda like it for what its worth. Its a race car film and it delivers in that aspect so job done really.
6/10
The People That Time Forgot (UK, 1977)
The sequel to the first much better film, the second of three novel adaptations of Edgar Rice Burroughs, another Amicus film and once again directed by Kevin Connor. Hence all films do look similar with their visuals.
So the story continues, this time a small band (well three people) set off to find Doug McClure and his blonde bird. This time the hero is a former 'Sinbad' in Patrick Wayne, mechanic Shame Rimmer and sexy gorgeous paleontologist Sarah 'Ursa' Douglas (Superman II). Both Rimmer and Douglas starred in 'Superman II'. Altogether with a stereotypical big breasted primitive tribal female they go off in search of the lost characters from the last film on the same lost island.
First thing we notice in this film (which wasn't really touched on that much in the first until the end) is the fact this lost island is gigantic. We really do see how far this lost world spreads when our heroes arrive and escape by plane, it pretty much goes on for as far as the eye can see with mountains and arid terrain. Well apparently its a lost polar continent (not just an island), once again I must ask how on Titans balls does an entire continent not get properly discovered? especially during the WW1 era, its a mystery in itself!.
This film feels really silly, I know that sounds weird considering the content and the previous film but this just feels dafter. This time we get to see a more advanced tribe that look very similar to Japanese samurai, in fact if I didn't know any better I'd swear the film makers simply used the ancient Japanese warrior style as a quick easy fix instead of coming up with something original, hmmmm. Then we meet this big fat tribal leader guy who looks like Marlon Brando (Milton Reid) and his little slimy 'Grima Wormtongue-like' assistant. Looks a bit dubious if you get my drift.
Its at this point, well leading up to it, that I started to realise this film is more of an 'Indiana Jones: Temple of Doom/Conan' type affair which feels more swords n sorcery than dinosaurs. The whole sequence within the nasty tribes lair felt very 'Conan-like', the rather huge tribal chief, his snivelling little minion and the muscle bound warrior bloke (David 'Darth Vader' Prowse) all felt rather out of place in this film. The whole setup for that part of the film was actually quite good in a tacky early 80's barbarian type way but just not right for this films universe.
McClure is back here as the same character from the first film, seeing as its all about rescuing him what did you expect. Unfortunately the film diverts from the original novel quite a bit and this sees McClure's character die (spoil...ah who cares). Why? beats me, more dramatic I guess, this then leads to exactly the same finale as the first film where the island begins to erupt...again.
A reasonable adventure flick that loses its way and kinda struggles to keep you entertainted. There are less dinosaurs, they actually look worse this time round believe it or not, its more about the tribes which is dull frankly. Wayne isn't as good as McClure that's for sure but luckily the combo of Sarah Douglas and Dana Gillespie is stunning, kept me involved.
It just doesn't feel like this needed to be made really, its all about the dinosaurs for me and this film doesn't have that many, so what's the point?.
5/10
World War Z.
Average blockbuster.
Offers nothing new.
Scale was cool.
Zombies looked okay.
Should have been called something else.
disappointed.
2.5/5
I posted a short review in the appropriate topic. Here's something a little longer.
"Only God Forgives", the noir thriller that reunites director Nicholas Winding Refn with his "Drive" star Ryan Gosling, is a technical marvel. The cinematography is gorgeous. The music is appropriately moody. The pacing is consistent. There's an art-house sensibility to the whole ordeal that gives the movie a unique flavor.
It's a shame that all this does little to hide a lackluster, uninvolving screenplay.
The premise is as follows. Julian (Gosling) and his brother Billy (Tom Burke) run a boxing club in Bangkok, which they fund with drug money they make on the side. One night, Billy is killed, his death sanctioned by a particularly violent police lieutenant named Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm). This sets in motion a series of events that culminate in Julian squaring off against the lieutenant.
As I said, Billy is killed towards the start of the film. What I didn't mention is the reason why. See, just before he meets his untimely demise, Billy had just finished raping and brutally murdering a teenaged girl. The man who kills him, with permission from Chang, is the girl's father.
Gee, aren't we just dying to see Billy's death avenged?
This is an issue that runs throughout the entire movie. With the exception of a prostitute who has roughly three lines and disappears part way into the film, there isn't a single character we can root for. Everyone is despicable. Chang has a sense of honor when he kills or maims his enemies, but this isn't enough to make us forgive him for extended scenes in which he calmly tortures his enemies to death Julian's mother, Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas), the matriarch of the crime family, is so hateful one half expects boos and hisses to materialize on the soundtrack (though this is probably intentional).
Even our protagonist Julian is unsympathetic. He's a drug runner who gets into brutal fights with strangers, abuses his friends, and murders. The least awful thing he does in the film is decide not to kill someone even though he can.
It's not unheard of for audiences to root for unsympathetic characters, but only if the characters in question are interesting people who make choices that drive the story, and I regret to inform that save for some moments here and there, Julian does not fall into that category.
Julian is a passive protagonist. Throughout most of the film, instead of pursuing a goal, he mopes and stoically broods at the camera. It isn't clear what he wants to achieve, if he wants to achieve anything at all. The assumption is that he wants to avenge Billy, but he only makes motions in that direction when the opportunities to do so come to him, as opposed to the other way around. And what happens if Billy isn't avenged? I guess Julian will have no choice but to mope some more.
"Only God Forgives" clearly wants to be deep and profound, but since it can't get the audience invested in the proceedings, it fails to connect. The result is a series of well shot sequences of graphic, disturbing violence without having built up the goodwill to merit the gratuity, interspersed with terse dialogue that, when it comes, is either so over the top or so ridiculously minimalistic that it often comes across as self parody. It's a movie in love with itself that, but for a better script populated with better characters, could have been a classic. As it stands, the film is nothing more than an interesting and pretty failure.
The Big Lebowski
A slacker by the name of Jeff Lebowski (The Dude) returns home to find thugs in his apartment who urinate on his rug. Setting out to gain a new rug, he is roped into a kidnapping scheme involving severed toes, stolen cars, high class pornography producers, expressionist paintings, and dangerous ferrets.
While watching The Big Lebowski, one is immediately reminded of a certain unique tone to be found in more intelligent comedies, namely that the situations themselves are seldom funny, but the actions of the characters in said situation are what makes the otherwise dire story comedic. Such comedy has worked brilliantly in the past in films such as Dr. Strangelove and A Fish Called Wanda. This film joins in that proud tradition of comedies which are, in a word, artsy as hell, without sacrificing their ability to leave an audience with ruptured spleens brought on by fits of laughter.
The Dude is the heart and soul of the film. He is introduced as someone who is in the running for one of the laziest people on Earth (or so says Sam Elliot in a brilliant cameo as the omnipresent narrator). What makes the Dude so likable is that he is easily the most normal person in the narrative. In a world filled with cowboys who seem to appear and disappear at a moment's notice with only old country music to signify their approach, crazed overweight veterans who connect everything to their war experiences, German nihilists who threaten castration and ferret attacks, wealthy expressionist painters who secretly seduce unsuspecting slackers, porn producers with thugs who have yet to be housebroken and crippled millionaires with their own personal Igor to attend to their needs, the hippie living in the 90s is the one the audience is immediately forced to latch on to. In spite of his unconventional nature, the Dude is a thoroughly sane individual, constantly criticizing the antics of his insane sidekick Walter and taking severe punishment from the film's population of crazies from Jackie Treehorn, who treats object like women, man, to a steaming cabbie who kicks him out of the cab for dissing the Eagles. I sort of like the Eagles too but there is such a thing as taking it too far. In spite of his dialect, mannerisms and habits, from smoking weed to forgetting which way the door in his apartment swings, the Dude eventually puts the pieces of the puzzle together and exposes a sinister scheme by the Big Lebowski, or is the rich man really the Big Lebowski? Many would debate that the true Big Lebowski is none other than the Dude.
The story of The Big Lebowski is much in the tradition of a classic detective tale, in which the Dude is our private eye. What is great about the Dude is his motives are the absolute furthest from what a real detective would be interested in. He simply wants to get a new rug and leave this madness. However over the course of the film, he is shown to be observant, meticulous, and even smart when it comes to putting the pieces of the puzzle together. He notices he is being trailed by someone after he reclaims his stolen car, finds evidence as to who stole his car hidden in the back seat, attempts to gather information by making a rubbing of Treehorn's note pad, goes to addresses and checks out the people there to see if they are involved, and even manages to figure out just what is behind this kidnapping scheme. He manages to do all of this while smoking weed and listening to bowling pins scatter. This parody of the classic private eye makes not only the character more endearing, but the narrative more interesting for the audience. There is never a moment where there isn't suspense, laughter or any combination of the two, and the stress of the nonconventional nature of the case really serves to stress out the Dude, and us in turn. As if to add emphasis to this point, the Dude is later mistaken for a private eye by another private eye, who compliments the Dude's style.
This film does have the typical weirdness of Coen Brothers films, odd characters who only last a scene but still leave an impression. An example of this in a previous film is the critically acclaimed Fargo, where after all is said and done, the main character has a flirtatious friend to contend with. Many such examples of oddly appropriate weirdness make their way into the film, such as a scene where the Dude's landlord invites him to a dance recital he is performing in. This set up allows an otherwise boring bout of exposition on who stole the Dude's car to become side splitting. Or that evil prince from DragonHeart showing up at random to have a giggle fit with the paint flinging Maude Lebowski. Little touches as well add to the film's tone, and while many of these examples are immediately discarded, to remove them from the film would be greatly detrimental to its overall quality. One of the funniest examples serves as a payoff towards the Dude's actually pretty solid investigational skills. He witnesses the porn producer Jackie Treehorn writing something on a note pad. Afterwards, Treehorn removes his doodle and leaves the room, leaving the note pad. Seeking to uncover the message, the Dude springs into action and uses a pencil to make a rubbing, only to find that Jackie's important message was nothing more than a doodle of a man with an erect penis. Even though there is no follow up to this bit of weirdness, it really does seem very appropriate in that it further solidifies the notion that the Dude is a sane man in an insane world.
The centerpiece of the film is undoubtedly its dream sequences, which take the film from an unconventional comedy to a straight up avant garde art film piece. They are also very funny. The introductions into these two scenes are critical to their success in the narrative. The first such dream sequence begins unexpectedly while the Dude lies comfortably on his new rug. Once he receives a punch to the face from an intruder, the scene smash cuts into a shot of the Dude as he flies over the city of Los Angeles, chasing down a woman as she flies away on his new rug. Another such transition occurs shortly after the Dude uncovers Treehorn's phallic scribbles. He accepts a white Russian, which turns out to be spiked, and as he plops down onto Treehorn's rug, the next dream sequence, appropriately titled GutterBalls, begins. The creative and funny visuals in these scenes reveal a lot about the Dude's psyche and stresses. Most of these dream sequences have a lot to do with bowling, but do not seem to be that pleasant a portrayal of the sport. A bowling ball drags him out of the sky, a giant bowling ball runs him over and takes him into the pins, he goes to a bowling alley only to gaze at the row of women he flies beneath, his shoes are washed by Saddam Hussein. Could it be that the Dude does not really enjoy the past time that he finds himself in very often, or perhaps he is stressed about the upcoming tournament in which he is set to take part? The analysis of these dream sequences provide a great deal of extra meat to the film, and they are certainly a welcome glimpse into the mind of our plucky hero.
The film uses its soundtrack effectively in furthering the plot, using it to develop character, emphasize the weirdness, and break the fourth wall. Always a welcome entry to any film soundtrack is good old Creedence, which the Dude listens to as he casts suspicious glances behind himself at a trailing Volkswagen, the song being appropriately enough Looking out my Back Door. Another noteworthy use of music is the song Hotel California used to represent the sleazy Jesus, a character that the Dude does not think too highly of. The reference to Don Henley, a member of the Eagles comes back later in the film when the Dude comments to his cabbie that he does not like the band, which results in him being forcibly ejected from the car and left to make his way home. To top it off, The Man in Me is a striking piece of music that fits so perfectly for this film, you would think it was written just for the Dude. The best use of music is the song that accompanies the Stranger, a character played by Sam Elliot who seems to have strolled right out of one of his western films. The Stranger, and this song, serve as headnotes and footnotes to the film, and really accompany the character quite well. But once again, that typical Coen weirdness returns. During the Stranger's odd visit to the characters about midway through the film, the song signifies his approach to the bar. As the piece plays, the Dude seems to notice, and shifts his head around to find the source of the song before finally the Stranger asks for his beverage and refers to the Dude by name.
The Big Lebowski is the most unconventional film I have seen from the Coen brothers, and their lexicon is filled with unconventional works. They are modern auteurs who craft often less than interesting narratives, but pepper them with such fascinating characters that they really brighten things up and make them something unique. The Big Lebowski may be their finest film in that it is the one that takes the most risks, and seems to have paid off the most out of anything they have done, even sparking a new religion known appropriately enough as The Church of the Latter Day Dude. Fargo cannot make such a claim. The Big Lebowski is very funny, but one of the reasons it succeeds so well is that it is very smart, knowing just the right point to place its jabs into the audience's side to elicit the biggest reaction. It also knows that it is not the slapstick that works best, but rather the characters themselves that should make the tale funny. Such smarts has made us laugh at everything from jewel heists to nuclear war. The Dude has made us laugh at a tale of kidnapping and severed toes.
10/10
Battle Queen 2020 (2001)
OK I admit it, I only watched this because of the sexy film poster and the title, I kinda got the feeling there would be some good sexy kick ass femme fatale action. Was kinda thinking along the lines of those cult classic trashy female barbarian flicks 'Barbarian Queen' and 'Deathstalker', alas no, this is much worse.
I didn't expect much of course and there is some soft porn sex scenes in here, bit of boobie action but nothing else. The plot is nonexistent to the point I'm not really what the plot was about, just something about a higher class of people living it up in a post apocalyptic world with their own personal strippers n whores on demand (just sounds like the directors fantasy...and all males). Everyone else is poor, living underground and starving. Oh this is all because a meteor hit the Earth and destroyed it, at the same time somehow causing this divide in society.
Of course the higher echelons take advantage of the scummy poor folk, using the younger ones blood to rejuvenate their own. Oh so its a vampire kinda flick then? meh...sorta I guess, there's no real explanation for anything, they just do it. Its up to Julie Strain to save them...somehow, does she? I dunno, I think her occupation as head Mistress for the strippers n whores was much more interesting.
End of the day its pretty obvious to all that the film is merely a fan pleaser for the big breasted Julie Strain. There is nothing much else to speak of, no real action accept for a few hokey fights and the ultra hot looking Eva Nemeth in her bondage outfit. Yep I've never heard of her either but my god she looked stunning.
Don't get all excited just because I have mentioned soft porn, its so basic and forgettable I didn't even get aroused by it, may as well have been James Bond. I can only recommend this for the mystery female Nemeth in her bondage outfit, the rest is garbage.
2.5/10
Good Morning, Vietnam (1987)
'Goooooooood morning Vietnam! It's 0600 hours. What does the "O" stand for? O my God, it's early!'
Ah back in the day there was a steady stream of Nam war flicks that would produce great performances, great visuals, heavy emotion and eloquent musical scores, this film isn't exactly one of those films. But like all Nam films this too is actually based on true events, the true life events of one Adrian Cronauer, not exactly of course.
The films story isn't actually all that original really, it reads more like something of a tacky kids flick, an underdog story or 'Sgt Bilko'. Robin Williams play Cronauer, an Airman and DJ brought over to Saigon (65) to work for the US armed forces on their radio station. Of course up to this point the radio service has been stuffy, dull and pretty uninspiring, but not for long. Cronauer explodes on the air with his own brand of crazy, wacky in your face humour that very quickly upsets his superiors. From here on the film merely shows the battles between Cronauer and his officers and the depths they go to to try get him off the air for good.
If ever a film were a vehicle for someone this is it, Williams burst onto the air in the story and burst onto the scene in Hollywood with his performance. Despite the fact that I don't really enjoy watching Williams that much or his style of comedy, you can't deny the tour de force on show here. His continuous verbal assaults make you weary, its amazing how he can go on and on never seeming to run dry. In all honesty much of the humour within the film isn't all that funny really, for me it just gives you an idea of what the characters aim was, some of the dialog and jokes are pretty dated now too. There are some bits of dialog that make you laugh, some that are impressive simply because of the speed Williams relays them, but overall I got tired of listening to him.
'Talkin' out in the field. Hi, what's your name?' 'My name's Bob Fliber!' 'Bob, what do you do?' 'I'm in artillery!' 'Thank you, Bob. Can we play anything for you?' 'Anything! Just play it loud, OK?!'
As said the plot is very basic but delivers obvious good morals from Williams character, his companions and the whole idea of trying to provide the truth instead of deception. I'm unsure how much of this film is genuinely truthful as Cronauer is most definitely the perfect superhero. He falls for a local woman, befriends the locals and stands up for the locals against bigotry from US troops, pretty much an all round freedom fighter of justice. Nothing wrong with that of course but it does seem a bit over fabricated, did all this really happen? was Cronauer really involved that much? did he really go against his superiors to the point of disobeying rather important protocols?. A bit of movie magic artistic license methinks.
To be honest I found Bruno Kirby's performance as Second Lieutenant 'Steven Hauk' just as good if not better than Williams. This is a guy who believes he is funny and naturally is not...of course. His idea of humour is dated within the film, a kind of old panto/stand up style, but the cringing way he attempts his particular brand of comedy is hilarious and extremely awkward to watch it really is. His character is the typical bickering, snivelling, slimy jobsworth that runs to his superior for backup and assistance when the grunts ignore him showing no respect for rank, classic stuff.
Really the film is a bit thin on the ground, there isn't really any conflict action, no real tissue inducing emotional moments, no stunning panoramic views of the countryside and not much of a military aspect at all really. The entire film merely revolves around Williams, his loony antics on air, a brief uninteresting love interest and squabbling with T.J Walsh (admittedly amusing). A constant barrage of his wailing voice that does begin to grate over time, it also shows Williams not to be a good actor for period based war flicks.
Bottom line the basic ideals of Cronauer are brought across successfully. You do get behind him, you do empathize with him and you do get a boost when he sticks it to the man (his superiors) and rebels against orders. So yes the film is a feel good factor flick and it does work in that sense. You do also get a glimpse of the senselessness of war and how just a little laughter can release so much hope and joy to the young men being sent into battle and an unknown fate. A powerful realisation for Williams character and probably the strongest sequence in the film.
The visuals are effective and capture the mood of the time, if a bit limited, and the soundtrack like most Nam flicks is excellent. The little montages set alongside the music tracks are always good fun to watch. Whether the film is realistic or not, I'd say it is in places but more of a gentle approach, not much death n destruction here people, not that kind of Nam flick.
Its an interesting idea to look at military radio during conflicts, and making a comedy is an even bolder move surrounding that idea. Its just the whole amusing concept dies quite quickly and can't really maintain the full run time. The finale is clearly suppose to be a bit of a twist and emotional but it doesn't really work, its also obvious. If you like Nam films then you may like this, I'm not sure, if you're not a Williams fan then definitely no. Of course if you like Williams then its Christmas time for you Sir.
6.5/10
The Shining (1980) Jack Torrance, a struggling writer recovering from alcoholism, becomes the winter caretaker for the Overlook Hotel and takes his wife Wendy and son Danny up there for the winter. After they get snowed in, Jack begins to suffer from what may be delirium, but may also be malevolent spirits walking the halls of the overlook. Growing increasingly paranoid of his wife's motives and his son's apparent ESP ability, and egged on by visions which may or may not be real, Jack resorts to homicidal measures to get his family out of the way.
The Shining remains to this day one of the most influential movies in my life. It is not a good adaptation of the Stephen King novel, but that does not stop it from being a truly great film. What one must understand when going into this film is that it is by no means a Stephen King film. It is a Stanley Kubrick film. There is very little Stephen King to be found in this film. At times adaptations like this fall flat, such as the abysmal adaptations of the work of HP Lovecraft which are not only not true to the original story, but also do not have talent behind them.
The Shining is an example of how an untrue adaptation can still work if there is talent behind it. My introduction to
The Shining was during the drive in scene of
Twister. I always wondered just what was going on in that mysterious and insane looking movie on the screen. It was something that instilled a great curiosity in me. I discovered King late into elementary school with
Cujo, a superb novel. After delving into the film adaptations of King's work, I finally got my answer to my question about
Twister, and got introduced to Kubrick at an early age. When I first saw
The Shining, I was mesmerized at just how effective it was. This was the first time I had seen an old film, and just knew that it was a classic.
The Shining was my introduction to more artsy cinema. It transformed me into a full-fledged cinephile and changed my life forever.
One of the centerpieces of the film is the brilliant performance by Jack Nicholson. This was actually my introduction to the actor. Yes I saw this at the age of 12 before Tim Burton's
Batman. Even when I was a kid I was pretentious. One of the great things about Nicholson's performance is the gradual deterioration from a well-meaning but somewhat irritable guy into one of the great raving maniacs of the silver screen. Very early on in the film, one gets the feeling that Jack is annoyed with his wife on an almost constant basis, especially during the scene where the family drives up to the hotel for the first time. Jack's unexpected outburst whilst typing later is especially unnerving. Prior to this, Jack has seemed irritated but collected, and when he lets loose just a little, we get a grim foreshadowing when Jack goes unhinged. The only point in the film where Jack is entirely sympathetic is when he awakes from a nightmare of him killing his family, weeping uncontrollably and fearful of his sanity, which he quickly loses a moment later when in his moment of vulnerability, Wendy accuses him of child abuse. The most memorable part of the movie is the final fourty minutes where Jack has finally cracked and chases his family throughout the hotel with an axe. Some accuse this performance of being over the top and just another thing of Nicholson playing Nicholson. Let me tell you. I have seen plenty of Nicholson movies, from
Five Easy Pieces to
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. There is no other Nicholson like Jack Torrance.
Shelly Duvall delivers the best performance of her career as Jack's push over wife who is forced to resort to violence to survive the ordeal. Often considered annoying, many fail to see the brilliance of this character. She is not confrontational and excuses her husband's behavior far too easily, even making an excuse for Jack dislocating Danny's arm. The first time in the film where she shows any shock or fear is during Jack's first outburst. She finally grows confrontational when she discovers Danny with a bruised neck and accused Jack of the injuries. This is without a doubt the character's strongest moment, as genuine anger is reflected in her voice, and it causes the audience to gain a little respect for her. As Jack spirals downwards, Wendy, a dependent individual, struggles to avoid getting pulled down with him. You really do get the feeling she is terrified during the final act as she is forced to defend herself against an individual that she was previously dependent on. Some of her best acting is when she too is confronted with the ghostly images that have plagued Jack and Danny.
Danny Lloyd delivers a great performance as the son, a boy gifted with ESP and psychic ability. What is great about his performance is he is easily the most collected individual in the entire film, carefully planning his escape and outwitting his homicidal father. Only one point in the film is he shown as being afraid, when he confronts the two girls in the hallway. After that, he remains one of the most resourceful and intelligent characters in horror cinema. To top it off, Lloyd plays two characters, the 2nd being the mysterious Tony. At the beginning of the third act, his eerie deadpan delivery of his lines whilst possessed by Tony really come across as rather creepy, in spite of the knowledge that Tony is a benevolent force.
The Overlook Hotel remains one of the most effective and ever present villains in the film, which is one thing I feel this film improves on in the book. In the book, it is pretty clear cut that there are ghosts in the hotel and they are responsible for what is going on. We do see spirits in
The Shining, but they seem to compliment something that seems much larger and more malevolent. The setting itself is the antagonist. Hidden in every wall, every door, every window, and beneath every footstep, it conspires, it plots, it executes its plan to drive Jack to madness. Its success is all but ensured about a third of the way through the movie. Jack is caught at a vulnerable moment after a nightmare of him doing violence against his family. In perfect timing, Danny walks in with his bruises and Wendy immediately accuses Jack of being responsible. At this moment, when Jack was seeking comfort and even willing to accept he had problems, he is instantly cut off and hateful towards his wife for the accusation, and old feelings of resentment towards Danny bubble to the surface. It is a brilliant, and cruel move by the unseen yet always present entity that haunts the Overlook Hotel.
Kubrick photographs the film in two styles. Early on in the film, much of the action is photographed in wide and extreme long shots. These shots highlight the desolate nature of the setting. You see the character, but more importantly you see the emptiness around them, which makes them totally and utterly alone. As the film continues, the camera moves closer and closer to the characters, which has the effect of making the walls close in and the characters become trapped. Even in the outdoor chase in the maze that concludes the film, the camera is brought in really close to the action. This progressive closing of the space really does wonders for the film's atmosphere. Kubrick's shooting style is one of the most frightening aspects of the movie. Two of the most effective scenes in the film are when Danny is lured into a room by a malevolent force. The shots of the hallway are so unsettling, one cannot quite put their finger on it. It continues when Jack investigates and finds a siren like figure in the bathtub. As this woman exits the tub and seductively approaches him, I found myself legitimately terrified of this image alone, not just with the knowledge of what comes next. It just seems very wrong. Another moment where photography greatly enhances the scene is when Scatman Crothers arrives at the hotel and slowly walks the halls in search of the Torrance family. These shots take us out of the close up shots that had come to dominate the film and take us back to the wide empty shots from before. But now we are certain of the danger that awaits behind every pillar. In a classic technique, Kubrick draws out the scene to unbearable length, and then ends it at the most unexpected moment.
The film is packed with some of the most iconic imagery of the movies, the elevator filled with blood, the two twins, Jack Torrance poking his head through the door, a door adorned with the word REDRUM and more. There are some noteworthy things that must be mentioned about these shots. One is the two twins, commonly assumed to be the Grady daughters. This cannot be the case however. Firstly, the Grady daughters are noted to be eight and ten, whereas these two ghostly figures are very obviously identical twins. So just who in the hell are these girls? Are they an amalgam of everything that has happened? The recurring image of the girls, repeated four times and ending in the scene in the hallway, is one of the most memorable, and still unexplained, aspects of the film. The recurring and iconic image of the blood pouring out of the elevator sums up the entire movie in a pitch perfect manner. The use of this single shot for the trailer explains everything about the film, but also next to nothing, and Kubrick wisely uses it repeatedly for the film at choice moments, most notably for Danny's psychic visions. These images are given an extra punch via the film's editing, which incorporates these snippets of creepy throughout the film for a few choice split seconds. One such moment is when Danny approaches the door to room 237. As he is about to open the door, a flash of the twins appears on the screen. Danny immediately turns tail and runs. It seems that the best uses of these surreal images are best used in the richly edited scenes of Danny's visions, from the first to the last.
Kubrick is obviously a great artist.
The Shining remains his most mainstream and accessible film, but he has many other masterpieces in his extensive lexicon of...well...masterpieces.
2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon, Lolita. Kubrick was a man who did extensive numbers of takes. It took three takes and a year to get the blood in the elevator shot done. The scene where Crothers speaks to Danny took a record breaking 148 takes to finish, a record number for any take in history. He also played dirty with his actors, telling George C Scott the camera was off during his most manic performances. Both Duvall and Crothers took the brunt of Kubrick's punishment on
The Shining. But their stresses and anxieties really come across on film and make them even more believable. One of the reasons Nicholson's performance is so good is that he got increasingly manic and muggy the more takes that were taken. Readings like that could not have been done on take 1 or even 15. Kubrick combined his own slices of life with political and philosophical beliefs, thus creating a rich menagerie of perfect films that put him up with the likes of Hitchcock and other great cinema artists. Kubrick is clearly of the great artists mold.
From the first helicopter shot to the final fade out of the ball room photo,
The Shining is filled with brilliance seldom found in films of this genre. It is fascinating to see how such a high brow director as Kubrick took genres that no one took seriously, from comedy to sci-fi and propelled them to new heights to silence their detractors once and for all. For those who knock horror, there are many films to shove in their faces to show them that when done right to fright, the genre has great merit.
The Shining is such a horror film, a true masterpiece of cinema, and remains one of my favorite ways to play with my senses. After all, all work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy...
Spoiler
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All
work
and
no
play
makes
Mono
a
dull
boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy. All work and no play makes Mono a dull boy.
Killing Season
A standard screenplay is said to have three acts. "Killing Season", to its detriment, only has two, and it only has enough wind in its sails for one.
In the first act, we meet Benjamin Ford (Robert De Niro) and Emil Kovac (John Travolta, sporting a chin curtain beard and a heavy Serbian accent). The film's prologue shows us that Ford and Kovac fought in the Bosnian War on opposing sides. During the conflict, Ford shot a captive Kovac and left him for dead. Cut to two decades later. Ford, scarred by the war both literally and figuratively, tries to put his past behind him, living an idyllic life in a cabin in the Appalachians. Kovac is not quite so mellow, having spent the last twenty years tracking down Ford. When he finally finds him, Kovac sets his plans of vengeance into motion. Kovac stops by Ford's retreat, pretending to be a weary traveller. Ford, not recognizing the man he shot, lets him in. The two drink and talk the night away.
The second act kicks off the next morning, when Kovac begins his one man war on Ford. What ensues is a violent cat and mouse chase. The two men, with none to help them, chase each other, maim each other, fire arrows at each other, and generally give each other a hard time. As Kovac puts it, "Two men. Alone in the wilderness. Not another living soul in sight... War, distilled."
This movie is fairly engrossing at first. It could have been incredibly boring to spend forty five minutes watching two men sit and babble on about their life stories. But it works, largely due to the dramatic irony at play. We, the audience, know that Ford's life is in peril, but Ford is blissfully unaware. So, while the two veterans chat it up, we're on the edge of our seats, waiting for the proverbial time bomb to explode. It's a simple manipulation, but an effective one.
It's when the action starts, the beginning of act two, that the movie loses steam and credibility. The action is engrossing for around five minutes, but it grows tedious when the story falls into a comfortable pattern. Kovac captures Ford, tortures him, and lectures to him about the meaning of life and war and God. Ford escapes, captures Kovac, tortures him, and lectures to him about the meaning of life and war and God. Kovac escapes and you know the drill. There's a scene that's probably meant to be the climax, but there's nothing to distinguish it from any of the prior reversals other than the fact that it doesn't lead into another one. The speeches, while mildly intriguing at first, are so consistently heavy and melodramatic that they blur into each other. After a certain point, they aren't dialogues as much as monologues, and they contribute a fair amount to the monotony. No new plot information is given during these scenes. No real character development. The story stays on autopilot until the very end.
Had "Killing Season" been written with a stronger structure, more plot points, and, most importantly, an endgame in mind, maybe its heavy themes of war and guilt and religion would have resonated. As it stands, "Killing Season" doesn't try hard enough to keep us interested after a solid beginning. All it can do is tread water and stall until the lights come up.
The Raven (1963)
A few films with this title now, which is the better you may ask, well it certainly isn't the one with John Cusack. An intriguing Corman take on the classic Poe poem, a horror comedy with his typical B-movie visuals and cheesy dialog. Of course this being a horror his style works and adds huge amounts of ghoulish charm to the proceedings.
The fifth film Corman adapted from Poe's classic works and probably one of the best (and more well known). The cast is of course the main factor here, Vincent Price who stars in all but one of Corman's adaptations. Peter Lorre who stars in one other Corman/Poe adaptation, Boris Karloff and of course Jack Nicholson.
The plot is based around the Poe poem but of course is very very loose. Obviously most of it has been made up to fill out an entire film and frankly its pretty hokey and childish. Basically Price's character (a good sorcerer) is mourning the loss of his 'Lenore', a talking raven comes into his life which turns out to be Lorre who was turned into the raven by an evil sorcerer (Karloff). Lorre explains that he has seen Lenore at Karloff's castle so off they go to find her. Turns out Lenore faked her death and ran off to the evil 'Dr. Scarabus' (Karloff) to lure 'Dr. Erasmus Craven' (Price) to the castle so they can take his powers.
The plot is thinner than a supermodels waistline and merely serves to offer up some Price vs Karloff sorcery towards the end. Nothing really happens throughout the entire film other than a lot of silly dialog and some rather poor attempts at comedy, its very dated. Nicholson plays the part of a young lad and son of Lorre's character, who also falls for 'Dr. Erasmus Craven's' daughter (she accompanies them all on their adventure to Karloff's castle). No real reason for him to be in this really, he does nothing other than serve up wooden deliveries.
The visuals in the film are nice with that musky old haunted castle type atmosphere, plenty of old leather bound armchairs and dusty bookcases. Price fits the scene like a glove of course, Karloff seems a bit out of place being slightly too serious but he looks good, while Lorre's character is a real misery and quite unlikable, but its all about his voice isn't it. Some nice matte painting work on the outside castle shots, totally fake looking of course haha but I love that kinda stuff, nice cheesy storm too.
Overall its rather lame really, yes I know its a cult classic with an ultra classic legendary cast but the film is pretty dull and uneventful. The highlight is easily the sorcery battle between Price and Karloff in the finale. A great fun and quite long continuous sequence with some nice ideas and nice effects too. The ending is very soft but what do you expect? this is soft core 1960's horror here, back in the day I'm sure it was deemed quite thrilling.
I'm sure the hardcore fanboys of these silver screen stars will love this, I enjoyed it but must admit I was bored. The finale is cool but the rest is merely filler, still worth your time though purely for the cast.
'Quoth the raven, Nevermore.'
6/10
Catwoman (2004)
A spin off about Catwoman that would follow on from the heavily gothic Burton Batman sequel, or so we all thought. Everything seemed good to go, Pfeiffer was set to return and Burton was gonna direct, but like always in Hollywood things changed and a whole new group of people were brought in.
The plot? the plot is actually about makeup! in-destructable makeup, yep that's right. In this film the villain is creating a makeup that inadvertently makes your skin as solid as rock, hence you are unable to feel pain or suffer injury. Drawback being if you stop using it it will scar your face up badly. So its up to errr...someone called 'Patience Phillips' to save the day.
Oh the problems, so many!. First up if you're expecting to see Gotham City forget it, this isn't Gotham. I'm not sure where it is actually but I don't believe its Gotham, its never mentioned as far as I'm aware. As we already know the character isn't 'Selina Kyle' either, why? I dunno, so they take the opportunity to make Catwoman black with Halle Berry. Now I don't want delve too far into this issue but for me Catwoman is white, simple as that, yes I know Eartha Kitt has played her but still, essentially the character is white so why change that lore so dramatically?.
Moving on, the outfit, oh jesus! what were they thinking. There really is nothing to say here other than its dreadful, purely dreadful, she doesn't look like Catwoman...a master thief/anti hero, she looks more like Catwoman...the sleazy hooker. The look merely consists of ripped (around the her ass strategically) black leather pants and a black leather bra...oh and the most stupid looking mask I've seen for some time, looks like its gonna fall off at any moment. It doesn't help that she has some hideous makeup work on her too, really nasty looking.
The film is chock full of terrible CGI, really bad looking stuff as Catwoman scurries up and down walls and acrobatically flips all over the show as if she were an insect, Spider-Woman. This leads me back to the plot idea here. The character is killed and changed into a 'cat woman' by some mystical feline that just happened to be there at the time. Why? not sure, the cat is owned by some good witch-like character, a spiritualist kinda person, apparently the cat chose Berry's character, the cat is a messenger of some Goddess or something. Still doesn't answer anything really.
From here on our heroine develops cat-like super powers that enable her to crawl up and down walls, leap from massive heights, be well versed in martial arts and have cat-like hearing and sight....just like regular cats really. So we now know this film isn't about the DC comic book character, its actually about a completely different character that has nothing to do with the Batman universe, she's simply a cat woman, not Catwoman, but a cat woman. A woman who died, got resurrected by a mythical cat and was given cat-like super powers. Just happens to call herself Catwoman.
I still don't really get why you would get all those abilities from being resurrected by a cat? do cats know martial arts?. OK I'm being silly but seriously, why would you become a martial arts master?! becoming more agile and athletic sure but martial arts??. And do cats regularly climb up and down walls, across the ceiling and jump out of lofty buildings?? whut!??.
Of course there are so many problems with this disaster I can't even recall them all. Berry is kinda OK for the role but she is made to look and act like some kind of slutty diva/hooker. I mean really, the way she walks and carries on, its not sexy it embarrassing! I've never seen someone try so hard to be slinky and sexy...ever!. Its really awkward to watch as she purrs and meows trying to raise the average male viewers temperature, its so cheesy, did she actually try to be Eartha Kitt?.
Mind you Sharon Stone looks awful too, how much makeup?? geez! her haircut looks terrible and the fight sequence between her and Berry is laughable. She's an everyday executive for a makeup company yet when it comes to the crunch she can fight against a martial arts supremo? wow she kept some secrets then.
An utter shambles frankly, nothing to do with what you expect...in any aspect, virtually an independent film and character. Its a shame because I'm sure this could of been pretty neat with the right people involved, its just hard to believe what we see up on the screen got approved!. I think the only thing I can be positive about is the final shot in the film where she walks off across the rooftops against a full moon. That is the only nice true comic book visual of the entire film, the end.
1/10
Monsters vs. Aliens (2009)
After a long line of very average animated films (unless you like 'Shrek') this was the main film that started the comeback for Dreamworks, in my opinion. This was the turn around point...well this and 'Kung Fu Panda'.
The aim of the game here was to emulate the classic horror/sci-fi B-movies of the 50's and have fun with it. The plot is about a regular woman who is struck by a meteorite which makes her grow to enormous proportions ('Attack of the 50 Foot Woman'). She is then carted off by the military to a secret base ('Area 51-ish') where she is imprisoned with some other quirky creatures/monsters. At the same time far away in space an alien detects a precious specialized metal on Earth and begins his plans to invade.
No beating around the bush here, the best thing about this film is the small ragtag team of monsters. This small group of diverse characters is the films saviour and shows some great homaging for all you sci-fi buffs. There is ' B.O.B.', a gelatinous blue blob that is obviously a take on 'The Blob' (1958) and brilliantly voiced by Seth Rogen, probably one of the best/funniest characters. 'Dr. Cockroach, PhD' a half man half cockroach character with insect abilities and a roguish dashing persona, this is mainly down to him being voiced by Huge Laurie. This little fella is a homage to classic horror 'The Fly' (1958).
'The Missing Link', ('Link'), a 20,000 year old fish/ape creature that is presumably a slight play on 'The Creature From the Black Lagoon' (1954). This guy is easily the best looking of the bunch visually, his slippery scaly skin glistens perfectly in ever scene. 'Insectosaurus' which is pretty obviously a homage to Godzilla (1954) and the various gigantic monsters of that specific universe. A massive grub that simply roars a lot and can shoot out silk.
And of course as said already the main female heroine character who has grown to humongous proportions is presumably a homage to 'Attack of the 50 Foot Woman' (1958). The villain in this adventure is a multi-eyed alien called 'Gallaxhar' (sounds like a retro space shooter videogame). He has a big oblong shaped head and lots of tentacles for legs, looks a bit like a squid. This guy I believe is merely a generic combination of ideas gathered from various 50's sci-fi aliens, a classic retro design but unusually his ship isn't the cheesy shape you'd expect.
I must also mention some of the human characters too, this film relies heavily on its characters and it really doesn't disappoint. 'General Warren R. Monger' voiced by Sutherland (see his name, you get it?) is you're stereotypical gruff, buzz cut, war obsessed military leader who trusts no one (especially aliens) and is perfectly happy to let rip with an onslaught of hellfire...ask questions later. I love how Dreamworks are happy to make fun of their own nations well known bad stereotypes...the typical US cigar chomping war happy General for one.
I also loved how they again mocked themselves with the 'President Hathaway' character. A dimwitted leader who is incapable of making decisions, dishes out vague nonsensical commands and easily brainwashed by his aides. Yet at the same time is always trying to come across as a good man, a man of the people, keeping his ratings up and more importantly being an all round cool guy. The sequence where he plays the electronic keyboard to greet the alien visitors is by far the stupidest but funniest thing I've seen for some time. I also think his look is most amusing, kinda like 'Clarke kent' but with a definite John F. Kennedy influence, he looks so American, its spot on.
The film and story on the whole is reasonable, its all based around hokey sci-fi/UFO stuff so of course its gonna be daft as hell, what do you expect. Its all suppose to be very retro, very dated and downright hammy. Its easy to see what they were going for, right down to the Godzilla-like sequence at the Golden Gate Bridge, there had to be some classic giant monster stomping destruction porn come on!. I also loved that giant cycloptic robot probe that lands, loved the design of it, so simple yet so memorable.
It does start off pretty slow I can't deny, the story of 'Susan Murphy' ('Ginormica') is at first rather dull. Plus I gotta say the visuals are kinda bland at first too, its only when she's taken to the secret military base that things get going. From there on it just gets better and better, but admittedly the film is held together by the fantastic characters, without them it could of been nasty.
The only weak link in the film for me was actually the main character voiced by the annoying Reese Witherspoon, couldn't care a less about that character. Take her out and you'd still have a cool working film, but I guess you need a proper human element in that creature squad. Everything else was awesome!.
The idea behind this isn't exactly original of course, we've been getting lots of hokey sci-fi homage flicks recently, ditto fantasy and comic book, realistic and parodies. I guess this is kinda like 'Hotel Transylvania' but with classic sci-fi characters teamed up instead of classic horror characters. I thought it would be crappy but it turned out to be a brilliantly fun animated adventure.
8/10
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft259%2Fphubbs%2Fphubbs2%2Fmva5_zpsc9f9540a.png&hash=2cd43e763b1a6524ff5ef62c9dc4db17e6f782e8) (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/phubbs/media/phubbs2/mva5_zpsc9f9540a.png.html)
Disclosure (1994)
The third film in Michael Douglas' sex trilogy, this has always kinda amazed me really seeing as the guy is hardly good looking. Yet I remember this film well upon release, the films poster was raunchy and everybody was talking about the sex scene with Demi Moore. The films main plot was also a big talking point, sexual harassment of a man in the workplace...by a higher grade woman. A concept that was deemed to be impossible and rather un-PC.
In all honesty the film was pretty much sold on that one sex scene. But it wasn't even a sex scene, it was more rough and dirty, clearly made to be scandalous and edgy, and it worked. I can't deny its a sexy sequence especially with Moore's provocative and dominating dialog at the same time...'you just lie back and let me be the boss'.
This film really brought Moore to my attention. Her dominance and bitchy attitude is incredibly sexy and could easily cause any man a huge moral dilemma, and I guess that is the entire point.
After this scene the plot gets nasty as Moore's real character is exposed and she tries everything in her power to bring Douglas' character down. Its all about lies, accusations, trust and mainly power, who has the power, are women as powerful as men in business? or do they actually have more power?. Its an interesting premise which works well and does open your eyes somewhat. Does this happen in reality? to be honest I'm sure it does as in this modern age equality laws for the sexes can easily swing in favour of the female in cases just like this (evidence depending). Bottom line it can/could be very easy for a female in the work place to cause a lot of trouble for a man without the need for immediate hard evidence.
As for the film, I think its very good, it grips you and makes you feel uncomfortable. Personally I felt quite nervous throughout the whole film, it really did make me squirm, kudos to everybody involved for that achievement. I also felt compassion for Douglas' character, I wanted him to succeed and prove himself innocent, the direction and performances are very good and all help in locking you in with the plot. Moore really does the powerful bitch role well, its hard to like her here despite the fact most men would have let her 'rape' them in that one sex scene (I know I would have).
Its a performance driven film and I think everyone nails it. Sutherland as ever is well cast as the boss, never sure whether he is up to something, always looking kinda shifty, a corporate boss who appears friendly on the outside but cold and merciless on the inside. Kudos must also go to Roma Maffia as Douglas' lawyer, I think her performance is the best in the film!. Her character knows how to play the game, she gives you the viewer confidence, she relaxes you because you know she knows what she's doing, plus she looks like a lawyer too.
I'm sure many people will be able to relate to situations like this in their own work place. I think the whole atmosphere of taking sides, rumours, the little digs, plotting, wild accusations, betrayal, the private chats with superiors etc...all are created well within the film, its quite grounded and realistic if you ask me.
I think this film ranks highly alongside 'Fatal Attraction', that film exposed the possible flaws in equality between the sexes on the homefront (trust issues), whilst this film exposes it in the workplace. A very good tense legal thriller set completely within the professional world where men supposedly reign supreme. Add some gritty sex, gritty dialog and some fancy visual technology effects (amusingly dated now) and you have a decent drama.
7/10
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)
'Die Hard on a bus' and now...yep you guessed it 'Die Hard on a boat', well cruise liner. I guess the first thing that instantly jumps out at you here is the fact the film is called Speed 2 but its on a slow moving cruiser liner!. Hardly speed is it, more like err...cruising, I get the feeling they just wanted to use a cruise ship so they could use their highly imaginative tag of 'cruise control'.
Seriously I've read into this and there were some really decent ideas for a follow up. Nothing original of course, they all copied the exact same premise as the original but at least they could offer up some more thrills than a cruise liner. One plot involved a plane that couldn't ascend above 10,000 feet whilst flying through some mountains, kinda daft but sounds better right?.
So this basically really absolutely is a complete 'Die Hard' rip off, it really is. Recently fired crazy ass Dafoe wants revenge on the company (ships computer systems) that wrongfully terminated him because he was ill. So he decides to sabotage one of his own computer systems on board a large expensive cruise liner and steer it into a disaster whilst pinching all the valuables on board. Again at the end of the day he's just after some jewellery, weak. Its pretty much 'Die Hard/Under Siege' with more comedy and way way less blood and violence, actually check that, there is hardly any blood and violence in this, its bordering on PG territory.
Bullock's character has dumped 'Jack Traven' from the first much better film and now she's with the receding hair line of Jason Patric. I guess what's so dumb about this film is firstly Patric just doesn't come across as the hero type, oh sure he's leaping around and trying to be action man every five minutes but the guy just looks anything but. I know heroes don't have to be muscle bound macho men with good hair but Patric? really?? this guy is the wrong kind of actor for a role like this. The other thing that bugs you is the fact his character is such a fudging goodie goodie and always trying to save everyone. Even on board this cruise liner which he knows nothing about, doesn't have a clue where to go and basically shouldn't be poking his nose into anything, he still goes around barking orders at the crew! and they obey him!!! as if!!! in reality they'd tell him to flip off.
Bullock is completely sidelined to virtually a cameo really, she does nothing at all other than offer up terrible dialog attempting to be comic relief. She's even more annoying than in the first film and even more wet (situation aside), in fact the badly portrayed passengers are not as annoying as Bullock. Then you have Dafoe as the villain, well I say villain but he isn't really that evil, he merely switches off all the electrics and gets everybody to evacuate. Would stuff on a ship tend to blow up and cause so much destruction when the electrics go down? seems odd.
Funny thing is if everybody had just gotten off as he demanded in the first place, none of the ensuing mess would of occured!...well almost.
I realise Dafoe's baddie character knows the ship inside out and can control whatever he likes but you always get the feeling he's not much of a challenge. Time and again it seems like he could of been caught plus he also comes across as someone Bullock could beat in a fight. His plan also seems very over indulgent simply for stealing some jewels, takes him half the film to get it set up yet takes him fives minutes to do the deed. He then messes around for no real reason when he could of just gotten away no problem, all this kinda makes the action sequences seem unnecessary and forced.
The film is way more goofy than the first and hardly feels like a real action film at all. There is way too much stupid comedy and idiotic dialog...oh and some awful reoccurring character cameos from the first film which almost make the film into a parody. Even Dafoe's baddie isn't immune to the ridiculous daftness, he contributes with various silly faces to exaggerate the heat of the moment.
The film does look pretty good I can't deny, the ship interiors, exteriors and various CGI shots are nicely done. This all comes to a head in the finale where De Bont takes the opportunity to destroy half a port town by ramming the cruise liner into it purely to show off lots of destruction and fancy effects/models. Even that doesn't really work though because of the awful comic relief which ruins any real tension. This is the films fault all the way through, you never at any point feel nervous or tense despite the fact you're watching an action film about a hijacking. The whole thing is totally juvenile and not in the least bit exciting, and no sticking Patric on a cool motorbike chase sequence at the start doesn't make him look any cooler, just more out of place.
2.5/10
Sliver (1993)
Ah yes, back in the early 90's Sharon Stone had the reputation of being Hollywood's dirty star, thanks to 'Basic Instinct' and this. At the time I was a young teen and Stone was notorious for her antics on film, we all talked about her, we all wanted to see her films, Stone was the pinnacle of naughty films we weren't allowed to see.
Apparently the film is based on a novel of the same name and I'm sure the book is much better than this film. Its basically a murder thriller in a tall apartment block. Stone has just moved in, there's a young stud on one floor who fancies her and a middle aged bloke on another who fancies her too. One of them killed the previous owner of Stone's flat (yes in the UK we say flat), choose between the paranoid loony or the enormous peeping tom.
I admit the film does well in hiding who committed the murder (and the other one during the film), you're never really sure which of the two chaps did it right up to the end. Tends to swing from moment to moment, one minute you think its Baldwin, the next its Berenger, nicely done I guess.
The thing is the whole film just feels like its capitalising on Stone's previous massive hit 'Basic Instinct'. If they had another female lead in that role I just don't think it would have attracted the same publicity. After all this was Stone's sex sequel, her second big sexual escapade and boy did they nail that home!. I mean the film is reasonably enjoyable but its merely one sex scene after another, once Stone's character meets Baldwin's creepy duck faced character it just becomes one sweaty sex sequence followed by some dialog, then another sweaty sex sequence etc...It does actually feel as though the director is simply giving you a breather from playing with yourself with some boring plot, until the next big tissue inducing sequence (its not that dirty by the way).
Gotta give it to Baldwin, he really does come across as a slimy creepy pervert that you know not to trust. Whether that was good acting or just the way he is I dunno. I quite liked the sub plot revolving around his electronic spying, you know its gonna play into the murder plot because he has cameras in every nook n cranny of this building, kinda obvious what will happen. Berenger is OK as this jealous oddball who breaks into peoples apartments all the time, a bit bland though, kinda plays it safe with his performance, nothing too special. A bit sickening watching both these guys trying to schmaltz their way into Stone's knickers, I wonder if the script is the same as the book?.
Stone moans, groans and exposes herself well throughout, nothing more, she does exactly what you expect and its pretty much all she can do. Really it just feels like a quickfire follow through after Stone hit the big time, its very simple in premise and hardly a thriller in any aspect if you ask me. Its not even that sexy really, I don't wanna see Baldwin's sweaty ass!. Some nice visuals though, a bit noir-ish I guess, soundtrack is a little haunting also, so not all bad. The films title suits the content perfectly, you really do feel like you need a shower after this sleazy affair.
5.5/10
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
The long awaited third sequel...well sorta, after the surprisingly popular half decent first film and the fun arcade fighter-like sequel, the third film limped along. Obviously trying for a fresh look and idea the Turtles find themselves being zapped back in time to feudal Japan mainly to capitalize on their martial arts background. The film was also kinda known as 'Turtles in Time' which was the title of the second scrolling beat 'em up for the SNES fighter back in 92.
To be honest I can see why they would make this move story wise, the Turtles do have that Eastern mythology to them so naturally they would fit well in the land of the rising sun. Its basically all about swapping places in time, the Turtles must travel back in time and exchange places with some elite warriors to save 'April' who accidentally got swapped with a Prince whose father is a Shogun (I think). So what we end up having is a nice lighthearted out of time culture shock routine for both the Turtles in ancient Japan and the Prince and his warriors in present day New York.
So what can you expect? well its pretty clear really, there are lots of hokey, silly, childish fight sequences where the four heroes battle Japanese warriors of various kinds. Lots of visual cartoonish humour, prat falls, rude jokes and talk of pizza. On the flip side back in New York we see the out of time strangers coming to grips with TV, pizza, modern music, night clubs, bars, drink etc...its all very cliched, very cheesy, very hammy and massively predictable but its suppose to be.
The visuals still look nice if you ask me, nothing special, feudal Japan is realised well with lots of hilly rocky green terrain and a nice fortress set. All the extras look fine in their traditional outfits accompanied by traditional weaponry, they all speak Japanese (no subs) and they all take their roles seriously enough to make the ride enjoyable. Sab Shimono as 'Lord Norinaga' looks great in his role and gives a decent performance, easily the best, he actually gives the whole thing a much needed boost of realism. The Turtles don't quite look as good as the previous two films, Henson's boys aren't behind the magic this time and you can tell but its still OK (they look quite good in their samurai armour). Splinter still looks the same which is good and its nice to see Koteas back as 'Casey Jones' albeit in a minor background role.
Not as good as the first two films but I still enjoyed this to a degree. Its meant for kids in every way and is in no way suppose to be anything remotely serious of course. Its still heavily based around the cartoon series which isn't a bad thing but I just feel had they used 'Shredder' 'Krang' 'Bebop' and 'Rocksteady' as the villains, still using the feudal Japan setting, we could have had a much better film.
The whole trilogy really missed Krang, Bebop and Rocksteady, all three films are a nice adaptation of the cartoon series and don't disappoint in all honesty. Sure they get more childish one by one but they still work both visually and simply for fun. For what they are, the approach and style of the franchise, they are perfect, perfect pop culture of the early 90's.
5.5/10
The Game (1997)
A forgotten Fincher gem to be sure, not exactly an original idea but superbly well made and directed by the cult creator. The plot has been seen before but it works well by playing on the paranoia and scares of everyday life, things that could go wrong if our lives fell apart before our eyes. The fear of losing everything, nowhere to turn, no one to trust, something that all working people can relate to.
Michael Douglas plays 'Nick Van Orton', a very rich Scrooge like character who cares little for anyone, lives like a king whilst playing the investment banker game. So yeah this could be 'Gordon Gecko' as an older man I guess, its very familiar. Upon receiving a giftcard type present from his brother for a 'game' company Orton proceeds ahead with the offer and discovers himself in a world of hurt.
The tension builds at a slow pace as small things start to happen to Orton, nothing much at first but slowly the situation gets worse and worse. It really is quite creepy and uncomfortable to watch as his job is threatened, his home and even the people he knows, the walls come crashing down around him and he's virtually powerless to stop it.
I guess you could say the film is bordering on identity theft of the highest order, with the acception that the main character agreed to everything. That's the itchy fact that sits on your mind the whole time, he agreed to it!! almost like a blackmail fetish. Sure he knew nothing about the company and what was on offer but the trust factor of his brother giving him the gift really adds to the mystery of it all.
But on the flip side this mystery is also slightly damning really. If you really think about it, would anyone really accept what this unknown company offers in the film? would you really go along with all those medical tests and mental tests that last all day and at the end of it sign your life away without a clue what will happen?! I bloody wouldn't!. This is the intrigue (or start of it) but also the main problem with the plot, no one would do that, especially someone like Van Orton with tonnes of money and a grand reputation to lose.
Even if you did agree to this bizarre mystery game, would this company really go as far as they do in the film?. Would a real company really be able to take everything away from you including your property, car, job, friends and family so easily?. Leaving you almost homeless with seemingly everybody against you, people double crossing you, even going as far as to try and kill you!!!, taking you to the point of near break down, suicide or murder...just for a game??...that's a gift!!.
I mean yeah sure the concept for the movie is thrilling but if you step back and look at it its totally insane really. Who could say Van Orton wouldn't blow his brains out very early on or actually kill someone?, on the other hand surely he could easily get around the game by simply going to his building that he owns. The mystery company has seemingly gotten to people, his property and his money but surely they wouldn't be able to get everyone in his own building in on the trick. He could of just walked in there at anytime, his name is on the entrance for pete's sake! did he forget he owned that building? it wouldn't have disappeared.
I must confess to not liking the ending either, it twists more than a helter skelter but instead of leaving you in awe it leaves you thinking Fincher went one step too far. It also feels way too convenient, as if they knew Orton would do what he did, just seems too impossible to predict.
Great colour palette by Fincher too I might add. Rich with dark tones, moody and dull, yet at times kinda faded or washed out, a bit noir-ish and every scene is full of detail. Some of the best visuals are seen when Douglas is relaxing in his luxurious wood panel study, very nice and probably not too far off Douglas' real home decor.
Douglas is also perfect as Orton (he knows how to play slimeballs), the cool, slick, cold business man who is reduced to a quivering wreck with anxiety overload. You can feel the sweat droplets running down your brow as you observe Douglas going through his nightmare, one of his best performances. Despite the over the top nature of the plot the film is a great thriller and succeeds in creating discomfort during the whole run time.
7/10
Firestorm (1998)
So ex-NFL player Howie Long got his big action man break in the Travolta thriller 'Broken Arrow' in 1996, this inevitably lead to his own specially made silly action vehicle. Although there are a few well known faces here simply to bolster the acting skills on show, its basically the Howie Long show yet he shows off no muscles throughout.
So four years ago the main villain stole four million Dollars and hid it deep within the forest. He now decides to break out of jail with some colleges during a big forest fire which one of his compadres on the outside started. Naturally a female is taken hostage and its up to the lone 'smokejumper' to save the day with his mighty axe.
The term 'smokejumper' is actually what they call these guys that are trained to jump from helicopters into fires to save people, its not me being sarcastic. But this is what's so funny about this film, right from the get go we are shown the banal camaraderie and makeup of the small team. These smokejumpers led by Long are your typical team of Hollywood characters, the attractive female, the mouthy young male, the wiser vet and Long who is the big butch guy. Only thing missing is the token black guy.
Luckily we don't have to put up with this A-Team type cliched machoism as the action centres on Long surviving in the wilderness against the bad guys. The bad guys are easily the more interesting bunch with William Forsythe as their homicidal leader. Gotta give credit to Forsythe as he always makes such a riveting nasty villain, his fierce chubby looks are just perfect the way he snarls and grimaces when he gets mad, and in this he just about kills anyone. Check the early performance for Barry Pepper as one of the bad guys.
The whole idea for this film is so thin really, its just an everyday action movie but its set within a huge forest fire. It just comes across as trying to make another field of US rescue workers out to be cool equipment wearing top guns. Of course Long uses all his trained boyscout methods to beat the bad guys whilst curiously never actually getting into any good fights, well not many.
I was gonna compare this to 'Backdraft' but its not really like that, that had some sense about it whilst this is complete violent nonsense. Despite that there are numerous visual moments which look pretty similar and its worth noting that Scott Glenn plays almost the same type of role in this as he does in 'Backdraft'.
The whole thing is predictable as hell and can't even come up with any decent visuals to help you along. Long is a weak leading man even though he has the look of one and things that happen along the way just raise questions, but its hardly a thinker, just dumb.
4/10
Police Academy (1984)
Despite the fact these films are known to be trash this franchise is probably one of the most well known (and in some cases loved) franchises around the world with some of the most well known characters. This film kick started a phenomenon that has influenced many other films in the spoof genre, made stars out of most of its cast and has actually lasted virtually to the present day, gotta give kudos.
So the plot is horrifically simple, a group of bums, criminals and nut jobs all join the Police Academy in the hopes of becoming police officers. This has recently become possible because the mayor has abolished the old school rules about height, weight, colour (yes colour folks!!), fitness levels etc...so anyone can join. This infuriates the police Chief so he orders the Police Academy Cmndt. to try and get the new unsavory recruits to quit voluntarily by any means possible.
Now bare in mind this film came out in 1984 because a lot of what you see is now incredibly dated and not really funny. There are still moments which raise a giggle for sure but on the whole this is childish adult toilet humour by the bucket load. Its no real surprise considering the era, this type of stuff was the height of popularity at the time with films like 'Meatballs' 'Airplane' 'Caddyshack' and 'Stripes' doing the rounds.
The film is a character orientated piece naturally, the toilet humour is a strong ingredient but the characters are the key. Looking back its all so very cliched and dated but the characters do still work at times. I personally never liked Guttenberg's character of 'Mahoney' as he was such a damn goodie goodie, for me it was 'Tackleberry' 'Jones' 'Fackler' and 'Harris', all these guys were the funniest in this film in my opinion.
All their quirky individual qualities are fun to watch and do allow you to care about them, slightly. Loved how Tackleberry was basically a gun nut and completely dangerous, in this day n age that kind of character could almost be controversial. As a kid everybody used to try and copy Winslow's motormouth antics although watching now it doesn't quite have that wow factor anymore, more annoying actually. Love how Fackler basically doesn't belong in the police force, totally inept yet very likeable. Lassard comes across as a kind old bumbling grandfather type character, also very likeable, and of course Harris as the arse kissing jobsworth who is always sucking up to his superiors but really deep down you know he's actually a good cop.
As with other slobby frat house type films this doesn't disappoint on the female front. The main eye candy is supplied by Easterbrook and her chest as 'Callahan' and the stunning Cattrall who really looks so amazingly cute my god!. As you would expect there is much boob cleavage throughout, naughty talk and a rather dirty sex act hinted at. This is one of the things that separates the first two Academy films from the rest, the first two are more directed at an adult audience which equals the odd moment of titty action, nudity, swearing, homosexuality, close to the line violence/action and even a bit of racism believe it or not.
Also with all the other films there are individual characters that pop up for that film but we don't see again. The quality of these characters varied a lot but in this film we get the most amusing Donovan Scott as 'Cadet Leslie Barbara' who looks like a young Dom Deluise, Brant Von Hoffman as 'Cadet Kyle Blankes' and Scott Thomson as 'Cadet Chad Copeland' who are both really good as the dumb sidekicks or henchmen for Harris. The sequence/s in the Blue Oyster Bar are an undeniably good laugh and continual joke yet probably rather un-PC these days.
What really makes me laugh is recalling when I used to watch this as a kid and not really understanding half of it and not caring. After this rewatch its amazing to see how much makes no sense at all, like why does Jones have this microphone on him all the time? so he can play jokes on people with his voice obviously, but is it battery operated? how does he always have it?? must be a big bit of kit this is 84 after all. How come all the recruits do end up passing through even though they are all crap and most don't actually do anything in the finale showdown. And how about all the hideously obvious over acting, exaggerated prat falls to cause incidents and accidents etc...
Plus that blowjob sequence is actually pretty racy and sick if you think about it, this hooker will pretty much suck anyone off, as demonstrated at the very end (guess that's why she's a hooker). I never understood what was happening in that scene as a kid haha and you'd never see something like that in the later films.
These films have become a bit of an institution really, love em or hate em you can't deny how iconic they actually are. Look at the main score for the film, that alone is a pretty classic bit of movie history right there, everyone knows what it is and can recognise it, its up there with such scores as 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws'.
It was never meant to be anything remotely serious, more along the lines of the 'National Lampoon's' franchise if anything, only thing missing was John Belushi. Its utterly childish and puerile now and it was the same back in the day too, but no one ever tried to cover that up, that's exactly what the film offered take it or leave it. Personally I like this film because of the adult edge to it, gives it some credibility unlike the later films which just become like cartoons. Its not an all out spoof so don't think of the excellent Leslie Nielsen type tomfoolery, but it is fun in places and does offer up quite a neat original little plot (for the time).
7/10
Quote from: Hubbs on Jun 25, 2013, 12:57:45 AM
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
This was only Pixar's fourth film but you wouldn't think it, the visuals on display here are pretty much top of their game even by today's standards. What is so perfect about this particular film is like 'Toy Story' the premise is incredibly simple and derives from everybody's childhood. This is what makes 'Monsters' and the Buzz Lightyear adventures so utterly perfect, they touch on everybody's memories, no one can say they can't relate.
Think about it, the plot is so damn simple its genius! monsters that supposedly live in your closet, that's it!. Everybody knows of those deep dark places that brought a sense of dread when you were a sprog, under the bed, behind the curtains, in the cupboard, the closet, in the attic or cellar etc...
The way this simple idea is fleshed out I like very much, admittedly I may have gone a different route by not using such a factory line based company idea for the monster setup. That's the one thing I didn't really get on with here, I didn't really enjoy the harsh metal surroundings the monsters live in, seemed to cold and sterile, almost alien not monster, kinda too me out of the moment.
Visually its epic, in some aspects, others its more standard, the character of Sulley easily being the most impressive thing going with that blue fur of his (mega merchandise planning of plush toy sales there methinks). I only wish they had stayed a bit more spooky n kooky with the monster world instead of that rather bland clean direction, and 'Monstropolis' which merely looked like a regular US city! what a waste! man I had some ideas for that.
Likewise the characters went from excellent to meh for me. Of course the main two guys are perfect and their voices are pitch perfectly performed by Crystal and Goodman. Other monster creations are nice but lacked the same kind of horror element. 'Randall' (brilliantly voiced by Buscemi) for instance is just a lizard/chameleon whilst 'Celia Mae' seemed to merely be Medusa which was rather unimaginative. There also seemed to be too many generic looking characters if you ask me, blobs and tentacles etc...I would of loved Tim Burton's angle on this.
Gotta be honest I also felt like I was shoved out of the moment when the plot introduced 'Boo' the human child. Now I know this is the basis for the entire plot and it is for the younger generation of course but I just thought the whole thing went way too schmaltzy. The little kid was disgustingly cute to point where I really disliked the character and wanted to vomit.
Towards the end as we hit the finale the film does tend to go into a frenzy of fast paced action, it does get a wee bit too frenetic and hysterical as the characters are bounding through door after door. Again its a nice idea but kinda goes a bit too far and takes you out of the moment, you feel tired just watching it.
I think this film is definitely aimed more for the kids, sounds dumb I know but some of these CGI flicks are more universal and can be enjoyed by all ages. This film is the same in that sense but I think its much more kiddie orientated especially with the sweet relationship that builds between 'Boo' and 'Sulley' and the heartfelt ending. I did expect a bit more sarcasm from Crystal with his character but he seemed reigned in a bit to me, clearly a sign its more for the kids this time.
6.5/10
Gives Monsters Inc. a 6.5/10
...
...
...
:laugh:
Spoiler
:laugh: :laugh:
Spoiler
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Spoiler
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Spoiler
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Spoiler
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Spoiler
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Spoiler
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
^ Annnnnnd you're point is?
Addams Family Reunion (1998)
I have since discovered this film was in fact a reboot of the franchise which is odd seeing as the first two films were big hits. Yet despite the reboot the film does follow on from the second in terms of visuals at least. The location of the Addams mansion/estate seems similar to the second film, as does the house interior, 'Granny' is back as a main character and more like the original films incarnation and of course good old Carel Struycken is still 'Lurch'.
The plot is also not too much of a diversion from the previous two films. Again it revolves around the family, this time 'Gomez's' grandparents, who appear to be turning 'normal'. So Gomez organises another reunion to find a family member to help. The twist is there is a company that helps Gomez do this but a spelling mistake on the Addams name (Adams) sets up a reunion with a different family who are regular people.
As you might expect there is much ghoulish silliness which has been filmed and edited in the same way as the previous films. A lot of fast cuts, sped up sequences, odd camera angles etc...the whole atmosphere and approach is very familiar and still enjoyable. Sure some of it doesn't look at slick or polished as the other films, this is clearly a much cheaper production and more in line with TV movies but these films get away with it. As the earlier films showed, hammy hokey effects work well with the franchise and add charm to the proceedings, its not meant to look top of the line, more comic book or cartoony.
Unfortunately the creators thought to include the usage of CGI dotted throughout which does spoil the film. Its only used in places but it looks terribly cheap, the CGI mutated puppy is pretty awful and brings back memories of 'The Mask 2'...yep that kind of CGI.
I guess the whole thing will hinge on the cast, can the classic family be re-imagined once again?. Happily and surprisingly I say yes they can, and have been. Tim Curry is probably the best man for the job as Gomez by far, this role fits him like a glove. Daryl Hannah is also surprisingly good as 'Morticia' in both acting and looks, I didn't think a blonde could pull off the goth thing but she nails it. The rest of the creepy bunch are mostly unknowns to me but they do a fair job in their roles, of course I miss Lloyd and Ricci.
I went into this fearing the worst but its actually not too bad. Plot wise its poor and never really goes anywhere, add to that various meaningless subplots. The cast save the film from complete failure and the fact they managed to keep it in line with the older films is nice, makes it feel more complete, more of a third film in a trilogy. Would be interesting to see this cast in a much higher production with better effects etc...
6/10
Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness (UK 2012)
Once again the films poster is really really good but completely false advertising, because the film isn't as good. The third film after the quite disastrous original with big hitters Irons and Payne and this time its a UK production. Does this mean its better? well it does mean we see British soap/drama actors in the film which does actually give some class to it.
The plot is totally nonsensical to me, there is a nice animated sequence at the start to give you the background but it lost me, I dunno maybe I should of paid attention. Basically there is a bad wizard type guy who wants to sink the world into darkness or something. The bad guys kidnap this good looking guys dad for his blood or something, so its up to the good looking guy to save his dad. He does this by joining a band of other bad guys covertly to get to the main bad guy? something like that.
Plot aside the film isn't actually too bad, acting of course is drab from most accept for the odd British actor. Anthony Howell plays a sorcerer type fellow and does give a sterling performance, he may look stupid but he plays it for real. The characters on the whole are quite good really, a small band of warriors in typical D&D fashion. We have a female warrior (very sexy), a sorcerer, the good looking warrior, a big musclebound warrior and a slimy untrustworthy warrior, a cliched bunch for sure.
Visually they do look a bit terrible and hokey, lots of obligatory spiked armour, the female warrior is scantily clad, each warrior has their own special skills and weapons and there is a strange obsession with tribal markings/tattoo's. The female character has lots of crappy looking tribal markings on her face which look like a child has scribbled on her with a felt tip. The big musclebound guy is merely covered in body paint like a cheap Star Trek alien. The untrustworthy warrior has more tattoo-like markings on his head (hes bald) which are equally poor looking.
So yes they all look a bit ridiculous but as a team they do work well. The added bonus with this film is I believe they have gone down the route of the actual D&D game this time. There is a sequence in a store where they buy items I'm sure are from the game, the plot also seems quite heavy with D&D lore...I think. The films title itself, although it sounds awful, is from D&D lore (sounds a bit 'Evil Dead-ish' too).
Amazingly this film is actually far superior to the first two, yes its true!. The story is cliched and the characters are stereotypical fantasy fluff (what do you expect), but it is a lot more faithful to the famous game and there are also some really nice CGI landscapes too. The actual CGI dragon and general magic/sorcery effects are a bit poor but the landscapes and skylines are impressive, look a bit 'LOTR' in places. The undead child sequence is actually very good too, the effects on this zombie kid are excellent for such a small production, pretty creepy looking too, kudos.
So ignore the films poster as its not that exciting but believe me its not that bad either. If you want a true D&D adventure this is you're best bet in my opinion. Forget the other two, this is the film, which I still can't get my head around, who'd of though it!.
5.5/10
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
2 much bling 2 much ka-ching! the hyper neon lit sequel bursts onto your screen dripping in so much hip hop/rap culture you'd think they were trying to tell us something. Seriously this film is uber ridiculous, its like a toy commercial, a comic book, its the 'Batman and Robin' and 'Batman Forever' of the car chase genre. I was looking to see if Joel Schumacher had a hand in this eye sore.
The initial street racer sequence is the prime example of how utterly cheap and tacky this film is. Each racer is colour coordinated to their car, in other words one female driver is dressed head to toe in shocking pink (cos she's a girl you see). Her Honda 2000 is also customised completely in pink, her 'pit crew' are all dressed in slutty pink attire (I quite liked that), the cars interior is completely pink and even the exhaust flames when the car accelerates are pink...really? come on this has to be a Schumacher job.
So each driver is colour coordinated, one is all pink, one is all gold, one is all red but Walker lets the side down in his t-shirt and jeans. Everything about this film is all about street cred and bling, its god awful. The people in the street racing scenes consist of skimpily clad females (more so than the first film!) and bros with afros in baggy pants, it really is a complete stereotypical nightmare...in neon.
The plot seems to be exactly the same as the first film too, Walker must again go undercover and infiltrate a drug dealers setup to bring him down. This time he isn't a cop but he still thinks he's Keanu Reeves and his speech pattern has become wildly street wise, lots of 'bros' and 'cus' with lots of hip hop handshakes.
The problem with this film aside from the horrendous visuals and acting is the fact its pointless. There aren't really any street racing sequences bar one, even that is stupid because the film gives the impression a Mitsubishi EVO would struggle against a Camaro. Look US 'muscle cars' can't beat Jap super saloons people!! US cars are bricks with V8/6 engines that go nowhere. There aren't really any outstanding stunts and what there is is CGI or greenscreen enhanced, and that includes the small racing sequences. Also the chase sequence at the finale is hilarious because its very clear the cars are all travelling very slowly. I know they can't really go at 120MPH+ the whole time but its so obvious! crawling along the highway with a bunch of cop cars right on there bumper lol! yeah right that's thrilling.
The finale is dull, the characters are dreadful, its chock full of hip hop tracks...in short its an absolute babyish mess that appears to be catering for one specific audience...oh did I mention its all in neon. The Miami setting is perfect for this camp looking mess in all honesty, I've never seen so much brightly coloured crap, and I hate how Walkers Skyline is full of blue neon ugh. Its a crime what they have done to some of those cars, hideous. Just label this under Grand Theft Auto: Bling Heist.
2/10
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
I've said it before and I'll say it again...this is the best darn Fast n Furious chapter on the track by miles (puns away!). No big names and no massive overblown stunts, this is just pure driving at its finest, real driving, drift driving. The film works because there is no pressure on its shoulders, the sequel was terrible so there were no expectations here. Now I know this has been long forgotten by the recent tidal wave of cookie cutter sequels and merely because Vin Diesel came back, but none of them hold a candle to this.
The plot is basic and involves a young tearaway who seems to be getting into trouble where ever he and his mother move to. One stunt too many causing major damage to property and writing off his car means he's being sent away to his father...in Japan. His father was in the military so this is why he's based in the land of the rising sun, and because of his bad record (and to avoid jail) this young lad gets shipped to Japan to live with his dad. That's a punishment!!? sounds pretty cool to me.
Of course the entire plot is predictable and hokey as hell, its virtually bordering on 'The Karate Kid' with cars. New kid in town, makes a close friend who helps him, makes enemies with the local bully cos he falls for his girlfriend, gets into all sorts of scrapes in the meantime, his father can't control him...blah blah blah, yeah its damn unoriginal sure, but that's not why we watch these films is it. It is a shame the main lead in this is totally miscast, he looks like a doofus and sounds it too with that hick southern accent of his, but mainly he's just not much of a good looking lead, strange choice.
You like Japanese super saloons? more specifically you like Nissan 350Z's? you're at home here my friend. The first car sequence in this film is set within a multi-storey car park, a damn tight one!. The skills on show in this one sequence alone are breathtaking, the 350 drifts around the ultra tights bends inches from the walls, people and other parked cars. You gotta see it to believe it and its clearly real.
The visuals in this film are a real treat, Japan is an extremely photogenic city and always looks good, especially at night. The sight of these glistening hyper cars purring along the highways and small streets of Tokyo, cruising part the neon lights, bustling crowds, old town areas and towering lit up skyscrapers is simply gorgeous. Most super cars/heavily modded cars look good anywhere, but set them in Japan and they just look even better, some lovely eastern car graphics and mod kits in this film too.
Most of the car sequences in this film are stunning in all honesty, even the training sequences where our US lead learns to drift, its all filmed perfectly. The guys behind the camera knew how to get the best angles and shots for these sequences, the cars just look awesome. 350's, EVO's, a Mazda and a highly modded Silvia make up the roster this time but come the big finale race naturally the Yank tunes up his dads old Mustang to challenge the bad guy. Its kinda silly really because I really don't think there would be any way an old Mustang could beat a Nissan 350Z, especially at drifting, the Mustang couldn't handle it.
But I can't deny the final race is pretty cool, its quite tense and does get your adrenaline going slightly...even though we know who's gonna win. The whole reason behind the race is daft anyway, why would a mafia kingpin allow a race to decide who leaves town. And why would the loser simply leave town? what is this a western!? doesn't the Yank and his friends owe money? wouldn't they cut his fingers off or something haha.
Anyway this is hands down the best actual racing film in the franchise if you ask me, a very highly professional and realistic street racing flick which deserves respect. The location simply enhances the experience, the only thing I don't like about these films (including the first two) is watching these awesome Jap cars get bashed up, its painful to watch because they're amazing cars and damn expensive to run!. The very end is also fun with a cameo from 'Toretto' (Diesel) but again I gotta laugh, does this guy really think he can beat a Jap drift car in a tight multi-storey car park with a huge brick of a US car like the Plymouth Satellite!? damn thing is wider than a bus!.
8/10
Fast & Furious (2009)
Isn't 'Han' dead? oh no wait this is a sequel to the first film that doesn't ignore the second and third film but just takes place before them. So this is when Han was running with 'Toretto' before he leaves for Japan...aaaah right. It feels pretty desperate for them to go way back and make a sequel to the first film after time has moved on with the second and third films. Did we really need to know what happened right after the first film? did we really need to see Han with Toretto? couldn't they just move ahead with a fourth that takes places after two and three?. The whole structure of the franchise just seems so convoluted now.
So Walker is now an agent in a suit for the FBI, so he looks even more like Keanu Reeves in 'Point Break', really helping his impression ten fold...totally bra!. Toretto's girlfriend has been killed by a drug dealers henchman, the same drug dealer O'Conner is after, so both end up going after the same cartel. At the same time Toretto is still on the most wanted list which is still causing O'Conner morality issues, anyway to hell with all that! cue the pointless street racing!.
This film really does feel completely and utterly generic in every way. The plot just seems so pointless and uninspired, 'Letty' is killed for pretty much unknown reasons (we don't find out why for ages), but I assume its mainly because Rodriguez wanted out of the franchise. From that point on its just watching Vin Diesel swagger from one set piece to another beating guys up or generally running away from the law.
I mean really, the main bad guy drug kingpin organises a street race through downtown LA just to recruit a driver for his drug smuggling operation. The whole sequence is so pathetic, all the drivers line up like they were top guns of the chav world...bling city, one guy is black, one guy is white, one guy is Latino etc...PC much?. Its not even a sensible race, more like a destruction derby and completely unrealistic. I realise this is not a serious action film but come on, lets at least make the racing sensible, it is the films main selling point.
Oh...A hyper modded Skyline struggling to beat an US brick (American Muscle), really? I don't think so, import will always win. That Skyline should have been pushing 1000BHP, should have been if properly modded.
The tanker hijack sequence at the start of the film is just as dumb as the exact same sequence in the first film. Once again I gotta ask...why not just stop the tanker, take the driver out at gun point and then calmly take the fuel?? surely that's easier?. Oh no wait the director wants to have an exciting chase sequence with lots of fast cars and a big explosion at the end, oooooh gotcha.
Then there is the quite plainly idiotic chase sequences through these underground tunnels across the US border into Mexico. I can't even begin to express how stupid this whole concept is let alone how awful it looks with terrible CGI. For starters who built these tunnels? how? when? how did the US border patrols not notice this massive undertaking??!. How the hell does anyone know exactly where the entrance is to these tunnels when they are disguised as a rock face and you're travelling towards them at about 200+ MPH!.
The sequences within the tunnels are just dreadful, it looks like a videogame. As the actors sit in the mock cars you can laugh at the hideous CGI rock formations whizzing past in the windows/rear windscreen. Again I know this isn't a serious flick but come on...this takes the piss. And we are to believe they are all zooming down these narrow badly lit mine shafts in super imports and US muscle cars at well over 150MPH?! really?.
What I love about this franchise/film is the fact Toretto always seems to have a modded muscle car. Doesn't matter where he is or what's happened, he turns up with a newly charged up car...always American muscle. I wish it was this easy in reality haha. Even at the very end, O'Conner and what's left of Toretto's crew pop up to bust him out...all driving more expensive heavily modded cars!. Where do they get them from?? how many Dodge Chargers have they gone through now? how many do they own? do they clone them??. Do any of these guys have insurance? wait silly question.
This film did well simply because the original cast came back, but I can't for the life of me understand how that helps. Yes I like Vin Diesel but the rest are terrible, the plot is formulaic and dull, the film is choppy and they have started to slide towards the action genre meaning actual street racing is out. But even the racing sequences are poor here, just ridiculous and show more resemblance to James Bond. Not to be taken seriously of course but this film has lost its originality and simply become a common action mess.
4.5/10
The Animatrix (2003)
With a slightly dodgy title this was I believe the first animated addition to a movie that acted as a sequel and prequel at the same time. A collection of nine short stories that gave both more insight into the films plus some individual tales of characters in a world run by the machines.
Final Flight of the Osiris: The first story is in CG animation which I didn't really like in all honesty. This tale is about the ship Osiris and her crews battle to deliver a warning to 'Zion' whilst being attacked viciously by Sentinels. Everything in the segment looks good accept for the human characters if you ask me, there you have that typical plastic vacant look on their faces accompanied by so so lip syncing. The bleak dark work of reality looks great of course, the ship looks great and so do the sentinels, its just the human characters, but at least the story is a good one connecting dots to the second film ('Reloaded').
The Second Renaissance: A prequel to the entire trilogy and tells the tale of how mankind ruined what they had and how the machines slowly took over. Its unoriginal and deals with mankind inventing humanoid robots to serve them but treating them badly. How the robots slowly gain a conscious and one of them kills its owner which leads to a massive rethink in human/robotic relations and inevitably war. The segment is traditional hand drawn animation with the odd splatter of CGI assistance which I think is best really. It looks terrific as a montage of events accompanied by a cold sterile narration, really sets the mood. This is easily one of the most interesting stories as it gives tonnes of info about how it all happened.
The Second Renaissance Part II: Number Three continues on from where the previous segment left off and tells of the gradual descent into all out war between mankind and machines. It shows how the robots finally overrun and destroy most of the human defenses, kill off all world leaders and begin their construction of the matrix to gain power from human bodies. This is because man has blocked out the sun with a massive dark cloud of nanomachines which cuts off the machines primary source of power. Again the segment is hand drawn animation with CGI assistance and again it looks lovely. This second section is a much darker affair and really well executed, probably the best shorts in the collection.
kids Story: This is another good segment because it helps us to see how one film character came to be free from the matrix. Set between The Matrix and Reloaded it simply shows how 'Kid' is a disgruntled teen who believes something is wrong with the world. He manages to contact 'Neo' via his computer and soon finds himself on the run from agents. This short has been rendered in a sort of rotoscoping method where it was clearly filmed in live action but then hand drawn animated over the top. The effect is eerie and unique but I don't think it suits the material here really. A very straight forward story which just makes the character a little more interesting when you see him in the film.
Program: Again another very simple straight forward short which involves a female undergoing a training simulation session. Things go awry when a male she recognises turns up and says he is going back into the matrix and wants her to follow. A very minimalistic looking segment, pretty much in black, white and a few sparse colours but its really effective with some stunning hand drawn artwork on display. It looks very much like the Genndy Tartakovsky Star Wars microseries but maybe a bit sharper.
World Record: This is one of the most intriguing segments as it basically tells the story of a top sprinter who runs so fast during a 100m race (his body energy build up) that his real body tears itself away from the matrix and he awakes in his pod confronted by a sentinel. He is zapped with an electric shock which sends his mind back into the matrix. A neat idea that rarely some people can rip themselves from the matrix under obvious situations of high intensity/stress. Again the animation is somewhat similar to the previous segment, sparse on colour, mainly black and white, very comic book-esque in appearance.
Beyond: This segment was one of the harder plots to follow. A group of kids are playing in area within a rundown building, this area is basically a glitch in the matrix and thusly odd feats can be performed such as floating. Other strange occurrences also happen such as shadows not connecting with their solid origins, doors opening into nothing, rain from a sunny sky etc...Soon agents come along and sort the problem out. This segment is the most stand alone story really as it doesn't really point to anything, its simply a tale of regular people in the matrix finding an error but not understanding what it is. The animation seems to be rotoscoping again for the main female character but hand drawn animation for everyone/thing else. It looks like a typical foreign cartoon to me, a Jap cartoon or maybe even French at a stretch. Its OK but it didn't thrill me in anyway.
A Detective Story: A prequel to the first film which has 'Trinity' as a main character trying to help a private detective who has been hired to track her down...unbeknownst to him by agents. Much like Trinity saving Neo in the first film this follows the same kind of route but shows things don't always go to plan. A typical black and white noir style for this one, a bit cheesy with the full spectrum of cliches that go with the style. Even to go as far as having the good old Venetian blind shadows and setting most of the segment on a train with lots of flashing white lights. Does look good though.
Matriculated: This is another interesting segment as it shows a team of humans in reality who trap machines and plug them into their own man made matrix. They do this in order to show the machines more of human behaviour, positive human traits, hopefully to convert them to fight for mankind without forcing them, but if their own accord. Most of this story is plain surreal as its set within the man made matrix, this naturally equal lots of CG animation which I don't really like. Luckily its not all like that, when not in the matrix the animation is hand drawn and handled by Aeon Flux director Peter Chung, and you can see it clearly. The main female character bares a striking resemblance to Flux, a little too close really, but its a nice touch and saves us from too much CGI.
When I saw this years ago I didn't really like it, I don't think I really got it back then. After a revisit I do understand the segments more and they do fit into the trilogy really nicely, 'The Second Renaissance' for me, being the best and most interesting and of course 'Osiris' being more like the original films which is cool. My only wish is maybe they should of stuck to hand drawn animation with CGI tit bits for all segments, it would feel somehow more complete. As it stands now it feels too random, some parts don't feel as if they belong in the same universe..but that's just me. Its still a very slick compilation of artistic styles each with their own little twists and ideas that only help to bolster the franchise.
7.5/10
Nemesis 2: Nebula (1995)
The original film is a bit of a cult classic in the B-movie genre, trashy sci-fi hokum that somehow just kinda works with its gritty low budget feel. This sequel is more of the same accept Mr Pyun merrily rips off two classic sci-fi films left right and centre.
Humans have developed a new DNA strain that could put a stop to the cyborg threat. Its injected into a pregnant female who then escapes back in time to Africa 1980. There she is killed by hunters but the child is saved and raised by natives.
Now comes the copyright infringements, the cyborgs send a killer cyborg back in time to terminate the child who is now a very muscular adult female with a great ass. So that's a certain sci-fi flick ripped right there, then for the duration of the film another sci-fi is ripped off completely as we follow this bounty hunter predator as it hunts this female. I might add this cyborg bounty hunter has its own light bending camouflage, it growls like an alien creature, it has some kind of body armour suit and mask, its own HUD in its mask giving it various tracking and voice analyzing tricks and it has its own shoulder mounted laser...ring any bells yet?.
But that's not all, what really amazed me is it took around 12 minutes before we get to see the films title. It took a further 25 minutes before we even get a word of English out of the main heroine! the film is spoken entirely in a native African language (I think, could be gibberish) by everyone for a good chunk of the film. So basically I had no clue what was going on, guess that's why there is a bit of narration at the start and those handy bounty hunter screen readouts.
As we delve deeper into the film we are given plenty of running action, plenty of chase sequences, then more running, and some more, and yet more!. Most of the latter half of the film is watching the heroine run for cover whilst explosions go off around her. There is some kind of plot involving treasure and some guerrilla type fighters but to be honest I'm not really sure what all that was about. The main plot seemed to be our muscle bound heroine running from the Predator rip off creature. I've never seen so much running in a film! running from things getting blown up, so many buildings, so many missed shots by this so called top cyborg bounty hunter 'Nebula'. All this and hardly any dialog I kid you not.
Anyway it all ends as you'd expect surprise surprise. Despite all this it actually looks OK in places, Pyun isn't too bad at slow motion high octane action, a low budget John Woo if you will. The location isn't too bad either really, meant to be Africa but filmed in the US, it does the job though, not too shabby. Its all utterly ludicrous of course, some of the back flips and somersaults through the air are insanely daft, and she firing a gun at the same time!. Thing is the film starts off reasonably sensible but just sinks into this overblown over the top nonsense...still its somehow quite enjoyable. Sue Price all greased up as the lead heroine helps of course.
6.5/10
The Heat (2013)
Aaaah the old buddy cop action flick, there has been so many, what could they come up with to make the genre a bit more fresh?. Well not much...accept this time the cop duo are female so that's a bit new...right? well kinda. This time one half of the duo is an uptight, virginal, jobsworth that does everything by the book, the other half is a slobby, foulmouthed, loose cannon that does everything somewhat haphazardly. Wait...ha..have we see this type of thing before?? nah must be me.
So the fat ugly bird and the thin wet bird gotta work together to take down a drug lord. Thing is they both hate each other and how they each go about their duties so there's gonna be a whole lot of fighting and bickering going on. Spoiler alert! they both manage to get on and eventually end up working well together and sticking up for each other, tell me you saw that coming.
Wow this film was annoying! I mean really, this is the second film I've seen with McCarthy in it and both times I've hated her character. I've come to the decision that she's probably like this in reality, loud, rude and annoying (dare I say typically American hehe). She just comes across as a completely unlikable person, I see what the aim is here in this film but geez I just wanted her to get shot in every scene. There was only one moment in the entire film that made me laugh, when they're both in the nightclub and she buys a drink at the bar only to discover it costs $14.
As for Bullock, I've never been a fan...ever. Every role she plays she is the same type of person...a wet, floppy, sappy drip who looks exactly the same with that dull hair style. In this she merely boosts that dreadful stereotype she has tenfold and is so utterly unfunny, unsexy and useless. Of course I realise this is the role she is playing but the fact they cast her in it just shows how closely the character matches her.
We get the usual load of typical cop movie cliches throughout, hell we even get the exact same sequences from other films. How many times have we seen a perp hung out of a window for comedic affect?. There isn't much action going on, mainly a whole lot of swearing in grimy sequences involving seedy people and the family of McCarthy's character. I believe these family scenes are suppose to be funny? cos they came across as aggressively uncomfortable and again annoying. The kind of people you watch from your house window as they make total fools of themselves in the middle of the street. Again I realise you could say that's good acting and film making but I just found it unlikable.
On the whole I liked how they didn't beat around the bush and have made an adult comedy thriller instead of a PG fest. Its just a shame they cast who they did and couldn't really divert from a very tired old formula...a really tired old formula. Nice soundtrack throughout but overall it didn't stop me feeling rather low the whole time, until it perks up for the predictable soppy ending.
4/10
Damn, I really thought that one was headed for greatness.
Thor: The Dark World
I saw this with a friend and muh brother, My brother did not see the first one and had no idea what to expect. I told him if he liked the LOTR triology then this movie would be bearable. First 30 minutes were kind of tedious but it got better beyond that point. I felt that the relationship between Malekith and Algrim could of been fleshed out more. Jane was less annoying than in the first movie and her side-kick was also less annoying which is good because women in movies like this tend to be mere damsels in distress, at least compared to the other women of the MCU. Of course Loki stole the show and was brilliant yet again. The Warriors two were once again underused and Hogan(looking like Fu Manchu now) gets side-lined in the first few scenes. I do remember seeing him towards the end when the American fighter pilots get transported to his realm though so that was nice. Malekith grew more and more menacing and his defeat was satisfying. Kurse was also bad ass and he was shown as being more strong than Thor.
I really liked the mid credits scene and I felt a very heavy "Doctor Parnassus" type feel to the scene in general. If the GOTG movie has this certain feel to it then I will definitley enjoy it. I didn't stick aound for the end credits as I already knew about it and it didn't really fit in as well as the Collector scene.
A few plot things
1. It seemed that Malekith only had about a hundred or so troops left after the initial war. How was he going to conquer the realms with such a little strike force?
2. When Thor and gang escape from Ass-Guard, why did the city defenses shoot at them? Surely Odin wouldn't want Thor to be killed? Maybe "treason" is a death penalty in this realm but it didn't make sense to me.
3. Of all people, how did Jane manage to stumble into the hiding place of the Aether?
Final Rating:
8/10
ANOTHER!
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Nov 13, 2013, 02:27:59 PM
women in movies like this serve as mere damsels in distress.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspinoff.comicbookresources.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Fthor-sif-jaimie-alexander.jpg&hash=baa98796cb2b48e62bc823f8a9eefd8bf0132656)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_EaV221bYaso%2FS8u-L6AXJsI%2FAAAAAAAADf4%2Fby08dpsKOyU%2Fs1600%2FScarlett%2BJohansson%2Bas%2BBlack%2BWidow%2B%2B%281%29.jpg&hash=86b87d74fa759709d6f8d0c202c16e4d21dee627)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F51362fd8ecad04945c000009-1057-793%2Firon-man-3-pepper-potts-1.jpg&hash=46de3ae8a4fe5bc68d7f5409376949d6b476fcb9)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.withanaccent.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FCaptain-America-Peggy-Carter-pointing-gun.jpg&hash=cf0db0a7ee590646ffff70f44f96f838ee1eaf88)
And to answer your questions:
Spoiler
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Nov 13, 2013, 02:27:59 PM
1. It seemed that Malekith only had about a hundred or so troops left after the initial war. How was he going to conquer the realms with such a little strike force?
With the Aether, mostly. Once he used that during the Convergence to cloud the entire universe in darkness he presumably wouldn't have much of a problem taking over.
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Nov 13, 2013, 02:27:59 PM
2. When Thor and gang escape from Ass-Guard, why did the city defenses shoot at them? Surely Odin wouldn't want Thor to be killed? Maybe "treason" is a death penalty in this realm but it didn't make sense to me.
As you said, they were committing treason. They were probably just going to shoot them down and capture them, if possible.
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Nov 13, 2013, 02:27:59 PM
3. Of all people, how did Jane manage to stumble into the hiding place of the Aether?
She got a spike in the energy readings very similar to the ones she encountered in the first film while she was looking for Thor, so she immediately went over to the area. It turned out that the spike had to to with the other realms reacting to the Convergence rather than Thor himself, and it happened to take her to the Aether's hidden location before the Elves could get there (they didn't yet have access to a portal like the one she went through).
Spoiler
Odin thought the idea of taking the Aether to Malekith was the worst, and they should keep it in Asgard. So he told his guards to stop Thor at all costs.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Well shiver my timbers...this here be damn complicated!. The third and final part of the pirates trilogy (or so we thought). I've never until now have not understood the plot of a Disney film. Yep its long long long, overdrawn, CGI filled complicated mess with so many sub plots and double crosses I forgot what the film was about. This film is also, apparently, the most expensive film ever made ever! how fitting that its the worst in the trilogy.
In short you have to know the back story for the last two films relatively well to keep up. The plot is even more convoluted than the second film and unfortunately it no longer has the wow factor, originality or nice fantasy element either. To be honest whilst watching I got a distinct sensation that I was watching deleted scenes merely pieced together to create another film. The film really does have that slightly disjointed vibe about it.
I think one of the things that got me was the fact the characters just didn't matter anymore. In the second film 'Davy Jones' was the terror of the seas with his firesome appearance, monstrous crew and pet Kraken (unadventurous end for that beastie), now in this film he is reduced to lingering in the background whilst people talk. A great character reduced to an extra virtually. 'Barbossa' of course was the terror of the first film and he has now been slowly reduced to 'Sparrow's' sidekick of sorts, then we have new character 'Sao Feng' who really doesn't matter. He looks good and its a nice touch to see the Orient in the film but the whole setup is wasted!. Again merely background fodder whilst we must watch Depp do his now overdone thing and the quite uninteresting love conflict between 'Turner' and 'Swann'.
I might add that Knightly has been completely covered in makeup for this last entry, absolutely smothered on her face. She looks like an orange with thick eyebrows! its pretty bad and pretty obvious if you ask me, looks unintentionally amusing.
Yet the sequences showing Sparrow's descent into madness whilst in Davy Jones locker I quite liked even though many didn't. I actually thought those scenes were quite original and well thought out giving us something fresh which is quite hard really, especially with the content you're trying to visualise here. The little moments of quirky insanity with Sparrow felt a bit Raimi-esque if you ask me, reminded me of 'Army of Darkness' and 'Ash' going nuts whilst splitting in two. A bit of a stump in the films fluidity sure but it showed some ingenuity, giving some more uniqueness in-between the other bland action bits.
Of course this being a modern day sequel the films gotta be BIG, REAL BIG!, you want overblown CGI enhanced action set pieces then voila!. I can't deny it all looks terrific and perfectly piratey but blimey gov! how overboard must they go...no pun intended. The perfect example? how about Turner and Swann in a blazing cutlass battle with hordes of bad guys in the midst of a booming sea storm. During this pitch battle to the death they shout out to Barbossa to marry them...he too is in the midst of a fight to the death.
So that he does, we have n utterly ludicrous action sequence with all three exterminating every bad guy with ease whilst they get married. Now I realise this film is purely for fun and all ages, to a degree, but come on, did we have to go there? its sequences like this that totally remove you from the film. Sure you gotta have some suspension of disbelief and that's why its OK to have some slightly fantastical elements but at least give us some small note of emotion, a small drop of actual realistic danger for the characters. No point loading up a brand new video game only to slap on the invincibility cheat and play through.
It takes us awhile but when we do eventually get to the pirate convention in Shipwreck Cove the film does perk up a bit momentarily. The introduction of the pirate city council as it were...was a nice touch, some great looking characters there. I liked how they show us pirates from various different countries, different backgrounds and cultures, they are all well crafted if a little bit cliched too just for fun. But all this leads me to another problem, why couldn't we see more of these guys and less of the rest? the finale sea battle builds up as if we will see every pirate and his crew fight...what happened there?!. We see Sparrow's Pearl go up against the Dutchman but what about the masses of other ships? all the other pirate ships? I thought they wanted to fight, instead they all watch?. I think Verbinski finally realised it was all getting out of hand and too big, I'll just conveniently let the other vessels disappear for the last bit.
In all honesty I had to do some internet/wiki research after watching this film to actually understand what happened here and there, get to grips with the plot. The whole 'Calypso' thing had me floundered for some time I can't deny, had to pinpoint exactly what the hell was going on with that. The piratey dialog while sounding cool, didn't help with trying to follow various sub plots.
There are lots of nice fun little touches throughout the film which remind you what the film was previously...before it became too big. We all know the film is just too flippin busy, too much going on, I think they could of left a lot out or at least leave some characters out, have them tied up and done in the second film or early on. The whole franchise is terribly bloated when it didn't have to be. Its still a solid set of films with a good story, but the first film is the only one which is looked upon favourably, shame really as these last two films could/should so easily have been classics too.
5/10
Prince of Darkness (1987)
Another minor horror flick from Carpenter that has gained cult status over the years. This is actually the first time seeing this film for me and like other Carpenter horrors I found it familiar, not really scary, but nicely creepy with something to think about after.
I was surprised how similar the plot is to his other films, a group of people stuck inside a building, trapped, fighting against an evil force. A few of Carpenters films follow these sorts of themes, always fighting an evil supernatural force or gangs of zombie-like bad guys. You can tell its Carpenter a mile away although that's not a bad thing, its always pretty comforting to see his recognisable visual style from way back.
I'm sure you all know what I mean, the filming in widescreen/anamorphic, stark lighting contrasts, his now legendary synthesized musical scores, handheld cam/steadicam, the fact you never really see the evil the good guys are fighting that much, plots with hidden meaning, strong individual lone characters, opened ended finales on occasions etc...Everything is present and correct in this horror tale and its enjoyable to see.
Alongside all of that the cast are mostly recognisable too, hot off the heels of 'Big Trouble' Dennis Dun and Victor Wong are cast again, Pleasence is back as another lone force of good to try and stop the force of evil and character actor Peter Jason pops up again here with a meatier role.
To be honest I would say that is the one problem with the film, its too familiar from Carpenter. The plot is bordering on his other works, he uses many of the same actors again when they don't really fit the bill (Dun and Wong here) and it kinda looks and sounds the same as his other works too. The score could easily be from any of his films frankly, its good and atmospheric but you could stick it anywhere, any one of his films. In all honesty this film is virtually 'Assault on Precinct 13' but with possessed people instead of criminals.
The devil is never mentioned I believe, but I'm assuming the 'father' was suppose to be the devil? and the dreams of the future are showing this evil force to have taken over the world?? hence the warning in the dream I think. Not too sure how this evil became trapped within the cylinder, or how it was placed into the basement of this church, or where the evil actually comes from originally and its goal etc...but lets just overlook that a bit shall we.
That said I did enjoy the film and I thought the finale was a good thinker, a bit creepy, dark, wraps up quick and open ended, nice. Makeup and special effects are decent and created with thought, the film has a nice spooky pending doom vibe about it and the story is interesting if a little bland. Not quite as good as other Carpenter tales but still solid.
6/10
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
We all thought it had ended with the trilogy but no! as in this modern age there had to be a continuation, it had to be milked and a milked it shall be. New director, change of cast line up and a new myth to explore, this franchise has become the Indiana Jones of the era.
This film takes elements from actual real history this time and blends them with classic fantasy. The real bits involve the legendary English pirate Edward Teach and his flagship Queen Anne's Revenge and the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon. Now this plot has relaxed a bit, its not a complicated mess of sub plots and tonnes of characters. 'Sparrow' is off to sea once again to find the fountain of youth, alongside him is 'Barbossa' who is now a privateer for the British Navy. At the same time 'Blackbeard' is also after the fountain along with the dastardly Spanish and their religious thoughts. Each party has their own reasons naturally which does as usual involve some double crossing and twists.
I must admit to liking the intergration of actual history into the plot this time. The franchise has slowly used various common old fables and sea myths to its advantage which has worked well, this time the inclusion of some real historic figures gives the whole thing a bit more class, credibility and a small sense of realism. Of course old Blackbeard has been given a slightly spruced up look with black leather top to bottom by the looks of it, aiming for the cool factor a bit too much methinks.
Gotta say I didn't really like the whole supernatural power thing Blackbeard had over his ship with the magic cutlass. That seemed pointless if you ask me, if he can control the ship like that then why use a crew?. His galleon has also been given a very fantasised appearance which makes it look like a unique ghost ride attraction in a fairground. Oh and his ship breaths fire out the front? really? did we need that silliness? they'd probably burn their own ship down with it.
Next to that we see mermaids which is about time really if you think about it. The fact they are actually fearsome creatures that kill innocent sailors was a nice touch if rather obvious. But that plot detail causes confusion with the main mermaid character who we are meant to feel for, but that's hard knowing her kind are merciless killers of the deep, plus the 'Splash' finale for her was too much cinematic deja vu.
I think the film in general is let down by totally unrealistic action sequences that just feel implausible when they are suppose to be reasonably plausible. The escape set piece at the start is a good example, its overly long and over the top in every sense. Sparrow is leaping around like an acrobat (clearly a stunt double) and doing things that just wouldn't work, the worst bit is seeing all the English soldiers prat falling about everywhere trying to catch him, its cringing. We all know the franchise is suppose to be fun fantasy but apart from the actual supernatural stuff you do expect a degree of slight realism with some stunts. If it becomes too outrageous then it ceases to be fun and simply becomes a joke, what's worse is the fact its not meant to be that kind of joke.
The film is full of these daft action sequences really, it looks bad because we all know Sparrow isn't that kind of character, we had 'Turner' in the trilogy for that. So now seeing the campy Sparrow mincing about doing these big hero stunts looks stupid as its actually taken semi seriously. As I said earlier the plot does also go down the route of old Indy with the chalices thing and especially the finale for Blackbeard which is pretty much a rip off from 'Raiders' and 'The Last Crusade'.
Altogether the adventure feels a bit flat to me, nothing much happens that we haven't seen before or made me go wow!. Most of the characters are running low on juice now accept for Barbossa who is always brilliantly played by Rush. Cruz was a bad casting choice and did nothing whilst McShane wasn't all that intimidating as Blackbeard if you ask me. Kudos to Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey for being gorgeously cute as the mermaid and Richard Griffiths in a small role as King George II at the start.
On the whole very very average in my opinion, hyper stunt laden action sequences can't divert from the fact the film is actually kinda dull. It all looks terrific and very atmospheric in that Monkey Island kinda way but you can tell the difference in direction with the film, it does stand out. I just feel they have now used up most avenues of pirate legend both real and fantasy, I can't see what they can do in the fifth film without it being a complete rehash, especially with this struggling for a fresh look. Who's left to utilize? 'Long John Silver'? 'Sinbad'? 'YellowBeard'? (lol!) what other old creatures and myths can they possibly crowbar in?? Atlantis?.
The fact they even squeezed in the minute unrelated hobby of ships in a bottle shows how far they were stretched to incorporate anything remotely olde worlde and piratey into the film. I think this film just about manages to be semi acceptable but that's now it, no more can or should be done. I think Sparrow has had his moment in the spotlight, time to retire in the sun matey.
5/10
Toy Soldiers (1991)
Ah the ever popular brat pack type casting line up, a selection of young Hollywood faces either on the edge of becoming major stars or falling into obscurity. In this forgotten action thriller its Gomez Addams son Sean Astin and Wil Wheaton who are the main rising stars, the rest of the youngsters have fallen by the way side. But unlike some other young gun lineups this film also includes various adult stars to add that bit of quality to the film.
Dare I say it? the plot is basically Die Hard in a boarding school? sure it is. Group of terrorists take over a posh school for kids of rich families. Their purpose is solely to see the release of the terrorist leaders father who is some kind of drug kingpin. So its up to this small band of plucky smart ass teens to take back control of their school from the nasty bad guys with automatic weapons.
The similarities to that certain Bruce Willis franchise are clear to see. If you take the basic premise of Die Hard and mix it with 'The Goonies' and 'The A-Team' you see what I mean. The teens in the story use their skills, knowledge of the school and cheekiness to somewhat outwit the bad guys and slightly disable them for the special ops guys to mop up. There is a very fine line between a happy go lucky boys own adventure flick and in your face bloody squibbed violence which is a bit odd actually.
Its difficult to know what the film is trying to be, an adult action film or a light hearted teen flick. The young cast are clearly enjoying themselves in their roles which gives off a vibe which clashes badly against the older actors. The bad guys and their leader played menacingly by Divoff are really going for broke and being damn ruthless gunning innocents down and chucking them out of helicopters etc...Problem is these two sides just don't gel too well together, seeing Astin playing an older version of 'Mouth' from 'The Goonies' and Denholm Elliot playing an old lovable professor set against Divoff's cold blooded killer feels uncomfortable (Divoff really relishing his gritty evil Colombian drug lord role). Its like two different films.
Yet despite the moments of bloodshed the action is so predictable and almost childish as it unravels. The special ops guys at the end come across as inept, plus there is like a whole army of them and it takes them some time to take out just two bad guys. There are only twelve bad guys and it really feels like there needed to be more to make the ending more exciting. The action and soundtrack was reaching such a crescendo in the finale...but because there are so few bad guys in the end it feels totally deflating. Also the way the special ops storm the school, they could of just done that straight away! apparently it would of made no difference.
I love how all the Colombian bad guys are dressed up as sweaty, dirty, vest wearing guerrilla fighters with headbands and lots of stubble. Not too stereotypical then. The very end is also terribly corny and unoriginal, surely Divoff could of gone out in a slightly more exciting way?. Oh yeah there's even a crawling in an air duct homage to 'Die Hard'.
This was one of those films that I enjoyed back in the day when I was much younger mainly because the young cast were appealing. I kinda looked up to them as I did with other similar brat pack flicks (wanted to be them) and I was around their age when I first saw it (or a bit younger). Looking back now the film isn't really too good, its actually really dumb, looks silly and has an even sillier title. It sounds predictable I know but it really does feel as if they wanted to make a 'Die Hard' for teens.
4.5/10
Red (2010)
You know this idea had to come along at some point. Take the basic action premise of various spy flicks like Bond 'Mission: Impossible' and 'True Lies', then make the main characters retired old agents, super spy pensioners.
The plot is pretty much like any other flick in this genre, corruption that leads all the way up to the top, assassinations, intrigue and cover ups. Its Bruce Willis and his ex-team members who have been targeted by the CIA for termination due to previous unearthed information. So its up to them to get to the bottom of the it and uncover...errr the cover up.
The film is yet another comic book adaptation of another comic I've never heard of so I can't compare. A lavish cast from top to bottom because its a big Hollywood production, thusly the visuals and action are also lavish as hell. Now whether or not this is a good thing I'm not sure, I don't know how accurate this is to the comic book firstly and secondly I think it can take away from the whole experience because its too 'Hollywood-ish.'
There's nothing wrong with a glossy action thriller but they do tend to look the same. You don't really feel invested in the story because its all so neat, clean and shiny, there's no grit, no real sense of danger, all the cast are dolled up in layers of obvious makeup (Mirren) and you know no one of any real importance is gonna die and if they do chances are they will come back in the sequel.
That being said I can't deny this film is a reasonably fun ride with semi decent action sequences that all do look quite comic book-esque. The sharp visuals do give it a certain bold colourful style that comes across as quirky but with some dark undertones. I do like how the film is violent to a degree, its not a blood bath but you do see bullet hits, injuries and plenty of death...yet it seems to get tamer towards the end methinks. My best description would be akin to 'Kick-Ass' but not as violent and without the profanity. It is quite fun to see older action heroes taking out elite hit squads, the sight of Helen Mirren using a massive tripod mounted anti tank machine gun in a ball gown was quite funny.
It is all very predictable to be honest, this ain't no Bourne plot folks, did you really think Willis would lose his damsel in distress?. Some good action sequences, amusing dialog mainly coming from Malkovich who was the best character by far and a really good fight between Urban and Willis amazingly. The very end sequence unfortunately is too daft and comes across more like a Monty Python moment rather than a top action flick. For people like myself who don't know anything about the comic book the hook is old folk as super spies which is admittedly fun, apart from that its basically business as usual with nothing too ground breaking going on.
6/10
The Substitute (1996)
Coming along some five years after the similar themed 'Toy Soldiers', two films about schools under fire from criminals. I guess that's about as far as the similarities go though as this is an undercover mission for some mercs/Nam vets where as the other film was terrorists taking over the school.
So a nasty messed up city high school is plagued by drugs, weapons and bad eggs, what is the Principle to do??. Hire a badass killer merc of course, but the thing is he doesn't know the sub is a badass killer merc. So both the yobbish kids and the staff have no clue this guy is an ex-Nam hardass. As things progress for the Berenger the merc he finds out all is not what it seems.
A perfect role for the stoic butch looking Berenger who can play military types till the cows come home. Not much is required of him really, beating the kids down, killing drug dealers, being a smartass...all in a days work. His little tight nit group of mercs are a cool bunch, a young Luis Guzman, the insane William Forsythe, military action flick regular Ray Cruz and Richard Brooks. A really good team of character actors that are great fun to watch, its just a shame we don't more of them in action together.
Most of the film is a huge stereotypical montage of standard scenarios you can see coming a mile away. Its all very predictable and you know Berenger will never get hurt. Its undeniably fun to watch these sequences where the youths are acting up with their gangland dialect, waving their hands around making gang signs, virtually behaving like cartoon characters whilst being dressed like bums. At the same time all the girls looks greasy, sweaty and thoroughly unwashed haha need I say almost all the youths are black, Latino or Hispanic. Yep this film doesn't beat around the bush with racial attitudes towards suburban inner city schools in the US.
So yes you could say its racist and a bad image on certain groups of young people but dare I say could it also be the truth?. That aside its still a rush to see Berenger humiliate the posers and stamp his authority on the class. I must also say Marc Anthony is really well cast as the slimy skinny gangland leader within the class, a simmering undertone ready to pop. You really do dislike this guy as the plot builds, you know Berenger could kick his ass but he still has that ominous presence, plus the fact he's only suppose to be a teen makes him even more annoying when he gets all mouthy.
The whole thing is pretty hokey and like I said before it is very predictable. The finale shoot out within the school is cool though no doubt about that, although I would have preferred if the bad guys had brought lots of gang thugs to the battle instead of their special ops guys. That kinda dismisses the fact the good guys are a special ops team, its suppose to be mercs vs drug dealing thugs.
Still its very cool to see all of Berenger's mercs kick ass in their own unique way. A final kudos to Ernie Hudson as the shifty principle of the school, his performance isn't much better than his hammy role in 'Congo' but that's why its so good. Definitely a bit of an adrenaline rush at times with this one, I think everyone has had fantasies about kicking the crap out of their old school bullies at some point. This would probably be a step too far but I'm sure being a badass merc teaching out of control youths a lesson would still be right up there.
7/10
Will you be diving into Treat Williams' substitution adventures?
Quote from: First Blood on Dec 06, 2013, 04:19:32 PM
Will you be diving into Treat Williams' substitution adventures?
Maybe.
Green Street 3: Never Back Down (2013)Was there need for a third film in this dreary franchise? the bigger question is how on earth they got Scott Adkins in it?!. I guess if you like violent rumbles between large groups of moronic football 'fans' then you might get a kick outta this. Of course I use the word fans in a very loose sense as we all know its about footie hooligans.
The plot is merely a replay of the first two films, more excuses for cockney battles in the street. But wait! no its not! its actually about one young hooligan getting killed and his brother comes back to London to sort it out. When I say sort it out...I mean find the culprits and beat the shit outta them with his hooligan buddies (his firm), so yes actually it is the same.
So as Adkins is the main character here you may have already guessed that martial arts will be involved...and you'd be right. Although its not a full on martial arts fest as you'd expect from Adkins, its still mainly a large old school ruck but with the added extra of the odd martial arts moves. Clearly they have tried to incorporate both styles and alter the plot, we find out that the world of hoodlum fighting has become more organised and turned into an underground tournament with no rules. It appears the thugs have upgraded their skills with more precision squabbling, actually turning away from booze and becoming lean fit fighting machines.
This is all well and good but it kinda removes the whole gritty footie fan battling aspect that made the very first film reasonably fun to watch (aside from seeing Wood getting his head kicked in). Now you simply have yet another fight tournament flick with semi muscular blokes doing martial arts, the perfect vehicle for Adkins and obviously tailored around him. Its good they have tried to come up with a fresh idea here but firstly...it ruins the premise of the franchise and secondly, why make a third film anyway only to change it completely?.
I still can't quite fathom out why Adkins agreed to make this when its clear to see its a low budget go nowhere flick. This film doesn't even have a wiki page so far! that's how unknown it is!. The main problem with the film aside from poor acting and hokey cockney accents is the fact the fights aren't even that good, too obvious basically, you can see the punches and kicks aren't connecting. Had the fights actually looked good then you could forgive all the rest as fighting is the name of the game bottom line. Unfortunately its all pretty bad truth be told, a football hooligan film without any actual footie hooliganism, not that I'm condoning footie hooliganism of course but that's what you expect here dagnabbit.
3/10
DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story (2004)
Probably one of the most underrated 'sports' or fun games you can play which I haven't done since I was in school. I have no idea if there are any actual proper dodgeball leagues/competitions like in this film but I think there should be.
As for this film, well the title says it all really, its an underdog story where the underdogs emerge victorious against all odds, the end. This film doesn't try to be anything other than what it clearly is, a complete dumbass of a film with 'in your face' laugh out loud moments. Nothing here is clever or particulary original its just childish toilet humour utilising every trick in the book to get a giggle, no stone left unturned.
The cast is a mixture of some Frat pack members and good character actors who all take the opportunity to let loose and just play it to the extreme. Good old Ben Stiller has to be the main attraction here as the narcissistic gym owner with a Vidal Sassoon hair style. I did also enjoy the satirical take on flashy modern day gyms filled with overly tanned models who merely like to look at themselves whilst 'getting fit'.
Stephen Root rehashes his 'Office Space' character to great effect, Alan Tudyk is a pirate, why? no idea but its amusing and Vince Vaughn simply plays the same regular Joe character he always does but he does it well doesn't he. There are many other funny performances here and quite a lot of cameos, too many to mention but none of them ever undermine the films comedy. Kinda funny seeing Lance Armstrong going on about his Tour De France victories though, ouch!.
The whole idea here is so basic its amazing they got it off the ground really. Chock full of cheap laughs, naughty visual gags, lots of crotch slapstick, cheesy lines, weight jokes and pratfalls, the film does feel very infantile at times but at others it can be very funny indeed. Its not really about the plot for all intense and purposes, you just watch to see Vaughn, Stiller and co act the fool and crack hokey lines. Its all about the hammy acting and rude visual tomfoolery but the bonus is its a good little feel good flick too.
Yeah you know what will happen, you know the slimy slow witted Stiller will get his comeuppance in the end, there aren't any surprises here. You know exactly what you're paying for with this and you get it, like I say the film doesn't pretend to be anything else other than a stupid comedy much like 'Dumb and Dumber' or other frat pack flicks.
Upped to the max deliberately with daft spoof-like moments for optimal belly laughs and finishing off with the all too common parody of the classic coming from behind victory. Its admittedly a bit of a one joke flick for sure but you don't need to look into it that much, its just an easy going fun entertaining hour and a half.
7.5/10
"Thank you, Chuck Norris."
"No Peter, Thank you."
Missing In Action (1984)
Chuck's first main franchise and one of his classic actioners. Only two years after the release of 'First Blood' you can see where this idea main have spawned from eh. In fact a script by James Cameron intended for the Rambo franchise was the inspiration for this very film so there. But since then this film itself has been copied many times, the ever popular one man army with a big gun.
The mission, Chuck only just got back from Nam where he was held prisoner by some nasty Vietnamese. Once back in the States he realises there are still US POW's MIA back in Nam, so what does he do?. Well he packs up and goes back into the danger zone to find them of course. Isn't there a chance he might get killed or recaptured you say? pfft! Chuck Norris laughs in the face of danger, he tweaks the nipples of fear, he curses politely at those who stand against him.
So I'll leave the extremely obvious Rambo similarities aside and just give my views on the action. Well it takes time to get there that's for damn sure, a long time. There is much build up and deliberation as Chuck works out what he's gonna do and how he will do it. Takes him ages to find his old army buddy for a start, not sure why that guy was such a big secret with the locals but there you go.
Once we do hit the action its...well OK I guess. Dare I say its identical to 'Delta Force' in the sense that you never see any blood, violence, squib hits (not many) etc...I've mentioned before how Chuck's films tend to be like A-Team episodes haven't I, well its deja vu again. Now I'm not saying its bad because its not, its reasonable fun watching Norris run around gunning men down, but its hella tame.
What I love about this film is the horrendous editing and feeble accuracy by everyone involved shooting a gun. So many times you get a shot of someone firing a machine gun (bad guys), just standing there and firing continuously at an enemy yet they never hit a thing!. You don't see any bullet hits, no sound of bullet hits, no ricochets nothing, they just stand there firing blankly and never running out of ammo, its quite amusing. All the while the other person is doing the exact same thing haha both firing continuously at each other yet nothing is happening around them, doesn't matter how close they are or how well hidden they are, classic.
It really is a low rent Rambo, gotta say it, Rambo minus any blood, violence and real tension. Norris just waltzes in and terminates everyone without even bothering to aim much, whilst the enemy couldn't hit a barn door right in front of their face, glorious!. Bottom line that's what you watch it for, the classic hokey action which so many films homage and have spoofed ('Hot Shots 2').
Chuck wins the day, was it ever in question? no, he doesn't even get a scratch bless him. The explosions are grand, chop-socky fighting and the action sequences are as corny as a corn on the cob...but its still fun to watch I can't deny. The minute I saw Chuck rise from beneath the murky river waters brandishing his huge M60 machine gun clad in those classic army fatigues with head band...I knew it had all been worth while.
7/10
Missing In Action 2: The Beginning (1985)
Well if that title doesn't tell you all you need to know I don't know what will. Both of these films were filmed at the same time, back to back, but for some odd reason the powers that be decided to release the sequel first then this film as a sequel prequel. Why exactly I don't know as it makes no sense whatsoever, I don't think there were any issues so why muddle things is a mystery.
This film simply tales the tale of how 'Braddock' got captured and held captive in Nam before breaking out and getting to the point we see him in 'Missing In Action'. Its all very straight forward and like the other film, very by the numbers step by step action flick fluff.
Mind you this film is slightly more adult than the first film. Most of the plot takes part within the POW camp and shows us some mildly nasty stuff. The odd bit of torture, beatings, mock executions, real executions, torment, getting burned alive with flame throwers etc...it is a bit harrowing in a semi-harrowing kind of way. Nothing that will make you lose sleep, its not a dramatic epic true to life event flick, but its based on the reality of real Nam POW camps and does offer a touch of emotion.
The evil sadistic POW camp leader is nicely portrayed by Soon Tek-Oh. Much like Drago in 'Delta Force 2' this film is saved by his smooth villainous ways, his almost charming tone of speech, wry smile and merciless manner. His henchmen soldiers are all your standard Vietnam war types if I can say that, they just appear very stereotypical to look at I guess. Same can be said for Chuck's boys, militant and loud mouthed yanks with blonde hair, blue eyes and the token black guy (who dies). As for Norris...well its business as usual with the headband, Uzi and his lumberjack looks. He says little and acts badly while doing it, but we don't ask that of Norris do we, we just want him to grunt stare and kill bad guys tamely.
The film looks better than the first that's for sure but I'm starting to get bored of bamboo huts within green South East Asian jungles. Still we are given some more explosions, bigger ones this time and a more interesting array of deaths for various military personnel good and bad. Its still fun as we see Chuck wear down the evil Colonel and survive his torture tricks. It is more realistic than the previous film but overall it does also feel a bit of an excuse just to see Chuck take out an entire camp of bad guys...again.
Still its on par with the original film in my opinion, the more adult approach is welcome adding some tension, the corniness of the first film has been cut back. Its also funny and hackneyed that when this film was made it was common practice that the goodie black guys all get killed off whilst most of the blue eyed white guys survive to fight another day, old movie cliches huh.
7/10
Zoolander (2001)
This was the first film to really introduce me to Will Ferrell back in the day, its hard to think when this film came out he wasn't a big name star. Twas also the first time I saw Ben Stiller's dad on the big screen, or anywhere really, I hadn't yet discovered the joys of 'The King of Queens'.
This entire film plays out like an early Sacha Baron Cohen flick ('Bruno') but much much tamer. A very deliberate spoof and parody of the fashion/model world that is grotesque, bloated, narcissistic and embarrassing. Alongside Stiller and Owen Wilson is fellow frat pack member Vince Vaughn in an early cameo role and many many other big name stars hamming it up...or so we're led to believe.
Of course this being a film about modelling and fashion there has to be real patriots of this exclusive world involved, and there are plenty. All the big glamorous names you can think of that are connected to this vomit inducing scene are hauled out in front of the camera to show us their parody acting chops. Thing is I'm not entirely sure some of them understood they were being put in a film, I highly doubt they caught on that their lives were being poked fun at (mocked) and they were contributing towards the laughs. Just another day in the glitzy limelight for them.
I wouldn't say the humour was particularly clever, witty or sharp. Its most definitely amusing seeing Stiller and Wilson going overboard as two self obsessed male models, the clip montages at the award ceremony, their own unique dialect and visual expressions plus the 'walk off'...some great mockery going on there. Unfortunately it doesn't quite hold up for the run time in my opinion, the early golden moments dry up quickly as do the ideas.
The plot is daft of course but that doesn't matter really, its just a chance to have a pop at this ridiculous industry, maybe open some insider eyes perhaps. It all feels like your typical SNL sketch that has been stretched out but a little better than their usual fare. Its all very predictable childish and silly but that's the idea so there's no need to think into it. The only good thing about the film for me was the main lead duo and their excellent self indulgent portrayals, everything else is so so.
I totally forgot how hot Jovovich is in this film with her strict dominatrix attire, plus talk about a desperate attempt to kick start your career Billy Zane!. Why exactly are you in this?.
6/10
Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
Six years after the original smash hit and Dante comes along with this newish sequel. The intro to the film is an animated Looney Tunes segment with Bugs and Daffy which is meant to hint at the wackiness you were about to see, not good.
The plot this time is virtually the same deal as before but this time its set in New York and within a huge futuristic skyscraper, well for the time anyway. Of course the other reason for this sequel was mainly to do everything over again with much better effects and creature puppetry. Now I'm all for this no doubt but at least they could of gone for a fresher storyline.
There are many problems with this sequel which is a shame as the effects are indeed much better (although the original films were damn good). It starts off OK with good continuity seeing old Mr Wing again in his little shop with 'Gizmo'. Unsure if the first film setting of this Chinatown location was in New York though, I always kinda thought it was San Francisco for some reason. Anyway it makes sense that the old man dies and Gizmo is left alone in the world, not too sure about the fact they bulldoze the little store before clearing it though.
Eventually the film sticks to its new location for the action within this skyscraper. I still find it funny that this huge building would have its own animal testing floor filled with various animals of all shapes and sizes. Also the fact it appears to have lots of shops and eating establishments along with filming studios and its own TV cable network! all this with office areas higher up where lots of desk jockeys work feverishly to look good for the big boss 'Clamp'. Obviously its all just setups for the Gremlin action to come but it really seems quite odd that this building has everything in it as if it were a mall when its suppose to be a place of business and work.
I guess the main issues begin when the Gremlin mayhem kicks off. It all starts out fine and relatively sensible if lighter in tone, but it just gets ludicrous. The first thing that hits you straight in the face is the horrendous slapstick schlock that Dante gets the creatures to do, the first film had it but it was set within a dark tone, this film is virtually a cartoon (as laid out for you by Bugs n Daffy at the start). I really enjoyed the different ideas they used with the Gremlins...a bat hybrid, a spider, an electric poltergeist-like Gremlin, an intelligent Gremlin, a Gremlin made up of vegetables and naturally the obligatory female Gremlin. But the whole thing came off like 'The Muppet Show', albeit Muppets with a more sadistic crazy edge.
The female Gremlin was clearly a play or rip off from 'Miss Piggy' if you ask me, right down to the awful little musical number where she/it appears in a very 'Muppet-esque/Piggy' way from beneath a huge self portrait picture.
The other thing that irked me was the hideous self parodies/meta-references of the franchise and others. A cringeworthy self indulgent sequence where a movie critic is giving the original film a bad review and is then attacked by Gremlins, the bat hybrid Gremlin flies out of the building crashing through a wall leaving the famous Batman logo as a hole, some Gremlins where anti-Gizmo t-shirts and there is a Gremlin logo on the cable network when it goes down. And finally there's the sequence midway where the film actually stops as if Gremlins had invaded the cinema where you the audience were watching. We then get an embarrassing cameo with Hulk Hogan breaking the fourth wall, did it really have to go that far Dante?.
The inclusion of Dick Miller's character and his wife felt very forced too, not only that but I'm pretty sure they were killed off in the first film. There was no reason for them to be in this film other than some visual recognition from the first, a simple link. The whole notion that those two characters were suppose to stay with 'Peltzer' and 'Kate' in their small apartment is so stupid, and why would they be visiting them anyway??. These people weren't that close in the first film, just neighbourhood folk.
Plus I noticed Dante literately cast everyone he has ever worked with in this film, even Rick Ducommun and Henry Gibson get some screen time here. Amazing cast of character actors and cameos in this film.
Gotta ask but why is it everytime Gizmo get wets and produces new Mogwai they always turn out evil?. How come none ever turn out nice like Giz? you'd think they would genetically be like Gizmo. I didn't really like the new goofy Gremlins, it just felt like The Three Stooges and was just dumb, the various cartoon sound effects didn't help either. I know the film was suppose to be lighter but Jesus those new Gremlins were annoying, the two evil none insane Gremlins were nice and errr...evil, but again they didn't really look too different, the effects guys didn't wanna move away from the mohawk look did they sheesh!.
All the Gremlins look fantastic in this new film I must say, the detail and animatronic puppet work is astoundingly good from the realistic skin colour and patterns to every small snarling facial movement. There are also some nice effects using stop motion and bluescreen which are obvious but do still hold up quite well, it all shows how well these effects can work. It might be most costly sure but I think everyone would agree its worth it in the end, the final result looks awesome especially with the vast numbers of Gremlins on display this time. Beats the f**ck outta CGI I can tell you.
I want to like this film but its hard. The idea is reasonable giving us a wider range of Gremlins with new designs and more havoc, which is what you wanted really, but they dumbed it down too much. A lighter version is not a problem but the self referential jokes and small nonsensical plotless sequences felt more like a collection of sketches from a TV show (the 'Phantom of the Opera' Gremlin sequence). It makes the whole film feel like a spoof when its not really meant to be, not to that degree anyway, and the fact that the female Gremlin survives simply makes a mockery of films finale, who cares.
I love the creature effects and there are still some really nice moments of Gremlin gore and horror which hint at what could of been. Unfortunately it just gets lost in a sea of zany childish wackiness that doesn't really appeal to adults, fans of the original or kids because its still a bit too scary for them, so really it has no decent target audience.
5.5/10
Dollman (1991)
There is something about this B-movie that I like, its hard to pinpoint as the film is so ridiculous and belongs in the cartoon realm. I guess its the quaint 'Twilight Zone' charm of the plot and the cheesy yet fun effects mixed with some great hammy acting.
Pyun regular Thomerson gives his best 'Dirty Harry' performance here as 'Brick Bardo' (great name) complete with silly shades and a long trench coat. His gritty strong voice barking out silly dialog left right n centre to the wonderfully cliched baddies and gang members lead by a young over the top JE Haley.
This film does seem to have a cult following (nowadays, upon release no) and its easy to see why as its highly enjoyable with its highly nonsensical premise. Classic lead character, terrific bad guys and brilliantly bad effects, Pyun's best film along side 'Cyborg' which I'm sure came as a shock to him.
8/10
Dollman vs. Demonic Toys (1993)
Suppose to have been the first 'vs' film made so really this film is a ground breaker if we are honest about it. Its a very silly premise of course and the back story behind it is muddled. Basically this is the sequel to 'Bad Channels' 'Dollman' and 'Demonic Toys' all at once which in itself is pretty impressive and unique, but alas they screwed up the continuity badly by making 'Nurse Ginger' as the sidekick from 'Bad Channels' when it should of been 'Bunny'.
That aside this is actually good fun and continues the cult craziness of the previous films with the added bonus of Thomerson back as Dollman. Most of the film is filled with flashbacks unfortunately which does take up time and seeing as the film is only one hour!! you can tell they struggled to fill out the plot.
Effects wise its about on par with the other films accept this time we have life size Demonic Toys going up against 'Brick' which don't look too bad really. The fact they are real or stop motion makes all the difference which would be lost using CGI. Its actually the big in your face models and puppets that make this film enjoyable, utterly farcical but fun, kinda like a fairground ride in the funhouse.
You could almost say its a low budget modern day Harryhausen homage flick...almost. Gotta give kudos for imagination, absurdity and the balls to actually make something so zany.
6.5/10
Space Jam (1996)
Not too sure why this film is called Space Jam but I guess it sounds kinda cool doesn't it. Despite the fact the film stars all the Warner Bros Looney Tunes characters the whole thing is really all about Michael Jordan. A fictional account of a small segment in his career if you will.
So if you haven't already guessed the film is also all about basketball, this makes me wonder if the film was as much of a hit here in the UK as it inevitably was in the US. Obviously the Looney Tunes characters had a lot to do with the appeal for many as the film serves as more of an animated adventure rather than a true basketball feature. That being said it does give plenty for both sides of this spectrum.
Should I really have a go at the plot? this is after all a cartoon of sorts. Basically MJ must do battle on the court against some aliens who want him to be their slave within their intergalactic theme park. Thing is these crafty aliens have pinched the talents of fellow NBA All-Stars Muggsy Bogues, Larry Johnson, Shawn Bradly, Pat Ewing and Charles Barkley (what about John Stockton or Scottie Pippen?). So end of the day its Michael Jordan vs a selection of other NBA players, guess who wins? I wonder what the films trying to say?.
As far as an animated flick goes this is a fun time, its bright bold and colourful, there's plenty of toon action, the usual visual gags, in-jokes, sly homages etc...and of course the WB roster is always good see. The problems I have is the fact the animation is nowhere near as good as the classic original toons of Chuck Jones and co naturally...and they never will be ever again. The voice talent is nowhere near as good as Mel Blanc and co...and they never will be again. Plus of course they mix in CGI with hand drawn animation which kinda works in places but looks awful in others.
I think the worst voice work going in this film must be the attempt at 'Pepe Le Pew'. Wasn't a fan of the stereotypical female version of Bugs either, wasn't required, was just added for the young female audience and felt totally out of place. On the other hand the baddie alien characters weren't too bad if a little bland, they became more interesting in massive monster mode of course. I think if I were Bradly I might have been upset my animated alter ego was made out to be a slow towering numbskull. Using Danny Devito as the chief alien badguy was a smart move, again his character wasn't overly intriguing and kinda standard in design but it worked.
The actual basketball game is good fun even though you'd think it wouldn't be. Its certainly looney, has some slick moments, a nice 'Pulp Fiction' homage, the gag about Michael's special drink is cute, its fun watching the lofty NBA Stars trying to act and Bill Murray adds some much needed fizz for adults. You know what happens in the end, its no surprise, luckily it is a good ride getting there. Definitely an unexpected hit straight outta left field.
6.5/10
The Haunted Mansion (2003)
Ah 2003, the start of Disney's major theme park ride adaptations into the movies...not counting a few earlier nondescript flicks and 'Mission to Mars' which I never realised was a theme park adaptation. If you think about this premise you could be forgiven for thinking it would turn out crap, especially with Eddie Murphy involved. And you wouldn't be far wrong on that one point, the casting of Murphy and his 'family' members in this film was a terrible choice.
The reason being they all stick out like a sore thumb in the story, they all look totally out of place and none can act too well. The film has been turned into a Murphy vehicle and the film suffers for it, it feels forced, his family in the film feel forced and fake, the silly humour and annoying dialog from Murphy feels forced and its all in there simply for Murphy, awful decision.
That aside the rest of the film is actually pretty sweet. The plot has been cleverly turned into a romantic ghost tale where upon the mansions owner is seeking his one true love whom he lost centuries ago. Of course his true love is Murphy's living wife so a battle of supernatural proportions ensues as Murphy must stop this aristocratic spook floating off with his wife.
What works is the extra casting of the main ghost servants and their master within the mansion. Stamp is perfect as the stiff upper lipped butler with a dark secret, Wallace Shawn is perfect as the quirky sidekick footman ghost, Tilly is surprisingly good as the crystal ball gypsy spirit and Nathaniel Parker plays the noble British toff manor owner to a tee complete with thick dark locks. Not too sure how these ghosts work though, at times they can't or don't seem to interact with the living, then all of a sudden they can touch and pick things up.
Its all very cliched and hammy of course being based on a stereotypical haunted house attraction but that's fine, you expect that. In fact they capture that atmosphere perfectly, the whole eccentric Disney ambiance coupled with an eerie fanciful glow. Indeed the film does work better if you have actually been on the attraction at Disney World. There are many many little homages to the ride throughout the film from visual references to dialog, some sequences showing identical sections from the attraction. It does sounds kinda tacky but it really works nicely and gives you a pleasant ghostly trip down memory lane.
I really liked how the ghosts become 'more dead' visually the further from the mansion they are. So once outside all the ghosts have a really cool supernatural blue glow or aura which looks quite striking. I liked the graveyard and how it housed many of the ghosts from the attraction including the three famous hitchhiker spooks. As said I also liked the replication of sets from the attraction too, the hallway of portraits being the main one easily. One thing I didn't like was the swamp set New Orleans look for the mansion, not my personal cup of tea, I prefer the Liberty Square Dutch Gothic design from Disney World's Magic Kingdom.
But how did that ghostly horse drawn hearse crash through the walls of the mansion complete with Murphy and co inside?. How would ghosts be able to knock through walls when they are...errr ghosts. And how on earth would living people be able to go through the wall with the ghosts??.
On the whole the film does look really good and clearly a lot of thought and craftsmanship went into making the visuals realistic. Its really nice (and amazingly surprising) that they actually constructed the mansion instead of relying on CGI. The interiors and props all benefit from genuine craftsmanship too which really sets the mood, for all you 'Nightmare Before Christmas'/Addams Family/Munster lovers out there (like me) you'll love it.
This is a film you really really really really did expect to be utter utter utter tripe...but its not!. Its actually a really decent looking light-hearted supernatural ride just like the real attraction. The homages are great for folk who have been to the attraction but for those who haven't they just come across as neat spooky visual candy. As I said the only let down is Murphy and co as the endangered mortal family, well mainly Murphy. His tomfoolery lets down the quite decent performances of the supernatural cast.
6.5/10
I like how it's basically just Hubbs posting in here for this entire page. :D
Treasure Planet (2002)
Avast ye scurvy space lubbers!. I just recently watched this on Bluray (1080p), holy shit it looks good! and bare in mind this film is twelve years old now. I recall when this was released and boy was it destroyed by the critics, really panned, but I can't understand why, this is only the second time I've seen this since the cinema and I loved it.
The idea of sticking this classic 18th Century set adventure into the sci-fi realm is actually a sweet one, I'm surprised it has not happened before. The whole concept really does fit the space adventurer aspect nicely but of course there are some bits n pieces that don't add up. Like why on earth would all spacecraft in the far distant unknown future be built around centuries old galleon designs by humankind? and are those ships actually made of wood??!!. Why would these ships require sails? and how come no one (mainly humans) dies from exposure to deep space? there isn't anything to protect anyone accept a gravity force field. Kinda odd seeing a young 'Hawkins' high up on the ships rope ladders with the space winds blowing through his hair.
Are all buildings in this future made of wood?! can there be that much wood left? why are various alien species wearing centuries old human attire? all aliens speak the human language of English? are they actually using rope on these ships!!? ROPE! and there doesn't appear to be many humans left now I think of it...just Hawkins and his mum or so it seems. I could go on but at some point you gotta let it go, its Treasure Island in space with aliens and robots, its just suppose to be visual fun and it is by gum!.
Silly absurd nonsensical plot issues aside the whole aged steampunk/historic aesthetic look is really pleasing to the eye. Some of the space sequences really do look gorgeous, a cosmic ballet indeed. Of course the film is dated which means dated CGI is evident throughout, some obvious and some not so. Its nothing too horrendous and is tolerable. Some of the best looking CGI is easily the crescent moon shaped spaceport which borders suspiciously on Mos Eisley. Where as some of the worst CGI would be the huge whale-like space creatures and the rather over the top finale on treasure planet.
The characters are a fair bunch and fairly enjoyable to watch. Old 'Long John' has been crafted into a half alien half Terminator style cyborg which is curious. Sounds stupid but it actually plays out OK and looks pretty good. Jim is your standard rebellious scruff of a boy who also strangely looks familiar to 'John Connor' from 'T2', I think there is some definite influence there. The rest of the crew are satisfactory but nothing amazing, obligatory insectoid type guy, 'Star Wars Cantina' type alien, floating blob, Cat-like female, one eyed alien etc...bog standard alien designs really, possible homages I guess.
I must confess to not liking Martin Short's characterisation of robot B.E.N. with his insanely loud grating voice. The way this character is portrayed as a robot gone mad is just annoying and kinda old. The kind of role you'd give to Robin Williams and his annoying crazy loudness. The only voice I did like was Murray's Irish take on Long John which does give that nice olde worlde touch, you get a good sense of the character with this, a good sense of history.
There are tonnes of problems with this film that just don't add up at all, the idea of a space set pirate film works but also doesn't. I do think they just abandoned a lot of sense simply because its an animated Disney movie for kids and it simply wouldn't matter. True it doesn't matter, it is just an enjoyable fantasy romp for kids, but at the same time it would have been nice to address some of the silliness. After all everyone of all ages will watch it and while it does look awesome with some lovely creativity and imagination, the silliness sticks out like a giraffe at a polar bears only club.
6.5/10
From the last movie you watched thread. With a small edit.
FrozenSpoiler
This movie was absolutely outstanding. It is the epitome of what a Disney movie should be. The animation was utterly charming, vibrant and pleasing to the eye. The comedy was golden, having me in stitches on at least three occasions. I'm also happy to say that this Disney movie completely avoided many of the classic "Disney Movie" Cliches. But the best component of the movie was the outstanding musical numbers. The best one in my opinion is embedded below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws)
Idina Menzel was absolutely stunning in her vocal performance. I am already a fan of her performance of Elphaba in Wicked. This movie, all in all, is one of the best if not The Best animated movie I have ever seen.
9.5/10
Quote from: Dovahkiin on Jan 07, 2014, 03:15:44 AM
From the last movie you watched thread. With a small edit.
Frozen
Spoiler
This movie was absolutely outstanding. It is the epitome of what a Disney movie should be. The animation was utterly charming, vibrant and pleasing to the eye. The comedy was golden, having me in stitches on at least three occasions. I'm also happy to say that this Disney movie completely avoided many of the classic "Disney Movie" Cliches. But the best component of the movie was the outstanding musical numbers. The best one in my opinion is embedded below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws)
Idina Menzel was absolutely stunning in her vocal performance. I am already a fan of her performance of Elphaba in Wicked. This movie, all in all, is one of the best if not The Best animated movie I have ever seen.
9.5/10
Best Disney film I last saw was Treasure Planet, recommended :)
Quote from: Hubbs on Jan 07, 2014, 03:57:03 AM
Quote from: Dovahkiin on Jan 07, 2014, 03:15:44 AM
From the last movie you watched thread. With a small edit.
Frozen
Spoiler
This movie was absolutely outstanding. It is the epitome of what a Disney movie should be. The animation was utterly charming, vibrant and pleasing to the eye. The comedy was golden, having me in stitches on at least three occasions. I'm also happy to say that this Disney movie completely avoided many of the classic "Disney Movie" Cliches. But the best component of the movie was the outstanding musical numbers. The best one in my opinion is embedded below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws)
Idina Menzel was absolutely stunning in her vocal performance. I am already a fan of her performance of Elphaba in Wicked. This movie, all in all, is one of the best if not The Best animated movie I have ever seen.
9.5/10
Best Disney film I last saw was Treasure Planet, recommended :)
I liked treasure planet alright. But in my own opinion, Frozen blows it completely out of the water...as well as most other animated movies I've ever seen.
Quote from: Dovahkiin on Jan 07, 2014, 04:25:43 AM
Quote from: Hubbs on Jan 07, 2014, 03:57:03 AM
Quote from: Dovahkiin on Jan 07, 2014, 03:15:44 AM
From the last movie you watched thread. With a small edit.
Frozen
Spoiler
This movie was absolutely outstanding. It is the epitome of what a Disney movie should be. The animation was utterly charming, vibrant and pleasing to the eye. The comedy was golden, having me in stitches on at least three occasions. I'm also happy to say that this Disney movie completely avoided many of the classic "Disney Movie" Cliches. But the best component of the movie was the outstanding musical numbers. The best one in my opinion is embedded below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk#ws)
Idina Menzel was absolutely stunning in her vocal performance. I am already a fan of her performance of Elphaba in Wicked. This movie, all in all, is one of the best if not The Best animated movie I have ever seen.
9.5/10
Best Disney film I last saw was Treasure Planet, recommended :)
I liked treasure planet alright. But in my own opinion, Frozen blows it completely out of the water...as well as most other animated movies I've ever seen.
Must see this.
You should.
After seeing the clip Dov posted in that other thread, I may have to see it as well.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jan 07, 2014, 05:50:36 AM
After seeing the clip Dov posted in that other thread, I may have to see it as well.
We must.
Jingle All the Way (1996)A film all about buying your child's love? hmmm. Well its not all as bad as it sounds, the film does manage to turn that on its head by the end, just about, close call though.
Yep so Arnie is a bad dad who only thinks about his work and misses his whiny kids karate class awards ceremony stuff. So to make it up to his little brat he offers him the choice of anything he wants for Xmas, bad idea. The little darling wants a Turbo-Man action figure which is massively popular with kids. So Arnie must now find this toy which would have been easy if he hadn't forgotten about it and was left with only Xmas Eve to find one.
So the hectic day begins as Arnie strives to find a Turbo-Man figure. The plot is simply but pretty effective methinks, right away you know there is gonna be lots of mayhem and madness as parents scramble to get hold of this elusive toy. Even without seeing a trailer you can tell there is potential for some classic Chevy Chase-esque holiday hijinx. The fact its the Austrian oak adds to the fun because you can take advantage of his size by making him Hulk out in amusing places.
I like the toy design in this film, they really managed to capture the type of toy and its universe perfectly. A kind of
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers scenario with a 'Buzz Lightyear' looking hero. His adversaries were very much a visual blend of the MMPR's bad guys with that Japanese flavour and a hint of
Marvel with Turbo-Man's arch-nemesis. The TV show we see in the film is a typical MMPR approach, virtually a parody of it, or homage.
Apart from the loony pratfalls and childish visuals the film works because people can relate to it. I'm sure many parents know the horror of Xmas shopping for their kids and trying to get a hold of a particular toy. Hell even if you don't have kids you can relate to the nightmare of Xmas shopping and trying to get a hold of anything specific. So its fun to see Arnie as a regular everyday man trying to achieve something which would seem relatively simple. We can all sit back and watch someone else go through the hell we all know too well, much like travel ('Planes Trains and Automobiles').
I think the best scene in the film for me is the warehouse full of seedy Santa's and mischievous little helpers which are led by an unsavoury Santa in the form of Jim Belushi. The whole underground Santa's grotto idea is really good and quite funny when you think about it. Belushi really really fits this role like a glove and the fight that ensues is brilliant, only for seeing Arnie beat up a bunch of Santa's. The whole idea of a bad, grouchy, sleazy, disreputable Santa that is mean or rude to kids is just funny, the fact there is an entire organisation of them churning out duff toys is hilarious.
This is definitely one of Arnie's better comedies for me as it has a nice slightly dark side for adults as well as the soft marshmallowy side for kids. Adults have Sinbad vs Arnie, Sinbad threatening to blow up things because he's a disgruntled postal worker, seedy Santa's, a brilliantly slimy Hartman and the whole angry parents trying to kill each other at the shops thing. The kids of course have the actual toys in the film, silly pratfalls, Xmas and a nice mushy happy ending where Arnie proves himself to be a great dad after all.
In the end its very enjoyable and Arnie proves he can still do comedy films almost as well as action...after his previous attempt with 'Junior'. The film holds up well today too, the Xmas setting will always work at the right time, effects towards the end are a bit crappy, bit too silly, but in general its quite a good holiday romp. The very final scene with the two happy parents leads to a neat and amusing little twist.
7/10
Braddock: Missing in Action (1988)
Chuck is back and he's wearing his bandanna!. This time he's found out (conveniently by some creepy reverend who just happens to be in the US from Nam for what seems like five minutes) that his wife is still alive and well (sorta) back in Nam. Old Chuck thought she had died during the fall of Saigon. To make matters worse she has had his child! omg!! now Chuck is seriously pissed and you better bet your ass he's gonna KILL EVERYONE!!.
So as you might expect this film plays out pretty much like the original and sees Chuck going back into the jungles of Nam to kick ass. Of course, as you might expect, this being the third film its bigger, louder, a bit more impressive with stunts and explosions and ever so slightly more bloody...but not much, oh and Chuck still won't swear. To add spice to this adventure old Chuck most endure the sight of his wife getting executed by the evil Vietnamese General not too soon after his initial rescue attempt. Holy wonton soup General! now you've REALLY done it! Chuck's gonna bite your nuts off whilst using polite profanity.
Its probably the best of the trilogy for me because its just that bit grander yet still maintains those glorious 80's visuals and vibes that really set the stage for a retro offensive. Chuck is the epitome of the one man army, he parachutes into Nam with his own personal speed boat loaded with gear, treks through the jungle unaided and taking no malaria tablets, finds the enemy base, crashes it, saves his wife and child and then promptly gets caught. But fear not! Chuck escapes after some mild torture, gets his MASSIVE assault rifle, heads back to the enemy base, saves a whole tonne of other kids recently imprisoned and cooly dispatched all the bad guys in a super-duper array of slow motion bullet hits and explosions.
Its a serious film but at the same time its also a cheesy action flick. I could mention many things such as the fact none of the kids get injured at all during the main escape despite bullets, shrapnel and debris raining down on them constantly, but I won't. Of course, as you may expect, this being a Chuck flick there must be some douche bag US officials trying to stop his mission for political reasons so he can come across all rebellious and righteous. Well that box is totally checked.
In short (yes I know this hasn't been short) the film is great fun in a tame Rambo type of way...but I'm sure you all expected that. Its Chuck at his best killing the bad guys, being heroic and morally right in every way...hell its like watching 'Mary Poppins' with an assault rifle. Much more visually impressive and exciting than the first film, not as serious and bleak as the second. It starts off seriously but soon descends into that familiar hokey action packed scenario where Chuck goes around snapping necks without breaking sweat. God Bless the Stars n Stripes emblazoned across Chuck's chest.
8/10
Suburban Commando (1991)
Holy tight ass spandex Batman! a vehicle all for Hulk Hogan! luckily Christopher Lloyd is there to save the day kinda. A alien warrior that oddly enough looks exactly like a human being must save Earth and the universe from another set of aliens who also happen to look exactly like Human beings! what are the odds?.
So for better of worse Hogan is an alien that is basically space Rambo, he wears unconvincing plastic looking armour and carries unconvincing plastic looking weapons with flashing lights on them. It all looks like its been made by a fan for a comicbook convention, basically very good cosplay.
The film also kicks off with a pretty bland looking 'Star Wars' rip or homage however you wanna look at it. Its virtually shot for shot as a huge lumbering spacecraft slowly glides over the top of your screen like the Star Destroyer in 'A New Hope'. We then see a pretty terrible looking space battle with familiar looking laser shots all over and the intro of the supreme bad guy who is a short bald human. Maybe a bit of 'Spaceballs' going on there, mirroring Rick Moranis.
Most of this film comprises of small action and comedy sketches set up for Hogan to abuse with his big frame. So you get various silly scenes where he beats up bad guys, stops petty crimes, helps kids, helps old ladies, the odd pratfall and goofiness due to his super strength etc...its all very predictable and childish but then it is a kids flick.
In all honesty Hogan is a reasonable comedy actor and does ham it up nicely, he is also clearly great with kids which is nice and adds a genuine gentle touch to the films infantile bits. The best part of the film is the pretty sweet alien monster costume which appear when the bad guy transforms (yep he was a nasty alien creature all along). This suit is actually pretty scary for a kids flick which isn't surprising seeing as its a Steve Johnson creation. Other than that the rest of the effect are tacky as hell but that does kinda add to the charm I can't deny.
A typical low budget looking B-movie affair that didn't really do anything other than give Hogan some work to do. but despite that it is a warm fuzzy little flick with a good heart.
6/10
I like that movie. :-X
Death Becomes Her (1992)
A film about rich and famous folk trying desperately to cling on to their youthful looks by any means necessary, well mainly women in this case. Gee not too far from the truth really is it, seeing this two aging Hollywood female stars, neither of which are particularly attractive in my book, acting narcissistic egotistical and spoilt whilst under thick layers of makeup. I think the trowels of makeup are the only way these two can achieve any remote level of beauty frankly.
The plot is all about a magic potion that...errr magically turns people into younger firmer versions of themselves and gives you immortality. A potion of youth and eternal life, but the trick is you must disappear from public view after ten years to keep the secret...errrrrrm secret, yeah. So naturally you can expect the cliched spectacle of seeing various ultra famous people popping up who have never really died from the public eye, forever immortal stars people wanna believe are still with us eg. James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis etc...
The first thing that hits you is how can this supposedly sexy siren (Isabelle Rossellini), who's real age is 71, keep this amazing secret under wraps in LA of all places!. She has dished it out to so many famous people who all abuse their fame it seems, its incredible she hasn't been discovered. She's an illegal magic potion dealer with muscle bound henchmen who are also all on it. I would of thought it might also get harder to hide this when people die and start to walk around like decaying zombies as we see slowly with the main two characters.
The other niggling bit is where exactly does she get this potion from? she seems to have quite a lot of it, does she make it in the basement?. And while I'm on it, her massive mansion, is that suppose to be 'disappearing from the public eye'?! really?? I mean seriously you couldn't get anymore attention if you tried!, the house is a freakin' castle!.
Yes the films plot is totally full of holes but I guess its not suppose to be remotely serious, just a silly fantasy. To a degree it does work, this is mainly down to the terrific special effects that at the time were virtually groundbreaking. It was quite good ghoulish fun seeing Streep and Hawn battle it out 'Beetlejuice' style with all the undead goofiness. Willis doesn't really do much accept scream the whole time and the sets have a nice modern gothic style accompanied by crashing lighting and thunder, which is cool for all the goths out there (like myself).
When it came out this was a pretty big hit as I recall, stayed in the cinema a while and I did enjoy it when I saw it (at the cinema, mum LOVED it!). Looking back it doesn't really hold up, sure the effects are still quite neat and there are some amusing bits, but generally its so stupid, lame and completely makes no sense...which ruins it in the end. Its pretty much a live action cartoon with a wafer thin plot, the poster is also a complete rehash of 'The Witches of Eastwick', best stick with that movie though.
4/10
Escape from Planet Earth (2013)
Here's me thinking I missed the latest Snake Plissken adventure from John Carpenter, but actually I didn't miss much at all. I hadn't even heard of this film before, I merely stumbled across the poster one day and it looked quite cool, the title was the eye catcher though, love that.
Problem is the films title doesn't really sum up the films plot all too well. A couple of aliens get caught on Earth by some evil military geezer and are held captive in an Area 51 type area...oh wait it is Area 51. There, alongside other captured aliens, they are forced to build this big death ray laser gun thing to destroy planets. Why? because the evil human military leader is evil and wants to...plus the Roswell aliens killed his dad in the infamous Roswell crash. Clever huh? no not really you're right.
So as you may have already guessed this CGI animated film contains almost every cliched cheesy cornball sci-fi in-joke and visual gag you can imagine. The entire film is completely pointless in the fact that the whole thing has been done time and time again and there really is no need for this to exist. The main alien characters just look dull, completely dull and lifeless blue cliched aliens. All the alien sidekicks they meet up with are your bog standard array of yet more cliches...a slimy alien, a big strong angry alien and a cute little furry alien, all bases covered.
I guess the real crime here (lame plot and character design aside) is the really really average CGI animation. The backgrounds, skies, spacescapes and landscapes all look nice, nothing to blow your eyes from their sockets but they are nice. But in general most of the locations/settings, all the characters, the equipment on display and alien planet terrain/city all look pretty damn generic and bland. Lets just call it planet bland with lots of interstellar alien logos, yep the aliens in this have their own TV stations, sponsors, adverts etc...just like us! its all very crap.
The voice cast doesn't boost your moral put it that way, you know to be weary when Brendan Fraser gets the lead role lets be honest. The story is weak and pointless, the visuals are bright and colourful but sorely lacking quality, few laughs to be had, drab characters and rather limp action sequences. This really is a poor man's 'Monsters vs Aliens' in every sense, feels more like a glossy kids cartoon for a dreary rainy Saturday afternoon.
Considering this is all about aliens and space adventure its virtually grounded on Earth for the whole run time, not much escaping going on anywhere.
3/10
Teen Wolf (1985)
In the same year that Fox became a superstar going back to the future he also had this little werewolf number creep out. The title says its all really in its brilliant cheesy way, a typical 80's film title. Young teen Fox slowly discovers that he is in fact a werewolf and its been in the family for generations.
In all honesty this is your very standard cheeky 80's high school romp which was the staple diet of many classic comedians throughout the 70's and 80's. The twist in this of course is the supernatural element which is simply a play on the effects of puberty, swapping spots for claws. Its all here as you would expect, the sexy blonde everybody lusts after, the plain brunette our hero never notices, the party obsessed crazy ass best friend, the quiet sensible best friend, the bully, the fat kid, the token black guy ('lemonade'...awesome character name) and various amusing stereotypical teachers. The best easily being the carefree gum chewing basketball coach.
So if you put the predictable teen antics to one side what are the wolf antics like?. Well its pretty darn sweet as a matter of fact, and what's more amazing is the makeup effects on show are really quite good. The little sequence of Fox turning into the wolf has clearly been influenced by 'An American Werewolf in London' and its a really well done moment. Its not scary or gruesome in any of course but it still does look quite realistic utilising simple effects and quick editing. His father in wolf mode doesn't look quite as good admittedly, more like a greying woodland animal with puffed up hair.
There isn't all that much wolf action so to speak, its mostly more silly high school antics but in wolf mode. Wolf mode gives our hero greater strength, better vision, brains etc...the guy becomes a super werewolf and aces everything in school whilst becoming a ladykiller (not literately). The main events of the film are based around the high school basketball games in which Fox's character usually sucks but naturally as a werewolf he's turned the game on its head. This film actually got me into basketball for a time, it introduced me to the game, because of this I bought NBA Jam hehe.
The game segments are really good fun and as the film climaxes it does get a little emotional I can't deny. The game montage accompanied by Mark Safan's Win in the End is glorious mainly down to that corking track. Funny how the underneath of Fox's arms didn't have any werewolf hair applied, always obvious when he raises his arms.
I think people can relate to this film in many ways, certain characters despite them being cliche, the problems of popularity, loneliness, bullying, sexuality etc...usual teen stuff. In all fairness this film doesn't really differ much from the vast array of fast food American high school flicks out there, the werewolf angle is only a different representation of teen angst. It shouldn't really be a good film but somehow it is, what you see isn't original and there aren't any dazzling special effects, its more a character/school based fantasy which is simply a good fun little ride. Attractive performances all round especially from Levine as 'Stiles' and a wicked soundtrack make this a solid cult gem.
8.5/10
request: review The Adventures of Pluto Nash
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Feb 02, 2014, 06:45:11 AM
request: review The Adventures of Pluto Nash
I can do that, may I ask why :)
I hear people are raving about it in the official live action thread.
it is the greatest example of the live-action genre
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Feb 03, 2014, 12:11:30 AM
I hear people are raving about it in the official live action thread.
Pluto Nash? :o
Randy Quaid as a robot. How f**king cool is that.
Hard Rush (aka Ambushed 2013)
No idea what the title for this cheap drug dealer action drama is, supposedly 'Hard Rush' but comes up as 'Ambushed' on IMDb. Not that it really matters though, the first of a trilogy of films starring Lundgren and Vinnie Jones that have been rolled out in 2013 from some tacky straight to DVD company. The casting in these films is pretty good amazingly, its like a collection of mini expendables with Davi, Cung Le, Billy Zane and Couture all popping up. Easy quick work and money for these guys obviously, Jones has been in tonnes of these flicks! literately tonnes! and he plays the same character everytime!.
The plot is errr sorta about some drug dealers trying to strike it big and errrrrrrm Jones is the big boss on the block...oh geez I dunno. Its an epic muddle of characters none of which I cared about at all and I couldn't follow who was trying to double cross who. The predictable finale shoot out is so confusing I gave up, everyone shoots everyone, police, undercover agents, dealers etc...No idea what happened to Jones in all this, his character just vanishes despite lots of threatening threats to the main characters.
Its not all terrible though, some of the visuals are well shot and its all been pieced together in a rather slick way. That's it though, the fights are awful, Dolph looks tired and slow whilst Jones is the boring sadistic unbeatable bad guy. The main two characters are wholly unlikeable, one is a smartass who I really wanted to see get beaten, the other is a cheap Scottish budget version of David Schwimmer!. I kid you not, his name is Gianni Capaldi, Google him, the dude is a dead ringer for Schwimmer.
I know these cheap action flicks are suppose to be guilty pleasure type stuff with lots of gratuitous violence and gun porn...but what went wrong here?!. This film offers nothing of what I just said, maybe a bit of ass and that's it, Dolph isn't even in it much for Pete's sake!. What a complete waste of time.
2/10
Is Billy Zane at least overacting the hell out of his role? I love it when he does that.
Ooh do Force of Execution next! :D
Quote from: KiramidHead on Feb 08, 2014, 07:55:45 AM
Is Billy Zane at least overacting the hell out of his role? I love it when he does that.
Zane isn't in this one, he's in one of the other two new ones. This one just had Jones Couture and Dolph.
Quote from: Hubbs on Feb 09, 2014, 03:46:42 AM
Quote from: KiramidHead on Feb 08, 2014, 07:55:45 AM
Is Billy Zane at least overacting the hell out of his role? I love it when he does that.
Zane isn't in this one, he's in one of the other two new ones. This one just had Jones Couture and Dolph.
Oh, okay.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Feb 09, 2014, 04:34:09 AM
Quote from: Hubbs on Feb 09, 2014, 03:46:42 AM
Quote from: KiramidHead on Feb 08, 2014, 07:55:45 AM
Is Billy Zane at least overacting the hell out of his role? I love it when he does that.
Zane isn't in this one, he's in one of the other two new ones. This one just had Jones Couture and Dolph.
Oh, okay.
There are two other action flicks that have been made with the other guys, a trilogy so to speak...well sort of.
The Man with Two Brains (1983)Easily the best collaboration between Martin and Reiner in their long movie errm...collaborations. Its Martin's second zany wacky off the wall movie after 'The Jerk' which wasn't as madcap as this. In this work of genius Martin is set free to basically come up with as much lunacy as he possibly can and boy does he.
The plot is somewhat sensible I guess, a brain surgeon falls for the sexy Kathleen Turner only to eventually discover she is a gold digger and doesn't give a shit about anyone really. In the mean time Martin falls in love with a disembodied brain (in a jar) and decides to try and rescue it with a new fresh sexy body.
The whole idea is basically a B-movie homage to various ridiculous horror concepts and at the same time an influence for many future raunchy trashy 80's teen comedies, it serves dual purpose. Its not exactly a full spoof but it comes close at times, its just an insane comedy with surreal touches of outlandish humour that borders on spoof.
Most of the funny moments tend to be sexual innuendo or sight gags, some childish some clever and witty, whilst others are clearly in there just for the hell of it, probably created on the spot. Take Martin's character name for instance...'Dr Hfuhruhurr', we here Martin say his name properly right at the start but from then on almost everybody pronounces it differently as they struggle to say it, most just give up. This is such a stupid gag ,its infantile, but it works so brilliantly every time yet you don't really know why. You know its stupid but seeing all the various characters pronounce it so randomly is just so fudging funny. The joke is even extended to a few other characters also, you'd think it would get old but it still manages to make you smile.
What hit me was how old the film looked, it was released in 83 but it looks like a 70's flick to me. Everything really looks so dated nowadays but I think some of it is deliberate, made to look cheap like an old fashioned mad scientist movie. Naturally the fake castle laboratory within the apartment (nice switch) is the cheesy stereotypical mad scientist vibe for this kind of thing. I like how they include that simply for that reason and actually say that in the film hehe could almost be a Leslie Nielsen vehicle.
Its also easy to forget how hot Turner was back in the day, she smoulders here as the evil temptress or black widow. I also like the various bits of ass on display too (yeah sue me). I do recall watching this as a kid and thinking it was a dirty film, to a kid the material shown is quite kinky and revealing for sure, the dialog is also pretty smutty and only now as an adult do I appreciate it, much like all the humour.
This has to be Martin's best film or close to, its such a shame he never really did anymore off the wall flicks like this. There is so much that works here, so many little gags and visual nuggets that are admittedly so daft (the very quick human pinball scene) you just can't help but like it (unless you dislike Steve Martin's style of course). Its rude crazy and predictable (with a brief bit of in your face racism!) but for me its probably one of the best comedies made.
'The only time we doctors should accept death is when it's caused by our own incompetence'10/10
Elf (2003)
'Buddy the Elf, what's your favorite color?'
So a baby 'Buddy' climbs into Santa's sack and is whisked away to the North Pole by accident. Upon this discovery Santa decides to allow 'Papa Elf' to raise and look after him. Not too sure why they just didn't take him back to the orphanage where he crawled into the sack, seeing as they know he came from there. I guess him being an orphan it didn't matter?.
From here on Buddy grows up at the North Pole as a worker in Santa's workshop. He soon discovers by mistake that he is in fact human and not an elf (elfling?), so off he goes to New York to find his dad. Turns out Papa Elf knew all about his mum and dad and what happened to them...somehow, handy huh. Is that elf magic or Christmas magic that enabled Papa Elf to know everything? or am I missing something here.
So lets switch off the cynical part of my brain for a moment. The start of this film is a typical Xmas setting and scenario yes...but its so damn charming cozy and delightful you can't not love it. I mean sure you can't really go wrong with Santa's workshop at the North Pole really, but the added gem of seeing the odd bit of classic stop motion animation on one or two cheerful little characters really added another dimension to the whole sequence. It all looked like a whimsical children's story book, a snowy happy world with cutesy fantasy characters plodding around. Arctic Puffin and snowberries? adorable!!.
Once we reach New York and the real world the tone shifts to that classic American Xmas movie magic type scenario which we all know and love from various other movies. And what better setting for a cold wintry Xmas tale than New York. Yeah you know straight away all the famous landmarks and stores you'll be seeing, we know how this goes...but does it get old? no, never. New York is probably one of the most atmospheric places in the world at Xmas.
'I passed through the seven levels of the Candy Cane forest, through the sea of swirly twirly gum drops, and then I walked through the Lincoln Tunnel'
This is basically a pure unadulterated Ferrell show, the whole thing is all about him as the innocent sweet childlike elf completely out of place in a dark sinister world. You have the obligatory love/hate issues with his real father played grumpily by Caan to great effect (you can feel the sense of shame and disdain he gives off for Buddy), all this of course plays out exactly how you think it will right from the start. Then you have all the visual tomfoolery that Buddy serves up as he comes to terms with reality and not the candy cotton world he's used to.
At no point did I actually get tired or bored of Ferrell and his cherub-like virginal antics. It is utterly predictable hokey Xmas pantomime guff of course but its just so enchanting and visually pleasing you can't look away. Everywhere he goes he elaborately decorates with Christmas cheer, baubles and shiny trinkets, he's like the Xmas monster. Some of the scenes where he learns about 'human' ways and everyday things/objects are highly amusing despite being so simple and kinda cheesy.
The board meeting where Buddy comes across the rather small elf-like Mr Finch (who is actually a little person) is hilarious. The way Buddy talks to the guy as if he were a very young child is easily a laugh out loud moment (must have been a South pole elf). I must also mention the brilliantly done forced perspective we see here and there. It looks like CGI but apparently its not, very clever and nice usage of an old trick.
This is probably one of Ferrell's best films and best performances...strange as it may seem. The whole idea is completely not original and is stuffed to the gills with every Xmas cliche you can think of. The only reason this film works is because of the infantile character that is Buddy the elf...errr human. The ending is totally sappy and cringeworthy but it still doesn't stop this Christmas juggernaut of yuletide spirit.
'Oh, I forgot to give you a hug!'
8/10
Bad Santa (2003)
No this isn't a National Lampoon movie although you could easily be fooled into thinking that with this title. As you might have expected this is a Christmas set film and its about a naughty Santa character. Again you could easily be fooled into thinking this is a silly kids movie with lots of fart gags...but no, its actually a black comedy and most definitely for the grown ups.
The whole point of this film is the ever so slight redemption of the main character played by Thornton. This guy is a low down permanently drunk criminal who drags his way through life whilst robbing department stores with his dwarf partner. The dubious duo take yearly jobs as a department store Santa and his elf worker, this way they get to know the ins and outs of the store so they can easily rob it. Things change for Thornton's character 'Stokes' when he meets a tubby little boy who he kinda befriends and takes a shine to...eventually.
This film is kinda unique in the sense that the main character has many flaws and issues which you tend to think he will sort out at some point by the end of the film. The twist and funny part is he doesn't really change at all, he does a little bit with the help of his little fat young friend, but not too much really, he still ends up as the same bum. The amusing things about the film are the constant little moments where Thornton's character gets angry or frustrated with the fat kid and swears at him. The little fat kid (eerily played by Kelly) seems to be a bit slow and just takes the abuse, in one ear and out the other. At times it can be very funny to watch these outbursts yet at other times you do feel sorry for the kid or Stokes because you know he sometimes doesn't mean it.
The heist aspect of the film is quite good and offers some reasonably tense moments, especially near the end. The various Santa sequences are probably the films highlights as we see Thornton getting sneezed and coughed on by lots of pant wetting scroats. Of course his reactions and the way he treats the kids are the best bits, he basically sneers growls and scowls at them, finally nudging them off his knee and virtually kicking them to the curb. Watching the reactions of the parents is great, as a man pushing 40 and with no kids I love it, if I was a parent I might feel differently I guess who knows.
The darkest sequence must be when a severely pissed Stokes crawls up the escalator towards his Santa grotto. His beard and clothes now filthy stained and damaged, he looks like shit, can hardly walk and promptly falls into a reindeer display. This whole sequence starts out funny but descends into a more cringeworthy incident as he freaks out and starts to smash up the Xmas display in front of everyone in the store, its still amusing but also poignant and depressing...much like the plot as a whole really.
The finale was a tad of a let down for me, it does seem like you're gonna get the predictable ending where Stokes will die trying to achieve a small slice of decency in his life, the right ending. A bit like the finale in 'The Wrestler' where Rourke's character goes out doing what he loves but also reclaiming a small part of his dignity right at the end. Even though this ending is predictable as I said, I think it would have been stronger for obvious reasons. Instead Stokes lives on and we get some mumbo jumbo about how he survived and what he plans to do after he heals up. This simply feels like an open ending so they can roll out a sequel which this film really doesn't need in my opinion, if it happens that is. I think it should have wrapped up there and then.
All in all I like how this is basically an anti-Christmas flick which sticks two fingers up at the sweet yuletide greetings side of it and embraces the Scrooge side with extreme profanity. Its not exactly original in idea, the drunk rude Santa schtick has been done before but you can't deny its amusing. Crude rude edgy and drenched in cynicism...but there is a soft warm heart buried deep in there and it just about manages to shine through in the end.
7/10
Billy Elliot (2000)
The film that started it all...well for this particular franchise/story that is. One of many films that has become a great success and followed on with even greater success as a musical theatrical production. I think this film may have been one of the first to kick start that trend as it were, can't quite remember.
The tale of a humble miners son whose aspirations to become a male ballet dancer are frowned upon by his blue collar father and similar blue collar brother. Set in north eastern England around 1984-85 during the miners strikes against a powerful Thatcher led Conservative regime...errr I mean government. Billy is destined to become a miner like his older brother and father and is pretty much forced to take part in boxing at school by his father. His dad obviously wants more for his boy with the possibility of boxing but he knows the pit beckons.
On the other hand Billy discovers his love for dancing in ballet and wants to follow that path. Naturally this disgusts his strong proud father and gets him into trouble for disobeying. The whole plot could be the tale of many many northern born men within England at any point in time really. I have lived up north in the UK and it can indeed be a bit bleak with little job prospects for youngsters (no offence to the north).
The whole film is one big stereotype really, but a very real and truthful stereotype. Billy's tough working father is a typical northern bloke who likes beer boxing and a good plate of drippin' sandwiches. The area they live in is of course very working class with small terrace housing along steep hills and flatcaps everywhere and the general attitude of all the men is somewhat old fashioned. Boys partake in football rugby and boxing, girls do ballet and sewing, there is no middle ground...dare I say homophobia is lightly touched upon too.
I am exaggerating yes? well not really, as I said I've lived up north for many years and in some areas this is exactly what its like to this day. Thinking back to 1984-85 it would have been ten times worse!.
The main crux of the story is Billy's struggle against 'the norm' and his fathers rules. He wants to be a ballet dancer, his school dance teacher thinks he's good enough but the money isn't there to fund it any further and his father hates the fact his boy might be a sissy. I think many people will be able to relate to this story as I said, but not just with dancing, with many areas. The scenes where Billy fights against his dad are naturally emotionally strong and really hooked me. There are many scenes where Billy gets into trouble by playing with his homosexual friend whom he doesn't understand is homosexual, not going to boxing lessons, going to ballet lessons and the intense strike sequences which are all terrifically acted out and really sucked me into the moment.
The moments of spontaneous dance from Billy are really cool to watch, I really found myself wanting to dance too, yeah maybe I can do what Billy does!. Every character is wonderfully portrayed, Bell is a little bit too full of himself at times, a bit too eager to please by over acting perhaps but he's certainly fun to watch. The only character I thought was maybe a bit off was Billy's dad played by Gary Lewis. I really thought this character needed to be much harsher, stricter, he was tough but I didn't really fear him or his rule. I'm not saying there should have been nasty beatings but he just didn't sell the gruff northerner aspect to me despite the fact he's Scottish. I think the fact he is actually Scottish (and in the film it seems) means he doesn't have the real English northerner spirit inside him, unlike a real Geordie, Yorkshireman, Mackem etc...
The build up to the finale is quite moving and did pull on my heart strings I can't deny. Its all very cliche but it damn well works...damn it!. The whole notion of anyone trying to simply make their father/mother proud by their good actions or dedication to something is a warm path to tread and guaranteed hanky dampener at the movies. Again many will be able to relate to the lovely final curtain sequence as Billy finally shows his family what he has achieved, it does put a lump in your throat and made me wish I could do the same with my own father.
I think you will get more out of this film being British and knowing of the north south divide and stereotypical views within the UK. I think if you live up north then you will certainly know the vibe this film gives off and will be able to relate and hopefully enjoy. It can be a feel good film but at the same time it can also be a slightly depressing film on various aspects...the miners strikes, being on the breadline, the grim north and being a youngster trying to break out of a situation. In the end the film is a joy to watch and should leave you upbeat. I hope I have not upset any of my northern countrymen, my dad is a Yorkshireman born n bred so I have experience ^_^
9/10
Time Bandits (1981)
Is Terry Gilliam riding on the coattails of Monty Python with this film? his cast does include a few Python members in small cameos and the films direction is most definitely bizarre. Not only that but the film looks and sounds like a Python sketch in various places much like 'Jabberwocky' did. Not complaining just pointing it out, love the film title though and those lovely looking opening credits.
The first film in Gilliam's off the wall dream-like fantasy film trilogy where the plot basically revolves around escaping reality through imagination...or a dream. In this surreal adventure a young boy is zapped through time with the help of a bunch of dwarfs. This little team go around pinching loot trying to get rich with the aid of a map that shows them time holes to jump through time. On their tail is an evil sorcerer who wants the map for evil purposes and the maps owner the 'Supreme Being' (God?).
The film starts off in a very simple manner that is quite enjoyable. Its very similar to the later Bill and Ted franchise as we jump to the Napoleonic Wars and meet Napoleon, then to England meeting up with Robin Hood and then to Greece meeting King Agamemnon. These few segments are good fun showcasing the films main big name cameos such as a rather dull Connery as Agamemnon, a very good Ian Holm as the height obsessed Napoleon and the brilliant Cleese as a rather stiff upper lipped Robin Hood and his cutthroat band of merry men. The Robin Hood sequence is easily the best with Cleese donning a daft over sized green Hood hat and typical cliched Hood attire. He looks utterly ridiculous in his pantomime garb where as in contrast his men are a bunch of dirty filthy violent scum. The other funny angle is the fact Cleese speaks quite normally in his aloof aristocratic manner and his men don't, they are just your standard commoner oiks.
Once we are introduced to the villainous 'Evil' (that's his name) who wants the map things kinda nose dive in my opinion. The dwarf team stop time jumping and instead go on the run from Evil but end up in Evil's realm and things just become all too weird. There are some nice moments that are typically Gilliam in visual style and idea, the galleon perched on top of the underwater giants head is a good one. No real clue what the hell was going on there, why the galleon is stuck to this giants head (it appeared to be his hat), why the giant was under the sea and who or what was in that little cottage before the giant crushed it??. Looked like some kind of elephant alien person, quirky little moment but totally off the wall, they just get killed then?.
The entire final sequence where the dwarfs and little boy fight against Evil is just a mess really. This sorcerer is obviously pretty invincible yet the dwarfs conjure up all these pointless character from various time periods to fight him. I know its a young persons film but this battle is really quite hokey. Then in the end we meet the Supreme Being who turns out to be (or at least in human form) an elderly man in a suit who can't really act too well, nice concept though.
I think the main thing that I disliked in this film was the little boy in the main role. This is an old film sure and the kid actor didn't have to be a great actor I admit but damn he's fudging annoying. His soft weedy whiny voice just grates the whole time and fails to give his character any impact at all, he always begs and pleads like a baby but you can hardly hear him half the time because he's so quiet...and wet. Am I being harsh? maybe, but this kid ruins the film, should of used a girl. The squad of dwarves are the films main hook really...much like 'Willow'. None of them are particularly good actors but they are amusing and they do add to the fantasy charm. Seeing them all dressed up in their nifty warrior-like bandit outfits is kinda cool, clearly Gilliam (or someone) had this idea and knew they had to make a film around it.
The film is essentially a kids flick, an imaginative adventure for young boys who like to play war, knights, cowboys etc...In that sense the film does its job and delivers a highly imaginative yarn no doubt. As an adult watching now the film doesn't quite hit the mark for me anymore, I guess the thrill has been left behind with age coupled with the fact the film doesn't really look very good anymore. It has dated quite badly in all honesty and the effects can be a bit dodgy. Like I said the first half set in the few time periods is good but after that it gets a bit rough around the edges. The very end feels too open ended also, definitely needed a more conclusive finish.
In the end the film is a fun little ride with some nice visual ideas, but I can't help but feel without those few Python cameos this film wouldn't be half as much fun. You could say its only worth watching for the John Cleese sequence really...but that's just me.
5.5/10
Delivery Man (2013)
So this is a remake of a Canadian comedy that was only made in 2011! not only that but both films are directed by the same man, shouldn't go wrong then really should it. Never seen or heard of the original film 'Starbuck' so I can't compare but in all honesty the idea of Vince Vaughn being the father of 533 kids does raise a smirk. The problem being they all wanna know him but he doesn't wanna get involved with them. Just looking at the films poster you could easily think this will be another typical crass Vaughn comedy.
Surprise surprise it isn't! the story is actually played with a lot of heart and semi realism giving the emotional moments more gravitas. Lets not get carried away here this is no hardcore drama, but scenes where Vaughn's character follows some of his now grown up children to see what they get up too are nicely done. Its these sequences which do shine and make the film a bit more interesting, seeing Vaughn pretend to be a guardian angel type and assist his teen offspring in times of need. Naturally these teens are a nice rounded PC bunch as you would expect but I can't deny watching him take care of the handicapped boy does tug at the old heart strings.
Up to that point nothing really happens and after that point it all goes down hill. The story does feel somewhat boxed in to me, nothing much to do, you get a whiff of this by the fact that a lot of the film is merely watching Vaughn perform random secret acts of kindness for some members of his new large family. I was starting to wonder if this was all we were gonna see.
Of course it isn't but what we get is kinda...patchy. Vaughn's character has money issues and is basically a bit of a loser in this film. He owes money to some thugs which isn't really expanded much, some of his new adopted kids come and go through out the film as does his pregnant wife and his real family background felt a little underused. I'm sure they could of used his father (cheap Ben Kingsley knock off) and their family butcher store to better use with the thugs.
So on one hand we do get a semi sensible slightly emotional real life rom-com type affair with Vaughn trying some real acting. But on the other hand the film is rather dull, hard pressed for ideas, not overly funny, not overly weepy and the finale is so predictable. While I appreciate Vaughn trying to be a genuine actor for once it just doesn't feel right, he's not bad as such but the guy needs to make zany comedies, its his forte. All the time here I'm just waiting for him to whip out some wise cracks and be funny, instead we get a more grown up approach.
One of those films that feels pointless really, neither one thing or the other and maybe miscasting Vaughn in the main role. The whole story and its characters also felt a bit undeveloped and I found myself not really caring about any of them. It starts off quite well but quickly becomes a random thrown together collage of sentimental Hallmark moments which all builds up to the totally predictable happy ending.
5/10
The Princess Bride (1987)
You can clearly see this is a Rob Reiner film in every sense. The whole production has that silly visual humour that most would associate with Mel Brooks...although not as strong. When the film came out it had moderate success and has since gone on to be become a bit of a cult, yet I'm not entirely sure why in all honesty.
Based on a novel of the same name the story is the quintessential fairytale fable. A young dashing hero who was thought to be dead must save his true love from an evil Prince in his castle. There are sidekicks, magicians, evil henchmen, knights, places of peril and the odd oversized creatures.
The unique element in this rudimentary idea is the comedy factor, a combination of spoof and slapstick both verbally and visually. In short you could say this was an early live action version of the Shrek franchise but not as 'out there' with the fantasy. Every typical fairytale scenario has been slightly twisted and lampooned just enough to make it funny but not as an outright spoof. There is still a solid plot here despite the fact its predictable as hell. The other unique angle is the fact the whole film is being narrated by Columbo to Kevin Arnold in the real world, a story within a story, so you're never completely sure if things will pan out as you'd expect...(but they do).
Now while I can't deny the film is a nice gentle old fashioned type of yarn it is extremely basic and largely unimpressive visually. I realise its more of a character piece than effects extravaganza but there really isn't much to soak up fantasy wise. It doesn't help me especially because some locaions they filmed at the start, and the castle, are not far from my folks so it didn't give me any sense of wonder. There are some nice locations most definitely but it all looks too real if you get me, not much like a fantasy realm.
The film works mainly because of the characters, well some of them. Elwes is the perfect well spoken Flynn-esque hero without a doubt, he has good comedic timing and spoofs the classical silver screen hero very well. He virtually plays this character again in that Mel Brooks Robin Hood film. Wright is the perfect blonde fairytale Princess, utterly stunning! Sarandon does the slimy evil Prince to a tee and for me the best of all was Wallace Shawn as the low down crafty 'Vizzini'. Such a shame that Shawn's character dies so early on as he's the best thing going on in the film laughs wise. There are various other famous names in here too but for me they felt forced. Peter Cook's silly clergyman lisp just fell flat on its face, Mel Smith's Albino dungeon keeper felt out of place and not particularly funny whilst Billy Crystal was clearly Billy Crystal in makeup and not in the slightest bit amusing.
Had this come out now I don't think it would do too well, or any better than it did back in 87. The whole idea has been done and drained by a certain green orge plus other animated flicks. Back in the day the idea of a spoof fantasy was a bit more original but even then it didn't fare that well and I'm not really surprised. I can see how this might not have appeared very enticing to cinema goers at the time.
There is little to no violence so its perfect for the younger viewer whilst adults can enjoy the soft satire. Even though this is the epitome of a true fairytale I can't really say its a rich magical experience because there isn't much of that going on. Its a pleasant cozy ride that will relax you and not put any pressure on the brain. A pure organic tale but also rather underwhelming.
'Inconceivable!!'
6/10
El Gringo (2013)
One of many straight to DVD films that Scott Adkins has churned out in between the odd big movie. This film seems to have gone down a few routes here, firstly its clearly a nod to classic Clint Eastwood 'the man with no name' films, there is a strong Mexican style spaghetti western vibe here. Secondly its clearly a Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez wannabe flick, the editing and general style is obvious. Thirdly it could be seen as a film project by Adkins to try and prove he's up and ready for a role in the next violent Tarantino/Rodriguez flick, cast me! cast me!. And lastly it might just be a simple homage to all of the above, but I doubt that, riding on the coattails probably.
In all honesty its not a bad film but its not good either. We spend the first ten minutes of the film watching Adkins trying to get a drink of water from all the local oddballs in town. Then we spend another ten minutes or so watching this really annoying young girl trying to steal Adkins bag of cash. This happens not once but numerous times, its annoying, time wasting, for Christ's sake just look after your flippin' bag dude!.
Most of the film is forgettable accept for one gun battle sequence slap bang in the middle. I can't deny I was impressed with this, it was awesome! spectacular in its bloody bullets to the head violence. A touch of kickboxing from Adkins but mainly a rollicking gun fest as he pops bullets in a stream of bad guys whilst running around tight squalid alleyways. It is a real adrenaline rush I kid you not, lots of bloody squibs and absurdity as he takes out blokes with a shotgun that are well out of range I'm sure. The whole sequence plays out like a Call of Duty online game actually, visually it has that frantic wham-bam feel plus Adkins goes around picking up weapons from guys he's just taken out, one after another.
The other COD inspiration if you ask me is that all the bad guys have this gangland warpaint on their faces in the form of a simple skull motif. Their faces are white with black around the eyes and cheekbones giving that COD: Ghosts appearance. The main bad guy looks the best of course, he also looks like a young Raul Julia too.
It is a bit of a shameful artistic and stylistic rip off from various other sources but it still manages to hold together. Adkins isn't the best actor on the block by any means but he's a good action star as we know and his fights get more impressive with each film. The finale to this film is pretty damn awful I won't lie, it builds up to something massive but ends up a wet squib, very disappointing. Other than that I recommend watching for the gun battle midway through, its worth it, just try not to have an epileptic fit with all the flashy quickfire cuts and editing.
5/10
Guns, Girls and Gambling (2012)
First thing that hit me here...this is a rip off of '3000 Miles to Graceland' surely, it even stars Christian Slater who does yet more Elvis mincing. On top of that guess what...its another crime heist, but this leans more towards the comedic side admittedly.
Ah Mr Tarantino you have a lot to answer for, so many films now use your jumbled up crime plot route its ridiculous, and here we go again. A group of Elvis impersonators are after a native Indian relic, so are some crooked cops, a cowboy hitman, a female assassin and a crime kingpin called 'The Rancher'. They all think Slater has it but he doesn't, no one knows who has it and naturally they're all trying to kill each other left right n centre.
This film follows the trail of so many other heist films these days. It starts off randomly with sub plots and main plots that link into each other later. Characters are introduced like a videogame with their names popping up on screen alongside hokey graphics which looks so tacky now. All the characters are cliched unoriginal and mundane...'The Rancher' who looks like 'Boss Hog', 'The Cowboy' 'The Chief' 'The Indian' 'The Blonde' all speak for themselves really, oh geez!. Then of course you have the four Elvis impersonators, an Asian, a black midget, a homosexual and Gary Oldman who clearly can't do Elvis impressions.
The film pretty much consists of all these characters running around shooting at each other and beating up Slater. The comedy attempts to be quirky and witty with freeze frame moments, flashbacks, bits of dialog on screen and a lot of silly hammy action and one liners. I must admit some of the gun action is quite good, there is some blood and gore at times which does make the film feel better than it should...or more exciting anyway. Had this been a PG-13 it would have been pretty tiresome, just like the Red franchise. Obviously they included a hot blonde female assassin in a figure hugging black catsuit to attract more viewers...OK OK it worked.
As with a lot of these straight to DVD crime heist flicks its an ensemble cast which is impressive, clearly everyone thought they might be in the next big crime comedy. Powers Boothe, Oldman, Jeff Fahey, Chris Kattan (where has he been?!), Tony Cox and Slater, OK so a few big names and a few B-movie stars. And if you haven't already guessed, as with many of these types of films, there are plenty of twists and turns as the ending looms. I would say its keeps you on your toes but you know damn well there will be twists, its so predictable, you know the main bad guys and the main good guys will have plot twists.
We've seen all this stuff before time and time again, Hollywood is running out of plot ideas quicker than you can say Hollywood is running out of plot ideas. The only thing here which is remotely interesting are the Elvis impersonators, but even that has been done before in '3000 Miles to Graceland' and much better. There definitely needed to be more of Kattan as 'gay Elvis'.
4/10
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Being one of the worse box office bombs ever isn't a good start really is it. Yet to look at the trailer, the sci-fi fantasy aspect and the films title you could be fooled into thinking this might not be too bad. The title is pretty sweet if you ask me, definitely an 80's movie title right there.
The plot is set in 2080 and mainly on the moon which is now called Little America. A location where gambling, girls, criminals and all things seedy are rampant, a bit like Las Vegas in the old days. Eddie Murphy is a retired smuggler who runs a nightclub on the moon and wants a quiet life, but this is all messed up when some goons come along and force Murphy out by destroying his club under the orders of a mysterious kingpin. Its now up to 'Pluto Nash' to find out why, who is the man behind it all and try to get his club back, or what's left of it.
I think the first issue with the film are the visuals. The film is oldish but not that old and unfortunately the CGI effects are pretty poor. Shots of the moon, moving vehicles, the lunar surface and of course Little America just look average and obviously CGI. When we close in on the urban areas the sets aren't too bad in design but again its terribly obvious its all sets. It all looks like a very mediocre attempt at a 'Blade Runner-esque' grimy neon lit urban district. The colour palette doesn't really help with everything being grey and boring, yes I know its the moon and the moon is typically grey but come on. There were some nice 50's-esque designs on some buildings and vehicles though, there was that element throughout the film but it still felt drab and lifeless, virtually black and white.
Then you have all the interior sets, design and costumes...its all grey!! everything is grey! flippin' eck!. Not only that but the interior designs look so dated, like its all been reused from a 60's TV sci-fi show. I understand that doesn't necessarily make it bad, there are plenty of examples where films have deliberately gone down the homage route or retro design/vibe which can work wonders giving a great charm factor. The problem here is the film had a massive budget and you wonder what they actually used it on.
Take the robot character played by Quaid (and the maid robot character). What they have done is simply apply a lot of makeup to Quaid to give him a doll-like appearance, then he merely acts out the robot role. Now again this can be done and it can work but probably best in low budget films that have little choice. In a big production it just tends to feel lackluster, the maid robot was the same but dressed up in a sexy French number as if that makes it more acceptable. I did quite like the 50's sci-fi sense I got from Quaid's robot though, like a butch Robbie the Robot in human form...kinda hehe.
Whilst watching I also found the plot to be a tad confusing really, or at least it didn't make much sense because it was all a muddle of grey. There are a lot of character names flying about here, a lot of seemingly pointless stuff, aimless boring dialog and not much action believe it or not. We just move from one cheap looking grey set to the next with little to laugh, disappointing seeing as its supposedly a Murphy sci-fi action romp.
But is it? you think it is but its not really, its more like a 1950's nightclub murder noir homage, 'Harlem Nights' in space perhaps. I must admit to thinking of 'Total Recall' at times whilst watching, it has that kind of vibe going on, minus all the excellent action and blood of course. Do I get the feeling this was made and acted the way it was on purpose?...was it?! I'm not sure, I'd like to think that but deep down I really doubt it. I just think it was a poorly executed movie which had potential to become a bit of a classic. I can see why people might enjoy bits of it like Quaid's cheesy robotic performance and the minor visual gags dotted throughout, but end of the day this really feels like its trying to achieve what 'The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai' achieved.
I'm still not really sure whether or not this film was intentionally made like a low budget sci-fi B-movie for artistic reasons, or it just came out that way. The more I think about it, this might have worked much better as a short TV series, it certainly has the look and feel.
4.5/10
Pirates (FRA/TN 1986)
Back before Johnny Depp revolutionised the pirate movie with his camp ways there were the odd rum fuelled flicks such as this. Roman Polanski doing what he does best which is creating lavish productions that tend to not be overly successful at first but gain cult status.
The story is naturally a typically salty one involving Walter Matthau's 'Captain Red' and his young French sidekick trying to pinch a golden throne from some fancy pant Spaniards. At the same time there is of course a love interest for the young dashing French sailor, mutinies, plenty of galleon boarding from both sides and lots of skullduggery on land and at sea.
I think this film is very similar to 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' in the fact that its actually kinda dull but looks beautiful. All the pirates, especially Matthau, look as they should do, covered in dirty rag-like attire, greasy facial hair, deep tans, golden teeth...every bit the stereotypical swashbuckling sea dog. I was quite intrigued with the wooden leg Matthau's Captain has, it really looks like he has a real wooden peg leg! and this is before CGI folks, impressed. On the flip side the Spanish look perfectly rich, aristocratic, pompous, snooty and dignified in their very impressive duds. The wigs sell the whole look if you ask me, really authentic looking.
I was also very impressed with Matthau's cockney English accent. He genuinely does a sterling job with it and comes across not American that's for sure. At the same time Damien Thomas as the preening perfume smelling 'Don Alfonso' is by far the stand out performance. You can truly see the disgust and contempt in his face for the wretched pirate scum, I really enjoyed his peacock-like display of regal superiority.
All the characters and extras look great and are accompanied by some luscious tropical locations and some nice olde worlde period ports (real locations). Did I mention the ship yet? no? well lemme tell you, it looks awesome. Fully realised to scale with a working motor so it can sail, completely detailed from top to bottom with everything you'd expect to see on a 17th Century Spanish vessel.
Yep its all visually stunning with good performances but unfortunately that's about it. There is very little of interest going on plot wise, the film is way too long and there isn't that much swashbuckling going on surprisingly. This isn't a silly fantasy flick nor is it a historically accurate flick, but it does bring a more down to earth approach to the genre. There isn't much flamboyant heroics here ladies and gentlemen, more like backstabbing with every man for himself, more genuine. No way is it as bad as suggested and I'm not sure why it didn't do better at the cinema, its a solid romp. Think along the lines of Richard Lester's Three Musketeer movies but with less comedy.
6/10
Ali G Indahouse (2002)
Well alongside his fame and fortune Sacha Baron Cohen has also managed to achieve such a high level of notoriety with his urban character, that the actual town of Staines changed its name to Staines-upon-Thames to get away from the negativity. That's pretty impressive Mr Cohen, you made an English town change its historic name, is that funny?.
Like many TV characters that have reached the big screen this whole thing feels padded out, forced and struggling for material. Unfortunately this is no different despite being a brilliant and popular creation by Cohen. I think it was a bad choice to go down the actual movie with a plot route as we all know this character like all of Cohen's characters works better when lampooning reality. Seeing the highly naive and thick Ali G trying to strike a conversation with a real politician about current affairs only for him to lower the tone and go off on completely random filthy tangent is what its all about. Hearing Ali comment on his bitch 'Julie' or his various friends from Staines and the things they get up too is amusing to listen too, but to actually now see these people spoils the myth as it were.
Of course the biggest draw with Ali G is the highly accurate satirical mocking of young British teens (black and white) who imitate the American rapper gang culture. This is the crux of his laughs, his not so secret weapon, talking with this modern day slang cum multicultural cockney hip-hop dialect that is frankly cringeworthy to listen too when anyone speaks with it, especially white folk. Add to that his heavily Jamaican/Afro American/UK chav influenced streetwise attire with bling, tracksuits and big trainers and you have a great controversial character ready for upset public figures.
Thing is all of this is completely lost in the film because there is none of that, its just a silly bland plot about Ali trying to save a community centre in Staines. There are no funny clever stinging moments because its a scripted movie, instead they must rely on childish toilet humour which only works part of the time, its immediately unoriginal and loses all credibility. Coupled with the fact the cast is made up of big names merely sinks this project even further, big names equals no risks, no proper laughs, no awkwardness or embarrassing moments, its all played safe which is not what Cohen and his creations are about.
Now I would be lying if I said there were no funny moments in this film, there aren't many but they are there. For me personally the best and most recognisable lampooning of my home country would be at the start of the film when Ali is 'street racing' in his hyper modded Renault down the high street. This very short sequence is extremely amusing because of the stringent UK road laws and the fact we have to drive at 20-30mph everywhere. Watching these two uber modded cars crawl down the high street at 30...pulling up sharply at the 20mph speed board is hilarious, literately the best bit in the film.
Its actually reasonably funny during the start of the film whilst Ali is within his home territory of Staines and his mates. After that as we follow him to Westminster it just loses any fresh comedy hopes and becomes so derivative, the character of Ali G does grow somewhat but only in the wrong way. Instead of the chavy boorish dunderhead we all know and love we end up with some Americanised superfly looking pimp that just feels too much of a stretch even for this character. We all know about the typical UK traits that Ali G represents, we all roll our eyes at the image he portrays because we all see it in our daily lives, that's why its so funny. If you take that away and go down another countries cultural route then your target audience won't relate to it anymore, simple as that.
In the end this film has just gone too far over the top with the character and its just not funny. Had it been a mockumentary style flick like 'Borat' then it would have worked I'm sure, but this option doesn't. Its basically puerile with dated stupid visuals gags and must resort to showing Charles Dance in drag to try and raise a laugh, and it fails at that. Such a huge huge error for the direction of this film that has resulted in a very very average outcome.
4/10
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Overall Grade: B+
One of the best and more thought out stories so far in the MCU. Apart from some overly ridiculous "action moments", this is the most grounded and realistic MCU film; even more so than the Iron Man movies. Unlike others here, I thought the "Winter Soldier" subtitle is worthy. Each appearance of the brainwashed baddie comes with absolute destruction and precision. I felt he was given adequate screen time though some may find that viewing the first one is required since a lot of this film builds off that and is somewhat more of a continuation of Steve's adjusting to the modern world.
Necessary Roughness (1991)
So...is this an episode of Quantum Leap following the constant adventures of 'Sam Beckett'?. No?! well it sure as hell seems like it as the ever cuddly Scott Bakula portrays the same character he's always ever portrayed with the exact same haircut too...geez dude!. So lets not beat around the bush here, this is the late in the day 'Major League' clone that shamelessly rips every cliched idea from that film whilst attempting to look all innocent by turning it into a college football flick.
The plot is different of course, but end of the day it still involves a coach and his assistant trying to muster together a half decent team which ultimately ends up being a bunch of misfits, freaks, girls and Scott Bakula. From there on we get all the regular sports cliches and predictable fluff such as the team losing all the time, losing faith in their coach, a soppy romance, a rival team of assholes, the resurgence of the team and one man behind the scenes taking joy in the teams failure and trying to amplify it.
I think the problem with this film other than the fact its a lame clone, is they simply haven't created any fun characters to follow or care about. As I've already said Bakula plays the same character he always does, then you have a bloke who thinks he's a samurai warrior, the nerdy guy with specs, a huge Samoan guy, an Aussie?! (why would an Aussie be there?), a black guy who can't catch, a ex-military obsessed bloke, a female kicker and finally the hilarious comedian Sinbad...add sarcastic quips here. There are of course other faceless jock meathead players also.
Hell to even make sure they copied every single aspect of 'Major League' they even have a light-hearted announcer for the games...and its Rob Schneider! oh the quality. I really shouldn't keep going on about the similarities but its impossible not too! just look at the films poster, its identical in every way! unbelievable!.
The only big change in this film is the team doesn't actually win any league or championship in the end, they lose a load, tie a game and their final game of the season they manage to beat the top team but that's it. They presumably still end up near the bottom of their group or league, so we don't get the obligatory montage of wins when they turn their game around. What we do get is a sickly bit of crap when their coach goes into hospital of a suspected heart attack just in time for the final big game against the top team. We then get a vomit inducing scene where second in command Loggia tells the team to go and win it for the coach, possibly his last wish on Earth. Personally I thought this was all a set up to get the team to play well, or at least Loggia's character was exaggerating the illness and the coaches last words on purpose. Nope it was all for real, the illness isn't as bad as suspected, but the shitty cliched corny attempt at a rousing emotional scene was indeed for real.
This really is a prime example of an early 90's straight to the videoshop piece of turd trying to leech off the success of another earlier franchise. There are literately no redeeming features anywhere I can think of, its not funny, its not cheeky or rude as suggested by the poster, you have no interest in any characters, even the game sequences aren't very good or exciting...its just poorly made trash that didn't need to be made.
2/10
You are one prolific movie watcher Hubbs.
Kick-Ass (2010)
The world of the visually violent comicbook movie probably first kicked off with 'Blade' way back in 1998 (honourable mention to the 1989 Punisher), although this film wasn't really ultra violent and filled with profanity. After that along came 'Watchmen' which offered a very realistic take on the superhero genre and was pretty gritty. Since then there hasn't really been that much until this graphic novel adaptation popped up with huge amounts of real violence and bucket loads of naughty words. It was like 'Robocop' for the comicbook genre.
The actual plot isn't any different from your average superhero flick. Its basically an origins tale showing how a young 'Peter Parker-like' teen gets to grips with his life and sets out to become a superhero after making his own suit. There is no emotional death of guardians to push our hero along here admittedly, this guy just wants to fight crime but ends up getting in way too deep.
The angle for this creation is the fact its set within the real world where people do get hurt and superheroes don't actually have super powers. Its a concept that may feel totally milked these days but back in 2010 it wasn't...that much. The character of 'Kick-Ass' is just a young male teen in a scuba suit with modifications and a couple batons, when he starts out he gets stabbed and beaten almost getting himself killed. The characters he meets up with later in the form of 'Big Daddy' and 'Hit-Girl' are also merely regular people but with good fighting and weapon skills. The bad guys they fight are normal everyday thugs, pimps, drug dealers, robbers and mobsters, its simply the real world.
This is why the film is such a breathe of fresh air (for the time) and so intense. When we see fights going down we know its all for real and the heroes can't rely on any super powers or super weapons, anything could happen technically. Sequences such as...Hit-Girl kills a whole bunch of black drug dealer dudes with many amputations, Kick-Asses initial bloody brawls, when Big Daddy and Kick-Ass get captured and are beaten with bats and of course the excellent adrenaline rush when Big Daddy takes down mob boss 'Frank D'Amico's' warehouse of goons, are all brilliantly directed and visually slick but red raw with bone cracking realism.
There are of course your typical superhero-esque visuals at times, some over the top martial arts and the odd moment that will challenge your suspension of disbelief. I guess that is bound to happen in most flicks of this nature just to add that tiny bit of fun fantasy, but in general this film is down to earth, seedy and gritty as hell. Despite the fact most of the characters are just kids, the film certainly isn't for kids with limbs and bullets flying, blood spurting everywhere, Hit-Girl swearing like there is no tomorrow and some nut crunching beat downs. The scene where Big Daddy is killed is especially dark and quite harrowing really, its shocking at first.
Most of the characters aren't anything too special really. The stand outs obviously being Johnson as Kick-Ass who crosses between the obligatory comicbook character geek and a reasonably tough superhero (at times) really well. Moretz grabs your attention merely down to her age truth be told where as her character feels more like a lethal Christmas elf. But its clearly Cage as Big Daddy who wins the day for me, that brilliant Adam West sounding voice and 'Batman-esque' outfit, quite amusing. I would like to see a film centred around his character.
I must also quickly mention that this entire idea may well have been pinched from the 1999 goofy superhero comedy spoof 'Mystery Men'. That film is all about a team of superhero wannabes that don't actually have any super powers but must somehow defeat a supervillain who also has no real super powers. The film is set within a realistic universe that visually copies and slightly mocks Gotham City but no one in that world actually has any super powers. So 'Kick-Ass' follows suit but goes down the violent route with dark comedy.
Its a controversial movie for sure, what with the very young Moretz playing the loose lipped Hit-Girl and dressing in that slightly disturbing school girl outfit near the end. Oh and the fact she goes around slicing and dicing bad guys willy-nilly accompanied by a weird light-hearted music track at one point. Add to that a film that portrays all these youngsters getting involved in such brutal violence yet the film almost makes it look like fun n games in silly outfits. It did raise eyebrows when it came out and honesty I can see why, but personally I think these are the things that make the film stand out giving it some epic originality.
I loved how they stuck to the source material (relatively), I loved seeing Kick-Ass starting out and getting his head kicked in, seeing him slowly get somewhere even though he isn't actually any good then being stupid enough to create his own Myspace. The film really does the origins thing well and makes you invested in the hero, you find yourself really wanting him to succeed and at the same time seeing how risky this field of work would be in reality (in case you ever thought about being a hero). The only thing that let it down for me was the very ending where things got a bit too superhero-ish and comicbook-like losing the dark realism. Easily one of the best graphic novel/comicbook adaptations and it wasn't watered down, they kept it as it should be.
8/10
Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991)
I do believe I saw this film at the cinema having no clue what it was about, I merely loved the visuals the trailer threw at you. Much like the original film I again watched this over and over during my youth and loved the adventure. You can clearly see from the first scene this film has totally gone down the colourful comicbook visual route but at the same time has opted for a slightly darker approach. The first film was fun for all ages but this time the bogus journey is aimed more for teens methinks.
This film is truly manic and a full on rollercoaster of thrills and spills. I do love the design and style of many aspects we see, the futuristic neon outfits at the start are a nice look. And despite the cliched idea I did like how the bad guys are all in black when everyone else is in heavenly white, the black costumes against the neon and white looks quite striking actually.
Its gotta be the imagination that earns the kudos mainly, even though much of the film is messy and too convoluted for its own good the variety of creations is a joy to watch. I really enjoyed the hijinx the pair get up to once they are killed by the evil robots, the evil robots themselves are seemingly a cheap get out of jail free card for less work by using Reeves and Winter in duo roles, but the small special effects we see when they remove their skin is fudging awesome. I really dug those transparent robotic exoskeletons we briefly see, they were really well done and always reminded me of those old transparent Competition Pro joysticks.
I think the epitome of this film and franchise is the sequence where the dead duo possess Ted's policeman dad and his Sgt. The whole effect is a seriously cheesy and now dated CGI visual trick that back in the day looked really sweet. From there on we get a fantastic little performance from Hal Landon and Roy Brocksmith as they take on the stoned surfer personalities of Bill and Ted.
From this point on the film becomes a surreal voyage into the afterlife with some neat visual tricks and nicely crafted ideas. Of course we all know the highlight of all this is William Sadler as Death, or the Grim Reaper. Best bit in the entire film has to be when Bill and Ted challenge him for the sake of their lives and they all end up playing board games like Twister and Cluedo. I think we all can agree seeing Death get upset and trying to cheat is fan-fudging-tastic!. it doesn't really get much better than this in all honesty, Death seems to go a bit camp as we progress and takes a back seat to the mayhem.
I must say I still don't quite get what the point of the devil scene was. The duo land on this boulder suspended in mid air by a chain, there are also many others in similar situations around them. The Devil seems to be in control of the winch that drags these boulders in towards this giant fire breathing dragon head with jaws that crush the boulders. But what's the point of all this? why is the Devil just standing there doing this? are these unfortunate souls suppose to be burnt up when dragged into this gaping fire breathing maw? and why did the Devil let the duo escape this fate by climbing off the boulder at the last minute?. The other thing that made me think was the way the duo escape their own personal hell's. Does this mean that Death is more powerful than the Devil? because he just bails them out easy peasy. Must say I did like the rubber suit and makeup used for the Devil, pretty intimidating for a young persons film.
As we near the big finale which is again another stage show setup, things get even more wacky as ideas bustle for screen time. Bill and ted make good robots of themselves helped by 'Station' who is a pair of identical genius aliens they brought back with them from the afterlife in heaven, Death also tags along. Again the hands on suit effects for these robots are really nicely done, deliberately tacky looking but well performed by whoever underneath with those robotic movements we've all seen. Station the alien fares less favourably as he looks kinda evil to me, he's pretty ugly and when he speaks his mouth doesn't really sync up at all, its a bit basic really. And why we needed that morphing of the two I don't know, very odd inclusion.
End of the day I prefer the original film over this bright hyper dream-like comicbook offering. Back in the day I would have said the opposite as I preferred this sequel back then. I guess it was all the big bold effects that won me over back then, the wow factor and being very young. Now I'm older and much much wiser (ahem) I can see that the first film has much more charm, a way better beat tapping soundtrack, its funnier with better performances and its just more enjoyable overall. This film is visually more impressive and has more action as such, but its just not as funny or as clever with its casting. Winter clearly gets better here whilst Reeves clearly gets worse...all he can do is bob his head around like a lunatic and pout from behind his curtain style locks. That selection of amusing cast members for the original really boosts that film even though its a little bit more childish.
'Bogus Journey' is bigger and bolder for sure and to that extent it gives the viewer what they paid for. In my mind they kinda sacrifice funny performances and charm for in your face effects. The effects and imagination are excellent for the time don't get me wrong, but if it wasn't for Sadler as Death this film would be sorely lacking in the character department. Its definitely a film of its time and I don't know what kids today would think of it (probably think its a Turtles rip off), but in my opinion bigger with more money doesn't always mean better.
7.5/10
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft259%2Fphubbs%2Fphubbs3%2Fbatbj3_zps13360c01.gif&hash=0eeb9024ac1b70a385f72365614b1944cc3b444f) (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/phubbs/media/phubbs3/batbj3_zps13360c01.gif.html)
Borat (2006)
(Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan)
'Yagshemash!'
The second film in the Cohen trilogy based on his original character creations that we all saw within his Ali G show. Now even though these characters are all very clever creations and work well within the BBC comedy, the films varied. Myself I always thought Ali G was his best and funniest creation offering killer satirical comedy, but the movie of that character turned out to be quite poor and not overly funny surprisingly. 'Bruno', his third film and final original character was easily the next best character offering outrageously embarrassing homosexual tomfoolery, the film also lived up to that brilliantly.
Borat has always been somewhere in the middle for me, the character never really came across that funny on the Ali G show with the small sequences, I thought it slowed the show down. Of course his character is suppose to be simple, backwards, slow, dull, dated etc...that's part of the stinging gag that Eastern Europe is slightly primitive and centuries out of date (dare I say medieval? yes I dare). But working with this angle can also be risky as the jokes can be slow coming and childishly simple, Borat himself being on the same intelligence and life experience level as a child to a degree (when outside his native country).
So it did come as a surprise when this film actually turned out to be very very good, very amusing, highly awkward to watch at times and totally beat Cohen's first foray into the movies in 'Ali G Indahouse'. The main change to the programme here is the fact the plot is strung together around individual sequences showing Cohen making an ass of himself in dreadful cringe-inducing situations. Unlike Ali G where the film was spun into a proper full blown story with actual characters that you didn't care about whilst ruining the background myth of Ali G at the same time. This film merely introduces a sidekick who directs Borat as he goes across America making a documentary for the benefit of his homeland Kazakhstan...oh and searching for Pamela Anderson.
So just like the little sketches on the Ali G show we see Borat meeting various Americans, visiting various places of interest and generally showing himself up as the innocent wet behind the ears traveller who has no clue how to conduct himself in the modern western world. This film easily tops the TV show sketches for embarrassing moments, its like a car crash...you know the rest. Some of the things we see are just unbelievable, apart from much blatant racism against Jewish folk (Cohen's favourite), we meet a racist all American cowboy at a Texas rodeo who accuses Borat of looking like a terrorist down to his moustache. More racism in the South as Borat tries his hand at etiquette lessons (again) from some clearly well to do religious white folk, the funny twist being Borat's fat black hooker girlfriend turning up at the door. Full scale nudity of course, can't not have a bit of full scale public nudity (oh geez!), breaking stuff in a Confederate heritage museum (more obvious racial undertones) and finally assaulting Pamela Anderson in a Virgin Megastore (that shows the films age!).
Being America it is too easy for Cohen, the targets are so obvious and so simple to set up...racism, all American jingoism and homophobia are always gonna be his weapons of mass embarrassment. He sets his sights on these and hits them spot on, be it an old person, a young person, a famous/political person or even a crowd, Cohen can tease xenophobia or discrimination out of anyone with his naive questions and general approach.
While the film does feel more like an extended version of the TV sketches that was to be expected. It was also expected that whatever Cohen got up to here it would be bigger and bolder than ever before, that was certainly achieved. It starts off slow and ends kinda flat but unsurprisingly those are the sequences where Borat is a character within a films plot, its only when he ventures into the reality of everyday America that the film comes alive. Unfortunately the film is riddled with offensive moments which will and have upset many people which I can understand, unlike South Park the film isn't an animated cartoon so it feels more intense.
To a degree you could say that all the commotion surrounding the film only goes to prove it did what it set out to do, Cohen hit the nail on the head. Most will know of this character and Cohen's antics from TV, you know what to expect and get what you pay for, if you don't like this guys brand of humour then you know not to see this, it will offend. Although I do wonder how some of these people carry on their regular lives after being somewhat exposed in this film, that is if they are not actors of course, its actually very hard to tell in my opinion but I'm sure some may be. After the disappointing Ali G flick Cohen pulls it back and produces a great slice of wince-inducing shameful humiliation that will leave you with a sheepish grin plastered across your red face.
'Dziekuje'
7/10
Brüno (2009)
The third and final film of Cohen's main trio of characters he created for the Ali G show on TV. After the disappointing movie of Ali G Cohen wisely opted to stick with the plot formula that he used for his second film Borat which was a success. Like Borat this film is again a series of cringe-inducing sketches/setups strung together by a flimsy plot which doesn't really matter, its all about the embarrassing sequences dotted throughout.
The story follows Brüno as he travels to America to try and become the biggest gay star or celebrity ever in any way possible. There is only one other character along for the ride and that is his assistant 'Lutz' who was created for this film. So the plot has a familiar core in that once again Cohen's absurd character is travelling to the States to basically humiliate himself in any way he can...unknowingly on purpose.
This film is exactly the same as Borat's film in structure and execution basically, both characters follow their TV roots as we see familiar setups in various locations. Brüno is mainly set in and around LA, I think, as we see him attempting to become the latest hot thing on the scene. As you would expect much of this consists of hugely embarrassing and awkward scenes where he tries to make his own chat show pilot and gets upset at the focus group reviewing it, interviewing and trying to seduce an American politician (Ron Paul) who angrily storms off after Brüno takes his pants down in front of him and a fantastically funny scene where Brüno visits a spiritualist and mimes performing oral sex on a dead gay ex-lover.
But wait there's more, Cohen takes it even further this time as his character adopts a black baby and goes on an American TV show which just happens to be full of African Americans. He then exposes parents of child models by asking what they are willing to allow their kids to do for a gig, unbelievably these parents will seemingly allow their kids to do anything as long as they get the gig! Nazi uniforms anyone?. Of course this being the wild US Cohen can't resist the old deadly trio so easily found in America...homophobia, racism and American jingoism or extreme patriotism, and Cohen goes for the throat.
Its so easy to offend someone in the US with homosexuality...especially when two half naked men are trapped together in bondage and roaming the streets. Then again going to Christian faith gay converters and trying to chat them up won't help you're case much either, neither will going on a hunt with a bunch of redneck hicks and sexually harassing them whilst flirting with one of them. The best bit has to be the cage fight match where Brüno and Lutz face off against each other but end up making out in front of an enraged southern redneck crowd! Makes you wonder how they got out of there alive.
But wait, there's even more!! not only does Cohen upset the Yanks he also flies to Jerusalem to upset his own people! The sight of all these religious folks faces as Brüno swans around in his revealing camp attire is hilarious and the moment he is chased down the road by some Hasidic Jews (or very touchy religious Jewish folk at least) is mind boggling. How much of these sketches are real is difficult to tell in all honesty, whilst in the Middle East Cohen's character supposedly upsets a Mossad agent and a Palestinian terrorist leader (asking to be kidnapped!) which you'd think could be a very dangerous thing to do in reality. So it does beg the question was it real or setup? you kinda get the impression it wasn't quite as genuine as the US based stuff.
As you all know the character of Brüno is homosexual (did you notice?) so the film heavily features a lot of homosexual jokes, visual gags and naturally the obligatory bits of nudity. Where as in some countries like the UK you could probably get away with much of this stuff as the general public would probably just laugh at it, in the US its very different and Cohen knows it. Manipulating Americans seems to be Cohen's forte and he does it so well.
I think this film is probably the best out of the three personally, its much more riskier and certainly more in your face with all the homosexual references (full on cock n balls in your face actually). Many of the sequences are very funny, very offensive, very clever and very daring...we all know Cohen has balls of steel. As with all of Cohen's work its not gonna be everyone's cup of tea that's for sure, if you didn't enjoy Borat then this isn't gonna change your mind about Cohen. The film can come across as more homophobic than anything at times, so it depends on whether people can look past that. On the other hand if you liked Borat (and to a lesser extent Ali G) then this is you're lucky day as this is bigger bolder and badder than ever before.
7.5/10
Spider-Man (2002)
Hey anybody remember those really old Sam Raimi Spider-Man films? you know there were three of them and I think they were quite popular at the time. Ah who cares now we have a much better rebooted franchise which isn't exactly the same right? errr yeah, sure.
Yep so we still have these old Raimi films, they won't vanish or anything. But before tossing these old Raimi films into the bin of film oblivion lets discuss how dated and so not cool they are now. So its film one and naturally we get the origins of Spider-Man/Parker and all the various characters around him. 'Harry Osborn' is trying to maintain his company and experiments on himself with their new performance enhancing vapour drug stuff to try and keep the important military contract which is dangling by a thread (oh and he's already building the Glider and special suit combo too for some reason). Low and behold it kinda turns him crazy as an unfortunate side effect even though it does sort of work. From there on out Osborn slowly turns into the Green Goblin and Spider-Man must defeat him whilst protecting his family and friends.
What made me giggle a bit was the fact that Parker goes to this genetics laboratory where he is shown all these genetically enhanced spiders. He of course gets bitten by one of them which has somehow escaped and it leaves a nasty little red mark. Now you'd think he would report that asap really, you've been bitten by a spider in a laboratory full of dangerous arachnids, might die here fella. Nope he goes home feeling ill, once home the bite has now swollen badly and he's feeling pretty ill it seems, time to call the hospit...nope it'll clear up.
After the discovery he can climb walls, leap around like crazy, fight etc...he then gets carried away and goes off across the rooftops like someone who wants to get spotted and exposed. Oh wait he doesn't wanna do that does he, kinda silly thing to do then really. On an honest note I did quite like the origin build up in this film I admit, its done in a nice light-hearted true comicbook fashion that is simply likeable. The effects used to show how he can see fights and things in slow motion works really well without actually having to use all that Zack '300' Snyder tomfoolery. Seeing Parker crawl up walls is an old but neat trick of the eye and its a nice touch to see him in his initial childish homemade outfit getting to grips with his skills. Not too sure how he made his proper outfit though, he just swings into one scene and its there, presumably he made it? how?? looks expensive.
Of course the effects for Parker swinging through the air are now pretty dated looking even though it doesn't seem like a really old film. The CGI is average and ranges from passable to down right awful at times, although the famous Spider-Man outfit makes it look better than it actually is. There is also some nasty use of bluescreen here and there along with some quite cringeworthy comical moments, or should that be attempts. Even the photos of Spider-Man taken by Parker for the 'Daily Bugle' look completely fake which was amusing. It is a comicbook adaptation of course so there is a very limited amount of graphic violence or blood on screen, there are some edgy bits though no doubt but overall its actually handled well and holds that balance just right, in other words this isn't an infantile flick.
The Green Goblin was a hot topic at the time due to the fact it wasn't actually the Green Goblin, it was a man in a suit. I must admit now I think this works OK, at the time I didn't like it and I can see why as you kinda feel cheated (bit like The Mandarin in 'Iron Man 3'). But watching this now I think it was a good move to show Osborn going nuts and developing a split personality, it feels much more realistic and gives much more depth to the character...like did Osborn ever really have control? should Spider-Man tried to save him in the end? etc...The Goblin suit is a touch off visually I gotta say, I think they could of done that a bit better, used some other green tones on there, maybe make his helmet a bit more striking. It did look more like a giant plastic suit for a toy character that some poor sod would be wearing in a mall for advertising purposes, a bit hokey. On the other hand the CGI and prop work for the Glider was fine I think, looked pretty sweet.
The film ticks along just fine really and the cast are likeable fitting their roles well. Maguire is a good Peter Parker no doubt but I still have a hard time thinking he's under the Spider-Man suit, luckily we don't actually see that so it could be anyone and probably is. Dafoe is the best thing in the film by far with his scene stealing scenery chewing performance, not only that but his face is the perfect shape and structure for the Goblin too. When you see the Goblin swoop down you totally believe its Dafoe overacting all the way, I could almost say he saves the film because without a good villain this would have sunk, good CGI effects or not. I love the way he growls and cackles into the mirror with those devilish eyes of his.
The finale is daft I will say it now. How the hell does Parker/Spider-Man manage to hold onto that cable car full of kids with one arm whilst using the other arm to stay clinging to the bridge is beyond me. Its there I also realised that his spider web squirty stuff is also damn strong it seems...really damn strong! The actual final fight between the two main characters is decent enough though showing Spider-Man battered pretty good with blood!
In my personal opinion this is a better film than the recent rebooted version, its a much easier fun going Spider-Man adaptation with more comicbook-esque visuals. There are silly moments and bits that don't work sure, why on earth they stuck Macy Gray in there I don't know because that dates the film badly and her voice is annoying, there are a few Superman-esque shots where Parker rips his shirt to reveal the Spider-Man logo, Sony product placements! and 'Mary Jane' only recognises Parker as Spider-Man by his kiss?! wut?! what about his voice?! The Green Goblin's attacks are also completely inconsistent as one minute he uses bombs and vaporising bombs to kill, the next he throws some whirling blade things when he should of used the bombs that would have worked very effectively. It is certainly pretty cheesy and pantomime-like looking back but hey that's fine, I found myself enjoying this film much more than I recall back in the day and like I said I also enjoyed it much more than the reboot.
7/10
Quote from: BANE on Apr 08, 2014, 12:43:01 AM
You are one prolific movie watcher Hubbs.
I love that you got ignored as he was too busy watching movies haha :D
Quote from: Alien³ on May 15, 2014, 04:26:20 AM
Quote from: BANE on Apr 08, 2014, 12:43:01 AM
You are one prolific movie watcher Hubbs.
I love that you got ignored as he was too busy watching movies haha :D
Sorry my time be precious hehe yeah but sorry didn't mean too.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)So after the massive success of the first film and fears about a low budget horror director taking the helm put to rest, amongst other things, we get the obligatory sequel. A second chance for another Spider-Man thriller with better effects, better sets, better costumes, better CGI...better everything, but still just a tad exactly the same as the first film.
Two years on and 'Parker' is trying to cope with his daily grind, his love for 'Mary Jane' and of course being Spidey. Ah but wait, Peter Parker let me introduce the rather stocky 'Dr. Octavius' and his obvious pending disaster he calls a self-sustaining fusion reaction. Before you can my Spidey sense is tingling it all goes tits up as the experiment goes errr...tits up! and the Doc becomes a dastardly baddie hell bent on...umm doing his experiment all over again for some reason.
Yep the introduction of Alfred Molina was yet another brilliant bit of casting as his performance as the calm methodical Doc Ock (along with his perfect build and looks) save the film from becoming rather mundane. Just like the first film the villain is the winning ticket and gives this adventure a shot in the arm which is so clearly required. Now I'm not saying this film was bad but the strangest thing...back in the day I always preferred this film over the original, but now the tables have turned and I find myself enjoying the original much more. I think the problem with this film is it really starts to lose its sense of semi realism and my suspension of disbelief goes right out the window.
Now I always though Spider-Man was merely a regular guy with extra strength, speed, endurance and jumping ability, along with the few special skills of being able to climb walls and shoot gooey web stuff. But he was still able to get hurt, cut, bleed and generally die. In this film Spider-Man is virtually invincible and practically as strong as the Hulk or Superman so it seems. I mean really...he's falling from massive heights and slamming into walls and cars, he can hold up huge metal structures, lift incredible weights and stop a runaway train with his gooey web stuff and arms! Was Spider-Man always this powerful??
There are also some really silly hokey issues dotted throughout that bugged me. Doc Ock hides out in the one and only run down shack in the middle of the harbour and it stands out like a sore thumb, no one ever thought of looking there? even when the lights were on? When Doc Ock robs the bank no one notices him just standing there right next to the vault door in his long trench coat, hat and shades looking pretty suspicious. Oh and how do you hide four giant mechanical arms under a coat? Why does the Doc go from being a decent human being into someone who would kill innocent people? even when he's got the arms fused to his spine or whatever he's still the same guy, but for some reason he suddenly decides hurting people is the way to go. Plus when the Doc goes to see 'Osborn' for the tritium why didn't he just force Osborn to hand it over instead of agreeing to get Spider-Man in exchange for it, surely that would have been easier and saved time.
How does the Doc get all that expensive equipment? I know he pinched some cash from the bank but that wouldn't cover it. Plus how was it delivered?! didn't anyone notice all this stuff being delivered to this abandoned building in the harbour where no one goes or lives? didn't anyone think it was odd or suspicious? And what on earth was his experiment about?? what was it for? what would it do? it just felt like an outrageously diabolical device just for the sake of being a diabolical device. If he managed to finish it then what? would he become a good guy again? all he wanted to do was finish the experiment so its not like he was trying to do anything bad, and the experiment was suppose to be for the good of mankind right? maybe let him do his stuff?
The special effects in the film were an improvement over the first film but again looking back they still look a bit dated. Seeing Spider-Man swing through the city (but what the hell is he attached too?? its hilarious!) is looking much better but most of the shots were we see Doc Ock walking along via his four mechanical arms are really bad at times. The entire runaway subway train sequence is really dodgy looking nowadays, the fight on top of the train and seeing the Doc throw those obviously bad CGI people from the train...blimey its bad!
So yes the action is bigger louder and more impressive than the first film but the CGI effects are way more obvious to me, far more hokey looking. Close up shots of Doc Ock and his arms are fantastic, the way the arms lift him up, the way the arms look...all brilliant, but the bad outweighs the good I'm afraid. There is so much dodgy CGI and bluescreen work in here, the sequence where Parker rescues the little girl from the burning building, rescuing 'May Parker' from the Doc halfway up a skyscraper made me cringe especially, the car being chucked through the cafe window etc...Oh and why does Parker seemingly lose his Spidey powers halfway through yet gains them back again from nowhere? what was that about?!
Surprisingly I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would...and I'm honesty being honest here. Molina is superb as Doc Ock and the action is deserving of kudos for the ambition, but visually it lacks quality in my opinion and there are lots more silly niggly bits that stand out to me. This sequel definitely felt more along the lines of a Schumacher Batman flick at times, its reasonable fun but the original still easily surpasses it.
6/10
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
So I think the main number one big ginormous flaw in this movie is the fact they use too many villains and plots, I'm sure we can all agree on this. Way back in 1992 a certain young Mr Tim Burton had free reign to create the sequel for his smash hit 'Batman'. In doing so he stuck in two main villains alongside his own creation...The Penguin, Catwoman and Max Shreck. This seemed to start a massive trend that has continued to this day! Following on from this initial idea many or most superhero flicks seem to have at least two villains as standard, sometimes more! and this is where this film implodes.
First villain is Venom, now this alien creature crashes to Earth in or on meteorite out of nowhere and that's it, we get nothing more on it at all. No idea where its come from, how, why, what its intentions are, why its doing what its doing etc...its just there and you gotta accept it. Whether or not the comics give us this information I don't know (although I'm sure they do), but here in this film its a solid mystery for anyone who isn't a comic fanboy, myself included. So back story and the way this character is played out in the film is new to me, I have no idea if its correct alongside the source material, all I know is how this thing looks and it did seem well created to me. The CGI was decent and seemed to capture Venom's appearance well although why it would alter Spider-Man's spider logo seems daft, it infects his outfit and body, why would it alter the logo?
Second villain was the Sandman who I know was bumped up from a minor comic position to a major role revolving around Parker's uncle. Now again whether or not this was the right way to go if you're a fanboy I don't know, as for the rest of us I felt the story arc did work pretty well and developed the Sandman into something other than just a common baddie. This character now had a good solid family arc combined with an emotional connection to Parker which did feel a little forced admittedly, like a clear after thought, but it managed to hold together. I also liked the visual design for this guy, he had a distinctly old fashioned feel about him, like a criminal from the 40's. The characters musical theme really pushed that vibe if you ask me, a very Bogart-esque tune. I liked his outfit too, again it had a very old fashioned look about it, like something Gene Kelly would wear.
The final villain squeezed into the film was 'Harry Osborn' as the next Green Goblin, following on from his fathers work. Now I had no problem with this character being here because he's been here since the beginning and it felt right that this story arc should happen. Unfortunately along with the other two villains it all felt so convoluted and tight for space that the poor old Goblin was reduced to sporadic appearances. Well they all were really, Venom especially so, that thing vanished for half the flick. The Goblin gets conveniently injured right at the start, after a horrendously bad CGI battle in the sky with Spidey, and we don't see him again for ages. Its the same spiel as before with this character, just replace Dafoe with Franco, same action sequences, new outfit that's all (looks worse too). So in that sense it seemed weak but you knew he had to be there, if anything they should of dropped Venom as that really seemed crowbarred in, jostling for any kind of screen time.
The other problem I had with this film other than the multitude of villains was the relationship between Parker and Mary Jane. Oh my balls this got annoying, first they're together, then they're not, then they get back together again, then Mary Jane sluts around with Osborn, then Parker again, plus you've got 'Gwen Stacy' in there too...holy ribbons of snot!! I got so fed up of seeing Parker and Mary Jane fighting whining and crying Jesus. Plus the fact Mary Jane gets fired from her stage show after one performance seemed a bit ridiculous and is obviously done to crank up the annoying emotional relationship issues. Then you've got all that crap where Parker goes to the dark side due to the Venom alien. Parker as a dark character apparently translates to a lame looking emo hairstyle, a bit of goth eye shadow and then acting like 'The Mask' in a nightclub, what an embarrassing mess that was!
I must admit to being disappointed with the effects this time also, is it me or do the effects actually get worse after the first film? Seeing Spidey swinging from rooftop to rooftop is still sweet, Venom was cool and the Sandman had some great effects in places but the action sequences became very hard to follow with fast moving terrible looking CGI. As I already said the initial fight between Osborn and Spidey was awful looking, but the big finale was just a shambles of shoddy CGI and greenscreen, a lot of it looked very obvious to me. Also not so sure why or how the Sandman is able to grow to such massive proportions or fly, how does sand enable that?? and he kinda looked like a big lump of poo.
I honestly think this is the most over stuffed flick I've seen for some time (or ever), it really is so overloaded and overly long. Stands to reason this effects the film negatively which is a shame seeing as this franchise hasn't been too bad. The best bit in this film for me was probably the amusing cameo from Bruce Campbell (again!) doing his best snappy snooty French maitre d'. Seems incredible to say that I know but it was a fun little scene, everything else was a mess frankly...apart from the odd visual moment.
There are huge periods where characters disappear from the film entirely so other sub plots can continue (Sandman and Venom), Osborn and Parker end up fighting over Mary Jane instead of Osborn's dead father, Osborn's butler is a horrible 'Alfred' rip off, the guy acting in the role is dreadful plus he only now in this film tells Harry about how his father was really killed!! And lastly even though the Sandman's story arc worked OK and has a good heart it did feel like they were trying to rewrite the original film. So definitely ambitious and not a total complete disaster but clearly one bad guy would have worked out better, we now all know Venom was only stuck in there to maximise the audience due to the characters popularity. I understand that but really they should have known better...well I say that but this is Hollywood,
5.5/10
Van Helsing (2004)
Pretty much the ultimate modern day homage to all the classic Universal monster flicks of the 30's and 40's, more specifically the few monster mash movies that were made including all the legendary monsters. Stephen Sommers takes his own hammy over the top Indiana Jones-esque schlock style from 'The Mummy' franchise and plumps it firmly into the Transylvanian homeland of Dracula, no CGI sparred. Oh and Kevin J O'Connor is brought along too yet again.
The plot? Van Helsing must do battle against Dracula and his minions plus werewolves and Frankenstein's monster...the end. This really is such a tough film to review for me, we all know Sommers from his Mummy films and we all knew exactly what to expect from his directing. This guy revels in complete tongue-in-cheek schlock action which is usually realised through heavy use of CGI. Its an old saying but think Indiana Jones but even more ludicrous, even more silly, even more quickfire quips and outrageously over the top everything. We all know this and going into this movie we again...all knew this, we knew it would be nonsense of the highest order, so I simply cannot complain about the fact the film is a total load of hammy cliches. I knew it would be! the only reason I wanted to see the film was simply down to the content...Universal's monsters.
This is the only reason why I had to see the film and why I give it kudos of any kind, the pure unadulterated fantastico monster mashing. But again I'm hampered! yes again!! the reason being I absolutely adored the concept behind this, the art direction, the atmosphere, the sets, the lighting, the use of that olde worlde Victorian steampunk style etc...but there are so many things about the film I hated and wanted to change. So many ideas that just begged to be awesome but the route they chose killed me artistically!
The monsters...ah those epic monsters...what the hell did they do to Dracula?! seriously! Could they have gone any further away from how this character should have looked at least. Sure Roxburgh does a good job with the role and stereotypical accent but his look...holy crapenstein! the Prince of Darkness looks like a rock star with that camp hair and God awful earrings. Yeah you could say that suits his style but the film is set within 18th Century not the present, it feels all wrong. They do get his Brides kinda right in monster mode at least although they seem to be dressed in Arabic style attire to me in human form, at least they are suitably hot although totally cliched with a blonde, a brunette and a redhead (why am I even saying cliched here?).
The werewolves look fantastic in wolf mode, love the thin pointed Batman type ears and overall colour schemes. Hated the transformation process though, instead of morphing they rip their skin off or shed which just doesn't seem right to me. That sorta indicates they would have multiple layers of skin going on and on plus what would their actual origin form be because there would always be another form underneath if you get me. The continuity is also off with the transformation because in some scenes their form seems to melt off.
Frankenstein's monster has a nice touch of the olde worlde steampunk theme going on about his person. I liked the jets of steam coming from his leg hinges/hydraulics and the metallic body sections, almost cyborg-like, but I didn't think much of the green CGI electric current on view in his head plates...bit too far there. On the flip side Van Helsing sports the usual superhero-esque long trench coat, broad rimmed hat and face hiding scarf in a dark brown colour scheme, but his weapons have a lovely steampunk style to them with a nice old fashioned cogs and wheels mechanical aspect (18th Century remember). Van Helsing feels very much like a historic version of 'Blade' and 'James Bond' rolled into one, and of course to complete that air of coolness he has his nerdy bumbling sidekick who supplies him with all his monster killing gadgets.
What I really couldn't get on with was the quite bizarre 'Alien' rip off where Dracula is trying to raise an army of his minions who have been incubated in 'Alien-esque' eggs! Apparently when vampires mate they create a sort of flying Gremlin/gargoyle type creature...in an egg, does the female vampire lay an egg or something?? The only way to do this is by using power generated from Frankenstein's monster? I think that was the game, beats me why. I also must ask why Dracula has hordes of little munchkins wearing gas masks as his henchmen, who the hell are they suppose to be? surely other vampires or zombies or something would have been better. Oh and where exactly is Dracula's icy fortress suppose to be? the good guys go through a portal of some kind to get there...sooooo is it not in Transylvania?
There are many bits that I could mention that frustrate me and force me to nit pick, I know its a daft Sommers film but it could of been a classic Sommers film had these things been different. There are VAST amounts of CGI throughout the film which at times work but at others look dreadful (more so than 'The Mummy' films, quality and quantity wise). Things like the little Transylvanian town at the start, Frankenstein's castle, moody skylines, werewolves, Dracula's Brides and some gore look really neat. On the flip side there is the entire action sequence finale where things get so absurd and incredible as the heroes leap around between these towers with ropes, seemingly invincible to everything that the film becomes a hyper cartoon. Again I know you're meant to leave you're brain at the door but really, some of the feats pull you right out of the film they are so super ridiculous. I also hated the awful looking CGI enhanced vampire jaws when vampires in human form roared or hissed showing their fangs. Why is that necessary? just use makeup and their real mouths! it looks like something out of the Mortal kombat films ugh!
A guilty CGI pleasure though must be the all out badass battle between a werewolf Van Helsing and Dracula in full winged demon form. Its a total CGI fest of course but these two monsters are pretty sweet looking and I simply can't resist it, just what a monster mash requires, almost on form with a Godzilla vs King Kong face off...almost. So yes the entire thing is practically 'The Mummy' in Transylvania but if you're of a fan of this classic genre then it should still win you over. Ironic that the film may have been even more spectacular if they had squeezed in a few mummies and maybe a creature from the Black Lagoon, overkill? nah that comes as standard with Stephen Sommers.
6/10
X-Men (2000)
Well this certainly feels a bit dated these days, the very first X-Men film, the backbone of the modern comicbook adaptations craze, the one that started it all. Had this film not done as well as it did then we possibly wouldn't have all the superhero flicks we have today. Heck just looking at the films poster shows how far this genre has come, its positively awful, bland and extremely unimaginative, the two groups just standing there against a city skyline, eh?
I remember this coming out back in the day and I recall pretty much poo pooing it as an obvious looking lazy CGI filled cheese fest. Upon seeing the film I didn't actually like it all that much, mainly I think down to the lack of decent action. Low and behold yet again my personal tastes have changed with age and I find myself actually appreciating this film a lot more now. The plot naturally includes the origins of certain main characters and the introduction of the X-Men lead by 'Charles Xavier' and his school for the gifted (mutants). We are also introduced to the bad mutants lead by 'Magneto' and his dastardly plan to turn all the world leaders into mutants presumably so they know what its like to be a mutant.
'Storm? Sabretooth?...What do they call you? 'Wheels'? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard'
The general plot may be simple but I do like the easy to understand similarities with real time age old issues such as prejudice discrimination and plain racism. Magneto's ('Erik Lehnsherr') family were German Jewish and killed by the Nazi's during WWII, so he had first hand experience of the effects a madman can have in power, himself being a Holocaust survivor. Ironically though Magneto himself turns into the thing he once survived and fought against as here he wants to exterminate the human race to protect the mutant race. Whilst Xavier wants to gain peace between humans and mutants Magneto is constantly trying to start a race war between them, not too subtle but hey it works.
The main thing I notice with this first film in retrospect is how much dialog there is and how little kickass action there is. There is a heck of a lot of exposition to take in as we learn about the various characters and their individual flaws and powers etc...But that's not to say its boring, not at all, its actually delivered very well and you want to know more, meet more mutants and see their powers. The action is sporadic and not exactly top dollar in all honesty, we mainly see 'Wolverine' getting into the odd scrap, mutants going up against the police but not killing any and the finale at the Statue of Liberty gives us some semi decent one on one action but the CGI and wire work is pretty hokey to be fair. Prime example being the scene where Wolverine does a 360 spin around a section of the Statue using his claw...looks real nasty.
Most of the characters are really well visualised and well cast there's no denying that, twas the worry at first, that these guys would all look ridiculous in their silly costumes. But no! almost every character is realistically designed and performed. The main three of course being Stewart, McKellen and Jackman all brilliantly cast adding such a classy authentic epic feel to the comicbook tomfoolery, Jackman being the main surprise as he was completely unknown. At the same time Marsden, Berry and Janssen also come across in a surprisingly believable fashion, none of these actors ever really come across as hammy which is some feat in this. The only characters that let the side down visually has to be 'Toad' and 'Sabretooth' both of whom look totally daft.
I'm not an X-Men fanboy so I don't know the ins and outs of the franchise but some things I do find a bit silly. For a start Toad is just a pointless character, his tongue, jumping and spitting green goo are his mutant super powers?? how is he useful? how does he crush a human by jumping on him? and why include him in this film?! The main main running quibble I have throughout has to be the invincibility thing going on. Wolverine especially is virtually unbeatable, you can't kill the guy so it seems pointless to have him fight at all, we know he can't die or get hurt. Then there's the fact that most mutants seems to be super strong...but why? OK they have unique powers but is a side effect to this automatically having super strength because they all have it apparently. How come Magneto can fly? he can manipulate metal but how does that enable him to fly? and how the hell does 'Rogue' get through even one day without being able to touch another human? Her super mutant power seems utterly pointless and more of a curse than anything surely as she can kill real easy.
In the end the film does start to crack towards the finale as things do get a tad stupid, inconsistencies with mutant power abilities, the fact no one notices all the commotion going on at the Statue of Liberty, all the destruction, 'Mystique' doubling as the Senator but showing her yellow eyes etc...I guess the main thing that made me think was simply...Magneto is kinda right, mutants should be very weary of humans, maybe not wipe them out but you can kinda see his angle, humans are a violent dangerous unpredictable species. On the other hand I dunno why he worries so much because in any war the mutants would win hands down.
The film isn't your standard comicbook flick gotta give it that, its not light-hearted silly kids stuff, there is a good solid serious tone to everything that does combine well with this material. Dealing with mutants as people who are treated differently because of their looks or abilities is a strong concept that many will relate to. Visually everything generally is quite realistic and doesn't look like a comicbook movie. The black leather outfits, big rich 'Wayne Manor-like' X-Men school, fancy super hi-tech gadgets/equipment and big black super jet are all cliched sure but obviously you need some fun fantasy elements. Despite being 14 years old this film still holds up well today and even better it still blends in with the whole X-Men franchise which has since moved on big time.
7/10
X-Men 2 (aka X2, 2003)
So Toad and Sabretooth are dead and buried then it seems, guess they weren't that popular huh. Not surprising seeing as they were the worse characters from the last film. So after the unexpected smash of the original film we got this sequel adding more characters, more effects and a bit more much needed action.
Moving on from the first film we discover now that Magneto has been tortured into giving up vital information about Xavier's school for mutants by the nasty new bad guy William Stryker. Stryker and his team capture Xavier and plan to create another Cerebro so they can brainwash Xavier into wiping out all the mutants of the world with his mental powers. Now is the time...the X-Men and Magneto's naughty mutants must join forces to save all mutant kind.
Everything kicks off nicely with the cool introduction of new character Nightcrawler, who is performed with a likeable heartfelt sincere persona by Alan Cumming. Its a good start to the film because not only do we get a slick sexy Matrix style ass-kicking sequence courtesy of the Crawler, but this guy looks good, he's accurate to the source material and simply feels very fresh and original especially with that German accent. The one thing I don't get about this guy is the fact he can only teleport when he can see where's he's teleporting too. Surely when you teleport to anywhere you can't see where your going right? so what difference does it make?
This film clearly tries for the 'Empire' tone by making everything quite dark with lots of pending doom and gloom. As we all know the film also ends on a downer with major character Jean Grey kicking the bucket, new boy Pyro switching to the dark side and Wolverine discovering some of his bleak past plus having to fight another similar mutant. In general the whole team are feeling like shit come the end of the day plus they no longer appear to be safe in their 'Wayne Manor-esque' home.
But not only this we also get a much more violent film than the safe fast cut first flick. When Styker's men storm Xavier's mutant school armed to the teeth with automatic weapons we see Wolverine tear into some real hack n slash action as he rampages through the building slicing n dicing soldiers left right and centre (finally!). We also see a hint of mutant power from some younger students at the same time. Of course there is no blood or guts anywhere in the film but we do see Wolverine piling into bad guys impaling them pretty good with no cuts. This sequence to me shows another possible Nazi angle again as a community of 'different' people are invaded, rounded up and taken away from their home by armed soldiers, not even women and children are left.
I liked how the story develops Pyro Iceman and Rogue together as they come to terms with their powers plus adolescence. The scene where Iceman outs himself to his parents is a cute scene with very real message which some folk will relate to. Some nice little touches of humour admittedly but its all very tame and easy going. The fact Iceman is obviously the good guy and Pyro is obviously the quick tempered bad guy feels a bit too simple, amazed one isn't wearing blue and the other red whilst fighting over Rogue. I didn't really like the inclusion of Lady Deathstrike though, she felt unnecessary and merely there just for a showdown with Wolverine at the end...which she ultimately was as she did nothing else the entire time. She's in and out quick, a sidekick that's killed off neatly, only there for the visuals and adding to the character roster. The fight was also completely lacking in any excitement because we know neither of these characters can be hurt, this being a problem with these films at times, invincible people fighting each other.
Although I must admit I liked the concept of Stryker using his mutant son to control other mutants with a serum from his brain and the fact he induces Xavier into almost killing off everyone. OK sure the fact they managed to built another Cerebro seemed far fetched as I thought that was a special contraption that only Xavier and Magneto could devise but none the less it worked.
I don't deny the film is dark but maybe it tries a little too hard? I'm not trying to nit pick but it does feel a bit forced especially when Grey didn't really have to die as far as I can tell. The jet wouldn't start due to a malfunction, so Grey goes outside and protects the jet from the tidal wave of water whilst using her powers to start up the jet. Why didn't she just start the jet up from inside or am I missing something here? I think I am missing something aren't I...??? Anyway it kinda felt odd that she dies in this way as if to try and create this iconic emotional death which I didn't really feel, it just seemed like a daft waste (and to kick start the Phoenix plot).
Everything does feel a bit clockwork to be honest, there aren't any major surprises really (you can see things a mile off) but none the less it does hold your attention to the end. The visuals are on the whole much smoother and glossier than the first film, the actors are really getting into their respective roles, multiple characters are handled well by Singer and the film is also a highly positive encouraging shout out for gay people, teens, underachievers, outcasts, bullied people and any minorities on the whole. Although I still don't get how that highly advanced metal detector that scanned everything on and in the human body didn't pick up all that iron in the guards bloodstream, oh well.
7/10
X-Men: The Last Stand (aka X-Men 3, 2006)
So what happened to the Nightcrawler? he was a good soft centred character with potential in the last film, what the Hadoken?? So yet again after the following smash success of the sequel, which may or may not have been a surprise, we get the trilogy bookend to the saga. Naturally we are pummeled with lots more characters, even bigger set pieces, even bigger action and various big deaths scenes, oh and Brett 'Rush Hour' Ratner takes over the reigns...which means it could well stink.
Plot time...Worthington Labs announce the cure to mutantism, well a drug that will suppress the mutant gene in mutants. This of course could be good news for certain mutants like the awkward Rogue (don't listen to Storm sheesh!), but for ultra cool mutants like Magneto, Wolverine, Iceman etc...it sounds like the worst idea since Brett Ratner took over the reigns for this third film. The 'cure' comes from the genome of a young mutant boy so obviously Magneto sets out to kill the boy with his alternate (not exactly evil in the evil sense) mutant army, only the X-Men can stop them.
I don't get the humans in this saga though, surely having people like this around with these powers would help mankind greatly. Sure there would be problems but on the whole if peace is kept as many want then the advantages for humans and mutants to work together would be astronomical! Plus aren't people amazed and in awe of these powers, hardly every day stuff is it.
So its back to more origins again and lots more exposition as we see how a young Jean Grey met up with Magneto and Xavier (I type Magneto because its easier than his human name) who have both had major CGI airbrush work done to their pretty faces. We then get to see a rather abrupt and brief origin for Angel which leads into some obligatory training sequences for the regular team followed by an intro for Beast and the steps being taken to find Magneto. Once the story skips through all this its back to Xavier's school again so we can have yet more origin chat as Beast visits.
One thing I noticed about Beast in this franchises continuity is way back in 'X2' we saw Beast as a youngish middle aged man in human form on the TV. According to comicbook lore (if we are picky here) Beast was actually one of the X-Men team from a young age I believe plus he was shaped like a gorilla. What we see of him in that brief cameo doesn't really match up although admittedly we don't see all of him. I would also hazard a guess that he would of been blue and furry by the age he looks in that cameo, like I say I'm just being picky.
This film feels more in tone with the original in the sense that everything is slowing building towards the finale. The plot is developed step by step in easy to swallow doses so each little story can expand and finally blend at the end. It does feel a bit slow admittedly but again it still manages to hold your attention well by slowly giving you more bang for your buck. Gotta be honest though some characters do feel squeezed in for no reason, Angel doesn't really do much, he's just there for visuals where as Multiple Man is around for one booby trap/gag moment.
There also seemed to be some tomfoolery with the Omegas group involving big visual changes and sexual gender alterations. Not that that's a problem as Omahyra Mota as Arclight was an inspired casting choice but the others felt very generic and bland looking. Not really sure how Kid Omega's power of being a mutant porcupine would come in handy unless you do the only thing he does in the film which is kill someone by hugging them. Its also these guys that start to mention mutants in class divisions depending on how powerful they are...where did that come from?
I find Pyro hilariously dumb in this film though. This guy goes around acting all tough and macho when confronting new mutants despite not knowing what they can do. For all he knows they could kill him easily with their unique mutant power, all he can do is control fire! geez dude don't be such a plum. Another stupid point was after Xavier gets obliterated Beast suggests the school close...eh?! why you big blue goon! surely the best way to honour him would be to keep the school going, no way Xavier would want it to shut down, go plait your hair sheesh!
In general everything is fine up to the big showdown where for some bizarre reason Magneto decides to detach and use the Golden Gate Bridge as a crossing to Alcatraz. I mean yeah it looks impressive and fancy in all its CGI glory but really? why not just use a large boat or fly...most of you all do that. Plus that may give you more stealth for the attack. The actual main battle is reasonably well directed and sorta utilises everyone but the fact the soldiers have the cure in gun form does make a bit of a mockery of it all. Yes many mutants get 'cured' but I don't really think any of them would stand a chance with all that stuff flying around.
Its all pretty much the same again but with nicer visuals. Beast looks awesome and is portrayed really well by Grammer, Grey in Phoenix form does look pretty good to me and her story fits OK as far as I'm concerned although I know some fanboys didn't like it. Wish we knew exactly what happened to Cyclops though. Everyone else is on good form and haven't varied from their previous performances so its all good in that sense (Juggernaut is a bit iffy looking though isn't he, not sure why they cast Vinnie Jones there) and as I said there are some big characters getting kicked to the curb throughout and towards the end which was very cool I can't deny. Not quite as classy as the previous two sure, but it does the job...what else did you expect?
6/10
Edge of Tomorrow
2014, dir. Doug Liman
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.wegotthiscovered.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FEdge-of-Tomorrow-Poster-Crop.jpg&hash=30a45b56825c5820a40da76c70ed3ed904012b12)
Since 2002's The Bourne Identity, Doug Liman has established himself as a fairly competent action director, however poor scripts and production problems have often mired the quality of his blockbuster films. The aforementioned Bourne film was wrought with production issues, though ultimately salvaged by extensive reshoots, while Mr and Mrs Smith crumbled under the weight of its own star-power. And though Jumper featured some promising but pulpy sci-fi ideas, it unfortunately took them nowhere with a typically underwhelming David Goyer script (ie. piss poor dialogue and characters).
Liman's blockbuster films may pop on screen but they merely fizzle away on the page and from the outset the unfortunately titled Edge of Tomorrow (sounding more like an American soap opera than a sci-fi war film) looked typical of the director's oeuvre. The explosive Saving Private Ryan meets The Matrix aesthetic of the trailer engaged, while the already-done sci-fi take on Groundhog Day set up hung over the film like a damp rag. But with Edge of Tomorrow Liman has delivered where so many have failed, by bringing smart filmmaking to a simple story and refusing to neglect a sense of fun.
Based on the novel 'All You Need is Kill' by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, Edge of Tomorrow begins during the midst of a war against a race of alien creatures that have overtaken Europe. They're known as 'mimics' due to their ability to predict their opponents every move. Refreshingly Liman avoids covering the initial invasion almost entirely, introducing us to the situation through use of interviews and news footage. We're informed that humanity has begun to fight back and win in their war against these tentacled mechanical monsters. This is thanks in no small part to seasoned warriors such as Emily Blunt's Rita (or 'Full Metal Bitch' as the propaganda posters call her) who has tallied more confirmed kills than any other soldier. During this montage Liman introduces Tom Cruise's Cage as the media face of the military, who is seen beckoning young Americans to war with the promise (and grandeur) of a sure victory. Before the title sequence is over the players and world has been effectively set up. It's efficient, to the point and allows for cutting straight to the meat and potatoes of the story.
After the attempted blackmail of a senior officer, Cage's cowardice lands him in trouble and with a first class ticket to the front-line. Out of his depth on a battlefield that is increasingly looking like a well-planned trap and surrounded by hardened grunts that are counting down the remaining the seconds of his life, Cage stumbles from one action-beat to the next until meeting his inevitable demise. But by a twist of fate Cage is forced to relive the day over and over again, meeting his end in a whole manner of violent, shocking and often funny ways. That is until he meets Emily Blunt's Rita, who holds information that may help Cage both break the cycle and end the war for good.
Unlike Duncan Jone's Source Code (that other Groundhog-Day science fiction picture) there is no thriller style mystery to unravel in Liman's film. Starting from a similar platform, Edge of Tomorrow instead takes inspiration from Paul Verhoeven's Starship Trooper and James Cameron's Aliens, both in story and character (and not to mention an actor in Bill Paxton). Much like with those sci-fi classics, the marines here are all action and little thought military clichés, running gung-ho to their own slaughter at the hands of an enemy they've vastly underestimated. But whereas Starship Troopers has the dumb but strong Rico and Aliens' the overlooked but brave Ellen Ripley at their centres, Edge of Tomorrow's Cage is the coward who'd rather sit this one out, forced into action only when the inescapability of his situation becomes starkly apparent.
It is easy to hate such a yellow-bellied individual as Cage, and the film practically asks us to early on. He's cowardly, uncaring and knowingly admits to sending thousands of young soldiers to their deaths through his own propaganda tactics. By making him dislikeable, his many demises become an effective focus for comedy. But Cruise imbues Cage with just enough charm that one finds them self endeared to him as he grows. It helps that he has the always-dependable Blunt to bounce off in many of his scenes, providing the film with a couple of fleeting but decent emotional beats. Blunt's Rita is the core of the film; she gets the best lines, the best action and is easily the most likeable character on display. Her performance in Edge of Tomorrow had me asking the question, when will Emily Blunt become the blockbuster star she's been threatening to for years?
Despite a few ham-handed scenes of exposition, Edge of Tomorrow succeeds because Liman and his writing team (Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth) have focused their efforts on telling a simple story in the most engaging way possible, centring on timing and structure to deliver effective action, comedy and character beats. There's a great deal of knowing restraint on display from Liman, allowing for the same battlefield to feel fresh an hour in to the film despite us having witnessed the action a countless number of times. But for their attention to structure, Edge of Tomorrow's greatest attribute is instead its playful tone. In another filmmakers hands it would have been a grim-dark slog through murky battlefields with tortured souls as our guide. Instead it's a well-structured and fast moving roller coaster ride replete with action thrills and more than a few hearty laughs.
Rating: 4/5
Erik the Viking (UK, 1989)
Now this is a film long since lost in the annals of time. Much like the excellent 'Jabberwocky' movie by Terry Gilliam this movie has also been somewhat herded into the Monty Python film collection as a kind of extension to the Python universe. The same could also be said for the movies 'Yellowbeard' and 'Timebandits', unfortunately neither 'Erik' or 'Yellowbeard' are any good really and both fall flat, although this is better than the Chapman vehicle.
Inspired by Jones's own children's story book but strangely enough not following his own creation, the film revolves around Norse mythology although I'm unsure how closely, I doubt its that close. We follow Erik and his viking crew as they travel to Asgard so they may ask the Gods to end the age of Ragnarök. They all believe the sun has been swallowed by Fenrir the mighty wolf which has plunged their world into darkness. So its a travelling into the unknown type adventure which was very popular in the 80's.
I guess the main issue I had with this film (first time seeing it!) was the fact it felt like it was trying to copy various other movies in terms of visuals at least. The whole mystery voyage into the unknown and looking for mystical fabled items angle is cool but so very dated and to be really truly honest this film just felt like a combination of all of the films I mentioned above. The visuals aren't even that exciting really, most of the start is set within a drab dreary Viking village, then we move onto a drab and dreary sea sequence, then we get some exotic visuals but eventually its back to drab and dreary as they find Asgard. Most of the movie looks very cheap and cheerful too, the sea monster is quite nice and typically Python-esque but all sets and costumes (especially wigs) just look very tacky.
I realise Jones has gone for that simple dirty cheap look (classic Python look) but it comes across as a tired attempt. 'Time bandits' had the same kind of visual approach but it also had some good location sequences and an exciting story, this story of Erik didn't really grab me at all. I didn't feel anything for any of the characters, their journey seems too easy, they find their goal quite quickly without doing much, the Gods are just kids which was anti-climatic, nothing really happens during the adventure that is of any real consequence...no urges of pending failure and the finale is really very weak.
I can't even say any of the characters were good fun...the same old routines which have been seen before in better films. There is a strong element of forced comedy throughout the film which is never really that amusing. The silly goofy characters are just trying way too hard, a good example would be the entire sequence set on Hy-Brasil with Jones in a familiar high pitched speaking role. As for Robbins as Erik...he is miscast in my view, far too meek, not really good looking enough for the hero and with an American accent!...sheesh! what on earth was Jones thinking?! Not even the powerhouse that is John Cleese can help this dull tale, his portrayal of the evil 'Halfdan the Black' as a soft spoken good mannered pleasant seeming chap (basically Cleese playing Cleese or his Robin Hood character from 'Timebandits'), again just felt rehashed and out of place.
There are one or two nice visual moments like the Viking ship going over the edge of the flat Earth and as I said the sea monster (what you see of it), but that's about it. I found the whole thing rather underwhelming frankly despite the solid UK cast and alluringly cool little movie poster. Its pretty unexciting with little to care about and a terrible finale, there are better Python-esque fantasies out there.
3.5/10
3 Days to Kill (FRA/US, 2014)
So what's the deal then, first up Liam Neeson started acting in action flicks and being this aging gruff wrinkled badass, now all of a sudden its Kevin Costner's turn apparently. Just like Neeson...Costner now has a leathery wrinkled face with a nice gentle tan, lots of greying white facial hair and an overall generally scruffy appearance...your average over middle aged man's action man look.
The plots sees a dying former CIA agent (Costner) hired by another top CIA female agent/assassin (Heard) to bring down an arms trafficker. The reason Costner is dying is because he has brain cancer that has spread to his lungs, hence why he has been dropped by the CIA. The reason why Heard wants to use Costner is because he is the only living person to see the bad guys face recently after a botched undercover stakeout.
Whilst watching this I couldn't help but think that I recognised the visual style and uber cooly shot assassin/hitman/espionage theme. I know we have seen this type of stuff many times before but it all seemed very much like a Luc Besson flick to me...low and behold it was a Besson flick! The whole sultry sexy hooker-esque looking femme fatale angle was very familiar and positively wreaks of Besson's brain at work. Amber Heard even looks like 'Nikita' in some scenes towards the finale, that's not a bad thing as she does look hot but its just unbelievably unoriginal as Besson does the same thing EVERY TIME!
Another pretty big issue was the fact the film just doesn't know what it wants to be. The whole thing has that 'Leon' vibe running through it as the main character tries to juggle his hitman/undercover agent life style with his wife and teenage daughter. Naturally his wife hates the fact he works, or did work, for the CIA and his daughter has no clue. Most of the film time is spend with Costner's character trying to be a good dad and make things up with his wife, lots of father daughter moments, heart felt moments, flashbacks to childhood memories etc...its all very schmaltzy in places. Problem is this feels like a mess as its interspersed with sequences of high octane action with a sexual undercurrent whenever Heard is on the scene with her pouting full red lips and tight outfits.
So what is it? well its an action/assassin/undercover James Bond agent/slick espionage/drama/coming of age/teen thriller/redemption/comedy movie...you get that? Yep its got everything! thing is you don't want half of it and most of it is boring as hell.
I guess its down to the quite frankly laughable performance by a clearly seriously aged Kevin Costner who is obviously way too old for this shit. Yeah Neeson managed to pull off the wrinkled hardman act surprisingly well but unfortunately Costner fails at his first hurdle looking like he's about to collapse under the weight of his own ego. What made me laugh is the fact his character is meant to have this terminal cancer in his brain and lungs yet he looks fine! no problems here folks. On top of that the ridiculous plot notion of the Heard's character having some secret formula that cures cancer (or halts for a time) completely robs you of any suspension of disbelief. I hope Costner's character gets that stuff to the local hospital after all this.
So yes there are some nice plosions, car chases, fisticuffs and general espionage tomfoolery but who cares, we've seen this stuff a gazillion times over in far far better espionage movies...and crap ones. Naturally being set in France (Luc Luc Luc...shake it up a bit for Christ sake?!) all the lead cars are naff Peugeot's that somehow manage to keep up with top spec Audi's and all action sequences are set in stereotypical Besson locations...seedy night club, posh restaurant, posh club, the biggest seediest and most extravagant tattoo parlour I've seen, hotels and French downtown streets (I give you 'Ronin'). But as said this might not be too bad if it wasn't split up by lame ass sequences where Costner teaches his teen daughter to ride a bike, teaching her to dance, talks to her about boys, rescues her from yet another seedy night club, lots of heart to heart chats with the wife and daughter about being a better parent blah blah blah.
I realise the film is all about redemption and the main character becoming a family man again but Jesus...lets make up our minds shall we. Either you want a kick ass body count flick or you want a loving family man flick, while we're here it would be a good idea to decide whether the film is gonna be serious or just a daft light-hearted romp. At one point Costner's character is shooting an innocent bouncer in the foot in clear view of everyone! beating young men half to death in a night club and generally causing much death and destruction around gay Paree yet with no consequences at all...and its not half bad in a semi serious manner. The next minute he's got some bloke taped up in his bathroom ready for some torture and instead gets him to speak to his daughter about a spaghetti sauce recipe over the phone...oh the hilarity!
With the stupid little funny moments this could easily be one of those shitty Bruce Willis vehicles like 'Red' which tries to incorporate expensive big budget violence and laughs with an OAP in the lead. Bottom line we all know damn well this basically should of just been another Neeson vehicle, I guess Besson thought it best to change the lead OAP. Its pretty much Costner's attempt at the genre but unfortunately for him someone forgot to tell Besson to try and actually come up with something original and not constantly dissect and regurgitate his previous work.
4/10
Rio 2 (2014)
Another animated movie based on another species of animal, why? because they can and its another easy money maker. I'm waiting for an animated movie based on dung beetles and elephants...why? I dunno, they haven't milked them yet so game on, we're clearly gonna get an animated movie about every flippin creature on Earth eventually.
So the first film was set in Rio and I'm guessing this film will move into the rain forest? did you see that coming? So I'm guessing as the film is set deep within the Amazonian rain forest the plot will cover the destruction of the rain forest and 'Blu' and co becoming naturalised to jungle life...see that coming? Is any of this film even remotely original in any sense? does it even try?! the answer is no, this is merely the same formulaic albeit gorgeous looking CGI flick we've now seen about a thousand times.
So the film is a formulaic cookie cutter production and like other identical films there are a few positive things I can mention. Firstly the visuals are of course sumptuous, I mean really bright bold glossy colourful and extremely well animated. This is naturally no real surprise as these days CGI movies have reached a point where the skills and computer technology are in their prime, you expect them to look stunning, you know they will, its so routine that you could actually argue that people don't even notice the visuals anymore.
The other thing I like about these films is how they manage to highlight typical traits of the particular species in question, both behavioural and environmentally. This normally covers obvious things we all know about the specific species and their habitat, common knowledge, but also little winks or tit bits that maybe someone with that extra bit of animal knowledge might spot...which is cool. This normally also covers the various other creatures in the film too, for example the dart frog character being pointed out as not actually poisonous and spotting the various tropical birds hidden throughout the foliage.
In all honesty though apart from that most of this film is the same spiel all over again. You have all the same characters from the nerdy yet plucky hero who is utterly useless, the lively kids, the sidekicks voiced by various famous people, usually a rap star of some kind, to the stereotypically British voiced bad guy who sounds like Tim Curry and his own silly sidekick. Yeah sure there are some reasonable visual gags here and there but really the entire film hinges on the likable dastardly vocal performance of Jemaine Clement, everything else is dull. So cliche that 'Eduardo' the gruff father has a buzz cut style tuft on his head, is this Macaw from the 50's USA?
I must also be negative about the use of way too many song sequences, is it possible a new animated film can actually make it through its run time without one dreadful rap/hip-hop tune? no apparently not. It seems either Hollywood or kids these days love this stuff because every CGI animated flick seems to have some hip-hop or rap in it which instantly destroys any self respect or quality the film was aiming for in my opinion. Add to this the now statutory inclusion of rap/hip-hop/pop stars for voice work too, plenty of folk out there but yeah sure, lets use some bland untalented popstars just to lure in more kids.
I still don't get how this particular universe is suppose to even work, they are real birds and squawk or chirp when communicating with humans. They live like birds, eat like birds...do everything like real birds...yet Blu owns his own tiny GPS, electric toothbrush and various other tiny items that seem to have been made...for birds? Yeah I know I'm being extremely picky over a silly kids movie but I just couldn't help but think to myself...where would Blu possibly get this stuff from?? Quite liked how the word 'pet' is a dirty word for the birds though.
Business as usual then, wash rinse and repeat formula, safe but sorry, if it ain't broke?...or was it maybe broke from the start?? *raise eyebrow*. The finale is daft and kinda spoils what little the film had going for itself, its not like the film even mocks itself, it takes itself relatively seriously in terms of the adventure. Grandiose in the eye candy department, wetter than mackerels bumhole, friendlier than a very friendly fat handlebar moustached German in tight leather lederhosen, ecologically sound (and shoved down your throat) and with more cutesy critters than you can wave your gun at. Its the same as everything else but its about birds...and its a sequel.
5.5/10
Guest House Paradiso (UK, 1999)
Right lets get down to it then, this is basically the Bottom movie end of story, yeah sure there are the odd changes and snips around the edges but its quite simply Bottom on the big screen. Rik and Ade have played the same type of characters for their entire careers undoubtedly but these two fellas are clearly 'Richie' and 'Eddie' of Hammersmith, I think all the fans can agree on that despite what the guys say.
This works for and against the movie in my opinion. Basically we see the many of the same gags, pratfalls and violent slapstick from the TV show...and when I say the same I mean pretty much identical. The only difference is of course its been fleshed out on the silver screen with a better budget so everything looks slicker. Again this is not a problem essentially, I am very happy to see Rik and Ade knock seven shades of shit out of each other with the use of bigger and better effects...to a degree. But at times during the film I did find myself thinking they are rehashing too many old classic sight gags, verbal gags and violent gags and somehow it doesn't actually look as good!
How is this possible you might ask, well personally I think its down to the fact the TV show was actually more adult than the film and much more grittier. The constraints of the TV show elevate the material because it feels more anarchic and wild yet at the same time restricted, the stunts and effects are slapped together and seem really dangerous and realistic, plus the lack of any swearing somehow made it feel even ruder and filthier which I can't workout, the tempting hints I guess. In this film everything just seems a bit slow and tired, the guys are obviously not as young anymore but the fights and pratfalls just feel weaker and less inventive.
'Pheeb...One boiled egg.'
The sets in the film are nice and have that classic typically dated British seaside B&B visual atmosphere and vibe going on. Watching carefully I loved all the old set decorations strewn around the hotel like the old paintings and historic furniture. The kind of stuff your gran had when you were a kid back in the day, or even your parents back in the late 70's and 80's (if you're around my age). I also really liked all the little nooks, crannies and secret passage ways throughout the hotel which are used by Richie to spy on people and pinch things. It all adds more scope and depth to the setting plus adds inventive ways to create more laughs...which it does nicely in one sequence.
So the films visuals around the hotel do look good n grimy as you'd expect, certain props are used disgustingly well used for various painful moments and the sets are well designed reflecting that classic Bottom feel from the Hammersmith flat. The extra cast members are a solid oddball bunch that back at the time were relatively unknown but have now gone on to bigger things, most notably Bill Nighy and Simon Pegg. Neither of the pair actually have massive parts in the film of course as it all revolves around Richie and Eddie, but they add a much needed boost to the overall quality. Nighy probably gets the best of it with his face-off against Mayall in some classic Fawlty Towers-esque scenes at breakfast. Never really liked the character or performance from Cassel as it just felt way out of place really, other than that I still don't get why they didn't cast all their old school mates from previous shows, we get 'Spudgun' so what about the rest?
'Mmm Lady Diana Princess of Wales...slap me up you bitch'
Despite some great looking bits n pieces and some decent scenes of Mayall madness and campness, at the end of the day I couldn't help but feel slightly underwhelmed by the whole thing. I think like most folk I went into this with really really seriously high expectations from the pairs glittering TV career and basically the film could never live up to that. Don't get me wrong the guys have a bloody good go and the movie definitely delivers what you want from the duo in terms of crude crass vomit inducing toilet humour. I just really think this should of been a much stronger blend of their live stage show and the TV show, it should of been an all out adult comedy really. They try their best but it really feels like the laughs are being forced out after a bad spell of comical constipation. Was never too sure on that film title either.
6/10
The Siege (1998)
Well back in 1998 this entire premise seemed quite far fetched, virtually in the realms of fantasy by the kind of overly paranoid Yanks that stockpile guns and tinned food. Then unfortunately the unthinkable happened as America was indeed attacked and hit hard on their own turf with the dreadful September 11, 2001 terrorist suicide bombings of the World Trade Center in New York. It is only now that this film really does have a much darker meaning with the events of the movie disturbingly realistic when once thought of as hyper reality.
The story simply sees New York under threat from terrorists in random attacks across the city by an unknown force suspected to be Arabic. Its up to Denzel Washington and Tony Shalhoub to track down and stop the attackers before things get out of hand. Of course things do get way way out of hand as the attacks become more ferocious and the FBI's leads dwindle. In the end the military are drafted in as martial law is declared with Brooklyn locked down around the Arabic community.
Apart from the very real threat of terrorist attacks anywhere at anytime the films main focus is on racial profiling, hardcore stereotyping and prejudice. There is a strong morality tale between good and evil that not only covers the obvious but the use of Nazi-like tactics by American troops on Arabic/Muslim American citizens as they are rounded up and detained in mass makeshift holding areas. I really don't need to go into the obvious concentration camp connections here do I. But there is more as we also get Bruce Willis (badly miscast) as a Major General who is intent on getting information out of suspects in any way possible, illegally of course. Here you see the little twist of the Yanks being no better than the terrorists they are fighting, becoming what they fear and stand against, taking away the right to a court of law, innocent before proven guilty, liberty and justice, human rights go bye bye.
When the shit hits the fan and terror is taking control of the streets, power is granted to various officials, its then that we see the darker side of some people. Willis' character has the orders to basically protect his country and the American way of life by any means necessary, do what needs to be done whilst the upper echelons look the other way. Of course Washington's character stands firm and will not allow this kind of behaviour to carry on, there are still laws and rights. Gotta be honest though at times you do feel he is being too PC considering the circumstances, he's almost too heroic and saintly when in reality someone might buckle. The message is forced even more once Shalhoub's sons is also rounded up and taken away causing him to toss his badge. The message slaps you across the face sure but it works effectively.
This being a Washington movie you know its gonna be decent, you just know...and this doesn't disappoint. Visually its very slick and effective in getting across its now very realistic message. The only let down for me was probably Bening who didn't really fit her part in my opinion, she comes as someone more concerned about their hair looking right plus her plot setup with the Middle Eastern chap is too obvious really. Tension is reasonable but the film is a little too mainstream for you to actually start sweating over the outcome, its not like Washington is gonna bite the bullet is it, everyone else is fair game but not Denzel.
The ending is way too God bless America for my liking, although expected. Too neat and tidy as all the citizens are released with schmaltzy hugging scenes and Washington preaching about their forefathers and how they fought and died for the life they have today. He's right sure but it feels too much like an all American Boy Scout speech, you half expect the Star-Spangled Banner to kick off with fireworks in the sky.
As said its funny how back in 1998 this all seemed so unlikely, the notion that the US could be attacked on their own soil in such a devastating way. This whole martial law scenario and the rounding up of specific people was always possible but it still felt more like an old World War II flashback. These days the entire aspect has come true to a certain degree although not as bad as depicted in the film, its a much easier prospect to see becoming a reality within the US these days that's for sure. In the end the story boils down to the terrorists winning on a psychological level simple because the US way of life has been changed dramatically. Justice and democracy have gone out the window, fear and suspicion sits in its place.
6/10
From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (1999)
So judging by the films cover you could be fooled into thinking this film was set in the 'Twitty Twister' and that Danny Trejo was a large part of the story. Alas this couldn't be further from the truth, this isn't necessarily a bad thing of course but they are clearly trying to hook your attention.
The plots follows a group of criminals who are planning a bank heist. The group are to meet in a seedy motel somewhere in Mexico but through various circumstances are attacked and turned into vampires one by one. During the heist the main protagonist discovers his mates are vamps and must fend them off along with the police force which turn up. In the end the film merely becomes a vampire vs police escapade with the lone surviving criminal teaming up with the Texas Ranger that was on his tail.
This second splatter fest starts off really slow and quite dull if you ask me, we merely follow Robert Patrick as he recruits the old gang for the heist. The group itself are a mixed bag and you can see they have tried to create that iconic team of hardass oddballs we've seen many times before. You've got a fat guy with a ponytail and goatee (the homosexual sadistic porn shop owner from 'Pulp Fiction'), an aging cowboy, a young innocent looking guy (Woody Harrelson's brother) and the stereotypical tough guy played by Raymond Cruz who kinda feels like a male version of 'Vasquez' from 'Aliens'.
Once things get going on the road trip it still takes its time and feels slow. There is a pointless cameo for the 'Titty Twister' merely so they can shove in Danny Trejo with an aimless subplot and so the crooks can start getting bitten. I still have absolutely no clue how Trejo's character is suppose to have survived the first film after being reduced to mush. This also tends to bring up the continuity issue of where are all the other characters from the first film? If Trejo's 'Razor Eddie' is still alive then surely all the other main vampires and fallen bikers are still alive and well too (or undead and well). Plus the vampire bar is clearly a bad small set and doesn't really look like the original films set. This was a real let down for the film seeing as the bar is the main money shot of the franchise, where it all happens so to speak.
The film really picks up when all the cops turn up to stop the bank heist and the undead crooks all go berserk. The whole story takes a U-turn and goes from dark vampire splatter horror to an over the top action bonanza with the four baddie vamps gunning down hordes of policemen and S.W.A.T. teams amidst exploding police cars. Remember when Arnie takes down all the cops and cop cars with his minigun in 'T2'? well this is pretty much identical to that accept there is lots of blood and body parts flying around. I can't lie, I really did enjoy this part of the movie as it really changes the pace of the film upping it drastically. The action isn't the best choreographed action you've seen but it does the job and its pretty neat watching these invincible vampires leaping around and taking down various armed police.
Like much of the film the effects are all hands-on real time effects using fake blood, prosthetics, heavy makeup, puppets etc...and like the original film it works giving a much grittier 80's feel to the proceedings. There is a touch of CGI for the melting vamp shots which is a bit hokey looking but again like the original film it doesn't detract from the nicely handled gore.
I did like this film once things started to actually get going with the vampires, but boy does it take time for that. Much of the run time is a bit dull in all honesty...until the excellent shoot out with the cops. It is a bit frustrating at times too as some shots are badly edited, the sets are pokey, location work is visually unexciting and overall it does look very cheap and cheerful. I can overlook that but geez! here and there it really looks poor. There is a small Bruce Campbell cameo at the start which really feels like its there just to gain more interest with horror fans as again it pointless. Basically most of this film is very average but the violent finale makes up for most of it. The final bit of dialog between Patrick's criminal character and Hopkins' Texas Ranger was hinting to set up a vampire hunting team possibly for the third film, I thought...guess not.
Cute bit of info, the character of 'Deputy Edgar McGraw' in this film is the son of 'Sheriff Earl McGraw' from the original film. In the original film Sheriff McGraw is played by Michael Parks who is the real life father of James Parks who plays Deputy McGraw in this sequel.
6.5/10
Quote from: Hubbs on Jul 28, 2014, 12:42:04 AM
Cute bit of info, the character of 'Deputy Edgar McGraw' in this film is the son of 'Sheriff Earl McGraw' from the original film. In the original film Sheriff McGraw is played by Michael Parks who is the real life father of James Parks who plays Deputy McGraw in this sequel.
Both characters also appeared together in the first Kill Bill. :)
Machete Kills (2013)
Hey I just realised something that I forgot to mention in the original movie review. You all remember Rodriguez's film 'Desperado' right. Well isn't the character of 'Machete' first seen played by Trejo in that film? the dude with all those small throwing knives strapped around his waist, its virtually the same character.
Well once again this movie kicks off with those washed out, scratchy grungy 70's looking exploitation visuals. We actually get quite a neat little retro styled cinema introduction to yet another parody trailer for yet another Machete flick, this time in space. There is that same deep gravely voice narrating the trailer as the corny trademark infringing action explodes onto the screen accompanied by more cheesy action music and lots of hammy retrotastic onscreen text. Quite liked the little moment where 'Bleep' the robot played by Justin Bieber (not really) gets blasted to pieces.
From here on though the decision has been made to continue the rest of the films visuals in regular glossy Hollywood fashion dropping the rough grungy B-movie look. I'm not really too sure why they would do that seeing as that visual appearance is the whole point of the franchise, that's its quirky raison d'etre, without it the movie just becomes another daft action flick...only this is just absurdly ridiculous bordering on spoof-like. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens, this movie is so slapdash and crazy that you simply can't really enjoy it. All rules of reality and beyond go completely out the window as Machete is 100% invincible and can literately do anything that is required. Jumping from a great height out of a helicopter into a speed boat and taking out the bad guys on board...no problem, just press the X button and the right shoulder button to perform this special move.
Thing is you have the same issue when reviewing these type of flicks. I know its all been shot like this on purpose, I realise the extreme gory bullet ridden lunacy is part of the intentional charm, I realise the characters are larger than life and totally hokey and the whole movie is just a big insane comicbook of violence. I think we all know this, but at what point does it simply go too far and become shit? The plot really doesn't matter in this film (Machete vs Gibson and lots of various henchmen) as its entirely about the action set pieces, one after another, bigger and bigger, more and more over the top. Nothing matters in the film anymore because the protagonist is so God-like its all meaningless, its like playing a videogame with the infinite energy cheat on, fun at first but very boring after about ten minutes.
There are only a few positives with this film, one being the unique mix of casting (kinda). The first movie had Seagal as the main boss, this time its Mel Gibson...and I can't deny he does save the day. Seeing Mel play the Bond-esque villain is a real breath of fresh air and he clearly enjoys it. Lets not get carried away he doesn't really do much other than stand around and reel off cliched dialog but his presence is felt, he oozes a slick charm that just makes his villainy so watchable (despite it being highly childish nonsense). The moment he puts the silver mask on the film just sinks to yet another level of utter childish meaningless futile crapola...yet somehow its kinda cool. Why would his voice deepen with the mask on? why are his footsteps now like Robocop? why does he not treat his face before putting the mask on? and how does the mask not move around and feel really uncomfortable? Pointless questions I know but I gotta ask.
The rest of the cast are mainly the same as before accept we have more outrageous cameos this time. Lady Gaga as a hitwoman with a talent for disguises (I think)...this led to various little pointless cameos. Savini is back but has changed sides, Rodriguez still plays the tough bitch and still looks like she needs a wash whilst Charlie Sheen goes by his birth name to play the US President. Probably the second best thing about this film after Gibson, Sheen basically plays 'Charlie Harper' as the US President...which basically means he's playing his usual womanising self.
The best description for this film frankly is a violent adult version of Austin Powers mixed with James Bond. It sounds like a cheesy thing to say (or type even) but its true! you only have to see the last half of the film which is set in some kind of big weapons lab to realise what I mean. Hell...Gibson only needs a white cat under his arm and the transition would be complete. The only other thing I quite liked was the fact the ending is open and leads into the plot from the trailer you see at the start of the film. The down side of that is the worry they might actually make a third film called 'Machete Kills Again in Space'! This may as well be a comedy because it sure as hell would be a total spoof of damn near everything ever. Time to let this go I think Mr Rodriguez, you had your fun in the first film which was quite good, but this has now gone too far, its been milked and the moment has well and truly past.
4/10
shut your whore mouth
Spoiler
but tickle my balls
Quote from: First Blood on Aug 03, 2014, 03:55:25 AM
shut your whore mouth
Spoiler
but tickle my balls
Why is everybody wanting to sexually assault me in some way lol!
First Sweeper now you...geez get in line!
From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter (2000)
Well here we are with the third film in this violent vampire horror franchise. After the second film which was so so you'd kinda expect this to be a real stinker, how could they continue with little budget and little star status?? Well third time is most definitely a charm here because this adventure swings right around and is back on track.
What I really liked about the plot is firstly its a prequel (don't moan just yet) set in the sweaty wild west of Mexico and shows us an early 19th century 'Titty Twister'. We don't see how this location became a vampire hotspot or how all the inhabitants came to be undead blood suckers, this is merely another chapter within this universe. Trejo is back again as a supposedly younger 'Razor Charlie' but again we don't see how he became a vampire, but we now know he's clearly a very old neck biter. This whole idea actually works really well I think and fits into the mythology of the franchise perfectly.
The other fact I liked was the clever use of a real person from history. Ambrose Pierce actually disappeared without a trace back in 1913 whilst travelling with rebel troops led by Pancho Villa during the Mexican revolution of 1910. Pierce was a very well known writer and journalist amongst other things but his vanishing put his name on the map. In this movie they have used Pierce as the main character in a team of survivors fighting the vampire hordes at a very dated Titty Twister. The idea being that in this universe Pierce's disappearance is down to him entering the vampires den which is unknown to the outside world...as we know.
Now I do like this neat little spin on reality but for one thing (spoiler alert)...Pierce doesn't die in this film! He actually makes it out without as much as a scratch on him and carries on with his initial plans. So basically the director/writer kinda fudges up his cool plot premise, had Pierce died then it would have fitted nicely into reality because we would know he vanished from being killed at the Titty Twister. That being said I have read there is an alternative ending which does address this, haven't seen it though.
Anyway the film goes down the same basic route as the first movie accept this time there are a few sub plots with different people that all cumulate in the Titty Twister. The main story is about a group of outlaws with a female hostage on the run from a posse of soldiers. Once we get through all the rather dull plots that lead up to everybody getting trapped in the Twister, things do perk up tremendously. Again I won't deny its simply a rehash of the first film but wow do they go for broke this time! If you thought the original had madcap splatter sequences of gore then wait till you see this! The battle between various soldiers outlaws civvies and the hooker vampires is chock full of guts limbs and neck slashing. I was really impressed with the level and quality of effects makeup and stunts during these fights, its right up there with Rodriguez's first offering.
Admittedly its nothing we haven't seen before, you have a good idea of who's gonna get killed and the entire two for one movie concept surprise is obviously no longer a surprise. There is also a neat character tie in with the original film which is a small twist you don't see coming and Michael Parks returns again doing a solid job as Ambrose Pierce whilst having a slight Charlton Heston look going on. In the very end we get another cool pull back shot of the rear of the Twister showing us the sprawling Mayan temple that sits beneath. Its not quite as sharp as the first movies but its definitely a nice touch that brings everything full circle.
You really do expect this to be utter dribble, especially at the start seeing the tacky looking title credits, but in the end its a very nice surprise with some really solid effects and makeup which I must give kudos to. Its better than the second film but the fact they have just rehashed the first film is a bit weak, at least the second film tried for something more original. I would definitely give both sequels a whirl if you like vampires and heavy splodging gore.
6.5/10
The Monster Club (UK, 1980)
The title for this film and the poster are pretty cool, I wonder if Fred Dekker borrowed the idea for his movie 'The Monster Squad'. Anyway here we have another horror anthology (not Amicus) that's piece de resistance was having Vincent Prince and John Carradine star in the bookend story. Other horror (anthology) regulars such as Donald Pleasence and Britt Ekland also pop up but no Peter Cushing this time. Carradine portrays real life British horror author Chetwynd-Hayes whose stories are what this anthology are based upon.
The film starts off in a fine manner with Price playing a vampire (he didn't play them often...or ever) and biting Carradine in a most polite way of course. To thank Carradine Price takes him to the Monster Club where various ghouls and...errrm monsters hang out and let their hair and fur down. Now this sounds pretty sweet no doubt but I'm afraid to say the entire idea is let down with the most dreadful looking sequences you'll have seen for some time. Think of the Mos Eisley space cantina in 'Star Wars' with all the alien creatures but no where near as good and with terrible costumes.
When I say terrible costumes I mean it, they look like kids Halloween costumes your mum bought at the local supermarket. Absolutely horrendous, so much so in fact I'm not even sure if it was done like that on purpose for comedic relief. What's even stranger is the musical interludes between the short stories, you have a horror tale followed by some weird ass pop group dressed up with bad makeup singing a bad song, was this filler? At one point Price gets up and dances with the monsters on the dance floor...I'm still not sure if I should look on this as uber cool or just a crappy run time extension, its nothing like 'Thriller' so don't get excited.
The actual stories are reasonable but pretty timid frankly, what's more they create new monsters or hybrids which sound daft. The first is based around a Shadmock which is the offspring of...something, I can't elaborate because the sequence where Price explains what monsters are called when they mate with other monsters is so confusing I just ran with it. Basically this creature looks like a pale male human but his whistle can somehow burn things to a crisp? whatever. The story is merely about a couple trying to get a hold of this Shadmocks huge fortune by having the young woman marry him under false pretenses of love. The setting and location are nice and atmospheric, bit of a 'Beauty and the Beast' or 'Phantom of the Opera' type premise but not up to the same standard.
The next short is about a vampire family, well the man of the house is a vampire but his wife and boy are not oddly. Donald Pleasence is part of a secret vampire hunters team that carry violin cases that contain stakes for killing vampires (Robert Rodriguez see this film?). Pleasence follows the boy and eventually talks him into exposing his father even though the boy never knew his father was a vampire. In the end Pleasence gets bitten and must fight off his own men, its very shallow and hardly a horror tale at all, its not even spooky really. It raises more questions than anything but I guess its only a vignette.
The final story is easily the best and revolves around a film director travelling to a small remote village in the English countryside to scout the location. There he discovers a century old race of ghouls that eat corpses. When trying to escape this village of the damned he only gets so far before discovering that more people outside of the village are in fact ghouls and escape may well be futile. Again many questions are raised but the tale is the most interesting and could easily be expanded, its basically your common zombie apocalypse type flick that obviously has lots of similarities with the 1960 film 'Village of the Damned'.
I kinda had high hopes for this film but felt disappointed in the end. Everything looks a bit cheap and nasty and the vignettes are pretty low key with little thrills or excitement to be had. The cast is solid as usual but that doesn't really make much difference, its all about the stories and apart from the final one its all very drab.
3.5/10
From Beyond the Grave (UK, 1973)
Amicus seemed to like anthology horror movies, this was their last picture in a series of six including the original 'Tales from the Crypt'. The basic outline is as you would predict, the common theme of four spooky tales sandwiched between a bookend plot which is kinda hosted by an eerie narrator type.
The main character throughout the whole film is the horror maestro Peter Cushing who plays the owner of a small antiques store in London. One by one customers enter the store for bits of objet d'art but each one wrongs the shop owner in one way or another. Naturally this causes each person to suffer some kind of nasty cruel fate which appears as though the shop keeper may or may not be behind it...or at least knows of their fate.
The first tale sees David Warner tricking the shop keeper into selling him an expensive mirror cheaply. When he then holds a seance (as you do) he is visited by a spirit from within the mirror who sort of brainwashes him into killing people so he may materialise and travel 'beyond the ultimate'. This is probably the most curious of the tales and is nicely spooky, not much is explained so you're left to make up your own minds which is cool...sorta. Personally I really wanted to know more about the background but the looping twist in the tale is smart.
Up next is a strange one, a nice married man buys some matchsticks from an ex-serviceman (Donald Pleasence) to help him out. He then sees some shiny medals in Cushing's antique shop and wants to impress the serviceman by pretending to be ex-army himself. Unable to buy the medal because a certificate is required to prove you are a real ex-serviceman the man steals the medal. Impressed with the medal the serviceman invites the gent to tea and to meet his daughter (Angela Pleasence). Over time the gent has an affair with the young girl who seems to be some kind of witch. Eventually the kind gent and young girl end up cursing and killing his dominating wife then marrying, but the twist revolves around the gents young boy.
I didn't really understand this one, the gent is a nice guy trying to help the ex-serviceman, he's bullied at home by his wife and gets no respect from his son, his life is a misery. It seems he finds happiness trying to mix with the poorer man, yeah sure he stole the medal but it wasn't a malicious act. He just wanted to make the ex-serviceman happy, feel comfortable around him...he just wanted to be one of the lads really, felt sorry for him. The whole thing with the daughter was just weird and ended up making no real sense, very off the wall, I'm still not really sure what she was, how, what her father had to do with it and why the pair did or do what they do.
The elemental is based around demons or gremlins perhaps. Another posh well-to-do gent tricks the shop keeper into selling him something cheaper than it should be. On the way home a little batty old witch warns him of the elemental sitting on his shoulder...no one can see this creature but animals, small children and...errr other witches or crazy people. In time things happen that are totally out of the man's control and he seeks the assistance of the eccentric 'Madame Orloff'. I liked this short tale because the idea of an invisible little gremlin type thing perched on someones shoulder like a gargoyle and taking control is cool. I also think the short is boosted brilliantly by Margaret Leighton as Orloff who comes across like a character straight out of a Disney movie like 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' or 'Mary Poppins'. Must just add that the ending is kinda evil though, the whole thing goes from a quirky olde worlde English country witch casting spells to a much darker place.
Finally there is another almost charming ghoulish tale about a young man buying a very old highly detailed carved wooden door from the antique shop. This door of course opens up to another dimension or world where an evil occultist is trying to lure people so he can collect their souls? I think. Again the plot doesn't make much sense and isn't explained too well but its another visually fun tale in that typically old English manner with a large well decorated olde worlde house...suit of armour on display etc...This time the twist ending isn't a gloomy one though, that in itself is quite unique with these films.
Overall its a good little collection of horror tales, three I liked with their old school visuals, quirky characters and stereotypically English gents (although not stereotypical at the time of course). The stars add much gravitas to the whole affair, what old 70's horror flick is complete without Cushing?! and on the whole the special effects aren't too bad considering. Charmingly old fashioned whilst not being too horrific, perfect Halloween fodder and great fun.
7/10
Bad Neighbours (aka Neighbours, 2014)
The whole nightmare neighbours thing has been done to death, anyone remember the Aykroyd and Belushi movie 'Neighbours' from 1981? There are other examples that vary on the premise but the idea is old hat, this movie uses the old frat house theme against the homely couple which in itself is not entirely original. None the less its an opportunity to see Rogen act like a beer swilling unkempt overweight slob and...oh wait, that's not entirely original either.
So the young-ish couple with a baby living in some huge huge detached house in suburbia are horrified when the other huge huge detached house next door gets turned into a frat house. This kind of thing doesn't really happen in the UK, we don't have frat houses and the concept does sound quite ludicrous frankly although I'm sure this situation has been exaggerated. Most folk in the UK don't live in detached mansions either by the way. At first the young couple get on with the party mad...err frat guys/people, but sure enough tensions mount and eventually the situation boils over into a feud.
I kinda found this film to be along the same lines as the comedy 'Identity Thief'. Now when I say comedy I use that term loosely as both movies revolve around situations that aren't really funny, this is how I see them as similar. In reality if this happened to you (either movies plot) it would be horrible, a real nightmare, thusly watching this film kinda made me feel uncomfortable, I actually felt tense and nervous because the whole scenario is just nasty.
Sure there are amusing moments...kinda, at first everything is sorta OK but you know it won't last of course. It starts with simple noise pollution as the teens party all night long, little jibes here and there, nothing too bad. Then as things start to heat up Rogen's character attacks the frat house causing bad water damage which the lads somehow manage to fix by selling...dildos?! they make about 10K I think it was...wut?! From there on various things happen which just aren't particularly funny, nothing really seriously malicious like horrific serve vandalism but just dangerous pranks like somehow setting up Rogen's car airbags to go off on his work seat. How on earth did they manage to get into his work place and do that? let alone find out where he works. The same could be said for the airbag pranks inside Rogen's house...how? plus would they really make a fully grown male as heavy as Rogen fly in the air like that? it all seems illogical and it looked stupid.
I guess the whole thing just feels completely predictable and like something we've seen before many times over the decades, oh wait we have. All the usual drinking pot smoking visual gags, the nerdy older couple trying to be cool and mix in with the younger kids by dressing idiotically and talking like some street wise surfer rap hoodies (am I showing myself up to be out of touch with that comment?). The party montages are the usual epileptic fit inducing variety with hot scantily cad chicks, neon lights, dance floor grinding, insane activities and close ups of Rogen's bare disgusting hairy gut.
What's really kinda weird is the young frat guys keep threatening to do things to get back at Rogen and co yet they never really do much accept for the airbag jokes and just being plainly annoying. The film keeps building up the plot as though something epic is gonna happen but nothing really does. Then in the end after the frat house is shut down and you'd think the frat boys (mainly Efron's character) would be really pissed and out for revenge, he just makes up with Rogen as if nothing ever happened! I was like...that's it?!" after all that you just shake and be friends! what was the point of all this again?
I like Rogen I really do, he can be a funny guy, a good average Joe type fella in solid everyday bloke type movies, he's relatable. This just feels like a vain ego trip (seeing as he produced it) which just doesn't work and feels totally forced. Trying too hard and coming across as overbearing with the attempted laughs, get a new schtick Rogen.
4/10
Almost an Angel (1990)
Fresh off the success of the 'Crocodile Dundee' movies where Hogan played a rough tough lovable roguish bushman, Hogan is back going for gold again playing...a rough tough lovable roguish criminal. Only this criminal has changed his ways after a near death situation and he now believes he's an angel on a mission from God, but is he?
Thing about this film that is disappointing is the fact they don't really make the most of the idea. We're never entirely sure if Hogan's character is actually an angel, was his afterlife experience just a dream or not and if he's really invincible, we're led to believe he's a heavenly being through various lucky scrapes. For the whole run time this concept isn't really explored as well as it could have been I think because this character doesn't really do much accept walk out in front of trucks. There are times he puts himself at risk helping others like standing up against some gang members and setting up religious themed tricks but on the whole its all dialog.
Now there's nothing wrong with good dialog, emotional dialog...but this doesn't really have that (Paul Hogan comedy remember), you really do expect there to be more in the shape of visual comedy. Most of the time he's chatting to folk, trying to either con or assist them and of course having to fend off his real time wife Kozlowski. Gee I wonder whose idea it was to cast her in the film. I suppose it is neat to have us the audience unsure as to whether this guy is really an angel or not but this also kinda leads to the movie being really very dull. Like I say nothing really happens that is exciting or remotely interesting other than him beating some guys up once and walking out in front of a truck.
Things become really boring when he meets up with a wheelchair bound Elias Koteas whom he makes friends with. This is the main plot point in the film and its incredibly boring, things were dull before this but dear Lord it gets worse. The movies highlight appears to be a chase sequence between a fat cop and Koteas in his wheelchair...and the fat cop can't catch him...on foot...riiiiiight. They actually do try and make this sequence really intense as Koteas ducks under stuff, turns corners sharply and pumps away to increase his speed...I'm serious here. Plus I really gotta mention how lame of an ending it is for Koteas' character, he bumps into something and ends up fatally stabbing himself in the thigh...laugh out loud!
In the end we actually discover Hogan is an angel...oh spoil...whatever. Its only then that you realise how cool this film could of been with more ghosty spiritual moments like that. Don't get me wrong its a nice ending but it sure took some strength to get there sheesh! The tagline for this movie is 'The guy from down under is working for the man upstairs'...I mean sure its a quirky line but are they really still banking on the fact Hogan is an Aussie?? still pushing and depending on that unimportant geographical detail! Surely they exhausted that with the 'Mick Dundee' movies...we get it, he's an Aussie, cultural differences gag officially milked.
3/10
Asylum (UK, 1972)
Boy they liked their horror anthology movies back in the 70's didn't they, well Amicus certainly did. This movie actually has a genuinely eerie title that has of course been reused since, and the movies poster is actually quite scary too. Usually these old horrors have cheesy titles with very daft posters but this one breaks that mould somewhat.
So its an anthology movie, therefore as you might have guessed its the same premise yet again with a selection of four short tales sandwiched between a bookend tale usually with a narrator of sorts. This time a young Robert Powell plays a young doctor who is visiting an asylum to apply for a position within. Oddly he is set the task of interviewing all four patients within the asylum to figure out which one used to be the head of the asylum...if he can he gets the job, just like in reality.
First patient and first tale recounts a plot to murder the wife of a wealthy middle aged couple. The murder is planned by the gent of the couple and his bit on the side. The thing is the gents wife studies voodoo, as white middle aged wealthy folk do, and when she is killed off she comes back for revenge. Its a very rudimentary vignette that doesn't really show much imagination methinks, although I must admit it is quite unnerving when the dead wife comes back in the form she does. This was probably the very first old fashioned horror tale in these anthologies that actually gave me the willies, very creepy.
Second patient who is an ex-tailor, tells us of a mysterious man (the mighty Cushing) who orders a fine suit to be made out of a special material. The catch being this tailor must make the suit under a specific set of instructions that must be followed precisely. Once completed and taken to Cushing in his dark dark residence we discover the suit is for his long dead son. Why you ask? well it can bring inanimate objects to life, not dead but inanimate as we find out when a store mannequin is accidentally dressed in the suit. This is again a simple tale that didn't really grab me, many questions are raised as usual and as usual left unanswered. Not really an issue as I'm used to this with these movies but the ending is very weak with this one, I guess the tailor made it out of the situation alive then, how very unexciting.
The third patient is a female who appears to be suffering from dissociative identity disorder, in other words she has multiple personalities or in this case a second personality. The young woman in question believes she is being told to escape her boring life by another young woman which results in her murdering her brother and a nurse. This whole short is very predictable and really rather unimaginative I think, its pretty obvious the young blonde is a figment of the girls imagination and what follows is bland to say the least.
The final patient is played by the legendary Herbert Lom and his little vignette blends into the bookend story involving Powell. Bizarrely this short story looks like a forerunner to the horror movie franchise Puppet Master...kinda. Lom is creating a little toy robot that is a likeness of himself (why a likeness?), he intends to transfer his mind (somehow) into the toy robot so he can...escape? not too sure actually. I can't quite see how this will benefit this patient if his mind is inside a small slow waddling toy robot but there you go. Plus how on earth did he manage to recreate a miniature working version of his own viscera for the little robot and why would it even need that??! This short offers an intriguing premise but it makes no real sense as I've already pointed out, the final outcome seems coincidental and I'm not even sure if that was the characters actual game plan. It merely serves to run into the bookend story which in itself is weak and ends on a flat note that wasn't setup well in the first place.
Overall I found this anthology tame and very cliched with stories that have been told a billion times before, there is nothing much on offer here that feels really fresh. Yes the casting is top notch as they tend to be and the visuals/effects are particularly well done this time round but the stories are sooooo routine, there is better out there.
4.5/10
Dr. Terror's House of Horror (UK, 1965)
You know I really love these old horror movie titles, they are so damn cheesy and unscary, sound more like a Simpsons episo...wait a minute. The other thing is this title doesn't really relate to the actual movie, Dr. Terror (Cushing) is actually Dr. Schreck because as you all know Schreck is German for terror, so that adds up. But why is the film called house of horror? its set within a train carriage, minor quibble I know but it just stands out to me.
So as I just said the movie takes place on board an old sixties railway carriage where five men have all seemingly come together by chance. Little do they know that its actually cruel fate that has brought them together and Dr. Terror...errr Schreck, is gonna be dealing out some scythe related death (he's obviously Death, there is no gory scythe action). Each gentleman gets his fortune/future read via Schreck's tarot cards and each one is told what their future holds. Will it be all sunshine and happin...no its death.
Up first is a tale about an ancient Count who centuries before had been killed by the Dawson clan, and this same clan is now represented by our first train passenger in the present day...Mr Dawson. This long dead Count is now after revenge against the clan by trying to kill Mr Dawson, the last descendant. The Count is attempting this by coming back from the dead in the form of a werewolf. The twist in this tale is rather mundane if you ask me and I had to rewatch it to get the full gist of it, the plot also raises various questions as usual such as why the need for a werewolf? Nice spooky atmosphere throughout though.
The second tale is an amusing little take on the old silly idea of killer plants. Think of 'Day of the Triffids' mixed with 'Little Shop of Horrors' if you will. Alan Freeman returns home to his family only to find a large vine growing outside his house, when he tries to cut it down it becomes aggressive and ends up killing their dog. Hilariously he goes to the Ministry of Defence for help where he gets advice from James Bond actor Bernard Lee of all people. After some fantastically insightful and incisive dialog about plants they return to try and stop the vine only to end up trapped inside the house. Luckily they discover fire will scare off the plant (duh!) and Lee manages to escape. We are then left to believe the vine has worked out how to extinguish fire so...the world is doomed??
Easily the worst of the bunch yet at the same time easily the best for laughs, I wouldn't even call it a horror, its clearly science fiction and belongs in the Twilight Zone. Watching Lee acting all serious about these killers vines is nothing short of a pure sci-fi joygasm, its fecking hysterical. The scene where they are all pacing up and down in the Ministry of Defence, all decked out in their stale looking suits talking about plants and how to combat them is tremendous. Every bit of this vignette is so cliched and predictable right down to Lee lighting up a ciggy by the window causing the vines to back off...and guess what this tale is called...creeping vine of course.
Next up sees Roy Castle and his jazz band off to the West Indies for a gig. Whilst there he overhears some grade A tunage at a voodoo ceremony and decides to pinch it (as you do). When he plays the tune back in London a supernatural force comes after him...apparently. Again this is another dodgy episode which isn't really very interesting or scary, it feels more like an advert for the real jazz band shown playing. In the end it feels very patchy and not entirely well thought out.
In this movie Christopher Lee plays an arrogant snobby harsh art critic and this tale delivers his comeuppance. After being badly embarrassed by Michael Gough the artist Lee takes revenge by running him over with his car, in the incident Gough's hand is crushed and he loses it. As he cannot paint anymore Gough's character commits suicide, not long after Lee is haunted and tormented by the dead artists amputated hand. Standard fare this one but it works well with its revenge and retribution themes. The disembodied hand effects are pretty crummy truth be told and this does let the episode down but the class acts of Lee and Gough can't be ignored.
Lastly Donald Sutherland discovers a vampire is on the loose in his home town in the US. He seeks advice from a colleague only to then discover the vampire is his new French bride. His colleague tells Sutherland to kill the vampire but when the police show up to arrest Sutherland the colleague denies everything. The twist ending here is pretty obvious really and also pretty lame. Without spoiling anything the twist goes against basic vampire lore and you're left wondering how, plus the effects for the vampire transformation are dreadful but I guess this is an old film on an average budget.
So once again the selection of ghoulish tales is pretty mediocre I think, the vampire and disembodied hand tales are quite good and eerie. The werewolf tale doesn't really make much sense, the voodoo tale with Roy Castle feels too much like a comedy because of Castle and the vine sci-fi tale is utterly side-splitting which it isn't suppose to be. The other thing that didn't quite add up was the fact all these tales were suppose to be premonitions of each characters future and death, yet in the end they all get killed on board the train in a twist ending that has been used before in a few horror anthologies. So what was the point of all these future predictions about their untimely deaths when none of it was actually gonna happen anyway.
I also felt sorry for all the characters in this anthology, in most of these films the characters are bad people in one way or another getting their comeuppances. This time the characters are all a bunch of nice polite chaps that don't appear to have done anything wrong and have had the misfortune to fall afoul of the Grim Reaper (accept for Lee). So I found myself asking why these nice guys are getting crapped on...I guess they're just unlucky, not necessarily deserving of death but just unlucky, shit happens and the Reaper merely reaps, just doing his job.
In the end this is a solid anthology with an uneven mix of horror tales, in all honesty the one thing that keeps this films head above the water is its cast. You can't get much more epic than this roster...Cushing, Lee, Sutherland, Bernard Lee, Freeman, Gough and Castle. The fact you have Cushing alongside Lee is enough to get any classic Horror fanboy excited. Personally I would see this for the killer vine sci-fi episode, so bad its good.
6/10
(https://supermarcey.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/draculauntold1.jpg)
Well I got to see this flick on Thursday and I must say it wasn't great or even good for that matter, but it wasn't all that horrible and bad either. It's rather a missed oportunity, leaving us with a rather mediocre film that has its ups and downs.
First the strong points:
Luke Evans delivers a great performance with what he is given. The ambiguity of his character shines through completely. We are faced with a very human Vlad, even once he goes vampire.
Spoiler
Yes, there is a vampire "form"... kinda, unfortunately the effects don't look any good and the CGI is just too outdated (more on that later)
Also all the rest of the cast bring a commendable game to the table. Sarah Gadon is effective and Charles Dance is... well he's Charles Dance, however short he's in the movie.
This ties in with another positive aspect: The relationships between the character's do get you engaged quite a bit. It is the relationship between Vlad and his family/his people that really is emphasised in this movie. There is one scene in particular that sticks out, being the most dramatic and therefore best sequence in the film:
Spoiler
Vlad is about to be put on fire by his own people, before he breaks free.
.
Cinematography, camerawork and Shots were really cool. It is exactly the kind of Transilvania that I had imagined in it's prime. The tone/feel of the movie takes you over. This is where I would give this film the most credits: There's a very very definitive overall tone and that is kept througout the entire movie. Considering that this is Gary Shore's Hollywood debut, that is actually quite an acheivement for him.
Here to the weak points:
The script might be effective and give you enough time to settle with the characters, but the plot holes are the size of a hangar once Vlad gets his nocturnal abilities. After 30 mins it just derails into a mess.
Ufff and the dialogue is abysmal at times, you'll be wishing for Star Wars Episode II instead, that's how bad it gets.
The CGI is, well how should I put it... it's the CGI you see in modern video-games. Very outdated for movie standards. It is not essentially the visuals, it's the animation that really lacks. From the "Vladsformation to Bats" to the "giant fist of bats" (which is btw the so called money-shot of the movie), it all looks so quirky and mirky. You'll think you're playing castlevania or watching a Paul W.S. Anderson movie, none of which is a compliment for a hollywood motion picture.
Soundtrack was alright, but Ramin Djawadi is one of my favourite up-and coming composers, so it left me a bit underwhelmed.
The worst part of the movie is the ending though. I'm not gonna spoil it, but it's so out of place, so different from the rest of the movie. It just falls flat, not achieving what it the writers probably set out to do.
Well there you have it, a rather mediocre and therefore disappointing version of Dracula. However I must say that the bashing this movie is getting from the american/english critics is way to harsh and unjustified (especially when they comment on the acting).
The 32 % on RT don't fit with my impression. Most of those reviewers expected a horror movie that sends shivers down your spine. They're missing the point that this film is about the story of Vlad, not the story of Dracula. It is not meant to be full of gore (there's some of it), it is to be seen as an Epic. I'd give this movie 50 %. It did certain things right, but they stand in the shadow of what went wrong. Even as an epic, it doesn't do the trick.
Luke Evans, even though he did great in this movie, will not break through with this movie into the leagues of superhero-actors. I highly doubt the crow will do that for him as well. Let's hope for the Hobbit.
Black Sabbath (aka I Tre Volti Della Paura ITA/FRA 1963)
Yes this is the film that the famous rock band took their name from after they saw how people enjoyed being frightened. An Italian horror movie with a low budget but an international cast, so a different flavour to the British horror anthologies. This film was also one of the first horror anthologies I do believe, before the likes of Amicus and Hammer got the idea.
The stories are introduced by Boris Karloff who is simply standing in front of a dated psychedelic-esque background and giving a speech about all things creepy basically. The funny thing is he is dressed quite normally in a simple suit and is hammering on about vampires and spectres as if this were a Vincent Price movie. The stories you see aren't really in that classic vein though, these tales are actually much more grounded and genuinely creepy (well two are).
The first short story revolves around a young French call-girl who starts getting terrorised by phone calls from her ex-pimp (spoiler alert). This pimp has just broken out of jail and is threatening her life because she was responsible for putting him away. The young girl calls her female friend around to help and comfort her, little does she know the threatening calls are from her friend who is simply trying to reunite with her. The friend figures this is the only way the young call-girl will allow her back into her life...pretty extreme way of making up isn't it! In the end the real pimp shows up and kills them both just as the friend was writing a note to explain what she has been doing.
This first tale is quite poor I think, its in no way scary or remotely thrilling, especially when you discover the friend is behind it all. The thing is this revelation gave me a better idea, they should of made the pimp the one behind the calls as originally expected. Then in the end when the call-girl discovers this it would have been cool to also find out the pimp was killed in his prison escape attempt so all along the calls were coming from beyond the grave. The fact that the pimp merely turns up and kills both young women is a complete anticlimax, just a basic murder. Its very glossy though, it actually looks like a high production porn flick at times.
Next up is a more kooky traditional tale of ghoulies in the night...well a spin on vampire lore actually. Set in 19th century Russia a young man stumbles across a small family in the wilderness who are battling against a breed of creature known as Wurdalak. These things are undead zombie types that feed on the blood of the living, especially relatives they once knew strangely enough. Karloff plays the father of this family that ventured out to kill a Wurdalak but has returned one himself, naturally the story plays out as a battle of survival for all the living.
Definitely the best looking of the three stories, the sets and props are really sumptuous in this and could easily be part of a full length movie. Great atmosphere with the swirling mist and bleak locations but the actual tale is pretty daft really. Karloff is wonderful as the pale grizzled bearded undead nightstalker but end of the day he's merely playing an unkempt Dracula. Everything goes as you might predict admittedly but thinking back I just can't fault the production values on this one.
The final act sees a woman stealing a fancy ring off another woman who has recently passed away. This sets off all manner of supernatural occurrences such as a mysterious dripping of water, a mysterious fly that won't leave her alone and eventually the dead woman's corpse actually appearing before her. Now this short vignette is the jewel in the crown for this movie, its actually incredibly spooky and very atmospheric with the dripping water echoing around the woman's house. It really does give you the chills...that is until the finale where the corpse appears and really does freak you the f**k out! The dead body has this God awful twisted expression on her face which is enough to keep you up at night I kid you not, that on top of the whole 'Ring-esque' sequence where it moves towards the terrified woman. The final twist in the tale here is again predictable but oh so delicious.
There is no way an American movie in that era would or could pull off something this scary, at the time this was hard core stuff, the Italians were bold and brave. The mix of half naked ladies, the image of call-girls (hookers), blood and the surprisingly scary final story gave this film a real edge rarely seen in British or American horror anthologies. What's more this entire production clearly has so much class, skill and polish, every segment looks great, sounds great and could work as an individual movie in its own right. The first is standard murder fare, the second is standard ghoulish fare and the third is possibly the inspiration for many modern horror movies ('The Ring'!)...but they are all done very stylishly making other examples look crap in comparison.
Its such a shame Bava chose to end the movie by revealing Karloff astride a fake horse and with all the cameras and crew. The main camera pulls back to reveal the studio floor as Karloff finishes his spooky speech. Not too sure why he's in his Wurdalak character get up either. Can't deny its a fun little ending and very interesting to see how they did that effect, but at the same time I can't help but feel they kinda extinguish everything they managed to created and visualise so well prior to that.
8/10
I liked your FB page. :)
Facebook whore.
anti-social whore.
Only 8 for Black Sabbath, Hubbs?
>:(
9/10. The european answer to Kwaidan.
Quote from: Blacklabel on Oct 12, 2014, 01:37:36 AM
Only 8 for Black Sabbath, Hubbs?
>:(
9/10. The european answer to Kwaidan.
First tale let it down.
Quote from: First Blood on Oct 12, 2014, 01:17:15 AM
I liked your FB page. :)
Didn't expect that, but thanks.
Contrary to popular belief, I like your reviews.
Quote from: First Blood on Oct 12, 2014, 03:38:10 AM
Contrary to popular belief, I like your reviews.
You do?!
really didn't expect that.
(Still waiting for everyone else to admit the same lol!)
I am full of surprises Hubbs. You just have to get to know me. ;)
Doctor Dolittle (1967)
Yes that's right kids, that hideous Eddie Murphy movie is actually based on a very famous set of children's novels by Hugh Lofting and before the modern revamp came this far far superior children's movie. This film is actually based on three of the Dolittle novels, all fused together, but you'd never have guessed that.
The film feels like its set in stages, first off we meet Matthew Mugg and Tommy Stubbins in the whimsical little English port town of Puddleby-on-the-marsh. Once we the audience are acquainted with this cute couple its off to see the doctor in his typically traditionally beautiful little English cottage on the hill. From there on we watch the trio get stuck in various ordeals involving various animals as they try to raise money to go on a voyage to find the Giant Great Pink Sea-Snail. Eventually the second leg of the movie kicks in as the trio and the obligatory beautiful female set sail into the unknown. The third part of movie would involve the crew getting shipwrecked but finding land, land that conveniently happens to harbour the Pink Sea-Snail.
Where to begin?! I was virtually raised with this film (amongst other classics), as a kid I hated it truth be told, probably down to forced repeat viewings but as I have matured I can see what a fantastic picture it really is. The movie didn't perform too well upon release which really amazed me frankly as I personally think this is way better than say...'Mary bloody Poppins'. It didn't help that Disney's 'Jungle Book' came out around the same time of course.
The village scenes filmed in Wiltshire, UK are absolutely gorgeous to look at they really are, if ever you wanted to see the perfect little olde worlde English hamlet then voila. Unfortunately they had to use sets eventually down to the locals not liking what was happening to their little home but I don't see the issue really. The fishing port mockup with farm animals, cats and period dressed locals is so quaint and lovely looking, probably lots of droppings everywhere but hey come on! different times they were.
There really isn't a scene in the entire movie which isn't bright bold and colourful with excellent detailed props and costumes. The locations were magnificently chosen and really brought the picture to life. You can easily tell the sets of Sea-Star Island compared to the real locations shoots of St Lucia, had it all been sets it clearly would not have been half as spectacular visually. Personally (apart from Puddleby at the start) I think the circus sequences and sets were the most impressive and enjoyable. Being a simple circus tent scenario it wouldn't have been too hard to pull off but you gotta remember everything is period set within the Victorian era. This setting is what makes the movie so attractive to look at with the lavish Victorian decorations sets props costumes etc...Even more so within the circus scenes with classic clowns, strong men, bearded ladies, big butch bald guys...and many with thick waxed moustaches.
Its the circus scenes where I think we see the best performance which is from Attenborough as Albert Blossom the ringmaster. His physical appearance was perfect for the role and the added makeup with obligatory fat tash really nailed this character. His cheerful loud brash ringmaster with a northern accent is a sheer joy to behold as he prances around in that classic top hat and red tails attire, along with his funny little tweed looking suit with breast pocket watch. Its also here we come across the most memorable song 'I've never seen anything like it' sung merrily by Attenborough with all his circus folk in their various colourful patchwork clothes. If your kids don't enjoy these sequences then by thunder I'll...errm be surprised.
Yes the film is a musical much like many of these old classic family films and admittedly no the songs aren't overly memorable (apart from the one I mentioned), but for their scenes they work. The cast in general are good but do pail in comparison to the epic Rex Harrison. Its not all about Harrison though, Anthony Newley is very enjoyable to watch as Irishman Matthew Mugg, the Irish always fit into olde worlde eras well. Samantha Eggar is extremely beautiful and dreamy despite her character being a spoilt pain in the arse and I also liked Geoff Holder as Willie Shakespeare the Sea-Star Island tribal leader...very well spoken. Finally I can't not mention Peter Bull as the fat rich and highly aristocratic General Bellowes who is still quite the intimidating character even after all these years (used to worry me as a kid).
What is also surprising is the amount of practical effects and real animals used (well not really seeing as there was no CGI). They really did have tonnes of various animals all over the place for certain scenes throughout. Many seem to have just been shoved into the scene but obviously some were trained and its quite impressive really. Naturally the larger effects do look hokey as hell nowadays, when I was a kid the Giant Great Pink Sea-Snail always amazed me, now its a bit shitty really. Hey I'm not having a go but its very rigid, it clearly moves awkwardly if at all and it has a weird almost human expression for a face. The Giant Lunar Moth also looks pretty bad these days but the scene hides much of it with darkness so it does work better. Again the overly massive whale that somehow manages to push an entire island looks pretty darn scary in all honesty, its also massively massive...and fake. Despite that they all work in the context of the film, that being a fairytale of wonders...plus it would be so cool if they were real.
Honourable mention to the Tibetan Pushmi-pullyu which I always thought was a real animal when I was very young. As I got older I thought it was a real animal with some kind of effect stuck on it, now I realise its two blokes in a suit...isn't it?! Gotta hand it to them...it looks pretty good, quite realistic...apart from when it starts to dance. Hey its a kids fantasy film people!
The movie is long and crammed packed with story which is both overwhelming but (I think) acceptable. Even though there is lots going on, various sub plots that must be completed before the main plot kicks in like some kind of videogame and quite a few flashbacks and montages...at no point did I ever get confused. The whole premise is so simple and fun personally I don't notice the run time. It all feels like a more in depth version of Disney's 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' what with all the fanciful objectives and dialog flying about the place.
So if you can ignore the fact that the original novels were supposedly full of racism (take into account when they were written though), and ignore the horrendous 1998 remake and its following direct to DVD sequels (easy to forget this crap trust me), I think this is a great film for all the family. I think Fleischer did a great job directing and Bricusse did a tremendous job of adapting all three novels into the one film. A delightfully charming captivating timeless ride alongside the good doctor and his menagerie of animals.
9/10
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Mkay so after the semi successful X-Men trilogy came this origins tale (prequel) which was originally also gonna carry on with Magneto and Professor X...I believe. We all know how that turned out though, I think the idea of yet more origin tales was perhaps a bit daunting for everyone.
So the movie is about Wolverine's origins but that is a bit of lie really, its mainly about one period in his life. At the start we see Logan as a child and how he befriends Creed, fast forward through the ages we then see the pair fighting in most of the biggest wars such as the American Civil War, WWI, WWII and Vietnam where Creed kills an Officer. The pair are then executed by firing squad? did that happen to US troops in Nam? Anyway its only then that the outside world finally notices these two blokes have been alive for over a century, I still think that would get noticed as time pasted by and we approached the modern era. The funny thing is the movie skips past all this information but it looks way more interesting and fun than what we actually get. I'd love to see Creed and Logan fighting in WWI/WWII and Nam.
Moving on we see Stryker hiring the pair to join his Team X which is easily the coolest part of the film with the most potential yet alas it is lost. The team isn't the same as the comic source material but I guess that is a given, my main issue was the fact that only Agent Zero and Wade Wilson are given anything to do. The other issue being that both of those characters come across as so powerful that I found myself asking why you would need the other guys! hell both Zero and Wilson wiped out everybody single handed without breaking a sweat. Oh and did anyone else notice how the entire team just strides down the middle of a street up to the enemy stockade?! aren't they suppose to be some kind of special ops unit?? stealth anyone???!!!
Eventually the plot takes us to Logan's most iconic bit of backstory surrounding the reinforcement of his skeleton with Adamantium. Now this entire section makes no sense and is the most cliched movie crapola ever...well that and the few times we see characters screaming into the sky with rage as the camera zooms away from their face. Firstly Stryker and his military/scientist buddies all want to create a superhuman/mutant with this experiment. They have spent millions upon millions funding it...and it works! No sooner have they managed to achieve their highly expensive goal Wolverine breaks free and escapes...of course. Because every test subject always manages to break free and run off endangering everyone (if its a monster).
What is hilarious is the fact that Stryker immediately orders Wolverines execution the minute he escapes! you just achieved what you set out to do and now you're trying to destroy it!! Plus you deliberately made Logan invincible so how the f**k do you expect to take him down?! I mean really...if you're gonna make someone (especially a powerful mutant) invincible don't you think that might cause you problems further down the road if you lose control of him...errr hello? 'Hunt him down, take his head off'...errm you just said he was invulnerable, how do you plan on managing this?...why are you shooting at him Zero? (jackass).
From here on it became uncomfortable as we see a nice old couple get needlessly killed (and blown up!) after they help Wolverine and we the audience start to warm up to them in a Pa and Ma Kent type way. It seems that was merely in there so Logan could pick up his natty leather jacket...yet I also find myself wondering how the f**k Zero and co actually found him there anyway. Its also at this time you start to notice the CGI effects are pretty naff truth be told. The now infamous cartoon-esque Adamantium claws which are somehow smooth like blades even though they are covering knobbly bone claws. There is also some pretty horrendous greenscreen effects that stand out badly such as Jackman on the motorbike and the helicopter gun pilot.
Everything naturally leads up to a big climatic battle between Creed Logan and Wade Wilson/Deadpool which for some unknown reason takes place on top of a huge cooling tower. In between all this Gambit pops up for again no real apparent reason other than to please the fanboys. He's clearly a real card shark when we first meet him so I literately have no idea how he would find anyone dumb enough to play cards with him but I digress. At least Gambit is Gambit...Deadpool or Weapon XI is pretty much an abomination frankly, I'm not totally up on this characters lore but they really f**ked with it right here, dude looks like a Mortal Kombat character. Also why exactly is Stryker wanting to make Weapon XI? surely Logan and Creed are virtually indestructible as they are, why the need to create this uber mutant who will obviously be too powerful to control. Its so daft and a horribly bad bad guy plot cliche.
When I first saw this movie I quite liked it but now I can see where the many flaws lie. It tries to be a sensible gritty superhero movie but is actually a very cheesy predictable and hokey action movie with all the regular cliches. I think Hood forgot that his superhero flick was a prequel and is suppose to be set in the 70's (I think it is) because the general technology on display is way too good for that era. There are some nice points without a doubt, some good effects and some good visual moments that capture what we all know and love about Marvel. Unfortunately overall it all looks a bit artificial and actually poor in places, it doesn't even feel like a Wolverine origins story but more like another X-Men installment.
5/10
Disorganised Crime (1989)
Quite the ensemble cast in this late 80's romp. A real list of dated 80's stars, the kind of list you just don't see anymore. Corbin Bernsen, Ruben Blades, Fred Gwynne, Ed O'Neill, Lou Diamond Phillips, Daniel Roebuck and Hoyt Axton. A silly crime/heist caper comedy that is pleasing and well presented in the stunning Montana wilderness.
I liked the plot because its not just a simple throwaway idea. A small team of crooks (Gwynne, Phillips, Blades and Russ) are hired by Bernsen to meet in a cabin in the middle of nowhere to plan a bank robbery. En route to the cabin Bernsen gets nabbed by the cops (O' Neill and Roebuck) but eventually escapes into the wilds of Montana. In the meantime the four crooks carry on with the plan to rob the bank without Bernsen. What follows is a genuinely amusing little comedy where the fours crooks manage to carry out their complicated impossible looking robbery whilst all the while Bernsen is struggling to find his back to civilisation. At the same time the bumbling cop duo are desperately trying to track Bernsen down and are mistaking everything the four crooks are doing as Bernsen's actions. This eventually leads to a nice little twist at the end for the poor beleaguered Bernsen.
So the plot is fun and funny, nothing outrageously funny but it makes you smile. But its the cast that make this movie work, you'd think it might be a case of too many cooks but no it actually works well. The four crooks are a genuinely amusing odd bunch both visually and personality wise. The leader of this surprisingly skilled little team is Fred Gywnne in all of his towering glory. His huge square frame and big block-like head really allows him to perform some great physical comedy with facial expressions which we all know and loved from his Munster days. Gwynne plays it straight here as the stern sensible stoic aging leader dressed smartly in a suit and fedora, that classic attire really suits him(no pun intended) giving him both a dashing and dangerous look.
He is joined by a very rugged manly looking Bernsen who has this golden sunkist visage throughout, he really does look too good. Thing is he doesn't have many lines in the movie, he almost plays a silent comedic role with lots of slapstick tomfoolery...its a good angle actually, quite unique. Lou Diamond Phillips plays the young carjacker and mechanic, Ruben Blades has more of a stereotypical role admittedly as the Latino gangster type but damn if he doesn't do it well with those vibrant tones of his. The less known William Russ can't be overlooked here either with a solid performance as the nervous jittery safecracker who's always at odds with Blades. Some great bickering between them.
On the other hand we also get some great performances from Ed 'Al Bundy' O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck as the bumbling but persistent cops on Bernsen's trail. Not only do we get a slapstick tour de force from Bernsen we also get a showcase in slapstick from these two. I can't deny that O'Neill does tend to give us all the regular facial/physical expressions and emotions we've seen in his long running TV sitcom. Its all very familiar and does kinda make you feel you're watching Al Bundy the movie, you can see his limited range really. But I also can't deny I love his routine and it always makes me smile. Roebuck is a good foil and sidekick to O'Neill's desperation and frustration but he does feel like a poor man's John Candy...sorry but I had to say it.
Honesty this really is such a feel good comedy betwix action movie...more comedy, its like 'Planes Trains and Automobiles' for some criminals sorta. The locations are stunning as I've already said, some shots really showing the expansive mountainous panorama's whilst actually making you feel the chill of raw nature. The plot is fun with tense moments...especially whilst they rob the bank and take out the cop cars, it does feel like they've genuinely put a lot of effort in and you want them to succeed. I always find it funny with these capers how they just happen to have all this expensive looking heist gear which they then proceed to dump after the heist.
All the characters are very likable, you wanna see the bad guys ride off into the sunset but at the same time you don't wanna see the cop duo get into trouble. Its so heartwarming and charming in the end with Gwynne grinning through his teeth whilst chomping on a fat cigar just like George Peppard. Don't get why they go back for Bernsen though, that kinda overrides the clever little twist at the end but hey ho. A totally overlooked and under appreciated comedy methinks, a great selection of character actors with some good solid old fashioned wholesome entertainment for all.
8.5/10
Another Stakeout (1993)
So you made a film back in the day and it was a success both at the cinema and videoshop. The two stars of the movie are still big and can still pull in an audience, you yourself now have some swing within Hollywood and lets be honest...you need a new project to keep your career on a high-ish. What better way to do that than completely rehashing your successful movie by...errr completely remaking it all over again but in a different location and with a new star (for the time) to the roster.
Yep so the plot is virtually the same as the first movie, no shame here folks. The dynamic duo are back again and instructed to go on another stakeout in a nice woody lakeside well to do area. They are watching out for a witness against the mafia (after a botched assassination) who may or may not be coming to this lovely house. But the funny thing is...wait for it...this time they have a female DA officer along with them to play husband and wife with Dreyfuss. That's not all, she's brought her huge rottweiler along too...ey up we're in for some mighty big laughs now! Did I mention the new DA officer is Rosie O'Donnell? well there you go. I ask you...can you think of anything better than this? really...how can this not be funny?
Oh wait...its not funny in the slightest. Everything here has been dumbed down and made more family friendly basically, not that the original movie was an adult movie but this is just childish. Most of the plot now revolves around how silly this family unit can be with Estevez as the son, Dreyfuss as the dad and O'Donnell as the mum. Every scene is pretty much an embarrassing bumbling slapstick comedy routine with infantile dialog and cliched predictable visual gags...some of which naturally revolve around the big dog. Literately nothing happens for the majority of the movie until the final long dinner sequence where there is lots more awful dialog. Heck even the action (if you can even call it that...which you can't) is weak as f**k, its virtually a children's movie at times.
Dreyfuss character seems to have been somewhat neutered this time around and doesn't have the same zest as before. Yes he is obviously an older character but the plot doesn't allow him to do anything. The same goes for Estevez, in the first movie he was pretty much a sidekick, here he has a little more to do admittedly but again its very lame and uninteresting really. Its nice to see Ferrer playing a bad guy again, haven't seen that for awhile, blast from the past. The only problem being like everything else its a very tame watered down role which has absolutely no bite about it. The bad guys in this movie are so uneventful I can hardly bring myself to call them bad guys, they're just a bit naughty and they wear black. As for O'Donnell well this was another time wasn't it, a different ear where O'Donnell was actually kinda big (in both senses...zing!). I guess she adds to the humour at times but her character just comes across like this sequel...not required, horseshoed in, crowbarred in, forced and pointless.
I really don't know what Badham was trying to do here, you could have a sequel to this but going down this route was a huge error. Basically remaking it with one extra cop for comedy relief...oh and a big dog...pfft! I mean really, who wants to see Dreyfuss' character have relationship issues (again) with Stowe (from the first movie, must have needed rent money) whilst staking out Dennis Farina who does nothing. Then in the background Estevez is constantly moaning about having to shave his moustache off which appears to be the movies main gag. This literately is like watching an actual stakeout where nothing actually happens, I'm boring myself writing this!
2/10
Hans Christian Andersen (1952)
The fictional tale of the Danish poet and fairytale storyteller who's work has gone on to inspire virtually anything and everything for children...and Disney's cash cow. Its not a biographical film of course (the film even says that), its basically a fairytale of sorts that kinda focuses on Andersen's life at a certain point. At this time he creates The Little Mermaid out of love for a married woman. In the traditional Hollywood style of the 50's and previous years the film is heavily narrated through song and dance and has clearly taken pointers from other classics.
The film is essentially a romantic tale with morals about Andersen going off to the big city of Copenhagen to try and start a new business there. Whilst there he falls for a married ballerina at the theatre whose husband treats her roughly. Andersen writes her a love letter in the form of The Little Mermaid and dreams about rescuing her from her harsh husband. As we discover unfortunately for Hans he has misunderstood their relationship and returns to Odense.
The plot is much deeper than that though as the tale of the little mermaid, I believe, is suppose to mirror Andersen's heartbreaking situation. He is smitten with the beautiful French ballerina who appears to be living a life of angst married to the theatres dance choreographer. The mermaid is smitten with a Prince who ends up on the ocean floor when his ship sinks. The mermaid saves his life and falls in love at the same time, but like Andersen and his ballerina, they are both from different worlds.
Andersen a poor cobbler, the ballerina a wealthy famous dancer, the Prince errr...is a Prince and the mermaid is a sea creature. So the mermaid seeks help from the sea witch who transforms the mermaid into a human so she can go and find the Prince. Andersen dreams of rescuing the ballerina and them both getting married living happily ever after. Alas when the mermaid finds the Prince he has affections for another and the mermaid must return to the sea heartbroken (I think she actually dies in the original story). The same for Andersen who eventually manages to speak of his affections to the ballerina but she too (much to our and Andersen's surprise) actually loves her harsh husband. So Hans must return to Odense for of sorrow but luckily there is a much happier ending of course.
This was one of the first classical films my parents showed me and my brother when we were very young along with other golden Hollywood movies. I won't beat around the bush though, this film will probably sicken most kids these days as its extremely soft centred and full of wonderful musical moments. What's more I'm pretty sure most modern folk these days will think this film dances gingerly around pedophilia the way Andersen is portrayed as a child obsessed loner. Anyway despite how excellent this film is I too cannot deny that some of it is really really sickly...almost vomit inducing, the Ugly Duckling song for example.
The music isn't as sublime as other big Hollywood pictures of the time no doubt, but there are plenty of very catchy little tunes that you'll find yourself humming to once the credits have rolled. As said some will turn your stomach with the whimsical levels going through the roof, yet others are a joy to behold. Personally I always loved the sequence with Wonderful Copenhagen (try making a song with that city name in it!), The King's New Clothes is a fun little number with the kids at the start and who can forget Thumbelina. As I'm sure you have noticed these songs, and others, are famous works of the real Andersen which have become films in their own rights. Most of these musical numbers are squarely aimed at the kids, fun bouncy and the kids can join in, but the adults do get some serious dance sequences too. Very much in the same style as some Gene Kelly dance sequences if you ask me, visually at least. These are mainly dream sequences dreamt up by Hans so they are much darker in tone at times with Hans fighting the ballerinas husband Niels. A stark contrast to everything else in the film but much more enjoyable now for me as an adult.
The entire film looks like an explosion from an old fashioned candy store followed by an explosion from an old fashioned toy store. Everything is bright colourful and bold, it almost looks like a comicbook. Like many films of the era most every scene is obviously a set with forced perspective and matte paintings/backdrops but it all looks so vibrant and alive, it all looks good enough to eat. I'm not really sure if there is any kind of historical accuracy in the film with things like buildings and costumes, I kinda doubt it because all the costumes are so deliciously loud and zany but at the same time they do seem to have a genuinely realistic dated appearance. All this and I haven't even mentioned the actual ballerina sequences in the film with the real ballerina/dancer Zizi Jeanmaire playing Hans crush. If you didn't think you'd ever be interested in ballet then prepare for a shock...because these sequences will grab your attention as you watch Zizi glide around like a beautiful swan...plus she could act and she's cute as a button!
I love Danny Kaye in the film because he really does come across as a nice guy and he really looks Danish in his outfit. He's a different kind of performer to Gene Kelly of course but he has a pleasant aura about him so what he lacks in dance moves he makes up for with vocals and looks. Other than Kaye and Zizi everyone else is kinda meh methinks, they all look good in their roles don't get me wrong but no one really blows you away.
I have always found this film hard to fully enjoy truth be told, one the one hand its a film for children and those parts are very sappy. On the other hand there are parts for adults which are obviously now much more to my taste as the kiddie parts fall away. So in affect you enjoy the film when you're young for some of the picture, and when you're an adult you enjoy the other sections of the film, unfortunately its hard to enjoy both. In fact there are some scenes I just wanted to spin through on fast forward. I think these days I'm more impressed with the actual dancing than anything else, the songs are cute, the casting is fair but its the dancing that really held me. The ballerina sequences are virtually inch-perfect in my book.
I can't be too harsh here because with a doubt this is a fantastic little fable, fairytale or folk tale...however you wanna look at it. To me it feels similar to 'The Wizard of Oz' in terms of visuals and being aimed at kids, yet its surprising how dark the film does delve at times. Yes the film is utterly outdated and the morals are presented in an extremely quaint and mushy way, but they do still resonate to this day to a degree...at least maybe for children. Overall the plot is a bit jumbled with bits for kids and bits for adults all centred around a tale of unattainable love basically...which is hardly what kids wanna see. None the less you simply can't help but be entertained by this sprightly multicoloured world with Kaye and his musical melodious lessons in life.
7/10
The Jazz Singer (1927)
Back in the 1930's Al Jolson was the highest paid entertainer in the business. In the USA he was a massive massive star (the biggest!) but he was also hot stuff around the world having hit after hit alongside international tours with many movies to his name. Let me put it this way, Jolson was the Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley of his time.
Now admittedly many of his movies were never really much cop due to changing tastes over the years and the fact his movies tended to be very samey. It was always that first talkie movie he starred in that really stuck out, probably because it was the first...well actually the second but 'A Plantation Act' was more of a selection of songs and not an actual movie. The Jazz Singer is based on Jolson's life growing up in New York. The story was actually written by Samson Raphaelson after interviewing Jolson on his upbringing, he later adapted the story for the theatre and it became a hit. Warner Bros then acquired the rights to the play and naturally wanted to make a movie out of it, at first Jolson wasn't in line to star in the movie but eventually, long story short, he obviously got it and the rest is history.
I guess you could say this film is a biography of sorts, I'm not entirely sure how much is accurate but I thinks its pretty close to Jolson's early years and beyond. The story follows a young Jolson (in the film Jakie Rabinowitz...can't get more Jewish than that folks) getting in trouble with his strict Jewish father for singing in local beer gardens and acting the fool. His father is a cantor at the local synagogue on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, a fully Jewish area. I'm sure you can guess what goes down here, Jakie's father wants his son to be a good religious boy and follow in his footsteps as a cantor, following family tradition and following his destiny. Unfortunately the rebellious young Jakie wants to do other things and ends up running away to choose his own destiny. Over the years Jakie becomes a talented budding singer with a very bright future but as you can guess all this conflicts with his father and eventually he must choose between his career and his family roots and heritage.
Now I won't lie and say this film is amazing simply because it is historically very important (the film was chosen for preservation in the US Library of Congress's National Film Registry), in all honesty most of the story is rather dull. Hold your horses let me explain, the film is of course black and white but that's not a problem for me. There is of course no sound or dialog for the most part accept for Jolson singing (silent film remember), this means we have lots of rather bland full screen old fashioned subtitles that explain very little. They are also rather limited in appearance so half the time your kinda guessing what's going on by the musical score and peoples expressions. It doesn't help at times that the language of the age is also slightly different, the way people wrote, certain words used etc...a different era. The acting is naturally a bit crappy throughout with the odd exception, Otto Lederer is easily the most entertaining character in the movie with his cheerful comedic turn. You can relate to his feelings on what's happening around him whilst everyone else is deathly serious and boring, plus he has an amusing face which helps.
Of course the real highlight of the entire feature is seeing and hearing Al Jolson hammer out his legendary tunes (only six though). This is really why you watch the movie, the plot is extremely predictable and basic (taking into account the age of the film of course) and its not really that gripping, you're here for the jazz singer himself and he doesn't disappoint. As I was growing up my dad would play Al Jolson every Christmas, it was a family tradition to have old Al singing in the background while our little family would enjoy the festive period. So I know how Jolson sounds, I know most of his hits and some of the famous lyrics, but its something else to actually watch the man perform for real.
A small quirky fella with big bright eyes, highly animated and amusing to watch as he bobs his head around like crazy whilst clapping, mugging at the camera and generally showing off. His routines are full of energy and his voice is loud, bold and pitch perfect, the man is clearly getting a buzz enjoying every second. Its all so very charming and delightful you can't help but smile seeing how people enjoyed the simple things back then. There is even a small sequence where Jolson improvises a lot of dialog with Eugenie Besserer (who plays his old mother) which shows the mans sky high confidence in what he could do both musically and verbally. Besserer clearly has trouble keeping pace and shows us one reason why many actors/actresses back then were scared of talkies...their voices sounded terrible!
Towards the finale we do see the famous blackface routine which was commonplace at the time. These days of course it would be frowned upon and admittedly its hard to watch without feeling a tad awkward. I found myself wondering why on earth they did it in the first place, how did it make their performances any better? why hide away behind the makeup? I think it derives from centuries old history where people would perform theatrical shows, plays or skits and perform as black people simply because there weren't any black people around to do so. Anyway the blackface performance by Jolson is really the central part of the film, everything builds up to this one outstanding performance, the moment he cracks the big time. I believe it is displaying how both Jolson (in reality) and his character broke away from the burdens of a heavily religious Jewish life and made their mark in America, both in show business and personally. The blackface performance, his music...it all helps him prove to himself that he can be something other than a Jewish immigrant...but naturally for the sake of the movie there is a happy ending honouring his family traditions.
It does feel weird knowing you're watching the first ever talkie movie...despite the fact its only the songs that have sound. It is a real gem of a time capsule seeing old 1920's New York, the people, the attire etc...its very interesting in more ways than one. Its funny even at the time the critics said it was a simple schmaltzy affair and they weren't wrong. Its cram-packed full of sickly sentimental family customs, rituals and traditional beliefs...in short...its all very Jewish (and I know about that). Honesty its not really a movie as such, you could almost say it was a bit of a gimmick to both promote Jolson and at the same time use him to promote talking pictures in the best way possible. More of an experiment with talking pictures which at the same time takes the opportunity to capture the greatest performer of the age.
'wait a minute, wait a minute, you ain't heard nothin' yet!'
7/10
Quote from: Hubbs on Jan 17, 2015, 08:19:24 AM
...in short...its all very Jewish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCIBVOOgvlQ#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCIBVOOgvlQ#ws)
The Money Pit (1986)
One of the early Hanks comedies that cemented his position as one of the hottest upcoming comedy stars in Hollywood (after 'Splash'). Even though this movie has been overlooked for me its easily one of his better early movies. Although most of Hanks films have an abundance of heart this one also has a relatable subject in house renovation.
Tom Hanks (Walter) and Shelley Long (Anna) buy a huge country mansion that would normally go for around one million, but because the place is falling apart (unbeknownst to them) its going for $200,000. The initial joke being in this day and age this ginormous property would be selling for a lot more than one measly million, but that's to be expected. The laughs come thick and fast as they realise the mansion is a lemon and is literately coming apart bit by bit. They have been well and truly had by the previous owner.
Now far be it for me to nitpick at a light-hearted piece of comedy gold from the classic Tom Hanks 80's era but...lets go. The couple say they have no money whatsoever, indeed they have to borrow a shit-tonne just to buy the place, yet when they move in they are faced with massive repairs. The question that springs to mind is how on earth they afford to pay for all this. Sure both of them work so that will help but my God this mansion clearly requires some hefty workmanship that ain't gonna come cheap. Some of the things that go wrong are definitely laugh out loud worthy but Jesus the cost!!
Huge holes in the floor, a new bath tub, new electrics, new TV, new front door and surrounding wooden frame, broken windows, an entire new chimney both interior and exterior plus new fireplace, complete new plumbing, huge new wooden staircase, holes in the roof etc...Take into account that this is a property bordering on a stately home and most fittings will need specialist attention and most probably with handmade craftsmanship to boot! The staircase alone would of cost an absolute fortune, and then the entire chimney stack!! So I am left wondering how they could even begin to pay for all this on top of the fact they have borrowed money to buy the house. Hanks character does put down an initial down payment of $5,000 but I doubt that would even begin to cover much.
What is so sickly about the whole thing (so cutesy) is the fact that whilst all this is going on, in between all the horror that unfolds around them...both try and remain calm, expressing their love for each other and with Anna constantly reminding Walter everything will be OK. In reality I'm sure most people would have a break down. The weird aspect in the movie is that the building contractors appear to be this clan of fetish circus freaks. Big muscle men in bondage gear, little people and various types of punks all driving the type of vehicles you'd expect to find in the Mad Max franchise. Not really sure why they went down that route because it isn't particularly funny...just odd. I guess its suppose to freak you out because it looks like they're gonna ruin the place or squat there and the love birds will have more trouble on their hands.
I think people can relate to this movie simply because many will have experience of buying a place and having problems occur, be it down the line or straight away. I'm sure some will have experience that will have been just as horrific as in this movie, so watching this will certainly hit home for some. Indeed it does make you wince whilst watching, seeing this amazing mansion slowly crumble bit by bit, it does make your palms sweat at the thought of the spiralling costs whilst at the same time make you glad its not real...or its not you. Its all harmless fun with some good stunts, a bit of slapstick, a lovely real time house presumably combined with sets and an overly energetic Hanks. Oh and what's this...Anna's ex-husband is the main psychotic German henchman terrorist from 'Die Hard', how bout that.
6/10
I liked your Facebook page, Hubbs, I have a facebook group (see signature) where you reviews would gladly be welcome.
Beyond The Black Rainbow- 8/10
This has been one of the better movies I've watched in awhile. It took a bit for me to get into it, because it's got a slow hypnotic kind of pacing. But once I was into it, I was digging it. The movie was thoroughly interesting to me, although many may not find it entertaining. It has amazing visuals, feels like it pays homage to films such as THX, 2001, and Tron. It all looks like it was filmed on grainy film that was for movies from the 1970s and 80s, which is when the story takes place. The best way to think of the visuals are those cheesy low budget 80s sci-fi movies mixed with high budget arthouse films of the time period. Also fantastic soundtrack, although I wish the sounds used in the more exciting parts of the soundtrack were used more often rather than the endless humm sound. Also wasn't expecting this movie to be creepy, that was fun.
Despite me saying I love the visuals, there was a scene that was a flashback scene that felt too stylized. Essentially it was really high contrast black and white and the only thing you could see was everybody's eyes, lips, and hair. And it looks unintentionally funny. It looked better when the guy was covered in mud and when they got more detailed, but with the floating hair walking around it looked just kind of stupid. But horrifying acid trip scene after it made up for it (literally an acid trip in-film, it's important to the plot of the movie, not just calling it an acid trip because it was surreal)
My biggest problem with the movie is it's style, which is slow, hypnotic, visual-centric. That would be fine, I enjoy those kinds of movies, however its story feels it belongs in a more literal story driven movie not meant to be so 'artsy'. So rather than the visuals enhancing the story, like it would do for a film like 2001, it seems to detract the story. It makes it more confusing, and not in a 'oh this is a neat puzzle let me figure it out' kind of way. I read up on the movie after watching it and I learned that the director (who is the son of the director who made Rambo II) intentionally wanted to make a hybrid of popcorn entertainment that his father loved making and high art that his mother loved. A neat idea in concept, but I don't think he pulled it off that well. But at least it helps knowing that it was intentional.
Reading up on this movie does help me appreciate it more, as I think I would have given it a lower score if I hadn't. I learned that the project was a lot more personal than 'I just want to make a cool trippy movie' as there is a story behind the concept. The director would see the R rated movies at the video store as a kid (which was during the 80s) and he was allowed look but not rent because of his age. He would then try to imagine what the movies were about, and he came up with two separate ideas in which he then morphed into one which formed Beyond The Black Rainbow. And I think that was a genuinely great idea, and in that way I feel he did a splendid job. In a way, it reminds me of Eraserhead, a personal project for David Lynch that also gained a cult following. The movie more about what it means to the director than what it means to the audience, which is fine in my opinion. It's not everybody's thing though.
Knights of Badassdom- 4/10
Really only fun for the LARPing parts and the general concept of the film. It's got an incoherent script that tries to be clever, and that just makes it worse. For example, the script required that the main characters needed real weapons to take down the Sucubus, so the screenwriter realized he needed to write ahead of time why there are real weapons there. And the best thing he could come up with was that the main characters brought some to 'increase realism!' despite never using them because that would be against the rules. And then you have this character in the beginning who's face gets tattooed or something by the evil magical book, and it's not explained why that happened and then it's set up to be used later, and it is sort of but then they just do something else instead and that's to SING HEAVY METAL MUSIC TO MAKE THE SUCUBUS GO AWAY.
Room 237- 6/10
Relatively fun documentary to watch about the crazy theories surrounding the hidden meanings of The Shining. 97% of it is just unconvincing nonsense from people who over-analyzed the movie (one guy even thinks that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing and The Shining was his confession to it), but other stuff is in fact interesting. The stuff that I agree with to an extent is the whole spacial awareness, in which the whole hotel is impossible to map as locations couldn't possibly be placed where they were as well as objects/lights/etc moving in different places during shots. I believe that was often intentional to increase the feeling of uneasiness in the film. Besides, brother-in-law of Stanley Kubrick, who was a set designer for the film I believe, admitted that they did thing about that. I also sort of agree that the overall theme of the movie is about the repetition of violence in history and the references to the Native Americans. I also believe that the Apollo 11 shirt that Danny wears was intentional, but only as a joke to Kubrick for people to go crazy over as he was already speculated to have been the faker of the moonlanding by that time. But what I love about this documentary is it shows just how genius The Shining really is, even if all the speculated stuff is BS, Stanley Kubrick always makes movies feel as if there is something more there, and it's so effective that people spend their lives trying to figure it out,
Quote from: evolution_rex on Feb 25, 2015, 07:55:10 PM
I liked your Facebook page, Hubbs, I have a facebook group (see signature) where you reviews would gladly be welcome.
Beyond The Black Rainbow- 8/10
This has been one of the better movies I've watched in awhile. It took a bit for me to get into it, because it's got a slow hypnotic kind of pacing. But once I was into it, I was digging it. The movie was thoroughly interesting to me, although many may not find it entertaining. It has amazing visuals, feels like it pays homage to films such as THX, 2001, and Tron. It all looks like it was filmed on grainy film that was for movies from the 1970s and 80s, which is when the story takes place. The best way to think of the visuals are those cheesy low budget 80s sci-fi movies mixed with high budget arthouse films of the time period. Also fantastic soundtrack, although I wish the sounds used in the more exciting parts of the soundtrack were used more often rather than the endless humm sound. Also wasn't expecting this movie to be creepy, that was fun.
Despite me saying I love the visuals, there was a scene that was a flashback scene that felt too stylized. Essentially it was really high contrast black and white and the only thing you could see was everybody's eyes, lips, and hair. And it looks unintentionally funny. It looked better when the guy was covered in mud and when they got more detailed, but with the floating hair walking around it looked just kind of stupid. But horrifying acid trip scene after it made up for it (literally an acid trip in-film, it's important to the plot of the movie, not just calling it an acid trip because it was surreal)
My biggest problem with the movie is it's style, which is slow, hypnotic, visual-centric. That would be fine, I enjoy those kinds of movies, however its story feels it belongs in a more literal story driven movie not meant to be so 'artsy'. So rather than the visuals enhancing the story, like it would do for a film like 2001, it seems to detract the story. It makes it more confusing, and not in a 'oh this is a neat puzzle let me figure it out' kind of way. I read up on the movie after watching it and I learned that the director (who is the son of the director who made Rambo II) intentionally wanted to make a hybrid of popcorn entertainment that his father loved making and high art that his mother loved. A neat idea in concept, but I don't think he pulled it off that well. But at least it helps knowing that it was intentional.
Reading up on this movie does help me appreciate it more, as I think I would have given it a lower score if I hadn't. I learned that the project was a lot more personal than 'I just want to make a cool trippy movie' as there is a story behind the concept. The director would see the R rated movies at the video store as a kid (which was during the 80s) and he was allowed look but not rent because of his age. He would then try to imagine what the movies were about, and he came up with two separate ideas in which he then morphed into one which formed Beyond The Black Rainbow. And I think that was a genuinely great idea, and in that way I feel he did a splendid job. In a way, it reminds me of Eraserhead, a personal project for David Lynch that also gained a cult following. The movie more about what it means to the director than what it means to the audience, which is fine in my opinion. It's not everybody's thing though.
Knights of Badassdom- 4/10
Really only fun for the LARPing parts and the general concept of the film. It's got an incoherent script that tries to be clever, and that just makes it worse. For example, the script required that the main characters needed real weapons to take down the Sucubus, so the screenwriter realized he needed to write ahead of time why there are real weapons there. And the best thing he could come up with was that the main characters brought some to 'increase realism!' despite never using them because that would be against the rules. And then you have this character in the beginning who's face gets tattooed or something by the evil magical book, and it's not explained why that happened and then it's set up to be used later, and it is sort of but then they just do something else instead and that's to SING HEAVY METAL MUSIC TO MAKE THE SUCUBUS GO AWAY.
Room 237- 6/10
Relatively fun documentary to watch about the crazy theories surrounding the hidden meanings of The Shining. 97% of it is just unconvincing nonsense from people who over-analyzed the movie (one guy even thinks that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing and The Shining was his confession to it), but other stuff is in fact interesting. The stuff that I agree with to an extent is the whole spacial awareness, in which the whole hotel is impossible to map as locations couldn't possibly be placed where they were as well as objects/lights/etc moving in different places during shots. I believe that was often intentional to increase the feeling of uneasiness in the film. Besides, brother-in-law of Stanley Kubrick, who was a set designer for the film I believe, admitted that they did thing about that. I also sort of agree that the overall theme of the movie is about the repetition of violence in history and the references to the Native Americans. I also believe that the Apollo 11 shirt that Danny wears was intentional, but only as a joke to Kubrick for people to go crazy over as he was already speculated to have been the faker of the moonlanding by that time. But what I love about this documentary is it shows just how genius The Shining really is, even if all the speculated stuff is BS, Stanley Kubrick always makes movies feel as if there is something more there, and it's so effective that people spend their lives trying to figure it out,
Joined :)
The Signal- 6/10
If Zombie Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, and Neil Blomkamp came together and made a low budget indie sc-fi, it would look pretty much like this movie. It's a really fun ride especially if you have no idea what it's about going in. It's got some minor little issues that felt out of place and it's mostly tonal. There are some things that felt a little cheesy, but the over the top ending made it seem that it was suppose to have that level of ridiculousness but it didn't seem to imply that when most of the movie took itself seriously. But I guess that's part of the fun because you're not expecting it.
Apparently the film is some sort of metaphor for choosing between logical and emotion thinking and has something to do with The Wizard of Oz somehow, and I guess I see how those themes play into the movie, it just feels like a good solid twist-and-turn movie. Definitely underrated.
Penguins of Madagascar (2014)
A fourth sequel in the Madagascar franchise technically but as you can see its a spin-off about those quirky penguins. I guess this was a logical move because lets be honest the main characters in that franchise were a bit annoying and had been milked pretty good. Using these little guys for an all out comedic adventure makes sense yet at the same time it does feel like a desperate move to me. Oddly enough this movie is apparently unrelated to the kids TV series of the same name, and that series was also unrelated to the movie franchise also, kinda makes me ask why and how!
There aren't too many directions this kids movie could of taken in all honesty. The main four characters are a sneaky highly organised team of espionage types...in a cute n funny way...so naturally this means another Bond-esque espionage type adventure (ugh!). Yes that's right, we haven't quite had enough of that genre so hey lets do it some more with penguins, hey how unoriginal could it possibly be??
So there's this octopus right, and he's been the centre of attention in his home zoo for a long time, that is until the penguins turn up and steal his thunder. All of a sudden everybody loves the penguins and Dave the octopus (yes that's right Dave) is kicked to the curb. He is sent off to other zoos where the same thing happens over and over. Eventually Dave gets fed up with this and decides he wants revenge on all penguin kind (in the zoos), so he disguises himself as a human (yes that's right) and sets to work on a secret formula that turns all penguins into green mutant zombie penguins. Only the main four hero penguins can stop him...with a little help from another highly organised team of animal espionage operatives that include a grey wolf, a snowy owl, a polar bear and a harp seal.
Yeah OK this is a kids movie and its complete fluff sure, but this plot is so utterly inane its...um laughable. Since when would an octopus be a zoos main attraction, and you're telling me all these zoos didn't have penguins for such long periods, one of the most common animals in a zoo along with elephants. The octopus is called Dave...Dave!! he disguises himself as a human and has an army of little octopi henchmen...really. What exactly is the point of his plan? to make all penguins ugly mutants and...? then maybe he'll be the centre of attention again...until another creature comes along and steals his thunder. Did there really need to be another group of animal spies? Because now you have the highly generic cliched idea of the penguins being the inefficient clumsy team that get by on pure luck alongside the really slick cool team that are a very professional no nonsense operation with real skills. Its a standard 101 comedy plot concept people! couldn't you stretch any further than that?!
Yes I know I'm being all kinds of a bad sport by ripping into this children's movie but it just bugs me. They churn out these cookie cutter animation flicks with little care or concern to actual quality, they literately seem to think that using an A-list cast of stars for the voices will somehow make things all better. Yes eggs Benedict Cumberland pie is in this because its the trendy thing to do right now, cast him in everything, who cares. What's that you say...John Malkovich is voicing the octopus villain Dave...well gee that makes all the difference doesn't it.
Everything about this movie is utterly bog standard with little to no imagination involved whatsoever. Yet another espionage parody with the same damn characters over and over, the same adventure, the same gadgets, the same thrills and spills, yet another hip hop music track over the end credits (facepalm!), the same everything!!! Its like they just thought to use the slightly more popular characters from the Madagascar franchise and try to milk them dry with their own franchise that's actually pretty much the same shit as the Madagascar films...oh wait, that's exactly what they've done. I admit the only thing that is remotely enjoyable here are the four penguins and their slapstick tomfoolery, albeit only two of them are actually any good. Tom McGrath as the leader Skipper is easily the best thing here with his Zapp Brannigan-like voice whilst the brains of team Kowalski comes in second.
Its all about on par with the other Madagascar movies and its annoying menagerie of characters, and just as daft. I have moaned about silly things yes and I know the movie is completely off the wall and isn't suppose to make a lick of sense, but I think that route can really be a mistake at times. I find it much funnier when you take a fantasy concept like this and merge it within grounded reality like 'Toy Story' so there are actual realistic laws to abide by. When its just a free fall of silliness it doesn't always work, some originality helps too of course. The bright colourful visuals will keep kids entertained I'm sure but the frantic lunacy and horribly overused cliched ideas will bore most adults I think, and no Benedict Cumberbatch doesn't make this any better.
4/10
Rush (2013)
Again its another title that doesn't really come across too well for me, is there a reason behind this? I'm guessing there must be because on its own it sounds a bit weak honesty. So back in 1976 (two years before I was created) there were these two F1 drivers. James Hunt a good looking, blonde haired, blue eyed aristocratic British playboy type, and Niki Lauda, a dark curly haired not too good looking Austrian. This is a biographical about their roots in racing and mainly the 1976 F1 season which was a face-off between the two, never mind the rest of the field, it was all about these two.
It all kicks off in the UK in Crystal Palace Park, South London where both men are are already at each others throats in F3 racing. This is where we meet up with both drivers and find out what cliched caricatures they really are. This is a true story yet its amazing how comicbook-esque these blokes were, complete polar opposites. Hunt is good looking with his flowing blonde locks, he's brash, arrogant, always up for a bit of fisticuffs plus he smoked and drank, a complete wildcard. On the other hand Lauda was the stereotypical cold, calculating, precise Germanic opponent that could easily be seen as the Dick Dastardly of the story. Seriously you couldn't have written it any better really, the only similarity was the fact both men came from wealthy backgrounds so you don't have the rags to riches tale here.
We follow the duo as they both enter F1, Hunt with via his small racing team Hesketh and Lauda buying his way in eventually joining Ferrari. After a brief problem trying to enter the 76 F1 season when Hesketh closes down due to no sponsor and Hunt having to join McLaren...the heat is on. The season plays out race by race (almost) with both drivers virtually neck and neck (kinda) to its climatic finale and of course including the horrendous accident that Lauda suffered in Nurburgring.
I will be honest right off the bat here, I have no interest in F1 or anything similar to that, although I am a bit of a car man, but mainly Japanese super saloons. So I went into this expecting to be rather bored, how wrong could I have been! The onscreen chemistry between Hemsworth and Bruhl is crackling, every time they bump into each other I was sucked into their world, I wanted to know more yet I don't know why. Its not like I understood everything they were talking about, I'm not a petrolhead, but it was all so exciting and dare I say...manly.
I mean seriously...Hunt was a man's man, a true roguish daredevil and its infectious, Hemsworth just about portrays that trait well enough to make you wanna leap into an F1 car and blaze away. Although from what I've read it seems the movie has tamed this larger than life personality down a tad, plus his voice was off the mark alas. I kinda think Hemsworth may have gotten his part down to the fact he is simply blonde and a hot ticket right now in all honesty, something inside me thinks if they had looked a bit harder and used an unknown it might have been better.
I also must give major kudos to Bruhl for his portrayal as Lauder, the perfect foil to Hunt. I loved how Bruhl did seem to capture Lauda's voice, that stout proper Germanic accent with a slight lisp, very impressive and hard work I'm sure. Bruhl also looked very much like the real deal with his curly hair and the infamous slightly protruding front teeth of Lauda. Its really amazing how similar he looks to the man himself, it really sets the tone and mood for the movie.
What really impresses is the movies visuals, right from the start in 1970 everything is faithfully recreated with real cars used throughout. Its really something to see all the old outfits, advertisements, company logos, racing strips and colours, vehicles, track details and of course the classic F1 cars. I fully remember seeing F1 cars with cigarette advertising liveries on them, the old red and white Marlboro, the all black and gold John Player Special, then of course all the classic petrol/oil logos like Shell, Mobil and Elf etc...a real blast from the past and very much enjoyed. On top of that the race sequences were highly engaging and thoroughly exhilarating (I didn't know who won what so even better), everything looked really authentic, really realistic and very well produced, I can't fault anything.
There is never really a moment where I wasn't completely...for lack of a better word...engaged! Despite Hunt seemingly coming across as the good guy in the story that aspect switches from scene to scene. Sometimes Hunt is clearly the man and Lauda is too much of an obsessed rude dick, thinking of racing as more of a meticulous job. Sometimes you feel for Lauda being the more insecure, less attractive, more lonely guy whilst Hunt is showing off for the cameras being an ass. It totally swings in roundabouts which is interesting but ultimately they both played off each other to raise their games, to get better, they ultimately need each other, and of course neither one is the bad guy. Sure there are some moments that are inaccurate such as Hunt beating up a reporter, but again on the other hand there is much here that is very accurate such as Lauda's near-fatal crash.
So yes I'm going there, its happening, I'm giving this sports biopic a full on perfect score. I totally and utterly recommend this even if you don't follow F1 or even like cars, I don't follow F1 but I found it absolutely riveting. A classy super fast super slick British 'Top Gun' with tyres type flick, corking stuff old chap. Now I await the same excellence for motorcycle world champion Barry Sheene, F1 world champion Nigel Mansell and of course daredevil Evel Knievel.
10/10
The Boat That Rocked (aka Pirate Radio, UK, 2009)
I kinda see this as a companion piece to the earlier British comedy 'Still Crazy', or they could exist in same universe at least. As for the title I think the US version is much better really, the original UK title is a bit of a mouth full, mind you other Euro versions are quite radical also. In France its called 'Good Morning England' which is quite the rip-off frankly, in Germany its 'Radio Rock Revolution' and in Italy its 'I Love Radio Rock'. So all in all this movie has the most title changes ever it seems...all of which are actually better than the original UK one I think.
The quaint little story here is straight forward, back in the 60's rock and pop was frowned upon by the stale old crusty stiff upper lipped British government. A government that is still clearly set in the 50's and wasn't ready or willing to accept the free flowing hippie movement and its drastic changes. During this time pirate radio stations were set up to play tunage that was considered not cricket, but to avoid British law these musical rebels set up shop in the North Sea away from land-set restrictions and out of reach. Although inspired by real pirate radio stations of the time this fictional story sees a group of ragtag DJ's on a rusty old trawler blasting the UK with dangerous rock n roll. At the same time the dastardly Kenneth Branagh and his sidekick are trying their upmost to shut them down.
The plot is actually quite similar to 'Still Crazy' with the basic premise of a young man joining a group of older men to go on a wild immature adventure of sorts. In 'Still Crazy' a young man joins the band, here a young man joins the radio crew, both films focusing on all of the characters giving us multiple subplots. As you can imagine all of these little character driven stories revolve around the simple issues of sex, booze, relationships, having a good time and battling against the establishment. Each character has their own little quirk that is pretty predictable and highly cliched in a typically rude crass British kind of way, nothing wrong with that of course, you expect it right from the start but its seen in virtually every British comedy.
Apparently you simply cannot make a British comedy without Bill Nighy and here he plays the same type of rigid character yet again. Rhys Ifans plays another slimy creepy generally unlikable character, Nick Frost plays...errr...the fat bloke...again, and then pad out the rest with various familiar faces which most Brits will recognise in some form or another but everyone else won't. The only real breath of fresh air in this cast is Hoffman as the rebellious brash US DJ which gives the film a sense of 'Good Morning Vietnam' vs traditional British toilet humour...at times.
The establishment that is trying to ruin everyone's fun is played in its entirety by Kenneth Branagh, a strict headmaster-esque government minister who thinks rock n roll is corrupting young minds. His sidekick played by Jack Davenport is surprisingly not a half wit as you might expect but a clever devious subordinate who digs up legal loopholes. Together these two make a reasonably fun pair of bad guys (not really bad of course) and do offer most of the entertainment character wise. Sure it might have been cliched to make them a bumbling pair of Laurel and Hardy types but maybe that might have worked in the films favour? None the less Branagh plays the sniveling jobsworth suit to a tee with his grovelling to the Prime Minister. Alas they did let everything down by naming Davenport's character Twatt...a totally lame and unfunny gag that seems rather childish, they couldn't think of anything better than that?!
By now I'm sure most of you must know what to expect with a comedy like this, all the usual Brit gags visual or otherwise, like I said its the same spiel in all UK comedy flicks (with almost the same cast). Being based on pirate radio of course this means the sexual innuendo gags are through the roof! add to that lots of frat house-like tomfoolery, soppy lovin' and a brief spot of nudity. What can I say, its silly and infantile but its still a good, warm-hearted relaxing flick with a solid soundtrack and a surprisingly semi-emotional finale. Its just not as funny as you'd like it to be.
6/10
Didn't know where to stick this (hehe), kinda cool though...
http://nedhardy.com/2015/04/21/21-abandoned-movie-sets-you-can-still-visit-today/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com (http://nedhardy.com/2015/04/21/21-abandoned-movie-sets-you-can-still-visit-today/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com)
Fierce Creatures (1997)
So back in 1988 there was a highly quirky, sexy British crime heist movie with a mix of top cult British and American stars, it was a huge (and surprising) success. Nine years later the same team were back in this sort of sequel, or maybe prequel, no one was really sure. In the end it was just another comedy utilising the same cast, however, the novelisation of the film actually explains how both movies connect, but no one cares about the book so...
The plot is radically different from the 'A Fish Called Wanda', this is not any kind of crime comedy but it still involves unscrupulous people. Its all about John Cleese's character Rollo coming to look after a small typically British zoo of mainly small harmless animals, which he then tries to convert into a zoo full of fierce creatures. He has to do this because the main company he works for (that own the zoo) wants better revenue from the attraction hotspot. Thusly he is instantly at odds with the zoo's team of caring keepers who obviously are against this. At the same time Rollo must contend with Willa Weston and Vince McCain (Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline) who are overseeing this latest acquisition by the company to make sure it makes money.
You see the problem with this comedy is the fact they have tried to basically remake 'Wanda'. Many of scenes in this film are rehashes from the original and are going for exactly the same laughs, the cast are playing virtually the same kind of characters and in the case of Jamie Lee Curtis her characters name has clearly been made as close as possible to Wanda (Willa). I really don't understand why they have done this because everyone knows this kind of thing hardly ever works, it doesn't matter how grand your cast roster is.
Much of the said cast is of course taken from the first movie, and I don't just mean the main cast either, many smaller roles and cameos feature actors/actresses from the first movie. Does that somehow make things better? are these actors suppose to connect this story to the first movie somehow? Apparently not as this is supposed to be more of a stand alone movie...so why use the same cast then?? I mean sure the use of the classic British comedic legend Ronnie Corbett is very nice, a nice addition, but he barely does anything and is clearly there just to ramp up the star meter. Its an all British type affair so lets get some British gems of comedy...yeah OK but at least make use of them, at least make a good film with them.
I mean watching Cleese in this is actually cringeworthy, he's doing all his usual typical funny little quirks he's done his entire career because that's what people expect, but its old hat now. He brings nothing new to the table here which isn't entirely his fault because (like I said) people wanna see that but you gotta try and break the mould guy! In short Cleese is basically Basil Fawlty in charge of a zoo...but not as funny, sweet idea, but like I said its not as funny as it sounds. At the same time watching Cleese trying to act sexy and dashing whilst cuddling up to Curtis (again) is horrible!! its like watching your aging dad trying to be sexy n cool with a younger woman, God no!
As pointed out already Curtis plays the same character again too, a sexual female predator that is after Rollo but has to shake off the ever lurking Vincent (Kline), yet again. This leads to Kline who (as in the first movie) is head and shoulders above the rest giving the best performance. Kline seems to be really really good at playing the brash, pig-headed, egotistical Yank that won't think twice about being a complete shit no matter who's watching. He's rude, arrogant and cruel (yet again) and has his target set on Cleese's character Rollo (yet again), you notice I'm having to type 'yet again' quite often here. Do I have to mention Palin and his character that bares a remarkably close resemblance to his character in 'Wanda'? Nope, its the same character.
Don't get me wrong this isn't a terrible movie, its not all bad, there are some nice moments of farcical humour, just not that much is all. It has everything you'd expect from a naughty British comedy that has two Pythons in it (no not the scaly reptilian kind). Characters running around in their underwear (Cleese again!), lots of sexual double entendres, silly visual gags, pratfalls, slapstick and the odd hint of violence which you of course don't actually see. Thing is, the first movie was a smart, witty, sexy, dark comedy aimed at adults. This movie is a childish, immature, infantile, watered down excuse of a comedy that isn't really aimed at anyone. The kids won't appreciate the performances (or at least what they were aiming for) and there's nothing too visually appealing going on for them either, whilst its way too dumb and soft for adults. There's no point having Jamie Lee Curtis looking all slinky if she's not gonna actually do anything.
I think the idea for a quaint little British zoo battling against corporate suits is fine and has promise, but its been completely squandered here. For the first time ever I would have to say that the shenanigans of both Cleese and Palin actually bored and annoyed me at times. I've never really come across a movie that has tried to pretty much copy its predecessors formula so blatantly. I mean seriously! why would you even watch this when you have the first movie which is exactly the same and so much better.
4/10
The Night Flier (1997)
There are many movie adaptations of Stephen King's work, mostly hit and miss truth be told, but there are some little gems hidden in the crowd. Now admittedly I knew nothing of this particular story and on first glance the title is kinda off putting, The Night Flier? really? I then discover its about a murderer who flies around in his little blacked out plane to remote airstrips and kills people. Basically its a vampire story (hence the blacked out plane), a vampire that uses a plane to travel around and drain folk dry, sounds daft doesn't it. Then you look at the movies poster and oh boy that doesn't help, to make things worse they even show the vampires monster face on the poster!
So the plot follows this cynical, grumpy, emotionless reporter played by Miguel Ferrer, he picks up this story about a killer flying around killing people in strange and sometimes horrific ways. The film plays on the fact the killer is a supernatural being, a vampire. Every time we see him he's basically dressed like Dracula with the typical long flowing black cape with high collar and shrouded in shadow, of course we never see his face (don't look at the films poster). The clever (well sort of clever) twist being we are not sure if the killer really is a vampire or maybe its all just coincidental, or perhaps it could all be in Dees (Ferrer) mind.
At the start of the movie we catch up with Dees in a bar after work, he's angry at his boss and drinking. We are then introduced to another younger female reporter who has recently joined the rag tabloid Dees works for. Dees explains to her how nasty the job is and how following and talking to all these weirdos and killers over the years may have warped his mind, or as he puts it, it all starts to make sense. This brief moment of dialog is a hint at the evolution of the plot and may or may not explain the ending.
Ferrer does a top job at playing the foul mouthed, rude, harsh and pessimistic Dees. This guy will stop at nothing for a good gruesome scoop with things like compassion and empathy falling by the wayside. To a degree its hard to get on this characters side because he is so unlikable. We follow his slow descent into madness as he tracks the killer from one vile murder scene to another, at times he shows a tiny amount of emotion but in general he gets worse as his obsession to uncover the truth swallows him. In the end you kinda feel sorry for the guy because his job is eating him alive, you want him to just quit and walk away.
As for the vampire killer its a little unclear to me. We are indeed led to believe the killer is a real vampire, his plane contains native soil for his rest, the plane is completely blacked out to protect against daylight, his attire and the way he drains blood from his victims. At one point Dees even uncovers a photo album inside the killers plane which appears to show the killer in human form before he became a vampire, although I'm not sure why or how he turned into a hideous monster. The pictures also seem to date back to around the First World War hinting at immortality. The big question is what does happen in the finale? is the vampire killer actually real? did he kill all these people? or was it in fact Dees all along in his crazy state of mind?
After some homework it appears the movie is actually pretty faithful to the original short story. In the book the killer is a vampire and he does leave Dees badly shaken in a sea of carnage making the police believe Dees was the killer. But the movie isn't so clear, it ends in similar fashion but also hints that Dees did kill people. Either that or the vampire did play with Dees mind and he goes temporarily nuts hacking up the already dead bodies (dead bodies of the people the vampire did actually kill) so it looks grave for him when the cops show up. The small scene showing the vampire (for some reason in human form?) leaving the airport after the cops show up and flying away in his plane does seem to confirm the latter, maybe? As for his human form, was that to show a curse had been broken perhaps? Dees had taken the rap which in turn freed the vampire from his grisly way of life?
There isn't a great deal of vampiric stuff going on for the most part admittedly, we see plenty of dead bodies and gore yes but not much of the killer. When you do see him he doesn't actually look scary either, more cliched and cheesy if anything, its like watching Bela Lugosi marching around. That is of course until the big reveal (don't look at the films pos...ah too late), when Dees finally comes face to face with the beast...and its one hell of a prosthetic mask! A rat-like face with a huge gaping maw and two giant sharp fangs for puncturing a mortals neck. Again its not exactly a scary moment, not shocking, but the craftsmanship on the makeup is top notch, really eerie with an original flare.
It still seems silly to have a vampire flying around in a blacked out plane, surely it would be easy to track and catch with the planes ID numbers and radar etc...The film does touch on that but nothing seems to come of it, no one ever seems to really try to catch this plane. All you would need is one good ambush when he lands, or sabotage his plane and he's screwed for the most part. Still the plane aspect does actually work nicely I can't deny, you wouldn't think it but it does.
This is actually a great little horror flick with some excellently dark atmospheric moments and some nice creepy old fashioned spine chilling visuals. Its not the best vampire flick I've seen but it does hold its own with its unique quirky style. Add to that a shit-tonne of easter eggs from the King universe for fanboys, and you have a solid enjoyable movie for a dark cold rainy night.
7/10
Black Eagle (1988)
Ah one of those old JCVD movies that wasn't actually a JCVD movie. I remember being fooled by this back in the day when I was a kid, the cool looking movie poster with both Kosugi and JCVD looking uber badass, the movie title in that striking old USSR logo, so much promise from one image. This movie is very much like JCVD's other early action flick 'No Retreat, No Surrender', he doesn't appear much in that film either, plus he also plays yet another baddie Russian character. So back in the 80's JCVD was kinda typecast as a Russian henchman, guess he had that look.
The plot actually revolves around Sho Kosugi, a special ops operative who is called up to find some downed hi-tech equipment from the bottom of the Mediterranean. Some laser tracking devices went down with a jet that was shot down by whoever for whatever reasons. This is all set in Malta and is now very dated to look at of course, in fact the entire thing looks very much like an old James Bond flick, especially with the whole downed jet with hi-tech equipment scenario. It all feels very much like 'Never Say Never Again' to me. At first I thought this was just me but no! this movie does actually try its best to rip-off the Bond franchise. Hell there's even a smoky casino sequence with the main villain and his sidekicks at the roulette table facing off against Kosugi. The whole scene is clearly lifted straight outta the 007 universe, 'Dr. No' much!
The location work for this movie is extremely impressive I must say, its easily the best aspect of the feature. Every scene is shot in and around the beautiful and awe-inspiring sand coloured stone structures of Malta and its various famous landmarks. To be quite honest most of this movie is actually rather dull frankly, all we see for the most part is Kosugi pussy footing around like a beige coloured ninja or swimming in crystal clear blue waters. He also has a sidekick, some other skinny dude who aids him with intel. The rest of the time it cuts to scenes with his two kids who eventually get kidnapped, and that's the only reason they are there...to be kidnapped. Sure Kosugi's bosses used the kids to get him to do this assignment but after that it makes no real sense why they hang around in the face of obvious danger. If all this hadn't been shot against this stunningly historic, sand coloured land of ancient wonder then it would be completely pointless.
After lots of rather mundane dialog and hints of JCVD's grandness, we finally get a showdown between him and Kosugi. The setting is perfect, atop of some crumbling derelict old fortress wall (or so it seemed), a blazing sun high in the clear blue sky, both men glistening in the Mediterranean heat (oh my!), JCVD vs Kosugi, round 1, fight! Annnnd its all over in less than three minutes, yep a few kicks, a few ducks and parries, a bit of blood around the chops and its all over. We now have to wait to the very end for another face-off, ugh!
Yep then its back to more of Kosugi prancing around with his skinny sidekick as they create their plan to infiltrate the villains main ship, thing is I can't remember why. Not that any of that matters now because this is the lead up to the main battle, the main battle against Ernst Stavro Blofeld and his hordes of henchmen aboard his...oh wait. Yep we now get a quick 'Commando' rip-off with Kosugi gearing up and covering himself in black tar by the looks of it, he does a sloppy job of it too sheesh! Lock n load with a bigass crossbow to rip-off Rambo a little bit, then its off we go to kill all the bad guys. This all leads to the finale fight with JCVD, round 2, fight! It lasts a bit longer this time but it never really hits it stride, both men seem to take turns in doing all their signature moves whilst trying not to hurt each other too much. Some nice swing and misses with sweeps and roundhouse kicks etc...but nothing that will get you frothing for more.
I lost the plot ages ago with this, they were after these laser tracking devices and I'm sure Kosugi found them and won the movie halfway through, I dunno. It had to lead up to some sort of big showdown with guns and plosions. Its a very odd movie really, Kosugi isn't much of a leading man or fighter judging by this, plus his accent is very heavy and hard to follow at times. JCVD is wasted but does make a fun bad guy, whilst the main villains are pretty pathetic, completely non-threatening, just suits. Clearly they were trying for a slick Bond-esque type romp with semi-serious overtones, yet at the same time they throw in little bits from other franchises too just to make sure, they even get Kosugi's kids in on the action.
In the end the plot goes MIA halfway through and it all becomes a very lame excuse just to get Kosugi facing off against JCVD (in a pretty location). The problem being its all a completely wasted opportunity because most of this film sucks, if anything it serves as a fantastic tourist advertisement for the Island of Malta and its idyllic cobbled backstreets.
3/10
King Ralph (1991)
Back in the early 90's we got many family movies that offered lots of cheesy irritating laughs and child actors, the odd thing was many actually did really well. The original movie would somehow manage to become a reasonable hit (a different time), and those movies, in some cases, actually turned into franchises! Those same franchises then managed to knock out a semi-decent sequel or two before eventually disintegrating into utter trash with numerous straight to DVD sequels being churned out. The films I refer to would be 'Beethoven', 'Problem Child', 'Home Alone' and 'Free Willy'...mainly.
'King Ralph' was a slightly different animal though, a stand alone family film that was totally stupid in concept but offered a really solid cast and, by the looks of things, some high production values. Amazingly its yet another novel adaptation albeit a loose one, the story simply revolves around the British Royal Family getting wiped out in a freak accident. Its then down to the upper echelons to dig out a new King by rooting through the vast Royal Family tree, trying to discover a long lost distant relation with true royal blood to take the throne. Once they do it of course turns out to be the most unsuitable person imaginable (well for the early 90's anyway), a fat, loud, uncouth, brash American.
Right so who would be the best fat loud American of the time? why John Goodman of course. The fat, beer-swilling, checkered-shirt wearing slob from the hit TV US show Roseanne. Basically take Goodman's popular character from that show, the stereotypical, overweight, middle aged, lacking of general knowledge, US sports obsessed male Yank, and make him a lounge singer with a knowledge of female club stripping and a penchant for Elvis style shades (not much of a stretch). To counter this you need a stereotypical British gent to guide and teach this gaudy foreigner, enter the stellar Peter O'Toole as the Royal secretary. You can't really get any better than O'Toole for the epitome of a British aristocrat (despite being possibly Irish), and you can't really get anymore of a polar opposite to Goodman.
The duo play off each other superbly well considering how daft the film is and the fact its pretty much aimed at children. O'Toole puts in a sterling performance coming across perfectly as someone who would look after royalty, sure we've seen this type of performance from him before but his loyal butler-esque manner is so pleasing to watch and listen to. Indeed his speech to Goodman's character about what it is to be a King of England is quite stirring I must say, as a Brit it did bring a lump to my throat, such a shame these days patriotic talk like that is non-existent and almost frowned upon.
To add even more British star power to the proceedings we have John Hurt in an even more outrageously, hideously over the top, aristocratic, Conservative cad who will stop at nothing to dirty the new Kings image. Hurt's slimy, arrogant, pompous voice and attitude is just as good as his weaselly yet smartly dressed appearance complete with a dastardly thin pencil tash. I love how he's also completely cold, emotionless and kinda racist, calling Goodman's character 'a song and dance man from the colonies', a real Alan B'Stard. What's more his sidekick is played by Leslie Phillips! all the old chivalrous warhorses here.
So the brilliant character acting aside, what's also very impressive about this apparent silly kids flick is the fact it all looks fantastic. The outfits, suits and general attire of dignitaries and royals is spruce, debonair and dapper all round, everyone looks tip-top and pristine. The locations are a mix or real stately homes, clever use of small sections of real posh establishments and more obviously stock footage. Interior sequences are the most impressive with some sets looking exquisite, highly detailed and extremely lavish, it really looks like no expense was spared in creating these elegant royal interiors. I guess its all a bit surprising really, you'd never expect such extravagant detail with a silly little comedy like this, you'd think it would be all about the slapstick and raking in as much moolah as possible, different times.
Being an old movie I did also enjoy the retro blast I got from time to time, anyone of my age will no doubt feel the same way. Its always amusing to see old fashioned British punks in these movies. You the know the types, brightly coloured mohawks, black leather jackets covered in badges, chains and safety pins, lots of makeup etc...Twas also funny to see them all watching old fashioned TV's in the windows of a Rumbelows store, remember that??
Yeah the whole thing is very predictable as a kind of rags to riches, Prince Charming type of affair, you can guess what's gonna go down in scenes and overall its all very sweet and adorable. It might sound cliched and dumb but watching the hapless Ralph trying to learn the ways of the super rich, whilst attempting to chat with senior dignitaries and royalty, is perfect light entertainment. That said there is a pleasant and fresh tale to be discovered here, being based on a novel it kinda reminded me of 'Brewster's Millions' actually. Goodman (in an early-ish, pre-superstardom movie role) is amazingly likable as the American lounge lizard with a golden heart who is turned into a rich nobleman...with a golden heart. Supporting cast are all brilliant as said adding real quality and a hint of solid drama to the story, the film is fun for kids with plenty of cutesy charm, but it also has the odd snippet of fun for adults too.
7/10
Nuns on the Run (UK, 1990)
Now this is a blast from the past, a real shoulder-mounted retro cannon slug to the crotch. Back in 1990 Coltrane and Idle were probably two of the funniest and most popular guys in the UK alongside other greats of the BBC. One was an ex-Python, say no more, the other a British TV favourite and with some small notable movie roles under his belt. I don't really recall how well it did at the box office but I remember watching it often as a kid, and enjoying the heck out of it. It was one of those movies that was shown on TV pretty often, usually cut but a regular early evening flick none the less.
The story centres on two petty crooks who work for this London gangster, the duo are fed up with robbing banks and basically being bad guys so they decide to leave their criminal employer. Unfortunately the mobster boss doesn't allow his employees to leave so he arranges to have them whacked after a heist for some cash (pinching it from Triads). The duo realise what will probably happen so they come up with a plan to double cross their employer and run off with the money to Brazil. The plan goes well getting the money but the pair end up hiding out in a nunnery whilst the heat dies down, biding their time for the perfect chance to make a dash for it. During all this, Eric Idle's character Brian (must be his favourite comedy name) becomes infatuated with a blonde which complicates matters (of course).
Now maybe its me but I do think this British romp inspired the American hit 'Sister Act'. The entire rolling gag for this movie is basically seeing Idle and Coltrane in drag as nuns, a Laurel & Hardy pairing, one fat and one thin. Of course that is not the route the Whoopi Goldberg comedy went, but the premise of a person involved with criminals having to hide out with nuns and pretty much become one, is the same. The difference being this movie followed two blokes and its not as religious, if I can say that.
Now I will say that both Idle and Coltrane do work well together in this movie. They both fit their roles of seedy London gangsters perfectly, they are both quite amusing and they both look good as nuns too. Idle of course has much experience of dressing in ladies attire and acting silly with a silly effeminate high pitched voice. Indeed he does this very well even though it does feel like we've seen this whole act by him before. Coltrane has that great bold, loud, cutting edge to his humour that comes across brilliantly with his Scottish accent, he always sounds like he's taking the piss which is funny. Here he is better than Idle in my view, he is funnier, sharper with dialog, he naturally looks more amusing in certain situations because of his size and he actually looks like a real woman dressed as a nun.
The problem is the movie has highs and lows, but more boring lows. Much of the time we are watching people have conversations about the situation they are in, in between that we get some reasonably fast paced action but not a lot. What action we do see is, by today's standards, incredibly dated and cheesy looking, it doesn't help that the UK looked so damn quaint and charming back then too (look at the cars!!). The movie obviously didn't have a mega budget (it is an early Brit flick after all) and its pretty clear to see generally. That's not a bad thing, the low-key visuals do help the film feel more gritty and genuine but at the same time very cheap and tacky. Acting from the various other gangsters, Triads (merely filler in the story to be honest) and support cast are also somewhat primitive, at times at does feel like a homemade B-movie. The two cockney villains are definitely Richie/Vaughn type characters, again you can see influences there. Whilst the main boss is a real wet squib, God knows where they dug this guy up from with that horrific 90's hairdo, he looks like an annoying, pompous uni student you just wanna slap.
The highlights come within the nunnery which isn't surprising really. The cast for the nuns are really very good and dish out some solid laughs. When watching these old dears its very clear to see how this movie influenced the Whoopi Goldberg flick, the characters are very similar. The sister Superior (Janet Suzman) is a typically calm, kind talking, no-nonsense leader, but with a delicious dry wit about her. Then you have the old warhorse of a nun that can't hear too well, is kinda grumpy and forgets things, the fat nun that likes a drink, and the priest that likes the ladies a bit too much. The main difference here is this movie is for adults only, yes you do see lots of young female nuns nude, perky breasts, tight buttocks, skimpy lingerie and some naughty swearing I believe. It is highly amusing when we see Idle and Coltrane conversing with the nuns about various things, in various situations, as they try to avoid duties, keep hold of their loot and generally live like women, with lots of women...in a nunnery. Yes it is all cliched and predictable these days but it still raises a smile.
One other notable thing about this movie was the soundtrack that was provided by Swiss musicians Yello. The track was created years earlier but was prominently used in this movie throughout. It is a catchy oddball tune that does admittedly blend well with the madcap chase sequences.
The film is a good laugh but it doesn't really deliver on all fronts. Considering the title suggests its all about nuns on the run, there actually isn't a whole lot of that. Plenty of running, slapstick, pratfalls and all-round tomfoolery sure, but not too much of that involves the nun side of it. You could of called it 'On the Run' and it still would have worked, although obviously not as catchy. Its more of a crime heist comedy which is fine but its a shame they didn't nail in more religious jabs, it really yearned for it. Maybe they were just playing it safe, I just feel this could of been much more riskier and funnier, especially with Idle and Coltrane on board. It is typically British with typically British gags, a (now) routinely rascally affair that's infantile and cheeky. Close to being a classic but misses the chance.
6/10
Jurassic World Review (SPOILERS!)
Spoiler
I've been a Jurassic Park fan since I was a kid. Michael Crichton's novel was the first chapter book I read that I finished, and I instantly fell in love with the series. The movies are a big part of my life and has inspired my love for science fiction and film. Jurassic Park 3 was the last Jurassic Park film to come out and that was a bad way to go, so the long awaited Jurassic Park 4 became sort of an obsession. People have waited years and have followed the film's rich production history, filled with hilariously bad or deemly interesting concepts (some of which actually ended up in this new one), and I cannot think of any other film that was in development hell for so long that continued to be posted around the internet and continue to give fans hope or disappointment. So as a Jurassic Park fan, Jurassic World was highly anticipated.
Originally, I thought the basic idea of the film was completely wrong. A new park felt repetitious, they'd done in two of the three sequels already and I thought they needed to move on. But I eventually realized it had been a long time for some fans, and seeing the 'what if the park was populated' overwhelmingly overruled any qualms I had with it. It was the right decision. I hated the concept of the Jurassic Park series including something like the Indomnious Rex, but as the movie's production went on I realized that it was going to be done tastefully. The trained raptors had me initially skeptical but I thought they were going to pull that off. So by the time I watched it, I thought they had the full concept down and I knew none of that was going to be the issue. The only qualm I held to the very end was the fact that the new Jurassic World took place on Isla Nublar, which seemed to have implied to be either bombed or raided until there were no more dinosaurs left by the second film. However while watching it, there were no dinosaurs implied to be living from the old days of the park except for the Rex (who could have survived, along with a few other dinosaurs, long enough for Masrani to buy the island or it could have at some point been moved to Sorna.) It's also entirely possible that InGen did nothing to the animals and that during the second film, there was some negotiations between Masrani and InGen and Peter Ludlow, the antagonist of The Lost World, only said that they had 'deconstructed' the island so he could keep it a secret. Whatever the details of it are, it doesn't seem like anything contradicts it. So in my eyes, Jurassic World is very much a fourth film and not a reboot that takes the last two out of canon.
So, as I said, the movie's premise sounded fun to me, and I was ready to watch it. However, the film has some issues and after watching it twice, I think I can say I know where the movie's problems lay. The Jurassic Park series has always been comical and to some extent cartoony, but with this film it felt too cartoony at times. Almost comic book-ish. To be honest, it felt like a Marvel film at times. Which is fine, but it did go overboard with the humor, cheese, and lack of realism in moments. But overall it did not have a big enough impact on me as I was expecting. The film tries it's hardest to capture the tone and feel of the original movies and I think it mostly does, even if there were a few jokes that missed the mark for me ('Yeah definitely him!' and 'sorry I have a boyfriend' for example) and that the film fluctuations from a dark tone to a light tone very suddenly (something that the original films are guilty of, but not to the same extent as this film). Personally, I had wished that this movie take on the tone of the Planet of the Apes reboot series and 2014's Godzilla. I had always envisioned the films getting darker, not lighter. And unfortunately I feel jumping on the lighthearted Marvel-esque bandwagon is the easiest way to go. I'm not going to consider that a flaw in the film, but I do think there were better ways to do it.
I thought I would have a problem with the acting, but for the most part I didn't. Pratt did a great job, better than I thought. He's written as a simple rough and tough guy, simple but good. He doesn't overact in a classic Harrison Ford style. I know people are tired of hearing it, but Pratt does make a good Neo-Harrison Ford and I'd watch as Indiana Jones for sure. Bryce Dallas Howard is okay, she acts the way her character is written, and people have claimed that her acting was wooden and I think it's because she her character has a lot of humor (not that she makes jokes, but that she's a cartoonish depiction of a female scientist who's too busy for a family and is a bit 'prissy') and so when you're playing that kind of character, a certain amount ham and cheese in that performance helps. The one actor who didn't like was, of course, Ty Simpkins, who had a few cringe worthy moments of bad acting. The kid's bad by kid actor standards and it's him that makes some parts of the movie a groan. But, one child actor doesn't ruin the movie for me.
The role of the kids in the movie wasn't that bad either. I know a lot of people seem to be annoyed, but I thought the scenes were watchable. What makes kids in movies a drag is when they have no reason to be there, like in the second film. In this movie, the kids are there for a reason and they are made a central plot point which is exactly what they needed to do. I actually wished that they were lost in the jungle for a bit longer, because I would have loved to see a movie of just those kids exploring the ruins of the old park. Maybe that's more so because of ruined park than the kids, and I felt it was a lot of lost potential to put it in the movie for just a small amount of time.
There does seem to be a few plot points in the movie that should have been explained further or brought up again later but weren't, mainly (as I said above) the ruins and the I Rex's ability to camouflage. I'm not sure why they were introduced if they were only going to be seen for a few seconds. There were a couple references to the Dilophosaurus and it feels as if they intended to make a scene with the Dilophosaurus but it was pulled at some point. We see Jimmy Fallon talk about them and we see it later in the film as a hologram. What I find interesting is that they'd go through the trouble of making a CGI model for the Dilophosaurus and only use it for a hologram. I feel they added that scene in the movie because the other scene was cut and they didn't want to the cheat the audience. I do not think this movie was overplotted though, I've seen that word used to describe this movie and I find it hilarious. People have said that the parent's of the kid's divorcing was an unnecessary plotpoint, but I didn't see it as a plotpoint, just some added backstory so we know that the kids generally aren't happy and that something is wrong with the happy family, but at the end it comes together because both mom and dad, forgetting about their divorce, care nothing more than to see their kids after traumatic event. It was fine, and they even did something similar in the first two films. The fact that the kids are somehow car experts should have also been set up earlier in the film.
Dialogue didn't feel as bad as people have made it out to be. There were actually quite a few lines I liked (Larry alluding to the chaos theory, Wu explaining that the dinosaurs aren't actually what the dinosaurs look like, the speech Hoskins makes about using raptors as weapons.) They felt within the realm of Jurassic Park's dialogue. The moments the dialogue didn't work was when they tried to be funny but it didn't work. Nothing dialogue wise is bad, and I don't really understand why people have had a hard time with it.
All the characters are written reasonably as well. None of them are amazing well written Walter Whites here, but they don't really need that. The series has never been known for amazing characters except for Ian Malcolm, and development for characters are mostly nonexistent in these kinds of movies. So the characters are acceptable and Pratt's character is sort of a staple character that's hard to hate. Howard's character could have used some more work, could have had a bit more to do than just let loose a Tyrannosaurus instead of staying with her two nephews.
By the way, letting loose the Tyrannosaurus was a hilariously bad idea to me. There is this big dinosaurs mutant that could kill your and your nephews at any moment, and you choose to leave them and run away (which, if she was able to run away to get that Rex, they they were all able to run away and find safety), to set another giant animal on the loose. It's a risky idea that would have only worked in the context of this movie, and all because the nephew said 'not enough teeth' The fight scene at the end was cool and all though, up until the Mosasaurus came. My suspension of disbelief of seeing a raptor side with a Rex to fight the bad guy was already on the edge, and to see the Mosasaur coincidentally in that area and deciding that it would bother those two large animals boggles my mind a bit. It goes into what I was saying earlier, there are moments in the film where it gets too ridiculous. Not so ridiculous that it makes the whole movie ridiculous, but it was too silly for my taste.
Claire letting loose the Rex wasn't the worst bad decision making of the film, that goes to Masrani deciding that he, who as the film shows was humorously bad at flying, fly the helicopter filled with weapons and soldiers to take down a very important danger that could hurt a lot of people. Could a more experienced pilot have avoided the Pterosaurs? Not only was it a stupid mistake on Masrani's part, but it made the tone confusing. His bad piloting skills was a joke, and then he's crashing. It's hard not to unintentionally laugh a little in my head.
There were two other really bad aspects as well. The first one was the two instances where a cell phone and a walkie talkie stopped working for absolutely no reason other than plot convenience. That's utterly unforgivable to me and was simply just lazy writing. The other thing is the product placement, which worked during the scenes in the main center of the park, but did not work when Claire was driving the Mercedes around and Chris Pratt drinking Coca Cola like it was a TV commercial. Now, they made a joke about it during the film with, talking about letting the companies name the creatures, but joking about it like that doesn't make it acceptable. This film may have had more product placement than any film this year, and I wouldn't even be surprised if it beat Transformers: Extinction. I know Trevorrow tried to say that it was used to further the anti-corporate message, but I don't completely buy it. That Mercedes car was used a bit too much, or at least used in the wrong way. But like I said, the moments in the park's center worked fine and I would have even allowed it to go further in those areas, but they were most prominent elsewhere.
The movie wasn't without it's little moments of genius though. There were a lot of tiny references and homages to original three that were done tastefully and were subtle, making it neat. It copies cinematic shots at times, which is a nice subconscious addition to make it seem more fitting with the other films (the best being the destruction of the Spinosaurus skeleton, the worst being Hoskin creating the yell that Dennis Nedry makes when he dies). There are some nice touches like the moment where Grady reaches out his hand to help Claire down the steps, but her hurriedly walking past him. It felt very spielbergian. There was also nice shot of the Hoskin grunt in the helicopter shooting down the Dimorphodon. The scene where the older kid ignores the Tyrannosaurus Rex eating the goat to answer a phone call was good as well (and, from my understanding, was part of the initial pitch that director Colin Trevorrow gave) And, of course, the beginning in which shows a giant foot which pans into the foot of a small bird. I want to say that those little moments had to have come from Spielberg or Frank Marshall because they felt like classic filmmaking.
The film's pacing was very good at first, I thought the scenes before the I Rex escaped were great. You felt this good sense of wonder and you really got the sense that this was a theme park. It's not exactly the same kind of wonder as the first film though, because in the first film there was this sort of primal wonder involving the fascination of dinosaurs. This felt different, like the wonder of Disneyland. Maybe that was the intention though. But anyway, the pacing eventually turns too fast and I really thought that there should have been a night scene after the raptor chase that was just calm. There needs to a be scene like in the first Jurassic Park where they find a tree and just sleep in it for awhile, and then they run into the Brachiosaurus. There needed to be a little bit of the return of the wonder during that time. The film in general felt too short as well, but not in such a way that I was unsatisfied.
Visual effects were fine. None of it was state of the art and it'll look goofy in five years, but it's not different than most visual effects these days. I think what gets people going about it was that there really hasn't been many movies like Jurassic Park since Peter Jackson's King Kong. It's not like Transformers or any these superhero movies, filled with CGI robots and side grunts, and it's not like Godzilla where there is only one or two CGI creatures. This was a movie with a large amount of CGI animals and when you've got that, it's going to look different to you. But at the end of the day the visual effects were fine. I only had an issue during one scene, and that was when the overweight employee was killed by the I Rex near the beginning, the shadowing was very odd (that guy's comical face also didn't help improve the scene). I am, however, upset that there was only one animatronic that I could see. I thought they had built an animatronic of the I Rex head, but I couldn't see it used anywhere. The Raptor heads, when in the muzzles, may have been partially practical. But overall I am disappointed of the lack of practical dinosaurs. I wouldn't be if they hadn't promised it first though.
What really helps improve this movie a lot is the soundtrack. Michael Giacchino does a very good job making the Jurassic Park music. It feels like it fits in with the other soundtracks without continuously reusing the classic themes. It ties everything together and solidifies it as Jurassic Park film. The soundtrack doesn't compare to the original film's soundtrack or The Lost World's soundtrack, but those are hard to beat.
I quite liked the setup and it seems to imply that Wu will be the villain of the next one in some capacity (I also simply just liked that Wu returned to the series in general). It seems that Hoskins and Wu created the I Rex as a weapon, and that the next film will involve dinosaur hybrids as bioweapons. My fear is that it's just going to end up being ridiculous. Did anyone else catch the Stegoceratops on the computer screen? It's not a direction I want the series to go. But I'm excited nonetheless.
This film also has a meaning behind it, a sort of subtext, which is nice. From what I got, this film is almost a satire on the film series itself. It's been a long time since the last one was out, and now people today don't really pay much attention to the original Jurassic Park. Some of the younger generation simply don't like it. So, in real life, when deciding how to solve this for a fourth Jurassic Park movie, they came up with the I Rexo to parallel it the film with real life, they came up with the idea of the I Rex being used to up the wow factor at park where everyone is getting bored of dinosaurs. It was a great way to approach it and the way it. And before you think I'm bullshitting, this is coming from Chris Pratt who said this awhile ago during the film's production.
Overall, this is a respectable sequel that I think is the third best in the franchise. The best way to sum it up is that they went too far in a few places, but only a few. At the very least it's good popcorn fun, which is exactly what the other three were.
Jurassic World- 7/10
Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 (2015)
I guess it was inevitable that we would see a sequel, the first movie was quite good fun I can't deny, unsure how well it did but most things get sequels these days. Hell I'm sure there will be a third too, because all the bigwigs like to make trilogies, its great for DVD sales. But yeah...I did like the first movie somewhat, it was a reasonable idea, a mall cop thinking he's a real cop, trying to be a real cop, it worked on some levels.
The main pull for this franchise was/is of course Kevin James who uses his weight to gain laughs lets not beat around the bush. Admittedly I am a fan of the guy to a degree (said it before and I'll say it again), I think he's enjoyable, fun and effective with his physical gags, plus he's a good everyman that we the audience can relate too. Unfortunately he does seem to have had more success on TV than the big screen, and he's not helping himself here.
This movie is virtually the same shit that we saw in the first movie. Blart and his daughter go to a security convention in Vegas, low and behold at the exact same time a group of criminals are planning to steal all the valuable paintings from the same hotel Blart is staying in. Just like the first movie Blart blunders into the crime caper and ends up stopping it in his usual clumsy overweight manner, spoiler alert! he manages it. Oh...would a Las Vegas hotel have the Van Gogh Sunflowers painting in it?
Yep its the same as the first movie yet somehow its much worse, probably because its a babyish infantile pile of crap this time around. Seriously, the last movie has some good moments of sarcastic humour, this has nothing, its completely void of anything that would make an adult or child smile. Its bizarre, there literately isn't anything funny at all! not a single moment that made me smile. Hell there aren't any actual jokes! it pretty much consists of James making stupid faces (that aren't funny faces) and mincing around trying to be funny. What I really don't get is the franchises obsession with those Segway things, seriously there is an entire scene dedicated to trying to make out those things are funny. I realise its Blart's little trademark and part of his character but it isn't funny! watching him trying to show off on one isn't funny, its just lame.
Everything else is completely predictable throwaway spiel we've seen a shitzillion times before. Blart's daughter is fat just like him, she falls for a good looking guy who is clearly out of her league and Blart doesn't like it, the main baddie looks like a Bond villain, the baddie henchmen are a standard bunch with a token black guy and token sexy females, the hotels security is headed by some uber sexy male hothead and the hotels general manager is a sexy supermodel type. The only thing they add here which had promise and showed some ingenuity, was the little gang of security officers that meet with Blart for the convention. A ragtag team of misfits that really shouldn't be in security...but are, clearly for reasons other than actual security. James older brother Gary Valentine stars in this as one of the aging, fat, balding security guards in this little gang. Again clearly meant to be a hilarious addition...but it isn't.
The whole security convention aspect could of been a winner, they did the same silly thing in the US TV version of 'The Office' with an office supply convention. Seeing that episode shows how funny this movie could have been in the right hands, even with James, the material was there (albeit a little bit of good material) but its been wasted. That one small idea does not make up an entire movie of course, and as already explained there is nothing else here of value. Even the apparent suspenseful finale where Blart takes down the bad guys is pathetic and not even up to the meager standards of the first movie! This could have been better with a slight adult edge, it was never gonna be great but it could of been better, but its not, its pretty darn terrible.
2/10
The Spaceman and King Arthur (aka Unidentified Flying Oddball, 1979)
As the title might suggest, this is an adaptation of the Mark Twain novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. To make things more interesting Disney flipped the idea on its head and made it a spaceman going back in time, thusly adding much more scope for visual fun and games.
NASA are trying to send a manned crew to out nearest star Alpha Centauri with the use of a new flashy super fast shuttle. This shuttle will fly faster than the speed of light by collecting atoms and ionising them, all through magnetic fields fitted to the wings. No idea how this is suppose to work but its heavy foreshadowing that's for sure. By mistake Trimble and his android replica get blasted into space and on this perilous journey, but they don't get too far before ending up crashing back on Earth in the Middle Ages. Once discovered Trimble must convince the locals he's not an alien or monster, get to grips with medieval life and eventually try to stop Merlin and Mordred from overthrowing Arthur.
Right so this is a Disney movie, an old Disney movie, so you know to expect slushy crapola just like all old live action Disney movies. I mean straight away, this professor dude at NASA rings up the main character Trimble and tells him to make a humanoid android for the shuttle project...and he does! He just says 'yes sir' and gets right to it, creating the perfect human looking android with perfect senses, reactions and even emotions, just like that. If people in this universe have those kinda of skills why are humans still stuck on Earth? Anyway this isn't about scientific authenticity, its a pure fantasy aimed at kids to enjoy, and back in the day I did enjoy this thoroughly.
The lead character played by Dennis Dugan is terribly wet and preppy that's for damn sure, but I'd imagine he is appealing to the younger generations with his quirky, jaunty self. Other cast members are a who's who of classic British talents. Jim Dale of the famous British Carry On movie franchise plays the baddie knight Mordred and gives quite a surprisingly solid performance to be honest. Ron Moody is Merlin and looks like your typical evil wizard mixed with Fu Manchu, couldn't help but think it was Fagin in the Middle Ages though. John Le Mesurier plays Sir Gawain adding some nice light-hearted humour to the role, whilst Kenneth More completes a little double act with Mesurier as King Arthur. This duo really played off each other well, like a little bickering old couple, its quite cute and charming, very childish, but adorable. Good old Pat Roach is in here too as Merlin's main henchman and muscle, what else would he be.
The cast was pretty epic looking back, like many of old movies, but for kids at the time it was all about the adventure really, and this had all the right ingredients. Medieval knights, jousting, large scale battles and space technology. The movie was shot in and around a real castle in Northumberland, UK which really added to the realism and excitement when you were a kid. Everything looked like a giant adventure playground with lots of wondrous (yet dangerous) toys, the weaving dimly lit castle corridors, secret passages, the space shuttle in the courtyard, swords, crossbows, various futuristic gadgets, a moon buggy etc...Everything in the film does look pretty good too, considering the films age it still holds up well today. All the sets and costumes look terrific too, very accurate for a Disney kids flick, it does appear that this movie had a reasonable budget and plenty of tender loving care lavished upon it.
Yet despite the fact this was indeed a kids flick, it didn't shy away from tiny moments of edgy material. For starters they actually have a full scale, full view burning of Trimble at one point. Even though everyone knows its not real they don't actually cut away from it! you actually see the stunt guy in there burning! or at least close to the flames with clever use of forced perspective...I think! Put it this way it looks pretty realistic for a Disney movie sheesh! Then you have the jousting contest where we see Trimble's android getting taken apart piece by piece until his head is speared off, and yes there are no cuts, you see it fly off. Lastly there are actually references to Playboy magazine here, its actually shown, front cover en all! Of course you don't see anything but the fact its in there, presumably as product placement, is quite bizarre frankly.
Yes this fantasy adaptation has something in it for everyone, lots for the boys of course, romance with a maiden for the girls, and the legendary actors hamming it up something rotten for the adults. There is plenty of silly hokey stuff naturally, yet some quite clever stuff also, and what's more the special effects and props all add to the atmosphere perfectly. The big battle finale set in and around the castle at the end is the coup de grace, chock full of fun little moments. To be honest this whole thing feels a bit like a pantomime for kids, you half expect to hear hissing when the villains walk in shot. Its all so horrendously good-natured and delightful, its sickening...but in an acceptable way, nice score too.
7/10
The following are my scores:
Fantastic-10
Excellent-9
Great-8
Good-7
Okay-6
Meh-5
Bad-4
Horrible-3
Terrible-2
Awful-1
Unwatchable-0
Godzilla 1998
This is a real review I made in 2011 that, if I sent it in a couple of months sooner, would have been on Toho Kingdom's main site.
GODZILLA, the 1998 classic science fiction movie and Tristar's attempt to bring one of the most iconic fictional characters to a new audience here in the West. This movie has been notorious for not just Godzilla and kaiju fans, but also critics that seem to have missed the point of the movie (which we will get into later). It should be noted in advanced that this movie will be looked at from a critical point of view instead of that of a raging nerd.
First off I will start this review with an over view of the movie's plot: After thirty years of nuclear testing within the realm of the French Polynesia, nuclear dust contaminated iguana eggs to form the title creature. Said creature travels through the Pacific Ocean, Central America, and eventually finds itself in New York City where it can lay it's eggs. During this time, Godzilla is tracked by radiologist Dr. Niko Tatopoulos, army personnel Colonel Hicks and Sargent O'Neal, and a secret French agency lead by Philipe Roache trying to destroy their unintentional creation. Later into the movie the humans find out that Godzilla came to New York to lay it's eggs in an attempt to populate the species like any organism from Earth.
Interesting plot, isn't it? No? Well rest assured true believers, there is a subplot about a couple of reporters named Audrey and Victor (who goes under the alias "Animal" the whole movie, not to be confused with the Muppet of the same name), which to it's credit does make the situation look more realistic as you get to see the civilians in the street during Godzilla's destruction scenes as they are trying top escape, something that was done in later Godzilla movies by Toho (most notably Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Monsters All-Out Attack). Another subplot involves the mayor of New York City trying to become re-elected and has to deal with both the disaster at hand and the failures of the military to protect the people he was elected by. This may seem simplistic from a synoptic view point at first, but it does work in the sense that you are actually there with these people in a serious situation as well as manage to put in minor details such as small talk you would hear in everyday life.
As for how this movie was executed people need to realize that this movie, like most monster movies, were never meant to take themselves seriously. Some people may argue something like this Godzilla does not emit enough radiation that kills people like the Showa version, but then ignore the fact that live action kaiju, let alone Godzilla, would be crushed under their own weight by gravity unless they had an indestructible set of bones and joints. In other words you should not be looking for scientific inaccuracies in monster movies, that is like expecting to find butter popcorn in lobster spaghetti when eating at Hell's Kitchen. Since scientific inaccuracies are so common in science fiction, not just in movies, you really cannot hold it against a movie unless it goes out of it's way to ignore consistency like the time traveling paradoxes and timelines from Terminator 2: Judgment Day (and to a much lesser extent the other sequels).
Now onto the reality anchors known as the humans; I really do not see why critics would hate these characters. First off, the best character is undeniably Animal, unlike every other civilian in a Godzilla movie he is more than willing to put his life on the line by getting within mere feet of the title creature just to get a good shot of him; truly this character has serious courage. Next there is Mayor Ebert and his aid, Gene; for those unaware these two are based on real-life critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, two people that have given Ronald Emmerich movies low scores in the past despite the fact that his movies were not made for people of their generation nor were they the target audience. These two may not be the absolute best comical combination, but I would take these two likeable guys over terrible duos like Tahei and Matakishi from The Hidden Fortress or annoying attempts at comedy like Benkei from The Men Who Tread The Tiger's Tail. Anyway, any scene with these two are simply comical, especially the running joke where Ebert wants chocolate with Gene constantly saying "No" because they are campaigning for re-election. The rest of the cast manages to do it's job; the scientists act like scientists, the military personnel act like they're in the military, the secret agents act like secret agents, etc. you get the idea. The only flaw with any of them is that sometimes characters like Niko and Philipe will try to act comedic, which for the most part is fine, but it tends to be indirect to the point that you are not sure if they are making an actual joke, which might make someone think they are saying a joke if they are not. This is not a real issue, but it will definitely not appeal to everybody. It also fascinates me that I can remember more characters in this one movie then I can all the other Godzilla movies combined; I guess it goes to show you that what really defines a character is their ability to stick out.
With the plot and humans out of the way it is now time to look into the technical department. Remember that age never determines the quality of special effects. Anyway, like any high budget sci-fi movie of this era in cinema there is an attempt to engage the audience with surround sound by making fitting background noises during action scenes like glass breaking, metal grinding, blood splattering, etc. and this movie, at least for it's time, did very well in this department as you really do feel that the things happening in the movie seem realistic enough to believe. However, you cannot really compare this movie's effects to CGI of today since technology has made a long way thirteen years later, but strangely enough it does manage to still hold it's own against pre-Avatar era computer effects which is something that other big budget movies at the time like the Jurassic Park trilogy still manages to do. I guess it is true that new CGI does not always mean better, only more accessible and accepted by the newer generations since they are used to it.
The cinematography was done by Ueli Steiger, who manages to pull off everything very well for the most part; scenes on the surface of New York are dark and stormy which alludes to the present danger, the underground scenes are dark and mysterious since you do not know what might happen next (which does give this movie a point for suspense), and scenes that take lace in the ocean are also stormy although that is more due to the fact that Godzilla makes an actual presence there. The only thing I questioned is why there was a sepia tone is the opening credits since that would fit more into a scene pertaining to the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century while given when this movie was made was more likely done around 1968 to the modern day. There really is not much I can say for the pacing other than it builds up nicely in the beginning and manages to go faster slowly yet surely until the end of the movie. Finally there is the music by David Arnold and Michael Lloyd: You cannot deny this music is well done since it does fit into every single scene until the end of the movie and helps keep the tone of the movie; this quality is comparable to the likes of John Williams.
Finally there is the very reason people went to this movie and still talk about it to this day: Godzilla, the monster. The first thing people would talk about is that this movie does not have the anti-nuclear war message that was in the original Godzilla 1954, which is true although people need to realize that the United States did not experience nuclear war like Japan did, so how would the culture understand it all that well? It would not, so they had to change it not only because they themselves have not experienced it, but the audiences simply would not relate especially since this was made after the fall of the Soviet Union. The famous Godzilla roar is there with some modifications to give it a more "echoing" feel, which makes sense since it is a marine animal and would likely locate it's pray by echolocation. Since it is Godzilla you have to talk about the replacement of it's atomic ray with an ignitable breath, but those that complain about this probably forgot that this movie was made more for movie-going audiences and people that generally assumed at the time (and today as well) that Godzilla breathed fire instead of radiation (much like the false claim of the King Kong vs. Godzilla "dual endings"). It should be noted that even the old Hanna-Barbera cartoon had Godzilla emitting fire rather than an actual ray and considering it was on Cartoon Network around the time this movie was released it should not be that surprising that people would make this assumption. Either way you look at it his breath is still a heat based weapon and it is still used against the military, so by technically standards it is a good substitute. Finally there is the fact that this Godzilla actively ran away to avoid military fire, which is the only complaint fans have mad that is actually valid. However, this s not to say that the military has always had perfect aiming as in most Godzilla movies before this one the military tended to miss about a fifth of every shot that was fired on not just on Godzilla, but also various other kaiju from Toho and to a lesser extent even Daiei. What he lacked in endurance this Godzilla made up for in speed and cunning as he was able to evade and outsmart the military on multiple occasions, giving this creature a more "predatory" feel too him even though it did not actively hunt humans (although the Baby Godzillas mistook them for food since they smelled like tuna).
At the end of the day this is a marine reptile that has managed to thwart the military, destroy a city, possesses a heat based weapon emitted from the maw, and has both the name and roar of the monster he was portrayed as; aside from the durability flaw it is a Godzilla movie at it's core even if the nerd rage tries sadly to say otherwise. Some may say it has more in common with The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, but not only does it have next to nothing in common with that movie, but the original Godzilla 1954 was also based on that movie. After this movie there was a cartoon series that not only finished the story, but fixed the complaints fans had about the movie's Godzilla by giving some more traits from the classic Godzilla to Godzilla Junior (often named Toon Zilla by fans). With that there should be no genuine complaints on any end of the spectrum.
So overall what do I think of this movie? I will attempt to summarize it in a tight nutshell.
This was a monster movie designed for it's time and although Ronald Emmerich tried to intentionally destroy the franchise he not only created one of the best monster movies of all time, but managed to put a new spin on the franchise that manage to entertain in a way that I didn't think Godzilla could with only the raging nerds being hurt at the end of the day. It was a monster movie by the book with very well done execution with it's plot, characters, and overall cinematic design that was fitting, enjoyable, memorable, and will continue to entertain the generations for years to come. Even if Toho did not enjoy this movie, since it is their franchise and they have the final word on it, you should not judge a movie entirely based on what someone else says but rather your own experience by disregarding the critics and the awards. The only real flaw this movie has is that the small talk, specifically comedic points, probably will not appeal to anyone, but if you can get past that you are in for a good time to say the least.
The biggest irony about this movie's legacy towards fans is that the Godzilla franchise has always had underlying messages about how humanity can unite under a common conflict and prevail even if it means teaming up with former enemies in an attempt to create a more peaceful existence which even this movie attempts; sadly, however, the ability to even like about this movie has caused massive divisions in the fanbase which has only been better in recent years because some turned their fate to Godzilla: Final Wars for similar reasoning. I saw the Hana-Barbera carton and eleven of the old movies before seeing this in theaters and I remember enjoying it. Years later I have seen every kaiju movie from Toho to date and then-some and I still enjoy this as a Godzilla movie. Even as it's own movie it is one of the best monster movies ever made and does deserve more than the selfish hate it has received.
Overall: Fantastic
^ Great write up, not sure about the final score ;) but solid.
Super (2010)
As we reached double figures in the early 2000s decade there seemed to be a little influx of off-kilter superhero flicks. In 2009 we saw 'Defendor' and then in 2010 we got both 'Kick-Ass' (by far the biggest and most successful) and this little gem starring Rainn Wilson...apparently named after a weather condition but they added an extra 'N' to make it not look too stupid.
The plot isn't too unfamiliar, in fact its hella predictable really. Frank is a plain and simple, unfit, kinda ugly blue collar guy who works in some dingy diner as the cook. Somehow he is married to a pretty sexy girl Sarah, (Liv Tyler). Unfortunately Sarah becomes a druggie early in their relationship and (somehow) gets involved with the sleazy strip club owner Jacques (Kevin Bacon). This causes Frank to spiral into depression behaving recklessly and stupidly, he challenges Jacques and his goons (he has his own strip club goons), tries to get the police to arrest Jacques for stealing his wife and...almost buys a pet rabbit. Eventually his madness leads to supernatural/spiritual visions where he thinks God tells him to become a superhero, so that's just what he does, become a crazy violent vigilante superhero of the people.
So yeah I think you get the gist of this right, the lonely, kinda chubby loser, thinks he's a superhero, makes his own silly costume and runs around the town trying to foil crime. Of course the twist being the movie is grounded in reality and of course Frank isn't a superhero at all and he doesn't live within a comicbook world. You do get all the usual quirks you'd expect in a real origins comicbook flick, the design and creation of his trademark costume, his superhero name, the help he receives from his future sidekick (another lonely blue collar worker who just happens to be a cute as buttons female), his weapon acquirement and his early missions.
Naturally being based in reality you can guess what happens, yes its an easy guess but it is rewarding none the less. Frank confronts typical street drug pushers and such only to find its not as easy as he thinks. Yeah you could say the baddies he confronts are racial stereotypes but the movie is only being honest here, I'm sure they did their research. Anyway it is funny how he dives into action only to have the shit kicked out of himself, it then dawns on him to get a weapon. The following night he does it all over again with the same guy, but now he has a wrench which he uses to beat the guy half to death. Yes it sounds awful but it is actually quite amusing because of the fact its so horrific, and the way he thinks he's doing a good thing. Yeah sure he's stopping a perp selling drugs on the street, but he pretty much kills the guy with a big metal wrench!
As things progress and he half kills more bad guys, he gains a reputation as a nasty vigilante...naturally. This is highlighted in one sequence where he, yet again, half kills a man and woman for cutting in line to a nightclub. The quick cut of him walking off to his car to change into his outfit, which is clearly suppose to take at least 10 minutes and shows him struggling in the backseat with his white Y-fronts on, is brilliant. There are other such superhero mockery moments like Frank waiting around all night behind a dumpster for a crime to occur. A very sweet little scene which shows him talking to himself, keeping a little superhero audio diary, kinda reminds me of the comicbook The Tick. Its moments like these that make the film work on so many levels as it mocks the typical superhero format we all know.
Is the film dark? why yes it is, not quite at first, but it sure does get emotional towards the finale. For starters Frank is clearly in his late 30's maybe early 40's, whilst his sidekick Libby, played by Ellen Page, is around 22 I think it was. Now this isn't an issue at first, Frank doesn't really want her to become his sidekick but she talks him into it, but when she kinda rapes him one night...well that's a bit questionable don't ya think. Talk about gender role reversal! I wonder what the feminists thought about that. Other dark and weird moments involve Franks visions which turn out to be a blend of religion, spiritual and alien abduction. I guess it shows how warped and delusional Frank must be to have these visions which come across as something from 'Hellraiser' mixed with a Holy intervention, and he sees it as positive.
Most of the other dark moments obviously revolve around the violence which is pretty darn bloody at times, this isn't a tame comicbook parody. There isn't anything outrageously over the top like 'Kick-Ass' though, its all quite acceptable and believable stuff, but graphic. Yet we do still get funny superhero mockery in the form of Frank turning up to fight bad guys only armed with his wrench and fists, he brings a wrench to a gun fight, and has to run away sharpish. I think the hardest and most gut wrenching moment is the ending for Libby, I won't ruin it but its actually heart-breaking, horrendously graphic and shocking...did I give that away? Its at that moment the movie really does shift up a gear into serious territory and becomes quite the adrenaline rush, its also where Rainn really shows us his talents.
It certainly fits the bill of a dark comicbook, at times highly amusing, at times highly violent and sick, and at times very emotional. The ending is odd because Frank manages to achieve his goal but at what cost?? it doesn't really seem like a happy ending, especially after the slap to the face revelation about Sarah at the very end, huh! Its a very well acted movie and very engaging I must say, didn't think it would be but it certainly is, you feel for Frank and Libby, and you want them to succeed. Alas you kinda forget all about Sarah even though she is the main target and goal for Frank. You really want him to ride off into the sunset with Libby, the film confuses you there, toys with your emotions. Still its a solid makeshift superhero/vigilante movie with a heart of gold? Well shocking depressing nastiness aside I guess it is, but its more like a rollercoaster for your emotions and moral compass...but still fun.
7/10
Mean Machine (2001)
One of Vinnie Jones early performances where the world had not yet tired of his gritty, cockney, tough guy act. Yet shockingly this movie isn't about Jones being an unstoppable tough guy, it kinda is him being a tough guy though, just not the dialog free tough guy he usually is. In this remake of US movie 'The Longest Yard' Jones plays the main role which does actually require some genuine acting on his part. Not a great deal of course, lets not get carried away here, but some emotion is required and displayed.
The plot is a simple one, Danny Meehan is a top football (soccer) player fallen from grace. Done for match fixing, then caught drink driving, followed by an assault on two police officers. In prison he makes friends and enemies as you would expect, but its the prison guards and warden who are the real problem unsurprisingly. So to fix this solution, Meehan manages to organise himself as a coach for the inmates, so they can have a match against the guards, because that's just what you do in these types of situations. The perfect way to defuse all hostilities amongst everyone, problem solved. I mean honesty...what could go wrong?
I think its pretty obvious not to expect a classy emotional drama here, this isn't award winning stuff. However, I do think its obvious to expect every single tiny prison cliche in the prison movie book. For starters Jones is pretty much playing himself here, when he played professional footie he was of course the tough nut (the Brit footie fans will be well aware of this), and here he plays a tough nut footballer, with a slice of emotion, but essentially its just Vinnie Jones. The prison is your standard British board and lodgings, typically looks a bit old school, almost like going to a boarding school of sorts, not that I know about that. The guards are of course a mean, abusive bunch, the gov is corrupt, and you have the stereotypical array of prisoners. The happy-go-lucky guy, the rasta type guy, the nut job, the psycho, the fat Middle Eastern guy, the wise old Irishman, and the head honcho with his personal enforcers. Needless to say its kinda obvious who does what, who says what, who gets beaten, who gets done in and what happens every step of the way.
The cast are the shining light here though, its like putting a Guy Ritchie flick, a Matthew Vaughn flick and a Nick Love flick in a blender, and this is the result. You have virtually everyone from British comedy, film and drama here, Jason Statham (with more hair!), Danny Dyer, Ralph Brown, Vas Blackwood, Robbie Gee, Geoff Bell, Jason Flemyng and Omid Djalili. You're literately only missing Tamer Hassan, Dexter Fletcher, Frank Harper and Alan Ford for a full house. I don't even have to explain the characters they play, you can pretty much guess, Geof Bell is obviously a nasty guard, Brown is the head warden and the rest are a colourful collection of cockney inmates (what else).
Its the films mood that swings from one extreme to the other and confuses you. Naturally the film isn't a serious drama, but it does have moments of realism that aren't anything to laugh at, nothing horrific or gory, but emotional and at times slightly cold. Again this does tie in with other Brit flicks by the directors I've mentioned, the movie has that edgy, twitchy side to it where you know anything could happen and it could be nasty. Yet at the same time its almost like a farce or spoof at times, with slapstick comedy, some characters are mischievous buffoons. Take Statham's supposed maniac character, he looks the part and for most of the movie you think he will do something violent, but he ends up being part of the comedic relief. On the other hand, one inmate character called Nitro clearly starts off as a bit of comedic relief, but towards the end he becomes a scary, dangerous and intense character. This guy seemed like he belonged in a Daniel Day-Lewis drama.
A definite rollercoaster for your emotions which kinda works at times, ultimately feels very British (duh) and also kinda cheap looking. Nothing special to offer, nothing really new, but it does fit snugly into that now well known British cockney geezer flick genre, made famous by Guy Ritchie. So if you like that kinda thing then I'm sure you'll get a kick outta this (pun intended). It just about does enough to keep engaged...mainly to see Jones acting skills, and maybe the odd cameo by the odd ex-footie players. Bizarrely the director actually tries to portray Jones as some sort of super skilled ex-footie star in this movie, he does realise actual British football fans will probably watch this right?
5.5./10
Lost Continent (1951)
Not to be confused with other movies entitled 'The Lost Continent', this black and white B-movie borrows heavily from other classic stories, mainly Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, lots of lost areas back then. A low budget affair that was pretty much jumping on the coattails of these other fantasy fables with the ever popular dinosaur element. The only real shining star in this production was Cesar Romero, but even he can't really save this.
The plot is exactly as you would expect it, the Americans are doing some major new weapons testing with a big missile (a regular thing back then), when it inevitably crashes. So the upper echelons send a crack team of military personnel to find this missile and retrieve its vital data. Low and behold the missile has crashed on a remote unknown island in the South Pacific, an island that harbours dinosaurs, a prehistoric jungle and natives...presumably an undiscovered race of humans. Its up to this crack team of military personnel to venture deep within the island and complete their mission. The fact they have discovered a new race of people, dinosaurs, prehistoric flora and fauna and a whole load of uranium, all on this new undiscovered island doesn't matter, no time for that, we've gotta find our big dangerous weapon.
So naturally I can't dissect and tear this movie apart too much, its a movie from 50's America, obviously a completely different era. We all know what to expect in American B-movies from that era, big military presence, lots of weapons testing...usually atomic, the fear of Communism and the USSR, women knowing their place and the chaps looking spick and span with solid facial hair. All of these points are present and correct here with the military team looking very well groomed, Romero has his trademark tash of course and the scientists along for the ride are of course foreigners (usually German, Russian or Eastern European)...in this case Russian. The big shock here is there is no female character in the team, no damsel in distress element for Romero to save. I think anyone who knows these types of movies will agree that's quite unusual.
That last fact does lead me to the films poster, its completely bullshit! Talk about false advertising, for a start it shows what appears to be a kind of Tyrannosaurus-Rex dinosaur, but there is no such dinosaur in the film. The island appears to be inhabited purely by Triceratops, Brontosaurus and Pterosaurs, although we all know that's down to budgetary reasons. The poster also shows Romero and his team with a female being attacked by this T-Rex, obviously this never happens, and as I already said, there is no female character on the team. The female the poster refers to is a native woman who helps the team in one scene at the start of their expedition.
Of course this type of thing isn't new with these old movies, I'm just pointing it out because its blatant. What's also to be expected are the hilarious plot holes and things that are just plain silly, most of these oldies are stuffed full of these issues. This small team have been flying on this plane, apparently, for many hours, a long haul flight checking equipment for this lost missile. Yet notice the planes interior has literately nothing inside it, no proper seats, nowhere to rest, seemingly no food or drink provided and what looks like no toilets either! How long were you guys expected to sit hunched up like that?! I guess men were men back then grrr.
After the plane crashes and team get themselves together, one guy asks Romero if they should radio for help, Romero replies sternly with a no, the team is under orders not to break radio silence until they find the missile. But dude you just crashed landed on an unknown island! surely first priority is to call for help, let HQ know you're OK, arrange evac and then maybe continue with your mission?
One of the biggest and most unintentionally funniest things about this film is the fact that at least a third of the film shows the team climbing this mountain. The missile crashes on top of this plateau that dominates the island, so the guys have to climb to its peak, what follows is many many minutes of seeing these guys climbing around a fake rock surface over and over again, at various angles. At first you don't realise, but eventually I started to think to myself...this is going on a bit isn't it? What's more, all the men are wearing posh shoes! not boots or anything but the type of shoe that accompanies a suit, oh and they're only using rope...and nothing else. When things got too tough, well then it was time for a good healthy cigarette break, yes Sir, I always feel stronger and fitter after a good solid cigarette, now lets climb this f**ker! Like I said, men were men back then...grrr.
The stop-motion animated dinosaurs are reasonable but nowhere near as good as other movies or Harryhausen's work. Plus you don't get that much of it either, again probably down to budgetary reasons. When the team reach the jungles on top of the plateau, the film was tinted with a green hue to give the impression of a mysterious other-worldly environment. So basically you're not watching a black and white film anymore, you're watching a green film. And lastly the characters are of course massively predictable. The stoic, humourless Russian scientist, the good looking guy without a tash, Romero as the good looking guy with a tash, errr...some other guy without a tash, and the goofy, short guy for comedic relief.
I enjoyed the movie don't get me wrong, but mainly because it was quite average, a bit underwhelming really. I expected more, or at least more dinosaur action, unfortunately you don't get much of that, but you do get lots of footage of rock climbing both going up and going down. The whole thing is pretty slow paced but watchable down to the ever charming dialog and performances, although I still don't quite get why the entire island decided to crumble and sink beneath the waves at the exact moment are heroes are trying to evac. Meh...its a staple diet of these movies, right at the end, the good guys are trying to escape, so the whole island or mountain or whatever decides to explode, sink or fall down, don't question it.
6/10
The Three Musketeers (1948)
There have been many many film versions of this classic tale by French author Alexandre Dumas, the earliest dating back as far as 1903. This MGM production is probably one of the most remembered adaptations alongside the Doug Fairbanks 1921, black and white silent film.
As I'm sure you all know, the tale follows a young D'Artagnan (Gene Kelly) as he travels to Paris so he can attempt to become a Musketeer for the King, the King's elite guard or soldier. On his journeys in Paris he bumps into the famous trio of Musketeers one by one and ends up challenging them. Of course after some swordplay and fisticuffs with Cardinal Richelieu's men they all become firm friends. What follows are the various missions and scrapes the foursome get into trying to stop Richelieu tricking the King of France into war with Great Britain. This involves racing to England to retrieve some precious jewels the Queen of France gave away to the English Prime Minister, the Duke of Buckingham. D'Artagnan avoiding Richelieu's temptations of becoming one of his guards whilst trying to find his love Constance, who has been abducted by Richelieu in order to bribe him into his service. All the while trying to also avoid the temptations of Milady de Winter who eventually tries to assassinate the young cocky Musketeer.
There is obviously a little more to it than that but I really don't think I need to explain this well known story. Would it be a bit bold of me to claim this is the Gene Kelly version of the tale? that Kelly is the only reason to watch this movie? Well ya of course, because he isn't the sole driving force here, although I will admit I thought he would be. But there is no doubt Kelly is the main attraction with this movie, star power wise. Knowing how athletic and likable the guy is its hard not to think this. On this front you are not disappointed, Kelly leaps and bounds around the fake sets like a grasshopper on a sugar rush. Even today its still impressive how awesome and daring he was when it came to stunts. I presume he did the stunts anyway, hard to tell but I'm pretty sure he did. Of course all this might come across as a tad quaint these days but remember everything you see is real, the balancing acts, the leaps, the rolls, the rope swinging and of course the frenetic sword fighting.
There is one long shot where D'Artagnan arrives at a small house, jumps onto a stone wall, then jumps onto the water-wheel, rides it until he is able to jump onto a tree branch with a bit of acrobatics, and finally swings into the house through the top window. OK there is a small cut before he jumps through the window so we can see a reaction shot from Kelly, but its still a perfect example of how fit, fearless and audacious these guys were. Admittedly I'm not sure it was all Kelly, but still impressive, as he swung through the window the camera followed right behind him, great shot.
To this degree everybody is impressive, the stunt guys take their hits well and thrown themselves across tables like pros. All the main cast do join in on the fights but the focus is often clearly on Kelly who revels in the danger. Most of the cast I am unaware of I will be honest but the inclusion of Vincent Price as Richelieu was genius casting, I don't even have to tell you how good he is in this evil sinister role. In all honesty the only other cast member I knew of was Angela Lansbury as Queen Anne (a smallish role), one of the first times I've actually seen her as a young woman!
Talking about the action, it was very clear to me how much this movie influenced following adaptations. Watching the sword fighting sequences, it dawned on me how similar these sequences appeared to Richard Lester's 1973/1974 movies. I thought to myself, have I seen this before? this style all looks very familiar. Watching the direction, pace and general visual appearance of these sequences at every turn, I am sure Lester copied this movie. I realise both movies are covering the same story so similarities are bound to happen but seriously, I was really shocked at how similar this movie and Lester's movies are when it came to the fight scenes. The actors even seem to move in the same way, as though they had been trained by the same guy.
What I did find slightly amusing was something I actually found out whilst watching a Bluray extra about another classic movie (an Errol Flynn one). Apparently, back in those days they used to paint the scenery so it looked perfect, in other words if the grass wasn't green enough, or the trees weren't red enough, they would spray paint them to get the desired effect. This is so so obvious watching this movie, most of the limited use of actual real outdoor locations (California) are so vividly coloured, overly so. They even, clearly, coloured the water for one small scene, it looks quite toxic actually, not right at all.
As for the sets, well they are undeniably lavish and gorgeous looking as were all sets back then. Whether or not everything is period accurate I don't know, but it sure as hell looks good and authentic to me. Most royal rooms look suitably regal and exquisite, dripping in bold colours and coats of arms. The regular peasant abodes are your standard Tudor-esque/olde worlde English pub look with timber frames, interior timber beams, lots of used candles and cozy open fires galore. Exterior sets are quite realistic looking to a degree, you can tell they are sets but they are charming without a doubt, everything looks so whimsical and angelic. Naturally the costumes and props are all just as glorious as everything else, bright, bold, colourful, and with a hint of pantomime about it all. I should also add that the Musketeer attire (the blue sash) looks almost identical to the Musketeer attire in Lester's movies.
Visually its very pleasing to the eye, I think most would agree with that and would have guessed that from the start. The issue I had was the pacing, it tended to become rather dull when there wasn't any sword fighting going on, a bit smoochy in places, lots of exposition. Then at times things whizz by very quickly, one minute we're in France, then at sea, then England, then back in France, characters zoom about the countryside quicker than you can say fromage. The sequences showing us France at war with Great Britain are basically a few shots of a small group of soldiers on a dark, rainy set which lasts less than a minute.
This is a hard one to judge really, I did enjoy it, but not as much as I had hoped for. I'll be honest, the light-hearted comedy actually let it down for me, it was too stupid, too slapsticky, and seeing Kelly mug for the camera was kinda lame. To be frank I don't think Kelly was the best choice for the leading role, sure he's got the athletic ability, but he hasn't quite got the acting chops, and his comic timing is hokey. The other three Musketeer actors were much better than Kelly, in fact everyone was much better than Kelly, Kelly was too much of a clown (forgive me!). I just didn't get a real rush from anything on screen, I didn't really feel emotionally engaged or intrigued because the movie is a bit too lovey dovey and fanciful. I had a feeling it would be of course, seeing as Kelly was in the lead role. Thusly my favourite Musketeer movie/s must still remain the two Richard Lester epics (not counting the third).
7/10
Hooper (1978)
At a certain point, many of these Burt Reynolds movies tend to blur into one. The constant use of Pontiac Firebird Trans Am's and the fact he's actually wearing another Firebird jacket (silver this time), just like in 'Smokey 2'. Yeah I get the fact the Firebird was a top American muscle car back then but with Reynolds behind the wheel, you could be watching any number of movies!
The plot revolves around Reynolds as the titular Hooper, supposedly the greatest Hollywood stuntman alive. Alas old Hooper is getting old, too many crashes and too many painkillers are taking their toll on Hooper. His girlfriend (played by real time girlfriend Sally Field, probably why she's in the movie) is also fed up with Hooper's dangerous career and wants him to quit. Then along comes a much younger, fitter stuntman (Jan-Michael Vincent) who kinda challenges Hooper's position, naturally a friendly yet intense rivalry grows between them as they try to out perform each other. This eventually culminates in the chance to pull off the greatest stunt ever on the movie they are working on. Its extremely dangerous but the pay is huge, thing is, no one thinks they can do it. Hooper's bird doesn't want him to, the doc doesn't want him to, but the movies director is demanding they do it. Is it worth risking their lives for?
This movie is directed by none other than Hal Needham, a good friend of Reynolds (if you couldn't tell). The story is actually loosely based around Needham's early career as a stuntman in Hollywood. 'Hollywood's greatest stuntman'? that's the films tagline on the poster, so did Needham kinda have a rather overinflated opinion of himself? or was he really that good?
So if we're really honest here, the movie is just an excuse for lots and lots of stunts utilising many stuntmen in the biz. It is a comedy in case you were wondering, its not a heavy drama or anything. Its your usual slapstick affair with Reynolds doing what he does best...drive Trans Am's (did he have a sponsorship deal or something?). As you can imagine the tomfoolery on display in this movie is predictable and hokey. Pretty much every basic stunt you can think of is thrown on the screen, by real stuntmen, not Burt, although he does do the odd bit and was quite athletic back then. You got guys being thrown through windows, bar fights, horse riding, falling off horses, swinging from buildings, falling from heights, flipping cars, jumping cars, explosions, toppling buildings etc...
The grand finale is a whopping sequence featuring Hooper and Ski's car trying to escape a small town set whilst it crumbles down around it. The guys must navigate a gauntlet of destruction evading explosions, falling buildings, other cars, people running around etc...and make it to a bridge which ultimately collapses. There they both attempt the huge dangerous stunt of jumping the car over the collapsed bridge (335 feet). This sequence is worth the wait as it shows many solid stunts, nothing that will blow you away these days mind you, but still dangerous well timed stunts. The best being a huge factory chimney falling down with the car just racing past underneath before it hits the ground. The actual final big leap does look good for the most part but it cuts before we see it reach the other side, so I have no idea if that stunt was actually completely successfully.
The movie is ultimately about the camaraderie between Hooper and his band of stunt mates (Reynolds realtime coworkers). Its uplifting and cute for sure, but hammy as hell, as is Reynolds ladies man image which is always a part of his characters and kinda cringeworthy. Never really sure if he is just playing that image up or he genuinely thinks he's a charmer. Reynolds also manages to break the forth wall here yet again, as he has done on many of his car comedy movies.
Its like a massive overlong episode of The Dukes of Hazzard (James Best is here after all), or just more hijinks from The Bandit. Or, more accurately, a movie about how Hal Needham and co go about making their proper stunt filled extravaganzas, almost like a sly behind the scenes. However you look at it, it is a fun ride at times, Reynolds is clearly having a blast with his car obsessed team of Hollywood regulars, but that doesn't disguise the fact it is completely unoriginal. Yes the tale of a stuntman based on a real person is relatively fresh, but what we actually see is just more of what Reynolds has done before, with the same people (in the same cars!). Oh and the movies title/wording on the poster looks like an actual beer companies logo.
6/10
Terminator: Genysis
Wasn't awful. The only parts I actively disliked were the bus and helicopter chase scenes. Would've liked something set entirely in the 80s, because that was the best part of the film.
7/10
The Pope Must Die (UK, 1991)
We British are good at offending people with our humour, the Monty Python team managed it perfectly in the past and over the same issue, religion. Ah religion, the bane of the human race and its history, just looking at what has happened since the dawn of time purely from people's beliefs in religion is depressing. Its of no real surprise that the writer and director of this controversial film was Peter Richardson, the creator of 'The Comic Strip' during the 80's, a band of alternative/anarchic comedians that revolutionised British television.
Its also funny how this film is almost identical to the American movie 'King Ralph' in terms of plot. Both share the exact storyline and both were released in the same year, six months apart. Here, a simple priest in Italy (Robbie Coltrane) is mistakenly (a spelling mistake) promoted to the top job of Pope. Of course this comes as a shock to most, especially the mafia who were trying to get their own man on the throne so to speak. What follows is a predictable farce of a comedy as Pope Albinizi tries his best to fulfil his role as leader of the Catholic Church whilst avoiding assassination attempts from the mafia and looking into the Vatican's dodgy accounts. In 'King Ralph' virtually the same thing occurs accept Ralph gets his gig by being the last descendant in the Royal bloodline.
One solid positive about this film is the casting and character performances, all are perfect. The main character of Albinizi is played by Robbie Coltrane, who was a part of The Comic Strip days but more of a cameo performer. Much like John Goodman in 'King Ralph' Coltrane offers laughs merely from his rather large proportions, the difference being Coltrane's razor sharp Scottish wit. Although the idea that Coltrane's priest being slightly rebellious, liking women, fast cars and rock and roll...but having a heart of gold, is corny and cliched, it does work. Coltrane has always had the look of a Teddy boy with his thick wavy black hair and the thought of greasy Scottish dandy in Brothel Creepers as Pope is enough to make anyone smile. Indeed Coltrane is very likeable here offering plenty of sweet mushy moments with kids, his old flame (Beverly D'Angelo) and the predictable attractive nun he meets.
The only other members of The Comic Strip in the film were Ade Edmonson who plays a deaf secretary (yet coming off like his previous character incarnations) and Richardson himself who plays a priest in charge of security. Its funny how Richardson's priest actually comes across as (and looks like) an aged Clint Eastwood, him being a tough ex-security coordinator for rock bands, so not your typical priest.
Other well performed characters would be the mafioso boss played Herbert Lom, an over protective father of his rebellious teenage daughter with a short temper. John Sessions and Steven O'Donnell pop up as a pair of bungling assassins for Lom's mafia boss, very much going down the route of The Pink Panther. But the best character must be the sleazy Cardinal Rocco played by Alex Rocco. You want a stereotypical, loud mouthed, Italian-American, Nu Yawker type sleazeball? then who better than Rocco, I love how they use his real name to make it sound even more lowbrow. This guy is a Cardinal by name/rank only, he is the main reason the Vatican's account are all messed up, he gambles, he drinks, he womanises, he swears, he wears gaudy jewellery, all by taking full advantage of rank and role. He's basically like a low ranking mafioso bookie or a slimeball car salesman or maybe an 80's British yuppie wannabe type. I adored how he always wore those 80's aviator shades, had his shirts unbuttoned to show his chest and carried a mobile around (in the shape of a crucifix). Brilliant how he would stop or interrupt the Pope to take a call, flipping the speaker bit out, he really came across as a real Del Boy type, British folk will get me.
The whole story is an easy dose of comedy with cliches and predictable twists and turns, no doubt about that. What I personally liked was the fact it was aimed at adults and it went for the jugular, the premise was very risky yet they still went ahead with it and didn't hold back. The film has balls and I think it works because of that. Combined with that the film also looks terrific! The locations were filmed in and around Yugoslavia but you'd never guess, it looked thoroughly like local Italian countryside to me. I especially liked the various costumes and sets on display, the Catholic attire was very authentic looking (probably not hard to achieve) from the bottom ranking local priests to the upper echelons of Vatican City (again Coltrane looked great in Pope garb). At the same time I must give big kudos to the sets and props. Painfully recreating various locations from within the Vatican including the Sistine Chapel and all being highly decorated with great detail. It really does look like they filmed within the Vatican, I think. Loved the quiet, peaceful, green and idyllic countryside where Albinizi is located at the start of the film, so beautiful.
Upon release this film pretty much bombed, which is a shame and obviously down to its religious content. In America they pretty much tried to ignore and virtually ban the film, even changing its title to 'The Pope Must Die(t)', which made no sense. Even in the UK the film came up against backlash and pathetic whining about being offensive. Its a huge shame because this is a classic bit of black comedy from the UK, showcasing some great talents who really pile on the ham and revel in the dark, morbid, farcical, taboo humour. I only wish they had cast other UK talents from the Strip like Rik Mayall, Alexei Sayle or Nigel Planner.
7/10
Halloween: 25 Years of Terror (2006)
Everything you ever wanted to know about the classic horror franchise, but were afraid to ask? errmm...well kinda. Back in 1978 a young John Carpenter directed and scored a horror slasher named after a yearly Christian celebration. This movie would star a young Jamie Lee Curtis in her movie debut and the British stalwart Donald Pleasence. As I'm sure everyone knows, the basis of the simple story surrounded the bogeyman named Michael Myers who comes back to his hometown of Haddonfield (after 15 years in a psychiatric hospital) to stalk and kill Laurie Strode. Thus began the massive horror slasher franchise of Halloween, or maybe as it should be known as, the franchise of Michael Myers.
This documentary goes back and delves into every movie of the franchise from 1978 up to 2002 with 'Halloween: Resurrection'. The two reboots directed by Rob Zombie are not covered here simply because they came along in 2007 and 2009, after this doc was made. The whole thing is narrated by franchise actress P.J. Soles, but unfortunately she tries way too hard with this simple task trying to make it come across like some kind of real crime/cop programme. Not really sure if she was trying to be scary or not but its kinda lame.
Anyway as you would expect each movie is looked into one by one with the original classic getting much more attention than the others, this simply being its the best of the bunch. Naturally this entails interviews with important people like John Carpenter and Debra Hill, both of whom offer the usual tit bits you've probably read about or seen before elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that of course but even for me not being a Halloween fanboy, none of it really amazed me. What I did find more interesting were the interview and convention snippets featuring Moustapha Akkad, a Syrian producer who virtually came outta nowhere to help with the original movie. To me this was all new information, I had never heard of the man before (not being a fanboy), and he is quite frank and honest about mistakes being made with the series. But still, most of what you get is cut from other older interviews, panel discussions or conventions, there is nothing fresh here.
What is cool are the numerous interview snippets/convention snippets/behind the scenes snippets from almost all the cast, from the first film right through to 'Halloween Resurrection'. This includes all the actors who have played Myers which is neat. You also have all the other main stars plus all the smaller roles, people who died early on, the slasher fodder, the cameos, the extras, people who are generally unimportant, but hey its great to see them. Funny how they all see themselves as big stars when really...they're not, had to chuckle. There are also various pop up bits from the die hard fans at conventions, of no real importance but there you go. Strangely enough, or unsurprisingly, this documentary obviously wasn't big enough for Jamie Lee Curtis to bother with as she doesn't really crop up much. Of course being an iconic horror franchise there are also small contributions from other big names such as Clive Barker (sounding rather ill or is that normal for him?), Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright etc...But again I must reiterate, much of what you get here are cut from other interviews, there is very little in this doc that appears to have been specially made.
Everyone of course knows that after the first movie the franchise went down hill, no one ever intended there to be sequels. Thusly most of the content for those sequels isn't overly thrilling. Its like, yeah we know 'Halloween III' wasn't a hit, they tried something new and it flopped, but had it been a stand alone movie without the Halloween brand name, it might have been a different story. The actual horror tale in the movie was quite good. Then six years later Myers was brought back in to spark the franchises resurgence in 'Halloween 4'. Blood and gore levels went up due to the 80's factor, the rushed out 'Halloween 5', the loyalty of Donald Pleasence, the return of Curtis and the eventual drop into modern cyber based shite with people like Busta Rhymes.
The things that grabbed me were, the problems of Myers mask in 'Halloween: H20' which was pretty amusing. But even this I think I recall hearing about when the movie came out, so again nothing new. The fact the mask they used was basically crap and had to CGI a mask into the movie because they couldn't reshoot, and boy was it obvious. The massive reshoots and alternate cuts for 'Halloween 6' was new to me, that got me interested in seeing the film again. The original 'Halloween' house in California is still standing and is now a landmark, as is the surrounding area where tours are conducted showing off certain locations where the original was shot. The mention of a Myers vs Pinhead movie is brought up which peaked my interest plus the odd stories of crew members not getting on, how they shot nude scenes for 'Halloween II' and the way Myers and Loomis are compared to Moby-Dick and Captain Ahab or Dracula and Van Helsing, or Frankenstein and his monstrous creation. I never thought of it that way yet it makes perfect sense.
The run time is just short of a regular movie so this did feel slightly underwhelming truth be told. As said, much of this isn't new material, I'm not entirely sure which bits, if any, are actually new for the doc so don't get too over excited. I get the impression that if you're a fanboy of the franchise then most of this (if not all) will possibly be old hat. Certainly reasonably interesting for me, but not stunned by it, I've seen better docs I think, and better constructed ones too, this felt lowkey. I think a 'reboot' with more content on the originals (after the 78 original), including the newer Rob Zombie versions should be done.
6.5/10
Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957)
Yes you read it correctly, we are really plumbing the B-movie depths here with this little beauty. Attack of the crab monsters huh, just when you thought they had used every known bug and fishy-type thing possible, they throw this at you, what's next...lobsters, ahem! Yes its yet another 1957 flick, the year of the giant creature feature, and yet again the movies poster is completely bullshit, at no point does a female get grabbed by a giant crab like that. You notice every one of these giant creature B-movies has an almost identical poster layout.
Believe it or not this movie is actually a Roger Corman offering. Maybe not so surprising seeing as this Hollywood legend has seemingly been around forever, making movies in all genres and having worked with everyone. In all honesty I was a bit surprised as I didn't realise Corman went back this far into the 50's giant bug phenomenon.
Plot wise its a bit different than the usual fair, not as straight forward as you might expect. OK...first off the basic premise is what you would expect, a team of scientists are sent to a remote Pacific island to look for the last team that went missing. At the same time they are also following on with the research into the effect of radiation in the area after nuclear bomb testing (of course). Naturally some giant mutated crabs ate the last team (shocking), and are a result of the bomb testing (you don't say). The interesting and bizarre twist comes in the fact that these crabs absorb the minds of their victims and are able to telepathically communicate with other living humans. When this happens the telepathic messages from the crabs are in the voices of the dead victims that have been eaten. So not only is this a giant creature feature, its also a weird kind of spiritual ghost story of sorts, well that's the way it comes across at times.
Now its clear to see this movie was made on a small budget, the fact its a Corman movie means you can bet your bottom Dollar it was probably made for a pittance. What gives this notion away? well for a start there is nothing to look at, no fancy sets, no lovely locations, no swish props or costumes etc...nothing. It was clearly shot on the coast in America somewhere and inside a small hut for the most part, probably a basic set was used.
The giant crabs in question also look pretty terrible it must be said. Yes they do have some decent scale to them, they are large mechanical puppets that do look like crabs and the actors are able to interact with them. The problem being they obviously don't move too well, they tend to just sit in one place and move the odd limb around in jerky motions. The other problem being they have two large humanoid eyes, why would you do this?? it looks ridiculous. This has happened in other giant bug movies before, giving the creature humanoid eyes which in turn gives the creature a face, emotions, something you don't wanna see on a large killing machine. What's more these eyes look dreadful! big pupils, big eyelids and they almost look like they have eyelashes, they make the creature look like a giant child's toy. Seriously what were they thinking?!
Speaking of eyes, the lead female character (played by Pamela Duncan) sports some incredibly obvious and large fake eyebrows. Seriously these things look like they've been painted on with a thick brush and look totally out of proportion, its quite absurd really. As for the cast and their acting skills, well, there's not much to say really. We've seen this type of acting in all these big bug B-movies, its a very formulaic type of performance which doesn't really tend to change much. The characters are all the same too, the handsome lead, the older scientist, the attractive female and a few other blokes that are essentially monster fodder. The only difference here is the inclusion of a French character, it doesn't add anything really, other than a different accent to listen to.
In general, I didn't like this movie, the plot is just weird with all the telepathic nonsense going on. Other plot explanations just don't make any sense either, like how on earth these crabs manage to create earthquakes on the island, and why, but mainly how. Apparently the crabs want to reach the mainland so they can eat more humans and absorb their minds, no clue why they would wanna do this, or how this benefits them, but there you go. It feels more like an alien invasion sci-fi flick with all this talk of absorbing human minds, mind you (no pun intended), the film is atmospheric at times I'll give it that. There were moments when it did feel a bit creepy, especially with the haunting telepathic messages and the clicking noise the crabs make. There was also the odd bit of gore too, a decapitation and the loss of a hand, don't get too over excited though.
4/10
Hubbs, have you ever gone back and re-watched a movie to re-review it?
Quote from: Alien³ on Oct 04, 2015, 10:52:30 AM
Hubbs, have you ever gone back and re-watched a movie to re-review it?
Yes, many original reviews were bad and full of mistakes, and I want to redo some videogame movie reviews.
City Slickers (1991)This was probably the first movie I saw that properly introduced me to Billy Crystal. Sure I had seen his other early movies and heard about that scene in 'When Harry Met Sally' (never actually saw the movie though), but none of those really stood out to me (a much younger me). Back in the day it was this comedy, rented from the trusty videoshop, that grabbed me and made me think this guy was funny. The other lure at the time was Daniel Stern who was fresh off huge success with 'Home Alone'.
The plot follows a trio of middle aged men who are all suffering some sort of midlife crisis, or just a crisis. Eventually when they can no longer stand their lives anymore, they all decide to head off for a cattle driving ranch in New Mexico for a real cowboy getaway/vacation. At the ranch they meet up with various other regular folk who are also on the cattle drive experience for their own personal reasons, mainly to overcome negative ones. And so we have our male bonding tale of how three men discover themselves whilst in the wilderness and under the pressure of a very real situation. Could this be one of the ultimate feel good movies?
The entire premise of this movie apart from the cowboy bits, is basically the male midlife crisis. Much of, if not all, of the dialog surrounds the three main characters chatting to each other, reminiscing and opening up to each other about various moments and aspects of their lives. Each character has a shit-tonne of baggage which gets slowly released over the runtime with various results, but mostly humourous and heart-warming. Its all about being a good person deep down, kinda vomit inducing I know but it actually works nicely, as an adult you can relate to these characters much more even though it still works well for kids.
The cattle drive aspect of the story is the rather predictably obvious way in which these guys, and their new friends, come together to overcome danger and personal conflict by working together. This is the main crux of the movie and deals out everything you would kinda expect from this type of flick. We naturally get the training section of the movie before hand where we see the characters getting into shape and learning the ropes, all of which naturally foreshadows later events. Those later events of course involve typical cowboy things such as keeping the herd together, roping a cow, basic riding, helping a pregnant cow and dealing with two butch cowboys that represent adult bullies. To a degree the whole adventure is kinda taking these guys back to their youths with the things they have to deal with. The dangers they face, the problems, decisions and the cowboy bullies, I think its suppose to mirror growing up, especially when you look at the other characters alongside them.
The movie is essentially an ensemble cast despite focusing on the main three leads. A typical bunch of city folk nerds and geeks that all have reasons for doing the drive which fall into place with the main three protagonists. You have a black father and son who obviously feel a bit out of place, two overweight Jewish ice cream makers, and Helen Slater as the sweetheart of the group. In all honesty none of these characters add too much to the proceedings, they are merely there to add to the awkwardness of the situation. Establishing how useless city folk are out in the sticks, until they learn and become real cowboys n girls (classic story arc kinda stuff).
On the flip side of the coin you have the brilliant performance of Jack Palance as the leatherfaced, overly butch, Clint Eastwood-esque cowboy Curly. This guy is everything every man aspires to be (in the movie), he's tough, doesn't take any shit from anyone including the other cowboys, a ladies man and he looks cool. While the other characters are stereotypical city folk, this guy is the stereotypical cowboy, both elements playing off each other perfectly for some good laughs. The films relies on many stereotypes truth be told, but they are very user-friendly.
Overall its a film of two halves really. On one hand you do have some really moving moments that will actually put a lump in your throat. Some of dialog between the characters at times can be emotional and deep, the relationship between Billy Crystal's character Mitch and the baby calf is another strong aspect with inevitable sequences of danger for the little thing. Daniel Stern's character Phil cracking is funny and heartbreaking at the same time, there is death to dealt with and of course the triumphant finale which can't fail to put a weepy smile on your face. On the other hand you have a lot of (now) cliched silly humour that is both childish and mature but most importantly, works. Most of this comes from banter between Mitch and Curly as they try to get along (Curly shits bigger than Mitch), Phil as the emotional loose cannon, Bruno Kirby's toughish womaniser of sorts and predictable visual gags.
Its one of those movies that looking at it, reading about it, you'd brush it aside as just another cheap, lame, cookie-cutter comedy with no real love or attention to detail. But its completely the opposite, all the characters are well developed with solid story arcs, some comedy is brilliantly witty and dry thanks mainly to Crystal and Palance but there is also plenty of more regular laughs, the locations are stunning, great performances all round, and even the musical score is superb! My only negative point is a personal one, that being, I didn't like some of the casting choices. I think the film could have been even greater with slightly better casting, but that's just me. End of the day, the simple joke of seeing some city slicker suits trying to survive in the wild west turns out to be a classic comedy, it truly is one of the best feel good movies out there.
9/10
SPECTRE (2015)While I can't deny this wasn't quite as good as
Skyfall, it was still a magnificent film. In all honesty, it
is a bit too long, and especially feels like it could have been a bit shorter. But, a hell of a lot of oldschool Bond elements have been reintroduced, which was great to see. (Secret villain lair? Check. Naked girls in the opening credits? Check check.) There are tons of references to the old films and books, some of them obvious (brutal fight scene on a train), some of them less so (a safe house above a shop called Hildebrand), and thankfully these never felt forced as can sometimes be the case.
Craig is excellent as ever as 007, both Bond girls were very good indeed (although Bellucci's part was disappointingly brief, she deserved more screen-time) and it was good to see Moneypenny, Q and M all getting more than usual to do. If I'm honest, I wasn't so keen on Fiennes as M, he took way too much shit from Bond when the character's supposed to have no time for his shenanigans. There was one moment in particular where it felt like Bond had stepped over the line and a brutal shut-down was coming, but it never really materialised. But it's a minor quibble. Waltz was as good as you'd expect as Oberhauser. Oh yeah, there were also some pretty hardcore scenes for a 12A - Bautista pushes someone's eyes in and there's an inventive torture sequence that rivals
Casino Royale for squeamishness.
There was some more insight into Bond's youth, and a lot of links to the previous Craig outings (although conspicuously - and rather unsurprisingly - they played down the poorly-received
Quantum of Solace). Some superb action scenes - Bond chasing the convoy down snowy mountain slopes in a plane that was so heavily featured in the trailers was particularly thrilling, but the highlight was probably a nasty fight between Craig and Bautista. I'm also pleased to say they didn't spoil the final act with the advertising either, and by the time you get to around the two-third mark you will have seen basically everything shown in the previews, leaving the ending nice and fresh.
I actually didn't even hate Smith's theme song quite so much seeing it in the movie, and the opening credits were stylish and arresting.
9/10 - A fine entry. It did have a bit of a "Craig's final Bond" feel in the coda, but as far as I know he's contracted for one more. But a good exit if this really is it for him. Oh yeah, and the gunbarrel is back at the beginning where it should be.
Oh yeah, one last thing - regarding who certain people may or may not be:
Spoiler
Yes, Waltz plays Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Although he is also Oberhauser. They're the same person, Oberhauser having changed his name after faking his death when he was young.
The Magic Sword (1962)
'The most incredible weapon ever wielded!', meh...lets not get carried away here folks, have you heard of a lightsaber?? Oh wait this was 1962. Now apparently this movie was aimed at children and loosely based on the English legend of Saint George and the dragon. Not overly sure how accurate that claim is though, it certainly seems loosely based on the olde worlde medieval English tale in places, visually at least, mainly the knights and the dragon. All the added monsters and magic I'm guessing might be typical Hollywood embellishments? I don't actually know how accurate all the fantasy guff is. But aimed at children?? Well it seemed pretty strong stuff for kids if you ask me, not by today's standards of course.
The very simplistic story sees an evil wizard waltz into a Kings castle and proclaim that he has kidnapped the Kings daughter and will feed her to his pet dragon very shortly. This is revenge for the death of his own sister, who died at the same age as the Princess at this point, 18. I don't recall how the evil wizards sister died though, I can't recall if that fact is even mentioned truth be told. Anywho, the King decides to give his daughters hand in marriage to the brave knight who saves her, naturally good old Sir George fancies the Princess, so of course he wants to go off and save her, but he has competition from another knight called Sir Branton. So they join forces and trot off on a perilous journey to save the Princess from the depths of the evil wizards castle. Sir George has some tricks up his sleeve in the form of magic given to him by his foster mum, an elderly sorceress, but Sir Branton also has some dastardly tricks up his chain mail too.
I found the tone is this movie to be slightly confusing really, its listed as a movie aimed at kids but there is much death and spookiness going on all around. Don't get me wrong its not an all out fright fest, but its a mixed bag. On one hand you have Sir George's foster mother (the old female sorcerer played by Estelle Winwood) who comes across like some kind of children's TV program hostess (anyone in the UK recall Grotbags? think that but a nice version), and a light-hearted character from a US comedy like 'Bewitched'. Then you have Gary Lockwood giving it his all as Sir George, he's really loving this fantasy stuff, the same can be said for Liam Sullivan as baddie Sir Branton who also comes across as pretty serious. Then on the other hand we have classic actor Basil Rathbone as the evil wizard who also seems to be taking it seriously in his traditional no nonsense type manner (stalwart and stoic as ever). Together Rathbone and Sullivan, along with some reasonably scary creatures, ghouls and some death scenes, make this film quite intimidating for a younger viewer in my humble opinion. Its almost like an earlier lite version of 'Krull'.
Gotta love these old American movies and their portrayals of European folklore and its people. The best bit in the movie is when Sir George is given the gift of six knights that are magically frozen somehow. Once unfrozen we discover these knights apparently come from various parts of Europe, not that you'd know that judging by the hilarious accents. OK most of them are OK like the French, Spanish and Italian, but the Scottish and Irish are laughably bad, plus I do love how ridiculously diverse the six are, each one from a different Euro country, you'd think it was flippin' Star Trek (based on the real legend though?). And speaking of these knights, why were they frozen as statues anyway?? was that punishment? voluntary? they seemed perfectly happy and not at all bothered about their stony incarceration, I wonder if they even realised they had been turned to stone.
This leads me to the other magical powers bestowed upon Sir George by his foster mother. She does this with the agreement that he doesn't go off to rescue the Princess because he's too young at only 18, he must wait until he's 21. Firstly, what bloody difference does three years make?? there is literately no difference in a person between the ages of 18 and 21, I think, its just a number. Technically he would still be too young and dumb even at 21 frankly, its not like he's gonna mature and grow immensely in those three years, so what difference does it make? Secondly, the magic she gives George is pretty darn powerful, and she's pretty darn powerful herself, plus...she ends up killing the evil wizard in the end anyway (spoiler alert), so what's the point of all this?! just go do the job yourself woman! Lastly, in order for George to get away from his foster mum so he can start his rescue mission, he locks her in this underground cellar/dungeon which she told him prior, was almost inescapable. Who would do that to their own (foster) mother?! sure she's a powerful sorcerer but she already said the cellar was bloody hard to get out of...and he goes and locks her in it! What if he died on his quest and never came back, she'd be screwed.
Generally overall the film does look good I can't deny, its very colourful and has a nice array of costumes, props and sets. Yes the props and sets are fake looking, yes the ghostly effects are poor by today's standards, yes the makeup is hokey and yes the giant troll monster thing is just a man in a suit, rear projected behind footage of the actors. Actually the movie did remind me a lot of the Errol Flynn classic 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' with its bright, bold, colourful knight outfits, flag standards, shiny armour and medieval crests. That coupled with Sullivan clearly having a slightly similar appearance to a much younger Rathbone as Gisbourne and all the knights generally looking similar in their natty garb. Aside from a troll suit, various makeup jobs on actors as undead servants and some footage of more actors against large props because they are suppose to be tiny people, what else was there? what about the dragon? Well the dragon appeared to be an actual life-sized movable puppet, probably controlled via people inside. Now obviously this thing didn't look realistic, but in a fantasy sense it looked great, it truly looked perfect for an olde worlde folklore tale of potions, magic and swords. I do believe this giant puppet even had real flames coming from its nostrils, but its hard to tell because the picture wasn't so good and it was quite dark, probably on purpose to hide the mechanics of the thing. I should also point out that this dragons roar does actually appear to be the original sound effect for the TIE fighter craft in the Star Wars franchise. Yes I know that sounds impossibly crazy but I am sure of it, it was the first thought to hit me the second I heard it, most interesting.
A fun film for all? well kind of, in places yes, but not entirely truth be told, not unless you want your younglins to see staggering decaying zombies. It does hark back to some of the old Harrryhausen flicks and historic epics of the 30's but it can't quite pull it all off. The production seems to yo-yo between some really solid looking stuff, to some really B-movie looking stuff, I'm sure the dragon would have eaten up much of the budget. The acting is fair throughout, but the ending is soppy and apparently reverses all the deaths we see during the quest. So basically its a bit of a cop-out so as not to upset the kids watching. A true happy ending for a fairytale, no one got hurt after all...meh.
6/10
Spy (2015)
OK, so this looks like an interes...oh my God! its another bloody Bond parody!! seriously!!! Yes the modern age feminist hipster, Paul Feig, takes a swing at the Bond genre, and oh what an original concept that is, gee I wonder what we'll see here...ugh!
So naturally its an adult comedy with lashings of semi-serious action, CGI blood, swearing and a whole heap of Melissa McCarthy and other actresses. Basically the plot revolves around McCarthy playing Cooper, a desk jockey CIA analyst who helps the very suave, completely cliched character of Fine played by Jude Law. Yep, if you ever wanted to see what it would be like having Jude Law as Bond, well here you go. After a botched mission Fine is supposedly killed off and the CIA need someone to take his place, an unknown, hence they can't use Statham who plays another totally cliched agent character we've all seen before. We then follow Cooper around as she slowly but surely sinks deeper and deeper into a mission, which she was never really suppose to get into in the first place (she was only meant to be surveillance).
Oh geez where to start, the plot is unoriginal sure, we all know that, but how about some original ideas...oh too late. From the very first scene I had a good idea what this film was aiming at and how the characters would play out. Spoiler alert! but the minute you see Law as this debonair spy, you know he's obviously gonna die early on, he's clearly the plot setup for McCarthy's Cooper, I mean come on, who didn't see that?! But wait! as the film progresses and more and more characters are introduced, we start to see double agents and characters popping up outta nowhere who are suddenly spies or assassins. All of sudden characters we saw at the start who appeared to just be the butt of a joke or background fodder, are now main characters out to kill the protagonist. Its at this point you know that anyone is fair game and anyone can surprisingly come back from the dead when you thought they had been killed off. So I quickly realised that Jude Law probably wasn't dead at all. Seeing as we didn't actually see him die, clearly he can come back, and he did...*groan*
The plot is a mess of characters bouncing back and forth between the goodies and the baddies. Seriously, there are characters popping up all over the place, getting whacked, and then replaced minutes later by new ones, only to get killed just as quickly. The ones that don't get killed, you just know are probably gonna turn out to be secret agents, but on either side. I honesty thought Law's character of Fine was gonna keep flippin' sides! he was a goodie, then a baddie, then a goodie again, but at this point I genuinely suspected he would turn on Cooper yet again right at the death, and then get properly killed off. Amazingly the film beat me on that one, but this film could of kept spinning these characters round and round, one double agent twist after another.
The actual characters are a completely mixed bag of nuts that all had one thing in common, none of them managed to actually make me laugh...at any point. McCarthy was...well, pretty much like McCarthy is in every bloody movie she's ever done (whilst looking oddly like Dawn French at one point), whilst her sidekick, played by Brit Miranda Hart, was just simply annoying and unfunny. I swear, an early scene near the start has McCarthy and Law in conversation at dinner, they are both talking about themselves and offering basic foreshadowing of things to come. Now initially there are moments that made me smile (as there were throughout this film), but this obviously intended funny sequence just went on and on and on...it just didn't f**king stop. Like seriously, the moment has passed, the joke is over, its not funny anymore its just awkwardly embarrassing, stop flogging this dead horse!!
The only characters that did offer some genuine giggles were Statham as a dumb, cocky but tough agent, nothing gobsmackingly funny mind you, but reasonable. Next to him I quite liked Peter Serafinowicz as the slimy Italian (yet another secret agent) Aldo who can't keep his hands off the ladies. Sure this character felt like a cheesy Carry-On character (something I would of thought was beyond the realms of acceptance for Feig), but his antics were amusing. Other than that everyone was just there, doing exactly what you expected them to be doing with these character types. Get a load of Law by the way, how much flippin' makeup?? Oh and both Statham and the main baddie fall into the lake from that helicopter at the end, so why does only Statham survive?
I know this movie was relatively successful but I don't really understand why. Yes some parts were good such as the gadgets sequence near the start which is obviously yet more parodies of a certain franchise, and I did quite like how the main female villain was a spoilt bratty Princess type, although again that did become annoying at times too. But in general everything just felt very generic to me and relied far too much on feeble visual gags including male genitals and slapstick, lots of profanity and lots of weight/looks shaming jabs. Even the inclusion of lots of blood and a bit of gore didn't do anything for me, that just felt unnecessary and shoved in to appease the male audience. I would say this was more enjoyable than 'The Heat' which was pretty dire, but at the end of the day, I found this to be an infantile, factory assembly line, cookie cutter of a flick.
4.5/10
The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981)
Fun fact, this was Joel Schumacher's directorial debut. Yep that's right, way before we got ultra campy, neon lit Batman movies we got this, a campy, excessively colourful romp based (of course) on the Richard Matheson novel 'The Shrinking Man'. Yeah I know exactly what you're thinking, I'd never heard of this movie either, well judging by the films poster it doesn't look like anybody gave it much hope frankly, holy cheeseballs!
So I think we know what's gonna happen here don't we. An everyday woman leading an everyday life falls afoul of a bizarre accident that causes her to slowly shrink down to a microscopic size. In this case its not a nuclear/atomic bomb scenario, its not a mad experiment and its got nothing to do with potions and magic. In this movie the protagonist suffers from a serve reaction to an experimental perfume her husband is working on, along with various other household things. So yes...OK, it is about a weird experiment, but its not military based. Unfortunately despite the fact they have clearly tried to move away from the old formulaic notions that have surrounded previous movies like this, this new concept is really quite daft. Sure the entire notion of shrinking to the size of an ant is daft but...as a result of a perfume?? couldn't think of anything a bit better?
What's even more ludicrous is the fact that despite it being a perfume/household products related accident and perfume/household products being a relatively innocent and unexciting plot device, they still manage to cram in a few nasty whitecoat scientist types because of course the perfume company gets taken over in part by dubious sources wanting to work out the shrinking mystery for their own dubious plans. Everything is entirely predictable of course, you know once Kramer starts to shrink their will be the media hype to content with, the humiliation, the rubbernecking etc...Along with that you know at some point evil people will try to kidnap her for their evil ways (obviously shrinking people around the world or their own armies), and there will be some kind of adventurous escape from a nasty old lab etc...Didn't really expect anything too mind blowing in all honesty, naturally this will take on many elements of the original source material, they have tried to go in a new direction, but I'm just not sure if this was the right way.
I'm still not really sure what the colour scheme/palette was about here either. All the sets, costumes, cars, props, everything, is an array of soft, outlandish, pastel colours that range from anything and everything. Think 'Dick Tracy', 'Miami Vice' or the 50's suburban housing estate in 'Edward Scissorhands' but in really really extreme camp colours. The weird thing were the outfits everybody wears, its was like some kind of retro 50's, 70's, 80's mishmash with suits in emerald green with bright pink ties etc...I'm guessing Schumacher wanted to create some kind of timeless hybrid that has never existed, a fantasy America where everything is kinda perfect, but scratch beneath the surface and its actually just like reality.
Another odd thing was the usage of Lily Tomlin as multiple characters. Now I'm assuming this was down to her comedic background as others have done the same thing, the problem is others have done it way better. The silly thing was you can clearly tell its Tomlin, there is no real effort to not make her look any different, so in that sense its not really funny or clever (an Eddie Murphy challenge this is not). I might add her various characters aren't exactly very different from each other...and did I mention she isn't funny?
Effects wise the movie does hold its own well and this is mainly down to the old old use of large scale props and sets. Tomlin looks great within the oversized sets and the forced perspective illusion, it just never fails to win that old trick. Naturally there are some hokey bluescreen moments but that can't really be helped. The best thing about the movie effects wise is easily Rick Baker and his gorilla suit. Now if you know your movies and special effects wizards then you know Baker has a gorilla fetish, a fetish he explores deeply here. Not only is his suit excellent in detail and movement, but Baker actually plays the gentle giant too. Think the gorilla from 'Trading Places' only better. The only stupid thing about that (along with all the other stupid stuff), is at the end the Kramer family decide to keep the gorilla as a pet, because that won't cause any problems will it (do I see a gorilla based sequel with hilarious gorilla shrinking antics??..no).
Yeah so this was a pretty mixed bag really. The visuals are undoubtedly lovely to look at in places, very colourful and cheerful, good designs and creativity, but it doesn't really make much sense why its like that. The comedy is so so, the action and adventure is so so, the acting is unsurprisingly so so despite having a darn good line-up of old stars, and the finale is too sickly. Everything gets wrapped up in a nice harmless bow with literately every character there to witness it because...I dunno. Why does she shrink so rapidly right at the end? and why or how does the chemical spillage bring her back to normal size?? Meh, its a family movie heavy on light-hearted tomfoolery and nothing more, don't question it.
5/10
And Now for Something Completely Different (1971)
This was the first feature length Python movie, an anthology movie that was made up of well known sketches that the crew had done on their TV show, Monty Python's Flying Circus (the first two series). Apparently the main goal of this movie was to break the boys into America, introduce the States to their cult British humour. The film is made up of a variety of famous sketches that had previously been seen on TV but re-shot without an audience and, apparently, with a lower budget. Knowing this actually surprised me because I've always thought this film (and the sketches) looked pretty glossy in a way, the smooth transitions, the more cinematic approach and in some aspects bigger better locations. I don't recall the original series too much as I haven't seen it since I was a kid but I always thought the series looked way more shabby than this.
Its actually amazing to read that some sketches or effects couldn't be recreated for this film because the budget was so low! This makes me wanna go back and watch the TV show to see the differences. Anyway, despite those revelations I've always liked this compilation of classic Python material and seen it as (almost) the definitive versions of the sketches, although that's probably because I grew up with this movie rather than the TV show (will somebody please fondle my buttocks!).
Watching this today as an adult many things have obviously changed, firstly, I actually understand all the gags now, all the little cheeky lines and quips are loud and clear. Its amusing to watch and remember back in the day when I didn't understand certain scenes or dialog. They totally flew over my head and I only enjoyed them mainly because I knew it was silly and because my dad was laughing. Its also quite shocking and hilarious at how offensive this movie actually is in places, its things like this that, back in the day, were virtually normal, maybe slightly taboo, but generally accepted in comedy. Watching now and its incredible! obviously you'd never get away with it. I'm pretty sure the camp soldiers on drill would be lambasted these days, also certain lines are clearly racist...'did you see who moved in next door?', 'oh yes, black as the ace of spades', 'Oh well, there goes the neighbourhood', blimey!
Its also funny to mention as early sketch which starts out with the narration...'In 1970 the British Empire lay in ruins, foreign nationals frequented the streets, many of them Hungarians'. Now is it me or, apart from the fact its Hungarians, the date of course and the sarcasm, this silly statement has actually come true! just replace Hungarians with Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian. Anyway, aside from the awkward, yet admittedly funny, offensive bits, there are of course all the main humdingers that we all know and love. The all time classic dead Parrot sketch with Cleese and Palin, 'nudge nudge, wink wink' with Idle and Jones, the lumberjack song with Palin, how to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana etc...Next to that you of course have the slightly longer skits that form small stories and offered a glimpse into the brilliant future of Python movies that had yet to be made. I actually preferred these at times as they felt more complete, obviously, like tiny comic strips with little tiny story arcs. In this movie the best of which are easily the 'Upper Class Twit of the Year' competition and the 'killer joke', which I reckon could of been made into an entire movie.
But wait! who could forget about those off the wall and quite often gruesome little animations from Gilliam. These were a real highlight for Monty Python, I especially liked them as a kid for obvious reasons. The whole concept just added a completely new layer to the proceedings, the teams surreal comedy could be expanded and more risky with the use of adult cartoons, they looked cheap and tacky, but at the same time so very well created. The almost shabby, bare bones, crude methods used for these little animated moments feel very much like a precursor to South Park if you ask me, it definitely seems that way, but the fact that some of the cartoon animations (and the style) have become just as big as the live action sketches goes to prove how fantastic they were. Everybody knows a Monty Python cartoon image when they see one.
All in all, even though this film could be looked upon as not entirely classic Python seeing as they remade everything from the original series for the cinema, and to some people that might cheapen or water down their act, the film has managed a cult following. Although, I must say, with all the various incarnations of their famous sketches, they can start to feel tiresome on occasion, I have often found one specific version of a sketch to be the best with many others missing a beat. Anyway being the first Python movie this naturally holds a special place in most fans hearts and its still an excellent spicy little ride. Application forms for lion tamer are available to all those with the proper qualifications only, thank you.
8/10
Best in Show (2000)
Number three out of five in a string of mockumentary movies that Christopher Guest has had a hand in writing, directing and of course starring. In my humble opinion this is probably the second most well known of the five with 'This Is Spinal Tap' being the clear winner in that field.
The simple premise behind this film is a dog show (in America of course), a dog show much like the famous British dog show Crufts. In fact the show in this movie is actually, supposedly, based upon a real dog show that takes place in New York each year, the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. We the viewer follow the day to day lives of a set of dog owners and their preparation for the show, the ordeals during the show, and the eventual full outcome. The film is naturally in a documentary style with hand held cameras and many interviews on the fly as the adventures of each dog team is closely watched every bit of the way.
Its of no surprise of course that the dog teams are a varied larger than life bunch of people for maximum comedic effect. You have the flamboyant gay couple portrayed by Guest movie regular Michael McKean and John Higgins. McKean being the older, wiser, more conservatively dressed gent of the duo, whilst Higgins is the younger, fitter, spiritual, better looking toyboy of the couple who dresses flamboyantly. The pair own a small fluffy Shih Tzu which I guess you could say compliments their lifestyle? or is that too stereotypical to say? surely that was the idea though? Anyway, next up is Guest himself playing a small town hick type with a bloodhound. Other regular Guest movie team players Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara play a married couple, Levy of course being the nerdy half the couple, whilst O'Hara is, or was, a bit of a slut. Parker Posey and Michael Hitchcock play an executive yuppie-esque husband and wife couple that have major anger/lifestyle issues, Parker Posey's character is highly neurotic causing virtually all of the panic and grief. And finally Jennifer Coolidge plays a big dumb blonde (unsurprisingly) who is a trophy wife for some very old dude, but at the same time she is actually having an affair with their dog trainer, played by Jane Lynch.
We spend small amounts of time with each dog owner as each of their stories progress. Starting at their various homes across the country as they all begin their journey's to the show, how they look after their dogs, arrival, accommodation and of course the actual show group by group. As I have already said, each of the dog owners have their own unique, over the top quirks which are admittedly predictable and cliche, but at the same time well performed. The main humour in the movie is watching how each of these people go about their daily routines with themselves and of course their dogs. Its highly engaging to watch the gay couple and the way they act (and dress), their different styles (think 'The Birdcage'), naturally their little pooch is spoilt rotten. Parker Posey's character is a complete nervous wreck, severely neurotic and a total bitch because of it, I found this (her) to be quite sexy actually. Watching her and her other half fight over petty little things is actually really fun, you feel awkward and embarrassed just watching, the performances are that good. The duo are like a car crash, you just can't help but look, its almost like morbid curiosity to watch these people fight and bicker in public.
Guest himself doesn't actually play that much of an interesting character, a humble hick that sounds a bit slow, he has his little idiosyncrasies of course but nothing that is outstandingly funny. His character is actually the most regular and less outrageous of the bunch. Eugene Levy and O'Hara are probably the most cliched pairing in the movie (the stereotypical gays aside), I think it was obvious that Levy would be some kind of geek, and boy do they pile on the geek here, even giving him two left feet to appear even more pathetic. It is amusing to watch these two as they meet up with various people on their travels, the gag being Cookie (O'Hara) keeps bumping into blokes she once slept with back in the day. The whole angle is kinda corny admittedly but its Levy's reactions you're looking out for. Lastly the weakest of the lot goes to Coolidge as the blonde bimbo having an affair with her female dog trainer. Jane Lynch holds her own well as you'd expect, but I feel they could gone further with these two, a bit more naughty perhaps, it all just felt a bit bland and lacking.
The highlight of the film is the actual show of course, and it doesn't disappoint visually that's for sure. Pretty much looks like they used a real venue for the show, a packed capacity of extras, plenty of real dog owners...probably real competitors, probably real judges etc...the works. It also appears that the cast genuinely did train with the dogs and go through the hoops with them as it were, it all looks very real, true to the documentary style. Set against this level of realism is the typically brash all American commentator played by Fred Willard who kills it! This guy really ups the game so to speak, his obvious lack of any knowledge on the proceedings, along with his stereotypically fast sports style of commentary is brilliantly funny at times. The fact that he is partnered up with a smart, well spoken, no-nonsense Brit commentator (Jim Piddock) makes this scenario all the more delicious. Seeing Piddock's British dog expert character smiling politely at Willard's loud lowbrow American commentator as he comes out with his inane foot-in-mouth comments, is a glory to behold.
The movie is obviously all about stereotypes and satire, all the characters are typically cliche and predictable, behaving exactly how you would expect them too. I guess all Guest movies are in the same vein character wise, but this one felt more so to me. What did surprise me was the fact I was actually engaged in the plot, lets be honest here when you read that the film is all about a dog show, you could be forgiven for thinking the premise might not appeal. Again though, this does appear to be a typical Guest trait, choosing quite unusual (and generally mundane) plot scenarios that befit everyday life for everyday folk, to a degree, but not always. This just goes to show how good the comedy, writing and improv work is from all involved, that and its an original concept too, which is a breath of fresh air (give it a chance). I think anyone who knows what to expect from Guest will undoubtedly enjoy this, people not in know may need a bit more time to get into it, but I'm sure will get the hang of it quickly (surely everyone knows what to expect with Eugene Levy involved).
7.5/10
Crystal Lake Memories: The Complete History of Friday the 13th (2013)
Back in 1974 movie goers got a taste of the first real horror icon that would go on to become bigger than the franchise he first appeared in. I refer of course to the chainsaw wielding man-child, Leatherface. This large, imposing maniac with his huge weapon of death turned the horror world upside down and kinda introduced the lumbering mask wearing killer. Now even though I don't believe there is a connection between Leatherface and Jason, I can't help but feel that the 1974 cannibal did have an influence on the Crystal Lake killer, amongst others. Up next in 1978 was the John Carpenter classic 'Halloween' which again changed everything. As we all know this movie introduced us to yet another iconic killer in the form of the mask wearing Michael Myers. Just two years later in 1980, and influenced by the silent Myers, the low budget slasher movie 'Friday the 13th' (kinda) gave birth to Jason Voorhees, or at least planted the seed which would eventually spawn the Jason we all know and love today.
Back in 2010 Wes Craven's iconic horror creation A Nightmare on Elm Street got a huge 4 hour documentary covering every aspect of the franchise, every movie, everything, up until the remake (which wasn't covered). There have also been a few solid docs based on Michael Myers and the Halloween franchise, so it was inevitable that Victor Miller's creation would get its own huge epic making of. This gigantic documentary also covers every aspect of the Friday the 13th franchise, every movie right up to the 2009 reboot/remake, including the short lived TV series, and chatting with virtually every person involved with the franchise, obviously including directors, stuntmen and makeup artists. Add to this tonnes of behind the scenes pictures, cut scenes, outtakes, clips, design work on effects, props and outfits, location information etc...This is the ultimate encyclopedia of knowledge for this movie franchise.
This marathon of horror kicks off in the capable hands of the one and only Corey Feldman...indeed. Yep a downright obviously, heavily, fake tanned Feldman (almost looking orange!) sits around a dark spooky campfire with a bunch of other faceless people. Yep you guessed it, the idea here being he's telling the others all about the fable of Jason and Camp Crystal Lake, I believe they are all supposed to actually be at the lake, ingenious huh. Feldman actually narrates the entire documentary and to be honest, he does a good job with it, he never acts stupid or anything, he narrates sensibly with a much respect. I'm just not too sure why we needed the crappy campfire set sequences that bookend the doc, very cheesy, very obvious.
Unsurprisingly the documentary starts off right at the beginning with the first movie and naturally with all involved with its initial setup. People such as Sean S. Cunningham (looking like Michael Bay), Tom Savini, Vic Miller etc...You are taken through virtually every process in the creation and development of each movie, discussions on characters, casting, effects, scripts...the whole enchilada. Most of this is obviously in interview form with the various people whilst you are hit with lots of pictures and behind the scenes footage. Every concern and notion appears to be discussed from the tiniest detail to the largest problem, stories from people both behind the camera and in front of the camera, for all of the movies (including people in small roles, cameos and all the blokes that played Jason). Depending how knowledgeable you are on the franchise will presumably determine how much you discover and enjoy what is brought up. Each of the movies are explored in separate chapters and tend to run for around the same amount of time depending, although some have more gritty info than others.
For example in the first 13th movie, the entire sequence of Jason popping up in the finale was merely a joke, a visual gag to shock with no real intentions by anyone to take the character forward. In fact this finale was supposedly a rip-off from the 'Carrie' movie finale, no one ever suspected a franchise would spawn from the movie, so it was just thrown in there. It was also interesting and amusing to find out that Ebert and Siskel both hated the first movie, offering scathing reviews and warning how dangerous it was to women and any young people watching. After much success with the original, in part 2 the basic story makes no real sense. The rights had been purchased by Frank Mancuso Sr. of Paramount and they had big plans for the newborn franchise, a movie every year. Despite concerns from some people it was insisted that Jason Voorhees be brought back into the fray even though his character wasn't really part of the original movie.
In part III the infamous hockey mask is first introduced into the franchise (I guess that became popular then huh) and the movie was originally released in 3D. In part IV the actor playing Jason (Ted White) really disliked the young bratty child star Feldman and wanted to actually kill him, plus director Joseph Zito was very harsh on the cast resulting in Judie Aronson developing hypothermia. Part V didn't see the return of Feldman even though he actually really wanted to do it. He was already filming 'The Goonies' so was only able to make a brief cameo. Part VI was the best movie of the bunch for me, I think visually it looked terrific, Jason is at his absolute prime here and it stars horror cult icon Thom Matthews. Its still corny as f**k for sure, but its the epitome of the 80's horror bound action genre if you ask me, its nearly flawless for all round trashy gore.
Part VII was originally supposed to be the giant clash of horror icons with Freddy entering the fray, alas that didn't happen after the studios failed to come to an agreement. So instead the powers that be simply threw in a second rate Carrie-esque type character for Jason to fight. Obviously it wasn't the actual Stephen King created character, but lets be frank here, she looked pretty darn close. Part VIII was easily the weakest concept (for the time), we've run out of ideas so lets just have stick Jason in New York, voila! It added nothing new accept for a city backdrop, but again it was pretty damn 80's which was sweet. Part IX was never known as part IX because of rights issues, hence it became 'The Final Friday' with a complete reboot of the Jason mythology. Again Jason v Freddy was originally thrown around, but instead it became a story about a demon possessing bodies or whatever. Finally it comes to part X, the greatest, tackiest idea ever...actually played out, Jason goes into space and also becomes half Terminator (sort of), best synopsis ever. Eventually we got Freddy v Jason and in all honesty, it wasn't that bad. Ronny Yu seemed an odd choice for director, Hodder was controversially dropped introducing Ken Kirzinger as Jason, there was no Wes Craven, and Pinhead of the Hellraiser franchise was at one point a possibility as was Corey Feldman. Finally this endurance test ends with the reboot, the Michael Bay produced reboot that no one really wanted and the director didn't seem overly bothered about.
Overall from what I can tell, over the franchise, all the movies (or most of them) appear to have plenty of reshot/edited scenes for either time constraints or their graphic nature. There are also numerous cut or alternate endings for some of the movies along with tonnes of alternate ideas either at the writing stage or beyond. As I've already said, your enjoyment will come down to how much you already know, I have only skimmed over a small fraction for the purposes of my review. I'm willing to bet even the most ardent Jason fan won't know everything mentioned here, surely there will be some intriguing surprises for some. Either way this is still an excellent documentary that covers nearly everything (I would imagine). Actually the book which came out in 2005 (same title) supposedly includes even more information, more dirty secrets that for some reason haven't been covered here, or were but maybe cut? To be honest there were so many stories of negativity between various people over various things throughout the franchise I wouldn't be surprised if certain things were cut or deliberately not included. So maybe this isn't the ultimate inside look at the franchise, maybe the book is, nevertheless, this is still a worthy edition to any fanboys collection.
9/10
1941 (1979)
After a gigantic Diplodocus sized dump of success with his first two big mainstream movies, one about a large fish and the other about some annoying little brat that gets kidnapped by aliens in ice-cream cone shaped UFO's, the one and only Spielberg had complete and utter control over everything. Strangely enough, much like his best mate George Lucas, this power went straight to his head and he came up with this odd little feature. Still to this day I'm not really sure what his intentions were or whether I actually like this or not, it certainly doesn't seem or feel like a Spielberg movie, not in the slightest.
The plot is an odd mixture really, set in 1941, it basically sees a Japanese submarine led by Toshiro Mifune and Christopher Lee (a Nazi), on course to try and hit the western coast again just after the recent Pearl Harbour attack. The US is on high alert after the bombing, paranoia is running amok but there is a real risk of another attack. During this time we follow multiple storylines involving various characters within the US military that eventually all combine at the finale. You have the unhinged John Belushi as Wild Bill Kelso who flies around in his Curtiss P-40 fighter and...errr little else really. I kinda get the impression Spielberg mainly stuck him in because he was a big star at the time and was virtually a package along with Dan Aykroyd. Meanwhile, a tank crew consisting of Aykroyd, John Candy, Mickey Rourke, Treat Williams and Frank McRae are on their way to a military base or just on patrol due to the recent attacks (not really sure), and getting into all sorts of trouble. Sitarski (Williams) is after a young girl who is also the target of the young whippersnapper Wally (Bobby Di Cicco), both of whom are trying to take her to a local dance contest.
Meanwhile!! Major General Stilwell (Robert Stack) is trying to control everything from the general public to his inane troops in the midst of this supposed pending doom from the far east. There is also a love story going on between Tim Matheson and Nancy Allen that flits in and out of the other sub plots, Slim Pickens is kidnapped by the Japs and interrogated on-board their sub, Ned Beatty and Lorraine Gary get an anti-aircraft gun stuck in their backyard, and Eddie Deezen is stuck atop a ferris wheel overlooking the coast for the pending Jap invasion. In short, the entire thing is a horrific muddle of plots that intertwine with each other, and basically they all focus on one thing, the Japs invading the west coast and everyone going crazy with paranoia over it. The only twist is, the Japs actually are and do invade the west coast confirming everyone's paranoia, but it then leads to even more batshit happenings as everyone tries to combat them.
Apparently this mishmash of a plot was actually based on some real events from the era. This probably explains why its such a mess, because they based the movie on several different events. The first being the supposed and infamous 'Battle of LA' whereby LA apparently came under attack from a mysterious object in the sky. No one knew what it was, but they shelled it anyway, because hey...Merica! Other events were the bombing of an oil refinery in California, an incident where an anti-aircraft gun was indeed stuck in someone's backyard, and something called the zoot suit riots. Basically lots of migrants flooded the State from Mexico to help the war effort, as did lots of marines and sailors, aaand they all ended up fighting each other. Twas called the zoot suit riots because at the time zoot suits were trendy and many young Mexicans (and others) wore them.
In all honesty this movie is such a mess, you really have no clue what's going on and why half the time. Sure there are young blokes in uniform fighting over dames and other crazy blokes in uniform doing silly things, but that's it. The whole thing is like one long long large action sequence, or riot, it doesn't stop! The plot sinks below this constant barrage of high octane hijinks including a lot of fisticuffs, big dance routines, cockpit tomfoolery, sloppy romance, mass destruction of everything, lots of gunfire and loads of screaming into the camera. There is no way in hell you'd think this was a Steven Spielberg movie, not a chance, its like some cheesy, cheeky, high school flick filled with jocks and nerds in a constant raucous.
Now even though most of what you see is an absolute headache of noise, it all looks terrific. Overall it may not come across like your typical Spielberg movie, but in terms of visuals and special effects, it definitely has that classic old Spielbergian (dare I even say...Lucas-esque) vibe going on. All the period sets, props and costumes are wonderfully detailed and highly authentic looking. You have all the classic cars, planes, machinery, electronics and weapons spot on from the era too, everything from the radios, the local diners, to the decorations in the dance hall, it all looks gorgeous, far too good for such a throw away flick like this really. I must also give much kudos to the model work on display towards the finale, a full scale town mockup I think, also included were a lot of decent bluescreen shots (for the time), solid interior (exterior) plane and sub sets and I think some matte painting work going in places. The full gamut of special effects wizardry going on which you come to expect from these old action movies, but they still hold up very well.
The cast is clearly another big key element and hook with this movie, its like a who's who of the time. You have some epic actors like Lee, Beatty and Mifune alongside crazy comedians like Candy, Aykroyd and Belushi. Much like the movie its a real mishmash of talents that don't really gel together in my opinion. Mifune is clearly taking his role as a Jap sub commander pretty seriously, Lee is also coming across as an eerie Nazi officer (kinda like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'), but then Spielberg sticks Slim Pickens in a scene with them. Its also evident that the studio wanted more of Aykroyd and Belushi because of their SNL fame at the time, unfortunately there isn't really anything for them to do and it feels like they are just crowbarred in for exactly that reason...their SNL fame. Seriously, Belushi doesn't need to be here at all, his character is good for like...one visual gag. Most everyone else is young and upcoming admittedly so it doesn't feel like overcrowding in that (big name) sense, but there is clearly way too much going on, too many characters jockeying for space, too many little plots going on. Also far too many silly cameos that just weren't needed, it felt like some kind of big variety show or Spielberg giving all his mates sweet little plum bit parts for no real reason.
In the end this movie really feels like a misfire, I'm honestly not sure if Spielberg really knew what he wanted to do here. Its suppose to be a zany comedy but its not really very funny at any point, although its zany enough. Plenty of action and pep as everything zips along but its so disjointed and uneven, I'm still not really sure what Wild Bill Kelso was supposed to be doing, or why he's even in the film, and apparently Christopher Lee's Nazi got killed by being thrown into the sea? I guess he couldn't swim? One issue that springs to mind is the fact everything this movie is based on (and sends -up) is the history of California, and virtually unknown to most. Sure you could say that about many things but the events this movie are based around feel even more minor than usual, as though its a big in-joke for the people of California (those in the know). Alas many probably haven't got a clue so it just comes across as a daft, meaningless screwball comedy that just isn't funny. I guess one last plus point now would be the nostalgic factor, looking back at this amazing ensemble cast, won't see anything like that again.
5.5/10
My review of Sphere (1998)
Close Range (2015)
Cementing his place as the new JCVD? well Adkins is certainly churning out the movies, alas none of them are nowhere near as good as JCVD's earlier offerings. This movie seems to follow the same kind of themes as JCVD's 'Nowhere to Run' if you ask me, to a degree...OK visually maybe. The plot is breathtakingly basic and revolves around MacReady, a soldier gone A.W.O.L. who must protect his sister and niece from a drug cartel. The reason being his sister is married to some low life fool who gets caught up with the drug cartel and the corrupt local sheriff over merchandise and a flashcard containing important information. MacReady was serving overseas but assaulted his commanding officer apparently, he then ran off, as you do. Yet somehow he pops up back in the USA ready to take on the bad guys (how did he manage this?).
K so lets get down to the nitty gritty here, we're all gonna watch this for one reason alone and that's Adkins kicking ass. Does he do this in satisfactory form? meh...kinda, I guess, why you asking me? no wait scratch that. So what we get is Adkins taking on Mexican drug dealers with haircuts of varying degrees of stupidity, and amazingly all of them know martial arts. The formula is simple enough, Adkins creeps around a bit, surprises a couple guys, gets into a rowdy mixed martial arts fest, eventually winning. Wash rinse and repeat this scenario all the way through the movie as he takes down the small team of bad guys. Even though the location changes from the great outdoors of California to within the confines of a small ranch, its all still the same. What's even more disappointing is the fact that the fights all look the same too, literately the same choreography for every bloody fight, same moves, same camera angles etc...
Its not all fisticuffs though, there is quite a bit of gun action thrown in there too. Alas that's even more ridiculous than the repetitive fights because you can clearly tell everyone is using blanks. Why you ask? well because at numerous times the characters cross paths and shoot at each other at near point blank range, yet everyone seemingly misses each other and there are no bullet holes or destruction. Quite often I was thinking to myself, why aren't you hit? how are you missing? this is like watching a glitch ridden game of Call of Duty. There is some car chase action too but that's pretty naff frankly, again you can clearly tell the vehicles are travelling quite slowly.
The movie really tries its best to be ultra cool and grown-up, but it fails miserably in my opinion. The bad guys role call sequence near the start was a hilariously bad idea for starters. Firstly who cares, we don't know these guys and you won't care about any of them further on down the line, they're all meat for Adkins to beat. Secondly why would we need this information, why do we need to know their stereotypically stupid names? like I said they're all mere fodder. Thirdly, it just looks so f*cking stupid, each one looks towards the camera with a stern, I'm well 'ard glance. Stop it! you're all so tough and scary I'm starting to sweat through my pants.
But the most amusing and daft moment of all, the real clincher was at the very end. Adkins shaven headed anti-hero stands directly opposite the corrupt sheriff (Nick Chinlund), a shotgun and set of handcuffs lie before the sheriff. MacReady had given the sheriff an ultimatum, cuff yourself or go for the gun, your choice. What follows is the most dreadful laughable cloning or homage, of the classic finale scene in 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' between Eastwood, Wallach and Cleef. Its not even remotely intense, it doesn't have any of the scope and the two helpless females watching on from the sidelines makes it feel so hokey. Oh and I should mention that the beginning credits sequence actually has little snippets of the actual movie in it! Yeah so you're actually seeing key moments of action in the title sequence before seeing the film, great decision! A title sequence that harks back to Sergio Leone classics I might add. Adkins and director Florentine have definitely got a thing for Leone classics.
Yep so its another pile of crap from Adkins I'm afraid. Yes I'm sure if you enjoy his work then you'll enjoy this. Yes I realise he's making a certain type of movie that some people demand, and in that sense it delivers exactly what some people want. Yet despite all that, and the fact I am partial to a good fight/action romp, this simply looks and plays exactly like what it is...a cheap, lazy, dull, boring, pointless movie. Yes you can argue that Adkins is only doing what previous stars like JCVD did back in the day, but the difference in quality and the fact that it was more original back then, always trumps that call.
3.5/10
Earth vs. the Spider (1958)
Also known as 'The Spider' mainly due to the success of 'The Fly' which prompted the powers that be to try and leech of that movies success with a similar title. And also known as 'Earth vs. the Giant Spider' which kinda seems more appropriate really. Anyway I think its safe to say you've guessed what this sci-fi horror is all about. This is pretty much a meat and potatoes giant bug flick from the 50's, one of many that was churned out during that decade to the point of near saturation. As you know I've reviewed many of them already, but this is easily one of the poorer efforts I'm afraid. I mean seriously, straight off the bat, its not the Earth vs the spider, its small town America vs the spider, as usual.
The plot is obvious and as simple as ABC. A giant spider (Mexican redleg tarantula apparently) is living in some deep caves not too far from some stereotypical small country bumpkin town in the middle of nowhere USA. Every now and then it seemingly pops up for dinner and chows down on local residents. Obviously its now been noticed and the locals are trying to work out what the heck is going on. Luckily some good all American youngsters accidentally discover the giant arachnid whilst looking for the father of one of them, mystery solved! It was just a huge, oversized, man-eating, tarantula all along...phew! (at least it wasn't those darn Ruskies). So naturally once everyone has been convinced of the giant beast they all decide to try and kill it with DDT, and it seems to work. So they haul it back into town for local scientists to examine, deciding that the local high school gym being the best place for it...because of course it is. Bet you can't work out what happens next eh? yes that's right, it wasn't dead after all! oh my! oh golly! and now its running amok through this American as apple pie town (after half destroying the school gym of course). So its back to the drawing board...but wait! the silly thing just crawls off back to its cave, now the townsfolk can seal it in, hazaar! But wait! those stupid all American youngsters were apparently in the cave when the townsfolk sealed the cave opening, bugger! Aaand somehow it goes on.
You can see early on this isn't gonna be one of the better giant bug B-movies, the acting from most (if not all) of the cast is pretty dire frankly, especially the two youngsters who keep going into that bloody cave. Its once they are within the cave you notice how shit this is gonna get, its when they find the giant cobweb, when I say cobweb, I mean rope net. Yes all the cobwebs are merely rope net seemingly painted white or whatever. The next big clue is when the giant spider turns up, its not exactly much of a surprise though because the thing makes a howling noise apparently. Yes that's right, in this movie the spider literately screams or howls like a banshee, in similar vein to the shark roaring in 'Jaws: The Revenge'. The giant spider is of course created in the same way most giant creatures were back then, real footage of a real tarantula against the live action footage using rear projection. The difference here is the tarantula isn't really made to walk in any specific way to incorporate its eventual surroundings in the film (like climbing over things or getting past something). It merely walks around as normal looking very awkward against the live action footage, they don't try to utilise any models or anything to help sell the illusion. The only thing we do see is the spider getting up off its back when it comes to in the school gym.
There is a slight amount of puppet work for the tarantula in spots, when we see it dangling down on a thread of webbing trying to catch the youngsters, that is a full puppet spider. And inside the school gym there is a nice large puppet spider leg for close-ups against the actors which looks suitably hilarious. The one thing that makes me giggle is the fact every one of these giant spider films uses tarantulas, and they aren't that scary looking with all the hair. Of course I know why, its because they are trainable, but it would of been awesome to see a really nasty looking spider getting used, a big fat house spider say. Footage inside the caves is clearly set work accompanied by more rear projection footage of real caves which does look quite awful. Some of the sets and props are relatively effective so I guess they just couldn't afford to expand further with that, relying on cheap stock footage.
I don't know why but I did like the brief nod to other 50's sci-fi B-movie 'The Amazing Colossal Man'. The poster being seen clear as day outside the local cinema before the spider attacks. While at the same time the marquee advertises 'Attack of the Puppet People' for all to see. Dunno why but I just kinda liked seeing that. I did also like the musical score to this movie, I believe they used a theremin? I'm not overly sure but it sounded like it. The infamous instrument best known accompanying the most classic sci-fi B-movies.
There isn't really too much to say with this, nothing that hasn't been said before with other better movies. Its clearly a rip-off of the much better 'Tarantula' and categorically fails in every way to try and equal it. The effects are bad, the plot is super weak, cast are unknown (to me), and things don't make any sense. Like why would those dumb youngsters go back into the spiders cave just to look for a piece of jewellery?! what's more important, jewellery or your life? Then there are the usual little things like, could a large tarantula actually knock down an interior brick wall? When they blow up the cave entrance they decide to dig back into via the top of the cave...but wouldn't that be incredible hard and take fudging forever! They manage it within like...10 minutes. Lastly of course there are the real humdinger questions, where exactly did this giant spider come from? how did it get so large? and are there more of them?? The movie doesn't actually acknowledge these rather important conundrums. Its not 100% pure schlock, but its getting close to it, there are better offerings out there.
5/10
It Conquered the World (1956)
Lots of movies revolved around an alien or creature simply referred to as 'it' back in old days. This time instead of being awoken from a deep slumber in some deep Earth crevice somewhere, this time its an alien, from Venus, that looks like an upside down ice cream cone, and it wants to take over the Earth using mind control. Yeah I got nothing here.
But yes that is literally the plot here, an alien from Venus contacts a lonely human scientist on the phone or whatever, and convinces him to assist him in taking over the Earth. The end goal...complete human mind control, using something, for some reason that I don't know, but by God its dastardly! Oh no wait! the alien is claiming to want to bring peace to the human race by eliminating all our emotions through mind control, somehow. How this would help us? I have no clue, why the human scientist agrees to help? I have no clue, why does this even bother the alien? I dunno, guess it needs a hobby, just accept the situation.
The lone scientist in question just happens to be Lee Van Cleef so simply down to that, I can give the movie some slack and understand why the alien chose him. Anderson (Cleef) agrees to help the alien presumably because he thinks he's doing the right thing, bringing peace to Earth. Naturally the tall, good looking all American protagonist played by Peter Graves doesn't agree, and fights back with all his American might. Not really sure how this alien intends to control the entire planets population though. You see it uses these flying alien bat things to prey on victims, bite them or something, and then they are under the aliens control. But we discover the alien clearly has a money problem because he only has like seven or eight of these bat things, and they only bite one specified person, like a homing bat thing. So how the f**k is he gonna control millions of people without millions of bat things?? I don't believe the controlled humans do anything to non controlled humans (in a zombie-esque sense), so I have no clue how this plan would work. Of course landing in some small American town in the middle of nowhere probably doesn't help either, these aliens love small American towns in the middle of nowhere.
The alien itself is one of the most horrendously bad alien suits you will come across in 50's sci-fi, and that's saying something. I said before it looks like an upside down ice cream cone, well it does, its just an inverted triangle with big pointy teeth, two claw arms and two evil eyes. The things shuffles around in a hilarious manner that only goes to show the suit was not actually designed for moving. All this creature can do is move its claw arms up and down...slowly, its mouth doesn't open, its fixed in one evil grin, its eyes don't move and it can only move forwards and backwards unconvincingly. Yes I know these old movies didn't exactly have big budgets and yes I know the terrible effects are half the fun with these flicks, but seriously...this is just awful! What makes it even more hilariously stupid is the young Lee Van Cleef looking and acting deadly seriously with his pointed cheek bones and slit-like eyes, whilst this big foam triangle with teeth wobbles around trying to stand upright. It kinda makes you wonder what the effects team behind this were thinking really. How could an alien species like this possibly progress to the technological level they are at, with such a useless physical makeup. Sure they might be clever but if you don't have the body to build stuff then you're screwed. Presumably the spaceship it travels in fits large triangular creatures.
The main problem here besides the terrible looking alien is the basic plot setup, its just pants. For a start as I already pointed out, the alien controls humans by sending out these bat things to bite them, like a flippin' vampire. But the alien only has eight of these things so what the f**k! Van Cleef's character is seemingly perfectly fine with betraying the entire human race and allowing everyone to become emotionless zombies, but would this eventually include him? Surely it must because why would he want to live in a world with no emotions? Also I'm not too sure why Van Cleef's character is so embittered against his fellow man, at least to such a high degree, I mean Jesus Christ he's only a local scientist, it can't be that bad! At the same time his wife is totally against this plan, and the alien, yet she isn't on the list for brain controlling. The alien allows her to mill around causing issues with her constant moaning and defiant behaviour, eventually this leading to her trying to kill the alien, but why would the creature allow this to carry on? But essentially the entire thing just boils down to my original point, how the f**k can this stupid alien take over the Earth with just eight mind controlling bat things??? Even if it had a million that still wouldn't cover it.
It feels odd being genuinely negative about this movie because its a cheap, tacky 50's science fiction flick...because that's exactly what you would expect, that's half the fun of these things. Nevertheless I can't just bump this up because its a trashy black and white sci-fi and I'm a fanboy of trashy black and white sci-fi flicks. Yes it stars Lee Van Cleef which is awesome, yes it does have yet another cameo/bit role for the legendary Dick Miller (hurrah!), and yes the whole premise is deliciously hokey and outrageously daft, but at the same time its also crap. Yes that's right crap, crap of the highest order I'm afraid, I couldn't get into it because it was simply too stupid with its plot, and the alien was just beyond dire. Had the movie at least had some interesting locations or action or effects etc...then maybe, but its all very drab and boring with the alien hiding in a cave. Oh and its of course impervious to bullets...but not a blowtorch it seems, go figure.
3/10
Glen or Glenda (1953)
Originally titled 'I Changed My Sex!' this was Ed Wood's first movie, his first step on a long journey into cinematic history...but not good cinematic history. Its a strange little number that's for sure, a docudrama and semi-autobiographical, with an odd fantasy element bookending the whole thing. That fantasy element comes into play with Bela Lugosi narrating to us, the viewer. His narration seems to revolve around humanity at first, pointing at mans traits, mans pursuit of knowledge, slowly turning to life in general, human personalities, birth, death etc...(almost like an informative film you might see in a natural history museum). The narration then leads into the story that commences with the death of a transvestite, a suicide, the reasons? because this person simply was unable to live their life as they wanted. The man in question was a transvestite who had been locked up in jail on numerous occasions for cross-dressing in public, but this was no act or mental condition, this was who he was, who he wanted to be. With society seemingly unable to understand his position he commits suicide.
What follows is a curious and rather abstract look into the world of the cross-dressing male and transvestites, all under the guise of the movies plot which solely revolves around the police Inspector trying to understand what a transvestite is and why this person committed suicide. So in affect, this is virtually an educational film about the LGBT community. What its like to live in such a way, how the public perceives you, how your own family and friends perceive you and how to generally try and get by in 1950's America being a cross-dresser.
The funny thing is, this movie is now supposedly known as Ed Wood's worse creation ever, even beating the great 'Plan 9'. Yet despite this dubious honour the film is actually unique, fantastically unique, daring, brave and bold, simply because Ed Wood made a movie about a taboo subject in a time when such a thing could get you killed, worst case scenario. Now naturally judging by the era here, the dialog and general angle could be considered rather offensive and highly condescending, but in all fairness that really should be expected. In all honesty I'm not entirely sure if this is done on purpose by Wood to expose the truths about this American issue in society, or merely a sign of the times, the film simply being a product of the time and people just simply didn't know any better (or didn't want to know any better), the latter is more probable.
The way in which Inspector Warren and investigates the world of cross-dressing is quite hilarious and again...pretty offensive really. I loved how he visits these scientist/doctor types in very posh fully wood panel offices to try and lock down what exactly is meant by cross-dressing. We then get these very darling old shaky black and white movies explaining just what exactly is a transvestite and they live amongst the normal people. This is when we get the tale of Glen or Glenda, a transvestite who seems to have been studied by the doc?? anyway this is Ed Wood in his starring role basically playing himself. The docs case study of Glen or Glenda is in fact the semi-autobiographical part of the movie (about Wood himself, his secret). It is explained how the scientific world calls these men transvestites (a new word at the time), and how they are not actually homosexual as many would expect, but actually heterosexual, they just like to dress up in women's clothes. We then get lots of various flashbacks and segments showcasing how Glen's partner Barbara is suspicious of Glen, why he's acting so oddly, the fact they are due to be married and the pain Glen is suffering about whether he should reveal himself before or after or at all. We see Glen walking down the street in women's clothes, stopping by women's clothes stores and looking in. Glen looking for help from another transvestite, and of course dream sequences which are analogies for Glen's mental anguish on how he thinks he's not up to the task of being a strong male for Barbara...in the eyes of society. The dreams also carry on with some very weird little vignettes including vanilla BDSM, a rape scene, a striptease etc...its all rather peculiar and somehow serve to be an insight into Glen's distressed mind.
Oddly, in the middle of all these very personal problems and revelations, we end up following another person and the reaction to sex change operations within society. Its almost like a sub plot within the film that goes absolutely nowhere but merely serves to offer up more insight into a slightly separate issue close to Wood and his friends (probably Bunny Breckinridge). Towards the end we are then given yet another little story from the doc of yet another character who was conscripted into the army for WWII but kept his second life a secret until after the war. Said person then managed to achieve having a sex change and basically lived happily ever after, again, not too sure why we are told this.
All during this time we are shown the odd bit of obscure footage showing Lugosi playing his puppermaster-esque role. A role that was clearly shot purely because Wood adored the macabre and Lugosi performing it, plus it was all for virtually nothing and gave Wood a big A-list name in his movie, win win! The amusing thing is, what is shot is obviously nothing to do with the rest of the movie Wood shoots. The movie is clearly a very personal project about his life, inner demons and inner turmoil, but he's crowbarred in these small sequences with Lugosi which are clearly aimed for a more darker, horror, thriller type flick (his usual stuff). I suppose Lugosi's character is kinda like a God or mystical person that may or may not be controlling mankind or individual lives, maybe a Grim Reaper type character, which is a nice idea but it simply doesn't connect with the story Wood is wanting to tell. The dialog also has nothing much in similar with what unfolds on the screen...'Beware! Beware! Beware of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep. He eats little boys, puppy dog tails, and big fat snails. Take care! beware!'. Seriously...what the hell is that suppose to relate to exactly?? and what does it really mean??
The entire movie feels like its been cobbled together with bits and pieces meant for other films, almost like a series of sketches. In between that you have these odd choices of stock footage which are a staple infamous diet of Wood flicks because they simply don't relate to what's going on on the screen (a herd of wild buffalo?). Yet despite the outrageously (obviously) out of date and slightly derogatory rhetoric going on, the film's heart is basically a good one. Yes transvestites are kinda portrayed like creations of doctor Frankenstein, to be experimented on and observed from within a safe confined space, but that's the era coming through. As weird, quirky, badly acted, bizarre and as cheap as it is, deep down this semi-biopic is pretty much an educational insight into tolerance and sexuality, how people can come to terms with its variations. An intensely personal account of a part of Ed Wood's life, and in that respect it does deserve some admiration and appreciation.
6/10
Bride of the Monster (1955)
Also originally known as 'The Atomic Monster', then when Wood got his hands on the script it became 'The Monster of the Marshes', then 'Bride of the Atom', before finally sticking with what we have now. This was to be Wood's first venture into the realms of his beloved science fiction and horror genres, a popular combination in the US during the 50's. As usual with these types of movies the common enemy is a mad, ageing scientist from somewhere in Europe, mainly eastern Europe or old war-torn Europe. And once again a common factor used in the plot is America's old love affair with anything atomic, in this case atomic supermen, a race of super atomic men that will conquer the world!!
Yep that's the plot right there, Dr Eric (Eric??) Vornoff (Bela Lugosi) wants to create a race of atomic supermen that will conquer the world purely because his homeland pissed him off it seems. Back in his unnamed homeland which is clearly Russia or Germany or surrounding Nazi controlled areas, Vornoff had suggested to his colleagues (or superiors) the idea of harnessing nuclear power to create a master race of great strength and size (to help fight a war?). Strangely enough his ideas were rejected and he was exiled from said country branded as a madman, at the same time losing contact with his wife and child. So in response to this Vornoff is trying to carry out his original vision and create a super master race in his own name...because that'll show em'! Looks like its up to the local law enforcement and a young female reporter to save the day...in a rather unconvincing way.
The film starts out with a long shot of a creepy looking house set amongst some bare trees (the old Willows place), its night time, its stormy, its raining and it all looks quite nice actually, highly atmospheric indeed. This kooky looking abode is where the good Dr Vornoff lives with his rather fat servant or slave, Lobo (Tor Johnson). The interior is your typical Hammer Horror-esque affair with old wood panelling, dim lighting, lots of old dusty books on the shelves...and a giant octopus in the dungeon, or where ever. Now one does immediately ask oneself, where did Vornoff get a giant octopus? Come to think of it, how on earth does he manage to look after it and how does he have the space to keep it?? Surely one would need a rather large enclosure with all manner of special things. These are of course stupid questions, you never question an Ed Wood film or any sci-f/horror film from the 50's. He keeps it in a freshwater lake (despite them only surviving in saltwater) conveniently next to the house, moving on...
Now, who exactly is Lobo you ask, well he's a large, dumb, mute, zombified, apparently bulletproof, slave with an angora fetish. Where did Vornoff get Lobo? well it seems he picked Lobo up in the wilderness of Tibet of all places, who'd of thought it eh. Lobo seems to have no mind of his own and carries out Vornoff's bidding without question, that is of course until he comes across the beautiful reporter Janet (Loretta King) and her angora beret. The sweet beret seems to bewitch Lobo and he soon loses the plot, although I'm not entirely sure if it was over the angora beret or the woman. Anyway Janet the reporter decided to investigate the funny happenings around Vornoff's house and ended up crashing her car not far from the building (women drivers eh). This is how Lobo discovers her...after fighting off a large snake...don't question it.
Oh and in case you're wondering, which I know you are, the funny goings on at Willows House revolve around missing people. Of course these people are the results of Vornoff's failed experiments, victims he's either lured in or had Lobo drag in. I believe it was twelve missing people, all of which have somehow vanished nearby Willows House. Now admittedly I'm not entirely sure how the police would know this but...did they even think to check out the old house and surrounding area? nope.
This location is actually a hive of dangers it seems, did Vornoff choose the house because of this? or perhaps he added these features himself. Apart from large snakes there are wild alligators, a swamp and quicksand! Plus it constantly storms in this location also (supposedly down to Vornoff's experiments which is beyond odd), only thing missing is a bottomless pit. Not only did Wood literally use every cliche in the adventure handbook, he also seemed to cheekily pinch the Dracula, Van Helsing characters too. This can be obviously seen with Lugosi playing Vornoff (who always simply played a version of Dracula for Wood) complete with his hypnotic hand tricks to summon young ladies, and with the character of Prof. Strowski from old Europe. Strowski being Vornoff's fellow countryman who is absolutely fine in creating a super race of supermen...but only to conquer their homeland, not the world because that would be going too far. Well, at least not straight away anyway.
Naturally some of these things are minor in the whole grand scheme of things when it comes down to Ed Wood movies. Putting aside the cornball cliches of any similar flick where the young male hero comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress, the gruff police chief and the silly police officer sidekick who forms comedic relief (Paul Marco as officer kelton). With any Wood production you also have the usual bizarre mistakes and cheap touches such as the all too common night and day issue, lots of stock footage that doesn't blend in with the movie at all (in some cases the same footage repeated). A horrendously obvious stunt double for Lugosi, highly obvious fake sets such as a painted stonewall for the laboratory and clearly no ceiling. Lets not forget the glorious, infamous rubber octopus that doesn't move when attacking its victims or Tor Johnson's reaction acting. Plus there's Lobo fighting the hero Dick Craig (Tony McCoy) who has his cap gun (that never requires reloading) and is firing at point blank range into Lobo's chest. And finally the nuclear explosion that wipes out the house but nothing else despite it being a massive nuclear mushroom cloud explosion.
Speaking of the giant octopus, here's my fave Ed Wood blooper. The lake with the giant octopus appears to be at eye level with Vornoff when he looks at it through a window, which would indicate his lab is beneath the house and built up against the lake, right? Well that would make perfect sense but, we also see Vornoff open a door right next to the big window to have Lobo throw Strowski through into the waiting arms of the giant octopus. But...but...how is Vornoff and his lab not engulfed in a tidal wave of lake water??? What's more, when Strowski is thrown to the octopus, the creature appears to be just sat in a puddle of water, in a darkened room, then we get a quick cut back to stock footage of a real octopus (half the size). Oh the delight in watching this absurd sequence is too much.
Really when it comes down to it, the best looking part of the entire movie was that opening shot of the creepy old house. The best character and acting easily goes to the rubber octopus...nah I'm only kidding. In my opinion that accolade would go to Harvey B. Dunn as Captain Robbins and his little pet parakeet that sat on his shoulder. All in all this classic Wood motion picture really does have it all, everything any sci-f, horror buff could ask for (if you enjoy B-movies), plus it was Bela Lugosi's last full speaking role.
7/10
Night of the Ghouls (1958)
Ah the Ed Wood cinematic universe with the odd crossover. Well there are certainly a few interesting tit bits to mention with this movie. For starters it didn't actually get released until 1984 due to money issues. Secondly the film is supposedly part of an unofficial trilogy called 'the Kelton trilogy'. The reason being that Paul Marco stars in all three films (the third being 'Plan 9 from Outer Space') as the same character of patrolman Kelton. In fact there are two reoccurring characters altogether and a one reoccurring actor playing a different role. And lastly, as already said, this is in fact a sequel of sorts to 'Bride of the Monster', something I didn't realise until I watched the movie.
Now when I say a sequel, its definitely a loose sequel, there is little continuity apart from one main character really, and that's Lobo. Basically the local police are sent to investigate a so called haunted house, the old Willows place which has been rebuilt. The reason local folk think its haunted is because a conman and his small gang are using the house as a base of operations to run a fake medium enterprise. They are charging people lots of money by making them believe they can contact their dead loved ones. Little do the tricksters know that the house is actually haunted and ghouls do roam the grounds, for some reason. I'm guessing it may be down to the areas tortured history, where Dr Eric Vornoff once resided and experimented on people, or not, this is an Ed Wood flick after all.
So Lobo is really the only main reoccurring character here. His face is now badly scarred after the huge fire and nuclear explosion that wreaked havoc on the area (can you tell I'm being sarcastic?). No but seriously, he does actually have a big burn on his face, because surviving a nuclear explosion does that. Not sure what actually happens to Lobo this time though, he takes some bullets to the chest again, wrestles some people, then kinda disappears, he's more of a background character this time. On the other hand patrolman Kelton gets more screen and dialog time only to be knocked unconscious again by Lobo, still manages to live through it though. Despite the fact this is a sequel and there are a couple characters from the previous movie, there isn't really much talk about the events from that film, no mention of Vornoff or anything. Instead the focus is all on the new characters, mainly the rather stupidly named antagonist Dr. Karl Acula (Dracula) played by Kenne Duncan who wears a turban because that's what all mediums wear. Then you have Sheila, the white ghost (Valda Hansen), which is actually one of Acula's girls who is suppose to scare away the locals, and the black ghost! A spectre that appears to actually be real much to the distress of Sheila but not so much Acula.
The story is bookended by Wood regular Criswell (much like 'Plan 9') and has him rising from a coffin right at the start to introduce you the viewer to the film. Its cute and all but because Criswell is also playing a role in the movie, as one of the dead risen from the grave, you're not too sure whether he is just narrating at the start, or if he's actually part of the plot. Alas with Wood you can never tell because everything was so cheap and cheerful. I'm tempted to think Wood just used Criswell in more than one role simply because he liked the guy and he had no other biggish names to fill the roles. But on the other hand, as his role is essentially a zombie, and he is seen awakening from a coffin at the start, it does kinda tie up, it also foreshadows the events at the end of the movie. Bit unfortunate that old Cris is constantly dressed in his splendid tux, doesn't quite look right, doesn't convey the right mood.
So can you expect anything different effects wise with this? not really, in fact there isn't really much to speak of unlike other Wood flicks. The usual array of official offices used by the police throughout, complete with an easter egg 'wanted' mugshot of Wood on the back wall in the local police station. You don't see anything of the old Willows house exterior this time, its all inside apart from some shots in a wooded area which are primarily for the black and white ghost shots. Everything set inside the house is pretty tacky, its all been shot across a few rooms with a few corridors and there's hardly any set dressings outside of the main room where Acula does his tricks. Said main room is chock full of many rudimentary, corny objects which do convey a massive sense of cheesiness that's for sure. The crystal ball, the fake skulls, obviously fake skeletons sitting at the table, elaborate candles, and a big curtain concealing the rest of the set. It all looks like a very lazy funhouse or spookhouse at a fairground. I'll bet the coffin we see being used is Criswell's personal coffin (he owned one).
In the end the plot remains unsolved technically, the police are baffled about what happened, heck I'm not so sure myself! Half the people we see just vanish, including Lobo, Acula is presumably buried alive by the very clean cut corpse or Criswell, Sheila is killed or turned into a real ghost? I guess that's the ironic little twist in her tale. The black ghost isn't really explained but does kill off Sheila for some reason, probably because she was in cahoots with the dastardly Acula. Criswell signs off with a final poignant note to us the viewers, again making me unsure if he's simply the narrator or still in character for the sake of the plot, unsure...but I suspect he's still in character.
Overall the plot is weak and ends up becoming an even greater mess. As the dead Criswell explains to Acula near the end, apparently once every 13 years when summoned by a medium, the dead get to rise from the grave and be free for 12 hours precisely. So...do mediums tend to come around every 13 years to accidentally raise the dead? Who sets the 12 hour rule for the dead? Why would a medium somehow raise the dead by accident? what on earth do they do to trigger that?? Why are these walking corpses so clean and smart?? Meh, I guess its best not to think about it too much, there's no point really, I'm just amazed there wasn't a shittonne of stock footage strewn about the place, there was some, but not as much as usual. Honesty, I didn't really find myself enjoying this Ed Wood adventure, too bland, not exciting enough, no flying saucers or Lugosi makes it seem a tad dull. 'Bride' is by far the better picture in my opinion, more of a classical look and feel to its horror and sci-fi.
5/10
My review of the sci-fi classic, Forbidden Planet:
Terror from the Year 5000 (1958)
Yep we got another crappy poster contender right here, oh boy this a bad one. Its totally misleading, shows things you never actually see and it makes no real sense. Are we watching a movie about a flying witch of some kind? From the future or perhaps? Is this a children's movie? The title is also way more exciting than the actual film itself, a common issue.
Now I'm gonna be straight up with everyone here, it took me some time before I really knew what the feck was going on here. Honesty, I was lost and bored amidst quite a bit of slow paced dialog and...errr...more slow paced dialog in various locations. OK...I actually had to go back and rewatch half of the movie to get the gist of it, yes it was that dull and uninteresting.
Nuclear physicist Prof. Howard Erling (Frederic Downs) and his assistant Victor (John Stratton) manage to construct a machine that can break the time barrier. The machine looks like a steel tub with a port hole window. Now if you thought the duo might start jumping through time you'd be sorely mistaken, alas! No in fact they manage to receive a small object from the future. Obvious questions such as who sent the object and why don't come into this, just go with the flow here. Said object turns out to be highly radioactive too which causes more intrigue, but still no real action on their part. Anyway after a whole load of character driven bollocks that literally goes nowhere, we eventually find out that the professor has been trading objects with persons unknown in the future.
Eventually it also turns out that Victor has been secretly conducting experiments himself, on a higher power level, which has resulted in mutated creatures appearing in the tub. One such recent experiment has resulted in a human-like creature coming through also, of course that creature is now on the loose. This creature turns out to be a woman from the year 5200 (ta-da! and yes that is correct, not the year 5000 after all), but not just any woman, she is a mutant. Yes it turns out that the future of mankind is doomed to a nuclear holocaust filled with mutants that seemingly still have pretty good technology. Her mission is to bring Victor back to the future so he can help them...somehow. Will she succeed or will she...umm...not? Tension!
Right so as I've already mentioned, the main crux of this story focuses on this time machine thingy which transport objects. This is the what you assume will be the fun macguffin which will transport our hapless duo through time. But you know now it doesn't, in fact it does very little for the entire movie. The problem with this movie is nothing really happens for the whole damn run time, until right at the end. But even then what we get is pitiful even for 1958. Heck we don't even see any future Earth, not even a matte painting or model or anything, you might as well be watching a cheap stage play. The idea is fine, nothing original mind you but fine, but they just don't explore it. I understand there were probably many obvious limitations but if you can't do your movie justice then don't do it.
There is so much padding in this movie its painful, painful pointless padding that goes nowhere and is draaab! The plot takes forever to get going and its all exposition dialog. Scene after scene of the professor and Victor working, discussing things, then working some more. Eventually an archaeologist is brought in to verify the items of the future. To make things more exciting there's a completely needless car chase sequence for this character intro. This guy seems to start falling for the professors daughter (of course) who is actually the fiancee of Victor. This naturally causes a typical 1950's love triangle type scenario that doesn't actually go anywhere, but instead leads to us finding out about Victor's skulduggery with the secret experiments. Victor is also upset because he thinks the archaeologist will discredit their hard work so...cue the obligatory fight sequence. Oh and there's also some voyeurism by the local handyman too because why not?
The mutated woman of the future is bitterly disappointing. A simple bit of tacky putty makeup and false teeth, and a very bizarre catsuit of some kind covered in sparkles (mirrors?). This character literally looks like something that jigged to the boogie on Soul Train. Although, strangely enough at first the character is actually quite eerie and intimidating. The first time she is shown we only see her arm reaching from within the time machine, at least I assume that was her. Then when she actually comes through to the present, we get quite a scary fast moving silhouette dashing towards the camera accompanied by a terrifying scream. Twas pretty spooky truth be told. Not entirely sure if this woman had some kind of super powers or not but she seemed pretty strong, nifty face cloning/removal technology too. Actually that one idea and scene was quite impressive considering, definitely ahead of its time there and I would imagine very scary for a 1950's audience. Although it has to be said, this mutated female of the future also has a damn good glittery nail polish hypnotising technique, don't leave home without your nails all done up.
Amazingly there isn't much stock footage in this movie, yes there is a bit at the beginning (can't escape it fully) along with some narration, but its generally stock free. Apart from everything I've mentioned there isn't really a lot to discuss, the movie is on the whole pretty bad. The movie title is wrong apparently, the plot is boring and just never gets going, there are no real special effects bar one tiny optical effect, and its features yet another apocalyptic future with mutants scenario. I was desperate for someone to go through the time machine and into the future, desperate! But alas!
1.5/10
Here's my spoiler-free review of Fast and Furious 8.
https://youtu.be/oFj6nMuU0Jc (https://youtu.be/oFj6nMuU0Jc)
Here is my spoiler-free review of Dead Men Tell No Tales...
Spoiler-free review of War For The Planet Of The Apes.
Here's my review of Cars 3.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--bbf5rdbh--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xrqcfx0ndokkgtucxwji.gif) (https://media.giphy.com/media/l1J3A4uL2mh7u49bi/200w.gif#0-grid1)
Atomic Blonde
I'm a big fan of Charlize Theron. Yes, she's really hot but I also think she's also believable as a badass spy. I liked how her character was drinking and smoking non stop like Ian Fleming's James Bond of the novels, and shooting dudes in the head without a care in the world. I liked how she was bisexual too, with the film not making a big deal about it either. All in all, I thought she was awesome and just as fun and interesting to watch as male counterparts.
This movie looks and sounds great. The 80s soundtrack is ever present, which obviously is really catchy to listen to, but also instantly transports you to the era. The action is solid, with the standout sequence involving Charlize's character taking down about eight goons in hand to hand combat. It's about seven minutes or so in length and I really loved it. They don't hold back with the violence. The car sequences were also rather good.
It's not a perfect film, of course. The plot is bare bones and yet somewhat confusing at times. But for me the strengths outweigh any weaknesses. This really was a female version of James Bond and for that I had a good time. I would gladly watch another one of these movies if the same template was followed.
4/5
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xUA7aXuLOqW1SZb2Jq/200.gif#28-grid1) (https://media.giphy.com/media/xUA7aOr4w98qnmGbxC/200.gif#27-grid1)
Quote from: Huntsman on Aug 08, 2017, 08:28:23 AM(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--bbf5rdbh--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xrqcfx0ndokkgtucxwji.gif)
Eugh, I
hate CGI blood.
Still, glad to hear the film's enjoyable, I really want to see it.
Im with you on this. It never looks right.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 08, 2017, 09:03:40 AM
Still, glad to hear the film's enjoyable, I really want to see it.
The Rotten Tomatoes scores are pretty accurate, I think. It's a decent movie worth seeing if you like the genre.
Here's my review of Kingsman: The Golden Circle. (Mild spoilers)
Here's my review of The Snowman...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hci8WPMSjvM&t=622s
I caught that film on TV recently, and surprisingly it was even more dumb than I remembered :laugh:
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 19, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
I caught that film on TV recently, and surprisingly it was even more dumb than I remembered :laugh:
Same here :D
Here is my review of 1941's The Wolfman.
I just watched my Spider-Man Homecoming Steelbook from Best Buy https://www.bestbuy.com/site/spider-man-homecoming-digital-copy-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-blu-ray-steelbook-only--best-buy-2017/5916905.p?skuId=5916905. I still enjoyed it upon second viewing. 7.5/10
Still making my way through Universal Monsters box set, the latest being 1932's The Mummy. Any of guys seen it? What you think? For me this has been the weakest so far out of the box set and I got two more left to watch and review, those being Dracula and The Invisible Man.
And here's my review of 1931's Dracula!
Passengers - Great idea, visually nice but ultimately an ode to Stockholm Syndrome. Jim punishment for condemning another person to die with him on the ship - is to shag Aurora for the rest of his days. Very shitty outcome. Would've been better if he struck a deal with her that they would each spend a year asleep in the medpod, so would only age 40 years each by the time they reached the planet - then he reneges and lets her sleep the whole way.
Or if they wanted the happy ending - with Fishburne's access bracelet he manages to access restricted files and - being an mechanical engineer - manages to fix Aurora's pod. But it takes him 10 years.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Jim punishment for condemning another person to die with him on the ship - is to shag Aurora for the rest of his days. Very shitty outcome. Would've been better if he struck a deal with her that they would each spend a year asleep in the medpod, so would only age 40 years each by the time they reached the planet - then he reneges and lets her sleep the whole way.
She goes back into cryo, doesn't she? I thought he died alone on the ship after all that? Or do I need to rewatch it. lol
Personally, I'd been hoping that Jim would die and then Aurora struggles with the same decision herself. That said I really liked seeing Aurora just beat the shit out of Jim. Just felt so right.
Nah, it's implied they grow old and die together.
And yeah, that film had a really messed-up moral compass :laugh:
I thought it was a pretty good love story. Yeah he woke her up for selfish reasons, that being not wanting to die alone.
I kind of wish they just went full on dark with it, because I think it would make a good plot for psychological thriller, black comedy or horror movie.
I think Spaihts originally wrote it so that waking her up saved her when shit hit the fan in some way, too.
QuotePersonally, I'd been hoping that Jim would die and then Aurora struggles with the same decision herself.
Also a preferable outcome to what we ended up with.
I saw it in the theatre and is very unsatisfying cliche love story that actually plays out like creepy rape thing. But otherwise had potential to be something so much better and more intelligent.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 07, 2017, 09:38:32 AM
I thought it was a pretty good love story. Yeah he woke her up for selfish reasons, that being not wanting to die alone.
I kind of wish they just went full on dark with it, because I think it would make a good plot for psychological thriller, black comedy or horror movie.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 08, 2017, 01:43:59 AM
I saw it in the theatre and is very unsatisfying cliche love story that actually plays out like creepy rape thing. But otherwise had potential to be something so much better and more intelligent.
...
The first part of the story is good, not the conclusion.
Here is my review of Murder On The Orient Express... I really enjoyed this movie, never read the novel or watched the TV series or any other adaptation for that matter, but yeah really liked it.
I watched Apollo 18 again the other day - and I still maintain that if you take out the nonsensical found footage format (or can ignore the fact that film reels that make up a large chunk of said found footage - with sound no less - somehow made it back Earth in pristine condition despite their apparent destruction), it's a really, really good film.
Here is my review of the disapointing Justice League... Contains spoilers!
Watched Fantastic Beasts the other day. Was alright. If they ever make a Pink Floyd biopic, Eddie Redmayne is a shoe-in to play Roger Waters.
(https://i.imgur.com/qtZU0Jp.gif)
Here are my top 10 worst/disappointing movies of 2017... What were yours?
I'd probably consider the plot and character development first, and see if setting, visual effects, music, etc., support them.
That means even if a movie has great special effects, etc., it won't be worth watching if the plot and character development are poor.
Here's my spoiler-free review of Coco.
Im currently reviewing all of the Halloween movies, below is my review of 1978's Halloween. Never seen the movie in its entirety before until the other day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muSQfJbpEKU
Everyone is conflicted by "Us" apparently.
Here is my review of King Of The Monsters...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN-jR53Nmh4
My review on the latest entry with the John Wick saga...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StQgSyrlT_s
3/5 gold reels
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Freel30.png&hash=0e36b0b9b1524ce12811e856d53c3f1c9f4e9d12)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fonlygodforgives2.gif&hash=1139516e401abf583af9cae94e4f03682b3ba783)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Faviator2.gif&hash=e5af0c0c4c1d4e4860ef806f78e5e334dc293899)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fbladerunner.gif&hash=10b0c8db735fecc92300be66406a2943da905b22)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fseven.gif&hash=1dcfa010faeb9e42880fac223159a5c6183d7fb4)
Such a good film. I always forget R. Lee Ermy was in it.
"I'm sorry. You're stuck cleaning up the fat man."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fcloseencounters.gif&hash=5f263926e855b741103309d59cff986513a894ec)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fjeeperscreepers.gif&hash=c595167e92fca7ea4461292d2c6ab2c15b1f2357)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fnightmareelmstreet3.gif&hash=f0d6560a73beed34ba66a623da19f3b8962d439c)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fforrestgump.gif&hash=7984ca83dc7721cae3627570772594ead02cfcd6)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fempiresun.gif&hash=e0e03772aa06d8ab2c6ad7232fa14f939db56b41)
http://scifimoviezone.com/BladeRunner2049.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/BladeRunner2049.mp4)
I love the format lol.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2F13ghosts.gif&hash=d5d7748d204b23d0633891a4e011078e6f0a4b74)
http://scifimoviezone.com/TronLegacy2.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/TronLegacy2.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/MadMaxFuryRoad.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/MadMaxFuryRoad.mp4)
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jul 06, 2019, 04:58:27 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fforrestgump.gif&hash=7984ca83dc7721cae3627570772594ead02cfcd6)
Why 4,5?
Quote from: Kradan on Jul 14, 2019, 01:17:15 PM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jul 06, 2019, 04:58:27 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fforrestgump.gif&hash=7984ca83dc7721cae3627570772594ead02cfcd6)
Why 4.5?
Because any rating below 4.5 does not properly convey my enjoyment level of FG.
http://scifimoviezone.com/PulpFiction.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/PulpFiction.mp4)
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jul 14, 2019, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Kradan on Jul 14, 2019, 01:17:15 PM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jul 06, 2019, 04:58:27 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscifimoviezone.com%2Fforrestgump.gif&hash=7984ca83dc7721cae3627570772594ead02cfcd6)
Why 4.5?
Because any rating below 4.5 does not properly convey my enjoyment level of FG.
I meant, why not 5?
Quote from: Kradan on Jul 15, 2019, 07:20:48 PM
I meant, why not 5?
Because 5 is a tad too generous in conveying my level of enjoyment for FG.
Why do you give it a 5?
I haven't given it any score. I personally really don't like do that 'cause i don't know how to astimate movie objectively - I rely only on my subjective feelings about film: "it's good, bad, "meh", entertaining, amazing, in the midle, boring, annoying, cool..." etc.
I like FG but it's not in my Top 10. That's all I can really say.
What is included in your top ten movies?
I don't know. I've never made one, sorry. But FG not in it that's for sure.
I'm not really diverse in movies nowadays honestly. I mostly watch and think about Alien and Predator films.
http://scifimoviezone.com/DjangoUnchained.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/DjangoUnchained.mp4)
I'm digging these mini trailer/review videos.
Thanks!
Might as well drop another since I'm here. All these ratings videos are for movies I have recently replayed.
http://scifimoviezone.com/Annihilation.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/Annihilation.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/Revenant.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/Revenant.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/imagecomichero/Aquaman1.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/imagecomichero/Aquaman1.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/imagejurassic/JurassicPark.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/imagejurassic/JurassicPark.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/imagecomichero/JusticeLeague.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/imagecomichero/JusticeLeague.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/imagecomichero/Deadpool.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/imagecomichero/Deadpool.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/AmericanGangster1.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/AmericanGangster1.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/BlackkKlansman1.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/BlackkKlansman1.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/NoCountryForOldMen1.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/NoCountryForOldMen1.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/RsvrDgs.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/RsvrDgs.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/Cars.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/Cars.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/Lincoln.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/Lincoln.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/BoneTomahawk.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/BoneTomahawk.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/Centurian.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/Centurian.mp4)
http://scifimoviezone.com/MonsterInc.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/MonsterInc.mp4)
Here is my very late review of 2019's The Lion King.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCzSSQeT500
Another latish review, this one being for Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Xsy6UH7as
Here are my top 3 movies of 2019 so far, its a very late video and I only considered movies released before July.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtAHX5b1HcA
http://scifimoviezone.com/PlanetApesDawn.mp4 (http://scifimoviezone.com/PlanetApesDawn.mp4)
Superb film.
Here is my review of what is my least anticipated movie from the DCEU...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRB6Kd7BjGY
Here is my review of Leigh Whannells The Invisible Man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9miqtBF896M
Only recently caught this on VOD, been looking forward to checking it out since watching the trailers, which I really dug as they had a very 'Alien' vibe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtDmoiV4vVc
Here is my review of Blood Machines, a 50 Minuit, cosmic, mesmerising, psychedelic, visual masterpiece... Yeah, I loved it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIfPP7Govb0
Here is my review of Chapter 9 of The Mandalorian, a little behind but aim on reviewing them all before the release of the new episode Friday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNG3vsbfJU
Here is my review of chapter 10 of The Mandalorian - The Passenger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLk7KtTVC5M
With David Ayers Suicide Squad trending on Twitter, thought Id share my initial review of the theatrical version... Looking back at my review, I was much more kind to it than I would be now and that grade would change considerably... in many ways its sorta inspired me to do movie reviews revisited, where my thoughts and opinions may have changed over time. But yeah, it was very evident from my first watching of Suicide Squad that it was a mess and with Studio interfering, I call it the Alien 3 effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRW2vE8zhk0
Here is my review of The Suicide Squad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlI58q5CSMo
Here are my top 10 anticipated movies of 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3W6IowAx0E
Here is my review of the latest MCU entry...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXgcY-tlaaY
Here are my thoughts on Thor: Love and Thunder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXFh4Qd-Fm0
Here are my thoughts on one of my anticipated movies of the year, M3GAN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUme55JylE
Quote from: Space_Dementia on May 26, 2023, 10:00:23 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fprlb78u4aM
This is why I get nervous about the adaptations and the new series these days. Hollywood hasn't been doing these well and ended up ruining it all. I don't think another Indy or Star Wars movie will be made in a long time because Hollywood would be too afraid to lose too much money again. I feel bad for that guy in the video above because his first impression of a
The Little Mermaid film is the one that he dislikes. Hollywood wants to get points for activism, but is too lazy or is too afraid to make a new story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLmMtsZ-NYI
Quote from: Shinawi on Jun 06, 2023, 01:58:42 PMQuote from: Space_Dementia on May 26, 2023, 10:00:23 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fprlb78u4aM
I feel bad for that guy in the video above because his first impression of a The Little Mermaid film is the one that he dislikes. Hollywood wants to get points for activism, but is too lazy or is too afraid to make a new story.
Hi, thanks for watching. In regards to the above quote, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean?
Quote from: Space_Dementia on Jun 06, 2023, 09:59:40 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLmMtsZ-NYI
Quote from: Shinawi on Jun 06, 2023, 01:58:42 PMQuote from: Space_Dementia on May 26, 2023, 10:00:23 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fprlb78u4aM
I feel bad for that guy in the video above because his first impression of a The Little Mermaid film is the one that he dislikes. Hollywood wants to get points for activism, but is too lazy or is too afraid to make a new story.
Hi, thanks for watching. In regards to the above quote, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean?
Judging from his reaction, the way the story was done seemed to be very clique and bland. I don't remember the exact words that he used. It seems that Disney mainly paid attention to having a minority as the main character just to gain approval and didn't pay enough attention to anything else. I'm not against having minorities as the main characters, but it needs to be done well. If it isn't done well, then it'd actually be worse for the minorities. They'd be wrongly blamed for the failures.
I have a book on the Disney company. According to the book, Disney's fear of risk and doing something new began with Eisner. Unfortunately, this continued on after Eisner.
Did you watch the movie? How was it?
Here are my thoughts on Wes Andersons Latest, Asteroid City.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioyCWuoYfBM
Here is my review of the delayed Dark Harvest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kM2HpscXiY
Its Christmas! Here is my review of Santa Claus The Movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA6A46TV-hk
Here are my top 10 favourite movies of 2023!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrCe-ckHWGw
Next Goal Wins - Fairly by the numbers but still excellent fun.