Shroom Review

The Original Gangster Movie

Wed, 22 May 2013 15:11:18 +0000

You might think the contrast between the early gangster movies of the 1930's might be a stark contrast to today's swear-and-blood festivals. You would be quite right about that, too. Yet, going back and watching some of those early gangster movies shows that there isn't all that much of a difference between the classics of Lon Chaney and James Cagney as you might think. There is, after all, a reason why gangster movies are known as GANGSTER MOVIES. There is a lot more to do with it than just a few bad words and graphically violent scenes.

As far as the defining gangster movie of all time goes, Little Caesar is the motherload. On my Facebook profile, under the favorite movies section, I'm subscribed to the entire genre of gangster movies. The image standing in there to define the genre isn't Marlon Brando (The Godfather himself) or any of the many gangster characters played by Al Pacino or Robert De Niro. Instead, it's Edward G. Robinson standing there in his iconic dapper suit with the fedora and cigar in hand. Little Caesar birthed a large number of tropes that have been in the gangster movie canon forever; they've become so synonymous with the genre that we don't even realize we know what they are until we see them being parodied in some other work. Maybe you've seen those old Bugs Bunny cartoons with those two gangsters? Nearly everything about those characters is the influence of Little Caesar at work. We owe parodies like that a minor debt for keeping the works that spawned them aglow in attention.

What about Little Caesar itself? Well, the defining gangster movie of all time - yes, even ahead of The Godfather - definitely shows its age. It tells that timeless gangster movie dream tale, which is usually a very twisted form of the American Dream: The American Dream is the perception that anyone can get rich with a little hard work and perseverance. Gangster movies are about people who "make it" after getting impatient with the hard work and saving method and take over the criminal underworld. In the more recent gangster movies, they're not even done in by the law, but by a competing Mafia outfit. Little Caesar follows this same story.

When the movie begins, we immediately get acquainted with Caesar Enrico Bandello and his good friend Joe Massara. These guys are a pair of small-time crooks who rob whatever little stores happen to be out in the sticks. One night, during a post-robbery meal at a small-town cafe, they get inspired by a newspaper article and decide to head east to Chicago, where the money is. Joe, who has clearly been rethinking a few of his life choices lately, has cold feet about continuing an under-the-law career and makes a successful transition into the career he had always dreamed of: Dancing. Rico has no such reservations and joins the gang of mobster Sam Vettori as a personal hitman. The problem is that Rico has a habit of shooting before thinking, which causes him to become a real pain in Sam's side - especially after one robbery in which Sam's "no bloodshed" order comes through Rico's head as "blow the crime commissioner to kingdom come."

Eventually, Rico muscles in on every rival he has in Chicago. He wrestles control of his organization, wrestles control of other gang territories, and gets control of so much of the city that he tries to muscle Joe back into the gang. Everyone is forced to go along with him, because if they don't, he'll dismiss them (with bullets!) as "yella." Unfortunately for Rico, going back for Joe becomes his ultimate mistake.

Every stereotypical habit of the prohibition-era gangster can be traced back to Little Caesar. Rico is played by Edward G. Robinson, who came to embody everything about gangsters for decades: The "nyah, shee, nyah!" accent, the big cigars, fedoras and dapper suits, and an unmistakably villainous attitude. That's one of the big differences between the gangster movies of then and now: These days, gangsters tend to be portrayed as anti-heroes who happen to be close to the dark side. Back then, that gangsters were the bad guys, game, set, and match. We know these guys are bad news the minute they show up, and the gangster movies I see from that era always seem to be coming off as some kind of public service announcement. In Little Caesar, Rico didn't even drink! He might be brutal, but with his vices, he ain't Al Capone ordering up a batch of The Good Stuff.

That's something about Little Caesar that I found hard to accept, actually. Since Little Caesar was released in 1931, it's so sanitized that apparently no one wanted him to have a real personal life. He seems outright scornful of the fact that Joe gets a girlfriend while he isn't seen with any women at all. He doesn't drink. We don't hear him swear, either, but we can grant a free pass for that since no one in the 30's swore in movies. Little Caesar's scorn for drinking and women is actually written into his character.

Little Caesar looks and sounds primitive to the massive three-hour epics that gangster movies have become. And while Little Caesar is still a very compelling movie, it's also a template, which means you've seen pretty much everything in it before in some variation or another. These days, some of the interest in it comes from the fact that it's so influential. Besides, even if you don't like it, it's only 79 minutes long, so you won't have to endure interminable minutes waiting for it to end.

WWE Elimination Chamber 2010 Quick Tip by FM_ALEX

Tue, 7 May 2013 18:31:41 +0000

This was a good chamber event over all since most matches were good. I always enjoy these events and the chamber matches in particular. You get some good special features with the DVD so that is always a plus.

GOOD CHAMBER EVENT

Tue, 7 May 2013 18:30:14 +0000

WWE
ELIMINATION CHAMBER 2010

1.[ELIMINATION CHAMBER WWE TITLE]SHEAMUS VS JOHN CENA VS TRIPLE H VS KOFI KINGSTON VS RANDY ORTON VS TED DIBIASE-excellent opener right here that was also the first time all six participants made it into the match without an elimination. There is of course many great moments in the match but the big story here was the relationship and eventual lack of one between Legacy members. Everyone looks great here but it is Cena that eventually wins, also Kofi gets it the worst. But the celebration would not last long as Mr. McMahon came out and made a match on the spot, Cena versus Batista. Cena got a punch in but The Animal would maul him and take the title after a Batista bomb.

2.[I-C TITLE]DREW MCINTYRE VS KANE-to me this match felt like it was something that we could have gotten on Raw or Smackdown. It wasn't a bad match but it felt like a TV match and not a PPV one. Drew did well here working over Kane's limbs and Kane used his size to his advantage. But Drew would keep the belt in a decent match between the two.

3.GAIL KIM & MARYSE VS LAYCOOL-this was supposed to be a match between Gail and Maryse as it was the finals of a tournament for the Divas title. But because of some comments made about the Divas on Smackdown it became a tag match against Smackdown's Laycool. But it would really be Gail Kim against Laycool as Maryse refused to tag in. once again another decent match but it could have been better.

4.[US TITLE]THE MIZ VS MVP-this was a good match in which both participants had their tag partners here, and getting involved of course. Still great match between these two with back and forth action with a slight edge to Miz. In the end it would be Miz standing tall after Show helps him out, good match.

5.[ELIMINATION CHAMBER WORLD TITLE]UNDERTAKER VS JOHN MORRISON VS R-TRUTH VS REY MYSTERIO VS CM PUNK VS CHRIS JERICHO-another good chamber match but this one seemed more like past ones with eliminations happening at random times. I remember watching this and being surprised when Punk was eliminated early. Still like the previous one every one gets a moment to shine and prove why they were in the match. The match comes down to Taker and Jericho and they battle it out for a while until HBK comes out. Of course you all know he cost Taker the match after some sweet chin music. Naturally I loved the ending here since Shawn is my boy.

Special featuers include an interview with Jericho after his win, Edge making his Mania pick, and a video about HBK and Taker.

WWE Over The Limit 2010 Quick Tip by FM_ALEX

Tue, 7 May 2013 18:22:03 +0000

This was a good event that had some good matches on it. Not everything was great and some matches were cut short but overall it was a good event. There were at least two really good to great matches here. Plus we get a bonus match in which Bret Hart wins the US title.

GOOD EVENT

Tue, 7 May 2013 18:21:38 +0000

WWE
OVER THE LIMIT 2010

This was a good event that had some good matches on it. Not everything was great and some matches were cut short but overall it was a good event. There were at least two really good to great matches here. Plus we get a bonus match in which Bret Hart wins the US title.

1.[I-C TITLE]DREW MCINTYRE VS KOFI KINGSTON-this match came about because Drew was fired and stripped of the belt so a tournament was held with the title as the prize, Kofi won. But Vinnie Mac would reinstate Drew and he would get the title handed back to him. So this match was set up and it was a good opener for sure. Kofi kept things moving but Drew really put it on Kingston. Good back and forth action leads to Kofi getting back what was taken from him. After the match Drew would grab the mic and try to get Teddy Long to give him the belt back. But Matt Hardy would come out a lay Drew flat.

2.R-TRUTH VS TED DIBIASE-Truth is no Virgil and he made that clear to young DiBiase and that is how this match came about. So Ted comes to the ring with the actual Virgil that once managed his father. This is actually a real good match and enjoyable with Truth looking the stronger of the two. Still DiBiase does a good job here but still loses out in the end. I like the stunner thing that Truth uses during this match.

3.[PLEDGE VS HAIR MATCH]REY MYSTERIO VS CM PUNK-these two deliver yet again and give us a great match. First Rey won a match in which had he lost he had to join Punk's S.E.S. and then Punk won a hair match. So to end it all they put both stipulations on the line in this match. So these two do battle in a great match in which both men look good. There is one point were the match is stopped as Punk throws Rey into the barber set up. At that point officials check out his cut but the action is soon back on. It is not to long after they restart the match that Rey gets the win. He then handcuffs Punk to the ropes and goes to work on his hair.

4.[TAG TITLE]HART DYNASTY VS CHRIS JERICHO & THE MIZ-next up we have a really good tag match and one of my favorite matches on the card. This match also reminds me of how much I miss the Hart Dynasty. Both teams have their moments in this match but the biggest is Jericho hitting Kid with a code breaker in the air. Still after a heart attack on The Miz the Harts keep the belts. Great match and makes me think of better days when the WWE cared about tag matches.

5.RANDY ORTON VS EDGE-not the best match these two have ever had but that is ok. Orton injured himself so they had to switch the match up. It is good but moves a slower pace. They end up getting counted out and shorten the match up.

6.[WORLD TITLE]JACK SWAGGER VS BIG SHOW-quick match right here which kinda surprised me. Show really looked good here as he was upstaging Swagger with wrestling. It was back and forth for a little bit until Swagger got himself DQ'd. That actually backfired on him as Show choke slammed him on a chair and knocked him out.

7.[DIVAS TITLE]EVE VS MARYSE-not much happening here as it is just your average Divas match. Maryse starts strong but eventually falls victim to Eve who o walks away the victor.

8.[I QUIT WWE TITLE MATCH]JOHN CENA VS BATISTA-one of the best matches on the card and that makes sense given what type of match it is. These two battle all over the arena and use multiple weapons. One of my favorite moments is when Batista puts Cena threw the table. There were plenty of high spots here but the main one is after Batista quits in order to not be thrown off of the car he still goes for a ride. Cena takes the win here and sends Batista home, check out Raw the next night for more on that.

BONUS MATCH

9.[US TITLE]THE MIZ VS BRET HART-now we all know that Bret is not allowed to take bumps now because of his medical history. So I was wondering the night this happened how it would play out. But when the stipulations were named I had an idea. So like I thought it would be the Hart Dynasty that would help out Bret here. Jericho would be there to help out Miz but it would not be enough as The Hitman would win the US title for the fifth time. Sharpshooter time baby, I love it.

You also get some behind the scenes stuff and the commercials that WWE made, they are all funny.

I Loved This Film!

Thu, 2 May 2013 15:10:53 +0000

With all the historical baseball films out there this is one of the best! During WW II there was a dearth of "male" players to fill the minor league rosters. As a result there was an interest in having something to take the place of these games. Someone came up with the idea of selling a women's baseball league. This film uses an all-star cast to magically show how fun that league was. Tom Hanks is the manager of the woman's team and he learns very fast that to keep the ladies motivated get the most out of their abilities, he has to learn a whole new way of coaching.

There are a lot of fun moments in this film including the immortal line "There's no crying in Baseball!" Comes down to the two friends, Geena Davis and Lori Petty and how the game gets in the way of their friendship. Nice to see the real life gals in the film as themselves.

Another childhood favorite that still holds up really well. 84%

Wed, 3 Apr 2013 19:26:35 +0000

For all of my childhood, Who Framed Roger Rabbit has been one of my favorite movies. Thankfully, it's another one of those movies that still holds up really well as an adult.

1988 was quite a year for animation. Out in Japan, Grave of the Fireflies, My Neighbor Totoro, and Akira were released in theaters and were all superbly animated films that in scales from good to masterful, delivered storylines and themes unheard of at the time. Over in America, we were treated to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which gave audiences a hybrid of live-action film and animation that to this day, is unmatched in how sublime it is, which is also helped by its other strong qualities (more on that later).

STORY

It's 1947 in Los Angeles, and cartoons (known as “Toons” in this movie) aren't mere pictures on celluloid, but rather like real actors. Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) is an alcoholic private detective in LA, and after being paid by cartoonist R.K. Maroon (Alan Tilvern) to take pictures of Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye) playing patty cake with Jessica Rabbit (voiced by Kathleen Turner), causing Jessica's husband, Roger Rabbit (voiced by Charles Fleischer) to lose his mind. Eddie soon gets tangled in a murder mystery after Marvin Acme was murdered, and must uncover the truth as to who really killed Acme.

CHARACTERS

For the most part, the characters in this movie are done really well. As an adult, I really appreciate the fact that Eddie is a troubled man struggling with booze because given the tragedy he had in the past (I won't spoil it for you), gives him a layer of realism. Also, Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd) is one of the creepiest villains from movies in my childhood, as he maintains a consistently menacing persona and does really cold-blooded things that can put Doom in the same league as the best horror icons. Roger and Jessica Rabbit are great at providing solid humor, along with Doom's gang of cartoon weasels. However, I wish characters like the bartender Dolores (Joanna Cassidy) had more time to develop.

HUMOR

The humor in this movie is really solid. The humor is a perfect homage to the masterful slapstick and exaggerated bodily distortion of the classic Tex Avery and Looney Tunes cartoons. One of the funniest things in this movie was when Eddie goes to the nightclub the night Acme gets killed, and the opening act is Daffy and Donald Duck in a piano battle. Seeing these two iconic cartoon ducks engage in slapstick antics against each other was hilarious (especially when Donald fired a cannon at Daffy). Another was when Eddie faces his fears about driving into Toontown, he dumps his glass flask of whiskey and using a cartoon gun that Yosemite Sam gave him some years back, fires a cartoon bullet that's a caricature of an American Indian, and the bullet uses a giant tomahawk to smash the flask. Another is when Dolores catches Eddie in his office with Jessica with his pants down (literally), and she says to him “Are you dabbling in water colors, Eddie?” There's plenty of other funny parts in this movie, but I think you get the picture.

APPEARANCE

The cinematography for this movie is marvelous. The set designs perfectly capture that 1940's noir feeling, and the designs of the cartoons perfectly fit the setting it takes place in. The animation of the characters is totally fluid, and is even more impressive considering that the “interactions” with the cartoons and real people was seamless. With this being made before the age of CGI, it's even more impressive to see all this and see the cartoon characters believably carry around real props like guns. I think along with John Carpenter's The Thing, Who Framed Roger Rabbit has some of the most remarkable special effects and visuals ever done in cinema.

On a sidenote, the interior of the Acme gag factory looks a bit like something out of Tim Burton's imagination.

SOUNDTRACK

Alan Silvestri's score for this movie is near perfect. Like the visuals, the music fits the setting of this movie like a glove, and one of my favorite pieces of music is near the end, when Eddie has a showdown with Judge Doom and his weasel minions, since it's so heart-pumping and memorable. The original song “Why Don't You Do Right” is pretty catchy and is a great fit for the style of the movie.

MATURE CONTENT

Even though this is a PG movie, there's some scenes that kids might not get or could scare them. Some of the adult innuendo provided by Jessica Rabbit and even the weasels at times will probably fly over some kids' heads. However, there's a really creepy scene near the beginning where Judge Doom demonstrates his brand of justice by grabbing a squeaking cartoon shoe and slowly kills it in a barrel full of a chemical cocktail made specifically to “kill” cartoons called “the dip.” This scene scared me a lot when I was a little kid and even as an adult, still get creeped out by this scene. Similarly, there's some parts near the end during Eddie's showdown with Doom that were creepy, but I won't mention these because I don't want to spoil anything big in relation to the movie's story.

On another sidenote, it's funny to think that there's plenty of bad anime titles like Elfen Lied and Gantz that abuse bloody gore and dismemberment scenes ad nauseam to seem “creepy” yet the dark scenes in WFRR actually feel intimidating without using bloodshed.

FINAL WORD

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is certainly a classic, and a really good homage to 1940's noir and of the Golden Age of Cartoons. If you love the aforementioned things, you owe it to yourself to reserve a movie night for this live-action/cartoon hybrid gem.

Taken (2008) Quick Tip by RabidChihuahua

Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:10:26 +0000

Taken is good as a popcorn flick, but my main beef with this movie lies in the fact that for this type of movie, a PG-13 rating held back a lot of potential carnage that would be right at home with it. Even with that taken into account, it was fun to see Liam Neeson kick a ton of ass and kill tons of heinous people.

As stated earlier, this is good popcorn entertainment, but if you want superior pieces of fiction dealing with the Eastern European human trafficking black market, watch Eastern Promises and read Punisher MAX Vol. 5: The Slavers.

Colorful, Rhythmic And Great Fun For All Ages

Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:47:39 +0000

Unlike industry moguls Pixar and DreamWorks, Blue Sky Studios hasn’t been quite as versatile in their subject-matter when it comes to pumping out computer generated animated feature films. Most people are aware of their ever-growing Ice Age franchise but do keep in mind that these are the guys behind Robots, Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who, the forthcoming Epic and Charles M Shultz’s long overdue Peanuts CG film. In short these guys have certainly been keeping busy!

Amidst all of these projects, Blue Sky released Rio back in 2011; a vibrant piece that forever silenced naysayers who claimed the studio didn’t have access to the incredible color pallets of the competition. Costing an estimated $90-mil, Rio comes in at a runtime of 96-minutes and wears an appropriate G-rating.

The story follows Blu, a wild-born domesticated blue macaw thought to be the last of his breed, taken from Rio de Janeiro and then deposited in Minnesota only to head back to Brazil when an ornithologist believes that a potential mate has been secured in the wild.

On an existential level there’s some ironic tragedy in the concept of removing a wild animal from nature, domesticating it so that it is completely dependent upon human care, then returning it to the wild where it’s unable to perform such basic survival tactics as fly but not to worry, Rio is a lot more about having fun then it is environmentalism agendas (thankfully).

Add to this some well casted voice talent: Jesse Eisenberg as Blu; Anne Hathaway as his love interest Jewel; Jamie Foxx and will.i.am as a streetwise and musical canary and cardinal duo; George Lopez as a local toucan; Tracy Morgan as a slobbering bulldog; and Jemaine Clement of “Flight of the Conchords” fame stepping in as the villainous cockatoo Nigel. The casting is flawless in their respective roles and add a great deal of energy to the visuals, which in case I haven’t mentioned, are crisp, bright, and bouncy.

The opening musical number, featuring a rainbow stream of various birds of paradise in choreographed flight sets the tone of things to come. While the film flirts with the concept of being a dedicated musical, I am pleased to report that the music here does nothing but add to the party-like vibe of the affair. Everything from some original salsa-flavored tunes to Lionel Richie’s “Say you, Say Me” to one of Jemaine Clement’s hilarious rap numbers (straight out of his book as the character Hip-hop-opotamus).

Separating this from a strictly talking-animals affair however is the brilliantly intertwined B-story involving Blu’s adopted mom Linda and said ornithologist (the nerdy but goodhearted Tulio) falling for one another as well. Had I been charged with the job of naming this film, I believe something like “Of Nerds and Birds” would have been in order.

In all I found Rio to be a magnificent entry into the competitive CG market from Blue Sky, perhaps their strongest, most fleshed out to date in fact. I’m apparently not alone in this assessment either as a sequel (Rio 2) is on Blue Sky’s release schedule for 2014 (smack dab between Epic and Peanuts). An interesting side note- it’s oft rumored that Rio was actually responsible for Pixar having cancelled a film they were putting together called “newt” due to plot similarities. You know you’re doing something right when you can get the undisputed leader of the industry to stop in their tracks!

Who Framed Roger Rabbit Quick Tip by RabidChihuahua

Sun, 31 Mar 2013 06:17:47 +0000

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is thankfully, another one of those favorite movies from my childhood that still holds up really well as an adult. While the story itself is a little conventional, what made this movie such a joy to watch was its masterful fusion of live-action and 2D animation (which despite being 25 years-old as of writing this, still looks amazing today), hilarious gags, and Christopher Lloyd as Judge Doom, one of the creepiest movie villains of my youth.

Schindler's List Quick Tip by RabidChihuahua

Sun, 31 Mar 2013 05:59:59 +0000

I know I'll be loathed for not giving Schindler's List a perfect rating, but here's my stance on it.

While the overall story was presented in a really good fashion, what I thought hindered this movie a little was the black-and-white cinematography and the use of English-speaking actors speaking in German accents. The former in that the visuals don't show the true colors of the horrors of the Holocaust, merely making it look like a movie trying to look like a movie from the past (considering Schindler's List came out in 1993). The latter in that the actors merely speaking in German accents also helped strip away a feeling of realness to it. Spielberg would have done better had he either had the actors speak naturally or if he went the extra mile and hired German and other foreign actors to play the appropriate roles.

Schindler's List is a good movie, but don't expect it to be the untouchable masterpiece so many say it is. Personally, I think Isao Takahata's Grave of the Fireflies does a much better job at portraying the horrors of the human condition in war.

Regret Waiting As Long As I Had in Getting to This One

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:33:53 +0000

Of all the computer animated talking animals out there these days, penguins have certainly enjoyed the limelight. Happy Feet, Penguins of Madagascar, Surfs Up, The Jungle Bunch- these are just a few of the CG films in the past few years to focus on the flightless birds of the colder climes.

Believe it or not, I was on the fence about viewing Happy Feet ever since its release back in 2006 for two key complaints that seem to follow the piece: A political agenda and enough singing to be considered borderline “musical”.   Call me picky if you must but a political musical doesn’t exactly rank as the type of material to get excited about when sitting down to absorb a good CG romp. However, I am pleased to report that such concerns were greatly exaggerated. But before we get into the nitty gritty of the material itself, let’s take a moment to review the hard fact shall we?

Happy Feet was conceived as an Australian/ American collaboration directed and co-written by George Miller. It was produced at Sydney-based visual effects and animation studio Animal Logic for Warner Bros., Village Roadshow Pictures and Kingdom Feature Productions and was released in North American theaters on November 17, 2006. Warner Home Video brought the piece to the home market in March of 2007 and here we are.

The 108-minute, PG rated tale centers on a young emperor penguin named Mumble born with a singing voice only his mother could love. This would be hardly cause for concern in our society but it turns out that penguins of this sect just so happen to base their entire dating, life-mate selection on “heart song”. In other words, not being able to sing to this little guy is like trying to be a playboy in social media without Facebook.

The situation isn’t hopeless though as the lad’s got rhythm. Though dancing isn’t really common or even socially acceptable among penguin-folk, there’s change in the air. In the grand story arc, change is overdue anyway with the interaction between mankind and the wild and if tap dancing penguins is the spark that makes us collectively pay attention to the value of life on this planet, then so be it.

Of course it’s this aspect of the story most responsible for initial squawks of liberal propaganda and themes of environmentalism but in the grand scheme things there are certainly worse messages coming out of Hollywood of late.   Besides, never is such ideology force-fed to you (if in doubt, pick up Animals United from Arc Entertainment to witness just how bad it can get).

This film represents the first attempt at animation from Mad Max director George Miller but boy you’d never know it by the pacing, visuals (which still look tight 7 years later) or impeccable casting

Somehow Miller manages to turn a fairly straight forward and borderline silly premise and manages to convert it into a grand and whimsical work of cinematic art.   The film literally opens with photo-realistic textures of Antarctica and quickly establishes an ensemble cast that makes tagging along for the ride absolutely effortless.

At the time of its release, some critics went as far as to say this $100-mil masterpiece birthed some of the best visuals in a CG production outside of Pixar and truly how these guys managed to thread the needle between lovable characters and realistic animal models is anyone’s guess. Plus there’s an underlying tension involved in the plot reminiscent of early Disney animated films- where you almost expect tragedy in the struggle to survive in the natural world.   Fortunately making you cry isn’t the prime motivation here and the ending, though a bit contrived, is certainly more about feeling good than anything else.

As for my other main concern- penguins breaking into song so frequently as to be considered a borderline musical: again, needless worry. With a soundtrack that includes everything from hip hop to disco, the musical antics are enjoyable and certainly more fun than expected.

In all, a shame I waited as long as I did to give Happy Feet a go; truly this is a piece that will resonate with viewers of all ages. Children will be mesmerized with the visuals and adults will find the plot engaging enough to tolerate, maybe even enjoy, multiple rewatchings.

In the Army Now Quick Tip by FM_ALEX

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:09:11 +0000

This is a funny movie although not a laugh out loud constantly flick but it is funny. The group here and the people they cast make for a charismatic cast. In the Pauly Shore flicks this may be my third favorite or something like that. "In the Army Now" is one of those flicks that are good for a day you have with nothing to do, stupid funny sometimes hits the mark.

DUMB COMEDY BUT ENTERTAINING

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:08:36 +0000

IN THE ARMY NOW

I will admit it right here and now, I am a Pauly Shore fan. I think a lot of people who read this will ask me why or something but half of them are probably closet fans. Plus I am sure most would admit to liking at least one of his movies. These are those types of guilty pleasures for people but I have to say I enjoy them. Now this is not my favorite of his films but I do like it and the characters in it.

The story follows two friends that are your everyday slackers looking for an easy payday. They here how easy the reserves are and go ahead and sign up. It becomes a little harder then they thought but they make a few new friends in basic training. They all sign up for the water detail since they think it is the easiest there is. Little did they know it would be the first to be called to duty. Once in the desert they deal with their situation day by day being picked on by the veterans and higher ranking officers. That is until they get lost in the desert after an attack on their convoy. Now they are lost with little water and the enemy lurking some where in the hot sun.

This is not the greatest movie ever made or even the greatest comedy ever but it is fun. Pauly Shore's brand of humor and style is not for every body but for those who like it this is one of his better films. Also Andy Dick was a great choice here for his buddy and sidekick. These two together make a great on screen team and next to Shore Dick is not his usual crazy self like in other films. Also the great David Alan Grier shines as usual here and was a wonderful addition to the cast. Then of course the female of the group [every good group has to have one] Lori Petty rounds out the click very nicely.

This is a funny movie although not a laugh out loud constantly flick but it is funny. The group here and the people they cast make for a charismatic cast. In the Pauly Shore flicks this may be my third favorite or something like that. "In the Army Now" is one of those flicks that are good for a day you have with nothing to do, stupid funny sometimes hits the mark.

Solid Ageless Entertainment

Sun, 17 Mar 2013 08:50:04 +0000

When it comes to Disney, Pixar has been a behind-the-scenes factor far before their official merger in 2006. 2007’s Meet the Robinsons boasts John Lasseter’s influence as the fusion between Disney and Pixar occurred during the production of the film (when Lasseter became the chief creative officer for the Walt Disney Company).

Coming in at a runtime of 95-minutes and paced flawlessly, Meet the Robinsons can probably best be described as Disney’s colorful and charming take on Back to the Future.

The story centers on Lewis, an aspiring young inventor at an orphanage whose wacky inventions have been scaring off potential adopters. He comes to the realization that his birth mother is the only one who ever truly loved him and sets off to build a machine to scan the farthest reaches of his memory banks in effort to locate her.

The simplicity of Lewis’ life takes a massive twist when a guy his age shows up at the very science fair he intends to debut his memory scanner claiming to be a cop from the future. Before long Lewis finds himself time traveling to one of the wackiest futures imaginable while being pursued by a mysterious villain in a bowling hat.

My summary sounds simplistic but the fact of the matter is that, unlike so many films geared to the younger set, there is some genuine thought-provoking depth to this one. In fact, and not to give anything away, I’m still pondering the relationships of all of the individuals Lewis encounters when whisked away to the year 2037.

Speaking of, as a society, we’ve collectively been treated to a wide variety of interpretations of the future throughout the years in film, but it’s a pretty safe bet that none can come close to emulating the sheer hilarious craziness of Meet the Robinsons (which technically owes a lot of its credit from the children’s book on which the film is based: A Day With Wilbur Robinson by William Joyce).

People traveling in bubbles, topiary gardens, giant squid butlers, a man married to a hand puppet, a pizza delivery man/ superhero wannabe; the encounters young Lewis experiences in his first few minutes in the future are bizarre, wacky, in some cases over-the-top silly but undeniably entertaining.

Like most Disney feature films, the attention to detail is impeccable. In fact, save for a few paradoxes inherent in all time travel scenarios, the science isn’t even overly laughable either. Unless of course your goal is to laugh, in which case, like Back to the Future before it, viewers of all ages are free to simply sit back and enjoy the ride without any dreaded brain-pretzeling. Kids will laugh at the visuals, the antics and the obvious gags; adults will enjoy the layered depth and the intricacies of the plot (and the accuracy of the time line that can only be verified by repeated viewings).

In all, though considered a commercial and critical success, I was actually surprised that Meet the Robinsons hasn’t achieved the type of universal charm present in nearly anything Pixar touches. Perhaps some of this is due to the simple fact that after the original agreement with Pixar expired, Disney decided they could do the whole compuer-generated feature film thing on their own and formed the Walt Disney Animation Studios, of which this is the first film.

Of course, in the middle a new agreement with Pixar would be reached and hence Lasseter and company would integrate during production. It’s rumored that after having screened the film to Lasseter, some 60% of the material was altered to his suggestions into what is now the final version of the piece (a particular addition coming in the form of a T-rex having been transplanted from the Cretaceous running amok in the year 2037).

Factor in a whimsical score by legendary composer Danny Elfman and the package all comes together. Fans of CG animation and those of good story telling in general will certainly find much to appreciate here.

Still The Best Movie Based on the "Street Fighter" Video Game Franchise! But....

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:52:28 +0000

The Street Fighter video game franchise may be one of the most successful video game franchises in history. It had spawned numerous video game sequels, countless remixes, an anime series, an American cartoon series, inspired two shameful live-action American flicks, a manga, and a Japanese anime movie directed by Gisaburo Sugii. I was going to wait for the uncut Japanese release before I was going to revisit this movie to do a review, but what the hey, I wanted to see if there was going to be anything more significant from this unrated cut that I own from the uncut Japanese version.



I was told that the uncut version has more blood and it included a naked Chun Li in the shower. But let’s talk about that later, since I expect my copy to arrive next week and this copy will fall into the hands of my friend's brother. I guess I need to focus on what made this animated movie so much more entertaining, successful than any of the “Street Fighter” animated series is the fact that it stayed very close to the groundwork/storyline established in the beloved video game. I will credit the English voice cast since this is what was available in this DVD that I am reviewing.







The film begins with Ryu (Hank Smith) and Sagat (David Conrad) duking it out under the cover of night with lightning the only source of illumination. The two fighters trade blows while someone is obviously gathering data from their fight. The fight ends when Ryu plants a huge blow that scars Sagat (oh, there is a lot of blood) on the chest and dispatches him with a blast of chi energy called Haddoken. Years later, Ryu drops off the grid as he wanders Asia looking for fights and to try to help out. Now a criminal organization called Shadowloo led by Bison (Phil Matthews) has surfaced and they have caused unrest after British agent Cammy (S.J. Charvin) kills an important political figure. They are also actively looking for Ryu so that they could enlist them in their evil cause. Hot on the tail of Bison are Guile (Donald Lee) and Chun-Li (Mary Briscoe), who wish to bring him to justice and have vengeance for Bison’s past sins. But Bison is no easy prey as he now has Sagat, Vega (Steve Davis), and a brainwashed Ken Masters (Ted Richards), also Ryu’s closest friend and co-student under his command.

If you are a fan of the video game, then this film would be close to heaven. It was wise for the screenplay by Kenichi Imai to focus on Ryu, Ken, Guile and Chun-Li to develop the core of its premise. It does several things right, it manages to flesh out the roots of Ken and Ryu’s relationship, it was nice to see their rivalry developed in the script. Chun-Li is out to avenge her father while Guile stays true to his original motivation against Bison. Bison is also no slouch in this flick, he is ruthless, powerful and very dangerous. He is indeed the ‘top’ bad guy in this flick. The script keeps its momentum with the development of its named central characters going forward to the final encounter.







What really made me feel that the script wasn’t as smooth or focused was the fact that it tried to do so many things. I know, this is an animated flick about “Street Fighter” and so it was to be expected that characters from the game would make appearances. Some appearances made sense, Fei Long (Philip Williams), Honda (Patrick Gilbert) and Dhalsim (Don Carey) actually build up to its script. Zangief, Blanka, Deejay and T. Hawk also made appearances but they felt more like ‘fodder’ to feed the “Street Fighter” fan. Their appearances felt a little too cheap and really irrelevant. The film could’ve done just as well without them. I also wasn’t too happy with the way Sagat seemed to have been forgotten in the script later on.

Now I am also a sucker for hard-hitting fights and “Street Fighter II” has a lot to spare. The animation work may feel a little dated to today’s standards, it had some perspective issues and seemed choppy when it wasn't moving that fast. But the fight choreograph had enough behind them to make them shine. Ryu vs. Sagat in the beginning of the film defined exactly what this was all about. The Bruce Lee clone, Fei Long also had a one-on-one with the hero Ryu; while the fight was short, it was fun to watch. Chun-Li even had a good battle with Vega. Now I wasn’t too happy with the battle between Balrog and Honda, or Honda’s run-in with Dhalsim, but they all added to the build up. The Ryu vs. Ken, and then the Ryu and Ken vs. Bison is the film’s bread and butter. The fight was exciting with all the use of their powers and skills. The film made Bison exactly how I imagined him to be; tough, dangerous and relentless that it took both Ryu and Ken to fight him. Also, as an added treat for fans, the characters get to use their 'signature moves' from the video games. The music was also engaging as it reflected the mood and tempo of the sequences.





Yes, this film was flawed and the script while competent had a lot of rough areas. To its credit, it did a lot of things right to cover up its weaknesses in plotting. The spirit of KARATE was competently portrayed, Chun-Li had her moment to show her stuff, and while Guile was underwritten, he made up for it with his brief clash with Bison. What I really liked about the film was the animated fight choreography and it was good to see Ryu and Ken in all their glory. Bison was a great bad guy too and it helped define the Ken-Ryu dynamic. Yes, this film is strictly for fans of the franchise, as they have the will to truly appreciate what was done here. Come to see the action, don’t expect anything intricate or cerebral and you’ll enjoy this show. It is the best movie made based on the franchise, but unfortunately that is not saying much.

Recommended For Fans [3 ½ Out of 5 Stars]

Just say it, already!

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:54:32 +0000

Long, slow, New Orleans-in-the-thirties talkfest filled with hystrionics and over-acting. Hepburn is excellent, playing a Southern grande dame with a decidedly New England accent, Taylor is gorgeous (complete with full makeup, tight dresses, and stilettos while incarcerated) but shreiks a lot, while Clift appears catatonic and bug-eyed throughout. McCambridge minces about with a silly, shrill drawl and looks ridiculous.

The whole point of the movie is summed up in one sentence, but it takes 113 minutes to do it.

If you like Tennessee Williams' long-winded speeches, you'll love this movie. I didn't.

Flash Point (Dao huo xian) Quick Tip by woopak_the_thrill

Sat, 9 Feb 2013 20:42:38 +0000

While lacking most of the emotional drama, and build up that made SPL so successful as an action film, Flash Point does come complete with hard-hitting fights and the usual over-acting from Donnie Yen as the tragic cop Inspector Ma. Still worth a watch if you are an action junkie.

See Full Review here.

That Obscure Object of One Man's Vision

Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:56:40 +0000

Oh, you devilish French people! What with all of your obsession with, well, obsession! Men and women constantly throwing themselves at one another! Sex, sultry sex, and more sensational sensual sex! How refreshing it is to come across a slightly older classic that shows not all of you – young or old – are constantly happily copulating with one another twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week! How delightful it is to discover that those rare few of you are doing little more than emotionally torturing the one you presumably love, once and for all proving that the rest of us may very well have a chance to stand toe-to-toe with you in matters of carnal conquest and rejection!

(Not that there’s anything wrong with it …)

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and characters. If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)

THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE is the story of an older man named Mathieu (played by Fernando Rey) who becomes smitten with his new maid-servant, Conchita (played in alternating appearances by two actresses: Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina). Initially, she spurns his advances – even runs from his affections – only causing the man to be increasingly captivated by her. As their relationship grows (or does it?), the two continue a bizarre mating game, one that borders the lands of faithlessness and self-destruction, until there’s nothing left for a possible happy union.

After watching the film, I had to do some research as, for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out just what Spanish director Luis Bunuel (who also co-wrote this adaptation with Jean-Claude Carriere) was trying to say artistically in casting two separate women to play the same role. Over the course of the story, Bouquet and Molina appear interchangeably as Conchita for no particular rhyme or reason I could fathom. The best I’ve been able to ascertain is that Bunuel was a surrealist (an art form characterized by “subconscious or nonrational significance of imagery arrived at by … the exploitation of … unexpected juxtapositions”), the goal of which would appear to invoke a ‘dream state’ under which one’s conscious mind has no influence.

Well …

The best this unschooled mind has been able to put together is that, by casting two different women, Bunuel hoped to keep the audience (and his characters) in a persistent state of flux where illogical emotion could wreck havoc on these people. Conchita – regardless of who’s playing her – frequently uses her feminine charms to arouse Mathieu; but she – regardless of who’s playing her – never gives in to him sexually. In fact, the close she comes – so far as the film implies – is that he allows him to lie partially naked with her in bed. When he proposes alternative ways of gratification, she spurns him further, shutting him out of his bedroom or even locking him out of the house.

Also, the two actresses are of different heritage – Bouquet is as French as a woman can possibly be, while Molina is the more sultry Spanish beauty. This could imply that Mathieu’s attraction either might or might not be related to cultural normalcy (i.e. dating or marrying within one’s nationality). Certainly, the women are both attractive but possess markedly differing physical traits, also suggesting that perhaps there is no universal body type provoking man’s desire.

The thrust of DESIRE would be to suggest that satisfaction isn’t possibly attainable – at least not for any measureable duration – because there are no constants that can be added up in any magic formula to display sexual fulfillment. There are only variables – variables which change from place to place, from person to person, even from time to time – and, as such, lasting happiness will always be close enough to touch but never quite within man’s reach.

Lastly, there’s an odd juxtaposition of scenes in the film’s climax that bear further exploration, as I believe they underscore whatever idea Bunuel was reaching to say with his final film. Mathieu and Conchita appear to have reconciled, and they’re shown in an alley perusing windows of some small French shops. Together, they’re drawn to one display where a delicate woman patiently mends a tear in an elaborate woven dress. Bunuel focuses on this scene for quite some time, and then we’re shown our two leads – up in the corner of the frame – speaking with one another, but the audience no longer hears what they’re saying (they’re on the outside of the glass window pane). Are they speaking about the dress? Are they reflecting on their relationship? Are they debating stitching choices? Conchita frowns and walks away, then Mathieu frowns and follows, but – in the last image – we’re shown an explosion (a radio report playing in the background discussed mounting terrorist attacks in the city only moments before) … and that’s the end.

What I suspect – I could be wrong – Bunuel was saying is that even when the process of mending is under way, there will always be elements that pull us apart, that force us in other directions. This would imply that we’re never truly under control of ourselves or our existence – that we’re always subject to the randomness of life – and perhaps this would imply that the pursuit of fleeting happiness is nothing more than the pursuit of fools.

The film isn’t as depressing as it sounds, though it certainly teeters close. Psychologically, it’s an interesting study of a very complex idea, though I would have to say it certainly isn’t an idea for everyone. Scholars might find plenty to get excited over here, but Mathieu sure didn’t. (Pun intended.)

THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE is produced by Greenwich Film Productions, Les Films Galaxie, and In-Cine Compañía Industrial Cinematográfica. DVD distribution is being handled by Lionsgate. As for the technical specifications, this Blu-ray release looks and sounds very good, though I experienced one sequence late in the film the seemed a bit out-of-sync (for a few brief seconds); I have to wonder if that wasn’t a production issue back to the original film. This is a French spoken language release (with English subtitles), but there is an English-dubbed track available. Lastly, the disk includes a nice assortment of special features: “Arbitrary Desire” (an interview with screenwriter Jean-Claude Carrier); an interview with Carlos Saura; “Double Dames” (interviews with actresses Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina); and “A Portrait of Luis Bunuel” which is an in-depth discussion of the director and his films. It’s certainly an impressive collection for a film of such distinction.

RECOMMENDED. As I indicated above, this one isn’t for everyone. While there’s a clear narrative at work here, so much of THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE is the study of an idea. It’s a surreal investigation into the art of seduction and repulsion – of how love leads to hate and vice versa. All of the players do a solid job, but I suspect the ending will leave more folks conflicted than they are happy, which is probably just what the director wanted.

In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Lionsgate provided me with a DVD screener of THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE for the expressed purposes of completing this review.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm Quick Tip by RabidChihuahua

Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:55:13 +0000

Despite being less-known than the Batman movies directed by Tim Burton, Joel Shumacher, and Christopher Nolan, I think Batman: Mask of the Phantasm beats all of them (especially the Schumacher movies, which are needless to say, blights to cinema).

Being made by the same geniuses that created Batman: The Animated Series, all the strokes of genius in that show have carried over into this film. Just about everything in this movie is perfect, whether it be the story, characters, art direction, and animaton. Without spoiling anything, I'll say that the ending to this gave me a genuine feeling of sadness that wasn't at all forced.

Don't let the PG rating put an odd taste in your mouth, adult Batman fans can watch this without feeling like they're watching something made more with kids in mind (much like BTAS).

If you're a fan of Batman: The Animated Series or of gripping animation in general, then this is a must-watch movie.

Glitzy but forgettable

Fri, 1 Feb 2013 02:41:33 +0000

The London fog grounds several wealthy passengers who must spend the night in the airport. The unrelated stories involve a wife running off with her lover, a cheap movie mogul, a businessman on the brink of disaster, and an addled Duchess.

Typical of the star-studded movies of its time, this one is all style and no substance. The writing is straight out of a soap opera and Liz Taylor really wallows in the suds. Her star-power can't hide bad acting and her breathy, whiny voice and faux-British accent make the movie seem interminable. Richard Burton is a better actor, but he's still stuck with a predictable and ridiculously melodramatic storyline. The other vignettes serve no purpose except to fill the time, even though Margaret Rutherford won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar as the pill-popping aristocrat.

This is a dated, cliche-ridden film filled with flowery speeches and silly characters, although it is nice to return to the days when people dressed in their finest clothes to fly.

Tedious.

The cast features Orson Welles and Margaret Rutherford as well as Maggie Smith, Louis Jourdan, and Rod Taylor.

Out for Justice Quick Tip by RabidChihuahua

Sun, 20 Jan 2013 06:54:47 +0000

Even though I do have a soft spot for action movies from the late 80's and early 90's, Out for Justice is a boring, laughable movie. Hardly any tension and predictable to the hilt, and a prime example as to why Steven Seagal's career went down the toilet after his stardom faded out by the mid-late 90's.

Here's the best part of the movie, because of how unintentionally funny and one-sided the final fight is. There might as well have been Looney Tunes sound effects in this.

Underrated but good

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:38:02 +0000

I watched this movie last night at random, expecting little more than an over-revved thriller lacking substance and subtlety. I was surprised; this movie was good - complex, thought-provoking, disconcerting –, so much better than anticipated.

The plot follows one day in the lives of two men – Gavin Baneck, a young and successful New York attorney (played by Ben Affleck), and Doyle Gipson (superbly portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson), an insurance salesman and recovering alcoholic trying to salvage his relationship with his children and divorced wife. The two seemingly very different men are connected through a car accident which, though technically minor, has far-reaching consequences. What follows is an unraveling of identities as each man - driven by hurt, anger, and a need for control - attempts to one-up the other in an exchange of malicious pranks in which Baneck and Gipson both lose their hold of reason and ethical consideration. Each man confronts the other – but more significantly, each confronts and re-evaluates himself.

The direction of the movie is powerful. The artistic decision to frequently alternate between scenes depicting the two protagonists’ lives is especially clever. The differences between the two and the groups they represent are thus implied; viewers are invited to recognize that these men come from very different worlds. Each of these worlds, however, breeds its own debilitating pressures, its own crimes. Both men seek, and manage, to hurt in their own capacities. The movie thus simultaneously highlights sameness and difference between various groups – black and white, rich and poor –, providing a realistic portrayal of life that denies easy, stereotypical categorization.

The casting and acting - from primary to minor characters – greatly complement the realism of the movie. On the downside, I did find the music and script to be at times off or overdone. I also thought the movie lacked depth and nuance in its depiction of women and their experiences (though, arguably, given what the movie attempts to do, this was simply beyond its manageable scope). On the whole, the direction of the movie and performances given throughout were strong enough to outweigh the negatives I noted.

Aside from these, what I think Changing Lanes does so well is tell a story true to life. In its exploration of human nature, social order, relationships, and justice, it goes to some very dark places. I’ll admit, this movie frightened me at times in its profound bluntness. That said, there is a hopeful thread throughout: Baneck and Gipson are good men, although both seriously flawed: they are looking for love, stability, happiness, and meaning in a world, and in themselves, where these things are hard to find. Both men grow. True to life, Changing Lanes is a movie of both despair and hope.

To wrap up, I’m glad I watched this movie. It has caused me to think and that is something all good movies do. And so, here’s my recommendation: watch this movie. It’s underrated, but it’s good.

A childhood favorite that holds up pretty well. 66%

Tue, 25 Dec 2012 04:38:33 +0000

Since it's Christmas time, I think it's appropriate to review one of the most well-known staples in Christmas films, Home Alone. I loved this movie when I first saw it back in the very early 90's, and throughout my childhood, I related to Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) really well, being a “little brother” myself (and that at the time, I loved cheese pizza, just like Kevin). However, when my teenage and adult years came around, it was time to get more critical since logical thinking became more dominant in my mind.

STORY

The McCallister family is getting ready to fly from their Chicago home to Paris before Christmas. The night before the family leaves, Kevin gets into a fight over pizza with his older brother, Buzz (Devin Ratray). Kevin gets punished for instigating the fight and causing a big mess, and in a fit of anger, wishes that his family would disappear. After the power gets knocked out that night, the family is running late for their flight and forget about Kevin in the rush. All the while, a pair of burglars, Marv (Daniel Stern) and Harry (Joe Pesci), known as the Wet Bandits, have their eyes set on robbing Kevin's house.

CHARACTERS

While not perfect, I thought the characters were well done in this movie. While I'm not really a fan of Macaulay Culkin, I thought he was good as Kevin in this movie. Kevin is a believable kid, since he generally hits the “right spot” in between overly likeable and being an annoying little brat. He's generally a good but misunderstood kid, but can show signs of selfishness.

John Heard and Catherine O'Hara are good as Kevin's parents, Peter and Kate. They're shown as parents who seem to be a little cold towards Kevin, but deep down, they really do love and care about him.

The supporting cast was decent as Kevin's other family, and it's funny to think that Michael C. Maronna played one of Kevin's family members (Maronna would later become Big Pete in the classic Nickelodeon show The Adventures of Pete & Pete). Roberts Blossom is great as Marley Murphy, a man misunderstood as a bad guy, but turns out to be a good person.

Pesci and Stern are quite good as Harry and Marv. Unlike a lot of family comedies revolving around a kid outsmarting the bad guys, Marv and Harry are actually pretty convincing as burglars. They show to be menacing and believable in how they act before their “showdown” with Kevin. Despite being victims to Kevin's creative traps, they're shown to be a little smart and ruthless at times, and these don't feel forced.

HUMOR

The humor in this movie is quite solid. Of course, the funniest parts of this movie are when Marv and Harry try to break into Kevin's house, unsuspecting of Kevin's traps. Some of the funniest moments in this phase of the movie are when Marv accidentally steps on a bunch of Christmas ornaments with his bare feet, when he accidentally steps on a nail with bare feet, and when Kevin puts a tarantula on Marv's face, causing him to scream like a little girl.

Even before the phase of the movie where Kevin faces off against Marv and Harry, there's still some good humor to be found. Some examples are of the scenes where Kevin puts aftershave on his face, causing him to scream and when he goes to see a local Santa Clause, and you see this Santa smoking and ranting about getting a parking ticket.

LOGICAL FLAWS

I would have given this movie at least a percentage in the 70's, but after analyzing some of the logical fallacies in this movie, I had to bring the rating down a notch in order to give all of you a more fair and balanced review.

Some of the biggest logical flaws in this movie are when Kevin pranks the pizza guy into thinking someone is shooting at him and the other is when he sets up the traps in his house. The former in that it's pretty odd that the pizza guy didn't call the cops after the incident, though he might have been really scared to report it to anyone. The other in that Kevin sets up some pretty messy traps in the house, such as the tar-lined staircase in the basement. Did Kevin even think of how he could clean that up?

CINEMATOGRAPHY

The cinematography in this movie is splendid. Julio Macat captures lots of great imagery of winter suburban Chicago and even of Paris in some scenes. For a family-oriented Christmas film, these clean, pristine images are perfect.

SOUNDTRACK

John Williams's music for Home Alone is very good. Many of the instrumental compositions in this movie are almost Christmas time staples nowadays, and they stir up all the right emotions.

The choice of more “traditional” Christmas tunes wasn't bad, either. They sound good and fit the movie like a glove. I'm glad the Chipmunk Song wasn't used in this movie, as I HATE that song (though that's a different kettle of fish).

FINAL WORD

This is easily the best Home Alone movie in the whole series. While not mandatory viewing, Home Alone is a pleasant Christmas family film, and essentially John Hughes's last good contribution to cinema.

Home Alone (movie) Quick Tip by RabidChihuahua

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:32:41 +0000

Here it is, folks, the only good movie in the Home Alone series.

I initially loved this movie when I first saw it back in the very early 90's, and even after some more critical, analytical thought, it still holds up well. Despite some feelings of contrivance here and there (especially some logic issues, thus why I now rated it a 3 instead of an initial 4), the characters feel more believable and sincere compared to the second movie (and especially the third and fourth ones).

This movie is simultaneously touching and funny. I still get a great laugh when Kevin puts the tarantula on Marv's face and he screams like a girl. John Williams's soundtrack for this movie is also well done.

A pretty remarkable movie, and warm welcome in sci-fi. 84%

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 03:36:23 +0000

District 9 is one of those movies that I bought on DVD (though I soon upgraded to blu-ray) on a whim and wasn't burned by a bad movie. This was one of those times that I wish I watched the movie in theaters, and that when the hype behind a hit movie is largely justified.

STORY

In 1982, a giant alien ship grinds to a halt above Johannesburg, South Africa. The aliens are referred to negatively as “Prawns” for their scavenger-like personalities, and are treated like garbage by both the public and government. The Prawns are forced in a giant slum called District 9, and Multi-National United (MNU) is really interested in getting their hands on the Prawn weapons and engineering them for human use (Prawn weapons won't work on human hands since they're only made to work with Prawns). Wikus van de Merwe, an MNU manager, is putting up eviction notices for the Prawns into District 10, and comes into contact with Prawn fluid that'll turn him into a Prawn himself. He's being hunted down by the MNU and has to make a reluctant alliance with a Prawn named Christopher Johnson if he wants any chance to come back to normal.

CHARACTERS

For the most part, I thought the characters were done really well. Of course, the best character is Wikus (Sharlto Copley). In the beginning, you see him as a mild-mannered jerk (if that makes any sense), and doesn't really care about the Prawns (though he doesn't want Prawns getting killed by MNU troops). The neat part of Wikus is that his character becomes “more human” when his metamorphosis makes him less human, physically-speaking.

The only character that I would say is closer in line to being the more traditional “good guy” would be Christopher Johnson (Jason Cope). Out of the other human and Prawn characters, he's really the only one who doesn't want to fight, but is forced into combat against the MNU near the end of the movie.

The antagonists, such as Colonel Koobus Venter (David James) and Obesandjo (Eugene Khumbanyiwa), are good in their roles. Some may complain that Koobus and Obesandjo lack depth, since they're straight-up maniacs, but I think this works out in their favor since for the former, it would dilute the menacing feeling if he was written to have sympathetic moments. Koobus's menacing vibe is enhanced with his superb tactical skills when in combat, and while he's not going to rival the Terminator in terms of supervillains, he's quite effective as the cold, murderous maniac.

However, I wish that some characters, like Wikus's wife, Tania (Vanessa Haywood), would have been developed a little more.

THEMES/COMMENTARY

District 9 is noted for having quite a few things to say about humanity. As stated earlier, with Wikus, his physical transformation into a Prawn makes him more “human.” Also, this movie takes an interesting stand by showing the aliens in a more sympathetic light than the humans, thought I think the allegories relating to the Apartheid in South Africa are way too obvious. However, I think Neill Blomkamp did a better job at handling the way the humans and Prawns were handled than James Cameron did the humans and Navi in Avatar, since there was some nuance in the characters in D9 to make them more believable. I also applaud Blomkamp for pulling off his message without the use of making the Prawns look like eye candy (more on visuals later).

I also commend Blomkamp for not just portraying the big businesses (MNU) as evil to reflect the “evils of humanity,” but also shows it through the Nigerian warlords (headed by Obesandjo) taking advantage of and brutalizing the Prawns for their advanced weapons.

STORYTELLING

I thought the way D9 was told was pretty interesting, as it's not everyday that you see a sci-fi film with pretty strong action scenes told as a documentary in the beginning and end like one. I thought Blomkamp handled the fusion of documentary-styled film and traditional film well, since I thought the transitions were smooth.

SOUNDTRACK

Clinton Shorter's music for this movie wasn't bad, though I wouldn't put in the same league of the soundtracks in movies like Blade Runner, The Terminator, or Total Recall. However, I'll say that Shorter captured the mood of the gritty settings really well with tribal chanting and other musical elements very fitting to the geographical setting.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Trent Opaloch's cinematography for District 9 is quite good. The cinematography perfectly captures the gritty and violent atmosphere of the Prawns' lives, and I think the idea of it taking place in South Africa is a neat decision, since it's not everyday that you get a sci-fi movie taking place in this part of the world.

APPEARANCE

What really struck me in a positive way is the look of the Prawn technology, especially their weapons. I love how they don't look like totally outlandish guns more akin to a fantasy story in space, but look more like our weapons with a strong “alien” visual aesthetic to them. This also makes them look pretty nasty compared to other alien weapons in sci-fi (such as the Covenant weapons in the Halo games).

The MNU's personnel and equipment were made perfectly in this movie, since they're a potent military force that also reflects the fact that they're a private military entity. This is reflected in the fact that the personnel have a more “casual” look to them than official military personnel and that they don't have access to really powerful weapons like tanks and gunships.

The looks of the Nigerian warlords were done really well for the movie as well. They're shown as more “rag-tag” through their dilapidated vehicles and dwellings.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

The special effects done by Weta Workshop are marvelous. The movie combines “traditional” special effects with CGI, and you hardly even notice that the effects are, well, effects. The mutations on Wikus's body are very convincing (these were make-up effects), and the same can be said with how the Prawns look (the Prawns were made by CGI). I think it's funny that despite the very convincing effects in the movie, the pricetag for them was drastically lower than what was needed to make everything in Avatar.

ACTION SCENES

Despite the fact that District 9 is often labeled as an “action” movie along with its sci-fi tag, there really isn't that much action that goes on. However, the action that does take place is done very well. The movie decides to build up to the action near the end, which I thought was a good thing since it gave them more power.

I thought the scene where Wikus and Christopher storm the MNU building was awesome, as it showed the two armed with Prawn weapons and dishing out some unique deaths to the MNU mercenaries in the building (such as the arc gun making its targets blow up in a shower of blood).

The final action scene near the end was pretty amazing. The MNU and the Nigerian warlords are after Wikus, and donning a Prawn combat exosuit, dishes out some awesome damage against the enemies. The exosuit even uses a magnetic force to collect all the incoming bullets and uses them as lethal projectiles against those trying to harm Wikus, and even fires a mini bomb into someone's head. In one scene, he uses the suit's graviton device to pick up a pig and uses it as a projectile against an MNU mercenary. That scene was one of the most unintentionally funny things I've ever seen. I wish this Prawn exosuit was real, because I'd like to have this thing for home security.

MATURE CONTENT

This is not a movie for the kids since there's a good deal of gore and bad language throughout. There's scenes with both humans and Prawns getting dismembered, blown up, and shot at with plenty of bloodshed. One of the hardest to watch was actually against a Prawn, since MNU scientists start conducting experiments on Wikus's abilities to interact with Prawn weapons, and Wikus is forced into killing a Prawn with one of the guns (which is highlighted by Wikus begging to shoot at the pig carcasses instead).

FINAL WORD

While I wouldn't say that this is quite in the same league of movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien, or Total Recall, this was a really solid sci-fi movie. In terms of sci-fi movies that came out in 2009, this runs rings around Avatar since it had much better character development and storytelling, not to mention better action scenes. I strongly suggest you at least rent this.

Come with me if you want to live!! 95%

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:44:49 +0000

The Terminator has been one of those movies that I've been a fan of since the 90's, and it seems like with age, you end up loving it even more. With Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies, I consider this among his absolute best, second only to the mighty Total Recall.

It's also interesting to note that if you ask around a lot of Terminator fans, most will tell you that Terminator 2: Judgment Day is their favorite movie. If you would have asked me this question about 10-15 years ago, I would have concurred with the consensus on this. However, after some deeper thought about the two movies, I now consider the first Terminator my favorite because compared to the sequel, the first Terminator movie has a much stronger sense of tension and urgency.

STORY

In the relatively distant future (2029), a nuclear war has wiped out most of humanity. However, armies of anthropomorphic machines and cyborgs are dead-set on eliminating the survivors. The genocidal machines send a Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to Los Angeles circa 1984 to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), the mother of human resistance leader, John Connor. The human resistance sends a resistance fighter named Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) to infiltrate the Terminator and save Sarah.

CHARACTERS

What makes this movie such a great one is the characters. Sarah steals the show since she's very easy to relate to, since she feels like a real person. When she's faced with impending death by the Terminator, she understandably acts scared as hell and when she meets Kyle Reese, she initially thinks he's a maniac, even when he saves her from the Terminator at the Tech Noir club. Kyle is great as the "hero" of the movie because much like what John McClane would help establish in the mighty Die Hard several years after this movie, he's not unstoppable and is faced with grave danger that forces him to act creatively. He knows that the Terminator is much stronger than him, and in the beginning, is even doubtful that he can destroy it since he's restricted from the high-tech weapons he had in the future, and is forced to fight with sawed off shotguns and homemade pipe bombs.

Arnie did a great job as the Terminator. The Terminator lives up to his name, and is one terrifying entity that could easily make him among the best antagonists in film in the last thirty years. He has no emotion, can't feel pain, and is virtually unstoppable. It's also really menacing to see him murder people, especially unarmed women.

STORYTELLING

One of the things that really helps out this movie is how James Cameron has the story told. Through some scenes of exposition, such as when Kyle has to explain to Sarah what cyborgs are and what his life in the future was like, they didn't feel like the "designated spots" where exposition is done. Especially with Kyle explaining to Sarah what cyborgs are, he does so in a really cautious and quiet manner, since he knows that the Terminator is looking for him.

The logic behind time travel is not only established well, but like any good movie, the story and characters actually follow through that logic. An example would be with time travel. Only organic masses can travel through time, thus why the Terminator and Kyle arrive naked when they come into LA circa 1984, and when Kyle explains to a police psychiatrist why he couldn't bring back any advanced weaponry back to the past.

ACTION SCENES

With this movie being a sci-fi action/thriller entry, the action movies are top-notch.

Since the characters are developed well, these make the action scenes that much more tense. Among the best scenes in this has to be when the Terminator enters the Tech Noir club and finds Sarah Connor. You see Kyle emerge and fire many shotgun shells into the cyborg and it doesn't stop him. Also, this scene helps establish how much of a cold, ugly entity the Terminator is when he ends up gunning down a few people at the club during the firefight.

Let's not forget the iconic scene where the Terminator assaults the police station Kyle and Sarah are kept in. This scene marks how terrifying the Terminator is since not even over two dozen armed police officers could stop him, and shows how creative Kyle is when he's faced with danger and isn't in a position to fight.

The action scenes also show Sarah and Kyle as vulnerable characters, which make you root for them even harder as the movie runs. Kyle gets shot a few times and towards the end, gets worn down from all the combat to where Sarah has to push him into "snapping back into it."

The chase scene near the end also enhances the Terminator's characteristic of being unstoppable and of Kyle's creativity, since the Terminator survives a head-on collision with an 18-wheel tanker truck and Kyle has to see if one pipe bomb can stop a cyborg driving a tanker truck.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Adam Greenberg's cinematography for this was perfect. The shots of at the time current day Los Angeles look gritty and claustrophobic, helping to enhance the feeling of dread and tension in this movie. I thought it was perfect to have the final fight take place in a factory loaded with robotic assembly machines, helping to further the feeling of industrialized, metallic terror.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

While some special effects have shown their age (such as the walking Terminator skeleton near the end and of the Terminator's face when one of his eyes are damaged), other effects still look good today. I though one of the best-looking effects in that movie is when the Terminator does some self-surgery on his arm after getting in gun battles with Kyle, and you see the inner workings of his cyborg arm. This was simultaneously gross and impressive to look at. Even with the effects that could have aged better, the special effects overall help the movie greatly than harm it.

SOUNDTRACK

Brad Fiedel's soundtrack for this movie is one of the best I've ever heard in cinema, whether it be live-action or animated. Some may complain that the music is "dated," but I think it matches the tone and style of the movie perfectly. Most of the music on here is made from keyboard synthesizers, and all of it is instrumental. The soundtrack perfectly shows that a genius with minimal resources can make something brilliant. The mechanized, metallic beats and dread-laden synth-layers are superb, especially in the scenes where Kyle has a flashback to when he fought giant war machines and automated gunships and during the end fight in the factory.

MATURE CONTENT

This is not a movie for the kids, since there's quite a few scenes in the beginning with male nudity, some scenes of nasty gore, and a tastefully-done sex scene between Kyle and Sarah.

FINAL WORD

The Terminator is easily among James Cameron's brightest jewels in his filmography. If you don't have this movie in your collection yet, get it now.

Shaolin (film) Quick Tip by FM_ALEX

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:57:00 +0000

In the end I would say that this film is an epic but falls just a little short of classic status in my opinion. But who knows time may be a good thing for this film as it is already good. I may change my mind years from now and in fact you may disagree and label it classic now. It all depends on the person I guess. What I will say now is I really do like this film and think it is very good, and may be Benny Chan's best.

TAKE A LITTLE TRIP TO SHAOLIN

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:56:43 +0000

SHAOLIN

It is no secret that I am a huge Martial arts fan, from being an actual practitioner all the way to movies and such. Now any martial arts fan out there knows of Shaolin I am sure, from the actual history to the films in which this place and its people are portrayed. This is another in a list of films dedicated to the destruction of one of the temples. There have been many before this and I am sure there are more to come. Most people know of the old school ones back in the day and even one that came a little later that gave us a young Jet Li. The Li film is what this one is loosely based on from what I can tell. Also it should be noted that the actual Shaolin Monastery supported this film.

Set during the Warlord Era of China in the 1900's the film tells the story of General Hou [Andy Lau] a warlord who wants more [don't they all]. We start with Hou entering the Shaolin Temple chasing down a rival warlord and despite the Monks pleas to leave the man be and show mercy he murders the man inside the Temple walls. In an effort to seize control of more power an assassination attempt on a warlord named Song Hu goes wrong when Hou's second in command Cao Man [Nicholas Tse] betrays him. While trying to escape Hou's daughter becomes fatally injured. In a desperate attempt to save her he takes her to the very Monks he disrespected at the Shaolin Monastery. While they do try to save her it is for nothing as she is too far gone his wife blames him for this and leaves him, he has lost everything. While he is full of anger and has lead a life contradictory to that of the Monks he is given sanctuary there. But his past may still catch up with him as Cao Man will not rest until he is dead.

For those who don't know this film was directed by Benny Chan and I have to say that this may very well be his best film. Chan has been know as more of a style or action driven type director, but here he really comes through with the dramatic elements as well. But much like Woopak said it helps when you have actors who can help carry the film. Andy Lau is our lead and he does an excellent job here. He is believable as the power hungry warlord and as the changing man looking for peace after losing everything.

Fan Bingbing is great as well as Hou's wife and it shows especially in scenes in which she blames her husband for their daughter's death. I really enjoyed Nicholas Tse here though as the lead villain after turning on Hou. He plays a very ruthless character that goes for what he wants at all costs. Then of course there is Jackie Chan who I am sure a lot of people will see this for him. Chan is great here as well in a supporting role playing a cook at the temple. His character has a lot to do with Hou coming to terms with what has happened, a good light dramatic role for Chan.

Then of course there are the action and fight scenes here and I have to say that the film excels in that department. When the action hits in this film it really hits and is very exciting, from straight action as in things going boom and guns being discharged all the way to the fights. Any martial arts fan will enjoy the fight scenes in this flick although sometimes the wire work is a little too obvious. Still there is nothing like good martial arts being displayed and it is here. The last part of the film in particular will please any action fan in my opinion.

Now not everything is great here but even the things I am about to mention don't take too much away from the film. Chan is really proving himself with this film but sometimes the direction seems a bit off. Some things are not fully explored to the fullest [I do understand this though since the film is already 2 + hours] like the Monks who pull "Iron Monkey" duties in stealing rice and such and giving them out to the poor town's people. It shows why they do it and why they stop since they are punished for stealing since it goes against their ways. But I felt like a little more from them would have been fun. Also the wire work is always fun and great to look at but in a film that is mostly based in reality sometimes the wire work seems out of place.

In the end I would say that this film is an epic but falls just a little short of classic status in my opinion. But who knows time may be a good thing for this film as it is already good. I may change my mind years from now and in fact you may disagree and label it classic now. It all depends on the person I guess. What I will say now is I really do like this film and think it is very good, and may be Benny Chan's best.

Belly of the Beast (movie) Quick Tip by FM_ALEX

Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:17:43 +0000

I was pleasantly surprised with this film, it had the action of course, with fight scenes and things going BOOM. But it was the story line and some of the performances that made this movie good.

GOOD FILM WITH SEAGAL

Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:17:23 +0000

BELLY OF THE BEAST

I found this dvd in the pawn shop the one day for 2 dollars and decided to get it since I enjoy pointless action films. As another one of the straight to dvd movies from Segal I figured this would be like most straight to video action films, not that great. But I was pleasantly surprised with this film, it had the action of course, with fight scenes and things going BOOM. But it was the story line and some of the performances that made this movie good.

The story is as follows, Jake Hopper is a former C.I.A. agent who just happens to have a daughter that is friends with a senator's daughter. The two girls head off on vacation to Thailand with their boyfriends and get kidnapped by a terrorist group. Well as you can guess Segal [even in old age] heads into battle with the group, the local police force, and even his own old friends.

Director Ching Siu Tung did a pretty good job with this film, and along with Cinematographer Danny Novak made this film look good. Along with six producers, one of which being Avi Lerner, and writer James Townsend they all put together a really enjoyable movie. Is it a great film on the classic level, no, but it is good enough to just chill one day and watch. I recommend owning it, it is a pretty good flick.

Meh, even as an action fan it didn't hit with me.

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:22:35 +0000

Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) leads a group of heavily armed and well skilled mercenaries. They normally tackle tough hitman jobs that sane people wouldn't even give a thought on taking up. They complete a mission in Somalia and return to the states with a new mission waiting for them. -summary

Assembling some of the hottest action movie stars from the 80's on to the 2000's for one big explosive, adrenaline pumping extravaganza sounds like a great idea in theory. To be honest, I was sold on the very mention of it when I first heard of The Expendables directed and co-written by Sylvester Stallone. I actually had hope for the movie since the guy's career had been made on these type of movies. After finishing this flick, all I saw was missed opportunities and some very choppy action with weak CGI special effects to go along with it. The story and plot really wasn't much better, and I just have to wonder had this movie been directed by Uwe Boll would it have the same following. For some reason I kind of doubt it, because it's cool to rip Boll and not cool to tear apart this poor man's A-Team made up of accomplished action stars. And lets be honest here.... This really isn't too far above sir Uwe's standards.

Well, since everyone says you watch this movie for the action and damn the plot, let's talk about the action. While there is a large amount of fire fights and high speed car chases; I found the editing and sped up direction when called for to be very distracting at times. Jet Li is a very entertaining martial artist, and you don't get enough of his moves list here at all. There are far too many flashes of blows and shifts in the action for me to really enjoy much. The gun battles were unimaginative for the most part, and the digitized gore was too fake looking. Rambo used this same stylish approach, but it actually looked better there while it felt like Stallone was trying to play it safe here, and for me it just didn't really work.

I know people don't want you to pay attention or talk about the plot (because it sucks and they don't want you to know that), but it's part of the movie so here goes. Barnes receives a mission from Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) to lead an attack against a dictator in a South American country. This leads him to meet a brave patriotic woman named Sandra (Giselle Itie), and he's forced to leave her behind when his recon mission goes up in smoke. I really began to lose interest in the plot when the focus shifted to a woman because you knew where this was headed. There's nothing the least bit clever or suspenseful here. The plot twist and even bad guy deaths can be seen from a mile away.

The movie was just boring all around for me; the cameos within cameos failed to register, characters were stale, dialog missed more than it hit, and it's pretentious message pushed through Mickey Rourke felt forced. And that's another thing, Rourke delivered a solid acting performance. What is good acting doing in this movie? Stone Cold Steve Austin and Randy Couture are in it. There isn't suppose to be good acting in this.

The Expendables does have its little cool moments involving Jason Statham, the macho man syndrome is through the roof, and it does have that 80's action movie nostalgia feel; but due to the bad special effects, choreography, and complete lack of imagination, the Expendables is a great idea gone wrong. Also, shame on you John Rambo for swiping from Dogs of War starring Christopher Walken, which is a far superior film by the way.

Pros:
-Assembles an interesting cast of stars

Cons:
-Very bad use of CGI and editing

Cool as Ice Quick Tip by RabidChihuahua

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:27:48 +0000

Here's another long-lost relic of the early 90's that I hope stays dead.

This movie exists only for Vanilla Ice to flaunt his ego and torment the audience with his "rapping skills" (or more realistically, lack thereof). Combine that with bad acting, a piss-poor storyline, and redundant appearances from Naomi Campbell (yuck), and you got yourself a bonafied slab of cinematic shit.

As horrible as this is, I think we can all take in a certain comfort knowing that Vanilla Ice will never make another movie again.

Zombie dine out sessions on Delta Airlines! News at 12!

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:28:46 +0000

A 747 Jumbo Jet carries a dangerous cargo together with its passengers. Dr. Bennett(Erick Avari) along with his associates are carrying a virus that reanimates the dead. Soon, an accident occurs, when a woman who happens to be the test subject for the virus breaks loose. Together with her first victims, they begin to attack the passenagers and spread the infection.-summary

Now lets get straight to the point. This is an all out battle/chompfest involving the living dead, nothing more and nothing less. There's more taking place to give the film a solid story, but don't come into this expecting an intellectual, Romero-ish social commentary. The only thing social going on, is the living dead forcing the living to stay over for dinner... or should I say as dinner.

I was very interested in seeing this film when I first heard of it. When I thought about a zombie outbreak on an airplane, my curiousity was indeed aroused, yet I was very concerned. Curious because I thought, "hey it's on a plane, there's no escape". Then I also thought, "but how big can a plane be on the inside?". Both my curiosity and concern was laid to rest after I saw how it was pulled off. Flight of the Living Dead directed by Scott Thomas is pretty low budget, but it delivers by being a fun ride, with some added cheese for good measure. Thomas knew he didn't have much to work with here and it shows, but he stuck to his cool dance moves once he found his groove.

The film spends about the first quarter introducing all of the characters. Most notably are the two heroes, Truman(David Chisum) who happens to be a cop sharing handcuffs with his prisoner Frank(Kevin J. O' Conner) and Paul Judd(Richard Tyson) a US Air Marshall. Truman and Paul spend a great deal gunning down the zombies, until a twist soon comes into play. Most of the cast are nothing more than bodies to be decimated or completely devoured.

The action and gore is where it's at. Those searching mainly for zombies and humans offing each other may not be disappointed. There are numerous zombie dine out sessions, I mean non stop total chaos. Zombies chasing passengers through the plane, tearing off legs, crawling through the vents with an arm in their mouth. Some real good stuff, and I can tell Thomas had fun with this one.

Things take a turn for the worst concerning our heroes and survivors. The government happened to piece together Dr. Bennett's true intentions with the virus. Eventually, they come up with a plan to try and contain it. I'll just say things aren't looking too good for our friends in battle.

There are flaws to the film, such as too much filler in the beginning and sub par acting. Most of the characters are uninteresting, mainly because they're mere plot devices. However, they're very well used for the most part. The annoying ones become zombies, and they eliminate the other annoying ones. You can't really ask for more. The gore can be bad or good depending on how a viewer feels about CGI. I enjoyed it somewhat, but personally, I feel all horror should go without it. Especially, when I see a zombie film with zombies taking big nibbles out of their prey. I want it to look as bloody real as possible. The BGM is nothing really special, but it does effectively carry the fast paced action, and before I noticed, the credits were rolling.

Flight of the Living Dead doesn't feel like a horror film to me at all. I would go so far to say it never intended to be one. To me, this is a no holds barred action movie. You get it all, lots of shoot outs, cheesy hero lines, and a cheese ball ending to cap it all off. If this sounds like your thing, then give it a shot. If you can get pass the possibility this isn't pure horror, instead, it's just another mindless action movie. Then you just might enjoy it for what it is. The movie has an 89 minute run time.

Pros:
-Some gory moments, non stop zombie mayhem but...

Cons
-:...takes too long to get there, annoying CGI, not scary

It really looks like this franchise has been canned after this. Yay!

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:09:56 +0000

After a brief transaction goes berserk, which leaves a canister of Trioxyn 5 empty. Two Interpol agents are on a mission to retrieve the remaining canisters. Trioxyn-5 is a deadly chemical that turns the living into zombies, plus re-animates the dead into zombies craving human brains. The agents trace them to Julian Garrison(John Keefe), who is the nephew of Charles Garrison(Peter Coyote)

Julian finds the canisters hidden, with no clue on the canisters content. He contacts his friend Cody(Cory Hardrict) to examine one. After one of his friends taste test the chemical. He receives a buzz like no other. They soon decide to sell the chemical on their college campus as a drug called Z. Many hits are sold days before a rave, which is about to take place. During this time, many students become zombies and start to devour others. While more are on their way to becoming zombies in time for the party -summary.

Well here we go. The fifth and hopefully final installment to the Return of the Living Dead franchise, Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave or ROTLD 5. I have to admit, that it really hasn't been a fun ride for yours truly. Just as its predecessor, ROTLD 5 directed by Ellory Elkayen seems to revel in its sheer stupidity and loving it the entire time.

I couldn't help but laugh in a mocking way at the very beginning of this shlockfest. The writers practically copied and pasted the opening act from the last movie to start off this one. As a matter of fact, there were other reused scenes, and they were very easy to predict. I know it's hard to be original, but these people hit a new low. This is a fine example of creative laziness.

ROTLD 5 surprisingly, isn't completely horrible but it's very close. When the zombie mayhem finally does begin. It never really stops and there's a bit of fun to be found. The gore scenes are decent and the final act was put together rather well. I think it was a clever idea to utilize the chemical in the form of a drug. College students and teens were a great choice to drive this story element. Mainly because the pop culture crew is so quick to go along with whatever is cool, but I think a director with talent should have filmed this one.

This sequel takes place about a year later and the survivors reprise their roles. The zombie outbreak almost appears new to them, which means this movie is a stand alone story. The thing I find bizarre, is that those who panned this movie, also used the lack of continuity as a reason to label it as trash. However, these same individuals give the second movie a free pass for using the same concept as well. Despite it being just as ridiculous, to include, the second movie brought back characters who clearly died in the original. This movie is incredibly flawed and its issues are in your face. Therefore, I think it's absurd to dig for additional reasons to slam it.

The characters of course, are annoyingly stupid beyond belief and they compliment the movie well, but I still can't stand them. The two Interpol agents are suppose to be the comedy relief, but they're about as funny as tricking your best friend into drinking Clorox with tragic results. At least most of the characters die, so smiley faces all around.

This time the movie has a pretty solid soundtrack made up of techno, which really carries the personality of the movie, and is the only effective element you will find here. There's a good amount of female nudity to go with it. You just can't leave home without it. Also, in relation to its predecessor, this is an action movie with zombies in it. ROTLD 5 is very far away from horror. There is no suspense, no atmosphere or tension. Things just happen to continue pushing the thin as needles plot. The acting is very shallow as well with absolutely no standouts in a good way. This especially means the agents with their fake Russian accents.

ROTLD 5 does not help the franchise in any way shape or form. As far as I'm concerned, this series was dead and buried after the 1985 original, and this only continues to bury the franchise. I really hope they finally put a fork in this series. But in all honesty, being the zombie lover that I am; I will definitely waste my time, money, and self respect on another sequel if there is one. No matter how bad I hear it is. I saw these last two sequels with everybody telling me they're terrible. I will only skip the sequel if it's directed by Uwe Boll or those two dickheads behind Edges of Darkness. I love the zombie genre, but not that much. I recommend this sequel only to hardcore zombie fans, fans of the franchise, and fans of very bad movies.

Pros:
-Nice concept, humans and zombies killing each other, annoying and stupid characters die!

Cons:
-Rehashing scenes, stupid characters in very large doses, not funny, horrible practically all around

It makes my skin crawl knowing there's worse!

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:01:39 +0000

After a brief transaction goes berserk. Charles Garrison(Peter Coyote), a scientist for a high tech company named Hybra-Tech acquires the last canisters of Trioxyn-5. This is a deadly chemical that not only kills people, but also re-animates them, plus the already dead into zombies; turning them into blood thirsty creatures craving human brains.

When a motorcycle accident leaves high school student Zeke(Elvin Dundel) unconscious. He's taken away in an ambulance and supposedly brought to a hospital. Later, he's being seen on a stretcher heading into the Hybra-Tech company building. His high school friends, who are led by Julian(John Keefe) attempt to rescue him.-summary

Sequels... Without them life itself would be impossible. Folks like myself would quickly run out of things to use for verbal target practice, when hurling those virtual rocks at these abominations trying to pass for entertainment. Also, there would be a shortage on coasters. Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis directed by Ellory Elkayen, is the fourth installment in the Return Of The Living Dead(ROTLD) franchise, and suprisingly, it's not as close to the bottom of the barrel, like some folks would have you believe. Still, it's definitely a rotten movie.

Outside of cerebral cannibalism, this sequel has nothing to do with the previous entries which is not a bad thing. Therefore, one can come into this without seeing any of the earlier movies. However, the writers do play on a big zombie attack once occurring. Since a past outbreak has been made public, with the Hybra company once dealing with it.

After the 1985 original, I have been very disappointed in this franchise, with part 2 still being the worst. I hate that movie so much I'm never going to review it. When taking that under consideration, I set my expectations very low coming into this one, so I wasn't too shocked with its sheer stupidity. Once the movie hit the half way point. The plot became worse every five minutes with several plot holes here and there.

ROTLD 4 is not a horror movie at all. It's an action movie with zombies in it. Kind of similar to Flight of the Living Dead. However, unlike FOTLD, which was mindless fun that never really became stupid. This movie seems to revel in its stupidity.

This is not a movie to be taken serious, but I still found it hard to sit through as time went on. To the movies credit, I will admit the plot in the first half was given some thought. Most of the events that took place seemed pretty realistic, and the characters actually had a logical purpose to storm the company. It wasn't the typical brainless teens who were searching for a place to get high and get laid. However, on one occasion, this movie felt too much like a dark version of Scooby-Doo.

The action started out with a spark, and delivered good amounts of zombie chomp sessions, plus heads being blasted. The gore has a few decent moments. One of the major things my zombie films must have, are plenty of scenes involving zombies and humans, with both sides locked in violent battle killing each other viciously. ROTLD 4 gave me that for awhile, and I was mildly satisfied. Things also became slightly interesting when the humans ran out of ammo, and began brawling with the living dead, as if this was a twisted version of Streets of Rage or something.

As time began to pass, the movie became so ridiculous and nonsensical to the point where my enjoyment suffered. One must witness the idiocy for themselves, therefore, I will avoid major spoilers. One particular event right before the end ruined the movie completely for me. This is when it joined my personal list, of films, tv shows, and ppvs, that I would never watch again, no matter what mind-altering influence I could possibly be under.

Since ROTLD 4 is a mindless action movie; it's best to forget all about atmosphere, tension, suspense, and scares. Instead, prepare yourself for pathetic acting, insipid dialogue, plot holes, and cheesy characters. This is a movie that's best to be skipped. I recommend it only to hardcore zombie fans, and also to those who love to watch bad movies.

Pros:
-Zombies and humans killing each other

Cons:
-A plot that only moves in one direction. Take a guess where

A South Korean Horror Film That Loses Little "Face"....

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:32:38 +0000

FACE (2004) is a South Korean thriller directed by Sang Gon Yoo, the same man who directed the Korean erotic drama "Yellow Flower". Equal parts ghost story and equal parts murder mystery with a touch of forbidden romance; the film is quite ambitious. However, the problems with the movie weren't all about its script, it also lacked coherency.

Lee Hyun-Min (Shin Hyeon Jun) is a sculptor but not your usual artist. He is the kind who assists the police to reconstruct skulls in order to recreate a "face". Hyun-Min's daughter is just recovering from a heart transplant and Hyun-Min needs to take a sabbatical. Unfortunately, a serial killer is on the loose and he has a very distinct way of eliminating the bodies that will require his expertise. Aided by a beautiful aspiring facial reconstructive sculptor; Jun Sun-Young (Sung Yu-ah), what he stumbles upon is something more sinister than he could have imagined--that involves human organs and the supernatural.

The film is full of atmosphere and it exudes creepiness. Of course, the long-haired ghost makes an appearance, and those scenes are quite creepy in its own way. The usual formulas are present as the ghost gives the main character the feeling of dread. The appearances of the ghost were puzzling and at the same time it arouses my curiosity enough to see just where everything is headed. However, this is not your typical ghost movie and the film does attempt to find its "heart". The film is also a murder mystery and it focuses more on this premise rather than the ghost itself. Most of its proceedings involve investigation and the scares are there only to provide some reminder of the supernatural's presence.

The problems with "FACE" is that it seemed to have pitched too many ideas with potential but it ended up not developing each one with credibility. The visions experienced by Hyun-Min's child has so severely underdeveloped that it seemed like a cheap way to induce the usual scares. True, it may make some sense in the climax but it somehow didn't add anything more to the film's pace. Also, the film may have showed its hand too soon. I would have preferred its `shock value' to be revealed perhaps after everything has slowed down. The direction was competent enough but it just didn't play its `aces' well.

The film is also decently acted as Shin Hyeon-Jun is by no means a slouch in his performance. The man has done comedies (Guns and Talks) and action epics (Bichunmoo); now he tries his hand at horror. He does a decent performance despite that he has so little to work with, he was rather convincing as the single father of an ailing child. Pretty Song Yu-Ah is the most intriguing character in the film. She is lovely, smart and exudes that "girl next door look". The blossoming feelings that start to surface between the two isn't surprising; this is a Korean film so expect the a "bittersweet" resolution to all of this.

"Face" is a decent horror movie from South Korea. The plot does have some holes when you nit-pick each one and its direction needed to be more coherent and solid. There were times that I felt that the script was just running all over the place. The supposed `shocking' revelation lost some of its effect because it showed its hand too soon that it felt like a throw-away detail. I was rather disappointed that the direction didn't play all its cards right. On a film like this, timing is everything. On the plus side, the film is quite touching in its own way and plays its theme of love and devotion successfully. The film isn't really that bad but thankfully it wasn't a lot worse.

Recommended with caution, Rent it first. [3 Out of 5 Stars]
This review was originally posted in amazon on July, 2008

Deep Red Quick Tip by Madpenguin

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:13:52 +0000

I remember this being a very well done giallo, quite possibly Argento's best. He told a very good whodunit story that will keep most, if not all viewers completely in the dark until the end; with it's genuine creepy moments and suspense, the film makes up for its very slow pace and will more than likely appeal to real horror fans, whom understands that horror is not just clowns from outer space or some other silly shit out there.

Land of the Dead Quick Tip by Madpenguin

Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:06:43 +0000

Completely deadful. This is probably the worst in Romero's zombie series. The only thing this movie had going it for was the gore. I actually rooted for the zombies here, especially against that idiot on the skateboard. I didn't think it was possible for Romero to create characters like this. The praise Romero's dead movies recieve after Day of the Dead drives me insane.

WITCH!

Sun, 7 Oct 2012 01:27:41 +0000

**** out of ****

What is a nightmare but a string of unexplainable, sometimes unrelated events that awaken the most negative of emotions from within us whilst we are not actually, in fact, awake? Nightmares are often scary because they are overwhelming to the senses when we recall them; unexplainable, illogical, and wholly unpredictable. If this is what a nightmare truly is, then Dario Argento's "Suspiria" is a nightmare caught on celluloid. But then again, so were most of the better films that defined the Italian "Giallo" genre; a horror sub-genre devoted to colorful, hyper-violent and stylized pictures that had an appeal with those movie-goers seeking complete sensory overload. Argento's film is not only one of the most influential and important of its genre, but also one of the most frightening. It utilizes the dream logic that distinguishes most Giallos from contemporary horror fare to full effect.

Suzy Banyon (Jessica Harper), a ballet student, has recently been accepted into the prestigious Black Forrest Academy for Dance in Munich, Germany. She takes the taxi from the airport to the academy building but a woman inside shoos her away after another girl, obviously hysteric and muttering to herself nonsensical words, runs far into the woods, into the night. Suzy spends the night in town. The girl who ran off does likewise. On that same night, she is attacked by a force that goes unseen accept for a very hairy arm, which is used to drive a knife into her chest repeatedly, until finally she comes crashing through a glass ceiling hanging by a noose, which chokes her to death. The girl's friend is also killed.

Suzy receives word of this when she finally gets into the academy the following morning. It's then that she meets Madame Blanc (Joan Bennett) and Miss Tanner (Alida Valli) as well as some fellow students of dance, one of whom - a girl named Sarah - Suzy shall be staying with until her room inside the main building is ready. Night and day, strange things begin to happen; although mostly exclusive to the cold, cold night. During the day, the academy's cook (who looks strangely like Timothy Spall in drag) gives off strange and creepy vibes; whilst come night, there's a maggot infestation and odd noises are heard faintly in the dark. Suzy, along with a friend that she has recently acquired named Sarah, is just curiously crazy enough to want to see if everything is quite alright with these people who run the place.

Footsteps are heard at night going in the opposite direction of the school's entry (which would also be its exit). It's no secret what the big reveal is, so I might as well just go ahead (cover your ears, "Suspiria" virgins); the teachers at the school are in a coven of witches headed by the ugly-as-all-fuck Helena Markos. I won't spoil their intentions, because even those aren't entirely clear at first glance, but it's pretty obvious that they'll stop at nothing to get what they want, even if that means killing anyone who dares go down the rabbit hole that leads to the school's worst-kept-secret. It all ends with one of the most bat-shit insane finales...probably ever.

Critics of the Giallo sub-genre have noted that pretty much all of the films involved in it - even the most important ones - are classic cases of style over substance. As always, I really can't argue against that; "Suspiria", like the rest, abandons most logic and deep characterization in favor of its mood, atmosphere, and absolute unease. But that really does contribute to the nightmarish nature of the film; it doesn't really make complete sense half of the time, but it's more frightening that way. I'm generally more scared of those things that I can't explain; of which there just aren't enough in horror films these days. "Suspiria" can be viewed as an adult fairy tale; it's grotesque and violent enough to make the squeamish, well, squeamish - but it's also so colorful and vibrant. Suzy is basically on her own; these weird and terrible things are happening all around her, yet there are no authority figures to make her job easier. She must resort to her own wits like a good many Argento female characters before and after her.

I'm in love with the artistic design of the film. It's arguably the best part about it aside from the fairy tale like quality that I mentioned earlier, which I also adore. "Suspiria" has the single best use of elaborate lighting and colors I've seen out of any horror film ever made. Nearly every scene has something visually interesting going for it; be it the architecture, the unnatural shades of red in the blood, or the way that Argento makes something look with his crazy camera angles. This is horror as art. No other film, save for the thematic sequel, also directed by Argento, titled "Inferno", has come close to matching this one in sheer artistry. It's a cinematic experience meant to be shared and cherished, just not by the squeamish. I guess that makes it kind of unconventional in the eyes of many.

"Suspiria" is one of the most distinctive, energetic, artistic, and just-plain-scary horror films I've ever seen. It's absolutely masterful in its craft, as long as one accepts it for the surrealistic slice of nightmare fuel that it intends to be; in that sense, this is what they (being nightmares) are made of. The haunting score by prog-rock masters Goblin helps to make the most creative and gruesome of kills all the more creative and gruesome, and the creepiest scenes all the more creepy. To me, this is what a horror film should be. It should exist on its own, in its own world, as a work of art; like a painting done by some fucked up child of great intellect. Argento's early films demonstrate what happens when you let a brilliantly mad mind run amuck with a film camera. This is seriously brilliant stuff. The posters don't lie. Most people will not be sleeping having just viewed "Suspiria".

Not quite Hollywood.

Sun, 7 Oct 2012 01:18:50 +0000

**** out of ****

After one has seen David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive", the word "Silencio" has become one of the most haunting words in cinema since those spoken by Marlon Brando ("The horror...the horror") in "Apocalypse Now". It might be an irrelevant comparison overall, but both are films that linger in the corners of our minds. Both are less than conventional even if Lynch exists more on his own terms than Francis Ford Coppola ever did (although he is a fine filmmaker; his films can be enjoyed by pretty much all audiences with an attention span). He continues to surprise me as an artist; his films may all contain similar traits, but not one of them is truly "similar" to another. Lynch has enough feelings and images inside of him to inspire a respectable filmography; and so they have.

A black car drives along a winding highway not too far from Los Angeles carrying a mysterious yet beautiful dark-haired woman (Laura Harring). The driver pulls a gun on her and orders her to step out of the car. She seems confused to just what is going on, although it's not until some kids crash into their vehicle with their own and leave everyone but her for dead that we realize how normal things were before. She, still unnamed, walks into the darkness and finds her way to the city. She rests up at a random house. The next day, she is discovered while showering by the occupant of the apartment that she has stumbled to. That person is Betty (Naomi Watts), the daughter of an actress (who owns the apartment but is away on business) who aspires to follow in her mother's footsteps.

The black-haired woman, who identifies herself as Rita after seeing a poster for Hayworth's "Gilda" hanging in the bathroom, is an amnesiac. She can't remember who she really is. She and Betty look for clues in her purse but find only a blue key and a shit-load of money. They hide both of these things in a container that rests in the closet. The two are then engaged in a sort of relationship that keeps getting weirder and weirder; in part because it's so often interrupted by what seem like little vignettes in between, one involving a Hollywood director (Justin Theroux) and his partnership with a pair of mobster brothers (one of whom cannot be pleased by a cup of espresso) who apparently own the next movie he's making, insisting that he cast a woman named Camilla Rhodes.

For the most part, the film balances these two stories; although there are even smaller ones that fit themselves in there somehow as well. For instance, there's an early scene set at the diner called Winkies in which a young man describes to his older colleague a dream that he had involving a frightening man in the back of the diner, which becomes a sort of nightmarish reality by the end of the scene. And then there's a sub-plot involving an amateur hitman who may or may not have ties to the car crash at the beginning of the film. And then there's the Cowboy. It's confusing even for a David Lynch film but better because of it. The labyrinth-like structure of the narrative, which I assure you forms a coherent whole by the end but only if you pay attention and watch it more than once, is appealing to me.

Certain plot details are vital to how you interpret "Mulholland Drive". As usual, Lynch encourages each individual viewer to think for themselves; thus interpretation is key to the enjoyment of the film. Betty and Rita get tangled up in a romantic, sexual relationship somewhere within the last hour; and this is one element that plays a significant role in how I view the film. There's a common theory floating around that Rita is some sort of dream projection of the sort of person Betty would like to be, and that the film itself is all a dream. By the time it was over on my second viewing, I knew that was the theory I'd adopt. I also view it as a satire of this generation's cerebral dreams of fame and fortune; the Betty character is all that materialized into one silly blonde. Watts' performance is uncanny and over-the-top; although in the last act, surprisingly intense as well.

For someone to truly hate the film, I think it would either take too much thought or too little. I didn't allow myself to think too much into "Mulholland Drive" since I'd seen Lynch films before, and so I knew that you simply can't understand everything he puts on screen. You just have to kind of go with it, which is easy for me to do when a director is so passionately emotive and gifted in setting up an atmosphere with unforgettable imagery. "Mulholland Drive" has so much of that. Take, for instance, the employer of the mobster brothers who sits in a wheelchair in a dark room illuminated only by a single light (which shines on him) and talks through a microphone that connects to the inside of a glass cage of sorts, where the employees can speak to him through. And then there's the Rebekah Del Rio scene, which is just sublime. Finally, you've got a superb Angelo Badalamenti score to complete the ambience.

I love David Lynch's technique because he makes films so unconventional, surreal, and beautiful that they cannot be summarized as easily as most films. Is "Mulholland Drive" a mystery? Perhaps, we don't know for sure. Like everything else in the picture, it all depends on how you're seeing it. Either way, Lynch puts YOU in the role of detective and to me, that's more fun than anything else. His images and emotions are so resonant that the viewer - depending on what kind you are - has no problem with what Lynch is asking us to do. This is clearly one of his most multi-dimensional and personal films; a stunning evocation of present day LA and the different vibes that Lynch got, and still gets, from the place that he calls home. If its goal is to be chaotic, destructive, dream-like, disturbing, funny, and ultimately mind-boggling; then it's done the city justice.

Heavy atmosphere almost conceals glaring flaws.

Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:57:51 +0000

Sheriff Dan Gillis (James Farentino) is investigating an attempted murder in the small rural town of Potter's Bluff. Things become even more complicated for him when the body count begins to rise and no one seems to have any answers. Gillis begins to learn that there is more at play here. But is he prepared to deal with his sinister findings? -summary

Released in 1981 directed by Gary Sherman (Poltergeist III), written by Dan O' Bannon (Return of the Living Dead) and Ronald Shusett,Dead & Buried is a horror film that attempts to ride the coattails of Ridley Scott's Alien. This is due to the main creative minds behind the production of that film having a big hand in this one. I don't believe Alien was that great, but I thought it was very good though, certainly better than this; with that said, come into this film ready to watch it as its own, because if you're hoping for it to be something else then prepare for your high expectations to take a dive.

Well seasoned horror fans will quickly notice how well the film works with setting the mood, by establishing a haunting atmosphere and maintaining this feel completely throughout. The film was put together with a low budget and it shows. However, they make the best of it with very well use of lighting, darkness, and heavy fog in a certain area. One scene leads into some type of a haunted house, and with the right amount of shadowing it can produce some chills. It feels dated by today's standard, but it still deserves credit for being such an ambitious project. The music score works really well with the small eerie town setting and townsfolk.

The film is stylish even down to some of the gore effects, and gore hounds will get something worthwhile here. Some of the kills work well towards shock while others are left to the imagination. The build up is done correctly enough despite the inevitable being seen from a distance, but it's the possible cause of death that grabs your attention because you know the killers are very cruel.

The plot is suspense-filled following Dan Gillis as he tries to come up with answers, plus the audience trying to figure out the killers motive. There's quite a bit of guessing to go around at first, because they come off as this territorial group; evidence points to something more than that and about midway through the film, things do become pretty clear but the revelations aren't any less shocking.

Besides predictability working against the film late in the duration, one of the problems is that it feels too ambitious for its own good. At times, and this is kind of due to the performance by the late Jack Alberston as William Dobbs; the film in some way feels as if it could have worked better as a horror comedy (and that's coming from me?!). It really felt difficult to take him seriously. I would like to give more details, but it's impossible for me to do so without spoilers. The film also has its share of plot holes working against it for those whom prefer tight storytelling.

The acting is welll done for the most part with Farentino and Alberston turning in good enough performances. Although Albertson felt a bit strange, he was still creepy for the most part delivering some dialog out of left field. Robert Englund also makes an appearance in one of his earliest roles. Many of the cast are pretty easy to watch as they seem to have down those mysterious zombie lke mannerisms.

Dead & Buried is considered an unappreciated gem by many. Personally, I think some folks choose to overlook the glaring issues. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but this really isn't something I would consider to be a must see. It's a watchable horror movie, and I recommend it to serious fans for the most part. The movie has a 92 minute run time and there are also some pretty good features on the 2 Disk set. The extras consist of three short featurettes with a run time total of around 45 minutes. They feature Stan Winston discussing the special effects in very good detail, the eye ball scene specifically, as well as Robert Englund and Dan O' Bannon giving some detail on filming the movie and other cool details. It's an overall fun watch.

Pros:
-Atmosphere and creativity

Cons:
-Predictable and questionable plot elements

"A thousand stars in your eyes" Song lyrics

Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:29:28 +0000

Jenny Haydon is sitting at her home by a lake, drinking a glass of wine and watching a family movie of her husband, Scott and Jenny, while they were camping and singing old songs. She looks very sad and we learn a bit later that Scott had died in a car accident the year before.

When Jenny is asleep after a great deal of wine, a space ship lands in the lake and Starman sees the lights in her house and enters. He sees the movie of Scott and has an idea to imitate him, then sees a photo album with locks of his hair. Starman uses these locks to form himself in Scott's image.

When Jenny is awakened, she sees Starman as he is morphing into Scott and then become Scott's image.
Not knowing what to expect, he has learned the language from the film and from TV. He tells her he won't hurt her. Then he gets a message that his mission won't accomplish it's goal and he has to me at meteor crater in Arizona in three days or he will die.

The movie is about Jenny and Scott building up a relationship and their trip to Arizona. Obstacles are placed in their way and one of the sweetest moments is when they stop at an all night diner. A hunter has just killed a deer and Jenny and Scott park next to his car. Scott asks why the animal was killed and later brings it back to life.

Jeff Bridges plays the role of Scott and does a fine job of learning how to be a human and asking Jenny questions about things like "define love." He was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor.

A fun light show, if you're into that sort of thing.

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:25:59 +0000

*** out of ****

There are a handful of films that I admire and enjoy for their unique, groundbreaking visual style alone and Steven Lisberger's "Tron" is just one of them. Critically, it is - honest to God - just not a very good film. It's plot is simplistic and fails to match the amount of imagination put into creating the world that it inhabits, the characters aren't very well-developed and therefore come off as disposable, the pacing is sometimes a mixed bag, and it is, at the end of the day, undeniably style over substance. But it's also a very stimulating cinematic experience; a stunning achievement for its time that still holds up if you're a tech geek like me who sometimes derives great pleasure from gazing upon elaborate CG landscapes so long as there is some sense of general direction. With "Tron", the good news is that there is.

The whole thing feels like it takes place in some futuristic variation on 1980's society (which was modern times in the film's year of release, which was 1982). We don't know when the story takes place exactly, but time's not a big factor here. The story concerns an ambitious and highly skilled computer hacker named Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) who was previously employed by the computer software empire known as ENCOM to make video games for the company, all of which his employer Ed Dillinger (David Warner) had stolen, thus forcing Flynn to stick to being the guru of arcade gaming in his hometown. When he's not gaming, Flynn is still trying to exact revenge by hacking into Dillinger's system, but with little success.

One day, Flynn gets a visit from two ENCOM employees who are on his side; Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner), who has created a program of his own which gives the film its name, and Lora Baines (Cindy Morgan). They warn Flynn that Dillinger has caught on to his unsuccessful attempts at breaching the system, which is enough to convince Flynn that he must temper with Alan's program in order to make the security a little less tight. In doing so, Flynn finds himself in the way of an experimental laser that beams him into the EMCO mainframe, which is better known by some as The Grid.

While this is far from a great or bold futuristic vision of an alternative plane of existence, it's still plenty intriguing even if it lacks grand-scale idealism. The Grid essentially mimics our own world, but with prettier lights (since as I always say, the future is just the present but with those). In this world, computer programs materialize as digital copies of their users - or human counterparts - and fight in a series of deadly games in which they wield identity disks and wear flashy color-coded suits (the users are blue, the villains are of course red). A command program named Sark (also played by David Warner) leads the baddies in trying to conquer the Grid for himself.

The film probably would have been great without the early moments where it just feels like it's dragging on and on for extended periods of time. But once we're in the Grid, the shit most definitely gets real. "Tron" is exciting and visionary; revolutionary and completely exciting. The visuals, which border on the psychedelic at all times, are a lot of fun to look at and serve as influential material for just about anyone looking to make a science fiction film with an elaborate style of its own. No, Lisberger's direction is not great and hardly any of these performances are memorable (although Bridges is always good); but you know, I really do dig this flick at the end of the day. It's really something else, regardless of its noticeable imperfections. To me, it's nothing more than pure escapist entertainment with a distinctive artistry to it that I connected with, literally, on sight. The nerd in me tells me that "Tron" is a minor classic, and while that's probably all it will ever be, it still resonates on some level outside of the dramatic grid. End of line.

A truly painful cinematic experience.

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:18:14 +0000

*1/2 out of ****

"Alien 3" is a truly detestable disaster. It shall forever be known as the first truly weak link in the "Alien" franchise after an impressive two-film winning streak. It shall forever be regarded as the one bad movie that director David Fincher - who has gone on to make a name for himself with great films like "Fight Club" and "The Social Network" - ever made, that is unless he goes on to make another relatively like it. Then again, the man more or less behind this catastrophe doesn't like to think that he really is. And watching the film, you're inclined to agree with him. Quite simply, it's not Fincher's fault that "Alien 3" is terrible. He tries hard, but can't inject his seedy, intoxicating visual stylistics into the story or even as much as an individual frame. This problematic second sequel has studio interference written all over it.

Before I get into the multitude of problems that I personally have with this film as well as the ones that it undeniably bears, I'll attempt to describe the basically meaningless and nonexistent plot. It picks up where "Aliens", the James Cameron helmed sequel to the Ridley Scott directed "Alien" of 1979, left off; Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) escapes the Saluco spaceship in a pod with Newt, Hicks, and damaged android Bishop. They're all in cryonic stasis and are eventually found by a colony composed entirely of mostly bald men with pasts pertaining to crime and sexual violence against women. Obviously, Ripley is the only one alive when the pod crashes into their ship; thus putting her in yet another uncomfortable situation. Oh, boy.

And what do ya know, she's brought a friend along with her; a face-hugger that finds its way to a dog on the ship and basically uses its body as a host for yet another variation on H.R. Giger's Xenomorph. We get brief introductions to the inmates of the ship (there's a spiritual adviser played by Charles S. Dutton, a doctor played by Charles Dance, and Brian Glover as the ship's warden); although it matters not whether they're good characters or not. What matters is whether they will serve as good prey for the titular alien. There's a whole lot of blood, guts, violence, and running down ominously lit hallways but not a whole lot of intelligence or logic. Just a whole lot of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual philosophical bullshit and some gruesome kills. Oh, and a really stupid ending.

The studio made pretty much all the cuts here. The film was shot without a completed script and initially Weaver didn't even want to return. Why did she? Let's just say a lot of money was promised, because I get the sense that she really does have a deep connection with her Ripley character and thus would have been able to tell that the script - as it is - does absolutely nothing to further develop her. As for Fincher, well, he's a fascinating director and this being his directorial debut, you can certainly see a few of his stylistic flourishes beginning to bud, but none of them come full circle. He's not meant for by-the-numbers slasher horror/sci-fi flicks. But I have no doubt on my mind that, if given the creative freedom, he could have made this thing work.

The direction just feels very awkward overall. The location is at least somewhat interesting and there are a few inspired shots, but what's it all amount to? Not a whole lot to be honest. It's rather painful to watch for the most part, seeing one of my favorite directors get rooted up the ass by his all-controlling studio. Not even Weaver gives a satisfying performance; for once, she doesn't feel at home in this role, probably because she literally feels no reason to be here. They should have stopped at "Aliens". Cameron had made a film that worked as a stand-alone project rather than a rehash of the first film, which this one might as well be, minus the taut suspense and sense of wonder. I don't care about the various extended cuts floating around; this is a bad movie, plain and simple, and I don't think any amount of added footage is going to truly change that. It's a shame that in Hollywood, no one can hear you scream. Because I'm sure Fincher wanted nothing more.

Lives up to its name in big ways.

Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:13:18 +0000

* out of ****

"The Expendables" is, simply put, a missed opportunity. I really do dig what Sylvester Stallone, operating from both ends of the camera as co-writer/director and star, is trying to do by bringing together a few of the action genre's biggest stars from now-and-then and putting them all in one movie; but his reach can't even be said to exceed his grasp, because there honestly isn't enough ambition in this picture for me to even admire it in such regards. While it did not require one, it does not have a good script, nor does it possess good plotting even for what it is. It also doesn't have good acting, although I suppose that's not required either. What it does have is some of the clumsiest action/stunt choreography, lamest explosions, most disappointing gore, and overall most awkward direction I've seen in a long time.

The title refers to the heroes; a group of biker mercenaries headed by Barney Ross (Stallone) who are first seen rescuing hostages from a boat-full of Somali pirates. The rest of the team consists of Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), martial arts expert Yin Yang (Jet Lee), hotheaded sniper Gunnar Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), and bomberman Toll Road (Randy Couture). While they don't always get along, they're good at what they do; which is why an ominous man known only as Mr. Church (Bruce Willis, in what feels like a brief cameo appearance) hires Barney and his boys to bring the dictator General Garza (David Zayas) down from his throne on an island located within the Gulf of Mexico.

Only Christmas and Ross go at first. They meet their contact, a beautiful woman named Sandra (Gisele Itie); although it doesn't take long for their cover to be blown right from atop their pretty little heads. They do, however, discover that Garza is being manipulated by an ex-CIA officer by the name of James Munroe (Eric Roberts), who has a pair of henchmen played by Steve Austin and Gary Daniels. They escape the island but must return again to rescue Sandra after finding out that she is, in fact, Garza's daughter; although she's not endangered at the hands of her own father, but rather Munroe and his men.

From then on, it's all blood and explosions; neither being as impressive or epic as they obviously want to be. The film sets itself up to be the ultimate guy movie; a sort of throwback to 80's action with mostly male characters and an all-male sensibility to it. The jokes are cheap (and unfunny). The women are objects - nice looking ones too - although the paper-thin character writing is not just reserved for them alone. The men are essentially just as boring. "The Expendables" does not give a shit about characters; although some of the best, classic, purest action pictures don't either. The flick has its heart in the right place, but there's nothing exciting about the action that's occurring on-screen since it sits on the border between embracing silliness and taking itself too seriously.

In the end, it's an experience without any joy to be had from the audience (unless you're like super nostalgic, in which case I can understand you getting some enjoyment out of seeing these actors together like this). The only thing about it that I can honestly say I liked was a role filled by Mickey Rourke; a good performance amongst this black, soulless mass that sadly can't quite make up for the rest of it (actually, not even close). Arnold Schwarzenegger also appears in an un-credited cameo in the scene with Mr. Church, a small role that was highly anticipated by those who just wanted to see the Governator back on the big screen again. Unfortunately, the terrible timing of the dialogue does good to fuck up even his scene, among others. I hate puns, but from where I'm standing, "The Expendables" lives up to its name in big ways.

To dream of a diabolical Santa.

Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:09:24 +0000

**** out of ****

The critics need to back off on this one. Real filmmakers do not make their art to please those who went to school so that they could write about movies and say what they must (or must not, since nobody is forcing them but their employers). Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro's second feature, "The City of Lost Children", is a futuristic steampunk fantasy of wild imagination and ambition that crams so many ideas into one movie that it's understandable how it might upset a lot of critics and movie-goers alike looking for something a little more, I don't know, mainstream. But I think those who criticize it are forgetting one of its main inspirations: fairy tales. In itself, the film is one. It succumbs to the whimsical logic of such stories and doesn't fully develop every idea that the filmmakers had in mind; and banks on the fact that they had them alone.

This too will upset some people, but it doesn't bother me. I came to accept the fact that these ideas weren't going to be explored in extreme detail early on in the picture. The directing duo's first film, "Delicatessen", also had a lot of ideas that went nearly untouched; but all the same, I thought it was humorous and visionary. The follow-up film is no different. It is so unpredictable in its charm and its intrigue that I was able to throw away all preconceptions and common criticisms. If it exists in the realm of a fairy tale fantasy, doesn't it have the right to be somewhat simplistic and more based around its own obscure beauty?

The story, as it is, involves the mad scientist Dr. Krank (Daniel Emilfork) as he is trying to steal the dreams from children that he sends his one-eyed servants, partial to a cult within his base, to collect off the streets of a neighboring sea-side village not far from his metallic rig in the middle of a green ocean. Krank has never been able to recall a dream and is therefore convinced that he's straight-up just never had one to begin with; always being taunted by a talking brain that floats in a fish tank and being underwhelmed by his colleagues, the mousy big-headed and small-bodied woman Martha, and his cloned minions (all played by Dominique Pinon).

The doctor's plans are threatened when his Cyclops servants kidnap the younger brother (although not in blood) of the tall and thick-muscled circus performer named One (Ron Perlman). He teams up with a local girl in the village who goes by the name of Miette (Judith Vittet) to rescue his brother from the clutches of this vile man and perhaps uncover a plot to destroy his rig. Meanwhile, conjoined twins known as The Octopus - who work as a unit for collecting the things that the young thieves within the village salvage - hire some kids to steal a safe (although this is early on in the film), which makes way for a sub-plot which concerns them hiring a fellow circus performer (Jean Claude Dreyfus) who has a little flee that can inject a mind-controlling substance into any human being that it is ordered to strike.

The film takes place in some sort of futuristic landscape, and the creation of this world is simple yet almost labyrinth-like. There's obviously a lot of green screen employed here but not to the point where it's overly noticeable or annoying; in fact, Caro and Jeunet show it in just the right surplus so that it's almost charming in an antique-like sort of way. But the complexity in the art design and cinematography for this movie is especially off-the-charts. I liked the nifty little device that the doctor and his patients (er...victims) hook up to when he's attempting to snatch their dreams (which are often about scary Christmases gone wrong and evil Santa Clauses).

Above all, it's the camera that catches everything; well, topped with the trippy visual effects and editing job that the boys used to the fullest effect. "The City of Lost Children" contains literally a delightfully demented visual surprise a minute, and it's for the most part rather unpredictable in what it gives us. It is funny, odd, and all the while undeniably intoxicating. The French have a peculiar way in which they make films, and this one does all the more to embody what's so good about their side of cinema. This is a cinematic experience worth the price of admission if only because there are few other films like it. Of course, those done by Jeunet are similar in style; but yep, that's about it. I admire a filmmaker with his/her own style as long as I'm down with it, and I have been with Jeunet's for a long time now. "The City of Lost Children" deserves the full four scared-to-death children out of four.

What if I told you...The Matrix is great?

Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:08:20 +0000

**** out of ****

What would you do if you were in the place of hacker Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) - popularly known by his in-movie online alias of "Neo" - in that you woke up one morning to cryptic messages on your computer monitor referencing this thing that you are indifferent to known only as the matrix? If you were Anderson, you would keep following the white rabbit, and you would then meet a fellow female hacker named Trinity (Carry Anne-Moss) who tells you of an acquaintance of hers named Morpheus. You don't know who Morpheus is, you don't know why you need him, and all you know is that you do. He calls you the next day while you are at work and tries to prevent you from getting arrested by a trio of Agents, although ultimately fails.

You wake up the next morning after having been arrested by the agents, one of which is the particularly demeaning Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving, absolutely INCREDIBLE), and also after having being literally bugged (with a device that transforms into something that resembles a literal bug). You decide that it might be in your best interest to contact this Orpheus again and meet with him. When you do, at his place, he offers you a choice of two pills; one red, one blue. You choose the red, since the blue will only make you forget that the meeting ever happened. You follow him. You are knocked out, presumably by the effects of the pill. You awaken in an oval-like vessel filled with liquid, in a world that you'd never hope to know.

Orpheus (Laurence Fishburne) explains that you are now in the future. He can't tell you what year because he's lost track himself (closer to 2199, he says). In the future, mankind is at war with very powerful machines that harvest the bioelectrical energy that human beings give off. The humans are kept controlled within an alternate universe - the matrix - which is where you has lived all your life, therefore rendering it a mere lie. Humans are basically converted to batteries. A fascinating concept. You are told that you are The One, meaning that you are the only One who can crack the code of the matrix and restore balance to both worlds.

Alright, done talking in first person. "The Matrix" is an absolutely stunning vision of the future presented in two separate planes of existence from writing and directing duo Andy and Larry (now Lana) Wachowski. It's a damn good mind-fuck of a movie, constantly switching out between the two realities; and I loved it for that. The future is a visual work of art; a compelling world tinted seedy green - dark and visionary. It's also home to some of the most badass, straight-up fantastic action sequences ever choreographed (the cinematographer is Bill Pope). It is pure cinema; memorable, influential, but also intelligent and ambitious.

I do not normally like Keanu Reeves. He doesn't appeal to me as an actor who can play characters of significant depth; although he pretty much proved me wrong here. His character inspires sympathy and understanding; and his relationship with Trinity gives the film a significant portion of its more emotional edge, since I think a good sci-fi/futuristic feature truly needs that to exist on its own. The world is one thing and its inhabitants are another. At the core, I think the film is very human; asking many existential and philosophical questions which imply that its creators are more intelligent than a lot of action filmmakers. But then again, this is more than an action film. Yes, it has the unforgettable lobby action set pieces, some truly epic slow-motion, and a whole lot of bullets; but the film is kinetic and frenetic without being stupid. It devotes a lot of its third act to the action, but by then we're one hundred percent invested. The breakneck pacing is not a flaw; it's an attribute, and a very positive one.

Perhaps what blew me away the most about "The Matrix" was where it drew its influence from. It's hard to categorize the film as the Wachowski brothers were clearly inspired by many things: including anime, science fiction literature (and just literature in general; there are many references to Lewis Carroll and his "Alice in Wonderland" works), action cinema, and even (spaghetti) westerns. If you put all of those things together with more philosophical idealism, you get this film. I'm afraid I can't do it much justice. The most I can do for it is advertise the damn thing to all those who appreciate good, mind-bending cinema. You won't see this one and its impact coming from a mile away like you will most films of its kind. It influenced a new generation of action filmmaking and still holds up today. There is no spoon, there are no rip-offs; only "The Matrix".

"Game over, man! Game over!"

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:08:21 +0000

**** out of ****

If Ridley Scott's "Alien" will always be remembered as the film to introduce us to the Xenomorph and franchise favorite, the heroine Ripley (Sigourney Weaver); then James Cameron's "Aliens" will be forever known as the truly rare sequel that really, really could. With sequels to great movies, it can be tempting to bank on the previous film's success; but instead Cameron shows a general interest in expanding on the universe while developing a story of his own that shares DNA with that of "Alien" without completely relying on it. With the flick of a finger, a genre switcheroo (from horror to action) gives the film that Cameron wanted to make more gravity and weight; a healthy dosage of each. And what you get is a film that, in the end, manages to weigh itself down. It's borderline exhausting in its highly cinematic exhilaration.

Leaving off from Mr. Scott's film, "Aliens" begins with Ellen Ripley being discovered as the sole survivor aboard the ship Nostromo. She is rescued by the Weyland-Yutani Corporation, and is informed that she has been asleep for fifty seven years under stasis. When Ripley tries to explain to the corporation what occurred on the planet LV-426, she is met with much skepticism. Her story goes something like this: the Nostromo crew landed on the planet, explored a crashed ship, and discovered an alien lifeform that terrorized and killed everyone but her. To them, it looks like murder; but we've seen "Alien", and we know what happened. Since she entered stasis, terraforming colonies have been set up on the planet; and of course, there haven't been any recent reports, certainly none regarding alien life.

This is because contact has, for the time being, been lost .Weyland-Yutani representative Carter Burke (Paul Reiser), with the help of Lieutenant Gorman (William Hope), hopes to send an assembly of highly trained marines to the planet in order to conduct a thorough investigation into the matters at hand. They also take with them an android named Bishop (Lance Henrikson), who Ripley at first fears because of her previous experience with Nostromo's very own murderous android. Once they're in, there's no going back; and it doesn't take long for the new crew to stumble upon the face-huggers (encased, as they were being studied), the distinctive interiors of the alien ship, a few of the victims, and the Xenomorph itself. Although this time, the title is plural; so it's an entire army of these bastards.

"We're on an express elevator to Hell, going down." This quote probably best explains my experience watching "Aliens". It is action genre filmmaking at its finest; in fact, it juggles enough different genres (science fiction, and even a little bit of horror regardless of the suspense never quite living up to the kind found in "Alien") to leave its mark. As a film, I regarded it as one meant to stir our fondest emotions; fear and excitement among others. It's a classic piece of cinematic badassery written in bullets, futuristic space technology, and acid blood. As far as action movies go; they don't get much better than this right here.

The Ripley character was definitely one of my favorite parts about Ridley Scott's "Alien". She was a strong and intelligent heroine (for once, right?); likable, but able to hold her own in a fight with an extraterrestrial. There was a feminist edge to it all, and "Aliens" pushes that notion about as far as it can go without being overly preachy. Ripley now finds herself in a man's world, even though there are two tough-as-nails women amongst her crew. The crew members of the Nostromo accepted Ripley as one of their own; but she has a harder time with these new fellows, who just want to drop in and kill some shit, although it's never that simple. But maybe Ripley defies gender classification; she has all the charm of a woman and all the raw strength of a man. By the end of the film, she's seen it all.

I feel that most action movies are far too simplistic. Here's one with considerable depth; not only in its visual conception and design, but its conception in general. Cameron says that a lot of the film was based on the Vietnam War; which I find most interesting indeed. Then there's the promise that every sequel to a "monster movie" must fulfill; a new monster. In this case, it's the Alien Queen, basically the Xenomorph but larger and somewhat uglier (although I don't know how much uglier you can be when you're a part of that alien family). It all leads up to a final showdown between heroine and monster; although there are plenty of other showdowns and shootouts to hold you up until then. It's difficult to watch this movie without geeking out completely. I did not find this with the original "Alien", but then again "Aliens" is a different movie. It is more action oriented without sacrificing its rich tension. It is also very well-paced, unless you're watching Cameron's "Director's Cut", which kind of kills it. "Aliens", simply put, kicks all kinds of ass if you're watching the right cut and with the right mind-set.

"We're on a mission from God."

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:57:58 +0000

**** out of ****

Whenever I sit down to watch "The Blues Brothers", I envision myself putting on the black sunglasses, suit, and fedora worn by its titular brothers. That is the unmistakable power of this piece of pure entertainment that creates for it a distinctive identity. The first time you watch it, the film might appear unspectacular or disappointing depending on what you've heard. But the more times I saw it, the more I loved it; and eventually it grew on me and now I love it. If you know what you're getting - some of the best musical and car chase sequences ever filmed and a whole lotta soul - after the first round, you'll come back the second time and have a better time. I think this is how it is with a lot of great movies that have achieved a cult status. They wouldn't be anywhere if people merely saw them once; and damn those who did and still do.

Based on the SNL skit of the same name, "The Blues Brothers" is about the brothers, Jake (John Belushi) and Elwood Blues (Dan Aykroyd) and their attempt to save the orphanage in which they grew up from being closed down. To do so, they must collect five thousand dollars to pay for the property taxes, and the only way to get the money (legally) would be to get the band back together; the Blues Brothers band. Elwood calls it a "mission from God". Problem is, after Jake was imprisoned for roughly three years (it was five, but he was released early, as we learn in the opening scene, for good behavior), the band split up, and many of its members sought work and life elsewhere; such as Steve Cropper, Donald Dunn, Murphy Dunne, Willie Hall, Tom Malone, Lou Marini, Matt Murphy, and Alan Rubin.

The first half or so is about the exploits along the way to reuniting the band, with the second half dividing its time between gigs, run-ins with neo-Nazi political parties and the law, and once they brothers have raised enough money, getting it into the orphanage's bank account. It's big, messy, one can even say bloated; and it's also a shit-load of fun. In a big way, the musical numbers carry the film most of the way to its all-too-predictable destination. I'll admit that the reason why I go back to watch the film so many times is because of the music alone, and then I just get sucked in all-together. Who can forget Cab Calloway going up on-stage and singing Minnie the Moocher? Or James Brown, in an earlier scene, performing as the reverend of the church in which Elwood and Jake get inspired to revive the band ("Can you see the light?!")?

Truth be told, there are so many great scenes in this film. And movies with an abundance of great - not merely good - scenes are the ones that are perhaps remembered the most. If I were a film critic, "The Blues Brothers" would probably score three stars out of four. I'm giving it full marks because I'm not a critic, and I don't go by those rules; I go by what entertains me, and I honestly see something special in the film. It flawlessly rides the waves of buddy comedy, chase thriller, and musical without fault. A Hollywood production, it's got a lot of fancy special effects; but with John Landis as the director, nothing goes to waste and nothing feels gimmicky (at least not on purpose). The film is often cheesy and it's aware of it; but cheesy might not quite be its brand of humor, at least not consistently.

I say this because for the most parts, the dialogue between the brothers has a more deadpan style to it. Sure, there are a few great screwball comedy scenes - like that one in the restaurant - but I feel the best jokes are generated from the dry sensibilities that the actors bring with them. Belushi and Aykroyd are an impenetrable comic duo; their relationship, as guys pretentious enough to wear black sunglasses and fedoras throughout the film (and let's not forget those suits, my God), is both funny and touching; which is what made the SNL skits such a hit. Then there's the over-the-top bits; like a plot element that concerns an angry ex-fiancé of Jake (Carrie Fisher) trying to kill him with flamethrowers and rocket launchers, and then we're back to the chase sequences (that mall one in particular is great).

But again, the music is what drives this film. It's what allows it to speak to me, not only as entertainment, but as art. I love "The Blues Brothers", so very much. It's a classic in its own right. The soundtrack is classic, the quotes are classic ("It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses"), and somehow so is the plot (which is more clever in its execution than its material). With Belushi's passing, the film has even more significance now. It's one of his finest achievements as an actor and proves that he's more than just the Bluto that we know and love. For the inspired direction by Landis, the top notch performances, the wild musical cameos (look out for Ray Charles in a splendid scene), and the over-the-top entertainment of it all; I'd advise you to go on this mission from God ASAP.