ARTaylor Reviews

Reefer Madness (1936)

The Original So-Bad-It's-Good

[8/10 · 21 April 2021]

Look, this movie isn't good. Not in any way, shape, or form. It looks awful. It's poorly acted. The writing is atrocious. It's clearly propaganda, and poorly thought out at that. But that's why it's so much fun.

The film is unintentionally hilarious. It's why it did so well on the midnight runs and '70s drug culture. The opening scrawl had me busting up, and that was just after I had an edible before it kicked in. Telling the audience that smoking "Marihuana" (?) will lead to uncontrollable laughter, insanity, murder, and suicide. It's presented as a "documentary" for a PTA meeting. Showing a pot dealer living the high life, having wild parties, and sex with beautiful woman all before he loses it all. The obvious dummy in the suicide scene. Scarface this is not.

It strangely works preciously because it is a mess. It's all so over the top that it comes across more as a parody like Airplane, Scary Movie, or Deadpool. It's like a feature length Saturday Night Live skit. Not Wayne's World but at least better than It's Pat. It's fun bad movie to watch, especially if you've had a little Reeder Madness to help it along.

Beyond the Reach (2014)

Good Movie, But One Ending Too Much

[7/10 · 30 July 2016]

I read the book Deathwatch by Robb White back in middle school. I always thought it was a good story that deserved a movie. It wasn't until I saw the trailer for this that I learned this was actually the second adaptation of the book.

Beyond the Reach follows Ben, a down-on-his-luck young man who wants to go to college with his girlfriend but can't afford it. He is hired by ruthless businessman Madec who weaseled his way into a bighorn hunting permit. When Madec accidentally shoots a drifter he attempts to cover it up and begins hunting Ben through the desert.

The movie is largely faithful to the book. Of course, the book focuses on the inner dialogue of Ben as he struggles to stay alive which is hard to translate to film. The movie at least maintains the psychological part of the story with a few brief moments of "action," wisely keeping it a thriller.

Michael Douglas does a terrific job playing the villain. There isn't really much for him to do in the story but he makes every moment he's in much more interesting. Jeremy Irvine also does a great job given that he spends most of the time alone in the desert running around.

My only real problem is the ending. (Only paragraph with SPOILERS) The book ends with Ben taking Madec back to town and both are arrested. Both are questioned and the authorities believe Madec's story since Ben's sounds crazier. But then they examine the dead body and find Ben's story is true. The movie tacks on a jail escape scene, that makes little sense, and a scene with Madec breaking into Ben's girlfriend's home ending in a big shootout. The whole movie before then was a psychological thriller and this scene goes against that. Keeping the original ending would have maintained the battle of wits between these two characters.

For the most part, I enjoyed the movie. I liked how the book was adapted. I just wish it ended about five minutes earlier than it did.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Good in a Psychological Sci-Fi Way

[8/10 · 4 April 2015]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was heralded as the big resurrection of the franchise. The original series lasted three seasons. They managed a two season animated series that wasn't much remembered at the time. But it became a huge phenomenon in syndication. After the enormous success of Star Wars, studios looked to any science fiction franchise and Paramount had Star Trek. The genius Gene Roddenberry was at the time making a second live series and essentially reformatted some ideas into a feature and thus TMP was born.

The movie follows James T. Kirk after being promoted to admiral as he retakes control of the revamped Enterprise. His mission is to stop an unknown force that destroys everything in its path from reaching Earth. He butts heads with the Enterprise's new captain, William Decker, and reunites with Spock, who has been away on his own mission.

V'Ger is the kind of story that the series did quite often. Unfortunately, the story as it is comes off as a single episode stretched to two hours. There's a lot of filler and sequences stretched out to overly long lengths. The warp sequence is one that is largely unnecessary except to show that Kirk doesn't know all about the new design, which they did in other ways. The shuttle trip around the Enterprise is nice to see the new ship, but goes on too long. And there's far too many long shots of going through V'Ger where nothing happens except the ship moving. They could have fleshed the story out, but instead they padded it. The ending is nice and thoughtful in the way the show was. However, it ultimately lacks that personal touch. Voyage Home would do the overpowering object attacking Earth story much better.

The entire main cast returns. That in itself was special considering that some had disliked their time on the show and they all had moved on to other things. The characters are a mixed bag. They don't have much of a story besides Kirk and Spock. Kirk is dealing with his "desk job." Spock is searching for peace between his human and Vulcan sides. McCoy provides the same great humor but he, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu are just there. Decker seems to have the beginnings of a story, but he is only really interesting because his relationship with Ilia is the prototype for Riker and Troi in The Next Generation.

The special effects were considerably good for its time. The redesigned Enterprise is absolutely gorgeous, probably the best looking ship in the franchise. While going on too long, the scene of Scotty and Kirk flying around the ship is a beautiful scene to see. The look of V'Ger and the dissolving effects are top notch. It is still great to look at. Honestly, I would love to see this rereleased in theaters in 3D.

Promoting Kirk to admiral was a great storytelling device that served the franchise well. Sure, the following movies would deal with it better. Stuff that paid off in Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, and Generations started here. The fact that he's jealous of his subordinate Decker for commanding "his ship" really speaks to his character. The scene where the two argue following the comet incident was well written.

The music made for this movie became the iconic music of the franchise. The main theme here became the recurring theme of every following film through Nemesis and the main score for The Next Generation. Goldsmith's score is fantastic, and easily as iconic as Williams' Star Wars music. The soundtrack is worth buying, especially for the bonus disc with all the insightful interviews.

This was the movie that introduced the redesigned Klingon make-up that would be featured in the franchise to come. In the series, they came off as just recolored Oriental-looking humans. This made them look truly alien.

In retrospect, it's really only notable as the movie that brought the franchise back into public attention. I will say that the movie works in a slow, methodical 2001: A Space Odyssey way. There isn't any big action sequence, besides the Klingons and space station getting attacked. It's more contemplative, allowing you time to think. If you don't mind the slowness, it is enjoyable. It may not rank among the best of Star Trek, but it's a fine movie on its own. The movie helped revive Star Trek. Though it was Wrath of Khan that saved its life.

Gears of War: Judgment (2013 Video Game)

Should Have Been Gears of War 3 DLC

[7/10 · 18 March 2014]

Gears of War: Judgment is both a prequel to the first game and midquel to the third. That's because the game is broken into two parts: Judgement which follows Baird's Kilo company shortly after E-Day, and Aftermath which follows Baird and Cole's adventures during GoW3. Each part plays like two completely different games simply put together because of the similar characters.

The graphics are just as good as GoW3, though no better. The voice acting is still good. The basic game mechanics are still fun. The controls have changed from previous games, such as no longer having to switch from guns to grenades to use them. It's a little strange at first but they're quick to get used to. They also add some fun new guns.

Judgment is simply too different from other Gears. Normally you play long drawn out sections, but in this section you play very short parts. At the end they add up your score and give you stars. It feels very much like an Arcade game rather than regular campaign. It seems like just as you're getting into the groove you have to stop and see your score. The series has never had an outstanding story, but this really ruins what story the game has. If you are playing for points or difficulty, you can add an extra wrinkle to the game like tougher enemies, less ammo, or a time limit. They call it declassified missions, but it adds nothing to the story. It's okay, but only worth it for those looking for a challenge.

The story follows Baird leading Kilo squad just after E-Day. They've been put on trial for disobeying orders. Each of the four get their own section where you get to play as them. None of them play any different, it's just cosmetic. It's nothing too important to the series, just go after some general named Karn. Given the title, it would have been better to follow Marcus' trial since that actually impacts the overall story. Or maybe the actual E-Day rather than some random battle after. It doesn't feel like there's any real weight to the story here since we already know the ending. It's nice to see things before the Hammer Strikes left the world in grey ruins. Baird is there, but not his snarky self. I guess it's because he's supposed to be in charge, but it just feels off. Cole hardly says anything which is very weird considering how talkative he is in the other games. At the very least they could have brought in some story from the books and explained that he's so quiet because his family just died. Sofia is nice to look at, but mostly there for exposition. Paduk, a former enemy of the COG just trying to fight the greater enemy, is incredibly dynamic. He makes the section worth it. However, the whole thing just feels like a set-up for the story in Aftermath.

Aftermath is basically GoW3 DLC. Remember how you spent that one level playing as Cole trying to save Delta from events in the previous level? That's pretty much what this is. While in GoW3 you went after the submarine, this takes place at the same time as you find a reinforcements. Carmine shows up, with no introduction here, and you team up with Paduk, set up in Judgment. It plays like the classic Gears, with the new controls, but it's not particularly long. It felt like the deleted scene from GoW2, like it was something they just didn't have time for the GoW3 release.

Sadly, this hardly feels like the full-fledged game they charged. It's a little less than what we got with Halo: ODST. Instead of the Horde mode that the last two popularized you get Overrun, which you have to defend three points until they're all destroyed. It's okay but not as fun as Horde. There was so much potential that was wasted. If you enjoyed the Gears of War series you would enjoy it if you don't expect too much from it. But this won't make any new fans.

Yami no teiô kyuketsuki dorakyura (1980 TV Movie)

The Tomb of Dracula

[6/10 · 5 October 2013]

I love Marvel Comics. I love all the shows (for the most part) and the movies (again, mostly). I find the characters incredibly interesting and love to know about it. I'm particularly interested in animation. I had read all about Marvel's modern animated movies, but learned that there were two relatively unknown movies: Dracula and The Monster of Frankenstein. Marvel and Toei Animation made a deal to make several of their properties, but those were the only two produced.

Dracula is inspired by The Tomb of Dracula. The comic features Dracula's grandson finding his body and encountering vampire hunters like Blade. I picked up a collected edition and it's quite...odd to say the least (it was the 70s). This film is loosely inspired by the comics and features a few of the characters, but greatly alters the story. Oddly enough, the comics weren't available in Japan at the time so it's an odd choice that this was made above Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, or Hulk.

The film follows both Dracula and his grandson Drake. Dracula meets a woman, falls in love, and has a child. Drake meets a team of vampire hunters and searches for his grandfather. Satan, angry at Dracula for stealing his bride, plans to destroy the vampire lord. The meeting of the three stories eventually leads to a big climatic showdown.

The tone is all over the place. There's a lot of late 70s and early 80s camp, silly hairstyles, plot devices that stretch believability, and other problems that were common in anime at the time. On the other hand, there's a lot of dark stuff. Early on, Dracula graphically kills two women on screen. There's a flashback to his days of Vlad the Impaler which is more historically accurate than most other screen versions (violence-wise). Some of the characters even take a side-trip to Hell. And one female character appears fully naked from the side. I wouldn't say it's scary, but there's a shot of birds picking at dead bodies on pikes (hence the real-life Vlad's nickname) that could be disturbing. I actually applaud the darker elements. That's something almost no one in animation deals with. The problem is, the campier elements make it too silly for adults but the sex and violence make it a bit much for children.

The voice acting is, again, standard for anime at the time. Unless it was Disney or Don Bluth, no one took animation seriously and certainly not anime (Akira being nearly a decade away). At the time, translations were done quickly and cheaply. It seemed that the same ten people did everything anime. The voices work for their purposes but not a one is anything more than adequate.

The animation is astounding. Anime has always featured terrific animation. Characters look realistic, not the oversized hands and eyes that American animation often has. There's a great richness to the images and backgrounds. Lots of interesting looking set pieces, even for tiny little scenes or just single shots. They do have the occasional problem, but it was typical to cheat every once in a while.

Dracula is an interesting tale. I would recommend it to anime and/or Marvel buffs looking for something different. There's actually a lot of interesting ideas. For example, Dracula resents his life as a vampire and his need to consume people, though Let the Right One In would do that idea better. If only this movie was simply a better movie. There's simply too many problems to take this seriously.

Alan Wake (2010 Video Game)

One of the Best Games Ever Made

[9/10 · 29 September 2013]

Alan Wake is a third-person shooter where you fight darkness with light. You have to burn off the darkness (basically a shield) before you can kill them. Enemies will pop out of nowhere and sometimes surround you easily. You're not some invincible soldier with unlimited ammo, but a simple guy scrounging what you can find.

The story is fairly straightforward. You've lost your wife and a week of your life. You search the Washington wilderness encountered people, objects, and even animals possessed by a dark force. Meanwhile, you find pages to a book you haven't written but is coming true around you. As you go on, you learn that there is an evil force in Cauldron Lake that takes control of creative people. You battle this ancient evil using only the tools you have.

I really enjoyed the story. I'm a big fan of Stephen King books, horror movies, and suspenseful shows. I very much appreciated the media references, almost like a video game Scream. One of the big things about the story is that it is quite scary. And not just a pop-out and say boo kind of way. There were times when the dark fog would roll in and I'd almost be too afraid to move ahead.

I play a lot of shooters (Halo, Gears of War, etc), but I enjoyed playing a game with a different kind of mechanic. It's not just point and shoot. There's a lot more thinking involved. One enemy can easily overwhelm, so being surrounded is a big problem. They also don't drop ammo so you have to be mindful of how you fight. On the other hand, there's only so many enemies in an area (none of that annoying unlimited enemies other games use) and then you can explore without harassment. There's several collectibles (cans, manuscript pages, caches), though only the pages contribute anything to the story.

The thing I like is that this feels like a real place with real people. The women aren't all bustling supermodels (Alice Wake aside). The town seems like it's living and breathing, or what little you experience is. The characters are all written well with believable dialogue. The voice acting is really good, not just the same five voice actors that are in every other game. Alan is amazing, and his narration never gets dull. Barry is funny and is dynamic enough to be more than mere comedy relief. The amount of detail in the levels is amazing. I know it was originally supposed to be open world, and I kind of wish it was since there seems like so much to look around. Though, I really like the structure of the game as it is.

If I have any complaints, it's just two. First, while the animation is generally fantastic the mouths sometimes move like they're made of rubber. Second, there are times when enemies can be too overwhelming and others when ammo is too scarce. The level where you first run from the cops, I had to play several times cause I kept running out of flashbangs. There were some big battles where I seemed to be burning through all my flares and ammo cause there was simply too many enemies or too many tough enemies.

Alan Wake is drastically underrated with audiences. I recommend any gamer to try it out. I also played through the two DLC and American Nightmare. All of it was fun and exciting and makes me wish Alan Wake 2 was on the horizon.

Alan Wake's American Nightmare (2012 Video Game)

As Good as the First, in Different Ways

[9/10 · 29 September 2013]

I really liked Alan Wake. It was a different shooter game. I was quite disappointed that it didn't do better with audiences. Certainly not getting the recognition it deserved, thus not making enough to warrant a sequel. So I was very happy to hear that while we may not be getting Alan Wake 2, we got something more than just DLC like The Signal and The Writer.

American Nightmare isn't Alan Wake 2 but nor is it just DLC. It's a full game in its own right. Not really part of the story but a part of the universe. The closest thing I can think of is Halo 3: ODST. Fans of the game will certainly enjoy the new story, characters, settings, weapons, and enemies. Though I don't think it will draw in new fans since so much of the story relies on the previous game.

The game follows Wake, still trapped in the Dark Place, as he navigates a television show he wrote that came to life thanks to his evil twin Mr. Scratch. He meets three women who help him along the way. I'm a little disappointed that the only three people he meets are gorgeous supermodels when the first game featured more realistic women. When he reaches a certain point, Scratch resets the story and Wake tries again. Scratch is constantly tormenting Wake with what he's doing while the good guy's trapped. Each cycle Wake and his friends do a little better until Scratch is finally defeated. As I said, it doesn't seem part of the story as it doesn't have much to do with Wake leaving Cauldron Lake, but we'll have to wait for Alan Wake 2, if any, to see if this does matter.

The game play is essentially the same. Burn off the darkness before you can kill Taken. There's new enemies like those who split in light and can be defeated right away, flocks of birds that form into men, and giants. I don't care for the giants as they're a bit too stereotypical of video game enemies, and Alan Wake was anything but typical. You're given much more weapons than the first game. In the other, you had two shotguns, a rifle, pistol, and two "grenades". This features a wide variety including nail guns, magnums, semi- and automatic weapons. You can also access weapon caches basically for unlimited ammo. It makes the game slightly easier as it's easier to take down bigger foes and no real need to watch your aim.

If I have any complaint, it's that the game isn't as scary as the first. The first was tense, suspenseful, and fear inducing. I've read some reviews saying this is more like a Tarantino film, and I generally agree. I had lots of fun, but there was never any part I was afraid to go on. At times I felt a little too invincible. I don't think I actually died at all. This time around, only concentrating the light burns off darkness (rather than the first game where it simply burned it faster). But then the batteries quickly refill so I almost never had to replace batteries except in tough battles. The story is somewhat short, though I didn't bother with the arcade mode. Also, beyond The Twilight Zone, there's not really the book, television, and movie references that were a big part of the first game.

This is another entry is a very enjoyable series. I'm saddened that it doesn't sound like Alan Wake 2 is coming any time soon. But what we did get was worth the ride.

Dark Shadows (2012)

Poor Effort from Burton

[5/10 · 30 November 2012]

I don't know what to make of this movie. I really don't. It tries to do so many things and ends up doing nothing. The plot is all over the place. There's a lot going on so it's hard to find the important details.

I've been a fan of Tim Burton as long as I can remember. I grew up watching his two Batman films, Beetlejuice, and Edward Scissorhands. I've followed his work from Pee-wee's Big Adventure through Big Fish. His recent efforts (Planet of the Apes, Alice in Wonderland) have noticeably lacked his earlier charm. I've only been disappointed with two of his movies: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (which was more due to how good the original is) and now Dark Shadows.

The movie is based on a Gothic soap opera from the 60s and 70s. Johnny Depp plays a vampire who awakes to find his dysfunctional descendants plagued by the witch who made him. I have very vague memories of the show, mostly when I caught the last five minutes while waiting for The Incredible Hulk on Sci-Fi Channel. I know little about the series, and it seems the movie is made for fans of the show with little effort to create new ones. Besides Barnabas and Angelique, there's little development in the other characters. They all have the occasional scene but nothing memorable. These seem mostly to reference some event in the show and not really help the movie in any significant way. Worse yet, Angelique makes a horrible villain. She has no reason to act other than she loves a man who doesn't love her. The whole time I kept waiting for some dynamic motivation that never appeared.

The movie is trying to be a comedy, Gothic horror, and romantic drama but never really succeeding at any. The problem is, anytime the movie starts getting into one particular genre it changes gears. The separate elements never really blend together. I understand that the show has a certain camp factor to it, but I've read that this was mostly unintentional. Perhaps if they had simply made it a comedic Hammer films style film, or romantic comedy, or Gothic romance. But the three together never work as a cohesive whole.

The finale (not really spoiling anything here) is representative of all the problems of the movie. By the time the third act came out I had somewhat zoned out. I knew what was going on, but simply didn't care. It felt like the movie was just going through a series of checkpoints but without any feeling. There are revelations that mostly come out of nowhere, but apparently are based on the show. The whole thing screams of committee filmmaking, like the studio put too many demands on the film without letting Burton be Burton. Either that, or since Depp and Burton were such fans of the show they tried to hit too many major story points and forgetting to make it into a single film. It's okay to cut stuff out for a sequel. The first Terminator and Indiana Jones films cut out material that they ended up putting into the second. It's okay to not include every single idea.

Had the movie stuck with the fish out of water story, this would have been great. The best scenes are Barnabas encountering "modern" life like roads, television, and pot-smoking hippies. Depp makes these moments quite hilarious. I found the line confusing McDonalds with Satan to be very effective.

The only really good thing about the movie is that Burton certainly has his unique look. He is definitely one of the most visually distinct directors out there, if not the most. Every frame of the movie has his visual stamp on it.

Honestly, I can't really recommend this to anyone. It's not even an okay-at-best effort from Burton like Alice in Wonderland was. The movie won't win over any new fans for the show. And fans of the show will probably find this to be little more than a overly-silly CliffNotes version. It's too dark to be a comedy and too silly to be a drama. The series is fondly remembered. The movie won't be.

Scream 2 (1997)

Exception to the Sequel Rule

[10/10 · 16 October 2012]

In one early scene, Randy claims that sequels are inherently inferior. The characters then list several examples of sequels that have matched and possibly surpassed the original. And Scream 2 ranks among them.

Scream 1 was great. I gave it a wonderful review. But somehow, Scream 2 managed to do it all better. The suspense is greater, the kills gorier, the laughs funnier, and cast better.

With Scream 1 having been made into a movie within the movie, Sydney and the other survivors are all trying to move on with her and Randy in college finding new friends and loves. They're reunited when the killings begin again as someone sets out to make a sequel. A new setting means new rules with some twists and turns along the way.

Just as before, we have no idea who the killer(s) is until the final act. We get the same kind of false leads and misdirect, such as people being gone at Ghostface's appearances and wearing the same boots as the killer. Once the identity(ies) is revealed, it's great to go back and see how the person(s) manipulated events without the mask. SPOILER Mickey's motivation works well within the movie. Ms. Loomis' also works well, but I don't like that they never really built her up. She comes out of nowhere with little basis before the finale. END SPOILER

The cast are all wonderful. Neve Campbell shows a great progression in her character, and of the four movies this is the one I think she's sexiest in. Cox, Arquette, and Kennedy all return as wonderful as before. O'Connell, Gellar, Schreiber, and Neal are great in new, or at least expanded, roles. None of them are merely copies from the first movie. Though it's Kennedy and Olyphant steal every scene they're in, much like Randy and Stu did in the first. Their dialog together is great, especially as they keep referring to various sequels. At least none of them look quite as "evil" as Billy did.

Of course, being a horror movie it's the scares that are really matters. The suspense is built up much better than the first. The scene where Sydney must escape the cop car is probably the most suspenseful in the entire series, maybe in the genre. The movie also plays on the fact that audiences know the standards set by the original.

Scream 2 is definitely on par with the original, and in my opinion the best of the series. This is definitely a must-see for fans of the original and of horror. There's really nothing to disappoint here. It may share the same general story as the original, but like Terminator 2 it adds enough to be its own experience.

Scream (1996)

Modern Horror Classic

[9/10 · 13 October 2012]

Scream was made at a time when slashers were on their way out. Michael, Jason, and Freddy had lost their touch. They were battling psychics, going to New York, and all sorts of weird stories that went completely against what the franchises built themselves on. Wes Craven had some luck with with New Nightmare, a meta return to the franchise he built. But it was this movie that really rebuilt the genre and brought it back to glory.

The movie is about a group of horror movie buffs who find themselves in a horror movie. Much like the original Friday the 13th, there is a mystery as to who the killer(s) is. It focuses on Sidney, the incredibly sexy Neve Campbell, whose mother was killed a year before and learns how she is tied to the killings. They are all aware of the movies this film references.

New Nightmare may have been the first, but Scream was the first to popularize the idea of self-aware characters. Any movie buff will recognize the references (Halloween, Friday the 13th, Prom Night, etc) beyond those the movie directly references. The movie is a love letter to the genre and will make film buffs out of anyone. I know this movie is probably the reason I'm such a film buff, particularly of horror movies, myself.

I love that the movie is a mystery. There's so few horror movies that include mystery aspects. The original Friday the 13th tried it, but Ms. Voorhees came out of nowhere. Prom Night did it, but the killer was pretty obvious. This is very much like an Agatha Christie story. The suspects are all there, and they're all guilty until they're gutted or the mask is taken off. The reveal is quite satisfying. Their motivation is fitting. Screams 3 and 4 would be disappointing, but this one was really good. And the movie just gets better with multiple viewings so you can see new layers to the real killer throughout the movie.

The cast is good. Campbell looks great and is a great heroine along the lines of Alien's Ripley. McGowan isn't just a dumb, horny blonde. Cox proves she isn't just her Friends character. Arquette is hilarious. Though it's Lillard and Kennedy who steal the movie. The two are terrific and hilarious in every scene they're in, especially the "Rules of Horror" scene. My only complaint is that Ulrich looks a little too "evil," though he otherwise does a great job. They all are convincing as high school students.

Of course, what really makes this movie great is the frights. This is an incredibly effective scary movie. Like all the best slasher films, this one relies on suspense over gore. There's plenty of blood, but it's the build up to the kills that really scare people. The opening scene is probably one of the best in the genre. Anyone can make a person jump and enough gore will gross even those with the best stomachs, but suspense is the best way to really scare someone. The movie really spends the time to make you care about the characters, so when their time comes you're actually rooting for them rather than the killer, the main problem with later Friday the 13th films. This is one that will have you hiding behind blankets and pillows on your first watch.

The movie's use of cell phones may date the film somewhat, but Scream is a terrific film otherwise. The movie knows the genre and is one of the best of it. This is a can't miss for any horror fan, and will likely make some new fans.

House (1985)

Good Introduction to R Horror Movies

[8/10 · 31 May 2012]

I don't know when I first saw this movie. I know I was young, ten or eleven maybe. I remember being scared, and probably had some trouble turning off the light that night, but it never traumatized me. I've picked it up every so often ever since and always enjoyed it. It was one of the first R rated horror movies I saw, and now I'm hooked on the genre.

This is a great film when introducing children to "harder" horror. For those ready to move on from Scooby-Doo but not ready for Night of the Living Dead or The Exorcist. It's scary and suspenseful but never terrifying. Tension builds and there are plenty of jump scares, but the frights never last for long. Take the closet monster for instance. Tension builds as Roger goes to the door and there's a big scare when it comes out. But afterwards it becomes almost silly. Same with the fish and witch. It's a lot like Evil Dead 2 in that it's never too scary to not be funny and never too funny to not be scary.

There's also a good story to go along with it. It follows Roger Cobb who grew up with his aunt in a haunted house. He went to war and saw horrible things. His son disappeared at the haunted house and he's separated from his wife. Obviously, all this ties together in some way when the aunt dies and he moves back into the house. None of it ever becomes hokey or clichéd. The film allows time to get to know Roger before the haunting begins so we like him and understand his plight. There's also an interesting aspect regarding whether all the hauntings are real or just caused by the stress of his life.

George Wendt from Cheers plays the lovable neighbor that Roger befriends and helps. He isn't that much different than Norm but provides lots of humorous moments. The only thing I wish they did better is to make the supermodel neighbor more interesting. She's fine for some T&A and the house does something with her (which I still can never get whether that was really her or if it was just the witch), but she never really serves the story well. It's little more than a cameo just to have a model in the movie.

Each of the actors do well in their parts. All are great, though Richard Moll hams it up just a little too much in his Vietnam scenes. It features William Katt, who genre fans would know as the prom date from Carrie. This film certainly shows some range for him. The film is made by the crew who did Friday the 13th, Parts 2 and 3 and has the same visual style.

The special effects work very well for the story. The "ghosts" are practical effects using puppets, like Star Wars, which looks a lot better than stop motion. As I said before, they look scary at first but grow silly the more they're seen. The walking hand is equally disturbing and funny.

The movie may not be a classic of the genre, but it's well worth checking out. It's a descent ghost story with plenty of suspense. As I said before, this is a good movie to test children before showing them something like The Shining or Nightmare on Elm Street. Those used to more terrifying horror should know that this isn't the scariest thing on store shelves. It's a good, solid B-movie that won't really disappoint.

Regarding the sequel, I say skip it. As light as this movie is, House II is much lighter and far campier. In fact, it's more like Weekend at Bernie's than Evil Dead. It's more of a fantasy-western than horror and never scary. If you're watching this movie and want more, go with the Bruce Campbell trilogy.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

How Ron Howard Stole the Grinch

[6/10 · 11 December 2011]

How the Grinch Stole Christmas is a film adaptation of the always memorable 1957 book by Dr. Seuss. The story was already adapted into the classic 1966 television special featuring Boris Karloff the Uncanny. How does it hold up compared to these and other Christmas movies? Not particularly well.

To say something nice first, the film looks great. If ever you wanted to see a Dr. Seuss book come to life, this is it. The set design is terrific. The blend of miniatures and computer generated imagery is fantastic to the point where stuff looks very convincing. The make-up effects were good enough to win an Oscar.

Jim Carrey does a great job. He obviously is having fun with the role, getting to play as over the top as he wants. His usual silly improvisation works well with the role. He also does very well in the make-up, able to perform many facial expressions that don't look real. That one iconic grin appearing to be digitally enhanced, though it wasn't. And once the movie gets to the book/special parts where the Grinch is actually stealing Christmas, Carrey shines and makes the movie incredibly fun.

The rest of the cast is okay. They are all overplayed bordering on camp, but I guess that was what Ron Howard was going for. Taylor Momsen does a decent job in her first starring role, but Cindy Lou is portrayed as far too over-the-top sweet. Every scene she's in seems to punch you in the face with how sweet she is and how cute she looks. Anthony Hopkins is fantastic as the narrator, but he's got such a good voice he could make the phone book sound interesting. This is about where the good stuff ends.

The TV special had directly adapted the book, so to turn it into a full length feature extra content had to be added. Some is welcome, most is not. I do like how they expanded on the relationship between the Grinch and Whoville since the original story did not have much. The concept of why the Grinch hates Christmas is good in theory but the way it was done was lousy. The whole "Made fun of as a kid" thing has been done dozens of times before and doesn't help the original story's true message (more on that later). The entire Whobilation sequence is dumb, tedious, and seems to exist only to fill up space. Howard had some fun and Carrey got to be silly but it hardly helps the plot in anyway. You can skip past it and not miss anything.

Ron Howard is mostly known for his dramatic movies. Backdraft, Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Frost/Nixon, and even Parenthood was more of a dramatic movie with comedic elements. And he seems out of his element by doing this campy, silly style. He would have done better with a dramedy like Parenthood. But this just isn't his style and it shows. Other directors can pull off camp with style but Howard, like Spielberg, is better suited for drama with comedy added.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it completely reverses the message of the original story. Originally, the Grinch didn't understand the true meaning of Christmas and it was the Whos who made him see the truth. In this movie, the Whos are over-commercialized gluttons who only care about material things and it is Grinch who makes them see the truth. What? Did the producers ever even read the book or watch the special? Didn't anyone involved ever say, "Hey, you got this backwards."? The reason the Grinch is a grinch is supposed to be because he just sees the material things and thinks that's all there is. Later, he realizes that stuff was only a representation of feelings. Here the Whos are all self-centered jerks, except for overly sweet Cindy Lou, who represent all the negative things about the Christmas season until the finale.

As with any adaptation, fans will tolerate any change as long as the spirit stays true to the source. But this movie was not faithful to what Seuss was trying to say. If the movie had just stuck to the original story and just expanded on Grinch's misconceptions about the season, the movie would have done very well. After all, he's supposed to be the hero and villain whereas here he is simply this green goofball doing random things up until he actually performs the title deed.

Children will probably enjoy the silly antics and goofy setting. Though my little brother (who was three when the movie came out but I don't remember when he did see it) was terrified of the Grinch for years after seeing the movie because Carrey can be intense for the younger ones. Adults will probably find the story to be dumb and full of fluff. Fans will enjoy how Carrey performs the role but may find the story to be too drastically changed. If you're looking for a good Christmas movie, there's plenty better about finding the true meaning of Christmas. Plus the classic TV special is readily available wherever this movie is sold.

Fright Night (2011)

Among the Great Remakes

[9/10 · 28 August 2011]

Fright Night is based off the 1985 film of the same name. Personally, I didn't particularly care about the original. It was okay but I didn't think it was anything special. The mix of horror and comedy has given it a dedicated following over the years. I've never seen the sequel, but everything I've heard says it's pretty bad. Now, remakes and reboots are all the rage, especially if they are a movie from the 80s. Many of these remakes have been merely okay at best, and most are pointless. So how does this remake stand up? Incredibly well, in fact.

In the great pantheon of film remakes, Fright Night stands alongside greats like The Thing, The Blob '88, Invasion of the Body Snatchers '78 for one simple reason: the story remains true to the original while making enough differences to be their own movie. The story is basically the same, so there's no real surprises for fans of the original. But it isn't just a shot-for-shot remake like Psycho or what seems like a rehash like The Karate Kid. It may have the same run time but the pacing is different, events are rearranged, and people do the same thing for different reasons.

It's these subtle differences that really make the movie stand out. For one, the movie is been updated with contemporary themes. Instead of large Gothic mansions set in some anonymous suburb, this is set in regular homes near Las Vegas. There's a lot played with the last decade's housing boom and subsequent crash. Real life problems such as foreclosures and abandoned houses put a modern twist on classic vampire lore. This makes this version much more relatable to modern audiences. And, much like Invasion '78, a simple change of location provides much thematic differences from the original. The (in)famous Vegas nightlife and spectacle shows play a big role in the film and compliment vampire lore in a modern way perfectly.

The cast is good all around. No one falls short. Anton Yelchin handles being the center of the movie well. But the two standouts are David Tennan as Peter Vincent and Colin Farrell as Jerry Dandrige. Tennan follows Roddy McDowall in an equally impressive role. He's clearly bringing some of Russell Brand into his version and makes a fun and interesting role that is his own. Though it's Ferrell who steals the movie as the villain. He's incredibly creepy but almost charming. There's an intelligence that comes through his performance in a Bela Lugosi's Dracula kind of way. This is an intelligent villain who isn't intimidated by the heroes.

The tone of the film maintains what made the original so memorable. It's true to the spirit of the original by maintaining the clever mix of fun comedy and suspenseful scares. As stated, Jerry is like the shark from Jaws and when he's on the hunt you never really know how it's going to end. And when he finally does get going the action doesn't stop. Then the movie will pull out some joke that lightens the mood. Like at one point, Jerry attacks someone then immediately talks to onlookers like he's going out for beers with them later. It's little things like this that make the movie entertaining throughout.

There's only one black spot on the movie, and that deals with "Evil" Ed. First, Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays the same exact character he's played in Superbad and Kick-Ass. That same goofy, bumbling character who's trying to be more than he really is. I'm beginning to wonder if he can play any other kind of character. Luckily, he only has a few scenes in the movie. Second, Ed is pretty much wasted in the movie. There's a backstory between Ed and Charley that ends up not having much to do with the story, and their relationship isn't finished well. Ed seemed more like an afterthought, as though they didn't know how to adapt the character properly and he seems forced into this story.

On another note, I saw the movie in 3D and it's wasted. The opening titles look good and there's an interesting long shot set in the car, but that's about it. And unfortunately, there's a lot of gimmicky stuff that pop out at the screen. Things like hands, balls, spikes, etc popping out at the audience was silly back in the 50s and remains that way to this day. Stuff like that draws attention to itself and takes the audience out of the movie-watching experience.

Fright Night is one of those remakes that easily equals, and quite possibly surpasses, the original. It wisely uses the original as merely a frame to craft its own story. Fans of the original should appreciate the modern twist, and it should be entertaining enough to draw in new fans. This is the kind of remake that movie fans wait for. Let's just hope that the sequel, if and when, is better than the original sequel.

Howard the Duck (1986)

Must See To Believe

[5/10 · 21 August 2011]

Howard the Duck is one of those movies that everyone should see at least once. There are no words that can describe it. It certainly is a spectacle in what missteps a movie can make.

The movie is adapted from the Marvel Comics character. The movie version is almost nothing like the comics. One of the things about any adaptation is, at the very least, it should remain true to the spirit of the source. Comic Howard is rude and crude, his stories are usually social satires, and is often aware of the truth of his existence. Movie Howard is none of these things. There are rare glimpses at a more faithful Howard but the movie fails to go anywhere with them.

One then has to wonder why Howard was chosen for a movie. This was back in the day when only Superman and Swamp Thing graced the screen. Long before Batman, X-Men, or Spider-Man. Howard was hardly a well-known property, sure he had a following but nothing big. If this was to adapt a comic book, why choose such a relatively obscure character? If this was a pet project, why so little faithfulness? Certainly, George Lucas could have used his Star Wars developed technology to make an interesting early X-Men or Fantastic Four film.

Derived from Howard's characterization, the tone of the movie is not at all consistent. It's rated PG, though I'm not sure why. The movie goes between silly kid stuff to more adult fare. They try to have some more R stuff like drugs, alcohol, a near-sex scene, and some puppet nudity. But then they seem to water the movie down so much to keep a PG, as if they were just looking to get the Star Wars crowd to come. PG-13 had already been used so why not go for that middle ground?

The best part of the movie is the visual effects. Howard's puppet is quite effective. In this day and age, CGI can do anything and everything but even the best creatures look like they were made in a computer. I always find it refreshing to watch an older movie and see some practical creature effects like Chewbacca, Jabba the Hutt, or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle. Seeing a Howard that actually exist in the world he's supposed to be in looks good. Plus, the stop motion at the end actually works for the whole alternate universe Dark Overlord thing since that was really not supposed to fit in. But that's about it for the good.

The acting can be viewed as either over-the-top campy or simply uninspired. The only standout is Chip Zien as the voice of Howard. He's the only one really trying, even if he isn't given much to work with. There's a reason Lea Thompson hasn't been popular outside of Back to the Future, and this shows why. She's mostly going through the motions. Jeffrey Jones and Tim Robbins are both so over the top to the point of making fun of themselves.

The story is nothing interesting. Again, given the source you'd think it would be more interesting. It's your typical fish, or duck if you will, out of water story. Except that he and the world adjust to each other a little too quickly. The love story between Howard and Beverly is weak at best. And every scene with the Dark Overlord seems like you need some drugs in your system to fully appreciate. If anything, it's just an example of the over-the-top goofiness we got from many 80s movies.

If you think about the movie, you won't enjoy it. There's simply too many problems with it. As a whole, it may just be campy enough to enjoy. Is it one of the worst movies ever made? Certainly not, there are far worse movies out there. Is it the worst comic book movie? Perhaps, but in today's age it's got competition from Jonah Hex and Fantastic Four.

Watch it and see for yourself. Cause there is really no way anyone can describe it to you. It is either slightly greater than the sum of its parts, or a complete mess.

Red Sonja (1985)

End of the Hyborian Age

[5/10 · 20 August 2011]

Conan the Barbarian essentially started the sword-and-sorcery genre of film while Red Sonja basically killed it. Sure there were more afterwards but never to the same high profile as before Sonja.

The movie is the third film from the Conan series by Robert E. Howard started with Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer. Red Sonja is a character from Marvel Comics' adaptation loosely adapted from a Howard character. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who played Conan in the last two, plays Lord Kalidor. Why they didn't name him Conan is anyone's guess since he is basically the same exact character and would have created some interesting continuity between them.

First, what I liked about it. The technical aspects of Red Sonja is as good as Conan the Barbarian and Destroyer. The sets and creatures look as good as the others. Sonja may not make any big technical leaps forward but nothing looks worse. And visually, the style looks the same helping with some continuity. It seems like the producers were able to do the most they could with their lower budget.

The acting is also about the same. I never thought much of the series' acting before and there are no improvements but overall it stays the same. At least it's consistent. However, this was Brigitte Nielsen's first role and shows she wasn't ready to headline a movie yet, or at all. This is another reason why it should have been Schwarzenegger as Conan, with Nielsen in a secondary role like she was in Rocky IV.

Some characters seem to acknowledge the silliness of it all, while others take things seriously. It's not as overly silly as Destroyer, though could have been more serious like Barbarian. The tone was certainly handled better than Destroyer.

The music is also quite entertaining. May not be catchy but it is effective and sounds good.

Now for the bad, which is to say everything else. Schwarzenegger has all the charm in the movie, and whenever he's not on the movie drags. It's hard to get into a movie when the title character is played so blandly. Most of the characters are pretty one-dimensional and bland without much to do. The story is predictable, but at other times the story is muddled and you don't know why characters act the way they do.

Overall, the movie failed to justify itself. There didn't seem to be much reason beyond cashing in on Schwarzenegger's two Conan movies' fame. Sonja fails to prove that she is anything but a Conan clone. I've never read the comics, or the Howard books, but I'm sure that the worst of Sonja's stories never felt as tedious as this film.

Schwarzenegger said he uses this film to punish his children. I wouldn't exactly call that fair. You can either view this as a so-bad-it's-good or not-quite-as-bad-as-people-say kind of movie. And certainly Junior or End of Days is more punishing to sit through.

The whole sword-and-sorcery genre and Hyborian Age was fun while it lasted and there certainly were some interesting ideas thrown around. Much like how superheroes movies rose, fell, and was resurrected, I hope SAS films get their own revitalization. I write this the same weekend as the Conan the Barbarian reboot/remake was released, but given the poor reviews there's not much hope on seeing more Hyborians in film.

Cars 2 (2011)

How the Mighty have Fallen

[5/10 · 24 June 2011]

We hoped it would never happen, but no one is perfect. Even the best can stumble. This had to happen eventually. Even the string of terrific Disney's classic films and the 90s Disney Renaissance didn't last forever. I'm afraid that, yes, Pixar has made a bad film.

Cars 1 was their least ambitious film. The story was predictable and character development obvious making it their most mediocre film. It was good but it lacked that little extra touch that made their films great. However, they had some great side characters, a heart, and wonderful scenes that elevated it up beyond most other films. But ever since this film's announcement I always wondered why. McQueen had his story and there's not much else to tell. Like Finding Nemo, where else is there to go? And I'd rather see sequels to better movies like The Incredibles, even Bug's Life seems to have more potential. It's easy to see why they made a sequel to it, since all you need to do is go to Disneyland or any Disney Store and see it covered in McQueen and Mater, which happened to be two my of three year-old cousin's first words. Off all the Pixar films, Cars made the most with the merchandise.

The biggest problem is the story. Cars 1, while predictable, was touching. Cars 2 has almost no heart or character development. The focus shifts from McQueen to Mater. McQueen had his story in the first and there's little to tell here. He has one character moment that's essentially the same realization as the first film's. The problem with Mater is that he's such a simple character. Everything about him is on the surface for all to see. He's the same person throughout the movie, with one predictable realization which goes no where, that he doesn't warrant his own film. He's like Kronk from The Emperor's New Groove. They're both terrific side characters but lack enough complexity for a full story. And Larry the Cable Guy has always been better with the other Blue Collar guys rather than on his own.

While Cars 1's highlight was its side characters, this movie almost abandons them. They do nothing. McMissile is a moving plot device and little more. Shiftwell is supposed to be a love interest but lacks any interesting moments. The rest of Radiator Springs basically sit back while McQueen and Mater have all the fun. Their stories and character are pushed aside so Larry can have fun being Mater. Because of this, there are almost no funny little side scenes where characters just have fun being themselves. Instead, most of the humor is derived from seeing Mater do silly things.

The look is impressive but not more than anything else Pixar's done. With each movie, the studio has pushed the graphics into new levels. Each movie has had some wow moment where audiences can't help but be amazed by what they're seeing. There were times in Cars 1 when it looked almost real. Cars 2 lacks any wow factor. One of the most impressive sets, Tokyo, were already spoiled by the Tokyo Mater short. This more than anything makes me wonder if Pixar was even trying to up the ante or if they were just using what they had to make a movie a year.

Spies and Cars seems to work well together. After all, any Bond or Bourne film will easily demonstrate why the two go together. Indeed, the opening scene on the drilling platform is easily the best with the fast chase and cool gadgets. But they weren't able to properly combine the racing and spy elements, almost as if you're watching two movies at once. There's too much spy stuff for the racing to be interesting, which becomes pointless against the overpowering and overly clichéd spy story. Perhaps Pixar should have set it as simply a spy movie set in the Cars universe and had McQueen and his friends in cameos or as a background story.

Another lousy spot is the music. Cars 1 had a terrific soundtrack with excellent uses of popular songs like Life is a Highway and Route 66. But there's not one memorable song or music cue in this movie. Giacchino usually does terrific work like with The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Up. But he too fumbles the ball here. Perhaps he was just uninspired by what he had to work with.

Cars is Lasseter's pet project. But I think he's too close to it. He's got that Lucas Star Wars prequel trilogy problem. The people around him either were in awe of the man who made Pixar and Toy Story or they were afraid to hurt his feelings since he loves the Cars franchise so much. Pixar efforts have been so well done because they were collaborative efforts, each fixing each other's problems to make a better project. But with Lasseter off working more directly with Disney, he really should have had a co-director or perhaps given the reins to someone else like he did with Toy Story 3.

I almost rated this movie higher. It is fun while you're watching it, even if as soon as it's over it becomes too easy to pick apart the problems. But this is Pixar. They've dominated the animation market since Toy Story and have been pushing the boundaries at the Academy Awards ever since. To see them stumble with a not-so-great film would be one thing. But they're coming off from two Best Picture nominees to a movie that's simply flashy but with little substance. Kids will love the bright colors and silly antics, but parents will hate having to then buy twelve new Mater toys. Cars 2 is stalled and in need of a tune-up.

Green Lantern (2011)

Better Than People Give It Credit For

[7/10 · 20 June 2011]

DC Comics has not had much luck in the live action film business. Unless it's a Batman film made by Christopher Nolan, they just can't get anything off the ground. Superman is going on his second reboot in the ten years. The Justice League idea keeps crashing and burning. And Wonder Woman can't get anything going no matter who's working on it. It's pretty sad when Swamp Thing has two movies while top tier heroes like Flash and Martian Manhunter haven't seen the light of film. Since Marvel has been, for better or worse, adapting every hero they have, DC/WB needed something to get back in the game. Green Lantern seems like a terrific fit for a summer blockbuster. Big flashy effects, epic stories, and just two years ago the GL-centered Blackest Night event took the comic book world by storm. So how is the movie itself?

First things first, the movie's biggest problem is the story. It's not a bad story on its own. It's biggest fault is that it's the exact same origin story we've seen dozens of times in the past decade. Man with problematic life, tragic accident, gets powers, overcomes personal weaknesses, fights bad guy, love interest thrown in just for fun, and set up for sequel (usually in that order). Superman, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Punisher, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Ghost Rider, and Iron Man have all used that same basic set-up. For comic book readers, we're just glad to see our favorite heroes on the big screen. But for the average film-goer who don't know their Doctor Strange from Hawkman, this can be quite repetitive and boring. Audiences can only take the same story so many times. Superman and Spider-Man came out before it got old while Batman Begins and Iron Man were intelligent and fun enough that it didn't seem like the same thing over again. Sadly, Green Lantern fails to elevate itself outside of the visuals.

The story is an adaptation of Geoff John's Secret Origins. It's the same basic story but the changes make it more of the clichéd origin film. I'm not saying they needed to do a Snyder's 300-style adaptation, but they didn't seem to grasp what made Nolan's adaptation of Batman: Year One so lovable. If they stayed a bit closer to the comics, it would have been able to stand out more from the crowd. It's mostly minor stuff like Hal's history, his relationship with Carol, and his connection with Carl Ferris that added some dynamics to the story that the movie misses out on.

I saw the movie in 3D and it looked terrific. I wouldn't expect less in this day and age. From the constructs to Oa to alien species, everything looks terrific. All of the characters look spot-on and there are many cameos for long-time readers. I never did like the CGI suits, and still don't, but they look fine in the movie. My only complaint is that there are a couple shaky cam shots that, in 3D, can make you nauseous. But if this film doesn't get a nomination for Best Visual Effects, I will be disappointed.

Green Lantern has much in common with this year's earlier Thor. Both comic characters are very powerful, have large expansive universes that are often separate from their fellow heroes, and are little known to non-comic readers. However, Thor spent a great deal of time in Asgard whereas GL only spends what seems like a day on Oa. Also, Thor spent time developing side characters like Sif and the Warriors Three. GL has Kilowog, Tomar-Re, and the Guardians but they're mostly cameos for exposition.

The characters are pretty much spot-on with terrific acting all around. Reynolds is great. He's a little more of his usual comical self than is right for the role, but he isn't goofy or just a Green Deadpool. However, Hal is a bit inconsistent making me believe that restored deleted scenes would make the movie better. Blake Lively is fine and works well with Reynolds. Though her character most of all should have been more like Secret Origins. Sarsgaard has fun with Hammond both before and after his mutation. Though it's Strong who steals the show as Hal's mentor and future rival Sinestro. He nailed the personality and there are certainly hints of his eventual fall from grace. I just wish that, like the other Lanterns, he had more to do. The rest all do fine jobs.

It's not bad. I've read a lot of bad reviews, many of them downright hostile, but I don't think it deserves the beating it's getting. It's certainly not a great film, like I just have to see it again in theaters. But it's a good film that I'll gladly buy when it comes out. It's one of the better middle-ground movies, neither bad nor terrific but entertaining nonetheless.

The Punisher (2004)

Good Action Flick, Decent Comic Book Movie

[8/10 · 20 June 2011]

Punisher can be a tough nut to crack. The problem with any antihero is finding the balance between their dark actions and noble motivations. Wolverine is searching for who he is. Hulk is looking for a place in the world. Magneto wants to prevent another Holocaust. Like Batman, Frank Castle is merely trying to avenge his families. But unlike most heroes, he is fully willing and able to kill anyone and everyone to do so. Adapting that into an interesting movie so that audiences care about the character while he does those things requires extra attention.

Despite all the complaints against the film, it is actually quite good in a 70s-80s classic action film kind of way. It's like Dirty Harry doing Die-Hard level action in a Hamlet-like story. The movie's certainly not Shakespeare but it's entertaining if you like those old Schwarzenegger and Stallone movies. Big guns are fired, things blow up spectacularly, and people die in testosterone-fueled scenes. Like the 80s action movies, there several moments of humor to lighten up the story without making the characters seem comical, like the scene where Frank "tortures" Mickey or uses the fire hydrant.

The story is simple and straightforward. Frank's family is killed and he goes on a rampage to avenge them. These kind of big, loud action movies never are very complicated. Probably what holds the movie back the most is that it uses a well-worn superhero origin story. Regular life, tragic accident, becomes a hero, saves a few innocent people, and faces the bad guy. It wasn't so bad at the time. Spider-Man and Daredevil already used this exact same template. But since then, I write this just after the release of Green Lantern, far too many movies have used the same exact template since and it becomes hard to distinguish between them outside of the visuals.

For a first film from Hensleigh it is well done. The action is exciting and there's a certain amount of style to make it his own. The acting is good, though not overly great. Jane and Travolta do terrific jobs. Of the three live-action Punishers, Jane is certainly the best of the bunch. It's sad that they couldn't get him to come back for the next one. If they did do a fourth, I certainly hope he comes back. Travolta has fun in the villain role much as he did in Face/Off. Of the others, Romijn is sexy and Pinette is funny but the rest are not particularly notable. The score by Siliotto is also very effective with several catchy themes.

Is the film a great example of any genre? Not hardly. But it's fun nonetheless. It's a gritty and realistic approach to the comic book character and not so over-the-top to be silly. If you're looking for a good action movie, this one is worth a watch. If you're looking for a good superhero movie, well, there's certainly worse ones out there.

Ghost Rider (2007)

Needs a Flaming Facelift

[6/10 · 13 June 2011]

Let's face it, Ghost Rider was never a popular character. He was always rather obscure and known mostly known only to comic book geeks. And whatever popularity he had was mostly due to the awesome visual of a flaming skull on a motorcycle. He had two cameos on animated series in the 90s and an appearance in Marvel Ultimate Alliance. So adapting this obscure character could have either been awesome like Blade or completely forgettable like Man-Thing. The end result is disappointing and forgettable but does look cool.

The movie, like far too many others, is an origin story. Like every other origin story, it follows the exact same formula. That's the same problem Fantastic Four had, and these producers didn't learn. I don't know why more first movies don't follow the Tim Burton's Batman and Blade format of showing a hero already with his powers and explaining the origin later on. At this point even the most basic of movie audiences can predict the story beats.

Unfortunately it takes on a campy tone. Cheesy dialogue is said with the utmost sincerity. Silly scenes are played seriously. Many of the actors chew through the scenery. I understand that there's a certain silly factor to comic book superheroes, but this movie embraces that idea far too much. This is supposed to be a movie about demons, sins, Hell, and the fate of the world. Yet I can't help but laugh at moments that were never meant to be funny. Then moments that are supposed to be funny just come off as awkward.

I will say this, the opening act is quite good. The scenes of Johnny with his father, selling his soul, and the father's accident are pretty dramatic. It's the point where Nic Cage shows up that I started losing interest. These scenes have enough darkness to convey the proper tone but enough lightheartedness to keep them interesting. If the rest of the movie had only followed suit this would have been quite good.

The cast is hit or miss. Nic just doesn't have it in him to convey being a serious superhero. He's trying too hard to be his usual goofy self that he is in all his other movies. (Brief aside, I'm absolutely glad he never got to play Superman as was once planned.) Peter Fonda is the bright spot in this movie. He's dark and manipulative with just enough creepy playfulness, perfect for someone supposed to be the devil. Eva Mendes looks pretty, but doesn't do much else. Wes Bentley is tolerable as the villain but never memorable. Donal Logue does a good job, if only he had something to do. Sam Elliott is great, but again he needed something to do other than simply offer exposition. Honestly, Matt Long and Raquel Alessi have the best scenes and do some of the best work. Those two should have been the stars of the movie.

If there are two things consistently good. One is the CGI. The bike, the demon spirits, and especially Ghost Rider look great. The visuals are what people remember about the comics and the movie nails it. I wouldn't expect anything less in this day and age. The other is Christopher Young's score. It's effective and has some memorable themes throughout the movie. I also love the version of "Ghost Riders in the Sky" by Spiderbait in the movie. There's also an instrumental version in the film that works quite well.

Overall the film is disappointing. It isn't quite awful but it's certainly not good. There are little moments here in there to keep you interested through the otherwise lousy movie. As I write this, they're making a reboot/sequel. I certainly like the idea, but I wish they had gone with someone else for the role besides Nic Cage again. I believe that each and every movie has the potential to be good. But somewhere along the way, someone forgot that the most important thing is having a good story.

X: First Class (2011)

Makes X-Men Interesting Again

[8/10 · 13 June 2011]

X-Men has been up and down the last decade. Singer's two movies were terrific, showcasing the complexity of the X-Men universe. Then came the over-bloated The Last Stand. Wolverine was a slight improvement but it can't be argued that it's anything more than mediocre. Fox needed something to redeem the mutants' saga and they did it.

Singer returns, though only as producer, and brings sensibility and intelligence back. Vaughn brings a terrific sense of style to the movie that hasn't been seen since Singer left. The story deals with the formation of the X-Men, which was briefly alluded to in the first movie. It's an interesting time period to show because Xavier can still walk, Magneto is good, and mutants aren't widely known to the general public. Like the movies, the comics have alluded to this period quite a bit but not shown much of it. Like Batman Begins, it's great to see how the characters all became the people we know.

The acting is good all around. McAvoy and Fassbender really hit it out of the park. Those two really disappear into the role and make them their own. The Charles-Erik relationship was the highlight of the movie as it is in the first film. Lawrence is great as a young and innocent Mystique, though I wish she had a stronger story. It's a bit inconsistent as she's in love with Charles, Beast, and then Erik, plus her "accepting who she is" moment is rather forced. Kevin Bacon also does a terrific job. Unfortunately he's such a recognizable face all I can see is the guy from Footloose and Tremors. The rest of the cast is good but not great. Beast and Moira have plenty of good moments. But the rest are mostly there to fulfill plot points.

It's not quite as violent as Vaughn's Kick-Ass but it gets bloody especially as Erik goes on his Nazi hunt. Many people die, though some seem included just to die. The action is exciting and should keep you in suspense. Though, the problem with any prequel is that we know how certain characters will end up. There's plenty of humor to break up the action and exposition. From little one-liners to recurring gags, it's often laugh-out-loud funny. Though they overuse the joke regarding Xavier's hair.

Although it never really reaches the heights of Singer's two X-Men movies. There are a couple problems that keep it from being perfect.

First, I wish the movie would decide between being a reboot or prequel. It's a fine movie on its own, but its indecision drags it down for someone who, like me, has followed the franchise and loves (most but not all) the movies. There's numerous references to the previous movies including a recreation of X-Men's first scene and cameos by Jackman and Romijn. But then there's things like building Cerebro, Magneto's helmet, and time line issues that couldn't possibly make it fit with the others. Imagine if Batman Begins tried to be a loose prequel to Burton's Batman. I love them both but would like Begins just a little less if they tried to include Burton references. I know the producers weren't concerned with continuity. But I would have preferred if they would decide between being its own entity or a part of the team.

While the 1960s are a fascinating time regarding civil rights, the film doesn't really exploit that at all. Besides a few groovy's from Xavier and Frost's hair style, it never really felt like the 60s. They all acted like modern day people, especially the kids. Then there's no real mention of then-current politics. The Cuban Missile Crisis was just a brief side story for the real plan. But there's no mention of MLK or Malcolm X, the two inspirations for Xavier and Magneto, and nothing about civil rights protests. Since the government is introduced to mutants in the movie no one knows about them yet so there's no way they could have the time for anything like the Registration Act, Sentinels, or the Friends of Humanity hate group. Besides the Missile Crisis and the age of Erik and Charles it could have been set in any period. It's a wasted opportunity.

The movie has one problem in common with Wolverine, it's trying to get to that Pre-X-Men point too quickly. (Only SPOILER related paragraph) Both movies try to introduce so much about the world AND get it to that familiar point that it shortchanges the characters more than they should. We know that Charles looses the use of his legs and that he and Erik split up. But this was supposed to be the first in a new trilogy, so why burn through so much of the story at once? It's like if The Phantom Menace ended with Anakin becoming Darth Vader. That prequel trilogy spent more time building up the relationship between the two heroes so when one did fall, like Magneto will, it was all the more tragic. Here, we got a glimpse of the Charles-Erik relationship but it felt like it only lasted weeks when it should have been years. Like Star Wars, they should have ended the trilogy with Magneto's turn as they never truly befriended each other here.

Now don't take my last three points as meaning I disliked the film. I loved it. They're just things I wished they improved on. Otherwise it's a terrific film that did what it needed to most importantly, make X-Men interesting again. No more dumb things like killing Cyclops in five minutes or making Deadpool mute. They can finally get back on track towards making the franchise fun for fans and audiences alike. But please, just pick whether it's a prequel or reboot, but not try to do both.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Not X-Men's Proudest Moment, Not Their Worst

[6/10 · 8 June 2011]

After the massively disappointing (though box office success) X-Men: The Last Stand, Fox needed something to improve their franchise name. So they turned to the fan favorite hero who also happened to have just been featured in the massive Marvel crossover House of M and even had his own series, Wolverine. Logan was the center of the last three movies so they logically assumed a movie of his own would be just as successful. They thought wrong.

X-Men and X2 were successful because they were intelligent and well made stories. Wolverine did have a major part in the stories, but he wasn't the only one. The Last Stand was over packed with characters and story so that no one, not even Wolverine, had a decent character arc. And honestly, he was only featured because most of the other main cast were killed off or unceremoniously pushed to the side. Now in the comics, Logan has had a lot of success in individual series. But the movie contained none of what made those comics good.

The story is an abbreviated version of Logan's early life through Weapon X. Problem is, each and every phase of his life is so incredibly interesting that each could warrant a film of their own. Origins is, in my opinion, one of the best stories Marvel's ever put out and on equal level of DC's Batman: Year One. Here, it's paraphrased in the first five minutes, and all the mystery and intrigue of the comic series is bluntly stated. His time on Team X is also very interesting. Here, it's over in the first thirty minutes and only one mission is shown. Weapon X by Barry Windsor-Smith is, again, one of the best stories you'll read. Here, over with in the first half without anything that made that story engaging. The whole movie is like the CliffNotes version of the comics. You get the basics but none of the heart and soul of it.

The explanation for how Logan loses his memory is atrociously bad. I won't spoil it, but it boggles the mind that the producers came up with something so dumb. It's factually inaccurate, especially within the universe the movies have set up, and just a hair beneath deus ex machina. Origins had a very appropriate explanation that revealed a lot about who he is. If the producers went with that this movie would have been much more Christopher Nolan-esque.

Wolverine also has one major problem that The Last Stand did, far too many characters. And again, the more characters they add the less time to develop any so that basically all become stagnant. Logan has a story but doesn't really evolve. Nor can he since the previous movies established that he will be reset at some point. Stryker in X2 was one of the best villain in film and expertly shows the true enemy of the X- Men. Here, he's simply a maniacal bad guy and almost a mad scientist stereotype. The others (Blob, Maverick, Agent Zero, Gambit, even Silverfox) are simply there to move the plot forward. Fan favorite Deadpool is most disappointing. Like everything else, he's so briefly shown that can't have the time to be the anti-hero fans know and love. Ryan Reynolds was perfect casting. But he only gets two scenes and nothing much to do besides be a guy with swords.

On the other hand, I will say that they did a terrific job with Sabretooth. In X-Men he was simply a big thug who for whatever reason disliked Logan. This version was far more faithful to the comics as he and Logan were personally connected and actually got to play off each other. Liev Schreiber was terrific casting. If there's one good thing to take away from this movie, it's Sabretooth.

Hugh Jackman gives another great performance. I still can't imagine any other actor in that part. If only he had a better story to work with. But besides the aforementioned Reynolds and Schreiber, no one else stands out. No one is particularly bad, but no one is more than just okay.

Finally, this movie really should have been R. I understand all the stuff about studio marketing, the teen audience, etc. But Wolverine is Marvel's bloodiest superhero followed far behind by Blade and Punisher (both of which had R rated movies). This shouldn't be a Saturday morning cartoon show where Wolverine can only punch foes and uses his claws to open doors. This is supposed to be long before the X-Men where he still lets his anger get the best of him. Plenty of movies, much like Blade, have proved that R rated can be financially and critically successful.

That being said, this film isn't the worst I've seen. Certainly Daredevil, Ghost Rider, The Last Stand for example are far less entertaining. The action is exciting. Seeing people use powers against each other is always cool. And it does open the gates for Wolverine's early history to those who don't know the comics.

The film is tolerable. Nothing as good as X-Men, X2, or First Class but certainly a step up from The Last Stand. It could have, and should have, been better. I certainly hope the upcoming sequel (as I write this) is better. But being someone who grew up on the 90s X-Men series and the comics, I do say I enjoy watching this simply because I do like Wolverine.

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made (2004 Video)

Interesting But Poorly Made

[5/10 · 5 June 2011]

The content of the documentary itself is interesting. As a film fan I always am interested in bad films as well as good ones. The problem with this movie is just how it was done.

First of all, there's no rhyme or reason to the order. They're not in order of box office, Rotten Tomatoes rating, or IMDb score. It's just like some guy with Final Cut Pro made an hour long video from some cheap movies he bought and ordered them to his personal opinion. It's little different from the numerous lists on YouTube.

Then, there's no real discussion for the movie. Each segment is basically a minute or two of revealing the movie then pointing out the problems with it. It's almost like whoever made it just went through the Goofs section on IMDb.

Finally, the original content is pretty poor. It's the same lousy animation with the same library sound effects between each segment. Again, nothing that no ordinary person couldn't do with FCP.

It's an interesting subject matter, but I wish whoever made this put some more thought into it.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Disrespectful To Fans

[4/10 · 3 June 2011]

X-Men: The Last Stand is a tragedy of a movie. It managed to overshadow The Phantom Menace as far as disappointing follow-ups to successful movies. The first two intelligently set up a terrific and complex universe. This is anything but.

Like far too many bad movies that had potential, the movie suffered because the studio decided to get involved. Singer left the project for Superman, and honestly I think he recognized what was going on and jumped the sinking ship. Ratner gets a bad rap for this, but he came in so late that there was no chance in saving it. For whatever reason, studios seem to think that bigger is always better despite the majority of such movies showing otherwise.

The biggest problem is that far too many characters are added. The first had about ten main characters. The second about fifteen. This has about thirty. Having a bunch of cameos is fine, but this movie tries to give time to everyone so that essentially no one has any time. Forget character development, there's so much trying to go on that no one has any real memorable moments. There's a couple of special effects moments, but not character.

The worse problem is that the returning cast is given the shaft except for Storm and Wolverine. Wolverine had a good story arc in the first two but X2 finished it. This was the time to move on, but still he is front and center despite not having much to do. Storm was only elevated because Berry couldn't handle being a supporting character anymore, but again she doesn't have much to do. Cyclops is killed early on and no one cares. Xavier is also killed about half way through but there's some half-hearted feelings at his funeral, and it's especially terrible that his good friend Magneto doesn't seem to care for more than two seconds. Whatever dynamics Magneto had in the first two is abandoned as he simply becomes a bad guy. Mystique is depowered and tossed aside without any fanfare. Rogue's character changes completely for no apparent reason other than some semblance of development. Jean turns into the Dark Phoenix but basically stands around while other people do things around her. The love triangle set up in the first two is torn to shreds.

Instead we're asked to care about the new characters, most of which are bland and one- dimensional. Juggernaut is his bland Ultimate version rather than dynamic main comic self since he's just a brute rather than Xavier's step-brother. Callisto is basically there for Storm to fight and to stand at Magneto's side. Fan favorite Colossus literally only has one line. Angel is nothing but a plot device. We're asked to accept a second love triangle between Rogue, Iceman, and Kitty but it's forced and unemotional, probably cause Rogue becomes so one- dimensional this time. They try to touch our heartstrings with Leech, but again there's so little of him that audiences just can't care. Beast is usually quite interesting, but for whatever reason you loved his comic and/or animated self is gone here.

The action is merely okay, but without character development it's just flashy special effects to distract us. The special effects themselves are good, and it seems the producers had fun coming up with different powers for all the cannon fodder. Since the characters are uninteresting it's hard to get into caring about them in the action. In pretty much every action sequence, there's little rhyme or reason besides showing off powers and special effects. Again, the studio seemed to think that having bigger and louder scenes was better than having intelligence.

The love and care from the first two movies is completely absent, almost to the point of disrespecting the characters and fans. The whole film screams money grab as if putting time and care into the third movie would have somehow degraded the box office results. This was certainly the low point in the series. Wolverine was bad but tolerable, and First Class got it back to being interesting. It's a terrible follow up and I sincerely hope that they simply reboot the franchise so we can see Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean, etc. as comic fans truly know and love them.

X2 (2003)

Expertly Shows That Comics Aren't Just Kid Stories

[10/10 · 1 June 2011]

Everything that the first movie did well, the second did better. More action, more characters, more story lines, more superpowers, more humor, more of everything. But never at any time does it feel over-bloated like The Last Stand and Wolverine would. It all works and flows together well.

The story is an expertly crafted continuation of the first's. I don't know how much of this they had in mind when they made the first, but the two compliment each other very well. Singer really pushes his craft harder this time. The mansion attack is suspenseful, the Iceman confession is hilarious, the battles are exciting, and the deaths tragic. I would have loved to see what Singer could have done with the third had Fox not gotten overly controlling and he left to do Superman.

The movie shows off what makes the X-Men comics so beloved, it's not about fighting villains but fighting the ills of society. The X-Men have always fought more against prejudice and that has never been better demonstrated than this movie. The best X-Men stories have always been showing them fight normal humans and their hatred, such as Graydon Creed and the Friends of Humanity. Additionally, showing the X-Men teaming with the Brotherhood is terrific since Magneto has always worked better as an anti-heroic antagonist rather than plain old villain.

The returning actors are even better, and the new cast are equally good. It's nice to see Mystique, Rogue, and Storm all get more to do. I know many people complain that Wolverine has so much focus, but it's still handled well and won't get too much until The Last Stand. Alan Cumming is terrific even through all the make up. Kelly Hu is creepy and terrifying. Aaron Stanford has fun with his near-psychotic nature. But it's Brian Cox that really steals the movies. His gleefully dangerous Stryker is one of the best villains ever. The end escape scene really demonstrates many of the actor's better moments.

My only disappointment is that Cyclops is given less to do this film. The Logan-Jean-Scott love triangle is still there, but he's not even a part of it. He has one short fight scene and one dramatic scene and that's about it. Of course, it's even worse in The Last Stand where he basically has a cameo.

It's tragic that a worthy follow-up was not meant to be given how wonderful this movie is. This one set up so much that the third should have paid off so well. The movie was one of the first to really demonstrate the complex and complicated nature of superheroes. It's still one of the best in the genre.

X-Men (2000)

Still One of the Best Superhero Movies

[10/10 · 30 May 2011]

X-Men may have come out fairly early in the recent superhero renaissance, but it still holds up as one of the genre's best. Blade was the first serious modern superhero film, but X-Men was the one that made them popular. For the first time since they stopped making Superman films, audiences got to see heroes using superpowers fighting others with superpowers.

The film was also one of the first to deal with some deep themes. It is in no way a simple good guy versus bad guy story that usually populates the genre. Magneto is every bit as developed, interesting, and sympathetic as the heroes. Possibly, more so. And Singer is able to use his own experiences being a homosexual to enhance the mutant problems so that it becomes an excellent allegory for current events that still remains true to the vast comic book history.

The story is presented as an origin story, but it's not like the numerous other origin stories. Like Blade and Tim Burton's Batman, they're already heroes and can start with the action right away. The Wolverine-Rogue relationship works wonderfully. I don't quite know why they didn't just use Jubilee as it is in the comics, but Rogue works just fine. The Logan-Jean-Scott love triangle starts off great, though I wish they went further with it in the sequels. Though the really terrific relationship is the Xavier-Magneto friendship-turned-rivalry which out shines everyone else. It really added a whole other dimension to the movie that, quite honestly, no other superhero movie has been able to match.

The movie does have a bit too much exposition. Sure there is a lot needed to be explained, but there are a few too many sections of the movie where it's just long speeches by Jean, Xavier, etc. There is plenty of action, more than many other origin movies, and they all work well that you can forgive the long exposition.

The movie is nearly perfectly cast. Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, Jean, Rogue, and Senator Kelly are exactly like they are in the comics. Now, I can hardly read the comics without thinking of their voices to match the dialogue. Mystique is good, but she is better in the sequel. I liked Cyclops, though he has progressively less to do in the sequels which is disappointing since he is such an interesting character. Storm is fine here, but Berry's subsequent rise to fame and insistence on more screen time drags down later movies. I loved Mane as Sabretooth, but the character is given so little to do and honestly he was portrayed more interestingly and faithfully in the Wolverine movie.

The movie isn't just a terrific superhero movie, but a great movie in general. Singer really goes above in beyond in his two X-Men movie, that it's a real shame the next two had to be so overstuffed with characters that everyone became uninteresting. There's a faithfulness and intelligence that's missing from too many other superheroes. X2: X-Men United may do everything this movie did better, but it's still a wonderful movie that I'll happily watch any time.