kingofdanerds Reviews

Absurd (1981)

Anthropophagous 2: Electric Boogaloo

[6/10 · 23 September 2022]

It honestly hurts my head trying to figure out what to call these cheap Italian horror films. Whether you call it Zombie 6: Monster Hunter, Monster Hunter, Anthropophagous 2, or The Grim Reaper 2, many know this film as Absurd. Absurd was released in 1981 initially (though apparently not seeing the American market until 1986 according to IMDb) and was directed, produced, and shot by Joe D'Amato (Anthropophagous, Death Smiles on a Murderer, and 2020 Texas Gladiators) and stars the film's writer, George Eastman (Anthropophagous, Warriors of the Wasteland, and Metamorphosis) and also stars Annie Belle (House on the Edge of the Park, The Alcove, and Forever Emmanuelle), Charles Borromel (Ladyhawke, Waterloo, and The Blade Master), and Katya Berger (Nana, Stories of Ordinary Madness, and An Almost Perfect Affair). Absurd is often seen as a spirtual sequel to Anthropophagous, but the only similarities here is D'Amato is directing and Eastman returns as this film's writer and menacing lead. The film was notorious for being one of the many film's to be put on the UK's "Video Nasties" list due to the extreme gore. The inclusion of this film on the list led it to be a cult film as is the case with most of the film's included on the list.

A man named Mikos Tanoupoulos (George Eastman) is being chased by a priest. After being severely wounded, Mikos is taken to the hospital where the doctors and nurses find out that he has the ability to regenerate. In other words: practically unstoppable, as seen when Mikos escapes and stalks a family in a quite suburban town with the priest and police in pursuit.

Not being a huge fan of D'Amato's and Eastman's earlier collaboration, Anthropophagous, I was questioning whether or not to give anymore of D'Amato's films a watch. Needless to say, I found one that I seem to have a bit more enjoyment with. This film is widely criticized for borrowing way too much from Halloween and Halloween II. Yes, the film does do that but then again, what horror film from the early 80's on both sides of the pond wasn't heavily influenced by Halloween? Also, it's not uncommon to have these Italian horror films to be knockoffs/rip-offs. What these Italian filmmakers try to do is to be influenced by American films and add a bit of variation to at least try and make it feel somewhat unique. The film, at times, lacks enough variation in that a lot of the scenes are ripped straight from Halloween and Halloween II. The death scenes, while boasting some grisly practical effects, are like if you take the death scenes from Halloween II and give them a pair of glasses to wear. Hell, even the music in this film is way too similar to the classic Carpenter Halloween score. Compared to Anthropophagous, The film's pacing is more bearable with the kills being spaced apart quite nicely but still falls victim to having a bit too much filler in the second act where all the juicy bits and pieces occur in the first and final acts. Come on, do I really need to see people eat spaghetti and watch football? Absolutely riveting. George Eastman (standing at 6'9") seems to have a much stronger presence here in this film than in Anthropophagous because he actually has plenty of screen time throughout the film.

Honestly, you simply cannot go into a D'Amato film and expect the next Apocalypse Now. Go into these film's knowing what you are going to get yourself into and be able to turn your brain off will other's get their brains cut out. As much as it is a rip-off of Halloween and Halloween II, it really doesn't bother me. Sure, I'd rather watch those Halloween movies over this one, but as it is, this film is not offensively bad and has a few moments that stand out and as someone who enjoys the horror genre as a whole, it's solid enough to view during a fun Horror Movie night.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

A very significant improvement over the previous film

[8/10 · 3 August 2022]

After the financial success of Star Trek Generations in 1994, the next Star Trek film was immediately greenlit and in 1996, Star Trek: First Contact was released directed by and starred Jonathan Frakes and also stars Patrick Stewart, Alice Krige, Alfre Woodard, James Cromwell, Brent Spiner, Levar Burton, Michael Dorn, Gates McFadden, and Marina Sirtis, The film was a financial success like the previous film Generations, but unlike that film, was a critical success and is a widely praised Star Trek film amongst Trekkies.

While the crew of the Enterprise are out in the deepest depths of space, the Borg (a hive mind collective that "assimilate" other beings) are invading Earth. Defying direct orders not to engage, the Enterprise goes to Earth and follow a Borg ship into a time vortex where the Borg plan on assimilating the planet Earth in the year 2063 when Earth made first contact with an alien species for the first time.

I was genuinely surprised by First Contact as I was not a huge fan of Generations and had yet to see First Contact (at this point the only Star Trek film I have not seen yet is Star Trek Beyond). First Contact seems to have learned what went wrong in Generations and what we get is a surprisingly entertaining film. Whereas Generations really felt like an extended episode of The Next Generation, this film truly feels like a film. First Contact is your standard Star Trek fare, spaceships, lasers, aliens/robots, special effects and philosophical musings about humanity and life. But what makes it a bit more special is seeing The Next Generation crew at their own solo film as Generations was a crossover of classic and new Trek. I was even surprised to find out at the end that Jonathan Frakes (Commander Riker) directed this one as I knew he did also direct the next Star Trek film, Insurrection. What's even better is that this is Frakes' theatrical directorial debut which, seeing the end result, is even more impressive. The focus of the film is primarily Picard who is wonderfully played by Patrick Stewart once again. The scene with him and Alfre Woodard's character in the conference room(?). It is a truly powerful scene all thanks to Stewart's acting. The main crew of the Enterprise (outside of Picard), do not do much for the film in terms of story and for a film with the stakes that it has, perhaps a bit more purpose for the rest of the crew would have been nice. The only other crew member to have any importance in the film is Data who is still on his journey about wanting to be more human and that does play into the plot and is a bit interesting. James Cromwell playing Zefram Cochrane was fun to see. Seeing this character who is not driven to be this pioneer of warp mechanics, but rather alcohol and women perhaps, and learning what he has to do and his importance for all the rest of humanity is an interesting bit to watch and James Cromwell does a great job here. The Borg make for intimidating villains here. There is not a single minded Borg as they are all part of this collective mind. Devoid of emotion, they adapt to phaser fire and they are virtually unstoppable and seeing how this all ties into a plot in The Next Generation TV show, the stakes are heavily increased. The Borg Queen, while sort of defeating the whole purpose of lack of individuality, is wonderfully played by Alice Krige. The special effects look great and I do think that the effects in this film really did benefit from the film's budget as I did really feel that Generations did not have much to show in it's effects.

Star Trek: First Contact is a fun Star Trek film and I could argue it is one of the best (for me it makes at least top 5) in the franchise and for those who loathed and despised Generations like I did, this film should be able to impress.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

I forgot how good this film was

[8/10 · 29 July 2022]

What else can I say about the world of Harry Potter that hasn't been said already? After the first book came out, everyone was going crazy for Harry Potter. But then Potterheads minds were blown when in 2001, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released. The film was directed by Chris Columbus and stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, John Cleese, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Richard Griffiths, Richard Harris, Ian Hart, John Hurt, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, Maggie Smith, and Julie Walters. The film was a huge success financially and critically and luckily won fans of the books over and continued with seven more films plus three spinoff films.

Harry Potter is an ordinary boy who lives with his aunt and uncle and is poorly treated. He finds out that he is a wizard and that his parents, who died when he was a baby, were wizards too. He goes to Hogwarts where he starts his education to become a wizard.

I remember going through a Harry Potter phase in elementary school. Having read all the books and watched all the movies and even played some of the video games (primarily Lego Harry Potter). The world that the books and movies created were something that I could easily escape into. Nearly 10 years after going through that Potter phase, I decided to return to the movies and I must say that I forgot how good this first film is. Is it perfect? No. What has been said about this film has been said millions of times by other viewers. Sorcerer's Stone serves more as an introductory film to this magical and magnificent world. Chris Columbus and the rest of the crew had a lot of hard work to do to pull this film off and the end result is fantastic overall. Many book to movie adaptations fail due to numerous issues, mainly being not faithful to the source material which this film has no problem with. Everyone working on this film had so much love, dedication, and respect to the source material that it is no wonder why fans of the books had such a positive reaction to this film upon release. As previously stated, Sorcerer's Stone serves as an introductory film here. In that regard, it executes it flawlessly. Brilliant set pieces , a fantastic John Williams score, and fantastic characters are all what makes this film pretty magical. The casting of all the film's characters are spot on as I cannot picture any other actor or actress playing any of the characters in the film. The film does a nice job at appealing to viewers of all ages. The overall lightheartedness of the film and magical wonder easily appeals to kids and the film's moments of that have a bit of darkness to it can appeal to the older audience as well. But the film has a few minor problems. The film seems to have no building of suspense at all when it comes to the plot at hand and it really isn't until the last half hour or so until the plot really gets moving but again, it is only minor considering that most of the film is building this world up for us and does that flawlessly but the film does have a runtime at over two and a half hours so it did make me wonder if the film was being a bit excessive on the world building. Perhaps a bit more focus on plot would make this a near flawless film. My other minor complaint is the computer effects in this film. A lot of the time, it is very convincing but there are a few instances where the effects are heavily dated. As much as people praise the Quidditch scene, I have to say that is where the computer effects are a bit dated. Full character CGI is used and is very noticeable but I can say that for 2001 it probably did not look that bad.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a triumph in what it sets out to be and a large part of Harry Potter's success can largely be traced to this film. It is a film that should be able to appeal to fans and non fans alike.

The Expendables (2010)

Not as good as I remember

[5/10 · 28 July 2022]

The action genre appeared to have reached it's height in the 80's and early 90's and has been seen as a genre that is slowly dying. But there is one film that was made as a love letter to those movies of the 80's and 90's. The Expendables was released in 2010 and was written, directed, and stars Sylvester Stallone (Rambo series and Demolition Man) and also stars Jason Statham (Ghosts of Mars and Crank), Jet Li (Once Upon a Time in China and Fearless), Dolph Lundgren (Showdown in Little Tokyo and The Punisher), Randy Couture (Big Stan and The Expendables sequels), Steve Austin (The Condemned and The Longest Yard), Terry Crews (Idiocracy and The 6th Day), Mickey Rourke (1941 and Sin City), Bruce Willis (Die Hard With a Vengeance and Pulp Fiction), Eric Roberts (Runaway Train and Inherent Vice), David Zayas (Skyline and Dexter), Giselle Itie (On the Road and Esperanca), Charisma Carpenter (Angel and Veronica Mars), and Gary Daniels (Tekken and Fist of the North Star). The film proved to be a big financial success but received mixed to negative reviews but managed to help spawn some sequels.

A group of mercenaries known as The Expendables, are sent by the CIA to go to Vilena to stop a ruthless dictator but soon learn that there is more to it than what they are being told.

I fondly remember watching these movies with my dad (who passed in 2019) anytime they came on TV and I remember having a blast with them. Many years later, after learning the do's and don'ts of film, I have found the film to be not as good as I quite remember. As a kid and even now, I grew up with and watched 80's and 90's action films. So having an action all star cast should be awesome. Seeing the likes of Stallone and company all sharing the screen together is awesome as hell but yet has problems still. I will still stand by that it is at least awesome for everyone to share the screen together, but the main cast is mostly newbies to the genre or names that cannot simply compare to the likes of Stallone. I even had to do some research to figure out who Randy Couture even was (as if the cauliflower ear wasn't a big enough hint). Bruce Willis has his name on the theatrical poster yet is only a cameo in the film. Hell, even Schwarzenegger appears in this film but, like Willis, is only a cameo. The acting is good and all considering this is an action movie and I do like the humorous dialogue that our characters have here as it really is poking fun at the actors themselves at times and seeing that self awareness really shows that this film does not take itself too seriously. This film knows what it is and it is not apologetic about it whatsoever. The film does a fantastic job at being a love letter to the 80's and 90's action genre. And yeah, I know I complained earlier, but I really do find it nice to see the likes of Statham (relatively new to the genre) and Stallone on screen together. Acknowledging modern action while primarily focusing on old school action. This film is essentially an 80's action film but with a modern action movie budget. It has everything you would expect in an 80's action film. Macho men (really couldn't believe Stone Cold Steve Austin punched a woman in the face), bullets, and big explosions. All of this is entertaining for what it is. What the film fails at doing is creating an interesting story. Sure, 80's action movies were not heavy on plot and this film is no exception either. But yet, this film is a modern action movie (that could easily pass as an 80's action movie) and a more interesting plot would have made this film work well as a modern day action flick instead of settling as a good "80's" action flick. A lot of plot threads come and go and really have no effect on the end result resulting in a plot that is not interesting or even memorable. I could go on and on with what is wrong with this film but then again, I would end up not looking at this film for what it is trying to achieve in the end.

The Expendables has entertaining action and in that regards is a good love letter to the 80's and 90's action genre, but does not do much else outside of that and leaves me yearning for more.

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Kingofdanerds' review of AVP: Alien vs. Predator

[5/10 · 22 July 2022]

Since 1989, AVP media has been pretty popular with comic books, books, and video games being made largely throughout the 90's. But once the Xenomorph skull appeared in Predator 2, fans of both franchises were ever so excited to see AVP brought to the big screen. Released in 2004, AVP: Alien vs. Predator was written and directed by Paul W. S. Anderson (Resident Evil series and Event Horizon) and stars Sanaa Lathan (Something New and Blade), Raoul Bova (Under the Tuscan Sun and The Immature), Lance Henriksen (Aliens and The Terminator), and Ewen Bremner (Judge Dredd and Trainspotting movies). The film was super hyped upon release but was only a mild financial success and received largely negative reviews upon release.

A team of scientists (brought all together by Wayland (Lance Henriksen)) are sent to Antarctica where satellite readings showed an underground structure. Once there, the team is thrown into an all out war between the Xenomorphs and Predators.

I still do not understand Paul W. S. Anderson. I have yet to see a good or even great film from him and AVP is still not one of those films. It's even bizarre to think that both powerhouse series had directors like Ridley Scott, James Cameron, John McTiernan and others that for a big hyped up film like AVP that they settled on Paul W. S. Anderson. It is sort of hard to make these versus films (or rather near impossible to make a good one) as there needs to be a balance of the human characters and the fighting and both have to be effective. The first half of the film dedicates itself to the characters and not much more outside of that. It would be one thing if the characters were half decent and to be fair, the acting is decent for a film of this variety, but the film clearly establishes that all the characters in the films are only there to make the body count increase. Lance Henriksen always does a good job in any film that I have seen him in (even the bad ones like Hellraiser: Hellworld) and for what he was given in this film, he does a fine job. The characters themselves are hardly interesting and I can easily sum up the first half as dull and uninteresting and really drags and slows the film. The only thing the first half really has going for it is set design and cinematography (which all still remain as positives in the second half). The second half is where the fighting actually happens and is a bit of fun. The action is what viewers look forward to the most and it is fun to watch save for a few instances of up close shaky cam being used. The practical effects are pretty good (also surprised that at this point in time that CG wasn't used more). A lot of what impresses me is the visual storytelling of this film largely if not completely involving our main lead and a Predator. Outside of the fight scenes, this interaction is a high point of the film in my opinion. One thing that I have found a bit odd is the setting of this film. Antarctica seems like an odd place for an AVP movie to take place and die hard fans of the Predator series will say that the Predators are not necessarily built for the cold and prefer a much warmer climate to be in. The whole backstory of how the Aliens and Predators came to Earth is not very interesting and to me is a bit silly once it is revealed that the Predator species influenced the human race way back when. One big criticism that many people had with this film was the PG-13 rating. Now with a film like Live Free or Die Hard, this works because the film is an action movie and doesn't rely heavily on the violence that would bump it to an R rating. Now with a film like AVP, a series that is a crossover of R rated franchises, an R rating would have made sense but the PG-13 rating is what we got. The kills themselves are lame and offscreen. I watched an extended version of the film (this version just includes the alternate opening to the film) but I am fully aware that there is an Unrated cut of this film widely available. But throwing in CG blood won't cut it and doesn't excuse the fact that this film was intended as a PG-13 film. Sure, bringing the rating down to a PG-13 does mean there is a better chance at selling more tickets thus making more money, but it just seems insulting to say the least.

AVP fails at being the big versus battle that it was hyped up to be. With a slow and very dull first half and a PG-13 rating, the film is saved by the far more entertaining second half.

Se7en (1995)

Yeah it's a great film ngl

[9/10 · 20 July 2022]

David Fincher had a really hard time making Alien 3 and seeing how disappointing it was to moviegoers upon release, it seemed that David Fincher's career was in garbage. But, thankfully, you get a director like Fincher (and to be fair, Alien 3's problems were largely due to studio execs and whatnot) who is talented despite having worked on a bad film, to create a masterpiece such as Se7en and this is the film that saved Fincher's career possibly. Se7en (or Seven), was released in 1995 and was directed by David Fincher (The Panic Room, Fight Club, and Alien 3) and stars Brad Pitt (Ocean's 11, Fight Club, and Megamind), Morgan Freeman (The Sum Of All Fears, Kiss The Girls, and The Shawshank Redemption), Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love, Sliding Doors, and Emma), and John C. McGinley (Platoon, The Rock, and Highlander II: The Quickening). The film was a critical and financial success upon release and has since been widely regarded as one of the best crime thrillers of all time.

Soon to be retired police detective, Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is brought in for one last case involving a sick and deranged killer who kills people based on the seven deadly sins (pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, and sloth). A young and newly transferred police detective named Mills (Brad Pitt) is brought in as Somerset's partner and the two try and solve who the killer is.

Seven has such a legacy that this film really is the gold standard for modern crime thrillers. Every person out there who watches movies always has an amount (of varying sizes) of films (hailed as classics or the greatest of all time) that just seem to slip past them and Seven was one of those films for me. With Seven being this gold standard for crime thrillers, many ripoffs have came and went since it's release and I have seen a few (Hellraiser: Judgment is one such film). So, with me having seen more ripoffs than the film itself, I was extremely worried that this film would not hold up as well because I have seen the ripoffs do it already. After watching the film, I was left in total shock. A complete WTF of the brain in the best way possible. Within the first few or so minutes, everything that we need to know is established, characters, tone, and the plot. Somerset is established as being wise and smart while also being portrayed as a tired man who clearly needs to settle down and retire without having to be burned out by his work. Mills is the young cop with less experience that of course is expected to clash with Somerset. Cliche? Yes but it works and it just feels right once the film concludes. Both Pitt and Freeman do a phenomenal job in their roles and the two have really good chemistry together and made for an enjoyable experience. The tone of the film is dark and grimy as seen through the set design and camera work and by the content of the film alone. The sets are realistic as they should. From a grimy and dirty apartment where a victim is put on display to even a cramped detective office. The camerawork is phenomenal and I lost count as to how many times I said out loud, "That is an impressive shot". A lot of criticism that was largely had with this film upon release was targeted at how depressing the film is. Yes and? Films should make people feel emotion and can be a detriment if there is any lack of emotion. I can agree, this film is not for everyone. But for as depressing and intense it is, I really felt what I was supposed to feel and what makes Seven special (and not from being a depressing film that's bad) is backed by it's gripping story, well written characters, phenomenal acting, cinematography, etc. It really blows my mind that a film like this was made in 1995 as it looks and works phenomenally years and years later. The film had criticism for being gory but I can hardly agree with that. Sure, you see some grisly imagery in the film but the camera hardly lingers on it enough which is a good call as it wasn't supposed to be the focus of the film. A lot is left up to the imagination which can prove to be even more horrific. The film runs at a slow pace, but works as information and clues are given to as little by little, building the suspense up. And boy does it all pay off in the end. When it comes to popular films that I haven't had the chance to watch, with them being in the zeitgeist of popular culture the endings get ruined. But luckily, I never had the ending spoiled and I am so glad I only went into the ending knowing that it was going to be crazy. The ending is worth the praise and price of admission. The film gets to a point where the pieces have lined up and it is where the film's intensity ramps up and pays off. That is how you end a film there.

Seven is a phenomenal film and while it's been said hundreds of thousands of times by other viewers, I just can't help but say that Seven does deserve a place as one of my favorite film's of all time.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

A different Tarantino film to say the least

[7/10 · 16 July 2022]

Quentin Tarantino has gone on record to say that after his tenth film, he is going to stop making movies. Well, with nine films out, the most recent film from Tarantino (as of this review), is Once Upon a Time In... Hollywood, released in 2019. The film was written, directed, and produced by Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill movies and Pulp Fiction), the film stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception and Titanic), Brad Pitt (Fight Club and Megamind), Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad and The Wolf of Wall Street), Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild and Speed Racer), Margaret Qualley (Kenzo World and Novitiate), Timothy Olyphant (Live Free or Die Hard and Justified), Austin Butler (Elvis and The Dead Don't Die), Dakota Fanning (War of the Worlds and I Am Sam), Bruce Dern (Nebraska and The Hateful Eight), and Al Pacino (Scarface and Carlito's Way). The film was a huge financial success and a critical success as well. The film even managed to win two Oscars for Best Supporting Actor and Best Production Design.

It is 1969 and times are getting tough for once popular television star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) as they try to move into the film business and find work there.

Yeah, Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood is certainly a different Tarantino film to say the least. Tarantino makes his films as love letters to a genre or era of movies and this film is no different and the era is perfectly captured fairly well and very much deserves the Oscar for Best Production Design (which had some good competition that year). But what this film does that sets itself apart from Tarantino's other films is that this one is primarily plotless and is a character study. Even with whatever is unfolding, the film does not seem to have any tension at all. The film is a romp through Hollywood 1969. The characters themselves are very well written and the acting is phenomenal. Brad Pitt is the standout in this film for sure but everyone else does such a great job that I would be hard pressed to choose someone who did bad in this film. Tarantino once again makes a film that rewrites history which I don't have much of an opinion of in general. It seems to me that anyone could rewrite history in a film no matter the quality. I remember seeing Tarantino do this in Inglourious Basterds. In this film, the changing of history mainly revolves around Sharon Tate (played by Margot Robbie). Now, I vaguely knew about Sharon Tate before watching this film and I honestly was a bit oblivious to it all when watching this film all the way through. But, some quick Google searches and it made more sense to me in the end. The rewriting of the history was done in good taste. I initially had negatives while watching this film that Sharon Tate is non essential to the plot. But, the more I learn and familiarize myself with the tragic story of Sharon Tate, those negatives are negated and her purpose in the film does become fairly clear in the film (the movie theater scene is a good example). The film leans more into comedy, which is something that was always present in other Tarantino films but never has any of his films been primarily that and with that being said, the comedy is good and is sold extremely well by Pitt and DiCaprio. Tarantino is very well known for his phenomenal ability to write intriguing dialogue. I have to admit that this was probably the first time in any Tarantino film that I was not completely intrigued by the dialogue. I am no writer so I am not really qualified to try and further explain anything about writing, but it just seemed that the dialogue was just not as intriguing as seen before.

Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood is not Tarantino's best by any means, but if you come to see the usual big ensemble cast present in Tarantino film's and want to see something a bit different than previously seen from him, then this film should very much suffice.

Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)

Just like any other early to mid 2000's stoner comedy

[6/10 · 14 July 2022]

Stoner comedies were becoming ever more popular in the early to mid 2000's. One of the more popular films of the genre is Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, released in 2004 and directed by Danny Leiner (The Great New Wonderful, Layin' Low, and Austin Stories) and stars John Cho (American Pie movies), Kal Penn (National Lampoon's Van Wilder, House, and Hot Mess Holiday), Neil Patrick Harris (Starship Troopers, How I Met Your Mother, and A Series of Unfortunate Events), Fred Willard (Best In Show, A Mighty Wind, and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy), and Anthony Anderson (The Departed, Kangaroo Jack, and Transformers). The film was a financial and critical success upon release and spawned two more sequels.

Harold (John Cho) is a hard working individual. On the other end of the spectrum is Kumar (Kal Penn) who values partying over hard work. Both and Harold and Kumar get stoned and after getting the munchies, decide to go and get White Castle.

Stoner comedies can be really interesting. Watching them sober can really show whether or not the film is objectively good. But watching them with a special aid can make them look like Mulholland Drive. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle is certainly no Mulholland Drive but it's decent enough. Sober me got quite a few laughs here and there and even I was craving White Castle (even though I think it's garbage compared to other fast foods, it is at least garbage I have no problem with eating). I found this to be of the same magnitude as Super Troopers. Raunchy comedy, drugs, and nudity are very much present in this film which does not make for a great film overall, but makes for a good stoner comedy. With a Korean-American and Indian-American being the two leads, I was at first worried that the film would have it's comedy rely too heavily on stereotypes. But surprisingly this film is smart enough to know that it is better to make fun of the people who make fun of the stereotypes. John Cho and Kal Penn do a fairly good job in their roles as I found it to be believable enough as their chemistry did seem to work here. I also felt the film makers and everyone involved did seem to get the little details correct and did make this film (or rather the core concept) feel relatable enough. My negatives are small and few here. There are plenty of scenes where I found myself not laughing when the film tries a bit too hard to be funny (the bathroom scene is one example). Also, it seems that while our two main characters have to travel such a long distance to go to a White Castle, they seem to be meeting a lot of people they know along the way which I found to be really odd.

I do prefer to have a bit more depth in films that I watch in general and certainly stoner comedies are anything but that. But, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle is a competently made stoner comedy that gets a few laughs and perhaps will warrant a rewatch under the right conditions.

Before Sunset (2004)

Linklater does it again

[10/10 · 13 July 2022]

Before Sunrise, released in 1995 was a phenomenal film about young love and as someone who does not care for romance movies, I really really enjoyed Before Sunrise. Knowing that there were two sequels, I was even more intrigued. Well, in 2004 Before Sunset was released. The film was written, directed, and produced by Richard Linklater (Before Sunrise, School of Rock, and Waking Life) and stars Ethan Hawke (Before Sunrise, Waking Life, and Assault on Precinct 13) and Julie Delpy (Before Sunrise, Waking Life, and Three Colors: White). The film was a financial success and also a critical success as well.

Jesse Wallace (Ethan Hawke) is on a book signing tour and just so happens to be in Paris where he meets back up with Celine (Julie Delpy) of whom he met nine years before in Vienna and where they both had a night they would never forget. But now they are older and the question about what the future has in store for them still looms over head.

Before Sunrise did a great job at portraying young love in how it can be quick and spontaneous and the ending was open ended enough for one to draw their own conclusions. Before Sunset was not a sequel that anyone asked for but Linklater does it again and gives another smart and powerful film. Before Sunrise was about young love and so Before Sunset is the growing up and wondering if love is for all. The big question anyone watching this film is gonna ask is whether or not Jesse and Celine get together and seeing where all the conversations go throughout the film. The acting feels natural as I always have seen in Linklater films and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine (while at first awkward) picks right back up as they practically pick up right where they left off. I cared enough about the characters in the first film that I was wanting to know more about them and what their lives have been like in the time since. Once the film wraps up, I find myself wanting more. Luckily, there is Before Midnight for that.

Before Sunset is just a really great film all around and while I cant find it easy to recommend (it's unconventional style as with a lot of Linklater films will turn many away), it's definitely one to check out if you really enjoyed Before Sunrise.

The 6th Day (2000)

A fairly decent late Schwarzenegger flick

[6/10 · 12 July 2022]

The late 90's to early 2000's are often considered a low point in Schwarzenegger's career. While I enjoyed Eraser enough, and End of Days was meh, I figured I check out The 6th Day. The 6th Day was released in 2000 and was directed by Roger Spottiswoode and stars Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator series and Predator), Robert Duvall (Apocalypse Now, Gone In 60 Seconds, and Deep Impact), Michael Rapaport (Deep Blue Sea, Cop Land, and True Romance), Tony Goldwyn (Friday the 13th series and Ghost), Michael Rooker (Guardian of the Galaxy movies and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer), and Sarah Wynter (24, Species II, and Lincoln Rhyme: Hunt for the Bone Collector). The film was a box office bomb and received lukewarm reviews upon release.

It is the very near future, and cloning is very popular. Though while it is legal to clone pets, it is illegal to clone humans. Father and husband, Adam Gibson is a skilled pilot. One day he comes home and found out that he has been cloned. Being pursued by officials, Adam must get to the bottom of this illegal cloning operation and keep himself alive.

I did not go into this film with too high of hopes but was overall a bit surprised by this film. The 6th Day is an overall average Schwarzenegger flick and a decent sci-fi thriller all together. With some historical context, this film was released in 2000 and this was around the time that cloning was being talked heavily of in the scientific field and famously, scientists managed to clone a sheep (named Dolly). I can easily see that having this film released around that time, the themes regarding this film, came off as a bit extreme for viewers back in the day. But even now, those themes of cloning, the morality of it all, and man playing god are all very thought provoking and seeing how it all turned out in this film (and considering that it is also an Arnold film), it is a bit surprising. Arnold plays a different kind of role this time around, playing more of an everyman and not the usual larger than life characters. At the time, this was something new for him and I think he does an all around decent job with the film. Seeing veteran actor Robert Duvall really did bring some gravitas to the film. Funny to also see the first film appearance of Terry Crews as well. The acting overall is fairly decent and I don't ever really recall groaning at any bad line deliveries. What I really enjoyed about The 6th Day the most was that everything about this future seems completely believable. From the technological household appliances, to security checks, transportation etc. All seems like it all could be a plausible future within the next decade or so. The CGI effects are a bit dated but is at times kept to a minimum. The action in this film is more smaller in scale in comparison to a lot of Schwarzenegger's earlier films. But, the film is not trying to put action at the fore front and rightly focuses more on the sci fi elements a bit more. The film really slow down once our main character Adam is being pursued. It is a quite formulaic and even repetitive. It plays out like this : Bad guys are chasing Adam, Adam flees, Adam kills one or two of the bad guys, they get cloned, and repeat. A bit tiring at times and the film could be easily cut down to an hour and 45 minutes instead of the nearly two hour run time. The story has a few twists and turns and I will admit was a bit surprised. The film also seems to have some decent humor, mostly from Michael Rapaport which I did find myself chuckling a time or two.

All around, The 6th Day is a fairly average Schwarzenegger flick and I find it to be far from being one of his worst films yet no where near his best films.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Kingofdanerd's review of The Phantom Menace

[5/10 · 7 July 2022]

Possibly the one of the most hyped films within the past 25 years has to be Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace. Released in 1999, The Phantom Menace is written and directed by George Lucas after not having directed a film since the original Star Wars. The film stars Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, and Jake Lloyd. The film had so much hype behind it that many, many, many, many people were lined up to go see and was a huge deal due to the success of the previous Star Wars films. So much of a big deal that merchandising out of this world from video games to toys and action figures. Everyone was expecting something phenomenal for the Phantom Menace. Well, despite being a box office hit, the critical reception was largely negative upon release but now these days, reception seems to be heavily mixed.

Something something politics and two Jedis (Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson) must help the Queen of Naboo save her people from the evil Trade Federation while also finding out that the Sith are lurking about.

While I did grow up with watching Star Wars, I don't recall watching The Phantom Menace on constant repeat though I do recall being 9 years old and being excited when The Phantom Menace was rereleased in 3D but I am sort of glad I did not watch it in theaters due to the fact that it was only a 3D conversion. I also remember not having too much excitement for this film either. Nearly 15 years after first watching the film, nothing really has changed. Doing prequels in general are always really tricky to do. Most often then not, especially in horror prequels, they often lack any real suspense as we already know what the outcome of the film is going to be already. Now, this could be an easy fix by utilizing good storytelling and some character moments to make the journey to what we already know more interesting. This is where Phantom Menace fails is in both of those departments. The Phantom Menace is what I like to call "the political menace". The politics in this film bore me and really don't need to be the forefront of the film. The political scenes truly slows the film down Star Wars is generally meant for kids and adults. Kids would not be able to comprehend it and was something that even I didn't comprehend much as a kid. The film is not even sure if it wants to be for adults either as the comedy is too juvenile for adults. Which is a good segue to another important point I want to bring up: the characters. The comedy in this film largely comes from the new character of Jar Jar Binks. As a kid, I did not quite mind but yeah, I find him to be annoying and largely serves no purpose other than to be comedic relief. This would only work if he was actually funny. The other characters seem to lack a whole lot of characterization and goes to show how Lucas is not that great of a writer or even a director. Characters are really bare bones here and while some actors' presence make it a bit more bearable, others not so much. I really hate to hate on kid actors, but Jake Lloyd is not a good kid actor and the fact that his other notable film is Jingle All the Way proves my point even more. I honestly do think that if there was better writing behind the characters and better direction from Lucas, that alone would have made this film perhaps a really good Star Wars film even with the politics included. The film seems to lack even a decent main villain. To me, the main plot is about the Trade Federation so I generally see the Trade Federation to be the threatening force in this film. But again, there isn't decent writing behind any of them. Darth Maul is cool and menacing and all but even he is not fully fleshed out and only appears in a few scenes throughout the whole film and I must really give credit to John Williams for creating another banger of a score for this film as Duel of the Fates is often regarded (and rightfully so) to be one of his best scores. Though, Darth Maul does appear in one of the best scenes in the film during the film's climax which I do find is where the film does become enjoyable. The climax itself has blaster fights, very well choreographed lightsaber fights, and decent space ship battles. The special effects in this film do seem really dated by today's standard, but I think they are serviceable all around. The best uses of the CG in this film is generally the landscapes and structures which are grand in scale and pretty creative (though the creativity is not limited to the landscapes and structures as I do find the creature designs to be creative as well). George Lucas has really devoted a lot of time to his special effects company but really, it seems that all that devoted time took away from actually having to work with the actors. One of the big head scratchers that this film has to offer is the introduction of the midi-chlorians which offer a more scientific explanation for the Force but I find the spirituality of the force to be far more interesting and the midi-chlorians take away from the mysticism. The podracing scene was always a highlight from when I watched this film as a kid as it has enough suspense and action going on screen to suffice and it made for a very fun Nintendo 64 game (in fact it was the first N64 game I ever owned), but after a bit of time passing and me having taken a cinematography course, the camera work is lazy with only camera pans and everything is shot from one side. Having more variety would really show how intense and big this scene can be.

The Phantom Menace is not that good but I do think that it is completely watchable and after the hype has died down, I just find it to be a sub par film.

Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985 TV Movie)

An improvement over the near unbearable Caravan of Courage

[6/10 · 5 July 2022]

1984's Ewok movie, Caravan of Courage proved to be a decent enough of a success to warrant a sequel. Ewoks: The Battle for Endor was aired on TV in the United States in 1985 (also receiving a theatrical release elsewhere) and was written and directed by Jim and Ken Wheat (A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master) and stars Wilford Brimley (The Thing), Warwick Davis (Star Wars: Episode VI- Return of the Jedi), and Aubree Miller (Caravan of Courage).

Cindel (Aubree Miller) and her family are still stuck on the planet Endor when some marauders invade and kill Cindel's family and also capturing some Ewoks. Apparently these Marauders are interested in some sort of power source for a spaceship (but they don't seem to be aware of this). Cindel and her Ewok friend Wicket (Warwick Davis), meet up with (a mountain man?) Noa (Wilford Brimley) who could help save the captured Ewoks and keep away from the Marauders.

Needless to say, I find Ewoks: The Battle for Endor to be quite a significant improvement over Caravan of Courage which I found to be nearly intolerable. Going in, I was not expecting much. Within the first 10 minutes the film managed to give me a few surprises. First off, having a well known actor like Paul Gleason (Die Hard and The Breakfast Club) is in a film primarily made for kids and of this magnitude really surprised me. The other thing that surprised me was that they killed off Cindel's family (whom the whole first film devoted it's time to have get rescued and whatnot). Personally, I found the family to be unbearable that I wasn't mad at all. In fact, right after the first 10 minutes, a much darker tone is established which is something that is drastically different in comparison to the sunshine and rainbows of Caravan of Courage. I was really hoping this film was not of the same quality as Caravan of Courage and a change of tone relieved me of any worry. The film is a sci fi, fantasy, hybrid with, it seems, to be a much heavier focus on the fantasy elements. I have seen many compare this film to Willow of which George Lucas wrote and yeah, it makes perfect sense to me. Ewoks: The Battle for Endor was a sort of test put on by Lucas to see if he was any good at writing dark fantasies. Granted, much of the criticism I have seen directed towards this film say the presence of witches and magic should not belong in a "Star Wars movie". Ewoks: The Battle for Endor is it's own thing and I have a bit of enjoyment for that. It's also funny to see another well known actor like Wilford Brimley to pop up in a film like this and he does add a bit of enjoyment into the film. The overall plot of the film involving the Marauders and their obsession with this power supply of sorts is a bit goofy in my mind but perhaps outside of their more intimidating appearance, should suffice in entertaining the kids. They are bad and intimidating enough to feel somewhat threatening that for the kids, should find the final act to be very pleasing. Yeah surprisingly, this film has a Return of the Jedi forest battle for it's final act and it is very surprising as well considering Caravan of Courage was nearly devoid of substance in general. It was overall nice to see some blaster play in this film. Any sort of negatives mostly revolves around the poor acting (mostly towards Aubree Miller who played Cindel), the fact that Wicket speaks English for some reason, and the stop motion effects which I did not find charming in any way. The film has a bit of story flow problems where the film slows down when Wicket and Cindel meet Noa for the first time (Context: earlier they were worried about saving the captured Ewoks and after meeting Noa they seem to forget all about that until they finally leave).

Ewoks: The Battle for Endor is a film that is leaps and bounds better than Caravan of Courage in that there is actually a film with substance this time around. It's not one that not every Star Wars fan will enjoy but I'd at least keep an open mind for this one.

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

A passing of the torch that is underwhelming to say the least

[3/10 · 20 June 2022]

Star Trek was riding high the late 80's and early to mid 90's with films and the Star Trek: The Next Generation television show. Many fans raised the question about when a Star Trek movie centering around the crew of the Enterprise D would happen and so, Star Trek: Generations was released in 1994. Directed by David Carson (From the Earth to the Moon, The Dresden Files, and Blue Smoke), the film stars William Shatner, James Doohan, Walter Koenig, Patrick Stewart, Malcolm McDowell, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, Levar Burton, Michael Dorn, Marina Sirtis, and Gates McFadden. The film was a financial success but reviews were heavily mixed upon release.

The newly commissioned Enterprise B heads out on a "run around the block" with the blessings of Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov. But a distress signal is intercepted and the Enterprise B is sent out only to seemingly lose Kirk in the process of responding to the signal due to an anomaly known as the Nexus. Fast forward to many, many years later where the Next Generation crew come across an evil scientist who plans to blow up a star to control the course of the Nexus. But the Next Generation crew cannot do this alone....

Needless to say, Star Trek: Generations is a film that I have never liked. I don't consider myself a Trekkie whatsoever. I have seen most of the movies and I have seen the occasional episode of the numerous TV shows. Having two series icons share the screen should have been exciting and grounds for being possibly the best Star Trek film out there perhaps. One thing that I always found fascinating about the Star Trek films up to this point is that non Trekkies can easily watch them and have a good time. What really keeps this film from being an easy watch for non Trekkies is that there is way way WAY to much technobabble throughout the entirety of the film. From the handful of episodes of The Next Generation that I have seen, this seems to be a flaw that is common in the show. In fact, Star Trek: Generations generally feels like an episode of the TV show. The previous movies did a fantastic job of separating themselves from the TV show (outside of Wrath of Khan but that film is great so it doesn't really matter) and can easily stand on their own. The film has several subplots throughout the film including Picard wanting to have a family and Data having an emotion chip. Now, the Picard subplot is actually handled really well, largely due to some great acting by Patrick Stewart. Now as for the Data subplot, it's a subplot in the film that exists largely for comic relief and almost the whole time it is not funny (save for the part where Data swears and perhaps near the end where Data reunites with a furry creature so near and dear to him). It came off as annoying, which I get is the point but I, the viewer, still have to sit through the film and endure it. Besides, the subplot adds nothing to this film's plot. I would be more open to that idea had it been in another film rather in this film that is supposed to focus more on the passing of the torch and had it been executed a bit better. William Shatner is heavily underused in this film. He only appears in the very beginning and at the climax of the film. Not only that, he is heavily misused and had there been some better writing behind this, I really do think this film could have easily been one of the best Star Trek films. Having the two iconic captains meet only in the climax of the film does absolutely nothing for me and even the ending was a real cheap way to "pass on the torch". Perhaps having Kirk and Picard meet much earlier in the film would have given opportunities for some great scenes. There are a a couple of scenes with the two captains together that I do like but I would have liked to see Kirk do much more. Malcolm McDowell is a fine actor and hams it up in this film but the issue is in his character. It's just some average evil scientist guy who wants to blow up a star which leaves a planet inhabited by life in danger. But, we never see the planet or any of it's inhabitants and thus, leaves no stakes and no suspense. Perhaps having the main villain or villains be one of the big baddies from either eras (or both) would have been a better choice but it seems that this film was made in a bit of a rush (Exhibit A being reused footage from previous Star Trek films).

I wish I could be more positive about this film but really, this film was just really underwhelming and while it had a few decent to good moments throughout, the film just feels like an extended episode of The Next Generation rather than a proper passing of the torch. Hard to recommend this one.

It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books (1988)

Kingofdanerds' review of It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books

[6/10 · 11 June 2022]

While Slacker might have been Richard Linklater's first big film, many people tend to forget that his first feature film was It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books which was released in 1988. Richard Linklater single handedly did everything on this film for only a budget of $3,000 and even stars in the film as well. The film was only ever released in home media in 2004 when it was included on a second disc in the Criterion Collection of Slacker (which I highly recommend for anyone interested).

The film follows a man (Richard Linklater) as he travels around the country and lives his mundane life.

It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books is one of those types of films that I seem to have very little enjoyment in watching like most other films. The film sees Linklater being experimental here. No plot, no story movement, very little dialogue, and a motionless camera. But I always come to learn that films like this have purpose and that purpose in being to show how life can be boring and mundane at times, which is something that I can find myself relating to at times. When I rate a movie, I always try to keep into consideration what the sole purpose the filmmaker had in mind and how well that was executed and I must give credit to Linklater where credit is due because he did that very well here by being more of a visual story teller here. But on the other hand, I find it hard to have a whole lot of interest in this film as it is a mundane film.

If you want to watch a film that explores mundane life, check out Slacker as it is a much better and enjoyable film than this one but if at all curious as a Linklater fan like me, give it a watch.

Invisible Agent (1942)

Interesting idea, not so great execution

[3/10 · 7 June 2022]

Universal decided to keep the Invisible Man train going and so in 1942, we got Invisible Agent which was directed by Edwin L. Marin (Bombay Mail, Paris Calling, and The Sweetheart of Sigma Chi) and stars Ilona Massey (Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, International Lady, and Balalaika), Jon Hall (The Invisible Man's Revenge, Arabian Nights, and The Hurricane), Peter Lorre (M, Casablanca, and The Maltese Falcon), and Cedric Hardwicke (The Invisible Man Returns, The War of the Worlds, and The Ten Commandments). The film proved to be a huge financial success upon release.

Frank Griffin, who is either the grandson or nephew of the inventor of the invisibility serum, volunteers to become a spy for the United States. His mission is to be invisible and go to Nazi Germany and search for information on what the Nazis are up to.

Universal put out another Invisible Man film that is not really that interesting to watch. Invisible Agent has a promising plot seeing that this film was a World War II film released during the time of World War II. The idea of what would happen if the knowledge of the invisibility serum got around to the Nazis is a promising enough idea. But what we get is the same antics as before with the Invisible Agent going around and playing pranks on the Nazis rather than being an ominous invisible being. In fact, this film would have been better off making the Invisible Agent visible because despite being invisible, the agent makes himself very well known to the Nazis that he is there. This loses any sort of tension that is an important aspect to have in an espionage film and again, the pieces for something great was there, but the opportunity was sorely missed. The film does try to connect to the original film by making the main character a relative of the original Invisible Man but even they goof it up. They literally say in the film that he is either the nephew or grandson of Frank Griffin even though the original invisible man was named Jack Griffin. So even something so simple as getting a single string of continuity was messed up. The special effects are probably at their weakest here in this film though still impressive all around. There is a particular scene where the Invisible Agent's eyes and teeth are visible a couple of times and this is the first instance that I found this to be apparent within this series. The acting is nothing to write home about. My big complaint is actually Peter Lorre who is an Austrian-Hungarian American playing a Japanese man. Sure, it might have been acceptable back then, but I mean come on now. It even took me way longer than it should to have realized that Peter Lorre's character was Japanese because the film decides to make that apparent in the last half of the movie.

Invisible Agent had an interesting story premise but was rendered completely uninteresting. It's one of those films I'll probably forget about in a week's time.

The Invisible Woman (1940)

Kingofdanerds' review of The Invisible Woman (1940)

[4/10 · 5 June 2022]

After The Invisible Man Returns proved to be a big success financially, Universal decided to release another film that would be apart of The Invisible Man series. The Invisible Woman was released the same year as The Invisible Man Returns in 1940 and was directed by A. Edward Sullivan (Sky Devils, Steel Against the Sky, and The Sap from Syracuse) and stars Virginia Bruce (The Garden Murder Case, Flight Angels, and There's That Woman Again), John Barrymore (Twentieth Century, Svengali, and Grand Hotel), John Howard (The Philadelphia Story, Lost Horizon, and Bulldog Drummond Comes Back), and Charles Ruggles (Murder in the Private Car, Bringing Up Baby, and One Hour with You). The film was enough of a success to spawn a sequel in 1942.

A crazy scientist (John Barrymore) is conducting an experiment in testing if it is possible to turn humans invisible. An attractive woman (Virginia Bruce) volunteers and this gets the attention of some mobsters.

The Invisible Woman is definitely all comedy and no horror. So, don't ever go in to this film expecting this to be a horror film. I don't mind the filmmakers with trying with something new. But I really wish the film still maintained a sinister tone in this film. But, we get a screwball comedy. The comedy is largely hit and miss but when it gets absurd, I cannot help but laugh a little. Seeing the gender reversal of the Invisible Being is a nice change that makes the film stand out a bit from the rest of the films. The acting is a but silly if you ask me but what else can there be to expect from a 40's screwball comedy? The effects are still pretty good and again it is nice to see that they got an Academy Award nomination for their work. The villains feel like the stereotypical mobsters that you always see being thrown into a screwball comedy.

The Invisible Woman is just a really standard screwball comedy from the 40's and one that doesn't always make me laugh. Nothing special to see here.

The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

I prefer to view this as a decent standalone than a sequel to the highly regarded original

[6/10 · 4 June 2022]

Universal was still going on a big run of films and when looking to cash in on their existing characters after the success of Son of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man seemed to be a good place to start. So, in 1940, The Invisible Man Returns was released and Joe May (Asphalt, The Mistress of the World Part 8- The Revenge of Maud Fergusson, and Wedding in the Eccentric Club) did story and directing duties and stars Cedric Hardwicke (The War of the Worlds, The Ten Commandments, and Around the World in 80 Days), Vincent Price (The Abominable Dr. Phibes, House on Haunted Hill, and Laura), Nan Grey (Three Smart Girls, Danger on the Air, and Rawhide), and John Sutton (The Three Musketeers, Jane Eyre, and Bagdad). The film was a financial success but received mixed reviews upon release. But nonetheless, the film did receive an Oscar nomination for Best Special Effects.

Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe (Vincent Price) owns a mining company and is framed for a murder that he did not commit and is sentenced to death. But one of his friends, Dr. Frank Griffin (John Sutton), brother of Jack Griffin from the first movie, helps Geoffrey break out by giving him the invisible serum. Geoffrey must keep away from the authorities, figure out who framed him, keep ahold of his sanity and find the antidote before he loses his sanity.

The Invisible Man Returns is an interesting film. To me, this film works much better as a standalone film as it really departs from the first film on a tonal level. That is very evident early on in the film which worried me at first but the more I watched, I really admired what the film did. It is certainly a different story that is told and I like how it is a different approach to the "becoming invisible" story as it knew that doing the first film over again. Though, I would think with the Hays Code in effect during this time, it seemed repeating the first film was probably out of the question. Granted, I prefer the first film with it's dark tone and in that it feels more of a horror movie than this one, but I did find myself enjoying this film more than expected. Vincent Price is a veteran horror actor in the early days of the genre and does a good job in the role but for die hard fans of the original, you might prefer Claude Rains more sinister and over the top performance. But I argue that Price plays a different character. A character who is doing his best to hold on to his sanity while in the predicament that he finds himself in. You find yourself as the viewer being more sympathetic for the character rather than being scared by him. While this works out, I do wish this film was given the opportunity to show the character of Geoffrey spiral more out of control which would have made the film ever the more tragic ala Cronenberg's The Fly. One complaint that I had with the original Invisible Man movie was that there was no time given really with the Invisible Man and his love interest/fiance other than for her to have a scene where she can be this voice of reason. In this film, plenty of time is given but again, had the film been a bit more tragic at it's conclusion, it would have made this film perhaps better than the original film. Special effects are great once again and there are a few cool fog/smoke effects that are probably the highlights of this film. Also, I notice that there is lots of fast camera movements within this film and honestly it is a bit jarring to see this much camera movement in a film released at a time where that was not really much a thing.

The Invisible Man Returns may not necessarily surpass the 1933 original but on it's own merits it is a decent film altogether.

The Killer (1989)

This deserves a chef's kiss :*

[10/10 · 2 June 2022]

John Woo needs absolutely no introduction. He is often considered one of the best action film directors of all time who has brought a certain style and direction to the action genre. The Killer was released in 1989 and was directed by John Woo (Hard Boiled, Face/Off, and Broken Arrow) and stars Chow Yun-Fat (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Hard Boiled, and The Replacement Killers), Danny Lee (Law With Two Phases, The Eight Immortals Restaurant: The Untold Story, and City on Fire), and Sally Yeh (soundtrack work on Crazy Rich Asians, soundtrack on The Man with the Iron Fists, and appeared in Peking Opera Blues). The film gained quite a following once it came over to America as to be expected when it came to the Hong Kong action genre.

Jeffery, or rather Ah Jong, (Chow Yun-Fat) is a hitman and is hired to kill people. During one job, he accidentally blinds a woman (Sally Yeh) and he grows guilty and takes care of her. Jeffery/Ah Jong is hired one last time and takes the job so he can use the money to help the woman with getting cornea reconstruction surgery. Things do not go to planned and Jeffery/Ah Jong's identity is known by the police which is a big no-no with the gang leader and thus orders a hit on Jeffery/Ah Jong and not only does he have other gang members, but he also crosses paths with a police officer (Danny Lee).

For a while, I was really reluctant to watch another Hong Kong John Woo film after seeing Hard Boiled because Hard Boiled is undoubtedly the highest you can go with John Woo films in terms of action and that's primarily what his films are meant for. So, why would I want to see something that wouldn't surpass Hard Boiled? Well, I gave in and watched The Killer and needless to say, I could argue that The Killer is all around a better made film than Hard Boiled. Where Hard Boiled has more focus on the action and less on the story (that is not to say that the story in Hard Boiled is bad), The Killer seems to have a really good balance, Never in this film did I ever find myself wishing for an action scene to erupt. I was really drawn in to the story which has its melodramatic moments, romance, comedy, and obviously action. The characters themselves seemed really fleshed out here. Jeffery/Ah Jong was a character who had a dangerous and illegal job and fully realizes that and wants to do something right in the world but having been put in the position that he is in, it is just interesting to see. Then there is Inspector Ying who realizes this and while they at first are adversaries, we see that they see that they both have more in common than they thought which does seem cliche today (it is something that is done even in Hard Boiled). The action scenes, while not as big and as over the top as seen in Hard Boiled, are just as awesome. John Woo certainly has mastered the craft in creating beautifully shot yet violent action scenes and they are just a blast to watch.

I was pleasantly surprised overall by this film in that I totally underestimated it. John Woo continues to show that he has truly mastered the art of action movies.

Fight Club (1999)

Perfect in a technical level, but may require another viewing for me to fully understand what the film has to say

[8/10 · 30 May 2022]

Of all of the most popular films to come out in the past 25 years, Fight Club is one that I finally got the chance to watch. Fight Club was released in 1999 and based off of the 1996 Chuck Palahniuk novel of the same name (of which I have not read). The film was directed by David Fincher (visual effects on Star Wars: Episode VI- Return of the Jedi, visual effects on The NeverEnding Story, and appeared in Being John Malkovich) (also love doing research and coming up with weird credits like that) and stars Brad Pitt (Megamind, producer on Selma, and Inglourious Basterds), Edward Norton (American History X, Collateral Beauty, and Primal Fear), Helena Bonham Carter (Terminator: Salvation, Enola Holmes, and Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street), Meat Loaf (The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Formula 51, and Wayne's World), and Jared Leto (Blade Runner 2049, Dallas Buyers Club, and Suicide Squad). The film was not as huge of a financial success as initially anticipated and upon release, received polarizing reviews from critics but has since become one of the biggest cult films to be released in the past 25 years.

The Narrator (Edward Norton) lives a life of nothing and is very unhappy with it. He goes to support groups and poses as having a sickness. But one day while on a plane, he meets a soap salesman named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and together they make their own underground Fight Club were men can come and beat each other up. Eventually things take a turn........

Fight Club is a film that I had zero clue about which surprises me when it comes to a film of such notoriety. I knew nothing of it other than it's reputation. What I can say is that on a technical level, Fight Club is absolutely fantastic. The camera work and editing are great and David Fincher at this point in time in 1999, has fully matured as a director. Other praises go toward the lead actors. Brad Pitt does a fantastic job in this film and as always, Edward Norton never disappoints. The film has some very heavy handed themes and subjects to a point that I nearly had no idea what the film was trying to get at. I understand we have a man, who is an insomniac and is very materialistic as seen early on when his apartment is blown up who is seeking attention and his escape is ultimately this Fight Club that ultimately glorifies violence and masculinity which then evolves into something far greater and more extreme. This film just requires a lot of attention to fully comprehend these themes and for my first time viewing it seems I have an idea and definitely requires a second viewing because there were also instances where I was unsure of what the film itself was trying to say and as someone who is largely intrigued by the film, I want to be able to have a better grasp on the subjects and I only mention this because I cannot be the only one that feels this way about this film. The film itself is much like Natural Born Killers in that both films were critically divisive upon release, both are essentially social satire, and are wild trips to get through. The film has a plot twist in it that I actually find really really good in that I was not expecting it whatsoever. A second viewing of the film will definitely be a delight and going back and seeing the really subtle clues that pop up and make the twist make sense. If I have to have anything outwardly negative is Helena Bonham Carter's character of Marla Singer. To me, while her character certainly had lots of screen time, it was unclear to me what her purpose to the film was. The film ends as wild as a film like this should end but I can't really complain especially with the end credits song being "Where Is My Mind?" by The Pixies.

For a first time viewing, I really enjoy this film but I find it hard to put it up there in my top tier. With that being said, I was intrigued enough that I would be willing to give this film a second viewing later on down the road.

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)

Lord have mercy, I'm a boy who watched Boondock Saints II

[4/10 · 8 April 2022]

I never understood why the original Boondock Saints movie is a "cult classic", but I figured I give the sequel a try knowing full well that it was probably going to be worse than the first movie. After years of development hell, The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day was released in 2009 and was written and directed by Troy Duffy (The Boondock Saints, Knight Rider 2016, and Dead in 5 Heartbeats) and stars Sean Patrick Flanery (The Boondock Saints, Saw: The Final Chapter, and Powder), Norman Reedus (8MM, The Boondock Saints, and The Walking Dead), Clifton Collins Jr. (Star Trek, Capote, and Traffic), Julie Benz (Dexter, Saw V, and Rambo), Peter Fonda (Escape from L. A., Easy Rider, and 3:10 to Yuma), Billy Connolly (The Boondock Saints, Brave, and Mrs. Brown), Judd Nelson (The Breakfast Club, St. Elmo's Fire, and New Jack City), Bob Marley (The Boondock Saints, The Very Funny Show, and Laugh Factory), Brian Mahoney (The Boondock Saints, The Boy Next Door, and The Mummy), David Ferry (The Boondock Saints, Man of the Year, and Darkman II: The Return of Durant), and David Della Rocco (The Boondock Saints, Dead in 5 Heartbeats, and The Black Dove). The film had a limited release and it was not well received by critics and most fans of the original were not impressed either.

Connor and Murphy MacManus (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) are busy living in Ireland with their father (Billy Connolly) when a priest back in Boston is killed and it is up to the brothers to return to their vigilante ways.

Again, I never was a fan of the original Boondock Saints and had low expectations for this film. Needless to say I had a bit more fun with this film though that does not make this a better film, I just happen to have bad tastes in movies I suppose. The plot is very unoriginal with a lot of key points and little instances that are pulled directly from the first movie though if you are like me, I don't remember much from the first film. The film goes through a cycle like this: typical banter (largely immature) between the brothers and/or characters, crime scene shown, flashback to the actual shootout, and repeat. But, I will say, this film has instances in the film that are interesting. That is, only the character of Il Duce whom we learn of his backstory throughout the film. I found it to be the most compelling part of the film. The MacManus brothers are not very interesting and their dialogue mostly consists of f-bombs and immature insults (many of which would definitely not hold up today), Julie Benz as the FBI special agent has an annoying accent, and the character of Romeo is just a Rocco replacement whose dialogue, along with the MacManus brothers, consist of f-bombs and immature insults. The shootouts to me are a bit better in concept but when you watch them, they are mostly silent with crappy trap music playing in the background, which takes the viewers out of the experience. With all that being said, this film is objectively bad but with the first film, I had high expectations due to it's cult status and was ultimately disappointed, whereas with this film I had low expectations and was mildly entertained for the fact that this film has some occasionally funny bits that I laugh at, whether for the right or wrong reasons and that it is sort of a parody of the first film. Through in the Il Duce focused bits that I found compelling and a surprise revelation in the end of the film and the film ends up not being as bad as I first expected.

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day is objectively bad but I seemed to have a bit more fun with this film for all the right and wrong reasons. I can't recommend this one really, but if you are a fan of the first and haven't seen this one, give it a try but I won't promise that you'll find it better than the original.

Puppet Master 4 (1993 Video)

When bad puppets turn good

[1/10 · 15 February 2022]

Full Moon was at an all time high in the early 90's and producer Charles Band wanted to bring Puppet Master to the big screen. But the idea was ditched in favor of doing a two part sequel which would Puppet Master 4 and 5. Band managed to get director Jeff Burr on in a deal that would see Burr direct other Full Moon movies. Puppet Master 4 was released in 1993 and directed by Jeff Burr (Straight Into Darkness, Broke Sky, and From a Whisper to a Scream) and stars Gordon Currie (Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan, Magnus Opus, and Left Behind: The Movie), Chandra West (White Noise, The Salton Sea, and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry), and Ash Adams (Gasoline Alley, An L. A. Minute, and Once Fallen).

Sutekh is mad that the secret of reanimation is known of and wants anyone who knows about the secret dead. Meanwhile at the Bodega Bay Hotel, science genius Rick is working on the Omega Project which is dealing with giving life to inanimate objects. Coincidentally a trunk is in the hotel and the puppets we all know and love are in it. But the humans and the puppets must team up together to stop the little demon puppets sent by Sutekh.

Oddly enough, Puppet Master 4 was the first ever Puppet Master film that I have ever watched since my friend gave me triple feature DVD with Puppet Master 4-6. I had mixed opinions on it then but after watching the first three films, I still am not totally sure what to think. Out of nowhere, we get introduced to the main villain Sutekh. Which is quickly explained who he is and why he is so mad. This time the puppets we all know and love are portrayed as the good guys, much like in Puppet Master III and I can argue the first as well. The idea of the puppets fighting enemies their own size this time around, sounds novel, but it proved to be a good idea over at Full Moon as the Puppets would go up against Demonic Toys later in the series. Sure, the first time around I found it to be dumb silly fun, but after seeing how effective the puppets killing humans was, I just find it to be a little dumb and a little silly and maybe a little bit of fun. It is really hard to say. It is just a borderline cheesefest of a movie. Not particularly gory, the costume effects on Sutekh looks goofy as all hell. Acting is not great but Ash Adams who plays Cameron does a good job at being the ultimate jerk ever.

Puppet Master 4 is cheap and cheesy as far as the mind can see. It is a more lighthearted sequel compared to the past entries and when the film does get fun, it really does. The film is just largely unforgettable.

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

Possibly the best slasher of the early 80's slasher craze

[8/10 · 14 February 2022]

Halloween was a huge success upon release in 1978. As everyone knows, Halloween started the 80's slasher craze and hundreds and hundreds of slasher movies were put out. But like how Halloween started the 80's slasher craze, it helped alongside 1974's Black Christmas, kickstart the holiday themed slasher movies. A popular one that tends to come to mind a lot is My Bloody Valentine. Released in 1981, My Bloody Valentine was directed by George Milhalka ("Faith, Fraud, and Minimum Wage", Eternal Evil, and La Florida) and stars Paul Kelman (Black Roses, Caged Men, and Gas), Lori Hallier (Picture Perfect, Star Trek: Voyager, and Strange Days at Blake Holsey High), and Neil Affleck (The Simpsons Movie, Scanners, The Simpsons). The film was completely butchered by the MPAA due to the at time recent death of John Lennon. Nine minutes were completely cut from the film but thankfully in 2009, Lionsgate released an "uncut" version which really means only three minutes were added. But in all honesty, I can't complain. The film was received with negative reception by critics for it's depiction of violence and gore but audiences criticized the movie for it's lack of gore. The film would later see a massive following and critical reappraisal being often cited as one of the best early slasher films. The film would later see a remake in 2009.

In a small, blue collar mining town in Canada, an accident in a mine causes a cave in, trapping all the miners. Only one is rescued and his name is Harry Warden. Harry goes to the mental hospital and a year later he escapes and kills two people in charge of the mine for revenge. All of this happened on Valentine's Day. 20 years later on Valentine's Day in the same small mining town, the town decides to celebrate Valentine's Day for the first time in 20 years. But then the killings start happening again....

Going into this for the first time, I was really unsure about this film at first. But after watching it, I can easily conclude that My Bloody Valentine is possibly the best slasher of the early 80's craze. My Bloody Valentine is a horror mixed in with some melodrama as to be expected in a Valentine's Day horror movie. The setting of the film seems simple enough, but what makes it great is that it does feel atmospheric in every way possible whether it be the small town atmosphere, blue collar atmosphere, February atmosphere, or celebratory atmosphere. The town has more to offer with the bar and mine settings. The bar feels like a good small town bar you would want to go to after work and hang out with some buddies. The mine itself, while a dumb decision for the characters to make to go down there, is a lovely setting. The film was criticized for being too dark, but I think it works well in developing the dark atmosphere, making it as realistic as possible. It's dark, dirty, and dank and the setting of the cave itself helps develop not only a dark, dirty, and dank atmosphere, but also a bit claustrophobic, thus throwing tension into the atmosphere. There are plenty of jump scares in the film and I will admit, not every single one worked but what I can say is that I was more freaked out not only by the previously mentioned atmosphere, but the gore, kills, and special effects. Now, do remember that for nearly 30 years, this film remained bloodless because of the MPAA. Thankfully, in 2009 an uncut version of the film was released but only with three extra minutes but again I should not complain because the uncut material was fantastic. For an early 80's slasher, the special effects were great and the kills were very creative. Now, if one does watch the uncut version, you'll know when the uncut material is present because the picture quality changes. I still can't complain about that. The kills were great and fantastic! Even if I wanted to complain about it, I actually love the grainy picture presented in the uncut scenes. It looks really spooky. The characters themselves, while I cannot remember any of their names, with the exception of Hollis, are interesting enough. The melodramatic aspect of the film kicks in when the film focuses on the love triangle between our three main characters. Seeing that this is a Valentine's Day movie, I would certainly say that it is warranted. But it does surprise me that the material was handled fairly well, especially for a low budget film and half melodrama. The acting is not terrible and the actors seem to be really dedicated to their roles and seem to be having a fun time. The killer known as Harry Warden, is a frightening enough due to the fact that he wears all black thus allowing him to blend into the dark and on top of that, he knows the caves better than any of the victims. I would say he certainly deserves to be up there on the list of horror greats. But with that being said, there is a plot twist that I am fairly mixed on. On the melodramatic aspect, it works and makes sense. And it works with the horror aspect because the film has a good balance and blend of melodrama and horror. So, the only thing that could be wrong was the character which is something that I am willing to accept but it won't take anything away from the fact that the image and scenes by themselves with Harry Warden, are still pretty creepy. My other complaint about this film is minor but notable nonetheless. It is rather on the genre as a whole, but the overall general plot of the film is unoriginal at it's core but there is a bit of character in this one to make it passable. Finishing out on a positive note, the soundtrack to this movie is absolutely awesome. Check out the song, The Ballad of Harry Warden.

My Bloody Valentine is one of the best slashers of the early 1980's and now it gives me a reason to watch something Valentine's Day related on Valentine's Day.

Reindeer Games (2000)

Mistakenly watched the Theatrical Cut

[4/10 · 2 February 2022]

The best Christmas action movie ever, Die Hard, was a huge box office success. Now, for the supposed worst action Christmas flick, Reindeer Games. Reindeer Games is a largely forgotten or just not talked about enough action film released in 2000 and was directed by John Frankenheimer (The Manchurian Candidate, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Seven Days in May) and stars Ben Affleck (Shakespeare in Love, Good Will Hunting, and Dazed and Confused), Gary Sinise (Forrest Gump, The Green Mile, and Ransom), Charlize Theron (The Devil's Advocate, The Cider House Rules, and Monster), Clarence Williams III (Deep Cover, Purple Rain, and The General's Daughter), Danny Trejo (From Dusk Till Dawn, Con Air, and Machete), Dennis Farina (Out of Sight, Get Shorty, and Manhunter), James Frain (Robinson Crusoe, Where the Heart Is, and The Count of Monte Cristo), and Donal Logue (Gettysburg, Blade, and The Tao of Steve). The film had many production issues that the studio interfered as studios tend to do. The film was intended for a 1999 Christmas release (as it probably should have been) but was pushed back to February 2000. The film was a critical and financial failure with director John Frankenheimer being so disappointed with the final product that luckily a director's cut of this film has been released (and which I have still yet to watch, but from what I heard, it's far better than the theatrical cut).

Rudy is doing time in prison along side his cell mate Nick. When Nick is killed, he assumes Nick's identity and gets with a girl that has been writing to Nick for quite sometime. "Nick" is then tied up in a plot with a bunch of first time robbers who plan to rob a casino.

This is a film that had promise but then studios had to mess it all up. Luckily in some cases, director's manage to piece together a director's cut together. With that being said, I could easily be a lot harsher on this film as it is with the theatrical release, but since I am looking at this film as a whole, different releases and all, and knowing that the director's cut is far better, My review and score is not nearly going to be as harsh as it could have easily been. With that being said, Reindeer Games is a rough one to sit through and it is not due to the director and actors either. John Frankenheimer has proven to be a very successful director. The performances from the cast is solid enough, considering what they were given. To me, Gary Sinise is the star of the film. His portrayal as the villain works well for me and keeps me entertained for the duration that he is on screen. Not only does Sinise work but Charlize Theron as the romantic interest in the film does a fairly good job and I will leave it at that because I do not want to spoil anything (surprisingly). The film is a action thriller and while there is only one action scene worth mentioning, let alone in the whole film really, the action scene is pretty fun to watch. Not going to ruin it, but there are clips on the internet of this action scene and I would recommend giving it a watch. I particularly enjoy this scene because it does seem to break the flow of just ongoing conversations and dumb plot that it is nice to see some gunfire. The film provides a handful of twists and turns that vary in quality. They just keep coming! Admittedly, the final twist of the film is probably one of the dumbest twists. Dumb is how I would also describe the whole plot which, if the studios left it alone, would have been somewhat promising. The plot follows a man who takes the identity of another man, who then gets mistaken for the man who's identity he stole by a bunch of rookie robbers. Affleck's character even early on admits that he isn't who they think he is but that immediately is taken back. It's not fun really to sit through especially when all the characters really talk about is the same thing until the big heist occurs.

Reindeer Games was a film that had promise before studio's interfered, but if you are like me and see the promise and potential that is present, then check out the Director's Cut at least, because I sure will.

Bridge of Dragons (1999)

A warrior torn between loyalty and honor

[4/10 · 13 January 2022]

Dolph Lundgren is one of those B-List action stars that never really quite rose to the likes of Stallone or Schwarzenegger throughout the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. His film's go range from real stinkers to fun little action flicks that make for a nice nighttime movie. Bridge of Dragons was released in 1999 as an HBO movie and was directed by Issac Florentine (Undisputed 2: Last Man Standing, Undisputed 3: Redemption, Acts of Vengeance) and stars Dolph Lundgren (Showdown in Little Tokyo, The Punisher, and Detention), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (Big Trouble in Little China, Showdown in Little Tokyo, and Mortal Kombat), Valerie Chow (Chungking Express, The Doll Life, and High Risk), Gary Hudson (Road House, Thunder Run, and Fifty Shades Freed), and Scott L. Schwartz (Ocean's Eleven, Changing Hands, and Ocean's Thirteen). Apparently there were rewrites made to the script, which meant the film probably was going to be better than what was made.

General Ruechang (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa) is to marry the princess (Valerie Chow), but she does not want to. She escapes the wedding and the General sends Warchild (Dolph Lundgren). But, after learning that Ruechang is not a good person, it is up to Warchild to get rid of Ruechang.

While certainly not a big stinker like Hidden Agenda, but far from being a good Lundgren film like Showdown in Little Tokyo, Bridge of Dragons is really just what Lundgren seems to do best. Shoot up a bunch of people and use his martial arts skills. Which, no doubt, can be entertaining for some, it is just not that thrilling or entertaining. Yes, Lundgren is not nearly as good as Stallone or Schwarzenegger, but he is competent in most of his film's and even has a decent performance here. It's just the films that he is in that don't really show his true potential. Bridge of Dragons is an average Lundgren film overall, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not really that good of a movie in general. The whole setting and time period really throws me off. I can see it perhaps going for a sort of fairytale route but one that involves guns and helicopters. It certainly has a romance plot typically seen in fairytales and has the typical girl not wanting to marry a man so she runs off sort of plot as well. But is it really necessary? I wish the film took more time to do some world building so I can become invested in the setting and such. Yet again, this is a low budget, straight to TV/video Dolph Lundgren movie so that would be asking for too much. The action includes martial arts, gun fights, and a few explosions here and there. Nothing too spectacular but this should suffice enough for Lundgren fans and when the action does occur, it does provide some mild entertainment for me.

Bridge of Dragons is pretty much what you would expect out of a Dolph Lundgren movie that went straight to TV/video. Compared to other Lundgren films, it is not the worst but not the best either.

Resident Evil (2002)

Disappointing for fans and non fans alike

[5/10 · 4 January 2022]

The Resident Evil video game franchise is one of the biggest gaming franchises of all time. It practically started the survival horror genre when the first video game came out in 1996. Of course, it was a big hit and it came out around the time in the 90's that video game movies were being fairly popular. Many scripts were written for the film including the grandfather of the zombie genre, George A. Romero, whose work clearly influenced the Resident Evil games. But in the end, George A. Romero didn't work on the film. The film would be released in 2002, two years after Resident Evil: Code Veronica and three years before Resident Evil 4, and was written, directed, and produced by Paul W. S. Anderson (Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Mortal Kombat, and Event Horizon) and stars Milla Jovovich (Dazed and Confused, The Fifth Element, and Resident Evil: Afterlife), Michelle Rodriguez (Furious 7, Fast & Furious 6, and The Fast and the Furious), Eric Mabius (On the Borderline, Cruel Intentions, and Welcome to the Dollhouse), James Purefoy (Rome, The Following, and Altered Carbon), Martin Crewes (Match Point, DOA: Dead or Alive, and Dream Team), and Colin Salmon (Alien vs. Predator, Mortal Engines, and Punisher: War Zone). The film was a financial success, grossing $102.4 million but received negative reviews upon release from critics whereas audiences where more mixed on the film.

Below Raccoon City, a corporation called Umbrella has an underground facility called the Hive which is run by an AI called the Red Queen. When a virus called the T-Virus breaks out, the AI decides to kill everyone as to prevent a breakout on the surface above. Meanwhile, Alice (Milla Jovovich) wakes up and has amnesia and she is captured by an elite team sent by the Umbrella Corporation to go down to the Hive and figure out what happened.

Now, it should be noted that I am a fan of the Resident Evil games, having played a large amount of the games. I knew this film was not going to get everything right, but it seems to get a lot wrong. For people who are outsiders to the video games and such, the film is a subpar zombie film that lacks gore and decent effects and scares and interesting characters to keep people entertained. With that being said, there is enough absurdness to it that could appeal to a certain crowd. The zombies are not particularly scary and a lot of the attempted scares come from fake out scares from anything but zombies. The zombie effects are not too interesting and this film goes and uses CGI effects when practical effects would have been far more effective. Oddly, this film lacks gore which puzzles me when you have a rated R zombie film and you lack gore. The characters are not very engaging and at the end of the day, you could care less about any of the film's characters. Our lead, Alice has amnesia and rather than having her figure out who she is, we are just told by other characters who she is, leaving out any mystery about the character. The elite team is also largely uninteresting save for Michelle Rodriguez who probably is the best actress in this film. Any relationships in the film, like Rodriguez's character and another elite team member, you could care less about. The plot overall is a decent enough idea and what does work in terms of being a Resident Evil movie is that this film does feel like it could easily fit in as a side story in the Resident Evil games. While some may be disappointed that none of the characters in the games make in appearance in the movie, I find it to be a good idea. Because the film already works as a side story so it only makes sense to have original characters. But it would have been nice to see the characters we get, to be made interesting. There are some elements that fans of the games will notice in the film that are present in the games. Locations including the mansion and laboratory are locations used in the first two games. But the depiction of the elite force does not match how the games depicted them. But outside of that, I can't complain, though I am probably overlooking quite a bit but just a general idea should suffice.

Resident Evil is not a great film, but considering the reputation of the later Resident Evil films, this film is not really terrible. It is quite watchable and for fans it's a bit of a coin toss. It's not an insult but neither is it a compliment either.