Reviews

25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
A Deleted Scene not needed for the Movie, but Works on its Own
8 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Well, here's a review I'm not used to writing; this isn't a film review per se. After the success of Matt Reeves's The Batman, the fans got a special scene of the Joker played by Barry Keoghan. Everyone's favorite Clown Prince of Crime is being interrogated by Robert Pattinson's Batman and that's about it. It's a superfluous scene when taking into account whether it contributes to the plot or any character development or so forth so one can see how it was deleted (not that we already had a too long of a movie already which could've been cut at places).

By the time the narrative was over, the Riddler was conversing with a character most people naturally assumed was the Joker in prison. What struck me a bit odd was the casting of an actor not many people are familiar with; the Joker role is a dream job for many A-list talents and having Barry Keoghan be selected and reduced to a cameo was definite distraction to an otherwise solid Batman movie. I didn't dislike his performance in the deleted scene but it definitely seemed inspired by Heath Ledger's haunting and legendary portrayal of the Dark Knight's arch-nemesis. Overall, it was an unusual choice but he acted pretty decently for what little time he was given.

As for the look of the character, I suppose the filmmakers were making him a burn victim on account of the scars we see around his head but to me this Joker reminded me of a dog with mange. It's a unique, grotesque vision I respect which begs us to inquire about his backstory in this iteration. "You know how I got these scars?" It's kind of funny to also note he uses the phrase "ahead of the curve" like Ledger's version.

The most effective film technique used in the scene was where his face was out of focus for the majority of the runtime until the very end to enhance menacing, grim presence on screen for those watching.

Now as for the scene itself, like I said before, it's nothing crucial to the plot: it's simply a scene where Batman shows crime scene photos to the Joker who analyzes and gives him an opinion of the murders taking place. Seemed Hannibal Lecter was out to lunch that day in Arkham. The only interesting part of the scene is when the Joker implies our dark protagonist of our story is deep down glad these murders are happening, a nod to film noir themes.

To me, this seemed like a studio mandated part of the film for Matt Reeves: requesting they put in the Joker on screen. It feels out of place and it seemed all the better to be left on the cutting room floor for the final cut.

But you know what? I liked the scene for what it was and since it did not appear in the movie, no harm, no foul. It does give a good idea of Matt Reeves's serial killer direction he was going for but ultimately did little to advance anything. I'd say it holds its own.

My rating: 9/10.
56 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Without Remorse (II) (2021)
4/10
A Movie Too Small for a Tom Clancy Story
3 May 2021
Well, that was pretty disappointing. Pretty much the first disappointing movie I've seen this year so far. "Without Remorse" kind of started off nice but as things progressed, it went downhill. For a movie based on the work of the late Tom Clancy, it feels more like a made-for-TV movie of the 80s or 90s than the cerebral blockbuster of "The Hunt for Red October".

Tom Clancy's work is mostly known for their super technical details and their engaging plots whether it involved espionage or military warfare. I think because of his personal politics and willingness to write about geopolitical matters in his stories, most of his work adapted by Hollywood are toned down for the sake of political correctness. I did a bit of browsing on the synopsis for the original source material to see what was different and here comes the biggest shock of the review: Almost none of what happens in the book is brought to the screen, just about two plot points are adapted.

While there is a revenge story in the movie like the book, the main character is not even avenging the same person. Instead of being set in the 70s during Vietnam, a new story is propped against the tense current US-Russian relations in our time. John Kelly (played by Michael B. Jordan) goes on a SEAL mission in Syria to rescue a CIA operative from ISIS captors only to discover the captors are actually Russian military; this is the one part of the movie which felt like it came from a Tom Clancy novel. Months later much of the team members are hunted down in a series of assassinations not unlike the setup to the "Commando" movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger. When I was watching, I felt it might be getting somewhere good and sure enough but it really did not.

Reading the synopsis of the original book, I think it could have made for a solid movie if trimmed a bit and adapted the right way. But instead of taking risk, the makers hammered it into a John Wick - Commando knock-off without all the fun. I guess you can say they did get somewhat clever when things are described in the third act. But the problem is we're more focused on a revenge story with unrealistic plot developments and a character who barely has any development. There is really not enough I can say about the characters except that they were just there. Michael B. Jordan once again gives a solid performance in the role and continues to be a respected actor in the film industry.

The most curious thing is how small the movie seemed whereas Clancy's other adaptations were bigger and felt more epic. I will admit the movie did contain twists and turns but by the end it all seemed very unoriginal and uninspired. Why not adapt the original story into a period piece during Vietnam? We've had a few movies recently do that and they turned out to be successful.

This is an example of Hollywood blowing up a potentially engaging plot into a standard spy revenge thriller which is joyless and not interesting to watch. Apparently they're setting up for a sequel based on the Rainbow Six series but after watching this subpar adaptation, my expectations have decreased. I guess it'll be a while before fans will get a proper Tom Clancy Cinematic Universe which will satisfy them and be capable of competing with all the other universes in Hollywood.

My Rating: 4/10.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mortal Kombat (2021)
6/10
A Close Victory, Far From Flawless
30 April 2021
This is going to be tricky review for me: I'm Mortal Kombat fan but I'm a movie fan first. That being said, I will be as honest as I can about this movie. I had reservations and hopes going into it; to put it bluntly, I left satisfied but mixed. My hope is for the producers/writers listen to the fan feedback because I do support an ongoing movie franchise for the future. I think it's safe to say this movie is a huge improvement over "MK: Annihilation", so it is not a disaster.

A group of physically athletic beings who bear a dragon mark are the Chosen Ones chosen to participate in a tournament designed to conquer and defend worlds. Earthrealm (that's us) is the underdog in this fight while Outworld is the heavy favorite. Same premise as the 1995 film. But instead of a watered down PG-13 version of the game, the producers went to bring us the gory, gritty nature of the Mortal Kombat franchise into a story taking place before the actual tournament. Kind of a strange approach for a planned trilogy: the first being pre-tournament, the second being the tournament, and the third post-tournament. The warriors of Earthrealm are actually preparing for the tournament and the main conflict is Outworld is trying to sabotage them before anything official.

For a series of fighting video games, the Mortal Kombat franchise has an interesting lore and a lot of memorable characters to work with. It borrows elements from the fantasy genre and martial arts film kind of like how Star Wars brought samurai movies, WWII, Flash Gordon, and other elements to the Sci-Fi genre. Whereas the first movie was more of an "Enter the Dragon" redux, this movie was ambitious enough to be both an origin movie and a team-up film like the Avengers or the Justice League. The results are sloppy with the beginning seven minutes being very solid detailing the origins of fan favorite Scorpion (played by Hiroyuki Sanada) who ends up being saved for the final act in favor of a bland main character Cole (played by Lewis Tan). While Scorpion is elevated from being a mindless goon of 1995 movie to being an actual character, he felt shoehorned it. I think it would have worked if the plot was Earthrealm warriors joining to resurrect him in preparation for Mortal Kombat.

Scorpion's arch-nemesis Subzero (played by Joe Taslim) serves as the Darth Vader of the film to Shang Tsung (played by Chin Han) the Grand Moff Tarkin of Outworld assigned to terminate the Earthrealm warriors before the tournament. First time director Simon McQuoid did a good job establishing the cold-hearted ninja as a menacing presence, almost like a horror villain, but gave him some cartoony dialogue. The rest of the bad guys seemed to be thrown in the last half of the film giving me bad vibes from "MK: Annihilation" which crammed so many villains into its story that most of the characters only had one scene. While it did not get as bad in this reboot, it did reduce my favorite Mortal Kombat character Mileena (played by Sisi Stranger) into being a shallow goon. My girl got satisfactory screentime and action but they really do nothing with her character.

As for the protagonists, I was kind of happy what they did making a few of them Chosen Ones and not continuing the tradition of making Liu Kang (played by Ludi Lin) the Gary Stu of the Mortal Kombat Universe. Sonya (played by Jessica McNamee) and Jax (played by Mechad Brooks) are given development more than the other characters and while I would have liked to see more depth, I ended up rooting for them. But the one who steals the show is Kano (played by Josh Lawson) who basically carries the entire movie on his shoulders and steals every scene he is. They set him up more as an anti-hero than a straight-up villain and serves up the comic relief which can sometimes feel a bit unwelcome in a couple parts but it definitely entertained me.

The pacing of the movie felt weird for me because it seemed it was more focused on discovering the inner power (akana) of the protagonists rather than progressing through a series of fights which were pretty much crammed into the third act. Whereas the original movie took its time with one fight and then the next, it felt a bit rushed. Don't get me wrong, I think the fights were competent though I think it has choppy editing for a martial arts film. Oh and they don't hold back on the fatalities; they are gleefully bloody and brutal like the recent games and two of them got a big reaction from me in the theater. There's a really funny meta joke about jumping during a fight which I'm sure will delight the most hardcore of fighting game fans so prepare for that one.

As a Mortal Kombat fan, I enjoyed myself watching the film series have another chance but as a film fan, I found it mediocre. Oh and a point off for that sequel bait of an ending shot. Come on, guys. We get there will be more.

My rating: 6/10.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Titanic Monster Slugfest
2 April 2021
Before you ask No, neither Godzilla or Kong Say "Martha!" Instead you get an amazing spectacle of two classic giants colliding into a match fanboys and fangirls have been hyping about for decades. And the monsters do not disappoint, I think almost all of us can agree on it.

That's right, it's the fourth entry of WB/Legendary's MonsterVerse, a shared universe franchise I personally think has a good track run. Though many were divisive of the first Godzilla movie about how much screen time the big guy got but I was a huge fan of it; "Kong: Skull Island" was entertaining for me as well. When it comes to "King of the Monsters" though, I was not a fan of the human characters and it was somewhat saved by the amazing monster action. So what did I think of this movie overall? It was pretty good, I'll get into the problems too.

So we'll cut to the chase: Yes, the movie delivers on its promise being a huge monster beatdown and it is GLORIOUS! I'm talking jaw-dropping action sequences with titanic blows and moves that made me giddy as a professional wrestling fan. They use planes, buildings, and a giant axe against each other, Kong uses buildings to swing away from Godzilla's fire breath, they went all out to make this the battle of the century. They outdo the original costumed 1962 rock 'em, sock 'em fight with great special effects and visuals. Though the reason the two of them fight is a vague theory of their ancestors being rivals, you can tell it's a fight to determine who is the top dog of the monsters and guess what? There actually is a winner. You'll have to see who wins.

Unfortunately, you will probably have to endure the two problems of the movie: a predictable plot you can see once all the pieces are revealed and underwritten human characters which is something that is usually a big complaint in this franchise.

The plot starts with Godzilla attacking a facility run by Apex Cybernetics unprovoked. A few people are questioning the reasons including Madison (played by Millie Bobby Brown from "King of the Monsters") and a conspiracy theorist Bernie (played by Brian Tyree Henry). It leads them breaking into the said facility to investigate the company run by a Bond villain-like businessman with a savior of humanity complex. Sure enough, they discover a mystery villain project which will undoubtedly lead to the third act. I'll keep it like that to avoid any spoilers.

Kong is contained in a gigantic terrarium on Skull Island run by a scientist played by Rebecca Hall who adopted the last surviving native, a young, deaf girl named Jia (played by Kaylee Hottle). I found it pretty odd Kong formed a personal connection with a native of his island though they established he was a god to them and sort of minded his own business. Also I'd say Hall's character isn't really a good mom letting her daughter interact with Kong without some sort of protection.

It's interesting how they divided the humans into sort a Team Kong and Team Godzilla dynamic which keeps you curious as to who to root for. I've seen some people say Godzilla was more of the villain, I personally disagree. Kong was definitely the more sympathetic of the two yet the franchise sets them up as characters who are a double edged sword.

Anyways Apex sets up a plan to extract powerful energy from the Hollow Earth using Kong as a guide into the depths. And transporting him gets interrupted by Godzilla. Once you follow the movie, you pretty much know what is going to happen. It's a workable plot but again painfully predictable.

The cast is good but unfortunately most of them are not written well. The human characters are not as stupid as they were in "King of the Monsters", I'll give them that; the humor did teeter on being Transformers level on annoying with the conspiracy theorist but they actually gave him a little dimension and I actually laughed at the jokes enough to be satisfied. They forgo character development to focus more on the monsters; I get there are a few movies that work without it and this movie kind of does but why not try and give us people to really invest in? Sure they were underdeveloped in the first Godzilla movie but at least I cared about them enough. I could barely give a fig if Godzilla stepped on most of the characters in "King of the Monsters". So I guess there were only two real human characters I found interesting: Jia the native girl and Bernie the conspiracy theorist though barely for the latter.

Speaking of humans, this movie does not shy away from showing the carnage and that people actually die. It makes the third act from "Man of Steel" look like Kindergarten and it kind of makes sense because Godzilla and Kong are animals who aren't going to give regard for human life and destruction. My favorite shots are where the camera views the monster action from inside the buildings which give the impression you are a puny insect to these giants.

Despite those two main problems, this movie succeeds in bringing two of cinema's most famous monsters in a grand showdown worthy of going back to the big screens and I highly recommend it as a matinee movie for most people. Just please be safe and healthy as always!

My rating: 7/10.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Now THIS is What We've Wanted
16 May 2019
Forget Warcraft. Forget Assassin's Creed. Forget Paul WS Anderson. Forget Uwe Boll (I'm serious about that one). A video game adaptation given critical praise and positive audience feedback is as hard to find as a rare Atari cartridge. But it now seems "Detective Pikachu" has broken the bad streak with people calling it the very best like no one ever was. And I somewhat agree.

Though I still reserve some minor criticism for this movie, I can confidently say "Detective Pikachu" is a success. It gives the fans what we've wanted for years and does so much more to please those nostalgic of the games and anime. I will go so far as to say even if you don't know much about Pokémon you may still enjoy this as a comedy in a neo-noir setting.

The story is a standard detective story about a young man Tim (played by Justice Smith who is a lot better with Pokémon than he was with dinosaurs in Jurassic World) teaming up with a Pikachu (voiced by Ryan Reynolds) to investigate the disappearance of the former's father in a city where Pokémon and people co-exist together with no capturing or battling allowed. Still, you got to ask yourself the inevitable question of this world: do humans eat Pokémon since there are technically no animals? Too dark?

Sure it recycles a couple of tropes from stories like Sherlock Holmes and other mystery movies but trust me when I say the third act goes absolutely nuts in a good way. And yes, it deviates from the source game in case you're familiar with so there are plenty of surprises. However, it took me about a good ten minutes to predict the twists before they were revealed. Though I found these parts derivative and predictable, it impressively pays off with the climax.

I remember critic Grace Randolph saying it was like Blade Runner meets Roger Rabbit with Pokémon and she's correct in that assessment. There's also a bit of a strained father-son relationship theme reminiscent of Spielberg's movies. Most of it centers around Tim who feels as if he pushed his dad away and now he feels guilty about it. This story element really helps keep Justice Smith relatable to the audience in a strange, new world. I think that's why previous Pokémon movies failed to hit well with the critics and our parents: apart from not giving any exposition, none of the characters from the anime were grounded or relatable to invest in. That's where Detective Pikachu fixes things.

Of course the standout is Ryan Reynolds who does a good job being Ryan Reynolds: cocky, arrogant with a good sense of comedic timing and a bit of a sarcastic wit to him. And yes, it works well with Pikachu which I admit I was skeptical going into. But the good news is Reynolds is entertaining and charming even as an electric mouse and I found a few hints of Deadpool-like meta humor (don't worry it's PG). And the even better part is how Justice Smith and Pikachu play off each other almost like a kid-friendly 80s buddy cop movie.

Almost all the humans give a good performance including one with eyes that'll haunt your dreams for weeks. The only person who I felt gave a subpar effort was Kathryn Newton who plays the newsgirl. It's nothing awful I just thought her proclamations were forced. And Bill Nighy, what a committed actor. Enough said. But you all want to know about the Pokémon right? Well, I can say the visual effects did the creatures we love so much justice with a few missteps with the bird Pokémon and the way too scaly Charizard. Who would have thought it was possible to blend Pokémon in the real world so smoothly? It really did feel natural. I would have gone nuts had I seen this movie at the age of 7.

While there are plot points which aren't original, the movie overall is a fun, entertaining watch for both kids, their parents, and nostalgic adults like me who grew up with this cultural phenomenon which we all thought would be just a fad. Turns out we were all wrong. And I'm kind of glad we were.

My rating: 7/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Fascinating, Erotic Film Perhaps Better Than We Give It Credit For
15 February 2015
Before the review, I think I should address one important thing: I have never read the book. That being said, you will not read any comparisons or critiques of what was left out or what was done wrong in the adaptation. I went into this movie aware of the subject matter and judged it just like any other movie. Consider this a fair review of "Fifty Shades of Grey".

Honestly, I liked this movie. I know what you're thinking: "This guy just likes seeing people have kinky sex on the big screen." No, I don't. In fact, I think mainstream erotic films offer us more than just artsy porn; they can be a fascinating look into the human subconscious like "Eyes Wide Shut" and they can be pure garbage like "Caligula". I have come to learn that art is not safe whether it's in the horror genre, comedy or especially in the erotic subgenre. Strangely, I found "Fifty Shades of Grey" to be provocative of questions about love, compromise, and passion even if it borders on what most people would consider bad taste.

First off, what is the movie about? Basically it follows the relationship between an inhibited English student named Anastasia Steele (played by Dakota Johnson) and a mysterious, young billionaire named Christian Grey (played by Jamie Dornan). They meet for an interview and begin building an infatuation for one another but Grey keeps insisting he does not want a romance with Ana. Instead he offers her the chance to partake in a BDSM relationship in which he is the dominant and she is the submissive. When I look back, the roles match well with their personalities.

There is no real story I could find in this film; rather it's more about the characters. A lot of great movies focus on their characters more than plot; in this movie, it works out okay. Many of the supporting characters are snubbed for the two main players as if to say they are just there for the sake of some filler. Maybe if others found out about Grey's lifestyle and he was caught in media frenzy, the film would have a substantial plot.

I found Dakota Johnson to be incredibly dull in the first act but gradually she becomes more dynamic and confident as the film progressed. It feels intentional seeing how Ana starts off as a quiet, uninteresting woman only to morph into a more liberal persona. Dakota's character has a lot of those "whomp-whomp-whomp-whooooomp" comedic moments in the beginning which felt so forced and unnecessary to the tone. Jamie Dornan was decent as Christian Grey. Like his character, he feels in control.

The sex scenes are a lot tamer than I had anticipated going into this flick. Like the rest of the movie, they are shot surprisingly crisp and, might I add, nicely-paced.

It sounds like a simple movie but it wasn't until I asked myself one simple question that it all became interesting: Does Grey love Ana? A lot of Grey's actions I see points to yes unless it is part of a ploy to secure a potential submissive. He claims to require a written contract before ever touching Ana but blows off this condition to passionately kiss her. And once they get to the contract, they discuss their intimate limitations in an amusing, business-like setting. Ana objects to certain practices which Grey seems to willingly extract from their relationship kind of like a compromise in any other relationship.

One of my favorite parts is when Ana confesses her virginity to Grey after revealing his secret life. Even though he maintains he doesn't have normal sexual relations in the bedroom, Grey breaks this code to be with Ana. One might argue it is a selfish act to gain her trust so she may serve as his victim; I see it as Grey finding an opportunity to be with someone he could briefly connect with, someone untouched, someone he sees as good. In fact, at one point, he voices his concern of Ana changing his outlook on life and sounds scared of this prospect. Grey feels constrained by his past which shaped his present only to feel the need to constrain others to his level, literally.

Who knows? Maybe I'm overthinking too much. Some people might be turned off, some might get turned on, some might think little about it, and some might find something special in "Fifty Shades of Grey". I only know what I saw and felt.

My Rating: 7/10
193 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper Masterfully Take Sight on Iraq
25 January 2015
Not only do we get to know Chris Kyle, his life, and service but we also get to see the most grounded and mature movie made about the Iraq War even better than "The Hurt Locker". Like Vietnam in "Full Metal Jacket", there are no winners or losers in Iraq, only the reality of a war that changed us all forever. This is what makes some of the best war movies the best and this is why "American Sniper" will stand as one of the best movies about the Iraq War for a long time to come.

You probably would like to know how accurate this movie was of the real Chris Kyle, right? Yes, Hollywood has a tendency to make up and exaggerate the lives of people in the real world but I have done some research and can say nothing has been exploited in this picture. I believe this is a respectful portrayal of its subject with some material dramatized with good intention. I found 85% of what was depicted in "American Sniper" to be factually true; then again I am not a professional investigator so you decide.

Chris Kyle (played by Bradley Cooper) was, indeed, a Texan cowboy who believed in God, country, and guns but most importantly, he saw himself as a guardian of the weak and defenseless, a virtue he held onto since childhood. He joins the Navy pre-9/11 and trains as a SEAL sniper before being deployed to Iraq. There he served four tours of duty returning to his family in between but only to grow more passive and distant every time. And every time his friends are killed or injured, he feels obligated to take up his rifle and hunt his enemy even if there is a bounty placed on him.

A lot of people have been praising and slamming this movie as pro-war, neoconservative propaganda; I think those people are misguided. First of all, war is terrible whether you believe in some cause or not so calling something "pro-war" is pretty careless on your part. And secondly, the director Clint Eastwood is as anti-war as they come; don't let his support of Republicans fool you, he opposes the idea of America serving as the world police. Being anti-war does not mean you are not supporting the soldiers who serve our military, in fact, you can argue you're anti- war because you care about our troops and others. Alright, enough with my rant to all the Bill Mahers of the world and that goes to those who praise this movie as well for the same reason.

With all being said, Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Jason Hall really get the Iraq War as an ambiguous conflict. Kyle, as a sniper, is put into strenuous positions where he must make decisions to kill or let someone go. Looking through his scope, we are pressured into the same conflict he is in. Our emotions battle with our instinct as ferocious as our hero's and climax as soon as he pulls the trigger or relieves it. That, my friends, is great filmmaking.

"American Sniper" does not justify nor condemns a controversial war, it gives us a picture of what it has done to our veterans and what they had to endure (and still are to this day). Most war movies these days are either so blatantly anti-war or supportive of the war effort (not that it is necessarily wrong to do either) but movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "American Sniper" are smarter in how they portray sacrifice and consequence. But most importantly, they focus on the people who are in the war and what it does to them: the soldiers, their enemies, and the innocent civilians in between.

Bradley Cooper put 120% effort into his role as Chris Kyle and it will go down as the performance of a lifetime. Beefed up in muscle and touting a Texan accent, Cooper achieves a heroic image with a stoic grace only he and Eastwood could have accomplished. But beneath the façade of quiet strength is a battle from which Kyle risks compromising his family for his duty. And let us not forget about the lady of the family Taya Kyle (played by Sienna Miller). I cannot remember the last war movie in which the spouse of a veteran is given a significant amount of focus. Through Sienna's chemistry with her costar and through her pain over her husband's safety and sanity, I could feel how much Taya loved and supported her man. It takes a special kind of sacrifice for a woman to bear the burden of a SEAL sniper. Both actors deserve award recognition for their roles.

Of all the subjects touched in "American Sniper", I believe the most important is our veterans. They are still coping with life in the home and often do not show they need our help. Chris Kyle spends the remainder of the film dedicating his time and energy to give strength and hope to his fellow veterans. After watching this movie, I hope you feel the same way.

My Rating: 10/10
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unbroken (I) (2014)
4/10
Consider Yourself Unbroken If You Endure Watching This Movie
22 January 2015
I'll go out and say this movie was hard to watch in both a good and bad way. While Angelina Jolie tells us this remarkable, painful story of endurance and triumph, it feels as if she left out so many things I wanted to know more about Louie Zamperini. You should expect to see a great movie from Legendary Pictures with contributions done by the legendary Coen brothers but you instead get a traditional survival movie with characters with absent character and clichéd dialogue. It is, to say the least, underwhelming.

So who is Louie Zamperini? And with that simple question comes the biggest problem of this movie. We really are not given an idea of what our protagonist is like, what kind of personality he has, and barely what motivates him to do what he does. I think a lot of people found the same problem with Superman in "Man of Steel" though I could tell our hero was conflicted, I could tell he had trouble relating with others, I was given a sufficient connection to him though he had the bare minimum of a personality. In "Unbroken", the only connection I could make with Louie was his tremendous experience WWII, as a serviceman. Speaking of "Man of Steel", this movie also has a non-chronological narrative in the first thirty minutes to give some backstory of Louie: only two instances of his life before his service. So what do we learn from these flashbacks? Well, as a kid, Louie got picked on, got in trouble, and got into track because his brother encouraged him to do so. Eventually he would attend the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany and that's it. The rest of the movie recounts his incredible ordeal during wartime.

By incredible, I do not say lightly. What this man goes through and how he pulls through is fascinating and deserves to be told. It begins when his aircraft goes down over the Pacific, leaving Louie and two other survivors stranded on two lifeboats. For 47 days, the three men are hunted by sharks, beaten down by exposure, and go to great lengths to get food. All of this could have been an entire movie by itself but our protagonist is capture by the Japanese to be held captive.

There's this really strange scene where Louie is questioned by an Imperial officer and his lines put into subtitles only to have a soldier translate everything he just said in English. What gives? Did the editor think we could not read the subtitles so he had someone else read for us? Trust is not a virtue in this flick, indeed.

The acting is nothing special. If anything, I found a lot of the actors wooden but given this film did not have empathetic script to begin with, it is excusable. Louie is played by Jack O'Connell who passes off with an okay performance. The one actor who stood out for me was Miyavi (that's his stage name) who plays a spoiled, Japanese officer known as the Bird who takes his disdain of his position out on his captives. He serves as the antagonist and combats Louie in a psychological war of endurance and suffering. Sure, the Bird's character is thinly written but interesting enough to make a good villain.

The second act centers on Louie during his time as a POW; this is where the movie becomes hard to watch. Our hero is beaten mercilessly with belts and sticks in needlessly prolonged sequences. The Bird even makes each prisoner punch poor Louie in the head. I am surprised this movie held onto a PG-13 rating. You'd wonder if Mel Gibson was behind the camera at this point.

The credits were rolling and I was baffled to see the Coen brothers listed under "Written By" with two other talented writers. Just look up the work these four men have done and tell me with a straight face you are not surprised to see them write a rehashed, conventional script for this movie. It feels as if their visions collided in a death match only to have a simple underdog come out on top. At least it never got to sappy territory, it was possible though. There's this one part where the Bird forces Louie to pick up a piece of wood and all the POWs in the camp halt work to watch in silence. Yeah, aren't the Japanese soldiers supposed to be supervising their prisoners?

From all that I have told you, it sounds like I do not like this movie. No, not really. I am disappointed Jolie did not go all out and take reasonable advantage of a great story given to her on a silver platter. With that said, the story itself is worth seeing but you're going to have to deal with one-dimensional characters and brutal torture to appreciate the trials this man had to go though. "Unbroken" is broken and ends up as wasted potential.

My Rating: 4/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alexander (2004)
3/10
A Disappointment Literally of Epic Proportions
18 November 2012
I really don't know where to begin to discuss what went wrong with this movie. Going into it, you would presume "Alexander" was in good hands with Oliver Stone and a sterling ensemble of performers. Before it hit theaters in 2004, the hype surrounding the premise was so overrated it was rumored to be a potential Oscar contender. After my first viewing, I could not comprehend the negative reception; all I came for was some history lesson and battle scenes. I certainly grew wiser about movies over the years since then so I decided to give it another go. Now, I have come to the conclusion "Alexander" is a bloated, lost mess even if superficially striking.

The history of Alexander the Great needs no extensive introduction for his legacy and impact of world conquest lasts to this very day. As I am typing this review, US military forces in Afghanistan look at the same mountains and landscape the young ruler beheld in his life. Because of Alexander, Greek culture reached as far as Persia to India and fostered the beginning of a Hellenistic civilization. The film is a biopic of Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) and his campaigns but I'm befuddled how Stone does not go into depth the effect the man had made in history. Instead he studies Alexander's personal life, something I'm not against. However, I would like films about historical leaders to touch base on the achievements of an individual, the contributions to whatever society is at stake. That being said, this film mentions the influence of Alexander scarcely.

To further elaborate on the protagonist, his intentions and motivations to conquer the known world become vague. At the start, Alexander justifies the Persian conquest as retribution; as he presses onward, he mentions freeing the people he encounters along his journeys. Then the objective becomes more idealistic and set upon glory. There was a point I wondered whether his mother Olympias (played by Angelina Jolie) served as a manipulator for Alexander's journey. The case I'm trying to make is Alexander never gives a clear, concise goal to accomplish and it only makes the audience feel isolated from the story.

One of the more sensitive topics Stone brings up is the alleged bisexuality of Alexander the Great. The implication of the king having an intimate relationship with his best friend Hephaistion (played by Jared Leto) does not bother me; my concern is towards the point of making his sexuality a recurrent topic. Is it a conflict the king struggles with? No, not really. Even when he marries a bride, the subject of his affections is hardly examined; it doesnâ(TM)t warrant having a place in the plot. If a movie continues to remind us of a protagonist's sexuality, it ought to have a significant part.

The performers are given a script with lines akin to a re-election campaign speech of President Obama. Elegant wording yet you've heard it all before, yearning for something new. Remember this is Oliver Stone who has penned fantastic screenplays from "Midnight Express" to "Scarface" to "Platoon". As for the performances themselves, it is a disaster listening to respected actors use varying accents from Colin Farrell's authentic Irish to Angelina Jolie's faux Russian. Jolie has the weirdest role of the cast as the snake fetish mother of Alexander whom she gives the impression of having an Oedipus relationship with. Accents aside, the speeches, monologues, and dialogues are either dull as Anthony Hopkins' narration or plain atrocious as Farrell's "Braveheart" address to his troops.

Apart from all the faults, "Alexander" is, on its surface, pretty. The costumes and set pieces are appropriately exotic in Babylon while the battles fought are both kinetic and brutal. The Indian fight wages men on horses against opponents riding war-equipped elephants, then unknown to the Macedonians. Impaling, hacking, dismemberment, and stomping do not hesitate in this particular battle. While these bloody feuds won't be revered or remembered like the clashes in "Gladiator" or "Lord of the Rings", they will not disappoint the ardent admirers of warfare.

If "Alexander" wasn't the worst movie of 2004, it was the most over-hyped one. Since then, it has undergone different cuts for the home release. I found the movie more disappointing than embarrassing to watch given the credentials of the people on board. The lesson of this review is simple: never prejudge a movie by its credits. Alexander the Great will always be remembered, Oliver Stone's "Alexander"? Not so much.

My Rating: 3/10
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Unnecessary Beginning
22 September 2012
Prequels are probably the most risky decisions filmmakers make in a franchise. Some, like "The Godfather Part II", are embraced forever; others, like "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace", are dreaded and hated. With the financial success of Marcus Nispel's remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", Michael Bay and Platinum Dunes couldn't resist the prospect of a follow-up. I don't believe the makers decided to do this solely in hopes of achieving box office success; I really think they were trying to furnish a new franchise. However, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (TTCM: TB)" gave moviegoers only two things: 1) A director who has become a rising star, and 2) A cheap explanation of how a character from the first movie ended up losing a body part. As an unashamed cinephile, I dare say this lackluster movie is useless and pointless.

Although not his first movie, "TTCM: TB" jump-started Jonathan Liebesman's career into Hollywood blockbusters beyond expectations. He has gone on to direct "Battle: Los Angeles", "Wrath of the Titans", and was even considered as director for Nolan's Superman reboot. Currently, he's working on another Bay project: A reboot of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I think Liebesman has great visionary potential but ends up with lousy scripts. Let's return to this film. The cinematography is brighter than Nispel's movie; it looks pretty when outdoors except when the sun shines into the camera to momentarily blind you. It doesn't help the horror be as atmospheric as the previous installment. The period props and grimy sets continue to look great; they still are my favorite aspects of the series. My biggest technical complaint is for the excessively messy chase sequences. The camera is too close to the pursuer and the pursued; it also shakes more vigorously than any war movie you've ever seen. If the blood doesn't nauseate you, test your mental durability when Leatherface hunts for his prey.

Some people pay to see the bloodshed and torture which is completely fine but not as cutting or thrilling as the works of Eli Roth or Alexandre Aja. I give the violence factor in "TTCM: TB" a satisfactory gore score. One particular scene I admire is when an unfortunate bastard is held facedown onto the ground underneath a chainsaw so the blade is pulled upwards from the belly, severing the spine, splitting him into two. For the gore hounds, this film won't hold back but like most Platinum Dunes productions, it has the jump scare curse. I have no problem with the technique; I have a problem with a movie using a useless jump after useless jump until it is finally appropriate. By the time you get there, you're already annoyed. If there was a terrifying, unpredictable environment like the caverns in "The Descent", this one-trick pony wouldn't have been as bothering as it was.

The plot does the movie no justice in compensating for the terror tactics. All we learn about the origins of Thomas "Leatherface" Hewitt (played by Andrew Bryniarski) is how he was rescued by a degenerate Texan family after being left to die as a newborn in a dumpster. The rest is described in a title sequence. As he grows, his physical deformities become apparent and I guess he thought self-mutilating his face would help. The rest is the recycled serial killer formula: bullied in school and slicing up animals. So guess what spurs his spree in July 1969? Because his town declares financial bankruptcy, Thomas is fired from his job at a meat factory. Without a word or reason, he complains to his superior by bludgeoning the bejesus out of him. With the town remote, broke, and empty, the Hewitt family takes the opportunity to control it. For this slasher, two brothers headed to Vietnam and accompanied by their girlfriends on a road trip are the flies caught in the web.

The searing flaw of "TTCM: TB" is its failure to explain the character motivations. It is as if the Hewitt family aggressively acts on impulse rather than on emotion like the case of Leatherface and his boss. After the dispute, he discovers and possesses a random chainsaw. Why? What did he like about it? There are some motivations in a movie requiring explanations to help the audience connect to what they are watching. I admit the teenage victims were more interesting than the typical ensemble in a slasher. One brother wants to return to Vietnam but the other is reluctant. It could have been used as a clever allegory for a divided era of American history but, in the end, they are bags of meat and blood. What is most disappointing is how there is no exploration of the Hewitt origins to connect to the Nispel film. All it shows is how one character lost his legs and how the other lost his teeth to explain why they're missing to begin with.

The victims in the movie aren't bad actors; the problem is the absence of sufficient character development rather than talking about having children or being scared of going to Vietnam. All we anticipate is their turn to die, nothing else save for the guys eyeing Diora Baird in skimpy attire. The star is R. Lee Emery who returns as Leatherface's uncle and does what he does best: acting as an authority figure with a drill sergeant persona. His bullying cruelty speaks for his character and actions almost perfectly. Sure, the hulky Leatherface is intimidating but I feel as if Emery plays the main antagonist since he runs the family and town.

For a family resorting to cannibalism, you would think they could pillage any food in the deserted area or slay the livestock at the meat factory. That's funny. I think I gave the "How It Should Have Ended" people on YouTube an idea. And speaking of ending, don't expect a good conclusion; it's a prequel and inevitable. Like I said, prequels are a risky business.

My Rating: 3/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Dark Knight Rises and Delivers a Momentous Achievement in Superhero Cinema
27 July 2012
The wait for Christopher Nolan's final Batman movie is finally over. The hype surrounding the release has immensely intensified beyond expectation, specifically in politics. Indeed, "The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR)".

Eight years have passed since the events of "The Dark Knight (TDK)" and Batman is virtually gone from Gotham City. Bruce Wayne (played by Christian Bale) himself avoids the spotlight and is rarely seen in public. His hibernation is broken when ally Commissioner Gordon (played by Gary Oldman) informs him of a new threat. The culprit is Bane (played by Tom Hardy), a former member of Ra's al Ghul's League of Shadows who leads a group of anarchist terrorists to complete what his master failed to do: obliterate Gotham and its occupants. But Wayne faces two more conflicts. Through the course of this film, he isolates his closest allies who fear for his well-being but gains new ones including Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway). The other challenge is a test of his strength and character to rise above all doubt and fear.

The story begins confusing but as in all smart mysteries, the fog will clear quickly, I assure you. It's satisfying to know how dedicated the director and writers stay committed to fulfilling the Batman trilogy without selling their souls to commercialism like "Star Wars" or "Transformers". Instead, the focus is on the protagonist and the outcome of his endeavors. What makes the third movie exceptional is the premise of Bruce Wayne being tested by ominous forces to see whether or not he can rediscover the strength, will, and character of his alter ego. In "TDK", Wayne sacrificed Batman's popularity in order to preserve the order of Gotham but ever since then, the reclusive billionaire has gradually doubted his significance. Even after pushed into becoming Batman again, he feels as if he's not fighting for something tremendous though he dons the same cape, costume, and mask. It isn't until Bane traps the Caped Crusader into a deep pit when our hero must learn overcome his personal fears and doubts so he can save his city. This is a crisis created to connect the audience. Christian Bale continues to let us embrace his character and root for him to the end as the protagonist should.

Bane accomplishes more than the Joker could ever dream of. Although the Joker stimulated anarchy in "TDK", Bane fulfills the vision by influencing the masses into turning against one another. Whereas the Joker would love to sit at the sidelines while Gotham destroys itself, Bane becomes the manipulative elite. The traits of Bane make him the more intriguing. Although incredibly rough and bulky, his brute force rivals his cunning mind spoken through a soft-sounding yet menacing mask. Tom Hardy delivers audiences the Bane they've been waiting for. Now, lots of people have been worried about the voice comprehension of the mask; therefore, I will put you at ease by saying you will not miss the important instances and you'll probably understand most of the time.

Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, is an anti-hero in the finest sense of the word, a criminal with a compassionate conscience. I initially raised an eyebrow with the thought of the sweet Anne Hathaway playing as a sly, thieving deviant; however, I commend Hathaway for her slick, sexy, and insidious performance. Although anticipating the coming of class warfare, Selina's purpose in pillaging is to adapt and survive, not to create disorder. She's the type who will cross any treacherous foe; if that's not enough, her shoes armed with knife-like heels will make short work. The rest of the cast ensemble performed exceptionally well such as Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Marion Cotillard but I feel as if Joseph Gordon-Levitt deserves a special shout-out for his role of a dutiful yet stubborn police officer who becomes a loyal ally and emotional support for Batman.

The central theme of "TDKR" will be debated for a good period of time, mostly the political implications. For the most part, the debate has backfired on both the left and the right. I do doubt Nolan's denial of political intentions for his movie since the similarities to current events couldn't be more striking. For background's sake, I was in Pittsburgh in July 2011 and I can attest for the production of the film in the city at the time. The Occupy protests did not start until two months later. What I'm trying to say is this: it's a possibility the makers decided to build on the protests as inspiration for the whole rich versus poor situation in Gotham. Whether or not the makers sympathize with the movement can be questioned; however, the movie gives the impression of repulsion toward the anarchic manipulation of Occupy. Bane ultimately drives Gotham's citizens into class warfare between the wealthy and the poor to secure control of the chaotic city and allow his true intentions to proceed. If not a critique of a failed movement, "TDKR" could also be interpreted as the withering desolation of Western civilization. Think about it when you listen to the creepiest "Star-Spangled Banner" ever heard before Bane executes the next step of his plot. As we witness the decadence of Gotham, it becomes clear the true enemy of the people is themselves.

As much as I highly praise "TDKR", I did find it underwhelming than expected. I don't think it was dark enough compared to its predecessors. Think of it as the "Call of Duty: MW3"; it is superb, gripping, and gratifying but doesn't quite outperform the marvel of the second. What makes this trilogy so successful and revered is its willingness to bring Batman back into his dark roots as he was meant to. And to end it all, "TDKR" delivers fans an overall thrilling, entertaining, and powerful conclusion to this revolutionary series. The future of Batman may remain unclear but the impact shall last.

My Rating: 9/10
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I Feel Fingered After Watching This
22 July 2012
Tell me the last time you told your mother to be promiscuous or you whacked a horse off. No? Tom Green has already done that so don't even bother with such immoral suggestions. I don't hate shock humor but I detest attempts to use a feeble story to justify irrelevant acts of bestiality, child violence, and Tom Green stunts suitable for MTV reality shows. I excuse "Jackass" for their mind-boggling antics being that it is their careers to pull stunts like shooting fireworks near their butts. No story needed. But there comes a point in time when you must ask yourself during a movie "What's the fu**ing point?"

Gord Brody (played by Tom Green) has goals of being a cartoon animator but the best job he can get is a job at a Hollywood cheese sandwich factory. Unsatisfied with his job and failed ambitions, Gord moves back to his parent's Portland home to continue his already annoying behavior. Very unbecoming of his antagonistic father (played by Rip Torn), who is the only character I could sympathize with for dealing with a black sheep. To our astonishment, Gord manages to score with a rocket scientist (played by Marisa Coughlan) who is wheelchair-bound and orgasms when having her legs whacked. So there you go, the basic points in this movie, the rest is about Tom Green performing unnatural, random crap.

Oh, you want to know the meaning of the title? Fine. At some point, Gord decides to exact revenge on his dad for breaking one of his possessions. How? By falsely accusing him of sexually molesting Freddy (played by Eddie Kaye Thomas), Gord's younger adult brother. He's a full-grown man and he's sent to an institute for sexually-abused children. Do you want to know the sad part? The subject doesn't come up again.

I'll make a couple of confessions in this review. First, I want to admit I love hating this movie so much. Second, just because I may laugh at some scenes doesn't mean I like, admire, or enjoy what I'm seeing. The only thing I genuinely laughed at was when Rip Torn cracked a cripple joke. I feel ashamed for it too. One last confession: this is a movie which made me so mad I impulsively blurted "F**k you" near the end. I know you'll understand why after seeing the elephant.

None of the stunts in Green's movie make logical sense to his character's objectives. Instead, we see the sporadic actions of an animal-abusing, spoiled, socially and mentally-retarded moron. God, I sound like Keith Olbermann but bear with me, please. Should I rig my fingers with sausages on strings while playing keyboard music to be more creative in this review? What may work for Gord may not work for me. From showering with scuba gear to swinging newborns by their umbilical cords, Gord's sickness doesn't deserve any pity and can only isolate viewers from rooting for him.

If you think I'm going to be merely offended by broken teeth and animal masturbation, you got another thing coming. The cast generally has mean, heartless roles to support the dismal, annoying performance of Tom Green. His performance serves only one purpose: it challenges us to deal with his immaturity for an hour-and-a-half. I honestly cannot name one performance that wasn't awkward, annoying, or embarrassing. And don't even go there with Rip Torn; you're more likely to laugh at him than with him.

Even Green's direction sucks. Don't believe me? Look at the trailer of Gord in the factory with a "cheese-helmet" and you'll notice that the movie doesn't even show his stunt until we see him with a zoomed out shot of it on the conveyor belt. Instead, the scene plays out during the rolling credits. That's how lousy and inept this movie is. I'm impressed how the status of Green's movie has changed over time but it still won't affect my opinion. An awful movie is an awful movie. I really don't care if this movie has obtained a cult status or people understood Green was deliberately intent on destroying art, "Freddy Got Fingered" is the ultimate shame of comedic cinema if not one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

My Rating: 1/10
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
You Can Forgive Bay for Revenge of the Fallen
8 July 2011
I came out of the theater, after watching "Transformers: Dark of the Moon (DOTM)" in 3D, feeling torn between the greatness and badness of the movie. This third installment outdoes "Revenge of the Fallen (ROTF)" but it never surpasses the grandness of the first "Transformers". It ends Michael Bay's successful series on an assuring note, leaving no potential possibility of a sequel; rather, it leaves a sense of satisfaction for wrapping up any loose ends.

The plot is much simpler than "ROTF" but it is still complex to follow compared to "Transformers". The background centers on the American-Soviet race to the moon. The American government, unbeknownst to the public, sends Apollo 11 to investigate alien wreckage on the dark side of the moon which turns out to be a ship from the robot planet Cybertron. In the present day, the Autobots learn of the secret mission and discover that the ship holds pieces to a weapon used to teleport matter between two points through a space bridge. The U.S. National Intelligence Director (played by Frances McDormand) fears its use as a means to invade Earth and the Autobots feel betrayed by humans who promised to share information so a mutual distrust ensues. Elsewhere, the Decepticons collaborate with certain humans to eliminate individuals involved in the space program and plot to invade Earth again. As all of this continues, we periodically follow Sam Witwicky (played by Shia LaBeouf) struggling with two things: a relationship with a new girl (played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and the search for a job. But, once again, he is going to be part of this war and fight for the survival of his planet.

In an interview with USA Today, Michael Bay promised to trim the "dorky comedy" including the twin ghetto robots (Mudflap and Skids) and make the third film darker. He keeps his word, for the most part, by showing more death and destruction than his previous works combined. Bay has the power to make his scenes emotional when he gives it his all yet he gives "DOTM" too little dosage of that power. There is enough to get people caring but not to the point where they succumb to grief and despair over hurt or loss like in "The Rock" shower room sequence. The slapstick nature that haunted "ROTF" has been cut massively in "DOTM" in favor of Bay's routine commercial comedy. I have to confess something; while a lot of people say Bay's sense of humor is overdone or foolish, I find it strangely entertaining. The comedy pays off with funny (even if goofy) dialogue and surprise cameos; however, all pale in comparison to the secret weapon: Ken Jeong. The man has officially become a sensation and now he serves as the secondary comic relief. He delivers the bulk of the commercial comedy and is gut-wrenchingly hysterical. I say "Kudos" to Bay and writer Ehren Kruger for being more certain of this movie's direction than in "ROTF".

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is a 3D visual fiesta for the audience and I think they will get their money's worth with the glasses. Debris, people, and robots fly through the third dimension for an experience unfelt since "Avatar". The action scenes, patched with slow-motion instances, still command the screen with awesome spectacle even if they don't quite take the breath away the way "Transformers" did. The transformations are fun to watch while Bay's explosions are less wild than before. Cinematography and sound are at the top of their game; it wouldn't surprise me if they, along with the visual effects, are nominated for Oscars.

The robots are treated with more respect this time around: Optimus Prime has a bigger role, Megatron reveals his fears and dismay, the miniature Wheelie and his new partner Brains are not mere merchandise for kids, and there are no gargantuan robot balls clanking anywhere. Several new robots make their debut such as Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy), a bird-like cyborg called Laserbeak who serves Megatron, and the Decepticon Shockwave who controls a snake-like machine for transportation and decimation. As the robots have become leaner, the fighting, especially in the long climax, has become more brutal and violent. The robots are definitely revamped although one of the main problems of "DOTM" is its lag from peculiar human characters.

Acting was never a great strength in the "Transformers" trilogy and it is not significantly good in "DOTM". Shia LaBeouf gives one of the most weird, bipolar performances of his career. In some scenes, he angrily freaks out, an unusual mood swing from his likable, humble side; it's a strange case of role reversal. On a more positive note, Ehren Kruger's script gives Shia's character into his doubts and troubles, enough to create a substantial protagonist. Newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is a terrible actress and I abhor saying it. Of all the actresses out there, she is the one selected to replace Megan Fox. Although Fox may have underperformed her role in the first two movies, she is much more realistic and alive than Rosie. Almost all of the supporting actors behave childishly from John Malkovich to John Turturro with a few exceptions including Frances McDormand and Patrick Dempsey. Sadly, both of these fine actors failed to give ideal characteristics to their roles: Dempsey should have had a more tough personality whereas McDormand could have hinted a slight fragility in her strong character like she did in "Fargo".

Do not let my final rating discourage you from seeing "DOTM"; it is only my individual opinion of the entire movie as a whole. Nevertheless, "DOTM" is destined to be a mega hit in the box office and a standout summer blockbuster. If you wish to see jaw-dropping action, you found the right film. If you prepare in advance to follow a hard story, you will probably have an even greater time. If you want to have fun, simply have fun! My Rating: 5/10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Been-There-Done-That Haunted House Movie Kind of Worth Watching
23 April 2011
Sometimes it's inevitable to show mercy towards the clichés in haunted house movies. The story lines tend to follow the same pattern: (1) A group of people buy a house, (2) Strange things happen in the house, (3) The residents try to figure it out, (4) The people finally get out after all the time they wasted beforehand. But I look for both old and new content to see what filmmakers can make out of their movies and how they set them in motion. Director Stuart Rosenberg does not develop much originality in "The Amityville Horror" which drags with an unstable story, bullet-ridden by plot-holes. Yet the horror in the movie should keep you from walking away.

In 1974, a gunman executes his family in his Amityville home during the dead of night (3:15 am to be exact), supposedly motivated by the will of demons. One year later, the house is purchased by the Lutzes, a normal family starting a new life. They are aware of the history of their new residence but believe "houses don't have memories." After moving in, the residents experience paranormal activity and are threatened by hostile spirits during the course of their stay. Much of the Lutzes' testimony has been called to question and is still debated to this day. Watching this movie will create doubts for most viewers but the Lutzes have claimed that much of the events in the film are fictionally altered from their version. I'm a sucker for ghost stories but I also ask questions.

The patriarch of the Lutz family, George, is played by a desolate and distant James Brolin. When he's not building fires and acting as inhuman as possible, he's scaring loved ones with his frequent mood swings. If that's not enough for you to start worrying, George regularly wakes up at 3:15 am. Is this the doing of evil spirits or just the problems of an insecure man? Well, according to George, nothing is wrong even if he and his family get hurt. Margot Kidder is cast as Kathy Lutz, George's wife, to provide a sympathizing character for us. She is the only voice of reason in the family yet remains supportive of her husband. But Brolin and Kidder fail to develop the chemistry of a relationship since there are minimal moments when they have the chance to build it. Nevertheless, Kidder pulls off with a decent performance and shrill screams.

What wounds the direction of the story is the distracting focus on unnecessary supporting characters. The detective of Amityville (played by Val Avery) has no real purpose in the film; he's just a bystander of the events yet he is treated as if he might be a part of the story. But I think it's the through-the-roof acting and behavior that helps the supporting cast wreck their roles especially the one for Rod Steiger. He plays as a Catholic priest who is the first visitor to experience the horrors of the house and is the most followed character outside the Lutz family. Steiger's rambunctious yelling topped with his manic, complaining demeanor doesn't give us any reason to take him seriously. His performance makes him look psychotic more than angry and passionate.

The logic in "The Amityville Horror" lacks a deal of common sense and, in turn, damages the storytelling. For instance, the spirits of the house attack guests more than the homeowners. Shouldn't they be terrorizing the people who live in the house and not those who merely visit it? But it is more baffling that some of the visitors would not even bother telling the Lutzes of their suspicions. It also seems odd that the spirits continue to inflict harm upon former visitors when they are nowhere near the house. I guess the dead are easy to offend and hold a strong grudge against the living.

Despite its persistent shortcomings in cast and story, "The Amityville Horror" offers settings and scenery which are impressive for an independent, low-budget film. We see places where darkness cannot lurk such as a bright, lush sanctuary and then we enter the Lutz home. There, the evil finds refuge and interior shadows serve as decorative boundaries during the night. Moods of the settings are effectively reinforced by the music of Lalo Schifrin which swings back and forth from a childlike tune to a more ominous tone. The most iconic image in the movie is the back-end of the house. The design of the back resembles a half-finished Jack-o-lantern with a pair of semi-circular windows for the glaring eyes. Sometimes a red shot of this form gives the house a more sinister look. I would rather live in an apartment in Downtown Los Angeles than a house with a menacing stare.

I would normally rate a movie such as "The Amityville Horror" with a 4/10 but, this time, I'll award it a 5/10 for the scare tactics. The horror, as a whole, relies on an unpredictable environment. Quiet moments are followed by enormous bursts of noise guaranteeing a jump or two. There are times when mere people or animals startle you in the most unlikely of places but when the spirits are roused (particularly the ending), you will be ambushed by many frightening sequences that can stick to you like flypaper.

My Rating: 5/10
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sucker Punch (2011)
5/10
A Visually Vivid but Underwhelming Fetish Film
30 March 2011
Human imagination is a boundless and valuable thing. "Sucker Punch" manages to prove that fact while it fumbles with a complicated storyline. It's a film where beauty prevails but material is needed. To understand "Sucker Punch", be aware of the three forms of narrative: one takes place in reality, another is a fantasized stage of that reality, and the other is a complete dream world.

Emily Browning stars as Baby Doll, a 20-year-old girl who is committed to a mental asylum and sentenced to be lobotomized in five days. This is a reality she copes with by creating her own world where the institution becomes a brothel run by chief orderly and sleaze bucket Blue Jones (played by Oscar Isaac). Baby Doll becomes acquainted with her fellow peers and they urge her to take special dance lessons from their teacher (played by Carla Gugino). As she dances, Baby Doll envisions a parallel dream world where physical laws and other rules are naught. With the help of her friends and newfound powers, she plans to escape the facility.

The dream world settings are visually spellbinding in color and design. The exhilarating hues light up the screen to effectively awe the audience and it a grand sight to behold. Every time Baby Doll enters this mystical realm, there are different landscapes with new enemies. It's like watching a live-action kill-them-all video game with orcs, dragons, killer droids, undead German soldiers from WWI, and giant samurai. To fight their opponents, the girls use everything from katana swords to submachine guns. There is a lot of anachronism like the machine guns handled in the WWI trenches but remember, we are beyond reality at this point. The brawls are superbly choreographed so that major blows are stressed while the less-effective hits are kept at a fast pace.

As far as directing goes, "Sucker Punch" is Zack Snyder's most mediocre undertaking. He enacts his trademark slow-motion action sequences with proficiency and it's highly commendable. Snyder also tries out new techniques such as the split focus shot (a pet peeve of mine) which is employed in a way I have never seen before, not even in Brian De Palma's movies. But the good qualities of "Sucker Punch" are countered by a screenplay, among other things, doused with dialogue that is either decent or rotten. I rarely critique a film's soundtrack but in the case of "Sucker Punch", I'll make an exception with a clear purpose. If you look back at Snyder's adaptation of "Watchmen", most of the music reflects the time period the story is set in and the selections work well. Snyder mashes random music genres into his film and I feel they ruin the overall tone in the process.

The acting is generally average, neither great nor horrible, with the exception of Scott Glenn's performance which falls below the line. The five main girls try to give their roles satisfying character but in the long run, there are no special traits or attitudes established to help me understand them better. A woman with the name of Rocket (played by Jena Malone) could have a hot-headed demeanor; all I get is a small backstory and no real personality. None of the other girls live up to their nicknames and it's pretty disappointing.

"Sucker Punch" is fantastic to look at even if it lacks the sufficient pieces to build an inspiring story with vivid characters. Zack Snyder has the talent and knowledge to make a great movie and I do not think this film will haunt him. Yet it might serve as a scar left to remind him of the mistakes he needs to avoid. Now that I think of it, some people are proud of their scars and tend not to make the same blunders again.

My Rating: 5/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Devil (2010)
7/10
Is There Hope for the Shyamalan?
23 March 2011
I believe there is a dim beacon of hope for M. Night Shyamalan's career. His recent misfires have made me doubt the genius who is responsible for "The Sixth Sense", "Signs", and even "The Village". But now, Shyamalan has decided to lend his ideas and stories, called the Night Chronicles, to emerging filmmakers. So far, we know that there will be three films which deal with supernatural events in modern settings. The first tale is "Devil", a story of fear, helplessness, and redemption confined in tight spaces.

Chris Messina plays Detective Bowden who investigates an apparent suicide. He follows a lead to a tall office building in the middle of a city where five complete strangers take an elevator. A malfunction stops the car and traps the occupants. Security, with Bowden's help, attempts to calm the passengers and fix whatever the problem is while one of the guards notices ominous images flashing on the surveillance footage of the elevator interior. The elevator lighting periodically blacks out during which the occupants are systematically attacked by someone. Nobody knows who the perpetrator is but the guard (played by Jacob Vargas) begins to believe it is the work of the Devil.

From the beginning, it becomes obvious where the "Devil's meeting" will take place. The elevator number is 6 and the building's address number is 333 (it should be multiplied by two). I couldn't figure out why the guard became a guard and not a priest. If he were a retired servant of God, the information he provides about the Devil would have a more reliable basis than stories he heard as a child. Besides, Detective Bowden doubts the existence of a spiritual evil since people are already wicked. Like "The Last Exorcism", "Devil" sets up a test of faith for its characters, particularly Bowden. It is also the type of film built to confuse and terrorize but it convinces us to participate in a mystery.

Before they board the elevator, the occupants are introduced with a tracking shot similar to the methods used by Martin Scorsese, P.T. Anderson, and others. It's an impressive display of fluid camera movement. Shyamalan's approach in the story is intriguing. When I ride an elevator, I mind my own business and ignore the person next to me. But Shyamalan forces his guests to face each other out of fear and distrust because one of them is an attacker. When the guests act out their emotions, they barely succeed to keep me on edge or engaged. Sometimes they can be annoying or make constipated faces when they are angry but not to a point where I get extremely bothered. I tolerate it and allow myself to be sucked into the movie.

The directors, the Dowdle brothers, solidify their direction towards disorder from the beginning with the opening credits appearing as a city is spanned upside-down. To thrill us, the duo manipulates the darkness in the elevator with swift sounds. We can only guess what happens until the lights turn on again to show the horrific results. Along the way, we are left with a couple of strange occurrences unanswered. For instance, I would like to know whether a giant slab of glass falling from a building is an act of the Devil or a freak accident. I also feel as if the Dowdle brothers miss a great opportunity to put emphasis on claustrophobia like Neil Marshall does in "The Descent". Nevertheless, they manage to successfully construct uptight scenes with tense actors to create a dense feeling of anxiety for us. The Dowdle brothers and Shyamalan invite us to ride the elevator and it's a worthwhile experience for any fans of thrills and creeps.

My Rating: 7/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Undefeatable (1993)
2/10
A Laughably Unbelievable, Obscure Fighting Movie
13 March 2011
I surf through YouTube every once in a while. One day, I came across a video uploaded by Mastabiff on February 10, 2006. It is titled "Best fight scene of all time" and, as of March 07, 2011 (11:05 PM, CST), has received 8,137,593 views. The video is the final fight scene of "Undefeatable", a martial arts movie starring the female Chuck Norris, Cynthia Rothrock. The atrocious puns, physically-impossible stunts, exaggerated grunting, greased bodies, and laughable choreography on the video is enough for you to comprehend what the movie is all about.

Kristi Jones (played by Cynthia Rothrock) is a waitress who earns extra money by participating in street fights with gangs who act nothing like the ones you hear about every day. The money helps pay for her sister's college tuition. However, a muscular Michael Douglas-look-alike with Sylvester Stallone hair and serious abandonment issues is on the loose. He is Paul a.k.a. Stingray (played by Don Niam), a violent fighter who has been torturing, raping, and killing women who resemble his runaway wife. Kristi's sister becomes a victim and Kristi teams up with detective Nick DiMarco (played by John Miller) to pursue the perpetrator and bring him to justice. There are three ways to stop Stingray: arrest him, shoot him on sight, or fight to the death. Obviously they have to fight to the death since "Undefeatable" is that kind of movie, right?

Not one fight scene gives any sort of redemption for the movie whatsoever. The editors are supposed to correct the actions of two different shots, make it all match; however, in "Undefeatable", they fumble with the frames and fail to create a sensible transition. The bulging eyes do not serve the participants any good especially when they are gouged out. The ugly usage of slow motion worsens the confrontations and does not give us the engaging thrills we need. In their movies, Zack Snyder and the Wachowski Brothers employ slow motion for their combat scenes with emphasis on critical blows or effective movements; Godfrey Ho, the director of "Undefeatable", bothers to constantly slow the most uninteresting moments of the fight scenes. The only good slow motion sequence is a man thrown over a garbage can and I am not being enthusiastic about it. The same attitude goes for the random, Asian civilians who go kung fu on any attacker they encounter. The martial arts champion protecting his girlfriend is one thing but, seriously, not every Asian citizen knows the art of combat.

Cynthia Rothrock performs some intriguing stunts in "Undefeatable" yet her acting is what drags her into ruin. She has a chance to develop a strong relationship with her on screen sister but when emotion calls for her, Rothrock drives the train off the tracks and into a wide ditch. As for costar Don Niam, he is incapable of emitting the gritty rage that drives his character to commit violent acts of rape and torture. Niam sternly utters his lines as if he were a robot while the rest of the cast recite boring, dull dialogue that has either been recycled in the past or poorly executed. I laugh at people who use the "why deal with me when there are rapists and murderers across the street" routine with the police. The movie does try to use small samples of poetic monologue that could be given credit for effort but even those lines are poorly executed.

A martial arts expert is brought in to shine some analysis on the murders committed by Stingray and I strangely find myself interested in the fighting styles he shows to the police. It is hard to tell which is fact or fiction but I always admire a film's attempt to inform its audience of some subject material. Even the psychiatrist (played by Donna Jason), who is asked to aid the police in the investigation, gives me something to think about when she provides her insight. She turns out to be the one actress who can deliver a barely decent performance in the film. The other likable character is Mike (played by Jerald Klein), Detective DiMarco's partner who tends to miss all the action. Besides the main protagonist, I try to find someone to root for in a movie, someone who I feel should not perish. In "Undefeatable", the psychiatrist and Mike are the ones to fit the bill.

The film is a martial arts flick trying to exhibit new techniques and stunts but they fail to excite me. The climatic fight scene on YouTube is easily the best bit because of its horrid yet amusing aspects. As a whole, "Undefeatable" is a dismal stain on the fighting genre and it cannot be cleaned because of the notoriety the clip has gained. Yet again, I guess bad movies should be presented to the public to get an idea of what makes a great film great and what makes a bad movie bad.

My Rating: 2/10
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rango (2011)
8/10
A Quick-Witted, Clever Piece of Animated Cinema (Just Mind the Kids)
6 March 2011
Nature seldom shows mercy to its inhabitants. Every organism must adapt quickly to survive in the wilderness or die. Life is typically short for most members of the animal kingdom and when evolution momentarily halts, every resource is sought for to survive. "Rango" understands the facts and gleefully expresses them to us on screen. It's difficult to calculate how long it took for the creatures of "Rango" to wear Western clothes and handle guns but who am I to judge a creative animation flick in such a scientific way. Yes, "Rango" is the new name of the West and it resonates swiftly across the land. After concluding the "Pirates of Caribbean" trilogy, director Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp reconnect to abandon the sea and embark on a vibrant adventure across the sands of the desert.

Johnny Depp voices Rango, a pet chameleon who aspires to be a thespian. He knows he can be anybody he wants to be but he feels confined by his limits. After a freak accident, Rango becomes lost in the middle of the Mojave Desert. He finds a small town called Dirt but realizes "strangers don't last long around here". Instinct tells Rango that he must quickly blend in before he is ostracized or worse. He manages to improvise and assumes the identity of a gun-slinging legend that has brought down some of the most notorious outlaws with a single bullet. The townspeople (or townscritters) find hope in Rango's actions and false reputation so they urge their Mayor (a tortoise voiced by Ned Beatty) to appoint him as Sheriff. Rango now runs a town in the middle of drought where the low supply of water is controlled by the Mayor who has devious prospects in mind.

If you recognize the references, you can tell that "Rango" is a parody of some of the finest films ever made. As a nod to "Apocalypse Now!", a Western banjo ensemble performs the infamous "Ride of the Valkyries" tune in an aerial attack scene. That's what I look for in parodies these days: clever and creative takes on past movies, not mere mentions. The water conflict in "Rango" is practically identical to the plot in "Chinatown" and Verbinski is considerate enough to model the Mayor's clothing, mannerism, and quotes after John Huston's character, Noah Cross. However, "Rango" mainly lampoons the Western genre with a keen respect for the movies and legends (keep a look out for one particular legend). Instead of men on horses, we see small creatures ride roadrunners into the setting sun to thrill us with nostalgia. Because there are people wanting to see an exciting cowboy flick, Verbinski delivers all the goods needed to satisfy the hungry fans from wagon chases to quick-draw dueling.

As usual, Johnny Depp prevails as a character who desires acceptance above all else. I am assuming because of persuasion by Gore Verbinski, Rango has a Jack Sparrow moment or two. Since Rango is a self-described actor, Depp masters numerous dialects to transition from one identity to the next. The act tells us that Rango is a "lonely lizard" who is unsure about himself and his future. It's no wonder why Depp has become the one of the world's most talented living actors. Rango's love interest is a desert iguana named Beans (voiced by Isla Fisher) who, of all the citizens in Dirt, is the most skeptical of the water crisis. The trouble with Beans is her continual wide-eyed expression throughout the movie accompanied by her malfunctioned defense mechanism. Nevertheless, she is the only sign of staunchness in a suffering town. All the voice-actors perform effectively and seem to embrace their roles. The stand-out, besides Depp, is Bill Nighy as Rattlesnake Jake, a legendary diamondback with fiery eyes and a pistol-cannon as his rattle. I knew how well Nighy can act before "Rango" but I had no idea that he could brandish a menacing, Western accent in place of his Scottish tongue.

The CGI, provided by Industrial Light & Magic, in "Rango" carries a precise elaboration to capture the glorifying environment and content of the film. There are some scenes with a hallucinogenic beauty on a grand scale which further intensify the spectacle of the whole picture. Composer Hans Zimmer doubles the delight with his striking, Mexican- Western style score to sensationalize the art while a mariachi band of owls melodiously narrates the events as they unfold. The screenplay is written by Academy-Award nominee John Logan who has lent his hand to projects including "Gladiator" and "The Aviator". Logan's script is loaded with bullets of witty irony and bright pop-culture references while he critiques the weaknesses of financial institutions and the political uses of religion. "Rango" provides a less-than-satisfactory amount of physical humor for the kids. To be blunt, not a lot of children are going to understand the humor but the adults and some well- informed teenagers will. The Johnny Depp fans are going to have a blast more explosive than a handful of dynamite.

My Rating: 8/10
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An Odd, Irreverent Precursor to the Greatest Movie of All Time
5 March 2011
I have been a fan of Rob Zombie's music and films for over a year now. His career theme has revolved around the horror genre. He passionately emphasizes his love of horror through his songs, music videos, and movies. He's a man I have come to admire and respect for these reasons. However, I have to say his cinematic career did not start all so well with "House of 1000 Corpses". It's normal for a person to mess up in a film debut but Zombie was quick to fix the mistakes with his next film, "The Devil's Rejects", which is one of my favorite movies of all time. But for what "House of 1000 Corpses" is, it is an effort worth checking out of curiosity.

Two traveling teenage couples get gas at a place called Captain Spaulding's Museum of Monsters and Madmen where they become acquainted with the owner. He gives him a tour of his museum and tells them about one of the local legends, Dr. Satan. Come on, you got to love that name! Dr. Satan was a surgeon who tried to create a race of super humans consisting of the mentally ill by subjecting them to "primitive brain surgery". The story intrigues the gang so much that they want to solve the mystery of his disappearance on Halloween Eve. They explore the rural area and encounter a bizarre family along the way who claim to know a little thing or two about the doctor. However, it turns out that the family is a group of serial killers and the teens find themselves in a circus of violence and bloodshed.

The movie is heavily reminiscent to Tobe Hooper's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and it pays tribute to other horror movies. I felt as if I was watching one of Zombie's earlier music videos like "Dragula" but this is supposed to be a movie, not a music video. The random sequences where people are talking to the camera like a documentary or dancing in some sequence seem out of place in a movie and more suited to one of Zombie's videos. Amidst the brutality and torture, Zombie brings in goofy, campy humor that I occasionally laughed at, especially in the beginning scene. It's what brings "House of 1000 Corpses" down because it feels as if Zombie doesn't know what direction and tone he wants to take. Should we focus on the sadistic macabre or the silly humor of the movie?

I have come to agree with Staci Layne Wilson's assessment that the people in "House of 1000 Corpses" are more like caricatures than characters. The killers, in particular, don't have enough time to fully develop their personalities for an audience like characters do but they are seen as images meant to reflect something in society. I interpreted it as different forms of violence and conflict in America. Captain Spaulding (played by Sid Haig) is my favorite person in the film because he evokes the majority of the humor and is entertaining when he does so. To me, he represents an America that takes foreign policy to an extreme. He will mock or kill any stranger that mocks or threatens him. Otis Driftwood (Bill Moseley) would represent an oppressive part of America. He also seems to hate the USA (one of his shirts encourages the burning of the American flag) for being a haven of the people he looks down on. Sheri Moon Zombie plays Baby, a sadistic, blood-licking killer who revels in violence and craves the pain of the tortured. Is it just me or does she remind me of DeeDee from "Dexter's Laboratory"? Baby would probably represent the side of America that feels an obligation to kill someone when it is absolutely necessary without conviction. Grandpa Hugo (played by the late Dennis Fimple) is truly a hoot. He screams vulgarity at the top of his lungs and thinks he is a comedian while only a minority finds him entertaining. Overall, most of the acting is below average but it's mostly what the caricatures represent that matters.

"House of 1000 Corpses" has the right amount of blood it needs to sicken people but doesn't deliver the kind of horror I would want. Some of the scare moments are more comical than scary such as "Fish Boy" and the final revelations near the end. It's a movie that doesn't take itself so seriously and usually runs wild. When you see it, step back a little and try to appreciate what Rob Zombie has tried to do. I assure you, Rob recognized the faults and delivered a golden sequel but that's another review.

My Rating: 5/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rogue (2007)
9/10
Going Rogue: Best Movie of a Man-Eating Crocodile
5 March 2011
Australia is a dream destination for me. Ever since 2nd grade, I've hoped to experience the unique wildlife that you can find Down Under. For one assignment, each student in my class had to present an Australian animal. The animal that I researched was the echidna (spiny anteater). I don't think there was saltwater crocodile. Australian director Greg McLean of "Rogue" must have had that assignment when he was in 2nd grade.

"Rogue" is certainly one of the best crocodile movies I have ever seen and I've seen plenty of them. We follow a group of tourists on a river boat ride in the Northern Territory of Australia. Along the way, they find themselves stranded on a small island at the mercy of a gigantic saltwater crocodile. The plot sounds simple enough but that is not what the movie ultimately revolves around.

The movie focuses a decent amount of time on its characters that have motives and feelings. The primary antagonist does not have a lot of screen time compared to his victims but I think that it was for the better. Horror movies, like any other movie, need engaging characters that people can relate to or admire. Speaking of horror, "Rogue" happens to bypass many old monster horror movie clichés. For instance, this movie does not use the one-man-left-standing formula that people see too often.

The director, Greg McLean, captures the natural beauty of his homeland like he did in his first film, "Wolf Creek". I always admired his use of nature and animals either to foreshadow an event or to strengthen the theme of his film. For "Rogue", the events are set in Kakadu National Park and McLean uses the setting to convey a kind of beauty which has its hazards. It almost feels like watching the National Geographic channel. I wish I could go into detail about these settings but I would only ruin it for eager audiences wanting to experience it for themselves.

The scares in "Rogue" vary from one scene to the next. There are scenes with unpredictable tension; after all, the characters are being hunted by an animal with a mind of its own. They've heard stories about how crocodiles are territorial and can jump so they argue about what their best course of action will be. There is a good amount of jump scares and there is a small amount of blood in the movie. Like certain settings, scares should not be spoiled when reviewing a movie so I'll continue with the cast.

The characters are portrayed by believable actors, some of whom would become stars in Hollywood by the end of the decade. Sam Worthington of "Avatar" plays Neil, the hotshot of the river, quite convincingly that I almost forgot he was a giant blue cat. It was unfortunate that Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland") wasn't given enough screen time to let me see more of her character because I felt like there was a good opportunity to have her play a responsible teenager with compassion and care. It was a chance to show a different kind of teenager in a horror movie. Radha Mitchell plays a damsel-in- distress with a stoic attitude that is quite uncommon in recent horror movies and I commend her for the role.

Now, I will focus on the star of the show, the Croc. The crocodile is inspired by a saltwater crocodile named Sweetheart who attacked boats in the 70s until it was captured. I am known to overestimate and underestimate sizes so I'll just say this Croc in "Rogue" is huge! It's more of a dinosaur than a crocodile. For a movie made in Australia, "Rogue" has pretty convincing special effects for its reptilian menace. It is certainly superior to those horrible straight-to-video monster effects with terrible texture and movement. The Croc had the right traits to convince me that it was an animal that eats, sleeps, and kills when it needs to. Sure, you could tell that the reptile was CGI but not to the point where it is ridiculously obvious. The creature animation was quite superior to the silly crocodiles they had in "Lake Placid".

Everybody needs to see a horror movie once in a while and this one will be worth your time. For goodness sake's, you can take your family to see it and they'll have a good time cringing up against one another. I would certainly recommend "Rogue" for fans of horror and thrills but I would also pass this on to the general audience.

My Rating: 9/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Nice Twist to the Possessed-Girl Genre of Horror
5 March 2011
Eli Roth has become the Sarah Palin of Hollywood. Why would I say a crazy thing like that, you ask? During the 2010 election, Palin endorsed candidates many people were unfamiliar with and most of them won their primaries and elections. Their success is, in part, because Palin's endorsement. Roth, in similar fashion, is providing funds for movies directed by unknown horror movie directors. Their success will be, in part, because Roth's name is attached to their projects. I commend him for this, especially for "The Last Exorcism".

"The Last Exorcism" is directed by German newcomer Daniel Stamm and stars Patrick Fabian and the lovely Ashley Bell who I predict will be big in the future. The story revolves around a preacher named Cotton Marcus, played by Fabian, who is making a documentary which proves that religion, church, and exorcism are financial schemes. That's what is interesting at first, he shows how naive churchgoers are, making them praise God and sandwiches. Yes, tasty sandwiches. However, a father has asked Marcus to perform an exorcism on his daughter, Nell (Ashley Bell). Marcus brings his camera crew to prove that the entire exorcism is a hoax of his own doing. However, as the process continues, it turns out that Nell may be, in fact, possessed by a demon.

I really liked how this movie makes you wonder whether Nell is really possessed or just mentally disturbed. Ashley Bell's wide eyes and bi- polar behavior both impresses and terrifies me. She is a simple Christian teenager that will snap at any moment like a crocodile. It's unfortunate that Bell wasn't nominated for an Oscar for her role but the future holds many things for her. What also impresses me is Cotton Marcus who, at first, is a non-believer but is pushed to do his duty as a servant of God. His role was convincing for me and I think this was a great movie for him to be a part of. The movie is practically a character-piece and it helped me become engaged with the story as I watched it.

The movie is shot in a mockumentary style similar to that of "The Blair Witch Project" and "Cloverfield". There are detractors who do not favor this kind of filmmaking but they are always free to walk away. The style is what gives the movie a chilling atmosphere of confusion, mayhem, and thrills. The camera becomes a part of the movie itself. What will be shown by the camera? Just to name a few acts of terror, finger-bending, slashing, backward spider-walks, and dislocating heads; oh my! Surprisingly, they are done with great precision by Ashley Bell who did most of her stunts without special effects. The audience is worrying whether Nell is possessed or not and the physical scares add spice to that terror.

My primary complaint of "The Last Exorcism" is the final 5 minutes. I did not have a problem with it as much as others have had. I understand why they would be mad; it's because they've seen that ending done before in past horror movies. It left me feeling odd and confused for a while until I saw it again and it made me feel better. I cannot proceed with any details without ruining anything.

"The Last Exorcism" is a movie that brings us the right kind of chills and thrills we want in a horror movie but will stumble here and there, particularly in the ending.

My Rating: 8/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caligula (1979)
1/10
A Mean-Spirited, Ugly Piece of Cinema
5 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Leave it to Penthouse to produce a movie about Caligula, one of history's most evil men. They dumped money into the project to turn ancient history into a boring, sickening, and vile sexploitation porn film. It is pitiful how an important time period was used to sell audiences disgusting filth. On top of that, the movie manipulated some of the finest actors of our time and embarrasses them on screen. I do not tell people to go see or avoid movies because they have a choice of their own that is beyond my grasp. I only tell them what I saw and what I thought of it.

As I watched "Caligula", I became confused, bored, offended, and disgusted towards the material. All my eyes beheld were fully naked bodies, pointless close-ups of genitalia, acts of oral sex, orgies, hardcore sex scenes, mutilation, self-mutilation, urination, some form of necrophilia, castration, rape, and senseless violence and torture (sometimes sexually). I do not feel proud telling anybody what I saw in "Caligula". It is true that the real Caligula committed such senseless acts but I felt most of these sights were completely unnecessary.

If that's not sick enough for you, there were actors and actresses who pleasured themselves as they saw people tortured or killed. Was it a way to depict the sadistic atmosphere of Rome? I know there are much classier ways to reflect the horrible society of the Roman Empire. I simply watch "Spartacus: Blood and Sand". Yes, there was an extreme amount of blood, sex, and brutality but there were also great stories with emotions and feelings that kept the series' heart beating. "Spartacus" reflected both ugliness and beauty but "Caligula" could only show me ugliness.

Speaking of ugliness, I will share a couple of examples in "Caligula". In one scene, Emperor Caligula raped a newly-wed couple in a kitchen as a "wedding gift." First, he had intercourse with the virgin bride and then he (be prepared) stuck his fist up the groom's rectum. Why on God's good green earth did I have to see it?! What's even worse is that the movie gave us no emotion out of the travesty, not even an emotional flurry of music to give me a cathartic chill.

The other scene was one of the torture sequences. Caligula tortured a guard by slashing him to death and a couple of random girls sexually urinated on his corpse. Seriously, this was garbage. But that didn't stop there. No, the guard's genitals were cut off and fed to dogs. This is referenced in Eli Roth's "Hostel Part II" but the big difference is that Roth did it to shock and horrify people. "Caligula" did it just to get some attention because it wanted to be the most controversial movie ever. And they polished a nuclear bomb to reach that target by going with the orgy of the senators' wives. It was a waste of time and utterly disgusting.

As I look back at his role of Alex DeLarge, I could see Malcolm McDowell as Caligula but he was in the wrong production at the wrong time. The man himself said he hated the movie. Overall, his performance was satisfying yet it had terrible moments. When McDowell acted paranoid or screamed, I was disappointed how unconvincing he was. Helen Mirren had the role of Caesonia, the wife of Caligula, and she did a decent job but I was devastated to see her wearing a leash around her neck like a subservient dog. She deserved more respect than that. Giancarlo Badessi portrayed the uncle of Caligula, Claudius, and he annoyed me. He made Claudius look like an overweight, idiotic buffoon; according to history, the real Claudius did not have such attributes. It was unfathomable how Peter O'Toole could be involved in "Caligula" as the Emperor Tiberius and be below-average in the role as well. All O'Toole did was awkwardly pronounce sentences and burst out exclamations as if he had Tourette's syndrome. O'Toole and his co-star John Gielgud claim they never knew hardcore sex scenes were being filmed. How could they not?! I saw O'Toole caressing fully nude girls, kissing their bodies while sitting next to fully nude men in the movie! I suppose he was in denial.

There were scraps of the movie I did admire. Some of the dialogue worked well in the movie and I enjoyed some of McDowell's comedic parts. Some important moments of Caligula's reign were covered but not enough to outweigh the ugliness in the rest of the film. The ending was the only scene I liked in the movie even though it is shot and executed sluggishly. The movie needed to end the way it did, no matter how horrible it looked.

"Caligula" is an ugly, boring porn film which aims to exploit history in favor of cheap hardcore sex footage and gross-out shots. If there is any sort of reason to view it, see it to understand how I felt. As I stated before, I only share my thoughts to people and the decision to see a movie lies with them. For those who are brave enough to sit through "Caligula", I commend you all for your courage.

My Rating: 1/10
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
How Arnie Stole Christmas
5 March 2011
As I reminisce my youth, I feel regret for having my parents go out and get me so many different toys. It was not as if I was a spoiled pain-in- the-butt but it was hard for them to keep up with what I was interested in. I went through a timeline of obsession with "Power Rangers", "Pokémon", "Digimon", and "Yu-Gi-Oh!" cards. I cannot imagine the sheer frustration my parents felt spending their hard-earned money on merchandise I would soon grow out of. I suppose my past has something to do with my sympathy for "Jingle All the Way" despite being a fairly bad movie.

Arnold Schwarzenegger stars as Howard Langston, a hard-working salesman, who tries as hard as he can to spend time with his family especially his son, Jamie (played by child star Jake Lloyd). But every time Howard sees a great opportunity to fulfill his family duties, he encounters multiple set-backs whether it is traffic or the police. On Christmas Eve, Howard decides to make-up for all his troubles by buying his son an action figure of Turboman, a TV superhero beloved by children all over the world (He is nothing compared to my "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"). However, finding the most popular toy on the market during Christmas Eve proves futile. Howard is also forced to compete with another father, Myron Larabee (played by Sinbad), for Turboman. Throughout the day, Howard will face one problem after another on his quest to buy his son's Christmas present.

As a comedy dependent on chaos and absurd behavior, "Jingle All The Way" offers fun but not enough intelligence. People run into boxes containing action figures and use toys to sabotage their competitors. In real life, the situation would be more mob-like and hazardous with shoving and occasional fist-fights. If the director (Brian Levant) wanted to make a point about Christmas commercialism, he should have made the last minute shopping much more realistic. Speaking of which, the people in "Jingle All the Way" are ridiculously easy to anger and they will react with cheesy lines ("I'm going to deck your halls") and violence. If you call me a conman, I simply shrug the name off, maybe laugh at you for being wrong. I am not going to hit anybody. Arnold gets into fights with everybody: a mall employee, Santa Clauses, midgets, giants, kids, parents, a cardboard stand, and even a reindeer that acts more like a dog. He is better off fighting a South American army than yelling at a neighbor for eating his Christmas cookies.

In this movie, Arnold abandons his cool, comedic catchphrases in favor of stiff sarcasm. Sure, Arnold's lines are fairly comedic and he has a couple of hilarious scenes but his acting is painful to watch especially when he tries being excited. Speaking of which, he utilizes his eye bulging routine in "Jingle All the Way" more than any other film he has ever been in. Despite his flawed performance, I enjoyed watching Arnold act as a father who feels as if he must buy his son's love. Rita Wilson plays Arnold's wife, Liz, and she manages to pull through the movie past a few wooden instances. I have a mixed feeling towards Jake Lloyd. Sometimes Jake convinces me that he is a regular boy but at other times, I am reminded that he's an actor playing as a boy.

The other cast members have stereotypical roles that do more harm than good for the movie. At first, Sinbad's character seems like a desperate father looking for a Christmas present until he abruptly goes off on a rant about his troubled family, his oppressed race, and marketing ploys. It's not a decent performance but it is strangely amusing to witness Sinbad whine and complain. Meanwhile, Phil Hartman overacts his role as the Langston's perverted, brown nose neighbor. He is supposed to act as the perfect kind of neighbor but he does way too much good for his fellow man. The only actor who fits his role is James Belushi as the corrupt Santa Claus but he is given too little time to bring out his goods.

The movie is not as terrible as some people proclaim it to be because there are funny sequences to laugh and enjoy. A family celebrating Christmas would find "Jingle All the Way" stupid but entertaining to watch. The parents may raise their eyebrows but will laugh with the kids at the right moments.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Red Hill (2010)
6/10
No Country for Old Men in the Outback
5 March 2011
Once again, Australian cinema has impressed me. You have heard of spaghetti westerns and John Wayne westerns but I bet you have not heard of an Australian western before. An Australian western sounds out of place but do not underestimate "Red Hill". This film carries familiar material yet travels in new territories.

Constable Shane Cooper (played by Ryan Kwanten) is an officer of the law who moves to the high country of Australia with his pregnant wife to start a new life after an upsetting past. He is assigned to Red Hill, a small town with a single main road, which is run by an isolationist sheriff, Old Bill (played by Steve Bisley). On Cooper's first day of the job, an escaped convict named Jimmy Conway (played by Tommy Lewis) wages a one-man war against the town. However, as the battle escalates, Cooper starts to realize that there is more to Conway's rampage than meets the eye.

The film salutes to the western genre with an isolated setting and a sweet rock-county vibe among other elements. A lone stranger rides on a horse into the darkness of a silent town while everyone hides in fear. It is reminiscent to the western movies made for pure entertainment; however, the fun is overshadowed by a thrilling atmosphere similar to "No Country for Old Men". In fact, much of the action and thrills remind me of the cat-and-mouse game of Anton Chigurh and Llewelyn Moss. There is an abundance of shocking moments to experience in "Red Hill", some are predictable and some are unexpected.

Greg McLean (the director of "Wolf Creek" and "Rogue") has attached his name to the movie as executive producer and, like his horror competitor Eli Roth, promotes the emergence of a new filmmaker, Patrick Hughes. Hughes' debut film presents immense talent in setting shots, cinematography, and story-telling. Hughes commands a magnificent picture of the Australian high country throughout the movie while he utilizes impressive shadow techniques indoors. Perhaps they signal a dreary past in Red Hill hidden by the natural beauty of the land. Ultimately, Hughes' story is a study of man's hesitation to do the right thing through an immoral course of action.

I have been paying attention to Ryan Kwanten ever since I started watching "True Blood" and his career has flourished. It is exciting to see him lose his American accent in favor of his native Australian tongue in "Red Hill". Kwanten embodies his role sincerely and becomes a man who wants to deliver justice but is unsure if he is willing to kill anybody for its preservation. Tommy Lewis doesn't need to say a word for his character because his presence and appearance are all that is needed. With a half-burned face (and half-burned beard for that matter), Jimmy Conway etches fear and panic in the hearts of his prey by toying with their suffering before finishing them off. He even finishes eating a victim's cake! Steve Bisley provides some of the comedic lines of the film and his role as Old Bill is mediocre at best. In his opening scene, Bill acts more like an American traditionalist wanting to keep his town simple and immune to change than an Australian officer of the law. His subordinates are a different matter.

I would like to know which police academy the officers attended because they poorly execute their tactics and usually give their position away. I would not mind if there is a blundering officer or two on the force but it is ridiculous to have a town run by blundering men who do not know how to subdue a suspect effectively. Their dialogue is clichéd but there are moments where I would prick my ears up and grin in admiration. One of my biggest complaints of the movie is the addition of a legend which I found to be irrelevant to the storyline. It comes out of nowhere and sets itself in the middle of all the chaos without explanation. Worst of all, the question is never answered.

Nevertheless, "Red Hill" is an Australian gem worth checking out even though it has specks of dust blurring the vision. If you "look where you want to go," you will find something to love about it. Hughes showers the audience with thrills and exhilaration with bliss, and I hope he continues to do so in other movies. In the meantime, I think I will continue to critique more of the films from Down Under.

My Rating: 6/10
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Clever Expansion of the Horror Genre from a Master of Horror
5 March 2011
Haiti has had its fair share of international attention. Last year's earthquake united the world in support of the devastated country. Poverty lingers heavily upon the people and widespread humanitarian groups have tried to challenge the issue. But, unfortunately, Haiti is most notorious for the practice of Voodoo (the correct word is Vodou but I will use the more familiar spelling). Horror director Wes Craven explores that particular subject in his 1988 movie, "The Serpent and the Rainbow". Although it contributes misconception to the practice of Voodoo, the film should be applauded for its graphic methods, scare tactics, and approach to anthropology and cultural practice.

In 1985, Harvard ethnobotanist Dennis Alan (played by Bill Pullman) is given an assignment by a pharmaceutical company. His objective is to travel Haiti and gather information about a certain drug practiced in Voodoo rituals. The substance is said to induce a being into a deep sleep-like state for hours while all other signs indicate the person has died. Afterwards, the subject is buried underground for a given amount of time, exhumed, and resurrected. The practice has been referred to as zombification, the process of making zombies. Alan accepts the quest and teams up with psychiatrist Marielle Duchamp (played by Cathy Tyson) in Haiti. But the two are caught in the middle of a boiling revolution but that is the least of their worries.

As a doubtful yet inquisitive man in an unsettling setting, Bill Pullman succeeds and rises above the usual expectations towards him. I have always felt that he underperforms his characters but remains likable almost all the time. But in "The Serpent and the Rainbow", he shines a decent performance and narration while maintaining the sympathy from the viewers. Cathy Tyson carries out her role with firmness and a sprinkle of delicacy. She is an unorthodox damsel-in-distress who steadies a strong demeanor towards her oppressors until the final act. The main antagonist is Peytraud (played by Zakes Mokae). He is the callous captain of the secret police who is "beneath contempt" and intends to prevent anarchy through any viable methods at his disposal. If he wants you to scream, you better scream.

What makes "The Serpent and the Rainbow" stand out is its study of an unfamiliar society. My mother visited Haiti in 1984 and she can testify how bleak life was under the rule of Baby Doc (she actually got a view of his yacht). As desolate as it may look, Haiti has a mystifying atmosphere filled with a certain kind of blackness. Dr. Alan senses the "dark presence" as he traverses the barren streets and tracks the ghastly cemeteries. I cannot help but notice that some of the interiors of the buildings look as if the Haitians were celebrating Halloween. The audience is allowed to become acquainted with the Haitian setting, customs, and culture as if they were on a tour. Meanwhile Wes Craven preps the macabre terror to spring when the time is right.

Like "A Nightmare on Elm Street", Craven contrives vivid, haunting dream sequences to break the boundary between reality and illusion. He crafts the scenes with a fine hand to ensure nobody can distinguish the two. The applied imagery is designed to trigger the most innate fears known to mankind. Drowning is horrifying but what if a person were to be placed in a coffin, only to be filled with blood? While there is a small amount of scare clichés including jump scares, the film provides mind- bending visuals, creepy make-up, and creative camera techniques to further intensify the confusion and torment in the audience. With clear direction and intention, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" proves that any subject including anthropology is palpable to horror.

My Rating: 9/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed