PhillipMichaelH Reviews

The Parent Trap (1998)

Really sweet and funny movie. Great job from the cast.

[10/10 · 28 August 2012]

I remember seeing the trailer for The Parent Trap in the summer of 1998. I had already seen and enjoyed the original 1961 movie but was quite impressed by what I had seen in the trailer. Unlike many of the remakes that are coming out these days, this looked quite refreshing and an unexpected hit from Disney. So when I finally saw the film two times in the theater that August, I couldn't have been more impressed. Yes, this maybe the only movie to date that I viewed in the theater twice and for my vote, it was for good reason.

This is a fun, witty and sweet little movie that I continue to enjoy. A lot of this is due to Disney getting Nancy Myers to co-write the screenplay and direct the film. She had been writing screenplays for years by this time and even had a few hits in her resume, Father Of The Bride Parts 1 and 2 being the most successful. To make her directorial debut, she agreed to helm a remake of the classic 1961 film for Disney. They couldn't have hired anyone better. A tremendous talent in screen writing and directing and deserves to be placed with Frank Capra, Preston Sturges and Billy Wilder. While this is you could say a children's film, Myers provides enough class and wit that people of all ages can enjoy it.

As for the cast, everyone did a great job and bring a lot of humor and sensitivity to the characters. Dennis Quaid and Natasha Richardson was amazing casting and both play the mother and father roles in the most believable way. I enjoy their scenes together. Of course, there is the delightful Lindsey Lohan. I really don't know what to say about her personally but as an actress, she is a remarkable talent and this movie shows it. I remember being impressed by the trailer at her capabilities to pull it off. She's quirky, fresh and fun to watch in both roles as Hallie and Annie.

Dean Cundey was the cinematographer on this film who is known for his wide variety of work, from Halloween (1978) to The Thing (1982), from Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) to Jurassic Park (1993), from Apollo 13 (1995) to The Parent Trap. Because of his brilliance, he was brought in for the film's amazing technical work. Montion control had been used before many times and even Nancy Myers herself has said that she wasn't sure how it works but it is used to astonishing effect here. With Lohan's talent to play the wisecracking Hallie and proper Annie, motion control allows you to appreciate the differences in the two twins and also, the similarities. My favorite shot in the movie is when Lohan as both Hallie and Annie are looking in the mirror after Annie gets her hair cut. A one shot that gives the young actress a chance to walk in and out of frame as well as give lots of dialog.

All in all, this is a great movie in my opinion. It's a feel good movie with a lot of charm and as I say class that I highly recommend it. Rent it or better yet, buy it if you ever get the chance.

Aliens (1986)

A very worthy follow up to a horror classic and also one of the best action movies of the 80s.

[10/10 · 4 June 2012]

There have been many debates over the years about which is the better film, Ridley Scott's 1979 original or James Cameron's 1986 sequel. In this review, I will state something that I'm sure has been said before but wanted to share my voice.

Released in the summer of 1986, at a time when film goers were wanting more action in their movies, along comes James Cameron who after a big disappointment with his first feature, B movie sequel Piranah 2: The Spawning (1981), Cameron went off and wrote a screenplay that would become his big breaking point in the business. The Terminator (1984) was a very ambitious project for such a low budget film. The film was a well made and groundbreaking feature in what was expected to be just another exploitation film. There were big action sequences, a challenging story and also, strong character development that surprised everyone and became a huge hit.

After the success of The Terminator, Cameron made his third feature film with Aliens. Cameron was a big admirer of Scott's original that he always wanted to make a follow up, his dream had now come true. Cameron wrote the screenplay and also directed. He knew from the get go that he was making a sequel and never denied that but the challenge in making a sequel is how do you make one that stands on its own but doesn't completely stay too far away from what made the original so effective.

Cameron not only gives us a new and different visionary look into the story by making it less claustrophobic and more out in the open, an action film more or less, but also takes the character of Ripley (played by Sigourney Weaver) to new heights and goes deeper into the character. I chose to not give too much away in reviews for fear that I would be giving too many details to those who haven't seen the film but Aliens is an amazing sequel to what already was an amazing first film.

There is so much strong metaphor in this film about how to fight the evils of the world. That not only being strong but also having faith and trust in one another is the best way to triumph at the end of the day. There are some repeats of plot devices in the film (again, Cameron realizing that he is making a sequel) but it doesn't completely remake a scene from the first film. He provides humor, adventure and action but there is always a purpose, to move the story forward. Not one scene feels out of place or doesn't belong.

Sigourney Weaver received an Oscar nomination for her work here and I will say, deserved it very much. I always thought she was a talented actress, I knew it right away from watching the first Alien but I would argue that she has more to work with this time around and give us a look deeper into one of the smartest and bravest characters in any science fiction movie.

James Cameron has gone onto bigger things and by the way, I really loved Titanic (1997), but The Terminator and Aliens were a perfect example of a good screenwriter and ambitious director. While Cameron may be demanding and somewhat of a perfectionist and it's something that I don't relate to and in fact, something that I have been critical of, but every director is different and I guess if you were working in the filming conditions that he does, I guess you and I would be to. Aliens is great entertainment but never for the sake of great entertainment. Highly recommended. Well, I can say that it's better then Predator (1987).

Rio Bravo (1959)

A timeless Hollywood masterpiece.

[10/10 · 26 May 2012]

When Rio Bravo was released in the spring of 1959, it didn't receive the best reviews but time has proved how inspirational and timeless this movie is. Unlike most westerns at the time like the films of John Ford, it doesn't deal with moral or racial issues. Ford's deeply haunting and emotional The Searchers (1956) is an example. While director Howard Hawks' film is more fun and less dramatic, it is arguably just as personal as anything Ford ever did.

Hawks is a director who has had a profound influence on many American and even foreign filmmakers and critics. He made films that are perceptive and witty but also because he was maybe the most versatile director at the time, his work has found a wide range of audiences. Rio Bravo continues the many themes of most Hawks' films and this time, I would argue that it comes together in the best way. From the very first scene, which is a brilliant piece of silent filmmaking, we get a clear idea who each character is and it sets up the story perfectly. We are then taken on a journey of action, adventure, comedy, romance and even drama and self discovery.

I won't give away too much in this review because I feel that it would ruin the emotional impact. To understand this film is to understand Hawks as a storyteller who brings together a unique group of characters who are flawed but by sticking together, they can get the job done and come out stronger people. Dean Martin gives an amazing performance as a man who is fighting with the bottle, we assume that he is weak but we get an understanding to why he is struggling and also, when he holds it together, can be very quick and sharp. I've always thought that Martin plays a character that we can all relate to because we can all find ourselves in that position in life and call me sentimental but it's a moving look at any of us are capable of many things but must fight our demons in order to see it and move on.

John Wayne is at the top of his game here, just as much as in The Searchers. He plays the sheriff in town who is in a tough situation and can't get caught up with the new girl in town. It's one of the best romances that only Hawks could pull off. They clearly don't understand each other but is obvious that they can't live without each other. We get a lot of the Hawks wit and insight on men and women as in Bringing Up Baby (1938), Only Angels Have Wings (1939) and To Have And Have Not (1944) and it's always fun to watch. Hawks was the best with romance in my opinion, he always got the best out of his actors as well.

We see many other characters through out the film and always understand who they are. Not one dull or underdeveloped character in the whole film the way I see it. The point in this review is that Rio Bravo is the best example of what makes a strong Hollywood film, also Howard Hawks in general. Hawks always made fun movies but the characters were never not thought of and never taken for granted, they were always personal to Hawks as well. Today, big advanced special effects distract us from what makes a good movie, the story and the characters. Maybe my review is too simplistic but for me, Rio Bravo is a great movie that holds up and is still relevant as it ever was. I've learned so much about storytelling from this film and hold it as a personal influence on my ambition of wanting to make movies.

Welcome to the Rileys (2010)

A stunning and unsettling film.

[10/10 · 20 March 2012]

Welcome To The Rileys premiered at Sundance in early 2010 and received a worthy amount of recognition. The film also received a little bit of notice from the press because of its young star, Kristen Stewart from the Twilight franchise but believe me, this isn't a fantasy or love story. What I loved about this film from the very beginning is that there was something unsettling about it, when you first hear the piano theme that runs throughout the film, it immediately made an impression on me. Also, the first shot of Doug (played by James Gandolfini) smoking a cigarette, it's a very tight close up that for reasons which I can't put into words, made me feel like I was in for a different experience. The style of the film through my eyes sort of feels like a dark horror film or maybe a film noir.

Of course, I was surprised by this because I knew what the story was about but I was still surprised and stunned at how gritty this film is. The story sort of sounds like something that we have seen a lot in movies from the past but it's handled in a way that is completely different and it even stands out on its own. I won't give away character or story details but on the surface, this may seem like a predictable movie but watch the characters more and see how they think or feel, it's truly impressive.

I will comment on the performances before I end this review, James Gandolfini gives a very mature adult performance that amazed me. I actually have never seen much of his other work but I'm curious to see more of his acting credits. Melissa Leo is heartfelt and sensitive, I really connected with it. She really plays the mother role to perfection. Lastly, there is Kristen Stewart who I am a big defender of. Some accuse her of being flat and emotionless in her films but the more I watch her work, I see that what makes her work stand out is that she is real. Never overacting or trying to play the heavily emotional scenes that someone like Meryl Streep would. That's what I like about her, it's like your viewing a real person in life. All of the actors in the film do this very well and to see them work together is something special.

Either you will be amazed or disappointed with it and while the story is simple and the film does have a lot of heart and compassion, you feel a sense of gloom, melancholy or dread when you watch it. If you enjoy films like Badlands, Ghost World or Fargo then I highly recommend it.

Scream (1996)

A horror triumph that is also the last best ever in the genre.

[10/10 · 17 March 2012]

Released in 1996, at a time when it seemed like horror and slasher movies were beginning to fade, this superb little gem of a film was released to an unexpected public who had lost interest in the genre. It had seemed that the slasher genre was dead because of a tired release of sequels from Friday The 13th, which did nothing but make the same film over again. I've always liked the Halloween sequels but even they were not making money. Along comes this hip screenwriter named Kevin Williamson. The same cliché in up and coming screenwriters was apparent here, he was struggling, didn't have money and living off of nothing but he always loved horror movies and was able to come up with his own concept for a script that would become his ultimate masterwork.

Then comes in Wes Craven, who was already a horror legend that at the time, it seemed like he could have gone in any direction he wanted to as a director, he even rejected the script at first, claiming that he shouldn't go down that road again. After noticing what a huge impact he had made with fans over the years and coming to see that he could do no wrong at coming back with another horror powerhouse, he decided, why not? Diminsion Films loved the script from the beginning and always had Wes in mind and now they had him on board, a great script and a director who is a genius at what he does, now all they needed was a cast that could make the story's movie within a movie concept believable. This time though and was unknown in the genre, the producers chose well known actors and hot up and coming talent to portray the characters in this quirky horror opus. Neve Campbell had already received recognition for the hit television drama Party Of Five and was the right choice to play the lead heroin Sydney Prescott. Then you had Courtney Cox from another popular show at the time Friends, had the right amount of personality to play Gale Weathers. The rest of the cast included the always lovely Drew Barrymore. To play a character that is killed off in the first scene, instead of casting some unknown, which is what you usually do especially to a character who is the victim, you had one of the biggest young actresses in the world, Wes even stated that he wasn't sure if the audience would ever forgive them but because Barrymore is so memorable in what is already a well crafted set up to the film, the audience loved it.

The shooting of the film seemed like a fun one when you watch the behind the scenes footage, Wes seems relaxed and confident and the cast is charming and excited to be a part of the production. Post production had a few problems, to get an R rating, a few gore effects had to be cut down to where you see less which I would say is the only flaw to the film but only the MPAA is to blame for that.

Released in December of 1996, the film had a decent run but after only a few weeks, it was the most talked about film. It was clear that this was a horror triumph and one that surely had an effect on younger audiences that they began to show interest in the genre again. Because of its smart concept and witty satire, the film was something special I think that it could not have been pulled off effectively again, so in that context, I think this may be the last great horror film. Of course, this is open for debate and I have seen a few decent horror films since the release of Scream but none as believable or intelligent. Urban Legend (1998) tried to be Scream and I thought that movie was good by the way but wasn't as successful. Over the years we have had a tired release of remakes and few films have paved the way for horror, although I thought that the 2002 film The Ring was the most interesting American horror movie I had seen since Scream but still not the best. The most well done horror films are coming from foreign countries right now that it seems that American horror is dead again but we can only hope that someone will come along and bring something new and fresh to the genre but because Scream did such a unique way at breaking rules and coming up with new ones, I will say it's the last great American horror film. Still, I really enjoyed the sequels, even the 2011 release of Scream 4. I also thought Halloween: H20 was one of the best sequels I had seen in slasher movies, even if it was in a way a response to Scream's success.

Good luck to up and coming directors and screenwriters, let's hope that the one with the interesting take on horror gets the attention of studio heads and producers and also becomes the next horror classic, we desperately need it.

Color Me Obsessed: A Film About the Replacements (2011)

Great film about my favorite band but I only have one problem.

[10/10 · 23 December 2011]

I will tell you the one problem I had with the film at the end of this review. I will start by saying that this has become my favorite documentary ever!! Now, unlike everyone who appeared in this film and unlike most viewers or fans, I wasn't alive when The Replacements were in their prime. I'm only in my early 20s and I discovered the band back in 2008 from a friend of mine. They have become my favorite band, to the point of obsession.

I won't go on about how there is no music or interviews from the band in the film. I will just say that this was the best way to tell the band's story. The Replacements were sort of that band that you herd about, you knew the name but you didn't know who they were completely. They seemed to be this legend that people had told. It was something that a lot of people had talked about but somewhere in the place of rock history, they were left out when The Beatles, The Velvet Underground or R.E.M. are mentioned. You just knew from what you had heard that they were an important band and you were either curious to listen to their songs or just simply not interested. But my point is, you knew or heard something about them and that is their legacy. The band that no one knows of was simply the greatest band of the 80s or the pioneers of Alternatvie rock.

Was the band that great? I am here to say that yes, they were!! Maybe the only important band to come out of the 80s underground. This film is amazing!! So much insight, humor and heart are in these interviews and it shows what it means to have passion for anything. You don't have to be a fan, even if you're not a Mats fan, you know what it means to have something touch you, make an impact and shape you into the person that you are today. That you're not alone and there is something out there for anyone. Director Gorman Bechard did a great job with these interviews and got the best out of these fans, fellow musicians or collaborators with The Replacements. This is storytelling and it completely covers a legend that has been told before but never at this scale. This was a little band from Minneapolis that with no record sales, no commercial success has become an important part of rock music and what it is today.

I will end this review by saying the one thing that I didn't like about this film. It's that there is very little praise for the Tim record that The Mats did. Everyone talks about how great Let It Be or Pleased To Meet Me is but hardly any love for Tim. I know it's a difference of opinion but I consider this the best record the band ever did and also, the greatest rock album in history. Still, this is a great film. One that I hope will lead others to discover these songs. Believe me, once you've herd "Left Of The Dial", you will never be the same.

Dawson's Creek (1998–2003)

Life's unexpected journey.

[10/10 · 20 December 2011]

Dawson's Creek may be the most under appreciated show in history. No offense to fans of Freaks and Geeks and My So-Called Life (I love those shows too) but DC never had respect from critics or most of the general public. Most have called it another take off of Beverly Hills 90210. I dare you to watch the first two episodes of the first season and say that again. Of course the show was not realistic but I think it was brave enough to not try and be (that awful word) realistic. The show was about dreams and fantasies that we all have when we are young and the show actually made us feel like our dreams had come true, even if it was only for 45 minutes an episode.

Dawson Leery is a young filmmaker who worships Steven Spielberg and is trying to cope with growing up (and people telling him to grow up). He brings a natural sensitivity that is rare in most characters in teen shows. He brings a kindness and innocence and of course, he's lost, tortured and uncertain about where he stands in a world that's unfair and cruel. "I'm going to be a filmmaker. It's my life's ambition, it always has been". This is his exact words in the pilot episode and by season 3, he is faced with harsh realities that he questions his passion and eventually, he gives up. Of course by the end of season 4, he finds inspiration again to work towards his dream from the help of a bitter old man who was once a filmmaker and gave up too. He also finds the subject for the film that eventually gets him recognition.

Of course, the show deals with love, loss, angst and sometimes it even gets to the point of absurdity but it never stays far from the truth of our own fears when we are that age. Some episodes could be ridiculous which is why most say that "Of all the shows that captured what being a teenager is really like, Dawson's Creek was not it". True, it did get a little over the top by season 3 but it always stayed true to its subjects and themes. That being young is hard and we never know what will happen to us in life. This is Dawson's journey and same with the other characters on the show. Hearts are broken, people lose trust in each other, we don't always win and even some people lose their lives. It may not portray it in the most, as you say, realistic way but it wasn't trying to be completely accurate, it was trying to inspire us to not give up on our dreams and passions.

As cheesy as my review may be, I feel that this an (and yes, I will use the word) "underrated" show.

Hugo (2011)

Beautiful!!

[10/10 · 23 November 2011]

I just returned home after seeing Hugo on opening day and if I can describe this film in one word, it would be beautiful. This film has inspired me in ways that I can't even begin to explain. It's been a while since I've seen a film that spoke to me as personally as this film did. I'm a fan of Martin Scorsese and he's crafted a beautiful ode to not only cinema but also imagination and in a way, it celebrates all the things that help us escape. The world is a scary place and everyone goes through pain and suffering but if you just try and learn to dream, find your voice and not be afraid then you would be surprised what could happen.

I love how this film tells the amazing story of pioneer filmmaker Georges Melies who many of today's directors such as Steven Spielberg and James Cameron owe everything to. I love his films and I own a box set of his work, it's wonderful to see more people be introduced to him and the magic he created that continues to capture the imagination of many.

So if you love the cinema and magic then I highly recommend this masterpiece. Hugo is really something special I think.

Batman (1989)

A Hollywood classic.

[10/10 · 14 October 2011]

Released in 1989, Tim Burton's Batman holds up very well 22 years after its release and I actually prefer it over Christopher Nolan's re-entry, as interesting as his vision is. As for Joel Schumaker's stunning though at times silly vision of Batman, I try to forget about those films. Burton's first Batman is pure escapism in a sort of old fashion way. No CGI to be seen here and it works better that way. It's no surprise to me that Burton's Batman has been compared to Citizen Kane (1941) or The Maltese Falcon (1941), Burton and production designer Anton Furst take you into a dark world filled with crime and also mystery. Other films at the time such as Blade Runner (1982) and Brazil (1985) had already experimented with the classic film noir style, done in a sort of retro/futuristic way but Anton Furst's design for Gothem City truly feels like you are viewing a modern retelling of the classic noir films from the 40s.

Sam Hamm's script is solid and while it has been the target for criticism, I feel that he did a nice job, his dialog is very witty at times and a little over the top but it's appropriate, particularly with Jack Napiar/ The Joker. The performances are actually quite impressive and even better then what Chris Nolan got out of his actors but that's just an opinion. Micheal Keaton, while controversial and unusual at the time, gives a really good performance, he is very shy and sensitive which is the Bruce Wayne that I respond to the most. Jack Nicholson really needs no analysis for his work here, he is just perfect that putting into words is pointless. His joker is fun and even believable, Jack is just as great of an actor as James Cagney in my mind. Kim Basinger is actually much better then she is given credit for, her and Keaton work well together. The rest of the cast really are supporting characters, some are familiar to the Batman story, some are new. One of them being Alexander Knox. Robert Wahl plays a very likable guy who the other characters have a hard time taking seriously. His eagerness to find Batman and win his Pulitzer prize is well done and is a very down to earth performance, which I guess is what the movie needed.

As for Tim Burton's direction, he handles the actors very well and as for the technical work, I have mixed feelings about that. A lot of moments have really well choreographed camera work but there are a couple of zoom in shots that I felt were sloppy and a little unnecessary. There are a couple of matte painting shots that may not hold up as well today but none of this really matters, it still works. Of course, Danny Elfman's score left me speechless. He combines the fun, the adventurous and the dark side of Batman into one piece. I recommend buying the soundtrack with Elfman's score on it, it's amazing!! I think that Batman may be the best Hollywood movie of the late 80s and I still consider it a favorite from my childhood. I know that comic book purists prefer Nolan's Batman but as just a movie guy who loves old fashion Hollywood movies, this one appeals more to my taste. Batman deserves its comparison with Citizen Kane or any other Hollywood masterpiece as far as I'm concerned, even Casablanca (1942) or The Godfather (1972). Burton's 1992 sequel, Batman Returns is equally as great and even takes the series into a direction that's more complex and provoking which Joel Shumaker ignored. While Christopher Nolan's Batman films have stolen the popularity of Burton's, I would argue that his will go down in history as Hollywood classics.

Halloween II (1981)

Just as great as the first movie.

[10/10 · 24 August 2011]

Released in 1981, Halloween 2 lives up to what it promises, a horror sequel. After the first film, which was shot on a very low budget, surpassed everyone's expectations by becoming the highest grossing independent film in history, major studios were making a series of imitators, one of them being Sean Cuningham's Friday The 13th (1980), which was released by Paramount and a blood stained or more commercial answer to Halloween. It's ironic that the same studios who turned John Carpenter's horror thriller down were making their own films about serial killers stalking teenagers, most of them being uninspired compared to the original Halloween. There are a few exceptions though, like Wes Craven's superb A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984).

Anyway, back to this movie. Universal Studios began approaching John Carpenter and Debra Hill with the idea of a sequel, for which they declined at first. Even Debra Hill said herself in a 2002 interview that a sequel was "The furthest thing from our minds". After Moustapha Akkad (finacer of the first film) agreed to make a follow up, Carpenter and Hill said that they would produce it and write the screenplay but only if the film were be to directed by someone else. Carpenter originally handed the opportunity to direct Halloween 2 over to Tommy Lee Wallace, who was the production designer and editor of the first film. Wallace didn't care for the script that Carpenter and Hill wrote and stated that he wasn't attached to the story so he dropped out of the project. The responsibility of directing would eventually go to an unknown director named Rick Rosenthal who had made a short film that Carpenter was impressed with which is the reason why Rosenthal got the job.

Carpenter and Hill decided to make this movie a continuation of the first film, it picks up exactly where the first one left off and takes place completely on the same night as the fist film. After it is revealed at the end of the first film that Michael Myers is not dead, police are out around town looking for him, along with Dr. Loomis who knows for sure that Myers is still alive. Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) is taken to the hospital after surviving from Michael's bloody rampage. She appears to be safe but Myers soon finds out about where she is and makes his way to the clinic and of course, all hell breaks lose. It appears that the nightmare isn't over yet and audiences will have to find out if Laurie (or anyone for that matter) will survive the rest of the night.

Production began in early 1981, Jamie Lee Curtis returned to play the role that made her famous from the first film, Laurie Strode. Dean Cundey, who was the cinematographer on the first Halloween, returned also to bring his unique visual approach. This time, to play Michael Myers, the filmmakers brought in a stunt man named Dick Warlock who had worked on many movies as a stunt man for many years. The always loyal Donald Plescence also returned from the first film to play Dr. Loomis, his performance feels just as focused as it was the first time around. Besides Jamie Lee and Donald, an entire new cast was added to play the residents at the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital, which most of the film takes place at. There was a lot of tension on the set, Carpenter and director Rick Rosenthal had a different vision on what the finished film should be and and producer Debra Hill said that the movie was very difficult to be fully realized. When the film was finished, Carpenter was not happy with it and even said that Rosenthal should completely change his movie, stating that it wasn't frighting enough. Carpenter has said in an interview that he shot the opening scenes in the movie and that he was not happy doing it but that it had to be done to make the movie better. This is the film that you see today.

Released on October 30th of 1981, Halloween 2 was a box office hit and while Carpenter and Hill were not pleased with the film, audiences enjoyed it. Rick Rosenthal, while his experience with Carpenter may have not been pleasant, has said that he thinks the movie "holds up very well" and "is still really scary". Rosenthal would return to direct another Halloween sequel 20 years later, the 2002 film Halloween: Resurrection. As for my views on the film, I feel that this movie is just as great as the first film and just as scary and entertaining. This film was much darker in terms of style and of course, there is more gore this time around. While the first film has no scenes of graphic violence, we can all assume that John Carpenter was feeling (as Tommy Lee Wallace stated) the pressures of the market place. Films like Friday The 13th had much more blood and violence in them so Carpenter wrote Halloween 2 including more of that. I still feel that this movie is just as suspenseful and while not as pure as the first film, still a good movie, I would say that it's great even. The atmosphere is well done and includes really nice camera work from Dean Cundey. If you're a horror fan then this movie should please you.

The Ward (2010)

Uneven script but inspired directing.

[10/10 · 22 August 2011]

I won't write too long of a review but I wanted to say that John Carpenter's latest is just like his other films, either you will love it or you will be disappointed. I can't begin to tell you how many people have told me how they were even disappointed with most of his films. While this film suffers from an uneven script, Carpenter's direction allows you to look past all of that and enjoy the movie for what it is. I've always felt that is the case with all of Carpenter's films but in a way, that's not really a bad thing. It's a horror film and it's a well made horror film I think. I feel that with JC, directing is his greatest talent. Forget about how weak the script is or how the performances can be cheesy at times, it still works and I admire Carpenter for aiming more towards simplicity.

I want to end my review by saying that I think that Carpenter is one of the best and least pretentious directors working today. I would even place him up there with Francis Ford Coppola or Roman Polanski. He's a true independent and an artist I will even say. I even have faith that I will appreciate this movie more the next time I view it. Carpenter has never made a bad film in my mind and this film is just as good as his other works. If you're not into Carpenter or don't relate to his sensibilities then you may be disappointed.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

A modern day horror classic.

[10/10 · 29 June 2011]

Released in November of 1984, A Nightmare On Elm Street was a very personal project from Wes Craven. He was already a cult icon after directing two of the most notorious low budget films of the 70s, The Last House On The Left (1972) and The Hills Have Eyes (1977). By this point, Craven was moving up in the industry but still struggling in Hollywood and after directing two films back to back, Deadly Blessing (1981) and Swamp Thing (1982), he went off and wrote a screenplay that he has stated was inspired by true events.

A Nightmare On Elm Street came from a series of articles that Craven had read where many children were afraid to fall asleep, even trying the best that they could to avoid sleep. There was one article in particular though in the L.A. Times I believe that was so haunting to Craven that it inspired him to come up with the concept of a dream stalker or figure. While the script proved to be an inspired story with brilliant characters through out, many studios in Hollywood rejected it, claiming that it was too gory or dark. Some turned it down because they thought that the concept couldn't be pulled off. The future looked very bleak but then Craven found someone who saw great potential in the script and that was Robert Shaye. Shaye was the founder of a small distribution company called New Line Cinema, which had been around since the late 60s and released a lot of low budget films during the 70s and early 80s, all of which they were able to make their money back on but still were not huge successes. You have to give a lot of credit to Shaye who saw a lot of great things in Craven's script and believed in it probably as much as Craven himself. He felt that not only did this have commercial appeal but also, it was a great story that could work.

Production began in early 1984, Craven casted some of the freshest up and coming actors at the time, one of them being the very beautiful and intelligent Heather Langenkamp who proved to be a very strong choice to play the film's hero, Nancy Thompson. What Craven wanted was someone who was strong, smart and wouldn't fall down unlike most female leads in slasher films but also, someone with a lot of courage and determination and Heather pulled it off perfectly in the film. To me, Nancy is the main reason why the film works so well and while Freddy deserves credit too, Nancy is the true lead in the first film. Other actors casted were John Saxon, who had been in the business many years before and was even known as a great character actor. Also, Amanda Wyss as Tina, who you think is going to be the film's lead heroin at first and even though she is killed off in the first 30 minutes, you still care about her a great deal and I don't think Amanda ever received enough credit. First time screen actor Johnny Depp was cast as Nancy's boyfriend, Glenn. We all know Johnny as the huge movie star today but at the time, he was very much afraid of working in front of the camera and Craven stated himself that Johnny's hands were shaking a few times but because of his willingness to put himself into that character and play something that wasn't him shows what a gifted actor he was and still is.

Of course, Craven was looking for someone to play Freddy. He was actually looking for someone much older but it proved to not be effective. While Robert England may have not looked right for the part on first look, Craven saw something in him and Robert was cast, we can now all agree that he made the right choice because Robert brings something to the character that goes beyond what Craven had envisioned.

After a hard shoot that caused a lot of tension between the crew because of the low budget and restrictions, the film had an uncertain future. If the film had failed, it could have been the end for New Line, which caused a lot of stress for Robert Shaye and everyone working for the company. The film opened that November and surpassed everyone's expectations by becoming not only a film that was profitable but also one that found a huge cult following before a franchise had even been born. It launched a series of sequels, most of which are very effective and well done and while Freddy became less mysterious as he was in the first film, it was clear that because Robert Englund believed in the role so much and that the filmmakers worked so hard to make them unique visual experiences, they deserve a lot of credit and should not be ignored as far as I'm concerned. All of the actors are remembered for their roles today, especially Robert and Heather. They both are extraordinary talent and care so much about the characters while most people would try to forget about it as much as possible. I want to say again that Nancy is a great character, one that pulled me into the movie and made me believe in the story. I hope that someday, a Nancy doll will be made.

This is a modern day horror classic, one that came at the right time and so much hard work from people who were determined to do their best and make a great film. A company's future relied on this film and it is now one of the biggest studios in Hollywood. So check this film out if you're into the genre. While I can't speak for everyone, I think that this is a great film and one of the best of the 80s. Find yourself a copy and watch it now!!

Moonlight Mile (2002)

A very unique film from a hit or miss director.

[10/10 · 17 June 2011]

Director Brad Silberling isn't the greatest director to ever come out of American film but given that he was trained by working in television and then was even chosen by producer Steven Spielberg to direct his first film says that he is a worthy talent. After 10 years of working in television, Brad Silberling began a friendship with Steven Spielberg, who felt he was the right choice to direct a film which he was producing. The result was the 1995 blockbuster, Casper. While not the greatest film ever made, Silberling proved that he could handle a big budget special effects production and he didn't even have one film to his credit before then but also he showed how he could work well with actors and bring out solid performances. While I'm not defending Casper as a masterpiece, I think it has some inspired moments of comedy and drama in it that dealt with loss of a loved one and how to carry on from such a tragedy. The only thing I could have done without was the last minute of the film where the cast dance along to a Little Richard cover of the popular Casper theme song. Other then that, the movie works well.

Silberling then decided to make a more grown up film but still dealt with the same themes of his first feature, the result was City Of Angels (1998) which was an American remake of the popular art house film Wings Of Desire from 1987. Again, not what most would consider a masterpiece but it still showed Silberling's talent with working with actors and it was also a well made film if you ask me. The heavily emotional scenes with Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan caught the attention of acting legend Dustin Hoffman and then Silberling was able to make his dream project for his third film.

Moonlight Mile (2002) is loosely based on a real experience. Silberling was dating actress Rebecca Schaeffer in 1989, who was killed by an obsessed fan. This unfortunate event inspired the idea for his most personal and best film to date. I won't give away too much in this review but I felt that this was a unique film about following your own heart and not focus on what is expected of you. Many films have done this in the past but Moonlight Mile has a different take on it because it is also about grief, keeping secrets and not opening up to people which I think makes it even more thought provoking and inspiring which I feel are the two most important elements to a film.

So check this one out when you have the chance. Again, not the greatest movie I have seen in my life but it's still an interesting twist on subjects that have been repeated many times. Unfortunately, Silberling has made some weak choices as a director. I will not be defending his latest film Land Of The Lost with Will Ferrell but other then that, the rest of his work is rather impressive and while he hasn't reached the same heights as Steven Spielberg or many other directors who work in the genre he works in, he almost got there with this film. Let's hope if he does make another film, it will take us completely by surprise. We can only hope.

Super 8 (2011)

A unique and refreshing film.

[10/10 · 16 June 2011]

I saw this movie in New York on opening day and I loved every second of this film. I was already a huge fan of Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams so I knew that this would be a unique experience and it turned out to be everything that I hoped it would be. I won't go into detail in this review and let everyone else make up their own mind about the film.

I thought that this was a very refreshing movie that does a good job at combining different genres without being too obvious. Even though the movie does have elements of Science Fiction, action and fantasy. It also is a very heartfelt coming of age story and I believe it's one of the essential elements of the film. Without these characters, I wouldn't have believed in the film as much as I did. J.J. Abrams does a nice job and making the characters and what they go through the most important part of the story and it works. The movie also has elements of comedy, their are plenty of moments that will have you laughing or smiling. I don't want to give anything away for those who haven't seen the film but stay in your seats when the credits roll at the end of the film, you won't regret it.

I love E.T., Close Encounters and The Goonies and this movie brought me back to those films and how much I loved them as a child and still do. Go see this movie, it may be the most fun and delightful time you will have at the movies this year.

The Goonies (1985)

If this movie doesn't make you smile then I don't know what does.

[10/10 · 9 June 2011]

Released in the summer of 1985, The Goonies is the film that I always bring up when I challenge one's coolness. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but what you need to know in order to appreciate this film is that it's purely and simply, a fun adventure film. While yes, the script isn't the most clever ever written, I think that Chris Columbus brings enough character development and well written action scenes along with a lot of heart that makes it a really well laid out screenplay.

Steven Spielberg had been in the spotlight for 10 years at this point, thanks to the success of Jaws (1975), Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977), Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) and most especially, E.T. (1982), which was in its day the highest grossing film in history. All films are absolute perfection in my mind and show us why we go to the movies to begin with. Spielberg was now everywhere and not only the most powerful director in Hollywood but also the most powerful producer. By now, he was even showing his talent as a producer and it was one hit after another. With Poltergiest (1982), Gremlins (1984) and the mega hit Back To The Future (1985), Spielberg could do no wrong and proving that unlike most directors and producers, he clearly knows what the audience wants but also what works and what doesn't.

Which brings me to The Goonies. Spielberg originally came up with the story but brought in Gremlins writer and future director Chris Columbus to write the screenplay. He then hired Richard Donner, best known for films like The Omen (1976) and Superman (1978), to direct the film. In my opinion, one of the things that makes this film work so well (besides the script and the actors) is Richard Donner's direction. He brings a sense of excitement and also, tension to the screen. From the very first scene involving a jailbreak, this is a director who knows how to make a movie I think, his camera work and directing of the actors is amazing, it gets you hooked into the story which I have to give credit to Donner. Sometimes I wonder if the movie would have been just as great if Spielberg directed the film himself and don't get me wrong, Spielberg is one of the best directors in my mind but Donner's approach is something to be acknowledged. I actually think it's his film in a way.

So yes, I do consider this a cinema classic. It's a film that we can all connect with. I remember one review on IMDb pointing out how this film unifies us and I couldn't have said it any better. Anytime you say The Goonies, people know exactly what you're talking about and they always quote a line from the film. This is the true definition of a cinema classic in my mind, a film that is loved all over the world and it's not just a part of pop culture. I would place this movie up there with Citizen Kane or Casablaca as silly as that may sound to some. If you're a movie lover like me who loves to go to movies to feel uplifted or just have a good time, then this movie is for you.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

The darkest of all the sequels. Very entertaining.

[8/10 · 29 May 2011]

Warning: This review contains spoilers.

This is another film in the Halloween franchise that is hated by most critics and fans. While I agree that all of the Halloween sequels suffer major flaws, they still are (I think) great attempts at making good quality sequels that are fun, entertaining and even scary. This film is another example.

After Halloween 5: The Revenge Of Micheal Myers (1989) (which I also feel is underrated) bombed at the box office and was even released straight to video outside the United States, six years had passed and the future looked bleak for the series. In 1990, a year after Halloween 5, up and coming writer and long time horror fan Daniel Farrands began meeting with Moustapha Akkad and discussing new ideas for the next installment. He would eventually come up with the plot for this film and after many rumors had been floating around about Quentin Tarantino writing the next installment and John Carpenter returning as director, this was the film that came to be. Production began in late 1994 with Joe Chappelle as director and a new cast including Marianne Hegan and Paul Rudd, J.C. Brandy took on the role of Jamie after Danielle Harris was denied. Donald Pleasence returned to play Dr. Loomis for what was to be his final film performance, he passed away during post production. After the film received negative responses from the test screening audiences, the film was rushed back into production and a different ending was added, along with different edits and much more gore. Also, Jamie's death scene was changed (the version that I didn't care for).

All of these changes really hurt the film badly but I still feel that this film is actually quite good, the atmosphere is all there and it includes some of the scariest scenes since Halloween 2 (1981). Of all the films in the series, this one truly captures the look and feel of Halloween. I actually like the Thorn idea, it brings new depth to the series, I loved the Man In Black idea in Halloween 5 and I was glad that it was brought back for this movie and that it was revealed who he really was.

If I had to pick between the theatrical or producer's cut, I would pick the producer's cut but I still enjoy the theatrical version for what it is but it feels a bit out of place from Halloween's 4 and 5, while the producer's cut feels like a true sequel. All in all, this is a good movie, both versions work very well but I can only hope that the producer's cut will be released on DVD someday.

They Live (1988)

The film for the ages.

[10/10 · 29 May 2011]

Released in November of 1988, director John Carpenter's They Live may be the film of its generation. Well, if it's not then it's pretty close. John Carpenter is mostly known for the box office smash hit Halloween (1978) and as great as that film is (it's my favorite film), They Live is proof that the horror master had more to offer, along with a lot of other gems like Escape From New York (1981), The Thing (1982), Big Trouble In Little China (1986), In The Mouth Of Madness (1995), Escape From L.A. (1996) and Vampires (1998), They Live ranks on the list of his best films. Carpenter's films usually suffer from low production values and above average performances from his actors but when you look past that, his films really are very deep and well made and this film is no exception. What makes Carpenter so unique is that he really understood where Hollywood was heading during the late 70s and most of the 80s and for a short period of time he got his taste of Hollywood. He then realized that it simply only cares about making money and he spent the rest of his career as a true independent, not following any rules and making movies the way that he wanted to.

Carpenter was riding on the success of Halloween, which was in its day the highest grossing independent film ever made. Escape From New York was another hit movie and by this time he was getting major studio offerings. He then directed his first big studio picture The Thing. This film was expected to be a commercial hit but unfortunately, the film was a disaster and was even considered one of the most hated films by critics and audiences alike. Although The Thing has found a cult audience over the years, it was the film that launched a series of commercial failures from the director.

Carpenter was feeling angry and frustrated with the way the studio system was heading so he decided to make a film that expressed this anger which is where They Live comes in. This film may be one of the bravest movies in its day. During the 1980s, we were being told to do nothing but consume. This film is a study of the world being corrupt by the media and how it tells us to simply not care and just make tons of money. The middle class are portrayed as villains in the film and that being rich and successful is the only way to be happy while poor working class people are being treated as useless. We all believe that fame and fortune is what makes us somebody but Carpenter wasn't about to become a sell out and instead he dealt with his anger by making this film and when you look at it now you can't help but think what an honest direction that was to go in.

But this movie isn't just for deep thinkers, it is also a kick ass sci-fi action movie and it's a lot of fun too. Sure, the movie is goofy at times and very B movie material but to me that's a positive aspect, I think that was the perfect way to portray the story. I would put this movie up there with A Clockwork Orange (1971) even, as pretentious as that sounds.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

A moving fairy tale.

[10/10 · 29 May 2011]

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind was written when director Steven Spielberg was just out of his teens. It was a project very close and personal to him and after the box office success of Jaws (1975), he was able to receive respect and creative freedom in Hollywood and was finally able to make his dream film as his follow up. Released in Novemeber of 1977, Close Encounters may be one of the best examples of Spielberg's great storytelling abilities ans sensibilities. I find this to be one of the most hopeful films I have ever seen. When the film opens, we are presented with an unsettling set up, we feel uncertain and even frightened and by the end of the film, we learn to have faith in our existence.

The story is very simple, a ordinary family man sees a UFO and is planted a message. He then tries to put the pieces together and find what the message means. His wife and kids feel that he is losing his mind as he tries to figure out what his purpose is and why he was chosen. He senses that there is a location that is very important although he doesn't know why, he just knows that it means something. His family eventually leaves him and he is left to find the answer himself. He later discovers that a women he met earlier in the film received the same message and together they try to find the location and discover its purpose. It doesn't come easily though, it's a magical journey that ends with people learning to communicate and return to their inner child. You have to watch the film to understand what I mean.

This movie was very moving in a decade that just didn't have many of those. The 70s were confusing times where we had lost faith in the world. When the film begins, we are scared that something isn't right. You get the sense (or at least I did) that we are lost and there is no communication or trust and at the end of the film we learn to see our world and ourselves through innocence and love. It is clearly a fantasy film but unlike Star Wars, which was released the same year, this film is more of a statement. It's a beautiful film about as I say, childhood innocence. I always walk away from this film with hope that maybe we can change and maybe one day, we will learn to fully understand our own self and eventually, our universe.

One last thing, if you want to view this film, I would recommend the 1998 director's cut which I feel is the best version of this movie.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

Despite its flaws, a unique a fun entry in the series.

[8/10 · 28 May 2011]

This is the movie in the series that people hate the most, mostly critics and fans of the series. Sure, it does have its noticeable flaws and cringe worthy moments. The film suffers from a rough script and was rushed into production before the script could be perfected, it was released into theaters only a year after part 4 came out. While I can understand this argument, I would argue that almost all of the Friday The 13th films were rushed into production and were also released a year after their predecessors and were far worse then what this movie did. Most people point out this movie's faceless characters but again, I would argue that Friday The 13th has done a lot worse when it comes to character development and yet, these films are not criticized for the same reason.

While this isn't a great movie and no where close to the original John Carpenter film, I still feel that it includes some of the most epic scenes in the entire series, more so then the highly praised Halloween 4. The final 30 minutes are thrilling and the ending leaves you wanting more because you're not sure what's going to happen next. I also think that this film added new story elements that were interesting. This film is also much darker and even Gothic I think. Still, everyone is welcome to their opinion but I'm just sharing my voice.

Halloween (1978)

A groundbreaking horror film.

[10/10 · 28 May 2011]

Released in 1978, John Carpenter's Halloween was shot in 21 days and on a low budget but somehow, the filmmakers were able to pull off an effective movie. What makes this movie work so well is that it's very simple but proves that simplicity can work if it's done the right way. This was a very ambitious film despite the budget it was made on. It's visual style is filled with class and very detailed. The direction and cinematography is some of the most haunting I've ever seen in movies. It never feels like a low budget movie in my mind, director John Carpenter truly cared about the camera and how it was going to tell the story and he also used the anamorphic wide screen, that and Dean Cundey's lighting give the film a very timeless feel. Most low budget movies that were released in the late 60s and 70s are grainy and have a more documentary like feel but Halloween is truly more cinematic.

It is now considered a classic and also the film that launched the slasher films of the 80s. It's become so iconic that it's hard to imagine it being scary anymore. It was the highest grossing independent film in its day. I look back at this movie now and even myself wonder why is it so good. What was it about this movie that made it become the classic that it is now? I can understand why some may not like this movie, I recommend looking at it from a visual standpoint and maybe you will like it but if not then you may be disappointed.

The film launched 7 sequels (all of which I consider to be good films) and a remake from Rob Zombie in 2007 and a sequel in 2009. Maybe I am taking it too far by saying this is my favorite movie but it truly is. It never looses it's power and it reminds me of why I love movies to begin with. It's a great film because it works for what it is, a horror movie. Halloween 2, released in 1981 is equally as good I think. The rest of the series was very well done also. Avoid the remakes though.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

A good quality sequel.

[8/10 · 28 May 2011]

Halloween 3 was intended as an experiment to include different stories and concepts. The response was negative to say the least and John Carpenter had no involvement with the rest of the series, not even as producer. Moustapha Akkad (financer of the first three films) bought the rights to the series and after seven years, Michael Myers returned to screens.

This movie was intended to as Akkad stated "Go back to the basics". I personally feel that the series didn't go back to the basics until Halloween: H20 ten years later after this movie. This movie was still a fun ride and has the most haunting opening title sequence in the entire series. The characters are well developed and performed by a strong cast. This movie was highly praised by fans of the series, more so then the other sequels. Donald Pleasence returned to play Dr. Loomis and he's still the heart of the series. I really like the character of Jamie, played by Danielle Harris who does a fine job. Director Dwight Little lifted the infamous shot in Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. You will see this in the gas station scene. Just like the other sequels, this is a pretty good entry in the series and good quality horror.