TJ1380 Reviews

The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time (2009)

Flawed, but You Have to Appreciate the Effort

[5/10 · 14 July 2014]

Ever since I was a kid, I've wanted to see a movie based on "The Legend of Zelda," so you can probably imagine my surprise and delight when I stumbled across this film online. It looks like the movie I've wanted to see for years, but is it really any good? Well, yes and no.

The thing to keep in mind when watching this movie is that it is an independent film made by "Zelda" fans on a really low budget. The acting ranges from passable to awful, most of the special effects consist of obvious green screen effects and the editing and camera-work are often clumsy. The plot is fairly faithful to the fan-favorite "Ocarina of Time" game, but that means it eventually consists of the heroes running around and collecting things so they can kill the bad guy and save the world. The characters have little motivation beyond that, so they come off as kind of bland.

And yet, I can't bring myself to hate this movie. Everyone involved in this film put a lot of effort into it, and their love for the source material is evident. It is flawed, but I have to appreciate the fact that it exists at all.

"The Hero of Time" is definitely a movie for "Zelda" fans. I don't think I can recommend it to anyone else, but it's worth a look for fans of the games. It's easy to find online, so check it out.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Better than I expected

[8/10 · 23 May 2009]

I will admit that I wasn't expecting much from this movie. After the jokey "Terminator 3" I figured the best days of this franchise were long gone. Still, I decided to give this movie a chance since it was telling a story that I have wanted to see since I saw the first "Terminator" film, and I'm glad that I did. It's not perfect, and it certainly isn't as good as the first two films in the series, but it still manages to be an entertaining sci-fi action movie.

The thing that really made this movie work for me was the setting. We finally get to see the war against the machines as it was foretold way back in the first "Terminator," and it doesn't disappoint. The movie does a great job at showing this hellish new world in which humanity is forced to live in city ruins and dusty wastelands in which they can be attacked at practically any time by nearly indestructible machines. It's bleak, grim, and absolutely the last place anybody would want to live. The war seems almost hopeless, and if not for the promises made by a possibly crazy woman via old cassette tapes that her son is destined to lead humanity to victory I would imagine that everyone would just give up the fight. The action scenes are effective as well. For the most part they look like battle scenes from old war movies, except the combatants on one side are futuristic unmanned tanks and metallic skeletons. It's simple, but it works because it's easy to follow and still manages to be very exciting. They do tend to occasionally go a little over-the-top towards the end, but since it's a sci-fi film about humanity fighting against killer androids it never feels out of place.

I guess the only thing in this movie that didn't quite work for me is that the acting is kind of hit and miss. While I thought Sam Worthington was good as Marcus Wright (the real star of the film, who plays a role in the story that I don't want to spoil here) and Anton Yelchin's portrayal of a teenage Kyle Reese was pretty spot-on, I didn't always buy Christian Bale as John Connor. There were times when I took his demeanor to be that of a haunted, shell-shocked soldier who presses on only because he knows that it's his destiny to do so, but there were also times when he just came off as an actor sleepwalking through a role. He's supposed to be a messianic hero, and although I like the idea of the legendary status of a hero being exaggerated for the sake of drama, Bale just comes off as stiff, humorless, and boring. It's really a shame since I like Bale, and I was really excited about seeing him in this role. Bryce Dallas Howard is another actress that I usually like, but she's wasted here; she seriously isn't given one solid scene as Connor's pregnant wife. I tended to forget she was even in this movie at times.

Aside from a rather boring savior of humanity, "Terminator: Salvation" is still a pretty good sci-fi action film. It's not the greatest film in the series, but it has a decidedly different feel from the other films that makes it worthwhile.

Mr. Brooks (2007)

A bit contrived, but worth watching for the lead performers

[7/10 · 28 October 2007]

Earl Brooks seems to have everything a person could ever want in his life. He's incredibly wealthy, he runs a successful business, he has a seemingly wonderful family, and he has just been named Man of the Year for his business ventures and humanitarian efforts. Unfortunately, he's also addicted to killing people. He's a serial killer known as the "thumb print killer" (named for the thumb prints of his victims that he leaves in their own blood). He wants to stop killing people, but his addiction and his id (personified in his mind by an imaginary friend named Marshall) prevent him from doing that. After two years of fighting his urges, Mr. Brooks gives in and kills again. Although he has been careful about covering his tracks before, this time someone has witnessed his crime: a wannabe killer who calls himself Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith has photos of the murder, and if Mr. Brooks doesn't agree to take him along on his next kill the photos go to the police.

Basically, what we have here is a movie about a serial killer told from the killer's point of view. It's an interesting concept, and one that works very well thanks to the character of Mr. Brooks. Although Mr. Brooks is a cunning and brilliant serial killer, it's clear that for the most part he does not want to be. His desire to never kill again is totally believable, and he is just as horrified by his actions as everyone else is. At the same time he also comes off as very sinister, especially when he is in full serial killer mode and is plotting someone else's death. He comes off as genuinely scary and sympathetic at the same time, which is not an easy thing to pull off. Of course, this is all helped by the fact that Kevin Costner's performance as Mr. Brooks is one of his best in years. He goes from being a benevolent businessman to a loving husband and father to a cold-blooded killer to someone praying for forgiveness almost constantly throughout the movie, and it's all perfectly believable. As good as Costner is, the real scene stealer turns out to be William Hurt as Marshall. Marshall is the representation of Mr. Brooks' dark side, or the force that drives him to kill. He only appears to Mr. Brooks, and he is the one whispering in his ear telling him to give in to his addiction. Like all good tempters, Marshall is charismatic and sinister at the same time; as much as Mr. Brooks doesn't want to listen to him, it's hard not to. William Hurt plays Marshall not as a sinister devil, but as a friendly companion. Even when he's at his slimiest and most evil it's hard not to like him. Marshall and Mr. Brooks constantly have conversations with each other (within Brooks' own head, of course) about just about everything that happens in the movie. He's Brooks' best friend, and although he should also be his worst enemy it's clear that Mr. Brooks enjoys his company.

As long as the movie focuses on Mr. Brooks and Marshall, it does just fine. The only problem here is that there are also way too many subplots to deal with. Not only do we get Mr. Smith as Mr. Brooks' tag along sidekick and wannabe killer (an interesting subplot in itself), but we also spend a lot of time with Demi Moore as the detective trying to catch Mr. Brooks. Seeing her trying to solve the latest thumb print murder is fine, but when the movie focuses on her divorce or her problems with catching another serial killer it just gets bogged down and contrived. I often felt like I was watching two movies at the same time, and I found myself struggling to see how the two plots are supposed to intersect. There's also some business with Mr. Brooks' daughter that further complicates things, although since that made a much more interesting subplot I can forgive its inclusion.

Fortunately, the good definitely outweighs the bad for this movie. Although I definitely could've done without hearing about Demi Moore's divorce, the lead performances of Kevin Costner and William Hurt as well as its fresh take on serial killers make this movie worth seeing.

30 Days of Night (2007)

One of the most effective horror movies I've seen in a long time

[9/10 · 27 October 2007]

"30 Days of Night" is easily one of the best horror movies I've seen in a very long time mostly because everyone involved seemed to know exactly what it takes to make a decent horror movie. It's not obscene amounts of gore or monsters jumping out at the camera that make a movie scary. It's creepy atmosphere that makes a movie particularly scary, and this movie does a great job at creating the kind of atmosphere that fills the viewer with the kind of dread that so many movies fail to achieve. It's not perfect, but it's still better than just about every horror movie I've seen since "The Descent" (which also relied on a creepy atmosphere to fill the viewer with a sense of dread and hopelessness).

This movie is set in the small town of Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost town in the U.S. Because it is so far up north, there comes a time every winter where the sun doesn't rise for 30 days. The fact that this translates into a month without sunlight attracts a group of vampires who attack the town and spend the month feeding on its citizens. Eventually only a handful of humans remain in town, and they must survive the month without starving, freezing, or being killed by the vampires. It's a fairly simple concept, yet the director makes it work incredibly well. There is a sense of dread and hopelessness that permeates this entire film. Barrow is a town that appears to be cut off from the rest of the world. It seems to be surrounded by a sea of white on all sides, and the citizens seem to be stuck in a state of depression. Barrow seems to be the worst place in the world to be, and that's before the sun sets and the vampires show up. When the vampires do make themselves known, that sense of isolation and hopelessness turns into a feeling of dread that doesn't go away. One really gets the sense that there is no escape for the small group of survivors. This feeling is made all the more real by the long periods between the vampire attacks. Normally I consider long periods where not much happens a bad thing, but here it works in the film's favor. We may not always see the vampires, but their presence is always felt. At any given time in the movie one can see blood splattered onto snow and hear the distant screams and occasional gunfire of yet another one of Barrow's citizens getting killed, and it's easy to get the feeling that any of the main characters could be the next to die. The vampires themselves are also unlike any we've seen in movies for some time. They aren't the kind of seductive and charming vampires that seem to show up in every other horror movie. These vampires are feral, ruthless, and sadistic, with sharp crocodile-like teeth and bloodstained clothes. There's nothing romantic about them or their actions; they just want to kill people and drink their blood. It helps that they get far less screen time than the human characters; normally we only see them as shadows in the background stalking their prey. When they do attack, it's incredibly vicious and horrifyingly violent (the first large-scale attack on the town is a particular highlight of this film). This viciousness adds to the hopelessness and vulnerability of the humans while making the vampires seem like some of the scariest movie monsters to come along in a while.

If I can find any fault in this movie, it's that the ending seems a bit contrived and cliché. It doesn't take too much away from the movie though; to complain about it is really nitpicking more than anything. Overall it's one of the best horror movies I've seen in a long time, and easily the best vampire movie to come along in years. I would definitely recommend it, especially since it's a good alternative to the endless "torture porn" we've been seeing from this genre for the last few years.

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

If it wasn't for MST 3K, it would be unwatchable

[2/10 · 10 October 2007]

I saw "Manos: The Hands of Fate" on what is probably the most famous episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" (or "MST 3K" for short). That show showcases bad movies and manages to make them watchable thanks to a host and his robot friends constantly making fun of them, but this particular movie was almost beyond saving even for "MST 3K." Anyone who thinks that many filmmakers in mainstream Hollywood today are inept should probably take a look at "Manos." I didn't think it was possible to get absolutely everything wrong while making a film, but the people responsible for this movie managed to do it. The whole thing was shot by a camera that not only couldn't record sound, but couldn't even shoot more than thirty seconds of footage at one time. As a result there are countless clumsy jump cuts, continuity errors, and dialog that was (very badly) dubbed in later by only three people. When you combine that with horrible cinematography, limited lighting, ugly sets, uglier music, and repetitive dialog you get what probably deserves to be called one of the worst movies ever made.

Despite all of these shortcomings, "Manos" has gained something of a cult following among fans of so-bad-they're-good movies. While I wouldn't go as far as to call myself a fan of this movie, I can kind of see why it would have such a following. There is a certain charm to this film that suggests that everyone involved was really trying their best to come up with something good (they were just really bad at it, so they failed miserably). The plot, which centers on a lost family stopping at a lodge in the middle of nowhere and being tormented by its mystical "master" and his (oddly likable) satyr henchman, probably would've been salvageable in the hands of the right filmmakers. There's also a somewhat creepy atmosphere that almost makes itself felt through the film's shortcomings. Sadly, it isn't enough to save this mess (only enough so that I can give it a score of two out of ten instead of a one).

If nothing else, I can honestly say that "Manos: The Hands of Fate" is one of the most bizarre movies I have ever seen. I don't know if I could recommend it to anybody that I would consider a friend. I would tell them to watch the "MST 3K" version though, if only because it proves my theory that that particular show is at its best when the movies are at their worst.

Halloween (1978)

A simple yet effective horror movie.

[8/10 · 29 August 2007]

Most people consider "Halloween" to be the first true slasher film, and from watching it it's easy to see why. All the conventions are there: the unstoppable faceless killer, promiscuous teens who are killed after having sex, steadi-cam shots from the killer's point of view, and the virginal heroine. Despite these conventions, I just don't think it's fair to call "Halloween" a slasher film; slasher films are cheesy exploitation films that seem to only exist to spill as much blood as possible, while "Halloween" is actually a creepy and effective horror movie.

"Halloween" is about an escaped mental patient named Michael who was committed after he murdered his sister as a child. He returns to his home town one Halloween and immediately begins stalking a local teenage babysitter named Laurie. No reason is given for Michael's obsession with Laurie or why he's been mute since he stabbed his sister to death as a child. All that matters is that he wants to kill Laurie and possibly anyone else who gets in his way. It's an incredibly simple plot, but somehow the fact that we know so little about Michael and his homicidal tendencies makes for a better and much scarier movie. It also helps that the entire movie is all about Michael stalking Laurie. There are other victims who get in Michael's way, but unlike most slasher movies the murders seem less random and more like a means to an end, which of course is to further terrorize Laurie.

The plot may be frightening enough, but what really makes this film work is the outstanding cinematography. Much of the film is made up of long tracking shots of the characters and steadi-cam shots usually from Michael's point of view that really give the viewer the impression that there is somebody watching these people. Even when nothing bad is happening, I would still get the impression that something was going to happen very soon. It creates a very intense atmosphere that, when added to Michael's heavy breathing that we hear whenever he comes close to killing somebody (getting excited, perhaps) and the simple yet creepy musical score make for a genuinely scary movie.

I would probably recommend this movie to anybody who really likes good old-fashioned horror and knows that a horror movie doesn't need to spill buckets of blood to be entertaining. A remake directed by Rob Zombie is coming out soon, but I would be very surprised if it manages to top the original. This one is truly a horror classic.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Disappointing if you're a fan from the earlier years of the show.

[6/10 · 27 July 2007]

Let me start this review by saying that when "The Simpsons" was at its best it was quite possibly the best show on television. It was clever, funny, sarcastic without coming off as too mean-spirited, and it had a lot of heart. Unfortunately, that was about ten years ago. About halfway through the show's nearly two-decade run it kind of went on a downward spiral from which it has yet to recover. The episode plots started to make less and less sense, the jokes got dumber, and much of the heartfelt sentiment that was part of the best episodes seemed to disappear. In fact, the show that exists now seems to be entirely different from the show I grew up watching. It still has its moments, but for the most part it just isn't the same. If "The Simpsons Movie" came out ten years ago and was based on what the show was in its earlier years, I can guarantee that it would've been better than just about any other movie to come out that year. Sadly, what we have now is a movie based on the "new" show, the show that often favors cheap laughs over the cleverness of the "old" show's glory days.

That's not to say that this movie is a total waste of time. Although I don't think I can recommend this one as much more than a DVD rental or a Saturday afternoon matinée, there was still quite a bit that I did like. There's quite a bit of sharp social commentary about the average American idiot's complete disregard for the environment (the average American idiot is, of course, represented by Homer) as well as the untrustworthiness of our government. There is also some surprisingly touching and emotional subplots that pop up, such as an uncharacteristically lonely Bart looking to Ned Flanders as a father figure, and Homer facing the fact that Marge just might leave him for good (it's a subject that has been handled many times on the show, but it's never seemed quite as sad as it is here). Homer proves once again why he's such a memorable character as well. It's still nearly impossible not to laugh at him, and despite his idiocy and selfishness he proves that deep down he cares more about his family than anything else.

As much as there was for me to like about this movie, there was still a lot that I found kind of annoying. It's hard to explain why, but the script itself feels a little slapdash for my tastes. We don't get into the main plot until about a half-hour, and until then the film seems to consist of a bunch random jokes and general weirdness that feel like they're very loosely tied together. When we do get to the main plot (in which Homer practically single-handedly pollutes Springfield so badly that the corrupt head of the Environmental Protection Agency seals the town inside a gigantic glass dome) it's almost too outlandish even for a Simpsons movie. The movie also seems to go over everything a little too quickly, and as a result some of the more interesting and emotional subplots seem to be short-changed at times in favor of jokes that for the most part aren't nearly as good as the best that the television show had to offer.

While I didn't hate this movie, I have to admit that it was kind of a disappointment to folks like myself who think that the best days of "The Simpsons" are long gone. If given a choice between watching this movie and watching a marathon of "Simpsons" episodes from the first seven or eight seasons, I'd pick the marathon anytime.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Good, but still the weakest Spider-man film so far.

[7/10 · 4 May 2007]

It becomes pretty obvious why this "Spider-man" film is the weakest of the three when one looks at the plot. After two movies of nothing but bad luck, things are finally going well for Peter Parker. He's loved by all of New York, he's acing his college classes, and he's ready to propose to Mary Jane. In fact, his life is going so well that he doesn't seem to realize that his relationship with Mary Jane is failing. Meanwhile, Harry has finally decided to try to kill Peter to avenge his father's death, but a head injury causes him to lose his memory and basically go back to being the best friend that he used to be to Peter. Meanwhile, an escaped convict named Flint Marko has a bizarre accident and becomes a being made entirely out of sand (naturally called The Sandman). It is also revealed that he was involved in the death of Peter's Uncle Ben, which drives Peter to seek revenge. Peter is also competing for a staff position at the Daily Bugle against a sleazy new photographer named Eddie Brock. While all this is happening, a strange alien substance that crashed to Earth on a meteor has bonded with Peter, which increases his powers and gives him a cool new black suit, but it also turns him into a cocky, angry, arrogant, violent jerk.

Any one of the main story lines could've made a good movie by itself. The problem here is that we get all of this as well as a handful of minor subplots in one movie that still isn't long enough to handle them even at nearly two and a half hours. It doesn't handle any of this stuff particularly badly, but it's still way too much for one movie to handle. The film seems to introduce one subplot, focus on it for awhile, and move on to something else. Some genuinely interesting characters are introduced and quickly disappear until the film is ready to pick up whatever subplot they're involved in.

That's not to say this is a bad movie. There's still a lot to like here despite the obvious flaws. The acting is still on par with what we saw in the first two movies. Tobey Maguire still plays Peter Parker like a geeky yet earnest young man that the audience can't help but like, yet he's giving something new to do here for the first time in this series. The main plot focuses on Peter's dark side as it is brought out by the black alien suit, and the film really has fun with that. There will probably be a lot of complaints about the fact that Peter's transformation is handled with more of a sense of humor than anything, but I for one enjoyed seeing Maguire act like a total jerk. That's really the best way to describe Peter's behavior. He gets angry with people over small things, he starts dating an attractive classmate to make Mary Jane jealous, he orders his coworkers at the Daily Bugle around like he owns the place, and generally behaves with a cockiness and arrogance that we haven't seen from the character before. Like I said, this is usually handled with more of a sense of humor than people might like (there's even a goofy moment where Peter struts down the street like he's John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever"), so I have a feeling the hardcore Spider-man fans who know about this subplot from the comics will be divided. The supporting cast is largely the same as in the first two movies, with J.K. Simmons once again stealing the show as Peter's quick-tempered fast talking boss J. Jonah Jameson. James Franco and Kirsten Dunst once again make up the main supporting cast as Harry and Mary Jane. Franco has probably the most interesting and tragic story arc here, with his character undergoing numerous changes that are all surprisingly believable. On the other hand, Dunst is practically wasted. The relationship between Peter and Mary Jane has always been at the heart of the "Spider-man" movies, but I just didn't care for Mary Jane at all here. She comes off as selfish, petty, and so unlikable that I really didn't care when she was inevitably placed back into the role of damsel in distress. As for the newcomers Thomas Haden Church and Topher Grace, they do a great job as long as they're on screen. Church plays The Sandman as a reluctant and genuinely remorseful villain who almost has a good reason for doing what he does, and Grace manages to make the audience hate Eddie Brock for being such an arrogant prick while still giving him a great story arc that turns him into a real threat to Spider-man. Both of these characters make great villains, and it's a real shame that the film can't go into greater detail with them.

The action and special effects are about what I expected from this kind of movie. They never reach the heights that they did in moments like the great fight on the train in "Spider-man 2," but they still manage to be exciting. The two best moments are clearly the birth of the Sandman (in which Flint Marko slowly pulls himself together after turning into a pile of sand) and the final battle royale where all the major characters fight it out at a construction site. Like I said, there's nothing that tops the train scene from "Spider-man 2," but the film does come close.

Despite it's obvious flaws, this really wasn't a bad movie. It still retains plenty of the charm of the first two "Spider-man" movies, but it just tries to do way too much for one film to handle. I would've rather seen Sam Raimi go the route taken by "Pirates of the Caribbean" and film two much tighter movies instead of one rather sloppy one.

The Invisible (2007)

Not quite what I expected, but not bad

[6/10 · 29 April 2007]

Every so often a studio promotes a movie in a very misleading way, and it's safe to say that "The Invisible" is one of those movies. The trailers and the other promotional material that I've seen seemed to imply that this movie was a supernatural murder mystery told from the point of view of the murder victim. From what I could tell the concept was that a young man is killed and spends the rest of the movie as a ghost trying to solve his own murder. While that certainly is part of the story, it's not all that this movie is about. In fact, this movie can better be described as a teen angst drama than a thriller or a murder mystery. It's not quite what I had in mind when I went to the theater, but that doesn't mean it was a total waste of time.

The title of the movie refers to a bright, rich, yet bored high school student named Nick who is accused of reporting a crime committed by his troubled and seemingly out-of-control classmate Annie (it's interesting that the worst and most dangerous punk in Nick's school is actually a girl; not unheard of in real life, but I can't remember seeing another movie where that was the case). Annie and her friends ambush Nick in the forest late one night after a party, beat him, and leave him for dead in a sewer. Nick wakes up to find that he's essentially a ghost. He walks among the people in his neighborhood and in his school, but he apparently cannot interact with anyone or anything. At first he assumes that he has died and focuses on finding a way to bring Annie to justice for his murder, but he eventually learns that the reason why he's able to walk amongst the living is because his body isn't quite dead yet. There's still a chance that he can be saved if his body is found before he finally dies, and the key to doing that is in finding a way to reach his guilt-ridden would-be killer.

There was a great opportunity to make this movie into a fine supernatural thriller like the promotional material suggested it would be, but like I said above the filmmakers seemed to take a different approach and turn it into a teenage drama. For the most part, the drama and teen angst work. Nick could best be described as a typical "emo" kid. While he's generally seen as a good kid, he's also a bit selfish and self-centered. He perceives his mother's concern for him as overbearing, he thinks all his classmates and teachers love him and his somewhat pretentious poetry, and he looks down his nose at people like Annie without considering the possibility that they are real human beings with real problems. Basically, he's like a typical overly melodramatic teenager who thinks the weight of the world is on his shoulders. When he "dies" and becomes a ghost, it gives him the opportunity to see what the world is like without him. With his total lack of a presence, he's able to see what people are really like and what they really think about him. He finds that he isn't as well-liked as he thinks he is, he starts to understand his mother's behavior and her feelings for him, and he even starts to have some sympathy for Annie. I've known a lot of people just like Nick who are in desperate need of the kind of reality check that he gets through his experience, and I for one found it interesting that this theme was so central to the movie. It can get a bit heavy-handed at times, but it's still something that I'd love to see more of in more mainstream movies.

This movie isn't without its faults, and nearly all these faults come up in the third act. Nick's quest to regain his life takes some rather preposterous turns towards the end, and the pseudo-romance between Nick and the increasingly repentant Annie gets rather sappy at times (it feels like something the studio wanted to throw in to appeal to thirteen year-old girls). It all gets wrapped up in a rather melodramatic fashion that in all honesty almost killed the movie for me. It's the sole reason why I can't bring myself to give it a higher score than a six out of ten.

Despite its faults and its melodramatic ending, I still found myself enjoying "The Invisible." While it's far from the greatest movie I've ever seen, I found it inventive enough to hold my interest.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

One of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time

[9/10 · 22 April 2007]

It goes without saying that parody movies can be pretty hit and miss. While some of them can be genuinely funny, many of the more recent ones tend to fail mostly because they are nothing more than strings of jokes that seem to imply that the filmmakers have a near complete disdain for whatever is being parodied. These filmmakers can learn a lot from Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright and their latest film, "Hot Fuzz." While it is a great parody of action movies in general and buddy cop movies in particular, the fact that it's a parody isn't what makes it one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. That is all due to a sharp and witty script, a coherent yet absurd murder mystery plot that takes itself seriously enough to draw the viewer in yet not enough to forget how ridiculous it really is, and an obvious love for the movies it parodies instead of a disdain for them.

The plot centers around Nicholas Angel, a tough London police officer who is apparently so good that he makes the rest of his force look bad by comparison. Basically, he's the kind of unstoppable supercop that cheesy action movies are all about. Unfortunately for him, his peers get tired of him making all of them look bad, so they transfer him to the picturesque and practically crime-free town of Sanford to get rid of him. Needless to say, Angel is not happy with this change, especially when he meets the lazy, dimwitted slackers that make up Sanford's police department. They seem to be far more interested in going to the pub than investigating crime scenes, so they naturally take offense to the uptight Angel and his desire to crack down on all manner of crime (which he does the night he arrives in town even before he officially joins the police force). His only real friend on the force seems to be Danny Butterman, his overweight, clumsy partner who has watched way too many action films. Danny thinks being a big-city cop is all car chases and shootouts just like in the movies he loves, so naturally he's in awe of the tough Angel, even though he is told that being a police officer in the city isn't what he thinks it is. When it becomes clear that people seem to die all the time in grisly and bizarre "accidents," Angel immediately suspects foul play, even though the rest of the police department is too stupid and/or lazy to follow up with an investigation.

The main murder mystery plot is (mostly) played straight even when it's at its most absurd. The humor, much like in Edgar Wright's previous film "Shaun of the Dead," lies with the characters and their reactions to what is happening around them. Simon Pegg does a great job portraying Nicholas Angel as a nearly humorless, uptight, by-the-book police officer who grows increasingly frustrated by the incompetence of his peers. He clearly isn't happy unless he's solving a crime and arresting someone, and it's a lot of fun to watch him scowl and slow-burn at the apparent ignorance that plagues the Stepford-like citizens of Sanford. It's also impossible not to like Nick Frost as Danny Butterman. He has a childlike enthusiasm for the kind of two-fisted heroics that he believes he will be a part of as Angel's new partner. His friendship with Angel also makes for a sweet subplot as we see the uptight Angel slowly start to warm to Danny. The rest of the cast is spot-on as well, with the standout being Timothy Dalton as a sinister supermarket owner who chews the scenery at every opportunity. He's clearly having a lot of fun playing what can best be described as a classic mustache-twirling villain.

If I can find any fault with this movie, it's that it sometimes moves rather slowly. Much of the humor is in the portrayal of the characters and in the clever dialog, so much of it might not appeal to viewers who like lots of explosions and car chases. It must also be said that if you are one of those people, rest assured that the third act of the film more than makes up for it. Without giving too much away, I can say that the movie goes from a comedy/murder mystery into a series of completely insane and gleefully over-the-top action scenes that spoof practically every action movie cliché ever put on screen. In fact, I would recommend seeing this movie for the last thirty minutes alone.

I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I heard that the writers and director of "Shaun of the Dead" were making it. "Shaun of the Dead" is one of my favorite movies, and I didn't think this could top it. Therefore, it means a lot when I say that "Hot Fuzz" beats "Shaun" hands down.

Mezzo Forte (2000–2001)

Good old-fashioned over-the-top anime violence

[7/10 · 16 December 2006]

Sometimes anime can seem way too pretentious. I can always spot a really bad anime when it takes what should be a standard adventure/sci-fi plot and plays it up as if it contains the very meaning of life. Lines are delivered with far more gravitas than what is necessary (especially in English dubs), and the story becomes so bogged down with ridiculous half-baked metaphors that it no longer makes sense and is certainly not any fun to watch. Fortunately, that never happens in Mezzo Forte. It's goal is to give the viewer a good time with some over-the-top ultraviolent action done with a sense of humor, and it succeeds even if it isn't perfect.

The story of Mezzo Forte is set sometime in the future and focuses on a reckless trio of mercenaries hired to kidnap a powerful crime lord and end up at war with his henchmen and his psychotic mafia princess daughter. This conflict is made even worse by the fact that they botched the kidnapping and ended up killing their victim, thus appearing to eliminate any chance of holding him for ransom (although they're the only ones who know that). Aside from some confusing and inexplicable stuff about the heroine and the villain being able to see the future, that's pretty much the story in a nutshell. It's a decent story, and even manages to have a few twists, but what really sold me on this anime was the over-the-top action handled with a rather twisted sense of humor. It's a well-known fact that the laws of physics seem to work differently in most anime, and Mezzo Forte plays with this concept to an absurd effect. When a girl who looks like she weighs about 100 pounds can kick a much larger man through a brick wall and it is treated as completely normal, it's clear that the writers and director aren't taking themselves too seriously. Unlike a lot of other really violent animes that come off as either pretentiously grim or exploitative, the violence here is handled with a sense of humor that lessens the horror of what we are seeing. It's definitely a nice change of pace.

The only thing I really didn't like about this was the pacing. The version I saw was only about an hour long, and it seemed to go through everything way too quickly. I could easily see something like this spread out across 90 minutes and still be worth watching. I've also heard that there is a director's cut that features two sex scenes that are so graphic that they push this anime into hentai territory (for those who don't know, hentai is basically anime porn). Although they weren't included in the version I saw, I was told where they would appear, and I can honestly say that they would be too out-of-place in this movie. They just sounded like an excuse to show some hot sex even if it had nothing to do with the plot. I certainly didn't feel like I was missing anything.

Overall, I found this movie to be a lot of brainless, ultraviolent fun that doesn't take itself too seriously. While I wouldn't recommend it to anyone too easily offended by some of the stuff in a typical R-rated Hollywood film (or a pornographic film, if what I understand of the sex scenes in the director's cut to be true), I would recommend it to anyone who likes a lot of wild action delivered with a dark yet tongue-in-cheek sense of humor.

Casino Royale (2006)

Bond is cool again

[10/10 · 23 November 2006]

It goes without saying that the years haven't been especially kind to James Bond. The series went from being cool and genuinely exciting to campy and barely coherent. James Bond himself went from being charming, roguish, and crafty enough to be a believable secret agent to being an almost cartoonish superhero whose mannerisms had become too cliché to be considered cool by anyone. The movies and the character needed to be reinvented. Fortunately, that's exactly what we get with "Casino Royale." "Casino Royale" is easily the best Bond movie since the early Sean Connery films. It's far more engaging and exciting than the series has been in years, and for once it isn't due to ridiculous gadgets or effects-heavy action scenes. It's due to a plot that actually makes some sense, characters that are actually believable, and a note-perfect performance from Daniel Craig as James Bond. The people who go into this movie expecting the kind of nonstop action of some of the previous Bond films might be disappointed (Bond's mission is to bankrupt a man who is funding a terrorist network by beating him in a high-stakes game of poker), but the folks who want to see a more realistic take on James Bond will love this one.

Of course, the big question that everyone's been asking is whether or not Daniel Craig is any good as James Bond. While he may not look like any of the previous Bonds, he plays the role better than anyone has in years. He often comes off just as charming and likable as the character has been in the past, but in this film we see a dark side to him that we haven't seen before. There are times when he is downright cold-blooded in the way he deals with his enemies, and it's clear that part of him truly enjoys brutally killing people. He's also quite a bit more arrogant than we've seen him in the past. He's good at his job, he knows it, and he doesn't hesitate to do things that let the people around him know it. This kind of cocky confidence is really what makes James Bond the iconic character that he was years ago. He's smooth, cool, confident, and everything that most people want to be.

The most interesting thing about Craig's Bond, however, is that his cool facade is really a front. This is one of Bond's first missions, and it's clear that the fact that his job frequently involves killing people affects him more than one would expect. He's visibly shaken when he makes his first kill in the opening sequence, and at one point he seems to be afraid that his job will rob him of his humanity. There has been talk in other reviews I've read of this movie that Bond is more human in this film because he makes mistakes and gets hurt, but what I think the thing that truly humanizes the character is his conscience. He's far more compelling here than he has been in years.

As I said above, those of you who go into this movie expecting nonstop action will probably be disappointed. Most of the drama comes from a high-stakes game of poker. That may sound strange for a Bond film, but believe me when I say that it works far better than one would expect. Bond may be a tough secret agent, but he has to rely more on his wits and his ability to read his adversary to succeed. It goes a long way in making this more of a character-driven film than most of the Bond films have been. Le Chiffre isn't the typical megalomaniacal Bond villain. He has just as much to lose as Bond does, and he's clearly Bond's equal at the card table. The main conflict is a battle of wits, something that I don't see nearly enough in movies today. It is worth mentioning however that despite the lack of a lot of big action scenes, there is an extended chase scene early in the movie that is almost worth the price of admission alone. It doesn't rely on a lot of big special effects, but it features some truly impressive stunt work. It ranks up there among the most memorable Bond moments, and that's saying a lot.

Overall, I have to say that this movie was a lot better than I could have possibly imagined. If this is where the James Bond series is headed, then I will definitely look forward to the next movie.

Silent Hill (2006)

Sorry, but I've never played the game.

[5/10 · 24 August 2006]

Stating outright that I have never played the video game "Silent Hill" before seeing the movie might be an odd way to start this review, but I feel that it must be said. I just know that every negative comment I make from now on will probably be countered by a hardcore gamer who insists that I have no right to my own opinion of the movie version of "Silent Hill" because I am unfamiliar with the source material. Yes, I am unfamiliar with the source material, and that was one reason why I was looking forward to seeing this movie. I came into it as someone who just wanted to see a good horror movie. That being said, while I don't think "Silent Hill" is a complete disaster, I can honestly say that I've seen much better.

The plot of the movie (which I understand is pretty true to the game) involves a woman named Rose who travels to the abandoned town of Silent Hill believing it to have some connection to her adopted daughter's strange behavior (not only does she sleepwalk, but she constantly mentions the town by name while she does it). When Rose gets to the town, her daughter disappears, and Rose is left to deal with the strange and nightmarish things that plague Silent Hill.

The best part of this movie by far is the fact that it manages to maintain a very creepy atmosphere almost from beginning to end. As I said before, I have never played a "Silent Hill" game, but I've played games like it, and I can honestly say that the most effective parts of this movie are the ones that inspire the feeling of dread and isolation that persists throughout most good survival horror-style games. Everything seems to be shot from camera angles that seem to suggest that something scary could be just around the corner waiting to tear apart our heroine (who is as alone and practically defenseless as any hero of a typical "Resident Evil" game). The soundtrack is also very effective, with the kind of minimalist atonal music that sounds more like ambient noise than what most people would call real music. It adds a certain intensity that I'm sure would be lacking if the movie had a different soundtrack.

Unfortunately, a creepy atmosphere seems to be just about all that this movie has going for it. There is some really weird and creepy things happening throughout this movie, but most of what we see is left mostly unexplained (yes, I know that I should probably play the games for a good explanation). The things that attack the heroine seem appropriately unnatural and creepy, but we are left with little explanation as to what they are (the guy with the pyramid on his head is probably the coolest and scariest monster in the movie, but he/it disappears way too quickly and never really serves a purpose). Things start to improve a little bit past the halfway point when we are introduced to what can best be described as the true evil of Silent Hill, but when that happens the other threats to the protagonist seem to be all but forgotten. I don't want to go into spoiler territory, so I'll just say that what we are left with is a film that cannot decide what kind of horror movie it wants to be.

I can honestly say that I found this film to be rather disappointing. It has a great look and a suitably creepy atmosphere, but there are too many things left unexplained and too many missed opportunities for me to really recommend this movie to anyone.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

A good, fun summer movie

[8/10 · 13 July 2006]

I admit that when I first heard that there was going to be a movie based on Pirates of the Caribbean, I was skeptical. I just couldn't figure out why everyone was getting so excited over a pirate movie based on a theme park ride. My attitude changed when I finally saw the movie. Not only did it deliver one of the most memorable film characters I've seen in a long time in Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, it turned out to be the kind of fun adventure movie I used to watch when I was a kid. Despite all the state-of-the-art special effects it was the kind of swash-buckling pirate movie that they just don't make anymore. Needless to say I was much more excited about the sequel, and while I didn't enjoy it quite as much as the original, it's still the kind of fun adventure movie that should be released in the summer season.

The movie picks up shortly after the end of the first one. Jack Sparrow is the captain of the Black Pearl, and Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann (the other, less memorable heroes from the first film) are arrested for aiding in his escape from the hangman's noose. They face a death sentence, but the charges against them and Jack will be dropped if Will manages to find Jack and bring his apparently magical compass back to a cruel and manipulative government official. Meanwhile, Jack has his own plans: it turns out that he owes his soul to Davy Jones, the devil of the sea himself. He may need his compass to locate Jones's treasure chest (the "Dead Man's Chest" of the title), the contents of which may be the key to freeing himself from his debt. I really can't say much more than that without giving too much away, but let's just say that soon everyone has their own plans for the chest, and they'll stop at nothing to get it.

The plot does get rather convoluted at times, which is the main reason why I liked the first "Pirates" better, it still works for two main reasons. First of all, it never really takes itself seriously enough to interfere with the spirit of the film. It definitely takes things into darker territory than the first film, and it allows for some good character development, but the film never forgets that it's supposed to be fun above everything else (the film even makes a joke about momentarily stopping the action to explain the story so far). Secondly, it allows the character to act exactly how pirates are supposed to act. Jack Sparrow may be capable of acting the hero, but as a pirate he can also be an untrustworthy, thieving, backstabber who would betray his own friends to save his own skin. Remarkably, this doesn't make him any less likable; his behavior as well as the behavior of others is treated as simply the way pirates are supposed to act. They're only loyal as long as it serves their purpose, and some backstabbing is all but expected in their world. This kind of moral ambiguity fits the theme of the film perfectly, and I for one am glad the filmmakers recognized this.

As with most sequels, there's not much I can say about the acting that hasn't been said in the first movie. Once again, Johnny Depp steals the show as Captain Jack Sparrow. As I said before, he's more morally ambiguous this time around, but it works incredibly well for his character. He also seems to engage in a bit more slapstick, which I'm not a fan of unless it's pulled off really well. Fortunately, Depp pulls it all off incredibly well. Just as before, his Jack Sparrow is something of a bumbling fool, but the fact that he always manages to escape any situation due to luck or a sudden feat of swashbuckling heroism (or both) makes him into a legend in his own mind. The other leads are good enough, but this is definitely Jack Sparrow's movie.

The film also provides a great villain in Davy Jones. In addition to being a great CGI creation (his squid-face often looks more like a very lifelike mask), he has considerably more depth than one would expect from a summer movie villain. He's a ruthless, fearsome, and as frightening as a good villain should be, but one expects that he was not always this way. There's a sadness to his character that suggests that he many not be as evil as he first appears to be. I definitely want to see what happens with his character in part three.

The action scenes have about the same feeling as the first film with one exception: the first film didn't have a Kraken. It seems that just about every other movie has some kind of CGI monster in it somewhere, and they're rarely that impressive to me anymore, but the Kraken (basically a giant squid capable of dragging an entire ship under water within minutes) somehow succeeds where other monsters fail. Maybe it's because we don't really see much of the beast aside from a number of tentacles smashing apart ships, or perhaps it's the feeling of impending doom as it's attacking the heroes in the climactic battle scene, but the Kraken manages to be as scary and impressive as a good sea monster should be. As for the Kraken-free action sequences, the best would have to be an inventive (and funny) three-way sword fight in which the combatants end up on top of a runaway water mill wheel.

As I said before, while I didn't think "Dead Man's Chest" was as enjoyable as the first movie, there's still a lot to love here. It does require some knowledge of the first film to truly enjoy it, but that's the case with most sequels. This one is definitely worth checking out.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Not as good as the first two

[7/10 · 26 May 2006]

First of all, I would like to say that I was a huge fan of the first two "X-Men" movies. Although they could have very well have been big, loud, dumb action movies with none of the sophisticated and intelligent themes of the comics, director Bryan Singer took them and turned them into intelligent sci-fi allegories for intolerance and acceptance. While the main plot of "X-Men: The Last Stand" is interesting and makes for some good philosophical debates, it makes the mistake of focusing far more on comic book-style action rather than the intelligent sci-fi of the first two films in addition to biting off far more than it can chew.

The main plot deals with the invention of a serum that permanently suppresses the x-gene in mutants, thereby making them human. This is advertised by its inventors as a cure for the mutant situation, which naturally raises the ire of both the X-Men and the much more militant Magneto. While some mutants welcome the "cure" as a way to rid themselves of mutations that are more of a curse, others see it as just another way for humans to control and eventually exterminate mutants. One character states that being a mutant cannot be cured, which creates an interesting parallel to some real-life "problems" such as homosexuality and the belief that they are diseases that need to be cured or controlled. This is some fascinating stuff, and as long as the movie sticks to this premise and the extreme reactions it invokes in the characters the movie manages to be smarter than your typical summer fare.

The film also deals with another fascinating subplot. Jean Grey, who was apparently killed at the end of "X2," has risen from the dead and now is more powerful than any other mutant on Earth. She has manifested a new very destructive personality that calls itself Phoenix, and she is apparently powerful enough to be an even bigger threat to both humans and mutants than Magneto or the cure could ever be. She doesn't hold back with her powers whenever she's in Phoenix mode, and she is downright frightening whenever she uses them. A movie about the Phoenix becoming the ultimate in human evolution and therefore the biggest threat to the human race would've been a great way to end this franchise (it had its own lengthy storyline years ago in the "X-Men" comics), but here it becomes nothing more than a subplot that appears pretty much when the director decides when we should see more people being blasted into subatomic particles. With as frightening and as powerful as Jean becomes here, one could easily argue that the Phoenix subplot deserves its own movie.

Like I said, this movie seemed to bite off far more than it could chew, and not just in the way it handles two concepts that each need their own movie to be fully explored. There are just too many interesting characters that don't get the screen time and development that they deserve. I would've loved to see the continuation of the Cyclops/Jean Grey/Wolverine love triangle in the form of the two men trying to reach Jean while at the same time being at odds because they're both in love with her. I would've loved to see more of the scientist that creates the mutant serum and how he simply wants to cure his mutant son's "disease." For that matter, I would've loved to see more of the son, who is reduced to nothing more than a cool visual. I would've loved to see more of the Iceman/Rogue/Kitty love triangle, and how it might influence Rogue's decision to seek out the cure. None of this is explored very fully, so we are sadly left with a bunch of missed opportunities.

It may sound that I'm doing nothing but trashing on this movie, but the truth is that, despite its obvious flaws, there's still a lot to like. The acting is as good as it was in the previous two installments, with Ian McKellen being the obvious stand-out. Magneto is clearly the villain of this movie, but he's a villain that the audience can actually get behind thanks to McKellen's commanding performance. He can be downright nasty, but he also comes off as very wise and even respectful to his enemies (one line that he has in regards to Professor Xavier carries a lot of weight, especially when one takes into account the friendship that the two men once had). Other standouts include Hugh Jackman (who now seems to be playing Wolverine as someone who has grown from being a somewhat volatile loner to a team player to a potential leader of the X-Men), and Kelsey Grammar as Dr. Hank McCoy (or The Beast, as he is known to fans of the comic), who provides plenty of charm and wit even underneath layers of blue fur. Finally, the action scenes and special effects are possibly the best of the trilogy; the completely insane battle between the X-Men and just about everyone else that makes up most of the film's third act is almost reason enough to see the movie.

In the end, this is definitely more of a typical summer blockbuster than the first two "X-Men" films, but I don't think 20th Century Fox realizes that the reason why so many people like those films is because they're not typical summer blockbusters. They are actually very smart and sophisticated, which is exactly what good sci-fi should be. "X-Men: The Last Stand" is definitely a good comic book-style action movie, but it doesn't have the sophistication and subtlety of the previous two films.

The Hot Chick (2002)

Better than I expected

[7/10 · 11 May 2006]

I've never been a big fan of Rob Schneider's movies. I know it sounds cliché to say that his movies are really just ninety-minute "Saturday Night Live" sketches, but I've always thought that was an accurate description. In fact, most of his movies seem to be ninety-minute versions of some of the weak "SNL" sketches that only seem to be filler to stretch the show to the full ninety minutes. I really wasn't expecting much from "The Hot Chick," but I decided to give it a chance based on a friend's recommendation. Much to my surprise, it actually turned out to be pretty good.

The plot of the movie revolves around a shallow and popular teenage girl named Jessica who ends up switching bodies with a petty criminal and overall loser played by Schneider thanks to two magical earrings. She spends almost the entire rest of the movie in this body, which means that Rob Schneider is essentially playing a teenage girl. I said that most of Schneider's movies seem like long "SNL" sketches, and as I am writing this I realize that the whole premise of the movie would feel more at home on "SNL" than in the movie theater. The filmmakers do however manage to pull this off rather well. Jessica is far from a likable person in the first act (essentially the only part of the movie when she's played by Rachel McAdams), so when we see her transform into Rob Schneider it's oddly satisfying. It's a comeuppance, and Jessica is humbled for the rest of the film by the fact that she's no longer the hot popular cheerleader she was before. Rob Schneider's performance as a teenage girl is generally the stuff of sketch comedy, but it is funny to see him in this role, especially since Jessica seems to forget that she's now a 30 year-old man instead of an 18 year-old girl (he does tend to overplay it at times, even to the point where he seems more girly than his female costars). The film also has some heart, with Jessica becoming kinder and a bit more caring once she literally sees her life through the eyes of another and learns that people are not always whom they seem to be.

I admit that this film is much better than I thought it would be, but there are moments where it falls into the typical bad Hollywood comedy traps. There is the obligatory bathroom humor (although, considering the plot of the movie, it actually makes sense and comes across as kind of funny) as well as countless jokes at the expense of the token fat girl and one character's clueless Asian mother. It also has some big missed opportunities in that it only tells Jessica's side of the story. The man she changed into also spends the rest of the movie in Jessica's original body. The few scenes that we see of this total loser suddenly in the body of a hot 18 year-old girl are damn funny, but we aren't shown nearly enough. I got the idea that there was possibly a much funnier movie that was never made focusing on the misadventures of the "Hot Chick Bandit." I kind of want to see that.

I'm still not a fan of Rob Schneider's movies, but I gave this one a chance and was pleasantly surprised. It's by no means a great movie, but it was still better and funnier than I expected it to be.

Four Brothers (2005)

It grew on me.

[7/10 · 30 April 2006]

After watching about the first half-hour of "Four Brothers," I pretty much decided that I didn't care for it. As I was watching this film, all I could really think is that the story of four very different people who were raised as brothers reuniting to avenge their adopted mother should be much more character-driven than the by-the-numbers revenge fantasy that I appeared to be watching. The film is well-acted, and it was interesting to see these four brothers fall back into old habits as they shoot, beat, or threaten everyone who gets in their way (they may be the good guys, but they can be just as bad as the thugs that they're after), but I just felt that it was too quick to get to the gangsta-style ultra-violence.

My opinion changed somewhere around the halfway point of the film. There wasn't exactly a big revelation that suddenly changed the feel of the film or made everything come together, but something seemed to happen that caused me to see this film as something more than a mediocre Saturday night rental. I started to genuinely care about the four main characters, and I saw them less as the thugs that the movie tells us they are and more as heroes fighting against a truly evil villain. The brothers grew on me as it became clearer that they were up against the worst that the criminal underground had to offer, and as a result the movie grew on me as well. It definitely isn't for everyone, but the strong characters, classic revenge plot, and well-done action sequences definitely make it worth a look for lovers of action movies.

Naruto (2002–2007)

Far better than one would expect.

[23 March 2006]

For the last few years, nearly everybody I know who watches anime has been raving about the anime series "Naruto" and proclaiming it as one of the best new anime series in a long time. Judging from the way they've all been talking, I have been expecting this show to become a huge worldwide phenomenon not unlike "Dragonball Z," another anime that was being hailed as one of the all-time greatest anime shows. I will admit that I jumped on the "DBZ" bandwagon and have seen nearly the entire series, but I never really saw it as the sublime work of art that all the fanboys drooled over for so long. It had its moments and was kind of fun, but it also moved really slowly, with fights being dragged out far longer than they had any right to be. It also became way too predictable, with story lines that pretty much consisted of the main characters desperately trying to become stronger so they can face the next ludicrously powerful scary bad guy. Needless to say, I found that the show became tiresome long before most of its fans stopped worshiping Goku and Vegeta as spiky-haired gods. It was for this reason why I was so hesitant to check out "Naruto;" it seemed to have basically the same fans as "DBZ," which led me to believe that perhaps it wasn't the masterpiece that people said it was.

Fortunately, I was wrong. While I don't think it's the greatest anime to come out of Japan, I will say that it has me hooked. It does have some problems such as main characters that can get really annoying and fights that are occasionally dragged out to epic lengths, but after watching the first thirty or so episodes it became clear why this show has so many fans. On the surface, "Naruto" appears to be a typical children's show, with lots of (mostly) child-friendly humor and an energetic and mischievous boy hero in the lead role. After a few episodes however, it becomes clear that this show is quite a bit darker than it first lets on. Naruto, Sasuke, and Sakura may be ninjas-in-training, but they are also only children, and the reality of what they are training to be frequently rears its ugly head in the form of some dangerous and rather frightening opponents and situations. While it is fun to see Naruto and his team go up against the bad guys with their mystical "jutsu" abilities, that fun is frequently muted by the fact that these kids are often out of their league and seem genuinely afraid for their lives. This and other darker elements such as Sasuke's obsession with killing his brother and the fact that Naruto has been ostracized in his own village thanks to a demon within him give the show a kind of tension and pathos that I never felt from "Dragon Ball Z." An English-language version of "Naruto" is currently airing on the Cartoon Network, but the 170-plus episodes of the far superior Japanese version have been floating around the internet for years. Download a few episodes and take a look. You won't be disappointed.

Frankenstein (1910)

Before Karloff, yet largely forgotten

[7/10 · 14 March 2006]

Although the 1931 Boris Karloff film is generally remembered as the original "Frankenstein," many people don't know that this film, made by Thomas Edison's production company in 1910, is really the first adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel. This is an interesting film to watch for historical reasons alone, but there are some other elements that caught my attention. First of all, the creation of the monster is handled differently from other versions; in this film the monster is created not through science (or rather science fiction) but through a technique that one could read as almost mystical. Frankenstein mixes a number of ingredients together in a large metal cauldron. The monster grows out of the cauldron in an interesting scene that was achieved by taking footage of a dummy being burned and playing it backwards. As many people know, Mary Shelley never states how the monster is created in her novel, but I'm sure she didn't intend on it being created through magic or alchemy.

The second thing that I thought was interesting was a pretty big departure from the themes of the original story. In the book, the monster starts off as a benevolent and gentle being who is driven to commit murder by the ill treatment that he receives from his creator (and everyone else, for that matter). The implication is that evil isn't innate but something that is learned from the cruelties that one experiences throughout his or her life. In this film however, it is explicitly stated that the monster is evil. The only time he feels anything other than hatred for his creator is at the end, when he vanishes after apparently being moved by how much Frankenstein loves his wife. We therefore have a transformation of a sad story about an unloved monster who becomes bitter and hateful after being rejected by the world around him into a much more simple story about the dangers of man playing God. Without the complex themes of the novel, the story is far less interesting (then again, one cannot expect any real depth in a twelve-minute film version of this story).

I guess my one real complaint about this film is that it is visually uninteresting aside from the cool monster creation scene. Most of the scenes consist of one shot from a stationary camera of the actors acting their scenes out as if they were on a stage. The monster really looks quite menacing in this film, but it comes off as far less menacing when he is shown simply walking into the same shot as Frankenstein and Elizabeth before attacking them. The only thing that keeps this film from becoming really boring in that respect is its brief length. Then again, it was made in 1910, and in the end it really is quite impressive for its time. In the end, it's still worth a look for anyone who wants to see the first true "Frankenstein" film.

Ultimate Avengers: The Movie (2006 Video)

A good start for Marvel

[8/10 · 6 March 2006]

Overall, I have to say that "Ultimate Avengers" represents a good start in Marvel's planned series of films. While the animation isn't the best I've seen, the art and animation style does allow for some genuinely exciting action scenes, particularly in the climactic battle at the end of the film. The only problem is that much of the art comes off as flat and uninteresting during the quieter exposition scenes. "The Ultimates" is a comic book that was praised for it's incredibly detailed artwork, and while there is no way for it to be recreated on film without a gigantic budget, it's still a shame that the movie didn't live up to those expectations. Still, the artwork is far from horrible, and it did grow on me as I watched the film.

Although I don't think the movie quite earns its PG-13 rating like a literal adaptation of "The Ultimates" would, it's still nice to see an animated movie that is aimed at an older audience. The story is smarter than your typical animated fare (although it isn't as interesting as the original comics themselves), and the main characters have more depth than one would expect from an animated film. This is particularly true about the characters of Captain America and Bruce Banner. Captain America has to come to terms with the fact that he has been frozen for the last sixty years and that everyone and everything he knew and believed in has drastically changed or has been lost forever. Meanwhile, Bruce Banner is portrayed here as an unstable man dangerously obsessed with ridding himself of the dangerous monster that he becomes when he gets too stressed (fans of the Hulk will love this movie). He is not a very likable character, and it somehow makes him and the Hulk much more frightening.

The only major complaint I have with this movie is its running time. At only 71 minutes, it's just too short. There are lots of interesting things happening in this movie in terms of character development, but there are many more that remain unexplored simply due to the film's length. Only Captain America and Bruce Banner really get the treatment that these characters deserve, and while the others are indeed interesting, we don't know all that much about them in the end. The running time also can be blamed for the somewhat rushed and anticlimactic ending (although the final fight scene is truly exciting). This is all very unfortunate, because all Marvel had to do was add about anther half-hour to make this movie truly memorable.

In the end, while it isn't perfect, "Ultimate Avengers" does represent a good start in Marvel's planned series of animated films. I'd love to see more of this stuff, especially if Marvel really pulls out all the stops and turns out some movies that really live up to the comics.

Doom (2005)

Not as bad as people say.

[6/10 · 11 February 2006]

Maybe it's because I went into Doom with lowered expectations after hearing nothing but complaints and criticisms from everyone I know who has seen it, but I actually found myself liking this movie. Yes, the characters are underdeveloped and largely uninteresting, and yes, the monsters that the heroes fight are no longer demons from Hell, but no one goes into a movie based on a game like Doom looking for interesting characters or a deep storyline. They go to see gruesome and exciting action scenes and cool special effects, and that's what the film delivered.

It's been years since I really played a Doom game (I think I've played Doom 3 for a total of 45 minutes in my entire life, and I don't think that counts as real gaming), but all I remember about the storyline from the games is that a marine is stuck on a station on Mars surrounded by demons who want to kill him. Since that isn't much of a story, I really don't blame the writers of this film for coming up with a new story from the ground up. The important thing is that the spirit of the game is there, although that doesn't mean that there aren't some missed opportunities. The movie is never really as scary as the game that inspired it, although there are moments where it comes close. The whole movie has an almost claustrophobic feeling that good horror films should have, and one does get the feeling that there is always something around the corner waiting to rip our heroes to pieces. Unfortunately, since the characters are, as I have said above, largely underdeveloped and uninteresting, we really don't care that much when something does tear them apart. There are moments, however, when this movie really does work well; one character undergoes a rather chilling transformation that I really didn't expect, and there is an inventive sequence that will look familiar to anyone who has ever played the game (you will know it when you see it).

Overall, while I won't recommend this movie to anyone who wants fine art every time they watch a movie, I will say that it was a rather fun and brainless action movie that is worth a rental to those who like fun and brainless action.

Marilyn Times Five (1973)

Wasn't sure what to think of it

[1 February 2006]

I saw this in a film class yesterday and really didn't know what to think of it. Somehow it managed to be intriguing to me, so I decided to look it up on this site just for the hell of it. Since nobody else has commented on it, I figured I would make the first (and probably only) comment.

Basically, this very avant-garde consists of very repetitive footage of Marilyn Monroe from a stag film she made before she was famous set to what seems to be a continuous loop of the song "I'm Through with Love" from "Some Like it Hot." That's pretty much it. No plot, no dialog, just brief glimpses of a nearly-naked Marilyn Monroe (I say "brief glimpses" because the screen is, more often than not, black) and a song that is repeated so many times it's guaranteed to drive anyone completely insane. In a way, it's almost an anti-porn film; Marilyn Monroe is still considered to be one of the most beautiful and sexy women in the history of Hollywood, so I would imagine a lot of guys would've loved to see her naked. Needless to say, that's exactly what we get here, yet it's's presented in a fashion that is so mind-numbingly repetitive and devoid of all other content that after awhile I just wanted it to end. As sexy as Monroe was, this movie ceases to be sexy before too long, and I think that's what is supposed to happen.

This is indeed a very strange and almost maddening film, but I can definitely see what the filmmaker was trying to do.

The Devil's Rejects (2005)

Well done exploitation movie

[7/10 · 14 August 2005]

My one-line summary is probably about the best way I could describe this movie in a few words. This is a sick, brutal, relentlessly violent exploitation horror film in the tradition of similarly sick, brutal, relentlessly violent low-budget exploitation horror films of the 1970s that usually serve no other purpose than to shock and disgust viewers with some of the most depraved acts of violence imaginable. This is exactly the kind of movie that Rob Zombie set out to make, and he and everyone else involved knows this. That being said, there is still something that separates "The Devil's Rejects" from other films like it. While most films of this kind are generally pretty horrible, "Rejects" actually manages to be a good film. It's clearly not for everyone, but it's still a good film.

It's hard to like a film in which the main characters are Satan-worshiping serial killers who spend roughly half of the movie terrorizing, torturing, mutilating, and sexually assaulting their innocent victims, yet there still are a lot of good things that can be said about this movie, especially when one considers the kind of crap that we usually see from this genre. While it's not exactly a visually beautiful film, the simple cinematography still manages to be very effective in telling the gruesome story. The entire film is shot in an almost amateurish manner that gives it the feeling of a documentary or (perhaps even more disturbingly) a home video. The lack of Hollywood polish inherent in this style of "home video horror" makes what is seen on screen all the more disturbing, since it adds a certain realism that is not seen often in movies. It sounds like an incredibly simple concept, but it is also very effective. The acting is also quite a bit better than most films in this genre. While it probably won't win any awards, the lead actors actually manage to add some depth to the characters and almost makes them likable. Considering the characters that we're talking about here, this is no easy task.

The flaws in this film are really about a matter of taste. Like I said, there are downright evil and despicable characters in this movie, and I'm not just talking about the family of serial killers that the title refers to. There are absolutely no "good guys" in this movie. Even the determined sheriff who is obsessed with catching the rejects proves to be just as evil as everyone else in the movie. There is practically nobody to cheer for in this movie; everyone is just as evil as everyone else, aside from the poor bastards that get in the rejects' path.

This is a very mean-spirited and cruel movie, but it's also supposed to be. As I said, it is definitely not for everyone (I wouldn't even recommend it to most people I know), yet in the end it still has some artistic merit that isn't usually seen in a horror movie. Rob Zombie is turning into a rather competent filmmaker (I never saw his earlier movie, but I hear that "Rejects" is definitely an improvement), but it wouldn't hurt him to make a movie with morals as well as artistic merit.

Cabin Fever (2002)

Could have been much better...

[5/10 · 14 June 2005]

First of all, I would like to say that I love nothing more than a really good, well-done horror movie. I wouldn't say that I'm a total horror geek, but I can appreciate a movie that manages to scare me. It's not very often that I am scared by a movie, so when a movie actually manages to really creep me out, I see it as quite a feat and an indicator that the filmmakers were really doing something right. While there are moments of "Cabin Fever" that I found to be genuinely creepy, there were still too many elements of the movie that I didn't like at all. With its creepy isolated-cabin-in-the-woods setting (a horror cliché that still manages to be effective), lots and lots of gore, and the fact that the studio that released this didn't try to turn it into a star-studded PG-13 affair to draw in the tween crowd (as is the case with almost every horror movie released in the last 10 years), this film had a lot of potential. Too bad it didn't live up to it.

The thing that really bugged me about this movie is the way the characters are portrayed. The things that happen to the young college kids that make up the main cast are truly horrible, but it was kind of hard for me to have an emotional response to any of it since I really hated most of the characters. In most bad horror movies, the characters are shallow, obnoxious, and dumb enough to do things like go for late night walks through the woods when there's a psycho killer nearby. The characters in "Cabin Fever" are as shallow, obnoxious, and dumb as the cast of a typical "Friday the 13th" movie, but they're also selfish. The flesh-eating disease that threatens to kill them is definitely scary, but when the characters react to the threat by locking one of their own in a tool shed so she doesn't infect anyone else (wouldn't a locked bedroom door be just as effective, not to mention more comfortable?), having meaningless sex (because no diseases are ever spread through sexual contact, ever), setting a diseased man on fire, driving a disease-infested truck into town (it's a BIOHAZARD, people), and running out into the woods with a six-pack of beer when the going gets tough, I found that I really didn't care if every one of them decomposed into rotting piles of meat before they died. There are also some very strange and random moments that don't make a lot of sense. with such weirdness as a possibly stoned deputy that likes to "party" and a strangely androgynous karate kid who bites people for no good reason, I found it very difficult to take this movie seriously after awhile.

Despite my complaints about this movie, there are still some things that I liked. There are some genuinely creepy moments in the last half-hour or so that almost save this movie, such as a bathtub scene in which an infected girl tries to shave her legs and ends up peeling a layer of skin off, and another infected girl who apparently no longer has a face. The ending is also one of the most evil and twisted endings I've ever seen, which makes it the perfect horror movie ending. Let's just say that it involves contaminated water, kids selling contaminated lemonade, and even more contaminated water being shipped to a nearby town. After seeing what happened to the poor bastards who got infected earlier, the idea of an entire town getting infected is scary indeed.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

Quentin Tarantino writes a horror movie

[8/10 · 11 June 2005]

If you read my one-line summary and have seen any of Quentin Tarantino's other movies, then you probably know what to expect from this one. It's violent, depraved, twisted, darkly comic, and it has great dialog. This description applies to just about anything Tarantino is involved in, and "From Dusk Till Dawn" is no different in that respect. Where "From Dusk Till Dawn" differs from other movies written and/or directed by Quentin Tarantino is that it is the only movie that he has done where the second half of the movie is devoted to a bloodbath involving a horde of vampires, a Mexican strip club, and a guy with a gun hidden in his codpiece. If that last sentence didn't inspire you to go out and rent this movie right now, then I feel truly sorry for you.

This movie is what every cheesy horror movie often fails to be: it's a lot of fun. The sudden change that the movie undergoes from being a typical Tarantino-style film about two criminal brothers who take a family hostage while they make their way to Mexico to being an all-out, over-the-top gore-fest featuring vampire strippers is very strange and really doesn't make much sense, but if you're anything like me you really won't care as you sit back and enjoy the pure insanity that could only come from the mind of Quentin Tarantino as he writes a horror movie. Of course, part of the reason why this movie works as well as it does is that everything is handled with a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor that keeps the movie from taking itself too seriously. While the violence is incredibly graphic (this is easily the goriest vampire movie I've seen in years), it is slightly lessened by ridiculous sights such as the vampire band leader playing a guitar made from a human corpse, Cheech Marin tastefully telling customers of the vampire strip club about the variety of pu**y available, and the aforementioned codpiece gun.

From watching this movie, it's pretty clear that no one involved was looking to make a cinematic masterpiece, but it was clear that everyone was having a blast. It's as violent, over-the-top, and pulpy as movies get, but I guarantee you probably won't see a movie like this for a long time. Just sit back and watch the insanity and have fun.