manalone923 Reviews

The Ring (2002)

Two hours of baloney that overbuilds to....nothing

[3/10 · 26 March 2005]

Spoiler free, no specific actions or character details given

The Ring will entertain you fully and you will have no unanswered questions if you accept anything that is thrown at you and never stop to ponder even the simplest details.

Okay, there's a videotape that kills people after they watch it. A little girl is involved. We know that, but there's unanswered questions. Well, the movie does give you answers, which are satisfying as long as you don't ask a single follow-up question. If I want to know why some angry kid went on a shooting spree at school, the local news will give me the answers why. Instead, "The Ring" IS that troubled kid. For any question I ask, be it "how did this happen?" or "why?", the answer is a basic, uninspired "uhh, because". He may even give me an answer that he thinks makes perfect sense such as "I want to kill people so I got a gun and did". And of course, if that's all you ever heard of the case, and no other explanation were given for the series of questions that would follow, you'd be completely satisfied, right?

Well, not for most people, but then here you have the Ring which pulls that crap with almost every important question you'd have. Yes, you learn how this video kills people, as demonstrated in one of the two "big reveals" of the film that is so powerful and scary that I think "Oh," and shrug. The other big reveal a is red herring near the end that's just a bit of dialog - basically "Uh oh, what we thought was the case really isn't, and now it's actually worse!" The film ruins this too, giving no explanation, reasoning or motive whatsoever for what was just explained. Savin' it for the sequel I guess.

The end made me realize that, more than anything, I could have summed up this film in one sentence and saved myself a lot of time and letdown. Yes there's a little girl, a well, and a mysterious video that kills people. But why, how, and what do they all have to do with each other? Well, the big "why" is revealed without much more than "well, uh, because". "How" isn't answered at all- not in any logical, explainable way unless you just accept the very silly and ostensibly MEGA CHILLING super payoff that I think I was supposed to have seen. Of course, after seeing what I saw, I'd still like to know "how" that event, upon which this movie's very premise hangs, is possible. No explanation attempted. You just buy it, 'cuz it makes the story super neato, you know?

As for "what do they all have to do with each other?" Well, the movie goes on for an eternity trying to make this the big mystery. In fact, if I gave you the answers to what happens, then went into detail of how this is visually represented, you'd probably think there'd have to be SOMETHING more going on, and probably say "oh, that's what happens? How? Why? (there's those troublesome words again).

Nope, there ain't much of a story here. It's a concept that, when stripped down, comes down to a special effect, one that has different motives than what we were led to believe. Huh, pretty powerful I guess, or so I'm supposed to think based on the Sixth Sense "slowly zoom in on the character as they reveal the 'big twist'" shot. I mean, sure I know that the movie's last ten minutes are supposed to be pretty profound and I'm not supposed to question it. I suppose it's just the natural learner in me that says "Gee, now I know the big secret. The video kills people by doing what I just saw. What again is the motive for this, how again does it work through a plastic videotape, and why does it take 100 minutes of buildup for the basic or nonexistent answers I received? Huh, what? Distract me with the end credits and release a couple answers on a special edition DVD released in time for the sequel? Sure, sounds great.

To make matters worse, no one in the movie is appealing. The protagonist is a pest and a (expletive). In addition to other annoyances, she's rude enough to walk up to someone's horse, let it out of its cage, and watch its resultant gory death as its little girl owner cries in horror, all without a word of apology or explanation. I can also ponder credibility leaps like how she can be holding a dessicated corpse while up to her waist in putrid water and not think too much of it.

Of course I'll get a personal message ridiculing my stupidity. How dare I try to find logic in a film that, as a horror film, shouldn't apply to logic? It's simple. I got the film, got the message. But you know, after two hours and all that praise, I expected a better ending than that, or at least some explanation beyond "it's just magical. Accept it." Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a horror film too, but Leatherface didn't kill people by popping out of a tree and making his chainsaw hover at his victims. If a movie isn't going to bother being realistic, it should at least give a better explanation than this film did.

But hey, this movie is the perfect conformist's exercise. Everyone else loves it, so surely I must be stupid if I don't. I guess I need to just watch it and accept it, not asking any questions or pointing out flaws in the story since that's clearly what everyone else has done. Then once I'm done with that I can go and love Blair Witch instead of actually wondering what it was on the screen that I was supposed to be terrified of.

Battle Royale (2000)

Way more serious, dramatic, and emotional than I ever expected. The most mature handling of the subject that I can imagine.

[10/10 · 8 February 2005]

To begin with, yes, I rented this video because I'd heard that it was a very controversial film- a bloody tale in which a class of high school kids are forced to play cat and mouse and kill each other until only one remains.

And yes, I received that. But I was completely shocked that I also got a very serious, character-driven, emotional drama. If you're into this movie because of the violence, don't worry, you'll be happy. But for those quick to turn away because they think this will be another crazy, senseless, far-out Japanese trash film? I have to tell you- you're very wrong. I went into this film wanting to see just how flashy and violent it would be, and walked away from it with a much higher opinion. This movie didn't insult my intelligence with two hours of nonsense. Instead, it captivated me with emotional tales of life, loss, love, and friendship. These kids aren't just disposable fodder. The movie makes sure we understand that they all had lives and dreams.

The film's premise is explained quickly but paced expertly: In a future Asia, things are horrible and some adults have rebelled against the youth that spites them. One man in particular, a high school teacher, goes with his unruly class on a field trip. They're shocked to find themselves being hustled into a room under supervision of armed militants and told that their lives are at an end. Each of the 40 kids are given a bag of rations and a random weapon, and shoved out onto an isolated island where they must kill each other, or be killed themselves.

As strange as this may sound, I was surprised at how well these scenes played out. These kids are fine actors. Extreme disbelief, shock, rage, confusion, terror- it's all on their faces as they slowly take this message in. Some rebel and are quickly disposed of. Others fly into rage at what they see. Most others however shrink into the corners of the small room and try their best to accept the impossible fate before them. Soon though, the music goes low and the faces get stark as the kids are rushed, one by one, out into the wilderness. They look at their friends and hastily embrace for what they know will probably be the last time.

As I said, there is of course a lot of violence in the film. It's comparable to the first Kill Bill, or perhaps the original Robocop. But the controversy following this film is due simply to its theme of high schoolers killing high schoolers, and also due to the film's dark tone. I reiterate: This isn't a rocking, stylistic gun glamorization. Some of these kids fall backwards in fear, not wanting to fire upon their friends. Others recoil in shock when they do what's required. Others simply attempt suicide to free themselves of the burden. The subject of this movie is not taken lightly. The mood is dark, the situation desperate.

Driving things home are vignettes of the kids. Often, we're given glimpses of these people's lives. We see exuberance of youth- a shy boy trying to find a way to let a girl know he likes her. A girl who's happy to bring cookies to her friends for the field trip. Another boy who just lost his father and is trying to cope. The basketball game where these kids last shared their lives together. This film is about loss, primarily evidenced by the loss of innocence and youth that these kids experience when they know they have to kill their best friends. Heightening the film is a gorgeous, poetic soundtrack of classical music that is expertly juxtaposed against the agony and misery that these people have to go through.

The film makes sense, has a well-paced, intelligent narrative, and interesting circumstances. Some kids can't handle what's happening, others glory in it. Some are experts, some are terrified. Something important is constantly going on, and by the end, it's a sad, moving piece of human drama regardless of who wins- if anyone. Well acted, well scored, with raw and realistic dialog, and fantastic direction.

Yes, if you strip away all narrative, this is a movie about kids killing each other. But to my pleasant shock, it was also one of the most moving, emotional dramas about life and loss that I've ever seen. And not just life, but what it means to live.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Fairly satisfying conclusion, but there are disappointments, and it still doesn't make total sense.

[8/10 · 7 April 2004]

(No plot spoilers.)

Like most others, I loved the Matrix. And like a lot of others, I was underwhelmed with Reloaded. But for Revolutions, I came out pretty happy. You do see an end, and there are some surprises. But I was still left with important unanswered questions, and that's kind of inexcusable for the finale in a 7 hour trilogy.

What Matrix Revolutions brings to the table is a giant war. The machines have reached Zion, it's the last stand for the humans, and Neo must make a choice that could bring him face-to face with the machine city and a possible end to the war.

After a slow but interesting start, we see the war begin. It's a special effects frenzy, similar to that of Lord of the Rings or the arena battle at the end of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. The war scene makes up the entire middle third of the film, and for what it's supposed to display, it does it well enough. Aside from legions of the "squiddies", or Sentinels, there are a couple new machines that are fascinating to watch: Giant, drilling creatures that instill an appropriate feeling of dread and power. On the human side, there's a small army of walking robots similar to the Power Loader machines in "Aliens", but with extensive firepower. This results in long sequences of shooting, attacking, and screaming, which is going to uninspire fans of the Matrix's deeper plot but which is appropriate for a war setting.

The only problem is that a lot of this is pretty standard stuff. Grizzled military commanders will be hard on young soldiers, who find their courage and prove their true worth. People will be injured and give important information in a speech just before dying. The heroes will be doubted but still do just enough to prove their doubters wrong.

But then one of the bigger overall problems is that the main characters are sort of lost amongst the backdrop of war. Morpheus has maybe 30 lines, becoming a shadow of the informative, enigmatic hero he was in the original. This time, he's reduced mainly to someone who hopes Neo saves the world while himself taking orders as co-captain of Niobe's ship. Trinity has little else to do either besides tag along with Neo or do a couple arbitrary flips and kicks.

And then there's actually a few more specific problems. A very important scene with Neo and Trinity occurs within the movie's last half hour, and although it's dramatic it too is cliche. What's worse, after the scene is over the plot just moves right along as if it didn't matter, without it even being mentioned again. Given the importance of the scene, and the fact that it's occuring between two characters who we've known for years, it feels like it's over way too quickly. That's just a letdown. The same thing occurs with the appearance if the Architect, the builder of the Matrix. He has a brief scene in this film, and has almost nothing important or informative to say whatsoever. Again, it seems like a waste, especially due to the fact that he SHOULD have interesting things to say by the point at which he appears in the film.

Finally there's the film's conclusion, which I won't reveal. I will say that it was one of the less predictable of possible outcomes. But it too is a letdown in a couple ways: First, it leaves quite a few important questions unanswered, and could be construed as leaving the door open for a sequel, but also could be seen as the absolute finish. But that's the problem. If it's the end, I want my questions answered, I want to know the hows and whys. The final minutes left me wanting, left me thinking that there were several possible conclusions to the story that aren't there on film. And in my opinion, that shouldn't happen at the end of something this large and built up to.

But what really matters is whether I enjoyed the film. Although the review doesn't sound like I did, that's actually not the case. I went in planning to know what I wanted to know, and while I didn't learn everything I still did spend a couple fun hours watching an action movie. The acting, score, and effects were pretty much on par with the other films so there's nothing lost there, but it's the details that hurt. Where the original Matrix was a smart script that mostly made sense, this one was more or less action with an incomplete plot wrapup. But it still did have several good scenes, and many of the special effects were great (I loved machine city, with its vast fields and burned skies). I also truly loved the music for the final fight, and during the end credits.

Still, while Reloaded had a standout chase scene as well as some great kung fu like the 100 Smith brawl, this one had neither. There is a climactic and important Neo/Smith battle at the end of Revolutions, but it too is different: In demonstrating the epic and dramatic repercussions of this battle, it consists mostly of giant (albeit very cool) effects, lots of flying, and very little actual close combat. This makes Revolutions unfortunately boil down to a plot far less interesting and focused than the original Matrix, as well as far, far less kung fu. There's also much less complicated story development than in Reloaded, but that's probably a good thing. That doesn't leave Revolutions with much to digest however, aside from a long war scene and a plot wrapup that doesn't explain much more than the most immediate questions. Even the actual "ending" after the big fight is pretty brief, which then is followed by the closing scenes that make things confusing again.

In the end, Revolutions is still fun to watch, and I still like it 2nd of the trilogy. It's just not as tight and fun as the original, and it kind of deflated after the information overload of Reloaded. Not a bad movie at all, it just falls a little short of the great climax worthy of what the Matrix began years ago. Not in style or flash, but in making everything fit. I'd still recommend it to those who saw the first two, just don't expect that big, revelatory plot scene where everything make sense - that's still missing.

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Just not my type of movie, I guess.

[6/10 · 22 March 2004]

Ok. I readily admit that Wizard of Oz is a classic. It's full of style, wonder, and originality. But I just don't like it. I didn't care much for it when I saw it as a kid, I didn't like it as an adult, and I certainly don't like it now that I've seen it 100 times thanks to my 3 year old nephew.

I don't mind musicals most of the time. One of my favorite animated films, The Prince of Egypt, is as full of songs as any similar Disney cartoon. But the songs in that film were well done in my opinion. They had sweep when they needed to be, hit emotional waves when it seemed appropriate. In the Wizard of Oz, everyone sings pretty much all the time, and it's one of those films where absurd words and terms are inserted simply to keep the rhymes going, even if the line doesn't make any sense. Imagine a Doctor Suess book being sung in chorus. Sure it rhymes, half of the words are made up. There's a good deal of that in Wizard.

And you better like "We're off to see the Wizard", the song you've heard since the beginning of time and already are tired of. You'll hear it in this movie about half a dozen times, without any significant changes or necessity. I know that movies like this are supposed to this way, it just drives one nuts.

The acting is typical of hammy 50s productions, just a decade older. Everyone enunciates very properly and/or hammily, and look to be on the verge of bursting into song, which often is the case. That's pretty much how it stays once Dorothy gets to Oz, which is after the boring first fifteen minutes of the film.

I know that people will seethe when they read this review. I'm sorry, I just really don't like this movie. As a musical, and a whimsical kids' movie, it succeeds at what it attempts to be. But I just can't understand why this is considered a film benchmark, when there are plenty of more interesting and less annoying musicals to be enjoyed. Granted, "Over the Rainbow" is a good song, and my favorite was one sung by the coroner of Oz (whose tune lasts about 4 verses). But the rest? Man...to me, it's just utter tedium. The movie may be good for kids, but I just can't understand why any adult would care to sit through it. I'm obviously in the minority, so what can I say. I just wanted to voice my opinion, which is that Wizard of Oz is vastly overrated. Read the book instead, or watch something better from the era such as Casablanca.

Bend It Like Beckham (2002)

Nothing original, and pretty predictable

[5/10 · 5 March 2004]

Anyone who reads my reviews knows that I can get pretty long-winded at times, but this will probably be my shortest commentary so far.

Bend it Like Beckham is not a bad movie. It's acceptably acted, moderately entertaining, and there isn't any one thing that stands out about it as being terrible. But that's my problem with it; it's just average. I gave it a rating of 5, meaning that it isn't bad, but it isn't particularly good either. I found it, simply, average.

The film tells the story of a young Indian girl who idolizes soccer star Beckham of the title, and wants to pursue the sport which she's good at. Unfortunately she's bucking the wishes of her traditional, humble family who want no disappointment or ill to come to their daughter. Complicating things is an unnecessary possible love triangle that is flirted with between the main character, her soccer friend, and the coach, and that's pretty much the whole film.

I guess I was just disappointed. I kept hearing how great this was, and how unique. I didn't find it unique at all. The movie focused somewhat evenly on her soccer hopes and her family life, but it's the soccer that gets the most glamorized treatment. The family provides mostly cultural jokes and deep discussions of how the daughter isn't upholding their traditions, etc. When the coach offers the young hopeful his support, everyone thinks that they're dating and we have a whole new twenty minutes of complications. And near the end, when a talent scout is discussed, the main character is desperate to get his attention and prove her worth. I hope I'm not spoiling anything, but I'm going to continue and say that nothing happened that I didn't expect.

In closing, Bend It isn't a terrible film. However, I didn't really laugh at any of the cultural stuff because I knew that was the main point of it even being in the movie. And I wasn't moved by any sweetness, because anyone could guess that it was coming. The movie sort of dragged on to me like a kind of shallower Karate Kid, but with laughs at the cultural differences instead of the interesting blend of them that I believe Karate Kid achieved. I know that the main message here was to follow your dreams, but I left thinking the movie was just a glamorized soccer film, with the cultural stuff just put in there to keep it from being nothing but.

Under Siege (1992)

Seagal's best film

[10/10 · 5 March 2004]

I gave this movie a solid ten, and I stick with it. I'm not in particular a fan of Steven Seagal, though I don't arbitrarily hate him like many critics do. In fact, this was the first of his movies I'd seen, and I liked it immediately.

For any people expecting this movie to deviate from the usual formula of (1): Seagal is wronged, (2): Seagal becomes killing machine, you'll be disappointed. Almost everything in this movie is to be expected, as Seagal plays his usual tough but lovable good guy who gets pushed just a bit too far and goes into full-on expert martial arts killer to enact revenge. A dozen or so people will die, as many or more limbs will be broken, and Seagal will do it all with as much emotion as a stick. To those expecting more of Seagal's usual stuff, that's what you'll get.

But in my opinion, what we also get are some inexplicably high level bad guys for this outing. Although about a decade or two behind today's times (keeping in mind the film itself is a decade and a half old), the two antagonists are the well known actors Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey. While getting on in their age nowadays, these two were some of the most crazed and entertaining actors of the 70s and 80s. Jones is probably best known from The Fugitive, for which he won an academy award, while Gary Busey has done a boatload of famous, not-so famous, and video game voiceover work. Together, these veterans almost steal the show as they chew the scenery and provide Seagal's most colorful and charismatic characters. Busey is a former ship's commander who's willing to drown his crew simply to taunt Seagal, whereas Jones' character used to send body parts to his ex-bosses at the CIA before turning up here.

The plot of this movie is that the two aforementioned crazies, with an entire crew of inside tech guys and hired muscle, have overtaken the aircraft carrier USS Missouri, with plans to extort various things from the big guys in Washington with the ship's small but capable arsenal of weapons at their disposal. The catch is that a high-ranking ex-navy seal is on the ship, serving a commuted sentence for misbehavior. Stuck here as the ship's cook, Seagal plays Casey Ryback who must do whatever he can to rally the ship back into responsible hands.

Strangely enough, the movie departs in several ways from the regular formula. The aforementioned bad guys are not only one head honcho but two equally ambitious ones, as well as a capable force of a dozen or so armed men. But where one would expect Seagal to be alone, this time the film adds at least a little credibility to the mix: Seagal still raises hell, but he also has to get the help of several others stowed on the ship if he's to have any chance in operating its guns and other functions. In a film rooted in implausability, it's at least nice to see old Steve actually running around with some admitted help.

The pace is interesting, as the early scenes in the movie set up some beautiful shots of the ship as well as some of its intricate interiors and set pieces. Some characters are the token one-line kills, but then there are some side characters who are given their own personality and a scene or two to take advantage of. Many characters from the aforementioned Fugitive (1993) make returns in this movie, as well as a decent character played by Colm Meaney, who was Miles 'O Brien to Star Trek fans.

Probably the only annoying bit of this movie is the female lead, played by Playboy model Erika Eleniak. She does a serviceable job, shows her breasts for a minute like she's expected to, and sometimes comes across as a believable person. But for the most part, she's there to lend support to Seagal, and add a little comic repartee between them. I didn't really mind her until she had a silly turn as hero(ine) for a minute or two.

But that's a minor quibble, in a film that I still love as being Seagal's most tight, interesting and energetic. It somehow seems more well written or polished than all his other efforts, and this is no doubt aided by the considerable time that is spent establishing the villains, who I've already noted as being the best Seagal's had to tackle. The sequel to this one was quite a letdown but still fun on its own, but in my opinion the original is Seagal's best and a great choice for those looking for some good old fashioned action heroics

Hollywood Shuffle (1987)

Promising, but ultimately a letdown

[5/10 · 23 February 2004]

Don't get me wrong- I wanted to like this movie. Robert Townsend is thoroughly believable and sympathetic in the role, and I liked him quite a bit. He plays a hopeful, charismatic, good-natured man who's trying to land a role in a film and earn some self-respect.

The problem is, he has a very active fantasy life. What this means is that often, mid-scene, Townsend's character will think about something like a movie being discussed, or something he sees on TV. The movie then goes into his fantasy and enacts it for us, usually with him playing one of the characters in it. This wouldn't be so bad except for three main issues: The fantasies occur pretty often, usually about every ten or 15 minutes. They are usually silly and cliched, taking away from the more interesting and serious main storyline. The third and worst aspect of the fantasy gimmick is that they are just plain long. When Townsend overhears a conversation about black movie critics, for example, he thinks about it and we see a visualization of his thoughts, two black critics in a theater. You'd expect this to have a joke or two, then get back to Townsend. Instead, we watch a pretty unfunny scene that lasts more than five minutes as the two guys review fictitious movies such as an Amadeus ripoff and a pimp zombie film. It's pretty unfunny, lasts way too long and milks the scenes for cheap laughs that fall flat.

This happens way too much, and makes the movie seem awkward, as if there wasn't enough confidence in the basic premise and instead tried to pad the film with waste. It could just be my personal opinion, but I really didn't like any of the fantasies (especially a private detective one, which drags on for something like ten or 15 minutes). There was one exception, the first fantasy of the movie, where a fake school for black film stereotypes is advertised. This was the only dream sequence that was any good, because it takes very harsh jabs at black stereotypes. "I got to play 5 muggers, and a rapist!" Says one black hopeful. Another one is being taught how to walk "black" by a white instructor. "Call 1-800-555-Coon!" the ad flashes. It's good satire, and being a white man, I wasn't offended but instead laughed at how accurate this parody was of some people's attitudes towards black characters. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie falls pretty flat, due to the fact that none of the other fantasies had the wit of the first, or told it in such a sharp way. As a result we're left with a storyline that isn't focused on when it should be at least 90% of the film.

I liked Robert Townsend, and I felt for his plight. He wants badly to be an actor, make it in the business, and fulfill his dream. The problem is that the role he's hoping for is unfortunately quite racist in its portrayal of blacks as sniveling, cowardly, primitively speaking brutes who are engaged in a weapon fight. He must decide whether his dreams are worth sacrificing his dignity, whether this chance at stardom is worth the hard first stepping stone.

And had the movie spent more time on this, and much less on the wandering fantasies, it would have been much better. Townsend's character was charming and I would have preferred to see him just be himself instead of the fantasy characters, but since that's the case only about half the time, I rate this movie a 5- promising but disappointing.

What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? (1999)

Different from the original, and almost as good. See it for character closure.

[8/10 · 19 February 2004]

For those who don't know the story of Once Were Warriors (and should watch it before this one), it's the story of a strong, culturally proud woman trying her best to keep her family together through the horrors of death and her husband's fierce alcoholism. It's also one of the most outstanding movies I've ever seen in my 28 years.

To review the sequel, the BASIC plot needs to be explained, so potential spoilers may come out- but no twists, developments, or ending will be revealed. The plot centers on the death of a character I'll call "X".

To begin with, I differ from the review that anyone who liked Warriors "will hate this film". Not so. I adored Warriors and still felt excitement and sadness watching this one. The story centers on Jake, tyrant husband of the first film. He's down and out, living alone in his old house while his ex-wife Beth has moved on. There is another death in the family, the funeral comes quickly, and emotions are high as Jake respectfully attends but keeps his distance.

Jake's violence has gotten him banished from his bar and caused a confrontation with his ex-wife's son, Sonny. He's in a new relationship but still can't stop drinking. He's hitting bottom, and seeing calls for change everywhere.

Meanwhile Sonny and X's companion seek revenge on the gang member responsible for X's death. In doing so they enlist in a gang themselves, and it becomes apparent that Sonny is falling into the same pattern of violence that Jake knows all too well.

Jake wants to change and may be able to help Sonny before he goes too far. But a lot must be done first, and Jake's involvement has already complicated things more than he or Sonny knows.

This is the main setup for Broken. There's 4 central characters- Jake, Sonny, X's companion and the gang leader. The relationships are volatile and interwoven, and all the actors do a great job, especially Temuera Morrison as Jake, who transitions into this movie as if he just walked off of the first film. Supporting characters are good too, most importantly Rena Owen as Beth Heke, Jake's wife. I was sad to see that she didn't have much screen time here, which is fair because the main point this time is Jake's relationship with Sonny and his quest for revenge. But I couldn't help feeling recognition and comfort when I saw Jake and Beth have their few scenes together. They were such equally powerful figures in the first film, but here, it's appropriate that they don't interact much- it reminds us why they're separate in the first place, and we can feel the chemistry still working as they say some important things to each other. These scenes alone are worth seeing for fans of the original.

I won't disclose more. Some questions are raised, but other things are subtly laid to rest, as we leave the movie with fuller understanding of the characters and their motives.

My only real complaint could be major depending on taste. I won't say what happens at the end, but I will say that it was more abrupt than I thought. Not in a way that hinders the story or leaves you wondering, but in a literal way- the credits pop up when I thought there'd be at least another minute of wrap-up. It doesn't ruin the film by any means, it just came kind of suddenly, and left me hoping for a bit more of an epilogue, an extra minute to let everything sink in. I was left thinking that I had just seen some good, strong stuff, but was awaiting what I thought would be the "final" scene and got the credits instead.

There's a bit more of an actiony feel towards the finale as well, which was done well enough and didn't betray the plot or motivations but didn't feel as satisfying or powerful as the final scenes of the original. Perhaps it was the choice of music more than anything. But again, the only thing that bothered me enough to lower the movie's final score was the lack of what I thought would be one final tie-up scene. The ending is definitely a resolution that answers questions; for me it just came down to waiting for that last scene of important dialog, and being surprised at the credits instead. I WAS still satisfied, the last lines felt appropriate and conveyed what I was hoping to hear, just in fewer words.

Besides, to balance these quibbles, the main bulk of the film is good, and at the very least, flat-out interesting. It's interesting to see the world begin to shun Jake this time, finally making him fess up to the thought of change. And several scenes are powerful with words, not action- such as when Jake encounters Sonny in his house later in the film or when he sheepishly asks for Sonny's address on Beth's doorstep. It didn't feel like I was watching a movie for much of this, especially those two scenes- Instead, it felt like I was seeing two people I'd known a long time, reacting to situations I always wondered they might get into.

In closing, I feel the movie isn't as good as Warriors, mainly because it was just a very hard act to follow. But I was still satisfied with WBOTBH, both as a follow up to Warriors and as a film by itself. It's very powerful and serious, but with more of an emphasis on vengeance and redemption than pride and hope. Still, Jake is the weight of this film- his motives and actions are under our microscope, and it's fascinating to watch and see how it all turns out. Good movies both, and I strongly recommend you see them. If you have already seen Warriors, don't hesitate to give this one a try.

Caligula (1979)

Interesting if you like the Caligula story or dig depraved porn

[7/10 · 19 February 2004]

I gave this film a seven. How can I defend this, when any other comment will mention its tastelessness, depravity, etc.?

Well, I defend it based purely on the fact that it's historically accurate. Some liberties are taken, but for the most part, this movie captures Caligula's story. However, this also means that Caligula's sadistic, bestial nature, and that of the Roman era as a whole, are also very disturbingly rendered.

For those who don't know, Caius Caligula was one of the Caesars of Rome, its highest official. Caligula was widely believed to have ascended to the position by murdering the previous Caesar, his own uncle. Once in control, he went on a sad, cruel and twisted rule that saw mass beheadings, permissible sexual depravity, and flat out cruelty to even those close to the man himself. Caligula had an incestuous relationship with his own sister, had murdered his own friends and co-conspirators, and I believe he willed all his possessions to be given to his horse.

So, Caligula the film stays true to the facts. That alone would make this a disturbing film. What compounds the issue is the fact that it was co-financed by Bob Guccione of Penthouse magazine, and as a result every effort to show lewd and tasteless behavior is taken. In the uncut version, you will see hundreds of completely nude men and women involved in sexual acts with each other, and with themselves. You'll see men on men, women on women. A slain man is urinated on by 2 women, onscreen. A man has his vital organ sliced off and fed to dogs (onscreen, but fake this time). There is suggested rape, item-oriented sexual assault, and things even more disturbing such as twitching, apparent mutants engaging in said behavior as well.

Therein lies the problem. The line of genuine reproduction and smut for smut's sake was crossed, and crossed fast. There are actually only a handful of sex scenes in the movie (all of them very graphic and equal to any of today's pornos). But the bulk of the tasteless stuff is arbitrarily shown in between regular scenes. So, you don't just get a bunch of story followed by bizarre sex, but instead you watch as main characters discuss regular topics and are then disturbed when the camera randomly cuts to an image of extreme sexual behavior. Much of it is irrelevant, and that's where the intent of the film is blurred by its porno roots.

Although I'm not a regular watcher, I've seen porn before. And if you are curious about this movie to see if it has any comparably sexy scenes, there is certainly stuff to catch your interest. But for th0e casual viewer, it's wise to stay away from this one because so much of it IS genuine porn, and much of the random cuts show stuff that are in the most specific of weird porn genres. That's a shame to me, because I was interested in the Caligula story and wanted to see a good rendition of it. I did get it, and I was also surprised to some very alluring imagery. But that was offput by all the random, disturbing stuff that I would have preferred not to see.

The acting is fine, McDowell does an admirable job just being a nutcase throughout most of the film. The set design is great, as are the costumes. It's clear that a lot of money went into this, but it's hard to speak too highly of the end result.

So why do I give the film a 7? Well, plainly put, it is what it says it is. It is Rome at its sleaziest, with its most depraved of operators at the helm. I didn't rent it expecting a porno, and was pleasantly surprised by some of what I saw. But then the rest of it, the overabundance of juxtaposed weird stuff, was off-putting and unwanted, and unfortunately does take up a significant chunk of screen time. My advice is to see it if you're curious to see just how much weird sexual stuff is in there, or to see an unashamedly graphic portrayal of the subject. Everyone else is urged to steer clear, because this is not a typical Hollywood docu-drama, and you'll be made uncomfortable if you're not prepared for what it contains.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)

Oh, I'll tell you how bad this movie is, allright

[2/10 · 3 February 2004]

You know, I really liked the original Mortal Kombat. Sure they ripped off the premise from another movie, but at least it was good (Enter the Dragon). I loved the games until the 4th one and was widely known as being one of its best and most devoted followers. So maybe all this is why my then-girlfriend's idiot stoner brother told me that he heard this movie was incredible, and I excitedly went to see it.

I'm a patient guy, and I have almost never felt the urge to walk out of a movie due to boredom (Tank Girl is the only other one I recall). But MKA here is a joke. If you really feel the need to see this movie and be surprised, then be forewarned because there are spoilers ahead.

Here's one right off the bat. MKA isn't a sequel proper to the original Mortal Kombat. The original MK was, reasonably, based on the first game. A couple future characters made cameos, but that's it. So it stands to also reason that MKA would be about the second game, the one most fans widely regard to be the best. But whereas the MK film was made at the time that part 2 was yielding to part 3, a lot changed in the extra couple years it took for this film sequel. As MK the movie was leaving theaters, MK3 the game was getting kind of a lukewarm reception, and people got sicker and sicker of it by the time MK4 came out. By now the games were in 3d and the storyline had gone from basic Enter the Dragon tournaments to all out apocalyptic robot wars and sorcerors controlling the fates of a bunch of new, generic characters. Until its decent reinventing in 2002, the MK games had hit a rough and oversaturated spot and would take 5 years to bounce back.

So here in this worst time comes MKA, which skips the best chapter of the games entirely and jumps in at sort of a story junction between the 3rd and 4th games, the worst. So we have characters from all 4 games running around and interacting, which is goofy as it is, and things get worse when sense is tried to be made of it. For example, (spoiler), in maybe the first 2 minutes Johnny Cage, a main character and semi-hero of the first movie, is summarily and unceremoniously killed off. My guess for this is because he wasn't in the 3rd game.

Soon after (more spoilers. In fact, there will be several so if you continue, do at the risk of ruining the wonderful cinematic experience that is MKA), robots from game 3 come in, negating the fact that their sole purpose in the games was to hunt Sub Zero, a character killed in the first movie. Leading the attacks by these fiends and others is Shao Kahn, who in the first movie appeared as a giant demonic face in the sky and here appears as....a masculine human being.

Making things moe complicated is that elder God Raiden, played by Christopher Lambert in the original, is here played by someone else and seems to not want to fight at all, as the character has gone from wizardly power god to short haired, weasely Power Rangers nerd, giving up his immortality in the process and teaching our heroes a thing or two about friendship and courage. Huh?

Sticking things out, unfortunately for them, are Robin Shou and Talisia Soto, who play central characters Liu Kang and Kitana and who've returned from the original film. This time, neither of them are allowed to do anything much more than look shocked at the stupid story developments, and Liu Kang engages in a few fights that capture none of the magic or uniqueness of the original film. And in fact this goes for any fight in this film that I care to remember. In the original, the fights were well choreographed and showcased a good selection of acrobatic and martial arts skill. Action was conveyed through close combat, good angles, and lengthy tradeoffs. And at the very least, there was a genuine moment or two where one might say "wow, that was a cool move!". This time, a lot of the action is illusional, with the camera making quick cuts and sudden moves to sort of convey that stuff is going on. There's nary an actual hand-to hand combat scene that lasts more than 30 seconds, and when you see what else was thrown in instead, you'll want to kill someone yourself.

For example, remember the character Baraka, with his beast face and bladed arms? He's here, and in fact is joined by several identical others, who assault Liu Kang with their reflective cardboard blades in a high-flying trapeze act straight out of the circus. And what about Sheeva, 4-armed character that should have been the answer to decently done Goro, 4-armed creature of the original film? Well, whereas he was conveyed through puppeteering and animatronics, here Sheeva is played by a tall woman in generic spandex who tries to look menacing and does a couple unthreatening hops with her cheesy extra special effect arms.

Things (don't) pick up later on, when Liu Kang randomly encounters Native American character Nightwolf, who explains that Liu must harness his "animality" to succeed. Anyone familiar with the MK universe knows that the "animality" was a ridiculous player rumor which supposed that the MK games contained a method of killing one's opponent by turning into an animal and committing not a fatality but an "animality". This dumb rumor was added to the 3rd game as fan service, and apparently delighted the producers of this film enough that it was actually explained as a real, feasible occurence. "Feel your animality", N.Wolf says to Liu, urging him to harness the beast within. Mr. Wolf then briefly shows Liu how to do it, and then asks,

"pretty cool, huh?"

We who haven't left the room yet are saying "no", but oh boy do we still get a fun surprise. At the end of the film, Liu Kang fights with big masculine guy (er, Shao Kahn), and instead of actual wanted fisticuffs, we get to see the two of them feel their animality and turn into giant, god awful stupid computer-generated beasts who do combat with each other. No, I mean it. They turn into giant computer animated beasts. And we're not talking about Gollum of the Lord of the Rings here- I mean big, shiny, plasticy-looking "we know we want to make big magical creatures but don't yet have the technology to do anything but make them eye-strainingly obvious" effects. Liu Kang could reasonably have turned into a cool chinese dragon or something, but instead winds up being this big-nosed, cross eyed, dopey dragon thing. Shao Kahn turns into something equally ridiculous and less memorable and the two have it out. Then at the last minute Shao Kahn's sorceror dad decides he's gone too far, disgraced the family name by becoming a crappy visual effect, and makes him disappear or something. Then everyone hugs, and more or less runs far, far away.

I hope that this has been an accurate rendering of what my feelings are for this film, because I actually haven't seen it in several years. I don't hate myself enough to watch it more than that. But if you want an actual review without the sarcasm, just look at it this way: It is an insult to the MK franchise and its fans, it fails as a follow-up to the fun original MK film, it fails TERRIBLY as a martial arts film, and in general it just is a dumb waste of time, an arbitrary, thrown-together cash-in sequel. Do yourself a favor and just watch the original, and if you still crave more, go play the games. And if you do insist on seeing this movie, then at the very least inject some fun into it like trying to figure out where those Baraka masks were purchased.

Titanic (1997)

Why I like this film, as a longtime student of the actual Titanic

[10/10 · 29 January 2004]

A fellow reviewer wrote earlier that Titanic is among his or her favorite films, and sometimes people laugh. I myself laugh, not at the movie but at that statement. I echo what the reviewer said, which is that at the time, almost everyone loved the movie or at least recognized good stuff about it. It was critically acclaimed, made more money than any movie in history, and received uncountable awards including the most Oscars ever, tied with Ben Hur at 11 wins.

Now, I shake my head when I see that Titanic currently has a rating of about 6.7. Jeez people, view a movie for how it is rather than how oversaturated it got!!!

And that's the problem. Titanic WAS a very good movie- and since I was interested in the actual ship a decade before the movie was made, hopefully I can tell you why I support it. The technical achievements alone were grand, the scale of the movie was epic and moving, and to James Cameron's credit, it was almost 100% accurate to the many different details of the Titanic legend. Of course, to accept this one has to ignore the fact that the main characters are fictitious amalgams of real Titanic passengers.

Those two characters are Jack Dawson and Rose Buttaker, played of course by the leads Dicaprio and Winslet. Their awkward meeting and subsequent falling in love is played against the oncoming disaster, which, as everyone should know, happened 4 days into the ship's first voyage. At 11:40pm on April 14, 1912, the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank 2 and a half hours later.

Now for the movie itself. The acting, although passionate, is goofy at times due to a script that was much maligned as being stereotypical and bland. I don't hate it that much, it doesn't sound too far off from what people are like when they're stupid in love. However, my problem arises here: Rose seems to be witty and independent, yet she becomes a doe-eyed child when she falls for Jack, who seems to know the answer to everything and even needs to heroically command Rose to "get back" when the iceberg comes by. More and more their relationship turns from possible to downright one-dimensional, as Jack becomes a grand hero and Rose becomes a helpless damsel. Granted, each character has scenes where they betray that limit (Rose in fact saves Jack's life at one point), but that's an exception to the rule. Another problem is that, quite simply, a relationship between a first class woman and third class male is possible, although entirely improbable. People just weren't that open minded in 1912, although for this movie it doesn't seem too severely hard to swallow.

That having been said, I don't have much of a problem with the rest of the movie. This is because it stays admirably close to the facts, and pays insane amounts of detail to each scene. Director Cameron was in fact often joked about due to his fierce, almost anal commitment to the details. The ship looks real, because most of it is. The band played until the very end, which they really did. The ship indeed broke in half at the 2nd funnel, and if you look close, the iceberg scrape actually dots and dents the ship's hull instead of tearing a solid gash, as it actually did in real life. Although the 1958 Titanic film "A Night to Remember" had no fictitous characters and sticks religiously close to what really happened, James Cameron's Titanic is technically the most accurate, especially due to the breaking of the ship which wasn't proven until after the former film was made. A couple technical slips do get by, such as a terrible blue screen effect seen when the drunken baker is standing atop the risen stern (just before the final sinking). There's a shot of victims rolling down the upright stern section near the end, and we can see one of them bounce off of the cylindrical capstans, obviously a soft prop. But hey, these are just gaffes in an otherwise very good technical achievement.

In closing, I still like this movie, as I did when it first came out (though not nearly as much now, after a dozen viewings). It has a lot of emotional impact, it stays very, very close to the actual facts, and it can even be argued that although fictional, Jack and Rose are just an example of what really happened to many of the couples on the real ship when it went down. I don't think a better movie about the Titanic can be made, although the aforementioned "Night to Remember" is also extremely good and in many ways just like James Cameron's film. If you see Titanic, the film, for what it tried to achieve, you can see that it is in fact a well made and successful film. I know it's hard to get past the negativity that its oversaturation caused, but at its heart I think it is an excellent movie.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Wonderful finale, sweeping emotions and action

[10/10 · 21 January 2004]

Where do I start? Those who have already seen this movie don't need a review, and those who haven't will probably never look at my review given the multitudes of others to choose from. So, I'll just say how this movie personally affected me, as a fan of the books and of movies in general. I absolutely loved the original film, Fellowship of the Ring, and did enjoy the Two Towers, though not as much. I loved the emotion of the original (subtle scenes like Frodo's long decision-making boatside scene at the end), and found that the Two Towers was great in action and scope but as a result sort of put character development and characters' feelings into the background. But this makes sense, as the book it was based on dealt more with action and also had the burden of introducing half a dozen important new characters. Return of the King, however, is just simply fantastic. I try to avoid statements like "gets everything right", and "I enjoyed every minute of it", but in this case, it's true. I was so moved at the presentation of this film that I couldn't help getting misty at the end, despite knowing exactly what would happen (based on the books of course). I credit this to not only the great performances but also the stirring music (Annie Lennox's moving "Into the West" is a beautiful tune and perfectly echoes the sentiments of the film's themes). And also, I couldn't help being moved knowing that it was now all over, and there will probably never be another Lord of the Rings epic of this magnitude in my lifetime (and rightfully so). I just felt like I was saying goodbye to old friends. The movie, although beginning with an important flashback, begins immediately where the second film concluded, and every character has a conclusion. The main part of this movie that I loved is the simple fact that no character is shortchanged; the main characters have their own moments of screen time and good dialogue, from Gandalf telling Pippin what beautiful peace awaits him if he should die in battle, to Sam heroically carrying an exhausted Frodo on his own shoulders through sheer determination. It's all done well, and it takes its time to do it, which I wouldn't have any other way. Whereas Fellowship of the Ring dealt more in emotion and character development and the Two Towers was more hurried and action packed, I was delighted to see that return of the King found a perfect balance between the two and devotes ample time to both. The battle scenes are the grandest in scope and awe, and the highs and lows of sheer emotion are quite gracefully handled as well. And when everything is said and done and the battles are over, there's still a journey home for some of the characters and a good amount of movie left to enjoy. But everything moves along so smoothly, it's sometimes easy to forget that it's a 3 hour and fifteen minute ride. If there isn't action going on, there are scenes of pending action or drama at an almost nonstop rate, making sure that there's something to stop even the most restless from becoming bored.

If for some reason you've chosen my review out of the many available, let me at the very least leave you with this, and it will hopefully help you to decide to see it if you haven't yet: As the finale of a trilogy, this is the masterstroke that ties everything together and is successful on a multitude of levels. It's action packed and stirringly heartfelt at the same time. And finally, from someone who loves the books, I can say that although some omissions were made, the story doesn't falter as a result and the film as a whole was handled in about the most graceful, pleasing way I can imagine. It is, quite honestly, a cinematic masterpiece and a major accomplishment. I left teary eyed, happy for having been thrilled for more than 3 hours, and also quite sad that I don't have another of these films to look forward to.

Fear of a Black Hat (1993)

Up to individual tastes, but I loved it

[21 January 2004]

Personally, I have loved this film for a decade, since way back in 1994 when the vhs copy began with the "Ice Froggy Frog" video. To like this movie, you must have at least an interest in black culture and, more specifically, an interest in the rap/hip hop culture, whether positive or negative. I myself am a 25 year old white man, and used to be more or less indifferent to 90's hip hop but quite dislike the current trend of rap (which covers a total of four subjects: Violence, racism, misogyny, and superiority to others in some way or another). I can handle those subjects fine, I just don't like hearing about it nonstop with little change. Eminem wants to shoot somebody? Gangsta A wants to have sex with woman B? The east coast rappers hate the west coast and vice versa, and will do drive by's to all who oppose them? See, I just don't care, because it's all the same and I don't find any of it very entertaining or intelligent. Nothing against the rappers personally, I just don't know how singing about women being sex toys or slapping a band-aid on your face translates into billionaire-worthy genius, as it does to every new person who rhymes nowadays. Oh and don't worry all you rappers out there, I'm not a big fan of my current "pop" selections either. Britney's not a virgin/got married/annulled/made an "angry" video/jumped into religion? Jennifer Lopez is on the tv so #&%^$ much that she's going to become a seperate button on all future television sets? Good God, do I wish people just sang a little bit and then got the hell out of my life. Well I digress. See, I'm bitter, because I can't stand today's music, be it white or black or whatever. But Fear of a Black Hat (FOABH from here) takes me back to the early 90's, when all kinds of musical styles existed and singers were judged more by talent than how they dressed. Well, that stopped with such cultural "phenomenons" as Kriss-Kross and Nirvana, but I digress again. In FOABH, we follow the brief career of rap group Niggas Wit Hats (NWH). The movie is fictitous and the people are all actors, but it is filmed in a documentary style with the gimmick in mind although these characters don't really exist, people quite similar to them do, and this is the movie that makes fun of them. In this film, which is so well done that at first glance it DOES look genuine, subjects such as gun obsession, racism, misogyny, white rappers, and even the aforementioned Kriss Kross and made fun of and/or explored. The director, Rusty Cundieff (playing "Ice Cold") has a great ear for dialogue and an even better one for melody, as the film contains a dozen NWH songs, each with its own theme and almost every one of them catchy despite being parodic material. We don't really see NWH's beginnings, but we do hear about it as we learn information such as the fact that the group's last several managers have been white, and killed mysteriously as well. This leads to questions of racism, even more so when one of the group's albums was called "Don't shoot until you see the whites". But being white, I still wasn't offended because the jokes are tongue in cheek, and no genuine ill is intended. These characters are exaggerated stereotypes, not offensive but rather playful in exploiting and making fun of the genuine issues at its core. If I'm gonna get offended at the notion of these characters wanting to kill white people, then the black members of the audience can be upset at the portrayal of a black character who loves guns and threatens to shoot anything he sees. But we shouldn't, because this movie doesn't take itself that seriously and neither should the viewer. It's also acted well, with the characters coming off as believable yet ridiculous, with their giant goofball hats (which are in fact explained in a stupid yet thought-provoking diatribe) and their silly habit of making every ostensibly crude song actually stand for something much more intelligent. Yet for their wit, it's funny to see the group more or less made fools throughout the film, as they have to struggle to get their name on the signs and a rival, more hardcore rap group dismisses them at every opportunity. It's somehow fun to watch these tortured geniuses at work, doing their best to carve a niche in the transitional period between early 90's hip hop and the edgier stuff we know today. As for laughs, I can't honestly say I do more than chuckle with it when I watch, but that doesn't mean much. What should matter instead is the fact that I laughed good and hard when I first saw it, and have watched it regularly in the ten years since. However, that does give the film and unfortunate outdatedness, as some joke characters (an MC Hammer parody) and now-uncommon phrases ("Word", "Kick It") fall a little flat. Much of the film is still strangely relevant though, such as the gun fascination, the harsh attitude towards women, and still rocky race-relations. But I can only say that the movie was definitely timely when first released, and can't help if things change later on. I just doubt as many people will be kind to it now, having never seen it when it was first meant to be seen. Still, I definitely found it worth a look, especially to the black community or those interested in rap/hip hop culture. And for all Spinal Tap fans, this is the ultimate companion piece.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

For what it is, it's quite well done

[8/10 · 21 January 2004]

I'll be honest. I was right smack in the middle of the marketing demographic for the Turtles phenomenon. When they hit it big in 89-92, I was just starting my teenage years. They appealed to me, and even reminded me of frog characters I drew as a kid (which preceeded TMNT and didn't win me a dime. Oh well). Anyway, if you don't like the Ninja Turtles, this movie won't help. It's well made, but more of the same so if you don't like the idea then you still won't after watching this. But darn it, when I was a kid, and the lines stretched for a block to see this movie, I was right there excitedly waiting, wanting to see the coolest characters the late 80s had to offer. And darn it, Being a fan of the characters at the time, I was impressed with what I saw. Surprisingly, though the characters are goofy and always were, this movie is pretty serious. Yeah, there's lots of buddiness to the turtle brothers, and they have their own little innocent worldview, but at the same time, there are some serious situations that are addressed complete with deliberate pacing and lighting. Some scenes are just plain stark, like the one in which the antagonist, Shredder, violently backhands the defenseless rat creature (Splinter) that he has in custody. And I was surprised to see the characters given actual emotions, like Raphael who cries, yells an obscenity or two, and even furiously lashes out at others in sheer frustration. It isn't profound stuff worth note in a psychology book, but definitely a more serious, mature handling of the subject that this reviewer was expecting in his youth. The story is essentially one of rescue and revenge, but given the subject matter it's based on (a cartoon and comic book about ninja turtles, of course), this is probably the best treatment it could have gotten. I endorse it as being one of the best actual films based on a comic (alongside the first couple Batman films), and although I don't find too much in it nowadays, I can still appreciate the effort and, again, somewhat moody and mature handling of the subject material. And you know, to this day, I still think that the film version of Shredder is one wicked character, and his entrance is great.

The Corndog Man (1999)

Let's not fight, I'm HAPPY today!!! (spoil free)

[8/10 · 4 December 2003]

This film was thrust upon me by one of my more assertive friends, Pat. Pat's tastes and mine rarely mesh when it comes to movies, and when he put it in the vcr and insisted I see it, I wasn't too thrilled. But I must admit, I found it interesting. I knew nothing about it, so when I see this boat salesman resembling Boss Hogg answering the phone and hearing a goofily - voiced prank caller, I assumed it would be just one of several things that would be annoying and pointless. And at first, that is what I got. With every phone ring, and every chant of the man answering "Triple K Marine!" I was annoyed and confused. Is this the whole movie?

Well, as it turns out, yes. But then a cool thing happened. The phone calls, while at first irritating, start to get less so when you do realize that they're the cornerstone of the entire film. Why does this prankster keep calling the boat salesman, and how much is the poor sap willing to take? Thus the movie became slowly more engrossing, and little by very little, more important information is revealed. It turns out there is more to this telephone terrorist than we at first think, and every new bit of information is awkwardly digested by the poor old boat salesman as we watch and wait to see what happens and what choices must be made.

The ending is open to debate as to whether it made the whole slow buildup worth it, but I myself think it was. It's a good movie with a good (albeit maybe sad) ultimate message, even if it does take a long time to slowly unroll. But I must give credit to the script and the actors who perform it, because what could be a relentlessly maddening hour and a half of uninteresting phone conversations, is skillfully turned into an interesting and funny (and finally dramatic) story of two lives intersecting for a very legitamite reason. It's worth watching, if not just to hear the goofy phone calls (one of which features my favorite line, quoted at the top) and the even goofier reactions of the beleagered boat guy. Unique fun and drama, and an interesting surprise.

28 Days Later (2002)

Maybe not as scary as you've heard, but certainly a serious, greatly made study of humanity with definite horror moments.

[10/10 · 1 December 2003]

I LOVED this film. When I left the theater, I felt utter satisfaction and deep despair at the same time. That means the movie definitely worked.

For starters, please don't automatically label it a horror film. It isn't a slasher akin to Friday the 13th or a disturbing no-sleep fest like the Exorcist was at one time, either. What it IS is a moving human drama, very effectively capturing the despair and isolation of a world after apocalyptic disease. This is its strongest point and mood, but at the same time there are several seat-jumping moments, and there are, for lack of a better word, "monsters" that are around many corners. I don't anticipate many will walk away from 28 days later thinking "wow, I was shaking in fear the whole time!", nor do I imagine people thinking "What a body count! All that blood and guts!" Truth is, there are some moments of both, but they are frosting on a story that leaves you with more of a feeling of "Wow. Loved ones can be lost, times can be impossibly desolate, people can be impossibly cruel. I'm glad to be alive, and I'm glad I live in a better world".

The setting of the film is London, almost entirely free of human life due to a rapidly spread virus. The infected, the "monsters" of the film, are regular human beings who no longer function like regular people but instead are fast, violent, and primal, living only to eat and attack whatever they see. The virus spread wildly due to its high communicability. It transfers through blood contact, saliva, and even through the eyes. It is such that 99% of London was wiped out in 28 days, at the end of which the main character wakes up in a hospital with no idea what has happened. No one knows the answer to a more haunting question either...Is life normal outside a possibly quarantined London, or was the whole world infected?

The movie slowly lets us see what happens and slowly suggests answers to those questions. It unfolds not like a harsh killfest, but like poetry. We are with the main character, Jim, as he wakes up, having no idea where to go or where anyone is. He wanders the starkly empty streets, alone, hoping to find someone who can help,and somewhere to go. He encounters the infected, and he meets some people...All with their own view of their situation and ways of dealing with it. Some live to survive. Some live in despair. Some live with hope.

It's situations like this that are touching. Thanks in part to a wonderful score, the story gives us many moments to take in. Jim heads out to see if his parents are okay. Another man puts out a beacon of Christmas lights on his empty apartment in hopes of finding other survivors. We watch in sympathy as one person remembers a simple, pointless breakfast with the family he/she will never see again. We quietly smile in hope as someone plows their way through a dangerous roadblock through sheer determination for a better place. We close our eyes in defeat as another person who has so much hope and even more to live for still succumbs to the disease due to the most chance of situations. Moments like these- sadness, warmth, hope, despair- are rife in this film, and it is through such moments that it truly feels like a realistic account of what could honestly happen. It is a very human story, and I say that because although there are scenes of violence and death, this overcomes the boundary of "horror flick" by focusing most on the people, their plight, and the moments that matter to them.

The acting is thoroughly good as well, with everyone asking realistic questions and doing things that appeal to us in some way or another. There are some characters near the end for example who have their own idea of survival and what it takes, and even though their ideas are horrible we can still understand why they have them.

My only gripe with the film is minor. I enjoyed it all the way, and was satisfied by the last few frames. But the actual climactic event, which takes place in a mansion, was a little frenzied. I don't mind violence or anything, and there are sudden scenes in the rest of the film where things get wild, but the final major event is very harsh and sustained. It makes sense, it's just not as reserved as most of the rest of the film so be forewarned.

In all, I found this movie entirely good. Don't expect the bloodiest or scariest movie ever, but be content with some of both inside a much more mature and emotional film, and you should be happy. I definitely was, and found it one of the most thought-provoking and moving dramas, or horror films, in a long time.

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

Utterly bland and average. Wasted potential.

[1 December 2003]

Seeing a film in the theater on Christmas Eve has been a tradition of mine since I was a kid. On Xmas Eve 2000, my theater hadn't yet gotten Cast Away or Crouching Tiger, but it did have my third choice, D&D. Well, I've never been so intricately close to D&D that I would have been labeled a sinner in the 80s, but I have ALWAYS loved medieval fantasy, and many of the D&D stories and characters. So, I had the feeling going to the film that I would have a good old popcorn munching time with one of my favorite genres. No decent movies about medieval times had come out in a while, so what better than D&D to end the drought?

Well, I left the theater laughing. Not at the movie, but at myself for having such high hopes. It had potential, I'll say that. I chuckled at a joke or two, I liked some of feel, like magicians and thieves and whatnot. But in the end, it felt like a washed out, Lord of the Rings lite. And who would have known that LOTR would indeed come out a year later and absolutely blow everyone's socks off?

The main problem with D&D is its basic plot. Several characters band together to retrieve a magical item and defeat the wizard. Ok, sounds fair. But the characters are so wooden and stereotypical, I just didn't care. The thieves are rebels who believe in justice and equality. The wizards are old and power hungry. The dwarf likes beer and fights. The elves are delicate and mysterious. And that's about the most we get to know anybody, although the main two characters (thieves) get more screen time and somewhat anachronistic dialogue. I admit I was surprised by a death halfway through, and surprised again at what happened / didn't happen with the dead at the end of the film. But outside of that, it's pretty stock stuff. And don't look for Jeremy Irons to save the film, he overacts here with the best of them. Although I did enjoy his last scene or two involving his magic and the dragon battle.

I guess bottom line is that it's worth a see if you're a real D&D or fantasy fan, but other than that, it's not that great, and if you've seen Lord of the Rings by then you've already seen better. Just too bland.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

The biggest marketing scam in movie history. Only people who get scared by OTHER people being scared will like this crap.

[1/10 · 1 December 2003]

This was a marketing scam that worked... plain and simple. And if you allow me the lengthy explanation, I hope you'll see legitamite reasons why I think it is an utter waste of time. If you don't want to read and either love BWP or instead want something that doesn't suck, go watch "The Last Broadcast". It's similar, came first, is better acted, and has an actual ending that makes sense.

The BWP began with a huge ad campaign, in the form of allegedly "true" documents and paranoia propaganda that took major advantage of the internet community. It got people out in droves to see what this thing really was. And what it was was an hour and a half of kids with a camera, walking in circles through the woods, working themselves into a paranoid frenzy while building to a climax (spoiler next) that literally delivers nothing.

(Spoiler end.) The premise, and what the online campaign hinted as being true, is this: A small town legend, the Blair Witch, is terrorizing a town and abducting children. Three stupid teens go into the woods armed with a camera and try to film / find evidence of this, and are never heard from again. Their videotape surfaces, and what is on it is mysterious.

Now here's the literal truth of what happened: The two creators of this "film" built a long, slow consumer awareness program by leaking supposedly legitamite details of the Blair Witch incidents, like fictitous police reports and interviews. Over several months, people were hearing about the Blair Witch case with the overwhelming sense that it was all real. Then the "film" was released in theaters and included what was supposedly the non-fiction video documentary of three kids who disappeared while looking in those woods. The lines of fantasy and reality had been effectively blurred, and people came out in droves to see what was really going on.

Seeing as how the actors in the "film" were on Jay Leno that very weekend, I was readily aware that it wasn't real. But I went anyway, out of curiosity. I thoroughly, thoroughly despised what I saw. I didn't have high hopes, since I hadn't yet read the much more entertaining web site stuff. But I was so angry that at the end of the "film", I loudly said "Bulls***! I want my 7 bucks back!" And was met with rousing applause, and yes, a few boos.

I'm a patient man, and very tolerant. I've seen subtitled, three hour long black and white foreign films. Ever heard of the 50 hour "Three Kingdoms" chinese hitorical series? Yeah, I sat through that. I liked Titanic. And I've seen horror movies including Dawn of the Dead, House of 1000 Corpses, the Sixth Sense, Nosferatu, the black and white Frankenstein and Draculas, and even comparably modern junk like the Scream trilogy. And aside from Scream 3, I loved all of it. But with the Blair Witch Project, I was simply offended. I fell victim to a marketing scam, and the fact that some people still call it genius burns me to this day.

This is why. The "movie", viewed as itself, is utter garbage. For the fans out there, what are you gauging the movie by? The acting? The plot? The PACING!? Three kids whine, nitpick, argue, and cry throughout the vast majority of it all. There's a scene when the most annoying character, the woman (she's that hideous nose / eye creature you see on the box and probably think is the Blair Witch) breaks down in hysterical, overacted tears simply because the team has made a circle and is crossing the same log they've already crossed. And if you don't mind, here's a spoiler so be prepared: There is no Blair Witch. You see nothing on camera. You hear some noises, see strange clues like wooden sticks. And at the end, during a scene that should have been halfway through the "movie", you see a creepy house with some blood on it. Then the movie ends. Period. I do not exagerrate. And I don't HAVE to see something to enjoy it. Jeez, 1997's "Contact" was great, for example. But when you build up a movie like this, can you not put SOMETHING up there to qualify my time?

(spoiler done) But you see, we're supposed to buy all that because it's a masterful example of anticipation, suspense, and power of suggestion over visuals, harkening back to the old days when stuff didn't have to be flashy and obvious to be frightening. Well, no, sorry. There is nothing frightening about kids in a tent, crying and shivering, and saying they've heard things. (Poss. Spoiler:) It's a ghost story with no payoff. They, and we, see and hear nothing to suggest anything more horrible than common woodland noises at night. (Spoiler end) The kids work themselves up like schoolchildren and start freaking out so badly that they frighten themselves beyond belief, at nothing. That isn't scary, suspenseful, or playing on my natural fears. If I got afraid just because I saw other people terrified of whatever it was that they were imagining, I would have been a basket case in grade school. And even if scared people WERE enough to scare me, it's still a wash because the majority of the "movie" takes place in the daytime, where nothing of importance happens. I go on vacations to other countries and tape less daytime commonalities than these idiots. And Yeah, if a ten minute argument over someone losing the map is scary, then I guess I've just been spoiled by GOOD films like Psycho and The Thing.

And these kids are just horrible to begin with. They're the most annoying bunch I've ever heard, and I was hoping halfway through that the girl would just die to move the plot. But instead, we get lots of arguing, lots of wandering, lots of hysteria, and a few hints of plot like finding an unidentified bloody cloth one morning.

Here, in its simplicity, is why this "movie" does not deliver. 1: If it's viewed on its own, without external knowledge of promotional material, the movie is baseless, without support, and with no closure or explanation. Without background information it's a pointless mess, so we must judge it by the material that got us interested in the first place- and that material was far more interesting. 2: If viewed as REAL, one must ignore the fact that it's well known as one of the most fiercely debated and famous films ever. But since the hook was that it might BE real, it's a waste. 3: If one watches it as a MOVIE to be entertained by, it's a dud due to horrible and annoying performances, no pacing or twists, and worst of all, no payoff. It winds up being an amateur film without music, lighting, or a good script.

All I can say is that the fake case history that the creators came up with to sell this crap WAS intruiging, and was more interesting than the "film" by leaps and bounds. My cousin struggled to defend his like of the "movie" until finally deciding on a reason that satisfied him, and became the only explanation I could possibly buy: That Blair Witch was worth watching simply as a side bonus to the crafted material that he was more interested in. I don't want to insult the people who did like the "film", but if you did, that must mean it scared you. Well once you get over the fear, I ask you to watch it again a few times. WHAT scared you? What mood were you in, to where you were actually frightened? Was it simply not knowing what the kids would find? (Spoiler alert) Well now that you know you never see the supposed Witch or anything that is NOT possibly manmade, is it still scary? (Spoiler over). I wasn't scared at all because I knew it was fictitous, and went anyway just to see what was supposedly so good. I was bitterly disappointed to see Blair Witch for what it was: Two guys who took advantage of the gullibility of the public, tempted them, played to their fear, and failed to deliver on a mental, intellectual, or even visual level. The only "genius" of the Blair Witch Project is, simply, how well it was used to scam the public. And I truly believe that the only people scared by this "film" are people like the kids IN it: People who are scared because it seems like they should be, without even any evidence to support the fear. Sure, you may watch the BWP thinking it'll be scary, and nervous in anticipation of what you might see. But by the end, what did you ACTUALLY see? Don't you feel cheated?

Well if not, what scared you is called mass hysteria, and it worked decades ago with War of the Worlds...Which wasn't even an intentional scam. Oh yeah, it was free too.

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

More of a supernatural mystery movie than a horror. Read the actual case history.

[7/10 · 30 November 2003]

Having thoroughly read the history of the alleged titular creature, Mothman, I was at first quite disappointed in this film. The real case dealt with people who were supposedly chased by a tall, bird-like man creature with glowing red eyes and incredible speed. The creature did strange things like flying without flapping its wings, and it sounded like a woman screaming. The case, never officially solved, allegedly involved UFOs, although barely a legitimate link to them was made.

Instead of being based on these things, the film is more directly based on a book of the same name, which itself was more of a hypothetical study of what Mothman may mean and represent. A focal point in the film is how the sighting of the monster allegedly preceded disasters. In actuality, the creature was only scantily reported to have been seen around the Ohio river bridge when it collapsed in the late 60s. The film showed this collapse and is its finest scene. But then it adds extra mysterious details to the event, such as Mothman's ability to make people dream such an event before it happened, etc. This is an example of the film being based on the more glamorous ideas in the book instead of focusing on the facts of the case itself, which were far more interesting and would have made for a more frightening movie.

The movie is, however, well done. It takes itself seriously, is well acted, and features very good mood music and ambience. It sets the mood, leading up to some great scenes such as one in which the main character talks with the alleged creature on the phone. It's creepy stuff, but scenes like that are all too rare in this film. It had a lot of promise and was well done, but I had my hopes up for more of a thriller along the lines of the Sixth Sense, which was well written and acted but still had its fair share of visual chills. As it stands, the Mothman Prophecies is good, and I give it credit for getting a lot of facts and references to the actual case correct. But I was hoping for something much more based on the incidents as they were reported, as opposed to an opinionated book that merely theorized what may have really happened. If you liked the movie at all, I suggest you look up the actual Mothman case and see if you're more interested, as I am, in the supposed real-life creature of 60's West Virginia.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

Intentionally dumb, and hilarious to certain tastes

[10/10 · 28 November 2003]

Man, I'm stepping on front of a bullet here. How do I review a movie with a rating that, at the time of this writing, is at a mere 4.8, without being laughed at myself? Well, obviously these reviews are personal opinion, and in my opinion, Kung Pow is (expletive) hilarious.

It's the story of a man whose parents were murdered, left as an orphan. He must find the killer and avenge his family. It's intentionally cliched, and stupid as all hell. But darn it, I laughed so hard that I was teary and embarassed in the theater, and later that evening I threw up. Sure the gobs of popcorn were partly responsible, but I know that the extreme muscle work my stomach got from laughing so much was the main culprit.

Reviewed only for what it is- not what it could have, should have, or what I wanted it to have been, I found Kung Pow great. It appealed to my stupid nonsense sense of humor. For example, the main character is set up to do an exercise in withstanding pain, and when his partners render upon him the expected attack, he immediately doubles over in pain and falls to the ground, where the others continue to pummel him with weapons for a good minute or two despite the common sense that says the exercise should have ceased. He lays there motionless the entire time, and in some angles is even substituted with a dummy. It's that kind of dumb comedy that appealed to me when I went to see Kung Pow. But I also laughed at the more subtle jokes, such as the fact that the evil parent killer doesn't barge into his victims' house, but rather politely rings the doorbell...The doorbell on a thatched hut.

Another scene is subtly funny because of its punchline, which many people miss. The hero, "Chosen One", is yelling at his lady interest, begging her to change her mind on an important issue. The guy is obviously screaming, his face strained and with wide eyes, as the camera zooms in towards his panicked face. But due to the intentionally bad voice dubbing, the line doesn't come out as something loud and panicked to match the face. Instead, the line is a humorously calm "I implore you to reconsider". Good stuff. Kung Pow is dumb like this, in the tradition of the Naked Gun films. Rife with sight gags and stupid jokes aplenty, I thoroughly enjoyed it and was shocked to see how many people didn't. After all, the Naked Gun series has been long missed, and this film brings some fresh, unapologetically ridiculous stuff to the table. It bothered me to see that it made less than 20 million, when in fact movies like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" make that much on opening weekend. Granted, they're wildly different films. But they're intended for more or less the same audience, and while one is a cookie cutter remake of old themes and current movies that are WAY too common, the other was a delightful escape. Again, that's just my opinion. But I'm happy to be one of the few whose opinion praises it for its originality and the chances it took, with no known stars or bankable premise.

Granted, some of it was too stupid. The cow fight, of which was always on the commercials, was the weakest scene. It looked UNintentionally cheesy, and even included a Matrix parody a year or 2 too late. Granted, a unique spin on the Matrix parodies, but a Matrix parody nonetheless. I also tired of some of the character's odd noises, in particular "Ling", the romance interest. At first, some of her noises, like an apparent cat hiss, were humorously inserted to deliberately fill a gap in synching up the voice dubs. But 2/3rds into the film, there's a scene involving her and the evil killer, whose dialog eventually turns into a sort of "noise vs. noise" contest to express their points. It's annoying, and I think it was sort of supposed to be, but I would have preferred more wit in scenes like this. Finally, the ending is ridiculous. I was sure it would be, and it doesn't stray from the rest of the film's tone but I found it a little too silly to really care for.

In all, I still heartily enjoyed Kung Pow, and found it to be an entertaining change to today's usual (but not always) crop of recycled stuff. Whether you like it or not directly relates to your sense of humor, and I hope there's more people out there who share mine so the underrated film finds a bigger audience. To those who are unsure, rent it first. To those who liked it and don't yet have the dvd, GET IT. It's a thank you to the fans LOADED with bonus material. Hope you guys give it a chance!

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Tim Roth is great...Not worth the fierce hatred it's gotten, but still just average

[7/10 · 28 November 2003]

I'll state right off that this is a prime example of the burning backlash that resonated after this film's release: The Oscar for Best Makeup went to A Beautiful Mind. Apes wasn't even nominated!!! A SPECIAL Oscar was created for the original!!!

And that's a problem. The costuming and, especially makeup, in the 2001 Apes is absolutely marvelous. But people nowadays just seem to despise the film, and Burton himself for having directed it. But this is not deserved, although I'll express my problems with it.

The story in a nutshell resembles the original: A lone astronaut crashes on a planet ruled by talking apes, and must survive their prejudice against him. But whereas the original had a deeply philisophical plot and dialogue to provoke thought, the 2001 remake is little more than a glamorized chase scene, running too long.

I believe Mark Whalberg is a fine actor, evidenced in films like Boogie Nights and the Yards. But here as main character Leo Davidson, he has little to do besides look awed and run away. Literally. There are some lines here and there suggesting what could have been deeper thoughts, but for the most part it's just plot city: React to the apes, run from them, find shelter, rally to defeat said apes. And the worst part is that the rest of the human characters are a mixed bag of nobodies, equivalent to what I call the "Shirts" of Star Trek lore. You know them, they're the extras who get killed defending the heroes whose names we actually know. Giving the humans the ability to speak does nothing more than hand them the chance to rebel more vocally. There's no explanation for why they can speak, and it doesn't really matter that they can. And worse, the fact that the apes are used to human speech takes away from one of the most powerful moments and subsequent scenes of the superior original, which of course is where Chuck Heston speaks for the first time.

That does remind me of the fact that although there are a few too many silly puns (as with the original as well, to be fair), the opportunity to reference the original is met successfully too. Heston's famous line is mirrored by an ape this time, as is his famous last line from the first film. In fact Heston himself appears in a role built in irony: Not only does he play an ape this time around, but he also condemns the evil capacity of a gun, which must have made some of his NRA pals a little miffed.

Aside from some fun moments like that, the movie's redeemable aspect is, of course, the apes themselves. Using the aforementioned excellent makeup, the actors in ape costume can now emote with the best of them. They snarl, sneer, smile, and speak mostly clearly. No more muffled sounds coming from the almost duck bill appliances that the 60's actors had to work with. The apes MOVE like apes too, loping about, running on all fours, using their feet to hold things. If the movie focused more on them and far, far less on the throwaway humans, the movie would have been much more enjoyable.

What I did like, or rather love about the film, was Tim Roth. I saw the film in the theater multiple times, directly due to Roth's portrayal of the cruel main ape, General Thade. This character absolutely lit up the screen when he was on, delivering lines with the cruel ferocity and impatience of a madman just brimming over with contempt. He has passionate, naziesque hatred of the human race, and makes it no secret that he longs to exterminate them in any way possible. Roth chews the scenery and loves every minute of it, and it surely makes for the most entertaining part of the film. He swaggers, swings, and essentially becomes the most believable portrayal of a primate that I've ever seen. My favorite scene in the film is when he grabs Whalberg's leg from under him, tripping him onto the floor with a crash without even looking at the human. He then jerks Whalberg up and bends him over his lap, to pry open his mouth and look inside to see if a soul exists. Satisfied that he sees nothing, he pitches Whalberg back onto the floor without looking, as one would do to a piece of wadded paper being tossed aside. It's good, energetic stuff, and gives the film a very dark edge that the original didn't quite have.

I've established that the film consisted mainly of scenes with Whalberg and other humans running, escaping, and otherwise walking away from the ape city and any other real interest. Now for the ending..I won't spoil it, but I must say this. The original film had one of the best shock twist ending in history, and was a very tough act to follow. This time around, there are two main twists, none very adequately explained or built up to, and at the end the viewer isn't left with awe but rather a shrug, as he ostensibly thinks "some of that was cool, but the ending was pretty lame and / or confusing." And since Tim Burton said he'd rather jump out of a window than direct another Apes movie, we'll probably never have a follow up.

That's sad, considering that this movie WAS entertaining, but not really done right. The apes were very interesting, but at the sake of the expendable human characters. I left feeling as though the raw power and fierceness of the apes was represented, but not enough. And if the movie focused more on them, as I'd said, it would've been more entertaining. But I admit there would've been less story and conflict as well, so what can you do? Now if only General Thade was in it way more....Ahh, yeah.

In closing, I found it a fun but disposable film. The original is still better and a way more engaging, thought-provoking film. The 2001 remake is kind of a more short-attention span flash-fest, with some fun stuff here and there but not much more to sustain your interest after a couple viewings. The makeup, costumes and scenery were great, and Tim Roth's General Thade was a blast. But past that, not too much to sustain interest. But I do maintain that it wasn't the horrifying, joke-and-cringe inducing wreck of flames that pop culture might be saying it is. Decide for yourself, but whatever you do don't blame Burton entirely. The man's done some great work, and he honestly tried. Besides, he didn't write the much-rewritten finished script.

Rocky (1976)

The first, the best, the sweetest and most honest

[10/10 · 12 November 2003]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Those of you who have been desensitized by Rocky's sequels may well have forgotten just how good the original is. (Spoiler later but I'll warn you).

The original Rocky is, surprisingly, NOT about boxing. It is about a man who has dreams, has aspirations, but just can't make everything work. He lives in a squalid apartment, he barely makes enough to support himself, and people everywhere shun him, disregard his hopes and accomplishments, and call him a bum. His locker at the gym is unceremoniously given to someone viewed to have more talent, and a young neighborhood girl tells him to shove it after he tries his best to give her honest and heartfelt advice about staying away from the bad crowd.

It's not about boxing. Rocky Balboa is an everyman, a simple man who does his best to earn a living and takes cash from any source willing to give it to him. He wants a better life, he wants to be somebody, but the chance just isn't there.

The film, written by Stallone after being inspired by a similar story of a boxer, is sweet and low key. Its Philadelphia setting is very natural and doesn't have the glamour of typical Hollywood, and all performers do a fine job portraying characters that, in their own ways, are living lives of unfulfilled dreams and quiet desperation. Rocky has his eyes on the girl at the local pet store who's so shy that she's called retarded. Her brother, Rocky's only friend, is a boozehound. His boss is a cheap loan shark. And at the gym, the source of his only real interest, the owner seems to hate him.

Rocky's real chance comes when the well-known and flamboyant boxing champ sends him an offer to fight. What's sad about this is that while Rocky has genuine hope to utilize this chance and actually gain some self-respect and approval, in reality the champ just chose Rocky because he looked like a good candidate to boost his own image. This is all too apparent in one of the film's most symbolic scenes, when Rocky visits the empty auditorium where the fight will take place. The promoter is there, and Rocky points out that the giant poster hanging from the rafters features incorrect colors on Rocky's portrait. The promoter looks at it, shrugs, and explains that it doesn't matter, "you'll give us a good show".

This scene is quietly elegant, and encapsulates the feel of the movie as a whole. Whereas the other films in the series are more about Rocky's famous career, this one just lets us look at this poor guy who's just trying to BE somebody. And it's fitting that, by the end, (SPOILER ALERT: The film concludes with Rocky putting up one hell of a fight...And losing. But it doesn't matter. Rocky achieved what mattered most to him. He became somebody, he proved himself to the world, the champ, and even himself, and won the love of someone who really meant something to him. (END OF SPOILER)

The reason this film succeeds is because it isn't done with a heavy hand. It looks at Rocky sensitively, and we're along with him and can't help rooting for the poor guy. He's a good person, he deserves to make it. And as another reviewer pointed out, the soft directing is aided by the famous musical score, which envelopes us into all the emotions that these people are experiencing. It's a very complete package, and although easily dismissable as a "rags - to riches" story, it's much more than that. It's all about someone trying to preserve their self esteem, trying to do what's right, and trying to simply win acceptance. Although I do still love the following four films, the original is where it's at. It's a sweet, honest drama about a man overcoming his obstacles, and it's great.

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

If you're interested by the time the opening credits start, you'll like it

[8/10 · 3 November 2003]

Ok, to start with, there's a great deal of argument for this film. Those who don't enjoy it probably just don't "get" it. I don't mean that they're senseless or less intelligent, I simply mean that, to appreciate what this movie is, you don't have to love Rob Zombie, or think of him as a genius, you just have to "get it". You need to be in a certain mood, not look at it the way you'd look at a film like the Sixth Sense, which itself was a phenomenal film but which also had a much different style and tone.

No, in Corpses, the tone is different. This is more or less a campy film. Not dopey Scooby Doo camp, featuring silly gags and lame one-liners, and not Scream camp, which is like having a bunch of kids who are smart enough to be hip and modern but still fall prey to killers in predictable ways (though the original Scream was great). Corpses on the other hand, is very, very similar to the classic Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original). Yes, a group of kids snoops where they should'nt, and yes, they will probably die. But this movie focuses on the antagonists. Right from the start, we meet and spend some time with lovable Captain Spaulding, proprieter of a backwater gas station and connected "Murder Ride" theme park attraction. He's a goofball, but we're more inclined to like him than any of the dorky, "normal" characters who stumble upon his establishment. And that's how most of the movie is set up. We aren't led to root for these kids, we're led to instead be fascinated/appalled by the strange family that they soon encounter. And the reason this is, in my opinion, is because they're just way more interesting. Bad things happen to the kids (I hope this isn't considered giving anything away in a review of a movie with a title like this). But the thing is, the demented family enjoys what they do. In their eyes, they're just living their lives like they always do. They weren't out hunting for victims. These kids just stumble into their lives, and we watch their odd behavior as a result. In the last 20 or so minutes, the film does get much darker and cruel, but even by the end we can't stop thinking that, naturally, those kids should've just not been stupid enough to stick around a bunch of people like this.

Zombie edits the film in such a way that, pretty regularly, juxtaposed images will pop up in between the regular continuity of the film (those who enjoyed the film will recall the "skunk ape" segment). I believe this is an appropriate choice, as the strange sudden cuts add to the disorient and discomfort of the viewer, parallel to what those dumb kids onscreen must be feeling. While watching the film, you get the sense of "this is a little far out, maybe I should turn it off". Well, that's probably akin to what those kids feel, so I believe this is an effective method of keeping us in a state of intimacy with the strange behavior onscreen.

But even despite this, the film does have a plot and you aren't left with any untied ends, and I think the final verdict as to whether or not you like it is whether you're with it from the start. If you're interested or enjoying the movie by the time the opening credits start, 5 minutes in, you'll "get", or be along with, this film. For those who don't, that just means this isn't your kind of movie.

The Secret Life: Jeffrey Dahmer (1993)

Low budget but true to the facts

[8/10 · 15 October 2003]

This is a tough film to review, since several factors need to be taken into account. Let's filter the more judgmental..Ok, are you interested in the facts concerning the serial killer of Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you withstand an independent, low-budget film? Are you objective enough to NOT dislike a film solely due to its lack of stars or professional look? Well, if you said yes then you should have a mind open enough to handle this one. This film is an almost 100% accurate dramatization of Dahmer's adult life and subsequent murder spree, and is styled as an autobiography. It isn't a glamorized, unrealistic account that unfortunately the theatrical film "Dahmer" (2001) was. The movie begins with Dahmer, played quite convincingly by Carl Crew, sitting in the police car as they raid his apartment. His thoughts of what got him there are presented to us in a past-tense, narrated style that accurately explains much of Dahmer's psychoses and motives which led him to commit murder almost 20 times. We get to know the character, both the devious side as well as the side that came moderately close to living a normal life. It isn't anyone's fault but Dahmer's that 17 people died, but being a criminal psychology student, I was pleased to more than just his animalistic side represented, truthfully, in this film. You see him having a loving relationship with his grandmother as well as trying to find companionship, but of course we witness the side of him that everyone remembers. It should be noted that there is little actual onscreen violence, with much of it suggestive in shots such as spattering of blood or a body being struck through a blurred curtain. You do see two deaths that I remember, one being a pretty bloodless throat slash and the other being a man shoved alive into a barrel of acid. While you don't see anything graphic, this cruelty and the convincing acting of both Crew and his victim make this a disturbing scene. And while the actual onscreen mutilation is kept low, you will see the results. There is a prop hand and head or two, but it seems as if this was to disturb the viewer and doesn't look to be exploitive. Besides, these fake anatomical pieces are where the budget limitations are visible. Although acceptable, they look enough like fakes to not be too disturbing. The film actually concludes before Dahmer's death in 1994, due to the fact that it was released a year or two prior. That's about the only big difference from the real story, and the information that remains is, as I've stated, very true to the facts. The film quality could be better, the dialogue often sounds a little too quiet, and the acting of several characters IS a bit hammy, but it's not overboard. In my opinion, this is a flawed but ultimately honest and serious look into one of America's most remembered serial killers. I think it's safe to say the film is memorable as well, and I respect it for overcoming its limitations to deliver the story in a believable manner, aided by a thoroughly excellent Carl Crew as Dahmer.

The Prince of Egypt (1998)

Excellent, I loved it

[10/10 · 15 October 2003]

The first thing I'd like to say is that although I won't point fingers, I'm actually quite surprised to see some very harsh undue criticism leveled at this movie. While I'm not saying they should have liked it, I'm surprised to hear how much they apparently DISliked it. The Prince of Egypt is the story of Moses, savior of the Hebrews. If you don't know anything about him, you might wanna try the Bible, as his story begins on, like, page 7 or 8. In all fairness, I'm not a very religious man, but I still found this to be a very enjoyable (I hesitate to use this word...)cartoon. You don't have to be a catholic or jew or very religious to even enjoy it, as it isn't the kind of preachy cartoon you'd expect to see exclusively in bible stores (not that there is anything wrong with that, just not my thing). POE tells a very human story about a man born into a noble family who must decide what to do when he is apparently visited by God and given the great responsibility of rebelling against his adoptive family.

While some have complained that this movie is a blemish to the actual biblical story, I believe those people are overreacting. The film is 100 minutes long, and not designed to document every aspect of Moses' very long life. It retells the widely known (and often retold) story of his most widely known accomplishments, and it does so with common cartoon precedents. This does include songs, but no cute talking animal mascots here. Instead, POE does what it suggests it will: In its time frame, it gives us the aspects of Moses' life that most people are familiar with, and it isn't trying to be a lengthy documentary the likes of the Ten Commandments (though I love that film as well). No, POE is just an animated treatment of the tale, and a good one at that. The production values are high, the animation is definitely on par with any other animated (not COMPUTERIZED) film, and in my opinion the songs were actually enjoyable.

The film introduces us to Moses and Rameses in a lighthearted way, and it first seems as if this'll be a common kiddy movie. But once Moses is exiled and encounters God, the tone shifts dramatically and we see nothing lighthearted again. The Nile turns to blood and the plagues are shown, including the death of the firstborn. For a cartoon, it takes its subject matter quite seriously (hence the PG rating).

How can I change the minds of those who tear this movie apart for its supposed mishandling of the sensitive and beloved subject matter? I don't want to. I'm glad they have their opinions. Still, I do wish they wouldn't take the film so personally or be so judgmental. Compared to any film, let alone cartoon on the subject, POE is one of the most mature and honest in its look at spirituality. And simply being compared to other current cartoons, POE holds its own just fine. In my opinion, the acting, animation, lighting and shadows, and music were excellent. I honestly left the theater very moved, and I respect the film for being what it is, an animated and good-natured look at how Moses freed the slaves. If at the very least this film brings the story to a new generation of people, Its done its job just fine.