Film Reviews by Braden Adam

Burn After Reading

2008-10-09T02:00:00.003-04:00

Title: Burn After Reading
Director: Joel & Ethan Coen
Cast: George Clooney, John Malkovich, Brad Pitt
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.
Date of Review: October 9, 2008

As I’ve grown older and become more knowledgeable about both myself and the world around me, I’ve come to be more appreciative of the Coen Brothers’ filmography, which deals almost exclusively with characters of below-average intelligence. It’s nice to see a couple of American storytellers who are simultaneously patriotic and cynical regarding their government and the so-called “average joe” of the American South. They have a great sense of humor when it comes to their country’s shortcomings, which is refreshing when considered among all the overly melodramatic, “my country, ‘tis of thee” fare that’s been churned out since 9/11 (though it’s always been prevalent in western [aka American] cinema). Burn After Reading is like a culmination of all their previous works, from the quirky romantic comedy of Raising Arizona to the ambiguous nihilism of No Country For Old Men. But while it feels like their whole career has led up to this film, the mixture of so many different themes, tones and textures is schizophrenic. The film is uneven at best, with its biggest problem being that it just isn’t that funny.

Brad Pitt provides the greatest laughs in the film, with an immature energy and total disregard for self-seriousness. That is not to say that the other characters populating the film are “serious” (with George Clooney playing a neurotic, sex-addicted paranoiac, and Frances McDormand a plastic surgery obsessed gym worker scouring the online dating scene), but Pitt’s character is the most consistent because he is also the most one-note - he’s an idiot. Yes, all the other characters occupy different levels of stupidity, but it is Pitt who is the same person at the beginning and end of the story. When we are introduced to Clooney’s character at a dinner party, his eccentricities make him a near social cripple, unable to talk of anything other than his odd medical conditions. Later, we find he is paranoid beyond reason, secretive and incapable of relating to anyone (and, of course, a sex-addict). He is also having an affair with Tilda Swinton’s character - a powerful, successful and judgmental ice queen who loathes her own husband (John Malkovich) for his socially awkward, loser persona. Interesting characters, but their traits and motives don’t all add up. If Swinton hates her husband for his being an unlikable worm, why would she have an affair with an even more detestable snake like Clooney?

Ignoring the narrative inconsistencies, Burn After Reading is more depressing and disturbing than it is funny or clever. Brad Pitt, while stupid beyond comprehension, is the only character whose motivations are not entirely self-centered, and this leaves him arguably worse-off than anyone else in the story. That his loyalty to a friend leaves him where it does is pretty saddening to say the least. The whole film is quite saddening, though. John Malkovich plays the central character, a man so bitter after being downgraded from his job in the US government, that he has decided to write a memoir exposing many secrets and lies he has come into contact with. But by the end of the film, we come to see that his character wrongly assumed that his information made him “important”, and that he actually posed no threat at all. Now, if a man like that - who did have access to some pretty sensitive material - is looked at so lightly, that must mean that someone like, say, me, a lowly writer, must mean absolutely nothing in the world.

A stretch for sure, but this is what I left the theatre thinking. Any laughs I had with Brad Pitt’s hilarious attempts to intimidate John Malkovich, or George Clooney’s ability to “fit a run in” were lost by the depressing end, where the problems created by these stupid people are solved in a stupid way by even more stupid people occupying high positions in the government. Yes, the majority of American citizens are rather unintelligent, and yes, I realize that the government is corrupt and sneaky. This is not new ground to be covered, nor is it new ground to be spoofed. So what’s the point? To make a zany comedy? Just to have us laugh at how ridiculous this all is? That’s fine, but why then leave it all on such a dreary note? Why remind us of how insignificant our lives are, and how easily we could just be wiped from existence without anyone batting an eye? This ultimatum to the film is depressing, and negates any laughs to have come before.

I must digress and mention that John Malkovich and the Coen Brothers are a match made in heaven. Why they haven’t worked together before now is beyond me, but I hope they work together again, because Malkovich’s dry humor and sometimes self-serious delivery bordering on parody work perfectly with the Coens’ witty dialogue.

Burn After Reading isn’t a bad movie by any means, it’s just too down-trodden for its own good. The gut-busting laughs die off about halfway through, and the depressing end leaves a bad taste in the mouth which cancels out any goodness to have come before it. The performances are strong, the Coens prove once again to be some of the most reliable writers of dialogue in Hollywood, and it’s all shot simply yet effectively. But for a comedy, it’s just not that funny, and if laughs don’t count in the critiquing of a comedy, then I guess I’m misunderstanding this whole “film critic” thing.

6.5 / 10

The Last Winter

2008-08-01T10:52:00.002-04:00

Title: The Last Winter
Director: Larry Fessenden
Cast: Ron Perlman, Connie Britton, James LeGros
Year: 2006
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: August 1, 2008

Imagine if Mother Earth had had enough. We’ve destroyed the rain forests, mined and drilled the surface of our planet into a pock-marked horror, we’ve polluted and corrupted both the land and the animals with our waste and filth. What if Nature put its foot down and said “enough”, and refused to let us tamper with the one last secret that it holds? No, this is not The Happening, but it is an equally preachy horror tale, trying to warn us of our erring ways and remind us how much power nature really has over us. Directed by Larry Fessenden, The Last Winter is a deliberately paced psychological horror film, which slowly burns with an impending dread which climaxes with some spooky supernatural occurrences. In his 2001 feature, Wendigo, Fessenden gave us an almost fairy-tale like story, with an ominous beast in the woods who may or may not be a presence of evil. With this follow-up, Fessenden once again obscures the exact meaning and motive of this supernatural beast - is it really evil? Sure, it kills people, but is it not doing this in self-defense? It’s a film filled with questions, many completely unanswered, and that’s what makes it so exciting.

Set amidst the inhumanly cold and harsh climate of Northern Alaska, the story follows a team working for an oil company who wants to tap into a possible oil reserve in this region. Through a slightly intrusive bit of exposition at the beginning of the movie, we learn that this site had been drilled many, many years ago, but the strange occurrences kept the findings from being shared with the world. The original valve remains to this day, and is protected by a giant white crate, and its presence immediately evokes the same terror as the Monolith of 2001: A Space Odyssey. One of the crew begins to obsess over this giant white box out in the snow, and as the team gets closer and closer to being able to open the box, it becomes more apparent that, well, maybe they shouldn’t.

Environmentalism is, of course, the first thing that this movie has to teach, and it gets a little much at times. The overall narrative is enough to communicate the message that we’ve screwed up the planet and it’s probably not too happy about it, but random montages of bubbling oil, tankers capsizing in the ocean, and brutal forest fires really drive the point home. It wouldn’t have been surprising to read the name “Al Gore” in the producing credits of this film. But the environmental implications are not all that this film has to offer. Much like Wendigo, there are layers upon layers of subtext here, and it can all be interpreted in very different ways, making for some potentially great discussion. By looking at the events of the film through different lenses, it can take on entirely new meanings.

One of the most interesting ideas in the film is a battle of spirituality and science. Are there things in the universe (or in our own world) that we are not meant to know? When we learn of the previous expedition to drill for oil - which left the original valve - it is never clear what the expedition really did find, due to the mystery in which the story is enshrouded. They went searching for oil, but is that what they found? And if it is not oil under the cold ground and snow, what is it? While nature is protecting itself from our destructive influence, could it also be protecting one of its own secrets? What would it mean for us to open that valve, and let loose whatever it is that’s under there?

The film is immaculately shot. Fessenden has no qualms with sustaining a shot to emphasize the stark, haunting imagery within. And much of the film does have a barren, cold feeling - it fits both the setting and the mood, making these characters feel alone and desperate, completely cut off from the outside world. While many films have been set in these sub-zero climates, it’s rare that they really evoke a shiveringly cold feeling in the viewer. Shots of wind blowing violently through the snow, stirring up the surface powder and covering the characters in layers of icy cold really bring this feeling to the forefront. This is another area where Fessenden’s cinematic earnestness shines through. He is willing to keep the pace slow yet constantly moving forward, so the fear in the characters doesn’t seem rushed and the impending doom feels real and unexpected. It’s something that’s rarely seen in big budget theatrical releases, which is probably one of the reasons why we don’t see Fessenden’s name floating around AMC’s.

This is not The Thing. There is a “being”, yes, but this is not a gore-ridden, effects-driven fright fest. Its political ambitions may be a little too in-your-face, but The Last Winter is mostly effective with its theatrics, and the writing and characters have greatly improved since Fessenden’s last effort. With a strong cast (including Ron Perlman, and Connie Britton of “Spin City” fame) the scares feel authentic and the characters real, and these are two of the most important and, coincidentally, widely ignored areas of modern horror cinema.

8 / 10

The Dark Knight

2008-07-19T22:53:00.004-04:00

Title: The Dark Knight
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Date of Review: July 18, 2008

There is a scene near the beginning of The Dark Knight where a deal is going down between a couple of Gotham’s gang lords (one of them being a great little cameo performance from a returning character). Suddenly, Batman shows up, his silhouette visible in the shadows. "Too bad there’s only one of you!" one of the criminals shouts. Then, another Batman shows up, wielding an automatic weapon. Then the Batmobile makes a grand entrance, and out comes another Batman to join the fight. Three Batmans fighting each other, and the other criminals stand there, clueless and unsure of who to fire at first. This is a great reflection of one of the strongest themes in the film - when life is a desperate struggle, and everything seems to point to total anarchy, it can become near impossible to tell who is the hero, and who is the villain.

Christopher Nolan returns to helm the second Batman film in the franchise reboot which began with 2005's Batman Begins, and for all intents and purposes, he blew expectations out of the water. The Dark Knight is not just your typical superhero film with a clear-cut vision of good-vs-evil. It stretches the boundaries of summer blockbuster cinema, including the writing and sensibilities of a conscientious indie film, with the action, effects and gusto of an event film. It’s not very often that we are treated to a summer "popcorn movie" that haunts us and makes us think about how we really define the idea of a "hero". Like The Prestige and Memento before it, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have made a story with many layers to dissect, and constant undertones of "what would you do in this situation?". Instead of preaching to us what the right answer is, they let us think for ourselves, and question our own morals.

While Heath Ledger has been receiving monumental accolades for his turn as The Joker (and deservedly so, his performance is primal and iconic), it’s sad that this has overshadowed Aaron Eckhart’s performance as Harvey Dent. Dent is really the main character of the film, with Batman, The Joker, and Rachel Dawes surrounding him and either supporting or attempting to destroy him. Batman has spent the past years trying to rid Gotham of its criminal element through violence and methods outside the law. But when Harvey Dent manages to arrest and detain more than 500 of Gotham’s criminals in one massive bust, Batman sees this as a sign. "The dawn is coming", Dent proclaims in a press conference, and it certainly seems so. He is Gotham’s White Knight - he can be the hero to the city, and the symbol of justice and goodness that Batman has tried to be. And so along comes The Joker, whose mission is to rid Gotham of this hope, and to show them that, when you take away the written rules, everyone becomes a savage criminal.

Wally Pfister returns to work the cinematography on The Dark Knight, and like Batman Begins and The Prestige, this is a beautiful looking film. While Batman Begins used a lot of amber lighting, and had a slight feeling of artificiality from its being filmed largely in a warehouse (mimicking the style of Blade Runner), The Dark Knight has a strong sense of verticality in the city, with looming skyscrapers constantly overhead. The film looks cold and stark, with many large, empty white rooms, and a near constant ice-blue tint on the outdoor images. The world is a cold, dark place looking for its "White Knight", and the cinematography itself mimics this battle between light and dark.

And it’s no surprise that Christian Bale returns to the role with both grace and intensity, giving us the definitive live-action Batman. He actually plays three very distinct roles - the Bruce Wayne that the public sees (an arrogant, womanizing socialite, not unlike Patrick Bateman), the Bruce Wayne that only Rachel and Alfred know (introspective, and torn between his loyalty to Gotham and his love for Ms. Dawes), and Batman, the feral avenger of the night. Returning with Bale are all of the principle cast members from Batman Begins (except for Katie Holmes, who has been replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is much more believable as an intelligent, successful assistant D.A.). And everyone feels more comfortable in their roles, which is surely due in part to Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s wonderful screenplay. The dialogue is intelligent and natural, and The Joker is funny in sick, horrible ways. The Nolan brothers even succeed in ironing out the lumpy one-liners which occasionally rattled Batman Begins. Oh, the one-liners are still there, but they feel less childish, and more like the characters being clever, rather than something completely out of character and cheesy ("I gotta get me one of those", anyone?)

The Dark Knight is not without its flaws, though -like every other film in history, it is not perfect. A few questionable effects choices during the action sequences are a bit out-of-place with the rest of the film’s overtly serious tone. One such instance occurs right after the flipping of the 18-wheeler that was shown in the trailers, and as Batman rides away from the wreck on his motorcycle, he somehow rides halfway up a wall and spins back around to land, facing the other direction. It happens with inhumanly speed, and feels like it is something meant to cater towards a younger audience. It’s particularly out of place in this film, as much of the action is very tactical and precise, similar to the action which would be found in a film by Michael Mann (which is no surprise, since his film Heat was sited by Christopher Nolan as being the main inspiration for both the visual style and overall tone of this film).

Also, there is little-to-no character development. The film begins with a brilliant bank robbery, and runs on all four cylinders for the rest of its 150 minute runtime. While seeing Batman Begins is not necessarily a prerequisite for enjoying The Dark Knight, an understanding of the character and his relationships with Lucius Fox, Lt. Gordon, Rachel Dawes and Alfred is something that’s good to have before going in. It wouldn’t be impossible to understand - throughout the film, we come to see that Fox supplies Wayne with his gadgets, Dawes is a love interest, Gordon is a reluctant believer, and Alfred is a paternal advisor - but it may be jarring for the first 45 minutes or so, as the film jumps right into the story.

Commendation must be given to the Nolans for their handling of the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character. No real background is given regarding Dent’s previous experiences and life, but through a strong script and a near show-stealing performance from Eckhart, we really feel that Dent is a character we have known for years. While I was enrolled in a college Script Writing program, one of the greatest lessons that was drilled into our heads was "show, don’t tell". SHOW the audience how a character has come to be the way they are, through dialogue and their handling of the situations in the story, do not TELL the audience with lazy exposition. The Nolans do this perfectly with the Dent character, giving us all we need to know about him, and we feel that he is a fully rounded character through his many run ins with gangsters, Batman, and The Joker himself.

To say that The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date is an understatement. It is simply one of the best films to come out in the new millennium, regardless of budget, target audience, or the time of year in which it was released. This isn’t just a great summer movie, nor is it just a great superhero movie - it is a brilliant piece of fiction put on film. It is already being compared to The Godfather and Heat as one of the best contemporary crime dramas to come out of America, and that’s not hyperbole. The Dark Knight delivers in all areas, and if this is the last we see of Batman on the big screen, it will not have left fans wanting.

10 / 10

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

2008-07-14T16:53:00.002-04:00

Title: Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
Cast: Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some language.
Date of Review: July 14, 2008

One of the hardest parts of writing a good story (whether it be prose, screenplay, or one of the many other mediums) is keeping a consistent tone. The feel of the movie has to have a natural flow, so that any deviation from that (comic relief, or a good scare) doesn’t seem out of place. This means the writer - and in this case, filmmaker - must have a good sense of timing. Like the ignoramus who cracks a "dead baby" joke in the middle of a maternity ward, a misplaced quip can ruin the mood completely. This is the biggest problem in Hellboy II: The Golden Army - it doesn’t know what it is. Like the big red hero himself, the film is so unsure of its own purpose that some scenes leave you scratching your head, wondering why, exactly, it was necessary to include such a thing.

"Visual spectacle" seems to have been the number one goal on the mind of Guillermo Del Toro with this film, which is really too bad considering the beautiful stories he has told over the years (including the original Hellboy, with its surprisingly touching love story). The love story between Hellboy and Liz Sherman is continued here, but mostly for comedic effect. Abe Sapien also finds love in this entry, but again, most of it is just used for comedy. These scenes tie together the various action set pieces, each of which try to outdo the last, and each is big and loud enough to have been the climactic scene in its own movie. The best one occurs around the middle of the film, where Hellboy does battle with a "forest god" - this enormous, pale green monster emerges from a under a busy New York street and begins to wreak havoc. As news and police helicopters arrive and begin to scan over the beast with their search lights, it brings back memories of Cloverfield, and its infamously strange monster. And as the "forest god" lumbers around the city block, it covers anything it touches (or bleeds on) with beautiful outgrowths of flowers and bushes. It’s one of the film’s many beautiful yet hollow sights.

And there are just too many of these beautiful sights with nothing to back them up. We see oodles of monsters throughout the course of the film, each one a visual delight unto itself. One scene involves Hellboy and Abe Sapien venturing to "The Troll Market", a safe place for monsters located under the Brooklyn Bridge. This scene is somewhere between the Star Wars cantina, and a Jim Henson movie, as all of these monsters engage in commerce, each of them looking like something lifted right out of the pages of (surprise!) a comic book. Like the rest of the movie, it’s a visual treat...but so what? They go there looking for Princess Nuala, an Elven Princess, and we seem to be building up to a great mystery - how will they find her? Coincidentally, this just happens to be the exact same time that the Princess is sneaking around the market, looking as suspicious as possible. So, of course, it doesn’t end up being much of a challenge for our heroes to find her.

This is just lazy writing, and the film is plagued with it. The opening scene shows Hellboy as a small boy (and if there was ever a bad child performance, it’s here) being told a bedtime story about the Golden Army, Prince Nuada, and lots of other stuff that explains everything you need to know before going into the movie. Stylistically, it’s pretty neat the way that they had Hellboy’s imagining of the story in his head appear as an animated film for us to see. But it also foreshadows the painful level of exposition which occurs throughout the entire movie. Every monster introduced in the film is given a convenient "explanation" before they come on screen, then when they leave the screen you can be guaranteed you’ll never see them again. The "Angel of Death" character is truly a sight to behold, but its presence is a deus ex machina in its purest form. Hellboy, Liz and Abe are searching for help, a no-legged troll just happens to wander by and offer to bring them to someone who can help, he brings them to the Angel of Death who then helps them and (literally) vanishes into thin air. It’s not satisfying from a narrative point of view, and it’s a great representation of the huge differences between this film and the first one, released in 2004.

The first Hellboy had heart and soul, and Hellboy himself was a character we rooted for. He was well-rounded and interesting, and his internal struggle to discover whether he really is a demon, or if his human upbringing made him good was a great story. The sequel just doesn’t have this depth, and despite its many attempts to have heart, it fails. Scenes used to inject humanity into the characters are very funny, but they don’t really make them feel any fuller. In one scene, Hellboy and Abe sit together, drinking beer and singing along to Barry Manilow, both frustrated with how women can be so hard to understand. Scenes like this try to give the film the same heart that the first one had, but like the action scenes, they jump in and out without much to back them up, so watching Hellboy and Abe get drunk together may be funny, but it doesn’t give us the emotional connection we need.

The whole movie is just all over the place. Juggling between romantic comedy, horror, fantasy, action and drama, it never really finds what it really is. Some scenes are magical, and feel like a Jim Henson movie for the new millennium. Other scenes feel more like the Guillermo Del Toro we knew from Blade II, with fast-paced action and even some frightening visuals. Then other scenes, such as the very final shot of Hellboy’s confused face coupled with happy-go-lucky frolicking music feel satirical in their sense of humor. It’s all very confusing to take in, and it just doesn’t blend together all that well.

Perhaps another viewing is in order, and knowing what to expect will help smooth over the bumps and see the film as an entirely different beast from the first. But its differences are jarring, and while it is visually similar to the first - using the same colour palette and beautiful amber lighting - Hellboy II: The Golden Army feels more experimental than anything. It wouldn’t be surprising to read that Guillermo Del Toro was inspired by Spider-Man 3’s departure from its predecessors, and while this isn’t the colossal train wreck that Raimi’s threequel was, it proves that gorgeous visuals alone do not a good film make.

6 / 10

The Machine Girl

2008-07-09T03:39:00.002-04:00

Title: The Machine Girl
Director: Noboru Iguchi
Cast: Asami, Ryôsuke Kawamura, Kentaro Kishi
Year: 2008
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: July 9, 2008

A lot of the charm in the "grindhouse" films of the 1970s came from how earnest a lot of them were, even with their sleazy subject matter and often shocking content. It wasn’t just the script, but the technical quality of the filmmaking - Super 8 cameras and bad special effects added to that whole aura, giving these films their personality. This is an area where Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez really missed the mark with Grindhouse. Despite their best efforts to make the film look grainy and worn, the script sound ham-fisted and the effects look sub par, it all felt so intentional and precise that it became artificial. It still looked and felt like a big-budget studio feature. If they had really wanted to capture the authentic feel of ‘70s exploitation films, they should have employed the same tools and constraints as those maverick filmmakers of 30 years ago. In this way, The Machine Girl is more successful in recreating this era of shock cinema. It uses its low budget and borderline bad taste to its advantage, creating a cartoonish revenge saga with some of the most ridiculous gore since Riki-Oh.

A woman vomitting out her intestines into a bowl of soup. A man forced to eat sushi topped with his own severed fingers. And, of course, the titular Japanese school girl with a machine gun for an arm. These are just a few of the "simpler" sights to be seen in The Machine Girl, a movie so outrageous that the only thing genuinely shocking about it is how funny it can be. Like Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive, humor is found through a mixture of slapstick and extreme gore. And while some scenes contain torture and mutilation, the 10-foot blood sprays accompanied by the occasional puff of air from the wound remind us that this is fake blood spraying from a hose, not an artery. If a "Looney Tunes" episode contained gore, that’s the tone you could expect here. Nothing is serious, and even the over-the-top attempts at emotional content are funny because of how aware the film is of its own ridiculousness.

Like Versus, another gonzo gorefest from Japan, The Machine Girl doesn’t have anything to offer other than its supreme level of entertainment. The story is not much deeper than the title suggests - a young girl avenges the death of her brother (and the loss of her own arm) at the hands of the yakuza, by having a machine gun built that fits perfectly on her stump. Insanity ensues. She fights the aforementioned yakuza, as well as a trio of ninjas dressed in red jogging suits, throwing hundreds of ninja-stars every time they leap, flip, or move in any way. She encounters the yakuza’s mistress, who is armed with a "drill bra" - no further explanation is warranted, you have to see the movie to believe some of the stuff that happens here. Suffice to say, it’s never boring. Even when it falls into lulls of attempted emotion and dramatic tension, it’s all done so tongue-in-cheek that its "so bad it’s good" badge is worn with pride.

It’s not without its problems, though. While the make-up effects used to create the gore are hardly what one would call "realistic", they have a tangibility not found in CGI. So during the few instances when CGI is employed - and it is truly awful - it really brings the experience to a halt. Also, the humor tends to go a little overboard at times. Perhaps it’s just personal taste, but a visual gag where "bad guys" are torn to pieces by machine gun fire is leagues away from making jokes about rape and necrophilia. Maybe this could be a little message about our times, and how violent content is so readily accepted while anything sexual is frowned upon, but it seems unlikely that that is the case, given the context of these jokes.

It would be interesting to find out what Tarantino thinks of The Machine Girl, because it is such a different take on a modern-day grindhouse experience. Instead of the constant winks at the audience which Tarantino and Rodriguez gave us, The Machine Girl tries to provide us with a more authentic experience without the "wink wink, nudge nudge". It actually feels a lot more like the trailers between the two films in Grindhouse - which also captured not only the look but the feel of this era of cinema much better than the films they appeared between - and if you’ve been eagerly waiting for Machete to come to theatres, The Machine Girl may hold you off for a while.

7.5 / 10

Wanted

2008-07-02T00:06:00.002-04:00

Title: Wanted
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Cast: James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated R for strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality.
Date of Review: July 1, 2008

Pure male fantasy can be fun. Any man who says he wouldn’t want to give up his day-job to become a millionaire superhero would be lying. That dream of being a total badass who is practically invincible, admired by his peers, and always gets the girl is something that’s ingrained into our consciousness as the very definition of a “man”. To feel that your presence is wanted somewhere - that you are the only one who can do something that is going to change the world, and everyone that you look up to will love you for it. And so, with the aptly named Wanted, a story is told that’s part Fight Club, part The Matrix, and completely ridiculous.

A ridiculous movie can be fun, as long as the ridiculous-to-self serious ratio is kept in check. Mario Bava’s Danger: Diabolik! is possibly one of the most ridiculous movies ever made - the hero actually utters the classic line “This suit is so strong, I could swim through the center of the sun!” - but it never forgets what it is. Wanted on the other hand has a near schizophrenic mix of self-satirizing action (such as a hitman running so fast through an office building that all the papers in the offices are blown into a frenzy from his speed), and dialogue delivered so seriously that it seems the writers and filmmakers actually took these ideas seriously. The “Loom of Fate”, weaving cotton into a plain white cloth, which, when looked at under a magnifying glass, has a series of misweaves that can be read as binary code for the names of people who need to be killed in order to restore balance to the world? WHAT? Morgan Freeman delivers his expository lines with such serious demeanor that it leaves one to wonder how he can do work like this and Dreamcatcher, then turn around and say Batman Begins was the first movie he ever did strictly for the money.

Wanted’s ruminations on the “anti-establishment” mindset and conspiracy theories make Laurence Fishburne’s philosophical rants in The Matrix feel subtle. As Morgan Freeman talks about the history of “The Fraternity” and their quest to keep balance in the world by executing anyone that “The Loom of Fate” sees as being an evil-doer, it’s hard to keep a straight face. It’s even harder when we are shown the members of “The Fraternity”, consisting of Angelina Jolie, rapper Common, and a fat guy with a Cuban accent worthy of “Al Pacino’s Stamp of Approval”. These actors ham it up with an intense desire to look and sound as cool as possible. Again, things would be different if they had embraced the inherent ridiculousness of the story and its action, but every twist the movie throws - and there are plenty - just makes things more convoluted and stupid, resulting in one leaving the theatre feeling like a gunplay soap opera was shown, rather than an action movie.

The action is impressive at the beginning of the movie, as we see a few people get shot in the head in super-slow motion, focusing on the journey of the bullet through their brains, then backwards through the air and back into the gun that shot it. But the film quickly becomes a one-trick pony, as this technique is used repeatedly in every action sequence throughout the movie. Imagine if “bullet-time” had been used during every violent encounter in The Matrix, then it wouldn’t have seemed nearly as amazing when Neo did his pivotal bullet-dodge on the rooftop. Such is the problem with Wanted - it’s so overdone to start off with, that by the end when we see James McAvoy in action - a regular “prodigal son” whose power exceeds everyone else’s combined - it doesn’t seem too impressive. Everything the film has to offer is covered in the first half hour.

Is this really what we’ve come to? Does it really take this kind of posing, slow-motion and inhumanly fast editing to entertain us? Having recently watched Heat, the assault rifle fight in the middle of a crowded L.A. street is easily one of the best, most intense action sequences in American cinema, and not one superhuman assassin is present. That unreality can be fun, but it can also go too far and take us out of the experience - particularly when there’s an abundance of poor CGI, something Wanted suffers from greatly.

Is it entertaining? At times. In the same way that Crank was entertaining, but it doesn’t know it. Wanted thinks it is The Matrix, as if it is redefining what makes an exciting action sequence, and giving us this “bullet-cam” technique which could be the next big thing in American action cinema. I certainly hope not, because the world was given enough of it in this one film alone. Poor, nerdy Wesley Gibson’s journey from computer-jockey to gun-toting badass is a shallow one, and completely unbeweavable.

4 / 10

Wendigo

2008-05-29T16:30:00.003-04:00

Title: Wendigo
Director: Larry Fessenden
Cast: Jake Weber, Patricia Clarkson, Erik Per Sullivan
Year: 2001
MPAA: Rated R for a strong sex scene, language and violent images.
Date of Review: May 29, 2008

***HEAVY SPOILERS AHEAD***

It’s hard to explain the feeling of joy someone like myself derives from seeing genre cinema treated with respect. Over the past few years this has been happening more and more in the world of big-budget blockbusters, but I still find that the real “gold” is found in the smaller films. You know, like that one you’ve passed by a million times at the video store - it’s got a rating of 6-something on IMDb, it has good critical reviews and a nifty cover, but you just can’t muster up the courage to take a chance with it. Or maybe you needed to see Cloverfield just one more time, for the seventh time. This was me with Larry Fessenden’s Wendigo - a movie I had heard equally good and bad things about, and had been curious about for years, yet I never got around to watching it. Until last night. And I smacked myself on the head for not having seen it before.

Telling several different stories at once, this supernatural horror fable centres on a family of three who go to a cottage in snow-covered upstate New York and are simultaneously hunted by a psychotic hillbilly, and haunted by the Native American spirit known as the “wendigo”. This all happens amidst problems in the family structure - George, the father (played by Jake Weber) is having trouble connecting with his son and really being a part of the boy’s life, and Kim (played by Patricia Clarkson) sees this and is beginning to resent George for it. Their son, Miles (Erik Per Sullivan), is the only one who is truly aware of the supernatural occurrences around the cottage, which seem to be created (or exasperated) by his possession of a small wendigo figure he received from a mysterious Native man at a local corner store. As all of these conflicts converge, many different layers can be pealed back, in a film that has a lot to say about myths, human nature, and the way the world works.

Fessenden has said that many of his films (especially this one) deal with how myths and legends come to be. Their purpose is simple - to explain the unexplainable. To give comfort and a sense of familiarity to situations that are extraordinary, or too horrible to see truth in. Wendigo does this, with the young boy’s fantasies about the wendigo spirit being his own way of dealing with events which will eventually lead to the death of his father. In a very powerful final shot, Miles is seen clenching the wendigo idol so hard that his hand is bleeding - he has come to believe in this story (told to him by the aforementioned mysterious Native) so strongly that he has passed the point of being able to accept reality. But how much of it was imagined by Miles, and how much of it involved real, supernatural forces working on the side of nature?

In an ingenious twist, Fessenden leads us to believe that the wendigo is a creature of evil (or at least, of great destructive power). The story that the Native tells to young Miles makes the wendigo out to be an unforgiving monster, which devours everything it encounters and has immense power. But after George is shot by a (possibly) stray bullet while sledding with Miles, he is found on the doorstep of the cottage, and cannot remember how he got there. “It was like a wind carried me here” he says, reminding us of the Native’s story of how the wendigo would often manifest itself in the form of a strong wind. We then see the father from the point of view of the young boy, lying there on the ground helpless and hurt, with the wendigo beast towering over him. It is not a stance of hostility, though, but rather of comfort and shelter - the wendigo did its best to save the man’s life.

Here we see the carrying out of the film’s sense of justice - George was shot by the psycho hillbilly, Otis (played by John Speredakos), and since saving the man’s life was beyond the wendigo’s power, it uses its greater power of destruction to seek vengeance for this wrongdoing. This ties into the theme we are shown at the very beginning of the film, before any mention of the supernatural is made - that of man vs. man. That is, the “civilized” city man, versus the “uncivilized” country man. The very beginning incident of the family car hitting a buck, leading to a conflict between the family and the local hunters who wanted the buck’s antlers, could be a film unto itself. The city man, who has never had to fend for himself in the country, has presumably never shot a gun or done any hunting of any kind, feels threatened by the archetypal country man, whose simple existence is much “manlier” (plus, he’s got a big gun). This also deepens the film’s justice theme, as the country man has committed the greatest universal crime - murder - and the wendigo must even the playing field, regardless of the fact that the wrongdoer is the one who lives closest to the land.

Wendigo gives us a lot to think about, and it’s too bad that it does have some problems. Casting a child actor is risky - more often than not, they just aren’t good. And when one is found who is good, they become so overused that they are annoying regardless of their talent. Erik Per Sullivan just wasn’t convincing as the son, and many of the frightening moments (such as a late night when Miles is sitting in bed and imagines a little girl coming out of his closet) he looks as if he is on the verge of laughter. Similarly, some of the family dynamics are a little grating. While it can be seen in their one-on-one scenes together, the supposed tension between George and Miles is missing completely when the whole family is together, and their happy, playful nature is almost “Brady Bunch”-esque in its believability.

It’s certainly not perfect, but Wendigo provides genuine thought, and looks at both spiritual and physical planes of our existence on this Earth. As Fessenden also says in the interview on the DVD, with all of our scientific knowledge and incredible advances in technology, we still don’t really have any idea how our world works. We have theories based on facts, but facts change with time and scrupulous analysis. The idea that a force like the wendigo could be out there pursuing natural justice is an interesting one. Just the fact that this film has left me with this much to ponder makes it one of the more worthwhile viewing experiences I have had in the last while, and is a great addition to the “indie horror gems” shelf that I am constantly adding to.

8 / 10

Iron Man

2008-05-04T02:52:00.002-04:00

Title: Iron Man
Director: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content.
Date of Review: May 3, 2008

I’ve always been more of a DC guy. This probably stems from the time at which I was most into superheroes - the 1990s, when comic books were at an all time low with regards to quality writing. I wanted so badly to like “X-Men”, because Wolverine was so cool and I generally just loved the concept...but every time I picked up an issue of the book, it was a damn soap opera. I just couldn’t get into the storylines, and I (like every other young boy) wanted action. That’s probably why “Iron Man” was the one Marvel hero I could really get behind. He had his bouts of soap opera madness, but nothing like his mutant friends. His books were always more about the action, and the drama which could be derived from it. So it was with this young boy’s sense of anticipation that I went to the theatre to see Marvel’s most recent film, Iron Man, and I was given a hefty dose of nostalgia, and a genuinely great movie to boot.

Robert Downey Jr. is deserving of all the accolades he has been receiving for his turn as Tony Stark, and people will be talking about this performance for a long time - probably until the next movie comes out. He plays Stark as an arrogant, womanizing, heavy drinker, but does it with such charisma and charm that he’s possibly the most likable comic book hero we have seen on the silver screen thus far. His sense of humor and his teenage selfishness complement each other nicely, and while his toys are all A.I.-fueled high-tech gadgets, in the end he is just a boy who discovers he can make himself into a hero in his own garage. And once the suit is complete and Iron Man begins his work, the action is exhilarating and surprisingly tasteful in its execution.

The movie really shines in it’s dialogue, though. While light on narrative - a fairly standard origin story and “hero’s quest” type plot structure is at its core - the characters surrounding Stark are rich and full of life (due in no small part to the top notch cast). Director Jon Favreau has said that he encouraged the cast to ad lib as much as they wanted, and the improvisations are spot on for the characters being played. The interaction between Stark and his various maintenance robots is hilarious, and the forbidden romance between him and his secretary Pepper Potts (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) rings true due to the snappy back-and-forth occurring between them in all of their scenes together.

Iron Man, like any truly great summer movie, isn’t just mindless entertainment. It has a heart, a soul, and a conscience. It is a film about responsibility - not in the way Spider-Man was, but in its own way. Learning to take responsibility for your past actions, and choosing to right your own wrongs rather than let someone else do it for you is a central theme in the film. And with its modern-day relevance - having it take place largely in Afghanistan, involving middle eastern war criminals whose lives were destroyed by the same American weapons which they now use in their crusade for vengeance - it’s quite a wake-up call to the USA to take responsibility, itself, for a conflict which is largely (if not entirely) their fault.

And while I would not be reluctant in any way to call this the best superhero movie since Batman Begins (and in turn one of the best ever), it is not without its flaws. Perhaps my own fandom has created a bias, but the strength of Iron Man’s character really warranted a more rousing musical score. Having the score rely largely on heavy guitar riffs is great in concept (I mean, heavy metal music for Iron Man seems appropriate, right?) but none of it really felt unique. The music seemed like it could have been used in just about any other modern action film. Something more iconic, like Danny Elfman’s Batman theme or John Williams’ Superman, could have added so much.

There are also a few lapses in logic which were not distracting, but certainly noticeable. The largest of these logical flaws takes place shortly after Stark has escaped from his Afghani prison, and has left all the pieces of his original creation behind (the crude “Mark 1" suit). Once back on American soil, everyone keeps asking him about his brilliant escape and how he pulled it off - would the government not have been quick to collect those giant machine parts that he simply left in the sand for the bad guys to come back and collect? Would they not have been more interested in collecting this brilliant walking death-machine than, well, rescuing Tony Stark himself?

Logical shortcomings aside, Iron Man is an absolute blast. The characters and dialogue are witty and smartly written, the action sequences (though few and far between) are incredible, and it finds a perfect balance between the brooding, dark tones of something like Batman Begins, and the too-silly-for-its-own-good nature of the Fantastic Four series.

This is the way a comic book movie should be handled, and let’s hope it does well enough at the box office to force Robert Downey Jr. To make good on his promise of a few sequels.

8.5 / 10

Diary of the Dead

2008-03-15T00:02:00.003-04:00

Title: Diary of the Dead
Director: George A. Romero
Cast: Michelle Morgan, Scott Wentworth, Joshua Close
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated R for strong horror violence and gore, and pervasive language.
Date of Review: March 14, 2007

First it was racism. Then consumerism. A few years later it was the military. Twenty years after that it was the greedy businessmen who run the world. Now the “living dead” return, and the new target in their socially conscious sights is us – that is to say, those of us who thrive on the new direction the media has taken with the advent of the internet. Some have called us “Generation Y”, and it’s becoming more apparent every time a new viral video makes waves the world over that the “Y” stands for “YouTube”. George Romero has focused his ever-critical eye on this new trend of recording everything we see, sharing even the most personal experiences with complete strangers on the web, often in an effort to achieve as high a number of “hits” as possible.

It’s obvious from seeing Diary of the Dead that Romero is at least a little bit disturbed by what these recent trends could be leading to. It’s not just the creepy voyeurism that this is both bringing out and nurturing in people, but it’s also the fact that people frequently put themselves in harm’s way just to get some good footage. Look at Jackass, and all the countless copy-cats it has spawned. Watching people get hurt has become a genre of film unto itself, so why not take that to the next level? Why not have people being brutally killed and eaten by armies of reanimated corpses?

In typical Romero fashion, this latest entry into the popular zombie series shows a small group of people as they try to survive amidst the beginning of a zombie outbreak. This is the third entry in Romero’s five-film series which shows the beginning of this cataclysmic event, and Diary of the Dead attempts to make it more personal than ever, as it is filmed using hand-held cameras, from the first-person perspective of some college-age filmmakers who become obsessed with chronicling the decline of society during this horrifying time. Romero tries to add realism to a situation which is decidedly unreal, and at points he succeeds – the film has some downright scary moments. In fact, it’s the first time I’ve been scared by zombies in quite a while, since they’ve become so commonplace in popular film and culture.

Knowing Romero’s track record, maybe it’s a little much to expect “good” dialogue – he has never written anything which was less than heavy-handed, and given the fact that he’s been making films that way for over 40 years now, that must be exactly what he wants. But it’s hard to forgive Diary of the Dead’s stilted, unnatural writing when it’s supposed to be like a reality-TV version of a zombie movie. If these are supposed to be real people, why do they talk to each other so awkwardly? Why are there still such clichéd characters, like the old, jaded intellectual who spouts out obscure literary references at the drop of a hat, and the nerd who knows all there is to know about technology and computers but couldn’t socialize to save his life? These generalized characters may work in the context of Romero’s other - more cinematic - films, but here it only serves to remove the viewer from the events of the film. There is some really terrible dialogue here, which often borders on unintentional comedy. At one point in the film, one of the young filmmakers relates the zombie attacks to humanity’s constant state of war, by saying “it used to be us versus us. Now it’s us versus them…only they, are us.” It sounds like something one would read in a high school philosophy paper, and is a reflection of how the film never reaches past a superficial depth.

The comparisons to Cloverfield are inevitable, since both films take fantastic situations and put the viewers in the shoes of those directly affected by the events. But for all its flaws, Cloverfield used this documentary style much more effectively, since (as I reflect on it more) it had no pretenses about giving the audience a “message” - a giant monster attacks New York City, and a group of people struggle to survive the chaos. By writing dialogue with relevance and commentary, Romero shot himself in the foot and betrayed his original concept of giving that “ground level” look at events.

However, these problems do not totally destroy Diary of the Dead. It’s greatly superior to Land of the Dead, which just got too big with its scope and character roster. Romero obviously works more effectively with a smaller cast and overall size of film, and by the end of Diary of the Dead we can see that he’s still the master of close-quarters combat with the living dead; there are two sequences involving the characters trying to barricade themselves indoors and away from the zombie hordes, and these are the closest Romero has come so far to recreating the tension which was so prevalent in Night of the Living Dead.

Diary of the Dead is better than most of the zombie fare to come out lately, especially since 99% of it is straight-to-video. It’s not a horror masterpiece (and I’m still eagerly awaiting Romero’s one last shining moment before retirement) but it briefly re-instilled my fear of zombies taking over the world, so that must count for something.

6 / 10

Funny Games (1997)

2008-03-08T19:20:00.003-05:00

Title: Funny Games
Director: Michael Haneke
Cast: Ulrich Mühe, Susanne Lothar, Arno Frisch
Year: 1997
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: March 8, 2007

Famous around the world (or perhaps infamous) for its brutality and disturbing content, Funny Games has received an American remake treatment to be released on March 14th. So it was high time to see what’s arguably director Michael Haneke’s most famous work, about an innocent Austrian family who are tortured both mentally and physically by a pair of deranged young men. It’s a difficult watch - at times even downright unpleasant - but it is all played out so well by all the actors involved (and is gorgeously shot, to boot) that it makes an interesting yet painful film experience.

The film begins with an aerial shot of the family’s vehicle driving through the countryside, while we listen to them playing a game of “guess that classical composer”. The music abruptly changes to some fork-in-the-ear scream metal, but it’s only us - the viewers - who experience this sudden change. The family continues to smile and laugh and hum along to the now absent classical music. Not only are we getting teased as to the film’s abrupt tonal change with the arrival of the young men, but we are also catching a glimpse of what is to come with the film’s all-but-missing fourth wall. Frequently throughout the film (and with growing intensity) one of the young men turns to the camera - looking us, the viewers, straight in the eye - and he addresses the audience directly. This all culminates in the ultimate “wink” at the audience, which both reinforces the film’s message (whatever that may be) and not just breaks the fourth wall, but completely blows it away.

When I say that the message of the film is unclear, this confusion stems (mainly) from the 18 minute interview with Michael Haneke which is featured on the DVD. During this interview, Haneke talks about the film’s strong commentary on violence, and the voyeuristic nature of violence in cinema and in the media. However, where things get muddled is with Haneke’s stance that people who watch the film to the end are somehow morally confused, and are exactly the types of “violence voyeurs” which the film is commenting on. So, he is somehow trying to comment on peoples’ sick tendency to “accept” violence by showing us some truly horrifying images and situations, then condemning us for having watched it. It’s a bit of cinematic entrapment, which could be seen as quite condescending on Haneke’s part...but let’s just forget that interview for now, shall we?

Funny Games presents some of the same themes found in the recent “torture porn” trend in American horror films (most specifically, Hostel). But it’s done with a much classier touch, with many of the technical aspects reminiscent of the films of Alfred Hitchcock. Haneke has a great eye for camera placement, as well as a strong sense of how to create tension. There is one scene which is particularly impressive, in which Georg (the little boy in the family) is hiding behind an armoire which is situated between two open doorways. The camera is placed in such a way as to closely capture the boy’s panicky jitters, as well as keep both of the doorways in the shot. It’s a very tense scene, and the simplicity of the shot benefits it greatly. This is something Hitchcock understood, and which many filmmakers today seem to be oblivious to - complicated, swooping camera movements do not automatically make a more interesting scene. Often it’s the simplest of shots which create striking - even iconic - images. A scene should be interesting enough as it is, and not need extensive movement on the camera’s part in order to enhance it. There are, of course, exceptions, and I admit that this is all coming from the point of view of a writer - a cinematographer would surely disagree.

With such strong acting in the film, it’s also apparent that Haneke didn’t want to interrupt or take away from the power of the performances with quick cuts and the like. All of the characters are played richly, particularly the father, whom Ulrich Mühe brings to startling life. The role reversal of the parents is well executed, as the father is delivered a crippling blow early on in the film, leaving the mother to take centre stage as the heroine - the character involved in most of the “action”. It’s also interesting to note that Haneke used a unique method for directing his actors - he instructed all three members of the family to act as if they were in a tragedy, while simultaneously telling their captors to play it as a comedy. In hindsight, one can see the way the young men tried to inject this comedic tone into their roles, but while watching the film, this just makes them seem all the more psychotic and frightening.

My initial impression of the film was not of disappointment, but of surprise. “This is the ‘deeply disturbing’ movie everyone’s been talking about?” I thought to myself. But sometime several hours later, I found myself still thinking about those two sick young men, that traumatized family, and how horrible all of those physical and mental tortures would be. It’s a powerful film, and whether it hits you as you’re watching it, or a few hours later, it’s sure to leave a lasting impression.

7 / 10

Automatons

2008-02-22T14:30:00.002-05:00

Title: Automatons
Director: James Felix McKenney
Cast: Christine Spencer, Angus Scrimm, Brenda Cooney
Year: 2006
MPAA: Not rated
Date of Review: February 22, 2008

The special effects in indie science fiction and horror films are often praised for the creative ways in which they use low-budget materials to make convincing scenes. The Evil Dead films were made on very low budgets, and the innovative techniques used to create the abundance of gore are still lauded over today. But it’s also the world of indie films that allows filmmakers to experiment with different art styles and ways of doing special effects, since they don’t always turn out effectively. In Automatons, the production team did have a shoestring budget, but they also purposely used very cheap looking effects for both artistic style and to contribute to the meaning of the film. It’s rare that a film is thought out as deeply as Automatons obviously was, and I can’t help thinking that even if they’d had $50 million to play around with, the finished product would have looked, sounded and felt exactly as it is now.

The story is both simple and complex. The main character is a girl - she is never named, and we never really know anything about her outside of the fact that she is the lone survivor of her race after a brutal war killed the rest off years ago. Her only companions are her robots, who are left over “war bots” from the war, which she has programmed to do everything from chopping vegetables to guarding her while she sleeps. But her last inkling of security is taken away from her when the enemy (who appears on television broadcasts in the girl’s dormitory) gains the ability to send out radio signals which turn the girl’s own robots against her.

The girl rarely speaks, only giving the occasional voice command to her robot workers. Most of the dialogue comes from the scientist - the girl’s grandfather, who has left her several recordings documenting his efforts in the war. Played by Angus Scrimm (of Phantasm fame), the scientist widens the scope of the film, revealing information which is often quite disturbing about the horrible acts committed during the war. This is also the area of the film where its socio-political commentary is at its most blatant. The scientist is quite obviously representative of the oft-scorned American sense of self-righteousness, and his description of the enemy and the events in the war mirror the media representation of the war in Iraq. He describes the enemy as “barbaric savages”, and says that the enemy hates his people “because of [their] freedom and liberty and democratic beliefs”. His dialogue is quite dense and all reveals how this futuristic war is an allegory for the world’s current political situation.

There are so many layers, ideas and messages in this film that it reminds me of the way Philip K. Dick structures his stories to overflow with incredible concepts. The idea that all of these machines (some simple, some very complex) which the girl uses as tools can be turned into mindless killing machines with one push of a button by the enemy, evokes memories of the nearly over-played “man vs. machine” story - but it does it in such a different, original way (as well as having so many other ideas loaded into the story). There is an environmental element, as the world has become a scorched and poisonous wasteland due to pollution from the creation of all of these machines - and this leads to one of the most memorable lines in the film, when the scientist (while referring to the destruction of the Earth’s atmosphere and environment) says “but it’s a small price to pay for being the greatest, most advanced nation on the planet”. We also have the film’s aforementioned political message, where this girl’s race ran themselves into the ground with their own blind pride and ignorance. And at its most basic, we have the simple story of a girl who is all alone.

But to get back to the effects, it must be said that not everyone is going to be very keen on them. When indoors, the robots are men wearing garbage cans, duct tape, and tin foil...all sorts of incredibly low budget materials which look very cheap, yet are somewhat eerie to see in motion. Then while outdoors and engaged in battle, we are treated to sequences which could best be described as “Lego men fights”. It literally looks as if the filmmakers decorated chess pieces to look like the robots, and added in some laser effects and firecrackers for explosions. It’s strange at first, yet becomes compulsively watchable. The set designs and brief looks at the outdoor landscapes are similarly ultra low budget in their design and execution, but I must reiterate that this surely wouldn’t have been any different regardless of the budget for the film. It’s just a different way of making a science fiction movie, and its effectiveness will lie in the eye of the viewer.

Produced by Larry Fessenden (who also has a brief cameo role in the blood-soaked finale), Automatons is high-concept science fiction at its finest. At once a loving tribute to the hoaky science fiction of the 1950s, and a great understanding of modern artistic filmmaking, it’s unlike anything you’re likely to ever see. It’s hard not to compare it to films like Eraserhead or Pi for the modern-day black-and-white photography alone, but like those films, it also tries to tackle established and worn-out genre conventions with originality and flare, and James Felix McKenney obviously made exactly the film he wanted to make. I find that, alone, to be very admirable. It’s just a matter of the film finding an audience who is interested in all the film has to offer.

9 / 10

Transformers

2008-02-17T22:01:00.005-05:00

Title: Transformers
Director: Michael Bay
Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language.
Date of Review: February 17, 2008

I always wondered if the whole childhood ritual of “Saturday Morning Cartoons” was something exclusive to America, because - having lived in Canada all my life - I don’t think I ever saw cartoons on Saturday morning television. This time was almost exclusively devoted to religious programming and soap operas, so more often than not I found myself playing video games. During the week, however, I watched four cartoons religiously - “Batman: The Animated Series”, “The Simpsons”, “Thundercats” and “Transformers”. (Well, I suppose if you count “Beast Wars” as a separate entity from “Transformers”, that makes it five). I had all the “Transformers” toys, from the fire truck Optimus Prime, to the Megatron toy that morphed into a desert eagle hand gun. I even had most of the knock-off toys, like “Morphing Machines” and “Robo-Men”. Hearing that Steven Spielberg not only loved “Transformers” but also wanted to make a movie, I was thrilled. Could this be his next directorial feature? No, unfortunately not. In the search for a director, Spielberg settled on Michael Bay - perhaps the only director alive who gets more hate on the web than Brett Ratner. And what was the final product? Well, let’s just say it’s more of a Michael Bay movie than a “Transformers” movie, and I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide whether that’s good or bad.

Yes, Transformers has all the trimmings associated with the director of such classics as Bad Boys and...Bad Boys II. It has bad dialogue, zero subtlety, a cheesy and overdone musical score, tons of light blooming, and slow motion camera work up the wazoo (even for mundane actions like stepping out of an airplane). And it’s way too long. Clocking in at nearly two and a half hours, it takes a premise and story more suited to a ninety minute animated feature and milks it for all it’s worth in an attempt to create the next enormously epic film franchise. The concept is inherently massive, with alien robotic beings bringing their war to Earth, but epic concepts do not always warrant epic lengths, and since both the characters and the story are no deeper than a puddle on the sidewalk (and I’m talking one really shallow puddle), it really feels like we could have easily seen all the movie had to offer in about an hour less time. Lord of the Rings this is not, but it so badly wants to be.

The dialogue sounds like it was written by a twelve year old boy with A.D.D., but I suppose the argument could be made that movie-goers looking for strong, witty dialogue should go see a John Sayles movie and leave the popcorn fluff alone. But just because a movie is made to be a blockbuster and nothing more doesn’t give it a free ticket to be mind-numbingly stupid. Lots of movies manage to be both blockbusters and smartly written - I’m thinking of the Bourne trilogy, which were great throwbacks to the gritty spy thrillers of the 1970s. So if someone tries to tell me that Transformers either didn’t need to be well written or couldn’t be due to its silly, over-the-top premise, I must retort by saying that, no, the writers were just lazy. Having a Spanish soldier character who is so stereotypical that he speaks Spanish unknowingly and talks about “being back home and eating alligators” seems like it was written using the “1980s’ Big Book of Clichés” And to add insult to injury, some of the most painful dialogue is uttered by some very respectable actors. John Turturro’s presence is especially puzzling, since he usually keeps a pretty low profile by appearing in indie flicks and films by the Coen brothers. I sure hope he didn’t turn down a role in No Country For Old Men for this.

But where the movie delivers (and expectedly so) is in the action. In typical Michael Bay fashion, the first half of the movie is devoted to the characters, while the entire second half is a giant continuous action sequence with several enormous set pieces. I’ve read complaints that the action in Transformers is hard to follow, but this is one complaint I can’t get on board with. Unless you are watching the movie on a cell phone in full screen with low resolution, I cannot understand how or why one would find it hard to discern what is taking place on the screen. There are plenty of slow motion shots of the Transformers blowing things up and swinging around buildings and bridges as if they weighed twenty pounds. It’s loud and fun, and when the action scenes are at their best there are definitely some cool (perhaps even memorable) moments.

It’s just not enough to justify sitting through more than an hour of painful exposition, though. Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox play a couple of high school students whose destinies are linked together by this intergalactic power struggle, and there are a couple of cute moments between them. One of these better moments takes place when the Autobots are introducing themselves to LaBeouf and Fox, and the “medic” bot says that LaBeouf’s “high pheromone levels suggest he wants to mate with the female [Fox]”. But for every funny moment, there are about ten attempts at humor which fall completely flat (such as the aforementioned Spanish soldier).

And while we’re on the top of racial stereotypes, what were they thinking when they wrote the character “Jazz”? This Autobat is like the “hip hop” bot - the Transformer with soul and attitude to spare. When he makes reference to both “bitches” and “kicking it” in the same sentence, I ended up having to bandage my chin because my jaw hit the floor so hard.

Michael Bay has been quoted saying that he admittedly makes “movies for thirteen year old boys”. But he really shot himself in the foot by targeting that audience with Transformers. Sure, kids still watch the shows and think they’re neat, but there was a much larger, built-in fan base already there and eagerly awaiting the big screen return of their favorite childhood heroes. And that audience is 20-30 somethings who grew up watching this franchise while it was at its biggest and freshest. It’s the equivalent of making an R-rated “Spongebob Squarepants” movie - it just doesn’t make any sense.

Then again, Transformers made an obscene amount of money - so much, in fact, that the budget is being nearly doubled for the sequel (due out next year). So maybe I’m just totally out of touch with what’s “cool” these days with the kids. And while everyone gears up and gets excited for Transformers 2, I’ll be eagerly awaiting the inevitable Thundercats movie, and hoping it isn’t given to Brett Ratner.

5 / 10

The Host

2008-02-14T03:01:00.002-05:00

Title: The Host
Director: Joon-ho Bong
Cast: Kang-ho Song, Hie-bong Byeon, Hae-il Park
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated R for creature violence and language
Date of Review: February 14, 2008

Korean cinema has been at the forefront of international cinema for several years now. The film that really caught my eye and put Korea on the map, for me, was Oldboy. I continued to watch the films of Chan-wook Park, and was consistently amazed at his incredible sense of style. I remember wondering why it was that so many American releases lacked this flare. Of course, not all stories are suited to surreal imagery and rousing electronic scores - but it seemed like other filmmakers could really learn a thing or two from Chan-wook Park about how to compose a great shot. Then I saw Memories of Murder - a similarly stylish crime thriller, which managed to infuse the beautiful cinematography I had come to expect from Korean cinema with a true-life story which oozed realism and heartbreak.

Sometime in the summer of 2007, I heard about The Host, the next film from Memories of Murder writer/director Joon-ho Bong, and I was incredibly excited to see it. The reviews coming out stating it was “one of the greatest monster movies ever made” whet my appetite even further, and led me to order the official Korean DVD of the film. I was disappointed to say the least. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I just felt it lacked something. Perhaps it was because I was in the middle of a Godzilla-stint and I was in the mood for a little more building-crushing, but I doubt that’s the case. Let’s just say I wasn’t ready for what the film had to offer.

So after several months of deliberation, I decided to crack open the DVD case again in hopes that my $20 hadn’t gone to waste completely. What I got with this second viewing was the equivalent of going back to your old kindergarten class to find that your teacher was actually a sexy minx, and you simply hadn’t seen it due to your (at the time) undeveloped libido. The Host is an awe-inspiring film experience, and it does so much more with the monster movie conventions than any Godzilla film has done in many years.

Telling a story at once epic and microscopic, satirical and straight-forward, it is on one hand the story of an irresponsible father coming to realize that if he really loves his daughter and his family members, he needs to actually do something with his life and try to make something out of himself. He needs to fill that void where fatherly responsibility has been lacking for so long. On the other hand, it is a story of the sensational paranoia the media is capable of evoking in people, as it refers back to a real-life case in Korea in which an American doctor ordered a Korean intern to dump several bottles of formaldehyde down a sink which he knew drained into the Han River. In real life this case was blown hugely out of proportion - he did something irresponsible, yet it turned into an enormous incident between the two countries. This incident is the catalyst event for the creation of the monster - which, in itself, is the catalyst for the coming-of-age story of a grown man who has spent too much time living the life of a boy.

It would be deceiving to say that the monster is not the most important part of the film, since it is a monster movie, and at its most basic state that is what drives the plot. But there’s so much more to the story, involving human connection and some unexpected yet very effective humor. The first appearance of a Korean soldier wearing a HAZMAT suit is one of the funniest moments in the film, as he walks into a room full of civilians and is clearly trying to look as imposing and authoritative as possible, before suddenly tripping on his own feet and falling flat on his back. It’s a simple sight gag, but in the rather bleak context of the scene, it works very well.

Since the film has been out for nearly two years now, the monster is no surprise - simply type “The Host monster” into any image search engine and you’ll be bombarded with images of what could best be described as a mutant tadpole the size of a bus. But the monster was never really meant to be a secret or a surprise. Unlike another recent monster film, the trailers for The Host showed the monster in full right from the start. Again, this just reinforces the fact that the monster is not the biggest surprise to be found in the film. The plot twists and turns, characters change or meet unexpected demises, and the writing keeps everything engaging throughout.

But that’s not to say that the monster is insignificant. Its presence is strong and there are some surprisingly chilling scenes to be found involving the creature. Seeing it disappear under the water of the Han River and then only a dark figure swim to the shore before suddenly springing from the water to grab an unsuspecting victim is an unnerving sight. And the CGI used to create the monster is great. The textures look real and wet, and you can practically smell the fishy stink of its leathery, amphibious flesh.

It’s great to know that not only can monster films still be made well, but they can be taken seriously. The humor to be found in the film does not consist of self-deprecating winks at the audience, instead adding a great deal of emotional attachment to the characters. The Host is a solid film, and one that can be enjoyed by both monster-enthusiasts and movie-goers looking for a generally well made, well performed movie.

9 / 10

Rambo

2008-01-26T22:10:00.000-05:00

Title: Rambo
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Graham McTavish
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated R for strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language.
Date of Review: January 26, 2008

I honestly had no idea that the character of “Rambo” had such a rabid fanbase, until I went to see Rambo last night at the local theatre and ran into several pre-teens dressed in full Rambo costumes, accompanied by their parents who were also dressed with army fatigues and red headbands. I guess I was always more of an Arnie guy than a Stallone guy - growing up, my parents gave me the Terminator movies to watch, and when I discovered Predator a few years later, I felt like I had discovered the Holy Grail of cinematic manliness. First Blood is a movie I actually didn’t see until about three years ago, and I really enjoyed it, but never bothered to see the sequels. So perhaps I was a little too virginal in the world of “Rambo” to truly appreciate what this latest installment had to offer, but I left with this question burning in my mind - was this a joke?

We enter the story in present day, and we watch John Rambo - who has retired to a peaceful life of bow-hunting fish in Southeast Asia - as he goes about his business, doing ridiculously manly stuff like forging his own steel and...well...fishing with a bow-and-arrow. Scenes like this feel like stuff that was left on the cutting-room floor from 300, another recent film trying to break the Manliness Meter - but the difference is that 300 definitely knows its comic book routes, and doesn’t try to trick the audience into giving them a serious movie experience. Rambo, on the other hand, has just enough badness in it to make one think they were trying to make a serious movie here, and just screwed it all up.

The script has the sincerity and subtlety of a Uwe Boll movie. I understand the defense that one should not go to a “Rambo” flick looking for a good script, but come on, I saw and loved the “Bourne” films - and they are strictly action-based, but have well-written scripts. Even First Blood had a great script, and some surprising sociopolitical relevancy. So saying that this type of movie doesn’t warrant or need a good script just doesn’t cut it. Nor do the layers upon layers of racism injected into the film with a turkey baster full of prejudices. It seems that the idea of Burmese soldiers tearing apart villages and kidnapping and killing innocent people wasn’t enough of an “evil” element to justify Rambo’s coming onslaught, so these soldiers have just about every characteristic you can think of which could be associated with the word “bad”. They’re rapists, child molestors and murderes, they execute people without a second’s hesitation, and none of them are ever shown doing anything that isn’t just about cringe-worthy. Obviously this is all an effort to justify Rambo’s inevitable assault later in the film, because Rambo certainly needs to be seen as the “good guy” through all of this, no matter how many people he mows down with a truck-mounted machine gun.

But the film’s morals are all mixed up - if there are any even there. These characters who come in and convince Rambo to help them in their cause of bringing peace and Christianity to the people of Burma are portrayed as naive, arrogant and dorky - the anti-Rambo’s. But then the film’s climax and enormous bloodbath lead one to believe that the film really is trying to say something about violence and its place in the world. When these missionaries are kidnapped and Rambo needs to come in and save them using brutal violence, is it saying that violence may not be morally “right”, but sometimes it is necessary? Or is it saying that violence is wrong no matter what - whether you’re a corrupt Burmese soldier or John Rambo himself? Or maybe it’s not really saying anything, and it’s just another big, dumb action movie?

Considering how good Rocky Balboa was, I guess I was just expecting something a little more along those lines. Stallone has proven that he’s a great writer, actor and director, so for him to come out with something like Rambo (where he once again occupies all three jobs), is it wrong to expect that there would be a little more to it than shameless violence and ridiculous racial slurs? I just can’t help but still feel bewildered by the film’s political stances and opinions on violence. It sort of seemed at times like it was going down the Hostel route, giving people a criticism of themselves and their love of violence and gore as entertainment. But this semi-satirical philosophy just doesn’t fit with moments in the film which seem genuine, but are just executed very poorly and create large amounts of cheese.

Then again, even with all these elements which I saw as flaws, adults and kids alike cheered and screamed in the theatre quite literally every time Rambo killed a baddie, and the slaughterhouse of a finale was met with standing applause. Maybe that’s the film’s commentary right there.

4 / 10

Cloverfield

2008-01-19T01:29:00.000-05:00

Title: Cloverfield
Director: Matt Reeves
Cast: Lizzy Caplan, Michael Stahl-David, Odette Yustman
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images.
Date of Review: January 18, 2008

So, how to possibly describe Cloverfield? I’ll just get it right out in the open - the movie is uneven. It has some occasionally annoying characters going through horrifying situations made to seem as realistic as possible despite the fact that they’re inherently unrealistic, and they make some ridiculous decisions through all of this which can’t really be covered by the “they weren’t thinking rationally because they were in shock” excuse. The effects are well done, and it has some surprisingly iconic images. And let’s not forget to mention that there are points throughout which are - get this - actually, genuinely scary. But it just feels so unsure of its own motives that I can’t possibly say it’s “brilliant”, but at the same time can’t deny it has moments of brilliance.

Of course, for the past few months everyone has either been salivating to see what the monster looks like, or wanting to save the surprise. The viral marketing campaign for this movie has been insane, with videos and pictures being leaked to whet peoples’ appetites, and also disorient them with regards to what is and isn’t real. Is the monster visible in the clouds in the film’s poster? Or is it in the smoke? Was that a leg we briefly saw in the trailer, or was it a tail, or some other appendage? Or maybe it was just rising smoke? Then all of those news reports which were leaked not too long ago featuring hand-help footage of an ocean science facility being destroyed by something under the water raised even more questions. Is the monster a government project? Is it perhaps an alien? Did that science facility even have anything to do with the origin of the monster, or is it just meant as a red herring from the oh-so-clever J. J. Abrams? And then, perhaps the biggest question of all - will we even get to see the monster? Well, to set one thing straight without spoiling anything for you, we definitely see the monster in all its glory, and it’s very well done. Looking at how the film was made with a $30 million budget would lead one to believe much of that money was spent simply on the design and execution of the monster effects. And it certainly paid off, because it is something we have never seen before, and even if you wanted me to spoil it for you - which you don’t, trust me - I don’t know that I could describe what it is. Rest assured, it’s a great design.

But how good is the actual movie? Well, this is like the celluloid equivalent of someone with multiple personality disorder. Part of the movie thinks it’s a serious and frightening depiction of the mayhem which would be caused by such a monstrous attack on New York City. The other half is an almost unintentionally funny and satirical look at American vanity. Of course the 9/11 parallels are the first thing everyone’s going to look at, but that’s really not a huge part of it. There are some obvious images meant to evoke memories of that attack, but the entirety is played out more as “a general foreign body attacking American soil”, instead of a strict recollection of that event. The shot of the head of the Statue of Liberty being thrown by the monster and then landing in the street is literally showing America having its liberty thrown back in its face. And to add to that, there are a few parts with obviously placed American flags being destroyed that just seem like too ham-handed a way to show that this is an attack on America’s soul and way of life, not just buildings and streets.

Most of the problems which arise are in the characters, though, who are all divinely good-looking rich people engaged in an almost soap opera-like existence where everyone’s gossiping and trying to find out who’s sleeping with who. That’s fine and good, but when the film’s biggest shtick is that it’s trying to show “realism”, this type of life just doesn’t connect with very many people - not to mention the characters’ apparent invincibility and the presence of the most durable camcorder ever made. But to then have the characters go on and make some incredibly ridiculous choices - like choosing to scale a toppled over building - just doesn’t make much sense at all, regardless of the honorable reasons behind these actions. Later on in the film, there is a scene (which was briefly shown in the trailer) where the main character is talking into the camera saying how “he has no idea what’s going on”. This also makes no sense and doesn’t excuse his stupidity, since the film we have seen has consisted of footage compiled entirely of situations in which he was involved, and he definitely saw and knew enough that he should have been trying to get as far away from the city as possible.

Getting away from the negatives, though, there is a lot of good stuff to be seen in Cloverfield. Considering this is a PG-13, advertised up the arse, sell as many tickets as possible money-maker, there are enough moments of terror and tension (not to mention some excellent design ideas) which manage to make it a pretty good and very entertaining movie. And considering it’s not even an hour and a half long, it never overstays its welcome. While the film has been made with handheld cameras, it’s done strategically enough to never feel nauseating like the internet videos it is mimicking, and we get a great build-up to the explosive finale. I could actually see more comparisons being made between this and The Mist, than something like Godzilla or King Kong, because of its more personal scope and emphasis on our anxiety towards the unknown. It looks for the fear that would be felt down on the ground during a situation so horrible, and it often finds that and makes us feel helpless and vulnerable. But it can’t be denied that it’s deeply flawed, and these characters just aren’t likable or relatable enough to really feel the emotional impact that the film also occasionally strives for. If I could only use two words to sum this movie up, they would be “effective misfire”.

7.5 / 10

I Am Legend

2008-01-03T23:33:00.001-05:00

Title: I Am Legend
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Will Smith, Alive Braga, Dash Mihok
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi and action violence.
Date of Review: January 3, 2007

The “last person on Earth” scenario is not exactly new, so it seemed the general feeling with most movie-goers going to see I Am Legend was apathy. Of course, Warner Bros. spilled a lot of money into its production and advertising, since it was their big release of the season - but with the wave of zombie films over the past half decade, coupled with the generally tired “one/few people left alive” plot device, “rehash” was the word on everyone’s minds. And they were partly right.

I Am Legend is the third adaptation of Richard Matheson’s cult classic short novel of the same name. The first version, released in 1964 under the name The Last Man on Earth, starred Vincent Price and was an Italian production. While it remains the most faithful adaptation of the book, it suffers from some needless narration, and a lot of hoakiness due to the dubbing-over of the non-English speaking cast. The second adaptation, released in 1971, was titled The Omega Man and has become somewhat of a “Saturday at Midnight” classic. Stylistically influenced by the emerging blaxploitation scene, it was a cheesy affair but with some great elements. Now 2007's I Am Legend has come around and is arguably the most unfaithful to the source material of all three films, but it’s also the most effective, and upon my second viewing of the film I left the theatre wondering exactly how they managed to do this.

Richard Matheson’s story may be my favorite book. It’s easy to see how Stephen King was inspired by a book like this, as it takes a horrific surface story and creates something more out of it. It’s a story that stands the tests of time, due to its themes of loneliness and isolation which everyone in the world can derive something from. In the story, Robert Neville is the last man left alive on Earth, which is now a wasteland populated by vampires - though the word “vampire” is never used, it’s safe to say that’s what they are, since they have fangs, drink blood, burn up in sunlight, and are allergic to crucifixes and garlic. But despite these horrible conditions, the real depth in the story occurs in the scenes without monsters, when Neville spends his days all alone, searching the city streets for possible survivors. He wrestles with his past and personal demons, and must fight horrible urges, such as the sexual desire he feels when he sees a female vampire’s naked body - though she is rotten and disfigured, Neville has been alone a very, very long time. Neville is the hero of the story, but he is not a knight in shining armor, or some weapon-clad deadshot - he’s just the man who happened to survive. By night, he holds up in his house and listens as the vampires outside call out his name, taunting him to give up his hopeless crusade and just become a vampire like them.

It’s a beautiful story, and for the film, they threw it all out the window. Only the base concept remains - Robert Neville is the last man on Earth, and everyone else is a zombie...er, vampire...er, thing. And I apologize for my digression, but I must ask a question - why on Earth do we have three different adaptations of the same novel about vampires, and not one of these films contains a vampire? In The Last Man on Earth they’re zombies who are allergic to garlic (because THAT makes sense); in The Omega Man they’re freaks leftover from nuclear fallout; and now in I Am Legend they’re...I don’t even know what they are. If you’ve seen the 2005 British horror film The Descent, then imagine those creatures, but without the pointy ears. It really doesn’t make sense to me why vampires would be so hard to create on the screen, since they have so much symbolic value in the story - they suck out the lifeforce of other creatures, and while Neville is the only human left, he lost his humanity and his own lifeforce long ago. But I suppose in the final product we have here, what the creatures are doesn’t make much of a difference.

Which is why it’s a bit of a double-edged sword - they’re not vampires, which is a disappointment to fans of the book (like myself) - but what the movie got right is that the story is not just an action-horror with lots of shooting and blood and guts. It’s the story of a man overrun by loneliness, and the ways he tries to cope with day-to-day life in a world where nature has regained control. By day he hunts deer in the streets of New York, plays golf on an aircraft carrier, and has conversations with mannequins. It’s all done surprisingly well, and director Francis Lawrence showed good self control with these scenes, as he doesn’t fill them with narration or bombastic special effects - this is the world as it has become, and this is how one man is trying to keep living.

It really feels like they had something special here - something beyond the typical Hollywood fare. Will Smith gives a strong performance as the Legend himself, and his friendship with his dog, Sam, feels genuine. In fact, Sam could be argued to be the strongest character in the film. Loyal to a fault but naive, Sam gives added emotional weight to scenes where another human character would no doubt have hammed things up and tried to tug too hard at the heart strings. Simple shots such as Sam curiously eyeing a butterfly while Neville gathers ears of corn had a soft touch in them which made it seem believable that Neville would want to continue living, even if only for the friendship that Sam provides him.

Unfortunately, the film really falls apart about 2/3 of the way through, when the character of Anna appears. Claiming that she heard Neville’s radio broadcasts (which were begging for any survivors to come to New York City to be with him), she says that “God told her” there was a survivor camp in the mountains, and she would like him to accompany her there. But her character raises too many unanswered questions, and by the end of the film it seems kind of pointless for her to have been there in the first place. When you consider that Robert Neville has had trouble surviving - a man with military training and weapons, and who is in physical condition which would make the Spartans feel envious - then how could this young, sickeningly skinny woman armed with a pistol and escorting a young boy possibly have survived this long? It just doesn’t add up. And while her statements about “God’s messages” allude to a new message in the film about faith, it just doesn’t fit with the rest of the film’s substance regarding loneliness. While the rest of the film remains solid despite how untrue it is to the book, the character of Anna and the ending of the story would have benefitted greatly from the material found in Matheson’s story - especially considering the fact that the actual title, “I Am Legend”, completely loses its meaning without these events.

Of course it would be wrong of me not to mention the poor CGI used on the vampiric zombie demon beasts, but anything I could possibly say about it has been covered already by many others. The effects are, quite simply, unconvincing. They fail to evoke much fear of these creatures, especially in the case of the “Alpha Male”, whose monotonous stretchy-mouthed roaring into the camera almost becomes funny by the second or third time it’s used. It was completely unnecessary for these creatures to be created with computer graphics, especially in scenes when they are standing completely still, or simply lumbering around. As I mentioned before, they are almost identical to the beasts from The Descent - they’re basically bald people with sickly-pale flesh. If you ask me, make-up and animatronics will always be better than CGI, until they can create something which is truly photo-realistic.

It’s been a polarizing film, and not without reason. I Am Legend attempts to please fans of the book, fans of the recent zombie craze, and teenagers looking for the next big epic action movie all at once. But these audiences are so, so varied. Considering that the book was written in 1954, many of its greatest fans are surely well into middle-age, and aren’t too keen on seeing Will Smith romp through a bunch of zombies like a stylized music video. Luckily most of the movie isn’t like this, but the last half hour is enough to leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth. It’s far better than a lot of the stuff being churned out by the Hollywood machine, and the scenes involving Will Smith and Sam are downright inspired and occasionally beautiful. Perhaps a “director’s cut” DVD will allow us to see the ending that was originally in store for us before the rushed re-shoots just a couple of months ago. As it is, it’s worth seeing for Will Smith’s best acting to date.

7.5 / 10

Eastern Promises

2007-12-30T15:38:00.001-05:00

Title: Eastern Promises
Director: David Cronenberg
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassell
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated R for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity.
Date of Review: December 30, 2007

With A History of Violence in 2005, fans and critics began to wonder if David Cronenberg had begun a transition to more mainstream cinema. His signature weirdness and overtly sexual imagery seemed to be gone, and instead of his typical blend of science fiction and horror we were given a fairly straightforward story about a small town family man who may or may not be an ex-mob hitman. It was still a fantastic film and one of the best of it’s year, but it just didn’t have much of a "Cronenberg feel" to it, aside from a few brutally violent scenes - though what R-rated crime thriller doesn’t have those these days?

Now in 2007 we have Eastern Promises Cronenberg’s latest film which also happens to be a fairly basic crime thriller, and also stars Viggo Mortensen. Set in London, England, it tells the story of a young midwife named Anna (Naomi Watts) who crosses paths with the Russian mafia when she tries to have the diary of a young dead Russian girl translated. It’s a simple setup for a simple story, but unfortunately it is dragged down significantly by characters (mostly Anna) making incredibly stupid choices - choices which would even leave a child sitting there scratching their head.

It is established early on in the film that Anna is a naive young woman. Her initial action of taking the diary from the body of the dead young girl is shown with a certain amount of innocence - she did not take the diary thinking she was grave robbing (as her uncle accuses her of), but rather out of pure curiosity. However, throughout the course of the film her naivety turns to stupidity as signs are continually thrown at her that she is dealing with very dangerous people, and she continues to pursue her crusade of justice against the men who wronged this girl whom she never met. There’s a scene later in the film where Anna shows up at the doorstep of the mafia household and starts yelling and cursing and throwing accusations at them. This scene occurs long after it has been made perfectly clear to her that these are dangerous criminals, so why does she still continue to try to stir up trouble? Bravery? No, she is not brave, she is just stupid to continue her hopeless mission.

Unfortunately, Anna is not the only annoying character in the film. One of the film’s main antagonists - and the guy that you are really, really supposed to hate - is Kirill, the son of the mob boss. Played by French character actor Vincent Cassell (husband of bombshell Monica Bellucci), Kirill is like the polar opposite of our hero, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen). He is a sadistic, psychotic, incredibly diseased individual with a venomous relationship with his father. Unfortunately, much of the menace of his character is lost due to some horrible dialogue which seems better suited for a Steven Seagal film. At one point Nikolai and Kirill are arguing about Kirill’s disrespectful nature. Nikolai says something to the effect of, "Kirill, show some respect", to which Kirill replies by pulling a wad of cash out of his jacket and saying, "respect? This is respect." There are other lines in the film similar to this that make it seem like the writer was watching too many big-muscled action movies before hunkering down to write this serious drama.

But don’t take all this negativity as a way of saying it’s a bad film - it’s very far from it. It’s simply disappointing to see from such a skilled director as Cronenberg, whose distinct style and strange, outside-the-box approach to cinema could have produced something much more cutting than what we have here. There is no doubt that Viggo Mortensen’s performance is great, and perhaps one of the best performances of the year. With a flawless accent and a conflicted attitude towards the events surrounding him, he’s convincing as a cold-hearted mob man with some moral dilemmas about his work and the people he works with. Though his job description is as a "driver", many scenes show that he’s like the mob’s "garbage boy", doing the jobs no one else wants to do. In one of the more Cronenberg-like scenes, Nikolai is given the task of cutting off the fingertips of a dead man so as to make it harder to identify his body. Of course Nikolai has to act cold and heartless around his friends and allies, but in quieter scenes - such as those where Nikolai is simply driving someone home - Mortensen shows a strong ability to convey emotion through subtle facial expressions, and this is much of what makes Eastern Promises succeed in the end.

So, while slightly disappointing to a Cronenberg enthusiast, his latest effort is still an interesting look at the Russian mafia - an organized crime sect which seems oddly absent from mainstream cinema, which usually focuses on the more stereotypical Italian mafia. Despite some moments that could be described best as "D’uh! moments" with Anna, and some annoying dialogue, Eastern Promises is worth seeing, even if just for Viggo Mortensen’s great portrayal of Nikolai.

7 / 10

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

2007-12-27T02:08:00.000-05:00

Title: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Director: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Gary Oldman
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images.
Date of Review: December 26, 2007

There was a span of about two or three years during my life as a teenager where I felt increasingly conflicted about the person I am, and whether I really liked me. I would look at myself and wonder whether or not I would want to be friends with me, had I been someone else. Of course, my parents’ great wisdom - which I refused to accept at the time - turned out to be right. Everyone feels this way at some point in their life. It’s just part of being human, and of growing up. In fact, there are probably greater problems if one doesn’t ever questions their actions or their development as a person. Angst is one of those strange things where you can do all you want to try and help a teenager to see their lives more clearly, but in the end it is only they who can really understand their own inner workings.

It’s good that the Harry Potter films have been able to incorporate these feelings of disillusionment with ourselves and the world around us. Without this, they wouldn’t feel nearly as authentic as they do and, as a result, they surely wouldn’t be as popular as they are. After all what is a story if it doesn’t have some sort of personal connection to you? I’m all for rowdy, soulless entertainment - but for that, there is a time and a place. For a story in any medium to be truly great it has to grab you and touch your heart, making you feel like this story - however fantastic - is real. Peter Jackson did this wonderfully in the Lord of the Rings films, which feel so authentic at times that it seems perhaps these events really did happen sometime hundreds or thousands of years ago.

The Order of the Phoenix works best as a continuation of the events of The Prisoner of Azkaban - the third film in the series, and also quite arguably the best. Voldemort’s back and his army is growing stronger by the minute, dividing loyalties in the world of witches and wizards. Harry Potter is beginning to see elements of darkness creep into his life and his own personality - manifested physically in the form of hallucinations of Voldemort appearing randomly before his eyes. Knowing that Voldemort is gaining power, Potter is unsure of whether these visions are the Dark Lord’s doing, or simply Potter’s own personal demons slowly taking him over.

Throughout the course of the story we see the as so far hidden back-stories of many of the characters, revealing much about their nature and why they have such prominent characteristics. The most interesting thing about these revelations is that each one reveals something about them that seems totally unlike their character, yet simultaneously explains so much about why they are the way they are. In the end it’s all a rather unsubtle sort of "yin yan" message - good cannot exist without evil and vice versa. All good people have some evil in them as well, and the evil ones also have an inherent goodness.

But what the film lacks in subtlety of message it more than makes up for in poignancy. Like Prisoner of Azkaban, it has many scenes which are genuinely affecting - something which seems to be lacking in the recent boom of child-oriented fantasy adventure films. Scenes where Harry questions his actions and his own nature feel like a much more effective version of Anakin Skywalker’s descent into evil in the Star Wars prequels. And that’s not where the parallels between these two series’ end. It seems J. K. Rowling has based many of the story arcs and character types off of those found in Star Wars, with Harry Potter being sort of a mixture of Anakin and Luke Skywalker. This has been subtly acknowledged in the final conflicts of the last two films, which both feature duels where the wizards’ powers manifest themselves in coloured light beams. In The Goblet of Fire, Voldemort’s beam was green and Harry’s red, then in the final showdown of this latest installment, the beams are red and blue. We all remember that the red lightsaber was the signature of Darth Vader - previously Anakin Skywalker - so this is a nice little visual nod to those geeks among us who would see this as yet another symbol of Harry’s darkness within.

It’s great that the Harry Potter films continue to have something to offer beyond their special effects and imaginative "wizard technology" - which is admittedly cool, but not enough to carry a whole film. Daniel Radcliffe has been perfect in embodying both the heroic and venomous traits of Harry Potter, and the supporting characters remain rich and their ever-evolving back-stories are always adding a little more without feeling tacked-on. Since most films geared towards teenagers these days are mindless action romps or torturous gore-fests filled with "pretty people" getting naked at every chance they get, it’s good to know that someone can still make a film which fulfills one’s need for spectacle while also giving kids someone to relate to and grow up with.

8 / 10

The Mist

2007-11-24T01:55:00.000-05:00

Title: The Mist
Director: Frank Darabont
Cast: Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Andre Braugher
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rater R for violence, terror and gore, and language.
Date of Review: November 24, 2007

Every few years there’s a horror movie that comes along and becomes an instant classic. Probably 1 in 5 of those then moves up the ranks once again, to become a horror movie that people will remember for years to come. Fathers and uncles will secretly pass down the recommendation to their sons and nephews, who will sneak off to Blockbuster and rent this old, worn out copy of the movie they were told was “really scary” back in 2007. I know this will happen because it’s how I came across so many of the classic horror films I did as a kid. My uncle and dad would talk about movies with me and discreetly hint (“oh, The Exorcist is on TV - that’s a really scary movie”) different titles I should look for the next time I’m out.

And when looking back at the films that are remembered so fondly, it’s true that fear of the unknown must be our greatest fear, because that’s the theme that unites a lot of these movies. In Robert Wise’s The Haunting, a building sense of dread is created without showing any ghosts or goblins - we are terrified by the idea of what could be there. Similarly, in the still-frightening films of Alfred Hitchcock, it’s the fact that we don’t see tons of blood, guts and gore that scares us so much. So why is it that Frank Darabont has been able to achieve a pitch-perfect blend between subtlety, and “showing the monster”?

It’s funny to be writing all of this after recently having a discussion with some friends about Cloverfield, and the rumors regarding the possibility that the gigantic...um...whatever will never be shown, and whether that is going to work or not. Some say that because the nature of human fear resides so strongly around the unknown and unexplained - therefore making the more minimalist approach of not showing the monster more effective - that it should remain a mystery. Others, however, just want to be shown the monster, and be blown away by a gargantuan beast causing death and destruction. But, again, why is it that Darabont has managed to create a movie that appeals to both the lovers of psychological horror, and of seeing monsters kill and be killed?

Darabont obviously has a knack for storytelling. He knows how to make people mad, how to tug at their heartstrings without feeling preachy or manipulative, and has now shown that he knows how to scare us. With The Mist, a story is being told - in typical Stephen King fashion - within a story. Amidst the world’s end, a “Lord of the Flies” type scenario occurs, as some people go mad and others show incredible compassion. Some seem born to follow in the footsteps of whoever offers the easiest solution, and others feel they must do what they see as being morally right and just. As the monsters on the outside get bigger, so do the monsters on the inside of this microscopic society in a grocery store.

The film contains many signature Stephen King moments - scenes that are so utterly depressing or so morbid and violent that the audience’s reaction may be to laugh. Some people at my showing laughed, yet at the end those very same people walked out saying how much they loved it, and how scared they were. When a film pushes you so far that you don’t know whether to laugh or scream, that’s really saying something. The ending will no doubt be polarizing - perhaps even more so than that of another of this year’s controversial releases, Gone Baby Gone. And that’s not a hyperbolic statement at all...the ending to this film will no doubt cause some to despise the rest of the film. But they’ll never forget it, and so they too will probably end up recommending The Mist to one of their children, exclaiming how “that movie was great, up until the ending.”

If you’re a fan of Stephen King. If you’re a fan of horror movies. If you’re a fan of H. P. Lovecraft. If you just want to see a very good movie that will also scare you silly, do yourself a favor and see The Mist. It’s going to be a classic - you can count on that. And you can be the one telling people in years to come that you saw it in the theatre, and “that’s when they made really scary movies.”

9 / 10

Dead Ringers

2007-10-15T22:26:00.000-04:00

Title: Dead Ringers
Director: David Cronenberg
Cast: Jeremy Irons, Geneviève Bujold, Shirley Douglas
Year: 1988
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: October 15, 2007

Being a huge fan of David Cronenberg’s films, I’ve kind of been kicking myself for a long while for having not seen Dead Ringers. I count several of his films among my favorites - from his quasi-existential adaptation of Burroughs’ bible of weirdness, Naked Lunch, to his Matrix-esque journey into video gaming, eXistenZ. And, having heard from many people that Dead Ringers is his best film, it was getting a little painful to not be able to join in on the discussion.

Now let me just get it right out in the open - Dead Ringers is Cronenberg’s best film, hands down. It takes so many of the concepts that he has toyed with in both previous and later films and blends them together so seamlessly and effortlessly that it is just a joy to watch. Though, the joy would simply be in seeing these elements come together - and in seeing an altogether brilliant film - because it is quite heartbreakingly sad.

Jeremy Irons plays the Mantle twins - Elliot and Beverley - who are both brilliant gynecologists practicing in Toronto. Elliot is an extrovert. A ladies man. A social butterfly whose brilliance extends into his people skills. He does the public speaking for the pair, and attends any meetings or social gatherings that would only require one of them to appear. Beverley, on the other hand, is an introverted book worm. He finds greater solace in the clutches of his research than in the arms of a woman, and really has no desire to change this. But while the two insist that they lead separate lives and have separate identities, they also strive to share all of their landmark experiences with each other - and that includes the love of a woman.

And ultimately it is the love of a woman that begins their separation. As they try to “share” the love of Clare, the neurotic actress played by Geneviève Bujold, it becomes apparent to them both how different they really are. Where there may have been some blurred line between the two characters, there is now a very visible crease between the two identical men.

Something instantly noticeable about Dead Ringers is the fact that, while it embodies so many of Cronenberg’s consistent themes, it’s quite possibly his most subdued work. There are one or two slightly graphic images, but nothing comparable to, say, his magnum-opus of vulgarity entitled Videodrome. While most of his other films are filled with gruesome images of vaginally shaped monsters and overtly sexual symbolism, he instead opts to let the story take precedence over the gruesome visuals. That’s not to say, though, that the film doesn’t have Cronenberg’s wonderful visual style - it’s still perfectly intact. There are plenty of striking images and uses of colour throughout the film to keep any fan of the Master of Venereal Horror pleased. But don’t go in looking for Marilyn Chambers with a vagina monster sticking out of her armpit, because you’re not going to get it.

It’s interesting to note - especially after having seen the film - that Jeremy Irons was actually not Cronenberg’s choice for the role. Apparently, Irons was somewhat of a frustrated attempt at just getting someone to fill the role, as Cronenberg’s first and only choice for the role was William Hurt. To imagine anyone other than Jeremy Irons in the roles of the Mantle Twins seems almost blasphemous, though, as he is just so perfect. He plays both roles with equal power and subtlety, making it easy to see both how one could mistake them for each other, but also how easily it is to tell them apart. And in case you’re worried, the twin aspect is not used as a gimmick, as it so often is in other films using this plot device. The concept of twins is looked at from many angles throughout the film, making it apparent that the character couldn’t just be colleagues or best friends - or even just regular brothers.

It’s hard to keep from gushing about this film, because it was just so wonderful. Cronenberg fans definitely owe it to themselves to seek it out and give it a view. The newly available 15th anniversary DVD by Anchor Bay is actually just the Criterion disc with the Anchor Bay logo thrown in a couple of places, so it’s definitely worth a purchase. Cronenberg will be lucky if he can ever outdo himself, as this film arguably represents the peak of his storytelling skills.

10 / 10

1408

2007-07-13T02:19:00.000-04:00

Title: 1408
Director: Mikael Håfström
Cast: John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, Mary McCormack
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for thematic material including disturbing sequences of violence and terror, frightening images and language.
Date of Review: July 13, 2007

Troubled underground occult writer Mike Enslin gazes out the window of room 1408 of the Dolphin Hotel. It’s a bland room - stereotypical paintings hung on the walls, nicely arranged faux furniture, the works. His mission? To finally discover solid proof that there is life after death - some sort of other ethereal realm of life beyond our own.

Suddenly, while admiring the similarly bland view that the room offers, the radio clicks on at full volume. The shock spins him around to see that two chocolates have been placed on his pillow, which weren’t there just seconds ago. And the lyrics to the song playing on the radio? “We’ve only just begun”

This gives a glimpse of the unnerving material to be found in 1408, the recent psychological horror film starring John Cusack as the aforementioned author, and Samuel L. Jackson as the owner of the Dolphin Hotel. Before we go any further, let it be known that this film is based more on scares in the mind than monsters or axe-wielding maniacs. The idea that a force of evil so horrendous and so inescapable could be contained in a simple room is something that Stephen King - author of the short story upon which the film is based - has explored often in his stories. From possessed cars to evil dogs, he has repeatedly found terror in the realm of the ordinary.

And that’s just what this film is about - an ordinary room. Nothing more. No ghosts or goblins, no vampires or zombies or werewolves. At one point near the beginning of the film, Enslin suggests to the hotel owner that perhaps the room is possessed by an evil spirit, or a poltergeist. To this, the owner replies “no, what is in 1408 is nothing like that...it’s just an evil fucking room.” Those going into the film hoping for some mind-boggling revelation about Lovecraftian beasts from dimensions unknown could be left sorely disappointed, but at the same time, they could get something even better.

It has taken this reviewer three viewings of the film to come to the opinion that it’s quite good. The first was underwhelming for the exact reason that was just outlined - it felt like there was something missing. John Cusack playing a morose horror writer was a stretch to begin with, but the trailers were slightly misleading in that they make it out to be a completely different film than it actually is. If you’ve seen and enjoyed the original 1963 version of The Haunting, then you should appreciate what is here.

That is not to say that there is nothing visually scary about the film, but the visuals are simply there to support the idea that what is in the mind - one’s greatest fears and pains - are infinitely more terrifying than any monster. To be forced to confront the beasts of your own past is much more damaging than having to fight Freddy or Jason, because these memories are yours and yours alone, and to have them manipulated and used against you is a very scary thing.

Another very effective part of the movie is its ability to create a sense of inescapable doom. As Enslin goes deeper and deeper into the room’s evil - and into his own mind - it becomes more apparent that he can never return. The effect of Enslin becoming more isolated throughout the film is done very well - brick walls appearing by windows that used to be open, arctic cold creeping into the room, and a sense of impending doom throughout the whole film that is rarely achieved in horror movies these days.

What 1408’s greatest triumph is, is that it was willing to take so many risks in a genre filled with diluted, “same-old, same-old” dung. Instead of focusing on a group of delinquent teenagers, it’s a depressed middle-aged man, and more than half of the film is devoted to just this one character. And, instead of providing cheap, gorey thrills like the recent torture-porn craze, it provides a real, emotionally affecting story that doesn’t completely destroy itself by dumbing itself down for teenage audiences.

Fans of Stephen King’s work should get a lot out of this movie - especially a great visual tribute to his “Dark Tower” series. And while this reviewer may not be the best to say so - since he is not the biggest fan of The Shining - 1408 could very well be the best big-screen King adaptation to come around...at least in a very, very long while.

8 / 10

Man on Fire, and its place in revenge cinema

2007-06-13T18:36:00.000-04:00

Title: Man on Fire
Director: Tony Scott
Cast: Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Mickey Rourke
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for language and strong violence
Date of Review: June 13, 2007

There’s something about a violent revenge tale that appeals to that sadistic machismo laying dormant in most men (and many women). More often than not, these vigilante stories make the audience sympathize with the protagonist, and cheer every time he off’s one of the bad guys. We put ourselves in their position and think "gee, if my family was murdered by a drug cartel, I’d probably go kill them all too." But the dangerous thing about this is that it is very rare that a film like this looks at the other side of things, taking the "two wrongs don’t make a right" stance. It’s a fine line between justice and revenge - are directors asking too much of audiences to try and distinguish the difference?

Look at the recent superhero movie craze. I love them. Any movie involving someone in tights who can fly or shoot webs or has claws in their hands, I guarantee you I’ll be first in line to see it. I love comic books and the movies based on them...but I also know that in the "real world", one cannot take the law into their own hands, regardless of their skills, resources or powers. Now look at who 99% of these films are targeting with their advertising. Children. Can a child make out that difference? Will they be able to simply take the film as "cool" and "entertaining", without being deeply influenced by it?

Now lets jump to some more mature films in the revenge/vigilantism genre. Oldboy is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of revenge cinema ever created. It has a sympathetic protagonist, some very brutal, adrenaline filled action, and an antagonist who seems worthy of many deaths. Where Oldboy differs, though, is that by the end of the film, it does not condone the actions of our hero Oh Dae-su, and in fact his last action in the film is one of such high questionability that it continues to divide audiences. While I personally think Oh Dae-su deserved revenge, I appreciate that the film tried to make the audience realize that Oh Dae-su was in the wrong too, and that the antagonist had his own reasons for his actions.

There are also those occasional revenge films that fully realize the idea that the protagonist is not a good guy at all, and no better - or perhaps even worse - than the people he is going after. Payback, starring Mel Gibson, is a great example of this. Gibson plays Porter, a lowlife gangster who snags some money from a rival gang, then his best friend puts a bullet in his back, takes his money and his wife, and leaves him for dead. Does Gibson deserve revenge? Sure. Does he need to kill the number of people he does in the movie? Hell no. But the movie knows this, and it rolls with it. In fact, it’s the film’s main source of comic relief - even its tagline reads "Get ready to root for the bad guy." Porter’s not a good guy, and the movie doesn’t pretend to make him one. But he’s surrounded by so much scum and human filth that you can’t help but cheer when he dispatches another goon to the world beyond.

Now we come to the film that inspired this write-up, and it’s one that is just about the complete opposite of Payback. 2004's Man on Fire is a very mean-spirited film. It presents a situation meant to create sympathy - the kidnaping and murder of a child - but it goes off into a territory way beyond what could be called "justice". And that’s it’s biggest problem - it masquerades the vengeful actions of Denzel Washington as being justice - at one point, Christopher Walken even says of him, "He'll deliver more justice in a weekend than ten years of your courts and tribunals." Is sticking a remote detonator and some plastic explosives up an unarmed man’s anus really "justice"? Is cutting a man’s fingers off one-by-one for information, then killing him anyway really "justice"?

I’m reminded of some of the greatest pieces of one of my favorite movies, Batman Begins. Batman is probably one of the best known revenge tales - as a child, Bruce Wayne’s parents are killed right in front of him, and he spends the rest of his life training to avenge their deaths by taking on the criminal underworld as Batman. But in the most recent film version starring Christian Bale as the Bat, it takes a good look at the difference between justice and revenge, vigilantism and heroism. "Justice is balance. Revenge is about making yourself feel better," as the character Rachel Dawes says to Bruce Wayne at one point. This is the lesson that drives him to become Batman rather than a vigilante - to hunt criminals and put them in the hands of the law, instead of choosing to kill them and take on the roles of Judge, Jury and Executioner all himself.

Man on Fire lacks these points. It simply seems to believe that Creasy (Denzel Washington) is right in what he is doing, and that he really is dealing out justice as opposed to seeking out his own personal gratification. Aside from this, however, I quite enjoyed the film. It had some great action set pieces, a definite constant feeling of energy and movement, and Washington’s performance is quite great - as is to be expected from one of the best actors working in Hollywood right now. But this is the type of movie that I think could be quite dangerous for young, impressionable people who maybe do not yet understand the difference between justice and revenge. Its basic internal logic is "one death deserves several more".

So what does all this mean? Is Man on Fire a bad movie? No, not at all. Is it morally repugnant? Well, if you think about it at all, yes, it is. But at the same time, it’s harmless entertainment to those who can handle it and see it simply as entertainment. For all intents and purposes, it delivers a satisfying revenge tale to those who love their revenge movies dark, brutal and uncompromising. It’s no Oldboy, but if you turn off your brain and strap in for the ride, it’s a pretty decent outing into an inherently violent genre.

7 / 10

Speedy

2007-06-07T15:33:00.001-04:00

Title: Speedy
Director: Ted Wilde
Cast: Harold Lloyd, Ann Christy, Bert Woodruff
Year: 1928
MPAA: Rated G
Date of Review: June 7, 2007

Speedy is my first experience with Harold Lloyd, and to sum it all up, I liked it. I liked it a lot. I’ve been a fan of silent films for a long time - I’ve always found them very poetic, and many of them captured imagery that has never been recreated. Even today’s children recognize a character like Charlie Chaplin, because he has become an icon of that era. Speedy can’t really be compared to anything I have seen by Chaplin, because their genre is really the only thing they have in common. Chaplin’s films were often very socially conscious, often melancholy comedy/dramas, whereas Speedy - both the film and character it takes its name from - is very light-hearted entertainment.

Chaplin’s signature character was always the Tramp - that mustached man with a top hat, cane, and shoes several sizes too big. He was homeless, constantly looking for work and for friendship, and this was often the basis of the plots to his films. But, while Harold "Speedy" Swift is also unemployed, this does not ever factor in as a huge problem, reflecting Speedy’s own care-free attitude towards the issue - as he says at more than one point in the film, "I can always get another job tomorrow."

This care-free attitude is the thing that both frustrates and draws his family closer to him - his family consisting of his father, Pop, and his girlfriend, Jane. They know that "Speedy" is a smart, capable young man, and they also know how fickle and occasionally careless he can be. He just can’t keep a job. But this time, he claims his job at the soda bar will stick...he even says that he’ll "be running the place soon." But of course, the job doesn’t stick, and instead of looking for a new one he decides to take Jane out for a day of fun at theme parks, food stands, and anything else he could afford.

The main problem comes a little later, when it is revealed that Speedy’s father - who owns and runs the last horse-drawn carriage in the city - may be the target of a violent attack to try and push his carriage out of business and replace it with an electric tram. Speedy is determined to stop these hooligans from hurting his father, and hopefully save his father’s business from a hostile takeover. Therein lies the plot of the film - it’s simple, it’s quick, and it’s mostly there to support the many set-piece based visual gags in the film.

The film’s lack of depth is not a negative comment, though...not by a long shot. It’s simplicity really makes it all that much funnier, because it doesn’t have any needless emotional weight or melodrama to bog everything down. That is not to say that Chaplin’s films were melodramatic, but they were comedies of an entirely different kind, and Chaplin and Lloyd had very different, distinct styles. Chaplin’s "The Tramp" was a loveable oaf who people connected with because of his stories of lost love and longing romance. Lloyd’s character of "Speedy" is more like that guy you know who just can’t seem to keep a job, he lives in a reality all his own, and you can’t help but love his charm and enthusiasm. And these differences between The Tramp and Speedy mirror the differences between their respective films.

But the fact that Speedy has a simpler plot structure than other comedies of the silent era does not mean that it is any less important. Looking at the time it was made and released - 1928 - America was just about to enter into the worst depression it had ever seen, and maybe films like Speedy could be seen as a pre-emptive move to lighten the moods and hearts of those affected by such an economic crisis. Of course neither Lloyd or director Ted Wilde could have ever known about such a crisis, but surely it was entertainers like these that helped get the country through one if its darkest times.

Speedy really is a great movie. It’s fun, it’s quick, it’s supremely entertaining, and anybody can watch it - silent film fan or not - and enjoy it. I’m sure the films of Harold Lloyd would be great to put on for kids to watch and enjoy, because they tend to love that kind of goofy physical humor. Plus, if you’re a baseball fan, you have to check this movie out for quite a lengthy appearance by Babe Ruth.

8 / 10

Se7en - an analysis of generational gaps

2007-04-27T18:39:00.000-04:00

Title: Se7en
Director: David Fincher
Cast: Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, Gwyneth Paltrow
Year: 1995
MPAA: Rated R for grisly afterviews of horrific and bizarre killings, and for strong language.
Date of Review: April 27, 2007

Studying demographics and the trends influenced by popular culture throughout generations was one of the few things I enjoyed in my high school years, so when it became a full course in college I was thrilled. In watching David Fincher’s Se7en, it is apparent that he and Andrew Kevin Walker (who wrote the screenplay) share many of the same interests. The characters of William Somerset and David Mills (played by Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt) exhibit behaviourial traits which are very telling of their personalities and histories - in fact, much of Somerset’s past is told in the way he dresses, speaks and thinks, and attention must be paid to these aspects of the character in order to fully appreciate his depth and understand why he is so pessimistic.

If you listen to the commentary track on the DVD, when Somerset first appears outdoors and is talking with Mills for the first time, he puts on his hat - a fedora. Freeman remarks that “so much can be said about a man by the type of hat he wears”, and this couldn’t be more true. Somerset is a character straight out of 1940s film noir - a gumshoe, a private eye. He doesn’t have a particularly happy or fulfilling life, but he does what he does because he is good at it. In a scene towards the end of the film when Somerset and Mills are suiting up, Somerset loads his 6-shot revolver, while Mills loads a magazine into his handgun. Somerset takes the time to put on a clean shirt and tie a fresh tie around his neck, while Mills has a rack of pre-tied ties from which he picks one and simply slips it around his neck (perhaps inferring that Mills, himself, doesn’t know how to tie a tie). These may seem like very trivial occurrences, or very obvious “old cop being replaced by a new cop” cues, but as the killer says towards the end of the film, “nothing is trivial.”

The choice to show these things prominently - and some not so prominently - on-screen was a conscious one, and is far from the straight-forward “buddy cop” clichés of films like Lethal Weapon which feature similar situations with old and young police officers being paired together. Somerset represents an age past, when cops were heroes. The days when people would go to the theatre to see the latest Humphrey Bogart detective film, because at the time he was a heroic figure. But Somerset is lost in the world of the 1990s - a dark, grim place where Generation X has taken hold and the shimmering candy coating has melted off the cities, revealing the decay underneath.

Sam Spade was busy dealing with stolen artifacts and femme fatales. Philip Marlowe was hired to watch over a dying general’s daughter. Even The Dude was just trying to get his rug back, because it really held the room together. But William Somerset is assigned a case that just doesn’t fit with his own ways - acts of evil that Philip Marlowe would never even dream of. To think of these murders occurring in a film from the 1940s or 1950s is...well...unthinkable. A man is forced to eat until he passes out, at which point he is kicked so his stomach bursts. A beautiful young woman has her face cut off, is given a phone and sleeping pills, and told she can call for help and live with her newfound ugliness or kill herself. These horrendous acts of forced penance are far beyond anything that Somerset has ever imagined, but at the same time, they confirm all that he has been thinking about with regards to today’s world.

It is here that Somerset finds himself strangely sympathetic with the killer’s cause - to turn each sin against the sinner, and make people realize what horrible creatures we are and how utterly hopeless our lives and futures are. As the killer writes in one of his many notebooks, “what sick ridiculous puppets we are...not a care in the world, not knowing that we are nothing, we are not what was intended.” Of course Somerset does not condone the acts of this John Doe killer, but he does realize what he is trying to say - even the best of us are not truly “good” people. But if we are imperfect beings, can we really be expected to lead perfect lives?

It is especially interesting that, when we see John Doe for the first time, he is dressed in almost exactly the same attire as Somerset - a long, beige raincoat and fedora. Both are of the same mind about the world - that apathy will be the end of man, because we simply do not care anymore about adhering to the classic laws of the Bible. It is a new day and age where both characters feel completely out of place, and are actually trying to accomplish the same goal, but on opposite sides of the law (and obviously with greatly differing methods). Both policeman and killer are trying to better the world.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, we have Mills. A young, married man who has just moved to the city after being transferred to Somerset’s division in order to work with him and eventually take his position. He lives a much happier life than Somerset, because what Somerset recognizes as naivety, is actually just a sense of acceptance. Mills grew up as the world changed into the world it has become, and while he may not like it, he has grown to live with it, knowing that in his line of work he is at least doing his best to make a difference. Also, he doesn’t wear a hat.

The film is quite bleak, but when looked at in this way it actually becomes quite optimistic. As Somerset readies for retirement, it represents his entire generation of classic detectives hanging up their hats, so that the new cops can take over. Cops with energy and youth, and the hope and intelligence to drive them to truly change the world. To see the story of “two cops with different styles forced to work together” isn’t a rare occurrence, and at least one of these movies seems to come out every year, often falling under the buddy-cop comedy genre. But for a film to come and really say something about this huge generational gap - not only in law enforcement but in people on all walks of life - is rare.

10 / 10

Witnesses

2007-04-19T21:00:00.000-04:00

Title: Witnesses
Director: Vinko Bresan
Cast: Leon Lucev, Drazen Kuhn, Kresimir Mikic
Year: 2003
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: April 19, 2007

When thinking of "third world" countries, peoples’ thoughts often jump to the African nations of Ethiopia and Somalia, or - to be more relevant to the times - the Middle Eastern nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. But there are so many places all over the world where life is a dreary and solemn string of events leading to one’s death. Vinko Bresan’s film Witnesses looks at a place that is rarely seen or mentioned when discussions arise about poverty and poor living conditions, and that place is Croatia. The war between the Croatians and Serbians sets the scene for a film about killing – when, if ever, is it justified? And under what circumstances does a war-related death become a murder?

Opening with an overhead shot of a caravan of military vehicles circling a town square at night, this shot continues after all the trucks pass, flowing through a maze of filthy streets like the brown water that covers them. We see three shady looking, heavily armed men driving around in circles, before they pull up to a house and kill the man inside. The rest of the film is told in Rashomon-style, following each major character and how they are affected by this death. Each story begins the morning after, where police are investigating the death and trying to compile a list of suspects. Through all of this, not one ray of sunshine or even a dry street is shown – the film is very effective in communicating the despondent nature of the area.

There’s an incredibly diverse cast of characters in this film, but they all share one common trait – despair. Barbir is the policeman in charge of the case, and is also dealing with his comatose wife. Brothers Josko, Gojo and Baric are responsible for the shooting, but are also distraught by the loss of their father and their missing brother. In some very eye-opening flashback scenes, we see the five men spending time together by patrolling behind enemy lines, seemingly having a great time while they blindly throw grenades into houses and fire their assault rifles at anything that moves. To think that one can feel happiest and most at home on a battlefield is something many of us here in North America cannot even comprehend, but it’s a sad and frightening reality in quite a large portion of the world.

However, while the movie portrays a bleak and unforgiving reality, it is not without a sense of hope. Those who are involved in the violence and destruction of a society and a people can earn redemption, but the operative word there is earn - one cannot simply walk away from their life, but must make an active effort to change. Each character in the film gets an opportunity like this as each story is examined, and it is unsettling to see how reluctant some are to change their ways - though this is probably quite true to life.

If it’s not already abundantly clear, Witnesses is not a happy film. Its visual style and portrayal of the murky, ghetto-like communities of Croatia is nothing short of depressing, and perfectly reflects the story the film is telling. It’s not a film that you will sit down and have a wonderful time watching, but it is very telling of the level of poverty and desperation that has stricken so many places all over the world.

That this film has snuck under the radar and been relatively unseen since its release in 2003 is baffling, seeing as how it is skillfully made and uncompromising in its honesty. It’s especially sad to see that Croatia is still practically unrecognized in the world of film, when there’s obviously some great talent there.

9 / 10

Fido

2007-03-27T13:16:00.000-04:00

Title: Fido
Director: Andrew Currie
Cast: Billy Connolly, Carrie-Anne Moss, Henry Czerny
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of zombie violence and gore, and comic horror situations.
Date of Review: March 27, 2007

Lassie…with zombies. The money I would pay to pitch that idea to the studios is monumental (if I had any, that is) and that is the basic plot of Fido, the most recent inductee into the zombie genre. It’s the story of a picture-perfect 1950s community, and more specifically a picture-perfect 1950s family. They live in a time when the zombie apocalypse has already happened and now gated communities exist where people can live out their lives as if nothing ever happened. And thanks to ZomCon – a semi-futuristic company responsible for the "collar" which makes zombies docile and harmless – the zombie threat has instead turned into a blessing in disguise, as all menial jobs can now be carried out by the completely submissive and ever-growing zombie population.

Billy Connolly stars as the titular character, Fido. He is a zombie, and he is Timmy’s best friend. Timmy is a lonely little boy, whose father is more interested in golf than him, and whose mother is obsessed with what the neighbours think of their house. Fido is brought into the picture when the mother, Helen (Carrie-Ann Moss’ best performance since Memento) buys him from ZomCon as a houseworker so that they aren’t "the only house on the street without one". The father, Bill, is afraid of zombies, and doesn’t want Fido in or around the house - and it’s both hilarious and disturbing to see how people look at him as if there’s something wrong with him because he is afraid of these walking corpses. It’s all got the feeling of an episode of Leave it to Beaver, but with a gory, zombie-filled twist.

As with any other zombie movie of particular significance, Fido has a strong message relevant to the times it has been released in, regardless of the fact that it takes place in the 1950s. Violence is so regularly accepted in society, that a child actually points a loaded rifle at the head of another child during Target Practice Class at school, and all he gets is detention. And when the head of security for ZomCon is talking to an elementary school class, he asks if anyone has ever had to kill a zombie before, to which many of the children excitedly raise their hands, followed by him continuing to openly talk about people having their flesh eaten by undead family members. Of course, like most of its socially conscious predecessors, the message is quite heavy-handed, but it is fully aware of this, as it both looks and feels like a science fiction film from the 1950s. There is rampant overacting (that wonderful happy-go-luckiness that was a trademark of the era) and the shots inside vehicles make great use of fake backgrounds, and the driver is constantly turning the steering wheel even on a perfectly straight roads.

The dynamite script and tongue-in-cheek acting really add to the fun of the movie. Carrie-Anne Moss is absolutely hilarious as she slowly becomes attracted – yes…in THAT way – to Fido, who shows her more attention and affection than Bill (played by recognizable character actor Dylan Baker). But the real show-stealing performance is from Toronto-born actor Henry Czerny, who plays Jonathan Bottoms, ZomCon’s head of security and the latest addition to the friendly neighbourhood of Willard. He is a decorated hero from the "Zombie Wars", and a completely cold and heartless man whose utter indifference towards all the violence and mayhem the zombie threat poses makes him even funnier. In one scene, he talks about how horrible the zombies have been in making families have to kill each other, then remarks "I’d take Cindy’s [his wife] head off in a second if I had to", to which his wife simply smiles and replies "oh he’s so sweet…he always says that!". The humor in the film is very sarcastic, and at times almost Monty Python-esque.

While Fido doesn’t really bring anything particularly new to the table in terms of the actual zombie action and gore, what is there is great. It even provides a back-story, going through how some radioactive space dust was absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, with main side effect being - of course - raising of the dead. There was then an all-out zombie war, in which humans prevailed, leaving us with this wonderfully sugar-coated view of 1950s America...with zombies. Anyone familiar with the zombie genre knows that quite often the actual reason for the dead returning to life is often left out, instead having it happen almost completely at random, but in Fido that is not so, and the opening propaganda reel which outlines these world-changing events adds even more to the nostalgic, 1950s-sci-fi feel of the film.

Since it’s the one of the only other zombie comedies to come out in the past few years, Fido will undoubtedly be compared to 2004's runaway hit Shaun of the Dead, but beyond the actual subject matter there really isn’t much of a comparison. They are such different films - with Shaun of the Dead spoofing the zombie genre itself, while Fido makes another entry into the genre which just happens to be funny. Considering its Canadian indie roots and lack of any media exposure, Fido will surely fly under the radar, maybe achieving some cult status in the years to come. But for now, if you drive by your local theatre and notice those four letters up in lights, do yourself a favor and buy a ticket - it’s a funny, gory romp with a lot to say.

8.5 / 10

300

2007-03-15T00:00:00.000-04:00

Title: 300
Director: Zack Snyder
Cast: Gerard Butler, David Wenham, Lena Headey
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated R for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity.
Date of Review: March 15, 2007

On page A3 of the Wednesday, March 14, 2007 edition of the Ottawa Citizen, an article titled "U.S. accused of ‘cultural warfare’" written by Steven Edwards talks about a problem which has arisen with the release of Zack Snyder’s visually arresting 300: Iranians believe the film is insulting, saying that it portrays their Persian ancestors as "...both ruthless and repeatedly outsmarted by the Greeks." This is just one of the many complaints and backlashes against the action epic, others being that it is sexist, misogynist, and that it praises violence. Indeed, 300 has become a much more controversial film that it was ever believed (or intended) to be. However, what everyone seems to be forgetting about this film is that, while it is indeed a story based on an actual event, it is not meant to be taken as historical fact. It is an energetic action romp with some of the most stunning visuals ever put on film, and considering Snyder’s outspoken goals of creating "something cool", he has succeeded.

To call either Frank Miller’s graphic novel or Zack Snyder’s film adaptation misogynist seems like a totally redundant criticism. Almost all of Miller’s work has had tones (usually none-too-subtle) of sexism, but at the same time, the women are also portrayed as morally superior to men. In Sin City - another film greatly bashed for its portrayal of women as sexual objects - the women were actually more dangerous than the men, and were always the ones left with the upper hand. Similarly in 300, while the men are the ones doing all the fighting, the women are portrayed as the keepers of knowledge, wisdom and equality. The Oracle - a nude woman who spasms and gyrates as she acquires her visions - is the one who prophesizes the battle with the Persians, and without her vision the Spartans would have been destroyed in their homes. The other main female character, the wife of King Leonidas, also represents democracy and common sense and she pleads with the elders to send reinforcements to the battles. Perhaps people have been a little too hasty to call the film sexist before actually looking at the roles of women in the film, as compared to the men who are, by and large, blunt instruments.

That is not to say that the male characters aren’t interesting or entertaining - they are, but for different reasons. Miller has written a story about some of the manliest men that ever lived, literally born and bred to fight and kill. The combat in the film is stunning, especially as the camera focuses on a single fighter as he works his way through the battlefield. The best example of this actually happens in the first battle, as we watch King Leonidas (played by Gerard Butler, and with enough charisma and machoism to cut with a knife) pummel his way through the Persian fighters. For action junkies and gore hounds, it’s certainly a sight to behold. The violence, much like Sin City, is brutal, but so stylized that it can’t really be considered "gross" - as warriors slice and dice their way through each other and limbs go flying, the audience is assaulted with a barrage of two-dimensional, comic book style blood which adds a great feel of surrealism to the film, which is accentuated in many other scenes such as a tree literally built with human bodies. There are images in this film that need to be seen to be understood, and once seen surely won’t be forgotten very soon.

300 isn’t a horribly complicated film, and viewers looking for a realistic or telling story of an ancient battle and its societal repercussions should look elsewhere. What’s stunning about the film is the sheer scope and passion of it all - to go to battle knowing that you are going to die, but you do it so that people will remember that at least you tried is a very noble theme. Miller obviously had a great passion for this story when writing the comic, and Snyder and the cast and crew no doubt had just as much dedication in bringing it to the screen. They do not sugarcoat it or try to make it into something more than it is - Snyder and the rest of the team were perfectly content in making an action film, and did not have any illusions about making something that would be any smarter or deeper than what is right in front of us in the theatre. It’s entertaining as hell.

To reiterate, the imagery in 300 is astounding. Every shot is composed so beautifully, with a wonderful colour palette which alters with each battle and major location. The costumes are beautiful, the battles maintain a grand scope while focusing on only one or two fighters at a time, and it is generally just a great looking movie. The sound is equally impressive, with a rousing score by Tyler Bates - though some may be disappointed that there is no Nine Inch Nails used in the film, since the track "Just Like You Imagined" was used to effectively in the trailers. Technically, movies don’t get much better than this.

The performances are also generally quite good for this type of balls-to-the-wall action film. The whole thing is completely stolen by Gerard Butler, though, whose portrayal of King Leonidas (in both his acting ability and his awe-inspiring physical shape) seems almost god-like. The script is a bit stilted at times, as it often sounds as if the actors are saying lines directly from a comic book - and, more specifically, a comic book by Frank Miller. The glorified prose can come across a little hammy at times, especially in the narration by David Wenham, but when the action starts and the film kicks into gear, this all seems very forgivable.

Coming back to the situation with Iran, it is hard to understand how one could be truly offended by this film, unless they believed it to be parading itself as historical fact. But this is such a flawed perspective to go into the film with, it’s hard not to laugh at anyone that feels they have been psychologically wronged by viewing it. 300 is a heck of a lot of fun, and while it isn’t as ambitious as Sin City in terms of story, its visuals and energy make it nearly surpass its film-noir brother in terms of sheer entertainment.

8 / 10

Maniac

2007-02-27T19:44:00.000-05:00

Title: Maniac
Director: William Lustig
Cast: Joe Spinell, Caroline Munro, Tom Savini
Year: 1980
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: February 27, 2007

Maniac opens with a grisly murder on a beach, where Frank Zito - a schizophrenic serial killer, and the film’s protagonist - kills a young couple having a romantic evening by the seaside. It’s nothing shocking by today’s standards, but it manages to start the movie with a punch, and also begins its 90 minutes of violence, gore and depravity. Every kill throughout the film gets more gruesome - sometimes not visually, but in the tension and the sheer idea of what Frank is doing to these people. The film really doesn’t cover any new ground in the serial killer genre, but it succeeds in being a thoroughly unsettling venture with a main character who is effectively creepy.

Frank is played by Joe Spinell, and at the risk of sounding quite mean, he is a very unattractive man. Not only in the fact that he is overweight, poorly groomed and generally strange looking, but his voice, his mannerisms - even his walk - all add up to a frightening persona. This is both to the film’s advantage, and part of its downfall. In one scene, a beautiful photographer named Anna (played by Caroline Munro - you may remember her as Stromberg’s busty assistant in The Spy Who Loved Me) takes a photograph of Frank talking to a child in the park. Frank sees this, finds out where she lives, and shows up one day, introducing himself as “the guy you one took a picture of in the park”...so of course she invites him into her home, then goes on a date with him. It’s easy to see what the filmmakers are trying to do with this - another serial killer movie which tries to shock the audience with “look how normal these people could be - you could be living next door to a mass murderer!”, but unfortunately Spinell never really turns off the creepiness in Frank, and subsequently it doesn’t seem too plausible that a beautiful woman would ever give him the time of day, let alone invite him into her home without knowing his name.

And while coming to know Frank is a very disturbing experience, you can’t help but feel a little bit bad for the man. He is very sick, of course, but the film also delves into his very lonely (albeit twisted) home life. He has no friends or family, he lives in a single room apartment by himself, and he is never shown by himself without being in a state of emotional distress - Frank is a very sad and lonely man. But that also brings us to his backstory, which is a little muddy. Apparently his mother treated him poorly when he was a child and he sees these brutal murders of women as a way of repaying her for the way he was treated. Unfortunately, this is never made very clear, since the audience only ever hears of it in Frank’s nonsensical ramblings while working in his apartment - and oftentimes he is crying during these short monologues, making it even harder to understand what he is saying. The backstory would have worked much better in one of two ways: if it had been fleshed out and easier to piece together, or altogether dropped so that it seems he is seemingly doing this for no reason. As it is, it tries to add depth to the story but only succeeds in confusing the viewer.

What will undoubtedly catch the attention of most viewers is the gore. Created by special effects and make-up wizard Tom Savini (who also has a small role in the film), Maniac feature the same juicy, chunky, explosive, arterial goreshots you would expect from something with Savini’s name in the credits. Cuts result in gushes of blood, stabs are surrounded by oozing and slurping sounds, and at one point a victim who is shot in the head and explodes from the neck up. But unlike the work Savini did on George Romero’s zombie films, the gore in Maniac can actually be quite unpleasant to look at because of the story’s basis in reality. Of course there are things in the film that would never happen, but there isn’t the constant reminder of the fact that it’s “just a movie” like you would get in horror films dealing with goblins and ghouls.

Maniac is a good but flawed film. Gore afficionados will no doubt love the work presented by Tom Savini - and will also get a chuckle out of his short scene on camera - but others may find that there is really nothing new here to add to the serial killer genre. The story is a blend of several others, sampling especially from Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. But while it doesn’t do anything out of the ordinary, what it does do, it does well, and would surely be appreciated by fans of the wave of slasher movies in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

7 / 10

Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky

2007-02-24T22:06:00.000-05:00

Title: Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky
Director: Ngai Kai Lam
Cast: Siu-Wong Fan, Mei Sheng Fan, Ka-Kui Ho
Year: 1991
MPAA: Rated R for strong violence and gore, and for some drug content.
Date of Review: February 24, 2007

It can be said that there are two different categories of “guilty pleasures”: the first category is the type of movie that is critically panned and generally considered a mediocre movie, but you just have fun with it. The second category is a movie that is poorly written, acted and directed, the effects are hoaky and poorly executed, and the entire movie is so laughably bad that it transcends its own negativity to become something that’s unintentionally brilliant. Riki-Oh fits snugly into the second category, providing more laughs and unintentional hilarity than most comedies intend to provide, and has some of the most outrageous gore ever committed to celluloid. Translation: it’s a great movie.

The story in Riki-Oh is pretty much non-existent. Riki is a prisoner in the future where prisons are run by corporations who exploit the prisoners as free laborers. Some back story is thrown in through random flashbacks involving Riki avenging the death of his girlfriend (or is that his sister?), using the most lethal of martial arts techniques: breath control. Apparently if you have control of your breath, you can stop heart attacks, break through walls of reinforced steel, and have strikes so powerful that you can actually punch through people. It’s quite a feat, to be sure, but the training sequences are what really convince the audience this could be real. Riki trains with his uncle in a graveyard, where they demolish all of the tombstones – you would think something like this would be frowned upon, but when you’re this badass you know no one is going to bother you about it.

One of the best parts of Riki-Oh is its complete sincerity in what it’s doing. Siu-Wong Fan – who plays the titular character – has this look of complete seriousness throughout, as if he is trying to win some awards with an incredibly heartfelt performance in a sure-fire masterpiece of filmmaking. When profusely angered, he puts turns his face towards the sky and screams at the powers-that-be, before engaging in some of the most spectacular air-fu* ever created by mortal men. Surely if a certain invisible character from a novel by H.G. Wells were anywhere in the vicinity, he would have his ass handed to him.

*air-fu (verb); kung fu against an invisible opponent – derives from “air guitar”.

It’s impossible to discuss Riki-Oh without comparing it to another hoaky, low-budget gorefest which is equally brilliant – Peter Jackson’s first feature length film, Bad Taste. Both films make extensive use of homemade prosthetics and make-up effects, and both films use quick cuts between real actors and prosthetics or costumes to try and blend the real and fake elements together. All this really does is magnify how ridiculous the effects really are, and successfully makes both movies even more fun. Both films also feature a final confrontation with a monster that is so utterly ridiculous that it makes you wonder if the filmmakers were trying to create something completely outlandish, or if they were just completely insane. In the case of Riki-Oh, it may very well have been more of the latter.

Where Riki-Oh gets its charm is in its pure sense of fun. How one could not have a great time watching this movie just doesn’t make any sense. The gore is so over the top and out there that it couldn’t even be considered disturbing or offensive, and the movie just makes so little sense and takes itself so seriously in doing so that it’s an absolute joy. It actually brings back memories of another film I recently reviewed called Duel to the Death, in which any plot or believability is completely abandoned for the sake of pure, unabashed fun. Whether this is what was actually intended by the filmmakers is beside the point, because that’s what it is.

How one can not love a movie in which people actually get kicked in half just doesn’t make any sense. Nor does every minute you go without seeing this movie – it’s delightful.

7 / 10

Pan's Labyrinth

2007-02-11T22:25:00.000-05:00

Title: Pan's Labyrinth
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
Cast: Ivana Baquero, Sergi López, Maribel Verdú
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and some language.
Date of Review: February 11, 2007

No two films by Guillermo Del Toro are the same, or even similar. His first film, Cronos, was a stunningly original take on vampire mythology, combining aspects of well-known vampire lore with Del Toro's own fascination with insect biology. The Devil's Backbone was a heart-wrenching ghost tale which was both unnerving and beautiful. Blade II and Hellboy were two comic book adaptations that showed how much fun one could have with the source material, satisfying both longtime fans of the books and newcomers whose first experiences with the characters were these very films. Now with Pan's Labyrinth he shows us his most human film, combining storytelling elements from each of his films with wonderful costume and set designs, to create his most accomplished film to date.

Pan's Labyrinth is the story of Ofelia, a little girl who explores a beautiful and frightening fantasy world which mirrors the turbulent time she lives in: the Spanish Civil War. As she explores this new world, she comes to realize that her place in the fantasy world is much more clearly defined than what she has in the real world. The creatures she meets throughout this world are startling to look at, with almost nothing that physically resembles a human being - but Ofelia is never afraid, because she has seen much worse monsters in the world of man.

The imagery in Pan’s Labyrinth really steals the show upon a first viewing. That is not to say that the narrative or characters are shallow - in fact, they’re entirely the opposite, providing fleshed out, real human emotions. But the worlds that Del Toro has created in this film are breathtaking. From the swooping opening shot showing a glorious castle under the cover of a blue night sky, to the nightmarish world of “The Pale Man” - a blind monster who eats anyone that samples from the delightful buffet that sits in front of him - each setting is unique, but has an organic flow that makes it feel not-too-far from reality. And as Ofelia curiously explores each area, we cannot help but feel just as full of wonder as she does.

This film is rich in symbolism, but the great thing about the way Del Toro crafted the story is that one does not need to pick up on this symbolism in order to have just as emotional and rewarding a time watching it all unfold. As with his previous works, a lot of the imagery consists of insects and very insect-like transformations and metamorphoses, symbolizing characters’ revelations in mind, body and spirit. But one can watch the scene of an enormous toad regurgitating its innards and simply see that at face value, while another sees a comparison with Ofelia’s fascist step father who lives in a barren land killing the occasional straggler (as the toad lives in a dead tree sparsely eating flies). And neither viewer’s interpretation of the scene would be wrong. It’s Del Toro’s ability to step back and let the audience see and feel for themselves - rather than guiding their hand - that gives the film so much power and universal connectivity.

One cannot talk about this movie without mentioning the superb performances - most notably from Ivana Baquero as the young Ofelia. It is a universal truth that a child actor can make or break a film - especially when said film stars said child in the leading role. But Baquero, like every other child actor Del Toro has used, was wonderful. She was able to evoke the feelings of wonder, innocence and fearlessness that were required in the role without resorting to the hammy nature that so many child actors before her have ruined entire movies with. And while her lines of dialogue are few, she delivers them just as realistically as she does the physicality of the role.

Sergi López gives a genuinely frightening performance as Capitán Vidal, Ofelia’s sadistic, fascist stepfather. His scenes of merciless brutality come completely unexpected and will shock even the most diehard horror and gore fans in the audience, but like everything else in the film these scenes are not there for the sake of showing senseless violence. Del Toro does a great job of making Vidal very easy to hate, and strengthening the connection between him and the evil monsters of the fantasy world.

Pan’s Labyrinth is a movie that’s hard not to recommend to everyone. It has all of the things that make going to the movies such a great experience: drama, intelligence, heartache, an easily hated villain, and an even more easily loved protagonist. Combined with its stunning imagery and Del Toro’s one-of-a-kind imagination, it is a movie that should be seen by everyone.

10 / 10

Tattooed Life

2007-02-01T13:29:00.000-05:00

Title: Tattooed Life
Director: Seijun Suzuki
Cast: Hideki Takahashi, Akira Yamauchi, Hiroko Ito
Year: 1965
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: February 1, 2007

Seijun Suzuki is a very interesting filmmaker. His 50 year career has made him one of the leading Japanese directors, especially in terms of pure style. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, he became one of the more prolific Japanese directors to capture the violence of the yakuza world on screen, and films like Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill have become classics of the genre. Tattooed Life was released in 1965, and is one of his less stylistic and more narrative-driven films, but it still retains his ability to commit some beautiful imagery to film, as well as fantastic action.

Tattooed Life is the story of two brothers: Tetsu and Kenji. Tetsu is a yakuza underling who kills the boss of a rival gang, who then send a man to kill him. His brother Kenji is a passive young man, emotionally fragile and pursuing a career in art, but manages to save Tetsu’s life by killing the man sent to kill him. This prompts the two brothers to run away and live a reclusive life as construction workers. They create many strong friendships and earn the respect of their coworkers, but are constantly watching out for police or yakuza who may show up to arrest or kill them.

It is interesting the way Suzuki presents the presence of a threat. Near the beginning of the film, the police are in pursuit of the two brothers, but don’t really have anything to go on other than the fact that they are two grown men. The one detective who begins to get close is almost always shown from the shins down, as he wears bright red shoes. Later on, a yakuza shows up at the construction site wearing an almost identical pair of red shoes. Several characters throughout the film are shown wearing this almost flamboyantly bright red shoes, warning the viewer that trouble lies ahead. It’s a very different stylistic choice on the part of Suzuki, but it works.

The entire film has the theme of not being able to escape your past – the idea that the things you do and have done are “tattooed” onto you is represented by the yakuza lifestyle quite literally being tattooed onto Tetsu. The yakuza have always been known for their elaborate tattoos all over their bodies, so when Tetsu runs away and does not want anyone to know of his past, he does not let anyone see him unclothed, even when bathing – regardless of the fact that he has become a genuinely different person. It’s a very good look at identity and whether or not people are ever really able to have a fresh start at life.

Tattooed Life culminates in an incredible sword fight, at least equal in quality to anything shown in the best of samurai cinema. It really displays Suzuki’s ability to create a tense, thrilling action scene, and is better than anything else he has done, including the ever-famous climax to Tokyo Drifter featuring the “gun throw”. Tattooed Life’s swordfight is also where Suzuki’s artistic stylings show through the most. The final showdown makes use of a glass floor which the camera sits underneath, providing a great and not-often-used view of each fighter.

No doubt many people overlook Tattooed Life, as it is one of Suzuki’s most straightforward outings. It’s unlike anything else he has done, but it’s also one of the best and most fully realized films of his entire career, even if just looking at the underlying theme. Many of his other films had almost Lynch-ian plots and characters which were quite hard to decipher. But the message of Tattooed Life is clear: the things you do define you, and are tattooed onto you for the rest of your life. While you can try to run away – and may think you’ve successfully done so – the ghosts of your past will always catch up to you, and at some point you will need to deal with them, or else they will destroy you.

8.5 / 10

Children of Men

2007-01-19T10:32:00.000-05:00

Title: Children of Men
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Cast: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, language, some drug use and brief nudity.
Date of Review: January 19, 2007

In Children of Men, Michael Caine plays the role of Jasper, a pot-smoking ex-political activist. In one of his ganja-inspired rants, he says that all life is "a battle between faith and chance". It is faith - our belief in what is truly right - that gets us where we are going in life, and brings us to the most crucial points of our existence. It is chance that decides the outcome of these events. He then goes on to say that if chance always gets the final word, and we don't really have any control over how things will turn out - whether for better or worse - then what is the point in having faith in the first place? Alfonso Cuaron's film tries to establish the fact that sometimes blind faith is just what is needed to keep us going, even if in our hearts we know that things will not work out for the better. This blind faith we have is called hope, and that is the theme of Cuaron's latest film.

It stars a wonderful ensemble cast, each person embodying the role fully, without one poor performance in the film. Clive Owen plays the central character, Theo, a depressed alcoholic and ex-political activist whose own hope died with the death of the youngest person in the world - an event which occurs at the beginning of the film, started it with a sense of bleakness and disaster right off the bat. Luckily Owen is met by a group whose hope has not yet died out - the Fishers, an underground movement led by Theo's ex-wife, Julian (played by Julianne Moore). Things take off from here, as Julian asks Theo to transport a young girl to the coast where she would be met by "The Human Project". Her importance is not known at first, but soon we find that this young girl is pregnant - and in a world where fertility seems to be nil, this young girl becomes the potential future saviour of mankind.

The word "saviour" is a hard one to attribute to the young Kee (played wonderfully by Claire-Hope Ashitey), as it almost always evokes biblical symbolism. While the tragedy befalling the world is of biblical proportions, Cuaron does not attempt to re-tell a chapter of the Bible, or give Jesus-like attributes to any of his characters. These are real people in the real world, and that is what often makes the film so hard to watch - it is almost too real. Children of Men does not seem far-fetched at all, nor does its date of 2027. In fact, it even uses next year - 2008 - as the year that humans began to stop having babies.

The world Cuaron has created is so frighteningly realistic that sometimes it's hard to forget that the film takes place in the future. Of course there are futuristic cars, and the computers and information technology is slightly more advanced, but nothing is so far ahead that it loses its believability. The cars are still on the ground, the computers still use monitors and keyboards, and cigarettes are still abundant. Anothe sci-fi world it could be compared to is that of Steven Spielberg's 2002 film Minority Report, where technology is several steps ahead of ours, but nothing in the film seems out of reach. But the most important thing about the film is the characters - they seem so human, with all the gifts and curses of humanity that we see every day. There is no super heroism, and there are no flawless characters; similarly there are no flat characters. These are real people, and some of them feel oddly familiar.

Something that simply must be noted about Children of Men is the stunning cinematography. It is filled with the long shots and mix of sweeping movements and very personal moments that made filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock so popular. At one point towards the end of the film, Theo is running through an urban battlefield - running through streets riddled with explosions and gunfire, in and out of buildings that crumble and explode around him - and it is all done in one shot, with the camera following closely behind him in an over-the-shoulder position. Technically speaking it is incredible, but it also makes this entire world come alive as we see every nook and cranny of this desolate wasteland as it is torn apart.

It is very important that teenagers and young adults see this film, because - to put it simply - it is about them. Most of the characters are in their late 30's or early 40's, meaning they were born from the late 1980's onward. While mass infertility may not be a problem that we ourselves face, the message in the film is abundantly clear. While faith and chance hold their sway, it is crucial that hope stay alive even in the darkest times, because the smallest bit of hope could determine the outcome of our entire civilization.

10 / 10

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

2006-11-28T22:03:00.000-05:00

Title: Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut
Director: Richard Donner
Cast: Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated PG for violence
Date of Review: November 28, 2006

First of all let me point out that, after watching the special features on this disc, it is quite evident that Richard Donner still has a lot of very bad feelings about his experience with Superman II - and rightfully so. This was a very personal and important project to him, and it was yanked out from under him.

The first two films in the series were actually shot simultaneously - not back-to-back as some have thought - and so this was a pretty shitty deal to say the least. Richard Lester was brought in, and he drastically changed many parts of the script - including both the beginning and the ending - and made the movie into what people know and remember it as today...which is actually a pretty awesome movie in my opinion.

Now Richard Donner and a team at WB have sorted through more than 6 tonnes of raw film and put together the closest we will ever come to seeing his original version of the film.

It's very rough around the edges...I'll just get that out of the way right away. A few of the scenes he hadn't gotten to shoot yet, so they actually just cleaned up screen test footage between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder and made it look as if it fit into the film.

Because there are switches back and forth between Donner's and Lester's footage, the editing comes across as quite sloppy. Well...not so much sloppy, as abrupt. There aren't any of the transitional scenes that you would normally see in a feature length film, so there are parts where we jump between totally different conversations without any real reason. Donner also admits that he tried to use as little of Lester's footage as possible, saying that he quite literally found it "painful" to watch. At one point he even references it as "the footage shot by that other director...I've forgotten his name on purpose."

I imagine that MANY people are going to be very, very angry with the ending. Why? Well, if you don't want it spoiler, don't read any further...

...basically, when the films were originally being shot simultaneously, at the end of the first Superman, Superman actually did manage to throw the missiles into space and save Lois. The travelling back in time scene was actually meant for Superman II, and it was how Superman made Lois forget that he and Clark Kent are the same person. They have restored it into this version. As a poster on IMDb said, it kind of gives off a "this is how hesolves everything" vibe.

Faults aside, there is some gold in this. As in, on par with the magic that is found in the original film and that was missing from Lester's, making it simply a great action film rather than giving it the timeless feel of the first. One of these scenes includes a redoing of Lois' "test" on Clark when they're in Niagra Falls. This is the aforementioned scene which is put together with a couple of different screen tests between Reeve and Kidder. Regardless of the changing hairdos, it's a wonderfully acted scene.

Another fantastic scene is a kiss had between Superman and Lois near the end of the film, just outside of the Fortress of Solitude. There's something about the way it is shot that is truly romantic, and probably one of the best on-screen kisses I have ever seen.

Other things that are restored include Marlon Brando's presence, which is added back in and gfreatly changes the plot, as well as explaining some things in Lester's cut that don't make any sense at all. As well, there is a chronology problem that is fixed, and lets the revelation in Superman Returns make a bit more sense.

When all is said and done, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is a very flawed film, but it is not without its magic. I personally loved it, and to be entirely honest I prefer it to the Lester cut when looking at it in terms of "concept over execution". The story, character development and overall feel of the movie is much better.

If WB had allowed Richard Donner to complete this back in 1978 when he was filming this and the original together, I think it could have been a 2-part film that truly did stand the test of time. Instead, we now have a timeless first film, as well as a fairly good glimpse of what could have been.

8 / 10

From Russia With Love (1963)

2006-11-26T13:55:00.000-05:00

Just one year after Dr. No, James Bond returned in From Russia With Love - with just as much misogynistic machoism as before! This time around, SPECTRE is back, and they want the Lektor - a famous “MacGuffin“ in the film world, as we never learn what it actually contains that is so crucial. Bond is sent in to recover the Lektor decoder from any chance that it could be taken by SPECTRE, and he must return it to MI6 so they can use it against the Russians themselves. What can I say? It was the Cold War…everyone was against the Russians.

If there’s one film in the Bond series that could be considered the “lowest on action”, it’s probably this one. I’ve always said that it would be a dream come true if Alfred Hitchcock had been able to helm a Bond film, and I think From Russia With Love is the closest there is to what this could have been. Sure, it’s not full of car chases, explosions and enormous gun battles, but the tension is built through the characters and the dialogue. It is for this reason that From Russia With Love is arguably the best of the series - you’re glued to your seat because of the plot, not the stunts.

While the main villain is Blofeld - the villain whom Dr. Evil is a spoof of - the people who are actually doing the dirty deeds in the film are Rosa Klebb, an ex-KGB operative now working with SPECTRE, and Grant, a psychopathic assassin hired by SPECTRE to kill Bond. Grant is played wonderfully by Robert Shaw, of Jaws fame.

Not only does this represent the best of the best in the Bond series, but I fully believe it to be one of the best films of the 1960s, and one of the best espionage/spy thrillers ever made.

The Babes

From Russia With Love features the return of Sylvia Trench. As mentioned in the Dr. No write-up, this is the first and only time a Bond Babe returns as the same character. She was meant to be a recurring character throughout the Bond films, but the filmmakers decided against this, because they didn’t want Bond to appear as though he’s actually “with” a woman, yet constantly cheats on her on every mission.

The main babe in this film is Tatiana Romanova (played by Daniela Bianchi). She is a Russian agent stationed in Istanbul, who is brought in by Colonel Rosa Klebb to seduce Bond, retrieve the Lektor decoder and bring it back to her - unbeknownst to Romanova, Klebb is actually no longer working for the KGB, and is now a prominent member of SPECTRE.

The Gadgets

From Russia With Love introduces the use of gadgets to the Bond world. There are really only two gadgets used in the film. The first is a bug detector which Bond uses on a hotel room telephone. The second is one of the better gadgets of the whole series: his loaded briefcase.

This plain black leather briefcase contains 20 rounds of ammunition hidden in the each bottom corner of the case. There is also a flat throwing knife in the front of the case, which can be retrieved by pressing a hidden button near the handle. Enclosed within the case are 50 gold sovereigns hidden at the back. The case also comes with a fake canister of talcum powder, actually containing tear gas. When magnetically attached to the inside of the case, the canister will explode if someone opens the case up without taking the proper steps to disarm it. Finally, the case contains a folding AR-7 sniper rifle.

Distinctions From the Other Films

-Q is introduced, but this codename is never used. Instead, he is referred to by his real name, Major Boothroyd

-Walter Gotell makes his first appearance in the series as Morzeny, a henchman for SPECTRE. Later in the series he plays General Gogol, who became a recurring character

-First use of a distinct theme song for the film, though during the opening credits there are no vocals; we do not hear the actual version sung by Matt Monroe until it is played on the radio during the love scene between Bond and Sylvia Trench. The opening credits sequence can be seen here

Signature Scenes

The opening sequence is one of the most famous scenes in the series. It introduces us to Grant, as he and Bond are playing a deadly game of cat-and-mouse in a large garden. Something about Bond just isn’t right - he doesn’t have the same cockiness to his step or aroma of confidence. This is confirmed when Grant chokes him to death with a wire concealed in his wristwatch. “Bond’s” mask is removed, revealing some random henchman. Apparently, if you can kill a guy wearing a Bond mask, you MUST be able to kill Bond himself.

Another memorable scene from From Russia With Love is the climactic helicopter fight. This is also one of the most famous scenes from the whole series. While Tatiana hides under a truck, Bond - on foot - fights two henchmen in a helicopter armed with grenades and machine guns. It’s pretty awesome.

Finally, the confrontation between Grant and Bond on the train is fantastic. We see how cold-blooded Grant is, and realize the lengths SPECTRE will go to to get the Lektor. Which brings us to…

Memorable Quote of Villainy

…Grant has the upper hand, having knocked out and disarmed Bond. When Bond awakes, he is greeted by Grant sitting comfortably with a gun pointed right at his chest.

BOND: Tell me, which lunatic asylum did they get you out of?

GRANT: Don’t make it tougher on yourself, Mr. Bond. My orders are to kill you and deliver the Lektor. How I do it is my business. It’ll be slow and painful.

*Grant points gun between Bond’s legs*

GRANT: The first one won’t kill you…not the second…not even the third. Not until you crawl over here and kiss my foot!

In an interesting bit of trivia, Goldfinger was originally planned to be the second Bond film, and they even got into the pre-production stages. However, when JFK said publicly that From Russia With Love was one of his top 10 favorite novels ever, it was done next. And to further this trivia into the level of "creepy", From Russia With Love was the last movie JFK saw before he was assassinated.

From Russia With Love is just awesome, plain and simple. Nearly half the movie takes place on the train, and it doesn’t slow it down one bit. Plot twists are constantly being revealed, characters are switching sides or discovering whose side they are really on, and there are points when you genuinely don’t know how it will all unfold.

This really is Bond at his best.

Rating for From Russia With Love - 10 out of 10

Dr. No (1962)

2006-11-25T22:58:00.000-05:00

Oh, the days when sexual harassment in the office was not only accepted, but embraced. This was the time of Bond’s first few adventures, back in the early ‘60s when a strapping white man could still do practically anything they wanted. So sets the stage for Dr. No, the first film in the now legendary series, which also happens to be one of the most “different” films in the series - it doesn’t have a theme song, there’s no Q, and it features full frontal nudity where all the other films simply teased at this.

Beginning with the assassination of an important UK government contact in Jamaica by three “blind” guys (with “Three Blind Mice” playing in the background), this sets in motion the events that lead to Bond confronting Dr. No, a megalomaniacal Chinese-German scientist with no hands. Oh, and he also has terrible fashion sense, insisting on wearing pants hiked up above his ankles - possibly readying for an imminent flood?

Dr. No’s plan is never particularly clear. He offered his services as a scientist to both the Chinese and American governments and neither of them accepted, so he’s getting revenge on them. Uh-huh…that sounds revenge worthy, right? Right? Well, in true Bond fashion, it’s not WHAT they are going to do, but HOW they are going to do it. He’s set up a base of operations on Crab Key - an island off the coast of Jamaica - where he is screwing around with incredibly high levels of radiation. Also, according to the locals, he has a pet dragon - which turns out to be a jeep.

Though I jest, this is indeed a great movie, and definitely in the upper section of Bond film goodness. Bond’s introduction is beyond cool, as he plays cards at a casino and we only see his hands, until he lights a cigarette and says the now legendary “Bond…James Bond.” It also has Ursula Andress.

The Babes

When Bond is introduced, he is playing cards with Sylvia Trench (played by Eunice Gayson). The fact that she is the very first Bond Babe is one of two distinctions about her - the other being that she is the only Bond Babe in the history of the series that ever appears in two films as the same character. Maud Adams did appear in two of the films, but she was a different character in each.

Ursula Andress is Dr. No's main Babe, and is also considered by many to be the ultimate Bond Babe. She’s blonde, she’s slim, she’s busty, she’s sexy, and she’s foreign. Throw in the fact that she reveals she is actually pretty dangerous on her own (having killed a man who raped her when she was younger), and most guys are pretty darn turned on.

Distinctions From the Other Films

Being the first film in the series, there was no set formula that the filmmakers had to use. Director Terence Young - who went on to become arguably the best of all the Bond directors - began the film with a random display of colored dots while the signature Bond theme played in the background. This later became the time when a theme song for the film, sung by a popular singer of the time, would play while silhouettes of naked women danced around on screen. You can see the credits right here.

Aside from this difference, there are several others, including:

-No Q or gadgets - Bond has a gun, that’s it, that’s all

-No signature car

-Full frontal nudity of Ursula Andress after being captured by Dr. No’s henchmen - this never occurred in any other film in the series

-In place of a set theme song for the film, pretty much any time you hear music in the film that isn’t the Bond theme, it’s the song “Underneath the Mango Tree” - I guarantee you, you will hate this song by the end of the movie

-Only film in the series to use the famous gun-barrel sequence in both the opening and closing credits

-Jack Lord is the first of 3 million actors to play Felix Leiter; he's the best one, especially with these wonderful sideways-teardrop sunglasses...

Signature Scenes

The scene everyone knows Dr. No for is Ursula Andress’ introduction, as she comes out of the water at Crab Key. It’s such a famous and influential scene that people who haven’t even seen the movie know the scene, and it was “recreated” with Halle Berry in Die Another Day, where they turned it into a terribly staged scene, put into slow motion in an attempt to over-sexify it.

Another famous scene is the attempted assassination of Bond while he sleeps. Sounds pretty brutal and cold blooded, right? Well, there isn’t much of a conversation shown between Dr. No and the henchman (a geologist named Mr. Dent) as No orders him to do the hit, but I imagine that if there was an “inside scoop” shown of this, it would have gone something like this:

DENT: Bond knows about your operations at Crab Key!

DR NO: He must be eliminated.

DENT: Yes. Shall I shoot him tonight?

DR NO: NO! Far too easy. I want you to put this tarantula in his bed.

DENT: …

DR NO: Well? Get going!

DENT: What about the fact that tarantulas, aside from the fact that they are creepy looking, are relatively harmless?

DR NO: I don’t care! Do it!

DENT: But, Dr. No, the idea that tarantulas are deadly and filled with venom is a common misconception which can be attributed to misinformation of millions of people. Honestly, aside from the pain, a tarantula bite is no more deadly than your average bee sting.

DR NO: Tonight! And if he is not dead tomorrow morning, I shall hold you personally responsible!

Jumping back in time in the film, another scene that is quite interesting is near the beginning of the film, when Bond is issued his Walther PPK. It’s given to him by M (played by the late, great Bernard Lee - the best M of them all) to replace Bond’s Beretta. What makes this scene stand out is its reference to a past incident involving Bond’s Beretta, in which it jammed in the middle of a firefight and he was hit and out of the game for 6 months. It may not sound like a big deal, but it’s a nice look at the humanism of Bond - not only did he actually get hurt once, but he also does make mistakes.

Memorable Quote of Villainy

DR. NO: I'm a member of SPECTRE

BOND: SPECTRE?

DR. NO: SPECTRE. Special Executive for Counter Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion. The four great cornerstones of power headed by the greatest brains in the world.

BOND: Correction. Criminal brains!

DR. NO: The successful criminal brain is always superior. It has to be!

In summation, Dr. No is a great, great movie. At 1 hour and 50 minutes, it’s actually one of the shorter films in the series, and it moves at a great pace. Much like the best films in the series, its more about the story than the stylish action scenes - of which, there really aren’t any. It may seem like just a regular Bond story next to today’s standards (evil villain bent on world domination; Bond sent in to stop him; rescues girl in the process; saves the day, gets the girl) but at the time it was pretty risky, especially with the overt sexuality.

Rating for Dr. No - 8 out of 10

Posting my Bond reviews

2006-11-25T22:47:00.000-05:00

I really haven't been working on too many new reviews lately, and there's a reason for this.

Every year, my father and I watch all of the James Bond films - in order - as a sort of "countdown" to Christmas.

I have begun putting together in-depth analyses of each film as we watch them, so I thought I'd begin posting them!

I'll begin with teh first one, Dr. No, in a few minutes.

The Fountain

2006-11-22T20:47:00.000-05:00

Title: The Fountain
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of action violence, some sensuality and language.
Date of Review: November 22, 2006

Contemplating death and the pursuit of eternal life are functions of practically every religion and society throughout the course of history. The Fountain doesn’t attempt to answer the questions raised by these issues, but simply provide a concept for people to ponder - what really constitutes “life” and “death”?

In Aronofosky’s film, Hugh Jackman plays Tommy Creo, a doctor looking for the cure to his wife’s brain tumor (the wife, Izzi, being played by Rachel Weisz). The story unfolds in three different time periods, with the main storyline taking place in present day. Simultaneously Aronofsky tells the story of a Spanish conquistador who is ordered by the Queen to travel to middle-America and search for the “Tree of Life”, which grants immortality to any who drink its sap. The audience is also shown a story of a nameless (and hairless) man traveling through space in a bubble sometime around the year 2500, accompanied only by a tree, as he tries to reach a mysterious nebula.

Looked at as a narrative alone, it is a confusing and nearly indecipherable story. However, where the real content lies is in the symbolism and the ideas behind what is being shown. Aronofsky asks that the audience piece the film together for themselves and try to find what it means to them, rather than him shoving something down their throat that they may or may not like. Some might come away from the film thinking it is simply a story of undying love and a man’s pursuit to save his wife. Others might see the beginnings of answers to the questions of life and death.

Hugh Jackman’s performance is - at the risk of sounding hyperbolic - awe-inspiring. He displays what could very well be the entire range of human emotions throughout the course of the film, and the audience is brought through every bit with him. Many scenes focus directly on his face, and it is incredible to see how quickly and subtly his face can change.

The Fountain is rooted deeply in Buddhist philosophy - the idea of death and rebirth, and of some form of life continuing on forever. It is a mood piece, and it definitely does have a very depressing side, but at the same time it is as if the Aronofsky is trying to tell the audience that, since death is inevitable for everyone, it must be embraced instead of feared and rejected. Death needs to be seen as a part of life that is just as important as birth.

Preliminary reviews - including the unanimous “boo-ing” at Cannes earlier this year - have made the film out to be a pretentious, love-it or hate-it mess of a film. There is no doubt that it must be approached with an open mind, and a willingness to forget what was shown in trailers - if there was ever a deceiving marketing campaign, it was for this film. Through watching the film it is evident that Aronofsky holds films like Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey in high esteem, as it takes the same approach of providing an experience rather than a narrative. It really is a misunderstood masterpiece, and surely in 50 years time it will be recognized as one of the truly masterful creations to come from the science fiction genre.

9.5/10

Empire of the Sun

2006-10-28T21:28:00.000-04:00

Title: Empire of the Sun
Director: Steven Spielberg
Cast: Christian Bale, John Malkovich, Joe Pantoliano
Year: 1987
MPAA: Rated PG for violence and mild language.
Date of Review: October 28, 2006

Throughout Steven Spielberg's career, he has often made films in which children experience traumatizing events and meet overwhelming odds - and they usually handle things a lot better than the adults. Empire of the Sun is the culmination of all of these themes of childhood strength and courage, and is one of Spielberg's best films.

Starring Christian Bale as the young Jim Graham who loses his parents while living in Japan on the backend of World War II, Empire of the Sun tells the story of Jim's survival as he encounters an array of colourful characters and comes to realize the lengths people will go to to save themselves. One such character is Basie, played by John Malkovich, whose intentions are never really known, but his craftiness, intelligence and natural sense of leadership keep him alive.

Since the film sees the war through the eyes of Jim, a great sense of wonder and naivety is added to the action. The audience is never shown the enemy's face, and battle scenes are done very theatrically, so that when we see Jim cheering as the planes wiz by and drop bombs, we can't help but also be in a sense of awe. Spielberg shows us beauty in destruction and death.

Empire of the Sun is also one of Spielberg's most genuinely emotional films, without resorting to tearjerking or overly sentimental scenes. Christian Bale's performance as Jim is astounding, and one of the best lead performances by a child actor ever. He embodies both the resourcefulness and the ignorance of the events around him very well, and his delivery of dialogue is very realistic. One line that really hits hard occurs after he cheers on the planes attacking the internment camp, and says to the doctor, "I forget what my parents look like."

Steven Spielberg's Empire of the Sun is a film of great beauty and humanity. It shows both the horrors of battle, and the extremes people will go to (both good and bad) in order to survive. It's also incredible to see that Christian Bale's talent was so apparent even at a young age.

9/10

The Prestige

2006-10-22T19:10:00.000-04:00

Title: The Prestige
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for violence and disturbing images.
Date of Review: October 22, 2006

Christopher Nolan does it again with his latest film, The Prestige. Taking place in turn-of-the-century London, it explores the personal lives and professional rivalry of two stage magicians. Employing the incredible writing skills of both Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, The Prestige has a story filled with twists that leaves the audience guessing until - quite literally - the very last frames of the film.

Starring Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman as Alfred Borden and Rupert Angier, respectively, these two young men develop a rivalry early on in their careers, each one constantly trying to outdo the other. Jackman's Angier is the sympathetic character - the victim of Borden's aggression, and the character whom the audience is made to sympathize with. Bale's Borden, on the other hand, is an inhumanly cold character whose desire to be the best overpowers him. When Borden's arrogance causes and accident on stage, it sends Angier on a journey of revenge, initially wanting to kill Borden, but eventually deciding it would be more fulfilling to constantly outdo his magical acts.

But as secrets are revealed, truths told and lies uncovered, which (if either) character is truly honorable in their endeavors? And could it be possible that one of them has achieved the impossible - real magic?

Much like Nolan's last effort, Batman Begins, The Prestige features a fantastic cast of supporting actors, including Michael Caine as Cutter, mentor to the two young magicians, David Bowie as Nikola Tesla, an eccentric scientist, and Scarlett Johansson as Olivia, a young woman trained as a magician's assistant. Each character brings about monumental truths about the two leads, and help to bring everything together in the revelatory climax.

The set designs, costumes and atmosphere are both strikingly authentic and eerily surreal. Creating a genuine sense of uneasiness throughout, the visuals truly suck the viewer into the film, making what occurs on screen much more believable. The music is subtle and effective, with Nolan reuniting with David Julyan, the composer who did the music for all of his films except Batman Begins.

Near the beginning of the film, one of the characters says that "the excitement is found in the mystery of a magic trick, and if the audience discovers the secret, it will seem so obvious and simple that they can't help but be disappointed." Many of the preliminary reviews for the film make it out to have a very disappointing ending, largely due to what is explained in this very quote. Therefore, it cannot be just coincidence - Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have proved themselves too talented writers to allow such build-up to something that would disappoint so many. It is the whole purpose of the film. Once you discover what has really occurred, you are almost left thinking "I wish it had ended before the explanation."

Many might say that that is definitely not a positive point, but arguably it is. The film itself is one giant magic trick, and it is incredible to see how it unfolds, and then to see how everything was truly done. The Prestige will surely be forgotten when it comes to Oscar time, simply because it is not the type of film that the Academy tends to honor. However, it is most definitely deserving, as it is one of the best films of the year, and surely to become a cult classic.

Abra cadabra.

8.5/10

The Departed

2006-10-15T17:08:00.000-04:00

Title: The Departed
Director: Martin Scorsese
Cast: Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated R for strong brutal violence, pervasive language, some strong sexual content and drug material.
Date of Review: October 15, 2006

Martin Scorsese's lastest is actually a remake of a cult Hong Kong crime flick trilogy entitled Infernal Affairs. This series of films presented a flashy, stylish, and overly convoluted story about dual moles in the police and crime world, each trying to discover who the other one is. The amazing thing about what Martin Scorsese has done, is that he took the basic concept and created something entirely his own. It definitely worked, and provides the audience with a return to Martin Scorsese in his greatest form since 1990's Goodfellas.

With an all-star cast, every performance is impressive and feels unforced and truly gripping. Non-fans of Leonardo DiCaprio will definitely gain a new appreciation of his acting ability after seeing this film. And while DiCaprio definitely proves himself as a strong actor, others like Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen and Jack Nicholson only further prove their cinematic prowess, as they provide gritty urban performances, and evidently had some fun with them.

Beginning with a beautifully photographed slow motion tracking shot of Jack Nicholson's profile as he walks through a warehouse, it sets the stage for a brutal yet elegant cinematic experience. Scorsese is at the top of his game with this film, showing that he can still deliver the sweeping camera movements and dark, shockingly violent content, while also showing that he has matured as a filmmaker. Like Goodfellas, the film is narrated by its main character - in this case, Frank Costello (played by Jack Nicholson). He's a hardboiled, uncompromising gangster in Boston with a sick sense of humor and, at 70 years of age, a libido that would make most 19 year old men feel ashamed. But he still has the signature Jack Nicholson charm, where you can't help but like the guy regardless of how horrible a man he is.

The script is smart. Really smart. It takes what was in Infernal Affairs and plants in like a seed, growing something entirely different out of the soil of the American film industry. It's less about the style and more about the story and the issues it raises about both organized crime and the police force whom we trust with our lives to protect us. In an incredible scene involving Leonardo DiCaprio - an ex-cop working undercover for crime lord Nicholson - in which he confronts his superior officer about Nicholson, he says "Why haven't you arrested him on one of the million other things that you've seen him do, that I've seen him do. The man murders somebody, what are you waiting for?" It transgresses the usual good cop, bad cop formula and becomes a hard-hitting moral tale.

Martin Scorsese's The Departed is, without a doubt, the best film of the year, and in a surprising turn, one of the best films of Scorsese's entire career. It oozes with energy and keeps a taut pace through its entire 153 minute running time. It's gritty, violent, and shocking, but it's all for a good cause. The Departed tells one hell of a story, and it shouldn't be missed.

9/10

The Curse of Frankenstein

2006-07-26T23:31:00.000-04:00

Title: The Curse of Frankenstein
Director: Terence Fisher
Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Robert Urquhart
Year: 1957
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some violence, blood and gore.
Date of Review: July 26th, 2006

A surprisingly great adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic horror tale of a mad scientist trying to play the role of God, The Curse of Frankenstein also marks many moments in the history of horror films. When the now legendary Hammer Film Productions in Great Britain decided to start producing horror films in the mid 1950s, they made the controversial decision to remake Universal's already classic monster tales, such as Tod Browning's Dracula and James Whale's Frankenstein. When they were met with much hostility from Unviersal, it became apparent that their films would need to have a certain flare and style to set them apart from the previous films. After all, their plans to remake the films were not done in disrespect - it was quite the opposite, as the writers and directors of Hammer were great admirers of Universal's classics.

So in 1957, the world was treated to The Curse of Frankenstein, starring two actors who, like Hammer itself, would become legendary for their performances in the horror films to come. One of those actors was Peter Cushing, who is - quite unfortunately - remembered mainly for his small appearance in the first Star Wars film as Grand Moff Tarkin, the evil Imperial General who destroyed Princess Leia's home planet. In this film, he plays Baron Victor Von Frankenstein, the mad scientist whose obsession with conquering death drives him to commit a series of atrocious acts in order to create "The Creature", who is played by a mute Christopher Lee. While Lee would go on to become much more famous for his portrayal of Dracula in various Hammer films, his performance as The Creature is wonderful and very original, differing greatly from Boris Karloff's classic performance, but still giving a terrifyingly violent yet eerily sympathetic tone to the monster.

The Curse of Frankenstein actually begins with the Baron as a 15 year old boy whose entire family has died, and is now seeking a tutor to carry on his scientific studies. He hires Paul Krempe (played by Robert Urquhart), who helps him bring a dead puppy back to life, but is eventually frightened by Frankenstein's obsession with death, and reluctantly stays with him simply to try and protect the Baron's cousin, who also lives in the enormous castle.

While The Curse of Frankenstein is not as brilliant as the original Frankenstein, nor as grotesque or technically impressive as other adaptations since, it has a definite style all its own, mainly due to its beautiful gothic architecture which Hammer displayed in nearly all of their horror films. Similarly, it was a huge step forward in the evolution of on-screen gore. Severed limbs, bloody organs, and a gunshot to the face resulting in large amounts of spraying blood are some of the images to be seen in this film. Additionally, the creature makeup itself is fairly gruesome, especially considering the fact that it was devised only a day before shooting began. For a film released in the late 1950s, it is quite violent.

So what is left to be said about The Curse of Frankenstein? Terence Fisher's unique direction boosts what could very well have been a lackluster remake into the realm of popular horror, and also started the wheels turning in one of the most successful horror film companies of all time. Its style and gore set it apart from the films of any other time, and are reminiscent of the early works of Mario Bava. And of course, no one can dismiss the star-making performance from Peter Cushing, or the career-starting performance from Christopher Lee.

The Curse of Frankenstein is an occasionally crude picture, but its presence is felt in horror to this day, and shouldn't be missed by lovers of the genre, or fans of Shelley's novel interested in seeing the very first colour rendition of her story on the silver screen.

7.5/10

God Told Me To

2006-07-10T23:11:00.000-04:00

Title: God Told Me To
Director: Larry Cohen
Cast: Tony Lo Bianco, Deborah Raffin, Andy Kaufman
Year: 1976
MPAA: Rated R for violence, language, sexuality/nudity, and drug references.
Date of Review: July 10, 2006

Many films over the years have tackled the concept of evil acts committed in the name of God. Some of them have even been quite convincing in their arguments that human beings are, in fact, inherently evil and murder, rape, corruption and illness are simply God’s way of punishing us for our sins. David Fincher’s Se7en was arguably one of the most controversial movies of the 1990s, with a killer whose motive is to punish those whose sins are not punished in society. One of the most incredible things about that film was that it made us believe that there really is something wrong with us. We are not being the pure, wholesome and loving creatures that God meant us to be. Larry Cohen’s 1976 horror/thriller God Told Me To captures some of these same themes of God punishing us for our sins, and doing it through acts that our society deems evil.

The story begins with a bang (quite literally) as a sniper on top of a water tower in New York city begins killing people at random with impossible accuracy. When Detective Peter Nicholas (played by Tony Lo Bianco) asks the man why he committed such a horrendous crime, he replies “God told me to”. The next few days test Nicholas’ courage and sanity as he is called in to murder scenes where the murderers make the exact same claim. This is just the tip of the iceberg in a suspenseful and out-right terrifying journey of self discovery for Detective Nicholas, that also makes us question our own views on religion, and the meaning of existence, which is a rare gift to find in a film.

Another rare gift that this film give its audience is genuine scares. Any film can have a jumpy part, usually consisting or someone or something popping out of a dark area with a loud BANG! or a musical cue. God Told Me To chills to the bone, and takes advantage of one of the greatest fears that all human beings share: fear of the unknown.

The strengths of God Told Me To do not lie in its presentation, however. The acting is quite bad in most scenes, and the production values make it more than apparent that the film had a shoe-string budget. The writing is what counts in this film, which almost borders on a David Lynch-like confusion. Cohen presents the “facts” of the story, but manages to put such a twist on things as to make the ending completely ambiguous. This can be somewhat of an annoying trait in some films, since some stories call for closure. This instance, however, manages to create even more unease in the mind of the viewer, who is left wondering what the real answers are - if there are any at all.

Much like Fincher’s Se7en, God Told Me To creates a disturbing atmosphere and effectively questions religious fanaticism without delving into a battle over whether or not God exists, and presents a series of events so unbelievable in their cruelty that the real-word setting makes it a terrifying story. Putting aside the technical shortcomings and budgetary restraints, Larry Cohen’s God Told Me To is a thought-provoking and utterly disturbing film that fans of both serial killer crime dramas and supernatural horror films should enjoy.

8/10

Superman Returns

2006-06-29T23:03:00.000-04:00

Title: Superman Returns
Director: Bryan Singer
Cast: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some intense action violence.
Date of Review: June 29, 2006

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, if they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all - their capacity for good - I have sent them you...my only son."

-Marlon Brando as “Jor-El”

To say that the spirit of Christopher Reeve seems to have been channeled through the young Brandon Routh would be a gross understatement. No…the spirit is not only of Christopher Reeve, but of the entire 1978 classic film, Superman, and to go even further, the entire Superman mythos. Bryan Singer’s latest comic book film has been his dream project since he was a little boy. It was to him what King Kong was to Peter Jackson, and it shows in every exciting and beautiful image of the film, from the daring mid-air plane rescue to the climactic battle with Lex Luthor, emphatically played by Kevin Spacey.

While the film is most definitely a sequel to the original films with Christopher Reeve, it is hard to pinpoint exactly where it fits into the series. Bryan Singer has said several times that he basically ignored the third and fourth films, leaving the first two…but there is no mention of the actual events that took place in either of these films. However, certain events occur at the end of the film that lead the audience to believe it probably begins after the second film.

It has now been five years since Superman was last seen or heard from. One dreary night on the Kent farm, Martha Kent is frightened by what seems to be an earthquake, but when an enormous ship crashes into the fields, she investigates and finds Clark, her adopted son, wounded in the wreckage. After recovering, he reveals that he went back to the ruins of Krypton in search of other survivors, but to no avail - he really is the last son of Krypton. However, Superman is not the only one who has returned…Lex Luthor has sprung jail, and now with a whole new line-up of goons and a brand new girl, he sets out to Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, where he steals the crystals used to create the enormous sanctuary, and plans to use them to destroy and rebuild the world as he sees fit.

The plot with Lex Luthor is a wonderful throwback to the classic good vs. evil stories of the Superman comics, and is nostalgic of the conflict between the two characters in the first film. However, this is not the main plot point in the movie. Lois Lane, Superman’s love, has moved on in his absence, getting engaged and having a child. In the process, she even writes a Pulitzer Prize winning article entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”, which, as we come to realize, was actually her way of dealing with his leaving and trying to convince herself that she is the one who doesn’t need him. It’s a classic romance of a man coming home to find that the world has moved on, and he needs to either win his love back, or learn to move on.

Superman Returns is filled with iconic moments and shots, one of which is a great homage to the classic Action Comics cover with Superman holding a car at an angle, keeping the surrounding pedestrians safe. The whole film is a Superman fan’s dream come true, keeping true to the mythology of the comic books and the story and feel of the original film, as well as injecting it with a new energy the elevates it above much of the blockbuster hopefuls in recent years. It also has a fantastic all-star cast including Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, Frank Langella as Perry White, and Parker Posey as Luthor’s new girlfriend, Kitty.

In the end, Superman Returns is about proving your worth, and showing the one you love just how much you really do love them. Like any great romance, it shows that love is not easy, and that time can never change what the heart truly feels. Bryan Singer has created not only an homage to the Superman legend, and a worthy sequel to the magical 1978 film that showed us a man an fly…he has given us an inspirational summer film that reminds us how much we really do need Superman. Everyone knows that he isn’t real, but that doesn’t stop many of us from believing that somewhere, somehow, Superman will save us. And this is perhaps a more important time than ever before for us as a people to remember that we really can be a great people if we wish to be. We only lack the light to show us the way.

8.5/10

Eyes Without a Face

2006-05-31T20:10:00.000-04:00

Title: Eyes Without a Face
Director: Georges Franju
Cast: Pierre Brasseur, Alida Valli, Juliette Mayniel
Year: 1959
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: May 31, 2006

Georges Franju's Eyes Without a Face (curiously renamed The Horror Chamber of Dr. Faustus for American audiences) sets an uneasy tone from the opening shot, taken from inside a car driving down a rural road at night as circus-like music plays in the background. The audience comes to know this music quite well, as it becomes the theme song for the film, and a signal that another act of desperation and cruelty is going to occur. This is one of those very rare films often referred to as "a thinking man's horror film", which, rather than bombarding the audience with grotesque gore and unnecessary sexuality, actually asks them to think about what is happening, and to come to their own conclusions about the message.

The film stars Pierre Brasseur as Doctor Génessier, a brilliant doctor in Paris who believes he has discovered a means of transplanting bodily tissue (quite a groundbreaking idea for the film's 1959 release date). And in a cruel twist of fate, his daughter is left, quite literally, without a face after a horrendous car wreck, forcing the doctor to put his techniques to practical use right away. His sick mind, however, leads him and his assistant Louise (played by Alida Valli) to kidnap and murder young women of the "same type of beauty" as his daughter, and steal their faces in an attempt to fix his daughter, Christiane. Part Frankenstein, part Silence of the Lambs, this film is not conventional horror in any way - it combines ideas frequently seen in slashers, monster movies, and supernatural thrillers.

Eyes Without a Face is beautifully photographed, giving it an almost Gothic look and texture, especially in the house in which Christiane resides. It is visually wonderful in every way, and this is where it achieves its scares, as well. The mask Christiane is burdened to wear is much more frightening than any scars or bruns could ever be - a plain white sheet of plastic molded to the contours of her face, completely colourless and expressionless, giving a ghost-like quality to her already gaunt figure. She roams around the house like a child lost in a dream, and seeing no changes in the facial expression is quite unnerving.

A very effective film, Franju's Eyes Without a Face is both frightening and heartbreaking. Nothing could be more devastating to a young woman than the total loss of her face - and so the audience understands her pain and why she feels as though she is already dead. It is definitely best to watch this film without any expectations regarding how frightening it is, as it is more ghastly in its concept and what the audience imagines for themselves, rather than what is actually given to them on screen. However, this is not a negative - it is simply for a different audience than those that would enjoy the gorefests of today.

8/10

A History of Violence

2006-05-24T20:43:00.000-04:00

Title: A History of Violence
Director: David Cronenberg
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, William Hurt
Year: 2005
MPAA: Rated R for strong brutal violence, graphic sexuality, nudity, language and some drug use.
Date of Review: May 24, 2006

Artistic liberty is a tricky thing. When a writer and director approach a piece of work to adapt to film, they must deal with several important facts that can make or break the final product. One of the most important of these facts is that said piece of work probably has a fanbase - whether it's of enormous popularity, or just a cult-like following - and these people want to be pleased. This does not, however, mean an absolute word-for-word adaptation is necessary. In A History of Violence, David Cronenberg has taken several artistic liberties, which add up to a final film that is nearly a complete deviation from the source material (a graphic novel of the same name by Vince Locke and John Wagner), but has crafted his own style and substance into it so effectively, that it stands alone as a masterful piece of filmmaking, and an astute analysis of the violence inherent in human beings.

Viggo Mortensen plays the lead role of Tom Stall, a smalltown family man and well liked member of the community, owning his own diner and building strong friendships with the townsfolk. His life is - by today's standards - dreamy. This lovely life comes crashing down when two hoodlums come into his diner at closing time, demanding money and intent on killing Stall, his staff, and the customers. It is with a swift act of courage - and violence - that Stall fights off and kills the two assailants. He is then thrown into the national media as being a hero of monumental proportions - the type of man people should look up to as the pinnacle of manhood, protecting his family, his friends, and his business. From here, the story takes off and leads the audience through a maze of deceit, emotion, and of course, grisly violence that have become a staple of David Cronenberg's films.

A History of Violence is very much a modern-day Taxi Driver in its message and how it is handled. One who uses violence to kill "bad men" (as they are called numerous times in the film - no doubt intentionally) is toted as being a hero, eliminating the dredges of society and making the world a better place. But what else looms behind the picture-perfect exterior of these so-called heroes? While Cronenberg shows us very gruesome images of incredibly violent acts, it is not for shock value - he asks the audience to think about what they are witnessing on the screen. This is echoed in the surprisingly graphic sex scenes between Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello, which take on two very separate but very strong emotions - that of pure, endearing love, and that of violent, animalistic lust.

While it has been said that the film strays so far from the source material that it should not even share the title, A History of Violence is a stunning film in its own right, and is David Cronenberg's own take on an already controversial story. Locations are changed, names are changed, characters are tweaked and the finale is entirely different, but the film should not be taken as a literal adaptation of the original work. Every performance, from Viggo Mortensen's frighteningly schizophrenic portrayal of Tom Stall, to Maria Bello as his terrified wife and William Hurt's Oscar nominated performance as a Philadelphia mobster, these feel like real people in real a real story. The violence on screen is not stylized with wire-fu, dual-handed gun fights and millions of bullets - it is quick, brutal, and achieves its goal of making the audience uneasy about what is happening, not thrilled by the idea of another bad guy biting the dust.

Cronenberg's A History of Violence may not be as strange as his past works, and is definitely not of the horror genre which he so often works in, but it is without a doubt among his very best work. He has proven himself to be a filmmaker that can cut to the core of humanity in many different ways, and his intensely visual style does nothing by enhance the story. In the recent uproar of comic book adaptations, Cronenberg's name is one that wouldn't be expected to pop up at first, but his entry into this pop culture phenomenon is one of the strongest.

9/10

Lone Star

2006-05-22T17:09:00.000-04:00

Title: Lone Star
Director: John Sayles
Cast: Chris Cooper, Matthew McConaughey, Elizabeth Peña
Year: 1996
MPAA: Rated R for brief language, sex and violence.
Date of Review: May 22, 2006

John Sayles' intricate character study Lone Star, is reminiscent of the classic whodunit murder mystery, but injects life and feeling into the story and the characters that rarely any movie of any genre can claim to have achieved. Not only is Sayles' direction beautiful and intricate, weaving past and present storylines seamlessly throughout single scenes, but the acting from every performer is so natural - from the stars of the film to the brief but equally important bit parts - that it feels as if it is a real story simply being documented by Sayles.

Frequent Sayles collaborator Chris Cooper stars as Sam Deeds, the sheriff of a small Texas border town, living in the shadow of his father's legendary status. The film begins with a bang, as the bones of an unknown individual are found by treasure hunters, and the case is given to Deeds, who creates an obsession over how these bones got where they are, and the history of all the people involved in the story. The story spans two time periods, and jumps between them frequently and easily, often within the same set piece and scene. The audience is introduced to a whole town full of characters involved with the finding of this body, and they are played by such actors as Kris Kristofferson, Elizabeth Peña, and Matthew McConaughey.

Despite the main plot of discovering the whole story behind the skeletal remains, Lone Star spends most of its time getting to know the characters and the town. Sayles examines the racial conflicts which arise between the predominantly Mexican population, and the whites and blacks which also try to make a living there. All of these people use historical conflicts as an excuse to take out their own frustrations on each other - which is best shown in a heated argument between parents and teachers in a classroom. Sayles' wonderfully intelligent and character-fitting dialogue is able to bring to life the hatred and prejudice felt by these people much more effectively than any gun battle, fist fight or gang war ever could - which probably would have been the route taken by many other writer/directors tackling such a story.

With Lone Star, John Sayles truly has said something about the human condition, which is universally considered to be the goal of any artist. While it is important to know of our past and to be respectful of history, we - as individuals and as a people - cannot allow ourselves to live in the past, and to allow it to overshadow who we are and what we want to be and do with our lives. Lone Star is a movie that entertains with the writing and rich characters and dialogue, rather than flashy action or break-neck speed, and that's what sets it apart and makes it such a joy to see.

9/10

Hostel

2006-04-27T22:31:00.000-04:00

Title: Hostel
Director: Eli Roth
Cast: Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson, Lenka Vlasakova
Year: 2005
MPAA: Rated R for brutal violence, sexual situations, drug use, language
Date of Review: April 27, 2006

"...paying to go into a room so you can do whatever you want to someone isn't exactly a turn on."

These words are spoken by the character of Josh, played by Derek Richardson, in Eli Roth's controversial horror shocker Hostel. This also pretty well sums up the movie, as it is spoken during a scene in a brothel, but is quite obviously a double entendre, referring also to the film's plot line about rich people paying incredibly large sums of money for the chance to torture and kill an innocent traveller. While the film's premise is written quite intelligently, comparing the business of prostitution to the (supposedly) real-life horrors of underground murder-for-profit establishments, its amateurish direction never allows it to escape the lackluster mood of a typical Hollywood teen slasher.

Hostel stars Jay Hernandez and Derek Richardson as two college-age Americans backpacking across Europe, with the unspoken goal of having sex with anyone they can. When they reach Amsterdam, a drug dealer tells them of a heavenly hostel in Eastern Europe, in which all the women are beautiful and wanting American men. So, of course, the two randy Americans make their way there and have a jolly good time, until one of them goes missing. Here the story takes off, and leads the two characters through a grisly journey, in which they discover how deeply rooted this business of torture is in the culture of this small Eastern European town.

The film's story is told in two distinct parts, which basically divide the film in half. The first half of the film is entirely sexual in nature. The audience is shown many crude images of sex, nudity and perversion. The second half is occupied by gore, violence, and sadomasochistic behaviour. It is in these two halves that the audience will find the film's deepest messages. The audience is shown nearly 45 minutes of sex - some may feel uncomfortable, while some (probably in the younger crowd) will enjoy the gratuitous female nudity. The film then jolts its viewers into a nightmarish world of grisly sadomasochism. It is the discrepancy between these two worlds that provides the film's social commentary. We are made to feel incredibly uncomfortable with the film's gruesome violence...yet violence is something that can be seen everywhere in society, from entertainment and the media to "real life". Yet the sex near the beginning of the film is what our society says we should be ashamed of - the simple act of procreation and physical love is no longer taboo in Hostel. The film doesn't attempt to make any judgements as to whether these views are right or wrong, but simply asks the audience to think about it for themselves.

The greatest problem with this is that the film is quite obviously intended for a teenage audience, regardless of its R rating. It has the feel of your typical shock horror film that relies on beautiful women and fast paced, quickly cut violence to keep the audience in their seats. This is a real shame, since there is a very smart film underneath all this, but it has been marketed to the wrong crowd - and, dare I say, directed by the wrong person. Had Quentin Tarantino's influence in the film been a directorial position rather than that of a producer, the film could have been so much more.

While Hostel is not the masterful horror film that it was built up to be for so many months before its release, it does manage to crawl slightly ahead of recent horrors such as House of Wax and Boogeyman, where the scares are not in the scripts, but rather in imagining how they were ever possibly made. Eli Roth shows promise as a writer, but his direction is terribly unoriginal. Had Hostel been handled more maturely, and relied more on the story and its comparison of violence and sex, it could have been the groundbreaking horror that it was made out to be. As it is, Hostel is simply another gorefest, which doesn't really do anything better than many movies before it have.

5/10

A New Day in Old Sana'a

2006-04-09T13:16:00.000-04:00

Title: A New Day in Old Sana'a
Director: Bader Ben Hirsi
Cast: Paolo Romano, Dania Hammoud, Nabil Saber
Year: 2005
MPAA: PG
Date of Review: April 9, 2006

Yemen's first feature film is an ambitious one. Despite the fact that it is a fairly lighthearted movie by general standards, it presents the audience with a look at Arab culture that has never really been shown to a western audience before now. The director, Bader Ben Hirsi, has taken the stereotypes of religious fanaticism and terrorism in the Middle-East, and thrown them out the window to create a beautiful and genuinely funny romantic-comedy set in the magical city of Old Sana'a. Not only did the film try to destroy any preconceived notions about Islamic life, but it tries to rebuild a completely new view of this culture, showing that between the Middle-East and the West, there are much more similarities in life than there are differences.

The basic plot of the film revolves around a young man and woman who are about to be wed. It begins early in the morning when it is still dark, and the young man is walking around the streets of Old Sana'a, when he sees a woman dancing in the street, whom he assumes is his wife as she is wearing the dress he gave her. The rest of the film covers a single day, from dawn to dusk, and how this sighting sends the young man on a journey to discover who was wearing the dress. Much of the story is told through the gossiping of a few women in the town who are involved with the wedding preparations. One is an egg-vendor, who provides much of the comic relief in the film. They are all strong characters that come across very naturally, and none of their performances seem forced. Strangely enough, the only bad performance in the whole film was that of the only Western actor, Paolo Romano. He plays an Italian photographer living in Old Sana'a, and also doubles as the narrator. Not only did his character seem to be somewhat unnecessary, he also did not play it convincingly at all. He speaks with a British accent, and really cannot hold his own next to the Yemeni cast members - which is surprising, since he is the only one in the cast who has made previous films.

One of the most important characters in the film is the city of Old Sana'a itself. Bader Ben Hirsi captured it beautifully, using various techniques with light and shadow to add to the atmosphere of various scenes. As tensions rise between the characters, the city seems to get tighter, creating a claustrophobic feeling. This setting is perfect for adding quite a magical feel to the film, emphasizing on it's "modern-day fairy tale" type story.

Seeing as how the film is the first to come out of the country, one cannot expect "Casablanca". Bader Ben Hirsi had quite a hellish time trying to bring this story to life. The Yemeni Government was giving him constant trouble, pulling funding and insisting that he change the script to keep Westerners from seeing the true Yemeni lifestyle. Newspapers published over 200 fictional stories, claiming that Bader Ben Hirsi was filming pornography in mosques, and even trying to prove that Bader Ben Hirsi was an undercover agent for the Mossad. However, after seven weeks of shooting, the film was finally complete, and London-born Bader Ben Hirsi has been travelling the world displaying his film at festivals ever since. It has already won "Best Arab Film" at the Cairo International Film Festival, and is expected to do well at Cannes next month.

While not up to the production standards that we have come to expect from other films, "A New Day in old Sana'a" succeeds by being unafraid to show what life is really like in the Middle-East. It was a labour of love by all involved, and that is immediately apparent. Hopefully this is only the beginning of a wonderful film industry coming out of the beautiful country of Yemen.

7.5

The Call of Cthulhu

2006-01-23T19:26:00.000-05:00

Title: The Call of Cthulhu
Director: Andrew Leman
Cast: Matt Foyer, David Mersault, Noah Wagner
Year: 2005
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: January 23, 2006

I have not seen any other screen adaptations of H.P. Lovecraft stories, save for Re-Animator, which I saw so long ago that I remember very little aside from a scene with a head on a tray and some very bright green liquid. As far as I know, though, there have not been any good adaptations of his stories, and I can understand that, since his stories are all based on IDEAS. The terror in his stories does not come from the horrible monsters that lurk in the depths of the ocean, or the brilliantly constructed cities of ancient times. What is so frightening is his ability to convey an idea of knowledge. That knowing about what the universe is really about - and what part man plays - is enough to drive a man mad, or even to his death.

The short silent film, "The Call of Cthulhu", throws out all the conventional ideas about filming some kind of monster movie, and instead puts into practice a unique blend of modern and silent-era techniques to make something wholly original. Whether it works or not, I believe, is in the eye of the beholder.

I, for one, thought the dream-like scenery and surrealism of the black and white photography brought a dimension to the story that couldn't be achieved with entirely conventional filming techniques. The backdrops used for the ancient city of R'lyeh are made out of cardboard, with obvious influences from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", and other gothic films of the German expressionist era. Meanwhile, other special effects techniques from the same time are used, such as waving blankets simulating the tides of an ocean, and an eerie climactic scene with a stop-motion monstrosity.

Perhaps the film's greatest attribute is how closely it followed the source material. There is a difference between taking creative liberties and butchering a story, and the line between those two seems to have blurred over the years, However, Andrew Leman - the director of the film - got spot on what worked in the story, what didn't work, and what would work on the screen.

While the film is a short 45 minutes long, it has more impact, eerieness, and thought provoking concepts to be compared with the best surreal psychological horrors of any era. This film is most definitely not for everyone. If you find that "hoaky" effects remove you from the story of a film, or are not all that interested in silent film at all, then this is probably not going to be one for you to rush out and see. A background of some Lovecraft literature would also benefit your viewing, as there are many instances of dialogue and imagery lifted straight out of his writings, and much of it would go by unnoticed to anyone unfamiliar with his literary works.

8/10

Man-Thing

2005-10-27T23:35:00.000-04:00

Title: Man-Thing
Director: Brett Leonard
Cast: Matthew Le Nevez, Rachel Taylor, Jack Thompson
Year: 2005
MPAA: Rated R for violence, grisly images, language and some sexuality
Date of Review: October 27, 2005

You don't have to be in the proverbial "loop" to know that the past few years have given us a plethora of comic book films. Marvel has had a monopoly on this recent trend, pumping out film after film of varying degrees of quality. It wasn't until this year's "Batman Begins" that DC entered the mix, and they did so with a huge wallop. However, many avid comic book readers have become a bit annoyed with Marvel, DC and the film companies, as they have only been focusing their efforts on the popular, commercially sellable super hero stories, when there are tons of comic books out there that are intelligent, witty, entertaining and generally fantastic without one cape or cowl. When Marvel revealed in 2004 that they would be giving cinematic life to their underground hit title "Man-Thing", fans rejoiced. But that happiness was quickly shattered when Lions Gate Films - the studio producing the movie - announced that the finished product was so mind-bendingly bad that they wouldn't be releasing it to theatres OR straight to video. Fans cried out, stating that they didn't care and they just wanted to see the movie. So finally, this past summer, Lions Gate Films released "Man-Thing" to DVD. Was it as bad as they said? Definitely not. But that's not saying it's anything particularly good, either.

The film is loosely based on a comic book series of the same name, which takes place in the swamp lands of the deep south, where a monster exists with the sole purpose of protecting "The Nexus" - a mystical realm of spirits and magic. The Man-Thing has control over the swamplands, and also possesses a power in which it literally feeds off the fear of living beings just by touching them, which leaves large burns all over their body. While the comic book series never really took off at a commercial level, it has a loyal fanbase and has had some fantastic writers over the years.

One place where the movie went wrong was in the transfer of the story from page to screen. While the film tries to retain some of the mysticism of the books by including a subplot about the Man-Thing being an old Native American legend, it is really nothing more than a stylized slasher horror film just like any other run-of-the-mill teen horror flick. But even this could be fixed with some fine tweaking. However, where this one sets itself apart is that the script is actually quite good (at least it is something that could be worked with), and the Man-Thing itself is impressive given the incredibly low budget of the film. It is, quite simply, the actors that ruin the entire movie.

Directed by Brett Leonard (mistake numero uno) of "The Lawnmower Man" fame, "Man-Thing" stars a cast of Australian actors playing characters from the Southern United States. This was done due to budget constraints, that forced the film to relocate from New Orleans to Australia. None of the actors are able to pull off the accent, but they all try to, and manage to butcher most of the script with their terrible voice-work.

Matthew Le Nevez plays Kyle Williams, the new sheriff in Bywater, a town which rests on the edge of a mysterious swamp where several people have gone missing or been found dead. The bodies that are found have been severely decomposed and are filled with moss, branches and other gross swampy stuff, even though they have only been dead for a few hours. The investigations point towards an elusive man named Laroque, who is known as a trouble maker in town, especially after a greedy oil tycoon comes and begins building rigs throughout the swamp. This awakens the Man-Thing, which begins killing anyone and everyone that enters the swamp, in an effort to avenge the damage that has been done to the land.

The film is quite obviously Brett Leonard's as he is still employing the same Tron-like effects that he has been using since "The Lawnmower Man" in the early 1990s. Luckily, these terrible effects are kept to a minimum, and the bulk of the Man-Thing itself is done with costume, makeup and animatronic effects. The monster is actually very impressive, and the effect of it literally being camouflaged in the forest, then suddenly moving is reminiscent of Ridley Scott's "Alien", in which the same effect is used for the alien monster to blend in with the cold, dark steel of the spaceship.

Again, the script is hardly the problem with this low-budget comic book film. It's the execution - mostly on the part of the actors - that drags it way down. The film has a distinct visual style, especially in the swamp scenes, which gives it a very eerie feel. The swamp is constantly lit with various shades of green, and there is almost always a thick layer of fog in which this light is given room to bounce and reflect, enhancing the mood of the scenes. But the occasionally impressive visuals just aren't enough to save the film from complete mediocrity.

While "Man-Thing" is not nearly the atrocity that Lions Gate made it out to be before it was released, it's understandable that the film only got a straight to video release. The movie's handful of redeeming features are not enough to overshadow the horrendous acting and amateur directing. But for fans of the series or fans of monster movies, it may be worthwhile to give it a rental.

5/10

Doom

2005-10-25T22:17:00.000-04:00

Title: Doom
Director: Andrzej Bartkowiak
Cast: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Karl Urban, Rosamund Pike
Year: 2005
MPAA: Rated R for strong graphic violence/gore and language
Date of Review: October 25, 2005

Lately, Hollywood seems to have the strange notion that if you have a good idea, completely changing it would make a great movie. They also seem to think it's a smart idea to give original material with a huge, loyal fanbase to anyone who shows the tiniest amount of interest in doing the project. And with the recent comic book movie craze, the focus is beginning to encompass video games. First we had "Resident Evil", an incredibly popular and groundbreaking horror video game in which an elite team of government officers are sent to a remote mansion to investigate an epidemic. When they arrive, the "epidemic" is actually a horrific zombie attack, resulting in a slow-paced, nerve-racking gaming experience. So, of course, when it came time to make the movie, they made a fast-paced action flick with no scares, but rather lots of gore and big guns. Now, with "Doom", an even more popular video game, they have taken what was an original and frightening idea, and changed it around completely to make something bordering on completely incoherent.

The game "Doom" came about in the early 1990s, and ushered in an entirely new era and genre of games: the first person shooter. You play as a nameless soldier sent to Mars to fight off dozens, sometimes hundreds of monsters that have literally come from Hell. Sounds like a pretty interesting (if not simply fun) idea, right? Well, the movie changes all of the basic story elements to create something of a mess of genres, trying to be more than just a dumb action movie, when that's all people really want from something like "Doom".

"Doom" stars Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as Sarge, the leader of an elite team of soldiers that are sent to Mars to investigate some strange, violent occurrences. So far so good. When they get there, they find that the good people of Union Aerospace Corporation (gamers will recognize this from the game) has been experimenting with human DNA, and have found the final pair of chromosomes, which somehow unleashes the violence inside people to create monsters. However, unlike the series of games which feature hundreds of different kinds of monsters, the movie features 2...huge, hulking wet things, and one instance of an ugly cross between a bulldog and a slug. Oh, and you also see the occasional zombie, but half the time the camera is moving so fast, they just look like people.

With a running time of nearly 2 hours, surprisingly little happens, especially considering the action-packed source material. A good 3/4 of the movie takes place in dark corridors and sewers, with the soldiers looking around corners and barking orders at each other. All this time, we get cheap, fake scares every 5 minutes, to the point where, when the real monsters actually show up, we really don't care.

The Rock steals the show as always, playing an admirable team leader who slowly goes completely insane, obsessed with carrying out his orders to the T. The supporting cast is a mixed bag, and for every entertaining or remotely interesting character we get, there's another who annoys to no end. Richard Brake (who most recently appeared in "Batman Begins" as Joe Chill, the petty criminal who killed Bruce Wayne's parents) plays a soldier named Portman, whose perverted comic relief is strangely reminiscent of the equally perverted Quagmire from TV's "Family Guy". Also occupying the screen is Karl Urban of "Lord of the Rings" fame, who plays another soldier named Grimm, who encounters his estranged sister on Mars and reunites with her for the first time since their parents' death. But the movie loses its focus so often that we are left wondering just who the main character is; is the movie about The Rock, or is it about Karl Urban?

The number one mistake this movie made was trying to have a story and background information on the characters. To be entirely honest, people going to see this movie really don't care. They want a quick fix of big monsters, loud guns, and lots of ridiculously graphic gore. Unfortunately, the monsters aren't very big (well, all 3 of them), the guns aren't loud, the gore is too sparse, and the movie takes way too long to get to any of it.

"Doom" also features about 5 minutes of action done in the first-person perspective, which is interesting in concept, but barely passable in its execution. There are some very interesting shots in the montage of first-person action (such as a a quick cut to a zombie holding an axe, which is shot out of his hand and lands square in his forehead), but the sets, characters and guns were all composed on different layers, and it shows. Nothing seems to fit together properly, and the result is very much like one of those bad video games where they use real actors on fake backdrops to try and achieve a "photo realistic" effect.

While the movie is by no means great, or even good, it is not the colossal failure that many anticipated. The Rock holds his own, and does a fantastic job playing Sarge as he slowly loses his mind. But the movie just doesn't have its heart where it counts, and it made all the wrong choices in its changes to the source material. For a movie based on a lightning fast game with hoards of Hell-sent enemies, it contains little-to-none of any of the elements that made the game so great.

Then again, by now viewers should be smart enough to know that going into a movie based on a video game probably won't give you the greatest thrills of the year. But on a cold, rainy night, sometimes you just feel like watching abnormally large macho-men fight the occasional monster. Besides, only someone like The Rock could ever handle a gun so blatantly named the B.F.G. (Big F***ing Gun).

4.5/10

Equilibrium

2005-08-07T03:40:00.000-04:00

Title: Equilibrium
Director: Kurt Wimmer
Cast: Christian Bale, Taye Diggs, Sean Bean
Year: 2002
MPAA: Rated R for violence.
Date of Review: August 7, 2005

Many critics and film enthusiasts are saying that modern movies are the beginning of the demise of film. That the ability to make something truly original and captivating is lost, murdered in the dark alleyways of the 1980s by a mysterious and powerful attacker named MTV. At least, that's what some snobs will have you believe. In fact, film is still in great form, if not better than ever, you just have to dig a little deeper. There are still many wonderful movies out there, and lately, it seems, many of them star an equally wonderful young actor, Christian Bale.

Kurt Wimmer's 2002 sci-fi action movie "Equilibrium" is not one of the better films starring Bale, but that is not to say it is bad at all. It simply lacks the finesse and sense of completion that films such as "American Psycho" and "The Machinist" offer, which is probably due to the fact that it was a little too ambitious for its own budget. The special effects are no better than many high-end video games, and it has the production values of something you would see coming straight to video. However, it has a handful of very fast, very satisfying action scenes, as well as a few fine performances and some great inventiveness that manage to lift it above the mediocrity of its overall feel.

Christian Bale stars as John Preston, the most elite member of a type of futuristic law enforcement called the "Grammaton Clerics", who enforce laws put into act after another devastating world war, stating that human emotion is now illegal. The film begins when Preston is at his prime, and follows him as he rediscovers his own emotions, and begins his fight against the corrupt powers leading society. At his disposal is a new martial arts technique called the "gun katas", designed for optimum performance by Clerics during gun fights, and to watch the choreography of some of these fights is quite spectacular, albeit very brief.

Among the supporting stars are Taye Diggs, Emma Watson, and the always charming Sean Bean in a role that felt like it should have been much more. The acting in the film is solid, considering the genre and the audience it is trying to attract, with Christian Bale and Sean Bean stealing the show - especially when they are onscreen together.

Kurt Wimmer, who has dabbled in and out of writing very average screenplays, shows that he is really no better at directing. Much like the supporting cast, he displays that he knows how to get the job done quickly and painlessly, but it's fairly plain and by-the-numbers.

A surprisingly interesting part of the film was the rather simple but effective musical score. Light instrumentals layered with electronic sounds and patterns combined nicely and added to the cold, calculating feel of the world the movie created. Subtle sounds and ambience are used throughout the film to increase this effect.

"Equilibrium" shows us that there is hope for something new and original in the action world after "The Matrix", and also that there is a future for action movies with brains as well as braun. However, it could have been something truly incredible in the hands of more capable people.

6.5/10

The Machinist

2005-08-01T22:32:00.000-04:00

Title: The Machinist
Director: Brad Anderson
Cast: Christian Bale, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Michael Ironside
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for violence and disturbing images, sexuality and language
Date of Review: August 1, 2005

He looks vaguely familiar. A certain look in his eyes tells you you've seen him before in some movie you can't remember the title of. His voice brings back memories of a psychotic New York lawyer in the 1980s, but still, you can't place a name. He is so frail, both emotionally and physically, it seems as if any moment now he will just fade away into nothingness. Then you remember, and with a sudden jolt of energy you jump out of your seat, point at the skeletal figure on the screen and yell "Hey! That's Batman!". And you're right, sort of. Yes, it is Christian Bale, but in this movie he couldn't be much different from the crime-fighting Dark Knight of Gotham. The character's name is Trevor Reznik, and the movie is "The Machinist".

The film, directed by Brad Anderson who is fairly well known in the horror crowds as the director of 2001's masterful psychological horror film "Session 9", tells the story of Trevor Reznik, a young man working for "National Machine", a steel mill of sorts with a series of colourful employess. Trevor holds many deep secrets, some of which he is not even himself aware of. One is that he has not slept in a year, and his extreme fatigue has left him paranoid and delusional. When Reznik causes an accident at work that costs a man his arm, he begins to believe that the workers are plotting some sort of conspiracy against him. What results is one of the most shocking and memorable journeys of self discovery you will ever experience.

"The Machinist" stars Christian Bale in the lead role of Trevor Reznik, as well as Michael Ironside as Miller, the man who loses his arm, and Jennifer Jason Leigh as Stevie, an affectionate prostitute whom Trevor confides in. Christian Bale steals the whole movie, but it's pretty hard not to when an actor goes to the lengths he did to bring the character to the screen. Before filming, Bale weighed 180 pounds, which is fairly average for his height of 6'2". In less than a year he went down to 115 pounds, filmed the movie, then went up to 220 pounds to film "Batman Begins". As he is told numerous times throughout the course of the film, if he were any thinner he wouldn't exist. However, it is not just his astounding physical presence (or lack thereof) that makes Bale's performance so powerful, it is the emotional and psychological frailty and vulnerability he can convey with just a few words.

Brad Anderson has begun to develop quite a formidable following, with many critics and fans alike saying he is Hitchcock for the new millennium. In "Session 9", he took one of the creepiest places ever caught on film, and managed to make it just as much a character in the story as any of the flesh-and-blood actors inhabiting the locale. With "The Machinist", he has created a much more human story that is less terrifying than "Session 9", but equally unnerving and sporting his signature surrealist look.

While the subject matter may be a little much for some, "The Machinist" is easily one of the more powerful films of recent years. Strong performances all around combine with the superb visuals and Brad Anderson's uncanny talent for telling an emotionally affecting story, and make one of the best films of 2004.

10/10

Batman Begins

2005-06-17T14:25:00.000-04:00

Title: Batman Begins
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson
Year: 2005
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense action violence, disturbing images and some thematic elements.
Date of Review: June 17, 2005

In 1989, Tim Burton treated the world to “Batman”, a rubber and leather clad crime-fighting vigilante whose under explored past and motives involved something about his parents being murdered. Since the only other on-screen representations of the iconic DC Comics character had presented him and his world as a campy theme park, critics worldwide praised Burton’s vision as showing the true spirit of Batman. It seems critics don’t read comic books.

Luckily, though, someone in Hollywood does, and it has paid off in spades. Christopher Nolan released his low-on-action, high-on-character film “Batman Begins” to North American audiences on June 15th, and it has acquired much deserved critical and fan praise. It is nothing at all like Tim Burton’s overly comic adaptations, and that is perhaps its greatest triumph. Gone are the days of leather, yellow bat symbols, ridiculous gadgets and rubber nipples. “Batman Begins” plays out completely seriously. There are no puns or ridiculous one-liners to constantly pull you back to reality. The world of Gotham is completely engrossing, and Bruce Wayne feels like he could be a real man, searching for the means to bring justice to those who have ruined his once fair city.

The film stars an A-list ensemble cast, including Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, and, of course, Christian Bale in what will be known as the definitive representation of Batman and his alter ego, Bruce Wayne (and no, I didn’t write that backwards). Every performance feels human and is played out realistically by the actors. Gary Oldman shows us Sargeant Gordon (soon to be the Commissioner Gordon we all know and love) as a fragile family man, who is also seemingly the only honest cop in Gotham City. Michael Caine provides a much more fatherly figure in his portrayal of Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s butler and guardian angel. But perhaps the most effective performances in the film were from Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy, who played Ducard and Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow, respectively. Ducard is Bruce Wayne’s mentor whom he encounters on a journey through the mountainous regions of Asia in order to study the criminal mind so he may effectively fight it. Jonathan Crane, however, is a much more sinister character, whose questionable motives are apparent from his first appearance, and his Scarecrow identity is, without ruining anything, quite terrifying.

This is the first of the Batman movies to present a character that is both deep and believable. Christian Bale brings a darkness to the role that has until now been non existent, along with the realism of the character. Batman is a comic book character, but he has no powers and his motives and methods are entirely human. In the other screen adaptations of Batman, we saw the hero escape fantastical situations without a scratch, always by chance having all the right gadgets to finish the job. This film shows Batman as just a man, who is often hurt and must truly fight to survive the schemes of Gotham’s underworld of crime.

Before production began, Christopher Nolan said that he and David S. Goyer, his co-writer of the film, were using the comics and the animated series of the early 1990s as the main inspirations for the film, and it shows. There are no grey tights or beer-bellies on this Batman. There is no “shark repellent spray” or “anti-bullet pills”. This is Batman in it’s most minimalist, and truest form. Everything on his suit and all of his gadgets are there for a reason, and are needed for him to do what he does. Nothing here is for purely aesthetic purposes, which is how it should be.

The style of the film is impeccable. Reportedly, Nolan held a screening of “Blade Runner” for the entire cast and crew before shooting began, and said “this is how we’re going to make Batman”. And once again, it shows. As the camera glides over the modern day, crime ridden Gotham, we see the same darkly beautiful mixture of futuristic technology and poverty ridden wastelands that was apparent in Ridley Scott’s science fiction masterpiece. The cinematography throughout “Batman Begins” is phenomenal, making Gotham feel like a real, living, breathing city. The fight scenes are quickly cut, to the point of being disorienting, but not without reason. The ultra fast editing adds to the panic the criminals fear as they are separated and quietly taken out one by one by Gotham’s Dark Knight. And, with a film that has such a strong analysis of human fear, what could be better than the camerawork giving the audience a taste of that fear?

“Batman Begins” is a remarkable achievement. It is the best and most accurate representation of the character to date, and has more heart, depth and emotion than any of the blockbuster dramas Hollywood has pumped out lately. It is the first comic book adaptation to breech the line that divides fantasy from reality, fact from fiction, and in the process becomes not only a summer movie for people to see and enjoy, but an undeniably powerful film that will go down in history as being one of the greatest of the new millennium. Bravo to the cast and crew, you have created a masterpiece.

10/10

National Treasure

2005-05-18T20:57:00.000-04:00

Title: National Treasure
Director: John Turteltaub
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Sean Bean, Jon Voight
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated PG for action violence and some scary images
Date of Review: May 18, 2004

2004 ushered in quite a line-up of action films, some of them adding a fresh new face to the genre, and others seemingly hell-bent on ruining what reputation the genre still had left. “The Bourne Supremacy” continued the successful franchise starring Matt Damon, based on the trilogy of books by Robert Ludlum, ushering in a new era of hyper-realistic action scenes completely devoid of CGI. Then there was “Catwoman”, a horrible experiment in only-God-knows-what, putting Halle Berry in a revealing Mickey Mouse costume trying to make a full-length feature out of a second-tier comic book character. Yes, 2004 saw some interesting action films, but one managed to slide under the radar of most, which is a shame since it was one of the best of the bunch. That film was “National Treasure”, a charming throwback to the days of Indiana Jones, featuring a strong cast led by Nicolas Cage, and enough brains to satisfy the biggest history buffs, while keeping the action and language light enough to be watched by the whole family.

Cage plays Benjamin Franklin Gates, a member of the infamous Gates family, who, for generations, have been searching for the legendary treasure of the Knights Templar. Also, for generations, they have been laughed at by countless historians, who deny the very existence of a treasure so great that entire civilizations were wiped from the planet in wars over the spoils of its riches. Now, having disappeared for hundreds of years, Gates has stumbled upon several more clues, all of which revolve around the Declaration of Independence, which he must steal in order to keep it from being stolen by a rival treasure hunter (played by the ever-so-suave Sean Bean). What ensues is one of the most genuinely exciting movies to come out of Hollywood in many years.

It’s quite hard to explain the tension that builds throughout the movie without spoiling it, as every clue they find leads into the next and helps unravel the plot. Needless to say, it is very well thought out, and unlike other films of recent years *cough* “The Patriot” *cough* it manages to keep its historical facts accurate, which makes it that much more realistic and intriguing. There’s really not enough that can be said for the tension that is built in the movie. There are times when you genuinely fear for the characters, and in a time when we are so removed from the characters on screen, that is saying a lot.

The acting is great for an action film, save for the cliché sexy, foreign damsel in distress. Nicolas Cage manages to detach from his one-note self and provide a genuinely charming performance, and Jon Voight does a great job as his disapproving father. The character of Riley, Gates’ young, tech-savvy partner, plays the part of comic relief very well, with some great lines that are genuinely funny, and he also does a good job of making himself seem annoying to the other characters.

While it’s not “Lord of the Rings”, “National Treasure” manages to thrill like many other big-budget films only dream of doing. A great cast and memorable moments make it an exciting and above average adventure movie in the vein of Indiana Jones. And the best part is, anyone can watch it.

8/10

Blade: Trinity

2005-04-29T21:01:00.000-04:00

Title: Blade: Trinity
Director: David S. Goyer
Cast: Wesley Snipes, Ryan Reynolds, Jessica Biel
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for strong pervasive violence and language, and some sexual content.
Date of Review: April 29, 2005

"Blade", one of Marvel’s darker superheros, debuted on the big screen in 1998, completely revamped (pardon the pun) from a Mexican vampire slayer with a few wooden stakes, to a hip, cool, tech-savvy Wesley Snipes with a great sword. Then in 2002, visionary Mexican director and admitted comic book maniac, Guillermo del Toro, brought to the screen his vision of the character with the wildly popular "Blade 2", in which the titular anti-hero teamed up with a ruthless team of vampires to hunt a new breed of monster that kills humans and vampires indiscriminately. Both of these films were written by David S. Goyer, who has penned almost every Marvel Comic film adaptation since "Spider-Man", so when it was announced early last year that he would not only write but make his directorial debut with "Blade: Trinity", naturally, many were excited.

"Blade: Trinity" stars Ryan Reynolds and Jessica Biel (among others) alongside Wesley Snipes and Kris Kristofferson, who reprise their roles as Blade and his partner Whistler, respectively. It begins with Blade being captured by the FBI after accidentally killing a human who was posing as a vampire. He is soon rescued by Hannibal King (played by Ryan Reynolds in a performance that’s frighteningly similar to his character Van Wilder), and Abigail Whistler, played by Jessica Biel. Unfortunately, the casting directors seem to think that the only pre-requisite of being a vampire hunter is that you’re on the list of "Most Beautiful People in the World".

The movie seems to be a mixture of the previous two films, while also trying to incorporate a plot about Dracula. However, through the entire 2-hour length of the film, it is hard to tell whether the Dracula storyline is meant to be a main feature in the film, or simply a subplot. Not to mention the fact that Dracula looked like a strange mix of the Lord of Darkness from "Legend", and something off a bad episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Combine that with vampire dogs (yes...vampire dogs) and you have some pretty unconvincing villains at hand.

The problems with "Blade: Trinity" don’t lie in the concept, but in the execution. The idea of Blade fighting Dracula is one that was inevitable in a franchise such as this, and the fact that it was left to the final film had a lot of fans eager to see what would be done. Instead of creating an original mix of action and horror, however, it is simply a re-hash of the plots of the previous two films, with a horrendous amount of product placement. Jessica Biel’s character serves absolutely no purpose, other than advertising iPods. Yes, the personal MP3 sound system is advertised heavily in this film, showing Jessica Biel not only loading songs onto it on two occasions, but before she fights hoards of undead villains, there are quick cuts to her placing headphones in her ears and hitting PLAY.

It’s not that "Blade: Trinity" is a bad movie in any respect. In fact, it has some scenes of stunning originality, and Ryan Reynolds has a few one-liners that are quite funny, if only for the fact that they are so inappropriate. But this film could have been so much more. Seeing as how it is the first Marvel film to complete a trilogy, as well as close the entire franchise, it would have been nice to have gone out with a bang...but instead we got a barely audible thud.

5.5/10

Start of new reviews

2005-04-18T23:57:00.000-04:00

OK I am done posting my old reviews, so I will now being posting the newer ones. I will start with "Blade: Trinity", which I just finished.

Saw

2005-04-18T18:35:00.000-04:00

Title: Saw
Director: James Wan
Cast: Cary Elwes, Danny Glover, Monica Potter
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for strong grisly violence and language
Date of Review: February 17, 2005

James Wan's "Saw" was perhaps one of the most eagerly awaited movies of last year after receiving critical acclaim at the Sundance film festival. Claiming to be "Se7en" for the new millennium, the film tells a similar story of a deranged killer who chooses victims that display a lack of humility for what they have been given in life. Such victims include a doctor who is having an affair, and a man who allegedly attempted suicide to get attention. The twist that makes the film's premise so interesting, though, is that instead of simply killing or torturing his victims with his own hands, the killer finds ways for them to kill themselves. Unfortunately, this intriguing plot is spoiled by a horrible script, the worst acting this side of "Spice World", and way too many quick cuts and instances of MTV style editing.

Cary Elwes, famous for his role as the charming prince in "The Princess Bride", plays the role of the adulterous doctor who wakes up chained to a pipe in a small white room filled with septic pipes and various janitorial supplies. Across from him is another man named Adam (played by rookie actor Leigh Whannel), who is also chained to a pipe, and in the center of the room is a third man, dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. From there, the doctor must decide if he has the guts to kill Adam or saw off his own foot in order to survive the killer's plan and save his family.

While all of the setwork, make-up and contraption designs are quite good, the movie is filmed with the competence of an episode of "Judge Judy". It doesn't help that Cary Elwes has a smirk on his face through the entire film, and seems to be trying to refrain from laughing, even while supposedly devastated by the revelation that his family is being held captive.

Regardless of the horrible acting and poor scriptwork, which seem to be almost required in today's horror films, "Saw" suffers from taking an original idea and turning it into a by-the-numbers slasher. Danny Glover plays an ex-cop who was let go from the force after having a previous encounter with the killer, and has since become obsessed with discovering his true identity and stopping the killing. The movie is filled with convenient instances of people showing up at just the right moment, and coincidence after coincidence until even the coincidences become predictable. By the time the end twist rolls around, you're already so fed up with all the twists of plot that it's really not that shocking...or perhaps it's just hard to care by that point.

By the end of the movie, we're left asking questions: what was the killer's motive? How has no one caught him yet? And why wasn't the movie given the budget and effort that it deserved? Supposedly, according the James Wan, the film was originally over two hours long, but had to be trimmed down to barely an hour and forty minutes so as to receive an R rating. Wan himself stated that so much plot was cut that the effect he was going for was lost. Hopefully an unrated version of the film will be released at a later date, but as of now, "Saw" is a typical serial killer flick with a premise that really could have been the next "Se7en", but fell short with its execution.

5/10

Shattered Glass

2005-04-18T14:27:00.000-04:00

Title: Shattered Glass
Director: Billy Ray
Cast: Hayden Christensen, Chloe Sevigny, Peter Sarsgaard
Year: 2003
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for language, sexual references and brief drug use
Date of Review: February 9, 2005

In this true-to-life story, Hayden Christensen plays Stephen Glass, a young reporter working for The New Republic magazine in the late 1990s. It follows the rise and fall of his short career, as we see him become popular with his co-workers who love hearing his humorous stories about events he has attended, people he has interviewed, and things he has seen. It is then found out by a reporter for the then-online magazine Forbes, that Stephen Glass' latest article about a hacker conference is actually a fabrication. This leads to an investigation by his editor, who discovers that over 2/3 of all of Glass' work has been fictional.

The movie runs at a tight pace, and at a runtime of barely 90 minutes, it is shorter than the average political or legal drama. This is usually the downfall of many movies of this type, but for this, it is actually beneficial, as we are not bogged down with needless characters, dialogue or moral preaching. It is quick and to-the-point, much like the articles it depicts. Stylistically, this is a good thing.

Unfortunately, what the movie IS bogged down by are a few iffy and uneven performances, mainly from Steve Zahn, who is incredibly miscast as the Forbes reporter that begins the unraveling of Glass' lies. While his character is meant to be a serious one, it seems like he is always holding back from laughing or spurting out some comedic one-liner that you could expect from a movie by the Farrelly Brothers. Hayden Christensen is great at playing the whiny over-achiever Stephen Glass. Then again, it seems, after looking at Christensen's filmography, that that is the only type of character he can play.

To balance the film out, there are some outstanding performances from the supporting cast, most notably that of young actor Peter Sarsgaard in the role of Chuck, the editor who uncovers Glass' deceiving nature. He plays a character that is easy to hate, yet at the same time easy to identify with, as he struggles to earn the respect of the writers while uncovering a conspiracy incriminating one of their best friends.

The direction is taut and keeps the film interesting, but there are bits that could have been improved, re-written, or completely scrapped. There is an entire subplot to the story in which Glass is telling a high school class about his experiences writing for The New Republic, but it doesn't go anywhere and leaves you wondering why it was ever put there in the first place.

"Shattered Glass" is an intriguing film with its share of flaws. Its few moments of hoakiness are evened out by a few moments of sheer brilliance from actor Peter Sarsgaard. The film provides an entertaining and worthwhile look at ethics in journalism, and with a fast pace it manages to avoid dabbling in uninteresting characters and subjects.

6.5/10

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

2005-04-18T14:23:00.000-04:00

Title: Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Director: Alexander Witt
Cast: Milla Jovovich, Sienna Guillory, Thomas Kretschmann
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for non-stop violence, language and some nudity
Date of Review: February 3, 2005

Paul Anderson's latest venture into writing a movie based on a video game is filled with "apparently’s". Apparently, standard issue uniforms for female government agents is a blue tube top and the shortest mini skirt ever seen. Apparently tactical SWAT-like teams recruit their members solely from third world countries. Apparently a helicopter only needs to be about 20 feet away in order to make it out of a nuclear explosion. Apparently people with ADD are now prime candidates for directorial jobs in Hollywood. And apparently Paul Anderson is completely oblivious to the fact that he can't write.

This movie, being the sequel to an already mediocre movie, manages to somehow make an hour and a half of people shooting zombies quite boring. The story picks up where the first film left off, with Alice (Milla Jovovich) waking up in a deserted hospital, grabbing a shotgun, and getting down-and-dirty with the zombies that have taken over the city. But now, in what Anderson seems to think was a very clever move, she is joined by members of the S.T.A.R.S. team - that tactical team mentioned earlier. And wouldn't you know it, one of those people is Jill Valentine, the popular character from the first Resident Evil video game. Many terrible action sequences, even more terrible special effects, and even MORE terrible dialogue exchanges ensue.

There's really not much going for this movie at all. It plays out like a video game designed by someone with schizophrenia, and has worse dialogue than "Alien vs. Predator" (which, coincidentally, was also penned by Paul Anderson). Unfortunately, unlike "Alien vs. Predator", this movie does not have great effects or set work to make it tolerable - everything is just very poorly done, and, if you are a fan of the video game franchise, you’ll be wondering where they got any of the ideas for this movie, because it’s obviously not the games that inspired them to write the story.

This movie features a few respectable actors, and makes you wonder why they would ever stoop so low, even if it was just a movie to pay the bills. Thomas Kretschmann, who appeared in Roman Polanski’s war-time drama "The Pianist", plays an evil corporate mogul willing to sacrifice anyone or anything for...well...I’m not really sure. The plot is so vague that you really have no idea what the motivations for any of the characters are, and they are all paper-thin themselves. Even the immense talent of Kretschmann couldn’t provide credibility to his character, which is written so poorly that you could swear his lines came out of a "Cliche Villain Handbook". Milla Jovovich, who has proven on many occasions to be a competent actress, really tarnishes her image with her character of Alice, who now seems to be some sort of rip-off of Marvel Comics’ X-Men character, Wolverine.

Speaking of rip-offs, this movie goes to show you that there is a very delicate line in the world of movies between "homage" and "unoriginal rip-off". "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" manages to steal from just about every successful zombie franchise in the history of cinema, but Anderson would of course pass these instances off as "respectful homages" to the movies. Anderson even manages to incorporate references to his own past works, showing how incredibly full of himself he is, and how oblivious he is to the fact that he can’t write.

"Resident Evil: Apocalypse" takes all the great elements we have come to love in zombie movies these days, and waters them down to a level so bad and nonsensical that it is barely watchable. The script not only leaves a lot to be desired, but will make even the most casual movie goer cringe at its cheesiness. It’s main problem is that, while many horror movies can maintain a high level of fun while being cheesy, this is not fun at all, and is actually tedious and, in the end, boring.

1.5/10

Bad Taste

2005-04-18T14:16:00.000-04:00

Title: Bad Taste
Director: Peter Jackson
Cast: Peter Jackson, Terry Potter, Pete O'Herne
Year: 1987
MPAA: Rated R for strong violence and gore, language, and some disturbing images
Date of Review: January 31, 2005

Looking at Peter Jackson's filmography is like looking at the diary of someone with multiple personalities. With "Bad Taste", he started off in the same vein as Sam Raimi, making extremely low budget horror films which, with their ridiculous amounts of gore, classic over-the-top acting and memorable characters and one-liners, became huge cult hits. Jackson directed another gore-fest called "Dead Alive", then did a complete u-turn with his critically acclaimed drama "Heavenly Creatures", which starred Harvey Keitel and Kate Winslet. After his semi-successful horror/comedy "The Frighteners" starring Michael J. Fox, he went on to direct what we know him best for, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

With "Bad Taste", Peter Jackson has created a mixed bag of comedy, extremely low-budget action, and some of the most disgusting gore this side of the galaxy. The story follows a team of government agents nicknamed "The Boys" as they try to foil the plans of an intergalactic alien fast food chain called "Crumb's Crunchy Delights", who plan on using humans in their latest addition to the menu. That's basically all the story you get, and then you are thrust into an hour and a half of exploding heads, piles of brains, people drinking vomit, and, of course, exploding sheep.

Considering the fact that they had a budget of literally nothing, the things Jackson and his team were able to pull off are pretty incredible. When the aliens finally morph into their real, alien forms, the costumes are both hilarious and impressive, and the actual morphing process itself was quite inventive. I would also like to note that whoever sacrificed their hot-rod to be blown up by a rocket launcher was either very faithful to the project, or completely insane.

The movie is filled with dialogue that is so intentionally bad that you can't help but laugh. Peter Jackson plays two roles in the film: one of "The Boys", and one of the aliens. His human role is a mumbling dork named Derek who, after being told that a band of vicious aliens are heading his way, says "I'm a Derek...Derek's don't run". There is also some great witty banter between the two "macho men" of the team as they take their time driving to aid their friends. One of their conversations reveals that the team's actual government name is "Astro Investigation and Defense Service", to which one of them says "I wish we'd get that name changed".

The only real drawback to the movie could even be considered something that makes it funnier. Unfortunately, shortly after the movie was completed, all of the audio tracks were lost. This meant that all of the dialogue had to be re-recorded in a studio and matched up to the actors' mouths. While some may find this a bit distracting, it actually makes everything they say even more ridiculous and overdone.

"Bad Taste" is a truly gross movie. From the opening multiple-head-shot sequence to the ending "re-birth" shot, we are treated to some of the most disgustingly ooey-gooey gore ever put on film. But it is all done very well, and it has a wonderful self-mocking sense of humor that is nearly impossible to not laugh at.

8.5/10

Oldboy

2005-04-18T14:12:00.000-04:00

Title: Oldboy
Director: Park Chanwook
Cast: Choi Min-sik, Yu Ji-tae, Kang Hye-jeong
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for strong violence including scenes of torture, sexuality and pervasive language
Date of Review: January 30, 2005

This recent and very underseen/underrated Korean gem won the Grand Prix at Cannes, yet it has managed to cruise under the radar of most North American theatres and video stores, as well as, it seems, the Academy, as it is not nominated for "Best Foreign Language Film" this year - an award it deserves to not only be nominated for, but win.

The film's complex plot begins with a man named Oh Daesu being held at a police station on the eve of his daughter's third birthday, as he is drunk and being a little bit wild. He is bailed out, and quickly kidnapped by an unknown party. He awakes in a small apartment, with all windows and doors completely barricaded, and he is kept there for 15 years without any reason. During the next half hour, we enter the mind of a man aging mentally and physically as he is isolated with only a television to keep him company. He watches history fly by on the TV set - Kim Jong Il becoming the leader of Korea, George Bush becoming president of the USA, the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. Then, as suddenly as he is captured, he wakes up inside a briefcase which he quickly bursts out of to find himself on the roof of an unknown building in the middle of the city. The rest of the film finds Daesu hunting down clues as to the reason for his imprisonment, while trying to determine who is helping him and who is involved in the ever-growing conspiracy.

"Oldboy" takes many twists and turns in both plot and character development that may leave some feeling a bit confused, but luckily all loose ends are tied up by the end - though you may regret it. It is definitely not a film for the feint of heart. It contains some incredibly choreographed fight scenes that are both realistic and completely jaw-dropping in their brutality. It also contains some of the most disturbing scenes and plot revelations I have, personally, ever seen.

The part that really shines in the film and will keep you strapped to your seat even through all the violence and masochism is the performance of Choi Minsik, the actor playing the lead role of Oh Daesu. From hilarious comedy in his first scenes as an out-of-control drunk to the utter devastation he goes through in the final revelations of plot, he keeps a human face on situations that are beyond anything that you or I could ever comprehend.

With fantastic cinematography and a stylish sense of direction, Park Chanwook has created a film that is beautiful yet repulsive, physically exciting yet emotionally devastating. The characters feel real and that is what makes the film so tragic.

Easily the best of 2004, and probably the best of the new millennium, "Oldboy", while not for everyone, is a sensory feast that features the most haunting and disturbing story since David Fincher's "Se7en".

10/10

Alien vs. Predator

2005-04-18T14:01:00.000-04:00

Title: Alien vs. Predator
Director: Paul W. S. Anderson
Cast: Sanaa Lathan, Raoul Bova, Lance Henriksen
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for violence, language, horror images, slime and gore
Date of Review: January 29, 2005

While it is not the worst movie I have ever seen - in fact, not even in that realm of bad movies
- Alien vs. Predator manages to bastardize everything about the two franchises involved, creating an overly formulaic and cliche action/adventure movie, where there was potential to be a thrilling and terrifying sci-fi/horror.

The plot basically tries to show the origins of both species (and strangely enough, it seems human civilization has a lot to owe to the Predators). It begins with Weyland (Lance Henrikson) gathering up a team of scientists to go to Antarctica, where his satellite has picked up enormous heat levels that seem to form the shape of an underground pyramid. They arrive to find that someone - or something - got there before them, drilling a perfectly cylindrical hole 2000 feet down to the pyramid. If that wasn't the first clue that they should get out of there, I don't know what was.

As it turns out, Predators came to Earth thousands and thousands of years ago and encountered primitive humans. They taught them how to build structures, and the humans treated them like Gods (does this remind anyone else of 2001: A Space Odyssey?). The Predators then begin breeding Aliens, using willing human sacrifices as hosts to the deadly Aliens. Flash back to the present. These scientists are now stuck in this underground pyramid, and are being slaughtered one-by-one by both Aliens and Predators, and there you have your plot.

The movie is filled with paper-thin characters. Of course, neither franchise was particularly renowned for their use of deep characters, but at least we cared somewhat for them, and in the first Alien film in particular, they acted like real people. The people in AvP are the typical Hollywood good-looking bunch of barely-legal adults, saying big words like "marine biologist" and "temple", when you know the actors probably had no clue what they were talking about. Neither did the writers, for that matter.

Instead of caring for the characters, I genuinely loathed a few of them. The babe-magnet Italian guy for example, who looks like a surfer and is supposed to be an expert on everything there is to know about anything, it seems. At one point I actually laughed out loud when he randomly makes the prediction "I bet the pyramid moves at exactly every 10 minutes", which just happens to be exactly correct.

Getting passed the horrible acting and script work, what really bothered me was the complete butchering of both the Alien and Predator franchises. All the stealthy, sleek movements and traits of the Aliens are gone, replaced with the gracefulness of a bulldog in heat. No longer can they sneak up right beside you or maneuver through tight corridors and cracks to get to their prey - instead they jump and run, knocking over boulders and making tons of noise, with their best stealth capability being the ability to hide in dark tunnels. They're loud, obnoxious creatures that prove to be little threat to anyone, since a single woman with no combat training at all manages to kill one by herself in the open. The Predators, who we all used to know as advanced tribal hunters from a distant galaxy, have been replaced with overweight, clunky wrestlers. Everything they do in this movie goes against everything they were based on - honor, the hunt, etc. One of the biggest rules established through the Predator universe has been that they cannot kill something that is unarmed - a rule that is broken in AvP several times over.

The fights look like wrestling matches. At times there are some interesting shots, and there are obvious tributes to fight scenes from previous films in both franchises, but it just doesn't feel like Alien or Predator. The Aliens have the intelligence and strength of medium-sized dogs, and the Predators seem to be incredibly uneven with regards to what type of damage they can and cannot take.

All that being said, there are some beautifully done sets. The temple has quite a neat look to it, and some of the work done on the look of the Alien costumes is impressive when it is not CGI. But this just cannot make the movie good when there is just so much to dislike about it.

Overall this was a tiring, mediocre movie that could have been so much more. If they had taken out the hundreds of times that we see facehuggers flying through the air in bullet time and replaced them with decent tension, story, and a little gore to keep things up to snuff, we might have had a somewhat respectable popcorn flick here.

3/10

Zebraman

2005-04-18T13:53:00.000-04:00

Title: Zebraman
Director: Takashi Miike
Cast: Sho Aikawa, Kyoka Suzuki, Koen Kondo
Year: 2004
MPAA: PG for violence, thematic elements, and gore used for comedic purposes
Date of Review: January 29, 2005

This is one of the latest films that Takashi Miike has splooged out. I don't know if it is actually his latest, since it seems he comes out with a new full-length movie every week.

This strange blend of sci-fi, action and comedy centers around a middle-aged school teacher whose life is uneventful and unsatisfying. His wife seems to be having an affair, his children have no respect for him, and his students don't take him seriously. As an escape during his spare time, he makes a costume resembling an old television superhero called "Zebraman", which aired in Japan for 7 episodes before being cancelled. Before you begin asking questions or searching for pictures, it is a fictional television show, and yes, it is actually a costume that resembles a zebra.

Coincidentally, at about the same time that he begins wearing his costume outside his house and attempting to foil robberies and petty crimes, the world is being invaded by strange, jelly-like aliens residing under the stage of the local junior high school. Of course, this becomes the main conflict, with Zebraman fighting the aliens and attempting to defend Earth by himself.

There are several subplots thrown into the mix, but none of them are really fully explored or resolved. There is one that is quite touching, involving a new student in his class who is handicapped, and who shares his love for Zebraman. There is also one featuring two military officers working incognito as a gay couple trying to find where the aliens are hiding. Throughout the film we see these characters pop in and out, but the boy is really the only one that has any impact on the story and how it unfolds.

One major drawback to the film is that it seems Takashi Miike couldn't really decide what type of film he was trying to make. It begins as an almost gut-splittingly funny spoof of the recent Hollywood explosion of superhero movies, but then turns into an overly-sentimental feel-good film. It also contains Miike's signature disturbingly gross gore, though since it is generally aliens involved (with their blood and organs being green) it's not as gross as his other films such as "Ichi the Killer". By the time the ridiculous final battle rolled around, I wasn't sure whether I was supposed to be laughing at how intentionally horrible and cheesy it was, or cringing at how badly it was done.

The special effects are nothing to call home about, but they get the job done and there are no times when they look particularly horrible, but at the same time they never look great either. You can tell that most of the effects budget was spilled into the final battle, which is quite sad because it is very disappointing and, again, it's hard to tell what Miike was actually going for with it.

Overall, like the special effects it showcases, "Zebraman" is nothing spectacular, but is worth seeing if you are interested in Asian cinema or are looking for something that is generally fun and at times has a good sense of humor. It's sort of like what you would get if you took Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks!" and put it in a blender with any one of the recent plethora of superhero movies that Hollywood is spewing out.

4.5/10

The Passion of the Christ

2005-04-18T00:12:00.000-04:00

Title: The Passion of the Christ
Director: Mel Gibson
Cast: Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for sequences of graphic violence
Date of Review: February 27, 2004

Having seen the original trailer which was released last year when the film was originally just called "The Passion" (which, by the way, I think is a much better title), I was intrigued to see this film from the beginning. I am not a religious person, but I do think that the stories told in the Bible are interesting, and the message behind them is one that can be applied to anyone anywhere in the world. Needless to say, I was also looking forward to seeing Mel Gibson's next directorial efforts.

Skip forward about 6-8 months and it's January 2004, and the film is receiving flak more than a month before it has even been released. Enraged by this, Gibson says some things about the critics that he probably will end up regret saying. But this does not change the fact that the people who have seen the film already are giving it very mixed reviews. Some said it was a Biblical epic for the ages, depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus' life just as they would have been. Others say it is an offensive and overly violent film promoting anti-semetism.

Last night, on Wednesday February 25, 2004, "The Passion of the Christ" was released to the world, and I was lucky enough to get to see it at one of the first showings in my hometown (thanks again, Steve). This spectacular film was both emotionally draining and, at some points, almost physically painful to watch. This is not a complaint in any way, but simply a statement of the truth - watching Jesus (played with masterful grace and, well, passion, by Jim Caviezel) being tortured beyond anything people in modern society could even imagine is a sight I will never forget, and was quite disturbing...but it was not without purpose. Mel Gibson's goal with the film was to portray his vision of what occurred in the events leading up to and including the crucifiction, and he wanted to show the brutality with which Jesus was treated. The film shows the love that Jesus gave to all those who would accept it, and even to those who persecuted and, ultimately, killed him.

Perhaps one of my favorite performances in the film was that of Hristo Shopov as Pontius Pilate, the Roman general that is forced to judge Jesus according to the will of the people. He was incredibly aware of his role in the story, and managed to show his emotions clearly and realistically within the parameters of his character, as a Roman soldier of his status would be expected to be merciless and without emotion.

The performance put forward by Rosalinda Celentano as Satan was also quite powerful. With few lines and no truly evil actions, she manages to convey the purely evil nature of Satan very well, and is quite frightening.

The cinematography was truly beautiful. Every scene was shot with such precision and grace that it actually feels like you are watching the events actually occurring.

Of course, I must comment on the extremely high levels of gore in the film, and all I will say is that, in the context of the film and the message Gibson was trying to give, it was perfectly suitable to the film. Perhaps the most disturbing shot, for me, was of the crown of thorns being placed on Jesus' head. The thorns are pressed into his skin, then literally smashed into place using wooden rods. The whole film is quite violent and graphic, but when you think about it, Jesus was being punished for the sins of ALL men, so it makes sense that this would be a very brutal occurrence.

This film doesn’t really present any brand new ideas about Jesus’ final 12 hours, but rather takes the original ideas and presents them in a more realistic, less sugar-coated manor. Many argue that the Jews are portrayed as savages who are completely clueless to their wrongdoings, but, in fact, everyone is portrayed that way. After all, that is the reason they did it, hence "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ" is truly a cinematic event and will be remembered for many years to come (hopefully in a good light). Seeing this film was an experience, not just your typical night at the movies. When the last scene faded out to the credits, everyone just sat, silent, for about 5 minutes. Everyone, including myself, was speechless. The audience all stood up in unison and left in awe, still completely silent.

10/10

--------Blog Maintenance--------

2005-04-18T00:08:00.000-04:00

I have decided I am going to post all of my previous reviews, along with the dates at which I reviewed them, before I begin posting new reviews. I want to show older work, in hopes that improvement can be seen.

Please note that these range from early 2004 to now, and I have seen a lot of movies since then for which I have not done reviews. My tastes have changed quite a bit, so films which I gave 10/10 ratings to back then I may not like as much now.

So, I hope you enjoy these next few reviews. I will signify when the new reviews begin. The "Oldboy" review will be back up at a later date.

-B.

The beginning of something big, hopefully

2005-04-16T18:43:00.000-04:00

Together with some kind advice and help from my grade 12 Entrepreneurship teacher, I am beginning a business venture, and it starts here.

Now, you are probably wondering, "why in the name of all that is holy is he beginning a business venture by creating a blog?". Basically, I hope that my reviews will be of a good enough quality that people will keep coming back. If I can generate some traffic, perhaps even get a list of "returning clients", I may be able to get movie tickets to sneak previews, etc. (through collaboration with the local newspaper, or through the production companies themsleves).

This is not unheard of, so if I can get a good blog going with my reviews, there is a good chance this could lead somewhere.

My eventual goal is to make films of my own. Not to make millions of dollars and spend my life in the spotlight, but instead because I absolutely love film, love making my own miniature independent projects, and I cannot imagine doing anything else for the rest of my life.

So, I hope you enjoy what will be posted by me. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.