The Exorcist Anthology

In this post, I will be reviewing The Exorcist Anthology.  The collection includes: The Exorcist(1973), The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen(1973, re-released 2001), Exorcist II: The Heretic(1977), The Exorcist III: Legion(1990), and the two prequel movies, Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist(both films, 2006).  I'll explain the reasoning for the two prequel films later in the review.

The Exorcist

In the first film, The Exorcist, the film opens in northern Iraq in 1973.  On an archeological dig, Father Merrin(Max Von Sydow) uncovers a miniature statue of a demon, and later encounters a complete statue of the demon.  In the United States, an actress(Ellyn Burstyn) finds that her daughter, Regan(Linda Blair) is behaving rather strangely.  During some medical tests, Regan has violent outbursts and curses uncontrollably.  Desperate, Linda's mother goes to several different doctors, and finally a priest who specializes in psychiatry, Father Damien Karras(Jason Miller).  Later, Regan begins to physically change as she appears to be possessed by some kind of demon.  Karras, finally calls on Father Merrin to help.

It shames me to say that I actually never saw The Exorcist before two weeks ago.  Why, I couldn't tell you.  One of my co-workers kept telling me about it, so I decided to see it.  I was completely blown away at how good this movie was.  The one thing that really stood out for me, story-wise, is that they never assumed it was a possession until towards the final act of the film.  Father Karras himself says that exorcism and demonic possession are a dirty secret for the Catholic Church, and that the Church has used modern psychology to determine that "possession" is usually a case of mental disturbance or disease.  Even Linda's mother goes to incredible lengths to find a cure before finally admitting that an exorcism is the only option.  The characters are developed well, and the acting is phenomenal.  Ellyn Burstyn is fantastic as Linda's mother who keeps getting more desperate and starts unraveling as her daughter's condition worsens.  Jason Miller's performance as Father Karras brings a humanity to the character, as a priest who has lost his faith, drinks and smokes, and eventually finds it in himself to fight the evil that has possessed Regan.  Max Von Sydow brings a major presence to the film as Father Merrin, a priest that specializes in exorcisms.  But the real standout performance of the film is Linda Blair, 12 years old at the time of the filming.  As her character's condition worsens, and as the girl is tormented and finally possessed by a demon, Linda Blair goes from an innocent child to something not of this world.  It is astounding how she is able to handle such "objectionable" dialogue.

The imagery in this film is....powerful, to say the least, what the filmmakers had Linda Blair do is quite shocking believe it or not, even by today's standards.  I won't mention what happens, as it somewhat...graphic.  But I will tell you, it's creepy as hell.  There is a reason this film is controversial, even today, as it was back in 1973.  But the film won several awards and is highly regarded as one of the greatest horror films of all time.  I highly recommend this film to horror fans.  I give this one a perfect 10/10.

Exorcist II: The Heretic

Four years after the events in The Exorcist, Regan(Linda Blair) is seeing a psychiatrist in case there are any "aftereffects" from her case in the original film.  Regan is shown as a teenager in New York.  Meanwhile, the Vatican sends a priest to investigate the death of Father Merrin in the first film.  The priest eventually ends up with Regan and asks her about the events 4 years earlier.  But to do this he straps himself up to a machine as well as Regan and psychically investigates what happened.  I'm going to stop with the story there, because it just gets worse as the film goes on.  Honestly, I don't know what the hell happened with this movie, because it's abominable.

Where do I start?  In the original film, the villain was a demon, but we really didn't have an explanation for how or why.  Exorcist II, unfortunately, answers that question.  And drags it out with piss-poor visuals.  In the original film, the villain was mysterious, because we had no idea what it was.  Turns out, the demon Pazuzu travels the world in swarms of locusts and possesses those are touched by it's wings.  That's an over-explanation if there ever was one.  Possessions, by their nature are mysterious and inexplicable.  To try and explain them robs them of that mystery, so to speak.  Particularly in film.  The story in The Heretic is just awful, and it simply doesn't work.  It's just an excuse to bring Linda Blair and Max Von Sydow back.  Linda Blair's performance in The Exorcist was nothing short of raw brilliance.  But in Exorcist II, she's horrible.  I blame that on the director, John Goodmore.  The end of the film is hackneyed and cliché.  There are some good aspects to this film.  It's well-cast.  Max Von Sydow is back, and James Earl Jones shows up.  He's always fun to watch.  The priest played by Richard Burton chews the scenery nicely.  But overall, this film is a disaster from start to finish.  Logic gaps, plot holes, the works.  This film doesn't deserve to have the title of Exorcist.  I give it a 4/10.  Skip this one.

The Exorcist III: Legion

In 1973, a serial killer known as The Gemini Killer(Brad Dourif) stalked and murdered people around the time of Regan's exorcism.  15 years later, murders fitting the profile of the Gemini Killer start showing up again.  Lt. Kinderman(George C. Scott) is investigating the murders that may or may not be of supernatural origin.  Story-wise, there really isn't much here.  But what is here is George C. Scott.  This guy is always fun to watch, and is a very powerful presence in cinema.  Also, returning from the original Exorcist is Jason Miller.   This is a much better sequel than The Heretic.  It's basically a crime-procedural with major supernatural elements.  The killer is very interesting because at first it seems to be more than one person.  Then you find out that it's not necessarily the demon that's killing, but the Gemini Killer, who's been given the ability to possess weaker people.  Brad Dourif's performance is fantastic.  Jason Miller's return is a surprise, but I think a welcome one.  I give this one a solid 8.5/10.

Exorcist: The Beginning/Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist

This a unique situation.  I've never seen two different movies with the same story with the same actor playing the same character.  It just doesn't happen.  From what I understand, Dominion was completed and shown to investors, but they didn't seem to like it so they shelved in favor of Renny Harlin's Exorcist: The Beginning, which was more focused on the violence and the gore instead of the characterization.  It wasn't exactly received well, so the studio finally released Dominion on DVD.

In 1944 Holland, the Nazis found a soldier's body and want to know who did it, so they can kill the culprit.  However, Father Merrin says that none of them did it, so the German commander forces Merrin to choose 10 people to die.  As a result, Merrin loses his faith in God and quits being a priest.  Several years later, Merrin is part of an archeological dig in northern Iraq, which a Christian church being discovered in a place where it shouldn't even exist.  As the dig progresses and Merrin and his men get into the church, strange things start happening in the dig's camp and a nearby village.  It seems that the church was built on an ancient pagan temple worshipping the demon Pazuzu.  This story is actually really good, as it focuses on Merrin, the priest from the original Exorcist, but it takes place 30 years prior to the original film.  Renny Harlin's film is more focused on the horror elements of the story, which is effective, but it leaves the characters out of it with the exception of Skarsgaard's character.  Paul Schrader's film is focused more on the characters and as a result is a much darker film and far more effective I think than Harlin's picture.  The effects in Dominion aren't as well done, though, but those are secondary to the story.  Certain characters appear in Dominion, while others appear in The Beginning and vise versa.  Stellan Skarsgaard's performance in both films is nothing short of brilliant, as he brings a very human element to the character, who is flawed and has a checkered past.  I wouldn't necessarily say Renny Harlin's film is a bad movie.  Far from it, it focuses more on the violent and horror aspects of the film, which I think is effective to a certain degree.  But I think Schrader's film, Dominion, is a far more effective film in terms of characters and their stories.  Both films belong to Exorcist franchise in their own way, and are worth watching.  I give The Beginning an 8.5/10, while I give the superior Dominion a 9.5/10.

Overall, with the exception of Exorcist II, the Exorcist films are very solid horror movies/thrillers.  Obviously the original Exorcist is still the best and far more powerful film than any of the others.  The Exorcist Anthology is well worth the price I paid for it....20 bucks off of Amazon.  It is a hell of a deal.  I definitely recommend it to anyone who is a fan of horror.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Prince of Persia was first introduced to the world in 1989 by Jordan Mechner.  The game featured a protagonist clad in white.  It was a side-scroller in which you had to climb your way to the palace and rescue the princess.  The thing was, you had to do it in 60 minutes or less or the princess was dead.  Good times.  A sequel, The Shadow and the Flame followed in 1993.  Then, a 3D game was released in 1999, which was absolutely terrible.  Prince of Persia would not be seen again until it was rebooted in 2003 with The Sands of Time.  The Sands of Time showed the prince in a different way, with him running along walls and jumping from ledges and columns as well as manipulating time itself.  It was unlike anything that was done before.  A sequel to The Sands of Time, Warrior Within followed in 2004, and was bloodier, with a heavy metal soundtrack.  Still it was a lot of fun and introduced new fighting mechanics to the standard platforming elements.  The Two Thrones would eventually cap off the Sands of Time Trilogy.  A reboot, simply called Prince of Persia was released to the XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3 in 2008, but was fundamentally different than the games that preceded it.  I enjoyed it personally, but a lot of people didn't.  In 2010, the movie version of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was released to theaters, by Walt Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer productions.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time takes place in ancient Persia(duh!) when the Persians are attacking a sacred city.  Adopted Prince Dastan(Jake Gyllenhall) leads an attack that breaches the walls of the city.  This allows his brothers and Nizam(Sir Ben Kingsley) to enter the city and take control.  The city is ruled by a religious princess named Tamina(Gemma Arterton).    Dastan eventually comes into possession of a mystical dagger which gives its user the ability to turn back time.  Dastan's father is murdered and the young prince himself is set up to take the blame.  Dastan and Tamina flee the city to discover the truth about the Dagger and how to keep it from people who would use it for evil.  Okay, so the story is something that we've all seen and heard before, but it does work in this film.  

There are certainly a number of colorful characters that show up during the course of the film and one of them is Sheik Amar played wonderfully by Alfred Molina.  Alfred Molina is one of the funnest actors to watch because he puts every ounce of effort into the character he plays, regardless of how ridiculous the character, and he gives it his own unique little spin on the character.  Jake Gyllanhall surprised me a great deal as Prince Dastan.  I honestly would never have pictured Gyllanhall as the prince, because he didn't look like he had the body for it.  Well, he definitely bulked up for the role and it shows as he does many of his own stunts, with the exception of the flips and high-risk maneuvers associated with parkour.  But still, he handles himself very well in the fights and the rest of the film when he ISN'T fighting.  The prince in the games was always a bit of a smart-ass and I'm glad they managed to keep that intact for this film.  Sir Ben Kingsley is a legendary actor.  Unfortunately, the last movie that was based on a game that he starred in, Bloodrayne, was an absolute stinker of a film.  Gemma Arterton(Quantum of Solace, Clash of the Titans remake) is stunning as the princess, Tamina and plays off Gyllanhall very well.

The other thing that they managed to include from the game is the parkour elements, where the prince swings on bars, jumps of buildings and running on walls.  Not as much as I would've liked, but there's enough there to keep the adrenaline pumping and waiting to see what the prince will do next.  The parkour elements were supervised by none other than David Belle, the French founder of parkour, so the free-running scenes were, for the most part done by Gyllanhall and without wires.  Obviously there were a few scenes that needed the wires, but still, it's fun to watch.  The visual effects were simply astounding particularly when the prince is outrunning a tidal wave of sand towards the end of the film.  It's spectacular.

The film moves at a brisk pace despite the fact that it's two hours long.  There's rarely a dull moment, whether there is a sword fight or the prince is escaping on the rooftops or just when he and the princess are almost literally at each other's throats.   It was well directed by Mike Newell.  I honestly, haven't seen a movie that was based on a video game that has come together this well.  You've actually got good acting, with fantastic fight scenes and special effects with a rather decent story.  That is exceptionally rare in a video game movie.  But they managed to do it right, this time.  It's a lot of fun, and I really recommend it.  I give it a 9/10.

Clash of the Titans(2010)

"RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!"  The original Clash of the Titans was released to theaters in 1981, and it starred Harry Hamlin as Perseus, and Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus, the king of the gods.  It was one of Ray Harryhausen's last films and arguably his most famous one.  This is one of the movies I grew up watching.  It had fantastic creatures, and some nifty special effects.  Unfortunately, the special effects in the original Clash of the Titans don't age well, especially on Blu-Ray, where it is PAINFULLY obvious.   As a remake, Clash of the Titans is going to be the subject of.....discussion among moviegoers.  Louis Leterrier directs this remake that stars Sam Worthington as Perseus, Mads Mikkelson as Draco, Gemma Arterton as Io, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, and Liam Neeson as Zeus.

The film starts off with a fisherman(Pete Postlethwaite) discovering a casket floating in the sea.  Inside lies a woman and a child, Perseus.  Years later, Perseus grows to be a fisherman, like his adopted father.  Later the family is killed when Hades appears to punish mortals for defying the gods.  Only Perseus survives.  When he is brought to Argos, the queen, Cassiopeia is comparing her daughter, Andromeda(Alexa Davalos) to the gods.  The gods are angered and send Hades to force them to respect and worship the gods.   Apparently, the gods need the worship of humans to survive.  As a result, Hades threatens to unleash the Kraken upon the city unless Andromeda is sacrificed.  

Obviously, there will be comparisons to the original film.  The way the film starts out is somewhat similar, but for the most part, many of the elements of the original film are thrown out.  For instance, in the original Clash of the Titans, the city that is threatened is Joppa, not Argos, which was destroyed in the opening scenes of the original film.  Perseus is a completely different person than the Perseus in the original film.  In the new film, Perseus wasn't put into a different city by a god, although a god IS the reason for him being in the city.  The backstory of Perseus is also changed: Zeus didn't make love to Acrisius's wife to punish him in the original film.  The new film also introduces new kinds of characters/creatures known as the djinn.  These guys live in the desert and ride the backs of giant scorpions.  If that's not a lift off of Star Wars, I don't know what is.  Not all of these changes are bad.  To make a shot-for-shot remake is a really bad idea in this day in age, so changes were to be expected.  The overall plot remains the same.

Casting-wise, there were some really interesting choices.  I honestly can't say I would've pegged Sam Worthington as Perseus.  Don't get me wrong, Sam is fantastic when it comes to action movies, he's a decent actor, but I think he comes off a little to strong as Perseus.  He handles the action very well as he does most of his own stunts.  Gemma Arterton is fantastic as Io, as she brings grace and beauty to the role as Perseus's guide and possible future love interest.  I may not have pegged Sam Worthington as Perseus, but Liam Neeson as Zeus is brilliant.  Neeson has a very commanding presence whenever he's on screen, as he has a deep and powerful voice.  Ralph Fiennes is....interesting as Hades.  I say interesting, because lately, Fiennes has been playing very creepy characters like Lord Voldomort in Harry Potter.  He doesn't really come off as threatening as Hades.   He doesn't do a bad job, as he makes a fantastic villain, but his version of Hades seems like a cross between Voldomort and Gollum.  Mads Mikkelson does a fantastic job as the gruff but experienced captain, Draco.

Now on to the special effects.  First things first, the special effects in the original film really weren't all that special, particularly if you've seen the movie on Blu-Ray.  The miniatures are blatantly obvious, and the blue-screen scenes are extremely.....fake.  Granted there was no CGI in the early 80s, so stop-motion animation was the only real option.  It has its charms but the fact is is that Harryhausen's visual effects were already on their way out, when the original Clash of the Titans was released.  Simply put, Star Wars did those kinds of effects better in every way.  In the new film, CGI is the name of the game and it's kind of a mixed bag.  Certain effects such as Hades showing up in smoke and fire isn't really convincing.  It's cool, but it's pretty obvious.  The giant scorpions were pretty good as they used a combination of practical effects and CGI to help the "reality" of the scene.  When they get to Medusa's lair things get a little interesting.  Medusa herself has been revamped to be a more of a femme fatal kind of character.  She's sleek and sexy and monstrous, and completely CGI.  While it was definitely cool and well done, CGI like that doesn't really work on such a small scale.  It's when we get to the Kraken that the CGI really kicks it up to a whole new level.  Simply put, the Kraken is one of the most impressive CGI creatures I've ever seen.  The way he comes out of the see is astounding.  And when Perseus flies around him on Pegasus, it really gives you a sense that this thing is fucking massive.  This is the creature that according to THIS movie, helped the Olympians beat the Titans, and it's not hard to imagine why.  This was the big thing that was hinted at in the trailers, and I was NOT disappointed with it whatsoever.

Some of the action scenes seem a little chaotic because the director, Louis Leterrier likes to use "shaky-cam" techniques to help it seem more real.  Truth is, is that the shaky-cam technique only serves to give people headaches.  We would like to see what is going on, thank you very much.  Stop the shaking!  Overall, however, the action scenes were cool, but there's nothing in here with the exception of the Kraken, that would strike me as memorable.  The acting for the most part is standard fare in a film like this.  It seems to me that the remake of Clash of the Titans was rushed, no doubt in part to Warner Bros. wanting to release the film in 3D as a result of James Cameron's Avatar.  That did not serve this movie well, it didn't need to be in 3D.  I think with a little more time, the special effects could've been more polished and the story a bit more refined.  I still think this is a good movie, and I think the good outweighs the bad, but there are more than a few things that keep this movie from being something special.  I give it an 8.5/10. 

Predators

"If it bleeds, we can kill it."  The original Predator film is one of the most iconic films of the past 27 years, and infinitely quotable.  The original film starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura, and Sonny Landham.  It was a stellar cast, and combined with the story and an alien enemy, Predator was a major hit, back in 1987.  3 years later, a sequel was released, Predator 2.  With a new cast, starring Danny Glover, Gary Busey, and Bill Paxton, it looked like it was going to be another hit.  Not so.  I enjoyed it a great deal, but the problems with the movie, i.e. the blatantly obvious special effects, the overly complex story involving drug cartels and government intervention, just got in the way of what could've been a really spectacular film.  Unfortunately, by taking the Predator out of the jungle, and sticking him into the middle of a big city, it just doesn't work as well.  The Predator, played by the late Kevin Peter Hall, became even more of a bad-ass, but the rest of the film, aside from the performances of Glover and Busey, just fell flat.  And we wouldn't see another Predator until 2004, when Alien Vs. Predator came to the big screen.  What a colossal disappointment that was.  PG-13 rating?!  Half-baked story involving two of the biggest screen monsters ever, the Alien and the Predator?  While I didn't think it was as horrible as most people think it was, it simply didn't do either franchise justice.  And neither did the sequel, Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem.  While Requiem was slightly better, and that the violence was upped to the nth degree, making it extremely bloody, it was also too dark to see anything, and the throw-away characters just really brought the house down.  AVP: R was released in '07.

Now, in 2010, a new Predator film is unleashed, Predators.  Directed by Nimrod Antal, and produced by famed filmmaker, Robert Rodriguez, Predators is a much needed shot in the arm for the Predator franchise.  The film starts off with Royce(Adrien Brody) in a free-fall into an unkown jungle.  He runs into other people that have been seemingly tossed out of a plain, including a cartel enforcer(Danny Trejo), a special ops soldier(Alice Braga), a doctor(Topher Grace) and a death row inmate(Walton Goggins).  They eventually discover that they were abducted from Earth and brought to a different planet for some unknown reason.  It's actually a very interesting set-up, with fairly unique characters.  And the Predators themselves, there are several, hence the name of the movie, Predators.  Turns out that the humans were brought to the new planet to hunt.  I would never have picked Adrien Brody to play a bad-ass mercenary, he just doesn't come off that way, in most movies.  But he really pulls it off here.  Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Laurence Fishburne.  I like Laurence, he's a fantastic actor, but his character brings the movie down a little bit, but I'll get into that later.

This film has done a lot of things right, the suspense, the violence of the Predators, and even having them use "dogs" to sniff out the humans is an interesting touch.  When it comes to doling out the punishment, the film spares no expense when the shit hits the fan.  It's a little slow before getting to that point, but once it starts, it does not stop.  The visual effects are pretty good even if some of the explosions look a little iffy.  The musical score by John Debney is second to none, mostly because he keeps the themes from the original Predator film intact, while adding some new stuff of his own. 

Okay, now it's time to get to the negatives.  Laurence Fishburne.  This was nothing more than a glorified cameo, he couldn't have been in the picture for more than twenty minutes, and his character comes off as a lunatic, as someone who has survived being hunted for years.  It doesn't really work the way he explains things including some dumb thing about a blood feud.  And Fishburne just comes off just a little too over-the-top, with the character.  I will say this, when the character leaves the film, he does so in a spectacular way.  The other main issue with this film I have is a "twist" with one of the characters towards the end of the film.  I mean, really?  I won't spoil it, but I will say, that it was pretty cheap.

Overall, I was actually quite impressed with how Predators turned out, given the amount of work that went into the script and screenplay.  Nimrod Antal is a very talented director, and combined with the talents of Robert Rodriguez, he managed to make a very compelling and suspenseful thriller, that both honors the original film that came before, while adding some new stuff of it's own.  This is, without a doubt, the best Predator film, since the Arnold Schwarzenegger picture.  No question.  It blows Predator 2 and the AVP movies out of the water, although, that really wouldn't be too hard.  Predators is rated R for graphic violence and language.  I give this film a solid 9/10.  I can't wait to see where they go next.

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Tim Burton is an interesting director.  His style is far more bizarre and unusual than most directors.  You can tell how off-beat his style is when you watch movies like Beatlejuice, Batman, Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd, and now, Alice in Wonderland.  Even when he's producing movies, his style is very evident in the movies that he's involved with, like A Nightmare Before Christmas.  

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is basically a kind of a retelling of the original story by Lewis Carroll.  In Tim Burton's version, Alice(Mia Wasikowska) is about to be proposed to by a stiff-ass British....dude, when she notices a strange White Rabbit(voiced by Michael Sheen) wearing a waist-coat.  She follows the rabbit and falls into a hole.  She winds up in a strange land inhabited by strange creatures and talking animals.  She eventually meets the Cheshire Cat(voiced by Stephen Fry, in a brilliant performance).  But something is amiss as some think that she's the wrong Alice, despite it being her dream.  Then she's meets two strange fat little twins named Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum(Matt Lucas).  Then she's attacked by a strange creature called the Bandersnatch and chased by Red Card Knights and the Knave of Hearts(Crispin Glover).  She eventually runs into the Mad Hatter(Johnny Depp), who wants to help the White Queen(Anne Hathaway) defeat the evil Queen of Hearts(Helena Bonham Carter).

It's definitely a different take on Lewis Carroll's story, but Tim Burton's vision and direction really make it work.  The performances of all the actors also help bring this fantastic world to life.  Johnny Depp's turn as the Mad Hatter is nothing short of brilliant, even though the actor is known for playing bizarre characters.   But he does it very well.  He even changes accents at random from a lispy English accent to a brash Scottish accent.  It doesn't even LOOK like Johnny Depp, with the wild make-up, contacts and hairdo.  He completely disappears into the character.  The other actor I should mention, even though he doesn't make a physical appearance is Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat.  He's somewhat soft-spoken and somewhat subtle but also playful and has very dry sense of humor.  Overall, the acting in the film is amazing, even the voice work.

This being a Tim Burton film, you would expect the environments and characters in Alice in Wonderland to be somewhat....twisted.  He does not disappoint in this regard, as the environments have a more dark and unusual vibe and appearance, than in Disney's original film.  The way the characters are designed are just as incredible.  From  the Bandersnatch to the dragon-like Jabberwocky, each character has a distinct personality and look that really place them in such a bizarre world.  Some of this stuff can be a little....creepy.  So it would be best for children to watch this film with parents...just in case, but it is a PG film.

What also helps in this film is the music, and Danny Elfman really pulls out the stops here.  As far as I'm concerned, Danny Elfman is basically an extension of Burton as those two are two peas in a pod.  They're both equally bizarre.  And seeing as how Danny Elfman has basically done the music for most, if not all, of Tim Burton's films, it was a really good choice as the music has an epic feel to it, particularly during the final battle, and it seems like only someone like Elfman could pull off.

I could honestly say that there really are no pacing issues.  I think some of the performances could've been handled better, and that Johnny Depp's character can sometimes ALMOST go off the deep end.  But, overall this film is incredible in almost every way, with some of the most unique CGI I've seen, this movie is a spectacle.  It's fun, funny, action-packed, and somewhat twisted.  Only Tim Burton can pull off a film like this and not have it be a crappy film.  I give Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland a 9.5/10.

We Were Soldiers

This is a thing unheard of for me, the other reviews I've written, I had a clear outline of what I wanted to do, but with We Were Soldiers, I'm not entirely certain where to begin.  The Vietnam War became truly controversial with the American public once they got wind of what some our troops were doing to the people in Vietnam, but I digress.  The main purpose of our going to Vietnam was to stamp out Communism.  We failed.  But the truth is never that simple.  As to WHY we failed, the answer is much more complicated, and I really won't go into it here.  Let's just say, by the end of the Vietnam War, over 58,000 American troops lost their lives.  We Were Soldiers takes a look at one of the first major battles of the war, the Battle for Ia Drang Valley in the highlands of Vietnam.

Lt. Col. Hal Moore was brought in to test new military tactics to use against the enemies of the United States.  He and chopper pilot, Maj. Bruce Crandall helped usher in a new method of transporting soldiers to the battlefield.  Later, Col. Moore and company are given orders to go to Vietnam.  I'm oversimplifying the story, but the film was based on the book that was written by Hal Moore himself, "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young."  The story is really good, and as it progresses, it shows the consequences of war, on all sides, the American soldiers, the Vietnamese soldiers, and the wives of the American soldiers.  When Hal Moore, played by Mel Gibson, enters the film, he's a father and a husband, and very likable, even the soldiers under his command respect him a great deal.  Moore is also a brilliant battlefield tactician, which is one of the reasons he was recruited for testing new methods of warfare.  Mel Gibson as Hal Moore is nothing short of genius, as he lends a major presence and some humor to the role, but also gets very serious when he needs to, particularly during the battle.  He's very effective.  Greg Kinnear as Maj. Crandall is also very good.  Sam Elliott is...well....Sam Elliott, what more can I say about the man, he commands the screen almost as much as Mel Gibson.  His turn as Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumley, is what you'd expect from Sam Elliott: Gruff, hard-ass, and a damn good shot with a pistol.

The battle scenes in We Were Soldiers are very intense, and can get really gruesome at times, which helps making the scenes that more realistic.  But the scenes that really tugged at my heartstrings didn't take place on the battlefield, but back in America when the wives get word that their husbands were killed, it really hits home about the consequences of war.  When Julie Moore(Madeleine Stowe) is approached by a stranger from a taxi cab holding a telegram, she lashes out at him, because she thought her husband was killed.  Turns out, the telegram was for someone else.  And cab guy says, "I'm sorry, Ma'am.  I don't like this job, I just have to do it."  And that I think really nails it about war and duty.  I honestly, don't know if I could handle a job like that, I don't think I could.  Not emotionally.  I can't even imagine.  Julie then asks the cab company to hand to her all the telegrams of the soldiers that have died.  That particular scene and sequence is very poignant, and really drives home the consequences of war and the toll it takes on not just the soldiers and wives but the people who have to deliver the message.  The rest of the film takes place on the battlefield  The war is being photographed by a journalist, Joe Galloway(Barry Pepper), who is thrust into the war, and is eventually forced to pick up a weapon himself and fight.  Barry Pepper brings an earnest look at someone who wants to try to understand a war, and help the American people understand it.

The performances in this film were just fantastic, from Mel Gibson and Sam Elliott to Madeleine Stowe, it really helps bring an emotional and realistic feel to a film such as this, which is primarily a war film.  Now, the film takes place in 1965, before everything really went to hell, so it manages to avoid dealing with hippies.  This is a film about the soldiers, and their fight for each other, because on the battlefield, that's all they had.  The war scenes were incredible, with the American soldiers going up against the seasoned Vietnamese soldiers.  You've got big explosions and gunfire just tearing up the place.

I'm reviewing the Blu-Ray release of the film, and visually it's very sharp, but then I don't really have an eye for the exact details, I just know it looks good.  Audio-wise, this one is amazing, especially during the battle sequences.  Gunfire, explosions, airplanes, choppers going on all around you, it makes you feel like you're there in the midst of all that chaos.  It's really well done.

I'm nitpicking, but I think the film went on a little too long at 138 minutes.  It does drag in certain places, but overall the pacing is still pretty good.  The action gets intense and doesn't let up until the film is almost over.  I can't really attest to the historical accuracy of the film as I'm still fairly unfamiliar with the battle that it portrays.  The film doesn't really have an overall message about the meaning of war, if it's good or bad, no.  We Were Soldiers tells the story of a group of soldiers who were willing to put their lives on the line for each other.  I give We Were Soldiers 9.5/10.

War is an ugly thing, and the Vietnam War was as ugly as it gets.   With 58,000 American lives and 3 to 4 million Vietnamese lost, the toll that war takes on people is truly horrific, and not just on the battlefield.  I hoped that some of us would've learned from the past, but it appears that we haven't.  Or ever will.

The Lord of the Rings: Motion Picture Trilogy Blu-Ray

Again, it's been a while since I've posted a review, but I'm going to start doing that more and more.  This review is on The Lord of the Rings: Motion Picture Trilogy Blu-Ray.

I'm not going to go into the story of the Lord of the Rings, because I'm pretty sure everybody knows about it.  The people who have read the books and the people who have seen the movies know how it goes.  Basically, I'm going to go over the more technical aspects of the films.  The first thing that everyone should about the Blu-Ray release of Lord of the Rings is that this release contains the theatrical versions of the films, not the extended versions.  This has caused a certain amount of controversy among fans, because a lot of fans, including myself feel that the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings movies are the better versions.  The extended versions will hit Blu-Ray, no doubt about it, but they will be released in conjunction with the first of two Hobbit movies, produced by Peter Jackson and directed by Guillermo Del Toro.  As it stands, the current Blu-Ray release is still impressive, at least movie wise.

The Fellowship of the Ring:

Video:  Having seen all the films on Blu-Ray now, I can tell you that The Fellowship of the Ring is actually the worst of the bunch in terms of video quality, it's not as sharp as the other two.  It's not bad, but certain details are not as clear.

Sound: One of the things that I like best about Blu-Ray is that the sound quality has improved a great deal, and The Lord of the Rings delivers in spades.  Dialogue is clear, and the soundtrack has been pumped up to give a real "oomph" to the scenes, particularly in the Moria sequence, when the fellowship is being chased by the Balrog.  And surround sound-wise, when things come crumbling down, it sounds like it's coming down all around you.  It's incredible.

Special Features:  Here is where this collection lets me down.  On the Blu-Ray with the movie are the trailers for the Fellowship of the Ring as well as the Supertrailer for the entire trilogy.  It also includes trailers for two games.  Those are all in high-definition.  The second disc for each film is the same second disc for the initial DVD releases of the Lord of the Rings.  Same special features.

The Two Towers:

Video: The video for the second film in the trilogy is a large improvement over the Fellowship of the Ring.  It's really sharp and you can pick out the really small details on each of the characters.

Sound: As stated before on the Fellowship of the Ring, the sound here is amazing, it's very clear, and it comes in all around you if you have surround sound.

Special Features:  This is the same deal with the Fellowship of the Ring, first disc=high definition trailers.  Second disc=DVD with special features.

The Return of the King:

Video: This is one is the best of the bunch.  Even better than The Two Towers.  The detail, particularly on the clothing of the characters comes in crystal-clear.  The CGI stands out, but these movies are almost a decade old, but it's still pretty good today.

Sound: Definitely the best of the three as well.  Particularly during the large-scale battle scenes, it just envelopes you, making you feel that you're right there in the midst of two large armies going at each other.

Special Features:  Read above, same story.

The only other special feature that this release has is the Digital Copies for people who want to watch these movies on their ipods or laptops while they're on the go, other than that, what I have described is what you'll get.  Overall, I have to say the Lord of the Rings: Motion Picture Trilogy Blu-Ray is worth getting, but I will understand people who would rather wait for the Extended Editions to come out on Blu-Ray, especially if they already have the Theatrical releases on DVD.  I got rid of my Theatrical release DVDs when I got the Extended Editions, so it was kind of nice to see these films as they were originally released.  With better video and sound, I still recommend this set to fans of Lord of the Rings and fans of Blu-Ray in general.  Lord of the Rings has never looked or sounded better.  In terms of special features, this set IS a bit of a letdown, as the features are the exact same as on the initial DVD releases of the films.  I think the set is still worth the money.  I paid 75 bucks for this set.  I give it a 9.5/10.  It gets marked down because I was expecting more in terms of special features.

James Cameron's Avatar

I know it's been a while since I've last posted.  But I figure this would be the best time to post a new review.

Yesterday I went and saw Avatar for a second time, having been duly impressed the first time, I'm still impressed.  Avatar stars Sam Worthington as marine corporal Jake Sully who we meet as soon as he gets out of cry-sleep after a 5 year journey to the world of Pandora.  He's at Pandora because he is taking part in a program which allows humans to control specially grown "avatars."  The avatars are grown from human and Na'vi DNA.  The Na'vi are the humanoid natives of Pandora.

We learn that humans are on Pandora because Pandora has a plentiful supply of Unobtainium, which is apparently key to energy production back on Earth.  The corporation mining the unobtainium has contracted the Marine Corps, under the command of Colonel Quaritch.  Jake Sully is there to infiltrate the Na'vi village and learn their ways so he can negotiate their relocation.  But he begins to have a change of heart as he spends more time with the Na'vi and the princess Neytiri, played by Zoe Saldana.  

Okay, the story is basically Dances with Wolves in space, but that's not a bad thing, as the story is still good.  James Cameron really isn't one for original stories, but what he does do is present the story in a different way, and he does so spectacularly with Avatar.  The world of Pandora looks and feels like a real place even though it's all CGI, it's extremely impressive.  The Na'vi themselves are really incredible, they look incredibly real up-close.  Of course, all the visual effects in the world won't mean a thing if the performances of the actors weren't up to snuff, and they really are here.  Sam Worthington as a paraplegic marine-turned Na'vi, really steps up to the plate and brings a strong and fearless presence as Jake Sully.  Zoe Saldana is impressive as Neytiri, as she presents Neytiri as a strong-willed, yet vulnerable Na'vi princess.  Stephen Lang as Colonel Quaritch is brilliant.  While the colonel is basically a cliche as the "evil" military leader, Stephen Lang really brings a menace to the character.  Giovanni Ribisi plays the scum-bag head of the corporation.  He does it very well, even though the character is a carbon-copy of Paul Reiser's character in James Cameron's own Aliens.

When it comes to movies like Avatar, one of the most important things you need is music, and James Horner's rousing score is second to none.  It really helps engage the viewer in the events on the screen and the battle sequences are truly epic.

One of the things that I should mention is that I saw this film in 3-D.  While the 3-D thing is a gimmick in most movies, in Avatar, it brings a whole new level of immersion to the film.  It literally adds depth to the film, and it really helps pull you in to the movie.  There are certain sequences that will have you on the edge of your seat, literally.

I should note, that during the Golden Globe awards on Jan. 18, Avatar won two awards, one for Best Drama and one for Best Director.  I can tell you now, that after having seen the film twice, it really deserves those awards.  Avatar is an experience that should be seen in theaters, even if it isn't in 3-d, although the 3-d adds something to the film.  Sure the story isn't original, but that doesn't hurt the film in any way.  I give James Cameron's Avatar a solid 10/10.  It's the best film I've seen last year, and one of the best films of the decade.