The Amazing Spider-Man

*Spoiler Alert, maybe.*
Spider-Man has been one of Marvel's most famous superheroes for decades. In terms of movies, Spider-Man found success in Sam Raimi's successful first film released in 2002. The villain of the film was Norman Osborne, a.k.a The Green Goblin, played by Willem Defoe. A sequel came in 2004 which saw the web-slinger lose his powers and the villain was Dr. Octopus, played by Alfred Molina. In 2007, the thematically weakest of the bunch was released. It saw, not one, not two, but THREE super-villains. Sandman, played by Thomas Haden Church, Harry Osborne, played by James Franco and Venom, played by Topher Grace. While it was spectacular in the visual effects department, Spider-Man 3 suffered from having too many villains in one film and having Peter Parker become emo. I guess they wanted to show Peter Parker having a dark-side, but all we got was a bad hair day and cartoonish musical numbers. The only villain in the film that really had any substance was Sandman, who was a bank robber, but he needed the money for his sick daughter. He was fairly compelling, and Thomas Haden Church did a fantastic job with the character. Eddie Brock, a.k.a Venom was a complete joke, with Venom only being part of the film, because the studio wanted him to be. Venom deserves a movie of his own, I think. Overall Spider-Man 3 was a wreck of a film, and as a result, Sony Entertainment who owns the rights to Spider-Man put the series on the back-burner. While there was talk of a fourth film with Tobey Maguire, and having The Lizard as the villain, but Sony decided a sequel wasn't really the best option, so they opted to re-boot the series. It's unusual because Sam Raimi's trilogy isn't even a decade old yet. But it may have paid off in the end.

The film opens as Peter Parker(Andrew Garfield)is going to high school with Gwen Stacy(Emma Stone), a girl he's become infatuated with. When he gets home, his uncle Ben(Martin Sheen)has him help clean out the basement when Peter discovers a briefcase belonging to his actual father. Turns out his father worked with a fellow scientist Curt Conners(Rhys Ifans) to develop a syrum that could help people regenerate lost limbs. But Parker's father disappeared before that could happen. So, Parker pays a visit to Oscorp and ends up getting bitten by one of the genetically engineered spiders. Parker soon discovers that his strength has been enhanced, he's faster, can climb up walls and has a unique "spider-sense." Afterwards, Conners gets the formula for the syrum and injects himself with it, unintentionally becoming a ruthless reptilian monster. Meanwhile, Gwen's father, Captain Stacy(Denis Leary)is on Spider-Man's trail.

Sam Raimi's first film of Spider-Man was an origin story, that turned out to be fantastic and a whole lot of fun. The Amazing Spider-Man is also an orgin story, and it covers some of the same ground as Raimi's film, but it tweaks some of it to make it fresh and exciting. For example, in the re-boot, Parker's love interest is Gwen Stacy, who is not a damsel in distress in this, but also as smart as Peter. No Mary Jane Watson in this one, folks. Emma Stone does a fantastic job. Rhys Ifans, who plays Dr. Connors, is simply amazing as a doctor who's frustrated at having only one arm and trying develop a cure of sorts, that will give him his arm back. Connors is very compelling villain, in that he doesn't come off as a villain, but as someone who's desperate to fix his own situation. Martin Sheen is fantastic as Ben Parker. When Parker lost his parents, Ben comes in to take over and brings a very fatherly stature to the character. He's great. Denis Leary surprised me as Captain Stacy. Usually, Denis Leary is a very sarcastic and snarky stand-up comedian, but he brings an authority to the character, that I've seldom seen from Leary, as the movie progresses, his opinion of Spider-Man changes. But the real revelation here is Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. Unlike Tobey Maguire's turn as the social outcast, Garfield's character is an outcast by choice, preferring to keep to himself. And, unlike, Maguire's version, Garfield's Parker isn't a master of his abilities almost overnight. In fact, he makes quite a few mistakes and gets really bruised and beaten up. His motivations for using his powers are also selfish and fall a little on the dark side, when his uncle is killed by a robber. He eventually does end up becoming a hero, but it takes a while for him to get there, and I think that makes for a far more compelling Spider-Man than what Sam Raimi did.

The visual effects are fantastic, as you see Spider-Man swing around the city, but in many of the shots that are closer to the ground, it's actual stuntmen that are flying around. On wires, to be sure, but still, it's good to see actual people doing this stuff on screen rather than a CGI character. When the Lizard enters the fray, he HAS to be CG, otherwise it come off as ludicrously horrendous. The action set pieces are amazing, especially towards the end of the film. Also, it should be mentioned, that when Parker uses his web, he uses web shooters that he designed himself, like in the comics.

At the end of the day, however, it's the characters that help drive the story, and the characters are driven by some really great performances from the cast. It's usually well over a decade before you see a re-boot of a popular film series, but in Spider-Man's case, it was less than a decade. And I have to say it was the right decision to make. I don't think I could've stomached another Spider-Man film by Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire in the lead. I was never a big fan of Tobey in that role. Also, having only one super-villain in the film helps keep it grounded. So, with fantastic performances from Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Rhys Ifans, The Amazing Spider-Man works a lot better than it should as a re-boot. I had a lot of fun with this one, and found it far more compelling than any of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films. This one gets a 9.5/10.

Ip Man

Donnie Yen: One of the greatest martial arts actors to ever grace the screen. He's had an amazing career spanning over 50 movies including films like Iron Monkey, Once Upon A Time in China 2, Legend of the Wolf, Hero, Seven Swords, Kill Zone-S.P.L., Flash Point, and two movies that he starred in here in America: Highlander: Endgame and Blade II. The first film that most people remember him was in Once Upon A Time in China 2 when he starred opposite Jet Li. He played a villain in one of the most amazing fight scenes ever. An expert in Chinese Wushu, Donnie Yen not only starred in movies, but he also choreographed many of his own movies including Flash Point and Kill Zone, both in which he employs mixed martial arts, like the stuff you see in Ultimate Fighting Championship. He is also the 4th actor to portray the character Chen Zhen, who was originally played by Bruce Lee in Fists of Fury, which was known as the Chinese Connection here in the States. The second was Bruce Lee imitation number 1, Bruce Li in Fists of Fury parts 2 and 3. The third was Jet Li in the renowned Fist of Legend, which was a re-make of Bruce Lee's film. Donnie Yen would portray the character in a Fists of Fury television series in Hong Kong and returned to play the character in Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen. But perhaps the most compelling character he has played was the real life martial arts master, Ip Man, grandmaster of Wing Chun kung-fu.

The film opens in Fo Shan, China in 1938 on a demonstration of various styles of kung-fu in the streets of Fo Shan. Ip Man lives comfortably with his family in a mansion outside of town when some northerners come to Fo Shan to challenge the various masters of kung fu. Then they challenge Ip Man and are beaten by Ip Man in a very one-sided confrontation. A couple of months later, the Japanese invade China. The general stationed in Fo Shan, is curious about Chinese kung-fu so he stages a tournament in which kung-fu masters fight for a bag of rice. Now, anybody who knows anything about Bruce Lee and the real-life Ip Man, will automatically know the outcome of the film. The film also tends to take liberties with certain aspects of Ip Man's life, mostly to dramatic effect. It's to be expected, although I don't seem to recall in the history of Ip Man, of him actually facing off against a Japanese general.

The acting is fantastic, Donnie Yen shines as Ip Man. He's humble, brings respectability and humility to the character, but is also fantastic in the film's fight scenes which are choreographed by legendary Sammo Hung. Donnie Yen spent nine months straight studying Wing Chun so he could get the moves right. Wing Chun is very different from other styles of kung-fu. It's more direct, and emphasizes speed and economy over strength, and by economy I mean not over-extending the strikes or using your muscles to the point where you're going to be exhausted. Instead, Wing Chun teaches you to use your opponents energy against him, by blocking his attacks and striking at the same time. It's definitely not as fancy as the other forms of kung-fu because it's a very close-range style of combat. It certainly has it's own grace, but it's very direct and very brutal in the hands of a master. The other actors are fantastic as well, particularly Simon Yam, who plays Ip Man's best friend and the guy who plays the Japanese General. The general doesn't strike me as your typical mustache-twirling villain, because he's a soldier and as a result has a particular sense of honor when it comes to fighting. The guy who plays him, Hiroyuki Ikeuchi, is fantastic.

Now, as great as this movie is, there are certain issues that I do have with it. First, the use of wires. I can understand using wires in movies like The Matrix as it fits the context. But in a movie where the fighting is supposed to be grounded in reality, the use of wires, and they are obvious, take you of the film. Thankfully, Donnie Yen doesn't really use them because Wing Chun doesn't employ fancy kicks or moves. The second real issue is the complete shift of tone half-way through the movie. The first half is pretty colorful, seems like your typical kung-fu movie, but when the Japanese invade, not only does the story take a darker turn, but visually, all the color becomes subdued. It's very jarring. It's like you're watching two different movies. But those are my main issues. Overall the film is fantastic, with awesome performances and great fight sequences. I definitely appreciate Wing Chun as a style, because I've been actually studying Wing Chun for about a month and a half. There's a lot about it in the movie that would actually make sense in a real fight. Ip Man is a great movie, albeit a little historically inaccurate, but it's definitely one of the better martial arts films of the past decade. If you're a fan of kung-fu movies, it's one worth watching. If you're a Wing Chun practitioner, like me, you can appreciate the film because of it's accurate use of the style, for the most part. Aside from some suspect wire-work and sudden shift in tone, I give a Ip Man a solid 9/10.

The Cabin in the Woods.

Joss Whedon: One of the most underrated writers/directors. This man was responsible for Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Firefly(both series and the movie), Angel, and the recent comic book movie blockbuster, The Avengers. His writing credits include, Toy Story, Alien Resurrection, and the Avengers among others. With The Avengers, Joss Whedon proved he could handle huge movies almost better than anyone else. There was a little film that was supposed to be released last year, but was shuffled around by movie studios until LionsGate picked it up: The Cabin in The Woods. Co-written and directed by Drew Goddard, The Cabin in the Woods is one of the most unique horror films to date.

The Cabin in the Woods opens on a group of teenagers as they hop in an RV and head off to the mountains for the weekend. As soon as they hit the mountains, they encounter a strange and bitter old man at a run-down gas station. Then they find a lone cabin in the middle of the forest. As soon as they settle in, strange things begin to happen and they find themselves under attack by zombies. I won't say anymore about the plot, because it would give away too much. Let's just say, that the film really takes a left turn to "WTF"-ville. Most movies that try a bizarre twist, end up failing because they either don't go far enough, or they don't know where to take it, but in the hands of Whedon and Goddard, Cabin in the Woods takes your average horror movie cliches and turns them on their head. For example: the group of teenagers includes, The Jock(Chris Hemsworth), The Whore(Anna Hutchinson, The Fool/Pothead(Fran Kranz), The Geek(Jesse Williams) and The Virgin(Kristen Connelly). Pretty average group of people for a horror movie right? In fact, the first half of the film plays out exactly like your average horror movie, but it's done will with an interesting twist. Where it gets really interesting is the second half of the film. I won't say anymore, but suffice it to say, you don't see it coming.

The effects in this film are really fantastic. There's a great deal of practical effects, but when the film really veers off into left field, CGI definitely comes into play, but unlike most horror movies that employ CGI, Cabin in the Woods, combines both practical effects and CGI. And this movie gets really bloody and gory, so it will satisfy gore-hounds. But this being a Joss Whedon film, it doesn't really take itself seriously. In fact, the film is pretty damned funny at times. Sure, it's gory and intense, but there is a twisted sense of humor throughout the whole film, that makes it better. The performances are solid across the board, but the one that really stands out is Fran Kranz as The Fool, Marty. He gets some of the best lines in the movie and he delivers it in such a way that it's hilarious. The story is actually quite unique and interesting.

The Cabin in the Woods was intended to be released last year, but due to movie studios shifting things around, this one got lost in the shuffle, which was a shame, because it deserved more pomp-and-circumstance than it got. LionsGate Studios eventually picked it up and the film finally saw release this year. The Cabin in the Woods is one of the smartest and most unique horror movies I've experienced in the past decade. It's twisted, it's funny and it's a hell of a lot of fun. But it's also a movie that likes to keep things interesting. So overall, I'm giving The Cabin in the Woods a perfect 10/10.

Legion

Supernatural thrillers have always resonated with me in some way, particularly ones based on Christian mythology. Usually, most supernatural thrillers involve demons or Satan or some combination of the two. It started with The Exorcist, but there have been many movies of that sort since then, some good, some bad. But there really haven't been many films where it's angels, instead of demons, that are wreaking havoc on mankind. The only two that really come to mind are The Prophecy, where Christopher Walken plays the archangel Gabriel, and most recently, Legion.

Legion opens as a mysterious man falls out of the sky and it's revealed that he is the archangel Michael(Paul Bettany). After cutting off his wings, he storms a local gunshop and grabs an assortment of weapons before leaving the city. In the middle of the Nevada desert at a rundown place called Paradise Falls, the owner, Bob(Dennis Quaid) is trying to fix his TV while his assistant Percy(Charles S. Dutton)is cooking food for some customers. Bob's son, Jeep(Lucas Black) is in love with a pregnant woman, Charlie(Adrianne Palicki). Soon after, a mysterious old woman comes to the diner and asks for raw meat. Then, all hell breaks loose. She becomes unhinged, attacking one of the other customers and starts crawling on the ceiling like a spider. After she's dispatched, Michael shows up. Turns out that God is angry with mankind and has sent his army of angels, led by Gabriel(Kevin Durand), to destroy them. Michael still has faith in mankind and has disobeyed God in order to save humanity.

The concept of angels laying waste to mankind is actually really interesting, but the execution is not exactly what I had expected. Instead of angels in their full winged glory, the ones we see the most of are actually possessed people. Pretty cliche if you ask me. The aforementioned scene with the old lady is actually pretty creepy, as we see her just become unhinged and start attacking people. The only two angels that we actually see are Gabriel and Michael. Michael clipped his wings so we only see him with wings for a short time. Gabriel only shows up in one scene where he and Michael are in Heaven discussing God's order to exterminate mankind. The next scene we see him in is when he's fighting Michael in the diner, which is actually a very spectacular fight, and towards the end of the film. The performances are all across the board. I've never been a big fan of Lucas Black and I can't stand that heavy southern accent of his. He's just not convincing. Adrianne Palicki, is also fairly unconvincing, and she comes across as whiny and overly unsympathetic. Being a fan of Dennis Quaid, he came across as a little too over-the-top as resident skeptic and crotchety old guy Bob. He's still fun to watch though. Charles S. Dutton has always been reliable and he's no different in this film, I just think he lays a little to heavy on the whole religious bit, even though it's appropriate given the circumstances. The real saving grace here is Paul Bettany as Michael. He brings a real humanity and grace to the role. Not to mention he does most of his own stunts. Paul Bettany isn't usually known for action movies, but he does a fantastic job here. Kevin Durand brings a very intimidating presence as Gabriel and the confrontation between him and Michael is nothing short of spectacular.

I'll be truthful, I was expecting more of a horror movie with Legion. What I got was an action movie with elements of horror. And I have to mention this, if you were God and were going to send your angels to exterminate mankind, why would you bother having them possess people, like demons? Also, where is Lucifer in all this? Wouldn't he try to capitalize on something like this? These are important questions that aren't answered and leave huge gaping logic holes in the film. Not to mention the people in the film make some really stupid decisions. Legion had potential to be a really epic kind of thriller and unfortunately, it only gets half-way there. Granted, having a film where angels are the bad guys, probably wouldn't sit too well with everyone, but it is an interesting concept nonetheless. The execution just wasn't 100 percent. The action scenes are decent though, and the film moves at a pretty good clip. A lot of the effects are practical, and some of the possessed people are creepy, particularly the ice cream man. Overall, while the film disappoints in the whole mankind versus angels aspect, the action scenes and Paul Bettany help considerably. With a little more time and more money, Legion could've been so much more. As it stands, it's not really a bad movie, it's just not a very memorable one either. So, it gets an 8/10 from me.

A Serbian Film(Two reviews in one)

Alright, for A Serbian Film I have two reviews, that I'm going to post here. I'm a film critic for a horror website called The Dead Centre. Both reviews I did for this website, one is my initial viewing of the original uncut version of the film, and the other is the U.S Blu-Ray release, which runs a minute shorter than the original film. My reviews tend to speak for themselves, but for A Serbian Film, I have to say that I've never seen a more fucked up movie in my life, and I do mean fucked up. There is no equivalent film in existence that is this brutal, unrelenting and merciless. So, be warned: My reviews will be describing things that are....graphic.

Original Review:

There have been a number of truly shocking horror films throughout the decades: I Spit on Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust, Inside, Martyrs, just to name a few. But few, if any come close to what A Serbian Film portrays. Be warned, this review is going to be spoiler heavy, so if you still want to watch the movie, leave now.

A Serbian Film tells the story of a pornography actor who's been out of work for years and is struggling to make ends meet for him and his family. Along comes an offer from a "unique" filmmaker who promises to set his family up for life. The only stipulation is that Milos does not know what he is making. It starts off harmlessly enough, but soon, Milos becomes witness and participant to some extremely disturbing activities. A Serbian Film is effectively one of the most disturbing and fucked up movies I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen some messed up movies. Nothing compares to A Serbian Film however. I had heard and read reviews of the film and how it really goes to places that no one should ever have to go, but I was absolutely not prepared at how deranged and depraved the movie became. There are some truly horrific set-pieces that while seemingly over-the-top, are extremely difficult to sit through, particularly a scene involving a newborn baby. That was one of the most revolting things I've ever seen. But it gets worse as the movie goes on, particularly the last act of the film, and it involves Milos' family. While a lot can be said for the extreme sexuality that is portrayed in this movie, it's not erotic, and it's most definitely not pleasant to sit through. Basically, the filmmakers made this film as an allegory to what the Serbians experienced during the Balkan Wars. It's not something I can identify with. This is one of the most angry movies I've ever seen. The amount of rage portrayed on the screen gets very brutal, and at times, unnecessarily graphic.

That being said, there is a strange kind of brilliance to this film. The story is actually quite good, provided you can manage to get through the shit that is thrown at you. You're right there with Milos, and you feel his disgust at what he witnesses. The acting is actually very good, and the cinematography is top-notch, and it certainly amplifies the grotesque scenes that are put on the screen. The ending to the film is a real kick to the head. I won't spoil it here, but let's just say....it's wrong on so many levels that you can't really wrap your head around it. As soon as the credits rolled, I literally couldn't move for about ten to fifteen minutes. I had my head in my hands trying to comprehend what I had just seen. Most horror movies NEVER get under my skin and shake me up like that. This is a film that chews you up and spits you out. The film is finally getting a release here in the States on DVD/Blu-Ray. But I don't know if it'll be uncut or not. I saw the uncut 104 minute film, and while I don't regret seeing it, you can bet your ass I won't be revisiting until it hits home video, and even then, I'm not entirely certain I'll watch it again. It's one of the most repugnant, vile and unbelievably fucked up movies I've ever seen. And at the same time, it's also brilliant, because it not only managed to get a reaction out of me, you actually managed to connect with Milos on some levels. If you still want to see this movie, be warned. Be afraid. It's merciless, unrelenting and brutal to the extreme. On a technical level, A Serbian Film gets a 9/10 for being well-made and constructed, but as a whole, I can't give it a score at all, because it's one of those movies that defies all explanations, logic and god knows what else. A Serbian Film is the cinematic equivalent to being kicked in the gut, head and groin. Several times. It goes to very dark places that no-one except the truly depraved, are prepared to go to. I can't recommend this movie to ANYONE at all. I was curious about it, and basically got my ass kicked for it. Yes, A Serbian Film kicked my ass. I don't believe in censorship at all, but there are going to be people who demand it because of this film, and they would have every right to.

Blu-Ray Review:

Some spoilers, so beware*

The first time I saw A Serbian Film was almost a month ago. It was 104 minutes and contained some of the most shocking and disturbing scenes that I've ever seen in a film. I was shocked and repulsed at what I saw. I wasn't prepared for it, and most people who see it for the first time aren't either. The depictions of rape, necrophilia and pedophilia crossed the lines on so many different levels that it was obscene.

Having seen the film for a second time, this time on recently released Blu-Ray in the U.S., the question is was it edited? And the answer is yes. The slipcover of the blu-ray says the film is unrated. It would have to be in order to be released in the U.S., but it was still edited. The American release is only a minute shorter than the original cut, but it is astonishment the amount of power that is lost in that minute. Don't get me wrong, A Serbian Film is still a very powerful movie with powerful imagery in terms of sexual violence and the brutality of the violent acts. What was edited was the newborn scene, which removes the infant and what was done to it, leaving it more implied than shown, which still leaves an impact. It leaves more to the imagination which I think is a lot more effective, than actually showing. The other thing that was edited was in the last act of the film, when Milos is raping the two figures on the bed. One of the two was a child, but in the American release, you don't actually see the child's face. But you know who it is. Digging through all of that nasty stuff, there is a good story about a man who is a loving husband and father who wants to provide for his family, but is down on his luck and gets an offer that will set him and his family up for life, only it ends up not being what he wanted it to be.

Now, I'm posting a second review of the film, because I think I can finally give it a rating. But that will come later. First, as I said before, this is my second viewing of the film, which is an edited version, and I think a version that actually works better with some of the more extreme bits restrained a little bit. It's not much, but for people who have seen the uncut version of A Serbian Film, the difference is noticeable. The power of A Serbian Film lies in its ability to shock, but it only works once. Seeing it again, I didn't have the same reaction. Mostly because I knew what was coming, and that robs the film of its power. That's not to say it's not an effective thriller, because it is. There are twists and turns in this film that really hit you in the head, especially the ending. The acting is fantastic, especially with the actor who plays Milos. You see him as a loving husband and father that's pulled into a dark and twisted world of sexual deviance and brutal violence, and his reaction to what he has unwillingly done, helps drive the movie. The guy who plays Vukmir, the director of the unnamed "art film," is also fantastic as a twisted child psychologist-turned-filmmaker. The make-up effects are very well done and realistic. The music by Sky Wikluh is amazing, and really adds a sense of despair and intensity to the film. A Serbian Film is the directorial debut of a guy called Srdjan Spasojevic. It's a hell of a first effort. And one that's going to leave an impact on viewers for some time to come.

I feel that censorship for any reason is a bad thing. And even though the American release of A Serbian Film is only a minute shorter than the original cut, it's absolutely astonishing at how much a minute can change a movie. It's still a very powerful film and definitely not for the weak-hearted or weak-stomached, but some of that power has been diminished. Not by a whole lot, but enough. I think in order to get the film released in the States, some adjustments had to be made, and thankfully it was only a minute. Apparently the UK cut had four minutes sliced, which is an egregious amount of censorship, for a movie like this. But I haven't seen that cut, so I couldn't tell you what was excised. Having seen A Serbian Film as originally intended and as it was released here in the States, the cut I actually prefer is the American release. The film will knock you down and kick you while you're down, but the American release won't kick you in the family jewels. I still wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, not even horror fans, as there is some fairly horrific imagery at work here. But having seen it a second time, it just doesn't have the same effect. Again, I'm not advocating censorship here, even though it may seem hypocritical of me, but I feel for the newborn scene and some of the final act, less is more and can be just as effective. A Serbian Film is a brilliant movie in how it goes for the jugular and doesn't let go, but it also has a decent story at the heart of it with some of the most wretched and yet well-made effects seen on film. It was put together very well, the direction was amazing and is really a well-made first effort. I actually really want to see what Spasojevic can do when he's not angry at his own country. After having some distance from this movie for a month, I can actually give it a rating. It gets a 10/10. It's a very good movie. I can't say that I enjoyed it, it's not easy to sit through and I certainly wouldn't really recommend it to anybody, but I have to give credit where it's due, and I don't really see anything wrong with the film itself aside from some of the subject matter involved. So, there you have it: 10/10.

As you can read, my thoughts have changed somewhat between my first and second viewing. A Serbian Film is the only movie that I've reviewed twice. The first time was an....experience to say the least. What I can tell you is that the power of films like A Serbian Film lie in their ability to shock people. And they succeeded. But it only happens once. Repeated viewings, the film loses its power. Not by much as it's brutally intense, but it doesn't have the same edge as the first time around. So....viewer beware, and I'm not kidding.

The Dark Knight

Every comic-book superhero has to have a great villain, and in Batman's case, he has a great Rogue's Gallery of villains to pick from: Ra's Al Ghul, The Penguin, Catwoman, Hugo Strange, The Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Two-Face, Scarecrow, Bane and Batman's most infamous rival, The Joker. The Joker was first portrayed by Cesar Romero in the 1960s live-action television series. In Tim Burton's Batman, The Joker was portrayed by Jack Nicholson who turned in a very maniacal performance which was very memorable. In the cartoon series in the 90s, The Joker was voiced by Mark Hamill. The Joker would eventually take to the big screen again in Christopher Nolan's sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight.

The film opens during a robbery at a mob bank in which the mysterious culprit known only as The Joker(Heath Ledger) steals from the most notorious mobsters in Gotham City. Hours later, at a meeting between the Russian mafia leader and The Scarecrow(Cillian Murphy), Batman/Bruce Wayne(Christian Bale)shows up and apprehends not only Scarecrow, but a handful of copycats. Later we cut to a hearing in which Gotham City's new District Attorney, Harvey Dent(Aaron Eckhart)and Rachel Dawes(Maggie Gyllenhall, taking over for Katie Holmes)are attempting to put Salvatore Moroni(Eric Roberts)behind bars. Then, The Joker shows up again and people start dying left and right.

Much has been said of Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. There's not much more I can say, other than he steals the show whenever he's on screen. Ledger just disappears into the role like no-one else. Make no mistake, Christopher Nolan's take on The Joker is a far more sinister character than Tim Burton's. Tim Burton's version was more of a manic kind of character. In The Dark Knight, The Joker is intelligent, brutal and merciless, all with a sadistic and twisted sense of humor. His complete lack of regard for human life makes him a far more vicious villain than Batman has come across before. The Dark Knight is darker and more violent than its predecessor and makes for more heightened drama, especially when Harvey Dent gets directly involved. Aaron Eckhart is absolutely incredible as Gotham's white knight. Michael Caine is in top form as Alfred as is Gary Oldman as Gordon and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is stellar as always and his physicality brings an intensity to the role. If there is one weak link in The Dark Knight, it would be Maggie Gyllenhall as Rachel Dawes. Now, Rachel Dawes was never a really strong character to begin with, as she served as a love interest to Bruce Wayne, but Gyllenhall just doesn't sell it at all. Katie Holmes, I felt was a better fit. The action scenes have been stepped up. In the previous film, it was difficult to tell what was happening because the camera was too close to the action. Here, we can actually see what's going on, and it's brutal. The Dark Knight still uses the unique Keysi Fighting method introduced in the first film, but it's much more refined here. Each subsequent action scene just keeps building until the final confrontation between Batman and The Joker. Hell, there's a scene in which The Joker blows up a hospital. Christopher Nolan actually leveled a building for that shot. It's spectacular. Aaron Eckhart's transformation from Dent to Two-Face is fairly complex. His character gets half-his face burned off as a result of an explosion, and the results are grotesque. The burned half of his face is CGI, but it's very detailed. Some people have had issues with Dent becoming Two-Face so late in the game, but I think it fits in with the theme with that even the greatest person can be torn down. But I have to hand it to Eckhart for selling the character so well.

The Dark Knight takes what was awesome about Batman Begins and turns it up several notches. The performances are stellar all across the board, with Heath Ledger stealing the show. He was so awesome, that he was posthumously awarded the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. It's tragic that his life was cut short before The Dark Knight was finished, but I think he would be proud of how well The Dark Knight was received. The Dark Knight is currently regarded as one of the best comic-book movies ever made and Heath Ledger and Christopher Nolan helped make it so. Despite some niggling issues with the film, it gets a very enthusiastic 10/10 from me. It tops Batman Begins in every way and then some.

Batman Begins

After the utter disaster that was Batman And Robin, the future of the Dark Knight was in doubt. Joel Schumaker was actually asked to do another Batman film when he declined. The problem with Batman And Robin was that it was completely the wrong tone for the character. Batman is a very dark character with an extremely scarred psyche and Batman And Robin, basically jettisoned that in favor of a more "family-friendly" affair. It wound up being nothing more than an over glorified toy commercial. Also: Nipples on the batsuit. What the hell, Warner Bros? Several years later, Warner Bros decided to try again, except they were going to reboot the franchise. For this, they brought Christopher Nolan on board along with writer David S. Goyer. For the lead character of Batman, they chose Christian Bale, and the result speak for themselves.

Batman Begins as Bruce Wayne(Christian Bale)wakes up in a Chinese prison when he's visited by a man named Ducard(Liam Neeson) who offers Wayne a path: The path of the League of Shadows, headed by a ruthless warrior named Ra's Al Ghul(Ken Watanabe). Trained in the ways of the ninja, Wayne realizes that the League of Shadow's ultimate goal is to destroy Gotham City, so he escapes the organization. After Wayne escapes, he realizes that only by becoming a symbol of fear can he save the people of Gotham from the criminal element. Thus he begins the real journey to become Gotham's greatest hero.

After Batman And Robin, the future of the franchise was very much in doubt, so Warner Bros. brought Christopher Nolan on board and gave Batman a much-needed shot in the arm. And what a shot it was. Gone, are the neon lights of the Schumaker films. Gone, are campiness of the previous films. In their place, a dark, realistic and gritty portrayal of Batman now exists. By showing the murder of Bruce's parents through flashbacks, we are given an insight into Bruce Wayne's damaged psyche. Angered by his helplessness and the corruption of the city that his parents tried to help, Bruce decided it was time to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful. By giving Batman a more modern and utilitarian look, Batman Begins sees Bruce Wayne evolve from playboy billionaire to the Caped Crusader. Instead of a flashy Batmobile that we got in Tim Burton's films, we get: The Tumbler, which is more or less, a tank. A tank that can fly on rooftops. And it's spectacular. The car chases are intense and move at a real good clip. The action scenes are amazing. Utilizing the new Keysi Fighting Method, Batman Begins brings a more realistic fighting style to the series. You don't see flashy loop-kicks or backflips or any of that junk, What we've got here is grounded in reality-based hand-to-hand combat. It's spectacular in a completely unexpected way.

As far as the acting goes, Batman Begins has real ensemble cast. Christian Bale leads as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Michael Caine is wonderful as the butler, Alfred Pennyworth. He brings a very human and father-like quality to the role. Liam Neeson is well.....Liam Neeson. What can I say about Neeson? This guy is one of my favorite actors for a reason, and his role in Batman Begins is one of those reasons. He starts off as a potential ally for Wayne. But as the movie progresses, you see Liam Neeson's character truly become the villain. Cillian Murphy was an interesting choice to play Dr. Crane/Scarecrow. He's very thin, but he gives the character a very sleazy and menacing presence to the film. Tom Wilkinson plays the mobster, Carmine Falcone, a real piece of work. Katie Holmes plays Bruce Wayne's love interest, Assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes. Gary Oldman is a revelation as Sgt. James Gordon. The acting is definitely one of the best parts of the film. The music is handled by legendary composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton-Howard. It's a very powerful and heavy hitting soundtrack that really gets the adrenaline pumping.

While I'm definitely singing the praises of Batman Begins, the movie has one noticeable drawback. The fight scenes. While expertly choreographed and brutal, you can barely see what's going on, because the camera is either too close to the action, or is zoomed way in. Either way, it kinda takes you out of the experience if you can't see what's going on. Overall, though, Batman Begins is everything I hoped it would be and then some. The film has set the franchise back on track. And because it did so well critically and at the box office, two more films were commissioned, although, if I remember correctly, this new series was envisioned as a trilogy. Batman Begins was released to critical acclaim in 2005. In 2008, the first sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, was released. And recently the final film in the trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises was released on July 20. Batman has such a huge following and is one of the most popular comic-book characters in history, despite some missteps. Batman Begins gets a 9.5/10.

The Dark Knight Rises

Batman was created by Bob Kane and was first published by Detective Comics(DC Comics, effectively known afterwards)in 1939. It featured a protagonist that had no superpowers, but a wide assortment of gadgets. The protagonist wore a cape and cowl modeled after a bat. Bruce Wayne, the man who became Batman, was scarred for life when he witnessed the murder of his parents at an early age. Batman has been featured not only in comics, but in TV shows, including the campy 1960s series starring Adam West and Burt Ward. Then in 1989, Batman was reintroduced to audiences by Tim Burton, with the lead character of Bruce Wayne/Batman played by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as The Joker. The film was an immediate blockbuster, featuring dark and gothic undertones as befitting a Tim Burton film. Tim Burton would direct the sequel, Batman Returns which featured new villains, such as The Penguin(Danny DeVito) and Selina Kyle/Catwoman(Michelle Pfeifer). The sequel was also a success, but wasn't as widely accepted as the first film. A second sequel, Batman Forever, would see Val Kilmer in the title role and featured The Riddler and Two-Face as the main villains. Directed by Joel Schumaker, Batman Forever was more campy and featured more neon lights than the previous films. The third sequel, Batman and Robin would again see Batman recast. George Clooney stepped into the role. Unfortunately, Batman and Robin was nothing more than a glorified toy commercial. It was a spectacular failure at the box office and threatened any possible future films. In 2005, Batman would again return to the screen, but with fresh talent. Christopher Nolan of Momento and Insomnia would direct the film with Christian Bale in the lead. Featuring the talents of Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Morgan Freeman, Batman Begins threw all doubts out the window with a far more realistic and grittier take on the character and the City of Gotham. It wound up being a real money-maker and a sequel was commissioned. Christopher Nolan would again take the reigns and Bale would return. Darker and more violent than the first film, The Dark Knight upped the stakes, not just for the people of Gotham, but Batman himself when The Joker(Heath Ledger)comes knocking. Released in 2008, The Dark Knight was heralded as one of the best comic-book movies of all-time and rightly so, with great performances, particularly by the late Heath Ledger. Originally imagined as a trilogy, Nolan's films would culminate with a very spectacular final film, which takes things to a whole new level.

8 years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight. Batman, accused of the murder of Gotham's shining knight, Harvey Dent, has disappeared along with Bruce Wayne himself. The years have not been kind. Bruce Wayne is a broken man, in more ways than one. Forced to use a cane to help walk around, the years of being the caped crusader have taken their toll on Wayne, physically and emotionally. He remains a recluse until a beautiful cat burglar, Selina Kyle(Anne Hathaway) infiltrates his mansion and steals his mother's pearl necklace. Faced with running out of money, Bruce Wayne finds himself pulled back into the world of crime when a mysterious and demented terrorist, Bane(Tom Hardy), arrives in Gotham to wreak havoc.

Batman has always had his fair share of memorable villains. In Batman Begins, he faced off against Ra's Al Ghul(Liam Neeson, who makes a cameo appearance in Dark Knight Rises)and Scarecrow(Cillian Murphy). In The Dark Knight, we had The Joker, who was much more of a terrorist than a clown like Nicholson's character was. Heath Ledger's performance was unbelievable awesome. He was psychotic and demonic and strangely funny at the same time. Now, in The Dark Knight, the real villain shows up in the form of Bane, played to perfection by Tom Hardy who really bulked up for this film. Bane isn't a psychopath the way that The Joker was, but instead of the lumbering dumbass that we saw in Batman And Robin, Hardy's character is not only physically overpowering, but extremely intelligent and patient. It isn't before long before he takes complete control of Gotham, in one of the most spectacular and explosive sequences in the trilogy. I mentioned that Bane was physically overpowering. This is extremely evident when he and Batman clash for the first time. It's an incredible one-sided fight, considering how long Batman's been out of action. The other "villain" is Catwoman, played by the beautiful Anne Hathaway. Unlike Michelle Pfeifer's femme fatale character, Anne Hathaway's character is more of a survivor than a true villain and a real foil for Batman. The stakes in The Dark Knight Rises are upped to nth degree, as Batman is in serious jeopardy, as is the entire city. One of the new characters, Detective Blake is played by Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, who does an amazing job. But one of the most effective performances comes from Michael Caine, who plays Alfred. I'll just say: Wow, this is the best I've seen from Caine in many years. Christian Bale really ups his game as a beaten-down Bruce Wayne who's faced with more uncertainty than he's ever faced before in his life, financially, physically and psychologically.

The Dark Knight Rises is the darkest and most violent of the trilogy. This is never more evident than in Batman's first confrontation with Bane, as I've said before. Not only that, there are casualties on all sides, but the ones who get stuck in the middle are the people of Gotham who are held hostage by one of the most vicious villains that Batman has encountered. Christopher Nolan has always had an eye for detail and realism in his Batman films, but he never forgets where the character came from. He also adds some nods to Batman Begins with a cameo from Liam Neeson as Ra's Al Ghul. There are twists and turns in the story that are far from predictable. The resolution to the film is very well done and ties up the trilogy with a neat little bow. The Dark Knight Rises is quite possibly the best comic-book movie this year. I loved The Avengers, but The Dark Knight Rises is a completely different beast and is more centralized. It's hard for me to say that Dark Knight Rises is better than the previous film, because honestly, in terms of quality, they're about the same. But I do think that Tom Hardy's Bane is far more of a menace than The Joker, mainly because Bane is cold and calculating and doesn't just....do things like The Joker. As far as comic-book movies go, The Dark Knight Rises is one of the better ones. It also does a good job at tying up loose ends.

Overall, The Dark Knight Rises gets a 10/10 from me. It's awesome in every way. The word is, is that Warner Bros wants to reboot the franchise again, since Dark Knight Rises is the last Batman film for both Christopher Nolan AND Christian Bale. I don't see it happening for quite a while, because Nolan's films have some serious staying power.

On a much more serious note: In Aurora, Colorado during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises, a gunman entered a movie theater and opened fire on an audience, killing 12 people, including a 6-year old girl and injuring many others. It's one of the worst mass killings that the United States has seen in recent history, so I would like to extend my prayers and condolences to the families of the victims of this heinous crime, and I would urge others to do the same.

Prometheus

Prometheus

Postby meezookeewee » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:25 pm


Ridley Scott. The man who directed one of the most terrifying science fiction movies ever, returns to science fiction after 30 years. During that 30 years, Scott has directed some of the most spectacular films ever made: Blade Runner, Legend, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven. Ridley Scott knows how make an awesome movie. His real breakthrough was Alien, which was released in 1979. Described as "Texas Chainsaw Massacre in space," Alien took us on a terrifying journey into the dark, bringing us face to face with one of the most terrifying creatures put on screen. Being a huge success, Alien spawned three sequels, two spinoffs, several video-games and hundreds of books and graphic novels. After 4 movies, the series started to stagnate, and was eventually pushed to the back-burner. A couple of years ago, Fox announced it was working on a prequel to Alien. Intriguing, but didn't sound like a good idea. Then they got Ridley Scott involved, and THAT got me interested. What started out as a prequel eventually became something very different.

The film opens in 2089 on an island off the shores of Scotland, where two scientists make an incredible discovery. Dr. Elizabeth Shaw(Noomi Rapace) and her beau, Charlie Holloway(Logan Marshall-Green) discover ancient cave paintings indicating that life on earth may have been created by other-worldly beings. 4 years later, an expedition into space is underway, headed by an icy businesswoman, Meredith Vickers(Charlize Theron). Also along for the ride is android, David(Michael Fassbender), who has his own reasons for being there. They eventually discover the planet where they might meet this race of beings, called Engineers. They soon discover ruins that appear to be eerily similar to ancient ruins on Earth. To say anymore would be to spoil the movie, and I certainly won't risk it. What I will say that there are twists and turns in the story that you may not see coming, and others that you might. One of the questions people have asked if it is tied to Alien in anyway and the answer is yes. It takes place in the same universe as Alien, but as to Prometheus' connection to the original film? I won't say. What I will say, is that there are several directions an inevitable sequel could go.

Acting-wise, it's pretty strong across the board, with Noomi Rapace taking top-billing as Dr. Shaw. There's a scene involving her and some medical machinery that has to be seen to be believed. She throws herself into the role. Charlize Theron, plays the requisite corporate scumbag, but she doesn't seem nearly as evil as she appears. She's a bit of a mystery. The real standout of the film, though is Michael Fassbender as the android. I don't think there's anything else I can say about Michael other than to say he's quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. The other actors are pretty much disposable. Visually, this film is spectacular. From the opening montage to the storm on the planet to the Engineers themselves, this is a dark film that's heavily influenced by H.R. Giger's work. A lot of the ship designs and environments that you see from Alien show up here, particularly the Space Jockey design. So, visually, it ties in with Alien in many ways, but it also manages to be different from Alien. The ship, the Prometheus is far more advanced than the Nostromo, which was designed to be flown by "truckers." The Prometheus is clearly a scientific vessel, so the sets are far more sterile and stylistic than the Nostromo.

Now, the pacing of the film is kind of slow, but it's allowing us to get to know the main characters. The pacing may be off-putting to some who are expecting a more action-packed thril ride. While it's definitely a thriller, it's not balls-to-the-wall. It's deliberately paced, much like Alien, so the tension can build. Ridley Scott is a master of building tension. Another issue is that the film asks questions, but few of them are answered. I feel that's appropriate for this film, because it instills a sense of mystery. I mean, if you're asking questions about creation, you might find some answers, sure. But you may not like some of those answers, and I think that's what Ridley Scott was trying to do with Prometheus. This is definitely a sci-fi movie to be sure, but it also hits the right notes in terms of horror as well. It's dark, it's creepy and its not particularly clean. Is it gory? Not gratuitously, as there are certain scenes that get fairly graphic.

I have to admit, ever since hearing about Prometheus, my expectations have been all over the board. Is it an Alien movie or not? The answer, quite simply is yes AND no. On the one hand, there is definitely a connection to the first film, and it's not particularly subtle about it. On the other hand, it ventures into different territory altogether, and it works as both an Alien prequel-of-sorts and as a completely stand-alone film. It's not necessarily required that you watch the Alien movies to get what's going on in Prometheus, but what you get out of it may depend upon whether or not you've seen the previous films. This is not going to be a movie for everyone. It may be too slow for the adrenaline junkies, and it may not be Alien-centric enough for fans of the Alien series. But what we DO have here is a very solid sci-fi movie that has the potential to go in different directions depending on who directs a sequel, and I truly believe there will be. Will there be another Alien movie centered around the xenomorph that was featured in the previous movies? At this point, it's up in the air. Prometheus could very well give Alien a much-needed shot in the arm. Ridley Scott's first science fiction movie in 30 years manages to impress on every level. Great acting, with some interesting twists and turns in the story and a definite nod to Alien make this an experience that really needs to be seen on the big screen. While I'm certain there will be a director's cut on Blu-Ray sometime in the future, I think Prometheus is excellent as it is. Overall, I give it a solid 9/10. It's one that's worth checking out.

Freerunner

Parkour can be best described as a discipline that emphasizes getting from point A to point B in the most efficient way possible. Google the term or free-running and you can see for yourself some of the crazy things that the people who use parkour can do. Parkour was developed by David Belle, but the history of parkour's movements go back decades. They just haven't had a name put to them. For most people, the only way they have heard of parkour is through film. District B13 was among the first action films that employed the sport. Parkour was also used in the opening scenes of the James Bond reboot, Casino Royale. As a result of it's effectiveness in movement, parkour has been used by governments as a tool to help train their military. The sport has gained in popularity as it's been featured not just in films like District B13, but also video games like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Mirror's Edge. Free-running is similar but emphasizes more self-expression and more acrobatic creativity. When movies base themselves around a specific sport, the results can be.....mixed.

Free-runner opens on a bunch of...well free-runners in a race for money. Jumping over people, cars, and each other, they try to reach the finish line. During one of the races, the group are kidnapped by a ruthless billionaire who pits them against each other in a lethal race. With collars attached to explode when an hour passes, the group are forced into a life-or-death race to the finish. If you're going to make a movie based specifically on a sport like free-running, actually make the movie ABOUT free-running. Don't add in a retarded plot like a bored billionaire pitting athletes against each other to make more money. It doesn't work. It also doesn't help that the acting is uniformly awful. The mustache-twirling billionaire without a mustache is particularly grating. There's a lot of stuff in here that just screams....ripoff. For instance, you've got a token black guy with a pirate patch over one eye. Who does he resemble, I wonder? Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury from The Avengers? No....couldn't be. What about the Vulcan neck pinch he employs to paralyze his victims? I kid you not, this guy literally grabs people by the back of their neck and squeezes and they go into convulsions. Really?! Not only that, the unnecessary gore gets in the way.

What about the action scenes? When you can actually see what's going on, they're actually pretty spectacular, since they don't use wires, except for safety reasons. The scenes where they jump through windows and off buildings? They actually do that, no special effects involved or green screens. It's pretty awesome. But the problem is, is that you can barely see what's going on, because the camera work sucks. They don't focus on anyone in particular and the camera shakes like a chihuahua on crack. It's amateurish at best. The stunts and fight scenes aren't half-bad, but as a result of crap camera-work, you don't really see a lot and in a movie dealing with parkour/free-running, you want people to see what's going on. Freerunner is just a bad movie overall, and nothing really comes together. Crap plots involving a hospitalized grandfather and kidnapped girlfriend? Padding. For a movie that runs only 88 minutes, it felt longer. Had they cut out all the stuff in between action scenes, the film would probably be only thirty minutes or so, but that would be worth more than what we got. If you want to see a movie about parkour or freerunning, check out District B13 instead. You get much more bang for your buck with that movie, and best of all, you can see what's going on. Overall, Freerunner gets a 5/10. It gets a 5 because when you finally see some of the stunts, they're awesome, but the rest of the movie is a complete joke.

The Rocketeer

Movies based on comic books go back decades. The one that really made comic book movies popular was Superman: The Movie, released in 1978. There have been smaller movies based on popular comic books throughout the 80s and 90s that ranged from horrendous, like Roger Corman's version of Fantastic Four to the stellar, like Tim Burton's Batman. But somewhere in the mass of movies released in the early 90s, a true gem of a movie was unfortunately overlooked and flopped at the box office: The Rocketeer. The character first appeared in 1982 as a back-up feature of Mike Grell's Starslayer series.

The film opens in 1938 Los Angeles with ace pilot Cliff Secord(Bill Campbell) flying his plane in preparation for an airplane show. He spots some gangsters running from the cops and is subsequently shot down, but survives. The crooks have apparently stolen a top-secret rocket pack from industrialist/aviator Howard Hughes(Terry O'Quinn). The guy running the show behind the theft of said rocket pack, gangster Eddie Valentine(Paul Sorvino) works for famed Hollywood star Neville Sinclair(Timothy Dalton) who may not be who he says he is. Together with his girlfriend Jenny(Jennifer Connelly) Cliff tries to keep the rocket pack from falling into the wrong hands, while engaging in some high flying mischief himself. The Rocketeer is perhaps one of the most underrated films in the past 25 years. It has a solid story with a great lead in Bill Campbell, who plays a flawed yet earnest pilot trying to make the best of a floundering career when he discovers the rocket pack. Jennifer Connelly is great as Cliff's love interest who gets tangled up with Timothy Dalton's character. Timothy Dalton of James Bond fame, makes a great villain in Neville Sinclair. He comes across as a very charming actor, ironically enough, and then turns evil at the drop of a dime and it's seamless. He does it very well.

Joe Johnson, who would direct last year's excellent Captain America: The First Avenger, has directed a fantastic adventure film that pays homage to the comics and pulp stories from the 30s, 40s and 50s, without actually naming them. The film is well paced and the action sequences are thrilling with Secord flying all over the place with the rocket pack. It's also a film that has a sense of humor. While respecting the stories that inspired it, it also pokes fun at them as well. Like Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer has a particular look that's right of the 30s. While the film isn't perfect and there are plot holes abound, nevertheless, the earnestness of the film and the fantastic direction and acting make this a film that's worth watching by any fan of cinema. With a rousing score by legendary film composer James Horner, The Rocketeer is a blast-to-the-past that will have you on the edge-of-your seat rooting for the good guys the way that action movies used to do years ago.

On a side note, the film was made for $40,000,000, but it only grossed $46,000,000 during it's entire theatrical run around the world, which is a shame. This a great adventure film that will have you wanting to strap on a rocket pack and take to the skies. It's very underrated, but I strongly recommend it to anyone who likes adventure stories. Overall, barring some plot holes, I give the film a solid 9/10. It's spectacular in every way and then some. With fantastic acting, a great story and characters, The Rocketeer deserves a place on the shelf of any movie fan.

Das Boot

*SPOILER ALERT*

War movies are almost a dime-a-dozen these days. The genre has been around in the film industry for well over 60 years. The genre didn't really pick up steam again until Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan hit theaters in 1998 and it hit hard. Realistic, emotionally engaging and well-acted, Saving Private Ryan brought the War movie genre to the front lines. But there is a sub-genre that people have overlooked recently: The submarine movie. I'm talking about recent movies like U-571, K-19 Widowmaker, Crimson Tide and The Hunt for Red October. But the one movie that I believe truly stood out among all others was Wolfgang Peterson's Das Boot(The Boat).


Taking place in a German U-Boat in 1942, Das Boot follows the crew of a submarine just heading out to sea. Lead by Captain Willenbrock(Jurgen Prochnow), the young crew sets out to face enemy warships during the Battle of the Atlantic. Truth be told, there really isn't much to more to be said about the story, as it would spoil things, but Das Boot basically shows what life is like 100 feet below the surface of the ocean on board a German U-boat. It's claustrophobic and cramped with long stretches of boredom, but when the action hits, it's literally jarring and extremely violent when hit by depth charges. Das Boot is perhaps the most realistic submarine movie I have ever seen, with authentic sets aboard an actual U-Boat. What's also unique about this film is that it's told from the perspective of the Germans during World War II. Mind you, it's not about the holocaust or the atrocities happening in Germany, because from the perspective of the sailors, they had no idea what was going on back home, and the film takes that into consideration and allows the audience to get to know the crew aboard the submarine and doesn't even mention what's happening in Germany. Throughout the film, you get to see the crews as best friends and some tensions do rise, but that's to be expected in such a cramped environment. But the one guy that holds it all together is the captain played by Jurgen Prochnow in of his most memorable roles. Jurgen's character exudes confidence, strength and the will do what needs to be done to win the war and get his crew home. But as the film progresses, you begin see doubt cross not only HIS face, but his crew as well, and after attacking a warship and they surface to finish the job, they finally witness the horror of war with their own eyes and it really drives home the fact that while the sailors are German soldiers, they're human too, and it's not something they want to remember.


In Das Boot, a lot of the film takes place inside the submarine. You get to witness day-to-day life among the crew as they have their ups-and-downs, and you get to see them have hope that they will make it home to see their loved ones. There's a lot of these character moments in this film, but that's not to say there isn't any action, because there is. But a lot of it isn't seen. Instead you get to witness the sailors being rattled by depth charge explosions and the sparks and leaks and the chaos that erupts in a submarine during a violent confrontation. That makes the film far more intense than you would expect it to be. You really begin to root for this crew and you hope that they make it home alive. And that makes the ending of the film so effective. But I won't say anymore on that. I'm reviewing the Director's Cut of Das Boot on Blu-Ray which runs about 3 and a half hours in length. The theatrical cut ran 2 and a half hours and there's an uncut version that runs nearly 5 hours. Despite the film's length, it doesn't actually feel that long at all, as the pace is almost perfect. There's enough time between action scenes to allow for character development, and when the action hits, it hits hard and it lasts. It's truly chaotic.


Das Boot was released in 1981, so it didn't have the "benefit" of CGI. The special effects that you did see were all practical and done with miniatures, and for a film like this, released when it was, makes for a more convincing experience. And an experience it is. Das Boot is highly regarded as one of the best films ever made, and it's very hard to argue that sentiment. Far as I'm concerned, it's the best submarine movie ever made. That's not to say that the other movies that I mentioned were bad: Not at all. They were very good movies, but none of them managed to truly capture the detail of what it was to be on a submarine during World War II. Das Boot did just that, with excellent performances across the board, engaging musical score and a story that is riveting and dramatic. It doesn't get any better than this. Das Boot gets a perfect 10/10. On a side note: The film was made in German, so that's the best way to see it, with English subtitles. Das Boot comes easily recommended.

Black Hawk Down

In 1993, The United States sent the Rangers and Delta Force into Somalia to capture the warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid for seizing food and aid shipments that were meant for the civilians. What was supposed to be an hour-long operation was turned upside down when two Black Hawk attack choppers were shot down over Mogadishu. The choppers were piloted by CWO Cliff Wolcott and CWO Michael Durant. Wolcott was killed on impact and Durant was captured by enemy forces. What was supposed to be a simple raid turned into a fight for survival against an entire city aimed at killing every single American soldier that set foot in the Bakara Market. The whole operation was led by Major General William Garrison, who wound up accepting full responsibility for the outcome of the raid. Black Hawk Down was based on the book written by Mark Bowden which chronicled the raid. Directed by legendary director Ridley Scott, Black Hawk Down was released to theaters in 2001 and was nominated for several Academy Awards, and won two of them: One for best editing and one for Best Sound.

Black Hawk Down opens as Delta Operators pounce on a particular target associated with Mohammed Farah Aidid, Osman Atto(George Harris), who ends up being interrogated by General Garrison(Sam Shepard). Turns out, a group of Aidid's lieutenants are holding a meeting somewhere in the city, and by capturing them, the US forces will be closer to capturing the warlord. The ground forces, commanded by LT. Colonel Daniel McKnight(Tom Sizemore)are to secure the surrounding area while Delta Force, headed by Lt Colonel Garry Harrell(Zelijko Ivanek) are to infiltrate the building and capture the enemy soldiers. As the teams are about to leave, armed Somalis shoot down the Black Hawk piloted by CWO Wolcott(Jeremy Piven). McKnight tells his second-in-command, Captain Steele(Jason Isaacs)to find and secure the crash site. Steele takes a small group of Rangers, which include SSGT. Matt Eversman(Josh Hartnett), Specialist John Grimes(Ewan McGregor), Specialist Lance Twombly(Tom Hardy), and SPC Shawn Nelson(Ewen Bremner). Eversman's group ends up getting split up from the convoy and Captain Steele, but manage to locate the crashed chopper. Shortly afterwards, a second chopper is shot down. This one piloted by CW3 Michael Durant(Ron Eldard). In a race against time to secure both crash sites, the US forces fight for their lives in one of the most intense close combat situation in US History since the Vietnam War.

Black Hawk Down boasts one of the largest ensemble casts of any war movie I've ever seen. Jason Isaacs, Ewan McGregor, Josh Hartnett, William Fichtner, Eric Bana, Jeremy Piven, Tom Sizemore, and Sam Shepard to start with. This movie also showcased some of the up-and-comers like Orlando Bloom and Tom Hardy. The acting caliber is top-notch. While a couple of the characters are fictional, most of the actors play the soldiers that were actually in Somalia at the time. Also, Black Hawk Down, being based on true events, is very gritty and realistic in terms of combat and how soldiers behave during intense situations. The film was supervised by Michael Durant, who was captured by Somali forces and held for 11 days, before being released. As a result, there's an air of authenticity to the film, which makes it more intense. The combat scenes in Black Hawk Down are extremely intense and at times extremely bloody. But, like Saving Private Ryan, the purpose of having such violent scenes is to show the audience that war is very ugly and brutal, and there are casualties on all sides.

Black Hawk Down had a limited release in December of 2001, and eventually had its wide release on January 18, 2002. For the most part, the film was well-received, except by the folks in Somalia, who claim that there's serious elements of racism in the film. I personally didn't see it. The film is very well-paced and doesn't feel like it drags. Some critics claim that there isn't much in the way of characterization, and to a certain extent, they are correct. But I don't think that's a weakness of the film. I think because the whole getting-to-know-the-soldiers routine while probably would've been interesting, I think it would have slowed the film down. This being a Jerry Bruckheimer production, there is a certain style to the film which makes it chaotic. Ridley Scott's direction helps keep the film contained and focused. The score, produced by Hans Zimmer, helps provide the emotion, by not being bombastic like you hear in so many action films, but it's subdued and Zimmer collaborated with several other people, which gives the soundtrack a unique and varied flavor.

There's a recurring theme in most modern war movies after Saving Private Ryan. The theme is that the soldiers that fight in a war are not just following orders, but look out for each other as well. As one of the characters in Black Hawk Down states, "Most people won't understand, that it's about the guy next to you." That theme helps make for a more emotionally compelling experience.

For as long as mankind has been on earth, we've been fighting and killing each other for one reason or another, be it for oil, land or what have you. Wars have consequences, on a personal and economic level. Some reasons don't make sense. As for why we were in Somalia, the official word is that the civil war in Somalia had caused the deaths of more than 300,000 civilians. We went in to remove one of the warlords responsible, and wound up in one of the most intense firefights in US history. 19 American soldiers lost their lives, and the Somalis suffered approximately over 1,000. Two Delta Force snipers, SFC Randy Shughart and MSG Gary Gordon were inserted near the second crash site, and were killed defending it. Because of their bravery, they were posthumously awarded the Medal Of Honor, the highest level of commendation that anyone can receive. Two weeks after Durant was released, President Clinton ordered The Rangers and Delta Force out of Somalia. In 1996, Mohammed Farah Aidid was killed. General Garrison retired the following day. I honestly don't think I can stress just how important it is to recognize the soldiers that have given their lives in combat so that others can live. US soldiers across the world put their lives on the line everyday, and I think it's a great disservice to ignore them. We may not always agree as to why our soldiers are there, but they should be supported regardless.

Overall, Black Hawk Down is an intense war movie and anyone remotely interested in the genre should check it out. While it's not a perfect film, I think it's effective and very compelling. I give it a 9/10.

Enter The Dragon

In 1966, a television series premiered starring Van Williams. It featured a protagonist wearing a green suit and mask and fought crime while having a day job as a newspaper publisher. However, it was the Green Hornet's sidekick, Kato that garnered the most attention. Kato was played by the up-and-coming martial arts superstar Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee took the world by storm with his martial arts displays in The Green Hornet. So much so, that he was offered to star in his own films. Between 1967 and 1973, Lee had starred in several films, which included The Big Boss, Fist of Fury, Way of the Dragon and Enter The Dragon. During that time, Bruce Lee had also developed his own unique style of martial arts, Jeet Kune Do(Way of the Intercepting Fist), which incorporated not only Wing Chun kung-fu, but other styles of martial arts. Enter The Dragon was Bruce Lee's final completed film before his untimely death in 1973.

Enter the Dragon opens on a small martial arts demonstration at a Shaolin temple in Hong Kong, between two fighters, Lee(Bruce Lee) and an unknown fighter(Sammo Hung). He is then informed by an Interpol agent, Braithwaite(Geoffrey Weeks) that an upcoming martial arts tournament is hosted by a renegade Shaolin monk, Han(Shih Kien). Braithwaite suspects Han of human trafficking and drug smuggling, and uses the tournament to further his schemes. Joining Lee is gambler Roper(John Saxon) and street-wise Williams(Jim Kelly).

Enter The Dragon opened to critical acclaim world-wide. With a stellar cast that includes not only John Saxon and Jim Kelly, it also featured several up-and-coming Asian martial arts stars including Bolo Yeung, Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan(in a brief cameo appearance). Han's henchman, O'Hara is played by Karate expert Robert Wall, who also appeared in Way of the Dragon alongside kickboxing champion Chuck Norris. With a good story, great acting, memorable characters and stellar fight choreography by Bruce Lee, Enter The Dragon is widely considered the greatest martial arts film ever, and withstands the test of time. Unfortunately, Bruce Lee didn't survive to see the film's success. As a result of an allergic reaction to pain medication, Bruce Lee passed away at the age of 32 in Hong Kong in 1973.

Bruce Lee is considered by many to be the one person who introduced Kung-Fu to the west and made martial arts as popular as it is today. Every martial arts movie that has been made so far has been influenced in some fashion by Bruce Lee. His enthusiasm for martial arts has inspired many people for over 30 years, and because of him, Jeet Kune Do became more popular, and stars like Chuck Norris, Jackie Chan, and Sammo Hung became huge international stars as a result. Bruce Lee had two children, Shannon and Brandon Lee, who also followed in their father's footsteps. Sadly, Brandon was killed in 1993 in a freak accident while filming the gothic action film, The Crow. Shannon Lee left acting and became the CEO of Bruce Lee Enterprises and oversees the licensing of her father's name and likeness. Bruce Lee's legacy has and still is being felt all across the world today. As a martial arts actor, Bruce Lee had no equal, he was charismatic and funny. Enter The Dragon stands the test of time as one of the greatest movies ever made and the best Kung-Fu movie ever made. If there is any downside to Enter The Dragon, is that it was Lee's last completed film. Other than that, this movie is beyond reproach. There have been similar movies made after Enter The Dragon, but no-one in their right mind has attempted to re-make or re-imagine it. It is untouchable.

It should be noted that there have been movies made of Bruce Lee, the most popular of which is Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, which starred Jason Scott Lee as Bruce. But, while spectacular at times, failed to really explain Bruce Lee's life story. Enter The Dragon is the quintessential Bruce Lee film, but I would also recommend some of his earlier works, like Way of the Dragon, The Big Boss and The Chinese Connection. There are no words adequate enough to explain the influence Bruce Lee had on almost everything. Philosophy, martial arts, film, Bruce Lee has been a part of it all and none of it has been the same since, and no-one has come close to duplicating what Bruce Lee had accomplished in his short time on Earth. Enter The Dragon gets no rating, because it doesn't need one. It is without a doubt my personal favorite martial arts movie and it never gets old. It's one I would recommend without hesitation to anyone remotely interested in kung-fu movies.

Mimic 3: Sentinel

Direct-to-video sequels. Good gravy. I personally have no issues with films that end up skipping a theatrical release and go straight to video. Some of the best movies end up taking that route. But usually the reason for them not getting a theatrical release is because the movie was made on a very small budget and the studio doesn't feel that it doesn't deserve a theatrical release, and in most cases it's true. Worse still, are direct-to-video sequels to a film that DID get a theatrical release, limited or otherwise. Starship Troopers got two DTV(direct-to-video) sequels, and not one of them were good. Feast got two sequels and only the third movie was half-decent. The Crow had ONE sequel go to theaters, the other two? DTV. Hellraiser? 3 theatricals and 5 DTV. Some of these sequels were given to films that you would think didn't need one. The original film ended in a way that was satisfying and concluded the story. Apparently, some of the studio heads didn't think so. Guillermo Del Toro's Mimic was released in 1997 to mixed reviews and wasn't what Del Toro wanted to release due to studio interference. But a lot of people seemed to have liked it enough, but it just vanished off the radar. In 2001, Mimic 2 was quietly released to home video. There's a reason for that, I think. It was a terrible film. I didn't review it, because I fast forwarded through most of it, it was so boring. The visual effects were okay, but the concept and execution? Horrendous. 2003 saw the release of the final Mimic film, Mimic 3: Sentinel, also DTV, but it actually ended up being a much better film than Mimic 2.

Mimic 3 opens as an apparent Peeping Tom, Marvin(Karl Geary) is taking pictures of random people in an apartment complex across the street. That is until he notices something bizarre on the street below, after witnessing a child going into an alley and disappears. Marvin is a survivor of the strickler's disease that ravaged New York in 1997. Unfortunately, Marvin is stuck in his room because of the disease. He's also on Oxygen. The only contact with the outside world is his sister, Rosy(Alexis Dziena) and his mother, Simone(Amanda Plummer). After noticing another apparent murder, Marvin notices a strange garbageman(Lance Henriksen) in the area who may or may not know something about what's going on. As the body count begins to rise, Marvin realizes that the Judas Breed from 1997 has survived and is killing people.

One of the things that this installment has going for it, is it's Rear Window vibe, where you have a single person that's watching everything going on from his home. There's a bit of helplessness going as Marvin is a physically fragile person and is unable to actually do much aside from telling people what's going on. Most people, including the police don't believe him. Taking a cue from the original Mimic, Sentinel, while bloody isn't overly gory. There's a good deal of restraint. The creatures themselves aren't too bad, outside of some poor CG(due to budget limitations no doubt), when the creatures are in their full glory. Close up shots involve a guy in a suit who happens to be the film's visual effects person(Gary J. Tunnicliffe). While the film is confined to basically just a few rooms, the tension actually builds, especially when Lance Henriksen's character comes into the picture. We don't know much about his character, except that he helped work on the Judas Breed. Say what you will about some of the movies that Henriksen's been in, the man is a living legend, having appeared in some of the biggest films like Terminator, Aliens, and Near Dark, among others. He always manages to bring a legitimacy to the material that he's working with, even if the film is direct-to-video crap. Henriksen always manages to make it entertaining. Overall, Mimic 3 actually manages to be a fairly decent DTV effort. Is it a good movie? Not really, but I definitely appreciate the approach they took to it, and it manages to be kind of intense, despite being silly at time. Even Guillermo Del Toro himself kind of liked it, which really says something about the film. If you must have more Mimic, skip the dreadful second movie and go for this one instead. The film was directed by then-newcomer J.T Petty. He actually did a decent job here. Come for the bugs, stay for Lance Henriksen. Mimic 3 gets a solid 8/10.

A Question of Desensitivity

As a film critic, sometimes I like to challenge myself by watching movies that most people would say, "Oh, hell no!" to. I suppose in a certain regard, I'm kind of throwing myself under the bus to endure the movies that most rational people wouldn't touch with a 50-foot pole. I tend to gravitate towards horror movies and some of the most shocking films that have been committed to film are horror movies. Granted people thought that Friday the 13 and Nightmare on Elm Street were shocking. But I'm talking about movies like Audition and A Serbian Film. These are some of the most depraved movies I've ever seen. After having seen A Serbian Film, nothing shocks me anymore. And on the other side of the coin, no other movie prior to A Serbian Film has shocked me. I guess that would say something about how desensitized I am to violence on film, that it takes that one movie to actually make me genuinely feel something. I don't regret seeing A Serbian Film, hell I own a copy of it on Blu-Ray. But I have a copy to remind that not all movies are rosy. Some will drag you through the dirt and the muck. I just recently viewed The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence. It was hyped up to be brutal and gross, and it certainly delivered. I won't review it here. I posted it on The Dead Centre, a small horror community that I'm a staff member of. I appreciate a good horror movie, but sometimes I end up getting more than I bargained for. Then again, I AM a fan of horror movies, and the fans of the genre are always looking for stuff that's going to push the envelope.

The genre isn't for everybody, and even those that claim to be hardcore fans, there are certain dark corners of the genre that they won't peek into. As a film critic, I feel it's my obligation to seek out the particular films that no-one has heard of, the controversial and the bizarre. I remain as objective as possible when I review movies, but A Serbian Film reminded me that it's not that easy to stay objective, because there are certain subjects that tend to get my blood boiling. But as reviewer, the trick is to not let emotion take control of the review, which I have seen happen before from other critics. Some critics have a blatant disregard for the horror genre, and to me that's dishonest. Horror is as legitimate a genre as comedy, even though it's geared towards a certain audience. I think if you're going to enjoy the genre, be careful, because there are films out there that will pummel you if you're not ready. If you're curious about the horror films that I've reviewed, I will point you to: www.thedeadcentre.com.

Mimic

Guillermo Del Toro is an interesting director. Most of the movies he's directed are a combination of science fiction, fantasy and horror. The man who gave us Pan's Labyrinth, also gave us the Hellboy movies, Blade II, Cronos, and a rather underrated thriller called Mimic. I don't think a lot of people payed attention to Del Toro until Blade II was released. After that, he really started picking up steam. But one of his more unusual films, Mimic was released in 1997 to mixed reviews. Del Toro himself was unhappy with the version that was released to theaters. But that was because the studio execs kept changing things on him and rejecting his ideas, and eventually brought in 2nd unit directors to give the film more "scares" and more action. It certainly wasn't his intent. I'll get to that later.

The film opens in New York City as hundreds of kids are in the hospital due to a lethal disease called strickler's disease. The disease was carried by cockroaches in the sewers beneath the city. To combat this epidemic, Dr. Susan Tyler(Mira Sorvino) created a new breed of cockroach, dubbed the Judas Breed, and released it in the sewers. As a result the roaches carrying the disease were destroyed and the disease eradicated. Fast-forward 3 years, Susan is married to fellow scientist and CDC employee, Dr. Peter Mann(Jeremy Northam). During a routine investigation Dr. Mann and his assistant, Josh(Josh Brolin) discover a slavery ring underneath a local church, which is infested with cockroaches. Later, Susan gets a unique specimen from a couple of local kids. Turns out that the Judas Breed that she created has survived and evolved. Enough to the point where the bugs are mimicking us. In an effort to keep the bugs from spreading they enlist the help of a local cop, Leonard(Charles S. Dutton) to help them navigate the tunnels beneath the city.

The story is actually pretty decent for a bit of a monster movie. The creatures themselves are actually uniquely designed and really pose a threat. And with the exception of some shots, mostly practical. You don't actually get a good look until much later in the movie when the creatures attack some kids in the subway. Now, given that this is a creature feature, you should expect really creepy monsters, and I don't think there's anything creepier than a cockroach, except maybe spiders. The acting is actually very solid all around with Mira Sorvino playing the sexy, yet intelligent Susan Tyler. This is one of Josh Brolin's first real big roles and he's not only convincing but funny as well. Charles S. Dutton. What can I say about the man? He inhabits every role that he takes on. From his roles in Alien 3, Rudy and Mimic to movies like Legion, he elevates the film with a powerful and intimidating presence, which makes it sort of funny when you see him freaking out in Mimic. I don't think anyone else could have handled the character as well as he could.

Now, in a monster movie that's rated R, you would expect it to be pretty gory. While there are moments of SOME gore, you really don't see a lot of intestines being torn out or heads being ripped off, it's not that kind of movie. It gets pretty gross at times with slime and shit everywhere(literally).

Things got really hairy between the director and the execs during the production of the film, and the film that ended up in theaters wasn't what Guillermo Del Toro wanted. The execs wanted more cheap scares, while Del Toro opted for a more atmospheric film. So, the execs hired 2nd unit directors to edit and toss out some of the stuff that would've made a better movie with. This being released in the 90's, also meant that you weren't allowed to have kids killed on screen or animals for that matter. And while there is the argument that "less-is-more" is more artistic than the stuff that you actually see, in a monster movie, you need to see what these creatures are capable of. For the Blu-Ray release of Mimic, most of Del Toro's stuff that he shot that was discarded has been reintegrated into the film, which includes a sub-plot that involves a slavery ring, and more on Susan's attempts to get pregnant. One of the scenes that I had just mentioned where two kids were killed on screen, was also put back into the film. Most of the crap that was filmed by the second unit directors has been discarded in favor of a more atmospheric creature feature, and it actually works better this way. Granted the last act of the film borders on cliche, it's still a visceral and exciting ride. Granted, even with this new director's cut, the film isn't perfect. Certain characters are just bystanders and some of the CGI effects simply just don't stand up as well today. The practical effects still do, though. While Mimic certainly isn't Guillermo's best film, it's still a solid film with solid performances and an atmosphere that still sends chills down my spine. I just wish that Guillermo Del Toro was allowed to make the film that he really wanted to make. Overall, this new director's cut is several steps above and beyond the original release and I give it a solid 9/10.

As a side note, there were two direct-to-video video sequels that were made. On the commentary on the Blu-Ray, Del Toro mentions these films and says while the first sequel was absolute crap, he actually liked the third film. Having seen the second film, I agree with his assessment on that film. I have yet to see the third film however. I will post a review as soon as I do. The original film stands on it's own as a decent sci-fi thriller and deserves to be seen. Just make sure it's the director's cut.

Resident Evil

Movies based on video games. Paul W.S. Anderson. The general rule of thumb with movies based on video games is that they really suck, and vice versa. I think the reason that movies based on video games suck is that most of them stray too far from the source material and end up pissing off the fans of that particular game, because the film doesn't deliver what they want to see. On the other hand, gamers are a finicky bunch because even if the film delivered what they wanted to see, they always bitch about how it sucks and it shouldn't have been made. I will agree with that sentiment when Uwe Boll gets the job, he screws it all up. There are some movies that DO get it right, even if they aren't perfect. Paul W.S. Anderson directed his first video game movie, Mortal Kombat, which was actually pretty decent in terms of acting and on-screen mayhem. Anderson would go on to direct other films like Event Horizon, Resident Evil and Alien Vs Predator. Resident Evil is another game-based movie that gets it right....mostly.

The film opens as a woman, Alice(Milla Jovovich) wakes up in a mansion with no memory of who she is, where she is, or why she's there. Soon, the mansion is breached by a small special forces group headed by James Shade(Colin Salmon) and Rain Ocampo(Michelle Rodriguez). It seems that the mansion is a secret entrance to a highly classified underground facility called The Hive, which is run by the Umbrella Corporation. It also appears that said facility has suffered a major catastrophe when a lethal virus was unleashed, killing everyone inside and forcing the facility's artificial intelligence to seal it off from the outside world. Only thing is, the people that were killed inside the facility didn't stay dead.

Having actually played the Resident Evil games, the movie is actually quite faithful in terms of atmosphere, story and.....zombies. Resident Evil was originally going to be directed by the godfather of zombie movies, George Romero, but due to some disagreements, he opted not to do it. So, Paul W.S. Anderson stepped in. There is not a zombie movie out there today that hasn't been influenced by Romero's work in some fashion. Resident Evil doesn't just have the zombies, but zombie dogs. Yes, dogs. These suckers are creepy as hell. The licker, despite some bad CGI is a very interesting creature that evolves after it attacks someone. What also works is the cast. Leading the way is the very sexy Milla Jovovich who does a lot of her own stunts and action sequences in the film despite her being in a fairly revealing dress.....not that I mind of course. Michelle Rodriguez brings her usual tough-girl attitude to the screen, but it works fairly well here. She's a real spit-fire that doesn't hesitate to whoop some ass. The rest of cast does well despite being general fodder for zombies and a psychotic A.I.

The effects are mostly practical. The make-up effects and the zombies are done very well with the exception of some bad CGI. The zombie dogs are done very well. Despite the good practical effects, the CGI is pretty bad, especially when you first see the zombie that's missing half of his face. That was pretty horrendous. The licker creature is straight up CGI, despite some close-up shots that are clearly a puppet. While the design of the creature is brilliant, the CGI execution is less than spectacular. One good thing is that the film's R-rating allows for some fairly gruesome effects shots and for the most part do the job well. Had the film been PG-13....well, it's not, thankfully. The music has a very hard edge to it, as it was composed by Marco Beltrami AND Marilyn Manson, and it's appropriate for this type of film.

Resident Evil was fairly successful as there are three sequels available on home video: Apocalypse, Extinction and Afterlife. Another sequel is on the way, entitled Retribution. There's also another Resident Evil game coming soon, but I haven't been a fan of the series since Resident Evil 3. So...despite so many movies based on video games going wrong, Resident Evil at least takes its source material seriously and Paul W.S. Anderson expertly crafts a fairly decent horror/action film. The bad CGI takes a toll however. Overall, it's still a very solid effort. 8.5/10 is what this one gets.

Rage

A few weeks ago, I was offered an opportunity to screen and review an independent movie. I jumped at the chance, because this is the first time I've had an opportunity like this. I received a screener copy of an independent thriller called Rage, and I want to thank those who gave me the chance to review this film, which to my knowledge hasn't been distributed to the public yet. I love a good cat-and-mouse thriller, and there have been quite a few. Some are more well-known than others. Then again, you could call your typical slasher movie cat-and-mouse, because that seems to be the general theme. Rage is not a slasher, however. It's a different kind of movie.

The film opens in a suburb of Portland, Oregon. A struggling novelist, Dennis Twist(Rick Crawford) is going to town to pick up something for his wife, Crystal(Audrey Walker). On his way, he stops to break off an affair he had been having with a local shop owner, Dana(Anna Lodej). In a parking lot he ends up running into a mysterious biker(Christopher R. Witherspoon) for some strange reason. At first, Dennis thinks nothing of it. But later, he notices that this biker has a particular interest in him and starts following him around the city. Things take a more sinister turn after he has lunch with his therapist.

Okay, so the story isn't particularly original, as it's been done before. What makes it interesting is the biker. There's something to be said about a villain of which you know nothing about. You don't know his name, what he sounds or looks like, or why he's tailing a particular person. It makes for a more unusual chase. The biker is played by the film's director Christopher Witherspoon and he's pretty intimidating. Especially with that little knife that he's always carrying around. The acting is solid across the board. Rick Crawford plays a struggling novelist who knows he's done a bad thing and cheated on his wife, and he wants to set things right. Audrey Walker plays the unknowing wife, who ends up being a victim of not only the biker, but of her husband's infidelity. I found that angle to be pretty interesting and certainly seems to play a role in the events in the final part of the film. I say "seems" because, not everything is what it appears to be. And that is also what makes this film pretty good. The film also seems to have a strange sense of humor throughout the whole thing. For example, there's a scene in which Rick's character thinks he sees the biker and scratches his bike. Only it turns out to be someone else.

The film does take a vicious turn in the final act and it's unsettling. While most of the violence IS off-screen, the stuff that IS shown is fairly brutal, especially when Audrey's character is involved. Now, it's time for the bad stuff. Early on, there's some ominous music playing even when Rick's character is just driving along. Why? I think all that does is just tell the audience that something bad could happen. For a film like Rage, I think the music could have been dialed back a bit. Also, the narration during some of the scenes when Dennis is thinking is unnecessary. I think the audience is smart enough to know what the character is thinking without him having to narrate the guy's thought process. Those are my two biggest gripes.

On the whole, for a film that was made for a mere $100,000(according to IMDB), this is actually a really rock-solid thriller. Sure it's not perfect, but that's due to the limitations of the budget. I really hope that more people get to see this film, because it shows that you can make a good movie for a shoe-string budget, and that's what Chris Witherspoon did. Not only did Chris play an interestingly twisted character, he crafted an edge-of-your-seat thriller that is well-paced and well-acted. I think that Rage could make a splash in the independent movie genre, if it finds a distributor that's willing to screen the film for more people. I think they could be surprised at how good this one is. This one gets a solid 9/10. I enjoyed it a lot.