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.

Hamlet(1996)

William Shakespeare. One of the most highly regarded writers in English history was born in 1564. During his life, he wrote 38 plays which included The Tempest, Much Ado About Nothing, King Lear, Henry VIII, MacBeth, Othello and his most celebrated drama, Hamlet. Each of Shakespeare's surviving plays have been translated into every living language and performed more often than other playwright. He also wrote 154 sonnets and two long narrative poems. Some of his plays are hard to understand because of the way he wrote them. The language can be confusing and impenetrable at times, but sometimes it can be very clear. I've never had the pleasure of seeing ANY of Shakespeare's work on stage, but I have seen some film adaptations, most specifically, Hamlet. Hamlet is arguably the most famous of Shakespeare's plays, because it's one of the longest at 4 hours, and is a tragedy. Hamlet has been done on screen before, with Sir Laurence Olivier's film being the first to be taken seriously. The first Hamlet movie I saw was the version done by Mel Gibson that was released in 1990. It wasn't a bad film, Mel Gibson did a good job, but it was too short. The second version I saw was released in 2009, starring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. At 3 and a half-hours it was quite good, bring a modern take on the tragic story. But the version that I remember most and treasure the most, is Kenneth Branagh's rendition, released back in 1996. His is the only film that has every single word of Hamlet on screen. And it his film that I will be reviewing.

Hamlet opens on a dark night when two guards patrolling the gates of the Danish castle when they encounter a ghost of the late King of Denmark. They bring the attention of this to Hamlet(Kenneth Branagh), the son of the king and nephew to the usurper, Claudius(Sir Derek Jacobi). Hamlet is visited by the ghost and learns that his father was murdered by his uncle. After hearing this, he begins plotting his revenge. The story is very simple, but that's not what makes this adaptation of Hamlet so special. Kenneth Branagh puts the whole damn thing on screen, which brings the running time to more than 4 hours, but it doesn't drag at all. What makes it work is the cast, which includes not only Branagh himself, but legendary actor Sir Derek Jacobi, Sir Richard Attenborough, Julie Christie, Billy Crystal, Rufus Sewell, Robin Williams, Charlton Heston, Jack Lemmon and Kate Winslet. While some of the choices may seem strange, the performances are wonderful, but Kenneth Branagh steals the show, not just as the director, but as the title character of Hamlet. He brings humor, intensity, and humanity to the role unlike anyone else. Sir Derek Jacobi, who once played Hamlet himself, is fantastic as Claudius. They all make the bizarre dialogue seem believable.

What also makes this film unique is the setting, which is set in the late 19th-century. The Victorian-era setting helps make it a little more accessible. It also helps that it looks like a play was being filmed, but with film-making sensibilities and style. The dialogue, while confusing at times is not mumbled, thankfully. Kenneth Branagh is also the director of the film, and he brings a unique vision to the screen, and paces it perfectly. Shakespeare's plays have always been dialogue-driven and it's no different here, but it helps the audience understand what's going on when they see the actors performing each scene. While the dialogue may be off-putting to some, it actually helps draw the audience in to see what's happening, and Branagh does it really well.

I was never really a big fan of William Shakespeare until a couple of years ago. I actually performed Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be" speech when I was in high school, and it wasn't easy to do, but it does bring something out in you in a way that I can't really describe. After that I lost interest until I saw Mel Gibson's film a few years ago. Then, I saw the version with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. But the adaptation that really sticks with me, is Kenneth Branagh's film. It is the most beautiful and accurate adaptation of Hamlet that I've seen. Is it the most definitive? I honestly can't say, I haven't seen all the other adaptations, yet. Kenneth Branagh is one of the most talented actors and directors I have seen in years and his vision of Hamlet is his best work, as far as I'm concerned. I know there are people that will disagree with me, particularly the Shakespearean experts, but I'm only basing this review on what I know, and what I've seen. And what I've seen is an unforgettable story about revenge and the nature of humanity. Hamlet is beyond reproach and is one of the most celebrated plays in history, and for good reason. If there is one film version of Hamlet to see, it's the one directed by Kenneth Branagh. This one easily comes highly recommended. A perfect 10/10 is what this film gets from me.

Final Destination 5

In 2000, a new film introduced a new twist to the slasher genre: Final Destination. Instead of a masked killer going around stabbing people, Death itself enters the fray. Instead of murders, people are killed in "freak" accidents. After the successful run of the first Final Destination that starred Devon Sawa, Ali Larter and Tony Todd, 4 sequels were made. In the first film, a kid has a premonition about a horrific accident that kills everyone on the plane. He freaks out and gets himself and several of his friends ejected only for the plane to explode moments later. Later, each person dies in what appears to be freak accidents until one of the characters is told that Death has a design. Each subsequent film follows the same pattern. The first movie, the premonition was about a plane exploding. The second: A major freeway accident, third: A roller-coaster ride from hell, fourth: A car race that horribly wrong, and now in Final Destination 5: A freak bridge collapse.

Each film follows the exact same pattern without fail, with basically the same story about the survivors trying to cheat death. No, the reason to watch these movies is to see people die in horrible ways, and the series delivers. Final Destination 5 really is no different, but when somebody is about to die, the movie plays with you and shows you different ways that the victim could die, and ratchets up the tension. Then it pulls the rug out from under you and takes out the victim in a surprising and brutal fashion. Final Destination 4 ended up being too silly for its own good and the film suffered for that. Like the previous film, Final Destination 5 was shot in 3D as there are effects that were clearly designed to be seen in 3D. For example, during the opening bridge sequence, when of the characters gets impaled on a ship's mast. While meant to be seen in 3D, it's still pretty gory. Final Destination 4 really didn't have much in the way of memorable kills as most of them were CGI-intensive. In FD5, the cgi effects have vastly improved, and actually work in favor of the movie this time around. The kills are fairly inventive and brutal.

Acting-wise, nothing really to see here, except the return of Tony Todd as the enigmatic Bludworth, who was missing from the previous two installments of series. He returns to warn the survivors that Death doesn't like to be cheated, but in this film, he says that Death can be satisfied if the survivors take the life of someone else, which means that the years of that person are transferred to the survivor, and gets to live. As interesting an idea as that is, it's not as explored as it should have been. Tony Todd still has a commanding presence, even though his role is nothing more than an extended cameo, but then, he wasn't in the original two movies for very long either, just long enough to send chills down your spine. There's also a decent twist at the end of the film that ties FD5 with the first movie.

After the laugh-fest that was Final Destination 4, the fifth film is a nice return to form with some spectacular and brutal kills and an opening sequence that'll leave you squirming. Some of the CGI effects aren't very well done however and are fairly obvious, and the acting as I've mentioned is certainly not award-worthy. And the idea that I mentioned above isn't fully explored. If you're going to introduce a new way to cheat death, you don't want to half-ass it. Aside from those issues, Final Destination 5 is a really solid entry and quite frankly the best in the series since the original film. If you're a fan of the series, like me, there's no reason NOT to have this one in your collection. Sure, it follows the same pattern as the first four, but it takes a formula that works and DOESN'T BREAK IT, like so many franchises do. Overall, a respectable 8.5/10 is what this film earns.