Meezookeewee's Movie, DVD and Blu-Ray reviews.

Resident Evil

2012-01-30T07:56:00.001-08:00

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

2012-01-17T21:11:00.000-08:00

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)

2012-01-08T19:36:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-02T09:05:00.000-08:00

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.

The Perfect Storm

2011-12-15T07:53:00.000-08:00

In 1991, 3 major weather fronts combined to form the worst storm in recorded history which hammered the entire East Coast and killed 13 people. 6 of which were on board the Andrea Gail, a fishing boat that sank during the storm off the coast of Gloucester, Massachusetts. It was called The Perfect Storm because a massive cold front from the east, plus a high pressure system from the north and combined with Hurricane Grace. What makes the storm interesting is that most storms that form on the East Coast tend to go out to sea and dissipate. The 1991 Perfect Storm, as it was called by Sebastian Junger, author of The Perfect Storm and the National Weather Service, went out to sea and then came back. Over a 4 day period, waves were peaking at 100 feet in the open ocean. The storm caused over 200 million in damage across the East Coast. The 2000 film, The Perfect Storm is about the crew of the Andrea Gail. Just a word of caution, a lot of what you see in the film, while based on fact, is somewhat fictitious, so that it'll add to the drama of the film.

The film opens as the Andrea Gail, captained by Billy Tyne(George Clooney)comes back in to port with it's latest, less than impressive catch of swordfish. Tyne decides to head out further to sea to break out of his slump. He takes his crew which includes, Robert Shatford(Mark Wahlberg), Michael Moran(John Hawkes), Dale Murphy(John C. Reilly), David Sullivan(William Fichtner), and Alfred Pierre(Allen Payne). They go out further than most of the other swordfish captains have dared to venture. While they are out catching fish, a massive storm is brewing off the coast of Massachusetts. After an equipment failure forces them to stop fishing, they decide to head home, through the monster that is churning in the Atlantic.

Directed by Wolfgang Peterson, The Perfect Storm is spectacular. The storm scenes are some of the most intense and brutal I've seen. But some of the best scenes are character moments, not just on the Andrea Gail, but with the people that were left behind while Tyne's crew went out to fish. When news of the storm hits the airwaves, it affects everyone. Not just the wives of the crew, but their boss, Bob Brown(Michael Ironside) and fellow captain Linda Greenlaw(Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio). While the storm scenes were filmed in front of massive blue-screens, the rest of the film was filmed on location in Gloucester, Massachusetts. With the input of not only the actual natives of the port, but also the families and actual people who actually braved the storm, which lends credibility to the film. The acting is excellent across the board. George Clooney is fantastic as always, but the ones that really surprised me were Mark Wahlberg, and John C. Reilly. Of course, there's more going on in The Perfect Storm than the Andrea Gail's story, as there were other people who were caught in the maelstrom, which included a Coast Guard chopper. As I said, the film's storm scenes are extremely intense and literally have you at the edge of your seat. If you have a large screen TV, the storm scenes might actually make you sea-sick, they are done so well. The film really has you connect with the characters. The funeral scene in the film, literally had me in tears, because it's so heartbreaking. You root for these guys to make it, and it really hits you when the reality of the situation sets in. But it's a great story of the struggle to survive against nature.

With the great acting, visual effects and direction, The Perfect Storm is one of the most thrilling movies I've seen in a long time. I highly recommend this film. 9.5/10.

Remakes and Reboots

2011-11-22T20:44:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while I will use this blog to post my views on trends in movies and such. And one such topic involves remakes of movies: When is a re-make actually an adaptation, a re-make or a reboot? In short, a re-make typically involves using the same kind of story with the same setup, but with different, albeit similar characters. It usually unravels in typically the same fashion. An adaptation typically involves an original source, say a comic book, novel or short story. There can be multiple movies that based on the same source, in which case they are adaptations, not re-makes. A reboot usually involves taking an established franchise or story, takes the characters of said franchise or story and keeps them fairly intact while throwing everything else out, and starting over. I'll give a few examples:

Take the recent Star Trek film, starring Chris Pine as James Kirk. That film is considered a reboot, because after Nemesis, the franchise became stale, and Paramount decided that the best way to reinvigorate the franchise was to take established characters like Kirk, Spock and McCoy and put them into an alternate time-line. While respecting the existence of the original time-line, the new Star Trek film reintroduced classic characters to new audiences and remained faithful to the original crew of the Enterprise as portrayed in the original Star Trek series and the films 1-6. The new film just takes them and puts them in a different reality that seems a little....different. But it worked. Star Trek was a fantastic film that could have failed miserably. Paramount take a real risk and captured lightening in a bottle. This is how a successful reboot works, much like Christopher Nolan's take on the Batman mythology. Then there are ones that aren't nearly as successful like Friday The 13th. It didn't really get anywhere and didn't push the envelope the way the original film did. As a result, a sequel hasn't been made.

For some people, the term adaptation doesn't seem to apply to movies, but in truth, it does. John Carpenter's The Thing is the best example of this. John Carpenter's film is considered by many to be a re-make of The Thing From Another Planet, released back in the 50s. Wrong. Like The Thing From Another Planet, John Carpenter's film was also adapted from the same short story, "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, published in 1938. The story involved a creature that could look and sound like anyone that it came into contact with. John Carpenter's film gruesomely depicted a monster that absorbed and imitated the people that it attacked, and while it didn't achieve box-office success back in 1982, it found it's audience on home video and is considered to be one of the greatest adaptations, with some of the best visual effects in science fiction and horror. Stephen King's The Mist is also another great example as is The Green Mile.

Now, we get to re-makes. It's easier to identify re-makes these days because Hollywood is too scared to take chances on original subject matter. Typically, a re-make will take an idea presented in earlier film and try to "modernize" it with new actors and plot-lines while maintaining the overall story. The best example of a successful re-make is Scarface. Everybody knows the film that really put Al Pacino on the map, with his successful portrayal of a Cuban refugee that becomes the drug kingpin of Miami. While it is an awesome movie, most people aren't aware that the film is based on Howard Hawke's film of the same name, release back in 1932. That film, instead of dealing with drugs, dealt with the bootlegging of alcohol which was banned under the Prohibition, during the Great Depression. Having seen BOTH films, the Al Pacino film doesn't make fun of the original, but maintains its bleak and violent outlook of the first film, while updating the subject material to something that was relevant during the 80s, which was trafficking of illegal substances like cocaine and heroin, and the consequences of that activity, which usually came to a violent end. There are many re-makes that are blatantly that. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Flight of the Phoenix, 3:10 To Yuma just to name a few. A handful of them are actually any good. The aforementioned 3:10 to Yuma is one. Nightmare on Elm Street? Not so much.

There are few movies that can actually be considered an adaptation, re-boot AND a re-make. X-Men First Class would be considered a re-boot and an adaptation of comic book characters, but is not a re-make in any way. The most recent film I can say that IS a combination of all three is LionsGate's Conan: The Barbarian. It's based on Robert E. Howard's character of the same name, updates some of the story that you saw in John Milius' film with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but is also a complete reboot of a franchise that went completely flat in the mid-80s, after the dismal failure of Conan The Destroyer. But some would argue the new film is not an adaptation of any of Howard's stories, and they're right, but the character and some of his characteristics HAVE been adapted from some of his stories, even if those stories haven't been told on screen yet. Unfortunately for LionsGate, the new Conan movie was a box-office failure, both critically and financially. Which is a shame, because I don't think it's a bad film at all, and in fact I've reviewed the film here on a previous post, and I gave it a fairly good score.

In the end, does it really matter if a film is a re-make, reboot or an adaptation? For me, not necessarily as long as it's done right, and done with passion and respect for the source material, and a lot of times these days, they're not done with respect to the source as they should be. Some of the comic-book movies released in the past few years, haven't been, like Ghost Rider. That was a dismal film that somehow managed to spawn another movie to be released in the next year or so. But another question could be: Can a movie be TOO faithful to the source material? That's another question for another time, but it's certainly worth exploring.

Saving Private Ryan

2011-11-06T08:50:00.000-08:00

World War II was considered to the be the last great war of the last century. America didn't enter the war until December 7, 1941 when Japan launched a full-scale attack on Pearl Harbor. After that, America was intent of ridding the world of the powers that would threaten the free world: Germany, Italy and Japan. On June 6, 1944, the United States and its allies launched a daring invasion of France to rid Europe of the Nazis. The Invasion of Normandy would prove to be the major turning point in the war, when we pushed back Hitler's forces and gained a foothold in Europe to launch a major counter-attack against the German war machine. Saving Private Ryan takes place during the backdrop of this invasion.

When the Americans land on Omaha Beach, they are greeted with a wall of steel that literally rips through them, and leading them through fray is Captain John H. Miller(Tom Hanks) to get through enemy lines and open up a hole so the American invasion can continue. After the Germans are pushed back from the coast, Miller is given a new set of orders: To find a young soldier, Private Ryan(Matt Damon) in the 101st Airborne, who lost all of his brothers in combat, and bring him home. Taking a small platoon of soldiers including Sgt. Horvath(Tom Sizemore), Pvt. Jackson(Barry Pepper), Pvt. Caparzo(Vin Diesel) and Medic Wade(Giovanni Ribisi), Miller fights his through enemy lines to find Ryan. Saving Private Ryan is without a doubt one of the greatest war movies ever made, and not just because of the opening invasion of Normandy. The opening invasion is one of the most grueling and brutal scenes ever filmed for a war movie, but it shows the brutal reality of war. It's bloody, and lots of good men lost their lives. Steven Spielberg, known for his Indiana Jones films takes a gritty and realistic turn with Saving Private Ryan, not only showing the reality of war, but how a group of soldiers come together as brothers for a common cause.

The story in Saving Private Ryan is largely fiction, inspired partially by the Sullivan brothers. The 5 Sullivan brothers served in the same unit when they were all killed. It was then decided by the US Military that brothers should never serve in the same unit. And this is part of what makes Saving Private Ryan so powerful. When high-ranking officials learn that the mother of Private James Ryan is going to be getting three telegrams reporting the deaths of her other children, they decide its in her best interest that Ryan comes home alive. In reality, when you look at the overall war, things like sending a platoon of soldiers to find one man never happened. It was far more important to win the war than to worry about one person. Considering that many families lost sons, brothers and fathers in the war, it was never even considered a possibility. Regardless, the story in Saving Private Ryan is a very good one that shows the relationships between soldiers and their commanding officer, and that really helps drive the movie. If you didn't care about the characters, you wouldn't root for them or feel bad if they died.

Saving Private Ryan won many awards including 5 Academy Awards which included Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Sound, Best Editing and Best Effects. The opening D-Day invasion is beyond compare as it is one of the most realistic depictions of war I've ever seen and has yet to be topped. The music by John Williams takes a back seat to what happens on the screen, but when it shows up, it has an emotional impact. This in emotionally gripping tale of soldiers attempting to do their duty and depicts them as real human beings that have doubts about what their doing, but ultimately do the right thing. Steven Spielberg hit this one right out of the park. At nearly 3 hours, the film doesn't drag at all. With spurts of action throughout the picture, and with the exception of the first 40 minutes, this is more about the characters than the actual war, even though it is very important to the story. The film was based on book written by Steve Ambrose. For fans of war movies and great story-telling, it really doesn't get much better than Saving Private Ryan. It's a very powerful film. I give it a perfect 10/10.

It goes without saying that if we were not able to push the Germans back on D-Day, the war would have gone on, the Holocaust would have continued, and more lives would have been lost. As I stated above, D-Day was probably the most important turning point of the whole war. Families lost brothers, sons, and fathers in one of the bloodiest battles in US history. But if it wasn't for their sacrifice, we most likely wouldn't be having the lives we have now. Saving Private Ryan is not only an entertaining film, but it also serves as a testament to the heroism and sacrifice of the soldiers who laid everything on the line for us. The price of freedom has always been paid with blood, and its easy for some of us to forget that. In this day and age, that's not something we should ever forget.

The Lion King

2011-10-06T22:09:00.000-07:00

When it comes to animated movies, there were few, if any that could match the talent at Disney. The company brought us classic films such as Snow White, Pinocchio, and Sleeping Beauty. But it wouldn't be until the late 80s and early 90s that Disney would really pick up steam again. With the release of Beauty and The Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King, Disney entered a second golden age for animated movies. These movies proved that not only could you have great stories, but you could tell them with hand-drawn animation and music, and it is that combination that made these films special. Sadly, Disney doesn't really make movies like that very often anymore, instead relying on computer generated animation and fewer musical numbers. And while Disney found great success with films like Wall-E, Up, Toy Story and Cars, it was with the hand-drawn films on which Disney had a firm foothold, in terms of creativity and originality. But one of the greatest strengths of any of their films is their characters. Uniquely drawn, animated and voiced by some of the most talented people in Hollywood, Disney's movies would forever remain a fixture in movie entertainment. I will be reviewing The Lion King.

The film opens as animals gather to witness the ceremony celebrating the birth of King Mufasa's(James Earl Jones) son, Simba(Jonathan Taylor Thomas). Mufasa's brother, Scar(Jeremy Irons), is jealous of his brother's power and the fact that Simba is next in line for the throne. As a result, Scar would scheme to murder Mufasa and his son and claim Pride Rock for himself. Simba eventually finds himself cast out and befriends two animals, a meercat named Timon(Nathan Lane), and a boar named Pumba(Ernie Sabella). Together they decide to have fun on their own, until years later as Simba's(Matthew Broderick) childhood friend, Nala finds him and tells him what Scar has done. Finally seizing his destiny, Simba returns to Pride Rock to confront Scar.

There are a lot of elements borrowed from other stories, most notably, Shakespeare's Hamlet, but not as dark or bleak. Basically it's the story of an outcast son returning to avenge his father's murder. While Hamlet was steeped in exposition, The Lion King brings it down to a level families can enjoy. Of all the Disney films that I have seen, this one is my particular favorite. Not just because it has talking animals, but ONLY animals, not a human in sight, yet these characters possess human qualities and deal with human issues, such as love, humor, betrayal and revenge. And around all that is a very solid story. Now, a story as good as The Lion King wouldn't be as good if the talent behind the characters wasn't as good. And that is one of the film's strengths, the acting. James Earl Jones has always had a kingly voice that commands respect and vulnerability at the same time. Jonathan Taylor Thomas portrays young Simba as a rambunctious youngster hungering for adventure. But the heroes are only as good as their villains and Jeremy Irons' performance as Scar is brilliant. Irons brings to Scar a vicious, conniving and ultimately threatening tone to the character as only Jeremy Irons could. Scar, as far as I'm concerned is right up there with Star Wars' Darth Vader and Star Trek's Kahn as one of the most memorable movie villains ever seen. Matthew Broderick plays the grown Simba with a quiet nobility and vulnerability. The rest of the cast is more than adequate.

One of the greatest strengths that a Disney movie can offer is the music. And The Lion King provides some of the greatest music I've heard in a Disney film. Given the location that the film takes place, there's a lot of African-style music and chanting involved here and it really works thanks to Hans Zimmer, in one of his earlier and more powerful compositions. The film opens with a great song, "The Circle of Life," which makes the opening of the film so powerful. In fact, the opening of the film with the song was used in the trailer for the film which I've posted above. The rest of the songs are just as fantastic with great lyrics from Academy Award winner, Tim Rice and a great collaboration with Elton John, creating some of the most memorable songs in Disney's history. Released back in 1994, The Lion King was a major hit, breaking records and winning awards, including the Academy Award for best song, "Can You Feel The Love Tonight?" by Elton John. In fact I have the soundtrack to the film. It's that good. The Lion King proved that you can have heart, humor and thrills with not humans, but animals, and it's even stronger for it. Combined with fantastic voice acting, great animation, and amazing songs, The Lion King is one of the greatest Disney movies ever made. It's one of the few movies that can actually truly pull at my heartstrings no matter how many times I see it. It's absolutely amazing. This is a film that I can easily recommend to anyone and their families. This is animated film-making at its best. Easily a 10/10.

Star Wars: The Complete Saga

2011-09-25T19:31:00.000-07:00

In 1977, up and coming director George Lucas released Star Wars, the movie that would change the way movies were made forever. Released to critical acclaim and several Academy Award nominations, Star Wars would launch George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill to super-star status overnight. Breaking records, Star Wars became a phenomenon unlike anything the world had seen before in cinema. It also became a merchandising monster, by selling clothes, toys, books, comics, and music records. People lined up for miles to see the film, not once, not twice, but several times. Star Wars captured the imaginations of millions of people and launched a new universe from which anything was possible story-wise. Inspired by the old-fashioned adventure serials such as Flash Gordon and Kirosawa's films, Star Wars is a classic tale of good-versus-evil, of a Rebel Alliance against the evil Galactic Empire that ruled the galaxy with an iron fist. With unique and memorable characters such as Han Solo(Harrison Ford), Luke Skywalker(Mark Hamill), C-3PO(Anthony Daniels), R2-D2(Kenny Baker), and one of the most memorable villains ever put on screen, Darth Vader(David Prowse, voiced by James Earl Jones), Star Wars would effectively turn the sci-fi/fantasy genre, and film-making in general upside down. It showed what you could with a small budget and different ways you could use the camera and special effects. Star Wars became the new standard from which future science fiction movies would be judged. Most films today have been inspired in one way or another by George Lucas' film. Star Wars was eventually followed up with a superior film in The Empire Strikes Back, and a second sequel, Return of the Jedi.

In 1999, George Lucas returned to the Star Wars saga with the first film in his Prequel Trilogy, The Phantom Menace. It was followed up by Attack of the Clones in 2002, and Revenge of the Sith in 2005. While not necessarily on the same level that the Original Trilogy was decades ago, these new films certainly aren't bad by any stretch of the imagination. On September 16, the entire Star Wars saga was finally released on Blu-Ray. And it is the Blu-Rays that I'll be reviewing in this post.

Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

The first film in the Prequel Trilogy opens as a ship carrying ambassadors to the Old Republic's Supreme Chancellor, arrives at Naboo, which has been blockaded by the greedy Trade Federation. These ambassadors are secretly Jedi Knights Qui-Gon Jinn(Liam Neeson), and Obi-Wan Kenobi(Ewan McGregor). Shortly after arriving on board the main Federation ship, the Federation attempts to assassinate the Jedi. Escaping to the planet below, the Jedi find their way to the main city of Theed to find Queen Amidala(Natalie Portman), and escape to Coruscant to tell the Galactic Senate what is happening. After finding a way off the planet and blasting through the blockade, the three seek refuge on the desert planet of Tatooine to repair their ship. On Tatooine, they encounter many strange creatures and eventually run into a young slave by the name of Anakin Skywalker(Jake Lloyd).

George Lucas is, despite what many people think, he's actually a decent story teller. But he's not the greatest writer. There is some truly horrendous dialogue that goes on here, and a lot of it comes from the Gungan, Jar-Jar Binks, who I think is more irritating than funny, but he seems to be a hit with the kids. Also, Jake Lloyd was an annoying twerp, but it certainly didn't help that Anakin was written as a whiny character. There are three character's in this film that really deserve mentioning. First, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Played by Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor, the two Jedi Knights are probably the most compelling characters in this film. The third is the film's silent villain, Darth Maul, played by martial arts expert and stunt-man Ray Park. Honestly, he really didn't have to say much to show how much of a bad-ass he is. When you see him wield that double-bladed lightsaber during the film's climactic battle, you see how much of a threat this guy truly is. What George Lucas gets right in this film, are the action sequences and they are fantastic, particularly the pod racing on Tatooine and the aforementioned battle on Naboo. The lightsaber duel is one of the most excellently choreographed fight sequences I've seen at the time. Outside of some stilted acting, Jake Lloyd and Jar-Jar Binks, The Phantom Menace is actually a fairly decent film. On a side note, the only change I noticed for the Blu-Ray edition of this film is that Jedi Master Yoda is now a fully digital character in this film rather than a creepy puppet. It's actually a good change. Overall, I give the Phantom Menace an 8.5/10.

Episode II: Attack of the Clones

10 years after the events of The Phantom Menace, Episode II opens with an assassination attempt on now-Senator Amidala's(Natalie Portman) life. In order to protect her, Chancellor Palpatine(Sir Ian McDiarmid), has her placed in the protection of the Jedi. The Jedi assign Obi-Wan Kenobi(Ewan McGregor) and padawan Anakin Skywalker(Hayden Christensen) as security detail. A second attempt on Amidala's life is made, and the two Jedi chase after the person responsible. Anakin is ordered by the Jedi Council to escort Amidala home, while Obi-Wan Kenobi investigates the assassination attempts. Little do they realize that there is more going on than they know. Several star systems have broken away from the Republic to join a Separatist movement, led by former Jedi Master Count Dooku(Christopher Lee).

The story gets kind of convoluted, but it's still a fairly logical progression from the previous film. Obi-Wan Kenobi gets to be a detective in this film, and when he encounters the bounty hunter, Jango Fett(Temuera Morrison), things really start to take off. Unfortunately, the main story is hindered by a very poorly handled love story between Anakin and Amidala. The worst part of that is the exchange the two have by a fire-side. That's some of the worst dialogue I've heard in a movie. And Anakin is still a whiny little prick. He just has a lightsaber now. People were very curious about the Clone Wars that were mentioned in the Original Trilogy, and this movie is where it starts. And it starts with a bang. This is probably the most epic battle in the series, with the exception of Return of the Jedi's climactic battle. Not only do you have gigantic armies of droids and clones going at each other, you have an army of Jedi storming an arena to rescue Anakin and Obi-Wan. It rarely gets more spectacular than that. It all lasts about a half-hour culminating in a confrontation between Dooku, Skywalker, Kenobi, and Yoda. It was mentioned in Empire Strikes Back that Yoda was a great warrior and you get to see him prove it here. While his fight with Dooku was interesting, the rest of the fight sequence actually fell flat. I was expecting a fairly epic sword fight between Kenobi, Dooku and Skywalker, and I didn't get it. Yes, you got to see Anakin wield two lightsabers, but after a minute, he loses his arm and gets pushed away. Not very impressive. But then again, I believe they were saving the real epic sword fights for the next and final film in the Prequel Trilogy, Revenge of the Sith. While Attack of the Clones is still not a bad movie, it is easily the worst film in the entire series with some atrocious acting on the parts of Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen. Ewan McGregor is still very convincing as Obi-Wan and Christopher Lee lends an air of authority and power as Count Dooku. I didn't notice any changes for the Blu-Ray release of this film. Attack of the Clones gets an 8/10.

Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

3 years after the events in Attack of the Clones, Anakin Skywalker(Hayden Christensen) is a full-fledged Jedi Knight, and Obi-Wan Kenobi(Ewan McGregor) is a member of the Jedi Council. The film opens in the skies above the capital planet of Coruscant which is under siege by the Separatists under the command of the Sith Lord, Count Dooku(Christopher Lee), and the evil droid commander, General Grievous(voiced by Matthew Wood). They have boldly abducted Chancellor Palpatine(Ian McDiarmid) in order to force the surrender of the Republic. Anakin and Obi-Wan board the ship where Palpatine is being held hostage and encounter Count Dooku. Killing Dooku, the Jedi eventually escape the ship as it crashes into the city-planet. After learning that his wife is pregnant, Anakin starts having nightmares about her dying in child-birth. Anakin is eventually ordered by the Jedi Council to spy on Palpatine and he becomes distrustful of the council. It is eventually revealed that the Sith Lord that the council has been looking for has been under their noses the entire time, and finally reveals himself to Anakin.

The final installment of the Prequel Trilogy and the final film released in the Star Wars Saga brings the series full circle. This film is quite possibly the darkest film in the series and is certainly the most violent, and is the first Star Wars film to earn a PG-13 rating. While the first two films were made to please the kids, this one is not for kids. As I said, it's dark and it's violent. And the film is all the better for it. Punches are not pulled here as people lose their limbs left and right and the Jedi are exterminated. It's actually a fairly gripping film emotionally, as we witness Anakin's rebirth as a Dark Lord of the Sith, and the people that are effected by it, like Padme and Obi-Wan. We also get to see Palpatine's physical transformation into the monster we see him as in Return of the Jedi. Everything is on the line. One of the things that everyone has been looking forward to is the fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin. And it delivers on that front in spades. As does the fight between Yoda and Darth Sidious/Palpatine. All the other action pieces are also very well done, particularly the opening space battle at the beginning of the film, and Obi-Wan's encounter with Grievous on Utapau. The acting in this one is definitely better than the first two. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman actually step up their game in this one, despite the fact that the dialogue still sucks. But the film does a good job getting you involved with the main characters in this installment. When the iconic image of Darth Vader in his mask and suit finally show up and starts breathing, it sends chills down your spine. It's awesome. Unfortunately, in the Original Trilogy, Vader came across as a bad-ass villain, but with the Prequel Trilogy, he ends up being more of a victim, because he was deceived by Sidious. But all in all, Revenge of the Sith comes very close to capturing the magic of the Original Trilogy, even though it misses it by a narrow margin. Revenge of the Sith certainly earns its place in the series as probably the best Star Wars film since Empire Strikes Back. I noticed no changes for the Blu-Ray release of the film. I give Revenge of the Sith a 9.5/10.

Episode IV: A New Hope

30 years after the Sith took control of the Republic, it became the first Galactic Empire and rules the galaxy with an iron fist and the Jedi Knights have been obliterated. The film opens as a ship is attempting to outrun an Imperial Star Destroyer, but is captured. Rebel soldiers attempt to fight back but are quickly overwhelmed by Darth Vader and his stormtroopers. Among the captured is Princess Leia Organa(Carrie Fisher), whose people stole the plans to the Empire's greatest weapon, the Death Star. Two droids, C-3PO and R2-D2 escape the ship and crash land on Tatooine where they are captured and sold by Jawas to a local moisture farmer. Tended to by Luke Skywalker(Mark Hamill), R2-D2 eventually escapes to find his former master, Obi-Wan Kenobi(Sir Alec Guinness). After being ambushed by Sand People, Luke learns that his father was once a Jedi Knight. After the murder of his aunt and uncle by the Empire, Luke decides to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi.

This is the film that started it all. Originally released in 1977, this was the highest grossing film of all time. People lined up for miles to see this film. It was a major success. It also launched the careers of Mark Hamill, and most notable Harrison Ford, who would be the most successful of all of them, starring in films like Indiana Jones, Patriot Games, Witness, and Air Force One. But his character of Han Solo was one of the most memorable characters in Star Wars. This rogue and his co-pilot the towering wookiee, Chewbacca(Peter Mayhew) flew the infamous ship, the Millenium Falcon, the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy. This is a classic tale of good versus evil. Inspired by the adventure serials of the 30s such as Flash Gordon, Star Wars weaved a tale of the struggles of the Rebel Alliance against the evil Galactic Empire. Facing impossible odds, the Rebel Alliance fought to free the galaxy from the tyranny of Darth Vader and the Emperor. Star Wars: A New Hope changed the way films were made. It also made special effects as important as the story itself. Watching the Rebel X-Wings attack the Death Star is a spectacular feast of speed and explosive high-flying action. Every sci-fi and action film you see today is the result of George Lucas' film. From Alien to Independence Day and Avatar, the techniques that were invented for the original Star Wars are still in use today, and inspired filmmakers to go even further. The acting is top-notch all around and the characters are some of the most memorable in movie history. Alec Guinness brought a humble yet commanding presence as the noble Obi-Wan Kenobi, and made the character one of the most important characters of the Star Wars Saga. The special effects were simply some of the most amazing during 1977. In 1997, George Lucas re-released the Original Trilogy to theaters with some new special effects and footage. While expanding on the arrival to Mos Eisley was a good idea, and re-doing most of the visuals for the Death Star space battle made it better, some of the changes weren't as good. Adding Jabba the Hut in a scene deleted from the original film, just didn't work, and when Han is stopped by Greedo in the cantina, Greedo shoots first. Any Star Wars fan will tell you that Han is the only one that pulled a trigger, that's what made hims such a bad-ass character. In the Blu-Ray release, Han and Greedo fire at the same time. For the most part, however, the changes don't detract from the experience and actually make it a little better. Star Wars: A New Hope is such an important piece of American cinema and American history in general, that it has yet to be topped by anything else the genre has to offer. I give A New Hope a 9.5/10. This is a movie for all generations, both new and old.

Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Following the events in A New Hope, the Rebel Alliance has been forced from their hidden base and is on the run from the Empire. Attempting to regroup on the ice planet Hoth, the rebels struggle to survive against the cold, harsh environment while figuring out their next move. Meanwhile, the Empire has dispatched probe droids to every corner of the galaxy to locate the rebels. One such droid lands on Hoth. Surveying the icy landscape looking for any signs of life, Luke Skywalker(Mark Hamill) is attacked by a monstrous wampa. After freeing himself and killing the wampa, Skywalker is visited by the ghost of Obi-Wan Kenobi(Alec Guinness) and told to go the Degobah system to learn from the Jedi Master Yoda. When the Empire attacks, the rebels escape. Han Solo(Harrison Ford), Leia(Carrie Fisher), Chewbacca and C-3PO escape on board the Millenium Falcon, while Luke and R2-D2 take his X-wing to Degobah to become a Jedi. Han and Leia eventually make their way to Cloud City on Bespin which is led by charming rogue, Lando Calrissian(Billy Dee Williams). Unfortunately, to save Cloud City, Lando betrays Leia and Han, and ends up giving Han to the legendary bounty hunter, Boba Fett(Jeremy Bulloch). Luke ends his training with Yoda early to save his friends, and learns a terrible truth about his family.

The second installment of the Original Trilogy takes a dark turn. As Darth Vader pursues Luke Skywalker, we're introduced to several new characters which include the Jedi Master Yoda and Lando Calrissian. Some have argued that Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie and honestly, it's almost hard to argue that point. Directed by Irvin Kershner, Empire Strikes Back features some of the most powerful moments in the Star Wars saga, which includes Luke's training on Degobah, Han and Leia's relationship and Darth Vader's revelation that he's Luke's father. That moment, is etched in everybody's mind because it was unexpected and extremely powerful, and it makes the final confrontation between the two in Return of the Jedi all the more intense. The battle sequences are fantastic, with most of the special effects still being practical and using miniatures especially on Hoth and the spectacular chase sequence through the asteroid field. The acting in this film is even better than the previous film, as the stakes in Empire Strikes Back are even higher. The Empire Strikes Back wound up being an even bigger success than A New Hope not just because it was darker in tone, but also because it took all the successful elements of the previous film and improved on them in every way. This film is as good as it gets, and is one of the best science fiction/fantasy films ever made. Some of the changes for the blu-ray release are fairly subtle and don't really change much, aside from the changes that were introduced in the 1997 special editions. I have to give Empire Strikes a perfect 10/10, because it not only hits all the right notes, it really gets the viewers involved with the characters, which makes it all the more satisfying.

Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

6 years after the original Star Wars hit the big screens, the final installment of the Original Trilogy, Return of the Jedi, is finally released. Taking place some time after The Empire Strikes Back, we find Luke Skywalker back on his home planet of Tattooine, looking for his friend Han Solo. Han Solo is being held captive by the vile gangster, Jabba the Hut. After locating Han, Leia, disguised as a bounty hunter releases Solo from his carbonite prison, but is soon captured by Jabba. Enter Luke Skywalker, who makes his way into Jabba's main chamber. After killing the ravenous rancor, Luke, Han, Chewbacca and company are whisked out to the Dune Sea to be executed. After killing Jabba and escaping Tattooine, Luke makes his way back to Degobah while Han, Chewbacca and Leia make their way to the rebel fleet. Meanwhile, a secretly rebuilt Death Star plays host to the Emperor himself who is overseeing the final stages of the station's construction, which puts the Rebel Alliance in a unique position to eliminate the tyranny of the Empire once and for all. When Luke finds out what really happened to his father, he vows to try to find a way to bring Darth Vader back from the Dark Side.

Everything is put on the line in this film as the final struggle to free the galaxy from tyranny comes to a head. From the opening fight sequence in the Dune Sea of Tattooine to the final epic space battle above the forest moon of Endor, Return of the Jedi is packed to the hilt with adventure, humor and special effects. While it is certainly is the worst film in the Original Trilogy, it is by no means a horrible film. Far from it. A lot of criticism that was leveled against it was the inclusion of Ewoks, adorable teddy-bear life forms that helped bring the Empire to its knees. Personally, I didn't really a major problem with it. I actually like the Ewoks, which is more than I can say for the tepid Gungans from the Prequel Trilogy. How can you not like Wicket(Warwick Davis)? The battle sequences in this film really outdid all the others with the most epic space battle in the Star Wars saga. You have the entire rebel fleet going up not just against the Death Star, but also the Imperial Fleet. While the space sequences and the fight on the surface of Endor are amazing in their own right, it's the final confrontation between Luke and Darth Vader that really adds some serious weight to the war. This fight is extremely personal as it's between father and son, not between former friends. When Vader pushes Luke to the point where Luke unleashes his full fury against the Dark Lord, it really brings to the surface all the emotions that were building up since Empire Strikes Back. Vader is being driven back and is unable to withstand Luke's anger and hate, which appears to be a trademark of the Skywalker family. Then when the Emperor enters the picture and starts to electrocute Luke, Anakin Skywalker finally re-emerges from the Dark Side and hurls the Emperor to his death at the cost of his own life. It doesn't get more powerful than that. Then, Anakin asks Luke to remove his mask so he can see his son with his own eyes, and this is the first time that we see Anakin Skywalker before he dies. After the destruction of the Death Star, Luke gives his father a funeral pyre, knowing that his father has been freed from the Dark Side and has joined all the Jedi that went before. That funeral scene is actually very touching and while it is sad, it's also a symbol that Darth Vader has finally been destroyed. The acting in the film is, again, very good with Mark Hamill really amping it up in the final battle with Vader. Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor is fantastic. The make-up is really creepy and adds to the character's malevolence. The special effects are still fantastic, especially during the space battle.

Some of the changes to the Blu-Ray edition of this film are not exactly subtle. When Vader finally destroys the Emperor, he screams "NOOO!" not once, but twice. The first one made sense, but the second one, not so much. In one of the scenes in Jabba's palace, a Dug is seen walking around. The Dugs were introduced in the Prequel Trilogy. The ending to the film has been re-worked and extended for the 1997 re-release of the film, and in the 2004 DVD release, an extra scene on Naboo has been added. Also carrying over from the DVD release, is Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker as a ghost joining Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi observing Luke Skywalker. There were a lot of complaints about that, but Lucas stated that the moment Anakin became Darth Vader, that was the moment Anakin died, and the ghosts of Jedi appear in the form of when they died. Honestly, it does make sense logically, but some people feel that Vader was redeemed when he saved his son from the Emperor, so when Vader died, he should've taken his older form. That one will be debated until the end of time, I think. It didn't really bother me in the least. Overall, the film itself is still very good and has some very great character moments that really add to the whole experience. I give Return of the Jedi a solid 9/10.

The Blu-Ray edition of the Star Wars Saga was released on the 16th of September and is available in three distinct packages: The Prequel Trilogy, The Original Trilogy and The Complete Saga. I paid 80 bucks for The Complete Saga as it comes with three extra discs packed with never before bonus materials including deleted scenes from the Original Trilogy. Also included are vintage behind-the-scenes features for Episodes IV, V and VI, as well as a 97 minute feature on Star Wars spoofs throughout the years. For what I paid, it's a great value, and while I would have preferred to have the original pre-special edition versions of the films on Blu-Ray, I still got my money's worth for the set. This is the best the movies have ever looked and sounded, and the special features alone are worth the entry fee. I give the entire set a 9.5/10.

Conan The Barbarian(2011)

2011-08-21T14:49:00.001-07:00

In 1981, Conan The Barbarian starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was unleashed on the world. It was one hell of a movie, telling the story of one man who would eventually become king by his own hand. It was and still is a fantastic film, which launched Arnold Schwarzenegger's film career. A sequel, The Destroyer followed in 1984, but was a critical failure, as it failed to capture the essence of Conan. Still, it was fun to see Arnie swinging a sword. A third film was in the works, but didn't get made because Arnold was committed to Predator.

Now in 2011, A new Conan movie has been unleashed. Starring Jason Momoa as Conan, this new film tells the story of a boy who was born in the heat of battle, raised by his father, Corin(Ron Perlman), only to see his father and people slaughtered by the ruthless warlord, Khalar Zym(Stephen Lang). Khalar Zym sought the final piece to an ancient mask that would give him unlimited power to rule the world. Years later, Conan travels the ancient world of Hyboria, freeing slaves, and causing trouble. Eventually he runs into a woman, Tamara(Rachel Nichols) who escaped the wrath of Zym, and his daughter, Marique(Rose McGowan). Turns out, she is a descendant of a "pureblood" people, and her blood is needed to activate the mask. Conan accompanies her, if only to avenge his people.

First things first, the only relation this film has to the original, is the name of the movie, and the character. Other than that, it's a completely different film with it's own story. It's more of a reboot than a remake. Two: The casting of Jason Momoa as Conan: It really wasn't a bad idea, as Momoa has the physicality and the body to make it work. As for the acting? He's not bad, but all he's really required to do in this film, is to look like a bad-ass and swing a sword, and he does that extremely well. Almost even more than Arnold Schwarzenegger. But again, it's still comparing apples to oranges, as Momoa's Conan is very different than Arnold's version. In the original film, and its sequel, Conan came off as a bit of a buffoon. Momoa's Conan really isn't a buffoon, he's actually fairly intelligent as Conan should be. In the books, Conan spoke several languages and was a brilliant military tactician, and that still isn't shown in this film, but he's not the gullible bonehead that was portrayed in Conan: The Destroyer.

I'm posting this on a Horror website, because there are many elements in this film, which would make it qualify. It's very bloody, particularly the beginning of the film, with young Conan bringing the heads of six savages back from the wilds. It's also a very dark film, because you're dealing with demons, human sacrifice, brutal torture, and basically, the end of the world. But it's still a fantasy film at heart, because it takes place in a fictional age which was supposed to have happened over 13,000 years ago. Getting back to the acting, Stephen Lang is fantastic as Zym, as he's very menacing and has a seriously bad attitude all around. Rose McGowan is virtually unrecognizable as Marique, who is as beautiful as she is psychotic. Rachel Nichols, on the other hand, is strictly eye candy, however. She's got a great body, though. The action was fast, hard hitting and very well choreographed. The way Momoa handles a sword, makes Schwarzenegger look like a school kid. Some of the special effects could've been handled better, though.

All in all, it's not as bad as I was expecting. In fact, I really liked it a lot. Does it hold a candle to the original film? Not even close. But it's sure as hell is better than The Destroyer in every which way. So, I don't think people should have to worry about the new Conan film overshadowing the original. Schwarzenegger's film is probably the best sword-and-sandal movie of the past thirty-two years. Jason Momoa isn't changing that. But he's not the horrible mis-cast that people seem to think he is. Truth be told, there really is no-one in this world that has Conan's physique, not even Arnie. But Momoa's big enough, and has the physicality to really make it stick. This is a solid fantasy/horror flick. 8.5/10.

127 Hours

2011-08-17T17:35:00.000-07:00

In 2003, a hiker, Aron Ralston, went on a hiking trip in Moab, Utah. He found an isolated canyon to explore, and he ends up getting pinned to a boulder at the bottom of the canyon. Anyone who's read the story of Aron Ralston's story, or even heard of him, will know how it ends. This is probably the shortest plot synopsis I've ever written. But for a film and a story like this, it isn't necessarily just about the destination, it is the journey that matters, and in 127 Hours, we are with Aron Ralston every step of the way, through his 6 day ordeal. Directed by Danny Boyle(Sunshine, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionare), the film takes us on a journey with one man and his struggle to survive in one of the most isolated environments in the United States, with no hope of rescue.

127 Hours was based on a book written by Aron Ralston himself, so yes he survived his ordeal, but as I said earlier, it's more about how he survived that really matters. In many films based on "true stories," little respect is paid to the actual events. Here, the event IS the movie, and the one thing that makes this movie all the more powerful, is the performance of James Franco as Ralston. This is essentially a one-man movie, and James Franco delivers in every aspect. He's funny when he needs to be, and extremely intense when the situation calls for it. For example, the moment his character gets stuck, he stares at his hand and the boulder in complete disbelief. It's the small details that really help sell his performance. When he starts making his recordings, he's well aware that he never told anyone where he was going, which makes his predicament all the more harrowing. There are a few flashbacks here and there, but for the most part, it's all James Franco.

This film really isn't all that easy to sit through, as it's fairly claustrophobic. But it never drags, even though the film is centered on just the one guy stuck in the same spot for an hour and a half, it never goes by slowly. Especially when you start seeing Ralston begin to crack due to the lack of food and water. The way the film is edited makes it even more realistic, and when the moment of truth comes when Ralston has to lose his arm, you're so invested in his character that when you see it happen, you really feel bad for Ralston. That amputation scene gets pretty graphic, so beware.

Overall, this is a very solid and uplifting story of survival in the harshest of conditions. Danny Boyle has made an incredibly intense film and that intensity is amplified by James Franco in a performance that will be remembered for years to come. Most films based on true stories fall flat on their face, but 127 Hours shows complete respect for Aron Ralston and his story, and it simply is one of the best movies I've seen years. I give this one a perfect 10/10.

Highlander 2

2011-08-14T22:36:00.000-07:00

*Spoiler Warning*: For those that haven't seen the original Highlander, stop reading and go watch it now! I'm going to be writing details that spoil some of the plot of the first film.

In 1986, a little fantasy-adventure film was released. Highlander. It told the story of Connor McLeod(Christopher Lambert), a 500 year immortal who struggled to survive against other immortals from which only could survive. And the only way an immortal could die was to remove his head from his body. The power and knowledge of the vanquished warrior would then flow into the victor making him stronger. The film was critically panned in the United States, while it was more popular in Europe. Later, Highlander developed a cult following when it was released on video. Because of the following, Highlander got 4 live-action sequels, an Anime film, three series, a series of novels, and a canceled video game. The follow-up to Highlander, originally titled Highlander II: The Quickening, took place in the future, in the year 2024, when the world was encased in an energy shield designed to protect Earth from solar radiation. After winning the Prize at the end of the first Highlander, Connor MacLeod helps develop an energy shield in the year 1999 to protect the earth from solar radiation. In the original theatrical release Connor came from the Planet Zeist over 500 years ago. All immortals came from this planet. On the Planet Zeist, MacLeod, along with Ramirez(Sean Connery) helped lead a failed rebellion against the evil General Katana(Michael Ironside). Once captured they are exiled into the future. After a failed assassination attempt, Katana launches himself into the future to finish the job.

I mentioned in the previous paragraph that in the original theatrical release, immortals came from the planet Zeist. A subsequent home video release, dubbed the Renegade Version, excised all mention of Zeist, instead just informing the audience that immortals were exiled from the distant past. First of all, the whole Zeist thing was ridiculous portraying immortals as aliens, basically, and even in the Renegade Version of the film, the idea that immortals came from the past where there was advanced technology is really hard to swallow. Secondly, the overall plot of the film was very heavy-handed in terms of delivering an environmental message. It really slapped you in the face with it. The problems with Highlander 2 began long before they started filming. There were issues with the studio, financing, locations, it was a complete mess, I'm amazed the film ever got made. Russell Mulcahy is once again at the helm, and honestly does what he can with a piss-poor screenplay. A lot of the problems were seen on screen when the film was released. The Renegade Version did away with the whole Zeist idea, which was a good thing, but some of visual effects were really an eyesore, specifically regarding the energy shield. They had planned for it to be blue, but due to technological and financial restraints, they had to make it red. It was horrendous.

There was a second release of Highlander 2 on DVD and that was back in 2004. They re did a lot of the visual effects, and gave the shield it's blue color as originally intended. The new release also did away with unnecessary plot points and scenes, and as a result, made it a better film. Unfortunately, the problems that plagued the film early on simply couldn't be erased. Now, bearing all these problems in mind, I found the film to still be enjoyable because of the performances. The ones who steal the show are newcomers Michael Ironside and John C. McGinley, as Katana and corporate sleaze-bag extraordinaire, respectively. Christopher Lambert returns as Connor MacLeod with an inspired performance as a much older version of his character. Sean Connery also returns as Ramirez. Unfortunately Connery's character is reduced to buffoon status as a fish out of water-type, as his character ends up in the future with MacLeod, who summoned him(another ridiculous plot-point. There's a lot.) Michael Ironside's been one of my favorite actors for a long time and his performance in Highlander 2 is one of those reasons, he plays it over-the-top, but he is so much fun to watch. He chews the scenery like nothing else. One of the things that I should mention, is that Christopher Lambert did all of his own stunts in this film, which really makes things better as you can have close-ups.

Highlander 2 has issues. Big-time. There are plot holes so big you can drive the Death Star through. The story is ridiculously horrid, and in the original release of the film, some of the special effects were so bad that they could give you a head-ache. But, the 2004 re-release of the film fixes the problems with the special effects and the pacing of the film, but it still doesn't fix the other problems that I've mentioned. The real saving graces of the movie, are, as I've said, the performances. Michael Ironside steals the show completely. Some of the action scenes are fun, but sword-fights are far and few in-between which were the trademark of the previous film. As a direct follow-up to the original Highlander, this one falls flat on its face. As a generic sci-fi movie, it's not bad. The next two films in the series are better, but as to what degree, I won't say until I review them, which should be soon. But the worst film in the series is the fifth one, The Source. But I will be reviewing that one later, as well. For now, Highlander 2 gets a 7/10, and that's only because of Michael Ironside. Did I mention how much I like Michael Ironside? He's really awesome.

Red Sonja

2011-08-12T22:25:00.000-07:00

Sword and Sorcery films have been popular since Sinbad in the late 50s and early 60s, but it wasn't until the 80s that the sub-genre really exploded. In 1982, Conan The Barbarian was released and launched Arnold Schwarzenegger's film career. It also opened the floodgates for other movies in the genre, which included Krull, Conan The Destroyer, Red Sonja and Dragonslayer. None of those films had the same impact as Conan The Barbarian however. Conan The Destroyer wasn't as well received because it was held back by it's PG rating, and nonsensical story. Red Sonja was a flat out failure, as it didn't make HALF of what it cost to make. But Red Sonja is the film that I will be reviewing today.

The film opens in the aftermath of the murder of Red Sonja's(Brigitte Nielson) family and her being brutalized by the soldiers of the evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Sonja is visited by a spirit, giving her the strength to finally seek revenge. Elsewhere, in a temple, priestesses guarding a mystical talisman are preparing to destroy it, when they are attacked by Gedren's forces, led by Ikol(the late Ronald Lacey). One of the priestesses escapes and is shot by one of Gedren's guards, who happen to be dispatched by Lord Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger). Kalidor finds Sonja training at a nearby temple and is brought back to her sister, who later dies. Sonja then embarks on a quest to destroy the Talisman and Gedren. On the way, she meets a spoiled prince, Tarn(Ernie Reyes, Jr.) and his servant, the noble Falkon(Paul Smith). First thing's first, the story isn't original, and nor is it very good. The talisman is nothing more than a MacGuffin to get Sonja and her friends moving. We don't even get a taste of the talisman's full power, just some of the aftermath. Not only that, only women can touch it. Why is that? When a man touches it, he turns neon-green and then disappears. That's just one of the major plotholes that you'll discover throughout the film. The acting is flat out terrible. Nielson and Bergman are particularly awful. Which is strange, because I really liked Bergman in Conan The Barbarian. Schwarzenegger is just being himself basically, but it looks like he's having lots of fun. Ernie Reyes, Jr., who would later go to became a master of the martial arts as well as an actor/stunt man, ended up being pretty annoying in this film. Not really his fault, as that's the way the character was written. Reyes does get to showcase some of his martial arts abilities, which are actually fairly impressive for his age. The fight scenes that he's involved with are actually not to bad, it's just that there aren't really enough of them.

Speaking of the fight scenes, aside from Ernie Reyes, Jr., the fight scenes are fairly generic. Not bad, but nothing to really scream about either. Schwarzenegger's just doing his Conan stuff, and the fight between Gedren and Sonja runs a little too long. Paul Smith is really fun to watch though, he has a huge club made out of bone that he uses, which adds humor to his fight scenes. Truth be told, this is a bad movie, it's an even worse genre film, and yet, there's something strangely charming about the whole thing. It was made with the best intentions, which you can tell from some of the acting and other scenes, but it was just poorly executed. Some of the actors went on to have solid careers, Schwarzenegger was already a superstar because of The Terminator, and Ernie Reyes went on to star in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II and Surf Ninjas. The others? Not so much. Sandahl Bergman and Brigitte Nielson, both of whom were very beautiful at the time, especially in this film, just didn't really make it big.

As much as Red Sonja deserves the criticism that it got for it's silliness, I still found it to be an entertaining movie. Swords, sorcery, beautiful women, Arnold Schwarzenegger swinging a sword. It's still a great combination. Even in a bad movie. I still love it though. I give it a solid 8/10.

Highlander

2011-08-10T12:44:00.000-07:00

In 1986, a young unknown director named Russell Mulcahy released Highlander, to really poor fanfare in the United States, but widely accepted and praised in Europe and other territories. Theatrically, it's performance in the States was a disaster, but it quickly developed a cult following on home video that would launch it's main star, Christopher Lambert to superstar status. Highlander eventually spawned three spin-off series, including one that starred Adrian Paul who would go on to star in two Highlander film sequels, as a member of the Clan MacLeod. It also spawned four sequels, one of them was straight-to-video, and one Anime film.

Connor MacLeod(Christopher Lambert) was born in 1518 in the village of Glen Finnen on the shores of Loch Shiel. Mortally wounded in battle against a rival clan, by the Kurgan(Clancy Brown), Connor returns to life only to be driven away by those he loved. In exile, he is discovered and trained by Jaun-Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez(Sean Connery), a 3,000 year old immortal. Turns out that Connor MacLeod is also an immortal. Fast-forward to 1986 in modern-day New York City, Connor is living under a different name, Russell Nash. He is being hunted by The Kurgan, also immortal. Turns out that through time immortals have been fighting each other to be the last one standing. The only way an immortal can die is by decapitation. As an immortal dies, his power and his knowledge flow into the victor and makes them stronger, and blowing shit up in the process. In the end, only one immortal is supposed to survive. Should that last immortal be someone like the Kurgan, mankind will suffer eternal damnation.

For a modern-day fantasy film, Highlander has a fairly complex story. There's a bunch of subplots that are integral to the main plot. It's actually very well written and intelligent. This movie got ripped to shreds when it was released in the States in 1986. I guess people that it was very strange to have sword-fights in New York city, coupled with the fact that you have immortals that can only die by decapitation, which made it a fairly violent movie. Not only that, there were flashbacks to Connor's earlier life as a member of the Clan MacLeod, which seemed to confuse people, but I thought it made sense, and worked in context with the overall story. It helped to explain where Connor came from and how he ended up where he is. The acting in this film is really good, especially from the three main leads. Christopher Lambert shines as Connor MacLeod, a man who can't seem to escape his past. Sean Connery is splendid as Ramirez, the immortal who takes Connor under his and teaches him to survive. Connery, best known as James Bond, brings and elegant and commanding presence as the 3,000 year old Egyptian metallurgist to King Charles V of Spain. His introduction is awesome. But the one actor who really steals the show in Highlander is Clancy Brown as the Kurgan. This guy knows how to really amp up the villain factor, he plays it very over-the-top, and it works, as the Kurgan is frightening AND funny at the same time. He also wields a broadsword that would make Conan the Barbarian jealous. It's very clear that Brown is having a lot of fun with his character, and it really helps sell the character as one of the most memorable villains in movie history.

The fight scenes, for the time back in '86, were fairly well done, from the opening sword fight beneath Madison Square Garden to the climactic battle between the Kurgan and Connor MacLeod. It doesn't stand up as well today, as today's sword fights are faster, better choreographed, and sometimes far more brutal, but there's a fun time to be had watching those sword fights. The other thing that really stands out about this film is the soundtrack. It's not just the fantastic score by the late Michael Kamen, but also the fact that the legendary rock band, Queen had a direct hand in the making of the music of the film. The opening song, Princes of the Universe, is incredible powerful and helps set the tone for the film. Some of the other songs are more somber and really amp up the moods in those scenes.

As I said before, this film was a disaster, critically in the United States, when it was released, but over time when it hit home video, it took on a life of its own, and became really popular and accepted. So much so, that four sequels were spawned: Highlander II, The Final Dimension, Endgame, and The Source. An anime film was also released several years back, The Search for Vengeance. There were three series, that spun off on the mythology of the film. One series starred Adrian Paul, and lasted for six seasons, that series had it's own spin-off, The Raven, which didn't even last a full season, and a cartoon, The Animated Series, which was pretty horrendous. There was actually supposed to be a game released a few years back, and it never did, and most likely never will. The series with Adrian Paul, as well as the anime film, were close to achieving the magic that the original Highlander had. The rest of them didn't even come close. Highlander: Endgame I felt was the only live action film, that was worthy of being a true sequel to Highlander, but even then it had it's problems. But that's another film for another day.

Coming back to the original film, I have to give it a solid 9/10. Some of it doesn't stand up nearly as well after such a long period of time, but the performances of Clancy Brown, Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert, as well as a complex story with unique characters, more than makes up for it. If you must own a Highlander film, it has to be the original, because in the end, there can be only one.

DeepStar Six

2011-06-26T17:38:00.000-07:00

"There's something in the airlock!" 1989 was the year of the underwater monster movie. That year we saw the release of George P. Cosmatos's Leviathan, DeepStar Six, and last not but least, James Cameron's The Abyss. Out of all those films released that year, the only one that really garnered attention and did extremely well was The Abyss. And why not? It was helmed by legendary James Cameron who had directed Aliens and The Terminator before it. It also had the benefit of big-name actors such as Ed Harris, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. The other movies? Leviathan and DeepStar Six. DeepStar Six ended up flopping big time, and didn't reach cult status like Leviathan did. I'm going to review DeepStar Six for this post.

In the near future, the United States has established a top-secret base at the bottom of the ocean. The purpose is two-fold. One: To see if a permanent colony can be established in the deep. Two: Securing nuclear missiles. The scientists discover a gigantic cavern beneath the missile site, and opt to collapse it to place the missiles. However, something has been unleashed from the cavern and threatens the crew of DeepStar Six. It's a simple setup. Nothing too fancy, right? It's nothing original, we've seen it before. The film opens as a shift change happens and scientists swap positions from the main DeepStar complex and the SeaTrack laboratory. Eventually the scientists in the lab discover immense caverns beneath the missile site, and yet the scientist in charge, orders them to be collapsed. This is among the first of stupid decisions made in this film, and there are a lot of them. That can be attributed to the fact that the script is half-baked. Basically, the caverns are blown up and some kind of sea monster is released and terrorizes everyone, and because of dumb decisions, people die. If you have to abandon nuclear missiles at the bottom of the ocean, you DON'T NEED TO DETONATE THEM! One of the people in the base, Snyder(Miguel Ferrer), when asked to secure the missile sled, says, "It's not like people are going to swim down and steal them." Afterwards, chaos ensues and they have to find a way to get out of the base before it explodes too, because it's also a nuclear bomb, in a manner of speaking. Chaos ensues and people die.

As for the creature itself? Not very original. It looks like an over-sized lobster. And only two people are actually directly killed by it. Truth be told, when the creature actually shows itself, it's not too bad, as you don't see the whole thing. But then again, it's pretty static, as in it really doesn't move anywhere when it shows itself. It seems I'm really down on this movie doesn't it? Fact is, I had a lot of fun with it. And I'll tell you why. One, it's directed by Sean S. Cunningham of Friday the 13th, and it's well-acted. The three standouts are Taurean Blacque(Laidlaw), Miguel Ferrer(Snyder), and Matt McCoy(Richardson). Despite the crappy dialogue and script, these people give their best, particularly Ferrer, who's got playing a weasel down pat. He does it extremely well. Don't believe me? Check out RoboCop. Three, it moves at a decent clip. Granted, the shit doesn't hit the fan until about thirty minutes in, but it's still fun to watch the interactions between the characters.

Some of the problems I've mentioned are also attributed to the fact that there is another movie with almost the same setup, Leviathan. And I will admit that Leviathan is the better film in every aspect. But DeepStar Six is good old-fashioned movie monster fun, that may not be the best, but it certainly isn't the worst, and I find it's very fun. I give it a solid 8/10.

Lord of the Rings Trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring

2011-06-20T19:10:00.000-07:00

In my first review of the Lord of the Rings on Blu-Ray, I discussed the merits of the Blu-Ray copies of the films. In this post, I will review the films themselves, and these will be the theatrical releases, not the Extended Versions. Not yet anyway. But anyway...here we go:

The Fellowship of the Ring

"One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness, bind them." In 2001, New Line Cinema in association with Wing Nut Films released the first film in the epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy, created by J.R.R Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring. The film opens as men, dwarves and elves were given rings of power, by the Dark Lord Sauron. In secret, he forges a master ring, the One Ring, through which he gains control over all others. The world of Middle Earth is plunged into darkness as the lands fall to the power of the dark lord. But there was resistance; a Last Alliance of men and elves challenged Sauron at the foot of Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor. The king of Gondor was killed in battle, but his son, Isildur, took up his father's sword, and cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. Isildur took the One Ring as his own. Eventually, the ring betrayed Isildur and he was killed in an ambush by orcs. The ring was lost for 2,500 years, until it was picked up by a creature named Gollum. The ring kept Gollum alive for 500 years, biding its time. It eventually abandoned Gollum only to end up in the hands of a Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins(Sir Ian Holm). Rumors of Sauron's fortress of Barad Dur being rebuilt in the land of Mordor persisted. As it turns out, when Sauron created the One Ring, he bound his life force to the ring, and it survived because of Isildur. Sauron has returned and seeks the One Ring to destroy the world. Enter Frodo Baggins(Elijah Wood), Samwise Gamgee(Sean Astin), and Gandalf The Grey(Sir Ian McKellen). They set out to find a safe place where the One Ring can be hidden from Sauron.

There's a lot that's going on the first 40 minutes when The Fellowship of the Rings opens. The story gets complicated as the characters themselves are complex and fallible, which makes them easier to relate to, particularly the Hobbits played by Elijah Wood(Frodo), Sean Astin(Samwise Gamgee), Dominic Monaghan(Merry), and Billy Boyd(Pippin). They get thrown into situations that's way above and beyond what they are used to dealing with, and we see them afraid and eventually find their courage. This is helped in part by Ian McKellan's character of Gandalf, a wizard who takes a liking to the Hobbits of the Shire(as well as their leaves, which they love to smoke), and Aragorn(Viggo Mortensen), a ranger that is truly more than he appears. They eventually find their way to Rivendell, home of the Elven Lord Elrond(Hugo Weaving) and his daughter, Arwen(Liv Tyler). It is eventually decided that the One Ring must be destroyed, and the only way to do that is to take it back to Mount Doom, and throw it into the fire that created it. A Fellowship of nine is created, which includes four hobbits, Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir of Gondor(Sean Bean), the elf Legolas(Orlando Bloom), and the Dwarf, Gimli(John-Rhys Davies). Not only do they have to avoid Sauron's forces, but also Saruman(Sir Christopher Lee)as well.

As I said, the story gets more complicated as the film and trilogy continue, but The Fellowship establishes the world of Middle Earth and the principle characters, both good and evil. It also shows how easily men are corrupted as the One Ring slowly drives Boromir insane, and threatens to destroy the group from within. The film is very well acted on all sides, especially Elijah Wood, whom I never would of suspected of playing a Hobbit. But he was the right person for that role. Sir Ian McKellen was a revelation as Gandalf. As soon as you first see him, you don't see Ian McKellen, you see Gandalf, that's how much he embodies the role. Same goes for Viggo Mortensen, who plays Aragorn. On the villain side, you've got Christopher Lee, who is known for playing villains, specifically Dracula. But he brings a gravitas to the role that is menacing. And he does it very well. He starts out as a good guy, but eventually betrays Gandalf and basically everybody else for his own selfish desires. The themes of betrayal, love, courage and loss are well-represented here, especially in the third act of the film.

What I love about The Lord of the Rings is the complexity of the stories and the fact that Tolkien invented two separate languages specifically for his stories that take place in Middle Earth. THAT is dedication, but it works beautifully on screen. The action sequences are amazing, from the opening epic battle sequence at the foot of Mount Doom to the final fight with the Uruk Hai, on the river of Argonath. The CGI effects were fantastic back in 2001, and they still are. But one of the biggest things I love about the Lord of the Rings is the landscape of Middle Earth. The Lord of the Rings films were shot in New Zealand, and it's simply stunning. Watching the films, it's as though you're looking AT Middle Earth, aside from some matte paintings and such, it was all filmed on location. At nearly three hours*, it still doesn't feel too long as it's paced perfectly. Peter Jackson has done an incredible job with these films. I'll review The Two Towers and The Return of the King in separate posts. But I will get to them. I give The Fellowship of the Ring a perfect 10/10.

*This is the theatrical cut of the film, the extended version runs a half-hour longer. I will review the extended films at a later date.

Tremors

2011-04-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

"It just suddenly hit me. You know....stampede."

In the town of Perfection, Nevada, the locals are going about their business, when their town is suddenly plagued by mysterious deaths and disappearances. Soon, they discover that their peaceful valley has been invaded by giant underground man-eating worms. Two down-on-their luck handymen, Valentine McGee(Kevin Bacon), and Earl Bassett(Fred Ward) team up with a student seismologist(Finn Carter) and survivalists Burt and Heather Gummer(Michael Gross and Reba McEntire), to fight the creatures.

Ok, so, the story isn't original. Doesn't need to be in this case. This is a monster movie, plain and simple. Released in 1990, it helped launch Kevin Bacon into the spotlight and was Reba McEntire's first foray into the film world. While this film had it's fair share of scares, it was also really funny at the same time thanks to Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward. Those two bounced off each other almost like Abbott and Costello. They were very funny, likable, and pretty down-to-earth. It also helps that the rest of the cast were also up to the challenge, everyone from Victor Wong(Walter Chang) to Bobby Jacoby(Melvin) really put forth incredible effort, to bring the audience into the movie. Michael Gross's character of Burt Gummer, is particularly funny, because his character takes himself a little too seriously, and the rest of the characters react to that in some pretty funny ways.

Now, this being a monster movie, you've got to have interesting monsters. And we do. Giant. Worms. These are not your typical earthworms. No, these are desert-dwelling gigantic man-eating worms that move with incredible speed, and can't see, but they can feel vibrations from potential victims. When you first see the monster, it looks like a mutated snake as it's dangling from Val and Earl's truck. Then you see later, that it's more of a tongue that will grab you and pull you in. Truthfully, having monsters that attack you from underground is actually a pretty freaky idea, but it is one that works in this case. There are points in the movie where the camera is from the creature's point of view, sneaking up on a victim, and you go, "is it gonna get 'em? Is it gonna get 'em?" It gets pretty intense at times. There are some gruesome moments in the film, like when Val and Earl find one of the townspeople on an electrical tower, and the head of another in a field. It's not really one for the kids, despite the PG-13 rating. And speaking of special effects, no CGI trickery is used here, just simple camera tricks, miniatures and puppetry. And it works, beautifully.

The film works, because not only do you have great monsters and scares, it's incredibly funny at the same time, and few movies have been able to pull that off. Tremors is one that has stood the test of time, and will for years to come. I think it would've fared even better if it was the ONLY Tremors film, but it's not. It's spawned two sequels, one prequel and a short-lived television series, all of which I own copies of. Tremors 2: Aftershocks, kept Michael Gross and Fred Ward, and still worked to a certain degree, even though it was...gorier. It was still funny at times. Tremors 3: Back To Perfection, starred Michael Gross in the lead along with Arianna Richards and Tony Genaro from the original film. Tremors 4: The Legend Begins takes place in the Old West when Perfection, Nevada was known as Rejection. Tremors 4 featured Michael Gross as the great-grandfather of Burt Gummer. He and Billy Drago were the only real saving graces of the fourth film. But I'll review each film separately. The television series ran for 13 episodes and featured Michael Gross in the lead as Burt Gummer, obviously. A couple of episodes managed to feature Christopher Lloyd. But the show only lasted 13 episodes on the Sci-Fi channel before being canned. There's a reason. The show really wasn't that great. It's not horrible, but there's nothing terribly remarkable about it either. And there are rumors of a fifth film that is supposed to take place in Australia. But I haven't heard anything new about that in years.

Honestly, I enjoyed the sequels, and the TV show, but to be truthful with you, the one film in the series that has really prevailed as one of the best monster movies in the past 25 years is still the original film with Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward. Their performances and fantastic writing really help keep the first Tremors film from being forgotten. I highly recommend this film to any fan of monster movies and/or Kevin Bacon. It gets a perfect 10/10.

To Buy or Not to Buy.

2011-03-22T17:34:00.000-07:00

Typically, I use this blog to review movies. However, something came up and I need to talk about it for this particular post. It was just announced that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy Extended Edition would be coming to Blu-Ray at the end of June. The set includes 15 discs. 6 Blu-rays which are the movies spread over two discs each. Reason for that is to maximize picture and audio quality. Understandable. These are movies that deserve the very best. The remaining 9 discs are where my problem lies. They're DVDs. Not high-definition Blu-Ray, but standard def DVD. And those have the special features for each and every movie. They include all the special features of the Extended and theatrical releases. This wouldn't be an issue, except that I have all those features already, because I have the theatrical versions of the trilogy on Blu-Ray, which include the special features of the previous theatrical release on DVD. I also have the Extended Editions on DVD, which have extensive behind-the-scenes features. The movies themselves are epic in every way. My main issue is the pricing. The MSRP is about 120 USD. For three movies? Even for the extended versions, that's excessive.

Don't get me wrong: I love boxed sets. I have the Alien Anthology, Avatar, X-Men and Star Trek Next Generation Films on Blu-Ray. Fantastic sets, all of them. But each one that I just mentioned has features that their DVD counter-parts don't have, particularly the Alien Anthology and James Cameron's Avatar. Now, when I say the MSRP for the LOTR Extended Edition Trilogy is about 120 USD, that's usually not the case. That's the price the manufacturer suggests, but it's usually up to the retailer to sell it at a certain range. Amazon themselves have it on for 83 bucks. That's much better, but it's still too much. And before I'm labeled a hypocrite, I DO have the Star Wars Saga pre-ordered on Blu-Ray from Amazon.com. BUT, the Star Wars Saga is SIX movies, not three, and there's an extra disc that has special features that haven't been seen by the general public yet. So, I'm fairly particular about the boxed sets I DO buy. It just doesn't make sense for me to buy the LOTR trilogy AGAIN on Blu-Ray for nearly a hundred bucks. So....I'm going to wait for the individual releases before I buy the trilogy again. Granted, each movie would retail for about 25-35 USD depending on where I go. The total price I would actually pay would probably just as much if not a little bit more than the set itself, so it IS a bit of a quandary, and it's not an easy decision to make, particularly because I'm a HUGE fan of the Lord of the Rings. But it's a situation I'm keeping an eye on.

Blu-Ray has only been available since 2006, but it's been picking up steam. Prices for the discs and players have become more affordable for the general public since then, but for boxed sets, prices are still a little too much to swallow. Depending on where you go, the price for boxed sets, particularly for big movies like the Alien Anthology and Lord of the Rings, will range between 70 and 140 brand new. If you're going to pick this set up, shop around, and you can find the LOTR Extended Edition Blu-Ray set at a bargain price.

Piranha(2010)

2011-01-17T07:58:00.000-08:00

Killer fish movies haven't really been popular since Jaws first arrived over 30 years ago. Unless you count the crappy movies that have been released on the sci-fi channel over the past couple of years including Mega Piranha which was made in response to Alexandre Aja's remake of Piranha.

Alex Aja's Piranha is a remake of the killer fish movie directed by Joe Dante from 1978. But that's really in name only. In the original film the fish were mutations. In Aja's film, they're an ancient breed of piranha. Basically, the storyline is this: It's Spring Break in Lake Victoria, Arizona, and students from all over the country are coming to this particular spot to party. That means booze and boobs. Elizabeth Shue plays the town's sheriff, and Ving Rhames plays her second in command. Steven R. McQueen plays sheriff's son, Jake, who wants to have fun but is stuck babysitting his siblings. He eventually sneaks off to do what he wants. Apparently a small tremor has broken open an underwater cave releasing thousands of ravenous piranha into the nearby lake and all hell is about to break loose.

Okay, nobody goes to a movie like this for the movie. No, they come for the breasts and the carnage, and there is plenty of both. There are plenty of awesome death scenes in this film, but the main centerpiece of the film, is the piranha attack on the party-goers. It literally turns into a bloodbath as people are eviscerated left and right. There's some cgi involved, but in a film like this, it kinda works, but for the most part the effect are mostly practical thanks to KNB Effects. I haven't seen a film this bloody in a long time. And that's almost in one scene.

Yes, this movie is silly, and it realizes that. You've got cameos from Christopher Lloyd as the mad scientist type fishing store owner, Eli Roth as the party host, and Matt Hooper from Jaws: Richard Dreyfuss himself. This movie does not take itself seriously at all, and I think that works in its favor. The acting isn't too bad. You've got Jerry O'Connell who plays a convincing sleazeball pornographer. Elizabeth Shue is fantastic, as is Ving Rhames.

The effects: For practical effects, this film is wild. The piranha's themselves are completely CG, but most of the gore effects are practical, with some effects that are CG. But that's because this movie was shot in 3D. And there some scenes where that's obviously supposed to be in 3D. But this film works without it just as well. This is the most light-hearted horror movie from Alex Aja and it leaves it open for a sequel. There's plenty of laughs and lots and lots of blood. For gorehounds, this is a real treat. It's 88 minutes long so it runs at a decent pace. I give this one a respectable 8.5/10.

The Exorcist Anthology

2010-10-25T20:32:00.000-07:00

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

The Exorcist

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

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

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

Exorcist II: The Heretic

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

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

The Exorcist III: Legion

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

Exorcist: The Beginning/Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist

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

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

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

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

2010-09-18T17:22:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

Clash of the Titans(2010)

2010-07-28T19:04:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predators

2010-07-11T13:14:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

2010-06-06T20:53:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Were Soldiers

2010-05-22T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010-04-18T18:52:00.000-07:00

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

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

The Fellowship of the Ring:

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

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

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

The Two Towers:

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

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

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

The Return of the King:

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

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

Special Features: Read above, same story.

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

James Cameron's Avatar

2010-01-18T11:16:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drag Me To Hell

2009-10-14T17:59:00.000-07:00

Howdy. It's been a while. I just purchased a new movie on Blu-Ray: Drag Me To Hell. Drag Me To Hell stars Alison Lohman, Justin Long and Lorna Raver. The plot of the movie is as follows: Alison Lohman is a bank employee that hands out loans to people who need them. One day, an old gypsy woman comes in to get another extension. The old woman's request is denied and she is humiliated after begging to get an extension. The gypsy curses Lohman's character with the Lamia, a demon that torments its victims for three days before dragging them to hell.

Okay, so it's not the most original plot in the world. What the movie does have going for it is Sam Raimi. This guy knows how to really crank up the intensity in his movies. Considering the last horror movie of his I saw was Army of Darkness(if you can call that one a horror movie). What Drag Me To Hell also has going for it, are the performances by Alison Lohman and particular, Lorna Raver as the psychotic old gypsy. Lorna brings a real intensity to the role. She's vicious, but understandably so. Alison Lohman is also very strong as her character, goes through a lot of punishment. But unlike most horror movies, this one is tongue-in-cheek. There's a lot of stuff in here that will make most people jump and go "Ewwwww!" But at the same time, it's still pretty amusing. The lengths that Lohman will go to avoid her arguably decided fate, is funny at times, even involving an anvil. Yes, you read that right: an anvil. The seance scene, I think is probably one of the coolest scenes in the movie. It's very spectacular as you get to see the Lamia possess different people.

The video on this Blu-Ray disc is very exceptional. It's extremely sharp and you can point out small details that you couldn't on standard DVD. The sharpness of the picture certainly adds to the grossness of certain scenes, but it works. Special features wise, there's a 33 minute Production diary featurette hosted by Justin Long. It's very informative and there are interviews with the main cast and crew.

PG-13 movies suck. All of them do....except this one. Sam Raimi aimed for a PG-13 film and it works very well. I was honestly very skeptical about Drag Me To Hell. Now that I've seen it, I have to recommend it to Raimi fans. And everyone in general. It's a good movie and a good time.

9/10

300 on Blu-Ray.

2009-09-29T21:30:00.000-07:00

Tonight I'm reviewing Zach Snyder's 300 on Blu-Ray. But before I get started, I'm going to let you know about the setup I'm using: My PC. That's right, I watch movies on my computer. The same machine I play my games on, the same machine I surf the internet on, and the same machine on which I'm currently blogging on. Okay, on to the review:

300 is the story of Spartan King Leonidas who takes...well....300 of his best warriors to the Hot Gates at Thermopylae. He goes there to defend Greece against a second assault by the Persians led by the "god-king" Xerxes. Well, anyone who has read the story knows exactly what happened. Leonidas and his soldiers fight to the death battling Xerxes' armies. The actions of Leonidas and his men inspired Greece to unite and drive out the invaders permanently.

300 was directed by Zach Snyder, who also directed the Dawn of the Dead remake and Watchmen. 300 isn't based on the actual story. The film was actually based on the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller, and as a result, has a particular style to it, that I enjoyed a great deal. It was all filmed in front of a green screen, so the backgrounds are meant to give a sense of grandeur about Greece. 300 is not realistic. At all. It's too stylized with an overabundance of slow-motion, which some people may find irritating. I didn't. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Persian soldiers get their limbs hacked off in spectacular slow-motion.

The performances are also what helped the film, to a degree. Gerard Butler plays King Leonidas. David Wenham: Delios. The beautiful Lena Headey plays Leonidas's wife, Gorgo. Dominic West plays the slimy Theron. The performances in a film like this I think, help drives the story. Gerard Butler is great, as he brings a nobility and strength to the role, which helps us connect with Leonidas.

I watched 300 on Blu-ray, and I have to tell you, it's amazing. The picture is crystal clear, even more so than standard DVD, and it has all the special features of the two-disc DVD set on one Blu-Ray disc. I'm not going to bore people with the specifics of Blu-Ray. Overall, I give 300 a solid 9/10. And I recommend watching it in High-Definition. It's much better that way.

Well....that's my first review. It's probably not much, but I'm sure I'll get better as time goes on........I hope.

A New Blog! For movies, DVD and Blu-Ray. Reviews! YAY!

2009-09-28T21:17:00.000-07:00

This is my blog for reviewing movies, theatrical and on DVD as well as Blu-Ray. I'll be reviewing stuff soon. Stay tuned.....