Mimic 3: Sentinel

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

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

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

A Question of Desensitivity

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

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

Mimic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resident Evil

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

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

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

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

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

Rage

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

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

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

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

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

Hamlet(1996)

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

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

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

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

Final Destination 5

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

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

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

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