Eastern Promises (2007)

Directed by David Cronenberg, Eastern Promises stars Naomi Watts as Anna, a midwife working at Trafalger Hospital in London and daughter of Russian and English parentage. While on duty Christmas night, Anna is called to assist in the delivery of a premature birth. The mother has no identification, but she looks young, and Anna roots through her purse only to find a diary written in Russian with a business card to the Russian restaurant Trans-Siberian, in London. The mother dies in childbirth, and the baby barely lives. Anna is determined to find out who this girl was, and who the relatives of the baby are.

Anna begins her hunt by having her drunken, and prone to putting his foot in his mouth, Russian uncle, Stepan, translate the diary for her. She then heads over to the Trans-Siberian to ask about the girl. There, Anna runs into the owner, Semyon (played by Armin Mueller-Stahl), his son Kirill (played by Vincent Cassel), and "driver" Nikolai (played by Viggo Mortnesen). This is when things start to get hairy for Anna.

What is uncovered by Anna (and Nikolai, who is more than he seems) through the rest of the film is a tale of cover-ups, murder, and personal atonement that leads all involved into a contrived, yet well displayed climax. Yes, I glossed over details, but there are far too many twists and surprises that I do not want to ruin for people who haven't seen this film. I hate having movies ruined for me.

Despite portraying just about every Russian character in the film as either a mobster, a prostitute, or their family, I think all involved actually handled the material with a decent amount of respect. It didn't seem exploitative, and genuinely cared for the culture. Kudos to Cronenberg for his handling of the material, and all the actors for immersing themselves in it so completely.

Speaking of writing, kudos to the actors for handling the script so well. I really think each performer turned what are pretty cliched phrases and scenarios into some electric pieces of dialogue. The scene where Nikolai drives Anna home takes on a life of its own with the way they spoke their lines. It makes the viewer forget about the fact that a high schooler could have written a better script.

You know, there wasn't one bad piece of acting that really stood out to me in this film. Overall, the performances were very good. Expecially Viggo Mortensen. He was just so immersed in his character! It was great to watch, because you really get past it being Viggo Mortensen, and after a little bit, all you see is Nikolai. It's tough to do, especially for the guy who played Aragon, and with such a distinct look to him. His distinct look actually worked to his advantage in this role. Naomi Watts was a bit saccharine at moments, and more eye-candy than actress, but overall (and again, especially in the car scene with Nikolai) very enjoyable. When she lets her guard down, she's great to watch. I wished it happened more in this film. And Armin Mueller-Stahl is great to see as a baddie. Who knew the old man had it in him?!

I really grew to care for the characters in this film, so I was totally sucked in and hung up on their livelihood. Kudos to Cronenberg for capturing that, and the actors for giving life to that. Despite its numerous cliches, the ride this film takes you on is great, and well portrayed. Give it a whirl. I even found myself wanting to pick up some modern Russian History books for further background.

From Beyond (1986)

From Beyond (an apt title considering that’s where this DVD practically came from), opens in the dead of night as Crawford Tillinghast (played by the always reliable Jeffrey Combs) is diligently at work in the lab of the brilliant physicist, Dr. Edward Pretorius. In Pretorius’ lab, the Doctor and his assistant are hard at work on the Doctor’s newest invention, the Resonator, a machine that holds the key to the next step in human evolution. By use of resonant waves, the Resonator stimulates the dormant pineal gland buried deep within the brain. With an awakened pineal gland, one develops a sixth sense and is able to see past the veil of reality to look upon another dimension and take one step closer to God. It should be noted that this other dimension has flying, carnivorous eels, unlocks your basest human desires, gives you a raging hard on, and has “IT,” a nameless creature that likes to eat heads. You can see where this is going. Needless to say, axes fly, Dr. Pretorius’ head is bitten off like “a gingerbread man,” and poor Crawford Tillinghast is arrested for murder and thrown into an insane asylum. Then the credits roll.

The TITLE CREDITS.

After that whip bang opening, we’re introduced to our protagonist, the girl wonder Dr. Katherine McMichaels (played by Barbara Crampton, the only woman in cinematic history to literally receive “head”), a hot shot psychiatrist who’s been called in to assess Crawford’s mental state and see if the now manic assistant can stand trial for the murder of Dr. Pretorius. Convinced the only way to find out what truly happened is to repeat the experiment, Dr. McMichaels, under the supervision of police officer Buford “Bubba” Brownlee (played by horror movie staple, Ken Foree), takes Crawford back to Pretorius’ lab and activates the Resonator. You don’t need a stimulated pineal gland to figure out what happens next. To give any more details would ruin the fun of the movie as it takes some exquisitely gory twists and ends in the only way a Lovecraft story can end in: madness.

Much like its predecessor, Re-Animator, From Beyond is a tightly-woven 90-minute film that features a ton of story, delightful B-movie actors and stomach-churning gore. Working with most of the same crew (both in front and behind the lens) of Re-Animator, director Stuart Gordon weaves a wicked, tragic tale of Lovecraftian proportions.

The visual and make-up effects, while dated, provide the nausineating feeling one should feel when one is forced to evolve violently. The make-up effects are particulary gruesome, as faces and heads are pulled off and people melted. Dr. Pretorius (played with menacing abandon by Ted Sorel) in particular gets to showcase the make-up teams slimey imaginations of what a man imbued with Cthulu-like powers would look like. The look of the film is crisp and clean, with it switching to a sickly hue of pink and blue whenever we glimpse the other dimension.

As a follow up to what was started with Re-Animator, From Beyond builds upon the idea that man’s greatest tragedies often start out with the noblest of intentions.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street (2007)

Wow, so I know I don't do many reviews of movies that are still in theaters at the time of writing, but Sweeney Todd moved me enough to write one, so here it is.

This adaptation of the Stephen Sondheim musical, directed by Tim Burton, follows a once happy barber named Sweeney Todd (played by Johnny Depp) as he returns to London after being sent to a prison colony by the corrupt Judge Turpin (played by Alan Rickman). Judge Turpin wanted Sweeney's wife, Lucy (played by Laura Michelle Kelly), so he sent Sweeney, then known as Benjamin Barker, away to prison and made the moves on Lucy. This, apparently, drove her insane, and , as Mrs. Lovett (played by Helena Bohnam Carter), the lady who sells "the worst pies in London" out of Sweeney's old building, tells it, she kills herself, and Turpin adopts Sweeney's and Lucy's daughter Johanna (played by Jayne Wisener) as his own and locks her in her room away from the world. So, after being sent to prison for years for nothing, Sweeney comes back to London, along with a sailor he meets on the boat named Anthony Hope (played by Jamie Campbell Bower).

Sweeney goes back to his old home and hears the story of what happened from down-on-her-luck piemaker Mrs. Lovett, and he wants revenge. Meanwhile, Anthony is wandering London and happens across the lovely Johanna, as she sits at her window and crochets. He is immediately smitten, and devises a way to break her free from Judge Turpin's home. Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett, in an effort to drum up business for his newly reopened barbershop and draw Judge Turpin to him so he can exact his revenge, see a public display by renowned barber Signor Adolfo Pirelli (played by Sacha Baron Cohen), and Sweeney challenges him to a shave-off. Sweeney wins and Pirelli is labeled a fraud. Not one to take that lying down, Pirelli goes to Sweeney's shop, where it is revealed that he is not really Italian, and once worked as a broom boy for Sweeney, and demands a percentage of his profits to keep quiet. Sweeney's rage boils over and he kills Pirelli. Also on this day, the Judge calls on Sweeney for a shave, and right when Sweeney has the Judge's throat in his razor's sights, in burst Anthony, who reveals his finding of Johanna and beseeches Sweeney for help in kidnapping her. Turpin is enraged, vows to never see Sweeney again and decides to lock Johanna away in Fogg's Asylum, where Anthony can't get her.

Mrs. Lovett, never one to miss an opportunity, decides that she shall use Pirelli's remains as filling for her pies, and, with Sweeney's newfound rage at the world, she will be supplied with many more bodies for her pies. Her business booms with "the best pies in London," and Mrs. Lovett, in her attempt to build a little family with Sweeney (without any input from him, really), also decides to take in Pirelli's young, abused charge, Toby (played by Ed Sanders). The second half of the movies deals with the resolutions to all of these threads, but I don't like ruining endings for people, so I won't.

In typical Tim Burton fashion, the movie has such a strong look and feel about it that he sticks to in every frame. It is gorgeous to look at because of this. A strict palette of blacks, greys, whites, and little else, which captures the dingyness well. I actually hope it gets a costume design Oscar nod. We'll see. The beginning credits, however, were a little jilted, as there was far too much CGI used. There's also a part where Mrs. Lovett has a fantasy about life with her, Sweeney, and Toby, which is such a stark contrast to the look of the rest of the movie: lots of color, almost cartoon-y, which pops so well. Trademark Tim Burton, and he knows how to play his strengths.

As to the singing, and there's a lot, as it's a Sondheim musical and they kept most of the music, I have to say I would have rather heard other voices that Depp and Bohnam Carter. Great actors, especially for their roles, but weak singers. There were minimal moments where their voices stood out. For me, the best singers in the film were Jamie Campbell Bower and Ed Sanders. They put a little "oomf" behind the lyrics, and totally blew away Depp and Bohnam Carter. Sacha Baron Cohen wasn't that bad either, I might offer.

There were a few, but not many, omissions from the stage version. The ones I noticed were understandable. There's an opening number to Sweeney Todd that was cut. Instead the used just the music, which I can understand. The stage version basically tells the story to you, much like the Chorus in Romeo & Juliet. Rather than telegraph the tale, they left it as a surprise to the audience who doesn't know. Everything else was just superficial, so fair play to adapter Christopher Bond.

It was nice to hear the audience getting most of it. This must be a big worry for Hollywood doing adaptations of musicals. But the crowd I saw the movie with was laughing right along with the film when Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett are singing about what people they might fill the pies with, and enjoying little flourishes, like when Pirelli whips out an Italian flag to use as his barber's cape. Although the audience did tune out some parts that dragged on, like the opening, they were drawn into it and hung out in the story for the rest of it.

Johnny Depp, while he did scowl a lot in the film, still was able to emote enough through his scowls that I empathized with him. This is a tricky thing to do, because when Russell Crowe does it, he just scowls. Nothing else. Helena Bohnam Carter is great as Mrs. Lovett. She does whatever she can for Sweeney, and, despite her actions, Bohnam Carter keeps her likable. Sacha Baron Cohen is brilliant at his turn of Adolfo Pirelli. He takes over the screen when he comes on, which is perfect for the character. Alan Rickman was a little bland in this, though. Maybe I wanted to hate him more, but he was a bit too likable, even though his character is a slimy bastard. Maybe I just wanted Rickman to make him more of a bastard. Unfortunately, Johanna is more of a plot device than anything, so not much to say there. Ed Sanders is a little dynamo, though. Great chops on him all around, so it will be interesting to see where he goes from here. And the cameo by Anthony Stewart Head (of Buffy fame) absolutely tickled my fancy.

I really like how they used bright red fake blood, instead of realistic fake blood. There's a lot of it in this movie, what with all the slit throats and all, so you don't get desensitized to it. Plus, I think that helped it keep an R rating.

There is something that gets lost whenever a film is done of a musical. At least nowadays. The theatricality gets lost, which is tragic, because that's how these things start. The stage producers know the limitations of their staging, so they create the show accordingly. Film is not supposed to be limiting, so it's almost like blowing up a picture on the computer, and it gets really pixilated. My friend chalks it up to editing, but I don't know if that is the root. It was during moments where Sweeney Todd is having this internal struggle and he decides to kill as many people as he wishes, where he imagines himself walking down the London streets and threatening men to come in for a shave, that this is glaringly apparent. I think it's just the choices in writing and directing. Is it better to have more of an intimate moment there, rather than a huge and sprawling one? This is up for debate.

So, Sweeney Todd = good holiday, family fun. Totally worth the ride, and you might even get a song or two stuck in your head. I know I had to come back home and listen to the Len Cairou/Angela Landsbury cast recording. Very fun.

Constantine (2005)

Directed by Francis Lawrence and starring Keanu Reeves, this action/horror film is a big screen adaptation of the Hellblazer comic series from DC/Vertigo. I should say a loose adaptation. Yes, I must specify that.

Keanu Reeves stars as John Constantine, a fighter of paranormal activity when the forces of good and evil (in the biblical sense) get out of line. Gifted at a young age to be able to see demons and angels, John committed suicide at a young age, only to live through it. The deal is, now that he's done that, he's doomed to Hell when he dies. So, in an effort to get back in God's good graces, John helps bring rogue demons back to Hell. Along the way he gets caught up in an apparent suicide case involving Angela Dodson's (played by Rachel Weisz) twin sister (also played by Rachel Weisz). She, not believing it was a suicide, or that there are demons and angels, enlists the help of Constantine, who opens her eyes to a whole other reality. DUNDUNDUN!!!

Basically, the movie revolves around a plot between agents of Heaven and Hell trying to bring the son of the Devil to earth to bring about a reign of terror that will bring out the true believers on either side. Constantine, Angela, and a whole slew of supporting characters (played by actors like Tilda Swinton as Gabriel, Djimon Hounsou as Midnight, Shia Labouef as Chas Kramer, and Gavin Rossdale as Balthazar) are wrapped up in this plot as the D-Day for hell on earth commences.

There are so many things that make me cringe about this movie. Not the least of which is the overplayed and overcooked characters and scenarios. Come on, the Devil couldn't be a little more interesting? I've seen more interesting characterizations in an episode of Scooby Doo. What boggles me is how this movie got the green light that it did in this celluloid incarnation? Why did Djimon Hounsou sign on for this? Rachel Weisz? Tilda Swinton? Keanu Reeves is not such a leap of faith there, but still.

I can't even really draw comparison between the film and the graphic novels, as they're waaaaaaaay too divergent, so I won't even muck about with that. In any event, this script was so not entertaining. I really can't pick out one non-cliche in this film. If there is, please somebody point it out to me. Nothing interesting was done in this screenplay. No new ground broken whatsoever. Hellblazer started as a comic in 1988. Had some fresh stuff in it then; not so much in 2005.

Again, I must reiterate: how in the hell did they get these buzz-ed up actors to sign on for this? How did this film not go straight to dvd? The special effects and CGI s weren't eve that good! You need them in a movie like this!

There were a few sparse things that I enjoyed about this film, though. I did like the depiction of Hell, and I did like the Devil arriving barefoot with black stuff dripping from whatever he arrived through. That's about it. All in all, this film is mildly entertaining at best. It could have been so much cooler!!!

Save The Green Planet! (2003)

Lee Byeong-gu is on a mission to save the world from certain destruction. Or he’s completely insane. Or both. Whatever the story is, South Korean writer-director Joon-Hwan Jang isn’t giving out many clues in this dazzling first feature.

Byeong-gu, an addictive watcher of sci-fi and horror movies, fears that the world is in danger of being destroyed by space aliens during the next lunar eclipse. He begins his explanation of his theory with the words “You probably think I’m crazy” and he’s right. Surely his story would be more credible if we didn’t see him gobbling methamphetamine pills by the handful, if he wasn’t being guided by a vision of his comatose mother rising from her bed to cheer him on, or if he didn’t believe that the leader of the alien plot is his ex-boss, against whom he has many legitimate grievances.

Stylistically this movie jumps from one genre to the next on nearly every cut, passing through police procedurals, psycho killer flicks, cop-buddy movies, slapstick comedy, fifties sci-fi, classic noir, extreme gore and much in between. The dialogue is Mickey Spillane by way of Quentin Tarantino. “You are my hero.”, the young hot-shot detective explains to the wizened older ex-cop. “I was in middle school when you caught the gas station killer by following that shit smell.”

The first step in saving the planet, by Byeong-gu’s reckoning, is the kidnapping and interrogation of his ex-boss Kang Man-shik, the head of a major chemical company as well as the son-in-law of the police chief of Seoul. Assisted by his faithful girl-friend, tightrope-walker Sooni, who unquestioningly believes everything he tells her, Byeong-gu barely manages to pull the kidnapping off. And following a life long pattern, where nothing works out the way that expects it to, everything goes downhill from there.

The police are equally hapless, with the lead investigator chasing false leads, while the only progress in the case is made a disgraced former detective pursuing his own private investigation along with the rising young star on the force secretly helping him.

Once captured, strapped to a chair, and having had his head shaved (to block his ability to call for help telepathically), Kang refuses to admit to being anything other than an ordinary man, or to stop belittling Byeong-gu when he’s not begging and pleading for mercy. Kang’s continuing denial of the absurd alien plot quickly begins to chip away at Byeong-gu’s credibility, diminishing the prospect that the whole episode is anything more than an outburst of madness from a man who has been demented for a long time.

And as we watch the first of a series of flashbacks to Byeong-gu’s tragic earlier life that explain many of his obsessions and cast him in a sympathetic light, his increasing desperation to find out how to stop the alien plot before the ever-looming deadline leads him to commit a series of acts of increasing violence that make it necessary to wonder if he’s lost all sense of decency along with his sanity.

Referencing a series of movie psychopaths that ranges from Hitchock’s Norman Bates to the Kathy Bates character in Misery and beyond, Joon-Hwan keeps the audience reeling as he repeatedly jumps from the Byeong-gu’s point of view to the way things look to every one else, constantly questioning the reality of what we’ve watched just moments before. And when Kang tries to turn Sooni against her lover by pleading that “Byeong-gu is crazy. He must have watched too many movies”, it’s not hard to see his point.

This is a movie that never stops presenting new surprises along with observations about issues ranging from police state repression to official corruption to the use of ends justify the means arguments to rationalize acts of inhumanity. It takes a long unflinching look at humanity’s obsession with violence and wonders whether it will destroy it us all, and if we even deserve to survive it.

Linda, Linda, Linda (2005)

Director Nobuhiro Yamashita brings us this little tale of four high school girls trying to get their act together for the school festival.

Aki Maeda stars as Kyoko Yamada, the drummer of a high school, female rock band falling apart. After in-fighting between Kei Tachibana (keyboardist, played by Yu Kashii) and ex-singer Rinko (played by Takayo Mimura), and a gym class accident that jams the finger of their guitarist, Moe (played by Shione Yukawa), Aki must rally the troops to put up an act at the school festival. So, she, along with bassist Nozomi Shiroko (played by Shiori Sekine) must convince Kei to perform. After some reshuffling, it's decided that Kei will learn guitar for the festival, but this doesn't solve one major problem: who will sing? Enter into the picture Korean exchange student Son (played by Du-na Bae, also in The Host), who gets swept up into the band, if for nothing more than a laugh for Kei, and the lineup is complete.

The biggest thing I enjoyed about this movie was its simplicity: the story, cinematography, situations, and more. Yamashita captures high school angst and day to day life perfectly. This is truly a comedy that crosses cultural boundaries. Not being able to tell the guy/girl you like that you like them, getting into petty squabbles that almost end friendships, meeting new friends: all the awkwardness is captured so well. One scene in particular, where Kei and Son are at a bus stop after a practice, it's revealed that Kei and Son have ridden the same bus for quite some time, but Kei has never noticed Son. All this interaction overlayed with the hesitancy and pauses of a language barrier; honestly, this scene could have been filmed voyeuristically and no one would have been the wiser.

This film doesn't aim for and grand story telling, not even toying with the notion of going further than it needs to. At its heart, this is a story of finding friends in unexpected places and what that bond of friendship means. This is so eloquently displayed in scenes such as Son running back in the pouring rain to the recording studio to get Nozomi's bass, or Kei calling in a favor to her ex to get studio time for the band to rehearse. It's the little things that bond these ladies together, and gets them to the stage at the festival.

I love the palpable nervousness when the band gets on stage at the festival to do their number, Linda, Linda, Linda by Black Heart. The crowd has only come inside because it's pouring rain outside, has had to sit through an acoustic/a capella set (albeit technically proficient, but a little boring), and is bored to tears, just waiting for some excitement. Son looks out at the crowd, and looks back at the band in sheer terror. But, god bless her, she bites the bullet and they rock out to a voracious crowd that takes everything the band puts out.

I found myself laughing out loud plenty of times with this film, because despite having never been a Japanese high school girl, the situations and how they are dealt with in the film ring true. A very good watch that brings nostalgia like Dazed & Confused, without the drugs and alcohol.

Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait (2006)

Right off the bat, let me say that you do not need to be a football fan to enjoy this film. It helps, but it is not a prerequisite.

I began watching this film thinking that it was merely going to be footage of a match in which the cameras were solely trained on Zinedine Zidane. I was pleasantly surprised when I started watching and found out this was not the case. This film does follow Zidane throughout a match from April 2005, but there is more to the cinematography and style of the film than just a bunch of nice cameras following him.

I like this film for the reason that the title gives for its purpose. Only with today's technology could we follow one player out of 22 on a field, during a game with thousands of people in attendance with such clarity and focus. The sound editing in this film is absolutely awe-inspiring, as they are able to edit the sounds down to Zidane sniffing. or his studs on the pitch. As crazy and loud as major sporting events are, this is no small feat. Also, the film quality allows the cameras to follow the action in such rich and vivid motion so that nothing is lost to the viewer. We also, on occasion, get the view of the armchair viewer, Zidane himself on the pitch, and cameramen in the stadium.

Throughout the film there are subtitles that are played, that are presumably quotes from Zidane. Never clarified, but it's a pretty safe assumption. In one, he talks about how a game is like magic, and how he only remembers pieces of games; moments. Cross our fingers, we always assume that the match we are watching is not rigged. Anything can happen on that day. The team can win or lose, the player can have a great game, or can have the worst of their career. It's not a certainty; even with a legendary player like Zidane. We get to see the spark of greatness that comes when he sets up a goal, and we get to see his volatile temper when he gets into a fight on the field and is red carded in the last throes of the match. It was all just defining moments that he would take from the game.

Through the one-player perspective, you get a great view into how they read the game. The viewer doesn't get lost in a sea of players and can watch how often the player reacts to what's going on around him. This has its drawbacks, too. You only see them reacting, not necessarily what they are reacting to. However, two great moments that come out of this close-up perspective are: 1) when Zidane tells the ref he should be ashamed after he awarded the opposing team a penalty kick which they converted into a goal, and 2) when Zidane and teammate Roberto Carlos share a genuine laugh on the field. You see it in Zidane's eyes and demeanor.

All in all, a slow and enrapturing ride along with one of football's legends. Worth a watch.

Harlem Nights (1989)

Written, directed, and starring Eddie Murphy, this film follows the exploits of club/casino owner "Sugar" Ray, played by Richard Pryor, and his son (not really) Quick, played by Eddie Murphy.

1930s Harlem. Rife with gangsters all trying to get a piece of illegal pie. "Sugar" Ray runs the hoppingest club in Harlem, and mobster Bugsy Calhoune, played by Michael Lerner, wants his share. Ray, not to be outpriced, rallies his troops and decides to scam the scammer, using whatever tricks at his disposal.

In a nutshell, that's all the story's really about. It's not difficult, it's not complex, and it's not even very well written. This film was really an excuse for Murphy to get some really great talent together and have fun. Plus, Murphy gets to play a character named Quick and shoot people. I don't think it could have been more obvious what the intentions of this movie were. No wonder he won a Razzie for Worst Screenplay, and was nominated for Worst Director. In the film's favor, it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Costume Design for Joe I. Tompkins. Murphy does seem to get that right in his films, also landing that Oscar nod for Coming To America.

Anyways, I could not believe Richard Pryor as a fatherly figure. Sorry, but maybe his past clouded my mind on this, but it's hard to let that go when the characters are so blatantly supposed to be extensions of the actors, as Murphy tried to write them. Best example of this is Redd Foxx and Della Reese as bickering duo Bennie Wilson & Vera. They were great to watch, merely because of the crap that came out of their mouths. And really, did Murphy write in all those obscenities (and I'm not a schtickler on this, but there were SO many in this film), or did the cast just improvise so much and that's what ended up coming out? But, cameos abound, even Arsenio Hall and Charles Murphy, if that could be considered a cameo.

There is no real grounding of this film in the 30s. You just have to sort of put that hope out of your mind. It's more like a 1989 costume party. Really, don't get your hopes up on even the slightest feel of believability.

Despite it all, a fun ride, if you're not looking for substance. Have low standards before viewing.

The Bad Sleep Well (1960)

Toshiro Mifune stars in this Akira Kurosawa-directed gem. Who else were you expecting to star in a Kurosawa film? Really. But honestly, there's a good reason, and this film solidifies it for me. As I've said in previous posts, familiarity can breed either contempt or synergy. In this case, the latter. Before I get into that, the synopsis:

Mifune stars as Koichi Nishi, a secretary to Public Company VP Iwabuchi (played by Masayuki Mori). I won't give a way a lot of the details, because this film takes so many twists that should be kept a surprise for the viewer. What I can tell you is that Nishi has just married VP Iwabuchi's daughter, Yoshiko (and it's not listed in IMDb who plays her - sucky omission!). The opening of the film is at their wedding, where Assistant-To-The-Chief Wada (played by Kamatari Fujiwara) is being arrested on corruption charges stemming from goings-on at Public Corp. These corruptions have to do with kickbacks on a deal between Public Corp. and another large firm. Cover-ups abound, great lengths are gone to bring these corruptions, and subsequent cover-ups, to light, and also keep them hidden. I'll leave the rest a surprise to the viewers who haven't seen this one.

A bit of a departure from his costume epics, Kurosawa based this film firmly in the present, and with stellar results. The beginning wedding sequence is stunning to watch. The whole look of it, and the direction to his actors is so compelling to watch. Also, this is my favorite role I've yet to see Toshiro Mifune in, and I have seen many of his Kurosawa-directed roles, though little else. The man was is a bagillion films. Anyways, he didn't strike me as over-the-top, like his roles in Rashomon and The Lower Depths do. He was so grounded in this role, and it was so enjoyable to watch. Maybe it's the material in the costume epics that he did that lose me, but he just seemed to tangible in this film. I always appreciate that as a viewer. And despite Mifune's character going to some pretty hefty extremes, the viewer is always on board with him. His cause is righteous. It is very tough to write a character like that, so kudos to the writers. And Kurosawa knows how to handle Mifune, and Mifune knows how to handle his directions and material. It's like the two share the same brain.

The ending of this film got me very riled up. Angry. The final message that it leaves me with is one of helplessness and the unimportance of what an individual can do against powerful "machines." It made me mad, but not like Just One Of The Guys made me mad. This film has a very good reason for making people mad: anger like this can lead to action. This is actually a good piece of propaganda that could be used to rile people who say, "But what can I do? I'm just a little cog in the big machine," into action. At least that's what it did for me.

If you even remotely like Kurosawa, Asian films, or who-done-it thrillers, watch this film. It's so full and lush. A great ride.

Weird Science (1985)

John Hughes wrote and directed this 80's gem, starring Kelly LeBrock as "Lisa," a dreamgirl created by nerdy, unpopular and sexually frustrated teens Wyatt, played by Ilan Mitchell-Smith, and Gary, played by Anthony Michael Hall.

While Wyatt's parents are out of town, the boys, fed up with being the butt of every joke and spending their weekends alone/together, create Lisa, a girl designed to be hot, smart, funny, charming, etc., etc. The ideal woman. Lisa, we find, will do whatever it takes to get her boys to gain some self-confidence and social standing. So, madness ensues as she puts them through their paces, willingly or not, by making them face their fears and insecurities, all in the name of self-betterment. And, in typical John Hughes fashion, nothing is ever too painful for our heroes, so we can all share some laughs at Wyatt and Gary's expense.

This movie is iconic for a reason: take a very simple concept (like making the ideal partner), put it in the hands of idiots, and watch what happens. Couple that with the fact that John Hughes can do the teen-high-school-real-character-hilarity-angst SO well, and you have a classic film on your hands. And come on, who hasn't wanted to just Frankenstein together the ideal partner? Anyways, the movie's not supposed to be plausible; just a fun ride, which Mr. Hughes can deliver quite nicely. Basically, this film is all about being the geek, taking a no-real-risk chance, and getting everything you've ever dreamed of. WHO DOESN'T WANT THAT?! So, a movie many can sink their teeth into.

Much like my qualms with Just One Of The Guys, the pacing of this film is horrible! Is this an 80's thing? The more films I re-watch, I'll uncover the facts behind this theory. But, come on...those holes between lines in a joke are large enough to drive a U-Haul through. Almost painful at times.

You know, I really enjoyed watching Bill Paxton, as Wyatt's older brother, Chet. He was my favorite actor in the film. He just had so much fun being an ass, and somehow found the grounding necessary for the reality of the film. Unfortunately no one else did. I think they just told Kelly LeBrock to be Kelly LeBrock and that was that. Anthony Michael Hall and Ilan Mitchell-Smith didn't seem to get into their surroundings, either. Maybe it was the fact that this was a bit of a departure from John Hughes' typical world where his teen characters romp, and such a heightened reality. There didn't seem to be a real grounding for the film.

Well, a very fun ride that I will take again at some point in my life. Even if it is just for the eye candy.

Flushed Away (2006)

Flushed Away follows the adventures of posh rat Roddy St. James (voiced by Hugh Jackman). Roddy, left at home while his owner is on vacation, gets flushed down the toilet when squatter rat Sid (voiced by Shane Ritchie) inadvertently comes up of his drain pipe. Out of his element, and now in the world of the sewer rats, Roddy meets up with Rita (voiced by Kate Winslet), and gets drawn right into the middle of her spat with crime boss The Toad (voiced by Sir Ian McKellen). Roddy enlists the help of Rita to try to get back home, all the while being chased by The Toad, his henchmen, and his French cousin, Le Frog (voiced by Jean Reno). Rita and Roddy must work together to stop The Toad's horrible plot to destroy the sewer underworld, all the while teaching Roddy what it means to have friends and family.

If that synopsis sounded lackluster, it's because the movie really was. I can't fake it and make it sound better than it is. I guess I expected more from the group that gave us Wallace & Grommit. This was their first foray into a feature-length CGI picture, instead of using their trademark claymation (I guess the script calling for so much water would lead one to do that), and it just stripped a layer of creativity away from the film for me.

Unfortunately, this film pandered too much to kids. Granted, it's a kids' movie, but come on, one too many nut-shots just brings the humor level down a notch for me. There was no sharpness to the story. Way too simplistic, way too breezily executed. Was really the only growth in the film the thin layer of plot where Roddy learns the meaning of friendship? Instead of writers Sam Fell and Peter Lord filling the script to the brim with British in-jokes (knocks against the French, making it to the World Cup finals only to lose on penalties, old biddies loving Tom Jones, etc.) they could have smartened it up a bit. Nothing that was done or said in this film broke any new ground.

It was a bit of a trip listening to Hugh Jackman do an RP dialect in this film, though. First time I had heard that (though he might have done it in other films; I don't know, I haven't seen all of his work). I wouldn't have known it was him if I hadn't caught his name in the opening credits. Same thing with Kate Winslet. I'd never heard her do a cockney dialect. It wasn't half bad. A few spots that I cringed (but I get hyper-analytical with accents and dialects), but overall she nailed it. And Sir Ian McKellen is much like Peter O'Toole for me, in that I can hear him recite the phone book and melt. Such a great voice, and used very well to bring The Toad to life. Nefarious enough, and such a sharp delivery.

Well, I'm afraid this film was a bit too dumbed down for me to really enjoy, and the CGI left me a bit cold. Unfortunately so. We'll see if they venture into another CGI project again. If they do, hopefully they can make it a bit more adult friendly. Besides, kids aren't as dumb as we like to believe.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

Simon Pegg stars as Police Sergeant Nicholas Angel in Hot Fuzz. Released from his position with the Metropolitan Police Force for overachieving and making his fellow officers look bad, Nicholas Angel is relocated to the quiet village of Sanford and promoted to the position of Sergeant for his troubles. Sergeant Angel, being the high strung officer he is, takes a bit to settle into his new surroundings. Helped by PC Danny Butterman (played by Pegg's Shaun Of The Dead cohort, Nick Frost), he attempts to acclimate to his new surroundings. When suspicious "accidents" keep occurring around town, Sergeant Angel's cop instincts are kicked into overdrive, whereupon he stumbles onto a plot to keep the village's title of "Best Place To Live." Will Sergeant Angel live to unravel the mystery? Can PC Butterman become the officer he's always watched on film? And does the goose ever get back to its owner? If you haven't seen this film, you'll never know, and really, do yourself the favor and watch this.

Writers Edgar Wright (also the director) and Simon Pegg got it right with this film. The comedy is so tight, I gave myself a bruise from slapping my knee so hard. This was a delightful return to slapstick and farce like I hadn't seen in years! Working with the same people can do wonders for a project, as was beautifully exemplified with this film. Pegg and Frost worked so well off of each other to keep the timing and delivery of the numerous jokes and physical comedy absolutely perfect. And Edgar Wright certainly knew his leads quite well and put them through their paces perfectly. Also, the movie is laden with cameos from top notch British talent, which is a great testament to Wright and Pegg. When you got something good, everyone wants a piece of it.

This movie is a testament to pacing! God bless the comedic timing and delivery that was intrinsic to this film. The fast, gritty, raunchy-blues-music-laced scene cuts only help to keep the pace at lightning speed. Plus, those cuts were a GREAT way to keep the audience riveted to the screen. I know it worked on me, just like Pavlov's bell. Plus, they nailed the riffs on action/cop films perfectly from top to bottom.

Honestly, I was laughing out loud so much during this film. It was so sharp! I've been inundated with this recent trend of Hollywood comedic stylings (see Superbad, Wedding Crashers, and 40 Year Old Virgin to see what I'm talking about; all good comedies, but very different from this film), that this was such a wonderful return to classic comedy devices, and it was absolutely refreshing to see. The deadpan delivery of Pegg, the funnyman jokes of Frost, the classical farce timing of a Thorton Wilder play! It was so enjoyable to watch. These boys got me wanting more, and I cannot wait to see what they come up with next.

Le Samourai (1967)

Alain Delon plays hitman Jef Costello in this Noir classic by director Jean-Pierre Melville. Set in Paris, Jef has been hired to kill a night-club owner (for reasons never explained). After committing what seemed the perfect crime, Jef is seen by La Pianiste (The Pianist, as she's credited), played by Cathy Rosier, upon leaving. The Superintendent of police, played by François Périer, gets the call on this crime and shuts down the city in his determined hunt to catch the criminal. Jef, who set up his alibis with his "girlfriend"/woman who just loves dangerous men (played by Nathalie Delon, his wife at the time), and friends playing poker at a hotel in the city, gets called into the the police department for questioning, thus starting the love/hate affair between he and the Superintendent. After being released, because his alibis are just too good and convenient, the Superintendent keeps a watch on him. Also, the people who hired him want him dead, for fear of him leading the cops to them. Thus, a mad rush of cat & mouse ensues.

One of the things I like the most about the film is its spartan nature. No dialogue is uttered for the first 10 minutes of the film. Yeah, action is happening, but no one talks. This shows a nice parallel to Jef's spartan life. His home is in a nowhere part of the city, and he has minimal furnishings and amenities (except a bird that helps him out of a jam, or two), he has no solid figures in his life, and when he does talk, it's short, sweet and to the point. The scenes are no-frills, carrying no extra space that could drag the film down, and packing a punch that keeps you engaged throughout.

The other thing I really like about the film is the cinematography. The opening shot of Jef on his bed, smoking a cigarette is so beautiful to watch, that a short film could have been made of just that. This beauty continues throughout the film, through a contryside excursion, into a jazz nightclub, the beautiful penthouse The Pianist lives in, and really any other shot in the film.

Alain Delon does have a James Dean quality about him, what with his dark & broody eyes and demeanor. But this is on a more subdued level which adds so much to his character. It's magnetic to watch. François Périer's Superintendent is a great foil to that energy. His relentlessness in pursuing Jef almost verges on mania at times, leading to a high-tension resolution to this film. Both actors work so well off of each other.

If you haven't seen this film yet, do yourself a favor and give it a chance. If you are the type who needs big-budget explosions and huge CGI effects, skip it. No frills here. Just a great study of just how full minimalism in film can really be.

Panic Room (2002)

Okay, so I have a David Fincher fetish. I readily admit that. I have seen all of his major motion pictures (Alien 3 being the only one I'm a little hazy on...), and I have been sucked in by Se7en and Zodiac especially. Panic Room, however, was one I didn't see until 5 years after its release. I was very hesitant, as I thought it would be a boringly executed film with another lackluster performance by Jodie Foster.

Boy, was I wrong; pleasantly so.

I recently saw The Brave One, starring Ms. Foster, and was so taken by her performance that I decided to give this film a whirl. But before I get into that, let me give you the rundown.

Panic Room stars Jodie Foster as single-mom Meg Altman raising her daugther, Sarah, played by Kristen Stewart (who took over the role after Hayden Panettiere backed out, FYI) in upscale New York City. They're house hunting and decide to buy this HUGE place, after a nudge from friend and realtor Lydia Lynch, cameoed by Ann Magnuson. Upon inspecting the house, they come across a "panic room," which is basically a shelter from burglars and the like, equipped with steel doors, an air vent, security monitors, supplies, a phone on a separate line, and (outside of Meg's knowledge) a safe containing a few million dollars in bonds left by the late owner.

So, the first night in the place, Burnham (played by Forest Whitaker), Raoul (played surprisingly well by Dwight Yoakam) and Junior (played by Fincher stalwart Jared Leto) break in, trying to retrieve the bonds. Junior used to take care of the old owner in his dotage, Burnham works for the company who installs the panic rooms, and Raoul is a thug along for the ride and haul. Meg hears them break in, gets Sarah and they hide in the panic room, not realizing that is exactly the place that the robbers are trying to get into. Insanity ensues as victims and thieves try any trick they can think of to get what they want.

So, I had a falling out with Jodie Foster around the time she did Anna & The King. The movie didn't move me, and not much of what she did leading up to that, or after, struck my fancy. Seeing The Brave One rekindled my appreciation for just how powerful a presence she is on screen. Panic Room was, happily, no different. Her performance really brings out Meg's desperation as she tries to evade the robbers and keep Sarah and herself alive. Every moment from her is so appreciatingly grounded.

David Fincher does a wonderful job of keeping the desperation and fright so high that I found myself gripping a pillow and leaning over the arm of my couch around halfway through the movie and stayed that way through the end. This film does (after seeing all of his films to date) seem like a rest stop after Fight Club and his maddening immersion into Zodiac, but it is still highly gripping and very engaging.

The supporting cast is a great combination, as well. Jared Leto, noteworthy for his complete believability as this scummy, white-trashy douchebag, Junior, and Dwight Yoakam, because I had NO idea it was him throughout the entire movie and would have scoffed at a singer-trying-to-be-actor, except for the fact that when I saw his name in the credits I did a triple take.

Kudos to David Fincher for totally surprising me with this little nugget of joy. Except, one thing: PLEASE cut out the "fly-through" camera shots. Wasted CGI and totally distracting.

Just One Of The Guys (1985)

Terry Griffith, played haphazardly by Joyce Hyser, is a woman fed up with The Man's World. So, she does what every high schooler would do to break the glass ceiling: she switches school mid-term and switches genders to pose as a man. All this to prove that if she were a man, she would have gotten that sweet, sweet internship as a journalist for the local Sun-Tribune. Lucky for her her parents are on a two-week vacation, her brother, played for laughs (and minimal ones at that) by Billy Jacoby, is too hormonally driven to care, and her college-age boyfriend, played far too old for his age by Leigh McCloskey, is easily subdued with a bat of an eyelash. Unlucky for her she falls for the first boy she meets, Rick, played by receding hairline "high school boy" Clayton Rohner, becomes the object of the local rock-chick's affections, played by Sherilyn Fenn, and pisses off the local popular jock, played by William Zabka. I mention these names to prove a point: barely any of these actor/esses made it out of the 80's, and none of them had noticeable careers.

It's a very simple plot with a very poor delivery. The most painful element being the pacing. It was so ungodly slow! Any jokes, and there were some halfway decent ones in there, fell flat on their faces because of the pacing. Reactions were so delayed and all humor ground to an agonizing halt. Next, the film asks the viewer to make one too many suspensions of disbelief. Parents conveniently gone on a vacation? No one minding, or noticing, that Terry switches schools in the middle of a semester for a couple of weeks? Come on. And lastly, I can take the canned high school atmosphere that the movie delivers, what with the jocks, the über-nerds, the outcasts, and the REALLY horrible outfits of the 80's, but I cannot, CANNOT, take the message that the ending delivers.

The movie's arc goes something like this for me: Terry is pissed because she feels her writing for a journalism contest isn't take seriously because she is a woman. She changes identities, and genders, and submits the same article as a man at a new school. She is told the same thing: that her writing is boring, but well written. She tries to juggle this new identity around her boyfriend, brother, new friends at a new school, and the mundane life of high school (filled with prom, gym classes, and Saturday night dates), making for some ridiculous and painful situations. She quickly realizes that she has a crush on her friend, Rick, but, alas, Rick knows her as Terry the boy, not Terry the girl (and don't worry, Joyce Hyser brought her frying pan to hit you with to signal her gender swaps). As this crush grows, Terry the boy helps Rick to find a date to the prom, and helps to land him the most popular girl in school. Jealousy ensues, and Terry the girl is forced to face her feelings and admits this to Rick at the prom while she's dressed as (oh no!) Terry the boy. To cope with this debacle, Terry the girl returns to her journalism and writes an article based on her time as a boy. Which (and if you didn't guess this already, shame on you) lands her the internship at the Sun-Tribune. Later, she and Rick reconcile and the movie ends with a trite little scene where Rick drives Terry (at Rick's behest, because he's the man) off into the sunset.

So, this movie was really just telling the viewer to be honest with themselves and let men be men and women women? That I cannot stomach. What is the point of sitting through a feature film only to return to the start? The grass really isn't greener on the other side, so don't even bother? I felt cheated after I watched that movie. I felt like I had just sat through a movie only to return back to the beginning. Unfortunately.

Fortunately, though, it can still tickle a gender-bending fancy. It teaches us nothing enlightening about the sexes, merely trite clichès, but hey, this could be considered gender in film studies progress for the time.

Movie Trivia From The Past 25 Years

Why not promote someone else's movie critic site on our own? Hey, we'll share the love. The quiz is pretty decent. See if you can beat my score.

76%The Movie Quiz

FilmCritic.com - Movie Reviews

Split Second (1992)

There are movies out there which sound great on paper, but you know the actualized product will never be as awesome as you imagine. This is one such movie. Rutger Hauer does battle with a serial killer monster in a flooded futuristic London. And somehow the movie manages to be disappointing. It's not without it's merits; it's even quite entertaining by and large. But there re some big ideas in this movie which get side-tracked or else completely ignored in favor of a been-there-seen-that cop movie where all the characters are archetypes.

I have yet to see Rutger Hauer phone in a performance. His character here, though, is so stock that he isn't given very many moments to shine. See, Harley Stone is a cop, and he's on the edge. He's a rogue, who plays by his own book, and what he wants most is to avenge his dead partner. It feels like Rutger did well by playing down the fact that he was playing every renegade cop ever seen in cinema. The movie could have been quite garish if he had hammed it up, but simultaneously, he should have been written more interestingly. Split Second goes into especially familiar territory when a by-the-books rookie is assigned to be Harley's partner. What wacky hi-jinx will ensue, and I wonder if they'll ever see eye-to-eye. Yawn.

Rounding out the central character triumvirate is Kim Cattrrall as Harley's girlfriend. This movie falls in the middle of what we'll call the tolerable period in Kim Cattrall's career, but she disappears for long stretches in the movie and only resurfaces if she needs to be in peril. Or if she needs to show breasts, as in most of her career. Pete Postlethwaite also shows up to fill the obligatory jerk-cop role.

So. Split Second is full of cop clichés, like an un-funny version of Hot Fuzz. What's it got going for it? Mythology. The London of 2008 (aka: THE FUTURE) is submerged in a foot or more of water because global warming has melted the ice-caps and the Thames river is higher than ever. This not only shows that the film-makers are environmentally sympathetic, but it provides a distinctive look. The world is full of blues and greys, which makes the red of blood pop out so much more when it's seen. This water-world also provides plenty of rats which tie in to the central concept of the monster.

It's worth keeping in mind that this movie came out three years before the novel Relic was published. Otherwise, it would seem a blatent rip-off. The monster here is a creature which uses some form of recombinant DNA to absorb strengths and characteristics from victims. Unfortunately this is not reflected in the creature design. The monster also seems to absorb superstitions, as it ties both into satanic beliefs and notions that the year of the rat can bring about dark forces. Mostly un-mined is the implied notion of the cyclical nature of evil. Another thing which should have been addressed: Why is this movie called Split Second?

The almost Harry Potter/Voldemort-esque relationship between Harley and the monster is another interesting aspect to this movie. The monster's presence is felt throughout the movie by Harley, and this is expressed to the audience through a persistent and grating heartbeat. The film-makers wisely avoid showing the monster too early. The face of the monster is so lifeless that I wish they gave more time to the consistently interesting Michael J. Pollard, whose role as the ratcatcher is sadly too brief.

Ultimately, Split Second is more good than bad, but when's bad it's just boring. And nobody wants a boring monster movie.

Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix (IMAX, 2007)

This review is specific to the IMAX release of Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix.

David Yates...DavidYatesDavidYatesDavidYates. Who is this director? Oh, wait...he's really only done t.v. and short films up until now. This comes as a bit of a shocker, seeing as how he was handed the directorial reins for this installment of the Harry Potter film and the next one. His lack of feature experience shows, unfortunately. Fortunately, however, his support staff helped to make this film comprehensible. This film is fairly rife with clichèd moments, like when the Weasley twins set off fireworks and fly through the OWLS (the story's version of finals, and A Levels): very big, very bright, very flashy, and you laugh at the just desserts that Umbridge (played by Imelda Staunton), but it left me cold at the end. Like a sucker just taken for a ride. And after the ending battle with Voldemort, you get a sort of multi-wrap-up, from Dumbledore, Hermione & Ron and Harry. A bit much, for my tastes. But, of course, the slew of famous Brit actors and actresses that they continue to get for these films are tickling to watch, so that always helps.

This film finds the kids a year (in the story, at least. I can't even BEGIN to fathom just how awkward it would have been to see Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, in the stage production of Equus he was in while he was on break) older and maybe none the wiser. Hermione and Ron still follow Harry to the ends of the Earth and back again, and Harry still pushed them away whenever things get tough. When will they learn? Do these characters grow? Harry, in his understanding of himself and his role in a prophecy that he has to uncover in the final third of the film, does. Ron & Hermione? Not so much. They were background to Harry's journey, which rightfully, and wrongfully, so. It's his name in the title, ain't it? But cuts had to be made from the book to fit a feature length, and so went Ron & Hermione's character development. If you want your fill of development for Ron & Hermione, read the last book, I say.

This film probably has the least depth to it (followed only by part 4, Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire), but some great visuals. I did, I will admit, love the newspaper device used throughout the film. Not your typical spinning newspaper device, as the layout of the Daily Prophet adds a little spice (although, watching those moments in IMAX-vision: not so fun). Also, the ending battle in the Hall Of Prophecy was pretty spectacular to watch. So, kudos on action that pushed the film along and kept me interested.

After seeing this in IMAX, I have decided to never again see a feature film in IMAX. It is WAAAAAY too disjointing. First of all, you go through about 3/4 of the movie in non-IMAX vision. Suddenly, glasses flash in green at the bottom of the screen to let you know you should put on your glasses. Which everybody in the theater does. Too much distraction! Then, and in particular to the big fight at the Hall Of Prophecy, it doesn't always sync up. Some moments looked 3-D crystal clear, and some were double-vision. I tried moving my head, adjusting my glasses, and noting would rectify the problem. Also, when characters would walk in front of one another, they looked like paper people. 2-D, but in a 3-D world. Weird. Same gripe when they prompted you to take off your glasses: too distracting! I had the beginnings of a headache after that wrapped up. Maybe I'll go see the prehistoric sea-creatures film in IMAX, but Beowulf? Non.

Pulse (2001)

Kairo, or Pulse as it is known in its English title, is a bit of a tangled web. Which tends to be how most Japanese horror/thriller films are (see Ju-On, also known as The Grudge, and Ringu, also known as The Ring). I'm still learning how to properly digest these films.

There seems to be a jumpiness to these kinds of movies, where it's not just one style of movie. It's a horror movie, with ghosts who have overflowed from limbo now amongst the living; it's a morality tale, not so subtly telling us of society's isolation through digital escapes (i.e. the internet); it's a disaster film, with desolate Tokyo streets, cars burning, planes crashing into nearby buildings. Now, I know one can argue that 28 Days Later hit on similar themes (although I dunno about morality lessons, but maybe the Rage that infected people was commentary on...war? Who knows?), but there is something distinctly Japanese in the way that these films are handled. Similar to Ju-On, it's almost like these parts are chunks of a movie that don't mesh together as fluidly as 28 Days Later does. I know Ju-On was originally a three part t.v. series, whereas this is not the case for Kairo. Kairo was based on a book of the same name. Director Kiyoshi Kurosawa, however, hit on similar themes in a few of his earlier films, most notably Charisma (2000).

To further this jumpiness, there are two parallel story lines to this film that don't come together until about 2/3 of the way through the film, leaving the viewer to scratch their head and wonder just what the heck one has to do with the other. Which I can deal with, but there's a setup to that style that is lacking. One story line follows Michi (played quite enojyably and believably by Kumiko Aso). Michi works at a greenhouse and her friends are disappearing one by one. Why is everyone disappearing and, more importantly, why is it that she is the only one that can survive a run in with the ghosts that are now amongst the living? She sees FOUR of them and never once goes comatose and babbling? Everyone else totally loses their minds at one encounter. But, more on that later. The other story line follows Kawashima (played by Haruhiko Kato), who finally decides to join the 21^st century and get on the internet. He is, one late night, installing an internet provider disk onto his computer, when suddenly, up pops a website asking him if he wants to talk to a ghost. What the hell is this website, why does his computer turn on even when it's unplugged and who are the people the webcams on the website are following? I would like to take this time mention another noteworthy performance by Koyuki, who played Kawashima's love interest who loses her mind and finally lets us see what the heck all of those webcams are all about, Harue Karasawa. She was also in the Tom Cruise film, The Last Samurai. Her moment with the webcam was a bit heartbreaking in its loneliness.

Anyways, there were a lot of moments that pulled me out of this, due to their sheer ridiculousness. When they are on a bus, they have a blue screen behind them to overlay the background onto. LAME. Was hiring a bus to drive down the street just not in the budget? With all of the other stuff in this film?! Also, as I noted, Michi's run-ins with the undead. She's the only one that survives these. She even pulls one of her friends away from one! The flaming cargo plane that crashes into a nearby street during the apocalyptic ending: this guides her, somehow, to the exact building where she finds the key to the boat that she and Kawashima are trying to escape in. Also, one of the main ghosts: this ghost is a female who twists and writhes as she approaches her victims. Looked like modern dance moves. The main ghost, who finally fells Kawashima, and the most terrifying one, in my opinion, does NONE of this.

Balancing that, there were some really creepy moments, that made me a little afeared to sleep with my lights off. When Michi goes to Taguchi's and talks to him, only to later see him hang himself (something about the blurriness of the tarp separating Taguchi from Michi really does it). Also, when Kawashima is confronted by the ghost I would give that a thumbs up on the creepiness scale. Finally, the first time we see the creepy ghost modern dance lady and she peeks over the bench that Yabe is cowering behind ranks high on the creepy scale as well.

So, story – choppy, and chock full of Japanese morality and philosophy (which is a refreshing break from American cinema-style morality and philosophy), but really frying pan-esque in how they hit you over the head with it. Fear factor – nice and creepy. Kurosawa knows how to make a viewer's skin crawl. Done to great effect in this movie. Definitely worth the watch. The experience left me confused, yet sated in my craving for a creepy film.

Electra Glide in Blue (1973)

'Electra Glide in Blue' is ostensibly a murder mystery as investigated by an Arizona Motorcycle Cop. In execution, though, it's not about a character who solves a mystery so much as it is about a mystery leading a man to solve some personal issues he's got with his lot in life. It may also be among the finest police movies ever made.

John "Big John" Wintergreen is a highway patrolman, tired of being a grunt, living (and getting saddlesore) on the back of his Electra Glide motorcyle. His dreams of getting paid for using his brain, and upgrading his status become feasable when he is the first officer at the scene of an apparant suicide; his handling of the crime scene impresses the detective assigned to the case to the extent that they are partnered up. His experienes through the case, and witnissing how other officers behave toward citizens (mostly portrayed as hippies) lead him to discoveries about how important his moral code is to his soul.

It's worth noting that the mystery isn't very complex; the police procedural genre really came into its own in the 80's. This is not to say that it is underthought, or that the spiritual implications are absent. This is just a warning to anyone looking for an actioner. Nay, with the exception of a memorable chase sequence, there's not a lot of action in the movie.

It's not exactly cool to like Robert Blake these days, ever since he (a-hem) allegedly murdered his wife. However, his turn as Big John is as satisfyingly complete as you could want. This is an officer who compensates for his diminutive stature by being the best officer he can be, and his typically letter-of-the-law convictions tend to make him unpopular. Motorists hate him because he's a by-the-book establishment figure who they perceive as being too hard on them. His fellow officers think he's too soft on suspects because he won't rough them up. He is, however a charasmatic fellow who is fair, ambitions and popular with the ladies.

Conrad Hall, Sr. was the direcor of photography, and some of his shots of Arizona and Monument valley are among the most gorgeous I can remember seeing on the screen. The final shot needs to be seen to be believed; it really drives home the concept of a small man and his place in this country, if not in the Universe.

X-Men III: The Last Stand (2006)

I will admit right off the bat that I'm an X-Fan from way back. I will plainly state my bias. I collected every single issue of every single X-title that came out during my Jr. high and high school years (they were my ‘issue-a-day habit’). But, sadly, when realized I could have helped pay a good portion of my college tuition with the money I spent on comics, I had to give it up. But I can still remember the first time I saw Colossus and Wolverine do their “Fastball Special” in the books. I was rapt watching Callisto and Storm duke it out in the film, like they did in the comics for rule of the Morlocks. It gave me a thrill to hear Kelsey Grammer deliver the Beast’s infamous, “Oh my stars and garters.” GEEK. With a big flashing neon sign overhead.

Now that that’s out of the way…

Brett Ratner. New director. Known for Rush Hour. Not someone the faithful could easily put their money behind. Bryan Singer (who directed the first two installments, and most notably The Usual Suspects) had gone off to man the helm of another comic book film franchise, Superman Returns. The third in a series typically doesn’t live up to the reputation of its predecessors (The Godfather 3, anyone?). But, Mr. Ratner, I commend you. Screenwriters Simon Kinberg & Zak Penn, I commend you. More than any other film, you bottled an important part of the essence of a title that has been around since 1963. X-Men was never simply about good guys and bad guys fighting each other in spandex suits for me. It was about the struggle of being who you are in a world that doesn’t accept you for that. It was about trying to find a safe space to grow in. This film captures so much of that. You’re a mutant in a world that doesn’t accept mutants. Suddenly the government announces a cure for mutancy. Do you take it to fit in? Do you find comfort in who you are and those like you? Anyone has felt like an outcast at some point in their life. The question is, how do we handle it? Your ‘safe space’ is in jeopardy. Do you let it be taken away or do you fight for it? So many parallels are drawn between the X-Men comics and the queer community, so maybe it was speaking to me on more potent level, even if I wasn’t listening when I was younger.

But, have no fear, even in all this morality, there’s some good, old fashioned fisticuffs. I never winged at the balance between talkie-talkie and fighty-fighty (see The Matrix Reloaded). The fight scenes were well done, the special effects were well done. I did notice a continuity blip when Magneto moved the Golden Gate Bridge in broad daylight and then a few minutes later it was night. My biggest acting gripe was with Vinnie Jones (from Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels and Snatch) as the Juggernaut. He was, disappointingly, a caricature in a film where every character mattered. When he yelled, “Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch,” I about pissed myself for laughing. And Angel (played by Ben Foster) was not as huge a player as the previews made him out to be. Integral to the storyline, yes, but he had about 2 minutes of screen time collectively. Last gripe, too much character death. Was is really necessary to kill off jean Grey?! Leech was right there when Wolverine got his brilliant idea of how to get rid of the Dark Phoenix. Why not use Leech to power her down? I was happy that I stuck around after the credits to see the ending scene where Professor X comes back to life through another body. It happened a couple of times in the comics, so I gave a geek cheer to see it in the film.

Admittedly, it was hard for me to take this film just as a film and not have the comic books as reference. I cringe when I read reviews that say, “oh, the movie wasn’t as good as the book.” Take the film for the film. Having said that, I would love to see some comments here from people who are not on the geek level that I am. I think that anyone (knowledgeable in the X-Verse, or not) can enjoy this film. Either then themes or the action (or maybe both) will get you one way or another.

The Monster Squad (1987)

A quick note: I really, really wanted to talk about this movie on its own merits. Really. I didn't want to bring the Goonies into the fray. But, like the Stay Puf't Marshmallow man, it just popped in there; it seemed innocent at the time, but the comparisons grew to destroy the review. Sorry.

'The Monster Squad' has earned quite a reputation over the years as being some sort of lost masterpiece. This is evidence of how tricky nostalgia can be: it's not a good movie unless it was a part of your formative years. In a nutshell, the story is a dumbed down Goonies fighting against the classic Universal monster library.

'The Monster Squad' came out two years after 'The Goonies' did, and without saying it plagiarized the latter, well, it borrowed their template. Heavily. The Squad in question is the group of misfits who rally together when the forces of evil come to town. Okay, it's a movie aimed at a younger audience, it's going to feature kids. It's the personality types involved that are troubling; there's one older kid who all kids in school look up to, there's a central kid who holds the team together, also a fat kid-- no, seriously, instead of calling him Chunk, they just call him Fat Kid-- and, um, there's some other kid. I guess they threw in the "Some Other Kid" because there was no need for a Data character, as there really are no inventions required in this story, or any puzzles to figure out, really. About halfway through the movie, Frankenstein's Monster joins the squad, because, just like Sloth he's large, strong and intimidating, but gentle, and befriends the kids when they show him a little kindness (side note: yes, Frankenstein's Monster is the most sympathetic of Universal's catalog, so if a monster must join the kids, yeah, it'd be him. But Come On, Really?). And oh yeah, late in the show the girl that the older kid crushes on joins the Squad.

Now, about the villains. Tri-Star released this movie, and Universal Studios has the rights to the monsters in their library, so liberties were taken to avoid lawsuit. The reinventions were abominable. Dracula leads the gang and is nowhere near as frightening as Ma Fratelli. The actor playing him made sure to ditch any of the elegance that makes Dracula really frightening, and the script calls for him to have selective memory of his abilities. Why would he use dynamite? His second in command is the Wolfman, played in human form by the likeable Jon Gries, otherwise he's just a man in a fur suit who shows up to be menacing when called for. The true atrocities are the Mummy, whose two key moments are just for comic effect (just why WAS he hanging out in a kid's closet?), and the Gillman who is only in this movie to be wasted. Stan Winston did the creature designs, so it's fitting that the Gillman looks like a prototype for The Predator, which came out two months earlier. Come to think of it, Shane Black was in that movie, too. Things that make you go Hmm. . .

'The Monster Squad' was 'Van Helsing,' before anyone knew there was a niche for destroying all monsters' reputations.

There's a plot in this movie somewhere, too. See, there's an amulet that controls the forces of good and evil. Every hundred years it shows up to do. . . something. Something evil. Or maybe good. There's not any real logic to it, nor is there real logic to how it is seen in Transylvania in the movie's prologue, only to show up in Southern California post-credits. That's a fatal flaw to the movie: everything is just too easy. The kids never have to think their way through any problems; they're just given everything. They need the amulet? Good thing it's right there. They need to translate Van Helsing's book? Good thing there's a German who lives next door.

The movie is all the more disappointing because it was written by Shane Black; 'Monster Squad' and 'Lethal Weapon' both came out in the same year, so I can't write this off by saying "a young Shane Black." The father of the modern buddy action movie could have come up with a better buddy action movie. I've heard people give 'Monster Squad' flak because the kids in it swear-- that's about the only thing I give it a pass on, because kids that age? They do swear. The other behind the scenes disappointment is director Fred Dekker, whose 'Night of the Creeps' is well worth seeing.

So. If it's a rainty day and you want to show your kids a good time, show them the original Univeral movies. Show them 'The Goonies.' But beware of showing them 'The Monster Squad,' as nostalgia may rear it's Predator-lookin' head.