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.