As I mentioned in my Dead Alive/Braindead review, I've only watched the first Lord of the Rings film. Though I have the series, I never got around to reading it, and I tried reading the Hobbit a while back, but I was too young, I believe, to fully understand it, so I gave up after chapter one. Of course, all this didn't stop me from watching the newest installment to the Lord of Rings franchine, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, starring Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman (I do not watch Sherlock, but I know of the obsession) as Gandalf and Bilbo Baggins, respectively. I can't compare it to the novel, nor even to the other films that follow in the series (except the first), so my opinions will be based purely on the film alone.
I missed a bit of the beginning of the film, but it starts off with Bilbo, a hobbit, as an older man (Ian Holm) telling Frodo (Elijah Wood) a story about the journey that changed him. This journey cuts to Bilbo as a young man (Martin Freeman) smoking on a bench in front of his house. Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), a wizard, approaches him and asks him if he'd like to participate in a journey. Bilbo automatically refuses and thinks this will be the end of the affair. Quite the opposite - that night, thirteen dwarves (the leader being Thorin - played by Richard Armitage) appear at his doorstep and ask him to be the burglar on their journey to reclaim Lonely Mountain, their home before it was taken from them by a dragon. Reluctant at first, Bilbo eventually agrees to help them, and so begins his unexpected journey.
I saw the film in 3D, but I'll tell you now that the three-dimensional effects were not extraordinary. I'd say skip out on it - it doesn't make it that exciting. However, the scenery was very beautiful - whether it be the made up villages or just the mountains and fields of New Zealand. Aesthetically, it was extremely appealing. I enjoyed just watching it for how beautifully it was put together.
The plot itself I thought was interesting. I mean, J. R. R. Tolkien's books are pretty well known, at least in the English speaking areas, so even if you never saw any of the films, you know that the point of the Lord of the Rings was to destroy the "ring to rule them all." The first film for the Hobbit is the prequel to the series so, though it is about the dwarves reclaiming their home land, it also shows the evil that was lurking prior to the events of the ring and its discovery of the masses. Anyway, the main plot itself is interesting. It's one of heroism and adventure, and if you love fantasy (and, most likely consequently, read the Hobbit), then you'll love it. I heard complaints that there were a lot of scenes that could have been taken out of the film because they weren't necessary for the main plot, and considering the film was ten minutes short of three hours, it would have been appreciated. I personally didn't feel the film was that long while I watched it, and I enjoyed every scene. Sure, some parts could have been shortened, but I don't know, I think it was still really enjoyable. It added to the authenticity of the film to the novel. However, yes, I can agree that the film could have been shortened for its cinematic release. The bit with Radagast the Brown was unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it, even if it was a short-lived part of the film. The acting was also really good - I especially enjoyed Martin Freeman's perfomance. Everyone played their part very well.
My friend also told me that they apparently mentioned the titles of the chapters every time a new one began. I can't confirm this, but if you're looking for an easter egg, this could potentially be one.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film. I'd give it eight point five stars on ten. It could have been cut in length, and some parts were a bit peculiar being there given they are never followed up on. Nonetheless, I totally bought into it. Again, I can't compare it to the novel, but I really enjoyed the first film, and since I got to see it in theatres, I found I appreciated this one even more. Definitely worth a watch if you enjoy fantasy and amazingly gorgeous visuals!
Nothing represents the holidays better than a horror film commemorating the violent depiction of Christmas! Today I'll present you with two films I thought might be worth a watch this year. We'll see if, however, they deserve an annual watching...
We shall start with our first film, Charles E. Sellier Jr.'s Silent Night, Deadly Night, released in 1984 which spawned quite a few sequels (even if some really did stray away from the original plot) and a lot of controversy when it was released.
It's Christmas Eve and five-year-old Billy Chapman (Jonathan Best) is on his way to visit his mentally unstable grandfather (Will Hare) who is currently in a mental hospital. He's excited for Santa to come and deliver his presents, and, while his mother warns him he must go to bed on time to make sure Santa does come, his spirits aren't too dampered... Until his grandfather warns him, in secret, that Santa will punish him severely if he is naughty and proceeds to laugh maniacally. Billy's spirit takes even more abuse when a man dressed as Father Christmas murders his parents in cold blood as the family heads back to their home. Nothing to worry about, right? That is what the head nun, Mother Superior, is convinced of three years later when she forces the orphaned eight-year-old Billy (Danny Wagner), who is staying in her orphanage, to be severely punished for being frightened of Santa. Skip ahead ten years and Billy (Robert Brian Wilson) seems to be well off - good-looking, strong, and obviously charming - until the Christmas season rolls around... Now he's going to take matters into his own hands and punish all who have been naughty.
The acting from eighteen-year-old Billy (Robert Wilson) was also really bland. It starts off with him looking charming, but he soon comes off as just an asshole. I had no feeling for him whatsoever - he just seemed so wooden. However, I thought five-year-old Billy and eight-year-old Billy were really good. Isn't it usually the opposite? Aren't the child actors usually worse than the adult ones? Anyway, the other acting was decent enough, but adult Billy... I guess I can't necessarily complain about his acting as much as the writer must have just wanted to take away all emotion from him, as well as dialogue.
I was pretty disappointed with the film for one real reason - it's not really about Santa being evil, but just about a person who goes insane. Billy watched the absolutely appalling event of his parents' murder and then was beaten and petrified into thinking if he questioned Santa, he would be punished severely. This is just the tale of a kid who had a rotten childhood and who ended up becoming mentally unstable. I just found it pretty dissatisfying because the Christmas element isn't even necessary for the film. Take it away and Billy could just be a killer who believes people should be punished. I mean, punishment is what is emphasised, right? You don't need Santa Clause to deliver punishment. Look at Jack the Ripper or Peter Sutcliffe, a.k.a. the Yorkshire Ripper - they murdered prostitutes because they believed they had to be punished. This film takes this and just slaps on Christmas - my guess is to ensure people would watch it at least once a year.
I can see why it was controversial at the time, and, given the shooting in Connecticut that happened recently as well as other spree killings that happen pretty frequently, could definitely turn people off. Still, the killings themselves aren't anything too gruesome or spectacular. Actually, I take that back - Billy has super human strength at times. Spoiler: at one point, he takes a woman and impales her into the antlers of a deer mounted on the wall, and no blood sprays everywhere. Sigh... If you're going to make it unrealistic, at least go crazy with it. Not to mention he often kills people that shouldn't even be punished and leaves ones that should be alive. This film had such random killings, not to mention few were done very Christmasy. Nope, I'm not letting that Christmas theme go.
I really complained about this one, didn't I? As much as I thought it was dumb, I wasn't really that bored watching it. I'd give if seven stars on ten - losing most of its points for its lack of Christmas being involved in the plot. I think the film would have been better without the idea of Santa in it, or if it had been incorporated better into the film. Still, it's a horror film, so what did I really expect?
I suppose David Steiman's Santa's Slay is a bit of a cheap shot in relation to it being referred to as a "horror" film since it's most of a comedy, but hey, I call the shots around here! Let's check it out.
You know a film will be special when it opens to Fran Drescher putting a turkey on the table for her family who include Chris Kattan, Rebecca Gayheart, and James Caan! The dinner is interrupted when Santa (Bill Goldberg) comes down the chimney - and no, he isn't bearing gifts, he's bearing murder! Cut to Nicholas Yuleson (Douglas Smith) and Mary Mackenzie (Emilie de Ravin) receiving gifts from their boss, Mr. Green (Saul Rubinek), a Jewish deli shop owner. Nicholas is our protagonist, and he's known for being the grandson of a crazy old man (Robert Culp). However, his grandfather reveals the truth about Santa to him, finding out Santa has been under-contract to deliver gifts to children for Christmas for the last one thousand years after losing a bet to an angel. However, he is actually the antichrist and now that the contract is over, he's eager to kill everyone. It's up to Nick, his grandfather, and his love interest, Mary, to save Hell Township (no, they are not in Norway) and the whole world from Santa.
Where Silent Night, Deadly Night failed, Santa's Slay succeeded - it used the aspect of Christmas perfectly. The film is about Santa being a crazy demon and he actually kills people festivally. It's all done with a comic undertone, which I really liked. I'm biased in that I find horror movies take themselves too seriously sometimes and just throw out the idea of being scary and instead aim to be shockers, like in the case of Silent Night, Deadly Night. This film decided to just make itself gorey and have the underlying demon idea (thus horror), but it brought in comedy as well (dark/black humour). This, to me, is the perfect mix for a Christmas horror film.
Robert Culp's acting is really lacking sometimes, but his lines made me laugh regardless. In fact, the film had some really funny lines. It doesn't rely on really lame jokes (though they do exist), and instead exploits on the outright greed most people have. I also thought it was awesome seeing so many cameos from famous actors; e.g. the pastor in the film is Dave Thomas. While I suppose it does date the film a bit since some of the actors/actresses are no longer popular, because the film came out in 2005, it totally fits with my generation and older ones as well.
I won't analyse the film too much because it's meant to be taken as a joke, so I'll just give my rating - eight stars. It's a high rating, but it gave me what I wanted: a killer Santa and spirit-of-Christmas deaths. I didn't expect much, but it satisfied me with that and threw in hilarity. It's no masterpiece, that's for sure, but if you're looking for a short, funny yet horrific Christmas film, check out Santa's Slay. Merry Christmas everyone, and to those who don't celebrate, at least you're getting time off from work/school!
I received Bruce Robinson's Withnail and I as a Christmas gift last year after having been obsessed with it for ages. I've decided to make watching this film around the holidays a tradition (we'll see how long that lasts). The film stars Richard E. Grant (first thought is Spice World and Warlock - sorry), Paul McGann (the Eighth Doctor), Richard Griffiths (the Harry Potter franchise), and Ralph Brown. It has become a cult classic over the years, but does it really deserve its status? Let's find it!
The film opens to a man smoking, revealing the date to be 1969. Meet the "& I" character of the story (now often referred to as Marwood), played by Paul McGann, a neurotic and pretty crazy down-on-his-luck unemployed actor. Thankfully he has his good friend Withnail (Richard E. Grant), another down-on-his-luck unemployed actor who has a continuous craving for booze, to accompany him in the misery that is their lives. The two decide to escape the city life by bribing Monty (Richard Griffiths), Withnail's queer (in different ways) uncle, in order to stay in his cottage in the country. Things go astray quickly, but as long as the two have the finest wines known to humanity, they should make it out alive.
The first thing I will comment on is its amazing soundtrack. The first scene where Marwood smokes becomes hauntingly beautiful with the addition of the song A Whiter Shade of Pale performed live by King Curtis. Not to mention there does include Jimi Hendrix's version of All Along the Watchtower, his own song Voodoo Child, and The Beatles While My Guitar Gently Weeps. A little tidbit - this is one of the few films to actually include a Beatles song as the surviving members don't often allow their own version of their songs to be in films. The reason it was allowed in this film? George Harrison was a producer and allowed for it to be played. The other songs included are interesting too, but those were the ones that stuck out the most for me as they were the ones I recognised.
I've always been fascinated with the stories of people's lives, even if they are fictional. Films like these, ones just portraying the chaotic events of an individual and how they survived - I find I really enjoy. I feel it seems really biased for me to just judge the plot thus, but personally, I thought this was a really interesting film. Pain is ubiquitous, and it's interesting to see how each person can take it through the use of cinematography. The film also portrays a world I have never experienced - the sixties, for one, and it being in Britain is another. I get to experience life through one individual's anecdote while watching this film, and it's well done. It's well written, humourous, but not excluding the bittersweet end that will always appear eventually.
The acting was well done as well. I have only one complaint, and I've never been sure if this was just ignored or what. At the end of the film (don't worry, I am not going to reveal anything), Marwood at one point is reading a letter while Withnail laughs. It's obvious Paul McGann is supressing laughter, and while later he does actually laugh, I was never sure if this was deliberate or not... It seems odd that he would be laughing, but then again, given the circumstance, it's quite possible he would laugh. I have no personal experience so I wouldn't know. Anyway, besides that one scene where I've always wondered, the acting was great. Richard E. Grant and Paul McGann do great jobs, and Richard Griffiths really steals the show with his portrayal as Monty.
I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It's interesting if you enjoy just listening to a short story in someone's life, and the actors in the film really give you a feel for each character. I'd recommend it to anyone willing to give this quirky film a try any time of the year.
If there's one thing I've really enjoyed about my post secondary education, it would be that I have been exposed to a lot of cultures I never really knew about. I've always been fascinated with different ethnicities, and I hope, one day, to travel abroad to experience them first hand. However, for now, I take it in by listening to people talk about themselves, watching films (as you guys can clearly see), and listening to different music, among other things. Music can really capture a place, whether it be its beauty or its ideas, and I've learned that restricting myself to one particular genre of music is really just a shame. You miss out on so much and your close minded views don't even benefit you because you only make people groan when you yell out that such-and-such a band is the only good thing out there. I've been trying to get to know the more obscure bands of different countries lately, especially ones I don't really know about, and so I decided to sit down to (finally) watch Sam Dunn's and Scot McFadyen's documentary Global Metal. I watched Metal: A Headbanger's Journey maybe two years after it came out, definitely before Global Metal was made, and I thought it was a really great documentary that got a great view on metal by interviewing people in the metal scene. Did Global Metal do as great a job? Let us dive in and find out!
The title of the film is pretty self-explanatory - the film brings us around the world to discover different metal scenes in areas you wouldn't have guessed actually had a metal scene. While I do listen to Sepultura and Angra from Brasil, and the occasional random metal band from Japan, I was really intrigued when they delved into India, Indonesia, Israel (wow), even Saudi Arabia and Iran. I mean, it seems a bit ludicrous and naive to imagine that absolutely no one from Israel listens to metal, but it's not something I would have ever associated Israel with, nor Saudi Arabia and Iran, that's for sure. But that's the point of the documentary - to show that metal doesn't just exist in North America (Canada and the United States especially) and Europe, but in Asia and the Middle East too.
The film, again, was presented in the form of interviews to present the information, whether it be with well known musicians like Marty Friedman and Lars Ulrich or simply fans of the genre. I really liked this format in A Headbanger's Journey, and I really liked it here. Who knows more about the phenomena of metal in a said country than a fan from that country? Who can speak of the experiences of playing a show for the first time in Indonesia than the band itself? This format makes it a lot more personal, and the people spoke intellectually, at least for the most part, and so I really enjoyed listening to their stories.
The film didn't go into any African countries (though one man from Egypt was spoken to), and I thought that was a bit of a shame. However, I can only name one occasion when someone mentioned hearing about a man from somewhere in Africa who was in a metal band. I don't even know their name or remember much about it at all. I can only assume, without doing a google search, that most of Africa, and I'm talking about more developped countries like South Africa here, doesn't have a big enough growing metal scene. If you have an answer, I'd be happy to hear it.
Global Metal allowed the viewer to see metal's ubiquitousness. While in some it is still small in certain places, it still exists and is growing, even if a country discourages it. I honestly found it inspiring when they interviewed a man from Indonesia when he talked about going to a Metallica show in 1993 (hopefully I remember the date correctly) and being pushed around by officers. I remember scowling because I was talked to sternly at my first metal show when I was twelve... It seems like these people were just rebelling for going to listen to a band - and metal concerts were banned after that concert. It's pretty crazy when you come from a country where you take your freedom of expression and speech for granted.
Personally, I thought this was a great documentary. It was about music, more specifically metal, and it discussed culture in relation to that, bringing two things I love together. I'd give the film eight point four stars on ten, though I don't see it as a documentary everyone can watch. I mean, being a metal fan who's pretty open to different styles of music generally, I was able to appreciate the film with what it delivered. However, if you find metal absolutely repulsive, I wouldn't be able to recommend the film, unless you absolutely love anthropological studies and can overlook the metal aspect. Anyway, if you enjoy metal, I highly recommend it. If you enjoy learning about humanity, I'd recommend it too. It's a well put together film, and honestly one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. [/praise]
I've been meaning to watch Ari Folman's Vals Im Bashir, or, in English, Waltz with Bashir, since I heard it was nominated for an Oscar. The poster was the first thing that captivated me - I thought it looked stunning. The story also seemed interesting - a psychological biographical journey - but it was soon added to the long list of films I wanted to watch. My friend showed me a site dedicated to movie-watching (I always download movies, much to the dismay of my one friend who complains that my computer cannot handle it), and I decided to test it by searching up some films. Well, Waltz with Bashir was one of them, and I finally watched it. I'm glad I didn't watch it when I first heard about it in 2008/09 - I don't think I would have been able to appreciate it.
The film begins with Ari Folman, who served in the Israel Defense Forces when he was nineteen during the Lebanon War, listening to the nightmare his friend from his service time in the army has been having in which twenty-six dogs are chasing him. Ari Folman realises that he doesn't remember anything from the time he spent in the war - and so begins a journey to discover his hidden memory.
I would like to explain the Lebanon War in greater detail, but I find the film does a good job of explaining what happens. It is also linked to the emotional dismay Ari Folman (yes, the director of the film) feels in the end, so I'd say, unless you already know about the 1982 war, wait until afterward to really look into it. I'll give the basic details though. Basically, the 1982 Lebanon War started when Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov, was nearly assassinated by the Abu Nidal Organisation, a military splinter group led by Abu Nidal, a Palestinian political leader. We already know Palestine and Israel are in awful terms with each other, but how does Lebanon tie in? Syria had a quite an influence over Lebanon, and Israel, along with expelling the Palestine Liberation Organisation and having a pro-Israel Christian government led by Bashir (or Bachir) Gemayel established in Lebanon (thank you, Wikipedia), believed that in destroying this influence, Israel would benefit with peace. However, we can already guess that that it didn't go too well considering Israel has not seen peace since it got its independence in 1948. I shan't say anymore since the film goes into greater detail, and I wouldn't want to ruin it!
Let me start off by saying that I thought the animation was really, really cool. While you get the impression that the film has been rotoscoped (that is, taking real footage and drawing over it - as seen partly in the film Heavy Metal), it hasn't. Instead, another technique was used consisting of classic animation and Adobe Flash cutouts. Either way, it looks pretty realistic and the drawing is wonderful. I loved the intense shadows and some scenes just look beautiful - as seen on the cover of the film. I'm a big fan of animation, and this film takes a unique, wonderful spin on it. Also, this is a biographical film, and yet it's animated. I find that pretty amazing too. It still conveys the message it wants to send, and I even think the animation allows a lot of scenes in it to not be too cheesy, had it been made with real people. While CGI has improved immensely, the film was made four years ago and CGI can be hard to get right. I'm glad an animated film was made - it was as aesthetically appealing as the film was moving!
... Yes, the film was moving. The story is grim and is really depressing, but it's well done. We get interviews with different people who either were part of the war or documenting it. It gives such a human touch to it, minus the fact that it is about Ari Folman's journey. We get to hear about the war from different perspectives and it really helps intensify the story.
I'd give this film seven point eight stars on ten. It was really very beautiful and the story was interesting, but I found some stories a bit lacking. I also would have enjoyed Ari Folman's discovery a bit more - I find, once he remembers everything, we just skim over his reaction. That bothered me a bit... Otherwise, it was an interesting, and different, film. Recommended if you enjoy war films.
While I enjoy reading about history, especially in relation to militia and military warfare, I can't say I know much about the history of the world. In high school, we principally followed national history, and not even to that degree. My last year, we did look more into the history of the world, but the two subjects I remember really well from that class were a basic explanation on the war in Vietnam and the civil war in Syria, and that's only because they were the two subjects I did a project on. I know about the big wars - WWI and WWII - but it really saddens me that I never had the opportunity to study them in high school. Hopefully in my future academic endeavours I will finally take the time to study them, but as of yet, I'm relying on the occasional novel and film. In comes Lu Chuan's Nánjīng! Nánjīng!, or as its known in English-speaking parts of the world, City of Life and Death. The film is about the Battle of Nanjing and the after effects. The film stars (last name first) Gao Yuanyuan, Fan Wei, Qin Lan, Liu Ye, and Nakaizumi Hideo. I'll offer more an explanation on what was happening that resulted in the Battle of Nanjing, but take what I say with a grain of salt because I'll be simplifying what I read in articles on Wikipedia. My apologies beforehand for any mistakes or over-simplified explanations I provide.
Between 1894 and 1895, China was defeated by Japan in the first Sino-Japanese War under the Qing Dynasty, the last imperial dynasty to exist in China. China was forced to hand over territory claims it had in Korea to Japan. China was left struggling with interal rebellion and foreign imperialism, while Japan rose in strength due to its great progress in modernization. Over the course of the next thirty or so years, China abandonded the imperialistic view and the Republic of China was formed. However, many conflicts, including World War I and the Japanese, once again, imposing on the country, as well as internal rebellion, led to it being in a not-so-well-off state. Japan saw opportunity to expand into China as it was rich in raw goods, so, in 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria (Northeast China) and "small" fights continued over the course of six years. It was in 1937 that Japanese and Chinese forces started a full-scale battle in the are of the Marco Polo bridge (a bridge that was an important route to Beijing). Beijing and Tianjin were seized by Japanese forces, and this is when most historians would say the Second Sino-Japanese War started. Nearing the end of 1937, Japan took over Nanjing, the capital of the Republic of China at the time (which it would be until the Republic of China became the People's Republic of China in 1945). This brought on what is referred to as the Nanjing Massacre in China and the Nanjing Incident in Japan. This is where the film starts off, so let us begin a new paragraph where I will now talk about the film. Hopefully that explanation wasn't too far off from the reality...
The film starts with Lu Jianxiong (Liu Ye) and several other Chinese soldiers attempt to stop deserting troops from leaving Nanjing, only to be captured by the Japanese army, including superior private (eventually promoted to sergeant) Kadokawa Masao (Nakaizumi Hideo), which has come to capture Nanjing. Most of these soldiers are executed, though two, Shunzi (Zhao Yisui) and a young boy (Liu Bin) survive. They displace to the Nanjing Safety Zone, which was helped run by John Rabe (John Paisley), a Nazi German. However, the zone becomes a hellish place over the course of the year of the Nanjing Massacre.
I guess I should include this in the history area, but anyway... If you were like me and wondering why a Nazi was helping China when, in World War II, Nazi Germany sided with Japan, this happens pre-WWII and at the time, China was receiving support from Germany, the United States, and Russia. Kind of strange when you think about what followed two years later... Anyway, I can't say if the film followed a completely accurate view on the war, but it definitely captures the fear and violence that happened. Whether it be with the constant humilation of both the men and women, the meaningless killing of innocent civilians... It's definitely not an up-lifting film, but I thought it did a wonderful job getting the story across to even a noob historian like me. While many people sent death threats to Lu Chuan for portraying a sympathetic Japanese (Nakaizumi Himeo's character), I thought it provided a good view as well. I'm probably being naive in assuming that not everyone could be that bad, but whenever I see a film that bashes one side, I always feel a little guilty... Not to say what the Japanese did is excusable, but I'm sure not everyone took pleasure in killing men, women, and children and defiling their corpses.
The film does not skimp out on the horrible details, however, and it can be quite shocking to watch. When you realise how rape and the killing of the innocent is a leading factor in the Nanjing Massacre, and even in all warfare, it makes you feel sick. City of Life and Death demonstrates the sacrifices people went through to save the ones they loved, and it's heart breaking to think that just because of the country they born in meant they were to be punished for something they had nothing to do with. Sorry for generalising...
I'd give the film seven point nine stars on ten. I thought the cinematography was stunning, and I thought the characters were very real. It was always a little strange hearing German and English in the film on occasion, but I thought it was amazing that they incorporated that in as well. Even the fact that the film was, let's say, half Chinese half Japanese. Considering it was a film made a Chinese man, I thought it was great that both sides were portrayed. Anyway, the film was very well done, as shocking as it was, and if you're looking to watch a good historical war film, I'd definitely recommend this one.
It was back in grade six when I heard my first metal song - apart from the so called "metal" I've heard on the radio. It was Dream Theater's Learning to Live, and yeah, it is a pretty tame song by metal standards, but it opened up a new genre of music I had never heard before. I listened to Dream Theater, Death, Necrophagist, Dragonforce, Children of Bodom, Sonata Arctica - anything really - except for nu metal, which I continue to look down upon (it's just a grudge now). My friend helped expose me to the more extreme bands I really enjoy now because her older brother listened to metal as well. I remember him showing us a adult cartoon show called Metalocalypse at the time, but, being a young kid paired with the violent nature of the show, made me never look into it. I've gone through different phases of music since then - electronica and classical especially - and while I listened to Austrian Death Machine every so often, I felt I had left my metal roots behind. I met someone recently who listens to Sonata Arctica, and it made me take out the mp3 CD I have of their songs. Needless to say, it brought back my metal craving. It also reminded me of that show I had heard of all those years ago - Brendon Small and Tommy Blacha's metal epic. I realise this is a show, not a movie, but I originally made this blog thinking I'd only review movies because I had another place where I wrote about shows I watched. It has since been deleted, so I present you this brutal classic today! [/end of anecdote]
John Lennon claimed the Beatles were bigger than Jesus - but Dethklok is bigger than them both. Fans would gladly throw themselves into the pits of Hell to get a chance to go to a concert (and they do, quite literally, sometimes), millions upon millions of people wait for every upcoming album, and it is quite possible that, if the death metal band commanded for mass suicide, it would happen. In fact, Dethklok is so popular that it has the seventh biggest economy on the planet. You would think this band would thus consist of a group of hard-working, competent, intelligent, and kind individuals. Well, you thought wrong.
Frontman Nathan Explosion (voiced by Brendon Small) is the vocalist and lyricist of the band - who growls regardless if he's singing or not. He originally grew up in Florida, USA and never got his high school diploma. Nonetheless, he doesn't always appear as intellectually inept as the rest of the band, but most of the time he's displaying some sense of stupidity and obvious insensitivity. It only goes downhill from here, folks!
Skwisgaar Skwigelf (also voiced by Brendon Small) is the lead guitarist of the group who originally comes from Sweden. While he looks typically Swedish - tall, blond, blue-eyed - he possesses the gift of God when he plays guitar. He is often considered the fastest and best guitarist in the world, and he always seems to have a guitar on him. He's also the best womanizer, I would say, in the world. When the band toured in Finland one year, Skwisgaar approximates he banged 500 women. What a feat for one man... Or should I say god?
On rhythm guitar, we have Toki Wartooth (voiced by Tommy Blacha). While he is not acknowledged by the band to be a very good member in contributing to the band's overall wealth and music, he's definitely the sweetest, most innocent, and most childish out of the group. He hails from Norway where he was abused as a child. In consequence to this abuse, he is extremely well built. While he is often jealous of Skwisgaar being in the limelight as lead guitarist, the two form a bond as they both possess "superior Scandanavian intellect". He was the only member to not have been part of the original line-up of Dethklok. Toki also adds "s" to the ends of a lot of words... Legitimately curious - is that a Norwegian thing?
Pickles (voiced by Brendon Small) the drummer comes from Wisconsin, USA, and, man, does he like to drink! ... As well as do recreational drugs en masse. Pickles definitely possesses great talent, having been in another successful band before Dethklok. Not to mention he's always inebriated and intoxicated and yet still manages to put on a killer show for the band. However, his family still looks down on him and instead focuses their attention on his sly brother. Let's all give Pickles some love, shall we?
Finally, we have the useless bassist, William Murderface (voiced by Tommy Blacha). My god, this character gets on my nerves. He's ignorant, evil, just an overall bad person, and always seems to be complaining about something - especially how he's under-rated in the band. It's not like he doesn't deserve it - he barely contributes to the band. He witnessed the murder-suicide of his parents as a baby, but claims it has not scarred him. He speaks with a prominent lisp and is the worst looking member of the band of which he is continuously reminded by the public and the members of Dethklok. Nonetheless, he wishes for some love. At least he has Toki to share his under-achievements!
Charles Foster Offdensen (voiced by Brendon Small) is the manager of the band Dethklok - though he is much more. He's also their legal counsel and chief financial advisor, as well as one of the only people who can stand being around them for more than five minutes to discuss legal matters. He's dedicated his life to protecting the band and does all he can for them. He's extremely talented - being an incredible fencer - and acts as a father figure for the band on occasion. How does he do it?
There are many other re-occuring characters, such as Dick Knubbler, Dr. Rockzo (who is just as annoying as Murderface - and he does cocaine), for example, but there is one group I should talk about - the Tribunal. They are a secret organisation - an Illuminati, if you will - who is constantly monitoring Dethklok. They are always discussing the dangers that can come from Dethklok's actions and become more important as the series goes on. They can be considered one of the leading antagonists to the band. They consist of Senator Stampingston (voiced by Mark Hamill (STAR WARS!!!)), General Crozier (voiced by Victor Brandt), Cardinal Ravenwood (also voiced by Victor Brandt), who dies early on, Vater Orlaag (voiced by Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange!)), and, most mysteriously of all, Mr. Salacia (voiced by Mark Hamill). I suggest not looking up the characters on Wikipedia - some things can be ruined!
The animation is not the best, but it did get better, thank goodness. You can definitely see a difference in animation quality from season one and two to season three and four. It's not an artistic masterpiece, but seriously, I don't think I've ever seen an adult cartoon that did have realistic portrayals of people and really good animation. Most of the time it's cardboard cutouts, but anyway, if you watched the show, it wouldn't be for the animation. It would be for the content. And man, is the content vulgar. While some swears are beeped out with pitch harmonics (I wish that happened in real life!), you know exactly what they're saying. The situations that arise too, including, but not limited to, pedophilia, alcoholism, drug abuse, sex, and just plain gorey predicaments, make it a pretty crazy show. I'm not usually a fan of this shows - they're usually dumb and the only humour available is fart-joke humour really. In fact, this is the only adult cartoon I've ever watched in full, besides early Simpsons work. I find Robot Chicken, Family Guy, and all that really too dumb for me. This one still has that, but because it has some intelligent moments, likeable characters (do not look up Toki and Skwisgaar on google with the safety off), and really awesome and original music, I quickly became addicted. If you also like metal, you can appreciate the show as well. It's a culture thing, and even though I'm not a full-on metalhead, I can still sit back and see the culture flowing from it and see myself in there. It's hilarious and well-done, and I totally dig it... six... feet under. That's brutal.
I'd give the show seven point eight stars on ten. Thank god the animation gets better, but it's not as good as it could be. It also has a lot of bad humour and it's, well, an adult swim show. But it has something particular about it, and I'm glad it's lasted this long. In fact, a fifth season is in the works. Besides season three, the episodes are only eleven or so minutes long, which is also a reasonable length, especially for me when I wanted to watch an episode (or three) before going to bed. I highly recommend the show if you like metal - most particularly if you like death or anything more "dark" than power metal - but if you don't really and like rock, give it a try. It's c-c-c-c-awesome!
Martin McDonagh's In Bruges is definitely a film I would recommend. It has a perfect blend of dark humour and clean-cut humour, plus it has Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson in it! If you only know those two because of the Harry Potter franchise, shame on you - they've been in way better movies. Anyway, a friend of mine really wanted to see the new film Seven Psychopaths, so I went to see it with him. When I realised it was a Martin McDonagh film, which was only after I watched the film, the film made a lot more sense to me. I watched it on opening night which was almost a month ago, so bare with me on this review. I just want to review a film, and it was between this and Silent Hill. I suppose you can understand why I chose this one.
Marty (Colin Farrell) is an aspiring script writer who wishes to write a movie about seven psychopaths. However, while he does have a few strong stories in the bag, he's lacking in the amount of psychopaths in his story. Billy (Sam Rockwell), his good, but crooked, friend, decides to help him out, along with Hans (Christopher Walken), a mysterious man who loves his cravat. However, a real-life psychopath, Charlie (Woody Harrelson) falls upon the three when his precious dog is kidnapped by Billy, and hilarity ensues.
If I had to describe the movie in one word, it would be... lacking. Yet, in the end, it doesn't really lack anything. The film revolves around Marty and his story, yet it doesn't exactly because there are so many subplots about the psychopaths. It's strange because we might be given five minutes about the story of a psychopath, and then, that's the end. I realise it's only about the writing process, but it's strange because we're given that time to connect with a psychopath, and poof, they disappear from the plot. While some come back later, most appear and disappear just as quickly. The film has so many characters, yet doesn't go in depth of all of them... Which I guess is sometimes the point, but other times, it isn't. This review is getting to be as confusing as the film. Okay, let's break this down...
The main plot is a good and funny one. Marty recounts funny stories for the psychopaths in his story, or he is told funny stories about them. I won't give any away (I really would like to, though) because it's these stories that make the movie so funny. However, while there are seven psychopaths in the film, some are only stories that Marty comes up with, but some are real life people. For example, Woody Harrelson's character is a real-life psychopath. While it is assumed that Marty later includes him in his screenplay, we're still introduced to him as a real psychopath. And, as I said, we just assume that Marty later includes him. It's never said, "Hey, Charlie will be one of the psychopaths." He's labelled a psychopath by the film, so we just assume he's part of the story. It's strange when a second earlier, we're told about a fake psychopath, who is also labelled. It seemed a bit... random, but I guess I can't really complain because we do meet each psychopath. It just felt weird to me.
I would also go ahead and say that each psychopath has a mini-subplot of their own. This leads to so many subplots that it almost gets confusing. The fact is, there is a tangent for each one, which leads to five minutes of explaining a man's story. While some psychopaths return, some are named and disappear forever. It makes you wonder whether or not Marty actually had seven psychopaths in his screenplay, or if there were actually less. This is another element that bothered me. While you don't have to follow up with each psychopath in great detail, it leaves the viewer feeling a little lost when we're given a psychopath and then they're gone forever.
... Which leads me to characters. Marty, Billy, Hans, and Charlie are the main characters. Charlie is maybe more of a secondary character, but he becomes more important. However, there are so many tertiary characters that come in as psychopaths. The problem is, they're tertiary characters, but they're given the spotlight for a while for a short while to explain their story in some of the cases. This makes it really confusing, and, as I said, I felt ripped off when I'd learn about a psychopath and then they disappeared for the rest of the movie. Some are forgivable, but if you watch the film, you'll understand what I mean. It seemed like there were too many characters that couldn't be explained. I think they could have incorporated them in better, especially when they would be given screen time of a minute or two.
I've been complaining, but I can go ahead and say the acting was phenomenal. Have you seen the actors in this film? Two of them have been nominated for an Oscar (one of them, Christopher Walken, even won it) and the others have been nominated for other awards or are just good actors in general. I can't really speak of Colin Farrell that much since I've only seen him in In Bruges, but I thought he was great in that movie. In this film, he does just as good a job. He has such a good shocked reaction and face. Sam Rockwell also does a great job in his role. Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken, well, it's a given that they'd both deliver at least enjoyable roles. The acting from the rest of the group is good too, maybe even more so, so we definitely get a well rounded group of actors and actresses who know what they're doing. This means you can definitely enjoy the film, even if the plot is confusing and random at times.
I complained about the film, and I mean, it really was pretty spastic at times, but I still enjoyed it. I'll give it seven point seven on ten. It has really funny parts, but it can be slow and weird at some points. However, the acting and good humour make it worthy of at least checking out, though I'd say wait until it comes out on DVD (it's still playing in one theatre near my house, so I'm going to assume it's still out!).
To be honest, I've only ever seen one Lord of the Rings film (I only recently watched the first one), so I never really knew much about Peter Jackson, other than he made those three-hour films about walking. That is, until I came across the goriest horror movie ever (as it is occasionally referred) - Braindead, or known as Dead Alive in the United States. If I remember correctly, I first heard about it from a Head Injury Theater article about it, but I might have heard it from another reviewer. Anyway, I started telling people about it once I finally bought it, and I remember someone distinctly saying, "Peter JACKSON? WHAT?" If you don't know who Peter Jackson, that's fine - it's just funny to shock people by saying this is a Peter Jackson film. The reason why it's such a shock is because this is a zombie film and Peter Jackson went on to win an Oscar for a fantasy film. Right, enough about this - let's talk about the film.
The film starts off on Skull Island where two men, one explorer and one local, are being chased by a group of natives. The reason? The two are carrying the Sumatran Rat-Monkey, a hybrid creature from the result of tree monkeys being raped by plague rats on Skull Island. The natives demand that the creature be given back, but the two escape unharmed... Until the explorer is bitten and scratched, in which he proceeds to lose his hand, arm, and head. We see the rat-monkey is transported to a New Zealand zoo. Cut to a Spanish woman, Paquita (Diana Peñalver), finding out she is destined to be with Lionel (Timothy Balme), a mama's boy who ends up falling for Paquita. However, his mother (Elizabeth Moody) is less than thrilled and ends up getting bitten by the rat-monkey while spying on her son and Paquita. This results in the degradation of her body, and yay zombies!
The plot is simple, but hilarious. I mean, this is a zombie gore film that is made to gross you out, so the plot isn't an essential necessity (says the person who complained about Poultrygeist), but man, I love it. It's a cute little love story that demonstrates the power of love through the killing of zombies. Sigh, isn't that the best kind of love? The acting isn't spectacular, but the writing is funny, and the protagonists and antagonists do a good enough job that I won't complain about it.
The gore, of course, is the part you all want to hear about. It's awesome. Yes, it's completely cheesy, yes, it's not the most realistic, but when you're dealing with zombies, that's okay. There is, however, a lot of blood and mangled human flesh being thrown around, and the lawnmower scene is a reenactment of Elixabeth Bathory bathing in virgin's blood. I know I said this already, but it's awesome. It's hilariously done, but it still drives people to gag with the amount that's seen in the film. I always love watching it with people who have never seen it before, especially if they're easily grossed out. The nice thing is, though, is that people like that can watch it because this is a comedy. It's not a serious film where people are losing their limbs - it's a funny film where people are losing their limbs! It's one of those films you can show someone who doesn't like horror films and at least get them to watch the whole thing without a fuss. I showed this film at my high school for a movie day, and that was quite an experience. The only thing I could imagine people complaining about would be that it's too "cheesy". I don't know - I like that in a zombie movie. Sometimes you just have to have fun!
I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It seems high, but the film gives me what I want - a gorey, funny film. The acting is lacking and the story is simple, but that's okay. As I said, you don't go in expecting anything special, but you do get a kind of gem. I highly, highly recommend this film to anyone - except little kids. The film is still pretty scary for little kids, but if you're of an appropriate age, give it a try. I hope you'll see it for what it's worth - a Peter Jackson zombie cheese film!
Also, just a quick warning... Make sure to watch the uncut version. It has a bit more gore.
I'd like to just give a little warning before I start this review. This film is, well, gory, but most of all, contains pretty explicitively provocative scenes. Watch it at your own risk!
Two years ago, for whatever reason, I was inspired to watch some real obscure, weird films with a friend. We got started on the list, but after watching Une vraie jeune fille, we abandoned the project. There were a couple of films I had downloaded to watch, and one of them was the musical, comedy, horror, just plain strange Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead, directed by Lloyd Kaufman. Since it's almost Halloween, I figured it was time to watch this so I could have at least one review on here that was horror-related. The film was produced and distributed by an independent film company, Troma Entertainment, and apparently, Poultrygeist was their highest critical acclaim. Let me just say that I'm wondering just how weird and bad the films they've released are. The film stars Jason Yachanin, Kate Graham, Joshua Olatunde, Rose Ghavami, Allyson Sereboff, Caleb Emerson, and Robin L. Watkins. If you actually know any of these actors, I'm proud of you! ... Or maybe just horrified.
The film opens up to Arbie (Jason Yachanin) and his girlfriend, Wendy (Kate Graham), about to have sex for the first time in a Native American burial ground as they are just about to graduate from high school and since Wendy is about to leave for college, why not? As they have sex, a zombie reaches through the ground and is about to prey on them before a man interrupts the couple. Arbie and Wendy run off, and the man is completely ripped apart by the zombie. Cue title card! A semester later, Arbie finds his girlfriend has abandoned him for another girl, Micki (Allyson Sereboff), and the two are part of a group condemning the establishment of a new fast food restaurant, American Chicken Bunker, on the Native American burial ground. In order to get back at Wendy (and to win her over somehow), Arbie applies to work at A.C.B. However, weirdness insues when the chicken product seems to be possessed by the spirits of the burial ground and everyone becomes a chicken zombie. You can't get better writing than this!
I'm pretty sure I found this movie while looking up something on Ron Jeremy (no link for your own good). He makes an appearance in the film right at the beginning, and I think that can sum up the film as a whole - Ron Jeremy makes a cameo. Do I even need to continue? ... Yes? Fine. If the film was just about chicken zombies, I think I would have enjoyed it more. Instead, we get a mash of really sexual innuendos all the time, as well as just sex scenes, minus the unsimulated bit. Not to mention the rest of the humour is really crass. Now, I don't frown upon crass humour, but in this film, it's not even done well. Sometimes I'd laugh, but there were so many parts where I'd just groan out loud because the joke was bad. I'll give you an example, just for the heck of it. Humus (Rose Ghavami), who is a Muslim woman who wears a red burqa, witnesses the murder of the gay Mexican worker, Jose Paco Bell (Khalid Rivera), by a piece of chicken who turns on a chicken shredder machine and pushes Paco in. Obviously blood is sprayed everywhere, and the owner of the franchise, General Lee Roy (Robin Watkins), tells Humus and the manager, Denny (Joshua Olatunder), (in case you didn't notice it already, the names of all the main characters are a reference to fast food restaurants) to keep their mouths shut about the incident. Denny and General Lee Roy leave, and Humus says, after looking at the blood sprayed everything, "That reminds me - I need a tampon." Now, I've watched bad movies with bad lines, but lines like these are hard to come by - fortunately. I don't know why I'm even complaining - the movie is called Poultrygeist. I guess maybe I just hoped that there would be more decent writing in the film. Like I said, there are some good lines in the film (mostly the racist remarks, to be honest), but most of the time they're ruined by an obvious line followed from another character. I know it's a mock film on horror films, but some things are forgivable, and others are sins. The writing in this film is a sin and it doesn't deserve any chance to make amends.
However, even though the writing is horrible, the characters are mostly just airheads, and the film is walking on thin ice in relation to those sex scenes, there is one thing that the film has that I totally loved - the gore effects. I've watched low budget films, and most of the time, the gore effects were really lame. However, this film does really well in this department. The pulsating eggs were awesome when they exploded with green slime, and the chicken zombies and bloody explosions were pretty cool. I'm going to ruin a scene again, sorry, but it totally deserves recognition. A notable fat man, Jared, goes to the restaurant and orders a "low-fat" meal. He takes a bite out of a zombie chicken egg and proceeds to have, best way to describe it, the shits. That whole scene is gross as, well, poop, but it's well done. When the man inside Jared (don't ask because the film doesn't even know) breaks free, I thought that was really well done - especially considering it was a low budget film.
I'd give the film three point five stars on ten. The writing was terrible, and the plot was just really gross most of the time. It didn't rely on anything but petty humour and sex, and the only part of the film that gives it that three point five is the well done gore. Still, it's hard to sit through an hour and a half of bad plot when there isn't the one thing that makes it good: constant explosions of goo. Don't even bother looking this one up - it's really not worth your time - unless you happen to like racist-fart-joke-sex-filled-chicken-zombie-infested films.
I read P.D. James' novel The Children of Men six years ago, and I hardly recall anything about it. However, the idea of mass human infertility driving the species to extinction always fascinated me. Although there is some speculation on whether men's sperm counts are actually going down, I have read a book and several articles on the prediction that the y chromosome is being driven into the ground, and it is only a matter of time before everyone will have to rely on in vitro fertilisation in order to have children. Okay, perhaps that is a bit exaggerated, but The Children of Men brought this idea to an extreme and it was highly praised. Obviously a movie was made, and ever since I read the book, I always wanted to watch the film adaptation directed by Alfonso Cuarón and starring Clive Owen, Clare-Hope Ashitey, Michael Caine, Julianne Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Pam Ferris. Years went by (seriously, six years?), and recently I was talking to a friend from school when he told me he had downloaded Children of Men. I told him I'd been meaning to watch it for ages, so finally today he brought his laptop to school and we watched it in the library. Anyway, enough with the anecdotes - on to the review!
The movie opens up to the death of the youngest person - an eighteen year old male - on Earth being killed by a bullet wound as a result of refusing to sign an autograph. People stand around a coffee shop in Britain, horrified at the news, as Theo Faron (Clive Owens) orders a black coffee, listening to the news as well. It has been eighteen years since the last child was born as women have all become infertile. The masses have gone crazy, and immigrants have flooded into Britain, which has become a military state. Theo, a former activist, visits his drug dealer and good friend, Jasper (Michael Cain) and works at a desk job where the manager doesn't care too much about lates and absences from its employees. He is kidnapped and is re-united with his immigrant-rights activist ex-wife and asks him to get transit papers for a young black woman, Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey). He is thrown into the middle of the battle when he discovers Kee is pregnant and takes the responsibility of delivering her to the Human Project, an organisation aiming to cure infertility.
I thought it was interesting that they changed the infertility from men to women, and I know they changed a few other elements of the original novel, but as I mentioned, I barely remember the novel, so I won't be able to compare. I thought the film was really well done, and I was surprised it was only about a ninety minute film. It managed to pack in a lot and do it very well. It wasn't a rushed plot, and it wasn't like it delved right into the pregnancy - that came reasonably later.
The acting was also superb. It's strange to imagine how people would behave knowing their species is going extinct, but I thought the portrayals were wonderful. Clive Owen and Clare-Hope Ashitey did a great job as Theo and Kee, respectively. Okay, I did think it was a little strange that Kee was up for absolutely any idea thrown at her, but at the same time, if you believed your only hope was kilometers (yes, kilometers) and kilometers away, and you might be the last hope for humanity, I guess maybe you'd do anything to get to where you needed to go. It was strange seeing Michael Caine as a hippie, but he did a wonderful job. As well as Chiwetel Ejiofor as the rebellious leader and Pam Ferris as the religious midwife. No actor or actress made me groan because their delivery was less than decent - it was all well portrayed.
The scenery was well established, and it reminded me of third world countries at war... Yeah, what a romantic way to explain it. Seriously, though, it was grim the whole way through, and it was just interesting to see England as such a war zone.
Now, the part I will compliment the most, excluding the plot idea, will be the cinematography, if that's what it would be under. The way the scenes were shot was amazing, and I can name two major scenes that were done in one take. I'm not sure you realise how rare that is - especially in a huge gun fight. Most of them show one person shooting, screaming, and then another shot of the other, and another shot... Cut cut cut. In this film, as I said, I can name two scenes where one take was used, and they were very intense and long scenes. I thought this was amazing, and it made me compliment the actors and the grips and whoever else was involved in filming that single take.
I've just been praising this film like mad, haven't I? I'll just give my rating then - eight point five stars on ten. It was entertaining, had good portrayal, was interesting, and possessed a thought-provoking plot. I thought maybe it would have been better to go into the history of the infertility a bit more and explain the Human Project a bit more. Still, it's possible I missed that because I was in the library and everyone was talking around, so I won't really nitpick about that. I thought it was grand, and I recommend it. It's a depressing film, though, so don't expect to come out of it happy. Still, I prefer a film that gets me thinking and saddens me than one that just skims the surface - real good thinking films are a dime a dozen.
I tend to watch a lot of Korean films, but I watch ones that have actors I've seen somewhere before. Take for example Jang Jin's Killerdeului suda aka Guns & Talks. After I watched Won Bin's The Man from Nowhere, I really brought it upon myself to watch Guns & Talks. Then when I found out Shin Ha-kyun was also in the film, I reminded myself I had to watch it. However, I only recently watched it after many months because I procrastinate a lot when it comes to watching movies. Instead of doing an assignment, I took two hours and fifteen minutes to watch this film.
Ha-yun (Won Bin), his older brother, Sang-yun (Shin Hyun-jun), and his two friends, Jae-young (Jeong Jae-yeong and Jung-woo (Shin Ha-kyun) are a group of assassins. However, they're not your average hitmen - they always used contracts, someone helps them out with picking their weapons, and often question why someone should be killed. The film follows them through different jobs while two detectives try to pin them down.
It's a funny, cute film. It doesn't really bring out any thought provoking moments, but it gives you a good laugh, as well as some nice perspectives on love. I thought the film was a bit long considering it's just a film about assassins and their mishaps, not being suspenseful really, but it didn't in particularly drag either. I thought Jeong Jae-yeong's character wasn't developped enough, especially given the length, but the other characters were pretty well developped. I thought the acting was decent, nothing spectacular, but nothing I really can complain about, except maybe the "talks" in the title. Seems off to me... It was just overall a cute, dark comedy, and though it wasn't really special, I really enjoyed it.
I'd give the film a seven point eight on ten. It's a bit of a high rating, but I liked it a lot. Maybe I was in the right mood while watching it and that's why I loved it so, but I would still recommend it as a fun film to watch with friends. If you like guns and... talks, then check it out!
Although I enjoy super cheesy films, I don't seem to watch them often. I tend to avoid them in the theatres because spending fifteen bucks on a forgettable film isn't what I would call enjoyable, and when they finally come out on DVD, I forget about them. However, I remember before I started going out with my boyfriend and I was hanging out at his dad's house, he presented this eighties' action film on a VHS (whooah!), claiming it was awesome. We started watching it, but never finished it. Maybe a year or two later, I finally watched it again, and man, it was hilarious. I watched it again last night, and I decided I'd post a review about Guy Hamilton's Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins before I review anything else. Yay, eighties' cheese!
Meet Remo Williams (Fred Ward) - before he was Mr. Makin, a tough cop, but he's chosen to be part of a super secret government organization out to clean up the scum on the Earth. With the help of Conn MacCleary (J.A. Preston), Harold Smith (Wilford Brimley), Maj. Rayner Fleming (Kate Mulgrew), and Chiun (Joel Grey), a Korean Sinanju master, Remo Williams will hopefully succeed in his first mission - bringing down George Grove (Charles Cioffi) and his malfactured weapons being used for the United States Army.
I'd give the film seven stars on ten. If you like action films, and you like a good laugh, go for this film. It's cute, cheesy, and pretty lame, but it works. You can't go into a film like this expecting something more than what it delivers, so you're definitely satisfied. It does bother me a bit that they had a white man play Chiun, a Korean, but the make-up is deserving of its Oscar nomination. Check it out for a good laugh; it's worth it for the snickering construction worker!
I just wanted to leave this quick note that I have some movies I need to review, but I went on vacation and have started school again, so I'll get to them as soon as I can.
I'm not a trekkie, and I've only watched a few episodes from the original Star Trek series and two films. It's funny to watch (and George Takei and William Shatner are so young!), and the techno babble is just crazy (quantum - that's their reasoning for everything, haha), but hey, it's fun to watch on a rainy day. Even if you aren't familiar with Star Trek, you'll probably recognize the infamous Khan scream. Remember in my Reservoir Dogs review when I mentioned it was playing at a theatre about an hour away? The theatre has a "Most Wanted Mondays" where they play an old film that we, the people, vote to play on a Monday. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan played yesterday, and since my boyfriend is a pretty big Star Trek fan, and I had seen the film before, we decided to go see it. We sat down in a decently full theatre and watched Nicholas Meyer's masterpiece (I couldn't think of another word to use).
The film takes place in the 23rd century, and Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) is feeling old. When he's given the opportunity to tag along for a three week long training session aboard the Enterprise, he accepts, with Dr. Leonard McCoy (DeForest Kelley), Captain Spock (Leonard Nimoy), communications officer Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), chief engineer Montgomery Scott (James Doohan), and helmsman Hikaru Sulu (George Takei) by his side. However, when an old enemy, Khan (Ricardo Montalbán) returns in order to get revenge on Kirk using an instrument that could be birth, or death, of a planet, Kirk is finally forced to face death head on.
If you've ever seen Star Trek before, you know it's cheesy. While we watched the film, whenever William Shatner delivered a line that sounded so overdone, everyone in the theatre erupted in laughter. We also shared a sorrowful moment at the end, and it was one of the most interesting and best experiences I've ever had in a theatre. Anyway, back to the film... It's nothing spectacular, but it was a huge hit. It also has an interesting idea behind it - a device that is genesis - it can take a planet in the Goldilocks Zone that lacks atmosphere and water to sustain life and create a habitable planet. However, if the planet contains any type of life, that life will be destroyed in order to create a new environment. I don't know, I always thought the idea was really cool. Then Khan's need for revenge as he blames Kirk for the death of his wife - well, it's typical, but it's good. Khan isn't just an asshole for the sake of being an asshole; instead, he's a man who is overcome with vengeance because he loved his wife so much, and he will stop at nothing to destroy Kirk. It's not the most complicated plot, but it's well done. I also don't want to reveal the ending, but jeez, am I proud that they actually did it. Most directors don't have the guts to do what they did. And no, they were not expecting a followup the way the third film ended up being, so I'm still amazed by their decision.
The acting can be pretty hammy (Shatner... pauses... for... effect.), as I mentioned, but it's Star Trek style so I had no problem with it. Not all the acting is bad, but don't go in expecting award-winning acting. They also never explain by Saavik (Kirstie Alley), a trainee, acts out emotionally, even though she's supposed to be a Vulcan (Spock's race, who, logically, do not believe in acting out emotionally). Apparently she's part Vulcan and part Romulan, so she has trouble controlling her emotions. This is something that is important to explaining her character, but, for whatever reason, they kept it out.
I'd give the film a seven point eight on ten. Maybe I'm being a bit generous, but it is kind of nostalgic, and the experience at the theatre watching it the second time was spectacular, so I really enjoyed it. I also liked seeing Merritt Butrick in the film, who plays the son of Kirk and Carol Marcus (Bibi Besch), even if I only know him from one show, heh... Anyway, it's worth a watch, even if you haven't ever seen any Star Trek episodes. Still, I don't think it's a film you would necessarily appreciate without having any knowledge of the series beforehand because it would just seem like a typical, cheesy science fiction film. I can't say that for sure though. Live long and prosper!
I've been watching quite a few movies, but I've fallen behind on reviewing them. Anyway, I remember loving Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters as a kid. I hadn't watched it in a few years, but I watched it last week for the fourth or fifth time.
Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are kicked out of university because of their lack of proper and fruitful research. They start a business of catching paranormal entities, only to find out that something bigger is brewing in New York City, and Venkman will stop at nothing to make sure Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) notices him.
It's a cheesy film, and it's a typical eighties' film, but it's cute and enjoyable. Now that I watched it again, I caught on to some of the innuendos in the film (gate keeper, key master), which made me laugh. Really, there's not much to say because it's a childhood film. Even if it was bad, it's hard for me to focus on that because it's a nostalgic film for me. I mean, really, it's a simple film, and I find the characters aren't necessarily given a lot of back story. I find Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) is just there, but we still barely see him. I know the point of the film is the ghosts, but all I get is a little bit of information on the characters. Still, as I said, it's not something I really care about that much because it's only made to entertain, and because it has a nostalgic value to it, and it has aged well, it's hard for me to really complain about anything because nothing bothers me about it that much. There are problems, but with a film like this, there's nothing that actually bothered me about it.
I'd give the film a seven point seven on ten. It's entertaining, funny, but nothing extraordinary. If you also like Rick Moranis, he's in it, which is cool! If you've never watched the film, go watch it. I mean really, who doesn't know the line, "Who ya gonna call"?
A long time ago (two months ago), I reviewed Clerks from Kevin Smith. After watching and reviewing the film, I really got into the mood of watching the sequel again. I couldn't find it anywhere (I had put it on a DVD) and couldn't be bothered to re-download it. There was a huge thunderstorm last night, and I lost my Internet connection for a little while. I decided to watch a movie instead of playing Minecraft. During my search, I found Gentlemen Broncos, but more important, Clerks II! Thus I sat down to watch the sequel for the second time.
Dante (Brian O'Halloran) heads out to open the Quick Stop only to find that the store is on fire. Randall (Jeff Anderson), it turns out, left the coffee pot on after closing up. The two end up getting employed at Mooby's, a fast food restaurant, only to be surrounded, once again, by some new, weird, and annoying customers. Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Kevin Smith) are back, as well as some new friends including Dante's new fiancee, Emma (Jennifer Schwalbach Smith), Dante and Randall's boss, Becky (Rosario Dawson), and Elias (Trevor Fehrman), a very peculiar co-worker at Mooby's.
The first time I watched this film, I loved it. I loved it even more after watching it a second time because I got to re-hear jokes I found hilarious the first time, and appreciate them even more the second time. I also, cough, was also more informed about certain events that happen in the film since I last watched it, so it also added some more hilarity to the film. The acting is way better in this film than Clerks, and though the dialogue isn't necessarily as witty, it's still amazing, and I laughed a lot. I also liked the new characters that were added in, and I found I appreciated Jay and Silent Bob a lot more in this film. In Clerks, I found they were more of just a little side bit, but in this film, they were better incorporated with the main characters.
Overall I'd give the film an eight on ten, just as I did Clerks. I can't say which one I prefer because I felt both films were a bit different, but were both really good. While Clerks is more safe to watch around family and friends, I'm warning you that you should probably only watch this film with a close friend because it can be pretty graphic. Someone told me they watched it with their parents - by god, I feel for them.
If you don't know who Ingmar Bergman is, you're missing out on one of the greatest directors that ever helped produce cinema. Alright, I have to be honest... I had only watched one other Ingmar Bergman film before this one (it was Wild Strawberries, aka Smultronstället), but I'm going to go ahead and make that statement anyway for two reasons. The first reason being that I did watch two films now and both made me think AND made me feel, which is extremely rare for a film to do. The second reason being that I have read enough about the man to see I'm not alone on this. Of course, the second reason isn't always valid since we all have different tastes, but if a director's films are still praised today, even if they were made over fifty years ago, and they're praised by people all over the world, then you can usually guess the director is at least good. Anyway, here is one film of his splendid collection called The Seventh Seal, or Det sjunde inseglet, starring Max von Sydow, Nils Poppe, Bibi Andersson, Gunnar Björnstrand, and Bengt Ekerot.
Antonius Block (Max von Sydow) meets Death (Bengt Ekerot) during his travels across Sweden with his squire, Jöns (Gunnar Björnstrand) in 14th century in the midst of the Black Plague. He asks to play chess with Death, saying that if he wins the match, he will be allowed to live a longer life. He continuously postpones the game, trying to find out the meaning of life and where one goes once they die. During his journey, he meets Mia (Bibi Andersson), Jof (Nils Poppe), Blacksmith Plog (Åke Fridell), as well as others who try to find meaning in life as the black plague kills people around them.
That synopsis doesn't really do the film justice because it only reveals the surface of this film. As I mentioned, this film made me think, as well as evoked an emotional response. A man is desperately trying to figure out what happens after death because he himself is about to die. He's living in a time where people are dying by the thousands, claiming a god is punishing them. It's interesting because it's not just, "Oh, I'm going to heaven." Instead, we actually get a film that questions the existence of a god, especially in the time of a major crisis. Since I am not very knowledgeable of Swedish culture, especially in the fifties', only of North American culture, I find this amazing. I rarely see a film question what happens after death today, let alone over fifty years ago. I love it. The acting is also good, and I love the personification of Death, which has become stereotypical apparently. I know we see Death in Last Action Hero, but anyway...
I loved the way the film was shot as well. Not only was I enjoying the dialogue, I enjoyed the cinematography. I definitely have a thing for black and white films since I find they're beautiful, but this one was also well shot. It was beautiful to look at, and that definitely made the film even more enjoyable.
I'd give the film eight point three stars on ten. I really enjoyed it. I can't give it justice with just talking about it, so go watch it - it's definitely worth it.
Two reviews in one day? Woah! I started babysitting a friend's little sister yesterday, and I'll be doing so for the next few weeks. She's ten, however, and so far I've not had to do much except sit around, do some dishes, and cook food. We've been watching movies together, but today I got there before she woke up, so I decided to watch anotherJohn Carpenter cult film, Escape from New York. Unlike Big Trouble in Little China, this one was commercially a success, but it has since been established as a cult hit. This film stars Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Harry Dean Stanton, Ernest Borgnine, Adrienne Barbeau, Donald Pleasence, and Isaac Hayes.
While the president (Donald Pleasence) of United States is on his way to an important summit in 1997, his plane is hijacked by a terrorist. He escapes through an escape pod, but lands in New York city, which, ten years previously, became a prison island where prisoners are sent for the rest of their days. The authorities try to get the president, but their results prove fruitless. Enter Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell), an honourable special forces soldier turned robber who has been arrested. Hauk (Lee Van Cleef), an agent in the special forces, offers Snake a deal - rescue the president in 24 hours, and he's given a pardon. There's also a catch - microscopic explosives are implanted in his neck that will explode in 24 hours to ensure Snake goes along with the deal. While New York offers Snake companions to help him in his journey to find the president, the Duke (Isaac Hayes) and his gang are going to prove to be a big problem for Snake, Cabbie (Ernest Borgnine), Brain (Harry Dean Stanton), and Maggie (Adrienne Barbeau).
I loved this film. I'm not sure if Big Trouble in Little Trouble made me a science-fiction-John Carpenter-and-Kurt-Russell lover, but man, I thought the film was grand. Again, it's not a film you watch to think, but simply to be entertained with action and funny lines. It isn't as cheesy as Big Trouble, rather more serious in fact, but it's still a light-hearted film. I also thought the concept of the crime rate in the United States becoming so high that they dedicate a city to housing prisoners and letting them take care of each other interesting. I thought it was pretty amazing that the prisoners never escaped, even if the walls are huge. Manhattan Island is 87.5 square km, or 33.77 square miles, depending on the system you prefer. That's pretty huge! That would mean having people surrounding the whole barrier the whole time, and having a helicopter for at least every few kilometres to ensure no one is sneaking around. Still, that didn't bother me in the least; I just like nitpicking. I just watched the film to be entertained, and entertained I was. The film makes me want to re-watch The Thing (I didn't think it was all that good when watched it), and check out more John Carpenter science fiction films. Kurt Russell was an iconic badass (what did you expect?), and the other characters were well played. I also enjoyed the eighties' soundtrack which John Carpenter also contributed to. That's talent right there!
I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It deserves the cult status it has earned, and it's worth a watch from any action lover. Don't expect too much from it - simply watch it to be entertained.
I was busy sitting around one evening when I pulled out the list I made before summer began of all the films and television series I wanted to watch. I looked at it, and I realised I still had quite a few films to watch. I also realised I had mostly been watching Asian films lately, so I decided to watch some English speaking films again. Of course I chose The Big Lebowski directed by the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan Coen as the first film to watch.
Jeffrey Lebowski (Jeff Bridges), better known as the Dude, comes home one day to find two men demanding him some money because of his apparent wife, and one of them urinates on his rug. They soon realise they've targetted the wrong Jeffrey Lebowski, and promptly leave. The next day, the Dude talks over the ordeal with his bowling partners, Walter Sobchak (John Goodman) and Donny Kerabatsos (Steve Buscemi). Walter convinces the Dude to go to the other Jeffrey Lebowski's house and demand a new rug. When he arrives, Mr. Lebowski (David Huddleston) is anything but understanding, and instead, he proceeeds to refer to him as a bum and to get a job. He manages to get a rug by lying to Mr. Lebowski's butler (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The next day, the Dude is asked to save Mr. Lebowski's wife, Bunny (Tara Reid) and get some money by Mr. Lebowski's daughter, Maude (Julianne Moore), and the Dude and his companions are now in for a very strange ride.
The movie was very nineties' - it was weird, quirky, and funny, but I thought it did it well. I thought the actors and actresses did a fantastic job, including Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, David Huddleston, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sam Elliott, and others. I thought the jokes were funny, and the writing was good too. It was a film that didn't really follow one plot, so in the end, you don't really find you went anywhere with the film, which bothered me a bit. I felt like I watched a good movie, but it didn't really end with a "conclusion", for lack of a better word. It just felt like we had the kidnapping business, it miraculously was fixed, and then boom, a bunch of random plots thrown in which go nowhere, and then the film is over. Although it had good points in it, and I liked the characters, the overall plot didn't bring me anywhere. While a film can be quirky and weird, I appreciate it when I actually get a film that feels like it ends. This one didn't feel like it ended. It just felt like it stopped, and it was not concluded. There's nothing that bothers me more than a film that was going well, and the ending is not good.
I'd give the film seven point six stars on ten. It was funny, and the writing was good, but the plot was a mess, in my opinion. Since the plot is an important part in a film, I can't give it an eight. Still, it's worth a watch for the dialogue and characters. Oh, also, the soundtrack was amazing.
