Animation Week - Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010)

Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010)
Batman appears yet again in animation week! Unlike The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 and 2, Batman: Under the Red Hood is based on the comics but is not a direct adaptation. Instead, the film features a new story that is influenced by the comics such as the "A Death in the Family" story arc (which I have read) and the "Under the Hood" storyline. The basic plot is that a new vigilante called the Red Hood arrives in Gotham City five years after the death of the last Robin, Jason Todd. Unlike Batman, the Red Hood has no qualms with using guns or killing and starts taking down the criminals of Gotham.

I enjoyed Under the Red Hood a bit more than The Dark Knight Returns movies simply because I didn't really know what would happen. The identity of the Red Hood was pretty obvious but the character and his interactions with the Joker, Black Mask, and Batman were compelling and led to an interesting conclusion. The mixing up of characters and events into a new story worked great as it allows both new and old fans to jump right in while still having some surprises along the way. The voice work was solid all around with Bruce Greenwood (Batman), Neil Patrick Harris (Nightwing), and veteran voice actor John DiMaggio as the Joker as stand-outs. Like The Dark Knight Returns, Under the Red Hood is another very good movie from the DC Animated Universe. I look forward to whatever they have in store next.
8/10

Tomorrow: Yet another movie based on a comic, though it does not feature Batman or any super heroes.

Spring Wrap-up Part Three

I just realized that my blog has been up for over a year! Yay! Well since I just figured this out now and am over a week late I don't have anything special planned. Maybe I'll do something next year... if I remember! But in the spirit of this blog here is another post on three very different movies as my seemingly endless quest to get caught up continues!

Saved! (2004)
Saved! reminded me of Heathers as both movies are satires that take place in high school. Jenna Malone's performance even recalled Winona Ryder in that movie. But Saved! takes a different route as it's about religion, specifically fundamentalist Christians. However I never felt that the movie was mean spirited as there are some religious characters at "American Eagle Christian High School" who are perfectly reasonable.
Saved! features one of Macaulay Culkin's first film appearances since 1994's Richie Rich. Culkin's comedic timing was very good and its nice to see him acting again even though he hasn't done much since.
Pop star Mandy Moore has a major role in the movie and she did a good job, especially for somebody who is not primarily an actress. I am surprised she would accept a villainous role given her image, but commend her for taking the risk here as it paid off.
I quite liked Saved! and found it pretty funny but I felt that its biggest weakness was its shift in tone at around the midpoint. The first half of the movie is a satire while it turns into a straight-up teen dramedy for the last half.
7/10

Alice in Wonderland (2010)
I came into this movie ready for great special effects but not much else. I pretty much got what I was expecting, although to be honest it was a little better than I thought it would be.
I liked the angle of an older Alice coming back to Wonderland. In this sense it feels more like Return to Oz meets The Chronicles of Narina than an Alice in Wonderland movie made by Tim Burton. There are already tons of TV and movie versions of this story so I guess they tried to put a different spin on it while not making it too dark, which has already been done anyway. I'm only familiar with the Disney animated version, which I love, and have never read the original Lewis Carroll stories.
When it comes to the acting Crispin Glover (who has a surprisingly large amount of screen time) did a nice job, as did Helena Bonham Carter who played the Red Queen. Christopher Lee, Alan Rickman, and Stephen Fry all provided voices which was a lot of fun. Of course this movie was advertised as a Johnny Depp film but he isn't in the movie quite as much as you would think and wasn't as over the top as I was expecting for the Mad Hatter.
Alice in Wonderland won Oscars for art direction and costume design. It was also nominated for best visual effects but lost out to Inception. Lighting and Compositing technical director Brian Blasiak also worked on Avatar (among other movies) and worked his special effects magic for this film as well. Alice in Wonderland looked fantastic in High Definition. It was marketed as a 3-D film even though it was not filmed in 3-D but was instead converted in post-production.
Usually I have some issues with CGI but this is exactly how it should be used. The real world bookend scenes were done well made and are a nice contrast to the CGI world of Wonderland. The Jabberwocky was CGI but its design appeared to be influenced by the designs of Ray Harryhausen's monsters.
While this is not a bad movie, it's not very good either and is a movie I probably will never watch again. Still, I enjoyed it more than Burton's weaker efforts like Mars Attacks! or his 2001 Planet of the Apes remake.
I was surprised that Alice in Wonderland made so much money (11th highest grossing film of all time without adjusting for inflation), especially since it didn't come out in the summer or around Christmas. I'm don't think it deserved to make $1 billion worldwide but if you look at how much those Transformers movies made I guess I'm fine with it! It was rated PG so I could see it appealing to families with older and/or younger children as well as adults which is probably why it hauled in so much dough.
6/10

Garzey's Wing (1996)
Technically this is not a movie but a three part OVA (direct to video) anime with each episode being 30 minutes long. Garzey's Wing was written and directed by Yoshiyuki Tomino, the same man who developed the classic Gundam series. This is proof that even the best creators can have horrible misfires.
I'm not even going to bother describing the plot as Garzey's Wing is an incoherent disaster that is unintentionally hilarious due in part to a terrible dub. You can see what I mean here and here.
Garzey's Wing makes the infamous MD Geist (which I wrote about earlier) look like a masterpiece in comparison which is really saying something!
Despite being a total mess I must admit that Garzey's Wing is an enjoyable watch even though its for all the wrong reasons. If you want to watch a bad but fun anime with a group of friends this certainly fits the bill!
3/10

Spring Wrap-up Part Two

Planet of the Apes (1968)
I am a big fan of science fiction films so it might be surprising to my readers that I had not seen this movie before out than a few clips. Of course I already knew basic idea thanks to the influence Planet of the Apes has had on pop culture (such as the Dr. Zaius song from The Simpsons!) and had the ending spoiled since I was a kid. The funny thing is that I had seen Tim Burton's 2001 Planet of the Apes movie back when it first came out on DVD. I didn't like it much except the "new" ending and that is probably part of the reason why I didn't get around to seeing the original until recently.
Planet of the Apes is based on the novel of the same name by Pierre Boulle. Boulle was also the author of the book which was the basis for the film The Bridge on the River Kwai which I wrote about a few months ago. Rod Serling, creator of the Twilight Zone, received a writing credit on the screenplay. His main contribution that made it into the film was the ending, which I've heard is quite different from the book.
Coming into Planet of the Apes I thought it would be more campy because of the basic premise and numerous sequels. I knew that the movie had a good reputation but ended up being better than I expected.  The film touches on the topics of evolution, religion, treatment of animals, vivisection, and war without feeling forced or heavy handed. In some ways the story can be compared to Gulliver's Travels and even inversion of King Kong. The concepts of human aliens living on different planets and aliens that speak English with no explanation were par for the course when it came to science fiction movies and TV shows of the era. Planet of the Apes plays off of these concepts and indirectly parodies them with apes and the ending.

The acting is very good even though most of the cast is in under heavy make-up are the human characters can't speak. Along with The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur this is one of Charlton Heston's signature roles. I only noticed Roddy McDowell from his voice but he is awesome as usual. Linda Harrison did a good job as Nova, a "primitive" human. Maurice Evans does a nice job as the villainous Dr. Zaius.

The directing and cinematography is very good and certainly better than I expected. Director Franklin J. Schaffner would later win a Best Director Oscar for Patton.

The make-up on apes looks great even today. I just hope that CGI doesn't turn this aspect of filmmaking into a lost art! Planet of the Apes was one of the first films to have a major large scale merchandising tie-in. The movie has a great score by the great composer Jerry Goldsmith.

Even though I pretty much knew what was going to happen it was still absorbing and kept my attention.
It's interesting to note that Planet of the Apes was came out in 1968, the same year as 2001: A Space Odyssey. While there has been several great science fiction films made before these two, I feel that this was the turning point for sci-fi films to be taken more seriously as a genre in pop culture than simply monster movies.
Planet of the Apes spawned four sequels of varying quality which I haven't seen yet. Last year's Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a surprise box office hit despite its clunky title so I'll have to check it out sometime.
9/10

Airheads (1994)

Airheads was directed by Michael Lehmann, who also directed one of my favorite movies, the cult classic Heathers. Airheads contains a few satirical elements but is not a full blown satire like Heathers. Maybe it would've been better had it gone in that direction, but I still like it as a fun little movie about rock n' roll. The basic plot is pretty simple: a struggling band (the Lone Rangers) takes over a radio station and holds the DJs hostage in order to force them to play their song and let it be heard over the airwaves! Most of the movie takes place inside the radio station so instead of a contained thriller we have a contained comedy!

Airheads features early roles for Adam Sandler and Brendan Fraser. Steve Buscemi puts in a nice supporting performance as usual. The rest of the cast includes a lot of familiar faces such as Chris Farley, Michael McKean, Harold Ramis, Judd Nelson, Ernie Hudson, Michael Richards, Joe Mantegna, Marshall Bell, and a young David Arquette. There are a bunch of appearences by musicians such as Lemmy, Rob Zombie, and MTV anchor Kurt Loder. Beavis and Butthead even have a cameo as callers to the radio station!

This is probably as close as we'll get to a Wayne's World 3 even though the humor between the two movies is different. While I liked the movie, it could've had a better title as "Airheads" could fit for a lot of movies and doesn't have anything to do with the music aspect of the movie.

6/10

Machete (2010)

A couple of months ago I wrote an extensive review for Hobo with a Shotgun. In that post I mentioned how I had actually seen Machete (which I preferred) before that movie. Hobo is more gory with a grim tone, while Machete is almost as violent but a more fun, outrageous, and wild ride.

Machete started out as a fake trailer for the movie Grindhouse and expands the basic plot we saw there. Despite starting out as a trailer for a movie that didn't exist, Machete is a true modern exploitation (in this case Mexploitation!) movie that is a lot of violent fun. Somehow they got Robert DeNiro to be in this movie which also features Steven Seagal in a rare role for him as a bad guy! Danny Trejo plays the title character with Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, Don Johnson, and Cheech Marin (as a gun toting priest!) in supporting roles. I'm not a Lindsay Lohan fan but she is put to good use here.

My favorite lines were "Machete don't text" and "Machete improvise!"

There are plans for two sequels currently titled "Machete Kills" and "Machete Kills Again... in Space"! I don't know about you, but I really want that Machete in Space movie!

Machete is the second Robert Rodriguez directed movie I have seen with the first being The Faculty. I quite liked both movies so he is another director whose work I need to seek out.

7/10

Tron and Tron: Legacy

Tron (1982)
I tried to watch this movie on two separate occasions when I was younger but couldn't get past the first 20 minutes either time as I found it boring. Now that I'm older I wanted to give it another shot.

Tron has great special effects. Sure its a bit dated but the look still holds up pretty well for a 30 year old movie. The style is still pretty unique with neon and desaturated colors. The visuals are stunning despite the slow pacing so its similar to Star Trek: The Motion Picture in that respect. Syd Mead helped design both movies as well as others such as Blade Runner which came out the same year as Tron.

The scenes before Kevin Flynn (played by Jeff Bridges) goes into the computer are pretty boring with a bit too much exposition so I can see why I didn't get further into it when I was in high school. Of the early scenes I did like the match cut from the neon world of the computer to the lights on a helicopter. There is a similar shot near the end in which the real world city looks like the game world.

When it comes to the acting we have fun performances by David Warner (who plays all three villains: the human Dillinger, the program Sark and the Master Control Program), Jeff Bridges, and Bruce Boxleitner. Like Vincent Price, David Warner is one of those actors who was in a lot of films and even though many of them were bad, always took his roles seriously and made the movies watchable. Tron also features character actors Barnard Hughes (The Lost Boys) and Dan Shor (Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure).

I was surprised that Tron had some religious undertones such as the programs fighting each other over their the belief of the users that created them. This leads to the dual roles for most of the actors as they programs appear as the real people who created them or work at the company. I thought this was clever and made it feel like a high-tech version of The Wizard of Oz in this way.

The story is predictable as we have rebels who try to stop bad guys who wants to take over the world. There is a new spin on it with the computer stuff but its still a typical man vs. machine story. A love story is added late and it feels forced in there. The music isn't very good as none of it is memorable or fits particularly well.

The film was disqualified from receiving an Academy Award nomination for special effects, because the Academy felt at the time that using computers was "cheating". Tron was nominated for costume design and sound but this is still a huge snub, especially these days with movies like Avatar taking home the visual effects awards. Tron and others movies such as The Last Starfighter were pioneers when it came to early CGI and films like Avatar wouldn't exist without them.

I liked Tron and I'm glad that I gave it another shot now that I am older. But when it comes to early 1980s movies about computers I still prefer WarGames!

I must say I am surprised Tron got a sequel 28 years later. I guess this is due to the movie's cult following as Tron was only mildly successful during its initial release. But even forgetting the passage of time the original pretty much wraps everything up in the end. Well, it's time to watch Tron: Legacy and see how they handled it!
6/10

Tron: Legacy (2010)
Tron: Legacy was made 28 years after the original and the story also takes place the same amount of time later. Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner reprise their roles (Kevin Flynn and Alan Bradley respectively) from the first movie which is pretty cool.

The CGI used to make Bridges look younger was quite good. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and X-Men: The Last Stand both used similar techniques.

The score by Daft Punk fits better than the music for first movie did, but I was still expecting better from these guys. Like the original, we have great visual effects and solid acting by Jeff Bridges. For some reason Bridges is kinda like a Jedi this time. And I don't just means that he is more wise but even in the way he dresses and uses his powers. In a way he's a cyber-punk version of The Dude!

Our main character this time is Sam Flynn, the son of Bridges' character. Sam is played by Garrett Hedlund and while he's nothing special he isn't terrible. He's way better than Shia Labeouf in those Transformers movies!
I would have liked to have seen more of Tron the character. I mean these movies are named for him after all! I am guessing this is because Jeff Bridges is simply a bigger name than Bruce Boxleitner and I guess I should be glad he is here at all.

While the computer world looks great I miss the faces being in black and white. I guess that the faces were only in B&W in the original due to the limitations of the special effects at the time but it did create a striking and unique style.

There was one thing that took me out of the movie: the David Bowie guy pictured above. Michael Sheen plays a minor but important character who looks and act like 70s David Bowie. I don't understand this at all and even though I found his character funny it was still pretty distracting and out of left field.

What happened to the female character and program (Lora/Yori played by Cindy Morgan) from the first movie? She is never even mentioned which is kinda odd. To be fair she was somewhat superfluous in the original film. Still, they could've just said she married Alan Bradley or something if they couldn't get her for a cameo. Maybe they are saving her (and perhaps David Warner) for the sequel?! Just don't wait 28 more years this time!

Like the original Tron there are still some slow pacing and story issues. The villains in both movies want to take over the world! Why? Because they're bad guys! But to be fair it was interesting to use Clu (Kevin Flynn's alias/alter ego from the first movie) as the villain this time around.

Tron: Legacy differs from its predecessor in that there are action scenes before Sam Flynn entered the computer world. I guess this was done to show Sam was ready to these stunts later but it would've been a better contrast if we only got the action in the computer/game world. I wonder this is simply the result of the post-Matrix/Inception world we live in.

Although Tron:Legacy updates the material for a new generation I have some of the same complaints as I did the first (slow pacing and generic good vs. bad story). I liked it but a sequel was unnecessary even though it does follow up on characters and events from first movie. While I liked both Tron movies about the same (I prefer original) I don't think that for most people liking one means you will like the other as they both feel like products of their respective times. Considering they waited 28 years, it was amazing they actually made a pretty good sequel.

I don't know if there will be a Tron 3 but since the movie was a box office hit making over $400 million worldwide it wouldn't surprise me. Dillinger's son has a small role in this movie and is played by Cillian Murphy (Sunshine, Batman Begins, Inception) so if there is another one I think he will play a bigger role.
6/10

Weekly Wrap-Up (9/25)

Ed Wood (1994)
Prior to viewing Ed Wood I had seen some Tim Burton movies I liked (Beetlejuice, Batman) and some I didn't like (Planet of the Apes remake, Mars Attacks). So far Ed Wood is by far his best that I have seen. I have only seen one Ed Wood movie, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and thought it was terrible. However as somebody who watches a lot of bad movies, I wouldn't call it the worst movie ever made as did have some fun, campy moments. The absolute worst movies ever made are so boring they are almost unwatchable. A few of Wood's movies were featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, although I haven't seen those episodes yet. Getting back to the movie in question, Ed Wood blew me away. Martin Landau put in an amazing performance as Bela Lugosi and certainly deserved his Oscar for Best Actor in a Supporting Role that year. Johnny Depp was incredible as the titular character and how he didn't get an Oscar nomination is beyond me. Depp is a versatile actor and it is a shame that he didn't get an Oscar nomination until Pirates of the Caribbean. Depp has gotten a lot of wacky cartoon type character roles after the popularity of his Jack Sparrow character but he has great range as an actor and can do much more than that. Bill Murray and Jeffrey Jones are a lot of fun in supporting roles. Although the movie is about Ed Wood, people associated with him such as Bela Lugosi, Vampira, Criswell, Tor Johnson, Bunny Breckinridge all led fascinating lives and could have biopic movies of their own!
While Ed Wood was a critical success (besides Landau's Oscar it also won best Makeup) it was a commercial flop. This isn't surprising as most people wouldn't think you could make a good movie about a guy who made a lot of bad movies, but Burton still managed to make a great film.
Like most biopics and movies based on historical people and events, Ed Wood features its share of historical inaccuracies. However this was part of Tim Burton's vision as he was trying to make the movie through the eyes of Ed Wood. I think it is possible for truth to rise out of fiction and I believe it happened in this movie. While the real Ed Wood never met Orson Welles, Ed Wood did indeed idolize Welles, so I felt the scene in which they met was necessary to the movie (also it could have been a daydream since we only see those two together). Plus I think anybody who watches the film would be compelled (like I was) to do some research on the real Ed Wood as well as the other people depicted in the film. Bela Lugosi never cursed or hated Karloff, and his later years were not quite as bad as depicted in the movie. However, I wonder if Burton did this because he didn't want show Ed Wood's later years. The film covers Wood's life from just before he made Glen or Glenda to just after Plan 9 from Outer Space and while those movies were not successes, his later years were quite depressing.
Wood often gets called the "worst director of all time" which is unfair considering what he had to work with and that he never was able to focus on director since he also wrote, produced, and even acted in his films. Some people claim that the movie is too positive about Wood but since he usually gets slammed, I thought the way portrayal of Wood was fine. The film does have plenty direct criticisms of Wood like his refusal to do more than one take. Wood's optimism blinds him to these critiques and Depp sells it so well that I really wanted Wood to succeed, even though I knew that is not what actually happened.
Ed Wood was filmed in Black and White which was a great idea. Not only does it work for the atmosphere, it also gives us a hilarious meta joke in the scene in with the camera man is asked to pick a dress by color, but can't because he is color blind!
The film gives the sense that Ed Wood really loved to make movies, and from what I have read about the real Ed Wood, this certainly seems to be true. Wood didn't have the best resources but still did what he loved and for that he should be praised. It doesn't make Plan 9 from Outer Space a good movie, but the fact that people still talk about the movie and that it has almost 1,000 more votes on IMDB than Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder which came out the same year (1959) and was nominated for 7 Oscars counts for something. Plenty of people have made bad movies and didn't care about the final product, but Ed Wood did care, even though his movies weren't that good. And you have to admire the guy for giving Bela Lugosi work in his later years. Even though Lugosi was older and working with inferior material, he was still having fun being an actor as you can see from the clips on YouTube.
When it comes down to it, Ed Wood is not only about the man, but about artistic vision and creative expression. And that is why the film transcends its subject matter to be inspirational to all of us.
"Visions are worth fighting for. Why live your life making someone else's dreams?"
I think I've said enough about this movie as I can, watch it now!
10/10

Say Anything... (1989)
After watching Jerry Maguire last week I decided to see another Cameron Crowe movie. I liked Jerry Maguire a little better than this one, probably because of the sports angle, but Say Anything was still a solid movie.
John Cusack does a good job of playing Lloyd Dobler, an off-beat oddball who becomes obsessed with Diane Court. Diane's father, James Court, is played by John Mahoney (Martin Crane on Fraiser) and has a close relationship to his only daughter. Mr. Court is an interesting character as his life is falling apart (divorced, being investigated for doing bad business by FBI, only daughter about to leave home for college on fellowship) while Lloyd is wooing his daughter, and in way taking her away from him. Lloyd's sister is played by Cusack's real life sister, Joan. I always think its pretty cool when real relatives play relatives in movies and their relationship reminded me of Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko.
Crowe is a good writer and does a great job with dialogue and creating interesting characters. The film is a dramedy as it is more introspective than most teen movies, but still humorous.
The scene with Cusack holding the boombox and playing Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes" is iconic and certainly memorable. Although when it comes to famous scenes in Crowe movies I still prefer "Show me the money!" or any scene with Spicoli and Mr. Hand.
The movie features cameos by Kim Walker (Heather Chandler from Heathers who essentially plays the same character!) and Jeremy Piven who is a real life friend of John Cusack.
Overall I liked them film as it was well written and Cusack's Lloyd was a fascinating character. While I wanted to know if the couple would end up together, the movie still didn't really grab me. Sure Mr. Court doesn't like Lloyd as he sees his daughter less because of him, but Mr. Court doesn't seem to hate Lloyd either since Diane is never forbidden to see/talk to him. Perhaps there could have been more tension in Lloyd and Mr. Court's relationship.
While Crowe had writing credits for other movies prior to this one, Say Anything was his directorial debut and its a nice first film. Crowe is certainly a good writer, but the last two movies I saw by him just aren't really my thing. I still want to see Almost Famous as I've heard that is Crowe's best. Fast Times at Ridgemont High is still my favorite movie that he has written.
Crowe might not be my favorite director, but all of his movies I've seen so far have awesome pop/rock soundtracks, which is definitely a good thing!
6/10

                                       

Major League (1989)
This weekend Moneyball came out. Although I am a huge baseball fan who loved the book and heard the movie is getting great reviews, I haven't seen it yet. Instead I finally got around to seeing Major League! It's actually sort of a fictional comedy version of Moneyball as both films are about small market baseball teams who go on improbable playoff runs. Major League was written and directed by David S. Ward, who won an Oscar for writing the screenplay for The Sting. While many comedies often put their effort into jokes, Major League focuses on the story and characters first, and lets the humor fall into place from there. The characters are interesting and likeable, which makes you root for them to win. Wesley Snipes is mostly known for action and dramatic roles in recent years, but he did a good job of pulling off a fun character. Besides Snipes, Major League also helped launch the careers of Charlie Sheen and Dennis Haysbert (Allstate Insurance commercial guy). Famous Milwaukee Brewers announcer Bob "Mr. Baseball" Uecker plays the Indians announcer and he was great. Major League is a lot of fun although perhaps a bit derivative and predictable in spots. However, it is still one of the better sports-comedy movies out there. I just want to know why this movie has two sequels? And there is even news that Charlie Sheen wants to make a fourth movie!
I have read that there is an alternate ending for Major League that was intended to be the original ending but changed after reviews from test audiences. I won't say what happens but I think they should have kept that ending. The other ending isn't that different, but makes a little more sense and would have been a cool twist.
7/10

Death at a Funeral (2010)
This movie is the American remake of 2007 British film. I love the original, but figured I should still see both. I still don't see why the remake was necessary as the humor of the original was universal and not overly "British." Just release the 2007 film in American theaters!
Unlike the original, the remake has lot of pop culture references which will date the film. Now that I think about it, the Amy Winehouse joke is already dated! We also have musical cues that tell us when to laugh, which the British film did not need. This movie made a few other changes, I guess so it wouldn't be a carbon copy of the original even though it is still the same basic story. For example, Aaron (Chris Rock) and wife are trying to conceive a child. We also have Ryan (Martin Lawrence) hitting on an 18 year old girl at the funeral. In the original every subplot related directly back to the family reuniting at the funeral. Both these subplots felt shoved in just to add something new, even though there is already enough going on in the movie.
The cast is hit or miss. Danny Glover and Ron Glass (Firefly) were great but Tracy Morgan and Martin Lawrence put in weak performances. Peter Dinklage reprises his role as the midget from the original film. The part was initially written for someone of normal height, but Dinklage auditioned and got the role! Dinklage recently on an Emmy award for his work on the TV show Game of Thrones. While I haven't seen that show he was great in both versions of this movie and I'll have to see more of his work.
The remake sticks close enough to the original story. It is still funny even though its not as good as the original. There are far worse comedies out there, but please watch the original 2007 British film as it is one of the funniest and well-written comedies made in recent years.
5/10

Double Team (1997)
Double Team is a 90s action movie starring Jean Claude Van Damme and the outrageous basketball player Dennis Rodman. I have no idea who decided to let Dennis Rodman become an actor, let alone put these two together, but that person should be fired from the film business immediately. Dennis Rodman won three Razzie awards for being in this turkey: Worst New Star, Worst Supporting Actor, and Worst Screen Couple which he shared with Van Damme. Mickey Rourke plays the villain and he's actually not bad. The cast also includes Paul Freeman who is best known for playing Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark... oh how the mighty have fallen. The action scenes are decent but the acting by the two leads is terrible. The basketball one liners are so bad they are actually kinda funny. The plot doesn't make much sense but who cares, we have explosions and a lot of glass breaking for some reason! Oh and I could I forget the ridiculous amount of Coca-Cola product placement! Double Team is a great "so bad, it's good movie" as it is awful but still fun to watch. The ending features one of the most ridiculous action scenes in all of cinema and is worth watching for that alone. But unless you are a bad movie connoisseur like myself, just see the Nostalgia Critic's hilarious review here.
3/10

The Harry Potter movies, Part II

In preparation for the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, I have been re-watching all the Harry Potter films in chronological order. Today I'll post my thoughts on the final four Harry Potter films.

Before I get to the movies, I want to discuss something I forgot to talk about in Part I of my Harry Potter movie retrospective. The only main character re-cast in the Harry Potter series was Dumbledore, due to the fact that Richard Harris died after the second Potter movie was released. Harris was a great actor who brought a refined sense of wisdom to the character. While re-watching the first two I realized that Harris was more frail than I remembered, and had he lived I think he would have had trouble pulling off some of the more physical demanding scenes in the 5th and 6th movies.

Michael Gambon was a good replacement as Professor Albus Dumbledore, as he re-vitalized the role by being a little younger, and giving Dumbledore a stronger presence. Michael Gambon's entrance to the Harry Potter series re-united him with Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall) who he worked with in Gosford Park (2001). I feel that the Dumbledore of the books is a cross between Harris' and Gambon's versions of Dumbledore.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
The fifth Harry Potter movie features the fourth and final director of the series, David Yates. The Order of the Phoenix is the second shortest Potter film behind Deathly Hallows Part 2. However, The Order of the Phoenix is based on the longest novel of the series. While this may seem like a bad sign, it works since I felt that the 5th book was too long, and also my least favorite book in the series. Therefore this movie trims the fat and gets us right to the story and characters. For example, it took way too long in the book for Harry to arrive at Hogwarts. Yates' vision stays true to the previous films in the series, while keeping the darker tone of the last three books. The scenes with Snape are a nice preview for the final films.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
The sixth Harry Potter movie has great cinematography thanks to Bruno Delbonnel, a three time Oscar nominee for cinematography. I loved the way he shot the hallways of Hogwarts and his use of desaturated colors is fantastic. This movie has a lot of humor and is by far the funniest of the series. But at the same time it is manages to also be one of darkest. In this way it does a great job of capturing the feel of the book. I loved the mystery of Professor Slughorn's memory as well as the identity of the Half-Blood Prince. This movie is another reminder that Alan Rickman owns the role of Snape and Robbie Coltrane owns the role of Hagrid. I can't imagine any actor doing as good as though two in either role. My main issue with this movie is that a lot of Voldemort/Tom Riddle's back-story from the book was cut. This was most likely done for time reasons, because its a show-stopper, and since most of this movie's audience has already read the books. However, it would help those who haven't read the books get more out of the story and give a better characterization to Voldemort.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)
I wasn't too thrilled about the choice to split the last book into two movies, as it felt like a cash grab, but it does work. After seeing both parts I'm actually glad they did it this way and wish they split Goblet of Fire into two movies, or at least had a Lord of the Rings type extended cut. That said, this one still had some padding and was a little longer than it needed to be. The scene near the beginning with multiple Harry Potters scene was done very well. I was also impressed with the Polyjuice Potion scene since it felt like the other actors were really Harry, Ron, and Hermione in disguise because they did such a good job copying their mannerisms. There is a similar scene in Part 2 that is done just as well, but this one is longer and involves three characters instead of one. The animation for the tale of the three brothers was great. I'd like to see a whole movie, or at least a short film done in that style! Hermione's narration doesn't make it feel like too much of a show-stopper even though she is telling a story. Also it is necessary information as the deathly hallows are in the title after all.The ending is abrupt, but that was expected since it was split into two films.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)
The final Potter movie was also my first midnight premiere! Well sort of, I couldn't get tickets to the 12:00 AM showing so I went at 12:45, close enough in my book. The audience was great (many dressed up as characters) as they clapped and cheered at the appropriate times but were never loud or talked over anything. Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off, and its quite a thrill ride down to the very end. The pacing issues from Part 1 have gone this time. Even the scene showing Snape's memories did not feel like a showstopper. I think the reason for this was because it was filmed like memories and went back and forth, not in chronological order but by his emotions. This part kinda reminded me of The Tree of Life actually! The Battle of Hogwarts was awesome and this was a great way to conclude the series. If you liked the other ones you won't be disappointed. Oh and I loved John Hurt's cameo as Ollivander, the wand maker. He is in three Potter movies and I think he has the most screen time in this one! There were still a few parts that could have been included to flesh out the story more, especially since this is the shortest Potter film. For example, there could have been a better explanation about Lupin's son, for those who haven't read the books. The only thing that really bothered my was the epilogue. I hated it in the book because it read like fan fiction, and its even sillier seeing it on screen. At the very least they should have just put it in as an after the credits scene. Draco's old make-up makes him look like Sean Penn while Ron and Hermoine haven't aged at all in 19 years. Neither has Ginny, they just let her hair down! Next time I watch this I am just going to skip the epilogue, its much better to go out on the real final scene. I am guessing that this will be the biggest movie at the box office this summer.
7/10

Final thoughts on the series:
I wish the series had more famous British actors (Patrick Stewart, Judi Dench, etc.) but all the acting is good, especially Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane. I'm glad that the role of the big three (Harry, Hermione, and Ron) went to unknowns. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint all did a great job respectively. I hope they don't get typecast and wish them all the best of luck in their post-Potter careers. While overall the acting was very good, the actress who played Ginny Weasely was by far the weakest. To be fair, Ginny was not a strong character in the books and her relationship with Harry near the end of the series feels like an afterthought. Despite some flaws I don't really think this film series could have been done much better. I can't think of another film series that went so many (8!) films with the same actors and told one cohesive story that is as good as the Potter movie series. It's not the best film series ever, but you gotta give it a lot of credit for having staying power and consistent quality over the course of ten years.

Since I didn't get around to watch any movies recently besides the Harry Potter films, there won't be a wrap-up this week. Instead I'll post my film article on Sunday and then we'll go back to the regular schedule.

Summer Movie Round-Up Part 3 of 3

This will be the final post covering the movies I have seen so far this summer. Like the previous posts, this one includes 8 brief reviews.

I love Bill Murray, and he is at the top of his game in Stripes. Murray stole the show in Caddyshack (1980) but this time his is the leading man. Murray's character, John, loses his job and his girlfriend so he convinces his best friend Russell (Harold Ramis) to join the army with him. Ivan Reitman directed three films in a row with Bill Murray: Meatballs (1979), Stripes (1981), and Ghost Busters (1984), which also starred Harold Ramis. Although Stripes is a Bill Murray vehicle, we are also treated to early roles  from John Candy, John Larroquette, Judge Reinhold, and Sean Young who all add to the hilarity. The first two thirds of the movie takes place at boot camp where hi jinx ensue. However, it is the last act where the movie really shines. Murray and Ramis steal a secret government vehicle in order to meet up with their girlfriends only to have things get out of hand... and "That's the fact, Jack!"
Stripes joins a 7/10!

One of my new favorite directors is David Cronenberg. I absolutely love Videodrome (1983) and Dead Ringers (1988) and have been seeking out more of his films. They Came from Within (1975), also known as Shivers, was Cronenberg's first full-length film. Not surprisingly it is pretty raw, although since the movie is about parasites that infect the residents of a high-rise and turn them into sex-crazed zombies, it works in the film's favor. The special effects and gore are pretty good considering the low budget. Probably the best example is the horrifying bath tub scene which is depicted on the poster. It is interesting to see Cronenberg's body horror at an early stage and how the themes of flesh and technology would be further developed upon in his later films. Like most of Cronenberg's movies, this was filmed in Canada, specifically in the city of Montreal. Almost the entire movie takes place in an apartment complex. Even though it is a huge building, it leads to a claustrophobic setting since all the rooms and hallways are small to accommodate so many people, which helps add to the suspense. So far this is the weakest film I have seen by him, but I still enjoyed it. Cronenberg's next film, A Dangerous Method, will be released later this year and is about Freud and Jung.
They Come From Within infects a 6/10!

The last two round-ups have featured many movies from the last year or two, so now I get to change things up a bit with (so far) the oldest movie I have reviewed on this blog. The Mummy (1932) stars Boris Karloff as Imhotep and also features African-American actor Noble Johnson as "The Nubian." The film starts out with a fantastic scene in which the mummy is discovered in 1922. The screams are haunting and this creepy opening still holds up today. After this great beginning, the story jumps ahead ten years and unfortunately the story slows down. Imhotep pretends to be a modern Egyptian, and finds a woman who was his lover has been reincarnated. While the final scene is just as good as the first, most of the movie is dialogue heavy with not much happening. I am not asking for non-stop action, but it felt a repetitive at times. I did enjoy the flashback scene, although it was heavily cut for its theatrical release and that footage is sadly lost. Critics have never put The Mummy on the same level as Frankenstein (1931) or Dracula (1931) and although I haven't seen those films yet, I think I can see why. Simply put, not enough happens, although I think the explanation is that unlike those two films, this one was not based on a novel. I have a feeling that audiences in 1932 would have had a greater appreciation for the characters simply talking than we do today. But all things considered The Mummy is still a classic early horror film with great cinematography and atmosphere. Karloff manages to make his character an intimidating force to be reckoned with, yet one the audience feels bad for as he literally waited thousands of years to get back the woman he loves. Although Karloff had already hit the big time as Frankenstein's monster a year earlier, it was films like The Mummy that helped cement his status as a star. "Karloff the Uncanny," indeed.
The Mummy wraps up a 7/10!

I got to admit I was pleasantly surprised by Devil (2010). Although directed by John Erick Dowdle, M. Night Shyamalan is credited as a writer and producer. While I haven't seen Shyamalan's more recent films, I have not heard good things about them. However, Devil is a solid contained thriller about group of people trapped in an elevator who apparently have Satan himself in their midst. Like many of Shyamalan's films, this one takes place in the Philadelphia area, specifically center city. While I would have made the devil stuff more ambiguous, I did like it. The characters stuck in the elevator were well written and it was interesting to them interact with each other as the situation got increasingly worse. The detective investigating the situation is not played by the best actor, but I did like how his storyline coincided with one of the people in the elevator. Even if Shyamalan did direct this, I still wouldn't call it a comeback, but it is a step in the right direction.
Devil doesn't go to hell with a 6/10!

Time to take a break from horror movies and thrillers. I always thought that St. Elmo's Fire (1985) was a John Hughes film, I guess because it features so many members of the "Brat Pack" who were in movies like The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact we have almost half the cast from that movie here! St. Elmo's Fire is actually a Joel Schumacher film. Having recently watched The Lost Boys I was curious to see another of his pre-Batman Forever and Batman and Robin movies. St. Elmo's Fire is about the trials and tribulations of recent college graduates. As a recent college grad myself I felt it was the right time to see this one! Overall this wasn't really my cup of tea, although the characters were interesting and the directing was fine. What I want to know is how these seven guys and girls all became friends in the first place since they were all pretty different and it therefore felt like an unrealistic group. Also I don't understand how Rob Lowe's character got into Georgetown, but whatever. Anyway I'm glad I saw this since I had heard the quote "You cannot have the Pretenders' first album!" and now know its from this movie. Also featuring Andie McDowell and Jenny Wright (Near Dark).
St. Elmo's Fire burns up a 5/10!
   

Finally I get to write about a truly awful movie, Robot Holocaust (1986)! I first heard about this one through Mystery Science Theater 3000, so when I saw it was in available for free in HD via Comcast On Demand, I had to see it. Once or twice I had seen a MST3K movie in its original form, but never has one looked so good when it comes to picture quality. The plot (or lack thereof) is about a rebel named Neo who teams up with a robot that makes Jar Jar Binks seem like John Wayne in comparison. Together they meet up with a woman warrior, a Beastmaster wanna-be, and a rebel girl in order to defeat an evil computer ("The Dark One" although it is a glowing orange ball and not dark at all!) that has taken over the world. This movie rips off everything from The Terminator to Star Wars to Mad Max to Alien. When a movie borrows music from Laserblast, you know its going to be bad. If you took a drink every time a character uttered "the Dark One" you would be in a coma in 10 minutes. As bad as this movie was, I got through it without too much permanent brain damage so it was still watchable. I was laughing at it and cracking jokes, but I've seen some movies so boring and bad that I couldn't even do that. Robot Holocaust is still in so bad its good territory, although barely.
After watching the movie I decided to see the MST3K episode. This is a first season episode and I noticed that Joel and the bots use more sight gags in the theater than in the later seasons. Also it was interesting to see Josh "J. Elvis" Weinstein who played Dr. Forrester's original sidekick Dr. Laurence Erhardt as well as Tom Servo. Dr. Erhardt would be replaced with TV's Frank (played by Frank Conniff) and Kevin Murphy took over as Servo. I thought he was fine (he was a little annoying as Dr. Erdhart though that was the point) but that the other two were simply better fits for the show. For an early episode I was surprised about how good it was. I loved the recurring jokes about Valaria's "accent" and the Ted Nugent references. One of my favorite riffs was "In the future, all robots will act like Don Knotts!"
Robot Holocaust craps out a 2/10. Stick with the MST3K episode.

I have now seen two movies directed by Wes Craven, but still haven't gotten around to seeing A Nightmare on Elm Street. Funny how that works out. I liked Craven's The Serpent and the Rainbow (a cool zombie flick) as well as his work on the 80s Twilight Zone (the show is nowhere near as good as the original but still a decent sci-fi/fantasy/horror anthology show and better than the 2002 version). However, Shocker (1989) was a bit of a mess. Shocker is about a serial killer who comes back from the dead after being killed on the electric chair. The main problem with Shocker is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. At first the main character, Jonathan Parker, can interact with the killer in reality through his dreams. This part is kinda like The Dead Zone meets Nightmare on Elm Street. Then after the serial killer, Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi) comes back from the dead, he can inhabit the bodies of other people and the dream aspect is mostly dropped. The first two acts are played pretty seriously but the movie turns into a horror-comedy for the last act when the serial killer uses a satellite dish to go inside television programs! While this was a huge tone shift that felt out of place, I must admit, it was funny. Horace sucks Jonathan into the TV in an attempt to kill him and they run through everything from war films to Leave it to Beaver! One of the things I did like was the revelation which established a strong connection between Jonathan to Horace. Mitch Pileggi was great as a serial killer and Ted Raimi had a fun but small role. I enjoyed the 80s metal soundtrack. Although the directing was fine, the writing could have been a lot better. When Horace's supernatural powers like taking over bodies and traveling through television signals are revealed to others, they buy into it way too quickly, even newscasters! I wouldn't mind this if the story was taking place in the world of Harry Potter or something, but this is clearly grounded in the real world and these are unrealistic reactions. Also the actor who played Jonathan, Peter Berg, wasn't very good and often whispered his lines for no reason. I think I'll stay away from Craven until I get to see Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream.
Shocker shocks its way a 4/10!

I loved the first Fright Night (1985) so I had been meaning to see Fright Night Part 2 (1988) for a long time. Although this is a fantasy-horror movie, unlike Shocker it clearly takes place in the our world as the movie starts out with Charley (William Ragsdale) seeing a psychologist who tries to convince him that vampires aren't real. The first one came out in 1985 so the sequel takes place in real time, three years later. This sequel has the two main characters (Charley and Peter Vincent, host of the fictional late night horror movie show, Fright Night) return and this time they have to deal with a vengeful vampire who wants revenge for her brother in the first film. Unlike many sequels, this movie is not a rehash but instead a good continuation with some nice twists to keep the viewer guessing. Roddy McDowell was fantastic as Peter Vincent in the first Fright Night and he is just as entertaining (as always!) this time around. I only wish that his character got a bit more closure. Like the original, this one does a good job of balancing humor with creepy horror. Overall Fright Night Part 2 is not as good as the first, but still a solid sequel that will please fans of the first movie, though its not as memorable as the original. Now I just hope that the Fright Night remake is good!
Fright Night Part 2 sinks its fangs into a 5/10!

I am now caught up with the movies I have seen this summer! I therefore probably won't have a post tomorrow, but should have one up for Wednesday 6/29. See you then!

Summer Movie Round-Up Part 2 of 3

This will be the second of three posts covering the movies I have seen so far this summer. Each post will include 8 brief reviews. On Monday I'll finish up with Part Three.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) is first of four recent movies in this round-up. It has been awhile since I have read any of the Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but it feels that, like the recent James Bond and Star Trek "reboots," this is Sherlock Holmes for people who don't like Sherlock Holmes. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing as I am all for a different spin on an old, or in this case, public domain, character. As long as you don't go in expecting Doyle's version of Holmes, you should have a lot of fun. The stylish cuts and flashbacks with sepia toned newspapers do a good job of giving the film its own flavor. Robert Downey Jr. is entertaining as usual and he does a great job of playing off straight man Watson (Jude Law) and love interest Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). I didn't really care for the villain, Lord Blackwood, who from my understanding was made up for the film. However, I did like how everything turned out, including how Moriarty was set-up for the sequel. The main characters were fleshed out well, although overall I felt the story could have been better. A pretty good start for this series, but hopefully the sequel will be an improvement. The follow-up, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is set for a December 2011 release date with Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes!
Sherlock Holmes deduces a 6/10!

Long before the video game Angry Birds there was Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (1963)! I haven't seen too many Hitchcock films yet but I really like what I have seen so far. The directing and cinematography was top notch and the acting was fantastic. Tippi Hedren puts in a fascinating performance as Melanie Daniels, a young heiress. Rod Taylor was great as Mitch, Melanie's love interest. I recognized Taylor from The Time Machine (1960) and an episode of the Twilight Zone. Maybe its just me but I always thought he looks like Robin Williams! Veronica Cartwright was excellent as Mitch's younger sister. This scream queen was also in Alien (1979) as the other female character! The special effects are outstanding, especially for its time. The Birds isn't exactly likeable, but that is the point since it is a horror/thriller film about birds attacking people and how it affects the human characters. I'll have to watch more Hitchcock movies, but so far Rear Window is still my favorite.
The Birds flies into a 8/10!

Somehow I hadn't gotten around to watching Independence Day (1996) until now. ID4, as it is also known, was the top grossing movie of 1996 and made over $300 million. Independence Day is an entertaining summer movie that helped revive interest in science fiction films at a time when they had gotten a bit stale. Independence Day also helped bring back disaster movies since many films such as Volcano (1997) and Armageddon (1998) came in its wake. This is the movie that transformed the "Fresh Prince" into movie star Will Smith, although it was the Men in Black series which would make him a superstar. As for the actual movie itself? The special effects still hold up pretty well and it is a crowd pleaser. However, there are a lot of characters to follow and therefore a lot of back and forth between different plot lines. Some of these are interesting (the President of the USA, played by Bill Pullman) and some not so interesting (a pilot who claimed he was once abducted by aliens, played by Randy Quaid). I loved Brent Spiner's (Data from Star Trek) cameo as an Area 51 scientist. Jeff Goldblum was great in the role of the computer geek, although the scene in which he hacks into the alien computer with a Macintosh laptop is even more ridiculous in 2011 than it was in 1996. And don't even get me started about how Will Smith's dog made a jump right out of Space Jam. Independence Day is a fun but flawed action movie that is also a bit of a throw back to 50s alien invasion movies like The War of the Worlds (1953). However, when it comes to 90s sci-fi epics directed by Roland Emmerich, I prefer the movie he made before this, Stargate (1994).
Independence Day attacks a 6/10!
      

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) is based on the comic book series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. When I first heard about Scott Pilgrim I loved the concept of the main character having to defeat seven exes in order to go out with the girl of his dreams. That said, I went into this movie without having read the comic book so I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Although I can't say whether or not Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a good adaptation, I did think it was a good movie with interesting characters. Of the seven exes my favorite was Chris Evans as the movie star! I enjoyed the stylish visuals, sound effects, and video game references. I also liked how the world is generally realistic, but goes straight in to fantasy at times. While in some cases this could be disastrous, it worked with the quirky feel of the movie and it was nice to see something different.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World scores a 7/10!

Prior to the Roger Corman blogathon I watched a couple of Corman directed movies, including The Haunted Palace (1963). Vincent Price, a Corman favorite, hams it up as warlock Joseph Curwen as well as his descendant, Charles Dexter Ward. Ward moves into the same town over 100 years later because he has inherited his great-grandfather's mansion. When it comes to Corman films I still prefer X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes, but this one is a lot of fun. Even though Price dominates the movie (which isn't a bad thing!) Debra Paget and Lon Chaney Jr. both put in solid performances. It was also interesting to see Corman do a Lovecraft story instead of adapting Edgar Allan Poe which he was more known for. However, the movie does get its title from a Poe poem. The screenplay was written by Charles Beaumont who wrote over 20 episodes of the original Twilight Zone series.
The Haunted Palace scares up a 6/10!

Into the Night (1985) was directed by John Landis (Animal House) and stars Jeff Goldblum. I first heard about this movie as a fan of Jeff Goldblum (two Goldblum movies in this post!). The basic plot is that Ed Okin (Goldblum) is an insomniac who gets involved with a beautiful young jewel thief (Michelle Pfeiffer). There are over 20 cameos by directors and screenwriters! Everyone from Jim Henson to David Cronenberg to Lawrence Kasdan can be seen in this movie. While it was fun looking out for these faces, it was also distracting from the main story. The best cameo was David Bowie as a British hitman since not only is Bowie a surprisingly good actor, but also because this subplot fit in perfectly with the story and didn't feel like an inside joke as many of the other cameos did. Landis himself appears as one of the Iranian henchmen after the jewels. While the film is enjoyable and competently made, it certainly could have been better. John Landis made Into the Night two years after he directed the first segment of the Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983). During filming of that movie, actor Vic Morrow (father of actress Jennifer Jason Leigh) and two child actors were killed in a helicopter accident. Landis went to trial and eventually settled out of court with the families of the victims. I'm not going to demonize or exonerate Landis, but clearly he had other things on mind while making this movie.
Into the Night gets into a 5/10!

Like the other recent movies in today's post, Repo Men (2010) was one that I thought about seeing in theaters before I heard it got mixed reviews. I don't always see films in theaters, but when I do I drink Jose Cuervo... I mean, I make sure its going to be pretty good beforehand! The idea of having artificial organs being sold by companies and then repossessed if the buyers could not make payments sounded like a fascinating concept. Even though Repo Men was based on a 2009 novel by Eric Garcia called The Repossession Mambo, I have heard that the plot is similar to that of Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008). While I liked Repo Men, it could have been a lot better. One of the main problems was the pacing. We know from that trailer that Jude Law's character is a repo man who will in turn get an artificial organ that will need to be repossessed. Unfortunately it took way longer than necessary to get to that point and I felt like I was just waiting for the movie to progress. The ending is interesting to say the least. Without giving too much away, I bet that a lot of people felt cheated as they walked out of the theaters. I kinda saw it coming but didn't think the movie would go in that direction since the idea had nothing to do with the themes of this film and simply felt out of place.
Also I just realized there are two Jude Law movies in this post. I didn't plan the double shots of Goldblum and Law so consider yourselves lucky!
Repo Men repossess a 5/10!
       

If a movie is not filmed in 3-D, don't see it in 3-D! I watched Clash of the Titans (2010) in glorious 2-D and had a lot of fun. However, I heard that the 3-D version, which was done as an afterthought to cash in on the recent 3-D trend, was horrendous. Sam Worthington of Avatar fame stars as Perseus in this remake of the 1981 Clash of the Titans, which is in turn based on Greek mythology. Although I haven't seen the 1981 version, which has special effects by Ray Harryhausen, I did enjoy this as a fun popcorn movie. The acting was fine given the material. Mads Mikkelsen and Gemma Arterton put in nice performances as Draco and Io respectively. Liam Neeson hammed it up as Zeus with his famous line "Release the Kraken!" Speaking of which, why was the sea monster even called the Kraken? The Kraken is from Norse mythology... are we setting this up for a crossover with Thor?! Despite its flaws I found this to be an enjoyable movie. Hopefully the sequel, due out in spring of 2012, will be even better.
Clash of the Titans releases a 6/10!

On Monday I will post Part Three, in which I review a film from 1932, a Bill Murray movie, and the first film made one of my favorite directors!

Summer Movie Round-Up Part 1 of 3

This will be the first of three posts covering the movies I have seen so far this summer. Each post will include 8 brief reviews. At the end of this post I'll go over my scoring system. Tomorrow (Saturday) will be my first film topic post, which will be a weekly feature. On Sunday I'll continue with Part Two.

Joel Schumacher's 1987 vampire flick, The Lost Boys, is a lot of fun. I enjoyed the atmosphere and the soundtrack. It was hard to believe that this movie was directed by the same guy who made Batman & Robin. The acting wasn't anything special, but just what was called for as this is a horror film geared toward teenagers that features plenty of humor. My favorite character was Grandpa (Emmy Award winner Barnard Hughes) who was hilarious and should have had his own movie. I saw this with a group of friends, some of whom had seen the movie before, and we had a blast. However, when it comes to 80s vampire movies I still prefer Fright Night (the remake starring Colin Farrell is coming soon!) and Near Dark (which is also reviewed in this post).
The Lost Boys bites into a 6/10!

The Untouchables, also released in 1987, is the second Brian De Palma movie I have seen. The first you ask? Well it is hard to believe, but this is the same guy who directed the mediocre at best Mission to Mars! Luckily this is much better as well as a much more enjoyable film. The Untouchables is based on the true story of government agent Eliot Ness as he tries to bring down the gangster Al Capone. Although there are some historical inaccuracies, it doesn't matter since the film is engrossing and makes you want to know more about the real story. Sean Connery is fantastic as Jim Malone, an older cop who helps Ness in his quest to defeat Capone. This role won Connery an Oscar (his only) for best supporting actor.  
The Untouchables shoots its way into 8/10!

At the moment Thor is the most recent movie I have seen in theaters, and I was lucky to see it with a group of friends which made for a fun experience. Thor is based on the Marvel comic book character which is in turn based on the Norse god of thunder and Norse mythology in general. While I was not too familiar with either before watching Thor, I enjoyed it. Sure there is a bit too much CGI and the romance between Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Jane (Natalie Portman) felt forced, but overall Thor has a solid blend of action and humor. Director Kenneth Branagh put his Shakespearean background to good use by giving the movie shades of King Lear, while the villain is not a one-sided bad guy but a complex, tragic figure. Thor is more on par with Iron Man 2 (which I still liked even though it was a bit of a mess) than the first Iron Man, but so far Marvel Studios has only made good movies. Hopefully this trend will continue with the July 2011 release of Captain America as well as the highly anticipated The Avengers in 2012.
Thor hammers a 6/10!

When Spike TV first started it would air two Jean-Claude Van Damme movies over and over again. One was Bloodsport (1988) and the other was KickBoxer. The movies share the same star, were filmed around the same time, and are both martial arts movies so you can understand why they always blended together in my mind. Luckily I got to re-watch this with a group of friends which is the best way to watch this flick. The fighting scenes are done well and Van Damme's facial expressions alone make this one worth watching. Don't expect much of a plot, even though it is supposedly based on true events. Donald Gibb is hilarious in a supporting role as Van Damme's friend who competes with him in a deadly martial arts competition. Bloodsport may not be a good movie, but it certainly is entertaining which is not something all movies can claim.
Bloodsport kicks and punches its way to a 5/10!

I first heard about Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) from my Dad, who told me it was a movie he had seen as a kid. We watched it together and even though he had seen it before, it was so long ago that we both did not know what to expect. I was guessing it would be cheesy and campy but it was not. Instead the film is an interesting sci-fi adaptation of the Robinson Crusoe story with a quiet atmosphere as the main character (Paul Mantee) simply tries to survive while spending most of the film by himself. It is an older film but still looks stunning on the Criterion Collection Blu-ray released. Adam West appears in a minor role as one of only four characters in the film, one of whom is a monkey! The film was directed by Byron Haskin who is most famous for directing Treasure Island (1950) and The War of the Worlds (1953). This makes sense as Robinson Crusoe on Mars is sort of a combination of the two since it is a version of a classic adventure story as well as science fiction. The science used in the story is dated, but Mars is portrayed close to the science of the time and not simply as pure fantasy.
Robinson Crusoe on Mars blasts off into a 7/10!

I am a big fan of Predator and I liked Predator 2 so I had been cautiously optimistic about another Predator movie. And no, I don't count the Alien vs. Predator series as real Alien or Predator movies! Although we didn't get the Arnie cameo that all Predator fans wanted, this was an enjoyable sequel with some nice twists and turns. There are still no bad movies in the Predator canon. Adrien Brody is cast against type as a bad-ass soldier, but somehow it works. Topher Grace on the other hand is totally out of place, even when the true nature of his character is revealed. I loved the concept of having an alien planet as a game preserve and it was fun watching these dangerous characters having to work together. However, the jungle setting, as well as a few other aspects, tend to rehash the original a bit too much. The relationship between Royce (Brody) and Isabelle (the female lead, played by Alice Braga) worked, but felt too similar to that of Hicks and Ripley in Aliens. There were even some direct references to that movie such as the line, "If the time comes, I'll do us both" and the fact that at the end of both movies the characters finally share their names with each other. I still enjoyed it, but I just wish Predators spent more time being Predators instead of trying too hard to be Predator and Aliens. Predator 2 often gets ragged on, but at least it tried to do something different with its "urban jungle" setting. Considering how some sequels turn out, Predators is not bad at all though still the weakest of the series for me. I'm not counting the Aliens vs. Predator movies which I haven't seen.
Predators hunts down a 6/10!

Before the Roger Corman Blogathon kicked off, Nate told me to watch X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963). Starring Ray Milland as a doctor who gave himself x-ray vision, this was actually only the second Corman movie I had ever seen. While I obviously still need to see a lot more Corman movies, this is so far the one I consider to be his best. The acting is perfect for the tone and there is some great directing. My favorite scene had to be the dance party in which Dr. Xavier sees everyone naked thanks to his x-ray vision! It was fun to see some familiar faces (Harold J. Stone, John Hoyt, and Don Rickles) who appeared on my all-time favorite TV show, The Twilight Zone. "If thine eye offends thee... pluck it out!"
X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes has the vision to get a 7/10!

Before Kathryn Bigelow won an Oscar for directing The Hurt Locker, which also won best picture, she made a fun little movie set in the American West about... bloodsuckers. You know, people who bite others and stay up all night. I'll stop, but the point is that Near Dark (1987) is a movie about vampires that never uses the dreaded v-word! Unfortunately this movie got overshadowed by The Lost Boys which came out the same year and was also about teenage vampires. However don't let success at the box office fool you, this is a better and more interesting movie. Jenny Wright puts in a haunting performance as Mae, a young female vampire who "turns" Caleb (Adrian Pasdar), a farmhand who works for his father. The other vampires are played by the cast of Aliens. I'm not kidding, we have Bill Paxton, Lance Hendrickson, and Jenette Goldstein as the older vampires. I guess it makes sense since Bigelow was married to James Cameron at one point. In addition to those actors, Joshua John Miller plays Homer. He appears to be about twelve years old and therefore the youngest in this group of vampires. However, since vampires can live forever, it actually turns out that he is the oldest with the other characters referring to him as an "old man." The synthesizer score by Tangerine Dream felt out of place, but I don't think it significantly detracts from the movie. This gritty vampire flick is criminally underrated and the perfect antidote for those Twilight movies!
Near Dark doesn't suck, as it gets a 7/10!

Here is how I do my rating system: It is not rocket science but merely a combination of how much I enjoyed the movie plus how well I felt it was made (acting, directing, writing, cinematography, etc.). A 10/10 would be a movie I absolutely loved and felt was incredibly made, a 5/10 would be about average in both respects, while a 1/10 would be totally boring and utter crap. Actually for this blog I'll make that a 0/10 although IMDB only goes as low as 1/10. I might also do .5 ratings (ex: 7.5/10) on this blog since I can't do that on IMDB. I don't give out 1's and 2's easily and 9's and 10's are even more rare. My ratings can change a bit over time, especially when I haven't seen a film in a while. I feel that the content of the review is more helpful and important than any number or grade, but I'll still include my rating for each movie.

On Sunday I will post Part Two, in which I review a Hitchcock film, another Corman flick, and three movies released in 2010!