jwtrox08706 Reviews

Curse of Chucky (2013)

Flawed, but definitely breathes new life into the franchise.

[7/10 · 20 January 2014]

After being extremely let down by buying Seed of Chucky almost ten years ago, I went into this direct to DVD/Blu-Ray installment with more caution than I did with its predecessor.

Curse of Chucky surprised the hell out of me. It is well cast, cleverly written considering the source material, and the editing is pretty good, too.

Fiona Dourif carries the lead role extremely well—like father like daughter. And how poetic that she is the movie's heroine opposite Chucky/Charles Lee Ray, played and voiced by her father Brad. Brad Dourif, of course, was brilliant. Brad is Brad, really. The man is an actor who clearly enjoys his craft. It shows that he totally immerses himself in his roles.

The writing left some things to be desired, but it shows strong effort. Certain aspects of the story I will not reveal in this part of the review, in case anyone reading this has an intention of seeing this movie and would like to know if it is worth taking a chance. The way I watched it first was renting it on YouTube for $2.99, and if anyone is wary of any movie possibly being bad, I highly recommend that method. However, I got way more than my money's worth, I think. The ending is sort of where the movie stalls out, but it's still worth the time and a few dollars if you want to rent. I'm actually considering buying it on DVD or Blu-Ray, though.

*****SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT***** The movie contains interesting twists to it. I could tell the main filmmakers, most of which have been part of this franchise from the very beginning, were serious about breathing new life into this franchise. In this age of disappointing remakes, reboots, and sequels coming long after their predecessors, this one is a pleasant surprise, for lack of a better term.

Where the movie falls apart somewhat is the ending. After all the chaos, Nika is left on the floor in the house holding the knife in a rather incriminating situation when a police officer goes to the house to question the family on the death of a priest who had been at the house before he crashed his vehicle as the result of being poisoned and was killed in the crash.

Where things don't really add up is the fact that Nica is implicated, arrested, and found mentally incompetent to stand trial. She is subsequently placed in a facility for the criminally insane. Now, the issue is she was charged with the murders based on all sorts of evidence minus video footage from a nanny cam placed on Chucky by Ian. That footage implicates Chucky in the murders. We see Ian, who initially thought Nica was killing everyone, go through all the footage of it, and finally see that Chucky was the culprit. Of course, he finds out too late. Certainly that evidence would have been found, and if Ian could figure it out from watching that video footage, so could an investigator.

Aside from that part, the backstory as to why Chucky is killing people in the family is pretty well done. We see how he knows them, and why he's come back to kill them.

Also, the ending plays very similarly to the beginning of Bride of Chucky—it's even quoted. Jennifer Tilly (as Tiffany) pops up in the back seat of the car with the crooked cop carrying the evidence (Chucky) he was being bribed to give to her.

Still, despite these flaws, I say give it a watch. If you're a Chucky fan, definitely go for it.

###

The Victim (2011)

Quite a Fun Ride

[10/10 · 22 July 2011]

OK, first of all, I saw this film at the 2011 Fright Night Film Fest in Louisville, KY with Michael Biehn and his lovely wife Jennifer Blanc (both in this film) to put the film into context. I love how enthusiastic both of these individuals were (and still are) about this film from the get-go, and one of the important things Michael said setting this film up was to not take it too seriously; to feel free to laugh, cheer, scream or react however you feel is necessary to what you see in this film; and to enjoy it. So, in the auditorium with at least 50 or so individuals I sat to see this very low budget film, but seeing the film, you can tell that it is a work of individuals who were having fun and enjoyed every minute of what they were doing (ok, maybe not every minute, but that's beside the point).

First of all, every bit of the film was shot during the daytime; so, the nighttime scenes were shot day-to-night, which was quite interesting and looked quite beautiful. Considering this film was shot in just 12 days, this was a pretty kickass film, and I hope that Michael and Jennifer have a lot of luck with distributing this film. I know the very second I find it available on DVD or even Blu-Ray, I'll buy it.

Second of all, the film is well-cast. Of course being on a limited budget, Michael and Jennifer had to rely on some friends and colleagues in the business to be cast in this film (including themselves). Finding out Danielle Harris is in this film was a real plus for me, and when Michael revealed that, it certainly got quite a few cheers from the crowd.

Thirdly, the film is so well edited, considering some of the sequences were edited by necessity—some of the film that was shot was corrupt film (the digital video files were corrupted somehow), but despite such a setback they made it work. This film, though not something one should take too seriously but just enjoy it like a bowl of ice cream on a hot summer day (hehe, it was a hot summer day when I saw this), actually instilled some hope in me that there are good filmmakers out there, or at least filmmakers who actually care about the craft of film making.

Finally, the story itself is pretty good. I really liked it, and the ending...well...I'll leave that up to you. If you do have the opportunity to see this film when it is screened, please give it a chance. I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Oh, and one more thing...Michael Biehn has a history of playing badass characters in films (i.e. The Terminator, Aliens, Tombstone and The Rock), and this film is no exception. Plus he plays a guy named Kyle. Just part of the humor involved in this film.

I give it 10 Stars out of 10.

Workaholics (2011–2017)

A total riot

[9/10 · 3 June 2011]

What can I say about Workaholics? I mean you have to watch it, really. I've been watching Comedy Central for South Park for the past few years, and very recently I caught an episode of this show after South Park. The episode of South Park before Workaholics had me already warmed up for some funny stuff, and then the first episode of Workaholics I saw just went in for the kill. It was hilarious, and it had me hooked. It's unorthodox. It's absurd, and it's silly. However, those are all done in a way that they are the most redeeming and endearing qualities of the show. It's just three working class stoners who are just starting to get into the workforce and start their adult lives, and all the twists, turns and misadventures they come across just living life. If you liked Office Space or almost any and/or every stoner comedy film or television show ever made, then watch this show. It will make you $h!t your pants from laughing. 9/10

Scream 4 (2011)

Say What You Want, They Still Got It...

[8/10 · 3 May 2011]

OK, so SCRE4M isn't nearly as good as the original, but I could easily call it the best sequel of the series. What Scream did to the minds of audiences in 1996, SCRE4M does to the likely more sophisticated and savvy minds of 2011—not that people were stupid in '96, they just hadn't seen what Scream brought to the table, yet. If you liked all of the Screams so far, this one is for you. If you haven't seen the first three, it's probably best you check them out before you see this one, but not overly necessary. I recommend it to anyone who likes a scare, and a good murder mystery. I give this one an 8/10.

*OK, IF YOU DON'T WANT THE MOVIE SPOILED, STOP READING, NOW* *FINAL WARNING* *OK, THEN* SCRE4M truly brings the series into the 21st Century with all the mass comm. tech. we have right now, and uses every bit of it. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson did a phenomenal job of keeping the audience on their toes. Only right before the big surprise at the end did I figure it out, and that's saying something...usually. The big surprise at the end brings to light certain social issues that are prevalent in today's society. Issues like everyone wanting to be famous instead of make a living and privacy becoming harder and harder to find. With cameras, phones, Internet and other mass. comm. devices we all have, the curtains have been drawn, and there you are for the whole world to see. The film is well-casted, well acted, well-shot and well...not as scary. It's more of a action thriller with a twist of horror, another "who done it" murder mystery like the first three. But in today's world of Saw, Hostel, The Ring and Paranormal Activity being considered horror, this film is made out to be more of an action thriller. I went into this film thinking I was going to see another bad sequel. I was just going to see how my favorite characters are since the last time I saw them 11 years ago. They've aged a bit, moved up and down in the world since last we saw them, and even had some work done, but they're still there. Excellent work Kevin and Wes as well as the entire cast and crew. You get my approval and recommendation. 8/10

Avatar (2009)

Not just some special effects film.

[10/10 · 19 September 2010]

In this day and age of movies being overrun with computer-generated (CG) images, it's easy to get complacent about big films that have tremendous amounts of CG effects—especially if the effects are there to be eye candy and are so loud they distract the viewer from the film. However, every once in a while, a film is done that properly utilizes these resources and makes a film that is awe-inspiring in its visuals. Avatar is one of those films. Going into viewing it, I was rather complacent about it. I have seen plenty of films that utilize CG effects that end up, in my view, being eye candy. The marriage of animated or CG characters and live action characters in a film reached new heights with this film. Who Framed Roger Rabbit did it best, for me, until Avatar. Avatar's visual effects are very realistic, and do not distract you from the film. However, other aspects of the film also support the realism of the visual effects.

The writing of this film, while not the most original, is very creative and is stated excellently by the performers cast. The story itself borrows from Pocahontas the most. Humans moving on to a new world in search of a precious metal, and indigenous people are in between them and the wealth they seek. Despite the somewhat lack of originality in the basis of the film's story, the way it is interpreted and portrayed is most outstanding. Very few films can truly get me emotionally involved with the characters, and this film did that down to a T. The cast excellent. They all were amazing, which is why I am not going to name specific individuals. To bring true life and humanity to a CG-character is a mark of a truly talented performer, and those who did it in this film truly did it better than anyone I have seen before.

A lot of times, huge films like this tend to lose their impact when viewed on a television screen as opposed to the big screen. I must say, even Titanic did that. But, this film, like T2, retains almost all of its vitality on the television screen, although there is just no substitute for seeing this on the big screen (I am sure of it despite not having experienced it there, with much regret). However, this film is truly up there with the likes of Star Wars, The Godfather (yes, I am dead serious about it) and Citizen Kane. It is definitely a true gem, and I truly believe this is a film we will (hopefully, if we are around for it) be showing our children, grandchildren and so on. This film is truly a mark of what happens when much time, care and talent is invested into something—a quality result is produced. Avatar is destined to be a classic film. Hands down a 10/10. A must see.

Return to Treasure Island (1986– )

A real diamond in the rough

[10/10 · 12 September 2010]

In the mid 1990s, this miniseries was rebroadcast on the Disney Channel, and I absolutely fell in love with it. At the time, I was just a child, but I enjoyed the series very much. Each episode of this miniseries would leave me unable to wait until the next episode was broadcast. The fact that it is only available on Region 2 DVD is an outrage, if you ask me.

Anyhow, the series is well cast and well acted. You love to hate the villains and you really route for the heroes. Brian Blessed is absolutely amazing as Long John Silver. He brings such a lively enthusiasm to the role, and it is clear that he either studied the role and really knew how to play John Silver, or he is just that good of a performer. His dialogue and mannerisms as Silver are truly a treat to behold on the screen. Christopher Guard is excellent as an adult Jim Hawkins, and Ken Colley does an absolutely wonderful job playing Ben Gunn. Colley, if you are not aware, is probably better known for his role as Admiral and later Captain Piett in The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Return of the Jedi (1983). In this miniseries; however, I do believe he was given much more room to shine and really display his acting ability. He brings a wonderful lovable warmth to the character of Ben Gunn that just makes the series even more enjoyable to watch. Another good performance came from Reiner Schöne, who played a new pivotal character, Van Der Brecken, a Dutchman who's trade is in gathering precious wood from Mexico. Schöne does a wonderful job of playing an honest, hard-working man who has no desire to go chasing after fortune, but to earn it through honest hard work.

The series itself does a wonderful job of telling the story of the return to the island to seek the remaining portion of Flint's Treasure that was not unearthed in "Treasure Island." Along the way, we are met with very well incorporated and very sequitur discussions on issues of the time: slavery, greed and corruption to name a few. It is a very well told story of good triumphing over evil. Jim Hawkins is the ultimate hero in this story. Despite 10 years passing since his experiences chronicled in "Treasure Island," Jim has remained forthright, honest and truly a good soul, and he does so throughout the entirety of this series, despite being met with much adversity and injustice.

Ultimately, this series should be considered a modern-day classic, despite not being very well known. It is truly a gem worth more than the treasure the characters in this series seek, and I recommend it to anyone and everyone.

10/10

The Expendables (2010)

It does what it set out to do...It entertains

[7/10 · 22 August 2010]

Going into this film, I had some rather low expectations, but was hoping to see just a violent shoot-'em-up with an all-star action film cast. I was actually pleasantly surprised as to how entertaining this film is.

First of all, the cast is great, even though as a rule I tend to stray away from casts that feature a lot of big names. The film was well cast, and acted pretty well, too. The only problem is, I think there was just not enough room for all of these names to have their time on screen. However, they all work well together; so, it sort of balances out.

Second, it certainly is not without action. There is plenty of violence and dismemberment to wet the beaks of the most action-hungry movie goers, but it is not totally over the top. It definitely is a film that, if they were still reviewing films together, Siskel and Ebert would criticize for being too noisy, but if you go into a film like this without even the slightest expectations that you are going to be bombarded with in your face noise and action, then you have some serious problems. The film also sort of brings up some current or recent affairs (Somali pirates was the one that stood out the most for me), and takes the "let's kick some ass" route with them, but at the same time it still has a moral code to it as well.

Finally, I just like going into a film like this one, considering the times we are in with all the gray matter and things not being cut and dry, and having all of that just pushed to the side: you have your good guys and you have your bad guys. Yes, this film has a touch of its own gray matter, but it's not overwhelming. The timing of this film's release has made this point a positive one, instead of a negative one.

A film as fun as this one was is not without its flaws.

First of all, the writing just left a lot to be desired, but the action and comedy in it more than made up for that. That being said, do not be surprised if you find yourself wincing now and then at some very cheesy lines.

Second, as I mentioned, this film is very crowded with big stars. In many cases, you like the idea of all of these big names in one film, but how can you have room for all of them?

Third, there was too much CG blood and violence. Computer effects are great, but it was utilized way too much, as if it was a crutch—especially for violence. To boot, you can clearly tell that it's CG as well. If there had been more makeup effects and down and dirty special effects used like in the old days for things like decapitations or someone catching fire, I would have been much more impressed. As it is, though, the CG effects in this film are kind of cheesy and can easily be spotted. A good CG effect is one that you at least have to do a double take to see that it is in fact a CG effect or, best case scenario, have to find out later on that it is a CG effect (case and point, the digital removal of Ralph Fiennes nose when he played Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter films looks very much like a well-done make-up effect but is in fact a CG effect).

All in all, this film is good for when you just need a movie to entertain you. It's a great way for even one of the most critical moviegoers, like myself, to just sit back and enjoy a film for what it is as opposed to trying to find a deeper meaning. It's a guilty pleasure, and it is well- done in that respect. I applaud Sly for making this very entertaining film. But, just as a precaution, I wouldn't recommend this as a date movie, unless she's really into some good solid hardcore action films.

Braindead (1992)

Words cannot describe

[8/10 · 23 May 2010]

Oh the visceral, gory, bloody disgustingness that is this movie! And yet, under all of that squishy grotesqueness lies a pretty good film. This movie's sort of a twisted version of Rapunzel, only the man is the one who is in need of being rescued, and there are very gross zombies that want flesh and lots of it. I don't really know how to approach this film. It's very quirky, and yet it is very violent. It has plenty of doses of comedy and romance: plenty of that for literally the gallons and gallons of blood and guts this movie has in it along with the staggering body count. I lost count after 30 or so. No wonder Peter Jackson ended up being so successful and directing The Lord of the Rings!

A Time to Kill (1996)

A Great and Well Casted Film Full of Statements About Society and the Justice System That are Still Applicable Today

[10/10 · 17 May 2010]

No film has ever quite left me conflicted as this film has, and that is meant in a good way. Very few big budget Hollywood films can say they leave a lot of room for discussion after the screen goes black and the credits begin to roll. This film brings to life John Grisham's novel of the same title: "A Time to Kill." The film is also well done as far as imagery and performances from actors. The dialog by the characters is so well done.

My personal reactions to the film are split. On the one hand, I am very sympathetic toward Carl Lee and his family. I can't say I wouldn't do the same if I had a young daughter like his that was raped by two drunken lowlifes. In many ways, I cannot say that what Carl Lee did was wrong. Those two boys that hurt his daughter deserved what they got, and the justice system in place where they committed this crime would have greatly and unfairly favored their case.

At the same time, from a legal standpoint, as well as from a moral standpoint, I cannot condone Carl Lee's actions. He should have been convicted, because letting a man be acquitted of murder, no matter what the circumstances are, is very devastating to precedents in the criminal justice system. It is true that nothing ever justifies one human being killing another. I am a believer that if the criminal justice system does not hold people accountable for their actions, that God always does. On a person's Judgement Day, the day he/she dies, he/she is finally brought to justice and finally held accountable for his/her failures as a human being—failures that he/she has not repented for and felt truly sorry for.

But, I digress. This film is rich in statements about society today even, as well as the criminal justice system. Society is still divided racially, and in so many different ways, now. The criminal justice system is seemingly too subject to human emotion as opposed to reason, and it has been that way for so long. Why? It is subject to human eyes, and this film very emphatically states that fact that is also a truth. The success of this film can likely be attributed to its time of release as well. It was released pretty much on the heels of the fallacy that was the verdict O.J. Simpson received in his trial for murder. (Yes, I believe very strongly O.J. was guilty.)

At the same time, this film is well casted. A lot of times, big Hollywood films with big all star casts seem to be very much for the purpose of getting people into theaters to watch a movie that is otherwise mediocre. This film is very much different in that it is well casted and well acted. Matthew McConaughey is very powerful as Jake Brigance, a young charismatic lawyer looking to make his big break. Samuel L. Jackson is stellar as Carl Lee Hailey, a blue collar working father and husband that works day by day to try and support his family. Sandra Bullock is exemplary as Ellen Roark, a young woman fresh out of law school wanting to have some impact and looking to get her foot in the door as well, and make a name for herself having been somewhat in the shadow of her father, a very wealthy aristocrat. She works to help Jake in his case, despite their differing views. Kevin Spacey is excellent as the District Attorney Rufus Buckley, an adamant political figure who is not above bending regulations to win a case. Donald Sutherland, Kiefer Sutherland, Brenda Fricker, Oliver Platt and Charles S. Dutton are just a few more names of an extremely strong supporting cast, and they all shine brightly in this film. In the very few films such as this, I always look for somewhat of a wild card performance from a supporting actor/actress that I know nothing about or have seen very little of. That wild card performance comes from Patrick McGoohan as the aptly-named Judge Omar Noose. Noose is very much on the side of the prosecution, and the way he is portrayed in the film is rather indiscreet: from his long curly gray hair, half moon spectacles, to his very strong bias against the defense and his plantation home where he has black servants.

The imagery that stood out mostly to me was a subtle one. For much of the film, the lighting along with the constant sheen of sweat that everyone seems to have on their foreheads is something that suggests the racial tension really coming to a boil. Finally, on the last day of the case, the day of summation and the delivery of the verdict, that sheen that everyone has from the thick muggy air of the Deep South is gone: foreshadowing to anyone who hasn't read the book perhaps?

It's an incredible film that I recommend to anyone who is looking for a good film that can both provide the drama that someone needs, or provide a point of discussion for an intellect. I give it 10/10 stars.

Halloween II (2009)

Watch the Unrated Director's Cut to see what story Rob *really wanted to tell

[9/10 · 24 January 2010]

Closure...a term that can never seem to apply to the Halloween series. But now, despite plans for a sequel to Rob Zombie's Halloween II having been put in the works (but later halted), I think we can say that Rob has truly brought real closure to Halloween. And he did it in a span of around 4 years with just 2 films. In that 4 years and 2 films, Rob brought us a re- envisioning of Halloween and closure to that story he retold. While I did find the theatrical version somewhat effective, the Unrated Director's Cut released on DVD is what should have made it to the big screen, because it is what Rob Zombie had originally intended to be Halloween II. We have all the gritty, raw and emotional action from the theatrical version in this film (with a few extra touches to help drive home the emotional parts) and a different outcome to the film as well. Rob's use of imagery and lighting is phenomenal and really brings an eerie surrealism to the film, and that is what this film is. It is surreal. We are seeing the gradual demise of Laurie Strode. The night her brother came home completely pushed her beyond her limits. She lost the people she knew to be her parents her entire life, her friends and her security. Now she is struggling to cope with the hell that she had endured. Instead of setting the film one year after its predecessor, Rob decides to set it two years later, and that makes more sense. If it's not bad enough to have lost so much, she is constantly reminded of that night by the scars on her friend, Annie's, face, and she's living with Annie and her father, Sheriff Brackett. The constant reminder of that night creates much turbulence between Laurie and Annie, and their once solid friendship has now taken a turn for the worse. There is also somewhat of a role reversal. Annie becomes the more responsible person; while Laurie has become the more wild and outlandish character that Annie once was. Laurie's therapy is going nowhere, and she is becoming more and more addicted to her psychiatric medications. She is more run down and almost completely gone than she was depicted in Halloween: Resurrection. Rob's depiction of what is going on inside Michael's head is very surreal and spooky. Michael still thinks and acts as he did when he first started to kill people. He hasn't grasped the fact that his mother killed herself, and he still believes that he can bring his family back together. So seeing young Michael and Deborah is seeing the world through Michael's eyes. Michael goes on a horrific killing spree. He butchers anyone in his path from Lou Martini (who is still running the Rabbit in Red Lounge where Mrs. Myers used to work and he is using that fact as a way of attracting customers) to Annie (in a horrific beating that the audience's imagination). Annie's death is treated differently. It is more drawn out. We see Laurie's grief over losing Annie, and then we see Sheriff Brackett's grieving, which is very well played by Brad Douriff. He brought home the pain of a father losing his daughter in such a horrible manner. It brought tears to my eyes. Dr. Loomis, another survivor of that night, has become a slick, money hungry fame monger. He is now in the process of pushing his new book that reveals a huge detail that he learned the night he nearly was killed. That detail: Laurie's true origin. That detail is Laurie Strode is actually Angel Myers...Michael's sister. Amidst great controversy and buzz, he has the book released on Halloween. Sheriff Brackett finds out what Loomis did, and frantically tries to find Laurie before she can find out about it, but he fails. Laurie buys the book, reads it, and this helps push her even more over the edge. As the film goes on, Laurie's psyche becomes more and more a mirror image of Michael's, until finally she steps into the realm of Michael at the very end in a standoff at an old shack in the middle of a field where Michael had been staying. After Loomis tries to redeem himself for what he did and gets killed by Michael and Michael is gunned down by an entire police force, Laurie steps out amongst the carnage while Sheriff Brackett looks on. He already lost Annie, he has one more chance. Laurie, in a state of shock and in somewhat of a trance, picks up the knife and goes over to Loomis to seemingly stab him. A shot rings out, and then more. Laurie is gunned down in the same manner that her brother was, and just as she is about to slip off the mortal coil, she has one final thought. The vision of her sitting at the end of a long, bright, white hallway. She looks up to crack an eerie grin as she sees Deborah walking down the hallway with a white horse. All the while, this is being serenaded in the background with a very depressing rendition of Love Hurts as sung by Nan Vernon, which is a track on the Halloween II soundtrack. For sheer human emotion, vivid imagery and a very convincing attempt that may very well succeed (I hope) to bring closure to Halloween once and for all so that we may stop seeing this great film that was raped into a franchise continue to be milked and milked for more money, I give this film 9 stars out of 10. If anyone has a problem with it, then they just don't get it.

The Nutcracker Prince (1990)

Wonderful memories of my childhood, every child should see this

[10/10 · 25 November 2009]

It had been a long time since I had seen this film. Actually, the last time I had seen this was when I was a child. This film was essentially my view of how The Nutcracker should be since it was the first adaptation of The Nutcracker I had seen. When I recently watched it, the wonderful memories of childhood and Christmas when I was younger all came flooding back. Now, as a young man with more knowledge of film, it was a true pleasure and treat to go back and watch this and be able to see it from many different perspectives. And from each perspective, this film is very well-done.

First of all, the adaptation of the story is very well-done. The voice acting is superb. Kiefer Sutherland is excellent as Hans/The Nutcracker. Peter O'Toole was excellent as Pantaloon, bringing the voice of a gentleman to the old soldier. Peter Boretski was a perfect choice for Uncle Drosselmeier. I remember liking Drosselmeier, but at the same time being somewhat afraid of him, as a child. Those names I have mentioned are just a few examples of how well the voice acting is done.

The music used, of course, is Tchaikovski's The Nutcracker, and I believe the performance of The Nutcracker used for this film was very well-done. The music and the on screen action intertwine together almost perfectly. I really don't have much to say about it, because there's nothing I can say.

The animation is wonderful. It's all handmade. I do believe there is not a single computer- generated sequence in this film, and that is wonderful. Quality animation done by hand is such a rarity today, and it just has that certain magic about it that computers cannot recreate. When Drosselmeier tells the story of how Hans came to be The Nutcracker, the animation has a certain surrealistic twist to it. It's subtle, but noticeable. It is appropriate since what we are seeing is a story being told by one of the characters in the story. While the surrealism is not as heavy, I can just draw a connection to the film "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" where much of the film is a story being told by one of the main characters, and since it is a story being told, the sets are distorted as only a classic German Expressionist film can. Additionally, the animation toward the end in The Land of the Dolls also has this surrealistic sense to it, but in a different way.

Overall, I must say this film is a definite choice for a family to sit and watch during the Christmas Season. It makes much of the new stuff that is being shown on television today look like crap (and much of it is). There are some moments that I think most of the parents today would say, "children shouldn't see this, that's horribly violent." Well, hey, I saw this film a lot as a kid and I turned out just fine. It's those tastefully done moments of "violence" along with other parts of the film such as Drosselmeier's story that help give this film its wonderful character and flavor. I give it a 10/10.

2012 (I) (2009)

I'm not even surprised this made number one...the public eats $hit like homemade ice cream these days

[3/10 · 17 November 2009]

Another apocalyptic movie to remind me of my own mortality. This time it's in your face: 2012. No need to ask what the plot is, or if there is one. You know from the earliest teaser that this film was going to be another one of the movies where Hollywood's flexes it's muscles in the special effects department. I'm tired of the movie scene these days. It's so bleak. We need a new George Lucas to make a movie that has the same effect as Star Wars, at least emotionally (Lord knows there's really no where else to go with advances in special effects). I like John Cusack. I find him to be a very talented actor, but he was seduced by the dark side of the force with this movie. Hey, Hollywood, get your heads out of your collective @$$ and start making movies with more meaning to them and stop making so much eye candy. It is my hope that this film will blend in with the rest of the eye candy that's been made in this decade and soon be forgotten. Maybe it'll have a cult following in 20 or 30 years or so and get remade.

Plus this whole 2012 concept has been shoved down my throat, regurgitated and shoved back down over and over again to the point where I'm wishing we could just get to that particular date in the year 2012 and get through it and into the year 2013 so I can laugh at everyone who worried and fretted about it like everyone worried and fretted and blew out of proportion Y2K.

More American Graffiti (1979)

In and of itself it's good. As a sequel, it sucks compared to it's predecessor.

[6/10 · 30 August 2009]

After American Graffiti one would think that a sequel would not be necessary. The fates of most of the main characters is revealed at the end of the film, and the film itself complete with no further explanation really necessary. But, likely, with the success of Star Wars and George Lucas, Universal must have been thinking, "Hey, let's make a sequel to American Graffiti. Let's cash in that check!" I can't blame anyone for having that mentality. This is the United States of America, and I believe in Capitalism. However, when that mentality has been exercised with the film industry, 975 times out of 1000 the result has been substandard at best, and as a sequel, More American Graffiti is substandard at best. It doesn't retain the nice feel that its predecessor had. Not all the characters are there and together throughout the film. Richard Dreyfuss probably had the best foresight of any of the other actors in the original, "This movie's not going to be as good as the original." He also had the most success out of the bunch from American Graffiti up to 1979, having starred in Jaws (1975) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), not that I'm saying the rest of the cast from American Graffiti is bad. So the success and the hypothetical foresight might likely be why he did not opt to be in the sequel. Having the rest of the cast, including Wolfman, return for the sequel gave it some amount of integrity, but the acting wasn't exactly the best in this film. Another thing that gives it integrity is the fact that it has four separate plots intertwined and being told at the same time, just like the original, but with a twist...each plot is set in a different year. You have to be paying attention or you'll get lost. Despite it being far inferior to its predecessor, More American Graffiti, by itself, is interesting. Big tip: don't watch it right after watching American Graffiti. That helps a lot. It starts on New Year's Eve, 1964 at a drag Racing Strip where John Milner is racing for money and trying to get sponsorship. Steve and Laurie and Terry and Debbie go to see John and wish him luck. After that scene, the film goes to New Year's Eve 1965 with Terry in Vietnam trying to shoot himself with his own M16 (which speaks hours about what it was like to be in Vietnam during the conflict). After we leave Terry botching his own wound self-infliction, we move to New Year's Eve 1966 and see Debbie driving in San Francisco, nonchalantly lamenting over the anniversary of the loss of her friend John Milner and her boyfriend, Terry to her current boyfriend Lance. She's no longer a platinum blonde heart breaker that likes Old Harper, but a hippie/groupie that likes marijuana. She get's pulled over by an Officer Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford), and Lance gets taken in for possession of a joint (after having consumed the entire stash of weed he had in the glove compartment of Debbie's car, no less). Debbie's subplot sort of splits off a little bit having Carol (or Rainbow, as she's affectionately referred to by her hippie friends) there with her. After we leave Debbie with the dilemma of having to bail out Lance, we go to New Year's Eve 1967 to see Steve and Laurie with their twin boys. Steve and Laurie have a tumultuous marriage with children. Laurie wants to get a job and start a career of her own, as opposed to being simply a housewife, and Steve, being old-fashioned in ways, forbids it, which makes Laurie angry and causes her to leave the house to go see her brother. This subplot sort of branches into two halves: Steve's side and Laurie's side, but it later comes back together. The 1964 and 1967 subplots are pretty much presented in rather normal fashion. The 1965 subplot is presented in grainy hand-held super 16mm film, trying to resemble war reporters' footage. The 1966 subplot is presented with multiple frames with different angles and shots playing out at the same time kind of like Woodstock (1970) was, trying to get a sort of documentary feel. This very eclectic manner of presentation struck me as rather interesting, as did the nonlinear plot. It keeps you on your feet. So, if you're into that sort of thing—if you like how Quentin Tarrantino tells a story— you might like this. Another aspect that this film has that the original also has, is have the voice of the Wolfman over the radio playing a vast amount of music from the time. Wolfman sort of acts as a master of ceremonies and ties all the subplots together, as does the music he plays. Instead of just hearing Buddy Holly, Bill Haley Chuck Berry and other staples of blues and early rock, we also hear The Doors, The Supremes and The Byrds—staples of that great time in music in the United States. The soundtrack rivals that of Forrest Gump with it's extensive amount of tracks and eclectic sounds. The early selections are there to sort of tie this film to its predecessor and remind you of American Graffiti; while the more recent (for the setting of the film) selections are there to supplement and complement the events. And the soundtrack is presented in the film in the way that the original presented its soundtrack. The music is not there like an orchestral score, but it is being experienced by the characters themselves, for the most part, and it is presented with the certain distortions that the environment in which the characters are has upon it. In conclusion, the film itself is not a terrible film, but since it is billed as a sequel to American Graffiti and is far inferior to its predecessor, I must give it a 6 out of 10.

Arachnophobia (1990)

So horrible it's funny

[1/10 · 17 June 2009]

What can I say? It's another failed attempt at horror into mainstream film. The premise of this film is laughable, and only people who are afraid of spiders and likely subsequently don't know enough about them (which is down right stupid since they're beneficial) probably find this film scary. Now, I personally have no problem with spiders, except for when I see one on me without knowing about it. It's a natural gut reaction. But seeing one crawl around the house, especially one big enough to feast on some of the nastier insects that we have to deal with in the house on rare occasions (namely cockroaches), I leave it alone. Haven't you ever heard it's bad luck to kill a spider? Anyway, this film is so horrible at being a scary film that it should have a sequel that is released as a comedy. I can't believe Jeff Daniels, a very talented actor, would sign on for a film like this. Well, in any event, all good actors have their closet films that they'd rather not talk about. Michael Caine in Jaws 4, Robin Williams in License to Wed, Flubber and RV among a few others, Dennis Hopper in Meet the Deedles (ok, so I like that film just a little since I was a kid when that came out and I found it funny)...the list goes on. But I can see where the idea of spiders coming after people came from with the Sydney funnel-web spider. It is a very dangerous spider to humans and pretty much anything, and, if you come to damn close to it, it'll come after you. But, in general, spiders would much rather just sit in their webs or pursue prey than come after people. As a matter of fact, they're probably more afraid of us than we are of them. We see all sorts of silly stuff in this film, from cooky one-liners from Jeff Daniels, to spiders actually living socially and working as a unit. Why not make a film about giant ants or termites or wasps: arthropods (a term stemming from the word arthropoda, which is the phylum to which insects and arachnids belong) that actually live socially and work together as a nest. But I am insulted when AMC or some channel features this among other scary films around Halloween, trying to pass this sham off as a scary movie. It's pathetic. I'd give it a negative five out of ten if I could, but the lowest I can go is one.

Angels in the Outfield (1994)

A Great Movie Stacked With Some Stars Before They Hit It Big

[8/10 · 27 April 2008]

This movie, while seemingly based off of a movie of the same title in 1951 released by MGM and starring Janet Leigh, is still a great film. Danny Glover in one of his best performances brings George Knox, a down on his luck baseball manager with a short temper, to life. As for this movie being "stacked", how about adding Christopher Lloyd (his stage experience works and shows through in his performances on screen, a wonderful actor), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun), Brenda Fricker (a charming and well seasoned Irish actress), Tony Danza (yes even he is good in this film), Matthew McConaughey (he stole the show in Dazed and Confused, and his role may not be as pivotal in this film, but he got exposure), Adrien Brody (what I said about Matthew McConaughey goes the same for Adrien, except the Dazed and Confused part), some great character actors like Taylor Negron (David), Tony Longo (Messmer), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass) and a seasoned veteran in one of his final performances, Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy, the owner of the California Angels), and the rest of the cast does a great job, plus a great storyline that is uplifting to pretty much anyone, I don't care what recesses of depression you're in. I loved this film as a kid, and it brings back memories when I watch it today. I need this on DVD. I recommend it to any parent who's looking for something their kids have not seen, and everybody else, for that matter.

Urban Legend (1998)

Ehhh...not bad...but no sequel was necessary

[6/10 · 4 March 2008]

When this came on television the other day, I thought I'd sit back and watch it. I'm definitely one experiencing a major nostalgia for the '90s, especially the late '90s. In addition to that, I had never seen this film before, and it features two actresses I happen to like, Alicia Witt and Danielle Harris (even though Danielle's character is short lived). The acting wasn't terrible in it, but I was never really scared by this film, so points deducted there. I was, however and quite embarrassingly, stumped as to who was offing all of the people. I liked the homage to Halloween at the end with all of the dead bodies popping up inside the abandoned residence hall as the heroine comes to the aid of someone she thinks is a friend in need, when Alicia's character finds her best friend laid out on a bed in the all too familiar image that Jamie Lee Curtis saw in Halloween, and when the killer is blasted out of a top story window by someone shooting him/her out the window. And one more homage: the dead dog (killing a dog via microwave...innovative...but yuck...just in there for some shock value). The acting wasn't terrible, although I just couldn't stand Josh Jackson. He was okay in the Mighty Ducks films, but when it came to this film...uh-uh. What was with his bleached hair? Was he even thinking? Points deducted for that. Alicia Witt did a decent job of playing the heroine. And my hat goes off to the legendary Brad Dourif, playing Michael McDonnell the creepy but innocent stu-stu-stu-stuttering g-g-g-g-g-gasss st-sta-sta-station at-t-t-tendant, "Someone's in the back...SEAT!". Classic. But for the most part, the film follows many clichés that horror films have fallen into. It's almost unavoidable. But that doesn't keep this film from getting a decent rating from me: 6 out of 10.

Halloween (2007)

Michael's Back!!!

[8/10 · 3 September 2007]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Michael Myers has returned to the forefront of serial killers. Rob Zombie's re-envisioning of the 1978 film, Halloween, is definitely a grand slam. The acting is superb, whether it's Malcolm McDowell playing a more developed Dr. Loomis or whether it's Scout Taylor-Compton bringing Laurie Strode into the 21st century, the performers did a wonderful job in this film. The cinematography is very well done. The camera work (especially on the first human kill Michael performs) is superb. There isn't much on screen violence, but plenty of blood and gore to show the audience exactly how gruesome and brutal Michael's acts of violence really are. Michael is made more villainous and evil in this film, yet in the beginning, we feel sorry for the little boy of 10 who is living in a broken home, with a mother who is an exotic dancer and has a low-life and abusive boyfriend and an older sister who is promiscuous and rather mean to her younger brother. His final Halloween spent outside of a sanitarium is one of disappointment. He is left on the outside looking in on all of the other kids his age having fun trick-or-treating. Finally, he snaps and even after the brutal murders he commits on Halloween night, we still feel a little sorry for him, until he viciously stabs a nurse in Smith's Grove with a fork. From then on, it's a vicious predator waiting to get out. And even towards the end, he's not going after his little sister to kill her, rather to reunite with her. Michael has more substance to him in this film than all of the rest of the Halloweens featuring him combined. He is very much human in this film, but he's very disturbed. The music is very well done, with a lot of references to the original score for the 1978 film but with some modern day twists as well. What more can I say? This is the horror film of 2007, hands down. Michael Myers is back!!!

Perfect Strangers (1986–1993)

Bring it back on the air, PLEASE!

[8/10 · 28 July 2007]

Growing up in the mid '90s, I saw this show on Fox in the 5:00 pm time slot after Power Rangers. It sparked my interest, even though I was only about 9 years old. I am astonished that a show good enough with such lovable characters, good writing, and great comedic moments is not playing on Nick at Nite alongside its long-running spin off. If it wasn't for Perfect Strangers, Carl and Harriette Winslow wouldn't exist and Family Matters wouldn't exist. Urkel pretty much a debt to a sheepherder from a small Mediterranean isle near Greece named Balki Bartokomous and his cousin, Larry Appleton. Bronson Pinchot (I know he was a staple of the '80s) was at his best in this series. Mark Linn-Baker was also at his best in this series and with a guy like Bronson, there existed a wonderful chemistry. The writing was excellent; there was always a good story to tell with these characters. I think my favorite episode was the Thanksgiving episode where either Larry or Balki loses a ring and a turkey eats it and that turkey ends up being served for a Thanksgiving dinner and Balki and Larry frantically go around inspecting turkeys so Larry can find the ring he lost. Some of this stuff is just so funny, I can't explain it. You have to see it for yourself. Why don't they make sitcoms like this anymore?

Still Standing (2002–2006)

Still funny

[8/10 · 27 July 2007]

This is one of the funniest family sitcoms I've ever seen. It reminds me a little of Grounded for Life (another funny family sitcom), only a little less mature, so it's more family friendly, but the content is real enough to make this a credible show. It's a shame it's out of production after only four seasons. Yeah, it wasn't M*A*S*H or Full House, but it is certainly a breath of fresh air on television, and it certainly brightens my day to join the Millers in another misadventure of their everyday lives. I like Jami Gertz better in this show than any other movie or show she's done, but I don't know how I can say that because other than this show, I've only seen her in Twister, and I wasn't a big fan of Dr. Melissa Reeves, but I did empathize with her after the drive-in movie scene. Anyway, I also like Mark Addy's character as well. Bill & Judy Miller are parents that I almost wish I had. The comedy is great in this show. The lines never stop coming sometimes, and I find myself having to catch my breath from laughing so hard; it's almost like watching Robin Williams do stand-up...not really. But it's great. If it comes out on DVD, I'm totally buying it.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Not a life-changing experience

[7/10 · 20 July 2007]

I have to admit, this movie wasn't the best I've seen. I can't believe I'm saying that about a Harry Potter film because I am a fan of the books and films. The main reason why this film isn't so good and the reason why the more recent films seem to be going downhill is simply because they are trying to take 600-800 pages of story and put them into a 2-3 hour movie. It just can't be done. They have to touch on all of the essential stuff for the series in that 2-3 hours and leave out certain other details. I really think that the ending sequence at the Ministry of Magic went way too fast, and Voldemort's entrance was far less dramatic than in the fourth film. However, this film does have quite a few bright spots. Many of the actors provide great performances. Daniel, Rupert and Emma all did very well, as usual as did Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith and Emma Thompson (Prof. Trelawney). Now, as for the new faces, Evanna Lynch played Luna Lovegood very well right down to her voice as J.K. Rowling had described in the book. It was as if she was Luna Lovegood. I almost stood up and cheered when Grawp picked up Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) and when the centaurs carried her away. Imelda Staunton did a magnificent job bringing to life the very evil character that was Dolores Umbridge. I knew from when I first saw her in the scene from Harry's hearing about underage magic that I was going to really hate this character. A well done for Imelda Staunton. As for Helena Bonham Carter playing Bellatrix Lestrange, wonderfully evil. She portrayed Bellatrix with the utmost precision, and she seemed to take a few liberties as well, but they went very well with her character. Yes, there were quite a few good performances in this film and many of the special effects were very well done. I have never EVER seen an entire building expand. That was a really neat effect pretty much hearkening back to the effect of the appearance of the doorway into Diagon Alley in the first film. The battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort was another triumph of special effects and acting. While this film wasn't quite as good story wise, it certainly did well enough for a 7 out of 10 stars from me.

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie (1997)

When I was 9 I said...COOOOL...Now I say CRAAAAP

[3/10 · 8 July 2007]

I was a fan of the series even into '97. This movie made absolutely no sense. When I was 9, I thought it was cool to have a kid be a Power Panger...now I look back on it and cringe...they must've been desperate to keep people interested. And I do believe that we've already had a classic animated series in the '80s featuring cars turning into giant robots and it has a hit movie out now with Shia LaBeouf (Shia, if I spelled your name wrong, I'm sorry) called...I don't know...(cough)TRANS-(cough)-FORMERS(cough)! Bottom line, this movie would have a tough time surpassing Jaws 4...there I said it, as ashamed as I am to say it. (aside: I use Jaws 4 as a comparison to other films that are worse than bad to try and give an idea of how bad a film really is).

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1995)

Perfect if you came from the era of the original series and are feeling nostalgic

[5/10 · 8 July 2007]

Okay, I'm being extremely generous by rating this at a 5. I think I owe it to the film even now because I couldn't get enough of this stuff when I was a kid (and now I'm going through some nostalgia, because I can with the Internet and very recent technology allowing me to do so). I remember going to see the movie with my friend and his family who lived down the street. I thought this was the mecca of all films. Now, recently I've seen it, and I realized how much I have grown. If you're looking for a film that is groundbreaking and something that will touch your heart...forget about this film. But it seems fitting to make a movie about the Power Rangers, considering how much of a fan base they had and still have. I just have one big burning question—WHY PAUL FREEMAN? How the hell did such an amazing actor who played a perfectly egotistical villain in Raiders (1981) who ended up having his head exploded after opening the Ark of the Covenant end up sitting through hours of having purple cosmetics added to his face and body so he could play the chief villain named Ivan Ooze in a Power Rangers movie. Paul Freeman must have been the big name that they scored for this movie (as if the six teens and Bulk and Skull weren't big enough names), because I can't see how he could possibly have been of sound mind when he decided to do this film—no offense intended. I will give him this, though, he did have a rather good performance...he was over the top...but of course that's how Ivan Ooze is. I wonder why they decided to begin the Power Rangers: Turbo series with another film? As if this film wasn't bad enough, they had to go and make a second Power Rangers film, when the series was starting to get tired (despite many changes happening all the time). I'm quite surprised that it's still going on today fifteen years after it first began. But this film has nostalgic sentimental value to almost anyone who went through their childhood in the early '90s, so it's not like Jaws 4 or a movie of the week. Enjoy revisiting your childhood.

Village of the Damned (1995)

Pretty Good Friggin Film

[8/10 · 24 April 2007]

From the moment the movie started with that tension-building music...I was hooked. These kids mean business. Christopher Reeve had an amazing performance, as usual. Kirstie Alley was okay in this film, but it wasn't an award-winning performance. Mark Hamill did a good job with his character, the minister. Now, on to the children. The standout performances had to have been Lindsey Haun and Thomas Dekker. Lindsey Haun did a wonderful job playing the ruthless leader...and she was only 11. "You can't stop us, you know. Don't try." I loved it. And Thomas delivers a heart-warming and sometimes tear-jerking performance (I may be exaggerating a little there), but for an 8 year old (at the time) how can you say his performance wasn't any less than what it should have been for this film and for the character he had to play, and the ending of the film leaves you thinking. All the children are gone, except David (Thomas Dekker). Mara had always said only the fittest survive, and David was the last of the children...he survived. The music left some unresolved tension at the end...is David REALLY not "one of them", or was this his survival technique...blend in, show emotion and sneak in through the back door? That was the best part of this film is it leaves you thinking...which is a very common staple for a John Carpenter film...have an ending that leaves loose ends and leaves people thinking about the movie and try to come up with their own resolution, instead of doing the thinking for them. That's why I give John Carpenter's Village of the Damned 8 out of 10 stars.

Friday the 13th: Part 3 (1982)

Mediocre and predictable

[5/10 · 14 April 2007]

I wasn't expecting a masterpiece when I decided to watch this film and my expectations were, for the most part, met precisely. The opening sequence (excluding the ending from Friday the 13th: Part II which was put in there originally to remind people in the theaters of what happened last time since the movie hadn't been released on VHS) is slow and builds tension. It was the best part of the whole movie. It was then that I thought..."hey, maybe this movie isn't going to be so bad after all." The tension buildup was agonizing. I knew the couple was going to buy it...it was a question of when. From there, it seemed the movie just lost the road and came down the embankment. The only somewhat lovable character that anyone has any sympathy for is Chris...and seeing how she turned out at the end of the movie seemed to make sense after all she'd been through, but since the movie sucked it probably would've been more appropriate to have Chris traumatized but not a babbling laughing lunatic. After the opening sequence, typical slasher/splatter movie format takes over. Semi-likable characters, some with unusual talents or personalities (all the better to kill them with), simply there because they're going to be killed. What was up with Shelly. Did he turn out that way because he was named Shelly? I'd be bitter toward my parents if they had named me Shelly. The homage to Psycho (and I took it as somewhat of an homage to Halloween, too, after all Steve Miner was directing and he went on to direct Halloween H20) where the guy gets killed while going downstairs to get a beer for his girlfriend after having sex with her. The homage to Psycho comes with her in the shower. And what was up with the biker gang, and the big black dude, who was the leader, at the end seemingly coming back to life to get back at Jason right when he's going to kill Chris? That was messed up. And why, when she had the opportunity at the end with the ax, wouldn't Chris just chop Jason's head off!!! I'd gladly do it if I was in her position. If some lunatic comes after me in an attempt to kill me, he'd better hope he gets the job done, that's all I'm saying. Overall...I give it a 5 out of 10 since it, in a few small ways, exceeded my expectations.

Wish Upon a Star (1996 TV Movie)

Excellent

[9/10 · 11 April 2007]

The first time I saw this was on the Disney Channel when I was laying on the couch, got sick at school so I had to leave, and this movie came on...it was the most random thing...but I decided to sit and watch it, since everyone else was also being pulled in by it. This was where I first recognized Danielle Harris as an adorable and talented actress...I fell in love with Hayley...I say to myself, "I'd ask her out. Who cares about the dirt under her fingernails or her gum chewing." I also first recognized the talent of Katherine Heigl in this film. I was certainly impressed with her. I loved how the filmmakers accentuate the differences between the two girls by using the difference in height, music interest, academic performance, and other obvious things. The cast overall did a wonderful job...there were some cheesy moments, but that's pretty much a given, aside from that...good story, wonderful performances (I liked the parents, as well; I even asked my parents if they'd try the "hands off" method, lol), and some good music (which I can't find, why can't I find this music?). This film is perfect for the family to sit down, watch and enjoy (and I rarely have good things to say about family-friendly films). 9.2 out of 10.