Virgil2127 Reviews

Van Helsing (2004)

A Not-So-Magnificent Failutre

[5/10 · 16 May 2006]

Stephen Sommers made "The Mummy", once just Boris Karloff cashing in on the Egyptology craze, cool again, injecting a campy sensibility into the fun summer flick. Were he only as succeessful in "Van Helsing" as he was in "The Mummy", and heck, even the mediocre "Mummy Returns".

What's not working in Van Helsing? Well, first the titular character has no descernable connection to Abraham Van Helsing, one of Dracula's primary foes in the Bram Stoker novel. I'm convinced Hugh Jackman was born to play Wolverine, but the same cannot be said about Van Helsing - both heroes don't know their past, but with Van Helsing, no one really seems to care.

Kate Beckinsale is a tremendously beautiful and gifted actress. Unfortunately, she's saddled with a thick Translyvanian accent that would give Bela Lugosi a run for his money. About midway through the film, Beckinsale seems so frustrated with the consistency of the accent, she seems to just drop it - which is a considerable mercy.

The same can be said of the film's werewolf - it begins life an fearsome and furry CGI creation, but by the end, the producers don't seem to be trying, and the werewolf, much like the movie, seems to be in full video game mode. By now, the werewolf has lost most of its physical weight and all of its bite.

Roxbough's Dracula and his brides seem to be bi-polar. Apparently realized he's no Gary Oldman, Roxbough compensates by freaking out a lot. He's not really that scary.

Igor looks like Gary Busey. He's really that scary.

So what is working in this film? David Wenham's Carl, Van Helsing's aid. And that's really the only reason this film got a high a rating as it did.

Cursed (2005)

An Uneven Thriller That Loses Much Potential

[5/10 · 22 June 2005]

First off, I apologize for the use of spoilers. As a college movie critic, its usually not my style to use spoilers, but I believed it was the best way to analyze this film. For those who haven't seen the movie and are still curious, I will provide advance warning before I actually use a spoiler.

The basic jist is that Cursed isn't a bad movie . . . its just a very confused one. The beginning is scary, and the first third attempts to keep up that tension. However, the middle throws all signs of scariness out the window, as the film becomes more comedy than horror. However, a little humor is always welcome, until the climax, where the movie becomes a scatterbrained mess. The villain (in pre-werewolf form) monlogues a great deal, and is killed in a way that is both hilarious and rather stupid. Luckily, the movie's post-climax is better, but still not up to par with most werewolf movies.

Unlike Scream, Cursed embraces its horror movie heritage instead of ridiculing it. The beginning looks like someone cut the opening for "The Wolf Man" and dropped it in the middle of Hollywood. Someone even uses the silver cane from "The Wolfman" to fight a werewolf. The movie also makes references to films like "American Werewolf in London" with a moon-filled soundtrack, and perhaps even "Teen Wolf", as one of the cursed characters becomes quite an athlete.

SPOILERS The movie's thesis tells us what to expect, but the unrated "Cursed" promotes a heavily violent horror fare. Shannon Elizabeth isn't just mauled by the beast and dragged away. Instead, her still-alive torso is thrust back. This scene is extremely effective, depicting Elizabeth's fearful last few moments. Unfortunately, we don't ever really see a gore scene like this again. Most other victims in the movie are just like Jack in the beginning of "American Werewolf in London" - bloodily cut up, but not really visceral, and that's really the problem in Craven's execution . . . its really just as bloody, brutal or even scary as the first scene leads us to expect.

SPOILERS Jake (Joshua Jackson)is also a mess of a character. As I understand it, the character underwent heavy rewrites, and said changes was eventually one of the reasons actor Skeet Urich eventually left the cast altogether. Jake is revealed to be the master werewolf, who was born with the curse, and can somehow control it. He doesn't seem like that bad of guy, really, until the end of the movie, when he spontaneously wants to kill the cursed male, a scrawny little teenager. Somehow Jake, a werewolf of twenty-some years, feels threatened by a teenaged pre-werewolf, and a fight ensues. The scene is intense and interesting, but doesn't really make much sense, and not only wastes a good character, but the very mythology of the film. How does Jake control the curse? How does he live with it? As a result, we'll never really know.

The movie isn't a bad rental, but its not even a good one either. It just is. Watch it for camp value and a few isolated scenes of good humor and scares, and then move on. Other than that, there's nothing really to see it.

The Night Strangler (1973 TV Movie)

A Worthy, If Not Superior, Follow-Up to the Night Stalker

[9/10 · 5 June 2005]

Before I begin, two things should be noted. 1) I got into Kolchalk not from the first Made-For-TV movie, but from watching re-runs of the 1974 television series, which somehow immediately entranced me and 2) the review that follows immediately follows both the Night Stalker and the Night Strangler sandwiched immediately in front of a typical dreadful horror movie.

I didn't have high hopes for The Night Strangler. It definitely doesn't have as good of title as the prior, and I always figured the Strangler was more of an after-thought on the DVD instead of a full feature. Luckily, The Night Strangler totally exceeded my every expectation.

After the events of "The Night Stalker", maverick night reporter Carl Kolchak once again finds himself in the employ of Tony Vincenzio, working a hot murder case. This time a string of women have been strangled to death by a seemingly dead man. Coupled with the loss of blood seen in every murder, the trend is enough to catch Carl's eye. No worries though. This time the culprit isn't a vampire. Instead, its an alchemist seeking immortality.

Yeah, you can see why I was having doubts about this.

Surprisingly, I found the story beared a great deal in common with a more recent novel I read, "The Cabinent of Curosities" by Lincoln Child and Douglas Preston (the same team that wrote "The Relic"). Given Kolchak's own place in pop culture and the fact that the teleplay was once again written by sci-fi legend Richard Matheson, I'm not really surprised that the possibility of the two writers borrowing the concept from this source exists.

The Night Strangler is a much more effective adversary than the vampiric Night Stalker. You won't see the Night Strangler sneaking up on Carl . . . he blends too well into the shadows and moves like a shade himself. There's also a verbal interchange with the Night Strangler and Carl Kolchak, something I found lacking the previous installment.

Ultimately, The Night Strangler is much more comfortable with its characters than "The Night Stalker". The banter between Kolchak, his love interest and Vincenzio is much more well-rounded, although I do miss a few elements from "The Night Stalker", including Kolchak's voice-overs, which is here replaced by nonetheless hilarious dialogue.

Any fan of Kolchak should definitely check this one out, and the same goes for both nostalgic fans and perhaps new ones trying to get a sneak peek at Stuart Townsend's crack at the franchise this fall (Yes, the idea seems dreadful to me right now). Regardless, the film isn't to be missed by horror fans of every caliber!

Deathwatch (2002)

"Its not bloody Shakesphere"

[5/10 · 4 June 2005]

"Death Watch" walks a very fine line while taking itself far too seriously, especially considering the bleak backdrop of WWI under which the movie is set. I watched this film sheerly under the recommendation of its horror-military genre connection to "Dog Soldiers". With that said, if you are looking for something like "Dog Soldiers", please do not watch this movie. They are too very different animals.

Which isn't to say "Death Watch" is bad purely on the grounds that it is not "Dog Soldiers". "Death Watch" is a very taunt and atmospheric movie, and the surreal and gritty layout of the text make us fear attack from any direction.

The film follows a group of British soldiers who capture a German trench and then attempt to hold the trench in the wake of not only an incompetent officer, but also a series of inexplicably strange events that push all involved to the edge of sanity. Soon, a rookie soldier, nick-named Shakespeare, begins to wonder if his squad is being driven insane by isolation and shell-shock, or something far more sinister.

Every man in Y-Company seems to have some sort of defining flaw. Shakespeare's flaw seems to be his cowardice. But instead of endearing this character to our own insecurities, the filmmakers only succeed in push Shakespeare away from us with his perpetual whininess. No one else is given as much due as Shakespeare. Other characters live and die in a heartbeat, without too much grief, but Shakespeare seems to be set up to be the emotional weight of the story, which the script ironically seems downright afraid to achieve.

As mentioned above, the movie walks a very fine line. It takes itself at times far too seriously, with no real breaks in between for relief and only little more for laughter. Soon, the bloody plights of the soldiers are played for cheap thrills, and the end result feels more than a little shoddy for exploiting the horror of World War One for such aims.

The mystery of the trench never lets up, even after the final shot. You leave the movie with an idea of what happened, but like most things in this movie, very little else. This isn't to say the movie isn't worth seeing - its scary and very moody, and a far cry from generic Hollywood horror. But by the same merit, this movie isn't something to go out of your war for. Despite all this movie has to offer, between atmosphere and suspense, there's no real payback in sight, at least on the Western Front.

Man-Thing (2005)

The Wrong Way to Adapt Marvel

[3/10 · 6 May 2005]

"Man-Thing" isn't a bad movie in the way that most Sci-Fi Pictures Original are. I know this because one of my favorite movies, "Dog Soldiers", suffered from the label of "Sci-Fi Pictures Original". Like "Dog Soldiers", "Man-Thing" is more than meets the eye - a slick Lion Gates film meant for theatrical release and dropped into the straight-to-video stack. Unlike "Dog Soldiers", "Man-Thing" really isn't that good.

"Man-Thing" is based on a Marvel comic book. The character was pretty much the precursor to DC Comics' hit "Swamp Thing" . . . the two are actually almost entirely identical. The difference is "Swamp Thing" eventually boasted the writing of Alan Moore and went on to make comic book history, leaving "Man-Thing" in the mothballs of comic book obscurity . . . until now . . . where its been resigned to the mothballs of movie history.

The problem is that "Man-Thing" isn't as much as movie about the Man-Thing as "Blade" is a movie about Blade. Instead, "Man-Thing" is about a bunch of flat stock characters who stumble around the grotesque swamp denzien for the duration of the movie.

In the comic book, Ted Sallis is a scientist-turned-monster who was transformed into a green pile of gobley-gook while trying to recreate the serum that first produced Captain America. The Man-Thing is a tragic figure who protects his swamp with a vague grasp of semi-intelligence. Unfortunately, all those who "fear" burn at the touch of the Man-Thing.

The problem with "Man-Thing" is that Ted Sallis' transformation is hardly addressed. We don't get a feel for the tragic soul at the heart of the material, and the very heart of most Marvel pictures. Instead, we just get a bumbling booger-covered Spawn who kills all people, innocent or not, when they enter the swamp at night. While never as poignant as Moore's Swamp Thing, the Man-Thing has been sadly reduced to the level of slasher horror.

The CGI looks very good, in comparison with the rest of Sci-Fi's latest offerings. The movie I watched with intercut with commercials of Sci-Fi's "The Fallen Ones", which showed poorly animated 42-foot mummies lumbering around, so I could see the difference rather easily. The Man-Thing looks particularly good in comparison. It is comforting to see that, at least on an aethetic sense, the filmmakers have stayed true to the look of the character, but not the spirit.

Over all, it was probably a good thing "Man-Thing" wasn't released to theaters. The only thing was would burn as a result of the Man-Thing's touch there would be eight bucks for a ticket, not the audience's fear.

Earthsea (2004–2005)

Devoid of Le Guin's Social Context

[14 December 2004]

To be fair, "The Legend of Earthsea" isn't horrible. It crisply adapts Le Guin's powerful novels in a way that is adequate for a Sci-Fi Movie-of-The-Week. However, it clearly lacks the power of Sci-Fi's more hyped projects, like "Children of Dune" or "Battlestar Galataca". Thus, the results are stacked somewhere between adequate and mediocre.

The main problem with the production lies in that the show's producers evidently see the relation between Le Guin's Earthsea and the landmarks of fantastical fiction that followed it. Most notably, the Rourke School of Wizardry obviously draws a connection to Harry Potter's Hogwarts. (Take note, the first Earthsea book was written in 1968, so there is hardly a chance Le Guin is infringing on any actual Rowling territory). Immediately picking up on this, the movie depicts Jasper, the school rival of the protagonist Ged, as a carbon copy of Draco Malfoy - the blonde aristocrat with a constantly snobbish demeanor. This just isn't how it went in the original novel. In Leguin's "A Wizard of Earthsea", Jasper was one of Ged's friend who eventually outgrew the young wizard, eventually picking on Ged in order to appease the older crowd he hung out with. But "Legend of Earthsea" clearly makes Jasper out to be a clear-cut foil instead of a three dimensional character.

Other changes include making the barbaric Kargs more or less the stereotypical "evil kingdom", complete with an evil king with plans of . . . yes . .. world domination. He actually says "All of Earthsea will be mine!" Please. To paraphrase Le Guin, she wrote about "real people with real problems in imaginary places". The movie clearly undercuts such intentions, making a story that is only devoid of Le Guin's social statements on race and gender roles. In addition, the many original insights that haunted Le Guin's passages only lingers weakly in the frames of this soon-to-be-forgotten bumble.

**

Around the World in 80 Days (2004)

A Strong Second Act Barely Redeems Trainwrecked Opening

[12 November 2004]

Most movies fall apart in the end, but "Around the World in 80 Days" pretty much collapses upon the weight of its colorful wheels in darn near the first frame. Hardly a straight-forward adaptation of the classic Jules Vernes movie, the movie leans heavily on Jackie Chan's character "Passporttout", so much so that it manages to lose sight of Jules Vernes' eccentric protagonist, Phileas Fogg, for the first half of the film. Indeed, Fogg (excellently portrayed by Steven Coogan) bumbles about for the first half, appearing entirely confused through most of the scenes, and nonetheless hilarious for it. Only after Passporttout's sub-plot is resolved in China does the movie seem to realize that yes, this is the story of a inventor waging a bet to travel the globe in 80 days, and no, this is not the tale of a displaced Chinese wanderer trying to reclaim a Jade Buddha statue.

The movie seems to come together more coherently in the second half, but by then the damage is already done. Unlike previous Chan-based team-ups, Steve Coogan's character seems much less a full focus of the story. While his wry sense of delivery is probably the movie's saving grace, we don't feel he is the balancing presence Owen Wilson or Chris Tucker was in other movies. This is a shame, because I think a compromise could have been reached between Fogg's story and Passporttout's sub-plot, instead of the two constantly struggling over one another for control of the movie.

Still, there is a good number of slap-stick martial arts, well-timed one-liners and a steady stream of cameos ranging from Arnold himself to Kathy Bates as the Queen of England. But all of this can only do so much to counter the movie's noisy and conflated opening.

6/10

I, Robot (2004)

Much Better Than Expected

[8/10 · 22 July 2004]

"I, Robot" suffers from an advertisement campaign that makes the movie out to be a major deviation from the Issac Asimov source material. The trailers show footage of a sneaky and sinister robot, and main characters Dectective Spooner (Will Smith) and Doctor Calvin (Bridget Moynahan) fighting off hordes upon hordes of logic-driven madcap robots. These trailers have a reverse effect on the audience. While it might woo some with its many CGI shots and slick action sequences, the trailers seem to almost spit in the face of Issac Asmiov readers everywhere. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately for the trailer editors), this movie isn't everything the trailer is cracked up to be. Its more.

Director Alex Proyas delievers a solid action movie that pays homage to the spirit of I, Robot. In Asmiov's key title, robots are bound to three laws, prohibiting disobediance and harm to humans while also enabling the robots to protect endangered humans. Asmiov's "I, Robot" focuses on the motives and events that lead a robot to disobey the three laws and commit murder. Proyas' "I, Robot" is a grander, more action-oriented, plot, in which Detective Spooner investigates the mysterious death of prominent robotics engineer Alfred Lannings (James Cromwell), whom Spooner shares an engimatic connection with. The chief suspect is a robot named "Sonny". But, of course, its not that simple. The leading robotics company is on the verge of the largest distribution in history, and Spooner's investigation is hampered at all turns by both corporate naysayers and his own sense of paranoia and prejudice.

The robot "Sonny" quite literally steals the movie, ironically. The center of Proyas' complex plot, he is also far more adept in displaying emotions than Smith or Moynahan. "Sonny" is the closest character to Asmiov's dream. Smith, to his credit, carries himself with the brisk gusto of a Raymond Chandler P.I., but he often lacks the cool manner of Marlowe to really be counted as effective. His relationship with robotics psychologist Calvin seems flat at worst and obligatory at best.

"I, Robot" is directed, produced and written with action sci-fi flicks like "Minority Report", "Paycheck" and the grand-daddy of them all, "The Matrix", in mind. It should be noticed that Alex Proyas directed a lesser-known science fiction movie, "Dark City", with similar twists and turns as "The Matrix", a year or two before the latter opened in theaters. I could feel Proyas was really reaching for as much homage to Asimov as possible, but I could also tell he was playing to an summer popcorn movie audience. In conclusion, "I, Robot" isn't a movie that will have Issac Asmiov turning in his grave, but it is a far cry from the script he and fellow sci-fi great Harlian Elison envisioned thirty years before. "I, Robot" is nested comfortably between truly great science fiction adaptations, like "2001: A Space Odyssey", and truly bad science fiction adaptations, like "Starship Troopers".

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)

More "downs" than "ups"

[6/10 · 13 June 2004]

(Unavoidable SPOILERS)

The follow-up to the moderately popular "Pitch Black", a movie that first introduced audiences to the deep-voiced Vin Diesel, "Chronicles of Riddick" tries to show off more of its richly stylized science fiction universe. Unfortunately, like a smoke and mirrors magician, many parts of this story are for show only.

To compare this movie to the works of Lucas, Roddenberry or even Tolkien is a grave injustice. I didn't see this movie expecting to be enbroiled in a deeply thoughtful plot. I planned to watch a fun action flick, and even for that, I was still a little disappointed. Part of the problem with Chronicles of Riddick is this universe isn't fully-realized, so the quirks, motivations and even physical abilities of certain characters remain in question throughout the entire movie. For example, the dreaded villain of the piece is Lord Marshall (Colm Feore). He has journey too and from a never-explained religious concept known as "Underverse". His character remains an engima at best from start to finish. The only part of his personality we are familiar with is his arrogance, which allows two of his underlings to scheme about his demise Macbeth-style. His powers are also wickedly undefined. He can move like the Flash on acid and also has the awful ability to rip out people's souls. This inability to define Marshall's power makes fighting him a real pain in the last scene.

The only time this movie really succeeds is when the movie's title character, Riddick, is allowed to be Riddick. Whether when he's fighting Marshall's Necromongers or slacking off in a prison, his character is nevertheless endearing in his solitary independence and intelligence. Thus, the first three-forths of the film is filled with Riddick's daredevil deeds and his non-chalant reactions to his situation. Riddick is joined by Kira (Alexa Davalos), a girl who posed as a boy named Jack in "Pitch Black", and who entirely idolizes Riddick. Kira is a sexy and energetic re-tooling of a previous character, although I actually question the need to change her name from Jack to Kira. The name of Jack gave her an interesting sense of sexual ambigouity. Here, as Kira, her identity is definitely female but nevertheless conflicted.

With the exception of Dame Judi Dench, every member of the supporting cast who has a chance to out-act or out-stage Diesel dies by the end of the film. Thus, the respectful supporting cast of this film is nearly decimated by the film's end. Since this is done so much, we really don't full anger for Lord Marshall or sadness for Riddick. We just feel really numb. And that's what makes the pseudo-cliffhanger even more questionable. How is this movie expected to lift itself into a franchise when so many of the characters are dead? Riddick is a fine character, and I would love to see him in another film, so long as it doesn't resemble this one.

2 out of 4

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Brilliant in short, abrupt as whole

[4 June 2004]

If you do end up watching this film in the presence of friends, its best to either warn them of the colorful off-beat premise or feign complete and total ignorance. When I told my friend he had just rented a film about Elvis Presley fighting the Mummy in a nursing home alongside an African-American JFK...well...let's just say he was less than thrilled.

Bubba Ho-Tep is written by East Texas mojo master Joe R. Lansdale and directed by Don Coscarelli of Phantasm fame. The movie is brilliant in its social commentary but seriously lacking in its explanation. Yes, it is extremely true that the audience will already have a large helping of suspension of disbelief through the very act of agreeing to see this film, but Don Coscarelli seems to take too much for granted through this principle.

Elvis, played by the delightful camp classic Bruce Campbell, is in a nursing home, sleeping off his days with a possible tumor on one of his unmentionables. The only person potentially worse off than him is Jack (Ossie Davis), who contends he is none other than John F. Kennedy, dyed black with sand substituting for a missing part of his brain. When Elvis explains that the apparent culprit of this crime, Lyndon B. Johnson, is dead, Jack gleefully exclaims "That won't stop him!". Soon, several of the other occupants drop dead, and Elvis and Jack are thrust into a battle with a Mummy than has been reanimated by a nearby bus collision.

A big problem is that Bubba Ho-Tep's plot is further muddled by things neither Don Coscarelli nor Joe Lansdale fully explain. Why does Elvis share the memories of the Mummy? They occur to him like Baz Luherman's version of "The Dead Zone", complete with jackhammer presentation. This ruins the first appearance of the monster, as scene in which the grim visage of the Mummy walks past the King of Rock and Roll would have been effective and downright creepy, if it wasn't hindered by blast after blast of unexplained images.

The main advantage of "Bubba Ho-Tep" is its keen eye on social commentary. The first victim of most horror films is usually an impulsive bratty teenagers who is doing something he or she shouldn't be doing. The twist on "Bubba Ho-Tep" is that, for once, the victim isn't a young whippersnapper, but quite opposite, a self-indulgent granny who steals everything in sight. "Let's get decadent," Jack bursts out in another scene, as he reveals to Elvis a secret stash of chocolate snacks. "Decadence" in horror flicks is usually sex-related, like a couple of kids making out on Lover's Lane, with the killer watching from the bushes. Here its two old men enjoying a forbidden sugar craving, as virtually every other form of pleasure and freedom has been denied.

Ultimately, the film doesn't really expand upon its themes or commentary. The end result provide closure but not satisfaction. We want more, dammit! But like the ill-fated granny in the beginning, perhaps we're not supposed to. Perhaps we're only supposed to make best with what we're given, less we end up like the King himself, wasting away in the final days of regret. A destined cult classic, and an original regardless of comment, "Bubba Ho-Tep" is probably peerless.

7/10

Troy (2004)

reminiscent of the big-budget epics of the past...for good or ill.

[9/10 · 19 May 2004]

"Troy" is the Hollywood story of Homer's Illiad. The film is only inspired by Homer's epic poem, and thus makes several major changes to the source material. Most noticeable is the gods, or the lack thereof. In Homer's book, gods fought the battle alongside men, fighting each other although, unlike their Norse counterparts, none of the them could die. Could gods be put into Troy? Probably, but it would add another hundred million to Wolfgang Petersen's budding epic, which is already costing almost two hundred million dollars.

So the gods aren't in it. Petersen has decided to focus on the people fighting the war instead of the gods watching it. This is both a curse and a blessing, as several characters have removed while others have been changed to suit the Hollywood image. Gone is Cassandra, the Trojan seer who predicted the city's fall.There is a theory among literary critics that Homer, possibly a former soldier (no one knows if Homer ever existed), wrote the powerful Greek warrior Achilles to serve as the antithesis of everything he despised in the military. While Achilles is seen as wrathful in this epic, some of more controversial nature has been removed from the film. When Achilles beheads a statue of Apollo (something that spells doom on most cases anyway), the film makes Achilles out to be making social commentary, not arrogantly showing his meglomanical tendencies, as he was in the poem.

Thankfully, some characters aren't changed. The Trojan Hector, played brilliant by Eric Bana, is what some literary critics believe to represents Homer's ideal soldiers, a respectful veterans who serves his country, loves his wife and pays homage to the gods. This one character focuses the audience's sympathy for the Trojan situation, even though it was Hector's whiney brother Paris who first brought the Spartan queen Helen to Troy in the first place. Orlando Bloom's Paris is another character that wasn't changed too much from the book. A flawed character, Paris doesn't share his brother's affection for the military, choosing to service his country better bedside, with as many women flocking to him. Still, Paris tries to do the right thing, and his duel with Helen's former husband Menelaus, although not performed in the poem, reinforces our notions of Paris' deeply flawed by somewhat likable character. Finally, the other factor that focuses the audience sympathy away from the Greeks is Brian Cox's Agamemnon, Menelaus' brother and chief overlord of the Greek fleet. He brings a darker notion to the war, for while some believe the Trojan war was fought over love, Agamemnon openly admits his invasion of Troy is just another power play. Brian Cox delivers performance that is, as usually, his talent, menacing, comical and playful all at once.

Of course, probably the most notable character in this tragedy is "the face that launched a thousand ship", Helen of Troy. Diane Kruger is certainly beautiful, and her presence adds a sort of old fashion Hollywood starlet mystique to the role. That said, her scenes are few and the romance between her and Paris seems oddly contrived at best. Still, as a beautiful actress, she does succeed in convincing us that her beauty, in a mythical sense, could spark an epic war.

Peter O'Toole is a magnificent joy in this film, playing Priam, the aged king of Troy. Only Eric Bana seems fully capable of standing his ground with this wondrous actor. When Priam mysteriously appears in the tent of Achilles, I suddenly became aware that Brad Pitt, for all his talent, could barely stand beside or against Lawerence of Arabia. Thus, Achilles becomes the sully and stolid warrior in this scene, not because it is called for in the script, but because I am convinced that any emotional outburst from Pitt would be dwarfed in comparison to O'Toole's scene.

The reason the Illiad is such a hard concept to grasp is because ultimately it isn't a story about happy endings. In the original story, only two characters really live to see a brighter day. While the death toll isn't quite that high in the movie (although it is close), thankfully these two characters have roles in the film. The first is something of a footnote to the movie. He only has a cameo, and one line, but Aeneas, survivor of Troy, will go on to found Troy in the Illiad's "spin-off", Virgil's Aenid. The second characters has thankfully large part. Sean Bean (Boromir in "Lord of the Rings) plays the one man Achilles respects: Odysseus. Although his scenes are a bit fewer than others, Bean's Odysseus maintains a consistent role in the film. Odysseus is the clever warrior that solves his quarrels through brains rather than brawn, and we see this through Odysseus' use of rhetoric to mediate and master the roles of Agaemmenon and Achilles. Although a small role compared to Pitt and Cox, Bean seems to have the best lines and the best character in my opinion. His narration, although sparse, provides a comparable book end for the film, at the beginning and end.

Troy is reminiscent of big budget "cast of thousand" epics of Hollywood times' past. Ironically, these types of movies were almost the death of some studios, as their elaborate budgets sometimes flopped at the box office. Troy is a brilliant masterpiece in the Hollywood library, but as far as adaptations go, it could have been better and it could have been a lot worse. The film isn't without its flaws, but its epic direction and brilliant actors gloss over the problems, considerably hacking the three hour movie into a sweeping and sprawling epic that commands both our attention and imagination.

***1/2

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003–2010)

Near Perfect Balance

[6 March 2004]

The new TMNT is closer to the comics, but still complete with irrevent humor and fun. The series creators have definately made the series not only an ode to the comic book source, but seem to have made many other references to the comic books that doubtlessly influences Laird and Eastman.

The animation style is somewhere between Men in Black and Batman: The Animated Series, and while not as stylized as either of the two, is functional and adaquate. The action sequences are the main draw, when they are allowed to really gain momentum.

There are a lot of twists and turns in this story, and it should appeal to fans of both the comic and 80's cartoon. The only problem I have with the series is when the cartoon takes a detour spanning 6+ episodes in the middle of a crucial storyline. Take my word for it: beware when the Turtles go into space. While chuck full of one or two Star Wars references, its frustrating to consider the forces at work for the rest of the storyline, on Earth, stopping while the Turtles are off fight outer-space triceratops.

Overall, a good show, and the current highlight of my Saturday mornings. ***1/2

Dracula 2000 (2000)

Almost Good

[5 March 2004]

There's an interesting twist in this movie, and you should be able to spot it if you pay close attention to the connection between the properties of silver and the Bible. Unfortunately, the writers really don't use this twist to its full advantage. On one hand, it adds new depth to Dracula, but the other hand, it doesn't really do much for the character at hand. The movie just uses this as a simple, clear-cut motivation - "This is why I'm evil." They don't really explore this principal, which has the potiential to be fascinating, if done right.

The cast is actually well-done, boasting both solid actors like Christopher Plummer and Gerald Butler, but at the same time throwing in recognizable sci-fi faces like Jonny Lee Miller (Hackers) and Jeri Ryan (Star Trek Voyager). Another problem is this movie is bascially a typical horror movies with characters moving too quickly for us to care either about their personality or their safety, striking all the wrong notes along the way. They flee the monsters by running AWAY from the crowded Flordia streets, seeking shelter deep within the isolated woods, and even, at one point, within a cemetary crypt! Wes Craven, producer of the movie, shook up the horror genre with Scream, but this movie falls into the paper-thin plot holes that latter brilliantly criticized.

Potiential Spoiler



There is one final note I'd like to about the Biblical identity of Dracula. This isn't the first work to tie vampires into Judeo- Christian lore. I've seen fallen angels are vampires, the Mark of Cain as vampires as well as the kin of Lilith as vampires. Standing alone, as this plot twist does, it achieves little for the story other than a good reaccounting of the original Biblical story. I think shouldn't have been a plot twist. It should have been presented to us in the beginning, or in media res, and spent the subsequent ninety-nine minutes upon the development of this idea, rather than merely declaring this notion to be brilliant.

Volcano High (2001)

The Antidote to All Things Matrix

[8/10 · 21 December 2003]

Don't get me wrong. It was "The Matrix" who first inspired mainstream interest in anime, kung fu flicks and Eastern philosophies. But it was also "The Matrix" that brought an all too somber and humorless trend seen works such as the subsequent Matrix sequels and "Underworld".

"Volcano High" is a welcome relief from this trend. One of the key point that makes "Volcano High" so enjoyable is that it pokes fun at the anime genre at times, instead of trying to emulate it. Now, I know the experience of anime can be very thoughtful and rewarding, but anime, like all genres, and all things, has its flaws, and I believe "Volcano High" catches upon these points. This ranges from the quasi-slapstick-Benny Hill humor that is injected for cheap laughs, to the pseudo-"intensity" brought by a character screaming as he jumps...and plumments...out the window.

The story of Volcano High isn't the greatest, but it makes the most of the 99 minute plotline. Main character Kim has a nasty element involving a dive into a tank filled with electric eels. Kim is able to channel telekinetic ablities, although he has little control over them. After eight failed high school experiences, Kim lands on the doorstep of Volcano High.

It isn't exactly clear what kind of school "Volcano High" is. I was expecting some sort of Japanese take on Xavier's School For Gifted Youngsters, but that wasn't exactly the case. The end result falls around "Ninja High School" but short of Harry Potter's "Hogwarts". Its clear the students possess martial arts mastery up to the "Crouching Tiger" level, but students with Kim's telekinetic banter are few and far between.

Although Kim isn't the only one. The lead student is able to charge similar abilities with far greater control. Unfortunately, this student is framed in a power struggle, as the Vice Principal leads a coup. The Vice Principal calls in several sinister substitutes, one of whom is Kim's tormentor, possessing similar telekinetics as well. Soon Kim, the pathetic yet lovable loser still struggling to find his place in the school, is caught up in the Vice Principal's wicked plans and rebellious students trying to clear their leader's name.

Perhaps "telekinetics" are too vague or too cliche a description of Kim's power. Kim's domain lies over the incident that sparked his powers...water, and bits of matter spray in magnificent explosions every time Kim is set off. This isn't the the Jedi Force of Star Wars, nor is it the reality-bending stunts of the Matrix, but instead an original yet satisfying medium between the two.

I won't say "Volcano High" easily competes in a line between the original

Star Wars, the original Matrix, and a host of anime titles, but I easily recommend it to fans of all of the above. Although I don't know about the avaliabity of this version, I do recommend the MTV-dubbed version, which features the voices of Mya, Method Man, Andre 3000, Tracy Morgan and Pat Morita. I'm not a fan of any person previously mentioned...well...okay...maybe Pat Morita. However, the Americanized version succeeds in something rarely done by most foreign dubs...making the characters within more sympathetic and identifiable.

"Volcano High" isn't perfect, but it easily ranks above the guilty pleasure list. All and all, it has its ups and downs. Kim's conversation with the lead student leads to a "Dark City"-esque training simulation, but Kim's fight with his wicked tormentor drags on way too long. Still, its a good enough movie that fans of the genre will be impressed and even casual viewers will be amused.

Recommended 8 out 10

(Special Thanks to Luke for the viewing of this movie)