Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part II

This is a continuation of Movies You Just Watched Discussion...

Now that you have recovered the thread, can't you unlock it and continue?

I'm just afraid that it'll break again.

What, you don't like sequels?

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN
(First Viewing)

A good continuation in the NARNIA series but a little too fast-paced for me. Right after the opening credits begin the children are already thrust back into Narnia without much of a "how you doin?" Not as good as the original.

NATIONAL TREASURE 2: BOOK OF SECRETS 1/2
(First Viewing)

Definitely a lot better than the original. More humor, a bigger role for Harvey Keitel, and I feel Ed Harris did a better job at being the villain than Sean Bean did in the first installment. I haven't heard anything to this affect but I'd love to see a third one now.

INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
(Nth Viewing)

Just gearing up for INDIANA JONES IV later on this week and figured I owed myself a rewatch of the trilogy. I know many believe this is the best Jones of the bunch and while I can't really argue too much against that point, for me personally, THE LAST CRUSADE does it. Everybody did a fantastic job to make this a classic. I can't imagine anyone else other than Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones. The directing by Steven Spielberg is dead on as is the music. Paul Freeman was extremely enjoyable as Dr. Rene Belloq.

INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984) - ****

I know now, and perhaps always did, that RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is the best picture of that franchise, and a perfect masterpiece of action cinema.

But I actually prefered this movie as a kid.

Much like another 1984 release in THE LAST STARFIGHTER, Steven Spielberg's INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is a juvenile boy's adventure, except its as well-made as such a creative endeavor could possibly be.

The tough hero has his shirt open, fist fights everyone, with a useful junior sidekick tagging along. The baddie is wild-eyed in his cartoonish yet evil presence. There is teases of sex everywhere, subliminal or overt. Henchmen are killed in creative ways. The chases and thrills are wonderfully over the top.

Adults and girls are revolted when monkey heads and snakes are eaten for lunch, and shriek as hearts are brutally ripped out of people's chests, while us boys are just loving it.

If RAIDERS was saturday matinee serials retooled and disguised as A-level filmmaking craft, TEMPLE OF DOOM is very frank and honest of its B-movie reality, and so very much in punch drunk love with its pulp trash roots.

To make my point more clear, let's use a metaphor for the Indiana Jones trilogy.

RAIDERS is the well-loved guy Valedictorian/High School Quarterback that is neat, clean, and perfect in an Aryan sort of way. LAST CRUSADE is the geek kid that imitates the RAIDERS guy in everyway, but falls well short and is sorta hollow.

Then there is TEMPLE OF DOOM is the motorcycle-riding gang leader of a badass with a chilling charisma that people either dig or fear. He stays out partying late with his drinking and smoking, he beats up the LAST CRUSADE kid because the latter is a dork, and doesn't give a goddamn if the RAIDERS guy has a problem with that.

Most people seem to hate TEMPLE OF DOOM, or at least well-prefer LAST CRUSADE, and I hang my head. TEMPLE OF DOOM has the action and popcorn one would expect from an Indiana Jones picture, but tries to be its own creature, a more dark and funhouse-quality brother to RAIDERS that is more rich and rewarding than LAST CRUSADE.

It also succeeds because its the closest time that Spielberg, Harrison Ford, and George Lucas have come in producing a James Bond picture, and TEMPLE OF DOOM is their cinema-surrogate to play 007.

There is the tension-filled opening at the Shanghai nightclub where Ford lavishes up his own Sean Connery persona. Indy Jones may be a rugged layman, but he can also be classy and slick when he wants to be. What follows is the first major action sequence, which is totally unrelated to the movie's plot.

Nevermind the hero's own calm penetration entrance into (and explosive exit from) the villain's massive stronghold fortress, intercut with sexual innuendo and spectacular stunts.

If TEMPLE OF DOOM is an unofficial Bond movie, then Amrish Puri is the essential Bondian villain. Full of dreams where his evil death cult wipes the other great world religions off the globe, a bald head covered with red paint, a menacing laugh, and he scared the hell out of me as a kid.

Imagine if Osama Bin Laden ever had a personality.

Besides his ultra-deadly fundamentalism, he also kidnaps children for slave labor. Much like Luther in THE WARRIORS, he's a great Crazy Asshole.

What surprised me though in rewatching DOOM is the surprising chemistry that Jonathan Ke Quan had with Ford as Short Round. From playing cards to teaming-up in battling guards, he is like Dick Grayson in being a good surrogate-son/sidekick outlet for boys who wish they were out there kicking ass with Indiana Jones. Sure he gets whipped and beaten, but that's the prize to be paid.

As much as I love TEMPLE OF DOOM, its not perfect. Some of the "comedy" falls flat, though they don't bother me as much as the gags in LAST CRUSADE. Kate Capshaw may be the doll, but she screams way too much at times for my liking. Plus I must admit, this is great trash...but its still trash.

But this is a rare movie where Spielberg is obviously having a great fun time with the material, almost as much as I did.

Seriously? Can't you test a single thread to see? Maybe a less popular one?

Did someone hack the site or what? It seems strange that random threads would suddenly lock... sorry if this is discussed elsewhere on the site, I'm still trying to figure out what's going on.

Nice Indy review, Ronnie! All three were on SciFi recently, so it automatically became my goal to watch the full trilogy, but that failed just as it did the last time I tried watching them all with my parents about a year ago. Now we've loaned our video copies to a neighbor, so it may never work out. haha

You!! I have ranted several times to various people about how I have this distinct memory from my childhood...I was in our family living room, we were playing Monopoly (a random part of the memory) and watching Indiana Jones, and I recall being absolutely terrified by the scene where the heart is ripped out. Someday I need to revisit that to see how it affects me now, but I remember so well being completely frightened at the time.

I've never been good at giving reviews or even properly judging movies except based on my own entertainment, but I watched two recently with my cousin - The Mist and Fight Club. I heard that Stephen King gave permission for The Mist to be given a different ending, so now I'm curious to read what he originally wrote. I really enjoyed Fight Club...not at all what I expected, and I thought it was really clever.

"Random threads" didn't "suddenly lock." You're right, this isn't the right place to discuss this, but, it's discussed elsewhere and it's not random: ALL the threads in question were very large, and most years in the making. The most popular threads on the site. I don't know what caused it, but I had a hell-filled weekend over it, got'em back, and I'm not about to take any chances because I wanna see how big they can get. What is the big deal, anyway? Size (of threads) doesn't matter - the health of the BB does. If I ever find out the problem, then things may change. But until then, please give me a little slack.

I came here to say something about Doom, not discuss the board. That belongs elsewhere.

It's.

I was planning on watching this before I saw your post, and your post didn't influence it whatsoever since I didn't read past the 2nd paragraph.

I just watched DOOM tonight (also preparing for the latest episode coming out). I thought LOST ARK was great -- just pleasurable and entertaining all around.

But "well made"?? Maybe it's because I'm not a "juvenile boy" any more, but, I thought this was a big piece of crap. Seriously. I know it was 1984, but they did make bluescreen effects look realistic before '84. Hell, Wizard of Oz had better effects in the 30's! And supernatural lifesaving skills were, well, wow! Not a scratch from falling FROM A PLANE?

And, while I love Star Wars and all, this STANK of Lucas all over it, rather than Spielberg. What's that about? Did Lucas bully SPIELBERG??!! Some of the acting sucked in parts, too -- and I know it's a "kid's movie", but please, show some self-respect and talent rather than over-acting comic-booky bullcrap.

I love Lucas... I love Spielberg... but this -- compared to other films, Indy titles or not -- was a bit disappointing to me.

I remember CRUSADE being better, so let's just hope my memory isn't failing me when I watch it, after David is crowned American Idol.

Blah blah, what about that horrible background blue-screen effect of the blimp in LAST CRUSADE?

And speaking of "supernatural lifesaving skills," what about in RAIDERS when Indy easily pushes aside a huge rock block to escape the Well of Souls?

Be fucking consistent.

Was it necessary to quote my entire post just for that?

I said I still need to rewatch CRUSADE, so I'm not about to review it or comment about it after so-many years. Ask me in a few days.

Secondly, good movies like RAIDERS are given some slack. Sucky movies like TEMPLE OF DOOM are given less slack.

I don't know, I haven't seen/read anything about it, but just watching it tonight, I think Lucas thought he was the end-all-be-all and took this away from Spielberg... a shame.

I simply wanted to continue the spam-tradition of the ole thread, which I'll miss. I don't care for Irishman, but he did good by creating that thread.



Will do, though in short my problems with CRUSADE is that in a mix with alot of well-shot sequences (River Phoenix as young Indy, Berlin book burning, Venice boat chase), the 3rd Act and outright plot device is too much of a RAIDERS knock-off for my taste.

Hell, CRUSADE is probably the best shot RAIDERS knock-off ever.

Then the comedy shenanigans in the 2nd half of the picture was just simply annoying.



"Movie Physics" to me can bend reality, or be given slack, if they at least give us a loophole of reason to buy such cheating.

With DOOM and that falling off an airplane, I bought it simply as able to land that lifeboat using gravity, and downslope of a snow-covered mountain, to escape getting flattened like a pancake. Likewise, Indy could escape from the Well of Souls in RAIDERS because those blocks were off-centered, or a pile of low-quality stone that he could push himself to freedom.

All bullshit of course, but compare both with Michael Bay's ARMAGEDDON when a shuttle crashes in an asteroid, and among the ruins, is fire burning wildly...in an air-less vacuum.



Spielberg is the closest thing we have today in a modern day David Selznik, or the biggest Czar of them all in Hollywood...and in 1984 after E.T., the dude could do, and still do, whatever the fuck he wanted.

My point is, Spielberg is one such guy who could tell Lucas NO if he wanted to. For better or for worse, TEMPLE OF DOOM was Lucas/Spielberg's baby. Too bad they retreated to (way too) familiar ground with LAST CRUSADE.

Off topic, but a friend of mine actually proposed to his wife when TEMPLE OF DOOM was on TV, at the scene when the baddie forces Ford to drink the blood.

Congrats to your friend! But too bad they gotta watch that film every year for the next 60-or-so years!

I'm still not gonna discuss CRUSADE before I rewatch it

But I still contend that -- it seemed to me that -- Spielberg didn't do whatever he wanted. Because if he did, I think the film would've been a lot better, rather than a crappy pseudo-Star Wars meets Disney knock-off.

You mean the same Spielberg who on his own has shot some floaters like ALWAYS and THE LOST WORLD?

Yes, the INDY pictures were always a committee project between Spielberg/Lucas/Ford, but the Panda doesn't have the Beard finger-cuffed as you seem to think he is.

Hell, Spielberg outright rejected Lucas' original pitch for INDY IV...the ole "SAUCERMEN OF MARS" concept.

Then again, you might have a point, for unless I'm mistaken, alot of concepts from SOM did end up ultimately in CRYSTAL SKULL...

Don't be surprised if INDY IV does the same thing to you. I've read one review online already and they gave it a 5/10. I'm not saying I'm gonna hate it (I expect to enjoy it) but with all the build up, craziness surrounding the franchise, and the expectations fans have, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it was the SPIDER-MAN 3 of 2008

Let me guess.....you got it from CHUD?

Well, Ford is what, 80? Plus the Even Stevens kid from TRANSFORMERS is in it, right? So it can't be that bad!!

(Waiting for RedRocket's reply... lol)

As long as that Asian kid isn't in IV constantly saying "Doctuh Jones! Doctuh Jones!". I can't wait to see the new movie.

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
(Nth Viewing)

Not as much action or humor as in RAIDERS and probably the weakest of the trilogy IMO. Still an enjoyable action flick compared to others.

Ive always enjoy temple of doom,more than the other two. All great films though.

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE 1/2
(Nth Viewing)

Again, my favorite of the trilogy. They went back to the roots of the original and brought back some of the original cast members. IMO, Alison Doody was the best "Jones girl" (with Karen Allen being a close second). Now, I'm just looking forward to INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

THE KILLING OF JOHN LENNON 1/2
(First Viewing)

A very insightful look at the man who murdered John Lennon for fame, Mark David Chapman. This film is told in a very similar fashion to TAXI DRIVER and I believe that also has something to do with my leave of enjoyment from it. However, I do think that they botched the assassination scene. A great film to keep your eye open for.

RESIDENT EVIL
(First Viewing)

I'm not a fan at all of zombie movies but I heard this was good so I'll give it a shot. I am a fan of Mila Jovovich but so far I'm unimpressed with the series.

RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE 1/2
(First Viewing)

More action and a better monster/villain to fight. Better than the first but still, based soley as an action/horror flick, these two have been pretty forgettable.

RESIDENT EVIL: EXTINCTION
(First Viewing)

Most definitely the best of the trilogy. This film went back to the beginning in some ways and kind of had a MAD MAX feel to it. The action was a lot better (especially when Mila controlled things with her mind). Speaking of which, I thought the pairing of Mila Jovovich and Ali Larter was a nice touch. I've heard they may make a fourth but it's been nothing but rumors.

STREET FIGHTER 1/2
(Second Viewing)

Another video game movie that sucked, shocker. Really the only video game movie that I loved was the original MORTAL KOMBAT. In this, the person who played Sagat was way too short (he should have been taller like in the game). Secondly, I'm glad they included all of the characters but quite a number of them were buried like Zangief, Dhalsim, and Blanka just to name a few. Too campy and not one good action/fight scene in it.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
(First Viewing)

Well, the predication came true. Brace yourselves people, INDIANA JONES IV is not up to par. It is easily IMO the worst of the franchise and this new film unfortunately didn't add to but rather took away 20+ years of great memories with this flop. The only two things I can compliment from this film were Cate Blanchett and Shia LaBeouf. Harrison Ford looked too tired at 65-years-old to be reprising his role as Dr. Jones. I felt he took his job too lightly this time around and wasn't concerned so much about his business. Granted, this movie will make a lot of money at the box office but that still doesn't mean it was great.

Why did you give it three stars if it was such a flop?

It's still a decent film compared to others. It wasn't horrible on it's own but compared to the other Indy films it was

HACKERS
(First Viewing)

A good look at hackers back in the early days of the Internet. I can only imagine what this film would look like today with the technology some 13 years after this film was made. One of Angelina Jolie's first films and it's her earliest work I've ever seen. Jonny Lee Miller was enjoyable as the film's main star and I wonder why I've haven't seen more of his work?

Went to see indy tonight great film and harrison ford looks about 40 i hope i look that good when i am his age

HOUSE OF THE DEAD
(First Viewing)

I'm giving the Uwe Boll movies a chance since I'm kind of a sucker for a really bad film. This was it but it wasn't enjoyable bad like some grindhouse films. Too much video game images appeared in the film and the transitions between scenes was bad also.

For once, goddamnit, elaborate. Please. Why is it so hard for you to find any type of substance in anything that you type? Honestly man, if you're going to even bother writing about a film, at least give some fucking insight instead of the same hackeneyed garbage. Holy shit man, why are they even worth watching if it's going to be the same shit from you;

"Meh. I liked that other flick he was in."
"Well, I thought the music was ok."
"Umm, I only saw this because x was in it and she's HAWWT."

I mean, yes, I totally realize that you definitely are not any type of scholar, but it's not even because I love The Blues Brothers, it's that I can justify the existence of that love and why it's at least good; you, at best, are bush league.

It's sooo because you love The Blues Brothers

"Let's boogie."

John Carpenter's PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1987) - ***

Ever liked a movie, even though you didn't understand really what was happening a lot of the time?

I guess my biggest criticism against PRINCE OF DARKNESS is that for the first half of the picture, the narrative is moved only by tons and tons of dialogue exposition, a lot of which flies by rather quickly. At this rate, much like with Michael Mann's THE KEEP, I think I have an idea of the grand scheme of things, but I could be wrong for all I know.

2,000 years ago, the slime essence of Satan, aka Ole Scratch, aka Michael Bay, was captured in a canister by Jesus Christ, and kept locked away by a secret brotherhood within the Catholic Church. Just after a Priest (Donald Pleasance) inherits this devil gak, which now resides at an abandoned church in Los Angeles, this cylinder starts leaking and random weirdness occurs like fire ants crawling all over the television to worms sticking to windows, or my favorite, a half-moon orbiting above the sun. Pleasance consults a physics professor (Victor Wong) and his students to study this mysterious goo...

And right there is a cool thing about PRINCE OF DARKNESS. In every other movie where religion and supernatural collide, its always a church wanting science to strike out so that its priests can declare a divine miracle, or science wanting to demystify stigmata or whatever. With DARKNESS, you have a top religious guy discovering something that scares him shitless, and so he gets this top science guy to check into it, and it scares him shitless too. Science and Religion, both bodies of knowledge, are dumbfounded and fail at the feet of the literal existence that is elemental evil.

What I think I dig the most in general about PRINCE OF DARKNESS is that at this point in writer/composer/director John Carpenter's career, after getting his salad tossed around by studio politics on BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, he decided to both go back to low budget basics, and screw with Hollywood on their nickel & dime. Yeah he'll give Universal what looks and sounds like a slasher jump scare movie, hell he gets Pleasance back from his own slasher jump scare classic HALLOWEEN, along with enough gory make-up and nasty gooey insects to fill up the genre quota. Meanwhile, he'll also make something technically more blasphemous at the Church in Rome than THE DA VINCI CODE and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST combined. Ironically, unless I'm wrong, DARKNESS is popular in the very Catholic Spain.

Way to go Carp!

I did notice though in watching DARKNESS that it was probably the beginning of the end for Carpenter's creative prowess, considering how he effectively remade his own ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, except instead of zombie-like street gangs trying to storm a police station, its actual zombies and Alice Cooper laying siege to the church. The guy was practically starting to rip himself off.

DARKNESS is a solid B-horror movie in that while we've been through the tried and worn "stupid people" genre plot dynamics before, it’s got a lot of great neat little moments that rule. Take that bizarre shot when the zombie outside the church calls out the survivors this side of EVIL DEAD, yells "Pray for Death!" and then explodes into beetles. Then there is when the heroes, deprived of the usual weapons (fire-axe, guns) used to combat zombies, have to resort to using bricks to bash their skulls in, or kneeing women in the groin(!) before throwing them out the window. You never see either in such fare.

Now that's creative.

But the cake-icing for DARKNESS though is when the besieged people start having bits & pieces of the same creepy collective dream, a Tachyon pulse-produced video message this side of CLOVERFIELD from the future of 1999, which warns these people repeatedly that they have to stop Satan from resurrecting, and pulling his "daddy" the Anti-God from his inter-dimensional prison. Yet after the climax, when we finally watch the complete dream and finally see Satan emerge from the shadows, its bafflingly fun. Did these folks change the future, or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy in spite of their best efforts?

If anything, seeing Dennis Dun in DARKNESS reminds me of how Hollywood dropped the ball with him. The unofficial badass hero of Carpenter's BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, and unless I'm mistaken, the only Asian-American Action Cinema hero during the 1980s, Dun has a charming presence, in spite of being an asshole when he told that one Chinese woman, "you almost could pass off as Asian." Yeah, you're expecting him to die, but he actually grows on you, especially when he's trapped in the closet. There is a great scene when you have the heroes dig through the wall all night to break him out, but when the zombies finally break down his door, Dun basically claws his way out within minutes in a frenzy of desperation.

In short, the best movie featuring a crucified pigeon ever made.

ALONE IN THE DARK
(First Viewing)

An incredibly weak story, bad CGI, and Tara Reid as an anthropologist being as believable as Denise Richards as a research scientist in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH didn't make this film better than Uwe's previous effort, HOUSE OF THE DEAD. "Hopefully" he can only get better from here, right?

RAMBO
(Second Viewing)

Definitely one of the best action films of the year, along with IRON MAN of course. A lot more brutal and edged than previous RAMBO's. I've been hearing quite a few people say it was better than they expected and it was. It was an entertaining movie.

SEMI-PRO
(Second Viewing)

Will Ferrell does it again with his comedic, golden-self. I wasn't the biggest fan of his last outing, BLADES OF GLORY, so it was good to see him bounce back with a very funny retro basketball story. André Benjamin continues to do some good work as an actor and Woody Harrelson gets down with the roundball again for the first time since 1992's WHITE MEN CAN'T JUMP. Finally, Will Arnett can attach his name to a good comedy

Nothing prepares you for BLOODRAYNE or DUNGEON SIEGE.

And apparently, POSTAL is just as Boll-trademark bad.

INDIANA JONES & THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.


Took the kids to the flicks today to see it.

Great stuff,i think i enjoyed it more than the kids did

The only thing i thought was wrong was the Alien storyline, didn't expect that..

Im going to watch Sex And The City in 10 minutes with the girlfriend, wish me luck..

BLOODRAYNE 1/2
(Second Viewing)

I'm still left scratching my head at how Uwe Boll was able to assemble Sir Ben Kingsley, Michelle Rodriguez, Billy Zane, and Michael Madsen to jump aboard this sinking vessel. The fight scenes came off too choreographed and some of the killing was overdone in an outlandish and sometimes humorous way.

My review is coming, but I enjoyed it too...maybe even more than LAST CRUSADE. Maybe.



I thought it fitted fine with the 1950s, you know that decade of the Monster & Alien "B-Movies"....what I wasn't exactly a fan of was the convulted plotting of the aliens (or inter-dimensional aliens or whatever) to the Mayans, I mean leave that shit to the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN flicks.

If anything, the one edge that SKULL has over CRUSADE is that instead of fighting more NAzis out in the desert over a Judean-Christian artifact, SKULL tries something fresh with the new time period and pulp trash material...not all of it worked, but I enjoyed it.

What surprised me though I guess was Shia LeBeouf. Hated DISTURBIA and goddamn TRANSFORMERS, and fuck I, ROBOT, but he was fine in INDY IV, so maybe he's not at fault really for those crappy flicks, except only in deciding to do them.

BLOODRAYNE 2: DELIVERANCE
(First Viewing)

Wow, I'm speechless. Uwe Boll find it in himself to "seriously" direct a film without messing it up with his amateurish "tricks." It's almost as if he didn't direct the film himself, yet his name is attached. Also, I felt Natassia Malthe was a better BloodRayne than Kristina Loken. I also liked the western setting than in the previous film.

I managed to wangle out of this dubious pleasure......

It was actully good, i enjoyed, i slowley got into the seris since i met my girlfriend..

IN THE NAME OF THE KING: A DUNGEON SIEGE TALE 1/2
(Second Viewing)

Well, I survived my last Uwe Boll film but barely. This ran a little too long and was basically Uwe Boll's LORD OF THE RINGS flick. I'm still scratching my head at how he ensembles these casts? You'd think by now name actors (such as Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, Burt Reynolds, Matthew Lillard, Leelee Sobieski, John Rhys-Davies, Claire Forlani, and Kristanna Loken) would know better than to sign up for a Uwe Boll film.

THE EYE (2008)
(First Viewing)

Another bad adaptation of an Asian horror film. Again, I gave it the benefit of the doubt but the "psychological" horror flicks just aren't my genre. I wanna see people get cut and slashed up! Blood and gore for me please. This has Jessica Alba in it and a lot of people will see it solely for her but do yourself the favor and avoid this on Tuesday!

STRANGE DAYS
(First Viewing)

A really underrated film that a friend of mine turned me onto. The film was made in 1995 but was suppose to take place in the future, December 30 & 31, 1999. The film stars Ralph Fiennes, an ex-cop who now deals with data-discs containing recorded memories and emotions (which are the new drug). It also stars Juliette Lewis, Angela Bassett, and Tom Sizemore. Definitely one of those sleeper picks that you can leave you more satisfied than you originally thought it would.

VINCE VAUGHN'S WILD WEST COMEDY SHOW 1/2
(First Viewing)

More of a documentary than actual comedy. Some jokes were in the film and it gave each of the four "up-and-coming" comedies an in depth look but I was rather displeased with the overall brush of the tour.

STREETS OF FIRE (1984) - ***

Talk about a movie I've been dreading to review.

The very underrated Walter Hill is one of my favorite filmmakers, whose shot some cool stuff from the Chuck Bronson fight flick HARD TIMES to the great western THE LONG RIDERS, including a darling of mine, the awesome THE WARRIORS. After the box-office success of 48 HRS., Hill was at his career peak and could make any movie he wanted, so he jammed together everything he liked, which included:

"custom cars, kissing in the rain, neon, trains in the night, high-speed pursuit, rumbles, rock stars, motorcycles, jokes in tough situations, leather jackets and questions of honor."

Thus was STREETS OF FIRE, Hill's would-be summer blockbuster, "A Rock & Roll Fable" made for the MTV Generation...and there was Fire alright, as the flick crashed and burned on opening weekend. Afterwards, Hill was just never the same, shooting only a solid gem here and there.

So on one hand, I would like to see some merit in a crippling effort like FIRE, and yet I've had a slight personal grudge for years against this unseen picture. You see, Universal had such high hopes for FIRE, they bolstered its already considerable advertising budget by totally cannibalizing the campaign funds of several smaller studio pictures, like Alex Cox's REPO MAN.

So if you want a chief reason why that cult classic was financially DOA before hitting theatres, blame FIRE.

But I must say, I actually sorta enjoyed STREETS OF FIRE, or at least the idea of it. Within the "Another Time, Another Place" of FIRE, the Hippies and Yuppies of the 1960s and 70s never happened, and the music and culture of the 1950s evolved right through the Reagan Decade. So yes, Studebakers drive under bright neon lights, women in skirts stroll down the sidewalk, and greasers gracing the pompadour haircut watch the latest music videos on TV.

If Hill used the comic book storytelling narrative for THE WARRIORS, then he tried the comic book visual narrative for FIRE. The electric opening concert, the best editing scheme of Hill's entire filmography, uses pulsating quick cuts to resemble the cognitive pastiche of imagery that we absorb from the connecting panels of a comic book page.

When the faceless bikers, masked by darknesss, sulk into the night club as Diane Lane is singing onstage, you just know that these phantoms are nothing but trouble. Then the gargoyle mug of their leader Willem Dafoe slowly fades into the light....It's such a creative groovy sequence, its unfortunate that most of the movie just isn't this cool.

After Dafoe kidnaps Lane, we cut right into a Hill's usual streamlined hard-knuckles plot: Lane's pal telegrams her Ex-juvenile delinquent/ Ex-soldier brother Michael Pare to come back home to town and rescue Lane, his ex-girlfriend. Like Michael Beck in THE WARRIORS, its easy to accuse Pare of wooden acting, but he's only your typical Hill hero: a tough guy that doesn't talk much, not necessarily always likeable, and looks like he can kick your ass.

How I know this? Because when he's alone at a cafe, and some punks walk-in...you know somebody is gonna get thrown through the plate-glass window, and it aint Pare.

I liked how he refuses to save Lane, but he pulls out an old Black & White photograph of her, and Hill dissolves into an effectively nostalgic flashback, or the hero's memory making that image come alive. You buy why Pare changes his mind, even if he charges $10,000 from her manager/beau (Rick Moranis) for the job. Anyway, Pare is pretty solid for the part, just too bad his career went direct to video.

Now the best thing about FIRE that I just totally dig is Amy Madigan, the tough sidekick. Apparently the role was originally written for a man, but Madigan so impressed Hill, he re-wrote the part for her. Now action figure women in such genre movies either work, or simply don't. It's a gimmick that the audience can easily reject, but I tell ya, Madigan sold it for me when she demanded another drink at a tavern, and knocked out the bartender Bill Paxton when he refused. Also, Madigan is married in real-life to Ed Harris, so that's a plus.

Then there is Moranis, who usually back in the 80s either played the nerd (LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS) or the punchline (GHOSTBUSTERS), but he's surprisingly fun as the wise-guy that whines and complains at the hero. He's an asshole, but admittedly he's the only smart person in this story, or at least the one with enough brains to pay others to risk life and limb to retrieve his meal ticket.

But Dafoe man...The only way I can describe Dafoe in FIRE is that, imagine if Charles Manson hadn't gone mad in obsession with The Beatles or "Helter Skelter," but instead with James Dean and wearing latex coveralls without shirts. Dafoe makes so much out as a fun psychotic villainous maniac out of so little given to him, I actually hate Hill for not giving him anymore scenes. Plus, I forgot how (even more) goddamn scary-looking the dude was back then.

In retrospect, I have tons of problems with STREETS OF FIRE. If the opening of FIRE was brilliant, and the overall 1st half is fun pulp action, then the movie just loses most of its momentum in the 2nd half when Pare and troupe return back home, as nothing really happens, or to use pretentious film criticism, the thin story can no longer piggyback on the film's aesthetics.

I really groaned when FIRE teases Pare and Lane possibly getting back together because despite him sharing some deep past feelings for her....that ship has definately sailed.

I mean, yeah Lane is drop-dead gorgeous and most of us men want to bed her, but she seems like a rather boring person. Moranis and Lane do make a better couple ultimately because they share something in common: Her singing career. Most men would probably rather be in Madigan's company, even as just a friend. Besides, she wouldn't force Pare to go see the SEX & THE CITY movie this weekend.

Also, Hill gives conflicting answers to whatever American racial segregation ever ended in this universe. While you have a black Cop (Richard Lawson) try to keep the peace with Dafoe and Pare, you then have Pare's group meet up with a Motown-like music act in the back of a bus, who're pulled over by the police and called a "gang of spades." Maybe its just too provocative of an interesting idea to simply throwaway in a picture like this.

Ah Screw it, I like this movie in spite of itself. Maybe I'm a sucker for flicks where a major violent brawl between bikers and civilians, each side armed to the teeth with bats, chains, knives, and guns, is eminent until its delegated to simply Pare and Dafoe. Maybe I mark at them dueling with sledgehammers(!), and maybe I just like that Moranis gets the girl for once.

But babe, if you don't dig it, I won't hold it against you.

ALIEN VS. PREDATOR
(Second Viewing)

As usual the studio f*cks up two perfectly good properties and its fans at the same time by dolling out this PG-13 sh*t to "appeal to a greater audeince". Well, it looked like it didn't work. Also, one of the Predator's in this film looked like he was on steroids (think of the way Jason Vorhees looked in JASON X). I'm hoping the sequel will be better with more blood and gore but I doubt it (I've heard nothing but bad things about it).

Yeah, I'm with you dude....though I actually thought worse of it.

Paul W.S. Anderson can go FUCK himself.

I'm watching a classic right now. It's been a while since I've seen it and I'm really enjoying it.

I'll give you a hint and you tell me what movie it is.

"A boy's best friend is his mother."

TIS

That would be "Psycho".

I'm watching a ballgame and Law and Order, but did notice that was on.

I also noticed your boy Rocky was on earlier as well.

And that would be "Rocky V" i on the other channel. They show the Rocky movies a lot so I don't feel too torn.


Poor Anthony Perkins. He really is good but he just never overcame Norman Bates hu? Who's the detective Beth, do you know?


TIS

No, I don't know who the detective is.

ALIENS VS PREDATOR: REQUIEM 1/2
(First Viewing)

Was lighting too big of a cost or what? Goodnight this movie was dark and really ruined it because half of the time you couldn't see what was going on. A weaker film than the original, if that was possible because I know a lot of people had problems after the first one. I wonder how they feel now?

That was Martin Balsam.

JUMPER
(Second Viewing)

Director Doug Liman (THE BOURNE IDENTITY and MR. & MRS. SMITH) adds another enjoyable action flick to his resume. I enjoyed Samuel L. as usual but was probably impressed the most with Rachel Bilson. I've never really seen THE O.C. so I was looking forward to this to see her acting abilities and she didn't disappoint. I also am really happy that they left room for a sequel or even trilogy (hopefully they will do so because I'd love to see more). Finally, I am so jealous of Hayden Christensen for now hooking up onscreen with Natalie Portman and Rachel Bilson

I knew you'd know SC!! I want to say he was on a tv show in the 60's or 70's but can't think of which one????? Am I right? Perhaps a comedy? His name is more familiar to me than his face.


TIS

I don't remember him from any tv shows. He was a pretty good actor and played decent roles in many movies (among them "Hombre", "The Bedford Incident", "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "All the President's Men").

I just re-watched "Angels in the Outfield" (1951) - the original version - and was reminded that its a charming movie (MUCH better than the Disney remake).

The movie is somewhat dated (but that's part of its charm) and the characters have depth that is sorely missing in many more recent movies.

Its a little sappy, but its a lot of fun.

"Fields of Dreams" was on TV last night, this film gets better every time i watch it..

One of these days I have to watch it. I heard a lot of good things about it.

if i remember, isn't that one of your fav films..

I was joking with that response. "Field of Dreams" is my all-time favorite movie.

I've only seen the Disney remake. Is there alot of differences between the two?

Yes it is, and to think Costner's grown-up-hippie wife is Amy Madigan. Yeah, she's almost a completely different actress in STREETS OF FIRE.

I believe the original involved the Pittsburgh Pirates, because the Los Angeles/California/Anaheim/Los Angeles of Anaheim* Angels didn't become a franchise until the 60s.

*="Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"....man that's so damn stupid. LAAA?

I saw State of Grace the other night (cost me 50 cents for the VHS at a garage sale) and I have to say what a piece of crap.

They took some Westies stories and fucked them up Hollywood style. It's not realistic which I wouldn't mind if it was a good movie.

I'm currently watching the 1982 versionof John Carpenter's "The Thing." I do enjoy this movie. Kind of creepy, but very good.



TIS

It's great TIS. I didn't think so the first time but after a second viewing I became a fan. I think it's loads better than the original 50's version, but that's just me.

Carpenter at the peak of his Hollywood career...and the beginning of the end for him.

At least he hit a masterpiece homerun when given his shot.



Took ya long enough, eh? Now go back to ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK.

but how could you not love John Belushi, who was a Chippendale dancer earlier in life

Speaking of Carpenter, check out what the great Martin Scorsese wrote of ole Carp, which I found on the DirectTV website:

They Live
Reviewed by Martin Scorsese

John Carpenter is a filmmaker who is unashamed to stay within the genres he loves (horror and science fiction) and who practices his trade like a master craftsman. His pictures always have a handmade quality—every cut, every move, every choice of framing and camera movement, not to mention every note of music (he composes his own scores) feels like it has been composed or placed by the filmmaker himself. His sense of composition (nearly all of his pictures are shot in 'Scope) is quite exacting and precise, and his control of movement inside and outside the frame can be hair-raising.

There are so many moments in his films that are absolutely startling—the murder of the little girl with the ice-cream cone in Assault on Precinct 13; the appearances of Michael Myers on the very edge of the frame in Halloween; the appearances of the creature in his truly terrifying remake of The Thing. And the mood of his pictures is so carefully crafted and sustained. I'm a great admirer of The Fog, the mood of it, the sense of mystery. But I also love They Live, in which an alien invasion of America is uncovered by people living on the ragged edge of society in Los Angeles. This movie was Carpenter's commentary on what he saw as the excesses of the Reagan era, and the movie shares many qualities with pictures made during the Depression, such as Heroes for Sale and Wild Boys of the Road.

It's lyrical and tough at the same time, with a strong sense of community among the displaced people living in makeshift homes on the outskirts of L.A. (interestingly, the picture dovetails with Mel Brooks' comedy Life Stinks, made a couple of years later), and the mood is unusually sad and bitter. The science-fiction element reveals itself as the story goes on: The "beautiful people" on TV and walking down Rodeo Drive are actually aliens, transmitting subliminal messages to the hypnotized masses, their true images visible through special glasses that are being handed out at a mission for the poor.

I like the humor of the picture, the hilariously long fight scene between "Rowdy" Roddy Piper and Keith David, and the sense of outrage. They Live is one of the best films of a fine American director.

I forgot about "They Live". I like that movie too. The whole concept was interesting, and yes, it was one of the longest, dragged out fight scenes (what about 10 minutes straight?). Fun, different and just plain entertaining.




TIS

THIS IS SPINAL TAP
(First Viewing)

Call me disappointed just because I know this film has such a big following. I didn't find it at all funny really and while the "documentary" looked legit, I really don't understand why it's so popular? BORAT was a lot better IMO.

Wow, you just made an enemy out of Chris Jericho.

You happy?

MAMA'S BOY 1/2
(First Viewing)

Wow Jon Heder's career has really taken a nosedive since the surprisingly well received NAPOLEON DYNAMITE. I like the underappreciated SCHOOL FOR SCOUNDRELS, but then he's done THE BENCHWARMERS, the underperforming BLADES OF GLORY and now MAMA'S BOY. Even with a cast of Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels, and Anna Farris can't save this poorly written script.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
(Third Viewing)

Well, third time was a charm for this film as well. I saw the theatrical cut twice (once in theaters and the other on DVD). It's been a while since I'd seen this and decided to give the Director's Cut a chance. It has about 50 minutes of added material but I thought it made the film a lot better and enjoyable (even longer). It wasn't as choppy, somethings made clearer sense, and some minor storylines were brought to light that made the film more powerfuly in parts). If you liked this film, I'd recommend watching the Director's Cut.

THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL
(First Viewing)

A great telling of King Henry's intense desire to have a male heir and the lengths he would go to to secure that. I was somewhat familiar with the story but not intimately. This gave a lot more insight into the politics and lack of religious value given these life changing decisions (even though God is constantly thrown around the film for reasoning). However, what I loved most about this piece was Natalie Portman playing a villain. I've never seen her do it before and I must say I was throughly pleased. I hope she does it again soon as it's a nice change of pace for her.

MIRACLE MILE (1988) - ***1/2

Imagine you're a guy (Anthony Edwards) that while in the heart of Los Angeles you happen to meet the perfect girl (Mare Winningham). She doesn't just share your hobbies, but she also is mutually attracted to you. I'm going to screw your eyes blue! You have a wonderful day together, and you both make plans for a date at midnight, meeting at the "Miracle Mile" neighborhood coffee shop where she works. But the power goes out at your joint, so you accidentally oversleep. You rush down there to find that she's since long gone home hours ago, and her co-workers think you're an asshole for standing her up.

A lousy night gets worse when outside, you answer the ringing payphone, and its from a frantic guy working at a missile silo out in North Dakota who was trying to call his dad. He says that America has just launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the enemy. Our nuclear arsenal will be launched in 50 minutes, and the "blowback" against us in 70 minutes. He's cut off by machine gun fire, and a new voice, threatening and ominous, tells you to "forget everything you just heard and go back to sleep."

Was he simply jerking you around, or do you really only have a hour left before the apocalypse?

A better question is......what would you do?

It was that great premise of a dramatic quandary that made Steve De Jarnatt's screenplay for MIRACLE MILE so admired in Hollywood...and De Jarnatt's answer to that last question was why nobody would produce it. It was like everyone wanted MILE to be MILE, without being what made itself MILE in the first place. After a decade of development hell as one of the best-unfilmed scripts around, De Jarnatt said screw it. He bought MILE back from Warner Bros., and Hemdale Film let the dude shoot it himself with a B-movie budget, like they did previously with James Cameron and Oliver Stone for THE TERMINATOR and PLATOON.

If anything, DeJarnatt's MIRACLE MILE is really three different movies, of which MILE skips between without mostly missing a step.

The first 30 minutes is like a very lightweight romantic comedy, what with the couple walking in the park, him buying the freedom of some lobsters from a restaurant, her wacky parents who haven't spoken to each other in 15 years, that sort of fluff. In fact, you begin wondering if you rented the wrong movie. Really, Edwards and Winningham have great chemistry that makes not just the "love at first sight" shtick credible, but arguably make rest of the movie work as well.

Because once the phone call happens, MILE gets deadly serious as a real-time thriller, and damn effective at that. MILE subscribes to my theory that a good suspense movie is one where the narrative grabs your throat once the plot kicks in, and squeezes tighter as the clock winds down to the deadline, which by then you're grasping for air.

You feel this with Edwards after he gets the call, and I'm reminded of how tremendously underrated Edwards is. Yeah people seem to only remember him for TOP GUN and ER, but if every other actor would play a nervous breakdown by shouting and jumping around like a monkey, Edwards does it like any one of us would do if we became an unwilling prophet of doom: your brain would practically shut down as we get nervous, upset, and confused as what to do next, along with a million other things rushing through your mind at once. Then he has a moment of clarity:

Go find her.

Seriously, after seeing this and last year's ZODIAC, Hollywood or some indie filmmakers have to hire Edwards out more.

It's perhaps best that such a story be told with a miniscule approach instead. If this was a major studio project, MILE easily could have faded into being a series of major set pieces strung together with thin storytelling and characterization this side of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and we wouldn't give a shit. Instead, DeJarnatt's forced-focus on the people themselves instead of special effects or the action actually make us care about the fate of Winningham, Edwards, and everyone else. Or to put it another way, its a pretty epic small story.

Take when Edwards carjacks Mykelti Williamson at gunpoint so he could drive him to Winningham's apartment. Turns out Williamson has some stolen electronics in his trunk, and when cops confront them at a gas station, he kills them to escape some jail time. Now you want to hate him for what he does, but when Edwards tells Williamson of the "news"...the guy then demands to go find his sister before they pick up Winningham.

You feel for him, and when he does ditch Edwards, you can't really blame the guy. I mean compare that with the unseen "government VIPs" supposedly behind green lighting World War 3, who apparently are already out of the Western Hemisphere, leaving the rest of us to enjoy their radiation bath.

Now what I really dig about MILE is I guess what I would the call its "third" movie, and that's just the randomness that occurs within the story. Edwards throws out a cigarette of his, which a bird swoops up...later we cut to its nest, which has become a fireball and causes the power outage. He accidentally backs up into a palm tree, and rats spill out (which they've been known to do). Winningham's parents reconcile and try to enjoy perhaps their last day together...and they go back to squabbling with each other. Two Beverly Hills elite women storm a skyscraper with semi-automatics. During the riot, when everyone is looting or killing each other, a couple is humping out in front of a store.

Its not stop-dead "comedy" moments, but just the funny weird shit you just happen to run into at the dead of night this side of AFTER HOURS.

This includes my favorite sequence in the movie, where Edwards is looking for a pilot to fly the helicopter out of town, and he runs into a gym. In a terrific tracking shot by DeJarnatt, you see these muscle men and women pumping iron, with imagery all over the place of peak human physicality...and you realize that within a few minutes, all their hard work will be for nothing.

With the climax, Edwards' original news of Armageddon has spread throughout the city, causing mass hysteria and violent rioting with disturbing shades of what will really happen within L.A. in the Riots of 1992. Yet when we come to the ending, probably the biggest objection Hollywood always had with the script, its really the perfect ending...or at least as perfect as a story mixing romance with nuclear war can be. I mean, this aint the political morality play THE DAY AFTER or the prozac-friendly TESTAMENT.

Yeah I can criticize of sorts how DeJarnatt's directing doesn't equal his writing (and in fact, DeJarnatt hasn't directed a movie since then), but MIRACLE MILE is a pretty cool idea for a movie, that he shot as a pretty good little movie that was the CLOVERFIELD of sorts for its day, but most of all sticks with the right conclusion.

It's a gutsy finale for a gutsy film.

HELLBOY 1/2
(Third Viewing)

More enjoyable after a third watch but I'm still not the biggest Hellboy fan. I also think Ron Pearlman was a good choice to play the character because I don't like either of them: arrogant, cocky, tries to act tougher than he really is. I only watched this because a friend of mine claims he's going to drag me to see number 2. Let's pray alcohol can make the experience more enjoyable in theaters!

Lick My Love Pump!

I find the reverse to be true. Borat wasn't great at all, but Spinal Tap is.

Do you play guitar? I do. I don't know if that helps understand some of the jokes or not. "This one goes to 11" etc.

I think being a rock fan it helps, but you don't for a joke like "Stonehenge."

No I don't play

So you not a PLAYAH?

Figures.

THE REPLACEMENTS (2000) - **1/2

Making fun of Keanu Reeves' acting skills, or the lack of them, is as old hat as mocking George W. Bush's dumbness, Bubba Clinton the whoremonger, and O.J. Simpson's murders. Thing is, I'm going to disagree and say that he isn't a bad actor.

No I'm not saying that he's good per say, since I haven't forgotten BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA. But the guy seems competent as a presence in certain roles, which usually seem to be for action slammers and chick flicks, and since THE REPLACEMENTS is sort of a mix of both, he's workable here. Besides, the dude cut a big chunk out of his salary to get Gene Hackman booked for this flick, which apparently he did as well for Al Pacino with THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, so that's cool of him.

The players of a professional American Football league goes on strike during the middle of the season, and team owners replace the field ranks with "replacement" players. The Washington Sentinels wants former head coach Hackman to coach these scabs...and he agrees only if he coaches the players he wants.

If you haven't guessed it already, THE REPLACEMENTS is basically the NFL version of MAJOR LEAGUE, where has-beens and never-beens team up, blue collar misfits making use of their one real chance at glory, jam their thumbs in the eyes of the rich snobs.... and hilarity ensues.

So yeah you have the goofy gimmick players from the speedy convenient store working wide receiver (Orlando Jones), the psychotic linebacker that was previously a SWAT guy (future IRON MAN director Jon Favreau), the Hip-Hop bodyguards-turned-Offensive Linemen, the foul mouth Welsh kicker (Rhys Ifans) and a former college quarterback star (Reeves) who now scraps barnacles off boats.

Yet while REPLACEMENTS constructs the MAJOR LEAGUE blueprints to a T, it simply lacks the magic.

I think the immediate problem is that with the villains being the striking players, I just don't buy it. NFL players don't have guaranteed contracts, and only thing they're assured is their signing bonuses. Hell, the NFL players union is notoriously patsy to the NFL owners, and in fact their last strike was back in 1987, which not only was a spectacular failure, but also was the basis for this movie, for Head Coach Joe Gibbs of the Washington Redskins not only went 3-0 in those "replacement" games, but won the Super Bowl that same season.

My point is, sports fans would be more likely to buy pro baseball or basketball players, who have secured payments whatever they suck or not, being the baddies.

Hell, a better gang of bad guys would have been the New York Knicks. The NBA's highest payroll (about $130 million) and owner of the league's worst record, imagine the outcry from Manhattan if those expensive bums went into the picket lines. Too bad they fired their sexual harassing and fantastically awful Head Coach/General Manager Isiah Thomas. He would have been great as the top evil.

Anyway, do you really see NFL stars like Tom Brady and Brian Urlacher physically protesting stadiums in the flesh? I don't. The same when in THE REPLACEMENTS, the striking Washington players confront the title characters in a bar, and a brawl ensues. If anything, I would imagine it more likely that such pampered guys hire thugs to beat these scabs out of commission, or risk a serious lawsuit.

Then there is my problem with REPLACEMENTS using fake teams instead of real NFL clubs. Either Warner Bros. were too cheap to buy the license, or NFL refused to sell, but after several games when the people of Washington D.C. fully get behind these replacements...something about it just doesn't work for me. There is just something about using real teams that would make that whole fan-franchise connection a lot more credible.

I mean, look at MAJOR LEAGUE with the Cleveland Indians, who were what, basement dwellers for decades, and the city was in decay. But once that team-not-supposed-to-win actually start to win, the fans come back, and the area is revitalized with joy and optimism. I mean, the New Orleans Saints' success in the 2007 season didn't fix all the problems still lingering in that city after Katrina, but gave them something to be excited about.

That said, I'm not saying THE REPLACEMENTS is a bad movie. I laughed at the cheerleaders recruited from the local strip club, Ifans smoking a cigarette out in the field, Favreau beating the hell out of Reeves, and Jones early in the movie running full-sprint after a customer, just to retrieve a shoplifted Twinkie.

The romance subplot between Reeves and the head cheerleader didn't waste my time, though I groaned when Reeves goes all Emo when the striking Washington star Quarterback tries to make a play for her. Whatever.

I won't recommend this movie for you to check out, but if you happen to catch it on television while on vacation, suffering from a hangover, or in prison, you might find yourself watching a term which I created for Taylor Hackford's RAY.....a well-made average movie.

I like The Replacements. It's a chick flick with sports thrown in so that men can't completely object to it on date night.

THREE AMIGOS
(First Viewing)

A great cast with Steve Martin, Martin Short, Chevy Chase, Phil Hartman, Jon Lovitz, and Joe Mantegna. The beginning of the film really captured my interest but by act three I was ready for it to be over. Not a lot of laughs were spread throughout the film.

PRINCE OF THE CITY (1981) ****

Okay, Ronnie. Let me know what you think.

There once was a kingdom ruled over by a fair and righteous king. One day, an evil witch descended upon the well from which the people drank, and poisoned the water. The very next day everyone but the righteous king drank the poisoned water. And they all went insane. All but the king that is. For several days after, the people wondered aloud, "What happened to our king," they shouted in the streets, "Has he gone insane?" So the king went and drank from the poisoned water, and everything was well again.

That is the story Al Pacino's girlfriend tells him late in SERPICO, Sidney Lumet's celebrated 1973 true-life tale about police corruption and one's man's obstinate stand against it. Apart from Pacino's performance as Frank Serpico, that film was a compromised moral drama, thrown haphazardly together to fit a commercial running time. The success of DOG DAY AFTERNOON (1975) and NETWORK (1976) then allowed Lumet to make PRINCE OF THE CITY, unquestionably his greatest work, and worthy of the story of the king. As a piece of narrative it ignores all the established rules: There are no acts (first, second or third). There are no heroes, and no villains. There are no gun battles or showdowns. This, for its entire three hour running time, is an account of a cop who decides to blow the whistle on corruption, and the legal repercussions that ensue. Unlike Serpico, Det. Daniel Ciello (Treat Williams) is no saint. He does what, in his view, needs to be done. And given the nature of power, a lot more. On his own accord, he heads to the Chase commission, where he decides to "do the right thing", and confess. His one condition? He won't rat on his partners. He knows them to be good men. We see them at his luxurious two-story house. They are cordial, pleasant, brotherly. When he states his condition to the government lawyers, he says, "I sleep with my wife. But I live with my partners."

Except the forces that be don't see things the way he does. Ciello and his partners are the Special Investigative Unit for Narcotics, the "Princes of the city". They have citywide jurisdiction and are virtually unsupervised. When they make a bust they A) Keep the drug dealer's money. B) Sell the drug dealer his freedom. Or C) Arrest him and take his money. They have reasons too. You see, a drug dealer without money would never be able to buy another cop, a DA or a judge. And if they don't have enough evidence to convict anyway, they may as well have the money. This group of cops, as they have no doubt explained to themselves, tens if not hundreds of times, have a moral right to scam the dealers. They have a moral imperative to keep their junkie stoolies (snitches) supplied with Heroin. Yes they do this for the information, but also because, "a junkie will break your heart." The practice of giving Heroin, according to the government lawyers, is exactly the same as dealing. Legally, they are as culpable as drug dealers. And the moral haze thickens.

No one joins the police force to become a bad guy. That is why Lumet, whose films are basically about the subjectivity of right and wrong, is fascinated with cops. They are not gangsters, who, as depicted in Scorsese's GOODFELLAS, are more about the money and "the life" than a mythical code of honor. For cops (even those who beat protestors or torture prisoners around the world) there has been, in most cases, a point where they justified their actions. In PRINCE OF THE CITY, Lumet affords all his characters, including the tens of government lawyers, an unfeigned authenticity that makes every scene in the film riveting. For every odious act performed against, or by a cop (or even a lawyer), there's an underlying moral position. The moral complexity of Lumet's best work lies in the assumption that pure evil does not exist.

What sets PRINCE OF THE CITY apart (and what earns it comparisons to the films of Martin Scorsese) is the unusual strength of its characters. Lumet, who co-wrote the screenplay, something he does not do often, employs a strangely effective technique. Instead of a narration, there are regular grim stills of the ID Cards of the characters involved accompanied by quotations such as "nobody cares about you but your partners", and "I'll be telling lies for the rest of my life". The whole film then takes a feel of a postmortem documentary. The stills are there because the characters involved, probably for calamitous reasons, need to be identified. The quotations are the leads character's regrets. And as Ciello, Treat Williams gives a forceful performance that requires him to be in every scene. His character's quest for absolution closely resembles that of Charlie in Scorsese's MEAN STREETS. Why did this successful "Prince of the City" decide to voluntarily confess his trespasses, throwing all his riches away? Maybe the sight of starved junkie, shivering in abandoned warehouse, begging him for drugs didn't seem like much of a kingdom.

In my opinion, this is the second best cop movie ever---after THE FRENCH CONNECTION. And I almost forgot, if you think that Lenny Briscoe was Jerry Orbach's best cop role, think again.

KATT WILLIAMS LIVE
(First Viewing)

Not a bad show but disappointing that the show wasn't as funny throughout. I'm really only familiar with Katt William's work in FRIDAY AFTER NEXT but was excited to see this because he is a funny individual. I might watch his AMERICAN HUSTLE MOVIE next if I can get a hold of it.

COMA (1978) - ***1/2

Everyone knows Michael Crichton for writing sci-fi thrillers from THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN to JURASSIC PARK, but people forget that once upon a time ago, he actually was a pretty decent filmmaker. His career directorial highlights sums up to the classic robots-go-killer-haywire WESTWORLD, the really fun heist flick THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, and this one.

What's really odd is that you have a Harvard Medical School graduate in Crichton adapting and shooting COMA, a best-selling novel that arguably invented the "medical thriller" literary genre, which was written by another Ivy League doctor-turned-author in Robin Cook. Unless I'm mistaken, I doubt anything like this has happened in Hollywood before or since.

Anyway, with COMA you have a woman goes for a routine clinical abortion but ends up in a vegetative "coma" state. Her surgical resident friend, the beautilful Genevieve Bujold, finds out that there has been ten random unexplained comas (including a Tom Selleck cameo) occuring within the same Boston hospital in the past year, and discovers that they all have only one thing in common: They all happened in the same operating room. Nobody believes her, and on top of that, people are trying to kill her too.

If anything, Crichton is probably perfect for the material because for a movie set around a hospital, the guy sure knows his way around them, and the people who work there. Much like his later TV series ER, you have workers who throw around medical jargon that you the audience may not necessarily understand, but by watching them, you have a clear idea of what they're talking about. You have hospital politics where egos and ambitions clash brutally with truth and responsbility, you get the idea.

I enjoyed the scene when Bijold is asking Rip Torn the chief anesthesiologist for his files about the Coma patients, and forgetting Torn as one of the movie's villains, you sorta buy why Torn gives one of the more polite "screw you" movie rants I've seen in awhile. People generally don't like to be crticized at their own expertize.

What I really like is that, if my mother the former medical nurse is to be believed (and I have no reason to doubt her), COMA features two of the creepiest moments that can happen while working at a hospital:

(1) Walking all alone at the dead of night in the deadly silent hospital halls, hearing only your footsteps....then hearing other steps right behind you.
(2) Getting locked in the morgue, and the lights turned off.

That morgue scene in COMA is rather brilliant because the situation is already tense because the murdering henchman is chasing Bujold throughout the building, but on top of that, she's hiding among bodies, wrapped in plastic, and this piles on the suspense because lets admit it, that's probably one of the last places most of us would want to be, even if we're running for our lives.

What's interesting about COMA is the whole gender politics about it. For one, COMA was shot during the height of the "women's liberation" movement in the 70s, and Bujold is simpy a gal who wants to be taken seriously. When her friend dies, her co-workers expect her to go hysterical and emotional, but when she doesn't, they call her "cold." Let's admit it, there is a gender-bias against women in general regarding how they should feel. I did laugh when she told her hubby Michael Douglas to go get his own damn beer from the fridge. But then Crichton has a cheap shot up her skirt, and more than one (very nice) Bujold breast shot.

Quite frankly, I just don't get it.

Then there is her boyfriend, producer/co-star Douglas. He's the conservative and cautious of the pair, and really plays the "wife" role we see in every other thriller of this sort. It's Bujold, not him, who breaks into the ominous Jefferson Institute, and hides in the rafters high above the movie's most memorable visual, the infamous "floating" coma patients.

People will probably complain that about the ending, with Douglas racing to save Bujold from a coma-inducing surgery, of how its once again the man coming to rescue the damsel, and I would argue instead that he finally Man Up, and right on time. Good for you.

If anything, my only serious complaint against COMA is this whole horribly cheesy montage, where Douglas and Bujold away for the weekend, and you have them running down a beach, visit a small town, make love by a fireplace....is this a movie or a bad condom commercial?

That said, there is a cool if weird scene when Bujold oversees the autopsy of her pal, including the deli-like slicing of her brain. I'm reminded of the anecdote about Elvis Presley watching his friend's embalming, but like the King, she would do anything for a buddy, right? Plus, we see Ed Harris' film acting debut, back when he still had hair! :thumbsup:

Overall, Crichton directed a really good runner full of suspense and thrills, maybe his best, because how many other movies can make us perk up by the mere sound of an electrocardiogram? Too bad the guy's moviemaking career ended in the 1980s (why? One word: RUNAWAY) but while it lasted, he was good.

Plus, COMA was a rare film that had a great social impact, because both book and movie apparently caused a 60%(!) drop in organ donation to American hospitals.

Thanks alot Crichton and Cook!

I just saw "The Number 23" I like Jim Carrey in serious roles. A lot of people didn't like this movie, But I found it entertaining. It is a kind of rip off of about 10 movies, But definitely enjoyable.

i agree good film..

DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER (1990) - ***

The terrific internet film critic The Outlaw Vern made an astute observation some years back of how while Bond uses gadgets, governmental-training, and aristocratic snobbery to save the day, Detective John McClane really is one of us, the "little people" of blue collar U.S.A. because he's a working class guy who uses his scant police knowledge to improvise his way out of surefire deathtraps and try to thwart the enemies.

Look at DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER, where he is trying to save a doomed airplane, he tears some rags, wrap them around some broken pipes, light them up with his cigarette lighter, and bang.....torches so the plane can use it as a ground visual reference. Better yet, when brawling with a henchman, McClane uses an icicle to stab him to death. Plus, he's an incredibly tough Irish-American brave (or stupid, your call) guy who's willing to jump from a helicopter onto the wing of an airliner on take-off, and then take a nasty bump off it this side of Mick Foley.

The DIE HARD movies are a lot like the DIRTY HARRY movies, the 007 franchise, and Donald Westlake's PARKER books in that you know what to expect in each installment: If Harry Callahan is always under suspension, James Bond always the man-whore, Parker's well-laid schemes always problematic in the execution, then Bruce Willis' McClane is always the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time.

You have terrorists, whatever Euro trash, mercenaries or hackers, who lay out a grand scheme and 3-D thinking to outsmart and dominate the hapless authorities, and plan their operation upon their predictable 2-D thinking this side of Khan. They use deception to reveal their true motives, which is revealed in a big plot twist, but by then the underestimated McClane uses his wits and bullets to even out the odds for the good guys. And of course, he always gets the shit beaten out of him.

After the runaway blockbuster success of the original masterpiece DIE HARD, Fox quickly fast-tracked this sequel and as a result, director John McTiernan and Director of Photography Jan De Bont were replaced by Finnish import Renny Harlin and Oliver Wood. I think Harlin is for the most part a hack auteur (and his career shows it), but much like Brett Ratner, he's capable at aping the colorful style of better filmmakers, and delivering a forgettable if serviceable black & white Xerox knock-off narrative, or to use a better analogy, he's the cheap store-brand cereal to McTiernan's Kellogg’s. I would almost call this the best DIE HARD knock-off ever shot, but that honor goes to Andrew Davis' superior UNDER SIEGE.

I do think its odd is how steady and calm Wood's camerawork is, considering how he would later cinematograph the BOURNE movies. Go figure.

What makes DIE HARD 2 the lesser of the franchise is simply because of the approach with McClane, and the story itself.

There is a charm for me in the other DIE HARD movies of how despite being charming with his ballsyness and one-liners, he is the same guy who drove away his wife (DIE HARD), made his co-workers ashamed to be around him despite his heroics (DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE) and is still stuck as a low-paid copper while alienating his daughter (LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD). He's an alcoholic, chain-smoking bastard.... a likeable one, but only for 2 hours. In real life, would you really want to work or live with such a guy? What really redeems him though is that, who you gonna call when shit hits the fan?

But with DIE HARD 2, this McClane reconciled with his beau, transferred from New York City over to Los Angeles (where she works), apparently looks healthier than we last saw him at the Nakatomi Building, and....this just rings hollow for me. I don't really buy McClane, because the dude is fire & ice. He might as well be a McClane clone like Willis was in THE LAST BOY SCOUT. To put this another way, imagine a DIRTY HARRY movie where Clint Eastwood respected a suspect's civil rights.

Yeah exactly my point.

Aside from that, we have the whole weak villain scheme, where you have a Oliver North-esque Army Colonel (William Sadler) who leads a renegade gang of American Special Ops troops to free a Manuel Noriega-esque Latin American dictator, who's being extradited to USA for drug trafficking, because he harshly engaged the communist guerillas within his lands. Look, the plot device of the other DIE HARD flicks may be simplistic, but you must admit, greed is enough reason for evil men to do evil things. But is an Anti-Moscow ideology enough motivation enough for these soldiers to kill hundreds of their own people?

Maybe that's just me, but maybe the problem is Sadler himself. Mind you, he is cool. He's a great underused actor, and I guess the producers probably wanted an Anti-Hans Gruber for the sequel, but goddamn I wished he had a better scripted role, or at least be as intriguingly different for the whole movie as he was in his introduction when he's nude yoga exercising in his hotel room. Don't be a throwaway Direct-to-DVD nemesis like Timothy Olymphant was in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD.

Then there is the wife subplot. She's on one of the airplanes in the blizzard skies, not able to land because the terrorists have shut down the airport runways, and her scenes trying to deal with this ordeal feels reminds me of the melodramatic AIRPORT disaster flicks which AIRPLANE! so richly mocked. That and you have William Atherton the prick reporter back from the first movie...and who cares?

So yes, you have Willis trying to beat the terrorists so that her plane won't crash and burn from an empty gas tank...and that doesn't bother me really. What bugs me is that you have a great scene when Sadler crashes a British Airways plane, and standing between the burning wreckage and remains of the passengers, Willis seems really lost, tasting failure despite his best efforts, and maybe even unable to beat these pros. Then he picks up a burned doll, and is more determined now to send Sadler to the local morgue.

OK, you say so what? Well, that whole crash sequence is simply throwaway simply to add jeopardy to Willis' mission to save his wife. What if instead there was no wife around? What if Willis does go balls-to-the-wall simply to do the right thing in saving people, like he did in DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE? I mean, talk about a great scene wasted.

But perhaps what nearly kills DIE HARD 2 for me is Dennis Franz. Perhaps I'm post-9/11-biased, but wouldn't most such airport security bureaucrats do everything to at least act like they have everything secured and investigated, instead of disbelieving Willis despite everything that happens in DIE HARD 2? I mean, if you want the authorities to doubt the hero, make it credible. Don't waste my time with such lazy "conflict" screenwriting. If I wanted that, I would watch 24.

But despite my whining, I sort of like DIE HARD 2, if only as a decent passable action ticket. Besides, when you have that shot of Willis escaping a bombed jet by using the ejector seat, and he fires up into the air, a mere inch away from our screen, and yells "Oh shiiiiiiiiiiit!" as he rapidly descends.....how can I not help but smile?

P*U*L*S*E (1995) - ****

I forgot which music critic it was who said it, so I'll steal it for myself. Pink Floyd is an Aristotle of rock music in that their albums are re-discovered by each succeeding generation, and their work, especially from MEDDLE in 1971 towards the end of the decade with THE WALL, is still as good as any rocker puts out these days. Either that's great praise, or simply the sorry state of the genre these days. Your call.

But like every other great British rock band not named the Rolling Stones, philosophies conflicted and egos clashed, and they imploded. In 1985, bassist/chief lyricist Roger Waters quit the act, and tried to retire the "Pink Floyd" moniker, which ensued quite a nasty and bitter artistic divorce with his band mates. By 1987, a settlement was reached out of court and lead guitarist David Gilmour, keyboardist Richard Wright, and drummer Nick Mason regrouped and subsequently recorded two albums: A MOMENTARY LAPSE OF REASON and THE DIVISION BELL.

P*U*L*S*E is a breathtaking and exhilarating recording of a concert at Earl's Court in London on October 20, 1994, as part of Pink Floyd's DIVISION BELL tour. If Pink Floyd had been legendary for decades for their live performances, from their infamous gigs at psychedelic nightclubs in swinging '60s London to their theatrically ambitious THE WALL tour, then this incarnation of Floyd were willing to break the bank (at about $30 million).

Not only does P*U*L*S*E look expensive, what with an exploding airplane, film clips, a laser light show that'll give you a seizure, and one giant-ass crystal ball, but the audience (back then and now at home) sure get theirs Money's worth from what became the most successful rock tour for its time.

If anything, I think Sony and EMI should get this sucker slapped onto Blu-Ray pronto because its a perfect demonstration of that video system's audio capacity, and give strong incentive to people, especially home entertainment system aficionados, to upgrade into the future from DVD.

I mean, while the dry and intellectual vocals of Waters are really really missed, Gilmour/Wright/Mason still perform one hell of a kick ass show, starting with their epic "Shine On You Crazy Diamond." Even if I thought REASON and BELL were for the most part mediocre studio recordings, there is something thrilling as Gilmour's deep voice goes into "High Hopes," and you must see the insane-as-hell synch work between the laser effects and his (extraordinary as always) guitar work on "Sorrow."

Yet these Limeys sure know what is Pink Floyd's bread and butter with the masses, and with the concert's second-half they perform the entirety of their immortal DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. I do hate that MOON has almost overshadowed everything else awesome that Pink Floyd had recorded in the 60s (THE PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN) and 70s (ANIMALS), to the point that reformed Floyd and solo Waters have made MOON the lynchpin of their concerts, but with P*U*L*S*E, you forget that and revel in the likes of "Time." That song not only owns you, me, and everyone else reading this review, but it also retroactively and owned our parents too as well. Heck, It even trashed your ancestors' cave homes.

By the triumphant encore renditions of the haunting "Wish You Were Here," the mesmerizing "Comfortably Numb," and balls-to-the-wall "Run Like Hell," you are just exhausted, mostly from the constant stomping of your feet on your floor. Despite teases of a new tour since the Waters/Floyd reunion at Live 8 in summer 2005, I fear this will probably will be the closest I'll ever get to attending a Floyd concert in the flesh, unless that lost magical footage of the WALL concerts are discovered and properly restored.

But I'll take what I can.

I just watched Die Hard 4. One reason out of very few: Maggie Q!
Yum!!

THE WANDERERS (1979) ****

Where do I start? This film is one of the most underrated films of the 70s, maybe ever. And not just because it's set in the Fordham section of the Bronx, where Pizzaboy grew up. It's just that good.

THE WANDERERS is many things...an urban gang drama, juvenile comedy, changing of the times study and more. It works on all these levels and has become a certified cult classic. At it's core, the Wanderers is about the final death of the innocence of the 1950's. The Wanderers are an Italian gang in NY, still clinging to the last vestiges of the 1950's with their matching satin jackets and grease-backed hair. Early on several members run afoul of another gang, the notorious Baldies (Baldies footnote---They were a real gang; Dion DiMucci, of Dion and the Belmonts fame was a member, but chickened out of shaving his head, so he was thrown out). The Wanderers find themselves trapped until a newcomer, the huge Perry saves them and is immediately welcomed into the gang by their leader Richie (Ken Wahl).

The various members of the Wanderers have problems to deal with on their own. Richie has gotten his girlfriend, Despie, pregnant, Perry's mother is an Alcoholic, Turkey wants to join the Baldies and Joey has an abusive father who thinks his son doesn't measure up. The Wanderers have a verbal war with a black gang, the Del Bombers, in school and decide to settle things with an old-fashioned rumble.

When the Wanderers cannot get any other gangs to back them up, Despie's father (Dolph Sweet) a neighborhood mob boss steps in and decides to stop the rumble and have the gangs settle their differences with a football game instead...with a lot of mob money riding on the outcome. The game climaxes when the two gangs, along with the rest in attendance, must join together to fight The Ducky Boys, a group of vicious, seemingly Irish homosexuals (although their ethnicity is never mentioned), who have crashed the game with hundreds of members. The location filming of the football game, at French Charlie's field on Webster Avenue is fantastic. I played ball there religiously when I was growing up.

Mixed in with the drama and action is a liberal amount of juvenile buddy comedy as the Wanderers "accidentally" bump into women on the street in order to touch their breasts. This is how the meet Nina (Karen Allen) a bohemian girl who Richie becomes infatuated with. There there are drunken parties, games of strip poker, etc. In one memorable scene, the drunken Baldies join the marines.

Through all of this is the theme of the changing of the times. The doo-wop of the 1950's is now being replaced by folk music. A poignant scene has Richie following Nina until she enters a club where (in sound anyway) Bob Dylan is playing. Richie doesn't enter as he seems to know that it's just not his world. The film also covers the assasination of John Kennedy as the symbolic death of innocence. It is this moment the galvanizes the strained relationship between Despie and Richie.

One wishes that the Ducky Boys had been better explained. They are a creepy group of men..older than the other gangs...who never speak and were actually seen taking Holy Communion in one part where Turkey enters their turf by mistake and his killed. What were the Ducky Boys representing? It's the one mystery of the film.

THE WANDERERS has a fantastic soundtrack of early 1960's hits including "Soldier Boy", "Walk Like a Man", "Runaround Sue", "Shout", "Big Girls don't Cry" and of course the title track.

This is a movie that holds up still after 25 years because it works well on so many different levels. This was mostly a cast of unknowns with Karen Allen perhaps being the most notable star a year after she did ANIMAL HOUSE. An enjoyable movie from beginning to end.

DON'T FUCK WITH THE WONGS!

LEAVE THE KID ALONE!

Don't know what the hell Pizzaboy is talking about?

Watch this underrated classic and find out.

The Wanderers was a great movie, and i haven't seen it in close to 20 years.

what I remember most is that the film takes a sudden and dramatic change of mood where some of the Wanderers are travelling in a car, upbeat an optimistic, and immediately the sky becomes dark and the mood becomes threating and suspenseful. I believe this marks the moment they arrived on Duckie territory.

The Duckies were strange and eerie from what I can remember.

how 'bout dem Wongs!

ANOTHER very good review, pb. I'm gonna have to start calling you "Gene Shalit".

I love "The Wanderers" and have always sung it's praises here on the boards.

I've always thought the "theme" of it was summed up by the end when Dylan was singing "The Times They Are a Changin'". The innocence of the 50's was ending and the 60's were bringing all the changes that divided us. The Ducky Boys represented that change and it was interesting to see the coalitions formed to fight against them.

BTW - It always bothered me how Dylan was singing in the Village (and Richie looked through the window to see it) and then, all of sudden, he was back in The Bronx...

It was adapted from the Richard Price novel, SC. He's long been a hero of mine---A Bronx Jewish boy made good. He grew up in the Olinville projects just a bit north of my old neighborhood (Belmont), and he proves my point once again with his great ear for dialogue, that Jews and Italians are exactly the same. If you didn't know it, you'd think his books were written by a Bronx Italian guy, like Chazz Palminteri. If you've never read the book, you should. It's much darker than the film.

Can you elaborate a bit on why you think of 50's as a time of innocence?

*Runs from Italian-American mob with torches and bats*

Edited to remove racially offensive material. - SC

SC, that was a genuine question with no malicious intent. I would really like to hear you views.

I forgot about that with the joking.

The 50's, here in America anyway, were generally thought to be a quiet, conservative time. After the Korean war was done we still had the Cold War escalating, but domestically it was a quiet time. The economy was good, couples were having lots of babies, the suburbs were growing, there was no real political unrest, and "family values" were at their peak. It was a generally peaceful time here and a time of innocence.

You're a movie buff.... look at most of the movies that depict 50's life. Sure, some focused on changing issues ("Rebel Without a Cause" comes to mind) but they were mostly tame. The youth of most countries/cultures are the revolutionaries. The American youth of this time was very quiet.

Rebel Without a Cause was excellent!

EXTREME PREJUDICE (1987) - ***1/2

You know a great badass film scene is one that seems mundane, even silly on paper....until its executed. With EXTREME PREJUDICE, take the scene when the villain Powers Boothe wants to knock off a Texas sheriff who's become "unreliable to depend upon," so Boothe sends him a present: A cute fluffy pet rabbit. The corrupt cop loves such a random gift, and opens the cage...which triggers off a bomb that blows him and his SUBWAY restaurant up. Take that Jared!

I tell ya, I can't believe I didn't see this back in my days at High School where I was cherry-popping into full-fledged cinephilia. I am certain I would have loved EXTREME PREJUDICE as that sort of great little movie that nobody around me had seen, much less even know of, much like I was late one night when I saw THE WARRIORS on television. No coincidence then that both films were directed by the great Walter Hill, who's increasingly proving to me that he is one of the more criminally underrated American filmmakers of the last 40 years.

Most of his movies are pseudo-westerns, but like his THE LONG RIDERS this is a full-fledged-western, except its set in contemporary times like the Coens' NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. The difference being though that instead of philosophical musings about fate and mortality, EXTREME PREJUDICE is a classic genre action set-up in that two larger-than-life macho badass men, one good (Nick Nolte) and one bad (Boothe), fight for supremacy of a land....and the heart of a woman (Maria Alonso). They were the best of friends as children, but Boothe's drug trade from Mexico has sort of pissed off Nolte the Texas Ranger.

Hill doesn't avoid cliches, as much as play them by casting two giants of masculine charisma in Nolte and Boothe. Nolte is perfect as the stone-face hero, the only one in Texas apparently willing to stand up to his buddy-turned-enemy, and won't take any of his bribes.

"You can buy me, Cash. Hell, you always could. But you can't buy the badge, and one without the other ain't no goddamn good."

Boothe is equally awesome as the devil's advocate for his career, and in their first confrontation, even sneers that his massive monetary donations to charity make a bigger difference for the better than Nolte can in trying to play John Wayne. Then Boothe shows off his well-equipped private army, along with his own helicopter airfleet, in contrast to Nolte's out-gunned and understaffed police force...which doesn't deter Nolte at all.

PREJUDICE may be set in the 1980s, but the main storyline up to even the epic finale gunfight at Boothe's Mexican fortress, could have been set a hundred years earlier and we wouldn't have seen the difference. What does clearly stick out though from the Reagan Decade is the film's subplot in a mysterious U.S. government special ops squad of "dead" soldiers who orchestrate a grand bank robbery just to rob Boothe's accounting books...and what a cool gang of guys you have here. They include Clancy Brown (villain of HIGHLANDER and the great HBO television series CARNIVALE), William Forsythe (baddie of THE DEVIL'S REJECTS and John Goodman's fellow escapee in RAISING ARIZONA), and their leader in goddamn Michael Ironside (a nemesis from TOTAL RECALL.)

You gotta dig how two of the soldiers stage a fight against each other in the Unemployment Office of the same town as the bank, just so they could be jailed up in the local police precinct and scope out Nolte's manpower and capacity. Plus when the robbery is partly-botched and one of them gets killed, another teammate is greatly upset. Brown tries to tell him that at least they accomplished the objective, and the teammate utters a wonderful line of despair:

"Yeah, it still doesn't change the fact that my buddy's in a body bag. And he ain't in Lebanon or Honduras, but in fuckin' Texas."

If anything, I just dig that Hill and his writers (including the mad genius John Milius) have these high-tech spooks, trained for insane commando shit overseas, be at a tactical disadvantage when performing a similar military domestic operation. Plus, there is something Hill and Milius trademark in how Nolte the lowly redneck cop goes all ballsy in apprehending two of the soldiers....and they don't hate him, but actually respect him for pulling that off.

Also, unlike every other platoon or heist flick which have the obligatory electronics nerd expert, the black nerd for PREJUDICE actually fires a gun, and damn good at it.

We need more of that at the movies.

So eventually in PREJUDICE, the two plotlines converge when Nolte and the troops go down to Mexico to take out Boothe...and this is a pure genre western when Nolte goes into Boothe's joint, his army raising their guns at Nolte, and Nolte says anyway that he's dragging Boothe back over the border. He calls Boothe out as a coward, and they start their duel...and I just laughed my ass off when Alonso starts crying, and Boothe bitches at her for ruining the mood. Then a massive blood and bullet bath this side of THE WILD BUNCH interrupts them.....but afterwards, they resume the stances for their death game.

OK, that's just awesome, having adversaries that are so keen on having their ritualistic man-to-man fight. It may sound goofy and ridiculous, but just watch EXTREME PREJUDICE, and see how Nolte/Boothe/Hill just pull it off.

What perhaps keeps PREJUDICE from being a great movie, and not simply just a pretty good kickass flicker, is how poorly written Alonso's character is. I know her character is supposed to be a glorified object with arms and legs that Boothe and Nolte keep fighting over, but Jesus Christ couldn't they have given her a bigger and better dramatic bone to chew on? Compare that with Deborah Van Valkenburgh in THE WARRIORS, and you'll see why that movie has the slight edge.

But otherwise, go see EXTREME PREJUDICE, if simply for Nolte's sidekick deputy sheriff in Rip Torn delivers some memorable lines like: "Hell, Jack...the only thing worse than a politician is a child molester!"

VIRUS (1999) - **1/2

Ever see a movie in theatres that you know you saw, but don't remember anything else?

Well, that's my story with VIRUS back in the day, a major box-office flop that star Jamie Lee Curtis once called the worst movie she ever acted in, which considering that she also did z-slasher TERROR TRAIN, the feel-bad holiday flick CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS, and that horrific cameo in HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION....wow.

But having bought this at the DVD Bargain Bin at Ingles for $3, I think she's totally wrong. Unlike those pictures I've just mentioned, VIRUS is actually sort of competent. I'm not saying that its good or even decent but its perhaps as good of a "creature feature" can be in ripping off better films like John Carpenter's THE THING, James Cameron's ALIENS, and Ridley Scott's ALIEN in dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s of the formula from those flicks without bringing anything new to the table.

It's like a well-written plagiarized term paper. It's the SUDDEN DEATH for the Hollywood monster movie. It's that nice knock-off Rolex you bought on the street for $30. It's a good Sci-Fi Channel Movie of the Week in another dimension, but in ours it escaped television and someone at Universal Pictures was stupid enough to sink $75 million into it.

VIRUS opens with an electric storm from space getting transmitted to a Russian scientific ship in the south Pacific, and the comrades don't fare well. Cut to a week later, and a shipping barge happens upon the ship, dead in the water and deserted (ALIEN). Since this crew lost their cargo, they figure they can salvage a payday from this ghost boat. Though I doubt Russia will want to buy back a ship infested with killer robots. I mean even if they wanted to, could they afford it? Go ask China for a loan.

They get jumped by an mentally-squared survivor (ALIENS), but they all try to get the hell of the boat and stop this alien "virus" from spreading to the rest of Earth (THE THING). Captain Donald Sutherland though is the douchebag who impedes the heroes on both goals (ALIEN/ALIENS) and the heroine has a one-on-one confrontation with the head robot (ALIENS) and there's a giant-ass explosion by the end (All 3 movies).

Again, if you seen those movies, you've seen this one already....but I must say that I sort of feel bad for director John Bruno. With such material, some filmmakers just don't bother in trying to even create tension or fear. For example, DEEP RISING was released a year earlier and has practically the exact same plot, ripped off the same great films, which also involves a giant ship in the seas, except its sea creatures instead of robots. Perhaps a reason why some geeks like RISING is that Stephen Sommers (yes, director of VAN HELSING) simply Kraft Cheese the whole thing, i.e. "We know its stupid, and you're stupid for liking it."

But I give VIRUS the edge of RISING in that career FX-worker Bruno really tries his best to make us jump in spite of the fact that a filmphile like me could practically predict when they would happen, and you know what? He succeeded once, and I won't say in which scene, but its one of three reasons why VIRUS is watchable.

The second is how Bruno actually relies for the most part on animatronics and old school FX for the deadly electronic creatures, which was nice in the late 1990s when CGI was already greatly abused this side of Elizabeth Smart. Too bad the few CGI shots we get in this flick is the worst effects Hollywood money could be wasted on. It's not unfortunate I guess that Bruno hasn't directed a studio movie since then, but there are much worse shooters still employed. Right Rob Cohen?

Third.....actually, I was wrong about VIRUS in having any new ideas. A nice concept wasted is.....get ready for it.....Zombie Robots.

Zombie Robots!

To be fair, even this isn't original. The z-schlock MOONTRAP produced a decade earlier did this too, though technically those bodies retooled by evil machines as cyborgs are simply glorified jackets, so I guess VIRUS did this one first....maybe. Funny enough, the guy who wrote VIRUS also wrote another forgettable by-the-numbers flop involving stalking robots in RED PLANET.

There are many things I could complain and nitpick this movie over. If the virus itself is electronic in nature, why the hell does it need to type on a computer keyboard to design the robots? Couldn't it simply get inside that comp and do it without a keyboard? Better yet...what about the Internet? Maybe this film was produced before Wi-Fi, I'm not sure, but I sure know that cell phones were. Yeah Mr. Virus, you sure are incredibly backwards for an electronic life form. Retard.

Also, when the virus tortures Curtis for information, why not simply kill her? I mean, they already absorbed data from the other dead converted into zombie robots, so why bother asking her? Why didn't the writers give crazy Sutherland something to have fun to work with for the paycheck instead of looking like he would rather watch paint dry? Why is the lead male hero is William "Offered after Alec and Stephen declined" Baldwin? Why did VIRUS have to resort to the lamest hack horror trick of them all in ending with a jump scare? Name the last movie besides CARRIE that made that gimmick work.

Yet with 3 dollars, I could have donated it to help fund literacy programs or get food for starving children in Africa, but instead I bought VIRUS. Sorry hungry kids who can't read, but it was worth the money...but that's about it.

Can anyone provide me with a quote of Optimus Prime's last statement in the movie Transformers?

Optimus Prime: Were we so different? They're a young species. They have much to learn. But I've seen goodness in them. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings. You all know there's only one way to end this war. We must destroy the cube. If all else fails, I will unite it with the spark in my chest.

Ratchet: That's suicide. The cube is raw power. It could destroy you both.

Optimus Prime: A necessary sacrifice to bring peace to this planet. We cannot let the humans pay for our mistakes. It's been an honor serving with you all. Autobots, ROLL OUT!

"Fuck You for paying to watch this movie. OHHHH YEEEEEAH!"

Thanks. But I'm referring to the one he states as the final words of the movie which I recall end with "We are here. We are waiting."

"With the Allspark gone, we cannot return life to our planet. And fate has yielded its reward: a new world to call home. We live among its people now in plain sight, but watching over them in secret, waiting, protecting. I have witnessed their capacity for courage, and though we are worlds apart, like us, there's more to them than meets the eye. I am Optimus Prime, and I send this message to any surviving Autobots taking refuge among the stars: we are here, we are waiting."

Grazie. It's going to be an exam question.

Does anyone here like Resident Evil 3?

I thought it was very good, especially the ending, very suspenseful - I was jumping round the room with that revelation!

The first one was ok, not seen the other two..

Fucking hated the first two movies, and despite Russell Mulcahy (HIGHLANDER) as director of #3...sorry, but producer/writer Paul W.S. Anderson is just a toxic hack mother fucker for me.

You didn't just hate it, you fucking hated it. And Anderson isn't just a hack, he's a mother fucker. (Yours, perhaps? )

You have a way with words, my literate friend. The way you paint a picture with words is truly remarkable.

You hated the 3 Resident Evil films. Is Godfather 3 better then all 3?

The Sci Fi channel has shown both Resident Evil 1 & 2 (don't know about 3). By reading the description, I have been tempted, but never did watch it. I like the idea of the Sci Fi Channel, but a lot of their movies are dumb. Although they do show some good ones from time to time.


TIS

TIS, I don't know what TCM schedule you're on (if it's the same as the east coast), but if you're able to watch "Bridge to the Sun" on it tonight, do so!! It's an excellent movie and I think you'd enjoy it.

SC,

To get an idea of any time difference or IF we have the same movie scheduled on the West Coast as the East. It is 7:47 here and right now on TCM is China Doll, followed at 9:00 with Sayonara with Brando and The World Of Suzy Wong at 10:00. Are any of these movies playing now on your TCM? Or, maybe they are two totally different schedules.

TIS

OK... we're seeing the same movies at the same time. The movie I recommended would have been on by you at 5:00 (your time).

How about this instead: "He's like Michael Bay, but never given more than $30 million for a movie. Just as useless, annoying, and irrelevant for popcorn cinema, but at least he's not seen by misguided folks as the definition of the genre."

How about that?

*Thump*

Sunshine, how about it?

Yeah...at least GF3 was decent at least, if a movie made by someone who really had no interest in it, and given a total of a year from writing/scouting/budgeting/casting/shooting/editing/mixing...it shows all that, but at least I was never bored with it as the first two RE pictures have been in general.

For better or for worse, the Sci-Fi Channel does honor the "B" tradition of the sci-fi and horror genres.....or "Z-grade," to be technical with Internet jargon.

I mean, what other channel would make a movie about a Special Forces Army unit going to war with the Headless Horseman? Not LIFETIME, thats for sure.

RR,

Many times they run trilogys: Gator 1, 2,3; or Shark 1,2,3; Phython......you get my drift. Oh, and Stargate is on a lot, but I have never been into that.

On the other hand, they run occasional good flicks from time like Final Destination (I really get a kick out of that movie, even the sequels), The Thing (with Kurt Russell), and a few others. I do check out what's showing just in case.


TIS

The only two reasons I watch Sci-Fi Channel for is on friday nights: Britain's own DOCTOR WHO at 9, and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA at 10. The latter is one that's better enjoyed having seen the complete series (its currently airing its last season) but the WHO revival is stand-alone episode fun.

In fact, this week's WHO episode is a perfect time to check it out...the first of a two parter involving a haunted library. Watched it the other day on YouTube (that episode aired some weeks ago back in UK)...I say check it out TIS.

THE ENFORCER (1976) - ***1/2

One thing about the DIRTY HARRY movies I'll never understand really is how Detective Harry Callahan was never kicked off the San Francisco police force, much less locked up in jail. I'm not just talking about his lack of commitment to uphold a criminal suspect's civil rights, but how he tells his department superiors to kiss his ass.

I mean after the original DIRTY HARRY, in real life he probably would have been prosecuted not just because he blew away the mass murderer, but because the city government would have wanted to make an example of him. As critic Roger Ebert once noted, "Harry has solved all of his cases while on suspension."

Then again, why is John McClane from the DIE HARD movies still a lowly cop and not been recruited by Department of Homeland Security to handle terrorists? Why does the U.S. government still not believe Jack Bauer whenever he brings up undisputed evidence of a terrorist plan? How did an crying emo bitch like Anakin Skywalker grow up to become the baddest man in the galaxy in Darth Vader? I guess some logic lapses must be accepted for the greater good.

Yet, maybe they keep Harry around because despite the fact that he'll never lick boot, and his expensive property damages are a constant headache, but he is the sort of mean bastard you need to get the job done. From icing the Scorpio Killer to going to war for the corrupt system against vigilante cops, and with the action-packed climax of THE ENFORCER, he and his new female partner Tyne Daly storm Alcatraz to free the kidnapped Mayor from SLA-esque terrorists. (You know, back when extremist American leftists were actually threatening?)

In every DIRTY HARRY flick, you have an early sequence where the man displays his kickass credentials. There's a liquor store robbery, and he goes in to negotiate. The crooks made him drop his .44 Magnum revolver canon on the street, and promptly rough him up as they throw him out the door, demanding a getaway car. That twitch look on Clint Eastwood's face afterwards is just classic, and you know what's gonna happen.

Anyway, he's knocked down to Personel as punishment for his stopping the robbery, and he's being an asshole in examining desk jockey Daly, but the guy does have a point. Why should someone without any street or arrest experience be made an Inspector simply to fill out a quota? So of course he's just thrilled[i] when she's made his partner.

Daly has never done much besides this movie and CAGNEY & LACEY, but she really does strike up good chemistry with Eastwood in a pretty good "buddy cop" movie relationship six years before Walter Hill's 48 HRS. Besides the fact that she's a nervous rookie taking a crash course on police work, no men at the precinct takes her seriously...including Eastwood initially. But I must say, he does give her a [i]chance to earn her badge, and she ends up getting his respect. Harry may be a sexist violent Neanderthal cop, but at least he admits when he's wrong.

Too bad the filmmakers of THE ENFORCER decided to make Daly carry a purse around. A purse! I mean Jesus Christ, I've never seen a female cop, uniform or detective, ever lug one around. Besides, with America these days, its more likely that it would be the man with the "man purse" strapped around the shoulder.

What's interesting though about THE ENFORCER is how early on, his superiors get on Eastwood for targeting hoods based on their race, but later on, the same higher-ups arrest a local black militant group as the terrorists, despite the terrorist group being white. But its interesting how the police bureaucracy is just as guilty in racial profiling as they accused Eastwood of being.

With THE ENFORCER, I'm reminded that part of the success of the Dirty Harry franchise isn't just Eastwood being a badass, but the humor from him being calm with the bullshit around him. From destroying the Mayor's perfect photo-op moment when wrongly given credit for a bust, to crashing in on a porno shoot, and what he gets at the Whore House for his $75. What's classic though is this dialogue exchange when he's demoted by his Captain:

"Personnel? That's for assholes!"
"I was in Personnel for ten years."
"Yeah."

Having finally gotten around to seeing THE ENFORCER, its a pretty good shoot-em-up/buddy cop action yarn with some laughs, but I really dig how unlike such fare produced from Hollywood in the 1980s and onward, ENFORCER oddly for its genre has a surprisingly bitter ending. No epilogue, no plot tie-ups, just a perfect moment when someone can be both victorius and defeated at the same time.

Hey RR,

I understand your point about Dirty Harry Callahan never getting kicked off the SF police force. Call it a sign of the times in move making, or the temperment of the nation at that time, or whatever, but the rogue, "me against the system" type cop was very big in the 70's and nobody personified that more than Eastwood IMHO. He was the top box office draw quite a few years in a row if I remember correctly.

I was a young newlywed in the 70's and whenever there was a new Eastwood movie out, my husband and I and friends were there. The tag lines from the Dirty Harry flicks were known by everyone..."Make my Day"...."Do you fell lucky punk? Do ya?" Everybody loved to see Eastwood kick ass. And damn, he looked so good too. I don't know, maybe coming out of the Viet Nam war that many felt unjust made us all in the mood to be defiant to the so-called "authority" figures. Hard to tell, but even though DH was a fictional character, he did speak to the times. For what it's worth, I like Eastwood's spaghetti westerns, but have always been partial to the Dirty Harry flicks, even if a little outdated now.

I saw Dirty Harry not too long ago and still enjoy watching it. I enjoyed The Enforcer and until I saw it on TV a few years ago, forgot that Tyne Daly was in it. I do remember her with the purse. The enjoyed all of them. The first three (DH, Magnum Force, Enforcer) are the best. Sudden Impact was my least favorite, if I recall, but I did enjoy Dead Pool (loved the remote control car). The first three though are the best

TIS


Dirty Harry (1971)
Magnum Force (1973)
The Enforcer (1976)
Sudden Impact (1983)
The Dead Pool (1988)

Ok, I'm probably not right on with this quote but here goes:

"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 5 shots or 6 shots? To tell you the truth, in all the excitement I kind of forgot myself. So, you need to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do you punk?"



TIS

Yeah, SUDDEN IMPACT doesn't sound exactly thrilling, but its plot does fit in line with the franchise.

If Harry went vigilante at the finale of DIRTY HARRY, then he had to fight cops who went vigilante in MAGNUM FORCE, then SUDDEN IMPACT is Harry having to contend with someone trying to be vigilante in her need for her own revenge. Vigilantism is a door that swings both ways, though with Harry, he simply blows it away with his Magnum.

While we're talking pre-HARRY Eastwood, while his spagetti westerns were great, I enjoyed his solid directorial debut PLAY MISTY FOR ME*, but my personal favorite of pre-HARRY Eastwood was probably WHERE EAGLES DARE, which was his biggest hit until DIRTY HARRY.

*=Or, the smart version of FATAL ATTRACTION.

The reason why I probably didn't see Where Eagles Dare is because I'm not real big on war movies and that's a war movie no???? I did see whowever,Kelly's Heroes.

And yes, I loved Play Misty For Me. A really different type roll (at the time) for Eastwood. And Jessica Walter, wow, how convincingly creepy she was. Many may or may not remember that the hit song "First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" was from that movie. Ok, ans speaking of different roles, Paint Your Wagon was totally different.


TIS

GC is gone. Sorry, can't think about some obsure movie at the moment,.. I"m actually a bit upset... :{

J Geoff, come give me a hug! I promise not to bite!!

Bitch... next time promise to bite! Then I might think about it

How about DOGMA, where Carlin was the Archbishop that threatens the apocalypse?

Dogma was blasphemy! (But still funny )

I thought Dogma was ok, I really only watched it for Damon and Affleck.

Ohh okay...And Salma Hayek too!!! I'm only a man!!!!!

Carlin is Blasphemy...and Awesome.

Its either DOGMA or BILL & TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE.

JUMPER (2008) - **

What if you could transport to any place on Earth within a second? What if you could go at any time with great ease? What if JUMPER actually had a plot beyond that?

Six years ago, Director Doug Liman shot the most influential Hollywood action movie of this decade in the blockbuster hit THE BOURNE IDENTITY, and that genre has been his bread & butter since then. But after the unsatisfying MR. & MRS. SMITH and now the pretty mediocre JUMPER, I wonder if Liman is just simply bored now with the normal-who-really-are-extraordinary-on-the-run plot template, or perhaps BOURNE was a fluke.

JUMPER opens up with a prologue that's painfully Emo. You know, the hero is a scrawny guts-less punk that gets pushed around; the parents are mean, blah blah. Jesus, I'm shocked he wasn't carrying around a razor blade. While drowning in a frozen lake, he accidentally "jumps" to the library. When he comes back years later to the town, nobody there is fazed that someone presumed dead is alive and kicking. Huh?

Don't worry; the nonsense in JUMPER is just getting started.

Try another scene when he takes his drunk Dad to the hospital, and the medical staff gets onto a gurney.....and making NO reaction at all to the crater that he created in the lobby. I guess Michigan hospitals have regular Jumper business or something. Still, I did sorta like how the immature young boy's first reaction to discovering his little trick, is to rob a bank. "Wouldn't you?"

Yeah I would.

We cut to him years later, as Hayden Christensen is super-duper-wealthy with a New York City penthouse, and he whines about how he never told his best friend. I thinking, "Well jackass, why didn't you?" I mean, if this guy held such low self-esteem in high school, wouldn't he have stroked his ego by showing off his secret power to a would-be girlfriend? Sorry dude, but its your fault that you abandoned her. Don't blame it off on insecurity or whatever CW Network crap. At worst, she freaks out and dumps you...which would arguably make her the jerk of this situation. Man Up!

So already, I don't give two shits about this guy, nor his situation, and It doesn't help that this is Christensen here. I tried to somewhat defend the guy years ago after the nerds crucified him with the STAR WARS prequels, of how maybe his performance, like the rest of the cast, was screwed by George Lucas' writing. But no, they were right. The guy lacks any charisma power to compel us, to capture our short attention spans and make us care. Compare him with Matt Damon in THE BOURNE IDENTITY. He captivated us not just because he could open up a can of whoop ass, but as well carry the sympathetic eyes of someone who doesn't know what he is, and thus rather damn afraid.

I guess Liman's great idea with the Hayden casting was that the guy has an arrogant face, and considering his carefree playboy jumper lifestyle....alright, I can understand that. But damn, we the audience is supposed to want to fantasize about being him, even if he's a dick, and not dreaming up ways to beat his ass. Look at Dennis Quaid in the 1980s B-classic DREAMSCAPE, where he uses his psychic powers to score on and off the racetracks. You may not agree with how he uses his power, but at least you enjoy him doing it.

JUMPER is one of those movies where the filmmakers concentrated their time, money, and energy solely on the visual effects, but probably spent more on the set lunches than they did on the script. Why did that girlfriend keep hanging around with Hayden despite all the fishy incidents around them? Girls, wouldn't you have slapped Hayden silly on the spot to know what the hell is going on? How did Hayden know how to transport a whole building if he didn't learn why a previous attempt fail? Why did the rival Jumper stalk the hero in the first place? How come we couldn't have gotten a real relationship, good or bad, between someone on the run for his whole life, and one that just started?

Better yet, how does this "Jump" gift even work? JUMPER can't decide whatever its by looking at a picture of a location, or from memories, or your emotions...make up your own damn mind movie!

Then there is the villain Samuel L. Jackson, who's part of some secret brotherhood of religious extremists out to exterminate all these Jumpers. Why? "Because only God should have this power." But what if God was the one who gave Anakin Skywalker this ability in the first place? Why you telling the Big Man up there how to do his job? Let the Vatican do that. Also, how do these guys even track Jumpers in the first place?

By the ending when Hayden confronts his mother, you don't give a damn at all why Diane Lane abandoned him as a child, and you're already trying to figure out why you rented this instead of MAGNUM FORCE. JUMPER has some splendid VFX that is wasted on a story (more like a glorified premise) that never starts, with people who never gets us involved, nor they ever thrill us. God help us that they improve with the inevitable sequel, or else I'll become comatose from disinterest.

Liman once shot the indie classic SWINGERS, the solid GO, and of course THE BOURNE IDENTITY, so I have hope that JUMPER was simply a misstep, but I fear that at this rate the man is now threatening to become the new Michael Bay.

Mr. Liman, please don't make me jump off a bridge.

THE ITALIAN JOB (2003) - ***

"Robber," aka The Heist Movie - Basically the "Squad" movie, but for the crime genre. This film formula revolves around a team attempting to heist something of financial or personal value from an impregnable location using slick wits and gadgets. Two members never share the same specific skill, and the roster may be ethnic/gender/nationality diverse with conflicting archetypes (The Nerd, the Muscle, the Rookie, etc.) We have scenes where they scout out the location, the whole team is briefed on the detailed plan which they rehearse step by step, and the crew has to deal with unexpected twists and turns along the way that complicate their perfect scheme. - RRA's Cinema Dictionary

I'm simply a sucker for two types of movies: People trying to get revenge on somebody, and People trying to steal from somebody. With THE ITALIAN JOB, we get both. We open with a brood of crooks pulling of a thrilling $35 million gold heist in Venice. I must say, there is a good fake-out moment that regarding the operation that fooled me, which is nice for a cinephile like me. Anyway, one of their own (Edward Norton) screws them out of their money, and leaves them for dead. A year later, they regroup when they discover where this rat bastard is, and resolve to make him pay by taking back their money.

I've never seen the original ITALIAN JOB from the 1960s, but I do know that Sir Michael Caine may have had top billing, but the real star was the Mini-Cooper. With the 2003 remake, it's practically a car commercial for the current fleet of Mini-Coopers, but I appreciated how the filmmakers actually created an impressive action sequence uniquely suited for these fast little buggers that involves trying to out race a subway train(!) to get ahead in a tunnel, with no margin for error. Now that's good product placement.

I even liked how they casted the great Donald Sutherland, because he was part of arguably the most iconic "Squad" flick ever produced in THE DIRTY DOZEN. Yeah that was a "Men on a Mission" war movie, but so was technically KELLY'S HEROES, which itself was also a robber that Sutherland starred in. He also appeared in the rather underrated fun robber THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY shot by Michael Crichton. Too bad you know what's gonna happen when he says he's working his "last job." He might as well be the old cop who's just a day away from retirement.

Anyway, I liked this version of THE ITALIAN JOB, even though its more like THE AMERICAN JOB because it mostly takes place in Los Angeles, if simply for two reasons: The instantly-appealing junk pulpy hook premise, and good actors as the avengers. You have the leader (Mark Wahlberg), the safecracker (Charlize Theron), the exploder (Mos Def), the electronics geek (Seth Green), the engineer (Franky G) and the getaway driver (Jason Statham).

But right there is the source of my biggest complaint with JOB, in that these people fit their slots well, but aren't given any real meaty scenes to really stand out special this side of PREDATOR. I mean, you have Wahlberg and Statham, arguably today's Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson at the movies, men who can be really good with action material, but here they're functional at best, at worst uninspired. Hell, the movie's best line isn't from this crew, but from a fat gangster:

"If there's one thing I know, it's never to mess with mother nature, mother in-laws and, mother freaking Ukrainians."

My point is especially true with Norton, who was forced by contractual obligations to Paramount to do this film. The dude is just bored with what he's given to work with, and I hate that because he really could have been great fun as a total prick. Still, I dug how ITALIAN JOB has the baddie not know what to buy with his blood money, so he spent it on the dream gifts of his ripped-off co-workers.... for himself. A nice asshole touch, if you ask me.

This is a random story, but it was reported back in the day that the studio tried to smooth their rocky relations with Norton by buying him an expensive sports car, which he promptly had returned, with a note saying "Kiss My Ass." I don't know if that really happened or not, but its funny anyway.

I take myself back, Statham does have a cool scene when he's stuck in traffic and sees one of those billboards counting up how many people die of smoking. He's puffing his cigarette up real good, with his eyes saying Fuck You Sign.

The dude is just a natural badass, but imagine if Statham was working his TRANSPORTER persona here. He would have left his partners at the hotel, went to the villain's mansion, pull some martial artists on the guards, break Norton's neck, and drive back with the gold, all within 30 minutes. Then afterwards, maybe kick Wahlberg's ass out the window for THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE.

I also wish this movie had gone for a good old fashion R-rating instead of the wussy PG-13, because this set-up is just asking for a nasty and brutal Parker novel treatment. The flirting subplot between Wahlberg and Theron is filler, Norton had a cartoonish evil goatee, the Velvet Revolver's cover of Pink Floyd's "Money" was ass, and the action cinema of director F. Gary Gray was at times borderline-forgettable.

However, I was never bored. I was thrilled by the snatching, pumped by the car chasing (and by the nice stand-off between helicopter and Mini under a bridge), and laughed quite fine, thanks mostly to Green, who later created the hilarious Adult Swim program ROBOT CHICKEN. Plus after OCEAN'S 11, it was nice to have a Hollywood robber without trying to be terminally hip.

What can I say? They got the JOB done.

I thought this one was wicked.

A fantastic cast and perfect stunts.

Damn, you're up early (or late)!

I just got up, was really tired last night!

Just watched 10000 BC -- not even worth much of a review or the bother with links. Okay, it wasn't as "terrible" as I was expecting after seeing some reviews -- but it's all rehash. And historically ridiculous. If it was called anything else, then I would've bought it. It was fun to watch (kinda like it being fun to watch car wrecks), but it wasn't totally awful. Just totally unoriginal if you've seen any epic-battle type films. And this wasn't even that good at that, come to think of it. Ahh well, at least I got that off of my to-see list.

Roland Emmerich is the sort of director that works with vague ideas that COULD become good movies* (dead soldiers returned to life as zombie super-troopers, invading aliens, guerilla warfare in the American backwaters, world facing ecological doomsday) but always seems to deliver idiotic mediocrity.

Anyway Geoff, want a cool caveman movie without Emmerich's stupidity? Go rent QUEST FOR FIRE.

*=Hell, look at STARGATE. Not much of a movie, but it took a TV show to make the premise actually exploited.

I remember the uproar when QFF came out and as a teen couldn't wait to see all the "pornography" in it! Saw it again a few years ago and thought it was pretty decent -- at least a bit more accurate! And certainly more than Caveman was!

I really didn't want to hear an old man's Horny Confessions today, but whatever..

Anybody wanna hear my horny confessions?!!!!

Only if you pay me.

What? I'm a whore, I admit it.

Coming from an 12/8 year old Sure, go on....

Before you go on MMB....did you ever force an Out of Court settlement from Michael Jackson?

I'm just saying, don't give away free money.

You know I have had several people tell me that The Italian Job was really good, but I have yet to see it. I will have to check it out.

As far as 10,000 BC is that a remake of the old Raquel Welch film, or am I thinking of a different movie?



TIS

Different movie, not a remake at all..........God knows Emmerich already made a shitty remake in GODZILLA, thankfully Hollywood has him banned from anymore such remakes.

But yeah TIS, I say rent the new ITALIAN JOB. Its disposable entertainment, but good disposable entertainment.

I can't wait for Brooklyn Rules to be released on DVD!

Now he's only one and a half years old?? This is getting ridiculous...

Seriously, I'm from UK - its not out here yet!

If it was I would have seeeeennnnnnn it by now.

Still talking to yourself, huh?

I was replying to Blibble - damm this Brooklyn Rules, ya know, isn't out worldwide at the same time. Now every Yankee thinks I'm lying.

Well, you quoted yourself, not Blibble... what was I or anyone else to think??

I quoted myself to show what I was on about.

Whatever.



Isn't there a Teletubbies forum you cold join or something? (ouch!)

Damm Mafia!!!!!!1

Yeah!! Damn Mafia!!!!!!1

I thought rules said at least 14+ to sigh up here...

You as an American should have problems with the mob, aren't they "damaging the lives of citizens by keeping the costs high"?

Or are the real problems created by the citizens and the stockholders who "want to keep the party going"?

I've been hearing some real s**t about what the USA has been getting up to lately.

Seriously, how old are you?

26.

No, seriously... lol

I know what you mean J Geoff - I'm talking a small bit of sense, but it's not right for the forum, people don't wanna hear that kind of thing,

I can help you (hopefully) act normal, but it'd cost about $50/hr...

I'd look for a better rate, myself:

If you can find it for 5c, go of it!

Well, for $50/hr there better be a beej and a cup of coffee included.

Who told you this, your friend in witness protection..

No its on the news and in the papers.

I hadn't seen The Outsiders in a while... always thought it was great, but for some reason didn't think so this time. Acting was overdone at best, and poor at worst... Music was also overdone and misplaced (and Coppola's uncle did it!)... All-Star 80's cast... but I guess nostalgia (I love'm all!, but) doesn't outweigh talent in the end...

Seen Coppola's Director's Cut?

No, there's a newer version? Haven't seen it. But was never disappointed w/ the original -- before tonight....

Its on DVD, and with a pretty good FF Coppola audio commentary track (but he's always great on the stick)....I say check it out from Netflix.

Brainscan (1994), starring Ed Furlong, is a little piece of shit of a film, eh? The potential was enormous, but the final result was quite... meh.

Guys, watch Walle. Pretty good

I've just watched Sniper. The one where the two coloured guys shot people in Washington State. I remember seeing it on the news and this brought it all back.

I don't recall where the conversation was, but upon a few recommendations, I watched The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) tonight -- very enjoyable! Sure, the F/X leave a lot to be desired - I could clearly see the strings holding the girl up when the robot was carrying her! But makes no difference - a fine film, and an even better message!

Yes, I saw that recently too Geoff and it was quite enjoyable. I wonder how the remake will do compared to the original (my money's on not as good)

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, Geoff. As I said earlier, it's my favorite sci-fi movie of all time.

Yes, it is dated, but it still holds up today. The other great sci-fi flick from 1951, "The Thing", had a different message - that being the Armed Forces should be allowed to handle matters of national security. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" left us with a completely different direction - that a military solution would not solve our problems. (Remember, both of these great flicks were made only a few years after a world war).

I love the idea of a greater power than we have, whether it be a God or a race of robots designed to stop war at all cost. Imagine that power (of being able to obliterate the earth in a simple way!!).

I waited weeks to receive National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) from NetFlix -- I liked the first one, and like movies like this in general. But WTF? By halfway thru it seemed to fall into a shroud of bullshit and sub-par Indiana Jones shit... What was that about??

Umm, wasn't both movies sub-par Indy Jones shit?*

And really, wasn't that "Roman/Greek/Egyptian" Mason treasure pretty much "a shroud of bullshit" as well?

*=Not that necessarily is a bad thing, those NATIONAL TREASURE pictures are what they are....which to me is going through the motions but lack anything interesting beyond being inspired by the (equal stupidity) of the DA VINCI CODE. Plus, Nic Cage as a scholar? What a laugh...:D

Early this morning I watched The Lady is a Vamp from movies on demand. I'm pissed that I spent $3.99 on that piece of crap. The only thing that I'm glad about is that I didn't waste gas on top of it.

Avoid this movie at all costs, I normally like movies that deal with that genre but not this one.

Not sure, but I don't think Comcast rents pornos OnDemand...

really? Time warner does. But why pay when you can get it for free

Death at a Funeral
Frank Oz (2007)


I wouldn't consider this movie a classic but it's a comedy worth watching once. Although I'll probably give it a second watch because I keep thinking about several parts of the movie long after I've watched it. The plot is simple. There is a funeral and everything goes wrong including one of the attendants freaking out while on an acid trip induced by a pill he thought was valium given to him by his girlfriend.

It is silly, odd humor throughout the movie and it works very well. My only criticism is that it comes to a very sudden end but everything leading up to it is so funny that it is still worth the viewing.

Going to see Hancock this afternoon..

Nice

Now that is a review worthy of DEATH AT A FUNERAL. Good job Blib!

I watched "The Bone Collector" (with Denzel Washington and Angelina Jolie) for the first time last night. Washington plays a crippled cop who used to specialize in crime scene investigations and Jolie plays a young beat cop. They team up to try to solve a series of grisly murders in this suspenseful movie.

There's little remarkable about the flick and despite Denzel being in it, I was disappointed in the overall outcome of it. If you have 2 hours to kill and nothing else to do, then it's worth a look, but you can find better movies to watch.

Two stars (out of four).

I did see it too SC, but a year or so ago. You're right, not remarkable, but I think I liked it just a tad better than you, as I'd probably go a little over two stars.( 2 1/2) I like most of Denzel's work that I've seen and Jolie did well too. I'd probably tune in and watch again since it's been while. I can't think of the name of it, but did you ever see the supernatural type thriller Denzel was in? The title escapes me but John Goodman co-starred. Not terribly popular but I liked it.


TIS

Would that be "Fallen"?

That's it Beth. Thanks!!



TIS

Time is on my side... Remember that song in "Fallen"?

That movie scared the heck out of me. And it had a really good cast. In addition to Denzel and Goodman there was also Donald Sutherland and James Gandolfini.

THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM.

Watched this Saturday night and i did enjoy it but really it was no different from the first 2 eh?

It had the obligatory confused Bourne,the flashbacks,the crazy car chase and the wicked fist fight with another agent!!

I did enjoy it though.

Honest

MR. SATURDAY NIGHT (1992) ***

I caught this highly overlooked film last night on basic cable.

It's a very personal project for Billy Crystal, who directs and stars as Buddy Young, Jr., an aging, bitter comedian whose life throughout four decades is explored in this picture.

Starting with some terrific lines about the mountains of not-particularly-healthy food that awaited them at dinnertime, Buddy and his brother, Stan (David Paymer) entertain for the family. Years pass and Buddy's brother is now his manager. The film bounces back and forth throughout the years, occasionally returning to the present, where Buddy is now entertaining senior centers and not getting the same sort of reaction he got years prior. His brother believes that it's finally time to close the curtain on his career.

The film really walks a fine line between being too sentimental and genuinely heartbreaking. There's a particular quality about David Paymer's terrific performance that allows him to be intelligent, hurt and sympathetic; after years of withstanding Buddy's sarcastic comments and insults, he realizes that when he says that "he can't do this anymore" this time, he really means it. This takes place in an early scene in a diner - Buddy's gotten older, but there's finally a flicker of recognition after all these years that he may have hurt or neglected those who have loved him.

Crystal's performance is the best of a series of fine efforts contained in the film. You get the feeling that he knows a wealth comedians similar to Buddy Young, Jr. He has the timing down, he connects with the sort of arc that some of these entertainers must face, going with the lows and highs of the great years until they finally find themselves fading. As previously noted, Paymer's performance is a delight; the two work off one another believably and really seem like brothers. Julie Warner is sweet and engaging as Crystal's wife, while Helen Hunt is fine in an early performance as a possible new agent for Buddy.

If anything, Crystal could have even made the film even better had some editing been done. At a run time of around two hours, there are a few scenes that could have been deleted to help the pace of the film. As is, it's not a groundbreaking or hugely memorable picture, but there's some really poignant and sharply funny moments, as well as strong performances.

Well, different from the first BOURNE at least in terms of the editing narrative....

Funny thing is, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM said more successfully of what's wrong, if you want to view it that way, with 9/11 America than any of those 2007 flops (IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, LIONS FOR LAMBS, REDACTED etc.) did.

Anyway, I think its the best of the trilogy, and a perfect ending for it.

THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007) - ****1/2

Does anyone remember the title of the movie starring Billy Crystal and it is about the character's relationship with his father? I think Billy Crystal is a doctor or something in that movie. I remember liking the movie, don't know if I'll like it on a rewatch.

"Memories of Me"??

Alan King was just great in that film.

The Big Lebowski, a touching movie about Vietnam and bowling.

I watched World Trade Center for about the 3rd time. Nothing beats seeing it in the theatre though. I know some who say they can never watch the movie. But I feel the movie is more uplifting in showing how strangers came together to help each other. Even knowing what the outcome is I still cheer and get emotional at the rescues. The movie showed the confusion in the beginning, when no one knew the second tower was hit. I felt like yelling at the screen that they were wrong.

The final moments of the movie are riveting. Staff Sargeant Karnes telling Will, "We're the marines, you are our mission" still gets me every time I hear it.

I saw World Trade Center on the big screen. It was the worst film I saw that year.

What I think disapointed me was how in that same year, we also got Paul Greengrass' intelligent and daunty UNITED 93.

When Oliver Stone is no longer the one pushing our cerebral buttons...that's a sign that he's over the hill.

When was Oliver Stone ever pushing our cerebral buttons?

Let me rephrase that....remember when Oliver Stone was worth a shit as a Director?

It's a simple true-life story that could have been set in any building anywhere; its title, specific to 9/11, is only because of the historical proximity to the actual events (it may as well have been called "Towering Inferno", or "Rubble Film"). I agree with you, RRA; United 93 presented a much wider, more intelligent handling of the events in both humane and political terms, and on aesthetic grounds it aped Stone's TV drama (though to compare the films too much would be unfair, with their very different intentions).

To be honest, it isn't horrendous. My problems are thus (written at the time):

Stone's film has no real energy, no real explosive or electric rhythm, no narrative drive. It's not a bad film by any means - in fact it's rather watchable - but it's decidedly ordinary. It looks like a TV movie, viewable to all, with intentions of inspiration and shortcomings in production value. Two moments of mild effect - when the first tower falls, with the men inside, and when the two survivors first hear help above on the ground. It's a conventional film, though, about an extraordinary event; and what is it that makes Nicolas Cage far more enjoyable to watch when he's deliberately and physically disabled under a pile of rubble, as opposed to a pro-active, no-shit member of the emergency services...? Flat.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you on this point, and if I remember right, I got in serious heat with a BB.Net senior because I had written that I "never made to give a shit about the family's drama," which he interpreted as me disrespecting the real-life 9/11 families....which I absolutely don't at all.

What I thought was weird back in 2005 was how an Oliver Stone cinematic treatment on a subject was the less controversial picture compared to Greengrass' UNITED 93, which had that infamous "Too Soon!" incident in that NYC theatre. Nevermind UNITED 93's trouble with the Screen Actor's Guild because Greengrass had a non-union cast, and if rumors are to be believed, SAG did its very best to blackball U93 at Awards Season, though enough voters came through to land Greengrass a Best Director nod.

The only good thing from WORLD TRADE CENTER to me is that it gave Oliver Stone a rebound of sorts after the great failure of ALEXANDER, and who knows, maybe his controversial W this winter will be his comeback.

hey Irish I just bought my DVD's number 1 and 2 for my collection! (GoodFellas and The Big Lebowski) - by the way, who is that funny guy Mortimery Young?? I've also seen him in the Blood Simple DVD.

I am looking forward to seeing the new X-Files movie, which starts this weekend. They have been very sketchy with the previews and details of the film. Anyway, I've always been a fan of the show and even these years later, I look forward to seeing this movie.

TIS

Good choices my friend. Only a few more to go to catch me (I'm up to 799 BTW) Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question

He's a fictional film historian who gives insightful introductions to the Coen Brothers' films; I believe it's a spoof.

yeah that's what I thought. thanks.

PASSENGER 57 (1992) - **1/2

Action movies like these always have an opening that either displays the badass credentials of the hero, or the diabolical capability of the villain. With PASSENGER 57, it’s the latter where you have Bruce Payne at a cosmetics practice to get some plastic surgery when the FBI busts in. Payne takes a scalpel, slits the surgeon's throat, then jumps out the window of a two-story building, crashing hard into the cafe below without anything to soften his fall...but he gets up and runs away without a scratch. It's such a ludicrous opening, but I kept watching.

Later, this whack job is advised by his attorney to seek an insanity defense, which prompts a beat down until the lawyer is made to utter over and over that his client isn't crazy. Can you really blame Payne though? I mean, I'm sure the admission of mental disease hurts your stock as a free agent terrorist, perhaps because clients may think you're unstable or unreliable, and the guy has gotta pay his bills somehow.

If you went to see action at the cinema in the late 1980s and early 1990s, you already know the plot: Terrorists hijack, civilians held hostage, hero at the wrong place at the wrong time happens to be in proximity, and he kicks alot of ass. What is unique about PASSENGER 57 is that among all the DIE HARD knock-offs, this is arguably the sole blaxploitation entry. I guess I could also count HALF PAST DEAD, but that sucked so fuck it.

Consider how the hero Wesley Snipes is seated on the plane next to a Jewish Grandmother, who mistakes him for Arsenio Hall. It's a quite funny scene of Snipes' eyes during that whole ordeal, and because of the stereotype that white eyes can't tell the difference between those black people. This just me, but both Snipes and Payne should fire their travel agent for booking them on the same flight. "Oh and Mr. Payne/Snipes, I should tell you out of courtesy that the best counter-terrorism expert/airline hijacker in America is also on your plane. Smoking or Non-Smoking?"

Then later when Snipes is thrown off the captive plane during landing, the redneck police rough him up and don't believe him at all because why would a black guy in the middle of an airport be doing but causing trouble, right? In fact, the hick sheriff actually seems to take the white baddie's word for granted that Snipes is one of the terrorists. Sorry dude, but you're a racist dumbass for trusting some evil British asshole over Blade. Then there is the epilogue where Snipes' Caucasian schmuck buddy Tom Sizemore (before he was the druggie who beat up Heidi Fleiss) takes credit for saving the day, while Snipes goes off to score some hot hero sex. But most of all, we get the picture's sole cool one-liner: "Always bet on black!"

Shaft would be so proud.

Yeah I'm rambling here about PASSENGER 57 because it's not just formulaic, its practically a rerun of the Steven Seagal vehicle UNDER SIEGE. Both have heroes that are former governmental warriors who are locked up (Seagal in meat locker, Snipes in bathroom) when the shit goes down, both have female sidekicks, both fighting a lunatic super-hijacker, both take place primarily on a moving vehicle, both kill their adversary in a fist fight, both were produced by Warner Bros., and both in fact came out in 1992. Weird.

But the difference is that while UNDER SIEGE was a pretty good flick, and the king of the DIE HARD clones, PASSENGER 57 is more SUDDEN DEATH in being uninspired as running the genre playbook with the clichés. You have the retired hero who got his wife killed, so he's trying to gain redemption. Payne is a calm quiet generic as hell psychopathic because he enjoys killing passengers, every cop but Snipes is incompetent, he also happens to be an expert motorcyclist, he kills the henchmen one at a time, etc.

It doesn't help how despite being trapped on a plane during flight, and escaping by an elevator, the hijackers easily could have found and killed them in such a cramp limited space. I mean I can buy such sneaking and hiding in a skyscraper or battleship, but this is ridiculous. The whole carnival setpiece sorta comes off as more campy than exciting, and also how did Snipes even know the crooks would be heading there? Hell, why didn't they simply steal a car from the airport parking lot?

That said, PASSENGER 57 is still entertaining in a mindless disposable sort of way, but I won't recommend this to casual viewers. But if you're an action junkie and a fan of Snipes before he went to jail, it's perfect when you're home alone on a Friday night with pizza and booze. Plus, one of Payne's hijackers is a younger Elizabeth Hurley. You know, that pretty British model that couldn't act her way out of a paper bag to save her life, but was admittedly surely hot before she got preggers and disappeared on us. So if you are really really home alone, at least you'll save some money.

But only idiots actually pay for porn, or mess with Snipes.

Those darn federal idiots!

From The Times
April 25, 2008

Wesley Snipes given three years for tax evasion

Wesley Snipes was sentenced to three years imprisonment last night for his “brazen defiance” of the US taxman.

The 45-year-old Hollywood actor, who has starred in films including Blade, White Men Can’t Jump and Demolition Man, was given the maximum sentence possible after prosecutors described him to a court in Ocala, Florida, as a “truly notorious offender.” He did not have to go to prison immediately but must surrender to custody at a later date

Seems excessive.

RRA, how do you decide what movie you will watch next and review? Some of your reviews seem to be of movies that come out of nowhere.

And I'm not complaining. Just curious.

RRA, how do you decide what movie you will watch next and review? Some of your reviews seem to be of movies that come out of nowhere.

And I'm not complaining. Just curious.[/quote]

Oh they really do come out of nowhere.

Sometimes its whatever I've been getting through Netflix (like PASSENGER 57), or sometimes something that happens to be on TV which sparks me to review (like TIMECOP).

Maybe I'm just a sucker for action movies. I mean who else is gonna try to be an aficiondo of such a thing here or at FCM?

Tell you what Blibble....guess what my next review is gonna be, and you get to pick my next review.

Yeah, Blib. Just don't ask him to review PRINCE OF THE CITY.

That's coming!

Come on, you need a 1,000 word rambling from me on how awesome PRINCE is? Its like you writing a 1,000 review of the Bush Administration. Do we really need it?

I kid, I'm just swamped and my next review is a deadline up my ass that's just a pain right now.

Anyone see that "gross-out" stinker Waiting... (2005)? Okay, it wasn't entirely bad -- quite humorous in spots -- but overall meh, compared to American Pie, etc. Tho it will probably often prevent me from sending food back at a restaurant! I can't help but wonder how many of us have consumed things we didn't quite intend to....

Where's DMS in your rental queue, JG? Get to it pronto.

Also, watch The Wire. Or at least rent the first season.

DMS is #5 (less, really, since 21 and The Bank Job are on the waiting list). Been watching subsequent Torchwood DVDs in between other titles...

I added The Wire recently (in the 300's of the queue, but will probably raise it up). Also the new Dr Who (which I didn't know existed) to see what Torchwood background there is...

300 titles in your queue? That's ridiculous.

In fact, that deserves a beating.

A lot of them are multi-disc series titles, so, more like 250

TREMORS (1990) - ***1/2

I love movies when they don't immediately reveal themselves for what they are. If every other horror movie opens with a kill or a scare tease, TREMORS spends its first 15 minutes or so with Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward as roughnecks making a living from clearing out garbage and emptying septic tanks, bitching about wanting to escape from Perfection, Nevada when they meet up with a cute seismologist chick. See if you didn't know any better, you would think that you had mistakenly rented a buddy roadtrip/romantic comedy.

I think a successful genre movie is one that is working with a horror template that we've seen administered a thousand times before, afterwards, and mostly terrible, but still produce something so matinee fresh and infectiously goofy fun. I think a key reason for TREMORS working is that for a 90 minute creature feature, director Ron Underwood lets his film take its time in introducing the characters and visually laying out the geography of this glorified rest stop in the middle of the desert, so that when the shit hits the fan (or more like the dirt), we know where we are always during the narrative, and actually care about the outcome. In other words, this is the Anti-30 DAYS OF NIGHT.

Much like the 1950s Monster movies that TREMORS is lovingly aping, Underwood has us learn the "rules" about these star beasts scene by scene, showing us instead of some goddamn awkward talky exposition. Take when Bacon and Ward try to escape the town the first time around when they come upon a friend of theirs, stuck on top of an electrical tower, dead for three days from dehydration, with a firm finite grip on his Winchester Rifle. What would cause someone to stay up that high for days until they died of thirst? Because they can sense the "tremors" from your footsteps. Later when the duo try to get out again, they happen upon dead sheep and a hat inside a weird crater, which reveals the head of a victim.They can grab and eat you from underground. Get on top of a building or a giant rock, you're okay. They can travel through loose soil, but not solid objects.

You get the point, and grin wide, when Bacon and Ward declare together: Oh Shit!

There are two cool if simple shots that Underwood should be proud of. First, when a car is being dragged to an Earthly grave by the critters, the radio is accidentally turned on. The next day when Bacon and Ward visit the site, they hear the muffled music, dig until they discover the buried grill of the station wagon, with the headlights still on. Second, when someone in the village says that surely the phone company would notice that their lines have been severed, we cut immediately to a company truck with only two hard-hats and some blood stains at the scene. Really, it's hard to believe that the same director would later shoot the atrocious Eddie Murphy flop THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH.

Anyway, let's admit that the whole concept of the "Graboids" is pretty damn creative for the genre. They're like the midget-size sand worms from DUNE, with snake tentacles reaching out of their mouths, the srength of a bulldozer, but the intelligence of a dog. But the secret reason for them being underground dwellers is that you don't necessarily need to show them constantly to create thrills or tension, and save money on the FX budget. Like the shark in JAWS, just have a fence rattle, a sign fall down, or a building crumble just to know where these unseen pests are at all times.

But the ice-breaker may in fact be the humor. People want to compare this to GREMLINS, but I say it's more in the tradition of THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. With the kills and scares, there is a cheese camp element to them, as if the filmmakers are saying to us, "we're making a thriller here, but if this and that makes you laugh, you have our permission." Or at least that is my impression when Bacon punches one of the snake-tentacles. Plus, he also gives us a memorable if idiotic one-liner: "Who died and made you Einstein?!?"

But the biggest barrell of laughs comes from Michael Gross. His part clearly was meant to mock those survivalist gun-nut types, you know the sort with the wet dream that RED DAWN really would happen? I mean look at the casting of Gross, who was the hippie Dad on FAMILY TIES. Yet with his tongue and cheek demeanor, Gross somehow takes a parody and reverses it into sheer awesomeness.

The best scene in TREMORS is when a Graboid invades his basement, and he and his wife empty every machine gun and firearms they own in their insane arsenal, without inflicting any damage. It finally takes a goddman Elephant Gun(!) through the mouth to kill it. Gross nearly steals the show in TREMORS, and in fact would later become the star of the direct-to-video sequels for TREMORS and even the short-lived television series.

TREMORS is quite a pretty darn good movie, even if I think Bacon's redneck accent is too cartoonishly all over the place for my taste, but Ward is blue-collar money here. The casting of Victor Wong is cool, considering he ruled in John Carpenter's BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA and PRINCE OF DARKNESS, but damn did his character have to be the cliche greedy Asian businessman?

Also, if the Graboids are blind, then what is up with the Point-of-View shots of them in the soil?

Rambo (2008)... perhaps the most anticipated action-dramady of the year. Haha, just kidding! But Oy vey. Sure, it gets some points for heightening the Burmese situation, but the rest of it? Ugh... worst effects I've seen in 20 years probably. Lame. ...and this is coming from a fan of many lame films.

ONLY see this if you're (somehow) a HUGE fan of the franchise... or, if the Saw clown says you have to to live. Otherwise, just lob your foot off.

Rambo might be the worst film I've ever paid to see. Either that, or Danny Boyle's Millions. Or Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man.

I haven't seen Rambo, and I probably won't now since I'm often a fan of bad movies like J Geoff, but the worst movie I've seen is Diary of the Dead.

I think it would normally be just another bad movie but because I've become such a big fan of George A. Romero's zombie movies I was so disappointed in his latest. Where Night of the Living Dead had a subtle social commentary, Diary just drills it into your head every second of the movie and it misses a chance to make another good zombie film. I could go on and on about why it's the worst movie I've ever seen but I won't unless someone actually wants to hear me complain for pages and pages.

Capo, I'm still waiting for WetDog's review. He surprisingly defended it without having seen it when I wrote my review over there. Have you seen it?

Just watched Darlin' Clementine with Henry Fonda and Robert Mitchum about Wyatt Earp. It's B&W and it has no score. The storyline is somewhat different from Tombstone and Wyatt Earp. For one, there's no exploration of the characters, their motivations, etc. In it Doc is killed and a woman gets shot on whom Doc operates. The gunfight at OK Corral is almost anti-climatic and is not staged in a very dramatic way, certainly without any of the suspense of the latter two films. I don't imagine that Fonda and Mitchum thought it was one of their better efforts. I'm surprised somewhat by that because the film was issued in 1948 which doesn't make it all that old.

As soon as you suggested The Wire to me months ago I put it number one on my queue and I still haven't received it yet. It is never available.

Netflix says it's available "Now" for me (tho it's in the 300's of my queue at the moment, but destined to be raised up soon)... maybe it's regional...

Well I still use Blockbuster, so maybe that's why I can't get it. I would switch to Netflix but I'm not paying that much more and with kids in the house it really comes in handy to take the online rentals and exchange them at the store at a moments notice.

The new mummy movie? Whether I'm right or wrong, please review Dead Alive (1992) if you haven't already. I would love to hear what you have to say about it

Actually, its not MUMMY 3...but just because I'm reviewing that this week anyway, alright a DEAD ALIVE review coming up!*

*=Whenever I get around to it.

TRON (1982) - ***1/2

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2008/7/27/comic-con-teaser-for-tron-2-now-online.html

The big surprise at this year's San Diego Comic Con, the Super Bowl for geeks, was Disney's unveiling of their teaser clip for TR2N, the sequel to their 1982 cult classic. Jeff Bridges, the protagonist from the original TRON, will return apparently as the villain who's gone off into the deep end of the mainframe with his IRON MAN evil beard, and is like now a digital Colonel Kurtz. The horror! The horror!

You know how with certain movies, the reviews always say the same stuff? With TRON, everyone writes that it is "a visual effects extravaganza that was a technological cinema milestone for a generation." What I'll add though is that for a film that was a box-office dud for Disney (so much that the vintage official arcade game made a bigger profit!)TRON left quite an impression on said generation, and you've seen them give homage from FAMILY GUY to Moby to KINGDOM HEARTS II to a Honda car commercial to the Tron Guy on YouTube to SOUTH PARK (Moses anyone?)

The picture was attacked at the time and still today by some as a shallow laser lightshow, yet surely if that was the case, would people still care about it, much less generate enough buzz to get a sequel produced?

Perhaps it's because TRON, along with WARGAMES and THE LAST STARFIGHTER, successfully translated the video game fantasy, where we the audience and our love and rather useless knowledge for gaming is delegated into a proxy hero who uses them to save the day. In this case, its computer programmer/game guru Jeff Bridges, who is hacking into the MCP (Master Control Program) mainframe of a corporation that stole his designs when the MCP atomizes him into the software as a hapless program set for deletion. Will The Dude escape in time?!?

Yet as a child, while I liked TRON and all, it was my least favorite of this "Gamer" trilogy. For a would-be summer blockbuster marketed to children under the family-friendly Walt Disney label, the first act of TRON is throwing people and environments into a static narrative, without quick linear explanation of who they are or what the hell is going on, and lots of dialogue. You know, plotting. Once the second act kicks in, TRON ties up everything nicely but with kids and their short attention spans, maybe that's why back then I always fast-forwarded my VHS copy (or "Skip Chapters" for you kids who only know DVD) to when Bridges entered the computer.

Watching TRON again with adult eyes, I was shocked to find that I actually enjoyed it much more now. The story combines two great spoiled plot devices of sci-fi fantasy: That of a self-aware super Artificial Intelligence trying to kill off humanity, and rebels within a fantastical setting trying to overthrow a tyrant. The script is forgettable, predictable, and its paper-thin characters are rather disposable, but dammit I found myself getting involved with this adventure once again.

Director/co-writer Steve Lisberger never did anything else worth a spit afterwards, but I must give him credit for making me sorta care about these cliches. I mean, with those poor programs from henchmen to prisoners killed or deleted, I really now feel like a Nazi for emptying my junk e-mail of pornography earlier today.

It's an understatement *cough* to say that early 1980s popcorn cinema like TRON was obviously inspired by STAR WARS (i.e. ripped off), but unlike say THE LAST STARFIGHTER, we must give TRON applause in trying for better or for worse, trial and error, pass and failure, to create on its own a unique visual aesthetic universe like George Lucas' masterpiece did.

The famed then-groundbreaking CGI animation is undeniably dated, but I say they're still enjoyably dated like Ray Harryhausen in that those old school effects still produce a sense of joy from within me. Take the legendary lightcycle sequence, still impressive and fun 27 years on, and just remember that they used editing to hide the fact that this was before they figured out how to combine moving CGI with live-action footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ODe9mqoDE&feature=related

Would you believe that TRON was disqualified for the Best Special Effects Oscar because the Academy thought it "cheated" in using computers? And I thought CRASH winning Best Picture was ridiculous...

But what really surprised me, and doesn't get enough credit I suppose, is beyond the CGI. All the scenes within "the computer" were filmed in black & white, which were then traced with color by rotoscoping and photography in post-production. So as a result we have many bright livid garish lights contrasting with the dead gray blurry "ghost" faces of these electronic creatures, TRON just gives off a surreal as hell iconic visualization that was just intoxicating for my eyes. Then again, I guess this is what you would expect from an art direction designed by comic book artist Jean "Moebius" Giraud (he later stylized THE FIFTH ELEMENT) and famed futurist Syd Mead, who also worked on another summer '82 flop in BLADE RUNNER. My only complaint at this process is that since the backgrounds tended to be blue, the same color as the good guys, we get I think too many spots of unintended fading.

So yeah, it's nice to know that TRON was actually pretty good, and in fact I'm intrigued by this announced sequel, especially with news that PIXAR's John Lasseter is producing TR2N. If TRON was shot when most folks were technobabble useless, imagine that tale continued today when everyone is carrying around an iPod or drive with TomTom in their cars. Consider the utopian freedom of information promised in TRON failing into a nightmarish dystopia of slavery.

We won't get TR2N until summer 2010, but if that teaser shown at Comic Con indicates anything, to quote THE DARK KNIGHT: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Don't expect an end to your wait. Rejoice if there is one.

I've not seen it; I saw Land of the Dead when it came out and thought it was atrocious. Really liked the other three, though.

I really like the first two, especially Dawn of the Dead. Day of the Dead was a snooze fest for about an hour or so in, it had pacing issues.


I saw Step Brothers the other day, I gotta admit...it was hilarious. The language is overly foul, some old women left the theater in shock. If you liked Anchorman or Talledega Nights then you'll probably enjoy this too.

Can Hollywood, usually creating things for entertainment purposes only, create art? To create something of this nature, a director must approach it in a most meticulous manner, due to the delicacy of the process. Such a daunting task requires an extremely capable artist with an undeniable managerial capacity and an acutely developed awareness of each element of art in their films, the most prominent; music, visuals, script, and acting. These elements, each equally important, must succeed independently, yet still form a harmonious union, because this mixture determines the fate of the artist's opus. Though already well known amongst his colleagues for his notable skills at writing and directing, Frank Darabont emerges with his feature film directorial debut, The Shawshank Redemption. Proving himself already a master of the craft, Darabont managed to create one of the most recognizable independent releases in the history of Hollywood. The Shawshank Redemption defines a genre, defies the odds, compels the emotions, and brings an era of artistically influential films back to Hollywood.

The story begins with the trial of a young banker, Andy Dufrense, victimized by circumstantial evidence, resulting in a conviction for the murder of his wife and her lover. After a quick conviction, Andy finds himself serving a life sentence at Shawshank prison, with no hope of parole. He exists in this prison only in appearance, keeping his mind free from the drab walls around him. His ability to do this results in the gaining of respect from his fellow inmates, but most of all from Ellis Redding. Ellis, commonly referred to as Red, finds gainful use of his entrepreneurial spirit within the drab walls of Shawshank by dealing in contraband and commodities rare to the confines of prison. Andy's demeanor and undeniable sense of hope causes Red to take a deeper look at himself, and the world around him. Andy proves to Red and the other inmates that in the conventional walls of Shawshank prison convention will find no home in his lifestyle.

By creating the film's firm foundation, the meticulously chiseled screenplay paved the way for this film's success. Frank Darabont outdoes himself with the phenomenal adaptation of Stephen King's equally noteworthy novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. In this novella, King demonstrates that he can break free from the genre he dominates and still create a marvelous piece of modern literature. Though the film mirrors the novella in many ways, Darabont illustrates a focused objective of improving upon the areas where the novella came up short, resulting in one of the best book to film transitions ever.

While maintaining some of the poetic and moving dialogue of the novella, Darabont also proves that a film's score can generate a great deal of emotional response from its audience, as dialogue does. He employs the cunning Thomas Newman, son of the legendary Hollywood composer, Alfred Newman. Darabont shows recognition for the film's needs by employing Newman, who makes the gentle piano chords whisper softly to the viewer, as if a part of the scripted dialogue. Newman lends himself to individualism and tends to drive more towards the unique in the realm of score composition. His effort in Shawshank did not go unnoticed, as his score received an Oscar nomination in 1995. While unique and independent, Newman's score never once intrudes on your concentration or distracts from the film.

With work from vast array of talented scene designers, costume designers, composers, cinematographers, and various other Hollywood artists, the cast of The Shawshank Redemption had a strong foundation to work with. The marvelous cast of this film will dazzle you with some of the most convincing performances you will witness in a film. While both Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman shine as Andy and Red, respectively, the true spectacle of acting lies within the plethora of amazing supporting actors who easily disappear into their roles. Most noticeable of these, the veteran film star James Whitmore, who portrays the elderly Brooks Hatlen. Brooks, a man incarcerated for an unmentioned crime for so long that he finds himself attached to the Shawshank and the daily life he has lead. Each of these actors show a true dedication to their art, and a focused purpose in their motivations, creating a convincing setting that never once caters to anything unbelievable.

With all of the aesthetic touches and attention to cinematic detail, the most beautiful part of the film lies within its thematic material, such as its focus on the human desires for the most abstract concepts, like hope and freedom. These themes, which concern things the human spirit undoubtedly yearns for, seem so intricately woven into the plot that it easily draws its audience in to its story. Though full of hardened criminals, your heart will go out to these men as they display the most basic of human emotions, and deliver some of the most quotable lines in a film to date. Like a great novel, this film manages to succeed at greater things than simply entertaining an audience. Darabont tells his story most masterfully, illustrating principles and inspiring his audience to think. He leaves us a poignant film with a powerful message of hope, and redemption, something we all seek.

This film manages to redeem Hollywood in the eyes of people who feared it long lost in a dark sea of clichés and predictability. Darabont shows us that artists still work in the Hollywood studios and production facilities. These artists show their capability to produce art; real art that inspires you to look at the deeper aspects of life and the world around you. The Shawshank Redemption delivers much-needed breath of fresh air for anyone who realizes the capability of film. It proves that masters of the craft still live on this earth, and still bless us with timeless masterpieces that we will never forget.

Finally watched DIE HARD 4.0

Obviously a bit far fetched,but plenty of action and laconic Bruce Willis funnies.

The kids loved it.

Kept them quiet the whole way through and thats a good enough endorsement for me

Yeah I had to watch my brother's kids, and they seemed to enjoy it, though it didn't really feel like a Die Hard film, you get that feeling too?

Having seen the Unrated edit, with F-bombs and bloody gunshots galore....I think LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is a Die Hard movie.

Hell, its better than DIE HARD 2.

Probably all that computer and hacking stuff don't fit well into the series.

These PG-13 sequels to R franchise really bother me, fuck little Johnny and his pre teen friends, I want a real movie! There is talk of making Terminator Salvation PG-13.

I saw the Un-Rated version of Live Free or Die Hard, it was just some cgi blood and dubbed over f-bombs added in to an already average film . Probably put together in a week.

I couldn't agree with this statement anymore! But from the studios point of view, it's f*ck BDuff and his older buddies because they feel they can cater to a wider audience with you AND Johnny (then release the unrated DVD for those seeking a "harder," no pun intended, film)

Hopefully you get around to it by Halloween . That would be appropriate I think. I'm looking forward to your review.

When I saw Live Free or Die Hard in theaters it was packed with thirteen year olds who thought they were hot shit because their mommy wasn't there, disgusting. These tame sequels alienate the orignial fanbase, hopefully the studio will keep Terminator an R franchise.

Watched The Bank Job (2008) last night, which got pretty good ratings on both IMDb (7.6/10) and Netflix (3.6/5). I really like heist movies, and complex thrillers like the Ocean's series, The Italian Job, The Score, etc, are fun to watch. This was less complex of a heist, but that was excused being this was based on a true story. It's not something I would purchase, but it's worth a rental....

Why?

Mate, it could be worse.

Remember the R-rated CONAN THE BARBARIAN, then its PG-rated(!!!) sequel CONAN THE DESTROYER?

Wowzers.

Because I said so.

I'm not a "reviewer" by any means, I was just saying if you like the capers I mentioned, this is also worth a look. I didn't notice any glaring flaws, so I guess that's a plus. :shrug: lol

I agree. I was pissed off during my theaterical experience of TRANSFORMERS because of all the kids in their who wouldn't shut up. But again, the studios don't care. It's more money in their pockets. They're not out to make "quality" films, just to make as much money as possible (hence the reason so many of these 80s franchise movies are being revived for "a new generation" see ROCKY BALBOA, RAMBO, and INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL).

I'm also hearing a sequel (this is an old rumor by the way) that the GOONIES is going to get a sequel, RED SONJA is being remade by Rose McGowan and Robert Rodriguez, and THE BREAKFAST CLUB may get remade as well. Ah, how I love movie studios and their originality!

Caught Juno a second time on DVD yesterday, still easily my favourite Best Picture nominee from this year's Oscars. Reitman's direction is playful and subtle without ever coming close to being overly artsy. First timer Diablo Cody's witty script eventually reveals a deeply moving, and very human story - not to mention characters you really come to care for, and are sorry to see go as the credits roll on a sweet soundtrack. Much has been said of Ellen Page as the titular character and rightfully so - spouting those wordy witticisms with incredible ease - but all the cast are gold here: Cera, Bateman, Garner and most especially an excellent JK Simmons as Juno's gruff, but loving father.

I agree. I was pissed off during my theaterical experience of TRANSFORMERS because of all the kids in their who wouldn't shut up. But again, the studios don't care. It's more money in their pockets. They're not out to make "quality" films, just to make as much money as possible (hence the reason so many of these 80s franchise movies are being revived for "a new generation" see ROCKY BALBOA, RAMBO, and INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL).

I'm also hearing a sequel (this is an old rumor by the way) that the GOONIES is going to get a sequel, RED SONJA is being remade by Rose McGowan and Robert Rodriguez, and THE BREAKFAST CLUB may get remade as well. Ah, how I love movie studios and their originality! [/quote]

A few months ago it came out that there is gonna be a re-make of John Carpenter's The Thing, a film I loved as a kd because it was the first really gory film I watched. It has aged very well, the effects are still quiet good and the paranoia facot was cool. My guess is the re-make would include some lame young actors.

I remember hearing that FOX told James Cameron and Ridley Scott to stop working on the Alien 5 script because the script for Alien vs Predator had better box office potential. What could have been...

I gotta ask, what's it like living in 1998?

I just watched the 2003 remake of "The Italian Job" on Blu-ray. It was an OK, entertaining movie. I didn't see the 1969 original, so I don't know how it compares. My biggest disappointment was that I thought the Blu-ray transfer wasn't great.

Saw "Journey to the Center of the Earth" last week and while its not the height of cinematic achievement or anything and its pretty much a kids movie, the technology used to create the 3D effects was quite impressive.

Upon Capo's recommendation after I said I liked This is England (2006).... Dead Man's Shoes (2004) was a pleasant surprise! The acting was great, along with the soundtrack and landscapes. At first I thought the acts seemed a little unconventional -- perhaps like the pacing in England -- but near the end I realized it was pretty necessary. I don't wanna give anything away, but I thought it was great. I like this (director) Shane Meadows fella!

So you would give it neither Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down, but a Thumbs Sideways?

Just because its a kids movie doesn't mean that its excused for anything.

That said, I also liked JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH as a solid kids matinee adventure, and one that should only be seen in 3-D.

...

Blockbuster online was around in 1998?

Netflix fans are like Mac fans. They all have an inferiority complex. You obviously don't have kids who at a moments notice decide they want to have friends stay the night and want to rent movies. Blockbuster allows me to exchange the rented movies for in-store movies with no mail delay. If I didn't have kids I wouldn't use Blockbuster. But it works for me.

I usually use the in-store rental for watching movies with my friends. They are not interested in all the serious foreign language movies that I watch. That way I can watch some popular/commercial movies without them blocking my queue.

Most films that weren't filmed in HD aren't going to have "spectacular" transfers. Movies like THE DEPARTED, CASINO ROYALE, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2 & 3 were filmed in HD and are going to look AWESOME! However, something like GOODFELLAS, CASINO, or THE GODFATHER isn't going to show that much of a difference

I agree. I was pissed off during my theaterical experience of TRANSFORMERS because of all the kids in their who wouldn't shut up. But again, the studios don't care. It's more money in their pockets. They're not out to make "quality" films, just to make as much money as possible (hence the reason so many of these 80s franchise movies are being revived for "a new generation" see ROCKY BALBOA, RAMBO, and INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL).

I'm also hearing a sequel (this is an old rumor by the way) that the GOONIES is going to get a sequel, RED SONJA is being remade by Rose McGowan and Robert Rodriguez, and THE BREAKFAST CLUB may get remade as well. Ah, how I love movie studios and their originality! [/quote]

A few months ago it came out that there is gonna be a re-make of John Carpenter's The Thing, a film I loved as a kd because it was the first really gory film I watched. It has aged very well, the effects are still quiet good and the paranoia facot was cool. My guess is the re-make would include some lame young actors.

I remember hearing that FOX told James Cameron and Ridley Scott to stop working on the Alien 5 script because the script for Alien vs Predator had better box office potential. What could have been... [/quote]

I was against Rob Zombie's remake of HALLOWEEN and while I did enjoy it and loved the brutality of it, it still wasn't better than the original. That's some of the magic of the original, it wasn't brutal but it got its point across

I just picked up "The Warriors" and was pleasantly surprised how it looked.

Excellent. I don't think any of his films really hold up on rewatches in terms of plotting and narrative structure, but this seems his most accomplished, in terms of tonal rhythm and individual scenes. Paddy Considine is immense (he might be even better in Meadows's earlier film, A Room for Romeo Brass). What tremendous screen presence; love the initial, "You, you badword!" scene.

You can see him in In America (2002) too, with Samantha Morton; and small roles in Cinderella Man and The Bourne Ultimatum.

I wish others would check Meadows's stuff out.

THE JACKAL (1997) - **

My problems with THE JACKAL aside, I gotta admit that such a picture where the hero is a foreign terrorist and the villain is a blue collar American wouldn't be produced in post-9/11 Hollywood, or at least I don't think it would be.

People always whine about remakes, but you know what my fear is with each new announced "re-imagining" pumped out? That the quality original movies are forgotten, ignored, or worse confused with (usually) their inferior retakes by less-informed people. I once worked at a video store years back where someone asked me to recommend a thriller. I suggested Fred Zimmerman's THE DAY OF THE JACKAL from the 1970s. If you haven't seen it, Netflix that sucker right now because it's a genre classic, if simply because it makes you tense and perky with anticipation in spite of you knowing the ending already. Now that's impressive! There is something down to Earth yet epic as almighty hell in Zimmerman's approach as cop Michael Lonsdale is having to chase down a man with no face, no name, no identity, no morals, no ideology, no allegiances in killer Edward Fox.

This customer thought I was being stupid or mistaken and kept trying to correct me that I was actually talking about THE JACKAL with Bruce Willis and Richard Gere. I said no, but it was in vain. I want to call him an asshole, but really just imagine all the good and decent people who've missed out on a cool as hell film simply because of this more recent and recognizable mediocre version. Where are the Nazis and their bonfires when you need them?

What's even more depressing is that Zimmerman to his dying breath sought to stop this rendition, which baffled the producers and Universal Studios because they were "great fans" of DAY. With the exception of John Carpenter on THE THING, those two words are like always a glaring warning sign, like how Rob Zombie and Michael Bay were "great fans" of HALLOWEEN and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. This is especially true with JACKAL, made unfortunately during the uninspired and boring days of 1990s Hollywood action cinema, when every flick trying to ape DIE HARD and LETHAL WEAPON missed the two points of why those classics rocked the casbah in the first place....(1) Characters and (2) The Story inbetween the stunt spectacles, a lesson Mr. Bay never seem to have learned.

If DAY took its sweet-ass narrative before coming through in the great climatic finale, along with the charm in Fox's precision methodolgy this side of the BOURNE movies in setting up the big hit, THE JACKAL is more concerned with meeting the quota in car explosions, shoot outs, and chase scenes. Interestingly, several similar, alright identical sequences from DAY are reused in JACKAL, yet they are impotent. With the same basic story, you can either shoot a taunt intelligent flick (DAY) and an incredibly dumb loud one (JACKAL).

Thing is, JACKAL starts out alright and promising in a matinee escapist pleasure sort of way....then again, so did DIE ANOTHER DAY. The FBI and Moscow cops kill a Russian mobster, and his brother gives the world's best assassin in Willis a $70 million contract to get revenge on American soil. JACKAL in retrospect is quite naively dated considering this concept was written during Russia's failure of a civic democracy, for the gangster could have bided his time, saved some cash, and throw bullets and cash at the Russian police force instead of the Yankees. Domestic law enforcement pacified, a deal then be made with the new masters like Putin to kick the Americans out, and walah no more problem.

The Feds in Sidney Poitier spring out Richard Gere from prison to help them because he's the only person alive who's seen the Jackal's face. Remember how before the Good Friday Agreement, that every Irishman in a Hollywood movie was either a IRA member, related to one, or a goddamn leprechaun? Anyway, Gere here just might be sporting the worst Irish accent I've ever heard in a movie. It's so bad, it's a mystery why the filmmakers didn't simply rewrite him into an Irish-American or something to salvage a lost cause. Gere's character is also another example of a pet peeve of mine with Tinseltown. Whenever a "bad man" is made the protagonist, a great mistake usually made is to try to make them heroic somehow to get us to like them. Why do we dig Clint Eastwood in those spagetti westerns or Snake Plissken without betraying the fact that in most other tales they would be the antagonist? Because we admire those bastards for being ruthless or their wits or their badass nature, that's why.

But with Gere in JACKAL, yeah he was a proud (Irish) Republican, but he was "only a gunrunner." That's supposed to make him seem not as awful? That's like your local high school drug dealer revealed to be only selling pot, not meth or coke. Still, at least THE JACKAL is going off on the classic action exploitation set-up, that of someone forced to kick some ass to save his own. The problem is when out of damn nowhere this side of a on-set rewrite, it's revealed that Gere is doing this for revenge against Willis. You know why most revenge plottings work? Because those films set themselves up early on to milk that natural emotion of vengeance, but with JACKAL you never buy it and unable to suckle that teat. Plus, how the hell did Poitier know that fact if the Feds are totally ignorant about Willis?

Really, why can't we have more unapologetic scumbag action heroes? Better yet, someone else than a pussy like Gere?

You're reading this review, and with so much venom you wonder probably why I didn't give it a lower grade. That's because of Willis. He's played baddies before in PLANET TERROR and THE SIEGE, but JACKAL is his only undisputed evil part from what I know and it's obvious that he's relishing the fun in being such a cold ruthless son of a bitch for once. To be honest, he's rather solid actually. There is a great scene where after he seduced someone to gain their parking permit, he's calmly eating Korean food when he simply pulls out a gun and pulls the trigger, then goes back to munching away. This shit is second-nature to him this side of breathing. Another good sequence is when he learns that an engineer in a young (and thinner) Jack Black is trying to blackmail him for more cash, and Willis uses him as target practice for his super cannon rifle. I guess Willis hated ENVY too.

But even JACKAL in the end jobs out Willis as a psychopath, as if it had to ruin everything just for fun. You suck movie.

I guess I could write another 1,000 words about how the midway confrontation between Willis and Gere castrates the potential power of the desinent showdown, or how Willis makes an idiotic mistake simply to move the story along, or better yet an idiotic shot when prisoner/terrorist/snitch Gere is showing the Feds how to corner off the parameter on a map. With those stupid Feds in charge, how 9/11 didn't happen sooner I'll never know. I could also ponder about how I realized that with the scene in the garage between Willis and hijackers, that this is a mindless movie that actually has the gall to thinks its clever like the recent BEOWULF. I might even mention that you'll howl with laughter with a character comes out of nowhere in the conclusion.

Instead, I'll write about current popular revisionism from black film buffs like Spike Lee about how Sydney Poitier was simply an Uncle Tom, a friendly dark face for whitey, aka the "Magical Negro." They might have a point, but you know what? Poitier is still a pretty good actor, and considering how crappy his part and lines are in JACKAL, he's still cool here. Now that's killer.

The SciFi channel is running the "Trilogy of Terror 2" right now. Like the original, the same star is playing in all three stories (Lysette Anthony??) The little Zuni doll story will be showing next. It's not as good as the original, but still creepy. Can't beat Karen Black in the original, at the very end of that story. They never play the original on tv.


TIS

Watched OCEANS THIRTEEN yesterday.

Not particularly great but a fitting way to pay tribute to Bernie Mac.

Also watched TRADING PLACES.

One of my favourite films and a nice reminder of when Eddie Murphy used to be funny and didn'n have to dress up in rubber suits all the time

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR (2008) - **

With due respect to Maria Bello, who is a proven quality actress (and we men will never forget her beaver shot in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE), but I recognized also while watching the third MUMMY entry how much Rachel Weisz is missed here. Just maybe Weisz's tendency to perform hyperbolic in these pictures seemed in line with the blunt stark nature of such blockbuster pulp action trash, because to my great shock Bello is surprisingly boring here. Perhaps it's that give a great character, and not a paper-thin archetype, Bello can soar as an actress, while Weisz is watchable no matter what (CONSTANTINE anyone?), I just don't know.

What is known is that she reportedly passed on returning for THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR because of "problems with the script." Considering that she left alot of money on the table, and she had previously agreed to a crappy screenplay like THE MUMMY RETURNS, that's a pretty damning ominous sign if you ask me.

Anyway, just look at the stuff in this movie: Stone zombie mummies, flying dragons fighting an fighter plane, fireworks used as weapons during a car chase, Yeti throwing henchmen around like ragdolls, displays of martial arts, gunfire, and fistfighting in the midst of two Dead armies numbering in the thousands waging war. This is the ridiculous juvenile masculine power-tripping shit you know me for gladly eating up with a grin, and I should have fun with TOMB, right?

Wrong

You know how you're sitting in a theatre, there is a moment when you realize that thereafter either a movie is good or bad? Well that spot came for me for TOMB during the prologue when I noticed, that like the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN trilogy and the recent INDIANA JONES adventure, that these filmmakers are really overcomplicating the fuck out of this incredibly simple story to set up both Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh. Hey Hollywood, this action story shit aint rocket science. Either trim it down and then "reveal" more later in plotting or don't even bother. Worse is when the voice-over narration was everything the most obvious stuff from the affair to what exactly the Five Elements like we're retarded. Look, I know the demographics for such movies like TOMB are most likely lesser in the intelligence department compared to say THERE WILL BE BLOOD, but this is goddamn ridiculous.

The second stamp of doom though was the comedy. To quote the great Mike T. Nelson of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000, there is nothing worse than an unfunny comedy. I haven't seen such lame attempts at popcorn humor since TRANSFORMERS last year. You could hear a pin drop in my theatre during the "silly" shenanigans at the manor between Bello and Brendan Fraser. If anything, its amazing how Fraser's goofy braun charisma is just completely muted here which brings me bad memories of when Christopher Reeve was stuck with SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE. Yet as desperate as the repeated "music record abruptly interrupted" gag and Yak vomiting is, they fail in comparison to the lowpoint of getting a laugh when a Yeti kicks a Chinese guy over the uprights of the mountain temple entrance, and his buddy indicates goal!

Oh for fuck's sake.

I gotta say, there is one kinda cool thing about TOMB, which is that Li the mummy is trapped in clay and each time he moves his face, that mask breaks and promptly burns itself a new coat. Hell, a creative shot is when he throws a broken piece as a weapon. Later, he gains the power to transform into bizarre creatures, like a three-headed dragon, so what does Li do when he finally duels Fraser? Neither. This is a villain that deserved to lose, not because he's evil, but because he's just simply dumb.

I think I simply gave up on hopefully having some form of fun with TOMB when during intense heavy FX sequences, my mind was distracted by plot holes the size of Texas. Before some of you go off on me for being hypocritical, consider this: There are two types of plot holes: those your brain can give half-ass wisdom and movie logic to explain the gaps, and those that you can't. For instance, you have a ninja woman who assaults the spectacularly bland Luke Ford at the Tomb, persumingly to stop Ford from opening the coffin and resurrecting Li from the dead, right? Alright, she's chased off by bullets, but later she's revealed to be immortal, and she knows it.

OK, so why the hell did you run in the first place?!? You could have stopped whitey from unleashing the apocalypse, and saved some people alot of trouble. I hate to say this, but to quote NATURAL BORN KILLERS, you're just "a stupid bitch." Sorry babe, but common sense and martial arts just aren't a good mix for you. I just don't see what Ford sees in you...or at least I wouldn't if I actually gave a shit about that romantic sub-plot. Speaking of which, anyone else notice how Ford's character went from being an annoying spunky English-tongue brat in RETURNS to a whiney emo-bitch with an American accent?

I guess I could go on about during the finale why a drawn & quartered guy returns with his corpse intact or why I'm still tired of the movies having the modern concept of freedom being uttered by ancient peoples, but instead I'll note that I briefly grinned when Yeoh and Li duked it out. Both Hong Kong martial arts cinema legends are now in their late 40s, but it was nice as a fan from back in the high school video store days to see them reteam after TAI CHI MASTER (aka TWIN WARRIORS.)

The sad thing is, TOMB is actually sort of what I had in mind when Rob Cohen signed on as director. Yeah I hated the hell out of VAN HELSING, displeased with RETURNS and keep forgetting DEEP RISING like probably the rest of you, but I have to give Stephen Sommers credit on THE MUMMY. That one was an expensive trashy idiotic matinee movie, but it was a good expensive trashy matinee movie that was more a fluke than intentional. My point is, Sommers has a anomaly of decency within his otherwise mediocre-ass career, which I can't say for Mr. Cohen. I won't go on a IMDB.com-esque detailed ranting to ascertain why Cohen is a Hack Auteur, but just consider that this is his third lousy Universal Studios-basked film with DRAGON in the title(!) in the last 15 years.

Or ponder how much one screws the pooch when JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH is a superior Fraser vehicle and that you have actually made some folks almost nostalgic for THE MUMMY RETURNS.

Almost.

Read your review on FCM. The Maria Bello image made my day. I'm giving her a mental hug right now.

And she then called security on you.

FRANTIC (1988) - ***1/2

A surgeon (Harrison Ford) and his wife are visiting Paris for a medical conference when at their hotel room they realize that she picked up the wrong suitcase back at the airport. She gets on the phone, he takes a shower, he gets out and she's vanished. Suffering from severe Jet lag, ignorant of the French tongue, and getting no worthy help from the police and American Embassy, he scours the city for her. He's lonely, he's desperate, he's FRANTIC.

After reading that, either you're intrigued enough to get onboard to explore such a set-up, or you're not. If the latter, I suggest for you DISTURBIA, a dumb direct recent uninspired boring picture made for folks who can't wipe their own ass, and get the hell out of my review. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. But if FRANTIC sounds like good popcorn, which it is...then welcome to the rest of the review. Enjoy.

I think it was in the middle of FRANTIC when I realized that the extra pleasure beyond the surface is seeing the filmmakers obviously having a good swell time with the material. Writer/Director Roman Polanski has shot alot of terrific thrillers from KNIFE IN THE WATER to REPULSION to ROSEMARY'S BABY to the underseen THE TENANT, my point is he knows his stuff. FRANTIC isn't one of his better works, but like with Brian DePalma on FEMME FATALE and Martin Scorsese with CAPE FEAR, we benefit mostly from him having fun in playing in the Hitchcock sandbox again, what with the step-by-step paranoia mystery with shadow-lit alleyways and ominous garages. This includes the legendary composer Ennio Morricone, who himself is willing to play Bernard Herrmann to Polanski's Hitch with the trumpets and strings to stress up the suspense and tension.

Ford himself is a man lost and adrift, a everyday man fighting against unseen enemies in an alien culture, insurmountable odds stacked against him. I always thought he was miscasted in his Jack Ryan adventures if simply because for an analyst-turned-actioneer, you expect such heroics from Indiana Jones or Han Solo. But in FRANTIC you buy his vulnerability and helplessness, that he doesn't do this crazyness for a living. I think the difference is that Polanski puts a strong emphasis in close-ups and framing on Ford's face, and you realize that Ford once upon a time could be a terrific actor. I mean in recent years with K-19 and FIREWALL and the Internet-hated INDY IV, you forget that fact but his facial expression do alot more justice for FRANTIC than mere expositional dialogue.

Take the 3rd act, the home stretch for the genre to wind itself up, Ford is on the phone with the Embassy when they put him on hold. His eyes first display shock, then fustration, then outright seething anger, or in other words the classic look of "What the Fuck?!?" Such scenes in most thrillers are placed in 1st Act, you know to build up the problems a hero has to face on his quest. But such a sequence holds our attention more by being written here, against expectations.

Some critics have criticized FRANTIC for bringing nothing "new" and creative to the table, and that's probably true, but so what? I think to steal an argument from the great Internet critic The Outlaw Vern, genre films are like the blues music in that you've been through a combination of the same plottings, scenes, and situations a thousand before, and a thousand times afterwards, but you can still compose them to make them still effective for even the most experienced film buffs, and with your own authorship.

Polanski does that with FRANTIC in a few shots, like how a potential lead for Ford at a night club is revealed to be an embarrasing misunderstanding, one that he can't express because he doesn't want to piss his only possible link to his kidnapped wife. I even liked how after a shoot-out where the driver of a car gets capped, you expect Ford and femme fatale Emmanuelle Seigner to push that dead bulk out and then drive in the pursuit, like you would expect with most movies. Nope, they don't have the time so instead they work the steering wheel around the corpse, while keeping his head up so daytime Parisians won't notice them. Then after parking, Ford belatedly tries CPR on the body, as if to try to escape blame for that death in the eyes of bystanders.

My favorite scene though is the opening, which may surprise many for being so mundane. Ford and his wife in a taxicab that gets a flat tire, and the driver pulls over to repair it. I liked a fact that I've forgotten, which is that when people speak in a foreign language you don't comprehend, you automatically ignore it. I mean why would your ears pay attention to mere gibberish? Plus, FRANTIC instantly dispels that this isn't the postcard Paris, where Polanski has resided since his legal exile, we see in almost every other mainstream movie. No accordian music, no berets, no mimes, no Eiffel Tower in every shot (hell, unless I'm mistaken, it's not seen at all) or any of that nonsense that TEAM AMERICA wonderfully mocked. But I like all this because it slickly butters you up for what is to come.

I do think that FRANTIC suffers because the second half with the revelations, plot turns and a dramatic finisher this side of SABOTEUR over a MacGuffin doesn't quite something compute as well as the first half did. Reportedly 10-20 minutes were axed by Warner Bros. from the final cut, which may or may not be true, and may or may not have affected Polanski's narrative energy output. But otherwise, FRANTIC is a pretty good routine genre thriller with some nice touches that was Polanski's career comeback after PIRATES, one of the biggest flops of the Reagan Decade, and more than anything else FRANTIC is a good reminder of when Ford was relevant.

Speaking of which, notice signs of Ford's homeland all across Paris, such Americanization from some of the music to Coca-Cola advertizements, to even the Pizza Hut next to his hotel. All this is a good allegory for his character's search for his wife: So Close, and Yet so Far Away.

Saw Vicky Christina Barcelona this weekend. Brilliant.

I missed this post, TIS. I remember the original with Karen Black too. That last scene is memorable indeed in a creepy way. I can't remember the first two stories in the trilogy, but the last one was something else.

Indeed. Creepy and KB played the role perfectly.

PSYCHO II (1983) - ***

It is 1983, and the slasher horror was still in full swing of its Golden Age. The genre foundation partly laid down by Tobe Hopper's THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, Bob Clark's BLACK CHRISTMAS, and Mario Bava's double header BLOOD & BLACK LACE and TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE were being fully exploited (i.e. ripped off). Major dividends were being made at the box-office for John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, Sir Ridley Scott's ALIEN, and Sean S. Cunningham's FRIDAY THE 13TH, with Sam Raimi's THE EVIL DEAD an underground hit and Wes Craven's A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET only a year away. Nevermind the hundreds of awful clones that cluttered theatres and we still are stuck with, collecting dust at your local mom & pop video store.

Obviously Universal Studios noticed this and decided to cash in by producing a sequel to the grandaddy of all slasher movies, Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 classic PSYCHO. What surprised everyone isn't that it made a profit (only a moron loses money on a horror picture), or that Anthony Perkins and his struggling career returned as Norman Bates, but that PSYCHO II was actually....good? A surprise sleeper hit with both audiences and critics, PSYCHO II is a rare solid and competent genre sequel, and I mean rare as in how many good horror sequels do you know?

OK, maybe George A. Romero's DEAD pictures, perhaps too the fun A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: DREAM WARRIORS, and also EVIL DEAD 2 if you can argue around the comedy. But what else? Exactly my point. Oh sure I know many folks out there are fans of franchises from NIGHTMARE to FRIDAY THE 13TH or the more recent SAW, but such nerd jihadists care more about Freddy, Jason, or Jigsaw and creative gore shots then the pictures themselves. I mean let's be honest guys.

Seriously, PSYCHO II should have blowed this side of Amy Winehouse given a line of cocaine, or sucked a golfball through a waterhose, because God knows we didn't need a PSYCHO sequel, nor was there any real rabid demand for it (unless I'm mistaken). Besides, what else could you do with the material?

That my friends is where I was proven wrong. Released after 22 years at the nuthouse, the poor guy just wants to go home, work his crappy job at the diner and be left alone to eat his toasted cheese sandwiches. He's paid his debt to society with most of his adult life, and the scorn of almost everyone in the county. The problem is, he keeps getting notes and phone calls from "Mother," despite the fact that we and he knows that she's as dead as fried chicken. People are being murdered again at the Bates Motel, and Bates is desperately trying to keep his hard-worked sanity intact...if it hasn't left him already.

If you think about it, this was a real risky move on Universal's part to turn Bates from a dangerous psychotic killer in drag to that of a tragic hero, because with every other slasher icon, we pay to see them do what they were born to do: Slice & Dice. Instead, this crazy(pun!) gamble pays off for two reasons. One, my theory holds that viewers don't necessarily have to like characters or their actions, but are willing to follow them as long as they are compelling people. I mean, after Janet Leigh's death in PSYCHO, Perkins afterwards became the sole intriguing player for us, even if we find out later what a sad sick bastard he was. With PSYCHO II, Bates is like a long-time abuser trying to stay sober despite temptations everywhere, except instead of booze or drugs it's murder. Even psychopaths have their 12 step programs.

Two, PSYCHO II works because of Perkins. If you ever catch his other screenwork outside of PSYCHO like say Orson Welles' criminally underseen THE TRIAL, you'll realize what a great actor Perkins was, and what a tragic waste of talent because Norman Bates typecasted him. Still, watch Perkins' awesomeness in PSYCHO II in the scene with Meg Tilly as she hands him a knife to cut some bread. He hesitates and struggles, but its such a great triumph of a close call for him. That simplistic scene probably read silly on paper, but Perkins makes it work as someone who simply wants to do good, and yet people won't let him. Later when Tilly is telling him about the "loud noise" made by her roommate and boyfriend, Perkins has such an awkward look to him. You forget that Bates is a boy who never quite grew up.

If we didn't care about Bates, the sequel is screwed no matter how much blood and titties fly out.

My favorite scene of his in PSYCHO II might have to be when he finds out that the Bates Motel manager in Lou Franz is using the joint to host drug hooker parties, and he's morally outraged, which Franz fires back: "At least my customers have a good time! What do yours get, Bates? Huh? Dead! That's what! Murdered by you, you loony! " Franz may be a fat asshole, but you know he's got a point.

PSYCHO II was shot by the late Richard Franklin, who also directed ROADGAMES which I haven't seen but people I know have praised it as an underrated thriller gem. Anyway, considering that he was following in the shadow of Hitchcock, I think he does a fine job in helming a compelling murder mystery, where Bates believably may or may not have lost his marbles again, which lags simply because it doesn't completely justify two hours. He does make some missteps by including the slasher genre staple of doomed pot-smoking kids caught at the house screwing by "Mother" and opening his sequel with Leigh's shower murder from PSYCHO, as if he was afraid that kids watching PSYCHO II wouldn't know of the original. Then again, as SCREAM reminded us, how many remember that Jason wasn't the stalker in the first FRIDAY THE 13TH?

But Franklin has one well-crafted sequence, where Franz is pricking around Tilly at the diner, as Bates watches intently while cutting lettuce. We then see another written message from "Mother" on the turn-table with other Orders, and as it creeps closer to Perkins, and Franz is stiring more shit up...good tension right there. Franklin also a ridiculously over-the-top kill scene with someone getting stabbed, then falling into a stair bannister which runs the knife through him. I still can't decide if it's retardedly stupid or so-bad-its-cool.

PSYCHO II doesn't reinvent the wheel or shake the pillars of the cinematic heavens, but it's a decent entertaining quality jobber, and you should see it if simply for the ending with the shovel that is just so shocking and nuts, yet so completely satisfying. If anything, PSYCHO II was a weird underlining theme under it. We Americans, and probably most humans in fact, are such revenge-driven creatures like the people against Bates, and yet only one person tries to follow the Christian culture's teachings of "forgive & forget."

If that message was applied instead of vengeance, Bates probably would have been normal for the first time in his life, instead of unfortunately becoming again the very monster that they were fighting against.

The Dark Knight

A movie I wouldn't mind seeing again.

I liked Joker's magic trick.

In the movie Striking Distance with Bruce Willis, he plays a river patrol cop. In one scene he unloads the shells from his shotgun and holds them in his mouth. Then he submerges with the shotgun. When he surfaces he loads the shotgun with those shells. My question is why did he pull the shells out of the shotgun before he submerged? Anyone on the Board know enough about guns and shells to say why?

I saw DEATH RACE today. It'd be the best summer movie of the year if it weren't for IRON MAN and THE DARK KNIGHT (so it's in good company). The greatest action star walking the planet, Jason Statham, returns and do what he does best: kicks a$$ while taking names! FYI, David Carradine's voice at the beginning is lended for the Frankenstein character

Death Race looks like a movie version of the Twisted Metal video game series.

The Last House on the Left (1972)
(out of 4)

---

Two teenage girls head to a concert with the intention of "scoring some good grass" on the way. They run into escaped convicts who happen to be murdering rapists. The convicts car ends up breaking down in front of the house of one of the girl's and the parents attempt to take revenge for their daughters death.

---

This controversial movie, the first directed by Wes Craven, had so much promise but ended up more of a joke to me than anything. As I was watching it I realized svsg covered this movie in his thread The movies that went all the way. I agree with him that this movie made more of a joke of itself that tried to shock the audience with something new and horrifying. The scenes that were truly horrific would have been much scarier if the atmosphere were held steady rather than adding in humorous scenes in between, mostly involving the dumb Barney Fife-like cops.

The music is the other thing I took issue with. Some of the music selections fit very well for the situation while other times it was just comical when it shouldn't have been.

While I have problems with this movie I'm glad I saw it, especially to see how Wes Craven got his start with something that was very disturbing for it's time.

Yeah kinda, but it was still one heck of a popcorn action movie!

Just watched COOL RUNNINGS again.

Funny, funny film.

"Jamacia has a bobsleigh team"

TIGHTROPE (1984) - ***1/2

Back in 2004 when Actor/Director Clint Eastwood got in trouble over the euthanasia sequence in his MILLION DOLLAR BABY, I thought it was rather strange how a man once seen by right-wingers as the epitome of law enforcement ultra-justice in DIRTY HARRY was now out of touch with the Neo-Conservative crowd. Certainly it's no secret that Eastwood is a Republican (was even a Nixon supporter) but as a cinematic artist he's willing at times to explore beyond his ideological shell, even question assumed truths, and you gotta dig that. I mean if anyone else had shot LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, that person would have been automatically slammed as a leftist God-hating traitor by the likes of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but since this is Eastwood, nobody complained.

That's the awesome power of Eastwood right there.

But anyway he didn't shoot TIGHTROPE, and on the surface it seems like a routine Dirty Harry-esque picture. Eastwood as a tough cop who uses his fists and guns to stop crime? Been there, done that. Eastwood fighting a serial killer terrorizing a city? Yup. Eastwood spouting one-liners? Ditto. Eastwood having problems with women around him? What else you expect?. How about him getting his kicks from handcuffing prostitutes and then having sex with them?

OK, that's a new weird one for Dirty Harry.

You have to respect Eastwood for willingly taking the risk of alienating certain demographics of his fanbase with such a character, a cop in New Orleans who ends up investigating a series of brutal strangulations, most of whom Eastwood had hired previously for his kinky games. So we're walking a TIGHTROPE between the usual action cinema heroics in stopping this murderer, and him wrestling with his conscience about his treatment of women as mere sex objects, especially after teaming up with Genevieve Bujold, continuing her feminist schtick from COMA.

TIGHTROPE was written and helmed by Richard Tuggle, who scripted the last Eastwood/Don Spiegel collaboration in ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ. If you've seen a serial killer movie in the last 20 years, TIGHTROPE's plotting seems pretty routine procedural material, but what I dig is the touches he gives to a pretty effective popcorn psychological thriller. This flick openly suggests that Eastwood's fetish comes from his desire to reign control over women at a time when they were demanding equal power, if not more...which perhaps is why he got divorced. What I think is intriguing is that besides his nightly shenanigans down in the French Quarter, Tuggle makes a point of the fact that he's the patriarchal rock for his two daughters seem to only acerbate the problem.

Consider also a nice throwaway shot is when Eastwood's oldest kid, played by his real-life offspring Alison Eastwood, catches a peep of the crime scene photos from his case file. You expect a direct payoff from this, which you don't get but the dividends do arrive when Eastwood gets drunk because he can't beat this killer. In most movies, such a scene would tie in of how his ex-wife or kids yell at him for dragging work to home or for boozing. Instead, the girl tries to take care of him, as if to say "Yeah you're a jerk at times, and you're drinking, but I sorta understand why."

I also dig Tuggle's approach with the villain. A mistake that many filmmakers tend to make is going over-the-top with how crazy or sadistic the baddie is, like with Brett Ratner's RED DRAGON where Ralph Fiennes has pumped-up muscles, tattoos all over his body, and some rather nasty teeth, because you know only a psychopath would look like that. Yet I think sometimes an understated approach does the job better. I mean, you see him behind one of his victims, she turns around to see....a guy wearing a kabuki mask, and you go what the fuck? Fiennes is fine for a comic book I guess, but with TIGHTROPE, I see that sort of asshole actually living in our world.

The heroes and creeps engaged in a cat-and-mouse mind game is a staple of the genre, but I liked how Tuggle has the antagonist just likes to fuck with Eastwood, which the villain mockingly points out that they both have some of the same "peculiar" tastes. Consider an early scene when after a "meeting" with a hooker, Eastwood realizes that he left his tie back at her place, and we forget about it. Then later when he finds her dead, he sees that the exact same tie is hanging around a nearby statue. But that's nothing compared to when the murderer invades Eastwood's home, and locks his 12-year old kid to the bed with the very same handcuffs that Eastwood used in his sex games.

Now that's fucked up. Really, you gotta commend that such a visual idea perhaps wouldn't be used in Hollywood 2008, and yet it was done 24 years ago. A pity that Tuggle's only other theatrical directorial work was the Anthony Michael Hall vehicle OUT OF BOUNDS, for with TIGHTROPE he showed some competent talent. Plus, as someone at IMDB pointed out, he and Eastwood were slick to cast Bujold and her French-Canadian heritage as a native of the Franco-Anglo city of New Orleans.

I think Tuggle does contradict perhaps his armchair psychological exploration of Eastwood when he has him going to save Bujold, which arguably could be seen as an affirmation of traditional masculinity. The climax finale between Eastwood and the killer at the train tracks is the most uninteresting and boring sequence of TIGHTROPE, as if it went all Polanski FRANTIC on us in jobbing out. Then again, to TIGHTROPE's credit, how many pictures you know of where the action cinema is the least interesting?

TIGHTROPE is underrated, if like FRANTIC its a few notches short of being a special gem, but I say check it out, if only to see when Eastwood meets up with a gay escort. He asks Eastwood why he doesn't "partner" with guys for once, and Clint answers "Maybe I have." On paper, that may have read like a joke, but the way Eastwood said it in such a cryptic coded way......

Oh Shit! Now the Moral Majority have another reason to hate him.

CLASS OF 1984 (1982) - ***1/2



The new music teacher (Perry King) at Lincoln High School should have known something was wrong and quit immediately after seeing fellow colleague Roddy McDowall at the parking lot carry a gun in his briefcase, and not even bother to hide that fact in broad daylight.

Watching the nicely-produced Anchor Bay DVD, you'll get a kick out of director Mark L. Lester making a big deal over and over of how CLASS OF 1984 "foresaw" shocking violence at America's educational institutions like Columbine, which is incredibly silly. Last I checked, Columbine was committed by two bullied guys with psychological problems who spent way too much time playing DOOM and illegally straw purchased their firearms with help from a friend, and not by a mafia-clique of mascara-wearing punks. That said, I'll give Lester credit in that it was science fiction to many back in 1982 to have metal detectors, security guards, and surveillance cameras at our high schools, and yet alot of my generation probably now take such measures for granted.

Early on, CLASS OF 1984 looked like it was gonna be a The Clash-inspired retake on BLACKBOARD JUNGLE (though I doubt that left-winger rock act would have liked being role models for such gangsters), where a well-meaning middle class teacher goes into an inner-city school run not by the faculty but by the students themselves, and as King pushes to do his job and regain law & order, the leader (Timothy Van Patten) pushes back harder. Nothing really exciting here, real bland melodrama and we even get some incredibly contrived cartoonish sillyness when this movie goes like so many movies from the 1970s and 80s where the administrators refuse to punish the kids and the law due to those damn civil liberties this side of DIRTY HARRY. Plus, Michael J. Fox (in an early role) is so annoying and whiney as a trumpet loser, you're sorta glad that he got knifed in the cafeteria.

But the surprising and shocking thing about CLASS OF 1984 is that for a low-budget trashy capitalization of then-newspaper headlines, it actually improves as the brutal violence and sheer insanity escalate until it becomes a satisfying and even memorable delivery of B-action exploitation cinema. When those punks throw stage blood at King, it's goofy and yet it's a sly blunt indication of the carnage to come.

I mean you have a kid tripping out after snorting some cocaine go climb up a flag pole and sing the Pledge of Allegiance before falling to his death. Then King grabs Van Patten in the bathroom with the intention of beating him into a bloody pulp for that dead kid, and when he can't do it, Van Patten mocks him. Then he promptly smashes his own head against a mirror, the wall, and sink, and gets King arrested for "assaulting a student." Speaking of which, I wonder what if Lester had scripted the scene differently, where King then afterwards took credit himself for the thrashing, and thus have Van Patten's psychological warfare horribly backfire, as the school makes fun of "the boss" getting wrecked by a pacifist liberal.

What I thought was really intriging with Van Patten was that after the movie's narrative rhythmn had been established, when he tries to play mindgames with King again in his classroom, he then busts out a beautiful and touching piano piece out of friggin nowhere, a total contrast to his rough and ruthless persona. It's such a surprisingly gifted touch to such familar formulaic genre ground, and even display a person's potential squandered on egomania and hooliganism, and also warn of his literal destructive creativity.

Anyway, CLASS at this point becomes A CLOCKWORK ORANGE meets THE GODFATHER, where Van Patten is good at being an asshole villain who grins at using the law and his super-intelligence to get away with everything, forever self-admiring himself. Though to be honest, Van Patten has one thing over Malcolm McDowall's Alex DeLarge, which is that instead of being a whore Beethoeven, at least he created his own music. There is even a scene where much reminiscent (i.e. derivative) of Coppola's film where Van Patten meets at a nasty rotting night club and deals narcotic transactions, recruit gang muscle, and make would-be coke whores go through "try outs" to join his prostitution ring. Then we see him at his home, and you'll go "that figures."

How many high school movies you know of where the destiny of everyone and their fates belong to that a guy who if busted could be only tried as a juvenile?

Really folks, there are so many moments where you will say simply Damn to it, even if you have to sit through some inadverted cheesyness that was Lester's fault, like when Van Patten says seriously clunker lines like "Life....is Pain!" and "I am the Future!" (Who wrote this dialogue, Sylvester Stallone?) For example, when the brood retaliates at McDowall by turning his animal laboratory into a gory butcher shop. Then McDowall's response, in the best awesomely bizarro sequence in CLASS OF 1984, when he has a total nervous breakdown from the slaughter and nobody in his biology classes giving a damn about what he's trying to teach, he holds the students hostage at gunpoint. If anything, these pukes had been going through their rampage motions like a game, and yet now in their eyes they realize that the safety net aint there for them afterwards.

There is something perverse about us enjoying McDowall's threats to blow their brains out if they answer a question wrongly, and yet a total swerve from what you expect when he's like happy that they actually remember his lectures, even if these are the same assholes who skinned his rabbits alive. Speaking of which, thank God I was an "A" student in high school biology. Mathematics though, I would have been fucked in McDowall's classroom.

With the finale when Van Patten's army gangrapes King's pregnant wife and take polaroid snap shots, which they show to King before his major school recital, and he gives the look. According to self-stylized badass cinema afficionado The Outlaw Vern, he defines the the look as one essential in most such revenge movies from WALKING TALL to KILL BILL, where the wronged hero tells us without talking that we're going beyond the point of no return regarding his relations with the villains, which of course means they're gonna fucking die!

This is the strongest section of CLASS, where it becomes ultimately THE WARRIORS and STRAW DOGS mixed into a blender, spit on by Lester, and then thrown out the window for good measure. Really, I admit that King and Lester did make me buy why this guy at this point finally decides to kill those little bastards, and why we get everything from a bloody brawl around a powered-up sharp bandsaw to a nice human fireball at the garage to finally an operatic and climatic splatter confrontation on the school rooftop.

CLASS OF 1984 is pure junk, but it's really good junk. It could have been really idiotic and lousy, but instead prevails because of some good acting here and there, some adjustments to genre traditions, and the filmmakers never job out simply because of the material, yet not apologize for its direct visceral nature. You know, such a movie could only be produced before Columbine, because unless you're going for an arty "serious" angle like say ELEPHANT, I don't see anyone funding or willing to distribute such a flick these days.

So check it out, if only as a time capsule to both what some people probably seriously thought the future held for them, and for the shit you could get away with at the movies at that time.

I watched RAIN MAN for the first time last night, why its took me this long to watch the film i don't know, The film was very good and Dustin Hoffman played the part perfectley and it was also good to see Tom Cruise play a more serious role we have become used to seeing in the last 15 years..

I just watched Goodbye Charlie Bright not a bad film at all.

SUDDEN IMPACT (1983) - ***1/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6-Snl4a1RI&feature=related

"Go ahead. Make my Day."

Whatever this is true or not, I don't know, but according to IMDB.com, SUDDEN DEATH supposedly came as a result of a Warner Bros. survey around the time of the last Sean Connery 007 flick NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, asking people to name an actor and a famous part that he/she had played. Despite 7 years since his last adventure, Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" Callahan apparently scored so high, Warner Bros. asked Eastwood if he was interested in returning for a 4th movie. He agreed, but only if he was also both producer and director.

I think the reason behind the eternal popularity of Dirty Harry is that he's a contemporary fantasy throwback to the outlaw law enforcers of the American Wild West in "Wild" Bill Hickok and Wyatt Earp, a guy ready and willing to whip out his canon of a gun in the name of justice. Such a guy doesn't exist, nor really last long in our world, which is fitting considering how the real Hickok and Earp were nowhere as outlandish or awesomely cool as their myths state them to be.

What intrigues me with the Dirty Harry franchise, of which few have commented upon, is how that several entries have dealt with that vigilantism. In the original DIRTY HARRY, Callahan throws down his badge to take down once and for all the Scorpio Killer, then MAGNUM FORCE and it's platoon of cops going rogue to "clean the streets," and with SUDDEN IMPACT, it's about a victim trying to enact blood revenge.

The strange thing about SUDDEN IMPACT is that for a Dirty Harry movie, Eastwood is almost a sideline observer, arguably not even involved directly with the plot, and affect the fate of the principles until the finale. Perhaps what really intrigued Eastwood as a filmmaker was to shoot a classy Hitchcock-inspired atmospheric if blunt take on the revenge exploitation genre of action cinema that was quite popular in the 1970s and 80s. If guns have typically been seen as an extension or metaphor for the exertion of masculinity, then with Sondra Locke as an artist who with her sister got gangraped a decade earlier, she goes biblical in her retribution by castrating her perpetrators with a firearm, thus cancelling their manhood. Then with a woman involved with that brood, she gets shot in the breast, thus symbolically taking away her feminity.

Think of all this as like a non-martial arts, down to Earth grounded KILL BILL for the Reagan Decade.

Of course this is still a Dirty Harry movie, and you know what that means. He thwarts a cafe robbery while spouting one of the greatest one-liners in all of American cinema (which was then quoted in a speech by the then-U.S. President), giving the look that yeah today would be Christmas for him if he could just blast away that one last criminal. Though quite honestly, the most awesome badass scene in IMPACT is when he crashes the wedding of a mobster's granddaughter. Harry blackmails him with "confessional" letters written by his dead mistress, which promptly gives the guy a fatal heart attack, and Harry leaves...throwing away the papers revealed to be blank.
Poor girl, imagine that her wedding anniversary for now on will coincide when her gramps kicked the bucket.

The department bureaucrats, forever placing him on suspension or threatening jail time, are here again and they get angry at him defending himself after some henchmen of the dead gangster jump him. Look, I can understand at times their problems with his lack of disregard for civil rights and pragmatism, but in this instance, they're being ridiculous. Still, we get a cool Eastwood's exchange with his superior:

Captain Briggs: "Don't you lecture me, you son of a bitch! Do you know who I am? Do you know my record?"
Harry: "Yeah... you're a legend in your own mind."

Now that's a verbal bitchslap!

Another touch from Eastwood I liked is when he's sent down to the city where Locke is avenging, and he goes into a bar doing his usual policework, there is something shocking in how everyone there just laughs at him. Is Eastwood trying to make a point of how what seems serious in San Francisco seems ludicrous outside city limits, i.e. if people acted like movie cops in reality, or was Eastwood wanting a startling turn of events, twisting upon our expectations of what will happen in a Dirty Harry picture?

Yet I think there is something clunky in how two seperate movies got sewn together, and many moments not feeling like either are a natural progression or a consequence of the other. Then you have this whole sequence where Eastwood is target practicing his new "toy," which was a pointless commercial for the .44 Automag. It's a super cannon pistol, but it just lacks the iconic and powerful lure of his legendary Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum Revolver. Notice that the Automag, unless my memory fails me, didn't return for the last Dirty Harry flick in THE DEAD POOL. I also don't care for the ole stereotypical middle-aged hag lesbian villain, or Locke's sister still catatonic from the sexual assault (sexist?) and Harry getting a sidekick in a farting bulldog that urinates everywhere (though I must admit, I laughed. Sorry).

But there is a crowd-cheering moment in the climax when Eastwood shows up ready to kick some ass, a black shadowry figure representing a hero's tendency for violence, yet surrounded with the white borderline of righteousness. Also, you gotta dig where one of the rapists gets impaled, i.e. he gets penetrated back by Locke. Nice subtlety, Clint.

Still, it's worth noting that the original DIRTY HARRY from the early 70s was all about the legal system being inherently broken by giving the bad guys too many rights, but by SUDDEN IMPACT we learn of a cop who had covered up Locke's rape. I mean, if that act of law enforcement corruption had not taken place, justice would have been served at the courts, and she wouldn't have to go around and giving gory vascectomies. Is it possible that as a character, Dirty Harry had evolved from simplicity that George Wallace had campaigned about, to a more complex interesting archetype?

Let Sleeping Corpses Lie
aka The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue
Jorge Grau 1974 Spain / Italy

---

An experimental radar machine used by farmers as a pesticide alternative also wakens the dead who terrorize the town. After the first killing, a man and woman traveling together through the countryside are suspected by the police and are not allowed to leave.

---

This is one of the best zombie movies I've seen in a long time. I might even rank it as my second favorite right after Night of the Living Dead. It's too bad that this movie followed the success of Night of the Living Dead along with so many others because it is a good movie that was lost in the mix. With a very strong environmental message taking place in England it is a bit slower than most zombie movies which works great because Grau builds the atmosphere so well. There aren't even that many zombies but when you see them they are frightening and, unlike most other movies in it's genre, the zombies don't seem to be completely brain dead, holding grudges and even working together to kill their targets.

Aside from an overly dramatic police detective (which didn't bother me) the acting was very good. The cinematography was well done including beautiful green English hills and streams as well as interesting camera angles of the zombies attacking.

The gore is there and disturbing as one might expect from a zombie film, but it is relatively minimal and used effectively. The horror is mostly in the atmosphere.

My only criticism is that there is a sound issue where the voices don't seem to always match up with the actors mouth movement giving it a dubbed foreign language feel. My guess is that the actors re-recorded their own voices in a studio later on to cut down on outside noise. Maybe someone here who has more technical knowledge could explain why the sound might be a little off at times. The sound issue wasn't that bad though and I highly recommend this to anyone who is a fan of zombie films.

Although I've seen it hundreds of times, while I was flipping through the channels, I came across Shawshank Redemption on Cinemax. I can't NOT watch it. The acting, the script, everything is just perfect in this movie.

Although they've both had other great roles, Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman were superb together in this film and played their parts so wonderfully. The friendship they shared, the life lessons their characters taught one another. The film is just magical.

That's why it is #1 on IMDB just above The Godfather. It's one of those movies that you can't pass up on T.V. and everyone likes it (even thought it's not a better movie than The Godfather).

It's overall appeal is what makes The Shawshank Redemption so great.

I'm with you SB. I never saw SR on the big screen and saw it in the tv listings in recent years and always wondered what the heck is a Shawshank? Seriously, I'd skip over it for a while not really knowing what it was about. One day I read the description and also heard from a oouple people how good it was, so finally watched it......and loved it.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I'd be up for watching again. One of my favorites actually.

TIS

1) I just watched Insomnia on dvd with Al Pacino. Robin Williams is excellent as the villain. The dvd also had an interview with Al and a host of other extras.

2)Alien vs predator-requiem was a dud. The biggest problem is the movie is shot entirely in such a dark way that one needs night vision goggles to view it.

3) The recruit with Al Pacino and Colin Farrell is also another great work. Pacino shows that he still has it.

Check the original INSOMNIA from Scandanavia sometime. It's better, but Nolan's remake is pretty good.



The fact that it sucked a golfball through a waterhose didn't help either.



Not seen that one.

This review is plagiarised.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2B6SQ89S2BRTB

This review is plagiarised.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2J9RNT9TTV5XH/

This review is plagiarised.

http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews4/mrsaturdaynightdvd.html

The recruit



http://www.amazon.com/Recruit-Conrad-Ber...7282&sr=1-1

All right, we get the point!

I encourage PB to defend himself, if he can, but would otherwise like to remind people to please do not post any materials claiming or implying that they are your own! Always provide the source of the material, and a link to the material.

According to the rules, everyone is responsible for their own actions. I'm sure the last thing you need would be to get into trouble for attributing others' work as your own.

Snatch

...Not as good as Lock, Stock, and 2 Smoking Barrels

In terms of style, they were very similar though.

And I liked the Pikey character Brad Pitt played, but I don't know. It was just missing something that was in the other film.

Really? I thought it was much funnier with a better cast

I prefer Snatch over Lock Stock..

De Niro made a joke!

Ha!

CLASS OF 1999 (1990) - ***

"...Thumbs Up!" - Gene Siskel

In the future nine years ago, the gang violence at American high schools as seen in Mark Lester's original CLASS OF 1984 apparently escalate to the point that the police has pretty much abandoned the regions around the schools and refuse to venture into such teen-punk controlled "free-fire zones." The newly-formed Department of Educational Defense(!) are taking the anarchy-ruled schools back using the help of cyborg teachers, starting with Kennedy High in Seattle. With such a premise, you know this movie will have the bots go haywire and start killing everyone, instead of operating smoothly and reforming the joint successfully, turning all the gangbangers into good students.

Pretty much if CLASS OF 1984 was a very good exercise in revenge action exploitation about a persecuted teacher having to stand up to some kids, then 1999 is pure science fiction shoot-em-up, mostly brain-less, action cinema junk where the teachers are now the villains, or think of this as like when Arnold Schwarzenegger switched sides in TERMINATOR 2

Really, I shouldn't have enjoyed CLASS OF 1999 as much as I did, and if I had subscribed to the so-called guilty pleasure theory, this would be such a title. But I don't believe in that nonsense, either you dig a movie or you don't. That "guilty pleasure" label is a pussy-proof term for people who fear that their friends may turn their noses up at them. Screw that, I liked CLASS OF 1999 and I apologize to absolutely no one for it. Kiss my ass.

You know, that wouldn't be a bad epitaph on my tombstone.

Anyway, the only way I can describe CLASS is that like your weekly Sci-Fi Channel Original Movie of the Week, at least 95% of this very low budget film is a rehash of better films from ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK to THE TERMINATOR to ROBOCOP and I lost count afterwards. This also one of those silly B-picture from the late 1980s/early 90s where the "futuristic" art direction is neon and purple, the computer technology never advanced beyond the Macintosh, a cheesy score and of course the obligatory robotic voice-over and the cheap primitive graphics of the time.

But what works is that unlike most such Sci-Fi Channel dreck, CLASS has an engaging-enough premise to hook ya in, and actually pays off as much as possible on it. You have this school that's been transformed into a secured fortress where paramilitary guards with automatics patrol, making the students check their guns in at the entrance, and taken back and forth by armored buses. The new professors initially go all medieval on the unruly gangsters in a satisfying ubermensh fantasy, including bringing back spanking to discipline in a scene so ridiculously good, you have to see it for yourself:



For what it is, 1999 is solid trash matinee entertainment but it's inferior to the earlier CLASS if simply because while 1984 was raised above-average by the terrific acting from Timothy Van Patten and Perry King, the cast here is lackluster. Mind you, 1999 has a terrific B-movie talented cast with Stacey Keach, Malcolm McDowell, Pam Grier, and Z-genre favorite Pat Kilpatrick, but damn the actors playing the gangster kids are just dullard. Bradley Gregg as the anti-hero badboy teenager is like a poor man's Michael Pare in his gruff mean tough tone of voice, and Pare is impoverished as he is.

Still, how many movies you know of that begin with the protagonist being released from jail, and the condition of his parole is that he must attend high school? I mean I can understand him, but why does every other kid at Kennedy High go? Is it like part of a deal between the police and these punks in exchange for the gangs to retain rule of their free-fire zone? How does that gun-check actually work? Why is there a forklift in the high school basement at the climax? Why does Principal McDowell let his daughter attend this school from hell, instead of some private institution far far away, in spite of the nasty gangs roaming around? Can a robot really be strangled to death? Why are the cyborgs given folders for "data on the worst offenders" when it could have been simply booted directly into their main-frame? Why is it that every movie with cybernetic creatures always have a shot where there skin either fully or partially burns off to reveal the steel body underneath?

Why am I putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did?

Still, I liked the early scene when Gregg returns home and it seems like he had accidentally driven into rival turf, but then it's revealed that he only did this so to annoy his old alpha-male adversary and wreck his wheels. Even later, this rare serious moment when you see Gregg's little brother fighting their mother over drugs, and it's quite an effectively sad dramatic moment.

CLASS OF 1999 may kill a braincell or two of yours if you dare check it out when it finally goes to school on DVD this September, but it's worth it, if simply to hear this awesome line that I'll re-use if I ever get to script a movie for real: "Yeah I trust him.....like a vampire giving me a blowjob!"

BURN AFTER READING (2008) - ***1/2

Remember ten years ago how after getting major Oscar nominations for FARGO, the critics either hated or simply dismissed THE BIG LEBOWSKI? Yeah now everyone and their mothers claim to love that one, but it got trashed in theatres like The Dude's carpet. Now I'm not accusing some of you of lying about always being there for it from the beginning, but my fuzzy math calculations here just don't add up.

Well fast forward to now, and while the reviews in general seem to be overall positive, you still have a few folks using some rather silly logic in deriding BURN AFTER READING. There are those who whine about how the Coen Brothers have strayed from the "serious drama" path of last year's NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, or how READING isn't dramatic enough, or whatever the hell. I guess if you win an Oscar, people have their bitch-sniper laser-sights on you and will execute over the most trivial stuff. And you thought Dubya could be trigger happy. Then again, maybe some of them are disgruntled Oscar poolers who were foolish enough to bet some hard cash early on BURN as an awards contender, I just don't know.

Speaking for the majority, I hate to break it to some of you, but BURN AFTER READING is a typical Coen Brothers effort. I mean for John Ford, it was cowboys. For Kurosawa, it was samurai. For Scorsese, mobsters, and so forth. With Joel and Ethan Coen, this is once again about foolish misfits being involved in something, usually a criminal enterprise, completely way over their heads, and for a few of them, they are absolutely screwed.

So for the very complicated plot, if you want to argue that there was one, is that John Malkovich, not seen by my eyes since the cinematic war crime ERAGON, is a CIA agent who gets demoted because he's an alcoholic. He gives us a great Coen-esque line to his Mormon co-worker ("Compared to you, everyone has a drinking problem!") and promptly quits to write his memoirs. His wife in Tilda Swinton plans to divorce him, so he transfers all his computer files onto a disc, which promptly is dropped at a gym by the law firm secretary, and found by fitness trainers Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand. That shallow numbskull champion tag team try to blackmail Malkovich, which I would think would be a mistake but that's only because I've seen IN THE LINE OF FIRE. Meanwhile, McDormand is internet dating Treasury agent Clooney, who himself is also banging Swinton on the side. Why he's having an affair with his enemy from MICHAEL CLAYTON who tried to carbomb him, I have no idea. I do know that their make-up sex must have been awesome.

Still with me?

As I expected, the cast was terrific and everyone has the right timing and chemistry with each other, from poor Malkovich as the Ivy League professional with a mediocre career duller than dishwater to McDormand as the sweet but purely unpractical walking mid-life crisis, everyone seems to have genuine fun with their parts. Swinton is pretty good as the authoratative stern bitch, which makes a scene revealing her profession even more hilarious, but I fear she may unfortunately get herself typecasted by Hollywood into more such roles, especially since she won an Oscar for acting such a similar character in MICHAEL CLAYTON. Still, something subtly sexy about her wearing a jewel necklace while nude in the bed with Clooney.

Clooney is of course terrific, as the charming manwhore, to which he's so good at one, I wonder if he at times is pretty much playing his tabloid reputation. I know he's good buddies with the Coens and all, but with him flirting with McDormand in front of the camera, I wonder if her husband in Joel didn't keep a gun around just in case. I mean you gotta defend your territory sometimes, even from a friendly veteran explorer of the female body like Batman.

Anyway, the word on the Internet is right, Brad Pitt does steal the movie. I've whined before of how Pitt can be a great actor when he wasn't coasting with disinterest like in SPY GAME or THE MEXICAN and so on, as if he is still trying to beat out Will Smith in taking over the fallen Tom Cruise's throne as King-Star of Hollywood. But here he's special as that guy we all know, the best friend you could ever have, but you wouldn't want to trust your life in his hands. When he meets Malkovich, I thought it was strange. Consider that Pitt once was the legendary badass Tyler Durden, he tries as this clueless dipshit to act tough here by trying to mimic Clint Eastwood as if he saw a DIRTY HARRY movie the night before, and I laugh as he tremendously fails.

Hey Brad, I forgive you finally for MR. & MRS. SMITH. I still have MEET JOE BLACK as a strike on my books, but you're doing fine so far so don't worry about. Keep up the good work mate, don't let those Paparazzi assholes get you down. Who knows, if he had just a few more sequences, he could have been a serious candidate for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Oh well, someone else will get the lucky honor of losing to Heath Ledger.

But I must give mention to Richard Jenkins. Seemingly the only major player of this farce to not get top-billing on the memorable retro-fluffy poster, he's probably the only sane logical realistic person stuck in this mess over the MacGuffin disc. Yeah some will say that he didn't have as much material to work with as the others, but he deserves some worthy attention, of which I've found lacking so far.

I believe it was filmmaker William Friedkin on his commentary track for TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. who complained about redundancy in movies in terms of excessive coverage of the plot. What that means is, take for example when in READING, Pitt explains to McDormand how he found out Malkovich's identity because of some throwaway dialogue junk of knowing a computer hacker. Every other picture would have some useless scene, usually in action cinema, showing us this encounter, but the Coens don't bother, and Thank God. I would apply this as well to the ending, which some have criticized as being too abrupt and anticlimatic. I argue instead that it's a perfect sterile and very calm bookend to a lively chaotic storyline.

I would also add how READING could be seen as commentary on how a brood get into so much trouble over something irrelevant, which in itself is an allegory for us invading Iraq over those WMDs, which disapeared magically this side of Amelia Earhart and the government then claimed overnight that we were there to spread freedom like butter and herpes, but I'm tired of pompous critics who randomly inject politics into their reviews so thankfully I dodged that bullet. Plus, notice how the sexes fare ultimately in BURN. The women here haven't gotten the better end of their male mates since they dragged them to watch that SEX AND THE CITY movie earlier this year.

All I'm trying to say is that BURN AFTER READING isn't as good as say other Coen comedies like THE BIG LEBOWSKI or RAISING ARIZONA or O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?, but its still an utterly satisfying popcorn package that is smarter, wittier, and more memorable exercise than most genre efforts we get these days. Oh and it's cool that unlike American horror, the Coens know how to weave superb gore into their narrative, and none of that CGI headshot goofyness. Unfortunately to a few, that's not enough itself considering they came off a contemporary classic masterpiece like NO COUNTRY.

Well fuck them and let me end this review by briefly talking about the audience at my screening. They hollered, they giggled, and totally dug the shit out of Pitt. They were horribly shocked in a good way when Clooney's device is revealed and in a bad way when the unexpected plot twist occurs. Unlike years ago with INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and THE LADYKILLERS, afterwards I felt a good buzz from the exiting crowd, and this may in fact probably end up as the #1 movie this weekend.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) (No Stars)

Just... embarrassing.

And is THIS really fucking necessary?? A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (pre-production) The original was great. The sequels, well, they are what they are like most others. NEW NIGHTMARE *is* a nightmare, scarier (that they made it, not its content) than any Craven film. But now the need for a REMAKE?? Gimme a fucking break already...! Hollywood sucks fat dick. Oh good! Cody Banks 2 is on! Infinitely better than this shit.

And yet I ask, are you really surprised?

Unless I'm mistaken, Billy Bob Thornton is now Krueger in this (pointless) remake, and you know Thornton is a good presence at times, but fuck Robert Englund is Krueger.

I think this is the 2nd time I'm in agreement with you!

Hollywood sucks!

I'd rather see a Porky's 4 than another fucking remake of a CLASSIC!

How about neither?

After the HALLOWEEN remake, we should have seen these coming. The Michael Bay produced remake of FRIDAY THE 13TH hits theaters this coming February. I read that it makes Jason out to be a bit more sympathetic a character, having been the nerdy outcast in school, blah, blah, blah . . .

Here's the Wikipedia synopsis: Friday The 13th (2009)

Oh for fucks sake.

That doesn't make me sympathize with the guy at all. I mean can we quit this emo-bullying bullshit? I'm fucking tired of it.

Also, to be honest, I thought his origin was just fine as it was....the poor retarded kid who drowns because some people were too busy fucking around and not doing their jobs.

I mean think about it, many people have horribly died because of the curse set by those two...

Don't you worry, don't you fret, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET is getting the remake treatment as well

Breaking news: There is going to be a Nightmare on Elm Street remake!

No way!!!

Seriously!! I heard it here first!

Watched The Hoax starring Richard Gere. It's based on the true story of Clifford Irving, an author who submits forged contracts to publishing giant McGraw Hill, claiming that he has been given the exclusive rights to ghost-write Howard Hughes' autobiography. They fork over the dough, no problem, but then he has to come up with wackier and wackier antics to perpetuate the lie.

It was well-written and well-acted. Alfred Molina, as Irving's best friend and researcher, gives a very good performance. Marcia Gay Harden, as his long-suffering wife, is simply annoying. I'd cheat on this woman, too.

I do recommend the film, though, if only to see Richard Gere as a brunette.

I agree. Are we that politically correct, that we need to know that if Jason got a hug once in a while, he'd have turned out just fine?

I just watched Mean Streets on DVD and enjoyed it. Martin Scorsese is a genius when it comes to this genre. Robert DeNiro steals the show as Johnny Boy. I am still wondering if he died at the end of the movie. David Proval was also great in a part that could have been an inspiration for his latter role of Richie Aprile on The Sopranos.

One of my all-time favorites. If Johnny Boy did survive those wounds, I can't imagine he would have been long for this world either way. Not with his attitude. An absolute classic New York City street film.

I'm going through all 25 of Marty's movies right now in chronological order. Tonight I'm going to watch BRINGING OUT THE DEAD. So far I've loved everything and it's no wonder Marty's my favorite director

Watched BOOGIE NIGHTS again.

Great film,very funny.I could watch it over and over!

In the middle of Speed Racer (2008) and can't believe I'm still watching this pile of shit.

Wow. I actually fell asleep during it, woke up, and didn't feel I missed anything at all. I watched the original anime version all the time as a kid and liked it (and I don't even particularly like anime), but this pseudo-anime-live-action comes off as total crap to me here. At least Dick Tracy had some charm to it. Forget this nightmare.

And guess what? Next up I have The Love Guru. Apparently I'm torturing myself with shit films this week. The only cool thing is that I received them both from Netflix on their DVD release date! I should get 88 Minutes in a day or two to round out my trifuckeda (not counting New Nightmare).

Godfather's coming soon at least...

I bet its Irishmans fav film of 2008

Yeah, I had a free movie ticket and almost walked outta the theater myself

Na, my favorite film of 2008 thus far is THE DARK KNIGHT with IRON MAN being #2

Irish, what is your view on Wall-e?

Haven't seen it yet. Waiting for DVD

You should all stop buying dvds and check this website out..

http://www.watch-movies.net/

I do go there sometimes DE NIRO I download my music but I always buy my DVDs

Okay, the usual corny Mike Meyers, but not as bad as I expected. Nothing new here, though.

And when you kids realize a few years from now when the entertainment industries are in shambles and cannot afford real talent because of their lack of income to invest in talent because some cheapass people choose to steal their products... then enjoy your shitty downloads.

Don't wanna buy a DVD? At least rent it. Don't wanna buy a CD? Then at least spend the 99c for a song. Pay the ARTISTS who created it!

Man, Transformers was awful. I went to bed in the middle of the movie. Now I typically like parodies, comedies and jokes in general, but their jokes was even worse than Scary Movie 4. The human kind is doomed with this sort of movies anyway, I don't care for the ending of this picture. Okay, I'll see the other half today.

I didn't mind Transformers, but I also don't quite recall the actual ending... I don't mind cheezy movies, if I go into them knowing that.. then it's just fun. And I do have fun w/ bad movies. But some are TOO bad to be good...

Well, I never expected it to be this bad, considering the IMDb ratings.

I didn't think Transformers was that bad either, in a summer popcorn movie way. It's no masterpiece, but I was entertained.

I loved TRANSFORMERS. One of my favorite movies last year. I can't wait for #2 next year!

I prefered Transformers to the horrendous pile of c**p that was Black Sheep.

I aint no "kid",i dont download them i just watch the films on there..

Why pay £10-15 for a dvd when i can watch it for nothing, besides i dont watch new films on there, just old ones..

I remember reading that they plan on remaking The Dirty Dozen. I just finished watching The Usual Suspects again on DVD. Spacey is excellent and this movie is a definite classic IMHO.

I really liked The Usual Suspects too, I thought it was thrilling and it keeps you guessing right up to the end.

Joel Silver is producing that venture, and unless I'm mistaken, Guy Ritchie is still attached to direct.

Watched PAPILLION last night,starring the coolest man to ever stalk the screen,Steve Mcqueen!

Great movie.

I hear a rumour that they are looking to remake it starring Seymour Hoffman and Downey Jr?

If you liked the movie, you'll LOVE the book (it's much better). Look for it in your library... it was written by Henri Charriere (spelling may be wrong).

I never read the book, but I do remember my parents taking me to see it when I was a kid. It was a very impressive movie, for sure. I remember that as one of the first movies that I saw with Dustin Hoffman. I guess I wasn't allowed to see The Graduate or Midnight Cowboy.

I saw THE GRADUATE in the movies with my Uncle Lou. He's only 8 years older than me, so he was my "cool" uncle growing up. I guess I was 8 and he was 16 when it came out in '67. He lived in Yonkers. We saw it at the Kent Theatre on McLean Avenue. You may remember that place, Babe. It was near Wakefield, just over the Bronx/Yonkers line.

I suddenly feel very old. I was in a high school class in Sociology and was assigned to see "The Graduate" as part of a group discussion. (Of course I loved it).

I was 6 when it came out.

Mommy, why is Mrs. Robinson always bothering that boy??

I love The Graduate. Especially the parts when he is with Mrs Robinson!

I just started watching Fallen with Denzel Washington and a little known actor by the name of James Gandolfini.

I never saw that movie at the theater, and don't now if it was a big hit or not, but I really liked that movie. Did you enjoy it Paul?



TIS

Tiiiime is on my side, yes it is...

That movie scared the heck out of me. I thought that John Goodman and Denzel Washington were very good together.

Mr. Babe is driving me nuts. He's flipping back and forth between The Right Stuff and Aliens. Needless to say, it's getting rather confusing.

go see Elite Squad! official trailer in here.

I suppose most of you will not like it and the international version will probably be a piece of shit. they already changed the focus of the plot from Cap. Nascimento to the two recruits, which is a bad start but give it a chance!

Yes, it was very good.

I just finished watching the following:

1) Narc. Ray Liotta shined in the role of Detective Oak. Jason Patric wasn't bad as Liotta's partner. Both are investigating the mysterious death of a fellow Narcotics officer.

2) The Silence of the Lambs- Anthony Hopkins was scary in the role of Dr Hannibal Lecter. Ted Levine played the killer dubbed Buffalo Bill. Levine was also in Crime Story with Dennis Farina. Levine can also be seen in Monk as Detective Stotelmeyer[sp].

3) The Wild Bunch- This is a masterpiece in my opinion. Sam Peckinpah was a genius.

Just watched Into the Wild (2007) ...really good stuff! A great life/journey film, but for some reason the very end seemed a bit too easy for me. But maybe that's life, huh? Ya never really know what'll do you in......

We saw The Bucket List last night. It was a sweet movie that managed to find humor in a plot that involved two dying men. The two main characters are from completely different worlds. They are brought together because they are both dying of cancer in the same hospital room. I would imagine that the film's charm is due more to the excellence of the actors (Nicholson and Freeman) than to the excellence of the script. I liked it, though, and would definitely recommend it.

A little piece of trivia: the woman who played Morgan Freeman's wife played the assistant principal to his Joe Clark in Lean On Me.

I just watched I am Legend and the shot of the deconstructed Brooklyn Bridge(?) appears to be the same one that appeared in I, Robot.

RUN,FAT BOY RUN with Simon Pegg,about a lazy fat idler who runs the London marathon to win the love of his life back!

All a bit of tosh really,but it has some genuinely funny moments!

I enjoyed it, Yogi. David Schwimmer (FRIENDS) directed it. He showed some promise.

Of course you are right PB, i forgot to mention that!

Yes i enjoyed it as well. Just lolled on the sofa watching it with a can or 2 of beer! My sort of relaxation

I went to the pictures to watch this a couple of years ago... Good film.. Im really getting into Simon Pegg films...

SHAUN OF THE DEAD is still one of my favourite movies

I agree,, modern day classic..

I just watched Billy Wilder's THE APARTMENT, with Jack Lemmon and Shirley Maclaine.

A New York City classic!

Great movie pizzaboy. Another Lemmon classic, SOME LIKE IT HOT with Marilyn Monroe and Tony Curtis

I missed this post earlier, but which Black Sheep are you talking about? Do you mean the 2006 version where genetically altered killer fast-moving zombie-like sheep terrorize the small town farm? That movie was hilarious, in a "so bad it was funny" way. And it wasn't even that bad really. Your expectations should have been low to begin with knowing you're about to see a movie about killer sheep.

I just watched "The Wanderers". Anyone remember that film about the Italian Gang?

It was corny as hell, But I had a good laugh throughout the movie. I had heard about it here and there and a friend lent it to me.

I expected some hard ass crew walking the streets and taking over shit, But it turned out the Wanderers were actually quite a bunch of pussies. Except for one dude who joined later on. Then you had the Baldies (Skin head crew) the Blacks, the Wongs and the Duckie Boys.

The fight scenes were good for a laugh. There was a disturbing scened when the leader of the Baldies (prob in his mid to late twenties) makes out with his midget Girlfriend (probably 15 max). It just looked fucked up and wrong on so many levels.

But, yeah. Corny yet funny.

I haven't watched any movies in awhile really. Just haven't had the urge. I get bored even if it's a good movie I'd want to play my DS or read a book during it lately.

Thanks for adding nothing to this thread.

'night!

You know those "fun" to watch movies that they play a lot and you can't resist at least watching part of it? For me, Die Hard is one, so Shawshank Redemmption and Overboard with Goldie Hawn & Kurt Russell.

Now, added to my list is "Final Destination". I don't always watch the entire movie, but find I enjoy certain parts and/or just can't resist watching parts of it.


TIS

1) Hannibal- I found this movie to be scarier than any horror movie I have ever seen.

2) Transformers- The movie wasn't bad. Wal-Mart was showing it and it peaked my interest.

Master and Commander- Russell Crowe was brilliant as always. The only minus was Wal Mart only has the full screen version in the $5.00 DVD bin.

TRANSFORMERS was one of my favorite movies last year. A great film

THE EXPRESS (2008) - ***

While he hasn't held the NFL All-Time Rushing title the 1980s, Jim Brown is still arguably the greatest football running back ever, if not at least still the most iconic. While other Pro Football Hall of Famers like Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, and future enshrinees like current-champion Emmitt Smith have passed Brown by in the record books, Brown is still the legendary high-water mark for that position. To quote Ric Flair, "to be the man, you gotta beat the man!" In that case, unless I'm mistaken, Curtis Martin said that his greatest career moment was surpassing Brown...not Eric Dickerson or Tony Dorsett or Franco Harris. To be quite fair, they were great and all, but none of them kicked ass in THE DIRTY DOZEN.

Anyway, THE EXPRESS reminds us that Brown didn't win the Heisman Trophy, believe it or not. In 1956, the prize went to "The Golden Boy" Paul Hornung of Notre Dame. Hell, Brown of Syracuse University was 5th in the voting! Mind you, Hornung was a terrific Hall of Fame versatile player in college and for the Green Bay Packers, but to say that he was better than Brown is like saying that Sarah Palin is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. So if the great Jim Brown couldn't win the Heisman at such a racist time within American sports, what black athlete had a chance?

I've had a problem with most recent sports dramas produced about the American Civil Rights struggles from REMEMBER THE TITANS to GLORY ROAD in how simplistic and naively cartoonish they portray the overt racism of those times, as if it only happened down in the South and we quit afterwards. Then I see this recent flier from a Republican Party-affiliated group, and well...



I won't say that THE EXPRESS is a great example, or even a good one I guess, but as a drama I give it props for trying to express (pun!) how racism wasn't simply some ignorant opinions held by dumb hicks back in the woods, but simply based off widely-held racial assumptions about held by white people at that epoch. You know such nonsense that Blacks, err I mean Negroes, lacked the mental capacity compared to whites, are rather lazy and lack discipline without Caucasian supervision, want to steal and ravish everything, etc. Syracuse University football head coach Ben Schwartzwalder (Dennis Quaid) as seen in the film isn't necessarily a bad man or a Nazi racist, but still berates young recruit Ernie Davis (Rob Brown) for supposedly having an "eye" for the white women on campus.

I mean some of you may remember my infamous review of William Friedkin's CRUISING, where in my original draft, I thought I was being progressive and fair, until the gay users of the AD Forums (rightly) berated me for my goddamn ignorance. I still hold the opinion that CRUISING has some artistic merit to it, but yeah I do realize now that the sexual politics in it are rather insultingly stupid. Like Quaid in THE EXPRESS, I learned that I was wrong by talking to that demographic, and hopefully matured with my attitudes. Perhaps also in a few decades (hopefully), Hollywood will show our descendents how that around the turn of the millennium, some rational and logical folks seriously thought that homosexual teachers and scoutmaster were an inherent danger around children, and not priests. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.)

Anyway, Davis was the first black to win the Heisman Trophy, helped lead the Syracuse Orangemen to it's sole National Championship in 1959, picked #1 in the NFL Draft, but died of Leukemia at the age of 23 before ever playing a down. His #45 jersey was subsequently retired by the Cleveland Browns. As a film, THE EXPRESS has more than anything else a good true story to work with but packages a very conventional and uninspired narrative around it. Then again, what would you expect from a bland director like Gary Fleder (RUNAWAY JURY)?

That said, there was some touches I liked, enough to muster this material into watchable territory. I enjoyed how Davis as a boy being inspired by Jackie Robinson, and then being recruited by Brown, who as a mentor gives advice using lacrosse as a analogy (Fun Fact: Brown is in the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame), and would return at a key scene. This nice cyclical script device bookends when a dying Davis himself passes off his knowledge to Denver Broncos star Floyd Little, and die as a hero for eternity not just for breaking racial barriers, but also for his struggle against cancer.

If anything, I think my main criticism against THE EXPRESS is that it spends most of its emotional muster on the racism, and gives skimp time to his illness. As a bird, flying so high, more than what anyone else expected or hoped for, it's like he had to die as a result. If one wants to be pretentious enough to see it, there is a Jesus Christ analogy to this tale, what with the throwaround shots of Davis bleeding profusely. Then again, maybe the filmmakers simply didn't want BRIAN'S SONG 2. I guess I could also slack the movie for it's flat linear structure, but that's a problem with most biopics in general.

I do though must make a point of how apparently the whole sequence where Davis is acousted by a violent prejudist crowd in West Virginia did happen, but at a Syracuse home game in New York. Look, as a white southerner I won't lie or accuse away that we were awful (and none of that "Heritage, Not Hate" bullshit), but damn I hate when Hollywood won't admit that such racism wasn't relegated to the South. I mean give me a break, be honest about it.

Still, I liked THE EXPRESS. It's nothing more than decent, a TV picture that somehow escaped into theatres, and for better or for worse was exactly what I expected. Brown is good, and Quaid continues my belief that he's a tremendously underused acting tool at the movies. But during that screening, it came to mind that to our national mythology, the black pioneers were not intellectuals like W.E.B. Du Bois but iron men of physicality like Jesse Owens, Robinson, Brown, and Davis who had to unfortunately earn grudging respect from their white overlords before that ethnicity could even begin to gain traction in the cerebral field of society.

Then a few decades later, we as a nation be possibly a few weeks away from electing our first African-American Commander-in-Chief.

I just finished watching Hannibal Rising the unrated version which explains why Hannibal became the monster we see.

I just finished watching The Killer Elite for the second time. Sam Peckinpah directed this movie but is best known for The Wild Bunch. Godfather actors Robert Duvall and James Caan star as friends who work for the C.I.A. However the friendship doesn't last and Caan finds himself at odds with Duvall's character. Burt Young and Bo Hopkins costar.

W.


Was not a negative movie like I was expecting.

I agree, LN. I have to say, for a psycho, paranoid left-winger, Oliver Stone has treated both Nixon and GW Bush with kid gloves.

I agree. Not a bad film, but not great either. Brolin was very good as Bush

I agree but the other characters were more like caricatures of themselves.

So, how would you guys rate it? From what I've seen of Brolin he does seem good. I


Btw, can you guess what movie I am watching now? Hint:

1. Kind of creepy
2. "Tiiiiiiiime is on my side...yes it is."


TIS

Oh, TIS, Fallen?? I do love Denzel, but that movie just freaks me out.

Ha ha ha...A gold star by your name SB.

Yea, it is creepy. I like these kinds of movies though. I had only seen it once and its been a while, so I am enjoying it second time. I forgot that James Gandolfini was in it.



TIS

He looks young, doesn't he? He probably was. He's only 47 now.

That scene where the demon passes from person to person as the people walk down the street and bump into one another just totally freaks me out.

I can't believe this movie is 10 years old already. Yea, everyone looks a little younger. Denzel not as much as Ganolini and even John Goodman.

They just had the part you referred to above, with the demon going from person to person. It is creepy.


TIS

Hey SB, Salems Lot is on the Chiller channel. Just thought I'd let ya know.

I'm really surprised with Halloween coming up, there aren't more thriller/chiller flicks on.

I do get the SciFi Channel, but a lot of there movies are crappy IMHO. Anyone else get SciFi? Some are not bad but most of them are either theater flops or made for cable flops.


TIS

I get Scifi channel to TIS. I watched a couple of the Halloween movies this evening on the AMC Channel.

I'm such a wimp. When I watch a scary movie I have to have the lights on and all the doors locked.

AMC is currently showing Stephen King's "Pet Sematary", one of my favorites. It is followed by King's "Christine" and then by another one of my personal favorites, "An American Werewolf in London" and then "Constatine", which I never saw all the way thru. At least one station is showing decent scary movies this time of year.


TIS

As I noted above, I've been watching AMC. Right now, one of my favorites, American Werewolf In London. This is one fun movie that I never get tired of watching. I never did see it in the theater, but recorded (VHS)from tv years and years ago. Of course I had to edit tv commericals out of it. They shortened it for tv version so there are some scenes that are not on my VHS version. I am enjoying this movie.

TIS

My Son is watching Beetlejuice right now on ABC Family.

Last night I watched The Hudsucker Proxy. Man I enjoyed it. I don't remember seeing anything from the Coen brothers that I didn't really enjoy! A great and witty comedy.

I thought The Hudsucker Proxy was one of the Coens more predictable movies, but that's compared to other Coen movies, not compared to all movies . Tim Robbins was great in that role wasn't he?

afsaneh, what are some of your other favorite Coen bros. movies? I have seen most of them and I think, aside from the obvious ones like Fargo and No Country For Old Men, I would have to say Barton Fink was the biggest surprise for me. I loved the awkward relationship between John Turturo and John Goodman.

Well, I've not seen many pictures of them. Those I've seen besides the above mentioned are No Country for Old Men, Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and Intolerable Cruelty. My most favorite thus far is definitely O Brother, Where Art Thou? and I didn't care much for Intolerable Cruelty.

I agree that The Hudsucker Proxy was predictable, but I enjoyed every minute of it. There is something about their movies... And yes, Tim was great. lol

Those words are exactly how I've described their movies. It seems to be impossible to pinpoint what is different about them. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is up there as one of my favorites as well.

I'm curious as to how you would enjoy Barton Fink. It is a little slower-paced and dark, but has that subtle Coen humor. Another one that fits well with the theme of this BB is Miller's Crossing. Both are very well done with that "something" that makes the Coen Brothers movies unique.

But I think Raising Arizona is another one that you might like since you seem to enjoy the more lighthearted movies they have done. It's about a couple, one is a con (Nicholas Cage) who, while arrested, meets a cop (Holly Hunter) and they fall in love. They are unable to conceive a child so they decide to steal a baby from a family who has quintuplets. As you can imagine, it's as strange and funny as anything the Coens have done

Please let me know if you watch any more of their movies as they are my favorite.

Bibble, I surely will look for their other movies, thankfully with a slightly faster internet and torrents, I finally can find and watch whatever I want out here.

A couple of months ago, while revisiting "O Brother... ," I was so impressed how I enjoyed this viewing even more than before. I was about to go look for their other movies, but then somehow it slipped my mind as I'm constantly on the look for new episodes of my current favorite shows, such as Dexter, The Office, House MD, etc.

A few days ago I found something I've always wanted to watch: "Monty Python Flying Circus." It was 14GB, and my connection will be busy downloading that for a while, but Coens' movies are next on my list. I'll start with "Barton Fink" and will let you know what I thought about it.

Don't get me wrong, I immensely enjoyed their serious plots like "No Country for Old Men," and "Fargo," but the script for their comedies are so rich, I give the nod to "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" over those. All the cultural references, rich witty dialogues, and their view of things that come across in their pictures, well, these are my attempts to put my finger at what I like about their movies, but certainly I fail to name them all.

I've never seen O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? but I'm surprised no one's mentioned THE BIG LEBOWSKI (one of my 2 favorite comedies of all-time along with Guy Ritchie's SNATCH)

Snatch is marvelous as well. lol But not to worry, I'll check them all out. By the way, O Brother... is great, you should watch that. A great comedy.

That's what I hear. I did try to watch it months ago and turned it off after 10-20 minutes. I just wasn't in the mood to watch it but I'll get around to it one of these days.

I spent the last 2 weeks at home because of the same condition that made George Brett remove himself from a World Series game in 1980. believe me, if I had a gun, I wouldn't be talking to you anymore...

anyway, I watched about 20 soccer games and a lot of movies. last night I rented "Taxi Driver" again and only this morning I realized "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" was on TV at the same time. I really wanted to watch it. but I'm still able to join the Coen Brothers conversation. for instance, one of the 2 DVD's in my collection (hello irish!) is "The Big Lebowski" - the other one is "GoodFellas" - such a fun movie, it makes the world shine brighter everytime I watch it. but one of the movies that I re-watched these days and that it seems none of you watched is their masterpiece of a debut, "Blood Simple".

first, it's got genious written all over it. the opening scene is exactly the same from "no country..." and there is that dark car scene in a dark road, just as in "fargo" - what I'm saying is, it's got everything we're used to love, except it's about the regular Joe dealing with a crime scene, instead of Anton Chigurh. you can watch it 25 years after its realease and feel that those young guys would become the Gods of cinema. it's so simple and well done, and so good, it drives me Coen simple!

"Raising Arizona" is amazing too. I've seen bad reviews everywhere but I love it.

in case someone doesn't have anything to do like me, let's talk about these films. for a few hours, they made me forget that I wanted to kill myself.

[off-topic] - I'm still waiting for opinions on Tropa de Elite/Elite Squad even though I suspect the international version sucks!

GoodFellas - I won't even say anything. it's so good it inspires people to watch good reviews .

then I rented Taxi Driver and Blood Simple, both that I had already watched but really needed a rewatch. both masterpieces.

then I caught a little movie called "The Godfather" on TV and rewatched the whole thing for the 100th time. then I caught the final sequence of Apocalypse Now, that lasts longer than Blood Simple altogether. I'm not going to say anything about these movies.

then I caught two good surprises on TV - Amores Perros , which I fell asleep in the end because it was almost 6 AM, but that doesn't mean I didn't love it. for a start, it's waaaaaaaaay better than "21 Grams", and I will definitely watch it again. - and Drugstore Cowboy, which also I couldn't watch fully because there was a sunday full of soccer on TV. but I watched almost the whole thing and I really enjoyed.

well that's it! I really don't have anything to do.

"twenty twenty twenty four hours to go... I wanna be sedated"

Tony, Elite Squad is on YouTube, in 11 parts. I'm watching it soon. Maybe tomorrow.

Also, have you seen Linha de passe, the Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas film? You should see it.

Totally disagree that Amores perros is better than 21 Grams. If the latter is, taken linearly, a soap-opera on steroids, it at least makes the non-linear format integral to the meaning of its philosophy. Little everyday moments are given the utmost significance, because they're taken out of their causal context.

I re-watched Amores perros recently and was underwhelmed. It's not awful, though; certainly better than Babel, which is a load of bullshit.

welcome back capo

Yeah Welcome back Capo, where you been..

I've been feeding the kittens.

They like me.

yes, Babel sucks. Crash is even worse. I feel embarassed for watching it.

I still haven't watched Linha de Passe. to tell you the truth, I didn't even know what it was about. when I read it a few weeks ago in a newspaper report I thought I actually could get interested. I'll watch it sometime!

the stories in Amores Perros were much more interesting than those from 21 Grams in my opinion, but that's a matter of personal taste. the only time I watched 21 Grams a long time ago the only thing I remember is that I only kept watching out of curiosity. that's a merit, but I really enjoyed Amores Perros much more. I loved the bum carachter.

Yeah, 21 Grams has less memorable characters, for sure.

Crash is awful.

since my thoughts on Blood Simple might have been lost in the bottom of the previous page, I'll expand on that.

first, how do you movie buffs like this masterpiece? second, don't give your opinion before you watch it a good couple of time. every single moment of the film makes perfect sense and following the plot is like a game. that's why they can just turn off the camera at any given moment and that's the end of the film, like "No Country..." - what's the need for a climatic ending sequence, when you already had 2 hours of greatness? in Blood Simple, you want to scream at the screen but the carachters just don't talk to each other, and you know why. once you got it all, what seems to be a very complicated plot releavs itself the most simple thing in the world. and one thing that I truly appreciate in a film, it is abolutely believable and posible, and even probable. the Coen brothers always toyed with that kind of thing - my girlfriend wouldn't have agreed to watch Fargo with me if it wasn't a true story - and I also love the crazy atmosphere in "Raising Arizona", but the great thing about "Blood Simple" is how smart they were in making their first film. it could've costed a few bucks and it's still in its own league.

I believe anyone a bit smart would've watched this 25 years ago and would've guessed those young filmmakers would become Gods of cinema. there is something about their movies...

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008) - ***

"Did we need to hear "Hounddog" to remind us that its the '50s?" - James "The Angry Video Game Nerd" Rolfe

So after scoring nearly $800 million world-wide, coined a new phrase in "Nuke the Fridge" that may very well retire "Jump the Shark" as the lexicon for dropping the ball, and apparently raped the childhood of half the Internet, I finally bother to review the fourth INDIANA JONES movie. I know many folks were greatly disapointed with INDY IV, but goddamn it's becomes the new geek whipping post this side of BATMAN & ROBIN. The hatred and disgruntlement is wide-spread enough that a recent SOUTH PARK episode featured director Steven Spielberg and producer/writer George Lucas assaulting poor Indy Jones DELIVERENCE-style.



Certainly I actually understand alot of their problems with CRYSTAL SKULL, which I'll get to later, but when the crest of their woes is the implausability of the action cinema, I want to ask them a simple question: Where the hell were you all with the previous INDY pictures?

If anything, the one scene in CRYSTAL SKULL that seems to annoy most folks might just in fact be the ultimate cliffhanger for a franchise renown for carrying on the tradition of the Republican serial adventurism from the 1930s and 40s. You have Ford at an atomic bomb site, and he has a minute before detonation, and he's screwed. How will he escape?!?!?!? Why by throwing himself into a lead refridgerator, of course.

Wasn't it ridiculous too when Ford pushed easily a 3,000+ year old giant stone block like cardboard in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK? Didn't falling out of a crashing airplane on an intertube, and not be squashed like a pancake on gravity impact with the ground seem ludicrous in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM? Hell, how about in THE LAST CRUSADE where Indy somehow never notices that friggin stone bridge? I mean after it's reveal, you wonder how anyone before could have missed it.

I'm not trying to excuse CRYSTAL SKULL, far from it, but what I'm trying to say is, we need some consistency around here. I seem to remember last summer when I made similar complaints about Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS, and people excused along the lines of "Quit nitpicking! Leave your brain at the door!" or "This is popcorn, not Shakespeare!" or whatever. To use an old cliche of saturday morning cartoon villainy, "the roles are now reversed! Bahahaha!"

First off, let's admit a truth that everyone agrees: Ford, Spielberg, and Lucas didn't come back to the franchise because they had an itching, dying desire to finish off the Indiana Jones mythos or whatever. No it was one last trip to the bank, or to the well that had served them so well years earlier. They figured that with the names attached, and the fond nostalgia that global audiences hold for Dr. Jones, it would be a hell of a payday...and they were right. Ka-Ching! I actually believe that for better or for worse, CRYSTAL SKULL is equal to THE LAST CRUSADE. If RAIDERS is a masterpiece that everyone loves that managed to marry B-popcorn charm with A-level technical craftsmanship, and TEMPLE OF DOOM is a punch drunk pulp affair, then THE LAST CRUSADE and CRYSTAL SKULL both have some fun excellently-shot sequences trapped within a meh narrative.

Let's start with the good. Spielberg is one of the greatest filmmakers, and when he's interested and intrigued, he's money. Take when Indiana Jones walks upon that desert town, revealed to be like 1950s suburbia, plastic and hollow, and how out of place such a solo masculine film icon is in the midst of domesticated America. I grinned at the YOUNG INDIANA JONES reference. Then later we get a Greaser/Jock brawl at a cage that is cliche and campy, but has a goofy charm to it. Hell, I honestly expected one of my biggest complaints on SKULL would be Spielberg's current star-whore Shia LeBeouf. I hated I, ROBOT, thought he was annoying in CONSTANTINE, despised his worthless DISTURBIA, and unsurprisingly gave thumbs down to TRANSFORMERS. Yet for the first time, I actually sorta liked a LeBeouf movie.

Yeah I know, holy shit.

Maybe it's because I couldn't help but smile when confronted by gun-wielding KGB thug, the clueless amateur dipstick LeBeouf threatens them with his dimestore switchblade. Maybe that punk has a future after all. Hell, I thought Ford blowing into the blowgun to reverse the poison dart was badass. Nice to see that Karen Allen back at the movies visibly after STARMAN. I also liked the exploitation of the 1950s American culture from "I Like Ike" to UFOs to the old Soviet Union. I must say, not enough American movies show us the so-called "Evil Empire" at its worst, not that I'm trying to equate the USSR with the Nazis, but Stalin technically did murder more people than Hitler ever did.

Now here we go with the bad...oh shit. First off, does anybody understand what exactly the value behind the Crystal Skull is? SKULL is inconsistent and changes its mind constantly over the supposed powers, which I think is that this skull can give you omnipresent powers...right? If so, why does the Russian villainess Cate Blanchett need the other skulls, or to venture into a long lost Mayan city? I wonder too why such a plot device, like say the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN trilogy in general, has to be so goddamn convulted?

Remember the Ark of the Covenant where it's God Rays melts your skin and zap your souls out. The Shankara stones glowed, but were more of a theological symbol than an actual weapon for the psychotic religious zealot in TEMPLE OF DOOM. The Holy Grail gave you immortality, you get the point, for they grant immediate simplicity of great importance as to why the villains want the object, and why Indy must beat them to it.

Also, what is up with the storyline of Ray Winstone being a double, triple, quadruple secret agent? It's pointless and goes nowhere, for if it was to keep us in suspense as to which side he holds true allegiance to, it bombs because we don't give a shit by his last betrayal. The martial arts-fighting Peruvian natives at the burial grounds are just bizarre, and the audience at my screening groaned loudly at the snake-rope joke. Blanchett works as a Bond-level baddie, but not enough to be memorable or special, but then again what INDY evils are? And no, I don't need to mention the Tarzan shot at all.

I really do think that CRYSTAL SKULL did waste a great awesome storytelling opportunity when Indy is blacklisted by the American government, ironic considering how Indy kicked so much Nazi ass to rescue those Judean-Christian relics. What if somehow CRYSTAL SKULL started off as the movie we have does now, but it's not revealed to be Roswell (which gave the big twist away too early) but just a massive military warehouse. The Russians want Indy to lead them to the Ark of the Covenant, so those atheists could have a radio to speak to God. Indy fights back and saves the Ark...but he inadvertedly gives Blanchett a greater prize in the Skull. This screwup gets Indy labeled as a commie by a FBI Agent, and basically Indy goes to get back the Skull to clear his name. Surprise Surprise this side of the original THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, the Fed is revealed to be a Red himself.

Why do I ramble my reviews sometimes with my mediocre re-scripting suggestions? I just hate waste I guess.

After the epilogue wedding as corny as any you'll find in fan fiction, John Hurt quips "How much of human life is wasted on waiting?" Eerie in that so many of you waited for almost twenty years for a new INDY adventure, arguably the most anticipated sequel of recent years, and now with Lucas & Spielberg suggesting a 5th INDY flick is in the pipeline, that might excite you all as much as a LETHAL WEAPON 5. For all their glory and mega-hits, are Spielberg and Lucas now irrelevant within summertime popcorn, the very field that they pioneered?

Just consider all the younger super-star popcorn directors at the moment, from Christopher Nolan (THE DARK KNIGHT) to Guillermo Del Toro (HELLBOY 2: THE GOLDEN ARMY) to Jon Favreau (IRON MAN) to Peter Jackson (LORD OF THE RINGS), with the latter working on his THE HOBBIT franchise with Del Toro, and the TIN TIN adaptations with Spielberg. That's like if LeBeouf was the star, and not Ford.

I believe they are considering an Indy 5 and 6.

I heard Indys will be playing the main role.. no thank you....

We only watch it cause of Harrison Ford..

I woke up very early and for some reason thought I'd see if any good movie was on tv. HBO is running "Don't Bother To Knock" with Marylin Monroe and Richard Widmark (1952).


I probably saw it years ago, but don't know if I ever saw the whole thing. An unusal story of a "crazy/suicidal" babysitter (Monroe)who meets a guy via window peeking in NYC apartment complexes (Widmark). Anyone see it?

Unlikely story, not the best movie, but I enjoyed watching Monore (her first movie I think?) Btw, I noticed when she arrived to babysit, the parents were telling her she could listen to the radio, no mention of tv......Wow!!!! Tvs obviously were not in all households at that time. I must have been very young, because I don't remember a time without a tv. Anyway, it was fun watching.

TIS

I recently watched French Connection II and enjoyed it. Popeye Doyle heads to France to find the Frog aka the Frenchman who is behind one of the largest drug operation in the world. Popeye does hit a major roadblock however This is a must see for any classic movie fan.

All right, I just watched this wonderful movie. Sorry to give my opinion on the first viewing, but I've a long list of movies to watch! (I know Bibble, I get to Barton Fink as soon as I can!)

I absolutely loved it. An all around great movie, with an intriguing plot that keeps you guessing. 8/10.

Yesterday watched LAKE PLACID 2 with the kids.

Quite possibly the worst film i have seen in some time.

Not recommended in the slightest.....

The first was bad enough. I can't believe they made a sequel, Yogi!! And that you actually watched it!!!

ZACK (or ZACH?) AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO

"I'm a guy. You give me a two popsicle sticks and a rubber band and I'll find a way to fuck it like a filthy MacGyver!"

Wow, this movie surprised me. It was better than I thought it would be and that's with me being a Kevin Smith fan.

I'd say it's his best movie yet. I was also surprised at the amount of nudity in the film, of course with porno in the title and all...but there's full frontal from both genders, and backal.

There's some classic lines in the movie "She frosted me like a fucking cake!" and the whole Dutch Rudder thing...

Go see this movie.

I really liked it.

I was actually a little disappointed. Not as funny as I had hoped.

don't worry about giving your opinion so soon what I mean is that you're probably missing a lot from the clever plot. but I see your point. I always have to wonder whether I'll watch a new movie or give some classic a 2nd watch.

now go see Barton Fink! it's my least favorite movie from the Coen Brothers (Intolerable Cruely, Lady Killers and so are hors-concours!), what means it's just very good.